Category: Immigration

Here’s a novel idea…

The State Department is trying to discourage “birth tourism”. This is when someone comes to the U.S. on a visitor’s visa to have their baby, thus imparting U.S. citizenship to the child. Some argue that this will permit the parents to leverage the child as an “anchor baby” (allowing them to stay or emigrate to the U.S.), or permit the child once grown to move to the U.S. and then petition for residency of the parents.

I understand the State Department’s concern. I’m not prepared to debate the full intent of the 14th amendment here, but I doubt that its intent was to grant citizenship to the children of visitors (legal or not). However, I think that we may have another means of discouraging this practice.

The United States requires that all its citizens, even those residing outside of the U.S., to pay income tax. How about we start leveraging this new source of revenue and demand current and back tax payments from all of the now (and future) grown “anchor babies” living outside of the U.S.? And if someone wants to exert their dormant U.S. citizenship after growing up abroad, how about we require they provide proof of past earnings and the payment of all back taxes – complete with civil and criminal penalties?

I’m sure that many of these children (with dual citizenship) will simply ignore their American heritage when it is inconvenient, but if it can be proven that they have failed to pay taxes or hid wealth by banking as non-Americans then they should be charged, jailed and fined for their actions.

Let’s see how long it is before some of these children start renouncing their citizenship, once they are forced to meet their income reporting and tax obligations.

Investigate, or legislate?

House Dems: Subpoenas Are Coming So We Can Get To The Bottom Of Trump’s Immigration Policies

Why not just pass immigration legislation that corrects the problem to their satisfaction? Isn’t passing legislation to resolve such issues one of the basic functions of Congress? The House of Representatives, with a significant Democrat majority, could easily pass legislation that meets all their demands; so why have they not? Is it because then they’d be answerable the people for the mess at the border, but this way they get to blame the current administration instead?

Immigration reform, please.

A recent story by NPR highlights some of the concerns with our broken and abused immigration and asylum system:

Fear, Confusion And Separation As Trump Administration Sends Migrants Back To Mexico

I can empathize with those who want to immigrate as a way to escape the conditions of their own country, but abuse of our asylum system should not be allowed. The scope of the abuse is outlined in the NPR article cited above:

“Many of the migrants in Juárez, who fled extreme poverty and violence in Central America, Cuba and Africa, say they feel trapped in the crowded migrant shelters run by churches in Juárez.” [emphasis mine]

When asylum seekers cross one or more countries to apply for asylum in the U.S. they are essentially picking a specific destination instead of seeking the closest safe haven; as a result they should be viewed as immigrants – subject to existing immigration law – and not asylum seekers.

We need to close the asylum loophole, as well as make other changes to our immigration system. We need immigration law reforms to:

1) Dis-incentivize fraudulent asylum claims, such as when asylum seekers have crossed one or more safe countries on their way to the United States. Such actions should be considered proof that their requests are fraudulent, serving only to circumvent the destination country’s immigration law. These claims should be summarily denied.

2) Require asylum seekers from any country not adjacent to the United States to apply for asylum at the U.S. embassy in their country of origin prior to attempting to enter the United States. This will negate the counterclaim that the asylum seeker passed through a safe space on their way to the United States, providing their claim with some legitimacy.

3) Provide a guest worker program. Such a program will enable us to incentivize lawful behavior of temporary workers by making continued participation dependent on obeying the laws of the United States. It should also provide credit towards immigration for those who lawfully participate while they are in the United States. Unlimited border crossing should be allowed for participants, encouraging them to take what they learn and earn to their home countries and improving conditions there. The only requirement for entry should be a confirmed job.

Please contact your Senators and Representatives and encourage them to make immigration law reform (rather than immigration law abuse) their first priority. You can locate your elected officials here.

Legitimizing criminal activity?

Licensing illegal immigrants may make streets safer than not, but wouldn’t eliminating illegal immigrants make the streets safer still? Should we license prison escapees and fugitives from justice, too?

Licensed Undocumented Immigrants May Lead To Safer Roads, Connecticut Finds

It’s time for immigration reform; I’ve had enough of the rhetoric. Call your representatives and senators and insist they get to work.

Why we need a wall

This really should just be common sense, but given how uncommon common sense has become…

We want to stop criminals from coming into the U.S. as illegal aliens. I think that this is something upon which we all can agree. If they are criminals where they are now, or criminals previously deported from the U.S., we need to keep them out. Simple.

How can we do this? Well, first we need to investigate how they enter the country. They can’t come in as legal refugees, asylum-seekers, visitors or legal immigrants – they would be stopped at the border due to their criminal past. What’s left? Just one option: jumping the border.

The fact of the matter is that the most important action we can take to prevent criminal illegal aliens from entering the U.S. is to protect our border. Admittedly, we have more than one option; for instance, we can build a wall, dramatically increase border patrols, or install expensive and maintenance-intensive intrusion detection hardware. I’ll leave it to you to determine which is cheaper (hint – we don’t have to supply health insurance or retirement benefits to a wall, and the wall does not become obsolete every few years).

Stop worrying about whether or not Trump supports something; it’s irrelevant. What matters only is which option works at the lowest cost per avoided criminal entry, and what is best for the American people. Simple.

Expanded criteria proposed for defining “public charges”

At present, potential immigrants to the United States are deemed a “public charge” if they depend on cash assistance programs or long-term health care funded by the federal government. The designation as a public charge is grounds for refusal of a green card or admission to the United States. From the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services web site:

“For purposes of determining inadmissibility, “public charge” means an individual who is likely to become primarily dependent on the government for subsistence, as demonstrated by either the receipt of public cash assistance for income maintenance or institutionalization for long-term care at government expense.”

The current administration has proposed expanding this rule to include Medicaid, food stamps and housing subsidies. Such rules and their expansion to consider contemporary means of government-funded support are necessary to insure the viability of the country. No social system can survive by allowing itself to be overrun by those who produce less than they consume and depend on the public for support.

A recent NPR article brought to light this rule change and sought to garner public support against it by consulting with various medical industry and community groups. However, these groups are self-serving in their responses given that many provide medical care funded by government programs, or direct beneficiaries of such programs to member service providers. I would expect these groups – who have businesses dependent or built upon these welfare benefits – to be strongly against any rule changes that could affect their financial viability.

But what about the American public, who have to fund these “public charges”? I imagine that some Americans – for instance, those who themselves benefit from public assistance programs – would support the expansion and maintenance of such programs, even if to do so would add an immigrant population to the roles. Alternatively, those who pay little or no taxes, or have such high incomes that they simply are not affected by the tax impact of these programs, will have little reason to oppose such government-funded “humanitarian aid”. However, those in the middle class – who understand that there is no such thing as “government money” and who’s taxes would fund such a system – might agree with this administration’s efforts to oppose immigrants who would make a net negative contribution to our economy.

This does not mean that immigrants who might need some initial assistance should be refused if they can demonstrate that they have the ability to assimilate into the productive workforce. However, we should adamantly oppose their being granted permanent residence (green card) status until such time that they accomplish this feat, and there should be a strict timeline for compliance.

Alternatively, those who wish to support additional immigrants who do not meet these conditions should be allowed to sponsor them financially, independent of the government welfare system. In this way charitable organizations, funded by like-minded individuals, can risk their own funds rather than those of the general tax payer who might not agree with their criteria.

Pelosi’s got a wall…

… and some alleged illegal aliens jumped over it to set up camp. I have to admit, I LMAO when I read this story:

Conservative Activist Jumps Pelosi’s Fence With Illegal Aliens to Prove a Vital Point

They were removed by police, of course. Nice that she has a wall (and police) to protect her interests. I wonder how she would feel about illegal immigration if the trespassers were allowed to stay in her yard (or home!) while their case wound its way though our court system, eating her food and demanding she pay for their medical care and education? Think she’d make changes to our outdated immigration laws then?

Birthright citizenship

Note: I am NOT an attorney. I could be completely wrong here, and welcome any comments.

This NPR article attacks President Trump’s claim that birthright citizenship can be eliminated via executive order. The article goes on to claim that “Most legal scholars say…” that this is settled law, and interview a few people who support NPR’s claim.  Unfortunately, NPR ignores those who think otherwise – even though the article  acknowledges that Trump’s claim is supported by “…a small but vocal group of conservative legal scholars who argue the 14th Amendment has long been misread.” Note that these are conservative legal scholars, not political operatives; why then did NPR not present their view as well?

In addition, NPR completely ignores the mechanism behind how an executive order could effectively alter birthright citizenship. I agree that an executive order cannot change the Constitution; however, it could set up a Supreme Court case that would re-evaluate the meaning of the 14th amendment and its subsequent related court decisions.

The 14th amendment states, in part:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.

The question has become: What is meant by the phrase “…and subject to the jurisdiction thereof…”? Does this term denote only children born to people in the U.S. legally, with the permission of the federal government? Does this include children born to temporary residents, such as visa holders, and does the type of visa applicable to the parents matter? What about parents here illegally, who have no right to be on U.S. soil; would they be considered foreign invaders, and as such would they be excluded by this phrase?

These questions were partially answered in United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), where the Supreme Court ruled that the 14th amendment applies to some aliens, “…including all children here born of resident aliens…” (emphasis mine). However, since this decision consider only those in the country legally (resident aliens), it still leaves open questions with respect to illegal aliens.

Some claim that this remaining question was answered in Plyer v. Doe (1981), when the Supreme Court decided that denying educational benefits to children not legally admitted to – but residing in – the United States violated the 14th amendment’s equal protection clause. However, the equal protection clause is separate from the citizenship clause, and this decision did not shed any light on anyone’s citizenship status. While the decision does guarantee anyone in the United States – legal or not – the full rights afforded a U.S. citizen, no one would argue that these rights impart citizenship. Questions regarding the citizenship status of children born to illegal aliens remain unanswered.

In short, it may well be that President Trump intends not to actually change the Constitution by issuing an Executive Order, but instead intends to force a Supreme Court review of its meaning. And, quite frankly, I think he’s got a chance. Ignore him at your own peril.

(Editor: All that being said, my position is that we should grant birthright citizenship to children born to legal U.S. residents, regardless of the citizenship of the parents. However, I oppose granting citizenship to children born to parents who are in the U.S. illegally – including those parents whose visa or residence permit expires prior to their giving birth. People who ignore our immigration laws and trespass against our country should be treated as foreign invaders whose children are ineligible for birthright citizenship.)

Don’t be fooled by the “USA Act”

The USA Act, or the Uniting and Securing America Act, is a piece of bi-partisan (though barely…) legislation for dealing with the DACA issue. However, it is hardly an ideal solution and contains numerous legal loopholes that will frustrate both parties (and many Americans!) when they are abused. For instance:

1) This legislation gives immense power to the Secretary of Homeland Security (a partisan appointment!) to waive provisions of the act. For instance, the Secretary may waive virtually all of the disqualifying conditions for conditional permanent residency under the act for almost any reason, including :

“…for humanitarian purposes, family unity, or if the waiver is otherwise in the public interest….”

A blanket order by the Secretary could result in criminal aliens with felony convictions being granted continuous conditional permanent residency rather than being deported. This is a provision that I predict will be leveraged by those otherwise eligible for deportation. It will probably also encourage them to have children as soon a possible so as to leverage the “family unity” provision.

2) A conditional permanent resident convicted of domestic violence could fend off removal by claiming:

“…having been a victim herself or himself of domestic violence, sexual assault, stalking, child abuse or neglect, elder abuse or neglect, human trafficking, having been battered or subjected to extreme cruelty…”

Don’t think false claims of abuse will happen? Think again; how many are now claiming asylum after being coached by immigration lawyers at the Mexico – U.S. border? Think they won’t coach their clients on this loophole, too?

3) There are no limits to the number admitted under this act:

“Nothing in this section or in any other law may be construed to apply a numerical limitation on the number of aliens who may be granted permanent resident status, on a conditional basis or otherwise, under this title.

Note the key text here: “…or in any other law…”. Ouch! No limits, ever!

4) A conditional permanent resident status SHALL be made permanent if:

“…the removal of the alien from the United States would result in extreme hardship to the alien or the alien’s spouse, parent, or child who is a national of the United States or is lawfully admitted for permanent residence.”

This is another section likely to be abused by those otherwise eligible for removal, such as convicted felons. Note that removal is stopped if it creates a hardship for the alien subject to deportation! Also note that the relief is mandatory; “shall” removes any question as to this being optional.  The Secretary or the Attorney General will have no option but to grant permanent, unconditional residency status under this section.

There are other substantial issues with this legislation. I urge you to contact your congressman and let them know that you want them to oppose the USA Act.

You can read about it here for yourself.

Asylum/refugee crisis

America’s immigration system is under siege as thousands of migrants attempt to use claims of asylum to sidestep United States immigration law. NPR has cited one such example in this story regarding an entire family from Guatemala that is currently awaiting entry to apply for asylum at the U.S. border.  Asylum claims have increased dramatically as the Trump administration ramps up enforcement actions against illegally aliens. Some also claim that the problem is being exacerbated by immigration attorneys coaching migrants on how use the asylum system to their advantage.

However, the asylum system was never meant to be an unlocked back door to the immigration process. In addition, people seeking protection from their own government or society should seek refuge in the first safe country they encounter; a claim of persecution should not grant the asylum seeker a guarantee to their choice of country for immigration. Note that the family referenced in the NPR article above passed through the entire country of Mexico, where they obviously felt safe, before reaching the border of the United States. Finally, no one should be granted asylum because of a danger resulting from their own actions. Note that the adult son in the family above seeking asylum illegally trespassed onto a narco’s property, resulting in the danger from which he now seeks asylum:

“…his boys made a living taking tourists to a place called the Blue Waterfall in the Peten province of northern Guatemala. But the narco owns the property and doesn’t like visitors.”

It’s time we fix our broken immigration system. Here are my recommendations:

  1. Close the asylum loophole and limit asylum to those seeking protection from government entities only. Also, require that asylum seekers petition for a preliminary asylum approval from outside of the United States, prior to their arrival.
  2. Continue to fully prosecute illegal aliens who violate our sovereignty to deter such actions in the future.
  3. Develop a temporary worker’s visa program for seasonal workers.
  4. Move to a merit-based system that encourages immigration by those with the skills and education needed to grow our economy and to provide the U.S. with an advantage in the world marketplace. This is in line with many other western countries, such as Canada, New Zealand and Australia.

It should not be the duty of American to offer sanctuary to any an all who are not happy with their country of origin. Instead, we should encourage those who want change in their countries to remain and make those changes. Perhaps the U.S. could offer aid to citizens of such countries to facilitate needed changes, but it is not reasonable to ask the citizens of the U.S. to absorb all these people – particularly when they are lacking the critical skills and education levels necessary to succeed in America.