Editor:

As a member of the Honors College Social Justice Scholars, I represent our group in saying that we fervently oppose House Bill 64, Deterring Illegal Immigration, for two main and closely related reasons: ambiguity and inefficiency.

H.B. 64 is indistinct in specific goals and parameters constraining success, similar to Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s National Fugitive Operation Program. As recently reported by the Migration Policy Institute, almost three-quarters of individuals apprehended by the NFOP had no previous criminal conviction. As the NFOP budget has soared more than 23-fold, from $9 million to more than $218 million, fugitives with criminal convictions constituted a steadily decreasing share of total arrests over time. In 2003, fugitives with criminal convictions represented 32 percent of all arrests, a figure that dropped to 17 percent in 2006 and 9 percent in 2007.

Many people who believe in fair and just immigration reform support this bill in hopes that it will effectively replace Senate Bill 81 as a more cost-effective alternative. As currently written, however, this bill will not replace State Bill 81.

Finally, the proper response to an economic crisis should be marked by, first, a reduction in costs and second, an expansion of efficiency. H.B. 64 accomplishes neither of those goals. Beyond the $1 million cost of implementation, the bill is redundant and unnecessary, as S.B. 81 is meant to achieve the same goal through the cross-designation of police officers with immigration authority.

As previously implied, H.B. 64 could be rewritten to replace S.B. 818212;lowering the price tag from $1.8 million to $1 million.

In a year of economic shortfalls and budget cuts, we cannot afford to be ambiguous or inefficient. It would be grossly inappropriate to pass this bill as currently written.

Jascha Clark,
Senior, Psychology and Ethnic Studies