Micro-Amnesty for Some Illegals Pending Before Congress

I don't know how seriously to take this article; however bigoted CIS's articles tend to be, they usually tend to have some truth in regards to legislation. I clicked on the link to the federal registry and it appears legitimate.

By David North, June 14, 2010
While it is taboo to talk about a policy that would prohibit the admission of migrants who might not be able to assimilate – such as Muslims who insist that women must wear the burqa – soon it may be possible to use the variable of cultural assimilation to give amnesty to an illegal alien.

As the immigration lawyers' trade paper Interpreter Releases headlined in its May 24 issue (which arrived on June 12). there is a move afoot regarding "Sentencing Guideline Amendments Sent to Congress Including Downward Departure for 'Cultural Assimilation' in Illegal Reentry Cases." The story was based on a May 14 Federal Register filing.

That headline can use a little interpretation.

First, "downward departure" is not a deportation to Mexico, as opposed to Canada; downward departure is a legal term about giving flexibility to judges to hand out a sentence that is less strict than the ones in sentencing guidelines.

In this instance, the usual sentence of deportation could be modified for a particular class of illegal aliens; such aliens must: a) be in deportation proceedings; b) be repeat violators of the immigration law, as it apparently applies to only those reentering the U.S. illegally; c) be among those who "formed cultural ties primarily with the United States from having resided continuously in the U.S. from childhood . . . "; and d) "those cultural ties provided the primary motivation for the defendant's illegal reentry."

Further, the lesser sentence, presumably allowing continued, and now legal, presence in the U.S., must make it "not likely to increase the risk to the public from further crimes of the defendant."

The concept that "cultural ties provided the primary motivation for the defendant's illegal reentry" is an interesting one. Does the act of growing up in America, one that many of us have experienced, give one a legally justifiable motivation for breaking our laws?

The group of people covered by the proposed rule cannot be very large because most of the 12 million or so illegal aliens in the U.S. do not qualify for the full set of five requirements for the "downward departure" of the sentencing guidelines. But it would allow a judge-created amnesty for some, presumably young, illegal aliens; an amnesty not available to others who arrived later in life or who were (oddly) not lucky enough to get pulled into deportation proceedings.

The mechanism by which this micro-amnesty would be implemented involves a congressionally created segment of the judicial branch of the government, the U.S. Sentencing Commission. The commission held hearings on this issue on March 17, decided to recommend the downward departure in these cases, and sent that recommendation to Capitol Hill. If Congress does not act negatively on it, it will become part of U.S. law on November 1 of this year. I suspect Congress will not stop this process.

Meanwhile, the same issue of IR reminds us that while some discuss a new legalization program, the old one – passed a generation ago – is still, partially, alive and well.

USCIS, understandably, some years ago decided that some applicants for legalization under the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) had abandoned their applications by leaving the country. Without my getting into the details, let me note that the courts decided that at least some of the applications of those aliens should be, in fact, considered on their merits, and that the former filing fees, not the current (and higher) ones should be charged.

We reported on a somewhat similar judicial decision some months ago in a blog entitled "Legalization Forever, for the Judges Make It Long."

http://www.cis.org/north/downward-departure

http://www.ussc.gov/FEDREG/20100511_...ter_Notice.pdf

I hope this can benefit us one way or another. I strongly believe DREAM or CIR can occur after elections.

I'm still somewhat confused as to what the law is. Well, I *get* it, but will it only benefit those who are en route to deportation? And if so, how is that a "micro-amnesty?" Anybody want to get me in the know about this!

"Sentencing Guideline Amendments Sent to Congress Including Downward Departure for 'Cultural Assimilation' in Illegal Reentry Cases...

For example, someone who has lived here all or most of his/her life, was ordered to leave the country, via voluntary departure or deportation (there used to be a slight difference between "removal" and deportation, but it is essentially the same), and who returns to the U.S. because of his/her culture is essentially American, the person has grown as an American, albeit not a legitimate one. It is implied that the person cimcurvents the law and re-enters the country unlawfully, and should that person be put in deportation proceedings for being in the coutry illegally, the judge assigned his/her case can decide to grant relief based on this person's history and background. At least that's the way I understand it, but obviously I'm not an attorney, so...In theory, anyone here who had to leave and came back; and for some reason got caught living here illegally and is now in proceedings can benefit from this.

Section 5H1.1 is amended by striking the first sentence and inserting the following:
"Age (including youth) may be relevant in determining whether a departure is warranted,
if considerations based on age, individually or in combination with other offender
characteristics, are present to an unusual degree and distinguish the case from the typical
cases covered by the guidelines.".


The Commentary to §2L1.2 captioned "Application Notes" is amended by adding at the
end the following:
"8. Departure Based on Cultural Assimilation.—There may be cases in which a
downward departure may be appropriate on the basis of cultural assimilation.
Such a departure should be considered only in cases where (A) the defendant
formed cultural ties primarily with the United States from having resided
continuously in the United States from childhood, (B) those cultural ties provided
the primary motivation for the defendant’s illegal reentry or continued presence in
the United States, and (C) such a departure is not likely to increase the risk to the
public from further crimes of the defendant.
In determining whether such a departure is appropriate, the court should consider,
among other things, (1) the age in childhood at which the defendant began
residing continuously in the United States, (2) whether and for how long the
defendant attended school in the United States, (3) the duration of the defendant’s
continued residence in the United States, (4) the duration of the defendant’s
presence outside the United States, (5) the nature and extent of the defendant’s
familial and cultural ties inside the United States, and the nature and extent of
such ties outside the United States, (6) the seriousness of the defendant’s criminal
history, and (7) whether the defendant engaged in additional criminal activity after
illegally reentering the United States."

I encourage anyone whose situation or particular case might benefit from this to take a look at the entire text, specifically pp.22 - 27.

http://www.ussc.gov/FEDREG/20100511_...ter_Notice.pdf

So one would have to reentry illegally and hope for this? Why can't this be applied to Dreamers who are already in deportation proceedings?

Well I think if they have a law like this, then we DREAMers should be legalized. Because most of us have family here, and we are more connected to the American culture than any other, and lived here most of our lives.