Special Immigrant Juvenile Status: Immigration relief for abused, neglected or abandoned children

Immigration: Comprehensive Reform vs. Piecemeal Reform

Advocates for comprehensive immigration reform are still going strong in the fight for passing one bill that would completely revamp our immigration system and deal, on a global basis, with border security, employment immigration, a path to citizenship for the Dreamers[1] and a way to handle the 11 million undocumented people currently living in the United States.  Advocates had high hopes for this reform to be passed through Congress prior to August 2^nd, when Congress went on its summer recess.  Although a comprehensive reform bill passed the Senate,[2] it had stalled in the House before the recess began.  A lot of debate still remains about border security and whether or not a path to citizenship should be instituted for the 11 million undocumented people living in the United States.  Now that our Representatives are home and meeting with their constituents, the immigration advocacy and debate has continued and the push for reform has not been swept under the proverbial table quite yet. 

A new debate is beginning though, amongst and between advocates for immigration reform.  While all are still pushing for full comprehensive change and relief, some in the advocacy committee are saying that reform may have a better chance for success if the bill is separated out and the individual immigration issues are dealt with on a one-by-one basis.  The idea is that some parts of immigration reform may be easier to pass through the House than others, and it would be better to get some reform than nothing altogether.  For example, the population of people who would be eligible for benefits if there was a new Dream Act passed would be far less than the total population of undocumented individuals in the U.S.  Additionally, the Dreamers are more sympathetic than their parents, in that in order to be a Dreamer, among other requirements, a person had to come over to the United States as a child, live and be raised in the United States, and go to school or have graduated from school or earned a GED in the U.S.  Most of these children came over when they were very young and did not have any “mens rea” or criminal intent when they crossed the border without proper documentation.  They also cannot have a criminal record.  The lack of guilt on their part makes reform for this group easier to accept for some legislators rather than, for example, their parent’s who knew what they were doing when coming over here.  In fact, Republican law makers considered passing a Dreamers Bill this past July.[3] 

As an advocate for immigrant children, I help abused and neglected children receive immigration benefits through Special Immigration Juvenile Status (SIJS) and older children and young adults in the “Dreamers” category through President Obama’s administrative order allowing for a partial “Dream” through Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA).  Therefore, with this background in helping children, my first reaction is that some reform, especially reform that would help underrepresented children, who had no part in creating their current legal predicament, should be welcomed and celebrated with open arms. 

There is hefty push back on this, however.  Most surprisingly, the push-back is coming from the Dreamer’s population itself, the very group that would gain the most from a new Dreamers Act being passed.[4]  Their argument is that family preservation is paramount and nothing less than full reform for all undocumented individuals is acceptable.  Their parents risked everything for them to have a better life here in the U.S., and now they are taking a similar risk for their parents in opposing a new Dream Act. 

Last week, an Ohio family’s struggle made the national press because of the threat of deportation to the undocumented father, when his children need him here to help them, especially the special needs child who requires around-the-clock care by his parents.[5]  This is a fairly typically family with a mix of both documented and undocumented members residing in the U.S. within one nuclear family.  The push back from the children is that simply focusing on the children is not enough; because they need their parents here in the U.S. with them to thrive and grow into contributing members of society.  As an adoption and immigration professional, I agree and make this argument on a regular basis when the situation is turned around and the adopted child is undocumented and the parents are US citizens.  In other words, an adoption is only strong if the family can get the child immigration benefits as well as a finalized adoption so that the family can remain and live together as a unit.  If a child is at risk of getting deported, then the adoption also fails because the unity meant to be created by the adoption would be ripped apart.  The same reasoning should hold true even in non-adoptive families when the tables are turned and the children already have citizenship either through birth right or a new Dreamers Act but their parents are undocumented. 

Is it better to have some reform, especially for children, if that means that they could potentially stay here, but their parents might still face deportation?  Or should all advocates of immigration reform hold out and not promote anything less than comprehensive reform?

---

[1] Dreamers are immigrants who entered the country undocumented as children

[2] The Senate Bill passed on June 26, 2013 after much debate.  It passed 68 to 32, with all Democrats and 14 Republicans in support of the comprehensive bill.  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/27/senate-immigration-reform-bill_n_3511664.html

[3] House Majority Leader Eric Cantor and House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., worked to unveil the Kids Act to give Dreamers the same path to citizenship that they voted against in 2010.

[4] See Fox, Lauren,  GOP DREAM Act Not Enough For Dreamers, GOP’s piecemeal approach gets blasted by dreamers, US News, July 22, 2013, available at http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/07/22/gop-dream-act-not-enough-for-dreamers.

[5] See Sarlin, Benjy, Ohio Family’s Struggle Defines Deportation Debate, MSNBC, August 16, 2013, available at http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/08/16/how-one-familys-immigration-struggle-defines-the-deporation-debate/

Additional Commentary to Margaret Stock's Recent Blog Post: "Sessions amendment would harm military families."

Additional Commentary to Margaret Stock’s Recent Blog Post:
“Sessions’ amendment would harm military families”

Margaret Stock, a renowned immigration attorney and retired Lieutenant Colonel of the U.S. Army, wrote a blog post Monday[1] pointing out that one of the proposed amendments by Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) to the immigration reform bill written by the “Gang of Eight” would “cause huge problems for military family members by mandating the imprisonment for 60 to 90 days of people who overstay their permission to be in the United States." 

Margaret Stock argues in her article that this amendment would negatively affect military personnel who are trying to quickly bring their spouses over to the United States when they get transferred back to a home base and are erroneously advised to have their spouses petition for visitors visas, instead of waiting on the approval of a family-based petition.  Their spouses often over-stay the visitor’s visas once they get here while waiting for immigration benefits after the military personnel properly file a family-petition for them.

Under current law, overstaying a visa is an immigration “infraction,” not a “criminal” violation.[2]  Similar infractions under state law include seatbelt violations, simple speeding tickets or littering citations.  The most common infraction of this level, which most Americans at some point or another have done in their lives, is putting a letter in a friend’s mailbox instead of sending it through the post.  Sen. Sessions is suggesting putting people in jail for the immigration infraction of overstaying the visa.  Should we also start putting everyone in jail that puts a letter in the mailbox of a neighbor? What about for writing a bad check? Is this where we want our criminal justice tax dollars going? 

At Steffas & Associates, P.C. we adamantly advise and encourage our clients to go through the correct routes to gaining immigration benefits.  We explain that coming in on a visitor’s visa, if their intention is to immigrate, is fraud and should never be done.  We get many cases, however, when the clients, like those described by Margaret Stock, were wrongly told by other attorneys or friends to come in on the B-2 visa, and now they are here in the U.S. with a valid path to legalization.  For those who do this unknowingly, should we be putting them in our jails, and using tax dollars to criminalize people who have married our servicemen and women who work and fight to protect our country? I think not.  

I think instead we should help them gain their legal status and worry more about putting in jail people who are committing real immigration crimes, such as trafficking women and children.  According to U.S. State Department data, “an estimated 600,000 to 820,000 men, women, and children [are] trafficked across international borders each year.”[3]  The people who are committing these heinous crimes against our immigration laws and against the laws humanity, are just one example of money better spent on the criminal side, than jailing the spouses of men and women who serve our country. 

---

[1] http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/homeland-security/300797-sessions-amendment-would-harm-military-families

[2] It only becomes criminal and has eligibility for jail-time if the Attorney General decides to pursue a particular case.

[3] Trafficking in Persons Report, (June 3, 2005), Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons, Department of State, http://www.state.gov/g/tip/rls/tiprpt/2005/46606.htm.