Operation Streamline is one of the key components of the United States policy of “deterrence” of unauthorized immigration. Unlike border militarization, it requires the active cooperation and participation of the US Department of Justice. Like the militarization of the border, there are serious questions about its legality.
The stated aim is to achieve 100% prosecution of those apprehended by the Border Patrol and by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). For those not “deterred” by the risk of death, violence, and abusive detention conditions that are associated with militarization, being Streamlined brings a criminal record (adversely affecting any future legalization hopes), the degrading experience of being paraded in shackles, and the risk of up to 6 months in prison.
Links for more information
- Assembly-Line Justice (pdf; 0.7 Mb), a damning evaluation of Streamline from the distinguished Warren Institute of the U.C. Berkeley School of Law. (See also the Jan. 4, 2010 press release.)
- ACLU/National Immigration Forum fact sheet on Streamline. Note that immigration prosecutions increased 100% from fiscal year 2007 to 2008, and nearly fivefold from 2001 to 2008.
- Description and analysis by Heather Williams of the Federal Public Defender's Office in Tucson.
- “Court: Mass criminal immigration hearings unlawful,” Associated Press, Dec. 3, 2009.
- United States v. Roblero-Solis, ruling by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, finding Streamline procedures unlawful.
- “Federal judge questions immigration prosecutions,” Austin American-Statesman, Feb. 5, 2010. U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks issued an order (pdf) criticizing the U.S. Attorney's office for excessive, unselective prosecution of immigration violations, and directing the U.S. Attorney to provide substantive justification for such prosecutions.
- “‘Catch-and-release’ is reality for now,” Arizona Daily Star, Jan. 31, 2009.
What judges and prosecutors say
The following quotes are taken from “Crisis on the Border: Case Overload, 2006,” a news video produced by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts Office of Public Affairs. The topic was the rising case burden on the federal courts in the border districts, due to the increase in immigration cases.
The case burden, distraction from serious cases:
“That’s where we have been impacted the greatest, in the prosecution of immigration-misdemeanor cases. That number has just gone through the roof.”
—Judge Richard Mesa, Magistrate Judge, El Paso, TX
“The fundamental thing that happens is that we decline cases that we would otherwise take, and that’s because there are too many cases. And as they [apprehending authorities] increase the number of cases, we start declining more and more serious cases.”
—Rob Johnson, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Laredo, TX
Attainability of 100% prosecution, efficacy of deterrence:
“I might see 30 defendants in one morning. That represents a minuscule number of the people that were caught on that particular day. If the apprehending agents catch a thousand, I’m seeing 30 of them. The system just can’t exist by prosecuting 100%. There’s not enough room in every jail in the country to hold all of those people.”
—Judge Richard Mesa, Magistrate Judge, El Paso, TX
“Regardless of what kind of laws we enact, you’re not going to deter people from coming up when they are so desperate for just the basic necessities of life. So, it’s going to keep coming, and it’s going to keep getting worse.”
—Judge Norbert Garney, Magistrate Judge, El Paso, TX
Justice/rights concerns:
“I mean, as a judge, I loathe assembly-line justice. But the reality is that I can only pull in so many bodies a day, so many per hour, and process all these people.”
—Judge Norbert Garney, Magistrate Judge, El Paso, TX
“We put them in a courtroom full of people that are not always charged with the same offense that they are. And it is a difficult atmosphere in which to waive important constitutional rights, and to ask them if they understand their rights.”
—Chief Judge Martha Vasquez, New Mexico District
“If we accept some shortcut that impairs the constitutional principles that are involved, that then becomes the law not just for the southwest border, but it becomes the law throughout the Circuit. It is the law in Dallas, and it is the law in Shreveport, and it is the law in Jackson, Mississippi. … You can’t have a rule of law for the southwest border that is different from the rule of law that obtains elsewhere in the country. Ultimately, it will be the same.”
—Judge Carolyn King, Circuit Judge, 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, Houston, TX
On shackling:
“Defendants in their shackles, that’s not our preference, by any means. But as a practical matter, that’s the only way that the Marshal Service can handle the numbers that we have.”
—Judge Karen Molzen, Magistrate Judge, Las Cruces, NM
“Like right now there’ll be 100 people inside the courtroom, and we’ll only have three deputies inside that courtroom for security purposes. You’ll see the defendants mixed with the general public. We try to keep them separated on one end and keep the inmates on another.”
—Alex Ramos, Deputy Marshal in Charge, Laredo, TX |
