Immigration sweep is overly antagonistic
In response to Donald Trump’s anti-immigration rhetoric, the California GOP renounced its former hard line stance on “illegal aliens,” a term it frequently used, and called for a more inclusive platform altogether. While the party fixes its tone and language on the issue, immigration reform remains a contentious issue among state agencies. Just as the Republicans work to correct systemic dysfunction, the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement conducted a four-day sweep late last month to deport undocumented immigrants with criminal records. Targeted specifically in Southern California, the operation apprehended 244 immigrants convicted of at least one felony last month. To compensate for its laissez-faire approach to enforcement prior to the sweep, the ICE detained these individuals for future deportation, whereas before undocumented immigrants could easily undermine ICE operational codes and end up back on the streets with little to no repercussions for major crimes. Though the ICE effectively promotes homeland security and accounts for public safety in this case, its newly heightened avenue for enforcement threatens innocent documented and undocumented immigrants.
As part of the agency’s National Fugitive Operations Program, the sweep is both warranted and effective. But by covering such a large quantity of people in a constrained period of time, this department inadvertently constructs all immigrants into a single narrative — that of a criminal. In turn, the public’s perception of this four-day sweep homogenizes immigrants altogether as opposed to viewing each individual on a case-by-case basis.
In the past, the ICE utilized local jails to temporarily detain undocumented immigrants. Without the need to abide by regulation, ICE officials easily found and disposed of these individuals. The illegal-but-effective plan of action, however, delegitimizes the ICE as a whole. As a result, sweeps such as this one, though costly and far more complex, are the new standard operating procedure.
According to the ICE, 56 percent of immigrants convicted had criminal records that included major felonies, such as engaging in drug trade, sexual assault of minors and unauthorized possession of weaponry. The remaining 44 percent had multiple misdemeanors. A margin of error, however narrow, includes a number of immigrants without any violent offenses. Innocent immigrants who have deportations in progress are set to be removed promptly. The larger group of violent felons, in actuality, have a chance of a fair trial.
Purposefully, the perceived efficacy of this sweep not only makes it much easier for law enforcement to criminalize and antagonize all immigrants collectively, but it also restrains the system’s need for checks and balances. A great sense of accountability within the Department of Homeland Security will be lost in the frenzy of this operation’s success. The purpose is understandable — yet the execution itself holds greater repercussions that are detrimental to the sociological well-being of immigrants. The issue lies in how the sweep was articulated to the public, and particularly in the implicit and explicit messages that followed suit.
Both the National Fugitive Operations Program and the media must take responsibility in the ways in which they crafted the public’s narrow perception of immigrants. If immigrants, documented or not, are conditioned to be criminalized, the path toward social justice lies in dismantling that systemic complex. In understanding the sociological consequences of branding an entire group as criminals, it is clear that the ICE plays an important role in the public’s idea of immigration. Evidently, this potentially determines the future of policy reform.
With the 2016 election on the horizon, a narrative of this gravity can legitimize either side of the political spectrum. Opponents to inclusive citizenship can easily monopolize the four-day sweep to enforce a stigma that will bolster their own political interests and keep the disenfranchised socially immobile. The criminalization of immigrants altogether sets social stratification in place, relegating them to second-rate citizenry. Again, this characterization does not apply to the actual criminals with major offenses; it does, however, apply to those who are umbrella-led into the criminal label by way of association.
In the same way the ICE prioritizes homeland security, it should also take accountability for a more inclusive sense of public safety. Dialing back the rhetoric in the media and dismantling the black-and-white manhunt aspect of sweeps will do more than enough to ensure public safety. The ICE should not engage in large-scale sweeps in short time lapses, as it works to tarnish the public image of the immigrant and the future of political reform.