Alliance of White Anti-Racists Everywhere – Los Angeles
President Obama
Following State of the Union, President Obama Needs to Follow Through on Immigration Reforms
01 week ago
The President’s State of the Union address this week re-iterated some of his key themes on immigration—support for comprehensive reform, dismay that DREAM Act students and foreign students educated in this country have no way to legalize their status, and a belief that he’s done enough to the secure the border. More importantly, he framed these themes in context to America’s economic recovery, innovation and growth. However, while any mention of immigration in the State of the Union is welcome, it’s what the President didn’t say that may have more of an impact on how his administration is remembered this year on immigration—and how his vision is measured by voters in the coming election.
In the State of the Union address, President Obama repeatedly signaled to Congress that he would sign sensible bills to reform our immigration system, big or small. But he quickly noted that partisan politics would make it all but impossible to pass comprehensive reform:
The opponents of action are out of excuses. We should be working on comprehensive immigration reform right now. But if election-year politics keeps Congress from acting on a comprehensive plan, let’s at least agree to stop expelling responsible young people who want to staff our labs, start new businesses, and defend this country. Send me a law that gives them the chance to earn their citizenship. I will sign it right away.
There are plenty of bills that fit this description, from the DREAM Act to proposals offering green cards to foreign graduates in science and engineering to support for immigrant entrepreneurs, but they are just as likely to flounder in the sea of partisan politics as something grander and more comprehensive.
And while the president suggested that the ball was in Congress’s court, he didn’t mention that his Administration has moved forward on reforms that don’t require Congressional action. The Administration has become more aggressive in the last in year in fixing parts of our backward immigration system, such as overhauling immigration detention, a review of the Secure Communities program, a re-invigoration of the use of prosecutorial discretion, and attempts to promote streamlined adjudications and family unity. The latter, announced just weeks ago, has generated real excitement among immigrant communities.
Similarly, changes to the way government officials decide what cases should be prosecuted in immigration court—and what cases should be dropped—have given hope to millions of immigrants that they may be able to stay with their families, at least for a while longer. But there remains considerable uncertainty about how DHS will routinely exercise discretion, especially amidst reports that DREAM Act students and others who clearly fit the government’s low priority status are still being deported.
In the areas of detention reform and Secure Communities, however, the early enthusiasm about change has been replaced by wariness on the part of advocates who want to believe promised reforms will be made. They have been repeatedly disappointed by delays in the detention realm and a continued commitment to keep Secure Communities alive, a program that many believe undermines community safety and policing. A special task force voted out a series of necessary reforms and gave their report to Secretary Napolitano last September, but DHS has yet to announce how it will implement these recommendations.
Although these ongoing administrative reforms don’t fit tidily into the overarching vision of immigration policy the President laid out in the State of the Union, following through on them would have a lasting effect on both immigration enforcement and the consideration of benefits for those stuck in our broken immigration system. And the President shouldn’t abandon his larger vision. He has made significant strides in helping to reshape how people who don’t much care about immigration think about it and that will be critical when the time comes for comprehensive reform. But for those most directly affected by our immigration crisis, it is the most immediate details that matter most.
Photo by WhiteHouse.gov.
President Obama Signs Indefinite Detention Into Law
01 month ago
President Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) today, allowing indefinite detention to be codified into law. As you know, the White House had threatened to veto an earlier version of the NDAA but reversed course shortly before Congress voted on the final bill. While President Obama issued a signing statement saying he had “serious reservations” about the provisions, the statement only applies to how his administration would use it and would not affect how the law is interpreted by subsequent administrations.
The statute is particularly dangerous because it has no temporal or geographic limitations, and can be used by this and future presidents to militarily detain people captured far from any battlefield.
Under the Bush administration, similar claims of worldwide detention authority were used to hold even a U.S. citizen detained on U.S. soil in military custody, and many in Congress now assert that the NDAA should be used in the same way again. The ACLU believes that any military detention of American citizens or others within the United States is unconstitutional and illegal, including under the NDAA. In addition, the breadth of the NDAA’s detention authority violates international law because it is not limited to people captured in the context of an actual armed conflict as required by the laws of war.
We are extremely disappointed that President Obama signed this bill even though his administration is already claiming overly-broad detention authority in court. Any hope that the Obama administration would roll back those claims dimmed today. Thankfully we have three branches of government, and the final word on the scope of detention authority belongs to the Supreme Court, which has yet to rule on the scope of detention authority. But Congress and the president also have a role to play in cleaning up the mess they have created because no American citizen or anyone else should live in fear of this or any future president misusing the NDAA’s detention authority.
The ACLU will fight worldwide detention authority wherever we can, be it in court, in Congress, or internationally.
Learn more about indefinite detention: Sign up for breaking news alerts, follow us on Twitter, and like us on Facebook.
President Obama Should Listen to the American People – Not His Advisors – on the NDAA.
01 month ago
Last night, the House of Representatives voted to pass the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), a bill that contains harmful provisions that some legislators have said could authorize the U.S. military to pick up and imprison without charge or trial civilians, including American citizens, anywhere in the world.
The final version of the NDAA was agreed to earlier this week by House and Senate conferees, and the Senate is expected to pass the bill later this afternoon. (You can tune in on C-Span.)
Although the Obama administration had twice threatened to veto a previous version of the bill based on these provisions, it reversed its position yesterday. Jameel Jaffer, the ACLU’s Deputy Legal Director appeared on the Rachel Maddow Show, last night to discuss our objections to the bill.
Needless to say, we’re deeply disappointed that the President’s advisors have recommended that he not veto the bill. In a statement released yesterday, Laura W. Murphy, director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office stated, “The president should more carefully consider the consequences of allowing this bill to become law. If President Obama signs this bill, it will damage both his legacy and American’s reputation for upholding the rule of law. The last time Congress passed indefinite detention legislation was during the McCarthy era and President Truman had the courage to veto that bill. We hope that the president will consider the long view of history before codifying indefinite detention without charge or trial.”
Our government must not enshrine permanently into law the power to militarily detain people indefinitely without charge or trial. Tell the president to listen to the American people and veto any bill that contains indefinite detention. If the president fails to veto the bill, ask him to publicly commit to limiting his use of this authority to actual battlefields only. The whole world is not a battlefield and the president should make that clear.
Learn more about indefinite detention: Sign up for breaking news alerts, follow us on Twitter, and like us on Facebook.
President Obama’s Very Legal Move on Immigration
05 months ago
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, concluding 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.
Photo by whitehouse.gov.
Like Previous Administrations, Obama is Using Existing Laws to Improve our Immigration System
05 months ago
The attacks on the Obama Administration from some immigration restrictionists are likely to escalate when Congress returns from its August recess, given the recent announcement that DHS intends to put muscle behind its prosecutorial discretion guidelines. The plan to review 300,000 immigration cases to assess whether they fall within the Administration’s enforcement priorities has already inflamed critics, some of whom are claiming that the President has “torn up the Constitution” and is now “Dictator” Obama. Unfortunately, the use of extreme rhetoric is nothing new. In a paper released today, “Using all the Tools in the Toolbox: How Past Administrations Have Used Executive Branch Authority in Immigration,” the Immigration Policy Center looks at other controversial examples of executive branch authority, particularly the debate over the implementation of the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act of 1997 (NACARA).
Back in 1997, the immigration community was up in arms over the unequal treatment of different nationalities in NACARA—a bill crafted by Congressman Lamar Smith that allowed certain Nicaraguans and Cubans to obtain green cards with minimal eligibility requirements, but required Salvadorans, Guatemalans, and other nationalities to go through a much more rigorous and merit based process to obtain green cards. Members of Congress from both parties and numerous advocacy groups pushed the Clinton administration to adopt rules that would soften these restrictions, while Congressman Smith accused the administration of amnesty through regulation for even considering such interpretations.
In the long run, neither side was particularly happy with the administration, which found a middle ground that allowed them to interpret the new law generously without overstepping the bounds of legal authority. It was a perfect example of responsibly using executive branch authority. Perhaps most telling, despite the enormous political pressure, the Administration was able to create a system that worked, streamlined the process for almost 200,000 applicants, and most important—the roof did not cave in. Using its authority responsibly did not undermine the Constitution, cause the collapse of government, or bring down the immigration system.
That’s worth remembering as DHS implements the prosecutorial discretion guidelines more fully. It’s also worth remembering that the Bush administration was also well aware that weathering criticism was the price you pay for implementing your vision of immigration policies. For instance, following the failure of comprehensive immigration reform in 2007, the Bush Administration publicly commented on its executive authority to enforce immigration laws. DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff and Department of Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez announced a 26-point plan to use administrative measures to “sharpen the tools” available to them. While some of these administrative measures—making E-Verify mandatory for federal contractors and using Social Security No-Match Letters—were unpopular, the debate was never over the authority of the Bush administration to act—it was over whether the 26 points were the right policy choices.
The Obama Administration has taken a first step in laying out clear guidance on prosecutorial discretion and forming a review committee, but it can’t stop there. Clear and transparent guidance on the implementation of the priority review process, and how that guidance will be implemented in making decisions about new cases, is needed and must be put out quickly.
Much like the case of NACARA, there will be disagreement as well as political threats whenever the Obama administration uses its executive branch authority, but that shouldn’t stop it. In the long run, it won’t be the HALT Act that causes the loss of executive branch authority in immigration. The only way to really lose executive branch authority is through inaction based on fear of the consequences. The answer is to use all the tools in your toolbox to make the best of the laws at your disposal.
Photo by nasa hq photo.
Latino Leaders Defend DHS’s Announcement to Focus on High Priority Immigration Cases
05 months ago
Clarissa Martinez, Director of Immigration and National Campaigns at NCLR.
As the dust continues to settle around the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) announcement last week that it will review some 300,000 pending deportation cases on a case-by-case basis as well as issue agency-wide guidance on using discretion to focus resources on high priority cases, some groups were quick to dismiss the announcement as political pandering. Predictably, restrictionist groups reacted like they always do whenever the administration does something to improve the immigration system—by screaming “amnesty” and accusing the administration of making end runs around congress. Today, however, leaders from the Latino community defended the administration’s actions as “a huge step forward” and even invited critics to come to the table with their own rational immigration policies.
On a conference call today, Clarissa Martinez, Director of Immigration and National Campaigns for the National Council of La Raza, responded to claims that the administration was pandering to Latino voters by applauding the administration efforts to focus resources on effective enforcement priorities:
This is a huge step forward for the nation as a whole. This announcement means that DHS will prioritize national security and public safety in deploying available resources in the area of immigration enforcement.
For those who believe this is purely political, the Latino community welcomes [you] to compete for the support of this electorate. [You] don’t have to cede this platform to the President. Come to the table with rational policies and you will get the attention of this community.
Likewise, Javier Morillo-Alicea, Local 26 President of the Service Employers International Union, said he supports DHS’s announcement, claiming it gives Latino community hope that the agency’s enforcement priorities are changing:
This is an extremely important move on the part of the administration. It is right on policy and it is right on politics. On the radio, on television, and in conversations, what I am hearing is that the community is expressing hope after this announcement.
For years, we have reminded the administration that their stated enforcement priorities of going after criminals, not law-abiding citizens, was not an on-the-ground reality. Last week’s announcement, if properly implemented, will give teeth to this long-stated enforcement priority and give hope to people who [have] lost [their] job as the result of ICE raids.
Clearly in the weeks and months ahead, the Latino community is going to closely follow the implementation of these guidelines to see if they are uniformly applied. And in the meantime, anti-immigrant restrictionists will continue to drive a wedge between Latino voters and the Republican party by hurling racially charged sentiments—like today’s accusation that President Obama is waging a war on “white America”—in hopes of stirring up their own base.
What’s the Value of Keeping Undocumented Youth in the Shadows?
05 months ago
The real life psychological ramifications of young immigrants struggling with their unauthorized status are often glossed over in the larger immigration debate. In a recent journal article, Learning to Be Illegal: Undocumented Youth and Shifting Legal Contexts in the Transition to Adulthood, University of Chicago professor Roberto G. Gonzales uses 150 interviews with young Latino adults to examine how unauthorized youth deal with their legal status as they come of age. Gonzales finds that as unauthorized immigrant children transition into adulthood, many “learn to be illegal,” figuring out how to exist in a society that was once welcoming, but now prohibits their participation.
Under U.S. law, all children have the legal right to a K-12 education, regardless of their immigration status. After graduation, however, unauthorized youth quickly learn that they cannot legally work, vote, receive financial aid for college or drive in most states. In addition, they have the added fear of deportation. Throughout his research, Gonzales found that unauthorized youth “uniformly noted a jolting shift at around age 16, when they attempted to move through rites of passage associated with their age…as respondents tried to take these steps into adult life, they were blocked by their lack of a Social Security number.” One student noted:
I never actually felt like I wasn’t born here. Because when I came I was like 10 and a half. I went to school. I learned the language. I first felt like I was really out of place when I tried to get a job. I didn’t have a Social Security number. Well, I didn’t even know what it meant. You know Social Security, legal, illegal. I didn’t even know what that was.
Gonzales found that nearly 60 percent of the unauthorized youth interviewed discovered they were unauthorized when applying for college. Most of those who did not attend college discovered their immigration status when attempting to work. Sadly, the end result for both groups was universal disappointment—their chances of finding a good job or attending an esteemed university severely diminished by their immigration status as were their chances of contributing to society.
These youth, however, have not given up on pursuing their educational aspirations. Many are working on the passage of federal legislation known as the DREAM Act, legislation which would solve many of the issues facing these youngsters. The DREAM act would allow unauthorized youth to eventually gain citizenship by going to college or joining the military after high school. While passage of the DREAM Act is currently an unlikely political reality, the Obama Administration has the ability defer the deportations of certain unauthorized youth who would likely have qualified for the DREAM Act.
So what can we do about America’s unauthorized youth? While Congress remains gridlocked on legislation that would enable unauthorized youth to fully participate in society, Gonazles asks the larger question—what is lost when we keep unauthorized youth—many of whom will remain in the U.S., regardless of their status—in the shadows?
Whether they become a disenfranchised underclass or contributing members to our society, their fate rests largely in the hands of the state.
We must ask ourselves if it is good for the health and wealth of this country to keep such a large number of U.S.-raised young adults in the shadows. We must ask what is lost when they learn to be illegal.
Sadly, the answer to that question is “too much.” While Congress continues to play politics with reform efforts, America loses out on the raw potential these unauthorized youth bring to the table.
Photo by j valas images.
President Obama Promises to Keep Promising Immigration Reform at Latino Conference
06 months ago
Amid frustrated shouts of “Yes, You Can!” from advocates in the audience, President Obama again deferred the power to fix our broken immigration system to Congress today during a speech at the National Council of La Raza’s (NCLR) annual conference. After highlighting his administration’s bona fides on issues important to the Latino community—appointing Justice Sonia Sotomayor on the Supreme Court, naming Labor Secretary Hilda Solis to his cabinet and delivering health care to millions of Latino families—the President turned to the thorny issue of our broken immigration system—a system many advocates believe the President should fix using the power of executive authority.
In his address to NCLR, the President began by highlighting the many promises his administration has made and kept to the nation, particularly the Latino community, as well as the economic and moral imperative of a functioning immigration system. But when it came to actually fixing our broken immigration system, the President could only promise to enforce the laws on the books “in the most humane and best way possible,” then shifted responsibility for an immigration overhaul back to Congress:
Now, I know some people want me to bypass Congress and change the laws on my own. And believe me, right now dealing with Congress… Believe me, the idea of doing things on my own is very tempting. I promise you. Not just on immigration reform. But that’s not how our system works. That’s not how our democracy functions. That’s not how our Constitution is written. So let’s be honest. I need a dance partner here — and the floor is empty.
The President also reminded the audience that Republicans have repeatedly walked away from immigration reform efforts, mostly recently the DREAM Act, and urged them to build a movement that bridges party lines.
So, yes, feel free to keep the heat on me and keep the heat on Democrats. But here’s the only thing you should know. The Democrats and your President are with you. Don’t get confused about that. Remember who it is that we need to move in order to actually change the laws. So I need you to keep building a movement for change outside of Washington, one that they can’t stop. One that’s greater than this community.
But to many advocates, the President’s continued promises were simply not enough. Felipe Matos of Presente.org, who called the President’s speech “predictable,” said that it was “inconceivable that [President Obama] keeps giving political speeches to win the Latino vote for 2012 while dividing the Latino community with his inhumane immigration policies.” According to Matos, the President has deported more than one million immigrants, including DREAM Act eligible students, since he took office. Another group referred to the President as “Deporter-in-Chief.”
And tomorrow, congressional leaders—including Reps. Raul Grijalva (AZ), Luis Gutierrez (IL), Mike Honda (CA) and John Lewis (GA)—as well as faith, union, civil rights and community leaders, will rally outside the White House to protest the record number of deportations and demand that the President use executive authority to “alleviate the suffering experienced in the Latino and immigrant communities.”
While it’s true that the whole of our complex immigration system cannot be fixed by a stroke of the President’s pen, there are some things the President can do now using executive authority to alleviate some of the pressure points. At some point, simply acknowledging that our immigration system is flawed and pointing to Congress to fix it will not be enough for the President, who some critics say is dangerously close to falling into the Latino/immigration credibility gap.
Photo by theobamadiary.com.
Turning a Blind Eye: The Human Rights Crisis in Puerto Rico
06 months ago
Today, there are American citizens who are being assaulted by police during peaceful protests, but you likely have heard very little about it. The Puerto Rico Police Department (PRPD), the second largest police department in the country, is out of control, with a broken and inadequate system for investigating,even recording, acts of severe police brutality — including lethal force — perpetrated against the communities it is meant to protect. While all of this is occurring in the public eye, none of it is making headlines.
Since 2004, the ACLU of Puerto Rico has documented numerous incidents of serious police misconduct. These incidents have increased both in their frequency and intensity since 2008, at which time the Department of Justice opened an investigation in response to our complaints. Most recently, in March-May 2011 the national office of the ACLU conducted fact-finding research in Puerto Rico, and in May 2011 convened a high-level delegation that went on a two-day fact-finding mission to further research the rise in police brutality in the Commonwealth.
Puerto Rico is home to more American citizens than 23 states and the District of Columbia. Its citizens are suffering abuses at the hands of its own police department that would never be tolerated anywhere else in the United States. Based on evidence documented during these trips, the PRPD has engaged in a level of brutality against U.S. citizens, that it shocks the conscience.
Last week, Anthony D. Romero, ACLU Executive Director, Laura W. Murphy, ACLU Washington Legislative Director, Juan Cartagena, LatinoJustice PRLDEF President & General Counsel, Angelo Falcon, National Institute for Latino Policy President, and Jennifer Turner, ACLU Human Rights Researcher participated in a congressional briefing to discuss the preliminary findings of our fact-finding delegations and to raise awareness on Capitol Hill about the continuing crisis. Media, concerned citizens, and Hill staffers from numerous offices came out to learn about these abuses. Even Governor Fortuño sent his staff to distribute information intended to rebut the fact-finding mission.
However, the ACLU has compiled incidents of PRPD’s behavior that has been documented in video recordings and photographs. At the briefing, we played this chilling footage which shows numerous instances of brutality against protestors, including a police officer placing his hands around the neck of a young, unarmed protestor, cutting off her circulation until she passed out.
These examples have been part of an escalating problem. Starting in the summer of 2010, students of the University of Puerto Rico have been involved in protests about increased fees at the university. In order to quash the protests, the government of Puerto Rico activated riot squad officers, which resorted to police brutality. Students have been beaten, tasered, tear gassed, and shot at with rubber bullets. Police have also applied pressure techniques on immobilized protesters’ necks and eyeballs, and young women have been subjected to inappropriate sexual contact by police.
The Puerto Rican government has infringed on its other citizens’ First Amendment rights to free speech and public assembly by cutting off public access to legislative sessions for months, even though the constitution mandates that these sessions be open. After massive layoffs, union leaders and even a legislator has been attacked by police during peaceful protests at the Capitol building, Supreme Court and governor’s mansion, which stands in sharp contrast to, for example, the peaceful protests over job layoffs in Wisconsin this year. Meanwhile, journalists attempting to cover these developments have faced physical assaults by police and obstruction of their access to information.
Perhaps most shocking, is the ongoing police brutality, including police killings of unarmed civilians and excessive force against civilians during anti-drug operations. In addition, the police department has singled out communities with a high proportion of racial minorities and indigent families for abuse, including the targeting of Dominican and Afro-Puerto Rican populations. As these injustices continue with impunity within the police department, they have also gone unaddressed by the Puerto Rican governmentthe Department of Justice.
The purpose of the briefing was to let the federal government know that this is a national crisis and ouranizations are watching. Our elected and appointed government officials have a responsibility to speak out whenever and wherever they see injustice of this kind occurring. The ACLU has called on the Department of Justice to bring its long overdue investigation to a close. The PRPD has shown that it cannot police itself and DOJ must intervene to stop this pattern and practice of severe police misconduct. We have also urged members of Congress to speak out on this issue and to press DOJ to fully enforce our civil rights laws for all US citizens. Finally, we have appealed to President Obama to help as well. We applaud this administration’s vigorous support for the free speech and assembly rights of civil society in other countries, such as Egypt and Tunisia. However, as this administration turns its eyes toward abuses in other countries, it cannot turn a blind eye toward our own. We ask you to take action now and appeal to this administration to intervene and fully enforce the laws.
Learn more about First Amendment: Sign up for breaking news alerts, follow us on Twitter, and like us on Facebook.
Dear Mr. Smith, Our Broken Immigration System Requires Solutions that Embrace Discretion, Not Eliminate It
06 months ago
Over the last six months, Congressman Lamar Smith (R-TX), along with other members of the House Judiciary Committee, have engaged in an all-out effort to turn back the clock on our immigration laws through a series of bills that may tackle one issue at a time, but equal a comprehensive overhaul. This week, the restrictionists’ Comprehensive Immigration Reform package (RCIR, as we call it) became complete with the introduction of the “Hinder the Administration’s Legalization Temptation Act” (HALT Act), a bill that would suspend discretionary forms of immigration relief until January 21, 2013. Yes, until the day after the next inauguration.
Just yesterday, Congressman Smith inched a bit closer to RCIR when the full Judiciary Committee voted to advance the “Keep Our Communities Safe Act of 2011” (H.R. 1932)—a bill that authorizes indefinite detention for immigrants. Apparently Smith is not content with the current mandatory detention laws because they include some provisions for release of immigrants, such as asylum seekers and others who have committed no crimes. His bill, however, would create a penal system for immigrants far more restrictive than the current detention system, which has generally been under fire from all sides.
And it doesn’t stop there. Other bills in the RCIR package include mandatory E-verify with no provisions for current undocumented workers to become legal, elimination of the diversity visa, expanded authority for the Secretary of Homeland Security to revoke visas issued by the Department of State, the elimination of review for those visas, suspension of waivers for the 3 and 10 year bars, suspension of cancellation of removal, suspension of Temporary Protective Status(TPS), suspension of virtually all parole authority, deferral powers, and work authorization, and a revocation of any such benefits that are awarded between the date of introduction of the HALT Act and its enactment.
Taken together, this package of proposals does more than enshrine the status quo. It literally rewrites the 1996 immigration laws that Smith himself authored. He has justified the HALT Act, in particular, as an attempt to head off possible “backdoor amnesty” by the Obama Administration, fearing that Obama would use his executive branch authority to defer the removal of thousands of DREAM Act eligible students and other vulnerable persons caught in the crush of our broken immigration system. Despite the fact that A) the Obama Administration has repeatedly said it had no plans to use its authority in this way (even though it certainly could) and B) Smith himself asked then Attorney General Janet Reno to exercise prosecutorial discretion in a 1999 letter, Smith continues to let loose one hysterical tirade after another any time the possibility of any relief for any immigrant is suggested.
The tremendous irony of the HALT Act, however, is that it actually reinforces the President’s authority to take action by highlighting the number of areas where discretion currently exists in existing immigration law. His fear that the President might act has led him to relentlessly strip away every possible discretionary action except that of declining to put people in immigration proceedings (and even that he attempted to curtail by suspending formal deferred action authority and eliminating work authorization in the case of deferrals). In his efforts to block the Obama Administration at every turn, he has excised the notion of discretion from the immigration laws, but in doing so he has pointed out just how necessary discretion is.
For instance, the HALT Act would suspend all grants of TPS between now and January 21, 2013. Heaven forbid that a natural disaster or civil war breaks out anywhere in the world because under the HALT Act, we would be powerless to help victims—like we did for Haitians after a devastating earthquake—stranded in the U.S. Similarly, by suspending cancellation of removal, Smith strikes at one of the very few safety valves currently in the system—a provision of relief that has existed in some form since at least the 1952 immigration law by which an immigration judge determines that someone was removable but also finds that he or she merits suspension of that removal and permanent resident status based on compelling humanitarian circumstances.
Moreover, the HALT Act would eliminate even the potential for family members to be reunited who are subject to the 3 and 10 year bars. For example, if your spouse entered the country illegally, met you, fell in love, and wanted to get right with the law, there would be absolutely no way that he/she could obtain legal status unless he/she waited outside the country for 3 to 10 years. Despite the fact that Congressman Smith’s own 1996 law created both the bar and the waiver, the Congressman thinks that it is better to keep everyone from even having a chance to reunite in order to punish the Obama administration.
The restrictionists’ CIR package really only leaves one recourse—mass deportation—which would be both impractical and expensive given that a mass deportation is estimated to cost at least $285 billion over five years. As the U.S. teeters on the brink of another financial crisis, the irresponsibility and craven politics of the HALT Act and the restrictionists’ CIR package is a sad reminder that a broken immigration system requires solutions that embrace discretion, not eliminate it.
Photo by radaris.
