Tag Archive for: Plyler v. Doe

Cyrus Mehta

The False Distinction Between Legal and Undocumented Immigrants in the Debate on Birthright Citizenship

/0 Comments/in /by

By Cyrus D. Mehta and Kaitlyn Box*

Donald Trump’s executive order restricting birthright citizenship, which we analyzed in a previous blog, has now been temporarily enjoined and is the subject of multiple lawsuits. The executive order has also brought to light the false dichotomy between “legal” and “undocumented” immigrants, obscuring the nuance of U.S. immigration laws. [Although the Trump administration has replaced references to undocumented individuals with the term “illegal”, we use “undocumented” here to refer to individuals who currently have no legal immigration status in the U.S.]

“Legal” and “undocumented” immigrants alike are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States pursuant to the 14th Amendment. The concept of jus soli, enshrined in the 14th Amendment, has long guaranteed children born in the U.S. the right to U.S. citizenship, regardless of the immigration status of their parents. The Trump administration is incorrectly asserting in its executive order that the 14th Amendment was never intended to confer birthright citizenship to parents who are not lawfully in the US or to parents who may be lawfully in the US but on temporary visas. Many people participating  in the debate on social media feel that birthright citizenship should only be conferred by parents who are legally in the US, and if a tweak has to be made in Trump’s executive order, it should only remove the restrictions on parents who are legally in the US but on temporary visas. The executive order is unconstitutional in its entirety and should be struck down.

This distinction between “legal” and “undocumented” immigrants is an overly simplistic, and often false, one.  A noncitizen who entered the U.S. with a valid visa can easily fall out of status, while a path to U.S. citizenship may eventually become available to an individual who was previously undocumented. Indeed,   legal and “undocumented” immigration are points on a continuum rather than discrete concepts. An entirely undocumented individual who is placed in removal proceedings can seek cancellation of removal and become a permanent resident. Similarly, an individual who entered the U.S. on a nonimmigrant visa and overstayed it for many years could meet and marry a U.S. citizen spouse, thus becoming eligible to apply for permanent residence. At times, Congress bestows such permanent residency to previously-undocumented individuals through section 245(i) or the LIFE Act.

Moreover, one thinks of an undocumented immigrant as a person who entered the United States without inspection or who came to the US legally on a visa and overstayed. However, the term is broader to encompass persons who were previously unauthorized and who have been authorized to stay such as recipients of the Deferred Action of Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, applicants for Temporary Protected Status (TPS),  those who have pending asylum applications and applications for other relief such as under the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) or crime victim U visas. There are also those who are on supervised release or who have obtained stays of removal and eligible for employment authorization year after year.

In 1982 in Plyler v. Doe, 457 US 202 (1982), a landmark Supreme Court case which held children could not be deprived of a public education on the basis of their immigration status, the Court eloquently explained that an individual’s undocumented status is often temporary, stating:

To be sure, like all persons who have entered the United States unlawfully, these children are subject to deportation. But there is no assurance that a child subject to deportation will ever be deported. An illegal entrant might be granted federal permission to continue to reside in the country, or even become a citizen.

The Court affirmed that an undocumented individual living in the United States “is surely ‘a person’ in any ordinary sense of that term,” “[w]hatever his status under the immigration laws.” Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 210 (1982).

Moreover, some individuals who do currently have a lawful status may nonetheless be authorized to remain in the U.S., as we highlighted in another prior blog. An asylum applicant is authorized to remain in the U.S. and apply for employment authorization 150 days after filing the asylum application even though he has not yet been granted asylum and would not qualify as an asylee under 8 CFR 245.1(d)(1)(iii). Similarly, an individual who has filed an I-485 application to adjust status is authorized to remain in the U.S. even if she does not have a valid, underlying nonimmigrant status. An individual in removal proceedings is authorized to remain in the U.S. and seek relief until the conclusion of the proceedings. Even a noncitizen who has been ordered removed but filed petition for review in circuit court can apply for work authorization and continue to reside in the U.S. during the pendency of the appeal.

In Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387 (2012), the Supreme Court emphasized the importance of discretion in removal proceedings, explaining that it is not always appropriate to place even an entirely undocumented individual in removal proceedings:

Congress has specified which aliens may be removed from the United States and the procedures for doing so. Aliens may be removed if they were inadmissible at the time of entry, have been convicted of certain crimes, or meet other criteria set by federal law. See §1227…A principal feature of the removal system is the broad discretion exercised by immigration officials…Federal officials, as an initial matter, must decide whether it makes sense to pursue removal at all…

Discretion in the enforcement of immigration law embraces immediate human concerns. Unauthorized workers trying to support their families, for example, likely pose less danger than alien smugglers or aliens who commit a serious crime. The equities of an individual case may turn on many factors, including whether the alien has children born in the United States, long ties to the community, or a record of distinguished military service. Some discretionary decisions involve policy choices that bear on this Nation’s international relations. Returning an alien to his own country may be deemed inappropriate even where he has committed a removable offense or fails to meet the criteria for admission. The foreign state may be mired in civil war, complicit in political persecution, or enduring conditions that create a real risk that the alien or his family will be harmed upon return. The dynamic nature of relations with other countries requires the Executive Branch to ensure that enforcement policies are consistent with this Nation’s foreign policy with respect to these and other realities.

Drawing a distinction between those on temporary visas and those who are lawful permanent residents also ignores the practical reality that many nonimmigrants are “Americans in waiting”. A nonimmigrant in H-1B status has a clear path to becoming a permanent resident, and eventually a U.S. citizen, through sponsorship by an employer but has to wait for many decades due to backlogs in their green card category. DACA recipients who have lived almost their entire lives in the U.S. may have few ties to any other country and could become lawful permanent residents through marriage to a U.S. citizen or LPR spouse, or through an employment-based category.

On the other hand, a noncitizen who comes to the United States with a valid visa may not could later overstay their visa, thus becoming “undocumented”. Violations of a nonimmigrant visa also render a noncitizen’s immigration status ambiguous. An H-1B worker who works from home and moves across the country before an amended H-1B petition is filed, for example, could technically be in violation of his status.

According to Professor Gerald Neuman, “[T]he framers of the Fourteenth Amendment had strong reason from desiring a constitutional settlement of the issue of birthright citizenship. They had just overthrown a system founded on denial of political membership in the country to a hereditary category of inhabitants. The Citizenship Clause was designed to prevent the situation from happening again…[T]he supporters of the Citizenship Clause expressly confirmed their intent to protect the children of Chinese parents by recognizing them as citizens.” See Statement of Prof. Gerald E. Neuman, Societal and Legal Issues Surrounding Children Born in the United States to Illegal Alien Parents: Joint Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Immigration & Claims and the Subcomm. on the Constitution of the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 104th Cong. (1995).

The only exceptions were children born to diplomats of foreign nations who were not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States as well as children born to parents accompanying an invading army that temporarily ousted the operation of local law. The framers also excluded children born within Native American tribes  because they owed allegiance to their tribal nations rather than the United States, but this preclusion was  eventually eliminated by the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924.

On the other hand, undocumented parents are clearly subject to prosecution in the United States as well as temporary noncitizens. They can also hardly be considered to be part of an invading army that has ousted the local operation of law. Even the argument that undocumented parents and nonimmigrants owe their allegiance to a foreign government rather than to the U.S. government is spurious. Temporary residents in nonimmigrant status can remain in the U.S. for many years as they wait for permanent residence. They could owe allegiance to the U.S. government and so could an undocumented immigrant just as a U.S. citizen would. Lawful permanent residents, who are not U.S. citizens,  could owe their allegiance to the U.S. government but also to a foreign government without risking losing that status.   U.S. citizens may also be citizens of other countries and may owe their allegiance to a foreign government, the U.S. government, or both, but both U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents  qualify under Trump’s executive order to confer birthright citizenship to their children born in the U.S.

In  United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), the Supreme Court extended the Fourteenth Amendment to an individual who was born to parents of Chinese descent and during a time when Chinese nationals were subjected to the Chinese exclusion laws. The principle established in Wong Kim Ark applies with equal vigor today. Excluding an allegedly undocumented parent who has been a DACA recipient since 2012  from conferring birthright citizenship to their child would make no sense. It would also make no sense to deem a parent who was in technical violation of their H-1B status as undocumented at the time of the birth to her child. It would also be unfair to deprive a parent in lawful H-1B status who has been waiting for their green card for over a decade from conferring birthright citizenship to their child. The Supreme Court’s hallowed ruling on birthright citizenship established well over 125 years back  a fundamental American value that all people born in the United States are equal at birth, regardless of their race, religion, or the immigration or financial status of their parents.

 

*Kaitlyn Box is a Partner at Cyrus D. Mehta & Partners PLLC.

 

 

Cyrus Mehta

Impact of the Overturning of Roe v. Wade on Immigrants

/0 Comments/in /by

By Cyrus D. Mehta, Kaitlyn Box*, and Jessica Paszko**

On June 24, 2022, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, overturning the landmark decision Roe v. Wade, and holding that there is no constitutional right to an abortion. Justice Alito, writing for the majority, first held that abortion is not implicitly protected by any constitutional provision, including the Due Process Clause. The opinion further states that although the Due Process Clause protects some rights that are not specifically enumerated in the Constitution, those rights must be “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition” and “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.” Because abortion was not a recognized legal right until the latter half of the 20th century, according to the majority, and was until then often punishable as a criminal offense, the court reasons that it cannot fall into the category of activities protected by the Due Process Clause. The opinion also addresses whether the right to obtain an abortion “part of a broader entrenched right that is supported by other precedents”. The Court concludes that overturning Roe would not upset other precedential decisions that involve fundamental rights not specifically mentioned in the Constitution, like Griswold v. Connecticut (contraception), Obergefell v. Hodges (same-sex marriage), and Lawrence v. Texas (same-sex sexual conduct), because abortion involves a unique moral question not implicated in other cases – the destruction of “potential life”. Finally, the Court held that the doctrine of stare decisis does not require the preservation of Roe because this doctrine is not an “inexorable command” and other landmark Supreme Court cases have overturned prior precedential decisions.

On the other hand, according to one commentator, ending the forced sexual and reproductive servitude of black girls and women who were forcibly brought into the country was a critical part of the passage of the 13th and 14th Amendments, which sought to protect them from forced pregnancies and provide them privacy and freedom. The opinion in Dobbs will likely not be the last word as present and future generations of activists will seek to continue to restore women’s rights to privacy and bodily autonomy.

Until then, the Dobbs decision will have a devastating impact on the countless women in the United States who will no longer have access to safe and legal abortions, and the demise of Roe also carries worrying implications for other precedential Supreme Court decisions, including those that concern the rights of immigrants. Though the majority asserted that overturning Roe would not undermine other decisions involving fundamental rights due to the unique moral question posed by the right to abortion, Justice Thomas in his concurring opinion recommended that “in future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell.

Plyler v. Doe, which held that children of undocumented immigrants have the right to receive a K-12 education in the United States, escaped Justice Thomas’ mention, but has much in common with decisions like Roe and Obergefell. The Court in Plyler stopped short of calling education a “fundamental right”,  focusing instead on the Equal Protection Clause argument that undocumented children would suffer undue hardship due to circumstances outside their control if they were denied access to an education. According to Justice Burger’s dissenting opinion, once the Court established that undocumented children are not a suspect class and that education is not a fundamental right, the Court’s analysis should have considered whether the legislative classification bore a rational relationship to a legitimate state purpose. Under this rational-basis level of scrutiny, Justice Burger opined that it would not be irrational for a state to conclude that it owes a lesser responsibility to undocumented individuals. He further reasoned that because unlawfully present individuals have no right to be here, the state may reasonably, and constitutionally, elect not to provide them with governmental services at the expenses of those who are lawfully in the state. In the final part of his dissent, Justice Burger remarked at how the majority’s opinion effectively set social policy and impermissibly usurped Congress’ policymaking role.

The idea that Plyler could be the next landmark decision that is threatened is not purely speculative. Governor Greg Abbott of Texas has already indicated that he would like to see Plyler to be revisited in the aftermath of Roe’s demise. On the other hand, Abbott’s attempts to get Plyler overruled will not be a slam dunk even under the Supreme Court’s current composition since providing undocumented children access to public education was not based on substantive due process but equal protection.

In addition to leaving open the possibility for other fundamental rights cases to be overturned, the Court’s decision in Dobbs will also have a disproportionately severe impact on certain immigrant women who need access to an abortion. The decision will undoubtedly cause the most harm to the women who have the least financial resources available for reproductive care. According to some sources, immigrant women who seek abortions are often lower-income and less likely to have medical insurance than U.S. citizens who seek the same care. While no states currently have abortion laws in place that attempt to prosecute residents who travel to another state to seek an abortion, a now-blocked Missouri law would have allowed individuals to sue anyone who assisted a woman in crossing state lines to seek an abortion. If similar state laws follow, a criminal conviction of this type could render non-citizens inadmissible to the United States and consequently ineligible for a host of immigration benefits, including visas and permanent residence, as well as leaving individuals vulnerable to being placed in removal proceedings.

Even where traveling across state lines to obtain an abortion does not carry the possibility of criminal convictions, this option will not be available to incarcerated women, including those in immigration detention facilities. Of the thirteen states that have “trigger laws” in place that immediately banned or restricted abortion upon the overturning of Roe, seven, including Idaho, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Wyoming, Kentucky, Arkansas and Mississippi, have some of the country’s highest rates of incarcerated women. Reports of women in immigration detention facilities being denied access to abortions, or receiving delayed or insufficient reproductive care, were already rampant. After the Court’s decision in Dobbs, it is likely that women with the least freedom to seek reproductive care will suffer even more.

 

Cyrus Mehta

The Impossible Feat of Determining Who is an “Illegal Alien” Under Trump’s Unconstitutional Census Executive Order

/0 Comments/in /by

In line with other xenophobic actions too numerous to keep tabs on, President Trump issued a Presidential Memorandum dated July 21, 2020 entitled “Memorandum on Excluding Illegal Aliens From the Apportionment Base Following the 2020 Census.” From the title itself, it is readily obvious that the Trump administration does not intend to count undocumented or unauthorized immigrations in the 2020 census, which it pejoratively refers to as illegal aliens. Who is legal or illegal defies an easy definition. US immigration law is so paradoxical that even if one has been ordered removed, this individual may still be authorized to remain in the US and obtain work authorization.

Not only is this executive order unlawful and completely unconstitutional, but it boggles the mind regarding how the administration will ever be able to determine who is authorized or not in the US in order to be counted in the 2020 census.

It is vitally important to count population numbers to divide up seats in Congress among the states. Excluding undocumented immigrants will result in less seats in Congress for Democratic states. If unauthorized immigrants are left out of the apportionment count, according to the Pew Research Center, California, Florida and Texas are each likely to end up with one less House seat, while Alabama, Minnesota and Ohio are each likely to hold onto a seat they would have otherwise lost after the 2020 Census. Since the first Census of the United States in 1790, counts that include both citizens and noncitizens have been used to apportion seats in the House of Representatives, with states gaining or losing based on population change over the previous decade.

Lawsuits have been filed – here, here and here,  justifiably challenging the exclusion of unauthorized immigrants from the census counts on constitutional and other grounds. The Presidential Memorandum follows the Supreme Court’s decision in New York v. Department of Commerce , 588 U.S. ___ (2019) that held that the Trump’s administration’s prior reasoning to include the citizenship question in the Census was “contrived” and thus arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act (see Can the Arbitrary and Capricious Standard under the Administrative Procedure Act Save DACA). Hopefully, the courts will also smack down this Presidential Memorandum for its blatant disregard of the Constitution’s mandate under the Fourteenth Amendment to count all residents in a state.

Section 2 of the Presidential Memorandum excludes “aliens who are not in a lawful immigration status under the Immigration and Nationality Act.” But this too is broad and vague. One who is in the US in temporary B-2 visitor status for three months is in a lawful immigration status. On the other hand, a person who has resided in the US for a decade and whose  status  expired a long time ago could  be authorized to remain in the US upon filing an I-485 application to adjust status to permanent residence by virtue of a recent marriage to a US citizen. The Presidential Memorandum provides the following false rationale for excluding undocumented immigrants:

Excluding these illegal aliens from the apportionment base is more consonant with the principles of representative democracy underpinning our system of Government.  Affording congressional representation, and therefore formal political influence, to States on account of the presence within their borders of aliens who have not followed the steps to secure a lawful immigration status under our laws undermines those principles.  Many of these aliens entered the country illegally in the first place.  Increasing congressional representation based on the presence of aliens who are not in a lawful immigration status would also create perverse incentives encouraging violations of Federal law.  States adopting policies that encourage illegal aliens to enter this country and that hobble Federal efforts to enforce the immigration laws passed by the Congress should not be rewarded with greater representation in the House of Representatives.  Current estimates suggest that one State is home to more than 2.2 million illegal aliens, constituting more than 6 percent of the State’s entire population.  Including these illegal aliens in the population of the State for the purpose of apportionment could result in the allocation of two or three more congressional seats than would otherwise be allocated.

However, the rationale still does not explain whether one who entered without inspection, but is now authorized to remain in the US through the filing of an I-360 petition under the Violence against Women Act and a concurrent I-485 application will be included or not in the census. It does not appear that whoever drafted this document really had any idea about how “legal” or “illegal” is considered under the INA.

“Lawful immigration status” is specifically defined in the implementing regulations at 8 CFR 245.1(d)(1) rather than in  the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) itself,  for purposes of determining who is eligible to adjust status under  INA 245(c)(2). It provides for the following categories of persons who are in “lawful immigration status”:

(i) In lawful permanent resident status;

(ii) An alien admitted to the United States in nonimmigrant status as defined in section 101(a)(15) of the Act, whose initial period of admission has not expired or whose nonimmigrant status has been extended in accordance with part 214 of this chapter;

(iii) In refugee status under section 207 of the Act, such status not having been revoked;

(iv) In asylee status under section 208 of the Act, such status not having been revoked;

(v) In parole status which has not expired, been revoked or terminated; or

(vi) Eligible for the benefits of Public Law 101-238 (the Immigration Nursing Relief Act of 1989) and files an application for adjustment of status on or before October 17, 1991.

It is unlikely, however, that this is what the drafters of the Presidential Memorandum within the Trump administration had in mind in deciding who is in lawful status and who isn’t. As already explained, there is a large universe of persons who are authorized to remain in the United States but who do not fall into any of the above categories pursuant to 8 CFR 245.1(d)(1). Perhaps, one is giving the Trump administration too much credit about thinking through this definition and the drafters just assumed, albeit erroneously, that there are discrete classes of those in lawful status and those who are not.  Immigration law is far more nuanced. One may not have been granted asylum, and thus qualify as an asylee under 8 CFR 245.1(d)(1)(iii), but an applicant for asylum is nevertheless authorized to remain in the US and can also obtain employment authorization after 365 days of filing the application. Similarly, one who files an I-485 application to adjust status is authorized to remain in the US even if the underlying nonimmigrant status has expired.

Any attempt to define who is unauthorized in order to exclude them in something as crucially vital as the decennial census count will get it wrong. Even Chief Justice Roberts got it wrong in Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting, 563 U.S. 582 (2011),  when he wrote for the majority that  an individual  who “had been ordered removed” would establish that individual’s lack of authorization to work. In that case, the Supreme Court upheld an Arizona state law suspending business licenses if businesses hired people without work authorization.  David Isaacson in his blog,  If Even the Chief Justice Can Misunderstand Immigration Law, How Can We Expect States to Enforce It Properly?   Removal Orders and Work Authorization,  cites many other instances when a person with a removal order is still entitled to work authorization. For example,  an asylum applicant who has been ordered removed but has filed a petition for review in circuit court can nevertheless apply for work authorization and is authorized to reside in the US during the pendency of the appeal.  8 C.F.R. § 274a.12(c)(18) also contemplates the issuance of work authorization to one who has been ordered removed if the person cannot be removed or where it is impractical to remove him or her.  A DACA recipient who may have been the subject of a removal order at some point is now authorized to reside in the US without fear of removal.

The sheer inability to define who is a so called “illegal alien” further opens up the Presidential Memorandum to challenge in the courts. Persons whom the government may arbitrarily decide are unauthorized may be left out of the count even if they have been in the US for years, paid taxes and been authorized to reside and work under the law. These persons have also been denied their basic humanity by not being treated as persons. This executive action will also deter noncitizens from completing the census as most – unless they are lawful permanent residents -will not know whether they are documented or not.  Four decades ago,  the Supreme Court reaffirmed that an undocumented individual living in the United States “is surely ‘a person’ in any ordinary sense of that term,” “[w]hatever his status under the immigration laws.” Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 210 (1982). It is axiomatic that undocumented individuals are human beings and President Trump cannot change this. Given the sheer impossibility of determining who is and who is not legal, President Trump must be compelled by a court to count all persons for the census regardless of their immigration status. This is also mandated by the Constitution.

Cyrus Mehta

Immigration Perspectives On The Eve Of The 2016 Presidential Election

/0 Comments/in /by

The United States has always prided itself as a nation of immigrants. Unfortunately, however, there has been disturbing rhetoric against immigrants and refugees in the current presidential election season. This has been exemplified in racist taunts and epithets against Hamdi Ulukaya, a Turkish immigrant of Kurdish descent, who is the founder of the highly successful Chobani business that makes Greek yogurt and employs about 2,000 people, some of whom are refugees. Chobani’s annual yogurt sales are $1.5 billion.   According to a recent New York Time article, false stories have been published by right wing news outlets like Brietbart News and WND claiming that Mr. Ulukaya wants “to drown the United States in Muslims.” Some articles have also drawn a connection, again falsely, between Chobani hiring refugees and a spike in tuberculosis. This has led to unfortunate calls on Facebook and Twitter to boycott Chobani.

The Alliance of Business Immigration Lawyers, better known as ABIL,  of which I am a member, has in a press release rightly condemned such xenophobic attacks against a successful immigrant entrepreneur who has created jobs in the United States. It is already difficult for a foreign entrepreneur to obtain legal status in the United States under the current broken immigration system, and to then be successful and create thousands of jobs. Mr. Ulukaya is a shining example of an immigrant entrepreneur who has overcome these obstacles to benefit the United States. “Foreign born entrepreneurs like Mr. Ulukaya must be welcomed rather than attacked in such a shameful and despicable manner,” ABIL’s President Steve Garfinkel stated.  “These attacks go against the grain of what America represents – a nation that has always welcomed those to its shores who wish to better themselves and contribute to the country.”

The attacks against Chobani’s founder is only one such unfortunate incident. Donald Trump has used hateful rhetoric against immigrants from the start of his campaign. While every prior Republican nominee in recent times has spoken in glowing terms about immigrants being an asset to America, Trump emphasized only on the dark aspects, and hyped up fears of immigrants being a threat to the American people. This is despite the fact that studies have proved that newcomers are less likely to commit crimes than the native population. Trump was also fond of reading the lyrics from Al Wilson’s 1968 R&B hit song “The Snake” in his campaign rallies.  While this is a catchy tune, Trump has now corrupted the song by associating it with his opposition to Muslims. He first called for a ban on Muslims entering the United States, including Syrian refugees, and recently modified it by calling for a suspension of immigration from areas of the world when there is a proven history of terrorism against the United States or its allies. When Trump kicked off his campaign on June 16, 2015, he gave  a speech in which he called immigrants from Mexico rapists and criminals. “When Mexico sends it people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people,” he said. He has been proudly proclaiming till the very end that he would build a big wall on the Mexico-US border, and that Mexico would eventually pay for it.

It is no small wonder that there has been a surge of early Hispanic voters in states like Nevada and Florida that could potentially lead to Trump’s defeat.  Regardless of one’s party affiliation, it is hoped that the results of this election affirm that all immigrants be respected for the benefits they bring to the United States, whether as entrepreneurs or as hard working employees. The results should also speed up much needed and urgent reform of the immigration system that can tap into the talents of more immigrants like Mr. Ulukaya who bring growth and prosperity to America.  Finally, the recent revelation that Melania Trump was paid for modeling assignments in the United States while she was still on the B visa, and prior to obtaining the H-1B visa, goes to show that the line between legal and illegal immigrants is fuzzy at best. Someone in legal status can fall out of status and someone who is illegal can suddenly become legal. This is not a black and white issue as Trump and his anti-immigrant enablers have seen it.  The following extract from the Supreme Court’s decision in Plyler v. Doe, 457 US 202 (1982), which held that undocumented children could not be deprived of a public education:

To be sure, like all persons who have entered the United States unlawfully, these children are subject to deportation. But there is no assurance that a child subject to deportation will ever be deported. An illegal entrant might be granted federal permission to continue to reside in the country, or even become a citizen.

The lessons from these elections should point lawmakers to recognize that putting up a wall is not a solution; rather the best way to reduce illegal immigration, and reforming the system as a whole, is by providing more pathways to legal immigration into the United States. It would also be a good idea for any future presidential candidate to express compassion towards immigrants and refugees, consistent with America being great because of its immigrants, rather than engage in hateful rhetoric. It does not pay during election time.