The media runs many stories about persons in the U.S. illegally, without authorization, being detained or deported by ICE. The story focus is almost always someone who is a parent or grandparent, or a “teen” that has been in the country for quite some time. In other words, someone for whom sympathy is easy to generate.

ICE does appear to be engaged in heavy handed, and pointless detainments and deportations too – and these become the focus of media coverage. Trump has seemingly demanded that anyone that can be deported, be deported – even for reasons that seem counterproductive to the U.S. Much of the focus too has been on those from Central and South America, although this blog post links to a story involving a Canadian citizen, a citizen of the Congo, and while not linked, another story involved a Mom from New Zealand – all of whom had valid visas for residency in the U.S. – but ran into trouble due to clerical errors or allegations of clerical errors, or issues resolved many years ago – pretty weak reasons for detainment. Similarly, reports of ICE’s lack of professionalism in laughing at people who, in fact, are innocent, do not help ICE’s public perception.

That said, the media’s presentation of the topic is to argue for “open borders”.

The majority of those residing in the U.S. without authorization have done so by entering the U.S. legally, via a visa, but then overstay that visa – for years. Media supports the idea, via their stories, that those who have been in the country for years, should get to stay – which is essentially “open borders”. Anyone who has entered on a valid visa and overstayed that visa, per the media, should be allowed to stay in the U.S.

Here’s another story in that vein but at least acknowledges the problem up front:

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) reportedly detained California resident Chuong Dong during a routine check-in for a decades-old deportation order tied to a 1989 robbery conviction and a later probation violation.

ICE Detains California Resident After Nearly 40 Years

He previously served 5 years in prison, says the story, and has a Final Order for removal issued 25 years ago.

The Oregonian ran a lengthy story about “grandparents” who were self-deporting to Mexico. It was a sob story with sympathy for the grandparents.

Buried in the story, however, was a note that the grandfather had been previously convicted of serious crimes, and that both grandparents had been previously deported – but then paid “coyotes” to smuggle them back across the border. 3 of their 4 adult children had also joined them in the U.S., illegally, by hiring smugglers to help them cross the border. This couple was not detained by ICE but chose to move back to Mexico on their own. The story was presented as a sympathy story – and that they should not be deported.

The U.S. created this problem with lax attitudes on our border for decades, enabling millions of people to enter the U.S. illegally. Once here, many or most have taken on jobs or started small businesses.

1. We created this problem by creating “sanctuary” cities and states (Oregon) where immigration status of persons can generally never be asked or acted upon. Thus, we support “open borders”: enter on a legal visa, overstay, and then you are free to have residency in the U.S.
2. We created this problem with incentives: In Oregon, if you are here illegally you can get a driver’s license, you can get free health care via Medicaid, your kids can attend public schools, get free breakfast and lunch (at many schools), have immigration lawyers provided to you and paid for by the State of Oregon, and you can pay in-state tuition to attend public universities. In fact, you can do everything a citizen can do, except vote. (In San Francisco, non-citizens can vote in school board elections.)
3. How do we resolve this? ICE takes a heavy-handed approach – anyone in violation of laws and regulations can and may be deported even when the reasoning is weak. This results in many “sad stories” of people being deported – with the media focusing on “Dads”, “Moms”, children, and grandparents – even though they may represent a tiny percentage of deportees (but we do not know since the media reports selectively, often specifically to create emotional click bait stories likely to be talked about and shared on social media). Also, the media often fails to do follow up stories – we hear of what sounds like an unjust detention (and it probably is) but we don’t hear of the follow up a week or more later. (Example 1 and 2)
4. Additionally, we seem to be deporting some (perhaps many?) whose presence at this point is a net positive to the United States, as well as many who have legal “green card” or other visa status – but they are deported or relatively minor or very old issues that were address long ago. For example, the Oregonian ran a story about someone who works in health care, has a lot of patients he’s been treating for a decade – but was detained and may be deported over a relatively minor issue that occurred long ago and was dealt with back then. This doesn’t seem to make sense for our country – his presence seems to have more benefits than any harms. Another example is the Canadian man in New England, in the U.S. legally, and raising his family (his wife and kids are American). But because of a minor issue long ago, he was prohibited from re-entering the U.S. from Canada (a US court has since resolved the issue and he is back in the U.S.). This makes no sense.
5. We created this problem due #1-#3, above – and did nothing about it. This is where some propose providing “status” to those in the country illegally. Some suggestions have been that they pay a fee or fine for the time they were in the country illegally, and in exchange, be given permanent residency status. The basic idea is that there should be some consequences for having violated laws – but consequences less than being detained or deported.
6. Does the evolution of our language about this help or hinder? We went from “illegal alien” to “illegal immigrant”, to “undocumented immigrant”, to “migrants” (where we combine both legal and illegal immigration) to the wildest one yet “unauthorized citizen“. If we have unauthorized citizens, then drug dealers are just unauthorized or undocumented pharmacists?

What do you think?