Is it wrong to arrest ‘non-criminal’ illegals?
Can we agree to call out the game that supporters of illegal aliens are playing?
For years, they tried to replace language. “Illegal alien” became “undocumented person” because “nobody is illegal” (even if they violated the law to be where they were). That euphemism caught on.
The same blurring of the legality/illegality line is occurring as the Trump administration does what it promised to do: arrest illegals. Now we are told we should be arresting those with “criminal records” while ignoring the rest of the illegal pool.
Did I miss the constitutional amendment that rewrote the presidential oath? It charges the president to faithfully execute the laws of the United States — all of them. That includes the Immigration and Nationality Act.
The party of “democracy” spent the past four years claiming Donald Trump was a threat to the “rule of law” if he carried out some laws and not others. Well, where do they get off saying U.S. immigration law is to be waived...as long as you don’t break any other laws? Either we believe that democratically enacted laws are binding or not. If the latter, then please admit — out loud — “We don’t think immigration law should oblige long-term illegal aliens.”
By the way, illegals do “break” the Immigration and Nationality Act. If you point that out, their proponents will say, “But it’s a civil violation, like a traffic ticket.” That comparison is both inaccurate and risible.
It’s inaccurate because entering the U.S. illegally is actually a criminal misdemeanor (8 USC 1325). Overstaying a visa may be a civil infraction, but it’s laughable to think it’s anywhere on the same scale as jaywalking.
Maybe somebody runs a red light at 3 o’clock in the morning, a one-time offense. To treat that as the mere equivalent to remaining in a country for decades that you entered illegally is risible.
Even in the case of civil violations, mass and constant violations would generally prompt action. If a town is experiencing a flood of jaywalkers or stop sign runners, it will ask itself, “What are we doing wrong?” Is the stop sign obscured? Is it on a remote road where people think they can ignore it? Should we add a speed bump? Do we need more lights to enable people to cross the street safely? No — constant violation of even a “civil infraction” usually results in heightening enforcement of that rule, not abandoning it.
Incidentally, some statistical tallies of the so-called “non-criminal offenders” about whom illegal alien votaries are weeping and gnashing their teeth exclude charged-but-not-convicted persons and/or persons who didn’t show up for their immigration hearing. I don’t know about you, but if I flipped a court the bird and didn’t show up, I’d hope the government would take such contempt as further reason to haul this lawbreaker — civil or criminal — before a judge immediately. I’d also take it as evidence he really doesn’t care about the “rule of law” and treat him accordingly.
Then there’s the argument that “undocumented persons” pay taxes. In the words of Shania Twain, “that don’t impress me much!” Why not? Let’s unpack it.
First, if they are illegal, how are they paying? Illegals cannot legally obtain social security cards, so how do they have a number to pay taxes? Are they paying under a fake identity and number? Does that activity also get waived in the liberals’ general immigration law violation waiver? And, presuming this argument is supposed to make us grateful that illegals are contributing to the economy from which they are benefiting, why?
After all, American workers have to pay taxes. Illegals, who are taking American jobs and driving down American wages (another violation, or is that too part of their general illegal immigration pardon?), are paying taxes! Well, do you think they shouldn’t? Considering that blue states are happy to lay on public handouts for persons “regardless of immigration status” — in-state tuition rates, for example — aren’t tax dollars the least Americans should expect? Or are the friends of illegals going to suggest that their immunity from violation of immigration law also extends to tax liability? (Like the “right to privacy,” you never know about those penumbrae!)
Americans need to resist the narrative being foisted on them that the Trump administration is being unfair because it is not limiting its enforcement action only to illegal aliens with criminal records. (Even those criminal aliens were defended by their congressional allies: Consider how many votes were against the Laken Riley Act.) All of this is predicated on one unproven assumption: that violating American immigration law is an excusable offense. Indeed, it’s almost not even thought of as an offense, as if some laws are more equal than others.
Americans are told our democracy is in peril. But what greater peril exists than treating democratically enacted laws as optional? When we pick and choose which laws matter, we cease to be a nation of laws and begin the slide toward banana republic status.
