If people are in a country illegally then they are, by definition, criminals. No way to sugarcoat that brute fact.
What Trump wants to do with them -- some 10 million at last count -- may well be extreme, impractical, and counterproductive. But hard to deny that they constitute a serious problem that the Democrats have dropped the ball on -- something that even many leftists are belatedly recognizing. Like Freddie de Boer:
🙄 I read enough of it to see that the author was starting off from an untenable and rather monstrous premise, that "illegal aliens" have some legal right to be and stay in the country.
And then linked to an article by a leftist who apparently recognized the seriousness of illegal immigration.
The reason you were asked to actually read the article is because it contains a section that directly addresses your misconception:
"White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt gave away the whole rhetorical game last week when she was asked how many noncitizens that the administration had arrested actually had “a criminal record.” Leavitt absurdly asserted: “All of them. Because they illegally broke our nation’s laws and therefore they are criminals.” Of course, this isn’t true. Violating a law and having a criminal record are not the same thing. All Americans violate all kinds of laws on a daily basis, but we are not all criminals."
What you called a "brute fact" and a definitional truth—that being in the country without documentation is ipso facto a criminal offense—is simply false. You are misrepresenting the law. Under U.S. law, being in the country illegally is not by itself a criminal act. It may be a civil violation, which doesn't rise to the level of criminality. This is why someone who receives a citation for jaywalking doesn't have to come clean to his significant other that she fell in love with a criminal.
Also, two quick things about your idea that citing a "leftist" clinches your point: (1) many leftists are immigration restrictionists and (2) FdB is far from a stand-in for the typical liberal or progressive.
Violating a law and having a criminal record are not the same thing. All Americans violate all kinds of laws on a daily basis, but we are not all criminals."
Ok. But those illegals aren't Americans, are they? Seems a bit of a false analogy at best.
I'll cheerfully concede, on a more thorough reading …, that Trump and Company are being rather heavy handed at best — though eggs and omelettes. Why it might make more sense to grant citizenship to those illegals who wish to apply for it — some 400,000 according to the article.
As for FdB, his argument still gives credence to the view that the Democrats are responsible for or contributed to a great many serious problems — immigration, DEI, and transgenderism for examples. Problems which Trump is trying to fix — even if the cure may well be worse than disease. But when the patient is on death's doorstep …
DEI, woke ideology and transgender(ism?) whatever that is, are not problems that should be dealt with by the state. Except enforcing the equal protection rights afforded all US Citizens.
Not sure how institutionalized MIE (Monocultural, Inequity and Exclusion) is less of a threat than DEI to the cultural fabric of America.
OR are they in fact a serious threat? It seems that this is a problem of markets pushing and pulling human workers places and not an issue of criminality. Even IF immigration status were a criminal offense which it is not. A noncitizen legally present is always subject to deportation however with some due process rights. I am not sure if a person illegally present would have a claim to due process rights. I imagine few if they are processed the same as all others similarly situated (ie are deported for the same reasons and through the same process.)
Further I would say this is a bipartisan "problem" that has been fumbled for decades pretending that there isn't a market driving most of the immigration activity and refusing to streamline systems to make that labor market more efficient.
Definitely it will all come down to how the Supreme Court interprets "due process." Previous courts have been expansive in their interpretation of due process. The permitted presence vs. unpermitted status is the loophole that Trump will try to drive his truck through and the current court will probably allow.
Trump is merely detaining temporarily (not imprisoning) and deporting individuals who are not US Citizens or legally permitted (Green card, visa holders, asylees, etc.) to be in the country. "Due process" requirements may only require a uniform procedure, equally applied to all those holding the same status (unpermitted).
Kind of like a land lord evicting a squatter rather than a tenant.
If people invade a country's center of government with threats to assassinate its second and third in command, this is also clearly illegal. These violent traitors are those whom Toddlerus Tyrannus has pardoned.
Some reason to argue Trump is throwing the baby out with the bathwater in many cases but still has more than a few justifications for doing so -- Cathy Young has so argued at the Bulwark on DEI.
When I reached the end of the article and read this "Immigrants—like people generally—are good for their communities. " I knew that the view was entirely biased. Immigrants in and of themselves can be either good or bad for communities. We have plenty of communities here in England which have been seriously harmed by immigrant crime. Some contribute to society but many don't.
To make out that 'all immigrants are good for communities' is preposterous and demonstrates that this writer is advocating an open borders policy. What's next? Amnesty and citizenship? That's what they are pushing her in the UK.
@David J Bier
This is another balanced essay that addresses lies and actions by government folks regarding a concern that residents have about outsiders.
Thank you for writing this essay.
If people are in a country illegally then they are, by definition, criminals. No way to sugarcoat that brute fact.
What Trump wants to do with them -- some 10 million at last count -- may well be extreme, impractical, and counterproductive. But hard to deny that they constitute a serious problem that the Democrats have dropped the ball on -- something that even many leftists are belatedly recognizing. Like Freddie de Boer:
https://freddiedeboer.substack.com/p/we-have-to-take-some-kind-of-an-l?utm_medium=reader2&triedRedirect=true
We have a comments policy so that those who post without even reading the piece and connecting somehow with its arguments are not welcome. Do read it.
🙄 I read enough of it to see that the author was starting off from an untenable and rather monstrous premise, that "illegal aliens" have some legal right to be and stay in the country.
And then linked to an article by a leftist who apparently recognized the seriousness of illegal immigration.
The reason you were asked to actually read the article is because it contains a section that directly addresses your misconception:
"White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt gave away the whole rhetorical game last week when she was asked how many noncitizens that the administration had arrested actually had “a criminal record.” Leavitt absurdly asserted: “All of them. Because they illegally broke our nation’s laws and therefore they are criminals.” Of course, this isn’t true. Violating a law and having a criminal record are not the same thing. All Americans violate all kinds of laws on a daily basis, but we are not all criminals."
What you called a "brute fact" and a definitional truth—that being in the country without documentation is ipso facto a criminal offense—is simply false. You are misrepresenting the law. Under U.S. law, being in the country illegally is not by itself a criminal act. It may be a civil violation, which doesn't rise to the level of criminality. This is why someone who receives a citation for jaywalking doesn't have to come clean to his significant other that she fell in love with a criminal.
Also, two quick things about your idea that citing a "leftist" clinches your point: (1) many leftists are immigration restrictionists and (2) FdB is far from a stand-in for the typical liberal or progressive.
Violating a law and having a criminal record are not the same thing. All Americans violate all kinds of laws on a daily basis, but we are not all criminals."
Ok. But those illegals aren't Americans, are they? Seems a bit of a false analogy at best.
I'll cheerfully concede, on a more thorough reading …, that Trump and Company are being rather heavy handed at best — though eggs and omelettes. Why it might make more sense to grant citizenship to those illegals who wish to apply for it — some 400,000 according to the article.
As for FdB, his argument still gives credence to the view that the Democrats are responsible for or contributed to a great many serious problems — immigration, DEI, and transgenderism for examples. Problems which Trump is trying to fix — even if the cure may well be worse than disease. But when the patient is on death's doorstep …
DEI, woke ideology and transgender(ism?) whatever that is, are not problems that should be dealt with by the state. Except enforcing the equal protection rights afforded all US Citizens.
Not sure how institutionalized MIE (Monocultural, Inequity and Exclusion) is less of a threat than DEI to the cultural fabric of America.
OR are they in fact a serious threat? It seems that this is a problem of markets pushing and pulling human workers places and not an issue of criminality. Even IF immigration status were a criminal offense which it is not. A noncitizen legally present is always subject to deportation however with some due process rights. I am not sure if a person illegally present would have a claim to due process rights. I imagine few if they are processed the same as all others similarly situated (ie are deported for the same reasons and through the same process.)
Further I would say this is a bipartisan "problem" that has been fumbled for decades pretending that there isn't a market driving most of the immigration activity and refusing to streamline systems to make that labor market more efficient.
"It is well established that the Fifth Amendment entitles aliens to due process of law in deportation proceedings."
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/507/292/
At least for now. Let's see if the Trump Court reverses that.
Definitely it will all come down to how the Supreme Court interprets "due process." Previous courts have been expansive in their interpretation of due process. The permitted presence vs. unpermitted status is the loophole that Trump will try to drive his truck through and the current court will probably allow.
Trump is merely detaining temporarily (not imprisoning) and deporting individuals who are not US Citizens or legally permitted (Green card, visa holders, asylees, etc.) to be in the country. "Due process" requirements may only require a uniform procedure, equally applied to all those holding the same status (unpermitted).
Kind of like a land lord evicting a squatter rather than a tenant.
If people invade a country's center of government with threats to assassinate its second and third in command, this is also clearly illegal. These violent traitors are those whom Toddlerus Tyrannus has pardoned.
LoL for the Toddlerus Tyrannus.
But see:
"Sorry, Biden's Pardons Are Much Worse Than Trump's"
https://www.newsweek.com/sorry-bidens-pardons-are-much-worse-trumps-opinion-2018843
Some reason to argue Trump is throwing the baby out with the bathwater in many cases but still has more than a few justifications for doing so -- Cathy Young has so argued at the Bulwark on DEI.
This is all about making America white again. I know this because I saw the video of Russell Voight saying that exact thing.
When I reached the end of the article and read this "Immigrants—like people generally—are good for their communities. " I knew that the view was entirely biased. Immigrants in and of themselves can be either good or bad for communities. We have plenty of communities here in England which have been seriously harmed by immigrant crime. Some contribute to society but many don't.
To make out that 'all immigrants are good for communities' is preposterous and demonstrates that this writer is advocating an open borders policy. What's next? Amnesty and citizenship? That's what they are pushing her in the UK.
Good post.
Security theater is a part of the authoritarian playbook