Thread: TX: Government pullback makes mockery of immigration law

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent ... c5262.html


Dallas Morning News Opinions

Government pullback makes mockery of immigration law


06:23 AM CST on Tuesday, November 27, 2007

The city of Irving captured national attention with its enthusiastic embrace of the federal Criminal Alien Program. It inspired so many other cities to sign up that the federal government couldn't keep pace. Now Washington wants to curtail the program.

In other words, the rule of law must wait because the government isn't ready.

This newspaper previously raised concerns about Irving's approach because some police officers might interpret it as a green light to target anyone who looked Hispanic. We feared racial profiling, and that remains a concern.

But the Criminal Alien Program marked a welcome departure from procedures that forced communities simply to stand aside even when local police knew they had illegal immigrants in custody.

This program empowered police officers to enforce the law and allowed communities to get involved, producing results residents could see with their own eyes.

Unlike Farmers Branch, which incorrectly sought to place the law-enforcement onus on landlords, Irving kept enforcement in the hands of professionals, where it belongs. But Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials are reverting to a "catch and release" rule if suspected illegal immigrants are arrested for Class C misdemeanors. Most of the 1,700 suspected illegal immigrants that Irving handed over to ICE in the past year were arrested for Class C offenses, the least serious of which is a traffic ticket.

Again and again, Washington has failed the nation on immigration enforcement. Lax border controls have allowed 12 million to 17 million illegal immigrants into the country. Lax workplace enforcement has enabled employers to skirt the law and exploit cheap immigrant labor. Now the government admits it doesn't have adequate personnel or holding facilities to process and deport detainees. So many will walk free.

The Bush administration and Congress have proved inept at leading the nation on comprehensive immigration reform. Given the opportunity to break the impasse last spring, they failed and pushed the problem to the next administration and Congress.

American voters must no longer tolerate inaction. At campaign rallies and debates, they must demand realistic immigration solutions instead of waffling non-answers from congressional and presidential candidates. Candidates who exploit terrorism and national security concerns to promote simplistic deport-them-all platforms must state exactly how they would accomplish such an unlikely feat.

The fact is, there are no easy solutions to illegal immigration, which is why the American public needs to judge candidates – Republicans and Democrats – on their ability to address a problem that is Topic A on the national political agenda.

Call it a leadership litmus test. If a candidate isn't a part of the solution, he or she shouldn't be running. Since presidential candidates occupy the national stage, they have a particular responsibility not just to present a workable immigration plan but also to prove they can muscle it through a risk-averse Congress.

Irving's program provoked national debate because it marked a significant step away from our state of national paralysis. For federal officials to curtail the program – because the government wasn't prepared for success – makes a mockery of the rule of law.

Can we say that our federal government is aiding and abetting here.

They allow cities to spend money to get the officers certified and then say, but we won't do our end of it.

I am not sure, don't know enough about it, but I think maybe OK has the right idea. Rather than try to work within federal laws, they simply made some laws of their own. Rather than being states trying to help enforce federal law - they have their own state laws and the state can then enforce them.

I think states, cities, etc., needs to just do the best they can to cut the federal government out of it.

Do like OK, and pass your own laws if you can, but use existing laws to make the situation better. A state can absolutely enforce welfare laws, the state part of it. They can enforce traffic laws - a fraudulent DL should warrant a felony charge and at the very least impounding of the vehicle.
They can enforce certain zoning laws, etc.

I am saying they can simply enforce the laws as written - across the board - rather than turning a blind eye to what the illegals are doing.

This writer is either uniformed or chooses to ignore Tom Tancredo's position.

"Candidates who exploit terrorism and national security concerns to promote simplistic deport-them-all platforms must state exactly how they would accomplish such an unlikely feat."

Tom has always said they will return home if the magnate for jobs is cut off. That's what the SAVE ACT will try and do. You deport and cut off the magnate. This person must have their own agenda.