Export thread

And no, that does not appear to be an exaggeration.



Essentially, the current implementation of the amnesty policy allows any illegal immigrant to be immediately let free from any charges (criminal, immigration, etc.) if they so much as claim to qualify for the dream act (without any investigation into the claims necessary).

I don't see how this can end well.

When did the dream act pass?

The what act, exactly?

--Patrick

I was under the understanding that this act hasn't even passed yet. How could they be letting people go on a proposed act?

Also the act itself calls for proof of the immigrant's claims. The fact that it isn't being enforced is not a failing of the act.

So your thread title is as erroneous as it is sensationalistic.

Bowielee said:

I was under the understanding that this act hasn't even passed yet. How could they be letting people go on a proposed act?

Also the act itself calls for proof of the immigrant's claims. The fact that it isn't being enforced is not a failing of the act.

So your thread title is as erroneous as it is sensationalistic.

Click to expand...

The thing is, you're right. No act did pass. But back in June, Obama changed the way immigration officials deal with illegal immigrants, effectively making it so that anyone who qualifies for the (not-yet-passed) Dream Act won't be deported.



This was done as an executive action without any congressional action. I thought this action of Obama's was common knowledge, after he was heckled by a Daily Caller reporter during the announcement.

Soliloquy said:

But back in June, Obama changed the way immigration officials deal with illegal immigrants, effectively making it so that anyone who qualifies for the (not-yet-passed) Dream Act won't be deported.

Click to expand...

Maybe Wiki isn't up to date, but it looks like things like felonies, a sufficient number of misdemeanors, and other stuff on the no-nos list for Good Moral Character specifically disallow qualification under the current version of the Dream Act.

If ICE officials aren't bothering to check these things, that's a completely different problem.

SpecialKO said:

Maybe Wiki isn't up to date, but it looks like things like felonies, a sufficient number of misdemeanors, and other stuff on the no-nos list for Good Moral Character specifically disallow qualification under the current version of the Dream Act.

If ICE officials aren't bothering to check these things, that's a completely different problem.

Click to expand...

Yeah, that's what I meant by implementation of the Amnesty policy. Apparently the instructions the ICE officials received was to release anyone who claimed to qualify for the Dream Act on the spot.

I can't watch youtube here at work, could someone boil down the story for me? The only thing I've found while googling this have been a bunch of Free Republic nonsense.

Necronic said:

The only thing I've found while googling this have been a bunch of Free Republic nonsense.

Click to expand...

Sounds like you got it already.

Necronic said:

I can't watch youtube here at work, could someone boil down the story for me? The only thing I've found while googling this have been a bunch of Free Republic nonsense.

Click to expand...

What it boiled down to was a homeland security person and an ICE officer saying that they let a guy go because of the policy. But when they describe the policy it says that if the person is picked up only for immigration charges, he is to be let go. Then they described when they picked up a violent offender that ran, fought back, hit his mom, etc... he was let go out of revenge for the above policy.

The problem is that it's largely a question of jurisdiction.

As non citizens immigrants are not necessarily bound by our laws, and can't be prosecuted under our normal system. Local and regional enforcement often send them to immigration officials, and the only punishment some of them receive for various crimes is deportation.

Obama has issued an executive order requiring immigration to release any illegal alien who claims protection under the not yet passed DREAM Act. Therefore any crimes which an illegal alien might commit that would normally be referred to immigration may simply result in that person being released back into society without punishment.

So there exists this loophole that can be used to get out of jail free, so to speak, since the normal law enforcement system cannot handle them, and the immigration system is no longer allowed to handle them.

In theory the DREAM Act has limits that should prevent criminally charged illegal aliens from claiming exemption under this act, but who knows whether the executive order, which is the only thing currently in effect, is comprehensive enough to close the various loopholes people can get through.

The real problem, therefore, is at Obama made an executive order prior to the various agencies getting together and determining the proper jurisdiction for criminally charged illegal aliens. If he had simply waited for congress to pass the dream act, or not pass it, then the law would have taken effect under the normal processes and the agencies would have been able to act on it.

Since its not law, they can't easily act on it, all they can really do is say, "The executive branch has ordered us not to prosecute a certain subset of cases, so we won't. If something falls through the cracks we can't patch the cracks, we have no legal authority or jurisdiction to do so. There's no law that covers these new issues."

sixpackshaker said:

What it boiled down to was a homeland security person and an ICE officer saying that they let a guy go because of the policy. But when they describe the policy it says that if the person is picked up only for immigration charges, he is to be let go. Then they described when they picked up a violent offender that ran, fought back, hit his mom, etc... he was let go out of revenge for the above policy.

Click to expand...

So basically an officer in an official position violated the directive he was given (violent offenders are not to be let go), creating a safety threat, to show how the directive was dangerous?

And the conclusion we get here is that the policy is dangerous because not following it allows violent offenders to be let go?

I have to admit, I'm intrigued with this brand of logic and would like to purchase a book describing it's execution.

Necronic said:

So basically an officer in an official position violated the directive he was given (violent offenders are not to be let go), creating a safety threat, to show how the directive was dangerous?

And the conclusion we get here is that the policy is dangerous because not following it allows violent offenders to be let go?

I have to admit, I'm intrigued with this brand of logic and would like to purchase a book describing it's execution.

Click to expand...

Well, whether or not it was done specifically to prove the policy is dangerous (or because it's simply the way the policy is working right now) is arguable. Could go either way.

I'd like to see the specific wording of the policy, personally.

I can't find a link for the executive order online. Should be available in Monday's federal register, as well as on whitehouse.gov Monday.

Wish they'd get their act together and put stuff online same day.

Yeah, all I can find is the official transcript for the June speech.

Soliloquy said:

Well, whether or not it was done specifically to prove the policy is dangerous (or because it's simply the way the policy is working right now) is arguable. Could go either way.

Click to expand...

Every report i have read on the policy explicity says that anyone who has committed a felony, serious misdemeanor, or 3 minor misdemeanors is not allowed amnesty.

A "violent offender" clearly violates that.

Honestly I think you and the Freepers that are promulgating this story are exagerating for impact.

Necronic said:

Every report i have read on the policy explicity says that anyone who has committed a felony, serious misdemeanor, or 3 minor misdemeanors is not allowed amnesty.

A "violent offender" clearly violates that.

Honestly I think you and the Freepers that are promulgating this story are exagerating for impact.

Click to expand...

That's why I want to read the actual order. Some reports are saying "criminal history" and you yourself are saying "has been convicted of a crime".

Does the order cover those who are only suspects when passed to immigration officials?

Further, many illegal immigrants who a suspects are not arrested for the crime they are suspected for until the prosecution has a good case. Instead they are arrested for illegal entry into the US. So they aren't even arrested for a crime, which means the act would apply to them until they are arrested for a crime, assuming the order covers suspects of crimes.

So there are still a lot of questions as to what e order actually means where the rubber hits the road.

Does it become ineffective only if they've been convicts of something? Only when they've been charged with something? Only when they've been arrested on suspicions in connection with a crime?

It's actually a good thing to bring this up immediately so we can ask and get answers to these important questions.

I'll admit that I am not a fan of executive orders specifically because it leads to stuff like this. Clarity would help. But let's be real, the obfuscation is exacerbated by rhetoric and lousy journalism that is specifically designed to confuse the issue.

It drives me up the wall that journalism like this is not only tolerated, not only understood as factual when it's clearly not, but actually celebrated for it's use as a political weapon.

What the claims seem to be to me (though I may be wrong -- I'd like to see the wording of the order) is that the order does say that those who committed those crimes don't qualify for amnesty -- but doesn't allow investigations into whether the people being held have committed any felonies or misdemeanors (or any other qualifications, for that matter).

It may be people just blowing hot air (again, I want to see the order's wording), but it this seems like an extremely likely oversight to me -- one that is intended as a backlash against Arizona's "papers, please" take on immigration laws.

DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY

Everything is a political weapon. Why should journalism be different?

Charlie Don't Surf said:

DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY

Click to expand...

Couldn't resist...

Necronic said:

I'll admit that I am not a fan of executive orders specifically because it leads to stuff like this.

Click to expand...

Well enforcing and executing the law is the Presidents job, and Executive Orders serve the purpose of doing just that.

Obama has repeatedly said that if congress won't act, he will. Well now he did because they've been sitting on it and people are surprised?

There's always a constant rug of war between the three branches of government.

stienman said:

Obama has repeatedly said that if congress won't act, he will. Well now he did because they've been sitting on it and people are surprised?

There's always a constant rug of war between the three branches of government.

Click to expand...

Holy crap where can I buy a rug of war

stienman said:

As non citizens immigrants are not necessarily bound by our laws, and can't be prosecuted under our normal system. Local and regional enforcement often send them to immigration officials, and the only punishment some of them receive for various crimes is deportation.

Click to expand...

This just hurts my head. Every international treaty states that local law enforcement can and must administer justice to foreigners on local ground. Iran trying to behead/imprison Americans for such crap as not wearing hair coverings, for lewd behaviour (kisssing in public! gasp!), smuggling controlled substances (a beer! A beer! kill him!) are based on the same reasoning. Being a foreigner and not aware of local laws is a mitigating circumstance for a lot of things, but not a ground to excuse breaking the law. Ignorance of the law is no excuse*. Legal or illegal, immigrants should be treated just like any other person. If necessary, well, that's what embassies and consulates are for. Yes, I'm aware a lot of / some (illegal) immigrants refuse to give a nation of origin for various reasons. If persecution (et al.), they can and should enter legally and there are other recourses. if other reasons (such as avoiding being deported), well....

*There is a difference between obscure local laws and general rules, of course. "Don't steal" is a given in pretty much any state in the world except Bankistan. "Always carry at least 2 types of picture ID" (yes, that's a law in Belgium) may be slightly more common not to know as a foreigner, and probably won't be pursued as vigorously.

Ooo, selective enforcement FTW.

--Patrick

I just want to facepalm this thread.

With a pillow.

For several minutes.