“It's not the border crisis. It's the humanitarian crisis that we should deal with.”

Humanizing Immigration with Bill Ong Hing

Throughout my conversation with Professor Bill Ong Hing about contemporary immigration policy, I am continually struck by his impassioned focus on individuals and on their dignity. Despite years of frustration with inhumane immigration reform, Professor Hing has relentlessly pursued the most just opportunities for his myriad clients. In his recent book, Humanizing Immigration: How to Transform Our Racist and Unjust System, Hing makes clear arguments for disrupting an immigration system that harms the immigrant community on a daily basis.

Professor Hing has worked relentlessly within and across immigration law contexts over five decades of his career. He is the Founding Director of the University of San Francisco’s Immigration and Deportation Defense Clinic where he is also Professor of Law and Migration Studies. He is also professor of Law and Asian American Studies Emeritus, at UC Davis. As he reiterates in our conversation, “I know what I’m talking about.” It’s time for policymakers to start listening.

In this first part of our conversation, Professor Hing describes the impetus for writing Humanizing Immigration. It’s a story that begins with a personal disillusionment with today’s enforcement of immigration laws, and continues through continuing to find hope in the actions and ingenuity of activists and the immigrant community.

Antero Garcia: I want to start with the big picture of your book, Humanizing Immigration. Why did you write this book now?

Bill Ong Hing: Out of total frustration, I wrote this book. We--the immigrant rights community that I am involved with--were hopeful that Biden would do what he's promised on the campaign, which was to be 180 degrees different from Trump. And he actually did introduce a massive immigration proposal that had everything in it that we all wanted. Of course, it was announced dead on arrival by the Republicans, but at least it showed that he had heard us, which is a far cry from Obama. It's true he had his hands full, he had the recession, and he had to deal with that problem. And then when he [Biden] pivoted, he decided to pivot first to health, right?

AG: Yeah.

BOH: And he didn't go to immigration, which I really think was a bad. Everything that he's done since then has been very disappointing. It's true, he got rid of Title 42, but it was kind of dragged kicking and screaming. He didn't do it as quickly as he could have.

I've done a lot of different immigration advocacy and representation, but the last 10 years I've been focused mostly on the border. I started an immigration clinic at USF, never anticipating or wanting to do that, but it was because of the so-called “surge” over the last 10 years.

I had to start an immigration clinic over 40 years ago at Golden Gate Law School. And then I started the immigration clinic and the program at Stanford for 12 years. And then I ran the immigration clinic at UC Davis for 12 years. And so, when I came to USF in 2010, they asked me and I said, no, I'm not going to, it's too many resources and, I’d already done it.  But there were resources available after the surge of unaccompanied minors in 2014 and, so I've been focused on unaccompanied minors on the border since then.

And so, everything that happens at the border from Obama's response, which was reopening family detention centers to Trump's, just one thing after another, trying to throw roadblocks into asylum seekers and the caravans and demonizing everybody… It's not so much that I take it personally, but I know what I'm talking about because I am at the border twice a year and we have 500 cases in our immigration clinic. We're not a law school clinic, to be honest with you. We're a legal aid office.

Of those 500 cases, 90% of them are from the Northern Triangle. I know what I'm talking about. I know the clients and the individuals involved. When I see how they're treated and how they're demonized, but they also are stripped of their identity, of any form of humanity, it really pisses me off. I’m just really disappointed and especially in the last couple years by Biden just kind of following what Trump did, and maybe making exceptions for unaccompanied minors here and there. But it's mostly, pretty much the same.

AG: When it comes to recent asylum policies, it feels like we’re living under Trump 2.0.

BOH: Exactly. So that's why I wrote it. I wanted to express my frustration about the last 10 years. While I was at it, I thought I would go further back because what I've seen with the experiences of clients is that it’s totally unnecessary.

AG: It's interesting hearing your frustration, because I came away feeling like this is an optimistic book in many ways. Did you feel optimistic at all as you were writing it?

BOH: Honestly, I'm not optimistic that progressive immigration reform is imminent. I am optimistic that young attorneys, young scholars, that immigrant rights groups and advocates and the immigrants themselves, the noncitizens themselves, I'm optimistic that they're not going to be sitting on their hands. I’m optimistic that they're going to be heard and that the clients themselves will step forward and speak up and are not afraid to do that. And so, I'm optimistic that change will happen because of that, but not imminently.

AG: You mentioned legal scholars, young lawyers. Is that who you imagined would read this?

BOH: Definitely the young activists, young scholars, immigrant rights folks, and non-citizens themselves are my primary target. But somebody asked me this the other day at a book panel. And, actually, the first answer that I had was Joe Biden, because I wish that policymakers would pay attention to the lives that their policies are affecting rather than commodifying them as, “Oh, this border crisis and random numbers of 2,500 people at the border, or 1500 people at the border,” or whatever. I wish they would recognize that they are largely people who are fleeing violence. And as you know, it's now not just the Northern Triangle, it's other parts of Latin America, and also Africa and China, and of course Haiti and Jamaica and other places. There's a reason why folks come to the border and there's also a reason why they still look to the United States. And the United States should embrace that, and understand that, it's cliche and it sounds corny but, we do represent hope to many, many people still. And my gosh, we should be true to that because we have plenty of room. We have plenty of resources. We can handle this. It's not the border crisis. It's the humanitarian crisis that we should deal with.

AG: Your book is built on the premise that our border immigration policies are inherently racist. You say we should probably just abolish existing immigration laws. However, given that we can't do that pragmatically in the current climate, these laws should at least treat people humanely and with dignity. Am I understanding your point correctly?

BOH: Yes, that's right. If we're not going to imminently change the policies that are inherently racist and we have a system of laws, then let's implement that system with a heart. For example, when people apply for asylum, in my view, the way the asylum law should be interpreted is deferential. We should give the benefit of the doubt that when it comes to rounding up people that have lived here for 25 years, and I'll give the two different examples, but I'll end up at the same place. I have represented people that have lived here for 10, 20, 15 years, one group who have kept their nose clean, and they're the soccer moms. They're the PTA. They go to church. And for them, it's easy to say to mainstream America, “For heaven's sakes, why do we deport that person?” We have a law that we can grant them something called cancellation removal. Let's interpret that generously as well.

AG: But you make the same argument for protecting aggravated felons as well.

BOH: Yes, exactly.

AG: That was a really surprising and refreshing chapter to me.

BOH: So people say, “Okay, then fine, but let's get rid of the criminals.” And there's a lot of different responses that I have to that. And one practical response is that before the law changed in 1996, I represented all kinds of aggravated felons because you could apply for a second chance. And I never lost a case. I had dozens of cases. And the judges, some were mean, some were not mean, but even the mean ones were willing to take a chance because the mean ones knew that if they made a mistake and that person recidivated, and the next time they showed up, they're just going to deport him.

One of the guys that I write about in the book, this Chinese gang member who did awful things, he reformed and he's led a good life. I do think that most people believe in second chances, and that most people understand that for vast majority of these, so-called aggravated felons, it was one stupid mistake. It might have even involved loss of life. How can I ask people to move past that? Well, the only way I can ask people to move past that is to take a deep breath and to try to exhibit some loving kindness. And if you're not there with me, then I won't be able to convince you.

Propina

Our conversation with Professor Bill Ong Hing will continue next week. We’ll explore the relationship between immigration rights and abolitionist movements. In the meantime, we encourage readers to dive into Humanizing Immigration, it is an accessible and engaging overview of pragmatic immigration reform.

beaconpress

A post shared by @beaconpress

We’ll see you next week.