Monday, May 19, 2008

Immigration Plans to Build Concentration Camps

On May 18, 2008 Los Angeles Times published an article written by Anna Gorman under the heading: “Immigration agency plans new family detention centers”[1]. They are accepting bids and later they will reap profits from the centers. The immigration says it will help them to get the people who have a deportation case to appear in court when they are wanted and be deported when they exhaust all their options to stay in this country. I have always wondered aloud why should the immigration detain even families who want to be deported. I mean there are people that if you ask them today do you want to be deported they will say please you will be doing me a favor. So if there is no profit to be reaped why does the immigration reject their pleas? The truth about it is that these people are a source of huge federal funding.
One problem leaving the kids and locking up the parents too is another issue because some immigrants have pretended they don’t have a parent or relative to take care of their kids while they are incarcerated. In that way the kids rather than be locked up should be given the option to live with foster parents or in shelters. American parents who are convicted, jailed and are a risk to the society are not locked up with their kids too. If an illegal immigrant does not want to be deported and prefers to remain in jail that is his problem but at least the alternative to depart back hope should be the first option tabled before the illegal immigrant.
Socially it raises the possibility of shantytowns. These methods of forming camps will increase immorality, aloofness and idleness because sooner or later there will be overcrowding like any other jail in the US.
Psychologically it will remind the parents and their kids of the Nazi concentration camps. Why are they locked up? For being illegal? If you do not want them here deport them at once. News coming from the cells is that some immigrants are committing suicide in jail.
Students are supposed to be kept in a non restrictive environment except I cases of special education which is considered and determined after studies. Secondly, just as any child below 18 cannot make a decision for themselves and below 16 cannot decide to drop out of school the immigrant child was supposed to be educated by the state. And taking them out of the main stream conducive environment deprives them from functioning normally.
If logic, sociology and politics do not discourage the immigration then they should consider the legal ramifications. This practice will violate a number of laws. In Castenada v. Pickard (1981 federal) which was upholding EEOA of 1974 it will be difficult to argue that a child who has not committed any crime and is jailed will benefit from any educational efficiency. The language barriers that we try to avoid will still be there because most of the people there are immigrants with English as a second, third or tenth language thereby reinstating the language barriers confronting English Language Learners (ELL). The idea of sometimes deporting the children of illegal immigrants violate both the Fourteenth Amendment and Plyler v. Doe (1982) which reiterated that the above amendment prohibits states from denying a free public education to undocumented immigrant children regardless of their immigrant status. The trauma they face in that concentration camp cannot permit them to study well[2].
To an extent one could infer that the intention of immigration could be to benefit from Title III Non Regulatory Guidance which was to supply school systems with funds to ensure limited English proficiency students including immigrants and youth developed English proficiency. Finally, the No Child Left Behind Act (Jan 8, 2001) does not permit these kids to be locked up with their parents because they will be left behind. Emotional support will be lacking since they are incarcerated for a crime they are innocent.
Some may rebut that it does not restrict the studies of the kids if so what about American kids in detention centers. The difference is that the American kids have committed a crime but these have not yet committed a crime. More so, until they turn 18 and can answer for themselves they should not be deprived from mingling with others. Once they exhaust their case then they should be asked if they want to be deported or they want to stay in jail. They should not be given the chance to depart on their own then if that is the fear. Rather than go through some of the legal wrangling it would even be appropriate for the immigration to ask the immigrant while their case is still soliciting the recourse of the law. That way only those who do not want to go back to their countries are kept in jail because the courts are still studying their cases.
I do however disagree that most families do not post a flight risk. They do! That should be taken seriously for there is no country without immigration policies. However those policies should be humane and only those who broke the vases should pick the pieces especially because most people caught on immigration violations are not a risk to the community. Those who are a crapshoot should be treated on bases of them being a risk just like any other criminal. The idea of deportation especially deporting naturalized citizens is cruel and ludicrous. Two people commit murder one is a naturalized citizen and the other is a natural born citizen. The naturalized is found guilty and deported and the natural born is found guilty and left in the country. So why then say anyone has become a citizen? Citizenship then will mean really nothing or simply means that you have travel documents, since when we say you are a citizen of a given a country it simply means the land is yours come what may you will not be taken elsewhere. Until the government institutes confinement in the île du Diable it will be cruel and ludicrous justice to deport naturalized citizens.

Until then, I hope the immigration will make humane decisions.

Prince & PA Hamilton Ayuk

[2] Hamilton Ayuk Holistic Teaching (Summer Leadership Institute) June 2006, Harrison High School.

My Little Immanuel Church!

Did you see my little Immanuel Church? That sat on top of reformed theology. It was not just the doctrine they taught; It wa...