Artículo
Understanding the Impact and Context of H.R. 2278, the “Strengthen and Fortify Enforcement Act”
Understanding the Impact and Context of H.R. 2278, the “Strengthen and Fortify Enforcement Act”
Publicado el 30 de agosto de 2013
en Immigration Impact, Immigration Policy
On June 6, 2013, the House Judiciary Committee considered H.R. 2278, the “Strengthen and Fortify Enforcement Act,” commonly known as the SAFE Act. This wide-ranging immigration enforcement bill would make unlawful presence in the United States a criminal act punishable with jail time, greatly expand detention of immigrants, authorize states and local governments to create their own immigration enforcement laws, and impose harsher penalties and restrictions for immigration violations, among other enforcement-related provisions. The bill, introduced by Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) and Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Trey Gowdy (R-SC), was the subject of a contentious committee mark up, ending in its passage out of committee on a straight party line vote of 20 to 15. The SAFE Act is one of several bills that the House leadership might offer as part of its “step-by-step” approach to immigration reform, in which various House bills addressing different aspects of the immigration system may be voted on separately.
However, the SAFE Act represents an attrition-through-enforcement approach to unauthorized immigration that has not proven effective and which runs contrary to many of the objectives of immigration reform. It returns to a philosophy which holds that punitive enforcement measures alone can address the many flaws in our immigration system. But the United States has essentially been pursuing an enforcement-only approach for decades which has divided communities and proven to be extremely expensive, all without actually achieving its goals. It is important to keep in mind that, since 1986, the federal government has spent $187 billion on immigration enforcement, yet the unauthorized population has tripled in size to 11 million during that time. The House Judiciary’s endorsement of an outdated philosophy that touts more enforcement, more detention, more penalties, and a more complicated, expensive, and decentralized immigration enforcement system flies in the face of the House leadership’s repeated pledge to fix that very system.
Contrary to the impression created by supporters of the SAFE Act, federal spending on border and immigration enforcement has been growing for years and is now at an all-time high. Since the creation of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in 2003, the budget of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP)—the parent agency of the Border Patrol within DHS—has increased from $5.9 billion to $12 billion per year. On top of that, spending on U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the interior-enforcement counterpart to CBP within DHS, has grown from $3.3 billion since its inception to $5.6 billion today
Clasificación
País
Estados Unidos
Temática general
[Legislación migratoria][Legislación migratoria][Vigilancia migratoria en Estados Unidos]
Temática específica
[54][77][26]
Artículos recientes
Publicada el 11 de agosto de 2020
¿Qué necesita un migrante para trabajar en México?
Publicada el 18 de febrero de 2020
¿Expulsar o integrar a las personas migrantes en México?
Publicada el 21 de diciembre de 2019
“Ya no aguantamos más”: la protesta desesperada de inmigrantes presos en las cárceles de ICE