The number of arrests of undocumented immigrants along parts of the US-Mexico border has decreased from last fiscal year, which has government officials citing the lower number as a proof that it is succeeding in defending its border from immigrants. The Houston Chronicle reports that the number of arrests in border regions for all of Arizona, and much of Texas have dropped drastically: there have been 78% fewer border arrests compared to the previous fiscal year. The El Paso sector alone, among the most heavily-trafficked stretch of border, arrested 30,126 immigrants, a 60% drop from the previous year.
Though the government cites the decrease in arrests as proof that the increase in border patrol agents and harsher laws against immigrants are an affective deterrent, immigration experts warn that this conclusion the federal government should be taken with skepticism. “Total number of arrests” is the only criteria the government is using to measure its success. But the government isn’t considering other potential explanations, some of which may better explain the decline in border arrests. Some data even conflicts with the government’s standard for success: the Rio Grande Valley and San Diego sectors of border actually increase their numbers of arrests in 2007.
Despite their vague goalposts for “success,” there is reason to believe there has been a gradual decline in border crossings; last week’s Census Bureau report claimed that there were approximately 500,000 undocumented border crossings in 2007, down from 1.8 million the year before. In explaining the unknown quantities of immigrants entering that don’t get reported, officials cite the weakened construction industry and other service sectors have discouraged undocumented border entries. “It’s as much an indicator of the economy as of stepped-up enforcement,” said vice president Michael Fix of the nonpartisan think-tank Migration Policy Institute. “If you look at it broadly, what you see is the rate of increase of immigrants is slowing a little bit.”
“When the number of apprehensions are up, they claim it’s a sign of success because they’re apprehending more,” says Michael A. Olivas, professor of immigration law at the University of Houston. “When it’s down, it’s because they’re deterring more. And either of those is efficacious, from their point of view—they’ve got it covered coming and going.”
*****
A Connecticut immigration judge this month ruled that there is sufficient cause to hold hearings to determine whether the arrests of undocumented immigrants last year in New Haven violated their constitutional protections, The New Haven Register reports. Attorneys for the immigrants brought suit, contending that ICE agents who raided two separate residences had conducted illegal searches, lacked probable cause, and arrested immigrants solely on race, all violations of the Fourth and Fifth amendments. If determined to be obtained illegally, their request to suppress any evidence gathered by ICE would likely be granted at trial.
In their defense, attorneys for US Immigration and Customs Enforcement filed briefs that showed they stood by their officers’ conduct, arguing that the immigrants had not proven their cases. Judge Michael Strauss factored this argument in his ruling which tossed out the plaintiffs’ contentions that their First and Tenth amendment rights were violated as well.
While not a complete victory, attorneys for 11 of 31 undocumented immigrants picked up by ICE in the raids were pleased with the ruling. “I think all of our clients were delighted to be able to have a chance to tell their story, not just to the judge … but to the community at large,” said Stella Burch, a Yale Law School student who has worked on this case since the first raid on June 6. The 16 immigrants present at the hearing broke into cheers when the ruling was explained to them by their attorneys outside the courthouse.
This case is the latest in an increasing trend being seen in immigration courts: violations of an immigrant’s constitutional protections. Under the language, constitutional protections apply to all people living in the US; not just its documented citizens. The attorneys for some of the plaintiffs believe that this evidentiary hearing will be Connecticut’s first lawsuit against ICE on the basis of constitutional protection.
*****
A federal judge has denied a motion asking her removal from the case of a former Agriprocessors Inc. supervisor who is awaiting sentencing on immigration violations charges. The Associated Press reports that Martin De La Rosa-Loera, who pled guilty to aiding and abetting the harboring of undocumented immigrants, filed court documents asking for Chief Judge Linda R. Read to recuse herself, questioning her impartiality. He argued that Reade worked with the federal government in making arrangements for fast-track judicial proceedings in Waterloo for hundreds of people arrested in the May 12 raid of Agriprocessors, and that she should not have presided over the cases.
He also cites that Reade defended the government’s actions in a May 24th article in The New York Times. “Indeed the government has failed to cite one case in which a court publicly commented to the press regarding charges in a criminal case in which disqualification was not found to be warranted,” he argued in court documents. His motion sought to avoid the participation of any judge who was proactively involved in the immigration enforcement proceedings related to the raid.
In her order issued last week, Reade said she was simply performing her official duties as chief judge for the Northern District of Iowa. She said that in his arguments, De La Rosa-Loera repeatedly confuses logistical cooperation with “collusion or involvement in the executive function of pursuing prosecution,” arguing that De La Rosa-Loera “has not demonstrated that the undersigned has displayed a deep-seated favoritism that would make fair judgment in his case impossible.”
Explaining her Times quote, Reade says her comments were in response to a question about immigration lawyers’ criticisms about court proceedings. “The court merely answered the reporter’s questions about the federal criminal process,” Reade wrote, noting that De La Rosa-Loera’s case wasn’t pending at the time of her comments. “The two statements attributed to the undersigned were isolated and a far cry from the actions and statements of judges in the cases that defendant cites in support of the motion.”
She said she will go forward with sentencing De La Rosa-Loera, who supervised four departments at Agriprocessors. The processing plant was raided earlier this year by ICE agents, resulting in one of the largest immigration raids in US history.
*****
In a new report by the Government Accountability Office, a number of disparities have been found in the US asylum approval process, with some conditions being more favorable and more likely to lead to approval than others, The Miami Herald reports. The GAO report, for example, found that immigrants petitioning for asylum in New York are much more likely to obtain a favorable asylum ruling that other spots in the US; the GAO found that New York courts are 420 times more likely to approve asylum than in the rest of the country.
In addition to geographical differences, the GAO also discovered disparities based upon the petitioning immigrants and the courts themselves. Petitioners who have been detained are more likely to obtain approval than those who have not. Additionally, male judges are 60% more likely to approve asylum petitions than their female counterparts.
The findings correspond with an earlier report by Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, an independent organization at the University of Syracuse, which has collected and analyzed data based on nationwide asylum approvals. According to its findings, the national average of asylum petitions denied between 2002-07 was 58.8%. The average of denials during same period in immigrant-rich Miami was 78.5%, compared to New York’s 38.3%.
In order to resolve the discrepancies, the GAO report recommended that the Executive Office for Immigration Review, a division of the Justice department, “identify the judges that need training.”
“Our immigration court system is not independent, and is not subject to supervision, which has resulted in the selection of judges for political reasons,” said Kerry Sherlock, adjunct director of the American Immigration Lawyers Association. “Those that are looking for a safe refuge in our country should be treated with the same consistency and justice if they apply in Kansas or in California. The result should be the same,” she added.
*****
Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials have entered into an agreement with the Las Vegas Police Department that would allow local officers at the Clark County Detention Center to identify immigration violators and work with ICE to initiate deportation proceedings, Las Vegas’ KVVU News reports.
The department is a high profile addition of city and county applicants to the 287(g) partnership with ICE, a pact that empowers local officers to do some forms of immigration policing. 287(g) alliances have met with some resistance and lawsuits since its implementation, with some critics suggesting that this allows local law enforcement to perform duties outside of their scope and act with little to no regard for federal law and an immigrant’s Constitutional privileges.
