King: U.S. immigrants deserve pathway to citizenship

Bill King says ongoing Republican resistance to immigration reform goes against the classic American dream of striving for a better life.

By Bill King | February 12, 2014 show_less_share|article-5229254|article-page-top|1facebook_share|article-5229254|article-page-top|1twitter_share|article-5229254|article-page-top|1email_share|article-5229254|article-page-top|1linkedin_share|article-5229254|article-page-top|1reddit_share|article-5229254|article-page-top|1google_share|article-5229254|article-page-top|1

·show_more_share|article-5229254|article-page-top|1

After my column last week outlining the likely detrimental political effects of the Republicans' intransigence on immigration reform, a number of my Republican friends took me to task. They charged that I was being overly cynical about their motivation and understating the subversive effect granting citizenship to those who came here illegally would have on the rule of law.

I concede that the argument that granting a pathway to citizenship for those who came here without visas undermines the rule of law is a rational and reasonable position, even though I disagree with it. However, laying aside the political implications for the moment, I think there are several other flaws with the argument.

First, it assumes that everyone here illegally (i.e., without a current visa) has broken the law. That is not the case. Illegal immigrants fall generally into three categories. The largest (about 40 percent) includes those who came here with a valid visa but did not renew it or did not leave the country when their visa expired. While this group is subject to deportation, overstaying your visa is not a crime. Many in the group actually qualify for a visa extension but merely have not done the paperwork, much like someone failing to renew a driver's license. Would anyone favor permanently taking away someone's driver's license if they don't renew it on time? Of course not.

The next-largest group (a little fewer than 40 percent) includes those who crossed the border surreptitiously without a visa. These individuals did violate a federal criminal statute, albeit a misdemeanor, punishable by up to a $2,000 fine and six months in jail. But our legal system routinely grants various forms of leniency for such minor crimes, including deferred adjudication and probation. Why should this group be any different? How is granting leniency for this particular crime so much more corrosive of the rule of law than any other crime?

The last group is made up of those brought here as children (a little more than 20 percent). Because these individuals crossed the U.S. border as minors, they are not legally culpable for entering the country without a visa. Should we have a system that holds these young people responsible for the crimes of their parents? Are we going to "sentence" these young people to live their entire lives without citizenship in the country they consider their home? Again, no.

In the end, the GOP argument has several holes of logic. It is not true that all of those here illegally have violated the law, and only a minority has violated a criminal statute. Even then, it is a relatively minor infraction, the sort of crime for which judges usually grant leniency. Therefore, granting something akin to probation for those who did enter the country illegally hardly is inconsistent with or would likely subvert our respect for the rule of law. But laying aside for a moment the various policy arguments and the political implications, what troubles me the most is that it is antithetical to the American experience to deprive those who came here illegally from any hope of ever becoming citizens.

Our legal system has always incorporated the concept of mercy. It is a concept taught by every great faith tradition and, of course, is a core teaching of Christianity. "Blessed are the merciful, for they shall receive mercy." (Matthew 5:7.)

In the aftermath of the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln said, "I have always found that mercy bears richer fruits than strict justice." His comment was directed toward those who had committed treason.

My personal experience with those who are here illegally is that the vast majority have come here from some hellhole in some Third World country hoping for a better life for themselves and their children. Most were not able to come here legally because of our dysfunctional legal immigration system. They are mostly hard-working, law-abiding, dedicated family folks. Most are devout Christians.

If this is not a case where we should show some mercy and bend the rules slightly, then there are none.

 See the entire article here.

Justice Department’s Losing Battle Over Deportation Waivers for Permanent Residents

Written by Mary Kenney

For more than five years, the Department of Justice (DOJ) has defended a policy that deprives long-term lawful permanent residents (LPRs) of the opportunity to apply for a waiver that would allow them to remain in the United States. The waiver—known as the 212(h) waiver (referring to section 212(h) of the immigration statute)—permits permanent residents who were convicted of certain crimes to avoid deportation if they can show that their U.S. citizen or lawful resident family member would suffer extreme hardship if they were deported. The policy at issue—announced through a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision—significantly narrows the group of LPRs who are eligible for this waiver. Many of those LPRs who have been excluded from applying for the waiver have gone to court. To date, the count is LPRs – 6, DOJ – 0, the most recent decision coming just last month. Yet, despite an obviously flawed BIA decision, DOJ continues to defend it, at great expense to LPRs and their families.

The 212(h) waiver is particularly important because it is one of the few remaining situations in which an immigration judge can consider all aspects of the noncitizen’s life, such as family ties, length of time in the United States, and rehabilitation, as weighed against the person’s wrongdoing. In contrast, as a result of immigration laws enacted in the mid-1990s, immigration judges largely have been stripped of their ability to act like judges and make individualized determinations about whether deportation is appropriate. In far too many cases, a crime, even a nonviolent one, can lead to automatic deportation and banishment from the United States. Given the limited avenues immigration judges have to ensure that the punishment fits the crime, it is difficult to comprehend why DOJ insists on defending a rule that not only limits immigration judge’s discretion, but also, according to 6 courts, is unlawful.

The technical legal issue in these cases focuses on a provision in the waiver that excludes individuals who were admitted to the United States as LPRs and who subsequently committed an aggravated felony. The BIA has interpreted this bar to include all LPRs who have committed aggravated felonies, regardless of whether they were LPRs when they entered the United States or became permanent residents only after they had entered. The courts all agree that the bar on the 212(h) waiver only applies to the first group of LPRs (i.e., those who initially entered as LPRs). They have unanimously rejected the BIA’s broad reading of the bar, explaining that it imposes a limit on eligibility for a 212(h) waiver beyond that which Congress included in the statute.

Unfortunately, this protracted fight over who is eligible for a 212(h) waiver is not simply a battle over words. It can have real-life consequences for long term permanent residents. For example, Robert Michel Stanovsek first came to the United States on a visitor visa in 1990. Later that year, while living here, he became a lawful permanent resident through his marriage to a United States citizen. They have been married for over 23 years and have six children, all U.S. citizens. He now is facing deportation from the United States based on a single crime, a theft offense. His only chance to remain in the United States is if an immigration judge grants him a 212(h) waiver. Under the BIA’s restrictive ruling, he is not eligible to apply for the waiver. Mr. Stanovsek’s case currently is on appeal before a federal court.

Over the past five years since the the first federal court struck down the BIA decision, the BIA’s policy has been binding in all immigration courts in jurisdictions where the federal court has not yet ruled on the issue. Mr. Stanovsek is fortunate that he was able to retain a lawyer and has brought his case to court. Countless others, however, have not been able to do so, and as a result, have been deprived of the opportunity to apply for a 212(h) waiver, both because of where they live and because DOJ has refused to accept that the federal courts are correct and the BIA wrong. Now that a clear majority of the courts of appeals has spoken, DOJ should withdraw its continued opposition to the court’s reading of § 212(h) and right this wrong.

See the entire article here.

DREAMers Strive for Higher Education

DREAMers Strive for Higher Education

Undocumented Students Share Their Struggles

---

Thursday, February 13, 2014

By Brandon Fastman (Contact)

Every Dreamer has a story about the moment they learned the truth. For Julia, it happened when she was a student at La Cumbre Junior High School. Planning to join her 8th grade class on a trip to Washington, D.C., she went to talk to her parents about buying a plane ticket. That’s when her parents sat her down to deliver the news: She was not a U.S. citizen.

Julia was shocked. It turned out that she was born in Mexico. Her mother, fleeing an abusive relationship, crossed into the United States with her one-year-old baby. She told the immigration officials she was attending a funeral but instead came to Santa Barbara where she had relatives. Julia has no memory of living anywhere else.

These truths made Julia’s mother and stepfather afraid of allowing her to fly to D.C. Her mother and father knew this day would come. To make it up to her, they gave her a beautiful quinceañera, the ritual coming-of-age ceremony that many girls of Latin American descent celebrate on their 15th birthdays, a celebration that is planned years ahead of time and often at great expense. She had a wonderful party, but she has still never boarded a plane.

“It’s such a strange feeling,” said Julia of learning that she has no documents regarding her citizenship. “It was like getting a bucket of cold water poured over me. … It makes me feel like I’m in a state of limbo. Yeah, I was born in Mexico, but the way I grew up here is totally different. Where do I fall on the spectrum? I’m not completely American, I’m not Mexican. What’s my identity?”

The term Dreamer has become the nomenclature for undocumented students brought to the United States through no choice of their own when they were young children. It’s shorthand for Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors, the title of a federal bill that has been kicking around Congress since it was introduced by Senators Dick Durbin and Orrin Hatch ​— ​Democrat and Republican, respectively ​— ​in 2001. Despite Durbin and Hatch’s display of bipartisanship, Congress as a whole has not yet been able to meaningfully address immigration. As a result, California has taken steps of its own.

At the same time, the term DREAM entered the American lexicon in 2001, California passed AB 540....

Click here see the entire article at the Santa Barbara Independent. 

http://independent.com/news/2014/feb/13/dreamers-strive-higher-education/