Break the law, expect to be punished
Yakima Herald-Republic Editorial Board
More 'Opinion'
- Once again, Huey deserves overwhelming praise
- Fingerprint check will ID criminal illegal immigrants
- Districts do well fostering open, closed campus debate
- Some battles won in war on gangs
- Zais was right -- police chief has plenty to do here
- Firefighters avert disaster, homeowners can do their part
- CityFest marks just the beginning for Yakima
Top Read
- Red Cross' new Valley interim executive director now on the job
- Yakima's Christmas parade warms hearts on a frigid night
- Photo: Quilters for a cause
- Yakima County rates poorly on uninsured children
- County budget: $51.9M ... and cutting
- Zais was right -- police chief has plenty to do here
- Co-op preschools experience an early-learning dilemma
Top Emailed
- Woman dies after rollover on I-82
- FBI studies Gulf cleanup job offers on Yakima Reservation
- Puckett schedules return to Union Gap for Old Town Days
- Ruling limits wildlife officers
- Camp Fire goes out after nearly 100 years
- Zais asks deputy police chief to retire
- Developer confirms Kohl's is coming to Valley Mall
Top Commented
- Teacher found innocent in sex case
- East Valley teen describes sex with teacher
- 07/28/10 Letters to the Editor
- Late-night phone call at issue in teacher-sex case
- Mother of crash victims: 'I need my husband and son here'
- Candidate can't convince baristas to quit
- Teacher on trial says she was trying to help teens
While needed immigration reforms must be a top priority for a new president and Congress in January, let's not lose sight of the fact that we are still a nation of laws and those now on the books that deal with all aspects of illegal immigration must be enforced.
That's why the U.S. Supreme Court took the proper course of action Monday when it agreed to decide whether people picked up on immigration violations also can face charges of identity theft if they use Social Security and other identification numbers that belong to others.
Of course they should, and the high court can do a real service to make that abundantly clear. It's disturbing that lower courts have split in their interpretations of what seemingly should be a slam dunk.
The Associated Press reported that federal prosecutors have increasingly been bringing the more serious identity theft charges against undocumented immigrants, including many who were arrested in raids on meatpacking plants.
Defense lawyers have argued that their clients should not be charged with stealing someone else's identity because the immigrants only were seeking documentation that would allow them to work. They didn't know if the numbers were merely fictitious or actually belonged to someone else, their lawyers say.
Well, they certainly knew going in that they didn't belong to them. The fact remains that when workers in the country illegally opt for phony identification, they certainly know they're not applying for original numbers in their own names. If the numbers belong to someone else, that's identity theft. If they're fictitious, then we would call that identity fraud, which though not theft, still calls for punishment under the law.
The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, based in St. Louis, has upheld the conviction of Ignacio Carlos Flores-Figueroa, a Mexican national who worked at a steel plant in East Moline, Ill. Originally, he worked there under an assumed name, with false Social Security and alien registration numbers. In 2006, he told his employer he wanted to be known by his real name and submitted new identification documents.
This time, though, the Social Security number belonged to someone else, and his green card number was that of yet another person. Suspicious, the employer contacted immigration authorities, who arrested Flores-Figueroa.
Little wonder that the five-count indictment against him included two counts of aggravated identity theft. If criminal intent to assume someone else's identity isn't at play here, what is? And if that's the intent, it should be treated as a crime.
Federal appeals courts based in Atlanta and Richmond also have ruled in the government's favor in similar cases, while the appeals court in Washington, D.C., has sided with defendants.
Hence the Supreme Court's decision to settle the matter.
That, too, is an indictment of failure to enact meaningful immigration reforms. Until that happens, these types of incidents force continued handling of all the ramifications of illegal immigration by case law, rather than a long-overdue comprehensive approach to needed changes.
Congress, not the courts, needs to handle and clarify that challenge.
* Members of the Yakima Herald-Republic editorial board are Michael Shepard, Sarah Jenkins, Bill Lee and Karen Troianello.
What this newspaper and others need to do is get behind E-Verify and a comprehensive bill that is designed for the country and not to just consider the plight of illegals. E-Verify and a law aimed at getting help for specific jobs for agriculture and not aimed at possible voters or customers should be designed to keep terrorists and illegals out and to find them if they are in country. With a good law the border fence wouldn't be needed. I am grading your article G- for content E for grammer and mine F for spelling.
Report ViolationEditorial Board: This is no "slam dunk" at all. If you have not already, please take the time to read about the experiences of one professional court interpreter and college professor sent to interpret for those arrested in the Postville, Iowa raids. It was an eye-opening experience, to say the least. Perhaps it may open your eyes wide enough to allow you to re-read your editorial and realize that you, too, sympathize with the defendants.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/07/14/opinion/14ed-camayd.pdf
(If the link doesn't work, go to the nytimes.com website and search on "Erik Camayd" to find his essay.)
Posting Guidelines - Updated Aug. 21 2009
Readers are encouraged to use these forums to discuss issues affecting the
Yakima Valley. Debate the ideas presented in stories and other comments, but
refrain from personal attacks and offensive remarks aimed at others; e.g.,
you may call an idea idiotic, but don't say the person is an idiot. The
Herald-Republic reserves the right to remove any comment for any reason.
Examples include material that is obscene, encourages illegal activity or
stereotypes based on race, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs and
other factors. Continued violation of these guidelines can lead to
suspension or revocation of your ability to post comments. If you believe a
comment is inappropriate, you can bring it to our attention by clicking the
"report violation" link by each comment. Guidelines revised Aug. 21, 2009.
Registered User?

RSS
E-mail
Print
Comments