Secretary Napolitano
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.
Secretary Napolitano Announces “Next Steps” for Southwest Border
originally posted by Seth Hoy for Immigration Impact [click here]
Jun 23rd
Yesterday, President Obama sent a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi formally asking for $600 million in additional border security spending to fund 1,000 additional Border Patrol agents, 160 additional ICE agents, two unmanned aircraft systems, extra Border Patrol canine teams and improved infrastructure along the Southwest Border. In a tandem move today, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Janet Napolitano announced several new DHS initiatives to bolster security along the Southwest border. Although Secretary Napolitano trumpeted DHS’s new border initiatives as well as past achievements, she also acknowledged that the border can never be hermetically sealed and that stalling immigration reform by highlighting border security issues is not the answer to our immigration problems.
At a Center for Strategic and International Studies panel discussion today, Secretary Napolitano laid out several new border security initiatives, including:
- New partnerships between DHS and state and local law enforcement, specifically the Major Cities Chiefs Association, which allows non-border local law enforcement to partner with other agencies at the border
- New information sharing capabilities between law enforcement on the border and DHS and DOJ information systems, improved fusion centers across the border and a new “suspicious activities” reporting program
- Improved technology (i.e. unmanned aircraft systems), more Border Patrol Agents and ICE investigators at the border and “Project Roadrunner,” a new partnership with the Office of National Drug Control Policy that reads license plates to target drug traffickers
- Expansion of the Joint Criminal Alien Removal Taskforce and the deployment of more ICE officers in an effort to prioritize dangerous criminal aliens in state and local jails
- Increased joint training programs with Mexican law enforcement agencies that focus on money laundering and human trafficking
While it may not be a coincidence that these new border initiatives come at a time when “securing the border” is playing a central role in the national immigration debate—both in mid-term election campaigning and as states (like Arizona, Nebraska, etc.) pass restrictive immigration measures—Secretary Napolitano herself admits that securing the border alone won’t fix our immigration problems.
We think these resources we’ve asked for matter because they will augment the efforts that have been underway over the past years and accelerated over the past 18 months. The plain fact of the matter is the border is as secure now as it’s ever been, but we know we can always do more. And that will always be the case. It’s a big border—1,960 miles across that Southwest border. It’s some of the roughest toughest geographical terrain in the world. The notion that you’re going to seal that border somehow is something that anybody who’s been involved in the actual “doing of law enforcement”—the front line work of law enforcement—would say that you’re never going to seal that border…recognizing also that there’s a lot of trade and commerce we want going back and forth. Mexico, for 22 of our states, is our number one or two trading partner. But [these measures] will make our border even more secure and we will keep evolving as indeed border threats keep evolving. But the notion that you’re going to somehow seal the border and only at that point will you discuss immigration reform, that is not an answer to the problem.
Similarly, local law enforcement realizes that enforcing federal immigration laws is a big problem—not only for want of scarce resources, but also because chasing non-violent immigrants erodes trust between police and the local community. Robert L. Davis, Chief of Police in San Jose and President of the Major Cities Chiefs Associations, points out that enforcing immigration laws is a matter of resource and priority:
Clearly what we would like to see in terms of local law enforcement, specifically from the Major Cities Chiefs Association representing the largest cities in the country, is comprehensive immigration reform. As the Secretary mentioned earlier, we’ll end up with 50 separate state laws which would be a huge problem. Again, keep in mind, local law enforcement across this country is being squeezed. We’re [San Jose] the 10th largest city in the country. We’re talking about cutting our patrol forces by 80% by August. What do you, as local community members, want local law enforcement and police to be doing? Do you want us focusing on robberies, sexual assaults, domestic violence, burglaries, and traffickers? Or do you want us to focus our resources on minor immigration violations?
The bottom line is that we can keep throwing money and resources at the border, but without immigration reform, as Secretary Napolitano and Chief Davis point out, we as a country are not going to solve our immigration problems. Yes, border security is and should be a priority for DHS, but “secure the borders first” as a solution to our immigration problems without reform makes for better politicking than it does policy.
Photo by Warriorwriter.
Keeping the Dream Alive: Sens. Durbin and Lugar Ask Administration for Deferred Deportation for DREAM Act Kids
Apr 21st
Senators Richard Durbin (D-IL) and Richard Lugar (R-IN) have done something that is increasingly rare in Washington—they have issued a bipartisan request for a concrete change in immigration policy. Today, Senators Durbin and Lugar asked Secretary Janet Napolitano to defer deportation of students who would qualify for the DREAM Act. As the lead sponsors of this bipartisan legislation (S. 729)—which would give legal status to students who arrived in the U.S. before the age of 15, have lived in the U.S for at least five years, and are pursuing their education or serving in the military—they have a particular interest in the fate of students who are caught right now in the clutches of deportation.
In a functional and rational Congress, the DREAM Act should be a no-brainer—and should have passed long ago (when it came to the Senate floor in 2007, the cloture vote failed 52-44). As the Senators note in their letter, DREAM is “narrowly tailored to assist only a select group of young people, many of whom came here with their parents at an age when they were too young to understand the consequences of their actions,”—that is, the DREAM Act is designed to protect kids who are American in everything but their birth certificate—the true “innocents” in the immigration wars. Although the DREAM Act has been introduced in every session of Congress since 2001, this is the first time that its co-sponsors have ever taken the dramatic step of asking for deferred action. The request reflects increased pressure to do something to swing the pendulum back to a more rational approach to immigration.
Deferral of deportation itself is nothing new. DHS has the power to defer a deportation order or decline to initiate removal proceedings against any individual based on the Secretary’s inherent prosecutorial discretion. In other words, just like a federal prosecutor, DHS officials have the power to decide who is a priority, who should be put in removal proceedings, and who, ultimately, must be deported. The mere fact that a deportation order exists doesn’t mean—and never has meant—that a person can’t ask for deferral for humanitarian reasons. This usually happens on a case by case basis; but there is also a history of broader responses in situations where the Secretary or the President determines that resources or priorities warrant it.
For instance, the Obama administration deferred deportations in the immediate wake of the earthquake in Haiti, prior to granting TPS. Following clear evidence that Congress would pass special protections for widows and orphans of US citizens, the Administration in June 2009 ordered deferred action to protect affected widows and orphans until the bill became law. DHS granted deferred action for nearly 5,500 foreign academic students adversely impacted by Hurricane Katrina in 2005. Following Tiananmen Square, President Bush issued an executive order deferring the deportation of any Chinese students in the country on June 5, 1989 until January 1994. President Bush also issued deferred enforced departure for at least 190,000 Salvadorans following the end of TPS in 1994 . The time wasn’t right to send them home and it wasn’t right for legislation.
Deferred action for DREAM Act students serves a lot of purposes. It changes the dynamics of the debate by shifting the emphasis from the individual case to the broader policy objective. In this specific case, it highlights the plight of students brought to the U.S. as children whose contributions to the country and the economy could be tremendous, if only they had a chance. It gives the President a specific policy request that allows him to signal support for the DREAM Act and room to highlight the inaction of Congress. In a broader sense, it moves the debate on comprehensive immigration reform forward by directly challenging the enforcement-only mentality that seems to have gripped the country (and parts of DHS) yet again.
Even more important, the fact that this a bipartisan request in the midst of such a partisan fight is a reminder that there can be a way forward when people stop talking party politics and think instead about the people at the center of the immigration debate. Deferred action could mean a lot from a policy perspective, but it could also mean that a high school kid in Indiana gets to spend his senior year getting ready for college instead of a deportation hearing. Senators Durbin and Lugar deserve a round of applause for defying convention and moving the country forward.
Photo by Dos Centavos.
Tip of the ICEberg
originally posted by Mary Giovagnoli for Immigration Impact [click here]
Apr 2nd
The irony of Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s acronym—ICE—has never been lost on anyone, including the agency itself. Shortly after its formation, posters appeared in government offices of an iceberg as big as the one that sunk the Titanic with the motto: ICE—What you see is just the tip of the iceberg. The idea was to emphasize just how much ICE did and how much of it went on quietly and behind the scenes.
Quietly and behind the scenes came back to haunt ICE with a vengeance this week. It began with last Friday’s Washington Post story of a leaked memo requiring ICE officers to boost deportations of non-criminal immigrants in order to fulfill quotas. Although ICE quickly backed away from the memo, the damage—in terms of broken families and broken promises—had already been done.
Next up, the New York Times broke the story that 30 Haitians evacuated to the United States by the government were languishing in detention because they had no authorization to come to the U.S.:
Almost at random, it seems, immigration jail was the ad hoc solution for these 30 survivors and for others still hidden in pockets of the nation’s sprawling detention network. Some of the 30 have already been transferred to more remote immigration jails without explanation.
Finally, the DHS Office of Inspector General issued a long-awaited report that offers a damning critique of the 287(g) program, confirming many of the criticisms levied against the program by community leaders, law enforcement officials, and immigration groups, including the Immigration Policy Center.
The report, The Performance of 287(g) Agreements, identifies numerous shortcomings that lead to abuse and mismanagement and raises serious questions about the wisdom of state and local immigration enforcement partnerships with ICE. The OIG found that the program was poorly managed and supervised, has no consistent guidelines for implementation, doesn’t track data necessary for evaluating the program, doesn’t have adequate outreach, and offers misleading and inaccurate information, among other things. Most importantly, the Inspector General determined that ICE fails to take action against law enforcement agencies that violate the terms of the agreement. Can you say Joe Arpaio, anyone?
In short, with ICE we really are only seeing the tip of the iceberg—and the more we see, the more disturbing it becomes. Law enforcement agencies create trust and safer communities through clear rules and transparency—items that ICE continues to lack, despite numerous political promises to improve performance.
There are already calls to scrap the 287(g) program, but it is unlikely that DHS will eliminate a program that has been a darling of conservative members of Congress. According to the OIG report, ICE has concurred in 32 of the 33 recommendations issued by the Inspector General. This means that the institutional emphasis will be on reform, not elimination of the program.
That’s a shame, as there is no evidence that 287(g) makes communities safer or improves our broken immigration system. In the rush to engage state and local law enforcement on federal immigration matters, ICE has created a program that lacks oversight, undermines community relations, and breeds mistrust. As proven time and time again, a deportation-driven strategy exacts a high toll on individuals and communities with little real impact in stopping illegal immigration
But this week demonstrates that the problems at ICE are not just tied to one particular program. The lack of oversight, the lack of transparency and openness, and the ability to hide behind “law enforcement sensitive” designations, are emblematic of an agency that can quietly go about its business of deporting people because no one is watching over them. Enacting comprehensive immigration reform will change that dynamic in many ways, but it won’t necessarily stop ICE from making the same mistakes. We all have to do that.
Among the many recommendations a group of immigration experts made to the Obama Transition Team was the creation of an ICE Ombudsman’s office. This would be a place where the public had a role and a say in how ICE conducts its business. Acting on that recommendation now would be a first step towards rebuilding trust in an agency that has lost its way.
Budgeting Immigration: Secretary Napolitano Talks Dollars and Programming
originally posted by Travis Packer for Immigration Impact [click here]
Feb 26th
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Janet Napolitano spent the past two days testifying in front of congressional committees addressing concerns over President Obama’s fiscal year (FY) 2011 DHS budget. Mixed in among the complaints over proposed cuts in cyber security and the Coast Guard were a number of budget decisions with immigration implications. Chief among those decisions were a cut in border patrol agents, the status of the troubled SBInet program, and worksite enforcement efforts—including the oft-maligned E-Verify program.
Secretary Napolitano confirmed that DHS would be completing the “first phase” of SBInet, but stopping after that and reevaluating the program and technology. She stressed that the long-delayed technology was tough to implement because it was in some of the roughest environmental areas and this delayed construction. Congressional opinions were mixed, with Senators Carper (D-DE) and McCain (R-AZ) calling the program a waste of time and money. House Republicans disagreed, as Representatives Rogers (R-MI), Souder (R-IN), and Miller (R-MI) were quick to extol the virtues of SBInet and plead for more funding. All of this follows a September 2009 report from the Government Accounting Office which implored Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) to analyze whether or not the time and money spent on SBInet was a good investment considering its limited effectiveness.
Napolitano held the company line for DHS on other issues, stressing that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) was focused on detention of “criminal” aliens, despite complaints from Rep. Rogers about the drop in non-criminal arrests of unauthorized immigrants. Napolitano also echoed ICE Assistant Secretary John Morton’s commitment to Secure Communities, a program which is designed to identify and remove “criminal” aliens from the U.S. Napolitano also confirmed that ICE was working to reform medical care for ICE detainees, but was unwilling to offer a timeline.
Others in Congress voiced their displeasure on worksite enforcement on the heels of an article in the yesterday’s Wall Street Journal. Napolitano stressed that I-9 audits were up over the last year, and that E-Verify covered more employers than ever before. However, Napolitano was unable to provide an explanation as to E-Verify’s staggering error rate.
Finally, on a less policy-specific note, Senator McCain showed signs of life on immigration reform. After rightly deriding border fence efforts, he noted that border apprehensions had declined and rhetorically asked Napolitano what was going to happen when the economy recovered. (The implication here is that the apprehensions have gone down not because of failed enforcement efforts, but because of the economy. This apparent understanding will help in enacting smart comprehensive immigration reform, as immigration enforcement without comprehensive reform does not work.)
With all of the time spent discussing immigration enforcement, comprehensive immigration reform (CIR) advocates may be disappointed that only one representative (Roybal-Allard of California) even mentioned CIR. Understandably, the focus of DHS is homeland security, but identifying the 11-12 million unauthorized immigrants currently in the U.S. would seem to be a boon to our nation’s security.
Photo by The National Guard.
Shining a Light on ICE Misconduct
originally posted by Travis Packer for Immigration Impact [click here]
Feb 3rd
The New York Times reported yesterday on a lawsuit filed against federal contractor Signal Construction, which includes allegations that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) colluded with Signal to illegally deport workers as a scare tactic and for retaliation purposes against 500 Indian guest workers who are currently in a legal battle against Signal.
The new revelations were further discussed in a press conference today, held at the National Press Club in Washington, DC featuring representatives from the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law and the New Orleans Workers’ Center for Racial Justice. The testimony from depositions in the case involving Indian workers and Signal could prove that ICE colluded with the Signal to arrange illegal deportations and used ICE enforcement to quell labor strikes.
In 2006, Signal International hired approximately 500 skilled immigrant workers from India to repair offshore oil rigs in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Many workers paid as much as $20,000 to Signal recruiters, who in turn promised that their H-2B temporary work visas would converted into green cards, and thus put the workers on a pathway to citizenship.
The lawsuit contends that when the workers began to organize against their employer they sought advice from ICE who advised Signal on how to retaliate against the striking workers, including directions for illegally deporting the workers. Second, ICE officials told Signal that if they were given the names of protests leaders in the labor camps, ICE would seek to deport them. ICE officials also offered to track and apprehend any Signal workers who ran away in order to “send a message.”
Particularly troubling is the allegation that the ICE agent named in the deposition was also the ICE official appointed to conduct internal investigations when the initial accusations came to light. This means that the same official that colluded with Signal to illegally deport workers was the official in charge of interviewing guest workers and investigating claims about how Signal was treating its workers. ICE officials allegedly tried to stop the investigation both within ICE and other investigating bodies, as well as delay the trafficking visa applications of the workers.
At this point, it is unclear how far-reaching the collusion was within ICE. This morning, Saket Soni, Executive Director of the New Orleans Workers’ Center for Racial Justice, stated his belief that this was only the tip of the iceberg. He pointed to the breadth of the violations—advising the company on how to deport, the collusion on names and apprehensions, and the undermining of other agencies—as potential evidence that the collusion between ICE and Signal may have necessarily involved a number of ICE officials.
If this is the case, a swift and thorough independent investigation is necessary. While the initial transgressions occurred under a different administration, the conveners of the press conference said it is the responsibility of DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano and ICE Assistant Secretary John Morton to ensure that none of the ICE workers perpetrating this collusion remain employed, and to ensure the safety and well-being of the hundreds of Indian workers who were taken advantage of.
Photo by: CompassRoseK8
Napolitano Unveils Enforcement-Heavy Immigration Budget for DHS
originally posted by Walter Ewing for Immigration Impact [click here]
Feb 2nd
The Fiscal Year (FY) 2011 budget request for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano unveiled yesterday, exemplifies the enforcement mentality which pervades the federal government’s approach to immigration. The two immigration-enforcement components of DHS—Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)—consume 30% of the department’s total budget, while the immigration-services component, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, is allotted a mere 5%. However, the budget request does throw a few much-needed crumbs to programs such as Asylum and Refugee Services and Immigrant Integration and Citizenship.
The DHS budget request for FY 2011 totals $56.3 billion—an increase of 1.7% over the department’s enacted FY 2010 budget. The funding requests for the three immigration-related components of DHS break down as follows:
- CBP: $11.2 billion (a decrease of 2% from the enacted FY 2010 budget).
- ICE: $5.8 billion (an increase of 2%).
- USCIS: $2.8 billion (an increase of 2%).
The budget request for the E-Verify electronic employment-verification system ($103.4 million), which is housed within USCIS, represents a decline from FY 2010 ($137 million). But the number of positions devoted to the program would increase to 338 (from 298 this year).
Despite the emphasis on immigration enforcement, the DHS budget request also includes two notable increases for services within USCIS:
- Asylum and Refugee Services/Military Naturalizations: $207 million (up from $55 million in the enacted FY 2010 budget) and 744 positions.
- Immigrant Integration and Citizenship: $18 million and 23 positions (up from $11 million and only 3 positions in FY 2010).
Unfortunately, in the absence of comprehensive immigration reform, the DHS budget continues to throw billions of dollars into enforcement-only measures which for decades have proven unsuccessful at dealing with unauthorized immigration, and which do nothing to help the millions of would-be immigrants trapped in visa backlogs. Until U.S. immigration laws are overhauled, DHS will continue its fanciful (and expensive) quest to enforce a broken immigration system.
Photo by Adam Norwood.
An Opening for Republicans on Immigration Reform
originally posted by Wendy Sefsaf for Immigration Impact [click here]
Feb 1st
Immigration and Latino advocates continue to take stock after last week’s State of the Union Address, which some interpreted as the final nail in immigration reform’s coffin for 2010. Predictably, Democratic leadership reasserted their ongoing commitment to immigration reform legislation the day after. Less predictably, however, Senator Schumer’s main Republican partner in the Senate, Lindsay Graham, came out the following day in support of moving forward on reform in an interview with The Atlantic:
I think the idea of border security as a confidence builder is the way to start. Most Americans are very practical and reasonable. They’re upset about broken borders and our out-of-control immigration system. They will buy into a comprehensive solution if we can prove to them, and only if we can prove to them, we don’t have twenty million more illegal immigrants, ten years, twenty years down the road.
And when it comes to the illegal alien population, if the definition of amnesty is you got to deport twelve million people, or put twelve million people in jail, then we’ll never have a comprehensive solution, because that’s just not workable, it’s not practical.
To me, amnesty would be forgiving people, like Ronald Reagan did, with no consequence, and not repairing the system. Amnesty is what we have today. What I would like to see is the illegal immigrant population come out of the shadows, be biometrically identified, be required to learn English, pay the fines for their crime, and get right with the law. If they want to be a citizen, get in the back of the line, not break into line.
And to my Republican colleagues, I can understand the politics of this is difficult. Big things are hard to do. But I believe in 2008, we lost a lot of ground with the Hispanic community because of the rhetoric and the tone we set on immigration.
Speaking of losing ground with Latinos, the National Congreso Latino met in Texas this weekend with a local newspaper, reporting:
Latino conventioneers said today President Obama virtually ignored their constituency in his state of the union address this week and that the mid-term elections could serve as a referendum on his administration.
History tells us that the Latino vote is not a dependable liberal constituency for the Democratic Party. If anyone’s political calculation assumes Democrats can hold onto Latinos without reforming immigration and addressing their other concerns, they are dead wrong. Latinos have turned out in force in past elections for Republicans candidates like George W. Bush.
Obviously, the best way forward for an immigration reform bill is a bipartisan approach—an approach advocated by the President in his unprecedented televised Q&A with Republican lawmakers at their annual retreat last week in Baltimore. The President said:
Bipartisanship—not for its own sake but to solve problems—that’s what our constituents, the American people, need from us right now. All of us then have a choice to make. We have to choose whether we’re going to be politicians first or partners for progress; whether we’re going to put success at the polls ahead of the lasting success we can achieve together for America.
Some have even calculated that after an endless and bruising healthcare reform battle, immigration reform, which has been already been debated ad-nauseum, might just be the issue that both parties can tackle to show the public that difficult things can get done in Washington.
It’s easy to blame the President, the Congress and everyone else in Washington for the delay, throw in the towel and make declarative sentences about immigration reform being dead. However, there is still a beating heart in the process with ongoing signs of life, including productive negotiations between business and labor groups on the issue of future flow, Secretary Janet Napolitano’s report on her ongoing pursuit of comprehensive immigration reform in the coming year and again, and Republican Senator Lindsay Graham’s public enthusiasm for tackling the issue.
This could actually be the best time for immigration reform, Republican’s could move away from extreme factions of tea-baggers to prove to their anti-establishment constituents back home that they can think independent of their party and solve tough problems.
The late conservative thinker, Richard Nadler, always advocated that rather than running away from the immigration issue, Republicans should step up to help shape it. Early last year he put it this way:
At some point, conservatives must reflect on how many allies, and how many issues, we are willing to sacrifice in a fey and futile attempt to get field workers, busboys, and nannies out of the country. The steady drumbeat of restrictionist defeat invites—no, requires—conservatives to revisit a concept we have glibly reviled: comprehensive immigration reform. The relevant question is no longer whether we want it, but what we want from it: what forms of border security, crime control, and employment verification. Every hour we postpone a border reform that respects the interests of employers and Hispanics, our entire agenda suffers.
Photo by criggchef.
Lost in Translation: What the President Really Said about Immigration Reform
originally posted by Mary Giovagnoli for Immigration Impact [click here]
Jan 29th
Unless you were hanging on every word in Wednesday night’s State of the Union Address, you might have missed that the President reaffirmed his commitment to fixing our broken immigration system. His commitment wasn’t as specific as many of the things he has said about immigration reform in the past. In fact, this glancing mention of immigration reform has already caused a backlash among activists—many of whom are disappointed that the message was too muted and without teeth. But upon closer inspection, you might find that President Obama’s message of bipartisanship, American values and the importance of diversity translates into moving forward on immigration reform.
True, the President could have called for immigration reform as a component of rebuilding our economy. He missed a golden opportunity to make that link. And true, he could have laid out the case for immigration reform more systematically or made it clear that the White House and DHS are both working feverishly behind the scenes to make immigration reform happen. That would have been a welcomed message. President Obama did, however, deliver a more subtle message—a message aimed at Congress.
Take a look at the framing of the immigration statement from a rhetorical perspective. It wasn’t in the “jobs” section of the bill (although it should have been), but was instead in a section about governing and getting bipartisan cooperation. The arc of President Obama’s address goes something like this: jobs, jobs, economy, jobs, health care, foreign wars and terrorism, good deeds abroad, and then the following:
We must continually renew this promise. My Administration has a Civil Rights Division that is once again prosecuting civil rights violations and employment discrimination. We finally strengthened our laws to protect against crimes driven by hate. This year, I will work with Congress and our military to finally repeal the law that denies gay Americans the right to serve the country they love because of who they are. We are going to crack down on violations of equal pay laws – so that women get equal pay for an equal day’s work. And we should continue the work of fixing our broken immigration system – to secure our borders, enforce our laws, and ensure that everyone who plays by the rules can contribute to our economy and enrich our nations.
In the end, it is our ideals, our values, that built America; values that allowed us to forge a nation made up of immigrants from every corner of the globe; values that drive our citizens still. Every day, Americans meet their responsibilities to their families and their employers. Time and again, they lend a hand to their neighbors and give back to their country. They take pride in their labor, and are generous in spirit. These aren’t Republican values or Democratic values they’re living by; business values or labor values. They are American values.
Translation:
My agenda this year is going to keep moving forward. If Congress won’t cooperate in doing the right thing, I can do it administratively. I have revived the nearly dead civil rights division so it can prosecute cases again after 8 long years without a real commitment to civil rights. I am finally going to get rid of discriminatory policies preventing gays to serve openly in the military. While I could do this on my own, I want to work with Congress to make it happen. And I still support comprehensive immigration reform that mirrors what Janet Napolitano laid out recently—a three legged stool where “everyone who plays by the rules can contribute to our economy and enrich our nation”—which means a path to legalization for the 12 million undocumented immigrants who would help revive our economy and continue to provide the rich diversity that makes the country strong.
Remember, Congress, we are nation of immigrants and immigrants vote. The values of our immigrant nation are what still drives us (that is, we are all immigrants) and sooner or later we need to fix the immigration problem. This isn’t a Republican or Democratic problem (read bipartisan) and it isn’t a business or labor problem (read the coming together of these two groups to solve immigration issues is vitally important.) It’s an American problem.
Translation, of course, is an art not a science. Many people will, no doubt, not read all of these subtleties into the speech. But consider the wide range of issues the president could have mentioned. The fact that immigration reform, framed within the context of quintessential American values, made it into the speech at all is surely significant. Also of significance is the fact that for the first time, Spanish language network anchors—from CNN en Español, Univision, and Telemundo—were invited to the traditional pre-State of the Union lunch with President Obama.
For days to come, the State of the Union Address will be taken apart line by line until the next big Presidential event—the release of the budget. Hopefully the President will learn before then that he can’t solely speak in Congressional code and expect the public to be satisfied. In the meantime, congressional leaders on immigration, such as Sen. Schumer (D-NY), Sen. Reid (D-NV) and Rep. Luis Gutierrez, continue to beat the drum for immigration reform and deliver the President’s coded message—immigration reform is still a top priority for this Administration, but we need to work together in order to move forward.
Photo by the White House.
