|
In this Update: Nearly 600 Detained in Largest Ever Immigration Raid ICE Scraps Scheduled Departure; Vows Increased Enforcement Multiple States Debate In-State Tuition Rates for Illegal Immigrants Nearly 600 Detained in Largest Ever Immigration RaidOn August 25th, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) officials detained 595 immigrants suspected of being in the country illegally at a Howard Industries, Inc. transformer plant in Hattiesburg, MS and the company's headquarters in nearby Ellisville. According to news reports, about 106 of the 595 detained workers were released for humanitarian reasons. Most of the 106 released were mothers with children, who were fitted with ankle bracelets to ensure their return before they were released. Additionally, 475 workers were transferred to an ICE facility in Jena, LA. Of the remaining detained workers, nine were under 18 and were transferred to the custody of the Office of Refugee Resettlement. (Associated Press, August 27, 2008; ICE Press Release, August 26, 2008) An ICE spokeswoman told the Associated Press that those detained were from Brazil, El Salvador, Germany, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Panama, and Peru. She said no company executives had been detained, but this was an "ongoing investigation and yesterday's action was just the first part." (Id.) Howard Industries released a statement saying that the plant was "visited" by immigration agents trying to determine if its employees were citizens or otherwise legally authorized to work in the country. The statement further stated, "Howard Industries runs every check allowed to ascertain the immigration status of all applicants for jobs. It is company policy that it hires only U.S. citizens and legal immigrants." (New York Times, August 25, 2008) By August 27th, a paper in Mississippi reported that hundreds of job applicants had lined up at Howard Industries Inc. to apply for the job openings created by the enforcement effort. (Hattiesburg American, August 27, 2008) The same day, eight suspects arrested in the raid appeared in federal court on identity theft charges. Prosecutors presented as proof fraudulent resident alien cards and Social Security cards along with Howard Industries employment verification forms. The U.S. Magistrate hearing the cases ordered the suspects held without bond because the suspects could "assume another identity and easily flee." (Clarionledger.com, August 27, 2008) Pro-illegal immigration groups were quick to denounce ICE's enforcement effort. Bill Chandler, executive director of the Mississippi Immigrants Rights Alliance, told the New York Times: "It's a real contradiction between our proclaimed values of hard work and family in Mississippi and the actions of local law enforcement, and ICE. I think it's a real affront to our values. They're creating their own terrorism by going after workers."(Id.) ICE Scraps Scheduled Departure; Vows Increased EnforcementOn August 22nd, ICE officials announced they would end a pilot program that offered fugitive illegal aliens with no criminal records the opportunity to turn themselves in for deportation. (The Houston Chronicle, August 22, 2008) The program - known as Scheduled Departure - ran from August 5th to August 22nd in five cities: Santa Ana, CA; San Diego, CA; Phoenix, AZ; Chicago, IL; and Charlotte, NC. (ICE Scheduled Departure Program, August 5, 2008) Out of an estimated 457,000 eligible non-criminal fugitive aliens across the country (and an estimated 30,000 in the five test cities), only eight individuals elected to participate in the program. (The Houston Chronicle, August 22, 2008) Participation in Scheduled Departure was open only to non-criminal fugitive aliens who were not considered a risk to the community. Participants were given the opportunity to coordinate their deportation with ICE and granted up to 90 days to finalize their removal proceedings and make necessary travel plans. (ICE News Release, July 31, 2008) Prior to the program's launch, Julie L. Myers, Homeland Security Assistant Secretary for ICE, stated that Scheduled Departure was meant to address "concerns raised by aliens, community groups, and immigration attorneys who say ICE unnecessarily disrupts families." (Id.) Elias Bermudez, founder of the illegal alien advocacy group Immigrants Without Borders, was one of several activists to criticize ICE and its Scheduled Departure program. "They knew this project was going to be a failure," Bermudez said, adding that his group is now "telling people not to answer their doors (if ICE officers arrive looking for fugitives)." (The Arizona Republic, August 23, 2008) Jim Hayes, Director of Detention and Removal Operations for ICE, reacted with disappointment to the criticism, pointing out that the agency started the program to satiate the demands of many illegal alien supporters who had pled for an alternative to large-scale deportation round ups. (The Houston Chronicle, August 22, 2008) "This does show us that what advocacy groups…don't like is enforcement of the law," said Hayes. (The Washington Post, August 23, 2008) Hayes also noted that in spite of the relatively few people that chose to participate in the program, Scheduled Departure was a financial success. "The eight takers saved the government the $54,000 it would have cost to detain them, more than offsetting the program's $41,000 price tag." (The Houston Chronicle, August 22, 2008) The minimal amount of participation in Scheduled Departure, however, has led ICE to vow to ramp up its enforcement capabilities. "This program proves that the most effective way is the way we have been doing it, through fugitive operations," Hayes said. (The Arizona Republic, August 23, 2008) Hayes noted that the 95 eight-agent teams tasked with tracking down fugitive aliens will soon grow to 104 teams, thanks to a $218 million budget. (The Houston Chronicle, August 22, 2008) "In order to have laws and have them have meaning, there has to be consequences for violating those laws," said Hayes, rebuking illegal immigrant advocates. (The New York Times, August 23, 2008) "If you have laws and no consequences for violating [them], you have anarchy." (Id.) Virtual Fence StalledWork on the virtual fence, a component of the Secure Border Initiative (SBInet), on the U.S. southern border has stopped with no date set for resumption. The work stoppage resulted from a refusal by the U.S. Department of Interior (DOI) to grant the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) permission to use the land for constructing the surveillance towers that form the basis of the virtual fences. (Arizona Daily Star, August 27, 2008) Without permission, no work could begin, and the lead contractor on the project, Boeing Co., was instructed to suspend further construction. The surveillance towers are not covered by a waiver created in the 2005 Real ID Act, which allows the DHS Secretary to waive border projects' compliance with federal regulations. (Id.) DHS has completed only about half of the 670 miles of pedestrian fencing and vehicle barriers it aims to build this year. With the delay in virtual fencing, Michael Friel, a spokesman for Customs and Border Protection (CBP), told news outlets that DHS officials are considering whether to use virtual fencing funding to cover the rising costs of steel, fuel and other items involved in pedestrian and vehicle fence construction. (Federal Computer Week, August 25, 2008) Even though construction has been halted, DHS has received partial approval from DOI for five towers on the Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge in Arizona. Four towers have already been built and an additional seventeen towers are planned for the Tucson segment of the project. However, even if approval is gained in the near future, CBP and Boeing intend to spend an indefinite period of time testing the networks, communications and sensors in a laboratory setting to evaluate how well the systems work together. Friel explained, "We are working to complete those tests prior to deployment. No date has been set, but we are looking at January 2009." (Id.) SBInet's ultimate goal is securing the U.S. borders with Mexico and Canada and its total costs could exceed $30 billion. (Id.; CBP, SBInet Fact Sheet) Multiple States Debate In-State Tuition Rates for Illegal ImmigrantsTwelve years after passage of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, which barred illegal immigrants from receiving state residency tuition benefits at postsecondary schools, community colleges and public universities across the nation remain unclear as to whether to admit undocumented students. For some states, interpreting the law has led to questions of which tuition rates to give undocumented students; while other legislatures have debated whether undocumented students should be admitted at all. The debate arose again this summer when three more states took up the issue and all reached different conclusions. Legislators and administrators in North Carolina spent much of the summer debating a decision by the North Carolina Community College system to ban admission of illegal immigrants - a decision that remains suspended until an outside board can more fully review the law. (News and Observer, August 15, 2008) Just after the debate in North Carolina heated up, South Carolina became the first state to ban all undocumented students from its public colleges and universities. (SC Now, May 28, 2008) And across the country, in Utah, legislators unsuccessfully sought to overturn a previous Utah law which allows in-state tuition rates for undocumented students. (KCPW, August 28, 2008) The contradicting decisions by state legislatures stem from confusion over what federal law explicitly prohibits. The law states, "An alien who is not lawfully present in the United States shall not be eligible on the basis of residence within a State (or a political subdivision) for any postsecondary education benefit unless a citizen or national of the United States is eligible for such a benefit (in no less an amount, duration, and scope) without regard to whether the citizen or national is such a resident." (8 USC 1623) There are currently ten states that have enacted legislation allowing in-state tuition rates for undocumented students: Texas, California, Utah, New York, Washington, Oklahoma, Illinois, Kansas, New Mexico, and Nebraska. (NCSL, July 26, 2006) Conversely, Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, and Oklahoma have all enacted legislation prohibiting illegal aliens from receiving in-state tuition rates. (Id.) The Immigration Reform Law Institute (IRLI) is currently challenging California's state law in the Robert Martinez et al v. Regents of the University of California et al. (See complaint) |
|
Legislative Update - September 2, 2008
All active news articles
