Crime, Illegal Immigration, and Justice

America Needs a Statute of Limitations on Illegal Immigration

In the last two weeks, I’ve written two articles about Trump’s actions in California, one for my Substack and one for Correspondence Theory. While I did not condemn outright what he’s done, I did argue that he’s overstepped his authority. These actions are still being litigated, so I don’t plan on returning to them anytime soon. Instead, I want to discuss the underlying issue: illegal immigration.

My position on immigration, which I’ve written about here, here, and here, should be clear, or at least clear enough that no one should be able to accuse me of being an apologist for illegal immigration. In the spirit of the old political aphorism that “only Nixon can go to China,” only someone adamantly opposed to illegal immigration can make this statement: Trump has gone too far.

Yes, America’s borders should be secured. And yes, illegal immigration should be a crime. However, like any crime, the laws governing it must be enforced with justice in mind.

Why Make This Point Now?

I was reading the news the other day when I came across this headline:

ICE Detains Legal Migrant Who Has Been Working in US for 30 Years

It’s not the only article suggesting that, in the spirit of addressing a crime, we’ve lost sight of justice. Others include:

• Syracuse mother, four children detained by ICE

• “Arrest Now, Ask Questions Later”

• US immigration officers ordered to arrest more people even without warrants

• After decades in the US, Iranians arrested in Trump’s deportation drive

Yes, the press often focuses on stories about individuals to elicit public empathy for illegal immigrants. But is this a bad thing? Arguing that we should ignore such stories implies that we should not empathize with people. If the only way to enact a policy is to become heartless, how moral is that policy?

Justice, at its core, requires the application of principles of fairness, impartiality, and moral reasoning to ensure individuals receive what is due based on law, ethics, and societal norms. It is possible to hold two truths in mind at the same time: that illegal immigrants have broken the law and that the cold-hearted application of law is not justice.

So, Where Does That Leave US?

Let me be clear, I am not advocating for blanket amnesty for all illegal immigrants. I believe in the rule of law and in a nation’s right to enforce its borders and decide who may or may not enter. However, we already have legal tools that would moderate current practices and ensure that enforcement is aligned with justice: statutes of limitations.

Statutes of limitations set a time limit within which legal proceedings must be initiated after a crime occurs. Once this period expires, prosecution or lawsuits are generally barred, except in specific circumstances (e.g., new evidence like DNA in some jurisdictions). Examples include:

• Theft and Larceny - 3–7 years

• Fraud - 3–7 years

• Assault (Non-Sexual) - 1–5 years

• Drug Offenses (Non-Trafficking) - 3–5 years

• White-Collar Crimes (e.g., Embezzlement, Tax Evasion) - 5–7 years

Many immigration-related offenses already have statutes of limitations:

• Illegal Entry (8 U.S.C. § 1325) – 2 years (misdemeanor); 5 years for felony repeat offenses

• Illegal Reentry After Deportation (8 U.S.C. § 1326) – 5 years

• Harboring Illegal Aliens (8 U.S.C. § 1324) – 5 years

• Immigration Document Fraud (18 U.S.C. §§ 1423–1425) – 10 years (under § 3291)

• Alien Smuggling (8 U.S.C. § 1324) – 5 years

The caveat: the clock typically starts when the individual is found in the U.S., as the offense is considered ongoing until discovery. To resolve the current situation justly, the clock should start from the date of entry, not the date of discovery.

Anticipated Objection

The argument against this is the same used against amnesty: such a policy would encourage others to illegally enter the United States. Where you stand on this argument likely depends on whether you think statutes of limitations promote theft, assault, and drug offences, and whether you think it’s just to deport someone whose spent 30 years in the country working and paying taxes.

Setting a reasonable statute of limitations for immigration offenses would not mean opening the borders or ending deportations any more than statutes of limitations mean the police shouldn’t enforce assault or drug offenses. It would simply ensure that we consider justice as well as the law when determining who to pursue.

Justice is blind, but it need not be cruel.

If you enjoyed this article, please consider sharing your thoughts in the comments, subscribing, or even buying me a coffee if you’re feeling generous and felt that this was a particularly enjoyable article. Your attention, participation, and support really make a difference to me. Also, a ‘like’ really helps the Substack algorithm find us.

Wrong Speak is a free-expression platform that allows varying viewpoints. All views expressed in this article are the author's own.