ICE Announces 400,000 Deportations in 2011

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Director John Morton today announced the number of people deported from the U.S. in fiscal year 2011 (which ended in September.) The total, which is the highest number yet: 400,000. (ICE press release here.)

According to ICE, "55 percent of the 396,906 individuals deported had felony or misdemeanor convictions." It could not answer how many of the felonies were immigration offenses like illegal re-entry which don't require the commission of a separate crime:

Individuals can be convicted of a felony just for returning to the U.S. or being found in the U.S. after the government orders them to leave.


Of those 55%:

Among those deported were more than 1,000 people convicted of homicide. Another 5,800 were sexual offenders, and about 80,000 people convicted of drug related crimes or driving under the influence.

That's 87,000 people. What about the other 313,000?

Here's Illinois Governor Pat Quinn's letter in May, 2011 rejecting Secure Communities, and stating that as of February, 2011, only 30% of those deported had any criminal record.

As you'll see on Frontline tonight in its documentary, Lost in Detention:

[The Obama] administration is doubling down on Secure Communities. In August, it announced that state participation in the program is mandatory and earlier this month, Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano made it clear the program isn’t going away. Opposition to Secure Communities has led DHS to make adjustments to the program, instructing ICE on using prosecutorial discretion [PDF]. It’s also promised to review some 300,000 pending deportation cases. But ICE director John Morton has said he intends to implement the program nationwide by 2013.

< TV Night For America, Prison Nation | If OWS Is So Incoherent, Why Is Eric Cantor Talking About Income Inequality? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Back to the shadows it is.... (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by kdog on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 03:51:22 PM EST
    and all the societal problems that entails.

    Sorry huddled masses.

    It's too bad we can't get ICE to police the stock market and the SEC to police immigration, what a great country that would be!

    Bwahahaha! (none / 0) (#5)
    by Zorba on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 04:50:29 PM EST
    Kdog, you've got a brilliant point there!  And add the DEA to the stock market/big finance police!  Wall Street would be quaking in their (very expensive) shoes!

    And the ATF & the FBI... (none / 0) (#15)
    by kdog on Wed Oct 19, 2011 at 11:15:43 AM EST
    and the Department of the God Damned Homeland Security!

    Well, I would assume that approx 60-70K of the that "other 313K" also had felony or misdemeanor convictions in addition to being here illegally, and the remaining 45% were here illegally.

    Actually, I hate to admit it here of all (none / 0) (#3)
    by oculus on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 03:37:32 PM EST
    places, but, I can't really object to including only those who have previously been convicted of entering U.S. illegally.  

    Watch Frontline... (none / 0) (#13)
    by kdog on Wed Oct 19, 2011 at 08:23:42 AM EST
    see how these human beings are treated, with no right to an attorney.  It will change your mind.

    I realize no do-overs on blog comments, (none / 0) (#16)
    by oculus on Wed Oct 19, 2011 at 01:11:37 PM EST
    but I am rethinking my assertion.  

    A never changing mind... (none / 0) (#17)
    by kdog on Wed Oct 19, 2011 at 01:39:31 PM EST
    is a closed mind...no shame in an open mind.

    If you do watch, have naseau medication at the ready...our detention policies will surely make you sick, if not both our deportation and detention policies.


    convicted of various felonies and/or being here in the country illegally were not represented by council?

    If I understood correctly... (none / 0) (#19)
    by kdog on Wed Oct 19, 2011 at 02:12:30 PM EST
    they had right to council for any "real" crimes, once transferred to ICE it is no longer a criminal matter, it is an "administrative" matter, with no right to an attorney.

    Information in this link (none / 0) (#20)
    by oculus on Wed Oct 19, 2011 at 02:23:50 PM EST
    supports your understanding:  Civil Rights of Detained Immigrants

    Frontline mentioned this... (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by kdog on Wed Oct 19, 2011 at 02:29:13 PM EST
    as a contributing factor to the physical and sexual abuse occuring in immigration detention centers...and I agree.

    And that detention centers are being run by private corporations, meaning even less accountability for detainee abuse.


    It goes without saying that I condemn any (none / 0) (#24)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Oct 19, 2011 at 02:44:21 PM EST
    abuses that may take place. That does not prohibit me from condoning these deportations.

    Fair enough.... (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by kdog on Wed Oct 19, 2011 at 02:53:23 PM EST
    I can't say I object to deporting violent felons, mothers of 5 American citizen kids over a broken taillight I seriously object to, or the kid who was brought here as a toddler who gets busted smoking a joint upon adulthood.

    That sh*t is so cruel & pointless I have no words for it.


    It would seem the gvt agrees with you (none / 0) (#27)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Oct 19, 2011 at 03:08:40 PM EST
    and is taking steps to curtail such practices:

    Two women who were arrested on Immigration and Customs Enforcement warrants nearly two weeks ago and then released on court supervision may be examples of new guidelines by the agency for identifying humanitarian concerns when arresting illegal immigrants.

    The women, Flaviane Aldria Levindo-Morais, 23, and Estael Fernandes Gomes, 29, are mothers of infant children, according to sources close to them.

    The new policy is expected to help thousands of illegal immigrants who came to the United States as young children, graduated from high school and want to go on to college or serve in the armed forces.

    White House and immigration officials said they would exercise "prosecutorial discretion" to focus enforcement efforts on cases involving criminals and people who have flagrantly violated immigration laws.

    Under the new policy, the secretary of homeland security, Janet Napolitano, can provide relief, on a case-by-case basis, to young people who are in the country illegally but pose no threat to national security or to the public safety.

    personally (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by CST on Wed Oct 19, 2011 at 03:22:02 PM EST
    I think if we all agree something is good policy, we should make it official instead of going through it on a "case by case"" basis.

    If mothers of young children (none / 0) (#29)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Oct 19, 2011 at 03:32:21 PM EST
    and grown-ups who were brought here as young children were spared deportation by policy, would you then be in support of deportation of illegal immigrants?

    If it wasn't clear, I meant: (none / 0) (#30)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Oct 19, 2011 at 03:38:11 PM EST
    If mothers of young children and grown-ups who were brought here as young children were officially spared deportation, would you then be in support of deportation of illegal immigrants?

    I'd leave it at violent felons... (none / 0) (#32)
    by kdog on Wed Oct 19, 2011 at 03:49:28 PM EST
    and live and let live for everybody else.

    One part of the Frontline report that cracked me up was an Obama admin. spokesman saying (paraphrase) "there's nothing we can do, just enforcing the law, talk to Congress".

    The punchline is there are so many federal crimes on the books passed by Congress that there are literally too many to count, so of course the executive can selectively enforce with discretion...we deported 400k last year cuz that's how Obama likes it.  There is no other explanation.  

    So f*ck him!


    I am okay (none / 0) (#31)
    by CST on Wed Oct 19, 2011 at 03:44:06 PM EST
    with deporting violent felons, yes.

    As to the larger question you are hinting at - I assume we are talking about the young(ish) farm(or something else) workers who come here to work - I don't really have a problem with them.

    I have a problem with companies that think they can hire people for less than minimum wage - no matter where they are from.  Beyond that I don't really care whether the person they hire is a citizen or not.

    I certainly don't personally care if some Joe Blow from south of the border thinks he can make more money here than at home.  The problem is not that he's here, the problem is that he's not being paid enough, so locals can't compete with that.

    But beyond all that, I recognize that that policy is not "common ground" and is unlikely to become law - and I'm not a die hard - I will take a compromise if I think it's moving things the right way.  If the "common ground" that we can find is the Dream Act, or something equivalent, why not make that official?  I see no point in continuing to have a law on the books that no one wants to enforce.


    Ya, I hear you. (none / 0) (#33)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Oct 19, 2011 at 04:03:55 PM EST
    contention that ICE detainees have no right to council. Did I miss something>

    Detainees, per the link, may be (none / 0) (#23)
    by oculus on Wed Oct 19, 2011 at 02:44:19 PM EST
    represented by counsel, but no court-appointed counsel.  Pro bono or retained.  

    OK, that make more sense. (none / 0) (#25)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Oct 19, 2011 at 02:47:39 PM EST
    Represented by attorneys like these I would imagine:
    Imagine a national network of experienced lawyers available to illegal aliens, free of charge, to sue government at the local, state, and national levels to obtain housing, education, welfare, and other governmental benefits.

    Imagine further that this national network of lawyers was also available to lobby, participate in referenda campaigns, and provide public relations services on behalf of their illegal alien clientele, again free of charge because the network was largely subsidized with federal funds.

    For good measure, imagine that this network of activist lawyers was also available to fight deportation of illegal aliens, even those with serious criminal records.

    There is nothing imaginary about the network of attorneys and the activities described above.

    The Legal Services Corporation (LSC), which has received over $5 billion in federal funds since its founding in 1974, supports just such a network of activist lawyers working in approximately 300 local programs across the country.

    Also from the link (none / 0) (#2)
    by jbindc on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 03:29:25 PM EST
    Officials said the number of individuals convicted of crimes was up 89 percent from 2008.

    From the official press release:

    44,653 aliens convicted of drug related crimes; and 35,927 aliens convicted of driving under the influence. ICE achieved similar results with regard to other categories prioritized for removal. Ninety percent of all ICE's removals fell into a priority category and more than two-thirds of the other removals in 2011 were either recent border crossers or repeat immigration violators.


    In FY 2011 ICE removed 45,938 recent border crossers.


    In FY 2011, ICE removed 96,529 aliens who were either repeat immigration violators or immigration fugitives.

    Put another way (5.00 / 0) (#6)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 06:06:05 PM EST
    More accurate assessment in my view:

    About 44 percent of criminals deported from the U.S. in the past fiscal year had a criminal record of one or two misdemeanors, putting them in the lowest priority category among deportable criminal aliens....

    About 45 percent of all deportees in Fiscal 2011 had no criminal record known to federal authorities. They include other categories the Obama administration has designated as priorities for deportation including repeat immigration violators, illegal aliens intercepted soon after crossing the border, and foreigners who've ignored a deportation order. ICE also acknowledged that 9.5 percent of those deported did not fit into any priority category.

    Not counting, of course (none / 0) (#12)
    by jbindc on Wed Oct 19, 2011 at 07:47:16 AM EST
    The fact that they broke the law in the first place by entering the country illegally, as you said yourself

    They include other categories the Obama administration has designated as priorities for deportation including repeat immigration violators, illegal aliens intercepted soon after crossing the border, and foreigners who've ignored a deportation order.

    I guess it's ok to do things like ignore deportation orders?  We should just shrug our shoulders and say, "Oh, ok, you don't really have to obey a court order?"

    While immigration is a serious issue with many ramifications, and while something needs to be done to help those here illegally get the proper paperwork, it seems that no serious discussion can take place because people are too entrenched in unrealistic and fantasy solutions.


    This won't play well with the 2012 Hispanic voters (none / 0) (#7)
    by BTAL on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 06:40:02 PM EST
    "Just words, just speeches..."

    It shouldn't matter whether or not (none / 0) (#8)
    by NY Progressive on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 07:54:45 PM EST
    an illegal alien has committed a serious crime. They should be deported whether or not they're felons. Why are we spending billions of dollars on an immigration system if we're going to let people come here illegally.  It's not fair to our immigrants who have waited their turn to come to this country.

    Progressives should rethink their support of illegal immigration. It's part of the wealth redistribution scheme that drains the middle class to the benefit of the rich. Corporations get cheap labor and employees who are willing to overlook the lack of workplace rules. But the middle class bears the brunt of the cost of illegal labor.

    When will liberals start to understand the real impact of illegal immigration?

    your view is completely (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Oct 19, 2011 at 02:23:56 AM EST
    unacceptable. I suspect your moniker is an intentional misstatement.

    I'm definitely progressive, (none / 0) (#34)
    by NY Progressive on Wed Oct 19, 2011 at 04:30:47 PM EST
    just not a naïve liberal. I support a woman's right to an abortion, gay equality, social and economic equity, affirmative action and a host of other traditional progressive/liberal causes. But I'm also a realist.

    I believe the Masters of the Universe are in the process of destroying this country's strong middle and working classes. Our progressive citizens demanded workplace safety, minimum pay, child labor laws, worker's compensation, social security and other safety net programs that have made this country so strong. The reason some people have been able to become very wealthy in this country is because we've spread the costs of a stable environment among the rest of us. Business owners benefit from the broad tax base that pays for the roads to move their products, the schools to educate their employees, and the police to keep their factories secure. Outsourcing to some countries might mean having to pay graft to the police. Outsourcing business owners can face huge losses from uncontrollable theft. The rich know they'll make more money if they can keep businesses here, but still have the employee costs found in other countries. So they're deliberately and proactively destroying the gains we have made in this country. Allowing an influx of illegal labor is part of that goal.

    I come from a blue collar back ground and have seen first hand what happens when employers are allowed to hire cheap, illegal labor. Perhaps for those on this list who are somewhat affluent, it's harder to recognize the trend. There aren't millions of illegal aliens competing with you, undermining your field, taking much less money for legal work, are there?

    I believe that we should focus on raising the standards in other countries to match what we've created here, not allowing the Masters of the Universe to turn back the clock on America's workers. That's very progressive. We might not agree on strategy, but I care about my country, and I also care about the millions of people who are struggling, even starving in other countries. The best way to help them is to resist letting the powers that be drag our country down to the economic level of poorer nations. If we stand fast and prevent illegal immigration from destroying our working and middle class, we'll have a better chance of helping raise them up to our level.


    sounds to me like (none / 0) (#36)
    by CST on Wed Oct 19, 2011 at 04:53:40 PM EST
    we should be holding business owners accountable and not let them pay people slave wages.

    If businesses were required to treat immigrants (however they got here) like citizens the wage issue would be gone.


    Yup, (none / 0) (#37)
    by NY Progressive on Wed Oct 19, 2011 at 05:55:29 PM EST
    Jail time & confiscation of multimillion dollar development properties should do the trick nicely.

    When will you understand... (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by kdog on Wed Oct 19, 2011 at 08:31:33 AM EST
    the real impact of our immigrant detention and deportation policies?

    We are a sick breed, a very sick breed.  The comparison gets thrown around cavalierly, but I swear we are f*ckin' Nazis.


    This isn't (none / 0) (#9)
    by Zorba on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 08:18:34 PM EST
    Great Britain, but nice try.  The corporations' support of cheap labor won't stop even if we built a 50 foot tall fence around the entire country.  They'd just outsource even more of our jobs, and for those that couldn't be outsourced- well, there's always eliminating the minimum wage, worker's compensation, workplace safety standards, reducing unemployment compensation, and a whole host of other things that they're already working on to force Americans to take sh!t jobs that pay less and less money.  And you call yourself a "Progressive"?  Not where I come from, buddy.

    Nice rant but not much of a counterargument, Zorba (none / 0) (#10)
    by Mr Natural on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 10:55:05 PM EST
    not helped by the no true Scotsman chaser.

    Let them just TRY to eliminate (none / 0) (#35)
    by NY Progressive on Wed Oct 19, 2011 at 04:41:30 PM EST
    minimum wage, worker's compensation, workplace safety standards or unemployment compensation. They wouldn't get away with it, and they know it. That's why they're using this subversive way of destroying our economy, our wealth and our united strength.

    Flooding the low end of the job market is just the beginning.