Here we see families immigrating to America, one of them illegally, breaking American law, betraying their citizenship to their homeland for refuge (the Jamaican instance), and the other for opportunity (Daniel's opportunity to attend Yale). Now consider the lawyer, who has his citizenship, accomplishment, success, and he feels America is deeply home to him. He wants to have an affair with his paralegal. The question is suggested: which is more immoral, to move for one of these reasons, perhaps illegally, or to cheat with a married woman?
This question is implied because Jeremy Fitzgerald might have been any kind of character. His only plot relevance is that he connects the two portraits of immigration. So why not have him be the dentist? Why is he an immigration attorney? Because he is the symbol of American immigration policy. His attempt to get with his paralegal is a description of the American system—just as the attorney of the law is immoral like all the rest of the humans, the system is therefore inherently limited.
The conclusion of these arguments would probably be that instead of judging immigration cases based on their black-and-white legal standings, perhaps another kind of moral judgment would be more helpful, the one the lawyer lacks. Because he doesn't see the value of his paralegal's family, the reader should wonder whether he will even care about the inherent value of Tasha's family. He does not understand the true challenge of life on earth, because for him, life is easy, therefore, he does law in a limited, broken way.
