NY Times Editorial Board Upset That Illegals Have To Deal With Criminal Justice System

NY Times Editorial Board Upset That Illegals Have To Deal With Criminal Justice System

They’re basically recommending open borders. Perhaps they should look south towards Mexico, where illegals are treated harshly, or to most other countries in the world, which have strict immigration policies. Anyhow, here’s what the extremely white and male editorial board writes.


Border Injustice

Those who view fixing immigration as simply a matter of getting tougher on lawbreakers tend to overlook how tough the system already is, an ever-growing web of agents, cops, courts and prisons whose cruelty and deficiencies are appalling. Much attention has focused on the excesses of local law enforcement, exemplified by self-appointed immigration enforcers like Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County, Ariz., whose department was found guilty in federal court on Friday of violating the constitutional rights of Latinos for years through racially biased crime sweeps, arrests, detention and harassment.

Trending: The 15 Best Conservative News Sites On The Internet

But the abuses of local officials like Sheriff Arpaio are well matched by the federal government, which is guilty of its own overreach in the hunt to prosecute illegal immigration. A new report from Human Rights Watch examines many of these problems in detail, with prescriptions lawmakers should not ignore.

While immigration enforcement used to be mainly a civil matter, the federal government has devoted vast criminal law-enforcement resources to immigration violators – particularly for the felony of illegal re-entry – ensnaring thousands of people who don’t fit any reasonable definition of “criminal.”

Shorter editorial board: How dare the government prosecute law breakers! I mean, sheesh, devoting law enforcement to felonies? How gauche!

The federal government has said for years that its goal is to stop dangerous criminals at the border and deter migrants from trying to cross illegally. This would be understandable if the defendants were primarily a flood of dangerous criminals, but they aren’t. Many have minor criminal histories or none at all. Many are deportees trying to return to their families and jobs.

See? They’re just minor criminals, and we shouldn’t stop them from returning to families who shouldn’t be in the country and jobs that they aren’t legally entitled to have, reducing the jobs available for legal citizens and workers! You people want to stop them are big meanies!

The system needs to be recalibrated to spare noncriminal migrants the harshest consequences. The Human Rights Watch report recommends revising immigration law to impose only civil, not criminal, penalties, for illegal entry and re-entry. Or, at the very least, it says illegal entry should be punishable by two years in federal prison, not 20.

So we slap them with a fine and let them go on their way and provide them with a pathway to citizenship. It’s that easy. We provide them with high power lawyers and all sorts of constitutional protections and allow them to fight the charge of being here illegally for years and decades.

I guess it’s no big surprise that the Times, being the most important of Liberal newspapers in the US, would push for reducing border control and letting most illegals go on their way at this time, what with the debate set to start on the New Shamnesty bill coming in a few weeks to a month. Expect many Democrats to make the same arguments when debate starts, essentially creating a system where it is easier for illegals to cross the border and overstay their visas.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach.

Share this!

Enjoy reading? Share it with your friends!