August 26, 2026

Wondering on Wednesday 8/26/26


I've wondered, more than a few times, what it would be like if we treated American citizens the same as we treat undocumented immigrants (see note below). What if the luck of our birth, the fate that made us a citizen, did not protect us from the treatment we give others who aren't so lucky?

In the old days - back when we tended to see the best in others, rather than the worst - we didn't think or worry about it. I never wondered or cared whether the person cleaning the hotel I stayed at was a citizen; I just saw a hard-working person doing a job I wouldn't want. 

When out and about on a drive through the agriculturally rich areas of Central and Upstate New York, I'd see farm workers, and sometimes their living quarters, and maybe wondered if they could be working here illegally, but it didn't bother me; they're doing insanely hard work that I'm grateful for, and glad I don't have to do. 

The vast majority of people I know, and probably the vast majority of people they know, are equally grateful for the efforts of immigrant farm workers, hotel workers, and others, and wouldn't voluntarily take those jobs if they had the chance to.

But now?  After years of having it beaten into our heads that "those people" have invaded our country not just for those backbreaking, low-paying jobs we love having someone else do, but supposedly for snapping up all the houses we can't afford to buy and the benefits we're fortunate enough not to need (and, especially lately, hate providing to the least of our citizens), and even to eat the dogs and cats of Springfield, how do we feel? 

Well, like ICE agents and most members of the current administration, we're encouraged not only to wonder whether but to assume that folks doing the jobs we don't want, speaking a different language, having darker skin, wearing different clothing, and worshipping differently than we do are quite possibly, or even probably, not citizens. And we're encouraged to report them, even without any evidence.

In the government's efforts to rid our country of the "worst of the worst" of the so-called invaders, we've rounded up all kinds of people, including:

  • people with tattoos, whether on their faces, arms, hands, or other body parts, including those we've granted asylum because they could be killed in their home countries;
  • business owners, particularly those owners of ethnic restaurants;
  • people who, years ago, were charged with misdemeanor traffic offenses, including DUI, served their sentences, and have been out of trouble ever since;
  • people who, years ago, bounced a check to purchase groceries, were caught and charged with misdemeanors, paid their fine, repaid the shop owner, and have had a completely clean record for all the years since;
  • military spouses, the wives and husbands of servicemembers who were promised  that their family members would be safe from immigration action as part of their recruitment; 
  • former members of the military who served honorably even though they weren't citizens, who have a clean record since their discharge; and
  • people who are reporting as required to immigration appointments.
Are we really better off with those folks in detention, or deported? 

And if we're better off without them here, it's hard not to wonder how much better off we'd be if we got rid of all the birth-lucky bad actors, right? 

Think of how much better America would be:
  • Without folks trying to make their dreams come true by operating a little pizza-and-wings joint, or a corner bar, maybe a car detailing place? They're paying their taxes, they're giving jobs to kids who need them, they're providing services that we like and want, but they're gone.
  • Without people who choose to decorate their bodies with art we don't like because it's scary, or unattractive, or weird. Gone.
  • Without petty offenders - panhandlers, the loosie-sellers, the windshield cleaners, folks who don't license or clean up after their dogs, litterers, speeders, and especially folks driving rolling boomboxes or otherwise violating noise ordinances. Oh - and every single illegal fireworks user, too. Off they go.
  • Without first offenders with a conviction for  DWI, a sex offense, a domestic violence charge, a gun law violation, or any kind of fraud? Gone, under cover of darkness, or maybe perp-walked out of their jobs.
  • Without people who have served their time and are on parole. When they show up for their check-ins, schedule their trip to a detention center several states away. And those small business owners? Grabbing them as they walk or drive their children to school sends a strong message, for sure.
  • Without the worst of the worst in our prisons - the drug dealers, the murderers, the gang members, the sex traffickers - they clearly belong in a bug- and disease-infected prison somewhere, not here in America with free meals, free education, free medical care, free gym memberships, and more. They're the easiest to round up; after all, we know where they are, as opposed to all the hardened criminals ICE *knows* are here but can't locate.
  • Without me. That's right: 50 years ago, I accidentally bounced a check ($5, my weekly college allowance). Before that, in seventh grade, I succumbed to peer pressure ("go ahead, Goody-Two-Shoes, your daddy's not watching, just grab it, no one will know"!) on a school trip organized and chaperoned by my Dad, and stole a trinket from a gift shop. (Someone did know, of course, and yes, my punishment at the time seemed much worse than deportation).
Are you already prouder to be an American just reading this, I wonder

Are you wondering how hard it would be to make this happen, or how fast we could do it?  And if you're a person of faith, or one who otherwise believes in second chances and redemption, do you wonder where to draw the line? Or, maybe you're wondering what on earth kind of America we'd be if we did this? 

Maybe you're just wondering if I've lost my mind... but here's one more thing to think about. The  administration is now turning its attention to deporting perhaps as many as 200,000 people who came to the US on tourist visas but have since sought asylum here, which elevated my sense of wonder to new heights:
Can you even imagine how wonderful America could be if we could deport every politician who lied to us, the first time they did it?
Drop a comment, and let me know what's on your wondering mind, whether it's about this post or anything else. 

Note: By 'undocumented,' I mean folks who truly are without any immigrant documentation - no TPS, not visa, no asylum application, and no tax ID number -  as well as those who are visa overstayers, people gainfully employed by American companies who have taxes withheld from their paychecks, people who have scheduled immigration hearings, people who own businesses and are paying their taxes, and so on.

9 comments:

  1. Playing with words here: being undocumented is a civil violation, not a criminal offense. This is confirmed across multiple authoritative sources. Someone who overstays a visa or is present without status is removable, not criminally chargeable.
    The consequence is civil removal proceedings, not jail time.
    This means:
    Merely lacking TPS, a visa, an asylum application, or a tax ID does not violate a criminal statute but removal IS the legally specified consequence.

    ReplyDelete
  2. 1. What the law actually requires for removal
    Federal immigration law makes a clear distinction:
    Criminal law
    Deals with crimes (DUI, assault, theft, etc.)
    Requires prosecution, conviction, due process.
    Immigration law
    Deals with status, not criminality.
    Violating immigration status is a civil offense, not a crime.
    Civil removability does not require any criminal conviction.
    This is why ICE can legally & justifiably remove people who have no criminal record at all.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Violating immigration status is a civil offense, and the due‑process rights in civil immigration proceedings are not the same as those in criminal prosecutions. This is not a matter of opinion; it is explicitly established in federal law and repeatedly affirmed by the Supreme Court.

    ReplyDelete
  4. What percent of the total "all kinds of people:" dataset did each claim above represent? Were the Tattooed ones just simply tattooed or had they been convicted of a crime AND happened to have tattoo as well. Was it an MS13 Tattoo or a Tren de Aragua tatto?
    One can be any of these "all kinds of people, including:" and still have no civil status and justifiably be removed, by law.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I know it hurts to be this logical, but that's why law is codified. Law is black and white and cares not for empathy, regardless of how well intentioned it is. That's why Lady Justice is blindfolded. The scales weigh the evidence and her sword delivers justice.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Here's a quick test to apply for all examples given above:
    Put together, the decision tree looks like this:
    Did the person enter lawfully?

    Yes → Go to 2

    No → Deportable (unless protected)

    Do they currently have lawful status?

    Yes → Go to 3

    No → Deportable

    Did they violate status terms?

    Yes → Deportable

    No → Go to 4

    Do they have deportable criminal convictions?

    Yes → Deportable

    No → Go to 5

    Do any fast‑track removal mechanisms apply?

    Yes → Deportable

    No → Not deportable

    ReplyDelete
  7. The premise "And if we're better off without them here, it's hard not to wonder how much better off we'd be if we got rid of all the birth-lucky bad actors" is terribly flawed IMHO.
    undocumented aren't bad actors for doing any of those things; and neither are US Citizens. undocumented are bad actors based on civil status and prosecuted criminality. What they do in their illegal life here (whether picking fruit, reselling stolen home depot tools on the black market, dealing drugs, etc) is irrelevant. See flow chart above. That's all that is relevant.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Your ability to completely miss the point of the post is admirable,I have to say. This is NOT about who is deportable, or whether you like my definition of undocumented. And your comment about how painful it is to be logical was pretty funny, too!

    Many people know someone who’s been given the benefit of the doubt in a case, whether it’s a teenager ‘just being a kid’ or someone speeding who promises not to do it again, or someone who was turned over to their parents instead of being taken to jail – it happens all the time, in small towns and big cities and everywhere in between. I know more than one, myself.

    And let’s not forget the passes given to law enforcement folks, politicians, high-profile community members, pastors and clergy… the examples are endless. And there are, of course, differences in how all of those things are handled when the defendant is not white, not well known, not well represented, and not wealthy.

    The scales? The ones that often carry the heavy thumbs of DAs who decide what charges to present, who gets offered a deal, how good the deal is, and at what cost to the defendant.

    And her sword? Swung by judges who have incredible leeway to apply sentences, levy fines, and who don’t seem to face a whole lot of scrutiny much of the time on how balanced or biased their decisions are.

    Q: What’s the most black-and-white thing about the law? A: The color of the responding police vehicles.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I'm not going to respond to all of your comments, but I do have a couple of questions for you:

    In your opinion, is it right that military spouses/family members are being deported after our government promised that would not happen?

    Should someone we welcomed into the military, knowing they were undocumented but happy to serve their new country, be eligible for deportation after they're honorably discharged, and they haven't committed any crimes?

    And, if I weren't birth-lucky, should I be deported for my bad check from 50 years ago?

    ReplyDelete

Thanks for sharing your thoughts!