PDA

View Full Version : Obama ICE Has Released More Than 8,000 Criminal Illegal Aliens Into U.S. Since 2009


HonestChieffan
06-01-2011, 06:35 PM
The administration only hopes they vote....


CNSNews.com) – The Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, which is responsible for enforcing U.S. immigration laws inside the country, has released more than 8,000 illegal aliens convicted of crimes onto the streets of the United States since fiscal 2009, according to ICE data released by House Judiciary Chairman Lamar Smith (R.-Texas).
Citing these statistics, Smith has introduced legislation that would allow Homeland Security’s ICE to keep criminal illegal aliens in custody longer than the current six-month period established by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The “Keep Our Communities Safe Act” is “desperately needed,” Smith said at a hearing about the bill on May 24 because of two high court rulings that said immigrants--and later illegal immigrants--could not be detained for more than six months, if efforts to return the immigrant to his or her home country failed.

The result, Smith said, are thousands of criminal illegal immigrants being released in the United States.

“In 2006, the Department of Homeland Security Inspector General reported that thousands of criminal immigrants with final orders of removal were being released into our streets because some countries frustrate the removal process,” Smith stated in his prepared remarks at the hearing.

Smith said the IG found that nearly 134,000 immigrants with final orders of removal instead had been released into U.S. communities from 2001 to 2004. The IG report also found that these illegal immigrants were unlikely to ever be repatriated because of the unwillingness of their home country to provide necessary travel documents.

“As of June 2004, more than 133,662 illegal aliens with or pending final orders of removal had been apprehended and released into the U.S. and who are unlikely to ever be repatriated if ordered removed because of the unwillingness of their country of origin to provide the documents necessary for repatriation,” the report states.

The 2006 report also says: “Currently, (Detention and Removal Operations) is unable to ensure the departure from the U.S. of all removable aliens. Of the 774,112 illegal aliens apprehended during the past three years, 280,987 (36%) were released largely due to a lack of personnel, bed space, and funding needed to detain illegal aliens while their immigration status is being adjudicated. This presents significant risks due to the inability of Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) and ICE to verify the identity, country-of-origin, and terrorist or criminal affiliation of many of the aliens being released.”

Although the 2006 IG report detailed the release of both criminal and non-criminal illegal immigrants, it did not break down those numbers. At the hearing, Smith distributed a spreadsheet on more recently released aliens that ICE had provided to his office.
This spreadsheet lists the number of “non-criminal” and “convicted criminal” illegal immigrants released by ICE in fiscals years 2009, 2010, and year-to-date 2011 under the rules of the Zadvydas v. Davis Supreme Court decision.

The ICE statistics show that the agency released 3,847 convicted criminal aliens in 2009; 3,882 in 2010; and 1,012 so far in 2011.


The data also show the citizenship country of the convicted criminal and non-criminal illegal immigrant. For example, in FY2009, 74 convicted criminal illegal immigrants from Somalia were released in the United States. Somalia is one of the 10 countries the U.S. government has designated “countries of interest” because of believed ties to terrorism.
Another 79 convicted criminal illegal immigrants from Somalia were released in 2010, according to the data.

According to the ICE spreadsheet, 36 convicted criminal illegal immigrants from the Sudan were released. Sudan is one of four countries the U.S. State Department considers a state sponsor of terror.

Smith cited cases in which a released immigrant shot a New York trooper, and another in which a released immigrant shot and killed Ft. Meyer police officer Andrew Widman, who left behind a wife and three children.

Gary Mead, executive associate director of enforcement and removal operations at ICE, told a House Judiciary subcommittee in testimony that illegal immigrants have been released who had committed crimes, “including, but not limited to, arson, assault, property damage, extortion, forgery or fraud, homicide, kidnapping, weapons offenses, embezzlement, controlled substance offenses, and sexual offenses.”
But, Mead said, part of ICE’s mission is “assuring that aliens released on orders of supervision comply with the conditions of their release.”

Mead also said that procedures are in place that allow for a longer detention by order of an immigration judge, if the individual is deemed “especially dangerous” based on a “mental condition or personality disorder and behavior associated with the disorder” to “ensure the safety of the public.”

Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), a member of the subcommittee, spoke out against Smith's bill.
“The Supreme Court has twice warned of the serious constitutional concerns that would be presented if our immigration laws authorized the indefinite and possibly permanent detention of civil immigrant detainees,” Lofgren said at the hearing. “In Zadvydas v. Davis [the first Supreme Court case that did not include consideration for illegal immigrants], the court said that ‘freedom from imprisonment--from government custody, detention or other forms of physical restraint--lies at the heart of the liberty that [the due process] clause protects.’”

Ahilan T. Arulanantham, deputy legal director with the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California, said Smith’s bill would cause the incarceration of immigrants who would otherwise help the economy.
“Creating a vast new federal detention authority, as the legislation under consideration is guaranteed to do, would result in the unnecessary detention of thousands more individuals who would otherwise contribute to the economy, serve their communities and support their families, which often include U.S. citizen children and spouses,” Arulanantham said in a statement.

“This legislation is desperately needed,” Smith said. “There is no excuse for needlessly placing American lives at risk.”

DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano has stated numerous times over the course of her tenure that removing criminal aliens was a priority of the Obama administration, including in November 2009 when she introduced the Secure Communities initiative.
“Secure Communities provides our local partners with an effective tool to identify and remove dangerous criminal aliens who pose a threat to public safety,” Napolitano said. “We will continue to expand these partnerships to provide a force multiplier for ICE's immigration enforcement efforts across the country.

Jenson71
06-01-2011, 06:41 PM
Do you think it was done for political reasons, Honest?

HonestChieffan
06-01-2011, 06:45 PM
Is there an acceptable reason?

Jenson71
06-01-2011, 07:01 PM
Is there an acceptable reason?

Why did you evade my question with a question of your own?

Bewbies
06-01-2011, 07:03 PM
Do you think it was done for political reasons, Honest?

The answer to this is yes, but more so because our politicians don't have the spine to enforce the law. Politicians from Obama all the way down to town mayors.

Jenson71
06-01-2011, 07:06 PM
The answer to this is yes, but more so because our politicians don't have the spine to enforce the law. Politicians from Obama all the way down to town mayors.

What about the Constitutional issue? Do you think that plays a factor in deciding how long to keep illegal immigrants detained in jails? My reading is that it plays the most significant factor.

HonestChieffan
06-01-2011, 07:23 PM
Why do we keep them at all? Cite the constitutional element that addresses our responsibility to keep illegal imimmigrants in our jails?

Jenson71
06-01-2011, 07:30 PM
Why do we keep them at all? Cite the constitutional element that addresses our responsibility to keep illegal imimmigrants in our jails?

What would you rather do with the illegal immigrant?

The Due Process clause applies to non-citizens.

HonestChieffan
06-01-2011, 07:52 PM
What would I do with them? Silly lad.

If they are here illegally, I would forthwith ship their ass to the closest border crossing back to wherever they came from with a care package of tasty treats and a bottle of water.

Due process? If they are here, determined in an illegal manner, does due process allow for food, shelter and care for some period of time?

Tell me Mr Jr litigator to be, what would you do with these poor souls who violate or laws and borders?

mnchiefsguy
06-01-2011, 07:54 PM
What would you rather do with the illegal immigrant?

The Due Process clause applies to non-citizens.

Once found to be in violation of the law and here illegally, they should be sent packing, at a minimum, not released back into society so that they can commit more crimes.

Jenson71
06-01-2011, 08:04 PM
What would I do with them? Silly lad.

If they are here illegally, I would forthwith ship their ass to the closest border crossing back to wherever they came from with a care package of tasty treats and a bottle of water.

Juan Garcia, an illegal immigrant, rapes and murders Sue Olsen, a 12 year old Arizona citizen. Your policy is to catch him, and instead of prosecuting him, ship him back to Mexico?

Jenson71
06-01-2011, 08:06 PM
Once found to be in violation of the law and here illegally, they should be sent packing, at a minimum, not released back into society so that they can commit more crimes.

But surely, you must want to prosecute a criminal, right?

Jenson71
06-01-2011, 08:07 PM
Due process? If they are here, determined in an illegal manner, does due process allow for food, shelter and care for some period of time?

Yeah, I think so.

HonestChieffan
06-01-2011, 08:08 PM
No. I'd fry the bastard as soon as possible.

Dont confuse issues of murder by an illegal with the illegals who are allowed to stay or come back repeatedly and make it some hypothetical classroom experience.

Jenson71
06-01-2011, 08:09 PM
Tell me Mr Jr litigator to be, what would you do with these poor souls who violate or laws and borders?

I wouldn't just send them back home without being prosecuted for the crime. Crimes are public wrongs against the people, and it's the duty of the state to prosecute criminals, in order to rectify the wrong some way.

Jenson71
06-01-2011, 08:10 PM
No. I'd fry the bastard as soon as possible.

Dont confuse issues of murder by an illegal with the illegals who are allowed to stay or come back repeatedly and make it some hypothetical classroom experience.

So you wouldn't ship illegals who commit crimes?

You just said, "If they are here illegally, I would forthwith ship their ass to the closest border crossing back to wherever they came . . ."

mnchiefsguy
06-01-2011, 08:13 PM
But surely, you must want to prosecute a criminal, right?

I said at at a minimum. Prosecute them, send them to jail (and make jail an unpleasant place--no TV, gyms to work out in, etc.--make it old fashioned prison without the creature comforts of today) and then send them back.

Surely you don't want to just let them back out into society without holding them accountable for the crimes they have committed?

Jenson71
06-01-2011, 08:17 PM
Surely you don't want to just let them back out into society without holding them accountable for the crimes they have committed?

I think my position on prosecuting crimes in this thread has been pretty clear. It was you and HonestChieffan who seemed to advocate catching criminals, then releasing them asap to their original country without prosecution.

What's the deal with these illegal aliens here? Why are they just sitting in jail for 6 months? What is holding up the state? Are they just very busy? Maybe banyon can give us some info, or someone else who knows something.

dirk digler
06-01-2011, 08:18 PM
Is there an acceptable reason?

Lol..maybe the Supreme Court ruling has something to do with it don't you think?

It clearly states if we can't deport them then we can't detain them past 6 months.

HonestChieffan
06-01-2011, 08:20 PM
Lol..maybe the Supreme Court ruling has something to do with it don't you think?

It clearly states if we can't deport them then we can't detain them past 6 months.

If they can sneak in here illegally, I bet they can sneak their ass home. How they get there is really not a big issue for me as long as they are not here.

mnchiefsguy
06-01-2011, 08:20 PM
I think my position on prosecuting crimes in this thread has been pretty clear. It was you and HonestChieffan who seemed to advocate catching criminals, then releasing them asap to their original country without prosecution.

What's the deal with these illegal aliens here? Why are they just sitting in jail for 6 months? What is holding up the state? Are they just very busy? Maybe banyon can give us some info, or someone else who knows something.

I advocate enforcing our laws, including the ones on immigration. ICE is not doing its job.

Jenson71
06-01-2011, 08:23 PM
I advocate enforcing our laws, including the ones on immigration. ICE is not doing its job.

That might be. What, particularly, is ICE not doing?

Jenson71
06-01-2011, 08:24 PM
If they can sneak in here illegally, I bet they can sneak their ass home. How they get there is really not a big issue for me as long as they are not here.

HYPOTHETICAL CLASSROOM SITUATION

mnchiefsguy
06-01-2011, 08:28 PM
That might be. What, particularly, is ICE not doing?

Read the original post. They are not turning over illegals for prosecution, nor are they deporting illegals back to their country of origin.

dirk digler
06-01-2011, 08:29 PM
If they can sneak in here illegally, I bet they can sneak their ass home. How they get there is really not a big issue for me as long as they are not here.

Ok but in order for them to sneak back we have to release them and hope they go back. That is the law as it is now like it or not.

But I don't get where you think they are being released for political reasons unless you believe that Bush was doing it too.

Jenson71
06-01-2011, 08:31 PM
Read the original post. They are not turning over illegals for prosecution, nor are they deporting illegals back to their country of origin.

Am I reading this wrong? My read is that they are doing so because they are ordered to do so by law, not because they are not doing their job.

dirk digler
06-01-2011, 08:33 PM
Read the original post. They are not turning over illegals for prosecution, nor are they deporting illegals back to their country of origin.

You are somewhat correct but it is not like they want to release them it is the law. And part of the reason why some aren't turned over is because they don't have the capacity to house the hundreds of thousands of illegals. And they can't deport them back if their home country won't take them.

Brock
06-01-2011, 08:35 PM
You are somewhat correct but it is not like they want to release them it is the law. And part of the reason why some aren't turned over is because they don't have the capacity to house the hundreds of thousands of illegals. And they can't deport them back if their home country won't take them.

You can't take them to the border crossing and march their asses across the bridge?

dirk digler
06-01-2011, 08:49 PM
You can't take them to the border crossing and march their asses across the bridge?

I guess not.

banyon
06-01-2011, 08:54 PM
Having talked to ICE attorneys, it's mainly an issue of space. They can only keep the most violent and dangerous and they don't have the space or budget to hold everyone. Immigration judges feel like they have to reserve detention for the worst of the worst.

They set bail on deportation hearings and SURPRISE, the same people who didn't care about laws prohibiting them from entering the country ignore the court's orders and don't show up for court much of the time.

Unless we want to create a good deal more space by raising taxes (GASP, I know!) or cutting other programs significantly, then this is the tradeoff.

Brock
06-01-2011, 09:09 PM
I guess not.

Why not?

stevieray
06-01-2011, 09:33 PM
Having talked to ICE attorneys, it's mainly an issue of space. They can only keep the most violent and dangerous and they don't have the space or budget to hold everyone. Immigration judges feel like they have to reserve detention for the worst of the worst.

They set bail on deportation hearings and SURPRISE, the same people who didn't care about laws prohibiting them from entering the country ignore the court's orders and don't show up for court much of the time.

Unless we want to create a good deal more space by raising taxes (GASP, I know!) or cutting other programs significantly, then this is the tradeoff.

informative post.

Especially the last line, and I think that this is where the rubber meets the road. I remember reading awhile back that Franklin raised money from private citizens to accomplish much needed tasks of the time. As long as Americans sit on their hands and wait for the authorities to create (space) holding facilities, the threat of justice will continued to be ignored. Considering the already existing prison overpopulation, and the fact that we have more people incarcerated than anyone in the world, the enormity of the problem really comes to light.

IIRC, a private prison opened in Colorado, or am I mistaken?

ClevelandBronco
06-01-2011, 10:42 PM
Having talked to ICE attorneys, it's mainly an issue of space. They can only keep the most violent and dangerous and they don't have the space or budget to hold everyone. Immigration judges feel like they have to reserve detention for the worst of the worst.

They set bail on deportation hearings and SURPRISE, the same people who didn't care about laws prohibiting them from entering the country ignore the court's orders and don't show up for court much of the time.

Unless we want to create a good deal more space by raising taxes (GASP, I know!) or cutting other programs significantly, then this is the tradeoff.

I must admit that I have a big problem with federal taxes being used to pay for space to house U.S. citizen prisoners who are convicted of breaking a state law. It seems to me that those prisoners aren't a federal problem, and the U.S. taxpayer shouldn't be on the hook for them.

On the other hand, when an illegal alien is convicted of any crime at all — be it federal, state, county, local, or HOA violation, I don't give a shit — the bill for housing that prisoner should be entirely on the U.S. taxpayer via the federal government. For those prisoners alone I can think of no argument against making the U.S. government responsible for paying for their incarceration, since it is the failure of the U.S. government that those criminals are in the U.S. in the first place.

The Mad Crapper
07-07-2011, 12:38 PM
http://www.moonbattery.com/illegal-aliens.jpg

Hopefully their free healthcare includes tattoo removal in the unlikely event they want to look for jobs.