Connecticut officials join anti-immigrant crackdown
2013Daniel Adam 2013-04Read it in the scan (PDF at ETOL), page 5 →
The words are the paper's own, from its digital file; the division into articles was made by machine, so a box or caption can end up inside the article next to it.
Scan page 5
HARTFORD—Josemaria Islas is fac ing deportation. A resident of New Haven, Conn., Islas was arrested last July 2 for attempted bicycle theft. There was absolutely no evidence for the charge. The accuser could not identify Islas, and never lost posses sion of his bike. Islas’ defense even produced evidence that he was at work and then lunch during the in cident.
Still, the arrest alone gave court marshals the right to turn Islas over to Immigration and Customs En forcement for deportation. Islas had remained in jail for four months at tempting to avoid such an outcome. When he finally resolved his initial case the marshals moved in.
The court marshals derived their right to seize Islas from a program that the Obama administration recently imposed upon every single jurisdiction in the United States and its territories. The program is called “Secure Com munities,” or S-Comm. It requires local law enforcement to turn over to ICE the identifying information of all detained persons. If a person does not show up on ICE’s national database, ICE can detain and then deport them.
In its essence, the program is a politi cally streamlined version of Arizona’s SB 1070. It connects every state and lo cal police department directly to federal immigration enforcement. It is difficult to understate the significance of this program.
Obama is on track to deport a record 2 million people by 2014—as many as were deported between 1892 and 1997. S-Comm has been an invaluable tool in reaching this record. It allows deporta tions to be made more quietly and under the ruse of deporting “dangerous crimi nals.” Yet nearly half of the individuals deported in 2012 had no criminal record whatsoever. Of those with records, onefourth had only traffic convictions, and on-fifth had been convicted of nothing more than immigration-related crimes like “illegal entry.”
This is not carelessness, but conscious policy. The ACLU has recently obtained e-mails showing that top Obama admin istration officials in 2012 instructed ICE to round up more immigrants through traffic violations and other minor of fenses in order to fill quotas for deporta tion of “criminals.”
For years immigrants and their allies have advanced the slogan “we are work ers, not criminals!” and this has made an impact on the political landscape. The federal government no longer feels con fident justifying its repression solely via the idea that all immigrants (or at least undocumented immigrants) are crimi nal outlaws.
The Obama administration has adapt ed itself with a line from the playbook of mass-incarceration and the new Jim Crow. As in Black communities, repres sion of immigrants is now carried out under the guise of targeting only the “dangerous criminals.” This justification is directed toward not only immigrants’ allies, but towards immigrants them selves. It assures some that S-Comm is not a threat to them but protection against the criminal elements in their own community. It serves to divide not just native workers from immigrants, but also immigrants from each other.
Of course, S-Comm does not require ICE to check whether a person has been convicted of anything. A person whose name is not on ICE’s database need only be arrested (falsely or otherwise) in or der to be detained by ICE and deported. The program creates a legal means for circumventing due process since no trial Ross D. Franklin / AP (Left) Undocumented workers rounded up by U.S. Border Patrol in Arizona. Local officials have now become enforcers of federal anti-immigrant policies.
by jury is required for such depor tations.
When Islas was arrested, Gov. Dannel Malloy had already begun a policy of only giving ICE people who met certain conditions—those with felonies on their records, “known gang members,” and those on terrorist watch lists. Islas didn’t meet any of these conditions, but the court hierarchy under which the court marshals operate re fuses to follow this policy. In this sense, the case highlights some limitations of attempting solutions through local arrangements.
Local measures like these, which restrict who can be deported under SComm, only allow for even sharper divi sions among immigrants, as such poli cies promote the development of more concrete distinctions within the com munity.
Those with felonies become more vulnerable than those without. Young people are especially vulnerable to the vague charge of “gang affiliation.” Ter rorist lists are wildly arbitrary, and over whelmingly target members of Muslim and Arab communities. These policies are calculated to discourage people from identifying with victims of state repres sion. To succeed, the immigrant rights movement cannot swallow this bait. It must establish a consistent principle of “an injury to one is an injury to all.”
Led by Unidad Latina en Acción, a steady campaign continues to demand Islas’ release. Protests are taking place in New Haven and Hartford. n cies with the most women workers. Those are the same agencies that have the most