March 16, 2009
By Steven T. Dennis
Roll Call Staff
http://www.rollcall.com/issues/54_102/news/33154-1.html

Hispanic lawmakers, with the support of Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), are in the throes of a nationwide campaign to pressure President Barack Obama to put immigration reform on the priority list.

“The president is silent,” said Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.), who is leading a 19-city tour to build grass-roots support for comprehensive reform. “If the president doesn’t set it as part of his agenda, it won’t happen.”

Obama so far has barely mentioned immigration as he focuses on the faltering economy. Gutierrez and others in the Congressional Hispanic Caucus had urged Obama to call for comprehensive reform this year in his joint address to Congress last month, to no avail.

Gutierrez and other Hispanic Members want Obama to first use his executive authority to stop raids and deportation of immigrants, which they say splits up families. Then, they want him to push hard for comprehensive legislation.

“We are going to go from city to city and church to church until the voices of our community are heard by the president,” Gutierrez said.

Obama is in a difficult political position. He won the election in part because of unprecedented support from Hispanic voters who heard his promise to fight for immigration reform, yet he also faces the difficult calculus of pushing to legalize illegal workers at a time when millions of Americans are losing their jobs.

Yet Hispanic lawmakers and many Congressional Democrats say they don’t think the issue can wait. After a series of attempts under former President George W. Bush’s administration, lawmakers in both parties were unsuccessful in reaching agreement on a way forward on the politically volatile issue.

Gutierrez enlisted some high-profile Members on his national tour – including the Speaker at a stop on March 7 in San Francisco.

Pelosi spoke passionately about the need for comprehensive immigration reform soon and urged an end to enforcement raids that fracture families, calling the policy “un-American.”

“Who in our country would not want to change a policy of kicking in doors in the middle of the night and sending a parent away from their families?” Pelosi asked. “It must be stopped. It must be stopped. … The raids must end. The raids must end.”

However, a House Democratic leadership aide noted that the Speaker did not set a timetable for action and said leadership will coordinate the timing with the White House and the Senate. Democratic leaders in both chambers widely acknowledge the issue must be addressed at some point but have not committed to a timeline.

Nonetheless, Pelosi’s endorsement of the goals of Hispanic lawmakers has buoyed fresh calls for legislation.

“I saw a much more human side of Nancy Pelosi,” Gutierrez said. “We hope the rest of America responds as she did that day.”

Gutierrez’s campaign attempts to humanize immigration by featuring children who are U.S. citizens bereft of their illegal immigrant parents. The events are being held in large churches, an attempt to bring a Biblical and moral dimension to the fight, Gutierrez said.

The attendees sign petitions to Obama, which will be presented to him when Hispanic lawmakers meet with the president, Gutierrez said.

“Look, you have it within your power to stop these separations of families. You stated it as a goal and you made a commitment,” Gutierrez said of Obama. “He made it to me when I endorsed him. And we want him to keep his promise. It’s as simple as that.”

Hispanics understand that Obama needs to focus first on the economy but don’t want to be told to wait another year for action, Gutierrez said.

“How long do we wait? … The families can’t wait,” he said. “Explain that to the three 9-year-olds in Providence, R.I., who testified that they lost their dads. Sorry, you’re just going to have to grow up without a father?”

Hispanic Members have already met with Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, who agreed to review the department’s policies on raids that round up illegal workers after a raid in Bellingham, Wash.

“I’m tired of the policy where we wanted to tell the American people, ‘You’re safer because we got the Windex-wielding woman who works at Wal-Mart at 1 a.m.,’” Gutierrez said.

Gutierrez said enforcement efforts should be redirected to fighting gangs, smugglers and other criminals, instead of immigrant workers.

White House spokesman Nick Shapiro said Friday that Obama is still committed to fixing the broken immigration system.

“The president is serious about immigration reform. He said we will start the debate this year, and this continues to be the plan,” Shapiro said. “Anytime a raid like the recent one in Washington state happens, it is a reminder of how much work we need to do to address a broken immigration system.”

Obama said last week that he has started to talk about the prospects of moving forward with legislation.

“But obviously we’ve got a lot on our plate right now,” the president said. “And so what we can do administratively, that’s where we’re going to start.”

A House Republican aide close to the issue said the GOP does not expect Obama to push hard this year given the state of the economy, saying: “The Obama team is smart, and they are looking at this and realizing this is a very tough sell.”

“How do you make the argument when you have 7 million illegal immigrants in the workforce and you have 12.5 million Americans out of work?” the aide asked.

But Frank Sharry, executive director of America’s Voice, a group backing legalization of illegal immigrants, said his sense is that the Obama White House would like to do something as early as this fall, but the timing will depend on everything from the state of the economy to Obama’s poll ratings to the status of the rest of his agenda.

“I don’t think they’ll have a moment of truth discussion until this summer,” he said.

Sharry said the high unemployment rate would have an impact, though, with likely less emphasis in the legislation on adding new work visas.

And while opponents will surely argue that illegal immigrants are taking jobs from Americans, supporters will argue that ending the shadow economy would level the playing field among employers and add to tax revenues, Sharry said.

By NINA BERNSTEIN, NY TIMES

The raids on homes around the country were billed as carefully planned hunts for dangerous immigrant fugitives, and given catchy names like Operation Return to Sender.

And they garnered bigger increases in money and staff from Congress than any other program run by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, even as complaints grew that teams of armed agents were entering homes indiscriminately.

But in fact, beginning in 2006, the program was no longer what was being advertised. Federal immigration officials had repeatedly told Congress that among more than half a million immigrants with outstanding deportation orders, they would concentrate on rounding up the most threatening — criminals and terrorism suspects.

Instead, newly available documents show, the agency changed the rules, and the program increasingly went after easier targets. A vast majority of those arrested had no criminal record, and many had no deportation orders against them, either.

Internal directives by immigration officials in 2006 raised arrest quotas for each team in the National Fugitive Operations Program, eliminated a requirement that 75 percent of those arrested be criminals, and then allowed the teams to include nonfugitives in their count.

In the next year, fugitives with criminal records dropped to 9 percent of those arrested, and nonfugitives picked up by chance — without a deportation order — rose to 40 percent. Many were sent to detention centers far from their homes, and deported.

The impact of the internal directives, obtained by a professor and students at Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law through a Freedom of Information lawsuit and shared with The New York Times, shows the power of administrative memos to significantly alter immigration enforcement policy without any legislative change.

The memos also help explain the pattern of arrests documented in a report, criticizing the fugitive operations program, to be released on Wednesday by the Migration Policy Institute, a nonpartisan research organization in Washington.

Analyzing more than five years of arrest data supplied to the institute last year by Julie Myers, who was then chief of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the report found that over all, as the program spent a total of $625 million, nearly three-quarters of the 96,000 people it apprehended had no criminal convictions.

Without consulting Congress, the report concluded, the program shifted to picking up “the easiest targets, not the most dangerous fugitives.”

It noted, however, that the most recent figures available indicate an increase in arrests of those with a criminal background last year, though it was unclear whether that resulted from a policy change.

The increased public attention comes as the new secretary of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, has ordered a review of the fugitive teams operation, which was set up in 2002 to find and deport noncitizens with outstanding orders of deportation, then rapidly expanded after 2003 with the mission of focusing on the most dangerous criminals.

Peter L. Markowitz, who teaches immigration law at Cardozo and directs its immigration legal clinic, said the memos obtained in its lawsuit reflected the Bush administration’s effort to appear tough on immigration enforcement during the unsuccessful push to pass comprehensive immigration legislation in 2006, and amid rising anger over illegal immigration.

“It looks like what happened here is that the law enforcement strategy was hijacked by the political agenda of the administration,” he said.

Kelly A. Nantel, a spokeswoman for the immigration agency, defended the program. “For the first time in history, we continue to reduce the number of immigration fugitive cases,” she said, noting that the number of noncitizens at large with outstanding deportation orders, which peaked at 634,000 in the 2007 fiscal year, is now down to about 554,000. “These results speak for themselves and they are consistent with Congress’s mandate: locate and remove immigration absconders.”

Ms. Nantel said the number of fugitives with criminal backgrounds arrested in the 2008 fiscal year rose to 5,652, or 16 percent of 34,000 arrests, and nonfugitives fell to 8,062, or 23 percent.

Many Americans have welcomed roundups of what the agency calls “ordinary status violators” — noncitizens who have no outstanding order of deportation, but are suspected of being in the country unlawfully, either because they overstayed a visa or entered without one.

But Michael Wishnie, one of the authors of the report, who teaches law at Yale, said that random arrests of low-level violators in residential raids not only raised a new set of legal and humanitarian issues, including allegations of entering private homes without warrants or consent and separating children from their caretakers, but was “dramatically different from how ICE has sold this program to Congress.”

“If we just want to arrest undocumented people,” he said, “we can do it much more cheaply.”

Congressional financing for the fugitive operations program rose to $218 million in the 2008 fiscal year, from $9 million in 2003, as the number of seven-member teams multiplied to 104 from 8.

In Congressional briefings and public statements since 2003, agency officials have repeatedly said that given the vast number of immigrants with outstanding deportation orders, the program will focus its resources on the roughly 20 percent with a criminal background.

An Immigration and Customs Enforcement memo dated Jan. 22, 2004, underscored that commitment: “Effective immediately, no less than 75 percent of all fugitive operations targets will be those classified as criminal aliens” — noncitizens with a criminal record as well as an order of deportation. It added that “collateral apprehensions” — immigration violators encountered by chance during an operation — would not be counted in that percentage.

But on Jan. 31, 2006, a new memo changed the rules. The directive, from John P. Torres, acting director of the agency, raised each team’s “target goal” to 1,000 a year, from 125.

And it removed the requirement that at least 75 percent of those sought out for arrest be criminals. Instead, it told the teams to prioritize cases according to the threat posed by the fugitive, with noncriminals in the lowest of five categories. And it repeated that “collateral apprehensions will not count” toward the 1,000 arrest quota.

But that standard, too, was dropped nine months later. A new memo from Mr. Torres said “nonfugitive arrests may now be included” to reach the required 1,000 arrests. On average, however, it said at least half of those arrested by each team should be fugitives. It also promised to “ensure the maximum availability of detention space for fugitive arrest operations.”

One result was an increase in noncriminals held in immigration detention. Another, the Migration Policy Institute report concluded, was that the percentage of criminal fugitives arrested plummeted, to 9 percent in the year that ended Sept. 30, 2007, from 39 percent in the 2004 fiscal year.

That same year, 15,646, or 51 percent of those arrested, had an outstanding deportation order, but no criminal record, and 12,084, or 40 percent, were termed “ordinary status violators” who did not fit any of the program’s priority categories.

The report said the program relied on a database riddled with errors, and that many deportation orders were issued without the subject in court, sometimes because of faulty addresses.

The looser rules were reflected in sweeps like one conducted in New Haven in June 2007. During the raid, lawyers at Yale’s immigration law center said, agents who found no one home at an address specified in a deportation order simply knocked on other doors until one opened, pushed their way in, and arrested residents who acknowledged that they lacked legal status.

Of the 32 arrested and scattered to jails around New England, only 5 had outstanding deportation orders, and only 1 or 2 had criminal records.

Link to original article: Targets of Immigrant Raids Shifted

Editor’s Note: The legacy of fear and violence from the Bush administration’s immigration policies can now give way to hope and a reasoned approach to solving the problems of reform. Evelyn Sanchez is the executive director of the Bay Area Immigrant Rights Coalition, and Angela Chan is a juvenile justice attorney with the Asian Law Caucus.

Most San Franciscans agree that the Bush administration leaves a legacy of failed and dysfunctional policies–among the most notable, a broken immigration system. The Bush immigration policy has relied almost solely on one approach: detention and deportation of alleged undocumented immigrants, who were apprehended (often along with lawful residents and even citizens) in violent Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids in neighborhoods all over our country. The raids have left broken families and fearful communities in their wake.

Here in San Francisco, we saw the consequences of this sad legacy when the two-decades old Sanctuary Ordinance and other progressive, well-reasoned policies began to unravel over the past year under the weight of eight years of Bush doctrines.

Under the threat of prosecution by the U.S. Attorney General for the Northern District of California Joseph Russoniello, San Francisco quickly rescinded its longstanding policy toward undocumented youth in the juvenile system and replaced it with one that deprives youth of due process, resulting in some 100 youths being referred by San Francisco officials to ICE thus far. The policy of brute enforcement overcame longstanding local policies that recognized the public safety benefits and sheer good sense of building an inclusive community and the due process rights of every human being. The deportation of immigrant youth, coupled with raids in homes, near schools, and in workplaces, made fear a common emotion among immigrants, here in our city and elsewhere.

With President Barack Obama leading a new administration, we have turned a page in our nation’s history. By asking us to let hope, not fear, guide us, he has challenged us to think differently about how to best solve our problems. Problems are not solved when people are afraid, when they aren’t sure how they are going to earn a living or keep their children safe. Fear does not inspire compassion or compromise, and certainly does not inspire trust. In contrast, hope is an undeniably better inspiration for problem solving, and has always been a driving force in the immigrant community. Immigrants are part of our communities and they are part of many of our families. If we are going to solve our problems, and create just and humane policies toward immigrants, policies that we can be proud of, we are going to have to let hope lead us there.

Today, a coalition of groups that has been working with San Francisco’s supervisors, community leaders, social service providers, and faith groups is gathering at City Hall to call for a halt to the raids and for support of fair and humane immigration reform. We will be joining our voices with thousands of others across California and across our country who found hope in the words of our new President Barack Obama during his inauguration speech:

“We are shaped by every language and culture, drawn from every end of this Earth; and because we have tasted the bitter swill of civil war and segregation, and emerged from that dark chapter stronger and more united, we cannot help but believe that the old hatreds shall someday pass; that the lines of tribe shall soon dissolve; that as the world grows smaller, our common humanity shall reveal itself; and that America must play its role in ushering in a new era of peace.”

These are deeply inspiring words of hope to America’s immigrants, and they call on us to recognize our common humanity and to work together fearlessly to address our most complex problems in the hardest of times. Today, as we hold a vigil in front of City Hall in support of fair and humane immigration policies, we have taken the first steps in this new era towards hope for our country and for our city, and for those who wish to find and build their dreams here with us.

New American Media, Commentary , Evelyn Sanchez and Angela Chan: