President George Bush’ administration created the program known as SComm. The development and final implementation of this program was a direct response to across the board criticism that the U.S. was not doing enough to control and correct illegal immigration. In 2008 the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) pursuant to its inherited enforcement powers created SComm. DHS designated its internal enforcement branch, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), to carry out SComm. The program establishes a mechanism for enforcing the nation’s immigration laws. ICE via SComm seeks to find, identify and, if necessary, remove persons illegally in the U.S. In cooperation with state and local law enforcement authorities, ICE implements and manages the program.  Recent advances in technology lets SComm work efficiently with little or no additionally costs to municipalities. By having access to the biometric data of all persons arrested, ICE can check their records to decide if immigration action is necessary. The F.B.I has enjoyed a similar partnership with states and localities for many years without any objections. Everyone believes that the FBI must have the cooperation of the localities and states if it is to effectively enforce the laws. ICE requires the same degree of  cooperation if it is to enforce immigration laws.

Only an arrest triggers the operation of the SComm. The program does not discriminate against or for any particular group. Regardless of a person’s pedigree, if he or she is not arrested, SComm does not run. The program is inherently fair to everyone. President Obama has expanded the program to cover over 1300 jurisdictions. DHS predicts
that all states and localities will be participating in the program by 2013.

Some governmental officials have criticized the initiative. They expressed their intention not to take part in the program. The Illinois Governor, Pat Quinn , on May 5, 2011 in a much publicized announcement, declared that his state would not take part in the SComm program. Governor Quinn, like all of his brethren, is sworn to uphold the laws of the land and not circumvent them for political expediency. The Governor failed to offer any substantive legal principle why Illinois could not take part in the program. Based upon his own words, I draw the conclusion that the Governor disagreed with the program’s underlying purpose of removing any person who is illegally in this country.

It should be understood that SComm only initiates civil proceedings to remove or deport a person. None-the-less Massachusetts Governor, Deval Patrick , made it clear that he does not support the policy behind SComm and, so, his state would “opt-out” of the program. Governor Patrick reached his decision after months of flip-flopping back and forth on the issue. Some argue that the Governor was emboldened by the decision days
earlier of Governor  Andrew Cuomo  to pull New York State out of SComm. Before
becoming governor of New York State Andrew Cuomo served as the state’s highest
law enforcement official; he was New York State’s attorney general. Consequently his complete disregard of the rule of law should upset everyone but the staunchest liberal democrats. Governor Cuomo in his letter to DHS stated as his principal reason for stopping New York State’s participation in SComm as follows:

“…There are concerns about the implementation of the program as well as its
impact on families, immigrant communities and law enforcement in New York…”

Governors Quinn, Patrick, and Cuomo all swore to obey the laws of the land and not just their particular state’s. No elected official should advocate for purely political reasons the willful disobedience of a law. These three governors, all liberal Democrats, do
our country a grave disservice by suggesting that national law and policy can be ignored if you disagree with its intent. Furthermore; the Governors’ actions embarrassed President Barack Obama at a time when he is struggling with a stagnant economy. President Obama  on August 8, 2011  mandated total compliance with SComm and
eliminated any possibility of “opting out.” Because of the way SComm is set up to work there is really no procedure in place to “opt-out.” ICE is working in tantum with the FBI. Information forwarded to the F.B.I. will be shared with ICE. All three governors are guilty of political grandstanding with our national security.

Presently President Obama has little or no political capital to spend on immigration. His approval ratings are at an all time low. According to the Rasmussen daily Presidential Tracking poll his approval rates are an anemic -21. President Obama occupies his days fretting over a failed stimulus initiative, serious legal attacks against (his) health reform, and daily economic and employment reports to remind him of the challenges that lay ahead. The Commander and Chief’s ratings did not bounce upwards when he announced on June 21, 2011 that he was softening the effects of SComm. When did the government not have discretion on a case by case basis not to deport a particular person? I have read about a small number of people who have received  notice that their deportations proceedings were either being suspended or abandoned. A few of my colleagues have told me that some of their clients might benefit from from Obama’s action.  Many experts believe that Obama’s efforts to appease his unhappy Hispanic constituency and his own party will only drag his ratings down further. Many view Obama as waffling on the enforcement of a law that serves the national interests of the country.

Unless immigration advocates agree with Jorge Luis Borgas’ view of sovereign borders they must develop more intellectually advanced arguments to combat SComm.