Obama to law enforcement: It’s “not smart” to go after nonviolent illegals
posted at 2:31 pm on May 14, 2014 by Allahpundit
Via CNS, if you want to be charitable, you can spin this as O simply saying that immigration enforcement is a matter for ICE, not local cops who have higher priorities. But you can’t be charitable because, as we well know, ICE isn’t doing much enforcement against nonviolent illegals either. That was the upshot of Jeff Sessions’s analysis of ICE data back in March — essentially, if you’re an illegal without a criminal record and you make it to the interior of the U.S., ICE won’t (or can’t, due to lack of resources) touch you. Most of their job nowadays has to do with catching people at the border, which is why Obama’s “deportation” stats are so ridiculously inflated. All Obama’s doing here is restating his unofficial policy. If you make it past the border and you’ve committed no crimes, you’re home free.
And even if you have committed some crimes, including homicide, kidnapping, and sexual assault, you might catch a break then too. Oddly enough, Obama doesn’t mention that here. But it’s clear he has a political problem when even Grahamnesty feels obliged to work up some canned outrage:
One of the leading Republicans pushing for amnesty in the Senate said leaked documents revealing the Obama administration has released thousand of immigrants with serious rap sheets from detention has set back efforts to pass a major immigration bill.
“This sets everything back. I don’t think many Americans want an illegal immigrant who has been convicted of a felony to stay in the country and sure as hell not released from jail,” Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) told Breitbart News…
“It’s a terrible way to handle immigration,” he said. “You don’t let people out of jail who have been convicted of crimes — and these are crimes apart from violations of immigration law.”
Here’s where I start wondering again whether O’s purposely trying to tank an immigration deal. He’s held off on issuing his order to “relax” U.S. deportation policy so far, presumably because he knows it’ll give Republicans in Congress a reason to walk away from reform, but then he turns around and says something like this — on camera, at a White House function, knowing that it’ll make the rounds within conservative media and that Boehner’s caucus will notice. If you’re eager to show the other party that you’ll faithfully execute the new security measures they pass, pretty much the last thing you should do is … publicly encourage a bunch of cops to not enforce the law. And yet here we are. What now?