Alliance of White Anti-Racists Everywhere – Los Angeles
Mary Giovagnoli
(0 comments, 47 posts)
This user hasn't shared any profile information
Home page: http://immigrationimpact.com
Posts by Mary Giovagnoli
Following State of the Union, President Obama Needs to Follow Through on Immigration Reforms
01 week ago
The President’s State of the Union address this week re-iterated some of his key themes on immigration—support for comprehensive reform, dismay that DREAM Act students and foreign students educated in this country have no way to legalize their status, and a belief that he’s done enough to the secure the border. More importantly, he framed these themes in context to America’s economic recovery, innovation and growth. However, while any mention of immigration in the State of the Union is welcome, it’s what the President didn’t say that may have more of an impact on how his administration is remembered this year on immigration—and how his vision is measured by voters in the coming election.
In the State of the Union address, President Obama repeatedly signaled to Congress that he would sign sensible bills to reform our immigration system, big or small. But he quickly noted that partisan politics would make it all but impossible to pass comprehensive reform:
The opponents of action are out of excuses. We should be working on comprehensive immigration reform right now. But if election-year politics keeps Congress from acting on a comprehensive plan, let’s at least agree to stop expelling responsible young people who want to staff our labs, start new businesses, and defend this country. Send me a law that gives them the chance to earn their citizenship. I will sign it right away.
There are plenty of bills that fit this description, from the DREAM Act to proposals offering green cards to foreign graduates in science and engineering to support for immigrant entrepreneurs, but they are just as likely to flounder in the sea of partisan politics as something grander and more comprehensive.
And while the president suggested that the ball was in Congress’s court, he didn’t mention that his Administration has moved forward on reforms that don’t require Congressional action. The Administration has become more aggressive in the last in year in fixing parts of our backward immigration system, such as overhauling immigration detention, a review of the Secure Communities program, a re-invigoration of the use of prosecutorial discretion, and attempts to promote streamlined adjudications and family unity. The latter, announced just weeks ago, has generated real excitement among immigrant communities.
Similarly, changes to the way government officials decide what cases should be prosecuted in immigration court—and what cases should be dropped—have given hope to millions of immigrants that they may be able to stay with their families, at least for a while longer. But there remains considerable uncertainty about how DHS will routinely exercise discretion, especially amidst reports that DREAM Act students and others who clearly fit the government’s low priority status are still being deported.
In the areas of detention reform and Secure Communities, however, the early enthusiasm about change has been replaced by wariness on the part of advocates who want to believe promised reforms will be made. They have been repeatedly disappointed by delays in the detention realm and a continued commitment to keep Secure Communities alive, a program that many believe undermines community safety and policing. A special task force voted out a series of necessary reforms and gave their report to Secretary Napolitano last September, but DHS has yet to announce how it will implement these recommendations.
Although these ongoing administrative reforms don’t fit tidily into the overarching vision of immigration policy the President laid out in the State of the Union, following through on them would have a lasting effect on both immigration enforcement and the consideration of benefits for those stuck in our broken immigration system. And the President shouldn’t abandon his larger vision. He has made significant strides in helping to reshape how people who don’t much care about immigration think about it and that will be critical when the time comes for comprehensive reform. But for those most directly affected by our immigration crisis, it is the most immediate details that matter most.
Photo by WhiteHouse.gov.
Anti-Immigrant Crowd Cries Wolf in Response to Administration’s Family Unity Policy
03 weeks ago
The Obama administration’s recent announcement that it intends to change regulations allowing the children and spouses of American citizens to stay together while processing applications for legal permanent resident status has the immigration restrictionists crying wolf—or more accurately “amnesty”—once again. They are characterizing the administration’s rule change, as they do any and all actions that are not enforcement related, as a “backdoor amnesty.” Some are also characterizing the change as a strategy to bypass Congress.
Congressman Lamar Smith, for example, said in a statement that the Obama administration was bending long-established rules to put the interests of “illegal immigrants” ahead of U.S. citizens. Kris Kobach, Kansas Secretary of State, called the announcement “part two” of the amnesty plan first announced last fall when the Obama administration said it would review current cases in deportation proceedings to see whether they were really priority cases. Calling this new proposal any kind of amnesty is not only inaccurate, it’s tired.
As reported on Friday, the administration plans to issue a regulation that would address a long-standing problem in immigration law—a Catch 22 created by requiring those spouses and children of U.S. citizens who have been in the country unlawfully to depart the U.S. before completing the processing of their application for lawful permanent residence. The trouble is that once they leave the country, they are subject to a three or ten year bar for unlawful presence and need a waiver to get back in. The new proposal would allow them to submit the waiver application before departing the U.S., thus reducing the time, anxiety, and sometime danger inherent in waiting abroad for a decision.
This Catch-22 is one of the most notorious problems in the immigration system and the regulatory change is long-overdue. Due to processing backlogs, uncertainty of outcomes and violence in cities with key U.S. consulates—such as in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico—the prospect of becoming a lawful permanent resident has become an uncertain and frustrating affair for some applicants. Recognizing this problem, which arises in part from regulation, is an example of USCIS acting responsibly to address a problem of its own regulatory making in an expedient and lawful way.
USCIS’s proposed change, or “notice of intent”—which will be subject to the full range of public notice and comment—is intended to change a processing requirement set out in a regulation, not in the statute. If anything, offering a notice of intent to issue a rule gives the public even more warning that the government intends to undertake a the regular process of adopting a new regulation.
The truth is this rule change will not open the doors for more immigrants, or provide relief for the millions of undocumented immigrants in this country without the necessary family and work relationships to obtain status. Therefore, calling it “amnesty” is nothing short of hysterical.
The public is tired of knee-jerk responses to all things immigration. Polls consistently show that people want solutions, not political wrangling. The fact that opponents of immigration reform paint everything that isn’t enforcement as “amnesty” isn’t surprising. Their responses, just like their solutions, are limited and short-sighted. In this case, the policy they are calling “amnesty” we call common sense.
Photo by katerkate.
American Heritage Dictionary Redefines “Anchor Baby” Term as “Offensive” and “Disparaging”
02 months ago
The firestorm around the inclusion of the term “anchor baby” in the new edition of the American Heritage Dictionary has led to a dramatic reversal in the definition. Not only did the executive editor, Steven Kleinelder, emphatically apologize for the initial definition, he promised swift action to change it. By Monday morning, the term was labeled as “offensive.” By Monday afternoon, a new definition appeared online, one that was crafted to reflect more accurately just how artificial a term it really is:
anchor baby n. Offensive Used as a disparaging term for a child born to a noncitizen mother in a country that grants automatic citizenship to children born on its soil, especially when the child’s birthplace is thought to have been chosen in order to improve the mother’s or other relatives’ chances of securing eventual citizenship.
This is the kind of controversy that doesn’t fade away quickly, and many argue that the term is so offensive that it shouldn’t appear in the dictionary at all. I understand but disagree with that position, largely because the term, however offensive, exists as a political and practical reality. I think the new definition validates what many outraged voices in blogs, on Twitter, and in the press have been saying all along: “anchor baby” is a term that shouldn’t exist but does because immigration restrictionists are really good at creating words that generate fear.
While the origins are not reflected in the definition, characterizing the term as both “offensive” and “disparaging” says volumes about how it is used in real life. I would much rather have a curious student or citizen have the ability to look up the term in the dictionary and find this definition than to find no guidance and accept the meaning and agenda of restrictionists who used it.
And of course, that agenda is the repeal or amendment of the Fourteenth Amendment to eliminate citizenship at birth. The Immigration Policy Center has published numerous articles on the legal and practical problems inherent in that position. This position, in turn, arises from the misplaced notion that the problems plaguing our current immigration system would somehow be eliminated if only we could prevent persons here without legal status from having children.
It’s not solely the dictionary’s job to lay out the politics behind words. It is the job of advocates and scholars, policy-makers and politicians, community leaders, people of faith, and everyone else who values a constructive solution to immigration reform.
We must not only monitor how terms are used and defined, but must work to make hateful terms archaic. If we challenge the people who prefer fear to solutions, and direct our energies affirmatively towards an immigration system that is thoughtful, fair and reflects our country’s needs as well as our values, then hateful terms like “anchor baby” can become part of the past.
Photo by Péter Gudella.
“Anchor Baby” Added to New American Heritage Dictionary
02 months ago
The degree to which the immigration debate has coarsened over the last few years is no more evident than in the pages of the recently released fifth edition of the New American Heritage Dictionary. Among the new entries is the term “anchor baby.” You might think that the definition would read something like: slang, a pejorative description of a child born in the United States to parents without legal status, implying that the parents intend to leverage the child’s citizenship to “anchor” their own presence in the U.S.” You would be wrong.
Instead, the definition reads:
anchor baby n. A child born to a noncitizen mother in a country that grants automatic citizenship to children born on its soil, especially such a child born to parents seeking to secure eventual citizenship for themselves and often other members of their family.
According to the dictionary’s executive editor, the trick to defining new words is to “to define them objectively without taking sides and just presenting what it is. And, in some cases up, you know, anchor baby is definitely a very charged, politically charged word.”
Although the politically charged nature of the word made defining it difficult, the editors ultimately felt it was best to put the word in with no commentary, claiming “it falls into a gray area where we felt it was better just to state what it was, and then people can filter their own life experiences through the word and judgments on it as they see fit.”
The trouble with this philosophy is that “anchor baby” is not a neutral term, nor from what we have been able to find, has it ever been. First, it appears to be a wholly American term, one mired in the politics of anti-immigrant rhetoric. Those who use it are not in the business of clinically describing some sort of sociological phenomena. They are instead intent on suggesting that people come to the country illegally and deliberately have babies in order to use their children’s citizenship to acquire legal status of their own.
Second, the New American Heritage Dictionary’s definition ignores the very specific intent of the term and, in fact, gives it more credibility by treating it as some sort of universal description of children who acquire citizenship at birth. This masks the poisonous and derogatory nature of the term, a term which demeans both parent and child and in the process suggests that it is acceptable to call a child born in the U.S—i.e. an American citizen—an “anchor baby.”
What is particularly disturbing about this new definition is that it confuses popularity of a term with neutrality. While the term anchor baby has skyrocketed in usage in the last decade, that usage appears to be spurred by the general explosion of anti-immigrant rhetoric, blogs, and other media outlets. Objective reporters tend to put the phrase in quotations, to indicate that the term is a loaded one.
In fact, back in 2006, Chicago Tribune columnist Eric Zorn received complaints about his reference to the child of an illegal immigrant seeking sanctuary in a Chicago church as an “anchor baby.” Zorn found that the term isn’t a neutral descriptor, but instead, according to one of his sources, it’s a way to dehumanize the children of undocumented immigrants. Upon reflection, Zorn said that the complaints he received were a “good enough reason to regret having used it and to decide not to use it in the future. Sound arguments don’t need loaded language.”
And loaded language needs to be identified as such in the dictionary. The New American Heritage Dictionary acknowledges the derogatory nature of hundreds of terms. By failing to do so with the term “anchor baby,” however, the dictionary implies that the term is acceptable in common usage and misleads the public by insinuating that giving birth to a child in the United States necessarily carries with it the intention of using that child for immigration status.
In an era where politicians and pundits have no qualms about being imprecise, dictionary editors need to be—even if that means calling a term “highly charged,” “political,” or down right nasty. While dictionaries may be neutral, language isn’t. “Anchor baby” is a term that epitomizes the way words reflect and reframe a debate.
_______________________________________________________________________________________
UPDATE: Since publication of this blog post, the executive editor of the New American Heritage Dictionary has agreed to revise the definition of to reflect the derogatory nature of the term. Read more…
How to Talk Turkey on Immigration: Redux
02 months ago
Washington, D.C. area schools participate in the Urban Debate program, which gives middle school children the opportunity to learn the art of debate. My sixth grader signed up right away. She was surprised to learn, however, at her first tournament that many people have no qualms debating either side of an issue, no matter how they personally feel about it. She also discovered that a few kids had no problems saying whatever they had to say to win. She was in tears because another twelve year old insisted that American lives were more valuable than others in a debate over U.S. military involvement abroad.
I didn’t have the heart to tell her that in the debate over immigration we see far worse nearly every day. The misinformation that is routinely spread and the disregard for human lives is common in the immigration debate. Whether it is politicians calling for electrified fences, schoolchildren herded in to gymnasiums to determine their legal status, or blatant misuse of statistics to scare the public, immigration is hardly a genteel topic.
This year in particular, as the Alabama law unleashes a civil rights crisis in that state, I can only imagine that there will be some very difficult conversations around the Thanksgiving dinner table. Although proponents of immigration reform are armed with more anecdotes and statistical information than ever, the increasingly preposterous stories coming out of Alabama will make some people shake their heads and say—it just can’t be so.
So what to do? We offer a list of tips for making the case, politely but firmly, for a rational immigration policy.
- Be prepared. The Immigration Policy Center’s (IPC) website contains numerous short fact sheets on immigrants and the economy, crime, unemployment, immigration reform and more. At a minimum, download your state fact sheet. And since Alabama is all over the news, check out IPC’s recent publications and blog posts that detail some of the absurd consequences of HB 56.
- Be sympathetic. The evidence is mounting that most people who fear immigrants are really afraid of the change that immigrants represent. This is particularly true in states that have relatively little immigration, such as Georgia and Alabama. The number of immigrants is small, but the percentage of growth can seem huge. Try to figure out what is really irking your relative—are they angry that their favorite restaurant has changed hands? Ask them what they would do if that same restaurant closed. Are they afraid that there will be no jobs for Americans? Ask them if they believe immigrants, rather than lack of job training and job growth are better targets for their ire. Helping them to see that change can be positive and is rejuvenating many communities can help to reframe the conversation.
- Avoid the blame game. Don’t get trapped into arguments that start out, “well, those people broke the law.” Try to move the conversation forward by stressing that rather than focusing on punishing the past, you want to think about how we make the future better for everyone. I often say—because I believe it—“I can’t get the jobs back that may or may not have been lost in your community. All the economic studies show, however, that immigration is essential to further economic growth. So, if we want a better future for everyone, we have to find solutions that work right now.”
- Know your audience. There are issues you just shouldn’t touch and maybe immigration is one of them. But it might also depend on the way your present your arguments. A deeply religious person could be unmoved by your crisp economic analysis, but genuinely touched by the biblical call to aid the stranger. There are so many different reasons to support immigration reform—you don’t have try to list every one of them in one breath. Less, in fact, may be more.
- Be practical. You are not necessarily going to win your loved ones over with a single brilliant analysis. But you can ask questions that get them thinking differently. Ask them what the solution is from their perspective? Can we really afford to deport 12 million people? How can legalization be an amnesty when it requires people to register, pay taxes, stay right with the law and “earn” citizenship? Wouldn’t you rather have folks paying taxes at their full potential than being paid under the table and not paying their full share? These kinds of questions really do start the dialogue.
- Find common ground. The fact that most of us have an immigrant past—no matter how distant—sets the stage for a conversation. How was grandma or even great-grandpa treated when they came over from Italy, Germany or Ireland? What did they want for their future? Where would America be today without those immigrants who took a risk? The more people realize that they have a personal stake in keeping those opportunities alive for others, the more they might listen to your point of view.
- Find the exception to the rule. No matter how anti-immigrant someone is, they will have at least one friend or colleague who defies their stereotypes of immigrants. If you let people talk for a while, the story of that friend will inevitably come up. Start asking questions about that exceptional immigrant’s life.
- Have another piece of pie and a cup of coffee. Food is a universal facilitator of conversation. It’s much harder to yell at someone with pumpkin pie in your mouth.
Sooner or later, Urban Debate will probably tackle the question of immigration, but when it does, I want my daughter to be able to draw a distinction between arguments grounded in reality and compassion and those that are motivated by nothing but fear or a desire to win. There are legitimate policy debates to be had on the immigration question, but for many people, the conversation never gets that far. If you can get past square one, I’m convinced that most people will see that immigration reform is in the country’s best interests. And if that happens, then maybe next year’s feast will be a bit more pleasant.
Photo by moonrat42.
Prosecutorial Discretion Survey Demonstrates Need for More Training, Consistency Across ICE Field Offices
02 months ago
It’s been almost six months since ICE Director John Morton issued new guidelines on prosecutorial discretion to help ICE agents, attorneys and other officials distinguish between high priority cases (national security threats and serious criminals) and low priority cases (DREAM Act students). A recent survey released by the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) and the American Immigration Council takes a look at how well those guidelines are translating into actual practice at ICE offices around the country. While the results show that prosecutorial discretion was applied in some cases, the majority of cases show that ICE field offices are confused and hesitant to make decisions, demonstrating the need for more guidance and training from DHS headquarters.
The survey tracks the attitudes and responses to 252 cases from across the country in which immigration attorneys requested the use of prosecutorial discretion. Although attorneys sought different outcomes—some sought the termination of a case, others deferral of removal or the close of a case in immigration court—it appears that similar cases received different treatment in different parts of the country. In some cases, requests which seemed to squarely fit within the guidance were denied summarily.
Granted, the use of discretion is fundamentally a judgment call, so disagreements about whether a particular case was properly decided are legitimate. But the point of this survey is not to suggest that all denials were incorrect, rather, to determine whether local ICE offices have the tools, guidance and training they need from DHS headquarters to make consistent decisions. It is clear that at the time the survey was conducted, they did not.
ICE, however, has acknowledged the need for more training. John Morton has been taking his show on the road, pressing for responsible decision-making. Likewise, Secretary Napolitano has argued that prosecutorial discretion is a critical law enforcement tool that moves immigration officer away from viewing all undocumented immigrants in the same light.
The ICE training is a good sign and continuing to track the results of that training is essential to making it work. But if DHS truly wants to maintain the momentum and value of its policy decisions, it must continue to provide guidance and training throughout the department. Both USCIS and CBP officials, as well as ICE agents, need to be held accountable and to understand the new expectations. The proposed review of all immigration cases currently pending before the immigration judges must begin to show some results as well.
In short, at the six month mark, it may be understandable that there is still some confusion about how to execute the policy. But by next year, people will be even less willing to give the government the benefit of the doubt without more evidence that Washington policy has translated into field action.
On Immigration, Some GOP Candidates Prefer Hostile Rhetoric to Policy Solutions
03 months ago
Over the weekend, Republican presidential hopefuls Herman Cain and Michele Bachmann made it clear that they were willing to increase their anti-immigration rhetoric in order to court voters. In the process, both confused the right to free speech with the responsibility of free speech, turning what should have been a debate on immigration policy into cheap and insensitive anti-immigrant rhetoric.
At rallies in Tennessee on Saturday, Herman Cain proposed that we “build an electrified fence” to keep out undocumented immigrants, and later, that we use “real guns and real bullets” to kill those people seeking to cross illegally. As if that wasn’t bad enough, Cain defended his insensitive comments by claiming that it’s “insensitive for [undocumented immigrants] to be killing our citizens, killing our border agents.” The next day, Cain said he was “only joking,” and that America needed a sense of humor.
Michele Bachmann, relying on discredited numbers from an immigration restrictionist group, told an Iowa audience that we need to build a border fence for matters of economic and national security, that illegal immigrants today weren’t like her Norwegian forebears who promised to protect the Constitution, and that it was time to take a stand for good old fashioned American values—implying that today’s immigrants don’t have that same regard for American values and are the lesser for it.
Bachmann insulated her listeners from any discomfort by saying that she was talking about policy, not people.
“It’s OK to talk about this issue,” said Bachmannn. “Some say it’s not OK to talk about this subject because that somehow means we are prejudiced or bigoted or biased against Hispanics. That’s not what I hear form the people of Iowa. They are tired of paying for other people.”
But a legitimate policy issue—what to do about illegal immigration—doesn’t mean that you can say anything you like. It’s not “OK” to talk about an issue in a way that inflames prejudice or suggests that human life is cheap. It’s not “OK” to use blatantly misleading facts to scare people into feeling like their very lives or livelihoods are threatened.
In other words, the Bachmann/Cain remarks of the weekend were just the latest example in how degraded the debate over immigration has become. It may be wishful thinking to say that candidates for public office have a responsibility to do more than pander to the lowest common denominator, but they do. And they have a responsibility not to feed anti-immigrant sentiment by justifying their remarks as either a joke or a defense of American values.
Restrictionist GOP Members Rely on Scare Tactics in Hearing on Prosecutorial Discretion
03 months ago
The luster may be wearing off Republican attacks on DHS’s prosecutorial discretion policies. Efforts to paint the prioritization of cases as “backdoor amnesty” didn’t seem to go anywhere in yesterday’s hearing on immigration enforcement in the Subcommittee on Immigration Policy and Enforcement. ICE Director John Morton defended the prosecutorial discretion guidance he issued earlier this year as “trying to make good calls and good judgments” within a series of tough choices and finite resources. Members opposed to the Administration’s policies had a hard time rebutting the resource point, deciding instead to rely on scare tactics and hyperbolic comparisons to attack the guidance.
Immigration restrictionist Congressman Ted Poe (R-TX), for instance, argued that the guidance was tantamount to telling the drunk drivers of America that they would only be prosecuted if they killed someone. Congressman Lamar Smith (R-TX) argued that the Obama administration put the interests of illegal immigrants ahead of unemployed Americans—the decision not to place someone in proceedings in essence takes a job away from an unemployed American. Congressman Gowdry (R-SC) peppered Morton with all kinds of “what ifs”—what if the Drug Enforcement Administration decided not to enforce drug laws? What if two illegal aliens were involved in a lawsuit—could they use that lawsuit to keep themselves out of deportation?
The parade of horrible hypotheticals is designed to scare the public into thinking that immigration enforcement decisions are on holiday. To hear some of the committee members and other critics talk, encouraging people to use good judgment in deciding who to prosecute leads to death, destruction and mayhem. In fact, the guidelines have been one of the more sensible things to emerge from DHS in several years. Rather than creating mayhem, the prosecutorial discretion policy of DHS has the potential to help reshape immigration enforcement for the better.
In addition to the numerous arguments made regarding the finite resources available to deport 12 million undocumented immigrants, there are some very thoughtful reasons for embracing prosecutorial discretion. As Paul Virtue, former General Counsel for the INS noted in his testimony before the committee, prosecutorial discretion has a long history within law enforcement and within immigration enforcement. As Virtue noted,
The process of establishing enforcement priorities necessarily involves identifying characteristics that make some cases a higher priority than others. In other words, there are necessarily some trade offs. For example, the decision by INS during the 1990s to focus on the removal of aliens who have been convicted of crimes resulted in a lower priority and fewer resources being applied to worksite enforcement operations. The same is true today. Even at the seemingly high rate of 400,000 removals per year, judgments have to be made on a case-by-case basis to ensure that the goals of homeland security, border protection and public safety are being met.
Notably, Virtue argued that “the uniform application of such guidelines to law enforcement decisions is as important to good government as the authority to arrest, detain, charge and remove non-citizens.”
Virtue’s point may very well be why the slippery slope arguments aren’t working. Because prosecutorial discretion is an inherent part of the law enforcement process, it is difficult to effectively critique the proactive use of prosecutorial discretion without actually undermining law enforcement. That’s why the critics turn so quickly to outrageous examples and hypotheticals—scaring people is the only argument against prosecutorial discretion that they have left.
Photo by Lasse Kristensen.
Secretary Napolitano Acknowledges “Messaging Problem,” Dismisses Criticism of Key Enforcement Programs
04 months ago
In a speech at American University yesterday, Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano complained that she was tired of criticism from the left and the right that accuse DHS of both blindly deporting undocumented immigrants and participating in attempts at amnesty through the use of prosecutorial discretion. Secretary Napolitano argued that both cannot be true, but that these conflicting criticisms signify the need for a “reality check” on the way we talk about immigration enforcement. Given the highly political attacks made on the Obama administration’s enforcement strategies in recent months—especially those made by restrictionist Rep. Lamar Smith—many are sympathetic to the need for a reality check. But that check must also include an honest look at all of DHS’s programs, even the problematic ones.
Secretary Napolitano bristled at criticism yesterday from across the political spectrum that not enough has been done to end deportations or improve the immigration system. In particular, she took subtle aim at the numerous critics of Secure Communities. While acknowledging that DHS had done a bad job messaging the program, and that it needed some tweaks, she dismissed much of the legitimate criticism of Secure Communities.
Despite the misleading commentary about this program, it has proven to be the single best tool at focusing our immigration enforcement resources on criminals and egregious immigration law violators.
Termination of this program would do nothing to decrease the amount of enforcement. It would only weaken public safety, and move the immigration enforcement system back towards the ad hoc approach where non-criminal aliens are more likely to be removed than criminals.
This attitude doesn’t bode well for the numerous recommendations made by the Interagency Task Force on Secure Communities that were forwarded to the Secretary by the Homeland Security Advisory Committee in September. Even more disturbing, the Secretary seemed to lump all criticism of DHS enforcement into the same category, equating critiquing DHS with diluting efforts to obtain immigration reform:
We can all agree that we need fair, consistent, and enforceable immigration laws that encourage the free flow of commerce, while respecting both security and the rights of individuals. We will continue to work toward that common goal.
But we can’t do it alone—which is why I am calling on advocates on all sides of this issue to work with us and the Congress on these issues, rather than attacking the system, or the people who work in it, as a whole.
In other words, leave DHS alone and focus on Congress.
In the face of the growing hysteria on the right over the use of recent prosecutorial discretion guidelines, it is understandable that the Secretary feels the need to defend her decisions and approach. In the process, however, she signaled that she considers critics of DHS who seek more generous policies to be equally hysterical for “attacking the system.”
This is a mistake if only because most of the groups pushing for reforms within DHS have also pushed for reform within Congress for years. Lumping all critics together may feel “safe” in that Napolitano can’t be accused of playing favorites by the restrictionists who dog her every step, but it clouds and confuses her message.
If DHS is really proud of its accomplishments, it should welcome additional critiques of how to improve the system. Instead, the Secretary’s speech signals that constructive criticism is an obstacle to reform.
Photo by CAP Action Fund.
Better Immigrant Integration Leads to Economic Growth
04 months ago
Over the weekend, more than 27,000 people became American citizens during 285 naturalization ceremonies held across the country in honor of Citizenship Day (September 17). Becoming a citizen, however, is hard work. A new country, new rules, high costs, and little targeted support for new immigrants make what should be a journey of exploration and opportunity one that may be frustrating and lonely. Not surprisingly, problems such as these are a major obstacle to naturalization. Scholars note that despite the steady rise in naturalization rates over the decades, a shocking number of people do not naturalize are actually eligible to do so. In 2008, for example, while more than one million LPRs naturalized, more than eight million were eligible to do so. Developing better integration programs, however, may improve naturalization efforts and lead to economic growth.
What keeps people from naturalizing? According to the Migrant Integration Policy Index III (MIPEX) survey of 31 European and North American counties, U.S. naturalization fees “are now higher than in 25 of the 30 other MIPEX countries. Half ask for just normal administrative fees similar to obtaining passports.” Furthermore, the process of acquiring citizenship in the United States can be uncertain, lacking “legal time limits (unlike in 13 MIPEX countries). Basic English and civics classes, are also grossly underfunded and the moneys that have been allocated are frequently in danger of being cut. In fact, Congress may not approve funding for these and other integration programs in the DHS Appropriations Bill for FY2012.
Integration is often an overlooked but key component of U.S. immigration policy. Successful integration of immigrants fuels their success, strengthens communities, and builds bridges between newcomers and other community members. Time and again, an influx of immigrants has been shown to reverse economic decline and breathe new life into urban areas, small towns, and rural communities. Moreover, integration can be a key to entrepreneurship and future economic growth.
Urban theorists Richard Florida and Charlotta Mellander found that nations which focus more on immigrant integration have higher levels of economic competitiveness, are more innovative, and have higher rates of entrepreneurship. Solid integration policies offer benefits to both the immigrant and the receiving community. The investment in immigrants, therefore, is an investment in the country’s own well-being.
The good news is that, unlike many aspects of immigration reform, the challenge for improving integration and naturalization efforts is less about reforming existing law and more about generating support for sufficient planning and resources to create a more robust integration program.
Developing a national integration policy—coordinating efforts across various federal, state and local entities—would allow us to leverage existing programs and efforts with an eye towards thinking about the big picture of immigration. New immigrants and descendants of the Mayflower alike would benefit from such coordination, which could offer better, smarter ways to link communities together.
In many communities, these efforts are already underway. Groups like Welcoming America work with individual communities to find links between newcomers and other residents. Gatherings like the National Immigrant Integration Conference, now in its fourth year, bring together people who focus on any number of issues—economic development, education, literacy, civic engagement—that are not exclusively focused on immigration, but who recognize the value of integration of new immigrants to their work. Harnessing that interest offers a new way to talk about immigrants and integration that might lead us to one day think of citizenship as a process rather than a certificate.
Photo by Samantha Decker.