Greg Siskind on Immigration Law and Policy: Is Rising GOP Star Lying About Her Immigration History?

Is Rising GOP Star Lying About Her Immigration History?

Mother Jones, the left-wing publication that recently made news by releasing the infamous Romney 47% video, has an intriguing story about Mia Love, the young woman who is running for Congress in Utah who is the daughter of Haitian immigrants and who was the rare African-American woman available to speak at the Republican National Convention. Love talks frequently about her being the daughter of immigrants and has told an odd tale of her parents benefiting from a change in the law in 1976 that rewarded them for having a child in the US. That must be family lore because there was no such change in the law and it has been nearly 80 years since having a child in the US created any immigration rights (children born here cannot sponsor parents until their 21st birthdays). I suspect the parents came on tourist visas and probably were out of status at some point and then eventually acquired permanent residency. Now that Love has been challenged on her assertions, suddenly the campaign is avoiding talking about the issue.

Normally I wouldn't care, but Love has been especially harsh in attacking illegal immigration. If her own parents were out of status and able to become permanent residents, then she has some explaining to do.

[Update: Maybe there's something to Love's assertion. A friend, Margaret Stock, has been talking to some older practitioners to get the lay of the land 35 years back to see how INA Section 101(b) has changed. Was Love the last true "anchor baby"? I know we all hate that term, but as the law for decades has required children to be 21 to sponsor parents for green cards. We certainly don't have a system today that provides immigration benefits based on being able to enter the US and have a child here. Unless you believe in Louis Gohmert's terror babies. Here's Stuart Anderson's take.]

Posted at 08:47 PM | Permalink