Deportation awaits an Algerian-born father of four – a legal resident alien since 1982 – for minor infractions because of immigration laws enacted during the Clinton administration. The Dallas/Fort Worth Star-Telegram reports that Nacer Eden Fetamia, 43, was convicted in 1994 for false statements on a bank loan application and pleaded guilty for omitting a 1986 DWI conviction on his pilot’s license renewal application in 2002. These offenses made him subject to revised immigration law wherein two so-called “moral turpitude” convictions mandate automatic deportation.  

The Star-Telegram reports that Fatemia had already served three years probation for the falsified bank loan statements and 90 days in a Pecos federal prison for the DWI omission. The day before he was to be released last June, immigration officials sent the warden a fax ordering Fatemia to be held as a possible flight risk. He has been in custody ever since, while his fight against deportation proceeds. Fatemia’s “chances aren’t good,” according to his attorney Joshua Turrin. 

A forced return to his native Algeria would compel the Catholic Fatemia to choose between abandoning his American-born wife and sons in Addison Texas or bringing them along. Human Rights Watch reports that the majority Muslim North African country remains “the most violent country” in the region even after reforms instituted by President Abd al-Aziz Bouteflika’s Civil Harmony initiative started in 1999. HRW further reports that “clashes between government forces and armed groups” continue as well as “indiscriminate attacks” on civilians that are costing about “200 lives per month.” 

Prior to the 1996 immigration law revisions, judges had the discretion to consider mitigating factors such as community ties and whether the person posed a real security threat. Judges “abused” that discretion according to Federation for American Immigration Reform executive director Dan Stein. The Star-Telegram quotes Stein alleging that some judges created a “massive loophole” via their activism. Amongst the cited evidence was a 37 percent recidivism rate for criminal aliens released under the previous judicial discretion. 

Stories like this are being offered to rally support for a restoration of judicial discretion – without even criticizing the activism that served to arrest it in the first place. The proper role for judges in a free society is to interpret the law in specific cases based upon legislative intent. Some elites, however, would rather the judiciary be an instrument of ‘wise’ restraint/guidance that robed – and unelected – Philosopher Kings would use to overcome any ‘unwise’ popular mandate. That is why this cadre prefers controversial issues to be settled in the courts rather than debated openly on the floors of elected legislative bodies. 

It would indeed be best if the judges could be trusted to exercise discretion in interpreting the law. Then there would not be situations wherein a flawed, but un-dangerous man like Nacer Fatemia would be faced with deportation to a country that has such a violent and oppressive history – even by Middle Eastern standards. Also, an innocent wife and children would not face losing a husband, father and provider over such minor infractions. Further, we as a society would not be faced with the choice of punishing the Fatemias of the world with such disproportionate harshness or resuming a status quo in which so many criminals were needlessly allowed to go free. 

-- So much for the professed Compassion of the Enlightened. 

The fact that mandatory sentencing guidelines, ‘three-strikes-you’re-out’ laws and automatic deportation mechanisms should be considered necessary is an absurd testament to a body of jurists who are deeply corrupted by elitist arrogance. Any real solution must therefore involve deterring future judicial activism.