The Post writes about the use of immigration violations to get at people suspected of terrorism links when other routes are unavailable or are too difficult, but such a story is almost by definition going to be skewed. It's almost impossible to find government representatives who will discuss either specific cases or approaches freely, while it's easy to find sympathetic, hardworking immigrants who claim they've been unfairly caught up in a dragnet. (Well, that and the fact that I've yet to see an article in the Post or the Times in which the immigrants weren't worthy, hardworking, model citizens.)

That leaves the reader balancing very specific humanizing stories versus fairly vague claims like this:

Authorities say they sometimes turn to immigration charges rather than terrorism charges because a case might be based on classified information that they cannot reveal in court without damaging other investigations. Sometimes they face other legal barriers.

The claim that the Muslim and Arab community are being treated differently when it comes to immigration violations is probably not technically true -- it isn't the entire community in a blanket sense that's at risk here -- but it's clearly true that it's members of that community who are subject to this, when, say, all those illegal Irish immigrants needn't worry.

On the other hand, I don't know how persuasive an argument that is at the end of the day. Everyone agrees there are millions of illegals living inside the United States. Unless you just believe in de facto amnesty, just shrugging and giving up, then the immigration laws need to be enforced. Well, there clearly aren't enough resources to start investigating all those cases simultaneously. You need some criteria to guide the order in which you go.

What do you suggest? Chronology? alphabetical by name? alphabetical by ethnic or religious group or country of origin? or something that holds out the merit of having a bit more potential for practical value?

Because when it comes to practical value, this struck me as missing the forest for the trees:

Authorities are often reluctant to disclose why an immigrant's name emerged in a national security investigation, because the information is classified or is part of a continuing probe. Homeland Security officials turned down a request by The Washington Post for the names of all those charged in the past two years, making it difficult to assess how effective their strategy has been at thwarting terrorism.

Yeah, not so difficult really, and here's a little tip on that: we haven't been attacked at home since 9/11. Remember right after the attacks most people thought more attacks were virtually inevitable. So whatever they're doing seems to be working pretty well, yes?

Comments

[Media Hound]

You may find this off-topic NY Times disgrace of interest:

http://scyllacharybdis.blogspot.com/2005/06/ny-times-buries-years-top-story-too.html

[Kelly K]

If you dislike the way the government handles illegal immigrants, you may enjoy this http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/09/AR2005060902035.html>story from the Washington Post which discusses a new strategy being used by a New Hampshire police chief.

With the help of a local prosecutor, the sheriff has decided to use the state's trespassing ordinance ("A person is guilty of criminal trespass if, knowing he is not licensed or privileged to do so, he enters or remains in any place") to detain and convict illegal immigrants.

The ACLU, along with the Mexian consulate, has hired an attorney to defend at least one arrested foreigner out of fear other jurisdictions would apply the law in the same way.