home

Obama and Deportation Policy

Republican intransigence over immigration reform may result in President Obama easing Homeland Security's removal (previously called deportation) policies. Two measures are under consideration.

Obama met with various Latino groups yesterday. After the meeting:

Obama announced late on Thursday that he had decided to review deportation practices to seek a more "humane" way to enforce immigration laws.....Immigration law experts have said Obama could use his executive authority to also stop deporting parents of those children to keep families together.

[More....]

Personally, I oppose removal of all but the most dangerous offenders. And if offenders are going to be removed, I think removal should occur right after sentencing, rather than making the offenders serve years in U.S. prisons (for which we pay $30k per year per inmate at the federal level) and then removing them. )

That said, I think this threat to vote against Democrats if removal relief is not obtained is ill-advised.

Latinos have become a key voting bloc and could play an important role in upcoming midterm elections in November....."For Latino voters in particular, we're going to make it very clear that this is an outcome that will affect the elections," [La Raza head Janet]Murguia said.

The reason legislation hasn't passed and we don't have relief for the undocumented is Republican opposition. Why withhold votes from the party out to help -- Democrats? If Republicans gain a majority or a Republican becomes President, the undocumented will be treated even more harshly. Threatening to vote against Democrats seems self-destructive.

The Latin press is reporting new statistics that under Obama, deportation orders of non-criminal undocumented residents has risen while deportation of those with criminal records has fallen (via Google translate).

Between fiscal years 2012 and 2014, cases of deportees faced criminal charges have decreased from 16% of total to 12%, according to data from the nation's immigration courts. According to the [Trac] study, during the first five months of fiscal year 2014, 58,951 have been issued deportation orders, of which only 7,067, corresponding to 12 percent, had criminal charges. In 2013, of 193,858 deportation orders of foreigners, 26,921 were for people who had criminal cases, i.e. 14 percent of the total.

I'm not a statistician and have only spent a few hours reading the TRAC report and BOP statistics pages, but I wonder whether the recent reduction in the number of deportation orders of those with criminal records is due to the fact that we are incarcerating so many for longer terms, and there just aren't as many inmates approaching release in 2014 and 2015 as there were in 2012 and 2013. While there are 3,900 ICE detention facilities in the U.S reporting detainers (see discussion of Table 6), and several institutions have immigration courts in them, inmates with long sentences may not be called to immigration court until they get close to release, and they don't actually get deported until they have finished serving their sentence.

According to Bureau of Prisons' statistics for January, 2014, of our 216,000 federal inmates, 36,363 or 17.5% are Mexican citizens. There are another 5,500 who are citizens of Cuba, Colombia and the Dominican Republic, and 10,000 whose citizenship is unknown. There are a total of 71,710 Hispanic inmates -- 34.6% of all inmates.

ICE's Criminal Alien Program (CAP) has numerous components ensuring that non-citizens with criminal convictions, particularly aggravated felonies which mandates removal, are deported at the end of their sentence:

The Criminal Alien Program (CAP) provides ICE-wide direction and support in the biometric and biographic identification, arrest, and removal of priority aliens who are incarcerated within federal, state, and local prisons and jails, as well as at-large criminal aliens that have circumvented identification. It is incumbent upon ICE to ensure that all efforts are made to investigate, arrest, and remove individuals from the United States that ICE deems priorities by processing the alien expeditiously and securing a final order of removal for an incarcerated alien before the alien is released to ICE custody. The identification and processing of incarcerated criminal aliens, before release from jails and prisons, decreases or eliminates the time spent in ICE custody and reduces the overall cost to the Federal Government.

CAP's Enforcement and Removal Operations track state and federal prisoners:

ERO officers and agents assigned to CAP in federal, state and local prisons and jails throughout the country screen inmates and place detainers on criminal aliens to process them for removal before they are released to the general public. After the screening process and interviews, ERO initiates proceedings to remove the criminal aliens from the United States.

The DEPORT program is used for BOP inmates:

Approximately 27 percent of inmates in Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) custody are non-U.S. citizens. ERO created the DEPORT Center in Chicago to process this population through CAP. ERO officers and agents assigned to the DEPORT Center conduct interviews of BOP inmates nationwide using video teleconference equipment. Through the combined effort of the DEPORT Center and local ERO resources, criminal aliens from all federal detention facilities are taken into ERO custody upon completion of their sentences.

With the various CAP programs tracking inmates daily, one would think few get through the cracks and avoid deportation upon completion of their sentence. This is the TRAC report on new filings in immigration courts.

Here is the current ICE detainer form. Here is the ICE offense severity chart. Here is the TRAC 2014 report for U.S. Deportation Proceedings in Immigration Courts by Nationality, Geographic Location, Year and Type of Charge.

Here is an American Immigration Council report on the ambiguities in the CAP program. And one entitled The Growth of the U.S. Immigration Machine finding that more immigrants are being removed from the U.S. than ever before.

While some prisons have inmates meet with ERO officers shortly after their arrival, there doesn't appear to be a set timetable for the initiation or completion of court removal proceedings against them. For 2013 and 2014, sequestration cuts may also have played a role in delaying final outcomes, i.e., the issuance of an order of removal at the end of an inmate's sentence. So I agree we are deporting too many people, especially those without serious criminal convictions, but I'm not ready to conclude that the percentage variance between removal orders of those with and without criminal convictions is the product of ICE getting lax on those with convictions, as opposed to other factors.

I'm more likely to believe ICE has too much discretion when it comes to deporting those without criminal convictions, and is over-exercising that discretion. I also think there is too much sharing of information between ICE and state and local law enforcement, resulting in detainers and transfer to ICE of those who otherwise would be released after a minor conviction or arrest.

< Friday Open Thread | Feds Approve $54 Million for New High Security Prison >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    I don't know (none / 0) (#1)
    by Mikado Cat on Sat Mar 15, 2014 at 09:21:16 PM EST
    what a fair immigration policy might be. Right now its heavily political due to the demographics of people coming in from Mexico.

    I don't think someone who made a totally illegal entry to the country should have an advantage over someone attempting legal entry, even if its just a work or student visa.

    OTOH I would give points for number of years working here, having a family here, etc.

    I think any leniency for those already in the USA needs be matched with eliminating the open border and getting serious with restrictions on employers hiring undocumented.

    I agree, except for leniency based on (none / 0) (#19)
    by Juanita Moreno on Tue Mar 18, 2014 at 04:27:09 PM EST
    in-country status or history. I also agree with Jeralyn on not paying for criminals' jail time before deporting them. Leave the sentence open, in case they return. But I disagree with other opinions in this blog post.

    It is NOT a good idea for Obama to reduce deportations even more. If we don't like our rules, we should change them, not ignore them. We are a nation of immigrants. That's been great for diversity in the past. But at this point in time, our immigration policy is being dictated by tribalism. Our US population is about 1/6th immigrant, and our unemployment rate is high. We need to retool motivated Americans who are out of work and facilitate college education for our youth and adults. Middle class families are dropping by the wayside. We should focus our money and support on them.

    We also need to try to export/model our concept of a strong middle class to other poorer countries. To do so, we unfortunately need to be more careful of who is allowed to come here. It should be our choice as well as an immigrants choice. We have these rules and laws for a reason. I personally don't think it's a good idea to convey citizenship on babies of non-citizen parents just because they are born here. I think the birthright citizenship component of the 14th Amendment is problematic and was not originally meant to be used to grant citizenship based on someone's ability to travel. I am in favor of changing it.

    Today, if someone suggests limiting immigration, they are called a racist. As a Hispanic, I have to say that our immigration policy should not be about prioritizing Latinos over other potential immigrants. It certainly should not be dictated by a desire to get the Hispanic vote. It should be about our country and our economy. Our policies should always be fair, not biased in favor of any ethnic group. Regardless of how immigration worked in the past, today we need a better process.

    Parent

    other way to not split families (none / 0) (#2)
    by gilligan on Sat Mar 15, 2014 at 10:55:47 PM EST
         Wouldn't it be simpler to have the children join their parents who are deported instead of having them choose to have the family be split up?
         And I somehow doubt that the Latino idealists who support open immigration would be so sanguine if North Korea's borders opened up and we had the chance to take in ten million Asian economic refugees tomorrow.  They didn't exactly demand free entry for Haitians after the 2010 earthquake either.  Mexico's leaders who lecture us about deportations do not take in any Central American undocumented immigrants.
        This is all about ethnic nationalism.  

    It is about being humane (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by MKS on Sun Mar 16, 2014 at 06:19:32 PM EST
    to a significant population that has lived here in some cases for decades.

    Parent
    of "humane."

    Parent
    It's not about being humane, it's simply (none / 0) (#17)
    by Juanita Moreno on Tue Mar 18, 2014 at 03:31:57 PM EST
    priorities. There are needy children all over the world, many who have to dig through garbage piles looking for food, or work long hours in toxic factories. They and their families would like to live in the US where other people will help pay for their food, housing, medical care and education.

    It is not humane to ignore their plight by prioritizing people who broke into this country over those who are willing to abide by immigration rules.

    This is an issue of priorities. Some people came here illegally, but they're already here so they're a priority.

    That is wrong. It's unfair, and it's bad public policy.

    Parent

    I almost missed it... (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by Anne on Wed Mar 19, 2014 at 02:38:09 PM EST
    and then - wham! - there it was:

    They and their families would like to live in the US where other people will help pay for their food, housing, medical care and education.

    Because if you're here illegally, you couldn't possibly be self-supporting, right?  "Illegal" = "here for a free ride."

    Jesus.  

    Parent

    Wow. You were looking for it? (none / 0) (#23)
    by Juanita Moreno on Wed Mar 19, 2014 at 08:07:53 PM EST
    You don't believe that people might come here in order to receive help that other countries don't offer? Very naive. My family came here for that very reason. So did most of my relatives. I'm one of the few who are employed.

    No wonder this problem can't get fixed. You're thinking we all slave in the fields and graciously bow and smile in thanks for the opportunity to have low paying jobs.

    Maybe a generation or so ago, but not today.

    Parent

    The claims about your family ... (none / 0) (#24)
    by Yman on Wed Mar 19, 2014 at 09:06:35 PM EST
    ... aside, what is your evidence for the claim that undocumented immigrants come here for welfare and don't work?

    I'm not buying it.

    Parent

    Perhaps you believe the stereotype (none / 0) (#25)
    by Juanita Moreno on Fri Mar 21, 2014 at 06:57:06 PM EST
    about immigrants that I'm referring to above. Like most stereotypes, it's not correct. When offered something free, most people are happy to take it, regardless of where they're from.

    Parent
    I believe in evidence (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by Yman on Fri Mar 21, 2014 at 07:46:50 PM EST
    You've offered absolutely none.

    BTW - If you're latest attempt at logic was true ("When offered something free, most people are happy to take it, regardless of where they're from."), "most people" would quit their jobs and live on welfare.

    They don't.

    Parent

    "YOUR latest attempt" ... (none / 0) (#27)
    by Yman on Fri Mar 21, 2014 at 08:13:13 PM EST
    They should call it "auto-incorrect" ...

    Parent
    I never said most people go on welfare (none / 0) (#28)
    by Juanita Moreno on Sun Mar 30, 2014 at 03:57:33 PM EST
    My point was to alleviate a stereotype about immigrants. Just because you're not from this country doesn't mean you automatically work more or less hard than someone from this country. That's a ridiculous assumption to make.

    You twisted my words around to imply something I didn't say and I'm not interested in going back and forth with someone who bullies other commenters.

    But quick, write a comeback and get the last word. Because that's what you always do at this site.

    Parent

    It's not my assumption (none / 0) (#29)
    by Yman on Sun Mar 30, 2014 at 04:39:52 PM EST
    My point was to alleviate a stereotype about immigrants. Just because you're not from this country doesn't mean you automatically work more or less hard than someone from this country. That's a ridiculous assumption to make.

    It's yours:

    You don't believe that people might come here in order to receive help that other countries don't offer? Very naive. My family came here for that very reason. So did most of my relatives. I'm one of the few who are employed.


    Parent
    The U.S. Constituttion (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by MKS on Sun Mar 16, 2014 at 06:23:02 PM EST
    calls "anchor" babies natural born citizens.

    The GOP has such a difficult time with Latinos they want to change the Constitution.

    Parent

    Anchors (none / 0) (#3)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Sun Mar 16, 2014 at 09:09:58 AM EST
    Obama could use his executive authority to also stop deporting parents of those children to keep families together.

    Such children have been referred to as "anchor babies."  Is policy humane if it encourages women in late term pregnancy to cross the border in the middle of the desert?  Apparently not if it picks up a few votes for Dem senators.

    You mean (none / 0) (#4)
    by jbindc on Sun Mar 16, 2014 at 09:29:39 AM EST
    the myth of "anchor babies?

    And while this study is a few years old, there has been no credible research out there to show that these findings have been reversed.

    Parent

    What myth (1.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Sun Mar 16, 2014 at 09:15:16 PM EST
    Is this not the very policy Obama is endorsing?

    Parent
    Where is a strict (none / 0) (#12)
    by MKS on Sun Mar 16, 2014 at 09:38:07 PM EST
    constructionist when you need him?

    It is in the Constitution.  It is not Obama's policy.

    Parent

    I hope the GOP (none / 0) (#6)
    by MKS on Sun Mar 16, 2014 at 06:21:30 PM EST
    looks at the votes so it does the right thing.

    From a partisan perspective, however, the longer the GOP fails to listen to Jeb and George Bush, the longer it will lose national races.

    Half or more of the school age children in Texas are Latinos....The clock is ticking....

    Parent

    Oh god, did you really... (none / 0) (#15)
    by sj on Mon Mar 17, 2014 at 01:27:51 PM EST
    ...just use the term "anchor babies"? You should be ashamed of yourself.

    Parent
    Oops, (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by MO Blue on Wed Mar 19, 2014 at 12:20:30 PM EST
    I think I must have wandered into Red State by mistake.

    I'll try again later to connect to Talk Left.

    Parent

    I don't know why we have a Congress (none / 0) (#8)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Mar 16, 2014 at 06:52:09 PM EST
    Dear Leader will just have some meetings with his advisers and sign some new laws into effect.

    Has Obama issued (none / 0) (#9)
    by MKS on Sun Mar 16, 2014 at 07:49:14 PM EST
    more executive orders than Bush?

    Parent
    Not even close (none / 0) (#10)
    by CoralGables on Sun Mar 16, 2014 at 08:55:27 PM EST
    Assuming you mean GW.

    Parent
    But just like vacation days... (none / 0) (#13)
    by unitron on Sun Mar 16, 2014 at 10:12:22 PM EST
    ...it only counts if Obama does it, Shrub gets a free pass.

    Parent
    Obama (none / 0) (#14)
    by jbindc on Mon Mar 17, 2014 at 06:53:44 AM EST
    is about 130 behind GWB as of last month (Obama 168, GWB 291).

    Even at that, GWB only signed 291 - was less than Bill Clinton (364), Ronald Reagan (381), Jimmy Carter (320), Richard Nixon (346), Lyndon Johnson (325), Dwight Eisenhower (484), Harry Truman (907), and Franklin Roosevelt (3,522).

    ...[I]n fact, Obama is on pace to issue fewer executive orders than any two-term president since 1900.


    Parent
    The relevant issue is (none / 0) (#18)
    by Juanita Moreno on Tue Mar 18, 2014 at 03:55:11 PM EST
    what is in the executive orders, whether they create good public policy or just bypass Congressionally approved laws. Not how many have been signed.

    Parent
    But that isn't the answer (none / 0) (#20)
    by jbindc on Wed Mar 19, 2014 at 09:57:29 AM EST
    to the "gotcha" question posed by MKS.

    But you are correct in that it depends on what the executive orders contain (translated:  if you like what's in the EO, then it's ok.  If you don't like it, then it's an "abuse of the office").

    Parent