11. Shooting themselves in the foot...

Kansas passed a great law a few years ago that would allow students who came over without documentation with their parents as children to get in-state tuition at a Kansas Regents university or community college if (1) they attended a KS high school for at least 3 years and (2) they maintained a B grade average. Now, this doesn't actually give them any scholarship or grant money, they just have to pay in-state tuition like anybody else would who meets those criteria. (Actually, you only have to live in KS a year before enrolling to become eligible for in-state tuition, so this law actually creates a higher bar for undocumented students to become eligible.)

The anti-immigrant types have been after this law for years. Kris Kobach, while running for Congress on an anti-immigrant platform against Dennis Moore in 2004, was hired by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (an anti-immigrant group with the not-just-a-little-ironic acronym "FAIR") to sue the state on behalf of US Citizen out-of-state students. Of course, first they had to find some students willing to be named in the lawsuit, since there really weren't any complaining to begin with. The lawsuit was eventually dismissed due to "lack of standing," which essentially means that a plaintiff can't maintain a lawsuit if they are not personally being harmed. (For example, I can't sue Donald Rumsfeld for the war in Iraq just because I'm a taxpayer annoyed at having my tax dollars being spent overseas, etc.)

Moore beat Kobach handily, winning Johnson County outright for the first time in his congressional career. Despite this obvious rebuke on both the legal and political levels, the anti-immigrant types still flock to Kobach and about a year ago that part of the conservative wing of the Kansas GOP got him elected as State party chair.

Of course, as a Democrat, I'm just tickled. Such Republicans are shooting themselves in the foot, and they will be limping from it for more than a generation to come. Latinos are the fastest growing electoral demographic in the nation, and whatever gains Bush made among them in his two elections have completely evaporated as looney anti-immigrant types like Kobach and Tom Tancredo continue to blast away against them. What these foolish anti-immigrant Republicans don't realize is that there are thousands of mixed-status families in Kansas and America. Along with citizen classmates and friends, we have a generation of new voters who will only remember that it was Republicans who were trying to hurt and destroy their fathers, mothers, friends, and cousins, etc.

As a Kansan and an American, however, such policies are really sad and frightening. I know a lot of young clients who graduate from high school who have spent their whole lives here in Kansas City but can't get a drivers license. Without the promise of something better for their future, what motive does a young undocumented high school student have to learn English, stay in school, work hard and achieve to the best of their ability? Those who do believe that there is a possible benefit for buying into the system and playing by the rules end up being positive and productive members of society, and many find a way to legalize eventually. Those who don't believe they can benefit by buying into the system usually give up on following the rules. Sadly, without any hope of a better tomorrow, that's when I get to meet them as a criminal defense attorney. If young people become a problem for our society, that hurts all of us.

Of course, if you base your policies on the idea that all these new immigrants are lawbreakers and evildoers, then then it comes as no surprise that your prophesy becomes self-fulfilling. However, those of us who actually know some Latinos and recent immigrants know that if given the opportunity, our young people are capable of doing amazing and positive things for our community and our nation. Since they were not adults when they crossed with their parents, they should not be punished for their parents'decisions. Nor should the rest of society be punished by polcies which thwart and squander their potential.

The Kansas In-State Tuition law, and the comparable DREAM Act that was proposed at the federal level, hurts nobody and benefits all of us--unless, of course, you see a new generation of young Latino voters as a threat. I do not, nor should our politicians, nor the American people.

10. America is better than this...

After spending the last five years representing hundreds of families with different immigration statuses, I am alarmed by both the litany of falsehoods being repeated about my clients by groups like the Minutemen and the really bad laws and policies that are enacted when people believe such claims. The anti-immigrant crowd works hard to convince the public that they should fear and hate my clients. They claim that my clients are to blame for most our national problems, that they are invading us to break our laws, rape our daughters, spread leprosy, massacre our youth and that they threaten our cultural identity.

Of course, those with firsthand knowledge of recent immigrants—friends, family members, and others who work and live with them—know that these claims are ridiculous. Ask any of my clients and they will tell you: They came to work and to help their family, a motivation no different than that of my ancestors. Unfortunately, many otherwise good Americans are deceived into believing the claims of the Minutemen and are then often convinced to support a host of “kick-the-immigrant” laws and policies, even when such policies offer no positive benefit to society.

For example, Kansas and Missouri legislators were convinced that taking away the ability of undocumented immigrants to get drivers licenses would “crack down on illegal immigration.” Years later, that action clearly has not resulted in fewer immigrants, but has resulted in higher case loads for the police and courts, more uninsured drivers on the road, more hit-and-run accidents, and a new demand for fake insurance cards and even licenses.

Similarly, the recent “deputizing” of the Missouri Highway Patrol for immigration enforcement will result in some deportations, but it is also making my clients more fearful of all law enforcement. Local police already combating the “Stop Snitchin” culture in their criminal investigations will face a new reluctance from thousands of Kansas City residents to report crime and to cooperate with police. That hurts all of us.

Most of my foreign-born clients come to me wanting to follow the law in as many ways as they can, yet find themselves thwarted from doing so—much to the detriment of everybody. Rather than helping to integrate our society, “kick-the-immigrant” laws hurt families, divide communities and create criminality where there was none before. Predictably, groups like the Minutemen then turn around and blame immigrants while claiming that they themselves are merely “supporting the rule of law.” Like Jim Crow, Apartheid, and other bad legal systems that preceded them, “kick-the-immigrant” laws and policies cannot be justified without appealing to our fear, ignorance and prejudice against another group of people. That’s really all the Minutemen have to offer us, and that’s what makes them unacceptable in our halls of government.

Many reasonable people can disagree over what the best national immigration policy should be, but attacking the immigrants themselves separates the Minutemen from mainstream civic organizations. Simply put, America is better than this, and area voters have consistently stated so at the polls. Politicians and policymakers should take note.

9. Here goes a slippery slope...

This just in from the Kansas City Star 6/15/07 Pg. A-1:

"The Kansas City Council registered its disapproval Thursday with Frances Semler’s controversial appointment to the parks board, but Mayor Mark Funkhouser is not backing down. In a highly unusual move, the council voted 9-3 to urge Semler to resign, or if she refuses to do so within a week, to ask the mayor to recommend her removal. She has been the target of criticism because of her involvement with the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps, a group that opposes illegal immigration but that some view as a violent vigilante hate group.
The council resolution was a symbolic rebuke of one of Funkhouser’s first major acts as mayor, but it is not binding. A parks board commissioner can only be removed by the council upon the mayor’s recommendation.
Funkhouser said he would listen carefully to the divergent views on Semler “and do what my judgment tells me to do.”
Earlier, Funkhouser acknowledged that Semler offered to resign, but he rejected her offer.
“I told her to hang in there,” Funkhouser said, amid a growing clamor to drop her.
Semler said Thursday she was disappointed by the council’s action and was frustrated by the controversy.
“My main focus is the inner city. This is summer, and we need to give kids something to do,” Semler said. “I don’t want to be divisive. I want this to go away.”
Semler’s appointment to the Board of Parks and Recreation Commissioners has caused outrage within the Hispanic, black and Jewish communities because of her membership in the Minuteman group...."

Of course, this was ALL over the conservative radio talk shows here in town, basically bashing those protesting the appointment and calling it no big deal. Besides, why should anyone have a problem with a public official being part of a group that advocates enforcement of our immigration laws? I could have called in, but instead I e-mailed the following response:

The Southern Poverty Law Center recently published a list of what it determined to be 144 "nativist extremist" organizations across 39 states, meaning groups that target individual immigrants rather than immigration policies. For the state of Kansas, it lists three (3) such groups:

1. Minuteman Civil Defense Corps, Emporia
2. Minuteman Civil Defense Corps, Kansas City
3. Minuteman Civil Defesne Corps, Wichita

(INTELLIGENCE REPORT, SPRING 2007, PG. 46)

There can be many good faith disagreements over what the best immigration policy should be. However, groups like the Minutemen are not mainstream civic organizations. These groups are trying to justify policy that is bad for all Americans by attacking and villifying a group of 12 million people, even though most haven't even met or spoken to any of them. The appointment of a member of the Minuteman is troubling, as it reflects a move to gradually get members of hate and extremist groups into civic positions of power. The KCMO Park Board may not be much of a position of power, but one has to wonder: What exactly is it that Mark Funkhouser is defending here? Would it be different if the appointee were a member of a more recognized hate group, such as the Aryan Nation, but was otherwise "competent?" What about a member of an anti-Semitic group who is otherwise nice around everybody else? What about a member of a group that supports Hamas or Hezbollah?

This is not an issue of free speech or free association. This is a democracy and we elect officials who sometimes appoint other officials. The electorate gets to voice its opinion over the appointments made by elected officials. Mayor Funkhouser simply needs to clarify whether this appointment reflects his beliefs or just a lapse in judgment.

Those of us who find the establishment of such a group in our city appalling certainly have the right to express how unacceptable we find having such a person in public office. And if we don't take a stand, we've seen where this leads.

8. The Immigration Debate: Thinking Beyond "LEARN to speak ENGLISH."

Recently, my mother called me about an obnoxious editorial in the local newspaper from our old hometown, The Beloit Call. Because she also works with immigrants and their children in the nearby Great Bend School District, she was upset almost to the point of tears. Naturally, I volunteered to respond:

Dear Editor,
While I appreciated the emotional honesty of Charlene Watson in her Sept. 18, 2006 Ramblings, I was dismayed by the huge amount of misinformation Ms. Watson conveyed. Unfortunately, much of the debate I have heard over immigration policy has been just as disconnected from the reality of the clients I have served as a bilingual attorney. I have met hundreds of Spanish-speaking families in the last several years, including both legal and undocumented immigrants. It would be wrong of me to characterize all members of any group—much less all undocumented immigrants in our country. But I can say that most I have met are hardworking, kind, generous, devoted to family, and entrepreneurial. Many are deeply religious.
Recently, I began asking my clients why they came here. Not surprisingly, it wasn’t to get drivers licenses, college education, public benefits, or health care. Nor was it to “intimidate” Americans or to “take over our country.” Everyone answers the same—they came to work. And work they do—many in jobs that simply aren’t being filled otherwise. The reality is that we simply do not have enough workers to fill all the labor-intensive jobs that are out there. Some California farmers are losing entire crops for lack of workers to harvest them. Entire industries—construction, hospitality, service, meat packing, landscaping, and some sectors of agriculture—depend on immigrant labor.
Ms. Watson expressed concern over Social Security. The reality is that many undocumented workers are doing the work to earn Social Security credits, but those credits are applied to other people’s numbers. While this creates a record-keeping problem, it pours millions of dollars into the system which will never be collected by the workers who did the work. Take those workers and their contributions out, and you will speed the collapse of Social Security. Add a few million otherwise law-abiding younger workers to the system, and you could probably save it.
Ms. Watson claimed the influx of European immigrants of the 1900s were much different from today’s immigrants. In reality, earlier immigrant groups were similarly attacked and maligned. It is well known that many worked long hours in dangerous conditions. Just like immigrants of today, many were exploited. Are we proud of this? Ms. Watson praises the notion that today’s immigrants “HAVE no rights in this country.” In reality, they do. They have the right to be paid for work they have actually done, to work in safe conditions, and in some cases to sue those who have wronged them. Would Ms. Watson prefer an America where this were not so? I recently sued a construction subcontractor who cheated my client and about 50 others out of several weeks pay for labor performed at Great Wolf Lodge in Kansas City, Kansas. If contractors like this can get away with not paying these workers, what kind of workers will they be more likely to hire on the next project? Allowing immigrant workers to be exploited simply gives employers an economic incentive to hire them instead of domestic workers.
Ms. Watson repeatedly emphasized the need for immigrants to “LEARN to speak ENGLISH.” In reality, there is certainly no lack of desire from my clients. Better English skills mean better work opportunities and less risk of being exploited. The rate of English-learning among recent immigrants is no different than that of immigrants in the past. Generally, the older first-generation adults struggle and the second generation children pick up English rapidly at school. Most adults would love to speak more English, but either don’t have time to take classes because of long work hours or can’t find enough English classes to meet the adult demand.
While Ms. Watson claimed past immigrants “did not expect this country to meet their needs,” I am certain my ancestors at least expected that there would be enough opportunity to make a better life. Were their motives so different from those of today’s immigrants? As for handouts, most of my clients are not interested. Most aren’t eligible for public benefits anyway, so they expect none.
What Ms. Watson fails to address is why illegal immigration is happening in the first place. This isn’t an American issue—France, Spain, and many other nations are facing similar debates. So what’s going on? The answer was in Ms. Watson’s hands as she complained over instructions printed in multiple languages: Globalization is affecting business and lives all over the world. Many products sold here are sold in other countries too. If companies want higher sales overseas, they have to make their products and services available internationally. When traveling abroad, one can find U.S. companies—Subway, Sam’s Club, and Home Depot—competing with local businesses. For better or worse, free trade agreements like NAFTA created winners and losers. Some of the losers—like Mexican subsistence farmers who couldn’t compete with foreign agribusiness—are now working on American farms, construction sites, hotels, and yes, McDonalds. We love getting to sell our products elsewhere, but are somehow shocked that this should ever have consequences felt here at home.
There is one clear difference between immigrants of yesterday and today: Back then, most of our ancestors had almost no immigration restrictions on the books to be concerned with. By contrast, today’s immigration laws have broken up thousands of good families that were formed here in America—far more than any other “family values” issue typically raised at election time. Instead of attacking immigrants and destroying families, we should be supporting immigration reform based on America’s best interests, not on fear and misinformation.

7. We can still be...

Shortly after 9/11/2001, I wrote the following article for the University Daily Kansan at KU. For one reason or another it was never published. At the time, I was somewhat opimistic of the possibility of good coming from the attacks. Perhaps someday, it will be part of a vision to a more hopeful future for our country...

WE CAN STILL BE PROUD OF AMERICA
David Grummon
Columnist
"Why should I be proud of America?" a friend asked me after September 11. I thought a lot about the question. Sure, we call America the "Leader of the Free World," and the "Land of Opportunity," but we also know our nation has a dark history. America was born a racist and divided land, giving only white landowning males voting rights, while thousands languished in slavery. Our leaders relocated and decimated hundreds of Native American populations. Even after slavery ended, Jim Crow laws made African Americans second class citizens. During World War II, our government hustled Japanese Americans into internment camps.
We’re the only nation to use the atomic bomb on civilians. We sometimes supported ruthless dictatorships to win the Cold War. More recently, we have enforced human rights when it served our interests while turning a blind eye to abuses by our allies.
So how can I still pledge my allegiance to our flag, or sing "I’m proud to be an American"?
Pretty easily, actually, despite the sins of our forefathers. Our history’s not entirely dark. We’ve saved the world from global tyranny more than once. We’re among the world’s largest contributors of humanitarian aid. We’ve changed the world in many positive ways in the last century.
I’m proud of many recent acts of bravery by Americans. Not enough can be said of New York City firemen and police during 9/11, nor the hundreds of volunteer workers who searched for survivors nor the average Americans who fought to retake control of a highjacked airplane, sacrificing themselves to save others.
But America’s true greatness is neither defined by the past, nor by bravery in crisis. Our greatest pride in America should come from the promise of its future. This is what really sets us apart. With each generation and every challenge, America is always becoming more American. We learn from past mistakes and struggle to reach the promise we call the American Dream.
That struggle hasn’t been easy. Usually, calamity and upheaval have pushed us to become a better country. It took the Civil War to abolish slavery and turn a loose conglomerate of states into one nation. It took the Great Depression and World War II to transform a stagnant society into the vibrant, prosperous world power which shaped the last century. It took the social upheaval of the Vietnam War and the Civil Rights Movement to make us realize, as Dr. King put it, that we had not yet reached the day when we would "live out the true meaning of our creed: ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal….’"
Over a year ago, as we sorted out our Presidential election, people accurately described America as "deeply divided." We saw enemies among each other, whether it be Government or Big Business, the religious or the non-religious, Hollywood folks or back woods folks. We found so many things to hate and divide us, our nation seemed to be falling apart.
These things don’t seem to matter as much anymore. I don’t believe God is the author of evil like we saw on 9/11, but God can transform tragedy into an opportunity for good. I think we have a chance to start over again, to learn from our mistakes, to become the nation we always wanted to be, and to get closer to the American Dream than we ever have before.
So how do we reach for the American Dream in the wake of such a crisis? We should learn from our mistakes, the biggest lesson being that we cannot afford to hate anymore. Not hate towards liberals or conservatives, not other religions, not homosexuals, not Arabs, Muslims, Jews, foreigners, Hippies, Capitalists, or Tree Huggers. It’s alright to disagree—that’s democracy—but hatred gave us September 11, and Americans that engage in hatefulness now should be ashamed. Nor can we ignore injustices that create hatred. While we bring terrorists to justice, our leaders are wise to address the root causes that leave desperate people open to manipulation by madmen.
We should not let the lives lost on 9/11 fade away without meaning. Will our nation rise up against fear and terror by seeking a more perfect union, or will we continue to rip ourselves apart? Let the legacy of this tragedy be not only victory against the hatred of others, but also redemption of our own American Dream.

6. DÉJÀ VU

This weekend I watched the Oscar-winning movie “The Pianist,” which tells of the story of the Polish pianist and composer Wladyslaw Szpilman and his survival of the German occupation of Warsaw and the horrific Jewish Ghetto. Three things struck me as remarkable:

First, the Germans did not immediately round up all Jews and ship them to Treblinka. The process was incremental. First they took away small rights—limiting the amount of money they could keep in the home, limiting where they could work, restricting the restaurants and stores they could go to. Then more basic rights—no sitting on public benches, no walking in public parks. Then they required them to be visibly marked with the Star of David. Then they prohibited them from living and working in all but a designated area. Then they walled in that area and let very little food in. Then all Jews were required to get a work permit, or else be removed to a labor camp. Then everybody was removed to the labor camp. And the rest, as they say, is history.

Second, it boggles the mind why Polish Jews submitted to this treatment, or better yet why everyone else in Poland did. Of course, so long as these laws did not adversely affect them, the average Pole—or German or other European nationality, for that matter—probably thought it was not their problem. Some, like the man who buys Szpilman’s piano for a pittance of its worth, doesn’t even acknowledge that he is exploiting their desperation. When one of Szpilman’s family members protests the low price, he replies, “What are you going to do, eat the piano? What’s the matter with you people—I’m doing you a favor.” Of course, eventually the plight of the Jews became the plight of everyone, and the Nazis went after anyone else who dared oppose them.

Third, I recall how the Nazis came to power anyway. Not everyone recognized them for the monsters they were. In fact, they were democratically elected to power. How were they elected? They were able to convince large parts of the public that some groups of people—mostly Jews, but also Gypsies, homosexuals and other non-Aryans—were to blame for Germany’s problems, not to mention the Communists. This was done by propagandizing lies and stereotypes about the Jews, and convincing people that “The Jewish Problem” was a critical priority: Jews were not loyal Germans. In fact they were a scourge upon that country and the Aryan race. They were taking advantage of Germany, they were dishonest, they were dirty and diseased. Jews and the others were to be feared and hated. History’s lesson is clear—Nazis did not take Germany over because of their lust for power. The Nazis took over because everyone else gave up their power and allowed it to happen.

Some of this is starting to sound a little too familiar. With regards to the Illegal Immigration Problem, that is. And Homosexuals for that matter too. Despite a very long list of questionable policies and decisions, a growing number of our elected officials, primarily Republicans, are increasingly turning to fear as their next play to stay in power. America’s problems are not the result of anything we’ve done. Muslims want to kill everybody. The homosexuals and activist judges are trying to destroy families and the institution of marriage. And illegal immigrants are pouring across the border and destroying our country. I am starting to understand how it happened in Germany and Poland. It happened in the name of nationalism, in the name of security, the rule of law, and cultural preservation. It happened legally, incrementally, and democratically. Will it happen again? Will the powers of fear be allowed to convince the American public to believe what they say about immigrants, gays and Muslims? Will the majority give our power away—with the Patriot Act and domestic spying—and allow it to happen? America has between now and November to decide.

5. Si, se puede.

It is no secret that my law practice serves hundreds of Spanish-speaking clients, many of whom are undocumented individuals. I say undocumented because to call them “illegals” or “aliens” goes a long ways to blur the issues that confront our country about what to do about illegal immigration and does very little to describe the people being talked about. Some of my clients crossed the border without permission. Some came here on legal visas, and overstayed. Some are in the process of becoming residents, and many more are in a questionable netherworld of immigration status which only their immigration attorney, if they can afford one, could describe, and probably not in one sentence.

My clients are mothers and fathers, sons and daughters. Some are here living in difficult conditions and sending almost all of their money back to family in their country of origin. Some have made a life here with their families—many of which have citizens, legal residents, and undocumented family members all mixed together. Obviously, it is difficult and unwise to characterize over 11 million people (the number of undocumented immigrants said to be living in the United States) one way or another. I bristle at conservative talk show hosts who characterize all of them as criminals and law-breakers. And how many have they actually met? Very few, if any. I have met hundreds of families, yet I do not think I am qualified to say much at all about all 11 million. I am only qualified to describe those I have met: Most are hardworking, kind, generous, devoted to family, and entrepreneurial. Many are deeply religious. Some I have met are bad apples—hell, I’m a traffic and criminal defense attorney. It comes with the territory. But unlike robbers, burglars and thieves, to which I have heard undocumented immigrants compared on the radio, almost all of my clients at least came here to work without any desire to do harm to anyone—certainly not to domestic workers, taxpayers or American society. Many risked their lives to come and work simply out of love and devotion to their family.

By referring to an entire group of people as illegal, law-breakers, and criminals, we are engaging in group justice. Rather than being judged individually on their own actions and by the strength of their own character, we are lumping everyone together and doing our best to forget their humanity. That makes it easier to support policies that are otherwise immoral and contrary to our Faith. However, this debate is about far more than political correctness in how we label people.

A few weeks ago, massive demonstrations took place across the country to protest a proposed law which had passed the U.S. House of Representatives—HR 4437—and was then being considered in the U.S. Senate. Anti-immigrant commentators liked to say that these were all illegal immigrants demanding that they not be deported, or demanding that there be an open border with absolutely no restrictions. (How dare they! What arrogance to come here illegally, and then demand that we change our laws to suit them!)

Of course, there were more than just undocumented individuals there. I was there, and I saw plenty of U.S. Citizen clients. Although everyone agrees that current immigration law is broken and needs to be changed, the protests were not against the status quo, but against HR 4437 and proposals like it. The law as proposed would have made any undocumented presence in the United States a federal felony—a crime that is punishable by a year or more in prison. (Currently, undocumented presence is a civil offense—deportable, but not really criminal) HR 4437 would have made “harboring” (i.e. living with) an undocumented immigrant a felony as well. HR 4437 would have made “transporting” (i.e. giving a ride to) an undocumented immigrant a felony, and employing them a felony, and otherwise assisting them to stay here a felony. Theoretically, my job could have been interpreted as a felony under this statute. Moreover, the proposed law would have removed the right to an attorney for those who were detained by immigration--meaning even legal immigrants or even citizens could conceivably be deported without full due process. THAT is why people turned out en masse and said—“enough.”

So, I have been asked many times, what do I actually think should be done then?

Well, I do not support open borders, but building a giant wall along the Mexican border seems like (a) a waste of taxpayer money and (b) a very ugly testament to history about who we are as Americans. We didn’t like the Berlin Wall or the Iron Curtain. We didn’t like the Jews being walled off into a ghetto in Poland by the Nazis. We only like the Great Wall of China as a tourist attraction. We don’t even really like the Israeli “security barrier” going up around Jerusalem and the West Bank, but nobody seems to know what to do about the Middle East anyway. We didn’t like the barriers built between white and blacks in apartheid South Africa. Border security is fine, but mammoth walls just don’t seem very American.

Everybody understands that if an undocumented person who is already here is taken into custody by Immigration, they will be deported. Ironically, one could use the argument used by the NRA when it opposed gun-congrol laws--instead of passing more laws making more things illegal, why not just enforce the laws we have now? Being in America without documents is not by itself felony-level behavior, and doesn't deserve felony-level punishment. America already has one of the highest incarceration rates in the world. Incarcerating 11 million undocumented individuals—and anyone living with them or giving them a ride to work—would require a massive tax investment to build dozens more federal prisons.

And what do we get for our tax dollars? Each incarcerated individual now becomes a ward of the state. If you’re worried that undocumented immigrants are draining public resources while they are living free and working—many paying taxes, buying consumer goods and services, investing in homes and businesses—just imagine the drain of having to house and feed and care for more than 11 million new prisoners. As it is, each incarcerated individual represents in some way a failure of our society. That person usually deserves to be punished for his or her actions, but criminal behavior is all too often a symptom of poverty and racial and economic segregation. And for each father and parent that is taken out of the home, we will have more children—including many U.S. Citizen children—growing up in single-family homes (or now needing adoption, if both parents are jailed). Studies show that they will be at a greater risk of living in poverty, engaging in criminal behavior, and being the perpetrators or victims of domestic violence. The inability to become legal is already a burden on so many families. HR 4437 would cost taxpayers and society and would break apart more families than the most “ultra-liberal policy” could ever hope to do.

People who are otherwise just raising their family and going about their lives should be given some pathway to become legal and eventually citizens. Such a pathway doesn’t have to be an amnesty, but should also not be so burdensome that it breaks up families or otherwise is too horrible to be a realistic option.

Beyond the clichés of “we are a nation of immigrants, but we are also a nation of the rule of law” we need to have a vision of what we want America to be, and what is the best way to get there. Moreover, once you get to know someone--their hopes and dreams and their ambitions--and realize that they are pretty much just like your hopes and dreams, there is no way you can look them in the face, adhere to the tenants of the Christian faith, and still support immigration policies like the ones in HR 4437. Yes, we need to enforce our laws, but our laws must also be fair, rational and just. Of course, this essay cannot possibly be my definitive statement on all the issues that face my clients, but it is at least a start.

On April 10, 2006, we are again being called to a Day of Action for Immigration Reform. I plan to be involved and I would invite anyone else with similar values to participate. I believe our protests are making a difference and that as long as we continue to debate rationally and counter xenophobic or racially motivated talking points, our country will come out with better laws. Si, se puede. Yes, we can.