Obama’s War on Immigrants
By Anthony Gregory • Monday July 26, 2010 12:14 PM PDT • 16 Comments
As with everything else about the U.S. police state that is often associated with Republicans and the right, the Obama administration has pushed the envelope and showed itself to be as draconian as Bush. Deportations of illegal aliens—as in, people without the federal government’s permission to be here—have increased under Obama, including deportations of those whose only crime was to violate unconstitutional immigration law. It seems like it’s been since the Reagan years that we’ve had a president willing to move in a more humane direction on this issue. Perhaps Bush offered some hope, but that was before 9/11 swept away any establishment interest in normalizing illegals or doing anything that would undermine federal power.
Tags: Civil Liberties, Civil Society, Constitution, Immigration, Labor, Latin America, Police, Terrorism 
What is “draconian” about deporting illegal aliens from the USA?
They are here ILLEGALLY. Do you have no respect for the rule of law? One is evidently obligated to point out the obvious to people who opine as you do: Illegal aliens are breaking a law; they are therefore criminals; they are therefore subject to all the penalties and consequences established by law. What is it about “illegal” that you do not understand?
No, I am not some right-wing white redneck American Tea Partier. I am a life-long registered Democrat and progressive and the descendant of LEGAL immigrants to the US. I welcome all well-intentioned LEGAL immigrants to my country.
Roger Grainger | Jul 26, 2010 | Reply
Sure, Roger, they broke the law. Just like you broke the law when you sped through that yellow light and didn’t quite make it. The question is, what should the state do about it?
In the case of an illegal immigrant, who has harmed no one any more than the person who ran the red light, we send men with guns to evict them from their home, confiscate their home, car, and other personal property in some states, and drop them off back in Mexico, all at taxpayer expense, and probably breaking up their family in the process.
And yet, the job the illegal immigrant was working is not available to the law-abiding American who wants to replace him because the employer still cannot afford to hire anyone legally.
You have illegal immigration because you have a universal welfare/social services state, income tax, and minimum wage. Instead of increasing police intervention, which is easily turned on citizens when all sorts of petty misbehavior is criminalized, why don’t you work on ending those incentives for illegal immigration which would also increase the freedom of Americans rather than further threaten our freedom?
Ryan | Jul 26, 2010 | Reply
I’m with you Roger Grainger and so are the overwhelming majority of US citizens. It is only the treasonous criminal governments of the US and MEXICO who allow and facilitate the hostile invasion of this country. In poll after poll the citizens have spoken clearly in support of border control and deportation of all illegal aliens no matter how long they’ve been “trying to make a better life for their families” and “doing jobs Americans won’t do.” US citizens aren’t buying that rotten horsemeat anymore.
arma | Jul 26, 2010 | Reply
Ryan, you conveniently fail to mention the myriad costs associated with these criminal invaders, including the hundreds of billions in tribute payments and the murders, rapes, drunk driving deaths, etc.
Draconius | Jul 27, 2010 | Reply
Robert Grainger: You should really try to inform yourself before defending the Almighty Government. “Illegal” is not the same as “criminal” under law. People who are in the US illegally are NOT as such criminals. They are subject to civil deportation, and may become criminals if they violate deportation orders.
In any case, where do you get the idea that because the government has made something illegal, it is in the right? Oh, wait, you mention that you’re a Democrat and progressive. That answers my question.
Gary McGath | Jul 27, 2010 | Reply
An unjust law is no law at all, and even under American positive law, an unconstitutional law is invalid. Federal immigration controls are unconstitutional. No one has a moral obligation to obey them, and the federal government is in the wrong for enforcing them.
“Draconian” refers to cruel laws and law enforcement. That’s the whole point. All tyranny and oppression and draconian persecution transpires under the color of law. The color of law is the greatest engine of injustice and immorality in the modern world.
Anthony Gregory | Jul 27, 2010 | Reply
A law is the law of the land [city, state or federal] unless and until it is overturned. I suggest you petition your elected officials to overturn these [unjust?] laws. It may be draconian in your opinion but the majority of Americans want immigration laws enforced. Before you toss around the term draconian I suggest you look at the immigration laws of other countries, including Mexico. I would rather feel the tempered hand of American justice than the iron hand of third world and other countries. Is your solution to have open borders? Our states cannot afford the social service costs of the millions of illegal aliens we already are burdened with. I have not even mentioned the percentage of illegal aliens that are involved in the drug trade as they sneak across our borders. I think all drugs should be legalized but until they are legalized, violent behavior, including murder, ensues.
John Thomas | Jul 27, 2010 | Reply
I think Hayek’s dichotomy of laws vs. legislation is useful here. Personally I can’t tell the difference between a Mexican-American and a Mexican. I can tell the difference between a person (of any color) doing something destructive to another (e.g. stealing). Stealing is something that I consider wrong, and nearly everyone else agrees. “Don’t steal” is a law in Hayek’s sense; something widely accepted by social norms.
Now this is some hazy area but “don’t illegally immigrate” doesn’t seem like a law to me because there isn’t anything destructive, and it hardly seems like Joe Six-Pack could detect it, and therefore couldn’t feel repulsed by it.
It can be legislation, but the rule of law need not mean rule of legislation (hence common-law can be part of rule of law).
But as Anthony Gregory points out, even if we accept the rule of law to be rule of legislation (or rule of uniform command as Hayek might be willing to dub it), the Constitution has to stand above all other legislation.
Rick | Jul 27, 2010 | Reply
I thought this post was a joke when I first read it. The government’s only obligation is to protect the borders. When we have wave after wave of invaders coming across our border with no interest in assimilation then you have a cultural take over.
Their culture is not keen on the rule of law or fidelity to the truth. It is a corrupt culture of patronage and graft. So called libertarians that think it is a good idea to import these types, have rocks in their heads.
Mike | Jul 28, 2010 | Reply
It is simple. Go after the employers. Stop the cash flow under the table. Everywhere from construction sites, house cleaners, farms, and restaurants. The cost for regular labor will go up of course, Apples might be an extra 50 cents a pound. But stop the money and they will get legal or leave.
Jeff | Jul 29, 2010 | Reply
Why should national borders be considered legitimate and replace the tenet of private property? It makes no sense unless private property is considered secondary to authority. but then, what good is private property if it is only a privilege? Qui bono?
And redefining “immigration” as “invasion” is a complete distortion and is not conducive to any appeal to justice. Tthe “legal” versus “illegal” immigration debate merely becomes a nationalistic argument that claims immigrants are not “citizens” and are therefore undeserving of human rights. Framing the argument in terms of “human” versus “citizen” is dehumanizing for those living here or abroad and opens the door to many current-day injustices.
Is America an idea, or a place? Is it not safe to say that it will only reside where such ideas are practiced, not fenced in or deported?
jesse | Jul 29, 2010 | Reply
As Jacob Hornberger points out, how can otherwise free market conservatives make the leap into Central Planning when it comes to immigration?
We need immigration reform that involves liberalizing the entry requirements. This would solve 90% of the immigration “problem” and allow border control agents to focus on the “real bad guys.”
Ed Burley | Aug 6, 2010 | Reply
What is it about “illegal is not the end of an argument” that is so hard to understand?
Sorry that individuals don’t go hungrier because out sovereignty is so darn important, but that is not how people behave. Nor should they.
Lucy Stag | Aug 12, 2010 | Reply