WASHINGTON -- Without the benefit of their state's strict new immigration law, officers from a single Arizona county helped deport more than 26,000 immigrants from the U.S. through a federal-local partnership program that has been roundly criticized as fraught with problems.

Statistics obtained by The Associated Press show that the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office was responsible for deportations or forced departure of 26,146 immigrants since 2007.

That's about a quarter of the national total of 115,841 sent out of the U.S. by officers in 64 law enforcement agencies deputized to help enforce immigration laws, some since 2006, under the so-called 287(g) program.

The tens of thousands of immigrant arrests show local officials already have a significant amount of authority to enforce immigration laws and help remove illegal immigrants from the country.

But with Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio the top law officer among all those deputized, questions remain about what's in store when Arizona gives more officers the power to enforce immigration laws. The federal government already is under fire for doing a poor job of keeping watch on local officers enforcing immigration laws and ensuring safeguards for protecting civil rights are in place.


If Arizona's new law takes effect Thursday, many more of the state's officers will be asking people to prove they are legally in the U.S. The state law requires officers to ask for a driver's license, passport or other identity document if they reasonably suspect a person is not allowed to be in the U.S. They must do so while enforcing other laws or ordinances.

The federal government is trying to block the Arizona law, arguing it usurps its authority. The Justice Department said in its suit challenging the law that the 287(g) federal-local partnerships are one way Congress allowed states to assist in enforcing immigration laws.

"At the pragmatic level, if local police are already allowed to do this and are allowed to do this with federal cooperation with the state, then why do they need the (new Arizona) law?" said Muzaffar Chishti, director of the New York office of the Migration Policy Institute, an immigration think tank.

"I don't know what the big hype is going on with this law," Arpaio said Wednesday on ABC's "Good Morning America." "We've been doing it for three years."

There are several other ways local officials can assist, including Secure Communities, a more widely used program that allows local officials to check the fingerprints of anyone they book into their jails against FBI and Homeland Security Department databases.

But the 287(g) program gives officers the most direct authority to stop people on the street, in their cars or in their communities and check whether they are in the country illegally. Federal watchdogs have been critical of the job the Homeland Security Department has been doing in running the program.

The department's inspector general reported in March that the 287(g) program was poorly supervised and provided insufficient training to officers, including on civil rights law.

Local officers have operated outside their agreements dictating the limits of their authority, the report said. In all, the inspector general made 33 recommendations for overhauling the program, some of which have not yet been resolved. It was the second critical report for the program. The Government Accountability Office had criticized the program in July 2009.

Complaints about Arpaio's immigration enforcement tactics led the federal government last October to yank his authority to enforce immigration laws during patrols. That month, the Obama administration rewrote all agreements with local partners in attempt to address complaints of racial profiling and civil rights violations.

Even so, the federal government continues to allow the sheriff and deputies to check their jails for deportable inmates.

Arpaio has denied the allegations and says he is a target because of his tough immigration enforcement. His office has continued to do immigration sweeps. Arpaio said he is enforcing state anti-smuggling and anti-illegal immigrant hiring laws.

Arpaio said about 100 of his deputies were trained over five weeks to act as federal agents under the 287(g) program. They were trained on racial profiling and other civil rights laws, he said.

The new Arizona law is needed for several reasons, including that "no police official or elected official can tell the police officer that you cannot enforce immigration laws," Arpaio said. The Arizona law prohibits state and local government officials from preventing enforcement of immigration laws.

Arpaio warned that he's not going to tolerate any protesters once the law takes effect. "If they want to block my jail, I'll put them in jail," he told ABC on Wednesday.

The federal government does not pay for local officers to participate in the 287(g) program. U.S. taxpayers pay the federal cost, which has grown from $5 million in 2006 to $68 million in 2010, according to the DHS inspector general. Immigration and Customs Enforcement reimburses some of the local agencies for housing immigrants in their jails. The immigrants can be in the country illegally or legally present but have committed a crime that makes them eligible for deportation.

Joanne Lin, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union, said it is alarming that one Arizona county is responsible for a disproportionate share of deportations.

The Los Angeles County's Sheriff's Office, a distant second to Maricopa, helped find 13,784 immigrants who were later deported or left the country. The Sheriff's Office's agreement with the federal government allows it to check its jails for deportable immigrants, but not to enforce immigration laws during street patrols. A renewal of the agreement is under negotiation.

An estimated 10.8 million people, about 26 percent of the state's population, are living illegally in California, compared with 460,000, about 12 percent, in Arizona.

"These statistics bear out that you have rogue sheriffs in certain counties that are bent on targeting immigrants," Lin said.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/28/pre-arizona-immigration-law-arpaio-helped-deport-g-illegals/

Sheriff Joe for President!

hope that those damn illegals will get sent home

and change the demographics back to the way they should be



I will promise not to make light of those who find that reason enough to choose a president if those who do stop making light of the hope and change that many others voted for in 2008.....

I will NEVER quit mocking the fools who voted for some vague, shapeless, undefined concept a politician chose to call 'Hope' and 'Change' ... WORDS. MEAN. THINGS. When y' don't ask for definition and clarification UP FRONT, y' deserve what you get. The big problem is, everyone who WANTED the terms defined (but didn't get 'em defined 'cuz he chose not to) have to pay the price for the 'warm fuzzy feel-goods' that the sheeple got from thinkin' their 'warm sticky' thoughts about 'Hope' and 'Change' ... Barnum was right ... and he still lives ... Obama's election proves that - as does the non-stop defense of his 'policies' despite overwhelming proof that they're the CAUSE of the problems. Sorry, mockery will continue ...

the english language is complex because our WORDS actually can mean SEVERAL DIFFERENT THINGS,depending upon context, all up to the listener or reader to interpret for themselves


Words can mean many things actually

here are some now,,,,

hypocrisy sometimes shines a light so bright that it distorts the image in front of us,,,,,

Dang! I couldn't have pegged Hussein that right on!

Kudos to ya'!

oversight and ignorance are deadly sometimes

from the FIRST presidential debate

OBAMA: Well, there are a range of things that are probably going to have to be delayed. We don't yet know what our tax revenues are going to be. The economy is slowing down, so it's hard to anticipate right now what the budget is going to look like next year.

But there's no doubt that we're not going to be able to do everything that I think needs to be done. There are some things that I think have to be done. We have to have energy independence, so I've put forward a plan to make sure that, in 10 years' time, we have freed ourselves from dependence on Middle Eastern oil by increasing production at home, but most importantly by starting to invest in alternative energy (OOTC:AEGC) , solar, wind, biodiesel, making sure that we're developing the fuel-efficient cars of the future right here in the United States, in Ohio and Michigan, instead of Japan and South Korea.

We have to fix our health care system, which is putting an enormous burden on families. Just -- a report just came out that the average deductible went up 30 percent on American families.

They are getting crushed, and many of them are going bankrupt as a consequence of health care. I'm meeting folks all over the country. We have to do that now, because it will actually make our businesses and our families better off.

The third thing we have to do is we've got to make sure that we're competing in education. We've got to invest in science and technology. China had a space launch and a space walk. We've got to make sure that our children are keeping pace in math and in science.

And one of the things I think we have to do is make sure that college is affordable for every young person in America.

And I also think that we're going to have to rebuild our infrastructure, which is falling behind, our roads, our bridges, but also broadband lines that reach into rural communities.

Also, making sure that we have a new electricity grid to get the alternative energy to population centers that are using them.

So there are some -- some things that we've got to do structurally to make sure that we can compete in this global economy. We can't shortchange those things. We've got to eliminate programs that don't work, and we've got to make sure that the programs that we do have are more efficient and cost less.


LETS RECAP SHALL WE

1.cutting loose from middle eastern oil,
2. fixing healthcare,
3.competing in education,
4.making college affordable,
5.investing in alternative energy,,,

.seems pretty 'detailed' to me,, and he has actually implemented these things since his Presidency,,,imagine,,,


and McCains answer

MCCAIN: Look, we, no matter what, we've got to cut spending. We have -- as I said, we've let government get completely out of control.

Senator Obama has the most liberal voting record in the United States Senate. It's hard to reach across the aisle from that far to the left.

The point -- the point is -- the point is, we need to examine every agency of government.

First of all, by the way, I'd eliminate ethanol subsidies. I oppose ethanol subsidies.

I think that we have to return -- particularly in defense spending, which is the largest part of our appropriations -- we have to do away with cost-plus contracts. We now have defense systems that the costs are completely out of control.

We tried to build a little ship called the Littoral Combat Ship that was supposed to cost $140 million, ended up costing $400 million, and we still haven't done it.

So we need to have fixed-cost contracts. We need very badly to understand that defense spending is very important and vital, particularly in the new challenges we face in the world, but we have to get a lot of the cost overruns under control.

I know how to do that.

LETS RECAP

Cut spending
Cut out military contracts

...LOTS OF DETAILS THERE , RIGHT?

read more for a BALANCE of information at

http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/president/debates/transcripts/first-presidential-debate.html

Ok, Obama should be impeached, his lawsuit shows that he is FOR people breaking the law...unless I misunderstand the term 'illegal'. Next time I am pulled over, i'm going to tell the police that they are not allowed to determine if my actions are illegal or not...because Obama said so. do we not have any pride anymore as Americans? does it not mean anything? now there is also talk of them building a mosque on the grounds of 911? really people? the squeaky wheel gets the grease...it's time for us to start shouting louder then the opponents of these law(a very small group, they are just VERY loud). 70% of Americans agree with Arizona's law. yet the 30% are winning? why? well it's because only 10% of those 70% are standing up and saying anything! who the cares what people think, it's time for us to do what is RIGHT!+

impeachment is uncalled for truly

the idea is in deciding WHO enforces what laws,,,and who should be MANDATED to do so(as this bill no doubt leaves interpretational room for)

police enforce laws, yes,,,but should they be MANDATED by a bill to enforce immigration laws,, and if immigration laws why not tax laws as well, and if tax laws , why not contract law as well


the bottom line is noone is really opposing enforcing laws, the debate is only about what JURISDICTION should have the authority to do so,,,feds, locals, etc,,,,

It's a good thing I'm so used to hearing the 'non-stop, 24-hour, all-day, all-nite, week-in, week-out, 'The UN'-can-do-no-wrong' (PBUH), peace-and-love, kumbayah, 'hope-and-change' two-step, otherwise I'd prob'ly hurl all over my keyboard ...

likewise , tolerance for the everything is Obamas fault and he does nothing right crowd keeps me from pulling out my hair,,,

The Arizona law has many problems, one of which is the fact is it promotes racial profiling, that is a good reason for a law suit.

Noone is promoting illegal activity.

A mosque on the site of 9/11 would be an excellent idea. Showing Americans are not prejudice ******** that believe that all Muslims are terrorists.

so why not let them enforce the other laws too? i pay my taxes, and try to follow laws as they are set forth. If I am breaking the law, I know I stand a chance at being arrested....I'm not concerned with whether it is a fed or a police officer arresting me. It is an arrest. Period.

Bottom line, illegal=breaking the law=breaking the law=punishment/consequences(that's what stops everyone from robbing a bank)

if you have no fear of consequences than you have no fear of the law, if you have no fear of the law, anarchy will prevail.

What we need to do is adopt mexican's immigration law(they have a really detailed and good one that they ENFORCE!)

The only people saying they like this judges ruling is the Mexican Govt, and the ACLU umm...excuse me when did we start bowing to other countries? because that is exactly what Obummer is doing. He has less back-bone they Kerry had.

sure let's turn America into Pakistan, it's not like they have any experience fighting over land in the middle east, this would create an uprising in NY, it's worked for the middle east, they aren't plagued by contant war or anything. lmao.

because people can only do so much,, there are far too many types of laws to expect or mandate that the police handle all the lawbreakers

this is why the FEDS handle kidnappings
and the IRS and the COURTS handle tax evaders


when you pass a law assigning a responsibility to someone, you are leaving open a pandoras box of lawsuits by those who dont feel they carry that responsibility out well enough,,,

to coin phrase,, its using an axe where only a scalpel is necessary

Doesn't even make sense.

Showing that Americans are not prejudice ******** has nothing to do with pakistan or fighting over land.

we are a bunch of prejudice bastards, and i don't want any of there mosques around, antwhere.

I'm still waiting to see him walk across water............

No "we" are not a bunch of prejudice bastards and yea "we do want mosques on places that show America is still a melting pot for all of humanity.

why didn't put it to a vote for the people and let us decide? obama and his cronies are playing games and it's pissing me off. i used to like him, not so much anymore.