Immigration

After Neighbor Gets Deported, Local Police Chief Rethinks Support for Immigration Crackdown

"He was real pro-law enforcement," says Flint Wright, police chief in Long Beach, Washington.

|

Tina Burch/ZUMA Press/Newscom

A Washington State police chief who voted for Donald Trump because he wanted a president who would secure the border is now "in shock" after seeing federal immigration cops deport an illegal immigrant who had lived nearby for more than a decade.

Flint Wright, police chief in Long Beach, Washington, tells The Seattle Times he was rattled by the arrest and deportation of Mario Rodriguez, who had lived in the community for 12 years.

"He was real pro–law enforcement," Wright said of Rodriguez. "Shoot, anybody would like to have him as a neighbor."

Rodriguez had overstayed his visa and was swept up in the Trump administration's toughened immigration enforcement, which has seen Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) make 3,100 arrests this year across Oregon, Washington, and Alaska (the three states overseen by ICE's Seattle office).

There's a difference—a quite significant one, as Wright has learned—between the Trumpian rhetoric that presents illegal immigrants as a source of economic woes and criminality, and the reality of watching someone you know deported when he hasn't hurt anyone. "They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people," Trump famously said of illegal immigrants flowing into the country from Mexico. Turns out the feds have trouble telling the difference.

Even American citizens get caught up in the crackdown. Reason's Shikha Dalmia has detailed the plight of Lorenzo Palma, an American citizen who lacked an American birth certificate because he was born in Mexico. Palma lived in the United States for nearly his entire life, but after serving time for assault he was whisked away to an immigration detention center and narrowly avoided being deported.

"Indeed, if President Donald Trump keeps on his aggressive anti-immigration path, he will fundamentally shift the balance of power between the government and its citizens," Dalmia writes. "He may not be able to overcome the economic forces that bring unauthorized aliens to America's shores. But he will erode the economic and civil liberties of ordinary Americans, leaving few immune from the long tentacles of the immigration enforcement regime."

Zahrija Purovic, a 50-year-old woman with no criminal history, lived and paid taxes in the United States for 30 years. She was deported to Montenegro last week, MLive.com reports. She has no ties to her native country, which she left when she was just 19 years old. She will be banned from reentering the United States for 10 years.

Good people? Bad hombres? Immigration police don't worry about such distinctions. And the consequences are felt well beyond the immediate families and friends of those deported.

Back in Pacific County, Washington, the ICE raids and deportations are having a ripple effect on the seafood industry that represents the main economic activity in towns like Long Beach, according to The Seattle Times.

"We don't have Nike. We don't have Boeing. This is what we do down here," said Steve Gray, a seafood-cannery owner. "Take the main workforce out…you will lose whole industries."

NEXT: Tonite: Watch Debate About Free Trade with Don Boudreaux and Rick Manning

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “He was real pro?law enforcement,” says Flint Wright, police chief in Long Beach, Washington.

    *said with Inspector Clouseau accent*

    Not anymore.


  2. A Washington State police chief who voted for Donald Trump because he wanted a president who would secure the border is now “in shock” after seeing federal immigration cops deport an illegal immigrant who had lived nearby for more than a decade.


    “He was real pro?law enforcement,” Wright said of Rodriguez

    Was he, though? It seems that, from the evidence, this is not true.

    I suspect this Chief is only ‘shocked’ because he likes anyone that rubber stamps his law enforcement priorities which, notably, are local concerns rather than national concerns.

    Is he wrong about immigration enforcement being a bottom-rung priority? Well, for Washington State I’d assume they should be more worried about Canadian illegal immigrants.

    1. I do, however, love this bit here:

      “We don’t have Nike. We don’t have Boeing. This is what we do down here,” said Steve Gray, a seafood-cannery owner. “Take the main workforce out…you will lose whole industries.”

      So, what he’s saying is that there’s an entire industry in their area that requires illegal immigrant workers because…why? I’m guessing it’s because if an illegal immigrant worker gets hurt on the job, or if you pay them less than market rates, they have no recourse. I could be way off base, but that’s how I read these articles since I already know what causes black markets in labor. Over-regulation is quite definitely one component.

      Does this mean that those who support more labor regulations and higher minimum wages will now stop doing that in order to make illegal immigrant labor less attractive? Somehow, I doubt it.

      1. It’s because it tough work, and most whites that managed to pick up some of that white privilege go do something else instead. And I would hazard a guess that those whites who didn’t resent the non-whites taking “their” jobs. Some old story.

        1. many of the whites who have attempted the work have told stories of being threatened by the illegals if they keep working there amongst them.

          1. you KNOW that to be the case specifically along the Washington Coast? ON what basis? You seem to think the illegals run the show down that way, and somehow I don’t think they do……

        2. Or, more correctly, ‘whites’ (or, rather, ‘Citizens’) are priced out of the job by default since little things like OSHA, Workman’s Compensation, and assorted taxes would be a part of those considerations.

          If it’s an illegal alien, you think they’re going to bitch to the FedGov about the many, many violations and short-cuts the employer might use to get the job done despite the government? Think again.

          Protectionist policies that the left loves make American labor non-competitive to employees that are ‘below the board’ so to speak.

          So, once again, would the left or the right be willing to abandon their expansive labor protections on the American workforce in order to get rid of illegal immigrants?

          Survey says no.

          I’ll believe that someone is serious about immigration reform when they explicitly call for American labor protections to go the way of the dinosaur.

          1. Or, in a nutshell, why the fuck are Libertarians suddenly economic retards when it comes to labor markets?

            The world may never know.

          2. But don’t illegals working at factories and such generally pay taxes and all that? Seems like it would be tough to pay a large portion of your employees under the table.

            Of course the situation is different for day laborers and people working for cash businesses. But as I understand it, a lot of illegal immigrant employment is subject to the taxes and regulations you mention. Though I suppose your point about their being unlikely to complain about violations still stands.


            1. But don’t illegals working at factories and such generally pay taxes and all that?

              Who knows? I’d say ‘probably’ but paying taxes isn’t the same as being protected by labor policy.

              I do know, for a fact, that if they attempt to claim unemployment or workman’s compensation they’ll get an added layer of scrutiny, which when you’re actively breaking the law is usually not a petty consideration.

              If you make a claim to the government that your employer isn’t paying minimum wage, you’ll also be investigated and…that doesn’t end well for them either.

              The incentive on illegal labor is not to rock the boat, I think most rational people would agree there. I’d also think most of us would recognize that this is an incentive for the employer to hire illegal labor, as well.

              It’s very logical, at the very least, when considering behavior is often driven by incentives.

          3. But don’t illegals working at factories and such generally pay taxes and all that? Seems like it would be tough to pay a large portion of your employees under the table.

            IME it depends on the situation. Around here the factories that employ illegals do it in 3 ways, but 2 are by far the most popular. (1) illegals who have stolen IDs are paid like normal citizens and “taxed” as such (This is the preferred method here). (2) illegals w/o papers are paid in cash on a weekly or daily basis (This is the least common in factories here b/c of your observation) (3) illegals are told if you work this week we’ll see if we can get a legit position for you. They are not paid, and inevitably quit. But there’s always new ones looking for work. (This is the second most common situation here)


            1. Around here the factories that employ illegals do it in 3 ways, but 2 are by far the most popular. (1) illegals who have stolen IDs are paid like normal citizens and “taxed” as such (This is the preferred method here).

              Indeed. It’s a case of stolen identity, which is a separate crime. I would agree that is probably the most common situation, and I do know for a fact that it’s fairly common for multiple illegal aliens to use the same social security number. You’d think that would be simple enough to track, but apparently not.

              And, while they might pay taxes (lord knows how that works at the IRS when one number to ‘Jose Gonzalez’ makes $500,000 per year yet holds 20 jobs simultaneously) that doesn’t mean that they can file a workman’s compensation claim for an injury on the job without being deported (or at least run the chance that they will be.)

              I have first hand witnessed employers paying cash for emergency injuries to avoid filing for workman’s compensation at various hospitals I’ve worked for.

          4. “”Or, more correctly, ‘whites’ (or, rather, ‘Citizens’) are priced out of the job by default since little things like OSHA, Workman’s Compensation, and assorted taxes would be a part of those considerations.””

            So instead of shrinking the government that gave us OSHA, workman’s comp, and assorted taxes, we should expand it’s scope instead?

            If the price of hiring legal citizens is too high, let’s dismantle the laws that make hiring legal citizens too high.


            1. So instead of shrinking the government that gave us OSHA, workman’s comp, and assorted taxes, we should expand it’s scope instead?

              Ironically that does appear to be the argument put forward by ‘open borders’ leftists. Not me, though.

              I’d be all for more open immigration coupled with deregulation. Since deregulation is a functional impossibility these days, I can’t be for the other.

              It’s a simple order of operations problem that most people appear to be completely unable to deal with because, factually, the majority of the populace isn’t willing to slit their own throats for all those so-called ‘brown people’ that they social signal on behalf of.

              If people want to return to 1850-1910 immigration policy, they need to be prepared to deal with 1850-1910 labor protections as well. Instead, they want all of the benefits without any of the unavoidable downsides. Wishful thinking at it’s finest.

            2. Look into WHY coffee grown in Hawaii and Puerto Rico costs so much. Hint: the ONLY two coffee producing regions in the world that are under the thumb of the US government and all its taxes, regulations, requriements, rules, expenses…… most Kona coffee runs $15 to $20 the pound and up, in the hundred pound bag at wholesale direct from the grower. It is mediocre, all of it I’ve sampled, and I’ve looked to find a GOOD one. I’ve got forty coffees in house that beat ANY Kona coffee I’ve ever had going away, and the most expensive ones cost between $5 and $8 for Cup of Excellence winners.

              Puerto Rico’s coffee industry is strangled by the same things as Hawaii’s, but there is no coffee from PR that has the “cachet” or “reputation” of Kona, so they can command nowhere near the price. Meaning few people grow coffee in Puerto Rico any more, as it is unprofitable. And that was before the recent hurricane. Until the labour and business laws change there never will be any profit in coffee growing in Puerto Rico. Sad, because they have the potential…..

          5. You don’t seem to get the reality. The ONLY way the illegals can remain in the same position for very long is to fit right in alongside all the rest who are legal. NO employer will knowingly risk his business by knowingly hiring illegals. Too much risk, including business stealing fines and/or incarceration for the employer. Most of the steadily employed iillegals have their taxes withheld, pay into workmen’s comp, unemployment, medical etc. They live in such a way as to not stand out as abnormal. How else can a guy manage to stay in the same area for 12 years?

            You do raise a legitimate point about the way all the “protections” in place on the workforce and businesses don’t really “protect” much of the time, That stuff increases the cost of doing business considerably.

            1. So you’re sayin Obama was wrong in that they aren’t living in the shadows?

      2. “(T)hey have no recourse.”

        Yup. Turns out Democrats like cheap, unlawful labor as much as some Republicans, like the Bush family. “W” should have secured our borders after 9/11 but he didn’t because his business buddies wanted cheap labor.

    2. Actually on most of the west coast there are more illegal Asians then from south of the boarder and its get worse the farther north you go.

    3. This illegals “acted ” like he pro-law enforcement to hide in plain sight.

    4. Every day at 5PM, BYODB goes to the police station to confess his three felonies.

      1. Cute, but unfortunately your comment doesn’t address any point I actually make.

        I assume you’re willing to get rid of American labor protections in service to your goal of wide open immigration? If so, you’d be the first person I’ve spoken to that thought it would work in reality.

        Of course, you’d need to convince all of America that their laundry list of labor benefits need to be abandoned in service of foreign nationals job prospects. I assume that should be pretty simple, right?

        1. whi said anything about dumping the labour ‘benefits” (the age old quiestion applies here: cui bono?) “in service to foreign nationals”? That’s a ROTTEN idea. They need to be dumped because they have a chokehold on the means ofproduction everywhere within the US.

          FASCISM defined: government control over private means of production.

          When gummit TELLS me how much I MUST pay my employees but returns no guarantee their labour will PRODUCE the value I am FORCED to pay them, government do me, and they, a disservice. Me, because my investment cannot make a return to entice me to make that investment, and them because since they cannot return fair value for their wages, I cannot hire them so they have NO job. The dweebs always fail to realise that the REAL minimum wage is always zero.

    5. Re: BYODB,

      Was he, though? It seems that, from the evidence, this is not true.

      What evidence is that? Not having the transit papers iasued by government? Is that now a crime, BYODB or is it only a crime when the person is not the “right” person?

      1. You would need to be a special brand of retard to claim that someone is ‘pro law enforcement’ when they are quite definitely breaking the law, but you keep doin’ you.

        And, obviously, it is always a crime regardless of nationality.

        Mexico agrees, if you were curious. Go ahead and get job down there without the Mexican government giving you the thumbs up. The same goes for Canada, if you were curious.

        1. Re: BYODB,

          You would have to be a special brand of statist to believe that the State gets to define reality. A person can be PRO-POLICE without having to be perfect. Correct?

          What CRIME did that person commit? An actual crime, not some Mickey Mouse statute violation conjured by bigots.

          1. Who said pro-police? The exact words were ‘pro law enforcement’ which is clearly not the same thing.

            Words mean things.

            As for what the crime was, it seems patently obvious that it was overstaying a VISA.

            Rodriguez had overstayed his visa…

            So there you have it. He lied about his intentions for entering the country to law enforcement. Yet in your view he can still be ‘pro law enforcement’ when in reality this individual was obviously ‘pro law enforcement that didn’t negatively impact him‘.


          2. What CRIME did that person commit? An actual crime, not some Mickey Mouse statute violation conjured by bigots.

            So, in your view every nation on the planet is comprised solely of bigots. Why should America be the only country on Earth to be borderless when such a course of action would be nationally destructive? Especially given your baseline argument that the entire planet is full of bigots.

            Lucidly explain why inviting more bigots here is a good thing?

            1. “borderless”

              If you actually cared about this debate you wouldn’t insert stupid strawmen like this into it.

              1. Yeah Tony. You only want Communist countries to have borders, so they can keep people in.

              2. It’s not a strawman argument unless you drastically misunderstand what a border actually is.

                In the future, I would recommend reading up on a fallacy before invoking it.

                1. You’re arguing against something nobody is talking about, namely that we should have a borderless country. It’s not only a strawman, it’s the most-used rhetorical device to blow up any meaningful debate on this subject before it starts.


                  1. An actual crime, not some Mickey Mouse statute violation conjured by bigots.

                    This statement implies that immigration law is created by bigots AND that it’s not an actual crime.

                    If one assumes that’s true, every nation on Earth must not only be run by bigots, as they create the laws, but also that their supporters are bigots as they support not only the politicians but the laws themselves by an overwhelming majority.

                    The only people who aren’t bigots in such a scenario are the people who don’t believe in borders, or immigration law, which are foundational to any nation state. One can safely assume that OMS isn’t accusing himself of bigotry.

                    Amusingly, this creates a scenario in which people who break immigration law are themselves bigots since they support those laws in some scenarios but not others. (I.E. an illegal immigrant who becomes, say, a welder might support policy that limits entry into their field through immigration while being more generally pro-immigration in a field that they are uninvolved in.)

                    Did I fuck up an implied argument there somewhere? Perhaps. Go ahead and point it out to me, since it’s hard to translate someone’s fragile emotions into a logical argument.

                2. you want a good working definition of “border” head out to Washignton State and try and enter Canada any way you choose. I’ve gone by car, foot, bicycle, private vessel, commercial ferry, bicycle on ferry, bus, driving a commercial highway truck, and every time, there IS a boundary (as they call it when you’re heading north) and EVERYONE is checked at least minimally. The slightest thing out of line, no entry. Simple……. I have even crossed into Canada as a “landed immigrant” (equivalent of a Green Card holder coming into the US) and, as a legal Canadian resident, there is STILL a real boundary between the two nations.
                  WHY can we not do the same on our Southern Border? And WHY should we not?

                  I’ve also entered Mexico, by bus, foot, and car. Same story. Been turned around at the Tijuana border crossing south, for no reason other than the guy didn’t want to let me in. Drove thrity miles east and the sleepy Mexican border guard just waved me through as if I were an old friend. But he wasTHERE.

          3. “…to believe that the State gets to define reality.”

            No, but the State DOES get to define what is and is not LEGAL. In our representative form of government, WE are the state (when we decide the State no longer reflects the opinion of the majority, we can elect different representatives who better conform to the will of the people.) Using that constitutional system, we have chosen to establish certain rules for who will be allowed to join our population.

            If the majority of American people agreed with the modern liberal disdain for immigration law, we would not have those laws in their present form. It is undemocratic (though not unexpected, for modern Democrats) for the FEW to decide they will help illegal aliens circumvent those laws, and thereby ignore the expressed and legally-established will of the MAJORITY. It is especially galling for the aliens themselves, who until they are legally admitted have NO legitimate voice in the argument, to feel entitled to defy that expressed will.

        2. It would be a crime if he entered the country illegally (e.g. snuck across the border) but if he overstayed his visa as appears to be the case, then it’s a civil offense meaning you get deported (as you would for entering the country illegally) but without the risk of going to jail.

          If someone wants to argue that there are unnecessary bottlenecks in the system that create delays for visa extensions or that we should make it easier for people applying for extensions to remain in the country while their application is being processed, I’m open to that. But if someone gets caught being in our country illegally ? whether they entered illegally or overstayed their visa ? they should be sent home.

  3. “He was real pro?law enforcement,” Wright said of Rodriguez.

    Well, now I’m conflicted, too.

  4. “He was real pro?law enforcement,” Wright said of Rodriguez. “Shoot, anybody would like to have him as a neighbor.”

    I grew up in a heavy immigration area. You could tell who the illegal immigrants were because they worked their butts off. The house next door for a while had five families living in it. They all go up early in the morning to go to work, and never bothered anyone. I once ran across a house that was running an illegal clothing manufacturing using illegal immigrants. I’m going to turn in hard working people for for working hard? Fuck that!

    In fact, on illegal immigrant from my home town started a business out of his garage, and he ended up the richest guy in town from what i understand, and the business becoming one of the largest of its type in North America, employing hundreds locally and thousands across the state and country. Trump would have rather have had him deported, and then whine about the lack of jobs. Fuck Trump!

    And fuck those progressives that send their hordes of social workers out to teach the legal children of illegal immigrants about how to get on welfare. The illegals aren’t on welfare, it’s against the law. But their next generation are told by the Left that welfare is how one sticks it to the man. Okay, to be fair it’s just a tiny part of them that go on welfare. Still, the Left still wants Hispanics to be on welfare just like they want the Indians to live in reservations. Fuck the left.

    1. Where I live, fences are rare. The immigrant families tend to have fences which they think hides all the vehicles they have parked in the backyard. In reality it really it just lets everyone know who has 3-4 families living in the same household.

      1. As long as those vehicles aren’t leaking oil into the water table, does it really matter? If we deport them just because we don’t like a lot of cars parked on grass, then a lot of legal bubbas are going to fall into that net.

        1. They absolutely have property rights, but that does not mean that they are fooling anyone.

    2. 65% of households headed by illegals get some form of government welfare.
      It’s a lot more than “a few”.

    3. News flash: READ your own personal copy of the Constitution… children of illegal immigrants, even if born here, are NOT citizens, as they are not “subject to the jurisdiction of the United Stats and of the State wherein they are present”.

      The concept of “anchor babies’ is a lie, and must be exposed as such, and done away with.

      If a couple, US citizens, go to Mexico and live on the beach in Sayulita for a year and their child is born there, that kid is NOT Mexican.

      1. Even if they were US citizens (by a mis-reading of the 14th Amendment) the status of their undeniably-illegal parents is a matter only of POLICY, not of law, and certainly not of Constitutional law.

        Fine, let the anchor baby stay if you want, but CUT THE ANCHOR CHAIN. If they REALLY crossed over because they “just wanted the baby to have a good life” then his parents will be happy to see him adopted, stay with legal resident relatives, whatever. But send the parents back home.

  5. Typical. Police ignore the law when it suits them. This cop had no idea who his neighbor was?

    I am sure this chief of police was glad to send his minions to kick in doors for drug possession and other minor violations of the law.

    Deport all illegals!

    1. “I am sure this chief of police was glad to send his minions to kick in doors for drug possession and other minor violations of the law.”

      That’s exactly it. Sob stories of this sort almost always hinge on an assumption of a generally disciplined, ordered conduct in everyday life and society: then they pick one rule arbitrarily and take it out of context so it looks like the rule (rather than their choice of example) looks arbitrary and harsh. And contrary to what they say, the slippery slope has born out time and again.

  6. Perhaps these people should’ve spent some time of the DECADES they’ve been for trying to fix these problems?

    “Oh, but it’s hard”? Good. American citizenship should mean something.

    No sympathy for ANY of these people. When you come here and say you’ll only be here for a certain period of time and you extend it by TWELVE years, then no, you’re not a victim.

  7. Sorry but i don’t have much sympathy for people who haven’t tried to become legal of course I understand why they don’t because the immigration laws are the worst and need to be changed but they must go through a process and not a blanket amnesty but also not sending them back while in the process of becoming legal

    1. Re: Ron,

      Interesting. Do YOU know gow one becomes “legal” in this country, Ron?

      It’s not like you fill a postcard and pay a fee. Government rules on immigration are Byzantine to say THE LEAST.

      1. It’s not like you fill a postcard and pay a fee. Government rules on immigration are Byzantine to say THE LEAST.

        AND?

        Either do the work or stop bitching and go away.

        “It’s HARD” is a shit justification.

      2. More than a million, each year manage it.

      3. Yes, and going to the DMV to get your license renewed is a Byzantine pain in the ass, too. That sounds like a good argument for modernizing the system, NOT for ignoring it.

  8. What’s wrong, Flint? Having trouble finding someone to mow your lawn?

  9. Cop doesn’t think the rules should apply to him or his buddies. That is a real shock there.

  10. Good people? Bad hombres? Immigration police don’t worry about such distinctions.

    Technically cops are supposed to enforce the law. That something may be a bad law is not their concern.

    Also, one cannot be an “illegal immigrant” and simultaneously have “no criminal history”.

    1. Technically cops are supposed to enforce the law. That something may be a bad law is not their concern.

      So all those sheriffs in NY who refuse to enforce Cuomo’s gun restrictions are wrong?

      1. I should have added there is something to be said for prioritizing. And Constitutional considerations.


      2. So all those sheriffs in NY who refuse to enforce Cuomo’s gun restrictions are wrong?

        Technically, yes, although States and Cities are explicitly not empowered under the U.S. constitution to impose gun laws so it’s equally true that New York, or New York City, is making law they are prohibited from making with a plain reading of the nations founding document.

        *shrug*

        1. Cuomo’s gun laws are unconstitutional, so yes, any sheriff or oterher officer who has sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution is duty bound to NOT enforce them.

          On the otehr hand ALL uimmigration laws are passed by Congress, to which body the COnstitutioin has explicitly and exclusively been given ALL power to make such laws. Congress must make all laws pertaining to naturalisation, and COngress have also passed a law assigning to the President, exclusively, ALL authority to make policy on who can and cannot enter the US that is not a citizen. Thus Trump was simply discharging that assigned duty when he issued his EO on people entering the US from those certain nations he listed. And the three courts that “challenged” those EO’s had NO authority whatever to do so. THOSE judges acted clearly outside the plain letter of the Constittuioin, and should be debenched and disbarred.

    2. Re: Rebel Scum,

      Typically police should be able to enforce laws that are enforceable, not laws that are vague or lead to many forms of arbitrary actions against peaceful people who commit NO REAL crimes.

      Instead, Trumpistas would like to think police are avenging angels who exist to turn their prejudices into head-cracking action.

      1. Typically police should be able to enforce laws that are enforceable, not laws that are vague or lead to many forms of arbitrary actions against peaceful people who commit NO REAL crimes.

        Agreed.

        These people committed real crimes. Sorry you don’t like immigration law, but them’s the law.


      2. Typically police should be able to enforce laws that are enforceable…

        On this, we agree.

        …not laws that are vague or lead to many forms of arbitrary actions against peaceful people

        I also agree here, but what is ‘vague’ or ‘arbitrary’ about our specific immigration laws one might ask? They appear to be quite direct and defined.

        Unless of course you’re talking about so-called ‘executive’ actions such as DACA which muddy the waters with vague assurances of future changes to the law, combined with temporary assurances that you may or may not be deported, that are based almost entirely on a fairy tale?

      3. here is one Trumpista who is strongly opposed to your concept of what you think we are. And I AM NOT ALONE.

    3. “Also, one cannot be an “illegal immigrant” and simultaneously have “no criminal history”.”

      Violating immigration law is a civil offense. Do you think that everyone who has ever received a speeding ticket has a “criminal history”?

      1. “”no criminal history””

        “”a civil offense””

        One of these things is not like the other…

        1. How many other sub-misdemeanors do you think the federal government should punish by banishment?

          1. For illegals?

            Any of them would work.

            If you’re here illegally AND committing MORE crimes on top of that — we want to keep you here why?

          2. If its illegal immigration, then one. Being an illegal immigrant.

            Even funnier is you act like these people are Americans. They are not and this is not their home, so its not banishment which would imply that they are being exiled from some place they belong as punishment.

            They never legally entered the USA, so they are being deported. “Deported” is the correct word to describe kicking these illegals out of the USA.

            1. Your argument amounts to “the law is good because it’s the law.” The whole debate here is whether the law treats humans too harshly.

              I gather that you don’t understand the question if we’re talking about Mexicans.

              1. Aw Tony, the People vote representatives to enact laws. The people then should follow said laws or we devolve into a corrupt nation where everyone only follow the laws they like and disregard the ones they don’t like.

                I think there are too many laws and government. We should roll back both. This would unfortunately put a damper on your Nanny and Police state plans.

                1. “But we have to keep the jackboots forcibly expelling people for being born in the wrong country and being unable to deal with our shitty immigration process. For freedom.”

                  1. “wrong” country? The right country is somewhere outside the USA’s borders.

                  2. Tony, for any other country in human history…what would’ve happened given IDENTICAL circumstances?

                    1. try living and working in Mexic, Guatemala, Columbia, Canada, Taiwan, Singapore, India, China, the Phillipines, Papua New Guinea, Australia, New Zealand, Brasil, Argentina, Chile, France, Germany, the UK, Iceland… and the list goes on. Perhaps you could get off with doing that in Nigeria, Chad, Sudan, Somalia…. but trust me, there IS no gainful work available there. WHY do you think so many are turnign backflips to come HERE? NONE of them are trying to get into Mexico to settle down and work there and raise their families….. any idea WHY NOT? Oh sure, many try and get into Mexoci…. but ONLY because it is on the way to the US, their ultimate goal.

              2. They’ve been here for years. Clearly it’s not too harsh. Rather, it’s nowhere near harsh enough.

              3. “Your argument amounts to ‘the law is good because it’s the law.’ ”

                No, but the assumption in a republican form of government like ours is that the law IS the expressed will of the majority of the people. It’s very un-democratic of you, Tony, to want to impose your minority will (to allow anyone in) over that of the majority.

    4. ackshully, there is no such thing as an “illegal immigrant” because an “immigrant” by definition is one who has jumped through the hoops and gotten the appropriate government permission to migrate to the new place. If he did NOT do all that stuff, he is NOT an “immigrant”. He is a visitor or a foreign invader.

      1. “Illegal alien” is the correct term. Not politically correct (not that I care) but legally so.

      2. If someone is hiding and keeping to themselves all the time, are they really an invader?

        Seems like an ineffective strategy.

  11. In unrelated news: Chief Wright Changes Mind On Leviticus After Son Comes Out

  12. Zahrija Purovic, a 50-year-old woman with no criminal history, lived and paid taxes in the United States for 30 years. She was deported to Montenegro last week, MLive.com reports. She has no ties to her native country, which she left when she was just 19 years old. She will be banned from reentering the United States for 10 years.

    You have to be a psychopath to think this is good policy.

    1. She came here illegally and hid for 3 decades. Sounds like she made a dumb decision as an adult. It is a perfectly good policy. She broke the law and CONTINUED doing so for 30 years.

      1. Okay, so you’re a psychopath. Is it also cool if we put people in cages for years for smoking a little weed?

        1. Because being an illegal for years and violating Constitutional immigration and naturalization laws is the same as violating an unconstitutional drug prohibition law.

          1. It’s actually far less of a crime under current law.

          2. State drug laws are constitutional.

            1. but NOT Fed drug laws. And its mostly Feds enforcing their stupid illgal laws, isnt’ it? If not, then WHY do the DEA exist?

    2. What you call psychopath is not that. Which is why people just laugh at you.

      its called rule of law and immigration and naturalization is an enumerated power of Congress. This lady violated federal law and was finally caught.

      Bye bye Zahrija Purovic. Don’t the Statue of Liberty hit your ass on your way home to Montenegro.

      1. You probably broke traffic laws a few times. Which country that you have no ties to do we get to send you?

        1. Unfortunately for your little ploy, I was born here. In fact part of my family has been here before the Revolutionary War. In fact, part of the my family was here before white men showed up.

          But I agree that we should repeal most laws, deport all illegal non-Americans, cut government by 50%+, and continue to beat Democrats in elections.

        2. Fortunately, he’s a citizen. So irrelevant question.

    3. WrongFeelz! You have WrongFeelz if you disagree with me!

  13. Re: “”They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people,” Trump famously said of illegal immigrants flowing into the country from Mexico. Turns out the feds have trouble telling the difference.”

    It can’t be said often enough: Trump did not say this about “illegal immigrants.” You can listen to the tape, or read the transcript:

    He never once refers to “illegal immigrants.” It’s Mexican immigrants, period.

  14. “Look over here! A nice illegal alien! See, aren’t you for open borders now?”

    No
    The world is full of nice people who aren’t American citizens

    1. It’s not that there are not a lot of people who we would be happy to have join our national family. It’s a question of who gets to decide.

      You’re throwing a party. You’ve invited your friends, and are happy to have them come into your home, and enjoy the expensive food and drink you’ve laid out for them, and that they have brought. Someone driving by your house sees the great party going on, and wants to join the fun. Maybe he’s a fine person, maybe not. But who would argue that he should be allowed just to walk in, or (even worse) that he has a RIGHT to do so?

      It is the right of the HOST to decide who can come partake of his hospitality. And it is the right of the American people, as expressed in law, to to make the judgement of who can come into our country and partake of its generosity.

  15. So Chief, as long as you know them it is OK to break the law? If you don’t want to enforce the law why don’t you find a job more suitable for you.

    1. NOWHERE in this article is it claimed that the head cop in Long Beach KNEW this guy was here illegally. And THAT is his point… he never suspected he was here illegally. So no, this officer never did way it was OK for him to not enforce that law, nor that this guy was OK for breaking the law. He never “didn’t want to enforce the law”.

      Further, we learned back when Joe Arpaio wanted to enforce Federal immmigratioin law that the Feds said NO YOU CAN”T DO THAT< and sued him to prevent his doing it. ONLY FedGov agents can enforce federal laws.... on immigration, drugs, boze, firearms, tobacco, etc. And on all of those issues, FedGov have NO power to meddle in any of them in any way. Hands off..... er the law. Immigration and entrance into the US< Certainly, for that IS part of the assigned job of FedGov. Most other things? Nunadarebidniss.

      1. Which is why it would be against the law for cities and states to declare themselves “sanctuaries”, thus clearly violating federal law, except the federal government in its infinite wisdom decided not to prosecute and shut them down.

  16. “‘He was real pro?law enforcement,’ says Flint Wright, police chief in Long Beach, Washington.”

    Evidently, only so long as the laws didn’t apply to himself.

    Sick and tired of these sob stories. I thought this site was “Reason.com.” This kind of emotional manipulation is about as un-Cartesian as you can get. Try a new name.

  17. “He was real pro?law enforcement…”
    That depends on the law, apparently.

  18. Dalmia is a shrieking fearmonger whose screeds don’t belong in any publication calling itself “Reason”

    Yes, enforcing immigration laws has unfortunate consequences at the personal level. So be it. Either we have laws and enforce them, or we don’t. The fault lies not with those who now want to enforce those laws but with decades of chucklehead politicians who chose to act as though the laws did not exist.

    If foreign citizens want to come here to work there used to be a “guest worker” program that allowed for it (particularly in the southwest). At the end of the “guest” period, they went home and returned when their status was renewed. It was a comparatively painless process and worked well until Cesar Chavez (another liberal icon) went to war against what he called the “mojados” to protect the field jobs of Americans of Hispanic origin. It could still be done.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.