|
Washington, D.C. (December 23, 2024) - As President-elect Donald Trump prepares to assume office, his emphasis on increased immigration enforcement brings renewed focus to the operational challenges of a system that is often criticized as dysfunctional. Despite its flaws, a historical review reveals that the immigration system has the potential to work effectively if enforcement priorities are properly implemented. Andrew Arthur, the Center’s Fellow in Law and Policy, provides a summary of key milestones shaping immigration enforcement over the last five administrations.
Arthur stated, “The shifting priorities in this history demonstrate that the U.S. immigration system is not inherently broken but suffers from inconsistent implementation. If enforced as intended, existing laws and policies could ensure national security and public safety while maintaining fairness and efficiency.”
A Brief History of Immigration Enforcement
Meissner Memo (2000):
- INS Commissioner Doris Meissner introduced prosecutorial discretion, urging agents to consider factors like humanitarian concerns and immigration history when deciding on removal proceedings.
- Sparked by legislative restrictions from the 1996 INA amendments, this memo marked a shift from uniform enforcement to selective discretion.
Morton Memo (2011):
- ICE Director John Morton emphasized prioritizing resources, targeting dangerous criminals and recent border crossers.
- Enforcement narrowed, leading to a 43% drop in ICE interior removals between FY2012 and FY2014.
Jeh Johnson Memo (2014):
- DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson further refined priorities, limiting enforcement to serious offenders and recent illegal entrants.
- Interior removals fell by another 32% in FY2015, reflecting tightened guidelines.
Executive Order 13768 (2017):
- President Trump broadened enforcement to include immigration fraud and failure to depart under final removal orders.
- These policies achieved a notable increase in removals, especially for criminal offenders.
Pekoske Memo (2021):
- The Biden administration restricted enforcement to aggravated felons, national security threats, and recent illegal entrants.
- This sharply curtailed immigration actions, illustrating the power of administrative guidance.
Johnson Memo (2021):
- Acting ICE Director Tae Johnson issued guidance expanding enforcement priorities to include aggravated felons and gang members posing public safety risks, alongside national and border security threats.
State of Texas v. U.S.:
- Texas and Louisiana challenged the Pekoske and Johnson memos.
- Court rulings, including a Fifth Circuit decision, addressed the memos’ restrictions on ICE enforcement, eventually leading to new DHS guidance.
Secretary Mayorkas Memo (2021):
- Introduced aggravating and mitigating factors for enforcement actions, limiting ICE’s ability to detain and remove certain criminal aliens.
- Court challenges culminated in a 2023 Supreme Court decision dismissing states’ standing to sue.
Kerry Doyle Memo (2022):
- Directed ICE attorneys to prioritize dismissals and administrative closures, criticized for facilitating a "quiet amnesty."
- A House Judiciary Committee report highlighted significant case dismissals and inefficiencies tied to this memo.
Impact of Biden-Harris Administration’s Enforcement Restrictions:
- Arrests, deportations, and detainers of criminal aliens dropped significantly compared to pre-Covid Trump years, with declines across all crime categories.
- Reduced focus on domestic violence offenses under the Mayorkas memo raised public safety concerns.
|
