By Sam Foster
The media is in full Pro-illegal immigration echo-mode trying to define a recent MPI report as proof positive that a national law, resembling AZ’s state immigration law, has lead to a despicable overreach from some local authorities. However, when you actually review the report, you’ll find that the national law is working and that no actual evidence of profiling could be found.
First, it should be noted that MPI is no conservative (or nonpartisan for that matter) organization. Back when the group was founded, one of its stated goals was to increase social welfare benefits to illegal immigrants. There is much more dirt on the group at Sweetness and Light.
The study carried out by MPI was to access the implementation and success of federal immigration program known as 287 (g). The law is nearly identical to the supposed “controversial” AZ immigration law. 287 (g) allows participating law enforcement agencies tap into ICE records and use of ICE personal in an effort to allow local agencies assist with immigration enforcement. When implemented, law enforcement agencies are able to request immigration detainers should an illegal immigrant commit a crime.
The study had several findings, but the one being frog-marched out in front of the public has to do with whether the law is being used consistently. It’s not and that is very important, because localities using the law in a manner that mirrors AZ immigration law’s intention in curbing illegal immigration (ie Cobb County, GA, Gwinnett County, GA, Frederick and Prince William County, MD), have found that:
1) The law works in limiting illegal immigrant populations
According to the study:
Respondents in Cobb, Gwinnett, Frederick and Prince William counties reported that significant numbers of Hispanic immigrants had moved to nearby counties or other states.
Now imagine if nearby cities and counties enforce immigration likewise?
2) There was no evidence of racial profiling
The study was adamant that they did not study whether or not racial profiling had occurred. However, it should be noted that is likely because they couldn’t find any connected to the program. In speaking of pro-illegal immigration communities:
They expressed concerns that enforcement efforts lead to racial profiling by police and instill fear and distrust of police sufficient to cause immigrants to withdraw from public places. Respondents did not always link these concerns closely to the 287 (g) program. In fact, in some of our study sites, key stakeholders are more concerned about immigration enforcement in general – namely ICE worksite and home raids…
The study goes on and tries to make an anecdotal case, then discounts their own claims by pointing out that evidence is anecdotal. However, there can be little doubt that if even a scintilla of credible evidence be unearthed, it would have been finding #1.
3) Areas adhering to Obama’s desired interpretation of the law have been largely unsuccessful in achieving the program’s stated goal.
In 2009, Obama revised the 287 (g) program to narrow focus to illegal immigrants that were considered especially dangerous. MPI found that:
During the year after the revised template was implemented, the number of people identified and processed by the 287 (g) program declined significantly, with the number of detainers dropping 20 percent.
So to summarize, the report finds a program similar to AZ’s immigration law decreases illegal immigration populations and with no link to racial profiling. While Obama’s suggested limited scope of the same law dramatically ties the hands on localities to combat illegal immigration and decreases enforcement.
Tell me, which law you would want in force in your community?