Roger's Immigration Blog

Labor Day

2011-09-05T09:52:00.000-07:00

Labor Day is that day every year where we celebrate the accomplishments and influence of workers in the U.S. Organized labor comes under assault frequently (witness the governor of Minnesota’s attack recently on unions and collective bargaining rights) and is often unfairly scapegoated for economic problems in the U.S. But in a broader sense, Labor Day is about honoring those that work. It’s a kind of collective national Sabbath day of rest for laborers. Jesus says, “the workers are worthy of their wages.” They are also worthy of a day to celebrate their contributions to our society.

But there is another brand of workers that never gets their day of recognition in the U.S. – the undocumented immigrant worker.

Yesterday, I ate with my family at an IHOP restaurant in Olathe. It was interesting to observe the social dynamic going on there. All of the table waiters were cheery, clean-cut young teenagers, probably either college or high school students. All of the workers cleaning and bussing tables were somewhat older (probably in their 20’s or early 30’s) Latinos who tried to move about their jobs as silently and inconspicuously as possible. I looked in the kitchen and all (and I mean all) of the cooks were Latino. The manager was also a middle aged Latino man who obviously spoke both English and Spanish. One of the ladies bussing the table next to us glanced over at me and I gave her a big smile. She smiled back, but no words were spoken. I figured she didn’t get a lot of smiles. The Latino workers spoke Spanish to each other, but very quietly, lest anyone should hear and be offended.

The restaurant was filled with middle-class white people, like myself, who seemed to have no problem that much of the staff waiting on them and cooking their meals were undocumented workers. How do I know they were undocumented? Because there is no visa to come to the U.S. to work at IHOP. There isn’t a legal way to do it. If they were born and raised in the U.S. and attended school here, they would be speaking English (and probably working at better jobs). And they are probably still working today – Labor Day.

This is what I have observed in the U.S. regarding undocumented immigrant workers. Privately, we enjoy the fruits of their labors, the good service, and the cheap prices. We enjoy the roofers, the landscapers, the cooks, the croppers, the slaughterhouse workers, who labor their hearts out at minimum wage or worse and struggle to feed their families. Even Lou Dobbs privately employed undocumented workers in his horse stables. But publicly, we demonize them and deny them the dignity that labor should enjoy. We declare they should all go home (wherever that is) and forfeit whatever their hard work has earned them here, often accompanied by the imposition of hard Sophie’s choices of family separation or hopeless poverty.

And then we celebrate in the U.S. those who enjoy fabulous wealth from little or no work at all – the Kardashians, the Hiltons, those idiot reality stars from shows like Jersey Shore, etc. This is not right. In what other context is hard work considered disrespectful, or even criminal, and lazy opulence considered a worthy goal to attain?

This is what the Preacher, Qoheleth, says:

“This is what I have observed to be good: that it is appropriate for a person to eat, to drink and to find satisfaction in their toilsome labor under the sun during the few days of life God has given them—for this is their lot. . . The sleep of a laborer is sweet, whether they eat little or much, but as for the rich, their abundance permits them no sleep.” (Ecclesiastes 5)

I’m looking for a better Labor Day, when those that work are able to enjoy and find satisfaction in their labors, and ultimately, to find a day of rest and celebration.

Response to Star Reader

2011-05-22T18:25:00.000-07:00

My friendly response to a KC Star reader (who will remain anonymous) that took offense at Andrea's editorial on immigration reform, and took the time to email us directly.
--------------

Thanks for your email. It’s refreshing to see an actual name rather than the usual anonymous hate mail we too often receive. As you know, I didn’t write the article you refer to, but I do support its conclusions. But since you copied me on your email, I’ll take the liberty to respond.

An “amnesty” program, although not the term I would use, is not a hare brained idea, but one that has been a fixture in American immigration policy from its earliest days, including the most recent amnesty of 1986, signed by none other than President Reagan. That amnesty was followed by an unprecedented period of prosperity in the country and not a few economists have credited that prosperity, at least in part, to the legalization program. Similarly, as Andrea indicates, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has estimated significant economic benefits from a legalization program, especially when contrasted with the status quo or an enforcement only program, which you seem to prefer. This economic effect has been confirmed by numerous other studies and economists. I can point to several if you want.

The point is, there are serious economic arguments in favor of legalization.

As for the moral arguments, I think you make too much of the supposed criminality of immigration lawbreakers. It may seem like semantics, but only a little over ½ of the undocumented immigrants here entered without inspection (EWI). Those people can be charged with a crime, but rarely are. It is a matter of prosecutorial discretion. Usually (in probably 99% of the cases or more), they are charged simply with being here without permission (a civil violation – like driving without a license), and are deported on that basis.

Even for the ones that can be charged with a crime for EWI, the result is a “misdemeanor” crime. A second EWI can be a felony. It’s hard for me to compare these “crimes” with truly serious crimes against our society such as murder, rape, theft, etc. In fact, one aspect of the seriousness of these “crimes” in the context of our immigration history is that illegal entries were not even treated as crimes in our law until about 15 years ago (I believe), with an unduly harsh law referred to as IIRAIRA. The penalty for illegal entry has historically been deportation (or amnesty), not incarceration.

But the possibility of being named “criminal” under our law only applies to about ½ of the people here illegally (maybe as much as 60%). The rest entered legally, and then either failed to maintain the conditions of their status or overstayed their approved period of stay. They can’t accurately be referred to as “criminals.”

But perhaps the label isn’t that important. They are still lawbreakers of some sort, right? But why do you assume that a path to legalization is not a valid option? To my thinking, the fact of “illegality” is just one factor in deciding what is best for the U.S., not the only factor. We permit other lawbreakers to “bargain” their punishment to something less than the full application of the law would allow. Why is permanent banishment from the U.S. the only option? What about a fine, or waiting period, or payment of back taxes, or learning English, before receiving legal status? Only 10 years ago, the law was such that persons who had violated status, even EWIs, but who had otherwise the necessary relationships to immigrate, were allowed to still immigrate legally by paying a fine. That option vanished as a casualty of the fears of 911, but we have inherited in its place a weaker, more unjust system because of it.

I know many families that were recipients of the benefits of the 1986 amnesty. They, and their children, are lawyers, doctors, soldiers, and other professionals. Even this week, a Texas state representative indicated that she (Ana Hernandez Luna) had once been “illegal” and had benefitted from the 1986 amnesty program. These amnesty folks are a true credit to their adopted nation, and the same would happen today with some kind of legalization program.

On the other hand, a simple enforcement only program would be devastating economically, as well as to the moral fiber of the country. Did you know that about 1 in 10 of all of the children in the U.S. are in families of mixed status – that is at least one of the parents is here illegally? What would be the effect of mass deportation of those parents without papers? As the President said recently, we should not be in the business of separating families.

Couple this with the fact that about ½ of the undocumented people here have been here at least 10 years, and you realize that a lot of the people here have families, jobs, and long standing ties here, but don’t have, under our present law, the ability to become legal. Our ancestors had that opportunity. Comparing their supposed legality with the “illegality” of today’s immigrants is like comparing apples to oranges. The only real difference between our ancestors and today’s immigrants is that there existed for our ancestors a system to assimilate virtually everyone who arrived in the U.S. legally into the U.S. Even people that slipped in undetected were allowed to become legal simply by registering after proving they had been here for a period of time, such as five years. That’s a far cry from the immensely complicated and restrictive system we have today.

I’m not suggesting that our borders be open or that we return to the Ellis Island days of almost 100% admission, but there are very good reasons for trying to give a path to legalization to many of the people here without papers who have already become de facto members of our society – and their “illegal” or undocumented status should only be one of the factors to consider in drafting a more just law to deal with the situation.

This isn’t an outrageous position. In addition to President Reagan, it was supported by former President Bush, as well as (at one time, at least) such conservatives as John McCain, Sam Brownback, Orrin Hatch, Lindsey Graham, Michael Bloomberg, as well as most leading economists.

Thanks for the opportunity to respond. I went into more detail than I ordinarily would have because of your courtesy in writing directly to us. I don’t expect you will agree with most (or perhaps any) of my conclusions, but I hope you have a better idea of where we are coming from, and trust that we both care about doing the right thing for our country. Thanks.

Andrea, Hi.

I see that you are in the press again with another hair-brained scheme to justify amnesty for illegal immigrants. Streamlining deportation procedures and curtailing meritless legal objections would significantly reduce costs. We could also vigorously help Mexico straighten out/speed up its legal visa application process.

Also, deported illegal immigrants who "soon return to the United States" should face mandatory jail time. Splitting hairs over criminal and non-criminal immigrant behavior is spurious, since illegal immigrants are by definition criminals. And, yes our ancestors all immigrated to America, but they did so legally.

Cockroaches and Feral Hogs

2011-05-13T23:41:00.000-07:00

For about 10 years, I lived in a variety of apartments in New York City. One particular fleabag was roach infested. Any time of day, you could look in any direction and see hundreds of the creatures scurrying across the floor, up the walls, and across the kitchen table. Each night, I would come home to find my toothbrush wrapped carefully in a plastic baggy – and covered with cockroaches. Sometimes, we would abandon the apartment and light a roach bomb. All of our guests would flee the room and end up somewhere else, but then our neighbor would do his own bombing, and they would all be back.

Sadly, that’s how some people think about immigration law. It’s called “attrition through enforcement,” and you’ll often hear people like Kris Kobach invoke it on television as if it is some kind of humane middle measure to deal with the immigration problem. Recently, one of Kansas’ own state representatives opined that the way to deal with illegal immigration in Kansas might be to shoot them from airplanes like “feral hogs.”

Mr. Peck no doubt intended the comment as a joke, but Mr. Peck’s bushelful of nonsense nevertheless revealed some thought that was really going on in his heart – that immigrants here illegally are no better than animals trespassing the farm, and should be treated the same way.

This, of course, depends on how you define the problem. If you see illegal immigrants as people who are lawbreakers, welfare takers, lazy, criminals, etc. then the law that you imagine solving the problem is one that does its best to drive them out of your state and somewhere else – like roaches to the next apartment. If you see them as hardworking, poor, moral, churchgoing, with significant ties here such as family and jobs, then you imagine a law that tries to find a way to help them get legal.

Our present law doesn’t do that. It takes good people who have overwhelming, long ties here – ties that would have warranted a clear path to legal immigration in the past – and dashes their hopes against a wall of illegality.

In times like these, our highest moral goal is not the unthinking service to an unjust law, but our highest moral goal is to see the law changed. I think it’s helpful to revisit the words of Martin Luther King, Jr., in his letter from that Birmingham jail in the midst of the civil rights movement:

“There comes a time when the cup of endurance runs over, and men are no longer willing to be plunged into the abyss of despair. I hope, sirs, you can understand our legitimate and unavoidable impatience. You express a great deal of anxiety over our willingness to break laws. This is certainly a legitimate concern. Since we so diligently urge people to obey the Supreme Court's decision of 1954 outlawing segregation in the public schools, at first glance it may seem rather paradoxical for us consciously to break laws. One may well ask: "How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?" The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that "an unjust law is no law at all."

Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust.”

Now consider where our current immigration laws fall on that spectrum.

"Illegal no; legal yes"

2011-05-13T23:03:00.000-07:00

“Illegal no; legal yes. It’s as simple as that.” I often hear this and it sums up many people’s view of the immigration debate. “Illegals” are bad and should be deported. “Legals” are good and can stay. I have often been criticized for being a lawyer, but seeming so easily to criticize or disregard the law in talking about immigration. As if just because something is a law today, I should bow to it. Despite our desire to turn this debate into this simple dichotomy (“legal good; illegal bad”), the topic does not lend itself well to that and those that push this slogan are engaging in a false dichotomy. The immigration debate is not between those that favor legality and those that favor illegality. We all favor legality, but law is not our God and we have to examine whether the laws are just and reflective of our values as a nation.

First, the question of simplicity. The immigration laws are notoriously complex. Not only are they extremely difficult to navigate, even for the most straightforward case, but full of pitfalls for the unwary, or careless, or even those who did their best and couldn’t quite get it right.
It is even difficult to tell who is legal and who is not. Often the federal agency charged with making that determination, the USCIS, gets it flat wrong. Sometimes in the midst of removal proceedings we discover that someone is in fact, a U.S. citizen, and they were not even aware of it. Very often we see people who do not know in fact whether they are legal or not. The U.S. has, on numerous occasions, deported U.S. citizens, thinking that they were not. At this point, I should mention that the terms “legal” and “illegal” are not utilized in the U.S. immigration laws to describe people and the terms are quite inadequate to describe the various states that people find themselves in here.

For example, we’ve seen young adults graduating from high school who have assumed their entire lives that they were U.S. citizens, when in fact their parents brought them as children to the U.S. and never did anything about their status. They first discover it when they are applying for college, or for a driver’s license and find out that they were not born here. And worse, they find out that there is nothing they can do to become “legal.”

There are some people who come here legally and then either overstay their approved period of stay, or do something else that violates the conditions of that stay (their “status), and they become “illegal.” Sometimes that illegality is not based on anything they have done, and they may not even be aware of it. For example, if a legal worker with an H-1B work visa has an employer who mistakenly informs the USCIS that they no longer work there, the USCIS will issue a revocation of the H-1B approval and suddenly, the employee is “illegal,” even though they did nothing wrong and were not aware of it until someone notifies them (this is a real case, and not an unusual example).

I’ve seen legal workers become “illegal” because their employer forgot to file a timely extension of their stay, even though the worker thought it had been done, and it is the employer’s responsibility to file it. In other words, through no bad action on their part, they go from “legal” to “illegal.”

Some people can be “illegal” and take a certain action that transforms them into “legal.” Some “illegalities” can be forgiven; some cannot. For example, workers who are getting their green cards based on the sponsorship of their employer can have up to 180 days of certain kinds of “illegality” and it will not affect their ability to get the green card. A spouse of a U.S. citizen can have certain kinds of illegalities forgiven when they are sponsored for a green card (such as overstaying a legal visa – thus making them “illegal”), and certain kinds can not (such as entering the U.S. without authorization) unless they leave the U.S. and apply for a waiver (very difficult to get) or wait outside the U.S. for ten years before applying to return.

Some “illegalities” create permanent bars to lawfully being in the U.S. (such as a false claim to U.S. citizenship – even on a job application form, or a college application; or entering the U.S. without permission, staying for a year, leaving, and entering again without permission – even if done as a child).

I could go on with numerous similar examples of “illegality.”

Surprise. None of these “illegalities” are criminal in nature, with the possible misdemeanor exception for those who enter the U.S. illegally. It is not even a crime to be in the U.S. illegally. It is a civil violation of our immigration laws that subjects one to removal, but not to fines or incarceration.

The significance of this is that immigration restrictionists are constantly trying to equate non-criminal civil immigration violations with serious crimes. Hence, the use of the term “illegal.” Civil immigration violators are constantly being compared to robbers and thieves, and described as “invading” the U.S. or engaging in a “war” against the U.S. They treat “illegality” in the immigration sense as the “unforgivable sin” against the U.S. No matter what ties they have to the U.S., they can never become “legal,” or it is some kind of affront to our entire legal system.

But if an immigration violation is such a serious sin, why are some forgiven (even without fine) and some not? And why were some immigration violations forgiven with a fine ten years ago (even for people that entered the U.S. without permission), but that option is no longer available today?

The answer is that the law is extremely complex, constantly changing, and subject to sudden policy whims of congress which often lead to tragic and unjust results. But the “illegal means illegal” lobby (despite the obvious tautology) never wants to consider the complexities of the law or the disastrous effects the law can have on human lives because they don’t care about human lives and they don’t really care about the law either.

That’s why they are often accused of being racist. They are indifferent to the effects of unjust laws on people – most of whom are from a different ethnic or racial classification.

Because of this inherent complexity, our approach to immigration reform will also necessarily be complex. Some immigration violations should be treated more seriously than others, but a simple “illegal no; legal yes” approach will not produce just results. Instead, the penalty for immigration violations should fit the nature of the violation and also give deference to other U.S. policy considerations to be preserved – such as the policy that families not be easily or arbitrarily separated.

Roger's Immigration Blog: Thoughts on the Dream Act.

2011-02-02T12:27:00.000-08:00

Roger's Immigration Blog: Thoughts on the Dream Act.

Thoughts on the Dream Act.

2011-02-02T11:46:00.000-08:00

“The parents ate sour grapes and the children’s teeth are set on edge.” In Ezekiel, this ancient proverb is referenced with respect to the Babylonian captivity of ancient Israel. In Israel’s captivity in Babylon, the children believed they were suffering for their parents’ sins. They didn’t eat the proverbial sour grapes, but they were suffering just the same. Generations before them made mistakes, but it’s their descendants that pay the price. The Lord speaks through Ezekiel and says that the Lord will change that. No longer will the children say that. Everyone will suffer for their own “sins.”

Reminds me of the once again failed Dream Act.

The children of undocumented immigrants may feel like the ancient children of captive Israel. Their migration to the U.S. was not of their choosing, but they still suffer for it. They can’t go to college, can’t get driver’s licenses, can’t open bank accounts, can’t get insurance, can’t hold their heads up with dignity when they walk the streets. They are subject to abuse and failed dreams. They are snatched up at unexpected times and sent back to countries they do not know, and to learn languages they do not speak.

In God’s economy of things, it is not his intention for the children to suffer for the sins of the parents, although sometimes that is unavoidable. Children grow up in homes where mistakes cause much suffering, even among the innocent.

But with respect to the immigration consequences of children raised in the U.S., but born in another country, we have [had] an option. The Dream Act. Children brought here before the age of 16, who graduate from high school here, who go to college or spend two years in the U.S. military, can get permanent residence after many years of fulfilling all sorts of conditions and jumping through hoops (including criminal checks).

This seems like a “no brainer.” These children are raised here and stand to contribute significantly to our economy, our military, and our country. In their minds, they are already Americans. But for some people, the supposed “crimes” of the parents are so heinous that the continued suffering of the children is warranted as a kind of deterrent to future behavior.

But honestly, is there any real deterrent effect here? Do parents about to cross the border to find jobs to feed their families really stop and ask whether their children will be punished at some distant point in the future? Or do they think about what their children need right now, and so they cross the border and hope the future can be brighter?

It is unjust and it is immoral for the U.S. to deny children the opportunity to stay and contribute to this country, when those children have been brought here and raised here through no fault of their own. The Dream Act will come up again. Matters of justice tend to do that, and one day it will be adopted.

Jesus, Justice, Immigration

2010-05-06T18:26:00.000-07:00

“I can bear witness about them that they have a zeal for the law, but it is not according to knowledge.”

In the biblical passage, Jesus is responding to his critics who elevate the keeping of a strict letter of the law over what we might call today the “spirit” of the law. In another passage he tells his critics, who are the religious leaders of his time, that although they have been diligent about the details of the law, they have neglected the “weightier matters of the law, namely justice, mercy and faith.”

I find a parallel to this threefold concern in the prophets, most notably, Micah 6:8: “He has told you what is good, and what does the Lord require of you, but to do justice, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.”

Certainly, none of these “weightier matters” of the law are present in much of today’s debate about immigration reform, the Arizona law signed last week being just the most recent example. There is nothing “just, merciful, or faithful” about the execution of that law. Only a cold indifference to human beings in favor of the central question: “legal or illegal”? One cannot read a blog on the subject without some self-proclaimed minuteman type shouting (often in all caps) “WHAT PART OF “ILLEGAL” DON’T YOU UNDERSTAND?” To which I reply, “WHAT PART OF JUSTICE, MERCY, AND FAITH DON’T YOU UNDERSTAND?”

Well, I understand plenty about the law and sometimes only a little about justice. I have spent the greater part of my life thinking about the law and this part is clear: the law is imperfect and, at its best, is only a dim reflection of what true justice is. Yet this doesn’t mean that the law is evil. It is, in fact, good. The more advanced and progressive our society, the more we rely on law to give structure to our community. But the law is not an end in itself, and where a law doesn’t reflect justice, mercy, or faith, that law should be changed and, if serious enough injustice results, should be ignored and disobeyed until it can be changed. Our goal as Christians (or for that matter, as human beings), should be to strive for justice, not just law-abiding.

In platonic terms, I suggest that the law is what we see in the material world, and its very existence points to a higher, more perfect form that exists in the world that cannot be seen. That higher, more perfect form is justice, tempered by mercy, and faith. But if all we ever consider is the material law here, without considering what it is intending to reflect, we elevate the letter over the spirit and we become unrighteous in our insistence on strict adherence to unjust laws.

To insist on the observance of the law regardless of the consequences is to presume that the law is always just. That is simply not the case. If it were, the law would not change so frequently. The immigration laws are possibly the most dynamic groups of laws on the books in the U.S. That is, they are constantly in flux. What is illegal today may have been just fine a few years ago. What was punishable by a fine a few years ago may result in permanent banishment from the U.S. now. Which of these is the just law, the law that exists now or the law that existed ten years ago?

As an example, a person who entered the U.S. without inspection 10 years ago, but married a U.S. citizen, could adjust status to permanent residence (green card) without leaving the U.S. based on the petition of the U.S. citizen and pay a fine of $1,000 for having entered the U.S. illegally. That same person today could face a permanent bar from the U.S. regardless of the sponsorship of a U.S. citizen spouse or children. Which is more just? To welcome into our society the one who came in ten years ago without inspection but demonize and call “criminal” the one who does it today in exactly the same circumstances is simply wrong.

One could argue that the one who comes in today without inspection is not coming in under the same circumstances as the one who came in ten years ago. The law is different now. That is true, but both actions were unauthorized or “illegal” whether done now or ten years ago. The difference is the penalty for those actions given by the law. As a society we have to ask ourselves which is more just. That requires more than just a mechanical application of a simple law; it requires us to look at the circumstances. There is good reason for giving persons with families here, and with jobs here, and fleeing persecution there, a chance to get right with the law. Persons without ties to the U.S. and without humanitarian grounds for acceptance may justly (from the perspective of whether they ought to be allowed to remain in the U.S.) be looked at differently than those with significant ties to the U.S.

This requires an examination of our core values. Our core values are not simply that the law must be obeyed, but that the law must reflect justice in society. Is it right for families to be allowed to stay together? Is it right for persons not to be sent back into oppressive situations where they are subject to being killed or deprived of liberty? Is it right for persons to be allowed the freedom to work and provide for their families? Of course it is, but if our inquiry stops with whether they are “legal” or “illegal”, we never get to the question of what core values would be preserved by allowing them to stay and pay an appropriate penalty for their lack of legal status in the U.S.

Facebook Response

2010-05-06T18:10:00.000-07:00

This is a popular, albeit uninformed, sentiment expressed on facebook. My response is below.

JUST SO I UNDERSTAND THIS...YOU PASS THE
NORTH KOREAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU GET 12 YRS. HARD LABOR.YOU PASS
THE AFGHAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU GET SHOT.YOU PASS THE AMERICAN
BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU GET A JOB, DRIVER'S LICENSE, AND ALLOWANCE FOR A
PLACE TO LIVE, HEALTH CARE, EDUCATION, BILLIONS OF DOLLARS SPENT SO YOU
CAN READ A DOCUMENT. WE CARRY PASSPORTS IN OTHER COUNTRIES OR FACE JAIL
TIME. REPOST IF YOU AGREE

No, you don’t really understand this very well. Are you suggesting that North Korea and Afghanistan are good models for U.S. immigration policy? Here is a more accurate view on what it is like to come into the U.S. illegally. You suffer in poverty, discrimination, or abuse in some Central or South American country and hear that there are jobs and employers, or maybe even family, in the North. You ask about work visas for unskilled labor in the U.S. and discover that there is no such thing. In desperation, you risk your life crossing the desert or paying thousands of dollars to some smuggler or coyote who would just as soon leave you for dead as get you to your destination. If you are a woman, you are probably raped. You find a job and work harder than anyone else there only to find out that you are being paid ½ of what everyone else gets. When you complain, your employer beats you and tells you that if you ever open your mouth again, he will call immigration. You pay your taxes, go to church, encourage your kids to excel in school, and do your best to stay out of trouble and make a positive contribution in your community. You pay billions of dollars into the social security system, but will never see a dime of that money. You can’t get a drivers license, can’t get insurance, can’t open a bank account, or get credit cards. You hide in fear of discovery. You pray that you don’t get taken from your children and leave them to fend for themselves. You don’t talk to police when you are a crime victim because they may ask you for your papers. You ask an immigration lawyer if there is anything you can do and (if the lawyer is honest and not out to rip you off by collecting fees for benefits that you are not eligible for) are told that there is nothing, and if you do leave the U.S., you face a ten year or even permanent bar to ever returning to the U.S. Your family is ridiculed because of its legal status. And worst of all, many of your Christian brothers and sisters don’t have compassion on you, but despise you because you are “illegal.” Still, Jesus loves you and you keep going and praying that the law will some day allow you to become legal.

Charity is no substitute for justice withheld

2009-07-24T13:23:00.000-07:00

Charity is no substitute for justice withheld.
- St. Augustine

A visit to a Kansas congressional office in Washington, D.C. in March to lobby for immigration reform brought this idea home from St. Augustine. This representative (who is also now running for higher office in Kansas) has voted previously 1) to criminalize immigration violations, including visa overstays; 2) to take away birthright citizenship by being born in the U.S.; 3) against the Dream Act; and 4) for just about any other anti-immigrant legislation ever proposed.

Yet, in his office he was surprisingly warm and engaging (perhaps not so surprisingly considering he is an elected official). He seemed sympathetic.

“These are mostly good people,” he said. “But it’s a very complicated issue and there are no easy solutions.”

And then came the cop out.

“But we are a very generous country.”

Not that he had any intention of advocating any kind of generous position going forward. It seems like whenever someone is about to advocate a heartless position, utterly lacking in compassion or grace, they start talking about how generous we are as a country.

After all, we admit a handful of refugees every year, etc. So whatever failings we might have in compassion and justice, it’s all o.k., because, after all, we are “generous.”

Charity is no substitute for justice withheld.
- St. Augustine
I have to say this is true. People will put up with a lot of poverty and hardship. But injustice? No.

Is the failure to consider immigration reform a lack of charity, or a lack of justice? It is unjust to reap the fruits of people’s labors, and not dignify them with status. It is unjust to exact punishment, such as permanent banishment from home and family, for minor immigration infractions. It is unjust to abuse workers with impunity because they are powerless and without status. It is unjust for honest employers to have no legal options to recruit foreign workers when no U.S. workers are available. It is unjust for asylum seekers to be detained indefinitely, then deported to a country where they face persecution without the opportunity to see a judge. It is unjust for family members to have to wait decades to join their relatives in the U.S. It is unjust for foreign professionals to wait for years and years to fight their way through the legal green card process only to be denied because of a lost job or minor immigration status violation. It is unjust for hard working compassionate immigrants, documented or not, to be labeled as criminals and vilified by persons whose only claim to superiority is the accident of their birth in the U.S. I could go on.

Charity is no substitute for justice withheld.
- St. Augustine

Lobby Day in DC

2009-05-17T21:20:00.000-07:00

Example of what it is like to lobby for immigration reform in Missouri and Kansas. This is an approximation of an actual dialogue on lobby day with a congressional office in Washington, DC. The rep’s office will remain nameless (although there are no innocents being protected here).

We enter the office and are greeted lukewarmly by a young staffer probably in his late 20’s. I will be the Q. and the staffer will be the A.

Q. We are here to talk about comprehensive immigration reform. President Obama mentioned the need for it very forcefully in his Town Hall speech last night in California. Also, Speaker Pelosi and majority leader of the Senate, Harry Reid, have indicated that immigration reform is at the top of their legislative agendas. Some are saying we may see specific proposals on this by this Fall. What do you think?

A. The Congresswoman does not support amnesty for those who have broken our immigration laws.

Q. O.K. What do you mean by amnesty? President Obama said that he would require persons seeking a path to legalization to pay back taxes, learn English, pay a fine, and get in the back of the line. Is that amnesty?

A. Yes. If someone has broken the immigration laws of our country and is here illegally, they should have to leave.

Q. For how long? Can they come back?

A. No, we do not support amnesty.

Q. What if a person is here illegally, but has married a U.S. citizen and has five U.S. citizen children? And what if that spouse and those children, all U.S. citizens, will have to go on welfare if their sole breadwinner is deported, never to return?

A. We do not support amnesty.

Q. So is any return to the U.S. considered amnesty by you, no matter how much of a fine or penalty they pay?

A. We do not support amnesty. Yes, if they are allowed to stay after breaking our immigration laws, that is amnesty.

Q. So under your definition of amnesty, anything short of permanent banishment from the U.S. is amnesty. Have you ever received a speeding ticket?

A. No.

Q. Have you ever exceeded the speeding limit, but not caught – even one mile over the speeding limit?

A. Yes, of course.

Q. Then aren’t you a criminal driver? Do you think an appropriate punishment should be permanent revocation of your driver’s license? Or perhaps permanent banishment from this country and your family? Does that make sense?

A. That’s not the same thing.

Q. Well, do you know what the criminal penalty is for entering this country without authorization? It’s a $250 fine – about the same as a speeding ticket. Does that sound like the kind of “crime” that warrants permanent banishment from family and country?

A. We do not support amnesty.

Q. Although I don’t think this qualifies as amnesty, let me suggest an example. A few years ago, Rush Limbaugh was caught in a federal drug felony. Do you remember that?

(I could tell he did. He started getting red in the face and obviously irritated. I should explain that at this point I had abandoned any idea of persuading him to change his mind. It was obvious that he couldn’t really go beyond his talking point of “no amnesty” and I shifted to my "make him feel guilty and/or foolish” mode. And by the way, Rush Limbaugh was from his district, Cape Girardeau.)

Q. Rush was caught in this felony drug crime. He’s a drug criminal and could have gone to prison. But instead, he reached a plea agreement, paid a large fine and was on probation for a long time. It was a win/win situation. The prosecutors could avoid the expense and delay of a trial and Rush got to avoid jail. This is something, by the way, that happens every single day in our justice system.

So Rush didn’t have to go to jail – the punishment that our federal laws required. The question is, did Rush get amnesty for his drug crime?

A. No, that’s not the same thing.

Q. Why not?

A. We don’t support amnesty?

Q. So you support amnesty for Rush but not for some poor migrant worker who crosses a border to find a job and has U.S. citizen children and a U.S. citizen spouse that will be irreparably harmed if he is deported from the U.S.?

A. We don’t support amnesty.

Q. My impression of your representative was that she was pro family.

A. Yes, we are very pro family.

Q. Really? Did you know that in the past ten years we have deported from the U.S. over 100,000 parents who left behind U.S. citizen children and U.S. citizen spouses? What do you think that did to those families? Did you know that according to the Urban Institute, one out of every ten children in the U.S. is in a mixed status family? That is, they have one or more parents that are not documented in the U.S. So, if their parents are deported, that will destroy a lot of families. Do you think this is a good result?

A. We are very pro family.

(At this point, it was painfully clear that the cognitive dissonance of maintaining in one breath “no amnesty” and in the next that he is “pro family” simply did not register for him. In reality, the primary principal was “no amnesty” regardless of what human damage it does.)

Q. So exactly whose families are your supporting? Not these poor families. You take this “no amnesty” position despite the fact that what we are talking about with immigration reform is not amnesty at all, and the only alternatives involve either an unacceptable status quo, or incredible human misery and huge expense to the government in trying to deport these poor people. Do you know that it has been estimated to cost over $200 billion to try to deport about 10 million undocumented people in the U.S. And what do you get in the end? Destroyed families, messed up economy and no appreciable benefit to anyone -- the U.S. or the alien. Do you think that is a good result and a good expenditure of taxpayer money?
javascript:void(0)
A. We don’t support amnesty.

Q. Then you don’t really care to act in the national interest, do you?

A. (standing up) Thank you for coming.

Immigrant Voter Fraud; Fun on Election Day

2009-01-03T18:23:00.000-08:00

Election day had beautiful weather here in the Midwest. As I was standing in line to vote, an older man in front of me began chatting with me. We talked about the weather, and that was about it. He didn't know what I do and I don't know what he does. All of a sudden, totally out of the blue, he says disgustedly "you know there are about 100,000 illegal aliens in this area, and every one of them is going to vote today." I suppose that he thought, me being a middle aged white guy and all, that I would agree with him on this observation.

I was stunned. So stunned that I immediately shot back, "no they aren't. Why would they do that? Why would they risk being detected and arrested by voting when they are trying to hide out here? You know, they will have a permanent bar to the U.S. if they falsely claim to be U.S. citizens. There is absolutely no evidence of illegal voting by undocumented immigrants."

I think he was a little stunned at my response and muttered something like, "well, I don't know." And then neither of us spoke to each other the rest of the awkward time we stood in line. We went to our separate booths and doubtless voted our separate ways.

We had not been talking about immigration or politics or anything that would have ellicited such a statement. I even looked at my clothes to see if I was wearing some kind of button or something that gave me away. I wondered if he had seen bumper stickers on my car or something, but I don't see how since I had to park a couple of blocks away, etc.

Then I saw it. A 20 something Asian man placed his ballot in the box and walked out the door. Maybe my line friend assumed that because this guy (who for all we know was born in the U.S.) looked Asian, he must be an illegal alien.

I kept wondering, where does this come from? Was this just some random ignorant bigotry coming out in what he thought must be a welcoming environment? Surely this couldn't be a widespread serious belief. Then a couple of days ago I saw that local hero Kris Kobach was going to run for office again, probably for attorney general or secretary of state in Kansas. His supporters cited as their concerns that the current state administration wasn't doing enough to guard against voter fraud by illegel immigrants.

This from the Joplin Globe:

"Many of Kobach’s fellow conservative Republicans question whether the state is doing enough to prevent illegal immigrants from voting. Incumbent Secretary of State Ron Thornburgh, also a Republican, has said there’s no evidence of significant problems."

Of course, the lack of evidence is no barrier to those who want to blame undocumented persons for every problem they see in the country. Unfortunately, this is just more demagoguery against a voiceless group.

Immigration and the RNC

2008-10-26T05:34:00.000-07:00

Haven't been blogging much. Caught up too much in election issues.

But I couldn't help but notice the Republican National Committee's approach to immigration issues. You can see the entire platform document at http://platform.gop.com/2008Platform.pdf. The immigration section is on pages 10-11.

First notice that immigration is discussed in a section titled, "Immigration, National Security, and the Rule of Law." That pretty much tells you where they are going with this. Before 9/11 no one thought of immigration as a national security issue. It is the nativist crowd that constantly (and unfortunately, successfully) drumbeats a connection between the two. Somehow 9/11, which is primarily about a radical muslim agenda, has become the battle cry for building a wall between the U.S. and Mexico.

Thinking of immigration only in terms of national security issues is a recipe for xenophobia. Every immigrant is a potential terrorist, rather than a potential nobel prize winner, or potential reunited family member, or potential solution to U.S. employer's needs for specialized labor, or potential model citizen and patriot.

The focus on the "rule of law" rather than justice or compassion is also a telling sign of the approach to immigration. Apparently, it doesn't matter how stupid or unjust the law is, our moral imperative is simply to abide by it, rather than change it to reflect our true values.

There is much more that could be said about this document, but I did want to point out one amusing irony. On page 11, the platform talks about the English language, as a sign of our national unity. They support English as the "official language in our nation." Although this seems innocuous, it is often code for immigrant bashing and intolerance. I regularly see letters to the editor where people complain about having to "press 1 for English" on telephone calls to their banks, as if somehow this inconvenience of an extra click is undermining our national integrity.

At any rate, the "English Only" section ends with this statement

English is the accepted language of business, commerce,
and legal proceedings, and it is essential as a
unifying cultural force. It is also important, as part of
cultural integration, that our schools provide better
education in U.S. history and civics for all children,
thereby fostering a commitment to our national
motto, E Pluribus Unum.

Maybe someone should point out that "E Pluribus Unum" is Latin. I guess English only is important unless we are talking about national mottos.

Jesus and Immigration

2008-03-25T14:40:00.000-07:00

My post at ILW.com in response to a person quoting Jesus ("enter ye at the strait gate") to justify nativist or racist immigration policy.

Dear Editor,

I had to laugh out loud at Jim Roberts’ use of scripture to defend Mr. Tanton and his nativist opinion ("Enter ye in at the strait gate" (Matthew 7:13)). Surely he must know that in that context Jesus was talking about entering the kingdom of heaven, not the U.S. (and they aren’t the same). What an awful example of proof texting. Anyone who knows anything about our immigration laws knows that they are anything but "straight." A more informative passage from Jesus would be later in the same gospel of Matthew (chap. 25) where he tells a story about the end of the age when Jesus (the "Son of Man") "comes in his glory" to judge "the nations." He separates them into the righteous and the unrighteous, calling them the sheep and the goats. To the righteous, he says,

’Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I WAS A STRANGER AND YOU INVITED ME IN, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’ [emphasis added]

To the unrighteous, he says,

’Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I WAS A STRANGER AND YOU DID NOT INVITE ME IN, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’ [emphasis added]
Jesus spoke a lot more about the "weightier matters of the law" such as "justice, mercy, and faith" (Matthew 23) than about our adherence to unjust, punitive, and merciless immigration ordinances. Where the law is unjust, it should be changed, not held up as some sort of measure of morality.

Roger McCrummen

Cajun French

2008-02-07T07:03:00.000-08:00

NPR just had a story about the revival of Cajun music among a younger generation and that the Grammy awards have now added a category for Zydeco music. One of the nominated band members explained that none of them grew up speaking French, but they sing all of their songs in French, so they have been going to Quebec for French immersion programs to reacquire the language, etc.

I wonder if the "English only" crowd has a problem with this? Or does that just apply to Spanish?

What is an Illegal Alien? Essay

2008-01-25T22:17:00.000-08:00

What is an “Illegal Alien?”

In a recent interview, political commentator Pat Buchanan said that to allow the current 12 million plus “illegal aliens” in this country to remain would be to continue a situation of “rampant criminality.” The natural result of employing this kind of inflammatory (and patently incorrect) language is that the hearers become motivated to execute punishment for the supposed criminality at whatever the cost. Anything short of deportation only encourages further “criminality.” “Illegals” are not worthy of consideration for membership in our society because they don’t value the rule of law, unlike us and our ancestors who “did it the right way.”

Sadly, this kind of attitude has already resulted in a dramatic increase in crimes and harassment directed at the Latino community in the U.S., regardless of whether the recipients of such actions are “legal” or not.

Surely, we suppose, our ancestors came legally to this country, and we can be proud of that fact. If we accept this myth, then we can more easily distance ourselves from the present day “illegals.” Surely, they cannot be valuable contributors to society, like our forebearers, because they are starting off their stay in America illegally. If they are criminals now, what kind of citizens can they become? So the argument goes.

We may not want to consider the human misery that will result from policy based on such a black and white view of illegal immigration, so we keep it simple. The mantra of the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps is “What part of illegal don’t you understand?” This statement is repeated in every letter to the editor and at every public discussion of illegal aliens. Apparently, all one has to say is the word, “illegal,” and the discussion is ended.

If I ask the question, “who is an illegal alien?” (rather than what is an illegal alien?) then the answer is simple. Illegal aliens are our neighbors. They work with us, play with us, go to church with us, and marry our children. But to ask “what is an illegal alien?” is to focus on the conditions that make someone “illegal” rather than “legal.” We should consider whether words like “illegal” and “criminal” are the appropriate words to use in this situation. It’s not as simple as we might think. If we really understand what it means to be “illegal,” then perhaps we can assign an appropriate amount of moral responsibility to the condition and consider the appropriate punishment that is due to such condition.

But exactly what does it mean to be “illegal?” Most statistics show that of the 12 million plus undocumented population in the U.S., only about 60% entered the country without documents, e.g. the “illegal border crossers.” The rest were authorized or “legal” at one time and somehow slipped into “illegality.” Let’s consider that group first.

How does someone start out “legal,” then become “illegal?” Every foreign person entering the U.S. must have permission to enter the U.S. Until someone becomes a permanent resident or citizen, every entry into the U.S. is limited. The limitation is based on the kind of visa used to enter the U.S. and the conditions of that visa category. There are many types of visas and each visa category has its own terms and conditions for “maintaining status” or not violating the conditions of the stay in the U.S. Most entries to the U.S are given a fixed period of stay, reflected in a white card affixed to the passport, called an “I-94 card.” For some categories of visa, that I-94 period of stay is not tied to a certain date, but is limited to persons who maintain the conditions of their permitted entry, such as students.

Therefore, a person can become “illegal” by either staying past the date on the I-94 card or by violating the conditions of their status. Most persons with only a casual acquaintance with the immigration law would be astonished at its complexity and surprised at just how easy it is to fall out of status. The U.S. immigration law has been compared to the U.S. tax law in terms of its complexity – and it changes constantly. Couple that with the fact that many persons trying to navigate this complex law speak English as a second language, if at all, and the fact that the agency designated to help them navigate this system is just as likely to arrest them as help them, and you have a recipe for disaster. Imagine deportation for making a mistake on your tax return – prepared in another language!

Let’s look at some common examples of falling out of status. A foreign student goes out of status and becomes “illegal” when he or she drops below 12 credit hours a semester. I’ve seen students drop a class and while attempting to replace it with another, handcuffed and led out of class for violating status. Students also become “illegal” by taking a job off campus without permission, or by switching schools without permission first, etc. Often they are not aware they have violated status, yet they can be deported for it. Is this what we usually think of as “criminality?”

Workers in the U.S. go out of status and thus, become “illegal”, if they fail to file for an extension of status on time. This is true even if it is not their fault. Maybe their lawyer filed the case late and the foreign worker doesn’t even know about it. Maybe they tried to file it timely and the case was rejected because the filing fee check wasn’t signed, or a form was missing or not signed, or because it was filed in the wrong USCIS service center, etc. When it is re-filed after the rejection it is late because of the delay from the rejection of the case. Filing fees and filing locations, and forms themselves, change routinely in this area and even lawyers who do nothing but practice immigration law have a difficult time getting it right and make frequent mistakes. Foreign workers with permission to be here and permission to work can also go out of status and thus, become “illegal,” by switching employers without permission. Sometimes they get an extension of their stay, but fail to file also for their spouses because they don’t understand that it is required. These kinds of status violations happen every day.

Visitors can go out of status by overstaying their period of stay, or by working without authorization, etc. Foreign workers who maintain their status in the U.S. scrupulously for years are astonished to find that they are suddenly out of status and have to leave the U.S. for the simplest of mistakes. They often are not even aware that what they are doing is a violation of status and their attorneys and employers often do not know it either.

This situation is compounded by the fact that persons who overstay their visas for 180 days or more are subject to bars to returning to the U.S. So they can’t even fix their status by leaving and coming back in. They often simply stay when they realize that it won’t help if they leave.

Do these examples suggest “rampant criminality” or even criminal intent?

In fact, these kinds of “illegal aliens” are NOT criminals by virtue of their immigration violations, although this fact is very often misrepresented by anti-immigrant groups. Immigration violations are almost exclusively violations of our civil laws. We sue people to leave the country because they have lost their license to be here, or never had one. They are, in fact, “unauthorized,” not “illegal.” We do not fine or imprison them for immigration violations (with a few recent exceptions in the law for repeat offenders). In fact, many people are surprised to hear that the immigration law never refers to persons with immigration violations (including unauthorized border crossers) as “criminals” or even “illegal aliens,” although that latter term is so freely used now that many people assume it is the correct term.

In 2006, the House of Representatives proposed a bill that would have criminalized most immigration violations. The result was massive demonstrations in the streets, and the bill never became law. The reason is that our country has historically not considered unauthorized immigration to be a criminal offense. There are some recent exceptions, which will be discussed below.

Let’s consider the other group of immigration violators; those who entered the U.S. without permission. Should we have a different standard of looking at them? What about their children? Under our immigration laws, children are tagged with the same brand of illegality as their parents – because they don’t have the license to be here, not because of criminal activity on their part. And worse, there is no way for children of unauthorized immigrants to fix their unauthorized status in the U.S. without leaving the U.S. with the possibility, and likelihood, of never returning -- regardless of how old they were when they came and how many years they have been here, who they may have married, or how many U.S. children they may have had.

Consider the so-called “Dream Act.” That act, which has been introduced into Congress repeatedly now for several years, but never passed, provides an opportunity for persons brought to the U.S. as children and educated in the U.S. to go to higher education or serve in the military and get the opportunity to apply for permanent residence.

Doesn’t it sound reasonable that we won’t punish children for the “sins” of the parents? Yet each time it is presented, a firestorm of opposition arises under the battle cry that to allow these benefits to be enjoyed by children just excuses the illegal behavior of the parents and encourages further “criminality.” Opponents call this “amnesty” as if hardened criminals are being pardoned from death row. Is it fair to call these children brought here by their parents "criminals"?

But what about the parents who came in illegally? Surely they are “criminals” aren’t they? An illegal entry can be a federal misdemeanor offense, with a fine of up to $250 and/or a week in jail, but is almost never prosecuted. Repeat offenses can rise to the level of being a felony, but even these are relatively recent changes to the immigration laws. We have historically not considered it a criminal act to cross our borders. Persons who cross the borders to take up employment, or get married, etc., are simply “undocumented” or “unauthorized.” Historically, they could still apply for resident status regardless of how they came in because we valued preserving the relationships (such as marriage or employment) more than the fact of the illegal entry. That in itself is evidence that we considered undocumented border crossings as a minor violation at best. At various times in our history, persons who managed to stay in the U.S. for a certain length of time (e.g. two years or five years), whether documented or not, could get legal resident status by simply coming forward and registering. Even now, a person who has been in the U.S. continuously since 1972, whether with or without documentation, can get permanent residence or the “green card” simply by registering. What does that tell you about how the law views those who came in without documentation or otherwise violated their immigrant status? The answer is, the law views them as not being authorized to be here and subject to being removed -- not as criminals.

Permanent residence in our country is generally based on the immigrant having important relationships with this country – that is, sponsorship from immediate family members to preserve family unity, or sponsorship from employers to fill a labor shortage. Historically, we deemed those relationships important enough to provide a way to overcome minor immigration violations – even illegal border crossings. The law, by the way, refers to these kinds of entries as “entries without inspection,” not “illegal” or “criminal” entries, and certainly not an “invasion” as immigrant opponents often state.

Until as recently as 1996, immigrants who came in without inspection or otherwise violated the conditions of their visas could leave the U.S. and re-enter with proper documents, without penalty. In 1996, Congress, in a harsh enforcement-only piece of legislation, created a three year bar to returning to the U.S. for persons who overstayed by 180 days or more. If they overstayed for a year or more, the bar was for ten years. They also added several permanent bars to ever immigrating to the U.S. Even with this new bar, which only applied upon departure from the U.S., undocumented immigrants who were otherwise eligible to obtain permanent residence (e.g. through family or employment sponsorship) could still become “legal” and fix their status violations (including an entry without inspection) by paying a fine of $1,000 and processing the necessary paperwork. This changed in 2001 when Congress failed to renew that provision after the events of 9/11. So until 2001, despite unauthorized presence in the U.S., which may have lasted for many years, immigrants with the necessary relationships to family or employers could still get proper authorization to stay simply by paying a fine.

Under the scenario that exists after 2001, unauthorized immigrants simply cannot fix their status, regardless of their marriage to U.S. citizens, or their U.S. citizen children, or sponsorship for them by employers offering them permanent employment. They can’t get right with the law. If they leave in order to return legally, they are faced with a bar to returning. In some cases, the bar can be permanent. And they don’t have the option of fixing their status by paying a fine. So why leave? They simply stay underground, with their families and their employers, and pray for a change in the law. And the undocumented population continues to grow.

This is not evidence of “rampant criminality.” It is evidence of a broken system that does not serve the needs of either families or employers and has forgotten our historic priorities. It creates a permanent underclass of human beings who deserve better from their fellow human beings, almost all of whom are also descendants of immigrants.

The absurdity of the situation can be seen in this example. Suppose a person entered the U.S. without inspection, married a U.S. citizen, had U.S. citizen children, and otherwise was a model citizen. If the U.S. citizen spouse, or U.S. employer, filed an immigrant petition for this immigrant on April 30, 2001, the immigrant would be allowed to pay a fine and adjust status to permanent resident (“green card”) and live a normal life. If the U.S. citizen spouse or employer filed the immigrant petition on May 1, 2001 -- one day later -- that same immigrant would not be able to adjust status to permanent residence, and would face at least a ten year bar to returning to the U.S., notwithstanding the support of citizen children, spouses, and employers. What a difference a day makes! Is the beneficiary of the petition filed on May 1 more of a criminal than the beneficiary of the petition filed on April 30?

The point is this. A very large group of “illegal border crossers” came here with the expectation that they would be treated the same as their ancestors and previous generations of immigrants. That is, if they behaved, worked hard and developed the necessary relationships with this country they would be allowed to stay. In truth, most of our ancestors came the same way. They didn’t get permission to come. They simply got on a boat and came here and figured out the legalities later.

Objectification requires distance. That is, in order for us to treat “illegal aliens” like objects to be abused and scorned, rather than human beings to be respected, we must create a distance between them and us. Hitler and the Nazis were good at this. They could label the Germans as the Meistergeschlect (master race) and Jews as subhuman Untermenschen. That way, killing a Jew wasn’t like killing a human being. It was rather like killing an animal. And 6 million were killed in a few years. In Rwanda, the government ordered genocide against the Tutsis was inflamed by radio announcers who shouted, “Kill the Cockroaches!” And half a million were killed in a few weeks.

In the immigration debate, it is the word “illegal” that creates this distance and permits objectification. To human beings, we owe respect, dignity, civil rights, and due process.

It should be clear from this discussion that the word “illegal” is really not the appropriate term for aliens in this country without status because it permits this objectification and because it is inaccurate. There is no question that undocumented immigrants are “illegal” in one sense – they have lost or perhaps never had the license to be here – but they are not criminals, either legally or morally. And despite the best efforts of anti-immigrant groups to obscure the issue by labeling them as “criminals” or “illegal aliens,” these are not the terms or concepts employed by our law.

In the discussion of our national values, the term that should be debated is not whether they are “illegal,” as if that determination ends the discussion. Instead, we should debate whether our treatment of undocumented immigrants is “just.” What is justice for those who are here without permission? Do they deserve the opportunity to remain here as full members of society and is our national interest served by their presence?

Our national aspiration should be for justice. Is it justice for families to be permanently ripped apart for minor non-criminal immigration violations, or is it more just to allow them to pay an appropriate fine and remain with their families in the U.S.? Is it justice for hardworking persons with employer sponsors (who we have determined are filling shortage occupations and not harming U.S. workers) to be banned for technical violations of status, or is it more just to provide a way for them to get right with the law and remain with the employers that want them?

Today’s national approach of harsh dealings is not consistent with our national history and is certainly not consistent with basic notions of fairness or morality. Our current immigration laws are unjust in the sense that they do not provide a way to preserve the relationships (family and employment) that we previously valued in this country. If the rule of law is unjust, it should be changed.

I find it interesting that in our founding fathers’ Declaration of Independence, one of the specific grievances cited against the King of England as a justification for independence was the King’s attempt “to prevent the population of these states; . . . obstructing the laws for the Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither. . .” Apparently they thought an unjust immigration law was sufficient moral grounds for revolution – an “inalienable right” had been breached. Surely, we should also give at least as much careful consideration to our national heritage and the “justice for all” to which we aspire as we give to the notion of “illegality.”

Roger McCrummen 2008
www.kcimmigrationlaw.com

Illegal Driver Essay

2008-01-25T22:14:00.000-08:00

I was an illegal driver today. Yes, I was going at least 4-5 miles over the speeding limit all the way. Why did I flaunt the law so shamelessly?
Pat Buchanan talks about “rampant criminality” in his rages about the current immigration system, but if we want to see real rampant criminality, we don’t have to look any further than our roads. We all do it. Why? Because we don’t think the law enforcement officials care and we don’t think it is any big deal.

We probably should. Statistics show that about 1/3 of all traffic fatalities are related to speeding. But we’ve come to expect a certain kind of tolerance for this illegal behavior. A highway patrolman once told me that he doesn’t usually stop someone unless they are at least 10 mph over the limit. I wish he was around when I got a ticket in Texas for going 76 in a 70 mph zone.

Until recent years, the same kind of tolerance was imagined in the enforcement of our immigration laws. They aren’t criminal offences for the most part – just civil. For the most part, persons wanting to immigrate to the U.S. have to have some kind of relationship sponsoring them to live here – either through an offer of employment or through family sponsorship. Until just a few years ago – 2001 – someone who established that relationship could still stay and get their green cards by paying a fine. We reasoned that the relationship was more valuable to preserve than the minor civil violation.

But in 2001, that changed. 911 happened and nativist voices started screaming (and still are) that any forgiveness of this civil violation in favor of a fine (like I would pay to a zealous policeman who caught me driving “illegally”) was an unthinkable “amnesty.” When Rush Limbaugh was charged with a federal drug crime for which he could have gone to jail, but was instead given probation and a fine and community service, was that amnesty? He paid for his crime. He avoided a trial, conviction, and jail, by paying a fine and promising to not do it again. I would say justice was served. As much as I dislike what he stands for, I thought that was a typical and reasonable solution. The government didn’t have to have the expense of a trial, but still got something paid for the crime. Why isn’t that an acceptable solution to undocumented immigrants? If they have the necessary relationships to immigrate to the U.S., but can’t because the law is so unforgiving, why can’t we fix that with a giant plea bargain that gives them status, but requires them to pay a fine, wait in line, learn English, pay back taxes?

Semler resigns

2008-01-22T21:02:00.000-08:00

Francis Semler has announced that she is resigning from the Parks Board of the City of Kansas City. This is following the announcement from the Southern Christian Leadership Conference that they will boycott KC (following the lead of La Raza) because of the Mayor's apparent insensitivity to racial issues. I applaud the SCLC for their stand on Christian principles, and their solidarity with La Raza. Critics (like Darla J) have said that the SCLC apparently cares more about illegal aliens than it does African Americans. But nothing could be further from the truth. Wasn't it Martin Luther King, Jr. who said that an injustice to one is injustice for all? The same people who want to ride roughshod on the human rights and dignity of immigrants also care nothing about the rights of African Americans. If they can abuse one helpless minority group, it won't be long before they turn to another one.

As for Ms. Semler, she should have stayed on the Parks Board and resigned from the Minutemen instead. That would have sent the right message. No doubt she was encouraged to do this to save the mayor from further embarassment. She said that she was not receiving much support from the mayor. There is a reason for that. Her position on the Minutement is wrong and deserves condemnation. If the mayor wasn't supportive enough, then congratulations to him. Too bad it came so late. And too bad for Ms. Semler. She apparently stood for some good things she wanted to do on the Parks Board. Her position with the Minutemen was not one of of them.

Semler Editorial, 9/9/07

2007-11-15T21:04:00.000-08:00

In her editorial on September 9, Frances Semler wants to “whitewash” the Minuteman movement as being a patriotic group that cares only about enforcing U.S. laws against illegal immigration. The Minuteman movement is a vigilante group (President Bush’s label for the movement) with ties to white supremacist hate groups, as documented by the Southern Poverty Law Center and other civil rights organizations. Exactly what is patriotic about harassing the most powerless members of our society in the vain hope that they will finally have enough of it and pack up and leave? Although our immigration policy is badly in need of reform and our borders are indeed broken, vigilantes like the Minutemen add no more value to the needed reform than do overtly racist groups like the Ku Klux Klan (whose ranks have also been swelling). If the Minutemen are truly only concerned with enforcing U.S. laws, why aren’t they on every street corner with radar guns to nab the speeders – a “criminality” much more damaging to our society than illegal immigration. Our current immigration laws are unjust and will remain so until Congress can screw up enough courage to do the right thing and stop being intimidated by groups like the Minutemen. Unjust laws need to be changed, not scrupulously “enforced” by vigilante groups with questionable motives. We need immigration reform that provides a legal way for hard working human beings deeply imbedded in our society to get on a path to legalization through appropriate fines and penalties commensurate with their civil offense. Just because someone has run afoul of our exceedingly complex immigration laws (something quite easy to do even for the most careful visitors) doesn’t mean that banishment from family and employers is an appropriate solution. Fortify the borders all you want, but we need to stop destroying families for minor immigration violations and we need legal ways for workers and families to enter and remain in the U.S. Until this happens, all the Minutemen in the world will not effect a just and moral solution to our immigration problem.

Missouri Lawyers' Weekly

2007-11-15T15:28:00.000-08:00

Just discovered that I was quoted in an article in Missouri Lawyers' Weekly on Missouri's efforts at immigration "reform." http://www6.lexisnexis.com/publisher/EndUser?Action=UserDisplayFullDocument&orgId=574&topicId=100038095&docId=l:697002361&start=20
Congratulations to the reporter, Kelly Wiese on getting the gist of my comments correct. So often in this area, the media doesn't quite understand what immigration attorneys are saying. The concepts are strange and the terminology is often confusing. Who understands what the difference is between "unlawful presence" and "out of status"? or that someone can actually be out of status in the U.S., but not accruing time in unlawful presence?

That's one of the difficulties we have in this debate. It is much easier to say, "what part of illegal don't you understand?" than it is to ask the questions like: is a violation of an immigration law really criminal behavior? has our country historically considered immigration violators to be criminals? is the punishment inflicted on immigration violators proportionate to the violation committed? are we acting humanely and morally toward immigrants? are there relationships that some immigration violators may have with this country (e.g. family and employment relationships) that outweigh the need to enforce a harsh punishment by deportation and long term or even permanent family separation? is part of the problem the fact that there are not enough visas to satisfy the demand for workers and family unification? is there a racist or nativist motivation behind much of the anti-immigrant rhetoric?

Those are the hard questions that people don't want to wrestle with. So the "illegality" of an immigration violator becomes the end of the story and the excuse to demonize them.

Sen. McCaskill; How about real compassion for immigrants?

2007-11-08T10:24:00.000-08:00

Sen. McCaskill now opposes the nomination of Julie Myers to be the head of the USCIS, apparently because she allowed someone to appear in blackface at a charity event, posing as an immigrant. People were offended. While I understand how people were offended, Sen. McCaskill comes off as hypocritical to me to be opposing a competent bureaucrat for this reason, while at the same time voting against the Dream Act and other immigration reform measures. If she really cares about immigrants, how about doing something that really affects their lives in a positive way rather than this?

Mike Hendricks and Francis Semler

2007-11-04T18:14:00.000-08:00

Comment post to article appearing in KC Star by Mike Hendricks. article appears at http://primebuzz.kcstar.com/?q=node/7688#comment-3257

Why is it that when Mayor Funkhouser refuses to yield, it is called a "principled stand" but when La Raza refuses to yield, it is called "blackmail"? Isn't La Raza's position just as "principled" as the Mayor's? After all, why should they do business with an administration that is so indifferent to their concerns? Exactly what "principle" is the Mayor standing by anyway? Apparently, it is the principle of loyalty to someone whose main qualification for her appointed post appears to be that she was a major contributor to his mayoral campaign? I'll respect La Raza's principles any day over that.
Roger McCrummen

2007-11-04T14:33:00.000-08:00

10/10/07

I appeared on an immigration panel last night at William Jewell University as a part of their informed speakers series. Despite the name of the event, the panel also included a lobbyist for FAIR and the local president of the Minutemen.

I argued that our legal structure on immigration is broken because, not only does it not regulate the borders, but because it doesn’t meet our needs as a nation. These are economic needs as well as social (family unification) and humanitarian (justice). Somewhat to my surprise the Minutemen apparently don’t believe our legal structure regarding immigration is broken. It’s fine the way it is. It just needs to be enforced. That’s what the problem is, according to the Minuteman. I heard that enforcement mentality expressed to me from audience members after the meeting as well. “If we are going to have laws, they have to be enforced,” they said. “We are a nation of laws.”

True, we are a nation of laws, but we are also a nation that aspires to justice. We need to be right; to reflect the better aspects of faith and humanity. When laws are unjust, we need to change them, not mindlessly enforce them. Laws that separate families for long periods of time for minor non-criminal immigration violations are unjust. There is no virtue is simply enforcing those laws, as if we are meeting some kind of moral mandate.

Last year, the House passed its horrendous immigration bill that would have criminalized, for the first time, non-criminal immigration violations. It would have also criminalized the behavior of those that aided undocumented immigrants. This bill led to massive protests in the streets. Cardinal Mahoney of California declared that if that bill were passed, the Catholic Church would disobey it.

Enforcement of bad law is no virtue. What if suddenly the federal government passed a law that made the maximum speed limit nationwide 20 mph? They could justify that by pointing to the thousands of deaths that are caused each year by excessive speed. The lower the speed, the better the chance of surviving a collision. If congress did that, would the Minutemen be on every street corner with a radar gun demanding that the law be enforced? Of course not, because that law would not serve the country’s needs. We would have a nation of lawbreakers until Congress finally got around to fixing the law.

The FAIR representative made the odd assertion that her organization believed in enforcement of the laws on the books now, but that they did not support mass deportations. Exactly how does that work? There are approximately 12 to 20 million (the Minuteman says 35 million and I guess no one really knows) undocumented immigrants in this country. The existing law prescribes that they be deported. So how does FAIR want that to work if not mass deportation? Gradual deportation over a period of years? Harassment and heaping misery upon misery upon undocumented immigrants until they finally decide to leave on their own? This seems to be the current approach as they lobby states for local enforcement and criminalization of employers and landlords. It seems the hope is to make these non-criminal human beings so unhappy that they can’t stand it here anymore and they will just leave. Dream on. Undocumented immigrants are deeply imbedded in our society, and in fact, needed by our society. None of those sound like just or humane solutions to me.

I also found it odd that the Minuteman repeated several times that his organization “offers solutions” to the problem of “illegal immigration” and no one else is doing that. Well, an intimidated Congress isn’t offering much in the way of solutions, but an enforcement only mentality is also certainly no solution. Both DHS Secretary Chertoff and former DHS Secretary Tom Ridge have affirmed that there is no way they could possibly deport every undocumented immigrant in this country. It would cost billions and billions of dollars even if you knew where everyone was. And at the end of the day, what have we gained? We have separated families and crushed employers. We have trampled on civil and human rights and run our country like the Gestapo. Enforcement only is a very poor option for our tax dollars. It’s certainly no solution to the immigration problem.

Did you know that studies have shown that about 1/3 of the undocumented population has been here 10 years or more? This indicates to me that they are deeply imbedded in society. Uprooting them without any option for attaining legal status will be the cause of much unnecessary human misery. Are the enforcement only folks ready to accept responsibility for this unnecessary human suffering?

Dream Act. Claire McCaskill

2007-11-04T14:07:00.000-08:00

Speaking of the defeat (once again) of the Dream Act in the Senate, we have to note our deep disappointment in Missouri Senator Claire McCaskill. We met in my office with her staff a few weeks ago and they promised to push for support of the Dream Act, but confessed that they did not know what her position was going to be. Turns out, she was one of only about 6 democrats that voted against it (it was actually a cloture vote, but served to kill further consideration of the bill). This was particularly disappointing in light of the fact that many of us strongly supported Sen. McCaskill in her race to unseat Sen. Jim Talent. We figured that no one could be as bad on immigration issues as Jim Talent. But so far, Sen. McCaskill has not shown herself to be any improvement over Jim Talent.

Not only was this vote a deep disappointment, but her public statements on the issue of immigration have shown her to be out of touch with the real issues and only too willing to pander to loud nativist voices in her district. She apparently believes that the problem of undocumented immigrants can be solved by cracking down on employers. She doesn't support any kind of guest worker program. http://www.claireonline.com/issues/immigration.jsp While employers should not be allowed to knowingly flaunt federal law, what she and others will find is that most employers are complying with federal law, but still hiring undocumented workers. The employers will not face much in the way of prosecution but their businesses will be disrupted and the lives of undocumented immigrants will be made even more miserable by ignorant and random enforcement actions.

I expect this kind of position from people like Tom Tancredo and Jim Talent. I don't expect it from Claire McCaskill, especially when she isn't even running for re-election this next year.

For the first time in my memory, immigration is lining up to be a partisan issue in the next presidential election. That is, leading republicans are almost uniformly in support of an enforcement only approach, while leading democratic candidates are almost uniformly in support of some kind of comprehensive reform. If the next president is a democrat who is finally able to push for immigration reform, I hope Sen. McCaskill lines up with the party to do the right thing. If not, she won't have any future support from me.

Tancredo to Retire

2007-11-04T14:01:00.000-08:00

Finally some good news on the immigration front. Sen. Tom Tancredo has announced that he is not going to seek re-election to his senate post. The senator from Colorado has been one of the most extreme anti-immigration voices in government. His most recent act of "patriotism" was to try to have arrested those undocumented students who were scheduled to speak before the Senate in support of the Dream Act. http://www.statesman.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/austin/immigration/entries/2007/10/23/tancredo_asks_feds_to_arrest_i.html. One would hope that it would be the shame of that cowardly act that would have prompted his decision not to seek re-election, but I don't think so. He is also, by the way, running for President, but no one gives that bid any serious thought.

Dream Act Failed

2007-10-25T22:00:00.000-07:00

If we sent them home, there wouldn't be a home to go to.
- Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX).

How pathetic that our Senate could not muster enough votes to move forward on the Dream Act. How dishonest for the opponents to characterize this as amnesty. What a bunch of cowards for our elected representatives to let themselves be influenced by the screaming nativists. Just once, I would like for a rep to say that they were going to do the right thing even if the calls were 10 to one against it. If the Senate can't get together to pass a bill like this -- that has already been adopted by several states with no problems -- then how are they ever going to get together to pass any comprehensive immigration reform that permits a path to legalization for undocumented immigrants? This would seem to be the most innocuous of concepts -- allow undocumented students who were brought here as minors to get on a path to permanent residence by going to college or joining the military. We shouldn't be punishing children for the "sins" (and that is most certainly not the correct word for the actions of their parents) of their parents. How are we better off as a nation to keep these children in the hidden world of undocumented immigrants? How can we be so lacking in grace? And Tom Tancredo, the epitome of mean-spiritedness, actually tried to get the students who lobbied in Washington on behalf of the bill arrested! But on the other hand, why expect Congress and the administration to care about innocent immigrant children when they apparently don't even care much about the health care needs of U.S. citizen children? e.g. the SCHIP bill.

"Blessed are the merciful, for they shall receive mercy." Matt. 5. If I were Tom Tancredo, FAIR, Lou Dobbs, the Minutemen, and all those nativist groups out there, I would be concerned about the state of my soul.

Sam Graves; SCHIP Vote

2007-10-22T15:57:00.000-07:00

Letter to Editor, published 10/13/07 in the Kansas City Star

Last week, Rep. Sam Graves gave his reasons for voting against the SCHIP bill that would provide health insurance for millions of U.S. children. A major reason for his rejection is that there is the possibility that the children of “illegal immigrants” might fraudulently receive benefits (they aren’t eligible under the bill). There may be reasons for opposing the program, but this isn’t one of them. It seems for Rep. Graves the horror that the child of a poor immigrant might actually get health care in this country outweighs the benefit of the program to millions of poor U.S. children. Immigrant bashing may be a convenient political move to justify just about any wretched policy, but it is patently ridiculous here. If there is the potential for fraud in the program (as there is in any federal or state benefit program), get rid of the fraud, not the program.