New Policy On Deportations Allows Some Non-Criminal Undocumented Immigrants To Stay

WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration announced on Thursday it will do a case-by-case review of deportations, allowing many undocumented immigrants without criminal records to stay in the United States indefinitely and apply for work permits.

Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano will send a letter on Thursday to Senate members who had asked for details on how the agency would prioritize its immigration enforcement. The policy change is meant as a framework to help prevent non-priority undocumented immigrants from "clogging the system," senior administration officials said on a conference call with reporters Thursday.

First, the agency will look at its pending immigration cases and close the low-priority cases, so immigration courts can focus on the most serious ones, administration officials said. The low-priority cases can be reopened if circumstances require. Next, guidance will be given to immigration enforcement agents to help them better detect serious criminals and other high-priority undocumented immigrants.

Undocumented immigrants whose cases are closed will be allowed to apply for work permits, but will not be given them automatically, officials said.

The move was perhaps meant to combat harsh criticism from Latino groups and immigration reform advocates, who have rebuked President Obama for continuing to deport undocumented people at record rates, while at the same time insisting he supports immigration reform.

Although the Obama administration has repeatedly said its deportation policies focus on the "worst of the worst," immigrant rights groups say enforcement agents still net a large number of non-criminal undocumented people.

The administration had earlier attempted to defend its record on Tuesday, with a blog post meant to "set the record straight" on the Secure Communities enforcement program.

Cecilia Munoz, White House director of Intergovernmental Affairs, wrote that more than half of all removals are of people with criminal records. Among non-criminals, most of those removed were apprehended crossing the border, had recently arrived in the United States or had been previously deported, she wrote.

"Those statistics matter," Munoz wrote. "While we have more work to do, the statistics demonstrate that the strategy DHS put in place is working."

The administration earlier tried to clarify its immigration enforcement policies in a June memo, which specifically recommended prosecutorial discretion. That memo cited the possibility of considering whether a person under removal proceedings would otherwise be eligible for the DREAM Act, an un-passed bill that would allow some undocumented young people to gain legal status in exchange for two years of college or military service.

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), one of the key supporters of the DREAM Act, applauded the administration's decision Thursday.

"The Obama Administration has made the right decision in changing the way they handle deportations of DREAM Act students," Durbin said. "These students are the future doctors, lawyers, teachers and, maybe, senators, who will make America stronger. We need to be doing all we can to keep these talented, dedicated, American students here, not wasting increasingly precious resources sending them away to countries they barely remember.

Durbin pledged to "closely monitor DHS" to ensure the new policy would be implemented.

But increased discretion on the part of administration prosecutors may not be enough to please advocacy groups, many of which argue the administration should abolish certain enforcement programs altogether.

"In order to fulfill its promises, the administration must end policies like Secure Communities that result in the criminalization of innocent immigrants who are Americans in Waiting like those who came before them," said Chris Newman, legal director of the National Day Laborers Organizing Network, in an email statement. "The administration has pursued policies that are sowing fear and devastation among immigrant communities, and it must reverse course to stop the Arizonification of the country," he added, referencing Arizona's strict immigration enforcement policies.

View this slideshow to see who could benefit from prosecutorial discretion:

1 of 8

DREAM Act Students

1 of 9

First Slide

Previous Slide

@

Undocumented young people who want to go to college or join the military -- the same individuals who would benefit from the DREAM Act -- could see their cases closed by the Department of Homeland Security. Immigration agents are instructed to factor in "the person's pursuit of education in the United States, with particular consideration given to those who have graduated from a U.S. high school or have successfully pursued or are pursuing a college or advanced degree at a legitimate institution of higher education in the United States." This could help young people in deportation proceedings, such as Monji Dolon, a 25-year-old born in Bangladesh who is slated for deportation.

Michelle Obama Wants To Trade Places With Beyonce

Obama Air Force Academy Graduation: President In Colorado For Commencement Address

John Edwards Trial: Jury Resumes Deliberations On Former Presidential Candidate's Fate

Notre Dame, Catholic Groups Suing Obama Administration Over Birth Control Mandate

Bristol Palin: I'm No Victim

Alan Simpson: 'What A Wretched Group Of Seniors You Must Be'

Undocumented young people who want to go to college or join the military -- the same individuals who would benefit from the DREAM Act -- could see their cases closed by the Department of Homeland Security. Immigration agents are instructed to factor in "the person's pursuit of education in the United States, with particular consideration given to those who have graduated from a U.S. high school or have successfully pursued or are pursuing a college or advanced degree at a legitimate institution of higher education in the United States." This could help young people in deportation proceedings, such as Monji Dolon, a 25-year-old born in Bangladesh who is slated for deportation.

comments(8399)

Total comments: 8399 | Post a Comment

1 of 9

Comments

[Timothy Bladel]

11:32 PM on 09/08/2011

This is one area where Obama and Perry agree, that we have to take care of those who are here. The same with their kids. Perry is like by Hispanics in his state.

[Neopolitan]

12:30 PM on 09/04/2011

Using the new guidelines, there now exists a pallette of reasons or excuses not to be deported. Immigration attorneys are extremely adept at presenting persuasive cases in court and now they have even more latitude and opportunity to allow illegals to remain in the US. Recent DNA tests on Somalis showed that immigrants who claimed to be relatives weren't relatives at all. It seems that we are finding more reasons to not enforce the law than enforce it.

[youarenotGod]

02:42 AM on 09/01/2011

Part 2 of 2--Here is the Mexican immigration law: 1) there will be no speciqal bilingual programs in schools, no special ballots for elections and all govt business will be conducted in our language. 2) foreigners will NOT have the right to vote, no matter how long they are here. 3) foreigners will NEVER be able to hold political office. 4) foreigners will not be a burden to the taxpayers...no welfare, no food stamps, no health care, nor any other govt assistance programs. 5) foreigners can invest in this country, but it must be an amount equal to 40,000 times the minimum wage. 6) if foreigners do come and want to buy land that is permitted, BUT options will be restricted. You are allowed to lease, but not own waterfront property. that property is reserved for citizens naturally born in this country. 7) foreigners may not protest, demonstrate, wave a foreign flag, organize politically, "bad-mouth" our president or his policies. If you do, you will be sent home. 8) you may not immigrate to Mexico if you are deemed not physically or mentally healthy. 9) you may engage in only those economic activities that have been approved by the Interior Ministry, and 10) Mexicans have priority over foreigners under equality of circumstances for all classes of concessions and employment. I guess I agree with the Mexican govt that entering a country without permission is a crime.

[ssspitz]

11:42 AM on 09/08/2011

So, is it your position that the United States should look to Mexico to write our laws?

[youarenotGod]

02:18 AM on 09/01/2011

I find it remarkable that so many comments minimize the fact that every illegal alien in the US has committed a criminal act...has broken a US law. Even more remarkable is Obama's decision to ignore the law. He claims that those who have not committed a crime...broken a US law will be allowed to stay in the US and apply for a work permit. On what authority is he acting?
Part 1 of 2

[Karen Benzer]

01:49 PM on 08/29/2011

You will feel a lot better about yourself once you realize that helping one family live a dignified life, instead of ripping them apart is good for your soul and body... your heart will sing.

[youarenotGod]

02:46 AM on 09/01/2011

I would certainly not advocate "ripping" a family apart. Parents and minor children in the US illegally are deported as a family. If the children were born in the US, they still must remain with their parents...legal guardians...until the age of 18. Then they can claim all the rights and privileges of US citizenship.

[Karen Benzer]

05:31 PM on 08/27/2011

God's love super-cedes everything else. Slave traffickers aren't following "Love thy neighbor." These are simple rules set by Jesus. Your opinion isn't coming from a loving place, but one of fear. Fear breeds hatred and love breeds compassion.

[Mr Underhill]

11:10 PM on 08/27/2011

Couple things:
- You're right, the Coyote (human traffickers) are wrong for preying on needy people.
- We live in a country with religious freedom (separation of Church and State). While I agree that the Golden Rule is nice (historically speaking Jesus didn't invent it -- was in other texts that predated him), the government's role isn't charity. And even if it were, Mexico wouldn't be first in line. What about Somalians?

[Neopolitan]

12:31 PM on 09/04/2011

You're kidding right? There are over 70,000 Somalis in Minneapolis alone.

[Edeter]

01:29 PM on 08/26/2011

Isn't it about time that we took some responsibility for what we are doing to the poor of the world? Here, we set up this semi-illusion of prosperity and opportunity with the result that we drain off the best-qualified, best-trained, most-industrious and most willing risk-takers from societies that need them desperately in order to grow and develop peacefully. We leave, in the wake of this rapacious immigrant-solicitation policy -- whether done intentionally or not -- the least successful in developing societies to be ravaged and abused by dictatorial governments and multitudes of criminals and assorted Mafioso-types. Call me a wacko liberal if you like, but I find this callous national policy of immigrant (label 'em "illegals", if you must, or "undocumented" or whatever suits your fancy) exploitation cold-blooded and despicable. We owe it to our brothers (and sisters) to the south, or anywhere else on Earth for that matter, to ensure that they are not left as expendable slugs in the former homelands of those from whose foresight and courage we selfishly choose to benefit. Let's, both Liberals and Conservatives, join in stopping NOW this exploitation of valuable human capital by greedy corporate interests or lazy native-borne flotsam in the US: Build the Wall, NOW! Deny the exploiters benefit of malleable, innocent labor from abroad!

[Mr Underhill]

03:36 PM on 08/26/2011

That's a commendable position. I encourage you to donate your time and money to others in need, as you see fit.

That said, do I want our government policing the world or spending our tax dollars abroad instead of at home? Hell no.

[Edeter]

02:02 AM on 08/27/2011

You betcha Mr. Underhill. Let's use the Afghanistan and Iraq adventure funds to finance a first-class WALL across the US-Mexico border (for starters; perhaps Canada could be next). We could then arrange for the intermittent, temporary, voluntary and profitable bi-laterally, movement -- North and South -- of workers needed in the other country's industries/professions.

Why, we could even formalize the process by issuance of pieces of paper, or "documents” that would legitimize the presence of one nation's citizens in the other nation. For the sake of argument, let's call the papers, "visas", eh? And the portals in the Wall through which transients would pass, papers in hand, well, those we could call "consulates", or something like that. Hey, maybe, "ports-of-entry", no?

Set up this way, we'd have a process that permitted each nation to benefit from the neighbors' special talents w/o anyone exploiting anyone, North or South, documented, legal, whatever, or not. Good fences, you see, make for good neighbors.

TBC … 1 of 3

[Edeter]

02:07 AM on 08/27/2011

TBC … 2 of 3

Now, there remains, of course, the troubling issue of a disproportionate number of folks residing, and, inexplicably, demanding special considerations for doing so, on the wrong side of the river, so to speak.

This unfortunate circumstance is aggravated by opportunistic politicos North of the border catering to assumed soon-to-be-legalized (sorry, couldn't think of a more accurate term for that) voters whom, the politicos bet, will provide a cold-cash or office-holding extension payback for the politicos’ "compassion."

You'll recall, from the earlier post, that that charitable, compassionate support for the status quo has two downsides -- 1) It provides northern racists an easy mark for their ego-boostings, i.e., culturally deprived country folk; and 2) northern, rapacious capitalists with dirt-poor, easily-cowed, and expendable laborers.

So, what to do with our guests from the South now resident in the North – some of whom are employed; most of whom are not; almost all of whom are decidedly "alien"? Unfortunately, the easiest (at this late stage in the game) thing is mass deportation, done as humanely as possible. But done, nonetheless. And quickly.

[hog2191hd]

11:02 AM on 08/26/2011

if the mother is illegal so is the child i don't care where it was born

[hog2191hd]

11:01 AM on 08/26/2011

sucks, he won't even help is fellow americans time for someone new don't wast time like with bush

[Dan Bates]

06:12 AM on 08/26/2011

The Constitution should read, "I promise to uphold the LAW and PROTECT the Citizens of the United States of America, as long as it meets my PURPOSE"..Retroactive to the last 6 presidents..

[Mr Underhill]

03:20 PM on 08/25/2011

The Pew Hispanic Center (http://pewhispanic.org/) has polls which show the most important issue for legal/voting Hispanics is immigration reform (including 8/10 to 9/10 wanting a legal pathway for illegal/undocumented immigrants). Couple this with the birth citizenship law and the "relative youth and high fertility of Mexican-American women" (growth from births has overtaken immigration now).

Where does that land us in a few generations when all these children can vote?

I would assume it will be a continual slide, meaning the border with Mexico melts away. Call me racist or xenophobic, but I have real reservations about this. It's key we control the amount of people coming in so they can assimilate and draw from what the US has to offer. Without assimilation, it's essentially transplanting Mexico into the US. And the reality is Mexico isn't even good for Mexicans.

I'd be more comfortable if Mexican-Americans broke more evenly on this issue. My hunch is that nothing short of completely removing the border will be satisfactory.

***I voted for Obama and Kerry before, but in 2012, I'm not. I'll probably throw my vote away on a Libertarian or Green Party guy.

[pukkita]

11:16 PM on 08/25/2011

"where does that land us in a few generations when all these children can work?- mr.underhill

same way your ancestors gave birth to your great great grandpa and then u came along. same process just different skin colors.

[Mr Underhill]

03:13 PM on 08/26/2011

"vote" not "work" and again, this has nothing to do with skin color.

The real issue is not the illegal/undocumented immigrants here now. We have a birth citizenship law. The children of the illegal immigrants, because of the 14th Amendment, will eventually be able to vote.

When polling all Americans, most do not want the Southern Border to dissolve. Hispanic Americans do not poll the same way.

Instead of enacting social change legally, the electorate will be changed through literal breeding, predicated on illegal immigration. That's plain wrong.

If we didn't have the birth citizenship law -- which almost no Western country does, I'd have no issue with people coming here to work, live, be protected under our laws (including min. wage), etc.

[pukkita]

11:43 PM on 08/24/2011

shooter-because they are not criminals. they are immigrants, they migrate here from other countries. a criminal is someone who violates moral standards(malum in se) such as killing, robbing, etc. Immigrants are simply violating the law only by virtue of statute(malum prohibitum).They are not bad people!

[sopark182]

05:03 PM on 08/25/2011

they may not be bad people, but they are still criminals. look up the definition of a criminal and you will find that a criminal is someone who broke a law ("bad" person or not).

[pukkita]

11:01 PM on 08/25/2011

whatever tickles your pickle. have you ever read civil disobedience by henry david thoreau? it's ok to break the law sometimes instead of being a follower. and don't give me non of that, " what? so you wanna have killers, rapists in our country?" because it doesn't apply to all immigrants 2 that's not the type of disobedience i'm referring to. just look at ghandi, perfect example of a figure known for advocating non-violent disobedience. so people like u can kiss my bottom because i don't care if u think immigrants are criminals for crossing borders because, " Frankly, I don't give a ..... if it's wrong in your eyes my dear

[Karen Benzer]

10:47 PM on 08/24/2011

"SHE" is an American citizen. the constitution gives you and her the same rights. The grown boy is not a criminal but is characterized as "illegal" and must hide in the shadows with no privileges or country although this is his homeland and his allegiance lies 100% with the U.S. Just remember there are grey areas, everything is not black and white. Anyone who punishes children for the parents choices are choosing hatred over love and seem to honor the devil much more than a loving God. GOOD LUCK WITH THAT.

[spytheweb]

09:54 AM on 08/31/2011

"his allegiance lies 100% with the U.S."? How can his allegiance be to the US if he is a illegal alien and not a US citizen? He is a citizen of another country!

[mike gieser]

09:07 PM on 08/24/2011

Haha, how can they be "non-criminals" and illegal aliens at the same time??

[Picosa]

06:41 PM on 08/25/2011

They aren't, "Illegal aliens, " it is their status in this country that is unauthorized, according to USCIS. Even they have stopped using the term illegal when it was brought to their attention that it was bad grammar because no human being is illegal but a human being can commit illegal acts.

People who speed, kill, or rob, are not called illegals neither should people who come here without proper status be called illegal.

[Mr Underhill]

08:28 PM on 08/25/2011

Search for "illegal alien" at ice.gov. I found 10 pages of results.

[mike gieser]

09:05 PM on 08/24/2011

How about they take some of the personnel being wasted on checking out European immigrant marriages and use them TO STREAMLINE THE DEPORTATION OF "UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANTS".