Standing matters: Give Americans the right to sue for the deportation of illegal aliens who cause them, or their property, harm.
A new Center for Immigration Studies ( cis.org) report proposes an idea worth serious consideration: Change immigration law so that Americans can sue for deportation of illegal and criminal aliens who harm them.
The report notes how the Obama administration has “stymied” immigration enforcement, created programs benefiting illegals “out of thin air” and “abandoned or flagrantly ignored” its duty “to fully and fairly administer” immigration law — which prohibits individual Americans from suing to force an alien's deportation.
Even a 2012 lawsuit filed by Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers to compel enforcement of immigration law as written was dismissed on jurisdictional grounds by a judge who nevertheless said their case had merit.
CIS proposes amending existing law to provide U.S. citizens the legal “standing” they need to sue for deportation of aliens who've harmed them or their property. To avoid overlap with the existing tort system, CIS says, such lawsuits “should not be geared toward monetary fines or penalties” or “toward government officials ... but, rather, toward the alien.” And to keep the administration's Justice Department from blocking such lawsuits in its immigration courts, they should be handled by federal district courts.
This proposal would help counter the effects of the Obama administration's disregard for immigration law and its enforcement — while providing legal recourse that Americans should have. Congress should give it a long, hard look.
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
- Saturday essay: A manger’s light
- Holiday Gift Club: The spirit of the season
- Ford City’s solution: Good side to cop cuts
- Union ‘fairness’: The dues racket
- Picking winners & losers: Stop the idiocy
- Pension reform should not be linked to a natural gas extraction tax
- Greensburg Laurels & Lances
- The Kathleen Kane chronicles: New and serious questions are being raised about the Pa. attorney general