OPINION:
Mainstream media outlets are scraping the bottom of the barrel in their attempts to portray the Trump administration’s enforcement of the Immigration and Nationality Act as racist and immoral. The corporate newspapers and the “Big News” online outlets are awash in sob stories about migrants who are now facing deportation because they broke American laws.
Every one of these articles suffers from two common flaws: They deliberately omit key facts and intentionally misrepresent the state of U.S. immigration law to create the impression that foreign lawbreakers are hapless victims of an unjust system.
One particularly egregious example is a piece recently published by The New York Times. Titled “‘Where’s Alex? A Beloved Caregiver Is Swept Up in Trump’s Green Card Crackdown,” the article tells the story of Luke, a severely autistic man from Falls Church, Virginia, and his caregiver Alfredo Orellana, a green card holder. Mr. Orellana has been arrested by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and placed in deportation proceedings on the basis of a criminal conviction.
According to The Times, this is totally unjust because Mr. Orellana isn’t really a criminal, just a guy who made a small mistake while he was on drugs. Although the law says that “green card holders convicted of certain crimes can be deported,” The Times consulted unidentified legal experts who claim the “government has usually opted not to target those people unless they have committed particularly serious crimes.” Moreover, The Times claims the enforcement actions taking place are because “under Mr. Trump, the Department of Homeland Security has taken a sprawling view of who should be targeted for deportation.”
That narrative has a significant problem: It is utter, complete and total rubbish. Many criminal aliens were, in fact, given a pass by the Obama and Biden administrations. That wasn’t a policy decision; it was a willful, deliberate and patently unlawful refusal to comply with the Immigration and Nationality Act.
The Trump administration isn’t, in any way, obligated to continue the lawless policies of his predecessors. The mere fact that Messrs. Obama, Biden, et al. didn’t deport certain aliens during their terms in office doesn’t protect them from removal now. Alien criminals, even those with decades-old convictions, are still subject to the terms of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
It is difficult to comment on the specifics of Mr. Orellana’s case because The Gray Lady violated basic journalistic standards and left out all the pertinent facts. Things such as the date and place of the crime, the charges levied, whether the case was resolved pursuant to a plea bargain, jury trial or bench trial, etc., are notably absent from the narrative.
According to The Times, Mr. Orellana was convicted of “obtaining $200 by ‘false pretenses’” when “he was struggling with substance abuse.” That doesn’t give anyone interested in the truth, rather than emotional invective, much to work with. However, truth seekers can make some educated guesses. If the allegedly hapless Mr. Orellana committed his criminal offense in Virginia, where he appears to now reside, he was likely convicted of “obtaining money or signature, etc. by false pretenses,” pursuant to Virginia Code Section 18.2-178 (known in many jurisdictions as “larceny by false pretenses” or “larceny by trick”). If the value of the property obtained through deception was less than $200, that crime is a misdemeanor. If the value exceeds $200, it becomes a felony punishable by up to 20 years in prison.
As The Times’ sob story acknowledges, “under immigration law, that constitutes a crime involving ‘moral turpitude’ that can place a green card holder at risk of deportation.” What exactly is a crime of moral turpitude? According to the Board of Immigration Appeals, it is “a criminal offense that is “inherently base, vile, or depraved, and contrary to the accepted rules of morality and the duties owed between persons or to society in general,” often involving dishonesty, fraud or deliberate violence. In other words, not the type of behavior usually engaged in by “nice guys” having a bad day.
That, of course, raises an issue entirely neglected by the narrative portraying Mr. Orellana as a heroic figure who is just looking out for “senior and disabled Americans.” Virginia law bars people with certain types of criminal convictions from accepting employment as caregivers, and many positions require a criminal background check.
So, how did Mr. Orellana, with a history of drug abuse and moral turpitude offenses, get such a position? It is entirely possible that he reported his convictions and passed a background check. However, based on his history, a reasonable person would not be out of line wondering whether he had deceived Virginia licensing authorities.
Finally, there is no indication that Mr. Orellana was unceremoniously plucked off the street and ejected from the United States. He will get a hearing before an immigration judge, and if the claims that he is a reformed man are true and he qualifies for relief from removal, he may very well be allowed to keep his green card and remain in the U.S.
However, by withholding key details that would allow its readers to understand the situation and make an informed decision based on the facts, The New York Times is engaging in exactly the same type of deceptive behavior that got Mr. Orellana in hot water.
Debating important issues of law and policy is a 100% legitimate endeavor in a republican democracy like ours. However, when it comes to immigration, the American media have bent over backward to deceive the public and portray President Trump as a bigot and a tyrant when the reality is that the Trump administration has dutifully, fairly and faithfully applied the Immigration and Nationality Act more so than any other administration since President Eisenhower.
• Matt O’Brien is the director of investigations at the Immigration Reform Law Institute and the co-host of its podcast “No Border, No Country.” Immediately before working for IRLI, he served as an immigration judge. He has nearly 30 years of experience in immigration law and policy, having held numerous positions within the Department of Homeland Security.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.