At the end of February, the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) announced, ahead of the March 1^st sequestration deadline, that over 2,000 illegal immigrants would be released from detention due to budget cuts. 

ICE later indicated that the detainees who had been released were non-criminals and other low risk offenders who do not have serious criminal histories that would subject them to mandatory detention.  However, 28% of those released have been charged with criminal offenses, some of which were aggravated felonies.

Further, some of the individuals released may be members of violent criminal gangs.  This week, when I had the opportunity to question John Morton, Director of ICE, about the decision, he could not confirm whether those released were members of violent criminal gangs or not.  Watch the video here.

The Budget Control Act, which set up the process of sequestration, was signed into law on August 2, 2011.  Since that time, ICE has had nearly 600 days to plan for spending cuts; however, they chose to release criminal, illegal immigrants just days before sequestration took effect.

Question of the week:  Was the decision by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to release illegal immigrants a valid means for reducing spending?

( ) Yes.
( ) No.
( ) I don’t know.
( ) ICE should have taken other measures to account for budgetary cuts (leave your comments below).


Take the Poll here.

Find the results of last week’s InstaPoll here. 

One month after the tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, the President announced a wide array of proposals ranging from gun laws to mental health to school safety, which he is implementing through a series of twenty-three executive actions or calling on Congress to enact legislatively.

While no one condones the purchase and use of guns by felons or other high-risk individuals to perpetrate any crime, we must not bypass Congress or infringe upon rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the Constitution.   The Judiciary Committee, of which I am a member, is the appropriate forum for holding hearings on the President’s proposal.  Members of Congress need the opportunity to hear from those working in the law enforcement, health and education fields, not only to solicit their feedback on these new proposals, but to get their expert opinion on what has and has not worked in the past.  We must be afforded the opportunity to examine existing law before rushing to enact new ones.

The New York Times published a copy of the President’s proposal, including the issues he will address through twenty-three executive actions.  The plan includes background checks, an assault weapons ban, providing schools with resource officers, and ensuring that health plans cover mental health.   I invite you to read the proposal and weigh in with your thoughts. 

Today, I voted in favor of two resolutions recommending that the House of Representatives find Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice, in contempt of Congress for refusal to comply with a subpoena by the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.  The criminal contempt resolution authorizes a criminal referral to the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia.  The civil contempt resolution allows the Oversight and Government Reform to seek a civil enforcement action to force compliance with the subpoena, in the event that the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia does not move forward.

To read the full report from the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, click below.

We could see some movement on legislation to promote job creation and reduce burdensome regulations. This week, the House Judiciary Committee, of which I am a member, will hold a mark-up of H.R. 10, the Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny (REINS) Act. I am a cosponsor of this legislation, which would require that Congress take an up-or-down vote on every new major rule before it could be enforced on businesses and the American people. The bill would provide much-needed certainty for American businesses owners who are often hamstrung due to constantly changing regulations coming out of Washington.

You can read more about it here. You can read the full bill text here.

If the bill is reported favorably out of the Judiciary Committee, the next step would be a vote by the full House of Representatives. I'll be sure to keep you updated on the bill's status as it is considered in committee this week.

Two weeks ago, the Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) – the agency that is supposed to remove illegal and criminal immigrants – issued a memo that could potentially make millions of deportable illegal and criminal immigrants eligible for administrative amnesty. The memo was sent to the field, telling agency officials how to exercise “prosecutorial discretion” such as granting deferred action, “deciding whom to stop, question, or arrest,” deciding “who to detain,” and “dismissing” a removal proceeding. The ICE memo ordered agency officials to consider factors such as:

• ICE’s immigration enforcement priorities. However, ICE has expressed little interest in deporting illegal immigrants who have not yet been convicted of “serious” crimes.

• The illegal immigrant’s pursuit of education in the United States.  The Migration Policy Institute estimates that more than two million illegal immigrants would be eligible for amnesty under the DREAM Act.

• Whether the illegal immigrant has a U.S. citizen or permanent resident spouse, child or parent; or whether the illegal immigrant or their spouse is pregnant.  The Pew Hispanic Center estimates that illegal immigrants have four million U.S.-born and thus U.S. citizen children.

• The illegal immigrant’s length of presence in the U.S. The Pew Hispanic Center estimates that millions of illegal immigrants have been in the U.S. since the 1990s.

Last year, a similar draft memo written by top officials at ICE suggested that the agency take steps to legalize illegal immigrants through deferred action or parole to an unrestricted number of illegal immigrants.

While the Administration has the power to parole illegal immigrants in the U.S. “on a case-by-case basis for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit,” the Administration is abusing this authority by encouraging the irresponsible expansion of the use of prosecutorial discretion for the purpose of administrative amnesty.

Congress is the entity in charge of setting immigration policy. By implying that immigration law should not be fully enforced, the Administration is ignoring the will of Congress and the American people through a form of backdoor amnesty.

In response, I have cosponsored the HALT (Hinder the Administration's Legalization Temptation) Act. The bill will halt any current or planned administrative actions that will result in mass legalization of illegal immigrants and that imply immigration law should not be fully enforced.

You can read an op-ed on the issue by my colleague Rep. Lamar Smith here.