Attorney General John Ashcroft faced surprisingly rigid opposition to his proposed enforcement of 1996 legislation on illegal immigration, which grants local and state police the power to arrest illegal aliens. All the 19 hijackers of the September 11 attack were in the United States on temporary visas with at least two having illegally overstayed their visas, and to bolster Homeland Security, the Department of Justice has examined how immigration law is enforced. Specifically, they reviewed Section 133 of the 1996 Illegal Immigration and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRAIRA), which grants enforcement authority to local police. Opposition to Ashcroft's proposal came from immigration advocacy groups, concerned government officials and major media sources.

The National Immigration Forum sought to protect illegal immigrants living in this country and saw such enforcement as a far-reaching (yet quite indirect) threat to all immigrant communities. Executive director of the Forum Frank Sharry stated, "Immigrant communities often fear law enforcement based on experiences in their countries of origin, and in many communities, local cops spend tremendous time and energy building trust in these communities…When large segments of the community are afraid to work with the police, and immigrants are afraid to come forward and report crimes and testify in criminal cases, then cops have a tougher time enforcing laws." However, Sharry ignores the fact that legal immigrants still have no reason to fear their local policemen. Fear and unrest in the illegal community is unfortunate, but in many ways justified.

Surprisingly, local law enforcement wants to dodge the responsibility of enforcing immigration policy and often sympathizes with illegal aliens. Sergeant John Pasquariello of the L.A.P.D. stated, "Because of our immigrant population here and our diverse communities, we don't want to alienate anybody, or give anybody fear…That's just not our policy. Hasn't been for twenty years." Pasquariello fails to acknowledge that instilling some fear in an illegal immigrant population may also curb illegal immigration. Certainly the L.A.P.D. should not want to be seen as too lenient on illegal aliens. Top cops around the country foster the reaching out and welcoming of the illegal immigrant community, such as in Hillsboro, Oregon, where Chief Ron Louie stated, "We're trying to build bridges with those living in fear." In San Antonio, Chief Albert Ortiz echoed, "We've tried so very hard to build bridges to all segments of the community. This would be a setback in that regard."

Sources in the mainstream media have mirrored such sympathy for the illegal immigrants. Newsday reported, "People in the country illegally would be forced underground…Fueled by a heightened sense of paranoia, some immigrants would pull their children out of school, avoid public hospitals…The predictable result would be a community-wide deterioration of public health and safety." Many newspapers, such as The New York Times, The San Francisco Chronicle and The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, share this view, fearing a lack of cooperation between the police and illegal immigrants in solving crimes. They make the assumption that all of the illegal immigrants serve as vigilant crime-stoppers, volunteering information to the police, when actually these potential informants are themselves criminals.

The New York Times stated that the racial profiling that would result from local enforcement of immigration laws would "undercut the progress police have made around the country to earn trust within immigrant communities…Police have learned that those worried about their immigration status will shun cops." The Times, as well as other media sources and public officials, demonstrate a fundamental flaw in reasoning. They believe that the police officers should not have to work hard to establish the trust of immigrants, particularly illegal ones. The reverse should be true. Why should illegal aliens be made to feel comfortable in America?

Those more concerned with national security, however, support the policy. Applauding Ashcroft's proposal, the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), stated the measure would "muster all available resources to create a seamless web of protection against future threats…The nation has witnessed the consequences of not utilizing the resources of local police in immigration law enforcement. [Ashcroft] is to be commended for taking steps to rectify that weakness in our homeland security effort."

Some law enforcement officials also supported the Department of Justice, including the Fraternal Order of Police. Executive Director Jim Pasco stated, "If these people are in violation of the law, then state, local and federal police have an obligation to move against violators of immigration law," although participation by any department is still voluntary under the legislation. Boston Police Lieutenant Margo Hill cited national security in her support and stated, "This would be a huge contribution to the anti-terrorism effort by local law enforcement"

Regardless, in the wake of the media uproar, which was surprising to Justice Department officials who felt "blind-sided" by the blitz, Ashcroft has decided to proceed much more cautiously and to review further the implications of his policy. In the meantime, potential terrorists among the illegal immigrant community feel free to lurk in local communities with no fear of local law enforcement and with the shelter of media criticism directed at the authorities trying to deport them and protect American citizens.

David Gardner is an intern at Accuracy in Media.

For questions or comments, please contact Intern@AIM.org.