Close to Home: A view of immigration debate from former foreign service officer

I spent 30 years as a career foreign service officer at embassies and consulates in five countries on three continents. At each of these posts, I issued visas both to immigrants and visitors, as well as passports to U.S. citizens. I was also director of the State Department office responsible for overseas visa operations.

I mention this solely because I think this qualifies me to comment on what passes for a “debate” on immigration. Despite much recent evidence to the contrary, I remain hopeful that at some point actual facts may enter the “debate.” There are at least three major areas where candidates have staked out positions that need further analysis.

1. “There are 12 million illegal immigrations living in this country.”

I’m unclear not only about how this number has become universally accepted but what exactly is meant by “illegal”? Does it mean only people who entered illegally? Many of these “illegals” may actually be “out of status” (the proper designation), which obviously sounds much less dramatic but better reflects reality. A high percentage, if not the majority, of the 12 million are in this category. They are people who arrived in one of the more than 30 categories of valid nonimmigrant (visitors) visas, such as students (F-1) or tourists (B-2) and have “overstayed” their permission to remain.

Many of them are working without authorization and most of them are European or Canadian. Those advocating deportation of illegal immigrants should explain how (and where) they will track down these folks and maintain our heritage as a nation of laws and tolerance.

Clearly the repeated portrayal of illegal immigrants as a particular criminal threat ignores the facts that show criminal “illegals” represent a tiny fraction of immigrants overall. In this regard, it is instructive to remember that, for example, the 19 highjackers of 9/11 were all legally in this country on valid visas, which they obtained to attend schools here.

2. “They should be sent home to wait their turn.”

This solution should be considered in light of the reality facing those wanting to come here legally to work. The following example is typical for would-be immigrants in dozens of countries: A Filipino citizen gets an F-1 (student) visa. This is not an immigrant visa. He attends an American university. While there, like millions of Americans, he meets the love of his life. They marry. He becomes a U.S. citizen. He opens a small business. He wants to bring his brother to work in the business. His brother is eligible because he is the brother of a U.S. citizen. His brother appears at the U.S. embassy in Manila. All petitions and papers are in order, and he is given his “priority date” - the date he will be issued his immigrant visa and discovers that the wait is currently 19 years.

3. “Anchor babies are the problem. Abolish the 14th Amendment.”

Obviously women enter the U.S. illegally, or legally, and then give birth. The 14th Amendment makes the child born here a citizen at birth. The term “anchor baby” is, however, quite deceptive in terms of benefits for the child’s family. It conjures images of the baby’s family immediately arriving in the U.S. following the birth. The reality is that the “anchor baby” must reach the age of 21 in order to bring his or her family to this country.

Some have argued that the 14th Amendment did not envisage its application to immigrants and that life in the 21st century requires a re-thinking of the intended purpose. Possibly. But why not apply this logic to the Second Amendment. The founders were thinking of the militia and the frontier, not AK-47s in downtown Chicago. The preceding does not exhaust the areas in which campaigning politicians have obscured or misunderstood the facts. I suggest all positions on all aspects of immigration be viewed skeptically.

Dean Dizikes, a resident of Petaluma, retired from a career working in foreign service in such countries as Germany, Greece, Sweden and Malaysia.