Share This Page

Refuting (not rebutting) Media Matters

| Saturday, Dec. 28, 2013, 9:00 p.m.

Media Matters, the self-styled “media watchdog” of the left, has accused the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review of using “deceptive numbers” to “attack” immigration reform. But the Trib is exactly right when it says that the Obama administration is not committed to border enforcement and cannot be trusted to implement a comprehensive immigration reform plan.

The criticisms voiced by Media Matters are way off base — particularly their claims about so-called “secret numbers” from The Heritage Foundation and the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS).

Media Matters accused CIS of “fabricating information.” The inaccuracy of this slur is exposed by one simple fact: CIS accurately predicted the downturn in ICE removal numbers for 2013 back in October. On Oct. 30, The Washington Times reported CIS's prediction that Department of Homeland Security removals of illegal aliens for fiscal year 2013 would be 364,700. On Dec. 19, DHS reported 368,644 removals for FY2013.

So, the CIS prediction was within 1 percent of DHS's official numbers two months before DHS reported them. That is pretty accurate “secret” information.

The numbers reported by DHS represent an 11 percent reduction in removals just from 2012. Total deportations under the Obama administration are the lowest since 1973. The administration has tried to manipulate the statistics to artificially inflate deportation numbers by mixing Border Patrol “apprehensions” — when aliens are stopped and turned back at the border — with ICE “deportation” statistics — when aliens from the interior are removed from this country.

These Border Patrol cases were not included in deportation numbers until the Obama administration. Only about one-third of this year's “deportations,” as reported by DHS, came from the interior. In fact, the administration deported only about 1 percent of the illegal aliens present in the U.S. this year.

There are other reasons to question the administration's commitment to enforcement of the nation's immigration laws. Border patrol and immigration enforcement employees report they are being told not to make arrests of noncriminal illegal aliens and not to patrol high-traffic transit areas along the southwest border. One Border Patrol official told The Examiner of Washington that administration officials are deliberately failing to document what is actually happening on the border: “In many cases my supervisors make it clear that they don't want increased apprehension numbers, which means no arrests,” he said.

But no one has to take the word of Heritage or CIS on this issue. On Dec. 13, a federal judge in Texas issued a blistering indictment of the administration's immigration policy. Indeed, he accused DHS of “completing the criminal mission” of human traffickers “who are violating the border security” of the country.

The order, issued by Judge Andrew S. Hanen in U.S. v. Nava-Martinez, stated that the administration “should cease telling the citizens of the United States that it is enforcing our border security laws because it is clearly not. Even worse, it is helping those who violate these laws.”

As the judge told DHS in that case, the government “should enforce the laws of the United States — not break them.”

Hans A. von Spakovsky is a senior legal fellow at The Heritage Foundation and a former Justice Department official.

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.