www.ImmigrationImpact.com
DEC 18
Greyhound Lines, Inc. Accused of Racially Profiling Latino Passengers
Traveling home for the holidays might not be as cheerful as you may think if you plan on taking a Greyhound bus. According to a recent article in the Contra Costa Times, an immigrant rights group in San Bernardino, CA, is accusing Greyhound Lines, Inc. of racially profiling their Latino customers. The rights group, Immigration Raids Response Network, alleges that Greyhound Lines Inc. targets Latino riders by allowing Border Patrol agents--along with Greyhound employees--to "conduct immigration checks of passengers upon their arrival at the San Bernardino Greyhound bus station." The rights group is now urging Latinos not to ride Greyhound buses nationwide.
DEC 17
The BIA Has the Chance to Prevent the Wrongful Deportation of Immigrant Children
While there is no question that Congress needs to step up to the plate and repair our broken immigration system through legislative reform, there are some fixes that can be made now without waiting for Congressional action. If the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) would stop narrowly interpreting existing immigration law, many noncitizens would be eligible to complete applications for legal status in the manner Congress intended.
DEC 16
ICE Will Halt Detention of Asylum Seekers
According to the Associated Press, the Obama Administration said today that it will no longer detain asylum seekers who, in addition to other criteria, have displayed a credible fear of persecution in their home countries. According to the article, "Immigration and Customs Enforcement director John Morton says asylum seekers can temporarily enter the U.S. if they meet certain criteria. They must establish their identities, they cannot be dangerous or a flight risk, and they must have a credible fear of persecution or torture."
DEC 16
Shenandoah is a Cautionary Tale for How to Debate Immigration Reform
This week a police chief and two of his officers were charged with obstruction of justice in connection with their investigation of the beating death of Luis Ramirez, a 25-year-old undocumented Mexican immigrant, in Shenandoah, PA, last year. The two teenagers acquitted of his murder were also indicted on federal hate crime charges. While some measure of justice may eventually be served in the Ramirez case, this tragedy should serve as a cautionary tale as we move into 2010 and gear up for a new round of immigration reform debates. Policy makers and the media must understand that when the debate devolves from reasoned, fact-based discussions into fear and hate-mongering the consequences can be dire.
DEC 15
Congressman Luis Gutierrez Introduces Comprehensive Immigration Reform for America's Security and Prosperity Act of 2009
On Tuesday, in a room filled with supporters and shouts of "Si, Se Puede," Congressman Luis V. Gutierrez (D-IL) held a press conference to introduce the Comprehensive Immigration Reform for America's Security and Prosperity Act of 2009 (CIR ASAP). Congressman Gutierrez introduced the immigration reform bill--which at last count had 89 original co-sponsors including the Congressional Hispanic, Black, Progressive, and Asian Pacific American Caucuses--before Congress heads home for the holidays "so that there is no excuse for inaction in the New Year."
DEC 14
Restrictionists Build Anti-Immigrant Agenda on Backs of American Workers
While perpetuators of the myth that "immigrants take jobs away from hard working Americans" are busy exploiting both immigrants and native-born workers, a new report by America's Voice Education Fund shines a much needed light on the restrictionist lobby's real agenda--deportation at any cost. Released last week, the report takes a closer look at the "anti-worker" voting records of supposedly "pro-worker" Congressional Members who, "aided by a shadow coalition of groups with an anti-immigrant agenda," have consistently built a "deport them all" agenda on the backs of American workers.
Immigration Enforcement Fuels Rise in U.S. Cases
By JOHN SCHWARTZ
Published: December 21, 2009
Federal prosecutions reached a record high in the 2009 fiscal year, with the surge driven by a sharp increase in cases filed against immigration violators.
The 169,612 federal prosecutions were a jump of nearly 9 percent from the previous year, according to Department of Justice data analyzed by a research center at Syracuse University in a new report. Immigration prosecutions were up nearly 16 percent, and made up more than half of all criminal cases brought by the federal government, the report said.
Much of the spike, immigration experts say, arises from Bush administration efforts to increase immigration enforcement and to speed prosecutions. The administration greatly increased the number of Border Patrol agents and prosecutors, and also introduced a program known as Operation Streamline that relied on large-scale processing of plea deals in immigrant cases in some parts of the country.
The relatively simple cases have become the low-hanging fruit of the federal legal system: Immigration prosecutions, from inception to court disposal, are lightning quick, according to the report. While white-collar prosecutions take an average of 460 days and narcotics cases take 333, the immigration cases are typically disposed of in 2 days.
And while federal prosecutors decline to prosecute about half of the white-collar cases that are referred to them by law enforcement agencies, they prosecute 97 percent of the immigration cases, according to the Syracuse group.
The speed-up in federal immigration prosecutions, however, has run afoul of the federal courts presiding over Arizona, which processed more than 22,000 immigration cases in the fiscal year, nearly a quarter of those cited in the report. This month, a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that the process of mass pleadings violates the federal rule that protects the accused from being forced into a guilty plea.
Michael A. Olivas, an immigration expert at the University of Houston Law Center, said he was not surprised to find immigration prosecutions “No. 1 with a bullet” on the Syracuse list. “I would have been astounded if it wasn’t one or two,” Mr. Olivas said. “We’re simply pushing the cattle through the chutes.”
The fact that immigration prosecutions remained high “shows that this administration is serious about enforcement to some degree,” said Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, a policy group in Washington that favors restricting immigration. “This administration understands that it needs to appear tough on enforcement if it’s going to make a credible case for legalization,” or amnesty programs, he said.
David Burnham, who is co-director of the Syracuse research group, known as the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, said that for whatever reason, “the policy of Bush appears, from the data, to have continued and maybe accelerated.”
The rise in federal immigration enforcement figures has occurred as crime has dropped over all. According to new statistics from the Federal Bureau of Investigation, also released Monday, violent crimes reported to the bureau’s Uniform Crime Program dropped 4.4 percent over the previous year, the third straight decline. Murder was down 10 percent, and property crimes dropped by 6.1 percent, according to the report.
Published: December 21, 2009
Federal prosecutions reached a record high in the 2009 fiscal year, with the surge driven by a sharp increase in cases filed against immigration violators.
The 169,612 federal prosecutions were a jump of nearly 9 percent from the previous year, according to Department of Justice data analyzed by a research center at Syracuse University in a new report. Immigration prosecutions were up nearly 16 percent, and made up more than half of all criminal cases brought by the federal government, the report said.
Much of the spike, immigration experts say, arises from Bush administration efforts to increase immigration enforcement and to speed prosecutions. The administration greatly increased the number of Border Patrol agents and prosecutors, and also introduced a program known as Operation Streamline that relied on large-scale processing of plea deals in immigrant cases in some parts of the country.
The relatively simple cases have become the low-hanging fruit of the federal legal system: Immigration prosecutions, from inception to court disposal, are lightning quick, according to the report. While white-collar prosecutions take an average of 460 days and narcotics cases take 333, the immigration cases are typically disposed of in 2 days.
And while federal prosecutors decline to prosecute about half of the white-collar cases that are referred to them by law enforcement agencies, they prosecute 97 percent of the immigration cases, according to the Syracuse group.
The speed-up in federal immigration prosecutions, however, has run afoul of the federal courts presiding over Arizona, which processed more than 22,000 immigration cases in the fiscal year, nearly a quarter of those cited in the report. This month, a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that the process of mass pleadings violates the federal rule that protects the accused from being forced into a guilty plea.
Michael A. Olivas, an immigration expert at the University of Houston Law Center, said he was not surprised to find immigration prosecutions “No. 1 with a bullet” on the Syracuse list. “I would have been astounded if it wasn’t one or two,” Mr. Olivas said. “We’re simply pushing the cattle through the chutes.”
The fact that immigration prosecutions remained high “shows that this administration is serious about enforcement to some degree,” said Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, a policy group in Washington that favors restricting immigration. “This administration understands that it needs to appear tough on enforcement if it’s going to make a credible case for legalization,” or amnesty programs, he said.
David Burnham, who is co-director of the Syracuse research group, known as the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, said that for whatever reason, “the policy of Bush appears, from the data, to have continued and maybe accelerated.”
The rise in federal immigration enforcement figures has occurred as crime has dropped over all. According to new statistics from the Federal Bureau of Investigation, also released Monday, violent crimes reported to the bureau’s Uniform Crime Program dropped 4.4 percent over the previous year, the third straight decline. Murder was down 10 percent, and property crimes dropped by 6.1 percent, according to the report.
Immigration Reform Group Charges GOP Hypocrisy on Labor Votes
By Jennifer Bendery
December 10, 2009
http://www.rollcall.com/news/41424-1.html
Groups seeking a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants are accusing Republican critics of hypocrisy for voting against bills aimed at helping American workers. The new line of attack aims to undermine GOP claims that legalizing illegal immigrants will take jobs away from unemployed Americans.
The America's Voice Education Fund said Thursday in a new report that lawmakers opposed to immigration reform on the grounds that it would hurt American workers also voted against wage hikes and equal pay measures.
Of the 87 House Members who received an "A" from the Federation for American Immigration Reform, a prominent group opposed to liberalizing immigration laws, 71 percent voted against increasing the minimum wage and 93 percent voted against wage discrimination legislation. Eighty-two percent voted against providing parental leave for federal employees and 87 percent voted against extending unemployment benefits.
Among the groups who were represented at a Thursday press event backing the report - and action on comprehensive immigration reform - were the Service Employees International Union and the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union. Republicans targeted in the report dismissed the attacks and stood by their opposition to bills that they say amounted to government interference in business practices.
"The definition of what helps American workers is different for some people than others, so I don't buy into that definition. ... I don't see raising the minimum wage as helping American workers," Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-N.C.) said.
"These people are leaning toward socialism or they've gone over to the other side, so they can't understand the principles of free enterprise," Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) said. "I'd like to take them to Econ 101 ... and drive that into their heads."
The report also noted a dramatic decrease in the number of Members ranked favorably by FAIR between the 109th and 110th Congress. FAIR scored 151 House lawmakers with an "A" grade in the 109th Congress, when Republicans were in power, but only 87 in the 110th Congress, when Democrats took control.
December 10, 2009
http://www.rollcall.com/news/41424-1.html
Groups seeking a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants are accusing Republican critics of hypocrisy for voting against bills aimed at helping American workers. The new line of attack aims to undermine GOP claims that legalizing illegal immigrants will take jobs away from unemployed Americans.
The America's Voice Education Fund said Thursday in a new report that lawmakers opposed to immigration reform on the grounds that it would hurt American workers also voted against wage hikes and equal pay measures.
Of the 87 House Members who received an "A" from the Federation for American Immigration Reform, a prominent group opposed to liberalizing immigration laws, 71 percent voted against increasing the minimum wage and 93 percent voted against wage discrimination legislation. Eighty-two percent voted against providing parental leave for federal employees and 87 percent voted against extending unemployment benefits.
Among the groups who were represented at a Thursday press event backing the report - and action on comprehensive immigration reform - were the Service Employees International Union and the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union. Republicans targeted in the report dismissed the attacks and stood by their opposition to bills that they say amounted to government interference in business practices.
"The definition of what helps American workers is different for some people than others, so I don't buy into that definition. ... I don't see raising the minimum wage as helping American workers," Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-N.C.) said.
"These people are leaning toward socialism or they've gone over to the other side, so they can't understand the principles of free enterprise," Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) said. "I'd like to take them to Econ 101 ... and drive that into their heads."
The report also noted a dramatic decrease in the number of Members ranked favorably by FAIR between the 109th and 110th Congress. FAIR scored 151 House lawmakers with an "A" grade in the 109th Congress, when Republicans were in power, but only 87 in the 110th Congress, when Democrats took control.
Justice Sotomayor's opinion marks the Supreme Court's first use of the term 'undocumented immigrant.'
December 10, 2009
THINK PROGRESS:
Yesterday, the Supreme Court "released its first four decisions in argued cases this term," including one marking Justice Sonia Sotomayor's debut. The case concerned "whether federal trial-court rulings concerning the lawyer-client privilege may be appealed right away," to which Sotomayor said no. The New York Times notes one particularly noteworthy part of Sotomayor's opinion:
In an otherwise dry opinion, Justice Sotomayor did introduce one new and politically charged term into the Supreme Court lexicon.
Justice Sotomayor's opinion in the case, Mohawk Industries v. Carpenter, No. 08-678, marked the first use of the term "undocumented immigrant," according to a legal database. The term "illegal immigrant" has appeared in a dozen decisions.
Terms like "illegal alien" and "illegal immigrant" are considered pejorative and offensiveby immigrants rights organizations.
THINK PROGRESS:
Yesterday, the Supreme Court "released its first four decisions in argued cases this term," including one marking Justice Sonia Sotomayor's debut. The case concerned "whether federal trial-court rulings concerning the lawyer-client privilege may be appealed right away," to which Sotomayor said no. The New York Times notes one particularly noteworthy part of Sotomayor's opinion:
In an otherwise dry opinion, Justice Sotomayor did introduce one new and politically charged term into the Supreme Court lexicon.
Justice Sotomayor's opinion in the case, Mohawk Industries v. Carpenter, No. 08-678, marked the first use of the term "undocumented immigrant," according to a legal database. The term "illegal immigrant" has appeared in a dozen decisions.
Terms like "illegal alien" and "illegal immigrant" are considered pejorative and offensiveby immigrants rights organizations.
Secretary Napolitano Testifies Before Congress: Outlines Enforcement Program, Looks Forward to Immigration Reform
December 9, 2009
Washington D.C. - Today, the Senate Judiciary Committee held an oversight hearing with Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Janet Napolitano. The Secretary's opening statement reiterated her view that immigration enforcement is a necessity, but that enforcement alone is not a solution for our broken immigration system. Secretary Napolitano noted, "We can no longer perpetuate a status quo that is unacceptable for workers, employers, law enforcement, faith leaders, and America as a whole. We must seize this moment to build a truly effective immigration system that deters illegal immigration, provides effective and enduring enforcement tools, protects workers from exploitation and retaliation, and creates a tough but fair path to legalization for the millions of illegal immigrants already here."
Despite her commitment to both enforcement and legalization as part of a comprehensive approach to immigration reform, some lawmakers, commentators, and activists are calling for a continuation of the same enforcement-only approach to unauthorized immigration that has failed to work for two decades. In the fanciful view of enforcement-only advocates, forcing 12 million unauthorized men, women, and children out of the country is not only practical, but would somehow benefit the U.S. economy. In reality, though, an intensification of the enforcement-only approach to unauthorized immigration would be enormously expensive and would remove productive workers, consumers, and taxpayers from the economy in the middle of a recession. One study, for instance, estimates that removing all undocumented immigrants from the country would result in the loss of roughly 2.8 million jobs and a decline in the Gross Domestic Product of $245 billion. This is not exactly a recipe for economic recovery.
"Secretary Napolitano is looking forward, but her opponents are looking backwards to tired old tactics that haven't worked," said Mary Giovagnoli, Director of the Immigration Policy Center. "She is drawing upon her experience to move forward, but that entails a shift in thinking and comprehensive immigration reform. We can all agree that the current system isn't working, but some offer solutions while others offer the same old ideas."
The time is ripe for a comprehensive solution to our broken immigration system that looks to the future, rather than clinging to the failed enforcement-only strategy of the past. Not only does comprehensive reform represent a practical and humane way of dealing with the large unauthorized population in our country, but it would boost our economy as well. Rather than scapegoating immigrants for our current economic woes, we should acknowledge their economic contributions and their potential to help rebuild our economy.
###
For more information contact Wendy Sefsaf at 202-507-7524 or wsefsaf@immcouncil.org
Washington D.C. - Today, the Senate Judiciary Committee held an oversight hearing with Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Janet Napolitano. The Secretary's opening statement reiterated her view that immigration enforcement is a necessity, but that enforcement alone is not a solution for our broken immigration system. Secretary Napolitano noted, "We can no longer perpetuate a status quo that is unacceptable for workers, employers, law enforcement, faith leaders, and America as a whole. We must seize this moment to build a truly effective immigration system that deters illegal immigration, provides effective and enduring enforcement tools, protects workers from exploitation and retaliation, and creates a tough but fair path to legalization for the millions of illegal immigrants already here."
Despite her commitment to both enforcement and legalization as part of a comprehensive approach to immigration reform, some lawmakers, commentators, and activists are calling for a continuation of the same enforcement-only approach to unauthorized immigration that has failed to work for two decades. In the fanciful view of enforcement-only advocates, forcing 12 million unauthorized men, women, and children out of the country is not only practical, but would somehow benefit the U.S. economy. In reality, though, an intensification of the enforcement-only approach to unauthorized immigration would be enormously expensive and would remove productive workers, consumers, and taxpayers from the economy in the middle of a recession. One study, for instance, estimates that removing all undocumented immigrants from the country would result in the loss of roughly 2.8 million jobs and a decline in the Gross Domestic Product of $245 billion. This is not exactly a recipe for economic recovery.
"Secretary Napolitano is looking forward, but her opponents are looking backwards to tired old tactics that haven't worked," said Mary Giovagnoli, Director of the Immigration Policy Center. "She is drawing upon her experience to move forward, but that entails a shift in thinking and comprehensive immigration reform. We can all agree that the current system isn't working, but some offer solutions while others offer the same old ideas."
The time is ripe for a comprehensive solution to our broken immigration system that looks to the future, rather than clinging to the failed enforcement-only strategy of the past. Not only does comprehensive reform represent a practical and humane way of dealing with the large unauthorized population in our country, but it would boost our economy as well. Rather than scapegoating immigrants for our current economic woes, we should acknowledge their economic contributions and their potential to help rebuild our economy.
###
For more information contact Wendy Sefsaf at 202-507-7524 or wsefsaf@immcouncil.org
Historical Perspective on the Success of Immigrants and Latinos
Climbing the Socio-Economic Ladder:
An Historical Perspective on the Success of Immigrants and Latinos
December 7, 2009
Washington D.C. - As a front-page story in today's Washington Post reminds us: "Not since the last great wave of immigration to the United States around 1900 has the country's economic future been so closely entwined with the generational progress of an immigrant group." The story highlights the degree to which the children of immigrants from Latin America have become crucial to sustaining the working-age population and tax base of the nation as the 75 million Baby Boomers retire. The parents of these children most likely would not have even come to this country if not for the U.S. economy's past high demand for workers to fill less-skilled jobs; demand which was not being adequately met by the rapidly aging and better-educated native-born labor force.
The Post story also casts a spotlight on the insecurities and anxieties of commentators who feel that Latino immigrants and their descendants aren't integrating into U.S. society and moving up the socio-economic ladder "fast enough." Although these concerns are certainly understandable, they are as unjustified now as they were a century ago when they were directed at immigrants from southern and eastern Europe.
By any objective measure, the children of immigrants from Latin America are making significant progress compared with their parents. As demographer Dowell Myers points out in a 2008 report, the experience of Latino immigrants in California reveals not only the vast strides that immigrants themselves make within their lifetimes in terms of English proficiency, homeownership, and declining poverty rates, but also the degree to which the children and grandchildren of immigrants do better than "newcomers." Similarly, the National Research Council's Panel on Hispanics in the United States concluded in 2006 that "trends in wages, household income, wealth, and home ownership across time and generations point to the gradual ascension of many U.S.-born Hispanics to the middle class."
This isn't to say that the undeniable disparities in educational attainment and income between native-born Latinos and native-born non-Latinos in the United States aren't pressing social concerns. However, to effectively address these problems, they must first be accurately identified. The challenges confronting (and posed by) a poor immigrant from Mexico differ from the "Struggles of the Second Generation" Latinos whose parents are immigrants, which in turn differ from those of a poor third-generation Latino whose parents are native-born. Some of these challenges are unique to the immigrant experience, others derive from being part of a "minority" group in U.S. society, and others stem from dynamics of poverty that are not limited to any ethnic group, immigrant or otherwise.
For instance, if some third-generation Mexican Americans, like other minority groups in the United States, have encountered a "glass ceiling" in wage growth, this says more about the need for educational investment in poor communities than it does about a culturally specific lack of ambition. To treat Latinos as a homogeneous group inherently incapable of upward mobility, as some immigration restrictionists do, serves only to simplistically misidentify what are in fact a diverse range of issues. To deny the tremendous progress of Latino immigrants and their children over time is simply inaccurate.
###
For more information contact Wendy Sefsaf at 202-507-7524 or wsefsaf@immcouncil.org
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)