Immediate Deportations?
NOLA Blogger Oyster has an interesting set of citations from Hillary Clinton and John McCain that paint them as mass deportation advocates. Forget about the fact that Clinton and McCain's comments are so downright shocking in their mean-spiritedness and their dictatorial tone. Rather, pay heed to Oyster who makes the excellent point that the gist of their sound-bites, i.e. massive deportation, is simply pie-in-the-sky policy wishful thinking. And a nasty bit of wishful thinking at that. Which makes their pandering all the worse because everyone with any shred of common sense knows that what they are suggesting as policy is a logistical impossibility.
But I want to add another little twist to this whole matter. For instance, in the New York Sun article that Oyster links to regarding Hillary's comment, and in the Meet the Press transcript that Oyster links to regarding McCain's comment, there is a notion that illegal immigrants who are guilty of a crime need to be instantly and immediately deported. The fact is that local law enforcement officials would have conniptions if this were policy. On the one hand, they'd never be able to prosecute such people charged with a crime and thus bring a measure of justice to the victims. I imagine that the woman Hillary Clinton was addressing was probably not too keen to hear that there would be "no legal process" to hold an illegal immigrant accountable for his crime, and that the punishment for the crime would be a one way ticket home at the taxpayer's expense. And then there's the fact that local law enforcement officials who need illegal immigrants as witnesses around which to build their cases not only are NOT willing to send these people home immediately, even those who commit no crimes directly themselves, but would rather break the law themselves to illegally detain illegal immigrants and imprison them without charges or recourse, simply because they are important to prosecuting a criminal case. Have Hillary and McCain not heard of the St. Tammany Six?
Posts
4 comments:
"...there is a notion that illegal immigrants who are guilty of a crime need to be instantly and immediately deported."
Perhaps that notion needs to be fleshed out a bit. I doubt McCain or Hillary meant they wanted to immediately deport somebody convicted of rape, murder, or arson. I suppose it is possible they meant that, but it seems unreasonable and unlikely. Technically speaking, every illegal who is here has committed a crime, so unless Hillary and McCain are advocating deporting all illegals, it is clear they are using some type of special definition of the word 'crime'.
That said, if an illegal immigrant gets pulled over for swerving and blows a .15 into the breathalyzer, or gets caught with sack of crystal meth in their pocket, why not just deport them? I think that makes sense. It's probably cheaper than keeping them in jail and running them through the judicial system, and it removes dangerous people who have no business being here in the first place, hopefully before they've actually done any real harm.
Do we want to deport them for jaywalking or for general traffic violations? That seems a little more contentious. I could probably support such a measure, but would be willing to entertain arguments agains it.
I doubt McCain or Hillary meant they wanted to immediately deport somebody convicted of rape, murder, or arson. I suppose it is possible they meant that, but it seems unreasonable and unlikely.
Eric - Here's a piece of the linked NY Sun article on Clinton: "Mrs. Clinton does not raise the subject in every speech, but her tough talk on the issue dates back at least to the Iowa caucuses last month, where she told the mother of a woman killed by a foreigner in a car accident that illegal aliens who have committed crimes need to be sent home 'immediately.'" Sounds like she's not interested in justice, but in immediate, no-questions-asked deportation. Although it is an unreasonable position, it is not that unlikely that Clinton (or even McCain) might speak so "unreasonably." It's political demagoguery, and it can get votes, as insincere and as unreasonable as it might be. Whether Clinton or McCain might really mean it is another thing, but we should take them at their word for it when they say as much.
You ask: "why not just deport them?" Well, in truly hard core criminal cases like the drug dealer, the arsonist, or the gangbanger murderer, one reason is that justice may not be fully served in doing so. It sends a message to such criminals that if they come to the US, they can commit bad crimes that would put a US citizen behind bars for a long time, with their only punishment being a one-way ticket home. It can actually encourage illegal migration among those predisposed to criminal behavior.
But for the jaywalker or the school zone speeder, the answer to the question of "why not deport them?" has both practical and moral dimensions: for instance, what are the impacts of such deportations on the family units perhaps left behind? On the local economy? On the health and vibrancy of the community? On our own values of social justice and charity?
And I categorically dismiss the notion that illegal migrants whose only violation of law is to cross a border without proper documentation are "criminals." By that measure, every one of us who violates some law, who fails to come to a complete stop at a Stop sign, who consistently exceeds the speed limits when driving, who underreports his cash earnings and tips at income tax time, who jaywalks, are "criminals." Come on, Eric. You know as well as I that we reserve the word "criminal" for those whose violations of the law are egregiously, wilfully, and consciously harmful of others. My grandmother who speeds on the road is not a criminal, even when and if she gets caught and is issues a citation.
"what are the impacts of such deportations on the family units perhaps left behind?"
Of course, whenever possible, we could deport their families with them.
"On the local economy?"
If we were talking about rounding up all the illegals in a community, I think this is a valid concern, but not so much if we're talking about deporting the occasional speeder or jaywalker. The effect on the economy shouldn't be so dramatic.
"On the health and vibrancy of the community?"
Removing people who are legally incapable of becoming fully vested in their communities through the rites of citizenship will ultimately help and strengthen the community.
"On our own values of social justice and charity?"
I do have a degree of pity for illegal immigrants in America, but if they are willing to violate even the smallest of our laws after their arrival, I won't lose any sleep if they are sent home. If they are going to come here in spite of our admonitions, laws, and wishes, they should be on their best behavior.
"And I categorically dismiss the notion that illegal migrants whose only violation of law is to cross a border without proper documentation are "criminals."
Well, they are committing a crime (though I didn't use the highly charged word "criminals"), just as you and I do when we exceed the speed limit. That doesn't make them (or us) bad like Jesse James, but it does open them up to having their freedoms temporarily restricted.
Hey Hucky. Look’s like we got different horses in the race.
That tongue twister you came up with tho, "illegally detain illeagal imigrants" boy, I think there may be an oxymoron there or something, u know what I mean?
Post a Comment