Hidden War

From Jill Stewart:

[T]he testimony was riveting this morning before the Los Angeles City Council when a group of black residents pleaded with the 15 elected council members to rescind Special Order 40, the longtime local rule protecting illegal immigrants from arrest by the LAPD.

The black residents are seeking a decision by the council to enact the so-called Jamiel's Law, named after Jamiel Shaw, a promising and law-abiding 17-year-old high school student allegedly shot by an illegal immigrant, 18th Street Gang member Pedro Espinoza. The noxious Espinoza, who has a massively long rap sheet, was arrested by cops in Culver City, and then released by Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department jailers, shortly before he allegedly murdered Jamiel.

Jamiel's family members cried openly in the ornate Council Chambers, asking the council to allow cops to check on the illegal status of people like Espinoza so they can be deported rather than released.

Yesterday, I saw Sergeant Anita Shaw, US Army--who had to come home from Iraq to attend her son's funeral--get on the TV and lament that she had been safer in Iraq than her son had been in his native country, standing in front of his own home.

Living in LA is dangerous. Many of the native-born criminal element make living in any large American city an ordeal. But the native born have a right to be in this country. Must we put up with a criminal element of other countries also--those who do not have a right to be here? Is that the price the country must pay for cheap labor?

I suppose that our betters believe that illegal immigration labor plus the attendant criminality is the price we must pay to add to the Social Security coffers. (Yes, that's the reason that nothing meaningful will be done about illegals--not that the amount of workers contributing to the fund will ever be enough to make SS viable before it runs out next decade.) A few dead youngsters--murdered by sins of commission and omission--are but a small sacrifice to that "noble" end.

Personal note: trust me, I look both ways when stepping out of my door.

(Thanks to Instapundit)

Comments

[Phelps]

I'm afraid I can't buy the SS argument. It is a symptom, but it isn't the cause. It certainly won't explain why a local government would go further than the federal government that actually benefits in that scenario.

I'm afraid I'm going to have to go with incompetence being more likely than malice in this instance. They really think they are taking some sort of moral stand by not shipping off infiltrators and smugglers.

[Phelps]

Ugh. I said "I'm afraid" twice in a row. I'm starting to sound like my grandmother.

[Patrick]

There is a difference between the LAPD becoming an arm of the INS (bad idea) and a procedure that deports the undocumented when arrested and convicted for any crime. Would Special Order 40 have to be rescinded in order for such a procedure to take place? Not being rhetorical. Don't know the answer.

[baldilocks]

I'm going to have to look at the details of "Special Order 40."

This may be a separate issue, but the fact that the feds *won't* enforce federal law allows sanctuary cities and laws like SO 40 to exist. I think that *they* are the symptoms.

[Tully]

Patrick almost nails it. Drop "convicted" and make it somewhat discretionary and police would cheer.

Just speaking from the POV of local law enforcement, police want the ability to arrest illegals and turn them over to the feds, but they do NOT want the mandate to do so, and they most especially do NOT want to be an arm of the INS. And for very very good reason.

If they had to go into Hispanic neighborhoods with that mandate, they would never ever ever be able to do any meaningful investigatory work. Among other things, they'd be shipping out many of their tipsters and witnesses on contact. No one would ever talk to them. The community would do their best to never call the police at all, and crime would rise accordingly.

What they do like to have is the ability to use immigration laws and the federal authorities to get rid of criminals that would otherwise be out in a few days or weeks if they simply arrested them, even convicted them, for misdemeanors. Especially gang members. They may KNOW that Jorge is a nasty gang-banger and drug dealer who has blood on his hands, but proving it to a court is another thing entirely. But if Jorge is an illegal, they can pack him off to the INS to be deported, even handed over to Mexican authorities. And if Jorge is a gangbanger, odds are good that Mexican authorities DO have the goods on him. In any case, Jose becomes SEP--Someone Else's Problem.

All without having to go to all the time, trouble, and expense to actually build a prosecutable case, just enough to get an arrest and ID check. Then it's pack & ship. And having already confirmed that Jorge is illegal, if he re-appears in the future, they can easily get another misdemeanor arrest and re-pack, re-ship. If Jorge gets nailed on an aggravated felony it's off to prison, with automatic deportation after release.

Note that qualifying aggravated felonies requiring automatic deportation after sentence include both illegally entering or re-entering the country, and failure to appear on charges carrying two years or more of potential sentence. Once you've packed and shipped, it's not that tough to show illegal re-entry. :-)

[Beth]

They may KNOW that Jorge is a nasty gang-banger and drug dealer who has blood on his hands, but proving it to a court is another thing entirely. But if Jorge is an illegal, they can pack him off to the INS to be deported, even handed over to Mexican authorities. And if Jorge is a gangbanger, odds are good that Mexican authorities DO have the goods on him. In any case, Jose becomes SEP--Someone Else's Problem

That's the argument that needs to be made again and again and again, as far as I'm concerned. Cops know who's bad news on the streets; it doesn't take a court case to figure it out. Making them SEPs is a hell of a lot cheaper and easier than the way we do it now, and wouldn't it be nice if the foreign governments would be made responsible for their own problem children anyway?

Sergeant Anita Shaw, US Army--who had to come home from Iraq to attend her son's funeral

You'd think a case like that would get our government's attention. It's sickening.

Off-topic: Juliette, don't kill me, but I tagged you with a stupid meme. Sorry!!! ;-P

[Tully]

Something I really feel the need to emphasize: The police do NOT want to be the INS. Their mission is NOT to enforce immigration laws. Their mission is to keep the peace in their community and serve and protect the people, regardless of their immigration status.

They want to enable safe communities, and if those communities are high in illegal immigrants, they really don't care all that much. That also is SEP--the feds' problem. Their problem is keeping the peace and keeping the people (all of them) safe from crime.

Special Order 40 has both its good side and its bad side. The good side is that it encourages immigrant communities and illegals in them to cooperate with police. The bad side is that it doesn't allow the police to selectively use immigration law to get rid of the criminals that prey on immigrant communities, and thereby enables some of the very worst criminal gangs.

Civil rights activists worry about selective enforcement when police have discretionary powers in identifying and handing over illegals to the INS, or prosecuting them for illegal entry and such. While no PD is perfect, most are pretty darn professional and have MUCH better things to do with their limited resources than pursue otherwise non-criminal illegal immigrants.

The larger problem lies with PD administration and metro politics, where political motivations interfere with intelligent PD resource usage. If Police Chief Joe Whitebread is leaned on from above to "do something" about illegal immigants, then he may well divert resources to doing the INS's job--but the goal of keeping the peace in ALL of the community will suffer as cooperation from immigrant areas vanishes entirely, and as fewer resources are available for their primary mission.

[lywaltj]

Tully, I like how you think. I've had occasion to work with the border authorities, mostly the Customs Service in the pre-ICE days, and one of the major advantages from a law enforcement standpoint is that their authority to conduct a border search is almost total (only foreign diplomatic items are exempt, as far as I know). Say a customs agent gets a tip from somewhere that a certain container is loaded with drugs. The only "probable cause" he needs to pull it and inspect is "I want to see what's inside. Open it". Yes, this has to be used judiciously, or commerce comes to a screeching halt and some well-connected importers start writing nastygrams to their congresscritters, but it can be a great force multiplier. I'd imagine that the immigration side could work that way as well. Don't make the local cops enforce federal laws, but keep the option open. It might also be a good way of inducing cooperation from potential CIs who might not want to if they knew there was no danger of them being sent back.

[waltj]

That last comment should be from "waltj". I HATE touchpads...

[Cobb]

SO 40 is essentially the LAPD's equivalent of "don't ask, don't tell". But it's only the tip of the iceberg. First of all it's not law, it's policy and it can be argued that it is a sensible policy. But asking questions about SO 40 does not get you any closer to figuring out whose problem it is for the cases like this one, where nobody asked at arrest, nobody asked at arraignment, somebody kinda sorta knew at some point in the perp's trip through the justice system, but it was really nobody's business until it was too late.