Before I get into the title's topic, you need a bit of context first.

A brief overview of the Secure Communities program, from the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement website:

"Secure Communities, an information sharing partnership between two federal agencies – ICE and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) – prioritizes removal resources on individuals who are found to be illegally in the country after being arrested for other crimes. "

"Only federal officers make immigration decisions, and they do so only after an individual is arrested for a criminal violation of state law, separate and apart from any violations of immigration law."

Keep this in mind while you read the following gem, published by MSNBC.

It was reported today: 

"...New York State followed the lead of Illinois and opted out of the federal Secure Communities program, which is designed to identify and deport illegal immigrants in US jails who are convicted of certain felonies. They have criticized the program as casting too broad a net, deporting even 'busboys and nannies.'"

So, New York State feels that jailed criminals who used to be a busboy or a nanny are more desirable than other jailed criminals?  How does that make sense?

Shouldn't the relative desirability of a criminal (for lack of a better term!) be determined by the severity of the crime they committed, and not the occupation they had while they committed the crime?

The report continues:

"In the broadest terms, states with a long history of assimilating foreign-born migrants are largely defending the ideal of the United States as a 'nation of immigrants,' legal or illegal. Meanwhile, states that have before been largely isolated from immigration patterns are now taking a 'the law is the law' approach."

So, there could be at least three factors that influence the tendency of states with a long history of immigration to go easy on illegal immigrants:

1) There could be an effort by these state governments to act in a manner that would pander to immigrant communities, in an effort to get their vote

But would pandering to the illegal immigrants themselves help these politicians in future elections?  After all, these illegals can't vote themselves, can they?  Well, they aren't supposed to be able to vote, but that doesn't mean that some fraud doesn't occur!

And remember, these illegals often have children who automatically become US citizens.  Who do you think these children will vote for when they become eighteen?  The party that is pro-illegal immigrant, or the party that is pro-law enforcement?

These state governments may also be pandering to the ethnic legal immigrant communities, expecting them to be pro-illegal immigration.  However, they'd be wrong on that one: 52% of Hispanics support enforcement of illegal immigration, while another 34% support conditions being placed on illegals in return for amnesty.

2) Given that the states in question have a greater percentage of ethnic persons than have the other states, it's possible that their state governments are also composed of a greater percentage of ethnic persons.  As a result, their decision as to whether to support the Secure Communities program is more likely to be in favor of the pro-illegal immigration choice.

3) Since these states have seen the effect of heavy illegal immigration on their economy, perhaps they believe illegal immigration to be positive for the economy, and hence are more likely to be in favor of it?

Well, it's hard to say whether they genuinely believe illegal immigration favors the economy.

One thing is for sure:  If they genuinely believe illegal immigration favors the economy, they are certainly not intelligent enough to be the ones that should be given the power to make those decisions!

Illegal immigration does not favor the economy!

And how could illegal immigration provide a net benefit to the economy?

By definition, illegal immigrants are taking jobs that some unemployed Americans could be hired for!

Sure, some Americans might not be willing to take some of the jobs that illegals do, but many certainly would, considering that a large percentage of unemployed Americans don't have a high school degree.  Those without a high school degree are certainly the ones that are more likely to be hired for the jobs illegals tend to do!

But what about illegals stimulating the economy?  When they do get paid the salary that they take from Americans, aren't they stimulating the economy just as Americans would, by spending their salary?

No.  They are not!  They don't stimulate the economy by nearly as much as Americans employed by those same jobs would have! Here's why:

Illegals send a large portion of their earnings back to their home country, to support their family.  Therefore, not only is that money not making its way back into the USA economy, it is actually a drain of wealth from the US economy to one of their competitors!

Also, many, if not most illegal immigrants, don't pay income tax.  Therefore, the government is missing out on revenue!  In the meantime, those illegals are benefiting from government action while not paying for any of it!

And even if illegal immigrants stimulated the economy as much as Americans is, of course, wrong to reduce the quality of life of an American by providing the job to someone in the country illegally!

Keep these three points in mind as you read more from the report.  It's clear that some people just don't get it: 

"'There is some party politics, some short-term electoral gains at hand, but by and large it has to do with the fact that [people] are a lot more receptive to anti-immigrant laws in places where they're not used to immigrants – and the opposite in places where they're used to having immigrants and where people understand the value proposition' behind welcoming immigrants, says Allert Brown-Gort, associate director of the Institute for Latino Studies at the University of Notre Dame in South Bend, Ind."

So, Allbert Brown-Gort believes that there is a "value proposition" behind welcome immigrants?  I assume he's including illegal immigrants, considering that's the context of the discussion, right?  If so, does he believe it's valuable about allowing illegals to take jobs from Americans and drain America's wealth back to their home country?

Here's another doozy:

"Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick (D) has rejected this line of thinking. 'We will give up more than we get' with Secure Communities, Mr. Patrick said recently. 'We run a serious risk of ethnic profiling and, frankly, fracturing incredibly important relationships in communities that are important for law enforcement.'"

So, does he believe states give up more than they get by preventing illegals from draining wealth away from America?

So, does he believe it's wrong to ethnically profile and prevent wealth from draining from America, because it would fracture relationships needed by law enforcement?  I doubt the negative effects on law enforcement, if any, would outweigh the massive damage done to the economy by illegals draining the economy!

Regardless...even if the damage done to law enforcement were great enough to warrant avoiding participation in Secure Communities...the choice to participate in the program itself would then result in greater numbers of illegals remaining in and coming into the country; and since illegals commit much greater rates of crime than do Americans, law enforcement problems would end up rising anyway!  There'd be a negative effect on law enforcement regardless of whether states participate in Secure Communities!


This article is representative of the shape America is in today.  I'd say it shows that there just aren't enough people in power who are capable enough, or willing enough, to make decisions that benefit America!  Don't you think?

Leave a Reply.