1

Center for Immigration Studies

1629 K Street, NW, Suite 600, Washington, DC 20006 • Phone 202.466.8185 • Fax 202.466.8076 • www.cis.org

C I S

CIS Letterhead_Layout 1 7/26/12 4:34 PM Page 1

February 2020

• H.R.5383,the“NewWayForwardAct”,whichhas44cosponsors,wouldeffectivelyeviscerateimmigra-tionenforcementattheborderandintheinterioroftheUnitedStates.

• Itwouldallbuteliminatedetentionforimmigrationpurposes,andimposenewburdensonouralreadyovertaxedimmigrationcourts.

• ItwouldplaceonerousrestrictionsonICEofficersandBorderPatrolagentsinmakingimmigrationar-rests—includingindesolateareasoftheborderinthemiddleofthenight.

• Itwouldrequirethoseofficersandagentstojustifyeveryarrestofanalienwithoutawarrantbeforeanimmigration judge, straining to thepoint of eliminationDHS’s limited immigration-enforcement re-sources.

• Itwouldcreatea “statuteof limitations”offiveyears for thecommencementof removalproceedingsbasedoneventhemostseriouscriminaloffenses.

• Itwouldlimitthecriminalgroundsofremovalsosignificantlythatonlythemostextremeoffenseswouldrendercriminalaliensremovable,andwouldalsoexpandthereliefavailabletothefewalienswhowouldstillberemovableoncriminalgrounds.

• Itwouldmaketheamendmentstothecriminalgroundsofremovalandreliefretroactive,sothatevencriminalalienswhohavebeenremovedfromtheUnitedStates,butwhowouldnothavebeenremovablehadthatlawbeenineffect,couldapplytohavetheircasesreopenedorreconsidered.ImmigrationjudgesandtheBoardofImmigrationAppealswouldhavenodiscretionnottoreopenorreconsiderthosecases.

• ItwouldrequireDHStopaytoflythosecriminalalienswhohavebeenremovedandwhowouldbeeli-gibleforreopeningorreconsiderationthereunderbacktotheUnitedStates—whichwouldresultindan-gerouscriminalaliensbeingreturnedattaxpayerexpensebacktothiscountrytocommitmorecrimes.

• ItwouldpreventstateandlocallawenforcementfromassistingICEandCBPinimmigrationenforce-mentinanyway,andbartheinclusionofimmigration-relatedinformationintotheNCICdatabaseoritsincorporatedcriminalhistorydatabases.ThiswouldessentiallymakeeveryjurisdictionintheUnitedStatesa“sanctuaryjurisdiction”.Asaresult,ICEofficerswouldhavetorisktheirownsafetyandthesafetyofthecommunityasawholetoarrestdangerouscriminalaliensattheirhomesorinpublicplaces.

• Itwould repeal the criminalgroundsof illegal entryand reentry into theUnitedStates, encouragingfraud,enrichingsmugglers,traffickers,andcriminalcartels,andendangeringthenationalsecurityandthecommunity.

The ‘New Way Forward Act’: A Roadmap for Immigration under Democratic ControlLegislation for those who don’t think there are enough criminals in the United States alreadyBy Andrew R. Arthur

Andrew R. Arthur is a resident fellow in law and policy at the Center for Immigration Studies.

1629KStreet,NW,Suite600•Washington,DC20006•(202)466-8185•center@cis.org•www.cis.org

2

Center for Immigration Studies Center for Immigration StudiesCenter for Immigration Studies

OnDecember10,2019,Rep.JesusGarcia(D-Ill.)introducedH.R.5383,the“NewWayForwardAct”,whichnowhas44co-sponsors.1ItisaroadmapforDemocrats’planstohobbleimmigrationenforcementiftheyeverregaincontroloftheWhiteHouseandCongress,introducedbyrepresentativeswhoapparentlybelievethatthecurrentimmigrationlawsaretooharshoncriminalaliensintheUnitedStates,thatimmigrationenforcementintheinterioriscurrentlytooeffective,andthattherearenotenoughcriminalsinthiscountryalready.Regrettably,Iamnotexaggerating.

DetentionFirst,H.R.5383evisceratesimmigrationdetention.

DetentionisakeytoolforU.S.ImmigrationandCustomsEnforcement(ICE)initsenforcementoftheimmigrationlaws,notjustintheinterior,butalsoinassistingU.S.CustomsandBorderProtection(CBP)inenforcingthoselawsattheborder.

Ascivil-rightsiconBarbaraJordan,then-chairwomanofPresidentClinton’sCommissiononImmigrationReform,testifiedinFebruary1995:“Credibilityinimmigrationpolicycanbesummedupinonesentence:thosewhoshouldgetin,getin;thosewhoshouldbekeptout,arekeptout;andthosewhoshouldnotbeherewillberequiredtoleave.”2Bythisstandard,thecurrentimmigration-enforcementeffortisafailure,andalackofdetentionspaceisamaincauseofthatfailure.

InitsEnforcementandRemovalOperations(ERO)reportforFY2019,ICErevealedthatattheendofthefiscalyear,therewere595,430fugitivealiensintheUnitedStates;thatis,alienswhohave“failedtoleavetheUnitedStatesbaseduponafinalorderofremoval,deportationorexclusion,orwhohavefailedtoreporttoICEafterreceivingnoticetodoso”—upmorethan50,000casesfromjusttwoyearsbefore.3Thosewerealienswhohadneverbeenincustodyorwhohadbeenreleased—eitheronparole,bond,ortheirownrecognizance—whohadreceiveddueprocess,wereorderedremoved,andwhofailedtoleave.

Notthatthisshouldbeasurprise.AlienswhoentertheUnitedStatesillegally,orwhooverstaytheirvisas,dosotoliveand(generally)workintheUnitedStates,(generally)indefinitely.TheyliterallyhavenoincentivetoleavetheUnitedStatesiftheyarenotdetainedandareorderedremoved.

AsabipartisanpaneloftheHomelandSecurityAdvisoryCouncil(HSAC)foundinanApril2019report:“Eveniftheasylumhearingandappealsultimatelygoagainstthemigrant,heorshestillhasthepracticaloptionofsimplyremainingintheU.S.illegally,wheretheoddsofbeingcaughtandremovedremainverylow.”4Howlow?InFY2019,theICEEROreportstatedthattheagencyhadanon-detaineddocketofmorethan3.2millioncases,andwasdetaining(attheendofFY2019)50,922aliens,most(63percent)ofwhomwererecentapprehensionsattheborder.5IfyouareanalienonICE’sdocket,youroddsofbeingdetainedarejustlessthanonein63.

Incontrast,duetothesurgeofaliensattheborderinFY2019,theagencyonlyremovedjustover143,000alienslastyear—86percentofwhomhadcriminalconvictionsorpendingcriminalcharges—downfrom158,851theyearbefore.Atthatrate,itwilltakeICEmorethanfouryearstoremoveallofthealienabscondersintheUnitedStates—assumingthateveryalienorderedsubsequentlyremovedduringthatperiodleavesvoluntarily(which,asnoted,theywon’t).

H.R.5383wouldmakeICE’seffortstoenforcethelawsintheinteriorandatthebordernexttoimpossiblebyendingmanda-torydetentionforterroristandcriminalaliens(moreonthatlater),creatinga“rebuttablepresumptionthatthealienshouldbereleasedfromcustody”(whichplacesanimpossibleburdenonICEattorneys,whorepresentthegovernmentinbondproceedings),andrequiringthatthe“leastrestrictiveconditions”ofdetentionandsupervisionbeimposedonaliens(includ-ingcriminalaliens)inremovalproceedingsandunderremovalorders.

Further,itrequiresimmigrationjudges(IJs)toreviewthoseconditions“onamonthlybasis”,imposingasignificantburdenonalreadystrainedimmigrationcourtdockets(thenation’s466IJswerehandling1,066,563casesasofDecember31,2019—2,289casesperIJ).6

ThatbillwouldalsoshortenthetimethatICEmaydetainanalienunderafinalorderfrom90daysto60days,7whichwouldrequirethereleaseoflargenumbersofaliensfromso-called“recalcitrantcountries”8—those“thatsystematicallyrefuseordelaytherepatriationoftheircitizens.”Inaddition,H.R.5383wouldprovidethosealienswithamechanismtoseekreleaseduringeventhatshortenedperiod(thosealiens,andinparticularaliensremovableonterroristandcriminalgrounds,arecurrentlysubjecttomandatorydetention).

Center for Immigration Studies

3

Center for Immigration Studies

Restrictions on Immigration ArrestsNotonlywouldthebilladdthoserestrictionstoICE’sdetentionofaliens,itwouldalsoimposesignificantburdensonthatagencyandCBPtosimplyarrestaliens.

Current law (logically) givesDHSofficers significant latitude inquestioning aliensor suspected aliens, and in arresting(withoutawarrant)alienswhoareenteringtheUnitedStatesillegally,aswellasalienswhotheofficerbelievesareinthiscountryillegallyandwhoarelikelytoescapebeforetheofficercanobtainawarrant.9Theonlyrestrictiononthisauthorityisthatthealienmustbepresented“withoutunnecessarydelay”toanofficerforquestioningastothatalien’s“righttoenterorremainin”thiscountry.

H.R.5383wouldplaceincredibleimpedimentsonboththeauthorityofDHSofficerstoquestionaliens,andonthoseofficers’authoritytoarrest.

Specifically,underthatbill,ICEofficerscouldnotinterrogateanyalienifthatinterrogationis“basedontheperson’srace,ethnicity,nationalorigin,religion,sexualorientation,color,spokenlanguage,orEnglishproficiency.”

IthasbeenmyexperiencethatICEofficersgenerallyquestionsuspectedaliensbasedupona“totalityofthecircumstances”,whichmayincludesomeofthefactorsabove(Iamunawareofanyarrestthathaseverbeenpremisedinwholeorinpartonreligionorsexualorientation),butalsoother,additionalfactorsthatwouldindicatethattheindividualisaremovablealien.10Ifyouhaveeverbeentotheborder,forexample,race,ethnicity,color,andEnglishproficiencyinandofthemselveswouldnotsuggestthatanindividualisaremovablealien,buttheymaybeiftheindividualisinthebackofatrailerthatfledfromaninteriorcheckpoint.11

Categoricallyremovingthesefactorsfromthat“totalityofthecircumstances”analysiswouldmakethetaskfacingICEof-ficerswhosuspectanindividualofbeingaremovablealiennexttoimpossible,shortofthealienblurtingoutthatheorsheisinsuchastatus.TherestrictionsimposedbyH.R.5383wouldgiveevenremovablealiensnoshortageofavenuesforescaping(metaphorically)removalbyassertingthatan“improper”factorwasconsidered.ICEofficerswouldspendalldayinimmi-grationcourtdefendingthefewarreststhattheyareabletomakeat“probablecause”hearings—whicharealsomandatedbythebill,within48hoursofthealien’sarrestwithoutwarrant,asexplainedbelow.

IftheimpedimentsonICEofficersintheinteriorareburdensome,theonesonBorderPatrolagentsaredownrightbizarreandill-informed.

Specifically,underthebill,thoseagentscouldonlyarrestalienswhomtheyseeenteringtheUnitedStatesillegallyif:theyhaveprobablecausetobelievethatthealienisinthiscountryinviolationoflawand“islikelytoescapebefore”theagentcanobtainanarrestwarrant;iftheagent“hasreasontobelieve”thatthealien“wouldknowinglyandwillfullyfailtoappearinimmigrationcourt”pursuanttoaNoticetoAppear(“NTA”,thechargingdocumentinremovalproceedings);andifthealienispresentedbeforeanIJwithin48hoursofarrest“todeterminewhetherthereisprobablecauseas”requiredtherein,“includ-ingprobablecausetobelievethat”thealien“wouldhaveknowinglyandwillfullyfailedtoappear”—ahearingatwhichthegovernmentwouldbeartheburdenofproof.

ThisprovisionshowsanalmostcompletelackofunderstandingastohowtheBorderPatroldoesitsjob.Aliensareoftenap-prehendedinremoteportionsoftheborder,farawayfromBorderPatrolstations—makingitnexttoimpossibleforagentstodrivehourstoobtainawarrantofarrest.Inaddition,itisdifficulttoimaginehowanagentcouldmakeadeterminationinthemiddleofthenightwhetheranygivenalien(whohadenteredillegally)wouldappearbeforeanIJ.

Theprobable-causehearingrequirement,again,wouldpullasignificantnumberofBorderPatrolagentsoffofthelinealmostdailytotraveltofar-awayimmigrationcourtstoexplainwhytheymadenumerousandsundryarrests.

Toexplain:AsofJanuary2019,CBPemployedroughly20,000BorderPatrolagents,12mostofwhomareassignedtotheSouthwestborder,whichisabout1,954mileslong.13Thoseagentswork50-hourshiftsperweek,meaningthatatanygiventime(assumingthereare18,000agentsalongtheborderwithMexico)thereareapproximately5,357agentsatthatborder.IfCBPhadtopullhundredsofthemoffofthelineatanygiventime,itwouldcreateavacuumthatwouldbeexploitedbysmug-glersandtraffickers,whowouldmovemigrants,drugs,andcontrabandthroughtheplaceswhereagentsaren’tstationed.

4

Center for Immigration Studies Center for Immigration StudiesCenter for Immigration Studies

Ofcourse,immigrationcourtsarenot24-hour-a-dayaffairs,soitisunclearhow,exactly,analienapprehendedonaFridaycouldbepresentedbeforeanIJ48hourslateronSunday(orSaturday,forthatmatter).

ThisprovisionwouldessentiallyrequireBorderPatrolagentstoissueNTAstoallaliensapprehendedenteringillegallyinlieuofarrestingthosealiens.Thiswould,inturn,encouragemassivenumbersofalienstoentertheUnitedStatesillegally,overwhelminglimitedDHSresourcesevenmore.

ItwouldalsopreventBorderPatrolfromidentifyingwantedcriminals,gangmembers,traffickers,andeventerroristsinthatfloodofmigrantsovertheborder.Notably,theAprilreportfromthebipartisanHSACpanel(referencedabove)specificallystated:“Byfar,themajor‘pullfactor’[drivingfamilyunitstotheSouthwestborder]isthecurrentpracticeofreleasingwithaNTAmostillegalmigrantswhobringachildwiththem.”14Thebillwouldexacerbatethatproblemexponentially,andexpandthisloopholetosingleadultsenteringillegally.

Statute of Limitations on Removal Proceedings for Criminal AliensThebillwouldalsocreatea“statuteoflimitations”forremovalproceedings,requiringthatICEplaceanyalienchargedwithacriminal-basedgroundofremovabilityintoproceedingswithinfiveyearsofthealienbecomingamenabletoremoval(usu-ally,thedateofconviction).Often,ICEisunabletolocatealienswhohavecriminalconvictionsrightaway,orfailstorealizethatanindividualwithaconvictionisanalienforseveralyears.

Thisprovisionwouldgivethosealiensnota“getoutofjailfreecard,”butrathera“remainintheUnitedStatesunremovable”card.And,itwoulddosoretroactively,socriminalalienswhowereplacedintoremovalproceedingsmorethanfiveyearsaftertheirconvictions,andsubsequentlyorderedremoved,wouldnolongerberemovable—regardlessoftheseverityoftheircriminaloffenses.

And,asIwillexplainbelow,itwouldalsoallowthosecriminalalienswhohavebeenremovedtohavetheircasesreopenedandterminated,andtobereturnedtotheUnitedStatesattaxpayers’expense.

Limitation on Criminal Removal GroundsH.R.5383wouldalsoevisceratethecriminalgroundsofinadmissibility15anddeportabilityunderaprovisionspecificallytitled“LimitCriminal-System-to-RemovalPipeline”(suggestingthattheauthorsdonotwanta“pipeline”betweenprisonsandremovalfordangerouscriminalaliens).

Itwouldeliminateremovabilityforaliensconvictedofcrimesinvolvingmoralturpitude(CIMTs),whicharegenerallychar-acterizedascrimesofvileness,baseness,ordepravity,aswellascrimesthatviolatemoralstandards(malum in se,aswesayinthelaw,“wronginitself ”byitsverynature).16Includedonthislistarecrimesthatinvolvefraud,bribery,sex-relatedoffenses(includingsolicitationofprostitutionandincest),willfulinflictionofinjurytoaspouse,theft,robbery,knowingpossessionofchildpornography,andcommunicationwithaminorforimmoralpurposes—tonameafew.Significantly,alienscon-victedoftheseoffenseswouldnotonlynolongerbedeportableiftheywerehere,theywouldno longer be inadmissible to the United Statesiftheyarenot.

Inaddition,thebillwouldeliminateremovabilityforcriminalviolationsrelatingtocontrolledsubstancesotherthandrug-traffickingoffenses(withasignificantcaveatrelatingtodeportabilitybasedonaconvictionforanaggravatedfelony,below),againmeaningthatapplicantsforadmissionwouldnotbebarredfromenteringtheUnitedStatesasaresultofsuchconvic-tions.

H.R.5383wouldalsosignificantlynarrowthedefinitionof“aggravatedfelony”insection101(a)(43)oftheINA,acategoryofcrimesthatrendersaliensintheUnitedStatesdeportable.17Thatlistincludesmurder,rape,sexualabuseofaminor,il-licittraffickinginacontrolledsubstance,illicittraffickinginfirearms,crimesofviolence,theftandburglary,demandfororreceiptofransom,childpornography,racketeer influencedcorruptorganizationoffenses,peonage,slavery, trafficking inpersons,gatheringortransmittingnationaldefenseinformation,sabotage,offensesinvolvingfraudordeceitinwhichthelosswas$10,000ormore,aliensmuggling,andattemptsandconspiraciestocommitsuchoffenses(aswellasmanyothers—thislistisnotexhaustive).

Center for Immigration Studies

5

Center for Immigration Studies

Currently,anoffensedoesnotneedtoqualifyasa“felony”understateorfederallawtoqualifyasanaggravatedfelonyforpurposesofdeportability.Thisrecognizesthefactthat“immigration”isafederalissue,andthatastate’scharacterizationofanoffenseasa“misdemeanor”ora“felony”hasnoeffectonhowthatoffenseshouldbetreatedforpurposesofremovability.

Thebillwouldredefinetheterm“aggravatedfelony”forpurposesoftheINAas“afelony,forwhichatermofimprisonmentofnotlessthan5yearswasimposed.”Thisisabadamendment,foratleasttworeasons.

First,itexcludesmanyoffensesthatwouldfallunderthefederaldefinitionof“felony”,whichincludesanycrimeforwhichthemaximumtermofimprisonmentauthorizedisasentenceofmorethanayear.18Evenifyoudon’tbelievethatcrimesthatarenot“felonies”shouldnotcountas“aggravatedfelonies”forimmigrationpurposes,crimeswithpunishmentsthatwouldqualifyas“felonies”underfederallawcertainlyshould.

Second,andworse,itwouldallowmanyalienswhoarecurrentlyremovableforsignificantcriminaloffensestoremainintheUnitedStatesandcommitadditionalcrimes.AsmycolleagueJessicaVaughan19notedin2011insummarizingaGov-ernmentAccountabilityOfficereportonalienincarcerations,arrests,andcosts:“Theaverageincarceratedalienhadsevenarrests,andcommittedanaverageof12offenses.”20Simplyput,criminalscommitcrimes,andconvictedcriminalsusuallycommitnumerousones.

Whiletheaggravatedfelonieslistedaboveareseriousoffenses,asaresultofpleabargainsorthemisguidedeffortsoflenientsentencingjudges,thesentencesforthoseoffensescanberelativelylight.Thisisespeciallytrueincasesinvolvingrapeandsexualabuseofaminor,whereprosecutorsmayattempttoprotectthevictimfromhavingtotestifybystrikingadealwiththedefendant.

H.R.5383wouldshelterthecriminalsconvictedofthoseoffensesfromremovability,inessenceallowingthemtoremainintheUnitedStatesandpreyagainuponthecommunity,unlesstheyreceivedatermofimprisonmentofanarbitraryfiveyearsormore.

Restrictions on What Constitutes a “Conviction” for Immigration PurposesWorse,thatbillwouldsignificantlytrimdowntheformalfindingsofcriminalguiltthatwouldqualifyasa“conviction”forpurposesofremovability,aswellaseligibilityforimmigrationreliefinsection101(a)(48)oftheINA.21

Itisimportanttonotethatcriminalconvictionshavetwoconsequencesunderimmigrationlaw.First,theycanrenderanalieninadmissibleorremovableundersections212(a)(2)22and237(a)(2)23oftheINA,respectively.Second,theycanrenderaremovablealienineligibleforrelieffromremoval,suchasforasylum(sections208(b)(2)(A)(ii)and(iii)andsections208(b)(2)(B)(i)and(ii)oftheINA),24cancellationofremovalforpermanentresidents(“42Acancellation”,section240A(a)(3)oftheINA25),andcancellationofremovalandadjustmentofstatusforcertainnonpermanentresidents(“42Bcancellation”,section240A(b)(1)(C)oftheINA).

H.R.5383wouldamendthedefinitionof“conviction”forpurposesoftheINAtoexclude:

An adjudication or judgment of guilt that has been dismissed, expunged, sealed, deferred, annulled, invalidated, with-held, or vacated, or where a court has issued a judicial recommendation against removal [JRAD], or an order of proba-tion without entry of judgment or any similar disposition.

Thisamendmentwouldallowacriminalwhohasbeenconvicted,andsentenced,andwhohasservedtimeforanoffensetoavoidremovalbygoingtoasympatheticjudge(oroverworkedprosecutor)tohavethatconvictiondismissed,expunged,sealed,annulled,invalidated,orvacated,without consideration of whether the criminal actually committed that offense.

6

Center for Immigration Studies Center for Immigration StudiesCenter for Immigration Studies

AsCriminalDefenseLawyerexplains:

Many states allow you to expunge, seal or otherwise “hide” or “destroy” your criminal record. Generally, if a criminal record is expunged or sealed, it’s as though the crime never occurred and you can legally say (to a potential employer, for example) that you were never charged or convicted of a crime.26

Or,a“potential IJ”.Therefore,analienwhohascommittedaseriouscriminaloffensecanavoid the immigrationconse-quencesofhisorheractionsbygoingtocourt,ininstanceswellafterthefact,to“hide”or“destroy”theircriminalrecordforimmigrationpurposes.

WithrespecttoJRADs,asmycolleagueDanCadmanhasexplained,whiletheypreviouslyexistedinimmigrationlaw,Con-gressexpresslyrepealedthatprocedure30yearsago:

Before repeal, a JRAD was binding on immigration authorities, including immigration judges, although it could not be used for certain offenses or where the sentence exceeded a year of imprisonment.

Next let’s note that JRADs were primarily used in cases involving resident aliens in which mitigating factors existed; the JRAD acted to bar deportation and thus left the alien’s legal ability to remain in the United States intact.27

TheJRADproposedinH.R.5383wouldapplytoallaliens,notjustlawfulpermanentresidentaliens,andwouldincludeforeignnationalswhohaveneverbeentotheUnitedStatesseekingadmission.AndCongressrepealedthatreliefforgoodreason,asIhavepreviouslystated:“Eliminationofthatlimitedauthoritymadeitclearthatstate-court judges had no power to affect the immigration consequences of criminal convictions.”28(Emphasisadded.)

H.R.5383wouldinfactgivestate-courtjudgesalmostunbridleddiscretiontointerfereintheexclusivelyfederaldomainofimmigration.Further,itwouldalmostdefinitelyleadtodisparateandsubjectiveoutcomes,assomejurisdictions(andindi-vidualjudges)wouldbemorelenientandothersstricterwereittocometoapplyingthesenewpowers,iftheywereconveyedbyCongress.

Worse(andyes,itgetsmuch,muchworse),thebillwouldrepealasubparagraphinsection101(a)(48)oftheINAthatex-plicitlystatesthat:

Any reference to a term of imprisonment or a sentence with respect to an offense is deemed to include the period of in-carceration or confinement ordered by a court of law regardless of any suspension of the imposition or execution of that imprisonment or sentence in whole or in part.29

Instead,underthatprovisionasamendedbyH.R.5383,thephrase“termofimprisonmentorsentence”forpurposesoftheINAwouldincludeonlythe“periodofincarcerationorderedbyacourtoflaw”,excluding“confinement”(logicallyreferenc-ing“housearrest”)aswellas“anysuspensionorimpositionorexecutionofthatimprisonmentorsentenceinwholeorinpart”.Thenumberofcriminalalienswhowouldescaperemovalunderthisamendmentisincalculable,butthatisonlythebeginning.

Retroactivity of AmendmentsThatisbecausethebillwouldmaketheseamendmentsexplicitly retroactive,applicablenotonlytoconvictionsandsentencesenteredbeforethedateofenactment,butalsoto“admissionsandconduct”occurringbeforethedateofenactment.Itwouldprovideamapforcriminalsseekingthroughthepleaprocesstoavoidremovalandreoffend,asoftenastheywanted,untiltheyranafoulofwhatwouldbeleftofthecriminalgroundsofremoval.Andallowthemtoreopencasesthathadlongbeenclosed,eveniftheyhadalreadybeendeported.