Border Security

RE: Interim Guidance: Civil Immigration Enforcement and Removal Priorities

To Whom it May Concern,


The recent memo issued to ICE by Tae D. Johnson as entitled falls unbearably short of the expectations that the majority of US citizens have for the Biden Administration and the respective offices under its authority, specifically the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). In the memo, a "presumed priority" noncitizen may be defined as follows:

"Priority Category 2: Border Security. A noncitizen is presumed to be a border security enforcement and removal priority if:

If he or she was apprehended at the border or a port of entry while attempting to unlawfully enter the United States on or after November 1, 2020; or

he or she was not physically present in the United States before November 1, 2020

To be clear, the border security priority any noncitizen who unlawfully entered the United States on or after November 1, 2020."


Barring some of the more superficial egregious errors within this text (eg. failure to acknowledge the diversity of gender identity and preferred pronouns, the circular logic contained within item 1, etc.) I personally do not find this clause to be in the best interests of the United States or its residents.

Using this clause as pretext a security officer may treat a family escaping persecution or violence in the same manner as a convicted felon with impunity, all because of a simple date and time of entry into the United States. This is, for lack of a better word, BS.

If the DHS and ICE are incapable of implementing and enforcing guidelines, rules, and laws that actually respect the nuances of each individual noncitizen's particular situation, then it would be prudent that all parties engage in truth-default as it ensures the greatest chance for respectful, humane action in the process of homeland security.


Thank you for your time in reading this and I will await to see progress on this matter soon.

Best Regards,

Daisy L


0 votes
0 up votes
0 down votes
Idea No. 1685