Dear Editor:
Ali's letter seems to lump TPS and 245(i) in with general amnesty laws. But I wanted to clarify that TPS, Temporary Protected Status, is for people who are here in the US and are from a country that has been devastated by some event that is so extreme it would be inhumane to send them back at this time. Ali seems to think this is a bad thing. I have no idea why.
Some people seem to advocate respect for the law at all costs but perhaps since they are not immigration practitioners they are unaware that the law isn't a black & white as they seem to think. First, as SJD pointed out in her letter, 245 (i) is a law that is passed by Congress and needs to be respected as such, does it not? I wanted to give another example of an immigration law that should be respected. There is something called cancellation of removal. It basically says that if you are put into removal proceedings (deportation) and you have been here 10 years, and have immediate family here, that would be hurt by your deportation, the immigration judge has the discretion to let you stay. Who decides which section of immigration law has greater weight? What is more important, the initial immigration violation or what that individual has done since then? Cleary Congress has decided to allow that person, who has developed significant ties to the US, to stay here, regardless of the initial immigration violation. That law should be respected as well.
Justin Randolph
Chicago, IL
Copyright © 1999-2002 American Immigration LLC, ILW.COM
|
Add to del.icio.us