Police chiefs press for immigration reform
By Dennis Wagner, The Arizona Republic
PHOENIX — Some of the nation's top cops on Wednesday called upon Congress to promptly adopt an immigration reform measure, saying local law enforcement agencies across America are struggling to deal with crime and confusion caused by a broken system.
About 100 police chiefs and administrators from Framingham, Mass., to San Diego joined Department of Homeland Security officials in Phoenix for a National Summit on Local Immigration Policies sponsored by the Police Executive Research Forum, a nonprofit law enforcement educational organization.
During closed discussions, the participants agreed that America needs a comprehensive new law containing guest-worker programs, a means for immigrants to become permanent residents and federal enforcement of the prohibition against hiring illegal immigrants, according to Chuck Wexler, the forum's executive director.
Dennis Burke, senior adviser to Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, agreed with the police chiefs.
"Congress needs to work quickly," Burke said. "Delay is not painless. Secretary Napolitano has said the situation the country is in is not defensible."
The meeting focused on the struggles of community police agencies in coping with unlawful immigration and related crime. Police administrators said Department of Homeland Security enforcement efforts have inconsistent and unreliable for years, leaving police and sheriffs agencies to establish helter-skelter policies that polarize the public.
"It's starting to tear my town apart," said Steven Carl, the chief in Framington, "especially with the economy going south. You see a hatred toward the immigrant population."
Larry Boyd, police chief in Irving, Texas, said he has been "beaten over the head" by conservative groups for not going after illegal aliens, and by Latino groups for enforcing immigration laws. "Neither side was dealing with factual information," Boyd added, "but it's an issue the media loves to cover."
Phoenix police Chief Jack Harris noted that Arizona's capital city leads the nation in kidnappings — mostly involving human-smuggling syndicates that reflect federal policy failures. "It needs to be fixed, and it needs to be done sooner rather than later," Harris said.
Alan Bersin, President Obama's border czar, assured police administrators that a transformation is underway in Homeland Security.
"There's no question that under this secretary there's been a sea change," Bersin said, adding that ICE already is focusing more on workplace violations rather than immigrant roundups. However, he concluded, enforcement is likely to remain schizoid "until there is a reform of immigration law that is acceptable to the American people."
Police administrators were especially critical of the government's so-called "287(g)" program which provides for state and local police to enforce immigration law. The program has created nationwide confusion and controversy.
Paul Lewis, an associate professor of political science at Arizona State University who recently surveyed 237 U.S. police agencies, said nearly one-fifth of the departments have a policies that eschew immigration enforcement, 28% pursue undocumented aliens to some extent, and nearly half have no immigration enforcement policy at all.
George Gascón, outgoing police chief in Mesa, Ariz., noted that 60 Maricopa County Sheriff's deputies raided his suburban City Hall and library recently, looking for undocumented workers. Gascón said only three were arrested, adding, "I have seen the ugly side of this enforcement."
Many of the chiefs stressed that state and local immigration enforcement conflicts with community policing because it makes undocumented aliens fearful of reporting crimes or serving as witnesses. They said short-sighted policies lured the estimated 11.5 million undocumented immigrants into the United States, and the enforcement debate has been oversimplified by advocacy groups.
"I think a lot of people are trying to see, well, where's the new (Obama) administration going to go with this?" added Boyd, the Irving, Texas, police chief.
7.27.2009
Individual Taxpayer Identification Numbers (ITINs) NOT an Immigration Benefit
immigrationimpact.com
Individual Taxpayer Identification Numbers (ITINs) NOT an Immigration Benefit
By Michele Waslin
There is a lot of confusion surrounding Individual Taxpayer Identification Numbers (ITINs)—what they are, who has them, and the purposes for which they are used. Immigration restrictionists take advantage of this confusion and often bring up ITINs in an effort to make it seem as if undocumented immigrants are receiving special benefits or quasi-legal immigration status. The fact is that ITINs are used to pay taxes—some legal immigrants have them, some undocumented immigrants use them, and some people who don’t even live in the U.S. have them if they need to pay U.S. taxes.
The ITIN was created by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) in July, 1996 so that foreign nationals and other individuals who are not eligible for a Social Security number (SSN) can pay the taxes they are legally required to pay. While the ITIN is a nine-digit number like the SSN, an ITIN is not a physical card—it’s just a number. Many types of people may have an ITIN: foreign investors may have ITINs to pay taxes in the U.S.; foreign students who are not eligible for SSNs but must pay taxes; spouses or children of immigrants on temporary visas; and undocumented immigrants. For further clarity on ITINs, take a look at a new fact sheet by the Immigration Policy Center (IPC).
It still comes as a shock to many Americans, but undocumented immigrants are required to pay taxes, and they do pay taxes. Between 1996 and 2003, more than 7.2 million ITINs were issued, and more than $300 million was collected in taxes in 2001 alone from ITIN filers, a large portion of whom are undocumented.
Other myth-busting ITIN facts:
Although many use ITINs to file their federal tax forms, ITIN holders are not eligible to receive most of the benefits their tax dollars go toward. For example, an ITIN cannot be used to get Social Security benefits or the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC).
An ITIN does not grant anyone legal status or work authorization.
An ITIN cannot be used in lieu of an SSN on the I-9 work authorization form.
An ITIN cannot be used to prove legal status.
A few states still allow people to use an ITIN instead of an SSN to apply for a driver’s license. And some banks and credit unions allow ITIN holders to open accounts or apply for loans. The idea, however, is not to give a special benefit to undocumented immigrants, but to make sure that, for reasons of public safety, everyone driving on the roads is properly licensed and insured, and everyone can safely put their money in a bank rather than carry cash and be vulnerable to theft.
The IRS is not supposed to share information about ITIN holders with the Department of Homeland Security for immigration enforcement purposes. Taxpayer privacy is an important cornerstone of the U.S. tax system. Unfortunately there have been a few cases of ITINs being used to target individuals for immigration violations. And if a worker incorrectly uses an ITIN on an I-9 form instead of an SSN, the IRS may notify the employer that the worker has a discrepancy.
So while ITINs provide a way for certain persons to pay taxes, they are certainly not an “amnesty” or ticket to legal status for anyone. As is the case so often in immigration policy, the only real solution is comprehensive immigration reform. We want everyone working and living in the U.S. to be legal. We want everyone paying taxes. By fixing the broken immigration system and converting undocumented immigration into legal immigration, the dilemmas caused by the ITIN can be avoided.
7.17.2009
Excerpt from The Devil's Highway
“You’d be hard pressed to meet a border patrol agent in either southern Arizona sector who had not encountered death. It would be safe to say that every one of them except for the rankest probie just out of the academy had handled at least one dead body. And they all knew the locations of unidentified skeletons and skulls. Bones peppered the entire region. All the agents seem to agree that the worst deaths are the young women and the children. Pregnant women with dying fetuses within them are not uncommon; young mothers have been found dead with infants attached to their breasts, still trying to nurse.”
Charles E. Schumer: Article distorts facts, seeks to frighten Americans
Another Voice / Immigration
Charles E. Schumer: Article distorts facts, seeks to frighten Americans
By Charles E. SchumerUpdated: July 17, 2009, 11:14 AM / 4 comments
In his July 14 Another Voice, “Schumer rates amnesty for illegals over security,” Daniel Stein, head of an extremist group called FAIR, distorts my position on immigration in order to scare the American people using false and distorting arguments.
My view on immigration is direct and simple. I believe that the vast majority of the American people are both anti-illegal immigration and pro-legal immigration.
That’s why I intend to introduce comprehensive immigration reform legislation by Labor Day that secures our border, stops the flow of illegal aliens to the United States and requires all illegal aliens present in the United States to quickly register their presence with the U. S. government and start paying taxes or face imminent deportation.
Any claim that I am not serious about securing the border is simply untrue. Last week, I voted to require the Department of Homeland Security to construct significant fortifications to the border fence.
And I have previously voted to double the size of the border patrol from 10,000 agents to 20,000 field agents, and to give the border patrol significant funds for new technologies such as sensors, light towers, mobile night vision scopes, remote video surveillance systems, directional listening devices, database systems and unmanned aerial vehicles along the border.
These new technologies serve as “force multipliers” and allow the border patrol to maintain control of larger segments of the border with fewer agents on our northern and southern borders.
This has led to real progress, but I want the remainder of the border to be under our operational control immediately, and will require the Department of Homeland Security to complete this task within one year of enactment of the bill I intend to introduce.
This is no easy task, but it can and will occur if the American people are committed to giving the Department of Homeland Security all of the funding and resources it needs to complete this task.
It is time for those who seek to distort the debate on a sensible and tough immigration policy in order to promote a purely anti-immigrant agenda to be honest about the facts, and to recognize that we are a country that is enriched and made more economically competitive by the contributions of legal immigrants. We must be both anti-illegal immigrant and pro-legal immigrant.
Americans will no longer be fooled by cheap buzzwords thrown around by people who are unwilling to engage in the hard work and honest discussion necessary to ensure that we create an immigration system that ends the current flow of primarily low-skilled illegal immigrants into the United States and creates a more manageable and controlled flow of legal immigrants who can be absorbed by, and assist, our economy.
Charles E. Schumer is the senior U. S. senator from New York.
Charles E. Schumer: Article distorts facts, seeks to frighten Americans
By Charles E. SchumerUpdated: July 17, 2009, 11:14 AM / 4 comments
In his July 14 Another Voice, “Schumer rates amnesty for illegals over security,” Daniel Stein, head of an extremist group called FAIR, distorts my position on immigration in order to scare the American people using false and distorting arguments.
My view on immigration is direct and simple. I believe that the vast majority of the American people are both anti-illegal immigration and pro-legal immigration.
That’s why I intend to introduce comprehensive immigration reform legislation by Labor Day that secures our border, stops the flow of illegal aliens to the United States and requires all illegal aliens present in the United States to quickly register their presence with the U. S. government and start paying taxes or face imminent deportation.
Any claim that I am not serious about securing the border is simply untrue. Last week, I voted to require the Department of Homeland Security to construct significant fortifications to the border fence.
And I have previously voted to double the size of the border patrol from 10,000 agents to 20,000 field agents, and to give the border patrol significant funds for new technologies such as sensors, light towers, mobile night vision scopes, remote video surveillance systems, directional listening devices, database systems and unmanned aerial vehicles along the border.
These new technologies serve as “force multipliers” and allow the border patrol to maintain control of larger segments of the border with fewer agents on our northern and southern borders.
This has led to real progress, but I want the remainder of the border to be under our operational control immediately, and will require the Department of Homeland Security to complete this task within one year of enactment of the bill I intend to introduce.
This is no easy task, but it can and will occur if the American people are committed to giving the Department of Homeland Security all of the funding and resources it needs to complete this task.
It is time for those who seek to distort the debate on a sensible and tough immigration policy in order to promote a purely anti-immigrant agenda to be honest about the facts, and to recognize that we are a country that is enriched and made more economically competitive by the contributions of legal immigrants. We must be both anti-illegal immigrant and pro-legal immigrant.
Americans will no longer be fooled by cheap buzzwords thrown around by people who are unwilling to engage in the hard work and honest discussion necessary to ensure that we create an immigration system that ends the current flow of primarily low-skilled illegal immigrants into the United States and creates a more manageable and controlled flow of legal immigrants who can be absorbed by, and assist, our economy.
Charles E. Schumer is the senior U. S. senator from New York.
7.16.2009
7.14.2009
Schumer Says Reform By Labor Day, While Cowardly Democrats Vote with Sessions
Posted 07/14/09 at 10:15am
America's Voice
Schumer Says Reform By Labor Day, While Cowardly Democrats Vote with Sessions
Note: Cross-posted on Huffington Post
Lots of immigration sideshows last week, but here's the big picture: Senator Schumer (D-NY) announced plans to introduce a comprehensive immigration reform bill by Labor Day.
According to the Associated Press:
"I think we'll have a good bill by Labor Day," said Schumer, D-N.Y. "I think the fundamental building blocks are in place to do comprehensive immigration reform."
Senator Schumer's statements may seem like a bombshell to those who've been ignoring how the politics of immigration have come together over the past few months. To those following the issue, however, it's right on track.
In June, President Obama convened a bipartisan subset of Congress to get the conversation rolling, laying the groundwork for real reform. That same week, Senator Schumer outlined his principles for legislation. Schumer's newly-revealed timeline reinforces President Obama's pledge to move immigration legislation in the first year of his presidency and repeated statements by leaders in both the House and Senate that reform would be a top priority this year. It is also in line with the desires of a majority of American voters, including Independents and Republicans, who want the immigration system addressed through real, comprehensive reform, not empty rhetoric.
Momentum is here, but there are only a few nagging questions. For instance, why are Democrats letting Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) and others set the agenda with empty, irrelevant, "build the fence bigger" immigration amendments.
I'm talking about the slew of lopsided immigration enforcement amendments that Republicans tacked on to a Senate Appropriations bill last week. Republican Senators Sessions, Vitter, Grassley, DeMint, and more led the charge last week-- supported by a handful of comprehensive reform-supporting Democrats. These included Senator Boxer (D-CA) and Senator Klobuchar (D-MN), who should know better. WTF, many reform advocates wondered aloud.
After we see Sessions lead the attack on Sotomayor at her hearings this week, most of us will be wondering why any Democrat who cares about the Latino vote would side with him on anything. And, for those who still want to side with the Senator from Alabama, we strongly suggest reading our report on Sessions and his ties to incendiary anti-immgrant hate groups.
Here's the thing. The American people want effective immigration enforcement, but they are also way out in front of politicians on the issue of what constitutes real reform.
They know that throwing money into a bigger, taller, badder fence is not going to solve our current immigration disaster. Neither is deporting twelve million people. When given the option, 64% of Americans agree that we need to regain control over our system in a way that is simultaneously tough, realistic, and fair. When they hear the details, a whopping 86% of Americans support comprehensive reform.
Despite the fact that nativists have lost election after election for years now, a majority of Republican Senators, and a handful of Democrats, do not seem to have gotten the message. When the riled-up nativists start flooding their offices with angry faxes with wildly inaccurate claims about how many immigrants bring leprosy to the U.S. each year, they cave.
Look, if Al Franken can grow a backbone in 48 hours, surely Senator Klobuchar can do the same in four years.
And, in case anyone didn't quite grasp what happened in the Senate last week, it took a freshman Democrat, Jared Polis (D-CO), about a minute to explain it:
It comes down to this: either these politicians actually think sinking money into more bricks will solve everything (they don't), or they're just making crass political calculations to cater to an angry minority in a way that makes it hard for people to respect their votes.
The American people want solutions to problems. The GOP's "southern strategy" was exposed and defeated in the last election. Nevertheless, an unholy alliance of Republican and Democratic conservative Senators opted for crass political tactics last week, most of which will disappear in the conference report on DHS appropriations.
But, when Labor Day rolls around, we'll have a real immigration reform bill. A bill that will address the real issues. That's when Feinstein, Boxer, Klobuchar and their colleagues have to step up. They've put us on notice --- and we're watching
America's Voice
Schumer Says Reform By Labor Day, While Cowardly Democrats Vote with Sessions
Note: Cross-posted on Huffington Post
Lots of immigration sideshows last week, but here's the big picture: Senator Schumer (D-NY) announced plans to introduce a comprehensive immigration reform bill by Labor Day.
According to the Associated Press:
"I think we'll have a good bill by Labor Day," said Schumer, D-N.Y. "I think the fundamental building blocks are in place to do comprehensive immigration reform."
Senator Schumer's statements may seem like a bombshell to those who've been ignoring how the politics of immigration have come together over the past few months. To those following the issue, however, it's right on track.
In June, President Obama convened a bipartisan subset of Congress to get the conversation rolling, laying the groundwork for real reform. That same week, Senator Schumer outlined his principles for legislation. Schumer's newly-revealed timeline reinforces President Obama's pledge to move immigration legislation in the first year of his presidency and repeated statements by leaders in both the House and Senate that reform would be a top priority this year. It is also in line with the desires of a majority of American voters, including Independents and Republicans, who want the immigration system addressed through real, comprehensive reform, not empty rhetoric.
Momentum is here, but there are only a few nagging questions. For instance, why are Democrats letting Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) and others set the agenda with empty, irrelevant, "build the fence bigger" immigration amendments.
I'm talking about the slew of lopsided immigration enforcement amendments that Republicans tacked on to a Senate Appropriations bill last week. Republican Senators Sessions, Vitter, Grassley, DeMint, and more led the charge last week-- supported by a handful of comprehensive reform-supporting Democrats. These included Senator Boxer (D-CA) and Senator Klobuchar (D-MN), who should know better. WTF, many reform advocates wondered aloud.
After we see Sessions lead the attack on Sotomayor at her hearings this week, most of us will be wondering why any Democrat who cares about the Latino vote would side with him on anything. And, for those who still want to side with the Senator from Alabama, we strongly suggest reading our report on Sessions and his ties to incendiary anti-immgrant hate groups.
Here's the thing. The American people want effective immigration enforcement, but they are also way out in front of politicians on the issue of what constitutes real reform.
They know that throwing money into a bigger, taller, badder fence is not going to solve our current immigration disaster. Neither is deporting twelve million people. When given the option, 64% of Americans agree that we need to regain control over our system in a way that is simultaneously tough, realistic, and fair. When they hear the details, a whopping 86% of Americans support comprehensive reform.
Despite the fact that nativists have lost election after election for years now, a majority of Republican Senators, and a handful of Democrats, do not seem to have gotten the message. When the riled-up nativists start flooding their offices with angry faxes with wildly inaccurate claims about how many immigrants bring leprosy to the U.S. each year, they cave.
Look, if Al Franken can grow a backbone in 48 hours, surely Senator Klobuchar can do the same in four years.
And, in case anyone didn't quite grasp what happened in the Senate last week, it took a freshman Democrat, Jared Polis (D-CO), about a minute to explain it:
It comes down to this: either these politicians actually think sinking money into more bricks will solve everything (they don't), or they're just making crass political calculations to cater to an angry minority in a way that makes it hard for people to respect their votes.
The American people want solutions to problems. The GOP's "southern strategy" was exposed and defeated in the last election. Nevertheless, an unholy alliance of Republican and Democratic conservative Senators opted for crass political tactics last week, most of which will disappear in the conference report on DHS appropriations.
But, when Labor Day rolls around, we'll have a real immigration reform bill. A bill that will address the real issues. That's when Feinstein, Boxer, Klobuchar and their colleagues have to step up. They've put us on notice --- and we're watching
7.13.2009
Senate Resists Changes on Immigration
Wall Street Journal
July 10, 2009
By CAM SIMPSON
WASHINGTON -- A series of Senate floor votes this week seeking to toughen immigration enforcement is giving the Obama administration its first real taste of the chilly climate for overhauling immigration laws.
On Thursday, the Senate approved a measure that would effectively overturn an immigration-enforcement decision announced one day earlier by the Obama administration. The Department of Homeland Security had said Wednesday that it would rescind a Bush administration program aimed at forcing employers to fire workers who are unable to resolve discrepancies in their Social Security records.
But the Senate approved an amendment to the annual Department of Homeland Security DHS spending bill prohibiting the department from changing the program, commonly known as the no-match rule. The amendment is one of several immigration-enforcement provisions the Senate attached this week to the $42.9 billion DHS budget for the fiscal year beginning Oct. 1.
The series of amendments was introduced by Republican opponents of immigration reform, and gained critical support from about 10 Democrats. The no-match program is intended to make it harder for illegal immigrants to hold jobs gained by using fake Social Security numbers. Critics have said it could also unfairly target U.S. citizens who were the victims of bureaucratic bungling by the Social Security Administration or the Department of Homeland Security DHS.
Even before the Obama administration said it would rescind the no-match rule, which is unpopular with many business groups, it had been blocked by a federal court.
The Obama administration also said Wednesday that it would fully implement a Bush administration initiative that would require federal contractors and subcontractors to use an electronic government program aimed at keeping them from hiring illegal workers. It is expected to affect more than 170,000 employers.
But that wasn't tough enough for Sen. Jeff Sessions, the Alabama Republican who has spearheaded efforts against immigration overhauls in recent years. Sen. Sessions won passage of an amendment after the Obama announcement Wednesday that would make the program, known as E-Verify, permanent and mandatory, removing any White House discretion to end it. Before the amendment passed, Sen. Sessions won support on a key procedural vote from 10 Democrats and Sen. Joseph Lieberman, a Connecticut independent who caucuses with the Democrats.
Another amendment approved this week would mandate construction of a physical fence along about 700 miles of the border with Mexico, instead of existing vehicle barriers or plans for a high-tech "virtual" fence. The amended bill still must pass the Senate before being reconciled with the House version.
Marshall Fitz, director of immigration policy at the left-leaning Center for American Progress, said GOP opponents of immigration reform "are definitely trying to exact their pound of flesh right now, at a time when Democrats want to maintain an appearance of being strong on immigration enforcement."
Democrats and some Republicans who favor an overhaul hope to craft a single legislative package with strong immigration enforcement provisions and a path to legalization for the estimated 12 million undocumented immigrants in the U.S.
Mr. Obama has said he wants to see the effort get under way soon. Sen. Charles Schumer, a New York Democrat, is leading the effort for Democrats and, said this week that he will have a draft bill by the end of the summer.
Although he opposed some of the Republican moves, Sen. Schumer said Thursday that most of the provisions wouldn't hurt the larger reform push. "What will make or break overall reform will be the big issues," he said, dismissing the amendments as "little things."
DHS spokesman Matt Chandler criticized the amendments, saying they "are designed to prevent real progress on immigration enforcement and are a reflection of the old administration's strategy: all show, no substance."
Frank Sherry, who heads America's Voice, an advocacy group for an immigration overhaul, said support remains for a comprehensive package in Congress, but the key is to keep enforcement and legalization together.
James Carafano, of the conservative Heritage Foundation think tank, said this week's votes show little has changed in recent years, which have seen Sen. Sessions and other Republicans repeatedly shoot down efforts to revamp the U.S. immigration system.
"I don't think the politics of this has changed at all, except maybe to get more polarized," Mr. Carafano said.
July 10, 2009
By CAM SIMPSON
WASHINGTON -- A series of Senate floor votes this week seeking to toughen immigration enforcement is giving the Obama administration its first real taste of the chilly climate for overhauling immigration laws.
On Thursday, the Senate approved a measure that would effectively overturn an immigration-enforcement decision announced one day earlier by the Obama administration. The Department of Homeland Security had said Wednesday that it would rescind a Bush administration program aimed at forcing employers to fire workers who are unable to resolve discrepancies in their Social Security records.
But the Senate approved an amendment to the annual Department of Homeland Security DHS spending bill prohibiting the department from changing the program, commonly known as the no-match rule. The amendment is one of several immigration-enforcement provisions the Senate attached this week to the $42.9 billion DHS budget for the fiscal year beginning Oct. 1.
The series of amendments was introduced by Republican opponents of immigration reform, and gained critical support from about 10 Democrats. The no-match program is intended to make it harder for illegal immigrants to hold jobs gained by using fake Social Security numbers. Critics have said it could also unfairly target U.S. citizens who were the victims of bureaucratic bungling by the Social Security Administration or the Department of Homeland Security DHS.
Even before the Obama administration said it would rescind the no-match rule, which is unpopular with many business groups, it had been blocked by a federal court.
The Obama administration also said Wednesday that it would fully implement a Bush administration initiative that would require federal contractors and subcontractors to use an electronic government program aimed at keeping them from hiring illegal workers. It is expected to affect more than 170,000 employers.
But that wasn't tough enough for Sen. Jeff Sessions, the Alabama Republican who has spearheaded efforts against immigration overhauls in recent years. Sen. Sessions won passage of an amendment after the Obama announcement Wednesday that would make the program, known as E-Verify, permanent and mandatory, removing any White House discretion to end it. Before the amendment passed, Sen. Sessions won support on a key procedural vote from 10 Democrats and Sen. Joseph Lieberman, a Connecticut independent who caucuses with the Democrats.
Another amendment approved this week would mandate construction of a physical fence along about 700 miles of the border with Mexico, instead of existing vehicle barriers or plans for a high-tech "virtual" fence. The amended bill still must pass the Senate before being reconciled with the House version.
Marshall Fitz, director of immigration policy at the left-leaning Center for American Progress, said GOP opponents of immigration reform "are definitely trying to exact their pound of flesh right now, at a time when Democrats want to maintain an appearance of being strong on immigration enforcement."
Democrats and some Republicans who favor an overhaul hope to craft a single legislative package with strong immigration enforcement provisions and a path to legalization for the estimated 12 million undocumented immigrants in the U.S.
Mr. Obama has said he wants to see the effort get under way soon. Sen. Charles Schumer, a New York Democrat, is leading the effort for Democrats and, said this week that he will have a draft bill by the end of the summer.
Although he opposed some of the Republican moves, Sen. Schumer said Thursday that most of the provisions wouldn't hurt the larger reform push. "What will make or break overall reform will be the big issues," he said, dismissing the amendments as "little things."
DHS spokesman Matt Chandler criticized the amendments, saying they "are designed to prevent real progress on immigration enforcement and are a reflection of the old administration's strategy: all show, no substance."
Frank Sherry, who heads America's Voice, an advocacy group for an immigration overhaul, said support remains for a comprehensive package in Congress, but the key is to keep enforcement and legalization together.
James Carafano, of the conservative Heritage Foundation think tank, said this week's votes show little has changed in recent years, which have seen Sen. Sessions and other Republicans repeatedly shoot down efforts to revamp the U.S. immigration system.
"I don't think the politics of this has changed at all, except maybe to get more polarized," Mr. Carafano said.
7.08.2009
'Significant Hurdles' Remain on Immigration Reform
'Significant Hurdles' Remain on Immigration Reform
Interviewee: Jeb Bush, Jeb Bush & Associates LLC; former Governor of Florida
Author: Toni Johnson, Staff Writer, CFR.org
July 8, 2009
The changing demographics of the United States, with fewer workers and more retirees, should compel Washington to make comprehensive immigration reform a top policy priority, says former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, co-chair of the Council of Foreign Relations Task Force on U.S. immigration policy. As Congress begins to look again at reform, a number of significant hurdles will impede reform efforts, Bush says. But he adds that conditions for creating a legal and economic system to overhaul immigration policy are slightly more promising than past attempts. "We have to have a legal system of immigration that accounts for the fact that we have fewer workers that are producing the resources to take care of a growing number of people who aspire to be retired," the former governor says. "There's no possible way we can sustain our entitlement programs without having a strategy in place that recognizes that the legal flow of immigration matters."
Immigration reform is back in the news. Members of Congress met at the White House in late June to discuss the issue. Congress has tried a number of times in the last few years to reform immigration. Why has it been so difficult?
I would say the principal problem is a lack of confidence that the federal government was capable of protecting the borders. We've had immigration reform every decade. Commitments were made about enforcement, and clearly they haven't [been] delivered. So there's a lot of frustration, a lot of anger regarding that and that has made comprehensive immigration reform difficult. The last two efforts, while they got very close, broke down on that basic point.
Today the conditions are a little different because there has been a major effort to enforce the border, particularly the Mexican border. There's been a significant deployment of border patrol agents, [and] there is new technology that now is on the border between Mexico and the United States. There is evidence that there are fewer people crossing. So that creates an opportunity.
What has to happen to get things going in Congress this term? Are there still big hurdles to overcome?
There are some significant hurdles. It's very complex for starters. It's not a simple policy discussion. The [Council on Foreign Relations] Task Force has made a series of very thoughtful recommendations. If you read them in their totality, you get a sense that this is a very complex issue. We have to reform the administration of immigration flows; we have to reform the legal immigration system that is quite cumbersome; we have to deal with employer sanctions in a different way; and [we have to] deal with the very difficult issue of what to do with the twelve million people that are here illegally--what means will they have to be able to find a path of legalization? So it's very complex, and anything this complex makes it difficult. When you combine that with the fact that the Obama administration has embarked on some incredibly complex initiatives beyond immigration related to climate change and health care and trying to deal with a down economy, all of this makes it quite difficult to imagine this happening immediately.
You've been part of the CFR Task Force on immigration reform. There are several other reports out there. Many have called for things like tougher border enforcement, finding a path to citizenship for those here illegally, allowing families to stay together, and loosening caps for skilled-worker visas. What's in this report that goes beyond these standard recommendations?
We have to have a legal system of immigration that accounts for the fact that we have fewer workers that are producing the resources to take care of a growing number of people who aspire to be retired.
Given the fact that this was the Council on Foreign Relations, there was an emphasis on how immigration is an important foreign policy issue, not just a domestic policy issue. There are significant things we can do to enhance the position of the United States around the world. For example, the visas that allow foreign students to come into the United States--we've lost a bit of our market share in the last four [or] five years, because of security issues. The Task Force recommended a pretty dramatic extension of [student visa stay lengths] and that makes all the sense in the world. That's just but one example of how you can enhance the foreign policy interests of the United States by changing the immigration laws and policies to make sure we have more interaction with the next generation of opinion leaders and leaders of countries.
Apart from that you have the economic issues. It's important to recognize that given the demography of the United States, we've got to get immigration right. We have to have a legal system of immigration that accounts for the fact that we have fewer workers that are producing the resources to take care of a growing number of people who aspire to be retired. Given the birth rates of the U.S. population, there's no possible way we can sustain our entitlement programs without having a strategy in place that recognizes that the legal flow of immigration matters. These are issues that really are not typically topical when you hear the conversations on television, or when you hear the conversations in Congress, but they're important.
What happens if there's no reform?
We miss an opportunity in the foreign policy arena. We certainly miss a huge opportunity as it relates to the competitive posture of the United States. One of the real weapons we have in competing economically is our ability to absorb immigrants--legal immigrants--that make huge contributions to our country. And then we ignore an issue that needs to be solved, which is what do we do with people who are here permanently, who have made contributions, who if given a path to citizenship would do what's right and take the necessary steps to achieve legalized status and citizenship. We just can't ignore these problems.
The Task Force report talks about U.S. immigration as a key component in the economies of developing countries, especially through remittances. Can you talk a little bit about what's working on the development side and what still needs to be accomplished?
Particularly in Mexico and Central America there are push factors that, if they were mitigated, would have a dramatic impact on illegal immigrants for sure. So if Mexico could develop a long-term strategy with the United States -- certainly not dictating on how to do this but playing a supportive role to expand economic opportunities for those that are forced to leave to be able to provide for their families--that would have a very positive long-term impact on the border issues that are a huge challenge for Mexico and certainly a challenge for us as well.
The point the report makes [is] how important remittances are for our neighbors. It's the largest export for every one of the countries other than Mexico, and it's a huge number for Mexico as well. Recognizing that and recognizing the importance of the region for our security, as well as our long-term economic interests, is important. My personal belief is that we save jobs by having stronger economies in Central America and Mexico. That [in] the United States, our workers benefit when there are growing economies because we're their largest trading partner, [and] the ability for the United States to be competitive with other regions in the world is directly related to how successful Central America and Mexico are in terms of creating policies that on a long-term basis will create sustained growth.
There are some labor groups who complain that illegal immigrants drive down wages for low-skilled workers in the United States. Economists differ on how true that claim actually is, but the perception remains, and a similar argument is made about trade. What do policymakers need to do to overcome fears about influxes of cheap labor and goods into the United States?
One of the real weapons we have in competing economically is our ability to absorb immigrants--legal immigrants--that make huge contributions to our country.
I've seen studies that make the exact opposite cases on both those subjects. So I'm not sure that'll ever be resolved. People seem to have a conclusion and then work backward to find ways to justify that conclusion. In my mind, the best way to lessen people's fears is to educate in tangible ways--to show how cooperation economically creates opportunities for both sides. It's not a zero-sum game. If you look at trade and economic development as a threat, I would say the threat would be larger from Asia. Together the United States and Mexico and Central America can create a win-win, and avoid significant dislocation of investment, plants, and equipment for jobs that we've seen go to China, for example. A case has to be made that it's in the United States' interest to have a stronger growing relationship with our neighbors to the south. The net benefit of that is you would see a subsidence of immigration flows, but equally important it would allow us to remain competitive in an increasingly competitive world.
What's your feeling on the border fence? What image does it project to the rest of the world and how effective do you think it's going to be?
The fence in certain areas has proven to be effective and more appropriate to protect our borders for national security purposes. But there are other options that make a lot more sense. Using technology, for example, [and] greater cooperation between Mexico and the United States will yield a better result. Clearly the image of having a fence in the minds of people outside of the United States is a negative one. No doubt about that. So recognizing that, finding other options where appropriate makes sense. That's what we proposed here. This report does a good job of describing the need to continue the efforts on border enforcement. In order to create a climate where comprehensive reform can happen, there needs to be a continued effort on protecting the border, and the means by which we do that need to be based on the conditions in those localities. I don't think it should be a fence across the entire border because [it] makes us look strong, or whatever the advocates have claimed. Nor do I think we should ignore the protection of the border. We should use the proper means based on the conditions on the ground.
Is there anything else in this debate that you think has harmed the U.S. image?
It's been a domestic policy issue, highly politicized, where the tone of the debate has not yielded the kind of climate to get something done. That's where the focus needs to be: to lessen the emotions of this and look at the clear need for us to achieve comprehensive immigration reform. I can't tell you, to be honest with you, how much people are watching around the world on this. The fact is that our immigration policy has been a huge benefit to our country [in the past] and to get it right gives us a competitive edge economically, and it also helps our country to continue to be dynamic, ever-changing in a positive way. In the long run, this is really important for our country to get right and that should be where the focus is. I worry less about what people think of us than how effective our policies are.
Weigh in on this issue by emailing CFR.org.
Here is the beginning of my post.
Interviewee: Jeb Bush, Jeb Bush & Associates LLC; former Governor of Florida
Author: Toni Johnson, Staff Writer, CFR.org
July 8, 2009
The changing demographics of the United States, with fewer workers and more retirees, should compel Washington to make comprehensive immigration reform a top policy priority, says former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, co-chair of the Council of Foreign Relations Task Force on U.S. immigration policy. As Congress begins to look again at reform, a number of significant hurdles will impede reform efforts, Bush says. But he adds that conditions for creating a legal and economic system to overhaul immigration policy are slightly more promising than past attempts. "We have to have a legal system of immigration that accounts for the fact that we have fewer workers that are producing the resources to take care of a growing number of people who aspire to be retired," the former governor says. "There's no possible way we can sustain our entitlement programs without having a strategy in place that recognizes that the legal flow of immigration matters."
Immigration reform is back in the news. Members of Congress met at the White House in late June to discuss the issue. Congress has tried a number of times in the last few years to reform immigration. Why has it been so difficult?
I would say the principal problem is a lack of confidence that the federal government was capable of protecting the borders. We've had immigration reform every decade. Commitments were made about enforcement, and clearly they haven't [been] delivered. So there's a lot of frustration, a lot of anger regarding that and that has made comprehensive immigration reform difficult. The last two efforts, while they got very close, broke down on that basic point.
Today the conditions are a little different because there has been a major effort to enforce the border, particularly the Mexican border. There's been a significant deployment of border patrol agents, [and] there is new technology that now is on the border between Mexico and the United States. There is evidence that there are fewer people crossing. So that creates an opportunity.
What has to happen to get things going in Congress this term? Are there still big hurdles to overcome?
There are some significant hurdles. It's very complex for starters. It's not a simple policy discussion. The [Council on Foreign Relations] Task Force has made a series of very thoughtful recommendations. If you read them in their totality, you get a sense that this is a very complex issue. We have to reform the administration of immigration flows; we have to reform the legal immigration system that is quite cumbersome; we have to deal with employer sanctions in a different way; and [we have to] deal with the very difficult issue of what to do with the twelve million people that are here illegally--what means will they have to be able to find a path of legalization? So it's very complex, and anything this complex makes it difficult. When you combine that with the fact that the Obama administration has embarked on some incredibly complex initiatives beyond immigration related to climate change and health care and trying to deal with a down economy, all of this makes it quite difficult to imagine this happening immediately.
You've been part of the CFR Task Force on immigration reform. There are several other reports out there. Many have called for things like tougher border enforcement, finding a path to citizenship for those here illegally, allowing families to stay together, and loosening caps for skilled-worker visas. What's in this report that goes beyond these standard recommendations?
We have to have a legal system of immigration that accounts for the fact that we have fewer workers that are producing the resources to take care of a growing number of people who aspire to be retired.
Given the fact that this was the Council on Foreign Relations, there was an emphasis on how immigration is an important foreign policy issue, not just a domestic policy issue. There are significant things we can do to enhance the position of the United States around the world. For example, the visas that allow foreign students to come into the United States--we've lost a bit of our market share in the last four [or] five years, because of security issues. The Task Force recommended a pretty dramatic extension of [student visa stay lengths] and that makes all the sense in the world. That's just but one example of how you can enhance the foreign policy interests of the United States by changing the immigration laws and policies to make sure we have more interaction with the next generation of opinion leaders and leaders of countries.
Apart from that you have the economic issues. It's important to recognize that given the demography of the United States, we've got to get immigration right. We have to have a legal system of immigration that accounts for the fact that we have fewer workers that are producing the resources to take care of a growing number of people who aspire to be retired. Given the birth rates of the U.S. population, there's no possible way we can sustain our entitlement programs without having a strategy in place that recognizes that the legal flow of immigration matters. These are issues that really are not typically topical when you hear the conversations on television, or when you hear the conversations in Congress, but they're important.
What happens if there's no reform?
We miss an opportunity in the foreign policy arena. We certainly miss a huge opportunity as it relates to the competitive posture of the United States. One of the real weapons we have in competing economically is our ability to absorb immigrants--legal immigrants--that make huge contributions to our country. And then we ignore an issue that needs to be solved, which is what do we do with people who are here permanently, who have made contributions, who if given a path to citizenship would do what's right and take the necessary steps to achieve legalized status and citizenship. We just can't ignore these problems.
The Task Force report talks about U.S. immigration as a key component in the economies of developing countries, especially through remittances. Can you talk a little bit about what's working on the development side and what still needs to be accomplished?
Particularly in Mexico and Central America there are push factors that, if they were mitigated, would have a dramatic impact on illegal immigrants for sure. So if Mexico could develop a long-term strategy with the United States -- certainly not dictating on how to do this but playing a supportive role to expand economic opportunities for those that are forced to leave to be able to provide for their families--that would have a very positive long-term impact on the border issues that are a huge challenge for Mexico and certainly a challenge for us as well.
The point the report makes [is] how important remittances are for our neighbors. It's the largest export for every one of the countries other than Mexico, and it's a huge number for Mexico as well. Recognizing that and recognizing the importance of the region for our security, as well as our long-term economic interests, is important. My personal belief is that we save jobs by having stronger economies in Central America and Mexico. That [in] the United States, our workers benefit when there are growing economies because we're their largest trading partner, [and] the ability for the United States to be competitive with other regions in the world is directly related to how successful Central America and Mexico are in terms of creating policies that on a long-term basis will create sustained growth.
There are some labor groups who complain that illegal immigrants drive down wages for low-skilled workers in the United States. Economists differ on how true that claim actually is, but the perception remains, and a similar argument is made about trade. What do policymakers need to do to overcome fears about influxes of cheap labor and goods into the United States?
One of the real weapons we have in competing economically is our ability to absorb immigrants--legal immigrants--that make huge contributions to our country.
I've seen studies that make the exact opposite cases on both those subjects. So I'm not sure that'll ever be resolved. People seem to have a conclusion and then work backward to find ways to justify that conclusion. In my mind, the best way to lessen people's fears is to educate in tangible ways--to show how cooperation economically creates opportunities for both sides. It's not a zero-sum game. If you look at trade and economic development as a threat, I would say the threat would be larger from Asia. Together the United States and Mexico and Central America can create a win-win, and avoid significant dislocation of investment, plants, and equipment for jobs that we've seen go to China, for example. A case has to be made that it's in the United States' interest to have a stronger growing relationship with our neighbors to the south. The net benefit of that is you would see a subsidence of immigration flows, but equally important it would allow us to remain competitive in an increasingly competitive world.
What's your feeling on the border fence? What image does it project to the rest of the world and how effective do you think it's going to be?
The fence in certain areas has proven to be effective and more appropriate to protect our borders for national security purposes. But there are other options that make a lot more sense. Using technology, for example, [and] greater cooperation between Mexico and the United States will yield a better result. Clearly the image of having a fence in the minds of people outside of the United States is a negative one. No doubt about that. So recognizing that, finding other options where appropriate makes sense. That's what we proposed here. This report does a good job of describing the need to continue the efforts on border enforcement. In order to create a climate where comprehensive reform can happen, there needs to be a continued effort on protecting the border, and the means by which we do that need to be based on the conditions in those localities. I don't think it should be a fence across the entire border because [it] makes us look strong, or whatever the advocates have claimed. Nor do I think we should ignore the protection of the border. We should use the proper means based on the conditions on the ground.
Is there anything else in this debate that you think has harmed the U.S. image?
It's been a domestic policy issue, highly politicized, where the tone of the debate has not yielded the kind of climate to get something done. That's where the focus needs to be: to lessen the emotions of this and look at the clear need for us to achieve comprehensive immigration reform. I can't tell you, to be honest with you, how much people are watching around the world on this. The fact is that our immigration policy has been a huge benefit to our country [in the past] and to get it right gives us a competitive edge economically, and it also helps our country to continue to be dynamic, ever-changing in a positive way. In the long run, this is really important for our country to get right and that should be where the focus is. I worry less about what people think of us than how effective our policies are.
Weigh in on this issue by emailing CFR.org.
Here is the beginning of my post.
7.02.2009
As his deportation hearing nears, young undocumented dreamer shares his story
The Miami Herald
Posted on Thu, Jul. 02, 2009
As his deportation hearing nears, young undocumented dreamer shares his story
BY BRITTANY LEVINE
blevine@MiamiHerald.com
Walter Lara considers himself the all-American guy next door, raised on the mantra that if you work hard and do well in school, you can ''make something of yourself.'' But the 23-year-old, undocumented Florida resident -- who supporters say is ''as American as apple pie'' -- faces deportation on Monday because his parents never adjusted his immigration status after they moved to Miami from Argentina when he was 3.
He has garnered support from lawmakers and immigration activists, but time is not on his side.
Lara held a press conference in Washington, D.C., on Wednesday, hoping to sway lawmakers to write a bill that could keep him in the United States. The only ways to stall Lara's deportation are if immigration officials postpone it, or if Congress passes a private bill granting him temporary residency. But with Congress out of session and the July Fourth holiday approaching, things don't look good, Lara advocates said.
Florida Democrat Sen. Bill Nelson has asked a top Homeland Security official to postpone Lara's deportation, and Rep. Corrine Brown, D-Jacksonville, has penned a private bill seeking the same thing.
Lara, who did not know he was undocumented until he tried to apply to University of Central Florida, said he knows little about Argentina.
MDC GRAD
He graduated from Miami Dade Honors College with an associate's degree in computer animation. He dreams of working for Pixar.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents arrested Lara in February while he was installing satellite dishes for DirecTV.
Lara's story parallels that of Alex and Juan Gomez, two local youths who were to be deported in 2007, but weren't.
Like Lara, they had a Facebook group of more than 1,300 members calling to halt their deportation. They, too, had a private bill and lawmakers on their side.
The difference for the Gomez brothers was timing and popularity, said Miriam Calderon, a policy director at First Focus, a children's advocacy group handling Lara's public relations. The Gomez's became poster children for the DREAM Act, a bill that would grant citizenship to undocumented immigrants who attend college or serve in the military.
Juan, now 20, is at Georgetown University and Alex, 21, is studying in South Florida.
Halting their deportation was seen as a temporary solution until the DREAM Act passed. But it didn't pass in 2007. The measure was introduced again in March, and advocates say it has a better chance now that President Obama, who has publicly supported immigration reform, is in office.
Lara lives in Orlando with his grandmother, a legal resident, and his 15-year-old sister, who is a citizen. He plans to watch July Fourth fireworks with them.
In 2007, Lara's neighbor offered to sponsor his citizenship and hire him to work as a high-tech sculptor. John Wilkinson, a sculptor from Central Florida, said only Lara and a handful of others know how to make the specialized art with 3D lasers.
`ZERO PERCENT CHANCE'
Wilkinson, 54, visited an immigration attorney with Lara, but the attorney said not to do anything because immigration reform was ''just around the corner.'' ''Then we had a chance. Now there's a zero percent chance Walter can stay,'' Wilkinson said.
DREAM Act critics such as Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, a Washington think tank, said, 'It's not America's responsibility to clean up the parents' mess.
''This idea of picking and choosing particular cases and passing bills for particular individuals is no way to run a railroad,'' he said.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
