Skip to main content

All I Want For Christmas Is a Point-System

I think I changed my mind about a point-system for immigration purposes. There, I said it. In my defense, though, I did not come to this decision lightly. No, this comes as a result of years of watching hard-working people from all over the world get the short end of the stick based on some technicality in our immigration laws.

In immigration and in life, it’s often the people in the middle, the ones who go about their work, who mind their own business, who take care of themselves and their families, who go ignored, because immigration, like life, is not fair. As a society, we tend to cater to the “least of these” and to the “most of these,” leaving everyone in the middle to fend for themselves. Unless you’re a superstar or a billionaire with boatloads to invest, or you’re miserably poor and sick without a prayer in the world, this country’s immigration system turns its back on you, and as a result: WE’RE DEPORTING THE WRONG PEOPLE!

Don’t get me wrong – we’re not deporting ALL the wrong people. Laws exist for a reason, and they try to encompass what will be most fair for most people. The issue with immigration law is that it is so discretionary, but discretion seems to be exercised on all the wrong people. A “point-system,” which takes into account things like: a clean criminal record, an impressive academic history and achievements, economic contributions and paying taxes, English proficiency, and likeliness to not make use of public assistance, could be a great way to for the U.S. to keep immigrants who are productive members of society, but who aren’t among the wealthy 1% who can invest their way out of their woes, or down-and-out enough to qualify on a “hardship” claim.

Take Person A, for example. He is a bright young man. One point. He’s bilingual. Two points. He works hard, takes care of his wife and new baby, and has a clean record except for a speeding ticket. Three points. Despite being brought to the U.S. illegally as a young child by his parents, he graduated at the top of his class with especially high marks in math and physics and a strong desire to go to college and study aerospace engineering (which, last I checked, was one of the areas of study deemed as a great need for the future of this country). Ten points. Instead he’s taking voluntary departure because the only thing he did wrong aside from follow his parents to the U.S. when he was nine years old was fall in love with and marry a non-U.S. Citizen and have a healthy baby boy. His child isn’t sick enough, and his wife isn’t poor enough or American enough, so forget about all the points he may have racked up, we’ve kicked this future engineer to the curb.

Person B is a successful businessman. One point. He speaks fluent English and lives happily with his professional, educated wife. Two points. He owns his own company and provides jobs to dozens of workers in his area, even in a time of economic downturn. Ten points. And he’s on the next plane home, to the dismay of even the ICE officers who took him into custody.

Person C is a young woman who can barely read or write in her own language, let alone in English. She has three children, all of whom receive Medicaid, WIC or Social Security Disability. Throughout her years in the country she has openly admitted to using at least three different Social Security numbers to obtain work, but now relies on her son’s Social Security Disability payment for a significant portion of her monthly earnings. Due to the medical conditions of her two youngest children (one has a disability the other is severely autistic) she qualifies for “extreme hardship” and wins her right to stay in the U.S. In person, she’s thoughtful and sweet and her condition merits sympathy, to be sure. But should sympathy and hardship be the only qualifiers? I don’t think so.

I’m not advocating for her removal, or for the removal of anyone subject to extreme hardship, for that matter. I think it is admirable and very humanitarian of the U.S. to consider the plight of the poor. But I am suggesting that it seems unfair, to both hardworking immigrants and to this country as a whole, to “dump” people simply because they don’t qualify under a hardship clause. How many businessmen (or businesswomen), or engineers or scientists have we deported? We are supposed to be a nation that inspires the best in people, yet we’re throwing away some of our most valuable resources and wondering why other countries are emerging more powerful and making strides in science and technology that we are not.

With any luck, a reform package will be discussed in the next year or so. I can only hope it includes some sort of relief for those “in-between” people. Not everyone can buy or marry their way out of an immigration problem, and we’ve got to start keeping some of the smart people.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

If You Are An Immigrant (even a US Citizen), Here Are 9 Things You Should Know

Are you a Naturalized U.S. Citizen, Lawful Permanent Resident, Visa Holder, or an Undocumented Immigrant? We recommend you take the following steps to protect yourself in our current version of America.
The last couple of weeks have reminded immigrants, even naturalized U.S. citizens, that they were not born in the United States. Our office has received countless phone calls, emails, and social media messages from people worrying about what their family’s future in the United States holds.
Most people want to know what they can do now to protect themselves from what promises to be a wave of anti-immigration activity by the federal government. Trump's Executive Order on Interior Enforcement has some provisions that should make most Americans shiver.  We recommend the following actions for each of the following groups:
Naturalized U.S. citizens. In particular if you have a foreign accent, and you are traveling within 100 miles of any US Border (including the oceans), we strongly rec…

Why is USCIS Taking So Long to Renew DACA Work Permits?

If the calls to our office are any indicator, there are thousands of DACA recipients whose work permit applications were filed at least three months prior to expiration, who are still waiting for their renewed work permits.  Without renewed permits, these individuals lose the right to work legally, the right to drive, and may once again accrue unlawful presence.

The DHS published a notice in October 2014 advising DACA recipients that they could file their request for extension up to 150 days (5 months) prior to expiration.  As with all things government, very few of the DACA recipients, who tend not to frequent government websites, knew about the memo and many did not file so far before expiration perhaps thinking that extending a work permit was a like extending a drivers license, its is done in a few minutes.  As an experienced immigration lawyer will tell you, the USCIS does nothing quickly, and certainly does not worry that a person may lose their job or their driver's licens…

LOS DERECHOS DE LOS EXTRANJEROS EN LOS ESTADOS UNIDOS

Todas las personas en los Estados Unidos, incluidos los extranjeros y aun los con ordenes de deportacion, tienen ciertos derechos básicos que deben ser respetados por los agentes de Inmigración y Aduanas (ICE). Estos derechos se derivan tanto de la Constitución de los Estados Unidos. y las leyes de Estados Unidos. Como extranjero, usted tiene los siguientes derechos:

SU DERECHO A DENEGAR LA ENTRADA A SU CASA
Usted tiene el derecho de negar la entrada a un agente de ICE a su casa sin una orden válida. Esta orden debe ser firmado por un juez. Usted puede negarse a abrir la puerta, o se puede cerrar la puerta después de descubrir que el agente no tiene una orden válida. Los agentes del ICE generalmente no vienen con una orden judicial. Estos agentes suelen venir a la casa de alguien con una orden final de deportación, muy temprano en la mañana. Si alguien está golpeando en su puerta a las 6:00 am, no le es requerido abrir la puerta. Mirar fuera de primera. Si es un agente del gobierno, ust…