Economist Thomas Sowell once noted, “Immigration laws are the only laws that are discussed in terms of how to help people who break them.” The story of U.S. Army Staff Sergeant Matthew Blank and his illegal alien wife, Annie Ramos, is a perfect example of Sowell’s assertion.

According to CBS News, Ramos — who is now 22 — was illegally brought to the United States by her family in 2005. Staff Sergeant Blank married Ramos, knowing full well that she was an illegal alien. He stated to the New York Times, “I knew she didn’t have status. [But] we were doing everything the right way.” Ramos was eventually arrested by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, a few days after the couple was married, at the military base where Blank was stationed.

If litigants are free to ignore court appearances without consequences, the whole system falls apart.

Of course, despite Blank’s assertions to the contrary, nothing was done “the right way” in this case. After entering the United States unlawfully, the Ramos family was scheduled for an appearance before the U.S. Immigration Court. They failed to appear. When a respondent in immigration proceedings defaults, the immigration judge is required pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5) to enter an in absentia order of removal. This is clearly conveyed to all illegal aliens placed in immigration proceedings, both verbally by the immigration officers handling their cases and in all written notices issued by the court.

In absentia removal notices may seem harsh to the casual observer, but they are not. Courts engage in serious business. And running legal tribunals costs taxpayers a significant amount of money. If litigants are free to ignore court appearances without consequences, the whole system falls apart. Accordingly, courts expect litigants to appear for scheduled hearings, on time, every time. That is why every court in the United States imposes penalties, ranging from monetary fines to additional criminal charges and extended sentences, when litigants fail to appear.

Moreover, the above-mentioned statute governing in absentia removal orders provides an “out” for individuals who missed their hearings due to exigent circumstances. It specifically states that such an order may be rescinded “upon a motion to reopen filed within 180 days after the date of the order of removal if the alien demonstrates that the failure to appear was because of exceptional circumstances” or “upon a motion to reopen filed at any time if the alien demonstrates that the alien did not receive notice” of the hearing.

There is no indication that Ms. Ramos or her family ever made any attempt to reopen immigration proceedings and seek rescission of the order of removal entered against them. That is likely because the Ramos clan was fully aware they were likely to be deported. Contrary to popular opinion, the vast majority of illegal aliens do not qualify for any form of relief from removal, with 79% to 80% being either ordered removed or granted voluntary departure. Instead, Ms. Ramos waited approximately 15 years and applied for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, the Obama administration’s ill-fated attempt to impose an immigration amnesty by executive fiat.

And what of Staff Sergeant Blank’s status as a member of America’s armed forces? In 2022, the Biden administration unilaterally and arbitrarily directed the Department of Homeland Security “to generally refrain from seeking the deportation of U.S. military veterans or service members and their immediate family members.” Of course, that policy was unlawful. Neither the Uniform Code of Military Justice (the statute governing the actions of members of the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Coast Guard, and Space Force) nor the Immigration and Nationality Act has any provisions exempting either service members, or their families, from the laws governing the admission of foreign nationals into the United States. And only Congress has the authority to enact such exemptions, which it has never done.

Accordingly, the Trump administration rescinded team Biden’s illegal policy. It began applying the provisions of the INA to service members in the same manner as to everyone else. This is as it should be. Pro forma leniency toward alien immigration violators merely because they are related to a military member is bad policy. It makes our service members targets for foreign intelligence agents. And the presence of illegal aliens on military installations undermines the security of those facilities.

Recently, Annie Ramos was released from immigration detention. It remains to see how ICE will proceed with her case. But both our political leaders and the generals in charge of our armed forces should tread carefully. Every soldier, sailor, airman, Marine, and guardian commences his or her military career by taking an oath that begins, “I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true allegiance to the same.” If military service becomes a free pass to violate the very laws that preserve our national sovereignty, then service members are not bearing true faith and allegiance to our Constitution — they are claiming to be exempt from it.