Fudging deportation numbers
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) data for 2012 clearly show something that not even far-left “watchdog” Media Matters can deviously spin to support its pro-amnesty agenda: The Obama administration hardly even considers being in this country illegally to be against the law.
“Fewer than 0.2 percent of the 11.7 million illegal aliens in the United States were deported for violating immigration laws,” The Daily Caller reports. Breaking down the ICE data, it says nearly two-thirds of 2012's 368,644 deportees were caught at the border — a category that previous administrations reported separately.
But the Obama administration deceptively pumps up its numbers by lumping those deportees in with those apprehended inland — just 133,551 in 2012. Subtract the 82 percent of them deported for other criminal offenses — drunken driving, assault, robbery, drug possession — and only about 20,000 were deported simply for being here illegally.
In fact, President Obama's administration has deported or blocked at the border fewer illegals than any administration since President Jimmy Carter's.
This White House's liberal-media echo chamber bolsters its efforts to make the situation look better than it actually is. But the ICE numbers betray the Obama administration's politically motivated, lackadaisical immigration-law enforcement.
Illegals committing other crimes here of course should be deported. But so should those just here illegally.
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.
- Recasting the EPA: Devolving power to the states
- Another carbon credit scheme
- Rick Perry’s indictment: The real abuse
- School funding canard: Money isn’t the answer
- The Thursday Wrap
- More foreign aid is no answer to border problem
- Saturday essay: For the birds
- Another LCB fumble: The status-quo stupor
- Tuesday essay: Sophie