Whose Fault is it?
On April 4, 2012, I had occasion to read an article in that day’s Miami Herald written by Ms. Fabiola Santiago. Ms. Santiago is a featured columnist for the newspaper and often addresses immigration issues—an important issue for many in the South Florida community of immigrants.
In her article, which told the story of a young man from Mexico whose family overstayed their tourist visa sixteen years ago, Ms. Santiago made several assertions, starting with this opening paragraph: “Once again, a Florida institution goes out of its way to punish a meritorious immigrant for having parents who overstayed a tourist visa to give their son the opportunity to be an American.”
Since I have had the “benefit” of reading previous articles by Ms. Santiago, this opening shot immediately set my teeth on edge. The woman has a habit of hurling accusations against any institution that finds itself in the unenviable position of having to uphold our immigration laws. She is particularly exercised by the plight of young people who are illegally here as a result of their parents actions. However, she reserves her ire for the institutions that are blocking the young person’s (often admirable) dreams for reasons having to do with their undocumented status and never condemns the actual responsible party, the kid’s parents!
Having read one too many of her diatribes, and having some time on my hands, I took a few minutes and wrote a personal email to Ms. Santiago. Some twenty-four hours later, I have not received a reply, nor do I expect to receive one. When I told my co-publisher, Mark Magula, about the email, he suggested that I provide it for our reader’s edification. The text of the email follows:
Ms. Santiago:
As always, you start your column with an accusation that an institution "goes out of its way to punish a meritorious immigrant." While I read the rest of your article, I already was lost to you by this statement. The Florida Board of Bar Examiners did not go out of its way to punish Mr. Godinez-Sampeiro, they merely upheld existing law. If the Bar doesn't uphold the law, who, pray tell, will?
Mr. Godinez-Sampeiro sounds like a wonderful young man. However, his parents, not so much. They are the ones who put him in this position, not the Florida Board of Bar Examiners, and the fact that a doctor and a dentist worked menial jobs to stay here is irrelevant to the situation—other than showing your effort to make an emotional appeal to ignore their culpability in this matter. His parents could have, at any time, returned to Mexico and taken up their professions once again. They CHOSE not to do so. Your emotional appeal probably makes you feel better about yourself, but it betrays a not-very-clear thought process. Further, your obvious sympathy for immigrants of any sort calls into question your value as a spokesperson for immigration reform.
As it happens, I am an advocate of immigration, having hired a number of young people who, without a job, would have been sent back from whence they came. I had to sell my employer, based in the heartland of Pennsylvania, on the wisdom of this move and then had to fight further to get them to support the immigrant employee's efforts to get a green card. I take a great deal of satisfaction in this accomplishment. The people whom I employed have become great American residents and, I hope, will one day become great American citizens.
So, having established my bona fides, I would suggest that you re-think your position and come up with a more palatable suggestion than simply calling for local representatives to defy the will of the people and subvert our laws on behalf of those you've deemed worthy of special treatment
Three questions:
1. How does breaking our country's laws make Mr. Godinez-Sampeiro worthy of becoming a member of the Bar? (Yes, I realize that I am handing you an incredibly rich straightline for any number of lawyer jokes!) Note that admitting you are breaking our laws, however honorable you believe that admission to be, does not, somehow, make you immune to the force of those laws.
2. Since it is your position that Mr. Godinez-Sampeiro had no choice in coming here and overstaying his tourist visa, a position that I agree with when he was nine but not so much when he is 25, would you be in favor of shipping his parents back to Mexico as a condition of granting him the dispensation from our laws that you seek? After all, it was their fault that he finds himself in this predicament.
3. If you don't agree with returning his parents to Mexico, why not? If you say that it breaks up the family, then Mr. Godinez-Sampeiro can go with them and they can remain together, legally, in the nation of their birth. Mr. Godinez-Sampeiro can then petition INS for a legal entry into this country. Yes, I know that is extremely difficult, given the idiotic immigration laws now in force, but that is the same set of laws others play by. Why should Mr. Godinez-Sampeiro expect special treatment?
Given your emotional approach to this issue, I assume that I already know your response to these questions. However, I remain ever hopeful that you might surprise me with a rational defense of your position.
I should also say that I mean no offense with these statements. I am simply tired of poor arguments being presented as if they had substance. You are an intelligent woman and can do better. Here's a rule of thumb to help you: whenever you feel the need to make a "but it's for the children" argument, stop, develop an actual rational defense of your position, and then proceed on. You will be surprised at how effective that can be in changing hearts and minds. Who knows? With your position at a prominent newspaper, you might even sway lawmakers into taking on the political minefield of immigration reform, and that would be a great thing.
Thanks,
Thomas A. Hall
In her article, which told the story of a young man from Mexico whose family overstayed their tourist visa sixteen years ago, Ms. Santiago made several assertions, starting with this opening paragraph: “Once again, a Florida institution goes out of its way to punish a meritorious immigrant for having parents who overstayed a tourist visa to give their son the opportunity to be an American.”
Since I have had the “benefit” of reading previous articles by Ms. Santiago, this opening shot immediately set my teeth on edge. The woman has a habit of hurling accusations against any institution that finds itself in the unenviable position of having to uphold our immigration laws. She is particularly exercised by the plight of young people who are illegally here as a result of their parents actions. However, she reserves her ire for the institutions that are blocking the young person’s (often admirable) dreams for reasons having to do with their undocumented status and never condemns the actual responsible party, the kid’s parents!
Having read one too many of her diatribes, and having some time on my hands, I took a few minutes and wrote a personal email to Ms. Santiago. Some twenty-four hours later, I have not received a reply, nor do I expect to receive one. When I told my co-publisher, Mark Magula, about the email, he suggested that I provide it for our reader’s edification. The text of the email follows:
Ms. Santiago:
As always, you start your column with an accusation that an institution "goes out of its way to punish a meritorious immigrant." While I read the rest of your article, I already was lost to you by this statement. The Florida Board of Bar Examiners did not go out of its way to punish Mr. Godinez-Sampeiro, they merely upheld existing law. If the Bar doesn't uphold the law, who, pray tell, will?
Mr. Godinez-Sampeiro sounds like a wonderful young man. However, his parents, not so much. They are the ones who put him in this position, not the Florida Board of Bar Examiners, and the fact that a doctor and a dentist worked menial jobs to stay here is irrelevant to the situation—other than showing your effort to make an emotional appeal to ignore their culpability in this matter. His parents could have, at any time, returned to Mexico and taken up their professions once again. They CHOSE not to do so. Your emotional appeal probably makes you feel better about yourself, but it betrays a not-very-clear thought process. Further, your obvious sympathy for immigrants of any sort calls into question your value as a spokesperson for immigration reform.
As it happens, I am an advocate of immigration, having hired a number of young people who, without a job, would have been sent back from whence they came. I had to sell my employer, based in the heartland of Pennsylvania, on the wisdom of this move and then had to fight further to get them to support the immigrant employee's efforts to get a green card. I take a great deal of satisfaction in this accomplishment. The people whom I employed have become great American residents and, I hope, will one day become great American citizens.
So, having established my bona fides, I would suggest that you re-think your position and come up with a more palatable suggestion than simply calling for local representatives to defy the will of the people and subvert our laws on behalf of those you've deemed worthy of special treatment
Three questions:
1. How does breaking our country's laws make Mr. Godinez-Sampeiro worthy of becoming a member of the Bar? (Yes, I realize that I am handing you an incredibly rich straightline for any number of lawyer jokes!) Note that admitting you are breaking our laws, however honorable you believe that admission to be, does not, somehow, make you immune to the force of those laws.
2. Since it is your position that Mr. Godinez-Sampeiro had no choice in coming here and overstaying his tourist visa, a position that I agree with when he was nine but not so much when he is 25, would you be in favor of shipping his parents back to Mexico as a condition of granting him the dispensation from our laws that you seek? After all, it was their fault that he finds himself in this predicament.
3. If you don't agree with returning his parents to Mexico, why not? If you say that it breaks up the family, then Mr. Godinez-Sampeiro can go with them and they can remain together, legally, in the nation of their birth. Mr. Godinez-Sampeiro can then petition INS for a legal entry into this country. Yes, I know that is extremely difficult, given the idiotic immigration laws now in force, but that is the same set of laws others play by. Why should Mr. Godinez-Sampeiro expect special treatment?
Given your emotional approach to this issue, I assume that I already know your response to these questions. However, I remain ever hopeful that you might surprise me with a rational defense of your position.
I should also say that I mean no offense with these statements. I am simply tired of poor arguments being presented as if they had substance. You are an intelligent woman and can do better. Here's a rule of thumb to help you: whenever you feel the need to make a "but it's for the children" argument, stop, develop an actual rational defense of your position, and then proceed on. You will be surprised at how effective that can be in changing hearts and minds. Who knows? With your position at a prominent newspaper, you might even sway lawmakers into taking on the political minefield of immigration reform, and that would be a great thing.
Thanks,
Thomas A. Hall
So, dear readers, my plea for a rational argument goes, I suppose, unheeded by Ms. Santiago.
Let me note that, in the interest of not being too much of a bore, I neglected to point out several more glaring issues arising from her article and let me say to you all, our country’s immigration laws are, in fact, lacking. Because of my involvement with young engineers from all over the world who worked for me, I have seen the anxiety and confusion caused by the capricious nature of our laws. Even when everything is done by the book, it is easy to find instances where thousands of dollars worth of effort in filing documents, obtaining necessary signatures, etc. is simply lost by some bureaucrat at the INS. Even if that bureaucrat was to actually break the institutional tradition, own up to their error, and apologize (something I’ve never seen happen), the affected applicant may have their immigration status put in jeopardy and, of course, have to spend more money getting things set right. On top of that, the byzantine rules of the immigration process introduce all manner of inequities into the system.
Had Ms. Santiago addressed these failings of the current system, with supporting data, or had she acknowledged the illegality of the parents in disobeying our laws, her work would have been of a constructive nature. However, to simply attack those institutions that are charged with maintaining our system of laws for doing their job is indefensible
Thomas A. Hall
Let me note that, in the interest of not being too much of a bore, I neglected to point out several more glaring issues arising from her article and let me say to you all, our country’s immigration laws are, in fact, lacking. Because of my involvement with young engineers from all over the world who worked for me, I have seen the anxiety and confusion caused by the capricious nature of our laws. Even when everything is done by the book, it is easy to find instances where thousands of dollars worth of effort in filing documents, obtaining necessary signatures, etc. is simply lost by some bureaucrat at the INS. Even if that bureaucrat was to actually break the institutional tradition, own up to their error, and apologize (something I’ve never seen happen), the affected applicant may have their immigration status put in jeopardy and, of course, have to spend more money getting things set right. On top of that, the byzantine rules of the immigration process introduce all manner of inequities into the system.
Had Ms. Santiago addressed these failings of the current system, with supporting data, or had she acknowledged the illegality of the parents in disobeying our laws, her work would have been of a constructive nature. However, to simply attack those institutions that are charged with maintaining our system of laws for doing their job is indefensible
Thomas A. Hall