Obama's policy on immigration leads to 3 deaths
-
1
January 23, 2012 1:42:30 PM PST
I think it's time to question the administration's policy of illegal alien releases. This is an article from the Miami Herald:
---
"When burglar Kesler Dufrene became a twice-convicted felon in 2006, a Bradenton judge shipped him to prison for five years. And because of his convictions, an immigration judge ordered Dufrene deported to his native Haiti.
That never happened.
Instead, when Dufrene’s state prison term was up, Miami immigration authorities in October 2010 released him from custody. Two months later, North Miami police say, he slaughtered three people, including a 15-year-old girl in a murder case that remains as baffling today as it did the afternoon the bodies were discovered.
DNA on a rifle found inside the house and cellphone tracking technology later linked Dufrene to the Jan. 2, 2011, slayings.
But North Miami detectives never got to interrogate him. Just 18 days after the murders, Dufrene shot and killed himself when he was cornered by Manatee County sheriff’s deputies in Bradenton after an unrelated break-in and shooting there.
The episode is a black eye for U.S. authorities, who by law could not detain Dufrene indefinitely after the Obama administration ordered a temporary halt of deportations to the island nation. Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/01/22/2602909/immigration-authorities-released.html#storylink=cpy
---
It really seems this could have been avoided. The trouble is, some cities won't even cooperate (sanctuary cities) making it even harder to report and enforce.
Do you think that our illegal alien deportation rules should take into account protect law biding American's first and foremost?
-
2
January 23, 2012 2:22:49 PM PST
Perhaps the deportations were halted because, if I understand correctly, Haiti is still rebuilding from the hurricane and there is no place to house anyone? He did his time -- what was supposed to happen? Would the outcome have been any different if he was a US citizen? These people would still, unfortunately, be dead. So I'm not sure how this is failure. Tragedy yes, failure not so sure.
The good news is he had the smarts to kill himself saving taxpayers another trial, another jail stay.
-
3
January 23, 2012 3:16:58 PM PST
WhimFarm,
"Haiti is still rebuilding from the hurricane and there is no place to house anyone? He did his time -- what was supposed to happen?"
He was supposed to be deported.
Do you think that our illegal alien deportation rules should take into account protect law biding American's first and foremost?
Or whether or not an illegal ex con will have a hard time in his home country?
-
4
January 23, 2012 5:06:20 PM PST
A tragedy occurred. What if the parolee had been a US citizen? Would the tragedy not have occurred?
Personally, I think our judicial system should take into account protecting law abiding Americans first and foremost. However, that doesn't always appear to be the case. In fact, let's look to Mississippi and former (GOP) Gov. Haley Barbour. Yes, switching subjects but still along the same lines. I don't recall seeing you posting anything about the pardons he made which included at least 4 people sentenced to life without parole. What about the lives his program put into jeopardy?
-
5
January 23, 2012 5:30:37 PM PST
Fear mongering ... that's the ticket Fritz- don't know why I didn't think of it first.
-
6
January 23, 2012 10:08:23 PM PST
WhimFarm,
"I think our judicial system should take into account protecting law abiding Americans first and foremost"
I don't shy away from your questions and I appreciate you answering mine. Thank you.
"let's look to Mississippi and former (GOP) Gov. Haley Barbour."
Oh man, what the heck was the Gov thinking!!! Horrible decision, horrible. I heard that and couldn't believe it!
I think it was absolutely deplorable what the Gov Barbour did!!!
Good point!
-
7
January 23, 2012 10:12:47 PM PST
beez,
Yeah, fear mongering. Try telling that with a straight face to the three people he slaughtered (including a 15 year girl) and their families. I am sure they are happy that that the White House cared more about how the ex con might be inconvenienced in Haiti than their own safety.
The problem is that we have identified that people here illegally should be deported. Then the administration backed down and said we will only deport criminals. But then they actually let a criminal go instead of deporting.
I think we need to rethink that policy. This is yet another example of why those making the decisions are incompetent. It's not fear mongering.
-
8
January 24, 2012 5:17:12 AM PST
I do hope that you once questioned Bush policy on Iraq which resulted in nearly 5,000 dead Americans.
-
9
January 24, 2012 11:37:53 AM PST
1. The U.S. has an established practice of issuing a moratorium on deportation subsequent to a natural disaster. A one year moratorium on deportation was issued subsequent to the Earthquake in Haiti ( January 12, 2010)
2. And Deportation of Haitians who had served their time for felony crimes resumed one year later - including 27 Haitians from the Florida area.
3. Kessler Dufrene was a suspect in the above case- It was never established what role Defrene played in this crime - The lead detective in this homicide indicated that that this crime was committed by more than one individual and likely a group of people were involved. The crime remains unsolved.
3. ICE took Dufrene into custody subsequent to his release from prison in September, 2010 and it appears they released him a month later ' under supervision" It's not clear why they did that to me other than than " deportation" was not going to happen in the foreseeable future and the Supreme Court had ruled that foreign nationals who cannot be deported cannot be held in detention longer than 6 months .
Equating this tragedy of these deaths to an " Obama Immigration Policy" is pure and simply: b.s. It is akin to trying to attribute the thousands of immigrant deaths attempting to cross the Mexico /Az. border to those Congressmen who voted against President Bush's Immigration reform act. Because had it passed, many of those who died, likely could have gotten a guest worker visa or the like.
-
10
January 24, 2012 10:26:07 PM PST
onit,
You said, "I do hope that you once questioned Bush policy on Iraq which resulted in nearly 5,000 dead Americans."
1. Not even on topic. Totally different issue and does not excuse this tragedy.
2. Congress, both parties, voted to go to Iraq. Sorry, this is not a Bush issue.
3. Questioned Bush's policy? Not at first. I listened to what the US said was in IRAQ (WMD) and what multiple other countries' intelligence coroborated regarding WMD. So I was supportive.
Now, the results didn't prove to be true. There were no WMDs. There were no nuclear deals. There was a very loose connection to Al Quaida.
So, in the end, it was a bust. Yes, everyone was wrong. The CIA, NSA, White House, Congress, other countries, etc...
So, I do question a lot more any military action we attempt to take.
That's another reason why I was so critical of Obama keeping two wars and then also going to war with Libya. We engaged in a war with NO American interests. I don't understand why liberals would support a war monger like Obama or Bush.
So to answer your question, yes I question it.
However, it's off topic and no way excuses the current White House policy for catch and release of violent criminals that should be deported.
-
11
January 24, 2012 10:29:50 PM PST
beez,
Yes, those are the facts of the situation. And it's these misguided decisions/policies that lead to the tragedy that could have been prevented.
As I said, item #1 (hold deportation to Haiti) should not have happened if you have #4 (no one detained past 6 months).
So if the administration was competent it would have not enacted #1 if it knew they could not hold violent criminals past 6 months. They should have extended the hold if they are going to put a moratorium on certain countries.
Or simply don't put a moratorium for exporting violent criminals here illegally.
Safety of Americans first. Inconvenience of criminal seccond. Let's show some compassion.
-
12
January 25, 2012 12:43:00 PM PST
efritz-
I guess you were not among those who listened when Joe Wilson, a US diplomat, warned in 2002 via an article in the NY Times that there was no way there were WMD's.
Bush and Co. were determined to go ahead with the lie. As revenge against Joe Wilson for telling the truth, they outed his wife Valerie Plame.
We weren't all deceived by Bush.
-
13
January 25, 2012 12:46:19 PM PST
I didn't know we went to war with Libya. I thought that was part of a NATO action. I also thought we were drawing down troops in Iraq prior to our Libyan war. And we're now out of both Iraq and Libya.
But I would like to know who foot the bill for us to rescue 2 aid workers in Somalia. Is Denmark reimbursing us for this effort?
-
14
January 25, 2012 1:45:58 PM PST
1.Your argument that Obama's policy led to these deaths is bogus.
2. Dufrene had been incarcerated for 3rd degree burglary - breaking an entering an unoccupied residence - a property crime not a violent crime against a person.
3. Although a suspect in the deaths of those 3 individuals , it's never been proven that he, in fact, was the one who killed them
-
15
January 25, 2012 4:10:54 PM PST
Anyone know how many Americans we set free from prison on parole or because they served their time who went on to commit more crimes and even murder..I understand that rapists turn to murder so they no longer will have a living witness...
-
16
January 25, 2012 10:49:08 PM PST
Oceans,
You said, "I guess you were not among those who listened when Joe Wilson, a US diplomat, warned in 2002 via an article in the NY Times that there was no way there were WMD's."
You are right. I wasn't. There were just too many other sources from multiple countires including those that disagreed with our invasion like Russia that corroborated the intel on WMDs.
Now we see that the intel was wrong. Now we see that America was embarassed. I can admit it.
But it's a diversion and a dead horse, best served by another topic.
-
17
January 25, 2012 10:51:53 PM PST
WhimFarm,
You said, "I didn't know we went to war with Libya. I thought that was part of a NATO action."
Really, you didn't know? Where have you been?
Is that really your way of saying, well I don't like Bush's war (which had many more countries in support) but I am ok with Obama's war. So as long as the NATO banner is passed around war with no American interests is fine by you?
I prefer there to be strong complelling American interests at stake before we go to war. I also want to be quadrupple convinced that the intel is right this time.
-
18
January 25, 2012 10:56:49 PM PST
Bymyers,
You said, "Anyone know how many Americans we set free from prison on parole or because they served their time who went on to commit more crimes and even murder."
Not sure but we can't deport Americans to somewhere else thus it's immaterial to this topic. Now if you want to advocate to deport Americans, well, I am not sure you will get much support. However, deporting illegals that have commited crimes, well that is something we do. It's not that we needed to do something crazy or different. In fact if the system were working normally and hadn't been changed by the Administration then the criminal would have been deported. It's that the policy is much more lax and that led to three preventable deaths.
Now, you can pull stats that show 5000 died in a war, or 17,000 died in an earthquake in Turkey, or 100,000 in an Asian tsunami, etc... It still has nothing to do with the fact that we should deport criminals here illegally if we want to protect our own citizens.
-
19
January 25, 2012 11:00:29 PM PST
beez,
1. Not only is it wholy accurate but I supported my premise.
2. Someone breaks and enters into my residence and it might get violent pretty quick. That's beside the point, go ahead take off the violent and just leave the criminal part of the description if that makes you feel better.
3. He's a suspect, it's not proven. Ok, well then I guess that solves that. It must be ok. We can all go home now. Nevermind the DNA matches, there's nothing here to see. Move along. These aren't the illegals you are looking for. Move along.
-
20
January 26, 2012 11:14:58 AM PST
Sorry Fritz, but nope, I don't recall hearing or seeing anything about a Declaration of War with Libya. And while I don't agree with how we cherrypick who we support and who we don't, there is no comparison to what Bush & Co. started in Iraq with what occurred in Libya. To my knowledge Libyan involvement was a few months; Irag close to 10 years. Quite a bit of difference in terms of monetary costs and lives. Additionally, we got Khadafi and got out. We continued in Iraq long after we captured Hussein.
Me thinks you picked the wrong topic to jab a finger at Obama with. We all agree this was a tragedy. And it would have occurred whether the individual was illegal or legal. The problem is with the justice system not the immigration system.
-
21
January 26, 2012 1:43:29 PM PST
Here is a link to what has occurred under the Obama administration regarding the deportation of illegal immigrants which reached a record high.
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/188241-ice-announces-record-breaking-deportations
-
22
January 26, 2012 10:42:26 PM PST
WhimFarm,
You said, "...I don't recall hearing or seeing anything about a Declaration of War with Libya. "
Exactly!!!
Did we actually Declar war with Iraq? Afghanistan?
We did have Congress authorize the use of military force. Did we get Congress to authorize the Libyan war/offensive?
Now that you bring it up WhimFarm, it sort of seems like you are saying Obama entered us into an illegal war/military offense.
"Libyan involvement was a few months; Irag close to 10 years"
I never said they were equal. I was merely questioning if our war President had American interests at heart. If there was an iminent threat to America.
It seems to me we engaged in nation building. It's something I expressly remember as a critique of Bush. Now we have liberals lining up saying war is ok as long as it's not Iraq.
-
23
January 26, 2012 10:47:30 PM PST
WhimFarm,
YOu said, "...it would have occurred whether the individual was illegal or legal. The problem is with the justice system not the immigration system."
This is exactly what I am disputing. We should NOT have let the guy go, we should have deported him. It was a totally preventable tragedy. That's my criticism.
I am not saying we don't have Americans that get released and commit more crimes. That's true to. But that's not preventable like this was. Because we don't have a policy of deporting American criminals. We do have a policy of deporting criminal illegal aliens. That was unfortunately not done because we didn't want to inconvenience the Haitian. If they wanted to prevent this they could have passed a law that extended all pending criminal deportation cases for the length of the extension of the Haitian moratorium. Simple and would have prevented that. But it wasn't the option.
-
24
January 26, 2012 10:55:27 PM PST
beez,
Your article does share good news. I have to agree with you. That was until I am reminded of this in the VERY ARTICLE you pasted:
"The administration also shifted its enforcement policy in June, focusing its prosecutions on illegal immigrants who had criminal records. The new Department of Homeland Security rules halted the blanket deportation of every illegal immigrant in line for exile. Instead, DHS officials said they would look at each individual on a case-by-case basis, prioritizing violent offenders and other criminals, while deferring the deportation of many students and others considered nonthreatening."
And thus the administration undermines its own success! They say they will deport the criminals and then let a criminal go!!!
It's this kind of absurdity that reigns in DC.
-
25
January 27, 2012 1:29:40 PM PST
I don't have any problem with the shift in policy to prioritize the deportation of violent offenders or convicted felons. The vast majority of un-documented residents are otherwise law abiding.
-
26
January 27, 2012 3:21:39 PM PST
First, he had no history of violent offense. Unless you are a mind-reader, I don't think anyone could have predicted he was going to go from burglary to murder. Now, if he was imprisoned for assault, then I could go along with it.
And yes, Congress did approve military use against Iraq and Afghanistan.
But, hey, if you want to compare our actions in Libya with Iraq, be my guess. I would say you are now grasping at straws to justify your dislike of Obama, especially since there appears to be a very slight upturn in the economy, GDP, etc. such that perhaps Obama's policies are starting to take effect --- and we just cannot have that now, can we? Despite the Tea Party and GOP and Conservatives best efforts, Obama just might be succeeding and that's just plain not allowable.
-
27
January 27, 2012 3:22:25 PM PST
oops, should be "be my guest" (not guess)
-
28
January 27, 2012 3:29:51 PM PST
Gotta ask also, there is a lot of circumstantial evidence here. Even the police think he wasn't acting alone. Wonder if the accomplices are legal or illegals?
And how was he able to get an unregistered rifle? The fact that the police didn't find it on their search, that it was a family member who later found it under a mattress. There's a lot of fuzzy here, not the least of which it does portray CSI in an ineffective light as well as Florida's ability to monitor gun trafficking.
-
29
January 27, 2012 7:53:28 PM PST
WhimFarm,
I didn't want to compare Libya with Iraq. In fact onit brought up Iraq. In fact I posted:
"1. Not even on topic. Totally different issue and does not excuse this tragedy.
2. Congress, both parties, voted to go to Iraq. Sorry, this is not a Bush issue."
Then Oceans spoke about it again with "...Bush and Co. were determined to go ahead with the lie."
Then you said, "I didn't know we went to war with Libya." You were debating it from a technical perspective. I was merely clearing up your missunderstanding about whether the war/military force with Libya was approved by congress or unconstitutional.
You then acknowledged that "...Congress did approve military use against Iraq and Afghanistan." Unfortunately, Obama not only added Libya to two other wars we were fighting but did so WITHOUT congressional approval.
I reflected that it seems suspect that all these anti war people seem to forgive bombings and deaths as long as their President is in office.
I am not saying you supported the Libya war or Obama's use of military force. I am just surprised that people would defend Obama under technicalities like "sure we bombed the heck out of that country and killed untold numbers of compatants, freedom fighters, and civilians, but ... well... it's ok because... it was shorter than the war in Iraq?"
:)
There were no American interests in our offensive, it was purely proactive, it was expensive, and it was not approved use of military force. Those all seem like valid reasons to criticize the war even in light of Iraq (which people rightly valid to criticize also).
-
30
January 28, 2012 12:35:12 PM PST
It might be interesting to read up on the President's constitutional authority as commander in chief and in charge of foreign relations, to authorize the use military force in a time limited military intervention, when it serves the " national interests" and see how closely your assumptions hit the mark . Also keep in mind that we interceded in Libya in concert at the bequest of other countries including NATO allies and as authorized by U.N. Security Council resolution 173..
-
31
January 28, 2012 5:00:29 PM PST
You also have to love how Congress took shots at Bush for the wars but never had the balls to cut funding to the military...
-
32
January 28, 2012 7:24:17 PM PST
beez,
You said, "...President's constitutional authority ... to authorize the use military force"
Well, have you read up on it?
Because I am aware of his authority and his actions didn't fall within his authority.
---
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution
"The War Powers Resolution of 1973 (50 U.S.C. 1541-1548)[1] is a federal law intended to check the power of the President in committing the United States to an armed conflict without the consent of Congress. The resolution was adopted in the form of a United States Congress joint resolution; this provides that the President can send U.S. armed forces into action abroad only by authorization of Congress or in case of "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."
The War Powers Resolution requires the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30 day withdrawal period, without an authorization of the use of military force or a declaration of war. The resolution was passed by two-thirds of Congress, overriding a presidential veto.
The War Powers Resolution was disregarded by President Clinton in 1999, during the bombing campaign in Kosovo, and again by President Obama in 2011, when he did not seek congressional approval for attack on Libya, arguing that the Resolution did not apply to that action.[2] All presidents since 1973 have declared their belief that the act is unconstitutional
---
So not only was it unconstitutional, it did not have congressional approval, it extended beyond the deadline of 60/90 days AND it did not qualify as "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."
beez, WhimFarm, are you actually such war advocates that of war that you don't mind all these violations? Or are you so blindly supporting Obama that you will over look these violations?
-
33
January 29, 2012 1:57:42 PM PST
Yes, I am educated about the President's authority to authorize the use of military force -- You made more than one error in your conclusions and assertions. Here are two links that will provide you sufficient information to correct your errors.
U.S. Department of Justice Legal Counsel Memorandum - Authority to Use Military Force in Libya. http://www.justice.gov/olc/2011/authority-military-use-in-libya.pdf " That first analyzes the President's constitutional authority to direct the use of military force in Libya and then analyzes whether congressional approval was constitutionally required"
And this link that summarizes those questions and answers addressed in the Memorandum.
http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/conlaw/2011/04/the-presidents-authority-to-use-military-force-in-libya.html
-
34
January 29, 2012 5:01:34 PM PST
beez,
Come on, you can do better than that. Really?
You are citing the Department of Justice? So basically the Administration said the Administration can do it? Obama's own legal counsel said it's ok so it's ok. Wow, then why question it? Right.
Then by that logic every war or use of military force, as long as the president's advisor ok it, is constitutional.
We don't need Congress anymore then. We just need the President to come up with a memo from his own legal advisors to ok whatever he wasnt to do.
Not only is that wrong and unconstitutional, even their excuse is weak.
They are now saying the President can do this because "...such use of force was in the national interest."
Wow, we don't have to be attacked, we don't have to be in danger, we just have to have a national interest. So any use of military force, is ok, even without Congress or the Constitution as long as the President thinks it's "of interest." By that logic we could invade anyone out of interest.
The constitution gives the Congress authority to wage war. The War Powers Resolution gives the President the authority to do 60 day or less military ops IF THE US IS UNDER ATTACK or IMINENT THREAT. What Obama did was circumvent both of those and provided a memo.
beez,
Let's tackle this from another perspective. Do you think it's ok for a President to use military force killing untold people whenever he deams it's of interest and has a memo from his own legal counsel? Or do you believe in the balance of powers with the Congress, and the Constitution should be employed to limit that power?
-
35
January 29, 2012 5:51:18 PM PST
Fritz, do you know if the President is required to seek congressional approval to authorize the use of military force in order to act in a supportive role in in an United Nations Security Council authorized action? Would doing so constitute declaring a state of war without congressional approval?
How is that addressed or not addressed in he War Resolution Powers Act.
-
36
January 29, 2012 6:13:10 PM PST
Oppsy - that should state " War Powers Act" not resolution.
Personally I think Congress has sat on their collective asses for much too long. There has not been a declaration of a war state issued by them since 1942. How come no President has ever been impeached for engaging in " military" actions since then? How come they don't cut off funding ? What constitutes War?
-
37
January 29, 2012 9:16:54 PM PST
beez,
I don't know about every war but the Iraq war did not have an official declaration of war but it did have congressional approval. That's the main difference I see.
I will grant the president the ability to be flexible and initiate operations. For instance I think the operation to rescue the hostages recently, the operation to take out Osama and other operations were good examples of where the President should and does have the authority. The problem with the Libyan war was that ... Oh, now I am being redundant and boring myself. I have made my point. :)
-
38
January 30, 2012 12:40:07 PM PST
There are several examples of other Presidents authorizing the use of military force without congressional approval. These precedents likely guided President Obama in the situation w/ Libya and likely in sending Spec Op's into Somalia to rescue the two humanitarian workers help captive there. He didn't have congressional approval to do that either... like in the case of Reagan invading Grenada amongst the other examples that could be cited. This article explains the history and inherent dilemma's posed by the War Power's Act, and why the Judicial Branch won't address it. http://www.americanforeignrelations.com/E-N/Judiciary-Power-and-Practice-The-war-powers-resolution.html#b -
On a personal note- I saw the movie " Ides of March" yesterday . I think you would enjoy it too Fritz.
-
39
January 30, 2012 9:57:41 PM PST
It's odd to have the same people that criticize war now defending war. I feel like this is upside down world. :)
-
40
January 31, 2012 1:08:50 PM PST
What is War? Is there any definition that universally applies and agreeable to all? Are there situations when it is or is not morally justifiable? What defines a " sovereign " country? Are military incursions based upon humanitarian reasons considered to be a declaration of a war state between the U.S. and the other country?
and so on and so forth...
-
41
January 31, 2012 3:04:31 PM PST
beez,
Those are all good questions. We could discuss what war is all day and not be done. I think politically, war is when our country declares war. But then it's common for us to call the Iraq war a war. So obviously there is a point when a military action is called a war even when not officially declared a war. The Libyan Operation was about 8 months or so, not sure, but it invovlded months of intense bombings that killed untold number of people. I would say that's more toward the war end of the spectrum than say, an overnight operation involving a dozen seals to take out Osama Bid Laden. I think those are very different.
It's also very different because according to the war powers resolution, one is authorized for the President to do and the other is not. I am not sure if the argument is, well people did bad things in the past so Obama can do them too. War is bad under Bush, but when Obama does it, it's ok, because ... well because Bush and other meanies did it! :) It's a circular argument.
|
|
|
