Nicolas, a Mexican immigrant who has worked in our neighborhood for over 35 years, was detained by ICE on May 15 and taken to the Otay Mesa Detention Center. Later this week, he will likely be ordered to deport.
As a long-time U.S. resident, he built a successful landscaping business serving dozens of homeowners in San Diego and Del Mar. He fathered three children who are American citizens.
But that life is now over. His immigration case was closed in 2010, but ICE has reopened it. He has just two options: ask the immigration judge for voluntary departure to Mexico or the judge will issue a deportation order. It is unknown where he will be sent.
Nicolas, his family and his business will suffer greatly. If he manages to get to Tijuana, at least his children can easily visit. But his wife is also an immigrant, and her situation is precarious.
On America’s 250th birthday, immigration remains the most divisive issue in a country ironically built by immigrants. Many who oppose immigration out of tribalism or economic anxiety will say that Nicolas’ deportation is justice served.
But how is our society better off by exiling a good man who is contributing to the economy and breaking up his family? Regardless of the law, is Nicolas’ deportation a morally just outcome?
As Nicolas was being detained, I was in Philadelphia attending my 50th college reunion at the University of Pennsylvania — the same school President Trump graduated from. As I think about Nicolas, I’m reminded of the university’s Latin motto: leges sine moribus vanae, or “laws without morals are useless.”
This motto, from a line by the ancient Roman poet Horace, has two meanings. First, that society must be built on morals. And second, that its laws must reflect those morals.
The motto was chosen just two decades before the Declaration of Independence, and you can sense in its choice the growing frustration with dictates from London. When independence was proclaimed in Philadelphia in 1776, it was in response to morally bankrupt laws from far away.
Throughout American history, citizens have faced unjust laws that did not reflect the morals of the larger community. Before the Civil War, these were the laws protecting slavery. Afterward, it was the Jim Crow legislation to oppress Blacks. In 1924, it was the eugenics-based National Origins Act, which set racial and ethnic quotas on immigration. In 1942, it was the executive order incarcerating 120,000 loyal citizens of Japanese descent. And early this year, it was Trump’s chilling mass-deportation sweep in Minneapolis led by masked ICE agents carrying automatic weapons.
Many Americans opposed those unjust laws, from the abolitionists to the civil rights marchers. In Minneapolis, two Americans gave their lives. Americans take pride in our nation of laws, but we want those laws to be moral.
The community has reached out to help Nicolas and his family. Neighbors have given money, Rep. Mike Levin‘s office advised the children, and Jewish Family Service of San Diego provided legal and basic needs assistance. It’s a sad situation, but we’re doing what we can because it’s the moral thing to do.
As we near the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence and its principle that all are created equal and have inalienable rights, it’s time to rethink whether our immigration laws are morally based.
Chris Jennewein is the founder and senior editor of Times of San Diego.
Want to submit a letter to the editor, guest column or opinion piece? Find our guidelines and submission form here.
