(I've been meaning to write about this for some time. It's one of Obama's numerous "unforced errors" where there's no plausible way to blame Republicans for his continuation of hideous Republican policies. - promoted by Paul Rosenberg)
by Catherine A. Traywick, Media Consortium blogger
For the past several months, the Obama administration has relentlessly professed its commitment to targeting only the most dangerous "criminal aliens." But a new report released this week by the Immigration Policy Center suggests that misguided Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) polices render the administration virtually powerless to fulfill its promise.
As Braden Goyette at Campus Progress reports, ICE's practice of outsourcing immigration enforcement to local police through the 287(g) and Secure Communities programs undermines the administration's stated priority of deporting "the worst of the worst." She writes:
By using these partnerships to increase its deportation figures, the federal government gives up control over front-line enforcement to local police, opening up the door to subjective judgment calls-essentially, all of the problems that plague everyday policing.
Law enforcement charged with enforcing immigration laws-particularly in areas where heavy enforcement is politically popular-routinely make discretionary arrests in direct defiance of the Obama administration's stated priorities. As a result, tens of thousands of undocumented immigrants have been deported because of minor crimes, such as traffic offenses.
A bigger issue, though, is that ICE's enforcement programs are fundamentally out of line with the Obama administration's avowed commitment to targeting criminals. The Secure Communities program, which requires local law enforcement agencies to share fingerprints with ICE, is a key example of this disconnect. The program routinely nets even the victims of violent crime. Secure Communities is expanding rapidly, despite its deviance from the agency's stated objective of pursuing criminals.
This morning, President Barack Obama condemned the "failure by those of us in Washington to fix a broken immigration system" and called on Congress to support reform this year.
Let's be clear: Arizona's new anti-immigrant law is not just racist, and unconstitutional, it's also dangerous to the law-abiding residents of Arizona. Anything that makes people afraid to come forward and cooperate with the police investigating crimes makes it harder for law enforcement to do its job, and that makes it easier for criminals to do theirs.
At her press conference where she actually signed the law, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer said:
This bill, the "Support Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act," strengthens the laws of our state. It protects all of us, every Arizona citizen and everyone here in our state lawfully. And it does so while ensuring the constitutional rights of all within Arizona remain solid, stable and steadfast.
That's just a pack of lies. And not just the part about constitutional rights. All of it is a pack of lies.
Since 1979, the Los Angeles Police Department has operated under Special Order 40, which prohibits police officers from "initiat(ing) police action with the objective of discovering the alien status of a person." It was initiated by Chief Daryl Gates, who died just this past week. Gates had been called many things in his life, but "liberal" was not one of them. On April 9, The LA Times explained in an editorial:
The order was adopted in the late 1970s by then-Chief Daryl F. Gates, hardly a soft-on-crime liberal, who knew that the LAPD would be more effective if undocumented witnesses and victims felt free to speak with officers without fearing deportation. The order prevents officers from questioning people solely to determine their immigration status or arresting them solely for violations of immigration law. It does nothing to stop officers from arresting a violent suspect or calling in federal agents to investigate a person they believe illegally reentered the U.S. after deportation. It was good policy then and remains so today.
Special Order 40 is sound, sensible, effective and efficient police policy. It was initiated by a hard-ass conservative police chief. And it has worked for over 30 years--despite wingnut attacks based on lies and distortions (more on this below the fold).
On top of everything else, the Arizona law is clearly criminally stupid. Exactly what you'd expect from racist wingnuts. It is guaranteed to make law enforcement less efficient and less effective in Arizona. It is a pro-crime law. Period.
But what are we to do about it? Wait for the terminally risk-averse Obama Administration to accidentally find its backbone?
I don't think so. I think we need a massive wave of civil disobedience to overwhelm the Arizona criminal justice system, and make it overwhelmingly obvious that this law is morally unacceptable and unenforceable in America today. The only thing that gives me pause is the principle that I should not call for others to do what I am not willing to do myself. Which puts me in sort of bind. I have been arrested on principle before. I made the sacrifice then, because it was one I could consciously and fullly take on. If it meant two years--or possibly more--in prison to protest the Vietnam War at that time, I was willing to do it. But that doesn't count for anything now. I can't in good conscience be the one to lead this call. But I can say it is morally necessary, and I will fully support anyone who is willing to commit themselves and call on others to do the same. Waiting on the government and politicians to do the right thing is not sufficient, not when liberty, justice and equality are so viciously attacked.
While the United States’ legal system is founded on grand ideals like all humans being equal, the law is rarely as benevolent or efficient in practice, especially for immigrants. Different classes of people receive different consideration, and the subsequent disparities are glaringly evident in the lives of immigrants. This week’s Wire focuses on immigration-related legal battles, including unconstitutional raids by Immigrations Customs and Enforcement (ICE) and the rights to have competent representation in a court of law.
The entire West Coast was shut down on May Day, as dock workers at all 29 ports struck for the cause of ending the Iraq War.
The International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU) is in negotiations for its first contract talks since 2002, when the Bush Administration tried to collude with shipping interest to crush the union, using bogus charges that the union somehow constituted a threat to homeland security. In point of fact, it was actually the shippers who locked out the ILWU for ten days, before the Bush Administration invokved a Taft-Hartley injunction to force the ports to open again. Thereafter, the union won virtually everything it had been negotiating for.
The May Day strike was carried out despite a last minute instruction from the arbitrator, John Kagel, ordering the ILWU to tell members they had to report to work. The decision was made last February, but employeers refused to accept it, despite the fact that similar work stoppages have been customary for decades.
In its May Day press release, the ILWU said:
Longshore workers are standing down at West Coast ports:
"We're standing up for America, we're supporting the troops, and we're telling politicians that it's time to end the Iraq war now!"
(SAN FRANCISCO, CA) More than 25,000 longshore workers at 29 west coast ports are exercising their First Amendment rights today by taking a day off work and calling for an end to the war in Iraq.
"Longshore workers are standing-down on the job and standing up for America," said ILWU International President Bob McEllrath. "We're supporting the troops and telling politicians in Washington that it's time to end the war in Iraq."
McEllrath says rank-and-file members made their own democratic decision in early February when Longshore Caucus delegates voted to take action on May 1. Employers were notified of the plan, but refused to accommodate the union's request despite plenty of advance notice. The employer group, represented by the Pacific Maritime Association (PMA) consists of large carriers and port operators, most of which are foreign-owned.
"Big foreign corporations that control global shipping aren't loyal or accountable to any country," said McEllrath. "For them it's all about making money. But longshore workers are different. We're loyal to America, and we won't stand by while our country, our troops, and our economy are destroyed by a war that's bankrupting us to the tune of 3 trillion dollars. It's time to stand up, and we're doing our part today."
The ILWU has a long history of international solidarity, taking action to support workers and other oppressed and exploited people around the world, and was instrumental in the formation of US Labor Against the War (USLAW) prior to the invasion of Iraq.
This represents one of the key ways in which Iraq and Vietnam were not alike: the Vietnam War received strong support from large segments of the labor movement, well after it was clear that the we would withdraw. The Iraq War, in contrast, was oppossed by a broad labor coalition months before it was begun.
