A Biden administration policy that prioritized the detention of immigrants living illegally in the country and considered a threat to public safety and national security has been suspended as of Saturday, causing millions of people are vulnerable to deportation.
A Texas federal judge had ruled the policy of illegal prioritization on June 10, a ruling that went into effect Friday afternoon after a federal appellate court issued no decision to block it. The Department of Homeland Security said it effectively had no discretion under the ruling to set priorities on how its agents enforced the deportation laws of immigrants from the country.
“While the department strongly disagrees with the South Texas District Court’s decision to overturn the guidelines, DHS will respect the court’s order as it continues to appeal,” the department said in a statement.
Subscribe to The Morning’s New York Times newsletter
He said Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents would make enforcement decisions on a case-by-case basis “in a professional and responsible manner, informed by their experience as law enforcement officials and in the best way possible. protect against the greatest threats to the homeland. ” ”
The court order leaves the government in an unusual situation. Recent administrations have set at least some priorities for establishing which immigrants living in the country without legal permission should be deported, in most cases trying to identify people who have committed crimes or pose another threat before moving on to others. The Trump administration significantly expanded the range of immigrants identified for deportation, but even then, there were some guidelines for targeting criminals, legal experts said.
The removal of the guidelines is likely to renew some of the fears that immigrant communities achieved during Donald Trump’s presidency, when almost anyone without legal residency was detained, even though the Biden administration has committed to taking a measured approach to implementation even without prioritization. politics.
The story goes on
In a political note to immigration officers last year, National Security Department Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas had ordered officers not only to prioritize immigrants involved in crimes and security threats, but also to take into account other factors in deciding whether to detain them, such as whether they had lived in the United States for many years, whether they were elderly, or whether they had children born in the United States.
This leaves almost all of the estimated 11 million immigrants living in the country without legal permission theoretically open to arrest and deportation, although it is not known exactly who the target would be and how.
“The problem with moving away from priorities is that there is no standardization, no rhyme, no reason,” said Karen Tumlin, founder of Justice Action Center, an immigrant rights group.
“A 20-year-old person here who is the father of U.S. citizen children could be subjected to an expulsion proceeding,” Tumlin said. “Someone who leaves their child at school and has never committed any crime could be arrested.”
Biden’s immigration policy was the last to be blocked by the courts based on challenges filed by conservative-led states, in this case Texas and Louisiana.
Judges have also blocked the administration from lifting restrictions related to the pandemic at the border, renewing protections for young immigrant “dreamers” who arrived in the country as children and canceling a policy that forces many asylum seekers to remain in Mexico while their immigration cases remain. considered by U.S. courts.
In the September political note, Mayorkas instructed immigration officers to use “discretionary authority” to decide who should be arrested and deported from the country.
Being present in the country without authorization “should not in itself be the basis of an enforcement action,” the note said. “We will use our discretion and focus our enforcement resources in a more specific way,” first targeting those who posed a threat to public safety or national security, he specified.
“Most undocumented noncitizens who could have been expelled years ago contribute to members of our communities,” the memorandum said, noting that the federal government’s exercise of discretion in immigration matters was a “deeply rooted tradition” that was supported by law.
The new priorities marked a change in the control of immigration in the interior of the country. The change was part of a broader effort by President Joe Biden to adopt what he called a more humane immigration strategy than his predecessor, whose administration participated in much more widespread immigration arrests. .
ICE agents in Trump’s time often raided homes or workplaces to arrest immigrants who had recently been identified for deportation, sweeping away others who were present, sometimes mere spectators. Officers carried out large-scale operations in the so-called sanctuary cities and made hundreds of arrests.
Fearing that they might be detained, many immigrants without permanent legal status during that period refrained from spending time outdoors with their families and restricting their outings to travel needed to buy groceries and go to work.
The Obama administration deported millions of people, but did not carry out major incursions into the workplace, and most of the people eliminated were recently cross-border. He also gave priority to criminals for deportation.
The lawsuit that led to Friday’s ruling was filed by Texas and Louisiana, who argued that their states faced tensions over services, such as health care, when they were forced to provide them with a large number of immigrants living illegally in the country. They also claimed that there was an increased risk of crime for their communities when the government did not evict people who were in the country illegally, although studies have shown that people living in the United States without permission legal are less likely to commit crimes than other residents.
In the lower court decision, Judge Drew B. Tipton, appointed by Trump, concluded that Mayorkas’ decision to adopt priorities was “arbitrary and capricious” and that federal law required a series of procedures prior to that change. policy, including a public comment period. .
He also ruled that the policy violated immigration law because it “ties the hands” of agents in the field and “changes the norm” for who they can arrest and when.
The judge had suspended his decision to allow the government to file an emergency appeal. But the stay expired Friday and the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals had not yet issued a decision, allowing Tipton’s order to go into effect.
Immigrant advocates who supported the policy said immigration agencies have long received guidance from the White House. They said the Supreme Court, which is expected to be asked to rule on the current case, had previously ruled that the executive had discretion in immigration matters, including the deportation process.
Rebekah Wolf, a political adviser to the American Immigration Council, said the court ruling “could force the administration’s hand to make a mass indiscriminate application.”
Some of those who have defended a tougher line on immigration applauded the lower court’s decision, arguing that immigration laws should be applied uniformly.
They said officers could not be expected to make value judgments about whether an immigrant living illegally in the country should be able to remain in the United States. Anyone with a good argument against deportation could present the case to an immigration judge, said Andrew Arthur, a law and policy fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies, who favors restricting all immigration.
“Congress doesn’t allow immigration officers, nor can they expect them, to assess whether these are good parents, Little League coaches, or whether they are ushers in their local church,” he said. “ICE officers don’t have a crystal ball or a magic score sheet to know everything that happens in a person’s life.”
Most of the millions of immigrants living in the United States without legal permission have been in the country for at least a decade, often with children born in the United States and deep ties to their communities. About two-thirds of adults living in the country illegally participate in the workforce, according to the Pew Research Center.
“The ruling will generate more fear and uncertainty among people who have lived in our communities for years and decades,” said Sirine Shebaya, executive director of the National Immigration Project.
Government attorneys argued that the policy was a reasonable use of discretion that made sense given the limited resources of the Department of Homeland Security.
Even before Biden took office, a large number of migrants arrived at the southern border. This year, record numbers have been surpassed, coming from Mexico and Central America, as well as from Asia, Europe and Africa, where the COVID-19 pandemic caused widespread job losses.
People released from detention to apply for asylum can remain in the country until they have exhausted their legal claims before the courts and are ordered to leave. Others have crossed the border without following the legal asylum process; many of them can be deported immediately. The Biden administration’s policy called for immigration officers to also focus on those recent arrivals.
© 2022 The New York Times Company