Hullabaloo

Saturday, August 13, 2011

 
Deportation for tailgating

by digby

Can anyone explain the political logic of this to me?

Sen. Gustavo Rivera, a frequent critic of the federal Secure Communities program, expressed significant “disappointment” during a CapTon interview last night with the Obama administration’s reversal on allowing states to opt out.

S-Comm, as it has come to be known, compels local law enforcement officers to share information about new arrests with federal immigration authorities. The goal is to deport illegal immigrants with criminal records. Instead, critics mantain, the program has largely impacted individuals who have committed either no offenses or relatively minor crimes.

In June, Gov. Andrew Cuomo heeded the calls of immigrant advocates and law enforcement officials and suspended New York’s participation in S-Comm, although he did not completely withdraw from the program.

Two other governors – Deval Patrick, of Massachusetts; and Patrick Quinn, of Illinois – also quit S-Comm. (PAtrick’s move was particularly interesting, since he is the country’s only black governor and shares a political strategist, David Axelrod, with Obama, the country’s first black president).

Last week, the Obama administration quietly had the Homeland Security Department terminante its memorandum of agreements with the state on S-Comm, essentially forcing governors to participate in the program whether they want to or not.

What's this about?

President Barack Obama regularly says his administration is enforcing immigration laws more wisely than his predecessor by focusing on arresting the "worst of the worst." He promised in his 2008 presidential campaign to focus immigration enforcement on dangerous criminals. As recently as May 10, Obama said in a speech in El Paso, Texas, that his administration was focused on violent offenders and not families or "folks who are looking to scrape together an income."

Most of the immigrants deported last year had committed drug-related crimes. They totaled 45,003, compared with 36,053 in 2008. Drug-related crime – described as the manufacture, distribution, possession or sale of drugs – has been the No. 1 crime among immigration for years. Drunken driving was third in the number of offenses last year...

But the rise in traffic offenders in the deportation statistics and in some other categories worries immigration advocates, particularly because traffic stops are largely made by police, sheriff's deputies and state highway patrol officers. Local law enforcement has become more involved in immigration enforcement because of new programs that encourage it.

Officers "are using their new authority to remove as many unauthorized people from their jurisdictions as they can, and that frequently means going after traffic violators instead of serious criminals," said Muzaffar Chishti, director of the Migration Policy Institute's office at New York University Law School. The institute is a Washington-based think tank on migration

The only people closely following this ever expanding crusade against illegal immigrants are members of the Hispanic community and the white supremacist types who are fixated on the issue. Everyone else has other things to worry about right now and migration from south of the border is down, due to the bad economy. So what's the purpose of this ongoing harassment of immigrants? It will certainly not gain the votes of any of the white supremacists (duh) and the Hispanic community is appalled. Does the administration think the vaunted Independents will reward them for this too? Or do they simply believe that harassing Hispanics is a good policy on the merits?

It's one thing to alienate activist liberals. The worst that probably happens is they keep their money and spend their time elsewhere, which the billion dollar campaign apparently doesn't seem to think will make a difference for them. But adding to that by also actively alienating Latinos with cruel deportation policies and harassment has to result in a statistically measurable drop in votes. At what point does this relentless pursuit of non-Democratic voters at the expense of the base become electorally self-defeating?

h/t to debcoop
digby 8/13/2011 12:00:00 PM |