home

Lamar Smith: Deport 'Em All

The New York Times reports that the Obama administration is "vastly expanding" a Bush administration initiative "to identify and deport illegal immigrants held in local jails." A pilot program in Harris County, Texas has been expanded to scores of additional counties "with an eye toward establishing it nationwide by late 2012."

One might think the program would please Rep. Lamar Smith, the super-genius who equates illegal immigrants with "terrorist weapons," but Smith fears that focusing deportation efforts on individuals who committed crimes creates "a de facto amnesty" for undocumented workers who, after entering the country, live peacefully, support their families, pay their taxes, and obey the nation's laws. This is the super-genius' preferred solution:

“We can prevent many of these crimes by deporting illegal immigrants before they have committed them, instead of waiting until after the fact,” he said, echoing the views of many hard-liners.

We could prevent a whole lot more crimes by locking up all the Republicans before they commit them. What do you think of that idea, Rep. Smith? [more...]

The Harris county experience teaches that most of the crimes at issue are misdemeanors and traffic violations. Some immigrants landed in jail for conduct that isn't clearly criminal:

The police arrested 101 people accused of running from them, 55 accused of failing to give an officer information, and 81 who allegedly did not have any identification.

The legitimate fear that the program's expansion will encourage other jurisdictions to replicate the behavior of the odious Sheriff Joe Arpaio, who gained notoriety by targeting and harassing residents of Hispanic neighborhoods in the Phoenix area in his lust to enforce immigration laws, prompted the Obama administration to revise Homeland Security's position on a related law:

Opponents said the program, known as 287g, was intended to identify criminal aliens but instead has led to racial profiling; it allowed local police to identify and arrest illegal immigrants for such minor infractions as a broken tail light. ... The new guidelines sharply reduce the ability of local law enforcement to arrest and screen suspected illegal immigrants. They are intended to prevent sheriff and police departments from arresting people "for minor offenses as a guise to initiate removal proceedings," according to Homeland Security. The program will instead focus on more serious criminals.

Curbing racial profiling doesn't sit well with our super-genius. Rep. Smith responded to the revised guidelines by writing:

As the co-author of the legislation enacting the 287g program, I can attest that it was created to let state and local law-enforcement officials help enforce all immigration laws, not a select few. It only makes sense to remove illegal immigrants from the streets before they commit more serious crimes.

Once again, Smith's assumption is that anyone who overstays a visa or who crosses the border illegally is sure to commit a serious crime, notwithstanding the millions of undocumented workers who live productive, nonviolent lives. Smith apparently regards racial profiling as a necessary enforcement tool to protect the nation from the imagined crimes that undocumented workers are bound to commit.

Smith's rhetoric scores points with other hard-liners who believe the government should dedicate itself to removing each of the 12 million undocumented workers who live here. How that herculean task could be accomplished, and who would pay the bill for all the new ICE agents and immigration judges and temporary detention facilities that would be required, are questions the super-genius ignores. Angry rhetoric, after all, is easier to manufacture than an intelligent solution to a complex problem.

< Sunday Morning Open Thread | Send Jawad Home >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    I'd settle for locking up all the Republicans (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by steviez314 on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 04:23:05 PM EST
    AFTER they commit a crime.  It seems we can't do that either (see:  Cheney, Bush, Yoo, Addington)

    lol (none / 0) (#12)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 04:28:53 PM EST
    Good one!  Presumption of innocence before conviction, for Republicans is obviously is not part of your formula.

    lol..

    Parent

    Locking up all the Republicans? (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by Edger on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 04:27:28 PM EST
    But that would be preemptive detention, TChris.

    Republicans would never go along with an idea that unconstitutional.

    Neither would Obama... :-/

    Lamar Smith -- presumtion of guilt before proven (none / 0) (#1)
    by abby0802 on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 02:54:49 PM EST
    RE:  Smith's idea of the law is:  guilty before proven innocent

    I wonder if the people who cut his lawn and clean his house and cut the lawns and clean the houses of his neighbors would be ready to have all their "help" checked for legal status.

    The Republicans in Texas don't mind "illegals" doing the dirty work in Texas -- working in the fields, cleaning houses, building houses, doing lawns, but heaven help if these same people want to earn enough money to feed and care for their families.....

    You really should (none / 0) (#13)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 04:29:29 PM EST
    check out some Clinton appointees....

    Parent
    Makes Sense (none / 0) (#2)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 02:54:55 PM EST
    The "Bush Doctrine" extended. Many here are fine with extending Police behavior to make preemptive arrests. Someone has to protect all the WATB's, and better to arrest em all before they commit a crime than after.

    Win win, right Mika Brzezinski... lol

    It always amazes me that these creeps forget the most obvious when they demand weakening civil rights laws:

    We could prevent a whole lot more crimes by locking up all the Republicans before they commit them. What do you think of that idea, Rep. Smith?

     

    I have never understood why (none / 0) (#3)
    by oculus on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 03:01:00 PM EST
    convicted felons are housed in state prison and then, instead of parole, they are deported.  Why not deport them immed. following the felony convicction?  But no.  The convicted is asked whether he/she wants to serve the custody time in state or where they arrived illegally from.  And they chose w/i the U.S.  Doesn't make sense to me.

    Profit. (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Edger on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 06:09:37 PM EST
    If privately run prisons don't make a profit from housing undocumented workers the economy might take a nosedive.

    Besides, the more there are in the U.S. the better. They're cheap labor in the prisons.

    Ummmmm.... never mind.

    Parent

    There's an idea. Let's institutionalize (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by oculus on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 06:17:46 PM EST
    even more people to up the profits.  Not.

    Parent
    A quandary.... (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Edger on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 06:26:44 PM EST
    The poor republicans can't have it both ways. They want cheap labor, but they want to arrest all the cheap laborers?

    Do they have trouble thinking clearly?

    Parent

    Vengeance (none / 0) (#4)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 03:02:45 PM EST
    With a bit of racism, and bigotry thrown, imo.

    Parent
    Not your best analytical effort. (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by oculus on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 03:10:41 PM EST
    You Are Right (none / 0) (#8)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 04:15:01 PM EST
    I misread your comment to mean that instead of deporting undocumented felons, they are kept here in jail against their will.

    Well I assume that the US has some sort of treaty with the countries of undocumented felons, and the felons decide that it is better to stay here than go to jail in their home countries. ALso they may have families here who can visit them more easily in US custody.

    Parent

    It might be (none / 0) (#14)
    by Fabian on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 04:31:24 PM EST
    that conditions here are better than they are back home?

    For all the rhetoric I hear about how bad our prisons are, I have yet to hear about how much better prisons are in other countries.

    Parent

    Main Problem In US (none / 0) (#15)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 04:46:34 PM EST
    Is not as much as relative quality of our prisons, it is the relative quantity of our prisoners.

    Parent
    Funny thing. I've read lots of the (none / 0) (#17)
    by oculus on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 05:05:52 PM EST
    records where the newly sentenced inmate is given a form to check--would you prefer to do your time here or in, say Mexico?  On all the forms the answer is always:  "here."  Followed by pro per lawsuits alleging deliberate indifference to serious medical need, cruel and inhumane treatment, due process violation, etc.  

    Parent
    Some background: (none / 0) (#16)
    by oculus on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 04:59:02 PM EST
    SF Sentinel

    Looks like CDAA has successfully lobbied for persons convicted in CA of violating CA laws to serve out sentence in CDCR institutions.  And federal law impacts ability to deport to serve custody in country of origin.  

    Parent

    Yeah (none / 0) (#18)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 05:10:00 PM EST
    Thought so:

    Juan Pedro Panuco said he and other immigrant inmates at Folsom State Prison have heard that California is so cash-strapped, some of them could get sprung early and then deported.

    "Some of them are excited," said Panuco. He's not.

    At 36, he's been in California since he was 18, is married to a legal U.S. resident and has three small children.

    I would assume most want to stay because their family is here.


    Parent

    Panuco also sd. he may come back to CA. (none / 0) (#19)
    by oculus on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 05:18:19 PM EST
    The program he is talking about is commuting sentence inmate is already serving state custody on.

    Parent
    is rep. smith (none / 0) (#6)
    by cpinva on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 03:15:04 PM EST
    really a U.S. citizen? anyone seen his birth certificate, and if they have, are they sure it isn't a counterfeit?

    people want to know!

    Universal Healthcare (none / 0) (#7)
    by Wile ECoyote on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 03:28:33 PM EST
    will force the federal gov't to look at illegals.  The feds will be trying to save money anywhere in order to get it passed.

    From the post (none / 0) (#10)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 04:27:15 PM EST
    Once again, Smith's assumption is that anyone who overstays a visa or who crosses the border illegally is sure to commit a serious crime,

    I really don't care if they have, have not or will not. If they are in the country illegally... catch'em and deport'em.

    right on as usual jim! (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by cpinva on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 11:01:58 PM EST
    If they are in the country illegally... catch'em and deport'em.

    of course, this will require significant increases in budget for the ICE, given the estimated 11-12 million illegal aliens in the US. i'm thinking along the lines of around 1 trillion per year, for the next several years.

    since republicans are adamantly opposed to deficit spending, i would assume they'll be proposing large tax increases, to pay for all this.

    Parent

    You'll have to ask a Repub (2.00 / 0) (#30)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 11:13:53 PM EST
    but most of'em support spending for national defense.

    Parent
    King Canute Commanding the Waves (none / 0) (#24)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 06:46:28 PM EST
    lol... good one! At last someone that ppj can identify with...

    Parent
    It is nice to have your own personal trolls (none / 0) (#26)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 08:53:45 PM EST
    Now, DA, post a 20,000 word example of something.

    Squeaky, make a nasty attack.

    Parent

    Since you know I have commented numerous (none / 0) (#29)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jul 26, 2009 at 11:12:45 PM EST
    times that we should lock up the employers, why do you try and make a point of that cliche?? So let's lock up the employers, and while we are at it, let's lock up the politicians who try and use their votes.

    If an election can turn on a sentence, this could be the one: "You don't need papers for voting."

    On Thursday night, Francine Busby, the Democratic candidate for the 50th Congressional District, was speaking before a largely Latino crowd in Escondido when she uttered those words. She said yesterday she simply misspoke.

    But someone taped it and a recording began circulating yesterday. After she made that statement at the meeting, Busby immediately said: "You don't need to be a registered voter to help (the campaign)."

    Link

    Parent