Immigration Shift Hasn't Trickled Down to Border Patrol

By Julian Aguilar
The Texas Tribune
7 September 2011

When Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) announced in June it was urging prosecutors to use discretion when placing illegal immigrants in deportation proceedings, skeptics urged caution. We’ve heard this before, they claimed.

People like Roxann Lara give them one more reason to say they were right.

Lara, originally from Delicias, Chihuahua, is five months pregnant and the mother of two U.S. citizen children. She is in the country illegally because she overstayed a visa. Her attorney says she’s the “poster child” for leniency under the June directive.

Instead, Lara was detained and processed by immigration authorities in Anthony, N.M., last week after she admitted to having expired documents when local police and U.S. Border Patrol agents came to the door looking for her sister.

It means the “left hand isn’t aware of what the right hand is doing,” said Carlos Spector, Lara’s El Paso-based attorney. "I think it’s important to note that this [directive] has not reached the lowest levels of ICE... because [Border Patrol agents] are still picking up pregnant women."

In the June directive, ICE Director John Morton told prosecutors to evaluate several factors when determining which illegal immigrants to place in deportation proceedings, part of a plan to concentrate ICE’s finite resources on removing the most dangerous criminal aliens. These factors included the immigrant’s health, their children’s immigration status, how long they had been in the country, and whether or not they were “low profile” — the government’s term for non-violent, non-essential deportees. That memo was followed last month by an announcement that the Department of Homeland Security, which oversees ICE and Customs and Border Protection, would review the cases of the 300,000 people currently in deportation proceedings to determine if any should be released and subsequently allowed to apply for work authorization.

Lara was released from detention, but not until she was hospitalized after becoming panic stricken and physically ill during her stay. She says an agent threatened to deport her to Ciudad Juárez, where drug cartel violence is widespread.

“He said, ‘We have to go get your kids.’ I said ‘No, do what you want with me but leave my kids alone,’” a sobbing Lara told the Tribune by telephone from El Paso. “I told him I was sick and he said it didn’t matter to him.”

Spector said despite Lara's release, she has been issued a notice to appear before a judge. He said he intends to ask the judge to dismiss the case based on the Morton memo.

“The new policy says they shouldn’t pick up pregnant women or sick people," Spector said. "What we want to see and ask is, what does the Border Patrol think of the Morton memo?”

When asked if the Border Patrol has amended it’s policies since the Morton memo was issued, a spokesman for the U.S. Border Patrol El Paso sector told the Tribune agents are required to detain anyone who is unauthorized to be in the country. They can't give out warnings the way police officers can, he said; the immigration courts are the ones that ultimately make the decisions.

In Lara's case, Agent Ramiro Cordero said, Border Patrol "did exactly what we were supposed to do. If the courts grant that person some type of legal document, then the system works." Cordero added that the Morton memo was directed at federal prosecutors, who are overseen by ICE. U.S. Border Patrol, he said, is under the purview of Customs and Border Protection.

"Until there is policy and guidance from DHS, we still do what we have to do," he said.

“Not a revolutionary concept”

By the government’s own admission, internal policy changes can be slow-going. The agency's plan for reviewing deportation cases is still being crafted, so no individual cases have been closed, according to a Department of Homeland Security spokesman who asked not to be identified.

Immigration policy experts say they’re not surprised that there hasn’t been an immediate and sweeping change in policy. The Morton memo doesn’t reinvent the system, they say.

“Prosecutorial discretion is not new. It’s not a revolutionary concept," said Muzaffar Chishti, an attorney and director of the Migration Policy Institute at the New York University School of Law. "In an immigration context there have been guidelines about discretion for a very long time.”

A prosecutorial discretion memo issued in November 2000 by then-Immigration and Naturalization Services Commissioner Doris Meissner, now a senior fellow at the Migration Policy Institute, said the agency had finite resources, and prosecuting all immigration cases was “not possible.” It instructed prosecutors to consider immigrants' criminal history, immigration history, cooperation with authorities, military service and humanitarian concerns, like conditions in the peron's home country and their health.

But when the Morton memo was issued in June, it still caused an uproar among Republican hardliners like U.S. Rep. Lamar Smith, R-San Antonio, who called it “backdoor amnesty” and introduced a still-pending bill to dilute the administration’s immigration enforcement powers.

What's different about the agency's current policy, Chishti said, is that the government has stated it will review pending cases, not just use new standards for future ones. But he said it’s unclear how these policies will be implemented at the local level.

“The most critical part of this policy is going to be how they monitor it in the field,” Chishti said. “How are you going to notify people... and what is the accountability if an officer chooses not to exercise the discretion on the basis of the guidelines?"

Lara’s case indicates that, at least in certain Border Patrol sectors, the jury is still out.

http://www.texastribune.org/immigration-in-texas/immigration/despite-policy-shift-deportations-proceedings-cont/

Detainees in New Mexico beg to be deported through safe territory

“Please Save Us”

By Andrew Beale
Alibi.Com; V.20 No.27 | July 7 - 13, 2011

This Week's News/Opinion

The Tijuana / San Diego border

Almost 50 people held on immigration charges in New Mexico signed letters saying that if they are deported over the state's border, they will be immediately kidnapped or killed.

One missive, written in June in broken English, was sent to David Hill of the nonprofit No More Deaths by 21 detainees held at the facility in Torrance County, N.M. “Please save us,” they wrote. They pled to be deported through the Arizona or California border instead.

They said that if sent through either New Mexico or Texas, they will be kidnapped by a drug gang known as Los Zetas and will almost certainly die.

The letter-writers knew each other only from being in the detention center together, according to No More Deaths. One of the men had been kidnapped after a previous deportation, and he shared the story with others in the facility.

The detainees’ letter also says the municipal police in Mexico kidnap deportees and turn them over to gangs that hold them for ransom. “They take you to an abandon alley or house and waiting for you is this group Los Zetas at gunpoint your eyes are bandaged and your feet and hands are tied, and so begins the nightmare!”

“It's not entirely clear to us when, in fact, and how they're going to be deported and what their immigration status actually is.”

Peter Simonson, executive director of ACLU-NM

No More Deaths started a letter-writing campaign on behalf of the detainees, and about 7,000 letters were sent to Immigration and Customs Enforcement. “The participation has been more than double anything we’ve done before with this campaign,” says Hill, a volunteer who works in Nogales, Ariz.

Other activist groups were relieved that dangerous deportations were being spotlighted, Hill says. Several national nonprofits, including the American Civil Liberties Union, have become involved in the case.

Peter Simonson, executive director of ACLU-NM, says he has been in contact with the detainees and sent an email to the directors of the Torrance County Detention Facility. But, he adds, there is no appeal process possible through the U.S. justice system. He says the ACLU is considering the possibility of appealing to an international body, such as the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights—a course of action that ACLU-NM has never pursued before. Any decision rendered by such an organization would not be legally enforceable, he says. “Basically, the hammer behind it would be political pressure.”

“The humanitarian consequences ... are enormous, as is evidenced by the case of these detainees that are terrified for their lives.”

Lena Graber, a policy associate with the National Immigration Forum

Simonson says he's unsure of the locations of some of the detainees. “It's not entirely clear to us when, in fact, and how they're going to be deported and what their immigration status actually is.”

No More Deaths released a statement on its website on Thursday, June 23, indicating that seven have already been deported. A volunteer with the organization, Hannah Hafter, says other letter-writers are being held indefinitely at a facility in El Paso. Since they perceive a threat to their lives, they may be able to apply for asylum. Still, many are frantic about the indefinite detention, she says, and wish they could be returned to Mexico to continue supporting their families.

Representatives of ICE declined to comment for this story but issued a response to the call for safer deportations. ICE recommends the detainees contact the Mexican Consulate with safety concerns. The response notes “ICE recognizes the current situation relating to violence in Mexico,” but the agency does not allow people to choose the location they will be deported to.

The statement goes on to say that as of March 3, ICE has not been deporting “criminal aliens”—that is, immigrants facing criminal charges unrelated to immigration status—through Ciudad Juárez.

Hafter says the response letter from ICE is upsetting. “It’s basically both acknowledging that they know that this is happening to people and saying that they don’t do anything about it, and it’s not their responsibility.”

Furthermore, reaching out to the Mexican Consulate or other government agencies for help could be dangerous. Simonson says the detainees told him in conversation that Mexican immigration services have been known to collaborate with drug cartels. He says the detainees told the ACLU that “the receiving immigration office is actually conspiring with the drug cartel to hand people over to the drug cartel so they can be held for ransom.”

ICE generally sends deportees to a different location from where they were apprehended, according to Lena Graber, a policy associate with the National Immigration Forum.

“They believe that it's part of a fair strategy of deterrence to re-entry,” she says. “The humanitarian consequences for that are enormous, as is evidenced by the case of these detainees that are terrified for their lives.”

Hill of No More Deaths says getting people deported through Arizona or California would be a great help to the people who sent the letters, but more drastic policy reform is needed on the border.

“The things that people are experiencing immediately on deportation are happening all over the border—kidnappings, extortion, beatings, ” he says. “Obviously, we would like to see fundamental immigration reform.”

http://alibi.com/news/37758/article.html

U.S. v. GALLEGOS-SOTO

U.S. v. GALLEGOS-SOTO

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ADALBERTO GALLEGOS-SOTO, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 09-2270.

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

December 22, 2010.

Before KELLY, Circuit Judge, McWILLIAMS, Senior Circuit Judge, and LUCERO, Circuit Judge.

---

ORDER AND JUDGMENT ^*

ROBERT H. McWILLIAMS, Senior Circuit Judge.

In a one-count criminal information filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico, Adalberto Gallegos-Soto ("the defendant") was charged with reentry of a removed alien in violation of 8 U.S.C. §§ 1326 (a) and (b). Defendant pled guilty without a plea agreement and was sentenced to 46 months imprisonment followed by two years of supervised release. Defendant's counsel frames the one issue on appeal as "whether the sentence imposed by the district court was unreasonable."¹

Defendant is an undocumented immigrant from Mexico who has lived intermittently in the United States for many years. He has two misdemeanor convictions in Illinois and Colorado for driving under the influence and was convicted in 2003, in Colorado, for one count of sexual misconduct which resulted in a 160 day jail sentence followed by deportation. On February 5, 2009, a police officer with the Ruidoso Downs, New Mexico police department had contact with the defendant and suspected he was in the United States illegally. Border Patrol was contacted and an Agent confirmed that defendant was an illegal immigrant from Mexico and arrested the defendant. After defendant pled guilty, a PSR was prepared using the 2008 Guidelines Manual. The base offense level was set at 8 pursuant to U.S.S.G. §2L1.2(a) and 16 levels were added pursuant to U.S.S.G. §2L1.2(b)(1)(A) because defendant was previously deported after a conviction for a crime of violence, i.e. sexual misconduct. Although defendant was convicted in Colorado for a Class 1 misdemeanor, the offense is punishable in Colorado by imprisonment for a maximum term of 18 months which qualifies as a federally defined felony. United States v. Romero-Hernandez, 505 F.3d 1082 (10th Cir. 2007). Three levels were deducted for acceptance of responsibility, resulting in a total offense level of 21. With four criminal history points (Criminal History Category III), the guideline range was 46-57 months.

Prior to sentencing, defendant filed a sentencing memorandum requesting a downward variance from the guideline range and that the district court sentence him to 16 months based on the circumstances surrounding the Colorado conviction for sexual misconduct. Defendant stated that the enhancement was based on his unlawful contact with his niece and the seriousness of the offense was overstated. Defendant also argued that a 16 month sentence would be adequate because he would be deported to Mexico and would not return to this country. At sentencing, defendant stated that he had a lot of family in Mexico and promised not to come back to the United States. The government opposed a downward variance and recommended a sentence at the bottom of the guideline range. The district court stated that it was unpersuaded by defendant's sentencing memorandum and found that a sentence within the guideline range would achieve the objectives of the factors it was required to consider. Defendant was sentenced to the low end of the guideline range.

Reasonableness of Sentence

Defendant's one issue on appeal is the reasonableness of the sentence, arguing that it overstates the seriousness of his prior conviction and that it is based on a categorical rather than individual rejection of a non-frivolous basis for a downward variance. Because defendant's sentence was within the correctly calculated guideline range, it is presumptively reasonable. United States v. Kristl, 437 F.3d 1050, 1054 (10th Cir. 2006). This Court gives deference to the trial court's decision to grant or not grant a variance and we do not find that the trial court abused its discretion by denying a request for a variance. United States v. Haley, 529 F.3d 1308, 1311 (10th Cir. 2008), United States v. Smart, 518 F.3d 800, 808 (10th Cir. 2008).

As stated, defendant argues that the 16 level increase for a prior conviction pursuant to U.S.S.G. §2L1.2 overstated the seriousness of his current offense of illegal reentry. The prior conviction for which the 16 level increase was based occurred in 2003 and defendant was sentenced to 160 days in jail. The violation was a misdemeanor under Colorado law but this Court has held it to be a crime of violence that mandates a 16 level increase under U.S.S.G. §2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii). United States v. Romero-Hernandez, 505 F.3d 1082 (10th Cir. 2007). This Court has also stated that reentry into the United States following a conviction of a crime of violence is a serious offense. United States v. Navarrete-Medina, 554 F.3d 1312, 1314 (10th Cir. 2009). Defendant argues that his facts are distinguishable because the prior offense was relatively minor. He submitted a letter to the district court from the victim, his niece, describing a single attempt to touch her, and a statement that she and her family forgave him. The PSR described the underlying facts as more severe suggesting defendant engaged in a month long "reign of sexual terror against his niece" which defendant contends is not supported by the record or testimony. Defendant claims that because the conduct was relatively minor and a misdemeanor under Colorado law, it was substantively unreasonable for the district court to refuse to vary downward. We do not agree. The sentence at the bottom of the guideline range was not unreasonable as it served the dual purpose of reflecting the seriousness of defendant's prior criminal history and protecting the public² as required by 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a)(1), (2)(B), (C).

Defendant also argued at the sentencing hearing that he would not return to the United States as his family had a farm in Mexico where he would live and work after being deported. He asserted that a sentence below the guidelines range would still be sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct under 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a)(2)(B) and (C). The district court made the statement at the end of the hearing, "You know, I've heard `I will not return to the United States' — what do I sentence, 500 or 700 a year — so I figure at least 250 or 200 times a year. They all come back." Defendant argues that this violates the mandate of Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 49 (2007), that a sentencing court must make an individualized assessment based on the facts presented, and that the district court rejected a request for leniency out of hand which was plainly unreasonable. The record indicates that the district court did consider the defendant's arguments for a downward variance. It was not unreasonable for the court to be skeptical about defendant's claim that he would not return given defendant's own failure to comply with his prior deportation, which is the basis for the current offense, as well as the court's prior experience with immigration cases. We do not find that a sentence at the bottom of the correctly calculated guideline range was an abuse of discretion.

Judgment and sentence affirmed.

---

Footnotes

---

* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.

Back to Reference

1. Appellee's brief frames the issue on appeal as "whether the district court abused its discretion by imposing a sentence at the bottom of the correctly calculated sentencing guideline range."

Back to Reference

2. Defendant also had two convictions for driving under the influence and an admitted problem with alcohol, PSR at 6-7; Tr. at 6, which presents a danger to the general public.

Back to Reference

http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?xmldoc=In%20FCO%2020101222070.xml&docbase=CSLWAR3-2007-CURR#FR_2

New Mexico Voters Support Strong Policy on Immigrants

By Sean Olson
ABQ Journal News
September 05, 2010

New Mexico voters like the city of Albuquerque's new policy of checking immigrant status of anyone arrested — by a wide margin — and strongly disapprove of the state's policy of giving driver's licenses to illegal immigrants.

A majority of voters in a new Journal Poll also gave a thumbs-up to Arizona's new immigration law, which has been denounced by the Obama administration, Gov. Bill Richardson and others.

Hispanic voters agreed with the majority on the state's driver's license policy and the city's immigration check policy. They had a different view on the Arizona law, but even that had 39 percent support.

Gabriel R. Sanchez, an assistant professor of political science at the University of New Mexico, said that New Mexicans do not favor the Arizona law as much as the rest of the country, but that the state's voters are becoming more and more disenchanted with illegal immigrants.

He said that historically, the United States often becomes more concerned — and angry — with immigrant populations during times of economic turmoil.

"The elephant in the room is that, I guarantee you, if you ran this survey two years ago, before the economy went downhill, you would get very different results," Sanchez said.

Albuquerque's policy, which requires that immigration status be checked for all people who are booked into jail, was extremely popular, with 84 percent saying they favored it. Twelve percent opposed it, 2 percent had mixed feelings, and 2 percent didn't know or wouldn't say.

"The deeper a person has entered the criminal justice system, the more palatable it seems to be among voters to allow police to check their immigration status," said pollster Brian Sanderoff, president of Research and Polling Inc., which conducted the Journal Poll.

Seventy-two percent of voters polled opposed New Mexico's driver's license law. Twenty percent favored the law, 6 percent had mixed feelings and 2 percent didn't know or wouldn't say.

Sanderoff said the driver's license law is especially hard for some people to swallow.

"I think it hits people in the gut," he said. "The issuance of a driver's license by state government may imply a certain level of recognition or legal status that some feel should not be afforded to individuals who are not here legally."

Views on voters

Marcela Diaz, director of the immigrant rights group Somos un Pueblo Unido, said the Journal Poll findings show that people are upset with the status quo of U.S. law, but don't give a very good idea of people's sentiments toward illegal immigrants.

Diaz speculated that many of those who agree with Arizona's law, for example, would most likely be happy to have a federal policy allowing illegal immigrants who have committed no other crimes to work legally in the United States.

"I think this really shows the frustration with a federal government that refuses to do anything," Diaz said. "What (people) really want is our politicians to buckle down and come up with policies, common sense policies."

Tea Party supporter Linda Merrell said the majorities supporting the Arizona law and Albuquerque's policy mirror the thoughts of many Americans who are concerned with the country's safety and economic security.

Merrell said those concerns don't mean people aren't compassionate, and she said she, for instance, would support a guest worker program among other federal reforms.

"I think people care about it deeply; they are concerned with the violence and the uptick in crime," Merrell said. "But I also think people are getting very, very concerned at just how affordable the open border is going to be for us, because the economy is awful."

Complex findings

The Journal Poll poll found that 79 percent of Hispanic voters supported the city of Albuquerque's immigration-check policy, while 67 percent opposed the state's driver's license law.

More of the Hispanics opposed the Arizona law than supported it — 48 percent to 39 percent.

"Some people would assume that Hispanics would just oppose it because of allegations of racial profiling," Sanderoff said, adding that native New Mexico Hispanics, with long-running family histories in the state, often aren't sympathetic to immigrants.

"Many native Hispanics resent people trying to lump them all into one category," he also said.

Sanchez said that people do not realize that just as many Hispanics are conservative as liberal across the country, so "it's not all that surprising" to see a large number of Hispanics supporting

Albuquerque's policy and opposing the state driver's license law.

He said he expected less support for the Arizona law because it has been framed by critics as "anti-Latino."

Anglo voters were more likely than Hispanic voters to support the Arizona law and the Albuquerque policy. Anglo voters also were more likely than Hispanics to oppose New Mexico's driver's license law for illegal immigrants — 76 percent to 67 percent.

Republicans were more likely than Democrats to support the Arizona law and Albuquerque policy, and to oppose the New Mexico driver's license law.

However, 78 percent of Democrats supported the Albuquerque policy and 63 percent opposed the driver's license law. Half of the Democrats opposed the Arizona law, and 35 percent supported it.

Albuquerque resident Donna Crawford, a conservative who agrees with the Arizona law, said she hopes lawmakers will follow the will of New Mexico voters.

"I certainly would hope that New Mexico would join in the Arizona law," Crawford said. "I don't understand what's wrong with this state."

Ralph Arellanes, director of the New Mexico chapter of the League of United Latin American Citizens, said the results show that people have been influenced by a huge amount of slanted news coverage on illegal immigration and don't have all the facts about the issues, especially the Arizona law.

"They don't understand the ramifications of this bill," Arellanes said. "And because it only applies to Hispanics, they don't really give a damn."

Methodology

The Journal Poll on immigration questions is based on telephone interviews with a scientific sample of 403 proven New Mexico voters who said they are likely to vote in the Nov. 2 general election.

For all categories of voters — such as party members, Anglos and Hispanics — the numbers of voters polled are proportionate to their numbers among likely voters for the New Mexico general election on Nov. 2

The telephone interviews were conducted statewide Aug. 23-27 by Research and Polling Inc. of Albuquerque.

The margin of error for the full, statewide sample of voters is plus or minus 5 percentage points.

The margin of error grows for subsamples.

Poll respondents were asked three questions:

• "Based on what you know, do you favor or oppose Arizona's new immigration law?"

• "New Mexico state law allows driver's licenses to be issued to foreign nationals, including illegal immigrants. Supporters say this law reduces the numbers of uninsured drivers while opponents say it encourages more illegal immigrants to come to New Mexico. Do you favor or oppose this law?"

• "Do you favor or oppose the city of Albuquerque's policy that requires all people who are booked into jail to be checked for their immigration status?"

Copyright © 2010 Albuquerque Journal

Deportations raise rights question; Consul wants proof immigrants properly informed

By Crystal Gutierrez
KRQE
11 Aug 2010

ALBUQUERQUE (KRQE) - A traffic stop that led to the deportation of two illegal immigrants raises serious questions about whether detained aliens are being informed of their rights under an international treaty, according to Mexico's consul in Albuquerque.

Consul Gustavo de Unánue said he now wants to see documentation that the civil rights of illegal immigrants from Mexico are not being violated.

According to the Mexican Consulate on July 9 an Albuquerque police officer pulled over a man and his sister and said they were speeding.

De Unánue said after the officer asked for the man’s driver’s license, registration and insurance he asked about the pair’s citizenship. De Unánue said the officer then called Border Patrol.

Soon after the federal agents arrived the sibling’s parents drove up and that is when their father’s citizenship was questioned.

The Mexican Consul said the officer was racial profiling and had no right to call in Border Patrol.

“It’s not his job,” de Unánue said. “If you detain somebody for speeding you give them the speed ticket and that’s it.”

Albuquerque’s Public Safety Director Darren White said the officer was trying to verify the man’s identity and that procedure is allowed.

Both the father and son were deported.

However, racial profiling is not the only thing that the consulate is questioning.

“We're talking about the rights of these people to contact their consulate,” de Unánue said.

De Unánue said neither of the men, who were deported, called the consulate. Then he started looking up all the other cases of deportations that started with city police.

Since Mayor Richard J. Berry's initiative allowing federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents to check the immigration status of everyone arrested in the city about 150 illegal immigrants have been identified.

According to the Vienna Convention all illegal immigrants who are arrested in any country are supposed to be informed that they have the right to talk to their country's consulate.

The Mexican Consul said not one has called the consulate.

“I am assuming that no one told them they had the right to contact me,” de Unánue said.

City spokesman T.J. Wilham said that it is not the job of the city to make sure illegal immigrants are being told about their civil rights since city officers do not check the citizenship status.

“We are not in the business of checking immigration status,” Wilham said.

Wilham said the city is leaving that up to the federal agents, ICE officials, who are housed in the same prisoner transport center as the city police.

De Unánue said no matter whose job it is the consulate wants documentation that it's being done.

He said they will propose that all illegal immigrants be given a document informing them of their rights to read and sign.

“Just to make sure the people have their rights respected,” de Unánue said.

According to ICE Spokesperson Leticia Zamarripa it is standard procedure to inform all illegal immigrants about their rights to speak with their consulate. Zamarripa said she will check if they are already documenting this procedure.

Berry said he would not comment until the investigation is complete.

http://www.krqe.com/dpp/news/politics/civil-rights-of-illegals-violated%3F

For Immigration Crackdown Proponent, Deportations Mean Business

By Jeffrey Kaye, Journalist and author
The Huffington Post
Posted: May 29, 2010 12:41 PM

Perhaps no one on the political scene has more of a stake in the deportation of illegal immigrants than Allen Weh. In close contention to win the Republican nomination for New Mexico governor in the June 1 primary, Weh has recently been stressing his "tough stance on immigration." But for Weh, it's not merely a matter of personal or political conviction: it's a bottom line issue. As owner and chief executive officer of CSI Aviation Services, Inc., a New Mexico-based company that has become the federal government's largest provider of deportation flights, Weh has made a fortune from the business of "removals," and he stands to make even more.

But while immigration has become an increasingly contentious subject in New Mexico's gubernatorial primary , Weh's commercials and website say nothing about his involvement in deportations. Nor have news reports made the connection.

Weh has endorsed "the message" of Arizona's SB1070, requiring police officers to investigate suspected illegal immigrants, saying that he would sign a similar bill if elected. He's vowed to step up state efforts to crack down on "illegals." Accused by his main opponent of being soft on immigration, Weh recently answered back with a phone call campaign featuring the recorded voice of Republican strategist Karl Rove. "Hello, this is Karl Rove calling to set the record straight on border security," Rove reportedly says. "Allen Weh is tough as nails on illegal immigration."

Weh's CSI Aviation, which brokers charter flight packages, has benefited from the U.S. government's increased privatization of its detention and deportation operations. CSI Aviation received contracts worth more than $218 million over the past five years, according to federal records. The contracts were awarded by ICE, the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the office within the U.S. Department of Homeland Security responsible for deportations. On any given day, CSI Aviation has six planes in the air transporting illegal immigrants for ICE as well as for the Justice Prisoner and Alien Transportation System (JPATS) operated by the U.S. Marshall's Service. It also arranges deportation flights around the world, mostly to Central America.

The federal government's contracts with CSI Aviation have helped make its owner a wealthy man. Allen Weh has loaned his campaign $1.35 million, according to records on file with the New Mexico Secretary of State.

Weh, a retired Marine Corps Reserve colonel, a decorated Vietnam war veteran, and a former state Republican Party chairman, founded his aviation management firm in 1979. It's a family-run enterprise: his wife Rebecca is chief financial officer, daughters Deborah and Ashley are company vice presidents. In 1983, the company entered into contracts with the Department of Defense arranging military airlifts, a business that expanded as CSI Aviation added more government agencies as clients.

The deportation side of the business took off as a result of the 2006 creation of the ICE Flight Operations Unit, or what some refer to as ICE Air. ICE Air is essentially a government-run airline, a spoke-and-hub operation servicing 25 domestic airports (located near immigration detention facilities). From four hubs in the continental United States and one in Puerto Rico, 30-to-40 planes each week, chartered for ICE by CSI Aviation, fly migrants back to their home countries--chief among them Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador. (Most Mexican deportees are bused across the border). An ICE-operated travel agency housed in a Kansas City office complex coordinates travel plans.

The goals are safety, speed, and efficiency, according to Craig Charles, ICE Air's chief of operations. "Detention time is expensive," Charles told me. "If we can efficiently and safely move these detainees out of custody back to their homes as fast as possible, it will free up bed space."

The cost per passenger to the U.S. government is about $700 per passenger for flights within the Americas. Charters outside the area cost the government nearly 20 times as much--$13,207 for each deportee, according to ICE figures. CSI Aviation recently (May 26, 2010) signed a $527,300 contract with ICE for a flight providing "relocation services" to Cape Verde, Lebanon, and Iraq.

CSI subleases planes and crews from charter companies and subcontracts with security firms to provide guards for each flight. Other than the security personnel walking up and down the aisle, deportation flights resemble commercial airline operations with flight attendants providing safety instructions.

On a recent flight to Guatemala, the mood among deportees was somber. Passengers had been bused from a detention center near Phoenix in the middle of the night to a holding area at a local airport. Just after sunrise, they were escorted from their cells and walked out to the tarmac. Guards patted them down before they were allowed to board.

Like Irma Lemus, many of the deportees on the flight had been caught by the Border Patrol as they tried to enter the U.S. Lemus said that the experience would not dissuade her from trying to re-enter the country. "I'm going to fight," she said in Spanish. "I'm going to fight. I do need to work. I need to be here to make a better life for my children."

Security guards on the plane were also thinking about their own futures. The trip I took (reporting for "World Report" on HDNet television) came on the same day that Arizona Governor Jan Brewer signed SB1070, a fact we learned when the aircraft touched down back in Phoenix. After one guard heard the news, she yelled out in delight: "Yeah! Jobs!" It was an instant and insightful economic analysis of the effects of stepped up immigration enforcement on the detention and deportation industry.

With many Democrats and Republicans arguing about the extent of future immigration crackdowns, prospects are bright for the enforcement business. Other consequences are less sure. Since policy makers have failed to address the many factors that push and pull migrants across borders, the size of the unauthorized-immigrant population of the United States has roughly tripled in the past 20 years, despite massive budget increases for border and immigration law enforcement. The one certain effect of immigration crackdowns will be to benefit certain entrepreneurs--such as Allen Weh.

Journalist Jeffrey Kaye is author of a new book, Moving Millions: How Coyote Capitalism Fuels Global Immigration (Wiley).

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-kaye/for-immigration-crackdown_b_594426.html