Government officials, the presidential team included, have long been accustomed to practicing a general rule of discretion when it comes to the conduction of matters related to deportation. Highly publicized, it should come as no surprise to inquiring minds to learn that the government tends to lean towards discretion in those issues that arise which concern immigration matters such as the sensitive topic of deportation. However, the generally accepted rule has recently come under the scrutiny of a federal appellate court. It was only earlier this week that the Obama administration was pressed by the court as to whether or not it should follow the public policy that was recently put into practice in regards to the legal matters of deportation that are handled at the federal level.
Directives that were issued last year in November and December specifically summarize the factors that should be weighed when making the important decision of whether or not to pursue deportation. Outlined in these directives were matters such as criminal history, length of current stay in the country, U.S. familial ties, the history of a subject's immigration status, military service, and a host of other factors to be used as weighted criterion. While these memos have been followed since their inception late last year, they are now the most recent sources of questioning – some might even say federal challenge – that is currently facing the presidential team. In a bold move at the beginning of this week, a 2-1 court ruling in regards to five different immigration cases specifically called for an official decision to be made about the use of the aforementioned memos no later than March 19th of this year.
What is now being described as a "critical dissent," was instigated by Judge D. F. O'Scannlain who claimed that the court had overstepped its boundaries by calling for actions that audaciously overlook the constitution's call for separation of powers. According to O'Scannlain, the constitutional laws which have long since governed the American people protect against the actions which were cited in the newest set of immigration memos. This is an area of decision making for which the courts were not meant to be a part. As such, intense controversy has arisen in regards to the deportation memos that were previously issued as directive outlines to be followed by governing systems when referring to matters of the law.
Typically, immigration cases that require deportation attention are handled in the Justice Department. They are taken before an immigration judge and represented by an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) attorney in order to determine the status of an immigrant on trial. However, the process is handled somewhat differently in the federal district courts, as well as the circuit courts, both which use Justice Department lawyers to address immigration cases. It is these exact differences that have called into question the directives issued in last year's memos. For those who have expressed dissention regarding this matter, it is the general feeling that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals should decide cases according to the nation's laws and not according to specific policies enforced under the Obama administration.
The two memos which are under direct scrutiny right now are only a few in a slew of internal directives that were issued by Obama's administration which have come under hot contest. Currently, Congress remains unwilling to debate about the legislative reforms of U.S. immigration laws. This is a decision which has led Obama's team to look towards other options regarding the matters at hand, including less punitive immigration lockups, discretionary prosecutions, and even detention reforms. Two programs were completed last month by ICE in relation to the review of deportation cases in the cities of Baltimore and Denver. Currently, officials have tracked a significant decline in the number of deportations being made and the back log of these cases is not only growing, but slowing in progress as well. Skeptics of the memos under debate right now could be drawing parallels to the two, and it is likely that they are not happy with the correlations that can be seen.
Clearly, the matter of legal immigration deportation is one that is under a lot of stress at the moment. As it has yet to be determined whether or not the government's most recently issued directives will be employed in these matters from here on out, it is absolutely imperative that those who are facing possible deportation obtain the sound legal representation of an attorney who is skilled in all areas of this branch of the law. Until the matters have been resolved, immigrants under the jurisdiction of the federal court system may be held in limbo.