January
11, 2002
Deporting Illegal Immigrants Is
Sound Policy
By Tom Bevan
On Tuesday, the Washington Post reported that the Justice Department
and the INS are seeking to track down and deport around 6,000
men of Middle Eastern descent who have defied court orders and
overstayed their visas. Of course, the announcement drew immediate
criticism from civil libertarians and Arab-American groups who
denounced the effort as another example of 'racial profiling'
against Arab men. In the wake of 9/11, however, the myth of 'racial
profiling' has almost completely unraveled. Most Americans don't
care whether ethnicity is used as a component in a law enforcement
effort, they care whether what's being done will lead to greater
security for America, plain and simple.
So, will this effort by the INS help prevent future terrorist
attacks? James Zogby, President of the Arab American Institute,
doesn't think so. He makes the point that most of the terrorists
involved in the September 11 attacks were in the United States
legally. Point taken: We have as much to fear from Arab men visiting
here legally from countries with active al-Qaeda cells as those
here illegally. But does that mean we should abandon the idea
of enforcing US immigration law and rounding up people who are
here illegally? Of course not. Will the deportation of these men
decrease the probability - even by .001% - of a future terrorist
attack? It's hard to dispute that it will.
But Arab-American groups complain that there are more than 300,000
plus immigrants who have defied US immigration law and 'absconded',
most of whom are Hispanic. Ibrahim Hooper, spokesman for the Council
on American-Islamic Relations, says, "Anybody who breaks
the law and ignores a deportation order deserves to be arrested.
But to single people out solely on their religion and ethnicity
goes against longstanding values of equal protection of the law."
Mr. Hooper's cries of unacceptable 'racial profiling' fall flat
in the face of simple common sense. All 300,000 plus 'absconders'
will be arrested and deported, but it absolutely logical (and
legal) to start with those who pose the greatest potential threat
to the US. Unless and until we discover a network of Hispanic
terrorist cells at home and abroad, national security dictates
that deportations should proceed with Arabs first.
The larger point is that it is important for the INS to begin
taking seriously its obligation to monitor those entering and
staying in America. The excercise of rounding up foreigners, regardless
of their origins, who have broken American law is long overdue.
If the INS is to have any credibility whatsoever, it needs to
begin actively and aggressively pursuing those who break our immigration
laws.
In the coming decade, the INS will be one of the most important
US agencies in the fight against terror. Its ability to work accurately,
swiftly, and in conjunction with other federal and local law enforcement
agencies will directly affect our national security. For people
around the world, visiting America and enjoying our freedoms should
be considered a privilege, and we should not tolerate those who
defy the terms of this prvilege and thumb their nose at US law.
Its time we devoted the attention and resources necessary to making
the INS a central link in the chain of our security.
Tom Bevan writes for RealClearPolitics.
