Letter from the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration

April 14, 2011
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Washington, DC 20528

Dear Secretary Napolitano:

As Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees and Border Security, I am responsible for directing the Senate's oversight of the immigration functions of the Department of Homeland Security and for directing the Senate's legislative agenda with regard to immigration, citizenship, and refugee laws.

It is in this capacity that I would like to draw your attention to a recurring problem in our immigration system-that is, the suboptimal use of scarce government resources in our detention and removal process. As has become evident through the budgetary parameters set forth in H.R. 1473-the Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act of 2011-as many in Congress are calling for substantial cuts to every agency's budget, it appears that the Department of Homeland Security will likely be required to operate with fewer resources both
this year and into the future.

In an environment where agency funds are decreasing, it is important that the Department of Homeland Security focus its immigration enforcement efforts on terrorists, criminals, and others who impose a real security threat to our nation. According to a March 2, 2011 memorandum of John Morton, Director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, ICE only has the funding to remove 400,000 individuals per year. Given that this entire number can be filled by criminal aliens and others posing security threats, it makes eminent sense to focus ICE's enforcement efforts on these criminals and security threats, rather than non-criminal populations.

On a daily basis, my office receives requests for assistance in many compelling immigration cases. These cases often involve non-criminal immigrants such as: (1) high-school valedictorians and honor students who did not enter the country through their own volition and yet are being deported solely for the illegal conduct of their parents; (2) bi-national same-sex married couples who are being discriminated against based on their sexual orientation who would otherwise be able to remain in the United States if they were in an opposite-sex marriage; (3) agricultural workers who perform back-breaking labor and are providing for their families; and (4) immigrant parents with U.S. citizen children, whose deportation will only lead to increased costs to the states in foster care and government benefits.

While it is undisputed that you are obligated to enforce our nation's immigration laws, and I would support a broader approach in a world of unlimited resources, it is unwise and inefficient in this environment to substantially focus our scarce law enforcement resources on non-criminal cases when there are still criminal aliens who are living in our population and have not been apprehended by DHS.

In this regard, I ask that you use your discretion to weigh--on a case-by-case basis-whether the detention and removal funds that will be used to deport any non-criminal immigrant from one of the four groups listed above justifies diverting scarce resources from attempting to capture, detain, prosecute, and remove criminal aliens. While, in some cases, the answer might still be in the affirmative, it is hard to believe that every case should result in removal. Every dollar spent on detention, prosecution and removal of a non-criminal immigrant is a dollar that cannot be spent getting criminal aliens off of our streets and out of our country.

I thank you for your attention to this important matter, and look forward to working with you in any manner necessary to further our joint mission of securing the country.

Sincerely,

Charles E. Schumer
Chairman
Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees and Border Security

Obama vows again on immigration

By ABBY PHILLIP 04/19/11 5:47 PM Updated: 04/19/11 6:34 PM

President Obama told about 70 community and religious leaders on Tuesday that he hasn’t given up on immigration.

According to Los Angeles City Council President Eric Garcetti, Obama made a “compelling case” in a meeting at the White House that he was still committed to changing the immigration system, despite his failure to move legislation in either body of Congress in the last two years.

Obama said he wouldn’t let the failed voted in December on the Dream Act, which would allow the children of illegal immigrants to attend public universities and achieve a path to citizenship, be the last word on that bill.

Rev. Al Sharpton told reporters that at the “unusual meeting,” in which Obama stayed the whole time, Obama asked the leaders to continue pushing their constituencies to apply congressional pressure on immigration.

“I think he was very candid, but I think he also put out the challenge for those of us that participated to give him feedback from various constituencies,” Sharpton said. “All politicians have to listen to their base.”

Asked about whether the timing of the meeting was designed to gin up support before Obama’s three-day trip to the West Coast, Sharpton said he and others in the room didn’t ask.

“One thing I don't think any of us did ... none of us asked the president, ‘Why did you invite us now?’ ” Sharpton said.

The White House later released this statement:

"In a meeting in the State Dining Room this afternoon, the President and members of his Cabinet and senior staff met with a broad group of business, law enforcement, faith, and former and current elected leaders from across the political spectrum to hear their ideas and suggestions on how to tackle our shared challenge of fixing our nation’s broken immigration system in order to meet our 21st century economic and security needs.

"The President reiterated his deep disappointment that Congressional action on immigration reform has stalled and that the DREAM Act failed to pass in the U.S. Senate after passing with a bipartisan majority in the U.S. House in December. The President listened to stakeholders describe a variety of problems that result from the broken system, including: educating the best and brightest but then shipping that talent overseas; concerns over the ability of businesses to reliably hire and retain a legal workforce; and the need to level the playing field for American workers by ending the underground labor market. In addition, local law enforcement officers expressed concern that without reform, enforcing federal immigration laws is a distraction from their important public safety and crime fighting mandates to keep their local communities safe, and faith leaders highlighted the damage to families and communities when families are separated, including parents who are taken away from their U.S. Citizen children.

"The President reiterated his commitment to comprehensive immigration reform that both strengthens security at our borders while restoring accountability to the broken immigration system, and pointed out that perpetuating a broken immigration system is not an option if America is to win the future.

"The President made it clear that while his Administration continues to improve our legal immigration system, secure our borders, and enhance our immigration enforcement so that it is more effectively and sensibly focusing on criminals, the only way to fix what’s broken about our immigration system is through legislative action in Congress. The President noted that he will continue to work to forge bipartisan consensus and will intensify efforts to lead a civil debate on this issue in the coming weeks and months, but also noted that he cannot be successful if he is leading the debate alone. The President urged meeting participants to take a public and active role to lead a constructive and civil debate on the need to fix the broken immigration system. He stressed that in order to successfully tackle this issue they must bring the debate to communities around the country and involve many sectors of American society in insisting that Congress act to create a system that meets our nation's needs for the 21st century and that upholds America's history as a nation of laws and a nation of immigrants. The President further committed that his Cabinet and White House team will follow up with each participant to maximize the outcome of this meeting in order to elevate the immigration debate. "

How Immigration Activists Are Fighting Deportation Policy With Social Media

Juan E. Gastelum is Master of Science student at Columbia University’s Graduate School of Journalism. You can follow him on twitter @juangastelum.

Walter Lara’s first tweet back in 2009 started with the words “I’m being deported.” Two years later, he lives in Miami, works legally, has a driver’s license and pays in-state tuition at Miami Dade College.

He is one of a few dozen young, undocumented immigrants who have avoided deportation and are now enjoying the benefits — even if only temporary — of being in the United States legally as a result of campaigns in which social media played a crucial role.

Social media platforms provide the means by which these youths, who call themselves Dreamers, can find each other without travelling or exposing their status. They appeal to supporters nationwide and petition en masse for extensions on deportation dates. They help garner the attention of politicians, lawyers and advocacy groups. And they get Dreamers’ stories out into the public sphere when the attention of the mass media is elsewhere.

Lara, 25, was two weeks away from being deported when Maria Lacayo, a childhood friend, created a Facebook group called “Keep Walter’s Dream Alive.” On the group’s Page, she explained Lara’s situation: His parents brought him to the U.S. from Argentina illegally when he was only three. He is an honor student, and he would be eligible for legal residence under the Dream Act. She also shared her contact information and linked to her Twitter account.
“I woke up the next morning and I had over 400 emails,” says Lacayo, who became Lara’s impromptu campaign manager.

People she had never met started suggesting courses of action and organizations pledged their support. After an influential child advocacy non-profit posted Lara’s information on its website, the group grew to more than 2,000 members. And a Twitter account created the same day on behalf of Lara accumulated more than 300 followers within hours.

With the help of their followers and several non-profits, the pair jumped onto the mass media’s radar, obtained a letter of support from Sen. Bill Nelson, a Florida Democrat, and crashed the switchboard at the Department of Homeland Security on two consecutive days. Three days before he was scheduled to depart, Lara received a yearlong deferment that has since been renewed once.

Dreamers now see Lara’s as a flagship case and have since mimicked and built upon his and Lacayo’s use of social media to halt more deportations.

Alonso Chehade, 24, also faced deportation when he contacted Lacayo only days after Lara’s deferment. He learned what they had done and launched his own campaign in Seattle. Chehade obtained pro-bono legal representation and, with the help of one of the same non-profits, managed to get 5,000 supporters to send in letters to local Congressmen using an online fax service linked to his Facebook Page and personal website. His deportation was delayed indefinitely after Sen. Maria Cantwell, a Democrat in Washington, intervened on his behalf.

The most important role of social media, says Chehade, is to demonstrate public sympathy for people in his position. Since his case was resolved, he has dedicated his efforts to unifying online supporters across various platforms.

A large community of pro-immigrant bloggers and organizers started to develop around 2005, says Kyle de Beausset, who curates a Google group in which more than 1,000 active bloggers across the country interact privately online. But platforms such as Facebook and Twitter have made it much easier for young undocumented youth to find each other without necessarily having to expose themselves.

“They were able to get together anonymously, see the numbers that they had and then start building on that,” says de Beausset.

Indeed, several online venues have become the go-to places for young undocumented immigrants facing deportation and empathizers alike. On Facebook, it is a page with more than 88,000 likes called “Dream Act 2010.” And on Twitter, @DreamAct, which is run by activist group DreamActivist.org, has more than 9,000 followers. These venues have proven, as Chehade would put it, the power of organized clicks.

Campaigns usually start with an individual tweet or Facebook status update that alerts the network that someone has been detained or has received notification that he or she will be deported. Hashtags or @messages ensure that those are targeted at the group and known organizers, who then spread the word and start online petitions that are directed at legislators. Videos of the person telling his or her story are often posted on YouTube. At the same time, organizers on the ground work on getting attorneys and setting up rallies. If all these come together successfully, a deportation can be halted.

Rigoberto Padilla, who was granted a reprieve by Homeland Security in 2009 after a similar campaign, says the organization he now volunteers for in Chicago has stopped six deportations since he started there about a year ago. Two other organizations in Washington, D.C., and Maine report comparable numbers.

The two platforms have also centralized online support for the Dream Act — which would benefit all Dreamers — keeping the contentious bill at the forefront of political discussion. In February, for example, the Dream Act 2010 page directed so many votes to YouTube’s World View program that a Dream Act query was presented as the number one question to that month’s guest, Rep. John Boehner, an Ohio Republican.

Still, Dreamers regard their colossal victories as minimal in comparison to their ultimate goal: to ensure that others in their position — 2.1 million, according to a study by the Migration Policy Institute — can stay in the country long enough to see the Dream Act through.

In Georgia, Politics Trump Common Sense on Immigration

Leaving "Wisdom, Justice and Moderation" Behind


April 15, 2011


Washington D.C. - Last night, the Georgia legislature passed HB 87, a bill modeled after Arizona's SB 1070 law. The bill allows local police to investigate the immigration status of individuals and requires businesses to verify work eligibility of new hires through E-Verify, a flawed federal employment verification system. Governor Nathan Deal has indicated he will sign the bill despite pleas from Georgia's business community who rightly fear the law will hurt the state's critical farming and restaurant industries.


By doing so, Governor Deal is ignoring the economic reality of the state's $1.3 billion budget shortfall, and the fact that the costs associated with the bill have not been enumerated by state legislators who failed to attach a fiscal note to it. He is also closing his eyes to the cautionary tale that Arizona provides. After passage of their similar law - which has not been implemented and has been deemed unconstitutional - they lost $141 million from cancelled conferences, including a "quarter billion dollars in lost economic output," a projected $86 million in lost wages, 2,800 jobs over the next two to three years and more than $1 million that the state has already spent on legal fees defending it. Plans for an economic boycott of Georgia are also reportedly underway.


In addition to the the economic disaster this law will inflict on the state, the Governor should be prepared for the considerable reputational damage that will also follow. By allowing this bill to become law, the Governor is walking away from the state's motto "Wisdom, Justice, and Moderation" and is poised to leave a dark mark on Georgia's history and his own governing legacy. These state measures are economic and public relations disasters and are no replacement for common sense solutions at the federal level.

House Subcommittee Continues Assault on All Forms of Immigration



April 5, 2011


Washington D.C. - Opponents of immigration reform are often quick to differentiate their disdain for unauthorized immigration from their alleged support of legal immigration. However, finding any evidence of that support has always been elusive and, over the past several months, the House Subcommittee on Immigration Policy and Enforcement has conducted hearings that question the value of all forms of immigration. They continue to perpetuate the myth that all immigrants - including legal immigrants - are stealing jobs from native-born workers.


Today, the committee continues these same attacks on legal channels of immigration with a hearing on diversity visas, a program which provides 55,000 green cards annually by lottery to persons from countries that do not currently send many immigrants to the United States. The diversity visa is a relatively small program designed to increase the diversity of our immigrant flows. One prime example of a diversity visa winner is famed soccer player Freddy Adu.


The Subcommittee's hearing last week on H-1B visas was another example of their political strategy that attempts to pit one category of immigrants against another, as well as to isolate issues rather than looking at them in context.The H-1B visa program is the main immigration category used by U.S. employers to bring foreign, professional-level talent to the U.S. for key positions. While it is used a great deal by the IT industry, it is also used for countless other highly specialized positions that require at least a baccalaureate degree in a specific field. H-1B petitions are sought for nanoscientists, applied mathematicians, risk analysts, pharmaceutical researchers, automotive designers, international legal experts, film editors, and micro-imaging engineers. We know that despite the high rate of unemployment in the U.S., we still have major shortages in highly technical fields. The H-1B is often used by employers to address those shortages. Furthermore, studies show that, overall, five jobs are created for every H-1B worker brought into the U.S. The sharing of knowledge in highly technical fields typically results in innovation and expansion of opportunities and employment for native-born workers.


While there are a range of appropriate questions that can be asked about immigration, proposing the elimination of a class of visas without looking at the broader issues inevitably pits groups of immigrants and other stakeholders against each other - rather than creating a real dialogue about how to create an immigration system that operates as a valuable resource to the American economy. The lack of genuine oversight and stewardship on the part of the Subcommittee's leadership makes one wonder what their real motives are.