deportation policy shift starting

[A and T 82]

Ive been waiting over 2 years to get approved to bring my wife to the usa, and spent thousands of dollars and I am still waiting. I guess we just need to fly to mexico and hop the fence if this is the case. Clearly the government is sending the message that USCIS is broken and they dont care

Ive been waiting over 2 years to get approved to bring my wife to the usa, and spent thousands of dollars and I am still waiting. I guess we just need to fly to mexico and hop the fence if this is the case. Clearly the government is sending the message that USCIS is broken and they dont care

[PantomimeGoose 59]

The 'children are not punished if their parents commit a murder' analogy is not an accurate one. This amnesty is more akin to saying 'Your parents robbed a bank, and you had no idea, but since your quality of life has been higher all these years from their ill-gotten gains, we will now not deprive you of continuing to benefit from the money they have stolen'. I suspect the amnesty will only encourage more illegal immigration: after all, lots of folks would probably steal if they knew that the proceeds were safely securing their children's future.

With that said, having worked on the border investigating illegal crossings, I'm of the opinion we should set up a welcome station somewhere around Alpine, TX. For everyone who crosses the desert undetected, with a few canvas sacks of water on their back, welcome to them! We can send an investment banker in the other direction.

I am interested in this legislation, because as I understand it, current law in many states actually makes it fairly difficult for someone to undergo deportation proceedings for moderate crimes. As explained to me by a lawyer, this, rather than profiling, was actually a large part of the intent of Arizona's seemingly draconian laws in recent years. Will this new legislation refocus these resources to help keep the "serious criminal" element out of the country? It has measures to give amnesty to 'non-criminal' illegal immigrants, but does anyone know how they propose to increase and improve deportation for serious offenders without letting them languish in jail on the American tax dollar?

[crazykuya73 16]

So you impersonated an ICE employee in order to prove a point about following laws - that makes a lot of sense.

Yeah I proved my point, sciencenerd... You got a problem with me finding out the truth ? Or maybe I'm supposed to be like the rest of liberal society and pretend illegal immigration doesn't exist ?

[JimVaPhuong 4,863]

The 'children are not punished if their parents commit a murder' analogy is not an accurate one. This amnesty is more akin to saying 'Your parents robbed a bank, and you had no idea, but since your quality of life has been higher all these years from their ill-gotten gains, we will now not deprive you of continuing to benefit from the money they have stolen'. I suspect the amnesty will only encourage more illegal immigration: after all, lots of folks would probably steal if they knew that the proceeds were safely securing their children's future.

With that said, having worked on the border investigating illegal crossings, I'm of the opinion we should set up a welcome station somewhere around Alpine, TX. For everyone who crosses the desert undetected, with a few canvas sacks of water on their back, welcome to them! We can send an investment banker in the other direction.

I am interested in this legislation, because as I understand it, current law in many states actually makes it fairly difficult for someone to undergo deportation proceedings for moderate crimes. As explained to me by a lawyer, this, rather than profiling, was actually a large part of the intent of Arizona's seemingly draconian laws in recent years. Will this new legislation refocus these resources to help keep the "serious criminal" element out of the country? It has measures to give amnesty to 'non-criminal' illegal immigrants, but does anyone know how they propose to increase and improve deportation for serious offenders without letting them languish in jail on the American tax dollar?

Keep in mind that this isn't legislation. It's an executive order. It doesn't change the law. It changes the way DHS enforces the law.

[PantomimeGoose 59]

Apologies, I misunderstood that. So this might be expected to have the effect of a sort of a decriminalization of an already ineffectively policed infraction (illegal immigration) then?

[JimVaPhuong 4,863]

Apologies, I misunderstood that. So this might be expected to have the effect of a sort of a decriminalization of an already ineffectively policed infraction (illegal immigration) then?

No, it doesn't even do that.

Decriminalization would mean changing the law so that an act that used to be a crime is now an infraction. This executive order doesn't do that because, firstly, it doesn't change the law, and secondly, neither entry without inspection (EWI) nor unlawful presence are crimes. You can't be prosecuted and sentenced to jail for either one. Both EWI and unlawful presence are contrary to the law, but the only corrective action the US government can take is to remove the offender from the United States. Some would argue that the deportation process is comparable to being prosecuted and punished, but that's never been the position of the US government. Unlawful presence is comparable to taking something without permission, and deportation is comparable to making that person return what they took. The policy of the US government is that deportation is not punishment.

The only thing this executive order does is tell aliens who are unlawfully present and haven't been convicted of a crime that they won't be deported today. That doesn't change their status. They're still in the US illegally, and they could still be deported in the future. An executive order can be rescinded anytime with another executive order. This particular executive order will be rescinded shortly after the next presidential election, regardless who wins that election.

[TBoneTX 45,284]

With that said, having worked on the border investigating illegal crossings, I'm of the opinion we should set up a welcome station somewhere around Alpine, TX.

That "welcome station" is already there (as perhaps you know), in the form of the ####### CBP checkpoint where U.S. citizens are routinely harassed. At least at the other inland CBP checkpoints in Texas, the agents tend to know the boundaries of their authority. It's eerie and ironic that you would cite Alpine out of all the locations in Texas that could possibly be mentioned; is there a reason?

If you don't mind, what was the nature of your investigatory work?

Edited August 28, 2011 by TBoneTX

[PantomimeGoose 59]

Thanks for the response Jim. Interesting and complex stuff.

TBone: I was mostly being facetious about the 'welcome station' comment. Just trying, in my awkward way, to express ambivalence about something that I might disagree with from a legal standpoint, while having sympathy for the people who are desperate enough to put themselves through hell to cross the border. I'm an anthropologist and we were studying cultural/ecological impacts of illegal crossings. I thought of Alpine because the desert below it is one of the longer, less populated distances people can travel through wilderness without hope of aid. I never had any problems with either of the check points there, but know a lot of people who have. : p

[TBoneTX 45,284]

TBone: I was mostly being facetious about the 'welcome station' comment. Just trying, in my awkward way, to express ambivalence about something that I might disagree with from a legal standpoint, while having sympathy for the people who are desperate enough to put themselves through hell to cross the border.

No need to apologize, no man; facetiousness understood. (By the way, "facetious" is one of the few English words with all 5 vowels, and in the right order.)

I'm an anthropologist and we were studying cultural/ecological impacts of illegal crossings. I thought of Alpine because the desert below it is one of the longer, less populated distances people can travel through wilderness without hope of aid.

Fascinating, si man -- are you at liberty to divulge some of your findings, or can you provide citations for any published journal articles by your group?

I never had any problems with either of the check points there, but know a lot of people who have.

If I ever go back there again, I know exactly what to say to those goons, who somehow believe that this is their country more than it is ours. Edited August 29, 2011 by TBoneTX

[PantomimeGoose 59]

Ha! Nice- I never realized that about "facetious".

Most of our findings (for the part of the project I was working on) had to do with damage to archaeological, paleontological, and sensitive ecological habitats. I think our report is only available through the national park service because they don't want people to use the information to loot or damage any of the places we visited.

If you google "UDA survey and National Parks Service", you can access some of the public abstracts and stuff for some of the intern projects.

What it boils down to is that in some places, especially on the border of Arizona, you get massive crossings with lots of trash, piles of bicycles, new trails destroying protected habitats, and hundreds or maybe even thousands of people coming in regularly. In other places where people have to go a long distance before they can hope to meet a contact, hitch a ride, or knock on the door of a house to replenish their supplies, crossings are rarer and probably seasonal, or perpetrated by cartels who have the network and the resources to get people through. In the places along the west Texas border, there seem to only be a handful of routes, and water can be so scarce that you have to be pretty desperate to risk it.

[TBoneTX 45,284]

Ha! Nice- I never realized that about "facetious".

"Abstemiously" is another, si man.

Most of our findings (for the part of the project I was working on) had to do with damage to archaeological, paleontological, and sensitive ecological habitats. I think our report is only available through the national park service because they don't want people to use the information to loot or damage any of the places we visited.

Makes sense, si man.

If you google "UDA survey and National Parks Service", you can access some of the public abstracts and stuff for some of the intern projects.

I shall do so, si man.

What it boils down to is that in some places, especially on the border of Arizona, you get massive crossings with lots of trash, piles of bicycles, new trails destroying protected habitats, and hundreds or maybe even thousands of people coming in regularly. In other places where people have to go a long distance before they can hope to meet a contact, hitch a ride, or knock on the door of a house to replenish their supplies, crossings are rarer and probably seasonal, or perpetrated by cartels who have the network and the resources to get people through. In the places along the west Texas border, there seem to only be a handful of routes, and water can be so scarce that you have to be pretty desperate to risk it.

Agreed with all of this, si man. If you were working south of Alpine, were you in Big Bend Park, or Big Bend Ranch State Park, or around Presidio/Ojinaga? Believe it or not, a new "Class B" border-crossing is due to open in March or April 2011 around Boquillas, if I remember.

Also of note, in regard to sensitive ecological habitats, some environmentalists remain concerned that the "border fence" is harming several species of critters that live on both sides of the river.