Progressives for Immigration Reform

October 12, 2009
by Phil Cafaro

The New York Times editorial page has long been one of the nation’s leading advocates for decriminalizing illegal immigration into the United States. Two pieces in today’s (Monday, October 12, 2009) Times illustrate the foolishness and danger of such an approach.

The first, “Wrong Paths to Immigration Reform,” is another in a long series of editorials taking issue with Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio for his aggressive efforts to find and detain illegal immigrants, and turn them over to the federal government for deportation (www.nytimes.com/2009/10/12/opinion/12mon2.html).

Sheriff Joe, a popular man in Phoenix who has won election and re-election four times in recent years, has used his powers under the federal 287(g) program to conduct sweeps that he claims have nabbed over 32,000 illegal immigrants. Last week, the Obama administration rescinded some of those powers, although Arpaio has vowed to continue his efforts to clamp down on illegal immigration.

The Times takes issue with Arpaio, ostensibly over alleged racial profiling and failure to treat detainees decently. But pretty clearly, Arpaio’s real sin, in the Times’ eyes, is his success. He has found and caused to be deported large numbers of illegal immigrants, succeeding in enforcing immigration laws that the Times believes should not be enforced.

Indeed, the Times goes on to argue that the 287(g) program, whereby state and local law enforcement authorities are deputized to apprehend illegal immigrants, should be cancelled. Not just for Sheriff Joe and others who they claim have abused the program, but in its entirety. Local and state officials should not check the immigration status of anyone they pull over or arrest, even if this is done in a perfectly reasonable manner, precisely because they might find that people are here illegally.

The Times editorial board writes: “To the broader question of whether federal immigration enforcement should be outsourced en masse in the first place, the answer is no.” Deputizing local police “increases the likelihood that local enforcers will abuse their authority and undermine the law. . . . Programs like 287(g) rest on the dishonest premise that illegal immigrants are a vast criminal threat. But only a small percentage are dangerous felons. The vast majority are those whom President Obama has vowed to help get right with the law, by paying fines and earning citizenship. Treating the majority of illegal immigrants as potential Americans, not a criminal horde, is the right response to the problem.”

So there you have it. Breaking immigration laws—staying in the country illegally, taking a job illegally, and using fake identity documents illegally—are not sufficient cause for arrest and deportation, according to the New York Times. Unless you have committed further crimes, we should pat you on the back and award you citizenship. If you think differently, then you (not the person who broke our immigration laws—you) are “dishonest.” If our law enforcement officials take it upon themselves to enforce mere immigration laws, then they are agents of injustice.

In most of its editorials on behalf of increased immigration or mass amnesties, the Times reflexively states, “of course, we must enforce immigration laws.” But there is always a “but,” explaining why this particular agent or plan for enforcing the laws is the wrong one. Here, in “Wrong Paths to Immigration Reform,” they come close to admitting that they do not want to see our nation’s immigration laws enforced. Forthrightly admitting this would inject some real “honesty” into the immigration debate.

In the meantime, and in the same edition, the Times provides some unwitting evidence regarding the dangers that disregarding immigration law enforcement can create. A front-page article, “U.S. Can’t Trace Foreign Visitors on Expired Visas,” states that “eight years after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and despite repeated mandates from Congress, the United States still has no reliable system for verifying that foreign visitors have left the country” (www.nytimes.com/2009/10/12/us/12visa.html?hp). The article notes that Hosam Smadi, the 19-year-old Jordanian recently accused of plotting to blow up a Dallas skyscraper, was in the country illegally. Like hundreds of thousands each year, he had overstayed his tourist visa.

“Mr. Smadi’s arrest on Sept. 24 for the attempted bombing was not his first encounter with American law enforcement,” the Times reported. “Two weeks earlier, a sheriff’s deputy in Ellis County, Tex., pulled him over for a broken tail light just north of the town of Italy, then arrested him for driving without a license or insurance.

“When the deputy checked his identity, Mr. Smadi’s name showed up on a watch list by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which was already investigating him. But the background check turned up no immigration record. The deputy called the F.B.I. and was told there was no outstanding arrest warrant for Mr. Smadi. So on the evening of Sept. 11, Mr. Smadi paid a $550 fine and walked out of the county jail.

“ ‘There was nothing to indicate to us that this person was currently in the States illegally,’ said Chief Deputy Dennis Brearley.”

Well, why wasn’t there? Smadi had presented a passport and tourist visa when he entered the country several years earlier. When he didn’t “check out” during the next six months, why wasn’t his name automatically added to a list of potential deportees? Here is a case—and there have been numerous others, reported in the media—where a routine encounter with local law enforcement authorities, running a name through easily-accessible immigration data bases, could identify “dangerous criminals” and potentially avert deadly harm to U.S. citizens. Here is one reason why we need the federal 287(g) program.

Of course, such routine law enforcement encounters can also turn up people who are “only” breaking immigration laws. But if they do, shouldn’t illegal immigrants also be held accountable for their actions, and deported? If not, why not?

If a cop pulls you or me over for a traffic violation, he typically runs our names through a national data base, to see if we have outstanding charges for running red lights or speeding in other states. If we do, we are in trouble. At a minimum, we will need to pay our fines (plus penalties) before we get our drivers licenses back. If we have any other charges outstanding, we will have to answer for them. Why should this be any different for those in the country illegally?

It comes down to a question of whether or not we take our immigration laws seriously: whether or not we believe they should be enforced. The overwhelming majority of Americans believe immigration laws should be enforced. That is why they support 287(g) and Sheriff Joe Arpaio. If the New York Times wants broad support for reining in Sheriff Joe’s excesses, then it is up to them to meet the American public halfway, and support reasonable efforts to enforce immigration laws. Efforts like 287(g).