WaPo: immigration laws aren't being enforced, therefore they won't work

Michael A. Fletcher and Darryl Fears offer "Analysts: Crackdown Won't Halt Immigration". It includes quotes from a few people saying that enforcement alone won't work and we need a guest worker scheme. The "reporters" seem to be leading the reader to come to that same conclusion.

However, in the very same article, the "reporters" inform us that we aren't really doing enforcement:

Congress has passed laws to crack down on illegal immigration in the past -- most recently in 1996 -- but those efforts have met with little success, especially when it comes to holding employers accountable. In 1999, the government issued 417 notices of intent to fine employers for hiring undocumented workers. Last year, that number dropped to three, according to a report by the Government Accountability Office. Even when employers were caught hiring undocumented workers, the penalties typically have been minor, the GAO found.

Obviously, the problem is not that the laws don't work. The problem is that they are not enforced. Now, surely, most readers of this article will realize that, right? Why would the WaPo discredit itself like this?

And, enforcement used to work, back when it meant actual "enforcement" and before the WaPo and others redefined it to mean "enforcement on paper only". The problem now is that we have "enforcement", but because of political corruption the laws are ignored.

If the WaPo wanted to rise above its current rag status they'd point that out and indicate that the root cause is corruption and not that our laws don't work. And, they'd include historical data showing that, yes, indeed, enforcement works when it's actually carried out.

They also quote Steven A. Camarota, research director for the Center for Immigration Studies, but they don't indicate whether he agrees with their headline. In fact, I'd imagine that he'd say something similar to what I wrote above.

The solution to the illegal immigration crisis is to vote corrupt politicians out of office. At the same time, sources like the WaPo have to be completely discredited.

This is yet another of my small contributions in the latter effort, and I strongly encourage you to do whatever you can to help. For instance, please write ombudsman *at* washpost.com and let them know you know what they're up to.


What if they decreased prosecutions for murder 90+%, and rehabilitationist commentators pretended that the laws against murder were unenforcable, who would believe that? Someone who was fiercely committed to freedom for aggression, and the power that comes from disorder and resulting dictatorship?