The acting director of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE), Matt Albence, told reporters in a White House briefing that the recent court decision that restricts ICE’s ability to issue immigration retainers to hold criminals in custody will endanger the public and that the decision was “judicial overreach.”
Albence spoke to reporters from the White House briefing room, where he reacted to a September ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Andre Birrote Jr. — who issued a permanent injunction barring the agency from relying only on electronic databases when issuing detainers. The ruling applies to states that do not explicitly authorize civil immigration arrests using detainers.
Apparently, the reason the judge gave is that the practice of ICE relying on databases to discover criminal illegals in custody is “unreliable” and that some U.S. citizens are named in the retainers. Mistakes are bound to happen when dealing with huge numbers of illegals, and for a judge to single out the exceptions is ludicrous.
Last year, ICE deported more than 145,000 criminal illegal immigrants and about 70 percent of arrests ICE conducts occur via a detainer from a local or state jail or prison. Albence warned the ruling would severely hamper ICE’s ability to pick up and deport dangerous illegal immigrants with prior convictions.
“This conclusion is out of step with the realities of modern law enforcement, endangers the public and construes probable cause in an unfairly restrictive way,” he said. “Moreover this decision, issued by a single judge in Los Angeles will impact at least 43 states, threatening communities far beyond the one in which this judge sits.”
A federal judge “out of step” with “realities”? Say it ain’t so.
“While I wish I could say this is an isolated occurrence, it is the latest example of judicial overreach targeting immigration enforcement and the application of laws already passed by Congress, often decades ago,” he said.
And that’s the bottom line. There is nothing revolutionary or reactionary in these policies. It’s what grown-up countries do to keep the people as safe as possible. Suddenly, after decades of enforcement, to discover that these rules and laws or somehow injurious to illegal aliens is absurd.
For many liberal judges, we can’t be beastly to the illegals, lest their feelings be hurt. And if a dangerous criminal illegal is let go and free to commit violent felonies, well, that’s a shame.
Except the families of the victims of these idiotic rulings don’t feel quite so sanguine about the changes. But it’s OK because the families of the judges who make these rulings are probably pretty safe.
The choices for the next president when it comes to immigration policy couldn’t be starker. It will be a major issue in the campaign a year from now, and could decide whether we have recognized, well-guarded borders or not.