A loophole for illegals: Close it now
A Supreme Court ruling on ambiguous legal language discourages prosecution of illegal aliens for identity fraud -- so Congress, which wrote that language, must revise it immediately.
Janice Kephart, director of national security studies for the Center on Immigration Studies ( cis.org ), details the problem and its solution in "Fixing Flores: Assuring Adequate Penalties for Identity Theft and Fraud." Here's the report's gist.
In Flores-Figueroa v. United States , the high court absurdly held that what's known as the Aggravated Identity Theft Statute requires prosecutors to prove not only that an identity-theft victim exists but that the defendant knew a real person's information -- not counterfeit information -- was stolen, even if obtained via a third party.
That made prosecutors' burden of proof too heavy and gave too much deference to the defendants' deniability.
Counterfeit identities don't fool high-tech checks such as E-Verify. Yet Flores discourages prosecutors from targeting illegals who steal real identities.
Closing the unintended Flores loophole for illegals requires revising the statute to refer to misuse of an identity other than the defendant's own . To help prosecutors and protect American workers, Congress must take this step -- without delay.
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.