Alliance of White Anti-Racists Everywhere – Los Angeles
Policy Center
(0 comments, 19 posts)
This user hasn't shared any profile information
Home page: http://immigrationimpact.com
Posts by Policy Center
Happy Holidays from All of Us at Immigration Impact!
01 month ago
We hope everyone has a great holiday and a happy New Years! Immigration Impact will return on Monday, January 3rd, 2012. Thanks for reading!
UPDATE: American Heritage Dictionary Responds to “Anchor Baby” Definition Criticism
02 months ago
In response to ImmigrationImpact.com’s critique of the definition of “anchor baby” included in the latest edition of the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, the executive editor of the dictionary has agreed to revise the definition of to reflect the derogatory nature of the term. In conversations with Mary Giovagnoli, Director of the Immigration Policy Center, Executive Editor Steven Kleinedler promised a swift and careful revision of the term. Mr. Kleinedler noted that the editors are already undergoing further review on how the term is commonly used and said “we will be adding a label to the term, either derogatory or offensive, which I acknowledge should have been done in the first place, and we will determine how to revise the definition. Then on Monday we begin making the actual change—first on the website, and then we begin propagating the change out to the electronic products and in the next printing.”
ImmigrationImpact.com will continue to monitor the changes and urges the editors to adopt a definition that reflects the truly insidious nature of this term.
The Difference between E-Verify in a Comprehensive Immigration Reform Bill and E-Verify Alone
07 months ago
Last month, Rep. Lamar Smith introduced the “Legal Workforce Act of 2011” (H.R. 2164), a bill which would make the E-Verify system mandatory for all employers within three years. While the Smith bill version of mandatory E-Verify has been criticized for snagging U.S. citizens and legal workers, burdening employers with additional costs and not actually catching unauthorized workers, Sen. Robert Menendez’s recent bill, “The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2011,” also includes mandatory E-Verify. So why would folks support the Menendez bill when they keep hearing that E-Verify is so bad?
Like all comprehensive immigration reform (CIR) bills since 2005, the Menendez bill allows for a mandatory E-Verify system only in context to other elements of comprehensive immigration reform, like a generous legalization program, reforms to family- and employment-based systems, border and interior enforcement and integration programs. Under Menendez’s bill, current unauthorized workers would have a chance to legalize their status, and future workers could come through newly created legal channels. In other words, rather than try to catch unauthorized workers as part of an enforcement-only strategy, the Menendez bill would create a legal workforce, and then E-Verify would allow employers to ensure they are in compliance with the new laws.
Although some groups will continue to oppose mandatory E-Verify even as part of CIR, others have realized that if E-Verify isn’t going anyway, it had better work well and provide strong protections for workers. And the Menendez bill’s E-Verify is very different than the one in Smith’s bill.
The Menendez bill:
- creates penalties for employers who misuse the system (e.g. they fail to tell an employee about a tentative nonconfirmation (TNC), retaliate or take adverse employment actions against a worker with a TNC, fire a worker with a TNC, etc.);
- creates strong privacy protections;
- creates an administrative review process for workers who want to appeal the result;
- provides compensation for workers who were fired due to an erroneous result;
- creates a judicial review process to appeal administrative decisions;
- creates a private right of action against employers who misuse the system;
- requires annual studies and audits of the system to monitor accuracy rates, employer verification, discrimination, privacy, fraud, impact on employers, etc.
These provisions are not included in the Smith bill. In other words, the Menendez bill provides for an improved version of E-Verify within the context of legalization and immigration reform, while Smith’s bill offers a version of E-Verify bill that is likely to make the problem worse. The truth is that E-Verify alone is not a solution. There are 7-8 million unauthorized workers in the U.S. and no good legal channels for those workers to enter the system. Slapping mandatory E-Verify on top of the already broken system will do more harm than good. Workers will go further underground, employers will hire workers off the books, identity theft will increase, employers simply won’t run workers they know are undocumented through the system.
Photo by JF Sebastian.
SCOTUS E-Verify Ruling No Bellwether for Fate of SB1070
08 months ago
By Mary Giovagnoli and Melissa Crow
Today’s Supreme Court decision upholding Arizona’s law requiring employers to use E-verify or risk losing their business licenses will, like all Supreme Court decisions, take some time to digest. What’s surprising, however, is how quickly some are already jumping to the conclusion that today’s decision signals how the Supreme Court might rule on SB 1070 when, and if, it finally makes its way to the Supreme Court.
Even though challenges to both laws involve the idea of preemption—whether the federal government has the sole authority to make and enforce laws on a particular issue—the underlying laws in question are significantly different.
The Legal Arizona Workers Act was an effort to regulate the employment of undocumented immigrants by permitting the suspension or revocation of business licenses in the event that employers knowingly hired undocumented immigrants. A majority of the Supreme Court rejected the argument that Arizona had overreached, relying on a specific exception in the Immigration and Nationality Act that said that state governments retained the authority to regulate employment verification through licensing. That fairly narrow exception decided the case, despite strong arguments about the federal scheme for regulating immigration and the costs that a mandatory employment verification system imposes. This is unfortunate, but it doesn’t mean that supporters of SB 1070 should start celebrating. Today’s decision was more about employment than immigration. While states have historically possessed the power to regulate employers within their borders, they have no authority to regulate immigration itself. This is the exclusive domain of the federal government—and the issue at stake in the SB 1070 litigation.
SB 1070, after all, has as its express purpose to make “attrition through enforcement” the policy of the state. In other words, the state of Arizona decided in SB 1070 to make it so onerous for immigrants to live there that they would just leave. And while it was written to root out undocumented immigrants, the practical effect was to make anyone who appeared vaguely foreign or different the possible target of questioning and racial profiling. Moreover, it created criminal penalties for being in the state illegally, essentially layering another level of punishment on people regardless of federal law.
This is important, because Arizona’s SB 1070 essentially sought to replace federal immigration law with an even tougher standard. The only employment-related provision of SB 1070 sought to criminalize work by undocumented immigrants. The Ninth Circuit found this provision unconstitutional, in part because Congress decided to penalize employers, not employees, for the hiring of undocumented workers.
Today’s decision affirmed a prior ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that Arizona’s law was not preempted. By contrast, the District Court has already found SB 1070 to be preempted by federal law and the Court of Appeals found the arguments of plaintiffs so compelling that it issued an injunction, preventing the vast majority of the law from going into effect until the Court issues its opinion. Thus, two courts have already given support to the idea that there are broad issues of preemption here that weren’t under the microscope in the Whiting decision. Both the breadth and the substantive questions at issue in the two laws are radically different.
Nonetheless, today’s decision is an unfortunate one, as it will ultimately either drive more people underground, lead to more discrimination, or create more problems for Arizona businesses. Nor will mandatory E-verify solve the problems Arizona sought to address—attempting to regulate undocumented employment without providing a means for legalization is a no-win proposition. Until Congress passes comprehensive immigration reform that balances benefits and enforcement, E-verify alone will never win the day.
White House Immigration Blueprint a Starting Point
08 months ago
Speeches, even those delivered by the President of the United States, can be forgotten fairly quickly. Following the El Paso immigration speech from two weeks ago, the White House is attempting to sustain a buzz by sending other members of the President’s cabinet and White House officials out to give speeches and hold roundtables across the country to discuss immigration. The most lasting piece of this effort, however, is likely to be the immigration blueprint which was released along with the speech. The title, “Building a 21st Century Immigration System” recognizes that the system we have now does not work—and a new one must be built from scratch to meet the needs of our country today. Without comprehensive reform, pieces of the immigration system will remain unfixed, resulting in a system which still does not function
The blueprint outlines the progress made so far by the Obama Administration on the issue of border security and discusses key principles of future reform.
DHS is:
- Keeping the border secure by having more border patrol staff than at any time in U.S. history, deploying more ICE personnel in the Southwest border region, and working with Mexico to disrupt the trafficking of drugs, weapons, and bulk cash.
- Demanding accountability from employers who deliberately hire and exploit undocumented workers. The administration has already audited more than 4,600 employers and levied $61 million in financial sanctions—more than was levied during the entire previous administration.
We must:
- Create a legal immigration system that responds to our needs and promotes legal immigration.
- Legalize persons living here undocumented who register, undergo background checks, pay their back taxes, and learn English before getting in line for citizenship.
The blueprint sticks to what President Obama’s been saying since before he was elected, that “we need comprehensive reform that demands responsibility and accountability from the government, businesses, and immigrants themselves. We cannot solve this problem through enforcement alone.” In the blueprint, Obama focuses on high-skilled immigration, and recommends trying to reduce barriers to high-skilled immigration and foreign-born entrepreneurship. The White House also points out that immigrants are contributing to our economic recovery by creating jobs and paying taxes.
The blueprint also contains many nuanced points that will be critical in upcoming legislative battles. Although the blueprint supports mandatory E-verify, it couples it with legalization for the current unauthorized population. The President’s blueprint supports existing legislation like the DREAM Act and AgJobs. It calls for reforms of the H-1B visa program and the establishment of a new temporary worker program for lower skilled, non-seasonal, non-agricultural workers. All of these positions may be tested in the coming months as legislation is introduced and fought over. For the blueprint to be truly meaningful, the positions outlined by the White House will need to be reinforced by the White House’s active support for positive legislation and opposition to legislation—such as a stand alone mandatory E-verify bill—that undermines immigration reform.
On paper, the new immigration system that the President would like to build is one that could prepare America for the 21st century by squarely addressing the existing problems, but the outline is better at fleshing out some points than others. For instance, the integration of immigrants, a key to our future—only gets 4 lines that support the general idea of integration without really committing to it. Ironically, this is one of the areas where the administration has made progress, so failing to promote that work is a missed opportunity. Similarly, the importance of family reunification, while mentioned, is hidden on the 26th page of the document, hardly inspiring to those who want improvement in our legal immigration system in order to bring families together more quickly and efficiently. Both of these issues actually support the other goals of the blueprint—as integration and family are two key elements in helping immigrants achieve their goals and therefore contribute all they can to America.
The blueprint is not a final product but rather a jumping off point for more analysis and discussion. It can be the start of many real conversations that need to take place around America and in the halls of Congress.
Photo by Matthew Burpee
Two Years Under the Obama Administration, How Does DHS Measure Up?
09 months ago
Nearly two years ago, expectations ran high as President Obama took office and Secretary Napolitano took the reins of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). In review of DHS’s first year under the Obama Administration, the Immigration Policy Center (IPC) found that while many promising changes were initiated, few were successful due to limiting political constraints. Today, two years out, we find a department still struggling to balance priorities, entrenched in an enforcement-heavy debate, claiming that without Congressional action, its hands are tied on administrative reforms. That claim, however, is inconsistent with the wide range of executive branch authority available to DHS and the President.
This week, the Immigration Policy Center released its second DHS review, Second Annual DHS Progress Report: An Analysis of Immigration Policy in the Second Year of the Obama Administration, which looks at DHS’s actions in 2010 through three critical lenses—prioritization, transparency and coordination—to assess whether DHS has made progress since last year. The report also looks at whether DHS has the capacity to follow through on the vision of reform outlined by the Obama Administration.
As is so often the case, there are no black and white answers. Findings on DHS’s record were mixed, with progress in some areas and setbacks in others. DHS’s treatment of Haitians over the last year represents some of the best of the Department and its people, yet it also evidences the lack of coordination and vision endemic to the institution. For example, at virtually the same time that USCIS was poised to implement the Help Haiti Act of 2010 (which grants permanent residence to orphans paroled into the U.S. after the earthquake), ICE announced that it would resume deportations to Haiti, despite the abysmal conditions that continue to exist one year after the earthquake. This lack of a disciplined and coordinated approach to issues seems to routinely undermine the good work that does happen within the agencies.
When it comes to prioritization, ICE failed to live up to its stated focus on criminal aliens. Instead, ICE touted the large numbers of noncriminal aliens rounded up and deported through programs like Secure Communities, which continued to operate behind a veil of secrecy.
Among other things, DHS also gets low marks on the coordination front as it consistently fails to provide the critical leadership and reporting structure needed to bridge the gaps and move forward with a coherent and unified agenda. The lack of coordination between CBP, ICE, and USCIS has led to uneven and inconsistent application of information-sharing practices, defying many of the Obama Administration’s directives to cut red tape and provide the public easy access to information.
So what can DHS do in the absence of Congressional action? Plenty. As an executive branch agency, DHS has wide discretion to enforce, implement, and interpret existing laws. Some of the report’s recommendations include the following:
- DHS must assert its executive branch authority, even in the face of Congressional opposition. The president articulated a vision of a just and humane immigration system during his speech at American University last year. While CIR is needed, there are improvements that the Administration can make now. Such reforms are not end runs around Congress, but are instead critical exercises in interpreting, implementing, and enforcing existing law within the context of changed circumstances.
- DHS must carefully monitor and supervise state and local law-enforcement partnerships so that individuals who are not ICE priorities are not caught up in the net of Secure Communities or 287(g) programs.
- DHS must streamline its regulatory process as well as coordinate functions across CBP, USCIS and ICE to prevent conflicts in the interpretation of law and policy.
- DHS must move forward with detention reforms, promote better funding for integration programs and engage the public to comment on policies across department agencies.
While DHS can and should implement these changes, the report also acknowledges that the Obama Administration and the front offices of DHS need to be more engaged on the day-to-day implementation of immigration policy and exhibit real leadership if any of these reforms are to become a reality.
Photo by TalkMediaNews.
Crossing the Line. Again.
01 year ago
The recent shooting of a U.S. Congresswoman, Federal Judge and other innocent bystanders in Arizona is both sobering and tragic. Because Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ) was hosting a community event at the time of the shooting, the role of politics in this tragedy has led to significant soul searching. Regardless of the motives of the shooter, analyzing the impact of political discourse on the lives of others merits serious consideration. Whether it’s Rep. Joe Wilson shouting out, “You lie!” during President Obama’s address to Congress or liberal and conservative media pundits calling each other names on a nightly basis, the lines that were once never crossed are increasingly being erased.
In a country where name calling and exaggerated rhetoric routinely beat out the facts in political debate, the past few years have seen an ever escalating use of violent, derogatory imagery when speaking of political opponents. Pima County Sheriff Clarence W. Dupnik, picked up on this right away, voicing fears that many others quickly echoed:
The anger, the hatred, the bigotry that goes on in this country is getting to be outrageous […] I think it’s time as a country that we need to do a little soul searching, because the vitriolic rhetoric that we hear day in and day out from people the radio business and some people in the TV business, and what we see on TV and how our youngsters are being raised, that this has not become the nice United States of America that most of us grew up in, and I think it’s time that we do the soul searching.
That soul searching must include an emphasis on who are we as a nation, how we solve the problems that plague us and how we can ensure everyone feels engaged in the solution-making—even if the ultimate solution is a compromise that lands between what each side wants. Clearly this is something that can start with the individual, but ultimately our nation looks to its leaders—in our government, communities and on our televisions—as examples.
Fortunately the gravity of the Arizona events seems to have hit home for some of our leaders. For example, on CNN Sunday morning, Sens. Richard Durbin (D-IL) and Lamar Alexander (R-TN), morning were calling for more respect in public dialogue, noting that while no one can assume anything about the alleged shooter’s deranged motivation, the “tenor of the debate” still matters.
I think, as Sen. Durbin said on Sunday, we ought to cool it, tone it down, treat each other with great respect, respect each other’s ideas and even on difficult issues like immigration or taxes or health care law, do our best not to inflame passions.
Emotions remain too raw and the events too recent for us to know whether Saturday’s tragedy will cause the nation to pause and recalibrate its decency meter. We may never know what made Congresswoman Giffords the target of a deranged mind. But the fact that so many so quickly sought to explain these actions as a consequence of our declining civility is telling, as it suggests that we have known all along that the path we are going down is fraught with danger. Pointing fingers or pitting one group against another in trying to move forward merely continues the cycle. Instead, let’s reflect on how we talk about issues in America—the tone, civility and level of respect in public debate. That’s the first step. Living the example is the next.
In her own words, Congresswoman Gabby Giffords called for higher level of discourse in America:
[…] in the years that some of my colleagues have served – 20, 30 years – they’ve never seen it like this. We have to work out our problems by negotiating, working together, hopefully Democrats and Republicans […] the reality is that we’ve got to focus on the policy, focus on the process, but leaders – community leaders, not just political leaders – have to stand back when things get too fired up and say, ‘Whoa, let’s take a step back here.’
Photo by CarbonNYC.
Happy Holidays!
01 year ago
Happy Holidays and stay tuned! Immigration Impact will return on Monday, January 3rd, 2011.
Senate Fails to Bring DREAM Act to Final Vote
01 year ago
Today, the Senate failed to achieve the 60 votes necessary to achieve cloture on the DREAM Act, a bill to grant hundreds of thousands of undocumented children a chance to gain legal status if they enroll in college or join the military. 55 Senators voted in favor of the motion to proceed to the final vote on DREAM and 41 against.
The vote broke largely along partly lines with Senate Republicans citing procedural arguments to excuse themselves from voting yes. However, some Democrats abandoned their party and voted against it too, while some Republicans broke ranks and voted for cloture.
Talking Points Memo tracked the votes and those who crossed party lines both ways:
Republican Sens. Dick Lugar (IN), Lisa Murkowski (AK), Kit Bond (MO), and Bob Bennett (UT) voted yes on cloture. Democratic Sens. Mark Pryor (AR), Jon Tester (MT), Ben Nelson (NE), Kay Hagan (NC), and Max Baucus (MT) all voted no.
However, student activists have vowed to continue to fight. The United States Student Association, the country’s oldest and largest student-led organization, represents over 4.5 million students at over 400 campuses across the nation sent out a press release after the vote noting:
Undeterred by the vote, young people will continue fighting for immigrant youth justice by gearing up for what will most likely be a difficult 112th Congress.
Say What? Senators’ Reasons for Opposing the DREAM Act in Dire Need of Truthiness
01 year ago
After Sen. Harry Reid tabled a vote on the DREAM Act this week in order to take up the passed House version of the bill next week, thousands of students, advocates and community leaders have and will continue to urge their Senators to pass the DREAM Act. Unfortunately, some of these calls are being answered with excuses—excuses which are in dire need of what Comedy Central’s Stephen Colbert would call “truthiness.” Disagreeing with a specific piece of legislation based on its merits is one thing, but making up your own facts out of political convenience is just plain wrong. It’s also an incredible disservice to your constituency and the American public. The following are excuses reiterated by Senators who have previously voted for the DREAM Act but who may now vote against it. The facts follow their excuses.
CLAIM: DREAM Act beneficiaries will bring family members en masse.
FACT: DREAM Act Will Not Open Flood Gates to Family Members
It would take upwards of 25 years for a DREAM Act beneficiary to get a green card for their parents, and 30-40 years for their siblings. (A U.S. citizen CANNOT petition at all for a grandparent, niece, nephew, uncle, aunt, or cousin under our immigration laws). DREAM Act beneficiaries would have to wait in line for 10 years under a conditional nonimmigrant status before they would be able to adjust to a lawful permanent resident status and three more before becoming US citizens. After this 13-year process to become citizens, they could finally apply for their parents or siblings only to come to the U.S. If their parents (presumably) entered illegally, they would be subject to a 10-year bar from being in the U.S., if they are even eligible at all. So, in order to legalize, they would have to wait the initial 13 years, plus leave the U.S. for another 10, and then finally apply—a process which would probably take upwards of 25 years. The wait for any siblings would likely be even longer. They would also likely be subject to the 10-year bar, and in addition, would have to wait in the backlog for a visa—a process which could take up to 30 more years.CLAIM: The DREAM Act will encourage more illegal immigration.
FACT: The DREAM Act DOES NOT encourage more illegal immigration.
The DREAM Act is not a magnet for new arrivals. Only those who have been here for five years or longer before enactment will qualify and they must have arrived when they were under 16-years old. You can’t be older than 29 to qualify.CLAIM: Americans want Congress to work on reducing the deficit and fixing the economy.
FACT: The DREAM Act will reduce the deficit and create jobs.
According to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the House version of the DREAM Act (H.R. 6497) would reduce deficits by about $2.2 billion and increase revenues by $1.7 billion over the 2011-2020 period.CLAIM: We must secure the border first.
FACT: The border has more boots and dollars on it than ever before.
The annual budget of the U.S. Border Patrol stood at $3.0 billion in Fiscal Year (FY) 2009—a nine-fold increase since FY 1992. The number of Border Patrol agents stationed along the southwest border with Mexico grew to 16,974 in FY 2009—a nearly five-fold increase since FY 1992. The combined budgets of U.S. Customs and Border Protection and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) grew from $9.1 billion in FY 2003 to $17.2 billion in FY 2010. In August, President Obama signed another new border bill which will pump $600 million into border enforcement, including funds for 1,500 new border patrol agents and 1,200 National Guard troops.CLAIM: The DREAM Act has not been properly vetted.
FACT: The basic contours of the DREAM Act have not changed in 10 years.
The DREAM Act has been debated and introduced every session since 2001. This is not a new idea or piece of legislation that the Senate is unfamiliar with.
Any debate worth having should be an honest one. If a Congressional member intends to vote against a piece of legislation, fine, but at least have the courage to be honest about why. Distorting the facts in order to avoid political controversy is not a good enough reason and these DREAM Act students certainly deserve better.
Photo by AVAVA.