Homework answers / question archive / Austin Question 1: Is immigration enforcement a proper role for law enforcement personnel? Does it conflict with the traditional role of “protect and serve?” This is a very difficult question on the surface, but when you look at the HSE perspective the role of homeland security professionals resides within every level of government

Austin Question 1: Is immigration enforcement a proper role for law enforcement personnel? Does it conflict with the traditional role of “protect and serve?” This is a very difficult question on the surface, but when you look at the HSE perspective the role of homeland security professionals resides within every level of government

Law

Share With

Austin Question 1: Is immigration enforcement a proper role for law enforcement personnel? Does it conflict with the traditional role of “protect and serve?” This is a very difficult question on the surface, but when you look at the HSE perspective the role of homeland security professionals resides within every level of government. I believe the question in itself is contrary to meaning of “law enforcement”. While the goal is always to protect and serve, the way to that lofty goal is to enforce laws. To further that idea, isn’t illegal border crossing or residing in the country illegal, no matter how long, illegal under federal penalty? 8 U.S. Code § 1325 tells us that it is in fact unlawful to enter the United States beside through a legal port of entry and that entry granted by an immigration officer. I would argue the fact that if you believe someone is breaking the law it is your duty as a civilian to report it or more importantly if you’re a law enforcement officer it is your duty to intervene. Question 2: How is the management of lawful immigration related to the security of the nation? How could people harm the country or its citizens by misusing the lawful mechanisms? There are many aspects in which lawful immigrations impacts the security of the nation. First, “it is the mission of the Boarder Patrol to prevent terrorists and their weapons (including WMD) from entering the United States, while ensuring that the flow of legal immigration and goods is maintained” (Bullock, Haddow, & Coppola, 2018, p. 149). That statement gives an insight to just how important that mission is. Smuggling on the southern border is a major issue. If we as criminal justice professionals and citizens alike understand that fact, then it is likely that our enemies also know this information. It will be a matter of time before they can exploit smuggling. Second, in this chapter we looked at the priority of ICE and immigration control alike to target criminals. “ERO (Enforcement and Removal Operations) prioritizes the apprehension, arrest, and removal of convicted criminals who pose a threat to national security, fugitives, and recent illegal border crossers” (Bullock, et al, 2018, p. 155). There are multiple assets available to continue to control immigration and protect the homeland, these are just two initiatives to combat that threat. Question 3: Should President Trump have pardoned former Arizona Maricopa County Sheriff, Joe Arpaio? Defend your position. After reading about Sheriff Arpaio techniques while confining illegal immigrants I would say that while he broke the judge’s ruling to not house inmates in a outdoor tent, I don’t believe he should have been criminally charged. Further, I do believe the intentions of the former President were guided by his hard-line opinion on the southern border. Like the Sheriff President Trump sites issues with immigration and the illegal entry by aliens into the U.S. Using this type of force could deter other immigrants from entering unlawfully. Personally, I believe this is a difficult line to draw. In my opinion, the inmates should be treated fairly as any other American prisoner, and the Sheriff should have been reprimand or removed until a proper investigation and constitutional understanding has been made. Student 2 - REASUDEEN M3D1 Law Enforcement and Immigration Question 1: Is immigration enforcement a proper role for law enforcement personnel? Does it conflict with the traditional role of “protect and serve?” Law enforcement personnel may be tasked with immigration enforcement in certain areas of the country. While this may not be an ideal fit, illegal immigration goes well beyond our borders and the face of law enforcement in any town in the United States is the local police. When looking at illegal immigration with a proactive approach, law enforcement is indeed protecting and serving, since like every other category, illegal immigrants do commit crimes. Light, He and Robey (2020) stated that “Relative to undocumented immigrants, US-born citizens are over 2 times more likely to be arrested for violent crimes, 2.5 times more likely to be arrested for drug crimes, and over 4 times more likely to be arrested for property crimes.” While crimes committed by undocumented immigrants may be less than the naturalized population, they still happen, so from that perspective, law enforcement is protecting and serving when they enforce immigration. Question 2: How is the management of lawful immigration related to the security of the nation? How could people harm the country or its citizens by misusing the lawful mechanisms? Knowing who cross the border into the United States and having a processing of vetting those immigrating to the US is important in preserving the security of the nation. The 9/11 hijackers used tourists visas gained through legal channel that granted them 6 months stay in the US. Their destruction is well known today. The prevention of terrorism and national security threats to the US is a priority of the DHS and ICE. To counter these threats, the visa security program and the Biometric Identification Transnational Migration Alert Program (BITMAP) are used to mitigate the threat. Illegal immigration is not limited to those that cross the borders illegally. Many enter the Untied States legally and overstay their visas. In 2019, visa overstays exceed illegal immigration for the 7th consecutive year (Gonzalez, 2017). While the state may have some benefit from illegal immigration through taxes and tariffs that cannot be avoided such as sales tax, those that overstay their visas require time and money from law enforcement to get them apprehended and deported. They may also be working for employers at a cheaper cost and avoiding paying taxes, as would a documented immigrant. Question 3: Should President Trump have pardoned former Arizona Maricopa County Sheriff, Joe Arpaio? Defend your position. I am indifferent to this decision. The President has the power to issue pardons under Article II of the Constitution and he used this enumerated power to pardon Joe Arpaio. On the other hand, a Federal Judge found Arpaio “guilty of misdemeanor contempt of court for willfully violating a 2011 order from another federal judge to end the immigration arrests on suspicion” (Gambao, 2017). While I recognize the power to pardon, I would have exercised caution since this pardon was related to crimes associated with illegal immigration. It is politically motivated and will now give the opposing party, leverage or reason to do the same. But, as stated, this is a power granted to the President of the USA and he may use it as he sees necessary. Student 3 – Austin Question 1: Is Holmes’ approach to the issue of funding for the “No-Fly” list accurate? The fact that Holmes used comparative data, and the idea of what similar programing would cost to approach how much it costs to maintain a “No-Fly” list is quite impressive. The figures for the labor and the technology aspects are astronomical alone, but I do believe that the issue of funding this list is in fact probably accurate. I think that this is a main focus for some of those top employees with in the federal government to include organizations like the FBI and TSA. It also it very feasible that the government, rather than using an existing system, opted for a new system to analyze travelers. Question 2: Do the costs of the “No-Fly” list outweigh its benefits? Why or why not? In Holmes’ conclusion, it is eluded that what is the price of just one human life, is it worth spending this amount of money? I think while the data and financial aspect is troubling, it is important to keep some individuals from using air travel. First, so a instance like 9/11 doesn’t happen again, and two so a possible terrorist can use air travel to, in a sense, disappear. If that is the case then preventing that individual from causing harm is significantly harder to do. In Holmes’ words even if it saves just one human life it could be worth the cost. Question 3: What types of criteria should be used for prioritizing budgets for protecting different transportation modes? The first criteria that should be use is to illustrate or understand the type of incident it would cause to disrupt and how effectively one could weaponize that transportation mean. The attacks of 9/11 showed what it was like to weaponize an airplane, but to weaponize a motor vehicle may cause significant damage but not necessarily like that of 9/11. The second would be what type of screening is used to enter into that transportation platform. Understanding that air travel is the most scrutinized form of travel, how scrutinized is a train or subway passenger. Could a train or subway train cause significant damage? Last, my criteria would have where does this transportation operate. For subways they stay within the New York City Limits. This area is highly crowded with both businesses as well as residential buildings. Student 4 – Greg • Question 1: Is Holmes’ approach to the issue of funding for the “No-Fly” list accurate? Since the list is considered classified, this estimate of $500 million would be reasonable (Holmes, 2009). The approach used was interesting in that the technology and staffing costs are high due to multiple data sources used to maintain the no-fly list. Taxpayer costs to run this program seem reasonable for the sake of safety. • Question 2: Do the costs of the “No-Fly” list outweigh its benefits? Why or why not? The benefits of the no-fly list outweigh its cost because there are some people who just do not need to fly. This list is for the safety of the regular flyers and the country. An attack using planes as weapons can hopefully be prevented using this list. Another example is the January 6 insurrectionists being prevented from flying protects everyone else and at most, really inconveniences those individuals on the list. These people will still find a way to be a burden to society by just driving to their destination. • Question 3: What types of criteria should be used for prioritizing budgets for protecting different transportation modes? The criteria used for prioritizing budgets to protect transportation should be based on the amount of people traffic each mode brings in. For example, the New York City subway system is used by over 4.3 million people each day (NY.com, 2021). That is over 1 billion people each year. Chicago O’Hare airport had approximately 30.9 million passengers travel through in 2020 (CDA, 2021). Such transportation systems must be protected because of the potential for casualties in the event of a terrorist attack.