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
7.29.2009
Police chiefs press for immigration reform
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.
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)
