When Journalists Stray

Or: Next Time, David Leonhardt, Check With Experts Before Writing About Immigration

Immigration law and policy are very complex, and truly boring for everyone except those who have to deal with them. But we live in an instant gratification, fast food culture. Immigration is a Hot Topic, folks want a Solution Now, so journalists naturally write about it…some better than others.

David Leonhardt, a senior writer at the New York Times, is a smart fellow who has won awards. But his “wheelhouse,” as the kids say, is mostly business and economics. I wish he (and/or his editors…where were they?) had consulted a panel of experts before hitting “send” on this piece.

Now, I’m not an expert, but I did practice immigration law for almost 40 years, and today my social media feeds and email listservs are burning up with negative reactions to Leonhardt’s piece from true immigration experts.

Responding to every one of the problems in the piece would make this post too long, and would put you to sleep rather quickly, so I’ll touch on just a few highlights that really chapped my professional hide.

First, Leonhardt said, “Biden … changed the definition of asylum to include fear of gang violence.” That is simply false. The definition of who qualifies for asylum is based on the “refugee” definition, is fixed by statute, and only Congress can change that. Congress did NOT make any such change, and neither Biden nor any president could. Fear of gang violence as a basis for an asylum claim is a continuing subject of litigation at the Board of Immigration Appeals and in the federal courts, but the statute remains unchanged.

Second, Leonhardt states that Biden could have issued executive orders to mitigate the situation at the border. Oh, but “Yes, federal judges might block some of these policies… .” Maybe because they are illegal orders? No matter, “sending a message” is more important than legality.

Third, on the matter of admission into the U.S. via “parole,” Leonhardt implies that Biden expanded the use of parole beyond its “case-by-case” legal limits. Maybe Leonhardt did not know that “parole was … used to resettle over 360,000 Indochinese refugees between 1975 and mid-1980” and that “[b]etween 1962 and the end of May 1979, over 690,000 Cuban nationals were paroled into the country, “the largest number of refugees from a single nationality ever accepted into the United States.” " - Amicus brief submitted to the Supreme Court in Clark v. Martinez.

Finally, the overall thrust of Leonhardt’s piece seems to be that the border is a “problem” that can and should be “solved” by some combination of legal and physical deterrents. This is a misperception common to educated elites as well as regular folks, and it is based on an ignorance of the full panoply of historical, economic, geographic and political forces that combine to make true border “control” a fantasy. Go to the border, look at the miles of desert, mountain and river and you will conclude that border walls are nothing more than a contractor’s financial wet dream. Talk to a woman from Central America who has risked everything to come here and you will conclude that no laws, no walls, no “message” would have deterred her.

I usually ignore much of what the MSM publishes about immigration, but the Times and Leonhardt carry a certain weight, so here I am, typing away. You’re welcome.

[The Comments are open, so fire away!]