It was this fear that was the chief subject of a vigil in Chelsea, Massachusetts, organized primarily by Chelsea Collaborative, Roca, and Centro Presente.
I was a horrible journalist that day. The pictures I took were bad, and my camera ended up running out of battery. I also didn't interview anyone, or take down any names. I just ended up soaking the entire scene in.
Towards the end of the vigil, three migrant mothers, who are staying in the U.S. illegally, choked out stories through tears about how they struggle to provide for their U.S. citizen children. One mother even had her baby ripped out of her arms by ICE when she was in a pharmacy. There are very few crimes that I can think of that are greater than ripping a baby from a mother's arms. The pain involved in ripping to shreds the age old bond between a mother in child is immeasurable but it happens with regularity during immigration raids.
In an raid that has now become famous, hundreds of children were separated from hundreds of mothers in New Bedford, Massachusetts.
You see, from the plain of a moral relativist I guess I can understand on a theoretical level the hate towards migrants that make the “choice” to come to the United States, but the hate for their children? That I can't understand. Even if parents are responsible for having put their children in a bad position, it still doesn't make sense to take out the unmerciful hate on migrant children.
There's no question that the human rights of these children are being violated. Still, in case there is any question here is a passage from the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of the Child.
It continues to startle me how “amnesty”, or forgiveness and mercy, has become a bad word in the U.S. migration debate. Who is more deserving of mercy than children who were not responsible for their actions and have known nothing else than the United States?
This as foes are lining up to oppose the DREAM Act because its a “partial amnesty”, According to the Miami Herald.
Anti-migrant advocates are free to tear down this post as another example of my emotional rather than logical appeals, but I couldn't help it with this post. I was going to try and tie this back to my post on Maxsuel Medieros, but these were the emotions I was overwhelmed with at this vigil. I left this vigil with an emotional dread that I'm trying to convey in this post. The sacred bond between a mother and her child is being violated repeatedly and without outrage in the U.S.
Even if my words have failed to touch you, as the vigil touched me, I'm going to provide a few routes to action at the end of this post. Latino Pundit has a list of names to call in support of the DREAM Act. You can also join the Facebook Group that has been extremely effective in gaining support for two migrant children, Alex and Juan Gomez. Alex and Juan Gomez have almost single-handedly put the DREAM Act back on the table. Also see this blog I enjoy by an author pushing for the DREAM Act.
Kyle, I am drawn to your posts like a moth to a flame–I'm not sure why. Here are some thoughts:
1. I'm not sure why you have connected support for the DREAM Act, which I support, with opposition to separating mothers who are illegal aliens and children who are U.S. citizens. The DREAM Act is aimed at protecting children who themselves are illegal aliens (e.g., children who accompanied their parents when they illegally entered the country). For instance, the Act would allow states to provide in-state tuition to such children and would allow the children to become permanent residents in many situations. But the Act, as far as I can tell, says nothing about keeping mothers and children together when the mothers are to be deported.
2. To me, at least, it seems a bit unfair to blame the government for separating mothers and children in these circumstances. Suppose a U.S. citizen mother commits a federal crime, and then argues that she should not be imprisoned because imprisonment would separate her from her child. In general, this argument fails, because “such hardship or suffering is of a sort ordinarily incident to incarceration.” Why should the law be different in the immigration context? (As discussed in previous threads, I’m aware that illegal aliens who overstay their visas are not criminals, though those who enter the country illegally are, and I don’t think the point makes a difference here). There may be cases where a criminal defendant might receive a lesser sentence on these grounds, as the sentencing guideline is not absolute, but then, the child of a mother about to be deported can presumably accompany its mother back to her home country, so the power to avoid the harm of separation to the child is really in the mother's hands.
3. In some sense, the problem your post notes is a result of the liberality of American immigration law rather than its restrictiveness. Many countries do not grant citizenship on account of the mere fact of birth within their territories. Just looking at European countries, for example, Andorra, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Israel, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Luembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and the U.K do not always grant citizenship to persons born in their territory. Nor do Australia, China, Israel, Japan, South Korea, or many other less prominent countries. So with a few exceptions (France, for instance, or India), it seems that jus soli is more or less confined to the Americas.
4. I don't think you disagree with this, but just to be clear, the law on this issue is that a U.S. citizen child has no constitutional right to prevent its parent's deportation. You can find the cases collected at Payne-Barahona v. Gonzalez, 474 F.3d 1, 2-3 & n.1 (1st Cir. 2007). While Article 9 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child could be authority for the position that mothers and children should not be separated, the United States has not ratified it, so it does not have the force of law.
TedF
haha. That made me laugh. Maybe it's my melodramatic titles that attract you to my posts.
You've made some valid points, and are more educated about immigration law than most, and I appreciate that.
I did broach two seperate topics here, and if you felt that was innappropriate I apologize. The common thread though is this hate for migrants and their children, which I believe deserve mercy or amnesty more than anyone else.
They are certainly connected. Even children that were born in the U.S. of migrant parents are dehumanized as anchor babies, and many anti-migrant advocates feel they shouldn't be considered citizens.
While you could connect this with a U.S. mother that is guilty of a crime, I don't think that this has ever been done on such a mass scale before. Like I said, hundreds of children were separated from hundreds of parents in New Bedford. When all they were doing is trying to make a better life. If that doesn't bring you to realize immigration law is unjust as it is I don't know what can.
This problem of a hate or indifference towards migrant children is not a result of the liberality of American immigration law, because it doesn't matter. If their parents are migrants, whether they're a citizen or not, they suffer.
Many countries do not grant citizenship on account of the mere fact of birth within their territories. Just looking at European countries, for example, Andorra, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Israel, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Luembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and the U.K do not always grant citizenship to persons born in their territory.
<
p>
and as far as I’m concerned, this poster’s single issue bleating is getting on the edge, not only of annoyance, but also of trollishness. The poster has made his or her point, how much more often does he or she have to try to post the point?
<
p>
Regarding the citizenship issue, I’ll just let you know what my spouse was born in Germany (Munich) to a female German citizen, fathered (we believe) by a DP (German for displaced person during WWII). They emigrated to the US. The father and the child were both considered “stateless,” the mother German, upon entry. Because my spouse was stateless, it was somewhat desirable to have him have a citizenship somewhere. Germany was not an option.
<
p>
A couple of years ago, we inquired about the possibility of having him transfer his citizenship to Germany. Not possible, despite his German ancestry, and despite the fact that he owns residential property well in excess of Euro1,million.
Immigration Orange is about migrant issues. Is there a problem with continuing to post about migrant issues, that's what I blog about.
These are local happenings that I'm posting about. Who else goes out to happenings in communities in Boston and has the time to take pictures and such. Don't call me a troll. This happens to be a major issue.