Illegal Immigration’s Six Strikes

This is likely an unintended consequence of the Democrats’ fishing expedition. I doubt they really wanted this information to get out given their pro-amnesty stance. The information also indicates a good reason why several of the 8 attorneys deserved to be fired.

It is obvious that we need to streamline the visa process and make it easier for people who desire to become citizens to enter the country.  It is also not an unreasonable expectation that immigration law be enforced and identity theft that goes along with illegal immigration be addressed.   Clearly, that is not the case.
Excerpt from FoxNews:

Guidelines issued by U.S. attorneys in Texas showed that most illegal immigrants crossing into the state had to be arrested at least six times before federal authorities would prosecute them, according to an internal Justice Department memo.

The disclosure provides a rare view of how federal authorities attempt to curb illegal immigration. The memo was released this week in response to a congressional investigation of the dismissals of eight U.S. attorneys.

The Border Patrol makes more than 1 million arrests a year on the U.S.-Mexico border. T.J. Bonner, head of a union representing Border Patrol agents, said it’s unrealistic to prosecute all violators.

“Let’s be honest, there isn’t enough jail space to incarcerate everyone who crosses that border,” said Bonner, president of the National Border Patrol Council. “If everyone demanded hearing in front of an immigration judge, it would bring our system to a grinding halt in a matter of days.”

It is unclear when the memo was written, but the Justice Department reviewed the guidelines sometime after a February 2005 performance review of Carol Lam, the top federal prosecutor in San Diego from 2002 until she was fired last month. Some Republican lawmakers had complained that Lam failed to aggressively prosecute immigration violations.

Excerpt from the Houston Chronicle:

The prosecution guidelines have been a source of frustration for years among the ranks of U.S. Border Patrol agents, said T.J. Bonner, president of the National Border Patrol Council. Smugglers can figure out the criteria by trial and error, he said, and can exploit it to avoid prosecution.

“It’s devastating on morale,” Bonner said. “Our agents are risking their lives out there, and then they’re told, ‘Sorry, that doesn’t meet the criteria.’ ”

The memo was written in response to DOJ inquiries at five U.S. attorney offices, including Houston, about immigration prosecutions. The others — San Antonio, San Diego, Phoenix and Albuquerque — cover the 2,000-mile border.

In a statement, DOJ spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said the agency sent 30 prosecutors to districts along the Southwest border in 2006. The added manpower “will permit districts to adjust their guidelines and take in more cases,” according to the statement.


4 thoughts on “Illegal Immigration’s Six Strikes

  1. Granted, I haven’t been following the U.S. Attorney story as closely as I could, but how do guidelines written by a Texas U.S. Attorney explain the firings of U.S. Attorneys in other states? Or is it an assumption — unspoken — that that might be the reason behind it? If that were the case, why wouldn’t the Administration have loudly declared its concerns at the time of the firings? It would actually have been some evidence that the Administration was in fact paying attention to immigration problems.

  2. >The information also indicates a good reason why several of the 8 attorneys deserved to be fired.

    Maybe I should have clarified this. Basically, it is my understanding that those fired have been portrayed as ‘pure as the driven snow’. The Texas case as well as that of San Diego (both dealt with immigration) indicate that there may well have been cause for the terminations (besides the fact the positions are “at will”).

    That doesn’t mean the others were fired due to immigration issues. They may have been poor performers or the admin, like a regular employer, just decided to make changes and get some new blood. The stories bring the ‘pure as the driven snow’ thing into question.

    In some ways, I think it would’ve been better for the Bush admin to have completely cleaned house and (like Clinton) fired everyone when he came to office. That way, no one (including the Dems) could have gone on a fishing expedition and claimed the terminations were politically motivated etc. The argument is that Bush didn’t want fire everyone because of the effects it could have on ongoing investigations etc.

    In terms of the admin and immigration, they don’t get high marks. I doubt they would want to champion a stricter enforcement stance given the cozy relationship with Mexico’s President(s). Mexico already gets its shorts in a wad whenever anyone in the admin whispers enforcement – a tougher standard is something this administration would keep quiet.

  3. I read this article online at the Houston Chronicle website back in March.

    For the last 4 or 5 days I’ve been trying to find it again on the Chronicle’s website, because I want to use it to make a point in a piece of writing for another website. Trying different search words and terms, I had no luck.

    Finally I stumbled upon your website as the words hit it in a google search. Tried your link to the Chronicle’s article; it has been removed and isn’t even archived on their site…yet it’s barely 2 months old!!

    At least Fox still has it on their site, but no surprise that the Chronicle wants to hide such an ‘inflamitory’ piece of journalism…

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s