AP
By Erica Werner
January 12, 2016
Federal
immigration raids have wrenched open new divides between President
Barack Obama and his Democratic allies, including the woman who hopes to
replace him, Hillary
Clinton.
On
Tuesday, with the president due to arrive on Capitol Hill within hours
to deliver his final State of the Union Address, House Democrats
gathered at a press conference
to denounce his policies and release a letter signed by nearly 150
lawmakers calling for deportation raids to stop.
“It’s
just unacceptable,” said Democratic Rep. Luis Gutierrez of Illinois.
“I’ve been 99.9 percent with this president of the United States but in
this particular case,
when his administration sows the seeds of terror throughout the
immigrant community of the United States and millions of people are
affected, that’s what I’m going to concern myself with.”
That
came after Clinton broke with Obama on the issue at a forum in Iowa
Monday night, also calling for the raids to end. “I do not think the
raids are an appropriate
tool to enforce the immigration laws. In fact, I think they are
divisive, they are sowing discord and fear,” she said. Fellow Democratic
hopefuls Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont and former Gov. Martin O’Malley
of Maryland have adopted similar stances.
The
Obama administration has defended the holiday-season raids that
resulted in detentions of 121 people, many from Central America. They
point to a spike in families
and children arriving at the U.S. southern border from Central America,
which has prompted fears of another border crisis like the one that
dominated national news during the summer of 2014.
This
time it would come amid a presidential race where immigration is
already a fraught topic, with Republican front-runner Donald Trump
insisting he would deport everyone
here illegally while Sens. Ted Cruz of Texas and Marco Rubio of Florida
exchange barbs about who has the stronger record on this issue. Trump
has praised the raids and taken credit for them.
Why small and medium-sized businesses need to update their technology.
“Our
desire to make clear that individuals should not embark on the
dangerous journey from Central America to the Southwest border — that’s a
case that we’ve tried to
tell in a variety of ways,” said White House Press Secretary Josh
Earnest.
“It
was only after individuals had exhausted the legal remedies available
to them ... was a decision made to remove them,” he said.
The
administration has shown no sign of backing off its approach, though
Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., created confusion on that
question Tuesday when he
told reporters he’d spoken with Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson
and “I think you’re going to find a pause in these deportations.” Aides
later insisted Reid simply meant to suggest that he hoped there would
be a pause.
Earlier,
the administration sent White House Counsel Neil Eggleston to meet
privately with House Democrats, including Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi.
But despite what all
involved described publicly as a cordial meeting, neither side seemed
ready to budge. Democratic aides said Eggleston expressed concerns about
the Democrats’ approach and the potential impact it could have on the
administration’s hopes of defending Obama’s
deportation-relief policies before the Supreme Court.
Administration
officials have repeatedly emphasized that they have focused on people
who have arrived in this country recently, in line with new deportation
priorities
announced in late 2014, at the same time Obama announced an expanded
deportation relief program, promising to temporarily lift the threat of
removal for millions.
The
goodwill from those deferment programs was fleeting, in part because
they’re tied up in court. The White House now finds itself making some
of the same arguments it
made earlier in Obama’s administration, when activists labeled him
“deporter in chief” for presiding over record deportations while failing
to persuade Republicans to support immigration reform legislation.
Officials say the administration has a responsibility
to enforce the law and in this case there is a further responsibility
not to encourage people to take a very dangerous journey.
New
figures Tuesday showed that arrivals of families and unaccompanied
children from Central America from October to December shot up to well
over double the amount from
the same period the previous year. The numbers could go even higher
beginning in February and early spring, when arrivals traditionally
increase, potentially eclipsing the levels that produced the 2014
crisis.
Many
are fleeing brutal gang warfare in El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala,
the same countries whose violence and instability forced women and kids
to make the dangerous
trip north two years ago, overwhelming U.S. facilities and producing
disturbing images of frightened children huddling in Border Patrol
facilities. Such images remain vivid to policymakers, and avoiding a
repeat is a priority.
Administration
officials say they are better prepared than they were in 2014 for a new
influx, including increased capacity to house children. But the
administration has
limited strategies to stem the tide. They have stepped up advertising
in Central American countries to warn of the dangers of the trip and
point to $750 million in a year-end spending bill to help those nations.
For more information, go to: www.beverlyhillsimmigrationlaw.com
No comments:
Post a Comment