Author: mopress

Broad public concern about the flow of illegal immigrants into the United States has fueled demands in Congress for the approximate doubling in the size of the Border Patrol (BP), from about 11,000 to 21,000 agents.

Although the BP has grown substantially in the last two decades, the proposed addition of 10,000 new agents in the next five years would be unprecedented. It also would make the BP the largest federal law enforcement agency in the country — much bigger than the FBI and with over four times more agents than the Drug Enforcement Agency, over seven times more agents than the IRS and almost nine times the number working for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. See table below.
Agency Number of Agents (full-time)

FBI 12,214

Border Patrol 11,106
proposed 21,000

DEA 4,925

IRS 2,829

ATF 2,401

Such an enhancement would also be expensive. At its present size, the current annual cost of the BP is about $1.7 billion. This would more or less double. The overall cost, however, would not be limited only to the agency. If, for example, the new “get tough” policy was coupled with a decision to fully enforce only the laws that are now on the books for the current number of BP apprehensions, there would necessarily be a dramatic rise in the total workload being handled by the federal criminal court system. At that point, also, the makeup of workload would would dramatically shift, with roughly 10 immigration cases for every current non-immigration prosecution. Such a volume clearly would require a substantial increase in funding for the additional prosecutors, judges, detention beds and support staff needed to process them.

Given the dimensions of many of the proposals now under consideration — the House has passed new legislation and a Senate Committee is currently holding hearings — the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC) has undertaken a special analysis of government data examining how changes in BP staff in the past have affected its principal job: the apprehension of illegal immigrants.

Curious Outcomes

For all enforcement agencies — federal, state or local — the common sense rule-of-thumb is that more agents or more police officers result in more official actions — more inspections, more arrests, more apprehensions or whatever. (This is thought to be true because the number of offenses — whether it is people taking illegal drugs or aliens sneaking across the border — typically far exceeds the capacity of law enforcement ever to handle them all.)

This theory , however, does not appear to hold true for the BP on either a short or long term basis. From FY 1995 to FY 2005, for example, beginning in the Clinton Administration, the number of full-time BP employees more than doubled, jumping from 4,876 to 11,106. But for the whole period, BP apprehensions went the other way, dropping by over 10 percent from 1,324,202 in 1995 to 1,188,977 in the most recent available year.

An examination of BP records for a much longer time period reinforces the doubts about the direct link between agents and apprehensions. Looked at from 1947, for example, the data show three peaks in the overall number apprehensions — in FY 1954, FY 1986 and FY 2000.

Surprisingly, the unusually large number of apprehensions the BP reports making in both 1986 and 2000 — about 1.6 million of them — were considerably higher than the 1.2 million recorded in 2004 and 2005, even though the BP now has a lot bigger staff. See Figure 2 and supporting table.

From the new TRAC website at Syracuse.

New policy keeps detention center busy
BY DAVID MCLEMORE
The Dallas Morning News

PEARSALL, Texas – Except for the 10-foot-high security fence topped with barbed wire and the concrete barriers at the front door, the institutional gray complex in a former farm field along Interstate 35 could pass for a new high school.

It’s not.

To immigration officials, South Texas Detention Center is simply a part of the nation’s effort to efficiently detain illegal immigrants pending deportation.

To critics, it’s a prison by another name and an example of increasing erosion of civil rights for immigrants.
At the heart of the debate is the Department of Homeland Security’s policy of expedited removal to address the dramatic increase in the number of immigrants crossing illegally – particularly those from countries other than Mexico.

Last year, some 135,000 “other than Mexicans,” or OTMs, were apprehended in Texas. Most were released on their own recognizance pending deportation hearings. But 90 percent failed to show up for their hearing dates, disappearing into the U.S. interior.

Eleanor Arce of Human Rights First, a New York-based immigrants rights organization, calls expedited removal “a flawed system with no meaningful safeguards to prevent deportation of an asylum seeker with a valid claim.”

“It essentially gives an immigration officer the power to issue a deportation order, not a judge,” she said.

But Marc Moore, the director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention and removal for a 54-county area in South Texas, disagrees.

“We’re not in the incarceration business,” he said. But “we don’t want people to believe they have free access to our borders. So our goal is to move people out in as short a time as possible and do so without trampling on their legal rights.”

On average, about 720 detainees flow through the Pearsall center daily, though the number fluctuates with round-the-clock movement. On any given day, there are about 23,000 illegal immigrants nationwide in the 17 detention centers that fall under Homeland Security.

Of the five facilities in Texas, the three in South Texas can hold about 3,200 – the Pearsall center southwest of San Antonio, about 1,020. Immigration officials also move detainees to other federal facilities or county jails throughout the state as needed.

At the Pearsall center, the largest and newest facility in the state, cameras and guards monitor movement throughout.

Immigration officers or guards accompanying detainees flash their IDs through a number of security checkpoints as they work their way through the building.

No one moves through the complex unless accompanied by a guard.

Ruben Garza, a detention officer with Immigration and Customs Enforcement, said detainees are free to ask questions about their case.

“And we provide a grievance box in each pod where they can file complaints,” he said. “The security is more for the detainees’ sake than ours. We do what we can to make their stay here safe and comfortable.”

New detainees are fingerprinted, photographed and checked for criminal history. Those with no criminal history get blue jumpsuits. Those with pending criminal charges, such as smuggling people, get orange. And detainees with criminal records get to wear red.

Blue jumpsuits are kept separate from the red and orange.

Men and women stay in separate compounds on opposite sides of the complex. The men’s areas, called pods, are arranged for groups of 32 or 64. Women’s facilities are arranged for groups of 20 to 40.

A separate two-story building holds high-risk cases or those who pose a danger to other detainees.

Each of the pods has a living area, beds, and showers and toilets arranged in utilitarian simplicity.

The immigrants take their meals here, watch TV or talk. The kitchen provides both regular meals and special diets required for medical or religious reasons.

The 238,000-square-foot facility also houses a 67-bed hospital unit with complete medical, dental and emergency facilities staffed by on-site physicians and nurses.

About two hours each day, detainees can go to an outdoor recreation area adjacent to each pod.

But unless they volunteer for kitchen or cleaning crews, they must stay locked in their pods.

A bank of phones against the back wall gives them access to attorneys or immigrant advocates. And family and attorney visits are available during fixed hours during the day.

Last year, the 54 counties covered by ICE in South Texas removed 17,000 detainees – mainly from Nicaragua, El Salvador and throughout Central America, but also from throughout Central Europe, the Middle East and China.

“About 30 to 40 percent have a criminal record – ranging from the very minor to the very serious,” Moore said. “There are cases that come through that are now the focus of further investigation on national security issues.”

Expedited removal has been around in a limited way since 1997.

But in early 2005, as the number of non-Mexican illegal immigrants skyrocketed, it was expanded to the Border Patrol sectors in Tucson, McAllen and Laredo, then to the entire Southwestern border. Earlier this year, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff expanded expedited removal to cover all U.S. borders.

Javier Maldonado, a San Antonio civil rights attorney, said the new policy is subjecting “more people than ever” to detention “while the standards for legal relief have gotten stricter.”

“For those who make a claim for asylum, the process just grows longer,” he added.

Maldonado said some can “be stuck in detention for six to nine months” before seeing an immigration judge. And appeals can last another year.

“The government can deport them while they appeal their removal,” he added. “No one can say life is easy for these people.”

Under special agreement, illegal immigrants from Mexico, about 92 percent of those apprehended in 2005, were eligible for “voluntary return” and taken across the border within hours.

But for those from other nations, lengthy detentions pending deportation proceedings meant they’d spend an average of 90 days or longer in captivity. A shortage of detention space meant the OTMs with no criminal record or who posed no security risk were issued a notice to appear later before an immigration judge.

More than 118,000 “other than Mexicans” failed to appear for deportation proceedings since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, according to Border Patrol data. The vast majority were from Honduras, El Salvador, Guatemala and Brazil. But a handful came from 35 “special interest” countries such as Afghanistan, Iran, Pakistan and Yemen.

Chertoff has vowed that all catch-and-release will end by October, largely through the rapid increase in detention space. In fiscal 2006, Homeland Security’s appropriations bill provided for the construction of 1,920 new detention beds. By fiscal 2007, the White House wants an additional $400 million for 6,700 new beds to bring the total to 27,500 by the end of the year.

Arce of Human Rights First said the emphasis on detention and rapid removal means that asylum seekers can more easily get lost in the cracks.

In fiscal 2005, there were 32,900 claims for asylum, according to the government’s Immigration Monthly Statistical Report, only a slight increase over the preceding year.

“People who come to this country because of political or cultural oppression have suddenly found the way much more difficult,” she said. “They are improperly jailed in prison-like facilities and often found it more difficult to find legal representation for their claim.”

For the man in charge of detaining and removing illegal immigra

nts in South Texas, it’s not an issue.

“I don’t see any infringements on individual rights by the expeditious movement of detainees home,” said Moore. “Asylum applications can come at any time, right to when they walk out to get on the plane home.”

The current system is a one-size-fits-all policy that reflects the overall national shift in immigration policy that favors security over individual rights, Maldonado said.

“In essence, the government says that anyone in this country without documents can be detained with no bond allowed and held for return regardless of how established they may be, how benign they may be or with little regard to what drove them to enter illegally,” he said. “We need something better than a policy that tries to fit all circumstances.”

H.R.2092

Title: To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to comprehensively reform immigration law and to better protect immigrant victims of violence, and for other purposes.

Sponsor: Rep Jackson-Lee, Sheila [TX-18] (introduced 5/4/2005)

Cosponsors (24)

Related Bills: H.R.3188

Latest Major Action: 5/23/2005 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Health, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Chairman.

SUMMARY AS OF:
5/4/2005–Introduced.

Save America Comprehensive Immigration Act of 2005 – Amends the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) to provide increased protections and eligibility for family-sponsored immigrants.
Authorizes the Secretary of Homeland Security (Secretary) to adjust the status of aliens who would otherwise be inadmissible (due to unlawful presence, document fraud, or other specified grounds of inadmissibility) if such aliens have been in the United States for at least five years and meet other requirements.

Establishes the Task Force on Fraudulent Immigration Documents.

Authorizes S (witness or informant) nonimmigrant status for aliens in possession of critical reliable information concerning commercial alien smuggling or trafficking in immigration documents.

Requires petitioners for nonimmigrant labor to describe their efforts to recruit lawful permanent residents (LPRs) or U.S. citizens.

Makes permanent an INA provision allowing adjustment of status of certain aliens for whom family-sponsored or employment-based applications or petitions were filed by a specified date.

Lessens immigration consequences for minor criminal offenses. Eliminates retroactive changes in grounds of inadmissibility and removal.

Increases the worldwide level of diversity immigrants.

Authorizes adjustment of status for certain nationals or citizens of Haiti and Liberia.

Eliminates mandatory detention in expedited removal proceedings.

Amends the Haitian Refugee Immigration Fairness Act of 1998 to: (1) waive document fraud as a ground of inadmissibility; and (2) address determinations with respect to children.

Eliminates the one-year filing requirement for asylum applicants. Includes gender persecution within the particular social group category of persecution.

Amends the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 to eliminate a provision prohibiting restrictions on the communication of immigration status information by a government entity.

Amends the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (Welfare Reform Act) to eliminate a provision requiring an alien’s verification of eligibility for public benefits. Eliminates state authority under INA to carry out immigration functions.

Amends the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 to clarify eligibility for relief.

Amends the Violence Against Women Act of 2000 (VAWA) to apply that Act’s deportation protections for transitional relief to all VAWA petitioners.

Provides a range of immigration protections for abused aliens. Amends the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1998, to provide access to legal services for such aliens. Amends the Welfare Reform Act to make such aliens eligible for certain public benefits.

Authorizes the Attorney General to award trafficking-related law enforcement training grants to eligible entities.

AMY GOODMAN: Congressmember Jackson Lee, you’ve submitted an immigration bill to Congress that would allow for legal permanent residency for undocumented immigrants who have lived in the United States, for how long?

REP. SHEILA JACKSON LEE: If they’ve been living consistently in the United States between five and six years.

AMY GOODMAN: Can you talk about — just give us the layout of your bill and where it stands now.

REP. SHEILA JACKSON LEE: To give you some framework, I want to at least mention the tone of the debate that is occurring now in the United States Senate and what occurred in the House. The great disappointment of this issue is that the members of Congress who were so opposed, outrageously opposed to any fair consideration of documentation of the undocumented individuals in this country really sort of debated this as if they had no sense of humanity, no sense of family and no sense of what this country was built on. And that is, of course, immigrants coming from all over the world during periods of our history and making this country great. In fact, many of us know that African Americans came to this country not as documented citizens and did not obtain citizenship until very, very late, so I’m disappointed at the level of debate. My bill attempted to craft this as a civil rights issue, and that is, to give a sense of fairness to individuals who had been in this country and had worked and paid taxes and wanted to come from under the shadows. And it provided the earned access to legalization with English conversance, the idea of working, investment in the community, family and community service and no felon record. We also provided for family unification. We provided for the DREAM Act, so the children could go to school. We eliminated or provided penalties for the utilization of fraudulent documents, for the abuse of women, for the abuse of workplace, which would take advantage of those who are undocumented. We insisted that employees provided a safe workplace and a workplace with dignity and equal rights . We also provided for the anti-smuggling provisions, that would stop the coyotes from bringing individuals across the border and causing danger to their lives.

We looked at this in a holistic viewpoint that, in fact, if you identify the undocumented individuals, they become investors in this society. They become part of the economic engine. They invest their dollars in banks. They don’t send most of their money back overseas. They’re allowed to have bank accounts in our country, which is a part of an economic engine.

The disappointment in this debate that is now being politicized in the Senate is that we’re being overtaken by minority voices within the Republican Party, because if you explain to the American people, one, I’m prepared to protect your jobs — and by the way, I have a provision in my bill that takes the fees that immigrants would pay to become documented and utilize them for job creation amongst American workers and protection of American workers and job training. I try to bring two district groups together in the legislation that I’ve offered, Save America Comprehensive Immigration bill, which has the support of many members of Congress. The disappointment was that in the debate, we didn’t allow all members’ bills to be fully debated. The McCain-Kennedy bill on the House side, which was a Kolbe-Gutierrez bill, my bill and a number of others never had an opportunity either to be debated and/or to be voted on, because of the singular, unilateral, exclusive approach that the Republicans took and the chairman of the Judiciary Committee took. None of us were allowed to submit our legislation.

AMY GOODMAN: Yesterday, Congressmember Jackson Lee, we were speaking with Professor Ron Walters, who is raising the issue of the concerns of African Americans that immigrants take jobs in this country. Your response?

REP. SHEILA JACKSON LEE: You’re absolutely right. Professor Walters is absolutely right. This is what is permeating throughout the nation. And that’s why I’ve said that we have operated in this debate with the wrong facts, with the idea of creating divisiveness, rather than finding a common ground that would educate Americans, no matter whether they’re African Americans or whether they are white Americans or Asian Americans or others. Let me share with you what I think is really the framework of difficulty in the African American community. With our communities having the highest unemployment rate, with administrations or the administration and this congress being very unconcerned about the plight of African American males, the plight of poor quality schools, yes, I can sympathize and empathize with the African American community about what they perceive to be a population group that takes jobs.

But frankly, that is not the case. If you look at the large percentage of the undocumented who are working here, unfortunately, they are working in jobs that possibly are available to African Americans, and they have chosen not to take, or as the normal progression of immigration occurs, each group comes in and the group preceding them moves up. The heavy hand of discrimination in this nation has kept many in the African American community from achieving their dreams, from gaining jobs and gaining education opportunities. And, of course, we’ve not responded to it. It appears then that any group that is working may be taking their job. But what we need to do to address this question is invest in job training, invest in the protection of American jobs, stop the outsourcing that is impacting Americans of all races, and begin to look at the 11 million undocumented as an economic engine that would churn the economy, helping to create more jobs. I am sympathetic. And I think that’s an important response.

AMY GOODMAN: Do you have the support of the Congressional Black Caucus on your bill?

REP. SHEILA JACKSON LEE: I think we have the support of many members of the United States Congress, which include members of the Democratic Caucus, the Hispanic Caucus and, yes, the Black Caucus and the Asian Pacific Congress. We have received support from across the Congress. And it would have been — the House, that is, would have been an appropriate part of the debate, if we had been allowed to have that debate, including the House version of the McCain-Kennedy bill, which was not allowed on the floor. Neither was mine, was not allowed on the floor.

I hope to participate as a member of the conference committee, which is a place where maybe reasoned minds can generate a debate. Unfortunately, I don’t know if that will be the case, inasmuch as I understand the chairman of that conference may be the author of the House bill. I hope that we will have a conference that will be open, that will be inclusive and will allow us to produce a product that is, if you will, deserving of the reputation that America has of respecting the rights of all human beings.

And might I just say this? I talked to a young Hispanic male yesterday in a high school. It was one of the most emotionally charged meetings or conversations with a youngster, a person under the age of 18. We had just had a whole class talking about this question, because, as you would know, many high school students around the country have been walking out. And they’re still doing so. We’ve been going to high schools to discuss this. He asked the question: Does America want him any more? Is he wanted? He felt so hurt and so disenfranchised. And he was not documented. But he wanted to join the United States military. And he had always wanted to do it. It was his dream, along with a number of his classmates. But he asked me the question, and it was so difficult to answer. Am I wanted? What is this debate about making me a felon? And I think America can do better, and I think we need to have a better debate and a better response to individuals who simply come here for an economic opportunity.

AMY
GOODMAN: You have called this the civil rights issue of our time.

REP. SHEILA JACKSON LEE: I believe it is. And that’s one of the reasons why I truly believe that there is an opportunity for the African American community to be great leaders in this movement. We understand discrimination. We understand isolation and separation. We also understand striving and fighting for just a chance, an economic chance or a chance of dignity. I believe this is a great opportunity for the civil rights organizations of both communities, Hispanics and African Americans, Muslims and others, who have been discriminated against, to come together. That is why the NAACP and LULAC have worked together and are struggling to understand this issue of immigration, because if you have a large body of individuals who you isolate and discriminate against, what is the question? It is civil rights. Many people believe these are illegal persons, they have broken the law and this word of amnesty has become an ugly word. I don’t even call it amnesty. I call it the right to earn the access to legalization. I call it the right to earn dignity. And I believe it is a civil rights question.

From Democracy Now, April 4th, 2006