Stopping deportation, one valedictorian at a time?
The editorial board wrote today that a whole lot of immigration policy is hitting the enforcement side of the matter, but missing the big picture:
He may be a reluctant immigration restrictionist, but Michael Chertoff is remarkably diligent. The secretary of Homeland Security is one of the Bush administration's most enthusiastic lobbyists for immigration reform, willing to highlight the "negative economic consequences" of tougher enforcement. Yet on items from the border wall to workplace raids to heavier burdens on employers, Chertoff delivers for the enforcement-only crowd.
Here's a small something for the other crowd. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) introduced a bill to stop the deportation of 17-year-old Arthur Mkoyan, a high school valedictorian set to go to UC Davis unless he gets shipped to Armenia. He hasn't seen his native country since he was a toddler (and his parents have been seeking asylum since about that time).
But the fine print, as CNN reports: "Of the 21 private immigration bills introduced last year, none was enacted. None of the 117 introduced was enacted in 2006. The year prior, 98 were introduced, and four were enacted."
In other words, Mkoyan can stay, but he can't get a green card without the bill passing. As Sacramento Bee columnist Peter Schrag notes, Mkoyan and other students like him wouldn't be put in this situation if the DREAM Act had passed:
Mkoyan is one of the emblems — there are thousands of others — of a self-defeating immigration policy that prefers to deport talented young people at a time when the nation faces a desperate need of skilled workers to replace the millions of baby boomers who are about to retire....
Passage of the federal Dream Act last year, which would have put thousands of young men and women on the path to legal status, would probably have allowed him to stay here. But the act was blocked in Congress by immigration absolutists who'd rather punish children for the sins of their parents than cash in on the talent and ambition they represent.
But Ruben Navarrette Jr. says the law is the law (even if its cruel, counterproductive, myopic, unnecessary...one could go on), and even if enforcement-side folks can get a few bones from the federal government, the other side can't. But he leaves on a more stinging point, wondering why so few advocates rushed to defend another student, Jesus Apodaca, in 2002:
Why the double standard? I believe it's because, while Mkoyan may not have a leg to stand on legally, he at least has the benefit of not being Mexican. Much of the immigration debate is fueled by a fear of a changing culture, competing languages, an altered landscape, and what loopy Minuteman Project founder Jim Gilchrist calls the "colonization" of the United States by Mexican immigrants.
Arthur Mkoyan isn't considered a party to any of that. For some people, that makes all the difference. And, in some respects, that's the saddest thing about this story.
*Photo of Dianne Feinstein from The Times.
The cases of Arthur Mkoyan and Jesus Apodaca may seem similar but in fact they are really quite different.
The Congressional Research Service said on 4/6/06: "The INA [Immigration and Nationality Act] includes both criminal and civil components, providing both for criminal charges (e.g., alien smuggling, which is prosecuted in the federal courts) and for civil violations (e.g., lack of legal status, which may lead to removal through a separate administrative system in the Department of Justice)."
The civil side of the law classifies Arthur Mkoyan as being illegally present in the U.S. so his case is a civil, not criminal, violation of the INA. Jesus Apodaca crossed the U.S. border illegally. That is considered a violation of the criminal side of the law. According to the law he could "be fined under title 18, United States Code, or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both" for that violation. If he was processed through the civil court by Government Prosecutors they did him a HUGE favor.
But that does not explain why there is such Negativity in this story! So much of it screams "the glass is half empty"! Two young man get the chance of a lifetime - to come from a poor country and spend their youth learning in what is arguably one of the best places to learn in the world. And now, after such a precious opportunity when it is time to return home rather than celebrate the opportunity people bemoan the fact that they cannot stay longer. Neither is going to their deaths nor are they going to Hades. If their parents raised them right they will work and fight to make their futures bright. And as smart people maybe someday they will re-write history in their homelands. Or maybe they will just sit down and whine the rest of their lifes. If a higher power truly has a plan for each and every one of us, in the end it is arrogance to assume that if you do not get your way it is a bad thing.
Posted by: Durendal55 | June 11, 2008 at 07:09 PM
Durendal55, thanks for the clarification. I would note, re your last point, that if you read interviews with Arthur, at least, he seems remarkably accepting of the deportation order while still hopeful that it'll turn around. Quite the 17yearold!
Posted by: Swati | June 12, 2008 at 11:09 AM
When seasonal guest workers do return to Mexico at end of the growing season, they return with money and experience, to contribute to the development of Mexico; and each year, when a new group of seasonal guest workers comes, they are eager to work for the same low non-citizen wages.
And, when they return to Mexico at end of the growing season, they do not drive down the wages of American workers, by competing for jobs in landscaping, construction, sanitation, and housekeeping; and they do not use American governmental social services.
Posted by: Jeugenen | June 12, 2008 at 07:00 PM
Mkoyan's not attending UCD means that some kid on the waiting list will get his spot -- and with the UC system being so impacted it is unlikely this student will be any less qualified.
As with everything, esp. a zero-sum situation like UC admissions, there are winners and losers. Unfortunately no journalist is going to write an article about the winner in this situation, even it he or she could be clearly identified.
Posted by: Mitchell Young | June 13, 2008 at 08:19 AM
I spent a lot of money educating this kid K-12, I want returns. He should be working in the states, keeping social security afloat for me instead of enriching some other country's economy. That's the least he could do.
Posted by: AB | June 20, 2008 at 01:20 AM