The Washington Post article, U.S. to Expand Immigration Checks to All Local Jails, states that the Obama administration will expand the Secure Communities Program currently being implemented in Fairfax County, to all jails nationwide. By doing so, we can once and for all accurately determine the number of crimes committed by undocumented immigrants that are non-immigration related. I believe, Prince William County’s data will prove to be a reliable indicator of what the results would prove nationally, with misdeamenor crimes like driving without a license being the primary offense committed.
Drawbacks to these types of programs include an apprehension among immigrants, legal or not to report crimes out of concern that their immigration status could somehow be put in jeopordy, including the possibility that legal permanent residents could lose their status for minor criminal offenses.
This program combined with the continued construction of the fence, the revival of the vitual fence project indicate the administrations willingness and ability to address the issue, and hopefully, sooner rather than later will require those otherwise lawfully residing immigrants an opportunity to adjust their status.
Thanks Alanna, for posting this article. I became paralyzed by questions as I read it. How does this plan differ from our 287(g) plan? How does it differ from the state plan?
I now have more questions than answers. I am not sure the reporter did a great job of covering this story.
I am also encouraged by this step by the Obama administration. As the article says, we are beginning to see the federal government take the wheel on the immigration issue. If this had happened three years ago when immigration became the new scare-the-public cable news angle, our county would have been saved much pain and embarrassment. Corey Stewart himself has said that his chest-beating would not have been necessary if the federal government was addressing the broken system and pointing the way toward solutions. When Stewart announced an end to the chest-beating, I was hopeful that at the bad reputation aspect of the Immigration Resolution’s aftermath might be dissipated. This move by the feds gives me still more hope. Perhaps we will finally see an end to Stewart’s subterfuge and dissembling on immigration related topics, in particularly the inaccurate and socially irresponsible insinuation that immigrants are likely to be violent criminals.
Here was my initial reaction (from the volcano thread)
I think they were talking about us … although kind not to mention us specifically.
I’ve lost track of the numbers, but our county has spent somewhere between 14 million and 30 million dollars in taxpayer money, damaged our local economy, damaged our real estate market, and soiled our reputation during the past 2 years … and what have we gained?
The same approach that Bush and now Obama is undertaking at the federal level: status checks for people who commit crimes.
John Stirrup introduced a law that put our county in jeopardy of very costly racial profiling lawsuits by trying to expend immigration checks out into the streets, and forcing our police officers to engage in the legally dubious practice of sorting out who appears to be undocumented and who does not. Thankfully, Stirrup and his buddies Letiecq and Stewart were yanked back into adhering the framework of the U.S. Constitution by more responsible board members and the county’s silent majority, but what an awful waste. We have less Hispanic neighbors, but more crime, and more home foreclosures than any county in the state or the region.
And to add insult to social, economic, and public safety injury, after all of that hoopla, we have the same measure that Fairfax County has (as mentioned in the article). We check status after arrest here … as will all local law enforcement in coming years.
The anti-immigrant lobbying firm that wrote PWC’s “Immigration Resolution” referred to our county as their laboratory. I wish they hadn’t left our taxpayers holding the bag. But I suppose we can take some solace in supposing that our suffering might have helped the federal government to realize that immigration status checks AFTER ARREST are the only legal and sensible way to approach criminal illegal aliens.
Alanna,
This is a deception.
All efforts at enforcement are futile and false. Even if we start shooting people for crossing, they will still come if they are desperate enough.
This is about expanding control over people. Things like this always are.
In writing “also encouraged,” I was responding to a post from the volcano thread by Starryflights:
Mackie, sometimes having databases and some “control over people” is a good idea … for instance when we are dealing with law enforcement. This program is designed to identify criminal illegal aliens, that means people who are in this country illegal and commit an actual crime. After they serve their sentence, they should be deported, should they not?
I would think that you would be encouraged by the fact that the federal government is making a clear distinction between actual crimes and things like expired student visas. My resistance to enlisting the police in what should be a federal issue was based on (1) we are being taxed by both the feds and the county to do a job that should be left to the feds (2) we are taking away manpower and resources from the primary job of our police force, which is to keep our community safe, and (3) too much of the impetus for status checks on the streets had more to do with reversing demographic shifts that make only a small portion of our community uncomfortable while the rest of us see it as an enrichment to our community.
WHWN, not all of your statements are factual, for example, crime has gone down in manassas city, according to their own statistics. But it has gone up in PWC, for some serious and violent crimnes and not others, and only in very un-weighted % statistics of VERY SMALL SAMPLE SIZE. You and I have collectively identified that some areas of crime have shown indexes that have gone up, while other areas of violent and non-vilent crime have gone down. You assume this crime accurately identifies ALL who are “illegal” from, legal and the reality is that it does not, because we still lack the accurate data, and the data we have has only been collected for 9 months. Not much of a database for determining truth from hyperbole and rhetoric in my opinion, allowing bias and emotional beliefs to rule reason instead.
Your statement that this law put the country in danger of racial profiling lawsuits is also inaccurate and has no basis in fact, it is a belief based conjecture, and words to that effect supporting racial profiling or encouraging officers to commit racial profiling will not be found anywhere in EITHER RESOLUTION VERSION.
I could go on but you get the drift for why we need a balanced and accurate debate based on factual information, rather than emotional belief systems.
I am very glad to the the program will be implemented nation wide. It ois prrof that Obama acknowldeges that “illegal” immigration is a legal problem in this nation.
It does not however open the door to giving existing “illegal” immigrants a means to skirt their owen lawbreaking, that is conjecture. The current law that identifies, illegal immigration as illegal, will always be enforced, or attempt to be inforced everywhere it is not stopped by the ACLU which uses lawsuits as a tactic to prevent enforcement of the nations laws equally on all of its existing residents, both legal and “illegal”.
When you look at both sides of the issue you will eventually see that all neations need the right to identify and remove people from thoer countries that have not legally conform to the laws used to controlun-authorized presence and exploitation of a nations citizens by people who are not authorized, not invited and not legal to be here.
No amount of wishful thinking or belief will change this basic need for national sovereignty, population control, skill control, financial standard of living control (job availability and wage level) and law enforcement to protect its citizens.
Again soryy for the misspelling, I type fast and have no tiome to use a spell checker, so read between the lines or don;t read it if you wish.
Thank you Alanna for posting this, this is one example of an attempt by you the blog owner to present a balanced viewpoint. For that I applaud you, even if I don’t agree with what I think your political agenda is.
Hopefully, we can at least agree this is an issue where the Federal
government must take a leadership role – and it always has been.
This is part one of Obama’s immigration stagedy. It will also include increased border security and a more vigilant workplace inforcement program. The main drawback is as usual MONEY.
Increased border security is paramount. Without securing our borders, doesn’t make sense to do anything else. I agree with Ivan, big issue is money. Border security (of any form) is expensive.
Alanna, Elena, Moon-Howler,
You lose.
This is not bound to any “comprehensive” strategy. Common sense will out. The Obama Administration is well aware that there is no Amnesty, oops I mean comprehensive solution, coming down the pike, though they are very concerned with continually massaging the latino vote and cultivating the huge lead over the GOP among non-white voters.
But measures like this that some here decried as “extremist’ and “xenophobic” are the order of the day.
And it’s still a crime to be here illegally, and one that no Amnesty is forthcoming for.
And at best, border security is very flawed.
Rick, I don’t think anyone here is crying for ‘amnesty,’ at least not MY definition of amnesty.
Not sure how *I* lose.
But getting better. Between the increased border security and increased checks and deportation, and supposedly in our near future increased pressure on employers not to hire illegal aliens, we are entering the era of – finally – SELF-DEPORTATION.
Spoken like a true PATRIOT Greg-ite, there Rick. Next thing we know, you will be on the board of HSM. Didn’t they just have elections? Did you go on the board? Are you now a red circle officer?
I am very grateful that this is being taken on by the federal government at last. Obama is showing how a solutions-oriented and practical approach to comprehensive immigration reform trumps a politically-motivated, fear-based approach to appeal to the lowest common denominator. What happened to Prince William County is unfair because it hurting our tax base, our taxpayers, and our reputation disproportionately. Having the federal government shoulder the financial costs of righting the ship spreads the tax burden to all taxpayers. The federal tax base is large enough to handle this without pulling a “Corey Stewart” on our national budget: higher taxes with huge cuts to vital programs.
Good one Moon!!
I disagree with this statement:
The Bush administration, for all its faults, ALREADY understood this. That is why Bush advocated for McCain/Kennedy and, sadly, called everyone who didn’t support it racists on national television. It is rarely pointed out that this is when the issue was lost to the middle-grounders. It even annoyed me!
Anyway, it would not be “solace” to me to say PWC’s suffering showed ANYONE ANYTHING, other than that as a political issue, anti-immigrant scapegoating is disposable strategy that works in the short term but not the long term. There is no solace in what happened here IMHO.
@WHWN
Was that supposed to be an insult Moon-Howler? I’m not the most active member of HSM but I’m proud to be a member.
I don’t think that most people on either side of the political “fence” understand what is happening here … there is the political, public-image, spin-oriented side to this, and the public policy side. Public policy wise, Obama’s Administration understands that in economic downturn it’s untenable to have 10-20 million jobs held by other nations’ citizens. Unlike the Bush Administration, which fought tirelessly and ceaselessly to obfuscate the issue, we are now moving towards common sense.
No, I wasn’t insulting you, Rick. I was trying to get a rise out of you. Mission accomplished, without the aircraft carrier. Just funnying with you.
You just sounded very hsm-ian when you said ‘SELF-DEPORTATION.’
Rick, this reminds me of when Greg Letiecq and Corey Stewart tried to spin the neutering of the Immigration Resolution as a “victory.” If it keeps the peace, so be it. I’m glad that all sides are happy.
Anyway, how did the HSM elections go?
Mr. Bentley, read the entire article. “The effort is likely to significantly reshape immigration enforce,…It comes as the Obama administration and Democrats in Congress vow to crackdown on illegal immigrants who commit crimes, rather than those who otherwise abide by the law.” It would appear that Amnesty (pathway to citizenship or work visas) is still on the agenda.
Self-deportation is what I’m after. Not a permanent underclass. Not busloads of forced deportations. Just a consensus in America that we won’t reward people for cheating … at which point they’ll stop cheating.
The HSM elections were startling. Greg lost his post among heavy infighting, and was replaced by a moderate who favors comprehensive reform. At this point a physical struggle ensued, and the building caught fire … one individual rose to the podium and pleaded for calm, but was immediately shot dead … no just kidding. I wasn’t there.
IVAN – there is talk, and there is politics, and there is reality. i am heartened that in reality, we are as a nation moving towards the common-sense principle of identifying illegal aliens and providing them disincentive to stay.
The “agenda” that you refer to is pure politics, the Democrats trying to stay leftwards of the GOP on the issue so as to appeal to Latino voters in perpetuity. But they’re hardly promoting Amnesty as wholeheartedly as Bush did. Bush threw all his feeble capability into it.
Rick, the reality in politics is he who has the most votes sets the agenda. Who is going to stop Obama, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Steele, Sara Palin? No, this is going through later on this year or next. Votes will determine the outcome, and Obama has the votes.
Indeed. And he is setting the agenda. And I like much of it. Increased detection of criminal aliens, funding for deporting them, pressure on employers to stop hiring illegal aliens, and icresaed border enforcement are all A-OK with me.
aaaaah, Rick you had me going for three sentences.
You are very funny but I have to say I read the article much the way Ivan did. This does not translate to “no amnesty.” It is a precursor to path to citizenship.
Say whatever you want about the Obama White House but they are not politically tone deaf. They are very smartly framing the debate in a way that makes it much easier to pass CIR. If it’s clear to citizens that our new federal solution will deal with criminals who happen to also be undocumented, then it will be much harder for the anti-immigrant types to paint all undocumented immigrants as dangerous criminals and scare people into being myopic and hysterical to the point where they think anyone with dark skin is a potential criminal. That’s the only way to get people to support a counter-productive policy. That’s what Corey and Greg did. And now we’re all paying for it.
If you respectfully appeal to people with genuine concerns about public safety, and also explain (Obama is very good at explaining) that the draconian measures offered by extremist like Stewart actually HURT public safety, then a comprehensive solution will be much easier to attain. The old folks and prejudiced people who just want there to be less immigration in general will be left alone opposing CIR. And I think it’s pretty clear their time has passed.
he CIR debate in a way that the moderates, independents, and Democrats will win. The Republicans will have to decide how best to fend for themselves while the solution goes forward with or without them.
I don’t know what happened to my last sentence. I mean to say:
This move is framing the CIR debate in a way that the moderates, independents, and Democrats will win. The Republicans will have to decide how best to fend for themselves while the solution goes forward with or without them.
Rick, in addition to being a humorist you are also sounding more and more like a pragmatist. I trust the Obama administration to find the best solution. The fact that you support it is a good sign. As for “self-deportation” that is happening already with all the damage done to our national economy by letting Wall Street run amok. I wouldn’t vote for more of that though!
“I have to say I read the article much the way Ivan did. This does not translate to “no amnesty.” It is a precursor to path to citizenship.”
I think that this is an issue, like many others (abortion being a prime example) where the real-world laws don’t correlate to the way the two parties market their activities. Obama talks about a “comprehensive” solution – and thereby maintains the sympathies and votes of those who favor this approach. But unlike his predecessor he’s not holding us (the American people) hostage to that ostensible desire.
The Bush Administration stonewalled on this issue for years. They wanted an influx of cheap labor, and an Amnesty that would preserve this influx. They held our security hostage to it, and created this problem. Only belatedly did they make any attempt to correct the problem and encourage self-deportation – probably out of petulance and/or a realization that an Amnesty would only benefit Democrats politically.
The Obama Administration appears less corrupt on this issue. if they spin the issue successfully and use it as a wedge against the GOP, I could care less, if we can make progress on what’s real and start to encourage job theives to leave.
“I trust the Obama administration to find the best solution. ”
I absolutely do not. I have lost faith in the two parties and in our elected rulers – they all seem inherently untrustworthy. Certainly Obama’s track record is that he is frequently “part of the problem”, part and parcel of the corrupt way that America has been running. And has personally and politically profiteered from it. He may be a relatively capable guy and I more or less like him but I don’t trust him. We the people need to continually exert our will on our the corrupt who*es who populate our government, I trust none of them. They’ve collectively been selling out the interests of the average American at a rapid pace.
Rick, I hope immigration does not become a wedge issue that Obama uses against Republicans. I hope Republicans are on board. When you layer racial division with partisan division, the whole country suffers. I don’t think Obama would want that to happen.
“Rick, I hope immigration does not become a wedge issue that Obama uses against Republicans.”
Too late, it obviously is something that he and Emmanuel see as an issue to be massaged to the GOP’s detriment. It is a big part of the GOP’s current identity crisis.
“I hope Republicans are on board.”
They’re split on the issue, and infighting.
“When you layer racial division with partisan division, the whole country suffers. I don’t think Obama would want that to happen.”
His party reflexively uses the race angle. Perhaps never more sickly than a mere 9 years ago when Brazile centered much of Gore’s election campaign around cultivating disrepect against Bush and the GOP amongst African-Americans. (“We need 90% of the black vote to win”). Obama generally shows some class on race issues in general, i like the way he handles himself, but his party did and does use the immigration issue to bash Republicans amongst Latino voters. that is a fact.
I think “many” of you don’t realize we already HAVE a path to citizenship and a path to work visas. It is just not an IMMEDIATE path, that so many of you want as your definition of “comprehensive immigration reform. The American public is NOT GOING TO ALLOW those who are currently here to get “instantly waived” to citizenship status, and to get instantly declared as elegible to have work visas.
THe American public will demand due to the lack of available jobs that foreigners both external and internal to our country, only be allowed to request work visas where a significant shortage in skills is clearly shown, and NOT support a mechanism for business owners to simply instantly get cheaper LABOR by immediately giving everyone who is here “illegally” lawbreaking forgiven, out of queue work visas and accelerated citizenships, AHEAD of everyone else who has requested work visa’s and citizenships or green cards LEGALLY.
When the border is closed, the delay in issuing both work visas and gree cards allows the numbers of “illegal” workers to get back in line with the nation’s needs and that timeline will happen in 5-10 years, not next year or the year after that.
In the meantime, those who are here “illegally” will simply get more and more pressure on the shutting down of unscrupulous busineess owners that hire them, until there are now jobs left that “illegals” can “illegally” or legally work. US citizens and American workers will take the jobs back that “illegals” won’t do, because they can’t.
When that happens the standard of living in all communities that house “illegal” immigrants will see a drop in their numbers and a rise in the standard of living in those communities.
What should also concern “many” of you, is the possibility that the US will lose its sovereignty if too many “illegals” and formerly “illegals” politically aspire to create their own seperate sovereign state. This typically happens in history when “illegal” immigration is rapid and too large for the nation to absorb it into its culture and customs. There is historical after historical example of this. One of the most revealing examples is the English, French and Spanish takover of 500 American Indian nations over a 250 year long “cultural war”. Many of these nations dissapeared in 25 years after English, French and Spanish entry into their communties, UN-INVITED, UN-WANTED, AND ILLEGALLY. This is why I urge you to watch the 9 part documentary and substitute the current “illegal” immigrant political activities for those of the English, French and Spanish.
The modern parallel to this process is the mechanism that The Taliban used to take over afganistan, and pakistan regions, and that used by HAMAS to politically take over the GAZA Strip, and the Palistinians to take over the west bank. They just kept moving “illegally” across the border into the GAZA strip, kept changing the existing culture and social customs and legal system, until it was no longer under the control of Isreal, but became in the people’s minds an unrecognized political state. Once people move in, it is extremely difficult to move them out without killing them, or putting them into conflict zone displacement camps. That strategy of move in, maintain your existing political and social ties to your former country, and to simply take what you want regardless of the law, is a road to separatism, secession, and ultimately ethnic border conflict. Many of you should be very concerned that you current actions are enabling this possibility closer toward reality and enabling it to undermine US democracy by political action of factional ethnic groups.
Michael, I believe that your comparison of today’s immigration to something that happened 400 years ago is simply disingenuous. Early European settlers clashing with an indigenous people was a collision of a technologically advanced society (for their time) overpowering a society of hunters and gatherers, and in some cases farmers. Perhaps the biggest differences were in weapons and transportation.
Please note, I mean no disrespect to the terms hunters, gatherers and farmers. I am a big fan of the Native American. I also believe they were treated shabbily and that the Europeans stole from them, but my feelings don’t alter history.
I do not discount what you are saying about uncontrolled immigration. Obviously one has to draw the line somewhere. Simple math tells us that. I just do not think that European immigration in the late 1500’s and 1600’s makes a solid case.
I can accept that analysis moon, but there are many similarities in the process of cultural transition and “illegal immigration into a region, that can result in the same end state, loss of nation souvernity, and loss of culture, custom, and law. You don’t always have to have outright war and conflict and vast difference in technology for this to happen. Many modern examples like Malaysia, Pakistan, Somolia, Balkins, and Columbia, Peru, lead the way for such un-anticipated, undesireable results. The key factor is realization that the prevention and slowing of growth of “illegal” immigration in every case early enough may have prevented loss of national soverenity or start of assymmetric warfare in most of those historical cases.
@Rick Bentley
That is really interesting that you see it that way Rick. It wasn’t long ago that I thought immigration was the issue Republicans wanted to used as an anvil to drop on the head of Democrats. As for African Americans and Bush, I’ll admit I was not paying as much attention to politics in 2000. I do see that Hispanics are invested in the immigration issue today, but who can blame them?
In any case, I feel strongly that Obama, who is half white after all, does not see race as a them vs. us issue. If anything he sees it as an “inclusive” vs. “non-inclusive” issue, and we see many politicians and many Americans lining up in that way according to party line.
Witness,
I disagree.
I think in many ways he does see it as a race vs us issue that he has covertly and politically transposed as a rich vs poor (minority group) issue.
I believe that because Obama’s ARRA budget actions do not convey this as an inclusive, vs non-inclusive issue because he leaves out “majority interests” and “middle class interests” in his “inclusion concepts”, even though your view of that concept is far superior to the race view of us vs. them, it is still inferior to and just short of Obama seeing this as a “we are all individuals of the same nation, who need to be treated equally as individuals regardless of race, religion, gender or ethnicity.” Inclusiveness is not a gender, racial, ethnic, religious group numbers balancing concept but a concept that “includes all individuals equally under the law and treats them all the same”. And discrimminated or priviliged only by determining if you are lawful or lawless, low income, middle income and high income, and whether you are either with and for the nation or against it.
Of course you have the right to ignore my suggestion for a better concept for fair and equitable Obama politics, by simply saying “I disagree”
Moon I do not agree with your characterization of my analysis as disingenuous… Elena has used this word incorrectly in the past as well.
In fact I am very candid, sincere in my asessment, as straightforwrd in reasoning as possible, and not calculating (calculating WHAT? that you will not accept it?). It is not unsophisticated, pretending to be unaware, uninformed or “naive”. In fact your comments are more naive than mine as you most often lack the research to back up your beliefs and statements, as do “MANY” on this blog. I believe my analysis, backed up with research, to be a good ANALOGY…and means to predict possible and likely futures…
disingenuous:
1. Not straightforward or candid; insincere or calculating: “an ambitious, disingenuous, philistine, and hypocritical operator, who … exemplified … the most disagreeable traits of his time” (David Cannadine). 2. Pretending to be unaware or unsophisticated; faux-naïf. 3. Usage Problem Unaware or uninformed; naive.
OTHER FORMS: disin·genu·ous·ly —ADVERB
disin·genu·ous·ness —NOUN
USAGE NOTE: The meaning of disingenuous has been shifting about lately, as if people are unsure of its proper meaning. Generally, it means “insincere” and often seems to be a synonym of cynical or calculating. Not surprisingly, the word is used often in political contexts, as in It is both insensitive and disingenuous for the White House to describe its aid package and the proposal to eliminate the federal payment as “tough love.” This use of the word is accepted by 94 percent of the Usage Panel. Most Panelists also accept the extended meaning relating to less reproachable behavior. Fully 88 percent accept disingenuous with the meaning “playfully insincere, faux-naïf,” as in the example “I don’t have a clue about late Beethoven!” he said. The remark seemed disingenuous, coming from one of the world’s foremost concert pianists. Sometimes disingenuous is used as a synonym for naive, as if the dis– prefix functioned as an intensive (as it does in certain words like disannul) rather than as a negative element. This usage does not find much admiration among Panelists, however. Seventy-five percent do not accept it in the phrase a disingenuous tourist who falls prey to stereotypical con artists.
It is an ominous development to see that the federal government is sinking it’s claws into local law enforcement across the nation. You should all be concerned about this.
What the federal government wants here is more control over local law enforcement. They are clearing away barriers to centralization of their power.
‘Enforcing immigration laws’ is just a trojan horse.
Elena’s favorite appears to be “obtuse” also misused and incorrect when she applies it to my analysis in an effort to politically discredit or flippantly dismiss it it, simply because she dis-agree with it.
Obtuse:
a. Lacking quickness of perception or intellect.
b. Characterized by a lack of intelligence or sensitivity
I have had many tests done by college apptitude exams, grades, subjects studied (Physics and Quantum Mechanics, degree in Aero and Ocean Engineering) and by the Air Force as a former pilot that would clasify my ability as way above the average person, who Elena would use such a word toward.
Main Entry: flip·pant
Pronunciation: \ˈfli-pənt\
Function: adjective
Etymology: probably from 1flip
Date: 1599
1archaic : glib, talkative
2: lacking proper respect or seriousness
— flip·pant·ly adverb
Today is Malcolm X’s Birthday.
Peace be upon him.
For anyone who is interested in learning more about Malcolm X, here is a good documentary.
Malcolm X: Make it Plain
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1ywFC3Xk7k&feature=PlayList&p=18B1FB4BBD6454B4&index=0&playnext=1
Michael, if you have to tell us you are smart….
Thank you for the vocabulary lesson. I am well aware of what disingenuous means. I was referring to your disingenuous outrage over your native American ancestors. I was calling it insincere or phony.
I read a book on Malcom X once – indeed, a very interesting person. Didn’t agree with much of his views obviously, but his life story is certainly interesting.
Honestly, Michael, have you now changed your approach from copying and pasting Wikipedia entries, to copying and pasting the dictionary?
To me, encouraging “self deportation” means “let’s persecute them enough so they will leave.” Unfortunately, that’s the real-world interpretation of the phrase.
persecute, prosecute, punish … yes, that’s the idea.