Los Angeles Times (Editorial-California)
December 29, 2015
Reports
out of Washington suggest that the Obama administration is planning to
sweep up and deport hundreds of families whose applications for asylum
or some other form
of permission to remain in the country were rejected by immigration
courts. Immigration rights advocates have begun rallying in opposition,
arguing that it is inhumane for the government to send back to Central
America — the source of many of the cases — people
who have fled violence and crime-ridden neighborhoods for a chance at a
better future for themselves and their children.
It's
hard to argue with that logic, but it is based on a flawed premise. To
not deport those whom an immigration judge has ruled ineligible to
remain in the country is
to throw over any notion of enforceable immigration law. And that is an
indefensible position.
The
government has both the right and the responsibility to determine who
gets to enter the country, and who gets to stay as legal residents.
-
We
share some of the concerns that have been raised about the fairness of
the immigration court system. It is understaffed, and judges carry
excessively high caseloads.
Studies have found that petitioners who have a lawyer at their elbow
stand a much better chance of winning permission to stay than those
without lawyers, largely because of the arcane and confusing nature of
immigration law itself. Immigration cases typically
are civil proceedings, and although those facing deportation have a
right to counsel, they do not have a right to one paid for by the
government, unlike criminal defendants. So those without means to hire
an attorney are at the mercy of the pro bono immigration
bar, which is just as overextended as the judges. In that scenario,
it's likely that some people who have a legitimate right to asylum wind
up getting deported anyway, a regrettable turn of events.
But
that shortcoming is an argument for a more robustly funded immigration
courts, not an excuse to turn the system on its ear and not enforce a
lawful order from an immigration
judge.
There
is no doubt that the U.S. immigration system is in shambles. More than
11 million people are living here illegally, but most have been here for
so long they are
deeply entwined in our economy and our neighborhoods. To deport them
all — a popular mantra from the nativist right during this presidential
election cycle — would tear apart families and communities. It also
would be prohibitively expensive, requiring billions
of dollars in added enforcement capacity and causing billions of
dollars in losses to the economy. The better approach would be for
Congress to stop using illegal immigration as a boogeyman and start
crafting meaningful reforms that would include a path to
citizenship for those who have put down roots and been responsible
members of society, while stiffening the government's ability to enforce
borders and track down people who overstay visas.
The
current wave of asylum-seekers raises some particularly vexing
questions. The U.S. has a long and occasionally problematic history in
Central America, and bears some
moral culpability for the criminal gangs that relocated from U.S.
cities, including Los Angeles, to thrive in urban neighborhoods of
Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador. The U.S. also is the main market
for the illicit drug trade that helps many of those gangs
flourish.
The
solution to those issues, though, isn't to allow entry to the U.S. for
anyone able to reach the U.S. border after fleeing a dangerous
neighborhood in Tegucigalpa or
San Salvador. Those who face legally articulated persecution — usually
based on religion, political beliefs or other recognized classes of
special victimization — should be granted asylum if U.S. immigration
courts say they are eligible.
The
government has both the right and the responsibility to determine who
gets to enter the country, and who gets to stay as legal residents with
the possibility of eventual
naturalized citizenship. Openness to immigration has been a defining
aspect of American history, and one of the nation's strengths. Still, we
have to expect the government to follow through on legal processes that
have been completed. When the courts reject
arguments that individual migrants have a right to stay, the government
is correct in targeting them for removal. To do otherwise not only
erodes the sense that we are a nation ruled by laws, but it also serves
as an encouragement for others who think gaining
entry to the U.S. is as simple as showing up and saying, "Let me in."
That only exacerbates our illegal immigration problem.
For more information, go to: www.beverlyhillsimmigrationlaw.com
No comments:
Post a Comment