Chicago’s Morning Answer hosts Jeanne Ives and Jim Iuorio, filling in for Dan Proft, opened the show discussing a Department of Homeland Security press release detailing a request from ICE that Illinois officials not release from custody a Venezuelan national accused of abducting and sexually assaulting a nine-year-old girl in Pingree Grove, in Kane County. According to the release, the suspect, identified as Veloquez Muro, forced the child into a vehicle while she was riding her bike before fleeing the scene, and was later arrested after forensic evidence connected him to the crime. He now faces charges including aggravated kidnapping of a child, predatory criminal sexual assault, and aggravated criminal sexual abuse. Ives expressed frustration that state officials would need to formally request that Illinois not release the suspect given the nature of the charges.
The hosts welcomed Andrew Arthur, resident fellow in law and policy at the Center for Immigration Studies, who helped draft several major federal immigration laws including the Homeland Security Act, the Real ID Act, and the Secure Fence Act. Arthur argued that immigration enforcement varies dramatically by state, contrasting Florida’s approach of deputizing local law enforcement officers as immigration agents under the federal 287(g) program with sanctuary policies in states like Illinois, New York, and California. He argued that many sanctuary policies stem less from a coherent immigration philosophy than from opposition to the Trump administration combined with a belief among some officials that deporting immigrants convicted of crimes constitutes an unfair double punishment compared to native-born offenders.
Arthur discussed the origins of expanded border crossings during the previous administration, citing internal government documents disclosed during litigation with the state of Texas that he said explicitly linked border policy decisions to a stated commitment to diversity and equity considerations, rather than any specific electoral strategy. He credited current Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Rodney Scott, who also served as Border Patrol chief early in the Biden administration before his removal, with implementing operational changes based on frontline agent recommendations that Arthur said contributed significantly to a sharp decline in illegal border crossings, alongside diplomatic pressure applied to Mexico through tariff threats.
The conversation also addressed so-called birth tourism, with Arthur explaining that current State Department and CBP regulations limit officers’ ability to question travelers about pregnancy-related travel intentions absent specific cause. He said anecdotal reporting, including prior coverage in the Wall Street Journal describing wealthy individuals abroad arranging for surrogate births in the United States without ever entering the country themselves, suggests the practice may be more widespread than publicly understood, and said the administration could address the issue administratively without new legislation.
Arthur also discussed the structure of legal immigration, noting that roughly two-thirds of green cards issued in the United States go to family members of citizens or existing green card holders, while only a small share are allocated based specifically on applicants’ skills. He referenced past comments from civil rights leader Barbara Jordan, who chaired a commission on immigration reform during the Clinton administration, arguing that immigration policy should generally prioritize skills absent compelling humanitarian circumstances, and noted that a proposed 2018 agreement involving legal status for so-called Dreamers included provisions intended to shift the system further toward skills-based criteria.
Iuorio raised a personal case involving family members who have faced difficulty obtaining a renewed green card due to COVID-19 vaccination requirements despite decades of residency and military service, and Arthur, drawing on more than three decades of experience as an immigration attorney, acknowledged the frustration such cases generate and recommended contacting congressional caseworkers as the most practical path forward, while noting the broader tension between due process protections for individuals in removal proceedings and the challenges facing spouses of American citizens seeking legal status through ordinary channels.