Dr. Jekyl and Mr. Crime

In the wake of the injunction against provisions of Arizona's new immigration law, the debate about immigration policy in the United States is heating up again. Immigration is shaping up to be the fashionable new wedge issue in politics, and it's being express-mailed into America's living rooms once again just in time for mid-term elections.

I'm finding a really curious aspect to this debate, which is what I want to focus on. That is the arguments around the concept of crime. It's been put forth that high rates of (illegal) immigrant crime is a reason for enforcement. This is silly on the face, because it logically suggests that if crime among (illegal) immigrants were to fall drastically, there would be no need to supervise immigration into this country. Obviously, if that were the case, we wouldn't require anything but a criminal background check before handing them a social security card and a passport.

Ultimately this suggestion leads to an argument about how high crime among (and against) (undocumented) immigrants really is. I've listened to minutes long debates in the media about property crimes, kidnapping, rape, robbery, assault, etc. The pro-enforcement crowd is almost always ignored or shouted down when they try to point out that fact of outstaying a visa is, by definition, a crime.

Just because someone has made positive contributions to society (as many undocumented resident aliens have) or have gotten away with that crime for decades does not mean it is any less of a violation of the law. Just ask any American cited for tax evasion, or any Nazi war criminal being prosecuted in his/her sunset years. Would you really want to have forgiven Dahmer or Manson just because they "worked hard and paid their taxes" all those years?

Granted, a visa overstay is not an equivalent crime to mass murder, but the notion that it is a victimless crime is fallacious. And this is where America's split personality really shows. The once-lauded mayor of New York City -- Rudy Giuliani -- built his political reputation on the "broken windows" theory of policing. He insisted that we focus on the small crimes, as a way of preventing the larger ones. We seem to accept this theory, even applaud it, except when it comes to "racist" immigration policies.

We have the most liberal immigration policy in the world. Almost anyone can come here to visit, for almost any reason, for six months, without any sort of restrictions on their activities, any monitoring, or any requirement to check in and prove that they are here doing what they said they were going to do. We seem to forget that most of the world does not extend this same sort of courtesy.

In addition, there are dozens of valid reasons available to apply for permanent citizenship, provided you go through the proper channels. Nobody is suggesting that it is easy--we are all aware of the red tape, high costs and long waits involved--but nonetheless, there is a process in place for it that gets used by thousands every year to obtain legitimacy. Are we really to accept the "shop-lifter's" argument that not having the ability to "purchase" the item entitles them to take it?

I agree with those folks who get riled when undocumented aliens are called "illegal". It is true that people cannot be illegal. Their actions, however, are another matter. As much as a visa overstay might seem to be a minor crime and the act of a "petty criminal", they have significant effects on Americans overall, and over time the theft of goods adds up. Multiplied by millions, the takings have enormous impact, which we no longer can afford to absorb.

It is time to acknowledge that an individual who chooses to ignore the very first law that is applicable to them upon crossing over into the United States has committed a crime. Does that indicate a general lack of regard not worthy of citizenship? Until we acknowledge the disingenuousness involved in our use of the word "crime", nobody is going to be able to answer that question.