|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
| FREE NEWSLETTER | |
|
Families are being separated. Our border with Mexico is becoming increasingly militarized. Even legal immigrants are being held without bail and deported based on events which occurred 20 or 30 years ago. Checks and balances guaranteed by the Constitution have been discarded. INS agents are allowed to act as judges, juries and prosecutors, all at the same time.
Yet, as the 2000 elections approach, the issue of immigration seldom comes up. When it does, the candidates speak a few words in Spanish and grin, but talk in generalities. Yes, this a huge change from 1996 when California Governor Pete Wilson ran for President on a platform which scapegoated illegal immigrants, particularly Latinos, for almost every societal problem.
The question is: Will politicians repeal the most anti-immigrant law enacted during our lifetime? The answer is: There will be no repeal until the Sleeping Giant awakens.
However, the Latino community has yet to make its voice heard on the issue of immigration. When the 1996 law gives an immigrant held by the INS less rights than a person charged with murder, something is wrong. When an administrative agency can revoke U.S. citizenship granted by a Federal Judge, something is wrong. And when the law strips both citizens and immigrants of the right to challenge bureaucratic decisions in Federal Court, something is terribly wrong.
Recently, a woman who is a U.S. citizen petitioned for a green card for her husband. Since he had misrepresented his immigration status when he entered the U.S. back in 1986, the wife was required to submit a "fraud waiver" on behalf of her husband. Unless the wife could demonstrate that her husband's deportation would cause "extreme hardship" to her, his application for a green card would be denied. The hardship seemed self-evident: the couple had two children born in the U.S., they had been married for years, and the wife recently had two tumors removed from her ovaries. She is subject to fainting spells, and is prohibited from driving a car. Her husband is her companion, her provider, and her caregiver. Yet, in a particularly callous decision, the fraud waiver was denied. Why did the wife need the husband as a driver when she could simply take public transit, the government asked. Hardship to the children is no longer relevant under the 1996 law. Finally, the 1996 law provides that INS decisions on waiver applications, no matter how unfair, cannot be challenged in the Federal Courts.
Citizens and immigrants need to be informed and concerned about the cruel effects of the 1996 law. Since the largest immigrant group in the U.S. are Latinos, if Latinos who are citizens speak out against such abuses, the politicians will have no choice but to listen.
Indeed, if Latino voters, the Sleeping Giant of the 2000 elections, do not demand that candidates for President, Senator and Member of Congress strongly commit themselves to repealing the anti-immigrant, anti-Latino 1996 immigration law, who will?
What they do know is that no candidate can become the President of the United States if they lose states with huge amounts of electoral votes like California, Texas and Florida. Fortunately, each of these states has a sizeable amount of Latino voters, enough to swing the election.
So why are the candidates not focusing on the immigration question?
Simple. Voters in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina, the first caucus and primary states, have about as much interest in immigration as most Latino voters in California have in ethanol subsidies for farmers in the Midwest.
However, the California primary will occur in March 2000. Latino voters should demand that all Presidential and Congressional candidates agree to actively support the repeal of the 1996 anti-immigrant law since the law is an outrageous violation of their rights as American citizens. *********************************************************************
Author: Carl Shusterman is an attorney who specializes in immigration law.
Schedule A Legal Consultation
Return to Legislative Developments
Return to Immigration Guide Homepage