At the time of this entry, none of those who particpated in our informal class survey believe that we should deport individuals from the United States.




Nikki writes,

I found this article online. I thought it was interesting because it talked about asylum of sexual orientation. And it also discusses the role of judges, similar to the article about the immigration courts for this week's assignment.

This article gives a different perspective for those wanting asylum for being a lesbian or gay. The article raises the question of those who might be "pretending" to be gay to stay in the US. Is deportation the answer, if they are returning to a homeland of unsafe circumstances. Some are not even able to utter the word of their sexual orientation. check it out...

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2008/10/14/seeking_a_home_away_from_homophobia/

nh said...

I found this article online. I thought it was interesting because it talked about asylum of sexual orientation. And it also discusses the role of judges, similar to the article about the immigration courts for this week's assignment.

This article gives a different perspective for those wanting asylum for being a lesbian or gay. The article raises the question of those who might be "pretending" to be gay to stay in the US. Is deportation the answer, if they are returning to a homeland of unsafe circumstances. Some are not even able to utter the word of their sexual orientation. check it out...

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2008/10/14/seeking_a_home_away_from_homophobia/

3:49 PM

nh said...

With the upcoming election next tuesday, I think it's important to consider both candidate's side on immigration.

Here's Barack Obama's stance: http://www.barackobama.com/issues/immigration/
In his opening quote about immigration he discusses how the immigration law system in broken, and it's necessary to fix the system. He has a plan to bring people out of the shadows, work with Mexico and try to keep families together.

Here's John McCain's view:
http://www.johnmccain.com/informing/issues/68db8157-d301-4e22-baf7-a70dd8416efa.htm
McCain also agrees that the immigration laws are broken and seeks a two-step process reform, which involves securing the boarders and then comprehensive immigration initiatives for a secure nation.

This is an article from Miami Herald that looks at both sides and the similarities and differences:
IMMIGRATION POLICY: McCain, Obama hold similar views on immigration - Rivals John McCain and Barack Obama both claim to be champions of immigration reform, which could be an issue for each in his respective party.

If this doesn't work, you can find in loyola's World News through the electronic articles.

Do you think that Obama and McCain are similar on their views? What reform might accomplish more?

2:26 PM

AnnaW said...

I drive down Devon Avenue every day to get to Loyola, and never have I paid more attention to the store-fronts, restaurant names, and the faces of the people on the sidewalks than I do now that I have seen the movie about the Patriot Acts that we watched in class last week. I think that one of the reasons that the movie had such a big impact on me was because I drive through that neighborhood every day.
Something that struck me was that it was said in the movie was that before the Patriot Acts, the Indo-Pakistani neighborhood was a lot more vibrant- there were more stores and restaurants- but I have always thought that that neighborhood was lively anyway. I started commuting down Devon in 2006. I guess what I am trying to say is that it is hard for me to imagine how much more alive the area must have been before people started getting deported because it seems so full of culture and vibrancy today.

Ngai opens chapter 2 with a discussion of the Immigration Act of 1924 that effectively created a “new class of persons within the national body- illegal aliens-whose inclusion in the nation was at once a social reality and a legal impossibility” (Ngai, 57). She says that the restrictions placed on immigrants raised problems that were “administrative…juridical…and constitutional (do illegal aliens have rights?)” (Ngai, 57). I find this question of whether or not illegal aliens should have rights to be ironic in a country that was founded on Christian values. As Christians we believe that every person is equal because he or she has been created in the image and likeness of God; so if every person is equal, shouldn’t every person have rights? Yes, it is necessary for every country to have laws regarding immigration, but shouldn’t people (be they legally or illegally residing in the United States of America) be treated with the dignity and respect that is due to them? It seems to me that deporting people en masse does not respect their rights as human beings.

8:06 PM

Kip Young said...

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/31/us/31inquire.html?_r=1&emc=tnt&tntemail1=y&oref=slogin#
October 31, 2008
Inquiry Targeted 2,000 Foreign Muslims in 2004
By ERIC LICHTBLAU
WASHINGTON — An operation in 2004 meant to disrupt potential terrorist plots before and after that year’s presidential election focused on more than 2,000 immigrants from predominantly Muslim countries, but most were found to have done nothing wrong, according to newly disclosed government data.
The program, conducted by the Department of Homeland Security, received little public attention at the time. But details about the targets of the investigation have emerged from more than 10,000 pages of internal records obtained through a lawsuit by civil rights advocates. Parts of the documents were provided to The New York Times.
The documents show that more than 2,500 foreigners in the United States were sought as “priority leads” in the fall of 2004 because of suspicions that they could present threats to national security in the months before the presidential election and the inauguration. Some of those foreigners were detained and ultimately deported because they had overstayed their visas, but many were in this country legally, and the vast majority were not charged.
The internal reports show that immigration agents questioned the foreigners about what they thought of America, whether violence was preached at their mosques, and whether they had access to biological or chemical weapons. A sampling of 300 cases turned over by federal officials showed that none of those interrogated were charged with national security offenses. Fewer than one in five were charged, most of them with immigration violations.

A spokesman for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Richard Rocha, would say only, “Due to ongoing litigation, ICE is not at liberty to provide any comment.”
Officials said they were not aware of any similar programs now under way.
At the time of the 2004 operation, the immigration agency said publicly that it was tracking leads in an effort to disrupt potential terrorism plots, but emphasized that its investigations were being conducted “without regard to race, ethnicity or religion.”

But the records showed that 79 percent of the suspects were from Muslim-majority countries, according to an analysis by students at the National Litigation Project at Yale Law School, who obtained the records, as did the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee. Each group sued for the records under the Freedom of Information Act, and both say the operation showed that the government was using ethnic profiling to identify terrorism suspects.

“This was profiling,” said Michael Wishnie, a professor at Yale Law School who helped lead the research effort. He added that the findings raised questions about both the effectiveness and the propriety of the program.
“The resources devoted to this were enormous,” he said, “but the results clearly were not.”

The issue of ethnic profiling in counterterrorism programs has taken on added significance because of new Justice Department guidelines that go into effect Dec. 1 and give investigators even broader authority to open terrorism investigations without evidence of wrongdoing. The American Civil Liberties Union and other rights groups argue that the new guidelines will allow federal investigators to make targets of Muslims, Middle Easterners and others without evidence of links to terrorist groups.

After the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the administration began a series of efforts that strained relations with Muslims and Arab-Americans in particular. The detention of more than 700 illegal immigrants as terrorism suspects — often for months at a time without lawyers — generated a blistering report from the Justice Department on the “unduly harsh” treatment of the prisoners. Follow-up efforts in 2002 and 2003 led to the questioning of thousands of Muslims and Middle Easterners as well as measures requiring that immigrants from some countries register their presence with federal authorities.

The investigations conducted in the fall of 2004 were part of what federal authorities called Operation Front Line. It was unusual in that it relied on intelligence data from across the government to identify “priority leads” and then conduct interrogations in October 2004, just before Election Day.
One foreigner, in the country on a student visa, was asked his “opinion of America,” according to internal investigative reports. He responded that he was “living the American dream and cared greatly for the equal opportunities, rights and values that are afforded in America.” Another person, from South Asia, was asked about a mosque he attended and told an agent that “the mosque did not espouse any radical or fundamental form of Islam or denounce the United States in any way.” A third visa holder was asked if he owned any chemical or biological explosives. He said he did not.

The Homeland Security Department announced several hundred arrests at the time, mostly of visitors whose visas had expired, but the records obtained in the lawsuit show that the scope of the operation reached much further. More than 2,500 people were interrogated, with more than 500 arrests for immigration violations like overstaying visas.

A former immigration official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because aspects of the program remain classified, said the operation analyzed data, gathered by the Central Intelligence Agency and other agencies, to identify people who might pose particular threats to national security. “I think the intelligence we were getting was bona fide and mineable, and we were doing the best we could to follow it up,” the former official said.

Kareem Shora, national executive director of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, said he considered the findings a “slap in the face” because they contradicted the claims of American officials.
“It is very disappointing to see that despite all the reassurances that they were not profiling people, this comes out,” Mr. Shora said. With nearly 80 percent of the targets in the 2004 operation coming from Muslim nations, he asked, “how can you tell us you’re not focusing on people from these countries?”

Julia Preston contributed reporting from New York.

11:31 PM

[D]eportation is . . . exile, a dreadful punishment, abandoned by the commom consent of all civilized peoples. . . That our reasonable efforts to rid ourselves of unassimilable immigrants should in execution be attended by such a cruel and barbarous result would be a national reporach.

---JUDGE LEARNED HAND, 1929

The above quote is from Chapter 2 of Ngai's Impossible Sujbects: Illegal Aliens and The Making of Modern America.

THIS PAST WEEK, we visited the Chicago U.S. Immigration Court, and observed a number of individuals facing imminent deportation from the United States. I invite you to post comments and/or questions. See you next week...

Christopher Helt, Esq.

Dara writes,

For me the immigration court experience was profound in sharing the very personal side of what has become a controversial "topic" of discussion and debate. Beyond the politics and even economics is the reality of injustice. I don't think it is possible to see a situation like Mr. Din's or Mr Hassan's and not develop a sense of outrage and feel compassion for their families. Again, the question of Constitutionality surfaces.

To say the immigration system is broken is an understatement that became even more apparent in seeing the court proceedings. Hearing the years spent processing cases, many of which seem to be based on errors and technicalities and realizing the amount of money and manpower used is beyond wasteful. The figuratively fine line determining lawful and unlawful status looks more like a noose (to me).

Teresa writes...

I had mixed feelings upon arrival at the immigration court. I assumed I would immediately loathe the judge, scorn the prosecuting attorney with eyes of judgment, and leave feeling even more enraged with the immigration laws of this country.

Contrary to my anticipation of dramatic decisions, NOTHING HAPPENED. Even cases which were supposed to be decided were postponed to a later date for various reasons. When I say moved to a later date, I mean a year to a year and a half from now. Wow. I can't even imagine how one plans his or her life under such circumstances. If you are unsure you can even remain in the United States, I assume you would do your best to set up "back up plans" somewhere else. If you are raising a family, how do you simply live without being constantly fearful and anxious?

As I sat outside the hearing room, I looked at everyone present. The lawyers, naturally, stuck out like sore thumbs. I wondered what brought them to the job. I was fascinated with the large presence of people's families. This does not surprise me because it is important to support loved ones and show the judge a life actually exists in the United States. What I did wonder was how these families were able to continually come back to court. Time off of work, pulling children out of school, and continued legal fees are not luxuries everyone can afford. In this respect, the court system seems to be incredibly disrespectful of people's time and lives.

I did not hate the judge. I found her, instead, to have a warm and friendly demeanor. I found not loathing for the Honorable Jenny, but I still got a sick feeling in my stomach when I thought of the power she has over people's lives. I was not impressed with the government representative. His stacks of paper and routine distribution of fingerprinting instructions made him seem indifferent and apathetic to the people fighting for their residence in the United States. I wondered what the outcomes for so many diverse people would be. I left with mixed feelings. I was ashamed of the immigration court system. I also felt responsible. As a daughter of immigrants from Italy and Norway, my families never faced a similar process of starting or continuing a life in the United States as those I witnessed in the courtroom. As a citizen of the United States, I question what my role has to be in the restructure of our immigration system.

MODEL MIDTERM ANSWERS

Immigration, the act of one coming to America to live either temporary or permanently, is a creature of politics and economics. Laws and policies towards immigrants in the United States are created and, in fact driven by, political or economic bases. In Daniels' Guarding the Golden Door, for example, we read about immigration laws created to restrict Chinese immigrants (The Chinese Exclusion Act), (ANY EXAMPLE cited in Daniels is acceptable--Senator Sumner or any of today’s outspoken members of Congress, Senator Frist from Tennessee, etc.), based on an economic basis, as labor movements feared Chinese immigrants were injurious to the economy, taking jobs away from others. Any example from Geraldo Rivera's HIS PANIC acceptable.

B.) Why does one want to “Come to America” (the U. S.) permanently? What are the Four (4) ways, generally, an immigrant can stay permanently in America? List each one, provide any examples from any class discussions, lectures, the film Avalon or (if applicable) or from the reading material for each one.

MODEL ANSWER:

As we saw in the film Avalon, (or cite Enes Hadzovic from Kosovo reading material--facing persecution in his home country or Victor C-) individuals come to America for one (or a combination) of three reasons: To (1) reunite with family already here in the United States, (2) for economic reasons or to (3) flee persecution (problems in their homeland: War, severe civil strife, etc.).

There are four (4) ways to come to america permanently, with limited exceptions.

Generally, individuals permanently and lawfully come to the U.S. via (1) a family member in the U.S. who sponsors them; (2) a job sponsor (employment-based green card petition) sponsor; (3) political asylum; or (3) the visa lottery. Each have their own specific requirements. In class, we listed to Victor C- who was not one of the 4, but one of the exceptions; we watched Simka from the film Avalon come here as a refugee, reuniting with his long-lost sister; we discussed how people who are married to United States citizens can file for their spouses, and the various preference categories in the family-based green card category: spouse of citizens and green card holders, sons and daughters of U.S. citizens, children over the age of 21 who are citizens, and siblings of U.S. citizens. The family based visa immigration system is a large "tree" but one without many branches. There are only four branches or relatives that can be sponsored or peitioned for. The Visa lottery is difficult and it’s just like its sounds: a luck of the draw, similar to any other “lottery.”

A). What are the (2) two different types of visas in America (United States)? What is the difference between the type types? Is one better for immigrants than the other? Why is one type of visa similar to a pond frog on a Lilly pad?

MODEL ANSWER

The two types of visas allowing individuals to enter the U.S. lawfully are immigrant AND non-immigrant visas. Immigrant visas (or “IVs”) allow one to stay permanently in the United States (i.e, green card holder) and non-immigrant visas (or “NIVs”) are temporarily.

Immigrant visas, which are permanent (such as through family, a job, or visa lottery) commonly are referred to as "green card" holders once they arrive in the United States. They are immigrants coming to American to reside here permanently. Visas are issued outside the U.S. to allow one to enter lawfully. Non-immigrant visas are temporarily and if one stays in the U.S. past the time permitted, they suffer severe immigration law consequences. In that respect, IVs are better and they are permanent, and NIVs are not, they expire and the immigrant must return after a time period, depending on the type of NIV one enters the U.S.

As for NIVs, there are many types or categories, almost as many as in the alphabet, but the road never leads to a green card for these immigrants. In other words, the permission to stay in America is temporary and the immigrant must leave the United States before their non-immigrant visa time expires. If they overstay they violated their status and suffer severe negative immigration consequences, both if they wish to return someday to the United States (3/10 year bar for example), or if they wish to apply for another longer non-immigrant visa while they are here. They could also be deported for overstaying their non-immigrant visa. This is similar to Frog on a Lilly pad: The frog in the pond can leap from one Lilly pad to another, but the Lilly pad is slowly sinking (the NIV status) and the frog can leap from one to another (change NIV status), but the second the frog touches the water it drowns (or the water is poison!). Those who overstay their visas are considered unlawfully present and make up those considered “illegally present” in the U.S. (along those who enter illegally from the beginning).

A.) What is the Writ of Habeas Corpus? Cite examples from Daniels’ Guarding The Golden Doors, lectures, or class discussions. How was/is the “Great Writ” used to help immigrants in the United States? Why is it needed? In other words, why do immigrants in America need it or don’t they?

MODEL ANSWER

Essentially, the Writ of Habeas Corpus or the Great Writ, suspended only once during the President Lincoln administration, is a lawsuit filed on behalf of immigrants against the United States Government filed protect rights or obtain rights—asking the government to do or not to do something to help immigrants in the U.S. Daniels, says that the Writ and the decision which followed, provided the “foundation for immigration law [and] arose of struggles on the West Coast among Chinese immigrants, government officials and federal judges over the enforcement of the Chinese Exclusion laws. Though on the margins of society, Chinese in their resistance to exclusion laid claims to principles and practices, habeas corpus, due process…that were the heart of Anglo-American jurisprudence. This lawsuit protected immigrants who were subject to discrimination and other anti-immigrant laws and policies. It has had profound affected their rights, then and today. In class, we learned from class lecture the Writ of Habeas Corpus is a strong arrow in the quiver of immigrants to protect their rights, stop them from imminent deportation for example.

B.) What is the “Dualistic Attitude” towards immigrants in American society? Cite Daniels and Class discussions. What laws have we read about or discussed which restrict immigration? What groups or law makers did we read about who sought to restrict immigration and why?


MODEL ANSWER

The “Dualistic Attitude,” mentioned in Daniels’ Guarding the Golden Door, simply stated, involves loving our past yet hating our present. Our society seems to have wonderful feelings about our nation’s immigration past. Yet we fell today that our immigration system is “broken,” and often blame today’s immigrants for problems with our economy (they take away “American jobs”) for are cause for national security concerns (many feel that allowing illegal immigrants in the U.S. or lax immigration laws correlate with terrorism, for example) Others feel that some immigrants break down the social fabric and contribute to the social ills of our society. Overcrowding in schools, the welfare system, etc. The familiar phrase, “We Are A Nation of Immigrants,” for example is familiar to all, and brings to mind the romanticism we have with our immigration history. In realty, however, the obstacles that many early immigrants faced when first coming to America, whether Chinese or Irish, for example, have been severe. Past immigrants faced tremendous prejudice and discrimination in society, and the inscriptions on Statute of Liberty, for example, has been an oxymoron.

Many laws described in Daniels [any laws discriminating against early immigrants is acceptable here] were enacted simply to exclude certain immigrant groups from enjoying certain privileges enjoyed by other immigrant groups or U.S. citizens, discussing the value system of early immigrants, yet we know certain immigrant groups were discriminated against and treated unfairly. Laws and polices were passed severely limiting...(describe or cite examples from Daniels here).


Based on Rivera’s HIS PANIC,(1) define Chicano, Hispanic, and Latino.
What are the differences, according to Mr. Rivera between these terms. Why
are they relevant, according to Mr. Rivera?(2) Would the La Unica Grocery
store/restaurant be considered a Latino, Chicano or Latino establishment?(3)
Back up your answer using the definitions you just provided above.

MODEL ANSWER/OUTLINE:

(1) Any reference to Spain is acceptable for Hispanic, Latino any reference to Central and South America. For Chicano, any reference to Rivera's use of the term and Mexicans is acceptable. For La Unica, any conclusion is acceptable whether Latino or Hispanic or Chicano as long as it is backed up with logical conclusions [i.e, its Chicano because most of its cusomers are from Mexico or the owner is Mexican or former owner Cuban therefore a Latino establishment--or a combination of the two based on Rivera definition. Alternatively, you must state that it cannot be defined as it doesnt fit into Rivera's definition--but you must support your conclusion by providing the definition given by Rivera and contrast it with your own analysis].

(C) (1) What was the “family business” for the Ks in the film? (2) What ethnic
group was the family from? What country? (3) Compare other past immigrant
groups from Daniels and those today and what jobs, if any, are some
immigrants “associated with.” (4) Are there stereotypes? Is that a liability or
an asset for them, and why? Is that fair? What other immigrant groups have
had similar or different job associations? Compare other myths, realties and
implications of associating the Chinese with railroad workers, or the Irish with
saloons or law enforcement, Latino landscapers, Germans (and farming), etc.
or pick your own immigrant group. (5) What were some of the stereotypes of
yesterday’s immigrants in Avalon and today’s immigrant groups? (6) Can you
truly associate a job with a certain ethnic group? (7) Is that fair? What are
some of the implications for these immigrants, both positive and negative.

(A) In what way (1) did Avalon demonstrate how some immigrant families pooled
money together for other newly arriving family members to America?
Provide an example from the film. (2) Did that change for later arriving
family members to America? Do today’s immigrants provide financial
support or any support for other family members coming to America? In what
way? (3) What comments does Geraldo Rivera make in HIS PANIC about
immigrant families? (4) What are some similarities between his comments
about “family” and examples seen in Avalon?