Recent Immigration Issues

On November 29 & 30, 2011, I gave you my opinion on illegal immigration (see Our Borders & Illegal Immigration and the Immigration Reform blogs). On December 24 I heard that a federal judge ruled that an Arizona Sheriff cannot detain people solely based on the suspicion that they’re in the country illegally as this sets the stage for a possible racial profiling trial; on January 17, 2012 the Arizona Sherriff appealed the judge’s ruling and on March 1 a judge blocked part of Arizona’s immigration law. On April 28 we hear that immigration officials plan to ease up on suspected illegal immigrants charged with minor traffic violations. May 9 it was reported that there is a new Border Patrol strategy that targets repeat crossers. May 10 it’s said that federal prosecutors are to sue an Arizona Sheriff for civil rights violations. On June 25 the Supreme Court although it struck down parts of Arizona’s immigration law did uphold that law enforcement during a routine stop can ask for proof that you belong here legally – the ruling was that states can assist in enforcing existing federal law but can’t make it a state crime to be in the country illegally or get a job – Arizona will have to turn suspects over to the federal government for a decision on deportation. This decision should prevent the feds from suing the Sheriff. Romney said during the primary debates that he saw a model in the Arizona immigration law and Obama did nothing and was leaving it to the states; on June 26 he avoided the issue.  

In other Supreme Court cases: Vartelas v. Holder the issue was: The 1996 immigration act stripped some green-card holders of the right to travel abroad briefly and be guaranteed re-entry. Can the act apply retroactively to a green-card holder who pleaded guilty before 1996 and traveled abroad thereafter? (After Panagis Vartelas became a permanent resident in 1989 he pleaded guilty to a crime. Returning from a one week 2003 trip to Greece, he was ordered deported and he filed a motion to reopen the case on the retroactivity question.) The BIA refused to hear the case as did the 2nd Circuit. On March 28, 2012 with a 6-3 vote the Court reversed and remanded the case holding that the enforcement of a provision of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 was applied retroactively to Panagis Vartelas and was thus unconstitutional. And in Holder v. Gutierrez et al (linked with Holder v. Sawyers as it raised the same questions) the issue was: Noncitizens facing deportation can remain in the US by proving they lived here for 7 straight years and were lawful permanent residents for no less than 5. If a noncitizen lived with a parent as a minor can he count the parent’s lawful years as his own? The 9th Circuit said yes and ordered the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) to reconsider the case of Carlos Gutierrez a Mexican citizen. The government appealed. On May 21, 2012 with a 9-0 vote the Court reversed and remanded the case thus deciding in favor of Attorney General Holder and holding that the BIA reasonably concluded that an alien must independently meet the statutory requirements of 8 USC § 1229b(a) to be eligible to obtain relief from the Attorney General from being deported out of the United States and may not impute the time during which his/her parent lawfully resided in the United States.   

January we heard the Obama administration planned a change in immigration rules so that time is reduced for illegal immigrants being away from their US citizen relatives while awaiting legal status. In June the President issued an Executive Order to allow a deportation reprieve of about 800,000 16-30 year old illegal immigrants if they’ve been in the US 5 years and have committed no crime; they also must be in school, a high school graduate, have served in the military and/or apply for a work permit and be recertified every 2 years; he said it’s not amnesty or immunity; Homeland Security said it was a law enforcement decision so that they could focus their manpower on criminals and terrorists; critics say the Order is unconstitutional; this action conflicts with what Obama said to Univision in March 2011; Neil Munro heckled the President during his announcement saying the President was choosing foreigners over Americans; the President responded with it was the right thing to do for the American people; radio host Glenn Beck said the move was like that of a dictator; Romney didn’t disagree with the President but did say he has a plan of his own (remember Romney’s approach during the January debates). On June 18 Marco Rubio a potential Romney Vice President candidate said the President should have worked with Congress to deal with immigration, he said he has his own version of the Dream Act and no one in Washington has contacted him (Rubio’s plan is not the same as Romney’s); his message is that they come for a better life for their children (I hope this is what Americans want for their children also). On June 26 when Romney was asked on Face the Nation about the June 15 Obama announcement, Romney only said that he’d look at it. You would think 11 days would have been enough to know if he’d repeal it or leave it alone.

On July 4 the President presided over the Naturalized Citizens ceremony where 25 military foreign born personnel became citizens.

As immigration is still a hot button, I’ll go into this issue more tomorrow.