Google+
Close

The Corner

The one and only.

Is There Any Enforcement They’re For?



Text  



When I refer to many immigration expansionists as favoring open borders, sometimes I get push-back. As proof that they’re not in favor of open borders, they often preface their comments with “Of course a nation has the right to protect its borders” (though that’s usually followed by “but…”).

But if it quacks like a duck and looks like a duck and walks like a duck, at some point you have to conclude that it’s a duck. And there were a couple of unmistakable quacks this week. The Secure Communities program checks the fingerprints of suspects against immigration databases when they’re booked at the same time as they’re being checked against FBI databases. The Obama administration has promoted this Bush-era initiative and plans universal coverage by 2013 as an alternative to more robust local participation in immigration law enforcement like the 287g program, which the Obama people are decidedly hostile to. But even this is too much for the open-borders folks. The New York State Working Group Against Deportation has distributed a “Toolkit for Action” to stop Secure Communities, with some delightful talking points, the most notable being:

We should NOT say it is OK to deport “dangerous or violent criminals”

I don’t see how you can say that and then claim that you’re not for open borders.

Another example is the response to employer audits. The administration is auditing the personnel records of businesses that might employ illegal aliens as an alternative to the evil, mean worksite raids carried out toward the end of the Bush administration. But even this kinder, gentler form of immigration enforcement is too much for the SEIU, which “is openly criticizing the Department of Homeland Security’s shift in enforcement efforts for the first time,” notes Ben Smith at Politico. The union’s statement says “we can no longer sit silently while communities are devastated by reckless policies” — if even this mildest form of workplace enforcement is too much for you, then you are objectively in favor of employment for illegal aliens, i.e., you favor open borders.

In addition to insisting that immigration expansionists disclose their immigration or citizenship status, I propose they disclose at any public appearance what, if any, immigration enforcement measures they support. Inquiring minds want to know.



Text  


Sign up for free NRO e-mails today:

Subscribe to National Review