ImmPolitic Blog

This week marks the 30th Anniversary of the Refugee Act of 1980, signed into law on March 17, 1980. 

Prior to the Act, the U.S. had been admitting persons fleeing persecution, but the definition of refugee was set in the context of the Cold War.  Among other things, the Refugee Act attempted to end Cold War bias.  As Senator Edward Kennedy, author of the legislation, wrote in 1981, the new law provided,

a new definition of a refugee. The new definition no longer applies only to refugees “from communism” or certain areas of the Middle East; it now applies to all who meet the test of the United Nations Convention and Protocol on the Status of Refugees.

In other provisions of the Act, the annual number of refugee admission were increased, the Administration’s “parole authority” was limited, a process for claiming asylum was set in law, federal programs were established to assist in the resettlement of refugees, and the Office of Refugee Resettlement was established.

Kennedy again:

The new law is intended to end years of ad hoc programs and different policies for different refugees by putting the U.S. refugee programs on a firm basis.

Cold War bias was not stamped out right away.  Through the 1980’s and much of the ‘90s, most refugees came from the Soviet Union (and later the former Soviet Union), Southeast Asia, and Cuba.  By 1995, for example, 79% of refugees still came from these traditional Cold War sending areas.  In recent years, refugees from a broader range of countries where there is political violence and persecution benefit from refugee resettlement. 

In 2008, the top refugee nationalities were Burma, Iraq, Bhutan, Iran, Cuba, Burundi, Somalia, Vietnam, and Ukraine.  The 2008 admission of more than 60,000 refugees continued an upward trend that started in 2002, when admissions reached a low of less than 27,000 due to new security procedures implemented in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks of September 11.  In the 1990s, the U.S. was admitting more than 100,000 refugees per year.

In the 1980s, the asylum system, too, was poisoned with Cold War bias.  Persons fleeing from Communist governments gained asylum at much higher rates than persons fleeing from, for example, El Salvador, where the U.S.-aligned government was slaughtering its subjects in large numbers.  Eventually, the bias was straightened out in the courts, and in 1990 the immigration service established an Asylum Corps of specially-trained officers to handle asylum cases.  In 2008, the top nationalities gaining asylum were China, Columbia, Haiti, Venezuela, and Iraq. 

There continue to be barriers in the law that prevent some deserving individuals from gaining refuge in the U.S.  Administrative and court interpretations of the law in recent years present a problem for some victims of domestic violence (discussed in detail here).  Interpretation of a provision of a 1996 law concerning “material support of terrorism” has presented problems for refugees and asylum seekers who have fought against repressive regimes. The one-year filing deadline for asylum-seekers has questionable merit and has led to documented cases of bona fide claims being denied.

These and other problems are addressed in new legislation introduced on March 15 by Senators Patrick Leahy (D-NY) and Carl Levin (D-MI). (Senators Richard Durbin (D-IL) and Daniel Akaka (D-HI) have signed on as co-sponsors.)

According to Senator Leahy in his press statement, the new legislation would

”…repeal the most harsh and unnecessary elements of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, a law that had tragic consequences for asylum seekers.  It also corrects agency and court misinterpretations of law that limit access to safety in the United States for asylum seekers.  Finally, it modifies the immigration statute to ensure that innocent persons with valid claims are not unfairly barred from the United States by laws enacted after September 11, 2001, while leaving in place provisions that prevent dangerous terrorists from manipulating our immigration system.”

In the last 30 years, the U.S. has  granted protection from persecution and violence to millions of refugees and asylum seekers.  We continue to keep our doors open to such persons.  We can do more to treat those fleeing persecution more consistently.  S. 3113 will help us achieve that goal.

Photo by Flickr user: United Nations.

As the New York Times put it on Saturday, there is “Nothing like 100,000 angry, frustrated, impatient marchers, representing millions of voters, to focus the Congressional and presidential mind….”  The immigration march, the Times says, may be the one possible game changer to break the logjam in Congress on the issue of immigration reform.

The March for America will take place in Washington on Sunday, March 21.  Tens of thousands of people are expected to participate, pressing Congress and the President to pass comprehensive immigration reform.  In anticipation of the march, there was a flurry of activity last week.

On Thursday, President Obama held a series of meetings on immigration reform.  The first was with advocates for immigration reform, who reminded the President of the heavy toll immigration raids and the enforcement of broken laws was taking on the lives of hundreds of thousands of people.  The advocates were there to urge the President to honor his promise to fix America’s broken immigration system and to show more leadership on the issue.

Next, the President met with the two Senators who have been negotiating a start point for this round of the immigration debate in Congress—Senator Charles Schumer of New York and Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina.  The Senators shared with the President their agreed-upon framework for immigration reform legislation.  They also urged the President to show more leadership on the issue, in particular, to help gain more support in the Senate, and to help work out the differences that yet exist between business and labor.

For their part, advocates, represented by the Campaign to Reform Immigration FOR America, were pleased, saying in a statement that, based on the conversation with the President, “we are optimistic and expecting aggressive and urgent action from the White House on comprehensive immigration reform before March 21st.”

For his part, the President said in a statement that he,

“told both the Senators and the community leaders that my commitment to comprehensive immigration reform is unwavering, and that I will continue to be their partner in this important effort.”

On the same day, the President met with the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, and again immigration reform (as well as other issues) was on the agenda.

With the President’s renewed attention, perhaps a little support for immigration reform can be rounded up in the Senate.  In particular, the effort needs more Republican support. 

As the Times noted in its editorial, it used to be that with immigration reform there was,

”…a lot for Republicans to like: conservative arguments that reform is good for business, reunites families, bolsters national security — and pleases Latino voters.”

Not so long ago, immigration reform had the support of several Republicans in the Senate.  Now, however, Senator Graham is the only Republican in the Senate who is willing to lead on the issue.  The rest dare not run afoul of the ideological purity police who act as a sort of Taliban for the Republican Party. As Graham recently told Dana Milbank of the Washington Post, there comes a point when “fear stops you from acting in the best interests of the country.”

If Republicans are responding to the purity police within their base, what are Democrats doing for their base?

Immigration reform is an urgent humanitarian mater for the thousands of families and hundreds of communities and faith congregations that are being torn apart as the government continues to enforce broken laws.  It is also an urgent political matter for Democrats.  Elections are approaching, the right is energized, and Democrats don’t have a lot to fire up Latinos and the first-time voters who were inspired to vote in 2008 with promises that new leadership would tackle immigration reform and a range of major challenges facing the country. 

Douglas Rivlin, at NewsJunkePost.com, reports on a study of voting in the recently-concluded New York Mayor’s race.  Just one in five voters who were first-time voters in 2008 voted in the Mayor’s race. 

If that pattern is not to be repeated in November, those voters need something to validate a belief that their vote in 2008 made a difference.  For Latinos, the validation they need is immigration reform (or at the very least, a sincere attempt to pass it).

 Photo by Flickr user Hjelle.

 
Images: (c)iStockphoto/Simon McConico; (c)iStockphoto/helenecanada

There was a happy ending recently in the case of a man from China who was to be deported under rules set by an immigration law passed in the mid-1990s. It took a governor’s pardon to protect Qing Hong Wu from the parallel universe that has developed for legal immigrants who get into trouble with the law.

In 1996, Members of Congress were still reacting to anti-immigrant sentiment that began in California and swept across the country. They enacted a pair of laws-the Illegal Immigration Control and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRAIRA) and the Anti-Terrorist and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA)-that created a reality separate from the normal criminal justice system.

Among other things, the law expanded the definition of “aggravated felony.” In the universe of the American citizen, the label “aggravated felony” is reserved for serious crimes-murder, rape, violent crimes, and like offenses. In the parallel universe created by the 1996 laws, an aggravated felony for a legal immigrant might be, say, shoplifting-if it results in a sentence of a year or more. It doesn’t matter whether the sentence was served or suspended.

Other features of the separate reality include mandatory jailing and removal from the U.S. Courts were stripped of their jurisdiction to hear appeals in these cases. Congress made these laws retroactive, so an immigrant’s future behavior mattered little if his or her past behavior resulted in a criminal conviction. In this parallel universe, rehabilitation counts for nothing, and immigration judges have no authority to consider individual circumstances.

After the passage of these laws, the papers were filled with bizarre stories such as that of Olufolake Olaleye of Georgia who, several years before the laws were passed, was convicted of shoplifting and given a one-year suspended sentence. In 1996, by virtue of Congressional action, she became an “aggravated felon” and was placed in deportation proceedings.

In the case of Mr. Wu, he immigrated to the U.S. from China with his family when he was five. His parents led a very typical life of low-income immigrants coming to this country-they worked hard and long hours. They were not able to monitor the type of crowd their son hung out with. With his friends, he committed a series of muggings. He was 15 when he was sentenced to three to nine years in a juvenile facility. The Judge who sentenced him, Michael Corriero, promised Mr. Wu that if he turned his life around while in the reformatory, “I am here to stand behind you.”

Turn around his life is what Mr. Wu did. He earned release after three years, went to work, and eventually became Vice President for IT at a real estate financial management company. He had success. What he didn’t have was U.S. citizenship. It was time to apply.

That’s when Mr. Wu entered the parallel universe where Mr. Wu’s good behavior doesn’t count, nor do his other circumstances—he has a U.S. citizen fiancée, he financially supports his elderly mother. His long-ago criminal record came to the attention of the immigration authorities. He was jailed, and the immigration agency began proceedings to send him back to China.

Brian Hale, a spokesman for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), told the New York Times,

“This administration is committed to smart and effective immigration policies that place an emphasis on the deportation of criminal aliens. While we are not able to discuss any individual cases, ICE will enforce the law, and if an individual has been convicted of a serious or dangerous crime, we will take the appropriate action, including deportation.”

Smart and effective immigration policies? One would hope that a spokesperson for our immigration enforcement agency would be able to distinguish between someone who is a threat to society and one who ceased being a threat a decade and a half ago.

The agency has to enforce some stupid laws, and it would be better for all concerned if their representatives used these sorts of incidents to educate us about that fact. What Mr. Hale should have said was something like, “Look, it is an incredible waste of agency resources and taxpayer dollars to lock up someone like Mr. Wu who learned from his mistakes 15 years ago and who has been a very productive resident of New York ever since. We need Congress to act to make the laws more rational.”

Mr. Wu was lucky. Judge Corriero (now retired) kept his word, and joined Mr. Wu’s boss, the Police Benevolent Association, Mr. Wu’s fiancée, and dozens of others in petitioning Governor Paterson for Mr. Wu’s pardon.

The pardon was granted, wiping away the criminal record that served as the basis for Mr. Wu’s deportation. In his Press Release, the Governor said,

“Qing Hong Wu’s case proves that an individual can, with hard work and dedication, rise above past mistakes and turn his life around.”

That’s just common sense. It shouldn’t have to take a governor’s pardon to point that out. Our immigration laws should allow for rehabilitation. Individual circumstances should be taken into account when deciding whether it makes sense to boot someone out of the country.  That would be “smart and effective” enforcement.

The Christian Science Monitor the other day published a story, “Who’s creating US jobs? Mexicans.”  The story noted an increase in Mexican entrepreneurs coming to the U.S. in order to escape drug cartel violence and kidnapping.  There are special visas available to immigrant entrepreneurs willing to come to the U.S. to create jobs.  In the last decade, there has been a steady increase in the number of Mexicans who have been transferring their businesses here, buying and renovating businesses here, or starting new ones.

In the immigration debate, we hear a lot (from anti-immigrant groups) about immigrants “taking” American jobs.  Not enough is said about immigrant entrepreneurs and the jobs they create for Americans.

Each year, the Kauffman Foundation puts out an Index of Entrepreneurial Activity. The index “is a leading indicator of new business creation in the United States.” 

Their latest, the Kauffman Index of Entrepreneurial Activity, 1996-2008, reveals some important “shifts in the demographic and geographic composition of new entrepreneurs across the country.”  

For a number of years, researchers have found that immigrants have a greater rate of entrepreneurial activity than the native-born.  According to the latest Index, the difference between immigrant and native-born entrepreneurial activity is growing.

The immigrant rate of entrepreneurial activity increased from 0.46 percent in 2007 to 0.51 percent in 2008, further widening the gap between immigrant and native-born rates. Native-born rates increased only slightly, from 0.27 percent to 0.28 percent.

The increase in entrepreneurial activity among immigrants in 2008 from the year before, the report notes, is driven by startups in “low- and medium-income-potential” types of businesses, such as grocery stores, child care services, and restaurants.  However, the report notes that immigrants are “also more likely to start high-income-potential types of businesses than the native born.”  That list includes various types of manufacturing, wholesalers, and medical and legal services. 

Looking at ethnic groups, in 2008 Latinos (.48 percent) and Asians (.35 percent) had a higher rate of entrepreneurship than non-Latino whites (.31 percent).  The report also notes that it doesn’t take a college degree to start a business.  In fact, 

While business-creation rates increased for less-educated individuals, the college-educated experienced a decline in entrepreneurial activity rates, from 0.33 percent in 2007 to 0.31 percent in 2008.

The Kauffman report and others such as this one from the Immigration Policy Center estimating that comprehensive immigration reform will boost our economy by $1.5 trillion over ten years, make it increasingly clear that, as we grapple with ways to pull out of the current economic slump, immigration reform must be part of the solution.

Photo by Flickr user Sugi. 

Democrats have become the party of “I can’t” while Republicans have become the party of “I won’t.” But the overwhelming majority of Americans (conservatives, independents and everyone else) is saying, “Get to work on our nation’s problems and fix the broken immigration system!”

While the pundits, naysayers, and quitters in Washington are telling everyone that nothing can get done, the Campaign to Reform Immigration FOR America is enlisting the American people in a massive effort to force the hand of the House, Senate, and President to finally fix our broken immigration system.

You can feel the rumbling in the pews, at the town halls, and at overflow auditoriums across the country.

In January the campaign organized across 40 states, more than 150 events  that could barely accommodate the overflow crowds of Americans who wanted to voice their support for immigration reform.

·                In Denver, CO, an overflow crowd of thousands cheered Senator Michael Bennett’s pledge to champion comprehensive reform in the U.S. Senate.

·                In Grand Rapids, MI, hundreds gathered with community faith leaders to call on elected leaders to get a comprehensive immigration bill done this year.

·                In Charlotte, NC, overflow crowds gathered at a meeting of African American and Latino community leaders to show overwhelming support for reform.

·                In Little Rock, AR, 1,000 gathered on a cold night  to urge Senators Lincoln and Pryor to support immigration reform.

·                And in Ohio, a series of events all over the state culminated in a rally of thousands in Cincinnati – that included leadership from the African American, labor and business communities

·                All this followed not long after more than 60,000 Americans mobilized for a single telephone call in October of 2009 with supportive leaders of reform in the U.S. Congress.

In the last month, communities of faith have exhibited courage and clarity that we wish our elected leaders would show. Religious leaders from across the theological and ideological spectrum and Members of Congress kicked off a nationwide mobilization called “Together, Not Torn: Families Can’t Wait for Immigration Reform,” that included the delivery of more than hundreds of thousands of postcards to Members of Congress from people of faith in their states and districts.

Over the course of the President’s Day recess, local leaders from churches, small businesses, labor locals, and community organizations across the country descended on district offices. Americans in Ohio, Alaska, Arkansas, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and other states met with their Members of Congress to ask for comprehensive immigration reform to move forward in 2010. Some district offices  received a visit every hour, on the hour, for four days straight!

This is beyond a campaign.

This is America at its very core saying loud and clear we need a functioning immigration system that stops  unscrupulous employers from exploiting American and immigrant workers, but encourages honest employers to play by the rules.

Since June 1, 2009, the campaign has organized over 700,000 calls and faxes into the White House and Congress calling for reform. This is a significant number of Americans, but the decibel is nothing compared to that of entire news channels (and multiple talk radio shows) that are primed and ready to scare Congress from endorsing an immigration solution that serves our nation.

So, while our campaign is made up of over 750 faith, labor, business, progressive, African American, civil rights and immigrant organizations working to reform our immigration system in the interests of America’s families, we need your help. Please:

·                Have your church, business, labor local, organization endorse the campaign;

·                Text “JUSTICE” to 69866 to plug in;

·                Join us on March 21st in Washington DC when tens of thousands will March For America, demanding immigration reform for New American families and economic justice for all American families.

Onwards,

Crossposted at Huffington Post