Posted on Fri, Aug. 28, 2009
Immigration reform remains a necessary and worthy goal
Philadelphia Inquirer
President Obama should have tackled immigration reform first. His drop in the polls probably wouldn’t have been any worse than the dip he’s received in attempting comprehensive health-care reform.
Plus, after spending the better part of two years trying to hammer out an immigration compromise, Congress was closer to overhauling that law than it is, after six months of debate, to changing the way the nation buys and receives its medical care.
That doesn’t mean immigration reform would be easy. But considering the greater likelihood of success with it — which, like health-care reform, has been a defining goal of Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., — Obama should have seen it as the better vehicle to forge bipartisan support. That might have even helped smooth the way for health-care reform.
Because he took the opposite approach, the president found himself at the recent trilateral conference with Mexico and Canada announcing that he had to back off his campaign promise to tackle immigration this year. “I’ve got a lot on my plate,” he pleaded. What a triumph it would have been if instead, Obama could have stood with the leaders of our two closest neighbors to shake hands on a new border pact.
Now, immigration reform may become a collateral victim in the health-care war, which has Republicans walking in lockstep with so-called Blue Dog Democrats, whose opposition to reform really has more to do with their personal re-election chances than what’s good for America.
On health care, Obama has let the legislators put forth their various ideas while he lends his support to broad themes he wants to see included in the final package. That may avoid the top-down-management criticism of the Clinton administration’s health-care initiative, but it also allows opponents to label any idea they don’t like as “Obamacare.”
That’s why the president should be very specific with immigration reform, leaving no doubt about what he wants in legislation that he says could be introduced by year’s end. He should start by telling Republicans he wants the same thing President George W. Bush wanted — a path to citizenship for the more than 12 million illegal immigrants in this country.
Although very complex, the compromise hammered out in 2008 by Democrat Kennedy and then-Republican Sen. Arlen Specter gives Obama something to work with. It would allow most illegal immigrants to apply for new “Z” visas giving them probationary residency status. The plan also called for a “Y” visa to be issued to low-skilled “guest” workers such as farm laborers.
The stumbling block remains how to best move people to permanent-residency status. The compromise called for them to go back home to apply for a green card and pay $5,000 in fees and fines for their previous illegal entry. Many wouldn’t bother to do that, but others would, hoping to become full citizens.
While Obama has placed reform on a back burner, he has stepped up enforcement efforts begun by the Bush administration. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano recently announced that 181,000 illegal immigrants had been arrested and 215,000 deported so far this year, both figures double what they were two years ago.
Immigration reform supporters are hoping Napolitano, a former governor of border state Arizona, will eventually join their cause. She met Thursday with immigrant advocates who want her to acknowledge that making the borders more secure does little for the millions of undocumented immigrants already here.
Of course, any new immigration legislation will bring back howls that it grants unearned “amnesty” to lawbreakers. And screaming the loudest will be the same dissimulating crowd that now yells about “death panels” in the debate over health-care reform. In many cases, they are egged on by people whose primary goal is to keep lowering Obama’s poll numbers.
The president can’t ignore the polls. His success is inextricably tied to his popularity. But even in only his first eight months of office, he should have learned that Americans like a fighter. Immigration reform is something worth fighting for. It’s been supported by Republicans and Democrats. It has links to other important issues, including education, employment, and, yes, health care.
Because midterm elections occur next year, Congress may want to delay immigration reform even further. Obama should not let that happen. National security depends not only on making it harder to breach our borders; it also requires a rational program that allows entry to those we want to enter and sets up a better process to help those we want to stay.
8.26.2009
Kennedy 'fashioned the modern day' immigration system
Kennedy 'fashioned the modern day' immigration system
By Kathy Kiely, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — Sen. Edward Kennedy's first major legislative victory helped change the face of the country and shaped his own political career.
In 1965, Kennedy had been in the Senate less than three years. His party's leaders gave him the job of pushing a bill to eliminate the quota system that had made it virtually impossible for anyone from anywhere but western Europe to immigrate to the USA.
Eliminating national quotas for immigration had been the goal of every U.S. president since Harry Truman— including Kennedy's brother John F. Kennedy. That was probably one reason that "Ted seized the cause," in the words of his biographer, Adam Clymer. Passage marked "the first of many times Ted Kennedy fulfilled an unfinished dream of one of his brothers," Clymer wrote.
It was also the first of many times that Kennedy found himself at the forefront of an issue of a cause that he came to see as a personal crusade.
"From the windows of my office in Boston … I can see the Golden Stairs from Boston Harbor where all eight of my great-grandparents set foot on this great land for the first time," Kennedy told Senate colleagues in a 2007 speech. "That immigrant spirit of limitless possibility animates America even today."
Beginning with the 1965 bill, which opened the doors for the flood of Latin American and Asian immigrants who dramatically altered the nation's demography, to the end of his life, Kennedy remained the Senate's most impassioned advocate for widening opportunities for America's newcomers.
"He fashioned the modern-day legal system of immigration. He created humane refugee and asylum policies. And he has set the stage for a 21st century solution to the problem of illegal immigration," said Frank Sharry, an immigrant rights advocate who worked with Kennedy on legislation.
Among the immigration measures that Kennedy helped shape:
•A 1980 bill that established a system for refugee resettlement in the USA and nearly tripled the number of people who would qualify for admission.
•A 1986 bill that granted amnesty to an estimated 2.7 million people living illegally in the USA and established penalties against employers who hired illegal immigrants.
•A 1990 bill that revised the legal immigration system to allow for more immigrants and more high-skilled workers.
For all of his accomplishments, Sharry thinks Kennedy will be best known for the work he did with Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., on a bill that failed. The legislation would have put an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants on a path to citizenship and plugged holes in the employer sanctions system. It collapsed despite its powerful backers, including President Bush.
Sharry remains convinced that Kennedy "laid the groundwork" for a bill that eventually will pass. President Obama has made an immigration overhaul along the lines of the Kennedy-McCain bill one of his top legislative priorities.
On the day the bill failed in 2007, Kennedy himself predicted its backers would be vindicated. "We will be back and we will prevail," he said.
8.20.2009
Some Hear More PR, Less Policy at White House Immigration Meeting
The Wall Street Journal
August 20, 2009, 7:05 PM ET Some Hear More PR, Less Policy at White House Immigration Meeting
Cam Simpson reports on immigration.
Business groups, immigrant advocates, labor unions, law enforcement groups and religious organizations were all represented at a big White House meeting Thursday on immigration.
And when it ended, some of the nearly 100 attendees left uncertain about what it all meant, or where things were heading.
Some told Washington Wire that they thought the session, hosted by Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, was less about policy and more about public relations, especially given that some advocacy groups are growing more and more vocal and more and more unhappy.
Napolitano made an opening statement about broad principles — nothing new there, some attendees said — before the crowd broke into “working groups.” They covered basic ground — how to bring illegal immigrants out from the shadows, how to fashion a potential guest-worker program, how to improve family reunification, and how to develop effective and smart enforcement. Administration note takers scribbled away. Kal Penn, of “Harold and Kumar” fame, who now does public outreach for the White House, talked with attendees.
They came together again at the end, and just when Napolitano indicated she was ready to take questions, President Barack Obama walked into the room — surprise, surprise — and gave a pep talk. With that, the meeting ended, letting Napolitano off the hook. Some advocates had been looking for a chance to vent their dissatisfaction with the administration’s enforcement approach, part of Napolitano’s responsibilities.
Ali Noorani, executive director of the National Immigration Forum, said in a statement afterwards that “pro-reform constituencies are growing impatient.” He said he was pleased to hear Napolitano and Obama reaffirm their support for overhauling immigration laws, but also made it clear he wants to see more vocal leadership from the administration.
Napolitano’s own statement called the meeting “an important opportunity to hear from stakeholders” and build on her meetings with Congress “on this critical subject.” Officials declined to discuss details about the session.
August 20, 2009, 7:05 PM ET Some Hear More PR, Less Policy at White House Immigration Meeting
Cam Simpson reports on immigration.
Business groups, immigrant advocates, labor unions, law enforcement groups and religious organizations were all represented at a big White House meeting Thursday on immigration.
And when it ended, some of the nearly 100 attendees left uncertain about what it all meant, or where things were heading.
Some told Washington Wire that they thought the session, hosted by Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, was less about policy and more about public relations, especially given that some advocacy groups are growing more and more vocal and more and more unhappy.
Napolitano made an opening statement about broad principles — nothing new there, some attendees said — before the crowd broke into “working groups.” They covered basic ground — how to bring illegal immigrants out from the shadows, how to fashion a potential guest-worker program, how to improve family reunification, and how to develop effective and smart enforcement. Administration note takers scribbled away. Kal Penn, of “Harold and Kumar” fame, who now does public outreach for the White House, talked with attendees.
They came together again at the end, and just when Napolitano indicated she was ready to take questions, President Barack Obama walked into the room — surprise, surprise — and gave a pep talk. With that, the meeting ended, letting Napolitano off the hook. Some advocates had been looking for a chance to vent their dissatisfaction with the administration’s enforcement approach, part of Napolitano’s responsibilities.
Ali Noorani, executive director of the National Immigration Forum, said in a statement afterwards that “pro-reform constituencies are growing impatient.” He said he was pleased to hear Napolitano and Obama reaffirm their support for overhauling immigration laws, but also made it clear he wants to see more vocal leadership from the administration.
Napolitano’s own statement called the meeting “an important opportunity to hear from stakeholders” and build on her meetings with Congress “on this critical subject.” Officials declined to discuss details about the session.
Una promesa que cuesta cumplir - Obama y el plan de reforma migratoria
Una promesa que cuesta cumplir
Obama y el plan de reforma migratoria
Por Jorge Ramos Avalos, Univision.com
Esto es lo que Barack Obama le prometió a los latinos y a los inmigrantes: "Lo que yo puedo garantizar es que vamos a tener durante el primer año (de mi gobierno) una propuesta de ley migratoria".
La pregunta ahora es si Obama cumplirá esa promesa (que hizo en una entrevista con Univision el 28 de mayo del 2008).
Cuesta arriba
Ese primer año en la Casa Blanca termina el 20 de enero del 2010. Pero todo parece indicar que la legalización de 12 millones de indocumentados se tardará más.
Durante su reciente visita a Guadalaja, México, Obama dijo que aún tenía muchas cosas pendientes en el congreso -crisis económica, un nuevo sistema de salud, reforma energética- y que, por lo tanto, la reforma migratoria tendría que esperar al 2010.
Pero el 2010 es un año muy peligroso. En noviembre del próximo año hay elecciones para el congreso y no es ningún secreto que senadores y representantes van a estar más preocupados por su reelección que por los indocumentados (que no votan). Y difícilmente van a querer apoyar un tema tan controversial si su puesto está en juego.
Planean boicot
Por eso, organizaciones como la Asociación Política Mexico Americana no quieren esperar y están planeando un boicot del censo hasta que se legalice a los indocumentados. Su mensaje es claro: si me quieres contar, antes me tienes que legalizar.
Sin embargo, la mayoría de las organizaciones hispanas, incluyendo al Concilio Nacional de la Raza, no está de acuerdo con el boicot y, en cambio, insiste en presionar al congreso -no tanto al presidente- para que haya pronto una reforma migratoria.
Obama, está claro, apoya la legalización de indocumentados. Lo ha dicho muchas veces. Pero también es un político muy pragmático. Se ha dado cuenta que los ataques y gritos durante el actual debate sobre el sistema de salud son un preludio de lo que nos espera durante el debate migratorio. Así que ha decidido esperar el momento propicio.
Apurar la reforma en un congreso abrumado con otros temas pudiera ser fatal. Ya nos pasó en el 2006 y 2007. Pero esperar demasiado mataría las legítimas esperanzas de millones.
George Bush esperó 7 años y cuando quiso ya no le quedaba capital político.
Mientras tanto, miles de inmigrantes siguen siendo detenidos y deportados. Es cierto que Obama ha suspendido las redadas masivas a centros de trabajo que caracterizaron la presidencia de Bush.
¿Cuánto más?
Pero el nuevo énfasis presionando a las empresas para que no contraten a indocumentados tiene el mismo efecto: más despidos y más deportaciones. La realidad es que este sistema no funciona. Ni con Bush ni con Obama.
El sistema es tan deficiente que ha permitido que personas que no son agentes de inmigración realicen redadas. La semana pasada el controversial sheriff del condado de Maricopa en Arizona, Joe Arpaio, envió a sus alguaciles a una planta de papel en Phoenix y arrestó a decenas de indocumentados. ¿Cómo es eso posible?
En lugar de perseguir inmigrantes habría que traer más. El Instituto Cato acaba de publicar un estudio que concluye que la legalización de indocumentados significaría un beneficio económico para Estados Unidos de $180 mil millones en 10 años.
Es decir, el estímulo económico para salir de esta crisis tiene un nombre: inmigrantes.
Es muy preocupante que el presidente Obama quiera retrasar el tema migratorio hasta el próximo año. Pero, al menos por ahora, él es la única esperanza de millones de personas que quieren dejar de ser perseguidas injustamente.
Los hispanos votaron abrumadoramente por Obama en el 2008 -67 por ciento- a cambio de su promesa de una legalización de indocumentados. Y no van a olvidar esa promesa.
Creo que los hispanos pueden esperar al presidente un poquito más. No hay más remedio. El marca sus propios tiempos políticos. Pero si no sale nada en el 2010, los votantes latinos le van a recordar a Obama esa promesa no cumplida en las próximas elecciones. Dando y dando.
Obama y el plan de reforma migratoria
Por Jorge Ramos Avalos, Univision.com
Esto es lo que Barack Obama le prometió a los latinos y a los inmigrantes: "Lo que yo puedo garantizar es que vamos a tener durante el primer año (de mi gobierno) una propuesta de ley migratoria".
La pregunta ahora es si Obama cumplirá esa promesa (que hizo en una entrevista con Univision el 28 de mayo del 2008).
Cuesta arriba
Ese primer año en la Casa Blanca termina el 20 de enero del 2010. Pero todo parece indicar que la legalización de 12 millones de indocumentados se tardará más.
Durante su reciente visita a Guadalaja, México, Obama dijo que aún tenía muchas cosas pendientes en el congreso -crisis económica, un nuevo sistema de salud, reforma energética- y que, por lo tanto, la reforma migratoria tendría que esperar al 2010.
Pero el 2010 es un año muy peligroso. En noviembre del próximo año hay elecciones para el congreso y no es ningún secreto que senadores y representantes van a estar más preocupados por su reelección que por los indocumentados (que no votan). Y difícilmente van a querer apoyar un tema tan controversial si su puesto está en juego.
Planean boicot
Por eso, organizaciones como la Asociación Política Mexico Americana no quieren esperar y están planeando un boicot del censo hasta que se legalice a los indocumentados. Su mensaje es claro: si me quieres contar, antes me tienes que legalizar.
Sin embargo, la mayoría de las organizaciones hispanas, incluyendo al Concilio Nacional de la Raza, no está de acuerdo con el boicot y, en cambio, insiste en presionar al congreso -no tanto al presidente- para que haya pronto una reforma migratoria.
Obama, está claro, apoya la legalización de indocumentados. Lo ha dicho muchas veces. Pero también es un político muy pragmático. Se ha dado cuenta que los ataques y gritos durante el actual debate sobre el sistema de salud son un preludio de lo que nos espera durante el debate migratorio. Así que ha decidido esperar el momento propicio.
Apurar la reforma en un congreso abrumado con otros temas pudiera ser fatal. Ya nos pasó en el 2006 y 2007. Pero esperar demasiado mataría las legítimas esperanzas de millones.
George Bush esperó 7 años y cuando quiso ya no le quedaba capital político.
Mientras tanto, miles de inmigrantes siguen siendo detenidos y deportados. Es cierto que Obama ha suspendido las redadas masivas a centros de trabajo que caracterizaron la presidencia de Bush.
¿Cuánto más?
Pero el nuevo énfasis presionando a las empresas para que no contraten a indocumentados tiene el mismo efecto: más despidos y más deportaciones. La realidad es que este sistema no funciona. Ni con Bush ni con Obama.
El sistema es tan deficiente que ha permitido que personas que no son agentes de inmigración realicen redadas. La semana pasada el controversial sheriff del condado de Maricopa en Arizona, Joe Arpaio, envió a sus alguaciles a una planta de papel en Phoenix y arrestó a decenas de indocumentados. ¿Cómo es eso posible?
En lugar de perseguir inmigrantes habría que traer más. El Instituto Cato acaba de publicar un estudio que concluye que la legalización de indocumentados significaría un beneficio económico para Estados Unidos de $180 mil millones en 10 años.
Es decir, el estímulo económico para salir de esta crisis tiene un nombre: inmigrantes.
Es muy preocupante que el presidente Obama quiera retrasar el tema migratorio hasta el próximo año. Pero, al menos por ahora, él es la única esperanza de millones de personas que quieren dejar de ser perseguidas injustamente.
Los hispanos votaron abrumadoramente por Obama en el 2008 -67 por ciento- a cambio de su promesa de una legalización de indocumentados. Y no van a olvidar esa promesa.
Creo que los hispanos pueden esperar al presidente un poquito más. No hay más remedio. El marca sus propios tiempos políticos. Pero si no sale nada en el 2010, los votantes latinos le van a recordar a Obama esa promesa no cumplida en las próximas elecciones. Dando y dando.
Restriction or Legalization? Measuring the Economic Benefits of Immigration Reform
Restriction or Legalization? Measuring the Economic Benefits of Immigration Reform
by Peter B. Dixon and Maureen T. Rimmer
Peter Dixon is the Sir John Monash Distinguished Professor and Maureen Rimmer is a Senior Research Fellow at the Centre of Policy Studies at Monash University in Australia. Their USAGE model of the U.S. economy has been used by the U.S. Departments of Commerce, Agriculture, and Homeland Security, and the U.S. International Trade Commission.
Executive Summary
By the latest estimates, 8.3 million workers in the United States are illegal immigrants. Proposed policy responses range from more restrictive border and workplace enforcement to legalization of workers who are already here and the admission of new workers through a temporary visa program. Policy choices made by Congress and the president could have a major economic impact on the welfare of U.S. households. This study uses the U.S. Applied General Equilibrium model that has been developed for the U.S. International Trade Commission and other U.S. government agencies to estimate the welfare impact of seven different scenarios, which include increased enforcement at the border and in the workplace, and several different legalization options, including a visa program that allows more low-skilled workers to enter the U.S. workforce legally.
For each scenario, the USAGE model weighs the impact on such factors as public revenues and expenditures, the occupational mix and total employment of U.S. workers, the amount of capital owned by U.S. households, and price levels for imports and exports. This study finds that increased enforcement and reduced low-skilled immigration have a significant negative impact on the income of U.S. households. Modest savings in public expenditures would be more than offset by losses in economic output and job opportunities for more skilled American workers. A policy that reduces the number of low-skilled immigrant workers by 28.6 percent compared to projected levels would reduce U.S. household welfare by about 0.5 percent, or $80 billion.
In contrast, legalization of low-skilled immigrant workers would yield significant income gains for American workers and households. Legalization would eliminate smugglers’ fees and other costs faced by illegal immigrants. It would also allow immigrants to have higher productivity and create more openings for Americans in higherskilled occupations. The positive impact for U.S. households of legalization under an optimal visa tax would be 1.27 percent of GDP or $180 billion.
by Peter B. Dixon and Maureen T. Rimmer
Peter Dixon is the Sir John Monash Distinguished Professor and Maureen Rimmer is a Senior Research Fellow at the Centre of Policy Studies at Monash University in Australia. Their USAGE model of the U.S. economy has been used by the U.S. Departments of Commerce, Agriculture, and Homeland Security, and the U.S. International Trade Commission.
Executive Summary
By the latest estimates, 8.3 million workers in the United States are illegal immigrants. Proposed policy responses range from more restrictive border and workplace enforcement to legalization of workers who are already here and the admission of new workers through a temporary visa program. Policy choices made by Congress and the president could have a major economic impact on the welfare of U.S. households. This study uses the U.S. Applied General Equilibrium model that has been developed for the U.S. International Trade Commission and other U.S. government agencies to estimate the welfare impact of seven different scenarios, which include increased enforcement at the border and in the workplace, and several different legalization options, including a visa program that allows more low-skilled workers to enter the U.S. workforce legally.
For each scenario, the USAGE model weighs the impact on such factors as public revenues and expenditures, the occupational mix and total employment of U.S. workers, the amount of capital owned by U.S. households, and price levels for imports and exports. This study finds that increased enforcement and reduced low-skilled immigration have a significant negative impact on the income of U.S. households. Modest savings in public expenditures would be more than offset by losses in economic output and job opportunities for more skilled American workers. A policy that reduces the number of low-skilled immigrant workers by 28.6 percent compared to projected levels would reduce U.S. household welfare by about 0.5 percent, or $80 billion.
In contrast, legalization of low-skilled immigrant workers would yield significant income gains for American workers and households. Legalization would eliminate smugglers’ fees and other costs faced by illegal immigrants. It would also allow immigrants to have higher productivity and create more openings for Americans in higherskilled occupations. The positive impact for U.S. households of legalization under an optimal visa tax would be 1.27 percent of GDP or $180 billion.
Advocates to Sec. Napolitano: We Need You to Lead on Immigration Reform
Advocates to Sec. Napolitano: We Need You to Lead on Immigration Reform
Thursday Meeting is Opportunity to Show Concrete Progress Towards Reform
Washington, DC –On Thursday, Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano will meet with immigrant advocates and leaders from faith, business, law enforcement, and labor to discuss immigration reform. A number of leaders of the Reform Immigration for America campaign are invited. The following is a statement by Ali Noorani, Executive Director of the National Immigration Forum, who will be attending the meeting in Washington on Thursday. The Forum is a non-partisan, non-profit pro-immigrant advocacy organization in Washington and a member of the Reform Immigration for America campaign.
We expect a real commitment from the Secretary of Homeland Security to step up and be the main salesman on immigration reform. She has been appointed by the President to quarterback efforts to revamp our immigration system and we need her to assert her leadership and build the public and legislative support needed to carry comprehensive immigration reform across the finish line.
The urgent need for meaningful reform is clear. The separation of families, deaths in detention, attacks on due process rights, inadequate legal channels for immigration, and no way for undocumented immigrants to earn legal status have created an unsustainable system. In order for Secretary Napolitano to do her job as chief of Homeland Security, she needs to operate in a well-functioning system that controls immigration and secures the border and this can only be achieved through comprehensive immigration reform.
As Governor of Arizona, Secretary Napolitano was clear about the need for immigration reform to restore the rule of law and the integrity of our immigration system. Now that she leads the President’s team on this issue, we need to hear more from her and see her leading the way and showing concrete progress towards reform. Immigration reform will become a reality if it is moved forward under the right leadership.
Thursday Meeting is Opportunity to Show Concrete Progress Towards Reform
Washington, DC –On Thursday, Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano will meet with immigrant advocates and leaders from faith, business, law enforcement, and labor to discuss immigration reform. A number of leaders of the Reform Immigration for America campaign are invited. The following is a statement by Ali Noorani, Executive Director of the National Immigration Forum, who will be attending the meeting in Washington on Thursday. The Forum is a non-partisan, non-profit pro-immigrant advocacy organization in Washington and a member of the Reform Immigration for America campaign.
We expect a real commitment from the Secretary of Homeland Security to step up and be the main salesman on immigration reform. She has been appointed by the President to quarterback efforts to revamp our immigration system and we need her to assert her leadership and build the public and legislative support needed to carry comprehensive immigration reform across the finish line.
The urgent need for meaningful reform is clear. The separation of families, deaths in detention, attacks on due process rights, inadequate legal channels for immigration, and no way for undocumented immigrants to earn legal status have created an unsustainable system. In order for Secretary Napolitano to do her job as chief of Homeland Security, she needs to operate in a well-functioning system that controls immigration and secures the border and this can only be achieved through comprehensive immigration reform.
As Governor of Arizona, Secretary Napolitano was clear about the need for immigration reform to restore the rule of law and the integrity of our immigration system. Now that she leads the President’s team on this issue, we need to hear more from her and see her leading the way and showing concrete progress towards reform. Immigration reform will become a reality if it is moved forward under the right leadership.
8.18.2009
The Myth of Amnesty
The Myth of Amnesty
The Senate Immigration Bill vs. a Disastrous Status Quo
By Janet Napolitano
Sunday, June 10, 2007; B07
On the subject of immigration, my plea to Congress is loud and clear: You can't quit now. Last week the Senate was on the verge of addressing our broken immigration system. No, the compromise bill wasn't perfect. But our current system is a disaster. I implore lawmakers to go back to the table, iron out their differences and give us an immigration system that is enforceable, and the resources to enforce it.
Opponents of the Senate immigration bill -- those who really want to do nothing -- merely yelled "amnesty" in place of reasoned opposition. They were -- and are -- just plain wrong. Don't let them derail your efforts.
No one favors illegal immigration. But there are upwards of 12 million people illegally in this country -- people who work, who have settled their families and who have raised their children here. For 20 years our country has done basically nothing to enforce the 1986 legislation against either the employers who hired illegal immigrants or those who crossed our borders illegally to work for them. Accordingly, our current system is, effectively, silent amnesty.
If we have no comprehensive immigration reform this year, and if we do not deal rigorously and openly with those already here, silent amnesty will continue. As a border-state governor who has dealt with immigration issues more than any other governor I know of, I am certain that continued inaction by Congress -- silent amnesty -- is the worst of all worlds.
Consider what happens when we have an immigration system that is based on silent amnesty and that is unenforced and unenforceable. To look "tough," what little enforcement we have ends up being arbitrary and unfair. For example:
· A man in the United States illegally was pulled over in Phoenix and charged with driving under the influence. Immigration officers arrested him, his wife and their 19-year-old son, who were also here illegally. An aunt says that their 12-year-old daughter -- who is an American citizen -- cries every day for the family members who had to leave her behind. This is a fair immigration system?
· The Immigration Customs and Enforcement agency has sent several top-ranking students from Arizona State University to a camp in Eloy, Ariz., to await deportation to countries they have never lived in. The students have earned top marks, have never been in serious legal trouble and by all measures are primed to become productive members of our economy. This is a wise immigration policy?
· A team from an Arizona high school that has a high percentage of immigrant students went to Upstate New York in 2002 to compete in a science fair. After winning the top prize, the students crossed into Canada to see Niagara Falls -- and were stopped at the border when they tried to return. After nine hours of interrogation they were allowed back into the United States, but a years-long legal battle ensued over whether they should be deported. We spent precious law enforcement resources on these high school students rather than on combating putative terrorist threats or, indeed, on infectious tuberculosis carriers. This is good homeland security?
Don't label me soft on illegal immigration. As a U.S. attorney (predating the Gonzales Justice Department), I supervised the prosecution of more than 6,000 immigration felonies. I govern a state where, in 2005, there were 550,000 apprehensions of illegal immigrants. I declared a state of emergency at our border that year, and I was the first governor in the nation to call for assistance from the National Guard. I have also established task forces on vehicle theft and the manufacture of fraudulent identification to complement federal law enforcement efforts.
State measures, however, will never substitute for federal legislation that addresses all aspects of immigration, from border security to employer sanctions to pathways to citizenship. It is fundamentally unfair and unrealistic to suggest that our system remain as it is and ignore the 12 million who ran the gantlet at the border and managed to find work in our country. It is not "amnesty" to require these individuals to earn the privilege of citizenship, as have the millions of immigrants who came before them. While illegal immigration is a crime, "amnesty" is a bumper sticker -- not a solution.
We need comprehensive reform, and we need it this year.
The writer, a Democrat, is governor of Arizona.
8.11.2009
Obama Sets Immigration Changes for 2010
The New York Times
August 11, 2009
Obama Sets Immigration Changes for 2010
By GINGER THOMPSON and MARC LACEY
GUADALAJARA, Mexico — Flanked by his counterparts from Mexico and Canada, President Obama on Monday reiterated his commitment to pursuing comprehensive immigration reform, despite his packed political agenda and the staunch opposition such an initiative is likely to face.
Mr. Obama predicted that he would be successful but acknowledged the challenges, saying, “I’ve got a lot on my plate.” He added that there would almost certainly be “demagogues out there who try to suggest that any form or pathway for legalization for those who are already in the United States is unacceptable.”
But in the most detailed outline yet of his timetable, the president said that he expected Congress, after completing work on health care, energy and financial regulation, to draft immigration bills this year. He said he would begin work on getting the measures passed in 2010.
“Now, am I going to be able to snap my fingers and get this done? No,” the president said. “But ultimately, I think the American people want fairness. And we can create a system in which you have strong border security and an orderly process for people to come in. But we’re also giving an opportunity for those who are already in the United States to be able to achieve a pathway to citizenship so they don’t have to live in the shadows.”
The president’s comments came during a news conference at the end of a summit meeting of North American leaders aimed at increasing cooperation in the region and resolving some of the issues that have long strained trilateral relations among the countries, whose people and economies depend heavily on one another.
During the meetings, which began Sunday afternoon, Mr. Obama, President Felipe Calderón of Mexico and Prime Minister Stephen Harper of Canada discussed climate change and clean energy, swine flu, immigration, trade and organized crime. While it was clear at the news conference that the three leaders had not reached any significant new agreements, they expressed understanding for one another’s positions and vowed to keep working to resolve outstanding disputes.
Mr. Harper, for example, stood by a decision a month ago to require Mexicans to apply for visas but said that the problems were Canada’s, not Mexico’s. “It is simply far too easy to make a bogus refugee claim as a way of entering the country,” he said. “And we have to change that.”
A “Buy American” provision attached to the United States stimulus package has ignited a political storm in Canada. But on Monday, Mr. Obama played down the scope of the program, saying it was something he had grudgingly accepted to achieve the greater purpose of pumping money into America’s flailing economy.
“I think it’s important to keep this in perspective,” Mr. Obama said. “This in no way has endangered the billions of dollars in trade taking place between our two countries.”
Mr. Obama offered a spirited defense of Mr. Calderón’s efforts to rein in the drug cartels, a fight that has left nearly 4,200 people dead this year. Recently, Senator Patrick Leahy, a Vermont Democrat, raised concerns about human rights abuses in the drug war, and Democratic legislators have threatened to withhold some financial support.
At the news conference, Mr. Obama said unequivocally that he would push for continuing America’s support for the Mexican effort, adding, “The biggest, by far, violators of human rights right now are the cartels themselves that are kidnapping people, extorting people and encouraging corruption.”
Mr. Calderón issued his own passionate defense, saying, “The struggle, the battle, the fight against organized crime is precisely to preserve the human rights of Mexican people.”
The Mexican Supreme Court supported the army on Monday by declining to take up a case pushed by human rights advocates that challenged the use of military prosecutors, instead of civilian ones, in pursuing charges against rogue soldiers.
If there were divisions on other issues, all three leaders seemed united in their support for Manuel Zelaya, the Honduran president who was ousted June 28 in what countries around the world have condemned as a coup.
“Let me be very clear in our belief that President Zelaya was removed from office illegally, that it was a coup and that he should return,” Mr. Obama said. He dismissed as “hypocrisy” the criticism from some in Latin America who say the United States has done too little to pressure Honduras’s de facto government to return Mr. Zelaya to power — among them Mr. Zelaya himself.
“The critics who say that the United States has not intervened enough in Honduras,” he said, “are the same people who say that we’re always intervening, and that the Yankees need to get out of Latin America.”
Because of Mr. Zelaya’s ouster, the United States has supported suspending Honduras from the Organization of American States and has cut $16.5 million in military assistance. The United States, which is Honduras’s largest trading partner, has been reluctant, however, to call for tougher economic sanctions.
Critics of Washington’s approach, led by President Hugo Chávez of Venezuela, accuse the United States of placating the small group of Honduran elite who are among those who support Mr. Zelaya’s removal. Senior administration officials have said they were concerned about destabilizing the third-poorest country in the hemisphere.
8.03.2009
Detained and Abused
The New York Times
August 1, 2009
Editorial
Detained and Abused
One toxic remnant of one of the Bush administration’s failed wars — the one on illegal immigrants — is immigration detention. Wanting to appear tough, Bush officials cobbled together, at great speed and expense, a network of federal centers, state and county lockups and private, for-profit prisons. They needed lots of beds to warehouse the tens of thousands of people its raiders and local police were flushing out of the shadows.
The results were ugly. As we learned from reports on the secretive system, particularly those by Nina Bernstein in The Times, detainees were locked up and forgotten. They were denied access to lawyers and their families. They languished, sickened and died without medical attention.
On Tuesday, the National Immigration Law Center issued the first comprehensive report on abuses in a system that holds about 30,000 on any given day and more than 300,000 a year. It found “substantial and pervasive violations” — ignored for years — of the government’s own minimal monitoring requirements.
The next day, immigrant advocates issued a report containing the testimonies of detainees in a privately run detention center in rural Basile, La., where immigrants are waging the latest of several hunger strikes to get their grievances resolved. They say they have pleaded for access to medicine, lawyers, their families and basic information about their cases. They lack underwear and soap. Rats, spiders, flies and filth are rampant.
Sadly, President Obama’s Department of Homeland Security rejected a petition in federal court to enact legally enforceable standards for the treatment of immigrant detainees. Instead, the administration is sticking with a Bush-era system that relies in part on private contractors for quality control, even though those outside monitors are often former federal immigration agents.
Senators Robert Menendez of New Jersey and Kirsten Gillibrand of New York have introduced bills to force the department to adopt legally enforceable rules, with real penalties, for detention centers. Mr. Obama and his homeland security secretary, Janet Napolitano, did not create the system, nor is six months enough to take it apart. But at some point that work must begin.
August 1, 2009
Editorial
Detained and Abused
One toxic remnant of one of the Bush administration’s failed wars — the one on illegal immigrants — is immigration detention. Wanting to appear tough, Bush officials cobbled together, at great speed and expense, a network of federal centers, state and county lockups and private, for-profit prisons. They needed lots of beds to warehouse the tens of thousands of people its raiders and local police were flushing out of the shadows.
The results were ugly. As we learned from reports on the secretive system, particularly those by Nina Bernstein in The Times, detainees were locked up and forgotten. They were denied access to lawyers and their families. They languished, sickened and died without medical attention.
On Tuesday, the National Immigration Law Center issued the first comprehensive report on abuses in a system that holds about 30,000 on any given day and more than 300,000 a year. It found “substantial and pervasive violations” — ignored for years — of the government’s own minimal monitoring requirements.
The next day, immigrant advocates issued a report containing the testimonies of detainees in a privately run detention center in rural Basile, La., where immigrants are waging the latest of several hunger strikes to get their grievances resolved. They say they have pleaded for access to medicine, lawyers, their families and basic information about their cases. They lack underwear and soap. Rats, spiders, flies and filth are rampant.
Sadly, President Obama’s Department of Homeland Security rejected a petition in federal court to enact legally enforceable standards for the treatment of immigrant detainees. Instead, the administration is sticking with a Bush-era system that relies in part on private contractors for quality control, even though those outside monitors are often former federal immigration agents.
Senators Robert Menendez of New Jersey and Kirsten Gillibrand of New York have introduced bills to force the department to adopt legally enforceable rules, with real penalties, for detention centers. Mr. Obama and his homeland security secretary, Janet Napolitano, did not create the system, nor is six months enough to take it apart. But at some point that work must begin.
U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein responding to your message
Dear Mrs. Rios:
Thank you for writing to express your support for addressing comprehensive immigration reform in the 111th Congress. I sincerely appreciate hearing your suggestions and would like to provide my perspective.
I support comprehensive immigration reform that protects workers, addresses critical labor shortages, and provides fair and decent treatment of immigrants and their families. I believe that the United States needs a smart and workable approach to immigration, including stronger border security, effective enforcement, and reasonable standards for naturalization for undocumented individuals who have followed the rules, paid their taxes, and worked hard to embrace the American dream.
I have authored the "Agricultural Job Opportunities and Benefits Act" (AgJOBS), which would do just this. AgJOBS would reform the broken H-2A seasonal worker program, provide farmers with the stable, legal workforce they deserve, and offer a pathway to citizenship for hard-working, law-abiding immigrants already employed on American farms. I am committed to working with the Obama Administration to support U.S. farmers and the workers who provide the skilled labor needed to plant, tend and harvest our crops.
Additionally, last Congress, I authored the "Unaccompanied Alien Child Protection Act of 2007," which passed into law as part of the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (Public Law 110-457). I worked on this legislation for eight years to provide appropriate treatment of children who arrive in the U.S. without a parent or guardian and ensure that these vulnerable young immigrants have access to the legal and humanitarian protections they deserve.
Again, I very much appreciate that comprehensive immigration reform is an important issue for you. I encourage you to continue to keep me informed of your opinions and welcome you to contact my Washington, D.C. office at (202) 224-3841 if you have any questions or additional comments. Best regards.
Sincerely yours,
Dianne Feinstein
United States Senator
Thank you for writing to express your support for addressing comprehensive immigration reform in the 111th Congress. I sincerely appreciate hearing your suggestions and would like to provide my perspective.
I support comprehensive immigration reform that protects workers, addresses critical labor shortages, and provides fair and decent treatment of immigrants and their families. I believe that the United States needs a smart and workable approach to immigration, including stronger border security, effective enforcement, and reasonable standards for naturalization for undocumented individuals who have followed the rules, paid their taxes, and worked hard to embrace the American dream.
I have authored the "Agricultural Job Opportunities and Benefits Act" (AgJOBS), which would do just this. AgJOBS would reform the broken H-2A seasonal worker program, provide farmers with the stable, legal workforce they deserve, and offer a pathway to citizenship for hard-working, law-abiding immigrants already employed on American farms. I am committed to working with the Obama Administration to support U.S. farmers and the workers who provide the skilled labor needed to plant, tend and harvest our crops.
Additionally, last Congress, I authored the "Unaccompanied Alien Child Protection Act of 2007," which passed into law as part of the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (Public Law 110-457). I worked on this legislation for eight years to provide appropriate treatment of children who arrive in the U.S. without a parent or guardian and ensure that these vulnerable young immigrants have access to the legal and humanitarian protections they deserve.
Again, I very much appreciate that comprehensive immigration reform is an important issue for you. I encourage you to continue to keep me informed of your opinions and welcome you to contact my Washington, D.C. office at (202) 224-3841 if you have any questions or additional comments. Best regards.
Sincerely yours,
Dianne Feinstein
United States Senator
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
