ICE’s Sanctuary City Crackdown Is Likely to Be Both Ineffective and Costly

History shows that the agency rounds up plenty immigrants with no convictions or minor offenses.

By and
18

Immigration and Customs Enforcement has announced plans to conduct large-scale arrests in three sanctuary jurisdictions in the upcoming weeks. This move signals a tough-on-immigration commitment to the president’s supporters right before the election. But not only is this push unlikely to make us any safer, it could do just the opposite—all while costing us a lot of money.

Unfortunately, history reveals a troubling pattern with who ICE arrests and removes from the country’s interior: They don’t focus on the most dangerous offenders. 

Unauthorized immigrants with no criminal convictions make up 48 percent of all removals since 2003, by far the largest category. The second-largest category of removals—27 percent—includes less serious convictions, like illegal entry and traffic offenses. That means that 75 percent of ICE removals in the last 17 years have been of individuals convicted of either no crime, or of a less serious one. 

Meanwhile, 19 percent of removals are for the most serious criminal conviction category. Yet even this category includes non-violent crimes, like fraud and selling drugs. Taking out the most numerous nonviolent offenses leaves about 10 percent of ICE removals for violent crimes.

Keep reading with a free account
Create a free Dispatch account to keep reading Get Started ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN
18
By and
Comments (18)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Avatar photo
    Luke Thompson (not that one)

    This article seems to presume that we shouldn't be enforcing immigration laws except when people have committed violent crimes. After all, I can't come up with another framework where this sentence makes sense:

    "But it would still mean that between 11,000 and 30,000 people with a clean record were inadvertently targeted for arrest and deportation every year."

    Unless they were legally in the country, they weren't inadvertently targeted. And it also assumes that they weren't picked up for some other reason (such as a close relative having been convicted of a violent crime or being suspected of a crime). The government doesn't actually need a justification to remove someone who isn't allowed to be here.

    Collapse
  2. Avatar photo
    Kevin Johnson

    Excellent stuff. I am married to an immigrant and raised 2 as well. We speak Spanish at home. I literally love immigrants. While addressing particular tactics that may not be worth the cost, this downplays a larger, political, issue. While the authors argue why this tactic doesn’t make sense, Democratic Party leaders in cities, states, and at the federal level argue (in word or deed) for the principle of letting everyone stay. The word “sanctuary” means something very specific. It does NOT mean, illegal immigrants must go, but not if it is too expensive or inefficient. My first job out of college as a Foreign Service Officer in Bogota was interviewing people for tourist and business visas, rejecting the majority as the law required (although approving more than my colleagues). I learned those 35 years ago what Jonah says now... the policy of the U.S. has been to not HAVE an immigration policy. There are many models to choose from (Canada prefers skills, most of Europe historically used employment rules as effective deterrents.). We have chosen to use visas while not enforcing overstays (now a majority of illegals) while only sporadically controlling the border. Some interests welcome cheap or expert labor, while others seek humanitarian relief for troubled souls. I am convinced immigrants, including unskilled and illegal ones, mostly help the country. But I understand those who argue they depress wages and cause localized disruptions. Simply declaring we won’t/can’t enforce the laws (present or improved if congress would do its job) is one way we get an idiot like Trump. Moving in Spanish speaking circles both in Florida and in Colombia, I know well that many Spanish speakers with legal status in the U.S. themselves want illegal immigration controlled (humanely and constitutionally.) Decades of unwillingness to enforce and/or reform the law has empowered extremism and made otherwise good people turn against immigrants. My wife and I have been verbally accosted in Sarasota for speaking Spanish in public. So by all means keep reporting on what you find doesn’t work. But I urge folks to consider that the broad move to say everyone who gets in can stay and receive public benefits (I know proponents don’t say this directly, but their opposition to almost all enforcement means that is what many people hear) will create more extreme opposition from people who think they are hurt by illegal immigration or simply oppose open lawlessness. We all know there is a better way, and should demand such from Congress.

    Collapse
  3. Avatar photo
    Pat Riot

    Our entire approach to this system violates the founding principles of the United States: that Rights are a universal attribute of mankind, not something bolted on to people born within our borders.

    Hence we should treat *all* people within our dominion the same: if they break our laws, we should punish them in some fashion as prescribed under the law. And our Constitution and legal precedent is clear: we punish people according to the severity of the crime, e.g. murder being life in prison or death, jaywalking being a ten dollar fine, and so on.

    The correct and principled treatment of a person who has violated our immigration law by entering our country without the proper paperwork is to fine them or potentially jail them. This is what we would do for somebody hunting without a license, filing a fraudulent tax return, or some other non-violent act.

    And the correct treatment of violent criminals is to put them in prison and so forth. A criminal is a criminal, and every person is equal under the law. (And besides, deportation just sends a criminal back to a country without our laws which could effectively lessen their punishment).

    I'm usually pretty skeptical of popular liberal bumper stickers, but this one is as Conservative as it gets:

    NO PERSON IS ILLEGAL

    People break laws, sure, but the notion that *they themselves* are illegal violates everything we've ever fought for.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Luke Thompson (not that one)

      Violations of immigration law are categorically different from violations of other laws. We don't reward bank robbers by letting them keep the cash, we don't reward arsonists by leaving the building in ashes, and we don't reward people who violate immigration law by letting them stay in the country. The notion that a fine or jail time is appropriate is ludicrous.

      Also, the "no person is illegal" comment is intentionally disingenuous. No one is saying that people are illegal, except as obvious shorthand for "here illegally."

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Pat Riot

        The punishment must fit the crime. People coming here to work hard and make an honest living are not murderers and rapists no matter how many times Trump says they are.

        The idea that there is something "fundamentally different" about these people stems from the anti-American idea that people already living in America are somehow special from the standpoint of their Rights.

        Somebody who shoplifts a pack of bubblegum is not fined one million dollars or forbidden from having candy for the rest of their life, etc. The 8th Amendment is pretty clear about this.

        Collapse
    2. Avatar photo
      Kwasi_Broni

      "No Person is Illegal" is your typical progressive bromide, it sounds good but it doesn't mean very much. Big difference between someone who crossed the border illegally (there's that word) or overstayed their visa and someone who shot a deer out of season. Otherwise, why have an immigration policy? What do you say to the person who followed the legal process in order to obtain a green card, filed the multiple forms, and paid the multiple fees? True, people can't be "illegal"; but neither residency or citizenship is guaranteed, either in the Constitution or by statute.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Pat Riot

        What exactly is the "big difference" between these two lawbreakers?

        If you try to remove the gold bars from Fort Knox, the US government will put you in prison. There is a law against stealing those bars. Yet, we don't say that you "have a guaranteed right to federal gold".

        Crossing into our country without the proper paperwork is against the law, and there's no politician anywhere who is advocating otherwise. The dispute here is over the punishment, but that has rested on a notion of the personhood of the perpetrator--which is to say that ancient notions of xenophobia have often overridden the relatively new conceit written down in our founding document: that all man are created equal.

        And to answer your question, somebody who follows the law should not be punished for breaking one. That is their "reward".

        I am fine with fining, jailing, denying benefits, and so forth for those who break our laws. But deportation is in many cases is a punishment that exceeds the crime by a hundred times, and in some cases it's not enough--and the distinction is invalid in any case if you believe that people are equal before the law.

        Our country is founded on the notion that every person, by virtue of them being a person, possesses inalienable Rights. Those Rights were given to them by God, not their heredity, not the clump of dirt wherein they were born, not given to them by the King or Nancy Pelosi. People simply have Rights.

        In this context, as Americans we therefore believe that the Rights of all people should be protected, everywhere.

        We also understand that there are practical limits to our power e.g. we cannot police the world, additional residents of our country may come at a cost to existing residents, etc.

        However, if we could wave a magic wand and protect every person on earth we would--and in fact our nation's power to do so (hard and soft) has multiplied a thousand times even in the last century.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Kwasi_Broni

          "Crossing into our country without the proper paperwork is against the law..."
          You act is if it's a mere case of having misfiled papers or a missed signature. Illegal border crossers or those who overstay their visas are blatantly breaking the law. You also act as if the United States is a sponge able to take any and all comers regardless of their legal status.
          Everyone is allowed legal due process, regardless of their status, no doubt. However, there's a huge difference in rights, both Constitutionally and by statute, to those afforded legal status, whether citizens, legal residents, or refugees, and those in the country, unrecognized by American law.

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            Pat Riot

            People who hunt without a license are also blatantly breaking the law. So are those who drive drunk. And so on.

            I also made it clear we are, unfortunately, limited in our ability to secure the Rights of all of the people's on earth. That is a practical discussion involving, well, money and arms.

            And no, there is no difference in natural Rights of a person born in Peru or Peoria. There is only a difference, potentially, in what Rights (if any) the government that controls them recognizes. Somebody born to Chinese slavery is not *actually* a slave, but rather a person with natural Rights who has been enslaved by China.

            Ronald Reagan once said:

            "America represents something universal in the human spirit. I received a letter not long ago from a man who said, 'You can go to Japan to live, but you cannot become Japanese. You can go to France to live and not become a Frenchman. You can go to live in Germany or Turkey, and you won't become a German or a Turk.' But then he added, 'Anybody from any corner of the world can come to America to live and become an American.'"

            The reason he said that is because all of the peoples of the earth are equal before American laws, and that some of them cannot be governed by those laws is a practical problem of our power and influence, not some deserved state conferred on them by the happenstance of their birthplace.

            As a document the Constitution does not ever state, "within the present borders", or "for people who have submitted the proper paperwork with the government". The authority of the Constitution is limited by practical limits e.g. our military power and presence, our money, influence, etc.

            If somebody steps foot on our soil, our government has dominion over them, and as Americans we believe that the government's dominion over people should be Constitutionally limited and equal.

            America does not *confer* Rights on people, it *recognizes* them, and it does so as a matter of principle, the most basic principle of our country coming directly from the very first words written under our republic.

            Collapse
        2. Avatar photo
          Luke Thompson (not that one)

          Your argument makes absolutely no sense unless you're presuming that living in the US is one of the inalienable rights, which it clearly isn't. In no sense is "all men are created equal" in conflict with "people aren't allowed to immigrate into the US without permission." The notion that someone's "personhood" is implicated by that is something you're presuming without argument.

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            Pat Riot

            I never said that living in the USA was a Right. You read what I wrote wrong.

            Collapse
  4. Avatar photo
    Victor Clairmont

    The stats are great, so what's the solution if any? Illegal immigration has been a topic since the Reagan administration's amnesty that didn't fix the problem. Someone is going to have to enforce the law, and I am for reforming ICE or cutting costs, but anything where people cross the border illegally is going to cost the taxpayer in the long run to enforce the law of returning people to the border. Abolishing (not saying anyone is saying this here) ICE just means the police go back to their old duty, and the problem is set aside for a different force.

    After all, the immigration problem has shifted the population where latino's now outnumber blacks after only 60 years of heavy immigration, where blacks have been here for over 200. The numbers stand at roughly 52 million for the former and 48 million for the latter.

    Collapse
  5. Avatar photo
    EricRemcon@gmail

    Great article detailing the costs and liabilities State and local governments are dealing with going beyond the “sanctuary city” vs “racist” shouting match. It is a complex issue that cannot be solved with ICE raids or throwing money at cities. I was already of the opinion that the raids are mostly a show of force rather than effectively dealing with violent crime but having the financial and legal aspects the states face laid out was enlightening.

    If only there was a place where the facts could be intelligently debated resulting in partial and incremental solutions that accommodate the difficulties on both sides. Ideally it would be a body with the ability to enact laws and allocate funds, maybe the debates could even be available to the people on TV (CSPAN). Alas we have meaningless (unless you count political fund raising) squabbles in the media and an executive branch that needs to flex its muscles every few years to pretend something is being accomplished.

    Collapse
  6. Avatar photo
    Kaitlin Johnson

    I had hope that Trump was being less anti-immigrant this time around bc he seems to be doing better in the polls with Hispanics than in 2016. I guess he doesn't care. Good piece, very persuasive!

    Collapse
  7. Avatar photo
    Edward

    Fantastic article. I'll be glad to share this one.

    Collapse
  8. Avatar photo
    Chris L

    Too many of my friends oversimply ICE enforcement and the concept of sanctuary cities, let alone conflating legal vs illegal immigration. This is an excellent and very welcome article in how it delves into the complex difficulties in ICE enforcement.

    Collapse