Immigration Law, Policy & Politics : Southern California Immigration Lawyer & Attorney : Carlos Batara Law Firm : Riverside, San Diego, Los Angeles

For over a decade, deportation defense and immigration appeals attorneys have criticized the impact of minor criminal offenses on lawful permanent resident (LPR) immigrants and their families.  We've been lone wolves.

But last week, in Carachuri-Rosendo v. Holder, the Supreme Court provided hope the issue will finally receive constitutional scrutiny.

Now, a recently released study, "In The Child's Best Interests? The Consequences Of Losing a Lawful Immigrant Parent", adds numerical insight about the need for judicial reform of our deportation laws.

The study covers LPR parental deportation between 1997 and 2007.  The findings include:

Lawful Permanent Residents

• 87,884 LPRs were deported during the ten year period
• 68% of these LPRs were deported for minor, non-violent crimes
• The deported LPRs had lived in the U.S. an average of ten years, long enough to form families

Children of Lawful Permanent Residents

• 53% of the deported LPRs had at least one child living with them
• Deported LPRs had a total of 103,000 children
• 88,000 children of deported LPRs were U.S. citizens
• 44,000 children of deported LPRs were under the age of 5

Family Members of Lawful Permanent Residents

In addition, the study noted 217,000 other immediate family members (including U.S. husbands, wives, brothers, and sisters) were affected by the deportation of LPRs between 1997-2007.

Two Needed Reforms

As I discussed in "Immigration Fairness: The Need to Restore Judicial Discretion in Deportation Cases", there are two components to repair in these types of deportation cases.

First, differentiate minor and major convictions.  Several offenses deemed minor under state law are transformed into aggravated felonies under immigration law.  Once a conviction is classified as an aggravated felony, a lawful permanent resident is subject to automatic removal from the United States.

Second, restore judicial discretion.  Immigration judges lack the discretion to distinguish minor from major crimes.  Until this ability is restored, they lack the authority to intervene and exercise reason in separating which immigrants deserve a second chance at remaining lawfully here.

While the battle for reform is far from over, it's nice to know these issues have finally reached the attention of a broader audience.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

After waiting 2 1/2 hours, my client was finally called for her green card interview.

We headed to the hallway door to meet the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services officer.  I extended my right hand to greet the officer and introduce myself.  He turned and walked away.  With his back to us, he said, "Follow me."

My client's face turned colorless.  Fear ran up and down her spine.  I whispered, "Don't worry.  It's okay."

I again extended my right hand as we entered the officer's room.  He looked at me and said,"We do not shake hands with immigrants seeking benefits."

"Really," I asked, "is that a written policy?"

He ignored the question.

Maybe I'm too old-fashioned.  As I was growing up, my mother taught me to always shake hands.

President Obama has indicated he wants to implement changes to government bureaucracy.  I suggest starting with improved customer relations training for immigration office employees.

A Culture of Rudeness

The attitude displayed by the USCIS officer is not an isolated incident.  In my experience, too many immigration offices are infected with a culture of rudeness.  Not all, but too many.

• Filing window clerks who fling papers at clients and attorneys rather than respond to simple inquiries about procedures or forms
• Security guards who treat visitors as if they are enemy terrorist suspects
• Detention officers who place callers on hold for 20 minutes before asking the callers about their names or reasons for calling
• Immigration judges who act like having tantrums on the bench is a form of judicial discretion

Government lawyers are not exempt from this epidemic. 

Having been an immigration trial attorney in Riverside and San Diego for over 16 years, as I've walked into immigration court, I offer to shake hands with opposing counsel.  Most return my gesture.  Yet, some appear shocked. They stare incredulously at me .  .  .  as if I am doing something foreign to legal etiquette. 

And unfortunately, this handshake is sometimes the end of civility.  More often than I care to remember, I've needed to remind opposing counsel it is not necessary to personalize our legal dispute or vilify my immigration client.

A Lesson From Basketball

Like President Obama, I played a lot of basketball as a young man. 

I remember many intense games at a church playground with a dangling chain-link basket.  We would try our hardest to beat each other.  Afterward, we would head to a small neighborhood grocery store.  We would put our money together to buy and share twinkies and chocolate milk.  Despite the furious competition just minutes earlier, there was rarely lingering animosity.

I learned an invaluable lesson from those basketball games -- a lesson it appears our president has also learned.

Mere opposition does not justify belligerence.

This lesson guides my interaction with those on the other side when I represent clients.

Even though my clients are immigrants from foreign countries, the rude, and often mean-spirited, attitude displayed at many immigration offices is inappropriate.  Government employees are public servants, and role models for the public they serve.  

I am not alone in my position.  As the Institute for Civility in Government notes, if government will not model civic responsibility, how can we expect others in society to be any different? 

Just ask Kayne West, Serena Williams, or Joe Wilson.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link