Not A Peso`s Worth Of Difference?

[NEW – U.S. Department of
Homeland Security "Detention Priorities"
memorandum by
Under Secretary Asa Hutchinson, 10/18/04]

With the presidential election now
just a week away, the Washington Times recently
weighed in with an editorial splitting hairs over which
candidate`s illegal alien amnesty proposal would be a
greater disaster for America.

Calling the

Bush betrayal
"amnesty lite," the paper came
to the conclusion that "John Kerry`s plan is far
on Immigration
, Oct 22, 04, The Washington
, editorial]

Sorry to burst your bubble,
Washington Times,
but illegal alien amnesty doesn`t
even come close to being the defining immigration issue
between George W. Bush and John Kerry.  

And if the paper expects to coax
real immigration reformers into supporting Bush on
VDARE.COM`s very own issue…as they say – don`t even go

The truth of the matter is that

both Yalies
are solid non-deportation candidates.

As I

in the

, the difference between giving illegal aliens
work authorization and a free non-deportation pass with
renewable non-immigrant status—versus giving an illegal
alien a

green card
outright—doesn`t amount to much.

Both schemes are
lawbreaker-rewarding amnesties.

But there`s more. You can also make
a compelling case that the president`s "willing
[foreign] worker, willing [American] employer"
philosophy is even more potentially dangerous than
Senator Kerry`s


La Raza

Not content with just giving legal
status to foreign nationals already living and working
illegally in the U.S., the Bush-backed

Arizona Amnesty
plan would import even more foreign
workers to fill even more American jobs.

It`s as if the U.S. doesn`t already
have enough

pauper labor
working for cheap!

But, as far as our current state of

immigration law enforcement
goes, the Bush
administration`s report card for the

past four years
has been


Notwithstanding the occasional

good news
coming out of the Department of Justice,
the newly-created cabinet level mega-bureaucracy of the
Department of Homeland Security

has established itself as a bastion of
immigration non-enforcement the likes of which America
has never seen.

After all the

over the new department has died down, the
Bush Administration`s DHS has shown itself as just
another repackaged version of the same old


programs of the disgraced and

Immigration and Naturalization Service.

So let`s take stock of the Bush
Administration`s DHS – the immigration non-enforcement
devil we know – for comparison against the potential
devil we don`t know.

Under the Bush Administration, the

detention and removal
program of the DHS went broke.
While there was plenty of money around for top-dollar
bureaucrat salaries, there was

no money
left to fund detention bed space for the
thousands of illegal aliens and criminal alien residents
queuing up for

Immigration Court
removal proceedings before the
Justice Department`s Executive Office for Immigration
Review (EOIR).

Faced with this financial
mismanagement and a

lack of detention space,
the DHS continued releasing
untold numbers of illegal aliens and criminal alien
residents from

immigration detention.

Were it not for the

mandatory detention
requirements built into the
Immigration Act, the DHS could have released even more

As a sure-fire sign that the DHS
immigration detention budget will probably remain
under-funded for the foreseeable future, DHS Under

Asa Hutchinson
recently issued "detention
guidelines to make it easier for his
minions to figure out which removable illegal aliens to
send back out on the streets.

the text of Hutchinson`s memorandum

– a exclusive!]

Remember that under the Immigration
Act, it is perfectly permissible to detain ALL of the
categories of illegal aliens and criminal alien
residents listed in the memorandum . . . not just the
ones marked "mandatory."

But the DHS obviously has other

It accepts that it should give
“High Priority”
to “aliens who present an
articulable danger to the community”
but cautions
sternly “(claimant agency must be able to
articulate the danger
).” [DHS emphasis].

“Lower Priority” i.e. no
priority at all are “worksite enforcement arrests”—although
the wage and employment impact of illegal immigration is
what is really hurting most Americans.

The Bush White House also opposes
the immigration provisions of

H.R. 10
even though this House bill contains a
full-implementation of the desperately-needed

expedited removal
provisions of

Section 235(b)
of the Immigration Act. Congress gave
the green light for these same provisions as part of
1996 immigration amendments. But the provisions have
been left completely unused for interior immigration
enforcement for the past eight years.

As fate would have it, DHS Under
Secretary Hutchinson`s own brother Tim (then a
Congressman from Arkansas) voted for the amendments
authorizing the expedited removal authority . . . which
the former INS and now the DHS have never fully put into

But suppose the expedited removal
authority was fully implemented tomorrow. Can anyone
believe, based on the DHS` dismal track record, that the
agency as presently constituted would suddenly repent
and begin nationwide Section


More likely, wouldn`t the Holy
Grail of Section 235(b) expedited removal become just
another un-funded and un-enforced immigration law
enforcement program buried within the bureaucracy?

Please don`t get me wrong here . .
. Section 235(b) expedited removal authority for
interior enforcement is vital for

actually removing illegal aliens.
It`s the first
step toward scrapping the failed EOIR and federal court
litigation model of immigration law enforcement.

But if there are not enough agents
and officers to conduct interior law enforcement to put
Section 235(b) expedited removal into practice—without
much support from state and local authorities—illegal
aliens will still continue to survive and thrive from

sea to shining sea.

So be prepared for more immigration
non-enforcement—no matter who is the next President.

Immigration reform is on a long
march through America`s institutions. Eventually there
will be an election on the issue.

But 2004 is not the year.

Juan Mann [send him
] is a lawyer and the proprietor of