More Evidence Of The Immigration Court Amnesty
Print Friendly and PDF

Lawless radical political appointees in several States are continuing an unlawful amnesty for illegal aliens. This time it is not the Regime, but faceless bureaucrats in the Department of Justice, Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), previously identified by this blog as part of the problem, not part of the solution.

“ABC 7 October 26, 2011

California Courts More Lenient On Deportations

Federal courts [sic. Hearing Officers of the EOIR are not Federal judges, e.g. Article III judges, but employees of the Executive Branch, specifically the Department of Justice.] in California have been more likely to allow immigrants to remain in the United States in recent years, despite a widespread perception that federal officials are cracking down and sending more people back to their native countries.

During the first two years of the Obama administration, the number of immigrants ordered deported by the courts has declined nearly 10 percentage points, to nearly half off all cases handled in the California-based immigration courts, according to a new report by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, a nonpartisan group that tracks detailed government data.

The shift has been most pronounced in San Diego, where 64 percent of cases resulted in deportation in 2009. This year, that number is down to 46 percent. Immigration courts in Los Angeles, Imperial and San Francisco counties, as well as in Lancaster, also have seen decreases in the percentage of cases that resulted in deportation since 2008.

Immigration attorneys said they have noticed that Immigration and Customs Enforcement has been far more aggressive in its arrests, but the federal courts appear to be giving immigrants more time to sort out their cases and, therefore, avoid deportation for longer periods...

Despite the recent trend, the decrease in the number of deportations appears to have stalled for some federal courts in California in the first 10 months of 2011, according to the clearinghouse.

For example, Los Angeles immigration judges deported about 58 percent of their cases in 2008, dropping to about 38 percent in 2010. But the number of deportations for the first 10 months of 2011 was about 47 percent in Los Angeles-based immigration courts, the report showed. Imperial County also saw a small increase in the number of deportations for the first 10 months of 2011.”

This silent and under the radar administrative amnesty is part and parcel of the Obama Regime plan, as the Regime is not appealing the illegal findings of the Hearing Officers to the Board of Immigration Appeals, who would be compelled to halt the overreach of the politically ambitious Hearing Officers, who are frankly jealous of the power and authority of Article III judges. And have unrestrained political ambitions to create their own special judiciary, and consequently making policy in place of Congress.

The New York Times February 8, 2010

Lawyers Back Creating New Immigration Court

By Julia Preston February 8, 2010

“Responding to pleas from immigration judges and lawyers who say the nation’s immigration courts are faltering under a crushing caseload, the American Bar Association called Monday for Congress to scrap the current system and create a new, independent court for immigration cases.

In a vote at its semiannual meeting in Orlando, Fla., the lawyers’ organization endorsed a recommendation for a separate immigration court system that would be similar to federal courts that decide tax cases...

Immigration cases have become more complex, especially asylum cases, where immigrants are asking to remain in the United States because they claim to fear life-threatening violence if they return home. With the pace of their work accelerating, immigration judges often feel asylum hearings are “like holding death penalty cases in traffic court,” said Dana L. Marks, an immigration judge in San Francisco and the president of the National Association of Immigration Judges.

“There have been increasing concerns about the propriety of housing a neutral court in the law enforcement arm of the government,” Judge Marks said.

In the proposal adopted Monday, the bar association argued that immigration courts should be removed from the Department of Justice and set up as independent courts, still within the executive branch, under terms in Article I of the Constitution. The highest judges would be appointed by the president and approved by the Senate. The courts’ decisions would still be appealed to the federal appeals courts.

Judges and lawyers said the independent courts would have greater credibility and more power to seek funds from Congress, leading to more resources for judges, shorter terms of detention for immigrants and fewer appeals to federal circuit courts, which are highly costly.”

They want to become the Warren Courts of immigration and Marks embodies that ambition, with a notorious reputation for credulity in asylum cases and utter lawlessness in other immigration cases.

What is needed is the full implementation of and expansion of Expedited Removal to all aliens other than legal permanent residents and asylum seekers. All other aliens should be subject to administrative removal. That would save many millions of dollars in court costs and deter illegal immigration.

Print Friendly and PDF