Alliance of White Anti-Racists Everywhere – Los Angeles
Family
Following State of the Union, President Obama Needs to Follow Through on Immigration Reforms
01 week ago
The President’s State of the Union address this week re-iterated some of his key themes on immigration—support for comprehensive reform, dismay that DREAM Act students and foreign students educated in this country have no way to legalize their status, and a belief that he’s done enough to the secure the border. More importantly, he framed these themes in context to America’s economic recovery, innovation and growth. However, while any mention of immigration in the State of the Union is welcome, it’s what the President didn’t say that may have more of an impact on how his administration is remembered this year on immigration—and how his vision is measured by voters in the coming election.
In the State of the Union address, President Obama repeatedly signaled to Congress that he would sign sensible bills to reform our immigration system, big or small. But he quickly noted that partisan politics would make it all but impossible to pass comprehensive reform:
The opponents of action are out of excuses. We should be working on comprehensive immigration reform right now. But if election-year politics keeps Congress from acting on a comprehensive plan, let’s at least agree to stop expelling responsible young people who want to staff our labs, start new businesses, and defend this country. Send me a law that gives them the chance to earn their citizenship. I will sign it right away.
There are plenty of bills that fit this description, from the DREAM Act to proposals offering green cards to foreign graduates in science and engineering to support for immigrant entrepreneurs, but they are just as likely to flounder in the sea of partisan politics as something grander and more comprehensive.
And while the president suggested that the ball was in Congress’s court, he didn’t mention that his Administration has moved forward on reforms that don’t require Congressional action. The Administration has become more aggressive in the last in year in fixing parts of our backward immigration system, such as overhauling immigration detention, a review of the Secure Communities program, a re-invigoration of the use of prosecutorial discretion, and attempts to promote streamlined adjudications and family unity. The latter, announced just weeks ago, has generated real excitement among immigrant communities.
Similarly, changes to the way government officials decide what cases should be prosecuted in immigration court—and what cases should be dropped—have given hope to millions of immigrants that they may be able to stay with their families, at least for a while longer. But there remains considerable uncertainty about how DHS will routinely exercise discretion, especially amidst reports that DREAM Act students and others who clearly fit the government’s low priority status are still being deported.
In the areas of detention reform and Secure Communities, however, the early enthusiasm about change has been replaced by wariness on the part of advocates who want to believe promised reforms will be made. They have been repeatedly disappointed by delays in the detention realm and a continued commitment to keep Secure Communities alive, a program that many believe undermines community safety and policing. A special task force voted out a series of necessary reforms and gave their report to Secretary Napolitano last September, but DHS has yet to announce how it will implement these recommendations.
Although these ongoing administrative reforms don’t fit tidily into the overarching vision of immigration policy the President laid out in the State of the Union, following through on them would have a lasting effect on both immigration enforcement and the consideration of benefits for those stuck in our broken immigration system. And the President shouldn’t abandon his larger vision. He has made significant strides in helping to reshape how people who don’t much care about immigration think about it and that will be critical when the time comes for comprehensive reform. But for those most directly affected by our immigration crisis, it is the most immediate details that matter most.
Photo by WhiteHouse.gov.
Anti-Immigrant Crowd Cries Wolf in Response to Administration’s Family Unity Policy
04 weeks ago
The Obama administration’s recent announcement that it intends to change regulations allowing the children and spouses of American citizens to stay together while processing applications for legal permanent resident status has the immigration restrictionists crying wolf—or more accurately “amnesty”—once again. They are characterizing the administration’s rule change, as they do any and all actions that are not enforcement related, as a “backdoor amnesty.” Some are also characterizing the change as a strategy to bypass Congress.
Congressman Lamar Smith, for example, said in a statement that the Obama administration was bending long-established rules to put the interests of “illegal immigrants” ahead of U.S. citizens. Kris Kobach, Kansas Secretary of State, called the announcement “part two” of the amnesty plan first announced last fall when the Obama administration said it would review current cases in deportation proceedings to see whether they were really priority cases. Calling this new proposal any kind of amnesty is not only inaccurate, it’s tired.
As reported on Friday, the administration plans to issue a regulation that would address a long-standing problem in immigration law—a Catch 22 created by requiring those spouses and children of U.S. citizens who have been in the country unlawfully to depart the U.S. before completing the processing of their application for lawful permanent residence. The trouble is that once they leave the country, they are subject to a three or ten year bar for unlawful presence and need a waiver to get back in. The new proposal would allow them to submit the waiver application before departing the U.S., thus reducing the time, anxiety, and sometime danger inherent in waiting abroad for a decision.
This Catch-22 is one of the most notorious problems in the immigration system and the regulatory change is long-overdue. Due to processing backlogs, uncertainty of outcomes and violence in cities with key U.S. consulates—such as in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico—the prospect of becoming a lawful permanent resident has become an uncertain and frustrating affair for some applicants. Recognizing this problem, which arises in part from regulation, is an example of USCIS acting responsibly to address a problem of its own regulatory making in an expedient and lawful way.
USCIS’s proposed change, or “notice of intent”—which will be subject to the full range of public notice and comment—is intended to change a processing requirement set out in a regulation, not in the statute. If anything, offering a notice of intent to issue a rule gives the public even more warning that the government intends to undertake a the regular process of adopting a new regulation.
The truth is this rule change will not open the doors for more immigrants, or provide relief for the millions of undocumented immigrants in this country without the necessary family and work relationships to obtain status. Therefore, calling it “amnesty” is nothing short of hysterical.
The public is tired of knee-jerk responses to all things immigration. Polls consistently show that people want solutions, not political wrangling. The fact that opponents of immigration reform paint everything that isn’t enforcement as “amnesty” isn’t surprising. Their responses, just like their solutions, are limited and short-sighted. In this case, the policy they are calling “amnesty” we call common sense.
Photo by katerkate.
New Reports Track Devastating Impact of Alabama’s Extreme Immigration Law on Residents
01 month ago
Despite recent court decisions and interpretations from the state’s Attorney General that limit implementation of Alabama’s draconian immigration law, HB 56, much of damage has already been done. Two recent reports by Human Rights Watch (HRW) and the AFL-CIO further illustrate the ways in which HB 56 is complicating many aspects of daily life. Both organizations sent delegations to Alabama to interview a wide variety of Alabama residents and found that the fallout goes well beyond the official implementation of the law’s provisions and extends to personal relationships. Both found that the law is just one part of an agenda to deny people fundamental rights.
HRW points out that the provisions of HB 56 not only deny unauthorized immigrants education, utilities, housing, and other basic necessities, it also denies them fundamental rights. Unauthorized immigrants are denied due process and access to the courts, which cannot enforce contracts between an “alien unlawfully present” and any other party. Immigrants also have unequal access to remedies for victims of crimes because they are fearful of calling the police when they are victimized by crime. People who “look” or “sound” like immigrants are subject to discriminatory document verification.
HRW found that since the law was implemented, employers have refused to pay their employees, landlords have refused to make critical repairs, and lawyers, judges, and court interpreters have threatened to report suspected unauthorized immigrants. Countless children have lost valuable time in school as parents have withdrawn them, or are simply afraid to drive them to school.
The law has also created an environment in which harassment, discrimination, and abuse are prevalent. Private individuals and businesses have taken it upon themselves to demand proof of legal status from people they suspect of being unlawfully present. One woman reported that a clerk at a major discount store told her she needed proof of U.S. citizenship to fill a prescription. HRW also reported that strangers make disparaging or abusive remarks in public, and that school children are being traumatized and bullied by their classmates.
Even commenting on the negative impact of the law is sufficient to raise the ire of some Alabamans. In the AFL-CIO report, Steve Dubrinski, the owner of Max’s Deli, explained how his business had been affected after he publicly expressed concerns about his business because his fully documented Latino workers may leave the state. Dubrinski received ugly hate-filled emails, and a local radio talk show host called on people to boycott his deli. Dozens of people posted negative online reviews claiming that people should not patronize Max’s because the workers are all “illegal.”
These stories are shocking and heartbreaking and they need to be told. Staunch supporters of the law may not care that HB 56 violates international human rights or that it engenders discrimination and harassment or that daily life is becoming exceedingly difficult for immigrants—these are the intended consequences of the law.
Americans who want a practical solution to our immigration problems understand that laws intended to make life miserable for certain persons are not the way to go. All Americans must also ask themselves whether HB 56 represents the best America has to offer or whether we can do better.
New Report Challenges Notion that Harsh Enforcement Measures Drive Unauthorized Immigrants Out
02 months ago
Last week, a new report released by the Pew Hispanic Center found that nearly two-thirds of all unauthorized adult immigrants currently living in the U.S. (10.2 million) have been here for at least 10 years and nearly half of them (4.7 million) are parents of minor children. The longevity of their U.S. residency and pattern of parenthood suggest that these unauthorized immigrants are integrated into American society, challenging the notion that ramped-up enforcement measures like Arizona’s SB 1070 and Alabama’s HB 56 are effectively driving unauthorized immigrants back to their countries of origin.
Using the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2010 Current Population Survey, the Pew Hispanic Center estimated that:
- 35% of unauthorized adult immigrants have resided in the U.S. for 15 years or more (a number that doubled since 2000)
- 28% for 10 to 14 years
- 22% for 5 to 9 years
- and 15% for less than five years (a number that has fallen by half since 2000)
Pew also found that nearly half of all undocumented immigrants in the U.S. (4.7 million) are parents of minor children. Additionally, Pew estimates that roughly 9 million people in the U.S. live in a mixed-status home—meaning that at least one immigrant parents is undocumented and at least one child is U.S. born.
After living in the U.S. for 10 years or more, many in mixed-status homes, it’s reasonable to assume that these unauthorized immigrants are integrated into American society—they live here, they send their children to school here, they go to church here, they pay taxes here. The idea that harsh state immigration enforcement policies are “working”—that is, forcing unauthorized immigrants to return home—just doesn’t seem to hold water.
As Pew’s report concludes, the data “reflects the fact that relatively few long-duration unauthorized immigrants have returned to their countries of origin.” While some may return to their home countries, others likely migrate to neighboring states, states where they have family or can find work.
Clearly, the current enforcement-only approach to addressing immigration isn’t working. In fact, state immigration laws like Alabama’s HB 56 are actually hurting states’ economies—wasting scant resources, burdening state businesses, stirring distrust in communities and creating a hostile environment that will likely steer foreign investments elsewhere.
What we need, say experts like Doug Massey of Princeton University, is an earned path to legalization—a path that even conservative voters think is necessary. According to Massey, given the recent post-recession dip in migration from Mexico and the apparent lack of self-deportation of unauthorized immigrants who have long resided in the U.S., “there is really only one thing that remains to be accomplished … the creation of a pathway to legalization for long-term undocumented residents.”
Until then, Congress and states legislatures will continue to waste time, resources and money on enforcement measures that do nothing to address the realities of our broken and outdated immigration system.
Photo by Nathan Gibbs.
Children of Immigrant Entrepreneurs Excel Educationally, Report Finds
02 months ago
The contributions of immigrant entrepreneurs—innovation, job creation and economic growth—are often cited by economists as strong reasons to reform our outdated immigration system. However, the kids of immigrant entrepreneurs receive relatively little attention. Delving into the experiences of these adult children of immigrants provides a new lens through which to witness the struggles and triumphs of parents and their children as they pursue the American Dream.
A new report by the Immigrant Learning Center (ILC) puts a human face on the children of immigrant entrepreneurs. Adult Children of Immigrant Entrepreneurs: Memories and Influences shares the stories of 36 children of immigrants representing a wide variety of countries of origin and family businesses. Some were born in the U.S. and others immigrated here in childhood. While their stories differ, they all have one thing in common: their immigrant entrepreneur parents and experiences growing up around the family business heavily influenced their desire to pursue an education and the American dream.
All of the young adults interviewed witnessed firsthand their parents’ struggles as they integrated into their new home in the U.S., ingraining them with a strong work ethic. They spent long hours along side their parents in their place of business. While most gained valuable experience taking on various activities, many parents shielded their kids from manual labor, encouraging them instead to interact with customers, keep the books, or other business-related tasks. Because they often had better English language skills than their immigrant parents, many of them served as de facto language brokers. Spending time working alongside their parents provided them with valuable business and social skills, giving them the confidence that allowed them to excel in school.
Pen Khek Chear, whose parents came to the US as Cambodian refugees, said:
“My dad did not want to teach me to be a jeweler [like him] because he was afraid I would like it. My parents wanted me to get an education and be a ‘respectable professional’ and not have to do ‘hard labor.”
Pen obtained a Master’s in Social Work from Boston University.
Because of their own struggles, education is very highly valued by immigrant entrepreneur parents, and the young adults interviewed had achieved high education levels. Many of the people interviewed had pursued graduate school after graduating from college. They related how their immigrant parents wanted them to excel educationally, get good, stable jobs, and live more comfortable lives than their parents had. The kids recognized that their parents had performed difficult manual labor, and had sacrificed their weekends and worked all the time so that they could pursue higher education. ILC found that “there is an inherent appreciation among the adult children of immigrant entrepreneurs for the sacrifices their parents made to ensure that they have successful careers and lead normal lives in their adopted homeland.”
Like many American families, the immigrant entrepreneurs highlighted in this study want their children to excel and have opportunities that they themselves did not have. While their children may not always get along with their parents, they recognize the tremendous sacrifices their parents have made for them. Not only did the young adults interviewed excel in school and in their careers, but they also chose careers that allow them to give back to the community. The American Dream is alive and well in these immigrant families.
Photo by leungchopan.
New Report Predicts Continuing Integration of Immigrants into U.S. Society
02 months ago
Anti-immigrant activists like to pretend that immigrants are destined to be poor and to never successfully integrate into U.S. society. However, a new report from the Center for American Progress (CAP) concludes that, in reality, “immigrants are integrating into American life, learning English, and becoming homeowners.” When socioeconomic advancement is tracked over time, it becomes clear that “far from a life in poverty, immigrants are exemplifying the American Dream.” The report, entitled Assimilation Tomorrow, was co-authored by renowned demographer Dowell Myers (a professor in the School of Policy, Planning, and Development at the University of Southern California) and by John Pitkin (president of Analysis and Forecasting, Inc., in Cambridge, Massachusetts). This report is the companion piece to another study which was released by CAP last year, entitled Assimilation Today.
Assimilation Tomorrow uses Census data as a basis for projecting where immigrants who came here during the 1990s are likely to find themselves socioeconomically by 2030. The report predicts that, in the coming decades, more and more of these immigrants will buy homes, become U.S. citizens, and earn higher incomes:
- Homeownership: Only 25.5 percent of immigrants who arrived in the United States during the 1990s were homeowners in 2000. By 2030, 71.9 percent of these immigrants are likely to own homes.
- U.S. citizenship: Only 13.2 percent of immigrants who arrived in the United States during the 1990s were U.S. citizens in 2000. By 2030, 70.6 percent of these immigrants are likely to be U.S. citizens.
- Income: Only 55.7 percent of immigrants who arrived in the United States during the 1990s earned incomes above the “low-income” level in 2000. By 2030, 70.3 percent of these immigrants are likely to earn incomes above the “low-income” level.
In other words, integration into U.S. society takes time, just as it always has. Newcomers don’t climb the socioeconomic ladder of an unfamiliar country overnight. That is why integration is most accurately tracked over the course of decades, not simply a few years. As the report notes, when immigrant integration is examined over an appropriate span of time, it becomes apparent that, “contrary to the critics, immigrants are integrating into American life, and doing so in impressive ways.”
The report concludes that all Americans have a stake in the successful integration of immigrants into the U.S. economy and U.S. society. As tens of millions of baby boomers retire over the next few decades, the demand for immigrant workers will grow. Immigrant taxpayers will play an increasingly important role in funding the revenue-starved Social Security and Medicare programs. And the housing market will become more and more dependent upon immigrant homebuyers. In short, the successful integration and upward mobility of immigrants will serve as a much-needed economic stimulus for the nation as a whole.
Photo by Andy Dean Photography.
Congressional Members to Join Civil Rights Groups in Fight Against Alabama’s “Juan Crow” Law
03 months ago
In the days following passage of Alabama’s extreme immigration law (HB 56), many business, religious and civil rights leaders spoke out about the law’s damaging impact on immigrant communities, farms, businesses, and schools. Since then, many notable community and civil rights leaders have stepped forward to add their voice to those demanding a repeal of the law. The Alabama NAACP, for example, recently joined immigrant rights groups to call for an end to what one African American minister described as “Alabama’s worst times since the days of segregation and Jim Crow.” This week, Illinois Congressman Luis Gutierrez met with members of several congressional caucuses—Hispanic, Black, Asian Pacific American and Progressive—to address what he calls Alabama’s “civil rights emergency.”
Last month, the Alabama NAACP joined the Alabama Coalition for Immigrant Justice (ACIJ) to oppose HB 56. At the rally, Alabama United: One Family, One Alabama, Alabama NAACP president Bernard Simelton called the law “mean-spirited” and said that “we have to join forces and defeat it. We’re doing everything we can to get the law repealed—to demonstrate to our politicians that the law is unconstitutional.”
In fact, many in the African American community have called Alabama’s harsh anti-immigrant law a “Juan Crow Law,” comparing it to our nation’s Jim Crow laws which encouraged legalized racial segregation against African Americans. And it’s not hard to see the connection with the racially suggestive phrasing in the law like “reasonable suspicion” and provisions that aim at limiting basic needs, like water, to undocumented immigrants.
Wade Henderson, President of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, denounced Alabama’s law even before the Governor Bentley signed it. Henderson said the law “is designed to do nothing more than terrorize the state’s Latino community” and characterized it as “so oppressive that even Bull Connor would be impressed.”
Scott Douglas III of the Greater Birmingham Ministries called Alabama’s law “hateful.” In an interview with the ACLU, Douglas called on people to say “no” to a system that allows “people to be treated worse than animals and denying basic human rights.”
Congressman Gutierrez and select Congressional members plan to hold a public meeting in Birmingham in late November so that those affected by the law have a chance to tell their stories. Congressman Gutierrez, echoed Douglas’s call to action, urging people to bring an end to Alabama’s civil rights emergency.
“Justice-loving Americans from around the country were instrumental in shining a light on injustice in Alabama a half-century ago and came to the aid of young leaders like Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and Rev. Fred Shuttlesworth,” Gutierrez said. “It is no different today. Those who see a great injustice occurring now against the people of Alabama must come to their aid.”
As enforcement of Alabama’s immigration law continues to discriminate against immigrants and Latinos, the support of civil rights groups, African American leaders and Alabamians of all races should remind lawmakers in the state not to repeat the civil rights injustices of the past.
Watch Scott Douglas III:
DHS Needs to Target Violent Drug Cartels, Not Immigrants Trying to Reunite with Families
04 months ago
Times have changed along the U.S.-Mexico border. In just a few short years, Mexican drug cartels have taken over the people-smuggling business. Although U.S. border walls and fences have proliferated, they have done nothing to prevent the cartels from moving drugs, human beings, guns, and money back and forth across the border. The combination of heightened U.S. border enforcement and cartel violence has made crossing the border increasingly dangerous. Yet large numbers of unauthorized immigrants who were previously deported from the United States continue to risk their lives by crossing the border in order to reunite with their U.S. families. The Obama Administration’s current enforcement policies treat these family-bound migrants like hardened criminals, while failing to address the real threat to security—the cartels.
This is the picture that emerges from a recent, comprehensive New York Times story about the U.S.-Mexico border. The story highlights a number of facts that are crucial for understanding U.S. border enforcement and immigration policy today:
- Drug cartels are the threat—not the migrants they smuggle. Unauthorized immigrants are often portrayed by anti-immigrant activists as a threat to border security, despite the fact that they are less likely to commit serious crimes or end up behind bars than the native-born. However, the true threats to security are the drug cartels that smuggle unauthorized immigrants into the United States. These are large-scale, exceedingly violent, criminal syndicates that also smuggle drugs into the country, and guns and money into Mexico. As former Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard persuasively argues, it is the sprawling collection of cartel sub-contractors that makes illicit entry into the United States possible in this era of border walls and fences. Therefore, “until the cartels are eliminated, the border cannot be considered secure. Period.”
- More unauthorized immigrants are deportees trying to rejoin their U.S. families. The stereotype of the unauthorized immigrant is of the young, single male who journeys northward for a low-wage job picking crops or washing dishes. However, that sort of migration across the border has come to a virtual standstill. There are few jobs to be had in the United States, a growing number of jobs to be had in Mexico, and a dwindling number of potential migrants who want to brave the often-deadly gauntlet of cartel smuggling operations and U.S. border enforcement. As a result, a growing number of unauthorized immigrants are people who have lived in the United States for several years, been deported, and are trying to rejoin their U.S. families.
- U.S. immigration policy treats these family migrants the same as gang members and hardened felons. In August, the Obama Administration announced that it would target its immigration enforcement efforts on dangerous criminals rather than unauthorized workers without criminal records. Nevertheless, standing policy still treats deportees who cross the border again in order to rejoin their families the same as dangerous criminals. This policy defies common sense and runs counter to the spirit of the guidelines released in August.
U.S. border enforcement policies don’t make much sense. In an era of transnational criminal cartels that deal in drugs, guns, money, and human cargo, the U.S. government is more likely to prosecute the human cargo than it is to attack the transnational cartels. At a time when federal authorities are revisiting guidelines as to who should be deported and who should not, deportees trying to reunify with U.S. families are lumped together with individuals who pose a threat to national security. A system this irrational is in dire need of a comprehensive overhaul.
Photo by Braden Gunem.
What the New Budget Law Could Mean for Immigrant and Refugee Programs
05 months ago
BY ERIC SIGMON, LUTHERAN IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE SERVICE*
On August 2, after a number of press conferences and late-night negotiation sessions, President Obama signed into law the Budget Control of Act of 2011, legislation that prevented the U.S. government from defaulting on its debt and requires deep cuts into future federal spending. While deficit cutting laws may not sound very interesting to the average reader, this new law will decrease the size and role of the federal government over the next decade. Over the next four months, Congress will have to make decisions that will shape the government’s capacity to provide protection and life-saving assistance to refugees, adjudicate immigration benefits, and enforce U.S. immigration laws along the border and in the interior (apprehensions, detentions, deportations).
Depending on what is cut, there could be a huge impact on the budgets of the immigration agencies within the Department of Homeland Security, which, in turn, would have a huge impact on immigrant and refugee communities.
The Budget Control Act mandates $917 billion in cuts over the next ten years by implementing spending caps on discretionary federal spending. (Note: Federal entitlement programs are exempt from these spending caps.) The bill also places an additional cap on “security” spending for the next two years, forcing Congress to divide up an estimated $5 billion in cuts among the Departments of Homeland Security, State, Defense, Veterans Affairs, and a couple of smaller federal agencies.
The law also creates a Congressional Joint Select Committee, commonly referred to as the Super Committee, a bipartisan working group of 12 members of Congress to recommend at least $1.2 trillion in additional spending cuts that need to be generated by 2021. The law requires Super Committee approval by November 23, 2011, a Congressional vote by December 23, 2011, and enactment into law by January 15, 2012.
If the Super Committee fails to agree on legislation or if Congress fails to pass the Committee’s recommendations that meet the law’s specifications, Congress must apply across-the-board cuts. This means that if Congress fails to pass a bill that reduces spending by at least $1.2 trillion, cuts would be phased in annually through 2021 to cut a total of $600 billion from the Department of Defense and a total of $600 billion among the other federal agencies.
When Congress returns to Washington next week, members will need to immediately find a way to comply with the new discretionary spending caps and work towards a grand compromise to meet the $1.2 trillion targets. At least theoretically, everything is on the table for cuts, including funding for refugee assistance, naturalization support, integration services, border enforcement, detention, and immigration courts.
It’s too soon to know how Congress will make these new spending cuts and what impact they will have on immigration and refugee programs. However, it is clear that Congress has an opportunity to make smart choices about how to allocate its limited resources. Let’s hope they protect the essential services and programs that provide support and relief to immigrants, refugees and their communities.
Photo by World Relief Spokane.
*Eric B. Sigmon is the Director for Advocacy at Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service, a national organization recognized for its advocacy leadership and for providing services to refugees and migrants through over 60 grassroots legal and social service partners across the United States.
Restrictionist Group Strikes Out in Latest Report on Children of Diplomats
06 months ago
BY MARGARET D. STOCK, COUNSEL TO THE FIRM, LANE POWELL PC
The Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) has been known for coming out with some odd reports over the years—but their latest is notable for its factual and legal flaws—and for argument that we should expand several different government bureaucracies to chase down the dozen or so children born in the U.S. each year to diplomats with immunity. The CIS report, “Birthright Citizenship for the Children of Diplomats?,” is about the one group of people that everyone agrees is exempted from birthright citizenship—the children born to foreign diplomats. It claims that, even though these people are not U.S. citizens, they are de facto citizens because they are able to receive Social Security numbers. If you look at the facts, their argument doesn’t hold water.
Let’s start by correcting the most glaring error in the report. Contrary to what CIS implies, a person is not a U.S. citizen merely because he or she possesses a Social Security number. Social Security numbers (SSNs) were first issued during the Roosevelt Administration to people who were participating in the newly-created Social Security system. At that time, citizenship or immigration status was irrelevant to the issuance of the numbers. Over the years, the requirements to obtain a SSN have tightened as the number has slowly morphed into a “de facto” national identity number—but even today, the Social Security Administration does not have the power to confer U.S. citizenship on anyone merely by issuing a number. Many non-citizens are entitled to SSNs—and a U.S. citizen is not required to have a SSN unless the citizen seeks to work for a U.S. employer, pay U.S. taxes, or apply for certain government benefits.
Even today, there are U.S. citizens who don’t have SSNs because they were born and live outside the U.S.. There are even a few U.S. citizens born inside the U.S. who don’t have SSNs because they have chosen to live “off the grid.” Their lack of a SSN does not stop them from being U.S. citizens, any more than having a SSN turns a non-citizen into a U.S. citizen. Finally, any immigration lawyer can tell you that many undocumented immigrants have SSNs, mostly because they came to the U.S. decades ago when the Social Security Administration had a practice of issuing a number to anyone who asked for one. So let’s put the myth to rest—having a SSN does not make one a U.S. citizen.
CIS recommends that the “problem”—which it identifies as the children of diplomats receiving U.S. birth certificates after they are born in the U.S.—be solved by conditioning the issuance of a U.S. birth certificate on the production of a SSN by at least one parent. Unfortunately, here again, CIS didn’t check its facts. Requiring a diplomat to produce a SSN is little barrier to the issuance of a birth certificate because diplomats can easily obtain SSNs. If diplomats in the U.S. on diplomatic visas can get SSNs, how would requiring SSNs before issuing birth certificates solve any “problem” with giving birth certificates to diplomats’ children?
CIS’s second flawed recommendation is requiring millions of people who have babies in the United States every year to declare their “profession” on their child’s birth certificate on the theory that anyone who writes “diplomat” will have her baby flagged for special scrutiny. This recommendation is based on the assumption that the children of foreign diplomats, once identified, can be readily denied citizenship simply based on a declaration of the parent’s profession. However, the 14th Amendment’s limiting language—“subject to the jurisdiction”—excludes from birthright citizenship only the small number of babies born in the U.S. to two parents who are immune to the enforcement of U.S. civil and criminal laws—not all persons who might identify themselves as diplomats. The CIS report also fails to mention that not all foreign diplomats and diplomatic staff in the U.S. have diplomatic immunity. In fact, only a small number are afforded this special status.
Yet a third whopper is the CIS report’s erroneous statement that the 14th Amendment’s limiting language has little practical effect. Although there are very few children born in the U.S. to the foreign diplomats who hold diplomatic immunity, the 14th Amendment’s language has a very serious practical effect for each of them—they cannot obtain U.S. passports—a fact that prevents them from traveling internationally as U.S. citizens. Had the report’s author checked with an immigration lawyer, he would have learned that the U.S. State Department keeps a list of diplomats who have immunity, and should one of their children apply for a U.S. passport, the State Department will deny the passport application on the grounds that the child is not a U.S. citizen. Yes, the child will have a U.S. birth certificate—but the child’s birth certificate is not proof of U.S. citizenship, merely proof that the child was born in the United States. Far from being the “super citizens” that CIS fears, these children are not U.S. citizens at all.
The CIS report dismissively notes that these children are entitled to apply for U.S. green cards and scoffs at the idea that they would apply for them, and yet such children apply for green cards regularly, which is why USCIS has instructions for them on its website. In fact, thirteen of them got green cards in Fiscal Year 2010. And along with their green cards, they can obtain U.S. SSNs. Moreover, most of them don’t want U.S. citizenship—for a child of a member of the elite corps of foreign diplomats who have immunity from U.S. law, U.S. citizenship holds significant disadvantages. For example, U.S. citizens are subject to worldwide, lifetime U.S. taxes, Selective Service laws and potential U.S. military obligations, and worldwide, lifetime U.S. civil and criminal jurisdiction, among other things.
But again, the fact that these diplomats and their children may have SSNs does not mean that they are U.S. citizens. The children of diplomats with diplomatic immunity get SSNs not because they are U.S. citizens, but because they are entitled to SSNs under the laws and regulations relating to the issuance of SSNs.
Interestingly, the CIS report makes much ado about the fact that the Social Security Administration isn’t tracking foreign diplomats and their children—but fails to mention that there is already a Congressionally-mandated government office specifically tasked with keeping track of them—the Office of Foreign Missions (OFM). Among other things, OFM gives tax-exempt cards and special driver’s licenses to those diplomats who have immunity—and arranges for them to get SSNs. OFM also helps their children apply for green cards, which is why the “problem” in the CIS report is close to non-existent. Inexplicably, however, CIS fails to mention the existence of OFM in its report, or the small number of children born in the U.S. each year to two diplomats who hold immunity.
Yet, as any immigration lawyer who has handled cases involving diplomats and their children can tell you, the 14th Amendment does indeed have a practical effect for the children of diplomats who claim immunity from U.S. laws, small as their numbers may be. These children are not birthright U.S. citizens, and the government agencies with authority to determine citizenship—the Department of State and the Department of Homeland Security—do not recognize them as such.
The CIS report erroneously concludes that “Congress could require parents to have SSNs before a U.S. birth certificate or SSN is issued to a newborn. While this latter proposal might create better results and be more easily administered, it would have the effect of ending automatic birthright citizenship not just for children of diplomats, but also for children of illegal aliens and temporary aliens—an outcome that is more aligned with the intended scope of the 14th Amendment than the outcome created by current practices.” In fact, such a mandate would do no such thing—the children of SSN-lacking parents would still be U.S. citizens, because the 14th Amendment’s grant of citizenship does not depend on whether parents have a SSN. Even without SSNs or birth certificates, the children would still be Constitutional citizens—and would easily win an Equal Protection lawsuit in Federal court.
CIS’s prescription for change—that millions of parents of US-born babies be required to answer more questions and provide Social Security numbers, and that states be required to issue two different types of birth certificates—would be very expensive to administer, adding thousands of government bureaucrat jobs to the taxpayers’ burden at a time when the U.S. is facing the country’s worst budget crisis ever. Creating yet more red tape for millions of newborns is not a fiscally responsible move—and would do nothing to identify the dozen babies born in the U.S. to immunized diplomats every year, who are already tracked by the Office of Foreign Missions.
But this latest report by CIS does illustrate why it’s a bad idea for state and local governments and U.S. hospitals to get into the business of verifying the immigration and citizenship status of the parents of every child born in America—if a “think tank” like the Center for Immigration Studies can’t get the facts and law right, how can state and local governments be expected to do so?
Photo by Chad Horwedel.