© Bridgette WTPOTUS 2011
LAWLESSNESS PROMOTED and SANCTIONED BY ICE!
If there is a will, there is a way…and the Progressives, Marxists, and Democrats will cross every lawful line to get what they want be it by legal or ILLEGAL means. The Czars have their hidden responsibilities to get the administration’s agenda put into place; the Soros paid media site bloggers are given their daily talking points; Obama has his executive orders to circumvent Congress; and then there are his agency directors to enact policies or regulations to strangle their capitalist or conservative opponents, the corrupt judges and court systems players, and the complicit media to propagandize their actions or activities. One way or another…these traitors to our country are forcing their warped ideology, nation and world views on the unwitting populous of We the People of the United States.
The new policy directives for ICE, issued by John Morton, is the way around the Democrats “Dream Act” that could not win the necessary 60 votes to obtain Senate approval, although it had passed in the House during Nancy Pelosi’s reign. Just last year, the Dream Act failed passage three times. Not that the Democrats or Obama should take that as a sign to discontinue their purposeful march toward amnesty for ILLEGAL aliens.
Instead the Obama administration gave the orders to implement their “change” through another Marxist stooge. After all, election time is a year away, and Hispanic votes – illegal as well as legal, and fraudulent voting is necessary for the Democrats to win. So what we have is “Backdoor Amnesty” compliments of our corrupt administration. After all, aren’t the ILLEGALS now called the backbone of our society!
The new ICE policies echo the wishes of the Dream Act, and they give greater leniency to those ALIENS that are UNLAWFULLY, yes ILLEGALLY, in our country. Against the country’s wishes to maintain our borders, control the ILLEGALS coming into our country, Melton’s memo provides a way for ICE agents to look the other way when it comes to ILLEGALS. Against the will of We the People and the inability of Congress to pass legislation, Obama’s corrupt administration will now use a budgetary excuse for lawlessness to reign supreme across this land. “Come on over, no problem! If you can cross that river, get here!”
La Raza and other Hispanic activists yelled they wanted Obama to issue an Executive Order to make the DREAM Act a law. Instead, he has Melton do his bidding.
On January 23, Chris Wallace, FOX, discussed this ICE policy change with panel members. Charles Krauthammer had this to say.
This is outright lawlessness on the part of the administration. Whatever the politics of this, we do have a Constitution. And under it, the legislature, the Congress enacts the laws and the executive executes them. It doesn’t make them up.
The DREAM Act was rejected by Congress. It is now being enacted by the executive, despite the express will of the Congress. That is lawless. It may not be an explicit executive order, it’s an implicit one. It’s exactly as Obama is doing with the EPA. Cap and Trade is rejected so it’s gonna regulate the carbon emissions again through executive action.
And in this case, it’s even worse in the case of immigration because it’s arbitrary. If you leave it at the discretion of a prosecutor, instead of having the rule of law where it applies to everybody, you can have a prosecutor here and there who will decide well this guy will get in and this guy will not entirely arbitrarily. It’s corrupting and it’s lawless. That is not the way you run a democracy.
Following are excerpts of the Memorandum of June 17 by John Morton, Director of US Immigration and Customs Enforcement to all ICE Field Office Directors, Special Agents in Charge, and Chief Counsel. The entire directive can be read here. The emphasis of the material is mine.
SUBJECT: Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion Consistent with the Civil Immigration Enforcement Priorities of the Agency for the Apprehension, Detention, and Removal of Aliens.
This memorandum provides U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) personnel guidance on the exercise of prosecutorial discretion to ensure that the agency’s immigration enforcement resources are focused on the agency’s enforcement priorities. The memorandum also serves to make clear which agency employees may exercise prosecutorial discretion and what factors should be considered.
One of ICE’s central responsibilities is to enforce the nation’s civil immigration laws in coordination with U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). ICE, however, has limited resources to remove those illegally in the United States. ICE must prioritize the use of its enforcement personnel, detention space, and removal assets to ensure that the aliens it removes represent, as much as reasonably possible, the agency’s enforcement priorities, namely the promotion of national security, border security, public safety, and the integrity of the immigration system. These priorities are outlined in the ICE Civil Immigration Enforcement Priorities memorandum of March 2,2011, which this memorandum is intended to support.
Because the agency is confronted with more administrative violations than its resources can address, the agency must regularly exercise “prosecutorial discretion” if it is to prioritize its efforts. In basic terms, prosecutorial discretion is the authority of an agency charged with enforcing a law to decide to what degree to enforce the law against a particular individual. ICE, like any other law enforcement agency, has prosecutorial discretion and may exercise it in the ordinary course of enforcement 1.
When ICE favorably exercises prosecutorial discretion, it essentially decides not to assert the FULL scope of the enforcement authority available to the agency in a given case.
In the civil immigration enforcement context, the term “prosecutorial discretion” applies to a broad range of discretionary enforcement decisions, including but not limited to the following:
* deciding to issue or cancel a notice of detainer;
* deciding to issue, reissue, serve, file, or cancel a Notice to Appear (NTA);
* focusing enforcement resources on particular administrative violations or conduct;
* deciding whom to stop, question, or arrest for an administrative violation;
* deciding whom to detain or to release on bond, supervision, personal recognizance, or other condition;
* seeking expedited removal or other forms of removal by means other than a formal removal proceeding in immigration court;
* settling or dismissing a proceeding;
* granting deferred action, granting parole, or staying a final order of removal;
* agreeing to voluntary departure, the withdrawal of an application for admission, or other action in lieu of obtaining a formal order of removal;
* pursuing an appeal;
* executing a removal order; and
* responding to or joining in a motion to reopen removal proceedings and to consider joining in a motion to grant relief or a benefit.
Factors to Consider When Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion
When weighing whether an exercise of prosecutorial discretion may be warranted for a given alien, ICE officers, agents, and attorneys should consider all relevant factors, including, but not limited to–
* the agency’s civil immigration enforcement priorities;
* the person’s length of presence in the United States, with particular consideration given to presence while in lawful status;
* the circumstances of the person’s arrival in the United States and the manner of his or her entry, particularly if the alien came to the United States as a young child;
* the person’s pursuit of education in the United States, with particular consideration given to those who have graduated from a U.S. high school or have successfully pursued or are pursuing a college or advanced degrees at a legitimate institution of higher education in the United States;
* whether the person, or the person’s immediate relative, has served in the U.S. military, reserves, or national guard, with particular consideration given to those who served in combat;
* the person’s criminal history, including arrests, prior convictions, or outstanding arrest warrants;
* the person’s immigration history, including any prior removal, outstanding order of removal, prior denial of status, or evidence of fraud;
* whether the person poses a national security or public safety concern;
* the person’s ties and contributions to the community, including family relationships;
* the person’s ties to the home country and condition in the country;
* the person’s age, with particular consideration given to minors and the elderly;
* whether the person has a U.S. citizen or permanent resident spouse, child, or parent;
* whether the person is the primary caretaker of a person with a mental or physical disability, minor, or seriously ill relative;
* whether the person or the person’s spouse is pregnant or nursing;
* whether the person or the person’s spouse suffers from severe mental or physical illness;
* whether the person’s nationality renders removal unlikely;
* whether the person is likely to be granted temporary or permanent status or other relief from removal, including as a relative of a U.S. citizen or permanent resident;
* whether the person is likely to be granted temporary or permanent status or other relief from removal, including as an asylum seeker, or a victim of domestic violence, human trafficking, or other crimes; and
* whether the person is currently cooperating or has cooperated with federal, state or local law enforcement authorities, such as ICE, the U.S Attorneys or Department of Justice, the Department of Labor, or National Labor Relations Board, among others.
This list is not exhaustive and no one factor is determinative. ICE officers, agents, and attorneys should always consider prosecutorial discretion on a case-by-case basis. The decisions should be based on the totality of the circumstances, with the goal of conforming to ICE’s enforcement priorities.
That said, there are certain classes of individuals that warrant particular care. As was stated in the Meissner memorandum on Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion, there are factors that can help ICE officers, agents, and attorneys identify these cases so that they can be reviewed as early as possible in the process.
The following positive factors should prompt particular care and consideration:
* veterans and members of the U.S. armed forces;
* long-time lawful permanent residents;
* minors and elderly individuals
* individuals present in the United States since childhood;
* pregnant or nursing women;
* victims of domestic violence; trafficking, or other serious crimes;
* individuals who suffer from a serious mental or physical disability; and
* individuals with serious health conditions.
In exercising prosecutorial discretion in furtherance of ICE’s enforcement priorities, the following negative factors should also prompt particular care and consideration by ICE officers, agents, and attorneys:
* individuals who pose a clear risk to national security;
* serious felons, repeat offenders, or individuals with a lengthy criminal record of any kind;
* known gang members or other individuals who pose a clear danger to public safety; and
* individuals with an egregious record of immigration violations, including those with a record of illegal re-entry and those who have engaged in immigration fraud.
While ICE may exercise prosecutorial discretion at any stage of an enforcement proceeding, it is generally preferable to exercise such discretion as early in the case or proceeding as possible in order to preserve government resources that would otherwise be expended in pursuing the enforcement proceeding. As was more extensively elaborated on in the Howard Memorandum on Prosecutorial Discretion, the universe of opportunities to exercise prosecutorial discretion is large. It may be exercised at any stage of the proceedings.
It is also preferable for ICE officers, agents, and attorneys to consider prosecutorial discretion in cases without waiting for an alien or alien’s advocate or counsel to request a favorable exercise of discretion. Although affirmative requests from an alien or his or her representative may prompt an evaluation of whether a favorable exercise of discretion is appropriate in a given case, ICE officers, agents and attorneys should examine each such case independently to determine whether a favorable exercise of discretion may be appropriate.
In cases where, based upon an officer’s, agent’s, or attorney’s initial examination, an exercise of prosecutorial discretion may be warranted but additional information would assist in reaching a final decision, additional information may be requested from the alien or his or her representative. Such requests should be made in conformity with ethics rules governing communication with represented individuals 3 and should always emphasize that, while ICE may be considering whether to exercise discretion in the case, there is no guarantee that the agency will ultimately exercise discretion favorably. Responsive information from the alien or his or her representative need not take any particular form and can range from a simple letter or e-mail message to a memorandum with supporting attachments.
As there is no right to the favorable exercise of discretion by the agency, nothing in this memorandum should be construed to prohibit the apprehension, detention, or removal of any alien unlawfully in the United States or to limit the legal authority of ICE or any of its personnel to enforce federal immigration law. Similarly, this memorandum, which may be modified, superseded, or rescinded at any time without notice, is not intended to, does not, and may not be relied upon to create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law by any party in any administrative, civil, or criminal matter.
1 The Meissner memorandum’s standard for prosecutorial discretion in a given case turned principally on whether a substantial federal interest was present. Under this memorandum, the standard is principally one of pursuing those Cases that meet the agency’s priorities for federal immigration enforcement generally.
2 Delegation of Authority to the Assistant Secretary, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Delegation No. 7030.2 (November 13, 2004), delegating among other authorities, the authority to exercise prosecutorial discretion in immigration enforcement matters (as defined in 8 U.S.C. § 1 10 1 (a)(17».
3 For questions concerning such rules, officers or agents should consult their local Office of Chief Counsel.
To compare and contrast the Dream Act with these ICE policies, here is a link.
One has to wonder why a Disclaimer is necessary in a Memo from the Director of the enforcement agency. Obedience to our laws by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency, Homeland Security, or the Department of Justice is now a complete and pathetic joke. We may expect more adherence to laws on the books, but we get less and less.
Our so called US Government and their supportive minions are out of control. They are crossing the lines of a civil society and leading us into an abyss of sanctioned criminality. Those agencies are to protect and promote our freedom and liberties, and to OBEY our laws. They need to be reminded that of one of theirs and ICE’s central responsibilities is to ENFORCE the nation’s civil immigration laws, and they are not authorized to reinterpret the laws through their myopic lens.
UPDATE: A quick response by Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) in reaction to the new ICE policies.
The Republican chairman of the House Judiciary Committee is crafting a bill that would temporarily freeze the Obama administration’s power to grant amnesty to illegal immigrants.
The measure is in response to a memo issued by the head of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) last week that approved a broader breadth of discretion for agency officials when considering whether to deport someone through the Secure Communities program.
Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), who is sponsoring the legislation, blasted the memo. He said that under the new guidelines ICE agents could defer the deportations of “millions of deportable illegal and criminal immigrants.”
“The Obama administration cannot continue to pick and choose which laws it will enforce,” said Smith in a statement. “It is outrageous that they have put illegal immigrants and their liberal political base ahead of the American people.”
The 7,000-member ICE labor union has stated its opposition to the memo and issued a unanimous vote of no-confidence of ICE Director John Morton.