Parler Share
Commentary

6 Reasons Trump's Well-Thought-Out Immigration Policy Makes Sense

Parler Share

Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ June 14 statement about immigration policy is actually well thought-out and makes sense.

The people who are endangering children are those who are advocating for policies that will encourage massive increases in such attempts across the border. The greatest risk to children lies not in short-term family separations (separations from parents were a particularly common feature of life in earlier eras) but in the hazardous journey to cross the U.S. border in between legal ports of entry, where children are often at the mercy of criminal elements.

Here is Sessions’ statement, which I have reordered somewhat for smoother arrangement, paying special attention to the question of what to do with illegal immigrants who come with children.

First, those who seek to retain the Obama administration’s policy of not detaining illegal immigrants with children but releasing them with a court date (1) makes mush of US immigration law and (2) poses a greater danger to children.

(1) “The previous administration wouldn’t prosecute illegal aliens who entered the country with children. It was de facto open borders. The results were unsurprising. More and more illegal aliens started showing up at the border with children. To illustrate, in 2013, there were fewer than 15,000 family units apprehended crossing our border illegally between ports of entry. Five years later, it was more than 75,000 — a five-fold increase in five years.” To this can be added that 80 percent of those released don’t return for their scheduled court date.

Trending:
After Adam Schiff Gets Called Out for Lie on CNN, A Big Change Takes Place on Screen

(2) “It should be noted the perils to which these parents subject their children.” “Importantly, children are far more at risk attempting entry in remote areas.” “Hundreds of aliens die every year trying to make it to the border to illegally enter this country. In many cases, children are trafficked, abused, or recruited by criminal gangs. No one should subject their child to this treacherous journey — and yet the open borders lobby encourages it every day. … The open borders, pro-amnesty crowd encouraged that — and they have the gall to attack those of us who want to end this lawlessness and the dangers these children face. … Criminal networks spread the lie that kids could get amnesty. As a result, tens of thousands of vulnerable children made the dangerous journey North — with terrible humanitarian consequences.”

“But the Trump administration is ending the Obama-era incentives to bring children here illegally. Last September, the Trump administration ended DACA. And now that DACA is over, the criminals can’t spread the lie that kids can get amnesty. Our policies are discouraging people from making children endure that treacherous journey. Everything the open borders lobby is doing is encouraging that and endangering these children. It’s that simple.”

Second, separation of children from a parent or parents is common for criminal offenses and, in the case of illegal immigration, normally of short duration.

“Our policies that can result in short term separation of families is not unusual or unjustified. American citizens that are jailed do not take their children to jail with them. And non-citizens who cross our borders unlawfully — between our ports of entry — with children are not an exception.” “Having children does not give you immunity from arrest and prosecution. It certainly doesn’t give immunity to American citizens.” In an oral, parenthetical remark to his formal speech, Sessions noted: “Normally the adults are only held in custody for a week or two before they enter a plea of guilty for time served and allowed to go home with their children.”

Do you agree with Jeff Sessions' remarks?

Children can’t be, shouldn’t be and aren’t jailed with a parent but protected during a parent’s short detention period: “We are not sending children to jail with their parents. The law requires that children who cannot be with their parents be placed in custody of the Department of Health and Human Services within 72 hours. We currently spend more than $1 billion a year in taxpayer dollars taking care of unaccompanied illegal alien minors. Most are in HHS custody. They are provided food, education in their native language, health and dental care, and transported to their destination city — all at taxpayer expense.”

“[The parents] are the ones who broke the law, they are the ones who endangered their own children on their trek. The United States on the other hand, goes to extraordinary lengths to protect them while the parents go through a short detention period. … If the adults go to one of our many ports of entry to claim asylum, they are not prosecuted and the family stays intact pending the legal process. The problem is that it became well known that adults with children were not being prosecuted for unlawful entry and the numbers surged.”

Third, the Obama administration encouraged abuse of claims of asylum, which now needs to be pulled back.

“Beginning in 2009, the previous Administration released most aliens apprehended at the border who requested asylum into the United States with a document asking them to show up for a hearing at some later date. Word spread quickly that by asserting a fear of returning to one’s home country, one could remain in the United States. The results are just what one would expect. The number of illegal entrants has surged. Asylum claims skyrocketed. … The number of these aliens placed in immigration court proceedings went from fewer than 4,000 [in 2009] to more than 73,000 by 2016 — nearly a 19-fold increase [in only seven years].”

“We have also returned the asylum process to what Congress intended it to be. If you don’t meet the requirements for asylum in this country, then you do not receive asylum here. That should not be a controversial idea.” “Under the INA, asylum is available for those who leave their home country because of persecution or fear on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. Asylum was never meant to solve all problems — even all serious problems — that people face every day all over the world.”

Related:
Elon Musk Visited Capitol Hill Last Week, And There's One Group of People He Left Off His Agenda

“You may have heard that I have ‘restricted’ asylum eligibility or ‘denied’ asylum eligibility to certain people. But that’s not exactly right. I have not made new law — I have simply restated and implemented what Congress has passed: asylum is generally not for those who have suffered a private act of violence. It is for members of groups who are persecuted by the state or whom the state will not protect from persecution. Members of those groups cannot go somewhere else in their home country. Most victims of private crimes can. Think about it. There are victims of crime all over the world — 1.2 million violent crimes are committed every year in this country alone. Are all 1.2 million of these victims automatically entitled to asylum in Canada, the United Kingdom, or anywhere else they choose?”

Fourth, U.S. immigration policy is already generous.

“We allow in 1.1 million legal immigrants on a path to citizenship every year. Another 700,000 come here explicitly for jobs. Another half a million come here to attend our universities and colleges.” Implication: Opposition to illegal immigration is not an anti-immigrant position.

Fifth, illegal immigration has been so out of control for years that U.S. immigration law has become a joke.

“President Obama used his pen and phone to do something he said he couldn’t legally do. In July 2012 — a few months before he was up for re-election — President Obama announced that he would give legal status to 800,000 illegal aliens — along with work authorization and other benefits, like Social Security. Congress had rejected this proposal on multiple occasions — but President Obama did it anyway. Again, the result was not a surprise: the number of unaccompanied alien children arriving at our border nearly doubled in one year. The next year, it doubled again. … We agree with President Obama: he didn’t have the legal authority to give any legal status to illegal aliens without Congress. That’s why this unlawful policy is over.”

“And then, in 2014, the Obama Administration doubled down and attempted to expand its unlawful amnesty to any illegal alien here since 2010. Towards the end of the last administration, prosecutions for illegal entry and reentry both declined, and sanctuary policies were encouraged, eroding relationships with state and local law enforcement officers that had taken decades to build. Sanctuary policies are when cities or states refuse to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement. If they’ve got somebody in custody who is wanted for deportation — they release them back into the community. At their root, they are a rejection of all immigration law. … The question is whether cities and states have the right under the Constitution to actively undermine the supreme law of the land — a question that has been settled repeatedly in the negative since 1819. …

“Meanwhile in Congress, efforts to end illegal immigration have been blocked at every turn. Any law enforcement policies are attacked by open borders radicals and well-paid lobbyists. Every time something is proposed that would end illegal immigration, it gets blocked. If it works, it gets blocked. If it doesn’t work — if it won’t end illegal immigration — then the elites and the Washington insiders are all for it.”

Sixth, Christians should support the lawful arrest, prosecution and deportation of persons who enter the United States illegally and don’t wait their turn like law-abiding immigrants. The alternative is a disastrous policy of open borders.

“Under the laws of this country, illegal entry is a misdemeanor. Re-entry after having been deported is a felony. Under the law, we are supposed to prosecute these crimes. … If you cross the Southwest border unlawfully, then the Department of Homeland Security will arrest you and the Department of Justice will prosecute you. That is what the law calls for — and that is what we are going to do.”

“Illegal entry into the United States is a crime — as it should be. Persons who violate the law of our nation are subject to prosecution. I would cite you to the Apostle Paul and his clear and wise command in Romans 13, to obey the laws of the government because God has ordained them for the purpose of order. Orderly and lawful processes are good in themselves and protect the weak and lawful.”

“I have given the idea of immigration much thought and have considered the arguments of our Church leaders. I do not believe scripture or church history or reason condemns a secular nation state for having reasonable immigration laws. If we have them, then they should be enforced. A mere desire to benefit from entry to the nation does not justify illegal entry.”

“We have to make a choice: do we continue to allow the word to spread that you can come here illegally and there will be no consequences — or do we finally send the message that we enforce our laws? In the Trump administration, we enforce the law. There is no right or entitlement — legal or moral — to come to this country. Immigration is a privilege that the American people have chosen to grant in certain cases.”

“We’ve got a choice here. We either have open borders or we have laws. It’s one or the other. Some people in the media have chosen to attack us for enforcing the law. That doesn’t surprise me. But I’m not ashamed of the United States of America. I am not going to apologize for carrying out our laws. That is my duty. …

“President Trump made a generous offer to the Democrats in Congress. He offered to give DACA recipients true legal status if we can build a wall, close the loopholes, and switch from chain migration and the visa lottery to a merit-based system. The Democrats’ refusal of this offer is baffling. He simply asked that they agree to a permanent solution to the problem. Why wouldn’t you want to end the illegality?

“Our goal is not radical. What is radical is the open borders policies that have been pushed on us time and again by the elites and the Washington insiders.

“Our goal is that immigrants should apply, wait their turn, and that people stop making that dangerous trek across the desert rather than coming here unlawfully. If they meet the standards, then they can be admitted — and those standards should advance the national interest. If we succeed in this — if we finally get a system we can be proud of — then we will start a virtuous cycle of lawfulness, safety, and prosperity.

“The American people have been patient. We have been waiting for 30 years. They want us to seize this opportunity that we have right now. It’s time that we finally deliver a lawful system of immigration that benefits them.”

Robert A.J. Gagnon is a former New Testament professor at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary. A version of this article appeared on his Facebook page.

Truth and Accuracy

Submit a Correction →



We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.

Tags:
, , ,
Parler Share

Conversation