Connect with us

Un

An Immigrant Slams The Left’s Paternalistic Attitude Towards The Foreign-Born

Published

on

In the August 21 edition of The Wall Street Journal, Tunku Varadarajan, executive editor at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution and a legal permanent resident, takes the left to task for its attitude towards immigrants. That attitude is many things at once: paternalistic, patronizing, opportunistic, cynical, simplistic, and misleading. Having watched all four nights of the,

In the August 21 edition of The Wall Street Journal, Tunku Varadarajan, executive editor at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution and a legal permanent resident, takes the left to task for its attitude towards immigrants. That attitude is many things at once: paternalistic, patronizing, opportunistic, cynical, simplistic, and misleading.

Having watched all four nights of the Democratic National Convention, Mr. Varadarajan “found the Democrats’ obsession with immigrants grating.” That’s because “scarcely a speech or segment went by in which a fetish wasn’t made of immigrants. They were portrayed, almost uniformly, as victims—hapless people thwarted by ‘systemic racism’ and American injustice, moored forever in a netherworld of murk and fear by President Trump’s refusal to be humane.”

It is unclear whether the author himself believes that President Trump’s policies on immigration represent a “refusal to be humane,” or whether he is simply paraphrasing the left’s caricatured view of these policies. Either way, protecting our borders and ensuring that foreign nationals do not take advantage of the United States – be it by those attempting to get their foot in the door through meritless asylum claims, or those attempting to abuse America’s taxpayer-funded social safety net – is hardly inhumane. It is common sense. That having been said, Mr. Varadarajan makes many good points.

The author calls out the left for being “guilty of conflating the people who live in this country without authorization with those—a significant majority of immigrants—who are here legally.” With its “relentless focus on the undocumented margins,” he continues, the left does “an enormous disservice to [millions of] lawful immigrants who go about their dignified business away from the spotlight, getting on with such concerns as work, school and family, grateful for the opportunity to be in America—grateful, in fact, for the opportunity to be Americans.”

He also reminds American leftists and liberals – who seem to have an “obsession with indigent illegal residents” – that “many immigrants have come to America from countries where the state interferes in people’s lives while pretending to help. What many of them really want (…) is for the state to step aside and let them carve out their own destinies.”

Mr. Varadarajan also certainly has a point when stating that “progressives, for their own reasons, scoff at the very notion of ‘assimilation.’” After all, leftists often view asking immigrants to assimilate as an arrogant and oppressive attempt to impose one’s culture on others.

However, he is on much shakier ground when he seeks to contrast identity-politics-embracing leftists with so-called “nativists” who “regard the foreign-born as inherently unassimilable.” Admittedly, in a country as populous (330 million inhabitants) and diverse as the United States, one is bound to find some people who express outlandish or extreme points of view. So, some “nativists” who hold such crude, simplistic, and deterministic views exist.

However, being an immigrant and a naturalized citizen, I have personally never met even one such “nativist” who regards “the foreign-born as inherently unassimilable” – and I have lived in the U.S. for almost 30 years, and have interacted with many people representing various currents of right-of-center American politics (from “moderates” through libertarians to the most rock-ribbed of conservatives) for two decades. Even the most “hawkish” of so-called “immigration hawks” have all, at least in my experience, seen assimilation as both desirable and attainable.

It is difficult to quibble with the following statement made by the author, however: “perpetuating the category of ‘immigrant’ involves the making permanent of an identity that is by definition temporary.” The leftists, according to Mr. Vaadarajan, “would like many of us to embrace a transitory state as an aspiration in itself. ‘E pluribus unum’—one out of many—is less attractive to them than a creed of ‘Many out of one.’” That is an insightful argument that the critics of the left’s pandering don’t make often enough.

But perhaps the most important fragment of the op-ed is that the left’s “compulsion to create ever more categories of victimized minorities by adding ‘immigrants’ to the list of the maltreated serves neither immigrants nor the country. You can see the short-term advantage to the Democrats of an ever-expanding pool of voters from abroad. But I—and millions like me—did not regard the U.S. as a country where you can never acquire a mainstream identity, and where political forces tell you that the surest way to become accepted is to nurse your grievances forever.”

Source: An Immigrant Slams The Left’s Paternalistic Attitude Towards The Foreign-Born

,

0 Shares
Continue Reading

BREAKING

PERM Recruitment Advertising

Published

on

By

IMMIGRATION ADVERTISING

PERM Recruitment Advertising made easy, just contact PERM Ads at https://PERM-Ads.com

Continue Reading

Un

Richard B. Alman, Founder, Recruiter Media: How a serial entrepreneur is digitizing PERM ads

Published

on

By

How a serial entrepreneur is digitizing PERM ads

Continue Reading

Un

The Green Card Process Through the Lens of a DMV Visit

Published

on

By

As an immigration attorney, I try to provide clients with a basic, yet insightful, understanding of various aspects of a complex immigration system. It’s not always easy, but I often find analogies to something commonplace can be helpful.  One analogy I’ve found to work well to explain the green card process beyond describing its mere,

As an immigration attorney, I try to provide clients with a basic, yet insightful, understanding of various aspects of a complex immigration system. It’s not always easy, but I often find analogies to something commonplace can be helpful.  One analogy I’ve found to work well to explain the green card process beyond describing its mere sequence of form filings likens the process to a visit to a Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) office.

In my practice area of business immigration law, green card processes are mostly employment-based and involve the successive filing of a labor certification application, immigrant petition, and adjustment of status application (with the first not always required and the latter two sometimes eligible for concurrent filing). So I’ll refer to these types of filings in describing the analogy here.  But variations of the analogy may be equally applicable to other types of green card processes, such as those in which the aspiring permanent resident will apply for an immigrant visa overseas rather than adjustment of status within the United States, as well as those based on family relationships and those available to asylees and refugees.

The trappings of a visit to the DMV, no matter the state, may be familiar to you: the issuance of a waiting number determining your place in a queue, followed by a long wait for your number to be called at one of several counters to file required paperwork, followed yet again by a lengthy wait for your paperwork to be processed, and eventually – hopefully – approved without issue.  The counter at which you’ll be called, and the length of the corresponding queue (or maybe in some fortunate instances, the absence of one altogether), often depends on specific factors, such as the type of service you’re seeking.

Just as you’re issued a waiting number upon entry into a DMV office, aspiring permanent residents are issued a priority date when the first major filing in their green card process (either the labor certification application or immigrant petition) is submitted.  The priority date is the date this first filing is submitted and determines, once the immigrant petition is approved, the aspiring permanent resident’s place in any existing queue to apply for adjustment of status.

Similar to how you wait at the DMV for your number to be called to file your paperwork at the appropriate counter, aspiring permanent residents face varying wait times for their priority date to be “called” at a designated “counter” to apply for adjustment of status.  The “counter” in the green card process at which aspiring permanent residents must apply for adjustment of status is based on a combination of two main factors: their immigrant classification (which, when speaking with clients, I refer to as their “green card category”) and their country of chargeability (which I refer to as their country of birth).  Aside from some significant exceptions outside of the employment-based green card process,[1] the law limits the supply of green cards available each fiscal year.  Because the law allocates this limited supply based on a combination of both immigrant classification and country of chargeability, queues form at “counters” where the demand for green cards exceeds the available supply.  And the more severely demand exceeds supply, the longer the queue will be. This analogy helps to show why EB-2 and EB-3 immigrants born in India and China are often confronted with waits lasting many years for their priority date to be “called” at their designated counters,[2] while EB-2 and EB-3 immigrants born in most other countries often face no such queue.  In technical terms, the existence of a queue at a given “counter” means the availability of green cards associated with that counter’s classification and chargeability combination is “retrogressed.”  If there’s no queue, green card availability at that counter is “current.”

A visit to the DMV often entails a wait of several hours sitting and keeping watch of your designated counter at it serves the visitors who arrived before you until your own number is finally called.  Likewise, many aspiring permanent residents monitor the often plodding, month-to-month movement of “cut-off dates” in the Bureau of Consular Affairs’ monthly Visa Bulletins for the designated “counter” at which they must apply for adjustment of status.[3]  The Visa Bulletin for a given month contains various charts showing whether a queue for filing an adjustment of status application exists for any classification and chargeability combination, and if so, how long the queue is.  Combinations for which there is no queue are assigned a “C” notation, indicating that green card availability is current and that the adjustment of status application can thus be filed at any time that month, including in concurrence with an immigrant petition if it has not already been approved, and assuming any prerequisite labor certification has been granted. Combinations for which there is a queue, and for which green card availability is thus retrogressed, are denoted by a “cut-off date,” with older dates reflecting longer queues.  Aspiring permanent residents seeking to adjust status at a “counter” at which green card availability is retrogressed can track their place in the queue by comparing their priority date with the applicable cut-off date each month.  Priority dates that fall before the applicable cut-off date in a given month are those that have been “called,” indicating that much like counters at which green card availability is current, an adjustment of status application can be filed at any time that month, including in concurrence with an immigrant petition if it has not already been approved, and assuming again that any prerequisite labor certification has been granted.

Like processing of paperwork filed at a counter at the DMV, processing of an adjustment of status application may take a long time.  But eventually – hopefully – the application is approved without issue.  And unlike a visit to the DMV, having qualified counsel during the green card process can make all the difference in one’s chance of success.

[1] For example, “immediate relatives” (spouses and children of US citizens, and parents of US citizens if the citizen is at least 21 years old) are exempt from annual numerical limits on green card availability. INA 201(b)(2)(A)(i).
[2] Aspiring permanent residents for whom the queue for applying for adjustment of status involves a wait of several years, such as EB-2 and EB-3 immigrants born in India and China, commonly change jobs or employers in the course of their wait. Such a change can require a restart of the green card process since employment-based green card processes are generally job and employer specific.  But to allow aspiring permanents residents who change jobs or employers to keep their place in queue, the law permits them to retain their priority date under certain conditions if they are the beneficiary of a previously approved EB-1, EB-2, or EB-3 immigrant petition, and likewise become the beneficiary of an approved EB-1, EB-2, or EB-3 immigrant petition based on their new job or employer. 8 CFR 204.5(e). 
[3] US Citizenship and Immigration Service also publishes monthly updates indicating whether to use the Visa Bulletin’s Dates for Filing charts or its Final Action Dates charts, to determine whether an adjustment of status application may be filed.

Source: The Green Card Process Through the Lens of a DMV Visit

,

Continue Reading

PERM Recruitment Advertising

PA-250-300

Immigration Links

Advertisement

Trending

Copyright © 2020 IMMIGRATION REFORM NEWS