Washington Times
By Stephen Dinan
January 6, 2016
President
Obama’s new series of raids designed to arrest and deport illegal
immigrant Central Americans could end up being a “disaster” for
Democrats in the presidential
election, pushing Hispanic voters to stay home rather than turn out to
vote, activists said Wednesday.
The
raids are a particular challenge for Democratic front-runner Hillary
Clinton, who has yet to personally denounce them. Given her checkered
history on immigration,
Latino activists said she must move quickly and forcefully to rebuke
Mr. Obama if she hopes to energize Hispanic voters.
One of his opponents has an edge few are aware of – and it could mean certain defeat for The Donald.
Indeed,
other top Democrats are rushing to draw lines between themselves and
their president, demanding he get ahold of what they hope is a rogue
agency within the Department
of Homeland Security.
“We
expect heated calls for raids and deportation from the other side,”
said Rep. Luis V. Gutierrez, an Illinois Democrat and top Hispanic
leader. “Our party has rejected
those calls, with good reason. Americans want order and legality in
immigration, not deportations and families forcibly split apart or
exiled.”
Homeland
Security Secretary Jeh Johnson said the raids are designed to deport
some of the illegal immigration parents and children from Central
America who surged across
the border in 2014, overwhelming his department. Forced to release the
families at the time, he ordered his agents to go back and try to deport
those who’ve already exhausted their appeals and have been ordered
removed.
The
raids, however, are proving to be an embarrassment, both politically
and legally. Immigration lawyers said Wednesday they’ve already managed
to halt deportations for
four families, with judges ruling the government short-circuited the
process the immigrants should have been afforded. Another four appeals
are pending.
Lawyers argued the illegal immigrants had legitimate asylum claims they were unable to make in court.
The
lawyers also said agents didn’t show warrants before entering homes and
are refusing to let some of the illegal immigrants meet with lawyers
now to discuss their cases.
In
the wake of the raids, all of the top Democratic presidential
candidates have been critical, with Sen. Bernard Sanders and former
Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley forcefully
denouncing the raids as inhumane. Activists, though, panned Mrs.
Clinton’s statement as the weakest, since it came not from her but from a
spokesperson, and only said she has “real concerns.”
“The
Democratic candidates have to denounce this, and they have to do it
forcefully. I think O'Malley has; Sanders has somewhat. I think Clinton
has been somewhat tepid,”
said Lynn Tramonte, deputy director of America’s Voice Education Fund.
“This isn’t just ordinary immigration operations, this is cutting into
the heart of what it means to be a country that protects people. We need
to see more from Secretary Clinton; we need
to see it in her words. And if anybody tries to defend these policies,
they’re going to see a backlash.”
Ryan
Campbell, communications director for the DRM Action Coalition, which
advocates for Dreamers, or illegal immigrants brought to the U.S. as
children, said Mrs. Clinton’s
tepid response to the raids follows her initial reaction to the Central
American surge in 2014, when she said they should be deported as
quickly as possible — a sentiment that didn’t go over well with
immigration-minded voters.
“She
has given a criticism of the latest round of deportations, but it is
comparatively light compared to O'Malley and Sanders, so she could see
more demonstrations at
her rallies from immigrant rights organizations who believe that she is
the worst choice among the three candidates for the Democratic
nomination, especially with her ties to the Obama administration, as the
title ‘deporter in chief’ will be thrown around
more,” Mr. Campbell said.
The
White House said the decision to conduct the raids was made by career
professionals at Homeland Security, but press secretary Josh Earnest
still embraced the raids
Tuesday, calling them “consistent” with Mr. Obama’s approach to
immigration.
“Politics did not factor into these kinds of enforcement decisions,” Mr. Earnest said.
He also insisted each of the 121 illegal immigrants arrested had exhausted due process reviews.
But
advocates said that’s not turned out to be the case. The lawyers who
won stays of deportation said their clients didn’t understand the
process and weren’t aware they
could appeal their orders of deportation.
“The
federal government has denied their rights at every turn,” said Katie
Shepherd, managing attorney for the alliance of four immigrant rights
groups that are representing
the families. “This is the latest in the long line of abhorrent
government actions that make it clear that our government fails to
understand that these individuals are asylum-seekers fleeing violence
and seeking protection in the United States.”
Of the 11 families the group has interviewed at the Texas detention center where they’re being held, only one has been deported.
U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement declined to comment on the
specifics of the cases but said it had only targeted illegal immigrants
who’d already exhausted their
appeals.
As
the raids become better known within immigrant communities, Ms.
Tramonte said Hispanic voters may end up punishing the Democrats’
presidential nominee by staying home
in November as an expression of frustration with Mr. Obama.
“If it was November right now, this would be a disaster for the Democratic Party,” Ms. Tramonte said.
Mr.
Campbell said it could go either way — it’s possible the raids spur
higher turnout because they remind voters of what’s at stake with the
next president, but they
could also serve to discourage voters fed up with broken promises from
Mr. Obama. Mr. Campbell said he leans toward the discouragement
hypothesis.
“Obama
promised to fix immigration in his first year, but it’s been the issue
that he has consistently sacrificed, often for political leverage that
never came even after
record-setting deportations,” he said. “Obama and his family have
reaped the benefits of some of the more generous aspects of our and
other countries’ immigration systems. If he became the ‘deporter in
chief,’ who is there to trust?”
But
Joshua Hoyt, executive director of the National Partnership for New
Americans, which has vowed to try to naturalize and register 1 million
new voters ahead of the
election, predicted a more mobilized electorate this year, spurred by
deportation-heavy rhetoric from GOP presidential front-runner Donald
Trump.
“When
you hit the Latino electorate with a stick, they always get mad, stand
up and punch back hard. And they are getting better and better at
counterpunching. In 2016
it’s looking like this will greatly benefit the Democrats,” he said.
“Come November the Republican candidate will again be talking about how
they self-deported from the White House!”
Mark
Krikorian, executive director at the Center for Immigration Studies,
which wants to see an immigration crackdown, said he doubts Hispanic
voters will sit out the
election over these raids, and said the backlash among activists is an
overreaction.
He
said candidates who criticize 121 deportations, out of a population of
hundreds of thousands of Central Americans who jumped the border over
the last couple of years,
is signaling they don’t believe in enforcement.
“This
really is a little piddling enforcement action, and if Hillary and
others are against this, they’re basically against enforcement of
immigration laws period. This
really is a low bar,” he said.
He
said Mrs. Clinton, the Democrats’ likely nominee, needs to be careful
in criticizing Mr. Obama’s actions too harshly because it could cost her
votes in states such
as Ohio and Pennsylvania.
The Clinton, Sanders and O'Malley campaigns didn’t respond to requests for comment.
For more information, go to: www.beverlyhillsimmigrationlaw.com
No comments:
Post a Comment