The New York Times yesterday published an editorial about immigration policy. You can read it here. Reading it is essential to understanding what I am about to say, which is a reply. In brief, this editorial is incorrect in fact, concept and language.
The Times opined in response to the implementation plans of Trump's executive orders regarding illegal immigrants. The full text of these orders is referenced in the op-ed, and readily readable. The Times' response, while admitting it is an op-ed item and not a news report, it still remarkable in its tone and leaps of conclusion and association.
It begins by contrasting 'sensible immigration policies' with those of Trump and Kelly, the Secretary of Homeland Security. In the same paragraph it goes on to assert that Trump's policies are detrimental to 'deeply held American values'. It references Obama's policy of permitting families with citizen children and strong community ties to avoid prosecution and deportation, stating such individuals deserve a chance to stay and 'get right with the law'.
The Times refers to 'unauthorized immigrants', which appears to be the favored neologism in place of 'undocumented migrants'. It extrapolates from the executive orders to state that policy will now be an all-inclusive dragnet that will not improve public safety. It claims this is a path to police abuses and racial profiling. The Times further claims this short-circuits due process, and will lead to a 'show-me-your-papers' policy.
All these claims and prose miss a couple of essential, definitional points.
First, the people in question are not 'unauthorized immigrants' or 'undocumented migrants'. They are illegal aliens. Their very presence in the United States constitutes a violation of federal law. The duration and productivity of their illegal residency is not relevant to their status, although it may be argued it should be considered in their deportation. By definition, every illegal alien is a federal criminal. That is simple, legal fact, not opinion, racial prejudice or abusive policing.
Illegal aliens do have due process rights, as decided by SCOTUS in a 2001 decision; however, these due process rights are quite circumscribed, as summarized here. The Times ignores a fundamental issue. The US government has the right, indeed, the responsibility, to deport in a timely manner illegal aliens.
Further, the idea that Trump is acting extra-judicially or arbitrarily contrary to American values or law is false. Trump is proposing no new law. He is simply enforcing existing law. It is Obama's policy that was extra-judicial and contrary to written law! Somewhere in the illegal alien discussion the idea crept in that such individuals have a right to be in the US, or ought to be given leeway in staying. There is no legal basis for this, and the United States is not a campground for those who simply want to be here.
The US has long had immigration limitations, contrary to the beliefs of some that the Statue of Liberty is simply an open door policy for immigrants. I have addressed this in a previous post. The US is also exceptionally lenient in its policies for illegal immigrants. Here are several items on policy in other nations- Foreign Policy 2010, Human Events 2014, and ProCon. This last reference gives a sense of the magnitude of the problem compared to even nations with a significant issue with Islamic immigrants. The US has 10 times the illegal alien population as Germany does, 3 fold higher than England, 30 (not a misprint) fold the rate of France.
The Times has presented its opinion, but it is couched in histrionic terms, inaccurately, and with an underlying assumption that immigrants who want to be here deserve to be here. None of that is true, legally accurate or even ethically defensible.
I favor strict enforcement of US immigration law. Deportation proceedings can be adjudicated with consideration for an illegal alien's productive status, but not simply having a family. I further favor ending all officially mandated translation for public services. Every immigrant group has learned English- Swedes, Chinese, Irish, Germans....my father, my great-grandfather. By all means, come here legally, contribute to society, make an effort to better your life. But do not come here to impose your values, your laws or your language.
False sympathy for illegal aliens clouds the issue of immigration. It falsely represents 'American values'. It is insulting to those who have worked and waited years to come here. Promulgating these misleading arguments and information is the very heart of false, fake news. It saddens me that a major news outlet can publish misleading, inaccurate material such as this.
Ted
The Times opined in response to the implementation plans of Trump's executive orders regarding illegal immigrants. The full text of these orders is referenced in the op-ed, and readily readable. The Times' response, while admitting it is an op-ed item and not a news report, it still remarkable in its tone and leaps of conclusion and association.
It begins by contrasting 'sensible immigration policies' with those of Trump and Kelly, the Secretary of Homeland Security. In the same paragraph it goes on to assert that Trump's policies are detrimental to 'deeply held American values'. It references Obama's policy of permitting families with citizen children and strong community ties to avoid prosecution and deportation, stating such individuals deserve a chance to stay and 'get right with the law'.
The Times refers to 'unauthorized immigrants', which appears to be the favored neologism in place of 'undocumented migrants'. It extrapolates from the executive orders to state that policy will now be an all-inclusive dragnet that will not improve public safety. It claims this is a path to police abuses and racial profiling. The Times further claims this short-circuits due process, and will lead to a 'show-me-your-papers' policy.
All these claims and prose miss a couple of essential, definitional points.
First, the people in question are not 'unauthorized immigrants' or 'undocumented migrants'. They are illegal aliens. Their very presence in the United States constitutes a violation of federal law. The duration and productivity of their illegal residency is not relevant to their status, although it may be argued it should be considered in their deportation. By definition, every illegal alien is a federal criminal. That is simple, legal fact, not opinion, racial prejudice or abusive policing.
Illegal aliens do have due process rights, as decided by SCOTUS in a 2001 decision; however, these due process rights are quite circumscribed, as summarized here. The Times ignores a fundamental issue. The US government has the right, indeed, the responsibility, to deport in a timely manner illegal aliens.
Further, the idea that Trump is acting extra-judicially or arbitrarily contrary to American values or law is false. Trump is proposing no new law. He is simply enforcing existing law. It is Obama's policy that was extra-judicial and contrary to written law! Somewhere in the illegal alien discussion the idea crept in that such individuals have a right to be in the US, or ought to be given leeway in staying. There is no legal basis for this, and the United States is not a campground for those who simply want to be here.
The US has long had immigration limitations, contrary to the beliefs of some that the Statue of Liberty is simply an open door policy for immigrants. I have addressed this in a previous post. The US is also exceptionally lenient in its policies for illegal immigrants. Here are several items on policy in other nations- Foreign Policy 2010, Human Events 2014, and ProCon. This last reference gives a sense of the magnitude of the problem compared to even nations with a significant issue with Islamic immigrants. The US has 10 times the illegal alien population as Germany does, 3 fold higher than England, 30 (not a misprint) fold the rate of France.
The Times has presented its opinion, but it is couched in histrionic terms, inaccurately, and with an underlying assumption that immigrants who want to be here deserve to be here. None of that is true, legally accurate or even ethically defensible.
I favor strict enforcement of US immigration law. Deportation proceedings can be adjudicated with consideration for an illegal alien's productive status, but not simply having a family. I further favor ending all officially mandated translation for public services. Every immigrant group has learned English- Swedes, Chinese, Irish, Germans....my father, my great-grandfather. By all means, come here legally, contribute to society, make an effort to better your life. But do not come here to impose your values, your laws or your language.
False sympathy for illegal aliens clouds the issue of immigration. It falsely represents 'American values'. It is insulting to those who have worked and waited years to come here. Promulgating these misleading arguments and information is the very heart of false, fake news. It saddens me that a major news outlet can publish misleading, inaccurate material such as this.
Ted
I have seen this matter from all sides - as a law abiding natural born U.S. citizen who legally lived abroad for 13 years, as a husband to a legal resident wife (for whom a green card took almost 2 years of administrative hoop jumping and fee payments to obtain), and as the family member of a nephew who legally came to the U.S. to study and who escaped from the airport and purposely overstayed his visa to become an illegal alien. I have also known illegal alien workers and attended a church where I suspect that most congregants were illegal aliens.
ReplyDeleteI favor legal immigration, but understand the many motives of those who are illegally residing in the U.S. I also understand some of the issues involved with the mixed economic impact illegals have.
While all this current debate is occurring, it must not be forgotten that one part of the problem with illegal immigration in the U.S. is the failure of the U.S. congress - time and time again over the years - to pass sensible laws that are in keeping with real world immigration patterns and problems. The Obama administration repeatedly expressed its frustration with the failure of congress to provide immigration reform. When becoming a legal immigrant is so difficult, human needs will push people to obtain what they want illegally. Again and again, congress has failed to provide such solutions.
So, if the legislative branch cannot provide help on this matter, then the executive branch of government will act as it sees fit with the laws that are given. Hence each president will have a harsher or more lenient policy as he sees fit.
For those who didn't like Obama's policies or for those who do not like Trump's, besides complaining about them, exhortation on one's congressmen to work on immigration reform is a good place to apply pressure.
-D-