Today the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE) announced a roundup over the last week of nearly 3,000 alleged criminal immigrants from across the country. The action follows a recent order from the Department of Homeland Security to focus only on serious criminals in their deportation efforts.
Last month Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano announced that immigration officials would focus enforcement efforts on serious criminals and delay deportation cases for most non-criminal immigrants who don’t pose a threat to public safety or national security. Homeland Security has been widely criticized for using fingerprints collected in local jails to identify and deport people arrested for minor traffic offenses and other misdemeanors. Napolitano promised a case-by-case review of deportation cases to look for serious criminals to deport.
Napolitano’s order would delay the deportations of hundreds of thousands of undocumented individuals in the system, using prosecutorial discretion to distinguish between serious criminals and those picked up for petty crimes or traffic violations. In the announcement, ICE director John Morton did not specify the nature of the crimes allegedly committed by the 2,901 immigrants picked up last week.
The deportation review is going smoothly, according to US Rep. Luis Gutierrez, but he stressed that activists must remain vigilant and ensure that no non-criminals get caught up in the system and deported.
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court plans to take up a case that would affect most DREAM Act students.
The Supreme Court will decide whether the government is free to deport illegal immigrants who came to this country as children and whose parents became lawful residents in the United States.
The case before the high court concerns whether U.S. immigration officials should avoid deporting illegal immigrants who came to this country as minors and, as Perry said, through no fault of their own. The government says it mainly targets criminals for deportation, and the immigrant in this case was arrested for trying to smuggle children across the border.
Courts on the West Coast have blocked deportation orders for some illegal immigrants because their parents had gained permanent-residence status and lived in the United States for more than seven years. Federal law cites these two factors as reasons for halting a deportation. And the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco has taken it a step further, deciding that a “parent’s status as a lawful permanent resident is imputed” to the “children residing with that parent.”
But Obama administration lawyers said the 9th Circuit was the only appeals court to adopt that view, and it was wrong as a matter of law. They urged the Supreme Court to rule that immigrants cannot “rely on a parent’s status” as grounds for avoiding deportation.
This is another example of the Obama Administration arguing something in court contrary to their public position on an issue, presumably because they want to maintain power for the executive branch. The President publicly supports the DREAM Act, and the deportation review clearly allows DREAM-eligible students to stay in America and even get work permits. But the Administration apparently wants the executive to control that process rather than the courts, so they will argue the other side before SCOTUS.
The issue is largely technical, but it could have an impact on Hispanic activists looking to see if the Administration has turned a corner from its recent history of record-high deportations.
On the other side of the political aisle, Republicans have introduced a bill that would actually force the deportation of undocumented domestic violence victims. All this would do is turn undocumented spouses into frightened indentured servants, as they would never call the police on a domestic violence claim for fear of being kicked out of the country. So it facilitates violence more than anything.





9 Comments


Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
South Florida ICE official arrested on child porn charges
Politically, I think the left is barking up the wrong tree with immigration. At a time of economic depression in this country, with eight people chasing one job, is it wise to advocate amnesty for illegals? I’m aware that this sentiment will be unpopular on FDL, but I think you should pick the fights you can win. This isn’t one of them.
Heaven forbid we should deport people here illegally. What’s next, trying to prevent people from coming here illegally in the first place?
Maybe the kid should be cut in half and sent two ways?
There is no Dream Act yet. There’s a concept not on the books, which is chased by hopeful work arounds and policy. Pol fodder, and quite an unstable teeter-totter of a situation, no?
One ray of light is at least knowing what’s going on, or part of it if possible. So I’ll offer a situation to clarify motives nowadays.
Here in Mass three county sheriffs are signing on to the “secure communitites” reporting regime which Gov Patrick has rejected statewide. Yes, there have indeed been some awful incidents recently; nonetheless, consider some factoids and stats.
It happens that the Gov isn’t in any county sheriff’s chain of command, but only three of the eleven county sheriffs are bucking the state. Also only three of eleven county sheriffs are Republicans. Connect the dots, then get busy cutting junior in half as I suggested a moment ago.
This one will get interesting.
“This is another example of the Obama Administration arguing something in court contrary to their public position on an issue”
Yep, Obama has been doing that to the gay community since he took office.
In a sense you are right because there is a widely-held belief in the US that undocumented immigrants cost the US more than they contribute. However, that belief is just that: A belief. Undocumented immigrants contribute economically much more than they extract. In fact, in some of the states with the highest amount of immigration, Texas, Florida, California, Arizona and New Mexico, the ratio of benefit to cost ranges around 5-10 to 1. And apart from measuring things like additional sales, property, sin, and income tax generated versus social services consumed, there are less direct benefits as well. Part of the reason US citizen’s grocery bills are not higher than they are is due to undocumented immigrants working sub-living wage agricultural jobs that US citizens just can’t afford to take.
In other words, undocumented immigration only compromises the economic health of the US in the minds of those who believe the propaganda lie and the tiny amount of very poor “research” produced by anti-immigration groups that gets circulated incestuously in support of that lie. If more folks knew the economic realities of undocumented immigration, they might see that anti-immigration efforts actually hurt the economic quality of life of most US citizens and are part of the effort to redistribute wealth upward.
Your analysis does not take into account the very real effect of wage depression illegals exert. I used to be in the moving business, and a good mover used to earn pretty decent money. Now that unscrupulous companies can hire three guys for the price of the American, they often do so. I’m talking real world experience, not various statistical studies, which are often slanted favorable to business interests. Thank You.
I’m talking about real world experience too and am not dismissing wage depression either. That’s why I mentioned grocery prices. Besides, what do statistical studies measure if not the real world. If the data is just made up and can’t be verified by others, then it doesn’t qualify as research. The usefulness of various statistical studies is only as good as both the research and how one considers them. If you only rely on those slanted favorably to business, then you will come away with skewed verdicts.
Don’t take my word for the research. Read what’s out there and draw your own conclusions. One of the things you will discover, I think, is that the research on the costs and benefits of undocumented immigration is a lot like the reasearch on global warming. The evidence from researchers of all stripes is overwhelming in support of the conclusion that the benefits outweigh the costs, while the research that says the opposite comes from a very few sources who have a political mission for which research is only used to support that mission instead of the other way around.
But if scientific measurement of the phenomenon of the real world is consciously not part of one’s calculations, then it doesn’t really matter in shapings one’s conclusions, which in turn may or may not have any relationship to reality.
What much of the apolitical researchers do is gather all sound, verifiable information on both costs and benefits and then compare that data to see which side is greater. It is not an either/or, zero-sum calculation but a comparison. And it is the case that there are significant costs. The question is, are they more or less than the benefits? So it may be the case, for example, that undocumented immigrants depress the wages of an American worker, let’s say by $100/month. But if undocumented immigrants cause the prices of goods and services consumed by that American worker to drop by the same $100/month while at the same time paying taxes that would not otherwise be generated, then a net economic benefit accrues.
The issue for each of us in relation to the data that has been gathered is whether or not we allow the data to shape our conclusions or whether our preconceived conclusions shape our engagement with the data. If we adopt the latter approach we may end up dismissing the data. But dismissing it is not the same as negating it. I may believe that I have a surplus in my bank account at the end of the month, but that belief alone does not make it so.