This article gives a good sense of some of the absurdities (there are many more) in the U.S. immigration system.
As you may know, I spent my first year and a half after college working for an immigration lawyer. I don't really miss working in that field, though I really value what I learned there and the perspective it gave me on how (horribly) our government operates and treats many people, perspective that has allowed me to write the occasional long ranting blog post about immigration policy in this country.
Here's another one.
In regards to the last line of the NY Times story, it's very warm and fuzzy for immigration officials to say that the couple profiled in the story can re-apply for Lawful Permanent Residence, or LPR, status (aka a "green card," which isn't green, just FYI) based on being the parents of U.S. citizen children. That's nice.
Once the forms are filed, IF they are filed perfectly correctly (and I mean perfectly - I saw applications rejected because of one single typo of the sort that made no substantive difference to the application) and IF the USCIS (formerly INS) doesn't, oh, lose anything or forget to process it within their usual wait times, the parents might become LPRs within a year or two. And then, five years later, they can reapply for citizenship. Which will only take a few years to process. IF everything goes smoothly.
One thing that could keep it from going smoothly is the fact that citizenship applications can be rejected if somone has previously (at any time, ever in their whole life) misrepresented information to the U.S. government in order to obtain immigration benefits (note to the international students I went to college with who voted in the 2000 election because they thought it was funny, and because no one at our local polling station checked their eligibility closely enough - too bad if you ever want to become a U.S. citizen). And while it probably seems to the lay reader of the NY Times story that this particular couple has done nothing wrong, the fact is that their application for citizenship ended in their LPR status being stripped. In other words, they weren't Lawful Permanent Residents in the first place, and if they weren't LPRs then they weren't eligible for citizenship. And by the twisted logic on which the USCIS operates, even though the couple did everything carefully and in good faith, they therefore falsely represented themselves as Permanent Residents.
Yeah, sure, technically they were Permanent Residents... but they shouldn't have been (the gov't would say). And for all of us who would look at that and say "OK, but it would be absurd for the USCIS to deny their applications based on that logic," well, we're right.
Unfortunately nobody asked us. The USCIS would ABSOLUTELY deny applications based on that logic. I repeat, they have very twisted logic. Just look at the apparently upstanding married father of two in the story who not only had his citizenship application denied but is now fighting deportation because of an old domestic violence charge that was legally resolved and wiped from his record. (I guess that falls in the forbidden category of having "committed and been convicted of one or more crimes involving moral turpitude.") How in the world does it make sense to kick him out of the country? Who gains? Certainly not his family, which is suddenly uprooted (or husband- and father-less), or his employer or community. Are we safer? Or do we just enjoy petty harrassment of anyone "unlucky" enough to be born on foreign soil?
Speaking of pettiness, did you know that there nine possible eye colors you could claim to have on the U.S. citizenship application? Nine. Including pink and maroon. How many people do you know who have maroon eyes? And eight possible hair colors (including "bald" and - that critical sector of the population - "sandy"). But only five possible ethnicities (stated oh-so-progressively as "race"). And one of those is "American Indian or Alaskan Native." Excuse me, how many of them aren't U.S. citizens already?
Oh, make that six ethnicities... sort of: there's a separate question next to "Race (select one or more)" that asks if the applicant is Hispanic or Latino. Because being Hispanic/Latino is clearly unrelated (?!?) to race (yeah yeah, of course you can make that argument. Trust me, the way they're using it, it shouldn't be a separate question).
It also asks whether the applicant has ever, among other things, belonged to the Communist party, belonged to a terrorist organization, worked for the Nazi party in Germany between 1933 and 1945, committed a crime for which they were not arrested (because this is clearly the time to own up), or - my personal favorite - persecuted anyone based on race, religion, national origin, or membership in a particular social group or political opinion. Nevermind that we just asked you if you've ever been associated with the Communist Party. Really. We were just curious.
I guess there are a couple reasons that all this bothers me so much that I am giving you copious amounts of probably random-seeming information.
One, jump back and apply these same immigration policies and processes 50 years ago and a whole lot of people I know wouldn't be here. Jump back a hundred or 150 years and almost none of us would be here. And I'm not saying it's necessarily better for the country that we are here, but I like us and I certainly enjoy the privilege that being a third generation caucasian American has given me, so it just feels really hypocritical to support the arbitrary and capricious denial of those privileges and opportunities to others simply on the grounds that they came later.
Two, this is just one of many ways that our government, with OUR tax dollars, carelessly or purposely - yes, purposely; see the war in Iraq and the U.S. correctional system, for starters - really messes with peoples' lives. Often ruins them, in fact. And so much of it happens simply because no one questions it, because we have so much faith that our government wouldn't do such things, that the system is benevolent and makes sense and has everyone's best interests at heart.* But I've seen so much, especially over the past seven years, that convinces me that that's a fallacy that each of us is paying for, literally (Happy Tax Day!) and figuratively.
That bothers me. It should bother you. And we should all DO something about it, like get much better informed, and call our congresspeople, and VOTE goddamnit. Don't wait to care until the system reaches out and screws over you or someone you love. Not just because that approach has been effectively repudiated, but because right now is when we have the power and, therefore (in my book, anyway), the responsibility to make change. Because if you are not part of the solution, you ARE part of the problem.
Does this shit keep anyone else up at night, or is it just me?
*And I'm happy to have a conversation anytime about my theory that this faith is actually THE defining characteristic of what separates the "developed" parts of the world from the rest, no matter what Jeff Sachs or the World Bank or the MDGs say.
As you may know, I spent my first year and a half after college working for an immigration lawyer. I don't really miss working in that field, though I really value what I learned there and the perspective it gave me on how (horribly) our government operates and treats many people, perspective that has allowed me to write the occasional long ranting blog post about immigration policy in this country.
Here's another one.
In regards to the last line of the NY Times story, it's very warm and fuzzy for immigration officials to say that the couple profiled in the story can re-apply for Lawful Permanent Residence, or LPR, status (aka a "green card," which isn't green, just FYI) based on being the parents of U.S. citizen children. That's nice.
Once the forms are filed, IF they are filed perfectly correctly (and I mean perfectly - I saw applications rejected because of one single typo of the sort that made no substantive difference to the application) and IF the USCIS (formerly INS) doesn't, oh, lose anything or forget to process it within their usual wait times, the parents might become LPRs within a year or two. And then, five years later, they can reapply for citizenship. Which will only take a few years to process. IF everything goes smoothly.
One thing that could keep it from going smoothly is the fact that citizenship applications can be rejected if somone has previously (at any time, ever in their whole life) misrepresented information to the U.S. government in order to obtain immigration benefits (note to the international students I went to college with who voted in the 2000 election because they thought it was funny, and because no one at our local polling station checked their eligibility closely enough - too bad if you ever want to become a U.S. citizen). And while it probably seems to the lay reader of the NY Times story that this particular couple has done nothing wrong, the fact is that their application for citizenship ended in their LPR status being stripped. In other words, they weren't Lawful Permanent Residents in the first place, and if they weren't LPRs then they weren't eligible for citizenship. And by the twisted logic on which the USCIS operates, even though the couple did everything carefully and in good faith, they therefore falsely represented themselves as Permanent Residents.
Yeah, sure, technically they were Permanent Residents... but they shouldn't have been (the gov't would say). And for all of us who would look at that and say "OK, but it would be absurd for the USCIS to deny their applications based on that logic," well, we're right.
Unfortunately nobody asked us. The USCIS would ABSOLUTELY deny applications based on that logic. I repeat, they have very twisted logic. Just look at the apparently upstanding married father of two in the story who not only had his citizenship application denied but is now fighting deportation because of an old domestic violence charge that was legally resolved and wiped from his record. (I guess that falls in the forbidden category of having "committed and been convicted of one or more crimes involving moral turpitude.") How in the world does it make sense to kick him out of the country? Who gains? Certainly not his family, which is suddenly uprooted (or husband- and father-less), or his employer or community. Are we safer? Or do we just enjoy petty harrassment of anyone "unlucky" enough to be born on foreign soil?
Speaking of pettiness, did you know that there nine possible eye colors you could claim to have on the U.S. citizenship application? Nine. Including pink and maroon. How many people do you know who have maroon eyes? And eight possible hair colors (including "bald" and - that critical sector of the population - "sandy"). But only five possible ethnicities (stated oh-so-progressively as "race"). And one of those is "American Indian or Alaskan Native." Excuse me, how many of them aren't U.S. citizens already?
Oh, make that six ethnicities... sort of: there's a separate question next to "Race (select one or more)" that asks if the applicant is Hispanic or Latino. Because being Hispanic/Latino is clearly unrelated (?!?) to race (yeah yeah, of course you can make that argument. Trust me, the way they're using it, it shouldn't be a separate question).
It also asks whether the applicant has ever, among other things, belonged to the Communist party, belonged to a terrorist organization, worked for the Nazi party in Germany between 1933 and 1945, committed a crime for which they were not arrested (because this is clearly the time to own up), or - my personal favorite - persecuted anyone based on race, religion, national origin, or membership in a particular social group or political opinion. Nevermind that we just asked you if you've ever been associated with the Communist Party. Really. We were just curious.
I guess there are a couple reasons that all this bothers me so much that I am giving you copious amounts of probably random-seeming information.
One, jump back and apply these same immigration policies and processes 50 years ago and a whole lot of people I know wouldn't be here. Jump back a hundred or 150 years and almost none of us would be here. And I'm not saying it's necessarily better for the country that we are here, but I like us and I certainly enjoy the privilege that being a third generation caucasian American has given me, so it just feels really hypocritical to support the arbitrary and capricious denial of those privileges and opportunities to others simply on the grounds that they came later.
Two, this is just one of many ways that our government, with OUR tax dollars, carelessly or purposely - yes, purposely; see the war in Iraq and the U.S. correctional system, for starters - really messes with peoples' lives. Often ruins them, in fact. And so much of it happens simply because no one questions it, because we have so much faith that our government wouldn't do such things, that the system is benevolent and makes sense and has everyone's best interests at heart.* But I've seen so much, especially over the past seven years, that convinces me that that's a fallacy that each of us is paying for, literally (Happy Tax Day!) and figuratively.
That bothers me. It should bother you. And we should all DO something about it, like get much better informed, and call our congresspeople, and VOTE goddamnit. Don't wait to care until the system reaches out and screws over you or someone you love. Not just because that approach has been effectively repudiated, but because right now is when we have the power and, therefore (in my book, anyway), the responsibility to make change. Because if you are not part of the solution, you ARE part of the problem.
Does this shit keep anyone else up at night, or is it just me?
*And I'm happy to have a conversation anytime about my theory that this faith is actually THE defining characteristic of what separates the "developed" parts of the world from the rest, no matter what Jeff Sachs or the World Bank or the MDGs say.
No comments:
Post a Comment