On Tuesday, Will Ripley of 9 News hosted a debate on immigration and border-related issues with former U.S. Representative and Colorado gubernatorial candidate Tom Tancredo and Colorado Immigrant Rights Coalition Director Julien Ross.
Click here to watch a 9 minute clip of the debate.
For one of the loudest participants in our national dialogue on immigration issues, Mr. Tancredo displayed a surprising naïveté and ignorance on critical issues.
In the face of Mr. Ross’s point that 3/5 of the 11 million undocumented people in this country have been here for over a decade and are deeply rooted to their communities, Mr. Tancredo insisted that implementation of E-verify will cause them all to self-deport. Mr. Ross recommended a more comprehensive approach which would require the undocumented population to come out of the shadows and register, pay taxes, pay a fine, go through a background check, and learn English. This would immediately bring this population out of the shadows and allow immigration enforcement authorities to identify and focus on those who have been convicted of violent or dangerous crimes. In combination with an E-verify-type system, the proposals from Mr. Ross and others could be the backbone of a reform that would both deal with the 11 million undocumented people here now while preventing illegal immigration in the future.
Beyond his naïve belief that E-verify by itself will cause 11 million people to self-deport and resolve our immigration issues, Mr. Tancredo demonstrated startling ignorance of the law on his pet issue. At about minute 5:00 of the clip, the conversation turned to the DREAM Act (Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors). Mr. Ross told the story of a young man named Edgar who was brought to the United States as a seven year old, went to our schools, and then graduated from police academy. Our communities have invested resources in Edgar to educate him and now he is ready to serve his community as a police officer. But Edgar can’t do so because he does not have any documentation. The DREAM Act would allow people like Edgar to obtain a legal status and would allow our society to reap the benefits from these people that we have already invested our resources in.
Mr. Tancredo’s argument against the DREAM Act is that it is a way in which to give amnesty to all of the DREAM Act eligible person’s family members. At minute 6:10, Mr. Tancredo states that the “minute you become a legal resident, you have the ability to apply for that same residency for all of your family.” With Mr. Tancredo’s years of advocacy on immigration issues, he either knows that his statement here is completely untrue but says it anyway to try to advance his agenda or he has been utterly careless in researching an issue on which he holds himself out as an expert. First, DREAM Act students would not immediately become lawful permanent residents but would have to pass through a period of conditional status. Moreover, even when they do eventually become permanent residents, they cannot apply for that same status for all of their families. For instance, a permanent resident from Mexico can file an immigrant petition for his spouse, but under current wait times the spouse would not be able to gain resident status for years. The same would be true for the child of a permanent resident. Under section 1153(a) of Title 8 of the U.S. Code, a permanent resident cannot petition at all for his parents or brothers or sisters. If some day, say in 11 years (six years in conditional status plus five years as lawful permanent resident as required for naturalization), the DREAM Act kid successfully became a naturalized citizen, at that time he could apply for his parents and siblings. Of course, the siblings who were born in Mexico would have to wait for 15-20 more years under current processing times to be able to get their resident status.
The idea that the DREAM Act allows the beneficiary to get amnesty for his entire family “the minute he gets his status” is absurd and can be debunked with a few minutes of research. It’s not immediately clear which would be worse: if Mr. Tancredo knew this and lied about it or if he honestly doesn’t understand and hasn’t researched this issue that he spends so much of his time advocating on.
Kudos to Julien Ross of CIRC for his performance in the debate. As for Tom Tancredo, there are plenty of arguments to be made on different sides of the immigration debate and there is no need for him to make misrepresentations about the facts or the law. If he wants to carry the bullhorn for the anti-immigration reform crowd, he owes it to them research the issues and present the facts honestly.
The new Morton memo is significant because it clarifies that the actions that can be used to exercise prosecutorial discretion include decisions on whether to:
- Issue or cancel a notice of detainer;
-“Reissue” or “serve” Notices to Appear (NTA); this gives an ICE officer the flexibility to allow a respondent to accrue the necessary continuous residence or continuous physical presence time for LPR and non-LPR cancellation, respectively;
-Settle or dismiss a proceeding; this appears to apply at all stages of a removal proceeding, including federal court appeals.
The memo cites as favorable factors to consider: whether the case falls within agency priorities, whether the person has graduated from a U.S. high school or is in pursuit of higher education, family relationships. Only a few negative factors are listed warranting “particular” consideration, including national security risks, serious felons, repeat offenders, those with lengthy criminal records, gang members, and “egregious” immigration violators.
The memo encourages ICE officers to proactively consider prosecutorial discretion even without being asked to do so.
Only a month after the roll-out of the new Morton memos, it is still to be seen how they will play out in the field. Hopefully they will be used to help ICE keep its focus on its stated goal of deporting serious criminal offenders and dangers to the community while spending less time chasing the deportations of DREAM Act eligible and other non-priority cases.
Posts
All Comments
