1 / 21

The Constriction of Local Police for Mass Deportation

This talk explores the principles, implications, and consequences of the federal policy of mass deportation and the involvement of local police in immigration enforcement.

aurelio
Download Presentation

The Constriction of Local Police for Mass Deportation

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The Conscription of Local Police for the Federal Policy of Mass Deportation Doris Marie Provine, Arizona State University 1stCrimmigration Control Conference October 11 – 12, 2012 University of Coimbra Coimbra, Portugal

  2. Organization of this talk: • Principles in enforcement policy. • Devolution, a policy for our era. • Consequences for immigrants. • Implications for public policy.

  3. Three basic principles that guide immigration enforcement

  4. 1stprinciple of immigration enforcement: Institutional capacity • No capacity, no federal control = 1770s – 1880s – so called “lost era” of immigration control when all controls were local. • Limited capacity, limited controls = 1880s – 1930s – federal rules at ports of entry; localities free to enforce their own rules. • Naturalization = the exception that proves the rule.

  5. 2nd principle of immigration enforcement: Supply and demand • Raids occur when demand for immigrant labor is slack, other things being equal = 1930s – 1960s – • Massive multi-state sweeps during downturns. • Civil rights not a concern at this time • Local police make up for the “enforcement gap”

  6. 3rd principle of immigration enforcement: larger social trends matter (in this case legalization) • Civil rights era --> even immigrants have some due process rights = 1970s – 2000s –legally correct raids, increasing in frequency with popular pressure. • Postville 2008 = the exception that proves the rule.

  7. Devolution – a policy of our era.

  8. Globalization breeds anxiety • Global competitiveness demands high legal immigration. • Outsourcing option makes employment less secure, less remunerative. • Porous borders needed to attract investment, tourism, and trade. • Shrinking middle class, cultural hegemony threatened, economy seems vulnerable.

  9. But also weakens the capacity of central governments to respond: • Demands for a secure border have outpaced federal resources. Vis Prop. 187 (1994 CA). • Nationalization of immigration experience increases pressure. • Local politicians see an opportunity..

  10. The solution? Devolution • Devolution a familiar strategy in other contexts under American federalism. • Local police have always been valued as a “force multiplier.” • The federal government can anticipate enthusiasm from states to assist.

  11. Devolution in law • 1996: Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act sets up 287(g) training option for local police (jail, patrol). Power delegated through memoranda of agreement. • 2002: Memo from Attorney General of US gives local police authority to arrest felons with immigration violations. (direct executive action) • 2005: Data sharing begins – immigrant violators incorporated into criminal data bases. (indirect administrative action)

  12. Devolution evolves • From 287(g) to Secure Communities: • From voluntary to mandatory • From assistance in arrest and booking to all data shared • Scope!! • From 63 participating agencies to all jails (every holding facility in US). • From less than 1500 officers to all persons with law-enforcement authority – including conservation officers, city police, state troopers….

  13. Consequences: AZ as exemplar

  14. Relevant AZ history • 1911 - Statehood borders decided on racial grounds. • 1920s– efforts to prefer white workers (leads to Supreme Court suit) • Restrictive covenants. • Churches segregated. • 1953 legal segregation ends. • Still reflected in housing and education patterns.

  15. Relevant AZ laws • 1994 Chandler Roundup – results in CR suit. • 2004 Prop 200 – Denies social services, requires providers to report unauthorized residents, proof of citizenship. • 2005 Anti-trafficking law (see below). • 2006 – Prop. 100 – denies bail to unauthorized residents, no punitive damages, English only, no in-state tuition.

  16. In 2006, anti-trafficking law interpreted to make being smuggled a crime 1427 co-conspirators, 244 coyotes

  17. Add to this • 287(g) agreements allow Maricopa sheriff to arrest immigrants and book them for pick up by federal agents. • Crime suppression sweeps in immigrant neighborhoods (677 arrests). • 2008 Legal Workers Act (327 immigrant arrests)

  18. SB1070 • Provides state laws to support more arrests. • Requires all local police agencies to participate to the maximum, or face lawsuit • Makes immigration scrutiny part of every arrest where officer’s suspicions aroused. • These parts of SB1070 are now in effect.

  19. Result? In past several months, more than 5000 calls for information, mostly on how to establish guardianships for one’s children after deportation.

  20. Implications?

  21. A new era of immigration policing • Federal government will continue to demand local help…. But on its terms and with only limited oversight. • Localities will have lots of room for slippage at state, local, and individual levels. • Immigrants will have to consider worst case scenarios – all police are suspect. • Communities will be less safe with loss of community policing.

More Related