Dean's World

The discussion yesterday was largely fruitful. Several disagreed with the premise that illegal immigration is not a crime; Jody did the due diligence and dug up USC, Title 8, Section 1325:

Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.

However, there is an important clarification to this, namely that illegal presence is not a crime, only illegal entry. There was a superb discussion (for once) about this at RedState, which included the following comment:

The Law by AndrewHyman (#11)

People who immigrate legally but then overstay the term of valid legal visas are unlawfully present. That does not make them criminals.

However, people who immigrate illegally (e.g. by sneaking across from Canada or Mexico without any kind of visa or other authorization) are criminals under 8 USC 1325.

The distinction is important because for prosecution under Section 1325 there must be proof of illegal entry. However, many illegal immigrants have simply overstayed a legal visa.

Rudy's point about legal resources is also a critical one that far too many reflexively anti-immigration folks do the rule of law a grave disservice by brushing aside. In point of fact, legal resources are as subject to triage concerns as any other resource. If identifying the immigration entry method of 12 million laborers, and then initiating prosecution proceedings against the (presumably large) fraction of that 12 million under Section 1425, is a high priority for you then that's your right to advocate for. However, it will come with reduced prosecutions for almost every other federal crime, an increase in taxes at every level of government, or both. Keep in mind that the total number of federal prosecutions in the 12 largest districts combined is projected to be 61,000 this year. Also keep in mind that drug prosecutions are still projected to be 46% of the total, up from 41% last year.

And it bears mentioning that these 12 million people are doing essential labor, which non-immigrants simply will not do. Case in point: the fruit and vegetable harvests in North Carolina and California.

The farms that supply Nash Produce were among many across the state that couldn't find enough workers last fall, and farmers say the problem could escalate this year. Enforcement raids have increased the cost to immigrants of sneaking over the border and discouraged many illegal immigrants from coming.

Some worry that North Carolina will end up like California, where portions of last fall's crops rotted in the fields and ripe fruit fell from the trees because workers didn't come to pick them.

This year, contractors are predicting that labor will be tight again, said Joyner, president of a cooperative of about a dozen growers, which includes Leggett. He said his farmers are so worried that they refused to plant all the cucumbers he could have sold this year. [...] "Americans today don't want to sweat and get their hands dirty," said Doug Torn, who owns a wholesale nursery in Guilford County. "We have a choice. Do we want to import our food or do we want to import our labor?"

With the holiday season ahead, it's worth noting that Christmas trees also are subject to the same labor issues.

The bottom line is simply this: if you are against illegal immigrants on the basis of the rule of law, then that same rule of law demands that every single one of those 12 million immigrants get complete due process. And given that the vast majority of those 12 million people are doing essential and honest work that native born Americans won't do, it's a ludicrous waste of resources to do so. Even if 100% of all federal prosecutions today were devoted to this, it would still only amount to 0.5%. And even if we somehow were to manage to deport all 12 million, they would be here the very next day, given that we have no meaningful way to police and control all 1,952 miles of border between the United States and Mexico.

So what is the solution here? Well, that will be addressed more fully in my next post (and shaped in part by the debate here). But suffice to say for now as a hint that the present system is indeed unsustainable and harmful - but not for the reasons that the anti-immigration crowd thinks.

Rudy agrees:

GIULIANI: Glenn, it's not a crime. I know that's very hard for people to understand, but it's not a federal crime.

GLENN: It's a misdemeanor but if you've been nailed, it is a crime. If you've been nailed, ship back and come back, it is a crime.

GIULIANI: Glenn, being an illegal immigrant, the 400,000 were not prosecuted for crimes by the federal government, nor could they be. I was U.S. attorney in the southern district of New York. So believe me, I know this. In fact, when you throw an immigrant out of the country, it's not a criminal proceeding. It's a civil proceeding.

GLENN: Is it --

GIULIANI: One of the things that congress wanted to do a year ago is to make it a crime, which indicates that it isn't.

GLENN: Should it be?

GIULIANI: Should it be? No, it shouldn't be because the government wouldn't be able to prosecute it. We couldn't prosecute 12 million people. We have only 2 million people in jail right now for all the crimes that are committed in the country, 2.5 million. If you were to make it a crime, you would have to take the resources of the criminal justice system and increase it by about 6. In other words, you'd have to take all the 800,000 police, and who knows how many police we would have to have.

Tom Tancredo agrees:

Right now, illegal presence in the USA is not a crime; it is a civil infraction. The House Judiciary Committee voted to make it a felony but then was counseled that millions of new felons could clog our courts.

Chairman James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., wrote an amendment to his own bill asking that the penalty be reduced from a felony to a misdemeanor; 191 Democrats and a few Republicans voted to keep the felony penalty in the hope that it would be a poison pill to defeat the measure.

Discuss.

So I see that the incoming Congress may revisit the border fence idea - which sought to stem illegal immigration - and may scrap the plan altogether. No surprise there.

However, unless there are armed guards ready to shoot trespassers - as I understand Mexico does with its southern border - then it is useless anyway and mere political puffery. Some folks will argue that my position is too hardline. I say that millions of illegal immigrants crossing America's borders is an invasion worthy of self-protection. If folks want to avoid shootings, then stay on your side of the fence, don't tresspass, and go through the proper channels like other immigrants must do. No special rights.

The WaPo claims that American muslims are not assimilated. I say we are.

Sources in The Hague say that Ayaan Hirsi Ali - the moderate-conservative feminist, best-selling writer, former politician, and vocal critic of Islam - will not be stripped of her Dutch nationality despite giving a false name to get asylum in 1992. Why? TRL Nieuws reports that from a Dutch legal point of view, Ms. Hirsi Ali had not technically provided false information as her paternal grandfather's name was 'Ali'. She was therefore entitled under Somali law to use this name instead of her 'Magan' surname, even if she did not know this at the time of her asylum application.

The Netherlands was accused by international media of silencing Ms. Hirsi Ali because of her claims that Islam as currently practiced is not compatible with Western democracy. The Dutch Parliament later passed a motion calling on Minister Verdonk to allow Ms. Hirsi Ali to keep Dutch citizenship, no matter what. The six-week deadline for a decision runs out this week.

My response: she must have had excellent legal representation to dig that up that technicality. After the uproar in Holland and around the world, this is no surprise. Ms. Hirsi Ali still plans to move to the U.S., but this development certainly helps speed up the visa process and enables her to travel to and from Europe in her new capacity as an American Enterprise Institute fellow. Try as they might to silence this contrarian black feminist voice, Europe ain't heard the last from her.

Asserts the conservative Republican pundit, in response to comments by President George W. Bush: "As president, his first responsibility is protecting Americans – and let there be no doubt, there is no greater harm or injustice being perpetrated upon America today than by illegal aliens. Illegals contribute nothing, but together with verifiably deserving legal citizens they use more than 90 percent of the taxpayer-subsidized programs. Illegals are taking an ever-increasing piece of a decreasing pie. What happens when we are unable to maintain said programs? Terror by any other name is still terror, and in my mind this is a form of domestic sabotage, i.e., terror."

Mr. Massie continues: "I find it interesting that 18-20 million illegal insurgents in America are deemed worthy of special dispensation. Yet a couple thousand or less insurgents in Iraq have people wringing their hands. It is clear none of the insurgents here respect or value our sovereignty or way of life – or else they would be here legally. A fitting question for the president would be – how many of the illegals here hate our collective guts? How many are lying in wait to do us harm?"

My response: While I staunchly oppose illegal immigration, I would not put illegal immigrants on the same moral plane as jihadists. That's just over the top, and detracts from Massie's argument (with which I otherwise agree).

Like others, I have been following the story of Ayaan Hirsi Ali - the Somali-born refugee and former Dutch politician who faces expulsion from the Netherlands for lying in order to gain asylum back in 1992 (to which she has publicly admitted since 2002). It once felt like I was the world's only black libertarianesque feminist....that is, until I encountered this profile of Ayaan Hirsi in mid-2004, while perusing the Web for information on black moderates and conservatives outside the United States.

So now, America is her next stop. Time magazine asks: is America ready for the moderate-conservative atheist feminist and best-selling writer, who faces death threats for her vocal criticism of Islam? "If this slight and elegant woman's arrival in Washington sets off even half the clamor her departure from Dutch politics did, the capital better start girding itself....The outcry has probably improved Hirsi Ali's chances of retaining her Dutch citizenship after a six-week appeal period — but she's leaving anyway. The row has boosted Hirsi Ali's visibility — not that the [American Enterprise Institute, a prominent conservative think-tank where Ms. Hirsi Ali will work] is complaining. 'Controversy isn't something we avoid; we're not a timorous institution,' says its president, Christopher DeMuth. Hirsi Ali's studies into the confrontation of Islam with 'the post-Enlightenment world' are a good fit with the aei, DeMuth says. But one of Hirsi Ali's most prominent Dutch collaborators, University of Amsterdam sociologist Paul Scheffer, says some of her new fans in the U.S. might be in for a surprise. 'They'll discover that she's an atheist who is very critical about the role of Christianity in politics, too.'"

The Philadelphia Enquirer has a supportive editorial, and calls her a fellow enemy of violence: "Welcome her if she does come to this country, where she has been offered a job at the conservative American Enterprise Institute. You don't have to agree with everything Hirsi Ali says to regard her voice as a useful addition to discussions on Muslim women's rights and militant Islam.....Beyond the personal hardships, her situation highlights issues that need honest and open debate to combat extremist Islamic ideology, which terrorists use to justify their violence. These include the struggle for Islam between extremists and moderates, the tension in Europe between native-born citizens and immigrants, and the sensitivity of proposing that Muslims reexamine how their religion gets used to promote violence and intolerance. While al-Qaeda's attacks in the United States and elsewhere feature radical Muslims, adherents of any faith should worry when extremists kill in their religion's name. Hirsi Ali recently spoke here at an event sponsored by the World Affairs Council of Philadelphia. With powerful words, she praised secular legal systems and democratic ideals such as freedom of expression. If she does come to the United States, may she find a safe haven to exercise that freedom."

Daily Bulletin (Ontario, Calif.) wonders if Ms. Hirsi Ali's move is the start of more immigrants from Old Europe, who are fleeing religious persecution from Islamic extremists. Apparently, Hans-Peter Raddatz, an Islamic-studies expert, recently moved to USA. Flemming Rose, the culture editor of Jyllands-Posten (Denmark) - the paper that published those Mohammed cartoons and set off a global storm - is also mulling a move to America. "As yet the Europeans, lately subject to cartoon riots, French slum riots and terrorist bombings, can turn things around. Islamic radicals can be deported, moderate Muslims can co-exist with European liberals and millions of people now co-existing peacefully in Europe despite religious differences prove the feat is possible. On the other hand, the next century will bring Europe a cultural and demographic shift without precedent in the modern world. Some European countries are poised to have majority Muslim populations before the end of this century. Most of those Muslims will be peace-loving and tolerant, but if the violent minority pushes hard enough to expand its intolerance, Europe's history of appeasing tyrants doesn't bode well."

I just wanted to comment on the U.S. Senate's approval on Thursday to make English the official language of the United States for federal services. It now goes to the U.S. House of Representatives to work out differences in the proposal. I say it's a good move by the U.S. Senate, and long overdue. I wouldn't emigrate to, say, Japan, and then arrogantly expect to be catered to in English. I'd work hard to learn Japanese. Too bad the U.S. Senate killed the amendment opposing amnesty-in-thin-disguise for illegal immigrants though, on Wednesday.