Immigration Law, Compassion, And Conflicts

Immigration Law, Compassion, and Conflicts

Issues Faced by Christians who have a duty to help others and, at the same,

obey the law.

PART I: SETTING THE STAGE

First Christian Principle

• As Christians, we are commanded to be compassionate. Matthew 25:42-4542 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’

Second Christian Principle

• As Christians, we obey authority unless it conflicts directly with God. Titus 3:1

Remind the people to be subject to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready to do whatever is good, 2 to slander no one, to be peaceable and considerate, and always to be gentle toward everyone.

Constitutional Principle on Immigration

Angel Island, CA: The West Coast’s Ellis Island

Constitutional Principle on Immigration

The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882

A fear behind the act was an undermining of US Labor

Sound familiar?

Chinese Exclusion Act is the starting point for today’s issues.

• Most scholars agree that the courts first viewed powers as being limited by the Constitution's enumerated powers and the “necessary and proper” clause.

• The Court, however, faced problems with the Chinese Exclusion Act and Chae Chan Ping.– Was allowed to be in the US and returned to China for a visit in 1887.– Was denied entry in 1888 due the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882

being updated by the Scott Act of 1888 that prohibited reentry of Chinese.

– But treaties with China guaranteed the right of reentry.– Supreme Ct. Exclusion powers incident to sovereign powers

delegated by the Constitution. Gov. wins.

New Principle: Limited gov. applies to domestic arena and law of nations applies to foreign affairs

• The control of local matters being left to local authorities, and national matters being intrusted to the government of the Union, the problem of free institutions existing over a widely extended country, having different climates and varied interests, has been happily solved. For local interests the several states of the Union exist, but for national purposes, embracing our relations with foreign nations, we are but one people, one nation, one power. --J. Field

• If, therefore, the government of the United States, through its legislative department, considers the presence of foreigners of a different race in this country, who will not assimilate with us, to be dangerous to its peace and security, their exclusion is not to be stayed because at the time there are no actual hostilities with the nation of which the foreigners are subjects. --J. Field

The Justification: Fear

Fong Yue Ting case applied plenary power to the deportation context.

But a voice from the past rang from the dissent by J. Gray.• It is said that the power here asserted is inherent in sovereignty. This doctrine of powers

inherent in sovereignty is one both indefinite and dangerous. Where are the limits to such powers to be found, and by whom are they to be pronounced? Is it within legislative capacity to declare the limits? If so, then the mere assertion of an inherent power creates it, and despotism exists. May the courts establish the boundaries? Whence do they obtain the authority for this? Shall they took to the practices of other nations to ascertain the limits? The governments of other nations have elastic powers. Ours are fixed and bounded by a written constitution. The expulsion of a race may be within the inherent powers of a despotism. History, before the adoption of this constitution, was not destitute of examples of the exercise of such a power; and its framers were familiar with history, and wisely, and it seems to me, they gave to this government no general power to banish. Banishment may be resorted to as punishment for crime; but among the powers reserved to the people, and not delegated to the government, is that of determining whether whole classes in our midst shall, for no crime but that of their race and birthplace, be driven from our territory.

• Now, the power to remove resident aliens is, confessedly, not expressed. Even if it be among the powers implied, yet still it can be exercised only in subordination to the limitations and restrictions imposed by the constitution.

Little has changed

• Eventually, the Supreme Court ruled that for an alien in the US, procedural due process applies.

• But the plenary power doctrine is still good law today. – Immigration Court is under the DOJ. (President)– USCIS is under Dept. of Homeland Security (President)– National security still trumps.– ICE will transport detainees far from counsel without

notice.

Suggestions on how to deal with conflicts within the local community

• Our Constitution has a path of non-violent resistance built into it. Work through the legislators.

• Work with local legal advocacy groups: trend in courts is to use statutory interpretation principles to achieve fair results.

• But what about immediate needs? Any ideas?

We must move forward with an eye on the past.

Are “securing borders” another Chinese wall directed to another race out of the same fears?