|
As President Obama prepares to deal with the highly anticipated and long overdue immigration reform legislation, he can look to San Francisco as a model for repealing laws that unfairly persecute undocumented immigrants.
 The San Francisco board of supervisors took the first step in establishing reasonable immigration reform by ending a policy that led to the criminalization of undocumented immigrant youth. By an overwhelming majority, the board took the stance that turning over undocumented immigrants to federal agents when charged with a felony, but not convicted of a crime, was not only unjust but also grossly excessive. The board effectively reinstated San Francisco's Sanctuary City Policy as a place where undocumented immigrant youth do not have to live in fear of deportation.
The past policy, immediately alerting the federal government of the arrest of immigrant status youths, was not only unwarranted, but risked separating children from their families for minor felonies. Once the immigrants catch the attention of the federal government, they will be torn from their families and sent to an immigration detention center across the nation, where they are treated as prisoners, according to supervisor David Campos, who first introduced the resolution to protect undocumented youth. Campos describes a grim scene where undocumented youth are forced to sign waivers denying their right to counsel or representation in court. Without being allowed to talk to their families, these youths could be deported.
According to this rationale, undocumented immigrants were already deemed criminals in the eyes of the government for coming here illegally and are therefore vulnerable to prosecution. What the government fails to realize is that immigrants are not always at fault for entering this country unlawfully - many were forced to become refugees from war-torn countries, searching for a better life. Classifying all undocumented immigrants as ruthless criminals undermines the values on which our country was founded. Our judicial system guarantees innocence until proven guilty.
Although criminal behavior should not be tolerated, there are differences between deporting a convicted drug lord or murderer and deporting a 15-year-old who was caught spray-painting. Children should not be deported for such crimes, let alone be deported without a conviction or even a chance to explain themselves before a jury. It is immoral to deny undocumented immigrant youth their Constitutional right to due process despite their immigrant status since, contrary to arguments put forth denying the undocumented this right, the Supreme Court ruled in the case Plyler v. Doe (1982) that children are entitled to the same rights as citizens regardless of their immigrant status. The board is not experimenting with a new radical policy that contradicts federal law, as the concept was upheld by the Supreme Court and falls in line with existing guidelines.
By advocating policies that do not take moral implications into account, such as their impact over immigrants' lives with immediate deportation, not only does constructive debate over good policies cease, but heated rhetoric is fostered that discourages undocumented immigrants from speaking to the government, even when it is necessary to testify in criminal cases. It does our country no good to have anti-immigrant forces advocating hatred and intolerance. Although undocumented immigrants should be held accountable for entering this country unlawfully, they should be treated in a way that is both humane and just. The board of supervisors were right to give youth their chance in court, and the rest of the nation should follow suit in establishing sensible immigration reform that guarantees rights to all.
|
