Congress
Congressional Leaders Challenge Progressives to Keep Pushing for Immigration Reform
originally posted by Seth Hoy for Immigration Impact [click here]
Jul 26th
In front of more than 2000 progressive bloggers and activists Saturday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Sen. Harry Reid and several other keynote speakers urged progressives to “finish what we’ve started” and keep beating the progressive drum for change. After enumerating major Democratic legislative victories this year (health care, financial regulation, and an economic stimulus plan to name a few), Congressional leaders acknowledged the legislative priorities that lie ahead—especially immigration. While Republicans continue to stall immigration reform efforts in Congress and with harsh anti-immigrant legislation brewing in other states, immigration has emerged as a national hot button issue. And with mid-term elections around the corner, progressives want to know that Democratic leadership is actually going to lead.
At the fifth annual Netroots Nation conference in Las Vegas this weekend, Democratic leadership rallied the progressive voice to keep doing what they’re doing—holding Congress accountable and moving the progressive agenda forward. A large part of that progressive agenda is immigration reform—an issue that many progressives feel the Administration has yet to throw its full weight behind. In a Q&A forum, progressive bloggers and activists held Speaker Pelosi’s and Sen. Reid’s feet to the fire on the immigration front. With Congressional Republicans blocking comprehensive immigration reform (CIR), many wondered about the viability of passing the DREAM Act this year. Here’s what Democratic leadership had to say:
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA):
There is a difference of opinion on how we go forward on [the DREAM Act]. We are committed to comprehensive immigration reform (CIR). We don’t want to take one piece and leave the rest of the undocumented behind. We need to secure [the] border, enforce laws, stop the exploitation of workers, and provide a path to legalization. If we take off rosier pieces, it will diminish the prospect for CIR. Others have a different view, but that’s a debate we’re having. Arizona also shouts out for the need for CIR which supports all the things I mentioned. We know what our values are as a country. We continue to meet with business and evangelical communities, not our usual allies, but who both understand the need for CIR. We need to keep the heat on for when the time is right to pass CIR, which will be soon. We’re all cosponsor of DREAM Act, but we don’t want to diminish the support for CIR.
Senator Harry Reid (D-NV):
We’re still working on CIR. We’re not finished after this work period before Congress goes out. We still have a lame duck session, so we’re not giving up. No one has worked harder on immigration then me. I’ve got the stars to show it. We spent more time last session on immigration than any other issue.
Those people screaming the loudest, the Senators from Arizona, won’t let us move on immigration. I believe we need CIR. We need to take care of our borders, get a guest worker program that includes more than just AgJobs, bring people out of the shadows, get right with the law, pay taxes, and get to the end of the line…which for some is thirteen years long. Remember, more than half of these undocumented immigrants have American children. We can’t do what Rush Limbaugh wants us to do. There’s no way we can ship them back to somewhere else. This is not amnesty, it’s fairness.
I’ve worked really hard to push for CIR. I’m working with Durbin and Lugar. But I’m not going to the DREAM Act unless I’ve got the 60 votes. I won’t disappoint all those young men and women if I don’t have the votes. So that’s the story.
So where does that leave us? A dose of political reality is never fun to swallow, but both leaders paint a pretty clear picture of an uphill battle for immigration reform of any kind this fall. The upcoming recess and elections, the lack of votes for CIR, and the questionable number of votes out there for the DREAM Act are all sobering reminders that the work isn’t over. The difficulty of immigration reform is also a strange reminder of just how much Congress has accomplished this year, despite overwhelming obstacles. That Republicans and some Democrats are digging their heels in on immigration could mean that progressives haven’t yet found a way to make this issue click for other political interest groups. Despite more and more involvement by conservatives, evangelicals, and law enforcement officials, immigration remains an issue that doesn’t get a lot of bipartisan support. While progressives may chastise their leaders for not doing enough, it was probably pretty fair of Pelosi and Reid to challenge progressives as well.
Photo by wellsy.
Undocumented Youth Pin DREAMs on Congressional Action
originally posted by Michele Waslin for Immigration Impact [click here]
Jul 13th
Every year, undocumented immigrants come to the U.S. along with their young children. These kids grow up in the U.S., speak English, and hang out with their friends just like other American kids. But unlike their classmates, they cannot join the military, work, or pursue their dreams because they don’t have legal status. Every year, roughly 65,000 undocumented students graduate from high school, but many don’t apply for college, even when they’re at the top of their class, because they can’t afford it. These hard-working students are not eligible for loans or work study and must often pay high out-of-state or international tuition rates. They often live in fear of detection by immigration authorities. The DREAM Act—which would benefit these students as well as the U.S. economy—proposes to fix these problems, but not without the political will of Congress.
The Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act, or the “DREAM Act” (S. 729 and H.R. 1751), addresses the plight of young undocumented immigrants who, growing up in the United States, wish to go to college and obtain lawful employment. By providing a path to legal permanent status, the DREAM Act would create a needed incentive for students to stay in school, pursue higher education or join the military.
According to a new report by the Migration Policy Institute (MPI), approximately 114,000 potential beneficiaries with at least an associate’s degree would be immediately eligible for conditional legal permanent resident (LPR) status. Another 612,000 potential beneficiaries would be immediately eligible for conditional status because they already have a high school diploma or GED and 934,000 children under 18 could be eligible for conditional LPR status in the future under the DREAM Act.
Experts report that the DREAM Act would have economic and social benefits for the U.S. According to a fact check by the Immigration Policy Center (IPC), the DREAM Act would:
- Provides an opportunity to raise individual wages and the resulting tax contributions. If legalized, these students would get a better education and better jobs and would earn more and pay more in taxes.
- Allow legalized immigrants to invest in the U.S. economy. Removing the uncertainty of unauthorized status allows legalized immigrants to earn higher wages and move into higher-paying occupations, and also encourages them to invest more in their own education, open bank accounts, buy homes, and start businesses.
- Reduce the drop-out rate for immigrant students by creating a strong incentive for undocumented students to remain in school until graduation
- Help universities by increasing school revenues as students who would not normally attend college start to pay tuition.
- Aid military recruiting. According to West Point Professor Lt. Col. Margaret Stock, the DREAM Act “would be tremendously beneficial to the military. It gives the opportunity to enlist hundreds of thousands of high-quality people.”
On the legislative end, the DREAM Act has come up for a vote several times in past years and has garnered as many as 48 co-sponsors in the Senate and 152 in the House; it passed the Senate Judiciary Committee twice; and it received more than 50 votes as a stand-alone bill. Yet it has failed to become law. Some Members of Congress who support DREAM in principle have voted against it because they want to see it pass as part of a broader immigration reform effort and fear that passage of the DREAM Act alone would hamper the possibility of larger reform. For example, Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA)—then a Republican, now a Democrat—voted against the bill because he thought it would weaken the chances of CIR, not because he disagreed with the contents of the bill. According to a recent poll, the DREAM Act has garnered public support across party lines with as many as 70% of Americans favoring the DREAM Act.
Recently, many Republicans have come under fire for supporting any form of immigration “amnesty,” including the DREAM Act, and some former supporters have switched their positions. Earlier this May, five immigrants sat in the office of Senator John McCain (R-AZ) and refused to leave, asking him to sponsor DREAM. In past years, Senator McCain was a co-sponsor for the DREAM Act, but became more conservative on immigration issues during his 2008 presidential campaign and continues to do so during his 2010 Senate campaign, where he is facing a primary challenge from the right.
Research has shown that the DREAM Act would be a boon to the economy and the U.S. workforce. Moreover, the DREAM Act create an opportunity for many young people to get on the path to permanent legal status, improve their education, invest in themselves and their communities, and serve their country. But for the DREAM Act to pass, it would likely need the support of both the moderate Republicans who supported it in the past, as well as the Democrats who may be holding out hope for CIR.
Photo by SomewhereinAK.
It’s the Constitution, Governors! Why Playing Politics with the DOJ’s Lawsuit is a Bad Idea
originally posted by Mary Giovagnoli for Immigration Impact [click here]
Jul 12th
Republican and Democratic governors alike might need a tutorial on the concept of checks and balances, given the dismay they are expressing over the federal government’s lawsuit against Arizona’s SB 1070. Democrats are purportedly worried that it will hurt their chances in tough state elections, while Republicans are calling the lawsuit hypocritical because the federal government is litigating instead of legislating immigration.
Let’s review. As the lawsuit very clearly and eloquently lays out, the Constitution empowers Congress to regulate immigration. The President and his executive branch carry out the laws (and are given the discretion regarding how to exercise them). And when the states pass laws that conflict with this scheme, the federal courts are the referee.
So when the executive branch determines that a state law fundamentally upsets this scheme—in other words, violates the Constitution—the government needs to act. Sorry that the timing stinks. Sorry that Congress hasn’t done its job. Sorry that this may not play out very well with some members of the public who don’t understand that maintaining checks and balances requires action. Sorry that this makes Arizona out to be the constitutional bully that its state legislature is trying so hard to be. But the federal government is defending its constitutional right to regulate immigration law.
You have to wonder if the critics have bothered to read United States v. Arizona, which unfolds like a primer on the structure of the federal/state relationship. The lawsuit is a crisp and detached analysis of federal constitutional obligations and responsibilities regarding immigration and a point by point analysis of the manner in which SB 1070 violates and undermines that scheme. Moreover, it makes the very compelling point that immigration is inherently a federal responsibility precisely because it engages many competing national interests:
In crafting federal immigration law and policy, Congress has necessarily taken into account multiple and often competing national interests. Assuring effective enforcement of the provisions against illegal migration and unlawful presence is a highly important interest, but is not the singular goal of the federal immigration laws. The laws also take into account other uniquely national interests, including facilitating trade and commerce, welcoming those foreign nationals who visit or immigrate lawfully and ensuring their fair and equitable treatment wherever they may reside, responding to humanitarian concerns at the global and individual levels; and otherwise ensuring that the e treatment of aliens present in our nation does not harm our foreign relations with the countries from which they come or jeopardize the treatment of U.S. citizens abroad.
The suit argues that by enacting S.B. 1070, Arizona “attempts to second guess federal policies and re-order federal priorities in the area of immigration enforcement and to directly regulate immigration and the conditions of an alien’s entry and presence in the Unites States despite the fact that these are federal domains.” The suit notes that Arizona explicitly acknowledges that the intent of the law is attrition through enforcement (code for make the laws so harsh that people leave the state) which means that it is not taking into account any of the other vital immigration priorities and, in the process, undermines the federal scheme enacted by Congress.
Of course, under this analysis, the federal government has to fight back. As Maryland governor Martin O’Malley noted:
The president doesn’t have control over some of the timing of things that happen. When those things arise, you can’t be too precious about what’s in it for your own personal political timing or even your party’s timing. When matters like this arise, I think the president has to take a principled stand.
Ironically, that principled stand essentially means defending Congress’s right to pass federal law, even when it can’t or won’t do it. Rather than criticizing the President for moving forward on a crucial constitutional issue, Democrats should be kicking themselves for failing to be brave enough to take the issue on. And Republicans should stop throwing firebombs and start working on immigration reform.
Photo by jamess.
President Obama Urges Republicans to Help Bridge Bipartisan Divide on Immigration
originally posted by Seth Hoy for Immigration Impact [click here]
Jul 1st
Today, President Obama delivered his first major immigration speech at American University urging Republicans to put bipartisan and election politics aside and help Democrats fix our broken immigration system once and for all. With an audience of law enforcement, elected officials, and evangelical, business, labor, and community leaders, the President provided a framework for understanding the depth and complexity of the immigration issue—laying out the fundamental problems with our immigration system while highlighting the critical role immigrants have and continue to play in strengthening America. The President then asked Republican leadership to join his Administration’s efforts to step up, take responsibility and pass an immigration reform bill.
In today’s speech, the President made it clear that this Administration is ready to move forward. Action is needed, but he needs Republicans support.
Our task then is to make our national laws actually work – to shape a system that reflects our values as a nation of laws and a nation of immigrants. And that means being honest about the problem, and getting past the false debates that divide the country rather than bring it together.
The question now is whether we will have the courage and the political will to pass a bill through Congress, to finally get it done… I’m ready to move forward; the majority of Democrats are ready to move forward; and I believe the majority of Americans are ready to move forward. But the fact is, without bipartisan support, as we had just a few years ago, we cannot solve this problem. Reform that brings accountability to our immigration system cannot pass without Republican votes. That is the political and mathematical reality. The only way to reduce the risk that this effort will again falter because of politics is if members of both parties are willing to take responsibility for solving this problem once and for all.
I believe we can put politics aside and finally have an immigration system that’s accountable. I believe we can appeal not to people’s fears but to their hopes, to their highest ideals, because that’s who we are as Americans.
Today’s speech follows back to back White House meetings this week with immigration advocates, faith groups, labor leaders and the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. The speech also follows the President’s request for $600 million in additional border security spending to fund 1,000 additional Border Patrol agents, 160 additional ICE agents, and improved infrastructure along the Southwest Border. Although the President mentioned Arizona’s harsh immigration law, he did not comment on Department of Justice’s forthcoming legal challenge. The President did, however, reiterate that fixing the border alone is not a long term solution to our immigration problems.
Although today’s speech contained no new policy initiatives or a congressional timetable for reform, the President certainly made the case for why immigration is such an important issue. Now that the stage is set for a renewed and heightened reform effort, immigration advocates are waiting for the President to turn his words into action and show the same leadership moving immigration reform legislation forward that he showed today.
Photo by Peter Souza.
Experts Agree that Border is More Secure than Ever: Now What?
originally posted by Michele Waslin for Immigration Impact [click here]
Jun 29th
A new report on border security issued by Center for American Progress adds yet more evidence to the argument that the U.S. government is already doing plenty about border security. Brick by Brick: A Half-Decade of Immigration Enforcement and the Need for Comprehensive Immigration Reform, written by Former DHS Assistant Secretary for Border and Transportation Security Policy Stewart Verdery, details the range of programs that have been implemented in the last five years and their impact on the border. The report cautions, however, that securing the border is an elusive goal, and without comprehensive immigration reform, we will never achieve the real objectives needed to end illegal immigration.
In a panel discussion highlighting the report, Verdery and others made it clear that “securing the border first” is an empty demand because the border is more secure than ever, immigration enforcement has increased dramatically, and comprehensive immigration reform is needed now. It is also clear that restrictionists and others on the “enforcement first” bandwagon have not been paying attention.
Verdery and fellow panelist DHS Principal Deputy General Counsel David Martin pointed out that the federal government has spent billions of dollars on border and interior enforcement over the last several years, and that “the enforcement capabilities and resources now available to law enforcement are considerably stronger than during the intense debates of the last decade.”
The failed 2007 comprehensive immigration reform bill included enforcement “benchmarks” that DHS would have to reach before other elements of the bill could be enacted. These benchmarks included:
- Establishing operational control of the Mexican border
- Expanding Border Patrol staffing
- Constructing strong physical and electronic border barriers
- Implementing a “catch and return” policy
- Deploying workplace enforcement tools
Verdery and the other panelists systematically listed all of the enforcement enhancements that have been put in place since then and demonstrated that all of these benchmarks have been met.
- The Secretary of DHS has established and demonstrated operational control; CBP’s budget and personnel has increased; apprehensions along the border have decreased.
- The Border Patrol has 20,000 full-time agents.
- At least 300 miles of vehicle barriers, 370 miles of fencing, and 105 ground-based radar and camera towers have been installed, and four unmanned aerial vehicles are in operation.
- DHS is detaining all removable immigrants apprehended at the border, except in certain humanitarian circumstances.
- The E-Verify system has grown exponentially, and employer audits have led to 2,069 audits targeting employers for hiring unauthorized workers.
Verdery also pointed to US-VISIT, the 287(g) conference, the Visa Security Program, the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI) and other enforcement initiatives that have expanded DHS’s immigration enforcement efforts and resources in the years since CIR failed.
The panelists concluded that it is imperative that we move forward with CIR; there are no more excuses. Panelist Ted Alden of the Council on Foreign Relations stated that “reform is being held hostage to an idea of border security that isn’t defined.” Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano has said that those opposed to CIR keep “moving the goalposts.” David Martin stated, “It is artificial to separate out border security and make it a condition for reform.”
Once again, those who call for “enforcement first” have been put on the spot. Will any amount of enforcement ever be enough to move them to the next step? Will they continue to move the goalposts? Or will they finally recognize that comprehensive immigration reform is ultimately about securing our borders?
Photo by ThreadedThoughts.
Fremont Residents Pass Restrictive and Costly Immigration Ordinance
originally posted by Seth Hoy for Immigration Impact [click here]
Jun 22nd
With frustrations running high over a lack of federal action on immigration, Fremont, Nebraska joined Arizona in restricting immigration. In a special election held yesterday, voters in Fremont passed an ordinance that will require businesses to verify employees’ immigration status and renters to apply for an occupancy license—which also requires a legal status check—before renting an apartment or home. The town of Fremont has just 25,000 people—93% of whom are white—and is surrounded by large meat packing plants. Although many are certain that legal challenges will keep the ordinance from taking effect, Fremont’s new ordinance could be a bellwether of similar legislation in other states if Congress continues to stall on an immigration overhaul.
Yesterday’s special election was a product of a two year long battle between city council and residents when, in 2008, a city council member suggested a measure to keep illegal immigrants out. After a highly contentious town hall debate, the city council voted down the ordinance with the rationale that the immigration measures fall under federal jurisdiction. Fremont residents, however, were not satisfied. They won a referendum after taking the matter to the Nebraska Supreme Court. It’s also important to note that Fremont’s new ordinance was written by restrictionist Kris Kobach, author of Arizona’s immigration law.
So what drove Fremont residents to pass this restrictive ordinance? According to the Associated Press, Fremont’s 4.9% unemployment rate matches Nebraska’s—both of which are well below the national average of 9.7%. David Drozd, a census expert at the University of Nebraska at Omaha, estimates Fremont’s Hispanic population at around 2,060—up from 1,085 in 2000. Krista Kjeldgaard, a former teacher and now a volunteer at Fremont One Future, compares the passage of the law with the recent uptick in anti-immigrant hysteria:
What’s driving all of this is just fear of the unknown. I think that people are not aware of the complexity of the entire immigration system. I think that’s been watered down to be a very simple issue of illegal and legal and it’s not that simple. It’s far more complex than that.
Aside from forthcoming legal challenges (similar legislation in Hazleton, PA and Farmers Branch, TX were passed, struck down by the courts and are still in costly litigation), Fremont City Councilman Scott Getzschman, who opposed the ordinance, said the new ordinance is going to cost Fremont:
In a community of 25,000, it’s going to be hard to take on the whole country, and it will be costly to do so.
Immigrants, both legal and undocumented, are vital to Nebraska’s economy. According to one study out of the University of Nebraska at Omaha, immigrant spending accounted for $1.6 billion in total production in Nebraska and generated roughly 12,000 jobs for the state in 2006—in addition to the $154 million immigrants contributed in property, income and sales tax. Another study by the Perryman Group estimates that if all unauthorized immigrants were removed from Nebraska, the state would lose $852.4 million in expenditures, $378.6 million in economic output, and approximately 5,400 jobs, even accounting for adequate market adjustment time.
With a low undocumented population, a lower unemployment rate than the rest of the country and an ordinance that will more than likely cost Fremont jobs and money, Fremont residents’ motivation for passing this ordinance is symbolic of a larger dissatisfaction with federal inaction. Numerous polls indicate that Americans not only support these restrictive immigration measures, but more importantly, support a larger federal immigration overhaul. It’s not that these towns are simply anti-immigrant—although the laws’ authors certainly are—it’s that voters want change and haven’t been presented with any other option. As more and more states introduce restrictive immigration measures, Congress needs to wake up, put partisan/election politics aside and confront a problem that voters nationwide clearly care deeply about.
Photo by brotherM.
An Anti-Immigrant Franchise Coming to a State Near You
originally posted by Wendy Sefsaf for Immigration Impact [click here]
Jun 21st
Americans are frustrated by a lot of things these days and immigration is no exception. What specifically annoys people about immigration is different depending on their vantage point. Those who are caught up in the labyrinth of immigration processing and the complicated inner-workings of the immigration agency are frustrated. Those who can’t even get their foot in the agencies door because they have no way to legalize are stuck in limbo. Then there are those who may have no personal connection to immigration and have never dealt with the difficult process of legalization, but are concerned about the all too common stories about the havoc born from our broken immigration system. So it isn’t at all surprising that many Americans are looking high and low for solutions.
What’s disturbing, however, is that the space left open by federal inaction on immigration has been seized on by harsh, restrictionist, anti-immigrant groups who are creating a franchise of anti-immigrant legislation that they hope to duplicate across the nation. You don’t have to search very far to find the groups behind this law who were launched and funded by John Tanton (the notorious Michigan opthamologist who has long funded anti-immigration groups). It also takes minimal digging to see these groups’ connections and the tactics they use to spread SB1070 style legislation.
So if these bad guys and their intolerant “throw them all out” approach won’t work, what can states do? Finding the solutions that will satisfy different group lies in understanding what frustrates them about our immigration problems. While a big bill in Congress is a good start, it won’t be the end-all-be-all for managing frustration levels. As Congress lags, how can states respond to federal inaction without having to get into bed with the “send them all home” crowd?
While some of the traditional gateway states may be better at integrating immigrants than others, there are still many states engineering programs that bring immigrants into the fold and making them part of the growth and rebirth of some communities. A mix of integration programming gets immigrants acclimated, learning English and adapting to the new culture might be the solution in some places. Certainly individuals pressing members of their congressional delegations to get off the fence and finally enact reform would help, too. Thinking and talking about what can be done—and doing so with intellectual honesty—is critical. However, it’s also important that in devising solutions, we stick to the basic American principals and ideals: fairness, due process and equal opportunity. When we start from this place, we can devise solutions that are right for our communities without buying into the punitive anti-immigrant franchise.
Photo by sc1malcomxracematters.
Comprehensive Immigration Reform is More than a Piece of Legislation
originally posted by Mary Giovagnoli for Immigration Impact [click here]
Jun 18th
Realistically, the likelihood of a comprehensive immigration reform (CIR) bill passing before the midterm elections is pretty small. News reports indicate that many advocates are pivoting to supporting more targeted immigration measures, such as DREAM Act or AgJobs, both of which have been introduced and have numerous co-sponsors already. Inevitably, these reports talk about backtracking, moving to a piecemeal approach or abandoning CIR. And then there is usually some kind of smug, I-told-you-so comment from an immigration restrictionist—one that revels in the supposed failure of comprehensive immigration reform. But CIR is more than a piece of legislation. It’s a goal—one which requires long-term commitment and a belief in the fundamental goodness of Americans.
As the Immigration Policy Center has consistently pointed out, comprehensive immigration reform is the solution to a problem that is far more pervasive than most Americans (still) realize. Our broken immigration system contributes to our stalled economy, undermines our reputation in the world, costs us billions of dollars in unworkable enforcement only strategies, and chips away at the moral values of the country. The problem is so big, in fact, that no one bill will ever fix all the pieces at once. But a systematic overhaul, one that includes legalization for the roughly 11 million people already here, a reduction in immigration backlogs that keep families apart, a flexible and fair system for bringing in new workers, and reasonable enforcement would create a solid base on which to build an immigration system that helps the country succeed in the 21st century.
As we have seen on healthcare and climate change, the longer we delay, the bigger and more complex legislation has to become to address the problems we face. Immigration reform is no different. If we had been systematically revising and refining our immigration system over the years, we wouldn’t need CIR now. And when that goal isn’t attainable because of the political climate, people are naturally going to gravitate to more modest provisions. Yes, DREAM and AgJobs won’t solve the whole problem, but the mere fact that people are talking about them as viable short-term options is a victory of sorts—kind of like advancing the ball down the field. And should those provisions become law, they will provide relief to a lot of hard working people who want to contribute to this country. As a practical matter, they will also serve as a laboratory for implementation of a bigger program.
Ironically, the continuing impact of Arizona’s SB 1070 highlights both the urgency of immigration reform and how far we still have to go. Poll after poll shows that the majority of Americans both support the Arizona law and comprehensive immigration reform—support which reflects our long term love-hate relationship with immigration. Unfortunately, as a nation, we can’t seem to deal with issues that we both love and hate until a crisis reaches the boiling point. Thus, the continuing devastation in the Gulf focuses our attention on energy and climate change—it’s hard to miss the daily pictures of birds smothered in oil.
The immigration crisis has reached a boiling point, but its effects are often quiet and behind the scenes. The political calendar probably means that Congress won’t have the will to take up the issue before the elections, but depending on what message the voters send, they may finally have to address comprehensive reform in either a lame duck session or at the beginning of the 112th Congress. Eventually, the goal of CIR and the mechanics of it—legislation—will meet. Until then, people will push for what they can, where and when they can.
Photo by jvoves.
Congressional Hearing Dissects the Many Failures of SBInet
originally posted by Walter Ewing for Immigration Impact [click here]
Jun 17th
At a hearing held jointly today by two subcommittees of the House Homeland Security Committee, lawmakers and witnesses took turns dissecting the many faults and failures of the Department of Homeland Security’s ill-fated Secure Border Initiative Network, or SBInet—the $1.1 billion effort led by the Boeing Corporation to create a “virtual fence” along the U.S.-Mexico border through the deployment of cameras, sensors, and monitoring systems. SBInet is the high-tech counterpart to SBI Tactical Infrastructure, which involves the construction of physical fencing along the border as well. The hearing was devoted to answering a key question about SBInet: “Does it pass the border security test?” Given that Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano froze funding for SBInet in March because of the program’s failure to live up to expectations, it is not surprising that the answer to this question from virtually everyone who spoke at the hearing was a resounding “No.”
Rep. Henry Cuellar, Chairman of the Homeland Security Subcommittee on Border, Maritime, and Global Counterterrorism, pointed out that “SBInet has been plagued by poor planning, missed deadlines, technology issues, and inadequate oversight.” Rep. Christopher P. Carney, Chairman of the Homeland Security Subcommittee on Management, Investigations, and Oversight, noted that “poorly defined requirements and limitations in the capabilities of commercially available system components have led [DHS] to downgrade its expectations for SBInet.” And, according to the testimony of Randolph C. Hite, Director of Information Technology Architecture and System Issues for the Government Accountability Office (GAO), SBInet has been plagued by “a growing number of system performance and quality problems” which are “not indicative of a maturing system.” In short, SBInet does not work.
In part, the SBInet effort to construct a virtual fence across the southwest border with Mexico has fallen victim to its own unrealistic expectations. It is wishful thinking to imagine that 2,000 miles of border land can be “secured” in just a few years, even under the best of circumstances.
However, SBInet is also a victim of the failure to implement immigration reform, which was intended to complement SBInet’s drive to “secure the border” with high-tech monitoring. The idea was that securing the border would be a much more feasible task once the unauthorized migration of workers and family members was channeled into legal avenues by the creation of realistic immigration limits. But that has yet to happen. As a result, most of our border-security initiatives—be they high-tech or low-tech—ensnare job seekers and people trying to join their loved ones in the United States rather than individuals who are actually a danger to the public. This is an enormous waste of resources, and makes finding that one needle in the haystack—that one person who actually is a threat—all the more difficult.
Photo by thealmightyprophetgitboy.
Deporting America’s Future: Harvard Student Pushes for DREAM Act
originally posted by Seth Hoy for Immigration Impact [click here]
Jun 16th
Harvard sophomore, Eric Balderas, knows why the DREAM Act is important to so many. Earlier this month, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) picked up Balderas in Boston on his way to visit his mother in San Antonio, Texas. Balderas now faces the possibility of deportation at a hearing next month. The 19 year old biology major was valedictorian of his high school class and is on a full scholarship at Harvard. Sadly, Balderas is just one of roughly 1.5 million unauthorized immigrant children—many of whom don’t speak Spanish and consider themselves American—currently living in the U.S. who are at risk for deportation. How many of America’s talented youth must the U.S. deport before Congress musters the courage to act?
If passed, the DREAM Act would allow qualified young people—who were brought to the U.S. without documentation—to adjust their status to “conditional permanent resident” given he/she meets the requirements. Balderas, who came to the U.S. illegally when he was four, is a perfect candidate for the DREAM Act—he entered the U.S. before the age of 16, earned a high school diploma, is a person of good moral character and has no criminal record.
Eric’s case prompted Harvard President, Drew Faust, to issue this statement:
[The DREAM Act provides] a lifeline to these students who are already working hard in our middle and high schools and living in our communities by granting them the temporary legal status that would allow them to pursue postsecondary education.
In the first years of enactment, the DREAM Act would help approximately 360,000 qualified high-school graduates to receive conditional residency. Over the next 13 years, the bill would also provide incentives for another 715,000 youngsters (an average of 55,000 a year) currently between the ages of 5 and 17 to finish high school and pursue post-secondary education.
According to Harvard’s vice president of public affairs and communications, Christine Heenan:
Eric Balderas has already demonstrated the discipline and work ethic required for rigorous university work, and has, like so many of our undergraduates, expressed an interest in making a difference in the world.
These dedicated young people are vital to our nation’s future, and President Faust’s support of the DREAM Act reflects Harvard’s commitment to access and opportunity for students like Eric.
To date, the DREAM Act has 38 cosponsors in the Senate and 123 in the House, with bipartisan support in both. Sponsorship of the bill, however, does not guarantee its movement or passage. (Recall that the DREAM Act failed in a cloture vote in 2007.) Although a group of undocumented college students—along with Senators Durbin (D-IL) and Lugar (R-IN)—have urged the White House and DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano to halt the deportation of eligible DREAM Act students in the absence of a larger immigration overhaul, their efforts seem to have fallen on deaf ears. The question, however, remains—why would the U.S. want to deport talented students, educated in the U.S., who are clearly economic and social assets to this country?