Immigration

A huge problem I have faced with my decades of civil liberties activism are the often attendant feelings of upset, anger, and disbelief at the extent to which people step on other's basic liberties, often in the guise of well-meaning politicians, judges, prosecutors, cops, and government bureaucrats, as well as from such other power structures as the rest of the government-military-industrial complex. That is what I get for not having pursued the path of blissful ignorance.

On the immigration front, in law school, I finally learned how deeply the spirit of McCarthyism survived his Senate censure to this day. Repeatedly, the United States government bans and substantially impedes even brief visits by non-citizens to the United States (even for lecture circuit purposes) on the basis of ideology and speech. Those banned include Nelson Mandela (listed as an "undesirable alien" until 2003, requiring special permission to enter the United States); Gabriel Garcia Marquez (who had to apply for special permission for each entry to the United States, through 1996, due to his leftist leanings and friendship with Fidel Castro); and John Lennon (who was subjected to an attempted ban in the early 1970's, when the United States government mightily tried to deport him due to his pro-peace stance). When comparing the dates of these exclusionary efforts to the presidents in office, we see that such Democratic administrations as Clinton's allowed such bannings; once again, as in the First Amendment squelching arena (and bannings of such visitors amounts to censorshiop of their voices, too), neither major political party has a monopoly on such repressive activity. More on this sad state of affairs is here at the American Civil Liberties Union's website.

Such banning of brief visitors for their views and voices amounts to government censorship that often goes below the public's radar. As we gear up for the 2008 Presidential, House and Senate elections, please include considerations of what those candidates will do about the rights of non-United States citizens to visit the United States, and the rights of United States citizens to meet and hear visitors with views different from the presidential administration or the majority of Congress members. Jon Katz.

In 2004, I went to the National Rifle Association annual meeting in Pittsburgh, to learn more about modern-day firearms in order to strengthen my ability successfully to defend criminal gun cases, and also to get a better handle on the realities of my support for a Second Amendment with teeth (believing that being disingenuous to enforcing Second Amendment rights -- unless and until the Second Amendment is amended --disserves robust protection of First Amendment rights. (Compare: (1) "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances" (the First Amendment); and (2) "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" (the Second Amendment).)  

The mantra at the NRA meeting, though, was scary: throw money at Second Amendment-supporting politicians even if they urinate on the rest of the Constitution; and "there would not have been a Nazi Germany or Soviet Union if people had the right to bear arms." Another NRA mantra is supporting hunting, so that people may live off the land and enjoy the great outdoors (which I, as a strict vegetarian do without fishing, hunting or eating animals). It was too much for me to deal with; I resigned my NRA membership, which membership was necessary to attend the annual NRA convention, which had more than a football-sized display area of the latest handguns, rifles, and weaponry accessories.

At the NRA conference, some people asked me what it was like to live in the People's Republic of Maryland, so named for Maryland being inhospitable to the Second Amendment, as opposed to Virginia, where in some parts of the state people are permitted to pack a concealed pistol while walking down the street, which can give all the more cause for pause about looking anyone cross-eyed in the former cradle of the Confederacy. Of course, worse than Maryland, District of Columbia statutory law does not even permit gun ownership at home, but D.C.'s highest federal court this year ruled such crabbed laws to be in violation of the Second Amendment.

By now, I have lived in all three Capital Beltway jurisdictions. I started in Arlington, Virginia, for a year, at a point just a mile from Georgetown in Washington, D.C. I hurled at the thought of living in a state that so actively executes people. I moved to Washington, D.C., and stayed there for fifteen years. For people living in the area, the city has its lure; however, taxation without representation did not sit well with me; on the other hand, at least D.C does not have the death penalty (that's reserved for the federal courts). In 2002, I moved not only to Maryland, but to Montgomery County, which in many ways is a people's republic within a people's republic. On the other hand, all three places have miserable histories of racial segregation and racial injustice.

Overall, of the areas surrounding the Capital Beltway -- where I need to live for easy access to the many courts where I practice -- I prefer living in Maryland, including some great nearby hiking, biking and boating places. Curiously, little did I know until speaking recently with a Maryland Motor Vehicle Administration employee that undocumented people are eligible for drivers' licenses in Maryland. (I should have talked about this with my law partner, Jay, who would have told me he already has handled such assistance.) I was under the misimpression that such a benefit was not available in Maryland, and possibly not elsewhere, either. As much as many Marylanders might want to eliminate such a benefit, I want the benefit to remain forever. Fortunately, many Maryland lawmakers agree.

It appears that very few states make drivers' licenses available to undocumented people, and that the number is dwindling. Over a year ago, CASA of Maryland filed a lawsuit over the allegedly glacial pace for plenty of non-U.S. citizens to obtain driver's licenses; I do not know that status of that lawsuit yet.

Lawmakers have identified how to continue making drivers' licenses available to undocumented people while still coming into compliance with the Big Brother Real ID Act, which is to make Real-ID-applicable drivers' licenses only available to those who request them (apparently such Big Brother "Real IDs" ultimately will be required to board planes and who knows what else (maybe I will find out that Maryland already has them, by the time I renew my driver's license in a few months).

New York is another state that looks out not only for undocumented people in permitting them to have drivers' licenses, but as a result looks out for all drivers and passengers, whom are better served by having all drivers licensed, to assist in assuring at least minimally adequate driving skills by all drivers, and to assure that everyone is eligible to purchase car insurance. The next step will be to encourage people to get out of their cars often, so as to wake up and smell the jasmine flowers, and to help reduce the environmental degradation from driving. Meanwhile, welcome to Maryland, everyone who is not eligible to get licensed in neighboring jurisdictions. Jon Katz.

Cesar Chavez: A champion for the empowerment of workers and immigrants.  

NOTE: I recently posted the attached message to a local lawyers listserv.

Regarding the title of the recent listserv message asking whether employers are liable for hiring people who the writer refers to as illegal immigrants and illegals, I urge the use of “undocumented person” or “undocumented worker” and the scrapping of “illegals” and “illegal aliens”.

Insurance defense lawyers constantly try to marginalize non-US citizens, in order to try to scare them and their lawyers into settling for lowball money offers, to try to convince juries to give them less money than U.S. citizens, and sometimes (if not often) as an expression of their own prejudices.

The anti-immigrant movement has been very successful in convincing even WTOP news reporters and lawyers on the plaintiffs personal injury side (who advocate for immigrants all the time) to say “illegal alien” and even “illegals”. The phrase is not objective at all, and can be downright damning and harmful to immigrants.

The fact of the matter is that a huge number of non-citizens who are undocumented (that is to say, without documents showing they’re in the United States with visas) are actually on their way to having visas (or are awaiting the results of visa applications) or already have documented status without knowing it (including children of a person who obtained a green card without telling the child).

Moreover, both United States law and international law protect political asylees from deportation. Most people who obtain political asylum in the United States are undocumented at the time they have applied for political asylum. Clearly, then, people who qualify for asylum -– and the U.S. government routinely denies asylum to people who merit asylum (the factfinding is done at the Executive Branch level, not at the judicial level, unless an Article III court will re-visit such factfinding on appeal), including for cynical political reasons (e.g., often people are more likely to win asylum if they are from a country whose government is at odds with the U.S. government, versus a government that is a U.S. ally) – certainly do not merit being called “illegals”.

The anti-immigrant movement is hot to trot to marginalize undocumented people (and often to lump documented people in with them) as rule-breakers greedily seeking economic benefits in the United States while disrespecting non-citizens patiently waiting abroad sometimes for years for approval of their visa applications.

In reality, plenty of immigrants still are escaping non-economic misery, and not just economic misery. Moreover, such economic misery often is created in significant part by the demand of U.S. consumers –- backed up by U.S. government support for governments permitting inhumane working conditions -- for overseas goods produced cheaply as a result of underpaid labor often required to work inhumanely long hours in horrid conditions (not least of which might involve severely limiting any breaks, let alone bathroom breaks). Just see what happens when you google “Nike Indonesia”. It sounds disingenuous at best to benefit from the misery of such mistreated workers and then to bar them from entering the United States to leave such misery.

Anti-immigrant propagandists who try to portray non-documented people as money seekers, want people to forget those fleeing from wartorn zones, brutal governments, brutal courts, brutal jailers, and brutal military members. Refugees from Darfur and Burma –- as examples –- are fleeing oppression that goes far beyond the economic.

Additionally, millions of people who want to obtain visas to permanently live in the United States are barred from doing so, because U.S. immigration law primarily favors white collar professionals and relatives of citizens and green card holders. Such people who are ineligible for visas are not cutting in front of any line, because no waiting line has been created for them in the first place; they often live in the United States as third-class citizens at best, as they don’t automatically receive visas merely because they are in the United States.

I’ve written more recently about defending immigrants here: http://markskatz.com/blog2/serendipity/archives/479-Non-citizen-criminal-defendants-need-to-know-immigration-consequences..html. Jon Katz.

ADDENDUM: WTOP news is not the only culprit using the far from objective phrase illegal aliens. For instance, here is a FoxNews commentator doing the same thing.