Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Article: Lessons to Be Found in DHS’ 2016 Immigration Enforcement Numbers By Joshua Breisblatt for Immigration Impact

Collapse
X
Collapse

  • Article: Lessons to Be Found in DHS’ 2016 Immigration Enforcement Numbers By Joshua Breisblatt for Immigration Impact

    Lessons to Be Found in DHS’ 2016 Immigration Enforcement Numbers

    by


    As the Obama Administration comes to an end and its legacy on immigration is solidified, one of the defining characteristics of the President’s eight years in office will be how he enforced immigration laws. One of the strongest indicators of that will be how many individuals he actually removed and returned out of the country.

    Last week, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued its Fiscal Year (FY) 2016 immigration enforcement data which, coupled with the previous years’ totals under the Obama Administration, show that the total number of removals from FY 2009 to FY 2016 totaled more than 2.7 million. Simply stated, President Obama has deported more people than any other president in U.S. history .

    However, underneath those numbers belie some important lessons about the changing dynamics of who is showing up at the U.S. border and how a November 2014 enforcement priorities memo shaped the number of people deported from the interior of the nation.

    First, the FY 2016 numbers show that DHS apprehended a total of 530,250 individuals nationwide and conducted a total of 450,954 removals and returns. These include individuals apprehended as they attempted to cross the border and people removed from the interior of the country.

    Border Patrol alone apprehended a total of 415,816 , which include individuals who attempted to enter the country at a port of entry. This represents an increase of 23 percent from 2015 but is still lower than FY2013 and 2014. In fact, these numbers remain at historically low levels not seen since the early 1970s . Also, not only are the numbers of border-crossers shrinking, but the demographics of those who are arriving have changed.

    As DHS previously noted :

    “…the demographics of illegal migration on our southern border has changed significantly over the last 15 years – far fewer Mexicans and single adults are attempting to cross the border without authorization, but more families and unaccompanied children are fleeing poverty and violence in Central America. In 2014, Central Americans apprehended on the southern border outnumbered Mexicans for the first time. In 2016, it happened again.”

    This means, more would-be-asylees are arriving at the U.S. border, rather than economic migrants as in years’ past. Yet, many are being denied asylum or put through expedited deportation processes, both unworthy of the nation’s commitment to protect those in need.

    Also of note, the number of individuals picked up and deported from the interior of the country is on the decline, likely due to the 2014 enforcement priorities memo that sought to avoid deporting individuals who posed no threat and have strong economic and community ties in the U.S.

    In FY 2016, 65,332 removals were of individuals apprehended by ICE officers in the interior of the country, away from the border, compared to 102,224 in FY 2014 , the Fiscal Year before the new enforcement priorities were put in place.

    The two largest lessons found in the FY 2016 data are that we have a serious refugee situation at our border that is not being dealt with in a humane and fair way and interior enforcement is finally beginning to take into account who a public threat is while providing some grace to those members of our communities who seek to do us no harm and are contributing to the good of the nation.

    This post originally appeared on Immigration Impact. © 2017 Immigration Impact. All rights reserved.


    About The Author

    Joshua Breisblatt is a Policy Analyst at the American Immigration Council. He specialized in border issues, including enforcement, civil rights, oversight of Customs and Border Protection, and trade and commerce at U.S. ports of entry. Josh earned his J.D. from The George Washington University School Law and his B.S. from Arizona State University.


    The opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the opinion of ILW.COM.


    • ImmigrationLawBlogs
      #1
      Editing a comment
      Joshua seems to be getting the facts mixed up. He says, "the total number of removals from FY 2009 to FY 2016 totaled more than 2.7 million. Simply stated, President Obama has deported more people than any other president in U.S. history." But that combines removals and returns, and not every previous administration has done that.

      According to DHS ---

      Removal: The compulsory and confimed movement of an inadmissible or deportable alien out of the United States based on an order of removal. An alien who is removed, as opposed to being returned or leaving the country under an order of voluntary departure, faces administrative or criminal consequences upon subsequent reentry.


      Return: The confirrmed movement of an inadmissible or deportable alien out of the United States not based on an order of removal.

      https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/fi...ent%202016.pdf

      The number of removals is much lower. Joshua says, "In FY 2016, 65,332 removals were of individuals apprehended by ICE officers in the interior of the country." In other words, Joshua seems to be padding the totals by counting aliens caught crossing illegally and returned without a deportation order. In what
      sense have aliens returned without a deportation order been deported.

      The reality is that Obama only deported 65,332 aliens in FY 2016. It's hard to believe that Obama was breaking deportation records with deportation numbers that low.

      If I am making a mistake with these numbers, please let me know.

      Nolan Rappaport


      Last edited by ImmigrationLawBlogs; 07-12-2017, 08:41 PM.
    Posting comments is disabled.

Categories

Collapse

article_tags

Collapse

There are no tags yet.

Latest Articles

Collapse

  • Article: Birthright Citizenship Is Not A Legal Assumption; It
    ImmigrationDaily
    Last week on Fox News, Tucker Carlson said,
    08-21-2018, 01:24 PM
  • Blogging: Trump's "National Security" Abuses: First, Muslim Ban; Next, Security Clearance Revocation.. By Roger Algase
    ImmigrationDaily
    Trump's "National Security" Abuses: First, Muslim Ban; Next, Security Clearance Revocation. Trashing Immigrant Rights Endangers Freedom of All Americans.

    CNN reports on August 21 that 175 former US officials have denounced Donald Trump for revoking the security clearance of former CIA director John Brennan for speaking out in opposition to Trump.

    https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/20/polit...ent/index.html

    Presidential use of "national security"
    ...
    08-21-2018, 12:54 PM
  • Article: The EB-5 Immigration Program and the Investors Process By H. Ronald Klasko
    ImmigrationDaily

    If you are having difficulty viewing this document please click here.

    08-20-2018, 08:15 AM
  • Article: Immigration Judges’ Union Fights for Judicial Independence By Karolina Walters
    ImmigrationDaily
    Immigration Judges’ Union Fights for Judicial Independence by Karolina Walters The National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ), the union that represents the nation’s immigration judges, is challenging the government’s decision to remove an immigration judge from a well-known case and replace him with a judge who immediately ordered the immigrant in the case deported. NAIJ’s grievance addresses the treatment of one immigration judge, but its resolution will have implications for judicial independence throughout the entire immigration court system. The grievance was filed on behalf of Philadelphia-based immigration judge Steven A. Morley, who was presiding over the case of Mr. Reynaldo Castro-Tum. Castro-Tum’s case rose to national importance earlier this year when Attorney General Jeff Sessions chose to refer the case to himself to reconsider the Board of Immigration Appeals’ previous decision in the case. In reconsidering the decision, Sessions effectively eliminated judges’ use of administrative closure, a docket management tool. Sessions sent Castro-Tum’s case back to Judge Morley, noting that the immigration court order Castro-Tum removed if he did not appear at his next hearing. Castro-Tum did not appear at the next hearing. However, Judge Morley continued the case to resolve whether Castro-Tum received adequate notice of the hearing. Due process requires, at a minimum, that an individual be given notice of proceedings and an opportunity to be heard by a judge. But before the next hearing could take place, the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) replaced Judge Morley with an Assistant Chief Immigration Judge who ordered Castro-Tum removed when he did not appear at court again. In their grievance, NAIJ asserts that the decision to remove Judge Morley from Castro-Tum’s case and reassign many other cases from his docket resulted in unacceptable interference with judicial independence. The grievance specifically claims that EOIR’s actions violate immigration judges’ authority under the regulations to exerci...
    08-17-2018, 11:12 AM
  • Article: Indirect Refoulement: Why the US Cannot Create a Safe Third Country Agreement with Mexico By Sophia Genovese
    ImmigrationDaily
    Indirect Refoulement: Why the US Cannot Create a Safe Third Country Agreement with Mexico by Sophia Genovese The Trump Administration is seeking to create and implement a safe third country agreement with Mexico . Under this agreement, asylum seekers arriving at the US border who have travelled through Mexico would be denied the ability to file their asylum claims in the US. Such an agreement would trample on the rights of asylum-seekers, violating both international and US asylum law. In particular, the US would be violating the international principle of non-refoulement , which provides that no State “shall expel or return (“refouler”) a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his [or her] life or freedom would be threatened,” where Mexico has a proven track record of being anything but safe for asylum seekers . The US has also codified Article 33(1) of the Refugee Convention into Section 208(a)(2)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) which provides that it will not return an asylum seeker to his or her country of origin, but may, at the determination of the Attorney General, remove the asylum seeker to a “safe third country… where the [asylum seeker] would have access to a full and fair procedure for determining a claim to asylum or equivalent temporary protection.” Although Mexican officials have not yet indicated whether they would sign a safe third country agreement with the US, asylum advocates should proactively seek to prevent such a devastating policy with a country that lacks adequate asylum protections. As reported by Human Rights First and Amnesty International , 75 percent of asylum seekers apprehended and detained by the National Institute of Migration (INM), the Mexican immigration enforcement agency, were not informed of their right to seek asylum. Even if asylum seekers are able to make their claims, only 30% of the asylum proceedings are ever concluded , and even fewer are granted, leaving many bona fide asylum seekers stranded without a resolution. The treatment of unaccompanied minors’ asylum claims in Mexico are even more dismal. Of the 35,000 minors apprehended by the INM in the first half of 2016, only 138 were able to apply for asylum , of which only 77 were granted protection. Beyond the failing asylum system in Mexico, asylum seekers are also in extreme danger of kidnapping, murder, rape, trafficking, and other crimes by INM officers and civilians. A safe third country agreement with Mexico would violate the United States’ international obligations under the 1967 Optional Protocol to the Refugee Convention, to which we are a signatory, which adopts by incorporation the obligations outlined in the 1951 Refugee Convention, to which the US is not a signatory. Take the example of an asylum-seeker, Mrs. H, who is fleeing politically-motivated violence in Honduras. Her husband, Mr. H, was a vocal political activist who opposed the National Party and members of the Honduran government. Mr. H began to receive death threats due to his political beliefs and reported such threats to the authorities. The authorities, however, di...
    08-16-2018, 02:32 PM
  • Article: Flawed Statistics Undermine USCIS/ICE/SEVP’s Restriction of D/S for Unlawful Presence By Eugene Goldstein, Esq.
    ImmigrationDaily

    Flawed Statistics Undermine USCIS/ICE/SEVP’s Restriction of D/S for Unlawful Presence

    by


    On August 9, 2018 USCIS published a “Policy Memorandum” restricting the 20-year-old calculation of Duration of Status (D/S) for F-1, J-1 and M-1 entrants (and their derivative families). https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/...immigrants.pdf

    USCIS also published an announcement (hereinafter “announcement”) “USCIS Issues Revised Guidance on Unlawful Presence for Students and Exchange Visitors https://www.uscis.gov/news/uscis-iss...hange-visitors , and a general discussion “Unlawful Presence and Bars to Admissibility” ...

    08-15-2018, 12:57 PM
Working...
X