the ‘new way forward act’: a roadmap for immigration under ... › sites › default › files...
TRANSCRIPT
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•[email protected]•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.