be careful out there

[taters]

WASHINGTON – If you're a criminal and you're not entitled to be in the United States, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano wants you out of the country. Napolitano wants what she calls "criminal aliens" off American streets. She is looking at existing immigration enforcement programs to see if taxpayers are getting the most bang for their buck.

 

"That sounds very simple, but it's historically not been done," Napolitano said, speaking to reporters and senior Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials Thursday.

 

About 113,000 criminals who were in the U.S. illegally were deported last year, Immigration and Customs Enforcement said. The agency estimates there are now as many as 450,000 criminals in federal, state and local detention centers who are in the country illegally.

 

 

[Francois_Dumas]

Interesting. We're trying to do the same thing.... not only with criminals. But where do you 'send' them to? 'Receiving countries' will just not allow them in and send them right back ! Maybe if Mexico is meant (primarily) in the case of the US it could be easier. Just dump them off a truck across the border?

[Pilgrim]

WASHINGTON – If you're a criminal and you're not entitled to be in the United States, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano wants you out of the country. Napolitano wants what she calls "criminal aliens" off American streets. She is looking at existing immigration enforcement programs to see if taxpayers are getting the most bang for their buck.

 

"That sounds very simple, but it's historically not been done," Napolitano said, speaking to reporters and senior Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials Thursday.

 

About 113,000 criminals who were in the U.S. illegally were deported last year, Immigration and Customs Enforcement said. The agency estimates there are now as many as 450,000 criminals in federal, state and local detention centers who are in the country illegally.

 

Janet Napolitano has an awful lot to learn. You can trust me on that.

 

For those who were never immigration officers, I'll explain about passports and deportations.

 

Passports exist for two reasons. Everyone figures out reason (a); that is, to identify your self to whomever demands it, such as crossing a border.

 

However, to immigration authorities, reason (b) is equally important. The passport is also a guarantee that some foreign country will take you back if it becomes necessary to expel you from the host country. If the document doesn't guarantee that, it's not a "passport" as defined in U.S. (and most) law (see laissez-passer for a variation on the theme.) That is also why U.S. immigration law demands that the foreign passport be valid for six months beyond the anticipated legal stay. There are waivers of that available, but at a minimum, it must be valid on the date of application for admission to the U.S.

 

If a person does not have a passport, it becomes the job of a Deportation Officer to accumulate the information required to prove to the deportee's alleged home country that he is, in fact, a citizen of that country. (That is after it has been proven to an immigration judge in deportation proceedings that he is a citizen of that country, but that finding does not bind the foreign government.) That usually takes the form of a sworn statement by the deportee that is submitted to the foreign government's consular staff in the U.S. In the case of Mexico, it's easy. They'll take a sworn statement, or a verbal statement from the alien at the border when he is reptriated (dumped off a truck, as Francois puts it.)

 

In other cases, it is damn tough. Sudan comes to mind, since there is no effective government there to say "Okay, we'll take him." And in other cases (Cuba is one of several) there are no diplomatic reptriation agreements in place, so we can't deport anyone to those countries. And, despite a congressional mandate that INS (as it was in those days) do so, we can't keep criminal aliens from those countries in custody pending eventual travel arrangements. (That's per the Supreme Court in a case I originated in 2001,) so those individuals must be released pending departure.

 

There. More than you ever wanted to know . . .

 

Pilgrim

[chrisd]

There. More than you ever wanted to know . . .Pilgrim

 

That was very interesting. Thanks

[SeanC]

Can't we repatriate to those countries by way of parachute? We're a nation that cares about human rights, so we'll use static line jumps to avoid splat landings.