Archive for the Reform Category.

U.S. Immigration Law and Morton’s Fork

A client filing for a hardship waiver has obtained letters of support from friends and family for the Immigration Judge, asking that discretion be exercised to grant the waiver. A common theme pinpointed in all of the letters was that denial of the waiver would give the U.S. citizen family members of the waiver applicant two undesirable choices that would each result in undesirable outcomes. This situation is known as Morton’s Fork.

The term comes from the tax collections carried out by Lord Morton, of England, in the late 1480s. He reasoned that someone who lived modestly could clearly afford to pay high taxes and someone who lived in poverty must have savings so they too could afford high taxes. The people were to be taxed at a high rate, no matter what they did.

In some cases, a non-citizen placed in removal proceedings may be eligible for a waiver that would prevent his or her deportation if granted. Such waivers are discretionary and may be granted only if the applicant can show that his U.S. citizen spouse or parents (and in some cases children) would suffer “extreme hardship” if he or she were to be deported from the U.S. What qualifies as “extreme hardship” varies from case-to-case, but generally must require a showing of more than simply financial or emotional hardship. The Immigration Courts have said that anyone facing separation from a loved one would likely face financial or emotional hardship, thereby making them, so goes the logic of the Immigration Courts, unextreme hardships. What makes hardship “extreme” can be a number of factors that might not meet the threshold separately, but taken together amount to an extreme hardship overall.

The two aspects of removal proceedings generally, and hardship waivers in particular, that have struck me most over time is that U.S. Immigration Law offers U.S. citizens Morton’s Fork by design, and that the vast majority of U.S. citizens are, or appear to be, completely unaware of this.

Making the case for extreme hardship underscores the gravity of deportation and the U.S. approach to it as established in a complicated and harsh body of law. As written and interpreted, U.S. Immigration Law puts every U.S. citizen family of someone being deported in the position of choosing between a rock and a hard place. And it is done with incredible non-chalance. Every day, U.S. citizens are effectively told, by the U.S. Government, ‘You can either accompany your loved one (spouse, parent, child, etc) to [his or her home country], or you can continue to live in the U.S. without him or her (spouse, parent, child, etc.).’ Simple. Right?

What this dilemma (and it is a dilemma more than a “choice”) can mean is as devastating as the U.S. is diverse. In many cases, it means U.S. citizens must consider living with their loved one in an impoverished country, where English is not spoken and whose language the citizen does not speak, where perhaps for women there are limited career opportunities, or for children there are limited educational institutions. For the elderly, transplanting to a foreign country after living nearly an entire lifetime in the U.S., the obstacles may be even greater. Conversely, the option would be to remain in the U.S., where all is familiar and a life is already established, without the deported non-citizen. To so many, this simply is no option at all. The idea of living separated from a spouse, raising a child without a parent or letting a child raise him- or herself, or spending the last days of one’s life without their children sitting bedside – this can seem even more unbearable.

The feeling of disbelief captured in these support letters written by U.S. citizens is nearly ubiquitous among the U.S. Citizens I have met who are experiencing the harsh nature of U.S. Immigration Law for the first time. The shock that their own U.S. citizen family and friends could find themselves in such a situation, be put in such a situation, by the U.S. Government is palpable. ‘How can they make this choice?’ and ‘Are they to choose between one child and another,?’ are questions that commonly appear throughout these support letters. Unfortunately, the answer is yes.

Yes, U.S. Immigration Law largely does not stand for the preservation of families. Yes, U.S. citizens are made to choose between separation from their own country and life, or separation from their beloved family member being deported. Yes, the results are equally implausible. Yes, this is harsh and unfair.

Yes. It can be changed.

Posted in Immigration, security, and fear, Inadmissibility & Deportation, Recent Posts, Reform | Comments Off

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

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

Common Misconceptions about Immigrants and Immigration

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