The number of illegal immigrants living in the United States has dropped for the first time in two decades - decreasing by 8 percent since 2007, a new study finds. The reasons range from the sour economy to Mexican violence and increased U.S. enforcement that has made it harder to sneak across the border.
In California, the decline from 2008 to 2009 was 4 percent, but the state is still home to nearly a quarter of the nation's population of illegal immigrants. Much of the decline comes from a sharp drop-off in illegal immigrants from the Caribbean, Central America and South America attempting to cross the southern border of the U.S., according to the Pew Hispanic Center, which based its report on an analysis of 2009 census data.
The findings come amid bitter debate over Arizona's strict new immigration law, which was passed earlier this year but is on hold for now as it is challenged in federal court. The Obama administration contends the state law usurps federal authority and promotes racial profiling, while Arizona leaders say states are justified to step in if federal enforcement falls substantially short. The study released Wednesday estimates that 11.1 million illegal immigrants lived in the U.S. in 2009. That represents a decrease of roughly 1 million, or 8 percent, from a peak of 12 million in 2007.
The study puts the number of illegal immigrants down to about where it was in 2005.They still make up roughly 4 percent of the U.S. population. The Homeland Security Department's own estimate of illegal immigrants is slightly lower, at 10.8 million. The government uses a different census survey that makes some year-to-year comparisons difficult. An increase in unauthorized immigrants leaving the U.S., by deportation or for economic reasons, may have played a factor in the falling number.
In recent years, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement has deported an increasing number of illegal immigrants, reaching a high last year of more than 389,000 people, according to government figures. States in the Southeast and Southwest saw some of the biggest declines in the number of illegal immigrants from 2008 to 2009, including Florida, Nevada and Virginia. Arizona saw a decrease, but it was too small to be statistically significant. It's hard to figure out how much of the decline to attribute to the bad economy and how much to federal immigration enforcement, said Jeffrey Passel, a senior demographer at Pew who co-wrote the analysis. "They're certainly acting together," he said. Passel said illegal immigrants now find it more expensive and dangerous to cross into the U.S. and also have less incentive to do so given the languishing job market in construction and other low-wage industries.
The Pew analysis found the sharpest decline - 22 percent - among illegal immigrants from Latin American countries other than Mexico. This may reflect a lesser-known aspect of the immigration debate that broke into the news again last week when the bodies of 72 Central and South American migrants were found in a cartel stronghold in northern Mexico: Thousands of non-Mexicans go missing on their way to the United States, falling victim to demands that they pay impossible ransoms to criminal gangs that control access to the U.S. border. "While people are arguing the government is not stopping illegal immigration, our data suggests the flow of undocumented immigrants sneaking into the country has dropped dramatically," Passel said. "The estimates by Pew will add to the political back-and-forth on immigration reform".
President Barack Obama, who is challenging the Arizona law, has pledged to push an overhaul of federal immigration law but has declined to set a timeline. After the passage of Arizona's immigration law, more than a dozen states were considering similar legislation or have issued legal opinions aimed at strengthening immigration enforcement. They include Florida, Virginia, South Carolina and Utah. Boosted by immigration and high numbers of births among Latinos, minorities now make up roughly half the children born in the U.S., part of a historic trend in which they are projected to become the majority of Americans by mid-century. Roughly one in four counties currently have more minority children than white children or are nearing that point.
The Pew analysis, based on census data through March 2009, estimates California had 2.55 million illegal immigrants that year, a 3.8 percent decrease from the year before. The state accounts for 23 percent of illegal immigrants in the United States. The study also says illegal immigrants now comprise 6.9 percent of California's population - the highest percentage in the country. Despite the decline, Los Angeles County officials said they have seen an increase in the costs of providing services to undocumented immigrants and in the number of citizen children of undocumented parents receiving food stamps and welfare benefits.
The amount of money the county spends on health, welfare and criminal justice services for undocumented immigrants increased from $1 billion in 2008 to $1.4 billion in 2009, according to figures provided by county Supervisor Mike Antonovich. By including the education costs for the children of undocumented immigrants, said Antonovich spokesman Tony Bell, said the annual costs now exceed $2 billion. "It's been increasing gradually, but consistently over the years," Bell said. "It leads me to believe that illegal immigration continues to have a catastrophic financial impact on county taxpayers without regards to surveys showing a smaller population or not." From January to July, the number of citizen children of undocumented parents receiving food stamps in the county increased 4 percent from 103,238 to 107,504, according to the Department of Public Social Services.
Showing posts with label Immigration Reform. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Immigration Reform. Show all posts
Friday, September 10, 2010
Monday, August 23, 2010
Birthright Blunder
A number of Republican congressman and others are talking about amending the Constitution so that children of illegal immigrants who are born in this country would no longer automatically be granted citizenship. If they are serious, this is bad policy. If they are simply engaged in election year pandering, it is bad politics.
In recent weeks, such figures as House Republican Leader John Boehner of Ohio, Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, Sens. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Jeff Sessions of Alabama and John McCain and Jon Kyl of Arizona have all said the idea of changing the rules on what is termed "birthright citizenship" should be examined.
The 14th Amendment to the Constitution states that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" are automatically U.S. citizens.
Graham has called this "a mistake." He and others have suggested hearings on a possible constitutional amendment. Graham in particular has said, "(P)eople come here to have babies."
According to a recent report by the Pew Hispanic Center, about 1 in 12 babies born in the United States in 2008 was the child of illegal immigrants. However, Pew demographer Jeffrey Passel told the Wall Street Journal that more than 80 percent of illegal immigrant mothers who gave birth in this country did so only after being here for at least a year or longer. Many had been in this country for about a decade, Passel added.
Mounting a constitutional amendment effort is a large task.
It won't be accomplished with a Democratic majority in Congress.
Even if the GOP gains control of one chamber of Congress in the fall elections, it is unlikely.
While such talk may whip up some parts of the Republican base who are frustrated with the federal government's efforts to deal effectively with immigration, it will distract from sensible immigration reforms that have been suggested first by former President George W. Bush and most recently by President Barack Obama.
These include securing the border, to be sure, but also a system of guest worker permits that would allow migrants to work in this country legally and also allow for Immigrations and Customs Enforcement agents to better monitor cross-border traffic.
A way must be found to grant the 11 million undocumented aliens a route to legal residency here with appropriate fines and waiting periods.
Changing the Constitution, even if it could be done, would throw more than a century of immigration law into disarray. Immigration law is difficult to enforce now.
Without the bright line of birthright citizenship in which all children born here are automatically citizens, it would be even more difficult to administer.
And it would turn the United States into a different kind of country — one that is less admirable.
Finally, from a purely political point of view, this kind of talk is simply unwise for Republicans. Ultimately, their political calculations are their business but alienating a large and growing segment of the population — Hispanics — doesn't seem very smart.
In recent weeks, such figures as House Republican Leader John Boehner of Ohio, Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, Sens. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Jeff Sessions of Alabama and John McCain and Jon Kyl of Arizona have all said the idea of changing the rules on what is termed "birthright citizenship" should be examined.
The 14th Amendment to the Constitution states that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" are automatically U.S. citizens.
Graham has called this "a mistake." He and others have suggested hearings on a possible constitutional amendment. Graham in particular has said, "(P)eople come here to have babies."
According to a recent report by the Pew Hispanic Center, about 1 in 12 babies born in the United States in 2008 was the child of illegal immigrants. However, Pew demographer Jeffrey Passel told the Wall Street Journal that more than 80 percent of illegal immigrant mothers who gave birth in this country did so only after being here for at least a year or longer. Many had been in this country for about a decade, Passel added.
Mounting a constitutional amendment effort is a large task.
It won't be accomplished with a Democratic majority in Congress.
Even if the GOP gains control of one chamber of Congress in the fall elections, it is unlikely.
While such talk may whip up some parts of the Republican base who are frustrated with the federal government's efforts to deal effectively with immigration, it will distract from sensible immigration reforms that have been suggested first by former President George W. Bush and most recently by President Barack Obama.
These include securing the border, to be sure, but also a system of guest worker permits that would allow migrants to work in this country legally and also allow for Immigrations and Customs Enforcement agents to better monitor cross-border traffic.
A way must be found to grant the 11 million undocumented aliens a route to legal residency here with appropriate fines and waiting periods.
Changing the Constitution, even if it could be done, would throw more than a century of immigration law into disarray. Immigration law is difficult to enforce now.
Without the bright line of birthright citizenship in which all children born here are automatically citizens, it would be even more difficult to administer.
And it would turn the United States into a different kind of country — one that is less admirable.
Finally, from a purely political point of view, this kind of talk is simply unwise for Republicans. Ultimately, their political calculations are their business but alienating a large and growing segment of the population — Hispanics — doesn't seem very smart.
Thursday, August 19, 2010
US Immigration and Customs Enforcement Update, August 19, 2010
63 convicted criminal aliens, fugitives arrested in ICE enforcement surge
In the largest operation of its kind ever carried out in Arizona, more than 60 convicted criminal aliens and immigration fugitives have been arrested following a three-day targeted enforcement operation by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
During the operation, which concluded Wednesday evening, ICE officers located and arrested 55 aliens with prior criminal convictions. In addition, 16 of the individuals ICE officers took into custody were immigration fugitives, aliens with outstanding orders of deportation who had failed to leave the country. Of those arrested during the enforcement action, at least 25 have already been removed from the United States.
Because of their serious criminal histories and prior immigration arrest records, at least 12 of those arrested during the enforcement surge have been presented for federal prosecution for re-entering the country illegally after a formal deportation. A conviction for felony re-entry carries a penalty of up to 20 years in prison.
"We are dedicated to bringing criminals to justice all along the southwest border, and in particular we will aggressively prosecute offenders with violent criminal convictions and who pose a threat to our communities," said Dennis Burke, U. S. Attorney for the District of Arizona. "We are pleased to stand together with our partners in Homeland Security and the Marshals Service and our state partners in the Offices of Probation and Parole to secure the southwest border through targeted enforcement strategies like today's action."
Among the arrestees is a 45-year-old Mexican woman who was convicted in California for conspiracy to commit wire fraud, a scheme that netted her and her conspirators more than $820,000.
Also arrested was a 55-year-old Mexican man who was convicted of selling methamphetamine in 2003. This individual has already been convicted once of felony re-entry into the United States in 2009, and following this arrest he will be prosecuted again in federal court.
The foreign nationals detained during the operation who are not being criminally prosecuted will be processed administratively for removal from the United States. Those who have outstanding orders of deportation, or who returned to the United States illegally after being deported, are subject to immediate removal from the country. The remaining aliens are in ICE custody awaiting a hearing before an immigration judge, or pending travel arrangements for removal in the near future.
Of those arrested, 52 were male and 11 were female. They represent 9 different nations, including countries in Latin America, Europe and the Middle East.
ICE's Fugitive Operations Program is just one facet of the Department of Homeland Security's broader strategy to heighten the federal government's effectiveness at identifying and removing dangerous criminal aliens from the United States. Other initiatives that figure prominently in this effort are the Criminal Alien Program, Secure Communities and the agency's partnerships with state and local law enforcement agencies under 287(g).
Largely as a result of these initiatives, ICE removed a total of 136,126 criminal aliens from the United States last year, a record number.
ICE arrests 11 gang members and associates in Madison, Wis., area
MADISON, Wis. - Agents with the local U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Office of Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), in close partnership with the Madison Police Department (MPD), arrested 11 illegal alien gang members and gang associates on Tuesday. This is the latest joint local action of an ongoing national ICE HSI effort to target foreign-born members of violent street gangs.
The arrests were made Aug. 11 under an initiative by ICE's National Gang Unit dubbed "Operation Community Shield." As part of the initiative, ICE partners with federal, state and local law enforcement agencies across the country to target the significant public safety threat posed by transnational street gangs. Partnerships with local law enforcement agencies are essential to the initiative's success, and they help further ensure officer safety during the operations.
All 11 men arrested are members or associates of the Chicano Pride and C-14 street gangs; all are Mexican nationals. They have been charged with administrative immigration violations and are being processed for deportation. Five of those arrested have previous criminal convictions in addition to their immigration violations. Some of their arrests and convictions include: carrying a concealed weapon, resisting or obstructing a police officer, battery, theft and criminal damage to property. For privacy reasons, ICE does not release the names of those arrested on administrative immigration charges.
In addition to the Madison Police Department, ICE received assistance from the following agencies: the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF); the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Western District of Wisconsin; and the U.S. Marshals Service (USMS).
"Street gangs pose a growing public safety threat to communities in the Madison area," said Gary Hartwig, special agent in charge of the ICE HSI office in Chicago. "With each gang member we arrest and remove from the United States, we're making a positive impact in our communities and improving public safety."
"The arrests during this joint operation with ICE are consistent with what the MPD has stated in the past: we are focused on removing violent gang members from the streets of Madison," said Madison Police Chief Noble Wray. "It is a matter of public safety, and we will work in concert with federal authorities to diminish potential threats. This in no way; however, changes our approach and philosophy in dealing with other members of our immigrant communities."
ICE's National Gang Unit identifies violent street gangs and develops intelligence on their membership, associates, criminal activities and international movements to deter, disrupt and dismantle gang operations by tracing and seizing cash, weapons and other assets derived from criminal activities.
Through Operation Community Shield, the federal government uses its powerful immigration and customs law enforcement authorities in a coordinated, national campaign against criminal street gangs in the United States. Transnational street gangs have significant numbers of foreign-born members and are frequently involved in human and contraband smuggling, immigration violations and other crimes with a connection to the border.
Since ICE began Operation Community Shield in February 2005, more than 18,000 gang members and associates belonging to more than 900 different gangs have been arrested nationwide.
The public is encouraged to report suspicious activity by calling the ICE toll-free hotline at: 1-866-347-2423. This hotline is staffed around the clock.
5 more Texas counties to benefit from ICE strategy to enhance the identification, removal of criminal aliens
Uses biometrics to prioritize immigration enforcement actions against convicted criminal aliens
SAN ANGELO, Texas-On Tuesday, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) began using a new biometric information-sharing capability in five more Texas counties - Borden, Gaines, Mitchell, Scurry and Sterling counties - that helps federal immigration officials identify aliens, both lawfully and unlawfully present in the United States, who are booked into local law enforcement's custody for a crime. This capability is part of Secure Communities - ICE's comprehensive strategy to improve and modernize the identification and removal of criminal aliens from the United States.
Previously, fingerprint-based biometric records were taken of individuals charged with a crime and booked into custody and checked for criminal history information against the Department of Justice's (DOJ) Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System (IAFIS). Now, through enhanced information sharing between DOJ and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), fingerprint information submitted through the state to the FBI will be automatically checked against both the FBI criminal history records in IAFIS and the biometrics-based immigration records in DHS's Automated Biometric Identification System (IDENT).
If fingerprints match those of someone in DHS's biometric system, the new automated process notifies ICE. ICE evaluates each case to determine the individual's immigration status and takes appropriate enforcement action. This includes aliens who are in lawful status and those who are present without lawful authority. Once identified through fingerprint matching, ICE will respond with a priority placed on aliens convicted of the most serious offences first-such as those with convictions for major drug offences, murder, rape and kidnapping.
"The Secure Communities strategy provides ICE with an effective tool to identify criminal aliens in local custody," said Secure Communities Executive Director David Venturella. "Enhancing public safety is at the core of ICE's mission. Our goal is to use biometric information sharing to remove criminal aliens, preventing them from being released back into the community, with little or no additional burden on our law enforcement partners."
With the expansion of the biometric information sharing capability to these 5 Texas counties, ICE is now using it in 193 Texas jurisdictions. Across the country, ICE is using this capability in 553 jurisdictions in 29 states. ICE plans to be able to respond to leads generated through the biometric information sharing capability nationwide by 2013.
"The Scurry County Sheriff's Office is pleased to work side by side with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and assist them in the removal of Criminal Aliens who victimize our communities," said Scurry County Sheriff Darren Jackson. "Like all groups of people, there are honest hard-working people who are in our country legally and do not pose a danger to citizens, and we appreciate and respect their contributions to our communities. This program targets those who violate the laws of this Country and State and create a burden for the local taxpayers. We believe that by working with ICE to remove this group of individuals from our communities we can truly make our streets and neighborhoods a safer place to live."
Since ICE began using this enhanced information sharing capability in October 2008, immigration officers have removed from the United States more than 10,800 criminal aliens convicted of Level 1 crimes, such as murder, rape and kidnapping. Additionally, ICE has removed more than 27,000 criminal aliens convicted of Level 2 and 3 crimes, including burglary and serious property crimes, which account for the majority of crimes committed by aliens. ICE does not regard aliens charged with, but not yet convicted of crimes, as "criminal aliens." Instead, a "criminal alien" is an alien convicted of a crime. In accordance with the Immigration and Nationality Act, ICE continues to take action on aliens subject to removal as resources permit.
The IDENT system is maintained by DHS's US-VISIT program and IAFIS is maintained by the FBI's Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS).
"US-VISIT is proud to support ICE, helping provide decision makers with comprehensive, reliable information when and where they need it," said US-VISIT Director Robert Mocny. "By enhancing the interoperability of DHS's and the FBI's biometric systems, we are able to give federal, state and local decision makers information that helps them better protect our communities and our nation."
"Under this plan, ICE will be utilizing FBI system enhancements that allow improved information sharing at the state and local law enforcement level based on positive identification of incarcerated criminal aliens," said Daniel D. Roberts, assistant director of the FBI's CJIS Division. "Additionally, ICE and the FBI are working together to take advantage of the strong relationships already forged between the FBI and state and local law enforcement necessary to assist ICE in achieving its goals."
In the largest operation of its kind ever carried out in Arizona, more than 60 convicted criminal aliens and immigration fugitives have been arrested following a three-day targeted enforcement operation by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
During the operation, which concluded Wednesday evening, ICE officers located and arrested 55 aliens with prior criminal convictions. In addition, 16 of the individuals ICE officers took into custody were immigration fugitives, aliens with outstanding orders of deportation who had failed to leave the country. Of those arrested during the enforcement action, at least 25 have already been removed from the United States.
At a news conference here Thursday, ICE Director John Morton announced the results of the enforcement action, which involved more than 60 ICE agents and officers, as well as personnel from the U.S. Marshals Service. Those officers fanned out across the state making arrests in Phoenix, Tucson, Sedona , Mesa, Tempe and Prescott.
"These are not people we want to see walking the streets here in Phoenix or in any other community in Arizona," said ICE Director John Morton. "Those who come to the United States to prey upon communities in Arizona will be prosecuted for their crimes and ultimately returned to their home countries.
The results of this operation demonstrate ICE's commitment to that principle."
Because of their serious criminal histories and prior immigration arrest records, at least 12 of those arrested during the enforcement surge have been presented for federal prosecution for re-entering the country illegally after a formal deportation. A conviction for felony re-entry carries a penalty of up to 20 years in prison.
"We are dedicated to bringing criminals to justice all along the southwest border, and in particular we will aggressively prosecute offenders with violent criminal convictions and who pose a threat to our communities," said Dennis Burke, U. S. Attorney for the District of Arizona. "We are pleased to stand together with our partners in Homeland Security and the Marshals Service and our state partners in the Offices of Probation and Parole to secure the southwest border through targeted enforcement strategies like today's action."
Among the arrestees is a 45-year-old Mexican woman who was convicted in California for conspiracy to commit wire fraud, a scheme that netted her and her conspirators more than $820,000.
Also arrested was a 55-year-old Mexican man who was convicted of selling methamphetamine in 2003. This individual has already been convicted once of felony re-entry into the United States in 2009, and following this arrest he will be prosecuted again in federal court.
The foreign nationals detained during the operation who are not being criminally prosecuted will be processed administratively for removal from the United States. Those who have outstanding orders of deportation, or who returned to the United States illegally after being deported, are subject to immediate removal from the country. The remaining aliens are in ICE custody awaiting a hearing before an immigration judge, or pending travel arrangements for removal in the near future.
Of those arrested, 52 were male and 11 were female. They represent 9 different nations, including countries in Latin America, Europe and the Middle East.
This week's special enforcement action was spearheaded by ICE's Fugitive Operations Program, which is responsible for locating, arresting and removing at large criminal aliens and immigration fugitives - aliens who have ignored final orders of deportation handed down by the nation's immigration courts. ICE's Fugitive Operations Teams (FOTs) give top priority to cases involving aliens who pose a threat to national security and public safety, including members of trans-national street gangs and child sex offenders.
The officers who conducted this week's operation received substantial assistance from ICE's Fugitive Operations Support Center (FOSC) located in South Burlington, Vt. The FOSC conducted exhaustive database checks on the targeted cases to help ensure the viability of the leads and accuracy of the criminal histories. The FOSC was established in 2006 to improve the integrity of the data available on at large criminal aliens and immigration fugitives nationwide. Since its inception, the FOSC has forwarded more than 550,000 case leads to ICE enforcement personnel in the field. In addition, leads were developed through the assistance of the Arizona Supreme Court Adult Probation Division.
ICE's Fugitive Operations Program is just one facet of the Department of Homeland Security's broader strategy to heighten the federal government's effectiveness at identifying and removing dangerous criminal aliens from the United States. Other initiatives that figure prominently in this effort are the Criminal Alien Program, Secure Communities and the agency's partnerships with state and local law enforcement agencies under 287(g).
Largely as a result of these initiatives, ICE removed a total of 136,126 criminal aliens from the United States last year, a record number.
ICE arrests 11 gang members and associates in Madison, Wis., area
MADISON, Wis. - Agents with the local U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Office of Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), in close partnership with the Madison Police Department (MPD), arrested 11 illegal alien gang members and gang associates on Tuesday. This is the latest joint local action of an ongoing national ICE HSI effort to target foreign-born members of violent street gangs.
The arrests were made Aug. 11 under an initiative by ICE's National Gang Unit dubbed "Operation Community Shield." As part of the initiative, ICE partners with federal, state and local law enforcement agencies across the country to target the significant public safety threat posed by transnational street gangs. Partnerships with local law enforcement agencies are essential to the initiative's success, and they help further ensure officer safety during the operations.
All 11 men arrested are members or associates of the Chicano Pride and C-14 street gangs; all are Mexican nationals. They have been charged with administrative immigration violations and are being processed for deportation. Five of those arrested have previous criminal convictions in addition to their immigration violations. Some of their arrests and convictions include: carrying a concealed weapon, resisting or obstructing a police officer, battery, theft and criminal damage to property. For privacy reasons, ICE does not release the names of those arrested on administrative immigration charges.
In addition to the Madison Police Department, ICE received assistance from the following agencies: the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF); the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Western District of Wisconsin; and the U.S. Marshals Service (USMS).
"Street gangs pose a growing public safety threat to communities in the Madison area," said Gary Hartwig, special agent in charge of the ICE HSI office in Chicago. "With each gang member we arrest and remove from the United States, we're making a positive impact in our communities and improving public safety."
"The arrests during this joint operation with ICE are consistent with what the MPD has stated in the past: we are focused on removing violent gang members from the streets of Madison," said Madison Police Chief Noble Wray. "It is a matter of public safety, and we will work in concert with federal authorities to diminish potential threats. This in no way; however, changes our approach and philosophy in dealing with other members of our immigrant communities."
ICE's National Gang Unit identifies violent street gangs and develops intelligence on their membership, associates, criminal activities and international movements to deter, disrupt and dismantle gang operations by tracing and seizing cash, weapons and other assets derived from criminal activities.
Through Operation Community Shield, the federal government uses its powerful immigration and customs law enforcement authorities in a coordinated, national campaign against criminal street gangs in the United States. Transnational street gangs have significant numbers of foreign-born members and are frequently involved in human and contraband smuggling, immigration violations and other crimes with a connection to the border.
Since ICE began Operation Community Shield in February 2005, more than 18,000 gang members and associates belonging to more than 900 different gangs have been arrested nationwide.
The public is encouraged to report suspicious activity by calling the ICE toll-free hotline at: 1-866-347-2423. This hotline is staffed around the clock.
5 more Texas counties to benefit from ICE strategy to enhance the identification, removal of criminal aliens
Uses biometrics to prioritize immigration enforcement actions against convicted criminal aliens
SAN ANGELO, Texas-On Tuesday, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) began using a new biometric information-sharing capability in five more Texas counties - Borden, Gaines, Mitchell, Scurry and Sterling counties - that helps federal immigration officials identify aliens, both lawfully and unlawfully present in the United States, who are booked into local law enforcement's custody for a crime. This capability is part of Secure Communities - ICE's comprehensive strategy to improve and modernize the identification and removal of criminal aliens from the United States.
Previously, fingerprint-based biometric records were taken of individuals charged with a crime and booked into custody and checked for criminal history information against the Department of Justice's (DOJ) Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System (IAFIS). Now, through enhanced information sharing between DOJ and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), fingerprint information submitted through the state to the FBI will be automatically checked against both the FBI criminal history records in IAFIS and the biometrics-based immigration records in DHS's Automated Biometric Identification System (IDENT).
If fingerprints match those of someone in DHS's biometric system, the new automated process notifies ICE. ICE evaluates each case to determine the individual's immigration status and takes appropriate enforcement action. This includes aliens who are in lawful status and those who are present without lawful authority. Once identified through fingerprint matching, ICE will respond with a priority placed on aliens convicted of the most serious offences first-such as those with convictions for major drug offences, murder, rape and kidnapping.
"The Secure Communities strategy provides ICE with an effective tool to identify criminal aliens in local custody," said Secure Communities Executive Director David Venturella. "Enhancing public safety is at the core of ICE's mission. Our goal is to use biometric information sharing to remove criminal aliens, preventing them from being released back into the community, with little or no additional burden on our law enforcement partners."
With the expansion of the biometric information sharing capability to these 5 Texas counties, ICE is now using it in 193 Texas jurisdictions. Across the country, ICE is using this capability in 553 jurisdictions in 29 states. ICE plans to be able to respond to leads generated through the biometric information sharing capability nationwide by 2013.
"The Scurry County Sheriff's Office is pleased to work side by side with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and assist them in the removal of Criminal Aliens who victimize our communities," said Scurry County Sheriff Darren Jackson. "Like all groups of people, there are honest hard-working people who are in our country legally and do not pose a danger to citizens, and we appreciate and respect their contributions to our communities. This program targets those who violate the laws of this Country and State and create a burden for the local taxpayers. We believe that by working with ICE to remove this group of individuals from our communities we can truly make our streets and neighborhoods a safer place to live."
Since ICE began using this enhanced information sharing capability in October 2008, immigration officers have removed from the United States more than 10,800 criminal aliens convicted of Level 1 crimes, such as murder, rape and kidnapping. Additionally, ICE has removed more than 27,000 criminal aliens convicted of Level 2 and 3 crimes, including burglary and serious property crimes, which account for the majority of crimes committed by aliens. ICE does not regard aliens charged with, but not yet convicted of crimes, as "criminal aliens." Instead, a "criminal alien" is an alien convicted of a crime. In accordance with the Immigration and Nationality Act, ICE continues to take action on aliens subject to removal as resources permit.
The IDENT system is maintained by DHS's US-VISIT program and IAFIS is maintained by the FBI's Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS).
"US-VISIT is proud to support ICE, helping provide decision makers with comprehensive, reliable information when and where they need it," said US-VISIT Director Robert Mocny. "By enhancing the interoperability of DHS's and the FBI's biometric systems, we are able to give federal, state and local decision makers information that helps them better protect our communities and our nation."
"Under this plan, ICE will be utilizing FBI system enhancements that allow improved information sharing at the state and local law enforcement level based on positive identification of incarcerated criminal aliens," said Daniel D. Roberts, assistant director of the FBI's CJIS Division. "Additionally, ICE and the FBI are working together to take advantage of the strong relationships already forged between the FBI and state and local law enforcement necessary to assist ICE in achieving its goals."
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
The Mexican Argument
Arizona's new law on illegal immigration went into effect last week, albeit severely limited by a federal court ruling. The U.S. Supreme Court undoubtedly will settle the matter, which may also trigger federal regulations. However that turns out, the entire issue cannot simply be seen as an internal American legal matter. More broadly, it forms part of the relations between the United States and Mexico, two sovereign nation-states whose internal dynamics and interests are leading them into an era of increasing tension. Arizona and the entire immigration issue have to be viewed in this broader context.
Until the Mexican-American War, it was not clear whether the dominant power in North America would have its capital in Washington or Mexico City. Mexico was the older society with a substantially larger military. The United States, having been founded east of the Appalachian Mountains, had been a weak and vulnerable country. At its founding, it lacked strategic depth and adequate north-south transportation routes. The ability of one colony to support another in the event of war was limited. More important, the United States had the most vulnerable of economies: It was heavily dependent on maritime exports and lacked a navy able to protect its sea-lanes against more powerful European powers like England and Spain. The War of 1812 showed the deep weakness of the United States. By contrast, Mexico had greater strategic depth and less dependence on exports.
The Centrality of New Orleans
The American solution to this strategic weakness was to expand the United States west of the Appalachians, first into the Northwest Territory ceded to the United States by the United Kingdom and then into the Louisiana Purchase, which Thomas Jefferson ordered bought from France. These two territories gave the United States both strategic depth and a new economic foundation. The regions could support agriculture that produced more than the farmers could consume. Using the Ohio-Missouri-Mississippi river system, products could be shipped south to New Orleans. New Orleans was the farthest point south to which flat-bottomed barges from the north could go, and the farthest inland that ocean-going ships could travel. New Orleans became the single most strategic point in North America. Whoever controlled it controlled the agricultural system developing between the Appalachians and the Rockies. During the War of 1812, the British tried to seize New Orleans, but forces led by Andrew Jackson defeated them in a battle fought after the war itself was completed.
Jackson understood the importance of New Orleans to the United States. He also understood that the main threat to New Orleans came from Mexico. The U.S.-Mexican border then stood on the Sabine River, which divides today's Texas from Louisiana. It was about 200 miles from that border to New Orleans and, at its narrowest point, a little more than 100 miles from the Sabine to the Mississippi.
Mexico therefore represented a fundamental threat to the United States. In response, Jackson authorized a covert operation under Sam Houston to foment an uprising among American settlers in the Mexican department of Texas with the aim of pushing Mexico farther west. With its larger army, a Mexican thrust to the Mississippi was not impossible - nor something the Mexicans would necessarily avoid, as the rising United States threatened Mexican national security.
Mexico's strategic problem was the geography south of the Rio Grande (known in Mexico as the Rio Bravo). This territory consisted of desert and mountains. Settling this area with large populations was impossible. Moving through it was difficult. As a result, Texas was very lightly settled with Mexicans, prompting Mexico initially to encourage Americans to settle there. Once a rising was fomented among the Americans, it took time and enormous effort to send a Mexican army into Texas. When it arrived, it was weary from the journey and short of supplies. The insurgents were defeated at the Alamo and Goliad, but as the Mexicans pushed their line east toward the Mississippi, they were defeated at San Jacinto, near present-day Houston.
The creation of an independent Texas served American interests, relieving the threat to New Orleans and weakening Mexico. The final blow was delivered under President James K. Polk during the Mexican-American War, which (after the Gadsden Purchase) resulted in the modern U.S.-Mexican border. That war severely weakened both the Mexican army and Mexico City, which spent roughly the rest of the century stabilizing Mexico's original political order.
A Temporary Resolution
The U.S. defeat of Mexico settled the issue of the relative power of Mexico and the United States but did not permanently resolve the region's status; that remained a matter of national power and will. The United States had the same problem with much of the Southwest (aside from California) that Mexico had: It was a relatively unattractive place economically, given that so much of it was inhospitable. The region experienced chronic labor shortages, relatively minor at first but accelerating over time. The acquisition of relatively low-cost labor became one of the drivers of the region's economy, and the nearest available labor pool was Mexico. An accelerating population movement out of Mexico and into the territory the United States seized from Mexico paralleled the region's accelerating economic growth.
The United States and Mexico both saw this as mutually beneficial. From the American point of view, there was a perpetual shortage of low-cost, low-end labor in the region. From the Mexican point of view, Mexico had a population surplus that the Mexican economy could not readily metabolize. The inclination of the United States to pull labor north was thus matched by the inclination of Mexico to push that labor north.
The Mexican government built its social policy around the idea of exporting surplus labor - and as important, using remittances from immigrants to stabilize the Mexican economy. The U.S. government, however, wanted an outcome that was illegal under U.S. law. At times, the federal government made exceptions to the law. When it lacked the political ability to change the law, the United States put limits on the resources needed to enforce the law. The rest of the country didn't notice this process while the former Mexican borderlands benefited from it economically. There were costs to the United States in this immigrant movement, in health care, education and other areas, but business interests saw these as minor costs while Washington saw them as costs to be borne by the states.
Three fault lines emerged in United States on the topic. One was between the business classes, which benefited directly from the flow of immigrants and could shift the cost of immigration to other social sectors, and those who did not enjoy those benefits. The second lay between the federal government, which saw the costs as trivial, and the states, which saw them as intensifying over time. And third, there were tensions between Mexican-American citizens and other American citizens over the question of illegal migrants. This inherently divisive, potentially explosive mix intensified as the process continued.
Borderlands and the Geopolitics of Immigration
Underlying this political process was a geopolitical one. Immigration in any country is destabilizing. Immigrants have destabilized the United States ever since the Scots-Irish changed American culture, taking political power and frightening prior settlers. The same immigrants were indispensable to economic growth. Social and cultural instability proved a low price to pay for the acquisition of new labor.
That equation ultimately also works in the case of Mexican migrants, but there is a fundamental difference. When the Irish or the Poles or the South Asians came to the United States, they were physically isolated from their homelands. The Irish might have wanted Roman Catholic schools, but in the end, they had no choice but to assimilate into the dominant culture. The retention of cultural hangovers did not retard basic cultural assimilation, given that they were far from home and surrounded by other, very different, groups.
This is the case for Mexican-Americans in Chicago or Alaska, whether citizens, permanent residents or illegal immigrants. In such locales, they form a substantial but ultimately isolated group, surrounded by other, larger groups and generally integrated into the society and economy. Success requires that subsequent generations follow the path of prior immigrants and integrate. This is not the case, however, for Mexicans moving into the borderlands conquered by the United States just as it is not the case in other borderlands around the world. Immigrant populations in this region are not physically separated from their homeland, but rather can be seen as culturally extending their homeland northward - in this case not into alien territory, but into historically Mexican lands.
This is no different from what takes place in borderlands the world over. The political border moves because of war. Members of an alien population suddenly become citizens of a new country. Sometimes, massive waves of immigrants from the group that originally controlled the territory politically move there, undertaking new citizenship or refusing to do so. The cultural status of the borderland shifts between waves of ethnic cleansing and population movement. Politics and economics mix, sometimes peacefully and sometimes explosively.
The Mexican-American War established the political boundary between the two countries. Economic forces on both sides of the border have encouraged both legal and illegal immigration north into the borderland - the area occupied by the United States. The cultural character of the borderland is shifting as the economic and demographic process accelerates. The political border stays where it is while the cultural border moves northward.
The underlying fear of those opposing this process is not economic (although it is frequently expressed that way), but much deeper: It is the fear that the massive population movement will ultimately reverse the military outcome of the 1830s and 1840s, returning the region to Mexico culturally or even politically. Such borderland conflicts rage throughout the world. The fear is that it will rage here.
The problem is that Mexicans are not seen in the traditional context of immigration to the United States. As I have said, some see them as extending their homeland into the United States, rather than as leaving their homeland and coming to the United States. Moreover, by treating illegal immigration as an acceptable mode of immigration, a sense of helplessness is created, a feeling that the prior order of society was being profoundly and illegally changed. And finally, when those who express these concerns are demonized, they become radicalized. The tension between Washington and Arizona - between those who benefit from the migration and those who don't - and the tension between Mexican-Americans who are legal residents and citizens of the United States and support illegal immigration and non-Mexicans who oppose illegal immigration creates a potentially explosive situation.
Centuries ago, Scots moved to Northern Ireland after the English conquered it. The question of Northern Ireland, a borderland, was never quite settled. Similarly, Albanians moved to now-independent Kosovo, where tensions remain high. The world is filled with borderlands where political and cultural borders don't coincide and where one group wants to change the political border that another group sees as sacred.
Migration to the United States is a normal process. Migration into the borderlands from Mexico is not. The land was seized from Mexico by force, territory now experiencing a massive national movement - legal and illegal - changing the cultural character of the region. It should come as no surprise that this is destabilizing the region, as instability naturally flows from such forces.
Jewish migration to modern-day Israel represents a worst-case scenario for borderlands. An absence of stable political agreements undergirding this movement characterized this process. One of the characteristics of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is mutual demonization. In the case of Arizona, demonization between the two sides also runs deep. The portrayal of supporters of Arizona's new law as racist and the characterization of critics of that law as un-American is neither new nor promising. It is the way things would sound in a situation likely to get out of hand.
Ultimately, this is not about the Arizona question. It is about the relationship between Mexico and the United States on a range of issues, immigration merely being one of them. The problem as I see it is that the immigration issue is being treated as an internal debate among Americans when it is really about reaching an understanding with Mexico. Immigration has been treated as a sub national issue involving individuals. It is in fact a geopolitical issue between two nation-states. Over the past decades, Washington has tried to avoid turning immigration into an international matter, portraying it rather as an American law enforcement issue. In my view, it cannot be contained in that box any longer
Until the Mexican-American War, it was not clear whether the dominant power in North America would have its capital in Washington or Mexico City. Mexico was the older society with a substantially larger military. The United States, having been founded east of the Appalachian Mountains, had been a weak and vulnerable country. At its founding, it lacked strategic depth and adequate north-south transportation routes. The ability of one colony to support another in the event of war was limited. More important, the United States had the most vulnerable of economies: It was heavily dependent on maritime exports and lacked a navy able to protect its sea-lanes against more powerful European powers like England and Spain. The War of 1812 showed the deep weakness of the United States. By contrast, Mexico had greater strategic depth and less dependence on exports.
The Centrality of New Orleans
The American solution to this strategic weakness was to expand the United States west of the Appalachians, first into the Northwest Territory ceded to the United States by the United Kingdom and then into the Louisiana Purchase, which Thomas Jefferson ordered bought from France. These two territories gave the United States both strategic depth and a new economic foundation. The regions could support agriculture that produced more than the farmers could consume. Using the Ohio-Missouri-Mississippi river system, products could be shipped south to New Orleans. New Orleans was the farthest point south to which flat-bottomed barges from the north could go, and the farthest inland that ocean-going ships could travel. New Orleans became the single most strategic point in North America. Whoever controlled it controlled the agricultural system developing between the Appalachians and the Rockies. During the War of 1812, the British tried to seize New Orleans, but forces led by Andrew Jackson defeated them in a battle fought after the war itself was completed.
Jackson understood the importance of New Orleans to the United States. He also understood that the main threat to New Orleans came from Mexico. The U.S.-Mexican border then stood on the Sabine River, which divides today's Texas from Louisiana. It was about 200 miles from that border to New Orleans and, at its narrowest point, a little more than 100 miles from the Sabine to the Mississippi.
Mexico therefore represented a fundamental threat to the United States. In response, Jackson authorized a covert operation under Sam Houston to foment an uprising among American settlers in the Mexican department of Texas with the aim of pushing Mexico farther west. With its larger army, a Mexican thrust to the Mississippi was not impossible - nor something the Mexicans would necessarily avoid, as the rising United States threatened Mexican national security.
Mexico's strategic problem was the geography south of the Rio Grande (known in Mexico as the Rio Bravo). This territory consisted of desert and mountains. Settling this area with large populations was impossible. Moving through it was difficult. As a result, Texas was very lightly settled with Mexicans, prompting Mexico initially to encourage Americans to settle there. Once a rising was fomented among the Americans, it took time and enormous effort to send a Mexican army into Texas. When it arrived, it was weary from the journey and short of supplies. The insurgents were defeated at the Alamo and Goliad, but as the Mexicans pushed their line east toward the Mississippi, they were defeated at San Jacinto, near present-day Houston.
The creation of an independent Texas served American interests, relieving the threat to New Orleans and weakening Mexico. The final blow was delivered under President James K. Polk during the Mexican-American War, which (after the Gadsden Purchase) resulted in the modern U.S.-Mexican border. That war severely weakened both the Mexican army and Mexico City, which spent roughly the rest of the century stabilizing Mexico's original political order.
A Temporary Resolution
The U.S. defeat of Mexico settled the issue of the relative power of Mexico and the United States but did not permanently resolve the region's status; that remained a matter of national power and will. The United States had the same problem with much of the Southwest (aside from California) that Mexico had: It was a relatively unattractive place economically, given that so much of it was inhospitable. The region experienced chronic labor shortages, relatively minor at first but accelerating over time. The acquisition of relatively low-cost labor became one of the drivers of the region's economy, and the nearest available labor pool was Mexico. An accelerating population movement out of Mexico and into the territory the United States seized from Mexico paralleled the region's accelerating economic growth.
The United States and Mexico both saw this as mutually beneficial. From the American point of view, there was a perpetual shortage of low-cost, low-end labor in the region. From the Mexican point of view, Mexico had a population surplus that the Mexican economy could not readily metabolize. The inclination of the United States to pull labor north was thus matched by the inclination of Mexico to push that labor north.
The Mexican government built its social policy around the idea of exporting surplus labor - and as important, using remittances from immigrants to stabilize the Mexican economy. The U.S. government, however, wanted an outcome that was illegal under U.S. law. At times, the federal government made exceptions to the law. When it lacked the political ability to change the law, the United States put limits on the resources needed to enforce the law. The rest of the country didn't notice this process while the former Mexican borderlands benefited from it economically. There were costs to the United States in this immigrant movement, in health care, education and other areas, but business interests saw these as minor costs while Washington saw them as costs to be borne by the states.
Three fault lines emerged in United States on the topic. One was between the business classes, which benefited directly from the flow of immigrants and could shift the cost of immigration to other social sectors, and those who did not enjoy those benefits. The second lay between the federal government, which saw the costs as trivial, and the states, which saw them as intensifying over time. And third, there were tensions between Mexican-American citizens and other American citizens over the question of illegal migrants. This inherently divisive, potentially explosive mix intensified as the process continued.
Borderlands and the Geopolitics of Immigration
Underlying this political process was a geopolitical one. Immigration in any country is destabilizing. Immigrants have destabilized the United States ever since the Scots-Irish changed American culture, taking political power and frightening prior settlers. The same immigrants were indispensable to economic growth. Social and cultural instability proved a low price to pay for the acquisition of new labor.
That equation ultimately also works in the case of Mexican migrants, but there is a fundamental difference. When the Irish or the Poles or the South Asians came to the United States, they were physically isolated from their homelands. The Irish might have wanted Roman Catholic schools, but in the end, they had no choice but to assimilate into the dominant culture. The retention of cultural hangovers did not retard basic cultural assimilation, given that they were far from home and surrounded by other, very different, groups.
This is the case for Mexican-Americans in Chicago or Alaska, whether citizens, permanent residents or illegal immigrants. In such locales, they form a substantial but ultimately isolated group, surrounded by other, larger groups and generally integrated into the society and economy. Success requires that subsequent generations follow the path of prior immigrants and integrate. This is not the case, however, for Mexicans moving into the borderlands conquered by the United States just as it is not the case in other borderlands around the world. Immigrant populations in this region are not physically separated from their homeland, but rather can be seen as culturally extending their homeland northward - in this case not into alien territory, but into historically Mexican lands.
This is no different from what takes place in borderlands the world over. The political border moves because of war. Members of an alien population suddenly become citizens of a new country. Sometimes, massive waves of immigrants from the group that originally controlled the territory politically move there, undertaking new citizenship or refusing to do so. The cultural status of the borderland shifts between waves of ethnic cleansing and population movement. Politics and economics mix, sometimes peacefully and sometimes explosively.
The Mexican-American War established the political boundary between the two countries. Economic forces on both sides of the border have encouraged both legal and illegal immigration north into the borderland - the area occupied by the United States. The cultural character of the borderland is shifting as the economic and demographic process accelerates. The political border stays where it is while the cultural border moves northward.
The underlying fear of those opposing this process is not economic (although it is frequently expressed that way), but much deeper: It is the fear that the massive population movement will ultimately reverse the military outcome of the 1830s and 1840s, returning the region to Mexico culturally or even politically. Such borderland conflicts rage throughout the world. The fear is that it will rage here.
The problem is that Mexicans are not seen in the traditional context of immigration to the United States. As I have said, some see them as extending their homeland into the United States, rather than as leaving their homeland and coming to the United States. Moreover, by treating illegal immigration as an acceptable mode of immigration, a sense of helplessness is created, a feeling that the prior order of society was being profoundly and illegally changed. And finally, when those who express these concerns are demonized, they become radicalized. The tension between Washington and Arizona - between those who benefit from the migration and those who don't - and the tension between Mexican-Americans who are legal residents and citizens of the United States and support illegal immigration and non-Mexicans who oppose illegal immigration creates a potentially explosive situation.
Centuries ago, Scots moved to Northern Ireland after the English conquered it. The question of Northern Ireland, a borderland, was never quite settled. Similarly, Albanians moved to now-independent Kosovo, where tensions remain high. The world is filled with borderlands where political and cultural borders don't coincide and where one group wants to change the political border that another group sees as sacred.
Migration to the United States is a normal process. Migration into the borderlands from Mexico is not. The land was seized from Mexico by force, territory now experiencing a massive national movement - legal and illegal - changing the cultural character of the region. It should come as no surprise that this is destabilizing the region, as instability naturally flows from such forces.
Jewish migration to modern-day Israel represents a worst-case scenario for borderlands. An absence of stable political agreements undergirding this movement characterized this process. One of the characteristics of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is mutual demonization. In the case of Arizona, demonization between the two sides also runs deep. The portrayal of supporters of Arizona's new law as racist and the characterization of critics of that law as un-American is neither new nor promising. It is the way things would sound in a situation likely to get out of hand.
Ultimately, this is not about the Arizona question. It is about the relationship between Mexico and the United States on a range of issues, immigration merely being one of them. The problem as I see it is that the immigration issue is being treated as an internal debate among Americans when it is really about reaching an understanding with Mexico. Immigration has been treated as a sub national issue involving individuals. It is in fact a geopolitical issue between two nation-states. Over the past decades, Washington has tried to avoid turning immigration into an international matter, portraying it rather as an American law enforcement issue. In my view, it cannot be contained in that box any longer
Thursday, August 12, 2010
The Role of Mass Immigration in Delaying Economic and Social Progress for Black Americans, 1865-1924
Roy Beck's 1996 book, The Case Against Immigration, he argued that the asset deficit that plagues a significant portion of today’s Black Americans was created to a large degree by the mass immigration that occurred between 1865 and 1924. The following is a passage from Beck's book detailing the plight of Black Americans faced with an uphill struggle against illegal immigration.
Some freed slaves and other free Blacks moved quickly up the middle-class industrial ladder shortly after the Civil War. But a snowballing mass immigration quickly reversed most of those gains and kept most Black Americans from getting in on the ground floor of the industrial jobs, skills and wages until a short period during World War I when the supply of new foreign workers was shut off and then when Congress reduced annual immigration numbers to more traditional levels in 1924.
Not only did Black Americans get started much later than most European immigrants in acquiring skills, property and savings from the industrial economy, but they lost a half-century on the White American families who were in the country at the end of the Civil War.
The rapid economic, social and legal improvements that occurred during periods of low immigration are strong indicators that if not for the mass immigration of 1865-1924, Black Americans today would have far greater assets.
Despite great gains in civil rights in the 1960s and forward, the march of the Black population into the middle class has been stalled for a frighteningly large minority. I believe present evidence suggests that America’s recent immigration policy is having a similar effect to that of the policies of 1865-1924 in creating the conditions for Black poverty and asset deficits.
Co-opted by the Democratic Party: Once most Black citizens moved into the Democratic Party in the 1930s, leaving behind the Republican Party, they lost a lot of freedom to speak up for themselves against high immigration, said Daryl Scott, a professor of modern U.S. history at Howard University.
Despite the influence of the Robber Barons in the Republican Party, Black citizens could always speak freely against immigration in that Party because a major faction of the Party was threatened culturally and politically by high immigration, which also undermined many Progressive Republican social efforts. "But one consistent position of the Democratic Party through history is they have been the party of open immigration," the professor said. "A problem for Blacks in joining the Democratic Party is that it closed off discussion" on immigration while providing all kinds of other benefits.
One solution on immigration would be that enough Black Americans move to the Republican Party so that Democratic leaders would no longer take them for granted, creating an opening for candid talk about the effects of immigration.
Another solution would be for those within the Democratic Party to stop fearing losing other advantages within the Party and just speak up on immigration.
There are plenty of Democratic Party principles that should support limited immigration, but first the Party must overcome huge historical emotional ties to open borders -- as well as the fact that immigration always provides net additions of Democratic votes in elections.
Silenced by philanthropic foundations: The professor said that for a century the big foundations (largely connected to corporate America) have provided highly valuable resources to assist Black institutions. A price for accepting that money has been at least a tacit understanding that Black leaders would keep silent about the harm cheap foreign labor does to Black workers.
Restrained by respect for Hispanic leaders: Despite much talk about hostility between Blacks and Hispanics, the professor said, in most situations members of the two groups find a natural affinity when working on other issues. Because Hispanic leaders want open borders so badly, Black leaders find it impolite to speak up even though the open borders are destroying parts of the Black community.
Stifled by fear of Hispanic voters: A large percentage of congressional districts represented by Black Members of Congress have major Hispanic populations.
Hispanic immigrants are more likely to settle in the Black communities that are poor -- one of the reasons Black workers are disproportionately harmed by high immigration.
Although it might seem logical that Black politicians would serve the interests of Black citizens in matters of immigration, they often don't because they perceive Hispanic voters as wanting the opposite policy.
One Black leader at the symposium said Black politicians must be able to publicly state that the immigration policies that most help Black citizens (reduced numbers of immigrants) are also the ones that would be best economically for Hispanic citizens.
The needs of Hispanic citizens and Hispanic leaders differ on immigration. The leaders often are seeking high immigration in order to give them enough demographic power to overthrow Black leaders and establish their ethnic group as the "Senior Partner" in t he Rainbow Coalition. But the Hispanic leaders' desire for political dominance over Black Americans is often at the expense of economic and social quality of life for Hispanic citizens who tend to suffer even more from high immigration than do Black citizens.
Fortunately, there are already a growing number of local Hispanic leaders who are joining forces for lower immigration for the benefit of all Americans, but especially for poor Hispanics.
Some freed slaves and other free Blacks moved quickly up the middle-class industrial ladder shortly after the Civil War. But a snowballing mass immigration quickly reversed most of those gains and kept most Black Americans from getting in on the ground floor of the industrial jobs, skills and wages until a short period during World War I when the supply of new foreign workers was shut off and then when Congress reduced annual immigration numbers to more traditional levels in 1924.
Not only did Black Americans get started much later than most European immigrants in acquiring skills, property and savings from the industrial economy, but they lost a half-century on the White American families who were in the country at the end of the Civil War.
The rapid economic, social and legal improvements that occurred during periods of low immigration are strong indicators that if not for the mass immigration of 1865-1924, Black Americans today would have far greater assets.
Despite great gains in civil rights in the 1960s and forward, the march of the Black population into the middle class has been stalled for a frighteningly large minority. I believe present evidence suggests that America’s recent immigration policy is having a similar effect to that of the policies of 1865-1924 in creating the conditions for Black poverty and asset deficits.
Co-opted by the Democratic Party: Once most Black citizens moved into the Democratic Party in the 1930s, leaving behind the Republican Party, they lost a lot of freedom to speak up for themselves against high immigration, said Daryl Scott, a professor of modern U.S. history at Howard University.
Despite the influence of the Robber Barons in the Republican Party, Black citizens could always speak freely against immigration in that Party because a major faction of the Party was threatened culturally and politically by high immigration, which also undermined many Progressive Republican social efforts. "But one consistent position of the Democratic Party through history is they have been the party of open immigration," the professor said. "A problem for Blacks in joining the Democratic Party is that it closed off discussion" on immigration while providing all kinds of other benefits.
One solution on immigration would be that enough Black Americans move to the Republican Party so that Democratic leaders would no longer take them for granted, creating an opening for candid talk about the effects of immigration.
Another solution would be for those within the Democratic Party to stop fearing losing other advantages within the Party and just speak up on immigration.
There are plenty of Democratic Party principles that should support limited immigration, but first the Party must overcome huge historical emotional ties to open borders -- as well as the fact that immigration always provides net additions of Democratic votes in elections.
Silenced by philanthropic foundations: The professor said that for a century the big foundations (largely connected to corporate America) have provided highly valuable resources to assist Black institutions. A price for accepting that money has been at least a tacit understanding that Black leaders would keep silent about the harm cheap foreign labor does to Black workers.
Restrained by respect for Hispanic leaders: Despite much talk about hostility between Blacks and Hispanics, the professor said, in most situations members of the two groups find a natural affinity when working on other issues. Because Hispanic leaders want open borders so badly, Black leaders find it impolite to speak up even though the open borders are destroying parts of the Black community.
Stifled by fear of Hispanic voters: A large percentage of congressional districts represented by Black Members of Congress have major Hispanic populations.
Hispanic immigrants are more likely to settle in the Black communities that are poor -- one of the reasons Black workers are disproportionately harmed by high immigration.
Although it might seem logical that Black politicians would serve the interests of Black citizens in matters of immigration, they often don't because they perceive Hispanic voters as wanting the opposite policy.
One Black leader at the symposium said Black politicians must be able to publicly state that the immigration policies that most help Black citizens (reduced numbers of immigrants) are also the ones that would be best economically for Hispanic citizens.
The needs of Hispanic citizens and Hispanic leaders differ on immigration. The leaders often are seeking high immigration in order to give them enough demographic power to overthrow Black leaders and establish their ethnic group as the "Senior Partner" in t he Rainbow Coalition. But the Hispanic leaders' desire for political dominance over Black Americans is often at the expense of economic and social quality of life for Hispanic citizens who tend to suffer even more from high immigration than do Black citizens.
Fortunately, there are already a growing number of local Hispanic leaders who are joining forces for lower immigration for the benefit of all Americans, but especially for poor Hispanics.
What's needed is immigration reform
It was stunning to see a senior senator declare, “I’m not sure exactly what the drafters of the 14th Amendment had in mind, but I doubt it was that somebody could fly in from Brazil and have a child and fly back home with that child, and that child is forever an American citizen.”
Stunning, first, because in a year when we lost Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.), guardian of the Senate’s history and defender of the Constitution, some senators need reminding that the 14th Amendment was born of a determination to end forever any question, any effort to enshrine in our laws a kind of second-class citizenship.
The amendment’s authors purposely chose an objective standard of citizenship, one not subject to politics: birth.
But the senator’s statement is also stunning for what it says about the political theater that today too often substitutes for meaningful debate and dialogue in what the Framers intended to be the “world’s greatest deliberative body.”
There is no epidemic of people “flying in” just to have their children born as U.S. citizens — and every senator knows it. Just as they know it takes more than two decades for a child born in America to sponsor anyone for immigration — which means no back door for undocumented parents to become citizens on the sly.
Why, then, has repeal of the 14th Amendment become the subject of the day, consuming hour upon hour of cable news coverage at the expense of the real issue that Americans want addressed thoughtfully and rationally — fixing our broken immigration system?
Make no mistake — the lack of consensus on immigration reform frustrates us all, especially because it has unleashed some of the most divisive forces in America in decades. But that means it is time to renew the push for comprehensive immigration reform, not resort to a contrived conflict and fake solutions — with the short-term goal of winning a few more votes for a political party.
No. Senators should lead, not feed further division and romanticize partisan fighting as a virtue. If we fail to lead, we may never rise to the serious, long-term, structural challenges we face, which require deliberation, candor, thoughtful proposals and sustainable compromise.
The idea of repealing the 14th Amendment is just the latest example of how small our politics has become. This is so bad as to be laughable, were its implications not so grave. In America, we do not practice or believe in communal punishment. There are about 4 million kids legally in the United States but born to undocumented parents.
To deny them citizenship would create a generation of stateless children. We cannot force their parents’ countries to embrace them, nor should we reject them. They have done nothing wrong. They are born innocent.
If we repeal the amendment, how would we enforce our new citizenship standard? Would we station federal immigration agents in delivery rooms? Will every birth trigger an immigration investigation into the parents’ status? Do we want to amend the U.S. Constitution, the greatest document of liberty and freedom, so we can start deporting newborns?
In 2007, on the Senate floor, former Republican Sen. Pete Domenici recounted his mother's arrest by immigration agents, after they unwittingly learned she was an undocumented immigrant. Should he have been deported?
There are others, including members of our military, now serving in Afghanistan, who were born to immigrants here illegally. They are no less patriotic than their brothers and sisters in arms born to American parents.
America has overcome the demonization of immigrants before — even when the most demagogic statements came from government itself. During the 2007 immigration debate, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) cited the government’s 1910 Dillingham Report. He talked about how the report claimed immigrants were ruining America.
He listed the complaints: “They live among themselves. They have disease. They won't learn our language. They commit crimes. They are a burden on society, and we need to do something about it.”
Then he went on to say, “The people they were talking about became the "greatest generation.''
He was right then. And we would all do well to remember again that people come to America to work, not to have babies.
Throughout our history, each amendment to the Constitution has moved us closer to a more perfect union — toward greater freedom and inclusion. From the establishment of the Bill of Rights, to the protection of freed slaves and their children, to women’s right to vote, our journey has been forward — not back.
In the 21st century, we must strengthen our commitment to the principle that all people are created equal and not allow factionalism or fear to trump our commitment to liberty.
Moreover, effectively managing immigration demands more than political theater. We must reestablish a system governed by the rule of law.
But we also need to recognize that we have lived with a broken system for so long that the millions here today have become part of us. They need to get right with the law — by paying taxes and moving to the back of the line for citizenship. But we also need to make sure employers are no longer hiring and exploiting undocumented workers. They must check every hire, verifying with the government that the employee is here legally. Those who fail to do so should be punished.
The sad reality is that, behind closed doors, you won’t find a senator who really believes that any constitutional change is coming to end birthright citizenship.
Even sadder is the fact that behind those same closed doors — and in the public dialogue — too little is being done about what we all know is so desperately needed: a bipartisan, good-faith effort to reform a broken immigration system and improve border security, protect U.S. jobs and deal fairly with those now in the country illegally.
We can and should do all of this in good faith — and without amending our Constitution.
Stunning, first, because in a year when we lost Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.), guardian of the Senate’s history and defender of the Constitution, some senators need reminding that the 14th Amendment was born of a determination to end forever any question, any effort to enshrine in our laws a kind of second-class citizenship.
The amendment’s authors purposely chose an objective standard of citizenship, one not subject to politics: birth.
But the senator’s statement is also stunning for what it says about the political theater that today too often substitutes for meaningful debate and dialogue in what the Framers intended to be the “world’s greatest deliberative body.”
There is no epidemic of people “flying in” just to have their children born as U.S. citizens — and every senator knows it. Just as they know it takes more than two decades for a child born in America to sponsor anyone for immigration — which means no back door for undocumented parents to become citizens on the sly.
Why, then, has repeal of the 14th Amendment become the subject of the day, consuming hour upon hour of cable news coverage at the expense of the real issue that Americans want addressed thoughtfully and rationally — fixing our broken immigration system?
Make no mistake — the lack of consensus on immigration reform frustrates us all, especially because it has unleashed some of the most divisive forces in America in decades. But that means it is time to renew the push for comprehensive immigration reform, not resort to a contrived conflict and fake solutions — with the short-term goal of winning a few more votes for a political party.
No. Senators should lead, not feed further division and romanticize partisan fighting as a virtue. If we fail to lead, we may never rise to the serious, long-term, structural challenges we face, which require deliberation, candor, thoughtful proposals and sustainable compromise.
The idea of repealing the 14th Amendment is just the latest example of how small our politics has become. This is so bad as to be laughable, were its implications not so grave. In America, we do not practice or believe in communal punishment. There are about 4 million kids legally in the United States but born to undocumented parents.
To deny them citizenship would create a generation of stateless children. We cannot force their parents’ countries to embrace them, nor should we reject them. They have done nothing wrong. They are born innocent.
If we repeal the amendment, how would we enforce our new citizenship standard? Would we station federal immigration agents in delivery rooms? Will every birth trigger an immigration investigation into the parents’ status? Do we want to amend the U.S. Constitution, the greatest document of liberty and freedom, so we can start deporting newborns?
In 2007, on the Senate floor, former Republican Sen. Pete Domenici recounted his mother's arrest by immigration agents, after they unwittingly learned she was an undocumented immigrant. Should he have been deported?
There are others, including members of our military, now serving in Afghanistan, who were born to immigrants here illegally. They are no less patriotic than their brothers and sisters in arms born to American parents.
America has overcome the demonization of immigrants before — even when the most demagogic statements came from government itself. During the 2007 immigration debate, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) cited the government’s 1910 Dillingham Report. He talked about how the report claimed immigrants were ruining America.
He listed the complaints: “They live among themselves. They have disease. They won't learn our language. They commit crimes. They are a burden on society, and we need to do something about it.”
Then he went on to say, “The people they were talking about became the "greatest generation.''
He was right then. And we would all do well to remember again that people come to America to work, not to have babies.
Throughout our history, each amendment to the Constitution has moved us closer to a more perfect union — toward greater freedom and inclusion. From the establishment of the Bill of Rights, to the protection of freed slaves and their children, to women’s right to vote, our journey has been forward — not back.
In the 21st century, we must strengthen our commitment to the principle that all people are created equal and not allow factionalism or fear to trump our commitment to liberty.
Moreover, effectively managing immigration demands more than political theater. We must reestablish a system governed by the rule of law.
But we also need to recognize that we have lived with a broken system for so long that the millions here today have become part of us. They need to get right with the law — by paying taxes and moving to the back of the line for citizenship. But we also need to make sure employers are no longer hiring and exploiting undocumented workers. They must check every hire, verifying with the government that the employee is here legally. Those who fail to do so should be punished.
The sad reality is that, behind closed doors, you won’t find a senator who really believes that any constitutional change is coming to end birthright citizenship.
Even sadder is the fact that behind those same closed doors — and in the public dialogue — too little is being done about what we all know is so desperately needed: a bipartisan, good-faith effort to reform a broken immigration system and improve border security, protect U.S. jobs and deal fairly with those now in the country illegally.
We can and should do all of this in good faith — and without amending our Constitution.
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
Labor Movement’s Comprehensive Immigration Reform
Immigration reform is a component of a shared prosperity agenda that focuses on improving productivity and quality; limiting wage competition; strengthening labor standards, especially the freedom of workers to form unions and bargain collectively; and providing social safety nets and high-quality lifelong education and training for workers and their families. To achieve this goal, immigration reform must fully protect U.S. workers, reduce the exploitation of immigrant workers and reduce employers’ incentive to hire undocumented workers rather than U.S. workers. The most effective way to do that is for all workers—
immigrant and native-born—to have full and complete access to the protection of labor, health and safety
and other laws. Comprehensive immigration reform must complement a strong, well-resourced and effective labor standards enforcement initiative that prioritizes workers’ rights and workplace protections.
This approach will ensure that immigration does not depress wages and working conditions or encourage
marginal low-wage industries that depend heavily on substandard wages, benefits and working conditions.
This approach to immigration reform has five major interconnected pieces:
1. An independent commission to assess and manage future flows, based on labor market shortages that
are determined on the basis of actual need;
2. A secure and effective worker authorization mechanism;
3. Rational operational control of the border;
4. Adjustment of status for the current undocumented population; and
5. Improvement, not expansion, of temporary worker
programs, limited to temporary or seasonal, not
permanent, jobs.
Family reunification is an important goal of immigration policy and it is in the national interest for it to remain
that way. First, families strongly influence individual and national welfare. Families historically have facilitated
the assimilation of immigrants into American life. Second, the failure to allow family reunification creates trong pressures for unauthorized immigration, as happened with the IRCA’s amnesty provisions. Third, families are the most basic learning institutions, teaching children values as well as skills to succeed in school, society and at work. Finally, families are important economic units that provide valuable sources of entrepreneurship, job training, support for members who are unemployed and information and networking for better labor market information.
The long-term solution to uncontrolled immigration is to stop promoting failed globalization policies and
encourage just and humane economic integration, which will eliminate the enormous social and economic
inequalities at both national and international levels. U.S. immigration policy should consider the effects of
immigration reforms on immigrant source countries, especially Mexico. It is in our national interest for
Mexico to be a prosperous and democratic country able to provide good jobs for most of its adult population, thereby ameliorating strong pressures for emigration. Much of the emigration from Mexico in recent years resulted from the disruption caused by NAFTA, which displaced millions of Mexicans from subsistence agriculture and enterprises that could not compete in a global market. Thus, an essential component of the long-term solution is a fair trade and globalization model that uplifts all workers, promotes the creation of free trade unions around the world, ensures the enforcement of labor rights and guarantees core labor protections for all workers.
Future Flow
One of the great failures of our current employmentbased immigration system is that the level of legal
work-based immigration is set arbitrarily by Congress as a product of political compromise—without regard
to real labor market needs—and it is rarely updated to reflect changing circumstances or conditions. This
failure has allowed unscrupulous employers to manipulate the system to the detriment of workers and
reputable employers alike. The system for allocating employment visas—both temporary and permanent—
should be depoliticized and placed in the hands of an independent commission that can assess labor market
needs on an ongoing basis and—based on a methodology approved by Congress—determine the number of
foreign workers to be admitted for employment purposes, based on labor market needs. In designing the new system, and establishing the methodology to be used for assessing labor shortages, the commission
will be required to examine the impact of immigration on the economy, wages, the workforce and business.
Worker Authorization Mechanism
The current system of regulating the employment of unauthorized workers is defunct, ineffective and has failed to curtail illegal immigration. A secure and effective worker authorization mechanism is one that
determines employment authorization accurately while providing maximum protection for workers, contains sufficient due process and privacy protections and prevents discrimination. The verification process must be taken out of the hands of employers, and the mechanism must rely on secure identification methodology. Employers that fail to use the system properly must face strict liability, including significant fines and penalties regardless of the immigration status of their workers.
Rational Operational Control of Borders
A new immigration system must include rational control of our borders. Border security is clearly very important, but not sufficient, since 40 to 45 percent of unauthorized immigrants did not cross the border
unlawfully but overstayed visas. Border controls, therefore, must be supplemented by effective work
authorization and other components of this framework. An “enforcement-only” policy will not work. Practical
border controls balance border enforcement with the other components of this framework and with the reality that more than 30 million valid visitors cross our borders each year. Enforcement, therefore, should
respect the dignity and rights of our visitors, as well as residents in border communities. In addition,
enforcement authorities must understand that they need cooperation from communities along the border.
Border enforcement is likely to be most effective when it focuses on criminal elements and engages
immigrants and border community residents in the enforcement effort. Similarly, border enforcement is
most effective when it is left to trained professional border patrol agents and not vigilantes or local law
enforcement officials—who require cooperation from immigrants to enforce state and local laws.
Adjustment of Status for the
Current Undocumented Population
Immigration reform must include adjustment of status for the current undocumented population. Rounding
up and deporting the 12 million or more immigrants who are unlawfully present in the United States may
make for a good sound bite, but it is not a realistic solution. And if these immigrants are not given adequate incentive to “come out of the shadows” to adjust their status, we will continue to have a large pool of unauthorized workers whom employers will continue to exploit to drive down wages and other standards to the detriment of all workers. Having access to a large undocumented workforce has allowed employers to create an underground economy, without the basic protections afforded to U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents, and in which employers often misclassify workers as independent contractors,thus evading payroll taxes and depriving federal, state and local governments of additional revenue. An inclusive, practical and swift adjustment-of-status program will raise labor standards for all workers. The adjustment process must be rational, reasonable and accessible, and it must be designed to ensure it will not
encourage future illegal immigration.
Improvement, Not Expansion,
of Temporary Worker Programs
The United States must improve the administration of existing temporary worker programs, but should not
adopt a new “indentured” or “guest worker” initiative. Our country has long recognized that it is not good
policy for a democracy to admit large numbers of workers with limited civil and employment rights.
immigrant and native-born—to have full and complete access to the protection of labor, health and safety
and other laws. Comprehensive immigration reform must complement a strong, well-resourced and effective labor standards enforcement initiative that prioritizes workers’ rights and workplace protections.
This approach will ensure that immigration does not depress wages and working conditions or encourage
marginal low-wage industries that depend heavily on substandard wages, benefits and working conditions.
This approach to immigration reform has five major interconnected pieces:
1. An independent commission to assess and manage future flows, based on labor market shortages that
are determined on the basis of actual need;
2. A secure and effective worker authorization mechanism;
3. Rational operational control of the border;
4. Adjustment of status for the current undocumented population; and
5. Improvement, not expansion, of temporary worker
programs, limited to temporary or seasonal, not
permanent, jobs.
Family reunification is an important goal of immigration policy and it is in the national interest for it to remain
that way. First, families strongly influence individual and national welfare. Families historically have facilitated
the assimilation of immigrants into American life. Second, the failure to allow family reunification creates trong pressures for unauthorized immigration, as happened with the IRCA’s amnesty provisions. Third, families are the most basic learning institutions, teaching children values as well as skills to succeed in school, society and at work. Finally, families are important economic units that provide valuable sources of entrepreneurship, job training, support for members who are unemployed and information and networking for better labor market information.
The long-term solution to uncontrolled immigration is to stop promoting failed globalization policies and
encourage just and humane economic integration, which will eliminate the enormous social and economic
inequalities at both national and international levels. U.S. immigration policy should consider the effects of
immigration reforms on immigrant source countries, especially Mexico. It is in our national interest for
Mexico to be a prosperous and democratic country able to provide good jobs for most of its adult population, thereby ameliorating strong pressures for emigration. Much of the emigration from Mexico in recent years resulted from the disruption caused by NAFTA, which displaced millions of Mexicans from subsistence agriculture and enterprises that could not compete in a global market. Thus, an essential component of the long-term solution is a fair trade and globalization model that uplifts all workers, promotes the creation of free trade unions around the world, ensures the enforcement of labor rights and guarantees core labor protections for all workers.
Future Flow
One of the great failures of our current employmentbased immigration system is that the level of legal
work-based immigration is set arbitrarily by Congress as a product of political compromise—without regard
to real labor market needs—and it is rarely updated to reflect changing circumstances or conditions. This
failure has allowed unscrupulous employers to manipulate the system to the detriment of workers and
reputable employers alike. The system for allocating employment visas—both temporary and permanent—
should be depoliticized and placed in the hands of an independent commission that can assess labor market
needs on an ongoing basis and—based on a methodology approved by Congress—determine the number of
foreign workers to be admitted for employment purposes, based on labor market needs. In designing the new system, and establishing the methodology to be used for assessing labor shortages, the commission
will be required to examine the impact of immigration on the economy, wages, the workforce and business.
Worker Authorization Mechanism
The current system of regulating the employment of unauthorized workers is defunct, ineffective and has failed to curtail illegal immigration. A secure and effective worker authorization mechanism is one that
determines employment authorization accurately while providing maximum protection for workers, contains sufficient due process and privacy protections and prevents discrimination. The verification process must be taken out of the hands of employers, and the mechanism must rely on secure identification methodology. Employers that fail to use the system properly must face strict liability, including significant fines and penalties regardless of the immigration status of their workers.
Rational Operational Control of Borders
A new immigration system must include rational control of our borders. Border security is clearly very important, but not sufficient, since 40 to 45 percent of unauthorized immigrants did not cross the border
unlawfully but overstayed visas. Border controls, therefore, must be supplemented by effective work
authorization and other components of this framework. An “enforcement-only” policy will not work. Practical
border controls balance border enforcement with the other components of this framework and with the reality that more than 30 million valid visitors cross our borders each year. Enforcement, therefore, should
respect the dignity and rights of our visitors, as well as residents in border communities. In addition,
enforcement authorities must understand that they need cooperation from communities along the border.
Border enforcement is likely to be most effective when it focuses on criminal elements and engages
immigrants and border community residents in the enforcement effort. Similarly, border enforcement is
most effective when it is left to trained professional border patrol agents and not vigilantes or local law
enforcement officials—who require cooperation from immigrants to enforce state and local laws.
Adjustment of Status for the
Current Undocumented Population
Immigration reform must include adjustment of status for the current undocumented population. Rounding
up and deporting the 12 million or more immigrants who are unlawfully present in the United States may
make for a good sound bite, but it is not a realistic solution. And if these immigrants are not given adequate incentive to “come out of the shadows” to adjust their status, we will continue to have a large pool of unauthorized workers whom employers will continue to exploit to drive down wages and other standards to the detriment of all workers. Having access to a large undocumented workforce has allowed employers to create an underground economy, without the basic protections afforded to U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents, and in which employers often misclassify workers as independent contractors,thus evading payroll taxes and depriving federal, state and local governments of additional revenue. An inclusive, practical and swift adjustment-of-status program will raise labor standards for all workers. The adjustment process must be rational, reasonable and accessible, and it must be designed to ensure it will not
encourage future illegal immigration.
Improvement, Not Expansion,
of Temporary Worker Programs
The United States must improve the administration of existing temporary worker programs, but should not
adopt a new “indentured” or “guest worker” initiative. Our country has long recognized that it is not good
policy for a democracy to admit large numbers of workers with limited civil and employment rights.
Monday, August 9, 2010
Sheriff targeted in Justice probe arrested most immigrants deported in federal-local program
Officers from a single Arizona county helped deport more than 26,000 immigrants from the U.S. through a federal-local partnership program that has been roundly criticized as fraught with problems.
Statistics obtained by The Associated Press show that the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office was responsible for the deportation or forced departure of 26,146 immigrants since 2007.
That's about a quarter of the national total of 115,841 sent out of the U.S. by officers in 64 law enforcement agencies deputized to help enforce immigration laws, some since 2006, under the so-called 287(g) program.
The tens of thousands of immigrant arrests show local officials already have a significant amount of authority to enforce immigration laws and help remove illegal immigrants from the country.
Arizona wanted more of its officers to be able to ask people to prove they are legally in the U.S. under its law that was to take effect Thursday. But a U.S. district court judge on Wednesday blocked the most controversial parts of the law from taking effect.
Among parts of the law blocked is the a section requiring officers to ask for a driver's license, passport or other identity document if they reasonably suspect a person is not allowed to be in the U.S. The immigration checks were to be made by officers while enforcing other laws or ordinances.
The federal government already is under fire for doing a poor job of keeping watch on local officers enforcing immigration laws and ensuring safeguards for protecting civil rights are in place. Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio is the top law officer among all those deputized. He is under federal investigation on allegations of civil rights violations, which he denies.
The government had argued that the Arizona law usurps its authority. The Justice Department said in its suit challenging the law that the 287(g) federal-local partnerships are one way Congress allowed states to assist in enforcing immigration laws.
"At the pragmatic level, if local police are already allowed to do this and are allowed to do this with federal cooperation with the state, then why do they need the (new Arizona) law?" said Muzaffar Chishti, director of the New York office of the Migration Policy Institute, an immigration think tank.
There are several other ways local officials can assist, including Secure Communities, a more widely used program that allows local officials to check the fingerprints of anyone they book into their jails against FBI and Homeland Security Department databases.
But the 287(g) program gives officers the most direct authority to stop people on the street, in their cars or in their communities and check whether they are in the country illegally. Federal watchdogs have been critical of the job the Homeland Security Department has been doing in running the program.
The department's inspector general reported in March that the 287(g) program was poorly supervised and provided insufficient training to officers, including on civil rights law.
Local officers have operated outside their agreements dictating the limits of their authority, the report said. In all, the inspector general made 33 recommendations for overhauling the program, some of which have not yet been resolved. It was the second critical report for the program. The Government Accountability Office had criticized the program in July 2009.
Complaints about Arpaio's immigration enforcement tactics led the federal government last October to yank his authority to enforce immigration laws during patrols. That month, the Obama administration rewrote all agreements with local partners in attempt to address complaints of racial profiling and civil rights violations.
Even so, the federal government continues to allow the sheriff and deputies to check their jails for deportable inmates.
Arpaio has denied the allegations and says he is a target because of his tough immigration enforcement. His office has continued to do immigration sweeps. Arpaio said he is enforcing state anti-smuggling and anti-illegal immigrant hiring laws.
Arpaio said about 100 of his deputies were trained over five weeks to act as federal agents under the 287(g) program. They were trained on racial profiling and other civil rights laws, he said.
The federal government does not pay for local officers to participate in the 287(g) program. U.S. taxpayers pay the federal cost, which has grown from $5 million in 2006 to $68 million in 2010, according to the DHS inspector general. Immigration and Customs Enforcement reimburses some of the local agencies for housing immigrants in their jails. The immigrants can be in the country illegally or legally present but have committed a crime that makes them eligible for deportation.
Joanne Lin, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union, said it is alarming that one Arizona county is responsible for a disproportionate share of deportations.
The Los Angeles County's Sheriff's Office, a distant second to Maricopa, helped find 13,784 immigrants who were later deported or left the country. The Sheriff's Office's agreement with the federal government allows it to check its jails for deportable immigrants, but not to enforce immigration laws during street patrols. A renewal of the agreement is under negotiation.
An estimated 10.8 million people, about 26 percent of the state's population, are living illegally in California, compared with 460,000, about 12 percent, in Arizona.
"These statistics bear out that you have rogue sheriffs in certain counties that are bent on targeting immigrants," Lin said.
Statistics obtained by The Associated Press show that the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office was responsible for the deportation or forced departure of 26,146 immigrants since 2007.
That's about a quarter of the national total of 115,841 sent out of the U.S. by officers in 64 law enforcement agencies deputized to help enforce immigration laws, some since 2006, under the so-called 287(g) program.
The tens of thousands of immigrant arrests show local officials already have a significant amount of authority to enforce immigration laws and help remove illegal immigrants from the country.
Arizona wanted more of its officers to be able to ask people to prove they are legally in the U.S. under its law that was to take effect Thursday. But a U.S. district court judge on Wednesday blocked the most controversial parts of the law from taking effect.
Among parts of the law blocked is the a section requiring officers to ask for a driver's license, passport or other identity document if they reasonably suspect a person is not allowed to be in the U.S. The immigration checks were to be made by officers while enforcing other laws or ordinances.
 |
| Sheriff Joe Arpaio |
The government had argued that the Arizona law usurps its authority. The Justice Department said in its suit challenging the law that the 287(g) federal-local partnerships are one way Congress allowed states to assist in enforcing immigration laws.
"At the pragmatic level, if local police are already allowed to do this and are allowed to do this with federal cooperation with the state, then why do they need the (new Arizona) law?" said Muzaffar Chishti, director of the New York office of the Migration Policy Institute, an immigration think tank.
There are several other ways local officials can assist, including Secure Communities, a more widely used program that allows local officials to check the fingerprints of anyone they book into their jails against FBI and Homeland Security Department databases.
But the 287(g) program gives officers the most direct authority to stop people on the street, in their cars or in their communities and check whether they are in the country illegally. Federal watchdogs have been critical of the job the Homeland Security Department has been doing in running the program.
The department's inspector general reported in March that the 287(g) program was poorly supervised and provided insufficient training to officers, including on civil rights law.
Local officers have operated outside their agreements dictating the limits of their authority, the report said. In all, the inspector general made 33 recommendations for overhauling the program, some of which have not yet been resolved. It was the second critical report for the program. The Government Accountability Office had criticized the program in July 2009.
Complaints about Arpaio's immigration enforcement tactics led the federal government last October to yank his authority to enforce immigration laws during patrols. That month, the Obama administration rewrote all agreements with local partners in attempt to address complaints of racial profiling and civil rights violations.
Even so, the federal government continues to allow the sheriff and deputies to check their jails for deportable inmates.
Arpaio has denied the allegations and says he is a target because of his tough immigration enforcement. His office has continued to do immigration sweeps. Arpaio said he is enforcing state anti-smuggling and anti-illegal immigrant hiring laws.
Arpaio said about 100 of his deputies were trained over five weeks to act as federal agents under the 287(g) program. They were trained on racial profiling and other civil rights laws, he said.
The federal government does not pay for local officers to participate in the 287(g) program. U.S. taxpayers pay the federal cost, which has grown from $5 million in 2006 to $68 million in 2010, according to the DHS inspector general. Immigration and Customs Enforcement reimburses some of the local agencies for housing immigrants in their jails. The immigrants can be in the country illegally or legally present but have committed a crime that makes them eligible for deportation.
Joanne Lin, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union, said it is alarming that one Arizona county is responsible for a disproportionate share of deportations.
The Los Angeles County's Sheriff's Office, a distant second to Maricopa, helped find 13,784 immigrants who were later deported or left the country. The Sheriff's Office's agreement with the federal government allows it to check its jails for deportable immigrants, but not to enforce immigration laws during street patrols. A renewal of the agreement is under negotiation.
An estimated 10.8 million people, about 26 percent of the state's population, are living illegally in California, compared with 460,000, about 12 percent, in Arizona.
"These statistics bear out that you have rogue sheriffs in certain counties that are bent on targeting immigrants," Lin said.
Saturday, August 7, 2010
Here It Comes: Obama’s Amnesty Plan
An article on the Breitbart website reports “President Barack Obama will present plans for immigration reform this year, Hispanic lawmakers said Wednesday after strategic talks at the White House. Obama ‘was clear and eloquent and determinate to let us know that we are all together in the route of comprehensive immigration reform,’ Democratic lawmaker Luis Gutierrez told reporters after the discussion between the president and the Congressional Hispanic Caucus (CHC).”
In other words, the President of the United States sat down with Mexicans in the White House and conspired with them to destroy the country. What Republican traitors George Bush and John McCain tried to do in 2007 is now being done by a Democrat. Maybe if the Republicans offered us someone DIFFERENT from the Democrats in a meaningful way, we would not have a Socialist African in the White House, eager to sign the document that will destroy White America.
The article notes “Obama will convene a public forum on the issue probably in two months, according to New Jersey Senator Bob Menendez. The White House said in a statement that the meeting was robust and strategic and that Obama will work with CHC members to address immigration reform in both the short and long term.”
In other words the Democrats are going to try to ram Amnesty down our throats, and they’ve got their “Brown Messiah” throwing his weight behind this attempt. Well, people, this is it.
Bush and McCain tried Amnesty in 2006 and 2007, and both times White people managed to scream and curse and shout so loudly that they backed off, much like a wounded man lying all alone in the wilderness can sometimes manage to scare off a scavenger by showing that he’s alive and able to put up a fight.
We can either make a gallant stand against Obama’s Amnesty plan or allow America to become a Third World nation. Obama has been throwing out conservative-sounding phrases about illegal immigration just prior to the Big Betrayal. He wants us to lower our guard. The Senate will almost certainly betray us, but we have a chance of getting the House to vote against this Amnesty Bill. The House Representatives are much closer to the people than the arrogant scum in the Senate, where Obama came from.
In other words, the President of the United States sat down with Mexicans in the White House and conspired with them to destroy the country. What Republican traitors George Bush and John McCain tried to do in 2007 is now being done by a Democrat. Maybe if the Republicans offered us someone DIFFERENT from the Democrats in a meaningful way, we would not have a Socialist African in the White House, eager to sign the document that will destroy White America.
The article notes “Obama will convene a public forum on the issue probably in two months, according to New Jersey Senator Bob Menendez. The White House said in a statement that the meeting was robust and strategic and that Obama will work with CHC members to address immigration reform in both the short and long term.”
In other words the Democrats are going to try to ram Amnesty down our throats, and they’ve got their “Brown Messiah” throwing his weight behind this attempt. Well, people, this is it.
Bush and McCain tried Amnesty in 2006 and 2007, and both times White people managed to scream and curse and shout so loudly that they backed off, much like a wounded man lying all alone in the wilderness can sometimes manage to scare off a scavenger by showing that he’s alive and able to put up a fight.
We can either make a gallant stand against Obama’s Amnesty plan or allow America to become a Third World nation. Obama has been throwing out conservative-sounding phrases about illegal immigration just prior to the Big Betrayal. He wants us to lower our guard. The Senate will almost certainly betray us, but we have a chance of getting the House to vote against this Amnesty Bill. The House Representatives are much closer to the people than the arrogant scum in the Senate, where Obama came from.
Thursday, August 5, 2010
White House Denials Are Scarier Than The Memos
If an employer says he has no intention of firing the "entire" workforce of a company, just how comfortable do you think the employees feel?Well, that's how I felt when federal officials said they have no intention of providing a backdoor amnesty to "the nation's entire illegal immigrant population."
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services of the Department of Homeland Security in response to leaked memos from the agency. And I have this leaked document for your consumption: http://tinyurl.com/24dycoz.
This comment certainly has merit. People often write or ask for memos that just provide an idea of options. Obviously, I would feel better if DHS was not even writing down the option of giving massive numbers of amnesties without permission of Congress. Nonetheless, the fact a memo was written like that doesn't mean that option will be taken or is even being seriously considered. http://tinyurl.com/24dycoz Educate yourself.
But then USCIS of the DHS seemed to undermine any reassurances by saying:
To be clear, DHS will not grant deferred action or humanitarian parole to the nation's entire illegal immigrant population.
Majority Leader Harry Reid and Speaker Nancy Pelosi are facing a dilemma: Although they publicly bemoan the fact that Republicans won’t help them pass an unpopular amnesty comprehensive immigration-reform bill, they don’t want to force vulnerable Democrats to vote on amnesty this close to the November elections especially not with unemployment at 10.5 percent.
Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) may have uncovered the answer to their dilemma last week: an internal U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services memo that outlines steps the Obama administration can take “in the absence of Comprehensive Immigration Reform” — that is, lawfully enacted amnesty — to “reduce the threat of removal for certain individuals present in the United States without authorization.”
 |
| Here they come, Like always |
America, it is you who have made a comprehensive amnesty bill so radioactive that congressional leaders refuse to bring it up for a vote. The only way to stop the backdoor amnesties is if you apply the same kind of pressures. The federal government has proven it will protect de facto amnesties by taking states to court that try to move illegal foreign workers out of their jobs. We don't seem to be able to do anything to stop that federal assault on our abilities for self-determination and protection. But I think the ideas in the USCIS memos are so much farther in their assault on the limits of power on the Executive Branch that we can stop those ideas in the court of public opinion. http://tinturl.com/24dycoz
The U.S. Constitution gives Congress — and only Congress — the authority to decide federal immigration law, but the Obama administration has come up with an extensive list of ways to ensure that a majority of the illegal aliens in the United States are allowed to remain here. USE THE LGO READ THE PDF
Saturday, July 3, 2010
Mexico Sues Arizona over Immigration Law
This is taking hypocrisy to a new level. Mexico filed a lawsuit in federal court on Tuesday against Arizona demanding that states new immigration law be declared ‘unconstitutional’.
This coming from a country that cannot provide for its own citizens and where the ‘rule of law’ is a joke. Meanwhile they have their army on their own southern border with live ammunition and their own laws treat illegal immigrants far worse than any state in the USA including Arizona.
In his last visit President Felipe Calderon was forced to admit that Mexico had laws in place very similar to Arizona’s. In fact according to a recent Amnesty International report:
“…illegal immigrants in Mexico — typically from Central America — face abuse, rape and kidnappings, and that Mexican police do little to stop it. When illegal immigration was a criminal offense in Mexico, officials were known to seek bribes from suspects to keep them out of jail.”
Response: Regardless of what you think about the Arizona Immigration law, it is the height of hypocrisy for Mexico to sue Arizona over their immigration law when their own actions are just as bad or more likely even worse. Illegal immigrants in Arizona can expect to be treated far better any coming into Mexico.
Just try to get work if you are undocumented in Mexico and forget about putting your kids in school or going to a hospital in Mexico, or buying property. It isn’t going to happen and more than likely you will find yourself in jail. Then the shady administrators will demand money from your family for your food and keep or a huge fine for your release.
There is no real ‘rule of law’ or ‘due process’ in that country but they are suing Arizona? Hopefully the judge will throw file this into the nearest circular file where it richly deserves to be.
This coming from a country that cannot provide for its own citizens and where the ‘rule of law’ is a joke. Meanwhile they have their army on their own southern border with live ammunition and their own laws treat illegal immigrants far worse than any state in the USA including Arizona.
In his last visit President Felipe Calderon was forced to admit that Mexico had laws in place very similar to Arizona’s. In fact according to a recent Amnesty International report:
“…illegal immigrants in Mexico — typically from Central America — face abuse, rape and kidnappings, and that Mexican police do little to stop it. When illegal immigration was a criminal offense in Mexico, officials were known to seek bribes from suspects to keep them out of jail.”
Response: Regardless of what you think about the Arizona Immigration law, it is the height of hypocrisy for Mexico to sue Arizona over their immigration law when their own actions are just as bad or more likely even worse. Illegal immigrants in Arizona can expect to be treated far better any coming into Mexico.
Just try to get work if you are undocumented in Mexico and forget about putting your kids in school or going to a hospital in Mexico, or buying property. It isn’t going to happen and more than likely you will find yourself in jail. Then the shady administrators will demand money from your family for your food and keep or a huge fine for your release.
There is no real ‘rule of law’ or ‘due process’ in that country but they are suing Arizona? Hopefully the judge will throw file this into the nearest circular file where it richly deserves to be.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)