Alliance of White Anti-Racists Everywhere – Los Angeles
Immigration Blog
More States Introduce Costly Immigration Enforcement Bills in 2012
01 day ago
Despite the devastating consequences of state immigration laws in Alabamaand Arizona, legislators in other states have introduced similar enforcement bills this year. Legislators in Mississippi, Missouri, Tennessee and Virginia introduced an array of costly immigration enforcement bills in their 2012 legislative sessions—some which are modeled on Arizona’s SB 1070. While study after study continues to document how these extreme state laws are costing state economies, disrupting entire industries and driving communities further underground, state legislators clearly aren’t getting the message.
Last month, legislators in Mississippi introduced a slew of anti-immigrant bills. State Senator Joey Fillingane, for example, introduced SB 2090, a bill which requires police to check the immigration status of anyone they reasonably suspect is undocumented, makes it a crime to fail to carry proper immigration documents and a crime to harbor or transport an undocumented immigrant, and a misdemeanor for an undocumented immigrant to apply for or solicit work. Both the Mississippi House and Senate passed different versions of this bill, but are expected to hammer out one bill to send to Governor Haley Barbour’s desk for a signature soon.
In Missouri, state Senator Will Kraus recently introduced SB 590, a bill which requires police to determine the immigration status of individuals they reasonably suspect are unauthorized and makes it a crime not to carry immigration documents. Missouri’s bill, like Alabama, however takes the law a step further by requiring schools to verify the immigration status of enrolling students and their parents. Remember that the U.S. Department of Justice blocked a similar provision in Alabama’s immigration law, HB 56, last October. Missouri’s legislature passed the bill out of committee last week—a bill likely to cost Missouri millions.
The House Judiciary Committee in Tennessee advanced an immigration bill this month, HB 2191, a bill which makes it a felony for anyone in the state to knowingly conceal, harbor or transport an undocumented immigrant. Tennessee’s copycat bill, HB 1380—which requires police to question the immigration status of those they suspect of being undocumented—was put on hold this month due to budgetary concerns, despite Governor Bill Haslam’s public support of the bill days earlier. HB 1380 was also shelved last year due to $3 million price tag, but the bill’s sponsor, Rep. Joe Carr, doesn’t seem like he’s giving up.
“Putting it behind the budget doesn’t kill it. It basically parks it,” Carr said. “We are prioritizing the state’s stance on illegal immigration based on the financial resources we have. We’ve got a very targeted approach to tackle illegal immigration here in the state.”
In Virginia, where control of the Governorship, House of Delegates and Senate recently changed hands to those with an enforcement heavy agenda, legislators recently introduced two Arizona copycat bills—SB 460 and its companion bill HB 1060—which allow police to determine the immigration status of those they suspect are in the country without documentation. Although SB 460 failed this week after a split vote in the Senate’s Courts of Justice Committee, it’s companion bill, HB 1060, was recently assigned to Virginia’s House Courts of Justice Sub-Committee.
And that’s only some of the immigration legislation moving through state legislatures. Other states have introduced other enforcement bills this year, each likely to hurt local businesses, families and state coffers.
Just this week, a report out of the University of Alabama estimated that Alabama stands to lose $11 billion in GDP and nearly $265 million in state income and sales tax due to their extreme immigration enforcement law, HB 56. Utah’s copycat law HB 497 (temporarily blocked last year) has cost the state $85,000 to defend, according to government reports. Arizona lost $490 million in tourism revenue last year, $86 million in lost wages, 2,800 lost jobs and more than $1 million in legal fees in defending SB 1070.
As states continue to move forward on these and other immigration enforcement bills, one wonders how much larger the writing on the wall has to be before state legislators realize these laws are costing taxpayers. Yes we need solutions to our immigration problems, but creating a complicated and costly patchwork of state laws isn’t bringing us any closer to that solution.
Photo by Africa Studio.
Alabama’s Extreme Immigration Law Could Cost State Billions, Report Finds
02 days ago
Implementing Alabama’s extreme immigration law (HB 56) would be incredibly expensive. That is the bottom line of a new report by University of Alabama economist Samuel Addy entitled A Cost-Benefit Analysis of the New Alabama Immigration Law. According to the report, the law could cost Alabama up to $11 billion in GDP and nearly $265 million in state income and sales tax. The loss includes 1) implementation, enforcement, and litigation expenditures; 2) increased costs and inconveniences for citizens and legal residents and businesses; 3) reduced economic development opportunities because it creates a poor business climate; and 4) the economic impact of reduced aggregate demand due to some unauthorized immigrants leaving and therefore not earning and spending income in the state.
Addy creates an estimate of the costs of HB 56 by using a model that assumes that unauthorized workers vacate jobs in agriculture, construction, accommodation, and food service and that between 40,000 and 80,000 workers earning between $15,000 and $35,000 leave the state. Different estimates are provided for losses of 40,000; 60,000; and 80,000 workers. He concludes that the law would result in:
- A reduction of 70,000 to 140,000 jobs;
- A reduction of $2.3-$10.8 billion in Alabama’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) or 1.3-6.2 percent of the stat’s 2010 GDP;
- A reduction of between $56.7 and $264.5 million in state income and sales tax collections;
- A reduction of $20 to $93.1 million in local sales tax collections.
Although HB56’s proponents often claim the bill will bring potential benefits to the state, Addy does not find significant state savings from decreased benefits for unauthorized immigrants. He concludes that unauthorized immigrants pay taxes and are not a drain on the economy. Furthermore, he does not see increased public safety as a likely outcome because unauthorized immigrants are not responsible for disproportionately high crime rates.
Addy also responds to arguments that the new immigration law is responsible for decreased unemployment in the state. Contrary to what proponents of the law are claiming, it does not appear that legal residents and citizens are filling jobs previously held by unauthorized immigrants. Also, in the four sectors that most often employ unauthorized workers (agriculture, construction, lodging and eating establishments), unemployment is not falling.
The report concludes that the costs of the new law are large and certain, while any potential benefits are unclear. “From an economist’s perspective, the question Alabama and its legislature have to ponder is this: Are the benefits of the new immigration law worth the costs.” Based on the work of Addy and others, the answer has to be a resounding “no.”
Photo by Willamor Media.
New Report Analyzes Fatal Flaws of U.S. Border-Enforcement Strategy
03 days ago
The federal government’s current approach to border security is dangerously misguided. Border-enforcement resources are directed at what gets smuggled across the border—people, drugs, guns, money—rather than who is doing the smuggling; namely, the transnational criminal organizations based in Mexico which are commonly referred to as the “cartels.” If the U.S. government wants to get serious about enhancing border security, it will begin to systematically dismantle the cartels rather than just seizing the unauthorized immigrants and the contraband they smuggle and arresting a few low-level cartel operatives in the process.
This is the central message of a new report by former Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard, entitled How to Fix a Broken Border: Disrupting Smuggling at Its Source. The report starts off by noting that when it comes to border security, “the prevailing assumption is that all we need to stop illegal crossings of drugs, people, cash, and guns are more Border Patrol agents, more National Guard troops, and more surveillance and sensors to cover the hundreds of rugged miles between lawful ports of entry.” Indeed, this has been the rationale for building 650 miles of border fencing along the U.S.-Mexico border, and for the massive expansion of the Border Patrol since the early 1990s. The Border Patrol now numbers 21,000 agents and has a high-tech arsenal that includes unmanned aerial drones.
Yet, in spite of all the fencing, agents, and technology, cross-border smuggling continues unabated. The reason for this is twofold. First, the cartels that do the smuggling are, as Goddard puts it, “superbly organized, technologically adept, and very well funded.” When it comes to fencing in particular, they “have the capacity to go over, under, around, and even through virtually any physical barrier.” The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) reports that “during fiscal year 2010, there were 4,037 documented and repaired breaches” of border fencing.
Second, the U.S. government is focused on seizing different kinds of contraband—and assigns different kinds to different government agencies: Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) gets unauthorized immigrants, the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) gets illegal drugs, and Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) gets illegal guns. Missing from this division of labor is a coordinated assault on the cartels that do the smuggling. This is a losing proposition. As Goddard emphasizes:
Going after the contraband product or smuggled people, as this country has been doing for years, is destined to be an endless chase. The cartels will just regroup and continue operations, learning from their mistakes. If we are serious about stopping the threat on the border, we have to dismantle the criminal organizations that carry the contraband and take away the tools that make them so effective.
What is needed, says Goddard, is a border-defense strategy that is “intelligence driven and multi-level.” It must target both the cartel leadership and the many subcontractors who work for them. And it must target cartel organization from every possible angle:
Whatever makes the cartel organizations strong must be attacked. Their communication systems must be cracked, jammed, and shut down. Their leaders must be identified, arrested, and incarcerated. Most important, the illegal flow of funds across the border into cartel pockets must be disrupted, interrupted, and stopped.
Goddard is incredulous that “this country has hardly lifted a finger to stop over $40 billion a year in cartel funds pouring across the border.” He calls for the Department of the Treasury to become “a full participant in the effort to stop the cartels by cutting off the illegal transfer of funds” that occurs through banks, wire-transfer companies, import-export businesses, and businesses that issue “stored value instruments.” As he points out, the “physical border is irrelevant to the flow of money; it is the virtual border in cyberspace and currency exchanges that must be defended.”
The current border-enforcement strategy is designed to fail. Goddard writes that “pouring even more money and manpower into enforcement on the border will have little impact as long as the criminal organizations remain intact.” He concludes that “only when the smuggling organizations are dismembered will border defense efforts be equal to the threat. Only then can it truthfully be said that the border is ‘secure.’”
Photo by ICE.gov.
GOP Candidates Ignore Florida’s Diversifying Latino Population
04 days ago
Campaigning in Florida this month, GOP Presidential candidates continued to display a general lack of understanding of the state’s diversifying Latino population. While it’s well-documented that the Cuban-American population is currently a strong political force, the emerging story in Florida is that the state’s future voting population will become increasingly Latino, but less Cuban.
While it’s normal for political candidates to pander to today’s registered voters, they undermine the long-term electoral prospects of their party when they fail to recognize Florida’s changing demographics. Data from the U.S. Census Bureau reveal that increasing numbers of Florida’s children are non-Cuban Latinos. Overall, Latinos make up 26% of persons under age 18.
More striking, however—given Florida’s long association with Cuban immigration—is that the Cuban-origin portion of the Latino population is shrinking when you look at the youngest Floridians.
While Cubans are a majority of Florida Latinos over age 70, every Latino age group below 70 is becoming increasingly non-Cuban. Cubans are more than half (54%) of Florida Latinos aged 65 and over, but they are only 22% of Latino children in the state. Simply put, the Cuban population is getting older while a younger, non-Cuban Latino population continues to grow.
In fact, Cubans today are a minority of all Florida Latinos. The state’s Latino population is one of the most diverse in the nation: 29% Cuban, 20% Puerto Rican, 17% South American, 15% Mexican, 11% Central American, and 9% of other Latino origins.
Candidates and the party they represent are focusing on elections in Florida, not the future electorate. In doing so they are risking the long-term success of their party. The increasingly diverse Latino community in Florida is only going to be receptive to rhetoric and immigration policies that benefit all Latinos.
Photo by heacphotos.
Nativist Group Twists Facts on Effectiveness of Arizona’s Immigration Law
05 days ago
The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) has outdone itself when it comes to shoddy research. In a recently released report on “demographic changes” in Arizona, FAIR utilizes an almost random assortment of statistics to make its case that the state’s unauthorized immigrants are fleeing in droves thanks to get-tough immigration policies. The report occasionally pays lip service to the impact on unauthorized immigration of the 2008-2009 recession, as well as persistently high unemployment rates that continue to this day. Yet FAIR concludes, without evidence, that state-level immigration enforcement has been the single most important factor causing the decline of the unauthorized population. In reality, this conclusion is not supported by the data which FAIR presents.
FAIR’s report is painfully self-contradictory. It opens with the bold statement that the “efforts of Arizona policymakers to deter the settlement of illegal aliens in the state and to encourage those already in the state to leave have made major advances in their objective.” To bolster this statement, the report offers a bountiful supply of numbers on declines over the past few years in the size of the state’s foreign-born population, foreign-born Latin American population, and unauthorized immigrant population—not to mention reductions in the poverty rate, birth rate, and crime rate. Strangely enough, some of these statistics—such as those on the drop in crime—document trends which began before Arizona had enacted any harsh immigration laws.
The report does mention, offhandedly, that punitive state immigration policies may not account for all of these demographic trends given the presence of other factors, such as “the effects of the recession, loss of jobs and growing unemployment.” Yet this acknowledgment of reality is immediately followed by the muddled argument that “the confluence of all of these factors constituted a strong message that Arizona was no longer a desirable destination for illegal aliens and that already settled illegal aliens faced increased exposure to identification and deportation.” At the very end, the report is back to making the sensational and unsubstantiated claim that the state’s demographic changes “resulted from local law enforcement activities as well as legislative changes designed to make Arizona less accommodating for aliens seeking illegal work in the state.”
While FAIR is certain that get-tough laws in Arizona have provoked an exodus of unauthorized immigrants, other observers with a less fanciful attitude towards data sound a note of caution. For instance, Juan Pedroza of the Urban Institute has pointed out that “it’s tough to tell whether (and how many) immigrants have left a community if you are looking right after a state passes a law. It can take years of evidence to test claims of a mass exodus.” Moreover, “growing evidence suggests that most immigrants (especially families with school-age children) are here to stay, except perhaps where local economies are particularly weak.”
In a related vein, a report released last year by the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) evaluated the impact of the 2007 Legal Arizona Workers Act (LAWA), which made it mandatory for the state’s employers to use the federal E-Verify employment-authorization system. The report found that, while the law did motivate some unauthorized immigrants to leave the state, it also pushed many of those who remained “into less formal work arrangements.” As a result, “policymakers must weigh the sought-after drop in unauthorized employment against the costs associated with shifting workers into informal employment.” In other words, reality is more complicated than FAIR’s misinterpretation of demographic statistics would suggest.
FAIR’s numerical screed against unauthorized immigrants in Arizona does not rise to the level of serious research. Too many variables go unaccounted for, too many assumptions are made, and too many conclusions are predetermined. State-level immigration enforcement is one among many factors that influence the decision of an unauthorized individual or family in Arizona as to whether they should stay or leave. Untangling those factors involves complicated research of a kind that FAIR cannot provide.
Photo by Tania Zbrodko.
Following State of the Union, President Obama Needs to Follow Through on Immigration Reforms
01 week ago
The President’s State of the Union address this week re-iterated some of his key themes on immigration—support for comprehensive reform, dismay that DREAM Act students and foreign students educated in this country have no way to legalize their status, and a belief that he’s done enough to the secure the border. More importantly, he framed these themes in context to America’s economic recovery, innovation and growth. However, while any mention of immigration in the State of the Union is welcome, it’s what the President didn’t say that may have more of an impact on how his administration is remembered this year on immigration—and how his vision is measured by voters in the coming election.
In the State of the Union address, President Obama repeatedly signaled to Congress that he would sign sensible bills to reform our immigration system, big or small. But he quickly noted that partisan politics would make it all but impossible to pass comprehensive reform:
The opponents of action are out of excuses. We should be working on comprehensive immigration reform right now. But if election-year politics keeps Congress from acting on a comprehensive plan, let’s at least agree to stop expelling responsible young people who want to staff our labs, start new businesses, and defend this country. Send me a law that gives them the chance to earn their citizenship. I will sign it right away.
There are plenty of bills that fit this description, from the DREAM Act to proposals offering green cards to foreign graduates in science and engineering to support for immigrant entrepreneurs, but they are just as likely to flounder in the sea of partisan politics as something grander and more comprehensive.
And while the president suggested that the ball was in Congress’s court, he didn’t mention that his Administration has moved forward on reforms that don’t require Congressional action. The Administration has become more aggressive in the last in year in fixing parts of our backward immigration system, such as overhauling immigration detention, a review of the Secure Communities program, a re-invigoration of the use of prosecutorial discretion, and attempts to promote streamlined adjudications and family unity. The latter, announced just weeks ago, has generated real excitement among immigrant communities.
Similarly, changes to the way government officials decide what cases should be prosecuted in immigration court—and what cases should be dropped—have given hope to millions of immigrants that they may be able to stay with their families, at least for a while longer. But there remains considerable uncertainty about how DHS will routinely exercise discretion, especially amidst reports that DREAM Act students and others who clearly fit the government’s low priority status are still being deported.
In the areas of detention reform and Secure Communities, however, the early enthusiasm about change has been replaced by wariness on the part of advocates who want to believe promised reforms will be made. They have been repeatedly disappointed by delays in the detention realm and a continued commitment to keep Secure Communities alive, a program that many believe undermines community safety and policing. A special task force voted out a series of necessary reforms and gave their report to Secretary Napolitano last September, but DHS has yet to announce how it will implement these recommendations.
Although these ongoing administrative reforms don’t fit tidily into the overarching vision of immigration policy the President laid out in the State of the Union, following through on them would have a lasting effect on both immigration enforcement and the consideration of benefits for those stuck in our broken immigration system. And the President shouldn’t abandon his larger vision. He has made significant strides in helping to reshape how people who don’t much care about immigration think about it and that will be critical when the time comes for comprehensive reform. But for those most directly affected by our immigration crisis, it is the most immediate details that matter most.
Photo by WhiteHouse.gov.
Romney Uses Restrictionist Code Words to Describe Immigration Policy
01 week ago
GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney stole a page from the restrictionists’ playbook this week when he promoted the idea of “self-deportation” during a presidential debate. “If people don’t get work here,” Romney stated, “they’re going to self-deport to a place where they can get work.” Rather than initiate a constructive solution to our nation’s immigration problems, Romney is jumping in bed with immigration restrictionist groups who support policies that tear American families and communities apart, devastate local economies, and place unnecessary burdens on U.S. citizens and lawful immigrants.
Romney’s use of the term “self-deportation” is not at all surprising given his recent collaboration with Kris Kobach, the current Secretary of State of Kansas who continues to serve as chief legal counsel to the Immigration Reform Law Institute (IRLI), an arm of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR).
Kobach, the self-professed author of several state and local immigration-control bills, advised Romney on immigration during his 2008 presidential bid and has long-promoted the strategy of “attrition through enforcement”— the immigration-control strategy to drive away the unauthorized population by making their lives so miserable that they will choose to “deport themselves” rather than remain in the U.S.
“Attrition through enforcement” laws—like Arizona’s SB1070 and Alabama’s HB56—were explicitly designed to interfere with the everyday activities of immigrants and go far beyond denying unauthorized immigrants work. These laws deny access to housing, school, work, and even water and electricity to anyone who can’t prove legal status. The laws’ supporters have made it clear that making people miserable and encouraging them to leave the state is the intended consequence of their policies.
It’s troubling that a serious Presidential candidate would adopt the code words of extremist immigration control organizations and propose that making people’s lives miserable so that they’ll leave is an acceptable policy goal. By using the term “self-deportation,” Romney is making it clear that he is on board with restrictionists groups’ strategy to force all unauthorized immigrants to leave the U.S., regardless of the time they have spent here, U.S. citizen family members, and their years of tax contributions.
Doesn’t this country deserves to hear more detailed and thoughtful approaches from politicians and policy makers—approaches that offer a way forward rather than divisive and punitive so-call “solutions” to unauthorized immigration?
Photo by Gage Skidmore.
New Report Highlights Contributions of Immigrant Entrepreneurs to U.S. Economy
01 week ago
BY MARCIA HOHN, IMMIGRANT LEARNING CENTER
At last night’s State of the Union Address, two immigrant entrepreneurs were among the President’s guests—Japan-born Dr. Hiroyuki Fujita, founder, president and chief executive officer of Quality Electrodynamics (QED) in Cleveland, Ohio and Brazil-born Mike Krieger, co-founder of Instagram, a fast growing social mobile startup. Dr. Fijuita and Mike Krieger were rightfully recognized for their entrepreneurial drive and hard-earned success (both businesses are now worth millions of dollars), but they are just two examples of immigrants who came to this country and started businesses. There are many more unsung immigrant entrepreneurs whose U.S. businesses continue to create jobs for Americans and strengthen the U.S. economy.
Many are aware of the giants among immigrant entrepreneurs such as Sergey Brin of Google or Jerry Yang of Yahoo. But there is little recognition of the role important immigrant businesses play in neighborhood revitalization, growth businesses, and transnational businesses. A new report, Immigrant Entrepreneurs: Creating Jobs and Strengthening the Economy, released today by the Immigrant Learning Center, U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Immigration Policy Center highlights the vital role immigrant entrepreneurs play across the U.S. economy.
The report focuses on small businesses such as neighborhood storefronts—grocery stores, restaurants, gift shops and real estate firms—which make up the fabric of many neighborhoods. Immigrants are often attracted by low rents available in neighborhoods that have been blighted by economic decline. The arrival of their businesses revives commerce in these areas and provides needed goods and services for residents. As one immigrant storefront owner in Boston said:
Of course my business makes the neighborhood better. It makes this neighborhood more beautiful. The community ignored this neighborhood before. People did not want to move here because it was desolate and unsafe. Now, people want to come here.
The report also mentions growth businesses which, like many small businesses, often hatch from a living room or kitchen. The result of ambition, hard work and vision, these immigrant growth businesses have a strong presence in food and food distribution, transportation, leisure and hospitality as well as building services. One Boston-based entrepreneur, Jill Cheng, had a vision to bring Asia to the world. She began with a small collection of books in Chinese and Japanese, but with the explosion of business with China, her company (Cheng & Tsui Publishers) is now a multi-million dollar business.
Technology and science companies continue to be founded by immigrants at unprecedented numbers—leaping to 46% in venture-backed companies—as documented in a very recent study by the National Foundation for America Policy. These companies are keeping America on the cutting edge of innovation in technology and improving human health—as well as keeping America internationally competitive. Not only do these immigrant founders bring talent and skill but are also likely to have qualities such as a willingness to take risks, a deep appreciation for the opportunities that America gives them and perseverance. Sonny Vu from Vietnam and Sridhar Iyengar, 2nd generation from India, are convinced it was their immigrant backgrounds that made it possible for them to take an idea born in a cramped Boston apartment to a $20 million American company called AgaMatrix that manufactures mobile health monitoring devices.
Immigrant-run transnational businesses are also keeping the U.S. globally competitive. These are businesses that have a “foot in both worlds” and have a variety of business relationships here in the U.S. and their homelands that provide import-export, transfer of goods and remittances across countries or special goods for specific communities groups here and abroad. Transnational businesses also help America companies understand how to do business in other countries, build bridges of communication and bring diversity to the goods and services available in America.
Countless economists and business experts have highlighted the economic contributions of immigrant entrepreneurs to the U.S. economy. Now, it’s Congresses turn. National immigration policies must reflect the economic and social contributions of immigrant businesses and—equally important—that immigrant entrepreneurs come from all backgrounds.
New Report Draws Connections Between Anti-Immigrant and Tea Party Movements
01 week ago
The lines between the anti-immigrant movement and the Tea Party movement are blurred. That is the most important finding of a new report from the Institute for Research and Education on Human Rights (IREHR), entitled Beyond FAIR: The Decline of the Established Anti-Immigrant Organizations and the Rise of Tea Party Nativism. As its title suggests, the report finds that the revenue and membership of traditional anti-immigrant groups have declined in recent years, at the same time some of the Tea Parties have become hot beds of anti-immigrant activism. The report, however, overstates its case in concluding that “to a significant extent, the Tea Parties have usurped the Nativist Establishment and in the process swallowed up many of its activists.” This conclusion discounts the large amount of money and political power that some of the traditional anti-immigrant groups still possess. After all, it is the anti-immigrant groups and not the Tea Parties that have been moving anti-immigrant legislation through state legislatures and town councils from Arizona to Alabama over the past few years.
Nevertheless, the report thoroughly documents a trend which has also been noted by other human rights and immigrant rights advocates. As the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPCL) observed last spring, the Tea Party movement “has become home to many nativist extremists…The lines between the movements have become increasingly blurred, with leaders making official appearances at each other’s events.” This cross-pollination has been most apparent in the case of the Minutemen. For example, according to the IREHR report, leaders of the Minuteman Project went on to run a Tea Party faction.
Aside from the Minutemen, the report defines the “nativist establishment” as all of the “local and national anti-immigrant organizations that were established prior to the presidency of Barack Obama.” This includes the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), Americans for Immigration Control (AIC), NumbersUSA, the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), Americans for Legal Immigration Political Action Committee (ALIPAC), California Coalition for Immigration Reform (CCIR), Californians for Population Stabilization, and the Federal Immigration Reform and Enforcement (FIRE) Coalition, as well as various local anti-immigrant groups.
Based on federal tax filings and other sources of data, the report concludes that there has been “a significant decline in support for the Nativist Establishment, with the numbers of donors/members, organizational financial support, and the number of local anti-immigrant groups all decreasing since a peak in 2007-2008.” However, one must keep in mind that 2007-2008 was a period of intense political activity surrounding the introduction of immigration reform legislation in Congress. Higher levels of involvement and support are to be expected at such a time. Moreover, despite the decline since 2007-2008, groups such as FAIR still have many millions of dollars per year in funding, not to mention the ear of highly placed elected leaders in Congress and in statehouses around the country. In contrast, the Tea Parties have far less money at their disposal and have only a marginal influence on the anti-immigrant legislative agenda.
Lack of political power notwithstanding, the report finds that there has been “both an increase in anti-immigrant activism by national and local Tea Party groups, as well as a measurable number of anti-immigrant leaders who have joined the Tea Parties and consequently accelerated the rate of anti-immigrant activism by those Tea Parties.” While some political observers have proclaimed the Tea Parties to be in a state of decline and disarray, the authors of the report disagree. They write that “rumors of the death of the Tea Party…are greatly exaggerated. The core of the Tea Party movement has continued to expand in size during 2010 and 2011. And it has continued to expand its reach into the anti-immigrant universe.” As the report notes, the Tea Parties have always been fertile ground for anti-immigrant activism because they promoted “a brand of nationalism that defined immigrants, people of color, poor people, liberals, trade union members, etc. as wholly un-American parasites.”
The authors of the report conclude that:
The newly configured anti-immigrant movement described in this report has developed a new activist constituency, the Tea Parties, even while it has lost some of its established funding sources and membership. Human rights and immigrant advocates now face a civic opposition which has a larger constituency, and an opposition which is harder to delineate and thus more difficult to oppose.
In other words, pro-immigrant advocates who have grown accustomed to tracking traditional anti-immigrant organizations should also be keeping a close eye on the Tea Parties. However, advocates would be wise to keep in mind that the traditional anti-immigrant groups are far from dead. It is these groups, not the Tea Parties, which have the greatest sway in Congress and state legislatures, as well as the biggest bank accounts.
Photo by katerkate.
It’s Time to Improve Noncitizens’ Access to Counsel
01 week ago
In the United States, most immigration decisions impacting noncitizens are made by immigration officials in informal proceedings far from a courtroom. While the right to an attorney (at the noncitizens’ own expense) in immigration court proceedings is widely recognized, the right to counsel in administrative settings outside of a courtroom is often overlooked or explicitly not recognized. As a result, many noncitizens are forced to navigate the immigration process alone. For those noncitizens that are represented, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) often restricts their access to their lawyers.
Without the assistance of an attorney well-versed in immigration law, noncitizens often lack the specialized knowledge needed to obtain a just outcome. And, given the serious consequences that can flow from DHS proceedings, the importance of meaningful access to counsel cannot be overstated. For example, a CBP official can quickly remove an individual from the United States without a hearing through “expedited removal,” based solely on information gathered during an inspection at the border. Questioning by ICE can lead to arrest, detention, initiation of removal proceedings, or removal. USCIS officers have the power to decide whether an applicant is entitled to lawful permanent residence, asylum, or naturalization based on statements made in an interview.
Over the past year, the American Immigration Council, along with the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA), has documented instances where the DHS immigration agencies—Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)—have deprived noncitizens of access to counsel. For example, ICE also has taken the position that there is no right to consult with a lawyer during an interrogation. Likewise, many CBP offices outright deny access to all lawyers.
The restrictions USCIS imposes generally have been less severe, but have included limitations on communication during interviews, such as restricting where a lawyer may sit during an interview, preventing lawyers from submitting documents relevant to their client’s case during an interview, and conducting interviews without an attorney present. And we have heard about situations before all three agencies, where officials actively discourage noncitizens from hiring lawyers or appearing with their lawyers in immigration proceedings.
In response to calls from the American Immigration Council, AILA and other advocates last week, USCIS issued immediate changes to its policies to help ensure a meaningful role for lawyers in the immigration process. There is, however, still much to be done.
The new guidance responds to some access concerns. For example, it provides that a lawyer generally may sit next to his or her client during an interview, may be permitted to submit relevant documents to the USCIS officer, and may raise objections to inappropriate lines of questioning. However, USCIS did not adopt all of the Council and AILA’s recommendations related to counsel, and limitations on communication remain.
While it remains to be seen how USCIS will implement its new guidance, USCIS’ adoption of certain recommendations by stakeholders and recognition of the importance of counsel in immigration proceedings is an important first step. ICE and CBP should take note of USCIS willingness to revisit its guidance regarding counsel and engage in similar dialogue with advocates and stakeholders.
Now is the time to offer comments to USCIS’ guidance with more detailed recommendations for improvements in noncitizens’ access to counsel.
Photo by Lane V. Erickson.