Bowing to pressure from immigrant rights activists, the Obama administration said Thursday that it will halt deportation proceedings on a case-by-case basis against illegal immigrants who meet certain criteria, such as attending school, having family in the military or having primary responsible for other family members’ care.
The move marks a major step for President Obama, who for months has said he does not have broad categorical authority to halt deportations and said he must follow the laws as Congress has written them.
But in letters to Congress on Thursday, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said she does have discretion to focus on “priorities” and that her department and the Justice Department will review all ongoing cases to see who meets the new criteria.
“This case-by-case approach will enhance public safety,” she said. “Immigration judges will be able to more swiftly adjudicate high-priority cases, such as those involving convicted felons.”
The move won immediate praise from Hispanic activists and Democrats who had strenuously argued with the administration that it did have authority to take these actions, and said as long as Congress is deadlocked on the issue, it was up to Mr. Obama to act.
“Today’s announcement shows that this president is willing to put muscle behind his words and to use his power to intervene when the lives of good people are being ruined by bad laws,” said Rep. Luis V. Gutierrez, Illinois Democrat, who has taken a leadership role on the issue since the death of Sen. Edward M. Kennedy in 2009.
The new rules apply to those who have been apprehended and are in deportation proceedings, but have not been officially ordered out of the country by a judge.
Ms. Napolitano said a working group will try to come up with “guidance on how to provide for appropriate discretionary consideration” for “compelling cases” in instances where someone already has been ordered deported.
Administration officials made the announcement just before Mr. Obama left for a long vacation out of Washington, and as members of Congress are back in their home districts.
The top House Republican on the Judiciary Committee said the move is part of a White House plan “to grant backdoor amnesty to illegal immigrants.”
Here’s my comment in the Washington Times, from which the article was taken:
Until a better plan is devised, it seems like a more humane procedure–rather than breaking up families and separating children, as opposed to first focusing single workers with no ties in this country.
This is all about votes in 2012 and has nothing to do with “humanitarian reasons”. If his poll numbers continue the way they are he’s going to need every vote he can get. It would be political suicide to grant blanket amnesty so this is probably the first step in a more gradual process of doing the same thing. A little here, a little there and the next thing you know it, all the illegals will be legal and ready to vote. He knows he can get away with this because Congress allowed him to get away with Libya. As to Gutierrez’s statement about bad laws, that’s up to the legislative branch to change not the executive branch. Apparently he doesn’t even know his responsibilities as a legislator, but that’s the way things are done in Chicago. Using the same logic if someone feels a 25 mph speed limit in a residential neighborhood is a bad law, why not just go ahead and do 50 until the law is changed. So much for laws and divided government.
These are questions from the Fox News home page showing the results of a survey on this issue. We are doomed.
Do You Agree With New Approach to Deportations?
Yes, focus on deporting dangerous criminals first. 59.08% (65,815 votes)
Somewhat. Deporting criminals is a priority, but they aren’t the only concern. 1.57% (1,751 votes)
No, this is the White House bypassing Congress to implement ‘backdoor amnesty.’ 39.07% (43,528 votes)
Other (leave a comment). 0.28% (314 votes)
I don’t know if this will hold up it is a no scientific poll, however it is scary.
@Buffalobob: Given the choices, most people would probably pick number 1. Perhaps if it was phrased saying, “Do you support giving backdoor amnesty to illegal aliens by deporting some criminals and allowing other illegal immigrants to stay?” Or, “Do you support the President being able to change immigration laws without Congressional approval?” That is essentially what has happened here. Right now the American people have only gotten the WH version. Once people realize that he has once again overstepped his authority, they will see the far reaching implications of his actions, or least one would hope they will.
If he gets away with this, there is no point in having a Congress nor is there any point in having borders or an INS. It’s a waste of money. Something tells me my congressman is getting a phone call today.
@Liberal1 (objectivity):
My God, you liberals are really stupid, aren’t you? Why were these people ordered deported in the first place? With the lax immigration enforcement that we have seen since The Won took control of the Oval Office, these are not just people who were busted in some raid on Tyson’s in Arkansas. These are people who have violated some other crime that wound them up in court where their illegality was determined. DUI’s, ect, which are not felonies.
You didn’t bother to read the fine print that said “such as those involving convicted felons.” If they are convicted felons, have been released from jail, why are they still in this country? Why didn’t ICE pick them up outside the jail when they were released and give them a one way ride to Matamoras?
As to the whole liberal whiney assed excuse of “breaking up families”, gee, did it ever occur to you that THEY broke up their families when they waded across the Rio Grande in persuit of El Norte? Or should we just let them stay here and bring the rest of their extended peon family to live next door to you?
Now, perhaps you can tell me how Nappy Jan and her band of Hispanic vote seekers are going to be able to tell that these people they are going to interview, individually, will NEVER commit a crime? Most illegals who commit henious crimes have NEVER been convicted of anything before.
Here’s the deal; enter the U.S. legally and we will all hang out the “Welcome” sign for you. Sneak in like the criminal you are, and back you go, after giving us your photo, prints and DNA.
What’s wrong with deferring deportation proceedings against illegal-immigrant students if it frees up immigration courts to deal with more illegal immigrants who have committed far more serious crimes? How doesn’t that make sense?
@Greg:
Why are we even educating the children of other nations who come here illegally? Students? Like who? The 16 year old that just got his first MS-13 tatoo and is going to drop out of high school so he can be a gangbanger?
I guess you will also want to let that “students” dad, who just got convicted of his fifth DWI/DUI remain in the country because it would, after all “break up” families.
Here is a suggestion for you: adopt an illegal family. Provide them with housing, food, clothing, medical care, and education. Let them live with you because it will be much cheaper than providing them their own apartment/house. Take responsibility for them. If the dad gets in trouble, provide him with a lawyer. Put your money where your mouth is.
But my guess is that you want the rest of the nation to bear the cost of illegals. You want to stick your hand in my pocket to further your sympathetic feelings for the downtrodden that even their own nation doesn’t want because most of them are non-educated, non-productive people that nations like Mexico are all to happy to push off on us and all too happy to be rid of.
@retire05:
Comrade greg and other leftists love to use such issues to stroke their egos while ignoring the consequences. They also try to turn the issue to their political advantage. Amnesty= Permanent dem majority and socialist country.
El Cahon……that’s in California, near San Diego.
Federal officials busted a drug trafficking ring involving Mexico’s powerful Sinaloa cartel and 60 members of an Iraqi immigrant community in the U.S. who were caught selling illegal drugs, assault rifles, grenades and homemade explosives.
Neighbors complained FOR YEARS about the criminal activity, which has included attempted murder, sales of meth and marijuana, gambling and illegal firearms sales.
Authorities seized 18 pounds of methamphetamine, narcotics, cocaine and other drugs; more than 3,500 pounds of marijuana; $630,000 in cash; four IEDs; and more than 30 guns, including assault rifles.
But thank goodness the group was not competing with Gunrunner or the Fast & Furious gun sales to Mexico!
http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/national_world&id=8314012
Are many of them illegal aliens?
Yes.
But you can’t send them back to Iraq.
Nope.
Even the illegal Iraqis who were smuggled north by this Mexican gang will apply for and get asylum.
See, they are Chaldeans.
re: #7
We can’t deport everybody–much as you might like to–so it’s best if whatever number can be deported consists of the least desirable of the group. Skip over the honor student who was brought here illegally by her parents at the age of 2; go directly to the guy who came here at 22, speaks no English, has a past record, and is suspected of being a drug dealer.
Perhaps logic is different on the right.
Where did she say she wanted to deport all the illegals greg?
@Hard Right, #11:
Sorry. Forgot to reference the post I was responding to. Just fixed that.
@Greg:
You never sorted food, did you?
Ever hear the old phrase,”one bad apple spoils the bunch?”
It harkens back to when we kept our apples in the bushel barrels we threw them in when we picked them off the tree.
Every now and then, as the weeks went by and we worked our way through our apples, we would take them all out and examine them.
EVERY apple that was bad -even just ”going bad” – was removed.
If you didn’t do this, you lost ALL your apples.
In the USA, if authorities come across an illegal alien, he or she should be put into the deportation system.
IF they are so good that we want them here, they can turn around, once home, and come back…..legally.
How hard is it to do it right?
IF they are so good?
In fact, if they were so good, they would have done it legally to begin with.
Criminals break laws.
Good people try to not break laws.
The MSM will always pull out the clips of the poor working mother with two daughters who has been detained for almost two years, waiting for a ruling. It ran here in the Phoenix news yesterday. Never mind that she still cannot speak English, never mind that she entered the country illegally, and heavens let us not be concerned that she is using a fake/stolen SS number to obtain he false papers, and what consequences the legitimate owner of the SS number will face in the future. Like Sheriff Joe of Maricopa county stated when asked by a twit reporteret how he felt breaking up a family by sending this poor mother back to Mexico, his reply was “my jail is filled with people separated from their families”.
Family courts are breaking apart families of law abiding citizen everyday, so the breaking up families argument is a bunch of bull.
@Nan G, #13:
Uh huh. And how many illegals are estimated to currently be in the United States?
Deporting them all is simply not possible. Unless you want a police state with someone on every corner checking your identity papers, concentration camps, and endless caravans of prison buses headed south. That’s incompatible with my vision of America.
Since we can’t deport them all, we should be selective about who we do deport.
Obviously Greg didn’t put much thought into his post.
@Greg:
You seem to think that you, as a liberal, possess any logic. You don’t.
Why am I, an American taxpayer, responsible for educating the children of illegals, no matter how smart they are. If they are so smart in a school here, will they become less smart in a school in Mexico?
Perhaps we cannot deport them all, but we also don’t have to facilitate a system that encourages them to not only continue to stay here, but to see more illegals coming every day. And you seem to be under the impression that we Americans owe anything to the citizens of another nation; we don’t.
There was recently an illegal alien put to death in Texas for one of the most henious rape/murder of a 16 year old girl. A young girl who, btw, was also Hispanic. He had no previous criminal record. NONE. Yet, it didn’t stop him from killing that girl in a way that is too violent to even discuss here. The man who shot a black Houston police offer, Rodney Johnson, in the face for no apparent reason, had no criminal history, but he was an illegal. Most of the MS-13 in California, and other states, have NO criminal records. Yet, by your standards, they should be allowed to stay.
But you don’t care if Hispanic communities in the U.S. are being riddled with crime from illegals. You don’t care, because you don’t live there, and from where you sit, you are free to give your sympathies to the illegals. It isn’t costing you your life, your home doesn’t have bars on the doors and windows with expensive alarm systems because you live in an area where drug gangs hang out and all your neighbors have been robbed and beaten. You are not afraid to let your children play in the yard because you don’t want them being shot in a drive-by shooting.
Now, perhaps when you can show me that M.A.’s and Ph.D.’s are sneaking across the border just to come here to work, I might have some sympathy for them. But you can’t, because even the Pew Hispanic Research Center has proven that the average person who illegally sneaks into our nation are uneducated and are not capable of doing any except the most menial labor. These people you are supporting, are the very people that those nations south of our border want to rid themselves of because they are a drain on their societies so they are more than happy to dump on us.
@Liberals Suck, #17:
My assumption is that most conservatives would also object to a solution looking like something out of 1930s Nazi Germany. Unless refers to a state of affairs that most Americans would consider impossible.
I dont care what anyone else says, illegal means illegal what do people don’t understand about the word illegal, The obama admin. says if they go to collage, who’s paying for it, the Mexican goverment, i don’t think so it will just be another burden for the tax payers of America. We cannot continue to pay there hospital bills there cost of there children in school. I am irish decent and i want all the irish people to be able to come here with amnesty. I spent 22 years as a combat vet durning the vietnam era with 3 tours in nam as a marine. I’m sorry but i did not fight for illegals. Maybe ill move to Canada and become and illegal oops theres that word again semperfi
@Greg:
No, greg.
We should deport them as we get them.
Period.
Find them, however that happens, and deport them.
Eventually they might stop coming as they would see it is of no use to try.
@Greg:
Greg, why is Tyson Foods still in business when they were found guilty of not only hiring illegals numerous times, but actually went to Mexico to recruite workers BROUGHT THEM TO THE U.S., firing almost all their Arkansas help?
Oh, that’s right; Tyson Foods was a big supporter of (tah-dah) Bill Clinton.
@ray kelly, #20:
People who habitually drive 5 MPH over the posted speed limit are doing something illegal. There’s a continuum of “illegal”, ranging from trivial offenses to the most serious. The point being that an illegal resident behaving in a fashion that would earn a citizen respect is not so bad as an illegal resident who is a habitual criminal.
The police and courts have limited resources. Would we want people who drive 5 MPH over the limit to be pursued and prosecuted with the same enthusiasm as burglars and violent criminals?
Greg, I’m not the one who said that it’s not possible to deport all of them and then listed some possibilities. And now you’re trying to redefine a word so it fits your purpose. Typical liberal.
@Liberals Suck:
Greg is too stupid to know that the immigration courts are totally separate from civil courts. Poor, poor Greg.
I guess analogies are lost on some folks.
@Greg:
No, Greg, you were trying to equate one section of the law (civil) with another section of the law (federal). Civil driving laws are local. Immigration laws are federal. Traffic courts do not handle federal law. Federal courts do not handle traffic law.
No analogy; just showing how ill informed you are.
Really? I thought maybe they did, since local traffic cops now enforce immigration law in some states.
But we digress. The important thing to remember is that if she weighs the same as a duck she must be made out of wood, and therefore a witch.
Fair disclosure, I’m actually for some form of the DREAM Act. I didn’t like the last one that they tried to shove down our throat, but I do support the idea. I have met kids that didn’t know they were born in Mexico until they tried to join the military. Why wouldn’t we want these kids? We’ve already paid to educate them, in relatively harsh terms, where is our ROI?
I can understand prioritizing deportation, that should be done anyway. What I don’t like is Janet Napolitano saying she is going to selectively decide how to prosecute the laws of the United States.
Nan G said:
How hard is it to come into the US legally? Very. The process does not start in the US, it starts in Mexico. You have to have a passport to get a visa. You can’t just get a passport in Mexico, you have to meet certain requirements. Of course some of those requirements might be waived if money is placed in the right hands.
@Aqua:
Aqua, good point.
BUT think.
IF we made Mexico take back EVERY single illegal from there that we ever caught, how fast would they ease the way to get here legally?
Real fast.
Illegals are one of the most profitable exports from Mexico, sending back cash in great quantities.
They would still do that, even if they got here legally.
@ Nan G
That would get their attention. One of the reasons I was opposed to the last DREAM act is because there was no border protection involved. I believe any legislation has to have an “enough is enough” clause. I believe that a child born in the US is an American citizen, but I believe illegals violate the spirit of that law. A child born to an illegal alien should not be granted automatic citizen status.
That being said, I think we have made a huge investment is a lot of kids that are here illegally. I know some are going to become gang-bangers, but I lived in worked in LA for 10 years, gang-bangers come in all colors. And those kids that can make a contribution to American society should be given that opportunity. But the border and our immigration policy needs to be strengthened first.
@Aqua:
Really? Kids that don’t know they are illegal? How does that work? Does that mean they never join the Boy Scouts or play Little League? Don’t have to provide a birth certificate when entering school?
And why shouldn’t it be hard to immigrate to the U.S.? The whole reason for immigration is to benefit the host nation, not the immigrant. And do you even know what is required to immigrate to Mexico? Ever read the Mexican Constitution? Are you aware that even if you are a naturalized citizen of Mexico you can never run for public office, and protesting the Mexican government in Mexico is a crime punishable by a jail term or deportation, if you are living there legally? Are you aware of the hoops you have to jump through just to legally live in Mexico even for a short time?
Let me give you just a few examples:
You have to prove that you have a job THAT NO MEXICAN CAN DO
You have to provide a criminal history, signed by the Sheriff of the U.S. county you live in, or the Chief of Police from the city you live in
You have to register every piece of furniture and all your personal belongings that you are taking into Mexico
You are not allowed to buy property. Yes, you can build a home, but the land it sits on cannot be sold to you so your only option on the land is a term lease.
Your fingerprint is required to vote in Mexico.
Oh, one other thing: if you move to Mexico to work, as many Southwester Bell people did to facilitate the transfer of MexTel, and you have kids, they are not allowed to attend Mexican public schools unless they speak Spanish.
Who in the hell would want to live in mexico, if i want to go to and area where theres mexicans i can go to k-mart or wal mart, and talk to them in french that i’m fluent in; you should see those mexicans faces’ lol they all need to go back to mexico there not welcome here semperfi
According to a recently released Gallup Poll, Obama’s approval ratings amongst Hispanics has dropped to 49%. Never mind. I’m sure it’s all just coincidental as was waiting until Congress was not in session to do this.
@Greg: illegal alian usually drive with out insurance no licence and drunk, hope you dont get hit by one, o there is probably eight in the car. semperfi
@ retire05
My oldest is 16, and I can’t recall ever having to provide a birth certificate. But seriously, I have met kids that didn’t know they were illegal.
I know what you’re saying about immigrating to other countries, I I agree, our immigration laws exist to help the US. But we are also a beacon of freedom to the rest of the world, or at least we used to be.
A lot of illegals are returning anyway. The unemployement in Mexico is 4.9%. And I hope we secure the border as they are on their way out. But I would like to see some sort of DREAM act.
@Aqua: Building on that, one of my complaints is that in addition to this being a slap in the face to our laws and the Constitution as well as to those in law enforcement who made the arrests, it is also a slap in the face to immigrants who come to this country legally. I used to work with a lot of Mexicans. They were all here legally and were damn good workers with a very strong commitment to their families. It’s not fair to them or any other immigrants who came here legally. We need to stop rewarding bad behavior, not just with immigration but in other areas as well. Enough preaching on my part!
I say good for Obama and if you look at Fox poll in #3 you’ll see majority of FOX VIEWERS AGREE. Props to those RIGHT WING viewers. I’m gonna grant an amnesty to Fox. This is absolutely the right first step.
Aqua I applaud your reasoned approach. Go Seminoles.
Semper Fi
Greg that would be strike three, now go and sit in the dugout and think about what you did wrong.
The cops in those “some states” would be enforcing the states own immigration law, not the federal immigration law.
@Greg, I will agree, and disagree with you.
Traffic infractions are a civil offense, and adjudicated in local/state courts.
Illegal immigration is also treated as a civil offense, and prosecuted in federal courts. I disagree with the treatment of illegal immigration as a civil matter, but that’s the way the law is enforced… when they bother to enforce it.
Civil offenses differ from criminal in nature. And both can be either state or federal, depending upon the specific charges and the nature of the crime. Jurisdiction is only where the charges are heard, and should not be confused with civil vs criminal offenses.
In one way I agree with you in that – using the letter of the law – the habitual speeder is similar to a first time illegal immigrant since both are civil offenses, but just prosecuted in different court jurisdictions. One in the state, the other in the federal civil courts. Where I disagree is that using resources to pursue a habitual border hopper is akin to pursing a habitual speeder. However, since it falls under federal jurisdiction, and they don’t have the resources, they generally only go after the big fish. It’s the same with drug charges. They can’t afford to focus on the petty anny small time operator.
One more thing… AZ law enforcement, assuming this is where your addled confusion comes from – are not enforcing federal law. They are enforcing AZ state law. They are not allowed to involve themselves in the actual prosecution of federal immigration charges but, according to their laws and examination of legal presence in the state, will deliver them to INS authorities for further investigation if found not to be documented… where they will promptly let them go, as they usually do.
Aqua? Count me in your corner on all your comments above.
@rich wheeler: What steps do you think or want to come afterwards? Do you support the President being able to modify our laws as he/she sees fit as opposed to Congress who according our Constitution are the ones responsible for that? Last time I recited the Pledge it was “and to the Republic for which it stands”. Not monarchy or dictatorship. Remember, a conservative Republican that you don’t like can do the same thing then. As for the poll, most of the people liked Obamacare until they found out what it was about. Now the overwhelming majority of Americans are opposed to it.