Immigration Politics Georgia

looking for a better life • news and pro-enforcement opinion

Search Results for: court

Public Charge: Supreme Court says yes to Trump policy to deny immigrants who use welfare

By

Photo: Washington Times

 

January 27, 2020 from the WASHINGTON TIMES. Steven Dinan reporting

The Supreme Court ruled Monday that the Trump administration can move ahead with its “public charge” regulation that could block immigrants who wind up on the public dole from earning a pathway to citizenship.

It marks another significant victory for President Trump, giving him a tentative go-ahead on one of his key policies aimed at putting Americans’ needs first in the immigration system.

The 5-4 decision stays a lower court injunction, allowing U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to move ahead with examining would-be immigrants’ history of access to public programs such as food stamps, many forms of Medicaid, public housing assistance, welfare cash payments and Supplemental Security Income benefits. Read the rest here.

Appellate Court: Not lawfully present, illegal aliens with DACA are illegal aliens – Georgia issuing public benefits based on disputed status

By

 

Image: Istockphoto.com

Ruling likely will lead to additional legal action on public benefits

DACA recipients are “inadmissible and thus removable” under federal law.

Illegal aliens who have been awarded deferred action on deportation proceedings through the DACA amnesty by both the Obama and Trump administrations are illegal aliens and do not have “lawful presence” says the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. The decision was handed down March 6, 2019.

The ruling was in response to a suit brought by several illegal aliens in Georgia who are challenging the Board of Regents policy that requires lawful presence for instate tuition purposes and admittance to some USG universities.

According to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security Georgia is home to more illegal aliens than is Arizona. Statistics from the Washington DC – based Migration Policy Institute highlighted by the Georgia Budget and Policy Institute indicate that Georgia has more illegal aliens than green card holders.

Image: GBPI.org

A group of DACA recipients sued the leaders of the Georgia higher education system in 2016, which bars aliens who are not “lawfully present” from enrolling in some Georgia colleges and universities, even if they would academically qualify for admission. “The students argued that they were lawfully present under federal law, which preempted  state law. They also claimed that the admissions bar violated their right to equal protection, as Georgia treats aliens who are paroled into the U.S. or granted asylum as “lawfully present,” reported the Immigration Reform Law Institute.

The Eleventh Circuit rejected all of the students’ claims. The court noted that  “lawfully present” is not a standalone immigration classification, and it is not defined anywhere in the (Immigration and Nationality) Act” *(opinion here).

The ruling is consistent with an official October 2017 statement to this writer from the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) that “current law does not grant any legal status for the class of individuals who are current recipients of DACA. Recipients of DACA are currently unlawfully present in the U.S. with their removal deferred.”

Decision may lead to additional legal action on access to public benefits

The court’s decision likely portends more legal action. Georgia’s public benefits law, OCGA 50-36-1, requires “lawful presence” for non-citizens to access a host of public benefits, including drivers licenses, official ID Cards, health benefits, food stamps, insurance licenses and unemployment benefits. While it goes largely unreported by the Georgia media, various official agencies have been quietly issuing these benefits to DACA recipients since 2012 based on the applicant’s oath on affidavits that they are a “qualified alien.”

The monetary cost to Georgia taxpayers for benefits to the illegal aliens with deferred action on deportation, both in and outside of DACA is unknown.

Updated, 4:50PM March 8, 2019. Updated July 26, 2020 with addition of link to affidavit. Updated July 30, 2020 with link to “qualified alien.”

Skipping Court: U.S. Immigration Courts & Aliens Who Disappear Before Trial

By

Image: CIS.org

CIS.org

By Mark Metcalf on January 24, 2019

Download a PDF of this Backgrounder.

Mark H. Metcalf formerly served in appointed positions at the Justice and Defense Departments in the administration of George W. Bush. He served as a judge on the Miami Immigration Court from 2005 to 2008. He is a Kentucky prosecutor and a veteran of Iraq.

Skipping Court

U.S. Immigration Courts & Aliens Who Disappear Before Trial

Key Takeaways

  • 43 percent of all aliens free pending trial failed to appear for court in 2017.
  • Since 1996, 37 percent of all aliens free before trial disappeared from court.
  • Aliens abscond from court more often today than they did before 9/11.
  • Deportation orders for failing to appear in court exceed deportation orders from cases that were tried by 306 percent.
  • 46 percent of all unaccompanied children disappeared from U.S. immigration courts from 2013 through 2017.
  • 49 percent of unaccompanied children failed to appear in U.S. immigration courts in 2017.

Introduction

U.S. immigration courts recently released their numbers to Congress for fiscal year 2017. Hoped-for improvements are largely absent and problems that have defined the courts since their beginning persist. Most persistent of all is the failure of aliens to appear for their trials. These no-shows remain high, with 43 percent of all those free before trial — 41,302 aliens out of 95,342 — disappearing from court in 2017.1 More to the point, these numbers add up.

Failures to Appear in Court

American immigration courts consistently have the highest failure to appear (FTA) rates of any state or federal courts in the country.2From 1996 through 2017, 37 percent of all aliens free pending trial disappeared. From the 2,680,598 foreign nationals that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) released on their own recognizance, 1,320,000, received deportation orders, 75 percent of them (993,593) for failure to appear. Only 25 percent of this group — some 324,402 people altogether — actually tried their cases.3 This dynamic, first reported at a House Judiciary Committee hearing on June 17, 2010, eventually prompted heated denial by the Obama Justice Department4 but it is not solely a problem of Democrat administrations. Administrations of both parties have failed to effectively address it.5

Immigration trial courts issued three times more deportation orders for failure to appear in court than deportation orders for cases that were actually tried (993,593 ÷ 324,402) over the last 22 fiscal years. (See Figure 1.) On average, more than 45,000 people each year disappeared from court since 1996, making failures to appear the single greatest source of deportation orders in the immigration court system.6  

Read the rest here.

Image: CIS.org

Georgia’s Immigration Enforcement Review Board: ‘An Example of What Not to Do’: Where Immigration Law Is Enforced – Usually Not Enforced – by Political Appointees Granted the Power of Courts

By

Image: Bensbiltong.com
Originally published in Pew’s Stateline, the below is from the influential Governing Magazine” From our eight years of personal experience with the IERB, we will have plenty to add soon, but a “parody of a Kangaroo Court” is a good start.

An Example of What Not to Do’: The State Where Immigration Law Is Enforced by Political Appointees Granted the Power of Courts

BY | JANUARY 4, 2019 AT 7:14 AM

Over the past few years, statehouses around the country have tried to rein in cities deemed too friendly to undocumented immigrants. But Georgia is the only state that’s created an independent board with one specific mission: Punishing cities that aren’t doing enough to crack down on illegal immigration.

Typically, that responsibility falls to state attorneys general. But in Georgia, residents can file a complaint against any city or county they judge to be breaking state immigration law.

Until a recent case against the small liberal town of Decatur, though, all but one of the complaints had come from one private citizen, an avowed anti-illegal immigration activist who’s made this his life’s calling.

Then the lieutenant governor, Republican Casey Cagle, filed a complaint accusing Decatur of violating state immigration law last year as he was running for governor. And on Facebook, he threatened to yank its state funding.

“Liberal politicians in the City of Decatur are trying to put the interests of criminal illegal aliens ahead of our safety — and I will not allow it!” Cagle wrote. (He did not respond to repeated requests from Stateline for comment.)

Few locals have heard of it, but Georgia’s Immigration Enforcement Review Board was created seven years ago, when the state passed one of the nation’s strictest immigration laws. Trying to keep track of the legal comings and goings of the IERB, as the board is known, can be dizzying.

Most of its members are not attorneys or immigration experts. All are volunteers — and all are political appointees, which in this red state, makes it a majority Republican board.

And while technically not a court, the board has been given many of the powers of a court: It investigates alleged wrongdoing, subpoenas witnesses and hears testimony.

The board has the power to recommend sanctions against municipalities found to be in the wrong — and ultimately, withhold millions in state funding from them as punishment.

So far, though, it has levied just one lasting fine, for $1,000 against Atlanta. A handful of small cities, though, have been forced to spend time and money defending themselves against accusations.

Two of the immigration board members refused to step down years after their terms ended, and did so only in 2018, when they were sued by a Decatur resident and accused of violating Georgia law.

“The Georgia board is an example of what not to do, rather than a model for something effective,” said Jessica Vaughan, director of policy studies for the Center for Immigration Studies, a national research and advocacy group that favors limited immigration to the United States.

“It’s troubling,” Vaughan said, “to have that authority go to a politically appointed group that lacks expertise in the subject matter.”

The city of Decatur has filed two lawsuits against the board, saying it has violated public meetings and public records laws; the Georgia First Amendment Foundation and the Southern Poverty Law Center joined one of the suits in December. (Under James Balli’s tenure as chair, he has made efforts to make the board more transparent, including releasing records to a reporter.)

Balli, said it is just complying with state immigration law in its work, and until that law is changed, it’ll continue with its charge.

The 2011 law the board is focused on, HB 87, permits law enforcement officers to stop anyone they deem to be “suspicious” and ask for their papers. The law also requires cities and counties, and many businesses, to use E-Verify to ensure workers are in the country legally; and punishes those who use fake identification to get work.

“The goal is compliance, not punishment,” Balli said.

“We’re not anti-immigration,” Balli said, adding that his grandmother was an immigrant from Mexico. “We don’t want that to be the picture of this board.”

Atlanta’s Hippie Cousin

Decatur’s been described as a speck of blue in a sea of red, and that is true — up to a point. There have always been specks of blue in Georgia, and the state is increasingly trending purple. In November, Democrat Stacey Abrams narrowly lost to Republican Brian Kemp in the race for governor.

But Decatur, as the Atlanta Journal-Constitution puts it, is “renowned as a bastion of Southern liberalism.” It’s Atlanta’s hippie cousin — population 23,800 — 4 square miles of bungalows, yoga studios and farm-to-table fare. In 2016, 86 percent of voters here cast their lot with Hillary Clinton.

Both Decatur and its next-door neighbor Atlanta issued directives in 2017 ordering local police not to detain immigrants, barring a court order. Decatur doesn’t even have a jail — and has few immigrants.

But for the past year, it is Decatur, not Atlanta, that has been in battle with the state, fighting accusations that it is a sanctuary city.

And even though the IERB has yet to yank state funding in any of the cases it’s heard, Decatur officials say they worry the city could lose millions in funding if the board tried to take action.

‘Kangaroo Court’

Many critics of the board, who fall on both sides of the immigration battle, have said it should be disbanded.

“It’s a court that operates in very strange, mostly nontransparent ways and yet has a tremendous amount of power,” said Naomi Tsu, who oversees the legal and advocacy work on behalf of immigrants in the Deep South for the Alabama-based Southern Poverty Law Center. The center has profiled the IERB on its “Hatewatch” blog.

Then there’s Marietta, Georgia, resident D.A. King, who’s filed 20 of the 22 complaints that have come before the board. He called the IERB a “parody of a kangaroo court.”

King, a Detroit native, describes himself as a nationalist “along the lines of a George Washington,” but says that he’s not a white supremacist. Nor is he against legal immigration. “My adopted sister is from Korea,” he said.

“I’m trying to educate people about immigration. It’s about the law and what’s good for America and Americans.” Read the rest of the report here.

Opinion: Kangaroo Court? Georgia’s Immigration Enforcement Review Board (IERB) calls a special meeting with agenda to be determined : It’s via telephone and if you want to hear it, you must go to downtown Atlanta and through security

By

Image:Bensbiltong.com

__

Email received from Audits and Accounts, December 31, 2018 at 3:38 PM:

Good Afternoon,

The Immigration Enforcement Review Board has scheduled a Special Called Meeting for Tuesday, January 8, 2019 at 10:00.  The members will be holding this meeting via conference call.  A conference call line will be set up in Room 1-151 at the Georgia Department of Audits and Accounts if you wish to hear the meeting in person.  The address for the Georgia Department of Audits and Accounts is listed on the agenda.  The building is located at the corner of Trinity Avenue and Washington Street.  Please enter the building on the Trinity Avenue side.  You will need to go through security and show a valid ID to enter the building.  I have attached a tentative agenda, but will resend.

Thank you,

Carol Schwinne

Carol G. Schwinne| DirectorAdministrative Division

Georgia Department of Audits and Accounts

270 Washington Street, S.W., Suite 1-156

Atlanta, GA 30334

Office: 404.463-2670 | schwinne@audits.ga. gov
  audits.ga.gov  

 

 

mail.audits.ga.gov made the following annotations on 12/31/18:

NOTICE: This e-mail (including attachments) may contain information that is confidential and legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this document in error and that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this in error, please notify us immediately and delete the message.

Thank you for your cooperation.

__

***Note: More on the IERB here and here.

ICE Is To Fast-Track Deportations Across The Country

By

Image: Dustin Inman Society

The new policy will give agents the ability to arrest and deport undocumented immigrants without a hearing in front of a judge

BuzzFeedNews

October 7, 202

Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials have started to implement a policy that allows officers to arrest and rapidly deport undocumented immigrants who have been in the US for less than two years, according to internal emails and documents obtained by BuzzFeed News.

The Trump administration’s effort — to expand quick deportations to undocumented immigrants across the US who cannot prove they have been in the country continuously for two years before they are picked up — was blocked by a federal court judge soon after the policy was first announced in 2019. But in June, the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit lifted the preliminary injunction, opening the door for ICE officers to use expedited removal across the country, a policy that will allow the agency to arrest and deport undocumented immigrants without a hearing in front of an immigration judge.

The previous policy only allowed officials to use expedited removal within 100 miles of the border and for those who have been in the country for up to two weeks.

Currently, officers typically arrest immigrants and place them into deportation proceedings. These include a hearing before an immigration judge — a process that can take years. In practical terms, the expanded policy gives ICE officers more power to determine who can be quickly deported, although it’s unclear exactly how fast the process will be.

The shift could allow the Trump administration to increase deportations while circumventing a court system that is severely backed up and short on resources, but advocates for immigrants have said it would destroy their due process rights…

More here.

 

Presidential election: Whatever Happened to Immigration?

By

Photo: Reuters

Column: The issue driving the populist revolt has disappeared in 2020

Washington Free Beacon

Mathew Contineti – October 9, 2020

It is a sign of the times that immigration has not been mentioned in three hours of debate between the presidential tickets. A review of the transcripts of both the presidential and vice-presidential encounters finds no questions asked nor answers proffered about an issue that until only recently defined much of our politics and distinguished our two parties. Needless to say, both moderators wanted to know where the candidates stand on climate change, which routinely drifts toward the bottom of any list of public priorities.

Why the omission? It is tempting to say that immigration did not come up because the elites who manage the presidential debates are uncomfortable with the topic, are worried that the issue favors Republican border hawks, and are more interested in subjects relevant to their cultural coterie. But it is also true that presidential debates tend to focus on current events and pressing challenges, and that immigration just does not seem as great a concern today as the coronavirus, the economy, race relations and civil unrest, and California brushfires.

The apparent irrelevance of immigration and border security to the election might also be attributed to the achievements of the Trump administration. But these achievements are partial, tenuous, and dependent on events and relationships and court decisions. And they are easily reversed. What should worry the president is that the somnolence on the border deprives him of the very issue that propelled his rise to power, and that drove the populist revolt against the Washington establishment whose offshoots included the Ron Paul candidacies, the Tea Party, and Republican victories in 2014 and 2016. Immigration is next only to the economy and to the courts as a place where the president can contrast his record and agenda with Biden’s and appeal to national solidarity and historical tradition. His parlous electoral status may be related to the fact that immigration is not much of a factor in this most unusual campaign.

There is no gainsaying immigration’s importance to the Trump presidency. It was immigration that triggered the grassroots rebellion against the George W. Bush and Barack Obama administrations, and against congressional supporters of amnesty for illegal immigrants, culminating in Trump’s 2016 primary victory. Immigration became the touchstone of Trump’s campaign on day one and served as the cudgel by which he defeated Jeb Bush and other Republicans for whom the Bush-Obama approach to legalization was correct. The border wall was not only a rallying cry but also a symbol of how a Trump presidency would privilege American citizens above all else. And Trump fused immigration to economics, by opposing H-1B visas; to crime, by highlighting gang activity; and to national security, by enacting his travel ban against countries that sponsor terrorism.

Read the rest here.

 

USCIS: Long standing basic principle of U.S. immigration law: Alien must be self-sufficient when admitted to United States

By

Photo: Community Service Society.

United States Citizenship and Immigration Services

Public Charge Provisions of Immigration Law: A Brief Historical Background

Historical Origins of the Likely to Become a Public Charge (LPC) Exclusion

Note: Related

Strong sentiments opposing the immigration of “paupers” developed in the United States well before the advent of federal immigration controls. During the colonial period, several colonies enacted protective measures to prohibit the immigration of individuals who might become public charges.[1] In the nineteenth century, before the existence of a federal agency responsible for overseeing immigration policies, eastern seaboard states such as New York and Massachusetts enacted state laws that restricted the immigration of aliens deemed likely to become dependent on public institutions such as poor houses. These states also charged steamship companies a “head tax” for each foreign passenger they landed in order to defray the cost of caring for, and sometimes removing, indigent immigrants who ended-up in state-funded facilities.[2]

Steamship companies, merchants, and others who favored open immigration challenged state head-taxes as impediments to free commerce. In response, state charity boards argued for the necessity of the head-tax in funding the care of foreign-born paupers and favored stronger protective laws to prevent additional influxes of destitute immigrants who could not support themselves.[3] The legal dispute over the state head-taxes reached a turning-point in 1875, when a lawsuit challenging the practice brought by a shipping company against the Mayor of New York reached the Supreme Court.[4] The Court decided that the state-imposed head-taxes interfered with Congress’s authority to regulate commerce and struck them down. Fearing the loss of funds needed to administer immigration policies and care for poor immigrants, eastern states began to lobby Congress for a federal immigration head-tax to replace the defunct state taxes.

The eastern states’ concerns about poor immigrants and the cost of caring for them found expression in the first general federal immigration statute of 1882.[5] The 1882 law excluded “any person unable to take care of himself or herself without becoming a public charge.”[6] The 1882 Immigration Act also created a federal immigration head-tax, which was used to defray the cost of regulating immigration and to care for immigrants who arrived in the U.S., including those who fell into economic distress. However, the law did not create a federal immigration agency; instead it authorized the Secretary of the Treasury to enter into contracts with state immigration commissions to administer federal policies. Thus, in many ways, the 1882 federal law depended on state immigration commissions, who enforced the public charge exclusion policy and used money from the federal immigration head-tax fund to pay state and local charities that cared for immigrants.

While the 1882 federal law did not provide any definition of a “public charge” or any guidelines for determining who was likely to become one, state Immigration Commission reports suggest that officials took numerous factors into account, including an immigrant’s willingness to work, when making decisions in LPC cases. For example, in 1884 the Pennsylvania Board of Commissioners of Public Charities reported that a large number of Hungarians who were “poor, pecuniarily” were permitted to land because they were “strong, hearty people, and quite willing to work…”[7] In other cases the state boards landed questionable immigrants upon receiving guarantees from charitable organizations and/or bonds from the steamship companies that would be paid if the immigrants became public charges.

The general Immigration Act of 1891 completed the federalization of immigration regulation by creating the office of the Superintendent of Immigration and a federal Immigration Service to inspect all arriving aliens.[8] The 1891 law also retained the head-tax provision and the exclusion of “paupers or persons likely to become a public charge.”[9] In the Act of March 3, 1903 Congress added “professional beggars” as a class of exclusion.[10] A 1907 law then added additional language that excluded potential immigrants with a “mental or physical defect being of a nature which may affect the ability of such an alien to earn a living.”[11]  The Immigration Act of 1917 added “vagrants” to the LPC provision and this version of it remained substantially unchanged when it was incorporated into the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act.[12] The INA left the LPC policy substantively the same, but added language explicitly emphasizing the discretionary authority of administrative officers in the Department of State and the Immigration Service to determine the definition of “LPC.”[13] In sum, a version of the LPC provision has been part of federal immigration policy from its foundations and it consistently remained one of the most common grounds for immigrant inadmissibility.[14]

Brief History of Laws Providing for the Removal of Aliens Who Have Become Public Charges

In addition to providing for the exclusion of likely public charges, U.S. immigration law has long provided for the removal of immigrants who become dependent on public aid. The Immigration Act of 1891 established the federal government’s authority to remove aliens who entered unlawfully, a category that included immigrants who could be shown to have entered when they were LPC.[15] The 1891 Act also provided a deportability period of one year after arrival for immigrants who actually became public charges as the result of a condition that existed prior to their arrival. Congress extended this deportability period to two years in 1903 and three years in 1907[16]. The immigration Act of 1917 altered this provision, stipulating that aliens who became public charges “from causes not affirmatively shown to have arisen subsequent to landing” within five years of arrival were subject to deportation.[17] Additionally, the 1917 law removed the time limit on deportation: if an immigrant was shown to have become a public charge within five years of arrival they could be deported at any time, no matter how long they had resided in the U.S. The 1952 INA retained the provision that aliens who became public charges within five years of their arrival due to causes not affirmatively shown to have arisen since their entry could be deported at any time, and this has remained in the law since.

The Immigration Act of 1917 also provided for the removal at public expense of aliens who “fall into distress or need public aid from causes arising subsequent to their entry and are desirous of being so removed.”[18] Though not formal deportation, this law provided a means for the federal government to remove indigent aliens who desired to return to their home countries. During the Great Depression many aliens departed the United States under this voluntary provision.

There is much more here.

 

Jessica Vaughan: ICE Summer Surge Operation Takes 2,000 Criminal Aliens Off the Streets

By

Photo: CIS.org

“Let’s hope that the next at-large criminal alien operation also includes arrests of drug dealers, drunk drivers, fraudsters, burglars, car thieves, illegal aliens in possession of dangerous weapons, illegal aliens who live or work with criminal aliens, unlucky non-criminal illegal aliens — and employers of illegal aliens.”

By Jessica Vaughn, Center for Immigration Studies

Jessica Vaughn. Photo: Twitter

 

ICE announced this week the results of a summer surge operation to arrest criminal aliens who were at large in communities around the country. ICE officers arrested more than 2,000 aliens with convictions or pending charges for “crimes involving victims”. Such operations are routine for ICE, but it is also routinely startling to see the litany of victimizations that occurred, and routinely infuriating that sanctuary jurisdictions continue to protect these offenders, making it necessary for ICE to take to the streets to arrest them, hopefully before there are new victims.

Interested readers can see the (scant) information on the operation here. ICE provides a breakdown of the crimes, but not of the cities or states of the arrests. The targets included a variety of types of cases, including criminal aliens released by sanctuaries, suspects wanted in their home countries, and aliens who skipped out on their proceedings. Some likely will be removed promptly, others will be detained for immigration court proceedings, and others might be released pending proceedings.

Reportedly, the operation initially was conceived to focus on domestic violence offenders in response to concerns in many communities of rising incidents of domestic violence due to the pandemic lockdowns. More than 500 of those arrested in this surge had convictions or charges for domestic violence, which was the second most common offense of those arrested, after assault.

The quarterly reports of ICE’s VOICE office, which provides services to victims of criminal aliens, are a reminder of the importance of this mission. In the first quarter of 2019 (the most recent available), the VOICE office fielded more than 250 calls for help and referred more than 230 callers to ICE field offices to receive services in their communities. For example:

A parent and their minor child, victims of domestic violence by an alien, requested case information and wanted to provide a victim impact statement. The parent feared for their family’s lives because the alien continued to evade a no-contact order while in state custody awaiting criminal proceedings. The VOICE Office referred the victims for victim assistance services and facilitated their request to provide a victim impact statement. The VOICE Office informed the victim the alien was ordered removed by an immigration judge and subsequently deported from the United States.

In another:

A victim of domestic violence by an alien requested case information. The VOICE Office informed the victim that the alien was in ICE custody and helped the victim register for DHS-VINE [VINE is ICE’s automated victim notification service that enables victims to receive updates on the custody status of the offender]. The alien was eventually ordered removed by an immigration judge and deported from the United States. However, following the alien’s removal, the alien attempted to re-enter the United States, but was convicted of illegal re-entry and once again deported from the United States.

In another:

A first responder, who was a victim of assault by an alien, requested case information after receiving a state program notice of the alien’s release from state custody, where they were serving time for an assault conviction. The victim feared for their safety because the alien had made several death threats to them. The VOICE Office confirmed that an ICE detainer was placed on the alien that resulted in their transfer into ICE custody. The alien was removed from the United States.

ICE provided individual examples of criminal aliens arrested in the operation to news organizations. In the Washington, D.C., area, the targets included Edwin Nahun Mendoza-Santos, a 38-year-old Honduran man arrested in Alexandria, Va., who was wanted by Stafford County on a warrant for sexual battery of a child under 13; and Manuel De Jesus Rodriguez-Esperanza, 27, who was arrested in Hyattsville, Md., and wanted in his home country of El Salvador for aggravated homicide charges. The latter was ordered deported in 2016, and apparently is one of the approximately one million aliens living in the country ordered removed, but remaining here in defiance of those orders.

Fourteen aliens convicted of homicide were arrested in the operation, and 12 with homicide charges. I requested information on the locations where these aliens were arrested, but have not yet received a response.

This operation was a welcome reminder of the public safety value of immigration enforcement, and that there is a real human cost when ICE is not able to do its job, either because of lack of resources or lack of cooperation from sanctuary jurisdictions. But while it must be tempting to ICE leaders to focus only on the most obvious human interest cases, the front office must be careful not to foster the notion that “criminals with victims” are the only illegal aliens worthy of ICE attention. Read the rest here.