Napolitano is refusing to enforce law aimed at returning criminal aliens to their home country

[Chen019]

Heh, obviously the answer is that she sees them as potential voters

Florida Republican Rep. Sandy Adams wants answers from Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano.

Adams says she is not following existing law, which requires the federal government to cut off visas from countries that refuse to re-admit their citizens who have committed crimes while residing in the U.S. illegally. If these countries refuse to take the criminal illegal immigrants back after a six-month “detention period,” the U.S government releases them back into U.S. communities…
Adams said that in 2001, the U.S. secretary of state “issued those orders [using 243(d)] and guess what? The country [Guyana] took back their criminal aliens so we know it works so the question is why isn’t she [Napolitano] doing it?”

Adams pressed Napolitano on the issue during a House Judiciary Committee hearing on October 26 but did not receive answers to her questions…
Adams has asked Napolitano to respond to her letter by Nov. 18. She told TheDC she will work with Chairman Lamar Smith – who has issued a subpoena against DHS on a related issue – to take further action.

[Lord_Feldon]

Section 243(d) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, “Discontinuing Granting Visas to Nationals of Country Denying or Delaying Accepting Alien” reads as follows, “On being notified by the Attorney General that the government of a foreign country denies or unreasonably delays accepting an alien who is a citizen, subject, national, or resident of that country after the Attorney General asks whether the government will accept the alien under this section, the Secretary of State shall order consular officers in that foreign country to discontinue granting immigrant visas or nonimmigrant visas, or both, to citizens, subjects, nationals, and residents of that country until the Attorney General notifies the Secretary that the country has accepted the alien.”

1. I don’t see what any of this has to do with Janet Napolitano. Shouldn’t the questions be directed to Hillary Clinton or Eric Holder?

2. Talk about unfair. Your lame-ass government won’t do the right thing, so you get the shaft?

[AlienVessels]

It’d be nice if your cite supported your topic. There’s a huge difference between someone refusing and someone else claiming they refuse.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/story/2011-10-18/deportations-criminals-homeland-security/50807532/1

Deportations have been on the rise for the past decade, and the 396,906 illegal immigrants deported in fiscal year 2011 is the highest number yet, according to the figures.

Under the Obama administration, Homeland Security issued new priorities to focus deportations on convicted criminals, people who pose threats to national security and repeated border-crossers. Last year, 55% of those deported were convicted criminals, the highest percentage in nearly a decade.

[Mosier]

Aw, poor Chen. Destroyed within 5 posts yet again.

[Richard_Parker]

longer post needed

[kaylasdad99]

Some reason for it being in the Elections forum might be helpful, too.

[Simplicio]

I read the law as leaving it up to the Attorney General whether to ask the Secretary of State to suspend issuing Visas. According to Alien Vessel’s cite, the US has successfully deported something like 200,000 illegal immigrants after they committed crimes, while according to this, only something like 2000 were released over three years because their home countries wouldn’t take them back.

So in short, I expect Holder is within his rights to not refer the cases to the Sec of State, and he hasn’t done so because its not that big a problem, affecting only some .3% of cases, and the legal remedy would presumably effect large numbers of legal visa holders (some portion of which would become illegal immigrants when faced with being unable to renew their visas, possibly causing a bigger problem for INS then it sovles).

And I agree that it doesn’t seem to have much to do with Napolitano either way.

[Marley23]

@kaylasdad99

Some reason for it being in the Elections forum might be helpful, too.

That part won’t be necessary- this seems to be more about immigration law than any specific politician, so I’ve moved it to Great Debates.

[Chen019]

@Mosier

Aw, poor Chen. Destroyed within 5 posts yet again.

wtf? This was just a quick post in the elections thread. Can you provide some examples of other occasions where you consider my arguments have been refuted?

Otherwise, I’ll have to say you’re full of it. You can post your response here.

[Chen019]

@Lord_Feldon

1. I don’t see what any of this has to do with Janet Napolitano. Shouldn’t the questions be directed to Hillary Clinton or Eric Holder?

True, it isn’t clear from the article whether Holder has made the notification. So you’re right, the query should be directed to him.

[Farmer_Jane]

If you could go ahead and cite the actual problem (documented, of course) of alien immigrants voting, that would be helpful.

[Chen019]

@CitizenPained

If you could go ahead and cite the actual problem (documented, of course) of alien immigrants voting, that would be helpful.

That was a tongue in cheek comment, I’ll use the correct emoticon next time.

[Chen019]

@CitizenPained

If you could go ahead and cite the actual problem (documented, of course) of alien immigrants voting, that would be helpful.

As pointed out above, my comment was mainly in jest but it appears that illegal immigrants are in fact voting in the US. So there you go.

[tomndebb]

@Chen019

As pointed out above, my comment was mainly in jest but it appears that illegal immigrants are in fact voting in the US. So there you go.

Of course, the information in the first link simply waves around the dishonest tripe from “former recess-appointed FEC Commissioner Hans von Spakovsky, whose troubling record on voting rights caused him to withdraw his name from consideration for a permanent FEC seat,” that has been pretty soundly refuted in the report to which I linked, including documentation of von Spakovsky’s distortions and lies.

Similarly, the second link is to a claim made by a Republican advocacy group that has not been supported by any actual evidence.

[GIGObuster]

@tomndebb

Of course, the information in the first link simply waves around the dishonest tripe from “former recess-appointed FEC Commissioner Hans von Spakovsky, whose troubling record on voting rights caused him to withdraw his name from consideration for a permanent FEC seat,” that has been pretty soundly refuted in the report to which I linked, including documentation of von Spakovsky’s distortions and lies.

Similarly, the second link is to a claim made by a Republican advocacy group that has not been supported by any actual evidence.

As it is usual, I expect the cite to have an item that Chen019 deftly ignored.

Rep. Charles Gonzalez (D-Texas) raised doubts about the reporting, noting that the study itself said it was based on inconclusive data and that it was “impossible to provide precise numbers” on how many people who were registered to vote in the state were not citizens.

Gonzalez asked Gessler, a former prosecutor, if he would have pursued a court case on such evidence.

Gessler responded that the goal of the study was to expose voter registration issues and pursue administrative avenues to resolve them.

“We don’t have a screen for citizenship on the front end when people register to vote,” he said.

Notice how Gessler avoided answering the question.

Best educated guess, if there is an investigation, very few will be found to be breaking the law as in previous “wake-up calls”.

[Chen019]

@tomndebb

Of course, the information in the first link simply waves around the dishonest tripe from “former recess-appointed FEC Commissioner Hans von Spakovsky, whose troubling record on voting rights caused him to withdraw his name from consideration for a permanent FEC seat,” that has been pretty soundly refuted in the report to which I linked, including documentation of von Spakovsky’s distortions and lies.

Similarly, the second link is to a claim made by a Republican advocacy group that has not been supported by any actual evidence.

I thought the evidence was that 12,000 were registered to vote? Also, the system seems remarkably lax:

Under current law, a person registering to vote declares they are a citizen and eligible to vote. There is no requirement to produce documentation, the process depends solely on the word of the voter signing the form. Falsely registering to vote is a felony, which disallows future voting or office-holding.

[tomndebb]

@Chen019

I thought the evidence was that 12,000 were registered to vote?

While I note that the “methodology” of the study was seriously flawed and that the author refused to even attempt to defend it, changing the subject as soon as it was challenged.

I doubt that their claims have any validity.
(And citing a separate news item that simply tells the same story with the same lack of factual content fails to establish much support for your position. It is rather like simply repeating the same claim over and over in the hope that repetition will make it true.)