So help me, I am an immigration attorney. I've practiced on the East Coast, where illegal immigration and immigration fraud are generally viewed as victimless crime. I've practiced on the border where it's so easy to beat the system that nobody bothers trying to work within it. The only perspective I come from is I want good government -- responsive bureacracrats, well-versed judges, and enforcers with a sense of proportion.

Wednesday, January 30, 2008

Immigrants will support the aging boomers

Check out this report from the Immigration Policy Center at the American Immigration Law Foundation. It states (emphasis added):

"There are two stories now being told about immigration and the future of America. Each has some basis in fact, although one is based on newer trends and is more optimistic than the other. These stories differ in their answers to three crucial questions: whether immigration to the United States is accelerating out of control or is slowing; how much immigrants are assimilating into American society and progressing economically over time; and how important immigrants are to the U.S. economy. The pessimistic story - in which immigration is portrayed as increasing dramatically and producing a growing population of unassimilated foreigners-draws upon older evidence. But more recent data and analysis suggest a far more positive vision of our immigrant future. Immigration has not only begun to level off, but immigrants are climbing the socio-economic ladder, and will become increasingly important to the U.S. economy as workers, taxpayers, and homebuyers supporting the aging Baby Boom generation."

Tuesday, January 22, 2008

Hillary to speak in Laveen

Hillary Clinton will be conducting a free town hall meeting re: her economic stimulus package at our local high school at 7:30 p.m. tonight. People interested in attending are encouraged to RSVP here.

Thursday, January 17, 2008

Alima Traore

I think that the immigration courts are continuing down a bad road with Matter of A-T-, which was argued by my dear colleague and sometime co-counsel Ron Richey.

Alima Traore (Ms. "A-T-") was subjected to female genital cutting (FGC) as a child and she fears being forced to marry her cousin should she be deported to her home country, Mali. Once in the U.S., she applied for asylum.

In September, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), the highest immigration court in the country, denied her request for protection, ruling that unlike forced sterilization (which it had previously recognized as a permanent, ongoing harm), FGC only happens to a woman once. Therefore, it would not pose an "ongoing harm," making her ineligible for asylum. Contrary to international law, the court also rejected her forced marriage claim, characterizing the practice as harmless family tradition rather than persecution.

The Board's decision in Alima's case marks a significant and alarming departure from previous advances made for women's rights and it has already begun having a devastating impact on women's asylum claims based on past FGC. A powerful column that appeared in The New York Times describes Alima's case.

A bipartisan sign-on effort, sponsored by Representative Steve Rothman (D-NJ) and Representative Chris Smith (R-NJ), is underway in the House of Representatives to request that the Attorney General, who has the authority to review BIA decisions, certify the case to himself in order to reconsider the outrageous denial of protection to Alima Traore. The more representatives that sign on, the greater the pressure will be on the Attorney General to review the case.

To see if your representative in the House has already signed on, review the current list. If he or she has not yet signed on, contact him/her by calling the U.S. Capitol Switchboard at (202) 224-3121 or sending an email by copying and pasting the following link into the address bar on your web browser: https://forms.house.gov/wyr/welcome.shtml

Tell your representative that:

The BIA's decision in Matter of A-T- is a significant departure from the U.S.'s commitment to protect women's rights across the globe
The BIA's reasoning in the this case misconstrues the nature of FGC as simply a one-time act, rather than recognizing the severe ongoing medical and psychological harm that it causes, as well as its purpose to further subjugate women in society
The BIA failed to recognize forced marriage as persecution, signaling a general hostility toward and ignorance of women's human rights
The U.S. has a proud history of protecting the rights of women who are forced to flee grave human rights violations in their home countries. We must not allow the U.S. to turn its back on the courageous women who simply want to have their fundamental rights to autonomy and bodily integrity recognized
They should sign onto the letter to the Attorney General requesting that he certify Matter of A-T- by contacting Shelly Stoneman in Congressman Rothman's office at: shelly.stoneman@mail.house.gov or (202) 225-5061.

My thanks to The Hastings Center for this alert.

Asylees are refugees

What you will notice when we talk about asylum in the US is that we make asylum seekers jump through some hurdles that are really artificial, that have nothing to do with ferreting out fraud or any other legitimate purpose. I mean we seem to take every opportunity to throw in new make-or-break procedural requirements and drop deadlines and nobody balks. We say it’s about fraud. But I think most Americans feel that our government is equipped to ferret our fraud. It’s something else.

We as a people, we Americans, we want to help refugees. We know what refugees are. Refugees are our Old World forebears on ships. Refugees are people boiling water over driftwood in camps. Today’s asylum seekers often don’t fit our idea of refugees.

We have a system for taking "our share" of the world's refugees. It's called resettlement. That's where we and the other developed countries put all of the (recognized) refugees in a pot and vet them and assign priority based on this or that criterion and divvy them up. If we can serve some geo-political smack on a rival nation, then even better (Remember “Soviet Jewry”?).

It's an awful system. It takes too long and too many people fall through the cracks and, oh, we can talk all day about the flaws in that program. But whatever its flaws, there is at least some satisfaction in knowing that it at least tries to be systematic; that we've at least tried to "save" the people who were most in need of saving (or, failing that, most capable of being saved.)

And that is precisely the opposite of asylum, which “rewards” people who manage to break through our nation’s defenses and land on our shores; which is to say, who didn’t wait their turn, didn’t play by the rules, didn’t stay put. It’s that there is an implicit comparison with the “deserving” refugee. If they came on a visa; at least they were prosperous enough to warrant a visa. Even if they jumped the fence; well, at least they were able-bodied enough to jump the fence.

But contemporary global reality does not really support this black-and-white dichotomy. It is ironic to attack asylum as a haven of the privileged NOW. We only have that impression because we have more asylum seekers, and they are different from the asylum seekers of old. We only have more and different asylum seekers because information and travel technology have opened up international migration to the humble.

Our class of asylum seekers is increasingly representative of the world’s refugee population. I think we as a people could really embrace and celebrate that uniquely American fact, and insist on a rigorous but compassionate and forgiving asylum program.

Support I-VAWA

Thanks to the Hastings Center for this:

Please contact your representatives in the Senate and ask them to support I-VAWA, legislation that will reduce violence aimed at women and girls worldwide.

Around the world, violence against women and girls is at epidemic proportions. One out of every three women worldwide will be physically, sexually or otherwise abused during her lifetime with rates reaching 70 percent in some countries. This type of violence and abuse ranges from rape to domestic violence and from acid burnings to honor killings.

Introduced by Senator Biden and Senator Lugar on October 31, 2007, the International Violence Against Women Act (S. 2279) is an historic and unprecedented effort by the U.S. to address violence against women globally. The law would make ending violence against women a diplomatic priority for the U.S. and create the first high-level position in the U.S. Department of State to coordinate efforts to combat violence against women. It will also make sure that the U.S. is able to develop emergency measures in a timely fashion to respond to critical outbreaks of violence against women, such as the mass rapes in the armed conflict in the Congo.

The Act recommends allocating more than $1 billion over 5 years in U.S. assistance to support international programs that prevent and respond to violence.

This inspiring legislation incorporates training, protection, and services for women across a range of situations, from the fight against HIV-AIDS, to school and health clinics, to court systems, to workplaces, to refugee camps. It also supports the efforts of local women's groups overseas that are already working to end violence against women in their countries.

Call your senators today and emphasize that you want them to sign on as a co-sponsor of this bill, S.2279. It's simple:

Call 202-224-3121 and ask for the office of your senators. (If you don't know who they are, you can find out at www.senate.gov.)

Tell their offices that you are a constituent, and you care about the well being of women and girls around the world

Urge them to cosponsor S. 2279, the International Violence Against Women Act (I-VAWA)

If you feel so moved, share one reason why this issue matters so much to you

Your five minute phone call can help bring safety, security and new options to the lives of women and girls worldwide.


You can also contact your senators via email or by regular mail, using the same easy steps outlined above.


SAMPLE LETTER TO SENATORS TO CO-SPONSOR I-VAWA


Dear Senator __________,


I am writing to urge you to co-sponsor S. 2279, the International Violence Against Women Act (I-VAWA), a groundbreaking piece of legislation that would significantly expand efforts worldwide to end violence against women and girls.


We know that at least one out of every three women globally will be beaten, coerced into sex, or otherwise abused in her lifetime, with rates reaching 70 percent in some countries. Millions of women and girls experience violence every day including rape, domestic violence, acid burning, honor killings, human trafficking, female genital cutting and other harmful practices.


As your constituent, I am asking that you support I-VAWA, making violence against women a diplomatic priority for the United States. This legislation is very important because it will:


Create the first U.S. State Department coordinator working explicitly on Violence Against Women;
Develop strategies in 10-20 countries for U.S. programs to address violence against women and girls;
Integrate best practices on addressing such violence into existing U.S. foreign assistance programs;
Fund international programs that prevent violence, support health programs and survivor services, encourage legal accountability, promote access to economic opportunities and education, and better address violence against women in humanitarian crisis situations;
Develop emergency measures to respond to a mass outbreak of violence against women and girls in armed conflict, like mass rape;
Prevent sexual exploitation and abuse by U.S. personnel overseas by creating training and accountability mechanisms;
Expand U.S. financial support for overseas non-governmental organizations working to end violence against women and girls.

For the first time, through I-VAWA, the U.S. has an historic opportunity to raise this issue in its diplomatic work and have an impact on the suffering of millions of women around the world. As my senator, you have the power to make a real difference in the lives of millions of women and girls by co-sponsoring S. 2279, the International Violence Against Women Act. I urge you to do just that.


Sincerely,


Your Name
Your Address

Friday, January 11, 2008

The Legal Doctrine of Don't Be An *ss

You probably don’t need me to tell you that lawyers make everything colder and nastier than it needs to be, but as a lawyer, it always slays me when members of my own tribe pull that legalese on me.

I think it must be that law school can only amplify what you already are. If you were already wired to be a self-appointed guardian of the machine, then certainly there is much about that orientation that law school will exalt. Everywhere you will see liability created when somebody makes an exception or -- the worst sin -- “was just trying to be nice.” If you were already a gadfly, then likewise. Everywhere you will see a small band of committed people striking blows for justice.

But I would have thought that law school would engender a certain feisty quality in all of us, at least as concerns our personal affairs. I mean, like a willingness to insist on that warranty or fight that traffic ticket or take that deduction -- that sort of thing.

My husband tells the story from when we were dating and I was in law school, that we were driving into a parking lot and idly reading that sign -- you know -- that says about how they cannot be held liable for objects left in the car. And I said, “Says who? You don’t stop being liable because you say.”

Feminists used to talk about having these “clicks,” these tiny moments when they realized something profound about gender disequilibrium all around us. That was a “click” moment for us, but as Americans. Like, that you get to ask, “Says who?” Like maybe we -- Americans -- we’ve been sleepwalking; we’ve been sold a bill of goods. Like maybe we should all be walking around zapping everything with our little “Says who?” salad shooter as a matter of habit.

I used to work for this US Senator helping constituents who had problems with federal agencies. One such constituent was an investor in foreclosed housing, and was having a difficult time with HUD. I don’t remember the details. There were charlatans involved. We did a little something for her, but I remember that her case was so compelling for me that I wrote a little memo to the Senator about it.

Years and jobs later, that woman contacted me. She was being sued for something related and needed something -- I forget what -- from that work that we had helped her with. Well, I put her in touch with my old colleagues but I also happened to have that old memo, so I sent it to her. And I contacted the Senate counsel to report it to them. They said they would look into whether they would allow me to give her the memo. And I said, good, because I had already done so and would testify in the proceeding if I could be any help. And this flabbergasted the counsel -- that I wasn’t actually waiting for the go-ahead. I mean, what are they gonna do? Take away my birthday?

Well, as it turns out, it never came to that, and the problem resolved on its own. But I have never forgotten that encounter. Based on what, precisely, would the counsel pull down the powers of the US Senate to stop me from testifying in a case, if I wanted? Never mind that it’s my civic duty as an eyewitness. What state secrets was I privy to? What government interest was I thwarting?

In law school, we used to say that there was a legal doctrine that superseded all others, and it was, Don’t be an *ss! (A corollary might be “Throw me a bone, here!”) Really, just on principle, Americans should stop putting up with any lawyers who have forgotten that doctrine.

Thursday, January 10, 2008

New Immigration Flowchart

Immigration is a complicated business. I find that I can't get anywhere talking to a person who has not dealt with this bureacracy and these laws without scribbling graphs and charts. So I am grateful that someone has created this flowchart. I wish there were more like it.

Monday, January 7, 2008

Don't Count Bill Richardson Out

I strongly support this border governor. He knows his stuff. Check out these quotes on immigration. If you like what you see, then check out his website.

New Study Favors Immigration

This new study from a conservative group, shows higher economic growth and less crime in those states that have the highest immigrant populations, legal and not.

Satyagraha

One who breaks an unjust law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law.
- Martin Luther King, Jr.

My thanks to Mariposa for putting me in mind of this quote today.

It reminds me of a tale. I am from Columbia (the city in Maryland, not COLOMBIA). One day I was out with my two young kids, my Eritrean paralegal, and his friend, who later became an asylum client, in Columbia and we were talking about the city's history of integration. See Padraic Kennedy's excellent essay

I mentioned that my interracial parents moved to Columbia when their marriage was still against state law in Virginia. My daughter piped in. How come they got married if it was against the law? I thoughtlessly responded well, if a law is unjust, you have a duty to break it. No big thing, right? It's just what you say.

In high school and college, the US civil rights struggle was presented to us like ancient history, even though we weren't but one generation removed. We grew up imagining that we would have joined the freedom rides, IF WE HAD BEEN THERE. But, these words, these concepts -- civil disobedience, creative nonviolence -- they were taught to us as finished business, something that was necessary in the bad old days. When we were wrong. Before we got right.

And, partially because I was raised in this relative utopia, my relationship to these principles is reverential, not practical. I'm a wonk; not a freedom fighter.

My clients; they are the real deal. I've had clients who were jailed, tortured, and threatened with death for such crimes as owning a Bible small enough to be hidden in an army boot, growing a beard, owning a radio, making mimeograph copies of e-mails... Who have stood before the torturer, the State, and said, if you kill me now I will still look you in the eye... Who have said, My God is a righteous God and if it His will that you kill me then I die.

The man who was with us when I said that thing to my daughter, he later became an asylum client. He told me later what an impression that comment, said thoughtlessly to a child in a public place, had on him. How privileged, how blessed, he felt to be in this country and to be among people who embraced its principles. Principles the truth of which he has felt but not had words for.

But of course, the privilege, the blessing, is on me. Because, I can quote the principles; but they live them.