comprehensiveimmigrationreform
Deportation Horror: A Journey From Texas to Bangladesh
0
Shahed Hossain was a Texan to the core. He spent most of his childhood and adolescence just outside of Fort Worth, dated a young women whose mother worked as an accountant for a military contractor, went fishing on the river with his best friend and held a weekend high school job scooping ice cream at a breakthrough near his family’s house. “Everything that I know and everything that I learned, I learned from Texas,” he says. “I love Texas.”
But Texas is far away now. Shahed now finds himself passing long days in his grandmother’s home in Bangledesh, a country he left when he was 10. The young man had a green card and was soon to be a citizen, but he was removed from his home over a trifle: He accidentally told a border guard he was a citizen rather than a permanent resident, thus triggering automatic deportation. In an investigative report for ColorLines.com, Brian Palmer and I dug into 25-year-old Hossain’s shocking story of deportation–a story that reveals just how indiscriminate the expanding deportation dragnet has become, and how badly immigration reform has unfolded in Washington.
Brian tracked Hossain down in Bangladesh to film his new, disoriented life. Watch the film above.
In the three years since Hossain was deported, over one million others have been removed from their homes as well. Unless President Obama uses his authority to stop mass deportations, the “comprehensive” reforms Democrats have vowed to rally around after the elections won’t work, even if passed.
–Seth Freed Wessler
How Immigration Reform Got Caught in the Deportation Dragnet
0On the night that Shahed Hossain left his family’s house in a Haltom City, Texas, to drive to Laredo, his mother, Habiba Hossain, cooked dinner–chicken and rice and okra picked from the garden. She piled her son’s plate high and watched him eat. Then, she took his Bangladeshi passport from a drawer and handed it to him, leaving his green card safely stored away. The 21-year-old had a penchant for losing things and a green card is not a thing to lose. She hurried him out the door and into the white utility van in the driveway where his boss waited.
“I’ll see him in a week,” she thought. Like every other time he’d set off for work trips all over Texas, she figured, her younger son would return to that house where he grew up with his brother and his parents and the dog.
But that night was the last time Shahed Hossain’s mother would see him free in United States, the last time she’d have a chance to worry he’d lose anything. Six days later, Hossain was locked up in a privately run immigration detention center near the U.S.-Mexico border. He spent more than a year there, a period he’s tried to forget, before he was shackled, loaded onto a plane and flown to Dhaka, Bangladesh.
Hossain is Texas through and through. He walks with a swagger and speaks with a hint of drawl. He and his best friend passed middle school evenings scurrying down to the creek to catch turtles, and on high school weekends, when they weren’t working at the ice-cream drive-in, they’d escape the suburban lull to go Gar fishing on the river. He played freshmen year football and he dated a young woman named Erika Fierst, whose mother is an accountant at a major defense contractor. “Everything that I know and everything that I learned, I learned from Texas,” he says. “I love Texas.”
But Texas is far away now. Hossain finds himself living with his grandmother, passing solitary days raising carrier pigeons, growing an orchid garden and searching for work, mostly in vain. “I wanna be back home. This is my, what they say, motherland,” he says, leaning forward and laughing in a wooden chair near his small garden alcove. “Back to the motherland! But this is not my home. My home is over there. My home is in Goodnight Circle.” He looks down at his feet and pauses. “That was my street name.”
Hossain lived in the United States with his family for more than a decade, and had he carried his green card to Mexico that day, he would now be a citizen, like the rest of his family. Instead, a confused run-in with a border guard landed him with a charge that leads directly to deportation–one of a batch of laws Congress has written in recent years that have built a massive and indiscriminate deportation dragnet. Hossain was among 319,000 people deported in fiscal year 2007; last fiscal year, the Obama administration deported a record 393,000 people. The tracks are laid to expel at least that many this year.
When President Obama entered the White House, he promised to push a “comprehensive immigration reform” bill in his first year. Doing so, he apparently calculated, would require a compromise. To garner bi-partisan support for opening new paths to citizenship for the 11 million unauthorized immigrants in the U.S., the president, congressional Democrats and key Beltway advocates came together around a troubling political strategy: They would endorse a hawkish buildup of deportation and border security in hopes of creating space for broader reforms. In a major speech on immigration this past July, the president outlined his approach, vowing to “improve our enforcement policy without having to wait for a new law.”
Almost two years into the Obama presidency, however, no bi-partisan support for a broader bill has emerged from this hawkishness–in fact, the few Republicans who once backed immigration reform have fled. Worse, the Democrats’ would-be political trading game conceals a larger, more troubling fact: Even if the strategy eventually works, the “comprehensive” schema Obama supports will undermine itself with its massive and indiscriminate deportation dragnet. This week, Sen. Robert Menendez introduced the latest version of a “comprehensive” bill. Nothing in it would have prevented Hossain, or hundreds of thousands like him, from being needlessly deported.
The enforcement programs that Obama supports purport to target immigrants convicted of serious crimes and to stop guns and drugs from crossing the border; the reality is that they are driving a system that’s come unhinged. In the three years since Hossain was expelled from Texas, a million other people were removed from the U.S. An enforcement structure that looks anything like the one both parties have built can do little better than indiscriminately deport any non-citizen caught in its expanding net, no matter their ties to the U.S. or their immigration status.
From Resident to Deportee
It was an early Saturday afternoon in October 2006 and Shahed Hossain had just finished a hard week of remodeling kitchens down in Laredo, near the border. Before heading back up north, Hossain and his boss, Pablo Orozco, and coworker, Daniel Kilos, thought they’d make a quick trip over to the other side. In his 11 years in Texas, Hossain had never been to Mexico. Plus, Orozco had a box of empty Mexican Corona bottles to exchange for a full crate. So Orozco got his beer and they drove back to the border.
At about 2:15 in the afternoon, after waiting in a short line of cars, Orozco rolled down the driver’s side window and pulled his American passport and Hossain’s Bangladeshi passport and Texas driver’s license from the glove compartment. The border guard peered into the van, first at Orozco and Kilos in the passenger seat, and then into the back seat at Hossain. He handed Orozco his passport back and Kilos, a citizen, explained that he’d left his at home in Fort Worth. Then, the officer held up the Bangladeshi passport and asked to whom it belonged. Orozco gestured over his shoulder to Hossain.
Hossain and Kilos were directed into an office next to the crossing and Orozco was told to wait in the car. Inside, the two young men were led into a small room by a border guard whose chest badge read Gambaro Valvidias. After patting them down, Officer Valvidias asked the two young men if they were citizens and they quickly responded together that they were. Valvidias asked Hossain how he’d become a citizen and, according to Valvidias’ account, Hossain said he did not know because his father had done all the paperwork. But in the process Hossain realized he’d misspoken and he corrected himself.
“No, hold up, no, I’m not a citizen, I’m a resident, sir,” Hossain remembers saying.
Hossain had lived in the country for over half his life, with his documented immigration status tied to his father, a mechanical engineer who left Bangladesh for fear of political violence and was granted political asylum in 1993. Three years later Shahed Hossain and his older brother Sheehab Hossain landed in New York City with their mother. The family settled near Fort Worth and that was that. The Hossain brothers say they never really thought about the difference between being a citizen and a resident. Sheehab, who is two years older, puts it this way: “We thought permanent resident was the same as you’re an American, except voting.”
Valvidias checked Kilos’ Social Security number through an immigration database and then the FBI’s crime database and sent him to wait in the van with Orozco. When he ran Hossain through the system it confirmed he was a lawful permanent resident. It also showed that two years earlier, before Hossain was issued a green card, he’d been convicted of a misdemeanor–caught walking out of a department store with a box cutter. He was 19 at the time and the mischief had not barred him from getting his green card. But it was stored in the FBI’s records, and it raised Valvidias’ brow.
The officer asked Hossain why he hadn’t brought his green card and Hossain explained that his parents had not given it to him. After an hour and a half of waiting in the back room, Valvidias’ shift ended and he left. When the door opened again a few minutes later a bald-headed man named Officer Garza sat down across the table.
“You know, you’re very smart,” Hossain remembers Garza saying, his voice filled with biting contempt. “You tried to say something just so you can get past the border.” Looking at Garza, Hossain repeated that he’d made a mistake when he’d said he was a citizen. But the border guard was already filling out a form. In Garza’s account, Hossain had connived to fool his way into the country.
Outside, Kilos and Orozco waited for two hours until another uniformed officer walked up to the car. “She told me that Shahed said something really bad to the United States that was a federal offense,” remembers Orozco. “She said he lied that he was USA citizen and he wasn’t. And that was it.”
Hossain was bussed six miles across the city to the Laredo Processing Center, an immigration detention facility run by the Corrections Corporation of American, the country’s largest for-profit prison company.
Political Ghosts Haunt Reform
In the Hossains’ living room on a shelf near a commemorative plate of President Obama is an unframed photograph of Shahed and his older brother standing on the deck of the Staten Island Ferry. It was taken just days after they arrived in the U.S. The boys are wrapped in winter coats and scarves. Behind them, on the horizon, is the Statue of Liberty.
For the boys’ father, Quazi Hossain, the loss of his son is an incomprehensible injustice, irreconcilable with the vision he’d had for his family when he was granted asylum. In the evenings now, when it’s quiet at Destiny gas station, where he works as an attendant seven days a week for $8 an hour, he slips into tears.
“It’s really tough to make people understand that a kid, when they grow up here–it’s really tough for him to understand what is the difference between citizen and the resident,” says Quazi, who’d been known as a stern dad. He lets out a quiet moan, his eyes turn wet and he drifts off somewhere. Fierst, whose blond curls frame her round girlish face, picks up the thought her boyfriend’s father couldn’t finish. “It didn’t matter,” she insists.
But it did matter.
A decade and a half ago, Congress created a new category of immigration violation that made it a crime for immigrants of any status to claim to be citizens. The law was intended to prevent undocumented immigrations from lying to get a job or enter the country without a visa. It wasn’t supposed to target green card holders like Hossain, but as with all of the beefed-up enforcement initiatives federal officials have launched since then, the law is a blunt tool. So Hossain was charged that day with making a false claim to U.S. citizenship. The charge triggers automatic deportation.
The false-claim provision was just one small part of a seismic shift in immigration enforcement over the past 15 years. That shift was advanced by an ascendant Republican Congress and accepted by a Clinton White House committed to political triangulation. And it generated a lasting, if troubling political consensus about immigration among D.C.’s liberal reformers.
“Republicans went for all of it. We fought back some of it, but they got their massive buildup of enforcement, evisceration of due process, cutting benefits even for legal immigrants,” recalls Frank Sharry, who has been at the center of every major immigration fight in D.C. since 1996 and now runs America’s Voice, a major player in the Beltway debate. “Our message was, ‘This is scapegoating. It’s racially motivated and you’re going too far.’ ” That message, Sharry argues, failed miserably. “We were pure, but we were irrelevant.”
So, with an ironclad immigration enforcement infrastructure in place, Sharry and other Beltway advocates embraced a different Democratic approach: Accept the draconian enforcement measures as water under the bridge, but insist they be tied to, or at least closely followed by, a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants.
Fourteen years later, no path to citizenship has emerged as deportation has continued skyrocketing. The last time undocumented immigrants were able to apply for status in large numbers was in 1986. President Obama has said he would like to change that, but he’s held steadfast to the Democrats’ compromising political strategy. And some of those who once heartily embraced that approach, including Sharry, are now saying they’ve been had–that Democrats let the enforcement thing go way too far, and then got nothing in return.
The Immigration Reform and Individual Responsibility Act, passed amid the 1996 storm, remains the main driver of an increasingly unforgiving immigration system. Perhaps most crucially for Hossain, the bill stripped immigration judges of all discretion in cases that involve a long list of violations.
“Discretion shifted from the hands of immigration judges,” says Rachel Rosenbloom, an immigration law professor at Northeastern University. “If the government wants you deported, there’s little room for relief.” Formerly, the particular circumstances of immigrants’ lives–family, property, the amount of time they’d lived in the U.S.–could have provided judges reason to cancel a deportation. No longer.
Summary Judgement
Knowing little of the rigidity of the system he’d been cast into into, Shahed Hossain’s family did not realize the gravity of his situation. The night Shahed was booked into the detention center he called his brother’s cell phone.
“When he told me I laughed,” remembers Sheehab Hossain. “You’re in jail?’ I said, ‘They think you’re illegal.’ And I then remember his voice, he said, ‘No, I’m serious, I’m going to be deported.’ ”

Since detainees are not guaranteed legal counsel–most of the 383,524 people detained last year have limited or no legal representation at all–the Hossains hired their own lawyer. To pay for the fees, they fell deeply into debt, accepting loans from friends and racking up $10,000 on credit cards.
Hossain’s defense relied on convincing the immigration judge that what had happened at the border did not amount to a false claim to U.S. citizenship; that it was a mistake he’d promptly corrected.
In early January 2007, after 3 months in detention, Hossain’s legal proceedings began. Twice the hearing was postponed; once because the Department of Homeland Security listed Hossain as a Mexican national. The agency had apparently assumed that anyone with legal problems at the southern border must be Mexican.
Six months after Hossain was thrown into a cell, he appeared in a San Antonio courtroom. The hearing began with the government’s first witness, Officer Valvidias, who explained that Hossain had called himself a U.S. citizen and then retracted the statement, consistent with Hossain’s own account.
But then Officer Garza took the stand and repeated the more ominous narrative he’d filed in his report. In this account, Hossain repeatedly claimed to be a citizen and didn’t retract the statement until officers confronted it as a lie.
Toward the end of the short hearing, Hossain took the stand. The young man, who was known as an outgoing guy, who could befriend anyone, spoke in a timid, unsteady whisper. Three times during his testimony, Hossain had to be told by the judge and the government’s lawyer to raise his voice.
When the arguments closed, the judge did not stop to deliberate, or even leave the chambers. “[H]e claimed he was a United States citizen,” the judge ruled. “I don’t think it’s a matter of he thought he was a U.S. citizen but he really wasn’t. He went to Mexico without his green card and he needed a way to get back and that was the way to get back. It doesn’t make any sense otherwise, so I’m going to have to sustain this charge.”
As the proceedings ended Hossain finally raised his voice. “May I say something?”
“What would you like to say?” the judge asked.
“Your honor, when they asked us,” his voice louder than it had been, “I was nervous.”
“They asked us, are you guys citizens,” he said, searching for the right final plea. “Both of us agreed to it together, yes.” But then, he explained, “I was saying no, I’m not. I’m a resident. I’m not a citizen, I’m a resident. Your honor…”
Without making eye contact, the judge interrupted. “I’ve heard the testimony already, made my decision.”
He ordered Hossain deported.
Obama’s Change: Bad to Worse
Immigration courts are overwhelmed to a point of exhaustion. In June there were a record 247,922 cases waiting to be adjudicated. The backlog means that the average wait for detained immigrants facing deportation is 15 months.
Without judicial discretion, already overwhelmed judges become operators of a conveyer. Once the judge was convinced that Hossain had intentionally called himself a U.S. citizen, there remained no space to consider the fact that Hossain’s whole life, all he knew and his entire future, were just a few of hours’ drive north of that courtroom.
Hossain and his family were struck by a sense of betrayal. The government of the country that had welcomed them was now tearing them apart. “I made a mistake on a word, which I corrected myself right away. I think over a year in [detention] paid for that,” says Hossain now. But in immigration proceedings, punishment is not crafted to fit the violation. Either you’re deported or not. As Sheehab Hossain put it, “There was no judgment in his decision, it was all already decided.”
Now, the Obama administration is predetermining the fate of hundreds of thousands more. In March, a leaked ICE memo confirmed that the agency had set quotas for deportation: 400,000 this year. After the leak, ICE Director John Morton denied that the quotas actually exist. Regardless, the agency is on track to meet its alleged target.
Obama’s record-setting level of deportation results from his expansion of many of George W. Bush’s most controversial enforcement policies. In 2002, then Attorney General John Ashcroft issued a memo radically shifting the balance of immigration enforcement by granting states “inherent authority” to enforce federal immigration law. Building on the new immigration laws enacted in 1996, the memo began a devolution of immigration enforcement to localities by deputizing local cops as immigration agents, through what’s called the 287g program. Suddenly a simple traffic stop could land a non-citizen in detention. In Bush’s last year in office, the total number of deportations rose to 359,000.
The Obama administration has continued driving that number upward. It expanded the 287g program to new jurisdictions and has vastly expanded a program called Secure Communities, which checks the immigration status of people booked into local jails. Earlier this year, the president announced his intention to implement Secure Communities in every jail in the country by 2013. It already operates in jurisdictions in at least 32 states. In late September, the entire state of Texas adopted the program.
ICE’s public mission statement on Secure Communities declares that the program “focuses immigration enforcement on the most dangerous criminal aliens first.” But the agency has been closed lipped about who it is really talking about when it refers to “criminal aliens.”
Data obtained through the Freedom of Information Act by the Center for Constitutional Rights, National Day Laborers Organizing Network and the Cordozo School of Law speaks more clearly. Almost 80 percent of the people deported as a result Secure Communities have no criminal conviction at all or were booked for low-level offenses like traffic violations or petty juvenile mischief. These are ICE’s “criminal aliens.”
Secure Communities is, however, just one of a an arsenal of programs in an out-of-control system. A five-year-old border-region program called Operation Streamline is another example. As National Public Radio reported in a recent investigation, the program shuffles groups of several dozen detainees before immigration judges who issue mass criminal sentencings. There exists nothing else like it in all of the American judicial system. There are no individual hearings and no real opportunity for appeal. In unison, groups of detainees take guilty pleas and as a result are pegged with criminal records. It’s another purportedly targeted program that’s actually spraying shrapnel.
“[Democrats] proceeded on the basis that if they are tough on enforcement, they’d get immigration reform,” says Sharry. “The results are in on that strategy. They’ve ramped up enforcement beyond the shameful Bush years, and got nothing for it. … We never expected them to do this. They said they’d go after the worst of the worst.”
In 2006 and 2007, the year Hossain was deported, Sen. Ted Kennedy crafted an immigration reform bill that would have opened a pathway for many undocumented immigrants to gain lawful status. To gain support from then-moderate Republicans like Sens. John McCain and Lynsday Graham, the legalization provisions were coupled with harsh enforcement provisions, in keeping with the “comprehensive” reform framework. The bill was crafted and re-crafted, growing more and more heavy on enforcement as it moved ahead. In the end, it failed spectacularly.
“The groups in Washington were refusing to put enforcement rollback on table because they thought it would ruin the ability to get the Republicans on board,” says Catherine Tactaquin, director of the National Network for Immigrant and Refugee Rights. “They were being very calculating politically in order to get a bi-partisan bill and in the end they shot themselves in the foot.”
Tactaquin believes that the enforcement “compromise” also helped “shift public consensus against immigration” in general–that the rhetoric was so heavily focused on enforcement that it cast immigration as a problem, rather than a constitutive element of the American identity. ”Actually getting a better immigration policy is predicated on pushing back on enforcement,” she argues, “not building more.”
The Obama administration is nonetheless staying the course, refusing to take administrative action to slow deportations or to pick a fight over a broader reform bill. But with versions of Arizona’s SB 1070 spreading through state legislatures and Republicans growing ever-more reactionary about immigration, the old D.C. consensus around that approach may be finally coming apart.
“I think the criticism over the past few years is not only understandable, it is probably right,” acknowledges Sharry, referring to the flack many outside-the-Beltway immigration advocates have sent D.C.’s way. “We were so hopeful that legislation was around the corner that enforcement reform didn’t seem like a priority, and talking about it too much undercut legislative results. We have not done enough and should do more on enforcement reform.” But he insists simply opposing enforcement doesn’t work. “I’ve been arguing about this for 20 years and if I say enforcement is wrong, I lose support; 1996 is the perfect example.”
“It Was Like I Died”
Hossain was in detention for another six months before he got an appeal hearing. While he was locked up, other detainees organized a hunger strike in protest of the conditions and of abuse by guards. It was one of a handful of strikes that were spreading from detention center to detention center across the country. Hossain stopped eating for several days but mostly he waited for visits from his family. With diminishing hopes of being released, Hossain’s ability to bear his detention cell was fraying.
On Aug. 31, 2007, Hossain and his lawyer appeared before the Board of Immigration Appeals. It was a short hearing. He left the courtroom and saw his family waiting on benches. “I just looked at my dad, and he seen my face, and my girlfriend was over there and she started crying. It was like I died,” Hossain recalls.
Ten weeks later, 397 days after he was detained on the border, Hossain was pulled from his detention cell and his ankles were shackled. CCA guards led him onto a bus and he was driven nine hours to the Dallas-Fort Worth airport. Twenty minutes away his family went about their day, distracted in the garden and in the kitchen.
The Hossains are still talking to lawyers to see how they might find a way for their son to return home. Feirst thinks that if they get married, he might be able to come back, and there’s some hope that he could apply for a new visa at a U.S. consulate in Bangladesh.
Northeastern’s Rosenbloom, however, says most deportees’ hopes of returning are dashed. “Once someone has been ordered removed and is outside of the country, they have a very tough set of hoops to jump through to get back. The law,” she explains, “is just not set up to let someone come back in even if the removal was based on an error of law, even if a judge has made a mistake.”
In D.C., meanwhile, some signs of the shifting strategic orientation are emerging among Democrats, too. In September, Senate Majority leader Harry Reid made a move in this direction when, under significant and mounting pressure from a coordinated and media savvy movement of students and other undocumented youth, he introduced the DREAM Act. The bill would open a path to citizenship to approximately 825,000 undocumented immigrants who graduate college or serve in the military. Other bills, including agricultural-worker legalization and one that makes it easier for immigrants to bring their families to the U.S. are being discussed as possible routes to citizenship.
Meanwhile, national and local groups across the country are increasingly focused on rolling back and reforming the abuses of the enforcement regime. “If we are going to be continuing to escalate what we call enforcement, or mass deportation,” says Michelle Fei, director of the Immigrant Defense Project in New York City, “many … who are coming forward to register or to get legalized might actually land in deportation. Enforcement will undercut the promise of reform. We don’t want a system that is rounding people up and deporting people without due process.”
Beltway groups like Sharry’s are tentatively saying they agree. “Frankly,” says Sharry, “most of America’s Voice’s work in the future may be to join with advocates to say this enforcement is wrong-headed. We may need to adjust strategy to the state and local level, with Secure Communities. We’ll see how the election plays out but we’re thinking we need to throw down on fighting Arizona copycats around the country.”
The makeup of Congress after November will significantly determine what happens next. But unless Obama uses his administrative authority to halt mass deportations, there will certainly be many more Shahed Hossains.
Quazi Hossain, hunched over in a black leather chair in his living room, remembers the last day he saw his son. “In San Antonio, in the court, that was the last time I saw him face to face. I don’t know when I can see him again, ever. If ever I can see him again.”
In Dhaka, Shahed Hossain, walks into a small room where he keeps a pigeon coup he’s developed to pass time. He pulls open the latch and the birds stream out, their wings flapping furiously. He latches the cage and steps outside, his eyes darting from bird to bird above him as if deciding which one to follow.
“They’ll be back,” he says.
Brian Palmer contributed reporting from Bangladesh, which was supported by the Investigative Fund at The Nation Institute.
Comprehensive Immigration Reform Arrives
0The long-awaited, much-debated Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2010 has arrived. And to the surprise of no one in the immigrant rights movement, it’s kind of a letdown. While the bill includes basic reforms that the immigrant rights movement has been demanding for decades, the bill is weighed down by heavy enforcement which are supposed to help comprehensive reform win bipartisan support.
The bill, introduced by Senators Bob Menendez and Patrick Leahy, opens with the promise that the nation’s undocumented will not be allowed to adjust their status to become authorized immigrants until a set of so-called “triggers” are met. The pre-conditions for legalization call for increased militarization of the border and increased interior enforcement, including bringing Immigration and Customs Enforcement staffing up to 6,410 agents and 185 work site enforcement auditors. No one could become a legal resident until Customs and Border Protection brings its ranks up to 21,000 border patrol agents–a number it is already on pace to achieve soon–and until the controversial E-Verify program is fully implemented and mandatory for employers.
The bill includes AgJOBS, a bill to benefit immigrants who do agricultural work, and the DREAM Act, which would allow undocumented youth who commit to college or the military the right to permanent residency. Advocates have been trying to win passage of the two smaller immigration fixes, considered low-hanging fruit for immigration reformers, all year long but to no avail. The Menendez bill also attempts to prevent the creation of more SB 1070′s by restating explicitly that states do not have the right to enact their own immigration laws. But immigration restrictionists are not a crowd easily deterred by things such as constitutionality.
Most importantly, the Menendez bill includes the Uniting American Families Act, which would allow citizens to sponsor their same-sex partners. Currently, gay couples are locked out of marriage sponsorship provisions that hetero couples have always had access to.
Menendez said that he’s hoping to push the bill during the lame duck session, which would give the massive 857-page bill just weeks for debate. There is little chance the bill will make it out of committee or even onto the floor for a vote during this session. Menendez and Leahy introduced the bill on Wednesday, hours before Congress adjourned for midterm elections until November 15. Menendez insists his bill is just laying the groundwork for a new class of congressional leaders. “A lot of senators are retiring and might be willing to look at the issue,” Menendez said on Sunday. “We need something to jump off from if we’re going to go into it in the early part of the next Congress.”
Many have speculated that Menendez introduced the bill as a last-ditch effort to remind Latino voters that Congressional Democrats are not the ones to blame for the lack of movement on immigration reform during Obama’s tenure.
“[Americans] don’t want partisan bickering and demonizing, they want a commonsense solution that addresses the realities of the situation, stops the flow across our borders and protects our economy,” Menendez said in a statement last week. “If we can put political grandstanding aside and work together on a comprehensive, middle-of-the-road bill like this one, we can bring all sides to the table.”
But it’s the kind of attempt at earnest, good-faith governing that comes off more like naivete these days in the face of an intractable Republican party, who want to have it both ways. They’ve put up a brick wall against any attempt to move immigration reform this year, most recently in September when they killed the defense authorization bill because it included the DREAM Act and a “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal. But this weekend John Cornyn showed up on the Sunday talk show circuit to blame President Obama for not delivering on his promise to get immigration reform done in his first year of office.
Perhaps in an effort to combat their obstructionist reputation, Utah Senator Orrin Hatch introduced the Republican response to CIR 2010 with his own “Strengthening Our Commitment to Legal Immigration and America’s Security Act” on the same day that Menendez and Leahy introduced their bill. Hatch’s bill offers a host of stronger immigration enforcement ideas without offering much in the way of solutions for what to do about the estimated 11 million Americans who are undocumented.
The Immigration Policy Center has a thorough rundown of the Menendez bill.
DREAM Act Moves to the Top of the List
0![]()
In what can only be called a major win for youth activists, Democrats may finally be moving to pull the Dream Act away from comprehensive immigration reform. Yesterday, Nevada Sen. Harry Reid met with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to discuss the possibility of moving the Dream Act as a standalone bill.
In so doing, Reid proved he’s not been deaf to the cries coming from outside–and occasionally inside–his office to pass the Dream Act this year. Yesterday Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who’s been hosting three fasting Dream Act activists outside her Los Angeles office since last week, said that she supports “incremental change,” code for a piecemeal approach that pursues smaller bills than one central overhaul to immigration reform.
The news comes on the heels of a week of public actions to get the Dream Act passed as a standalone bill. Last week, 21 Dream Act activists were arrested for a sit-in they staged in Democratic and Republican congressional offices in D.C. If passed, the Dream Act would allow hundreds of thousands of undocumented youth with a clean criminal record and a two-year commitment to either the military or college to adjust their status. Young people have been trying to pass some version of the Dream Act for almost ten years.
The new momentum around the Dream Act is also a tacit acknowledgment of what is by now plain fact: comprehensive reform won’t happen this year. Beltway immigrant rights groups which have continuously urged the immigrant community to wait for comprehensive reform, seem to be coming around to this reality as well. The news about Reid’s meeting with Pelosi came from America’s Voice, a DC non-profit run by Frank Sharry, who’s the former executive director of the National Immigration Forum. Sharry praised Reid’s action on the Dream Act, calling it “the right thing” in the face of an intractable Congress. And yesterday, the Washington Post reported that other immigrant rights groups have decided to change course and put pressure on Congress to pass the Dream Act and Ag Jobs, the bill between farm worker unions and businesses that would provide employment authorization and legal residence for farmworkers.
But Democrats’ habitual refusal to acknowledge the end of comprehensive immigration reform wasn’t based on hopeful ignorance or even naivete so much as it was a strategy to hold off talk on immigration as mid-term elections near. In the meantime, Democrats have been able to keep some distance (but not that much) from Republicans, who make offensive and plainly untrue anti-immigrant claims regularly and with no provocation at all.
As activists well know, there’s never a convenient time to discuss immigration. Congress has been trying to pass comprehensive immigration reform since before Sept. 11, and came close in 2006 and 2007, when millions of people across the country turned out for massive May Day rallies. Congress failed both times.
Still, political shifts in the movement don’t come without their own growing pains.
As of yesterday, an unnamed non-profit had been pressing activists to take down a recording of a phone call between Dream Act activists and Illinois Rep. Luis Gutierrez in which Gutierrez scolds the Dreamers for their aggressive tactics. Dream Act activists would not publicly share the group’s identity.
Other immigrant rights groups outside the Beltway have acknowledged the intra-movement controversies, but remain focused on their ultimate goals, which don’t necessarily include comprehensive reform anymore. That comprehensive reform is desperately needed is common knowledge— that there may be alternatives to it is much more controversial.
“Every movement goes through this. I think it’s divisive, but only to a point,” said Laura Rivas, a researcher with the National Network for Immigrant and Refugee Rights. “It’s only divisive on the top layer, the most public groups. But the people on the ground, organizing, doing the work…people all agree at least on what they’re not going to accept.”
“I can very openly say we disagree with the narrow legislative-only strategy that the mainstream groups have been espousing for the last few years, and channeling millions of dollars into,” Rivas said.
In its current shape, immigration reform is little more than a package of enforcement-only legislation: increased funding for border security, more promises to extend and strengthen immigration enforcement for people who enter and live in the country without papers, and no end to detentions and deportations that have devastated immigrant communities.
“We agree that what we really need is rights and due process and a life free from fear and policing and without targeting,” Rivas said, adding that her organization has been relying on old-fashioned organizing to fight the local immigration enforcement that’s popping up in communities these days.
Sonia Guinansaca, a core member with the New York State Youth Leadership Council, which is pushing for the Dream Act, resisted pitting the Dream Act against comprehensive immigration reform. She says it’s not an either-or proposition. “We want CIR, but the Dream Act is a stepping stone to that. Gutierrez said, “If we fail, let’s fail together, but do we really want that? Do we want everyone to fail?”
“We want little steps. That’s how you make change, and we need to recognize that,” Guinansaca said.
Who is New SEIU President Mary Kay Henry?
0
Mary Kay Henry has been appointed the new president of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), the fastest-growing union, and the one representing janitors, homecare workers, and security guards–a huge number of whom are people of color. Her predecessor Andy Stern leaves behind a conflicting, often troubled legacy. Under his 14-year reign, the union embraced the populations that organized labor has historically excluded — people of color, domestic workers, and undocumented immigrants. But it has also undermined transparency and democracy within the union and tread into the turf of another union, UNITE HERE.
Henry’s ascension to the presidency surprised many, who expected Stern’s chosen successor, Anna Burger, to win the office. Some suggest that Henry’s victory points to internal divisions over SEIU’s direction under Stern. A letter written by four executive vice presidents in support of Henry cited her strength in building consensus to “unite our union, from top to bottom and across divisions” and “to re-establish SEIU as an important partner in the labor and progressive community.”
That’s a tall order for Henry, who was never a rank and file member of the union, but started instead as a staff researcher 30 years ago, and worked her way up the union hierarchy. She cut her teeth running campaigns against large hospital chains in the West, such as Catholic Healthcare West. When Stern became president, he named her an organizing director and head of the healthcare division. She’s the first female and openly gay leader of SEIU, founding the union’s LGBTQ Lavender Caucus.
Leon Chow, homecare director at SEIU United Healthcare Workers West (UHW) and board chair of the Chinese Progressive Association, told ColorLines that “as a female labor leader of a big union, Mary Kay Henry can empathize with what my homecare worker’s issues are.” Chow has been an organizer with UHW for 12 years, three in his present position; before working at UHW, he organized immigrant garment workers with HERE.
Chow knows his constituents: mostly immigrant women from the Philippines, China, or Central America. His workers struggle with low wages, cuts to funding for homecare, and employers hostile to organizing. “We need more resources to organize homecare workers, the more efforts we put into organizing, the more we can overcome budget cuts and anti-union challenges.”
“I think Mary Kay Henry will put more resources and the union’s efforts into organizing,” says Chow, “I’m looking forward to organizing more people of color and immigrants into the union.” But, one thing that still stands in the way is comprehensive immigration reform.
Henry has condemned the passage of SB 1070 in Arizona, which she called “an incredible injustice”, in interviews after her presidency was announced, and SEIU has joined the national effort to boycott Arizona. (You can sign onto an Arizona boycott pledge at a SEIU-sponsored website, ItStopsInArizona.com.) Henry pledged $4 million to governors races in seven states, including challenging Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, who’s up for reelection this year.
Pushing for comprehensive immigration reform is also on Henry’s agenda, because as she says, “fighting on behalf of immigrants is in our union’s DNA.” Chow predicts that it will be a difficult battle. “If there’s anything after healthcare, immigration reform is a priority and an even bigger challenge.”
Photo credit: Creative Commons/Leadership Conference on Civil Rights
Who is New SEIU President Mary Kay Henry?
0
Mary Kay Henry has been appointed the new president of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), the fastest-growing union, and the one representing janitors, homecare workers, and security guards–a huge number of whom are people of color. Her predecessor Andy Stern leaves behind a conflicting, often troubled legacy. Under his 14-year reign, the union embraced the populations that organized labor has historically excluded — people of color, domestic workers, and undocumented immigrants. But it has also undermined transparency and democracy within the union and tread into the turf of another union, UNITE HERE.
Henry’s ascension to the presidency surprised many, who expected Stern’s chosen successor, Anna Burger, to win the office. Some suggest that Henry’s victory points to internal divisions over SEIU’s direction under Stern. A letter written by four executive vice presidents in support of Henry cited her strength in building consensus to “unite our union, from top to bottom and across divisions” and “to re-establish SEIU as an important partner in the labor and progressive community.”
That’s a tall order for Henry, who was never a rank and file member of the union, but started instead as a staff researcher 30 years ago, and worked her way up the union hierarchy. She cut her teeth running campaigns against large hospital chains in the West, such as Catholic Healthcare West. When Stern became president, he named her an organizing director and head of the healthcare division. She’s the first female and openly gay leader of SEIU, founding the union’s LGBTQ Lavender Caucus.
Leon Chow, homecare director at SEIU United Healthcare Workers West (UHW) and board chair of the Chinese Progressive Association, told ColorLines that “as a female labor leader of a big union, Mary Kay Henry can empathize with what my homecare worker’s issues are.” Chow has been an organizer with UHW for 12 years, three in his present position; before working at UHW, he organized immigrant garment workers with HERE.
Chow knows his constituents: mostly immigrant women from the Philippines, China, or Central America. His workers struggle with low wages, cuts to funding for homecare, and employers hostile to organizing. “We need more resources to organize homecare workers, the more efforts we put into organizing, the more we can overcome budget cuts and anti-union challenges.”
“I think Mary Kay Henry will put more resources and the union’s efforts into organizing,” says Chow, “I’m looking forward to organizing more people of color and immigrants into the union.” But, one thing that still stands in the way is comprehensive immigration reform.
Henry has condemned the passage of SB 1070 in Arizona, which she called “an incredible injustice”, in interviews after her presidency was announced, and SEIU has joined the national effort to boycott Arizona. (You can sign onto an Arizona boycott pledge at a SEIU-sponsored website, ItStopsInArizona.com.) Henry pledged $4 million to governors races in seven states, including challenging Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, who’s up for reelection this year.
Pushing for comprehensive immigration reform is also on Henry’s agenda, because as she says, “fighting on behalf of immigrants is in our union’s DNA.” Chow predicts that it will be a difficult battle. “If there’s anything after healthcare, immigration reform is a priority and an even bigger challenge.”
Photo credit: Creative Commons/Leadership Conference on Civil Rights
Washington’s War of Words Over Immigration Heats Up
0After days of blistering criticism from Illinois Rep. Luis Gutierrez, both the White House and Congressional Hispanic Caucus leadership pushed back yesterday on immigration reform, insisting the process is moving along. White House spokesperson Bill Burton told Roll Call that the administration is still working on a bipartisan bill and expects immigration reform “will be addressed very soon.”
The statement came after Wall Street Journal reported President Obama called Massachusetts Republican Sen. Scott Brown yesterday to lobby for his support on a bipartisan bill, presumably the enforcement-heavy bill Sens. Charles Schumer and Lindsey Graham have been working on for months. Graham has said health care reform soured him on working with Democrats on immigration. Majority Leader Harry Reid, who’s failing reelection campaign has prompted him to thrash around on the topic, told local reporters that Democrats need to look beyond Graham to moderate Republicans like Brown. But WSJ’s report doesn’t make Obama’s outreach sound promising:
“He called me originally about illegal immigration, something that he wanted me to look at that was coming down the pike,” Brown says of the call, which also roamed onto other topics like basketball and financial regulation. “I told him and others that I will read anything and make a judgment when it comes forth.”
Alluding to the issue a few minutes later, Brown clarified what he told Obama. “When I said I have an open mind, it means I have an open mind to read the bill,” he said. “That doesn’t mean that I will vote for granting amnesty to anyone. But I want to be respectful to the president and to any member who brings me a proposal.”
Meanwhile, Congressional Hispanic Caucus leadership has rushed to the Democrats’ defense.
CHC Chair Rep. Nydia Velazquez told Roll Call, “I think the president understands the importance of this issue not only from a human perspective, but also its fundamental importance to the Latino community.” Vice chair Rep. Charlie Gonzalez insisted Obama has “kept his word” and that political realities — presumably the Democrats’ loss of a 60th vote — mean “the lift has been made a little heavier for everyone.”
Gutierrez has argued loudly in recent days that Obama is ignoring his campaign vow to Latinos and has suggested that failure will drive Latino voters to “refuse to participate” in the November elections.
Meanwhile, Graham’s cold feet on a bipartisan bill haven’t kept him out of the far right’s line of fire. The rabidly anti-immigrant group Americans for Legal Immigration PAC (ALIPAC) has launched a campaign professing to out Graham as gay. In a speech to a Tea Party rally — which is making the web rounds via YouTube — the group’s leader, William Gheen, speculated that Graham’s being blackmailed into participating in immigration reform because of his “secret.” “I need to figure out why you’re trying to sell out your own countrymen and I need to make sure you being gay isn’t it,” Gheen said.
Seems the debate’s off to a civil start.
Gutierrez Rattles Election Saber at Obama Over Immigration
0Rep. Luis Gutierrez is pissed. The Chicago Democrat and Congressional Hispanic Caucus immigration task force chair was once one of President Obama’s loudest Latino advocates. No longer. Here’s what he had to say about the November elections in today’s The Hill: “We can stay home. … We can say, ‘You know what? There is a third option: We can refuse to participate.’ ”
Gutierrez is tired of waiting for the administration to act on immigration reform. In a weekend HuffPo column, he pointedly tied Arizona’s draconian new racial-profiling law to Obama’s failed leadership on immigration. Now, in a lengthy The Hill profile, Gutierrez speaks at length about the need for an “escalation” in activism.
“We’re going to make it uncomfortable for the Democratic Party,” Gutierrez said, adding that immigration advocates would step up the pressure by drawing lessons from the movements for civil rights and women’s suffrage. “There’ll probably be civil disobedience. There will probably be a number of different actions. What we have to do is we have to break through this wall of silence, because we’re invisible.”
Gutierrez is not alone. Rep. Xavier Becerra (D-Calif.), a CHC member who serves in the Democratic leadership, said earlier this month that Latinos view the president with “suspicion” for failing to meet expectations.
Gutierrez notes as well that Obama’s rhetoric has shifted meaningfully on immigration. During the campaign, he used the term “undocumented workers;” by the time health care debate heated up he was saying “illegal immigrants” wouldn’t be covered.
Michelle: Congress, not Prez to Blame for Slow Immigration Reform
0First Lady Michelle Obama told Univision in Mexico yesterday that the administration hasn’t moved immigration reform to the front burner, as promised, because Congress is too divided. As The Hill reports, Obama argued,
“[W]hat we all have to understand in the United States, in Mexico and around the world is that the president needs the support of two parties of Congress to get major reform done,” the first lady said.
“We saw the challenges that take place with just getting healthcare reform so there are real challenges ahead,” she continued, “but I know that my husband is committed and understands that a comprehensive and smart immigration reform policy is going to benefit the United States and Mexico and other countries around the world.”
Rep. Luis Gutierrez, who leads the Congressional Hispanic Caucus’ immigration task force, pointedly disagrees with this perspective. Gutierrez argues that Arizona’s new law mandating local cops check immigration status of people suspected of being undocumented — effectively making racial profiling of Latinos state law — and a massive federal raid in the state Friday offer “a horrifying glimpse at what our future holds across the country if we continue down the path the Obama administration is leading us on immigration.”
In a weekend HuffPo op-ed, Gutierrez went on to write,
President Obama, who promised immigration reform but has failed to make it a priority or use his office to make good on his campaign promises, is now able to see what lies ahead. The Obama administration has escalated mass deportation as our singular approach to immigrants and this has combined in Arizona with anti-immigrant hysteria that is festering to the point that state and local elected opportunists are taking matters into their own hands – with complete federal acquiescence.
[snip]
At a minimum, the President has failed to put his heart into reforming immigration. He has dropped the ball in the first year of his presidency and as we head into election season in his second year, we are seeing more of the same. Unless the President acts forcefully in the coming weeks to drive the immigration reform issue forward, we are going to see a lot more of the devastation we are seeing in Arizona this week.
I know the President knows what we need to do. We need comprehensive immigration reform to diffuse the crisis we are facing. We need the federal government to assert their supremacy over the immigration issue and make it clear to state legislatures, cowboy cops, and the American people that the federal government is in charge and effectively enforcing and regulating immigration. We need legal immigration as an alternative to illegal immigration and a way of getting the millions of unauthorized immigrants already here to get legal and get in compliance with our laws.
The President knows what we must do, but he alone must summon the political will in Washington to do it. The short-run calculations of politics are deeply rooted and hard to overcome, but as we saw in the health care debate, he can do it if he wants to. He needs to stop appeasing those who embrace the persistent fantasy of mass deportation or the delusion that by making America so hostile and uninviting, tens of millions of immigrants will deport themselves. Obama the President needs to stand up for what Obama the candidate and what Obama the Senator and what Obama the Chicago community organizer stood for and lead the Congress towards reform.