The U.S. Supreme Court announced on Monday, Dec. 12, that it will rule in its 2012 session on Arizona’s tough new immigration law. The law requires police to check the immigration status of anyone they detain who they suspect is in the U.S. illegally and requires immigrants to carry their papers at all times. The law is a hot button issue in what promises to be an especially contentious election year. Prominent immigration attorney N. Peter Antone of Antone, Casagrande & Adwers, P.C. shares his thoughts on the subject.

———-

Thorpe: What, if any, impact might a Supreme Court ruling on the Arizona law have on current Michigan immigration law?

Antone: In Michigan, there was a pending bill similar in scope to Arizona but not as comprehensive. That bill might have died out. Most likely, the Legislature is waiting for any Arizona decision to come out before revisiting the proposed legislation, or before introducing a new bill.

Despite the activity in the Legislature, Gov. Snyder has explicitly said Michigan should not and will not have an Arizona type law and in that case, he might resist any restrictive tendency by the Michigan legislature, even if the Arizona law is approved.

Thorpe: There are also laws being challenged in South Carolina and Utah. If the Arizona law is upheld, do you foresee a patchwork quilt of immigration laws in the U.S.? How will that complicate the job of attorneys?

Antone: The patchwork quilt is already formed, albeit in its early stages. Many states have passed some kind of state immigration law in the past two years. So, regardless of the decisions on these recent cases, the trend is already set and in motion. The extent to which the state laws will go and perhaps the number of states that implement laws will very likely be impacted by the decisions on Alabama, South Carolina, Arizona, etc., but it is already clear that states are increasingly interested in having a hand in immigration enforcement.

While this will certainly impact the work of attorneys, it will significantly impact the lives of even lawful immigrants. Each state will handle its immigration-related laws and policies differently, but the result will almost inevitably be that determinations of what is “legal presence” and who is here “lawfully” will increasingly be made by civil servants completely unfamiliar with what is largely recognized as one of the most complex legal frameworks in the U.S. For example, in Michigan, the Secretary of State now has very broad discretion to determine who is eligible for a driver’s license. The guidance previously provided by law was removed by the superseding bill signed into law in September. What was already an infuriating process of obtaining a driver’s license, even for those here lawfully, will now very likely be made even more inconsistent with Secretary of State office clerks having less guidance and more discretion in determining who is here lawfully and eligible for a license. Surely this will be an unwelcome development for the clerks as well, who are now expected to resolve what are often complicated questions, even for immigration lawyers.

For immigration lawyers, employment-based visas may become more complicated in terms of what restrictions states place on employers and their ability to hire non-residents of the state or non-citizens. Michigan has at least 12 bills pending in the House that will require employers to sign written contracts limiting who they can hire. If each state has such restrictive laws, it will become increasingly complicated and difficult to practice federal law in several states, which is currently the status quo.

Additionally, for any immigrant who is arrested or who has any type of criminal record, the states are increasingly eager to require police to enforce immigration law by inquiring about immigration status and requiring them to turn any non-citizens over to ICE. This will make it increasingly difficult for many lawfully present immigrants to live their lives as police will again be left to determine what is lawful presence and who is here lawfully. Some people who are lawfully present cannot easily prove it with a single piece of paper. I anticipate lots of time and money spent on analyzing status and undoing the damage of wrongful arrests.

Thorpe: Are there any initiatives in the Michigan Legislature or being proposed by advocacy groups in the state that are similar to the Arizona law? If that law is upheld, do you anticipate an “opening of the floodgates” in Lansing as lawmakers try to craft similar laws?

Antone: The Michigan House and Senate have had numerous bills introduced even just in 2011 seeking to restrict the ability of employers to hire non-residents of Michigan, including foreigners who may not have residence in Michigan, and requires employers seek public contracts to execute statements that they will not knowingly hire any employees not authorized under federal law to be employed in the U.S. Another bill requires any public employer in Michigan to use E-verify.

The Michigan Legislature, left to its own, seems to be very eager to make Michigan quite restrictionist with respect to immigration, and very likely, it will model either a single comprehensive law, or multiple smaller laws, after the Arizona law so that it falls within the parameters of the Supreme Court decision. Already there are several bills pending that seek to ultimately eliminate the possibility of anyone unable to prove lawful presence from receiving benefits, employment, or driver’s license, and increasingly the Legislature is placing the power to determine this legal presence and eligibility in the hands of Michigan agencies and the Secretary of State.

The House also has a pending resolution that would notify Congress of it’s position that the 14th Amendment does not confer citizenship as a birthright.

A Michigan bill pending in the house actually would require police to arrest any non-citizen for what the police believe may be a deportable offense, and creates a private right of action to Michigan residents to sue the authorities if they believe these laws are not being carried out as fully as possible.

Thorpe: How does the demographic make-up of Michigan’s immigrants differ from those in Arizona? Does that affect our state’s approach to immigration law?

Antone: Michigan might be more diverse in the makeup of its immigrant populations. Hopefully, that will place pressure on the legislature not to enact sweeping immigration laws that would undermine civil liberties of Michigan residents, whether legal or undocumented.

Thorpe: Do Michigan immigration attorneys as a group seek any reforms in Michigan’s current laws?

Antone: While I cannot speak for other Michigan immigration attorneys, I do believe that the majority are in favor of reasonable and responsible measures to improve our immigration system. That might involve policies that will avoid needless separation and destruction of families, will create a workable guest work program, will encourage more professionals, entrepreneurs and investors to stay here and to create jobs and will retain our country’s value as a great nation of immigrant. Further, most of us view a workable guest work program as an effective way to reduce the incentive for job seekers to cross the border illegally, which will enhance our ability to secure the border from serious criminals and terrorist, and with less cost.

Thorpe: What other issues do you see on the horizon for Michigan immigration attorneys?

Antone: Frankly, the more complicated immigration law becomes, the more work might be available for immigration attorneys. But, society as a whole is losing big time for numerous reasons:

Our current immigration law is very unforgiving. For example, there are several million U.S. citizen kids who have a parent who is undocumented. If we deport all those parents, we would have spent a fortune of taxpayers’ money to create a generation of kids who have been raised without proper parental guidance, who are more likely to be on welfare, and who are more likely to have educational and psychological problems, costing our society dearly in the future.

The current wave of state laws purportedly against the undocumented will create an opportunity for those who recent immigrants to abuse the law against those who look different. Our country’s image will change into a non-hospitable one. This will open the door for violations of civil liberties, even for legal immigrant. This will also affect the impression which others have of us, causing negative impact on tourism, foreign investments, trade, and ultimately negatively affecting the US economically and otherwise.

The issue of the undocumented is ultimately an issue of market needing labor with certain skills, with willingness to do tough jobs, and responding to seasonal needs. We need a workable guest work program that will alleviate the incentive for the undocumented entering our borders illegally and which will allow us then to more easily protect the border from those who seriously want us harm: drug dealers, terrorists and the like.

Finally, the current hysteria against the perceived harm from the undocumented and the willingness of some politicians to demagogue this issue is creating an atmosphere where it is difficult for policy makers to discuss or resolve immigration issues intelligently.

Published: Thu, Dec 22, 2011

I have been practicing immigration law for two decades and have yet to encounter a case where I felt that undocumented immigrants are hired for cheap labor. Almost all of my encounters involved employers hiring them for their hard work.

Many claim that immigrants steal American jobs. If so, then this country would be the poorest since it accepts millions of immigrants yearly. The reality is that immigrants, legal or not, bring jobs with them. They quickly become consumers needing housing, furniture, transportation, and so on. Their needs stimulate the economy.

Some contend that illegal immigrants broke our laws. But, many came as kids and thus, are not responsible for their parents’ actions. Slightly less than half entered the country legally but overstayed, which is not a crime. Those who entered through the borders committed a misdemeanor, a legally light offense.

Some wonder why immigrants do not come legally, as those before them did. What they do not know is that our ancestors came under a prior, more humane law, which was toughened in 1996. If we had always had today’s law, very few of us would be here.

Legalizing the status of undocumented immigrants does not necessarily mean citizenship. It does mean stopping the destruction of families. Almost 3 million US kids have undocumented parents who live in fear of deportation. We are spending huge resources to destroy families and create a generation of kids with psychological problems.

Even for those without families in the US, many are working hard to support their families and kids overseas. The few dollars they send to their kids help reduce their horrible poverty. Isn’t that what Christians ought to celebrate?

The current immigration debate in our country seems to me to be based not on logic, but on opportunism, where some politicians use fear to scare us against those who look different, and thus get votes as tough protectors of our society.

Some who oppose any relief for the illegal immigrants are the same who confess to be Christian guardians of family moral values. But, Jesus asked us to feed the hungry and shelter the homeless when we see one, and did not exclude those who lack legal papers!

Undocumented immigrants are in the millions. We should not treat them all the same way. We need solutions that take into account their specifics circumstances. Many came as kids. Others came when our borders were porous. If we want to be tough, we should not penalize those who came when we needed them, and for whom we looked the other way when they entered.

Among other actions taken, Governor Snyder has called for the Michigan Economic Development Corporation (MEDC) to take an active role in the development of pro-immigration business policy. This is a wonderful step in the right direction. Michigan should be investing its resources not only into bringing tourists here, i.e. the Pure Michigan campaign, but also on attracting and welcoming business investors and employers.

Based on the experience of our clients, the simple step of proactively reaching out to potential and new businesses already committed to Michigan from Square One would be most welcome, and welcoming, to foreign investors. A point of contact should be readily able to guide them through our laws, regulations, cultural norms, and myriad logistical challenges, to anticipate what those challenges may be and equip the business leadership with knowledge and resources that will better enable them to open and oeprate their business successfully, and should be available should an obstacle arise. Of course countless other obstacles and solutions already exist and need to be explored.

Moving beyond the walls of the office, it is imperative that Michigan consider the lives of foreign workers and their families as residents. When an immigrant comes to live and work in the U.S. for a period of a year, or a few years, or several years, it is important to remember that he or she is not just a visa number, or an employee. Rather, he or she is a resident and citizen (small “c”) of Michigan, eager to explore the beauty and culture of our State and Country. This is an aspect of immigration that, I believe, has been overlooked. We should make it as easy as possible not only to get here, but to live here.Yet simple aspects of daily life that Michiganders take for granted are unecessarily challenging for immigrants. Thankfully, solutions are apparent and accessible. For starters, it should be simpler and easier for foreign workers and their families in Michigan to obtain a driver’s license, qualify for in-state college tuition, and understand tax responsibilities.

Currently, the Secretary of State has in place an internal policy to automatically deny any B1/B2 visa holders a license. This is more restrictive than the federal laws and regulations, needlessly. A visitor in this status can be present for up to 18 months – denying him or her the ability to drive, upon paying fees and passing the required tests, makes no sense. How else are they to get around in Michigan, where mass transit is undeniably limited. Assuming he or she can prove legal status, current residence in Michigan, and identity, he or she should be able to obtain a license. This could impact potential foreign investors visiting Michigan for a long period as they explore business investment opportunities and/or family members visiting.

Additionally, for other visa holders, like those in TN, H, E, and L status, the process should be seamless. Yet, the staff at Secretary of State (SOS) branch offices regularly fail to recognize the meaning of documents issued by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), improperly questioning the validity of a visa or a person’s status. Any single discrepancy between the SOS and DHS record of names, including an obvious typo cleared up by a passport and other identity documents, results in denial of a driver’s license. SOS staff regularly instruct immigrants they must fix the error with DHS before a license can be issued. Obtaining a new document from DHS for name correction can take months and can be quite expensive. Similarly, immigrants from Latin America and the Middle East treat last names differently from the U.S., in a well-known and predictable manner. For example, an TN visa holder from Mexico will technically have two last names, the last name of her father followed by the last name of her mother. This is simply how it is done in that culture. However, it is extremely common for Latin Americans to use only one of those last names on a regular basis. Despite this widespread, commonplace, predictable practice, SOS branch offices regularly require applicants to provide documentation that matches the SOS system, even if her passport, work authorization card, and birth certificate all evidence her full name. Again, she will be told to rectify the name difference via DHS or Social Security. This is overly restrictive at worst, highly inconvenient at best.

Many foreign workers, their spouses, and children, who are eligible to attend school in Michigan are constructively prevented from doing so due to cost. Although they are residents of Michigan, and are often times home owners, qualifying for “resident” for purposes of receiving in-state tuition rates is burdensome. For those who can even qualify for in-state tuition at all, they must first show payment of Michigan taxes for at least a year. Instead of doing so, or paying extremely high international rates, they simply do not attend at all. Colleges that could be benefitting from their enrollment at any rate, lose out altogether, as does the larger economy to which they could contribute their increased knowledge and skill.

Lastly, foreigners must pay U.S. and Michigan taxes upon residing here for a certain period of time. Generally speaking, foreigners do properly file their taxes, but it is nonetheless a daunting system that may prevent others from paying, or from doing so easily. A section of the State of Michigan Treasury website devoted to immigrants, with simple tools to help determine whether they must file taxes could result in greatly increased tax revenue, and will at least be an attractive resource to foreign workers.

Overall, these are problems that appear minor but that dramatically frustrate the ease with which immigrants move to and integrate into life in Michigan. Yet, the solutions to solve these problems are relatively simple and are certainly easily achievable. Foreign investors are necessarily concerned with the quality of their employees’ lives, and consider the ease of living in a foreign place when selecting locations. Making the lives of investors, business owners, their employees and their families better, will indeed send the signal that not only is Michigan a wonderful place for foreigners to do business, it is a wonderful place for foreigners to live.

With Governor Snyder’s leadership and support, Michigan is poised to lead the 50 States toward an economy that encourages and embraces immigrants, countering the unproductive and misguided anti-immigration trend. Michigan has led the U.S. economy before, and by taking this new course, it will do it again. It is an exciting time to be a proponent of immigration in Michigan and I look forward to witnessing and contributing to the progress.

Ola’s story, and the positive outcome, is proof that action by you – phone calls, letters, petitions – can and does make a difference. It is also evidence of the overwhelming sense in America that DREAM Act beneficiaries are good kids who deserve a break. Michiganders clearly feel this way, and I am very proud of the efforts undertaken by my homestate to stand up for Ola. If America believes we should protect these children, it is imperative that the DREAM Act also be supported and passed. This can, and will happen, if you take action!

For information about the DREAM Act and opportunities to take action, visit DREAMActivist and One M1chigan.

Congratulations to Ola and her family and friends! Let’s keep this momentum going.

Ola Kaso is about to graduate from high school (at the top of her class!) and start college at the University of Michigan. Strike that, she is about to graduate from high school (at the top of her class!) and be deported to Albania.

President Obama has made immigration enforcement a top priority of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), including Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). In fact, deportations and prosecutions have been occurring at a fast pace, eclipsing the statistics for enforcement under previous presidents. According to a DHS memorandum published last year, ICE is to focus on deporting non-citizens with criminal convictions, and particularly those with convictions for violent or serious crimes. On top of that, President Obama announced in August 2010, in response to pressure from DREAM Act advocates and a request by Senator Durbin, that the deportation of students with no criminal backgrounds would be suspended. In any case, ICE can exercise prosecutorial discretion in determining which cases it pursues. In the case of young adults who did not violate any laws by coming here but who were brought here as infants and children, and who have lived nearly their entire lives here, surely it makes sense to refrain from deporting them given these priorities.

Wait a second . . . Well now I’m confused. ICE just scheduled Ola and her mom, a small business owner, for immediate deportation, on the eve of Ola’s graduation. (Thankfully, it was postponed by a Federal District Judge’s order so she can attend her ceremony.) Why is someone like Ola Kaso, an excellent student with a spotless past and a bright future, being scheduled for deportation now?

Ola entered the U.S. legally with her mother, at the age of four. (Read, she was brought here.) Their asylum case was ultimately denied in 2003, but Ola and her mother had been reporting to authorities in Detroit under ICE Order of Supervision for quite some time.

What can she do? There is no form of relief from deportation available to her. No options exist for her at present to obtain legal status. Although ICE does not have to execute her deportation now, it seems to be pursuing it any way. Her only viable option, and it’s hardly viable for most, is to seek intervention on her behalf by members of Congress. Several U.S. Senators and Representatives have recently urged President Obama to again call for a suspension of deportations of potential DREAM Act beneficiaries, which he is apparently still considering. Perhaps that will persuade ICE to refrain from acting now. After all, its priority is criminals, right?

Well in case ICE does not change its course, some parting words to Ola are in order.

To Ola’s family and friends: I am sorry to say you will have to visit Ola in Albania if you want to see her anytime soon. She will not be able to return to the U.S. for at least 10 years and has little chance of returning sooner. I’m sorry, Cousino High School, you are about to lose one of your celebrated soon-to-be alumna, a role model to younger students. U of M, you are down one brilliant incoming freshman. State of Michigan, you are out an emerging leader and future doctor.

That’s ok, though, Ola. Think about it. If you were to remain in the U.S. and graduate from U of M, likely with excellent grades, you would have to turn down all the offers of employment anyway. Just like the hundreds of thousands of other college students and graduates who have lived here nearly their entire lives. U.S. law does not allow you to obtain lawful employment while out of status and, as already noted, no options exist for you to correct your status at this time. (Too bad Congress still has not passed the DREAM Act, which would fix this oversight.)

So maybe it’s just as well. It should be no problem for you to return to Albania, where you lived for your entire . . . infancy. Well, as long as you speak Albanian fluently, I’m sure you will feel right at home there. The standard of living is probably just like ours here. Ok, so it’s nothing like living in the U.S. and generally has a very low standard of living. And if you don’t speak Albanian, oh boy – you can forget about going to college there, let alone becoming a doctor.

Tough luck, Ola. Well done on striving to reach your full potential and congratulations on achieving that goal. By all accounts, you are a remarkable young woman. The thing is, there simply is not enough room for you and your mother in the U.S. Michigan, in particular, is bursting at the seams with its population. Moreover, the U.S. just is not interested in keeping ambitious, talented students like you, or hard-working small business-owners like your mom for that matter. I’m sorry if you got the wrong impression from complying for so long with all requirements placed on you by ICE.

It’s true, we are a country of immigrants . . . just not immigrants like you. Right?

Maybe I’m wrong about this, and I hope I am. Maybe your case will outrage other Americans, like it has me. Maybe your story will be the one to make people send an email and make a phone call. Maybe because of you, President Obama call for a moratorium on deportations of youth like you, will press in earnest for reform, and Congress will finally pass the DREAM Act. This is the only reasonable course of action, and quite frankly, you deserve it.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The question reminded me of a study done by one of America’s prestigious universities and published in the Wall Street Journal some time ago. It analyzed the relationship between the number of immigrants entering the U.S. every year and the rate of unemployment. The study, which looked at data spanning many decades, found that periods of high immigration were also periods of historically low unemployment. The finding seems counterintuitive, but upon some reflection, it does make sense.

Immigrants coming to the U.S. not only occupy a job, but they also add to the consuming public. Therefore, they actually stimulate the economy. Accordingly, in evaluating immigration, we need to balance the stimulus effect added by immigration against the jobs that could have potentially been occupied by a nonimmigrant American. Almost all of the reputable studies that I have reviewed indicate that the balance is positive in favor of more immigration.

Another way to look at this is to ask one’s self: If I am unemployed and want to find a job, would I have a better chance finding a job in a crowded city such as New York, or in a rural, under-populated area? The intuitive answer is that there is a better likelihood of finding a job in a busy city. However, isn’t New York full of people that are all competing for jobs? Nonetheless, although many compete for jobs, the very existence of more people creates in and of itself, the need for more jobs.

I find it amazing that in a state like Michigan where we normally regret the departure of Michiganders to other states, we, at the same time, put hurdles in front of those who are willing to immigrate here. Of course, Federal law is also to blame for denying many talented foreign nationals and professionals the opportunity to immigrate. And even if some of those newcomers are not professionals, but merely escaping persecution, it will only be a matter of time before their children, just like prior generations, will grow up and help rebuild our state.

The conclusion may be ironic, but precisely because we have so much unemployment in Michigan and so many people are leaving the state, we need a new flow of immigrants to occupy our abandoned cities.