More Misinformation from the Media:
The effect of the new DHS guidelines is to sharply expand the pool of immigrants designated as priorities for deportation. They do so by various means, including widening the targets of deportation proceedings, until now limited to undocumented immigrants in the country for no more than two weeks and living within 100 miles of the border, to people who entered in the past two years and live anywhere in the nation—a cohort estimated at 800,000 to 1.1 million people. They also target not only people convicted of serious crimes but also those convicted of minor infractions, such as using a false Social Security number to get a job.
The guidelines’ subsidiary effects are just as concerning. They compromise law enforcement efforts in countries and cities nationwide by expanding efforts to deputize local police to act as federal deportation agents. That could chill cooperation between local law enforcement agencies and immigrant neighborhoods. The document sends a message of fear through many of America’s immigrant communities—not just the estimated 11.1 million unauthorized immigrants, but also their spouses, children and other relatives living legally in the United States. . . . [A] streak of cruelty runs through the policy.” – The Trump Administration’s Blueprint for Mass Removals, with a Streak of Cruelty, The Washington Post, Editorial Board, 2/21/17
Fact Check: The Post seems to think that any effective enforcement of our immigration laws is cruelty. Under the Obama Administration’s guidelines, as the Post noted, all an illegal alien had to do to escape enforcement was get 100 miles from the border and remain there for two weeks. In effect, enforcement was rendered almost non-existent. Now, the Trump Administration aims to focus on “serious” alien criminals nationwide while arresting other illegal aliens who may come to the attention of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents.
Just what is cruel about protecting American citizens from “serious” foreign criminals? And what is cruel about enforcing the law against illegal aliens who commit lesser offenses? Those who take jobs with fake IDs (sometimes stolen from Americans) are harming a lot of American workers by taking jobs and lower wage levels.
The idea lurking behind the Post’s protest, it certainly seems, is that there shouldn’t be any laws limiting immigration at all. That in turn implies that the American people have no right to decide what kind of country they want to have, and that we must allow virtually unrestricted foreign arrivals to determine what we will be. That means the end of our country as a sovereign entity.
If that is what the Post’s editors truly believe—and it is hard to figure any other explanation—it would be nice if they could honestly admit it. Of course, they won’t because that would arose intense public opposition. For the time being they are content to imply their treasonous premise, rather than clearly stating it.
The claim that local participation in immigration law enforcement will “chill” cooperation with illegal alien neighborhoods is one often put forward by politicians and officials in sanctuary jurisdictions. It is simply an excuse for their desire not to work with federal immigration law enforcement. Much evidence suggests that the “chill” effect is largely nonexistent.
Public leaders who endorse sanctuary policies are implying exactly what the Post and similarly-inclined media imply, namely that our country has no right to regulate the entry of foreigners into our county. If an indifference to our country’s self-rule and sovereignty is not the reason, then what is? It’s a question citizens need to ask those leaders.