http://thehill.com/opinion/immigration/395646-theres-a-better-response-to-abuse-than-abolishing-ice
Nolan writes:
. . . .
ERO shouldn’t terrorize anyone, but it has to be able to arrest deportable aliens where they can be found.
The main reason for wanting to abolish ICE is likely to prevent undocumented aliens who are here for a better life from being deported.
But if ICE were to be abolished, its responsibilities would be assigned to another agency and Trump would require the new agency to implement the same policies.
Trump’s enforcement policies
President Barack Obama focused his immigration enforcement programprimarily on aliens who had been convicted of crimes in the United States, had been caught near the border after an illegal entry, or had returned unlawfully after being deported.
Once an undocumented alien had succeeded in crossing the border without being apprehended, he did not have to worry about being deported unless he was convicted of a serious crime. He was home free.
This created a “home free magnet” which encouraged more undocumented aliens to come and do whatever they had to do to cross the border.
Trump acknowledged this problem in his Executive Order, Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States:
“We cannot faithfully execute the immigration laws of the United States if we exempt classes or categories of removable aliens from potential enforcement.”
He directed DHS “to employ all lawful means to ensure the faithful execution of the immigration laws of the United States against all removable aliens.”
Nevertheless, he prioritized removing aliens who are inadmissibleon criminal and related grounds, on security and related grounds, and for misrepresentations, or who are deportable for criminal offenses or on security and related grounds, and removable aliens who:
- Have been convicted of any criminal offense;
- Have been charged with any criminal offense, where such charge has not been resolved;
- Have committed acts that constitute a criminal offense;
- Have engaged in fraud or willful misrepresentation in connection with any official matter or government application;
- Have abused any program related to receipt of public benefits;
- Are subject to a final order of removal but have not left the United States; or
- In the judgment of an immigration officer, otherwise pose a risk to public safety or national security.
ERO officers are free to arrest aliens who are not in a prioritized category, but this wouldn’t be happening often if sanctuary policies had not required ERO officers to change their enforcement operations.
Sanctuary policies prevent local police departments from turning inmates over to ERO when they are released from custody, so ERO is spending more of its time looking for deportable aliens in communities. This resulted in arresting 40,000 noncriminal aliens in FY 2017.
But ERO should not be engaging in improper behavior to make these or any other arrests.
DHS has provided avenues for public feedback and complaints, and ICE has Community Relations Officers at every field office.
If you see an ICE officer doing something improper, report him. This is far more likely to improve the situation than calling for the abolishment of ICE.
*****************************************
Go on over to The Hill at the link for Nolan’s complete article.
- I agree with Nolan that ICE isn’t going anywhere under Trump.
- I also agree that the essential functions of ICE will still need to be performed, regardless of the ultimate fate of the organization.
- I think it’s great that the “Abolish ICE Movement” has focused more attention on the cruel, unnecessary, and highly counterproductive enforcement and prosecutorial policies of ICE under Trump.
- Indeed, the counterproductive nature of the Trump/Sessions immigration enforcement is a major reason why a group of Senior ICE Agents who actually perform real law enforcement functions — anti-smuggling, anti-human trafficking, immigration fraud, anti-terrorism — want to ditch the ICE label, because they know it’s inhibiting cooperation with other agencies and communities and thereby diminishing real law enforcement.
- Most true law enforcement professionals that I have known don’t want to be associated with a group that glorifies cruelty and de-humanizes ordinary people. Having ICE on your resume today wouldn’t be a plus for most folks interested in a legitimate law enforcement career.
- While the “essential functions” of ICE will continue, lots of today’s ICE enforcement has little to do with “essential enforcement.” The latter would be targeted at criminals, fraudsters, spouse abusers, traffickers, and recent arrivals who don’t have applications pending.
- The lack of any semblance of common sense and responsibility in ICE’s abusive refusal to exercise prosecutorial discretion and actually putting properly closed cases back on the docket is a major contributor to the absolute mess in today’s Immigration Courts.
- It’s also a reason why the Immigration Court mess is unlikely to be solved until Congress, the courts, and/or some future Executive force some fundamental changes in ICE enforcement and prosecutorial policies to reflect the same type of prudent, respectful, and realistic use of judicial time and prosecutorial discretion that is employed, to some extent, by every other major law enforcement agency in the U.S.
- It never hurts to complain. I’m a big fan of making a “running record” of misconduct.
- But, in the Trump Administration a record is about all you’ll get. Nothing is going to be done to correct misconduct because misconduct comes from the top.
- My experience with ICE Chief Counsel’s Office in Arlington was highly positive. The attorneys were overwhelmingly fair, smart, responsive, respectful, and part of the “team” with the private, bar, the courts, and the interpreters that made the justice system work in Arlington in the past.
- Indeed, working with the Arlington Chief Counsel’s Office made me proud to have led the major reorganization that established the forerunner to the “Modern Chief Counsel System” at the “Legacy INS” during the Carter and Reagan Administrations. The Arlington Chief Counsel’s Office was exactly what former General Counsels Dave Crosland, Mike Inman, Regional Counsel Bill Odencrantz, and I had envisioned when we planned and carried out the reorganization (over considerable internal opposition, I might add).
- My overall experiences with the officers of ICE and it’s forerunner INS Investigations were positive. I found and worked with plenty of capable, dedicated, professional, and humane officers during my decades of dealing with immigration enforcement in some form or another.
- All of that suggests that the major problems in ICE have arisen almost entirely under the Trump Administration. That’s because of truly horrible leadership from the top down.
- ICE won’t improve until we get “regime change.” When that happens, ICE will have to be reorganized, reinvented, and “rebranded.” Professional management — one that pays particular attention to its relationship to local communities — must be reestablished. Sane enforcement and prosecutorial discretion policies will have to be reinstated.
- My experiences with ICE suggest that the right people to lead an “ICE-type” agency in the future are likely already somewhere in ICE. They just aren’t in the right leadership and management positions. Maybe they will all quit before the end of the Trump Administration If not, they could serve as a “professional core” for rebuilding and reforming ICE.
- I’m skeptical that so-called “Catch and Release” has a significant effect on what’s happening on the Southern Border.
- In the first place, the current situation is “a self-created crisis” initiated by Trump & Sessions. Otherwise it’s pretty much normal migration.
- Seeking asylum at the border isn’t “illegal migration” at all. It’s asserting an internationally recognized right. Detention and family separation are not appropriate responses to individuals seeking in good faith to exercise their rights.
- In any event, the primary drivers of migration outside the visa system are: 1) unmet needs of the U.S. labor market, and 2) political, social, and economic conditions in foreign countries. So-called “Catch and Release” has no established effect on either of these “drivers.” See, e.g., https://www.migrationpolicy.org/news/crisis-border-not-numbers.
PWS
07-08-18
PAUL SAYS, “Indeed, the counterproductive nature of the Trump/Sessions immigration enforcement is a major reason why a group of Senior ICE Agents who actually perform real law enforcement functions — anti-smuggling, anti-human trafficking, immigration fraud, anti-terrorism — want to ditch the ICE label, because they know it’s inhibiting cooperation with other agencies and communities and thereby diminishing real law enforcement.”
Entry without inspection is a real crime. In fact, a second entry without inspection is a felony punishable by a fine and/or up to two years in prison.
PAUL SAYS, “Most true law enforcement professionals that I have known don’t want to be associated with a group that glorifies cruelty and de-humanizes ordinary people.”
I agree, and I provide ways to complain about such conduct in my article. But just describing the misconduct of the ICE officers who should be fired with inflammatory rhetoric doesn’t accomplish anything.
PAUL SAYS, “While the “essential functions” of ICE will continue, lots of today’s ICE enforcement has little to do with “essential enforcement.” The latter would be targeted at criminals, fraudsters, spouse abusers, traffickers, and recent arrivals who don’t have applications pending.’
You won’t secure the border if aliens can’t be arrested by ICE in the interior of the country unless they have been convicted of a serious crime.
PAUL SAYS, “The lack of any semblance of common sense and responsibility in ICE’s abusive refusal to exercise prosecutorial discretion and actually putting properly closed cases back on the docket is a major contributor to the absolute mess in today’s Immigration Courts.”
That policy wasn’t created by the ICE officers in the field. If you are going to complain, make sure you are directing your complaint at the people responsible for the thing you are complaining about.
PAUL SAYS, “It’s also a reason why the Immigration Court mess is unlikely to be solved until Congress, the courts, and/or some future Executive force some fundamental changes in ICE enforcement and prosecutorial policies to reflect the same type of prudent, respectful, and realistic use of judicial time and prosecutorial discretion that is employed, to some extent, by every other major law enforcement agency in the U.S.”
We won’t get immigration reform until the Dems agree that all aliens who are here in violation of our laws have to be subject to deportation. It makes no sense to let whatever president is currently in office decide which deportation grounds are going to be enforced. Agreeing to do that prospectively would open the door to a legalization program the republicans might be able to accept.
PAUL SAYS, “It never hurts to complain. I’m a big fan of making a “running record” of misconduct.
But, in the Trump Administration a record is about all you’ll get. Nothing is going to be done to correct misconduct because misconduct comes from the top.”
That may be true, but it won’t make the situation worse the way name-calling and ad hominem attacks do.
PAUL SAYS, “All of that suggests that the major problems in ICE have arisen almost entirely under the Trump Administration. That’s because of truly horrible leadership from the top down.’”
Really? I don’t recall much support for ICE in Obama’s administration, despite the fact that he restricted them so severely that they couldn’t do their jobs. Remember the law suit from ICE officers trying to get permission to arrest any deportable alien they encountered?
PAUL SAYS, “ICE won’t improve until we get “regime change.” When that happens, ICE will have to be reorganized, reinvented, and “rebranded.” Professional management — one that pays particular attention to its relationship to local communities — must be reestablished. Sane enforcement and prosecutorial discretion policies will have to be reinstated.”
And who will the INA deportation grounds apply to under the regime change?
First time entry without inspection is a very minor misdemeanor. Normally, not worth prosecuting, particularly since reentry after removal or deportation is a felony with the same punishment as a second illegal entry. The total BS nature of these prosecutions is shown by the fact that most are sentenced to time served, usually 1 or two days in jail. A complete waste of time and serious abuse of prosecutorial resources and the criminal court system. Studies have shown no deterrent value whatsoever from such prosecutions. Even worse, there are, not surprisingly, reports from some border US Attorneys that this irresponsible nonsense by Sessions is actually forcing them to decline real crimes, like drug offenses, or refer them for local prosecutions where the penalties are less. This is just as I had predicted. The Sessions program is a farce. Sessions’s abusive use of this provision, driven by his overt racism and xenophobia, is actually an argument for repealing it altogether.
PWS
07-09-18
Paul says, “First time entry without inspection is a very minor misdemeanor.”
It’s sad that someone with Paul’s knowledge and experience thinks that entry without inspection is a very minor offense. I would expect him to know why inspections are important. His blasé attitude towards inspections indicates that he doesn’t think they serve any purpose and that he sees no reason to secure the border. I can’t think of any other explanation.
Pauls says, “Normally, not worth prosecuting, particularly since reentry after removal or deportation is a felony with the same punishment as a second illegal entry. The total BS nature of these prosecutions is shown by the fact that most are sentenced to time served, usually 1 or two days in jail.”
It also surprises me that someone with Paul’s opinion of Sessions would miss the point of these prosecutions.
Open your eyes. He is setting them up. When they plead guilty to entering without inspection, they are set up for a simple felony prosecution when they make another illegal entry or are caught in the US by ICE for any reason. And he has their fingerprints, so it will be easy to identify them. And that prosecution will put them in prison for two years.
Ironically, a two-year prison sentence will put them at the mercy of the gangs and other criminals they fled Central America and Mexico to avoid. They are a very substantial portion of the prison population in America.
Paul says, “Studies have shown no deterrent value whatsoever from such prosecutions.”
What studies? The zero-tolerance policy was just put into effect a month or so ago, wasn’t it? And the initial sentence usually is time served and a ten-dollar fine. I don’t think Sessions expects that to be a deterrent. The deterrent will occur when tens of thousands of illegal crossers are caught making a second crossing and end up in prison for two years.
Paul, give some serious thought to doing whatever you can to persuade aliens to stop making illegal entries.
If they continue doing it, it’s going to end very badly for them. And it will be really, really bad for the ones who bring children with them. Look at how much trouble the gov’t is having identifying, locating, and returning a few thousand kids who have only been separated for a month or so. What do expect to happen when the number goes up to the tens of thousands range and the separation if for two years?
They can apply for asylum at ports of entry if that’s really why they are coming here.
I have some questions for the immigrationcourtside.com readers.
It’s good that there is so much compassion for the 2300 alien children who were separated from their alien parents when their parents were arrested for making an illegal entry. But what about the American children who have been separated from their American parents when their parents were incarcerated for criminal convictions?
More than half of the people who are incarcerated in the United States have children under the age of 18, including more than 120,000 mothers and 1.1 million fathers. https://www.usatoday.com/story/opini…usa/586974001/
Shouldn’t there be a media supported public outcry over those children too? Or is compassion just warranted when the separations can be attributed to Trump and Sessions?
And what is the solution? Should prison sentences be limited to criminals who don’t have children, or what?
Of course illegal entry is a petty offense and entirely unnecessary for effective border enforcement. Nolan ignores the facts: there is no known deterrent benefit to prosecuting first time illegal entrants. None! That’s why the misdemeanor provision was seldom prosecuted prior to Sessions.
Regardless of any BS criminal provision, illegal entry is prohibited. Those who enter illegally are subject to arrest and removal, unless they have a valid claim for protection which some do. Those who renter after removal are subject to a felony prosecution, just the same as if they had been convicted. Border security has improved over the years largely without misdemeanor prosecutions.
More important, Nolan consistently ignores reality: internal enforcement policies in the US, including overuse of detention, have, at best, only a very very marginal effect on undocumented migration. So-called “catch & release” doesn’t drive migration. Migration is driven by conditions in foreign countries and the US labor market, which are unrelated to internal immigration enforcement (but do have some relation to wage and hour laws and our unrealistically restrictive legal immigration policies).
For the most part, prosecutions of individuals whose only crime is illegal entry, even so-called “repeat offenders,” merely fills our prisons with non-criminals and diverts resources and attention from real law enforcement problems.
As I mentioned, I do see some value in apprehending recently arrived undocumented individuals who have no claims for relief pending. They aren’t yet integrated into our society. It might help to “stabilize” the undocumented population until we can figure out how to legalize them and change the laws so that in the future individuals coming to fill needed jobs can come through the legal immigration system. That would ultimately improve and reduce the. Oats of immigration enforcement.
But, removal of basically law-abiding long term residents who are part of and contributing to our society, the vast vast bulk of our 11 million undocumented population, many with US Citizen family members, is more than just a cruel waste of time and resources. It actually hurts our country by removing contributing members of our community. It diminishes us as a nation. If that’s ICE primary mission, then it serves no legitimate law enforcement purpose. Under Trump & Sessions, too much of ICE fits the latter profile and too little is engaged in legitimate law enforcement.
Sessions is of course gaming the system to make individuals who plead guilty without understanding the consequences ineligible for asylum. It’s another of his illegal schemes that also violates the Convention. Eventually, he’ll be thwarted. But probably not before he hurts more innocent people and further abuses and screws up our legal system with his racist, xenophobic obsession with migrants of color.
The Trump/Sessions immigration policies are not only racist in motivation, but are ineffective from a real law enforcement standpoint. Sessions and Trump have, however, been somewhat effective in reducing legal immigration without any statutory changes. Since legal immigration is one of the drivers of our economy, at some point, we’ll also pay an economic price for putting up with these ill-motivated, irrational, and destructive policies.
Time and time again, our country has shown that policies driven by racism and bias are destructive and wasteful. When will we ever learn? Certainly, not until folks like Trump & Sessions are out of office.
PWS
07-10-18
Paul says, “Of course illegal entry is a petty offense and entirely unnecessary for effective border enforcement. Nolan ignores the facts: there is no known deterrent benefit to prosecuting first time illegal entrants. None! That’s why the misdemeanor provision was seldom prosecuted prior to Sessions.”
I didn’t say it was. I said, “He is setting them up. When they plead guilty to entering without inspection, they are set up for a simple felony prosecution when they make another illegal entry or are caught in the US by ICE for any reason. And he has their fingerprints, so it will be easy to identify them. And that prosecution will put them in prison for two years.”
And with a continuation of the zero-tolerance policy, every alien who makes a second illegal entry will be incarcerated for two years. That will be the most severe deterrence method that our country has every used.
Paul says, “Regardless of any BS criminal provision, illegal entry is prohibited. Those who enter illegally are subject to arrest and removal, unless they have a valid claim for protection which some do.”
Now that strategy really has been proven ineffective as a deterrent.
Paul says, “Those who renter after removal are subject to a felony prosecution, just the same as if they had been convicted. Border security has improved over the years largely without misdemeanor prosecutions.”
The deterrent would be the certainty that every time an alien is caught entering illegally, he will be prosecuted; and after the first time, prosecution will result in a substantial prison sentence. The only indication that border security has improved is the absurdly unreliable criterion of counting apprehensions.
Paul says, “More important, Nolan consistently ignores reality: internal enforcement policies in the US, including overuse of detention, have, at best, only a very very marginal effect on undocumented migration. So-called “catch & release” doesn’t drive migration. Migration is driven by conditions in foreign countries and the US labor market, which are unrelated to internal immigration enforcement (but do have some relation to wage and hour laws and our unrealistically restrictive legal immigration policies).”
We have never had effective, large-scale, nationwide interior enforcement.