Affects on the Latin-American Comunity
I.C.E. The United States Immigration and Customs
The agency, the stories and what it means for our community.
I.C.E. On Paper The process of immigration enforcement in the U.S. has existed as a politically contentious issue. I.C.E. handles its operations through a policy structure that receives support from lawmakers across both political parties. Most countries in the world today enforce immigration laws through dedicated enforcement agencies. Supporters of I.C.E. present multiple benefits which the agency can deliver. I.C.E. is set up to detect dangerous criminals which it targets for removal and it disrupts human trafficking operations. It also is made to secure proper operation of the immigration procedure. The law enforcement agencies implement their duties to protect the legal framework which government representatives establish through their elected position. The majority of developed nations operate agencies which ensure that their visa regulations and deportation mandates and their efforts against human trafficking, smuggling and other illegal activities are effectively enforced. The concept appears simple, because it allows direct passage. The entry and residence regulations are established through laws which Congress creates. The enforcement agency received its duty to implement the established laws. The practice of immigration enforcement has existed throughout many different time periods and multiple political parties have put it into affect. The Obama administration reached its peak for deportation numbers during the early The U.S. immigration enforcement debate revolves around legal matters and current policies. The personal experiences of Latino families together with their apprehensions about policy execution form the foundation of their discussion. Latino communities perceive I.C.E. as a threat, as the agency uses aggressive methods and officers allegedly employ excessive force. Civil rights advocates state that enforcement activities use broad-based operations together with aggressive arrest practices and racial profiling methods which impact both citizens and non-citizens. Research indicates that the consequences affect more people than those who receive direct targeting. According to the Pew Research Center, “...more than half of Latino adults report that they worry about deportation risks which could affect themselves, their family members or close friends.” About half of the people report that immigration enforcement activities make them feel unsafe in their own neighborhoods. The pressure which law enforcement agencies apply creates mental health problems for younger people. A study published by Social Science & Medicine reported, “...Intensified deportation enforcement has been associated with higher levels of anxiety, depression and behavioral problems among Hispanic adolescents, particularly those living in mixed status families.” Students utilize personal experiences to express their uncertainty. Freshman Ada’Mari Carapia shared the issue
2010s. The DHS reported that over three million people faced deportation between 2009 and 2016. Officials declared that the policy targeted individuals who had criminal records as well people who had simply crossed the border with no intention of proper process. However, critics asserted that the policy used immigration enforcement to target a wider group of people. Other administrations have also enforced immigration policy through interior measures. The agency itself was created in 2003 as part of a broader restructuring of federal security agencies after the Sept. 11 attacks. The central point of debate exists between theoretical concepts and their practical implementation. Critics argue that aggressive tactics, detention conditions and family separations have undermined the legitimacy of the system. Supporters argue that enforcement should be viewed as a basic concept which has different effects depending on its actual enforcement methods. The current policy discussions show that some lawmakers believe the debate will eventually move toward reform instead of complete elimination. The question Supporters of immigration enforcement argue that the government must retain the ability to enforce federal law and remove individuals who violate it. The methods used to enforce laws determine how entire communities experience legal systems. Latino families view the immigration enforcement debate as their direct experience. The migration enforcement debate impacts their daily lives through their everyday activities, internal concerns and their doubt about home safety. from her home, showing how enforcement fears have reached into everyday family decisions. She said “My family has and is genuinely considering moving out of the country in fear.” The possibility of immigration raids has made relatives question whether they can safely remain in their community. Valery Aparicio, freshman, experiences anxiety during her school days. “Everyday, I wonder if my parents will be there when I get home from school, because I know they could be taken at any point,” Aparicio said. Advocates say such fears illustrate a broader ripple effect. Policy researchers at Brooklyn Institution have shown that Latino communities experience a ‘chilling effect’ which causes people to avoid public areas, employment options and to refrain from reporting crimes because they fear immigration status coming into question.
immigration law enforcement, because it protects American jobs while confirming that immigration laws should be followed.” stated an anonymous student. Critics contend that I.C.E. operations employ excessive force which produces negative consequences for Latin- American communities. The Washington Post reports that I.C.E. has detained ‘hundreds of thousands of non-citizens’ in facilities which critics describe as ‘inaccessible and lacking operational visibility’. The I.C.E. debate currently shows increasing ideological rifts between opposing sides. Some Americans consider the agency essential for immigration law enforcement while others demand either reform or complete overhaul to its operations. This dispute continues to influence national discussions about immigration policy, law enforcement practices and human rights issues within the U.S.
Enforcement agency, which people often refer to as I.C.E., has become a contentious issue in recent news reports. I.C.E. enforces U.S. immigration laws through its mission to identify, detain and deport individuals who unlawfully enter the country. However, the agency has received recent backlash after implementing new policies and increasing immigration enforcement exponentially during President Donald J. Trump’s administration. The agency initiated its first strict immigration overhaul with expanded enforcement actions throughout the U.S. almost immediately after Trump assumed office. These increased actions include multiple large-scale raids, expanding its capacity to detain undocumented immigrants and expanding its deportation efforts. Supporters argue that these policies are necessary to maintain national security and enforce existing immigration laws. “Americans need stronger The United States has seen immigration enforcement operations extend their reach to educational facilities, residential areas, work sites and legal buildings. I.C.E. agents have begun waiting outside these sites to detain people as they leave, a tactic that has drawn praise from some government officials, put sharp criticism from immigrant advocates and local leaders. The practice follows changes in federal policy that broadened where immigration arrests can occur. For years federal guidance discouraged enforcement at ‘sensitive locations’ including schools, hospitals and places of worship. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) have implemented case-by-case arrest decisions which officers use to determine whether to arrest suspects near sensitive locations. The shift now leads to arrests which take place directly outside locations where immigrants commonly go. Lawyers and advocates say agents have waited outside immigration
Schools and Other Targets
courts and other courthouses to detain people after hearings. The Guardian reports that attorneys from multiple cities observed federal officers stationed in hallways or near exits waiting to arrest individuals after their court proceedings. DHS officials have defended the strategy, stating that it ‘enables officers to track down suspected undocumented immigrants without entering restricted areas’. Internal guidance also allows agents to arrest people close to courthouses if they possess reliable information and if local regulations permit such actions. The practice has created problems which judges, school administrators and immigrant rights groups find difficult to resolve. Critics claim that immigration agents who establish their presence outside civic institutions create a barrier that prevents people from attending court hearings, reporting crimes and sending their children to school. Some state and local officials have moved to limit the tactic. The chief judge in Cook County, Illinois prohibited civil immigration arrests from occurring on courthouse grounds after the Associated Press reported that people stopped coming to court, because they feared getting detained. Advocates of tougher enforcement measures believe the strategy enables federal agents to identify people who already face deportation orders. The opponents of this practice explain that when schools, homes and courthouses become de facto enforcement zones, they destroy public trust in essential institutions which communities depend on for their daily activities. Written by Cylus Perkins
examines whether immigration laws should exist while also exploring how societies enforce these laws.
I.C.E. agents deploy tear gas on protesters outside of a Chicago elementary school. Photo courtesy of The Intersept
6 | ICE Designed by Kayleigh Gerdes
ICE | 7
Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online