The director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, John Morton, issued a memo to his staff back in June, outlining 19 factors to consider when they decide which infractions of U.S. immigration law to ignore. Not coincidentally, several of these factors line up with the “DREAM Act” that was rejected by Congress at the end of the previous congressional session.
This has been under discussion ever since the DREAM Act failed, but now it looks like it’s actually happening. From a Fox News report:
Cecilia Munoz, White House director of intergovernmental affairs, wrote on the White House blog that the review would "clear out low-priority cases on a case-by-case basis and make more room to deport people who have been convicted of crimes or pose a security risk" - while ensuring the low-priority cases are kept "out of the deportation pipeline in the first place."
Describing groups of people similar to those targeted in the DREAM Act, she said the low-priority list would include "individuals such as young people who were brought to this country as small children, and who know no other home," as well as "individuals such as military veterans and the spouses of active-duty military personnel."
She said that with more than 10 million people in the country illegally, the strategy is meant to focus limited resources on those who pose the greatest risk.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid was overcome with joy, issuing a statement that said:
This new DHS directive will help prioritize our limited enforcement resources to focus on serious felons, gang members and individuals who are a national security threat rather than college students and veterans who have risked their lives for our country. I am especially pleased about the impact these new policies will have on those who would benefit from the DREAM Act. ... We lose a lot by sending them back to countries they do not know.
Every illegal alien is a “criminal,” as they have violated the immigration laws and border security of the United States… but these particular laws don’t really matter all that much. We don’t have the resources to enforce them. At any rate, the superior wisdom of imperial royalty like Harry Reid and Barack Obama obviously overrides the legislative processes laid out by the Constitution in a case like this.
As it turns out, there is no way for the American people or their representatives to vote against the DREAM Act. Its moral supremacy trumps all of the rights afforded to legal citizens, including the rights of self-determination and representation. It is a command, not a piece of legislation.
I guess things will become much smoother when we begin keeping “low-priority cases out of the deportation pipeline in the first place.” What is the point of having the U.S. Border Patrol or ICE at all? Isn’t it a huge waste of money, and a dangerous inconvenience to well-meaning illegal aliens, since it forces them to use unpleasant and risky methods to cross the border… but as long as they break no other laws, they’re completely safe once they get here? We already have cops to deal with people who commit other crimes, and we wouldn’t need huge government bureaucracies to establish that felons are illegal aliens in need of deportation.
Wouldn’t it be better to send taxpayer-funded buses into Mexico to pick up every decent soul who wants to enter the United States, after a background check and a brisk TSA pat-down, while simultaneously deploying military forces to wipe out anyone who still tries to sneak across the border? A lot of people die from violence, dehydration, and other causes while creeping through the border region. They also make an unholy mess of the property they pass through, and periodically assault land owners. We’d be saving money and lives by giving them bus rides.
Since the people we’re not really worried about would be screened in Mexico and safely transported into the United States, the military would be free to efficiently deal with anyone who still tries to sneak into our territory. Locating and destroying such intruders within military rules of engagement would be far more effective than leaving the undermanned Border Patrol to cope with thousands of miles of porous border.
Isn’t it interesting to hear the ruling class of the biggest, richest, most indebted country in the history of the world complain about “limited resources” for border security? They’ve got tons of resources to create “green jobs” at $2 million apiece, and send the President around the country on political junkets in million-dollar luxury buses. How many resources would be freed up if we got rid of, say, the White House Director of Intergovernmental Affairs, and most of the intergovernmental affairs she directs? How many Border Patrol agents could we hire if we scuttled Obama’s high-speed rail project?
This is how Big Government operates: limitless debt to fund its ideological preferences, but turned-out pockets filled with nothing but lint when it comes to carrying out Constitutional obligations that might displease certain useful voting blocs. Money is no object to the desires of the ruling class, but the resources to fulfill their duties are always painfully limited. It’s a long way from Martha’s Vineyard to El Paso.
