Should National Crime Database Contain Civil Immigration Records?

Great Debates
1

From yesterday’s New York Times (free registration required – article available at no cost for 7 days after publication), “Suit Alleges Database Targets Immigrants”

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Immigrants-Crime-Database.html

“NEW YORK (AP) – Immigrant and ethnic minority groups sued Wednesday to stop the federal government from entering immigration data into a national crime database, saying the practice illegally targets immigrants under the guise of post-Sept. 11 security.

Congress authorized the database, the National Crime Information Center, in 1930 as a clearinghouse for local, state, federal and international criminal records. It typically is used for criminal records such as warrants and ``rap sheets,’’ according to the lawsuit.

But since Sept. 11, the lawsuit says, the Bush administration has entered immigration data such as orders of deportation.”

[snip]

Also from yesterday’s NYT:

“Crime Database Misused for Civil Issues, Suit Says”

“The Departments of Justice and Homeland Security are unlawfully using a national crime database to get local police departments to enforce civil immigration laws, lawyers who have assembled a federal class-action lawsuit against the practice said yesterday.
The lawsuit, which they plan to file today in Federal District Court in Brooklyn, is the first to challenge the addition of civil information about thousands of noncitizens to the National Criminal Information Center database, which the F.B.I. uses to notify law enforcement agencies about people wanted for crimes.
Immigration violations, like staying in the country after a visa has expired, can lead to deportation but are not criminal matters and have traditionally been the responsibility of federal agents.
Congress has neither authorized nor required local police agencies to routinely arrest people for such violations… “

Of course, I’m a fan of law enforcement personnel having access to relevant immigration records. But given that most have received little if any training in immigration law, I think this is a recipe for disaster. There are dozens of different documents that determine a person’s immigration status, and they change constantly. Law enforcement officers generally do not have the training to know which documents mean what, much less sort out inconsistencies in the database, which I can tell you from daily experience is filled with inaccuracies; many times I’ve called to sort out an inaccuracy on behalf of a client, and the DHS staffer responsible for correcting the mistake didn’t comprehend why it was a mistake. And I do agree that this is a recipe to increase distrust of law enforcement officials among ethnic minority communities.

Way to root out terrorism, guys! Isn’t there a better way to accomplish the same goal? Please discuss.

2

Looks like it’s just us immigration professionals in here so far.

This is completely crazy. USCIS itself does not have adequately trained officers (have you called the NCSC lately?). Not in a million years will law enforcement officials be able to understand whether or not someone should be taken into custody. EWI or not, that’s fine. But once suspension of deportation, NACARA, etc. get involved, forget it. And it’s difficult enough getting Congress to pass another 245(i) or amnesty – now it could be even tougher, as they will be considering the new law enforcement ramifications.

3

Why don’t you come up with one, instead of just assuming there is one and complaining about the administration’s course of action?

Fact is that a high percentage of potential terrorists are immigrants, here on one type of visa or another. Keeping tabs on these immigrants and whether or not they are overstaying their visas and such seems like a good idea to me. If you are trying to keep on top of some potential terrorist, it would seem like a good idea to have info handy about his immigration status, such as maybe the fact that the guy came on a student visa and overstayed his visit, or has a deportation order pending.

Does this violate any form of civil liberty? I don’t think so. This complaining strikes me as being part of a reflexive leftist anti-big brother attitude, which expects the government to ignore all information about anyone, but nonetheless feels free to complain after events such as 9/11 that the government “could have prevented it”.

4

Would these rules have found the 9/11 terrorists?

I must say I heartily object to the suspension of the old “innocent until proven guilty” saw when it comes to people who weren’t born here.

From a practical standpoint, it makes immigrants much less likely to trust the state, feel welcome, all that nice fuzzy stuff that makes them less likely to harbour ill will towards the gvt.

Also, not all immigrants are bad people, not all bad people are immigrants.

Seems like such a system would create far, far more headaches than it would solve. The headaches would largely be troublesome for immigrants, while the benefits - feeling more ‘secure’? - would be enjoyed by us. Thus “we” can say “Oh, it’s definitely worth the trouble!”

5

I have lots and lots of ideas about how to do it better; I posted a GD because I wanted a debate, and to see other people’s opinions. I already stated that I have no issue with allowing law enforcement personnel access to relevant data; I just severely doubt that much of what the current admin is proposing to add is relevant.

A couple of modest proposals:

  1. Hire people, and train people who already work for DHS, to actually enter the info accurately and in a timely manner to begin with. It currently takes nearly a year in many locations to get a simple address change entered in the DHS database. It takes a similar amount of time to adjudicate an extension request for a visitor visa, by which time the extension, if granted, would have expired anyway. That’s just ridiculous.
  2. Create a law enforcement liaison office within DHS, to screen law enforcement’s requests for info. I see no reason why Joe Schmoe Police Officer needs to know, when pulling someone over for a broken taillight, that he has dropped down from 16 semester hours to 12 and is therefore potentially in violation of his student visa. This is not a criminal issue, and does not belong in a database devoted to criminal issues.
  3. Entering things like outstanding deportation orders for people who are ordered deported for criminal convictions is quite another story, and I have far less of an issue with that information being instantly available to law enforcement officers. But again, if the Agency Formerly Known as INS had done its job to begin with, this issue wouldn’t rear its ugly head nearly as frequently.

Why do you assume this is a “reflexively leftist” attitude? These problems have plagued every administration as far back as I can remember, and I’ve been dealing with immigration issues professionally for more than 10 years. My issues with this proposal are entirely nonpartisan in nature. And it’s always amazed me that the Feds have never had any comprehensive way to create a list of visa overstays. It boggles the mind.

Would you assume I had a “reflexively leftist” viewpoint if I were opposing a government proposition to enter the data of all late income tax filers into a criminal database? After all, they could be laundering money for terrorist organizations. I kindly request that you go try to fit someone else into your little ideological box, because I’m finding it rather confining.

6

Much of it probably isn’t. But it’s hard to sort out what is relevant from what isn’t. I don’t have a problem with letting law enforcement sort it out.

I don’t see that any of these have a connection. In the first, you want to have the DHS run more smoothly. This is unsurprising for someone who works with (for?) the DHS. Frankly, I would like to have the motor vehicles departments run better too. Not to mention the DYFS agencies, and any other number of agencies. But however much they improve, this is not a substitute for allowing law enforcement to have access to such information.

As for a law enforcement liaison, I can understand that law enforcement people might not understand immigration issues. OTOH, immigration people might not understand law enforcement issues. I think you are just adding another layer of bureaucracy.

Because leftists tend to be hyper-concerned about privacy issues, and in their minds privacy issues outweigh many other issues.

If there was some common sense reasoning behind such a policy (as opposed to the silly one that you suggest) then yes.

If you do feel free to reject or ignore it. I think it’s generally true.

7

Yeah, either that or they entered the country illegally or they are American citizens. What’s that got to do with anything?

Can you explain exactly how that information helps prevent terrorism? Can you explain to me the link between one thing and the other? Because I don’t see it. Especially taking into account that the INS is a bureaucratic mess which cannot adequately process the information it already has and many people do not have their situation up to date because of the INS not doing what it is supposed to have done. They already take forever to process things. Not long ago I read an article about Asian brides having to wait over two years to get a visa to come to the USA to marry. What do you reckon is the percentage of Asian women who marry a US citizen with the purpose of carrying out terrorist attacks? What good is giving the INS more information if they cannot handle the information they already have?

Even if it doesn’t, so what? Do you want the government spending money and effort in things which are useless and probably only serve to inconvenience people and detract from more efficient efforts? it is up to the government to show this is useful and required by a compelling public interest. It is not that the government should intrude on people’s privacy without justification and none has been shown yet.

I get really tired of people who, instead of sticking to the arguments, feel they need to disqualify the poster. So I’ll tell you what: Your post strikes me as being part of a reflexive fascist pro-big brother attitude. It strikes me as a gullible belief that anything the government does is good as long as they say it is to prevent terrorism. It strikes me as the post of someone who would rather have inefficient but feel-good measures than really efficient measures. It strikes me as something posted by someone who cannot be bothered to think about things objectively and on their own merits and would rather let the government do the thinking. It strikes me . . . you want me to go on with how it strikes me? Or shall be get back to the substance of the OP and leave aside which way each poster leans? Because that would be a topic for the pit, not for GD.

8

It has to do with the fact that if you are trying to keep tabs on them, it might be helpful to link up with another government agency which is ostensibly doing a similar function.

It might make it easier to track them, should this be necessary. So that suppose the FBI gets a tip about some middle eastern guy acting suspicious in a flight school (or something of the sort) it might be easier to get on top of whether the guy is still in the country or not, or whether he’s been up to any immigration hanky panky as well.

Well all reports that I’ve heard suggest that the INS (or whatever they call themselves these days) is a mess. Certainly, that agency should be fixed up (along with all sorts of other agencies, as above). But that is not a substitute for having the various agencies communicate with each other. It’s not an either-or choice.

Probably pretty low. Most likely a correspondingly small percentage of these women will have law enforcement after their records.

I’ve addressed this earlier

You can go on or not go on, here or in the Pit, as you prefer. I stand by my earlier comments.

9

IzzyR, for the record:

I work with, not for, the Agency Formerly Known as INS (Dept. of Homeland Security). Yes, they are a notorious nightmare of a bureaucracy. How happy would you be if it took the DMV two years to renew your driver’s license? That’s how long it’s taking in most jurisdictions in these days to process a green card application. The calls for reform have been quite bipartisan.

Again, I have no problem with releasing relevant info to appropriate law enforcement officials. Most of what is contained in the DHS databases is of little or no law enforcement value, so I believe access to it should be filtered/restricted to those with a “need to know” basis. This is the current state of affairs. Or have you seen some report (I haven’t) where a law enforcement official was denied access to a criminal suspect’s immigration information?

Are you taking issue with my desire to have this information be accurate and up to date? Or are you taking issue with my proposal that those who are given access to the information be trained in its accurate use and interpretation?

As for immigration people understanding law enforcement issues: the ones who hold positions which require understanding of law enforcement issues are given the relevant training and/or access to managers who have the necessary knowledge of criminal and law enforcement issues. DHS investigators and border inspectors go through a boot camp which isn’t all that different from police training, complete with firearms certification and language training.

If local police were trained in interpreting immigration documents, I might feel differently about it, but that’s not the current state of affairs. They do not, nor should they IMHO, have access to similar types of info on the general public unless they have a need to know, as determined by a judge: financial, telephone/mail, Internet, etc. The day this country decides to allow unfettered access to every citizen’s (or non-citizen’s) personal information just because some cop feels like snooping is the day I investigate other countries to which I can emigrate.

10

One item that may or may not have played into the thinking of whoever enacted this policy: NCIC is also the database which is consulted whenever a firearms dealer sells to a customer.

If (I say, IF!) this measure is designed to enhance security, then it would help to curtail one avenue for potential terrorists to obtain firearms here in the U.S.

Never mind that there were no firearms involved in 9/11. If “Abdul,” here on a visa, plunks down cash for a dozen AR-15 rifles and says, “Yes, I am an American citizen,” then I’m sad to say that there are a few Americans (one is enough, and too many, IMHO) who would glady fork over the guns, because there is (was) no information in NCIC about immigrant status.

Not to say that it would happen that way, only that it could.

Hell, I might be whistling Dixie. This post in no way constitutes approval or disapproval of this policy.

Just an alternate “angle” on one line of thought that may have played into its enactment.

You may now disregard my post as the insane ravings of a gun nut.