The Problem and Solution to Illegal Immigration in the US (part 3.)

(NOTE: This is Part 3. of a 3-Part Article. Click Here for Part 1. And Click Here for Part 2. Or Click Here to Read the 3-Part Article in its’ Entirety.)

In Production of LGBTQ Immigration Documentary ‘THE QUEER CASE FOR INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS: From International Film Student to Queer and Undocumented’ (Los Angeles, 2016)
In Production of LGBTQ Immigration Documentary ‘THE QUEER CASE FOR INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS: From International Film Student to Queer and Undocumented’ (Los Angeles, 2016)

An Individual Rights Merit-Based Point System done right is the only fair and true solution to the US’ immigration problem, and certainly not the building of a wall, drone surveillance and more for-profit detention centers.

Those people who left their home countries out of a sense of lack of safety should be considered refugees, by the U.N.’s definition of what constitutes a refugee, and not be confused with immigrants.

And while the “Illegal Entries” do not agree with me morally, I do not wish for their deportation and would want an “amnesty” program in place for all of those amongst the 11 million who have been here for lengthy periods of time, do not pose national security threats and have contributed to US society, in response to a currently “broken” or rather corrupt immigration system, which since long has allowed for and actually feeds on the exploitation of foreigners for cheap labor.

If the US truly wanted to stop or slow down illegal immigration it could simply start giving out fewer low-skilled Visas, instead of allowing guest workers to come in on temporary Visas and as a result crate an opportunity for them overstay those. US Foreign Policy has a lot to do with reasons for migrating to the US from the South, which is another complex issue that needs consideration but even before the unfair NAFTA treaty of 1994 in Mexico illegal immigration already existed. There are currently many US Citizens unjustly incarcerated, who should be released and at least be eligible for some of those jobs, as well as there are people who are unfairly taking advantage of US benefits, who could work low-skilled jobs instead.

The true solution is however a merit-based system over a family-based system, according to US Constitutional principles.

Again, I am merely stating researched facts in my own long and difficult and dangerous journey towards attempting legalization after 25 years in the US, and am drawing the appropriate conclusions, based on the US Constitution and its’ principles of Individual Rights.

I am not creating the existing division between the 11 million undocumented immigrants, the immigration activists who designed DACA are responsible for that, leaving out some 6 million people who entered to US legally and who are now more vulnerable to deportation due to the US government, media and the US public’s attention they have brought to this issue.

I will however continue to highlight these issues and fight for the people within this group who entered legally, and more specifically for the LGBTQ people amongst those, who were truly the only ones excluded from legalization by DOMA. I actually propose a blanket legislation for these individuals only, which I refer to as “The DOMA Victims Act for Legal Entries.”

Barney’s Beanery, West Hollywood (2015)
2017 City Of Los Angeles Business Tax Renewal for Film Production Office.

Any of the current 11 million undocumented people who were not specifically federally discriminated against should want and aim for some sort of “amnesty,” even if the term is less than ideal, particularly insulting towards the “Legal Entries,” who often spent thousands to come and be here legally. Maybe those amongst the “Legal Entries” who are not LGBTQ can come up with a better term, since they were often misled to believe they could work their way towards Permanent Residence in the US.

The “Legal Entries” who are part of the LGBTQ community and were specifically excluded from legal immigration through the Defense Of Marriage Act are in fact Victims of Federal discrimination, and I refer to us as “DOMA Victims,” for whom special legislation should indeed be provided, as we did absolutely nothing wrong, except protest LGBTQ discrimination by overstaying exactly, oftentimes engaged to, in domestic partnerships with, or even married according to whichever US State allowed us. I think “The DOMA Victims Act for Legal Entries” sums it up. We were here before, during and after DOMA shut our legal chances down and should be compensated accordingly, not told to go back of the very line we already stood in entering the country legally.

LGBTQ Americans should have full equality under US law, and by extension those of us who are foreigners and followed the rules should also enjoy full equality in our pursuit to become Legal Permanent Residents or US Citizens, when in marital relationships to US Citizens, as has been custom for heterosexuals for decades.

As long as LGBTQ US Citizens, and Legal Foreigners on temporary Work Visas, still can get fired in the majority of US States, we cannot get married to each other and be guaranteed a pathway to citizenship and no separation from each other, even now that DOMA is down. Our same-sex marriages and eligibility is still at risk under the Immigration Marriage Fraud Law of 1986.

As I mentioned previously, in light of the still current LGBTQ inequality under US law, it is particularly ridiculous that some US Citizens, primarily Liberals, have favored DACA recipients themselves in this ongoing immigration debate. These well-meaning but ill-informed Democrats are being played on their emotions at the cost of their rational thinking abilities by all the overwhelmingly sad stories they hear from undocumented people and immigration activists.

They very often often resort to the argument so familiar to the LGBTQ community, namely that children have more rights than LGBTQ people. This has in fact been the age old argument used against us by the Right-Wing agenda so intent on denying us our full equality, and now it is the Left-Wing who is actually falling for it. Foreigner children brought here illegally simply do not have more rights to legalization than LGBTQ people who have been excluded under Family Law Immigration Policy.

The fact that some of them have been here most of their lives has nothing to do with this, and it is simply a fact that many LGBTQ people themselves have been here for most of their lives, myself included. The responsibility to ensure the rights and safety for children lies in the hands of their own parents and should not be used against a real discriminated against minority group like the LGBTQ community.

Lastly, our LGBTQ rights should also never have been a voting matter under the guise of democracy, as one group of people should not have the right to vote on the basic, human rights of another group of people. As heterosexual people are still known to be the overall majority, they should not have the “democratic” right to vote a minority group into extinction. Just like white people should not have the right to decide the fate of People of Color, or men just vote on women’s rights. The US Constitution was designed on the principle of the Rights of the Individual, no matter how much of a minority or unpopular that person is, that is what equality under the law means. (The Equal Rights Amendment should ideally also not include the word “women” in the phrase “all men are created equal,” and it should simply state “all people are created equal,” meaning all human being of whatever gender and whatever race.)

Any human right should be appealed to on the notion of everyone’s individual rights to freedom, not on the mere notion of equality, according to the notion that one person’s right end where another person’s right begins.

On a final note, a Merit-Based Point System towards immigration should be based on fair testing of emotional and intellectual IQ for sufficient integration into US society, and not necessarily or exclusively based on college degrees and professional accomplishments.

(And if the US government wanted no immigration to the US at all, it should simply close its’ border altogether, and conversely also withdraw all of its’ Foreign Policy and internal business.)

(NOTE: This is Part 3. of a 3-Part Article. Click Here for Part 1. And Click Here for Part 2. Or Click Here to Read the 3-Part Article in its’ Entirety.)

— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

Passport of the Netherlands, 1992, with 5-Year Student Visa (F-1.)
Senior Year of High School in Leiden, The Netherlands (1989,) Age 16.
Diploma, High School, Leiden, the Netherlands (1989,) Age 16.
Revisiting the Past for LGBTQ Immigration Documentary ‘THE QUEER CASE FOR INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS: From International Film Student to Queer and Undocumented’ (2016) Venice Beach Hostel I First Stayed At Upon Arrival in Los Angeles at Age 19 in 1992, One Block from the Beach.
Revisiting the Past for LGBTQ Immigration Documentary ‘THE QUEER CASE FOR INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS: From International Film Student to Queer and Undocumented’ (2016) Venice Beach Hostel I First Stayed At Upon Arrival in Los Angeles at Age 19 in 1992.

If you enjoyed this article please push the little heart button at the bottom of the page.

You can read more of my articles here:

List of Articles

I am a Writer-Documentary Filmmaker-Producer at Queer Women Filmmakers Center, Los Angeles, currently in Post-Production of a Feature Documentary ‘The Queer Case for Individual Rights: From International Film Student to Queer and Undocumented.’