enforcement

Oregon Department of Corrections: Criminal Alien Report January 2017

The Oregon Department of Corrections (DOC) January 1, 2017 Inmate Population Profile indicated there were 14,617 inmates incarcerated in the DOC’s 14 prisons.

Data obtained from the DOC indicated that on January 1st there were 953 foreign nationals (criminal aliens) incarcerated in the state’s prison system; more than one in every sixteen prisoners incarcerated by the state was a criminal alien, 6.52 percent of the total prison population.

Some background information, all 953 criminal aliens currently incarcerated in the DOC prison system were identified by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), a federal law enforcement agency that is part of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. If an inmate is identified by ICE as being a criminal alien, at the federal law enforcement agency’s request, DOC officials will place an “ICE detainer” on the inmate. After the inmate completes his/her state sanction, prison officials will transfer custody of the inmate to ICE.

Using DOC Inmate Population Profiles and ICE detainer numbers, the following table reveals the total number inmates, the number of domestic and criminal alien inmates along with the percentage of them with ICE detainers incarcerated on January 1st in the state’s prisons.
 

OREGON DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

Month/Day/Year

DOC Total Inmates

DOC Domestic Inmates

DOC Inmates W/ICE detainers

DOC % Inmates W/ICE detainers

January 1, 2017

14,617

13,664

953

6.52

Source: Research and Evaluation DOC Report ICE inmates list 01 January 17 and Inmate Population Profile 01 January 17.

Using DOC ICE detainer numbers, the following table reveals the number and percentage of criminal alien prisoners incarcerated on January 1st that were sent to prison from the state’s 36 counties.
 

OREGON DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

County

DOC Total Inmates W/ ICE Detainers

DOC % Inmates W/ICE Detainers

Marion

232

24.34%

Multnomah

201

21.09%

Washington

187

19.62%

Clackamas

76

7.97%

Lane

50

5.25%

Jackson

35

3.67%

Yamhill

22

2.31%

Umatilla

21

2.20%

Linn

16

1.68%

Klamath

14

1.47%

Polk

14

1.47%

Benton

13

1.36%

Malheur

11

1.15%

Deschutes

10

1.05%

Lincoln

8

0.84%

Jefferson

6

0.63%

Clatsop

5

0.52%

Coos

5

0.52%

Josephine

4

0.42%

Crook

3

0.31%

Douglas

3

0.31%

Tillamook

3

0.31%

Wasco

3

0.31%

Hood River

2

0.21%

Morrow

2

0.21%

Union

2

0.21%

Columbia

1

0.10%

Gilliam

1

0.10%

Lake

1

0.10%

OOS

1

0.10%

Sherman

1

0.10%

Baker

0

0.00%

Curry

0

0.00%

Grant

0

0.00%

Harney

0

0.00%

Wallowa

0

0.00%

Wheeler

0

0.00%

Total

953

100.00%

Source: Research and Evaluation DOC Report ICE inmates list 01 January 17.

Here are the ways Oregon residents were victimized by the 953 criminal aliens.

Using DOC ICE detainer numbers, the following table reveals the number and percentage of criminal alien prisoners incarcerated on January 1st by type of crime.
 

OREGON DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

Crime

DOC Total Inmates W/ ICE Detainers

DOC % Inmates W/ICE Detainers

Sex Abuse

185

19.41%

Rape

170

17.84%

Homicide

136

14.27%

Drugs

112

11.75%

Sodomy

93

9.76%

Assault

75

7.87%

Robbery

54

5.67%

Kidnapping

26

2.73%

Theft

21

2.20%

Burglary

20

2.10%

Driving Offense

9

0.94%

Vehicle Theft

4

0.42%

Arson

0

0.00%

Forgery

0

0.00%

Escape

0

0.00%

Other / Combination

48

5.04%

Total

953

100.00%

Source: Research and Evaluation DOC Report ICE inmates list 01 January 17.

Using the DOC Inmate Population Profile and ICE detainer numbers from January 1st, the following table reveals the total number inmates by crime type, the number of domestic and criminal alien prisoners incarcerated by type of crime and the percentage of those crimes committed by criminal aliens.
 

OREGON DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

Crime

DOC Total Inmates

DOC Domestic Inmates

DOC Inmates W/ICE Detainers

DOC % All Inmates W/ICE Detainers

Sex Abuse

1,764

1,579

185

10.49%

Rape

974

804

170

17.45%

Homicide

1,672

1,536

136

8.13%

Drugs

889

777

112

12.60%

Sodomy

1,020

927

93

9.12%

Assault

1,973

1,898

75

3.80%

Robbery

1,528

1,474

54

3.53%

Kidnapping

287

261

26

9.06%

Burglary

1,314

1,293

21

1.60%

Theft

1,132

1,112

20

1.77%

Driving Offense

241

232

9

3.73%

Vehicle Theft

456

452

4

0.88%

Arson

73

73

0

0.00%

Forgery

45

45

0

0.00%

Escape

39

39

0

0.00%

Other / Combination

1,210

1,162

48

3.97%

Total

14,617

13,664

953

 

Source: Research and Evaluation DOC Report ICE inmates list 01 January 17 and Inmate Population Profile 01 January 17.

Using DOC ICE detainer numbers, the following table reveals the self-declared countries of origin of the 953 criminal alien prisoners by number and percentage incarcerated on January 1st in the state’s prisons.
 

OREGON DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

Country

DOC Total Inmates W/ ICE Detainers

DOC % Inmates W/ICE Detainers

Mexico

768

80.59%

Guatemala

20

2.10%

El Salvador

14

1.47%

Cuba

13

1.36%

Vietnam

13

1.36%

Honduras

11

1.15%

Ukraine

10

1.05%

Russia

9

0.94%

Federated States of Micronesia

7

0.73%

Cambodia

4

0.42%

Laos

4

0.42%

Marshall Islands

4

0.42%

Philippines

4

0.42%

Canada

3

0.31%

Other Countries

69

7.24%

Total

953

100.00%

Source: Research and Evaluation DOC Report ICE inmates list 01 January 17.

Beyond the DOC criminal alien incarceration numbers and incarceration percentages, per county and per crime type, or even country of origin, criminal aliens pose high economic cost on Oregonians.

An individual prisoner incarcerated in the DOC prison system costs the state approximately ($94.55) per day.

The DOC’s incarceration cost for its 953 criminal alien prison population is approximately ($90,106.15) per day, ($630,743.05) per week, and ($32,888,744.75) per year.

Even taking into account fiscal year 2016 U.S. Bureau of Justice Assistance, U.S. Department of Justice, State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP) award of $1,788,075.00, if the State of Oregon receives the same amount of SCAAP funding for fiscal year 2017, the cost to incarcerate 953 criminal aliens to the DOC will be at least ($31,100,669.75).

None of preceding cost estimates for the DOC to incarcerate the 953 criminal aliens includes the dollar amount for legal services (indigent defense), language interpreters, court costs, or victim assistance.

Bibliography

Oregon Department of Corrections Population Profile January 1, 2017:
http://www.oregon.gov/doc/RESRCH/docs/inmate_profile_201701.pdf

Oregon Department of Corrections Population Profile (unpublished MS Excel workbook) titled Incarcerated Criminal Aliens Report dated January 1, 2017.

Oregon Department of Corrections Issue Brief Quick Facts IB-53, January1, 2017:
http://www.oregon.gov/doc/OC/docs/pdf/IB-53-Quick%20Facts.pdf

U.S. Bureau of Justice Assistance, State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP), 2017 SCAAP award: https://www.bja.gov/funding/FY2016-SCAAP-Award-C.PDF

 

Oregon lawmakers push to repeal sanctuary state designation, make English official language

...Gov. Kate Brown, Senate Majority Leader Ginny Burdick, D-Portland, House Majority Leader Jennifer Williamson, D-Portland, and House Speaker Tina Kotek, D-Portland -- have all said they would not allow legislation rescinding Oregon's sanctuary state designation to progress. On the contrary, Brown has signed an executive order strengthening Oregon's laws shielding undocumented immigrants and ...

Williamson said in a statement Wednesday that she's "appalled" House Republicans would consider repealing the state's sanctuary designation.

"Oregon is better than this," she said. "This bill only serves to further divide and polarize our state, to scapegoat and threaten our immigrant populations."

House Bill 2917, sponsored by Esquivel, Nearman and Rep. Bill Post, R-Keizer, would require state agencies and contractors they hire to use the federal E-Verify system, which allows employers to check that prospective laborers are legally allowed to work in the United States.

Sheriffs dismiss a major Democratic talking point on sanctuary cities

Several sheriffs across the country have spoken out against the idea that sanctuary city policies give illegal aliens more confidence to work with local law enforcement. Sanctuary city advocates claim that many illegal aliens will not report crimes, even if they are the victims, because they are afraid their illegal status will be discovered and they will be deported.

"I've not even seen anecdotal evidence," National Sheriffs' Association executive director, Jonathan Thompson, told the Washington Examiner. "The sad thing is that [this claim] suggests that people here are aware of criminal activity and are not reporting it. We have to give them specific dispensation so that they're reporting crimes?”

Sheriff Chuck Jenkins of Frederick County, Md., who was called last April to testify in a House of Representatives hearing on the effectiveness of immigration policies, said, "I believe the illegal alien community is smart enough to know that there are protections in place that if they are victims, not to put them into removal custody…They can request a U-visa — basically gives them asylum from any deportation or removal."

Sam Page, a sheriff in Rockingham County, N.C., for almost 20 years, said, "Some people in government at those levels want to be able to pick and choose what laws they enforce. If there are laws on the books, then we enforce the laws. And the legislature and Congress, they enact legislation. If they don't like the laws, then they need to change the laws, but you don't pick and choose which laws you enforce."

You can read the full article at The Washington Examiner.

Statement from Secretary Kelly on recent ICE enforcement actions

WASHINGTON – Last week, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) launched a series of targeted enforcement operations across the country. These operations targeted public safety threats, such as convicted criminal aliens and gang members, as well as individuals who have violated our nation’s immigration laws, including those who illegally re-entered the country after being removed and immigration fugitives ordered removed by federal immigration judges.

ICE officers in the Los Angeles, Chicago, Atlanta, San Antonio and New York City areas of responsibility arrested more than 680 individuals who pose a threat to public safety, border security or the integrity of our nation’s immigration system. Of those arrested, approximately 75 percent were criminal aliens, convicted of crimes including, but not limited to, homicide, aggravated sexual abuse, sexual assault of a minor, lewd and lascivious acts with a child, indecent liberties with a minor, drug trafficking, battery, assault, DUI and weapons charges.

ICE conducts these kind of targeted enforcement operations regularly and has for many years. The focus of these enforcement operations is consistent with the routine, targeted arrests carried out by ICE’s Fugitive Operations teams on a daily basis.

President Trump has been clear in affirming the critical mission of DHS in protecting the nation and directed our Department to focus on removing illegal aliens who have violated our immigration laws, with a specific focus on those who pose a threat to public safety, have been charged with criminal offenses, have committed immigration violations or have been deported and re-entered the country illegally.

I commend the heroic efforts of the dedicated officers of ICE’s Office of Enforcement and Removal Operations and those who provided assistance from ICE Homeland Security Investigations, the U.S. Marshals Service, as well as cooperating state and local law enforcement agencies. These professionals put their lives on the line to protect our communities and country. There is no greater calling than to serve and protect our nation – a mission that the men and women of ICE perform with professionalism and courage every single day.


 

Reminder: Sheriff aids ICE deportation effort

Multnomah County law agency trades conviction records for cash subsidies

In the past week, the Multnomah County Sheriff's Office has loudly emphasized what it doesn't do to help federal jailers apprehend undocumented immigrants.

But the law enforcement agency does help the national government deport foreign nationals who are convicted in the criminal justice system. Prisoners qualify for one program after one felony or two misdemeanors.

MCSO provides inmate information, including names and sentencing records, as part of a U.S. program intended to subsidize the cost of housing convicted undocumented expats. Federal funding to MCSO through this program has ranged from $200,000 to $400,000 per year since 2011.

"Sheriffs are sharing information," explained David Olen Cross, a lawful immigration advocate based in Salem. "Everyone's saying they're not cooperating, yet they're getting money from it."

Known as SCAAP, the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program directs federal money to enforcement agencies nationwide.

In fiscal year 2016, the Sheriff's Office sent 296 unique inmate records to the Bureau of Justice Assistance.

The bureau determined that 118 prisoners were "ICE eligible," an acronym that refers to the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency.

Lt. Chad Gaidos, a spokesman for the Sheriff's Office, says a person's residency status is largely self-reported during intake procedures.

"The only reason we hold someone is because of some criminal nexus. It's not the result of solely an immigration detainer," he said. "(If convicted of) criminal charges or (following) a criminal arrest warrant that was issued by a federal judge, then in those areas the Sheriff's Office would work with ICE."

Immigration detainers allow police to hold an undocumented immigrant for up to 48 hours after their sentence expires, so ICE can arrive and take custody.

Unlike regular police, who require probable cause, ICE can detain someone merely because they suspect them of being an unlawful resident.

Funding for SCAAP fluctuated during the previous administration, dropping from $238 million in 2013 to $165 million in 2015, according to USA TODAY.

National news sources have speculated SCAAP could be withheld by President Trump, who has vowed to "end" sanctuary jurisdictions like Portland and Multnomah County.

"We're aware of what our federal funds are, (but) there really hasn't been any specific communication as to what the pulling of funding means," Lt. Gaidos said. "We're in the middle of our normal budget talks."

The appalling hypocrisy, ignorance of courts on immigration and states' rights

One of the most absurd aspects of this immigration lawsuit pending in the Ninth Circuit is the notion that a state can have standing to sue the federal government in order to bring in more immigrants, visitors, and refugees. It would be akin to a state suing the president because it doesn’t like his foreign policy or if a state felt that the military deployments are hurting and disrupting the lives of residents of their states. Those assertions may or may not be valid, but they are political, not legal questions.

Moreover, the courts have demonstrated an appalling level of hypocrisy and ignorance of the entire purpose of federal control over immigration by simultaneously ruling against states that wish to clamp down on undesirable immigration and protect their own sovereignty.

Federal immigration power is all about protecting national sovereignty

As we’ve observed in previous columns, immigration laws — generally speaking — provide the president with broad latitude to ratchet down immigration but not the authority to increase immigration. It’s rooted in the concept of national sovereignty and consent-based immigration. A decision to bring in more people must be done judiciously with a transparent debate of all the people’s representatives. A decision to keep out people, on the other hand, is often needed to protect national sovereignty and security at a moment’s notice.

As James Madison wrote in 1835, “[I]n the case of naturalization a new member is added to the Social compact …by a majority of the governing body deriving its powers from a majority of the individual parties to the social compact.” This is why our Constitution vested Congress with plenary power over immigration policy, and why the courts — before they became autocratic in recent years — conceded that they have absolutely no jurisdiction to second-guess the legislature or executive officials on any immigration decision not involving U.S. citizens.

The same principle of national sovereignty is behind the underlying premise of why the Constitution transferred authority over immigration from the states to the national government. The power was transferred to the federal government not for the purpose of violating the sovereignty of the states and forcibly flooding their jurisdictions with endless flows of third world immigrants. It was quite the opposite — to prevent individual states from bringing in too many dangerous or costly immigrants in order to bolster their representation in Congress and thereby negatively affect the entire union.

Commenting on the power of Congress (as opposed to states) over immigration, the inimitable Justice Joseph Story explained, “If aliens might be admitted indiscriminately to enjoy all the rights of citizens at the will of a single state, the Union might itself be endangered by an influx of foreigners, hostile to its institutions, ignorant of its powers, and incapable of a due estimate of its privileges.” While this was written in 1833, every word is speaking to liberals today in states like Washington who want to endanger the nation with unlimited numbers of Sharia-adherent immigrants and refugees during a time of global Islamic uprisings.  

Roger Sherman, among the greatest of all the Founders, noted during the House debate on the Naturalization Act of 1790 that “it was intended by the Convention, who framed the Constitution, that Congress should have the power of naturalization, in order to prevent particular States receiving citizens, and forcing them upon others who would not have received them in any other manner.” (emphasis added) Sherman was emphatic that federal control was designed to “guard against an improper mode of naturalization,” and prevent individual states from flooding the country with immigrants based on “easier terms.”

Thus, the federal plenary power over immigration was not to be used as a hammer to crush state sovereignty with boundless immigration, but rather as a shield to protect states and the entire federal union from irresponsible immigration policies of insidious state officials.  

States have power to enforce the law on behalf of their sovereignty, not to violate national sovereignty

Yet, as the courts have done with every aspect of the Constitution, they have flipped the entire structure and purpose of federal power over immigration on its head — upside down, inside out. When states want to protect their sovereignty from a president that blatantly violates statute and the Constitution to harm national and state sovereignty, the courts tell those states to get lost. In some cases, the courts even prevent those states from passing laws to protect their citizens. Yet, when states complain about a president using 100% existing law to protect sovereignty, the courts give the states a forum to codify their political desires for more immigrants into laws that say the exact opposite.

This perversion of the letter and spirit of the Constitution played out in numerous cases. For example, when states sued President Obama for flooding their jurisdictions with refugees without notifying them even after the fact, much less giving them “advanced consultation” — as required by statute — the courts threw out the lawsuit. Now states can demand more refugees when they have no such right!

The courts prevented the Arizona government and Sheriff Arpaio from enforcing existing federal immigration law, yet they have green lighted sanctuary cities.

The courts have blocked Texas from preventing illegal aliens from obtaining birth certificates, thereby disenfranchising and stealing the sovereignty of American citizens. Yet, they have allowed Chicago to ignore ICE detainers.

The court’s called Mississippi’s grievances against Obama’s illegal DACA amnesty “speculative,” but have readily welcomed Washington State’s illegitimate grievances demanding more immigrants.      

As Justice Scalia made clear in his masterful dissent in Arizona v. United States (2012), a state’s “power to exclude from the sovereign’s territory people who have no right to be there” is “the defining characteristic of sovereignty” and that the “Constitution did not strip the States of that authority.” “To the contrary,” wrote Scalia, “two of the Constitu­tion’s provisions were designed to enable the States to prevent “the intrusion of obnoxious aliens through other States.” Letter from James Madison to Edmund Randolph (Aug. 27, 1782).”

Even a broken clock is right twice a day, but that is not true of the contemporary federal courts. They are wrong all the time and flip the Constitution upside down.

The gospel of liberal jurisprudence comes from the misunderstood Marbury case, in which John Marshall declared, “it is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is. Now we are seeing that the courts have made it their job, with devastating perverse consistency and deleterious consequences, to say what the law isn’t.

- See more at: https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2017/02/appalling-hypocrisy-ignorance-of-courts-on-immigration-and-states-

Jeff Sessions Confirmed as Attorney General Amid Partisan Acrimony

Alert date: 
2017-02-08
Alert body: 

Senate Approves Jeff Sessions as Attorney General

The Senate voted Wednesday night to confirm Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Alabama, to become the nation's attorney general after three days of partisan acrimony over President Donald Trump's Cabinet nominees.

The 52-47 vote proceeded along party lines, with one exception: Joe Manchin, D-West Virginia, voted with Republicans. Sessions himself voted "present."

"It was a special night, and I appreciate the friendship from my colleagues — even those who, many of them, who didn't feel able to vote for me — they were cordial and so we continue to have good relations, and [I] will continue to do the best I can," Sessions told reporters immediately after his confirmation.

This was the Sessions' second attempt at a Senate confirmation. His first attempt, in 1986, was for a federal judgeship, which failed after he was accused of racial insensitivity.

 

Jeff Sessions Thanks Senate, Acknowledges 'Heated Debate' Over Confirmation 3:17

Democrats, many of whom have worked with him in the Senate for years, opposed Sessions because of his positions on voting rights, immigration and women's health, among other issues. But their opposition wasn't enough to defeat his nomination, as it takes a simple majority to confirm Cabinet positions.

"Everything he was accused of, I've never seen," said Manchin, the only Democrat to support him. "So I'm basing my knowledge of Jeff Sessions and who I think Jeff Sessions is, and I think he'll be fair and very deliberate of what he does. And I think he'll be very good at the rule of law and administrating it."

Sessions is expected to be sworn in Thursday morning.

 

 

 

 

 

Appeals Court Rejects Immigrants’ Right to a Lawyer in Expedited Cases

Immigrants who are caught entering the U.S. illegally have no right to legal representation, a federal appeals court in San Francisco ruled on Tuesday.

The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the deportation of a Mexican immigrant who was arrested while crossing into the U.S. in 2012 and returned to his country the following day.

The ruling, from a three-judge panel, came hours before a different Ninth Circuit panel was set to consider an executive order by President Donald Trump that temporary suspended travel from seven countries and halted the admission of refugees.

The ruling Tuesday dealt with whether immigrants caught entering the U.S. illegally have due process rights to legal counsel under the Fifth Amendment, an issue separate from those raised in the executive-order challenge.

Under a 1996 federal law, Customs and Border Protection officers can use a process called “expedited removal” to swiftly deport immigrants who are caught within 100 miles of the border without valid entry documents and who have been in the U.S. fewer than 14 days.

Immigrants subject to expedited removal receive no hearing, see no judge and have no right to appeal. Nearly half of all removals from the U.S. follow this process, according to the Department of Homeland Security.

Rufino Peralta-Sanchez, who was caught by U.S. Border Patrol agents a mile inside the U.S. border, had argued for a right to hire a lawyer to assist him during the removal process.

Judge Jay Bybee, writing for a 2-1 majority, said allowing lawyers to take part in expedited removals would defeat their purpose, “exponentially increasing the cost to the government as the government must detain the alien, pay for the government’s own representation, pay for the creation of a longer record, and pay for the increased time the immigration officer must spend adjudicating such case.”

The Trump administration is considering expanding eligibility for expedited removal to include immigrants who have been in the U.S. longer and are arrested farther from the U.S. border.

Kara Hartzler, who represents Mr. Peralta-Sanchez, said such changes, combined with Tuesday’s ruling, would mean that a vast number of immigrants living in the U.S. could be summarily deported without counsel.

Judge Harry Pregerson used his dissent to condemn what he called a “flawed” and “cruel” system of expedited removals that can result in the improper deportation of asylum seekers who express a credible fear of persecution back home.

A spokeswoman for the U.S. attorney’s office in San Diego, which represented the federal government, declined to comment.

Write to Joe Palazzolo at joe.palazzolo@wsj.com

OFIR launches billboard campaign

Alert date: 
2017-02-06
Alert body: 

OFIR would like everyone to know and understand what a sanctuary policy means.

While the argument over the sanctuary status of college campuses or cities goes on, it's important to understand that Oregon is actually a sanctuary state.  What does that mean?  Find out more.

OFIR's billboard campaign helps to educate the public about the fiscal burden of being a sanctuary state.
 

Why Trump must end DACA

The Hill

By opinion contributor Dale Wilcox

Published January 29, 2017

The rule of law is all about deterrence. So when we fail to follow it, we squander its deterring effects. With President Obama’s DACA program apparently still up and running (handing out amnesty, work permits, etc.), it’s sincerely hoped this most basic of principles hasn’t fallen victim to the left’s emotional blackmail campaign.

Ending DACA and turning off the amnesty-magnet is now more important than ever.

Obama created DACA in reaction to Congress’s “gridlock” over the DREAM Act, an amnesty bill for illegal aliens under 30 rejected no less than 24 times since 2001.

DACA replicated the main elements and criteria of the insipidly titled act, from its sentimental focus on “children” to the requirement that applicants have a GED.

While the DREAM Act granted “legal status” or permanent legalization, DACA purports to offer “legal presence”, or “temporary” legalization. The distinction’s without a difference. Obama’s strategy with the program, to use a phrase from George W. Bush about Israel’s West Bank settlements, was to create “facts on the ground” and make it as difficult as possible to reverse course in future.

When you reward bad behavior, you get more of it. Following Obama’s DACA announcement, radio and print ads began appearing south of the border selling the services of cartel-controlled “coyotes” to teenaged would-be illegal aliens. In a matter of months, the thousand or so apprehensions of unaccompanied juveniles we’d previously been seeing every year surged into the tens of thousands.

A year later, the surge reached the hundreds of thousands (not including an equal jump in “family units”). Despite Obama’s efforts to divert the flood by creating a program to fly alien minors straight from their home countries, the level of illegal entries failed to taper off and it remains at record highs today.

Now, thanks to DACA, taxpayers spend hundreds of millions annually to reunite the (mostly) uneducated minors with their (mostly) illegal alien parents in the U.S. That’s money that should have gone to support schools, hospitals, and job-training for American youth.

Should the new administration signal that it too is unwilling to enforce our immigration laws fairly, equally, and without an ageist-bent, the flood over our borders will become a torrent.

Take Mexico’s poor economic prospects. Average wages in that country are a mere 10 percent of American levels, a gap that’s likely set to jump. Why? Mexico’s rapidly dwindling Cantarell oil field, traditionally the source of 30 percent of the country’s total government expenditures. Once classified as a ‘supergiant’ alongside Saudi Arabia’s Ghawar deposit, the Cantarell field, and the well-paid union jobs it supported, is credited with finally establishing a Mexican middle-class.

But with production declining from 2.5 million to 400,000 barrels per day over the last decade or so, Mexico’s biggest GDP-contributor is no longer oil exports, but US-based remittances.

Assuming the economic effects to Mexico of Trump’s promised NAFTA readjustments turn out to be banal (some critics say it’s actually been a net negative to Mexico’s poor), the drawdown of Mexican oil revenues will almost certainly push up its levels of illegal economic migration.

As for the main source countries for “unaccompanied alien minors” — El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras — development economists have all but given up on understanding why they can’t even come close to the achievements of neighboring Nicaragua, Belize, Costa Rica, and Panama. Without shutting off the magnet of amnesty, their mass illegal entries will also stay at flood-levels. 

Instead of demanding that the federal government assist these countries with better tailored aid and grants conditioned on rooting out corruption, open-borders activists simply call for more amnesty and more illegal alien “rights.” Their lack of systematic analysis is stupefying.

While “protecting” illegal aliens from the consequences of breaking the law may make them feel good and virtuous, if they get their way on DACA the incentives for further law-breaking at our border will only increase. Economists call this the “moral hazard” problem.

Given the economic and social pressures here and across the border, we need to ensure against amnesty and the moral hazard it creates, now more than ever.

Dale Wilcox is executive director and general counsel for the Immigration Reform Law Institute, a public interest law firm working to defend the rights and interests of the American people from the negative and predatory effects of unlawful immigration and ungoverned legal immigration.

Read the full article and comments.

Pages

Subscribe to RSS - enforcement