You wouldn’t arrest a law-abiding burglar, would you?
That was the plaintive query of a Times piece today on the DHS’s new immigration enforcement guidelines. Like most articles produced by the Sacred Order of Slim, this one made a point of flaunting its moral flexibility. Which is precisely why you pay to read professionals: cheapo bloggers never produce such artful expedients.
Foremost of these expedients is the often expressed theory that crimes must be stacked in order to trigger law enforcement of any individual ones that may reduce democrat voter roles. If not, all we have is a lawful illegal alien. The concept is similar to a parlay in gambling. In this a Honduran, for instance, has to both illegally enter the country and knock over a liquor store in order to cover his deportation combination bet. Otherwise, he doesn’t win a plane ticket south for either crime. It’s just like if you refuse to serve blacks, you have to also be separately engaged in wire fraud before your restaurant gets shut down. There’s no difference.
But you don’t want to risk me inaccurately characterizing the NYT’s position. So I’ll relinquish the floor.
The new enforcement policies put into practice the language of fear that Mr. Trump offered on the campaign trail, vastly expanding the definition of “criminal aliens” and warning that such unauthorized immigrants “routinely victimize Americans,” disregard the “rule of law and pose a threat” to people in communities across the United States.
The language of fear. Is there a Rosetta Stone for that? Would this language include terms like Nazi! Racist! and random letters appended with phobe. Those sound phonetically like the Language of Fear, but perhaps they’re just Czech. Though Trump’s fluency in foreign tongues isn’t really the point Times writers are trying to make. Here’s the points they are:
Mexicans commit less crime than blacks, so you should want more Mexicans.
Despite those assertions in the new documents, research shows lower levels of crime among immigrants than among native-born Americans.
Did you know that in a population of Pat Boone, Betty White, and Joseph Stalin the addition of Pol Pot would lower the average mass murder rate? So you should want your leader to be Pol Pot.
Immigration laws should be enforced just like civil rights laws: only when logistics readily permit.
the new policies are a rejection of the sometimes more restrained efforts by former Presidents Barack Obama and George W. Bush and their predecessors, who sought to balance protecting the nation’s borders with fiscal, logistical and humanitarian limits on the exercise of laws passed by Congress.
Illegal immigrants are unconscionably inconvenienced by laws against illegal immigration.
Advocates for immigrants warned on Tuesday that the new border control and enforcement directives would create an atmosphere of fear that was likely to drive those in the country illegally deeper into the shadows.
Liberals are meticulous stewards of the taxpayer’s money.
Mr. Trump has not yet said where he will get the billions of dollars needed to pay for thousands of new border control agents, a network of detention facilities to detain unauthorized immigrants and a wall along the entire southern border with Mexico.
Who can even guess where Trump would come up with $54.5 billion dollars per year?
Borders are racist in the Western Hemisphere north of the 30th parallel.
When you tell state and local police that their job is to do immigration enforcement,” said Omar Jadwat, director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Immigrants’ Rights Project, “it translates into the unwarranted and illegal targeting of people because of their race, because of their language, because of the color of their skin.”
You can’t expect Mexico to absorb the migrants Mexico expected to toss on you.
Mexican officials said on Tuesday that such a (repatriation) move could violate Mexican law and international accords governing repatriation, and immigrants’ advocates questioned Mexico’s ability to absorb thousands of Central Americans in detention centers and shelters.
And those are really the only immigration points the New York Times is trying to make.
You wouldn’t just dismiss honest liars, would you?