NYT: Obama aggressive on immigration
Despite vows, president relies heavily on predecessorâs policies on illegals
By Julia Preston
The New York Times
updated 5:29 a.m. ET, Tues., Aug 4, 2009
After early pledges by President Obama that he would moderate the Bush administrationâs tough policy on immigration enforcement, his administration is pursuing an aggressive strategy for an illegal-immigration crackdown that relies significantly on programs started by his predecessor.
A recent blitz of measures has antagonized immigrant groups and many of Mr. Obamaâs Hispanic supporters, who have opened a national campaign against them, including small street protests in New York and Los Angeles last week.
The administration recently undertook audits of employee paperwork at hundreds of businesses, expanded a program to verify worker immigration status that has been widely criticized as flawed, bolstered a program of cooperation between federal and local law enforcement agencies, and rejected proposals for legally binding rules governing conditions in immigration detention centers.
âWe are expanding enforcement, but I think in the right way,â Janet Napolitano, the homeland security secretary, said in an interview.
Ms. Napolitano and other administration officials argue that no-nonsense immigration enforcement is necessary to persuade American voters to accept legislation that would give legal status to millions of illegal immigrants, a measure they say Mr. Obama still hopes to advance late this year or early next.
That approach brings Mr. Obama around to the position that his Republican rival, Senator John McCain of Arizona, espoused during last yearâs presidential campaign, a stance Mr. Obama rejected then as too hard on Latino and immigrant communities. (Mr. McCain did not respond to requests for comment.) Now the enforcement strategy has opened a political rift with some immigrant advocacy and Hispanic groups whose voters were crucial to the Obama victory.
âOur feelings are mixed at best,â said Clarissa Martinez De Castro, immigration director of the National Council of La Raza, which has joined in the criticism, aimed primarily at Ms. Napolitano. âWe understand the need for sensible enforcement, but that does not mean expanding programs that often led to civil rights violations.â
Criminal prosecutions increase
Under Ms. Napolitano, immigration authorities have backed away from the Bush administrationâs frequent mass factory roundups of illegal immigrant workers. But federal criminal prosecutions for immigration violations have actually increased this year, according to a study by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, a nonpartisan group that analyzes government data. In April, there were 9,037 immigration cases in the federal courts, an increase of 32 percent over April 2008, the group found.
Ms. Napolitano said in the interview that she would not call off immigration raids entirely as some Hispanic lawmakers have suggested. âWe will continue to enforce the law and to look for effective ways to do it,â she said. âThatâs my job.â
Ms. Napolitano, who as governor of Arizona sparred with Republican legislators seeking tougher steps against illegal immigration, said she was looking for ways to make enforcement programs inherited from President George W. Bush less heavy-handed. She also wants to put the enforcement focus on illegal-immigrant gang members and convicts and on employers who routinely hire illegal immigrants so as to exploit them.
Immigration authorities have started audits of employeesâ hiring documents at more than 600 businesses nationwide. If an employer shows a pattern of hiring immigrants whose documents cannot be verified, a criminal investigation could follow, Ms. Napolitano said.
She has also expanded a federal program, known as E-Verify, that allows employers to verify electronically the identity information of new hires. Immigrant and business groups have sued to try to stop the program, saying the databases it relies on are riddled with inaccuracies that could lead to American citizensâ being denied jobs.
But officials of the Homeland Security Department say technological improvements have enhanced the speed and accuracy of E-Verify. With 137,000 employers now enrolled, only 0.3 percent of 6.4 million queries they have made so far in the 2009 fiscal year have resulted in denials that later proved incorrect, the officials say. That, opponents note, still means false denials for more than 19,000 people.
In addition, Ms. Napolitano has expanded a program that runs immigration checks on every person booked into local jails in some cities. And she recently announced the expansion of another program, known as 287(g) for the provision of the statute authorizing it, that allows for cooperation between federal immigration agents and state and local police agencies.
In extending 287(g), federal officials also drew up a new agreement, which all of some 66 localities currently participating have been asked to sign, that is intended to enhance federal oversight and clarify the priority on deporting those immigrants who are criminal fugitives or are already behind bars.
But advocates for immigrants said the new agreement did not include strong protections against ethnic profiling. They were surprised, they say, that Ms. Napolitano did not terminate the cooperation agreement with the sheriff of Maricopa County, Ariz., Joe Arpaio, who calls himself the âtoughest sheriff in America.â Latino groups in Arizona have accused Mr. Arpaio of using the program to harass Hispanic residents.
âIf they reform the 287(g) program and Arpaio doesnât change, it wonât be reform,â said Frank Sharry, executive director of Americaâs Voice, a national immigrant advocacy group.
Ms. Napolitano said it would be up to Mr. Arpaio, like other current participants, to decide whether to sign and abide by the new cooperation agreement. Separately, the Justice Department has opened a civil rights investigation of Mr. Arpaioâs practices.
Schumer to lead overhaul
The Obama administration has received support for its immigration position from a leading Democrat, Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York, the chairman of the Judiciary subcommittee on immigration, who will be writing an immigration overhaul bill later this year.
In preparation for what is likely to be a furious debate, Mr. Schumer has called on Democrats to show that they are serious about immigration enforcement and is even asking them to stop using the term âundocumentedâ to refer to immigrants who are here illegally.
Democrats have to âconvince the American people there will not be new waves of illegal immigrantsâ after an overhaul passes, Mr. Schumer said in an interview.
Republicans who oppose any legalization of the status of illegal immigrants say they remain unimpressed by the new enforcement measures.
âAfter 20 years of broken promises, it takes a lot more than token gestures,â said Representative Brian P. Bilbray, a California Republican who heads an immigration caucus in the House.
Michael A. Olivas, a professor of immigration law at the University of Houston, said Hispanic advocates were irked by the enforcement measures because they had seen scant sign that the administration was also moving deliberately toward an overhaul bill.
âWe literally have the worst of all worlds,â Professor Olivas said.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32279561/ns/politics-the_new_york_times
Karen Millen
I'm OK with Obama being tough on illegal immigration. This is one "broken" promise I can live with.
1Skb, so am I, but I thought it was interesting that he was sticking to GW's policies when he said he would be different.
2Wow. I really wasn't expecting this. I'm glad to hear it, but I do wonder whats going on behind the scenes. What made him change his policy in this area?
3I don't mind a tough stance on illegal immigration, either. CG, perhaps he changed his mind based on information he didn't have access to until he was the President?
4
Obama.
5***** ***** *****
"The federal government and its bureaucracies dictating who, when, and what kind of treatment you receive is not reform at all."
As most of you know I followed the Obama campaign pretty closely, and I don't remember him saying that he would be softer on illegal immigrants than Bush.
His difference was that he was more "employer focused", versus going after the employees themselves. After all, the employers are the king pins, the ones who ship these people across the border and put them to work in ways that violate labor laws. He has always advocated a strong border defense and cracking down on employers, while at the same time dealing with the immigrants that we already have in the US. I think he also had said that he would be ok with drivers licenses to make sure the 11 million + immigrants we have here can drive safely and get insured, but that doesn't mean that he doesn't think that they shouldn't taking the steps towards citizenship. I think he also supported the idea of a back tax.
To be honest, I was always surprised that Bush didn't do more, but I think it was his loyalty to anything corporate that held him back.
6This is from June 2008. Not exactly a "Broken Promise" or a flip flop. More like he is doing exactly what he said.
Obama:
7"We need immigration reform that will secure our borders, and punish employers who exploit immigrant labor; reform that finally brings the 12 million people who are here illegally out of the shadows by requiring them to take steps to become legal citizens. We must assert our values and reconcile our principles as a nation of immigrants and a nation of laws."
Jillness, I think you are too in awe of Obama to see the truth.
8Thanks for that, Jillness. I guess to me, it doesn't really matter if he is "backtracking" or if this was his intent all along. I am glad that he is doing this.
9That is very objective of you, Martini.
10Why do we bother to give presidents four year terms if we expect any campaign promise, vow, pledge and murmur to be fulfilled in the first six months?
--------------------------
11Health Surtax: âNo, itâs not punishing the rich. If I can afford to do a little bit more so that a whole bunch of families out there have a little more security, when I already have security, thatâs part of being a community."
Roar
--------------------------
12Health Surtax: âNo, itâs not punishing the rich. If I can afford to do a little bit more so that a whole bunch of families out there have a little more security, when I already have security, thatâs part of being a community."
Good point steph.
13Maybe I'm dimwitted this morning but aren't they just enforcing existing law. If that's the case then I see nothing wrong with that.
As for the Sheriff in AZ it's very easy to say he's racially profiling when the clear majority of immigrants by a huge margin in AZ are of Latin/Hispanic descent. If you're Latin and all you see or hear about are raids and ten Latinos are walking out in a row of course in your mind it's going to seem like you're being picked on.
I do believe that there are instances of racial profiling but I'm hard pressed to believe that's the case in AZ. If there were a high percentage of another race of immigrants here illegally in AZ and there was a clear difference between the way the law was applied to them as apposed to Hispanics then I'd say yeah they're right.
14Post A Comment
To post comments, please log in or register.