Hey all!
It’s been a
while, and I’ll do my best to summarize my current work with few(er) words.
Classes started
less than two weeks after I got back from Nogales, and I’ve been in the thick
of it since. (For anyone interested in a quick summary of my summer border
work, there’s an article in Whitman’s newspaper). I’m still working on
immigration issues, but from a local perspective in this corner of Washington.
I’m in a
politics research course this semester, “State of the State for Washington
Latinos: Community-Based Research as a Democratic Practice.” It’s a mouthful,
but basically we (the 15 of us in the class) work with community organizations
in Eastern Washington to research problems affecting Latino communities in the
surrounding counties. By the end of the semester, we develop a report that
describes the problem, analyzes the factors at play, and gives recommendations
to community organizations, service providers, and Washington legislators. This
class/program has been going since 2005, and has provided a lot of needed
information to community members and actually changed Washington State policy, and I’m honored to be a part of it. Most of our work is done with
bilingual education programs, voting rights, and access to resources. BUT (this
is where I get giddy-excited) my research group is looking at “Secure
Communities,” a federal immigration program, and its impact on four different
counties (Yakima, Walla Walla, Benton, and Franklin) since its local
implementation this summer.
Secure
Communities, or S-Comm, is an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) program
that was first introduced in 2008. S-Comm is a development of programs like
287(g) and CAP (Criminal Alien Program) that employ local resources to do the
work of federal immigration agencies. Under S-Comm, the fingerprints of all
individuals booked into a local jail are scanned and forwarded from the FBI
database to DHS (the fed. organization that oversees immigration and security).
At DHS, their fingerprints are checked against an electronic biometric database
(IDENT) that has information on those who have applied for “immigration
benefits,” those who have a visa/work permit/etc., travelers, and immigrants
who have previously violated immigration law. The local jail receives an
automated response if the person has a questionable immigration status, and
they are placed on a “detainer” or an “immigration hold” (i.e. held because of
their immigration status, regardless of the crime they may be charged with,
convicted of, or witness to). Within 48 hours, ICE interviews them over a video
conference system to determine whether or not they are “deportable,” after which
they are transferred to federal custody, sent to a detention facility, and
tried for deportation.
The program’s
stated intent is to remove “dangerous criminal aliens” and to “improve accuracy
and increase speed in identification” of un-documented individuals. The thing
is, that’s not how the numbers play out. Of those who have been deported by
S-Comm, 66% were charged only on immigration grounds – i.e., two-thirds
“criminals” deported were criminal only because the broke immigration law. 19%
were charged on other (minor) criminal grounds, such as traffic violations or
minor theft. Only 8% were charged
with an aggravated felony. S-Comm functions to deport as many undocumented
immigrants as possible, as rapidly as possible, with as little human interface
so as to extend resources. (There are many more argument points on the
un-stated intents of S-Comm, but I’ll save those for later).
S-Comm was
originally designed as an optional program that counties could choose to adopt
into their community. After the first year or two of the program, several
participating counties asked to opt out of the program after they’d tried it
out for a while, and they were denied. DHS re-defined “optional” as ‘you can
opt in, but you can’t opt out.’ More recently they declared that all counties in the U.S. will be required to adopt S-Comm by 2013. S-Comm is more than just a ‘sweeping program’ to collect and deport more
people without papers. It’s also a growing database and developing biometrics
program. A sub-objective of S-Comm is to map the “criminal alien” and “illegal
immigrant” populations throughout the U.S. in order to focus their attention
and resources on larger undocumented populations (i.e. immigration raids and
enforcement in immigrant communities). For a well-crafted, concise S-Comm
report, see the Oct. 2011 report from the Chief Justice Earl Warren Institute.
So why am I
researching Secure Communities (other than to fulfill the need for
compassionate, ethical knowledge-sharing)? This summer, four counties in
Eastern Washington adopted the S-Comm. OneAmerica, an immigrant rights
organization, came to our class asking for research on the affect of S-Comm on
the Latino community and their relationship with local law enforcement. Many
people fear racial profiling and increased deportation/family separation as a
result of the program. I’ve been talking with Latino community members,
leaders, and the local sheriffs and sifting through county records for the past
two months, and will have a final report in December. My main questions are:
- · How has Secure Communities (SComm) affected the interactions between the Latino community and local law enforcement in Benton and Franklin counties, and how has SComm affected public perception of local law enforcement?
- · What personal experiences with local law enforcement, detention, and/or SComm inform Latino residents’ perception of SComm within their community?
- · What are the fiscal costs SComm and Tri-Cities residents’ perceptions of social costs and/or benefits to the community (i.e. community safety, community cohesiveness, increased or decreased violence, change in relationship with law enforcement)?
- · What do county data show regarding the proportions of individuals who are booked into federal custody through Secure Communities, and/or who are deported through SComm, and/or who are not charged with or convicted of criminal offences, in comparison with pre-SComm data of immigration holds and detentions?
Today I’m in
Seattle, WA at OneAmerica's National Immigrant Integration Conference. We’re sitting in
on panels and talking with people about our early research. There are 600
dynamic, energized, loving people from all fields – education, healthcare,
social work, community organizing, legislation, research, union work, etc. – in
constant dialogue about immigrant issues and how to construct a more just,
receptive democracy. Looking around the maple-walled conference room this
morning, I feel urgency and relief. Urgency in that immigrant rights are a
pressing, transforming area of aid/advocacy/work/education. Relief in that I am
sitting with six-hundred people who
working to change our society, to ensure immigrant rights. We are not alone in
this struggle – this is a nation-wide, world-wide conversation, and there are
strong networks of support and solidarity that we can rest in. This morning,
the dark burden of the U.S. humanitarian border crisis does not slump so
heavily on my shoulders. I can breathe a little deeper and walk a little lighter, knowing that there is power and care in our many hands.
No comments:
Post a Comment