BY ALFONSO CHARDY
achardy@ElNuevoHerald.com
Posted Thursday, June 24, 2010 at
http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/06/24/1697263/immigration-policy-change-rumored.html
Eight Republican senators sent a letter to President Barack Obama this week asking for confirmation that the White House is planning to defer deportations or grant parole to millions of undocumented immigrants, pending congressional debate on immigration reform.
An aide to Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, told El Nuevo Herald on Wednesday that the White House has not replied to the senators' letter. Moira Mack, a White House spokeswoman, said the administration was not aware of the letter. "We have not yet received the letter,'' said Mack in an e-mail message. "We will review it upon receipt.'' She did not answer whether Obama was contemplating such a plan.
The senators' query is confirmation of widespread rumors swirling in recent weeks in the U.S. capital that Obama could be planning a surprise executive action to prohibit the continuing deportations of undocumented immigrants who have no criminal convictions.
PRIORITIES
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials have been saying for months that their priority is detention and deportation of foreign nationals who have been convicted of crimes in the United States. But officials have also said they are still detaining and removing non-criminal undocumented immigrants, though these are now described as "low priority.''
Figures released by ICE last week for the Oct. 1-June 7 period indicate a downward trend in the number of deportations of non-criminal undocumented immigrants compared to removals during fiscal years 2008 and 2009. But immigrant-rights advocates expressed skepticism about the statistics and blamed Congress for the lack of immigration reform.
"The senators acknowledge that immigration laws need to be fixed,'' said Cheryl Little, executive director of Florida Immigrant Advocacy Center, referring to the senators' letter to Obama. "Yet it is Congress that clearly has failed to approve desperately needed comprehensive immigration reforms, reforms that these very senators have blocked.
''Immigrants were cautiously optimistic about a possible deferral of deportations, but they were not overly enthusiastic since their hopes for legalization have been dashed repeatedly before.
"If it happens, it would be good because it would lessen the fears that now exist in the community,'' said Alberto Pérez, a 26-year-old Guatemalan landscaper who was watching the U.S.-Algeria World Cup soccer match at a WeCount! Community Worker Center in South Miami-Dade on Wednesday.
Neither Obama nor any of his principal immigration advisors have made any public reference to suspending removals of non-criminal undocumented immigrants. But many immigration advocates have been urging Obama to take executive action to defer deportation in light of congressional reluctance to deal with immigration reform which could lead to legalization.
DEMONSTRATION
Nora Sándigo, executive director of American Fraternity, is planning a July 28 demonstration by U.S.-born children of undocumented parents in front of the White House to demand an end to deportations of undocumented immigrants who have no criminal records.
The letter to Obama was signed by Grassley and seven other Republican senators: Orrin Hatch of Utah, Jim Bunning of Kentucky, Saxby Chambliss and Johnny Isakson of Georgia, Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma, Thad Cochran of Mississippi and David Vitter of Louisiana.
"We understand that there's a push for your administration to develop a plan to unilaterally extend either deferred action or parole to millions of illegal aliens in the United States,'' the letter reads. ``While deferred action and parole are Executive Branch authorities, they should not be used to circumvent Congress' constitutional authority to legislate immigration policy, particularly as it relates to the illegal population in the United States.''
Supreme Court Injects Reason into Immigration Felony Definition
June 15, 2010
Washington D.C. - Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court voted unanimously in Carachuri-Rosendo v. Holder that a lawful permanent resident who is convicted of minor drug possession offenses does not warrant classification as having been convicted of an "aggravated felony." As a result, the Court held that Mr. Carachuri-Rosendo cannot be deported without an opportunity to make a case for why he should be allowed to remain in the United States.
Many individuals like Mr. Carachuri-Rosendo, who had two misdemeanor convictions in the criminal court system, then face a separate set of rules under the federal immigration court system. The government had urged the Court to adopt a rule which would allow the immigration authorities to reclassify a misdemeanor conviction as an aggravated felony, which would subject even a lawful permanent resident to mandatory deportation.
The Supreme Court found the folly in this approach and notes in its decision, "It is quite unlikely that the 'conduct' that gave rise to Carachuri-Rosendo's conviction would have been punished as a felony in federal court." Applying a common sense approach, the court found that Carachuri-Rosendo's "petty simple possession offense is not typically thought of as an 'aggravated felony.'"
Before 1996, only the most serious criminal convictions could be defined as aggravated felonies. In 1996, Congress expanded the definition of aggravated felonies - lengthening the list of crimes that could trigger deportation for an immigrant, including even minor crimes where the person did not serve any jail time.
"The Supreme Court's decision restores a level of measure and rationality to immigration policies that often are unnecessarily strict and unforgiving," said Beth Werlin of the American Immigration Council's Legal Action Center.
"The decision is an important step toward addressing some of the absurdities of the immigration laws passed in 1996 that treat a shoplifter and a murderer in the same manner. Those laws have largely taken away the ability of immigration judges to look at the facts of a case and determine if the punishment fits the crime," said Benjamin Johnson, Executive Director of the American Immigration Council.
In far too many cases, immigration judges still lack discretion. Congress now should follow the Supreme Court's lead and restore immigration judges' discretion to take into account the individual circumstances of each case before taking the drastic measure of ordering a person deported.
Washington D.C. - Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court voted unanimously in Carachuri-Rosendo v. Holder that a lawful permanent resident who is convicted of minor drug possession offenses does not warrant classification as having been convicted of an "aggravated felony." As a result, the Court held that Mr. Carachuri-Rosendo cannot be deported without an opportunity to make a case for why he should be allowed to remain in the United States.
Many individuals like Mr. Carachuri-Rosendo, who had two misdemeanor convictions in the criminal court system, then face a separate set of rules under the federal immigration court system. The government had urged the Court to adopt a rule which would allow the immigration authorities to reclassify a misdemeanor conviction as an aggravated felony, which would subject even a lawful permanent resident to mandatory deportation.
The Supreme Court found the folly in this approach and notes in its decision, "It is quite unlikely that the 'conduct' that gave rise to Carachuri-Rosendo's conviction would have been punished as a felony in federal court." Applying a common sense approach, the court found that Carachuri-Rosendo's "petty simple possession offense is not typically thought of as an 'aggravated felony.'"
Before 1996, only the most serious criminal convictions could be defined as aggravated felonies. In 1996, Congress expanded the definition of aggravated felonies - lengthening the list of crimes that could trigger deportation for an immigrant, including even minor crimes where the person did not serve any jail time.
"The Supreme Court's decision restores a level of measure and rationality to immigration policies that often are unnecessarily strict and unforgiving," said Beth Werlin of the American Immigration Council's Legal Action Center.
"The decision is an important step toward addressing some of the absurdities of the immigration laws passed in 1996 that treat a shoplifter and a murderer in the same manner. Those laws have largely taken away the ability of immigration judges to look at the facts of a case and determine if the punishment fits the crime," said Benjamin Johnson, Executive Director of the American Immigration Council.
In far too many cases, immigration judges still lack discretion. Congress now should follow the Supreme Court's lead and restore immigration judges' discretion to take into account the individual circumstances of each case before taking the drastic measure of ordering a person deported.
Supreme Court ruling in favor of immigrant clarifies automatic-deportation law
The Texas man was ordered deported for possession of a marijuana cigarette and one Xanax pill. But justices say only serious crimes warrant the removal of legal immigrants from the country.
By David G. Savage, Tribune Washington Bureau
June 14, 2010 9:11 a.m.
Reporting from Washington — The Supreme Court blocked the government Tuesday from deporting legal immigrants for minor drug possession charges, ruling that only serious or violent crimes called for removing otherwise law-abiding people from this country.
In a 9-0 decision, the justices stopped the deportation of a Texas man who had pleaded guilty at different times to having a marijuana cigarette and a single Xanax pill, a prescription anti-anxiety drug.
Based on these convictions, an immigration judge and the U.S. Court of Appeals slated Jose Carachuri-Rosendo for deportation to Mexico, where he was born. At age 4, he had come to Texas with his parents and had become a lawful permanent resident with a wife and four children.
His case illustrates the potentially harsh effects of a 1996 federal law that requires the deportation of non-citizens who are guilty of an "aggravated felony." Congress did not carefully define this term, however, and some immigration judges have said that a second drug-possession conviction could qualify as an aggravated felony.
The Supreme Court rejected that view in Tuesday's opinion in Carachuri-Rosendo vs. Holder. "We do not usually think of a 10-day sentence for the unauthorized possession of a trivial amount of a prescription drug as an 'aggravated felony,' " wrote Justice John Paul Stevens.
The 1996 law and its automatic-deportation rule applies to all non-citizens who are living in the United States.
david.savage@latimes.com
Copyright © 2010, The Los Angeles Times
By David G. Savage, Tribune Washington Bureau
June 14, 2010 9:11 a.m.
Reporting from Washington — The Supreme Court blocked the government Tuesday from deporting legal immigrants for minor drug possession charges, ruling that only serious or violent crimes called for removing otherwise law-abiding people from this country.
In a 9-0 decision, the justices stopped the deportation of a Texas man who had pleaded guilty at different times to having a marijuana cigarette and a single Xanax pill, a prescription anti-anxiety drug.
Based on these convictions, an immigration judge and the U.S. Court of Appeals slated Jose Carachuri-Rosendo for deportation to Mexico, where he was born. At age 4, he had come to Texas with his parents and had become a lawful permanent resident with a wife and four children.
His case illustrates the potentially harsh effects of a 1996 federal law that requires the deportation of non-citizens who are guilty of an "aggravated felony." Congress did not carefully define this term, however, and some immigration judges have said that a second drug-possession conviction could qualify as an aggravated felony.
The Supreme Court rejected that view in Tuesday's opinion in Carachuri-Rosendo vs. Holder. "We do not usually think of a 10-day sentence for the unauthorized possession of a trivial amount of a prescription drug as an 'aggravated felony,' " wrote Justice John Paul Stevens.
The 1996 law and its automatic-deportation rule applies to all non-citizens who are living in the United States.
david.savage@latimes.com
Copyright © 2010, The Los Angeles Times
Q&A Guide to Arizona's New Immigration Law
What You Need to Know About The New Law and How It Can Impact Your State
June 2, 2010
Washington, D.C. - Tomorrow Arizona Governor Jan Brewer will meet with President Obama to discuss border security and Arizona's controversial new immigration law SB 1070. Barely a month after passage of SB 1070, both opponents and proponents are attempting to assess the impact the new law may have on residents of Arizona-citizens and immigrants alike. At the same time, approximately 22 states (at last count) are considering similar legislation. Multiple lawsuits have been filed challenging the constitutionality of the law, opponents are mounting a boycott, and numerous polls show that a majority of the public both supports the Arizona law and comprehensive immigration reform.
The Immigration Policy Center has developed a Q&A Guide to Arizona's New Immigration Law. This guide provides key answers to basic questions about Arizona's law - from the substance of the law and myths surrounding it to the legal and fiscal implications. As other states contemplate similar legislation, knowing the answers to basic questions about Arizona's law will prove to be critically important in furthering the discussion.
To view the guide in its entirety see:
Q&A Guide to Arizona's New Immigration Law (IPC Special Report, June 2, 2010)
June 2, 2010
Washington, D.C. - Tomorrow Arizona Governor Jan Brewer will meet with President Obama to discuss border security and Arizona's controversial new immigration law SB 1070. Barely a month after passage of SB 1070, both opponents and proponents are attempting to assess the impact the new law may have on residents of Arizona-citizens and immigrants alike. At the same time, approximately 22 states (at last count) are considering similar legislation. Multiple lawsuits have been filed challenging the constitutionality of the law, opponents are mounting a boycott, and numerous polls show that a majority of the public both supports the Arizona law and comprehensive immigration reform.
The Immigration Policy Center has developed a Q&A Guide to Arizona's New Immigration Law. This guide provides key answers to basic questions about Arizona's law - from the substance of the law and myths surrounding it to the legal and fiscal implications. As other states contemplate similar legislation, knowing the answers to basic questions about Arizona's law will prove to be critically important in furthering the discussion.
To view the guide in its entirety see:
Q&A Guide to Arizona's New Immigration Law (IPC Special Report, June 2, 2010)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)