Continue reading »]]>

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.

Continue reading »]]>

Today, the administration took another important step toward fixing one of the most notorious problems with our broken immigration system—the 3 and 10 year bars. The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced today that it was filing a notice of intent to change a rule which would streamline the application process for many relatives of U.S. citizens currently eligible for permanent resident status, thereby minimizing the amount of time that applicants would have to be away from their families before being admitted into the United States.

Under current rules, thousands of people who qualify for legal status must leave the U.S. to obtain their permanent resident status, but as soon as they leave, they are immediately barred from re-entering the U.S. for 3 or 10 years because of their unlawful presence in the United States. Many are eligible for a family unity waiver (which waives the bar to admission if extreme hardship to a spouse or parent can be established), but the way the law is currently implemented, the waiver can only be applied for from overseas That process can often take many months or even years, deterring otherwise eligible applicants from applying for legal status who instead remain unauthorized in the U.S. rather than risk separation from their families. (For more information on 3 and 10 year bar, see this fact sheet by the Immigration Policy Center.)

Under the proposed “in-country processing” rule change, spouses and children of U.S. citizens who apply for residence, but need a family unity waiver to re-enter the United States, will be allowed to apply for the waiver without leaving the U.S. The new rule seeks to help only spouses and children of U.S. citizens, not spouses and children of legal permanent residents, and does not alter or revise the eligibility standards for green cards or waivers. The proposed new rule would only affect persons whose sole need for a waiver is based on having lived in the U.S. without authorization (persons seeking a waiver on other humanitarian grounds must still leave the U.S.)

This “in-country processing” proposal means that USCIS could grant a provisional waiver here in the U.S, and many applicants would not face the same waiting period outside the country.  It is important to note that applicants would still be required to depart from the U.S. before receiving final approval and legal status.  But eligible immigrants will be encouraged to go through the process rather than remain unlawfully in the U.S.

Although the actual rule change will not go into effect for several months—a “notice of intent” to change the rules governing the adjudication of waivers for the 3 and 10 year bars was published in today’s Federal Register and will be followed by a call for comments and a comment period—the revision will make a huge difference in the lives of many U.S. families.

Applicants currently face long separations from their U.S. citizen family members as well as dangerous situations while they wait.  Many waivers are processed in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico, a city wracked with violence over the last several years.  This small step of allowing these family members to apply for and receive waivers inside the U.S. may save them from long, potentially dangerous separations from their families.

Some may argue that this rule change is an example of the president overstepping boundaries and bypassing Congress to reform the immigration system. These claims are wrong. While Congress writes the laws—including the 3 and 10 year bars—the executive branch decides how to execute the laws through rules and regulations which align with their priorities and current agency resources.  The waivers are currently processed overseas because of an administrative rule, and the current administration has every right to change that rule, just as all administrations before them.

The Obama administration is proposing a rule change that will partially ameliorate one of the most contradictory rules of immigration law, thereby encouraging legal immigration and helping to keep U.S. families together.

Photo by Kevin Luu.

Continue reading »]]>

Immigration creates jobs for native-born Americans. That is the fundamental finding of a new study from the American Enterprise Institute and the Partnership For A New American Economy, entitled Immigration and American Jobs. The study—authored by Madeline Zavodny, a professor of economics at Agnes Scott College—reinforces the findings of numerous other studies which have demonstrated that there is no correlation between immigration and unemployment. Specifically, Zavodny analyzes Census data with the aim of answering one pivotal question: “In states with more immigrants, are US natives more or less likely to have a job?” Zavodny focuses on two groups in particular: immigrants with advanced degrees, and immigrants of any skill level who are in the country on temporary visas.

The four principal conclusions of Zavodny’s study are unequivocal:

1. Immigrants who hold advanced degrees create jobs for native-born workers. The biggest job boost comes from those immigrants with advanced degrees from U.S. universities who work in the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields. According to Zavodny, “data comparing employment among the fifty states and the District of Columbia show that from 2000 to 2007, an additional 100 foreign-born workers in STEM fields with advanced degrees from US universities is associated with an additional 262 jobs among US natives.”

2. Both highly skilled and less-skilled temporary workers create U.S. jobs. Zavodny finds “that states with greater numbers of temporary workers in the H-1B program for skilled workers and H-2B program for less-skilled nonagricultural workers had higher employment among US natives.” Specifically, the addition of 100 H-1B workers was associated with an additional 183 jobs for native-born workers, while the addition of 100 H-2B workers was associated with an additional 464 jobs for native-born workers.

3. Immigrants don’t take jobs away from native-born workers. According to Zavodny, there is “no evidence that foreign-born workers, taken in the aggregate, hurt US employment. Even under the current immigration pattern—which is not designed to maximize job creation, has at least eight million unauthorized workers, and prioritizes family reunification—there is no statistically significant effect, either positive or negative, on the employment rate among US natives.”

4. The taxes paid by highly educated immigrants more than cover the cost of the benefits they receive. Zavodny finds that “in 2009, the average foreign-born adult with an advanced degree paid over $22,500 in federal, state, and Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA, or Social Security and Medicare) taxes, while their families received benefits one-tenth that size through government transfer programs like cash welfare, unemployment benefits, and Medicaid.”

According to Zavodny, the findings of her study suggest three reforms to the U.S. immigration system which would benefit the U.S. economy and native-born workers. First, she calls for a reorientation of permanent and temporary immigration policies to favor immigrants with advanced degrees from U.S. universities in STEM fields. Second, she advocates an increase in the number of “green cards” (permanent visas) available to highly educated immigrant workers. And third, she recommends an increase in the number of temporary visas for both highly skilled and less-skilled immigrant workers. Zavodny notes that these reforms would create new jobs while requiring “neither new taxes nor new spending cuts.”

Zavodny concludes that “immigration policy can, and should, be a significant component of America’s economic recovery.” Yet the reality is that even the most basic of immigration reforms are deadlocked in the U.S. Congress. And, while the United States dawdles, “the rest of the world competes for talent.” According to Zavodny, “every major developed country is more focused than the United States on admitting immigrants to meet economic needs.” In other words, whether they realize it or not, opponents of immigration reform are needlessly undermining the U.S. economy.

Photo by thekevinchang.

Continue reading »]]>

Exhausted by the base immigration rhetoric prevalent in the GOP presidential debate, a group of concerned Iowans is seeking to reframe the issue in anticipation of the Iowa Caucuses next month. Last week, business, faith and city leaders in Iowa signed the Iowa Compact—a list of five principles meant to guide how people discuss immigration. Signatories of the compact, which is modeled after Utah and Indiana’s Compact, urged politicians “to stop playing politics on the issue” and said that state level fixes, like enforcement-only legislation, do “not address the root problem of immigration” but instead hurts economies and communities.

Similar to other compacts, the Iowa Compact includes five guiding principles: 1) Immigration is a federal issues; 2) Local law enforcement needs to focus on serious crimes and avoid policies with negative economic and humanitarian consequences; 3) Immigration policies should help families stay together: 4) Immigrants are beneficial to Iowa’s economy; and 5) Iowa needs to welcome immigrants.

And with the Republican primary caucuses less than a month away, Compact signatories hope GOP presidential candidates take notice. Lori Chesser, chairwoman of the Iowa Immigration Education Coalition, believes “there has not been enough thoughtful discussion in the debates” thus far. The mayor of Perry, Iowa, Jay Pattee, agrees:

During the Republican presidential primary season, the rhetoric on immigration has reached a new low. This type of debate is not only extreme and divisive, but it serves as a distraction from a genuine policy debate.

Other signatories, like those in the business and law enforcement community, also want to send the message that Congress’s inability to reform our broken immigration system is hurting state economies and what’s worse, has given rise to enforcement-only immigration laws which put law enforcement officers at odds with communities.

According to Perry, Iowa’s police chief Dan Brickman, “the lack of federal action on immigration reform has put his officers in an awkward spot at a time when they can’t afford to take on additional responsibilities or alienate their residents.” Nearly 40% of Perry’s population is Hispanic.

Martha Willits, chief executive of the Greater Des Moines Partnership, said foreign-born workers are crucial to Iowa’s economy since, according to the group, the state’s primary population growth comes from minorities.

We know from our business partners that work force is a critical issue, particularly finding workers with the right skills … We want to keep foreign-born students who are trained at our universities and intern in our businesses. But we can’t because of our makeshift laws. We need comprehensive reform.

Other signatories include the CEO of Banker’s Trust, the oldest and largest independently owned bank in Iowa, and the Iowa Nursery and Landscape Association, who relies on immigrants for workers.

Hopefully, communities across the U.S. will realize that immigrants are vital to their state’s economic prosperity and enact policies that welcome them, like in Dayton, Ohio, rather than bash them in debates and drive them from the state through anti-immigrant legislation.

Continue reading »]]>

Immigration is a hot issue in the GOP primary debates, complete with extreme anti-immigrant rhetoric and far-fetched policy proposals. Michele Bachman, for example, promised to deport every undocumented immigrant in the country—a costly and unworkable task. And she’s not the only one. Herman Cain recently “joked” that he would electrify the border fence as a deterrent for unauthorized crossers. But Republican presidential candidates have it wrong when it comes to anti-immigrant rhetoric and their base. Recent polls suggest that a majority of conservative voters actually favor a path to legal status for unauthorized immigrants. In fact, several polls found that the majority of Americans prefer a path to legalization for unauthorized immigrants currently in the U.S.

A recent poll conducted by the United Technologies and the National Journal Congressional Connection found that 39% of respondents (the largest group), when asked what the government should do about undocumented immigrants in the U.S., said that the United States should “deport some, but allow those who have been here for many years and have broken no other laws to stay here legally.” And when broken down along party lines, the majority of Republicans surveyed agreed.

While 33% of Republicans supported deporting all undocumented immigrants, 43% favored allowing “long-term illegal immigrants who have not broken any other law to remain.” 19% of Republicans wanted to allow all undocumented immigrants to be able to stay, compared to 32% of Democrats.

Another poll released by Pew Research Center also found Republican support for a path to legalization, albeit from a younger swath of voters. Pew’s poll found that 42% of Republicans under age 30 favored a path to citizenship if coupled with tougher enforcement measures.In contrast, 57% of older Republicans 65 years and older favored “border security and stricter enforcement alone” while 24% favored “a dual approach that would include a path to citizenship.”

And finally, a poll conducted by the Partnership for a New American Economy found that a plurality of Republicans likely to attend the Iowa caucuses support expanding legal immigration if it supports the creation of jobs. The poll found:

• 72% are open to allowing foreign-born students educated in the U.S. to enter the workforce after graduation
• 64% are open to streamlining the process for employers to hire the seasonal and permanent employees they need when Americans are not filling vacant jobs
• 66% are open to increasing opportunities for high-skilled legal immigrants to enter the U.S. workforce
• 71% are open to increasing opportunities for entrepreneurs from other countries to move to the U.S. to start a business here.

According to Republican strategist John Stineman, “there is clearly an appetite for working to solve problems with our legal immigration system and Iowa Republicans make the connection that doing so can help grow our economy.”

And that appetite isn’t just among conservative voters. Poll after poll demonstrates that the American public embraces the need for common sense solutions to our immigration problems as wells as the important role immigrants play in our economy. Perhaps it’s time for GOP Presidential candidates to drop the inflamed rhetoric and get on board with the rest of America.