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- This country has always had laws that it has not or does not enforce either because they are outdated or realistically unenforceable.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 ...
