Like for example a piece I read online some time ago about a couple that met on a cruise ship. She was a citizen of another country and he a US citizen (how, I don't care). They fell in love and decided to marry. One problem was that her visa was a work visa and specifically tied to the ship she was on. They didn't want to "wait" for the process of legal immigration so she decided to violate the terms of her visa and stay in the US. The consequences for this, which apparently were known by both parties, was not only that she risked immediate deportation should she be caught, but upon return to her country of origins, she could not re-enter the US for at least 10 years. Sucks doesn't it.
Of course rather than blame themselves for walking head first into such a situation, they want to blame US immigration. See this is what bothers me about most of the so called "immigrant rights" groups that I read about. People make decisions to enter the US knowing full well that they are breaking US law. They do not care. They are willing to take the chance. And hey I admire that. But the flip side, is if enforcement finds you, the gig is up. The host country owes no-one who violates their immigration law, nothing but a return trip. It's even written in the UN Declaration of Human Rights. Read it.
The source of today's rant was a piece in Counterpunch by Joseph Nevins where he, like a few others compare the issues that Illegal immigrants with the Civil Rights Movement.
This time, however, the target is not Jim Crow, but what some have referred to as Juan Crow. Like its pre-Civil Rights cousin, it, too, is effectively a system of apartheid. It is one that denies “illegal” immigrants many basic rights—no matter how long they have been present in this country. And just as in the 1960s, fundamental decency—one informed by an expansive notion of human rights—requires a dismantling of this unjust system.
No my friend, the enforcement of US immigration law, not even to get into the issues of identity fraud, are in no way shape or form equivalent to aparthied South Africa. It is an insult to both African-Americans and South-Africans to string these two things in the same paragraph.
You'll note that Joseph here has to use the term "expansive notion" of human rights, because he knows like I know that the UN Declaration of Human Rights does not support his argument.
I won't repeat the discussion of the UN DOHR here but in reference to the above quote, a person who violates immigration law of a given country, in this case illegal entry, is in violation of that law so long as he or she remains in that country. For those having a hard time wrapping your head around this let me give another example.
In NYS if your car insurance lapses you are required to pay a fine of $5 per day (it's probably more now) that you do not have insurance. Not having car insurance is a "rolling offense" in that you are not just guilty on the day it was reported you are guilty for every subsequent day you go without insurance.
Similarly with illegal residence in any country. That presence is illegal at all times. To be more blunt, Legally every person who in in a country illegally whether it is by overstaying their visa or jumping a fence is a fugitive from the law. Length of stay is no argument against this. Just like you can't say to the NYSDMV that you shouldn't have to pay the fine for lack of insurance because you never had an accident during that time.
Moving on:
This era’s would-be Greensboro took place at Senator John McCain’s Tucson office—on May 17, the 56th anniversary of the Supreme Court’s Brown vs. the Topeka Board of Education decision...The action led to the arrest of four youths for trespassing. As three of them are unauthorized immigrants, Pima County sheriffs subsequently turned them over to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). ICE released them the next day, but they will have to appear before a judge at a later date, and face possible deportation to their countries of birth.
This guy is straight faced comparing the decision that legally desegregated schools in the US, which currently enrolls students regardless of immigration or citizenship status, to the issue of deportation? Really? My other cheek is stinging right now.
Even worse, the organizers showed a complete lack of concern for the four boys now facing deportation. Unlike the Greensboro sit-ins where citizens were exercising their rights as citizens and who could not face deportation or trespassing unless somehow trespass laws apply to public spaces (I'm not a lawyer), these fellows, as discussed above were already committing a Federal Civil infraction.
Let me detour for a minute here. The reason immigration is not a legal "crime" in the US is because criminal defendants have more "rights" than one in a civil court. Not only is the burden of proof less in a civil proceeding (preponderance of the evidence vs. beyond reasonable doubt) but they can be handled by administrative judges (no jury) and other things that allow for an expedited process.Anyway, back to the story.
By putting these 4 young men on the radar, they guaranteed that they would be picked up by ICE. The law is clear that once lawful contact is made with a person, their citizenship status may be ascertained by law enforcement. This has always been the case, even before the new Arizona law. That is not going to change regardless to what amnesty occurs. So I have little sympathy for the four, unless they were not informed of the additional risk they faced by coming into voluntary contact with law enforcement. Even my mother, a legalized citizen has said on many occasions that it is "not wise" to bring legal attention to yourself while you are not documented.
Joseph then forwards the "Great Lie":
That the young people risked such draconian punishment to champion what is ultimately a very modest legislative measure speaks to the deep-seated frustration among immigrant communities and advocates in a climate of growing repression of non-citizens living in the United States, and the dim prospects for significant change.
The great lie here is the "climate of repression of non-citizens living in the United States."
An utter and complete lie. First and foremost, not every non-citizen is an illegal immigrant. Some are resident aliens (that is a legal term). Some are permanent aliens. They have not sought US citizenship but remain in the US. Then you have plain ol' visitors who are here for work and tourism. To conflate all non-citizens with illegal/undocumented immigrants is a "great lie". Are there segments of US society that have issues with, say, H1B visas which import computer science engineers from India displacing (perhaps) US born engineers? Certainly. And why should they NOT be concerned with such a practice?
Moving on:
While critics of extra-legal migration typically resist attempts to liken efforts to enhance immigrant rights with the efforts of African Americans to end Jim Crow, matters of citizenship were also at the center of the Civil Rights movement. It was precisely because white society treated African Americans as, at best, second-class citizens which necessitated the struggle against institutionalized racism. And just as today, supporters of the then-status quo pointed to the law as a way of perpetuating its ugly reality and criticizing those who would defy it.
Extra-legal? I do believe that is the first I've heard that particular phrase used. But again with the Jim Crow. Let me clue Joseph in to the differences here. Black Americans are not immigrants to America (we'll ignore certain historical things for the time being). Secondly they legally had the same rights as every other citizen (certainly they had all the obligations). Their citizenship rights and privileges were being illegally abridged by the states. The CRM was not about gaining rights that they didn't have. The CRM was about getting the states to stop abridging those rights in blatant violation of the constitution.
Immigrants are guests in a country. They are allowed in under specific circumstances and are allowed to enjoy such hospitality so long as they agree to the terms of entry. violation of the terms of entry result in deportation. This is universally known. What illegal immigrants who follow Joseph are asking for is to not have to abide by the rules of entry. They feel that they are special. They deserve some special treatment that other immigrant who went "by the book" don't even get. In fact many of them are currently getting privileges that citizens cannot get. Some states hand out drivers licenses to persons who clearly do not have Social Security cards or other proof of ID. Citizens can't do that.
More:
Citizenship is ultimately about membership. Whether we like it or not, immigrants—“illegal” and “legal”—are members of American society and should be fully treated as such. They live and work here, and make myriad contributions, while reaping a disproportionately small share of the benefits given their lack of formal citizenship rights. That such inequality is legally enshrined makes it no more just than laws of previous eras such as those against interracial marriage or the right of women to vote.
I suppose then that Joseph is a proponent of giving corporations person status. After all they "work" and "live" here and make a myriad of contributions. Or perhaps toss the distinction between a foreign entity and a domestic one. After all, as far as he's concerned so long as you live and work here you should be a citizen. In fact how about anyone who has lived and worked anywhere just declare themselves a citizen and be done with it. Elections ought to be really fun then.
In reality Joseph simply does not believe in immigration law at all. He should just say so. As far as he's concerned the US (and I assume only the US) ought to simply grant citizenship to any and all who request it. Lets stop with the charade about civil rights and such. If Joseph does believe that a country, including the US, has a right to determine not only who can be a citizen but how many people may immigrate into the country at any given time, then he must also agree that the state would have the right to enforce it's immigration laws. And once he agrees to that, he would find himself on the other side of his own argument. But that's not the point here.
The point here is that advocates for "extra-legal" immigrants would be better served to not compare their issue with the Civil Rights Movement. Doing so really underscores the lack of understanding as to what the Civil Rights Movement was about and alienates those of us who do know what it is about.
