 Good morning, good afternoon, or good evening. You can go to Lovie in France, but you cannot become a Frenchman. You can go to Lovie in Germany or Turkey or Japan, but you cannot become a German or Turk or Japanese. But anyone from any corner of the earth can come to Lovie America and become an American. Welcome back to A Nation of Immigrants, a bi-weekly interview program featuring the lives of immigrants, knowledge, diversity, and inclusion created by Sinh-Tang Hawaii and Kingsfield Law Office. We invite renowned immigrants to discuss their life stories, immigration adventures, and their contributions to cultural diversity. Today's guest is Professor Liu An-Ting, professor and founding director of the Immigration and Deportation Defense Clinic and Dings Circle Scholar at the University of San Francisco School of Law. Thank you so much to be on the show, Professor Hing. We are very honored to have you. Thank you for the invitation. I really appreciate it. Yeah, it's from your name, and I happen to search your last name in Chinese language and it appears your last name is Deng. It's a quite popular Chinese last name and you are the professor of law and immigration studies at the University of San Francisco and professor of law and Asian-American studies Emeritus at UC Davis. You previously on the law faculties at Stanford University and Golden Gate University and you founded the Immigration Legal Resources Center in San Francisco and direct the Immigration Deportation Defense Clinic. And you have a tremendous scholarship, you have published many books, and also you teach immigration law and policy, migration studies, rep, rebellious, lowering, that's very, very intriguing course and evidence. And your most recent book is a humanizing immigration, how to transform our resist and unjust system that's very, you know, harsh criticism of our immigration policy, but you have co-consult in the United States Supreme Court, asylum, president setting case INS versus Cadoza, Paseca. That's an extremely impressive resume, Professor Hing, and I have hundreds of questions I would like to ask you, but let's start with your cultural identity. So you are a second generation Chinese-American, aren't you? That's correct. My father was born in mainland China, in Guangzhou province, actually near Poisan, but actually were from Kuipeng, and my mother is actually curious of the situation. She was actually born in Scranton, Pennsylvania in 1901, but then when she was two or three years old, her mother took her back to China to care for the grandmother. And so my mother really, she was born in the United States, but she didn't re-immigrate until after she married my father in the 1920s. Didn't she have the birth right to be a U.S. citizen? Should she just apply? That's a very good question. And the answer is actually no, because there was a period of... Your question is well-founded, because usually when you're born in the United States, you are a U.S. citizen, and there was a U.S. citizen because she was born in Pennsylvania. But there was also a law when she got married to my father in 1921. There was a law in the United States that if a citizen woman married a foreign male, the U.S. citizen woman would lose her U.S. citizenship. That applied to all women who were U.S. citizens who married foreign nationals, not just Chinese. So technically, she lost her U.S. citizenship when she married a foreign national. Unbelievable. So because this law, you mentioned, this law applied to all female U.S. citizens. So I assume that was not a Chinese Exclusion Act related. No, it was not. It was a very gender-sexist law in part of the United States. The belief was that, well, if you're a woman and you marry somebody, well, then you've got to follow your husband. And so if he's a citizen of Germany or Mexico, well, then you should go with your husband. You're no longer a U.S. citizen. Interesting. I have to say that it appears our immigration system was not only resist, but also sexist. Sexist, at least for a certain period of time. Very much so. So when your parents got married? They got married in 1921 in China. My father had immigrated to the United States about 1915. Incidentally, with false papers, we can come back to that if you want. Paper songs, OK. And so he made a false claim to U.S. citizenship. But after he lived here for about five years, he decided to go back to China to find a bride, which was common. And because there were not many women, not many Chinese women in the United States, a bachelor society. And so he went back to China and through a marriage broker, a matchmaker. He met my mother and they got married in 1921 in China. In Guangzhou? Yes, Guangzhou. The 21, that was the warlord period, wasn't it? China was not in very good shape, but relatively it's better than the late Qing Dynasty. And you were born in the 40s, I believe? Yes, so I'm the youngest of... Hold on to your seat, OK? I'm the youngest of 10 children. Wow. Yeah, I was born in 1949, but my oldest sister who has passed away, she was actually born in 1926. So there's a wide span of my brothers and sisters in terms of age. Well, happy for you, you have a very big family. I only have one sister and I hope I had more. I really would love to have a brother. But anyway, so all your siblings were born in the United States? From Chinese? No, actually, in the early 1930s, before I was born, my parents, my mother, went back to China to take care of her mother. Oh, you see. So she took the first four children with her. And then my father went to visit and my mother got pregnant. And so actually the fifth child in the family was actually born in China. But every... and then they returned because of World War II. As you know, Japan started bombing China. And so they fled, I think the date was 1938, that they fled China on a boat to come back to the United States. Well, glad they came back. It's 38, it was a very horrendous years in China. And you were born in the United States and you were educated in the United States. And your work and your study focused on your scholarship, focused on immigration policy and the race relations. So obviously we can understand that as a second generation immigrant, you have some interest in immigration policy and also because of your parents were first generation immigrants. And my impression is that very few scholars really study the interdisciplinary arena of immigration and race relations. How do you see these two issues? They are vitally important. They are two of them. I think they are probably two most important issues in the United States right now. But how do you see the two issues intersecting and what impact do they have on our society? Yeah, that's a very good question. The way I see it is that immigration law unfortunately has a lot of racist provisions that were part of the law. And you already alluded to one. The first one was the Chinese Exclusion Act in 1882. It's specifically racist. And so I could see the effect of that in my own family and our relatives, of course, because of paper stunts and wrong different surnames and that type of thing. But I also saw that where I grew up. I actually grew up in Arizona in a small copper mining town. And many of my friends and relatives, many of my friends growing up, my classmates, were of Mexican descent. And so looking back on that, I believe that some of those families were undocumented. And then when I started practicing immigration law, I realized that at that time in the 1970s, much of the focus for deportation was directed at Mexicans. And so it was very the enforcement priorities back then were focused on the deportation of Mexicans and the Mexico-U.S. border back then in the 1970s. And anyone who's paying attention to immigration law today, we know that the same border is a big challenge. It's not so much Mexicans anymore, but it's other Central Americans and people from all over the world. So my answer is that it's very clear that the laws and the enforcement priorities have picked on certain immigrants of color. And so that's the relationship between the law and racism. Thank you very much for your explanation, Professor. And this makes perfect sense to me. As an immigrant, I studied law because I've studied civil rights. So race theory, critical race theory and a civil rights moment in the United States. And I can intuitively feel that there is a connection and I couldn't as articulate as you just said, I really appreciate that. As lawyers and a law professor, we probably all very much following what's happening with the United States Supreme Court. So I was very impressed to know that you co-counsel in the NS versus Calzada for a second case. And that case was about asylum, I believe, and well-founded fear. And could you just tell our audience that how did you get involved in the case? And so some in their working of the co-counseling in a Supreme Court case. And what impact did this case had on immigration law and protection of asylum seekers in the States? Yeah, thank you for the question. Coroza Fonseca is the major Supreme Court case where the court determined what is the burden of proof when somebody applies for asylum? In other words, how much proof do they need to introduce to be granted asylum? And the term that is used in the immigration laws is do you have a well-founded fear of persecution? Nobody knew what that meant. And so the case was being handled by a friend of mine who volunteered to represent this woman from Nicaragua who wanted to apply for asylum. And it was very soon after the 1980 Refugee Act was passed in Congress. And that's when this term well-founded fear of persecution was made part of the immigration law. So it's the first case that made it to the Supreme Court. And this woman, Dana Marks, who later became an immigration judge, this was her first immigration case. She was volunteering. So she asked me to help her. And so the two of us and we recruited two of our other very smart friends to write the brief because we won. I argued the case at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. And won. But then the government appealed to the Supreme Court. And of course, Dana wanted to argue the case at the Supreme Court. And I didn't get a chance to argue the case, but I helped to write the brief. And so the importance of the case is that this is unbelievable, is hard for people to understand that what well-founded fear of persecution, the Supreme Court said, it should be a humanitarian interpretation. It's not like a regular court case. And again, I'm going to be technical very quickly here. But lawyers are familiar with two standard types of burden of proof. One is a preponderance of the evidence. And the other is beyond a reasonable doubt. And your listeners all know beyond a reasonable doubt, that's in a criminal case. And so that requires a lot of evidence for the government to prove that somebody is a guilty of a crime. Preponderance is usually what's used in a civil case. Like if a car accident or a contract dispute, you have to show by a preponderance. And again, without getting too technical, usually preponderance means you have to show like 51% likelihoods, more likely than not, that the red car ran the red light, or that the defendant breached the contract. You have to show 51% proof that the contract was broken. Well, the Supreme Court said, neither one of those apply. It should be more generous. And the Supreme Court said, it should be only 10% likelihood that if there's a reasonable possibility of persecution, then the person should be granted a silent. And they define that as if there's just a one in 10 chance that you're going to be persecuted, it should be granted. And so that's the law today. Now I think many judges in the government, they usually require too much evidence, but that law has never been changed. The Supreme Court has never reversed its decision. So, you know, being part of the litigation team, we're very proud of that decision, because it means that you're supposed to give the benefit of a doubt to the applicant. And that makes sense, right? Because if you're going to make a mistake in an asylum case, then the mistake should be let the person stay, even if they're not going to be persecuted. That should be the mistake. The mistake should not be deport somebody, even somebody who is going to be persecuted and they might get killed, right? You should err on the side of being careful and being beneficial and humanitarian to the asylum applicant. Well, you should be very proud. We are very proud for you because this case, and your participant and co-consult, it's a Supreme Court president potentially saved a thousand or thousand people's lives. And fortunately, that was run with court, wasn't it? In the 1980s. Yeah, it was. And we got, believe it or not, we got six to three, including Scalia. Scalia joined the majority. He was in a concurrence with the majority. Okay, the majority was authored by Justice Stevens, believe it. Stevens, yeah. We're very proud of that, you're right. Oh, your brief must be so well-crafted and Scalia liked it. He liked the well-crafted, well-reasoned legal argument. And very happy for you. And I'm not sure this court, this current Roberts Court, would have the same outcome. In the run-with court, even they have so many controversies, but the justices, they are more of them or were very serious about the law. They really look at the law, and you just articulated so compellingly and exactly why they should be in your favor. Because what is at stake here? Moving fast forward to today, and you just released a book, Humanizing Immigration. You argued that immigrant and refugee rights are part of the fight for racial justice. You have already elaborated that during our previous questioning, question and answer. And in this book, you offer a humanitarian approach to reform and abolition of the immigration system. So that's quite a shocking word. Could you elaborate the word abolition? And are you arguing the same as defund the police and as you're arguing abolishing the immigration system? That's a very, very good question. Am I equating abolish ICE with defund the police? And honestly, I am. And I think we need to tear down the system and start all over again. I know that there needs to be immigration laws. I understand that. But as I said at the beginning, the way the law has been enforced and what is contained in the laws, it's been racial. And let me give you an example. In particular, the Kurdish Asian immigrants. Right now, there's a backlog for people who want to immigrate from China. People want to immigrate from the Philippines, from India, from South Korea. There's backlogs. And the reason why there are backlogs is that they treat the immigration laws, treat all those countries the same in terms of numerical limitations about 26,000 visas each year. It shouldn't be that way. It was started in a racist way. Back when the Chinese Exclusion Law passed in 1882, that was soon followed by restrictions on Japanese immigrants through an international agreement. Then there was something called the Asia-Pacific Triangle that excluded other Asians. And then finally, it made it clear in the 1920s that Asians were not even eligible to apply for naturalization. So immigrants couldn't move from Asia, couldn't get naturalized. And so that's what the system was based on. And so that's why there's such a long backlog in some situations, 15 to 20 years. And so that's why, to me, you have to totally redo the visa system so that do it on a first come, first serve basis. People apply. And I know there has to be a numerical limitation, but it should go by demand. If there's high demand from Asian country, well, then they should get more visas. We should go by demand. That wasn't my idea. That idea, believe it or not, was John Kennedy's idea. Oh yeah, of course. The president, he was very egalitarian and he thought there should be a first come, first serve system. He was actually embarrassed by the Chinese exclusion law. And it's too bad that his vision never got instituted. He was assassinated before he could push through his vision. So that's where I'm borrowing that idea from, redo the system. So he would have said the same thing. He would say abolish the visa system and do it over. Well, that's quite a proposal. I just hope that some radical changes, some major changes will come to immigration because at this time it appears that everybody know the immigration system is not working and there are major flaws in the system, but it's just too big to transform is to change it. And let's hope that your scholarship, your advocacy, and your colleagues, and we all work together to appeal to the elected officials. Then they are finally going to reach the conclusion that something must be done. Otherwise, the consequences are going to hurt our economy and hurt us as a nation of immigrants. We normally have two generic questions for our distinguished guest. And we have like five minutes left, but I do want to ask you these two questions, Professor. The first question is about time travel. Time travel permits. And if you have the opportunity to offer advice to your younger self in your 20s, what advice would you share? Well, you know, I have been very happy and blessed in my life. And I think my main advice actually doesn't have much to do with the professional side of my life, but it's to make sure that your family is your most important priority. Because at the end of the day, no matter how much money you make or how many books you may write, the most important thing is family because you don't want to have a lonely existence. You want to have good friends and family. And so I would tell my younger self to make sure to take the time to love your family and enjoy your time with them because that's much, much more important than fame or fortune. Thank you so much. That's very good advice. And if I were in my 20s, I would definitely listen to your advice. That will be the same advice I would give to myself in a younger self. I have a much smaller family than yours, but I totally understand the importance and the ultimate importance of family and friendship played in they are playing much larger roles than work, I would say, and everything else. Last question, Professor Hing. Are there any specific books or movies have deeply moved you, impressed you, and you would like to recommend to our audience? Feel free to recommend your own books. I'm going to recommend to the audience a new book, Humanizing Immigration. Thank you for recommending that. One of the books that I recently read, even though it's not a new book, I think it was written about seven years ago, six, seven years ago, it's a book by another Asian American woman, although her name is Duckworth, Angela Duckworth. Duckworth, okay? Yeah, she's a psychologist, and she wrote a book called GRIPT, G-R-I-T. What's important about that book is that she writes very convincing that it's not so much about talent or whether or not you have natural ability. And I think Asians are going to like what I'm going to say. It's about hard work. It's about passion and work. Now, again, I'm reminding people, the family is important. But if you put... It's not that... You're always going to meet somebody smarter than you, but one thing that you can always do is you can work harder. And she measured the fact that the people who worked the hardest, no matter what talent level they had, they actually accomplished the most. And so I would say don't give up. Keep your nose through the grindstone and you will be rewarded. Fantastic advice. 10,000 hours. I always remember that. Malcolm Gladwell in his book, Tipping Point basically argued that no matter which area, which discipline you have to devote 10,000 hours of your life, put into it and you will accomplish. Well, it is a fantastic experience to meet you, Professor Hin, and to ask you all these questions. I'm extremely grateful for your scholarship and a contribution to Immigration Law. Thank you again to be our guest. We look forward to continue to radio scholarship and hopefully we can invite you back on the show to discuss your next book and the next case. Thank you, Professor Hin. Thank you very much. Thank you. Aloha. Aloha. Thank you so much for watching Think Tech Hawaii. If you like what we do, please like us and click the subscribe button on YouTube and the follow button on Vimeo. You can also follow us on Facebook, Instagram and LinkedIn and donate to us at thinktechhawaii.com. Mahalo.