By: Daniel Nardini
On March 4th, a new set of rules in the immigration law will go into effect. Under executive order from U.S. President Barack Obama, those undocumented immigrant spouses married to a U.S. citizen will be allowed to stay in the country and have their paperwork processed for possible legal permanent residency. Such undocumented spouses must produce evidence that their removal and deportation will cause “serious harm” to their U.S. citizen spouses and their American-born children. Further, these undocumented spouses must also show that their removal will create great hardship for their U.S. citizen spouses if they are sick and unable to work or if these undocumented spouses are caring for their U.S. citizen spouses.
These changes in the law are necessary and long overdue. For years, I have written too many stories of those undocumented, married to U.S. citizens, who had been removed and deported from this country because their immigration status was set in stone. I have read too many heart-wrenching stories of those who tried to legalize their status, only to be denied and forced or forcibly removed from this country and from their children and spouses. I always ask where is the justice in that? Of course, the anti-immigration people have always said that “this is the law.” Is a law that exists truly a just law for being on the books? If this logic were to be followed, then why should we have ever protested the barrio laws in the U.S. southwest for barring Mexican Americans from attending the same schools, traveling on the same public buses, or being buried in the same graveyards as non-Hispanic whites?
Not all laws that are in the books are right or just—they got there because there was no opposition and no careful thought put into them. Now I should explain that this executive order may or may not stand depending if comprehensive immigration reform is carried out. We must remember that the U.S. House of Representatives has yet to approve any immigration reform package approved by the U.S. Senate and by Obama. This is still a long-shot. But I will say that this change in the law will be a God-send for millions of American families who rightfully fear they might be torn apart by a largely antiquated and unworkable immigration system. Does it make sense to pull whole families apart on a technicality? I hope at the very least that this change in the law is allowed to stand.
Keeping Families Together
By: Daniel Nardini
These changes in the law are necessary and long overdue. For years, I have written too many stories of those undocumented, married to U.S. citizens, who had been removed and deported from this country because their immigration status was set in stone. I have read too many heart-wrenching stories of those who tried to legalize their status, only to be denied and forced or forcibly removed from this country and from their children and spouses. I always ask where is the justice in that? Of course, the anti-immigration people have always said that “this is the law.” Is a law that exists truly a just law for being on the books? If this logic were to be followed, then why should we have ever protested the barrio laws in the U.S. southwest for barring Mexican Americans from attending the same schools, traveling on the same public buses, or being buried in the same graveyards as non-Hispanic whites?
Not all laws that are in the books are right or just—they got there because there was no opposition and no careful thought put into them. Now I should explain that this executive order may or may not stand depending if comprehensive immigration reform is carried out. We must remember that the U.S. House of Representatives has yet to approve any immigration reform package approved by the U.S. Senate and by Obama. This is still a long-shot. But I will say that this change in the law will be a God-send for millions of American families who rightfully fear they might be torn apart by a largely antiquated and unworkable immigration system. Does it make sense to pull whole families apart on a technicality? I hope at the very least that this change in the law is allowed to stand.