Tweet
Recently, CNN obtained a copy of a Justice Department email to the U.S. Attorneys offices that updates instructions on describing alien status in press releases.
It requires them to use the term, “illegal alien,” when the unlawful presence of an alien is an established fact. If the lawfulness of an alien’s status is uncertain, they are required to use a reference to his country of citizenship. For instance, if he is from Canada, they are supposed to refer to him as “a Canadian citizen.” The term “undocumented” should never be used to describe illegal presence in the United States. It has no basis in the U.S. Code.
Aliens here unlawfully should be far more concerned about being deported than they are about the names people call them, but advocacy groups have claimed that calling them “illegal aliens” causes serious harm.
According to Race Forward’scampaign to Drop the I-Word, it is dehumanizing, racist, and legally inaccurate to call someone an “illegal alien.”
House Minority Leader Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) recently blasted GOP legislators for using the term. She claims that it is not constructive.
La Clínica del Pueblo has launched a “No Human Being is Illegal” campaign. They were inspired by Elie Wiesel who said, “You who are so-called illegal aliens must know that no human being is illegal. … Human beings can be beautiful or more beautiful, they can be fat or skinny, they can be right or wrong, but illegal?”
Are these pejorative connotations coming from the people who use the term, or do they only exist in the minds of the people who dislike “illegal alien?” And when did it start being wrong to use that expression. Democrats used to refer to aliens here unlawfully as “illegal aliens” or “illegal immigrants.”
In any case, this debate fosters bad feelings on both sides and diverts attention from the threat of deportation, which is a much more serious matter.
Read more at http://thehill.com/opinion/immigrati...m-being-called
Published originally on The Hill.
Nolan Rappaport was detailed to the House Judiciary Committee as an executive branch immigration law expert for three years. He subsequently served as an immigration counsel for the Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Claims for four years. Prior to working on the Judiciary Committee, he wrote decisions for the Board of Immigration Appeals for 20 years.
[*=1]Dreamer relief; and
[*=1]An independent U.S. Immigration Court.
Our country and the good folks caught up the in current system are paying the price every day for these failures. But, past is past. The important thing is not to make the same mistakes again if and when the Democrats and whatever “moderate” Republicans still remain get a chance to act.
I hope he is right in thinking that the Democrats just made a mistake when they didn't do those things when they had the chance, as opposed to the implication I drew in my article that helping the "undocumented aliens" just isn't important to them.
Nolan Rappaport
Would any Senator or Congressman today vote to go back to those days, no matter how generous the legalization proposal was?
Steve King and Tom Cotton might, for sure. Sessions also voiced support for returning to that racist 1924 statute when he was a Senator.
Certainly, no Democrat would ever consider such a monstrous proposal. Nor would very many of today's Republicans.
But Trump is, in effect offering something similar on a more limited scale: Legalize a handful of immigrants - namely some DACA recipients as the price for abolishing the visa lottery and most family immigration - the backbones of racial equality and diversity in our current system - in favor of a phony "merit based" system designed to favor immigrants from wealthy countries with wide access to education - i.e. Europe.
That is just a modified, mini-version of the hypo I gave above.
Of course the answer from the Democrats - and fair-minded Republicans - has to be "No Deal".
Does that mean that they are anti-immigrant or don't want to help the Dreamers?
Of course not. It only means that they don't want to be mugged or held hostage on immigration policy.
Or look at it it this way in terms of football:
The Democrats arguably dropped the ball on immigration during President Obama's first term.
But Trump and his Republican enablers are now running off with the goalposts. Which is more serious?
Roger Algase
Attorney at Law
This was not because the Democrats were against the lottery. They were only taking Nolan's frequently repeated advice that a truly bipartisan deal has to serve the political interests of both parties.
An open, give and take discussion is the best way to illuminate points relating to immigration law and policy.
Rewriting history is not.
Roger Algase
Attorney at Law