|
 |
|
|
|
Posted on
02/15/2007 12:01 AM EST
|
Paul Kasun
With the abolishment of the old Immigration and Naturalization Service in 2003, the Bush Administration succeeded to wrest the enforcement branch of immigration from civic minded managers and supervisors. In the past, Regional Commissioners and District Directors managed both the enforcement of Immigration laws and the service side of Immigration laws. Now each of these sides reports to different bosses, and we are beginning to see the motivations behind this change.
The question that interests this article is: why did the Bush Administration give hard-line, often right-wing Americans control of immigration enforcement rather than liberal, civilian minded Americans? To answer this question, I will refer to Mr. George Weissinger, who wrote the book, Law Enforcement and the INS. He suggests that the break up of the old INS from the Department of Justice to its current place with the Department of Homeland Security was to promote “a clear mission to secure the nation and protect the citizenry from terrorism and natural disasters.”
In this article, I argue that Weissinger’s ideal is really a myth, conscious or not, and that this is another example of how the Bush administration prefers violent methods to solve social problems. Let us first take the example of U.S. citizens born from foreigners. The Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has created 50 fugitive teams to search for and arrest people who were ordered to leave the U.S. by an immigration judge, for one reason or another. In the recent raids from coast to coast, U.S. citizen children are arriving home without a parent. What happens to these children? How are these children, born, raised and educated in the American way of life, protected by this mission of the Department of Homeland Security? Why does Weissinger exclude these U.S. citizens from discussion in his book?
This suggests that there are other motivations behind the break-up of INS, and we might get a clue to those answers by looking at other questions. For example, what does it mean to have hard-line, often right-wing Americans in control of the police enforcement of immigration? What is the profile of the kinds of people that the Bush Administration has put in control of the agency?
Turning to Weissinger, his book reveals a certain psychology of the kind of person that gravitates to work as an ICE agent. Weissinger states, “One of the most efficient and productive strategies used by the …INS was the …Area Control Unit that made sweeps and located illegal aliens in the community. Unfortunately, the INS was pressured to stop this type of enforcement by various interest groups and political concerns. When in full operation, the Area Control Section was very effective in locating and apprehending illegal aliens and the investigators experienced higher morale when they were allowed to do their job in that unit.”
It appears that the Bush Administration made a decision to give power in the new set-up of immigration to managers and supervisors who would authorize a relentless and unremitting enforcement of certain immigration laws. If the Bush Administration is for a guest worker program, why would they place people in power who are against guest worker programs? Weissinger states that “the current situation further increases poverty, lack of jobs, overpopulation, and corruption in the sending countries, and the illegal alien population in the US will continue to increase…. The greed of business owners that want cheap labor lowers the overall standard of living.” Weissinger suggests that ICE agents are not in favor of liberal immigration laws.
Humanly speaking, ICE agents could not relentlessly enforce certain immigration laws if they did not believe that they were contributing to the good of the country. Weissinger provides a conservative, right-wing ideology for the actual situation of many immigrants: increased apprehensions and deportations. He ignores the wisdom of past civilian minded Regional Commissioners and District Directors. His book attempts to justify the right wing myths, show how their morale may be boosted, and at the same time how to get rid of any guilty feelings about arresting and deporting hard working people of color. There is nothing about how this policy ruptures the American social fabric or hurt the U.S. citizen relatives.
On the contrary, he laments the fact that undocumented (he prefers the term “illegal”) people gain a spot in the hearts of American citizens. “Legal and social groups, including immigration lawyers and religious and human interest groups develop a vested interest in protecting the illegal alien.” Are we to believe that the motives of immigration lawyers and religious and human interest groups have tainted motives for working with “illegal” immigrants?
Americans of good will must continue to counteract this flawed vision and understanding of the immigration debate. It is wrong, dangerous and toxic to refuse services to illegal aliens, of which will only cause them to go more deeply underground, and cause other, ordinary Americans to shun and despise immigrants. Transparency and openness will raise people out of poverty, not removal and deportation. Legal and social groups, including immigration lawyers and religious and human interest groups, need to continue developing links in the community. This includes illegal aliens as much as our law enforcement agencies.
Moreover, there is the bigger picture. In an article titled “Justice Deported” by David Bacon in American Prospect Online, he reveals that ICE is not its own creation, but an instrument of privileged Americans whose motivations are more sinister. He states that “Before 1986, the then-Immigration and Naturalization Service conducted months of high-profile workplace raids, called Operation Jobs. INS used the raids to produce public support for the employer sanctions provision later written into the 1986 immigration law.”
This kind of thing continued: “In 1998, the INS mounted a huge enforcement action in Nebraska, also targeting meatpacking workers, called Operation Vanguard. Mark Reed, then INS District Director in Dallas, was open about its purpose – to get industry and Congress to support new bracero-type contract labor programs.” Today, the privileged, represented by President Bush, want the same thing and ICE is suppose to convince us of this.
These policies continue to lead our culture into deeper divisions along racial lines. If liberal and far left Americans fail to gain control of the political apparatus of the American government, then a reign of right-wing militarism will continue until people of color have accepted the new draconian terms of caste society in America. Weissinger represents the new wave of power entrenched in our Executive Branch of government. He has given us a blue print on the new immigration strategy, bolstered by conservative politics, commentators and far right wing associations.
The immigration debate is a political struggle we can win through our patience, perseverance and steadfastness. Americans need to fight to put into power those who want civilian control of the military and law enforcement – Americans who are committed to having the military and the police serve civilian society. Under no conditions ought civilians acquiesce power or control to the military or law enforcement. It is the conservative establishment that pines for the days of clear cut caste lines. Rather, integration and the elimination of caste will bring peace and prosperity to America and the world.
Paul Kasun serves with the Benedictine Mission House.
|
|
|
|
|
view more photos
view more videos
El Semanario New Mexico 
El Chicago Hispano 
El Semanario