The Quote Below—More Misinformation from the Media
“The man shivered and spoke in a whisper, stirring the Chicago Immigration Court judge to softly urge him to calm down.
“But that was hard, because he was clearly terrified that he would lose all that he had built in the U.S. over the years. He had a home in a good neighborhood in Indianapolis, and his two girls were doing very well in a good school, he explained.
“He supported his wife and daughters, working three jobs a day at different fast-food restaurants, six days a week, walking to his jobs and everywhere else. He had been stopped once for driving without a license and so, he said, he walked everywhere, not wanting any more trouble.
“It was a life he could never have dreamed of, he said, in his very poor village in Mexico.
Thousands like him marched in increasing numbers through the nation’s immigration courts during years while Donald Trump was president. Most had not harmed anyone or stolen or broken serious criminal laws. Rather, most had violated immigration law by simply being here illegally, and under the Trump administration, their share of those arrested and deported steadily grew. . . .
“The Biden administration has signaled that it would like to narrow arrests and deportations to those persons convicted of national security threats and other serious felonies. That would keep many of those, like the fast-food worker in Indianapolis, from immigrant court.
“But there’s a bigger challenge facing the Biden administration.
“Can it wipe away rules that have fed into a mindset that seemed to take root nationally among some court and immigration enforcement officials?
“The rules were meant to erase an immigrant presence in the U.S. And they came to life far away from the nation’s borders in the daily grind of the immigration courts.” – What I Watched in Chicago’s Immigration Court, Stephen Franklin, Chicago Tribune, 3/4/22. [Link]
Fact Check of Above Quote: A common tactic of open border advocates is to focus on some illegal aliens whose stories may elicit sympathy. And indeed, among the 11 million illegal residents of the U.S. there are some who may be relatively decent people, aside from their indifference to our laws. But from that fact, it doesn’t follow that for their sakes immigration laws should not exist. The basis of sound law must be the greater good for society, and not for individual, cherrypicked cases.
We have limits on immigration because our elected representatives have determined, and rightly so, that there are limits on the number of immigrants we can receive. Exceeding those limits will outstrip our powers of assimilation and resources. To illustrate, a Gallup poll found that nearly 150 million people in foreign countries would like to move to the U.S. Adding in their spouses and minor children, the total of potential arrivals could easily surpass 300 million. Thus, in short order, we could nearly double our current population. And by giving them the green light, we certainly would encourage even more to come. Each year, world population grows by 80 million, most of it in poor countries. The supply of potential immigrants is almost inexhaustible.
So, to keep us from being swamped, and becoming a land of poverty, division and misery, we must spread the word abroad that we can’t accept everyone who wants to come. But no one will take that message seriously if we constantly make exceptions for some people who arrive and settle in defiance of our laws. Law enforcement is often not pleasant, and it often hurts feelings. The alternative, however, is to let mass migration spin out of control, and cause infinitely greater suffering and harm.
If mass immigration advocates really believe in wide open borders, let them say so openly and propose a law to that effect. They won’t do that, of course, because such a law would never pass. Why do they take the position they do? One apparent reason is that their limitless generosity gives them a sense of moral superiority. But there is nothing moral about the gross irresponsibility of wanting to feel good about yourself while ignoring the practical consequences of your beliefs. Feel-good ideals promote feel-bad realities.