By Horizonte Cubano News
A child does not choose where her father was born.
She does not choose his immigration status.
She does not choose whether he made mistakes before she was born.
She does not write immigration law.
And she certainly does not decide where the United States government sends him when it orders him removed from the country.
Yet children can live with the consequences of those decisions for years.
That is why America’s expanding use of third-country deportations raises a question that deserves considerably more attention:
When the United States deports a parent, what does the United States owe the American child left behind?
Citizenship Does Not Cancel Immigration Law
We should begin with something that needs to be said clearly.
Having an American child does not automatically give a foreign national the right to remain in the United States.
Nor should parenthood erase a criminal conviction.
Immigration law has rules.
Courts issue removal orders.
The executive branch has authority to enforce those orders within the boundaries established by law.
This article is not arguing otherwise.
The question begins after acknowledging all of that.
Because a government can possess the authority to do something while still having responsibilities concerning how it does it.
Carlos Rodríguez López Has an American Daughter
Consider the case we have already examined.
Carlos Rodríguez López is Cuban.
According to reporting by EFE, he came to the United States in 2013.
His wife, Igrayne Ribot Hernández, is an American citizen.
Their daughter is also an American citizen.
Carlos was removed from the United States and ultimately ended up in Equatorial Guinea after refusing to remain in Liberia.
Whether Carlos had a legal right to remain in America is an immigration-law question.
But his daughter’s situation raises another question entirely.
What happens to the American child when her father is suddenly thousands of miles away in a country with which the family apparently had no meaningful connection?
She Was Not Deported
This distinction matters.
Carlos’s daughter was not subject to a removal order.
She is an American.
Yet an immigration decision involving her father inevitably affects her life.
The government has not legally deported the child.
But the consequences of deportation do not stop at the individual named on the order.
They enter homes.
They enter marriages.
They enter children’s lives.
That human consequence does not automatically override immigration law.
But neither should government pretend it does not exist.
A Child Should At Least Know Where Her Parent Is
This is where the issue becomes difficult to dismiss.
Suppose the government lawfully removes a parent.
Should the family know the destination?
Yes.
Should the person’s attorney know?
Yes.
Should there be a reliable mechanism for establishing where the person is after an international transfer?
There should be.
Should families be informed when the original destination changes?
That deserves serious consideration.
Should reasonable communication between a deported parent and minor children be facilitated when circumstances permit?
That should also be considered.
None of these protections creates an automatic right to remain in the United States.
They create accountability after removal.
Third-Country Deportations Make the Problem Harder
Traditional deportation usually contains an understandable geographical logic.
A person is a citizen of Country A.
The United States removes that person to Country A.
Third-country deportations introduce something radically different.
A Cuban can be sent to Liberia.
If Liberia does not become the final destination, he can end up in Equatorial Guinea.
Now imagine explaining that process to a child.
Where is Dad?
Africa.
Where in Africa?
Liberia.
Can I call him?
We don’t know.
When is he coming back?
We don’t know.
Then the destination changes.
Now he is in Equatorial Guinea.
What happens next?
Again:
We don’t know.
No immigration policy should casually produce that level of uncertainty for families.
American Children Have Interests Too
Immigration debates frequently focus on the rights or status of the noncitizen parent.
That is understandable.
But when an American citizen child is involved, policymakers should recognize that another American has entered the equation.
That does not mean the child controls the parent’s immigration case.
It means the child’s interests deserve consideration.
Is the child financially dependent on the parent?
Does the parent provide daily care?
Does the child have medical or educational needs?
Will the child remain in the United States?
Will the family attempt to reunite abroad?
Is communication realistically possible?
These are human consequences of government action.
They should not be invisible simply because immigration law permits removal.
There Must Be a Better Notification System
At minimum, third-country removals involving parents should have clear procedures for family notification, consistent with applicable privacy and security laws.
Before departure, the person should understand the intended destination whenever legally and operationally possible.
Attorneys should receive appropriate information.
When the destination changes materially, there should be a process for updating authorized family contacts or counsel.
Once the individual arrives, there should be a mechanism for confirming location and legal status.
And when minor American children are involved, the government should consider how reasonable parent-child communication can be maintained.
These are administrative safeguards.
They are not amnesty.
Family Unity Is Not a Partisan Principle
Republicans speak frequently about the importance of families.
Democrats speak frequently about immigrant rights.
Here is an opportunity for both sides to recognize something simpler:
Children should not become invisible collateral consequences of government policy.
A conservative can support strong immigration enforcement and still believe an American child deserves information about a deported parent.
A progressive can defend immigrant rights while acknowledging that parenthood does not automatically cancel immigration law.
Those positions can coexist.
The Government Should Know the Consequences of Its Decisions
This is another reason the next administration and Congress should examine third-country deportations carefully.
How many deportees sent to third countries had American citizen children?
How many had American spouses?
Were families informed of destinations?
How frequently did destinations change?
How quickly were relatives able to establish communication?
Were deportees allowed access to telephones?
Were attorneys able to locate clients?
What happened to families financially after removal?
We cannot improve policy without measuring its consequences.
This Is About More Than Carlos
Carlos Rodríguez López gives this question a name.
But the principle extends far beyond one Cuban family.
Immigration enforcement affects thousands of mixed-status American families.
Some involve people who committed serious crimes.
Some involve people whose immigration violations were their principal legal problem.
Some have lived in the United States for decades.
Some arrived recently.
Each case is different.
That is precisely why government procedures matter.
A system should be capable of enforcing immigration law without treating every family circumstance as irrelevant.
Accountability Does Not Mean Immunity
We should repeat this because immigration politics too often forces Americans into false choices.
You can believe:
Carlos Rodríguez López should have been deported if the law required his removal.
And simultaneously believe:
His American daughter deserves to know where her father was taken and how she can communicate with him.
There is no contradiction.
One concerns immigration enforcement.
The other concerns humane and accountable government.
Ask the Child’s Question
Political leaders argue about borders.
Courts argue about statutes.
Administrations argue about executive authority.
Congress argues about immigration reform.
Those debates matter.
But somewhere in America, a child can ask a much simpler question:
Where is my father?
A government powerful enough to transport that father thousands of miles across an ocean should also be organized enough to provide the family with an answer.
Not immunity.
Not automatic legal status.
Not a guarantee that the parent returns.
An answer.
Because American citizenship should mean something even when the American citizen involved is a child whose parent violated immigration law.
Enforce the law.
Protect the border.
Execute lawful removal orders.
But remember the families affected by those decisions.
A deportation order applies to an individual. Its consequences can reach an entire American family.
Good government should be capable of recognizing both.
Horizonte Cubano News — Analysis and commentary on Cuba, the United States, immigration policy and the future of the hemisphere.