Police chiefs press for immigration reform
By Dennis Wagner, The Arizona Republic
PHOENIX — Some of the nation's top cops on Wednesday called upon Congress to promptly adopt an immigration reform measure, saying local law enforcement agencies across America are struggling to deal with crime and confusion caused by a broken system.
About 100 police chiefs and administrators from Framingham, Mass., to San Diego joined Department of Homeland Security officials in Phoenix for a National Summit on Local Immigration Policies sponsored by the Police Executive Research Forum, a nonprofit law enforcement educational organization.
During closed discussions, the participants agreed that America needs a comprehensive new law containing guest-worker programs, a means for immigrants to become permanent residents and federal enforcement of the prohibition against hiring illegal immigrants, according to Chuck Wexler, the forum's executive director.
Dennis Burke, senior adviser to Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, agreed with the police chiefs.
"Congress needs to work quickly," Burke said. "Delay is not painless. Secretary Napolitano has said the situation the country is in is not defensible."
The meeting focused on the struggles of community police agencies in coping with unlawful immigration and related crime. Police administrators said Department of Homeland Security enforcement efforts have inconsistent and unreliable for years, leaving police and sheriffs agencies to establish helter-skelter policies that polarize the public.
"It's starting to tear my town apart," said Steven Carl, the chief in Framington, "especially with the economy going south. You see a hatred toward the immigrant population."
Larry Boyd, police chief in Irving, Texas, said he has been "beaten over the head" by conservative groups for not going after illegal aliens, and by Latino groups for enforcing immigration laws. "Neither side was dealing with factual information," Boyd added, "but it's an issue the media loves to cover."
Phoenix police Chief Jack Harris noted that Arizona's capital city leads the nation in kidnappings — mostly involving human-smuggling syndicates that reflect federal policy failures. "It needs to be fixed, and it needs to be done sooner rather than later," Harris said.
Alan Bersin, President Obama's border czar, assured police administrators that a transformation is underway in Homeland Security.
"There's no question that under this secretary there's been a sea change," Bersin said, adding that ICE already is focusing more on workplace violations rather than immigrant roundups. However, he concluded, enforcement is likely to remain schizoid "until there is a reform of immigration law that is acceptable to the American people."
Police administrators were especially critical of the government's so-called "287(g)" program which provides for state and local police to enforce immigration law. The program has created nationwide confusion and controversy.
Paul Lewis, an associate professor of political science at Arizona State University who recently surveyed 237 U.S. police agencies, said nearly one-fifth of the departments have a policies that eschew immigration enforcement, 28% pursue undocumented aliens to some extent, and nearly half have no immigration enforcement policy at all.
George Gascón, outgoing police chief in Mesa, Ariz., noted that 60 Maricopa County Sheriff's deputies raided his suburban City Hall and library recently, looking for undocumented workers. Gascón said only three were arrested, adding, "I have seen the ugly side of this enforcement."
Many of the chiefs stressed that state and local immigration enforcement conflicts with community policing because it makes undocumented aliens fearful of reporting crimes or serving as witnesses. They said short-sighted policies lured the estimated 11.5 million undocumented immigrants into the United States, and the enforcement debate has been oversimplified by advocacy groups.
"I think a lot of people are trying to see, well, where's the new (Obama) administration going to go with this?" added Boyd, the Irving, Texas, police chief.
7.27.2009
Individual Taxpayer Identification Numbers (ITINs) NOT an Immigration Benefit
immigrationimpact.com
Individual Taxpayer Identification Numbers (ITINs) NOT an Immigration Benefit
By Michele Waslin
There is a lot of confusion surrounding Individual Taxpayer Identification Numbers (ITINs)—what they are, who has them, and the purposes for which they are used. Immigration restrictionists take advantage of this confusion and often bring up ITINs in an effort to make it seem as if undocumented immigrants are receiving special benefits or quasi-legal immigration status. The fact is that ITINs are used to pay taxes—some legal immigrants have them, some undocumented immigrants use them, and some people who don’t even live in the U.S. have them if they need to pay U.S. taxes.
The ITIN was created by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) in July, 1996 so that foreign nationals and other individuals who are not eligible for a Social Security number (SSN) can pay the taxes they are legally required to pay. While the ITIN is a nine-digit number like the SSN, an ITIN is not a physical card—it’s just a number. Many types of people may have an ITIN: foreign investors may have ITINs to pay taxes in the U.S.; foreign students who are not eligible for SSNs but must pay taxes; spouses or children of immigrants on temporary visas; and undocumented immigrants. For further clarity on ITINs, take a look at a new fact sheet by the Immigration Policy Center (IPC).
It still comes as a shock to many Americans, but undocumented immigrants are required to pay taxes, and they do pay taxes. Between 1996 and 2003, more than 7.2 million ITINs were issued, and more than $300 million was collected in taxes in 2001 alone from ITIN filers, a large portion of whom are undocumented.
Other myth-busting ITIN facts:
Although many use ITINs to file their federal tax forms, ITIN holders are not eligible to receive most of the benefits their tax dollars go toward. For example, an ITIN cannot be used to get Social Security benefits or the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC).
An ITIN does not grant anyone legal status or work authorization.
An ITIN cannot be used in lieu of an SSN on the I-9 work authorization form.
An ITIN cannot be used to prove legal status.
A few states still allow people to use an ITIN instead of an SSN to apply for a driver’s license. And some banks and credit unions allow ITIN holders to open accounts or apply for loans. The idea, however, is not to give a special benefit to undocumented immigrants, but to make sure that, for reasons of public safety, everyone driving on the roads is properly licensed and insured, and everyone can safely put their money in a bank rather than carry cash and be vulnerable to theft.
The IRS is not supposed to share information about ITIN holders with the Department of Homeland Security for immigration enforcement purposes. Taxpayer privacy is an important cornerstone of the U.S. tax system. Unfortunately there have been a few cases of ITINs being used to target individuals for immigration violations. And if a worker incorrectly uses an ITIN on an I-9 form instead of an SSN, the IRS may notify the employer that the worker has a discrepancy.
So while ITINs provide a way for certain persons to pay taxes, they are certainly not an “amnesty” or ticket to legal status for anyone. As is the case so often in immigration policy, the only real solution is comprehensive immigration reform. We want everyone working and living in the U.S. to be legal. We want everyone paying taxes. By fixing the broken immigration system and converting undocumented immigration into legal immigration, the dilemmas caused by the ITIN can be avoided.
7.17.2009
Excerpt from The Devil's Highway
“You’d be hard pressed to meet a border patrol agent in either southern Arizona sector who had not encountered death. It would be safe to say that every one of them except for the rankest probie just out of the academy had handled at least one dead body. And they all knew the locations of unidentified skeletons and skulls. Bones peppered the entire region. All the agents seem to agree that the worst deaths are the young women and the children. Pregnant women with dying fetuses within them are not uncommon; young mothers have been found dead with infants attached to their breasts, still trying to nurse.”
Charles E. Schumer: Article distorts facts, seeks to frighten Americans
Another Voice / Immigration
Charles E. Schumer: Article distorts facts, seeks to frighten Americans
By Charles E. SchumerUpdated: July 17, 2009, 11:14 AM / 4 comments
In his July 14 Another Voice, “Schumer rates amnesty for illegals over security,” Daniel Stein, head of an extremist group called FAIR, distorts my position on immigration in order to scare the American people using false and distorting arguments.
My view on immigration is direct and simple. I believe that the vast majority of the American people are both anti-illegal immigration and pro-legal immigration.
That’s why I intend to introduce comprehensive immigration reform legislation by Labor Day that secures our border, stops the flow of illegal aliens to the United States and requires all illegal aliens present in the United States to quickly register their presence with the U. S. government and start paying taxes or face imminent deportation.
Any claim that I am not serious about securing the border is simply untrue. Last week, I voted to require the Department of Homeland Security to construct significant fortifications to the border fence.
And I have previously voted to double the size of the border patrol from 10,000 agents to 20,000 field agents, and to give the border patrol significant funds for new technologies such as sensors, light towers, mobile night vision scopes, remote video surveillance systems, directional listening devices, database systems and unmanned aerial vehicles along the border.
These new technologies serve as “force multipliers” and allow the border patrol to maintain control of larger segments of the border with fewer agents on our northern and southern borders.
This has led to real progress, but I want the remainder of the border to be under our operational control immediately, and will require the Department of Homeland Security to complete this task within one year of enactment of the bill I intend to introduce.
This is no easy task, but it can and will occur if the American people are committed to giving the Department of Homeland Security all of the funding and resources it needs to complete this task.
It is time for those who seek to distort the debate on a sensible and tough immigration policy in order to promote a purely anti-immigrant agenda to be honest about the facts, and to recognize that we are a country that is enriched and made more economically competitive by the contributions of legal immigrants. We must be both anti-illegal immigrant and pro-legal immigrant.
Americans will no longer be fooled by cheap buzzwords thrown around by people who are unwilling to engage in the hard work and honest discussion necessary to ensure that we create an immigration system that ends the current flow of primarily low-skilled illegal immigrants into the United States and creates a more manageable and controlled flow of legal immigrants who can be absorbed by, and assist, our economy.
Charles E. Schumer is the senior U. S. senator from New York.
Charles E. Schumer: Article distorts facts, seeks to frighten Americans
By Charles E. SchumerUpdated: July 17, 2009, 11:14 AM / 4 comments
In his July 14 Another Voice, “Schumer rates amnesty for illegals over security,” Daniel Stein, head of an extremist group called FAIR, distorts my position on immigration in order to scare the American people using false and distorting arguments.
My view on immigration is direct and simple. I believe that the vast majority of the American people are both anti-illegal immigration and pro-legal immigration.
That’s why I intend to introduce comprehensive immigration reform legislation by Labor Day that secures our border, stops the flow of illegal aliens to the United States and requires all illegal aliens present in the United States to quickly register their presence with the U. S. government and start paying taxes or face imminent deportation.
Any claim that I am not serious about securing the border is simply untrue. Last week, I voted to require the Department of Homeland Security to construct significant fortifications to the border fence.
And I have previously voted to double the size of the border patrol from 10,000 agents to 20,000 field agents, and to give the border patrol significant funds for new technologies such as sensors, light towers, mobile night vision scopes, remote video surveillance systems, directional listening devices, database systems and unmanned aerial vehicles along the border.
These new technologies serve as “force multipliers” and allow the border patrol to maintain control of larger segments of the border with fewer agents on our northern and southern borders.
This has led to real progress, but I want the remainder of the border to be under our operational control immediately, and will require the Department of Homeland Security to complete this task within one year of enactment of the bill I intend to introduce.
This is no easy task, but it can and will occur if the American people are committed to giving the Department of Homeland Security all of the funding and resources it needs to complete this task.
It is time for those who seek to distort the debate on a sensible and tough immigration policy in order to promote a purely anti-immigrant agenda to be honest about the facts, and to recognize that we are a country that is enriched and made more economically competitive by the contributions of legal immigrants. We must be both anti-illegal immigrant and pro-legal immigrant.
Americans will no longer be fooled by cheap buzzwords thrown around by people who are unwilling to engage in the hard work and honest discussion necessary to ensure that we create an immigration system that ends the current flow of primarily low-skilled illegal immigrants into the United States and creates a more manageable and controlled flow of legal immigrants who can be absorbed by, and assist, our economy.
Charles E. Schumer is the senior U. S. senator from New York.
7.16.2009
7.14.2009
Schumer Says Reform By Labor Day, While Cowardly Democrats Vote with Sessions
Posted 07/14/09 at 10:15am
America's Voice
Schumer Says Reform By Labor Day, While Cowardly Democrats Vote with Sessions
Note: Cross-posted on Huffington Post
Lots of immigration sideshows last week, but here's the big picture: Senator Schumer (D-NY) announced plans to introduce a comprehensive immigration reform bill by Labor Day.
According to the Associated Press:
"I think we'll have a good bill by Labor Day," said Schumer, D-N.Y. "I think the fundamental building blocks are in place to do comprehensive immigration reform."
Senator Schumer's statements may seem like a bombshell to those who've been ignoring how the politics of immigration have come together over the past few months. To those following the issue, however, it's right on track.
In June, President Obama convened a bipartisan subset of Congress to get the conversation rolling, laying the groundwork for real reform. That same week, Senator Schumer outlined his principles for legislation. Schumer's newly-revealed timeline reinforces President Obama's pledge to move immigration legislation in the first year of his presidency and repeated statements by leaders in both the House and Senate that reform would be a top priority this year. It is also in line with the desires of a majority of American voters, including Independents and Republicans, who want the immigration system addressed through real, comprehensive reform, not empty rhetoric.
Momentum is here, but there are only a few nagging questions. For instance, why are Democrats letting Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) and others set the agenda with empty, irrelevant, "build the fence bigger" immigration amendments.
I'm talking about the slew of lopsided immigration enforcement amendments that Republicans tacked on to a Senate Appropriations bill last week. Republican Senators Sessions, Vitter, Grassley, DeMint, and more led the charge last week-- supported by a handful of comprehensive reform-supporting Democrats. These included Senator Boxer (D-CA) and Senator Klobuchar (D-MN), who should know better. WTF, many reform advocates wondered aloud.
After we see Sessions lead the attack on Sotomayor at her hearings this week, most of us will be wondering why any Democrat who cares about the Latino vote would side with him on anything. And, for those who still want to side with the Senator from Alabama, we strongly suggest reading our report on Sessions and his ties to incendiary anti-immgrant hate groups.
Here's the thing. The American people want effective immigration enforcement, but they are also way out in front of politicians on the issue of what constitutes real reform.
They know that throwing money into a bigger, taller, badder fence is not going to solve our current immigration disaster. Neither is deporting twelve million people. When given the option, 64% of Americans agree that we need to regain control over our system in a way that is simultaneously tough, realistic, and fair. When they hear the details, a whopping 86% of Americans support comprehensive reform.
Despite the fact that nativists have lost election after election for years now, a majority of Republican Senators, and a handful of Democrats, do not seem to have gotten the message. When the riled-up nativists start flooding their offices with angry faxes with wildly inaccurate claims about how many immigrants bring leprosy to the U.S. each year, they cave.
Look, if Al Franken can grow a backbone in 48 hours, surely Senator Klobuchar can do the same in four years.
And, in case anyone didn't quite grasp what happened in the Senate last week, it took a freshman Democrat, Jared Polis (D-CO), about a minute to explain it:
It comes down to this: either these politicians actually think sinking money into more bricks will solve everything (they don't), or they're just making crass political calculations to cater to an angry minority in a way that makes it hard for people to respect their votes.
The American people want solutions to problems. The GOP's "southern strategy" was exposed and defeated in the last election. Nevertheless, an unholy alliance of Republican and Democratic conservative Senators opted for crass political tactics last week, most of which will disappear in the conference report on DHS appropriations.
But, when Labor Day rolls around, we'll have a real immigration reform bill. A bill that will address the real issues. That's when Feinstein, Boxer, Klobuchar and their colleagues have to step up. They've put us on notice --- and we're watching
America's Voice
Schumer Says Reform By Labor Day, While Cowardly Democrats Vote with Sessions
Note: Cross-posted on Huffington Post
Lots of immigration sideshows last week, but here's the big picture: Senator Schumer (D-NY) announced plans to introduce a comprehensive immigration reform bill by Labor Day.
According to the Associated Press:
"I think we'll have a good bill by Labor Day," said Schumer, D-N.Y. "I think the fundamental building blocks are in place to do comprehensive immigration reform."
Senator Schumer's statements may seem like a bombshell to those who've been ignoring how the politics of immigration have come together over the past few months. To those following the issue, however, it's right on track.
In June, President Obama convened a bipartisan subset of Congress to get the conversation rolling, laying the groundwork for real reform. That same week, Senator Schumer outlined his principles for legislation. Schumer's newly-revealed timeline reinforces President Obama's pledge to move immigration legislation in the first year of his presidency and repeated statements by leaders in both the House and Senate that reform would be a top priority this year. It is also in line with the desires of a majority of American voters, including Independents and Republicans, who want the immigration system addressed through real, comprehensive reform, not empty rhetoric.
Momentum is here, but there are only a few nagging questions. For instance, why are Democrats letting Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) and others set the agenda with empty, irrelevant, "build the fence bigger" immigration amendments.
I'm talking about the slew of lopsided immigration enforcement amendments that Republicans tacked on to a Senate Appropriations bill last week. Republican Senators Sessions, Vitter, Grassley, DeMint, and more led the charge last week-- supported by a handful of comprehensive reform-supporting Democrats. These included Senator Boxer (D-CA) and Senator Klobuchar (D-MN), who should know better. WTF, many reform advocates wondered aloud.
After we see Sessions lead the attack on Sotomayor at her hearings this week, most of us will be wondering why any Democrat who cares about the Latino vote would side with him on anything. And, for those who still want to side with the Senator from Alabama, we strongly suggest reading our report on Sessions and his ties to incendiary anti-immgrant hate groups.
Here's the thing. The American people want effective immigration enforcement, but they are also way out in front of politicians on the issue of what constitutes real reform.
They know that throwing money into a bigger, taller, badder fence is not going to solve our current immigration disaster. Neither is deporting twelve million people. When given the option, 64% of Americans agree that we need to regain control over our system in a way that is simultaneously tough, realistic, and fair. When they hear the details, a whopping 86% of Americans support comprehensive reform.
Despite the fact that nativists have lost election after election for years now, a majority of Republican Senators, and a handful of Democrats, do not seem to have gotten the message. When the riled-up nativists start flooding their offices with angry faxes with wildly inaccurate claims about how many immigrants bring leprosy to the U.S. each year, they cave.
Look, if Al Franken can grow a backbone in 48 hours, surely Senator Klobuchar can do the same in four years.
And, in case anyone didn't quite grasp what happened in the Senate last week, it took a freshman Democrat, Jared Polis (D-CO), about a minute to explain it:
It comes down to this: either these politicians actually think sinking money into more bricks will solve everything (they don't), or they're just making crass political calculations to cater to an angry minority in a way that makes it hard for people to respect their votes.
The American people want solutions to problems. The GOP's "southern strategy" was exposed and defeated in the last election. Nevertheless, an unholy alliance of Republican and Democratic conservative Senators opted for crass political tactics last week, most of which will disappear in the conference report on DHS appropriations.
But, when Labor Day rolls around, we'll have a real immigration reform bill. A bill that will address the real issues. That's when Feinstein, Boxer, Klobuchar and their colleagues have to step up. They've put us on notice --- and we're watching
7.13.2009
Senate Resists Changes on Immigration
Wall Street Journal
July 10, 2009
By CAM SIMPSON
WASHINGTON -- A series of Senate floor votes this week seeking to toughen immigration enforcement is giving the Obama administration its first real taste of the chilly climate for overhauling immigration laws.
On Thursday, the Senate approved a measure that would effectively overturn an immigration-enforcement decision announced one day earlier by the Obama administration. The Department of Homeland Security had said Wednesday that it would rescind a Bush administration program aimed at forcing employers to fire workers who are unable to resolve discrepancies in their Social Security records.
But the Senate approved an amendment to the annual Department of Homeland Security DHS spending bill prohibiting the department from changing the program, commonly known as the no-match rule. The amendment is one of several immigration-enforcement provisions the Senate attached this week to the $42.9 billion DHS budget for the fiscal year beginning Oct. 1.
The series of amendments was introduced by Republican opponents of immigration reform, and gained critical support from about 10 Democrats. The no-match program is intended to make it harder for illegal immigrants to hold jobs gained by using fake Social Security numbers. Critics have said it could also unfairly target U.S. citizens who were the victims of bureaucratic bungling by the Social Security Administration or the Department of Homeland Security DHS.
Even before the Obama administration said it would rescind the no-match rule, which is unpopular with many business groups, it had been blocked by a federal court.
The Obama administration also said Wednesday that it would fully implement a Bush administration initiative that would require federal contractors and subcontractors to use an electronic government program aimed at keeping them from hiring illegal workers. It is expected to affect more than 170,000 employers.
But that wasn't tough enough for Sen. Jeff Sessions, the Alabama Republican who has spearheaded efforts against immigration overhauls in recent years. Sen. Sessions won passage of an amendment after the Obama announcement Wednesday that would make the program, known as E-Verify, permanent and mandatory, removing any White House discretion to end it. Before the amendment passed, Sen. Sessions won support on a key procedural vote from 10 Democrats and Sen. Joseph Lieberman, a Connecticut independent who caucuses with the Democrats.
Another amendment approved this week would mandate construction of a physical fence along about 700 miles of the border with Mexico, instead of existing vehicle barriers or plans for a high-tech "virtual" fence. The amended bill still must pass the Senate before being reconciled with the House version.
Marshall Fitz, director of immigration policy at the left-leaning Center for American Progress, said GOP opponents of immigration reform "are definitely trying to exact their pound of flesh right now, at a time when Democrats want to maintain an appearance of being strong on immigration enforcement."
Democrats and some Republicans who favor an overhaul hope to craft a single legislative package with strong immigration enforcement provisions and a path to legalization for the estimated 12 million undocumented immigrants in the U.S.
Mr. Obama has said he wants to see the effort get under way soon. Sen. Charles Schumer, a New York Democrat, is leading the effort for Democrats and, said this week that he will have a draft bill by the end of the summer.
Although he opposed some of the Republican moves, Sen. Schumer said Thursday that most of the provisions wouldn't hurt the larger reform push. "What will make or break overall reform will be the big issues," he said, dismissing the amendments as "little things."
DHS spokesman Matt Chandler criticized the amendments, saying they "are designed to prevent real progress on immigration enforcement and are a reflection of the old administration's strategy: all show, no substance."
Frank Sherry, who heads America's Voice, an advocacy group for an immigration overhaul, said support remains for a comprehensive package in Congress, but the key is to keep enforcement and legalization together.
James Carafano, of the conservative Heritage Foundation think tank, said this week's votes show little has changed in recent years, which have seen Sen. Sessions and other Republicans repeatedly shoot down efforts to revamp the U.S. immigration system.
"I don't think the politics of this has changed at all, except maybe to get more polarized," Mr. Carafano said.
July 10, 2009
By CAM SIMPSON
WASHINGTON -- A series of Senate floor votes this week seeking to toughen immigration enforcement is giving the Obama administration its first real taste of the chilly climate for overhauling immigration laws.
On Thursday, the Senate approved a measure that would effectively overturn an immigration-enforcement decision announced one day earlier by the Obama administration. The Department of Homeland Security had said Wednesday that it would rescind a Bush administration program aimed at forcing employers to fire workers who are unable to resolve discrepancies in their Social Security records.
But the Senate approved an amendment to the annual Department of Homeland Security DHS spending bill prohibiting the department from changing the program, commonly known as the no-match rule. The amendment is one of several immigration-enforcement provisions the Senate attached this week to the $42.9 billion DHS budget for the fiscal year beginning Oct. 1.
The series of amendments was introduced by Republican opponents of immigration reform, and gained critical support from about 10 Democrats. The no-match program is intended to make it harder for illegal immigrants to hold jobs gained by using fake Social Security numbers. Critics have said it could also unfairly target U.S. citizens who were the victims of bureaucratic bungling by the Social Security Administration or the Department of Homeland Security DHS.
Even before the Obama administration said it would rescind the no-match rule, which is unpopular with many business groups, it had been blocked by a federal court.
The Obama administration also said Wednesday that it would fully implement a Bush administration initiative that would require federal contractors and subcontractors to use an electronic government program aimed at keeping them from hiring illegal workers. It is expected to affect more than 170,000 employers.
But that wasn't tough enough for Sen. Jeff Sessions, the Alabama Republican who has spearheaded efforts against immigration overhauls in recent years. Sen. Sessions won passage of an amendment after the Obama announcement Wednesday that would make the program, known as E-Verify, permanent and mandatory, removing any White House discretion to end it. Before the amendment passed, Sen. Sessions won support on a key procedural vote from 10 Democrats and Sen. Joseph Lieberman, a Connecticut independent who caucuses with the Democrats.
Another amendment approved this week would mandate construction of a physical fence along about 700 miles of the border with Mexico, instead of existing vehicle barriers or plans for a high-tech "virtual" fence. The amended bill still must pass the Senate before being reconciled with the House version.
Marshall Fitz, director of immigration policy at the left-leaning Center for American Progress, said GOP opponents of immigration reform "are definitely trying to exact their pound of flesh right now, at a time when Democrats want to maintain an appearance of being strong on immigration enforcement."
Democrats and some Republicans who favor an overhaul hope to craft a single legislative package with strong immigration enforcement provisions and a path to legalization for the estimated 12 million undocumented immigrants in the U.S.
Mr. Obama has said he wants to see the effort get under way soon. Sen. Charles Schumer, a New York Democrat, is leading the effort for Democrats and, said this week that he will have a draft bill by the end of the summer.
Although he opposed some of the Republican moves, Sen. Schumer said Thursday that most of the provisions wouldn't hurt the larger reform push. "What will make or break overall reform will be the big issues," he said, dismissing the amendments as "little things."
DHS spokesman Matt Chandler criticized the amendments, saying they "are designed to prevent real progress on immigration enforcement and are a reflection of the old administration's strategy: all show, no substance."
Frank Sherry, who heads America's Voice, an advocacy group for an immigration overhaul, said support remains for a comprehensive package in Congress, but the key is to keep enforcement and legalization together.
James Carafano, of the conservative Heritage Foundation think tank, said this week's votes show little has changed in recent years, which have seen Sen. Sessions and other Republicans repeatedly shoot down efforts to revamp the U.S. immigration system.
"I don't think the politics of this has changed at all, except maybe to get more polarized," Mr. Carafano said.
7.08.2009
'Significant Hurdles' Remain on Immigration Reform
'Significant Hurdles' Remain on Immigration Reform
Interviewee: Jeb Bush, Jeb Bush & Associates LLC; former Governor of Florida
Author: Toni Johnson, Staff Writer, CFR.org
July 8, 2009
The changing demographics of the United States, with fewer workers and more retirees, should compel Washington to make comprehensive immigration reform a top policy priority, says former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, co-chair of the Council of Foreign Relations Task Force on U.S. immigration policy. As Congress begins to look again at reform, a number of significant hurdles will impede reform efforts, Bush says. But he adds that conditions for creating a legal and economic system to overhaul immigration policy are slightly more promising than past attempts. "We have to have a legal system of immigration that accounts for the fact that we have fewer workers that are producing the resources to take care of a growing number of people who aspire to be retired," the former governor says. "There's no possible way we can sustain our entitlement programs without having a strategy in place that recognizes that the legal flow of immigration matters."
Immigration reform is back in the news. Members of Congress met at the White House in late June to discuss the issue. Congress has tried a number of times in the last few years to reform immigration. Why has it been so difficult?
I would say the principal problem is a lack of confidence that the federal government was capable of protecting the borders. We've had immigration reform every decade. Commitments were made about enforcement, and clearly they haven't [been] delivered. So there's a lot of frustration, a lot of anger regarding that and that has made comprehensive immigration reform difficult. The last two efforts, while they got very close, broke down on that basic point.
Today the conditions are a little different because there has been a major effort to enforce the border, particularly the Mexican border. There's been a significant deployment of border patrol agents, [and] there is new technology that now is on the border between Mexico and the United States. There is evidence that there are fewer people crossing. So that creates an opportunity.
What has to happen to get things going in Congress this term? Are there still big hurdles to overcome?
There are some significant hurdles. It's very complex for starters. It's not a simple policy discussion. The [Council on Foreign Relations] Task Force has made a series of very thoughtful recommendations. If you read them in their totality, you get a sense that this is a very complex issue. We have to reform the administration of immigration flows; we have to reform the legal immigration system that is quite cumbersome; we have to deal with employer sanctions in a different way; and [we have to] deal with the very difficult issue of what to do with the twelve million people that are here illegally--what means will they have to be able to find a path of legalization? So it's very complex, and anything this complex makes it difficult. When you combine that with the fact that the Obama administration has embarked on some incredibly complex initiatives beyond immigration related to climate change and health care and trying to deal with a down economy, all of this makes it quite difficult to imagine this happening immediately.
You've been part of the CFR Task Force on immigration reform. There are several other reports out there. Many have called for things like tougher border enforcement, finding a path to citizenship for those here illegally, allowing families to stay together, and loosening caps for skilled-worker visas. What's in this report that goes beyond these standard recommendations?
We have to have a legal system of immigration that accounts for the fact that we have fewer workers that are producing the resources to take care of a growing number of people who aspire to be retired.
Given the fact that this was the Council on Foreign Relations, there was an emphasis on how immigration is an important foreign policy issue, not just a domestic policy issue. There are significant things we can do to enhance the position of the United States around the world. For example, the visas that allow foreign students to come into the United States--we've lost a bit of our market share in the last four [or] five years, because of security issues. The Task Force recommended a pretty dramatic extension of [student visa stay lengths] and that makes all the sense in the world. That's just but one example of how you can enhance the foreign policy interests of the United States by changing the immigration laws and policies to make sure we have more interaction with the next generation of opinion leaders and leaders of countries.
Apart from that you have the economic issues. It's important to recognize that given the demography of the United States, we've got to get immigration right. We have to have a legal system of immigration that accounts for the fact that we have fewer workers that are producing the resources to take care of a growing number of people who aspire to be retired. Given the birth rates of the U.S. population, there's no possible way we can sustain our entitlement programs without having a strategy in place that recognizes that the legal flow of immigration matters. These are issues that really are not typically topical when you hear the conversations on television, or when you hear the conversations in Congress, but they're important.
What happens if there's no reform?
We miss an opportunity in the foreign policy arena. We certainly miss a huge opportunity as it relates to the competitive posture of the United States. One of the real weapons we have in competing economically is our ability to absorb immigrants--legal immigrants--that make huge contributions to our country. And then we ignore an issue that needs to be solved, which is what do we do with people who are here permanently, who have made contributions, who if given a path to citizenship would do what's right and take the necessary steps to achieve legalized status and citizenship. We just can't ignore these problems.
The Task Force report talks about U.S. immigration as a key component in the economies of developing countries, especially through remittances. Can you talk a little bit about what's working on the development side and what still needs to be accomplished?
Particularly in Mexico and Central America there are push factors that, if they were mitigated, would have a dramatic impact on illegal immigrants for sure. So if Mexico could develop a long-term strategy with the United States -- certainly not dictating on how to do this but playing a supportive role to expand economic opportunities for those that are forced to leave to be able to provide for their families--that would have a very positive long-term impact on the border issues that are a huge challenge for Mexico and certainly a challenge for us as well.
The point the report makes [is] how important remittances are for our neighbors. It's the largest export for every one of the countries other than Mexico, and it's a huge number for Mexico as well. Recognizing that and recognizing the importance of the region for our security, as well as our long-term economic interests, is important. My personal belief is that we save jobs by having stronger economies in Central America and Mexico. That [in] the United States, our workers benefit when there are growing economies because we're their largest trading partner, [and] the ability for the United States to be competitive with other regions in the world is directly related to how successful Central America and Mexico are in terms of creating policies that on a long-term basis will create sustained growth.
There are some labor groups who complain that illegal immigrants drive down wages for low-skilled workers in the United States. Economists differ on how true that claim actually is, but the perception remains, and a similar argument is made about trade. What do policymakers need to do to overcome fears about influxes of cheap labor and goods into the United States?
One of the real weapons we have in competing economically is our ability to absorb immigrants--legal immigrants--that make huge contributions to our country.
I've seen studies that make the exact opposite cases on both those subjects. So I'm not sure that'll ever be resolved. People seem to have a conclusion and then work backward to find ways to justify that conclusion. In my mind, the best way to lessen people's fears is to educate in tangible ways--to show how cooperation economically creates opportunities for both sides. It's not a zero-sum game. If you look at trade and economic development as a threat, I would say the threat would be larger from Asia. Together the United States and Mexico and Central America can create a win-win, and avoid significant dislocation of investment, plants, and equipment for jobs that we've seen go to China, for example. A case has to be made that it's in the United States' interest to have a stronger growing relationship with our neighbors to the south. The net benefit of that is you would see a subsidence of immigration flows, but equally important it would allow us to remain competitive in an increasingly competitive world.
What's your feeling on the border fence? What image does it project to the rest of the world and how effective do you think it's going to be?
The fence in certain areas has proven to be effective and more appropriate to protect our borders for national security purposes. But there are other options that make a lot more sense. Using technology, for example, [and] greater cooperation between Mexico and the United States will yield a better result. Clearly the image of having a fence in the minds of people outside of the United States is a negative one. No doubt about that. So recognizing that, finding other options where appropriate makes sense. That's what we proposed here. This report does a good job of describing the need to continue the efforts on border enforcement. In order to create a climate where comprehensive reform can happen, there needs to be a continued effort on protecting the border, and the means by which we do that need to be based on the conditions in those localities. I don't think it should be a fence across the entire border because [it] makes us look strong, or whatever the advocates have claimed. Nor do I think we should ignore the protection of the border. We should use the proper means based on the conditions on the ground.
Is there anything else in this debate that you think has harmed the U.S. image?
It's been a domestic policy issue, highly politicized, where the tone of the debate has not yielded the kind of climate to get something done. That's where the focus needs to be: to lessen the emotions of this and look at the clear need for us to achieve comprehensive immigration reform. I can't tell you, to be honest with you, how much people are watching around the world on this. The fact is that our immigration policy has been a huge benefit to our country [in the past] and to get it right gives us a competitive edge economically, and it also helps our country to continue to be dynamic, ever-changing in a positive way. In the long run, this is really important for our country to get right and that should be where the focus is. I worry less about what people think of us than how effective our policies are.
Weigh in on this issue by emailing CFR.org.
Here is the beginning of my post.
Interviewee: Jeb Bush, Jeb Bush & Associates LLC; former Governor of Florida
Author: Toni Johnson, Staff Writer, CFR.org
July 8, 2009
The changing demographics of the United States, with fewer workers and more retirees, should compel Washington to make comprehensive immigration reform a top policy priority, says former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, co-chair of the Council of Foreign Relations Task Force on U.S. immigration policy. As Congress begins to look again at reform, a number of significant hurdles will impede reform efforts, Bush says. But he adds that conditions for creating a legal and economic system to overhaul immigration policy are slightly more promising than past attempts. "We have to have a legal system of immigration that accounts for the fact that we have fewer workers that are producing the resources to take care of a growing number of people who aspire to be retired," the former governor says. "There's no possible way we can sustain our entitlement programs without having a strategy in place that recognizes that the legal flow of immigration matters."
Immigration reform is back in the news. Members of Congress met at the White House in late June to discuss the issue. Congress has tried a number of times in the last few years to reform immigration. Why has it been so difficult?
I would say the principal problem is a lack of confidence that the federal government was capable of protecting the borders. We've had immigration reform every decade. Commitments were made about enforcement, and clearly they haven't [been] delivered. So there's a lot of frustration, a lot of anger regarding that and that has made comprehensive immigration reform difficult. The last two efforts, while they got very close, broke down on that basic point.
Today the conditions are a little different because there has been a major effort to enforce the border, particularly the Mexican border. There's been a significant deployment of border patrol agents, [and] there is new technology that now is on the border between Mexico and the United States. There is evidence that there are fewer people crossing. So that creates an opportunity.
What has to happen to get things going in Congress this term? Are there still big hurdles to overcome?
There are some significant hurdles. It's very complex for starters. It's not a simple policy discussion. The [Council on Foreign Relations] Task Force has made a series of very thoughtful recommendations. If you read them in their totality, you get a sense that this is a very complex issue. We have to reform the administration of immigration flows; we have to reform the legal immigration system that is quite cumbersome; we have to deal with employer sanctions in a different way; and [we have to] deal with the very difficult issue of what to do with the twelve million people that are here illegally--what means will they have to be able to find a path of legalization? So it's very complex, and anything this complex makes it difficult. When you combine that with the fact that the Obama administration has embarked on some incredibly complex initiatives beyond immigration related to climate change and health care and trying to deal with a down economy, all of this makes it quite difficult to imagine this happening immediately.
You've been part of the CFR Task Force on immigration reform. There are several other reports out there. Many have called for things like tougher border enforcement, finding a path to citizenship for those here illegally, allowing families to stay together, and loosening caps for skilled-worker visas. What's in this report that goes beyond these standard recommendations?
We have to have a legal system of immigration that accounts for the fact that we have fewer workers that are producing the resources to take care of a growing number of people who aspire to be retired.
Given the fact that this was the Council on Foreign Relations, there was an emphasis on how immigration is an important foreign policy issue, not just a domestic policy issue. There are significant things we can do to enhance the position of the United States around the world. For example, the visas that allow foreign students to come into the United States--we've lost a bit of our market share in the last four [or] five years, because of security issues. The Task Force recommended a pretty dramatic extension of [student visa stay lengths] and that makes all the sense in the world. That's just but one example of how you can enhance the foreign policy interests of the United States by changing the immigration laws and policies to make sure we have more interaction with the next generation of opinion leaders and leaders of countries.
Apart from that you have the economic issues. It's important to recognize that given the demography of the United States, we've got to get immigration right. We have to have a legal system of immigration that accounts for the fact that we have fewer workers that are producing the resources to take care of a growing number of people who aspire to be retired. Given the birth rates of the U.S. population, there's no possible way we can sustain our entitlement programs without having a strategy in place that recognizes that the legal flow of immigration matters. These are issues that really are not typically topical when you hear the conversations on television, or when you hear the conversations in Congress, but they're important.
What happens if there's no reform?
We miss an opportunity in the foreign policy arena. We certainly miss a huge opportunity as it relates to the competitive posture of the United States. One of the real weapons we have in competing economically is our ability to absorb immigrants--legal immigrants--that make huge contributions to our country. And then we ignore an issue that needs to be solved, which is what do we do with people who are here permanently, who have made contributions, who if given a path to citizenship would do what's right and take the necessary steps to achieve legalized status and citizenship. We just can't ignore these problems.
The Task Force report talks about U.S. immigration as a key component in the economies of developing countries, especially through remittances. Can you talk a little bit about what's working on the development side and what still needs to be accomplished?
Particularly in Mexico and Central America there are push factors that, if they were mitigated, would have a dramatic impact on illegal immigrants for sure. So if Mexico could develop a long-term strategy with the United States -- certainly not dictating on how to do this but playing a supportive role to expand economic opportunities for those that are forced to leave to be able to provide for their families--that would have a very positive long-term impact on the border issues that are a huge challenge for Mexico and certainly a challenge for us as well.
The point the report makes [is] how important remittances are for our neighbors. It's the largest export for every one of the countries other than Mexico, and it's a huge number for Mexico as well. Recognizing that and recognizing the importance of the region for our security, as well as our long-term economic interests, is important. My personal belief is that we save jobs by having stronger economies in Central America and Mexico. That [in] the United States, our workers benefit when there are growing economies because we're their largest trading partner, [and] the ability for the United States to be competitive with other regions in the world is directly related to how successful Central America and Mexico are in terms of creating policies that on a long-term basis will create sustained growth.
There are some labor groups who complain that illegal immigrants drive down wages for low-skilled workers in the United States. Economists differ on how true that claim actually is, but the perception remains, and a similar argument is made about trade. What do policymakers need to do to overcome fears about influxes of cheap labor and goods into the United States?
One of the real weapons we have in competing economically is our ability to absorb immigrants--legal immigrants--that make huge contributions to our country.
I've seen studies that make the exact opposite cases on both those subjects. So I'm not sure that'll ever be resolved. People seem to have a conclusion and then work backward to find ways to justify that conclusion. In my mind, the best way to lessen people's fears is to educate in tangible ways--to show how cooperation economically creates opportunities for both sides. It's not a zero-sum game. If you look at trade and economic development as a threat, I would say the threat would be larger from Asia. Together the United States and Mexico and Central America can create a win-win, and avoid significant dislocation of investment, plants, and equipment for jobs that we've seen go to China, for example. A case has to be made that it's in the United States' interest to have a stronger growing relationship with our neighbors to the south. The net benefit of that is you would see a subsidence of immigration flows, but equally important it would allow us to remain competitive in an increasingly competitive world.
What's your feeling on the border fence? What image does it project to the rest of the world and how effective do you think it's going to be?
The fence in certain areas has proven to be effective and more appropriate to protect our borders for national security purposes. But there are other options that make a lot more sense. Using technology, for example, [and] greater cooperation between Mexico and the United States will yield a better result. Clearly the image of having a fence in the minds of people outside of the United States is a negative one. No doubt about that. So recognizing that, finding other options where appropriate makes sense. That's what we proposed here. This report does a good job of describing the need to continue the efforts on border enforcement. In order to create a climate where comprehensive reform can happen, there needs to be a continued effort on protecting the border, and the means by which we do that need to be based on the conditions in those localities. I don't think it should be a fence across the entire border because [it] makes us look strong, or whatever the advocates have claimed. Nor do I think we should ignore the protection of the border. We should use the proper means based on the conditions on the ground.
Is there anything else in this debate that you think has harmed the U.S. image?
It's been a domestic policy issue, highly politicized, where the tone of the debate has not yielded the kind of climate to get something done. That's where the focus needs to be: to lessen the emotions of this and look at the clear need for us to achieve comprehensive immigration reform. I can't tell you, to be honest with you, how much people are watching around the world on this. The fact is that our immigration policy has been a huge benefit to our country [in the past] and to get it right gives us a competitive edge economically, and it also helps our country to continue to be dynamic, ever-changing in a positive way. In the long run, this is really important for our country to get right and that should be where the focus is. I worry less about what people think of us than how effective our policies are.
Weigh in on this issue by emailing CFR.org.
Here is the beginning of my post.
7.02.2009
As his deportation hearing nears, young undocumented dreamer shares his story
The Miami Herald
Posted on Thu, Jul. 02, 2009
As his deportation hearing nears, young undocumented dreamer shares his story
BY BRITTANY LEVINE
blevine@MiamiHerald.com
Walter Lara considers himself the all-American guy next door, raised on the mantra that if you work hard and do well in school, you can ''make something of yourself.'' But the 23-year-old, undocumented Florida resident -- who supporters say is ''as American as apple pie'' -- faces deportation on Monday because his parents never adjusted his immigration status after they moved to Miami from Argentina when he was 3.
He has garnered support from lawmakers and immigration activists, but time is not on his side.
Lara held a press conference in Washington, D.C., on Wednesday, hoping to sway lawmakers to write a bill that could keep him in the United States. The only ways to stall Lara's deportation are if immigration officials postpone it, or if Congress passes a private bill granting him temporary residency. But with Congress out of session and the July Fourth holiday approaching, things don't look good, Lara advocates said.
Florida Democrat Sen. Bill Nelson has asked a top Homeland Security official to postpone Lara's deportation, and Rep. Corrine Brown, D-Jacksonville, has penned a private bill seeking the same thing.
Lara, who did not know he was undocumented until he tried to apply to University of Central Florida, said he knows little about Argentina.
MDC GRAD
He graduated from Miami Dade Honors College with an associate's degree in computer animation. He dreams of working for Pixar.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents arrested Lara in February while he was installing satellite dishes for DirecTV.
Lara's story parallels that of Alex and Juan Gomez, two local youths who were to be deported in 2007, but weren't.
Like Lara, they had a Facebook group of more than 1,300 members calling to halt their deportation. They, too, had a private bill and lawmakers on their side.
The difference for the Gomez brothers was timing and popularity, said Miriam Calderon, a policy director at First Focus, a children's advocacy group handling Lara's public relations. The Gomez's became poster children for the DREAM Act, a bill that would grant citizenship to undocumented immigrants who attend college or serve in the military.
Juan, now 20, is at Georgetown University and Alex, 21, is studying in South Florida.
Halting their deportation was seen as a temporary solution until the DREAM Act passed. But it didn't pass in 2007. The measure was introduced again in March, and advocates say it has a better chance now that President Obama, who has publicly supported immigration reform, is in office.
Lara lives in Orlando with his grandmother, a legal resident, and his 15-year-old sister, who is a citizen. He plans to watch July Fourth fireworks with them.
In 2007, Lara's neighbor offered to sponsor his citizenship and hire him to work as a high-tech sculptor. John Wilkinson, a sculptor from Central Florida, said only Lara and a handful of others know how to make the specialized art with 3D lasers.
`ZERO PERCENT CHANCE'
Wilkinson, 54, visited an immigration attorney with Lara, but the attorney said not to do anything because immigration reform was ''just around the corner.'' ''Then we had a chance. Now there's a zero percent chance Walter can stay,'' Wilkinson said.
DREAM Act critics such as Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, a Washington think tank, said, 'It's not America's responsibility to clean up the parents' mess.
''This idea of picking and choosing particular cases and passing bills for particular individuals is no way to run a railroad,'' he said.
6.30.2009
Enough Fence Already: Tough Questions on Immigration Reform
Esquire
Enough Fence Already: Tough Questions on Immigration Reform
Yes, Obama made a commitment on Thursday to push border legislation — albeit not 'til next year. But, yes, there are 11 million illegal immigrants in our country. What happens between now and then appears complex, until you talk to this one God-fearing guy.
By: John H. Richardson
The evil overlords that rule my destiny here at Esquire — having decided that "the stories of our time" (boring old health care, unemployment, and workers' rights) were more important this month than, say, Mark Sanford — wanted me to write about immigration this week. So I turned to Dr. Donald M. Kerwin.
Let me just say right out front that Kerwin is one of those nut jobs who believe in a wacko revolutionary named Jesus Christ. For fifteen years, he was the director of the Catholic Legal Immigration Network. Now he's a big shot at the Migration Policy Institute. But his gateway drug was a stint working in Peru for — you guessed it — a children's soup kitchen.
"I was trying to live my faith," he says. "It was all kind of from a faith commitment. I was focused on doing work consistent with my faith."
Note the obsessive repetition of doctrine. To program a person that well, it takes years in re-education camps.
"In Peru," he continues, "I saw people who were extraordinarily generous and, a number of them, extraordinarily needy as well. Since then, I realize what it takes for people to try to support themselves who come from circumstances like that, and how committed people like that are to their families, and how, if a person like that is forced to go to another country, he isn't doing it willingly. He's doing it with a lot of self-sacrifice, for his family."
After that radicalizing experience, Kerwin helped 5,600 Haitians immigrate to the United States. I asked the obvious question: Why don't those Haitians stay home and fix their own country?
"These people were fleeing for their lives. They couldn't improve their country if they got killed."
Okay, whatever. But why make it any easier? Aren't there lots of miserable Haitians fleeing for their lives? Kerwin's answer was that those particular Haitians had already been winnowed, during a stay at lovely Guantánamo Bay, from 40,000 applicants/long-distance swimmers. "They were already deemed to have a credible fear of persecution, yet they had to go through a very time consuming and expensive asylum process, and it took immense resources on the part of charitable agencies to help them — millions of dollars that could have been spent on other needs."
Another big whatever. It's still a big world and there are still lots of desperate people who want to do my job for pennies on the dollar. That's what I hear on Fox News, anyway.
"That's another thing Peru gave me: People don't really want to come. They'd really prefer to stay in the country and community where they've grown up, surrounded by family and friends."
Okay, smarty-pants. How do you explain the 11 million illegal aliens? (Or "undocumented immigrants" as politically correct liberals such as yourself like to put it.)
"Nobody likes illegal immigration," Kerwin admits. "Everybody recognizes the system is broken. The question really is how to look at people who have come in illegally. Until the recession, our economy badly needed these people. We had record low unemployment — 4 percent — until 2007."
But that was then. Why can't we throw them out now?
"They're all in families, large numbers of them, enormous numbers in mixed-status families. Their kids are U.S. citizens, or their spouse is a lawful resident."
So maybe it's not gonna slide down as smooth as a burger in the gullet of Lou Dobbs. But what else can we do?
"There needs to be strong border enforcement. There needs to be strong interior enforcement, particularly at the workplace. There need to be ways to check whether people are authorized to work in a way that's highly accurate and respects people's rights, and we need to also be screening people who are serving prison time — to remove people who ought to be removed. And we also need to re-think our legal immigration system so it reflects the economic needs of the nation, so you admit more workers when you need more workers."
And then we get them to leave!
"You don't. But that's the interesting thing: If you bring in temporary workers in a way that allows them to move from job to job and become permanent residents, many of those want to go home. What you have now is people who stay because they might never be able to come back."
I dunno about all this. No matter how a person complicates things with, like, logic and morality and social justice and other suspiciously liberal notions, we still have those 11 million illegals getting sub-prime loans and using our emergency rooms when they faint from heat exhaustion in the sugar-cane fields.
"Obviously, you need to give the people that are here a chance to earn the right to remain," Kerwin says. "There's no deportation or enforcement policy that's going to result in 11 million people either being forced to leave or being physically arrested or removed. I don't think anybody who's serious at this point even thinks that's possible or even desirable."
But isn't that one of the reasons John McCain lost the election, because he wanted some kind of amnesty program?
For once, Dr. Kerwin had no snappy answer.
So I put it another way: Isn't that rewarding illegal behavior?
"I don't know what kind of a reward it is to say to someone who has been here working at low wages, most of them in jobs that are thankless, 'You can now go to the very back of the visa line and over the course of a period of time — through work, through learning English, through paying a significant fine — can earn the right to remain.' In a way, yes, it's a program that forgives a transgression. But lawlessness is a little harsh."
Aha! Forgiving transgressions! Typical bleeding-heart. What about the awesome wrath of an angry God?
"You want to uphold the rule of law. You're not happy they entered the country illegally. You want to ask why they did it and what they've done here. But you also have to recognize the reality that they're hard-working people who are embedded in communities and families."
I have to admit, some of them are hardworking — like the guys I use to rake up my leaves every fall. And they're just standing there on the sideway across from the train station, politely waiting hour after hour. Convenient and cheap, too!
"You're the problem," Kerwin tells me. "We need amnesty for you guys. Why is amnesty for undocumented immigrants a stigma, but there's no stigma for people who have hired and benefited from their work? If we're really going to come together as a country, it seems to me the restoration of the rule of law should go in both directions."
That ain't gonna happen, bro.
"No, it won't."
As long as we're cool on that, what needs to be done, politically speaking?
"President Obama met with members of Congress last week to kick off immigration reform; his consistent position is this kind of legislation needs to pass. Senator Schumer is crafting a bill. There seems to be a strong commitment."
And who is fighting it?
"The House Immigration Reform Caucus."
Hmmm, let's take a look. That would be Eric Cantor, Republican from Virginia; Dan Burton, Republican from Indiana; Brian Bilbray, Republican from California; Zach Wamp, Republican from Tennessee; Vern Buchanan, Republican from Florida; Michael Burgess, Republican from Texas; John Shadegg, Republican from Arizona; Pete Sessions, Republican from Texas... and so on for about another fifty names, all with Rs after them.
What's their basic argument?
"That if only the law was enforced more stringently, with even more Draconian measures, you would make life so difficult they would decide to leave."
And the problem with that is?
"There's no way you can break up all these families and do roundups of millions of people and pull 5 percent of the work force out and end up with a country that any of us would be proud of."
Clearly, Dr. Kerwin has never been to a gun show. And he probably hates the border fence, too.
"The fence works in certain places, in highly urban crossing areas. But I think there's enough fence at this point. What we really need is a huge focus on the successful integration of newcomers. Altogether, legal and illegal combined, we're talking about 38 million people. The success of these people is essential to the future of the country. It's a remarkable number. It's a large experiment. If they're successful, the country will be much stronger."
There you have it: the commie — I mean, the Christian point of view
6.26.2009
President Obama’s Comments on Immigration After Today’s White House Meeting
Posted 06/25/09 at 04:36pm
President Obama’s Comments on Immigration After Today’s White House Meeting
Here are the President's unedited comments, from a White House release:
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
AFTER MEETING WITH MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
TO DISCUSS IMMIGRATION
State Dining Room 3:17 P.M. EDT
THE PRESIDENT: Hello, everybody. We have just finished what I consider to be a very productive meeting on one of the most critical issues that I think this nation faces, and that is an immigration system that is broken and needs fixing.
We have members of Congress from both chambers, from parties, who have participated in the meeting and shared a range of ideas. I think the consensus is that despite our inability to get this passed over the last several years, the American people still want to see a solution in which we are tightening up our borders, or cracking down on employers who are using illegal workers in order to drive down wages -- and oftentimes mistreat those workers. And we need a effective way to recognize and legalize the status of undocumented workers who are here.
Now, this is -- there is not by any means consensus across the table. As you can see, we've got a pretty diverse spectrum of folks here. But what I'm encouraged by is that after all the overheated rhetoric and the occasional demagoguery on all sides around this issue, we've got a responsible set of leaders sitting around the table who want to actively get something done and not put it off until a year, two years, three years, five years from now, but to start working on this thing right now.
My administration is fully behind an effort to achieve comprehensive immigration reform. I have asked my Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, Secretary Janet Napolitano, to lead up a group that is going to be working with a leadership group from both the House and the Senate to start systematically working through these issues from the congressional leaders and those with the relevant jurisdiction. What we've heard is through a process of regular order, they would like to work through these issues both in the House and in the Senate.
In the meantime, administratively there are a couple of things that our administration has already begun to do. The FBI has cleared much of the backlog of immigration background checks that was really holding up the legal immigration process. DHS is already in the process of cracking down on unscrupulous employers, and, in collaboration with the Department of Labor, working to protect those workers from exploitation.
The Department of Homeland Security has also been making good progress in speeding up the processing of citizenship petitions, which has been far too slow for far too long -- and that, by the way, is an area of great consensus, cuts across Democratic and Republican parties, the notion that we've got to make our legal system of immigration much more efficient and effective and customer-friendly than it currently is.
Today I'm pleased to announce a new collaboration between my Chief Information Officer, my Chief Performance Officer, my Chief Technologies Officer and the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Office to make the agency much more efficient, much more transparent, much more user-friendly than it has been in the past.
In the next 90 days, USCIS will launch a vastly improved Web site that will, for the first time ever, allow applicants to get updates on their status of their applications via e-mail and text message and online. And anybody who's dealt with families who are trying to deal with -- navigate the immigration system, this is going to save them huge amounts of time standing in line, waiting around, making phone calls, being put on hold. It's an example of some things that we can do administratively even as we're working through difficult issues surrounding comprehensive immigration.
And the idea is very simple here: We're going to leverage cutting-edge technology to reduce the unnecessary paperwork, backlogs, and the lack of transparency that's caused so many people so much heartache.
Now, we all know that comprehensive immigration reform is difficult. We know it's a sensitive and politically volatile issue. One of the things that was said around the table is the American people still don't have enough confidence that Congress and any administration is going to get serious about border security, and so they're concerned that any immigration reform simply will be a short-term legalization of undocumented workers with no long-term solution with respect to future flows of illegal immigration.
What's also been acknowledged is that the 12 million or so undocumented workers are here -- who are not paying taxes in the ways that we'd like them to be paying taxes, who are living in the shadows, that that is a group that we have to deal with in a practical, common-sense way. And I think the American people are ready for us to do so. But it's going to require some heavy lifting, it's going to require a victory of practicality and common sense and good policymaking over short-term politics. That's what I'm committed to doing as President.
I want to especially commend John McCain, who's with me today, because along with folks like Lindsey Graham, he has already paid a significant political cost for doing the right thing. I stand with him, I stand with Nydia Velázquez and others who have taken leadership on this issue. I am confident that if we enter into this with the notion that this is a nation of laws that have to be observed and this is a nation of immigrants, then we're going to create a stronger nation for our children and our grandchildren.
So thank you all for participating. I'm looking forward to us getting busy and getting to work. All right? Thank you.
Oh, and by the way, I hope everybody has got their Hawaiian shirts -- (laughter) -- and their mumus for our luau tonight.
President Obama’s Comments on Immigration After Today’s White House Meeting
Here are the President's unedited comments, from a White House release:
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
AFTER MEETING WITH MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
TO DISCUSS IMMIGRATION
State Dining Room 3:17 P.M. EDT
THE PRESIDENT: Hello, everybody. We have just finished what I consider to be a very productive meeting on one of the most critical issues that I think this nation faces, and that is an immigration system that is broken and needs fixing.
We have members of Congress from both chambers, from parties, who have participated in the meeting and shared a range of ideas. I think the consensus is that despite our inability to get this passed over the last several years, the American people still want to see a solution in which we are tightening up our borders, or cracking down on employers who are using illegal workers in order to drive down wages -- and oftentimes mistreat those workers. And we need a effective way to recognize and legalize the status of undocumented workers who are here.
Now, this is -- there is not by any means consensus across the table. As you can see, we've got a pretty diverse spectrum of folks here. But what I'm encouraged by is that after all the overheated rhetoric and the occasional demagoguery on all sides around this issue, we've got a responsible set of leaders sitting around the table who want to actively get something done and not put it off until a year, two years, three years, five years from now, but to start working on this thing right now.
My administration is fully behind an effort to achieve comprehensive immigration reform. I have asked my Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, Secretary Janet Napolitano, to lead up a group that is going to be working with a leadership group from both the House and the Senate to start systematically working through these issues from the congressional leaders and those with the relevant jurisdiction. What we've heard is through a process of regular order, they would like to work through these issues both in the House and in the Senate.
In the meantime, administratively there are a couple of things that our administration has already begun to do. The FBI has cleared much of the backlog of immigration background checks that was really holding up the legal immigration process. DHS is already in the process of cracking down on unscrupulous employers, and, in collaboration with the Department of Labor, working to protect those workers from exploitation.
The Department of Homeland Security has also been making good progress in speeding up the processing of citizenship petitions, which has been far too slow for far too long -- and that, by the way, is an area of great consensus, cuts across Democratic and Republican parties, the notion that we've got to make our legal system of immigration much more efficient and effective and customer-friendly than it currently is.
Today I'm pleased to announce a new collaboration between my Chief Information Officer, my Chief Performance Officer, my Chief Technologies Officer and the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Office to make the agency much more efficient, much more transparent, much more user-friendly than it has been in the past.
In the next 90 days, USCIS will launch a vastly improved Web site that will, for the first time ever, allow applicants to get updates on their status of their applications via e-mail and text message and online. And anybody who's dealt with families who are trying to deal with -- navigate the immigration system, this is going to save them huge amounts of time standing in line, waiting around, making phone calls, being put on hold. It's an example of some things that we can do administratively even as we're working through difficult issues surrounding comprehensive immigration.
And the idea is very simple here: We're going to leverage cutting-edge technology to reduce the unnecessary paperwork, backlogs, and the lack of transparency that's caused so many people so much heartache.
Now, we all know that comprehensive immigration reform is difficult. We know it's a sensitive and politically volatile issue. One of the things that was said around the table is the American people still don't have enough confidence that Congress and any administration is going to get serious about border security, and so they're concerned that any immigration reform simply will be a short-term legalization of undocumented workers with no long-term solution with respect to future flows of illegal immigration.
What's also been acknowledged is that the 12 million or so undocumented workers are here -- who are not paying taxes in the ways that we'd like them to be paying taxes, who are living in the shadows, that that is a group that we have to deal with in a practical, common-sense way. And I think the American people are ready for us to do so. But it's going to require some heavy lifting, it's going to require a victory of practicality and common sense and good policymaking over short-term politics. That's what I'm committed to doing as President.
I want to especially commend John McCain, who's with me today, because along with folks like Lindsey Graham, he has already paid a significant political cost for doing the right thing. I stand with him, I stand with Nydia Velázquez and others who have taken leadership on this issue. I am confident that if we enter into this with the notion that this is a nation of laws that have to be observed and this is a nation of immigrants, then we're going to create a stronger nation for our children and our grandchildren.
So thank you all for participating. I'm looking forward to us getting busy and getting to work. All right? Thank you.
Oh, and by the way, I hope everybody has got their Hawaiian shirts -- (laughter) -- and their mumus for our luau tonight.
6.25.2009
Dear Mr. President
The Honorable Barack Obama
President of the United States
Washington DC
Dear Mr. President,
I am writing in support of passing immigration reform that includes a path to legalization, be it legal residency or citizenship for the millions of ‘illegal immigrants’ in this county.
Nelson Mandela wrote in his congratulatory letter to you “Your victory has demonstrated that no person anywhere in the world should not dare to dream of wanting to change the world for a better place.”
The year I spent in the Americorps I saw how much can be changed with a vision and few willing hands. President Obama, you have given me hope and renewed my belief that anyone can make a difference. You have placed the burden of change in the laps of the American people and asked us to participate. I will start today by sharing my family’s story and the story of the 12 million PLUS that are praying for a way home and a way out of the shadows.
My story is not unique but also not shared enough. In 2002 I met Raul, my future husband, who was and is an unauthorized immigrant. We were married in 2006. Contrary to the belief that marriage to a US citizen means a pathway to citizenship, as you know, there is no way for Raul to right his wrong and become a legal resident. We have been planning our move to Mexico not wanting our daughter, Lucy (now 11 months) to suffer from the decisions we have made.
Raul came here when he was 17. He crossed the dessert with a gallon of water, a few pesos, a rosary his mom gave him for safe passage and the clothes on his back. Several years later he has daily reminders of the timid boy who arrived in the land of opportunity with his dreams on the horizon. He passes the Chinese buffet that he would frequent for his one a day meal and the bus stop where he slept when it wasn’t worth going home for three hours of sleep. My husband is a gentle and loving man and an exemplary father. Is he a threat to the American way of life?
My hope for the American people is that we will learn to treat all people regardless of race and legal status with dignity and stand up against policies that separate families. That we will not fear what is different but celebrate our rich diversity. My hope for your administration is that you will work to pass immigration reform - making it possible for unauthorized immigrants to achieve legal status, be recognized as a positive addition to our communities and most importantly reunite with their families.
I dream of staying in the country that I love. That I will raise my daughter to be proud of her mixed heritage and of the country that stood up for her family.
Thank you,
Lisa Marie Rios
Obama set to hold twice-delayed immigration meeting (TODAY)
CNNPolitics.com
– CNN's Dan Lothian and Lisa Sylvester contributed to this report
WASHINGTON (CNN) — President Barack Obama is set to begin tackling the politically contentious issue of immigration Thursday, hosting a bipartisan group of congressmen at the White House for what the administration is calling the "launch of a policy conversation."
The meeting, which was delayed twice as economic issues took center stage, is designed to be an "honest discussion of issues where we can identify areas of agreement, and areas where we still have work to do," according to the White House.
The meeting comes less than a week after the president reiterated his commitment to passing comprehensive immigration reform that paves the way for citizenship for millions of undocumented workers.
On Friday, Obama told a Hispanic audience that the "fair, practical and promising way forward" is to strengthen border security, clarify the status of those who are here illegally, and require illegal immigrants to pay a penalty and taxes.
He also said undocumented workers should learn English and "go to the back of the line behind those who played by rules" in terms of applying for citizenship.
"The American people believe in immigration, but they also believe that we can't tolerate a situation where people come to the United States in violation of the law," Obama said in an address to the eighth annual National Hispanic Prayer Breakfast in Washington.
"Nor can we tolerate employers who exploit undocumented workers in order to bring down wages," he added.
While immigration reform is a top priority for the president's first term, the nation's continuing economic woes top his list of domestic priorities.
"The president has consistently said that he wants to start the (immigration) discussion later this year because our immigration system is broken," White House spokesman Nick Shapiro said earlier this year. "But the economy comes first."
In downplaying the immigration issue, the White House may also be acknowledging the political complexity associated with the issue. Former President George W. Bush made comprehensive immigration reform a priority in his second term, but failed to win congressional approval.
Similarly, the Obama White House may not yet have the support it needs in Congress to pass a comprehensive reform measure.
"Currently, where we sit, the math makes that more difficult than the discussion," White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said Monday.
Several pro-immigration reform groups are nevertheless pushing the administration to make a stronger effort this year, in part because next year's mid-term elections could make major reform even more difficult.
Politically, Obama has been walking a fine line, trying to appease pro-amnesty Hispanic groups who backed him in the election while at the same time trying to win over broader public and congressional opinion by taking a tougher stance on enforcement.
Among other things, the administration earlier this year changed the focus of worksite enforcement raids away from targeting undocumented workers, and instead on employers who break immigration laws.
"The president has some time," said Mark Krikorian from the Center for Immigration Studies, a group that favors tighter immigration restrictions.
"I can't guess if he has six months or a year where he can keep kicking the can down the road before he pays a political price from one side or the another. But at some point his time runs out."
– CNN's Dan Lothian and Lisa Sylvester contributed to this report
WASHINGTON (CNN) — President Barack Obama is set to begin tackling the politically contentious issue of immigration Thursday, hosting a bipartisan group of congressmen at the White House for what the administration is calling the "launch of a policy conversation."
The meeting, which was delayed twice as economic issues took center stage, is designed to be an "honest discussion of issues where we can identify areas of agreement, and areas where we still have work to do," according to the White House.
The meeting comes less than a week after the president reiterated his commitment to passing comprehensive immigration reform that paves the way for citizenship for millions of undocumented workers.
On Friday, Obama told a Hispanic audience that the "fair, practical and promising way forward" is to strengthen border security, clarify the status of those who are here illegally, and require illegal immigrants to pay a penalty and taxes.
He also said undocumented workers should learn English and "go to the back of the line behind those who played by rules" in terms of applying for citizenship.
"The American people believe in immigration, but they also believe that we can't tolerate a situation where people come to the United States in violation of the law," Obama said in an address to the eighth annual National Hispanic Prayer Breakfast in Washington.
"Nor can we tolerate employers who exploit undocumented workers in order to bring down wages," he added.
While immigration reform is a top priority for the president's first term, the nation's continuing economic woes top his list of domestic priorities.
"The president has consistently said that he wants to start the (immigration) discussion later this year because our immigration system is broken," White House spokesman Nick Shapiro said earlier this year. "But the economy comes first."
In downplaying the immigration issue, the White House may also be acknowledging the political complexity associated with the issue. Former President George W. Bush made comprehensive immigration reform a priority in his second term, but failed to win congressional approval.
Similarly, the Obama White House may not yet have the support it needs in Congress to pass a comprehensive reform measure.
"Currently, where we sit, the math makes that more difficult than the discussion," White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said Monday.
Several pro-immigration reform groups are nevertheless pushing the administration to make a stronger effort this year, in part because next year's mid-term elections could make major reform even more difficult.
Politically, Obama has been walking a fine line, trying to appease pro-amnesty Hispanic groups who backed him in the election while at the same time trying to win over broader public and congressional opinion by taking a tougher stance on enforcement.
Among other things, the administration earlier this year changed the focus of worksite enforcement raids away from targeting undocumented workers, and instead on employers who break immigration laws.
"The president has some time," said Mark Krikorian from the Center for Immigration Studies, a group that favors tighter immigration restrictions.
"I can't guess if he has six months or a year where he can keep kicking the can down the road before he pays a political price from one side or the another. But at some point his time runs out."
6.16.2009
Everett woman accused in Arizona slayings
The Seattle Times
Saturday, June 13, 2009
Everett woman accused in Arizona slayings
The Associated Press
Two of three people arrested in a southern Arizona home invasion that left a little girl and her father dead had connections to a Washington state anti-illegal immigration group that conducts border watch activities in Arizona.
Jason Eugene Bush, 34, Shawna Forde, 41, and Albert Robert Gaxiola, 42, have been charged with two counts each of first-degree murder and other charges, said Sheriff Clarence Dupnic of Pima County, Ariz.
The trio are alleged to have dressed as law enforcement officers and forced their way into a rural Arivaca home on May 30, wounding a woman and fatally shooting her husband and their 9-year-old daughter. Their motive was financial, Dupnic said.
"The husband who was murdered has a history of being involved in narcotics and there was an anticipation that there would be a considerable amount of cash at this location as well as the possibility of drugs," Dupnic said.
Forde is the leader of Minutemen American Defense, a small border watch group, and Bush goes by the nickname "Gunny" and is its operations director, according to the group's Web site. She is from Everett, Wash., has recently been living in Arizona and was once associated with the better known and larger Minuteman Civil Defense Corps.
A statement attributed to officers of Forde's group and posted on its Web site on Saturday extended condolences to the victims' families and said the group doesn't condone such acts and will cooperate with law enforcement.
The assailants planned to leave no one alive, Dupnic said at a press conference in Tucson on Friday. He said Forde was the ringleader.
"This was a planned home invasion where the plan was to kill all the people inside this trailer so there would be no witnesses," Dupnic said. "To just kill a 9-year-old girl because she might be a potential witness to me is just one of the most despicable acts that I have heard of."
Dupnic said Forde continued working through Friday to raise a large amount of money to make her anti-illegal immigrant operation more sophisticated.
Forde denied involvement as she was led from sheriff's headquarters.
"No, I did not do it," she said. "I had nothing to do with it."
Gaxiola also denied involvement; Bush was arrested at a Kingman, Ariz., hospital where he was being treated for a leg wound he allegedly received when the woman who survived the attack managed to get a gun and fire back.
Killed were 9-year-old Brisenia Flores and her 29-year-old father, Raul Junior Flores. The name of the wounded woman who survived the attack hasn't been released.
Forde is well known in the anti-illegal immigration community, said Brian Levin, director of the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism at California State University-San Bernardino.
"She's someone who even within the anti-immigration movement has been labeled as unstable," Levin said. "She was basically forced out of another anti-immigrant group, the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps, and then founded her own organization."
--
5.27.2009
The Border: Exploring the U.S.-Mexican Divide
by David J. Danelo (Author)
Border Field State Park sits on three square miles of protected California real estate tucked south of a score of horse farms. Rusted steel spires slice through the final white obelisk that marks the line between nations and towers against a background of salty, endless blue. Waves crash along an empty beach; surfers and sunbathers are banned from this part of the coastline. A "Danger/Peligro" sign warns that those who-like me- walk down to the ocean should not dive in, lest we risk being infected by industrial waste. A Border Patrol agent sits inside a truck parked on a hilltop,scanning the sea for any migrants willing to take the plunge.
I gazed upon the vastness of the open sea, inhaled the wet, heavy fragrance of flora and fauna, and reflected on my quest to understand this complex 1,952 mile terrain. During the early 1990s before the fence was installed, migrants used to sprint north from the flat floodplain stretching into Tijuana. Back then they would mass in groups and run on highway, dodging La Migra and traffic until reaching a pickup point. Today the beach was quiet.
Rafael Peralta had been one of those illegals. He was twelve when he broke the law and ran accross the border near this stretch of sand. For six years he lived illegally in San Diego. Sowehow, he obtained a green card for one reason: he wanted to join the U.S. Marine Corps.
In November 2004, Sgt. Rafael Peralta, USMC- who had become a dual U.S.-Mexican citizen - was a platoon scout with an infantry company in Iraq assaulting the city of Fallujah. Prior to departing for the attach, Peralta wrote his younger brother Ricardo, telling him not to worry. "Be proud of me, bro," he said, "and be proud of being an American."
On November 15, as the fighting spread from house to house, sargeant Peralta stood at the front of several Marines and threw open the door to a room occuptied by insurgents. As he entered the room, Peralta was shot several times in the torso and face. After Peralta's fellow Marines had flooded in, an insurgent threw and hand grenade. Bleeding and mortally wounded, Sergeant Peralta grabbed the grenade and cradled it, absorbing the blast with his body and saving the lives of four others Marines. Sgt. Peralta has been nominated for the Medal of Honor.
As I stood at the end of the border, less than ten miles south of Sargeant Peralta's final resting place at Fort Rosecrans National Cementry, I wondered if anti-immigration activists would attempt to block the reception of America's highest honor for valor because of his former immigration status. And if they would not, I wondered why they prevent millions of other Mexican men and woman-who would grow up to be heroes like Sergeant Peralta-from being offered a pathway to do so. I knew what thier answer would be, I did not find it satisfactory.
But despite my pessimism, I was unwilling to throw in the towel. To give up hope entirely on a rational solution to stabilizing the U.S.-Mexico and U.S.-Mexican borders would dishonor Sergeant Peralta's memory. Someday, I thought, perhaps Americans and Mexicans will freely traverse this vast river and land. Perhaps citizens from both nations will have access to honorable work and fair trade, united against economic challengers accross the pacific. Perhaps the people will not fear their differences, because the police on both sides will be trustworty. Perhaps the border will finally make sense.
I closed my eyes and let the ocean breeze embrace me. Accompanied only by Sgt. Rafael Peralta's memory, I welled with emotion as I tried to imagine the impossible: the day when both sides of la frotera would be at peace. That moment felt very away.
5.23.2009
Obama to hold bi-partisan meeting on immigration reform
Obama to hold bi-partisan meeting on immigration reform
In April, the Obama White House made huge news when it signaled that it would pursue immigration reform this year.
Mizanur Rahman
Houston Chronicle
Immigration Chronicles
It appears today the administration is taking its first step to that goal.
According to America's Voice, the Obama Administration announced that it plans to hold a bi-partisan meeting with members of Congress on June 8 to discuss moving forward on comprehensive immigration reform this year.
So we'll start taking bets now on the odds of CIR passing this year.
The nonpartisan Reform Institute held a forum in Capitol Hill today to talk about its position that immigration reform is critical to long-term economic growth.
Former U.S. Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez and demographer Dowell Myers of the University of Southern California attended the forum. According to a Reform Institute statement:
"The United States has long benefited from having the most talented, hardest working labor force; fixing our broken immigration system so that the best and the brightest from around the globe will continue to bring their energy and entrepreneurial spirit to the U.S. will be critical to maintaining our competitive edge as well as our ability to be the land of opportunity and prosperity," stated Secretary Gutierrez.
"The two greatest demographic forces that will shape America's future are the aging of the baby boomers and the settlement and advancement of immigrants; where they intersect must be a key focus for policymakers," according to Dr. Myers.
Not everyone is buying the argument that immigration reform would help the U.S. economy. Here's an excerpt from a report by the Federation for American Immigration Reform:
The arguments put forward by amnesty advocates -- such as the Immigration Policy Center -- offer no new research, but rather regurgitate research that lumps together legal and illegal immigrant workers in order to give the false impression that illegal immigration is a benefit to the country and would be even more so if they gained legal status through an amnesty. This ignores findings that demonstrate the very different characteristics of illegal alien workers compared to legal permanent residents.
Experience with the 1986 amnesty demonstrates the falseness of the assertion that adoption of an amnesty would transform lowskilled, low-educational-attainment, illegal aliens into skilled, educated workers who would be making high wages and paying higher taxes.
Research in fact documents that the result would be the opposite. Adoption of an amnesty would perpetuate competition for low wage jobs, harm to the nation's
most vulnerable workers, extend reliance on social welfare programs by poor Americans, and increase the number of persons eligible for social assistance.Moreover, granting amnesty to illegal aliens would send the
message around the globe that the United States no longer believes in the rule of law and is not willing to punish those who violate it.
In April, the Obama White House made huge news when it signaled that it would pursue immigration reform this year.
Mizanur Rahman
Houston Chronicle
Immigration Chronicles
It appears today the administration is taking its first step to that goal.
According to America's Voice, the Obama Administration announced that it plans to hold a bi-partisan meeting with members of Congress on June 8 to discuss moving forward on comprehensive immigration reform this year.
So we'll start taking bets now on the odds of CIR passing this year.
The nonpartisan Reform Institute held a forum in Capitol Hill today to talk about its position that immigration reform is critical to long-term economic growth.
Former U.S. Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez and demographer Dowell Myers of the University of Southern California attended the forum. According to a Reform Institute statement:
"The United States has long benefited from having the most talented, hardest working labor force; fixing our broken immigration system so that the best and the brightest from around the globe will continue to bring their energy and entrepreneurial spirit to the U.S. will be critical to maintaining our competitive edge as well as our ability to be the land of opportunity and prosperity," stated Secretary Gutierrez.
"The two greatest demographic forces that will shape America's future are the aging of the baby boomers and the settlement and advancement of immigrants; where they intersect must be a key focus for policymakers," according to Dr. Myers.
Not everyone is buying the argument that immigration reform would help the U.S. economy. Here's an excerpt from a report by the Federation for American Immigration Reform:
The arguments put forward by amnesty advocates -- such as the Immigration Policy Center -- offer no new research, but rather regurgitate research that lumps together legal and illegal immigrant workers in order to give the false impression that illegal immigration is a benefit to the country and would be even more so if they gained legal status through an amnesty. This ignores findings that demonstrate the very different characteristics of illegal alien workers compared to legal permanent residents.
Experience with the 1986 amnesty demonstrates the falseness of the assertion that adoption of an amnesty would transform lowskilled, low-educational-attainment, illegal aliens into skilled, educated workers who would be making high wages and paying higher taxes.
Research in fact documents that the result would be the opposite. Adoption of an amnesty would perpetuate competition for low wage jobs, harm to the nation's
most vulnerable workers, extend reliance on social welfare programs by poor Americans, and increase the number of persons eligible for social assistance.Moreover, granting amnesty to illegal aliens would send the
message around the globe that the United States no longer believes in the rule of law and is not willing to punish those who violate it.
5.22.2009
Looking Beyond "Deport or Legalize" for Immigration Solutions
Looking Beyond "Deport or Legalize" for Immigration Solutions
by Dave Bennion
category: Immigration Law
Published May 21, 2009 @ 11:12PM PT
Too often when people think about immigration reform, they think about whether or not to legalize the millions of migrants living undocumented in the U.S., or whether a guest worker program will be implemented and what shape it might take. Or the focus might be on whether to scrap the current employment and family preference categories for a Canadian-style point system.
But all of these questions only deal with symptoms of deeper problems. The story of 12 million Mexicans hopping over border fences or swimming the Rio Grande is a story you'll often see on cable news. It's a simple story with simple solutions--you've got a homogenous group of lawbreakers, now deport them or legalize them, then build up the wall and stiffen penalties all around so it doesn't happen again.
But since that simple story fails to accurately assess the current problems, those simple solutions will surely fail to solve them.
The 12 million undocumented come from every country and represent every race. Many entered lawfully with valid visas, and were pushed out of status by unreasonable laws unreasonably interpreted. Some had lived here for decades as permanent residents before becoming "illegal," something that's hard to anticipate when harsh laws have retroactive effect and little flexibility. (This is the best summary I've seen of the perverse and cowardly bipartisan criminalization of immigration policy, much of which occurred on Clinton's watch in the 1990s.) Some did cross the border, but faced impossible choices at home due to forces that short-sighted U.S. policies helped unleash, and had no line to wait in to enter with authorization. Some sought refuge from persecution and instead found prison or a life in the shadows. Others were trafficked or brought as children.
After adding up all the exceptions to a norm that may exist only in the victimhood fantasies of Lou Dobbs, you may find that most of the 12 million don't fit easily into either the simple story or the simple solution. Successful immigration reform, one that won't have to be repeated in 20 years, will not fit the simple "deport or legalize" binary. A reasonable immigration system wasn't destroyed and replaced with a dysfunctional one overnight, it was gradually dismantled, piece by piece, in a coordinated, sustained effort that continues today. Reversing that process won't be easy, but little of value is gained without struggle.
These suggested reforms from AILA's Dagmar Butte represent a good starting point, and delve beneath the shallow cable news analysis and spineless poll-tested slogans that have so far dominated the field. I'll have more to add in the coming days and weeks--I hope you'll mull it over and make contributions of your own.
1. A method for families to be united in the United States without subjecting them to the lengthy or even permanent bars to re-entry that result purely from unlawful presence in the US. To do this, INA 212(a)(9)(B) and INA (a)(9)(C) must be eliminated.
2. A more sane and less arbitrary method for aliens in removal proceedings who have US citizen or LPR spouses, parents or children to remain in the US than the current Cancellation of Deportation process.
3. Restoration of due process protections for all aliens, even those who have committed serious crimes. After all, our constitution does not say every person is guaranteed due process of law “unless he or she is a criminal.” It says everyone gets due process.
4. More resources for Immigration Courts and the Board of Immigration Appeals so that they have the time to actually decide and review cases in a meaningful manner. This will relieve pressure on the Courts of Appeals and restore integrity to the immigration review system.
5. Restoration of discretion for Immigration Judges particularly in cases involving minor criminal violations where the alien either has fully reformed or the factual circumstances are such that there are substantial mitigating circumstances.
6. Making Immigration Judges truly independent so that there are free to render truly impartial decisions and so that they are not viewed – rightly or wrongly – as simply rubberstamping the policies and decisions of DHS.
7. A restructuring of the current quota system that actually considers the migration patterns of today –both in terms of family and business immigration. For example, today’s quotas were created at a time when no one anticipated large numbers of brilliant engineers coming from India and China and a time when, frankly, we did not need them. Today we do and the current nine year backlog in processing petitions for Indian born engineers who hold Masters’ Degrees (many from the US) is outrageous and stupidly shortsighted.
8. A robust program both for high skilled workers and essential workers in agriculture and other industries that have difficulty attracting a qualified workforce.
by Dave Bennion
category: Immigration Law
Published May 21, 2009 @ 11:12PM PT
Too often when people think about immigration reform, they think about whether or not to legalize the millions of migrants living undocumented in the U.S., or whether a guest worker program will be implemented and what shape it might take. Or the focus might be on whether to scrap the current employment and family preference categories for a Canadian-style point system.
But all of these questions only deal with symptoms of deeper problems. The story of 12 million Mexicans hopping over border fences or swimming the Rio Grande is a story you'll often see on cable news. It's a simple story with simple solutions--you've got a homogenous group of lawbreakers, now deport them or legalize them, then build up the wall and stiffen penalties all around so it doesn't happen again.
But since that simple story fails to accurately assess the current problems, those simple solutions will surely fail to solve them.
The 12 million undocumented come from every country and represent every race. Many entered lawfully with valid visas, and were pushed out of status by unreasonable laws unreasonably interpreted. Some had lived here for decades as permanent residents before becoming "illegal," something that's hard to anticipate when harsh laws have retroactive effect and little flexibility. (This is the best summary I've seen of the perverse and cowardly bipartisan criminalization of immigration policy, much of which occurred on Clinton's watch in the 1990s.) Some did cross the border, but faced impossible choices at home due to forces that short-sighted U.S. policies helped unleash, and had no line to wait in to enter with authorization. Some sought refuge from persecution and instead found prison or a life in the shadows. Others were trafficked or brought as children.
After adding up all the exceptions to a norm that may exist only in the victimhood fantasies of Lou Dobbs, you may find that most of the 12 million don't fit easily into either the simple story or the simple solution. Successful immigration reform, one that won't have to be repeated in 20 years, will not fit the simple "deport or legalize" binary. A reasonable immigration system wasn't destroyed and replaced with a dysfunctional one overnight, it was gradually dismantled, piece by piece, in a coordinated, sustained effort that continues today. Reversing that process won't be easy, but little of value is gained without struggle.
These suggested reforms from AILA's Dagmar Butte represent a good starting point, and delve beneath the shallow cable news analysis and spineless poll-tested slogans that have so far dominated the field. I'll have more to add in the coming days and weeks--I hope you'll mull it over and make contributions of your own.
1. A method for families to be united in the United States without subjecting them to the lengthy or even permanent bars to re-entry that result purely from unlawful presence in the US. To do this, INA 212(a)(9)(B) and INA (a)(9)(C) must be eliminated.
2. A more sane and less arbitrary method for aliens in removal proceedings who have US citizen or LPR spouses, parents or children to remain in the US than the current Cancellation of Deportation process.
3. Restoration of due process protections for all aliens, even those who have committed serious crimes. After all, our constitution does not say every person is guaranteed due process of law “unless he or she is a criminal.” It says everyone gets due process.
4. More resources for Immigration Courts and the Board of Immigration Appeals so that they have the time to actually decide and review cases in a meaningful manner. This will relieve pressure on the Courts of Appeals and restore integrity to the immigration review system.
5. Restoration of discretion for Immigration Judges particularly in cases involving minor criminal violations where the alien either has fully reformed or the factual circumstances are such that there are substantial mitigating circumstances.
6. Making Immigration Judges truly independent so that there are free to render truly impartial decisions and so that they are not viewed – rightly or wrongly – as simply rubberstamping the policies and decisions of DHS.
7. A restructuring of the current quota system that actually considers the migration patterns of today –both in terms of family and business immigration. For example, today’s quotas were created at a time when no one anticipated large numbers of brilliant engineers coming from India and China and a time when, frankly, we did not need them. Today we do and the current nine year backlog in processing petitions for Indian born engineers who hold Masters’ Degrees (many from the US) is outrageous and stupidly shortsighted.
8. A robust program both for high skilled workers and essential workers in agriculture and other industries that have difficulty attracting a qualified workforce.
5.21.2009
Testimony of Sam F. Vale
Testimony of Sam F. Vale
Before the Senate Judiciary Committee
May 20, 2009
Mr. Sam F. Vale President Starr-Camargo Bridge Co. Rio Grande City, Texas Hearing Testimony U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Citizenship "Securing the Borders and America's Ports of Entry, What Remains to Be Done" Wednesday, May 20, 2009 10:00 a.m. 226 Dirksen Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510
Good morning Chairman Schumer, Ranking Member Cornyn and other distinguished Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for inviting me to testify at this important hearing focused on security at our nation's borders and ports of entry. My name is Sam Vale and I am the President of the Starr-Camargo Bridge in Rio Grande City, Texas. I am also a founding Board Member of the Border Trade Alliance (BTA), as well as Chair of the Public Policy Committee. The BTA has been around since 1986 and has grown to represent over 2 million border stakeholders who are involved with all aspects of trade, travel, security and commerce in our border communities along the U.S. – Canada and U.S. – Mexico borders.
Mr. Chairman, the purpose of today's hearing is a question that those of us at the border have been asking ourselves and of the federal government for a long time and I anticipate that we will continue to do so well into the future. The security of our borders is not something that is static and is dependent on Comprehensive Immigration Reform. The very nature of trade, travel and cross-border commerce within the context of the concerns with terrorism require that we stay ever vigilant and prepared. Over the past eight years the federal government has taken many steps to enhance security at our land ports of en¬try and between them. However, not all these steps have been taken in the same direc¬tion. The implementation of multiple layers of security, especially at our land ports of entry, where all legitimate cross-border commerce and trade occurs has not been without its negative impacts on another aspect of border and national security, that of our eco¬nomic security. This is certainly a significant factor in our future economic survival.
Our border communities, along our shared borders with Canada and Mexico, support di-verse international economies that are dependent upon cross-border trade and travel. A large percentage of traffic at our borders is repeat, daily crossers who account for a sig-nificant portion of the sales taxes, property taxes and the commercial revenues generated which are subject to IRS collections. Our border communities are responsible for con-ducting more than $2 billion cross-border trade at our land ports each and every day.
As I mentioned, the policies and procedures designed to facilitate secure trade and travel at our borders have changed dramatically during the past decade. However, the failure to successfully legislate a Comprehensive Immigration Reform Package has created signifi-cant challenges the foundation for all other security programs. The increased federal in-spection changes at our borders have not occurred without reasonable concerns about their impact on legitimate trade and commerce. Similarly, the incredible growth in trade at our borders has not been without its share of growing pains. The infrastructure at our border crossings, for the most part, has not kept up with the increased volume of trade and travel.
U.S. land ports of entry last year conducted a record $830 billion in cross-border trade. According to the U.S. Department of Transportation Bureau of Transportation Statistics in 2008, U.S. land border crossings processed 45.7 million pedestrians, more than 10.7 million trucks and more than 107.5 million personal vehicles.
It has become apparent during the past decade that all too often during the deliberation and development of U.S. border policy, the prevailing mindset in Washington, D.C. is that one-size fits all. While there are shared underlying issues along both the U.S.¬Canada and U.S.-Mexico borders, such as the ongoing need to invest significantly to in¬crease capacity and update infrastructure at our busiest land ports of entry. However, there are many challenges and complex dynamics that are unique to each of our borders with our NAFTA partners. With over 30 years of hands on border operational experi¬ences, I strongly urges this Committee, Congress and the Administration to not neglect our unique bi-lateral relationships with Canada and Mexico, along with the individual needs and concerns of these relations in pursuit of a one-size fits all, national border pol¬icy.
Our land ports of entry do not have the infrastructural capacity to adequately handle out-bound inspections into Canada or Mexico, yet there have been calls for Congress to re-quire DHS to do exactly that. In fact without proper Immigration Reform the data base for all security programs in inadequate and constantly changing.
Congress simply has to do more to address the decades old backlog in our Immigration Codes as well as adequate annual infrastructural investments needed at U.S. land ports of entry. Today the majority of our land ports were designed without anticipation of the vast federal security operations now present at all U.S. border crossings.
The increased security presence at our border crossing in Texas has overwhelmed our existing infrastructure. Our import lots become parking lots for unmanned border patrol units. Most existing port of entry, were designed and built a half century or more ago. Our ability to protect our nation in both terms of physical and economic security while generating more cross-border economic activity with our two largest export markets in Canada and Mexico is limited by our infrastructure and human resources.
Delays and long lines hamper cross-border commerce and trade, causing just-in-time manufacturing to give way to just-in-case; prompting lower crossing numbers for work or pleasure to our neighboring communities in Canada and Mexico, which in turn reduce both tax revenues and toll revenue which results in our lessened ability at the local level to reinvest in infrastructure to support legitimate trade and travel.
The $720 million included for land port infrastructure upgrades as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act was a very appreciated step forward.
However, with the exception of the Mariposa, Arizona and San Ysidro, California ports of entry, the majority of projects funded by Customs and Border Protection and the Gen-eral Services Administration using these stimulus dollars were for small land ports of en-try with low crossing volumes. A note of interest here is that Secretary Napolitano has noted that the Mariposa port in Arizona was design completed when she was Governor, lacking only the funding. If we are to increase the security of our land ports and enhance our ability to generate more national economic activity through trade, we need to reinvest more in upgrading our land border crossings and focus first on areas with the greatest im-pact. We need to use annual appropriations to fix these items and not one time stimulus dollars which need to be allowed to do their job as advertised.
DHS, in conjunction with its federal agency partners, needs to collaborate to expedite the approval process for the prioritization, selection and funding of land border infrastructure projects that improve the facilitation of cross-border trade and travel. Congress can help by committing more funds toward border port infrastructure while also looking at reduc¬ing the time it takes for any project at our ports to comply with all the regulatory re¬quirements before construction, specifically the process of obtaining presidential permits from the State Department.
Further, we need to take a hard look at all our current layers of security at and between our ports of entry. Congress should urge the Department of Homeland Security to as¬sume the leadership role among federal agencies in conducting a performance and utility assessment of the multiple layers of federal security programs and policies that currently govern legitimate trade and travel along the U.S. shared borders with Canada and Mex¬ico. In short, DHS needs to ask the tough questions: Are these programs effective? Can they be better integrated and harmonized to increase both security and the efficiency of trade and travel? Can they be more effective and efficient with additional resources and improved infrastructure?
Mr. Chairman, I would submit that before Congress mandates any further layers of secu-rity at our borders that we examine thoroughly what we already have in place. Adding yet another requirement for DHS to implement without changing the infrastructure at our ports and committing more resources, more boots on the ground, is unlikely to yield much in return in terms of security, while having a serious impact on the facilitation of legitimate trade and travel.
In short, Congress has to ensure that scarce federal dollars are committed toward pro-grams, policies, and projects that result in the greatest benefit in terms of economic and physical security. Successful border security efforts require the utilization of risk-based assessments based upon real-time intelligence to direct the most efficient allocation of scarce federal resources in order to attain the greatest security benefit.
Finally at the foundation to all security inspections is identifying the people who enter and leave our country. To do that a fundamental need is Comprehensive Immigration Reform.
In conclusion, I would like to thank the Chairman and Ranking Member along with all the Members of this Committee for its focus on the need to achieve adequate Immigration Reform as well as balance between security and facilitation of legitimate travel at our borders. I offer the assistance of all of our colleagues that live and work along the border along with the BTA working identifying solutions to these important border issues.
Again, I am honored to participate in this hearing and it will be my pleasure to address any questions you may have.
Thank you.
Before the Senate Judiciary Committee
May 20, 2009
Mr. Sam F. Vale President Starr-Camargo Bridge Co. Rio Grande City, Texas Hearing Testimony U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Citizenship "Securing the Borders and America's Ports of Entry, What Remains to Be Done" Wednesday, May 20, 2009 10:00 a.m. 226 Dirksen Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510
Good morning Chairman Schumer, Ranking Member Cornyn and other distinguished Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for inviting me to testify at this important hearing focused on security at our nation's borders and ports of entry. My name is Sam Vale and I am the President of the Starr-Camargo Bridge in Rio Grande City, Texas. I am also a founding Board Member of the Border Trade Alliance (BTA), as well as Chair of the Public Policy Committee. The BTA has been around since 1986 and has grown to represent over 2 million border stakeholders who are involved with all aspects of trade, travel, security and commerce in our border communities along the U.S. – Canada and U.S. – Mexico borders.
Mr. Chairman, the purpose of today's hearing is a question that those of us at the border have been asking ourselves and of the federal government for a long time and I anticipate that we will continue to do so well into the future. The security of our borders is not something that is static and is dependent on Comprehensive Immigration Reform. The very nature of trade, travel and cross-border commerce within the context of the concerns with terrorism require that we stay ever vigilant and prepared. Over the past eight years the federal government has taken many steps to enhance security at our land ports of en¬try and between them. However, not all these steps have been taken in the same direc¬tion. The implementation of multiple layers of security, especially at our land ports of entry, where all legitimate cross-border commerce and trade occurs has not been without its negative impacts on another aspect of border and national security, that of our eco¬nomic security. This is certainly a significant factor in our future economic survival.
Our border communities, along our shared borders with Canada and Mexico, support di-verse international economies that are dependent upon cross-border trade and travel. A large percentage of traffic at our borders is repeat, daily crossers who account for a sig-nificant portion of the sales taxes, property taxes and the commercial revenues generated which are subject to IRS collections. Our border communities are responsible for con-ducting more than $2 billion cross-border trade at our land ports each and every day.
As I mentioned, the policies and procedures designed to facilitate secure trade and travel at our borders have changed dramatically during the past decade. However, the failure to successfully legislate a Comprehensive Immigration Reform Package has created signifi-cant challenges the foundation for all other security programs. The increased federal in-spection changes at our borders have not occurred without reasonable concerns about their impact on legitimate trade and commerce. Similarly, the incredible growth in trade at our borders has not been without its share of growing pains. The infrastructure at our border crossings, for the most part, has not kept up with the increased volume of trade and travel.
U.S. land ports of entry last year conducted a record $830 billion in cross-border trade. According to the U.S. Department of Transportation Bureau of Transportation Statistics in 2008, U.S. land border crossings processed 45.7 million pedestrians, more than 10.7 million trucks and more than 107.5 million personal vehicles.
It has become apparent during the past decade that all too often during the deliberation and development of U.S. border policy, the prevailing mindset in Washington, D.C. is that one-size fits all. While there are shared underlying issues along both the U.S.¬Canada and U.S.-Mexico borders, such as the ongoing need to invest significantly to in¬crease capacity and update infrastructure at our busiest land ports of entry. However, there are many challenges and complex dynamics that are unique to each of our borders with our NAFTA partners. With over 30 years of hands on border operational experi¬ences, I strongly urges this Committee, Congress and the Administration to not neglect our unique bi-lateral relationships with Canada and Mexico, along with the individual needs and concerns of these relations in pursuit of a one-size fits all, national border pol¬icy.
Our land ports of entry do not have the infrastructural capacity to adequately handle out-bound inspections into Canada or Mexico, yet there have been calls for Congress to re-quire DHS to do exactly that. In fact without proper Immigration Reform the data base for all security programs in inadequate and constantly changing.
Congress simply has to do more to address the decades old backlog in our Immigration Codes as well as adequate annual infrastructural investments needed at U.S. land ports of entry. Today the majority of our land ports were designed without anticipation of the vast federal security operations now present at all U.S. border crossings.
The increased security presence at our border crossing in Texas has overwhelmed our existing infrastructure. Our import lots become parking lots for unmanned border patrol units. Most existing port of entry, were designed and built a half century or more ago. Our ability to protect our nation in both terms of physical and economic security while generating more cross-border economic activity with our two largest export markets in Canada and Mexico is limited by our infrastructure and human resources.
Delays and long lines hamper cross-border commerce and trade, causing just-in-time manufacturing to give way to just-in-case; prompting lower crossing numbers for work or pleasure to our neighboring communities in Canada and Mexico, which in turn reduce both tax revenues and toll revenue which results in our lessened ability at the local level to reinvest in infrastructure to support legitimate trade and travel.
The $720 million included for land port infrastructure upgrades as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act was a very appreciated step forward.
However, with the exception of the Mariposa, Arizona and San Ysidro, California ports of entry, the majority of projects funded by Customs and Border Protection and the Gen-eral Services Administration using these stimulus dollars were for small land ports of en-try with low crossing volumes. A note of interest here is that Secretary Napolitano has noted that the Mariposa port in Arizona was design completed when she was Governor, lacking only the funding. If we are to increase the security of our land ports and enhance our ability to generate more national economic activity through trade, we need to reinvest more in upgrading our land border crossings and focus first on areas with the greatest im-pact. We need to use annual appropriations to fix these items and not one time stimulus dollars which need to be allowed to do their job as advertised.
DHS, in conjunction with its federal agency partners, needs to collaborate to expedite the approval process for the prioritization, selection and funding of land border infrastructure projects that improve the facilitation of cross-border trade and travel. Congress can help by committing more funds toward border port infrastructure while also looking at reduc¬ing the time it takes for any project at our ports to comply with all the regulatory re¬quirements before construction, specifically the process of obtaining presidential permits from the State Department.
Further, we need to take a hard look at all our current layers of security at and between our ports of entry. Congress should urge the Department of Homeland Security to as¬sume the leadership role among federal agencies in conducting a performance and utility assessment of the multiple layers of federal security programs and policies that currently govern legitimate trade and travel along the U.S. shared borders with Canada and Mex¬ico. In short, DHS needs to ask the tough questions: Are these programs effective? Can they be better integrated and harmonized to increase both security and the efficiency of trade and travel? Can they be more effective and efficient with additional resources and improved infrastructure?
Mr. Chairman, I would submit that before Congress mandates any further layers of secu-rity at our borders that we examine thoroughly what we already have in place. Adding yet another requirement for DHS to implement without changing the infrastructure at our ports and committing more resources, more boots on the ground, is unlikely to yield much in return in terms of security, while having a serious impact on the facilitation of legitimate trade and travel.
In short, Congress has to ensure that scarce federal dollars are committed toward pro-grams, policies, and projects that result in the greatest benefit in terms of economic and physical security. Successful border security efforts require the utilization of risk-based assessments based upon real-time intelligence to direct the most efficient allocation of scarce federal resources in order to attain the greatest security benefit.
Finally at the foundation to all security inspections is identifying the people who enter and leave our country. To do that a fundamental need is Comprehensive Immigration Reform.
In conclusion, I would like to thank the Chairman and Ranking Member along with all the Members of this Committee for its focus on the need to achieve adequate Immigration Reform as well as balance between security and facilitation of legitimate travel at our borders. I offer the assistance of all of our colleagues that live and work along the border along with the BTA working identifying solutions to these important border issues.
Again, I am honored to participate in this hearing and it will be my pleasure to address any questions you may have.
Thank you.
Arrests on Southern Border Drop
Arrests on Southern Border Drop
27% Decline Marks Fewest Seizures by Agents Since 1976
By Spencer S. Hsu
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, May 21, 2009
The number of arrests at the U.S.-Mexico border has dropped 27 percent this year, a decline that could put the figure at its lowest level since the early 1970s, federal officials said yesterday.
The decline accelerates a three-year-old trend that experts attribute to the economic downturn, with stronger U.S. immigration enforcement measures also playing a role.
U.S. Border Patrol Chief David V. Aguilar released the data to the Senate Judiciary subcommittee on immigration, refugees and border security, noting that the number of Border Patrol agents has more than doubled from 9,000 in 2001 to a projected 20,000 by September. The government also has completed 626 miles of fencing and vehicle barriers. It plans 661 miles of barriers on the 2,000-mile frontier.
"By several measures, the border is far more secure than it has ever been and, with our help, will soon be even more secure," said Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), chairman of the panel, which held the first of four hearings scheduled to take place before the August recess. Aides said the hearings are meant to build a case for overhauling immigration laws.
President Obama has invited advocates to hammer out a legislative approach and has set a June 8 meeting at the White House for a small, bipartisan group of Senate and House leaders, a spokesman said yesterday, "with the hope of beginning the debate in earnest later this year."
The committee's senior Republican, Sen. Jeff Sessions (Ala.), noted that the Border Patrol made 723,000 arrests last fiscal year.
That is "still a lot," he said. "That is not a lawful border. . . . We're not there yet."
Arrest figures only partially measure illegal immigration because authorities do not know how many immigrants evade capture and because one person can be arrested many times.
But the trend is corroborated by declining rates of remittances sent by immigrants to their native countries and by Mexican census data. More than 11 million illegal immigrants live in the United States, and experts do not see evidence that many are leaving.
The Border Patrol reported 354,959 arrests from October 2008 to May, down from 486,735 over that period a year ago. About 97 percent of the arrests were on the southern border.
The figure for fiscal 2008 is less than half the 1.7 million in 2000 -- the peak -- and is the lowest since 1976, the Department of Homeland Security said.
Spending on U.S. Customs and Border Protection, the patrol's parent agency, has climbed 82 percent since 2004, from about $6 billion to about $11 billion.
Douglas S. Massey, a professor at Princeton University, said the crackdown has increased the average cost of border crossings from $600 in the early 1990s to $2,200. But he noted that the cost of each arrest has also risen. The number of fatalities also has climbed as migrants seek more remote areas to avoid capture.
Schumer pushes immigration reform
The Washington Times
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Schumer pushes immigration reform
Stephen Dinan (Contact)
With the nation's top immigration enforcement officers saying they will finish the border fence and continue President George W. Bush's immigration enforcement efforts, the top Democratic senator on immigration said Wednesday that the nation's borders are secure enough to begin working on a legalization bill for current illegal immigrants.
Sen. Charles E. Schumer, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee's immigration subcommittee, said that given progress over the past four years - from barriers to more agents to better technology - lawmakers have proved to the nation that they are serious about security. Now, he said, voters should be ready to accept a law that legalizes illegal immigrants and rewrites immigration rules.
"We can pass strong, fair, practical and effective immigration reform this year," the New York Democrat said.
Efforts to pass a broad legalization bill faltered in 2006 and 2007 as voters flooded Congress with calls. Lawmakers concluded that voters didn't believe the bills would actually control the border.
At a hearing before his subcommittee Wednesday, Mr. Schumer pointed to falling apprehensions at the U.S.-Mexico border - down 27 percent compared with last year - as evidence the borders are more secure. He said that should convince voters who objected in 2006 and 2007 to Senate legalization bills that the government has done its job.
Mr. Schumer did not credit Mr. Bush for the progress, instead praising Congress for passing the Secure Fence Act and other laws to strengthen border security - even though Mr. Schumer initally opposed the Secure Fence Act in 2006. He voted first to block the bill through a filibuster, but that effort failed and he voted for the measure on final passage a day later.
But Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee, said with 700,000 people still being arrested annually, "that is not a lawful border." He also said his fights to get a vote on fencing and other security measures belies Mr. Schumer's claim that voters can now trust that Congress understands the security issue.
"I don't think the politicians have in any way distinguished themselves, ourselves, in this matter," he said.
He said progress has been made in security, but rather than showing that the job is done, it underscores the prospects for success if the government takes other steps on enforcement.
"We are not there yet," he said.
The Obama administration has changed the focus of interior enforcement from detaining illegal workers to the employers who hire them. On border security, the administration remains committed to expanding the strategies of Mr. Bush. That includes finishing his plans for fencing and vehicle barriers along the U.S.-Mexico border, said Border Patrol Chief David V. Aguilar.
"Everybody is in agreement; we will continue to build the fence," he said.
During the campaign, President Obama said he wanted to have a comprehensive immigration bill done in his first year but he has since backed off that and said his schedule is too full. Instead, he wants to begin talks that will lead to a bill later.
Adding to that momentum, Mr. Obama will host a small group of congressional Democrats and Republicans at the White House in June to talk about immigration and where work needs to be done, according to an administration official familiar with the issue who spoke on the condition of anonymity.
"The meeting is intended to launch a policy conversation, with the hope of beginning the debate in earnest later this year," the official said.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Schumer pushes immigration reform
Stephen Dinan (Contact)
With the nation's top immigration enforcement officers saying they will finish the border fence and continue President George W. Bush's immigration enforcement efforts, the top Democratic senator on immigration said Wednesday that the nation's borders are secure enough to begin working on a legalization bill for current illegal immigrants.
Sen. Charles E. Schumer, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee's immigration subcommittee, said that given progress over the past four years - from barriers to more agents to better technology - lawmakers have proved to the nation that they are serious about security. Now, he said, voters should be ready to accept a law that legalizes illegal immigrants and rewrites immigration rules.
"We can pass strong, fair, practical and effective immigration reform this year," the New York Democrat said.
Efforts to pass a broad legalization bill faltered in 2006 and 2007 as voters flooded Congress with calls. Lawmakers concluded that voters didn't believe the bills would actually control the border.
At a hearing before his subcommittee Wednesday, Mr. Schumer pointed to falling apprehensions at the U.S.-Mexico border - down 27 percent compared with last year - as evidence the borders are more secure. He said that should convince voters who objected in 2006 and 2007 to Senate legalization bills that the government has done its job.
Mr. Schumer did not credit Mr. Bush for the progress, instead praising Congress for passing the Secure Fence Act and other laws to strengthen border security - even though Mr. Schumer initally opposed the Secure Fence Act in 2006. He voted first to block the bill through a filibuster, but that effort failed and he voted for the measure on final passage a day later.
But Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee, said with 700,000 people still being arrested annually, "that is not a lawful border." He also said his fights to get a vote on fencing and other security measures belies Mr. Schumer's claim that voters can now trust that Congress understands the security issue.
"I don't think the politicians have in any way distinguished themselves, ourselves, in this matter," he said.
He said progress has been made in security, but rather than showing that the job is done, it underscores the prospects for success if the government takes other steps on enforcement.
"We are not there yet," he said.
The Obama administration has changed the focus of interior enforcement from detaining illegal workers to the employers who hire them. On border security, the administration remains committed to expanding the strategies of Mr. Bush. That includes finishing his plans for fencing and vehicle barriers along the U.S.-Mexico border, said Border Patrol Chief David V. Aguilar.
"Everybody is in agreement; we will continue to build the fence," he said.
During the campaign, President Obama said he wanted to have a comprehensive immigration bill done in his first year but he has since backed off that and said his schedule is too full. Instead, he wants to begin talks that will lead to a bill later.
Adding to that momentum, Mr. Obama will host a small group of congressional Democrats and Republicans at the White House in June to talk about immigration and where work needs to be done, according to an administration official familiar with the issue who spoke on the condition of anonymity.
"The meeting is intended to launch a policy conversation, with the hope of beginning the debate in earnest later this year," the official said.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
