Selective immigration enforcement
The Obama administration's dubious claims of enforcing immigration laws come under renewed fire in a report showing selective enforcement against illegal aliens, even those convicted of crimes.
Agents with Immigration and Customs Enforcement last year charged only about 195,000 illegals of the 722,000 facing deportation, according to the report by the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS). Even worse, ICE freed 68,000 illegals convicted of crimes, amounting to a third of criminal aliens encountered, according to CIS.
In what amounts to prosecutory discretion, ICE officers are instructed to release illegals who are parents or caregivers or who claim to be students, writes Jessica M. Vaughan for CIS. And convictions for certain state crimes are ignored if the administration is opposed to the state law or believes it's too harsh, according to the report.
Political considerations, family relationships and “other factors not related to public safety” also reportedly are weighed. So, “the law” is what the Obama administration says it is.
“The preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that immigration enforcement in America has collapsed,” writes Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala.
At issue isn't a lack of resources — not when President Obama consistently seeks to cut ICE's budget, according to The Heritage Foundation. It's a flagrant, continuing and inexcusable disregard for the law.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- U.N. Watch: Another jaded ‘inquiry’
- The revolving door: Washington’s ‘gift’
- Pension reform should not be linked to a natural gas extraction tax
- Expanding Medicaid: Gov.-elect Wolf embraces a false premise