Going to extremes to argue against immigration

It’s no surprise that the case of Tomas Martinez-Maldonado is being used to argue for more restrictive immigration policies.

Before being arrested in September on a rape charge in Geary County, Kansas, the Mexican criminal had been deported 19 times by U.S. authorities since 2003, according to the Associated Press.

The AP reported that the man agreed to return to Mexico — voluntary departure, it’s called – eight times between 2003 and 2009. It wasn’t until 2010 that federal authorities officially deported Martinez-Maldonado.

Using cases such as Martinez-Maldonado’s has become predictable in politics. To make a point, politicians pick extreme instances and imply that they exemplify a common problem. It’s just the opposite, really: The cases draw attention because they are so rare.

Still, something should be done about immigrant criminals who repeatedly violate U.S. law.

But we should ensure actions are, first, effective in dealing with the issue, and, second, that the consequences aren’t worse than the problem we are trying to solve.

That’s especially true with the issue of immigration. During the campaign, many politicians used extreme examples to fuel Americans’ fears.

For example, Kansas Republicans sent fliers warning of an invasion of ISIS terrorists .

“Have you met the new neighbors?” the fliers asked, implying that if Kansans voted for Democrats, foreign terrorists would move next door.

Asked about the fear-mongering, the executive director of the state party, Clay Barker, told the Wichita Eagle:

“We did polling and focus groups, and the one issue that got overwhelming positive response and was associated with Republicans was safety.”

That’s not surprising given the rhetoric from GOP candidates. Here’s what president-elect Donald Trump said in 2015 about Mexican immigrants:

“When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. … They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people. … They’re sending us not the right people.”

A few months later, Trump’s campaign made this announcement regarding Muslims:

“(New York, NY) December 7th, 2015, — Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on.”

Trump later backtracked from his total ban on Muslims, and it’s not clear what Trump’s current plans are. He continues to use tough rhetoric, vowing to end illegal immigration and deport all criminal aliens.

He doesn’t say how. Or at what cost to Americans – in terms of tax dollars or rights. Given that Trump’s claims of immigrant threats are not supported by objective data, any considered action should weigh the possible benefits against the costs.

The get-tough initiatives being discussed – a huge wall, “extreme vetting” and tracking of specified groups — would mean great expense and fewer freedoms for all of us. To be effective, such initiatives would require more tracking of citizens – as well as non-citizens – and added restrictions for traveling abroad. The actions also would greatly reduce the billions of dollars foreign tourists and students contribute to our economy every month.

The U.S. has a long history of accepting foreign visitors and immigrants, and it has benefited immeasurably from their work and their brains.

The welcome has not always been unanimous. There are periods in U.S. history when anti-immigrant fervor was as obvious as it is today.

Those who claim today is different because of the threat of terrorists need look back only a century, when terrorism by anarchists in the early 20^th century involved immigrants.

With a little research, any of us could come up with a list of immigrants who turned out to be criminals. No demographic or sector of humans is without some crooks or killers.

With even less research, we could come up with a long list of immigrants who have been great Americans.

They include Nobel Prize winners, military heroes, business titans, sports greats, artistic geniuses, tech giants and medical visionaries – as well as hard-working people who toil like the rest of us to provide for their families.

How many of the latter are we willing to ban in an effort to block that tiny fraction of criminals? And how many of our own principles are we willing to sacrifice in the cause?