By Ann Block
President Trump and the media have recently popularized the term “chain migration” and Trump has argued that “distant family members” should not be allowed to immigrate. In addition there is his claim that diversity lottery visas are being accorded to terrorists and that refugees are not vetted sufficiently.
So here is an idea: how about instead of “chain migration” we limit family sponsorships to only spouses, parents, children, or siblings of US citizens, and we let legal residents sponsor only their spouses and unmarried children? No aunts, uncles, cousins, etc. And we require all people applying to become legal residents to show they have good moral character, no significant criminal record, and not allow them to be eligible for welfare for a minimum of 5 years. And require that their sponsors have to guarantee that they’ll help pay to support these immigrants for 10 years and reimburse the government if they need any public support, so that they won’t even risk applying for healthcare.
Refugees should be vetted for at least two years before being allowed to enter the U.S., and their backgrounds should be checked in every possible criminal and terrorism database and they should be interrogated on several occasions by officials expert in ferreting out fraud, national security risks and the like.
How’s that sound? Reasonable? Yes?
Great – that is the law we presently have, and have had for the last several decades. The existence of “chain migration” and a “lack of vetting” of refugees or diversity visa immigrants are the 
same kind of myths as the ones claiming “Obama wasn’t born in the U.S.” or “Obama is a Muslim” and perpetrated by the same people.
Our current immigration system is broken, not due to “chain migration” but rather because of the increasingly long waiting lines for close family members to legally join their family member here in the U.S. It is broken because people are punished for leaving the U.S. after remaining here only six months after their status expired, or after they moonlighted as a consultant while working on a visa as a teacher. It is broken because those who have left their U.S. families briefly to go say goodbye to a dying parent, and then returned to spouse and children here, are banned for ten years from attaining legal status in the U.S. – ten years they must spend outside the U.S., even if they are married to a U.S. citizen and even if they are the sole breadwinners for the family and have paid taxes for decades. So they remain here without status, hoping for a kinder, more humane system in the future.
The system is broken because those who try their level best to maintain legal status are often unable to do so because of ever longer processing times, bureaucratic errors or a minor paperwork error by the applicant herself – which has “fatal” consequences for the immigration status of the applicant.
The system is broken because young people who have tried marijuana once or twice in a state which legalized same are labelled “drug abusers” and denied green cards. And there are many, many other examples.
Those people who have long been married to U.S. citizens, those who are DACA “dreamers” and others in similar situations are often accused of living here without trying to become U.S. citizens. “Why didn’t they apply long ago?” some people say. The reality is that all those here without status or whose status has expired almost always want to legalize their status. But many cannot do so due to the arcane, complex, illogical and inconsistent immigration laws that they must navigate, and then often only to discover they are not eligible for green cards and ultimately citizenship, under our current legal system.
Ann Block is a Davis Resident, Mother and Immigration Law Attorney
Not so, the term has been around for decades and used by both Democrats and Republicans.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/01/31/chain-migration-racist-term-no-its-just-you-democrats-jonah-goldberg-column/1079100001/
The phony president’s own family has benefited from chain migration and his current missus worked illegally as a model here in the 1990s.
Between 140 to 250 years ago, my family certainly benefited from it… pretty much everyone with an Irish/English/Scot/German surname did…
In those days it was not only not illegal, it was encouraged/supported…
Emma Lazarus nailed it… the statue isn’t “lady #####”, rather “lady Liberty…
The hypocrisy of the left. Sen. Dick Durbin recently stated:
But he used the term himself in a speech:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQUFGE7gFNU
So, when and how did your family come to America, Keith? Were your ancestors all “documented” and “vetted” immigrants?
A lot of mine were not… but I’ll bet you most of my ancestors were here before yours… that’s very likely a fact… not a righy/lefty opinion…
All my ancestors came to America before 1875…
“Were your ancestors all “documented” and “vetted” immigrants?”
If not, is there a process for expatriation of their illegal descendants?
The current administration should look into that!
Might well divert attention from other “inconvenient” investigations…
Back to topic… the current rules and regulations are, and have been for years, “arcane, complex, illogical and inconsistent immigration laws that they must navigate, and then often only to discover they are not eligible for green cards and ultimately citizenship, under our current legal system.”
Immaculate immigration?
Keith
“The hypocrisy of the left. Sen. Dick Durbin recently stated”
So you cherry pick one statement by one senator and generalize that to the “left”. I could spend the entirety of the day entering hypocritical statements made by 45. Some folks on Twitter have made a game of posting his own tweets with regard to his recommendation for severe penalties for presidents for things he is currently doing himself. Not wise to generalize regardless of political preferences.
But we digress. I recommend a return to the topic at hand on which there has been no lack of hypocrisy with regard to the importance of family and family values as applied to potential and actual immigrants.
Did you read the excerpt above?
Durbin is an elected career white, elite, male politician, hardly the embodiment of the progressive left.
David, did you really write this? Really, so career white male politicians can’t or don’t represent the embodiment of the progressive left? How about career white male bloggers, are they hardly the emodiment of the progressive left?
Keith
“Not so, the term has been around for decades and used by both Democrats and Republicans.”
Please reread the statement. He said “have recently popularized”, not invented. The term has waxed and waned in popularity over time. The statement is true as written.
It also ignores the fact that lots of words in previous common usage by all parties have become to be seen as offensive.
The term has now been weaponized by Democrats as they try to use it against Republicans as somehow being racist even though they have used the term themselves for decades. That’s my point.
And your point has no point because that’s the nature of a lot of these terms and phrases.
Such as the phrase: “Your point has no point”.
By the way, my point has no point.
Oops ! Sorry Ann. I accidentally gender misidentified you. Your article is much appreciated.