Archive for the Immigration, security, and fear Category.

January 29th, 2010

Common Misconceptions about Immigrants and Immigration

Lara S. Pierce

A law professor in Kansas City, Missouri has recently renewed his efforts to deny non-citizen, undocumented children access to in-state tuition in Nebraska. Kris Kobach, whose previous attempt in Iowa failed, now represents three families whose U.S. citizen children are charged higher tuition rates because they do not qualify for in-state tuition. He argues that non-citizens should not be permitted to pay less than citizens. I am simply unable to understand why anyone believes innocent children should be punished, and with such harsh punishment at that; it is in this nation’s best interest to encourage and permit children to attend college. It is in the States’ best interest to retain autonomy and determine financial benefits afforded to residents.

Aside from those issues, however, it is clear that at the heart of this and similar debates are three major misconceptions about immigrants and immigration: the concept of “citizen” versus “resident,” the demography of Taxpayers, and the civil nature of Immigration Law.

Citizenship

Only recently did I learn that U.S. law provides for citizenship by birth on U.S. soil because of slavery. Lawmakers did not know how to treat slaves; slaves were not considered citizens, and Congress was not willing to grant them citizenship. The solution was citizenship to anyone born in the U.S.

As someone lucky enough to have been born in the U.S., I can say that until studying law, I did not fully recognize the advantages my U.S. Citizenship confers. It was nothing I had ever needed to consider. In learning law generally and immigration law specifically, however, I learned that in many cases, citizenship confers no legal advantage. Often, no distinction is made between citizenship and non-citizenship. At the state level, most laws and regulations focus on residency, rather than U.S. citizenship. In addition to college tuition, non-citizens may get divorced in state court, for example, but only where the court has jurisdiction; jurisdiction is determined in large part on residency in that state, county, or district. Citizenship is irrelevant. Likewise, non-citizens can sue in federal courts. In fact, the U.S. Constitution limits its reach to non-citizens in only a few instances, namely the right to vote and hold public office. The U.S. Constitution generally applies to all residents of the U.S., although the laws have been limited in many instances. Prison inmates, for example, have been deemed to have fewer rights. Notably, this applies to U.S. citizen prisoners and non-citizen prisoners alike. The Bill of Rights, however, does generally apply to all persons residing in the U.S.

So what does citizenship mean? A U.S. passport. The right to enter and exit the borders of the U.S. freely. The right to vote. The right to run for public office. But what else? Is a U.S. citizen more likely to know the history of this country? To be politically aware and engaged? Does it mean citizens actually exercise the right to vote? Are citizens more likely to open a business? Support local businesses? Have access to health care? Be nice to neighbors? Donate to charities? Volunteer in the community? Not necessarily. Citizenship is irrelevant.

I know a lot of immigrants – visitors, temporary residents, undocumented persons, persons out of status, permanent residents, and naturalized citizens. All of them, without exception, love this country. They take pride in it, which they often wear on their sleeves. They explore the beautiful lands that make up the U.S., delve into their communities, eagerly help their neighbors, and even educate themselves politically – despite not having the right to vote in many cases. This is not to say all immigrants are more patriotic or engaged than U.S. citizens; certainly that is not the case. However, it begs the question: why do so many U.S. citizens harbor such resentment towards non-citizen immigrants?

Perhaps it relates to taxes…

Taxes

The second greatest misconception is that immigrants do not pay taxes. The Federal Tax Code is not based on citizenship. Here again, residency is the determining factor. Generally, anyone who lives and works in the U.S. for any amount of time must pay taxes. This applies to all immigrants. This is why a Tax Identification Number (TIN) is made available – so that non-citizens, or anyone who does not have a Social Security Number, can still pay taxes.

In my experience, I have not met any immigrants, documented or undocumented, who do not pay taxes. Of course I am not saying that everyone pays taxes, but the point is that it is a huge misconception that just because someone is an immigrant, documented or undocumented, they do not pay taxes. There is a disconcerting leap in logic in that notion, and is one that simply does not hold water. Further, many surveys of all immigrants indicate that they use fewer social services than any other portion of society, despite being a population that overall pays a high percentage of taxes nationwide. Thus, the allegation that they simply feed off society by not paying into the very pool of money they drain, is a weak and ignorant one.

It is true that many immigrants work without legal authorization to do so. This is a large-scale problem, admittedly. The Department of Homeland Security has increased its efforts to enforce laws that are meant to prevent unlawful hiring practices. This cuts both ways, though. Mass deportation of employees of the Posteville, Iowa factory has devastated that town and left it in financial ruin. Many employers, farmers in particular, hire undocumented persons because they cannot afford to pay minimum wage, or because they cannot fill an unsavory position (think slaughterhouse cleaning crew) otherwise. Yet, minimum wage is in place to protect workers. The issue is far-reaching in our society, and the blame should not be squarely placed on the shoulders of immigrants.

“Illegal”

The term “illegal” in the context of immigration is largely a misnomer. Immigration laws are Federal Civil laws completely separate from Federal Criminal laws. To enter this country without the proper paperwork or to overstay a visa – these are not crimes. They are simply violations of civil law. No one can be sentenced to jail for doing that. In fact, the most severe penalty for violating an immigration law is a misdemeanor punishable up to six months in jail for crossing the border without inspection – roughly the equivalent of the punishment for driving under the influence. (Detention while proceedings are pending is also not criminal in nature, but rather a measure to ensure the detainee leaves the U.S. The conditions of detention, however, blur this line and must be reformed. I previously wrote about this topic.)

Anyone who continues to harbor such ill-will towards immigrants after a better understanding of the basics must know something I don’t, or be coming from a very different place than I am. I would be very interested to know what or where that is…

Posted in Bills & Laws, Citizenship, Immigration, security, and fear, Recent Posts, Reform, The undocumented | Comments Off
December 8th, 2009

How to handle overstays

N. Peter Antone

Our government just announced that the budget for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has increased by several billion dollars, mostly to hire new agents. One of DHS’ tasks involves tracking all people who enter the U.S. to see if and when they depart. Those programs are not targeted against terrorists or criminals; rather they are widespread and cover everyone who enters this country.

There are clearly some in our government and in Congress who are obsessed with knowing how many people enter the country and do not leave. The estimated number of those who are currently undocumented in the U.S. averages about 12 million, out of which about 30-40% came legally but overstayed. That means that there are about 4 to 5 million foreigners who entered our country legally but have not left. Assuming that the number of new undocumented aliens increases by approximately 1 million per year, then about 300,000 of those every year are foreigners who enter legally but stay.

The task of finding all those millions seems to be of critical importance to some in our society. Some of our officials, even some senators, urge our DHS to identify those persons. What nobody really discusses is what to do about them once we know who and where they are.

Leaving aside the several million who are here already and have not left, for those who enter legally and do not leave at the end of their visits, which are estimated at about 300,000 annually, it will require literally an army of police officers and government agents to try to find them. Chances are many would have changed their place of stay since they typically become mobile after entering this country. Trying to locate them will require millions of new hires at our tax payers’ expense.

The real question is: Why do we care where they are and what they are doing? Other than the need for control, why do we care? And even if we get to them, most of them will have reasons for why they overstayed. Not only will we have to find them but we will have to detain, process them at immigration court, etc. Literally to be able to truly handle them we need to devote much of our resources to this task. This sounds silly. The U.S. has existed for over 200 years and has become a great country without the need to do this kind of fanatical surveillance on others, even if they are out of status in this country.

It appears to me that a far more intelligent way to handle this is to impose a financial penalty that would grow in time for those who enter legally but overstay. For example, the penalty can be $10 per day, or a couple hundred dollars per month. Thus, as an example, if someone enters our country legally but overstays for ten years and then married an American citizen and seeks a Green Card, we can at that time present them with a bill to pay approximately $30,000 for their overstay. Most of those who are here out of status want some way to cure their situation and adjust their status. Letting them know there will be a financial price to pay at the end, that would increase with time, would be the best possible motive for them to leave. And if they need to apply again in the future, the U.S. consulate will be aware of their overstay and can charge them the required penalty before issuing any other visas.

This solution will alleviate the need for us to have an army of agents costing tax payers tens of billions of dollars, and by creating a financial incentive for a foreign national not to overstay, we will at the same time generate substantial revenue from foreign nationals who do stay. The savings that we make and the revenues we get could be in the tens of billions of dollars that we can put to more practical, resourceful or wise use than fanatical surveillance of other human beings.

This is not to say that we should not monitor those that have characteristics that worry us or that may reflect an inclination towards terrorism or criminality. However, I do think that when we cast the net too wide, we lose the ability to focus on what really matters. When we check everybody and anybody and when we try to trace everybody without regard to the seriousness of their presence here, we simply are wasting resources that could be better be used to track those who really mean us harm. We need to replace the mindset of wide net paradigm with a more focused, intelligent one. As to the rest of the overstaying population, which is the harmless majority, they will pay their dues whenever they need to adjust or whenever they need to return to this country after they leave. Such system would preserve our security without wasting so much of our resources.

Posted in Immigration, security, and fear, Recent Posts, Reform | Comments Off
October 24th, 2009

Immigration Detention – Part Three

Lara S. Pierce

The Medical Care Crisis

Of the poor conditions in immigration detention facilities across the U.S. reported over the years, the lack of adequate medical care provided to detained immigrants is among the worst. This article published online by the Texas Observer on October 2, 2009, and summarized below, illustrates how devastating this problem is.
The Observer article tells the heartbreaking story of the death of 32-year-old Jesus Manuel Galindo. Mr. Galindo, a Mexican man detained at the Reeves County Detention Center in Pecos, Texas for crossing the border illegally after having been deported, had lived in the U.S. since the age of 13. In detention at Reeves, Mr. Galindo informed the prison guards that because he was epileptic, he was prone to seizures and required medication and medical attention regularly. Despite this, his requests for medical attention went unanswered and he was dramatically under medicated.
Scheduled for release on December 12, 2008, Mr. Galindo had notified his mother on December 10th that he was still waiting for the medical attention he requested on December 9th. He told her he was concerned about his health and that if she did not hear from him on December 12th, to call the prison. On December 12, Mr. Galindo’s mother did have to call the prison only to learn that her son’s body had been found. He died in prison from neglectful medical care. By the time his body was found he had already been dead for several hours. His request for medical care in those last few days was apparently never granted.
Reeves, located in West Texas, is the largest privately run prison in the U.S. It houses approximately 1,230 inmates. It is run by GEO Group, formerly Wackenhut, and the prison is a for profit business model. GEO contracts Physicians Network Association of Lubbock, Texas to provide medical services.
Sadly, Mr. Galindo was not the first detained immigrant to die within its walls. Inmates claim that Mr. Galindo was placed in solitary confinement after requesting additional medical care, and that this was standard operating procedure at Reeves. Those who needed medical attention were punished, sent to solitary confinement.
Mr. Galindo’s death was the last straw for the inmates. Upon learning of his death, the 1,236 inmates at Reeves revolted in an uprising and shutting down the prison. The uprising resulted in negotiations between the inmates, and several state and federal level enforcement agencies. The demands by the inmates were simple – adequate medical care and better food. Although agreements were made, the requests made by the inmates went unanswered and another uprising occurred in February of this year.
This story is not just about Mr. Galindo. It is about the invisibility and vulnerability of detained immigrants, about the lack of accountability we have against privately run (for profit) prison companies, and about a need for enforceable, uniform standards in place for detained immigrants. It is also about the more than 100 other immigrants who have died in detention. Their stories go largely unheard.

The New York Times recently wrote about Xiu Ping Jiang, a Chinese woman with severe mental health issues whose medical needs were initially ignored and whose condition deteriorated significantly during detention. Thankfully, Ms. Jiang has been released and is now receiving the care she needs, but hers is also a harrowing story of neglect. Neglect is simply unacceptable.

The Obama Administration pledges to reform immigration. Detention needs comprehensive reform, and among the issues, access to medical care must be a priority.

Posted in Detention, Immigration, security, and fear, Recent Posts, Reform | Comments Off