Deporting Immigrants Convicted of Crimes

Re “A Law Without Discretion,” editorial, Jan. 17: I was a consular officer at the U.S. Embassy in Santo Domingo for two years. I saw firsthand several cases similar to that of Deb Calcano-Martinez.

Legal residency in the U.S. is devoutly desired by tens of millions around the world. This residency, once obtained, is a privilege, not a right. The INS has the duty to protect law-abiding citizens and residents by deporting convicted criminals. The law as it stands serves as an incentive for residents to obey the law and retain their privilege of residency here. No one forced Calcano-Martinez to sell illegal drugs; she should take the responsibility for her crime.

I understand those adult immigrants who, for reasons of national pride, the desire to keep ties to their home country or economic reasons such as retaining real estate in their country of origin, do not naturalize as American citizens. I feel little sympathy, however, for residents like Calcano-Martinez who live virtually their entire lives in the U.S., yet never bother to naturalize.

Making an exception for a case like Calcano-Martinez’s because of her children may seem appealing to many. However, this would, in my opinion, gut the law of any utility. Given a loophole, opportunistic immigration lawyers would likely tie up every deportation of a criminal for years. Even under the current, inflexible law, Calcano-Martinez has avoided deportation for the last five years.

GRANT DEYOE

Marina del Rey

*

Kangaroo deportation proceedings routinely result in the summary expulsions of scores of lifelong U.S. residents. These include parents of citizen children and people with no ties to the countries to which they are deported. Upon conviction for the crime of returning to his American family, the deportee then may face many years in federal prison, followed by deportation yet again.

Former Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis quoted the line, “The best way to make the law respected is to make the law respectable.” What respectable law would let the indigent go without legal counsel when the issue is permanent exclusion from one’s adoptive homeland? What respectable law would separate parents and children and squander tax dollars incarcerating persons whose crime was reunification with loved ones? The Supreme Court and Congress should heed Brandeis’ advice in evaluating the many arbitrary and draconian immigration laws now on the books.

EVAN A. JENNESS

Los Angeles