U.S. Immigration Reform: Open Door or Closed Door Policy?

Sixty years ago, my father went to an American consulate in Naples, Italy to put his name on a waiting list to come to America. He was a Yugoslav “displaced person” in an Allied Refugee camp in post-World War II Italy. He didn’t make it to America, much to the disappointment of his cousins in Minnesota who wrote numerous letters to Eleanor Roosevelt about my Dad. Instead, my father was eventually given passage to Wales to work in the coal mines as the equivalent of a “guest worker” until he was able to settle in Canada.

I didn’t come to America 12 years ago because I was fleeing persecution, or because there were no employment opportunities in Canada. Canada is not known for abusing the human rights of its citizens (unless maybe they don’t appreciate hockey or beer). And the last time I checked, Canada was actually higher on the United Nations Development Program Human Development Index (measuring literacy, life expectancy and economic growth) than the U.S.

So why would a highly-educated Canadian leave such a “nice country” as my Indian cabby driver in Philadelphia inquired as he drove me to my naturalization test two weeks ago?

I came to America because I believed in the American ideal/dream, and still do. Part of that ideal, is the opportunity to be whatever you want to be if you work hard enough. But the other part is respect for the rule of law. Some of my confidence in that ideal has been shattered recently, not only with regard to some of the foreign policy blunders of the current administration, but even more so with the Senate proposal to give amnesty to illegal immigrants.

Maybe that’s why I find myself in a somewhat awkward position these days. As a (legal) immigrant myself and as someone who studies and teaches human rights, I understand why people come to the United States illegally. Many are fleeing persecution – political and economic. For those who are fleeing political or religious persecution, there is a legal way to apply for political asylum for themselves and their families, based on the United States ratifying the Refugee Convention. But for those who are fleeing dire economic conditions and do not fit the classification of “refugee” some of the doors to immigration have been shut to them.

Increasing the possibility of legal immigration through diversity lotteries, work visas and a guest worker program enabling workers to become future citizens are all good and necessary ideas: granting amnesty to those who have jumped the line is not. Amnesty for illegal immigrants does not fix the problem – it just worsens it -- encouraging even more illegal immigrants to settle in the United States. Our borders will always be porous, no matter how many National Guard, Minutemen or homeland security officers you place on the Northern or Southern border of the United States – people will always be able to come here illegally – and they will want to stay –as will their children.

It is a dangerous precedent that the Senate is trying to establish for political gain. But even more serious, it’s simply un-American to let those who have cheated the system be rewarded with citizenship. I, like many other legal immigrants, spent a lot of time and money as did my employer in legal fees, filling out forms, taking health tests, background checks, and waiting in lines. By the time I finished the whole process, it was very clear that I really wanted to become an American citizen – it wasn’t easy – nor should it be. By granting amnesty to illegal immigrants, we are cheapening citizenship.

Even though my father qualified as a “refugee” 60 years ago, he was at the bottom of the list. I’m proud of the fact that he didn’t attempt to jump the line and come to America illegally. It took one more generation, but I settled here in his place.

My father has since passed away, but I’m sure that he was proud of me last week when I took the pledge of allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, with liberty and justice for all.





I've also linked an excellent article putting into perspective the debate on immigration reform in the U.S. Couldn't have written it better myself, that's why I'm attaching it to this blog.

New start for human rights at the United Nations?

Does this sound familiar? A UN commision packed with human rights violaters, who got on as a part of regional lists? Or a UN commission that met for only six weeks every year and came up with pronouncements that were completely unimpressive? It probably does, these charateristics describe the old United Nations Human Rights Commission. However, there is a fast-paced plan to change all of that. A new commission has already been selected by secret ballot and they have already started work on the latest human rights violations. This article from the BBC outlines the new goals of the commission, as well as the United State's new feelings on the commission.

Infamous Immigration Judge Replaced

Honorable Judge Donald V. Ferlise was replaced from his Philadelphia-based Executive Office of Immigration Review (EOIR) position. Judge Ferlise is perhaps best know for presiding over the precedent-setting FGM (Female Genital Mutilation) case of Fauziya Kassindja from Togo.
He was accused of "belligerent questioning and a failure to consider relevant evidence, "brow-beating", and "nitpicking".

I served as a country-conditions expert on Uganda on a former Lord's Resistance Army member's asylum case in May 2006. I was very nervous about appearing in front of Judge Ferlise -- his reputation certainly preceded him. But I was totally surprised by his demeanor in the courtroom. He was exceedingly polite to me and to the asylum seeker. He never rudely interupted my testimony and seemed to be genuinely interested in what I had to say. So, I have mixed feelings about this development. I can't reconcile my recent experience with Judge Ferlise with his infamous reputation. Not to necessarily defend the man, but I think that he is genuinely interested in finding the truth -- and maybe he was too quick to judge an asylum-seeker's credibility.
This is perhaps more of a shortcoming of the system, rather than the man. It's much easier to determine whether there is a well-founded fear of persecution based on objective conditions, than subjective conditions. But to win an asylum case in immigration court, an asylum seeker has to prove both an objective and subjective past persecution and/or wellfounded fear of future persecution.
So much rests on the credibility of the asylum-seeker -- and the ability of the immigration judge to determine whether the asylum seeker is telling the truth.
Maybe it's the system that's broke, not the man?

American Viewpoints on the Immigration Debate

This BBC feature shows six different viewpoints of the immigration debate and on the recent ideas put forth from President Bush. The site also features some links that give a good description of what has been going on with the debate if you haven't been keeping up.

After Graduation, Teen Faces Deportation

Just an article on the Dream Act...

Did the U.S. violate an International Ban on Torture?

An excellent article below from the Christian Science Monitor discusses the Convention Against Torture and the US responsibilities to it. Did we violate the CAT convention and use torture in Gitmo Bay, the CIA "black sites" etc.? And if so, what does everyone think about it? Is it the age-old question again: national security vs. individual liberities?

U.S. denies terror suspect torture

This article from the BBC, is quite interesting in the fact that it addresses the allegations against the United States about their tactics in dealing with terror suspects post 9-11. The U.S. Secretary of State for Human Rights claims that the U.S. has laws against torture while testifying in front of the Committee Against Torture in Geneva. However, various human rights groups accuse the U.S. of flouting the Convention Against Torture by allowing torture and inhumane treatment to terror suspects to occur in various detention centers around the world. While the U.S. continue to openly reject their use of torture, they also claim that mistakes have been made and actions have been made to correct those mistakes. However, is this merely just a series of corrections or an acknowledgement of the damage done to America's standing in the world?

Torture in the U.S.

Throughout the class Human Rights/Human Wrongs, we had to fight to keep various people in the US so they would not face persecution and torture in their home countries. I find it quite ironic that we've been fighting for them to stay in a country that Amnesty International has said "is not only failing to take steps to eradicate torture, [but] is actually creating a climate in which torture and other ill-treatment can flourish." An article from CNN.com (see link on title) discusses an Amnesty International Report about the widespread torture and inhumane treatment in US-run detention centers. When searching for country conditions for our asylum/withholding/CAT cases, one expects to find articles outlining the horrible conditions on the countries in question, but who would have thought the US would be in that category. How ironic.

Student's Prize Is a Trip Into Immigration Limbo

This story is about Amadou Ly, an 18 year old boy from Senegal, who faces deportation becuase he is an illegal immigrant.

When he was 13, his mother brought him here, speaking no english at all. She left him in the U.S. to go to school, while she returned to Senegal. He has since become an exceptionally smart young man in a rough situation. He joined a robotics team in NYC and was set to compete in a robot building competition in Atlanta. One problem: He didn't have proper ID to board the plane becuase he was not a legal citizen.

"In the end, his fate could hinge on immigration legislation now being debated in Congress. Several Senate bills include a pathway for successful high school graduates to earn legal status. But a measure passed by the House of Representatives would make his presence in the United States a felony, and both House and Senate bills would curtail the judicial review that allows exceptions to deportation."

Personally, I feel as though he can contribute to society and should be given the opportunity to succeed in the U.S. The immigration reform must take cases like this into account. He has done nothing wrong and doesn't deserve to be treated as if he did do something wrong.

How do you feel? Should someone like Ly be able to stay within the country, or should he be forced to leave as an illegal immigrant?

Bush pushes immigrations reform as Congress returns from break

This is the one of the most recent updates on U.S. immigration policy (following up on Stacy's post). Bush is calling for some sort of middle ground because he believes that it is impossible to send back 11 million illegal aliens, but also is concerned with letting immigrants in to work legally. Bush is currently pushing a bill to allow more foreigners to legally work in the United States, but Conservatives and Democrats have a list of amendments they want to consider. Senator Specter believes differences in opinions will be worked out and that a bill will be passed. Yet Specter does realize that the American immigration system has been broken down and that this bill will not be a quick fix if all problems are not addressed. What will Americans think if this bill is passed? Will they finally voice their opinion? Is this going to be an example of Americans only caring about an issue when that particular issue becomes a controversial topic in the public sphere?