DHS's recent announcement on enforcement priorities suggests that the agency, along with the Department of Justice, is serious about trying to target those persons who pose a threat to public safety. Unfortunately, there has been little official communication from either agency about the initiatives underway to review current immigration court cases or to issue broader guidance within DHS on prosecutorial discretion -- both follow ups to guidelines issued in a June memo from ICE Director John Morton. To fill the void, immigration advocacy groups have attempted to explain what these initiatives are not: NOT an amnesty, NOT a blanket deferral of removal program for all DREAMERs or anyone else, and NOT an abandonment of the deportation laws. But because there has been little official guidance, administration opponents and immigration restrictionists are doing their best to reshape the policy into all of these things and more.
In a recent Washington Post editorial, "Obama's Illegal Move on Immigration," two former government officials argue that while the Executive Branch has broad authority to exercise discretion and set priorities, President Obama has overstepped his authority by prioritizing enforcement resources on undocumented immigrants who have criminal records:
This goes far beyond merely prioritizing the use of limited immigration enforcement resources. And it exceeds the president's constitutional authority by, in effect, suspending operation of the immigration laws with respect to a very large and identifiable class of offenders.
These claims might be worrisome if they were even remotely accurate. At best, the administration has offered a temporary reprieve to persons who are in the lowest priority categories. No laws are being suspended. No case currently on the books is being erased. If the administration follows through on its announcement, the impact will be that some individuals who pose no threat to society will not face imminent deportation.
Furthermore, the administration has explicitly rejected any kind of categorical approach to ending removals. Thus, while we can hope that DHS and DOJ will act judiciously and reduce backlogs by temporarily moving some people out of the deportation process, it is hardly the case that the Obama administration is acting in defiance of the Constitution.
In the same Washington Post editorial, the authors conjure up images of an imperial presidency through references to King James II's attempt to suspend the laws of England -- imagery which seems like overkill when talking about immigration policy. They seem to recognize that they may be overreaching and so conclude by hedging their bets:
Obama has not declared his intent to dispense with immigration law, and the point at which permissible executive enforcement discretion becomes suspension of statutory requirements often is one of degree. In this case, however, there is little question that the line has been crossed. The president is entitled to establish enforcement priorities, but the ultimate goal must always be implementation of the law as enacted by Congress. If the president disagrees with that law, he must persuade Congress to change it.
The relevant argument here appears to be that "the ultimate goal must always be implementation of the law as enacted by Congress." With close to 400,000 deportations annually under President Obama, a stubborn commitment to enforcement programs like Secure Communities, and repeated efforts to push Congress to work with him on immigration reform, it is extremely difficult to understand exactly what the authors are incensed about.
The Obama administration has repeatedly made it clear that it intends to enforce the laws Congress enacted. This issue is squarely about prosecutorial discretion and executive authority, concepts even the authors of the editorial heartily endorse. Given the lack of analysis of the actual announcement or the guidelines, this editorial reads more like a boilerplate complaint about Obama's politics than an actual analysis of the policy underlying the new immigration guidelines.
Cross-posted at Immigration Impact and Daily Kos.
Follow Mary Giovagnoli on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ImmPolicyCenter
Bill Ong Hing: One Hand Clapping for Latest Obama Deportation Reforms
Kristian Ramos: What The White Houses' Change In Deportation Standards Says About The 2012 Elections
Jorge-Mario Cabrera: To Vote or Not to Vote, That Is Not the Question
Obama Immigration Policy Billed as 'Amnesty', Christian News
RealClearPolitics - Obama Immigration Policy Points in Right Direction
How about this from California 5.11.2011:
"Last month, Border Patrol officials were handed this order, meant to reduce the number of immigrant arrests and to halt arrest of those who attempt to cross into the U.S. illegally."
http://tinyurl.com/3l45vkn
DHS estimates that 1 in 4 illegals get caught attempting to enter the country so there is a 75% chance they will get in if they try. And now if they get caught and turned back not apprehended - now thanks to Obama, Hillary and Janet we have 100% success rate because they will go somewhere else and simply try again.
This move is a massive PR smokescreen - as we have seen a massive flurry of PR trying to tell us that illegal immigration is at ZERO when in fact 2010 apprehension rates show us that we have a net gain of around 1 million illegals each year - even after deporting the 400,000.
Mary wrote, "these initiatives are not: NOT an amnesty, NOT a blanket deferral of removal program for all DREAMERs or anyone else, and NOT an abandonment of the deportation laws."
Actually, the June 2011 prosecutorial discretion memo (link listed in above article) IS "a blanket deferral of removal program for all DREAMERs or anyone else" and it permits them to remain in the USA indefinitely under Obama's DHS/ICE policy.
Mostly because, in 2009 this is how many CRIMINAL ALIENS were let go that should of been deported:
Office of Inspector General states,
"On September 30, 2009, 31,306 aliens were in detention facilities, an estimated 153,000 were incarcerated in federal prisons or state and local jails, and 1.5 million were released through a variety of supervision options." PDF pg4 (http://www.dhs.gov/xoig/assets/mgmtrpts/OIG_11-81_May11.pdf )
The June 2011 memo will raise the 1.5 million number released to MILLIONS per year...
That is unacceptable because how many of them that were released:
> never self-deported, costing the ICE system to catch and deport again?
> committed a crime again: recidivism, costing the community economically and in safety
> increased costs to ICE budget in recidivism dollars because released individuals raised the ICE cost of "Custody Operations", and
> the recidivism increases costs to the local law enforcement budget as well
CHEAPER TO DEPORT
$255 million in FY 2009
PDF page 20
http://www.dhs.gov/xoig/assets/mgmtrpts/OIG_11-81_May11.pdf
"individuals with serious health conditions"
1) What is a "serious" health condition? How convenient that it DOES NOT say emergency health condition...Yup!
2) Once they are in stable ambulatory condition, emergency has passed, they must leave the USA
The USA does not have medicaid, medicare, or increasing insurance premium money to keep them in the USA.
Long-time LPRs
USCIS.gov states,
"If you are a permanent resident and engage in or are convicted of a crime in the U.S., you could have serious problems. You could be removed from the country, not allowed back into the US if you leave the country, and, in certain circumstances, lose your eligibility for U.S. citizenship."
Long-time LPRs have had plenty time to naturalize to U.S. Citizenship, they would not have to be concerned with deportation if they had naturalized. WHAT better motivation to naturalize is there than to prevent being deported? You refused U.S. Citizenship and commit a crime...Sorry, time to leave the USA.
"In September 2004, the estimated LPR population was 11.6 million and an estimated 8.0 million LPRs were eligible to naturalize (see Table 1)."PDFpg3
http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/publications/LPRest2004.pdf
There is evidently millions of LPRs refusing to naturalize, if they get arrested, that is their fault that they are getting deported. ENOUGH
This was a very obvious pandering due to the extremely high level of criticism Obama was taking at the hands of the supporters of illegals.
His campaign promise of amnesty was not carried out for many reasons but mainly because the dems didn't want to take the full hit from an angered and highly unemployed citizenship come election time. They would have been out far faster then ever before in history and they knew it. So it never came to a vote because the dems HAD the votes to pass an amnesty but many of them wouldn't have done it to save their hides and because those politicians likely want what is in the best interests of THIS country and OUR citizens!
So he was up against a wall. The system before he made this amnesty pact was doing OK. Nothing was really falling through the cracks. It wasn't like he had no choice due to mistakes being made from too much backlog.
As to his record of deporting so many that is partially his credit - yes but not at all something he wouldn't like to change but he can't. There are more border patrol now - more prosecutors now - more judges now - more illegals now. All of these things have been building for years.
That would be wrong because it puts people who feel free to ignore the laws ahead of those doing it right and waiting their turn.