Home » Posts tagged 'deportation' (Page 2)
Tag Archives: deportation
Trump and Merkel Both Named Time Magazine’s “Person of the Year”
Just recently Time Magazine named German Chancellor Angela Merkel as its “Person of the Year”. Among other things, Time noted her role in Europe’s migration crises. Time wrote that Chancellor Merkel had provided “steadfast moral leadership in a world where it is in short supply.”
Do you know who came in third place? Donald Trump (just behind Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, head of the Islamic State militant group, commonly known as ISIS).
So let’s see if I have this straight. Time said that Chancellor Merkel was deserving of the award because, among other reasons, by the end of 2015, “she had steered the [European Union] through not one but two existential crises” with the second being a “thunderclap. In late summer, Merkel’s government threw open Germany’s doors to a pressing throng of refugees and migrants; a total of 1 million asylum seekers are expected in the country by the end of December.”
Susan Rice, President Obama’s National Security Advisor, was quoted in Time that “[Chancellor Merkel] has demonstrated particularly bold moral and practical leadership on the refugee crisis, welcoming vulnerable migrants despite the political costs[.]” I could not agree more.
And what of Candidate Trump? Well, Candidate Trump has engaged in fear mongering, including proposing a plan to ban Muslims from entering the United States; that’s right, Candidate Trump says we need a “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on.” Constitutional? I doubt it.
Nevertheless, the tragic events in Paris and, more recently, in San Bernardino, California, have ramped up Congressional efforts to, among other things, halt the U.S. refugee resettlement program (which yes, includes Muslims trying to come to the United States because they’re fleeing persecution in their own countries).
Quite frankly, there is no need for Congress to end the refugee program for Syrians and Iraqis or to even impose additional security measures. The U.S. refugee program already subjects every individual who will enters the U.S. pursuant to it to extremely rigorous checks performed by multiple federal agencies. Indeed, after decades of operation, not a single refugee has committed a reported act of terrorism in the U.S.
Fortunately, most legal scholars believe that Candidate Trump’s plan would be unconstitutional. In fact, his plan was even rejected by politicians from both sides of the political aisle, including former Vice President Dick Cheney and House Speaker Paul Ryan. In a press conference, Speaker Ryan denounced Candidate Trump’s comments by stating that they don’t reflect who we are as a nation (or even the Republican Party for that matter).
The campaign trail rhetoric continues to be atrocious (as is some, but thankfully not all, of the rhetoric in Washington, D.C.). I can only hope that reasoned and informed opinions prevail.
Immigration Reform by Executive Action: What Did Obama Actually Do?
So, the President finally did it. On November 20, 2014, President Obama announced a series of actions (not executive orders as it turns out) that his administration is taking to “fix” what he has repeatedly described as a “broken immigration system.” These actions involve, among other areas, border security, providing a temporary status (commonly called “deferred action”) for some aliens who are currently unlawfully present in the United States, and future legal immigration. So what did the President actually do? I’m glad you asked.
Border Security. Likely to placate those on the right, and certainly consistent with this Administration’s record level of deportations, the President announced he is implementing a “Southern Border and Approaches Campaign Strategy” which the Administration argues will “fundamentally alter” the way in which it marshals resources to the border. We’re informed that this will involve the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) commissioning of three (3) task forces, consisting of various law enforcement agencies, which will focus on the southern maritime border, the southern land border and West Coast, and investigations to support the other two task forces. The primary objectives of this new strategy is increasing the risk of engaging in or facilitating illegal transnational or cross-border activity, interdicting people who attempt to enter illegally between ports of entry, and preventing the illegal exploitation of legal flows (e.g., alien smuggling at ports of entry).
Aliens Unlawfully Present in the United States. The centerpiece of President Obama’s announcement, and no doubt the most controversial, is to grant deferred action (basically temporary relief from removal) to some aliens who are unlawfully present in the United States (i.e., those who were brought to the United States as children and raised here, or those who have children who are U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents (“LPR’s”)).
In addition, President Obama expanded a program his administration announced in June 2012, known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (“DACA”). That program allowed aliens who were unlawfully present in the United States, and who had been brought to the United States as children and met other criteria, to also receive deferred action and, in many cases, employment authorization. DACA, as originally proposed, expressly excluded aliens who were unlawfully present aliens and who were over 31 years old, or who had entered the United States on or after June 15, 2007. Under President Obama’s recent action, aliens who are over 31 years old, or entered the United States between June 15, 2007, and January 1, 2010, could receive deferred action. The President’s recent initiative would also extend the duration of grants of deferred action (and work authorization) received by DACA beneficiaries from the current two years, to three years.
As noted above, aliens who are unlawfully present in the United States who have children who are U.S. citizens or LPR’s will also be eligible for deferred action (and employment authorization) provided they can show (1) “continuous residence” in the United States since before January 1, 2010, (2) physical presence in the United States both on the date the initiative was announced (i.e., November 20, 2014) and when they apply for deferred action, (3) not being an enforcement priority under the administration’s newly announced priorities, and (4) they present no other factors that, in the exercise of discretion, makes the grant of deferred action inappropriate. Individuals who are granted deferred action pursuant to the President’s initiatives, or otherwise, are eligible for employment authorization provided they can show “an economic necessity for employment.”
There were other provisions which addressed aliens who are unlawfully present in the United States too, but these are the big ones.
Legal Immigration. The President also announced certain initiatives intended to affect aliens who are lawfully present in the United States, and which was described by the President as supporting high-skilled business and workers. One such provision is to ensure that all immigrant visas (basically “Green Cards”) which are authorized by Congress in a given fiscal year are actually issued.
Yet another initiative that the President announced is expanding the duration of “optional practical training” (“OPT”) available to F-1 nonimmigrant students in the United States studying science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (“STEM”) fields at institutions of higher education in the United States, as well as expanding the actual degree programs that are eligible for OPT.
Again, there were other provisions which the President announced in this category.
I realize the President’s actions are very controversial, and a lot of people are unhappy with them. As I’ve said before, and I’ll say it again, our immigration system is broken and it desperately needs to be fixed. In a perfect world, Congress would pass meaningful, comprehensive and bipartisan legislation, and send it to the President for his signature. That has not happened for way too long. So I suppose this is the next best thing.
Can’t We Just Deport Justin Bieber?
OK, so my apologies ahead of time to those of you who have children who like Justin Bieber or enjoy his music. My children are still (mercifully) way too young to know who he is or the shenanigans he gets himself involved in.
What I did not know until his recent arrest in Miami is that the young Mr. Bieber is not a U.S. citizen; rather, I am informed that Mr. Bieber is in the United States as a nonimmigrant (perhaps in an O-1 nonimmigrant status, which status is reserved for foreign nationals of extraordinary ability). In Mr. Bieber’s case, the standard for an O-1 nonimmigrant is actually a lower standard; that is, instead of proving to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) that he’s an alien of extraordinary ability, because he’s an “artist or entertainer” (so they say), the standard is showing that he’s an alien of “distinction.” But I digress.
My understanding is that Mr. Bieber and R&B singer Khalil Sharieff were arrested on January 23 while drag-racing in Miami Beach. According to news reports, Mr. Bieber was charged with driving under the influence (“DUI”), resisting arrest and using an expired driver’s license. He has pleaded not guilty to all charges.
Some news outlets also reported that Mr. Bieber initially resisted arrest, cursed at police officers, and also told police that he had consumed alcohol, pot and prescription drugs (this all according to the police). His next appearance in court is May 5.
Of course, the arrest (and related arrogance) of a young pop star consumed the media for days, if not weeks. What was more interesting to me, however, is when some media outlets started reporting that people were calling for Mr. Bieber to be deported (actually, officially called “removed”) from the United States.
For example, a petition was lodged with the White House to have Mr. Bieber deported. The petition was created the day of his arrest, and it urged the White House to revoke Mr. Bieber’s permission to be in the country.
We the people of the United States feel that we are being wrongly represented in the world of pop culture. We would like to see the dangerous, reckless, destructive, and drug abusing, Justin Bieber deported and his green card revoked. He is not only threatening the safety of our people but he is also a terrible influence on our nation’s youth. We the people would like to remove Justin Bieber from our society.
First off, as noted above, I don’t believe that Mr. Bieber has a “green card”. But apart from that, over 100,000 people have signed on to the petition. Even Sen. Mark Warner, a Democrat from Virginia, is on board. “As a dad with three daughters, is there someplace I can sign?” he asked with a laugh, when prodded by the hosts of Chesapeake-based FM99’s “Rumble in the Morning.” The White House is obligated to respond to petitions that reach more than 100,000 names. Still waiting on their response at this point.
OK, so this all got me thinking. Could Justin Bieber actually be removed from the United States as a result of this incident?
Immigration consequences attach to foreign nationals who have been “convicted” of certain crimes, as well as sometimes even to foreign nationals who admit to committing certain crimes for which they were not convicted, or whom the government has “reason to believe” are involved in certain criminal activities. Because Mr. Bieber (I presume) is lawfully in the United States, he would be subject to the grounds of deportability under section 237 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), as amended, and possibly even the bars to a finding of good moral character at under section 101(f) of the INA.
I’ve had an opportunity to review Mr. Bieber’s Complaint / Arrest Affidavit (and I must admit, it makes for some very interesting reading if you don’t mind the “f” bomb).
Mr. Bieber was charged with violating section 316.193 of Florida Statutes, which generally relates to DUI offices. This section of law includes several subsections, and it’s not clear from the Complaint / Arrest Affidavit under which subsection he was charged. Nevertheless, as no one was hurt or (thankfully) killed in the incident, it seems reasonable to conclude that he was charged under a subsection that would not result in his being convicted of, e.g., an aggravated felony (for immigration purposes)[1] or a crime involving moral turpitude.[2] The other two charges likely do not have negative immigration consequences as well. So, he appears safe, as far as these charges go anyway.
However, if the young Mr. Bieber did admit to police that he abused drugs, this could be a big problem for him. The INA that provides that “[a]ny alien who is, or at any time after admission has been, a drug abuser or addict is deportable.”
Of course, I don’t wish any ill-will on Mr. Bieber, but if all this was the case, my children might not ever ask me whether they can see him at the Times Union Center or SPAC as they’re growing up!
[1] The term “aggravated felony” is defined at section 101(a)(43) of the INA, and now includes some 50 different offenses. While some of these offenses, such as murder, rape, and kidnapping, would sound like aggravated felonies to the layperson, a good number of the offenses in the definition do not readily appear heinous enough to be termed “aggravated felonies,” and based upon case law, some DUI violations can be considered aggravated felonies.
[2] The Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) defines a Crime Involving Moral Turpitude as “conduct which is inherently base, vile, or depraved, and contrary to the accepted rules of morality and the duties owed between persons or to society in general.”
Immigration Irony: John Boehner vs. President Obama, the “Deporter-In-Chief”
Many who know me will tell you that I have a propensity to have stream of consciousness moments. I think to myself, “Define Irony”, and then I try to think about a (classic) movie moment where this statement might have been made. Has anyone ever seen the movie “Con Air”? Hardly a classic, I know. Nevertheless, does anyone remember when all the convicts were dancing on the plane to Lynyrd Skynyrd’s “Sweet Home Alabama”? Steve Buscemi, a fabulous actor, says “Define Irony: A bunch of idiots dancing on a plane to a song made famous by a band that died in a plane crash.”
Merriam-Webster defines irony as:
(1) a pretense of ignorance and of willingness to learn from another assumed in order to make the other’s false conceptions conspicuous by adroit questioning —called also Socratic irony;
(2) (a) the use of words to express something other than and especially the opposite of the literal meaning, (b) a usually humorous or sardonic literary style or form characterized by irony (c) an ironic expression or utterance;
(3) (a) incongruity between the actual result of a sequence of events and the normal or expected result; an event or result marked by such incongruity, (b) incongruity between a situation developed in a drama and the accompanying words or actions that is understood by the audience but not by the characters in the play —called also dramatic irony, tragic irony.
Where am I going with this? Good question. Right after the President’s State of the Union Address, House Republicans finally released their “Standards for Immigration Reform.” It was a one page document that primarily echoed what the Republican leadership had been saying for months: border security and interior enforcement is their top priority, and they offered a commitment to some sort of legalization program for those in the country without legal status. The document also highlighted the importance of implementing an entry-exit visa tracking system and employment verification, above and beyond their interior enforcement goals.
Finally, right? I mean, it’s not a perfect, and indeed it’s pretty vague on some level, which means it offers House Republicans cover within their own party and when they’re negotiating with their Democratic colleagues. But it was progress nevertheless.
And then, literally in the wake of this statement, barely one week later, House Speaker John Boehner seemed to stamp out (once again) any prospect for immigration reform. Speaking of the Obama Administration, he said “There’s widespread doubt about whether this administration can be trusted to enforce our laws. And it’s going to be difficult to move any immigration legislation until that changes.” Speaker Boehner went on to say, “We are going to continue to discuss this issue with our members, but I think the President’s going to have to demonstrate to the American people and to my colleagues that he can be trusted to enforce the law as it is written.”
Really? Are you kidding me? So the Republicans are no doubt concerned about some of the commentary leading up to the State of the Union Address, where there was some discussion that if the President could not get his way legislatively in certain areas, he would simply resort to Executive Orders. But to say that the President can’t be trusted to enforce our laws?
Let’s consider deportations during the Obama Administration. Ever read “The Economist”? I love that magazine. And I think it’s fair to say that it’s pretty conservative too. Well, The Economist recently labeled the President as “Barack Obama, deporter-in-chief.” “America is expelling illegal immigrants at nine times the rate of 20 years ago; nearly [two million] so far under Barack Obama, easily outpacing any previous president. Border patrol agents no longer just patrol the border; they scour the country for illegals to eject. The deportation machine costs more than all other areas of federal criminal law-enforcement combined. It tears families apart and impoverishes America.”
A week later, The Economist followed up their earlier story with another article entitled “America’s deportation machine, The great expulsion.” Says the article, “ It is hard to find many areas where the federal government is so effective in implementing laws passed by Congress.” The article highlights the growing pressure that President Obama’s deportation machine is putting on the courts, and also even speaks to a detention bed quota. But the article also singles out something known as “Secure Communities” as the real culprit behind the dramatic increase in deportations. “The turning of police officers into immigration officials has brought border enforcement into areas
of the country far from the deserts of the south-west. Secure Communities, the name given to the programme that links police work to the immigration database, began life in a single jurisdiction in Texas in 2008 at the end of George W. Bush’s presidency. By May 2013 it was operating everywhere.”
So, not only do we have those federal agencies and officials who we expect to be enforcing our immigration laws doing a pretty good job, but now we also have state and local officials, who have essentially been deputized to do the same.
Can’t be trusted? Really? Define irony. Or, maybe we should be saying define disingenuousness. I’m trying to think of a movie quote. “Anyone? Anyone?”
INSIGHT INTO IMMIGRATION 