April 23, 2008 05:20 pm
—
To the editor:
Sunday’s editorial chastising ICE for doing its job was about as wrong as wrong can be.
First, the editorial referenced “sweeps” by ICE agents. Pilgrim’s Pride was a specific target, and was cooperating with ICE — hardly a “sweep.”
“Once here, many have compounded their illegality by ‘working the system’ to get the necessary documents to work and often to qualify for social services. They have acted logically, if not legally.” That should be clarified to note that, having committed misdemeanors by illegally entering the US, the aliens went on to commit state and federal felonies by obtaining and using those “necessary documents.” Try telling a local judge you “acted logically” as he sentences you for a felony conviction.
“Arresting illegal aliens and deporting them en masse is not only morally questionable .... Since when is enforcing the law “morally questionable”? Actually, since this ICE action was about identity theft, it is likely that the violators will not be immediately deported, but will be prosecuted criminally.
“Simply put, the United States needs all the hard-working, taxpaying, law-abiding citizens it can get.” The aliens arrested Wednesday were not “taxpaying,” “law-abiding,” or “citizens” (of this country).
“The federal government should not be wasting time rounding up pockets of illegal workers. Federal policy should focus on comprehensive plans to fix a badly broken system.” I keep hearing about a “broken system.” How about just once enforcing the law? I guess ICE is damned if it does, and damned if it doesn’t. People constantly complain they don’t do the job for which we pay them. Well, now they have. Where’s the beef?
“Damn it as “amnesty” if you like, but the rapid legalization of those residing here illegally now is a crucial step in straightening out the immigration mess.” Hardly! Legalization is amnesty. It failed miserably in 1986. Last year’s flood of irate phone, fax, and email messages to legislators is a good example of what Americans want to do about the “broken system.” What they don’t want is another amnesty.
The editorial suggested six steps to fix the problem. I guess getting one right out of six isn’t bad. The government should secure the border — period.
“ ... that does not mean this country should embrace policies that are simple-minded, counter-productive and brutish.” Simple-minded, counter-productive, and brutish? Are you referring to the policy of arresting those who violate the law?
I must commend the editor for one thing — not referring to the illegal aliens arrested last week as “immigrants,” “migrants,” “undocumented workers,” or any other such feel-good term. I took a another newspaper’s reporter to task last week for incorrectly quoting Resident Agent in Charge Steve Peluso, and she informed me “illegal immigrant” is the preferred term in the “AP style guide.” At least DDC feels no need to be so politically correct.
Doug Sullivan
Resident Agent in Charge (retired)
US Dept. of Homeland Security/ICE
Cohutta
The editor replies: As usual Mr. Sullivan makes some points worth responding to.
“Sweep” lacked precision. A better word should have been used.
The editorial was not intended to criticize ICE in particular. That agency is simply a tool of the federal government and its helter skelter efforts at enforcing immigration law only mirror the federal government’s historic helter skelter policy on immigration.
As many others do, Mr. Sullivan fastens on the idea that illegal aliens can’t be law abiding citizens because they are here illegally and engage in illegal acts to remain here. The editorial does not deny the illegality of entering the border without permission. But the bigger point is that whatever our laws have said in the past— our real policy on immigration has been laissez faire for decades. Now, suddenly, we have decided to “get tough.”
Our country — not Mexico, not the illegals themselves — is better served by a policy which recognizes that we need to enforce our borders as we see fit, but also appropriately takes into account the defacto “policy” of the past. The main difference between what we advocate and what has been done in the past is we believe the government should make border control a top priority. Mr. Sullivan seemed to miss this key point.
“Securing the border — period” may be a policy which warms the cockles of an old immigration agent’s heart, but we do not believe it is the best policy for the nation as a whole.
We can do much better.
Copyright © 1999-2008 cnhi, inc.