The Center for American Progress reports
A forthcoming report in the Journal of Law and Economics concluded what immigration advocates have charged for the past six years: the federal immigration enforcement program known as Secure Communities, which seeks to flush out criminal immigrants, does not lower the crime rate. In fact, the study authors found that the program targeted Latino communities and that the program "did not cause a meaningful reduction" in the overall crime rate or in rates of violent crimes. Given that the program has "long been publicly justified primarily on grounds that they keep communities safer from violent crime," the finding counters the program as an effective crime control strategy.
Since Secure Communities' inception in 2008, about 97 percent of all the counties in the United States have mobilized local immigration enforcement to share all arrested immigrants' fingerprints with the Department of Homeland Security, regardless of the nature of the offense or whether that immigrant was ultimately convicted. DHS can then issue a detainer asking local enforcement officials to hold the immigrant until federal officials can take them into custody. Those immigrants could then be placed in deportation proceedings. The intention of the program is to prioritize individuals charged with serious crimes, but in practice, immigrants who have committed minor offenses are swept up in the deportation pipeline.
Analyzing data culled from more than 3,000 U.S. counties, study authors Professors Adam Cox and Thomas Miles found that there was no empirical evidence (paywalled) that Secure Communities reduced the rate of serious crimes. The authors found that that the only area in which there might be "suggestive evidence of a small reduction... were the less serious property crimes burglary and perhaps motor vehicle theft." Between 2008 and mid-2013, 29 percent of the immigrants deported had committed serious Level 1 offenses.
Related Stories
Raw Story summarizes a New York Times report that Colleges across the country this spring have been wrestling with student requests for what are known as "trigger warnings," explicit alerts that the material they are about to read or see in a classroom might upset them or, as some students assert, cause symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder in victims of rape or in war veterans.
The debate has left many academics fuming, saying that professors should be trusted to use common sense and that being provocative is part of their mandate. Trigger warnings, they say, suggest a certain fragility of mind that higher learning is meant to challenge, not embrace. "Any kind of blanket trigger policy is inimical to academic freedom," said Lisa Hajjar, a sociology professor, who often uses graphic depictions of torture in her courses about war. "Any student can request some sort of individual accommodation, but to say we need some kind of one-size-fits-all approach is totally wrong. The presumption there is that students should not be forced to deal with something that makes them uncomfortable is absurd or even dangerous."
Greg Lukianoff, president of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, said, "It is only going to get harder to teach people that there is a real important and serious value to being offended. Part of that is talking about deadly serious and uncomfortable subjects."
A summary of the College Literature, along with the appropriate trigger warnings, assumed or suggested in the article is as follows: Shakespeare's "The Merchant of Venice" (anti-Semitism), Virginia Woolf's "Mrs. Dalloway" (suicide), "The Great Gatsby" (misogynistic violence), and "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn" (racism).
Note: The Raw Story link was provided to provide an alternative to the article source, the New York Times, due to user complaints about the NYT website paywalling their articles.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 07 2014, @01:53PM
Costs a lot of money: yes.
Has nice, glossy PR: yes.
Claims it needs secrecy to work effectively: yes.
Actually does not work if tested by outsiders: yes.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 07 2014, @02:05PM
All this anti-immigration posturing by our politicians is a counterproductive waste of resources.
It's been pointed out before, but the Tea Party is just the Know Nothing Party of our time. The Know Nothings were a political movement by Protestant Americans just prior to the American Civil War that mobilized against the perceived 'invasion' of Catholic immigrants, particularly from Ireland, who were accused of rampant public drunkenness and criminal behavior. And, of course, of taking away jobs from established residents ('Natives') by accepting lower wages and inferior working conditions.
As a nation, we probably need more Latino immigrants, not less. The economic power of a nation is tied to its GDP, which in turn is limited by its population. One of Russia's many problems is that its population has been declining. The population of the USA is rising slowly, but mostly because of immigration. Meanwhile, the China and India are both 3-4 times our size already and are growing like... well, how about bamboo shoots.
Latinos come from countries that are predominantly Roman Catholic, and many of those countries enjoy the game of baseball - a quintessential American activity that reinforces many of our values.
(Score: 1) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday September 07 2014, @03:47PM
Speaking of knowing nothing... You must have drank ALL of the Kool-Aid you've seen Re: the Tea Party. Let me splain. No there is too much. Let me sum up. The Tea Party wants immigration laws enforced. No more, no less. There's not a single word in the platform about how many immigrants should be allowed in legally. That is not anti-immigrant policy, that is anti-criminal policy. There's a world of difference.
Personally, I agree that we should have the borders thrown wide open to anyone who wants to legally enter. They largely come here because of ambition for a better life through hard work and we are sorely lacking that in a large, predominantly blue section of our population. I think the Republicans are idiots for not embracing any population segment that aligns so extremely closely with their stated platform but that's their problem. The Republicans are not the Tea Party. If you really have to put a political spectrum label to the Tea party, call them libertarians; you'll be a hell of a lot less incorrect.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 07 2014, @04:23PM
There's not a single word in the platform about how many immigrants should be allowed in legally. That is not anti-immigrant policy, that is anti-criminal policy.
Buzzard, there were no quotas on immigration in the 19th century, none until Congress passed a law in 1921 and again in 1924 (which BTW those favored entrants from Western Europe). It was almost impossible to enter America ILLEGALLY before 1921, unless you were a slave, or coming over specifically to work as a prostitute or forced laborer.
So when Tea Party folks talk proudly of their great grandparents having been legal immigrants, well, they didn't have any quotas or border patrols or ten year waiting periods to deal with. Some of them MAY have had to contend with discrimination and slurs and protests, of being linked by association with murder and rape cases having nothing whatsoever do with them personally. Imagine how proud they would be that their descendants are now continuing that enlightened tradition.
(Score: 1, Troll) by Ethanol-fueled on Sunday September 07 2014, @04:55PM
And America back then is exactly as it is now, and that's why we need to let anybody who wants in, in.
And as politically incorrect as it was to favor those from Western Europe, do you think there was a reason for that? Sure there was, probably because you want the people most like you in your country. Could you imagine what America would look like today if only Gypsies were allowed in? Pretty shitty, to be sure. You want people most like you, who will not require painful cultural readjustment like having to learn not to piss and shit in the streets or rape everything with a vagina on it. You want people with some level of education so they will be productive.
Yes, that's politically incorrect, but then again maybe you should go to the jungles of Africa or the South Pacific Ocean and explain to that hungry lion or shark that it would be racist to eat you just because you are a human. Political correctness can fuck off and die like the artificial construct it is.
WHITE POWER! HEIL HITLER!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 07 2014, @06:00PM
1921 and again in 1924
This was during a major resurgence of the Ku Klux Klan.
They were so brazen in that period, they marched en force in the streets of Washington DC. [google.com]
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." --George Santayana
.
...and it's interesting how the (paywalled) link in the summary is OK on other pages and gets mangled on the Reply To page.
-- gewg_
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 07 2014, @04:54PM
> The Tea Party wants immigration laws enforced. No more, no less.
"We just want the laws enforced!" is merely a convenient half-truth. How do I know? Because repealing the laws is the easiest and by far cheapest way to satisfy that requirement but you never hear anyone talking about that. No, anyone who talks about open borders gets all kinds of rhetoric about letting in criminals and terrorists.
And then we are right back where we started - who gets to chose what the law says? Its like those gun-control advocates who want to outlaw bullets. They say they aren't trying to outlaw guns, they point out their bills don't even mention firearms, just ammunition. But anyone with more political sophistication than a 12-year old can see what the intended results are.
(Score: 2) by Leebert on Sunday September 07 2014, @07:38PM
First, that's an awfully broad brush with which you are painting. I know plenty of people who are not fundamentally opposed to increasing immigration while simultaneously being in favor of the rule of law. I'm one of them. I personally believe that we could use more immigration, but it needs to be legal. I have zero issue with re-visiting our immigration laws.
Second, you're setting up a false choice that we either need to ignore our immigration laws or have open borders. I would not be surprised if you encountered lots of opposition because your solution to the illegal imigration problem is allowing limitless immigration.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 07 2014, @07:46PM
> your solution to the illegal imigration problem is allowing limitless immigration.
Yes, that is another standard complaint that when analyzed comes down to superficially convenient rhetoric along the lines of it being impossible, unsustainable, etc.
I'm afraid that you've just demonstrated that the broadness of my brush is accurate.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday September 07 2014, @11:06PM
It is not remotely rhetoric. It is my honest, heartfelt belief that the borders should both be much more widely opened to legal immigration and that illegal immigration should have a zero tolerance policy. There is no conflict between the positions.
The latter is neither impossible nor unsustainable, you simply prefer to do an end run around the law via selective enforcement. And selective enforcement, as we all should know by now, is a hallmark of tyrants and the corrupt. You cannot have equal justice under the law if you do not apply and enforce it with neither compassion nor malice.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Sunday September 07 2014, @07:45PM
Then you'll be pleased to know that the Obama has deported more illegal immigrants than any previous president. And if you're wondering about why he can't send those Central American kids back to where they came from, it's because current law prohibits him from doing so.
The problem with that claim is that the Tea Party doesn't do what independent political parties do, namely hold primaries and conventions and nominate their own candidates. Instead, they're acting much more like, say, the AFL-CIO on the Democratic side, endorsing and funding candidates within the primary of another party, in this case the Republican Party.
Approximately 1/3 of Republican members of Congress (and 0 non-Republican) have been part of the Tea Party Caucus, which existed for several years under the leadership of Michelle Bachmann and would seem to be an indication that a lot of the Republican representation is at least sympathetic to the Tea Party. So while it's wrong to say that all Republicans are the Tea Party, it is also very incorrect to claim that the Tea Party isn't a major part of the Republican Party.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 07 2014, @10:44PM
game of baseball - a quintessential American activity that reinforces many of our values.
Like learning to lob hand grenades?
(Score: 3, Informative) by bzipitidoo on Sunday September 07 2014, @02:20PM
The US has been throwing a paranoia party ever since the start of the Cold War. Everything is about security. I'm not sure money is in first place anymore, as in "money isn't everything but it's way ahead of whatever is in 2nd place". We almost relaxed a little when the Cold War ended, but 9/11 turned that around. We spend more on the military than any 14 nations combined. Seems the fastest, easiest way to get any research funded is to link it to national security somehow.
Many people are suckers for ineffective security: car alarms, house alarms, wooden fences and gated communities, extended warranties, all kinds of insurance, and all sorts of "think of the children" laws. Don't leave that child alone in the parked car! But it's okay to risk the child and yourself by taking the kid with you on a drive. Airbags, one of the few real improvements to our safety, might save us. And, you know, you ought to train your child to use an Uzi, so she can shoot the bad guys when the half a dozen deadbolts on the front door don't stop them from getting into the house through a broken window. Because, you know, we imprison more people than any other nation, but the streets are still not safe at night. Oh, you put bars on the windows? How do you get out if the house catches on fire? Charybdis or Scylla? Decisions, decisions.
Last month I even had a guy try to scare me into accepting his lawn mowing service. He emphasized that the neighborhood and city were cracking down on people who didn't mow their lawns often enough. What next? Maybe a door to door proselitizer will try Pascal's Wager on me.
At least airport security has been recognized as going to ridiculous lengths, for instance by confiscating nail clippers. The fear that electronic devices could disrupt airplane operation and communication is another. FDR: "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself". How about a bit of Dr, Strangelove? How I learned to stop worrying and love the bomb?
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Sunday September 07 2014, @02:36PM
Home of the brave, indeed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1) by FunkyLich on Sunday September 07 2014, @03:33PM
You seem to have left out the "land of the free" bit. It is an important bit. Every Texan worth his cowboy hat will tell you how nice it is to be free to carry a pistol Billy-the-Kid style around the waist.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Sunday September 07 2014, @11:36PM
Which, of course, worth nothing if the bank liquidate your mortgage (Texas in the 4th place [corelogic.com] for 2013 - PDF warning).
My point: texan_accent("You ain't free if the bank owns you, pardner");
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by Tork on Sunday September 07 2014, @05:57PM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 07 2014, @08:08PM
Last month I even had a guy try to scare me into accepting his lawn mowing service.
My neighbor tries that shit on me about once a year. He even calls the city to have them come out and look. They knock on the door and say they are from the city and 'someone complained'. About all they do is say 'maybe you should mow it'. Which is bureaucraticiese for 'well we are out here and have too look big and bad and say SOMETHING'
The first year he came over and decided to do it himself. We got into a shouting match. "I am going to call the police on you". "Tell you what come inside I will call them FOR you and THEY can tell you what a dope you are being". I know the rules. If the whole yard is taller than 1.5 ft they will mow it. Even then they still give you 2-3 chances to do it first. 1 inch taller than your yard is not 'lets call the cops'.
Funny how his yard looks like fucking weedville and mine looks awesome now... Because I know scalping the grass to the roots does not encourage growth when it is very hot out. It kills the plant. But he is out there every spring with a new bag of seed and wondering why it all died and where all the weeds are coming from. From the 95% bag of grass seed. The other 5% is weeds.
My wife is nuts about 'locking the doors'. I keep telling her that it does not matter when they can pick up a lawn chair and toss it thru the back door... Locks keep the lazy thieves honest. Which is most people.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 07 2014, @08:21PM
My wife is nuts about 'locking the doors'. I keep telling her that it does not matter when they can pick up a lawn chair and toss it thru the back door... Locks keep the lazy thieves honest. Which is most people.
So... If lazy thieves are the most common kind, that is an argument for doing what it takes to discourage the lazy ones because that gets you the most results for the least effort.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by bootsy on Monday September 08 2014, @11:12AM
Agreed, generally security is abount making people feel it is too much effort to bother. Most theft is opportunist and not pre-planned. If someone wants to get into your house then, in the limit, they always can: take a JCB and knock a wall down.
One of the best deterrents is to leave lights on and the radio on a spoken word channel. In the UK Radio 4 works very well for this.
I would have thought that if you were an illegal immigrant you would want to keep your head down and get on with a cash in hand job that won't be noticed. Being involved in crime is a very good way of getting deported.
Citi Group (as it was called then) did some analysis on the sub-prime mortgages of illegal immigrants ( yes really ) and it turns out they defaulted far less than the native US population as they did everything in cash and made sure they put aside money to pay for accomodation first.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by lonestar on Sunday September 07 2014, @11:19PM
The intention of the program is to prioritize individuals charged with serious crimes, but in practice, immigrants who have committed minor offenses are swept up in the deportation pipeline.
Minor offenses, other than being in the country illegally, right?
P.S. - What a shock the results of this study are, a shock I say!
(Score: 1) by DaTrueDave on Monday September 08 2014, @03:09AM
By it's very nature, a computer system that refers foreign nationals that have been arrested to US immigration authorities reduces crime, in that it's a crime to enter the United States illegally and removing those criminals from the country reduces the number of criminals in our communities. The fact that violent criminals are prioritized makes it even better. Will those crimes be committed again? I'm sure. That's why the border needs to be secured. In the meantime, we need to remove the criminals from our midst.
I haven't read the study, but I see some serious flaws in the summary. I think there are some massive assumptions being made here.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 08 2014, @07:40AM
Actually it increases crime. They're illegal immigrants, their crime is entering the country illegally. That's done and over whether you deport them or not. But by sending them back, you're putting them in a position where they can commit that crime again; something they can't while they're still here.
(Score: 1) by lonestar on Tuesday September 09 2014, @11:24PM
Anonymous Coward logic at its finest.