It is hard not to feel deeply pessimistic about the country’s chances of reining in illegal immigration, in the light of the increasingly successful battle against the Secure Communities program.
To be sure, there have been a few positive developments recently regarding immigration and rule of law: On May 26, the Supreme Court upheld a 2007 Arizona law requiring employers to verify the legal status of their workers. The Court rejected the charge that the Arizona law, the Legal Arizona Workers Act, was an improper state interference in federal immigration authority. The failed argument that states have no authority to add their enforcement power to existing federal immigration rules is central also to the assault on Arizona’s much-maligned SB-1070, which calls on local police officers and sheriff’s deputies to inquire into a person’s immigration status if there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is in the country illegally. The Supreme Court’s affirmation of Arizona’s worker-verification law gives some hope that the Court will also uphold SB-1070.
Advertisement
Also on the positive side of the ledger: In early June, Alabama passed what is viewed as the toughest immigration-enforcement bill in the nation. Alabama’s HB-56 incorporates the local-law-enforcement provisions of Arizona’s SB-1070 and the mandatory employment checks of the Legal Arizona Workers Act. It requires schools to publish the costs of educating illegal aliens, prohibits landlords from knowingly renting to illegal aliens, and bars illegal aliens from enrolling in public colleges. In May, Georgia also enacted a bill strengthening local immigration-enforcement powers.
But these state-level developments seem marginal compared to the growing attack on the very premises of national immigration law. Last Friday, the Obama administration finally caved in to mounting pressure from immigration activists, Democratic politicians, big-city police chiefs, and newspaper editorial boards to gut the Secure Communities program, which runs the fingerprints of arrestees booked into local jails against federal immigration data bases. Secure Communities does not mandate that immigration agents actually do anything with the resulting information; it merely provides them with information, which they may or may not act upon. Much of the time, they do nothing.
For years, open-borders advocates have howled that Secure Communities was flagging for possible deportation “mere” petty criminals — drunk drivers, unlicensed drivers, non-gun-using assailants, shoplifters, thieves, garden-variety drug dealers and drug users — instead of “serious” violent offenders. “Only” 30 percent of illegal aliens deported under the program were “serious” violent felons such as murderers and rapists, reports the Los Angeles Times, with typical offended righteousness.
To which one can only respond: So what? Even if Secure Communities flagged for possible deportation only illegal aliens with no criminal records at all, it is impossible to see any injustice or illegality in the operation of the law — unless the country’s real immigration policy is that illegal aliens should never be deported absent extreme and unusual circumstances. And that is exactly the premise of the campaign against Secure Communities, although its opponents have never had the guts to say so explicitly. So let us be as clear as possible: If the logic of the attack on Secure Communities continues to spread, it will mean that the country’s democratically enacted federal immigration statutes, which provide for deportation as the penalty for illegal presence, will have been nullified and replaced with a new policy: Once in the country, you’re here to stay — unless, maybe, you kill or rape someone.
One of the standard pretexts used in arguments against Secure Communities is that immigration enforcement will discourage illegal aliens from cooperating with the police as crime victims and witnesses. No one has ever provided empirical evidence for this proposition. But the more important point is this: The logic of this proposition is more radical than anyone has ever acknowledged. It means that illegal aliens should never face any threat of apprehension and deportation from immigration authorities, lest they form a bad feeling about law enforcement.
In recent months, the governors of Illinois, New York, and Massachusetts have refused to cooperate with Secure Communities; California legislators are pressuring Gov. Jerry Brown to repudiate the program. And now, after months of defending the program, the Obama administration is agreeing with its critics that it has been operating unjustly. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has issued new guidelines urging its agents to consider how long an illegal immigrant has been in the country or whether he is studying in high school or college before deciding to proceed with deportation proceedings, reports the New York Times — in effect, enacting the controversial DREAM Act by administrative fiat. ICE director John Morton has expanded the authority of federal prosecutors to dismiss deportation cases against illegals who don’t have “serious” criminal records, according to the Times, and is calling for the release of illegal-alien criminals from federal immigration detainment centers unless they are convicted of an offense.
These recent changes mean that the Obama administration is officially buying in to the premise of the illegal-alien lobby: that the default position toward illegal immigration should be that no penalty attaches to it, unless an illegal alien commits a heinous crime (though even that limit on the no-deportation rule remains highly theoretical, as I have never seen an illegal-alien advocate affirm a single deportation). Supporters of the rule of law in immigration matters can oppose official amnesty (also known as comprehensive immigration reform) all they want, but it’s too late. Our de facto amnesty policy is rapidly becoming official, sending the message to would-be illegal immigrants the world over that the U.S. has no intention of enforcing its national sovereignty. Such a message makes state efforts like Arizona’s and Alabama’s look futile, even wistful.
When amnesty advocates claim the only illegal immigrants who should be deported are those who have committed serious crimes, someone should ask what crimes are considered serious. For years, thousands of illegal immigrants arrested for a variety of criminal offenses for which American citizens would serve time in prison have been released and records of their arrests - if they ever existed - have been destroyed. In sanctuary cities across the country, crimes committed by illegal immigrants are often ignored so no arrests are made. Unless an illegal immigrant kills someone, gets caught and the crime receives media attention, it's likely there will be few crimes serious enough to warrant deportation.
"someone should ask what crimes are considered serious"
Maybe you should ask the same thing of ICE, who in their own literature claim that the priority of Secure Communities is to remove criminals who are a serious threat to public safety.
If government at all levels is unable or unwilling to enforce its own immigration laws...then I can readily envision a day not far off when citizens will take matters into their own hands.
As to the methods citizens will use, well, I'll leave those to your imagination.
This is so distressing. As a once Permanent Resident alien with a Green card turned Naturalized American, I place a good part of the blame with the Repubs for not speaking forcefully on this issue and in many cases enabling illegal immigration. Now this is the new norm, one where you are put on defense for asking that current law be enforced. I appreciate and love this country and have spent considerable time learning the history, I suspect that is of little importance to our new immigrants as they seek to "come out of the shadows". Maddening
US citizens have been betrayed by our 'public servants' from coast to coast. And we continue to be betrayed every day.
Do you have any idea how gigantic an coordinated effort it took to have EVERY manufacturer of product begin putting instructions in Spanish as well as English on products destined for the US market? The decision to open the gates to illegal immigrants was made decades ago, and it wasn't made at the ballot box.
Ms Mac Donald is right on point here. This is another basic difference between liberals and conservatives--as a general rule, conservatives believe that laws and rules apply to everyone, while liberal believe that laws and rules apply to people other than themselves, and that they don't apply to the "disadvantaged".
This is also the standard blatant attempt to increase Democrat voter rolls (also see felon voting).
For those who think America needs to be "fundamentally transformed", there's no better way to do it than to fill up the country w/ non-Americans.
I have spoken to people on the other side of this issue, and we can't even acknowledge common ground. My entering argument is that illegal means just that--illegal. All the talk after that is just covering up the basic issue. These people entered the nation unlawfully and they should be sent back home, whether they've been here 20 years or 20 minutes.
The next point is usually "You're nuts! You can't ship 20 million people out of the country!" Wrong--it can be done. It will be painful and ugly, but it can be done. It's a matter of will, not ability. I too am very pessimistic about the future of our country if we don't get this problem (and many others) under control.
The only answer is to pepper your congressman and senators with protests if their votes on this issue enable the current conditions to continue, and to make sure that the Republican presidential candidate's feet are held to the fire on this issue.
Anyone who believes in our Constitutionally established form of representational government should be horrified that our laws are increasingly being determined by judges who have no power to legislate. This is bad for the Republic whether our robed masters rule in favor of restraining immigraton or not.
@Dex,
I am in a situation similar to yours and very proud (and thankful) to be a naturalised citizen.
From what I hear from illegals, they consider themselves Mexican, Bolivian etc. first. To them, amnesty means they can reap the benefits safely - and that is it. And unlike other immigrant groups, their lack of will to learn English and the contempt many of them hold America in is apparent - but to acknowledge it is a PC no-no.
I agree the Repubs have dealt with this no better than the Dems, but they have their own reason. Cheap labour.
We do actually need comprehensive immigration reform. We need to change our system of LEGAL immigration to make adjustments so that skilled workers can come in more easily than laborers, and Yes, we DO need to decide what to do with the 20 million illegals already here. Whether we can deport all of them or not is a purely academic question. It's like asking whether we have the ability to invade and occupy England or not. Nobody's going to want to do it, and, considering all the families you'd be breaking up, it wouldn't even be morally right to do it. I'm not saying give them instant amnesty, but a solution has to be reached, and mass deportation isn't it. And, of course, we need to secure our borders, which I think we intentionally haven't done, not just out of incompetence. We're able to secure Afghanistan's border, but not our own? C'mon. There's an idea: bring our troops home from the three senseless wars we're engaged in, and put some of them on the Southern border!
Pdevlin, I'd avoid broad generalizations about all 20 million illegal immigrants like that, but "hyphenated Americans" have always been a concern. I don't think that this wave of immigration, except perhaps from those coming from Muslim countries, is any worse than previous waves.
"In recent months, the governors of Illinois, New York, and Massachusetts have refused to cooperate with Secure Communities;"
Looks to me like it's about time for Arizona, Texas, etc. to start a busing program. Take all of the captured illegal alien criminals, petty or serious, and "deport" them, a busload at a time, to the states, such as those above, that seem willing to welcome them with open arms.
It solves the problem for the states struggling with it, ICE does not need to be involved, and it sends the criminal illegals (oxymoron/redundancy alert!) to a place where they can feel welcome and loved. A classic win-win scenario!
My bet is that the citizens of the border states would gladly contribute to such a program, and as there is no profit motive any such contributions should be tax exempt - and the Feds obviously don't need the tax money, as they are realizing a substantial cost savings by ignoring immigration control.
Anyone else think, like me, that the elected officials in those states would get booted out as soon as their citizens started to suffer under the new crime and cost burdens of all these illegals?
@rightlibertarian,
Respectfully, I disagree, although I of course am talking in generalities. But in my trade, I've met many, many illegals over the years.
In the past, generations of immigrants had to learn English, or they stayed in their own communities - not expecting everything to be written up in their native language. Past generations also did not get massive amounts gobment help - yes, I know it is not supposed to happen - but they either 'borrow' an SS number or are assigned a 'temporary' one. Past generations, although they may have missed their homeland, wanted to become part of America - to her their loyalty belonged.
You do have a point that this wave increasingly refers to their origin country as "home." My parents were refugees from the Soviet Union and would never even think of talking like that.
I would call attention to the fact that everything you said having to do with public policy isn't really the immigrants' fault - it's the fault of politicians hungry for electoral power.
To be fair, learning English from scratch is tough, but it's even tougher when you're not motivated to do so because the culture does not set an expectation (as it did in the past) that you do.
It IS worth noting though, that from a historical standpoint, nearly every wave of immigrants has met a nativist or other resistance, be they Irish, Jewish, Italian, Chinese, or whatever.
Although this started out as a discussion of only illegal immigration, it evolved into a discussion of immigration as a whole - and that's the dialogue we need to have. The illegal issue is only part of the larger immigration issue. You can't, or at least shouldn't, really deal with one without dealing with the other.
I see white guys soliciting money from working mothers holding a mop. These women will give up their hard earned money to scum for one reason - they've got heart and soul.
McCain calls us isolationists if we don't help Libya ... but I guess it's alright to ignore our neighbors.
Ms. McDonald is dead on correct. Obama favors open borders, and he and his people will do anything to obstruct enforcement of immigration laws.
Who is Obama's most prominent ally on this issue? The ACLU? Immigrant "rights" groups? The Catholic Church, which wants to replace the Anglos who have fled the church in recent decades? All allies, of course, but nothing compared to this group: the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and their state affiliates.
Walmart, agribusiness, home improvement contractors, etc. all love the cheap labor provided by the hordes of unskilled workers who have crossed over into the U.S. illegally from Mexico. The short-term profits, stock options, and bonuses they scavenge by holding down labor costs are all to their advantage.
In the long run, however, these business interests are importing a group of voters that will happily expropriate every last dollar of the ownership class. Lenin was right - these capitalists will sell the rope to their future executioners that will be used to destroy the market economy. That's why left-wing activists also support unlimited immigration of unskilled workers - these are future voters who will overwhelmingly vote for a Democratic Party that will become increasingly socialist in both rhetoric and policy.
The lack of enforcement of immigration laws is yet another folly of the George W. Bush years. Bush and Karl Rove still labor under the fantasy that these waves of illegal Mexicans oppose abortion, and will vote for anti-abortion Republicans. Ms. McDonald has written in the past that this belief is hopelessly deluded. These immigrants will vote first for their economic interests over social issues, like almost everyone else does.
Like Ms. McDonald, I'm pessimistic that the federal government will ever enforce border security. Only overwhelming public pressure will persuade the political elites in both parties to buck the economic and ideological interests that oppose immigration laws.
And the only way that this public pressure will be generated is if there is a major terrorist attack in the U.S. carried out by terrorists who enter the U.S. through our southern border. Sad, isn't it, that only mass murder will convince our government to protect our borders?
pdevelin @11:03 - I generally agree with you. I have begun seeing advertising that is solely in Spanish and I am beginning to feel like a stranger in my own country. No other group has done this - come here and refuse to integrate as well as impose itself on American sensibilities, and we continue to enable such nonsense by not demanding that they integrate and learn English. Moreover, some of their leaders continue to think the southwestern part of the country still belongs to Mexico. That is absolutely subversive. It is time we called "undocumented" aliens exactly what they are: illegal aliens - not here legally - and do everything we can to force them to return to their own homelands.
Regarding Jack in Silver Spring, "No other group has done this - come here and refuse to integrate as well as impose itself on American sensibilities." Did the original European settlers integrate with those already here and did they not impose?
