Is real relief for deportation-shattered families on the horizon? Or will the anti-immigration factions pressuring Congress carry the day and keep the fracturing in place. Here’s the story:
*******************************************************************
It was 10 years ago this past Sunday that a not-so-lovely little piece of legislation called the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 went into effect.
Prior to its passage, if a green-card-carrying U.S. resident committed any but the most serious crimes—murder, rape, large-scale trafficking in drugs or firearms—they could pay their appropriate debt to society and then go on with their respective lives.
But then the immigration bill, known for short as the IIRIRA, was grafted as a last-minute rider onto a much larger must-pass omnibus funding bill. Most lawmakers never even bothered to read the immigration rider.
The new law was a doozy.
It subjected every non-citizen to mandatory deportation for committing an “aggravated felony”—which the IIRIRA, defined so broadly that convictions ranging from murder to minor, one time drug possession all qualified. Even the theft of a $10 video game, with a one-year suspended sentence, met the definition. Worse, the law was retroactive. This meant that old convictions that had been legally expunged were suddenly treated as “active” under the new law.
The very worst thing about the IIRIRA was that removed all judicial discretion. In other words, even if a judge found that an immigrant father had extreme extenuating circumstances and there was every practical reason to allow him to stay in the country, it was impossible. There was no legal recourse. No due process. The law couldn’t distinguish between those who deserved deportation and those whose removal would do far more harm than good. And the banning from the US was forever.
Immediately upon the law’s passage, horror stories of lives ruined and families destroyed began to surface There was the Vietnam Vet with three medals who was deported for an 11-year-old burglary conviction, leaving behind a wife and seven children, all U.S. citizens. People adopted as children by American couples were deported. One former child refugee from the genocidal Pol Pot regime was deported back to Cambodia for urinating in public on the construction site where he was employed. Hard working little league dads who’d been caught with a few ounces of weed in their youth were deported.
And these examples aren’t anomalies. When I was researching an article on the subject for the LA Times Magazine a few years ago, I ran across scores of such cases—some exotic, most ordinary. All sad.
Nearly one out of every ten American families is of mixed immigration status—one or more kids is a citizen, and one or more parent is not. As a consequence, over the ten years of the law’s life, the shattered families now number in the hundreds of thousands. In most cases, the shattering meant that that the father in a family had been deported.
We have study after study that shows the high cost to children of growing up without a dad. So, as I continued to research I kept wondering what kind of cost/benefit ratio the new law had actually produced. Get “tough” on immigration….but gain a new generation of fatherless kids. So, in the last ten years, had that ratio had produced a net gain for the health of the U.S. as a whole? Or a net loss? My guess is the latter.
All that could soon change. A week ago, NY Congressman José E. Serrano introduced a bill called the Child Citizen Protection Act., H.R. 1176. Its purpose is simple. It would allow immigration judges the discretion to consider the well being of the American citizen children before issuing deportation orders. That’s it.
At present, bill has 21 cosponsors, six of them from California including Barbara Lee, Lucille Roybal-Allard, and Xavier Becerra.
Right leaning types call the proposed legislation the “Anchor Baby Bill,” and say that its passage would mean that truly undesirable people could not longer be deported.
This is, of course, ridiculous.
A judge can still deport any non-citizen if he or she damned pleases. But, if it passes, now at least—for the first time in ten years—there would be a choice.
As for whether the bill has the proverbial snowball’s chance, that remains to be seen.
There’s no problem as long as people obey the law. Don’t blame the law and law enforcement for problems of children caused by their parents.
If someone has to be deported, then he can take his kids with him rather than be separated. If they don’t like that, then maybe they should have considered the consequences earlier–like before they crossed the border and had kids.
I would agree with having judicial discretion, if I hadn’t witnessed what happens with the liberal, activist 9th District Court of Appeals and the U.S. Supreme Court. Abuse requires imposed restraints.
Now, write an article about all the U.S. citizens who are killed each year by illegal immigrants. That would be a real story about injustice.
Here’s an injustice. Fatherless and childless in one stroke.
Was the drunk driver without a license, Hector Velazquez-Nava, here legally? Well, since we aren’t told, consider this other, perhaps related, story:
Six Millions Felons
Approximately 6 million American lives may be disrupted by illegal aliens who commit the felony of identity theft. Recently after the much publicized ICE bust at SWIFT, it was found that hundreds of illegal aliens committing felonies when using someone a stolen SSN. “The investigation uncovered criminal organizations around the country that traffic in genuine birth certificates and Social Security cards belonging to U.S. citizens.†Currently the government reports that 9 million people are using the same SSN as someone else, of which 2/3 is estimated to be illegal aliens.
Under current laws set up by an immigration-friendly Congress, no one along the regulatory chain who discovers that more than one person is using the same SSN is required to notify the legitimate owner.
Victim usually only discover the theft when the alien thief fails to make a payment on a loan borrowed under the stolen number. Then the creditor tries to track down anyone with the same SSN to get payment.
http://redtape.msnbc.com/2006/03/hidden_cost_of_.html
http://www.immigrationshumancost.org/text/crimevictims.html
The solution to the deaths and felonies committed by illegal aliens? Open up the borders and declare them here legally!
Celeste, with Pokey and myself here, it’s like SNL’s “Point/Counterpoint.” Jane, you ignorant, misguided slut! Once again, you missed the point entirely.
To Woody and anyone else who would like to jump to the conclusion that all the non-citizens being deported are here illegally, the FACT is that the overwhelming majority of them are legal permanent residents-green card holders. Many have been here since childhood themselves. The retroactivity of this law means that these people are punished over again for their crime, often many years after they have resumed law-abiding and productive lives. There are decorated war veterans, business owners who contribute greatly to their communities, and ordinary working, tax-paying families of all economic levels whose lives are destroyed because of one mistake or a mis-spent youth. Why should they be singled out for an even harsher punishment than their crime called for in the first place? In a country that purports to stand for family values and human rights, this is outrageous. Most of the people facing deportation are not a threat to society in any way. There is nothing in the proposed Child Citizen Protection Act (CCPA) which would prevent the deportation of a truly dangerous person or career criminal.
As for your assertion that they can take their children with them, I’d like to see how well you would fare in a strange country where you may have few if any ties and are ostracized if your deportation status becomes known. Again, the FACT is that many deportees become dependent, at least in part, on the families they left behind because of the low economic standards and lack of opportunity in their “home” country. Some countries even routinely jail deportees when they are returned. Why should US citizen children have to leave their homes, friends, schools, communities and way of life for the uncertainties of an unwelcoming place?
Those truly deserving of removal from the US will surely still be sent back. I believe judges should have the discretion to decide who really needs to go and who does not. It is wrong to have one blanket punishment for anyone having any encounter with the criminal justice system, no matter how minor, simply because of their non-citizen status. It rises to the level of cruel and unusual punishment and is in fact in violation of many international laws. I will fight with everything I have for passage of the CCPA and I urge everyone to ask their congressperson to support it.
I think Kathleen covered the issue perfectly.
Please reread what she said.
You guys read the word “immigrant” and seem to just randomly press play on some old tape loop from the “Bad Immigrant” tape library. Honestly.
And, Pokey, your point would be…..? That we should have tighter laws regarding identity theft? Heck, who’d argue with that? But that relates to the issue at hand HOW exactly?
(Thank you, Kathleen. Beautifully said. Please come back and comment. I need another smart grrrlll in the comments area. Couple’a these boys are getting pretty rowdy!)
(PS: I’m teaching at UC Irvine today, so if anybody replies and you don’t hear back from me, don’t take the silence as anything other than the fact that I’m out messing with the minds of sweet young things.)
Woody we’ve “Solved” the Illegal Immigrant problem. Yesterday around two dozen members of the military were naturalized as part of a law signed a few years ago expediting citizenship for foreign nationals enlisting in the US Armed Forces.
Now all El Presedente Bush has to do is meet with his amigo Calderone and get the Mexican leader to allow our military to open recruiting offices South of the Border.
Hey! It worked for the Romans, didn’t it?
Kathleen, well put and thanks for joining in. Let’s not allow isolated “injustices” set the rules for everyone. Also, I quit trusting judges long ago. If this needs legislative action for clear definitions and guidelines to administer the law, let those elected handle that.
But, PULEEEZE, don’t tell me that our nation should be run by international law rather than our Constitution. That’s as out of touch with our system of justice as is Justice Ginsberg, who considers other nation’s laws to interpret ours.
Make me the Immingration Czar, and I’ll get this problem straightened out.
Come back and join us again. You’re one of the few left-leaning people who actually make sense rather than simply calling us four letter words.
rlc, sounds good to me. Cowards in the U.S. became Canadian citizens when they ran from the military, so let’s allow those who join from outside the U.S. to take their places. I think having legalized Mexicans in our military makes sense if we use them to invade other nations. They have proved that they can cross a country’s border without being detected. They would probably have the roads into the invaded country landscaped before our tanks arrived.
And who says we can’t reach common ground?
BTW what happened to the post on Iraqi Vets and PTSD?
rlc, Celeste may have seen that she had filled up the page, so she had to delete a post to add another one. Actually, I’m curious about the removed post, too. It may be that some “facts” needed to be corrected.
I mention international law because it speaks to the issue of human rights, an area in which I think America has an abysmal legacy. Our leaders like to pay lip service to human rights when it suits their agenda and just as easily condone, support, ignore, and perpetrate abuses when they so choose. Unfortunately, and shamefully, the US is not a signatory to several of the treaties which affect the issue of deportation. We have, however, ratified the Vienna Convention, the International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination, and the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights, among others. While these certainly don’t form a part of domestic law, they are binding on the US and should be respected. Furthermore, our Constitution does allow for deference to the “Laws of Nations”, as it was known in the eighteenth century, in matters of individual rights and liberties. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights are also not intended to protect only US citizens, but anyone within our borders.
When it comes to the issue of deportation in particular, international law is relevant because every deportation requires the action of 2 states: the US and the receiving nation which has to issue travel documents. Those nations who have ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child, for instance, are in clear violation of that treaty when their acceptance of a deportee impacts a child. In some cases, the receiving countries are acting in contradiction to their own internal laws. They do so because of intimidation and various threats (loss of aid and visas for example) made by the US.
I see no reason why, especially in this age of globalization, we should not consider international standards of law. There are any number of logical precedents for it, not only by “liberal” judges. Particularly when human rights are at stake, I feel we have an obligation to do so. Keeping families intact is central to preserving and bettering society as a whole, here and abroad. Americans like to think of ourselves as the upholders of freedom and democracy and human rights, but we are turning into a nation of hypocrites. It’s time our actions were in line with our pronouncements.
Kathleen, we should not consider laws from other nations in legal interpretations because we didn’t vote for the people who made them. Let’s stick with our own laws, and if our legislators want to consider outside sources, then at least it would be our guys, whom we elected, doing that.
BTW, the U.S. has done more for human rights than any other country in the world. We’re the one who step up to the plate against dictators, we’re the one who provides food and medical care for needy people across the globe, and we’ve provided a haven of escape for people to come here and better their lives.
Forget everything that your professors told you and listen to me. If you don’t do it now, then one day, many years in the future, you will say to yourself, “That guy on Fremon’s blog was right. I should have listened to him. Look at all the wasted years.” I do this as a public service.
Woody I didn’t vote the Supremes so that means I can ignore Scalia and consider Gore to be the Prez?
Immigration Law according to POKEY
1) – Deporting legal immigrants retroactively for past problems is obscene (I thought this was against constitution) – “No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.â€Â. Did our law makers not read it?
2) – We should define “aggravated felonyâ€Â, as a sane/normal person would (as opposed to idiot judges), which does not include stealing a video game.
3) – Legal immigrants who have been here 10 or more years are not be subject to deportation.
4) – Illegal immigrants over 12 years old who have spent MORE THAN HALF THEIR LIVES in the USA are not be deportable.
5) – All other illegal immigrants should be deported.
rlc, the Supreme Court Justices were duly nominated and ratified by our government representatives whom we elected–according to our Constitution. Whom did we elect to put EU laws over us? Go ahead and follow Gore, just like those Mexicans followed the loser nutcase who formed a parallel government–minus an army, of course.
Pokey, could you possibly arm yourself (with guns AND money), go to DC, turn lobbiest and push Pokey’s Law through with our guts-challenged congress? Okay, clause number 5 is a bit of a problem, but we can work on that in committee. Otherwise, we’re good to go.
Woody I’ll forgive your ignorance of the Constitution as they probably don’t teach much law other than UCC – if that – in Accounting School but here goes. Treaties are also ratified by the Senate and they are the Law of the the Land. We have BINDING Commercial treaties with the EU (see the WTO for example) so EU law is used all the time. Besides, wheteher you like it or not US Multinational Corportations have to get the approval of the EU Commissioners fro Competition before they engage in activities like mergers an aquisitions.And let us not get started on matters like Intellectual Property.
But all that is irrelevant anyway. From the earliest days of our Federal Judiciary principals of the English Common Law have be cited as precedents in deciding cases and controversies, as they like to say.
So Sorry Woody, the “Foreign Law” horse left the barn a long time ago.
rlc, that’s a real stretch. It’s one thing to base our early system of laws of 300 ytears ago from our country of origin, and it’s quite another thing to base our laws of today on new legislation from foreign lands. Also, treaties and civil laws governing international commerce are mutually agreed upon by the countries, including our elected representatives. We don’t make treaties to waive punishments for domestic criminal acts of individuals who are here illegally. Criminal law of foreign lands should not govern our domestic application.
Hello! Good Site! Thanks you! ngmhwvozwzxz
[…] as Celeste Fremon at Witness L.A. observes, the immigration law passed 10 years ago, supposedly intended to force officials to deport […]