Free Markets, Free People

Homeland Security’s arbitrary law enforcement

Apparently if you don’t like the law and you’re the Homeland Security Department – you know, the department charged with ensuring your safety – you can just quietly refuse to do your job.  Judicial Watch clues us in:

A month after the Department of Homeland Security launched a covert program to dismiss pending deportations there’s been an increase of more than 700% in the number of cases that have been dropped by the government in one of the nation’s busiest immigration court systems.

In August Homeland Security officials quietly began to systematically dismiss the pending removal of illegal immigrants, even when expulsion was virtually guaranteed or the aliens had a criminal record. The move, first reported by Texas’s largest newspaper, stunned the legal profession and baffled immigration attorneys who said it was “absolutely fantastic” for their illegal alien clients.

Instead of enforcing the law, they’ve decided to interpret it as they wish and to modify the criteria for expulsion to whatever they arbitrarily decide

However, EOIR’s liaison with the American Immigration Lawyers Association, Raed Gonzalez, said he was briefed on the guidelines in August directly by DHS’ deputy chief counsel in Houston and described a broader set of internal criteria.

Government attorneys in Houston were instructed to exercise prosecutorial discretion on a case-by-case basis for illegal immigrants who have lived in the U.S. for at least two years and have no serious criminal history, Gonzalez said.

To qualify for dismissal, defendants also must have no felony record or any misdemeanor convictions involving DWI, sex crimes or domestic violence, he said.

Now before some nimrod who never reads the blog beams in and claims I’m “anti-immigration”, let’s be clear.  No, I’m not.  But we have a proper and legal way of immigrating into this country and an improper and illegal way of doing so.  The government’s job is to enforce the law and its priority should be the protection of the rights of its citizens.  Decisions to arbitrarily enforce law or not enforce it at all shouldn’t be within the ability of the government’s enforcement agencies to decide.  We have a process for that – it’s called legislation. 

As I recall, law enforcement agencies require oaths of their agents to “enforce the law”.  Not to “internally” decide to modify them to suit their tastes or a political agenda.

I understand the “system” is broken.  But “clearing a backlog” by dismissing cases against law breakers on whatever grounds simply encourages more of the illegal behavior they’ve displayed.  If there’s really no risk in flaunting the law, there’s no reason not to engage in the behavior that breaks it.

Obviously the immigration system needs to be overhauled and immigration brought into the 21st century with a speedier and less costly process that better serves all. 

But that is a separate issue from the subject of this post.  It is dangerous and destructive to have government agencies who have been charged with enforcing the law to be internally deciding what if any of the law they will enforce.  It’s just another example of the government not serving the needs of those it is Constitutionally charged with protecting.  It has, however, become almost a trademark of this administration.

~McQ

[ad] Empty ad slot (#1)!

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

6 Responses to Homeland Security’s arbitrary law enforcement

  • A student I met in Austria pointed out that you dense righties are code word racists because you hate the noble brown savages from Mexico. I don’t care that you say you’re not. You doth protest too much. LOL.

    And don’t start up about the irony of an Austrian passing out accusations of racism. He’s a good fellow, a pragmatic moderate leftist like me.

    Besides, we just want to help you get over your racism. {chuckle} {giggle} We know you’re wigged out from the stress of being in the military, McQ. You should sign up for one of my online seminars. You’ll come out of it a different person. I’ll even teach you how to deal with giant magenta caterpillars with Sarah Palin’s face and ample bosom. The blue pills seem to work best.

    • Do you have a link to the codebook ?  I’ve been looking for it since the 60′s.

      • One I know for sure -
        Illegal Immigration is always shortened to Immigration.
         
        I’m not sure if it’s because liberals:
        a) can’t handle the idea that Illegal Immigration is different from legal Immigration
        b) can’t be bothered with the concept of a national border
        c) don’t care if there’s a difference as long as the illegals will vote (illegally of course) for liberal causes
        d) need to be able to label anyone who disagrees with them racist, even if race is not the issue
        e) are truly just well educated morons

  • To qualify for dismissal, defendants also must have no felony record or any misdemeanor convictions involving DWI, sex crimes or domestic violence…

    I suppose that we should be grateful that the DHS has SOME standards.

    This selective enforcement of the law SHOULD be a national scandal.  However, because it’s a democrat administration doing it, I expect that we won’t hear too much more about it.

    Unless, of course, a GOP majority starts investigating and pushing for actual enforcement of the law, in which case I expect LOTS of coverage… about how racist the GOP is.

  • Hypocrisy check (reverse the situation to see if you get the same reaction):  What if the Bush (R) administration had arbitrarily decided to not enforce laws regarding, oh, say…  business taxes, the environment, or free speech?  Do you think we would get the same reaction from the MSM?
    If your answer is, “no,” they you have identified the MSM as hypocrites.