The Catch and Release Program has been the laughing stock of the world beginning with Bush I thru the Obama period. We have been told, “If you see something – say something.” In the Catch and Release Program – it is just the opposite – if you see something – ignore it.
Catch and Release is a lazy man’s policy. As long as we don’t enforce the laws of entry into the U.S. then we will continue to be over run with illegals into this country. Why is it Mexico doesn’t have a catch and release program or any other country in the world? The U.S. leaders outside of President Trump all claimed we didn’t have the facilities to handle the number of illegals who enter this country. This was just a part of the One World Order who were participating in this program to change the deck chairs of the world. In the end, it has been a disruption that has turned the world upside down which was the plan.
In the U.S.,Bush I started this upheaval and has continued until President Trump – who has put an end to this lazy man’s policy. We have to have borders or we lose our sovereignty as a nation.
Catch and release (U.S. immigration policy)
Catch and release is the unofficial name of a protocol that has been followed by immigration enforcement agencies in the United States[when?] (specifically, by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and U.S. Customs and Border Protection), under which people caught in unlawful immigration status are released while they wait for a hearing with an immigration judge. The “catch and release” nickname came into use during the George W. Bush administration, with alternative advocated approaches described as “catch and return” or “catch and detain”.
Due to the lack of resources available to immigration enforcement officials to detain larger numbers of people, as well as the lengthy time period between apprehension and being ordered deported, catch-and-release has been a de facto policy followed by ICE and its predecessor agencies – those believed to be in violation of immigration status have been released and given a date when they are ordered to appear before an immigration judge for a deportation hearing. Knowing that coming to a hearing could lead to them being deported, many of these people fail to turn up to their hearings.
(Can you imagine our country stating “due to the lack of resources available to immigration enforcement officials, etc.”)
Under George W. Bush
The need to release detainees that could otherwise be deported is primarily a practical matter – U.S. immigration officials simply do not have sufficient facilities (and the funding to operate them) to detain all the people they discover in apparent violation of immigration laws and process them for deportation.
The authority of the U.S. to detain immigrants indefinitely is also limited, even if the facilities are available. In June 2001, in the Zadvydas v. Davis decision, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling prohibiting exceptionally lengthy detentions in the absence of strong justification. In that case, other countries had refused to accept some individuals that the U.S. wanted to deport. The court ruled that such people could not be detained for longer than six months unless the government could show that the deportation was expected to be completed in the foreseeable future or that some special circumstances applied, such as a danger to the public or a substantial flight risk.
In October 2005, DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff told a hearing of the United States Senate that he intended to end the catch-and-release policy soon, so as to reduce illegal immigration to the United States and the security threat posed by it. In late July 2006, Chertoff announced that the United States had ended the catch-and-release policy a few months earlier, and the recent infusion of funding for border security had been helpful with implementing the policy.
In response, many lawmakers expressed skepticism. In August 2006, Chertoff provided more details, saying that the change had led to a drop of 20,000 in the number of border-crossers. According to the new policy, those caught in immigration violation would generally be detained until their hearing, with the possible exception of Mexicans who had recently arrived, who could be subject to expedited removal. While not everybody would be detained, detention would become the default option. In a February 2007 statement before the United States Senate Judiciary Subcommittee, Chertoff confirmed that the policy had ended completely starting August 2006, and reported the changes observed to the number of apprehensions as a result.
David Mulhausen of the Heritage Foundation said that the end of the policy was a positive development but still did not address the problem of the large number of border-crossers from Mexico who were immediately turned back but could keep re-attempting entry.
Under Barack Obama
In January 2015, Brandon Darby, writing for Breitbart.com, published leaked internal training documents of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection that provided guidelines advising catch-and-release practices. The leaked documents were a result of the November 2014 executive action on immigration undertaken by Barack Obama’s administration (and would also form the basis for the Priority Enforcement Program, revealed in mid-2015): The documents identified three priority categories for those believed to be in violation of authorized status:
1.Aliens who “pose a threat to national security, border security, or public safety”
2.Aliens who are “misdemeanants and new immigration violators”
3.All other immigration violators
The instructions to CBP noted that those in category 3 would not be detained and deported, and therefore CBP agents were advised to not waste resources arresting them but rather focus on priority one and priority two offenders. The Associated Press reported on a similar set of guidelines.
Reporting about the guidelines for Vox.com, Dara Lind noted that, while Breitbart.com was claiming that this policy was “catch and release 2.0”, ICE agents said that the guidance they received had always been similar, suggesting that, as far as internal guidance went, the original catch-and-release policies had never actually ended. However, because ICE and CBP officials often rounded up low-priority offenders despite them being low-priority, the Obama administration had to provide more explicit guidance and also introduce the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals and Deferred Action for Parents of Americans programs to explicitly protect people in low-priority categories from deportation.
On a similar note, in a backgrounder for the Center for Immigration Studies, Jessica Vaughan used ICE memos from 2013 as well as deportation numbers to argue that catch and release was the de facto immigration enforcement policy for a sizable fraction of people caught for being in violation of immigration law.
In 2014, Chuck Grassley and other Republican senators introduced legislation to close what they called a “catch-and-release loophole”, namely the judicial ban on detaining certain aliens that was established by the Zadvydas v. Davis decision (described above).
Under Donald Trump
Immigration being one of the biggest issues of Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign, candidate Trump spoke of catch and release in a major speech on immigration policy some months before the election, stating that then-President Obama and presidential candidate Hillary Clinton supported it and that he (Trump) would end it.
In February 2017, DHS Secretary John Kelly, pursuant to executive orders by President Trump, ordered an end to catch-and-release. But Reuters reported the following June that “immigration attorneys, government statistics and even some officials from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement … suggest that … there has been no clear change to the catch-and-release policy.” The article indicated that ending catch and release was impracticable due to a shortage of detention facilities and a court ruling limiting the stay of women and children to 21 days in custody.
In April 2018, Trump signed another executive memorandum calling for an end to the practice. The memo ordered government officials to produce reports on progress to end the practice and ordering the preparation of a list of facilities, including military facilities, where additional detainees could be held. However, it did not provide a way to fund additional detentions, and the practice was continuing with no discernible effect, since mandating detention without release would greatly expand the number of people being held and would be costly.
The whole story is that we have a Congress who has not done its job during four presidents which is a dereliction of duty. We have laws presently on the books which are not enforced. Our country during those four presidents prior to Trump were soft and corrupt. It is time to enforce our laws.