When a law enforcement agency has only enough resources to go after a fraction of the individuals who it suspects of violating the relevant law. it has to make choices. There is no alternative. In the case of immigration. not only do we recognize this. Congress has specifically directed the head of the Department to set priorities. enforcement priorities. for removal. Now. in addition to that. the Supreme Court has recognized in many cases the needand really the authority of the executiveto make these decisions. In the Arizona case. it said Federal officials. as an initial matter. must decide whether it makes sense to pursue removal at all. Our own Congressional Research Service has found that no court appears to have invalidated a policy of nonenforcement founded upon prosecutorial discretion on the grounds that the policy violated the take care clause. Deferred action is nothing more than a tentative revocable signal to a noncitizen that the government does not intend to initiate removal proceedings at this time. Not only is that tentative. but the statute at U.S.C. 1182(a)(9)(B)(ii) authorizes the period of stay by the Department in such cases. Congress has expressly recognized deferred action by name repeatedly.
Keywords matched
immigration noncitizen