FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Trump’s Immigration Policy: a New “Fugitive Slave Act?”

Like escaped slaves from the pre-Civil War South, immigrants in America today are experiencing the imminent threat of unjust law and cruel enforcement.

The just-released Homeland Security implementation memos tell how the Trump administration will dramatically expand the apprehension, detention and deportation of undocumented immigrants.

Planned actions include the expeditious hiring of 10,000 new ICE (Immigration Control and Enforcement) agents and officers; establishment of more detention centers; expanded use of “expedited removals;” and greater reliance on local law enforcement “to investigate, identify, apprehend, arrest, detain, transport and conduct searches.”

Bowing to anti-immigrant/anti-refugee sentiments, President Donald Trump and Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly have launched what promises to be a massive countrywide manhunt for undocumented immigrants.  Their actions and the heightened fears and anxiety they have engendered in the targeted immigrant communities recall the notorious “Fugitive Slave Act of 1850.”

Like today, the Act was a product of a deeply divided nation.

It compelled citizens to assist in the capture of runaway slaves and denied jury trial to captured slaves. It imposed heavy penalties on those who interfered with the rendition process.  Nevertheless, determined resistance by abolitionists in the Northern states stifled enforcement, often through “personal liberty laws” that mandated a jury trial.  Congress repealed the Fugitive Slave Act in 1864, near the end of the Civil War.

Although immigrants, not slaves, are Trump’s targets, the President’s new immigration policy is similar to the Fugitive Slave Act in several key respects.  Its bloodhound tactics, its application across state lines, its deputizing of local police and its limited channels for legal recourse mirror the 1850 Act.

Under the Act, slaves were hunted down and returned to their masters.  Under the administration’s new immigration enforcement policy, suspected immigrants are to be searched out, apprehended, detained and expeditiously deported.  Immigrant families who have lawfully resided in the United States for years or even decades can be deported without judicial proceedings, even if charged with a minor traffic violation.

The New York Times on February 21 cited the case of Kristina (not her real name) who was alarmed to learn that she would be a prime target for deportation under the new policy. She was quoted as saying: “We have our whole lives here; our children are citizens. Now I don’t know if I can go out, if I should drive.”

Never mind that the harsh enforcement can forcibly separate family members, removing a breadwinner.  Never mind that immigrant families all over the countries are put in terror.  Never mind that immigrants with citizenship, permanent resident status or official visas will be harassed through inevitable racial stereotyping.  Other minorities may soon wonder: “Are we next?”

Like pre-Civil War abolitionists, members of faith communities and political activists are uniting in towns and cities across America to express their strong opposition to the harsh enforcement of immigration laws.

They point out that Mr. Trump’s enforcement policies fail to distinguish between immigrants who have entered the country illegally (a misdemeanor, not a felony) and the majority who have simply overstayed a visa (a civil, not a criminal offense).  Other misdemeanors are normally punished by no more than a year in jail—hardly the equivalent of sudden deportation.

Critics argue that policies that deputize local officials to perform ICE duties will impair the healthy relationship of trust required for community policing, the reporting of crimes and recourse to 911 emergency calls.

Despite the administration’s threat to cut off federal funds to so-called “sanctuary cities,” increasing numbers of towns and cities are enacting local laws to prevent their police officers from being used to enforce immigration laws.  A “Safe Communities Act” now before the Massachusetts legislature has gained some 80 co-sponsors.

An immigration enforcement policy that snatches and speedily deports immigrants from a community is unwise economic policy, for it causes that community to lose needed workers and tax revenues.

An immigration enforcement policy that substitutes criminal searches for a sensible immigration law in the name of national security ignores the fact that more terrorist acts in the U.S. have been committed by citizens than by immigrants.

The challenge now is for “modern-day abolitionists” to protect law- abiding immigrants and other people of color in their communities from immigration enforcement that violates American values of justice, fairness and human rights.

More articles by:

L. Michael Hager is cofounder and former Director General, International Development Law Organization, Rome.

December 19, 2018
Carl Boggs
Russophobia and the Specter of War
Jonathan Cook
American Public’s Backing for One-State Solution Falls on Deaf Ears
Daniel Warner
1968: The Year That Will Not Go Away
Arshad Khan
Developing Country Issues at COP24 … and a Bit of Good News for Solar Power and Carbon Capture
Kenneth Surin
Trump’s African Pivot: Another Swipe at China
Patrick Bond
South Africa Searches for a Financial Parachute, Now That a $170 Billion Foreign Debt Cliff Looms
Tom Clifford
Trade for Hostages? Trump’s New Approach to China
Binoy Kampmark
May Days in Britain
John Feffer
Globalists Really Are Ruining Your Life
John O'Kane
Drops and the Dropped: Diversity and the Midterm Elections
December 18, 2018
Charles Pierson
Where No Corn Has Grown Before: Better Living Through Climate Change?
Evaggelos Vallianatos
The Waters of American Democracy
Patrick Cockburn
Will Anger in Washington Over the Murder of Khashoggi End the War in Yemen?
George Ochenski
Trump is on the Ropes, But the Pillage of Natural Resources Continues
Farzana Versey
Tribals, Missionaries and Hindutva
Robert Hunziker
Is COP24 One More Big Bust?
David Macaray
The Truth About Nursing Homes
Nino Pagliccia
Have the Russian Military Aircrafts in Venezuela Breached the Door to “America’s Backyard”?
Paul Edwards
Make America Grate Again
David Rosnick
The Impact of OPEC on Climate Change
Binoy Kampmark
The Kosovo Blunder: Moving Towards a Standing Army
Andrew Stewart
Shine a Light for Immigration Rights in Providence
December 17, 2018
Susan Abulhawa
Marc Lamont Hill’s Detractors are the True Anti-Semites
Jake Palmer
Viktor Orban, Trump and the Populist Battle Over Public Space
Martha Rosenberg
Big Pharma Fights Proposal to Keep It From Looting Medicare
David Rosen
December 17th: International Day to End Violence against Sex Workers
Binoy Kampmark
The Case that Dare Not Speak Its Name: the Conviction of Cardinal Pell
Dave Lindorff
Making Trump and Other Climate Criminals Pay
Bill Martin
Seeing Yellow
Julian Vigo
The World Google Controls and Surveillance Capitalism
ANIS SHIVANI
What is Neoliberalism?
James Haught
Evangelicals Vote, “Nones” Falter
Vacy Vlanza
The Australian Prime Minister’s Rapture for Jerusalem
Martin Billheimer
Late Year’s Hits for the Hanging Sock
Weekend Edition
December 14, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Andrew Levine
A Tale of Two Cities
Peter Linebaugh
The Significance of The Common Wind
Bruce E. Levine
The Ketamine Chorus: NYT Trumpets New Anti-Suicide Drug
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Fathers and Sons, Bushes and Bin Ladens
Kathy Deacon
Coffee, Social Stratification and the Retail Sector in a Small Maritime Village
Nick Pemberton
Praise For America’s Second Leading Intellectual
Robert Hunziker
The Yellow Vest Insurgency – What’s Next?
Nick Alexandrov
George H. W. Bush: Another Eulogy
Patrick Cockburn
The Yemeni Dead: Six Times Higher Than Previously Reported
Brian Cloughley
Principles and Morality Versus Cash and Profit? No Contest
Michael F. Duggan
Climate Change and the Limits of Reason
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail