What Part Of “Shall Take Into Custody” Doesn`t The DHS Understand?
When the Supreme Court
issued its magnificent ruling in
Demore v. Kim on April 29, the
DHS got the green light to detain virtually any
criminal alien in the United States without bond pending
That meant that, after a nationwide
barrage of legal challenges, the immigration law was
right back where it was when Congress passed it in 1996.
So what has the DHS been doing to
implement this hard-fought Supreme Court victory?
Answer: not much. Last week, the
DHS` own Anthony Tangeman, Director of the Office of
Detention and Removal, Immigration and Customs
Enforcement division, released a memo about the Kim case. The memo offers no
plans to pick up the aliens released while
litigation was pending-unless they come into custody
“under new circumstances.”
Kim case, the Supreme Court affirmed the
Constitutionality of the broad mandatory detention
Section 236 (c) of the Immigration Act. The Court
reversed four federal appellate courts – the third,
fourth, ninth and tenth circuits – that had, for one
reason or another, struck down this perfectly good
section of immigration law.
Section 236(c) got its detention
teeth through amendments known as the Illegal
Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of
1996 [IIRAIRA]. This was signed by President Clinton on
September 30, 1996, and became effective on April 1,
suspects in the
Treason Lobby immediately lined up to
“fix `96” with round-the-clock federal litigation.
But the patriotic
Washington Legal Foundation stood up against the
horde–and won a compliment by the Supreme Court on its
Three cheers for WLF!
Section 236(c) orders mandatory
detention of just about every deportable criminal alien
– both illegal aliens and criminal alien residents –
pending lengthy removal proceedings before the
Immigration Court system of the Executive Office for
Immigration Review (EOIR). It says that the former INS –
now the DHS – “shall take into custody” criminal aliens
without bond during Immigration Court hearings and
Don`t be fooled by pro-criminal
spin. The aliens affected by the Kim case
aren`t altar boys.
legislation applies to terrorists, drug criminals,
drug traffickers, illegal alien smugglers, firearms
violators and any
alien convicted of an “aggravated felony” including
murder, rape, serious assaults, and sexual abuse of
a minor. Robbers, burglars,
fraud artists and thieves get mandatory detention
too. (Oddly enough, aliens convicted of domestic
violence offenses not rising to the level of a serious
assault – perhaps the group who could do the most
immediate harm if released to the streets – are still
eligible for an immigration bond.)
But why isn`t the DHS rolling the
little white vans and old INS buses to start picking up
the criminal aliens let out by the federal bench`s “fix
The four federal circuits slapped
by the Kim case cover 22 states, Guam and the U.S.
Virgin Islands. That`s a lot of criminal aliens.
EOIR Immigration Court bond
hearings were held for these
criminal aliens – wrongly, the Supreme Court now
says. And, across the country, these criminal aliens
have been paying immigration bonds and walking out of
custody. The INS also set its own bonds for these
criminals, which they gladly paid. And then disappeared.
DHS` Tangeman, a former INS deputy
executive associate commissioner for Detention and
Removal, was recently quoted
suggesting exactly that would happen:
“Illegal aliens that are wanted by the Bureau of
Immigration and Customs Enforcement are going to be
taken into custody at any location in the United
working to change the way that we do business.“
deportees hard to turn in — Feds try to clarify
`absconder` policy,” by Julia Malone – Cox
Washington Bureau, May 4, 2003]
Oh yeah, Tony? So why isn`t the DHS
now rounding up all the criminal aliens released on
bonds from New Jersey to Virginia to Colorado and
My answer: Laziness. Cowardice.
Lack of imagination. Lack of public pressure (which
VDARE.COM hereby supplies).
And here`s a thought: if these
lucky “fix `96” convicted criminal aliens are on the
loose even though there is no legal authority for them
to be out there, doesn`t that expose the federal
government to liability if they hurt someone?
Maybe that will encourage the