No Illegal Left Behind Pt. 2: Justice Blind or a Blind Justice?

By Diane M. Grassi

“I will support and defend the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear faith and allegiance to the same.” – Oath of U.S. Citizenship

When the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) was absorbed by the formation of the Department of Homeland Security in 2002, it also received a title change now referred to as the USCIS or the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services. But the new agency designation did not relieve those who wish to enter the United States from abiding by the laws of the U.S., further upheld by the U.S. Constitution.

According to the USCIS a person is a U.S. citizen if ALL of the following are true: One of your parents was a U.S. citizen when you were born; your citizen parent lived at least 5 years in the United States before you were born; at least 2 of these 5 years in the United States were after your citizen parent’s 14th birthday.

Absence of these criteria requires a number of steps starting with a “foreign alien” applying for a visa, establishing residency by applying for a green card followed by a five-year process leading to an application to become a U.S. naturalized citizen.

U.S. immigration law has gone through several changes and revisions evolving into the current 1990 Immigration Act, effective October 1, 1991. It represented the most comprehensive change in U.S. immigration law since 1965. Revised again in 1996 and still with continual proposals for changes in legislation in the wake of 9/11, it is unfortunate that the revisions to our immigration law have largely led to our downfall with respect to security and acts of terrorism. Lack of enforcement of those regulations which still have teeth in our immigration law will only lead to continuation of extenuating fiscal challenges and our future demise.

The first immigration law was passed by the United States Congress in 1862, restricting immigration to the U.S. Later in the 1800’s the U.S. Congress passed acts which prevented convicts, polygamists, prostitutes and persons suffering from contagious diseases to enter the U.S. And in 1917, Congress passed an immigration law that required a literacy test. Aliens unable to meet minimum mental, moral, physical and economic standards were excluded from the U.S. as well.

In 1921, a Congressional enactment created a quota system for immigrants, by which the number of aliens of any nationality admitted to the U.S. in a given year could not exceed three percent of the number of foreign-born residents of that nationality living in the U.S., and in 1924 the basic immigration quotas were changed to a system based upon the desirability of different nationalities.

Effective October 1, 1991, the U.S. immigration law changed considerably. These changes were the result of the Immigration Act of 1990, while retaining the basic principles of the earlier legislation, provided the most comprehensive change in legal immigration since 1965 and arguably at the expense of American citizens.

With the most lax immigration laws on our books and admitted non-enforcement by the former INS in the 9/11 Commission Report, they require no incentive for foreign aliens to go through the bureaucratic process when the floodgates remain open at our southern as well as our northern borders. And with the proposed Guest Worker and amnesty programs for “undocumented workers” being bantered about by the Bush administration, it becomes even less likely that legalities will be adhered to by either the USCIS or those of foreign alien status. With upwards of thousands of illegal aliens seeping through our Swiss cheese border on a daily basis from Mexico, which accounts for the majority of illegal aliens in the U.S., the intent of our fabled immigration law has become just that, a fairy tale.

To wit, a New York Supreme Court judge in Manhattan on 2/18/05 ordered that the state of NY refrain from taking away the driver’s licenses of “immigrants” who do not have Social security cards, stating that the Department of Motor Vehicles is not authorized to enforce immigration law or to make new rules without public notice.

The DMV began a license crackdown last year that was expected to result in the loss of driving privileges for as many as 300,000 illegal aliens in NY state this year and has already led to the suspension of about 7,000 licenses. The order, by Justice Karen S. Smith, was fortunately temporary, and reflected her preliminary opinion that “immigrant drivers” would suffer irreparable harm unless the crackdown was stopped while the court considers a class-action lawsuit brought on their behalf, and that the “immigrants’” suit was likely to prevail.

Filed last August against Governor George Pataki and Raymond Martinez, the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, the suit was brought by the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund on behalf of those illegal aliens living in NY who have been denied a driver’s license for lack of a verifiable Social Security number or an immigration document satisfactory to the Department of Motor Vehicles. No more suspensions are likely to occur until after a hearing set for April 7, 2005.

Elizabeth Forman, an assistant NY state attorney general representing the government, said no decision had been made about whether to appeal the order, which temporarily bars the state from denying the renewal of licenses because of immigration status, but does not affect its handling of new license applications. NY is among a dozen states that by law do not limit driver’s licenses to legal residents only.

In the mid-1990’s, to improve child-support enforcement, NY’s DMV added a requirement that applicants must provide a Social Security number. Then two years ago, NY state began requiring an original Social Security card for new driver’s license applicants, and last year began warning drivers that it would rescind the licenses for drivers who supplied non-valid Social Security numbers documentation. State officials said the actions were taken to combat fraud and terrorism in light of 9/11.

The ultimate irony in this case is that the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund is representing the plaintiffs fighting for the “legal” return of their driver’s licenses. According to U.S. immigration law, there is a provision which automatically gives Puerto Rican born residents immediate U.S. citizenship status. One would wonder if the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund will next work with the Mexican Consular in annexing Mexico to the U.S., in an effort to put to rest all of our annoying laws.

The participation or the obstruction of participation of various advocates, lobby groups, legislators, legislatures and courts in resolving issues surrounding illegal immigration, should be relative to the implementation of myriad regulations already on the books. The U.S. citizenry is a composite of legally born U.S. citizens and naturalized citizens who abided by the law in order to receive their benefit of U.S. citizenship status. But those citizens advocating the enforcement of our immigration law and its regulations are far too easy targets of hatred and labeled as “racist.” So the heart of this dilemma is an effort by our political leadership to enforce political correctness rather than performing their duty in doing what is inherently right.

Just the fact that illegal aliens are suing the state of NY for a “legal” right for the privilege of driving, on its face is laughable. But since a dozen states now allow such obfuscation of immigration law, it will be difficult in putting the proverbial cat back into the bag. The Real ID Act which passed in the U.S. House of Representations on 2/15/05 will have a far bigger battle in the U.S. Senate, and may be too little done too late in providing the prevention of issuance of driver’s licenses to those without proof of valid Social Security numbers.

Most importantly, just like we cannot win the War on Terror with political correctness we will never be able to reel in the necessary mechanisms for enforcement of immigration law unless real efforts are made to protect the interests of the American people. While studies and polls consistently cite the American public’s desire to at least close our borders while we remain at war, it would also present a window for our government to seriously tackle security issues raised by the 9/11 Commission with respect to our immigration policy.

Especially at this time in the history of the U.S., America needs to maintain its sovereignty and strive to become a melting pot once again where deserving immigrants assimilate and make a valid contribution to the American experience. Race baiting, political correctness, a skittish Congress and judges with an agenda will only serve to destroy the American Dream for those already here and for those aspiring towards it, and striving to do so legally.