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

Immigration Law Blogs on ILW.COM

Hillary's immigration enforcement policies could have unintended consequences.

Rate this Entry
By Nolan Rappaport.



At a Democratic Presidential Debate on March 9, 2016, Hillary Clinton said that if she is elected, she will not deport any undocumented alien children and she will only deport undocumented adult aliens who have criminal records. As president, she will enforce the immigration laws humanely by focusing resources on detaining and deporting immigrants who pose a violent threat to public safety. Her deportation policy shows great compassion, but it could have unintended adverse consequences.

Apparently, Hillary thinks the 11 million undocumented aliens in the United States now and the undocumented aliens who will come in the future can be divided into two groups, honest adults and children who have come here for a better life and convicted criminals. But our immigration laws identify other groups of undocumented aliens who are not convicted criminals but who nevertheless pose a threat to our country. This includes aliens who have dangerous communicable diseases; terrorists; spies; human traffickers coming here to sell women and children into sexual slavery; drug traffickers who have not been convicted of a trafficking offense yet; aliens who have participated in genocide; and aliens who have tortured people or committed extrajudicial killings. A complete list of the General Classes of Deportable Aliens is set forth in section 237 of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

Would her immigration enforcement officers nevertheless arrest people who present a danger to our country even if they do not have criminal records and place them in removal proceedings? They might, but how would they know who they are? The immigration officers would be focusing their attention on aliens who have criminal records. They would not be investigating aliens who do not have criminal records. Also, they might be prohibited from arresting or initiating removal proceedings against aliens who do not have criminal records.

The Obama Administration does not permit immigration officers to arrest or initiate removal proceedings against aliens who are not in one of the administration’s priority groups without special permission. The following paragraph from a DHS memorandum dated November 20, 2014, requires immigration officers to get permission from an ICE Field Office Director before apprehending, detaining, or removing aliens unlawfully in the United States who are not in a priority group:

B. Apprehension, Detention, and Removal of Other Aliens Unlawful in the United States.

Nothing in this memorandum should be construed to prohibit or discourage the apprehension, detention, or removal of aliens unlawfully in the United States who are not identified as priorities herein. However, resources should be dedicated, to the greatest degree possible, to the removal of aliens described in the priorities set forth above, commensurate with the level of prioritization identified. Immigration officers and attorneys may pursue removal of an alien not identified as a priority herein, provided, in the judgment of an ICE Field Officer Director, removing such an alien would serve an important federal interest (emphasis added).

Moreover, limiting removal proceedings to aliens with criminal records would make border security much more difficult. The fact that they would be safe from deportation once they have reached the interior of the country would be a powerful magnet to aliens who are willing to enter the United States illegally.
This policy also would attract aliens from the 38 Visa Waiver Countries who would like to live in the United States but are not eligible for an immigrant visa. They could come here freely with an online computer registration certificate and a passport without being concerned about deportation for overstaying their authorized admission periods. The same would be true of foreign students and other groups of nonimmigrant visitors. They all would be free to stay in the United States with impunity at the end of their authorized periods.

Hillary’s policy of not deporting children also would encourage unaccompanied alien children to make a dangerous journey to come here from Central America. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Jeh C. Johnson tried to discourage this practice by publishing an open letter to the parents of children from Central America, in which he explains, among other things, that:

[i]t is dangerous to send a child on the long journey from Central America to the United States. The criminal smuggling networks that you pay to deliver your child to the United States have no regard for his or her safety and wellbeing - to them your child is a commodity to be exchanged for a payment. In the hands of smugglers, many children are traumatized and psychologically abused by their journey, or worse, beaten, starved, sexually assaulted or sold into the sex trade; they are exposed to psychological abused at the hands of criminals.

Donald Trump also says that he will focus his enforcement efforts on aliens who are criminals, but he has not said that he will shield the rest of the 11 million undocumented aliens from deportation. Trump’s approach is not as compassionate as Hillary’s, but it would avoid the unintended consequences that her approach could produce. Unfortunately, it is not clear yet what he intends to do with the undocumented aliens who are not criminals. He does not mention this issue in his Ten Point Immigration Plan. He says elsewhere that he will decide what to do with them when the border is secure and he has removed the criminal aliens. It is apparent, however, that he does not intend to provide them with a path to citizenship, but I would expect him to be receptive to offering them some other type of lawful status. At some point, he is going to realize that it would not be possible for him to deport 11 million people.

This article is reprinted with permission from the author. It was originally published by the author on Huffington Post.

__________________________________________________

About The Author
Nolan Rappaport was detailed to the House Judiciary Committee as an Executive Branch Immigration Law Expert for three years; he subsequently served as the immigration counsel for the Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims for four years. Prior to working on the Judiciary Committee, he wrote decisions for the Board of Immigration Appeals for twenty years. He also has been a policy advisor for the DHS Office of Information Sharing and Collaboration under a contract with TKC Communications, and he has been in private practice as an immigration lawyer at Steptoe & Johnson.

Submit "Hillary's immigration enforcement policies could have unintended consequences." to Facebook Submit "Hillary's immigration enforcement policies could have unintended consequences." to Twitter Submit "Hillary's immigration enforcement policies could have unintended consequences." to Google Submit "Hillary's immigration enforcement policies could have unintended consequences." to StumbleUpon Submit "Hillary's immigration enforcement policies could have unintended consequences." to Reddit Submit "Hillary's immigration enforcement policies could have unintended consequences." to Digg Submit "Hillary's immigration enforcement policies could have unintended consequences." to del.icio.us

Updated 09-07-2016 at 12:54 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs

Tags: None Add / Edit Tags

Comments

  1. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    The Hill reports on September 7 that Senator Barbara Boxer (D- Calif.) has called for a USCIS investigation of Donald Trump's modeling company, Trump Model Management, for what she says might indicate:

    "widespread noncompliance with immigration and labor laws"

    This is in connection with an article in Mother Jones alleging that Trump Model Management regularly brought models to the United States without proper visas.

    Both the story in The Hill and the original Mother Jones article can be accessed at:

    http://www.thehill.com/blogs/floor-a...-model-company

    It is fine and entirely appropriate to question whether or not Hillary Clinton's immigration plan might inadvertently let certain classes of undesirable immigrants slip through the deportation dragnet, as Nolan's article claims.

    At the same time, is someone who may have allegedly violated our immigration laws in the regular course of operating a business a qualified person to head our country's entire immigration system and preach to America about how many millions of other alleged immigration violators should be targeted for mass deportation in numbers that Stalin, Hitler, Mao Zedong or Pol Pot would have been familiar with, but go beyond anything known to date in America or any other democratic country?

    And, if these allegations against Trump Model Management turn out to be true (since they have not as yet been proven), would not there be at least a slight whiff of hypocrisy in Trump's proposal to build a Wall against Mexico which could only bring back memories of the Berlin Wall, or even worse, the infamous Wall that closed off the Warsaw Ghetto as part of the Nazi extermination of the Jews?

    No one should be building walls in America, whether the builder has been complying with this country's immigration laws himself, or, allegedly, not been doing so at all times.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 09-07-2016 at 02:17 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  2. Nolan Rappaport's Avatar
    Link to Huffington blog: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillarys-immigration-enforcement-policies-could-have_us_57cc6a15e4b07addc4132fcc?mvr57k1sm2g2v5cdi
  3. Nolan Rappaport's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by ImmigrationLawBlogs

    It is fine and entirely appropriate to question whether or not Hillary Clinton's immigration plan might inadvertently let certain classes of undesirable immigrants slip through the deportation dragnet, as Nolan's article claims.

    No one should be building walls in America, whether the builder has been complying with this country's immigration laws himself, or, allegedly, not been doing so at all times.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    My point isn't just that Hillary's policies will let some undesirable immigrants slip through the deportation "dragnet." It is also that, as presently formulated, her policies will encourage illegal immigration; make effective border security impossible; and eventually result in calls to end the Visa Waiver Program; among other problems it could cause. The solution is to find less destructive ways to achieve her goals.

    No one should build walls in America? Really Roger? Let's see if he explains why this was okay. When Hillary Clinton was a senator, she and 26 other Democratic senators voted for the Secure Fence Act of 2006, which authorized the building of 700 miles of physical barriers along the border with Mexico. Only 17 Democratic senators voted against it. https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/109-2006/s262
  4. Pingone's Avatar
    A Trump presidency will not rescind Obama's DACA 2012.

    Trump's immigration policy = Obama's Executive Actions on immigration on steroids

    Nevertheless, Mrs. Clinton has already been SELECTED to become the next president and nothing will revert such outcome (your vote does NOT count).
  5. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Nolan Rappaport has attempted to respond to my comment comparing Trump's proposal to build a wall against Mexico to previous infamous Walls in modern history, such as the Berlin Wall built by the Communists and the Warsaw Ghetto Wall build by the Nazis, but he did not respond to my comment about the alleged fraud by Trump's model agency in bringing over models on visitor's visas in order to work and then telling them to lie about their intentions to immigration inspection officers about their intended activities in the US, as reported in Mother Jones.

    Which office is Donald Trump running for - Immigration Enforcer, Mass Deporter and Totalitarian Wall-Builder in Chief, or (alleged but so far not proven) Immigration Violator and Hypocrite in Chief - or all of the above?

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 09-08-2016 at 08:31 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  6. Nolan Rappaport's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by ImmigrationLawBlogs
    Nolan Rappaport has attempted to respond to my comment comparing Trump's proposal to build a wall against Mexico to previous infamous Walls in modern history, ... but he did not respond to my comment about the alleged fraud by Trump's model agency in bringing over models on visitor's visas in order to work and then telling them to lie about their intentions to immigration inspection officers about their intended activities in the US, as reported in Mother Jones.

    Which office is Donald Trump running for - Immigration Enforcer, Mass Deporter and Totalitarian Wall-Builder in Chief, or (alleged but so far not proven) Immigration Violator and Hypocrite in Chief - or all of the above?

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Roger says I didn't respond to his point about the foreign model situation. He's right. I don't know anything about it. But he also failed to respond to the point I made in my previous comment, which is that Hillary voted for a bill to construct a 700 mile fence across the border with Mexico. Why is that okay but Trump's plan to put a wall on the same border a terrible thing?

    I will not respond to Roger's name-calling. That seems to be his fall back position when he can't respond to the merits of a comment I have made to him, call Trump derogatory names.
  7. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    One can't just just cherry-pick comments by Donald Trump that one happens to agree with and then simply ignore allegations, that seem to be supported on their face by considerable detail (whether they ultimately turn to be proven or not), that if true, would make Trump out to be a terrible hypocrite on immigration enforcement, not to mention allegedly being complicit in the federal felony of visa fraud or or material misrepresentation (again, if the allegations about Trump Modeling Management are true, which is as yet not proven).

    That is not name calling; this is a matter of federal criminal law. If these allegations about Trump's agency are true, what does it matter whether Hillary Clinton once voted for some kind o a border fence or not?

    Even with regard to my comments about Trump's border Wall being reminiscent of Walls built by two of the most odious dictators in modern history, Stalin (or his successor) and Hitler, does that make the comparison any less valid if Hillary Clinton also once voted for some kind of limited border fence or other, especially since she opposes Donald Trump's Wall now?

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 09-08-2016 at 03:51 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  8. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Of course, Nolan. you are absolutely right. None of us should show any disrespect or criticism toward our Great Leader Donald Trump. especially when he continues to lavish praise on his fellow Great Leader, the Russian tyrant Vladimir Putin.

    See:

    http://www.politico.com/story/2016/0...fallout-227940

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 09-10-2016 at 12:21 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
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: