Archive for the Recent Posts Category.

October 18th, 2010

101-Year-Old Woman Granted Citizenship, but Could Have Been Deported

Lara S. Pierce

I recently heard an immigration story with a happy ending. These days, heartwarming immigration stories seem to be few and far between, so I was delighted to hear about it. In 1909, while still an infant, a woman was carried across the Mexico-U.S. border. At that time, crossing the border was nothing like it is today as there were neither checkpoints nor patrol guards. The woman is now 101 years old and a lifelong resident of the U.S., but until this month she was still a citizen of Mexico, a country in which she had apparently never lived. Today, she is a proud U.S. Citizen.

Was this the right outcome ? We couldn’t possibly deny citizenship to a 101-year-old woman, or deport her… could we? Well, by her own admission, she returned from visits to Mexico on several occasions by simply stating she was a U.S. citizen, knowing that she was not, but afraid of being denied entry. Technically, because of these false claims of U.S. citizenship at the border, the law states that she should not only be deported from the U.S. but also barred for life from returning to the U.S. Yes, the law is that harsh. Making a false claim of U.S. citizenship “for any purpose under [the Immigration and Nationality Act] or any Federal or State law is” grounds for being deported and denied admission to the U.S. Although waivers exist to overcome penalties for various other violations of the law, no such relief exists for false claims of U.S. citizenship. Only a very narrow exception exists for naturalization applicants, which apparently this woman met. For most, though, there is no exception and no other form of relief.

This is a happy story that concluded the way it should have. Legally, though, in most cases this outcome is impossible. Although the Department of Homeland Security has prosceutorial discretion and is therefore not required to prosecute all cases, discretion seems to be very rarely exercised, even given recently announced ICE priorities. So, by law, had this woman not met a very narrow exception that allowed her to naturalize, she could have been deported and never allowed to return, even after living in this country for 101 years. Such an outcome would be shameful, abhorrent. Yet our laws are designed to favor that outcome, because the exception to naturalize is very narrow and likely does not apply to most applicants. This scenario provides yet another example of how overly harsh U.S. immigration laws are, and that the time to implement humane immigration laws is now.

Posted in Citizenship, Detention, Recent Posts, Reform, The undocumented | Comments Off
August 10th, 2010

Children of Illegal Aliens

N. Peter Antone

Several politicians and commentators have recently advocated for the repeal of the 14th Amendment, to deny citizenship rights to US-born children of illegal aliens. Some call them “anchor babies,” but that is inaccurate, as such babies cannot benefit their parents until they are 21, too long of a time to establish a motive to enter the US illegally.

But, do advocates of such change know whether they are themselves the descendents of illegal aliens? Many are, although they might not know it.

For decades, aliens illegally here, but who found an employer willing to sponsor them, or who established families here could legalize their status. The law was only hardened in 1996. Accordingly, there are many millions of proud Americans today who might not know that they are here only because the law was then more humane.

Numerous Americans might not know that had their ancestors been subject to current laws, they might not have been allowed in. For example, committing a mistake at any time in a life time, such as retail fraud of a few bucks, or slapping one’s child might make the alien inadmissible under today’s law. How many of our early immigrant families would be regarded as illegal under our existing laws?

Many other Americans who trace their ancestors centuries back might not be aware that they are descendants of unwelcomed entrants, or worse, mercenaries, such as the Hessian soldiers who fought with the British, but who stayed here after the end of the Revolutionary War.

We also should not forget the passengers of the Mayflower, and millions after them, who came to a land already inhabited by others, without documentation or prior permission!

In the end, we are a nation of immigrants who came to this land to make a better life for themselves. Many of us descend from aliens not entitled to be here under today’s law. Under current rules, we are indeed a nation of illegal aliens. But, that apparently did not stop us from building a great country.

Proponents of the repeal of the birth rights complain that we are one of the few countries that are so generous. That is right. But, that is why we are so exceptional. It amuses me that those complainants usually resent any of what the rest of world has to offer, unless it is based on hate and meanness.

But, aside from history, one needs to contemplate what would happen to a baby born in the US who knows no other country, but who is not a citizen? We would be adding a class of sub-human beings, with substandard rights, for no fault of their own. Would we deny them education? Where else can they live if born here? Who would accept them? Would we be throwing them away once they are 18? America is a better country than that.

Posted in Bills & Laws, Citizenship, Recent Posts, The undocumented | Comments Off
June 26th, 2010

Our Hypocritical Immigration Laws

N. Peter Antone

What is meant by hypocritical law? There is no formal definition. My own is that a law is hypocritical when it punishes individuals for doing things many of us had done, when we would certainly consider such punishment unthinkable or unconscionable if applied to us.

Consider the following example: Someone who is a non-citizen and who was caught at any time is his life experimenting with marijuana would now face serious threat of deportation, or refusal of entry into our country. If he was caught twice, then deportation or exclusion becomes probable. If someone tries to smoke marijuana cigarette during his college years, but did not like the taste, and chose instead to sell it to a friend for five bucks, then this person will now be deported or excluded permanently as drug trafficker, regardless of the passage of decades. Under our immigration laws, offenses committed at any time often count as offenses committed yesterday, without regards to how the person developed or who is the person today.

But, how is the experimentation of marijuana in young age reflective of how a person might develop? The answer is that the correlation is zero. We have multiple Presidents who admitted to experimenting with worse than marijuana. We have had Supreme Court nominees who had admitted to the same. Thus, smoking marijuana is clearly not indicative of what the person might become at a later time of his/her life.

Note that the example above does not deal with undocumented aliens. It involves legal immigrants or visitors to our country. In case of green card holders, the deportation would destroy families and often separate kids from mother or father.

Other examples involve individuals who have committed relatively minor or non-violent crimes, such shop lifting, or other mistakes in their life, decades ago, and have been completely rehabilitated. Some might not have spent even one day in jail; yet, decades later our government is spending billions of dollars in salaries for federal agents trying to deport them. Does this make sense?

Our law justifies this travesty under the fiction that deportation is not a punishment, but administrative procedure of simply returning someone to the country they came from. And while that might be true for someone who jumped the border fence recently, it is a tragic fiction for those with families who had lived here for many years and have nowhere else to go. Unfortunately, our courts are happy participants in this fictitious nonsense since it gives them easy way out rather than face the difficult reality that deportation for some people is worse than jail.

I am convinced that if our current immigration law was in effect since the start of our country, and if somehow by magic the background history of those immigrating here could have been disclosed, many Americans, including some at DHS, would not be living here, as their ancestors would certainly have been denied entry. I am also convinced that in many cases, the federal agents or government officials doing the deportation have done in their life not much better than those they are deporting. It is just that even if caught, the fact they are US citizens meant that the consequences are minor.

What does that say about our society? We are spending fortunes in the billions of dollars trying to deport people, who otherwise are fully rehabilitated, for things they did decades ago, for which they have paid dues to society and some of which are minor, and in the interim, we are destroying families and devastating many lives. A society is best judged by how it treats its most vulnerable. Immigrants can not vote and hence are indeed among the most vulnerable among us. And how we are treating them does not make us look very good.

Posted in Bills & Laws, Immigration, security, and fear, Recent Posts | Comments Off