How did one of the leading brain surgeons in the United States end up at Johns Hopkins, where his pioneer work in brain tumors has given hope to many with terminal diagnoses?
He “hopped the fence” that divides Mexico and the U.S.
Those are not my words; they are his.
Everyone who cares about the immigration issue should know the name of Dr. Alfredo Quinones-Hinojosa.
Dr Q., as he is now known, was just a teenager from a poor family, a kid with a very bad mullet, when he realized that living in a truck-less pickup topper for a year while working on a farm was the best economic opportunity available for him at the time.
So, that's what he did.
He got some help. Someone else paid for his education. He did well in community college.
Historically well, in fact. Someone realized that he should have more opportunities. He went to one of the best medical schools in the nation. He became a brain surgeon.
His colleagues at John Hopkins are still surprised when they hear him say “I hopped the fence.” But he did.
He knows he broke the law, and lives with that knowledge; the guilt helps him inspire even more to help others.
"The last thing that I want is for people to think what I have done is justified," he told CBS news a few years ago. "The only thing I can do is try to pay back with every single thing I do."
Yet, said the doctor, he would still hop the fence.
I know a lot of Americans who are glad he did.
I spent the morning reading some stories on the web site, www.drqmd.com.
And I have a question: For those of you who believe that every illegal immigrant should face some kind of sanction, what do you have to say about Dr. Q?
Because of my work in journalism, especially in the past couple years, I know perhaps a bit more about illegal immigrants (I refuse to call them “undocumented workers”) than most.
“People who break the law to come here will keep breaking the law,” said one law enforcement professional. His viewpoint is logical; virtually every experience he has had with illegal immigrants begins with officers responding to a crime. The well-publicized Peony restaurant immigration case began that way.
In some ways, my views on immigration are more severe than those of others. I support what I call the "Fast Track to Mexico." I think those who have come here illegally and break the law again should be deported. But by deported, I don't mean some hearing at some future date. Those illegals who commit violent or serious crimes should go immediately to jail, not subject to release, and should be put in a bus and sent back immediately to where they came from. Yeah, they deserve a hearing where a judge can determine whether a crime took place and whether it's likely that the illegal committed that crime. But law-abiding Americans deserve to see those illegals go home.
But in other ways, my immigration views are more lenient (although some, I am sure would find less flattering words to describe them).
I did support most of what is in the DREAM Act, although of course I would tell Congress, as I have before, that if a law is that good, you don't have to spend countless hours finding an acronym to convince Americans it is a good law.
Does it mean I support the President's move?
No.
Anyone who thinks that Obama's immigration change is not an election year attempt to win votes (while the President faces an economy that seems uncertain at best) probably also thinks that "reality" TV is real. They probably also believe that President Obama opposes the Keystone Pipeline because of his principals and not the fact than in 2008 TransCanada donated to the Hillary Clinton campaign instead of Obama's. Those people would also probably believe that Obama did not learn, from the descendants of Boss Richard M. Daley's Chicago Machine who gave him his political start, to punish those who donate to your political enemies.
But for years, I have thought that those who came here illegally and managed to find work and make a living have something to teach the rest of us. And students who grew up knowing that they are living in a country that is not legally theirs, but manage to succeed anyway, also have something to teach the rest of us.
I hope that their voices can be heard while the rest of us shout our views on immigration.
Comments
Submit a CommentPlease refresh the page to leave Comment.
Still seeing this message? Press Ctrl + F5 to do a "Hard Refresh".
Illegal immigrants are not subject to US jurisdiction, in the sense that they cannot be drafted into the US military or tried for treason against the US, said John Eastman, a professor at the Chapman University School of Law, in a media conference call Monday. Their children would share that status, via citizenship in their parents \"nation or nations of birth\" and so would not be eligible for a US passport, even if born on US soil.
Anyone with a German or Irish last name must understand that a seriously powerful and disturbing anti-immigrant sentiment was associated with your heritage in the past. This is not something most people know about, or are comfortable considering.
Neither is this a debate with any fail-safe solution, which is what I took from the editorial. It does not mean that the problem should not be solved, but that the solutions are much more difficult than anyone imagines.
When my paternal great-grandfather immigrated in 1916, all he had to do to get citizenship was to agree to fight against Germany if necessary, speak English, and have a job. This was also common expectations of Ellis Island immigrants. There were few other laws aside from quotas that were to be followed; to believe that one\'s ancestors immigrated \"legally\" is fine but remember that the process was VERY different.
There are various ways a person can acquire United States citizenship, either at birth or later on in life.
Birth within the United States
Main articles: Birthright citizenship in the United States and Jus soli
Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that \"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.\"
In the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), the Supreme Court ruled that a person becomes a citizen of the United States at the time of birth, by virtue of the first clause of the 14th Amendment, if that person:
Is born in the United States
Has parents that are subjects of a foreign power, but not in any diplomatic or official capacity of that foreign power
Has parents that have permanent domicile and residence in the United States
Has parents that are in the United States for business
The Supreme Court has never explicitly ruled on whether children born in the United States to illegal immigrant parents are entitled to birthright citizenship via the 14th Amendment,[6] although it has generally been assumed that they are.[7]
What the immigration debate is truly over is the constitution. Allowing people to enter the country without documentation is against the law. Allowing them to stay is against the constitution. (Fun Fact, according to the constitution being born in the US does NOT make you an automatic citizen. It is a farce created by Hollywood that has been believed ture. – Look it Up.)
I congratulate Dr. Q on his abilities, knowledge and service he provides, but if he is still an undocumented citizen than he too should be held accountable to the law and if warranted deported. And anyone who thinks this is harsh, please look up the laws of Mexico, where Dr. Q came from. The Mexican government won\'t slap you on the wrist and say that\'s OK. You go to Prison for up to two years then deported and if you try to come back, you can go to prison for up to 10 years. The Washington Times had a very nice article about it in May of 2010.
The unfortunate truth is regardless of how many great people we have in our country that are here illegally, they are still here illegally. To try and make a case that we must let everyone here illegally stay and that not everyone who is here illegally is a bad person is like saying it\'s the 99% of the NBA that make the rest of the players look bad.
We don\'t need to provide services for people who should not be here. Think on this. The executive order the president announced says if you were brought here before you were 16, have been here for 5 years and aren\'t 30 yet, you can stay. So who will care for the 12 year old boy or girl who was brought here by a parent when they were 6 when we send their parent back? Did anyone think this through? NO! Obama should have added one more stipulation to his criteria,-- be registered to vote!
an old article and only one side. But you can google and read both sides....
google illegal workers payroll taxes and you will find articles on both sides of the issue, but at least some guesstimates on taxes paid and not paid. Read both sides. I\'d also recommend the book Tortilla Curtain by T.C Boyle, written some time ago - Boyle saw this problem coming way before the rest of us - I\'m pretty sure they have it at the library. He doesn\'t paint either side as blameless for the mess we are in, it is thought provoking.
Also, it is hardly right to grant amnesty to those who broke the law. We have a system that allows people to lawfully immigrate-instead of encouraging people who wish to come to the U.S. to go through that system, President Obama is saying it\'s totally fine that we spend billions of dollars each year on benefits given to illegal immigrants who don\'t pay taxes and that if you get caught illegally in the U.S. you\'ll get amnesty and you won\'t be deported or have to pay back the benefits illegally received.
As for coping with people who come here-again, notice we\'re spending lots of money on benefits for people who come here illegally who, since they aren\'t legal, don\'t pay taxes. Financially we\'re not in a place to allow this to continue to happen. I don\'t know about your ancestors, but mine came here legally and I expect others to do the same.