Immigration BLOG

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.

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.

Children of Illegal Aliens

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.