Jul 112012
 

According to the Washington Times:

After eviscerating most of Arizona’s strict immigration law in court last month, the Obama administration is now considering going after the other side by suing sanctuary cities to force them to cooperate with federal deportation efforts, an agency chief told Congress on Monday.

~ Color me I’ll believe it when I see it. IMO they are JUST throwing it out there because of his drop on the Illegal Issue from 52% down to 38% in a liberal poll regarding the disapproval rating Obama now sees even after his pandering. Check out the following to see why Morton will not do it. JUST throwing a bone to voters…

This is John Morton NOT addressing back door amnesty as ICE Director back in September 2010:

This little tidbit sees him banning arrests ICE officers from enforcing US immigration laws:

8. Providing de facto amnesty to illegal immigrants by Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Director John Morton, who has prohibited ICE officers from enforcing US immigration laws outside the institutional setting. The ICE union has subsequently taken the unprecedented step of voting “no confidence” in Morton’s leadership.

Which is considered an ‘impeachable crime’. Morton comes in at number eight.

John Morton, who heads the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, said his agency might not process illegal aliens caught under state jurisdiction, the Chicago Tribune reported.

He insisted that only the federal government should respond to the problem.

“I don’t think the Arizona law, or laws like it, are the solution,” Morton said.

And finally from May 2010 ICE chief John Morton is EXPOSED:

In May of 2010, over two years ago friends, John Morton said his agency intends to expand the Secure Communities initiative, which gives police and sheriff’s departments access to a Homeland Security database that includes fingerprints. The initiative recently grew to include most of Chicago’s suburbs.

Pressed for more clarification on ICE chief John Morton’s remarks this week to Chicago Tribune, a DHS official told Fox News:

“There’s a DOJ review [of AZ law] ongoing. That review is going to chart the way ahead in terms of the government’s response. ICE’s priority is on criminal aliens who pose a public threat. Every single day in every single state, ICE uses discretion in order to focus its efforts and meet their priorities. … . What Morton was saying is that like where they do everywhere else in country, ICE may use discretion [in AZ] to meet their priorities and target criminal aliens.”

In terms of what this means for the future of enforcing AZ’s law, the official said: “Anything is on the table.”

So here we are TWO years later and Morton is spouting how he intends to go after Cook County.

John Morton, director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, said he’s asked Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. to take legal action against Cook County, President Obama’s home county in Illinois, to force it to turn over illegal immigrants for removal. He said he’s now awaiting a final answer from the Justice Department.

“They wanted to see how certain pieces of court decisions came out. I expect to hear from them shortly, and I can tell you that resolving the issue in Cook County is very important for me,” Mr. Morton testified to the House Homeland Security subcommittee on the border.

From November of last year:

- poor audio so turn volume way up or listen with some earbuds…

More recently from yesterday:

Rep. Candice Miller (R-MI), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Border and Maritime Security, questions John Morton, ICE Director, at a Subcommittee Hearing entitled: “Building a Secure Community: How Can DHS Better Leverage State and Local Partnerships?”

Cook County officials decided several years ago they did not want to cooperate with federal authorities’ immigration efforts and stopped providing them information that could help with deportations of those booked into county jails.

Last year, the county enacted an ordinance officially halting compliance except in the most major of cases, and then only after they reached a financial agreement with the federal government to cover the costs.

Read sourced article

So my question is what do YOU think. Is it all election posturing? ~ JP

Also See from May 2011, States (Illinois) Push Back Against Secure Communities, More Bills Challenge Sanctuary Cities by clicking image:

Share

 Leave a Reply

(required)

(required)

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>