Department of Homeland Security unveiled plans on Tuesday to consider almost all illegal immigrants subject to deportation, and will seek to send many of them to Mexico if they entered the United States from there, regardless of nationality. The tension over the timing of the rules mirrors an outcry when President Donald Trump said on Twitter Mexico should pay for his planned border wall shortly before Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto was due at a Washington summit in January. Trump, who took office last month, campaigned on a pledge to get tougher on the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants in the United States, playing on fears of violent crime while promising to build the wall and stop potential terrorists from entering the country. Kelly signed the guidelines issued by his department on Monday.
The lesson from the last 20 years of immigration policy is that lawlessness breeds more lawlessness. Once a people or a government decides to normalize one form of lawbreaking, other forms of lawlessness will follow until finally the rule of law itself is in profound jeopardy.
Today, we have a constitutional crisis on our hands.
President Obama has decided that because Congress has not granted amnesty to millions of illegal aliens living in the U. Let us ponder for a moment just how shameless this assertion of power is. Rather than executing a law, Obama is making one up—arrogating to himself a function that the Constitution explicitly allocates to Congress.
Should this unconstitutional power grab stand, we will have moved very far in the direction of rule by dictator.
Pace Obama, the absence of a congressional law granting amnesty is not evidence of political failure that must somehow be corrected by unilateral executive action; it is evidence of the lack of popular consensus regarding amnesty. There has been no amnesty statute to date because the political will for such an amnesty is lacking.
On February 16, U.
The proposed amnesty program, Judge Hanen found, went far beyond mere prosecutorial discretion not to enforce the law against individuals.
Indeed, DHS was actively thwarting the express will of Congress. Pursuant to traditional canons of judicial interpretation, Judge Hanen ruled against the Obama administration on the narrowest possible grounds in order to avoid reaching the constitutional question.
He based his decision on the law governing agency rulemaking, rather than on separation of powers grounds. But his rebuke was just as scathing. The administration will likely fight the ruling through the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals and, if necessary, all the way to the Supreme Court.
immigrants coming to the United States from about two dozen “countries of concern,” most of them Muslim countries.6 The Bush administration ended a practice known as “catch and release,” in which most illegal immigrants arrested on immigration charges would be released until their court dates before an immigration judge. Oct 12, · The Justice Department issued a final warning this week to five jurisdictions it accuses of having "sanctuary" policies protecting illegal immigrants, giving them until Oct. 27 to prove they are. The Truth About the Impact of Unskilled Immigrants in America Sam Kwainoe I. IntroductionC ompared to most other industrialized countries, the U.S. has high levels of legal and illegal immigration. Recent talks between Mexico and the U.S. have stirred public debates on the United States followed.
Democrats should hope that the administration loses. But beneath the radar screen has been an equally telling saga of cascading lawlessness that is arguably as consequential: Whenever an illegal alien is booked into a local jail on suspicion of a crime, an alert is automatically sent to federal authorities in the Immigration and Customs Enforcement ICE agency.
ICE agents can then ask that the jail or prison briefly hold the illegal alien after he has served his time rather than releasing him, so that ICE can pick him up and start deportation proceedings.
This is known as a detainer.
You would think that such a program would be wholly uncontroversial. An alien who crosses into our country illegally already has no claim to undisturbed presence here.
He has voluntarily assumed the risk of deportation. But an illegal alien who goes on to break other laws has even less claim to protection from deportation.
Yet Secure Communities has been the target of incessant protest from illegal alien advocates since its inception. Those advocates make the astonishing claim that it is unfair to remove an illegal alien who commits other crimes. Not that ICE would be likely to try to pick them up!
Indeed, the irony regarding the agitation against Secure Communities is that ICE rarely uses its power under the program. In —the last year for which we have complete figures—the agency was notified of overillegal jail detainees, but removed only 19 percent of them.
And about 50 percent of the criminal illegal aliens whom ICE chooses not to deport reoffend upon release. The Obama administration sued Arizona for allegedly interfering with federal authority over immigration and won an injunction against SB Yet the Obama administration, rather than hauling these recalcitrant jurisdictions to court, has lain supine and chastely looked the other way.
And late last year, it threw in the towel completely. It dismantled the Secure Communities program except in a few narrow instances, agreeing with the activists that it was unfair to worry illegal alien criminals about deportation. There is another aspect of the campaign against Secure Communities that shows the corrosiveness of our tolerance of lawlessness.
Major police chiefs in high immigration jurisdictions are under enormous political pressure to protect illegal aliens. And that has meant tossing aside everything that they know about public safety and policing. Enforcing misdemeanor offenses is an effective way of incapacitating more serious criminals.
And even when an offender does not go on to commit more violent felonies, such allegedly minor offenses as shoplifting and illegal street vending create a sense of lawlessness and disorder that breaks down the fabric of a community.
Yet they have fiercely opposed cooperating with the federal government on Secure Communities, on the ground that misdemeanor offenses are too trivial to worry about and should not subject illegal aliens to deportation. This is pure hypocrisy—the result of the enormous pressure of demographic change on our principles.
The ultimate goal of the campaign against Secure Communities is to delegitimate deportation entirely as a response to illegal immigration.Immigration advocates say they fear a return, and then some, to record levels of criminal prosecutions under the Obama administration for illegal entry and illegal re-entry, which now outnumber.
The figure represents a steady rise from , when there were fewer than ten million immigrants in the United States. But there are proportionally fewer immigrants today than in , when foreign-born residents comprised 15 percent of .
And while Europe is already rethinking its policies on migration, Alden says, immigration policy in the United States is locked in stalemate after the Supreme Court rejected the Obama. “For the past two decades the United States, a country with a strong tradition of limited government, has been pursuing a widely popular initiative that requires one of the most ambitious expansions of government power in the modern history: securing the nation’s borders against illegal imm.
By Edward Alden On 4/10/11 at about how to secure the southern border against illegal immigration, the deterioration of the system for attracting and retaining skilled immigrants has received.
Immigration Legislation and Issues in the th Congress Congressional Research Service 1 Introduction Although immigration has not been a front-burner issue in the th Congress, the House and the Senate have acted on a number of immigration-related measures.