Questing for Atlantis

If there is one thing that anti-immigration activists get excited about, it is the 287(g) program. On the other hand, there are those (like myself) who oppose it, arguing it doesn’t work and ultimately creates more dangerous communities by encouraging illegal immigrants to quietly endure crime because they are scared of being deported if they talk to the police.

Luckily, at least for those opposed to the program, it just received a pretty damning indictment from the Department of Homeland Security.

From Immigration Impact:

The report, The Performance of 287(g) Agreements, identifies numerous shortcomings that lead to abuse and mismanagement and raises serious questions about the wisdom of state and local immigration enforcement partnerships with ICE. The OIG found that the program was poorly managed and supervised, has no consistent guidelines for implementation, doesn’t track data necessary for evaluating the program, doesn’t have adequate outreach, and offers misleading and inaccurate information, among other things. Most importantly, the Inspector General determined that ICE fails to take action against law enforcement agencies that violate the terms of the agreement. Can you say Joe Arpaio, anyone?

And ILW.com’s Greg Siskind has pulled out some of the key parts of the report;

We observed instances in which Immigration and Customs Enforcement and participating law enforcement agencies were not operating in compliance with the terms of the agreements. We also noted several areas in which Immigration and Customs Enforcement had not instituted controls to promote effective program operations and address related risks. Immigration and Customs Enforcement needs to

(1) establish appropriate performance measures and targets to determine whether program results are aligned with program goals;

(2) develop guidance for supervising 287(g) officers and activities;

(3) enhance overall 287(g) program oversight;

(4) strengthen the review and selection process for law enforcement agencies requesting to participate in the program;

(5) establish data collection and reporting requirements to address civil rights and civil liberties concerns;

(6) improve 287(g) training programs;

(7) increase access to and accuracy of 287(g) program information provided to the public; and

(8) standardize 287(g) officers’ access to Department of Homeland Security information systems.

So when you have a program that has been found to have minimal oversight, no measurable goal objective, provides misleading or false information, has been heavily misused in many cases, and appears to quite possibly be leading to more of what it was meant to stop, it makes sense to me to suspend the program and seriously consider whether or not it should be continued.

Of course, that would mean that government policy was rooted in what is rational, not in what is politically convenient.