There have been several articles in some of our nation’s most prominent papers, highlighting the contribution of various immigrant groups and dispelling some of the myths circulated around in the immigration debate. You would not hear about those articles on the Lou Dobbs program.

The following article in the New York Times titled “How Immigrants Saved Social Security” explains not only how legal immigrants contributed to our tax base, but also how illegal immigrants contribute even more so to social security without getting back anything from the system.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/02/opinion/02wed3.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=how+immigrants+saved+social+security&st=nyt&oref=slogin

Another article discussed the wall being built along the southern border and how it is causing damage to the environment and to property rights. The article is titled: “Disorder On The Border”   http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/29/opinion/29egan.html?scp=1&sq=disorder+on+the+border&st=nyt

Another article highlights how, in its attempt to please the hardliners, our government has trashed many environmental laws and damaged hundreds of thousands of acres of fragile habitat on the southern border. The article is titled “Michael Chertoff’s Insult” http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/03/opinion/03thu3.html?scp=1&sq=Michael+Chertoff+Insult&st=nyt

Several articles in the Wall Street Journal highlighted the need for more H-1B visas. One quoted Bill Gates’ testimony to Congress in which he cited studies showing that H-1B workers, through the innovation they bring, actually add jobs at the rate of 5 to 7.5 new jobs for every new H-1B worker.  http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120691381253875289.html

Bill Gates’ observation relates to his experience at Microsoft. However, a recent study by the National Foundation for American Policy verifies his experience and shows similar results with data showing that because of their innovative skills, every H-1b worker actually causes the creation of about 7.5 American jobs. See http://www.nfap.com/pdf/080311H1b.pdf

 Another article highlighted how other countries are using America’s ill-advised policy to their advantage by luring intelligent immigrants to their own countries. See http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120701430488579221.html

            Concern is often expressed about our security in light of the high influx of undocumented immigrants from our southern border.

            While unauthorized immigration is problematic, framing it as a security issue highlights the concerns. Hence, one needs to know if those are valid concerns, or if they are smoke screens.

            Looking at the map, one may notice that our borders with Canada run about three times the length of our southern border. Therefore, if one is concerned about terrorists coming in from the south, why not have similar concerns about the northern border? If we need to build a fence in the name of national security at our southern border, why not build one at the lengthier northern border as well?

            Indeed, security-wise, our Canadian border should raise more concerns. Not only is it much longer, but it is also less guarded and does not involve a hard-to-cross desert. Just as important, in the countries the terrorists are likely to come from (such as those represented in the 9/11 attack), English is spoken and taught as a second language. In contrast, Spanish is almost never taught nor spoken in the Middle East. Hence, it would be logistically much easier for terrorists to sneak through our borders via Canada than Mexico.

            Of course, we neither want to surround ourselves with fences, nor live in a cage. But, I suspect the reason no one has suggested a fence along our Canadian borders is that the security concern is a smoke screen intended to add fear to what is primarily an immigration issue. Ironically, the best way to protect us from terrorists coming from any border is to streamline the entry of needed workforce, so that they would not need to cross illegally. Once we achieve that, those who would then need to cross can be identified easily. Since there will be less incentive for legitimate workers to enter illegally, we can then assume that those who would attempt to enter illegally might be the really bad guys.  

             In a conversation I recently had with a friend, the subject turned into undocumented immigrants. I was taken aback by a sudden anger in her voice. She proclaimed that those “illegals” have violated our laws; that they should be deported “even if they came 20 years ago”. It mattered little that the law they broke was classified by our own government as a simple misdemeanor.

            Her anger puzzled me and left me wondering. The phrase “breaking our laws” is repeated so often these days that it merits a special reflection. Is that what really angers so many to the point of demanding deportation, even of aliens with families here?

            It is true that undocumented immigrants may have committed a misdemeanor when they entered unlawfully (I say “may” because those brought as children have no legal responsibility for their parents’ actions). But, how many Americans have in the last 20 years committed misdemeanors and gotten away with it? And, let’s say hypothetically that we find them, are we willing to impose upon them a punishment that would separate them from their kids, spouses and life here?

            For example, how many Americans had, in the last couple decades, driven after some heavy drinking? How many have experimented with marijuana or other drugs? How many took inflated deductions in their income tax? Each of those acts is a misdemeanor, a crime with the gravity in the eyes of the law similar to illegal entry. Yet, even if we hypothetically could find those people, no one in his right mind would suggest imposing a punishment that would separate them from their spouses and minor children. Yet, that is exactly what is happening to many who decades ago committed a misdemeanor of illegal entry. In fact, huge resources of our government are spent to impose on undocumented immigrants a punishment which would seem unconscionable if applied to US citizens.

            The issue then appears not only that those undocumented aliens broke our law; it is far more complicated than that.

            Perhaps the reason for this harshness is a deep seated insecurity among many of us; insecurity that has been exploited by many politicians, since it provides an easy, cheap political points. That exploitation also prevents any reasonable and humanitarian resolution.

            Perhaps some consider themselves the real, original “owners” of this country. Too much immigration would alter the traditional racial mix of our country, arousing the fears of those who envision what appears to them to be a loss of long held power.

            Others may have been swayed by the fear-based misinformation linking immigration to terrorism. Yet others may secretly be envious of the possibility that new immigrants might within a generation surpass them in wealth and success.  Some, including possibly new immigrants, may simply be reflecting a selfish desire to “close the door”, lest new immigrants may capture some of the prize that they wish to retain for themselves.

            Of course, many may legitimately be concerned about our open borders, but the anger and the draconian consequences tell me that for many, what’s in play here is insecurity, nativism , selfishness, stereotyping, and other complex and unhealthy inner tendencies. 

            There is no other logical reason why we are spending fortunes of our resources in separating families, depriving kids of their parents and destroying lives and futures; all for a misdemeanor committed decades ago. Punishing undocumented aliens can be done by other means. Illegal entry is the only law violation where we seem to insist that unless we reverse the original act (by deportation), we will be rewarding the violation. We do not for example extract alcohol from those driving under the influence, lest they would feel rewarded by their act.

            In summary, for those angry about the undocumented aliens who broke our laws and insist that no solution is good unless they are deported regardless of their family ties here; they need to look deep inside themselves. There may be other reasons in play, and they ought to have the courage to confront what could be unhealthy temperament inside themselves.

            Michigan’s Attorney General’s office has issued an opinion, which limits driver’s licenses to US citizens and Lawful Permanent Residents (known as green card holders). Many Michiganders may applaud this opinion as enforcing our laws, without knowing how damaging this simplistic interpretation will be, if implemented. 

            First, our society is comprised not only of citizens and green card holders versus the undocumented. In Michigan there are hundreds of thousands of foreign investors, executives, managers, professionals, experts, and other foreign workers who are legal, are needed here, and are contributing to our economy, but are neither citizens nor green card holders. Making it harder for them to a drive will make Michigan a less friendly State to foreign business. 

            In addition, there is a huge segment of potentially legal immigrants who are in the process of becoming legal, but have to undergo a process that takes years, and who otherwise are allowed by the immigration service to work. They include refugees, immigrants with close US family ties, immigrants with hardships, and other comparable situations. Making it harder for those to drive will impose undue hardship on them, and will hurt Michigan economy by making idle an otherwise productive group, who may then need to rely on public assistance. 

            This ruling will also impose a huge drain on the resources of the offices of the Secretary of State, since they have to become instant experts in immigration law, causing substantial more delays to everyone else. 

            The above does not even start to address the very notion of whether it is wise to drive the undocumented aliens underground, creating a segment of society who are driving without insurance, without testing, and who are unlikely to report crimes or to cooperate with police. 

Is it not better for our national security if we know who is living among us, with their addresses and what cars they drive? 

            The Attorney General’s opinion seems to be based on an erroneous common misconception that a driver’s license granted to an illegal alien would enable him to work. That is simply not true, because work authorization requires a social security card with work authorization from the Federal government. Nor would a to license to an illegal alien prevent the Federal Government from deporting that alien should it become necessary. I suggest Michigan’s officials reassess this ruling .

 There is a provision in our law which makes me dismayed whenever I encounter it. It allows those who are deported a remote chance to return (after lengthy months and years of paperwork) if there is a really extreme hardship shown, not to them, but to a family member as a result of their absence, and then only if that family member is a US citizen or resident. 

For example, let’s assume an infant female was brought by her parents into this country illegally. Their daughter grew up in the US and is now an adult, but out of status. If she is caught and deported, she may be able to return if she shows that her continued exile will cause an extreme hardship to a US immediate family member. 

So, in the example above, let’s assume she is married to a US citizen. If she can show that her husband will suffer extreme hardship if she remains in exile, she may be able to return (after months or years of paperwork). However, if her husband is neither a US citizen nor resident, or is she is single, she can not return no matter how much hardship her exile is causing her. Thus, despite famine, civil war or other calamities in her home country, or on-hold personal relationships, education, profession or business she may have in the US, our laws will not allow her back because the extreme hardship is affecting her and not a related US citizen or resident. 

In other words, we care only if someone of our own, who is a US citizen or resident, is affected, but, we do not care if she is the one devastated, no matter how extreme the hardship is to her. It is almost as if others cannot be worth caring about regardless of what may happen to them if they are exiled indefinitely. 

This law was enacted by a Congress many of whose members are proud of their Christian traditions. But, to my knowledge, those traditions are supposed to teach us not to be so self absorbed that we accept for others extreme hardships that we find too onerous for our own to endure. 

 There is a big debate going on these days about “Sanctuary cities”. Even some presidential candidates entered the fray; they wanted to assure their base that they do not, never did, nor will ever support sanctuary something, be it city, mansion, or whatever. So, what are Sanctuary Cities? 

There is no clear definition for that. But, the term itself started to be used in the mid 1980s to describe church movements that aimed to shelter refugees from Central America. Since this term started as a humanitarian gesture, how come it ended to be so bad that no one wants to associate with it? 

The term today refers to cities that try to limit the ability of their employees, including city police, to enforce federal immigration laws. You may wonder what’s wrong with that.  To start with, you need not worry much about convicted criminal aliens. There is a current system of reporting most convicted criminal aliens to the immigration service by the courts that enter their conviction. Therefore, illegal aliens who commit crimes are for the most part reported to the federal government regardless of whether the city they are in is or is not “Sanctuary City”. What we are talking about then is the ability of local police to investigate the immigration status of individuals regardless of whether a crime has been committed.   

But, how are our local police supposed to investigate that in absence of a crime? The only way is for them to ask. But, whom should they ask? People don’t walk around displaying their illegal status.  Thus, the police will have to ask persons who look different from the majority of us, turning the door wide open for abuse that comes with unlimited power. They may start asking citizens and lawful persons about their documents. When was the last time any of us walked around in a mall with our US passport ready to show to a police officer who may suspect us to be undocumented aliens? 

But even if all of our police will act with the best of intentions and will exhibit respect to those questioned, how will they know who to ask, and what to ask or look for?  How about the hundreds of millions who enter our country legally every year to visit, or to conduct business? Many of them do not have the type of papers citizens usually carry. Are we going to have those visitors, who are vital to our economy, be subject to the whim of a police officer who may not like their looks? 

Furthermore, the population of non-citizens includes not only legal and illegal immigrants, but also a huge number of illegal immigrants who are on their way to become legal; a process that sometimes takes years to conclude. Sometimes, even immigration judges and lawyers spend years figuring out whether someone from another country deserves to be legally here or whether he or she must be deported. How is a local police officer supposed to figure out the answer in a few minutes conversation with a suspected undocumented immigrant.   

In addition to the above, if the undocumented immigrant population is scared to have contacts with local police, there may be crimes that will go unreported, witnesses that may not come forward, and the general population will suffer when immigrant communities will be less likely to cooperate with the local police.    

 Immigration is a federal issue. Its problems should be resolved by the federal branch of government. Dumping this problem on a local police force that is totally untrained to handle this task will divert resources from investigations of serious crimes, will endanger the civil rights of all of us, and will reduce the cooperation of many communities with the local police force, to the detriment to the rest of us.     

Elliot Spitzer  was criticized for a plan to issue limited versions of driver’s licenses to undocumented aliens in New York.             

The presumption underlying those objections is that the proposed licenses are tantamount to legalization. But that ignores the reality that issuing a driver’s license to an undocumented alien does not make him legal, nor protect him from deportation, or grant him work authorization.           

Instead, driver’s licenses will ensure that the recipients will have to pass a driving test, thus making the roads safer for the rest of us. They will also make it more likely that those drivers have insurance, protecting others from financial loss in case of accidents.  

What driver’s licenses will also do is disclose where an alien resides so we can arrest him in case of a crime, or locate them when we need them as witnesses. Further, it will enable us to know more about who and how many live among us so we can better track others who pose the real danger; i.e. those who have more in mind than just providing for their families through hard work. Will this encourage others to come here illegally? Those who risk their lives to come here to support their families will use fake licenses anyway or drive without one. So, if they should be deported, having a license will not stop our government from doing so, and not having one does not appear to prevent them from coming here in the first place. So, we may as well focus on the safety aspects of this issue.         

This is not a call for open borders. Illegal entry is a problem needing a solution by our federal government through programs that streamline our society’s need for those low skill workers from abroad, while protecting our own workforce. But, until a reasonable and workable solution is enacted by Congress, let’s not scream foul whenever someone comes up with a temporary solution to a small part of the problem; in this case: undocumented aliens by the millions driving without proper testing or insurance, and endangering the rest of us.  

 Many who oppose the H-1B visa category for high-skilled professionals argue that we should focus instead on our own students, improving math and science, and avoid having foreigners compete with the U.S. work force.

However, I believe that even as we make our math and science programs the best in the world, and even as our own work force should be our first focus, the H-1B program is still worth keeping and expanding.  Under the H-1B visas, U.S. employers usually employ young foreign professionals who mostly are in the upper percentile of their home country ability-wise. It is simply not cost effective to bring a mediocre professional here with costs running in the thousands in legal and government filing fees, and in relocation expenses. Because of that, the program is cost effective only when employers bring the brightest, or hire foreign graduates of our schools who are usually the top from their own country.While there may be some abuse, and some H-1bs might be here for their cheap labor and not for their talent, the remedy is to punish the abusers, and not to destroy a good program.   

Therefore, even if America’s study standards improve and even if we spend more effort at training our professionals (which we should),  the question remains whether we, as a nation, should continue to welcome the best and the brightest of mostly young professionals of the world to work and live among us. I think that the answer should be yes.

Those high-skilled professionals, even if a few of them may compete with American for jobs, are at the same time adding to the consumer base since they have to live and spend money here. Many of them will end up being inventors, enhancers and creators of businesses who would, in turn, employ numerous Americans. E-bay, Yahoo, Cisco, Google, and numerous other high tech companies are all examples of extremely successful businesses started by immigrants or their descendants that ultimately created far more jobs for Americans than the ones supposedly initially taken by them.  

In addition, if we don’t allow this type of talent to enter the U.S., these individuals will go elsewhere and we will lose the tax base they would otherwise provide. Many US companies are starting overseas offices to avoid the hassle of the H-1B visa. Such outsourcing has a negative effect on the United States in comparison to bringing the workers here and making him part of our consumer and tax payment base.  

Considering that we accept almost a million of family based immigrants and many more undocumented aliens every year without labor competition analysis, we need to reassess the many obstacles placed to the much fewer numbers (and much more talented) H-1bs. Those young bright H-1b professionals, and their children in the future, will enrich us, be good for us and for our future generations as well as for our own work force and its competitiveness in the global economy.                                

As I was preparing for my law school lecture in immigration law, I came across the definition of torture under the international Convention Against Torture “CAT”, to which the U.S. is a party. 

You may wonder why torture issues are included in an immigration law course. Well; CAT prohibits the signatory countries from deporting aliens to a place where they will be tortured. Hence, one needs to know the meaning of torture to determine if a country is practicing it.  

Under CAT, torture includes governmental acts where severe physical or mental pain or suffering is intentionally inflicted on a person for an improper purpose, such as for confessions, intimidation, or coercion. However, torture does not include acts arising out of lawful sanctions. 

Since I had heard a lot of talk about Guantanamo, I decided to compare the definition to what is happening there. I do not doubt our government’s assurances that we are treating the prisoners physically well: feeding them plenty, allowing them time for prayer, sports, and contact with family through mail, etc. It is possible that they are treated in Guantanamo better than they would be in their own country. Therefore, I assume they may not be suffering physically. 

However, pain as defined under torture includes not only physical pain, but severe mental pain as well. We know that, after more than 5 years of confinement, most of them have not been charged with any crime yet, nor do they know if they will ever be charged, or whether they will spend the rest of their life confined, without the ability to defend themselves. Confinement over five years on a deserted island, not knowing if one is ever going to be charged with a crime against which he can raise a defense, may qualify as mental pain or suffering. 

But, that may still not be enough to constitute torture. For under the definition, torture does not include pain or suffering arising from lawful sanction. Therefore, if the detention at Guantanamo is lawful, then an indefinite detention without charge would not constitute torture. But, I do think that it is hard to argue that indefinite detention without charge for over 5 years can be lawful, under basic human rights concepts.    

It could very well be that many, and perhaps all, of those who are in Guantanamo deserve to be locked up for life for their heinous participation in the activities of Al-Qaeda. However, for us to know that, we need convictions under constitutionally sanctioned proceedings. But, unfortunately, and after many years of detention, our government is unable to bring charges, let alone convictions. I am not convinced that trials will endanger our security, for trials can be had with secret evidence, or with the judge reviewing evidence in private, and can also conducted before military tribunals with national security issues protected. But, until there are convictions, it appears to me that what is happening in Guantanamo may be approaching torture, at least under the definition of the CAT Convention.   

My concern is not in essence for the prisoners in Guantanamo, although I sometimes wonder if any of them is a victim of mistaken identity (my suspicion is enforced by the many that were quietly released without explanation as to why they were detained or released). My real concern is about our own moral standing in the world. I happen to think that our Founding Fathers would have agreed with me; at least Thomas Payne with those immortal words: He, who would seek liberty, must first defend his enemies from oppression, lest he sets a precedent that will reach himself.