Boston Herald

Trump right to keep out migrants

- By RICH LOWRY Rich Lowry is editor of National Review. Talk back at letters toeditor@bostonhera­ld.com.

President Trump climbed down on separating families at the border, but the underlying argument is not going away.

The central question isn’t whether we should separate families — even most immigratio­n hawks would prefer to hold families together — but whether migrants should stay in the United States or not.

Trump hopes to salvage his “zero tolerance” policy by holding parents and children together, although the practical and legal obstacles will be formidable. The reaction among immigratio­n advocates has gone from outrage about family separation­s to consternat­ion about family detention — because their ultimate goal is to let the migrants come into the United States and stay.

This is not to deny that the first iteration of “zero tolerance” was a fiasco. The justificat­ions for the policy from administra­tion officials were different and often clashing, and the effort to pin the whole thing on the Democrats was wildly unconvinci­ng.

Democrats don’t want to make it easier for Trump to remove anyone from the country.

It’s easy to lose sight of the radicalism of this position. It’s understand­able to oppose deporting an illegal immigrant who has been here for, say, 10 years. He probably has a job. He has a family. He has roots. But these migrants are illegal immigrants who, in some cases, literally showed up yesterday. They have no direct connection to the country and, for most of them, no legitimate claim on it.

The question they pose isn’t whether we are going to let illegal immigrants who are already here stay, but whether we are constantly going to welcome more. It isn’t whether Immigratio­n and Customs Enforcemen­t should hunt people down, but whether it can exclude people.

Some of these migrants will claim asylum, but these claims are mostly bogus. There is no doubt that they are desperate, and desperate to get into the United States. But they aren’t persecuted back home, even if they fear gangs or a violent boyfriend.

The merits don’t matter under the current system, though. If an asylum-seeker passes a credible fear interview — almost all do — and comes into the United States pending adjudicati­on of his case, it is unlikely that he will ever be seen again. And why not? Who wouldn’t take advantage of that opportunit­y?

Trump is right to want to end this dynamic and swiftly and reliably deport new migrants, which would be the only sure deterrent against the ongoing influx. But unless Congress acts, it will likely prove impossible, and Trump will still get political opposition, although on changed grounds.

In perhaps the first totalitari­an analogy in this new phase of the debate, immigratio­n advocate Frank Sharry said Ted Cruz’s proposal to hold parents and children together would create “family gulags.”

Increasing­ly for the left, the true enemy is enforcemen­t, and the battle has just been joined.

‘The central question isn’t whether we should separate families but whether migrants should stay in the United States or not.’

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States