October 9, 2009 12:03 PM
This is Part Four of a series on comprehensive immigration reform (click here for the intro, here for Part 1, here for Part 2), and here for Part 3. At the beginning of each installment, we’ll summarize Long Island Wins’ position on the issue at hand. Here's why we think family reunification should be included as part of immigration reform:
Long Islanders of goodwill agree that a fair immigration system keeps the needs of children in mind, rather than punishing them; and that fair, workable solutions for immigration recognize the importance of strengthening families. We expect that immigration reform will put into place a more streamlined and efficient system that allow immigrant families who play by the rules, pay their way, and obey the laws will be allowed to reunite. One of America’s priorities has always been to strengthen and protect intact families, and immigration reform should be no exception.
Why does the family reunification aspect of immigration law need to be reformed? Immigration lawyer and blogger Dave Bennion explains:
One aspect of the current immigration system in the U.S. that is not well understood by most voters is the way families are routinely split apart, sometimes for seemingly minor reasons, and sometimes permanently, with no hope of appeal.
Every day, husbands, wives, and young children are separated for minor crimes or crimes committed in the distant past, for which the debt to society was paid decades ago. More often, families are separated by the "ten-year bar," which you are subjected to simply for remaining in the United States unlawfully for a year and then departing the country.
That means that hundreds of thousands of undocumented immigrants (perhaps more) actually have a citizenship petition filed by a citizen family member, but can't leave the country to process the paperwork because they will then be separated from their families for ten years, as the law dictates.
The way the ten-year bar for unlawful presence was injected into immigration legislation was seemingly designed to break up families.
In 1996, the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) was voted on by Congress and signed into law by President Clinton. The law enjoyed broad support from both Democrats and Republicans, but since it was implemented in 1997, it has split apart hundreds of thousands of families in this country.
The law imposed harsh immigration penalties, like permanent deportation, for crimes that are not felonies and crimes that might not have resulted in jail time. For example, two instances of shoplifting can get you deported—even if you are married to a U.S. citizen. Simple possession of any controlled substance, including marijuana, can lead to exile from your family, including your citizen spouse and children.
The laws were written and are implemented in a way that assumes the criminal justice system is perfect. We know, however, that wrongful convictions do occur, as in the case of Julio Maldonado and Denis Calderon (whose story I’ve blogged about in the past).
But once there is a final decision from the criminal courts, it is nearly impossible to reexamine the case in a way that's favorable to the immigrant. Meanwhile, the government can treat any verbal or written admission of guilt the same as a criminal conviction, and deport someone for something he was never convicted of, or even charged with. The immigration system is rife with this type of double standard.
Immigrants are often told they must obey the rules, follow the laws, wait in line with everyone else, and not expect exceptions to the rules. But when people try to follow the rules, they are often tripped up for incomprehensible reasons.
Prerna and her family came to the U.S. from Fiji a decade ago on a family-based petition. Prerna's mother and sister became U.S. citizens. When Prerna applied for a student visa, her application was denied because she was the beneficiary of a pending family petition. But when she applied for her green card based on the family petition, she was told she had aged-out because she had turned 21.
Prerna's family relied on their lawyer to help them navigate the system properly, but the lawyer mismanaged their case (in my opinion), with no negative repercussions for his mistakes. Now the government tells Prerna she has to live apart from her family for the next ten years. This is the family’s payment for attempting to follow the law. The scary part is that this kind of thing happens routinely.
Then there's the issue of the law not even recognizing your family because of your sexual orientation.
LGBT families are not even considered to be families under federal immigration law. Even in states where gay marriage is legal, U.S. citizens remain unable to petition for gay and lesbian spouses.
Nativist organizations like FAIR and NumbersUSA ask, "What is to prevent U.S. citizen family members from moving abroad with their foreign-born spouses, parents, and children?"
Well, who wouldn't want to go on vacation to Cozumel or Tangier? But visiting Mexico as a middle-class tourist is a world apart from trying to raise a family there on poverty wages.
As becomes clear when discussing family separation, nativist organizations not only devalue immigrants, but also anyone associated with immigrants, particularly their U.S. citizen families. The stories of Brian, Melissa, and Tina, all U.S. citizens married to deported immigrants, are representative of hundreds of thousands of voters whose problems have gone ignored by people with the power to help them.
Unfortunately, for the past 15 years, Congress and each president have sided with nativists against families. Right now, President Obama and most Democrats in Congress are doing very little to break that pattern.