ILW.COM - the immigration portal Immigration Daily

Home Page


Immigration Daily

Archives

Processing times

Immigration forms

Discussion board

Resources

Blogs

Twitter feed

Immigrant Nation

Attorney2Attorney

CLE Workshops

Immigration books

Advertise on ILW

VIP Network

EB-5

移民日报

About ILW.COM

Connect to us

Make us Homepage

Questions/Comments


SUBSCRIBE

Immigration Daily


Chinese Immig. Daily




The leading
immigration law
publisher - over
50000 pages of
free information!
Copyright
1995-
ILW.COM,
American
Immigration LLC.

View RSS Feed

Matthew Kolken on Deportation And Removal

Obama's Former Chief Immigration Lawyer Defends the President's Record

Rating: 2 votes, 5.00 average.
The LA Times just ran an article on immigration protesters ramping up pressure on the President to materially address the deportation crisis. The article quotes Obama's former USCIS Chief Counsel Stephen H. Legomsky who said that it is "unfair, mystifying, and damaging" to criticize the President because he implemented DACA.

To this I say that it is the President's policies, and two million deportations that are unfair, mystifying, and damaging, and that if it weren't for advocates being critical of the President right before the last election we wouldn't have DACA in the first place.

Click here to be nauseated.

Submit "Obama's Former Chief Immigration Lawyer Defends the President's Record" to Facebook Submit "Obama's Former Chief Immigration Lawyer Defends the President's Record" to Twitter Submit "Obama's Former Chief Immigration Lawyer Defends the President's Record" to Google Submit "Obama's Former Chief Immigration Lawyer Defends the President's Record" to StumbleUpon Submit "Obama's Former Chief Immigration Lawyer Defends the President's Record" to Reddit Submit "Obama's Former Chief Immigration Lawyer Defends the President's Record" to Digg Submit "Obama's Former Chief Immigration Lawyer Defends the President's Record" to del.icio.us

Tags: None Add / Edit Tags

Comments

  1. Jack2's Avatar
    Activists cite immigration statistics showing that deportations have risen since Obama took office. But a recent Times analysis of the statistics shows that much of that rise is attributable to a change in the way deportations are counted. In fact, immigrants living illegally in most of the continental U.S. are less likely to be deported today than before Obama came to office, according to the data.
    Legomsky might also be mystified by the ungrateful reaction to the above, but remember the standard is now "not one more" so merely decreasing odds of deportation isn't good enough--these are true and total NON-enforcement activists. Similarly, when Director of ICE John Sandweg referred to "close to zero" odds of being deported, well, close to zero is not zero. Even if it were, activists would still demand deferred action, which is better than total non-enforcement since it amounts to de facto amnesty. That seems to be the goal, what they expect from Obama, and thus no facts or statistics are going to have any effect.

    two million deportations that are unfair, mystifying, and damaging
    No deportation is fair seems to be the argument. Many of the so-called "deportations" are people caught in the act of illegally entering. That is unfair too I guess. Seriously, what (if anything) do they want Border Patrol to do? If "deportations" are the problem, how about other enforcement, i.e., deterrent policies? Also condemned as harsh, draconian, inhumane, etc. "Not one more" believers don't just oppose disincentives but want to go the other way with new magnets and incentives for aliens to reside unlawfully. At the state and local level, they oppose cooperation with federal law enforcement, instead calling for sanctuary policies. Audits instead of raids? "Paper raids" are even worse we are told. A pattern is easy to discern and begs the question: what are such activists for when it comes to laws and enforcement policies of a limited immigration system? They seem to oppose everything proposed or already exists and whatever is proposed in the future, it seems a safe bet they'll be against it too. It appears that they just don't want to limit immigration and even though that's the law they still expect to get their way. So long as we have a limited system, it must be kept from functioning. Going forward, I guess their preferred immigration policy is unlimited immigrant visas, as irrevocable as possible? Anything less than such de jure unlimited immigration and presumably it will just be more demands for non-enforcement which amounts to de facto unlimited immigration.
  2. PeterGhizLaw's Avatar
    Hey! Peter is one of the best Corporate Lawyer found in Prince Edward-Land in Low fees with reliable work.
Put Free Immigration Law Headlines On Your Website

Immigration Daily: the news source for legal professionals. Free! Join 35000+ readers Enter your email address here: