Clarifications and elaborations . . .
A number of readers contacted me last week to complain I was playing fast and loose with my characterization of Francis Hernandez’s criminal record. Hernandez is the illegal immigrant from Guatemala, raised in the U.S., who barreled through an intersection in Aurora and killed three people, including a little boy, in 2008.
I said he had committed “nothing but minor traffic violations” before that accident. In fact, most — but not all — his offenses were traffic or traffic-related violations. His offenses fell into two categories, according to our archives and the state Department of Public Safety website: traffic offenses and misdemeanors, which included assault, theft and criminal impersonation.
Details are important, and I’m happy to clarify, but it doesn’t change my larger point, which, by the way, was not that we should feel sorry for Hernandez. No, it was that as an illegal immigrant whose previous record consisted largely of misdemeanors, Hernandez might have been released under the Secure Communities program as he was released by various police agencies. The sheer number of his offenses might have resulted in eventual deportation, to be sure. But, until the day his carelessness claimed three lives, none of his violations met Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s stated priority of focusing on the most dangerous criminals.
Just so you know what those are, the highest priority goes to individuals “who have been convicted of major drug offenses, national security crimes, and violent crimes such as murder, manslaughter, rape, robbery and kidnapping.” Next are those who “have been convicted of minor drug and property offenses such as burglary, larceny, fraud and money laundering.” Finally, the lowest priority are those “who have been convicted of other offenses.”
The question, then, is, can ICE, using Secure Communities, risk releasing an illegal immigrant who has committed only lower-level violations? My guess: Not in this day and age. The backlash would be huge if that person then committed a serious crime. Which means people who have been living here illegally, but peaceably, for many years, will face greater risk of deportation under the program.
None of us wants bad guys here, I wrote last week. Some, not surprisingly, responded that anyone who lives here illegally is a bad guy. Equally unsurprising is that I beg to differ. If they are such good guys, various readers asked, why don’t they just become citizens? I’ve answered this question, oh, 500 times, but understanding this is crucial, so I’ll answer it again.
Because they can’t.
I found a brilliant explanation, a diagram, of the legal immigration process while hopping around on the state Department of Public Safety website at . From there, click on Nov. 6 meeting and then “immigration chart.” It lays it all out.
A fictional woman wants to come to the U.S. First question: Does she have family (legally) in the U.S.? If the answer is no, second question: “Is she skilled, that is, does she have a college degree, is she a genius, a star athlete, an investor with a million dollars?” No? That’s it, then. End of the road. You cannot legally immigrate to this country. We’re a long way away from the days of our grandparents and great-grandparents.
People tell me all the time they just want for people to come legally or become legal residents. We just had a chance to help the most sympathetic of all become legal residents: the young people brought here as children, the kids who have kept their noses clean, who have grown up here and graduated from high school. Had they gone to college or enlisted in the military, they would have been given an opportunity to earn legal residency and eventually citizenship. It’s called the DREAM Act. It was first introduced in Congress 10 years ago. It was killed again in the Senate last month.
Tina Griego writes Sundays, Tuesdays and Thursdays. Reach her at 303-954-2699 or tgriego@denverpost.com.
