Legal Waivers Will Defang Enforcement in Gang Bill
We’ve noted many times that the lack of immigration enforcement is not a legislative problem, it’s an executive problem. That’s why we need the administration to show us the enforcement before commencing any legalization process for those already here. Additionally, there is also a judiciary problem that could completely gut any enforcement measures – to the extent they are ever implemented – thereby ensuring more amnesty without any enforcement.
Much like Obamacare, this bill is rife with gross delineation of power to the Secretary of Homeland Security. Every condition, trigger, mandate, goal, enforcement mechanism, eligibility qualification, etc. is couched with a waiver, exception, or exemption subject to the discretion of the Secretary.
Although illegals are eligible for temporary legal status almost immediately when Napolitano submits a “plan” to enforce the border, with E-verify and the visa tracking system not in place for 5-10 years, Rubio assures us that they will not be granted permanent status until those things are implemented. Notwithstanding the other issues with that assertion, take a look at this exception granted to the Secretary of DHS on page 13:
(B) EXCEPTION.—The Secretary shall permit registered provisional immigrants to apply for an adjustment to lawful permanent resident status if— (i)(I) litigation or a force majeure has prevented one or more of the conditions described in clauses (i) through (iv) of subparagraph (A) from being implemented; or (II) the implementation of subparagraph (A) has been held unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States or the Supreme Court has granted certiorari to the litigation on the constitutionality of implementation of subparagraph (A); and 10 years have elapsed since the date of the enactment of this Act.
Sections (i) through (iv) are referring to the border security strategy, the fencing strategy (yes, not actual construction), E-verify, and the visa tracking system – respectively. Implementation of all of them can be overridden by a lawsuit.
The ACLU, along with multi-million-dollar immigrant legal defense funds, have already promised to challenge any enforcement measure passed even with bipartisan support. We’ve learned from Arizona that there is no shortage of judges who will issue injunctions against commonsense immigration enforcement. They have challenged dozens of commonsense laws throughout the country and have successfully blocked many of them for years, even when the courts ultimately sided with the local governments. In this case, they will challenge E-verify and they will challenge the visa tracking system. They will challenge many of the amnesty requirements, and will have more latitude once they already have temporary legal status. If they prevent implementation, even the LPR/citizenship stage will still take effect (for the applicant and his spouse and children), subject to the discretion of the Secretary.
So we’re approaching an executive and judicial problem by writing legislation to grant the executive even more power to implement amnesty when the judicial system assails the enforcement mechanisms. Talk about immigration reform.
This is just one more reason why we must demand enforcement now and wait several years before attempting any legalization.
More to come….