PRESIDENT TRUMP vowed to deport “bad hombres” — undocumented immigrants with criminal records whose presence in this country is an unquestioned burden and menace. Instead, his administration has been content to seize and expel a teenage soccer star and his brother in suburban Maryland; a mother of three in Michigan who had spent 20 years in the United States; and, now in detention pending removal, a 43-year-old janitor at MIT whose three small children are U.S. citizens and whose mother, a permanent resident, planned to sponsor him for a green card next year.
None of them had criminal records. Both the Michigan mother and the MIT janitor ran their own businesses, paying taxes and contributing to the economy. All had active, honorable lives deeply entwined with their communities. Deporting them is not only inhumane but also senseless.
So why do it? Possibly, Immigration and Customs Enforcement is simply plucking the low-hanging fruit that crosses agents’ path. Possibly, the agency is trying to please the boss in the Oval Office by juicing deportation numbers with the easiest targets of opportunity.”
*********************************************************
Read the full editorial at the link.
Irrational enforcement against the most vulnerable makes weak leaders and bullies feel a false sense of strength, empowerment, and “being in charge.”
PWS
08-13-17
I don’t know why people are surprised by the fact that no deportable alien is safe under the Trump Administration. He said in his interior enforcement executive order that he doesn’t believe that immigration law can be enforced effectively if exceptions are made for groups or classes of deportable aliens, and he is right, which is not the same as saying that I agree with the way things are going.
My reason for saying he is right is in the following article, which also describes his plan for trying to deport every deportable alien in the US, regardless of their individual circumstances (unless of course they can get relief under an INA provision).
On illegal immigration, Trump ends Obama’s ‘home free magnet’
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/immigration/332110-on-illegal-immigration-trump-puts-an-end-to-obamas-home-free
If you want to help the undocumented immigrations, stop complaining about Trump and find a way to work with him and the rest of the Republicans before it is too late. I give an example in an article I wrote that was published today in the Hill.
How Trump’s legal immigration cuts could be a blessing to DREAMers
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/immigration/346367-how-trumps-legal-immigration-cuts-could-be-a-blessing-to
Of course, I’m not surprised by Trump’s White Nationalist gonzo enforcement program! But, He’s not going to remove 11 million folks! Therefore, by definition, his arbitrary enforcement is just that: cruel and arbitrary enforcement motivated by White Nationalism and racism. I like you as a person and respect your views; but, find it hard to believe that you are defending this White Nationalist racist, xenophobe. Enough is enough! No, decreasing legal immigration is not the key to success and meeting halfway. We should take in ALL the good guys among the 11 million, including the dreamers, and increase legal immigration to boot. That’s what the country needs. I have no doubt that Democrats would be willing to work with the GOP on any type of reasonable immigration reform. But, that’s not in the GOP agenda. The GOP has been playing to the biases of the worst of their base for years, and we’re now seeing the results. Do you really want your kids and grandkids to associate you with Trump? I sure wouldn’t! I’m tired of hearing about the fake “home free magnet.” Obama screwed up immigration enforcement by prioritizing women and children at the border who should have been either recognized as refugees or allowed to stay under TPS. But, he at least did make a stab at rational interior enforcement. The reason why folks continue to come is that the law is wrong and the GOP has blocked rational reforms. Interior enforcement directed against anyone but criminals or a few recent arrivals makes no sense at all and hurts the country. But, it does strike the egos of the bullies and the weak (and immoral) leaders that we now have in charge.
Best,
P
Paul says, “He’s not going to remove 11 million folks! Therefore, by definition, his arbitrary enforcement is just that: cruel and arbitrary enforcement motivated by White Nationalism and racism.”
Are you saying it’s arbitrary to enforce the immigration law blindly against all lawbreakers if you won’t have 100% success?
How do you know how many aliens he will deport? No one has fully implemented the expedited removal proceedings provisions in the INA. And how do you know how many will change their minds about coming or leave voluntarily because no deportable alien is safe from deportation in the US?
There is nothing arbitrary about his enforcement policies. Have you read the memo Kelly issued implementing them? He lays out a list of priorities but leaves the officers free to arrest people who aren’t priorities as a matter of discretion. If you don’t like the way they are exercising that discretion, take it up with them. Don’t say extremely offensive things about the President of the United States.
Paul says, “I like you as a person and respect your views; but, find it hard to believe that you are defending this White Nationalist racist, xenophobe. Enough is enough!”
I am not defending Trump. I am defending the office of the president, which I think is entitled to respect whether you like the person in the office or not, and the fact that we now have a president who is enforcing the immigration laws that congress wrote and previous presidents signed into law.
If you think the laws are wrong, you have a right to lobby congress to change them. That might not accomplish anything, but it is a certainty that you won’t accomplish anything saying offensive things about Trump.
Paul says, “We should take in ALL the good guys among the 11 million, including the dreamers, and increase legal immigration to boot. That’s what the country needs.”
And what about the INA? Are you going to ignore it?
Paul says, “I have no doubt that Democrats would be willing to work with the GOP on any type of reasonable immigration reform. But, that’s not in the GOP agenda.”
I don’t think so.
Paul says, “Do you really want your kids and grandkids to associate you with Trump? I sure wouldn’t!”
I write articles that I think are objective and represent my best thinking, and I want my kids and grandkids to respect that approach to addressing problems, regardless of whether it associates the writer with unpopular politicians. Do you want your kids and grandkids to be as disrespectful to people who disagree with them as you are?
Paul says, ‘I’m tired of hearing about the fake “home free magnet.””
Nice of you to borrow one of Trump’s expressions. I’m sure he would be pleased. Did you read my articles on the “home free magnet”? I don’t want to discuss it with you if you haven’t. I provided the link several times. It takes too much time to explain what I mean by that term.
Paul says, “Obama screwed up immigration enforcement by prioritizing women and children at the border who should have been either recognized as refugees or allowed to stay under TPS. But, he at least did make a stab at rational interior enforcement.”
How is it rational to punish ICE officers for arresting deportable aliens who aren’t on the priority list? For that matter, have you studied the enforcement memos ICE officers were expected to follow? Either the people who wrote them were unable to think clearly or they were intentionally making it virtually impossible for the officer in the field to know whether to arrest someone.
In fact, there was no meaningful interior enforcement under Obama other than of criminals and aliens who had been deported previously…or were under an order of deportation.
Paul says, “The reason why folks continue to come is that the law is wrong and the GOP has blocked rational reforms.”
If you mean that IIRIRA was wrong in taking away so much discretionary relief, I will agree with you. But what is wrong with the removal grounds? Most of the deportable aliens entered without inspection. Are you saying it is wrong to deport someone for entering without inspection? Or for overstaying a nonimmigrant visa? That’s the other big category of deportable aliens.
Paul says, “Interior enforcement directed against anyone but criminals or a few recent arrivals makes no sense at all and hurts the country.”
It is disturbing to hear someone with you background and intelligence say that removals should be limited to criminals and a few recent arrivals.
Of course it’s irrational to enforce the law randomly against all possible lawbreakers. I’m not aware of any other law enforcement agency that does that.
I’ve read your articles about “home free.” That’s not what is driving undocumented migration.
As Jason Dzubow points out over on “The Asylumist,” Trump’s gonzo removal project would take more than 100 years to carry out. It’s an incredible abuse of Executive authority and taxpayer dollars. Removing members of our community who are doing good things for the country and have ties here makes no sense.
Best,
P
Best,
P
Paul says, “Of course it’s irrational to enforce the law randomly against all possible lawbreakers. I’m not aware of any other law enforcement agency that does that.”
How is it random to enforce immigration laws against all aliens who are here illegally? Trump is applying the INA removal provisions as written by congress and signed into law by previous presidents.
You have said several times in your comment that you just want it applied against people “you” think should be deported, which is the same as saying that the INA should be disregarded. A vey odd position for someone with your background.
Paul says, “I’ve read your articles about “home free.” That’s not what is driving undocumented migration.”
I disagree. Obama’s widely publicized policy of leaving noncriminal aliens alone once they had successfully crossed into the country (1) provided encouragement to aliens who wanted to come here illegally and (2) encouraged them to stay on by making them feel safe from deportation once they were here. In fact, there has been a big drop in illegal border crossings since the election of a president who intends to enforce the law against all deportable aliens.
What do you think would happen if the chief of police for the county you live in announced that he was only going to enforce the law against serious felony offenses involving a gun? Do you think that wouldn’t encourage crime in your county?
Paul says, “As Jason Dzubow points out over on “The Asylumist,” Trump’s gonzo removal project would take more than 100 years to carry out. It’s an incredible abuse of Executive authority and taxpayer dollars. Removing members of our community who are doing good things for the country and have ties here makes no sense.”
Is he unaware of the fact that Trump’s removal project will include expanded expedited removal proceedings? In any case, as I have said several times now, the fact that law enforcement cannot be 100% effective is not a justification for abandoning it. I suspect that the success rate is far from perfect for most types of law enforcement.
I see why you like him though. He says, “Removing members of our community who are doing good things for the country and have ties here makes no sense.” No sense? How about the fact that they are removable under the INA?
Where does this disregard for the law come from? And how far do you and Jason want to take it? What other laws do you want to disregard?
I’d say that our sensible, prudent approach to law enforcement mirrors that of most responsible U.S. Law enforcement agencies and certainly most U.S. court systems.
Under the “rule of law” according to Trump and Rappaport, police should be staking our every road in our area to “bust” everyone who violates the speed limit by 1 mph and then filling the courts with speeding cases.
11 million aliens can’t be removed by expedited removal. They have almost all been here longer than two years and can prove it. So that’s not going to happen.
And, of course the fact that you can’t completely enforce a law means that enforcement should be done prudently, reasonably, and systematically to achieve some meaningful result. You and Trump have moved into the realm of the make believe. The whole U.S. justice system only runs because of prosecutorial discretion exercised on a large scale basis.
A sensible use of prosecutorial discretion has always been a part of Federal and most local law enforcement outside of immigration. It even has a long (if somewhat sporadic) history in immigration. It usually concentrates on arresting, prosecuting, and removing those who are causing actual problems in the community. Only in the field of immigration, and sadly in your outlook, does gonzo arbitrary wasteful law enforcement that hurts both individuals and the country become the norm. It’s a failed law, Nolan! Gonzo enforcement just makes that more obvious.
And Jason is right. Even if you removed 11 million, millions more would come as long as there continues to be a demand in the U.S. labor market for their services. Individuals in danger in foreign countries will continue to come as long as the risks of staying outweigh the possible benefits of coming. We won’t get control of immigration until we increase our legal immigration system to realistically reflect the conditions that cause people to migrate. Trump’s gonzo enforcement doesn’t do that.
Best,
Paul
Paul says, “Under the “rule of law” according to Trump and Rappaport, police should be staking our every road in our area to “bust” everyone who violates the speed limit by 1 mph and then filling the courts with speeding cases.”
That’s not even remotely close to what I said, which is that then DHS Secretary Kelly outlined priorities and left it up to the discretion of individual ICE officers to arrest aliens not in a priority category.
Paul says, “11 million aliens can’t be removed by expedited removal. They have almost all been here longer than two years and can prove it. So that’s not going to happen.”
How does Paul know how many aliens are here illegally, let alone how many of them have been here more than two years? See my article, “Does anyone really know how many undocumented aliens there are?” at
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/57e41782e4b09f67131e3e7c?timestamp=1474689
In any case, they will have to prove to the satisfaction of an ICE officer engaged in mass expedited removal proceedings that they have been here more than two years, and we are talking about ICE officers in the Trump administration.
Also, they will be in mandatory detention without access to lawyers, family members or friends. Do you really think many of them are going to succeed in proving they have been here more than two years?
And don’t forget that claiming residence of more than two years makes them ineligible for asylum, which means that the aliens who make that claim will forfeit their right to a credible fear determination.
Paul says, “And, of course the fact that you can’t completely enforce a law means that enforcement should be done prudently, reasonably, and systematically to achieve some meaningful result. You and Trump have moved into the realm of the make believe. The whole U.S. justice system only runs because of prosecutorial discretion exercised on a large scale basis.”
I don’t know what Paul is talking about here. No one has taken away prosecutorial discretion. Trump has just made it discretionary again. It was mandatory under Obama. Obama categorically excused groups of aliens from being subject to our immigration laws.
Paul says, “It usually concentrates on arresting, prosecuting, and removing those who are causing actual problems in the community. Only in the field of immigration, and sadly in your outlook, does gonzo arbitrary wasteful law enforcement that hurts both individuals and the country become the norm. It’s a failed law, Nolan! Gonzo enforcement just makes that more obvious.”
Paul hasn’t answered my enforcement questions. Is he saying that aliens should not be deported for entry without inspection or overstaying a nonimmigrant visa? Does it say somewhere in the INA that those deportation grounds only apply when the aliens involved are causing actual problems in the community? If it does, I haven’t seen it.
I really don’t understand how someone with Paul’s background can have so little regard for the removal provisions in the INA.
Paul says, “And Jason is right. Even if you removed 11 million, millions more would come as long as there continues to be a demand in the U.S. labor market for their services.”
Illegal immigration does not offer any benefits that can’t be met through legal immigration. If we need more foreign workers, Congress can make them available.
Paul says, “Individuals in danger in foreign countries will continue to come as long as the risks of staying outweigh the possible benefits of coming.”
Another puzzling comment. Paul knows that “being in danger” does not make an alien eligible for asylum. Nothing Trump is doing will prevent aliens who can qualify for asylum from applying for it.
Paul says, “We won’t get control of immigration until we increase our legal immigration system to realistically reflect the conditions that cause people to migrate. Trump’s gonzo enforcement doesn’t do that.”
That’s a good explanation for my “home free magnet” theory. The two main conditions that cause people to come here are the availability of jobs and the fact that there is little danger of being deported once they are in the interior of the country.
But I think Paul meant that our legal system should make lawful status available to the people throughout the world who are living in poverty, or under violent conditions from war or crime, etc. Apparently, he would open our borders to let them all in. Anyone think that would end well?
I’ve explained my views before. With a more rational legal immigration system that allows more folks in, there would less incentive for folks to evade the system. Also, people would be more willing to wait in line and more likely to be deterred from “line jumping” and being sent to the back of the line if there were, in fact, a more realistic line. Plus, they could be more carefully screened in advance and put on the tax rolls more quickly. And, immigration enforcement could concentrate on the “bad guys” rather than the “low hanging fruit” who are actually a plus for our country. We could also save all sorts of money we are now squandering on unnecessary, counterproductive detention, etc.
We’ve basically have taken 300,000 plus more folks each year through the “illegal system” over the past three decades. And, that’s just those who have stayed. Many more have gone back and forth. The vast majority of them are working hard and doing good things for our country. Most have U.S. citizen children or other relatives by now. Legalizing them and increasing legal immigration is a win-win for the country. I’m by no means the only person to have observed that.
In fact, if Trump had his way tomorrow, most economists say it would collapse our economy, leading to the loss of millions of U.S. jobs. I don’t understand why you are out to destroy America and the many fine folks in our community who are doing nothing but helping us prosper while they help themselves? Doesn’t make sense from either a humanitarian or a self-interest perspective.
Best,
P