iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Aggie R. Hoffman

GET UPDATES FROM Aggie R. Hoffman
 

But, What Will Implementation of Obama's Plan Look Like?

Posted: 08/19/11 10:40 AM ET

The announcement yesterday by President Obama to take a new approach toward apprehension and removal of the undocumented is fiscally and politically sound. Prosecutorial discretion will help to relieve immigration courts in large metropolitan areas that suffer from overload. Even with the regular addition of newly hired judges, the wait in Los Angeles for a merits hearing is a minimum of two years. Mixed in with the cases of criminals are people who were brought here by their parents as children; they played no role in their unlawful presence. Often their parents, in an effort to protect them, have kept their unlawful status secret, Imagine the shock and suffering of these young adults when they are denied admission to colleges because of their lack of legal status.

Rightly, the focus now will be on immigration violators who have serious criminal convictions, posing a danger to our community. Prosecutorial discretion is not new. There have been various government memos issued on the subject dating back to 1976. Previously, the decision not to deport was based on presence of "substantial federal interest." The most recent memo of June 17, 2011, authored by John Morton, Director, Immigration Customs Enforcement (ICE) is based on the need for "priorities."

Here is a sample of who and what can be done. ICE officers, investigation agents, and their attorneys can decide whether to question, stop questioning, detain, release, issue Notice to Appear (NTA) in immigration court, settle or dismiss a court proceeding, expedite removal, dismiss an appeal, and join in reopening court cases.

While the listed examples are not complete, positive considerations in determining what action to take include close legal relatives in the U.S., manner of entry into the U.S., level of education completed in the U.S., military service or relative of serviceperson /veterans, conditions in the home country, elderly or minors, those with health issues or their primary caretakers, pregnant or nursing women and their spouses and victims of crimes who will cooperate in prosecutions. Negative considerations include criminal convictions, violations of law, entry after deportation/ removal, and danger to national security.

Although the memo does not mention employment authorization for those who remain in the U.S., this paper reported today that many have an opportunity to apply for employment authorization. That would indeed be a positive form of relief, not only for the applicant and his/her family, but also to the country. Those with the right to work will no longer be working under the table, will pay taxes, and contribute to Social Security.

Clearly, our system is overwhelmed and something had to be done; hopefully humanitarian
reasons formed part of the consideration. Left now is favorable implementation of the new directive.

 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 6
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Hacim Obmed
01:02 AM on 08/22/2011
If one actually reads our laws regarding illegal immigrants the administrations policy of discretion and triage seems to be perfectly legal. The law provides for wide leeway because illegal presence in our country is regarded only as a minor civil violation and because deportation is not regarded as a "punishment" for crime but rather as a mutually beneficial "measure" whereby an unwelcome person is transported away from US soil and restored onto the soil of their proper motherland. Moreover this transportation is provided purely at the expense of the US taxpayer. Surprisingly it seems that the process of administrative discretion can work both ways however. In other words it seems that a person who is clearly without proper documents can be deported simply on the order of a low level administrative officer. There is no need for a trial before an magistrate, the person being deported has no right to a lawyer, the person being deported has no right of appeal. A person being held for deported also has the burden to proof. In other words, they are presumed to be illegal on the word of an ICE agent and this will stand unless they can show a green card or birth certificate or passport or drivers license or other document proving that they are actually a legal citizen or resident. Thus if Obama decided to do it he could simply have ICE deport all 300 thousand cases on the current docket.
10:34 PM on 08/20/2011
It says a lot about this man, who is supposed to be the leader of this country, CHOOSING which laws to enforce and circuventing congress to do so.

IMPEACH!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Rita Khanna
Social liberal but fiscal conservative
07:55 AM on 08/20/2011
Obama is giving the finger to the congress which voted against the dream act...
10:38 PM on 08/19/2011
Machiavelli would be proud of this. President Obama goes on vacation while Secretary Napolitano rolls this out. And when the House of Representatives begins Impeachment proceedings against Secretary Napolitano for dereliction of duty by refusing to enforce our laws as written, President Obama can then distance himself from Secretary Napolitano’s actions in an attempt to keep his poll numbers from crashing because most independents put respect for the law as a high priority when they decide who they vote for.

Here the rock and the hard place is the anger of some Latinos who support illegal immigration versus anger independent voters and out of work Democrats and Independents who actually believe in the rule of law and were looking to the enforcement of our immigration laws as a route back to employment will feel. I suspect that the rock and the hard place will just get more rocky and harder over this.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
dtairtime
It is what it is
07:37 PM on 08/19/2011
It'll look like a cluster.

A president can't publicly announce that certain people in certain conditions can ignore federal law without lots of problems.

He will anger anyone who is against amnesty.
This will play out next year during the election and it will make him look very bad.
There are far far more VOTERS who are against amnesty and illegal immigration then there are supporting it.
It will encourage yet more illegal immigration just as the seven amnesties we have had have done.

There won't be another amnesty - people are learning about them and they are not swayed as easily by the open borders, chambers of commerce groups who want to continue to get cheap labor. If they couldn't get one past in 2007 with repub support and a steamrolling economy there is no way the unemployed will sit still for it now. Most everyone out there knows someone who is suffering AND a citizen.

Our presidents responsibility is to THIS country and OUR citizens. How dare he work for and place not just foreigners, but ones who are here illegally, first!!!
10:38 AM on 08/19/2011
Clearly Obama did this because of the protests that have been occurring all over the US. He did not do it because it was right or fair or the just thing to do - he did it because he fears Latinos/Hispanics won't show up to vote for him in 2012.

Hopefully the protests will continue and folks will carefully watch what happens. No minority group in the US has any reason to trust Obama - he simply doesn't care about them. He needs their votes but his real concerns are with the well being of Corporate America. As always Obama is a day late and a dollar short and folks need to treat this news with the skepticism it deserves.