The Washington Times reports that deportation numbers are up substantially:
The Department of Homeland Security, continuing to enforce what it calls a “strict policy of arresting, prosecuting and jailing” illegal immigrants, deported a record number of those caught on the nation’s borders last year — more than 280,000 in fiscal year 2007 compared with 186,000 a year earlier.
It was the largest number of illegals ever removed from the country in a single year.
The increase is attributable to what veteran law-enforcement authorities said is a revised apprehension process, adding that the department no longer is targeting only criminal illegals for removal, but seeks eventually to apprehend, charge and deport all those who cross illegally into the United States.
I’m curious what the distinction is between “criminal illegals” and “those who cross illegally”. Both are criminal acts. I assume “criminal illegals” are those with records of crimes other than violating national sovereignty.
That’s exactly the distinction, Steve …
I suppose I’m being obtuse, but I don’t like the distinction, and so I’m asking an obvious question.
Without endorsing the reasoning … the reason for the distinction is, as the story explains down lower, that some federal agencies made it and ordered the priorities and record-keeping accordingly. i.e., we’ll deport aliens who commit other crimes (”our” crimes), but as for simply enforcing immigration law, that is “their” crimes. The restructuring of several agencies under DHS makes this attitude less common.
I was heartened by this news as well.
Perhaps they could be classified as either illegal aliens or notoriously sinful illegal aliens. I think that is the distinction they are trying to make.
This same kind of distinction is made thoughout the criminal code. We don’t describe a person driving 90 in a 65 zone as a criminal either, evn though he has broken the law and is subject to a criminal penalty.