A Follow-Up to This Morning’s Post About That Wretched L.A. Times Article on Apprehensions of Fugitive Aliens
This morning I criticized an L.A. Times article that claimed that a new study, “along with newly released internal memos,” shows that ICE has “abandoned its stated mission to go after dangerous fugitives and instead targeted noncriminal undocumented workers.” I showed that the study actually showed that ICE had done no such thing, but rather had given greater latitude to teams serving warrants on fugitive aliens to arrest other illegal aliens they encountered while serving those warrants.
Following up on my post this morning about ICE’s arrests of fugitive aliens, commenter carlitos uncovered further evidence supporting my arguments. His findings are significant enough to merit a new post.
carlitos provides a link to the internal memos that, according to the L.A. Times, show that ICE had “abandoned its stated mission to go after dangerous fugitives.” Here’s a representative quote from one of the memos: “Apprehending fugitive criminal alien cases has always been, and will continue to be, one of the highest priorities for FUGOPS teams.” Further:
To further the enforcement mission of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the FUGOPS teams will prioritize their fugitive cases according to the following standards:
1. Fugitives that pose a threat to national security
II Fugitives that pose a threat to the community
III. Fugitives convicted of violent crimes
IV. Fugitives with criminal records
V. Fugitives that are non-criminals
There will be no percentage quota for the types of cases to be worked. Fugitive cases at all priority levels are to be worked by the FUGOPS teams, but the higher priority cases take precedence.
Wow. You can really feel the abandonment of the commitment to go after dangerous fugitives, huh? It just leaps off the page at you, all that “abandonment.”
But surely the numbers don’t reflect this commitment? After all, in a quote from the study that appeared in this morning’s article, one of the study’s co-authors claims: “Maids and landscapers are precisely the people being rounded up by this program.” carlitos quotes some statistics from the memos that are a wee bit consistent with this claim — and are more consistent with the sorts of numbers I provided this morning:
(1) fugitive vs. non-fugitive arrests, within the meaning of ICE’s Fugitive Case
Management System Reporting and the 1000 Arrest Annual Goal for Fugitive
Operation Teams Memorandum, dated Sept. 29, 2006;
FY05: Fugitives: 5,781; Non-fugitive: 2,178
FY06: Fugitives: 10,109; Non-fugitive: 5,353
FY07: Fugitives: 18,323; Non-fugitive: 12,084
FY08: Fugitives: 25,936; Non-fugitive: 8,219
Most of the people being arrested are fugitives — not maids and landscapers.
The article features a prominent quote from someone at the “Immigration Justice Clinic” claiming that the government is targeting the “low-hanging fruit” of noncriminal undocumented workers. But what is the “Immigration Justice Clinic”? Should we not know this, to assess the credibility of the so-called expert’s claim? Apparently, the editors at the L.A. Times think this information is irrelevant. They neglect to tell readers anything about this organization — but carlitos comes up with the goods that the paper fails to disclose:
Initiated at the law school in 2008, the Immigration Justice Clinic responds to the vital need today for quality legal representation for indigent immigrants facing deportation, while also providing students with invaluable hands-on lawyering experience. The clinic represents immigrants facing deportation before federal immigration authorities and in the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and represents immigrant community-based organizations on litigation and advocacy projects. Peter L. Markowitz, a practicing attorney and full-time clinical assistant professor, is the director.
Yes, it’s an immigrants’ rights group. Was that not pertinent information, editors?
As for the Migration Policy Institute, the independent, nonpartisan think tank that put out the study . . . I checked its sources of funding. I fully expected to find what I found: that one of the funders is the Open Society Institute — in other words, our old friend George Soros. (Who else?)
Ah, the things the L.A. Times neglects to tell you. You could fill a book with them.