Alan Forbes
| Guest Columnist
Douglas Rooks’ column argues that Donald Trump’s immigration enforcement “siege” has worsened the problem. The trouble is that this conclusion rests on selective history, disputed claims presented as settled fact, and a repeated conflation of policy disagreement with constitutional abuse. Readers deserve a clearer accounting.
Ted Cruz did not kill 2103 immigration deal
Rooks asserts that the 2013 immigration bill — often called the “Gang of Eight” proposal — was “blown up” by Ted Cruz using fear-mongering tactics. That version of events omits a central fact: the bill passed the Senate but never had majority support in the House, including among Republicans who believed its enforcement mechanisms were vague, delayed, or unenforceable.
Blaming Cruz alone absolves Democratic leadership, House Republicans, and even the Obama administration, which made little effort to negotiate a House-viable bill. Legislative failure is rarely the work of one senator, and portraying it that way simplifies a complex collapse into a partisan morality play.
Immigration is economically valuable — but not when unregulated
Rooks correctly notes that immigration has long supported U.S. economic growth. What he leaves out is that every successful immigration system in the developed world couples admission with enforcement. Economic need do not erase the distinction between legal entry, asylum, overstayed visas, and unlawful border crossings.
The claim that net legal immigration “plunged to less than a quarter of previous rates” by 2025 is also presented without context. That figure depends heavily on which visa categories are counted, whether pandemic backlogs are included, and whether temporary worker visas are separated from permanent residency. Declines in processing do not automatically equate to economic harm — especially when paired with historically high labor participation rates and wage growth at the lower end of the income scale.
‘Path to citizenship’ is not a neutral phrase
Rooks minimizes the political weight of a “path to citizenship,” arguing it merely allows people to apply “without fear.” In practice, such provisions have repeatedly functioned as de facto amnesty, granting legal permanence first and deferring enforcement promises indefinitely.
This is not theoretical. The 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act legalized roughly three million people while employer enforcement provisions were largely abandoned. Today’s skepticism is rooted in history, not hostility.
Claims of widespread constitutional violations are unproven
Perhaps the most serious charge in the column is that Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers are “ignoring the Fourth Amendment,” breaking into homes, and defying court orders.
These are extraordinary allegations, yet Rooks cites no court findings, no DOJ rulings, and no sustained judicial injunctions confirming systemic violations. Individual misconduct— if proven — should be prosecuted. But asserting a nationwide pattern without adjudicated evidence blurs the line between civil liberties advocacy and speculative accusation.
Federal courts remain open, active, and frequently hostile to executive overreach. If mass violations were occurring at the scale implied, injunctions would already exist.
The ‘worst of the worst’ argument is mischaracterized
Rooks dismisses the administration’s claim that enforcement targets criminals by pointing to detainees with “no criminal records” whose offense was missing an immigration hearing.
Failing to appear for a hearing is not a technicality. It is a violation of federal law and a leading predictor of future non-compliance. Immigration enforcement cannot function if court orders are treated as optional.
Moreover, prioritization does not mean exclusivity. Focusing on violent offenders does not obligate the government to ignore outstanding removal orders or absconders.
‘Invasion of cities’ is rhetorical, as is ‘police state’
Rooks condemns Trump’s language while deploying his own. Describing federal enforcement as an “invasion of American cities” and likening it to a police state ignores a basic reality: immigration enforcement is a federal responsibility, even when local officials object.
Disagreements between federal and local authorities are not new, nor are they evidence of authoritarianism. The Supremacy Clause did not vanish because a state or city adopted sanctuary policies.
Protest, tragedy, and accountability should not be weaponized
The death of Alex Pretti is tragic and demands investigation. But declaring that it proves a broader campaign of “misuse of force” before investigations conclude risks politicizing grief rather than honoring accountability.
Likewise, labeling all protesters as “domestic terrorists” would be wrong — but Rooks provides no evidence that this label is being broadly or formally applied outside specific incidents involving violence or infrastructure sabotage.
Rep. Jared Golden is not a villain for saying the obvious
Rooks reserves particular scorn for Jared Golden, criticizing him for supporting targeted enforcement against criminal offenders.
Yet Golden’s statement is cautious, conditional, and entirely mainstream: law enforcement actions focused on criminal activity serve the public interest. Disagreeing with that premise requires arguing that immigration law should be unenforced — a position Rooks never quite states outright.
Enforcement and reform are not mutually exclusive
The column ends with the line, “There ought to be a law,” implying that enforcement is futile without legislative reform. History suggests the opposite: reform is politically impossible without enforcement credibility.
Every successful immigration reform — from Canada to Australia — came after enforcement mechanisms were established, not before.
You can oppose Trump’s tone, tactics, or priorities without pretending the system collapsed solely because of Republicans, or that enforcing existing law is inherently illegitimate.
The immigration debate is hard precisely because it involves competing goods: economic vitality, national sovereignty, humanitarian concern, and rule of law. Reducing it to villains and victims may read well — but it doesn’t bring us any closer to solutions.
Alan Forbes is the chairman of the Portsmouth Republican Committee.