Immigration enforcement: Everybody wins
Contrary to assertions by the politically motivated coddlers of illegal aliens, vigorous enforcement of immigration law does not have a “chilling effect” on immigrant communities' trust in police.
That “chilling effect” is a myth, the Center for Immigration Studies ( cis.org ) concludes in a new report based on government and academic research. U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics data “show no significant differences between ethnic groups on crime reporting” — and academic studies show immigrants most commonly don't report crimes due to language and cultural barriers, not fear of immigration enforcement.
In fact, local- and county-level law enforcement leaders say immigration enforcement improves public safety and cuts their criminal-justice costs. They welcome partnerships with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), favoring passage of the federal SAFE (Strengthen and Fortify Enforcement) Act to boost those joint efforts. And when law enforcers participate in such partnerships, crime reporting in immigrant communities does not decline.
Police and sheriff's departments that hold illegals for removal by ICE report lower average daily inmate counts in their jails and receive federal reimbursement for detention costs. And getting criminal aliens off the street keeps them from committing more crimes.
For Americans who respect the plain meaning of “illegal,” including law enforcement at all levels, vigorous immigration enforcement cost-effectively enhances public safety and upholds the rule of law.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- The regulatory state: EPA picks a fight
- A manger’s light
- Holiday Gift Club: The spirit of the season
- Ford City’s solution: Good side to cop cuts
- The Kathleen Kane chronicles: New and serious questions are being raised about the Pa. attorney general
- Pittsburgh Laurels & Lances
- Union ‘fairness’: The dues racket
- Obama’s Cuba deal: More appeasement
- Greensburg Laurels & Lances
- Alle-Kiski Laurels & Lances
- The gift