Haven’t heard of this case? You should have already if you follow immigration policy. I imagine that sometime this year you’ll be hearing about this case again as the U.S. Supreme Court decides on it.

This case challenges the Legal Arizona Workers Act, which requires businesses to verify workers’ documentation and penalizes employers who knowingly or intentionally hire undocumented immigrants. According to some estimates, undocumented workers account for about 10% of the workforce in Arizona.

This case examines three important issues:

1. Whether an Arizona statute that imposes sanctions on employers who hire unauthorized aliens is invalid under a federal statute that expressly preempt[s] any State or local law imposing civil or criminal sanctions (other than through licensing and similar laws) upon those who employ, or recruit or refer for a fee for employment, unauthorized aliens.

2. Whether the Arizona statute, which requires all employers to participate in a federal electronic employment verification system, is preempted by a federal law that specifically makes that system voluntary. NOTE: This case was originally called ‘Chamber of Commerce of the United States v. Candelaria’.

3. Whether the Arizona statute is impliedly preempted because it undermines the comprehensive scheme that Congress created to regulate the employment of aliens.

In early December 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court heard the oral arguments from both sides of this issue and their decision is pending.

As I’ve always maintained since Arizona decided to legislatively strike out on its own version of immigration reform last year that their move was unconstitutional. I can’t imagine the Supreme Court of this land deciding that it’s OK for states to determine their own immigration laws above the comprehensive immigration process that Congress created to regulate immigration.

That why we have these checks and balances built into our system and when the Supreme Court decides on this matter, we can hopefully be glad we live in the United States.

Shame on our Congress for not having the sense to deal with immigration reform like it should. Keep an eye on this one.

Brad

This in from our exclusive Associated Press immigration news feed:

PHOENIX (AP) – A federal appeals court on Monday refused to lift a stay blocking major parts of Arizona’s immigration law from taking effect and said the federal government is likely to be able to prove the controversial law is unconstitutional.

“SB 1070 is constitutionally sound, and that will be proven when the U.S. Supreme Court takes up this case and makes the proper ruling,” he said. “This battle is a battle of epic proportions. It is about a state’s right to enforce the laws of this land and protect its citizens from those who break our laws.”
———————
When this story first broke last summer, we were right out of the gate noting that this law was unconstitutional from just about any way you looked at it. Nevertheless, Governor Brewer and her legal beagles continue to face into the wind on this who debacle. What’s next? Shall we let states determine what the IRS should get from their citizens? Sure, call me when that happens.

The flip side of this who mess is our federal government who cannot seem to manage it’s way through anything these days without making it a political football. It’s clear that the lack of leadership in focusing on immigration reforms is what has caused Arizona and many other states to make an end run in the name of ’self-determination’.

I think the Romans had similar problems addressing critical issues of their day and we know how that story ended.

Well, after many months of work, we’re proud to let you know that we’ve just launched our newly redesigned site, www.4immigration.com and our new Spar & Bernstein Landing page at www.spar-bernstein.com!

While both sites offer a fresh new look for our firm, you’ll find the same great content about immigration that we’ve always freely provided to those who visit the site.

BUT THEN WE WENT ONE STEP FARTHER IN OUR IMPROVEMENTS….by adding our exclusive Associated Press (AP) immigration news feed that’s updated every hour of every day in order to give you the immigration news. Again, all designed to help you become a more informed person when it comes to immigration issues, laws, and news.

Please take a moment and check out our fresh new websites. We are in the process of upgrading all of our other legal departments (criminal defense, personal injury, tax relief and family law) and I’ll let you know as they become available. The currently live criminal defense and our personal injury websites will be replaced over the next few weeks.

In the meantime, let me know what you think about our newly designed websites!

Brad

“When communities are terrorized by ICE immigration raids, when nursing mothers are torn from their babies, when children come home from school to find their parents missing, when people are detained without access to legal counsel, when all that is happening, the system just isn’t working and we need to change it”, are the words of President Obama during a 2008 speech during a campaign stop.

Here’s President Obama’s current response to the call for him to use his Executive powers to suspend deportations from the Hispanic community and immigration advocate organizations.

According to the Associated Press,

“The critics questioned Obama’s recent comment that he could not use his executive order powers to suspend deportations because doing so ‘would not conform with my appropriate role as president.” Obama made the comment at a town hall organized by Univision TV network.

I guess you have to expect some level of flip-flopping these days from politicians from any party. No one has a problem deporting people who are here illegally and have committed serious crimes while here in the United States.

What unfortunately happens when ICE makes raids and conducts other deportation investigations is that people are often scooped up who have not committed any crimes, but may be here as undocumented workers. What happens? Kids come home to find a house with no parents (who have been picked up and deported). Things like this shouldn’t happen in a country like ours that has built its foundation on the backs of immigrants.

Enough said.

How frustrating do you think it is for someone who has had years of specialized training & experience in their home country and find themselves in jobs well outside their expertise? It happens everyday here in the United States.

Most of us Americans think of the job market strictly in terms of the continental United States. Many are under the impression that all the talent we need is right here in the U.S. already. The truth is that we depend upon the global supply of talent for many industries across a broad spectrum.

For example, much of the new start-up activity out of Silicon Valley can be attributed to immigrant talent. People today tend to forget that it has always been the immigration talent pool coming to our shores that plays a large role in American business and industry. It is apparently just too convenient to think everything has to be ‘made in America’ to be worthy, including our talent pool.

The Associated Press had a recent article on this issue entitled the “Brain Waste Thwarts Immigrants Dreams”. Here’s part of the article:

After finishing medical school in Bogota, Colombia, Maria Anjelica Montenegro did it all – obstetrics, pediatrics, emergency medicine, even surgery. By her estimate, she worked with thousands of patients.

For immigrants, it means bringing home less money than they have the potential to earn. For employers, it means fewer skilled applicants in their hiring pools. For the country overall, it means a missed opportunity to leverage already trained professionals in areas where there may be a desperate need for them.

——————————-
In globally connected world where the economies of one nation depends on the economies of other nations, countries that recognize and encourage global talent to arrive on their shores will win the day. Let’s hope the United States wakes up to this fact when it finally decides to re-engineer our immigration policies to reflect the globalization of talent. Our economic future depends on it.

We know the importance of immigration reform in the context of how critical it is to our own economy, we often forget how our immigration policies affect other countries economies. For instance, with President Obama traveling through Central America recently, he noted this (as reported by the Associated Press):

“Obama promised a new partnership across Central America to increase trade and economic growth, target drug trafficking and create opportunities so that people can find work in their home countries and “don’t feel like they have to head north to provide for their families.”

El Salvador has one of Central America’s highest rates of emigration, especially to the United States. About 2.8 million Salvadoran immigrants living in the United States sent home $3.5 billion last year, so laws that crack down on immigrants can significantly affect the Salvadoran economy. Obama said Republicans who now exert greater control in Washington were more reluctant than in the past to engage in comprehensive reform, but added, “I am confident that ultimately we are going to get it done.”
——————–
So it’s a delicate balance in the global sense that whatever we do on immigration reform can dramatically affect the economies of many of our partner countries, in this case, many South American countries. You could make the same case for our Caribbean partners as well.

Immigration reform isn’t just about the United States. We need to be aware that as a leader of the free world, whatever we do on immigration reform will impact many of our global partners good, bad, or indifferent.

I often hear people make the argument that the United States should require anyone who wants to enter the U.S. prove they can speak the English language. On the surface, that seems like a reasonable point of view…until you think about what it really means. What that requirement would do is put yet another barrier in the natural flow of immigration. It would essentially marginalize immigration into the United States and put a choke hold it.

Imagine if those going through Ellis Island more than 100 years ago had to meet this requirement. They all would have been turned back!!! And some of those who are anti-immigration wouldn’t be here in America today!!

What would our country be like today? I don’t know but I’ll venture a guess that we’d be less of a country for making English a requirement for entering our country legally. Of course, most immigrants do take on English as a second language because the reality is it helps in the economic transition here.

Recently, the Associated Press reported on how Italy and some other European countries are making speaking the native tongue a requirement for entering. Here are a few excerpts from that AP article I thought you might appreciate.

Italy is the latest Western European country turning the screws on an expanding immigrant population by demanding language skills in exchange for work permits, or in some cases, citizenship. While enacted last year in the name of integration, these requirements also reflect anxiety that foreigners might dilute fiercely-prized national identity or even, especially in Britain’s case, pose terror risks.

Home Secretary Theresa May, who aims to cut immigration to below 100,000 by 2015, said language tests will help weed out those who don’t plan to contribute to British life. She has singled out spouses seeking marriage visas to join English-speaking partners as a particular concern.

I wrote about this in my 3/8/11 blog post. Now, as reported recently by the Associated Press:

SALT LAKE CITY (AP) — Utah lawmakers have approved an immigration package that includes an enforcement law reminiscent of Arizona’s but tempered with a guest worker program for illegal immigrants.

The immigration measures approved by both chambers Friday night would allow illegal immigrants to get a permit to work in Utah. But they also include a requirement that police check the immigrant status of anyone stopped for a felony or serious misdemeanor.

Supporters say the entire package balances economic needs and compassion, while opponents argue it will likely encourage more illegal immigration.

Lawmakers initially balked at the enforcement measure, HB 497, because of what some viewed as a likely backlash. But sponsor Rep. Stephen Sandstrom, R-Orem, garnered enough support for passage after amending it to focus on more serious crimes.

The Arizona law approved last year drew nationwide controversy over provisions requiring police, while enforcing other laws, to question a person’s immigration status if they have reasonable suspicion they’re here illegally. That aspect of the law was put on hold by a federal judge.

The Senate sponsor, Sen. Margaret Dayton, R-Orem, said it was a “Utah effort” that distanced the state from criticisms leveled at Arizona’s law.

Rep. Bill Wright, R-Holden, the sponsor of the bill creating the guest worker program, HB 116, said if the state can secure a federal waiver the program could become a model for the entire country.

It would allow illegal immigrants to get a permit to live and work in Utah with their families.

The most vocal critic, Rep. Chris Herrod, R-Provo, said a guest worker program would draw more illegal immigrants to Utah.

“People think we’ll be seen as compassionate,” Herrod said. “People will actually see us as weak. They will see we don’t care about the rule of law.”

Other measures in the package easily passed the two chambers.

___

Associated Press reporter Chi-Chi Zhang contributed to this report.

Like many states these days, Georgia is trying to do what our federal government is seemingly unable to do: develop and passed an immigration reform bill. So this week the Georgia House has passed their version of immigration reform and the bill now moves onto the Georgia Senate.

This really bugs me for more than just the fact the our federal government has dropped the ball on immigration reform. What is really disturbing is that despite the judicial rebuke that Arizona suffered last year for passing their own immigration bill, states like George have all but ignored the Constitutional implications. State mandated immigration reform is outside the purview of the states…it’s clearly a federal issue. Nonetheless, the states have conveniently ignored that and are moving to do what the feds can’t.

As I’ve said many times before in this blog, immigration is a NATIONAL POLICY ISSUE, not to be created and stitched together by 50 individual states. What if we ran our federal tax system on the basis of what each individual state thought was best? It would be a nightmare (although I’m sure many would argue that it would be a good idea even though it isn’t).

The nightmare for our economy is for the employers, and especially multi-state employers…who have to figure out how to comply with immigration laws on both the federal and state levels.

You just can’t make this stuff up…it’s just unbelievable that our state legislators can be so ignorant of their actions.

What do you think?

With the advent of the federal electronic verification system, known as E-Verify, the feds are working hard to get every business using the system as a way to comply with immigration laws when hiring new employees. E-Verify is an idea that misses the mark on helping to solve the real issue here: immigration reform.

I want you to read the following, provided by the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA):

As the House Immigration Subcommittee prepares for its hearing, “E-Verify- Preserving Jobs for American Workers,” the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) calls upon Congress to tell Americans the full story of the flawed electronic employment verification system. Any expansion of this system will burden U.S. employers, waste time and taxpayer resources, and slow the nation’s economic recovery. The Congressional Budget Office reported that implementing mandatory E-Verify would cost American taxpayers as much as $3 billion over five years.

“Once again, Congress is missing the point. We can’t enforce our way out of a broken immigration system. What we need are solutions. Congress should consider a broad approach to immigration. Smart immigration policies that include a pathway to compliance for the millions of undocumented immigrants currently living and working in the U.S. would add billions of dollars to the economy and raise the wages of all American workers,” said Leopold.

E-Verify sounds like a great idea…on paper. Once again, it’s a band-aid to the real solution of national immigration reform.

I was just reading today in the Walls Street Journal that the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is requiring nearly 1,000 firms to turnover their employment records for an audit.

ICE is serious about this and according to the WSJ, has set up a new “employment compliance inspection center” to provide for a more robust coordination of employer audits.

Of course, there is always a political bend to these kinds of federal immigration enforcement efforts. As the WSJ noted, “The enforcement approach allows both Democrats and Republicans to argue that they’re tackling illegal immigration even in the absence of major new legislation on the issue. Both sides can tout enforcement as an effort to protect American workers from illegal immigrants, perceived as creating unfair competition for scarce jobs.”

Part of this push by ICE is to encourage more employers to use the new E-Verify system in place now. E-Verify allows employers to electronically valid the employment status of any new hire. Currently, only federal contractors are required by law to use E-Verify.

In any event, beefed up enforcement of current immigration laws is not a substitute for a serious effort to update our out-of-date immigration laws.

I just read an interesting post from the Associated Press on the latest legislative move coming out of Arizona. There is pending legislation that would effectively require hosipitals to “check on whether patients are in the country legally, causing outrage among medical professionals who fear becoming de facto immigration agents under the law”, noted the AP.

Interesting. This bill in Arizona is known as Senate Bill 1405 and according to the AP report, “The legislation, known as Senate Bill 1405, would require hospitals, when admitting nonemergency cases, to confirm that a person seeking care is a U.S. citizen or in the country legally. In emergency cases where the patient isn’t here legally, the hospital would be required to call immigration authorities after the treatment is done. Hospitals in non-emergency situations would also be required to contact federal immigration authorities, but they would have more apparent discretion about whether to treat illegal immigrants.”

It looks to me as if Arizona is trying to enlist medical facilities to be INS agents. You just can’t make this stuff up.

As you’ve heard me say time and time again, actions like the kind we see coming out of states like Arizona will continue until our federal government takes up the task of immigration reform. Until then, we’ll continue to see unbelievable actions like AZ Senate Bill 1405.

When he was eight years old, Luis Lopez was brought to the United States by his parents who had tourist visas. His parents later fell out of legal status. After finishing high school, Luis applied and was accepted into the U.S. Army. He served 10 years, including several war tours in Afganistan and Iraq. When Luis sought citizenship through his honorable military service, the Army decided to discharge him. Why? When he applied to join the Army, he used a fraudulent document to enlist. The Army discharged him in December of 2010.

So here we have a man who served this country for 10 years and honorably at that and we deny him the opportunity for a path to citizenship and end his fruitful Army career? Yes, he used a fraudulent document to gain entry into the Army. However, once he served, he had the right to pursue naturalization whether he was lawfully admitted or not.

The good news: In the end, the Army came to its senses and did the right thing. SSgt. Luis Lopez is now a United States citizen…and we can be glad for that.

Have an immigration question? You’ve come to the right place. Brad Bernstein will give you the opportunity to have your immigration questions answered LIVE on our BlogTalkRadio show! We have limited lines available, so make sure you call in early.

Date / Time: Thursday, 2/3/2011 3:00-3:45 PM Eastern Time
Link: www.blogtalkradio.com/sparbernstein
Call-in Number: (424) 222-5282

Despite the bad economy and ICE under the Obama administration working overtime to deport as many unauthorized immigrants as possible, a new Pew Center study indicates that the overall population has remained steady.

“As of March 2010, 11.2 million unauthorized immigrants were living in the United States, virtually unchanged from a year earlier, according to new estimates from the Pew Hispanic Center, a project of the Pew Research Center. This stability in 2010 follows a two-year decline from the peak of 12 million in 2007 to 11.1 million in 2009 that was the first significant reversal in a two-decade pattern of growth. Unauthorized immigrants were 3.7% of the nation’s population in 2010″, noted the study.

Some other key points worth noting:

■The number of unauthorized immigrants decreased from 2007 to 2010 in Colorado, Florida, New York and Virginia. The combined population in three contiguous Mountain West states-Arizona, Nevada and Utah-also declined.

■In contrast to the national trend, the combined unauthorized immigrant population in three contiguous West South Central states-Louisiana, Oklahoma and Texas-grew from 2007 to 2010.

■Although the number of unauthorized immigrants in the U.S. is below 2007 levels, it has tripled since 1990, when it was 3.5 million and grown by a third since 2000, when it was 8.4 million.

One way to look at this data is that despite border controls and aggressive deportation efforts, the unauthorized immigrant population is not going away. Neither is the need for an overhaul of our national immigration policy.

For a copy of the complete report, use this link:
http://pewhispanic.org/reports/report.php?ReportID=133

When Arizona decided in mid-2010 to take immigration policy and make it their own, there were many other states that echoed the same thought. Mississippi is now working to complete its own immigration policy, styled along the same lines as the Arizona law. Ignoring the fact that immigration is a national policy and knowing that our own Congress has ducked the issue, states like Mississippi and others are going headlong into creating even more chaos on the subject of immigration reform.

Is there any good that comes out of this? Immediately or longer term, no. If in the long term more states move to act on their own immigration reforms independent of our federal government, perhaps the feds will finally act. Perhaps we’ll have a balanced discussion based on facts and not rhetoric. Perhaps.

In the meantime, the Mississippi bill has successfully moved through its Senate and moves on for approval in the other side of the house.

One important note: While having states create their own immigration policies is the worst that can happen, the Mississippi bill draw one major difference from the Arizona bill: immigration status checks can only be done during the course of lawful stops for other offenses.

Regardless, the lack of federal action on immigration reform will echo in other states this year with a state-by-state policy of immigration reform.

There are a lot of myths and untruths circulating about birthright citizenship and the fourteenth amendment. I recently read a great mythbuster published by the American Immigration Lawyers Association (I’m a member) that I thought I’d share with you.

Myth: We can easily change the Constitution and eliminate birthright citizenship.

Fact: Wrong. The Fourteenth Amendment is a fundamental piece of American history, law, and values. As Eric Ward of the Center for New Community writes, “For African Americans, the Fourteenth Amendment is a cornerstone for key civil rights laws such as the right to vote, equal access, and protection against job discrimination.”

Attempting to change this amendment and fundamental right is irresponsible. Immigration attorney Margaret Stock adds: Eliminating birthright citizenship would be un-American. Birthright citizenship has been the rule since the dawn of the Republic. We should have a compellingly good reason to eliminate it-one better than frustration with the federal government’s inability to enforce existing immigration laws.

Myth: Denying birthright citizenship to the children of immigrants would decrease illegal immigration.

Fact: Wrong again. Denying birthright citizenship to children of immigrants would actually increase the number of illegal immigrants in the U.S. because babies would be born without status. The myth that immigrants come to the U.S. illegally to give birth to “anchor babies” and obtain legal status is simply not true. Children born in the U.S. have to wait until they’re at least 21 to petition for their parents. Even then there are many legal obstacles to getting a green card for their parents. In reality, ending birthright citizenship would mean that thousands of children would be born every year in the United States with no citizenship in any country.

Myth: Denying birthright citizenship to the children of immigrants would result in cost savings.

Fact: On the contrary, changing the simple rule that we have now (everyone born in the U.S. is automatically a citizen) would result in a significant burden on all Americans who would no longer have an easy and inexpensive way to prove their citizenship. The U.S. would have to create a national registry of citizens, and everyone born in the U.S. would have to have their citizenship adjudicated by a professional. Eliminating birthright citizenship would mean everyone would have to prove they are actually citizens-an even greater burden for minorities, the poor, and the uneducated. In other words, changing our citizenship laws would be incredibly costly for all Americans.

In sum, eliminating birthright citizenship would be unconstitutional, impractical, expensive, and complicated. Furthermore it would constitute an assault on the letter and the spirit of the U.S. Constitution as well as on the civil rights of all Americans. Margaret Stock concludes:

The policy arguments in favor of retaining birthright citizenship are very strong. The policy arguments against it are weak. Even if we believe that it is possible to interpret the Fourteenth Amendment differently than we have been interpreting it for more than a hundred years, it is not clear why we would want to do so. Trading an easy and egalitarian birthright-citizenship rule for one that would cause hardship to millions of Americans is not a smart way to approach our complex immigration problems.

Someone recently asked me if there were economic benefits to passing the Dream Act. The answers is YES.

- The DREAM Act will contribute to our military’s recruitment efforts and readiness. Secretary of Defense Gates has written to DREAM Act sponsors citing the rich precedent of non-citizens serving in the U.S. military and stating that “the DREAM Act represents an opportunity to expand [the recruiting] pool, to the advantage of military recruiting andreadiness.” The DREAM Act is also a part of the Department of Defense’s 2010-2012 Strategic Plan to assist the military in its recruiting efforts.

- The DREAM Act will make our country more competitive in the global economy. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan has stated that passing the DREAM Act will allow “these young people to live up to their fullest potential and contribute to the economic growth of our country.” In particular, the DREAM Act will play an important part in the nation’s efforts to have the highest proportion of college graduates in the world by 2020,” something vital for America to remain competitive in today’s global economy.

- The DREAM Act will have important economic benefits. According to a recent UCLA study, students that would be impacted by the DREAM Act could add between $1.4 to $3.6 trillion in taxable income to our economy over the course of careers, depending on how many ultimately gain legal status. This income is substantially higher than the income they would earn if they were unable to attend and complete a college education. In fact, research indicates that the average college graduate earned nearly 60 percent
more than a high-school graduate. We have much to gain from doing right by these young people.

- The DREAM Act will allow our immigration and border security experts to focus on those who pose a serious threat to our nation’s security. Secretary Napolitano believes this targeted legislation provides a firm but fair way to deal with innocent children brought to the U.S. at a young age so that the Department of Homeland Security can dedicate their enforcement resources to detaining and deporting criminals and those who pose a threat to our country.

In early November, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) promised to bring up key immigration-related legislation before the end of the year. It now appears that the DREAM Act is poised for a potential vote during the current lame duck session of Congress.

Although Congress was in recess last week, the groundwork has been laid for quick action on the DREAM Act now that members are back. As you may know, Sen. Durbin (D-IL) already re-introduced two new versions of the bill (S.3962 and S.3963), and Sen. Reid used Senate Rule XIV which allowed the two measures to bypass referral to a committee for debate and mark-up, and instead placed them directly on the Senate calendar for possible action.

Because Republicans have already threatened to filibuster the DREAM Act, Sen. Reid has indicated that he may file for cloture as early as this evening. This means that action on the DREAM Act could take place as early as Wednesday, December 1st.

BUT, in order for this to happen, we must keep the pressure on Members of Congress. It’s more important than ever that you take action TODAY by writing and calling your member of Congress and urging them to support both these common-sense and urgently needed immigration measures.

WE NEED YOU TO CALL YOUR MEMBER OF CONGRESS AND TELL THEM YOU SUPPORT THE DREAM ACT AND URGE THEM TO PASS IT.

You can use this link to find the telephone number of your representatives to call…and please call today! Copy and paste this link into your browser for easy access:

http://www.capwiz.com/aila2/callalert/index.tt?alertid=19988631&type=CO

I want to bring to your attention yet another example of local immigration enforcement gone amok.

In 1996, Congress delegated the responsibility to enforce federal immigration regulations to local enforcement officials. Congress provided funding under a program noted officially as 287(g), which allows local enforcement to happen. Local juristictions can apply to participate in the program and, as a matter of course, receive federal funding to support their local immigration enforcement efforts.

In late October of this year, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security completed a review of the 287(g) program. What did they find? Plenty of things that need fixing.

Some of the more critical items they found:

- Poor local management and reporting of 287(g) activities and funds. The report noted that it was difficult to account for how local funds were spent on hiring staff for the local enforcement program. I’d say that’s a problem alright. It also means that the reporting and auditing processes developed for the 287(g) program were weak to begin with.

The report noted that, “According to ICE officials, OPR has been increasing its workforce since the inception of the 287(g) inspection program. However, due to conflicting data from ICE officials, we were unable to determine the number of OPR personnel working on 287(g) related assignments, or personnel whose salaries were paid from 287(g) program funds.”

That’s a nice way of saying the feds don’t really know how the money is being allocated and spent at the local level.

But it gets better. The report also noted that, “A review of completed inspection reports with names of contributing staff members showed that only 4 of the 19 staff members listed on the TOPS report actually participated in 287(g) inspections in FY 2009.” So what are the other 15 staff members doing? They’re not sure.

“ICE has not implemented procedures to ensure the integrity and accountability over 287(g) program resources. As a result, we were unable to confirm that these resources were used appropriately.”

Since the program’s inception, Congress has allocated a total of $183.6 million to fund local immigration enforcement through 287(g). While this amount is considered small change in federal government terms, it’s still worthy of taking another look at. It doesn’t matter how much money is involved, the issue is about creating local immigration enforcement programs that the federal goverment can’t keep track of.

As taxpayers, we deserve better and should insist on management procedures and reporting that makes local agencies actually responsible for taxpayer money.