3/10 Crimmigration

Notes on the Introduction

Key Themes and Arguments

- Local Police as Immigration Enforcers: Armenta argues that local policing, though not explicitly designed to enforce immigration laws, plays a significant role in the deportation system. The story of Juan illustrates how routine traffic stops can funnel immigrants into ICE custody.

- Crimmigration & Systemic Punishment: The introduction highlights how laws that make it impossible for undocumented immigrants to drive legally essentially manufacture their criminality. This is a key example of "crimmigration"—the convergence of immigration and criminal law.

- Racialization of Immigration Law: The introduction argues that immigration enforcement disproportionately affects Latinos, making them de facto criminalized racial subjects.

- The Role of the 287(g) Program: Armenta focuses on how the Davidson County Sheriff’s Office collaborated with ICE, leading to thousands of deportations—many for minor offenses like driving without a license.

- Bureaucratic Chaos and Overreach: The case of Juan (detained for 135 days for a minor offense) highlights how local-federal cooperation in immigration enforcement creates unjust and arbitrary detentions.

Critical Perspectives

- Criticism of "Colorblind" Law Enforcement: Armenta challenges the idea that these laws are neutral, arguing that they reinforce racial hierarchies under the guise of public safety.

- Implications for Public Trust: She suggests that immigrant communities lose trust in law enforcement, leading to underreporting of crime and greater vulnerability to victimization.

- Potential Counterarguments: Some might argue that law enforcement officers are simply following the law and that removing undocumented immigrants is necessary to uphold legal order.

---

Notes on Chapter 3: "Being Proactive"

Key Themes and Arguments

- Investigatory vs. Safety Stops: Armenta distinguishes between legitimate traffic stops for safety violations (e.g., speeding) and investigatory stops, which officers use as a pretext to check IDs and uncover immigration violations.

- Pressure to "Be Proactive": The department pressures officers to conduct high numbers of stops, leading them to target minor infractions (e.g., broken taillights, tinted windows) as an excuse to investigate drivers.

- Compstat and Quota Culture: Officers are evaluated based on the number of stops they conduct rather than meaningful arrests, reinforcing a system that prioritizes numbers over actual crime prevention.

- The Role of Discretion: Officers use minor legal violations to justify stops but have broad discretion over whom they target. This results in disproportionate stops of Latino drivers, reinforcing racial bias.

- The "Fishing Expedition" Approach: Officers make stops with the expectation that they will find something—outstanding warrants, lack of identification, or immigration violations.

- Broken Windows Policing & Crimmigration: The emphasis on stopping minor infractions (e.g., windshield wipers on without headlights) follows the logic of "broken windows" policing, which assumes that enforcing small infractions prevents larger crimes. However, Armenta critiques this approach, arguing that it disproportionately criminalizes immigrant communities.

Critical Perspectives

- Institutionalized Racial Profiling? Armenta’s account suggests that Latino drivers are disproportionately targeted, even if racial profiling is not officially sanctioned.

- Public Safety vs. Surveillance: The book challenges the idea that proactive policing enhances public safety. Instead, it may erode trust and disproportionately harm communities.

- Officer Incentives and Misplaced Priorities: Officers are rewarded for making stops, not for improving community relations or addressing serious crimes.

- Potential Counterarguments: Supporters of proactive policing might argue that investigatory stops help uncover serious crimes and that officers are simply enforcing the law.

---

Discussion Notes on Your Questions

1. How do state laws that criminalize everyday activities like driving shape the way immigrants experience the legal system compared to U.S. citizens?

- Main Idea: These laws create a two-tiered legal system where undocumented immigrants are criminalized for acts that are mundane for citizens.

- Supporting Evidence:

- Juan’s case demonstrates how something as routine as driving becomes a pathway to deportation.

- Tennessee’s driver’s license restrictions force immigrants into illegality.

- Lack of a driver’s license exposes immigrants to police scrutiny and entanglement with ICE.

- Possible Counterarguments:

- Some may argue that laws should be applied equally to all residents.

- However, Armenta’s argument is that these laws are designed to target undocumented individuals, making compliance impossible.

2. Does the label of “criminal” assigned to immigrants reflect actual criminal behavior, or does it serve a political and social function?

- Main Idea: The label of "criminal" is more about social control than actual criminality.

- Supporting Evidence:

- Immigration violations (e.g., unlawful presence) are civil offenses, not crimes.

- Most deportations involve minor infractions, not violent crimes.

- Politicians and media often conflate unauthorized presence with criminality to justify harsh immigration policies.

- Potential Counterarguments:

- Some argue that laws must be enforced regardless of their intent.

- Armenta would counter that these laws specifically target certain racial groups under the guise of legal enforcement.

3. How does “immigration policing by proxy” further entrench crimmigration and racial discrimination by expanding the power of local police over immigrant communities?

- Main Idea: Local police act as de facto immigration agents, embedding immigration enforcement within routine policing.

- Supporting Evidence:

- The 287(g) program deputized local law enforcement to enforce immigration laws.

- Police policies like investigatory stops disproportionately expose Latino immigrants to deportation.

- Even without formal ICE collaboration, local police still funnel immigrants into the deportation pipeline.

- Potential Counterarguments:

- Some argue that local police should assist in enforcing immigration laws.

- However, this approach leads to racial profiling and erodes public trust in law enforcement.

4. How does the pressure on officers to be "proactive" shape who gets stopped, and does this make policing more about numbers than actual crime prevention?

- Main Idea: Proactive policing encourages stops for minor infractions rather than targeting serious crime.

- Supporting Evidence:

- Officers receive implicit quotas for making stops.

- The pressure to be proactive means officers focus on easily stoppable infractions (e.g., equipment violations).

- This approach diverts resources away from serious public safety concerns.

- Potential Counterarguments:

- Some argue that frequent stops deter crime.

- Armenta suggests that this tactic disproportionately harms communities of color without clear safety benefits.

5. If officers are rewarded for making more stops but not necessarily for making good arrests, how does this impact the way law enforcement interacts with communities?

- Main Idea: This creates perverse incentives where officers prioritize quantity over quality, undermining community trust.

- Supporting Evidence:

- Officers with high stop numbers receive better evaluations and career opportunities.

- Stops often don’t result in arrests or significant crime prevention.

- Community members feel harassed rather than protected.

- Potential Counterarguments:

- Some argue that more stops increase the likelihood of catching serious criminals.

- However, Armenta shows that these stops disproportionately target low-level offenses and specific racial groups.

6. How does the “broken windows” theory justify proactive policing, and does it contribute to the criminalization of immigrant communities?

- Main Idea: Broken windows policing is used to justify aggressive enforcement of minor infractions, disproportionately affecting immigrant communities.

- Supporting Evidence:

- The theory assumes small infractions lead to larger crimes, but Armenta challenges this logic.

- Officers use minor violations as a pretext for investigatory stops.

- The theory reinforces racial disparities, as minority communities are more heavily policed.

- Potential Counterarguments:

- Some credit broken windows policing with reducing crime in cities like NYC.

- Armenta suggests that it merely expands the criminalization of marginalized groups.