Sunday, August 29, 2010

Immigration - Free Association

Reading newspaper articles often leads me to a bit of free associative thinking on the subject in question (which I suppose is what they are suppose to do). Such was the case with an 8/26/10 article in the New York Times by Julia Preston "Immigration Ends Some Deportations", about an August 20th memo by John Morton the head of ICE (Immigration and Custom Enforcement) that has recently come to light. The memo details some policy and process shifts in the agency responsible for the enforcement of immigration law in this country. Since this is not a normal posting day for me, I thought that instead of the laborious process that I normally do in trying to assemble the random ideas that pop into my head into a coherent mass in such cases (more often than not, unsuccessfully), I would simply share some of that free association process.
  • The courts report that some 17,000 cases could be eliminated from the dockets by this change. How many immigration cases are currently on the dockets in this country and if this many can be eliminated, how many are backed up?
  • The issue is one that is politically charged in a number of ways and has brought out more than its share of partisan rhetoric on both sides. Should we be surprised or merely saddened that the recent furor (including the Arizona law) has risen up during an election year when no reasoned discussion can take place as a consequence of the upcoming November ballots?
  • This change of long-term enforcement practices has evidently stirred strong feelings of opposition in those on the front lines. How can such a department expect to succeed in its duties with such resistance present?
  • In fact, ICE agents announced a "no-confidence" vote in Morton; but how much of this is about confusion and demoralization in the ranks, and how much is a clever campaign by the union representing such workers to gain public support for their own cause?
  • This country has always had laws that it has not or does not enforce either because they are outdated or realistically unenforceable. Does immigration law in this country fall into that category?
  • We are told that this change in guidelines is to focus enforcement on those convicted of crimes or who pose a national security threat. What other laws in this country are handled similarly, if any?
  • Should this change in policy be considered relief to an already overburdened system (one that has curiously made no requests for additional enforcement revenue), or an attempt by some to produce a form of non-legislative amnesty?
  • ICE officials are being encouraged to use their authority to cancel deportation proceedings in such cases. Should citizens of this country be concerned that once again a non-elected bureaucratic figure has seemingly circumvented Congressional authority (and responsibility) by fiat; something that seems to be becoming more of a trend in the US? (Can you say, regulation of greenhouse gases?)
My favorite thought however was a comparison that popped into my head while reading the article:
  • This change in enforcement criteria would be the equivalent of forgiving bank robbers who had previously filed a loan application at the institution that they stuck up.
Yep, you just have to love the concept of free association ...


Brittanicus said...

It's understandable that the mainstream of Liberal oriented newspapers have not headlined the mishandling of the 2006 Secure Fence Act. Its original design was for two parallel fences separated by a two track highway for rapid deployment of US border Patrol vehicles. The upset came in the same year of 2006 Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations bill that directly contradicted the enacted law. The Senate insiders decided it was too expensive and cut funding; concluding in a major provision that the double fence was too expensive? So we as the American people should adamantly ask, when is the defense of our country from the illegal immigration invasion or from criminals or certainly terrorists--too expensive? The success of fences was shaped after the original construction in San Diego, California, and has been remarkable in cutting back of illegal aliens in a 50 mile huge swath of open land.

SO I ASK ONCE AGAIN, WHEN IS PROTECTION OF INNOCENT AMERICANS BECOME TOO EXPENSIVE? AFTER ALL WHO PAYS FOR IT ALL? TAXPAYERS! If the border region that cuts across California, Arizona, New Mexico, could have likely have saved thousands of lives? Even the original 2006 secure fence act of one fence is still not complete. Many hundreds of miles have no real barrier at all, just rusting fence posts adorned with drooping barbed wire. IN OTHER WORDS THOSE IN WASHINGTON TODAY AND YESTERDAY CARE NOTHING FOR THE SAFETY OF LANDOWNERS SCATTERED IN OPEN RANGE ALONG THE BORDER, OR HAVE BEEN INTIMIDATED BY THE OPEN BORDER-FREE TRADE ZEALOTS. A large margin of Americans cannot blame Arizona’s Governor Brewer or State Senator Peirce for not trying to protect its own state inhabitants from the illegal alien invasion, costs of welfare using whatever laws are available to them; including SB1070. Then again we cannot blame numerous state Representatives on tweaking the 14th Amendment for instant baby citizenship, that is also costing billions of dollars in welfare programs.

Brittanicus said...

BLAME THE LIBERAL DEMOCRATS AND A SMALL MINORITY OF REPUBLICANS, FOR THE CHAOS CAUSED BY NOT CONSTRUCTING THE DOUBLE FENCING? We have billions to spend on wars abroad, but Sen. Harry Reid(D-NV), Texas Republican Sens. Kay Bailey Hutchison and John Cornyn are also to blame for discarding the second fence, which if completed would have been topped with ugly razor wire. This is truly "Cause and Effect" by eliminating the second border fence, is why we still have mass volumes of people entering America. This unceasing issue of this chaos is the government having failed to seal the border. now Immigration Czar John Morton has decided to allow ICE to deport serious criminal offenders, instead of--ALL--illegal aliens, which to most Americans is a "De Facto" Amnesty. As that means Catch & Release" is back on the rails, with thousands are out-- and--about, taking jobs and lowering wages. A COUNTRY WITH ALL THE TECHNICAL KNOWLEDGE CANNOT CLOSE THE BORDER? THIS IS A INSULT TO ALL CITIZENS AND LEGAL RESIDENTS?

EVERY INCUMBENT, CAREER LAWMAKER WHO HAS A DISMAL IMMIGRATION RECORD, BEGINNING WITH SEN. HARRY REID AND HIS CZARS MUST BE REMOVED FROM THEIR SEAT IN WASHINGTON. THIS ASYLUM IN WASHINGTON NEEDS A CHANGE OF GUARDS? JOIN NumbersUSA AND AID IN FIGHTING AGAINST AMNESTY OR ASTRONOMICAL COSTS FROM THIS INVASION. On our soil are poor people from other countries, depleting our welfare for Americans and residents. Are you Sick & Tired of this travesty? Tell your Representative in Washington at 202-224-3121 and State level officials. Remember illegal aliens could have voted in the midterm elections? The Obama administration has shown its true colors, that illegal immigration is a great way to accumulate votes in the future by pacifying large minority groups.

Roland Hansen said...

"Yep, you just have to love the concept of free association ..."

Yep, I do.

Roland Hansen said...


I am of the opinion that all laws, government rules, and government regulations are to be enforced. If the appropriate law enforcement officials fail to enforce the laws they are sworn to uphold, then they should be removed from their positions due to nonfeasance.

If laws are not to be enforced, then the appropriate legislative body should pass the necessary legislation to rescind those laws.