A reader sends along information on immigration

She writes:

I wanted to send two resources along regarding immigration law that square with my (limited) experience. People don’t really understand immigration patterns or the procedures involved for people to get here legally or what motivates people to come here without legal status and perhaps they’ll find these illuminating.

I had a lot of preconceived notions about immigrants until I started learning about how our system works (or doesn’t — depending on who you ask). Feel free to share, but without my name. The political environment is harsher than ever for those of us who are just gut flora in the belly of the beast.

The first is a media post by an immigration lawyer available here:

The second is also a post by an immigration lawyer. Lily S. Axelrod posted the following at her public facebook page (apologies for length but I can’t figure out how to link to a single facebook post because I’m not a millennial):

What part of “illegal” don’t you understand?

In immigration law, there is no such thing as an “illegal immigrant.” It’s simply not a category that exists. There are people who are deportable / removable (because they don’t have permission to be here, because they have permission to be here but have violated a term of their stay, or for some other reason such as a criminal conviction). There are people who lack legal status and are also not removable. There are people who “have no lawful status,” but are also not “unlawfully present.” There are people who are removable but also eligible to apply to stay in the US lawfully. There are people who would be eligible to apply to stay here lawfully, but the application is only available if the government first tries to deport them. There are people outside the US who are not eligible to come in legally, but if they were here, they would be allowed to stay. There are even people who are simultaneously deportable and eligible to apply for citizenship.

There are also ways to “break the law” and still be present lawfully. There are lots of types of violations of immigration law and criminal law that can’t result in deportation for people in certain types of status, or where there’s a “grace period.” There are some crimes where you’re fine if you were convicted in 1995, but totally out of luck if it was 1997.

When somebody comes to my office, it often takes me well over an hour of reviewing their paperwork and asking them questions about their entire life story and family history in order to figure out (a) whether they entered the US lawfully, (b) whether they are currently present in the US lawfully, (c) whether the government can lawfully deport them, (d) whether, if the government tries to deport them, they are eligible to apply to stay and how likely they would be to win, and (e) whether they’re eligible for benefits such as an employment based visa, a marriage-based green card, citizenship, asylum, visas for victims of crime or domestic violence, etc.

Sometimes we even find that somebody is a US citizen and didn’t even realize it — the US accidentally deports US citizens every year.
Every time Congress amends the Immigration and Nationality Act, they intensify our headache. Popular culture doesn’t reflect the complexity and subtlety of the laws, so understandably people want to classify folks’ status as “legal” or “illegal” when it’s usually just not so simple. I wish the laws were more straightforward and easier for people to follow.

So saying “illegal immigrant” is kind of like saying “an illegal movie.” There’s no such category, so what does it mean? Does the movie include illegal content such as child pornography and is therefore illegal to distribute? Did non-union actors work in violation of a labor agreement? Is the movie R rated but the theatre is allowing 5-year-olds in? Did somebody on the crew get a parking ticket on location? Was the DVD pirated or the script plagiarized? Does the movie depict lawlessness? Just saying “illegal movie” is nonsensical and doesn’t give you any information about the movie, whether I am allowed to watch it, or who would be responsible for what violations of which law.

“Undocumented” is a political term, not a legal one. People generally use it as a respectful term to refer collectively to people who entered without inspection and still have no status, and also those who entered lawfully but overstayed or violated their status. People often assume that only undocumented people can be deported, but actually people in lawful status can be deported too, including lawful permanent residents (“green card” holders). I have a client right now who has had his green card for 30 years, nothing unlawful about his immigration status, but he is in deportation proceedings following an illegal arrest by immigration officers, because of a criminal conviction from the early 1990s that he didn’t have to serve a day in jail for.

I sometimes use the general terms “out of status” or “lacking lawful immigration status.” This is roughly equivalent to how people use the term “undocumented” but it’s more precise because often people are “out of status” even though their entry to the US was totally legal and documented.

So… now what part of “illegal” don’t you understand?

(With gratitude to Adam Si, who helped adapt this from several comments on a personal Facebook discussion in November and encouraged me to bring it all together and publish it).

"So does that mean it's okay if you and others attack pro life people as ..."

Interviewed Rebecca Bratten Weiss on Connecting ..."
"Trump is an adulterous racist. He is on family #3. He says disgusting, perverted, sexist, ..."

Interviewed Rebecca Bratten Weiss on Connecting ..."
"I know some 7th Day Adventists who won't even consider the Catholic side of the ..."

Because Christianity is nothing more than ..."
"Agreed. Pope JPII's specialty was philosophy. I tried reading "Love and Responsibility" and realized that ..."

Conversation with Somebody Claiming Their Focus ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment