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.
Sunday, May 17, 2009
Saturday, January 3, 2009
Immigrant Voter Fraud; Fun on Election Day
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.
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.
Sunday, October 26, 2008
Immigration and the RNC
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.
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.
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
Jesus and Immigration
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
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
Thursday, February 7, 2008
Cajun French
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?
I wonder if the "English only" crowd has a problem with this? Or does that just apply to Spanish?
Friday, January 25, 2008
What is an Illegal Alien? Essay
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
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
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?
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)