To deport or not to deport? Everyone has an opinion

MARTIN E-mail: Click here Archive

By SUSAN TAYLOR MARTIN

© St. Petersburg Times,
published July 8, 2001

Last Sunday, I wrote about Hadi Alyasin, a Pasco County man deported to Syria for having sex with a 12-year-old girl when he was 18. (He says he thought she was older.)

The point I intended to make was that Alyasin, an immigrant, is being punished more severely than a U.S. citizen would have been. Part of the 1996 law under which he was deported was recently ruled unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Some readers could not get past Alyasin's crime. They said I had glorified a "child molester" and a "pedophile."

"How would you feel if it were your 12-year-old daughter?" one father asked.

As a parent, I can certainly understand his feelings. Our society abhors sex with children, and rightly so. Alyasin knew what he did was wrong, and that is why he pleaded guilty to a lewd and lascivious act and served 18 months as a youthful offender.

However, I do not think two young people having relations is quite the same as a much older person preying on children against their will. Neither did the state of Florida, or Alyasin would have been charged with the more serious crime of sexual battery.

But my column also prompted another reaction, one that helps explain why the 1996 Immigration Reform Act was passed in the first place.

"You mentioned Ted Kennedy wanting to overturn the 1996 immigration act, what do you expect?" wrote a reader from Dunedin. "He sponsored the 1966 immigrations, flooding our country with Third World, non-English-speaking aliens. Yes, we need to close the door on ALL immigration, we don't need them or your article."

It is worth noting that Dunedin, in Pinellas County, is known for its rich Scottish heritage, while nearby Tarpon Springs is home to many people of Greek origin. Immigrants have given our country much of its flavor, and throughout U.S. history their contributions have far outweighed negatives, many studies have found.

Yet as that reader's comments show, a lot of people simply don't like foreigners. A recent Gallup poll showed almost 40 percent of Americans would stop all immigration for the next five years. The same percentage thinks immigrants "threaten" American culture and have been a "bad thing" for the country in general.

In the mid 90s, the anti-immigrant mood was stronger, fueled by the World Trade Center bombing by Middle Eastern terrorists and fears that Mexican workers were "stealing" jobs from U.S. citizens.

In response, Congress passed the 1996 act, which made it harder for foreigners to enter and easier to kick them out. Among its many controversial provisions, it expanded the list of crimes for which a person could be deported and made the law retroactive. That meant immigrants could be expelled for crimes that were not deportable at the time they were committed.

To understand the sweep of this law, consider a hypothetical example. Let's say you drink too much at a party and are arrested for DUI. It is your first offense, so you pay a steep fine and lose your license for six months.

After you have paid your penalty, Congress decides to really crack down on drunken driving. It passes a law saying that everyone who has pleaded guilty to DUI -- no matter how long ago -- has to go to jail for a year with no opportunity for a hearing or appeal. And that's not all -- you will be expelled from the United States for 20 years.

Does this sound terribly unfair? It is essentially what happened with the 1996 act. Although Alyasin and others had served their sentences for crimes committed before the law took effect, they had to spend more time in jail, then were deported.

Two weeks ago, the Supreme Court ruled that immigrants cannot be automatically expelled but can seek exemptions. That was good news for people like Canadian-born Catherine Caza of Pasco County, who faces deportation because she sold drugs in 1981 to an undercover officer. Caza, a mother and college graduate, has since straighted out her life and received a governor's pardon.

It is not clear what effect the court's ruling will have on immigrants who have been deported. But Caza thinks people like Alyasin and his family have been punished enough.

"So, his wasn't the most sympathetic case," she e-mailed me. "Nonetheless, the entire family has had their life destroyed over this young man's bad choices."

Indeed, the real tests of how much we believe in the principles on which this country was founded usually involve imperfect people and unpopular causes. Freedom of speech cases do not arise from singing God Bless America. They stem from publishing Hustler magazine or spewing anti-Semitic language on the air.

Even this conservative Supreme Court has acknowledged that non-citizens have rights. Yet it seems that many U.S. citizens do not agree.

- Susan Taylor Martin can be reached at susan@sptimes.com.

Recent coverage

A favorable ruling may be years too late (July 1, 2001)

Fairness for immigrants (June 28, 2001)

© 2006 • All Rights Reserved • Tampa Bay Times
490 First Avenue South • St. Petersburg, FL 33701 • 727-893-8111

Contact the Times | Privacy Policy
Standard of Accuracy | Terms, Conditions & Copyright