ShareThis Page
Featured Commentary

Michelle Malkin: 'Dreamers' include Chinese student's killers

| Sunday, Feb. 4, 2018, 9:00 p.m.
In this Jan. 25, 2017, file photo, a border patrol agent observes near the Mexico-U.S. border fence, on the Mexican side, separating the towns of Anapra, Mexico, and Sunland Park, N.M.  (AP Photo/Christian Torres, File)
In this Jan. 25, 2017, file photo, a border patrol agent observes near the Mexico-U.S. border fence, on the Mexican side, separating the towns of Anapra, Mexico, and Sunland Park, N.M. (AP Photo/Christian Torres, File)

Xinran Ji, 24, a University of Southern California engineering student from Inner Mongolia, had big dreams and bright hopes that died in 2014 at the hands of a then-19-year-old “Dreamer” and his thug pals. Mexican illegal alien Jonathan DelCarmen, who first jumped the southern border at age 12, pleaded guilty to second-degree murder last summer in the savage robbery and fatal beating of Ji — who was walking home from a study group after midnight.

It wasn't President Trump, ICE agents, Republicans or conservative talk-show hosts who racially profiled Ji. It was DelCarmen and his partners in crime: Alberto Ochoa, 17, Andrew Garcia, 18, and Alejandra Guerrero, 16. They targeted Ji because he was Asian and assumed he “must have money.” Guerrero had sent Facebook messages about wanting to rob white and Chinese people.

DelCarmen and his friends stalked Ji on an L.A. streetcorner before bashing him in the head with a baseball bat and a wrench, an attack caught on multiple security cameras. Ji managed to stagger to his apartment, where he died. The aspirations of his family, who sacrificed everything to send him to America to pursue his studies, perished with him.

DelCarmen and his friends drove to a nearby beach to rob two more innocent people in a city and state that have defiantly declared themselves “sanctuaries” for people in the U.S. illegally.

“It's like heaven fell down,” Ji's father told Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge George Lomeli at Garcia's sentencing hearing.

Garcia received life in prison without the possibility of parole. Ji's parents' sentence was far worse: a brutal, violent and permanent separation from their only child. In Washington, D.C., however, some families matter more than others. And victims of indiscriminate open borders, like Ji, don't exist.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, proud promoter of sanctuary policies for illegal immigrants, led more than two dozen Democrats in turning the State of the Union address into “Take an Illegal Alien to Work Day.”

“I want to be clear: DREAMers are Americans,” declared Rep. Nita Lowey, D-N.Y., who invited an illegal alien from El Salvador who now works at Apple. “They contribute to our economy, our communities and our strength and stability as a nation.”

Democrats and pro-amnesty radicals protest any sunlight shed on the destructive consequences of not enforcing our immigration laws. They claim it's unfair to focus on single cases or “anecdotes,” even as they promote DACA recipients as a holy, unassailable class of “honor roll students, star athletes, talented artists and valedictorians.” This propaganda, to which open-borders Republicans have fecklessly capitulated, is an offense to decency and truth. Ji was an innocent young person pursuing his educational dreams in America. He planned to return to China to use his knowledge to secure a better future for himself, his family and his community.

The blind beatification and elevation of “Dreamers” above law-abiding native Americans, naturalized Americans, legal immigrants and their families will be the ruin of us all.

Michelle Malkin is host of “Michelle Malkin Investigates” on CRTV.com.

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.

click me