President Donald Trump

[The Feral Slasher]

Like I said, we don't know the details of each case. Homeland Security sometimes deports people because they claim they are a threat to national security, or gang-affiliated, or many other reasons even without a criminal conviction. I'm sure there were some deportation mistakes made during the Obama administration. But I think there is a clear difference - the Obama administration emphasized deportation of convicted criminals, and at least 85% of those fit that description. Under Trump, the current policy is to intentionally break up families as a deterrent.

Obama - he's better than Trump !

[The Feral Slasher]

The Washington Post (June 2013): ICE Director John Morton stepping down



The Morton memo is interesting in that it prioritizes deportation targets not for any stated humanitarian reason, but simply because ICE was facing a triage situation:



Here's a link to the full Morton memo, for any interested parties: Full Morton memo

Edit to add: So, I think the answer to your question is, while the administration can claim that they were targeting mainly criminals at the policy level, that doesn't appear to be what was happening on the ground, as many immigration rights advocates have asserted.

Thanks, appreciate the info

[OaklandA's]

Edit to add: So, I think the answer to your question is, while the administration can claim that they were targeting mainly criminals at the policy level, that doesn't appear to be what was happening on the ground, as many immigration rights advocates have asserted.

I'm not sure how this memo differs substantially from administration policy. From the Morton memo, Priority #1 is "Aliens who pose a danger to national security or a risk to public safety." It then breaks this down to the five following items:
1) Aliens engaged in or suspected of terrorism or espionage, or who otherwise pose a danger to national security;
2) Aliens convicted of crimes, with a particular emphasis on violent criminals, felons, and repeat offenders;
3) Aliens not younger than 16 years of age who participated in organized criminal gangs;
4) Aliens subject to outstanding criminal warrants
5) Aliens who otherwise pose a serious risk to public safety.

Isn't this basically what the administration claimed - criminals and terrorists?

[The Feral Slasher]

Like I said, we don't know the details of each case. Homeland Security sometimes deports people because they claim they are a threat to national security, or gang-affiliated, or many other reasons even without a criminal conviction. I'm sure there were some deportation mistakes made during the Obama administration. But I think there is a clear difference - the Obama administration emphasized deportation of convicted criminals, and at least 85% of those fit that description. Under Trump, the current policy is to intentionally break up families as a deterrent.

your statement about 85 percent being criminals is incorrect, it is a much lower percentage

[OaklandA's]

your statement about 85 percent being criminals is incorrect, it is a much lower percentage

Doesn't the article state that 60,000 out of 70,000 had criminal convictions? 60,000/70,000 = ~85%.

[senorsheep]

I'm not sure how this memo differs substantially from administration policy. From the Morton memo, Priority #1 is "Aliens who pose a danger to national security or a risk to public safety." It then breaks this down to the five following items:
1) Aliens engaged in or suspected of terrorism or espionage, or who otherwise pose a danger to national security;
2) Aliens convicted of crimes, with a particular emphasis on violent criminals, felons, and repeat offenders;
3) Aliens not younger than 16 years of age who participated in organized criminal gangs;
4) Aliens subject to outstanding criminal warrants
5) Aliens who otherwise pose a serious risk to public safety.

Isn't this basically what the administration claimed - criminals and terrorists?

Yes, the memo is the statement of policy. According to what I've read and heard from immigration rights advocates, the on-the-ground enforcement was often not in step with the stated policy. ICE cast a much wider net than the administration intended, and a lot of non-criminal immigrants and their families were snared in it.

[The Feral Slasher]

Doesn't the article state that 60,000 out of 70,000 had criminal convictions? 60,000/70,000 = ~85%.

That is a small subset of total deportations and is only taken from one year. There are several articles below that you could read if you really cared much about the issue of immigration and less about defending Obama's legacy.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hard-truths-about-obamas-deportation-priorities_us_58b3c9e7e4b0658fc20f979e

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/dan-kovalik/obamas-decision-to-resume_b_9991768.html

[TranaGreg]

so the trade wars are on; with American tariffs now applied to Canadian steel & aluminum (as well as Mexico & the EU, announced this morning), Canada announced this afternoon that we're putting export taxes on ... wait for it ... maple syrup and canadian whisky (amongst other stuff). Enjoy your waffles - up here we won't be able to afford your cars but we should be able to be permanently pickled with the glut of Canadian Club we'll have.

edit: oops, my mistake - it's not an export tax, we're imposing tariffs on importing specific US goods - so no US maple syrup up here (I guess there's a farmer in Vermont who's pissed about that) ... and now we'll have to pay more for decent bourbon (glad I loaded up a while back ... tho I also brought back a bunch of scotch from scotland last month so won't really feel that at all).

[In the Corn]

Tariffs on our allies, what could go wrong with that

asshat!

[OaklandA's]

That is a small subset of total deportations and is only taken from one year. There are several articles below that you could read if you really cared much about the issue of immigration and less about defending Obama's legacy.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hard-truths-about-obamas-deportation-priorities_us_58b3c9e7e4b0658fc20f979e

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/dan-k...b_9991768.html

Rather than Huffington Post, I will link an article from the Migration Policy Institute:

https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/obama-record-deportations-deporter-chief-or-not

Looking at FY 2016, some key facts in the article are that:
1) 85% of all removals and returns were of non-citizens who had recently crossed the U.S. border unlawfully
2) Of the remainder, who were removed from the U.S. interior, more than 90 percent had been convicted of what DHS defines as serious crimes
3) In 2009, only 51% of interior removals were guilty of serious crimes. That number increased to 90% in 2016.

On #1, in the past, those caught at the border were often immediately returned. Lately, as a deterrent, these crossers have been put into the formal removal process. This can make the overall numbers on "criminals" deported more difficult to interpret.

[revo]

Tariffs on our allies, what could go wrong with that

asshat!

What allies?

[revo]

On his way to meet with survivors of the Santa Fe school shooting, Dumb Donald says:
"We are going to have a little fun today. Thank you very much."

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/390099-trump-ahead-of-visit-with-texas-shooting-survivors-we-are-going

[Hornsby]

On his way to meet with survivors of the Santa Fe school shooting, Dumb Donald says:
"We are going to have a little fun today. Thank you very much."

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefi...s-we-are-going

Oh My God...fun with school shooting survivors! Yay!

[The Feral Slasher]

Rather than Huffington Post, I will link an article from the Migration Policy Institute:

https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/obama-record-deportations-deporter-chief-or-not

Looking at FY 2016, some key facts in the article are that:
1) 85% of all removals and returns were of non-citizens who had recently crossed the U.S. border unlawfully
2) Of the remainder, who were removed from the U.S. interior, more than 90 percent had been convicted of what DHS defines as serious crimes
3) In 2009, only 51% of interior removals were guilty of serious crimes. That number increased to 90% in 2016.

On #1, in the past, those caught at the border were often immediately returned. Lately, as a deterrent, these crossers have been put into the formal removal process. This can make the overall numbers on "criminals" deported more difficult to interpret.

So back to your statement - "As that article states, during the Obama administration, the vast majority of parents who were deported had been convicted of a crime. That is one key difference between the Obama era and the Trump era". Do you have data that indicates the vast majority of parents deported were not convicted of a crime under the trump administration ? Looking at ICE website https://www.ice.gov/removal-statistics/2017 I don't see a huge difference between the two administrations in terms of percentage of criminals deported. So am I interpreting it wrong, or do you have other data that supports your claim ?

[OaklandA's]

So back to your statement - "As that article states, during the Obama administration, the vast majority of parents who were deported had been convicted of a crime. That is one key difference between the Obama era and the Trump era". Do you have data that indicates the vast majority of parents deported were not convicted of a crime under the trump administration ? Looking at ICE website https://www.ice.gov/removal-statistics/2017 I don't see a huge difference between the two administrations in terms of percentage of criminals deported. So am I interpreting it wrong, or do you have other data that supports your claim ?

The main thing that has changed is that Trump has issued a new policy to separate children from their parents at the border. I think this is a bad policy. And many times, Trump has said he wants to deport all 13 million illegal immigrants (not just those that are criminals or a public safety threat), which I also think is a bad policy. People are trying to make an equivalence between the policies of Trump and Obama, but I think articles like those Jacobin and HuffPo ones are incorrectly interpreting the data, which I tried to correct with the Migration Policy one.