“But when you look at history, the ‘largest number’ is only about 1,700 more than two years ago,” Krikorian says. So most deportations ever, but not by a large enough margin.

If Obama really cared, see, he’d deport a zillion people:

Nor is the stagnation in the deportation numbers due to a temporary diversion of resources, as after 9/11: The Obama administration, as a matter of policy, refuses to even ask Congress for the resources needed to deport any more than 400,000 people. Now, 400,000 deportations (of illegal aliens, of course, but also of legal aliens who made themselves deportable because of crimes) is a lot, but it can easily be doubled; I remember one of the top people at INS in the Clinton years telling me that the 114,000 removed in 1997 was a really, really big number and sufficient proof of their seriousness about immigration enforcement.

Did you get that, at the end? Democrats can deport exponentially more people, but it simply won’t be enough, ever. Deport 500,000 people and they’ll simply ask why you didn’t deport 600,000.

Frontline last night reported on the depressing reality of our mass deportation program, in which law enforcement agencies are used to meet the federal government’s arbitrarily selected quota of immigrants to deport, in order to please people like the unpleasable Mark Krikorian. It’s depressing. The “point” is to establish seriousness about enforcement in order to grease the wheels for reform. That isn’t happening.

Obama’s strategy isn’t working on any front, for anyone. Lay voters skeptical of immigration reform aren’t paying attention to the deportation numbers and don’t believe the president is serious about “enforcement.” Those in favor of immigration reform are getting all “enforcement” and no reform (and no serious possibility of reform with a Republican House). Anti-immigration elite Republicans will never, ever credit the president for record deportations, because they hate the president and wish for mass deportation of everyone. And this system especially doesn’t work for the actual human beings who are rounded up, sent en masse to horrific detention centers, and then kicked out of their adopted home, regardless of whether they have lives or families here. All in the name of establishing support for reform that isn’t coming.

It’s a pointless exercise in brutal government “toughness” that hurts innocent people. And despite that, it’s not winning Republican support.

Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley, a Republican, last month signed controversial legislation that makes the state’s crackdown on undocumented immigrants one of the toughest in the country. As our own Justin Elliott wrote, “Like the Arizona law, Alabama’s measure requires local police to check the immigration status of people who they believe may be in the country illegally. But it goes much further, establishing new requirements for checking the immigration status of students and potential tenants.”

As the San Antonio Express News reported, Rep. Charlie Gonzalez, a federal representative from San Antonio, Texas, and chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus., spoke out against Brooks’ violent rhetoric: “Words have consequences,” Gonzalez said, and Brooks “chose irresponsible words that reflect a hateful, dehumanizing undercurrent in the discussion on immigration,” he said.

Watch Brooks make his controversial “shooting” comment, via YouTube: 

Note: An earlier version of this story mistakenly described Charle Gonzalez as an Alabama state representative.

Last December the bill failed in the Senate 55-41 (in what was its fifth roll out) and since the Republicans are now in the majority, the bill has no greater prospects this time round. However, its defenders are hoping an argument from economics might do the trick. Education Secretary Arne Duncan said in Tuesday testimony, “this is an investment not an expense.”

According to Politico, “Duncan said the law would rescue the federal deficit by $1.4 billion in the next decade by making it possible for more illegal immigrants to stay in the country and pay taxes.”

Similarly, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano argued Tuesday that the DREAM Act’s passing would allow immigration authorities to better focus their resources on criminals, not students.

However, the bill still faces staunch opponents who are unlikely to budge, relying instead on the argument that beneficiaries of the DREAM Act would take away American jobs. Politico reports that Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) released a statement saying that the DREAM Act would “prevent Americans from getting jobs since millions of illegal immigrants will become eligible to work legally in the United States” — that old chestnut.

That’s obviously, patently absurd: The White House is still deporting more people than any previous administration and this memo only calls for some discretion in deciding whom to deport, because the nation literally cannot deport them all. (“Also on Friday, Mr. Obama extended the deployment of some 1,200 National Guard troops who are backing up immigration agents along the Southwest border.” Why won’t the president protect us from the Mexicans?)

But the question of whether we should allow immigration agents more discretion in deciding whether to defer or cancel deportations is not really what everyone is mad about, on the right. They’re just mad at the thought that some immigrants might not get in trouble.

It’s an urgent need to punish the “illegals” that animates so much anti-immigration rhetoric. It’s probably related to the old conservative fear that, in Ta-Nehisi Coates’ memorable formulation, somewhere, somehow, a black person is getting away with something. But the higher-brow arguments (as opposed to Lou Dobbs’ rantings) aren’t even particularly informed by anti-Latino sentiment: It’s just people of privilege judging others for “not playing by the rules.” It’s a lot easier to play by the rules when you’re born a winner!

Yes, these people broke the law. Everyone breaks the law. More than 40 percent of Americans admit to having smoked weed. George W. Bush drove drunk and used cocaine. He was only arrested for one of those things — and never went to jail, let alone faced a loss of citizenship and a 10-year exile in another country.

Take the story of Jose Antonio Vargas, the journalist who “outed” himself as an illegal immigrant in the New York Times Magazine this week. Part of the story that was eye-opening to people unfamiliar with the life of an undocumented American was the lengths to which one has to go to do simple things like … travel. Or drive. Or switch jobs.

The argument for withholding sympathy — here’s the reasonable Daniel Foster using it at the Corner — basically boils down to the fact that an undocumented immigrant is forced to commit crimes in order to remain in the country, and it’s wrong to “reward” people with a history of criminal behavior with citizenship:

But the second part of his story, in which a fear- and shame-driven Vargas, with the aid of his family, perpetuated and compounded those crimes (Vargas eventually got around to what you might redundantly call fraudulent tax fraud, repeatedly reporting himself as a citizen rather than a “permanent resident”, when in fact he was neither), elicits from me nothing like the outpouring of support Vargas is already enjoying on the Left.

Right. And if he hadn’t done those things, Vargas would’ve been unemployed or deported to the Philippines. I’m guessing Foster’s never had to deal with anything remotely like that, but he surely can imagine what he would’ve done in Vargas’ place? (Sorry, I forgot, “empathy” just means “soft on crime.”)

As long as our immigration system remains so badly broken, just about anything an otherwise responsible undocumented American does to stay in this country seems justified to me. “Playing by the rules” is a literal impossibility for millions. The fact that an “illegal’s” mere presence in her own home is a violation of the law makes it an unjust law.

Still, he continued to assimilate, became a leader in his high school, and earned a scholarship to San Francisco State University. Later came newspaper internships, culminating with a post-grad offer from the Washington Post. Along the way, he cautiously built a network of sympathetic figures who knew his secret and helped him to maintain the facade of citizenship. He’s gone on to build a career for himself as a star journalist, though he says he always felt uncomfortable with the deception.

What finally compelled Vargas to come clean? He says two factors led to his decision: The first was the immense personal toll the secret took. The second was to openly advocate for passage of the decade-old DREAM Act, which would provide a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants brought to America at a young age, provided they complete their high school education.  Vargas quietly left his post as a senior contributing editor at the Huffington Post last year, and has since founded Define America, a nonprofit organization devoted to raising awareness about immigration reform.

Illegal immigration being the political lightning rod it is, Vargas’ admission was always destined to galvanize a wide range of reactions. Many have lauded the journalist for his courage, exposing himself to the possibility of deportation. (Says Noreen Malone at New York magazine: “The bar just got a whole lot higher for describing personal essays as ‘brave.’”)

On the other hand, Daniel Foster at the National Review is less forthcoming with adulation:

Liberals are coming out of the woodwork to call Vargas’ confession [...] courageous and pioneering. It is certainly the former, and may turn out to be the latter. But in their rush to praise Vargas[...] they conveniently leave out that at the beginning of his story is not one but a series of crimes.

The first part of Vargas’ story — a kid living and loving America for years before his shocking discovery that he has been made complicit in a crime — does indeed elicit sympathy. It’s stories like these that make me open, at least in principle, to something like a narrowly-tailored version of the “DREAM” Act. But the second part of his story, in which a fear- and shame-driven Vargas [...] perpetuated and compounded those crimes, [...] elicits from me nothing like the outpouring of support Vargas is already enjoying on the Left. 

(We’ll keep updating this story as responses from the political commentariat continue to trickle in.)

Vargas says he’s been working with attorneys to tackle the legal challenges he’s now almost certain to face. Whatever the outcome, though, he stands defiant against those who would disparage him for his actions. Sitting down with ABC News this morning, Vargas said: “You can call me whatever you want to call me, but I am an American. Nobody can take that away from me.”

UPDATE: More reactions to Vargas’ confession are pouring in. Many, but not all of them, positive.

Matt Yglesias at Think Progress called the Times piece a must-read, and said the warmth with which Vargas has been greeted by many should translate even to those undocumented immigrants who weren’t unwillingly spirited into the country:

But of course even though they don’t quite make for as good a sob story, even people who come over here illegally as adults knowing full well what they’re doing ought to be regarded with sympathy.

Meanwhile, Meredith Jessup at Glenn Beck’s website, The Blaze takes a far less favorable view of Jose, saying:

He may have a Pulitzer, but that doesn’t change the fact that the law has been ignored. Going on television to flaunt the fact he knowingly dodged the law, ostensibly lied to his employers, committed identity fraud, etc. did little to assuage my resentment having come from a family who came to America by knocking on the front door, not sneaking in the back.

Others, like Slate’s libertarian-leaning columnist Jack Shafer, wonder how much Vargas’ employers knew, when they knew, and what kinds of legal repercussions they might now face. Shafer tweeted:

Did Vargas put his employers at the Wash Post and the HuffPost on the hook for breaking the law?

And, in fact, one of Vargas’ former exmployers has been dragged back into the spotlight over the story. The Washington Post, it turns out, had originally been working with Vargas on the story for their weekend Outlook section, but ultimately decided against running it. While no one is entirely certain why they axed the essay — and the Post hasn’t really elaborated on the decision, it’s worth noting that the newspaper did play a fairly substantial role in the piece. Said to The Huffington Post’s Michael Calderone:

Vargas writes how assistant managing editor Peter Perl, then the director of newsroom training, knew about his undocumented status and kept that fact hidden during the journalist’s tenure. It’s unclear whether a Post manager’s role could have led to the paper not running the story (which undoubtedly would have found a home elsewhere and did).

Coratti said that “what Peter did was wrong,” but declined to discuss individual personnel matters.

The ramifications of the story for the Posts (both Washington and Huffington) remains unclear. But the Atlantic Wire’s John Hudson shed some light on what sort of action Vargs himself is likely to encounter, by way of an interview with immigration lawyer David Leopold:

I think he has taken a huge personal risk by coming forward. [...] For example, he admits that he checked ‘U.S. citizen’ on his I-9 forms. This is a serious civil violation for which there is no waiver under the immigration law as written. If it is construed as a false claim to U.S. citizenship, it could lead to criminal sanctions. The same would hold true for knowingly using a false social security card, drivers license etc. There could be a statute of limitations defense depending on when these occurred. But, nevertheless, it could lead to prosecution and or deportation proceedings.

Finally, in a blog post for the NYT Magazine’s 6th Floor Blog, Chris Suellentrop — who Vargas contacted about his story after the Post axed it– recounts the unorthodox circumstances that led to the publication of the piece:

Without having seen the story, I walked into the office of Joel Lovell, one of the magazine’s deputy editors, and closed the door. I told him that Jose Antonio Vargas is an illegal immigrant and that he has a 4,000-word article that tells his story. Should we think about tearing up the book, as we say in the business? [...] Joel thought we should.