What do you do when the benefits giveaway part of your big plans for unilateral and unconstitutional immigration "executive actions" are stymied by the courts; when you can't stop a months-long surge at the "more-secure-than-ever border"; and you're caught two years in a row releasing tens of thousands of criminal aliens into communities throughout the United States?
Why, the answer is as plain as the nose on your face! You double down, by off-shoring your benefits program to Central America (where you hope it is safely outside the scrutiny of American courts and the 26 states suing you for operating outside the law) under the phony rubric of "refugee" processing, and by having your chief legal officer order immigration prosecutors ("trial attorneys") to jettison more deportation cases from the immigration court dockets.
In the case of the former, the so-called Central American Minors (CAM) refugee program, I haven't quite figured out why the states haven't amended their original complaint to ask the judge to include it in his restraining order; at least that part of it that doesn't include legitimate refugees and involves the parole of minors with no right to enter the United States — and who don't qualify for refugee status under either international or domestic law — to join their parents who are residing here illegally. After all, guess who will get stuck with the educational, social, health, and other costs of sustaining those minors after arrival?
In the case of the latter: This disgrace took place via an April 6 memorandum directive from Riah Ramlogan, the acting principal legal adviser (PLA) of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). It's written in the usual bland language of the bureaucracy, so it takes a moment to peel away some of the layers and figure out what's going on.
One of the first things I noted was the oxymoron in the very first sentence of the memo. The PLA purports that its purpose is to give immigration trial attorneys guidance for following the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) secretary's policy memorandum of November 20, 2014, "Policies for Apprehension, Detention and Removal of Undocumented Immigrants". (For a separate analysis of that memorandum, see here.) Yet in the same breath she proclaims that it's needed for "individuals who may fall outside of the revised DHS enforcement priorities." (Emphasis added.) So which is it? Supplemental guidance on the revised priorities, or something new and more expansive? Bet on the latter.
But those aren't the only weasel words to be found in the directive. It continues to use the same tired logic that washing out thousands of cases is in the interest of efficiency and "align[ing] finite resources with cases involving national security, public safety, and border security." The reality just doesn't line up with that logic, though. Note, for instance, that there are multiple repetitions in which trial attorneys are required to revisit the same cases, to see if they have become candidates for being flushed. Most outrageous, the individuals themselves or their attorneys can press that claim. What, I ask, is efficient about this spin cycle of "prosecutorial discretion" review? Wouldn't the time be better spent just cutting to the chase and obtaining orders of removal? Of course, that presumes that the administration wants orders of removal, which obviously it doesn't. Then there is the nonsense about focusing on national security, public safety, and border security. I publicly challenge the ICE director or her acting PLA to give us a count of the number of deportation cases they've presented in the past few years that actually involve national security or terrorism. You can be sure it's miniscule: a fraction of a fraction of cases, in an environment where the number of both apprehensions and removals has plummeted in recent years. So what are trial attorneys supposed to be doing while waiting for these rare events? Apparently, putting other cases through the dump-'em spin cycle and twiddling their thumbs.
As to border security: If that's a priority, why aren't we seeing something concrete come out of these ongoing surge cases? Could that be because instead of expedited removal, or even fast-track deportation hearings, they've been treated to resettlement in communities all over the United States?
Then there's the canard about "public safety". As I mentioned earlier, ICE released tens of thousands in 2013, and again in 2014, including murderers, drug traffickers, as well as aliens convicted of weapons and sex offenses. (See here and here.)
There isn't any reason to think that ICE has learned its lesson about release of criminal aliens despite the hue and cry from members of Congress such as Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) or Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa).
But don't take my word for it — just read the part of the memo headed "Detained Aliens" on p. 3: "If prosecutorial discretion is to be exercised in a detained case where the alien is not subject to mandatory detention, in consultation with ERO [the Enforcement and Removals division of ICE], the respondent must be released prior to administrative closure. In the cases where a detained alien subject to mandatory detention may warrant the exercise of prosecutorial discretion, the alien may only be released after a motion to dismiss has been granted by EOIR [the Executive Office for Immigration Review — the immigration courts]."
This is another neat little bit of word-smithing to hide the fundamental oxymoron. If an alien is subject to mandatory detention, why would any responsible prosecutor move to dismiss the case? Consider, for instance, that among those aliens who are subject to mandatory detention are national security threats and aliens convicted of aggravated felonies. Now, weren't they just saying that this whole flush-the-system thing was to preserve national security and public safety?