A false choice on immigration

Jan 19, 2011

Sometimes the immigration debate gets so ridiculous that it's no wonder those on opposite sides can't ever agree on how to move forward.

Take, for instance, complaints about the contentious federal Secure Communities program. Run by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the program identifies illegal immigrants based on fingerprints checked against Department of Justice, FBI and Department of Homeland Security records.

Since the program began in 2007, it has spread to 969 jurisdictions in 37 states and ICE expects all states will be participating by 2013, bolstering the amount of national data-sharing and the agency's ability to fulfill its mission of "prioritizing (enforcement) resources toward the greatest threats, and sharing information between law enforcement partners."

Secure Communities is back on the radar because the Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights, a nationally influential advocacy group, recently released a report detailing the shortcomings of what it considers an intolerable law enforcement strategy that injects fear into the immigrant community, wastes taxpayer money with program implementation costs, and "catches the wrong people."

The report, "The Dangerous Reality Behind 'Secure Communities,'" reiterated concerns that other immigrant advocacy groups have about the program -- and highlighted the vast gap in perceptions about illegal immigration that keep usually level-headed folks from coming to consensus on how to deal with an issue that has rocked both rural and urban communities across the country.

The report touched on important points about the burdens that unfunded federal law enforcement mandates put on already financially rocky municipalities, and the potential for increased distrust between residents and local police. It also makes fair points about a need for more transparency and accountability on ICE's part in reporting detailed data about how Secure Communities operates or current statistics about how it is performing.

But the main beef is the program's track record in identifying illegal immigrants who have no previous criminal convictions and yet are put at high risk for deportation. According to the coalition's calculations, from November 2009 -- when the Illinois State Police signed on to the program and enabled county jails to participate -- through September 2010, 78 percent of the people detained by ICE in Illinois, and 27 percent detained nationally, had never been convicted of a crime.

A Chicago-region ICE spokeswoman responded to reporters' inquiries about the accuracy of the data by offering different figures for Illinois (44 percent) and the U.S. (37 percent) of those lacking a criminal record.

Either way, why is that wrong?

Why is it wrong that people who are living in this country illegally -- because they entered to escape economic deprivation or they overstayed a tourist, student or work visa -- would be subject to deportation if they come in close-enough contact with a law enforcement officer to be fingerprinted?

We're not talking about stupid people here. Immigrants who have left their homes and traveled thousands of miles to create new lives for themselves know they are at a constant risk of being caught and sent home if they don't have proper documents. Few pilgrims tread into our promised land without understanding the risks.

Yet let me be clear: Deportations are a tragedy for separated families and individuals forced to return to poverty and strife. And under no circumstances should illegal immigrants from any country be exploited or treated inhumanely or as unwanted parasites by unscrupulous employers, government bureaucracies or pandering political parties. This country is better than that.

Thank goodness for the well-meaning people providing succor and defense to those caught up in the whirlwind of confusing and sometimes unfair immigrations laws. But advocacy groups such as the Illinois coalition go beyond the limits of compassion when they call on the municipalities involved to stop following certain laws because the lawbreakers in question aren't deemed the "greatest threats" to national security.

The very request elicits such bad will among those who fear mass amnesty that it prevents any realistic conversations on what to do about the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants in the country.

Even worse, it sets up a false choice between an immigration law reform that is either compassionate or just. In reality, with sensible compromises on both ends, there's no reason why it couldn't be a little of both.

Contact Cepeda at estherjcepeda@washpost.com .

http://www.indystar.com/article/2011011 ... ar.com%7Cs