Immigration Activities and Programs in Immigration Enforcement
Do immigration activities and program immigration enforcement cause burden in America’s cities?
This research question is paramount in the study of Homeland Security and Emergency Management in that, it brings in to view a cost benefit evaluation of the immigration activities and programs. The solution to this will help the legislature when allocating funds for the counties determine the appropriate proportion to be set aside to facilitate their full implementation. The question will also assist the reader evaluate the consequences of removing the criminal aliens and differentiating them with aliens who have no criminal records. The Congress has targeted to offer financial support for the removal of criminal aliens, however, majority of unauthorized aliens in U.S have not been found guilty of committing any crime (Rosenblum, & Kandel, 2011).
The identified hypotheses of this paper are; the cost of Immigration Enforcement to City Budgets and home Economies, Counter-productivity of Immigration Enforcement to Public wellbeing and effectiveness of local Immigration enforcement to target criminal movement.
The cost of Immigration Enforcement to City Budgets and home Economies
This hypothesis is significant to the theory since it tries to explain the burden immigration activities and programs under the DHS put on the shoulders of the tax payers. This paper found that putting into effect broken immigration laws enhances waste and lost income for cities in existing tough fiscal position. By examining 3 federal-local associated programs that control metropolitan communities and their resources in service of national immigration enforcement objectives, that is 287(g), Secure Communities and the Criminal Alien Program, the paper finds out that these programs inflict high costs on local budgets, inefficiently aims dangerous criminals and ascertain counter-productive to defending public wellbeing. In joining up local police into adding up national enforcement duties to their daily duties, national local affiliations strain inadequate police workforce required to fight crime this would also compromise how police relates with immigrant communities that are important for maintenance of the public safety (Sreeharsha, 2010). The research found that, in practice, these programs are likely to encourage racial and ethnic divisions, contributing to violation of civil rights for United States people and ensnare refugees who are not at all criminals or ones that have only committed minor crimes (Ashar, 2002). Due to these reasons, many immigrant targets have backed down this work, and instead concentrates on local rules intended to build community-police confidence level encouraging the immigrant incorporation. Unluckily, the rising Secure Communities program, which requires local government to fully get involved in immigration enforcement, threatens to destabilize these policies (Ashar, 2002)
By continuously threatening the freedom of immigrants and further forcing them go underground, local immigration enforcement efforts threaten cities’ economic development weaken and lower the municipal tax collection too. A good number of immigrants add to the growth of an economy through paying taxes to the local authorities. Both the undocumented and legal immigrants contributes immensely to the building of the local economy in their capacity as workers, consumers of commodities paying of business and personal taxes, and also by inventing in businesses (Rodriguez, 2008). The impact of contributing to economic development is closely felt in the key cities and municipal counties where great numbers of immigrants dwell and carry out their daily activities. In the year two thousand and eight for instance, immigrants contributed an amount equivalent to two hundred and fifteen billion dollars in financially viable activities to New York City, which is the nation’s leading immigrant destination. In addition, a current Fiscal Policy Institute study established that immigrants generate twenty percent of the economic production in the nation’s twenty-five largest urban areas. The programs set by the DHS threatening the existence of these aliens who have no criminal records lower their contribution to the economic expansion. On the other hand, immigration programs like the 287(g) are accompanied by the highest costs that are burden to the cities and counties. For this reason, they drain the resources to support their operations directly for law enforcement agencies (Harrison, & Lloyd, 2012).
Counter-productivity of Immigration Enforcement to Public wellbeing
This hypothesis outlines that, in case of municipal police units, the added duty of implementing immigration laws stimulates demands on police resources required for regular law enforcement (McDonald, 2006). It is evidenced that joining police officers in federal immigration enforcement hinders them from achieving their core goals of daily fighting of crime. This plays major part in compromising public security. By performing immigration responsibilities consumes police time and resources. Law enforcement managements and rank-and-file police officials warn strongly against social immigration enforcement considering the effects it causes to local policing and community security. Various agencies like Major Cities Chiefs Association, for instance stands by the fact that, immigration laws are very complicated and the training necessary to comprehend them would considerably detract from their core duty of the local police to create safe communities. This also affects the budget and the staffing in the police units (Sullivan, 2009). The immigration program diverts the police officers concentration required to handle investigations and solve criminal cases. The concentration, resources and time required to solve the criminal cases is partially used to enforce the immigration laws. The 287(g) program are in one way damaging the local police work, as trained officers are obliged to enforce immigration laws besides their main duties(Sullivan, 2009). This affects public safety since crimes committed are partially handled by under staffed police officers. The compromising of society safety has been evidenced by the increased 911 calls far above their response time in fiscal year two thousands and seven compared to the previous years in Maricopa. Additionally, county detective numbers of arrests made in year 2007 dropped drastically compared to the previous years.
After the implementing of the Criminal Alien program and the community safety together with 287(g), many criminal cases have escaped justice ending up being unsolved. This is because the overburdened police officers are not in a position to tackle these cases effectively (McDonald, 2006). Also due to lack of the necessary training to handle the immigrants, the local citizens have experienced injustices. Majority have failed to raise an alarm in case of crimes committed to them due to fear of being uncovered and be deported. Additionally, unregistered immigrants, authorized immigrants or U.S. citizens who are living in mixed-up type of families may also be indecisive to relate with law enforcement in participating communities, due to fear that it could disclose the status of their unregistered relatives.
Effectiveness of Local Immigration Enforcement to Target Criminal Movement
ICE’s immigration enforcement procedure and its central partnership programs are promoted to concentrate on aliens with criminal records and dangerous criminal aliens who cause threat to public security. This research hypothesis indicates that, these programs frequently discover immigrants in cities who have not committed any crime, or the aliens found guilty of committing relatively inconsequential crimes (Rosenblum, & Kandel, 2011). There is overwhelming facts showing that federal-local partnerships are being used to eliminate great numbers of aliens for violating the status. ICE ACCESS programs as well pick up U.S. citizens in the process, and are susceptible to cultural and ethnic discrimination.
ICE releases regularly report unfolding aggressive crimes perpetrated by aliens and the ACCESS program in charge of their successive deportation. In spite of this reports generated by the ICE in its effort to disclose the importance of federal partnership programs as a critical public security tools, the reports do not reflect true and fair operations in cities (Menjívar & Abrego, 2012). As a result, the cities should not buy the ideas and instead should re-evaluate utilizing their inadequate resources to maintain this work.
The range of local immigration enforcement programs ensnares large number of immigrants who are yet to be convicted of criminal act. A report released by the Department of home land security (DHS) in fiscal year 2009 revealed that great number of persons identified by 287(g) and the Criminal Alien Program were not criminal aliens. These were only immigrants who were yet to be convicted of committing crimes (McDonald, 2006). The research shows that, the high growth in detention and removal of aliens in FY 2005 and 2009 was as a result of increased number of innocent immigrants. Since the inception in the year two thousand and eight, Secure Communities has arrested over fifty thousand innocent immigrants and facilitated removal of many others. In conclusion, effective immigration and enforcement programs need to be established. By so doing, the majority of citizens living in the shadow would be registered hence lowering the burden of detention and removal. This will as well improve the security and economic in the cities (Rosenblum, & Kandel, 2011)
Ashar, S. M. (2002). Immigration enforcement and subordination: the consequences of racial profiling after September 11. Connecticut Law Review,34, 1185.
Harrison, J. L., & Lloyd, S. E. (2012). Illegality at work: Deportability and the productive new era of immigration enforcement. Antipode, 44(2), 365-385.
McDonald, W. F. (2006). Police and immigrants: Community and security in post-9/11 America. Justice and Safety in America’s Immigrant Communities, Princeton University.
Menjívar, C., & Abrego, L. (2012). Legal Violence: Immigration Law and the Lives of Central American Immigrants1. American Journal of Sociology, 117(5), 1380-1421.
Rodriguez, C. M. (2008). The significance of the local in immigration regulation.Michigan Law Review, 567-642.
Rosenblum, M. R., & Kandel, W. (2011). Interior immigration enforcement: Programs targeting criminal aliens. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service.
Sreeharsha, K. (2010). Victims’ Rights Unraveling: The Impact of Local Immigration Enforcement Policies on the Violence Against Women Act. Geo. J. Gender & L., 11, 649.
Sullivan, L. (2009). Enforcing nonenforcement: Countering the threat posed to sanctuary laws by the inclusion of immigration records in the national crime information center database. California Law Review, 567-600.