ImmPolitic

Welcome to ImmPolitic, the National Immigration Forum’s blog. Here we will comment on current developments in immigration policy and politics from the perspective of a Washington-based, national pro-immigrant organization.

Immigration Fiefdoms

June 24, 2010 - Posted by Maurice Belanger

We are getting dangerously close to the point where yet another Congress will try to pass the problem of our broken immigration system off to another Congress.  An article in the June 24^th Washington Post reports on the growing trend of states and localities, frustrated with federal inaction, taking matters into their own hands.  Fremont, Nebraska, earlier this week passed by referendum an ordinance requiring employers in the town to use the federal E-Verify system to screen their workers, and prohibiting landlords from renting to undocumented immigrants. 

Even before the Arizona’s SB 1070 passed earlier this year, there was an explosion of state and local ordinances on immigration.  The level of frustration with federal inaction is growing, with no end in sight. 

In the wake of SB 1070, five states, according to the Post are considering “Arizona style” legislation—South Carolina, Minnesota, Michigan, Rhode Island, and Pennsylvania.  The National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) reports that, by the end of the first quarter of this year, there were 1,180 bills and resolutions introduced in 45 states—a record.  NCSL tracks only state legislatures, so this does not include ordinances on the local level, such as Fremont’s. 

Viewed one way, laws like Arizona’s are a measure of the frustration people feel about federal inaction on immigration.  Even with one of the most troubled economies in the country, Arizona lawmakers decided to risk the high cost of making their own immigration policy, with all the controversy entailed.  The state now faces the prospect of boycotts, out-migration, and millions of dollars in legal fees.

Fremont, a town of just 25,000, will undoubtedly be spending a disproportionate part of its budget on legal challenges to its new law in the near future.

Ann Morse, of NCSL told the Post that legislators tell her that these actions are

“their way of signaling they want federal immigration reform to happen—… they’re working within the parameters they have and sometimes at the edge, trying to get federal attention.”

Not all of the laws and resolutions introduced in the states (and localities) aim to clamp down on illegal immigration.  Since Arizona’s Governor signed SB 1070 into law, dozens of communities have passed or are considering resolutions condemning the Arizona law or calling for a boycott of Arizona.  Princeton, New Jersey, recently decided to issue community identification cards, available to all residents regardless of immigration status.

The spectrum of views incorporated in new state laws and town ordinances are reflective of the frustration of the American people.  As NDN notes in this blog post, the very same Washington Post poll that touted majority support for Arizona’s law also showed majority support for comprehensive immigration reform that includes “a program giving illegal immigrants now living in the United States the right to live here legally if they pay a fine and meet other requirements.”  Support for this practical solution to the immigration problem has been consistent over the last several years.

As time goes on, we are going to have hundreds of jurisdictions with their own immigration policies—until the courts step in and tell us that the proper way to act on our frustrations about the broken immigration system is to press Congress to own up its responsibility and reform the laws.  If it’s Congress that’s broken, then it’s our responsibility to fix Congress.

Image by Flickr user Claudio.Ar

 

Arizona State-Local Immigration Enforcement

Will Prejudice about Immigrants and Crime Hamper Gulf Cleanup?

June 17, 2010 - Posted by Maurice Belanger

 

The other night, the President addressed the nation from the Oval Office on the federal government’s efforts to contain the worst oil spill in American history, which is still uncontrolled in the Gulf of Mexico.  He spoke of the magnitude of the government’s mobilization to fight the spill:

 

“We now have nearly 30,000 personnel who are working across four states to contain and clean up the oil.  …  And I’ve authorized the deployment of over 17,000 National Guard members along the coast.” 

 

Even as this story focuses the administration and the nation, the story of our broken immigration system intrudes. 

 

The St. Bernard Parish Sheriff’s Office (Louisiana) put out a press release on June 10 saying that Sheriff Jack Stephens asked immigration authorities,

 

“to look into reports of illegal aliens among those working in the oil spill clean-up effort, which he said was part of an overall effort by the Sheriff’s Office to prevent criminals from entering under the guise of doing legitimate work.”

 

The Sheriff said that his office is “concerned illegal aliens with criminal records represent a danger to our parish,” and the Sheriff’s office has set up check points throughout areas affected by the spill.

 

It’s not clear how a check of immigration status would protect the parish from potential criminals, especially since immigrants (including undocumented immigrants) tend to be less prone to crime than the native born.

 

While the Sheriff cited experiences with those “with crime in mind” taking advantage of the Hurricane Katrina cleanup, the real problem with crime in the wake of Katrina was from employers who were under-paying or not paying workers who were doing the back-braking cleanup work.  Immigration checks will not stop this from occurring again.  Perhaps the Sheriff should have called the Department of Labor, which is charged with enforcing labor laws that were so flagrantly violated during the Katrina cleanup.  That’s not ICE’s mission.

 

In reaction to the Sheriff’s statement, Lucas Diaz, Executive Director of Puentes New Orleans (quoted in Colorlines) said,

 

“It’s the same kind of language you see everywhere else at the local, state and federal policy level, where they try to take a harsh position and scare the public into thinking that anyone who might lack documentation and appears to be Latino is a criminal.”

 

Unfortunately, as long as Congress pushes off fixing our broken immigration system, these sorts of misguided efforts will be common.  In this case, just as the federal government is engaged in an unprecedented mobilization to keep the oil spill from wrecking the environment of the Gulf states, the misplaced focus on keeping “illegal aliens” out of the area might just work against the government’s efforts.

 

Image by Flickr User DVIDSHUB.

State-Local Immigration Enforcement

Harsh Lessons and Border Choices

May 13, 2010 - Posted by Maurice Belanger

 

As Arizona’s SB 1070 moves closer to the day of implementation (end of July), the press has begun to examine some of the economic impacts Arizona is beginning to experience or soon will be.

 

The National Council of La Raza and other organizations have called for a boycott of Arizona, and the Arizona Republic reports that the city of Phoenix alone may lose $90 million over the next five years from conventions that have either cancelled since the law passed or have expressed reservations and may cancel. 

 

Senator Robert Menendez earlier this week issued a statement urging the Major League Baseball Players Association to boycott the 2011 All Star game if it is not moved from Phoenix, where it is scheduled to take place.  Michael Weiner, executive director of the Players Association, has urged repeal of the law and suggested that, if it is not, the Association will consider “additional steps” to protect its members.

 

According to the Los Angeles Times, city officials in Los Angeles, who have called for a boycott of Arizona along with officials in other cities across the country, have identified $56 million in Arizona-based investments that may be re-examined.  For the future, officials “recommended that the City Council suspend travel to the state, refrain from entering new contracts, and review current ones for possible termination.”

 

While the boycotts are mostly a future threat, Reuters reports that some of Arizona’s 50,000 Latino-owned businesses have already taken a hit, as their customers change their habits or prepare to leave the state.  While supporters of the law would probably rejoice at that news, the state’s economy suffers no matter the ethnic origin of the business owner.  The Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce estimates the buying power of Latinos in Arizona to be more than $30 billion.  Economically, this law targets not just “illegal immigrants,” and the Reuter’s story points out that:

 

some business owners say the plunge in spending since the measure was passed has thrown the future of their firms into doubt and threatened the jobs of their legal immigrant and U.S.-citizen employees.

 

According to the New York Times, a spokesperson for Governor Brewer,

 

“called boycotting the state ‘thoughtless and harmful’ and said it was a distraction from the underlying issue of the federal government’s failure to control immigration and the border.”

 

It was the Governor, however, who decided to follow immigration hard-liners and sign SB 1070 into law.  An alternative course would have been to press Arizona’s congressional delegation, including Arizona’s two Senators, to work for immigration reform at the federal level.  Politicians who pursue the more divisive path should not be surprised when the result is … divisiveness. They are putting their political careers ahead of their states’ economies.

 

Speaking of distractions from the underlying issue, Arizona Senator John McCain, engaged in a primary race against immigration hardliner J.D. Hayworth, recently put out an ad claiming to show support for his “border plan” from a border sheriff.  The ad features McCain and Sheriff Paul Babeau walking along the border near Nogales, Arizona.  Sheriff Babeau, however, is from Pinal County, 115 miles north of the border.  Perhaps McCain had difficulty recruiting an actual border sheriff.  Law enforcement on the border tends to think that the hysteria about controlling the border is all politics.  Assistant Police Chief Roy Bermudez, who actually is from Nogales, recently told the Arizona Republic, “I think Nogales, Arizona, is one of the safest places to live in all of America.”  Bermudez is not alone in his view of the border.  John David Franz, the Mayor of Hidalgo, Texas, a small town opposite the substantially larger Mexican city of Reynosa, reported yesterday than there has not been a single murder in Hidalgo in his 20 years as mayor, and the only kidnapping was by a registered sex offender from California.

 

Mayor Franz was in Washington on May 12 and 13 as part of a delegation of experts from the southwest border to brief Congressional staffers and the press on the border as seen by actual border residents.  Among the issues they raised:

• The border is not “out of control.”  Border residents and local elected officials reiterated the sentiment that the widespread perception of chaos at the border is primarily generated by politicians trolling for votes (the subject of ImmPolitic articles here and here).  From the perspective of actual border residents, backed up by federal statistics, crime is down and there is already plenty of border enforcement.  (One delegate noted that there are now 8.8 Border Patrol agents per mile along the entire southern border.) 

• The lack of federal attention to the infrastructure at ports of entry is economically costly to border communities.  Rather than endless increases in security forces between the ports, border communities would rather see adequate staffing and renovations for the ports of entry.

• More is not necessarily better.  The government needs to be more concerned about quality, not quantity.  Border security would be more effective if the government targeted the right people.  We now have thousands more Border Patrol agents than we did a few years ago.  They need to be better trained if they expect to gain the trust of community members.

• It’s the Border Patrol.  Why aren’t they deployed on the border?  In some communities, Border Patrol agents roam through communities instead of being stationed on the border.  This results in significant police presence in the daily lives and activities of border residents, and this creates tension in the community.

It was refreshing to have the perspective of actual border residents in Washington.  Let’s hope their perspective begins to be taken into account going forward as Congress considers border policy.

 

Image by Flickr user quinn.anya.

Arizona Border State-Local Immigration Enforcement

Let the Lawsuits Begin!

April 26, 2010 - Posted by Maurice Belanger

Last week, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer signed SB 1070, that will require police to investigate a person’s immigration status if they have “reasonable suspicion” that the person is in the country illegally.  The law takes effect in three months.

It will take effect, that is, if it can survive the first round of legal challenges expected to be filed.  Judging by the reaction so far, that will be a long shot. 

The Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF) issued a statement saying that “MALDEF and others will be pursuing all legal avenues to challenge this law,” and that,

“We have every expectation, based upon judicial precedent and unquestioned constitutional values, that SB 1070 will be enjoined before it can ever take effect.”

Another group announcing legal action is the National Coalition of Latino Clergy and Christian Leaders (CONLAMIC) Legal Defense Fund, which represents 300 Latino evangelical churches and pastors in Arizona and said it is moving “expeditiously” to challenge the law on constitutional grounds. 

Last Friday, speaking at a naturalization ceremony for military personnel at the White House, President Obama condemned the Arizona law and said,

“I’ve instructed members of my administration to closely monitor the situation and examine the civil rights and other implications of this legislation.”

Over the weekend, Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon had an op-ed published in the Washington Post strongly condemning the Arizona law and urging Governor Brewer to call a special session of the legislature to fix the law’s flaws.  Until she does, Gordon said,

“we will explore every option available to quell the fear and frustration that have become rampant here. Already, I have called a special meeting of the Phoenix City Council to establish standing to sue the state on the grounds that S.B. 1070 unconstitutionally co-opts our police force to enforce immigration laws that are the rightful jurisdiction of the federal government.”

Former Arkansas Governor and GOP presidential candidate Mike Huckabee appeared on Fox news over the weekend and said that the Arizona law will be a “lawsuit bonanza.”

”…it’s going to open Arizona up to a plethora of lawsuits. I think it’s just a fact that you’ll have so many lawsuits that it will be very very costly to the state of Arizona.”

How costly?  One town in Texas, Farmer’s Branch, enacted a law in 2006 requiring landlords to verify the immigration status of potential renters.  According to the Fort Worth Star Telegram, the town has already spent $3.2 million in legal fees related to this ordinance, which was struck down in federal court.  It plans to spend at least another $150,000 on an appeal.

The Immigration Policy Center wrote this blog post giving some idea of what it might cost the state for law enforcement costs, jail processing costs, attorneys’ fees—plus the collateral damage that may result from the Arizona economy if Latinos leave the state.

If there is one good thing to come out of the Arizona legislation, it is to create a new sense of urgency for Congress to act to reform our immigration laws.  There have been a number of reports in the press about immigration reform making its way to the top of the Congressional agenda.

This prompted Lindsey Graham, the lone Republican who has been working with Democrats to draft immigration reform and climate change legislation, to say he would pull his support of climate change legislation unless it were scheduled before immigration reform.

“The only reason I went forward is, I thought we had a shot if we got the business and environmental community behind our proposal, and everybody was focused on it. What’s happened is that firm, strong commitment disappeared.”

This itself is a sad comment on the state of Congress.  It’s April.  Graham is essentially saying that the Senate can do only one thing between now and … October.  For it’s part, the Administration is saying it believes both can be done.  If Graham could convince his Republican colleagues to spend more time contributing to the policy debate, and less time plotting their next filibuster, business would move more swiftly in the Senate.

In her signing statement, Governor Brewer noted something we can all agree with:

“We in Arizona have been more than patient waiting for Washington to act. But decades of inaction and misguided policy have created a dangerous and unacceptable situation.”

It is way past time for Congress to act.

Image from Reform Immigration FOR America on Flickr.

Arizona Court Cases State-Local Immigration Enforcement

Making Community Policing Illegal

April 22, 2010 - Posted by Maurice Belanger

In Arizona, the Governor has not yet signed the new racial profiling bill, SB 1070, that will give police the authority to investigate an individual if an officer has “reasonable suspicion” that the individual is in the country illegally.  It also gives Arizonans the right to sue the police if they don’t think the police are sufficiently enforcing the law.

Yesterday, the Law Enforcement Engagement Initiative held a press conference to talk about concerns with the bill from a law enforcement perspective.

As reported in the Arizona Republic, former Mesa (Arizona) Police Chief George Gascón talked about how the law might lead police to engage in racial profiling, even if not intentionally:

“It will increase the risk that police officers, especially those who are untrained, will be placed in a situation where they will try to comply with the law and will be looking for characteristics to try to determine whether someone is here without authority.  People who appear to be of Hispanic descent, who speak with an accent, are going to be targeted.”

Gabriel Chin, a University of Arizona law professor, put it differently:

“If you’re in a high non-citizen neighborhood, that plus race plus other things . . . it isn’t difficult to put people in a position where the cop can forcibly stop them and start asking questions.”

In other words, if you are in an immigrant community and you look like…an immigrant, you will be in a “position” for cops to forcibly stop you and start asking questions.

The bill, Chief Gascón argued, “will have a catastrophic effect on policing and set back community policing efforts for decades.”

“People will be more hesitant to report crimes, and that will create some very, very tough circumstances for local police in dealing with crime issues in areas heavily visited by people here from other countries.”

The Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police also stated their opposition to the bill, saying that it would “negatively affect the ability of law enforcement agencies across the state to fulfill their many responsibilities in a timely manner.”

Colorado Springs Chief Richard Myers (also speaking in the press conference) cautioned that Arizona residents might not like the shift in priorities that the law may bring about:

“If I have a shots-fired call or the potential to stop someone who might be checked for documented status, I’m going to do that before I respond to shots fired because I won’t get sued if don’t respond to shots fired,” he said.

Also, as police focus on non-criminal undocumented immigrants, other work won’t be getting done.  Maricopa County in Arizona has already experienced this.  As Sherriff Joe Arpaio made it a priority to round up immigrants, his agency wasn’t going after felons on the loose.  By 2008, there were more than 40,000 outstanding felony warrants in the county.  These were people who had committed more serious crimes than walking across the border illegally, but who were nonetheless not a priority for Sherriff Joe. That number has gone down recently, after a coordinated effort by federal and local forces—to 38,000.  As U.S. Marshal David Gozales noted, “many fugitives commit other crimes while avoiding arrest.”  On the other hand, the favorite targets of Sherriff Joe are mostly providing for their families while avoiding deportation. 

There are enforcement associations who are in favor of the bill.  According to the Arizona Republic, Officer Justin Harris, president of the Glendale Law Enforcement Association, offered a sort of preventive detention rationale for the bill:  By taking undocumented immigrants off the streets, police will be preventing crimes they might commit.

You can’t argue with that.  It is also true that, since most crimes are committed by citizens, taking citizens off the streets would allow police to prevent crimes they might commit. 

The specter of states following Arizona’s lead and declaring open season on Latinos is one element of the increasing pressure on Congress to fix the broken immigration system.  On Tuesday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi agreed that moving immigration reform forward in this Congress is a “moral imperative” even if it means postponing climate change legislation.

A recording of the press conference by the Law Enforcement Engagement Initiative should soon be available here.

Image from Flickr user Toban Black.

Arizona State-Local Immigration Enforcement

Update: Advocates Call on Administration to End 287(g)

April 08, 2010 - Posted by Maurice Belanger

Yesterday, the Reform Immigration FOR America campaign staged a press conference calling for the Obama Administration to end the 287(g) program. The press conference was organized in the wake of the release last week of a report by the DHS inspector general, who found fundamental flaws in the program, including a lack of attention to the protection of civil rights.

While the advocates who spoke on the call were calling for the termination of 287(g), they also talked about other aspects of the Administration’s enforcement strategy.  Comparing the previous administration with the current one, Pablo Alvarado, of the National Day Laborer Organizing Network, said of the 287(g) program,

“In Maricopa County, the only thing that has changed since George W. Bush left office is that it is now the Obama Administration that is enabling Sheriff Joe Arpaio to terrorize Latinos in the fourth largest city in America.”

Crystal Williams, from the American Immigration Lawyers Association, said that the program is flawed in so many ways it should be set aside.

“When things happen like accident victims being taken in for questioning about their immigration status instead of being taken to the hospital, something is wrong. When checkpoints are keeping people from going to church or going to the grocery store or going to school, something is wrong.  When scarce law enforcement resources are being used on pretexts to arrest Latino-looking people to explore their immigration status, something is wrong.”

Eliseo Medina, of Service Employees International Union, said that, while he at first believed that the Obama Administration would focus enforcement primarily on abusive employers, it is still workers who are feeling the brunt of enforcement.  As a result,

“Thousands of workers, once in the legitimate, taxed economy, are now being pushed into the underground economy, which further drives down wages for U.S. workers.  The underground economy of sweatshops and cash payments benefits only the most abusive, off-the-books employers, who will never be reached by audits, because they don’t pay taxes or provide reports to the IRS.”

Looking back over the years, Medina noted that the longer we go without fixing our broken immigration system, the worse things get.

“The system has been broken for a long time, it is getting worse as time goes by, and unless we take action to fix it, we are going to end up spending a lot more money on enforcement that is ineffective, we are going to end up with a lot more churning of the workforce, we are going to wind up with the growth of the underground economy, with attendant loss not only of benefits for workers but also to the tax base and the erosion of wage standards for all workers.”

“We cannot fix this economy unless we figure out a way in which all workers can have the same rights and responsibilities, and we can only do that with a comprehensive immigration reform bill.”

You can listen to a recording of this press conference on our press conference archive page.

As we mentioned in our post on April 6, the Inspector General’s report on 287(g) is just one in a series of reports on the program that have been released recently: one from the ACLU of Georgia, one from the Migration Policy Institute, and one from the University of North Carolina.  You can find links to these reports, and to other reports on 287(g) and related programs, on our State and Local Enforcement page in our Research Center.

The frustration with the Administration’s enforcement policies, and with Congressional lack of action on immigration reform, is increasing.  As Mr. Medina noted on the call yesterday, until we have immigration reform, “the problem is not going to go away and neither are we.”

287(g) State-Local Immigration Enforcement

What’s Going On at ICE?

April 06, 2010 - Posted by Maurice Belanger

 

This post was written with Forum intern Vanessa Gutierrez

On April 2nd, there was more bad news from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).  The Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General released a report looking at ICE’s 287(g) program, the program in which local law enforcement officers are authorized to conduct immigration law enforcement.  The IG report identified 24 problem areas in the program, making 33 recommendations for improvement. 

In brief, the report is pretty damning, identifying flaws in a program that is now several years old that should have been resolved before the program’s launch.  These flaws include (among others), failure to track information to measure how the program comports with stated program goals; a lack of personnel to supervise officers enrolled in the program; lack of consideration for complaints against local law enforcement agencies when considering whether to enter into 287(g) or extend agreements; lack of community input; lack of emphasis on civil rights in training of officers enrolling in the program and the lack of collection of information to identify civil rights violations.

The report notes that ICE’s stated objectives for the program, included in their Memoranda of Agreement (MOA) template, is to “remove criminal aliens who pose a threat to public safety or a danger to the community.”  However, when measuring it’s effectiveness, ICE looks at “the number of aliens encountered by 287(g) officers” as well as the number of subsequent removals.  This looks an awfully lot like the quota issue we wrote about last week.

One theme that runs through much of the report is the lack of emphasis on civil rights and lack of consideration for information regarding the potential misconduct of law enforcement officers enrolled in the program.  For example,

”…an emphasis on civil rights and civil liberties was not formally included in the 287(g) application, review, and selection process, or in draft procedures for modifying, extending, or terminating existing MOAs.”

ICE may revoke a law enforcement agency’s 287(g) agreement if the agency’s officers abuse their authority.  However, information concerning potential misconduct of 287(g) officers was not even tracked.

“ICE did not retain information regarding allegations and investigations of 287(g) personnel or non-287(g) personnel exercising federal immigration authorities in violation of MOAs.”

In fact, according to the report, the 287(g) agreements “do not require ICE or [law enforcement agencies] to collect information that would assist in addressing allegations of civil rights violations within 287(g) programs.”

Finally, the new 287(g) agreement template, adopted in July 2009, eliminated the requirement for steering committees, which had been the only local-level oversight bodies of the 287(g) program.  With the new agreements, there is no structure for community stakeholders to identify concerns about the program and have them resolved.

These were just a few of the issues identified in the IG’s report.  You can get the report here.  Although the first 287(g) agreements were entered into eight years ago, there are still so many fundamental problems with the program that advocates, including the Forum, are calling for the program’s termination.

The Inspector General’s report was released on the heels of three non-governmental reports on the program, two documenting problems in a local program.

The ACLU of Georgia documented the exacerbation of racial profiling that has taken place in Gwinnett County, Georgia, after the implementation of 287(g). The report concludes that because of the immigration enforcement power given to Gwinnett County officers and the way that power is being used, immigrant communities have learned not to trust the police. The report recommends that the program be done away with all together, in order to address the troubling and unconstitutional practices that 287(g) has allowed.

The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill studied the impact that 287(g) programs have had in North Carolina communities.  One issue examined in this report is whether 287(g) has helped reduce serious crime.  (As noted above, the program ostensibly prioritizes persons committing serious crimes.)  The report found no evidence that greater rates of immigration have been associated with higher crime rates. In fact, the report notes, violent crime has decreased since 1993, during the time period in which the largest volume of immigrants entered the state.  Most of the immigrants processed through the 287(g) program are charged with minor offenses.  More than 55% of the charges leading to 287(g) incarceration were driving-related and more than 86% were misdemeanors.

The report authors recommend limiting existing 287(g) agreements to processing people convicted of felonies as opposed to misdemeanors or traffic infractions, in order to comply with the stated goals of the program and reaffirm the primary duty of local law enforcement, which is to serve and protect all residents from crime.  Alternatives to 287(g) should be considered, focusing on preventing and fighting crime without alienating communities (and thus jeopardizing public safety).

The Migration Policy Institute also recently released a report regarding the implementation challenges for 287(g) programs. The report compares the pre-2009 287(g) Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the Obama Administration’s new standard MOA template and provides an analytical framework for determining whether the 287(g) program generates greater costs than benefits. The report contains a set of research questions that will be used in a follow-up study to determine how the program is working on the ground.

The rash of reports critical of the 287(g) program are the latest in a series of reports and news stories that have highlighted serious problems at Immigration and Customs Enforcement.  The agency has too many programs with too many opportunities for abuse, and it is not in the DNA of the organization to be mindful of civil rights, due process, and plain ordinary decency.  Perhaps it is inevitable: our immigration laws are broken, and so is our immigration enforcement.  Our immigration laws must be fixed.  In the short term, however, Congress needs to step in and ask what’s going on at ICE.

Image by Flickr user Daquella manera.

287(g) ICE State-Local Immigration Enforcement

Page 1 of 1 pages