Illinois Gov withdraws from Federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement program

Last March, while celebrating Mexico’s upcoming bicentennial, Mayor Daley proclaimed 2010 the Year of Mexico in Chicago. Truer words have not emanated from city hall in years. Less than a century after the first surge of immigrants fled Jalisco, Michoacán, and Guanajato to avoid the revolution rocking their homeland, the Mexican influence in Chicago reaches almost everywhere—but particularly the world of food. In large part thanks to the million-plus Mexican Americans living in the Chicago area, the city and suburbs offer what may be the best place in America to unravel the complex regional nuances of Mexican cuisine. The streets teem with taquerías, birrerias, torterias, and mole houses. And where the upscale Mexican scene once consisted simply of ¡Salpicón! and Rick Bayless’s empire, innovative restaurants like Chilam Balam and Mexique now keep materializing left and right.

http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/November-2010/Best-Mexican-Restaurants-in-Chicago/

...thanks to you people, I'm now hungry for lunch and it's only 9:39 AM.

I need to go visit my sister in Chicago again.

There's a very large Mexican community near Midway airport.

....so, anyone want to talk about ICE's program?

pragmaticguy-

No, the IL gov has withdrawn his state from a program that was designed to deport illegal immigrants who were ALSO criminals.

He is dropping out because (in actuality) the ICE is deporting illegal immigrants, regardless of whether they have committed a crime.

Yes, those who are here illegally are obviously guilty of an offense. But the ICE program was designed to target people who are here illegally AND have committed a crime (such as those handled by criminal court) while here.

The program was not designed to deport those who are here merely illegally; such a program would be similar to the law recently proposed by Arizona. The legalities of the AZ law (and similar ones) are now being weighed by the federal courts.

My analysis of the ICE rule is as follows:

By creating a procedure in which people who are here illegally AND criminals are deported, the feds attempted to create a compromise that satisfied people in the polarized groups:

a. Those who would like amnesty and citizenship for everyone presently in the country illegally, as long as they have not committed a crime while here.

b. Those who would like to deport everyone who is here illegally.

In my view, neither "a" or "b" is politically tenable. Please allow me to explain.

As you are likely aware, NYC is presently in a situation wherein approximately 20% of its residents are in the country illegally.

A policy in which all of those people were suddenly given the full rights of citizens (minimum wage, public assistance, voting rights, etc) would also cause complete social and fiscal chaos.

Likewise, a policy in which all of those people were deported would cause complete social and fiscal chaos.

....hence the federal ICE program. But given the recent actions by the ICE program (it is deporting people whether they have committed a crime or not) and opposing states such as AZ and IL, I am reaching the conclusion that this compromise isn't going to hold for much longer.

It seems several things may happen:

1. The feds may decide to tell states and cities they MUST participate in the ICE program discussed above (even if is implemented in a way that is not consistent with its mission). and/or

2. The feds may decide to tell states that IN ADDITION TO 1, they must participate in programs which deport illegal immigrants that have committed NO CRIMES WHILE HERE, and/or

3. The feds will allow states and municipalities to drop out of ICE programs and continue to declare "sanctuary cities". The feds will deport only persons whom the states and cities explicitly request be deported.

The government of NYC seems to prefer #3. The government of NYS is so confused and dysfunctional that no one can determine its stand on anything.

Unless it agrees to grant states and municipalities carte blanch in how they implement the federal immigration polices, the federal government may have to get off the fence and decide.

If the feds are forced to choose, which way do you think they will go?

...or do you think they'll continue try to find a way to ignore the issue?

PragmaticGuy said:

I'm not against making them citizens but you know...years ago immigrants had to have a sponsor so that they wouldn't be a burden to the economy. Might be the way to go here in that they get a sponsor and they're not entitled to any benefits other than education and emergency medical for four or five years. I've had friends who have emigrated from one country to another and either had to have mucho dinero or a GUARANTEE of a job for four years. We could do that here.

Yes, other countries are much stricter.

...but we find ourselves in a completely different situation, in that we have so many illegal immigrants that our economy has become dependent upon them.

In my view, many illegal immigrants contribute far more to the country than they "take".

Given a choice between reforming health care and reforming immigration, I think I would still prefer to reform immigration.

We've only got until 5 PM.

Illegal immigration doesn't bother me, but randomly deporting illegal immigrants does.

Surely we could have a method of sorting that goes beyond being "unlucky"