December 2, 2010
Washington D.C. - Today, the Immigration Policy Center releases Investing in the American Dream: The DREAM Act Would Allow Undocumented Youth to Give Back to America, a Perspectives piece by Dr. Roberto G. Gonzales, an Assistant Professor at the University of Washington School of Social Work. Dr. Gonzales has been conducting a four-and-a-half year study of undocumented immigrant young adults in Los Angeles and a companion study in Seattle.
Dr. Gonzales writes:
"Undocumented immigrant youth - those who migrate at early ages and reside in the United States without legal permission - confront a troubling mix of circumstances. At some point during their adult lives, doors stop opening altogether for undocumented youth. Whether it is a series of blocked opportunities within the labor market or the end of educational opportunities, there comes a time when these young men and women run out of options. These moments contradict all that these young people have been taught in school, and send the message that their dreams will not be realized and that all of their hard work was in vain.
In most respects, these young people are already important members of U.S. society. After having been educated in our schools, they envision their futures here, and powerfully internalize American values and expectations of merit. Paradoxically, their efforts to adapt and contribute economically are met with legal obstacles. Rather than valuing them as important societal resources, current policies restrict their options and curb the transformative potential they have in their communities. Without full legal rights, they are barred from the very mechanisms that have ensured high levels of economic and social mobility to other immigrants throughout U.S. history.
This also means there is significant lost potential for the U.S. Without the incentive and means to continue their education, undocumented youth are not continuing their education, and the U.S. is losing out on their productivity, entrepreneurship, and creativity, as well as tax revenue from their potentially higher earnings."
To read the Perspectives piece in its entirety see:
Investing in the American Dream: The DREAM Act Would Allow Undocumented Youth to Give Back to America (IPC Perspectives, December 2, 2010)
Restrictionist Group Continues Cynical Legacy of Counting Costs While Ignoring Benefits of Immigration
December 1, 2010
Washington D.C. - In a new report, the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) paints a misleading financial portrait of the DREAM Act. The report, entitled Estimating the Impact of the DREAM Act, claims that the bill would be a burden on U.S. taxpayers and would "crowd out" native-born students in the classroom. However, the available evidence does not support either of these dire predictions.
In fact:
- Institutions of higher education overwhelmingly support the DREAM Act, which would likely increase school revenues as students who would not normally attend college start to pay tuition.
- The 10 states which, since 2001, have passed laws allowing undocumented students to qualify for in-state tuition have not experienced a large influx of new immigrant students that displaces native-born students.
- Most DREAM Act students would likely enroll in community colleges, most of which have open enrollment, based on a philosophy that all qualified students should have the opportunity to learn. Historically, more than 80% of community college students hold full or part-time jobs, thus contributing to their own educations (and the tax base) even as they attend school. The American Association of Community Colleges estimates that state and local governments receive a 16% return on every dollar they invest in community colleges due to the increased earnings of college graduates.
- Legalizing DREAM Act students would increase beneficiaries' earnings potential, as well as the U.S. tax base. A 2010 study by the UCLA North American Integration and Development Center estimates that the total earnings of DREAM Act beneficiaries over the course of their working lives would be between $1.4 trillion and $3.6 trillion.
CIS's cynical mischaracterization of the DREAM Act is not only inaccurate, but hypocritical as well. CIS frequently laments that so many immigrants to the United States have low levels of education, yet opposes a measure that would allow some of these immigrants to become more educated. What alternative to the DREAM Act does CIS propose? According to the Center for American Progress the cost to deport more than two million children and young adults who were raised in the United States would be $48.6 billion. How is that sound fiscal policy?
The U.S. economy doesn't need more deportations; it needs more college graduates. According to a recent report from the Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce, "not enough Americans are completing college... by 2018, we will need 22 million new college degrees-but will fall short of that number by at least 3 million postsecondary degrees, Associate's or better." The DREAM Act would help meet this need.
Dispelling DREAM Act Myths
November 23, 2010
Washington D.C. - The DREAM Act - a popular proposal to provide legal status to undocumented youth who entered the U.S. as children, graduated from U.S. high schools, and attend college or enter the military - is the target of a smear campaign from anti-immigration hardliners. This tired effort to pit immigrants and native-born, whether they are workers or students, against one another is not only destructive, but has no basis in fact. Moreover, it ignores the economic benefits that come from legalizing a group of talented, hard-working individuals who want nothing more than to contribute to America and repay the country for the opportunities they've been given.
Research has shown that providing a legal status for young people who have a proven record of success in the United States would be a boon to the economy and the U.S. workforce. The U.S. military also needs the DREAM Act. Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Military Personnel Policy, Bill Carr, stated that the law would be "good for readiness" and would help to recruit "cream of the crop" students. The DREAM Act is part of the Department of Defense's 2010-2012 Strategic Plan to assist the military in its recruiting efforts.
Yet, despite the popular support and extensive data that should make passage of the DREAM Act a no-brainer, there are those who continue to spread half-truths. The Immigration Policy Center has compiled a fact check that breaks down typical myths about the DREAM Act.
To view the fact check, in its entirety see:
Dispelling DREAM Act Myths (IPC Fact Check, November 23, 2010)
Washington D.C. - The DREAM Act - a popular proposal to provide legal status to undocumented youth who entered the U.S. as children, graduated from U.S. high schools, and attend college or enter the military - is the target of a smear campaign from anti-immigration hardliners. This tired effort to pit immigrants and native-born, whether they are workers or students, against one another is not only destructive, but has no basis in fact. Moreover, it ignores the economic benefits that come from legalizing a group of talented, hard-working individuals who want nothing more than to contribute to America and repay the country for the opportunities they've been given.
Research has shown that providing a legal status for young people who have a proven record of success in the United States would be a boon to the economy and the U.S. workforce. The U.S. military also needs the DREAM Act. Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Military Personnel Policy, Bill Carr, stated that the law would be "good for readiness" and would help to recruit "cream of the crop" students. The DREAM Act is part of the Department of Defense's 2010-2012 Strategic Plan to assist the military in its recruiting efforts.
Yet, despite the popular support and extensive data that should make passage of the DREAM Act a no-brainer, there are those who continue to spread half-truths. The Immigration Policy Center has compiled a fact check that breaks down typical myths about the DREAM Act.
To view the fact check, in its entirety see:
Dispelling DREAM Act Myths (IPC Fact Check, November 23, 2010)
The DREAM Act to be Revived in Congress
November 18, 2010
Washington, D.C. - Yesterday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid announced that he would introduce the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act as a stand alone bill during the lame duck session of Congress.
First introduced in 2001, the DREAM Act would address the plight of young immigrants who have been raised in the U.S. and managed to succeed despite the challenges of being brought here without proper documentation. The proposal would offer a path to legal status to those who have graduated from high school, stayed out of trouble, and plan to attend college or serve in the U.S. military for at least two years.
Each year, approximately 65,000 undocumented students graduate from high school, many at the top of their classes, but cannot go on to college, join the military, work, or otherwise pursue their dreams. They belong to the 1.5 generation: immigrants brought to the United States at a young age who were largely raised in this country and therefore share much in common with second-generation Americans. These students are culturally American, growing up here and often having little attachment to their country of birth. The vast majority are bicultural and fluent in English.
Research has shown that providing a legal status for young people who have a proven record of success in the United States would be a boon to the economy and the U.S. workforce. University presidents and educational associations, as well as military recruiters, business and religious leaders have added their voice to those calling for passage of the bill. The DREAM Act is even part of the Department of Defense's 2010-2012 Strategic Plan to assist the military in its recruiting efforts.
Unfortunately, immigration status and the associated barriers to higher education contribute to a higher-than-average high-school dropout rate. The DREAM Act would eliminate these barriers for many students, and its high-school graduation requirement would provide a powerful incentive for students who might otherwise drop out to stay in school and go on to college.
For research and resources on the DREAM Act visit IPC's resource page:
IPC DREAM Act Resource Page
Washington, D.C. - Yesterday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid announced that he would introduce the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act as a stand alone bill during the lame duck session of Congress.
First introduced in 2001, the DREAM Act would address the plight of young immigrants who have been raised in the U.S. and managed to succeed despite the challenges of being brought here without proper documentation. The proposal would offer a path to legal status to those who have graduated from high school, stayed out of trouble, and plan to attend college or serve in the U.S. military for at least two years.
Each year, approximately 65,000 undocumented students graduate from high school, many at the top of their classes, but cannot go on to college, join the military, work, or otherwise pursue their dreams. They belong to the 1.5 generation: immigrants brought to the United States at a young age who were largely raised in this country and therefore share much in common with second-generation Americans. These students are culturally American, growing up here and often having little attachment to their country of birth. The vast majority are bicultural and fluent in English.
Research has shown that providing a legal status for young people who have a proven record of success in the United States would be a boon to the economy and the U.S. workforce. University presidents and educational associations, as well as military recruiters, business and religious leaders have added their voice to those calling for passage of the bill. The DREAM Act is even part of the Department of Defense's 2010-2012 Strategic Plan to assist the military in its recruiting efforts.
Unfortunately, immigration status and the associated barriers to higher education contribute to a higher-than-average high-school dropout rate. The DREAM Act would eliminate these barriers for many students, and its high-school graduation requirement would provide a powerful incentive for students who might otherwise drop out to stay in school and go on to college.
For research and resources on the DREAM Act visit IPC's resource page:
IPC DREAM Act Resource Page
ICE's Enforcement Priorities and the Factors That Undermine Them
November 9, 2010
Washington D.C. - Today, the Immigration Policy Center releases a special report examining ICE's Enforcement Priorities and the Factors That Undermine Them, by Michele Waslin, Ph.D. The paper reviews the steps that ICE has taken in recent months to clarify its enforcement priorities and how those priorities are playing out nationally and in local communities.
"As part of its strategy to gain support for comprehensive immigration reform, the administration has continually touted its enforcement accomplishments. In fact, over the last two years, the Obama administration has committed itself to a full-court press to demonstrate how committed the administration is to removing criminals and others who remain in the country without proper documentation.They have continued to use the enforcement programs of the previous administration, including partnering with state and local law enforcement agencies to identify, detain, and deport immigrants. However, in doing so, they have lost the ability to fully control their own enforcement priorities and enforcement outcomes, and the results have demonstrated that the state and local partners are not necessarily committed to the same priorities."
To view the report, in its entirety see:
ICE's Enforcement Priorities and the Factors that Undermine Them, by Michele Waslin, Ph.D. (IPC Special Report, November 9, 2010)
Washington D.C. - Today, the Immigration Policy Center releases a special report examining ICE's Enforcement Priorities and the Factors That Undermine Them, by Michele Waslin, Ph.D. The paper reviews the steps that ICE has taken in recent months to clarify its enforcement priorities and how those priorities are playing out nationally and in local communities.
"As part of its strategy to gain support for comprehensive immigration reform, the administration has continually touted its enforcement accomplishments. In fact, over the last two years, the Obama administration has committed itself to a full-court press to demonstrate how committed the administration is to removing criminals and others who remain in the country without proper documentation.They have continued to use the enforcement programs of the previous administration, including partnering with state and local law enforcement agencies to identify, detain, and deport immigrants. However, in doing so, they have lost the ability to fully control their own enforcement priorities and enforcement outcomes, and the results have demonstrated that the state and local partners are not necessarily committed to the same priorities."
To view the report, in its entirety see:
ICE's Enforcement Priorities and the Factors that Undermine Them, by Michele Waslin, Ph.D. (IPC Special Report, November 9, 2010)
Special Edition: Immigration Detainers
Director's Corner
Special Edition: Immigration Detainers
This week we continue our Director's Corner series on DHS programs that operate at the state and local level by focusing on immigration detainers. Like Secure Communities (the focus of last week's edition) immigration detainers impact immigration practitioners and their clients because they often result in detention and initiation of removal proceedings. If you have clients or case examples affected by state and local initiatives (like Secure Communities or detainers) please see the Take Action below to contact AILA.
What are Immigration Detainers?
An immigration detainer is a tool used by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials to identify potentially removable individuals who are in criminal custody nationwide.
The detainer is a non-binding request from ICE to another law enforcement agency (LEA) - such as a state or local jail - for notification that an individual is scheduled to be released from local custody and is intended to provide ICE a window within which to make timely arrangements to assume custody of that individual. In effect, the detainers authorizes the LEA to continue holding the individual for an additional 48 hours after their release from criminal custody - that is, after the individual has posted bond, completed a criminal sentence, or had the case against them dismissed.
At the end of the 48-hour period, the detainer expires. If ICE has not taken custody of the individual the LEA is required to release them.
How Does ICE Identify Individuals That May be Subject to a Detainer?
In recent years, the use of detainers has expanded greatly as they have become the linchpin of programs such as 287(g), Secure Communities, and the Criminal Alien Program which increasingly intertwine the state criminal justice systems with federal immigration enforcement.
Depending on the degree of cooperation between local jails and ICE, a detainer is issued in a number of ways. In jails where ICE agents are present, ICE agents may use booking information or other information provided by local officials to make decisions about whom to interview and whether to issue a detainer. If the jail has a 287(g) agreement with ICE, deputized local law enforcement officers work with ICE to interview arrestees and issue detainers. In the case of Secure Communities, an individual's fingerprints are run at booking through both the FBI and immigration databases. A detainer is issued if ICE believes the individual is removable from the U.S.
In cases where the jail has no formal partnership with ICE, a detainer can still issued if local officials contact ICE with information about persons they believe to be foreign-born - often based on booking information or simply because they look or sound "foreign."
What's wrong with Immigration Detainers?
Detainers Are Widely Misunderstood by LEAs
Misunderstandings about the nature of detainers are rampant among LEAs, particularly concerning the 48-hour limit for lawfully holding someone on a detainer. Frequently LEA officers hold individuals far beyond the 48-hour time limit. Yet detainees have little recourse when they are detained unlawfully; they languish in detention until ICE comes to pick them up, weeks or months after the detainer expired. Furthermore, LEAs often misunderstand, or are misinformed by ICE about, the meaning of a detainer, regarding it as a requirement to maintain custody, rather than a request.
Prolonged Detention for Immigrants
A detainer often affects a person’s ability to be released on bail pending criminal charges. Generally, criminal defendants with less serious charges are allowed to return to their communities before trial if they post bail. However, when ICE issues a detainer, some courts consider the detainer an adverse factor when determining a bail amount or whether to set bail at all. Other times, a judge may set bail, but the sheriff's office will refuse to accept bail from anyone with an ICE detainer. As a result, immigrants with minor, non-violent offenses, who otherwise would have been released from custody, spend months in jail waiting for the criminal charges against them to be resolved.
Detainer Policy Isn't in Sync with ICE Enforcement Priorities
In June, ICE issued a memo on its enforcement priorities, focusing on immigrants who have been convicted of serious crimes. In contradiction to its own stated policies, ICE continues to issue detainers pre-trial and without regard to the seriousness of the criminal offense for which the alleged non-citizen, and sometimes U.S. citizen, was arrested.
ICE Request for Comment on Detainer Policy
On August 1, 2010, ICE issued draft guidance policy which aimed to provide additional guidance on detainer issuance but which unfortunately did not address many of AILA's larger concerns with detainers policy. AILA and other organizations issued comments identify several major problems with the proposed guidance.
For more information, read the draft guidance policy and AILA comments.
Stay tuned. Same Pulse Time. Same Pulse Channel.
Loren Crippin
Advocacy Associate
Special Contributor to the Director's Corner
Giving Facts a Fighting Chance: A GuideAnswers to the Toughest Immigration Questions
October 12, 2010
Washington, D.C. - In heated, election-year politics, the facts often take a back seat to campaign rhetoric - particularly when it comes to immigration. In an effort to defend the facts and provide basic answers to the most commonly asked questions, the Immigration Policy Center releases: Giving Facts a Fighting Chance: Answers to the Toughest Immigration Questions.
This comprehensive Q&A guide reviews the most current research available, debunks myths, and answers some of the most common immigration-related questions, including those about worksite enforcement, border security, birthright citizenship, access to public benefits, immigrants and crime, immigrant integration, the economic impacts of immigration, and more.
To view the guide in its entirety, see:
Giving Facts a Fighting Chance: Answers to the Toughest Immigration Questions (IPC Guide, October 12, 2010)
Washington, D.C. - In heated, election-year politics, the facts often take a back seat to campaign rhetoric - particularly when it comes to immigration. In an effort to defend the facts and provide basic answers to the most commonly asked questions, the Immigration Policy Center releases: Giving Facts a Fighting Chance: Answers to the Toughest Immigration Questions.
This comprehensive Q&A guide reviews the most current research available, debunks myths, and answers some of the most common immigration-related questions, including those about worksite enforcement, border security, birthright citizenship, access to public benefits, immigrants and crime, immigrant integration, the economic impacts of immigration, and more.
To view the guide in its entirety, see:
Giving Facts a Fighting Chance: Answers to the Toughest Immigration Questions (IPC Guide, October 12, 2010)
Touting the Record
10/07/2010, 1:57 pm
by Victor Nieblas Pradis, AILA Secretary
Yesterday, the secretary of homeland security, Janet Napolitano and the director of ICE, John Morton proudly announced they had broken a record—in fiscal year 2010, the Obama Administration deported 392,000 immigrants. That’s good news for those who claim Obama does not enforce the nation’s dysfunctional immigration laws. But, statistics and numbers do not tell the entire story.
Everyone agrees that we need to protect the American public. And the Administration has correctly made removing dangerous criminals a top priority. Yet, only half of those removed—more than 195,000—were convicted criminals. And there is no way to know whether they were priority cases—Terrorists and dangerous criminals—or simply folks who had been deported for some long ago youthful indiscretion. The rest of the deportees–197,000 people–had committed no crimes and were otherwise likely law abiding, hard working folks. The government’s big statistic leaves me wondering how many of them were mothers and fathers forced to leave American families.
ICE programs like Secure Communities and the Criminal Alien Program (CAP), aimed at detaining noncitizen criminals, might look good on paper but don’t necessarily stand up to close scrutiny. Both programs have drawn criticism because they are susceptible to abuse. Critics argue they lack safeguards against racial profiling or related abuses.. The Administration stated Wednesday that no racial profiling will occur because the Secure Communities program screens everybody who gets fingerprinted regardless of race. Yet, this claim does not account for the fact that an individual’s immigration history can be checked regardless of whether he or she is ever charged with an offense. The obvious danger is that an arrest may easily become a pretext for a quick check on a person’s immigration status creating a very real danger that people who look or sound “foreign”– including US citizens – will be subjected to racial profiling.
The CAP program has resulted in Latinos suffering increased rates of arrests for petty offenses. A report on the CAP program discovered that implementation of the CAP program in Irving, Texas coincided with a spike in the arrests of Latinos for petty crimes. See Trevor Gardner II and Aarti Kohli, The C.A.P. Effect: Racial Profiling in the ICE Criminal Alien Program (The Warren Institute on Race, Ethnicity and Diversity, Sept. 2009). The report concluded that there is compelling evidence that the CAP program “tacitly encourages local police to arrest Hispanics for petty offenses.” The report also noted that ICE is not following the program’s congressional mandate to focus resources on the deportation of immigrants with serious criminal histories.
In Florida the most recent ICE data shows that in Broward and St. Lucie counties over 51 percent of Secure Communities deportations are of non-criminals. All 67 Florida counties became party to Secure Communities as of June 2010. See, ICE, Secure Communities: Setting the Record Straight. In Suffolk County, Massachusetts, 54 percent of deportations are of non-criminals. In Harris County, Texas, 1,880 of the roughly 8,000 illegal immigrants removed through the program were counted as aggravated felons, about 5,500 had convictions for lesser crimes and 620 had no criminal history. See Susan Caroll, All Texas counties join ICE immigrant checks. Yet, the Harris County Texas Sheriff failed to mention this at yesterday’s press conference. In Webb County, Texas, 53 percent of individuals deported pursuant to Secure Communities had no criminal record. In Maricopa County, Arizona it was 54 percent. In Pima County, Arizona, it was 51%. See, ICE, Setting the Record Straight. Yet, Wednesday’s announcement continues to boast that Secure Communities as a program that successfully targets serious criminal aliens. This is simply not the case.
The bottom line is that Secure Communities has created “insecure communities” where people live in fear and families have been separated due to minor driving violations. Addressing this concern, the Administration stated in yesterday’s announcement, “unfortunately families do get separated in the immigration process.” What about America’s commitment to “family values”? Where is the humanity in this process? Numbers and statistics do not tell the whole story.
Some communities have requested to opt-out of the Secure Communities program to maintain their strong relationships with the community. In a recent letter Secretary Napolitano assured Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren that a community not wishing to participate in the Secure Communities program could opt out. Yet, in Wednesday’s announcement Secretary Napolitano stated, “we do not view this as an opt-in, opt out program.”
Thus, while the higher deportation numbers are offered to underscore the Administration’s enforcement efforts, we need to ask whether, in the absence of a comprehensive fix to our dysfunctional immigration system, it is also smart enforcement. Who has been deported? Are we removing undocumented youngsters whose only offense is to dream? Are we deporting future soliders and scholars? Are we deporting mothers and fathers who support American families? Are we forcibly separating mothers from small children? Are we deporting the Nikki Diaz Santillan’s of our country who work tirelessly to make our businesses and families prosper while receiving no reward for their efforts?
If these are the people we are deporting, then there is nothing to tout about.
I fear that by the time we get around to reaching a solution countless American families will have been separated and destroyed. I for one hope that the Administraion’s next announcement of record breaking immigration news will be that it has kept its promise to the American people to fix our badly broken immigration system.
Now that would be something to tout about.
by Victor Nieblas Pradis, AILA Secretary
Yesterday, the secretary of homeland security, Janet Napolitano and the director of ICE, John Morton proudly announced they had broken a record—in fiscal year 2010, the Obama Administration deported 392,000 immigrants. That’s good news for those who claim Obama does not enforce the nation’s dysfunctional immigration laws. But, statistics and numbers do not tell the entire story.
Everyone agrees that we need to protect the American public. And the Administration has correctly made removing dangerous criminals a top priority. Yet, only half of those removed—more than 195,000—were convicted criminals. And there is no way to know whether they were priority cases—Terrorists and dangerous criminals—or simply folks who had been deported for some long ago youthful indiscretion. The rest of the deportees–197,000 people–had committed no crimes and were otherwise likely law abiding, hard working folks. The government’s big statistic leaves me wondering how many of them were mothers and fathers forced to leave American families.
ICE programs like Secure Communities and the Criminal Alien Program (CAP), aimed at detaining noncitizen criminals, might look good on paper but don’t necessarily stand up to close scrutiny. Both programs have drawn criticism because they are susceptible to abuse. Critics argue they lack safeguards against racial profiling or related abuses.. The Administration stated Wednesday that no racial profiling will occur because the Secure Communities program screens everybody who gets fingerprinted regardless of race. Yet, this claim does not account for the fact that an individual’s immigration history can be checked regardless of whether he or she is ever charged with an offense. The obvious danger is that an arrest may easily become a pretext for a quick check on a person’s immigration status creating a very real danger that people who look or sound “foreign”– including US citizens – will be subjected to racial profiling.
The CAP program has resulted in Latinos suffering increased rates of arrests for petty offenses. A report on the CAP program discovered that implementation of the CAP program in Irving, Texas coincided with a spike in the arrests of Latinos for petty crimes. See Trevor Gardner II and Aarti Kohli, The C.A.P. Effect: Racial Profiling in the ICE Criminal Alien Program (The Warren Institute on Race, Ethnicity and Diversity, Sept. 2009). The report concluded that there is compelling evidence that the CAP program “tacitly encourages local police to arrest Hispanics for petty offenses.” The report also noted that ICE is not following the program’s congressional mandate to focus resources on the deportation of immigrants with serious criminal histories.
In Florida the most recent ICE data shows that in Broward and St. Lucie counties over 51 percent of Secure Communities deportations are of non-criminals. All 67 Florida counties became party to Secure Communities as of June 2010. See, ICE, Secure Communities: Setting the Record Straight. In Suffolk County, Massachusetts, 54 percent of deportations are of non-criminals. In Harris County, Texas, 1,880 of the roughly 8,000 illegal immigrants removed through the program were counted as aggravated felons, about 5,500 had convictions for lesser crimes and 620 had no criminal history. See Susan Caroll, All Texas counties join ICE immigrant checks. Yet, the Harris County Texas Sheriff failed to mention this at yesterday’s press conference. In Webb County, Texas, 53 percent of individuals deported pursuant to Secure Communities had no criminal record. In Maricopa County, Arizona it was 54 percent. In Pima County, Arizona, it was 51%. See, ICE, Setting the Record Straight. Yet, Wednesday’s announcement continues to boast that Secure Communities as a program that successfully targets serious criminal aliens. This is simply not the case.
The bottom line is that Secure Communities has created “insecure communities” where people live in fear and families have been separated due to minor driving violations. Addressing this concern, the Administration stated in yesterday’s announcement, “unfortunately families do get separated in the immigration process.” What about America’s commitment to “family values”? Where is the humanity in this process? Numbers and statistics do not tell the whole story.
Some communities have requested to opt-out of the Secure Communities program to maintain their strong relationships with the community. In a recent letter Secretary Napolitano assured Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren that a community not wishing to participate in the Secure Communities program could opt out. Yet, in Wednesday’s announcement Secretary Napolitano stated, “we do not view this as an opt-in, opt out program.”
Thus, while the higher deportation numbers are offered to underscore the Administration’s enforcement efforts, we need to ask whether, in the absence of a comprehensive fix to our dysfunctional immigration system, it is also smart enforcement. Who has been deported? Are we removing undocumented youngsters whose only offense is to dream? Are we deporting future soliders and scholars? Are we deporting mothers and fathers who support American families? Are we forcibly separating mothers from small children? Are we deporting the Nikki Diaz Santillan’s of our country who work tirelessly to make our businesses and families prosper while receiving no reward for their efforts?
If these are the people we are deporting, then there is nothing to tout about.
I fear that by the time we get around to reaching a solution countless American families will have been separated and destroyed. I for one hope that the Administraion’s next announcement of record breaking immigration news will be that it has kept its promise to the American people to fix our badly broken immigration system.
Now that would be something to tout about.
The American Immigration Council Addresses Problems with Draft Immigration Detainer Policy
October 5, 2010
Washington D.C. - The American Immigration Council has joined a number of organizations in formally commenting on a proposed detainer policy issued by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Detainers are requests from ICE to local law enforcement agencies (LEAs) to hold people - whom they suspect may be in the country illegally or who may be deportable for other reasons - so they can be transferred into ICE's custody. There has been much criticism about how ICE uses detainers, and the use of detainers has expanded over time with enforcement programs like 287(g), Secure Communities, and the Criminal Alien Program. To address the criticisms, ICE developed new draft guidelines on the issuance of detainers.
The Immigration Council acknowledges ICE's attempt to ameliorate its detainer policies and is grateful for the opportunity to comment. However, the comments identify several major problems with the proposed guidance, including:
- The proposed guidelines do not reflect ICE's stated enforcement priorities. In July, ICE issued a memo on its enforcement priorities, focusing on immigrants with serious criminal histories. ICE's proposed detainer guidelines contradict those priorities. Although ICE claims to target convicted criminals who pose a threat to public safety, the proposed guidance would allow ICE to issue detainers against people arrested for minor offenses and suspects charged with crimes but not convicted.
- The guidance does not address the continuing confusion about detainers. Many LEAs mistakenly believe that detainers require them to detain people until ICE assumes custody. In fact, a detainer is merely a request, not a requirement. Moreover, federal regulations clearly state that detainers permit LEAs to hold people for no more than 48 hours (excluding weekends and holidays) after their release from local custody. Because LEAs regularly violate this rule, they unlawfully detain people who then languish in detention with little recourse. The proposed guidelines contain no provisions to educate LEAs about detainers and do not require ICE to educate detained people about their rights or their ability to challenge a detainer.
Getting detainer policy right is important because ICE detainers have severe consequences for people being held in jails. Apart from the concerns raised above, detainers impact whether people are granted bail, the amount of bail, and their ability to have legal representation and a fair hearing in their criminal cases. Communities also incur significant costs for the extended incarceration of people subject to ICE detainers. Though ICE should be commended for formalizing a written detainer policy, the draft guidance leaves the most challenging issues unresolved.
To view American Immigration Council's comments in their entirety, see:
Comments on U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Draft Detainer Policy (Legal Action Center, October 1, 2010)
For more information on immigration detainers, see:
Immigration Detainers: A Comprehensive Look (Immigration Policy Center Fact Check, February 17, 2010
More Problems with ICE's Secure Communities Program
Lack of Clarity around Immigration Enforcement Program Continues
October 1, 2010
Washington, D.C. - Earlier this week, the Santa Clara (CA) Board of Supervisors and the Arlington County (VA) Board both voted unanimously to opt-out of the Secure Communities program - an ICE program that allows the fingerprints of individuals booked into jails to be used for immigration enforcement purposes. Secure Communities has been controversial since its inception, with concerns being raised about the cost of the program, the potential for racial profiling, and the fact that the program has not complied with ICE's stated objective of focusing on individuals convicted of serious crimes.
However, the Washington Post reported today that opting out of its Secure Communities "is not a realistic possibility, and never was" for local police agencies. According to a senior ICE official:
October 1, 2010
Washington, D.C. - Earlier this week, the Santa Clara (CA) Board of Supervisors and the Arlington County (VA) Board both voted unanimously to opt-out of the Secure Communities program - an ICE program that allows the fingerprints of individuals booked into jails to be used for immigration enforcement purposes. Secure Communities has been controversial since its inception, with concerns being raised about the cost of the program, the potential for racial profiling, and the fact that the program has not complied with ICE's stated objective of focusing on individuals convicted of serious crimes.
However, the Washington Post reported today that opting out of its Secure Communities "is not a realistic possibility, and never was" for local police agencies. According to a senior ICE official:
Secure Communities is not based on state or local cooperation in federal law enforcement. The program's foundation is information sharing between FBI and ICE. State and local law enforcement agencies are going to continue to fingerprint people and those fingerprints are forwarded to FBI for criminal checks. ICE will take immigration action appropriately.
This is in direct conflict with an August 17, 2010 ICE memo laying out an opt-out process, which was later confirmed by DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano in a September 7, 2010 letter to Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren. ICE has provided conflicting messages about Secure Communities since the program was first rolled out in March 2008.
Secure Communities is a rapidly expanding program, currently active in more than 650 jurisdictions in 32 states. It is expected to be active in every state by 2011 and in all of the 3,100 state and local jails by 2013. Yet there is much confusion about what the program is and how it works. In the current environment confusion and the lack of transparency undermine the trust necessary to properly implement the program and achieve legitimate goals. It is important that communities educate themselves about Secure Communities and urge ICE to be more forthcoming with information about the program.
For more information on Secure Communities and immigration detainers, see:
Secure Communities: A Fact Sheet (IPC Fact Check, October 2010)
The Secure Communities Program: Unanswered Questions and Continuing Concerns (IPC Special Report, November 2009)
Counties Say No to ICE's Secure Communities Program, But is Opting Out Possible? (Immigration Impact Blog, October 2010)
Immigration Detainers: A Comprehensive Look (IPC Fact Check, February 2010)
Comprehensive Immigration Reform Bill Introduced in the Senate
Menendez-Leahy Bill Another Step Forward
September 30, 2010
Washington D.C. - On Wednesday, Senators Robert Menendez (D-NJ) and Patrick Leahy (D-VT) introduced S.B. 3932, The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2010. The bill takes a broad approach to solving the wide range of problems that plague our broken immigration system. It offers proposals on border, interior, and worksite enforcement, on legalization, and on future flows of immigration. Now the Senate and House both have a vehicle (Congressman Luis Gutierrez previously introduced a CIR bill in the House last December) for generating a serious discussion on immigration reform in the coming weeks. These bills are a direct response to the overwhelming public demand for solutions to our broken immigration system. Both political parties have acknowledged that this broken system is no longer sustainable, and is disrupting America's businesses, families, and long-term economic recovery.
"It is hard to turn ideas into legislation and legislation into good law, but Senators Menendez and Leahy have injected new life into the immigration reform debate," said Mary Giovagnoli, Director of the Immigration Policy Center. "At a time when every social issue we care about bumps up against immigration - healthcare, national security, and the economy - this bill is a step in the right direction. However, attention now turns to the rest of the Senate and House - where there are serious comprehensive proposals which lawmakers can react to and build upon - and the question remains; will they embrace this challenge or kick it down the road once again?"
The Immigration Policy Center has prepared a summary of the The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2010 which can be accessed at:
The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2010: A Summary (September 30, 2010)
September 30, 2010
Washington D.C. - On Wednesday, Senators Robert Menendez (D-NJ) and Patrick Leahy (D-VT) introduced S.B. 3932, The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2010. The bill takes a broad approach to solving the wide range of problems that plague our broken immigration system. It offers proposals on border, interior, and worksite enforcement, on legalization, and on future flows of immigration. Now the Senate and House both have a vehicle (Congressman Luis Gutierrez previously introduced a CIR bill in the House last December) for generating a serious discussion on immigration reform in the coming weeks. These bills are a direct response to the overwhelming public demand for solutions to our broken immigration system. Both political parties have acknowledged that this broken system is no longer sustainable, and is disrupting America's businesses, families, and long-term economic recovery.
"It is hard to turn ideas into legislation and legislation into good law, but Senators Menendez and Leahy have injected new life into the immigration reform debate," said Mary Giovagnoli, Director of the Immigration Policy Center. "At a time when every social issue we care about bumps up against immigration - healthcare, national security, and the economy - this bill is a step in the right direction. However, attention now turns to the rest of the Senate and House - where there are serious comprehensive proposals which lawmakers can react to and build upon - and the question remains; will they embrace this challenge or kick it down the road once again?"
The Immigration Policy Center has prepared a summary of the The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2010 which can be accessed at:
The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2010: A Summary (September 30, 2010)
Role of Immigration in Strengthening America's Economy
Congressional Hearing Featuring Bloomberg and Murdoch
September 29, 2010
Washington D.C. - On thursday, the House Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law Membership will hold a hearing on the "Role of Immigration in Strengthening America's Economy," featuring New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Fox owner Rupert Murdoch (an immigrant himself). The two formed a new coalition earlier this year to press for immigration reform.
In anticipation of the event, the Immigration Policy Center wants to draw your attention to a resource page featuring a wide range of studies which analyze the economic impact of immigration on the U.S. The available data shows that legalizing undocumented workers would improve wages and working conditions for all workers, and increase tax revenues for cash-strapped federal, state, and local governments. The IPC has also synthesized a number of state studies which assess the economic impact of immigration on state and local economies.
To view the Economics Resource Page, see:
The Economics of Immigration Reform (Resource Page)
To view the State by State Economic Benefits of Immigration, see:
The Economic and Political Power of Immigrants, Latinos, and Asians in all 50 States (IPC State by State Fact Sheets)
September 29, 2010
Washington D.C. - On thursday, the House Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law Membership will hold a hearing on the "Role of Immigration in Strengthening America's Economy," featuring New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Fox owner Rupert Murdoch (an immigrant himself). The two formed a new coalition earlier this year to press for immigration reform.
In anticipation of the event, the Immigration Policy Center wants to draw your attention to a resource page featuring a wide range of studies which analyze the economic impact of immigration on the U.S. The available data shows that legalizing undocumented workers would improve wages and working conditions for all workers, and increase tax revenues for cash-strapped federal, state, and local governments. The IPC has also synthesized a number of state studies which assess the economic impact of immigration on state and local economies.
To view the Economics Resource Page, see:
The Economics of Immigration Reform (Resource Page)
To view the State by State Economic Benefits of Immigration, see:
The Economic and Political Power of Immigrants, Latinos, and Asians in all 50 States (IPC State by State Fact Sheets)
The DREAM Act: Creating Economic Opportunities
September 20, 2010
Washington, D.C. - As the bipartisan call for passing the DREAM Act gets louder - from military, education, faith, and Republican leaders alike - some may overlook the economic benefits of granting legal status to eligible undocumented youth who want to attend college or join the military. There are currently 2.1 million undocumented youths living in the U.S. who, without the DREAM Act, are unlikely to go to college and cannot work legally in the U.S. The DREAM Act, however, would provide an opportunity for them to live up to their full potential as future doctors, nurses, teachers, and entrepreneurs and make greater contributions to the U.S. economy and society.
The DREAM Act would give beneficiaries the opportunity to increase their standard of living - and their tax contributions: If legalized, DREAM Act beneficiaries would have access to greater educational opportunities and better jobs, which in turn means more taxable income. According to a study from Arizona State University, an individual with a bachelor's degree earns approximately $750,000 more over the course of his/her lifetime than an individual with only a high-school diploma.
The DREAM Act would save taxpayers money: A RAND study from 1999 shows that raising the college graduation rate of Hispanics to that of non-Hispanic whites would increase spending on public education by 10 percent nationwide, but the costs would be more than offset by savings in public health and benefits, as well as by increased tax revenues resulting from higher incomes.
The DREAM Act keeps talented students in the United States: Letting the talent of DREAM Act students go to waste "imposes economic and emotional costs on undocumented students and on U.S. society as a whole." The DREAM Act would stop brain drain by allowing our most talented students to remain in the country.
While some in Congress continue to play politics with the DREAM Act, America and its taxpayers continue to lose. Without the DREAM Act, the United States is missing out on talented workers and entrepreneurs, and is losing vital tax revenues and other economic contributions.
To read IPC's Fact Check, see:
The DREAM Act: Creating Economic Opportunities
(IPC Fact Check, September 16, 2010)
For more information on the DREAM Act see:
The DREAM Act in Arizona: An Economic Perspective
(Arizona State University, September 17, 2010)
Essential to the Fight: Immigrants in the Military
(IPC Special Report, November, 2009)
IPC DREAM Act Resource Page
Washington, D.C. - As the bipartisan call for passing the DREAM Act gets louder - from military, education, faith, and Republican leaders alike - some may overlook the economic benefits of granting legal status to eligible undocumented youth who want to attend college or join the military. There are currently 2.1 million undocumented youths living in the U.S. who, without the DREAM Act, are unlikely to go to college and cannot work legally in the U.S. The DREAM Act, however, would provide an opportunity for them to live up to their full potential as future doctors, nurses, teachers, and entrepreneurs and make greater contributions to the U.S. economy and society.
The DREAM Act would give beneficiaries the opportunity to increase their standard of living - and their tax contributions: If legalized, DREAM Act beneficiaries would have access to greater educational opportunities and better jobs, which in turn means more taxable income. According to a study from Arizona State University, an individual with a bachelor's degree earns approximately $750,000 more over the course of his/her lifetime than an individual with only a high-school diploma.
The DREAM Act would save taxpayers money: A RAND study from 1999 shows that raising the college graduation rate of Hispanics to that of non-Hispanic whites would increase spending on public education by 10 percent nationwide, but the costs would be more than offset by savings in public health and benefits, as well as by increased tax revenues resulting from higher incomes.
The DREAM Act keeps talented students in the United States: Letting the talent of DREAM Act students go to waste "imposes economic and emotional costs on undocumented students and on U.S. society as a whole." The DREAM Act would stop brain drain by allowing our most talented students to remain in the country.
While some in Congress continue to play politics with the DREAM Act, America and its taxpayers continue to lose. Without the DREAM Act, the United States is missing out on talented workers and entrepreneurs, and is losing vital tax revenues and other economic contributions.
To read IPC's Fact Check, see:
The DREAM Act: Creating Economic Opportunities
(IPC Fact Check, September 16, 2010)
For more information on the DREAM Act see:
The DREAM Act in Arizona: An Economic Perspective
(Arizona State University, September 17, 2010)
Essential to the Fight: Immigrants in the Military
(IPC Special Report, November, 2009)
IPC DREAM Act Resource Page
DREAM Act Coming to the Senate Floor
Senator Reid to Attach Act to Defense Authorization Bill
September 15, 2010
Washington, D.C. - Yesterday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid announced that he would attach the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act to the Department of Defense authorization bill expected to come before the Senate as early as next week. The vote will be an important test of whether Congress can transcend partisan politics and work together on crafting solutions to the broken immigration system that both Democrats and Republicans acknowledge is in desperate need of reform. That the proposal will be considered as an amendment to the Defense Authorization bill is appropriate, given the Department of Defense's support for DREAM Act as a way to improve military readiness.
First introduced in 2001, the DREAM Act would address the plight of young immigrants who have been raised in the U.S. and managed to succeed despite the challenges of being brought to the U.S. without proper documentation. The proposal would offer a path to legal status to those who have graduated from high-school, have stayed out of trouble and plan to attend college or serve in the U.S. military for at least two years.
Each year, approximately 65,000 undocumented students graduate from high school, many at the top of their classes, but cannot go to college, join the military, work, or otherwise pursue their dreams. They belong to the 1.5 generation - any (first generation) immigrants brought to the United States at a young age who were largely raised in this country and therefore share much in common with second generation Americans. These students are culturally American, growing up here and often having little attachment to their country of birth. They tend to be bicultural and fluent in English.
Research has shown that providing a legal status for young people who have a proven record of success in the United States would be a boon to the economy and the U.S. workforce. University presidents and educational associations, as well as military recruiters, business and religious leaders have added their voice to those calling for passage of the bill. Foreign-born students represent a significant and growing percentage of the current student population. Unfortunately, immigration status and the associated barriers to higher education contribute to a higher-than-average high dropout rate, which costs taxpayers and the economy billions of dollars each year.
The DREAM Act would eliminate these barriers for many students, and the DREAM Act's high school graduation requirement would provide a powerful incentive for students who might otherwise drop out to stay in school and graduate. This will help boost the number of high skilled American-raised workers. As they take their place in the workplace as hard working, taxpaying Americans, they will contribute a lifetime of revenues at the local, state and federal level.
Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Military Personnel Policy, Bill Carr, supports the DREAM Act and stated that the law would be "good for readiness" and would help to recruit "cream of the crop" students. The DREAM Act is part of the Department of Defense's 2010-2012 Strategic Plan to assist the military in it's recruiting efforts.
For more information on the DREAM Act see:
The DREAM Act: Creating Opportunities for Immigrant Students and Supporting the U.S. Economy (IPC Fact Check, July 2010)
Essential to the Fight: Immigrants in the Military (IPC Special Report, November, 2009)
IPC DREAM Act Resource Page
September 15, 2010
Washington, D.C. - Yesterday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid announced that he would attach the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act to the Department of Defense authorization bill expected to come before the Senate as early as next week. The vote will be an important test of whether Congress can transcend partisan politics and work together on crafting solutions to the broken immigration system that both Democrats and Republicans acknowledge is in desperate need of reform. That the proposal will be considered as an amendment to the Defense Authorization bill is appropriate, given the Department of Defense's support for DREAM Act as a way to improve military readiness.
First introduced in 2001, the DREAM Act would address the plight of young immigrants who have been raised in the U.S. and managed to succeed despite the challenges of being brought to the U.S. without proper documentation. The proposal would offer a path to legal status to those who have graduated from high-school, have stayed out of trouble and plan to attend college or serve in the U.S. military for at least two years.
Each year, approximately 65,000 undocumented students graduate from high school, many at the top of their classes, but cannot go to college, join the military, work, or otherwise pursue their dreams. They belong to the 1.5 generation - any (first generation) immigrants brought to the United States at a young age who were largely raised in this country and therefore share much in common with second generation Americans. These students are culturally American, growing up here and often having little attachment to their country of birth. They tend to be bicultural and fluent in English.
Research has shown that providing a legal status for young people who have a proven record of success in the United States would be a boon to the economy and the U.S. workforce. University presidents and educational associations, as well as military recruiters, business and religious leaders have added their voice to those calling for passage of the bill. Foreign-born students represent a significant and growing percentage of the current student population. Unfortunately, immigration status and the associated barriers to higher education contribute to a higher-than-average high dropout rate, which costs taxpayers and the economy billions of dollars each year.
The DREAM Act would eliminate these barriers for many students, and the DREAM Act's high school graduation requirement would provide a powerful incentive for students who might otherwise drop out to stay in school and graduate. This will help boost the number of high skilled American-raised workers. As they take their place in the workplace as hard working, taxpaying Americans, they will contribute a lifetime of revenues at the local, state and federal level.
Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Military Personnel Policy, Bill Carr, supports the DREAM Act and stated that the law would be "good for readiness" and would help to recruit "cream of the crop" students. The DREAM Act is part of the Department of Defense's 2010-2012 Strategic Plan to assist the military in it's recruiting efforts.
For more information on the DREAM Act see:
The DREAM Act: Creating Opportunities for Immigrant Students and Supporting the U.S. Economy (IPC Fact Check, July 2010)
Essential to the Fight: Immigrants in the Military (IPC Special Report, November, 2009)
IPC DREAM Act Resource Page
Immigration Enforcement in a Time of Recession
Explaining the Recent Decline in Unauthorized Migration
September 9, 2010
Washington, D.C. - Recent estimates from the Pew Hispanic Center indicate that the number of unauthorized immigrants in the United States has declined by roughly one million since 2007-bringing the total size of the unauthorized population to approximately 11.1 million. Coming after the release of similar estimates by the Department of Homeland Security in January, these figures have provoked considerable speculation as to how much of the decline is attributable to the current recession, and how much is the result of heightened immigration enforcement.
Ultimately, it is impossible to disentangle the impact of the recession from that of enforcement with any degree of certainty. Nevertheless, the available research indicates that the recession is likely playing a major role in discouraging new unauthorized immigrants from entering the country due to the lack of jobs. After all, federal spending on immigration enforcement has been rising steadily since the early 1990s, while the size of the unauthorized population continued to increase until the current recession hit. Research also suggests that when the economy begins to improve again, unauthorized immigration is likely to increase as well - unless the broken immigration system which spurs unauthorized migration has been fixed by then.
To read IPC's Fact Check see:
September 9, 2010
Washington, D.C. - Recent estimates from the Pew Hispanic Center indicate that the number of unauthorized immigrants in the United States has declined by roughly one million since 2007-bringing the total size of the unauthorized population to approximately 11.1 million. Coming after the release of similar estimates by the Department of Homeland Security in January, these figures have provoked considerable speculation as to how much of the decline is attributable to the current recession, and how much is the result of heightened immigration enforcement.
Ultimately, it is impossible to disentangle the impact of the recession from that of enforcement with any degree of certainty. Nevertheless, the available research indicates that the recession is likely playing a major role in discouraging new unauthorized immigrants from entering the country due to the lack of jobs. After all, federal spending on immigration enforcement has been rising steadily since the early 1990s, while the size of the unauthorized population continued to increase until the current recession hit. Research also suggests that when the economy begins to improve again, unauthorized immigration is likely to increase as well - unless the broken immigration system which spurs unauthorized migration has been fixed by then.
To read IPC's Fact Check see:
- Immigration Enforcement in a Time of Recession (IPC Fact Check, September 9, 2010)
U.S. sues controversial Arizona sheriff in civil-rights investigation
Justice Department officials say Maricopa County's Joe Arpaio failed to turn over documents in a probe of his agency's immigration enforcement operations. Among his tactics are 'sweeps' of immigrant-heavy neighborhoods.
By Nicholas Riccardi, Los Angeles Times
10:23 AM PDT, September 2, 2010
Reporting from Denver
The U.S. Department of Justice on Thursday announced it had sued Joe Arpaio, the controversial sheriff of Maricopa County in Arizona, for failing to turn over documents in a probe of whether his aggressive operations against illegal immigrants had violated civil rights.
The litigation came two months after a Justice Department lawsuit halted a tough new Arizona immigration law, which Arpaio strongly supported. The new lawsuit is unrelated to the immigration law and stems from an investigation into the sheriff's immigration enforcement operations. The department said it was the first time in 30 years a police agency had not cooperated in a civil-rights probe.
"The actions of the sheriff's office are unprecedented. It is unfortunate that the department was forced to resort to litigation to gain access to public documents and facilities," said Thomas E. Perez, assistant attorney general for the civil-rights division, in a statement.
Arpaio's attorney said he could not comment on the lawsuit until he had time to review it.
For more than three years, Arpaio has attracted praise as well as condemnation for using his deputies to track down illegal immigrants. The most high-profile example is his so-called "sweeps," during which deputies flood immigrant-heavy neighborhoods, stop people for minor infractions such as driving with a broken taillight and check their immigration status. The tactics have made Arpaio popular in Arizona, the main gateway for illegal immigrants into the United States, but also have drawn widespread complaints that he unfairly targets Latinos.
Last year, the Obama administration withdrew from part of an agreement that had allowed Arpaio's deputies to enforce federal immigration laws. The move made little difference —the Sheriff says he can use state laws against illegal immigrants and has continued his operations. He has also touted the fact that federal civil rights investigators have yet to charge him with anything, while simultaneously announcing he was not cooperating with them and barring them from his facilities.
In the lawsuit, the Department of Justice said it asked for 51 different sets of documents in March 2009, shortly after launching the probe. Arpaio's office provided only 11 pages and had not handed over any others. His office also would not let investigators tour the county jail or other sheriff's facilities. Arpaio previously said he had no legal obligation to give the Justice Department other material and dismissed the probe as politically motivated.
Arpaio's agency also has been sued by a coalition of private civil-rights lawyers who have complained that it has not provided them with documents. A federal judge earlier this year found the sheriff's department had destroyed documents on the sweeps that the plaintiff's attorneys were legally entitled to review and sanctioned the agency.
Arpaio is also under investigation by a federal grand jury for alleged abuse of power in a separate probe. He has denied those allegations.
nicholas.riccardi@latimes.com
By Nicholas Riccardi, Los Angeles Times
10:23 AM PDT, September 2, 2010
Reporting from Denver
The U.S. Department of Justice on Thursday announced it had sued Joe Arpaio, the controversial sheriff of Maricopa County in Arizona, for failing to turn over documents in a probe of whether his aggressive operations against illegal immigrants had violated civil rights.
The litigation came two months after a Justice Department lawsuit halted a tough new Arizona immigration law, which Arpaio strongly supported. The new lawsuit is unrelated to the immigration law and stems from an investigation into the sheriff's immigration enforcement operations. The department said it was the first time in 30 years a police agency had not cooperated in a civil-rights probe.
"The actions of the sheriff's office are unprecedented. It is unfortunate that the department was forced to resort to litigation to gain access to public documents and facilities," said Thomas E. Perez, assistant attorney general for the civil-rights division, in a statement.
Arpaio's attorney said he could not comment on the lawsuit until he had time to review it.
For more than three years, Arpaio has attracted praise as well as condemnation for using his deputies to track down illegal immigrants. The most high-profile example is his so-called "sweeps," during which deputies flood immigrant-heavy neighborhoods, stop people for minor infractions such as driving with a broken taillight and check their immigration status. The tactics have made Arpaio popular in Arizona, the main gateway for illegal immigrants into the United States, but also have drawn widespread complaints that he unfairly targets Latinos.
Last year, the Obama administration withdrew from part of an agreement that had allowed Arpaio's deputies to enforce federal immigration laws. The move made little difference —the Sheriff says he can use state laws against illegal immigrants and has continued his operations. He has also touted the fact that federal civil rights investigators have yet to charge him with anything, while simultaneously announcing he was not cooperating with them and barring them from his facilities.
In the lawsuit, the Department of Justice said it asked for 51 different sets of documents in March 2009, shortly after launching the probe. Arpaio's office provided only 11 pages and had not handed over any others. His office also would not let investigators tour the county jail or other sheriff's facilities. Arpaio previously said he had no legal obligation to give the Justice Department other material and dismissed the probe as politically motivated.
Arpaio's agency also has been sued by a coalition of private civil-rights lawyers who have complained that it has not provided them with documents. A federal judge earlier this year found the sheriff's department had destroyed documents on the sweeps that the plaintiff's attorneys were legally entitled to review and sanctioned the agency.
Arpaio is also under investigation by a federal grand jury for alleged abuse of power in a separate probe. He has denied those allegations.
nicholas.riccardi@latimes.com
Judge doubts the constitutionality of Arizona's immigration law
U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton says the provision that makes lacking immigration documents a crime may violate prior rulings that bar states from creating their own immigrant registration systems.
By Nicholas Riccardi, Los Angeles Times
1:12 PM PDT, July 22, 2010
Reporting from Phoenix
A federal judge on Thursday expressed skepticism that a key part of a controversial Arizona law to control illegal immigration is constitutional.
U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton noted at a hearing that the U.S. Supreme Court has long barred states from creating their own immigrant registration systems. She said the Arizona measure's stipulation that makes a crime of failing to have immigration documents may violate that.
John Bouma, the attorney representing Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, tried to convince Bolton otherwise but eventually gave up. "I didn't have the feeling I persuaded you last week either," he said, alluding to a previous hearing.
Bolton did not issue a ruling.
The statements came as Bolton heard arguments from civil rights groups urging her to stop the law from going into effect July 29. The Obama administration has also sought an injunction. Its arguments will be heard later Thursday afternoon.
Omar Jadwat, an attorney with the ACLU, argued that the law, SB 1070, ignores the complexities of the federal immigration system to focus on trying to drive illegal immigrants from the state. "What we're facing here," he said, "is an attempt by a state to create an interrelated system of immigration laws that displace the federal" statutes.
Bouma said Arizona was only trying to enforce federal laws the U.S. government is ignoring. He urged Bolton not to enjoin the law."
We're talking about an extraordinary remedy," he said, referring to the requests to halt SB 1070 from taking effect. "We're talking about imposing on the sovereignty of the state."
In addition to making a lack of immigration documents a state crime, the law requires police officers to determine the immigration status of people they lawfully stop who they suspect are in the country illegally. Supporters argue that SB 1070 is needed to protect Arizona from crime spilling over from Mexico.
But civil rights groups contend that the measure will lead to racial profiling, and the Obama administration has said it is an unconstitutional attempt by a state to regulate immigration, which is a federal responsibility.
nicholas.riccardi@latimes.com
Copyright © 2010, The Los Angeles Times
By Nicholas Riccardi, Los Angeles Times
1:12 PM PDT, July 22, 2010
Reporting from Phoenix
A federal judge on Thursday expressed skepticism that a key part of a controversial Arizona law to control illegal immigration is constitutional.
U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton noted at a hearing that the U.S. Supreme Court has long barred states from creating their own immigrant registration systems. She said the Arizona measure's stipulation that makes a crime of failing to have immigration documents may violate that.
John Bouma, the attorney representing Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, tried to convince Bolton otherwise but eventually gave up. "I didn't have the feeling I persuaded you last week either," he said, alluding to a previous hearing.
Bolton did not issue a ruling.
The statements came as Bolton heard arguments from civil rights groups urging her to stop the law from going into effect July 29. The Obama administration has also sought an injunction. Its arguments will be heard later Thursday afternoon.
Omar Jadwat, an attorney with the ACLU, argued that the law, SB 1070, ignores the complexities of the federal immigration system to focus on trying to drive illegal immigrants from the state. "What we're facing here," he said, "is an attempt by a state to create an interrelated system of immigration laws that displace the federal" statutes.
Bouma said Arizona was only trying to enforce federal laws the U.S. government is ignoring. He urged Bolton not to enjoin the law."
We're talking about an extraordinary remedy," he said, referring to the requests to halt SB 1070 from taking effect. "We're talking about imposing on the sovereignty of the state."
In addition to making a lack of immigration documents a state crime, the law requires police officers to determine the immigration status of people they lawfully stop who they suspect are in the country illegally. Supporters argue that SB 1070 is needed to protect Arizona from crime spilling over from Mexico.
But civil rights groups contend that the measure will lead to racial profiling, and the Obama administration has said it is an unconstitutional attempt by a state to regulate immigration, which is a federal responsibility.
nicholas.riccardi@latimes.com
Copyright © 2010, The Los Angeles Times
The DREAM Act: Creating Opportunities for Immigrant Students and Supporting the U.S. Economy
July 13, 2010
Washington D.C. - Today, the Immigration Policy Center releases a Fact Check on the DREAM Act. Each year, approximately 65,000 undocumented students graduate from high school, many at the top of their classes, but cannot go to college, join the military, work, or otherwise pursue their dreams. They belong to the 1.5 generation - any (first generation) children brought to the United States at a young age by their parents who were largely raised in this country and therefore share much in common with American born-children. These students are culturally American, growing up here and often having little attachment to their country of birth. They tend to be bicultural and fluent in English. Many don't even know that they are undocumented immigrants until they apply for a driver's license or college, and then learn they lack Social Security numbers and other necessary legal documents.
The plight of the DREAM Act students encapsulates many facets of today's immigration crisis. Caught in a system where there is little, if any, means for legalizing their status, smart, hard-working kids face an uncertain future because of their inability to continue their education, work, or join the military. The loss of potential, productivity, and hope for these individuals is also a loss for this country. The United States is missing out on talented workers and entrepreneurs, and is losing vital tax revenues and other economic contributions. While fixing this particular problem will hardly resolve the need for comprehensive immigration reform, it will unlock the door to the American dream for thousands of young people each year.
To view the fact sheet it its entirety see:
- The DREAM Act: Creating Opportunities for Immigrant Students and Supporting the U.S. Economy (IPC Fact Check, July 13, 2010)
Remarks by the President on Comprehensive Immigration Reform
The White House
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
July 01, 2010
Remarks by the President on Comprehensive Immigration Reform
American University School of International Service, Washington, D.C.
11:12 A.M. EDT
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. (Applause.) Everyone please have a seat. Thank you very much. Let me thank Pastor Hybels from near my hometown in Chicago, who took time off his vacation to be here today. We are blessed to have him.
I want to thank President Neil Kerwin and our hosts here at American University; acknowledge my outstanding Secretary of Labor, Hilda Solis, and members of my administration; all the members of Congress -- Hilda deserves applause. (Applause.) To all the members of Congress, the elected officials, faith and law enforcement, labor, business leaders and immigration advocates who are here today -- thank you for your presence.
I want to thank American University for welcoming me to the campus once again. Some may recall that the last time I was here I was joined by a dear friend, and a giant of American politics, Senator Edward Kennedy. (Applause.) Teddy’s not here right now, but his legacy of civil rights and health care and worker protections is still with us.
I was a candidate for President that day, and some may recall I argued that our country had reached a tipping point; that after years in which we had deferred our most pressing problems, and too often yielded to the politics of the moment, we now faced a choice: We could squarely confront our challenges with honesty and determination, or we could consign ourselves and our children to a future less prosperous and less secure.
I believed that then and I believe it now. And that’s why, even as we’ve tackled the most severe economic crisis since the Great Depression, even as we’ve wound down the war in Iraq and refocused our efforts in Afghanistan, my administration has refused to ignore some of the fundamental challenges facing this generation.
We launched the most aggressive education reforms in decades, so that our children can gain the knowledge and skills they need to compete in a 21st century global economy.
We have finally delivered on the promise of health reform -– reform that will bring greater security to every American, and that will rein in the skyrocketing costs that threaten families, businesses and the prosperity of our nation.
We’re on the verge of reforming an outdated and ineffective set of rules governing Wall Street -– to give greater power to consumers and prevent the reckless financial speculation that led to this severe recession.
And we’re accelerating the transition to a clean energy economy by significantly raising the fuel-efficiency standards of cars and trucks, and by doubling our use of renewable energies like wind and solar power -- steps that have the potential to create whole new industries and hundreds of thousands of new jobs in America.
So, despite the forces of the status quo, despite the polarization and the frequent pettiness of our politics, we are confronting the great challenges of our times. And while this work isn’t easy, and the changes we seek won’t always happen overnight, what we’ve made clear is that this administration will not just kick the can down the road.
Immigration reform is no exception. In recent days, the issue of immigration has become once more a source of fresh contention in our country, with the passage of a controversial law in Arizona and the heated reactions we’ve seen across America. Some have rallied behind this new policy. Others have protested and launched boycotts of the state. And everywhere, people have expressed frustration with a system that seems fundamentally broken.
Of course, the tensions around immigration are not new. On the one hand, we’ve always defined ourselves as a nation of immigrants -- a nation that welcomes those willing to embrace America’s precepts. Indeed, it is this constant flow of immigrants that helped to make America what it is. The scientific breakthroughs of Albert Einstein, the inventions of Nikola Tesla, the great ventures of Andrew Carnegie’s U.S. Steel and Sergey Brin’s Google, Inc. -– all this was possible because of immigrants.
And then there are the countless names and the quiet acts that never made the history books but were no less consequential in building this country -- the generations who braved hardship and great risk to reach our shores in search of a better life for themselves and their families; the millions of people, ancestors to most of us, who believed that there was a place where they could be, at long last, free to work and worship and live their lives in peace.
So this steady stream of hardworking and talented people has made America the engine of the global economy and a beacon of hope around the world. And it’s allowed us to adapt and thrive in the face of technological and societal change. To this day, America reaps incredible economic rewards because we remain a magnet for the best and brightest from across the globe. Folks travel here in the hopes of being a part of a culture of entrepreneurship and ingenuity, and by doing so they strengthen and enrich that culture. Immigration also means we have a younger workforce -– and a faster-growing economy -- than many of our competitors. And in an increasingly interconnected world, the diversity of our country is a powerful advantage in global competition.
Just a few weeks ago, we had an event of small business owners at the White House. And one business owner was a woman named Prachee Devadas who came to this country, became a citizen, and opened up a successful technology services company. When she started, she had just one employee. Today, she employs more than a hundred people. This past April, we held a naturalization ceremony at the White House for members of our armed forces. Even though they were not yet citizens, they had enlisted. One of them was a woman named Perla Ramos -- born and raised in Mexico, came to the United States shortly after 9/11, and she eventually joined the Navy. And she said, “I take pride in our flag and the history that forged this great nation and the history we write day by day.”
These women, and men and women across this country like them, remind us that immigrants have always helped to build and defend this country -– and that being an American is not a matter of blood or birth. It’s a matter of faith. It’s a matter of fidelity to the shared values that we all hold so dear. That’s what makes us unique. That’s what makes us strong. Anybody can help us write the next great chapter in our history.
Now, we can’t forget that this process of immigration and eventual inclusion has often been painful. Each new wave of immigrants has generated fear and resentments towards newcomers, particularly in times of economic upheaval. Our founding was rooted in the notion that America was unique as a place of refuge and freedom for, in Thomas Jefferson’s words, “oppressed humanity.” But the ink on our Constitution was barely dry when, amidst conflict, Congress passed the Alien and Sedition Acts, which placed harsh restrictions of those suspected of having foreign allegiances. A century ago, immigrants from Ireland, Italy, Poland, other European countries were routinely subjected to rank discrimination and ugly stereotypes. Chinese immigrants were held in detention and deported from Angel Island in the San Francisco Bay. They didn’t even get to come in.
So the politics of who is and who is not allowed to enter this country, and on what terms, has always been contentious. And that remains true today. And it’s made worse by a failure of those of us in Washington to fix a broken immigration system.
To begin with, our borders have been porous for decades. Obviously, the problem is greatest along our Southern border, but it’s not restricted to that part of the country. In fact, because we don’t do a very good job of tracking who comes in and out of the country as visitors, large numbers avoid immigration laws simply by overstaying their visas.
The result is an estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants in the United States. The overwhelming majority of these men and women are simply seeking a better life for themselves and their children. Many settle in low-wage sectors of the economy; they work hard, they save, they stay out of trouble. But because they live in the shadows, they’re vulnerable to unscrupulous businesses who pay them less than the minimum wage or violate worker safety rules -– thereby putting companies who follow those rules, and Americans who rightly demand the minimum wage or overtime, at an unfair [dis]advantage. Crimes go unreported as victims and witnesses fear coming forward. And this makes it harder for the police to catch violent criminals and keep neighborhoods safe. And billions in tax revenue are lost each year because many undocumented workers are paid under the table.
More fundamentally, the presence of so many illegal immigrants makes a mockery of all those who are going through the process of immigrating legally. Indeed, after years of patchwork fixes and ill-conceived revisions, the legal immigration system is as broken as the borders. Backlogs and bureaucracy means the process can take years. While an applicant waits for approval, he or she is often forbidden from visiting the United States –- which means even husbands and wives may be forced to spend many years apart. High fees and the need for lawyers may exclude worthy applicants. And while we provide students from around the world visas to get engineering and computer science degrees at our top universities, our laws discourage them from using those skills to start a business or power a new industry right here in the United States. Instead of training entrepreneurs to create jobs on our shores, we train our competition.
In sum, the system is broken. And everybody knows it. Unfortunately, reform has been held hostage to political posturing and special-interest wrangling -– and to the pervasive sentiment in Washington that tackling such a thorny and emotional issue is inherently bad politics.
Just a few years ago, when I was a senator, we forged a bipartisan coalition in favor of comprehensive reform. Under the leadership of Senator Kennedy, who had been a longtime champion of immigration reform, and Senator John McCain, we worked across the aisle to help pass a bipartisan bill through the Senate. But that effort eventually came apart. And now, under the pressures of partisanship and election-year politics, many of the 11 Republican senators who voted for reform in the past have now backed away from their previous support.
Into this breach, states like Arizona have decided to take matters into their own hands. Given the levels of frustration across the country, this is understandable. But it is also ill conceived. And it’s not just that the law Arizona passed is divisive -– although it has fanned the flames of an already contentious debate. Laws like Arizona’s put huge pressures on local law enforcement to enforce rules that ultimately are unenforceable. It puts pressure on already hard-strapped state and local budgets. It makes it difficult for people here illegally to report crimes -– driving a wedge between communities and law enforcement, making our streets more dangerous and the jobs of our police officers more difficult.
And you don’t have to take my word for this. You can speak to the police chiefs and others from law enforcement here today who will tell you the same thing.
These laws also have the potential of violating the rights of innocent American citizens and legal residents, making them subject to possible stops or questioning because of what they look like or how they sound. And as other states and localities go their own ways, we face the prospect that different rules for immigration will apply in different parts of the country -– a patchwork of local immigration rules where we all know one clear national standard is needed.
Our task then is to make our national laws actually work -– to shape a system that reflects our values as a nation of laws and a nation of immigrants. And that means being honest about the problem, and getting past the false debates that divide the country rather than bring it together.
For example, there are those in the immigrants’ rights community who have argued passionately that we should simply provide those who are [here] illegally with legal status, or at least ignore the laws on the books and put an end to deportation until we have better laws. And often this argument is framed in moral terms: Why should we punish people who are just trying to earn a living?
I recognize the sense of compassion that drives this argument, but I believe such an indiscriminate approach would be both unwise and unfair. It would suggest to those thinking about coming here illegally that there will be no repercussions for such a decision. And this could lead to a surge in more illegal immigration. And it would also ignore the millions of people around the world who are waiting in line to come here legally.
Ultimately, our nation, like all nations, has the right and obligation to control its borders and set laws for residency and citizenship. And no matter how decent they are, no matter their reasons, the 11 million who broke these laws should be held accountable.
Now, if the majority of Americans are skeptical of a blanket amnesty, they are also skeptical that it is possible to round up and deport 11 million people. They know it’s not possible. Such an effort would be logistically impossible and wildly expensive. Moreover, it would tear at the very fabric of this nation -– because immigrants who are here illegally are now intricately woven into that fabric. Many have children who are American citizens. Some are children themselves, brought here by their parents at a very young age, growing up as American kids, only to discover their illegal status when they apply for college or a job. Migrant workers -– mostly here illegally -– have been the labor force of our farmers and agricultural producers for generations. So even if it was possible, a program of mass deportations would disrupt our economy and communities in ways that most Americans would find intolerable.
Now, once we get past the two poles of this debate, it becomes possible to shape a practical, common-sense approach that reflects our heritage and our values. Such an approach demands accountability from everybody -– from government, from businesses and from individuals.
Government has a threshold responsibility to secure our borders. That’s why I directed my Secretary of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano -- a former border governor -- to improve our enforcement policy without having to wait for a new law.
Today, we have more boots on the ground near the Southwest border than at any time in our history. Let me repeat that: We have more boots on the ground on the Southwest border than at any time in our history. We doubled the personnel assigned to Border Enforcement Security Task Forces. We tripled the number of intelligence analysts along the border. For the first time, we’ve begun screening 100 percent of southbound rail shipments. And as a result, we’re seizing more illegal guns, cash and drugs than in years past. Contrary to some of the reports that you see, crime along the border is down. And statistics collected by Customs and Border Protection reflect a significant reduction in the number of people trying to cross the border illegally.
So the bottom line is this: The southern border is more secure today than at any time in the past 20 years. That doesn’t mean we don’t have more work to do. We have to do that work, but it’s important that we acknowledge the facts. Even as we are committed to doing what’s necessary to secure our borders, even without passage of the new law, there are those who argue that we should not move forward with any other elements of reform until we have fully sealed our borders. But our borders are just too vast for us to be able to solve the problem only with fences and border patrols. It won’t work. Our borders will not be secure as long as our limited resources are devoted to not only stopping gangs and potential terrorists, but also the hundreds of thousands who attempt to cross each year simply to find work.
That’s why businesses must be held accountable if they break the law by deliberately hiring and exploiting undocumented workers. We’ve already begun to step up enforcement against the worst workplace offenders. And we’re implementing and improving a system to give employers a reliable way to verify that their employees are here legally. But we need to do more. We cannot continue just to look the other way as a significant portion of our economy operates outside the law. It breeds abuse and bad practices. It punishes employers who act responsibly and undercuts American workers. And ultimately, if the demand for undocumented workers falls, the incentive for people to come here illegally will decline as well.
Finally, we have to demand responsibility from people living here illegally. They must be required to admit that they broke the law. They should be required to register, pay their taxes, pay a fine, and learn English. They must get right with the law before they can get in line and earn their citizenship -- not just because it is fair, not just because it will make clear to those who might wish to come to America they must do so inside the bounds of the law, but because this is how we demonstrate that being -- what being an American means. Being a citizen of this country comes not only with rights but also with certain fundamental responsibilities. We can create a pathway for legal status that is fair, reflective of our values, and works.
Now, stopping illegal immigration must go hand in hand with reforming our creaky system of legal immigration. We’ve begun to do that, by eliminating a backlog in background checks that at one point stretched back almost a year. That’s just for the background check. People can now track the status of their immigration applications by email or text message. We’ve improved accountability and safety in the detention system. And we’ve stemmed the increases in naturalization fees. But here, too, we need to do more. We should make it easier for the best and the brightest to come to start businesses and develop products and create jobs.
Our laws should respect families following the rules -– instead of splitting them apart. We need to provide farms a legal way to hire the workers they rely on, and a path for those workers to earn legal status. And we should stop punishing innocent young people for the actions of their parents by denying them the chance to stay here and earn an education and contribute their talents to build the country where they’ve grown up. The DREAM Act would do this, and that’s why I supported this bill as a state legislator and as a U.S. senator -- and why I continue to support it as president.
So these are the essential elements of comprehensive immigration reform. The question now is whether we will have the courage and the political will to pass a bill through Congress, to finally get it done. Last summer, I held a meeting with leaders of both parties, including many of the Republicans who had supported reform in the past -- and some who hadn’t. I was pleased to see a bipartisan framework proposed in the Senate by Senators Lindsey Graham and Chuck Schumer, with whom I met to discuss this issue. I’ve spoken with the Congressional Hispanic Caucus to plot the way forward and meet -- and then I met with them earlier this week.
And I’ve spoken with representatives from a growing coalition of labor unions and business groups, immigrant advocates and community organizations, law enforcement, local government -– all who recognize the importance of immigration reform. And I’ve met with leaders from America’s religious communities, like Pastor Hybels -- people of different faiths and beliefs, some liberal, some conservative, who nonetheless share a sense of urgency; who understand that fixing our broken immigration system is not only a political issue, not just an economic issue, but a moral imperative as well.
So we’ve made progress. I’m ready to move forward; the majority of Democrats are ready to move forward; and I believe the majority of Americans are ready to move forward. But the fact is, without bipartisan support, as we had just a few years ago, we cannot solve this problem. Reform that brings accountability to our immigration system cannot pass without Republican votes. That is the political and mathematical reality. The only way to reduce the risk that this effort will again falter because of politics is if members of both parties are willing to take responsibility for solving this problem once and for all.
And, yes, this is an emotional question, and one that lends itself to demagoguery. Time and again, this issue has been used to divide and inflame -– and to demonize people. And so the understandable, the natural impulse among those who run for office is to turn away and defer this question for another day, or another year, or another administration. Despite the courageous leadership in the past shown by many Democrats and some Republicans -- including, by the way, my predecessor, President Bush -– this has been the custom. That is why a broken and dangerous system that offends our most basic American values is still in place.
But I believe we can put politics aside and finally have an immigration system that’s accountable. I believe we can appeal not to people’s fears but to their hopes, to their highest ideals, because that’s who we are as Americans. It’s been inscribed on our nation’s seal since we declared our independence. “E pluribus unum.” Out of many, one. That is what has drawn the persecuted and impoverished to our shores. That’s what led the innovators and risk-takers from around the world to take a chance here in the land of opportunity. That’s what has led people to endure untold hardships to reach this place called America.
One of the largest waves of immigration in our history took place little more than a century ago. At the time, Jewish people were being driven out of Eastern Europe, often escaping to the sounds of gunfire and the light from their villages burning to the ground. The journey could take months, as families crossed rivers in the dead of night, traveled miles by foot, endured a rough and dangerous passage over the North Atlantic. Once here, many made their homes in a teeming and bustling Lower Manhattan.
It was at this time that a young woman named Emma Lazarus, whose own family fled persecution from Europe generations earlier, took up the cause of these new immigrants. Although she was a poet, she spent much of her time advocating for better health care and housing for the newcomers. And inspired by what she saw and heard, she wrote down her thoughts and donated a piece of work to help pay for the construction of a new statue -- the Statue of Liberty -- which actually was funded in part by small donations from people across America.
Years before the statue was built -- years before it would be seen by throngs of immigrants craning their necks skyward at the end of long and brutal voyage, years before it would come to symbolize everything that we cherish -- she imagined what it could mean. She imagined the sight of a giant statue at the entry point of a great nation -– but unlike the great monuments of the past, this would not signal an empire. Instead, it would signal one’s arrival to a place of opportunity and refuge and freedom.
“Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand,” she wrote,
A mighty woman with a torch…
From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome…
“Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!”…
“Give me your tired, and your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to be free…
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”
Let us remember these words. For it falls on each generation to ensure that that lamp -– that beacon -– continues to shine as a source of hope around the world, and a source of our prosperity here at home.
Thank you. God bless you. And may God bless the United States of America. Thank you. (Applause.)
END11:47 A.M. EDT
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
July 01, 2010
Remarks by the President on Comprehensive Immigration Reform
American University School of International Service, Washington, D.C.
11:12 A.M. EDT
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. (Applause.) Everyone please have a seat. Thank you very much. Let me thank Pastor Hybels from near my hometown in Chicago, who took time off his vacation to be here today. We are blessed to have him.
I want to thank President Neil Kerwin and our hosts here at American University; acknowledge my outstanding Secretary of Labor, Hilda Solis, and members of my administration; all the members of Congress -- Hilda deserves applause. (Applause.) To all the members of Congress, the elected officials, faith and law enforcement, labor, business leaders and immigration advocates who are here today -- thank you for your presence.
I want to thank American University for welcoming me to the campus once again. Some may recall that the last time I was here I was joined by a dear friend, and a giant of American politics, Senator Edward Kennedy. (Applause.) Teddy’s not here right now, but his legacy of civil rights and health care and worker protections is still with us.
I was a candidate for President that day, and some may recall I argued that our country had reached a tipping point; that after years in which we had deferred our most pressing problems, and too often yielded to the politics of the moment, we now faced a choice: We could squarely confront our challenges with honesty and determination, or we could consign ourselves and our children to a future less prosperous and less secure.
I believed that then and I believe it now. And that’s why, even as we’ve tackled the most severe economic crisis since the Great Depression, even as we’ve wound down the war in Iraq and refocused our efforts in Afghanistan, my administration has refused to ignore some of the fundamental challenges facing this generation.
We launched the most aggressive education reforms in decades, so that our children can gain the knowledge and skills they need to compete in a 21st century global economy.
We have finally delivered on the promise of health reform -– reform that will bring greater security to every American, and that will rein in the skyrocketing costs that threaten families, businesses and the prosperity of our nation.
We’re on the verge of reforming an outdated and ineffective set of rules governing Wall Street -– to give greater power to consumers and prevent the reckless financial speculation that led to this severe recession.
And we’re accelerating the transition to a clean energy economy by significantly raising the fuel-efficiency standards of cars and trucks, and by doubling our use of renewable energies like wind and solar power -- steps that have the potential to create whole new industries and hundreds of thousands of new jobs in America.
So, despite the forces of the status quo, despite the polarization and the frequent pettiness of our politics, we are confronting the great challenges of our times. And while this work isn’t easy, and the changes we seek won’t always happen overnight, what we’ve made clear is that this administration will not just kick the can down the road.
Immigration reform is no exception. In recent days, the issue of immigration has become once more a source of fresh contention in our country, with the passage of a controversial law in Arizona and the heated reactions we’ve seen across America. Some have rallied behind this new policy. Others have protested and launched boycotts of the state. And everywhere, people have expressed frustration with a system that seems fundamentally broken.
Of course, the tensions around immigration are not new. On the one hand, we’ve always defined ourselves as a nation of immigrants -- a nation that welcomes those willing to embrace America’s precepts. Indeed, it is this constant flow of immigrants that helped to make America what it is. The scientific breakthroughs of Albert Einstein, the inventions of Nikola Tesla, the great ventures of Andrew Carnegie’s U.S. Steel and Sergey Brin’s Google, Inc. -– all this was possible because of immigrants.
And then there are the countless names and the quiet acts that never made the history books but were no less consequential in building this country -- the generations who braved hardship and great risk to reach our shores in search of a better life for themselves and their families; the millions of people, ancestors to most of us, who believed that there was a place where they could be, at long last, free to work and worship and live their lives in peace.
So this steady stream of hardworking and talented people has made America the engine of the global economy and a beacon of hope around the world. And it’s allowed us to adapt and thrive in the face of technological and societal change. To this day, America reaps incredible economic rewards because we remain a magnet for the best and brightest from across the globe. Folks travel here in the hopes of being a part of a culture of entrepreneurship and ingenuity, and by doing so they strengthen and enrich that culture. Immigration also means we have a younger workforce -– and a faster-growing economy -- than many of our competitors. And in an increasingly interconnected world, the diversity of our country is a powerful advantage in global competition.
Just a few weeks ago, we had an event of small business owners at the White House. And one business owner was a woman named Prachee Devadas who came to this country, became a citizen, and opened up a successful technology services company. When she started, she had just one employee. Today, she employs more than a hundred people. This past April, we held a naturalization ceremony at the White House for members of our armed forces. Even though they were not yet citizens, they had enlisted. One of them was a woman named Perla Ramos -- born and raised in Mexico, came to the United States shortly after 9/11, and she eventually joined the Navy. And she said, “I take pride in our flag and the history that forged this great nation and the history we write day by day.”
These women, and men and women across this country like them, remind us that immigrants have always helped to build and defend this country -– and that being an American is not a matter of blood or birth. It’s a matter of faith. It’s a matter of fidelity to the shared values that we all hold so dear. That’s what makes us unique. That’s what makes us strong. Anybody can help us write the next great chapter in our history.
Now, we can’t forget that this process of immigration and eventual inclusion has often been painful. Each new wave of immigrants has generated fear and resentments towards newcomers, particularly in times of economic upheaval. Our founding was rooted in the notion that America was unique as a place of refuge and freedom for, in Thomas Jefferson’s words, “oppressed humanity.” But the ink on our Constitution was barely dry when, amidst conflict, Congress passed the Alien and Sedition Acts, which placed harsh restrictions of those suspected of having foreign allegiances. A century ago, immigrants from Ireland, Italy, Poland, other European countries were routinely subjected to rank discrimination and ugly stereotypes. Chinese immigrants were held in detention and deported from Angel Island in the San Francisco Bay. They didn’t even get to come in.
So the politics of who is and who is not allowed to enter this country, and on what terms, has always been contentious. And that remains true today. And it’s made worse by a failure of those of us in Washington to fix a broken immigration system.
To begin with, our borders have been porous for decades. Obviously, the problem is greatest along our Southern border, but it’s not restricted to that part of the country. In fact, because we don’t do a very good job of tracking who comes in and out of the country as visitors, large numbers avoid immigration laws simply by overstaying their visas.
The result is an estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants in the United States. The overwhelming majority of these men and women are simply seeking a better life for themselves and their children. Many settle in low-wage sectors of the economy; they work hard, they save, they stay out of trouble. But because they live in the shadows, they’re vulnerable to unscrupulous businesses who pay them less than the minimum wage or violate worker safety rules -– thereby putting companies who follow those rules, and Americans who rightly demand the minimum wage or overtime, at an unfair [dis]advantage. Crimes go unreported as victims and witnesses fear coming forward. And this makes it harder for the police to catch violent criminals and keep neighborhoods safe. And billions in tax revenue are lost each year because many undocumented workers are paid under the table.
More fundamentally, the presence of so many illegal immigrants makes a mockery of all those who are going through the process of immigrating legally. Indeed, after years of patchwork fixes and ill-conceived revisions, the legal immigration system is as broken as the borders. Backlogs and bureaucracy means the process can take years. While an applicant waits for approval, he or she is often forbidden from visiting the United States –- which means even husbands and wives may be forced to spend many years apart. High fees and the need for lawyers may exclude worthy applicants. And while we provide students from around the world visas to get engineering and computer science degrees at our top universities, our laws discourage them from using those skills to start a business or power a new industry right here in the United States. Instead of training entrepreneurs to create jobs on our shores, we train our competition.
In sum, the system is broken. And everybody knows it. Unfortunately, reform has been held hostage to political posturing and special-interest wrangling -– and to the pervasive sentiment in Washington that tackling such a thorny and emotional issue is inherently bad politics.
Just a few years ago, when I was a senator, we forged a bipartisan coalition in favor of comprehensive reform. Under the leadership of Senator Kennedy, who had been a longtime champion of immigration reform, and Senator John McCain, we worked across the aisle to help pass a bipartisan bill through the Senate. But that effort eventually came apart. And now, under the pressures of partisanship and election-year politics, many of the 11 Republican senators who voted for reform in the past have now backed away from their previous support.
Into this breach, states like Arizona have decided to take matters into their own hands. Given the levels of frustration across the country, this is understandable. But it is also ill conceived. And it’s not just that the law Arizona passed is divisive -– although it has fanned the flames of an already contentious debate. Laws like Arizona’s put huge pressures on local law enforcement to enforce rules that ultimately are unenforceable. It puts pressure on already hard-strapped state and local budgets. It makes it difficult for people here illegally to report crimes -– driving a wedge between communities and law enforcement, making our streets more dangerous and the jobs of our police officers more difficult.
And you don’t have to take my word for this. You can speak to the police chiefs and others from law enforcement here today who will tell you the same thing.
These laws also have the potential of violating the rights of innocent American citizens and legal residents, making them subject to possible stops or questioning because of what they look like or how they sound. And as other states and localities go their own ways, we face the prospect that different rules for immigration will apply in different parts of the country -– a patchwork of local immigration rules where we all know one clear national standard is needed.
Our task then is to make our national laws actually work -– to shape a system that reflects our values as a nation of laws and a nation of immigrants. And that means being honest about the problem, and getting past the false debates that divide the country rather than bring it together.
For example, there are those in the immigrants’ rights community who have argued passionately that we should simply provide those who are [here] illegally with legal status, or at least ignore the laws on the books and put an end to deportation until we have better laws. And often this argument is framed in moral terms: Why should we punish people who are just trying to earn a living?
I recognize the sense of compassion that drives this argument, but I believe such an indiscriminate approach would be both unwise and unfair. It would suggest to those thinking about coming here illegally that there will be no repercussions for such a decision. And this could lead to a surge in more illegal immigration. And it would also ignore the millions of people around the world who are waiting in line to come here legally.
Ultimately, our nation, like all nations, has the right and obligation to control its borders and set laws for residency and citizenship. And no matter how decent they are, no matter their reasons, the 11 million who broke these laws should be held accountable.
Now, if the majority of Americans are skeptical of a blanket amnesty, they are also skeptical that it is possible to round up and deport 11 million people. They know it’s not possible. Such an effort would be logistically impossible and wildly expensive. Moreover, it would tear at the very fabric of this nation -– because immigrants who are here illegally are now intricately woven into that fabric. Many have children who are American citizens. Some are children themselves, brought here by their parents at a very young age, growing up as American kids, only to discover their illegal status when they apply for college or a job. Migrant workers -– mostly here illegally -– have been the labor force of our farmers and agricultural producers for generations. So even if it was possible, a program of mass deportations would disrupt our economy and communities in ways that most Americans would find intolerable.
Now, once we get past the two poles of this debate, it becomes possible to shape a practical, common-sense approach that reflects our heritage and our values. Such an approach demands accountability from everybody -– from government, from businesses and from individuals.
Government has a threshold responsibility to secure our borders. That’s why I directed my Secretary of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano -- a former border governor -- to improve our enforcement policy without having to wait for a new law.
Today, we have more boots on the ground near the Southwest border than at any time in our history. Let me repeat that: We have more boots on the ground on the Southwest border than at any time in our history. We doubled the personnel assigned to Border Enforcement Security Task Forces. We tripled the number of intelligence analysts along the border. For the first time, we’ve begun screening 100 percent of southbound rail shipments. And as a result, we’re seizing more illegal guns, cash and drugs than in years past. Contrary to some of the reports that you see, crime along the border is down. And statistics collected by Customs and Border Protection reflect a significant reduction in the number of people trying to cross the border illegally.
So the bottom line is this: The southern border is more secure today than at any time in the past 20 years. That doesn’t mean we don’t have more work to do. We have to do that work, but it’s important that we acknowledge the facts. Even as we are committed to doing what’s necessary to secure our borders, even without passage of the new law, there are those who argue that we should not move forward with any other elements of reform until we have fully sealed our borders. But our borders are just too vast for us to be able to solve the problem only with fences and border patrols. It won’t work. Our borders will not be secure as long as our limited resources are devoted to not only stopping gangs and potential terrorists, but also the hundreds of thousands who attempt to cross each year simply to find work.
That’s why businesses must be held accountable if they break the law by deliberately hiring and exploiting undocumented workers. We’ve already begun to step up enforcement against the worst workplace offenders. And we’re implementing and improving a system to give employers a reliable way to verify that their employees are here legally. But we need to do more. We cannot continue just to look the other way as a significant portion of our economy operates outside the law. It breeds abuse and bad practices. It punishes employers who act responsibly and undercuts American workers. And ultimately, if the demand for undocumented workers falls, the incentive for people to come here illegally will decline as well.
Finally, we have to demand responsibility from people living here illegally. They must be required to admit that they broke the law. They should be required to register, pay their taxes, pay a fine, and learn English. They must get right with the law before they can get in line and earn their citizenship -- not just because it is fair, not just because it will make clear to those who might wish to come to America they must do so inside the bounds of the law, but because this is how we demonstrate that being -- what being an American means. Being a citizen of this country comes not only with rights but also with certain fundamental responsibilities. We can create a pathway for legal status that is fair, reflective of our values, and works.
Now, stopping illegal immigration must go hand in hand with reforming our creaky system of legal immigration. We’ve begun to do that, by eliminating a backlog in background checks that at one point stretched back almost a year. That’s just for the background check. People can now track the status of their immigration applications by email or text message. We’ve improved accountability and safety in the detention system. And we’ve stemmed the increases in naturalization fees. But here, too, we need to do more. We should make it easier for the best and the brightest to come to start businesses and develop products and create jobs.
Our laws should respect families following the rules -– instead of splitting them apart. We need to provide farms a legal way to hire the workers they rely on, and a path for those workers to earn legal status. And we should stop punishing innocent young people for the actions of their parents by denying them the chance to stay here and earn an education and contribute their talents to build the country where they’ve grown up. The DREAM Act would do this, and that’s why I supported this bill as a state legislator and as a U.S. senator -- and why I continue to support it as president.
So these are the essential elements of comprehensive immigration reform. The question now is whether we will have the courage and the political will to pass a bill through Congress, to finally get it done. Last summer, I held a meeting with leaders of both parties, including many of the Republicans who had supported reform in the past -- and some who hadn’t. I was pleased to see a bipartisan framework proposed in the Senate by Senators Lindsey Graham and Chuck Schumer, with whom I met to discuss this issue. I’ve spoken with the Congressional Hispanic Caucus to plot the way forward and meet -- and then I met with them earlier this week.
And I’ve spoken with representatives from a growing coalition of labor unions and business groups, immigrant advocates and community organizations, law enforcement, local government -– all who recognize the importance of immigration reform. And I’ve met with leaders from America’s religious communities, like Pastor Hybels -- people of different faiths and beliefs, some liberal, some conservative, who nonetheless share a sense of urgency; who understand that fixing our broken immigration system is not only a political issue, not just an economic issue, but a moral imperative as well.
So we’ve made progress. I’m ready to move forward; the majority of Democrats are ready to move forward; and I believe the majority of Americans are ready to move forward. But the fact is, without bipartisan support, as we had just a few years ago, we cannot solve this problem. Reform that brings accountability to our immigration system cannot pass without Republican votes. That is the political and mathematical reality. The only way to reduce the risk that this effort will again falter because of politics is if members of both parties are willing to take responsibility for solving this problem once and for all.
And, yes, this is an emotional question, and one that lends itself to demagoguery. Time and again, this issue has been used to divide and inflame -– and to demonize people. And so the understandable, the natural impulse among those who run for office is to turn away and defer this question for another day, or another year, or another administration. Despite the courageous leadership in the past shown by many Democrats and some Republicans -- including, by the way, my predecessor, President Bush -– this has been the custom. That is why a broken and dangerous system that offends our most basic American values is still in place.
But I believe we can put politics aside and finally have an immigration system that’s accountable. I believe we can appeal not to people’s fears but to their hopes, to their highest ideals, because that’s who we are as Americans. It’s been inscribed on our nation’s seal since we declared our independence. “E pluribus unum.” Out of many, one. That is what has drawn the persecuted and impoverished to our shores. That’s what led the innovators and risk-takers from around the world to take a chance here in the land of opportunity. That’s what has led people to endure untold hardships to reach this place called America.
One of the largest waves of immigration in our history took place little more than a century ago. At the time, Jewish people were being driven out of Eastern Europe, often escaping to the sounds of gunfire and the light from their villages burning to the ground. The journey could take months, as families crossed rivers in the dead of night, traveled miles by foot, endured a rough and dangerous passage over the North Atlantic. Once here, many made their homes in a teeming and bustling Lower Manhattan.
It was at this time that a young woman named Emma Lazarus, whose own family fled persecution from Europe generations earlier, took up the cause of these new immigrants. Although she was a poet, she spent much of her time advocating for better health care and housing for the newcomers. And inspired by what she saw and heard, she wrote down her thoughts and donated a piece of work to help pay for the construction of a new statue -- the Statue of Liberty -- which actually was funded in part by small donations from people across America.
Years before the statue was built -- years before it would be seen by throngs of immigrants craning their necks skyward at the end of long and brutal voyage, years before it would come to symbolize everything that we cherish -- she imagined what it could mean. She imagined the sight of a giant statue at the entry point of a great nation -– but unlike the great monuments of the past, this would not signal an empire. Instead, it would signal one’s arrival to a place of opportunity and refuge and freedom.
“Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand,” she wrote,
A mighty woman with a torch…
From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome…
“Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!”…
“Give me your tired, and your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to be free…
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”
Let us remember these words. For it falls on each generation to ensure that that lamp -– that beacon -– continues to shine as a source of hope around the world, and a source of our prosperity here at home.
Thank you. God bless you. And may God bless the United States of America. Thank you. (Applause.)
END11:47 A.M. EDT
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)