MASSACHUSETTS SENATOR ELIZABETH WARREN AND REPRESENTATIVE JAMES
MCGOVERN.
THEY ARE JUST TWO EXAMPLES OF PEOPLE WHO WANT THE BUDGET
FOR IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT ZEROED OUT.
A RECENT POLL BY MORNING CONSULT FOUND THE MAJORITY OF VOTERS
POLLED THINK THAT THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD KEEP I.C.E., WHILE 25%
SAID THEY WANT THE FUNDING CUT OFF.
BUT WHAT EXACTLY DOES I.C.E.
DO?
AND WHY DO SOME WANT TO SEE IT GONE?
ANSWERS FROM PROFESSOR REBECCA HAMLIN OF THE UNIVERSITY OF
MASSACHUSETTS, AMHERST.
>> I THINK I.C.E.
HAS BEEN IN THE NEWS A LOT LATELY AND NOT IN
A GOOD WAY.
IT'S BEEN GETTING SO MUCH PRESS AS FAR AS THE HARSH IMMIGRATION
STRATEGIES AND TACTICS IT'S BEEN USING SO I THINK PEOPLE ARE
REALLY STARTING TO PAY ATTENTION TO THAT.
AND IN PARTICULAR THIS RECENT CONTROVERSY ABOUT FAMILY
SEPARATION HAS GOT PEOPLE TO SORT OF BE MORE OUTRAGED ABOUT
SOME OF THE STRATEGIES THAT THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION IS USING TO
ENFORCE IMMIGRATION IN THIS COUNTRY.
>> WHEN I.C.E.
WAS FORMED, IMMIGRATIONS, CUSTOMS
ENFORCEMENT, THE FORMAL NAME, BACK IN 2003, IT WAS A
REORGANIZATION FOLLOWING THE SEPTEMBER 11 ATTACKS.
AND HELP PEOPLE UNDERSTAND BROADLY WHAT IT'S SUPPOSED TO
DO, HOW I.C.E.
IS SUPPOSED TO FUNCTION.
>> WELL, I THINK IT WAS SUPPOSED TO FUNCTION AS A SECURITY
AGENCY.
AS A DEPORTATION FORCE.
THAT'S WHAT IT WAS DESIGNED TO DO IN 2003.
SO IT WAS REALLY CREATED AS A REACTION TO THE SEPTEMBER 11
ATTACKS, AS YOU MENTIONED, AND IT WAS A LITTLE BIT OF A NEW
BEAST.
LIKE THE PREVIOUS ITERATION OF IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION
SERVICE OR I.N.S.
AS WE USED TO CALL IT WAS HOUSED IN THE
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.
>> TO BE CLEAR, IT'S NOT AS IF THIS COUNTRY WENT FROM NOTHING
TO SOMETHING IN 2003, IT WAS A CHANGE IN DIRECTION.
>> ABSOLUTELY.
I.C.E.
DID NOT INVENT HARSH IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT BY ANY
MEANS.
THE U.S. HAD BEEN DOING THAT SINCE THE 1880'S BUT THE I.N.S.
HAD BEEN IN EXISTENCE FOR 70 YEARS WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE.
SO THE BIG RESHUFFLING WHEN THE D.H.S.
WAS CREATED AS THIS BEHEMOTH AGENCY THAT
INCORPORATED MORE THAN 20 OTHER AGENCIES, AT THAT MOMENT I.C.E.
WAS CREATED WHEN THE I.N.S.
WAS SORT OF SPLIT IN HALF AND THE
IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICES WAS ONE AGENCY, CUSTOMS
AND BORDER PATROL WAS A DIFFERENT ACTION, AND THEN THIS
NEW BABY THAT WAS SORT OF BORN FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY GOT FORMED, AND THAT'S I.C.E.
IT HAD A SECURITY FOCUS FROM THE BEGINNING.
>> SO ONE OF THE THINGS YOU LOOK AT AS A PROFESSOR IS YOU'RE
CONSTANTLY SORT OF LOOKING AT THE WAY IMMIGRATION IS DISCUSSED
IN RELATION TO POLITICS.
SO NOW WE ARE HEARING CALLS FROM MAINLY PEOPLE AND FROM THE
DEMOCRATIC PARTY.
WE HEARD SENATOR ELIZABETH WARREN, AND EVEN PRESLEY, WHO'S
RUNNING FOR A POSITION IN THE BOSTON AREA CALLED FOR THE
GOVERNMENT TO DEFUND I.C.E.
I THINK PEOPLE MORE OFTEN HEAR ABOUT A CALL TO DEFUND AN AGENCY
CONNECTED TO A BUDGET WOE.
WE'RE OVERBUDGET SO WE'RE GOING TO SLASH X, Y AND Z.
WHY DO YOU THINK THAT THIS IS BEING BROUGHT IN TO THE
POLITICAL REALM RIGHT NOW?
>> ACTUALLY DON'T THINK IT'S A NEW TACTIC TO CALL FOR AN
ABOLITION OF AN AGENCY AND DEFUNDING OR APOLISHING IT ARE
TWO DIFFERENT STRAINS OF THIS CRITIQUE WE HAVE BEEN HEARING.
BUT REPUBLICANS IN PARTICULAR CALL FOR THIS TYPE OF THING
QUITE REGULARLY.
THEY SOMETIMES CALL FOR THE ABOLITION OR DEFUNDING THE
INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE.
>> THE CORPORATION OF PUBLIC BROADCASTING, WHICH WE GET
FUNDING FOR PBS.
>> RICK PERRY CALLED FOR THE ABOLITION OF SEVERAL DIFFERENT
AGENCIES DURING PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES INCLUDING ONE IRONICALLY
HE IS NOW RUNNING.
BUT IT'S SOMETHING THAT I THINK IS A TOOL OR A STRATEGY THAT
PEOPLE USE WHEN THEY'RE REALLY UNHAPPY WITH THE WAY AN AGENCY
IS DOING ITS JOB.
>> AND ONE MORE NOTE ABOUT THAT POLL, WE SAID AT THE TOP 25% ARE
IN FAVOR BUT THAT MEANS SOMEWHERE IN THE REALM OF 75%
SUPPORT THIS AGENCY.
IN LOOKING AT THE I.C.E.
WEBSITE, IT POINTED OUT THAT THEY'RE FUNDED BY $6 BILLION.
BUT INTERESTING TO ME IT JUMPED OUT THEY ARE, I.C.E., WHICH I
THOUGHT OF AS SOMETHING THAT'S GOVERNING DOMESTIC ENFORCEMENT
OF BORDER PATROL AND OTHER THINGS, THEY'RE IN 46 COUNTRIES.
CAN YOU TALK ABOUT THE INTERNATIONAL PIECE OF I.C.E.?
>> SO I.C.E.
IS THE ENFORCEMENT BODY THAT DOES WHAT CUSTOMS AND
BORDER PATROL DON'T DO.
SOME PEOPLE MIGHT BE CONFUSED ABOUT WHETHER ICE IS BORDER
CONTROL.
IT'S A DIFFERENT AGENCY.
CUSTOMS AND BORDER PATROL IS AT THE BORDER, THE PHYSICAL BORDER.
AND ICE ENFORCES INTERNALLY TO THE UNITED STATES AND THEN
INTERNATIONALLY IS INVOLVED IN ENFORCEMENT.
SO SORT OF EVERYTHING BUT THE BORDER IN A WAY, BRINGING THE
BORDER INSIDE THE TERRITORY OF THE U.S. AND LOOKING BEYOND THE
PHYSICAL BORDER TO TRY TO ENFORCE IMMIGRATION LAW ALL OVER
THE WORLD.
BECAUSE I.C.E.
IS EMBEDDED IN THIS MASSIVE INTERNATIONAL LIKE
STRUCTURE OF INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL ENFORCEMENT.
>> AND SO THEN HOW ARE THE TWO AGENCIES THEN WORKING TOGETHER?
BECAUSE WE DO OFTEN CONFUSE THEM, RIGHT?
>> YES, WE VERY OFTEN CONFUSE THEM.
ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I.C.E.
DOES IS REMOVAL.
SO IF SOMEBODY IS TAKEN INTO CUSTODY BY THE BORDER PATROL AND
THEN PUT INTO SOME SORT OF PROCEEDING THAT IT'S ACTUALLY
I.C.E.
THAT EXECUTES THAT.
SO I THINK THAT'S KIND OF HOW THEY WORK TOGETHER IN A LOT OF
WAYS.
>> I.C.E.
HAS A FIVE-YEAR PLAN ON ITS WEBSITE WHICH IS
OPERATING THROUGH 2020.
IT EXPLAINS THREE KEY GOALS OF THE AGENCY AND I WILL READ THEM
VERBATIM, COUNTERTERRORISM AND PROTECT THE BORDERS, PROTECT THE
BORDERS THROUGH SUFFICIENT IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT AND
OPERATE AN EFFICIENT, EFFECTIVE AGENCY.
WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THOSE AS STRATEGIC GOALS FOR AN AGENCY
SUCH AS THIS?
>> I MEAN, THEY'RE PRETTY VAGUE I WOULD SAY.
THEY DON'T GET REALLY SPECIFIC ABOUT HOW THE AGENCY IS GOING TO
PRIORITIZE.
I THINK TO ME THE BIGGEST CHALLENGE OF AN AGENCY THAT'S
TASKED WITH ENFORCING IMMIGRATION LAW ALL OVER THE
ENTIRE UNITED STATES AND GLOBALLY IS HOW TO PRIORITIZE,
WHO TO FOCUS ON, WHERE TO SPEND THE MONEY, HOW TO DECIDE WHAT
ARE THE ABSOLUTELY BIGGEST THREATS, BECAUSE, OF COURSE,
THERE ARE TERRIBLE PEOPLE TRYING TO DO TERRIBLE THINGS.
AND I.C.E.
WANTS TO STOP THEM FROM DOING THAT, RIGHT?
BUT HOW TO FIGURE OUT WHERE THOSE PEOPLE ARE AND HOW TO
SPEND THE MONEY MOST APPROPRIATELY I THINK IS THE
BIGGEST CHALLENGE OF AN AGENCY THAT HAS $6 MILLION.
>> ONE OF THE THINGS AS YOU MENTIONED A MINUTE AGO IS
HISTORY, RIGHT?
WE LOOK AT THE HISTORY OF WHAT'S HAPPENED IN THIS COUNTRY TO
VARIOUS GROUPS OF PEOPLE WHETHER IT'S CATHOLICS OR ITALIANS OR
JAPANESE FOLLOWING WORLD WAR II.
THERE SEEMS TO BE A TIME IN THE COUNTRY WHERE THERE'S A FOCUS ON
A CERTAIN SET OF PEOPLE OR CERTAIN TYPE OF PERSON, AND THEN
WE SHIFT AWAY.
WHAT DOES HISTORY TELL US ABOUT THIS TYPE OF INTERACTION THAT WE
HAVE WITH PEOPLE?
>> I THINK HISTORY TELLS US THAT WE ALWAYS ARE LOOKING FOR A
GROUP TO TARGET WHEN ESPECIALLY ECONOMIC TIMES ARE TOUGH.
THERE'S A PATTERN OF THAT HAPPEN ING IN THIS COUNTRY.
WHEN THE GOLD RUSH ENDED ALL OF A SUDDEN WE PASSED THE CHINA
EXCLUSION ACT.
WHEN THERE'S ECONOMIC DOWNTURN AND TIGHTENING OF THE ECONOMY IN
THE 1920'S, AGAIN, WE SEE NATIONAL ORIGINS QUOTAS BEING
PUT INTO PLACE.
I THINK THAT'S A PRETTY COMMON THEME IN U.S. HISTORY THAT --
THAT PEOPLE TARGET IMMIGRANTS WHEN TIMES ARE TOUGH.
>> WHAT DO YOU THINK THAT WE SHOULD LEARN FROM WHAT'S
HAPPENING WITH THE CURRENT IMMIGRATION DEBATE RELATIVE TO
HISTORY RIGHT NOW?
>> WELL, I THINK ONE OF THE THINGS WE SHOULD LEARN IS THAT
PEOPLE COME HERE TO THE UNITED STATES PRIMARILY FROM COUNTRIES
THAT THE UNITED STATES HAS HAD SOME INVOLVEMENT IN OR
INTERACTION WITH OVER TIME, RIGHT?
SO WE OFTEN ENGAGE IN FOREIGN POLICY THAT ENCOURAGES PEOPLE TO
COME HERE, AND THEN SORT OF ACT SURPRISED WHEN THEY'RE HERE.
AND I THINK THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS THAT IS THE MOST
TROUBLING TO ME AS SOMEONE WHO STUDIES IMMIGRATION POLICY,
ESPECIALLY IN A HISTORICAL WAY IS THE LACK OF UNDERSTANDING
ABOUT AMERICA'S HISTORY AND CENTRAL AMERICA THAT IS CAUSING
SO MUCH OF THE UPHEAVAL AND VIOLENCE IN CENTRAL AMERICA
TODAY.
>> AND THE U.S.' ROLE IN THAT?
>> ABSOLUTELY, ABSOLUTELY.
AND THEN TO SORT OF TURN AROUND AND ACT LIKE PEOPLE COMING FROM
THAT REGION ARE SORT OF SEEKING BENEFITS OR ONLY ECONOMICALLY
MOTIVATED WHEN REALLY THEY'RE MOTIVATED BY FEAR IN A LOT OF
CASES, I THINK IS SOMETHING THAT TROUBLES A LOT OF PEOPLE,
ESPECIALLY WHEN THE TACTICS THAT I.C.E.
IS USING SEEM TO BE VERY INDISCRIMINATE IN TRYING TO
UNDERSTAND WHY PEOPLE ARE HERE.