Monday, September 19, 2011

Expedited Removal, Again

Duncan Hunter has placed a bill before the House of Representatives dealing with expedited removal. It is uncertain why Hunter has proposed the bill, as it does not significantly expand the expedited removal authority of the Department of Homeland Security. The is some moderate wording that suggests that DHS is required to utilize expedited removal authority.

The Hill 09/16/11

Rep. Duncan Hunter says bill is partly a response to an administration policy that focuses on deporting immigrants who are a threat.

Twenty-one House Republicans on Thursday introduced legislation that would require immigration officials to deport illegal immigrants on an expedited basis.

The bill, H.R. 2952, was planned before the Obama administration announced a new policy that focuses on deporting immigrants who pose more of a threat to the U.S., such as those who have committed crimes. But the bill's chief sponsor, Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.), said it is partly a response to that policy decision, which he called a "blatant disregard for the law" because it would selectively enforce U.S. immigration laws.

"Laws are meant to be followed, and not ignored for convenience or political advantage," Hunter said in late August when he said his bill was pending.

"If someone is in the U.S. illegally, then that person is subject to deportation under the law, plain and simple," he added. "What the administration is doing is sending a loud message across our borders that we are not serious about enforcing our nation's immigration laws while backdoor channels remain wide open to millions of others."

Hunter's bill would require immigration officers to immediately remove immigrants who have not been continuously present in the U.S. for four years, except in some circumstances, such as when the immigrant has committed a crime or poses a threat to U.S. national security.

It would clarify the authority of officials to order the expeditious removal of criminal immigrants, and limit the ability to grant stays of removal to immigrants who have been ordered to be removed.

But that will not stop the Obama Regime from ignoring any new mandates to remove illegal aliens. The Regime is already ignoring, as its predecessors Bush and Clinton did, the full extent of their current authority under expedited removal.

It is clear to me that if the Obama Regime is going to ignore illegal aliens already here, to drop charges against illegal aliens in removal proceedings, and to reward illegal aliens with employment authorization, any new act will also be ignored.

Remember, the execrable Doris Meissner, said that instructions in legislation to perform an act may be legally and Constitutionally ignored by the Executive. According to the Regime, the meaning of "shall", like "is", is indeterminate.


Section 235(b)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1225(b)(1)(A)) is amended by striking clauses (i) through (iii) and inserting the following:

‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—If an immigration officer determines that an alien (other than an alien described in subparagraph (F)) who is arriving in the United States, or who has not been admitted or paroled into the United States and has not been physically present in the United States continuously for the 4-year period immediately prior to the date of the determination of inadmissibility under this paragraph, is inadmissible under section 212(a)(6)(C) or 212(a)(7), the officer shall order the alien removed from the United States without further hearing or review, unless...

Even of more interest, Hunter's bill did not significantly expand expedited removal. One would think with a stand alone bill he would have added wording expanding expedited removal or adding specific language beyond "shall" to require its use. Such as "an immigration officer, supervisor, or manager, who fails to implement this act, or acts in any manner to prohibit or discourage an employee of DHS from implenting this act shall be committing a felony punishable by 5 years imprisonment and shall be removed from office. Failure to implent this act by the President or an officer of the United States confirmed by the Senate of the United States shall be an impeachable offense." That would get the attention not only of the bureaucracy but of the Regime as well. Just another symptom of the too little too late nature of the Republican response to the Obama Regime Constitutional Crisis.

No comments: