posted on January 15, 2010 at 12:03 PM
Texas Observer
It always bothers me when cable TV talking heads and anti-immigrant shouters say "We're not against immigrants coming to this country, they just need to follow our laws."
Clearly, they have never applied for a travel visa to the United States, or heaven forbid, a work visa. They have no idea of the truly scary, bureaucratic nightmare that is our immigration system. Why not just insert bamboo needles under your fingernails instead? Because it will be much faster and more pleasant.
When Illinois Congressman Luis Gutierrez anncounced the filing of comprehensive immigration reform last month hundreds of thousands rejoiced. Gutierrez also said that the Obama Administration promised to bring up the issue in 2010. Hallelujah and amen to that.
I really really hope that's true. But I have a sinking feeling that it's a tad too hopeful. I was catching up on some stories in the Rio Grande Guardian today and lo and behold, Rep. Henry Cuellar made my heart sink. He says immigration reform will more than likely take place in 2011. Though it pains me I think he is probably right. With the two wars, the economy, the upcoming elections and the knock-down drag-out battle over healthcare reform -- I can see immigration reform getting pushed to the back of the bus.
Cuellar is one of the myriad Congressional Hispanic Caucus members that signed on to Gutierrez's bill. Here's what he had to say:
“Realistically, it is going to be hard (to pass the legislation this year), I can tell you now. We have to go back and finish the health care bill. We’ve got to finish the jobs bill. Then, of course, you get the 2010 election. So, I think, 2011 will probably be more realistic. I want it this year but realistically, it will probably be 2011.”
Another year of agonizing about how Congress is going to muck up immigration reform.
Supreme Court Protects Immigrants' Access to Court Review
January 20, 2010
Washington D.C. - The American Immigration Council applauds today's U.S. Supreme Court decision ensuring that immigrants facing deportation have fair process in the review of their cases. The Court ruled that individuals who seek to reopen their deportation orders have the right to appeal to the federal courts if the immigration court refuses to hear the appeal. The Court's decision protects immigrants' access to federal court review and affirms the role of the courts in our system of checks and balances on government power.
The case, Kucana v. Holder, was brought by an asylum seeker who filed a motion to reopen his removal proceedings because of changed circumstances in his request for asylum. A motion to reopen is a procedural mechanism that allows individuals to present new evidence to an immigration judge.
"The Supreme Court's decision reaffirms that immigrants are entitled to fair process" said Beth Werlin, Attorney at the American Immigration Council's Legal Action Center. "Given the stakes involved in immigration cases, federal court review is an important check on the executive branch and is a necessary layer of protection for individuals who are facing removal from the United States."
Read more about the Supreme Court's decision at the Legal Action Center's Supreme Court Update webpage .
Washington D.C. - The American Immigration Council applauds today's U.S. Supreme Court decision ensuring that immigrants facing deportation have fair process in the review of their cases. The Court ruled that individuals who seek to reopen their deportation orders have the right to appeal to the federal courts if the immigration court refuses to hear the appeal. The Court's decision protects immigrants' access to federal court review and affirms the role of the courts in our system of checks and balances on government power.
The case, Kucana v. Holder, was brought by an asylum seeker who filed a motion to reopen his removal proceedings because of changed circumstances in his request for asylum. A motion to reopen is a procedural mechanism that allows individuals to present new evidence to an immigration judge.
"The Supreme Court's decision reaffirms that immigrants are entitled to fair process" said Beth Werlin, Attorney at the American Immigration Council's Legal Action Center. "Given the stakes involved in immigration cases, federal court review is an important check on the executive branch and is a necessary layer of protection for individuals who are facing removal from the United States."
Read more about the Supreme Court's decision at the Legal Action Center's Supreme Court Update webpage .
UCLA study says legalizing undocumented immigrants would help the economy
Based on surveys done after the 1986 amnesty program, it concludes that even during the recession, legalizing undocumented workers would benefit the economy. Not everyone agrees.
By Anna Gorman
January 7, 2010
Even during the ongoing recession, immigration reform legislation that legalizes undocumented immigrants would boost the American economy, according to a new study out of UCLA.
The report said that legalization, along with a program that allows for future immigration based on the labor market, would create jobs, increase wages and generate more tax revenue. Comprehensive immigration reform would add an estimated $1.5 trillion to the U.S. gross domestic product over 10 years, according to the report.
"If we are going to create a solid recovery with good wages, we have to fix this hole that we have at the bottom of the labor market," said the author, Raúl Hinojosa-Ojeda, an associate professor with the UCLA Department of Chicana and Chicano Studies. "This is not about bringing in a lot of workers. This is about your neighbors and if we are better off where everybody in the economy has the ability to fight for their families and to contribute more to the economy rather than staying in the shadows."
Hinojosa-Ojeda based the study in part on surveys done after 1986 legislation that resulted in the legalization of nearly 3 million undocumented immigrants. Those surveys showed that immigrants who became legal moved on to better-paying jobs and became more educated, resulting in more spending and more tax revenue. That legislation was passed during a similar economic downturn, he said.
The study, being released today, comes shortly after a renewed commitment by the Obama administration to back legislation this year that would provide a path to citizenship for an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants living in the United States. The study is being released by two Washington-based immigrant rights organizations, the Immigration Policy Center and the Center for American Progress.
Hinojosa-Ojeda also projected that the economy would benefit from a temporary worker program, by raising the GDP by $792 billion. And the economy would suffer if the U.S. deported all illegal immigrants, which he acknowledged was an unlikely option. Mass deportation, he concluded, would reduce the GDP by $2.6 trillion over 10 years.
Immigration reform advocates said linking economic recovery and immigration reform seems counterintuitive, but the report shows that they are closely connected.
"You can't build a strong, robust economy on top of a broken immigration system," said Angela Kelley, vice president of immigration policy and advocacy for the Center for American Progress. "In fact, if you fix our immigration system, it makes our economy stronger and more robust."
But Federation for American Immigration Reform spokesman Ira Mehlman said that even with legal status, many immigrants would continue to work in low-wage jobs, meaning their tax revenue wouldn't make much of a difference to the economy. Also, legalization would flood the labor market and drive down wages rather than increase them, he said.
Mehlman said those supporting amnesty know they have a difficult sell because of the state of the economy.
"They are trying to portray this as an economic shot in the arm," he said. "But I am not sure the American public is going to buy it."
By Anna Gorman
January 7, 2010
Even during the ongoing recession, immigration reform legislation that legalizes undocumented immigrants would boost the American economy, according to a new study out of UCLA.
The report said that legalization, along with a program that allows for future immigration based on the labor market, would create jobs, increase wages and generate more tax revenue. Comprehensive immigration reform would add an estimated $1.5 trillion to the U.S. gross domestic product over 10 years, according to the report.
"If we are going to create a solid recovery with good wages, we have to fix this hole that we have at the bottom of the labor market," said the author, Raúl Hinojosa-Ojeda, an associate professor with the UCLA Department of Chicana and Chicano Studies. "This is not about bringing in a lot of workers. This is about your neighbors and if we are better off where everybody in the economy has the ability to fight for their families and to contribute more to the economy rather than staying in the shadows."
Hinojosa-Ojeda based the study in part on surveys done after 1986 legislation that resulted in the legalization of nearly 3 million undocumented immigrants. Those surveys showed that immigrants who became legal moved on to better-paying jobs and became more educated, resulting in more spending and more tax revenue. That legislation was passed during a similar economic downturn, he said.
The study, being released today, comes shortly after a renewed commitment by the Obama administration to back legislation this year that would provide a path to citizenship for an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants living in the United States. The study is being released by two Washington-based immigrant rights organizations, the Immigration Policy Center and the Center for American Progress.
Hinojosa-Ojeda also projected that the economy would benefit from a temporary worker program, by raising the GDP by $792 billion. And the economy would suffer if the U.S. deported all illegal immigrants, which he acknowledged was an unlikely option. Mass deportation, he concluded, would reduce the GDP by $2.6 trillion over 10 years.
Immigration reform advocates said linking economic recovery and immigration reform seems counterintuitive, but the report shows that they are closely connected.
"You can't build a strong, robust economy on top of a broken immigration system," said Angela Kelley, vice president of immigration policy and advocacy for the Center for American Progress. "In fact, if you fix our immigration system, it makes our economy stronger and more robust."
But Federation for American Immigration Reform spokesman Ira Mehlman said that even with legal status, many immigrants would continue to work in low-wage jobs, meaning their tax revenue wouldn't make much of a difference to the economy. Also, legalization would flood the labor market and drive down wages rather than increase them, he said.
Mehlman said those supporting amnesty know they have a difficult sell because of the state of the economy.
"They are trying to portray this as an economic shot in the arm," he said. "But I am not sure the American public is going to buy it."
Big City: The Vendor Disappears, Leaving a Void
December 30, 2009
By SUSAN DOMINUS
William O’Shaughnessy was strictly a three-bananas-for-a-dollar guy, which didn’t mean he was any less an admirer of the fruit vendor on the corner of 58th Street and Park Avenue than the society matrons who religiously purchased their pricier morning berries there.
The vendor, a warm Bangladeshi man who had worked that corner for 12 years, spoke broken English, but had built a devoted clientele, so devoted that socialites and doormen alike gladly worked the stand for him while he ran to use a restroom.
“I made six bucks one day,” said Mr. O’Shaughnessy, who owns two radio stations and has been patronizing that fruit stand since he moved to 475 Park Avenue about seven years ago.
Mr. O’Shaughnessy had noticed that the vendor, who worked 13-hour days in all weather, usually offered some fruit to a certain homeless woman who occasionally came around. He had seen the vendor leave the stand to help someone with a cane cross the street. Selling fruit for spare change just a few yards from Jay Kos, with its $35,000 alligator pants, and Seaman Schepps, with its $2,500 cuff links, the fruit vendor was one of those neighborhood fixtures that the guidebooks miss, but the people who live there consider a daily grace, as integral as he is anonymous.
The limits of that particular intimacy became apparent when the vendor suddenly stopped showing up, without explanation, one day this fall, and Mr. O’Shaughnessy realized he had no idea how to track him down — he did not even know the fruit man’s name. Concerned, Mr. O’Shaughnessy approached a few other vendors in the neighborhood, who were slow to warm to the patrician-looking man in a blue blazer beneath his overcoat. “Men in suits came and took him,” one finally said. Another reluctantly gave him the name of the fruit vendor — Nurul Alam — and told him how to reach his wife.
Mr. O’Shaughnessy soon learned that Mr. Alam, who came to the United States 17 years ago but had long ago been denied political asylum, had been detained by immigration officials early one October morning. The family’s lawyer told Mr. O’Shaughnessy he could help by writing a letter on behalf of his friendly fruit vendor; Mr. Alam could be released, if deemed a person of sound character, while his case made its way through the system.
So Tuesday’s frigid morning found Mr. O’Shaughnessy ducking into various luxuriously appointed lobbies within a few blocks of his own, explaining Mr. Alam’s fate and how his fans might help with letters of their own.
A middle-aged woman in a fur, sitting in a wheelchair in the lobby of 485 Park Avenue as she waited for her car, listened with concern as Mr. O’Shaughnessy spelled out the situation. She, too, had what she considered a special relationship with the vendor: She would peer at his wares from her apartment widow, with a pair of binoculars for help, call his cellphone to let him know what she wanted, then pay him at the door of her building. Her husband, who identified himself as an international lawyer — “a good one” — took a copy of the letter Mr. O’Shaughnessy had written and promised he would be in touch with Mr. Alam’s lawyer.
At the Ritz Tower on 57th and Park, a doorman took a stack of the photocopied letters, relieved that he would finally have an answer for the many residents who had been inquiring about the fruit vendor’s whereabouts.
NELSON GONZALES, a U.P.S. delivery man who had parked within a few feet of Mr. Alam for 10 years, said he had been the recipient of easily hundreds of free bananas over the years, usually when Mr. Alam learned that he had skipped lunch.
Mr. Gonzales admitted that as fond as he was of the vendor, who had warmed himself in the U.P.S. van many a cold day, he had never known him as anything other than “Nu.” Mr. Alam’s daughter had approached Mr. Gonzales for help about a week ago; before Mr. O’Shaughnessy got involved, Mr. Gonzales had collected 30 signatures, from workers and residents in the neighborhood, on a petition vouching for Mr. Alam’s respectability.
As is often the case with immigrants trying to build full lives while hoping no one will notice, Mr. Alam has no voice in this story. Largely unknown to his clients, he became a fully fleshed figure only in absentia, no longer a neighborhood perk, but a person, someone with children, a past life in Bangladesh, and now, a big heart’s worth of heartache.
“I just sense that this is a kind, sweet person,” Mr. O’Shaughnessy said. “We want to have him back.”
By SUSAN DOMINUS
William O’Shaughnessy was strictly a three-bananas-for-a-dollar guy, which didn’t mean he was any less an admirer of the fruit vendor on the corner of 58th Street and Park Avenue than the society matrons who religiously purchased their pricier morning berries there.
The vendor, a warm Bangladeshi man who had worked that corner for 12 years, spoke broken English, but had built a devoted clientele, so devoted that socialites and doormen alike gladly worked the stand for him while he ran to use a restroom.
“I made six bucks one day,” said Mr. O’Shaughnessy, who owns two radio stations and has been patronizing that fruit stand since he moved to 475 Park Avenue about seven years ago.
Mr. O’Shaughnessy had noticed that the vendor, who worked 13-hour days in all weather, usually offered some fruit to a certain homeless woman who occasionally came around. He had seen the vendor leave the stand to help someone with a cane cross the street. Selling fruit for spare change just a few yards from Jay Kos, with its $35,000 alligator pants, and Seaman Schepps, with its $2,500 cuff links, the fruit vendor was one of those neighborhood fixtures that the guidebooks miss, but the people who live there consider a daily grace, as integral as he is anonymous.
The limits of that particular intimacy became apparent when the vendor suddenly stopped showing up, without explanation, one day this fall, and Mr. O’Shaughnessy realized he had no idea how to track him down — he did not even know the fruit man’s name. Concerned, Mr. O’Shaughnessy approached a few other vendors in the neighborhood, who were slow to warm to the patrician-looking man in a blue blazer beneath his overcoat. “Men in suits came and took him,” one finally said. Another reluctantly gave him the name of the fruit vendor — Nurul Alam — and told him how to reach his wife.
Mr. O’Shaughnessy soon learned that Mr. Alam, who came to the United States 17 years ago but had long ago been denied political asylum, had been detained by immigration officials early one October morning. The family’s lawyer told Mr. O’Shaughnessy he could help by writing a letter on behalf of his friendly fruit vendor; Mr. Alam could be released, if deemed a person of sound character, while his case made its way through the system.
So Tuesday’s frigid morning found Mr. O’Shaughnessy ducking into various luxuriously appointed lobbies within a few blocks of his own, explaining Mr. Alam’s fate and how his fans might help with letters of their own.
A middle-aged woman in a fur, sitting in a wheelchair in the lobby of 485 Park Avenue as she waited for her car, listened with concern as Mr. O’Shaughnessy spelled out the situation. She, too, had what she considered a special relationship with the vendor: She would peer at his wares from her apartment widow, with a pair of binoculars for help, call his cellphone to let him know what she wanted, then pay him at the door of her building. Her husband, who identified himself as an international lawyer — “a good one” — took a copy of the letter Mr. O’Shaughnessy had written and promised he would be in touch with Mr. Alam’s lawyer.
At the Ritz Tower on 57th and Park, a doorman took a stack of the photocopied letters, relieved that he would finally have an answer for the many residents who had been inquiring about the fruit vendor’s whereabouts.
NELSON GONZALES, a U.P.S. delivery man who had parked within a few feet of Mr. Alam for 10 years, said he had been the recipient of easily hundreds of free bananas over the years, usually when Mr. Alam learned that he had skipped lunch.
Mr. Gonzales admitted that as fond as he was of the vendor, who had warmed himself in the U.P.S. van many a cold day, he had never known him as anything other than “Nu.” Mr. Alam’s daughter had approached Mr. Gonzales for help about a week ago; before Mr. O’Shaughnessy got involved, Mr. Gonzales had collected 30 signatures, from workers and residents in the neighborhood, on a petition vouching for Mr. Alam’s respectability.
As is often the case with immigrants trying to build full lives while hoping no one will notice, Mr. Alam has no voice in this story. Largely unknown to his clients, he became a fully fleshed figure only in absentia, no longer a neighborhood perk, but a person, someone with children, a past life in Bangladesh, and now, a big heart’s worth of heartache.
“I just sense that this is a kind, sweet person,” Mr. O’Shaughnessy said. “We want to have him back.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)