Alliance of White Anti-Racists Everywhere – Los Angeles
Travis Packer
(0 comments, 60 posts)
This user hasn't shared any profile information
Home page: http://immigrationimpact.com
Posts by Travis Packer
What’s the Value of Keeping Undocumented Youth in the Shadows?
05 months ago
The real life psychological ramifications of young immigrants struggling with their unauthorized status are often glossed over in the larger immigration debate. In a recent journal article, Learning to Be Illegal: Undocumented Youth and Shifting Legal Contexts in the Transition to Adulthood, University of Chicago professor Roberto G. Gonzales uses 150 interviews with young Latino adults to examine how unauthorized youth deal with their legal status as they come of age. Gonzales finds that as unauthorized immigrant children transition into adulthood, many “learn to be illegal,” figuring out how to exist in a society that was once welcoming, but now prohibits their participation.
Under U.S. law, all children have the legal right to a K-12 education, regardless of their immigration status. After graduation, however, unauthorized youth quickly learn that they cannot legally work, vote, receive financial aid for college or drive in most states. In addition, they have the added fear of deportation. Throughout his research, Gonzales found that unauthorized youth “uniformly noted a jolting shift at around age 16, when they attempted to move through rites of passage associated with their age…as respondents tried to take these steps into adult life, they were blocked by their lack of a Social Security number.” One student noted:
I never actually felt like I wasn’t born here. Because when I came I was like 10 and a half. I went to school. I learned the language. I first felt like I was really out of place when I tried to get a job. I didn’t have a Social Security number. Well, I didn’t even know what it meant. You know Social Security, legal, illegal. I didn’t even know what that was.
Gonzales found that nearly 60 percent of the unauthorized youth interviewed discovered they were unauthorized when applying for college. Most of those who did not attend college discovered their immigration status when attempting to work. Sadly, the end result for both groups was universal disappointment—their chances of finding a good job or attending an esteemed university severely diminished by their immigration status as were their chances of contributing to society.
These youth, however, have not given up on pursuing their educational aspirations. Many are working on the passage of federal legislation known as the DREAM Act, legislation which would solve many of the issues facing these youngsters. The DREAM act would allow unauthorized youth to eventually gain citizenship by going to college or joining the military after high school. While passage of the DREAM Act is currently an unlikely political reality, the Obama Administration has the ability defer the deportations of certain unauthorized youth who would likely have qualified for the DREAM Act.
So what can we do about America’s unauthorized youth? While Congress remains gridlocked on legislation that would enable unauthorized youth to fully participate in society, Gonazles asks the larger question—what is lost when we keep unauthorized youth—many of whom will remain in the U.S., regardless of their status—in the shadows?
Whether they become a disenfranchised underclass or contributing members to our society, their fate rests largely in the hands of the state.
We must ask ourselves if it is good for the health and wealth of this country to keep such a large number of U.S.-raised young adults in the shadows. We must ask what is lost when they learn to be illegal.
Sadly, the answer to that question is “too much.” While Congress continues to play politics with reform efforts, America loses out on the raw potential these unauthorized youth bring to the table.
Photo by j valas images.
Microsoft, Experts Stress Need for High-Skilled Immigration in Senate Committee Hearing
06 months ago
While the House Judiciary Committee focused on a very different part of immigration yesterday, its Senate counterpart held a hearing on “The Economic Imperative for Enacting Immigration Reform.” In the hearing, witnesses testified that immigration reform that makes it easier for high-skilled immigrants to come work in the U.S. is not only good policy, but an economic necessity. Brad Smith, General Counsel and Senior VP for Legal and Corporate Affairs at Microsoft testified that smart immigration reform could create more jobs for American workers, something the economy needs as our nation struggles to recover from the recession.
David Skorton, President of Cornell University, outlined the problems currently plaguing high-skilled immigration, telling the committee that times have changed, and that:
The U.S. is not always the top choice of students from Asia who are applying to graduate school in science and engineering. ..If our immigration policy causes the number and quality of international students who matriculate in STEM disciplines at U.S. universities to decline significantly, it will reduce our capacity for research, innovation, and ultimately economic growth.
Skorton went on to explain that there are not enough qualified or interested American students to fill the slots in STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) undergraduate and graduate programs and recommended streamlining the green card process for international students with STEM degrees from U.S. universities. Skorton also recommended reducing the backlog for skilled legal immigrants, enacting policies that keep families together, and passing the DREAM Act.
Federal inaction isn’t the only danger to the U.S. economy. During the hearing, Paul Bridges, Mayor of Uvalda, GA, testified about the economic repercussions of the anti-immigrant law recently passed in Georgia.
The reality is this law won’t solve the immigration problem in the state. It will only devastate local economies…We grow many different crops year round [which are] harvested by skilled migrant farm laborers who have harvesting down to a fine art…
These workers are a critical part of Georgia’s economy. Their work helps agriculture to inject $6.85 billion into Georgia’s economy. These workers also contribute to local economies as consumers, too. Every time they buy a good or service, they pay the same taxes that I pay. Many own their homes and pay property taxes. Their taxes are co-mingled with my taxes and are used to pay for schools and public service.
The loss of their tax revenue will be felt in Georgia…Now that migrant workers are fleeing Georgia, perfectly healthy crops have been left rotting in the field. The Georgia Agribusiness Council has already reported that farms have lost $300 million due to a lack of workers. The economic toll could reach $1 billion.
Both the patch work of restrictive state laws and federal inaction are putting the U.S. behind its global competition. In an editorial for The Hill, Sen. Schumer pointed out that “our competitors are enacting immigration policies that offer scientists and engineers from around the world up to $250,000 to emigrate, in order to deploy their talents and skills in for the good of our competitors’ economies.”
If Congress fails to come together and pass immigration reform, the potential effect on the U.S. economy could be devastating, wasting economic opportunities that would benefit all Americans and leaving the U.S. to fall behind other nations in attracting foreign talent which, by the way, supplements not supplants American workers.
Sen. Schumer stated that our economic supremacy arose because we “successfully attracted the world’s best minds.” The U.S., however, is no longer doing that, which puts us in jeopardy of losing the global competitive edge we once had.
Photo by PNNL
Lamar Smith’s HALT Act Would Limit Administration’s Ability to Administer Humanitarian Relief
06 months ago
Today, the House Judiciary Subcommittee held a hearing on the “Hinder the Administration’s Legalization Temptation Act” (HALT Act), introduced by House Judiciary Chairman Lamar Smith (R-TX). The bill, which some are calling a political response to recent ICE memos, would suspend the Administration’s ability to exercise certain discretionary forms of immigration protections and relief until January 21, 2013—the day after the first Obama administration comes to an end.
In his opening statement, Rep. Smith stated that the HALT Act was introduced because “the current administration now wants to grant a ‘backdoor amnesty’ to illegal immigrants.” However, as Marshall Fitz of the Center for American Progress points out, “the president can’t ‘legalize’ undocumented immigrants. The most he can do is delay their removal from the country for compelling reasons.” The HALT Act would, in devastating fashion, remove the power of the Administration to delay removal for certain immigrants in dire need. A far cry from the “amnesty” that Rep. Smith fears, this relief is often provided on a temporary basis to ensure the safety of the immigrants or their immediate family.
In the hearing, Margaret Stock, an immigration attorney and retired Lieutenant Colonel, stated that this discretionary relief is important for a number of reasons. If the HALT Act were passed, a number of forms of discretionary relief would be unavailable. For example:
- The Administration would be prevented from granting Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for countries suffering disasters such as earthquakes, hurricanes, tsunamis or countries experiencing civil war or other armed conflict.
- The Administration would be unable to grant deferred action to domestic abuse survivors seeking protection under the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA).
- An immigration judge would not longer have the authority to cancel a deportation on the grounds that a non-citizen’s deportation would result in “exceptional and extremely unusual” hardship to a qualifying U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident family member.
The bill seemingly comes as a response to ICE’s prosecutorial discretion memos, which Ranking Member Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) characterized as ICE’s attempt to prioritize the removal of dangerous criminals, given that “like every other law enforcement agency on the planet, ICE has limited resources.” Rep. Pierluisi berated ICE Council President Chris Crane, who testified in support of the bill, stating that the Obama Administration has already focused more resources on the border and deported more immigrants per year than any previous administration.
In the end, the policies of the HALT Act are misguided and overbroad. While Rep. Smith stated that the purpose of the bill is to prevent the President from granting a “mass amnesty,” the reality is that the bill suspends a number of tools that the Administration may use on a case-by-case basis for the most extreme humanitarian cases, tools that Smith himself advocated for in 1999.
Passage of the HALT Act would result in the loss of some of the few protections we have left for immigrants in this country, and would sacrifice many of the values that form the foundation of United States.
Photo by United Nations Photo
U.S. Commerce Secretaries Highlight Economic Benefits of Immigration Reform
06 months ago
As the American economy continues to level out post-recession, some experts are looking at immigration reform as a way to help start new businesses and aid job creation. A recent letter from U.S. Commerce Secretary Gary Locke and former Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez outlined the economic benefits of reforming our immigration system and, consequently, the possible further detriment to our economy if Congress fails to act.
In their letter, the Commerce Secretaries echoed what economists have been pointing out for years—immigrants already contribute to our economy in significant ways:
According to the National Venture Capital Association, immigrants have started 25 percent of U.S. public companies that were venture-backed – including Google, eBay, Yahoo!, Sun Microsystems and Intel. Further, immigrant-founded, venture-backed public companies employ 220,000 people in the United States. Meanwhile, immigrant inventors or co-inventors have contributed to more than a quarter of U.S. global patent applications.
Despite this evidence, the U.S. wastes much of the foreign talent that comes to the U.S. Each year, around 400,000 students come to study in the United States from foreign nations. The U.S., however, fails to provide opportunities for these students to permanently immigrate to the U.S. In his immigration blueprint, President Obama acknowledged this problem and recommended that we encourage:
…foreign students to stay in the U.S. and contribute to our economy by stapling a green card to the diplomas of science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM), PhDs and select STEM Masters Degrees students so that they will stay, contribute to the American economy, and become Americans over time.
If the U.S. fails to reform immigration in a way that allows America to retain the best and brightest students and innovators, it risks falling behind in the global race to remain economically competitive. Already, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the U.K. have instituted programs designed to attract immigrant entrepreneurs.
Some in Congress, however, are trying to implement immigration policies that stimulate the economy and create jobs. Senators John Kerry (D-MA) and Richard Lugar (R-IN) recently introduced the Startup Visa Act of 2011, which would provide a two year visa for immigrant entrepreneurs who either find a qualified U.S. investor to back their business. The visa would allow the immigrant to become a lawful permanent resident after two years if they create full time jobs for U.S. citizens.
Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) also renewed efforts this week to pass an immigration reform bill, calling on advocates to focus on the economic benefits of reform. Sen. Schumer stated that “we ought to start highlighting the fact that immigration creates jobs rather than takes them away. Everyone agreed that is how we are going to start talking about immigration, as a job creator.” Sen. Schumer will hold a hearing next week on the economic benefits of immigration reform.
In light of the current U.S. economic struggles, Congress could look to immigration reform for policies that would help stimulate the economy and create U.S. jobs. If Congress continues to stagnate on this issue as they have many others, it would be a wasted opportunity.
Photo by The National Academy of Sciences
House Committee Takes Up Bills That Would Indefinitely Detain Immigrants and Eliminate Diversity Visas
06 months ago
In the absence of a federal immigration overhaul, state lawmakers have attempted—many in vain—to address immigration at the state-level. Equally misguided, however, are recent efforts by immigration restrictionist to move anti-immigrant legislation on the federal level. Today, the House Judiciary Committee marked up and passed through committee a bill (and will take up another tomorrow morning) which promises a safer America yet will likely deliver a more costly and dangerous one.
Today, the Judiciary Committee approved the “Keep Our Communities Safe Act of 2011” (H.R. 1932), which proposes indefinite—that is, potentially life-long— detention of immigrants who pose no threat to public safety. These persons include lawful permanent residents who have already served their sentence and have been productive members of society for many years, refugees, and persons seeking asylum in the U.S. Introduced by Judiciary Chairman Lamar Smith (R-TX), this bill would likely force the government to spend resources on immigrants who are not a danger to the public and take resources away from detaining those who are.
Furthermore, H.R. 1932 would also cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars to enforce and is completely out of line with the stated priorities of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to focus their limited resources on the detention of serious criminals.
Set to be marked up on Friday is the “Security and Fairness Enhancement for America Act of 2011” (SAFE Act). Introduced by Rep. Bob Goodlatte’s (R-VA), the SAFE Act (H.R. 704) would eliminate the diversity visa—a lottery that offers 50,000 visas per year to immigrants from countries that send few people to the U.S.
Introduced by members of Congress who are using fear to push an anti-immigrant agenda, these bills are part of a costly and restrictive set of immigration policies masquerading as solutions. Once upon a time, Judiciary Chairman Lamar Smith believed in refraining from the unfair detention and deportation of immigrants who had jobs, families, and U.S. citizen family members.
These bills, however, as well as Smith’s newly introduced “HALT” Act, are a clear departure from that philosophy and a departure from productive and meaningful immigration reform.
Photo by insunlight
Senate Hearing on DREAM Act Emphasizes Need for Relief
07 months ago
Today, the U.S. Senate held its first ever hearing on the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act. Witnesses such as Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, Secretary of Education Arne Duncan and Dr. Clifford Stanley, Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, testified to an overflowing Senate hearing room. The hearing renewed hope that despite a failure on the part of the Senate to pass the DREAM Act last year, Congress may yet be willing to help these deserving young adults fulfill their potential and contribute to the U.S.
Only the most cynical politician could claim that the DREAM Act is being used as a political tool after hearing the testimony of Ola Kaso, an unauthorized immigrant from Albania. Ola was brought to the U.S. at a young age by her mother, who was trying to find a better life for her and her family. Ola struggled to integrate into U.S. society at first, but by the end of high school, she had a 4.4 GPA and was a varsity athlete in both tennis and cross country. She became treasurer of both the Senior Class Student Council as well as her school’s chapter of the National Honor Society. She received numerous scholarship offers and was accepted by several universities including the University of Michigan. Yet, despite all of her achievements, Ola was ordered to be deported to Albania (despite not being fluent in Albanian) the March before her high school graduation. Luckily, Ola’s community rallied around her and was able to get DHS to grant her deferred action for one year while she continued her education. However, many DREAM Act students are not so lucky.
The DREAM Act not only accomplishes humanitarian goals like keeping deserving and innocent young students from being punished, but also allows bright young adults to contribute to the U.S. economy. A 2010 study by the UCLA North American Integration and Development Center estimated that the total earnings of DREAM Act beneficiaries over the course of their working lives would be between $1.4 trillion and $3.6 trillion. More earnings over the course of their working lives means another way that the U.S. can seek to reduce its deficits. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that the House version of the DREAM Act (H.R. 6497), as introduced on December 7, 2010, “would reduce deficits by about $2.2 billion over the 2011-2020 period.”
After being pressed by Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA), DHS Secretary Napolitano made clear that in the absence of the DREAM Act, there would be no categorical “amnesty” for DREAM Act eligible students. But on June 17, the Obama administration took a small step that may benefit some DREAM Act students. In a memo from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Director John Morton outlined 19 factors (ranging from age and when someone came to the country to community ties) that ICE officials should weigh when deciding whether to prosecute an immigration case. While there is no categorical pronouncement that all DREAM act students shall receive deferred action, the Obama Administration is at least signaling that these types of cases merit an individualized assessment.
Small steps like this memo and the continued push on the part of Sen. Richard Durbin (D-IL) for the DREAM Act give hope that Congress will soon realize the obvious fiscal and humanitarian benefits of keeping these bright young adults in the United States.
Photo by Antonio Villaraigosa
Hill Update: House Considers Immigration Amendments in Appropriations Bill
08 months ago
This week, the House of Representatives is considering the Homeland Security Appropriations Bill, H.R 2017—which is, of course, a golden opportunity for lawmakers to attempt to tack on immigration amendments. As of today, 19 immigration and border related amendments were filed. The House agreed to eight of the amendments and rejected two.
Some of the amendments have a bark much worse than their bite. Notably, Rep. Ted Poe’s (R-TX) offered an amendment which would bar funding for grants of parole or deferred action “for any reason other than on a case-by-case basis for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit.” However, as Rep. David Price (D-NC) noted, “this amendment recognizes this essential executive authority, especially when it comes to relief for humanitarian purposes or when it serves the public’s interest.” The amendment reiterates what we have stated before: that the authority of law enforcement agencies to exercise discretion in deciding what cases to investigate and prosecute is fundamental to the American legal system. This amendment will do nothing to prohibit the administration from providing relief to immigrants like DREAM Act students on a case-by-case basis.
And at least one amendment was actually sensible: Rep. Mike Honda’s (D-CA), amendment striking language in the bill that would have barred direct funding for immigrant integration grant programs. The House agreed to the Honda amendment by a voice vote.
Other immigration-related amendments that were agreed upon included:
- An amendment by Ed Royce (R-CA), increasing 287(g) funding by $1 million. The House agreed to the amendment by a vote of 268-151.
- An amendment by Rep. Poe which would deny funding to already cash-strapped police departments, unless they agree to rescind their community policing policies (successful in promoting public safety and reducing crime) even though the federal government has already reviewed these state and local policies and determined that they do not violate federal law. The House agreed to the Poe amendment by a voice vote.
- An amendment by Rep. Cynthia Lummis (R-WY) to prevent DHS from transferring prior year funds for environmental mitigation along the U.S. border to the Department of the Interior. The House agreed to the Lummis amendment by a vote of 238-177
- An amendment by Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX) striking a provision which would prohibit U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services from outsourcing to private contractors the positions of immigration officers, contact representatives, or investigative assistants. The House agreed to the Sessions Amendment by a vote of 218-204.
- An amendment by Rep. Chip Cravaack (R-MN) to deny funding for alternatives to detention for immigrants subject to mandatory detention passed by a vote of 288-131.
The House rejected amendments which would have increased border technology funding by $10 million and increased funding for unmanned aerial vehicles by $320 million.
This scorecard reinforces another fact of immigration policy—lawmakers are more interested in scare tactics than substantive changes; what remains to be seen is whether the Senate will follow the path of the House or think rationally about how we spend our immigration dollars.
Photo by Dave Newman
Senator Durbin Re-Introduces DREAM Act on Heels of President’s Immigration Speech
08 months ago
Today, Senators Richard Durbin (D-IL), Harry Reid (D-NV) and Robert Menendez (D-NJ) re-introduced the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act, or “DREAM Act,” which would provide a pathway to legal status for the thousands of undocumented students who graduate from high school each year (the companion bill in the House was also introduced today). This introduction comes on the heels of President Obama’s speech on immigration in El Paso, where he stated that “we should stop punishing innocent young people for the actions of their parents. We should stop denying them the chance to earn an education or serve in the military. And that’s why we need to pass the DREAM Act.”
Last year, the DREAM Act came within a few votes of becoming law, passing the House before failing to gain enough votes for cloture in the Senate. This year, states have kept up the fight—most recently both Maryland and Illinois passed their own versions of the DREAM Act—allowing unauthorized students to pay in-state tuition. Other states are set to follow their lead, but it is important to note that without the federal DREAM Act introduced by Senator Durbin, these students would still never be able to legalize their status. As Senator Durbin noted today upon introduction, the DREAM act “is not just a piece of legislation. It is a matter of justice.”
The plight of the DREAM Act students encapsulates many facets of today’s immigration crisis. Caught in a system where there is little, if any, means for legalizing their status, smart, hard-working kids face an uncertain future because of their inability to continue their education, work, or join the military. The loss of potential, productivity, and hope for these individuals is also a loss for this country. The United States is missing out on talented workers and entrepreneurs, and is losing vital tax revenues and other economic contributions.
The DREAM Act has been around since 2001, when it was introduced by Senators Durbin and Orrin Hatch (R-UT) in the Senate and Representatives Howard Berman (D-CA) and Chris Cannon (R-UT) in the House. The current bill allows current, former, and future undocumented high-school graduates and GED recipients a pathway to U.S. citizenship by obtaining a college degree or serving two years in the armed services. They must also have come to the U.S. before turning 16, be under the age of 35, have lived in the U.S. for at least five years, and have “good moral character.” The bill is supported by 70 percent of American voters, and has 32 sponsors and co-sponsors in the Senate.
President Obama re-stated his commitment to fighting for the DREAM Act, and is sympathetic to the plight of these students, many of whom were brought here at a young age by their parents and know no other country than the U.S. As the President stated yesterday in El Paso:
It broke my heart knowing that a number of those promising, bright students — young people who worked so hard and who speak about what’s best in America — are at risk of facing the agony of deportation. These are kids who grew up in this country. They love this country. They know no other place to call home. The idea that we’d punish them is cruel. It makes no sense. We’re a better nation than that.
The President, however, does have the authority to change the fact that we deport these promising young students, despite the fact that he cannot pass the DREAM Act by himself. The President has the authority to instruct DHS officers to exercise discretion and grant deferred action or other relief to DREAM Act eligible youth until the DREAM Act is passed. If the President truly believes that these children love this country, call it home, and are a vital part of our future, then he has no other choice than to do everything he can to provide them relief.
Photo by Center for American Progress
How U.S. Integration Policies Stack up Against Other Countries
09 months ago
Today, immigration policy analysts discussed the Migrant Integration Policy Index (MIPEX)—a survey which measures the immigration and integration policies of 31 nations—as well as the survey’s implications for integration policy in the U.S. Overall, the U.S ranked 9th out of the 31 countries surveyed, but first in terms of its strong anti-discrimination laws and protections. Compared with other countries, legal immigrants in the U.S. enjoy employment opportunities, educational opportunities, and the opportunity to reunite with close family members. However, MIPEX also acknowledges that the U.S.’s complex immigration laws, limited visa availability, high fees, and long backlogs may make it challenging for immigrants to integrate into the fabric of American life—a challenge best tackled by comprehensive reform.
Among the categories surveyed, MIPEX measured how well the U.S. integrates its immigrants. Integration of immigrants is key not only to the MIPEX score, but the future of immigration in the U.S. As Michele Waslin, a Senior Policy Analyst at the Immigration Policy Center, stated:
Integration is happening in the U.S. despite the fact that we don’t have a national strategy and don’t have some of the same laws and policies that other countries have. The U.S. has always been a nation of immigrants, and different waves of immigrants have always integrated and become part of the American fabric. It’s part of the genius of America, the American Dream.
That is, despite the lack of a national immigration policy, immigrants are still learning English, moving up the socioeconomic scale, buying homes, becoming citizens, and voting. Other scholars, like Richard Florida, have also noted the importance of integration to the U.S. and found that nations which more focus on immigrant integration have higher levels of economic competitiveness, are more innovative, and have higher rates of entrepreneurship.
Yet, while the U.S. finished in the top 10 of countries surveyed, MIPEX did not take into account the 11 million unauthorized immigrants currently living in the U.S.—a problem the American public want fixed despite Congress’s inability to act. A recent survey by the Pew Research Center found that 72% of the public supported providing a way for unauthorized immigrants currently in the country to gain citizenship if they pass background checks, pay fines, and have jobs.
One of the keys to a prosperous future is fixing the problems that exist within our immigration and integration policies—hopefully Congress will listen to the American people and get to work on crafting policies that not only reflect who we are as a nation, but contributes to our growth and prosperity.
Photo by formfaktor
DHS Removes Countries from Special Registration List, But Leaves Door Open for Future Placements
09 months ago
This week, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced that it will remove all countries from the National Security Entry-Exit Registration System (NSEERS). Previously, nonimmigrant travelers from Afghanistan, Algeria, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Egypt, Eritrea, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, North Korea, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, and Yemen were forced to comply with special registration requirements, including providing fingerprints, a photograph, and any additional information required by DHS to DHS officials at the time the nonimmigrant applies for admission at a U.S. port of entry.
The reason for the change is twofold. First, over the past six years, DHS has implemented automated systems which capture entry and exit information on nonimmigrants, and using NSEERS to capture this information manually is now redundant and provides no increase in national security. Second (though not stated in the federal register notice), is that the program made travel cumbersome—nonimmigrants were required to register upon each arrival, taking 30 minutes per person.
However, NSEERS has not been completely eliminated. The new regulation would simply remove the aforementioned nations from the NSEERS list, but would leave the program in place so that it could possibly be used in the future by adding countries back on the NSEERS list. Joanne Lin, ACLU Legislative Counsel, analyzed this decision:
Though DHS has made great progress in indefinitely suspending NSEERS, today’s move simply delists the affected countries and leaves the door open for renewed registration in the future. DHS should completely scrap this program and draw the appropriate lesson from the failure of NSEERS for its larger immigration enforcement strategy. Dragnet immigration enforcement programs that ignore lawful individual grounds for suspicion in favor of enabling group-based profiling are counter-productive to the goals of promoting public safety and national security and contrary to American values.
NSEERS is a legacy of post-9-11 hysteria over immigration. While DHS is essentially shelving the program, it is refusing to put it to rest, a sign that it can’t shake the need to have programs in place—even if only on paper—that sound extra tough on countries suspected of producing terrorists. If the program is, in fact, redundant then DHS should close it down for good. As IPC wrote in 2004, DHS authority to remove and restrict admission to the U.S. is incredibly broad, and the idea that we need to keep this outdated and misguided policy is wrong.