Imagine if you were born overseas but grew up in America. After graduating from college, you start looking for a job. There’s just one problem; you do not have legal residency. As a result, the US government sends you back to your home country, a place you might not even remember. To many people, this would seem like a nightmare scenario.
Reason magazine has a recent article discussing this issue:
In 2008, Taroll arrived in the U.S. as a 10-year-old with his father, younger brother, and Preth, his mother, who had secured a job in the States at a tech company on an H-1B visa. He subsequently became a “Documented Dreamer”: the same moniker given to DACA recipients, except with a twist. Core to being a “Dreamer” under DACA’s purview is that they are undocumented, so Taroll didn’t qualify for the protection provided by the program—not in spite of coming to the U.S. legally, but because of it.
To benefit from the “Dreamer” program it is essential that your parents arrived in the US without permission. The children of legal immigrants do not qualify. Some are eventually able to obtain green cards, but the line is so long that many “age out” before they are able to achieve legal residency. At that point they must leave the country:
So last month, Taroll was forced to self-deport to Taiwan, where his employer was able to secure him a spot. He does not know the language nor does he have any family ties to the country. “I grew up in my hometown of Boston as just a regular kid, never imagining that my status would define my decisions later in life,” he tells me. “And like many Documented Dreamers, we only truly understood the ramifications once we get closer to aging out and have to start planning for ways to remain in the only country that we know as home.”
Immigration is a contentious political issue in America. And yet it seems implausible that many politicians on either side of the debate would knowingly support giving Dreamer status to only those children whose parents arrived in America illegally. One way to ascertain the views of policymakers is to look at what happened when this quirk in the law was brought to the attention of legislators. Is this what they intended? Here’s Reason:
Some lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have tried to answer that question. In 2021, Rep. Deborah Ross (D–N.C.) introduced a bill in the House to effectively close the Documented Dreamer loophole and pave a pathway for citizenship. . . . A version of that bill passed the House as an amendment in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). And then it was laid to rest in the Senate’s legislative graveyard after Sen. Charles Grassley (R–Iowa) rebuffed the proposal.
READER COMMENTS
Peter
Jul 13 2024 at 3:12pm
Or let’s talk the more common case rather than the “cool” agenda one, the children of overseas government employees. Does anyone really expect Japan to grant permanent residency to the kid of a US military civil servant who spends his career in Japan hence his kid grows up there? Does anyone really think the US should grant a permanent visa to the kids of every foreign single embassy/consulate employees in America simply by virtue their parents chose to work here? Does anyone legitimately think Monaco will reciprocate?
Just because your parents raised you in a foreign country doesn’t give you any magically claim of residency or citizenship. I spent some years working in Qatar, want to guess the pathway to citizenship options my kid that was with me there has to becoming Qatari.
The thing that bothers me with these convos is the American centric focus [1], do libertarian economists not exist anywhere else in the English speaking world and how does the UK for example handle this or our new darling Milei (whom btw just publicly took the excellent NAP position of his right to reclaim the Falklands via force).
Scott Sumner
Jul 13 2024 at 9:59pm
“Does anyone really expect Japan to grant permanent residency . . . ”
I think you are confused. I was discussing the US policy on immigration, not Japan’s policy. Please reread the post.
Jon Murphy
Jul 14 2024 at 7:23am
Diplomatic families are a whole different matter. They’re subject to different laws; diplomats nor their children are considered immigrants.
I would. That is Japanese law. A child born in Japan to foreign diplomats or other civil servants may apply for permanent residence. Just like in the US, they are not citizens, but they are able to apply for permanent residence.
A (very quick) Google search suggests this to be the case in many nations worldwide.
Peter
Jul 14 2024 at 11:08am
Born in isn’t the case here as many (most?) nations have birthright citizenship or residency rules on the books, we are talking brought in. I am absolutely certain Japan isn’t going to give Muhammed, son of the Afghani janitor working in the Afghanistan embassy in Tokyo for the past five years, a Japanese permanent visa on his eighteenth birthday because he developed a panache for hentai.
I don’t disagree with your point about how diplomatic staff is treated legally but if you just stick to Scott’s opening paragraph, that distinction doesn’t matter. Just because your parents worked as non-immigrant temporary resident, that doesn’t grant YOU some magical claim to residency if you weren’t born there. This is nothing new, as a former expat myself we are all aware and told all the time by our host nations that our minor children will be kicked out at some point shortly after reaching the age of majority, that how’s life works everywhere in the world including America. Nor is South Korea going to grant citizenship to it’s Filipino “dreamers” when caught. Want to guess the birthright citizenship claims Sri Lankan construction worker kids have in Saudi or the kids of Chinese telecom engineers brought on Chinese government infrastructure expansion aid project in Algeria?
It’s my #1 complaint and always has been on immigration or residency matters, the US getting held to some magic standard which far exceeds even our nominal peers. The US compared to pretty much any other country in the world has one of most liberal and welcoming immigration policies out there especially with regards to illegals.
Sure a case can be made it’s not fair ok, but let’s critique that globally then. Scott’s a Chinaphile, let’s hear his defense of how China handles the children of illegal North Korean immigrants; or Indian ones though given the resounding libertarian silence in the matter across the libertarian thinking world one can only assume they must have an extremely liberal and progressive policy on said matter hence why the US must be uniquely called out globally.
That was the [1] I meant to add which is where are all the other libertarian voices on these matters outside the US in English speaking nations. And it matters because many “libertarian” talking heads espouse globalization and utilitarianism hence where are these same public policy critiques let’s say in Liechtenstein.
Jon Murphy
Jul 14 2024 at 12:29pm
Dude, don’t be gross. And yes, by Japanese law, Muhammed could apply and be granted permanent residency.
I’m sorry. Like Scott said, you’re confused. The US actually has one of the most restrictive immigration policies in the world, especially regarding illegals.
Scott Sumner
Jul 14 2024 at 12:42pm
“Scott’s a Chinaphile”
If you make this sort of ridiculous comment, don’t expect the rest of your comments to be taken seriously. I have been highly critical of the CCP.
Thomas L Hutcheson
Jul 15 2024 at 3:19pm
Whatever Japan or Morocco does, I’d say why the heck NOT let anyone (whos not a certified criminal or deadbeat) stay who wants to stay?
Rodrigo
Jul 13 2024 at 7:22pm
Does this mean that children who come in with parents and eventually overstay their visa do not qualify? Feels unfair. What about the many “parol” people coming in currently? What will happen to them if they decide overstay. Certainly not against them staying as influx of immigrants (parol or no parol) has made it way easier to get nannies and domestic help, so all for all types of imitation!
Craig
Jul 13 2024 at 10:56pm
Concepts exist in criminal law with respect to statute of limitatioms, but there are civil concepts as well including undue delay and laches. Indeed I’d suggest one of the reasons border security is important is precisely because the longer somebody remains in the US illegally the less equitable removal becomes. Indeed, at some point the government loses the power to deport you.
Jon Murphy
Jul 14 2024 at 7:10am
No. There are no statute of limitations on illegal immigration.
It’s unclear how stronger border enforcement would alter this situation (or most illegal immigration). We have the child of someone who came here legally but (like most illegal immigrants) overstayed a visa. Border control did their job: the person’s parents were properly admitted.
Craig
Jul 14 2024 at 7:44pm
I was twiddling my thumbs after having walked 9 miles (23000 steps) in the heat in Orlando so you’ll have to forgive the direction my post took you.
“No. There are no statute of limitations on illegal immigration. ”
Indeed, you are correct. My point is that we have concepts in law that if we applied those concepts to illegal immigration would make deporting illegal immigrants morally wrong. If you’re going to do it, DO IT, don’t try it twenty years later. You are correct it could still happen.
Scott wrote this initially: “Imagine if you were born overseas but grew up in America. After graduating from college, you start looking for a job. There’s just one problem; you do not have legal residency. As a result, the US government sends you back to your home country, a place you might not even remember. To many people, this would seem like a nightmare scenario.’
One case I recall some immigrant from the DR was convicted of some felony and deported back to the DR and he had no living memory of ever having been in the DR at all. I can’t find the link to that case, naturally being convicted of a felony does not make that person the poster child against deporting Dreamers of course, but another point of course that tends to be overlooked is that the circumstances of their immigration, illegal or not, is not something they themselves would be culpable for.
Anonymous
Jul 15 2024 at 11:59am
He left at 10 years old and doesn’t know the language or anyone there?
Jon Murphy
Jul 15 2024 at 12:06pm
Is that so surprising? it was almost 20 years ago.
I mean, I left my hometown 15 years ago when I was 20. I don’t know anyone there anymore (other than my parents). The world moves on without us.
johnson85
Jul 15 2024 at 6:17pm
I know immigrants that still remember their native language after 20 years. I would have thought at ten your first language was pretty cemented. I guess if you just never read in that language again and didn’t speak that language at home, it’s not entirely shocking that you’d forget it after 20 years. Just hard to fathom speaking a native language and just dropping it at ten, at least with native speakers in the household. I guess it would be less surprising if they were living with adopted parents that don’t speak the language.
I think the real issue is that we can’t modify our system to work reasonably efficiently for the “easy” immigration cases because we have a very strong political bloc that either wants illegal immigration to be easy because it tamps down wages or they just want open borders or something close to it for ideological reasons and and they view having a functioning immigration system that prioritizes immigration seen as more desirable or sympathetic as a threat to that.
Mark
Jul 17 2024 at 12:30am
If someone believes illegal immigration is generally wrong (a position you may dispute, but I don’t think that’s what’s at issue in this post), then scenarios like this mainly just shift the blame to the parents. Yes, one may concede it’d be unfair to send children brought here before they could even consent to immigrate back to the country they were born in, but then their parents are basically exploiting their parental status. The logical thing to do would be to allow the children to stay but penalize the parents for imposing the situation on their children. A compromise position might be to levy hefty fines on parents who immigrate illegally with children while allowing the children to stay.
Jon
Jul 17 2024 at 2:28pm
The immigration rules are complex and full of corner-cases.
We had a building engineer who had his employment authorization documents under DACA. He got married to a US citizen spouse and applied for a green card by marriage. While his green card application was pending, his employment authorization document expired. His renewal of the EAD under DACA would have gone through timely except that his application to do so was suspended pending resolution of his green card application.
He became unemployed for three months between when the EAD expired and the government finally moved issue a work authorization under the pending Green Card application.
Comments are closed.