Think of Undocumented Immigrants as Parents, Not Problems

By ROBERTO SURO and MARCELO M. SUÁREZ-OROZCOAPRIL 27, 2015

LOS ANGELES — SOMETHING happened while the immigration system in the United States got broken, something that should change the way we talk about fixing it. Years went by, and nature took its course. More than 11 million unauthorized immigrants settled into our communities; many formed families and had children. Now at least one of every 15 children living in the United States has an unauthorized parent, and nearly all of those children are native-born United States citizens.

Think of that statistic, one in 15, the next time you drive by a school or a playground. Think of those children living with the knowledge that the federal government can take their parents away. Common sense tells you that the threat of a parent’s deportation will exact a terrible price.

Now it’s possible to get some measure of how big the cost is. In a recent report, we assessed more than 50 research studies of the children of unauthorized immigrants conducted by scholars in a variety of fields. This growing body of work shows that fear and uncertainty breed difficulties that manifest themselves in delayed cognitive development, lower educational performance and clinical levels of anxiety.

By one estimate, more than six million children are paying the price of having an unauthorized immigrant parent, and more than five million of them were born here. A study that followed 380 New York City newborns for three years found evidence of lower cognitive skills as early as 24 months among the children of the undocumented and concluded that parents’ psychological distress played a major role. A 2004-8 Los Angeles survey of more than 5,000 immigrants found that having an unauthorized immigrant mother means children will end their education with one and a half years less schooling than those growing up under identical circumstances, with a mother who is in the country legally.

The research not only diagnoses the costs of policy failure but also points the way to a solution. The same Los Angeles study found that 43 percent of children with a father legalized in the 1986 immigration reform act received some college education, compared with 14 percent of similar children whose father remained an unauthorized immigrant. Legalization can place these young people on a life trajectory equal to that of their peers.

Once you take this evidence into consideration, the challenges change. The nation has an interest in regulating immigration, yet it also has a stake in its children. Current policies do not succeed in regulating immigration, but they do force these children into life-stifling insecurity.

Though now blocked by a legal challenge, the executive actions issued by President Obama in November offered an immediate if short-term fix. One of the proposed programs would grant permission to parents of American citizens and legal residents to remain in the United States for three years and to work legally, as long as they meet a number of conditions. An amicus brief signed by an array of educational organizations and children’s advocacy groups cited our report as evidence of the harm current policies inflict on children who are United States citizens, and the federal government made the same argument during an appellate court hearing this month.

These young citizens are at risk of being less than full members of society. Removing the threat of deportation from their families gives them a chance to prosper. That serves the public interest more effectively than maintaining an enforcement system widely decried as ineffective and unjust.

In the universe of manufactured disadvantage, we cannot think of many instances in which sitting judges, with the stroke of a pen, can bring immediate and measurable relief to millions of children. Here, they can. The remedy begins by understanding that the adults can no longer be seen simply as people who slipped the border to find work. We must begin to see them as parents, as the people raising our nation’s children. Some will reject that view and fault the adults for being in this country without proper immigration status.

But the American sense of fairness and system of justice have long embraced the notion that the “sins of the father” should not be visited on the children. Reasonable minds can debate whether there is blame to attach to the parents. There is no reasonable case to be made for punishing their children, who are citizens of the United States. Yet they are punished every day.

Roberto Suro is a professor of public policy and journalism at the University of Southern California. Marcelo M. Suárez-Orozco is the dean of the Graduate School of Education and Information Studies at the University of California, Los Angeles.

See the entire article here.

A version of this op-ed appears in print on April 27, 2015, on page A19 of the New York edition with the headline: No Papers? It’s the Kids Who Suffer. Order Reprints| Today's Paper|Subscribe

 

Getting a Visa Took Longer Than Building Instagram, Says Immigrant Co-Founder

Mike Krieger discusses the head-banging experience of navigating the U.S. immigration system

Instagram almost didn’t happen, and the U.S.’s convoluted immigration system would have been to blame. Before Mike Krieger created the wildly popular photo-sharing app with business partner Kevin Systrom, he was living in Silicon Valley on a temporary work visa. If not for some lucky breaks navigating the country’s immigration process, our world of artfully filtered, boxy photographs might look very different today.

A native of Brazil, Krieger came to the U.S. to study at Stanford University on a student visa. After graduating, he got a job at Meebo, and the software startup helped him apply for an H-1B visa. This class of temporary visa is designated for specialty workers, and the technology industry is a major customer. Google, Facebook, Intel, and other tech giants mail tens of thousands of applications off to government processing centers each year in hopes of securing the limited supply of visas for foreign computer programmers and engineers.

The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services began accepting applications on April 1, and, like in recent years, the number of requests quickly exceeded the cap. The agency said on Tuesday that it will stop accepting applications and will hold a random lottery to determine which companies’ employees will be awarded visas from the 85,000 available slots. In 2014 only about half made it through the lottery. The agency hasn’t yet disclosed the number of requests it’s received this year.

The H-1B frenzy wasn’t Krieger’s biggest concern when he applied through Meebo in 2009. One of the few upsides to the lousy economy then was that a visa was available—H-1Bs are easiest to get when few employers are hiring. A few months after getting his visa, Krieger started talking with Systrom about building a social networking app.

One of the first technical challenges they faced had nothing to do with programming: It was transferring Krieger’s H-1B to the new company. In an interview, Krieger says he waited for more than three months while Systrom hired a lawyer, and he filed papers to get the work visa. As the weeks dragged on, Krieger found himself spending hours studying the intricacies of immigration law and checking websites such as trackitt.com, where visa applicants share war stories. “It was approaching the point of hard conversations,” he says. “I had moments where I was like, ‘Maybe I should just tell Kevin to forget about it and find somebody who is easier to hire.’”

Finally the paperwork came through, and Krieger got clearance to stay in the country to work with Systrom in April 2010. The Instagram app for the iPhone took a few weeks to develop. “It took less time to build Instagram than it did for me to get my work visa,” he says. The app was an instant hit, and Facebook agreed to acquire the startup for about $1 billion in April 2012. A couple of months later, Google bought Meebo, Krieger’s former employer, for about a tenth of the price.

Krieger first spoke out to promote changes to U.S. immigration rules in 2012, when he visited the White House and was a guest of First Lady Michelle Obama at the State of the Union address. President Obama gave Krieger a shoutout in a speech in January 2013. Recently, the 29-year-old multimillionaire got a green card, ensuring permanent residence. Krieger remains one of the technical masterminds behind Facebook’s Instagram, which has about 200 employees and more than 300 million users who check the app at least once a month.

While tech companies want to free up more H-1B visas, others in the U.S. are pushing for restrictions, saying foreign workers take American jobs and lower wages. Krieger says the government should make sure employers aren’t abusing the system and should improve how it distributes visas. “Lotterying it out year after year, basing it on timing—as a software engineer, it feels wrong. It’s like applying a random function to your immigration,” he says.

Still, Krieger emphasizes that skilled immigrants are a positive factor in the American workforce. “The U.S. economy really benefits from letting the right people in. Some of them will go on to become job creators; some of them will just go on to do really well at their jobs,” he says. Instagram may not have been the best example of a “job creator.” After Obama’s 2013 speech, the Wire pointed out that Instagram had only 13 employees when it was sold to Facebook.

Today, Facebook relies so much on foreign workers that it’s one of the biggest companies on the government’s list of “H-1B-dependent employers.” The designation refers to companies employing at least 15 percent of their U.S. workforce via H-1B visas.

For more, read this QuickTake: Skilled Immigrants 

 

Coalition Asks Appellate Court to Reverse Texas Ruling Blocking President's Immigration Actions

 For Immediate Release

Unprecedented Coalition of Elected Officials, Advocates, Law Enforcement, Business Groups Ask Appellate Court to Reverse Texas Ruling Blocking President’s Immigration Initiatives

April 7, 2015

Washington D.C. - The Texas federal district court order that blocked parts of President Obama’s executive action on immigration was based on unproven or incomplete presentations to the court and should be reversed, civil rights and immigration advocates argue in an amicus (“friend-of-the-court”) brief in the case of State of Texas v. United States. Texas and 25 other states have sued the federal government to stop the implementation of initiatives that will provide temporary relief from deportation, but advocates maintain the President’s actions are legally sound.

Multiple legal briefs defending the deferred action initiatives were filed Monday with the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals by a range of advocates, leaders, and elected officials. One of these briefs was filed on behalf of more than 150 civil rights, labor, and immigration advocacy groups, led by the American Immigration Council, National Immigration Law Center (NILC), and the Service Employees International Union (SEIU).

Briefs were also submitted to the court Monday by 15 states and the District of Columbia, 73 mayors, county officials from 27 states, 181 members of Congress, and 109 law professors, law enforcement, faith and business leaders. These briefs discuss the economic and community benefits that will result from expansion of the successful DACA program and the new DAPA initiative for parents of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents.

“Collectively, the parties in these filings represent more than half of the foreign-born population in our country, which means they have a demonstrated track record of producing inclusive immigration policies,” noted Marielena Hincapié, NILC executive director, during a telephonic press briefing announcing the briefs. “We are confident that we will win because the law is on our side. But we also know that the wheels of justice often move slowly. In the meantime, our message to eligible immigrants and their families is to be patient, continue gathering the necessary documents to apply, save up for the application fee, and don’t lose faith," added Hincapié.

“We are undeterred and we will continue in this campaign [to realize the start of the DACA and DAPA programs]," added Denver Mayor Michael Hancock. An early signer of the amicus brief by local officials, the mayor said the filing before the appellate court by mayors and counties has twice as many signers as an earlier brief submitted to the Texas district court. Citing the economic and community benefits that would come from allowing immigrants to come out of the shadows, Mayor Hancock added, “This is about our communities. This is about working with those who have chosen to call our cities ‘home.’”

Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-CA, said the legal filing by 181 members of Congress argues the Texas court overturned Congress’ decision to give the executive branch authority to set immigration enforcement priorities.

“What the court has done is not only an affront to what the executive has done [in setting priorities] and to the authority we have – well-grounded in law and in precedent – but also an affront to what Congress has done,” Lofgren said. “There are millions of people living in fear, who have made our economy and lived here for decades, whose lives have been turned upside down by an erroneous ruling.”

Some states claimed that the administrative relief will harm them, but the legal briefs argue the judgment was incorrect.

“That is incorrect. The states have to show irreparable harm to get a preliminary injunction; they have not,” Noah Purcell, solicitor general in the Washington State Attorney General’s Office told reporters. “The president’s directives are good for states; they are not harming states.”

The human aspect of the case also was highlighted during Monday’s press call.

“Although I was disappointed by the news that a federal district judge blocked implementation of DACA expansion, I was not disillusioned,” said Jong-Min You, an immigrant from New York who would be eligible for relief under DACA expansion. “I know that eventually, I will be able to come forward and apply for relief from deportation and work authorization, and I’m not the only one. Other elder Dreamers, along with their parents and millions of others, are ready for the legal battle ahead and for the legal battle to end so that we can finally move forward.”

Rocio Saenz, SEIU international executive vice president, said advocates for expanded DACA and DAPA will never give up.

"The plaintiff states and Republicans who support this lawsuit can ignore the will of their own constituents and immigrants' contributions, but we will continue to defend the immigration action in the courts. We will continue to fight for immigration reform. We will continue to inform future applicants and make sure that when the time comes – and it will come – that every eligible person applies for the immigration action. We are and will continue to send a strong message to the naysayers, to Republicans who stand in the way of progress: We are not the enemy. But we are ready – ready to fight back, ready for the immigration action, and ready to vote,” Saenz said.

“Amici and the government are clearly on the right side of the law, and we are confident that a stay [of the Texas order] will be granted, hopefully by the Fifth Circuit, one day very soon,” said Melissa Crow, legal director of the American Immigration Council.

A recording of Monday's press call can be downloaded at http://nilc.org/document.html?id=1222​.

###

The Scrambled States of Immigration

The Opinion Pages | Editorial

The Scrambled States of Immigration

By THE EDITORIAL BOARD

APRIL 1, 2015

A country that has abandoned all efforts at creating a saner immigration policy has gotten the result it deserves: not one policy but lots of little ones, acting at cross purposes and nullifying one another. Not unity but cacophony, a national incoherence — one well illustrated in a recent report in The Times on the various ways the states, forsaken by Congress, are adjusting to the millions of unauthorized immigrants living outside the law.

Some, like Washington and California, allow such immigrants to earn driver’s licenses, having concluded that roads are safer when drivers are tested and insured. Other states balk at any such benefit for people they consider undeserving. They prefer to tolerate illegal driving to make a point about illegal immigration.

Twenty-six states have sued to block President Obama’s executive actions giving some immigrants work permits and protection from deportation. They argue that the actions harm them somehow, though they lack evidence, mainly because the opposite is true. A federal district judge in Texas has sided with the plaintiffs, blocking the Obama administration’s programs nationwide.

But 14 states and the District of Columbia have pleaded with the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit to let the programs proceed. They understand that immigrants who are working legally and paying taxes, supporting themselves and bolstering the economy, are a benefit for all, and that the government is far better off using its limited resources deporting criminals.

Some states, notably Arizona and Alabama, have toiled mightily to thwart unauthorized immigrants at every turn, to make them miserable and unemployable. Others have decided that undocumented workers and their families are an asset to be nurtured, with benefits like more access to higher education, through in-state tuition and financial aid. They understand the reasoning of Plyler v. Doe, the Supreme Court decision asserting all children’s right to primary schooling, and have chosen not to squander their costly investment in an educated population.

California is a national leader in embracing the potential of its newcomers, with 26 new laws benefiting the undocumented, including a driver’s license law and one limiting local law-enforcement involvement in the federal immigration dragnet. New York City, under Mayor Bill de Blasio and Speaker Melissa Mark-Viverito of the City Council, has made much progress, too, with programs like a municipal ID card. The message: We want you here.

(New York State should be a national leader in this swelling immigrant-rights movement, but it isn’t. Modest reforms, like a bill to grant college financial aid and scholarships to the undocumented, have languished in its underachieving Legislature, thwarted by a Republican-led Senate and a governor, Andrew Cuomo, who gives the issue lip service but has other priorities.)

The federal government has its own problems with coherence. It spends billions on its prison-and-deportation pipeline, yet the Homeland Security Department is not on the same page with itself. It is supposed to be using more discretion in whom it deports, but it is applying the policy erratically. A man who fits no sane definition of a threat — Max Villatoro, a Mennonite pastor in Iowa, a father of four citizen children — was recently deported to Honduras.

Meanwhile, the leader of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Sarah Saldaña, was recently asked at a congressional hearing whether she supported changing the law so that local police departments would be required to hold immigrants in custody for possible deportation beyond the time they would normally be released. “Amen,” she said, showing that she either didn’t know or didn’t accept that the Homeland Security Department actually opposes mandatory detainers. She later issued a clarification bringing her views in line with those of her boss, Jeh Johnson, the homeland security secretary, calling mandatory detainers “a highly counterproductive step” that would “lead to more resistance and less cooperation in our overall efforts to promote public safety.”

Depending on how the Fifth Circuit rules on the lawsuit challenging Mr. Obama’s executive actions, his valiant effort to repair some of the damage to the immigration system could well be undone, and everybody, families and felons, may get put back in the shadowy line of potential deportees. Meanwhile, the Army is expanding and fast-tracking a program to give citizenship to unauthorized immigrants with special language or medical skills.

Who is on the right side of this argument — the Army, Mr. Obama, Gov. Jerry Brown of California, Mr. de Blasio? Or Texas, Alabama, Arizona and the Republicans whose resistance to reform has left the nation in this mess? Those die-hard opponents fail to remember that laws and policies that deny rights and promote exclusion have been the source of shame and regret throughout American history. Integration and assimilation are the core values of a country that is in danger of forgetting itself.

A version of this editorial appears in print on April 2, 2015, on page A26 of the New York edition with the headline: The Scrambled States of Immigration.

 Order Reprints| Today's Paper|Subscribe