DVD Talk
Obama Admin effectively suspends ICE 287(g) program (immigration) [Archive] - DVD Talk Forum
 
Best Sellers
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
The Longest Day
Buy: $54.99 $24.99
9.
10.
DVD Blowouts
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Alien [Blu-ray]
Buy: $19.99 $9.99
8.
9.
10.

PDA
DVD Reviews

View Full Version : Obama Admin effectively suspends ICE 287(g) program (immigration)


jfoobar
06-26-12, 11:22 AM
Not surprised but still wow:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/06/25/feds-suspend-immigration-enforcement-program-after-arizona-court-ruling/


States seeking to take immigration enforcement into their own hands are facing an uphill climb, after the Supreme Court reined in Arizona's disputed law and the Obama administration followed by rescinding a key partnership allowing local police to enforce federal immigration rules.

The day's decisions further weakened efforts by Arizona, and potentially other states, to take on immigration enforcement themselves.

The high court decision Monday struck down three provisions in Arizona's law, including one that allowed local police to arrest anybody they suspect committed a deportable offense. The ruling left in place, though, a central plank that required local law enforcement during routine stops to check the immigration status of anyone they suspect is in the country illegally -- a provision Democrats claim could lead to "racial profiling," though Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer denies that.

The Obama administration quickly moved to deflate the remaining provision. By Monday afternoon, the Department of Homeland Security had pulled back on a program known as 287(g), which allows the feds to deputize local officials to make immigration-based arrests. According to a Homeland Security official, the administration has determined those agreements are "not useful" now in states that have Arizona-style laws. Immigration and Customs Enforcement has since rescinded that agreement in Arizona -- with the state itself, and with three local law enforcement agencies.

The move means that even if local police step up immigration checks, they'll have to rely on federal officials to make the arrests.

And federal officials made clear that ICE would be selective in responding to the expected rise in calls from Arizona and other police agencies about immigration status. Officials said ICE will not respond to the scene unless the person in question meets certain criteria -- such as being wanted for a felony.

Brewer, in a statement released late Monday, excoriated the administration for the move. She said the decision showed Obama "has demonstrated anew his utter disregard for the safety and security of the Arizona people. ... We are on our own, apparently."

I have heard from a pretty good source that the number is much larger than just three local agencies. It is now at least six, to include the police departments of Phoenix and Mesa, AZ. ICE will effectively not respond at all unless the person detained in a wanted felon or previously removed, etc.[/quote]

From ICE's website, here is what the program is supposed to do:


U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the largest investigative agency in the Department of Homeland Security, is responsible for enforcing federal immigration laws as part of its homeland security mission. ICE works closely with federal, state and local law enforcement partners in this mission.

The 287(g) program, one of ICE’s top partnership initiatives, allows a state and local law enforcement entity to enter into a partnership with ICE, under a joint Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), in order to receive delegated authority for immigration enforcement within their jurisdictions.

So between this and the recent decision regarding immigrants brought here as children, the White House is going full bore to the left on immigration policy. The difference here is that the new non-enforcement policy on children was sure to be fairly popular among moderates. I don't think this one will be nearly as popular.

Of course, will anyone cover this story besides Fox and other right wing news outlets? It certainly has not bubbled up on the three news feeds I read daily so far.

Bluelitespecial
06-26-12, 12:47 PM
I thought he was just suspending it for Arizona? How many times and how many ways does the public have to say enforce our laws, Obama is proving he cares less and less about the good of the American people.

Hokeyboy
06-26-12, 12:52 PM
^Someone's gotta mow my lawn.

fujishig
06-26-12, 04:25 PM
Ridiculous. Basically, it's up to the federal government to enforce immigration laws, and they refuse to do so, so too bad; pass all the laws you want, Federal Immigration Officers will pick and choose who they want to handle.

JasonF
06-26-12, 04:36 PM
Ridiculous. Basically, it's up to the federal government to enforce immigration laws, and they refuse to do so, so too bad; pass all the laws you want, Federal Immigration Officers will pick and choose who they want to handle.

You could say the same thing about antitrust enforcement, or the FEC, or the EPA, or any other number of agencies under conservative administrations.

wishbone
06-26-12, 04:41 PM
And federal officials made clear that ICE would be selective in responding to the expected rise in calls from Arizona and other police agencies about immigration status. Officials said ICE will not respond to the scene unless the person in question meets certain criteria -- such as being wanted for a felony.I wonder if there is a metric that local law enforcement can report with regard to immigration status checks submitted to ICE and how many were acted upon? It probably would be a sobering read on the lack of enforcement on this issue...

http://img267.imageshack.us/img267/3890/77686600.jpg

CaptainMarvel
06-26-12, 04:48 PM
You could say the same thing about antitrust enforcement, or the FEC, or the EPA, or any other number of agencies under conservative administrations.

And I might be inclined to make that comparison if the Federal government had done such a spectacularly ineffectual job performing their task that states felt motivated to tackle the issue themselves, with the Federal government then suing to stop them.

Which of those agencies has dropped the ball so totally as Immigration, while so jealousy guarding the right to be the only one able to possess the ball?

(And you can count out the EPA... there are any number of state agencies that regulate the environment as well.)

Rex Power Colt-Robot Man
06-26-12, 05:05 PM
Or how about integrating the Social Security database in with CJIS/NCIC so when officers run ANYONES ID it will cross reference with SSI. No number, they get to question you.

Nick Danger
06-26-12, 06:28 PM
Or how about integrating the Social Security database in with CJIS/NCIC so when officers run ANYONES ID it will cross reference with SSI. No number, they get to question you.

It's amazing how the world has changed. When I was young, Social Security cards had the message "Not to be used for identification purposes." Evidently, people thought that was important enough to be printed on every card. Driver's licenses didn't have a photograph. People thought it was shocking that the FBI tapped the phone of Martin Luther King, while today no one but the far left cares that the NSA regularly reads emails going to a list of countries. There was no national database of criminals: that sort of thing was left to organizations like the Stasi. People didn't like the idea of the government keeping tabs on the citizens.

Now, all it takes is a politician waving the picture of some boogieman like drug pushers or illegal Mexicans to make people jump aboard every increase in government tracking.

wishbone
06-26-12, 07:04 PM
It's amazing how the world has changed. When I was young, Social Security cards had the message "Not to be used for identification purposes." Evidently, people thought that was important enough to be printed on every card.It didn't start out that way...Q21: When did Social Security cards bear the legend "NOT FOR IDENTIFICATION"?

A: The first Social Security cards were issued starting in 1936, they did not have this legend. Beginning with the sixth design version of the card, issued starting in 1946, SSA added a legend to the bottom of the card reading "FOR SOCIAL SECURITY PURPOSES -- NOT FOR IDENTIFICATION." This legend was removed as part of the design changes for the 18th version of the card, issued beginning in 1972. The legend has not been on any new cards issued since 1972.http://www.ssa.gov/history/hfaq.htmlWhen Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the Social Security Act in 1935, it did not mention the use of Social Security numbers, but it did authorize some type of record-keeping scheme. A year later, the Treasury Department ordered the issuance of an account number to each worker covered by Social Security to keep track of earnings, collect payments and pay old-age benefits.

Even then, there were privacy concerns. ''There was a lot of labor strife in the 1930's, a lot of employer opposition to unions, and when Social Security numbers were first issued, there was concern that they not be used for blacklisting union organizers,'' said Robert M. Ball, a former Commissioner of Social Security.

In 1943, an executive order required Federal agencies to use Social Security numbers whenever they set up new record systems to identify individuals. But in the 1940's and 1950's, the Government made relatively little use of the numbers. That began to change in 1961, when the Civil Service Commission adopted Social Security numbers as the official identifiers of Federal employees. A year later the Internal Revenue Service began using the numbers to identify taxpayers.

But use of the numbers really exploded with the computer revolution of the 1960's. Federal, state and local governments, banks, credit bureaus, hospitals and colleges found that the numbers were handy for keeping track of people in their computers.

In 1972, Congress, concerned about welfare fraud and illegal immigration, directed the Social Security Administration to issue numbers to people who receive or apply for Federal benefits, and to legal aliens when they enter the country.

And Congress has repeatedly authorized new uses of the number, requiring people to disclose their number to get welfare, Medicaid, food stamps, Government loans and other Federal benefits.

In 1976, Congress authorized states to use Social Security numbers in administering ''any tax, general public assistance, driver's license or motor vehicle registration law.''

Better enforcement of child-support orders was the goal in 1996. Under that year's welfare law, states were required to record the Social Security number of anyone seeking a marriage or occupational license, as well as anyone named in a divorce decree or child support order.

By 1996, things had come full circle. In setting uniform standards for driver's licenses, Congress decreed that Federal agencies may not accept licenses as proof of identity unless they include a Social Security number.http://www.nytimes.com/1998/07/26/weekinreview/the-nation-not-for-identification-purposes-just-kidding.html

I'm sure the government had its heart in the right place. ;)

Dr Mabuse
06-26-12, 07:59 PM
It's amazing how the world has changed. When I was young, Social Security cards had the message "Not to be used for identification purposes." Evidently, people thought that was important enough to be printed on every card. Driver's licenses didn't have a photograph. People thought it was shocking that the FBI tapped the phone of Martin Luther King, while today no one but the far left cares that the NSA regularly reads emails going to a list of countries. There was no national database of criminals: that sort of thing was left to organizations like the Stasi. People didn't like the idea of the government keeping tabs on the citizens.

Now, all it takes is a politician waving the picture of some boogieman like drug pushers or illegal Mexicans to make people jump aboard every increase in government tracking.

Nice.

Thus is any type of liberty and freedom in any nation utterly lost via the weak minded, ignorant masses who are easily manipulated by the powerful to follow their agendas. It is fatal to the nation itself in the end. If only men could learn from history.

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is argument of tyrants. It is the creed of slaves." - William Pitt

Now the state fancies itself the one to decide what you put in your own body... and that seems 'normal' to the mindless masses. Hell even the British weren't that despotic.

"The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which." - George Orwell

Josh-da-man
06-26-12, 08:51 PM
It's amazing how the world has changed. When I was young, Social Security cards had the message "Not to be used for identification purposes." Evidently, people thought that was important enough to be printed on every card. Driver's licenses didn't have a photograph. People thought it was shocking that the FBI tapped the phone of Martin Luther King, while today no one but the far left cares that the NSA regularly reads emails going to a list of countries. There was no national database of criminals: that sort of thing was left to organizations like the Stasi. People didn't like the idea of the government keeping tabs on the citizens.

True, but you did have draft cards back in those halcyon days.

Superboy
06-27-12, 01:24 AM
And I might be inclined to make that comparison if the Federal government had done such a spectacularly ineffectual job performing their task that states felt motivated to tackle the issue themselves, with the Federal government then suing to stop them.

Which of those agencies has dropped the ball so totally as Immigration, while so jealousy guarding the right to be the only one able to possess the ball?

(And you can count out the EPA... there are any number of state agencies that regulate the environment as well.)

That's exactly why I think the government should just step aside and just let the free market decide who businesses should hire. All workers who get paid some sort of absurd "livable wage" just end up driving up costs for businesses and putting strain on the job creators. If we just got rid of the minimum wage and drove them down to, say, $2 an hour, our country would be so much better off.

Superboy
06-27-12, 01:35 AM
True, but you did have draft cards back in those halcyon days.

We still have draft cards, the only difference is that we haven't actually had a draft.

DVD Polizei
06-27-12, 02:08 AM
Awesome. This will guarantee Obama will lose this next election, and then a Republican President can repeal this.

CaptainMarvel
06-27-12, 08:14 AM
That's exactly why I think the government should just step aside and just let the free market decide who businesses should hire. All workers who get paid some sort of absurd "livable wage" just end up driving up costs for businesses and putting strain on the job creators. If we just got rid of the minimum wage and drove them down to, say, $2 an hour, our country would be so much better off.
That is a complete non sequitur to anything said here. Do you have a point, or is this just another crazy post?

Superboy
06-29-12, 06:21 PM
That is a complete non sequitur to anything said here. Do you have a point, or is this just another crazy post?

The problem with illegals is that they're underbidding jobs - employers don't have to pay them as much, and they get out of paying FICA, SDI, and payroll taxes. they also don't have to pay insurance for their workers. It's clear why: the price of hiring an American is just too damn high. If we eliminated the minimum wage, or drove it down to a point that Americans could actually compete, this wouldn't be a problem.

Why do you want more government intervention? THE GOVERNMENT CAN'T DO ANYTHING RIGHT! they spent 1 BILLION DOLLARS on a fence that was never built! that's twice as much as the Solyndra debacle BTW. Why do you trust the government to solve this? All they're going to do is waste billions of taxpayer dollars. Let the free market decide! the government does not have the right to tell employers who to hire.

Superboy
06-30-12, 11:32 AM
Anyway, you were saying? or was that just another nonsensical rant backed up by no-facts and links to white supremacist blogs?

jfoobar
06-30-12, 12:06 PM
The problem with illegals is that they're underbidding jobs - employers don't have to pay them as much, and they get out of paying FICA, SDI, and payroll taxes. they also don't have to pay insurance for their workers. It's clear why: the price of hiring an American is just too damn high. If we eliminated the minimum wage, or drove it down to a point that Americans could actually compete, this wouldn't be a problem.

There is a lot of truth to your first statements, but your second statements contradict it. How does driving down or eliminating the minimum wage help?

If you are under the impression that all these migrant farm workers and illegals working in meat packing plants, etc. are making less than minimum wage, you are mistaken. I'm sure a few probably are, but the average migrant farm worker salary from several years ago was still something like two dollars over the minimum wage. They get the jobs because they will work for less, yes, but the effect is that Americans don't want those jobs. Making it easier for the people that run these lettuce and strawberry fields or meat processing plants to pay less legally will not suddenly make Americans want these jobs.

Let the free market decide! the government does not have the right to tell employers who to hire.

This line gets funnier every time I see it. The right answer is a logical balance between government regulation and business acting in its own self interest (aka, the "free market"). Go too far one way or the other, and you are met with disaster.

I assume you are against child labor laws, overtime laws, OSHA regulations as a whole, restaurant health inspections, etc.?

wishbone
06-30-12, 12:56 PM
That is a complete non sequitur to anything said here. Do you have a point, or is this just another crazy post?Anyway, you were saying? or was that just another nonsensical rant backed up by no-facts and links to white supremacist blogs?I guess this belongs here, but after lithium, lamitrigine, valproic acid, depakote, carbamazepine, oxcarbazepine, sertraline, trazodone, citalopram, flouxetine, venlefaxine, buproprion, paroxetine, aripiprazole, risperidone, THC, and desoxyn have failed me, i've entered a clinical trial for ketamine. Yum.http://i47.tinypic.com/2n0vtb4.jpg

Ketamine, darling.
Ketamine, sweetheart.