April 26, 2010
By LINDA GREENHOUSE
NY Times
I’m glad I’ve already seen the Grand Canyon.
Because I’m not going back to Arizona as long as it remains a police state, which is what the appalling anti-immigrant bill that Gov. Jan Brewer signed into law last week has turned it into.
What would Arizona’s revered libertarian icon, Barry Goldwater, say about a law that requires the police to demand proof of legal residency from any person with whom they have made “any lawful contact” and about whom they have “reasonable suspicion” that “the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States?” Wasn’t the system of internal passports one of the most distasteful features of life in the Soviet Union and apartheid-era South Africa?
The intent of the new Arizona law, according to the State Legislature, is “attrition through enforcement.” Breathing while undocumented, without a civil liberties lawyer at hand, is now a perilous activity anywhere in Arizona.
Representative Raúl M. Grijalva, a Democrat from Tucson, has already called on the nation’s business community to protest the law by withholding its convention business. Such boycotts can be effective, as demonstrated in the late-1980s when the loss not only of convention business but of — horrors! — the Super Bowl prompted Arizona voters to reinstate a Martin Luther King holiday in the state.
But a boycott is a blunt instrument that can hurt innocent business owners and their employees. So I will stick to my own personal protest without presuming to urge anyone else to follow my example.
Rather, I’ll offer a reflection on how, a generation ago, another of the country’s periodic anti-immigrant spasms was handled by the Supreme Court. In 1975, Texas passed a law to deprive undocumented immigrant children of a free public education. Many thousands of children — a good number of whom were on the road to eventual citizenship under immigration laws that were notably less harsh back then — faced being thrown out of school and deprived of a future.
The law was challenged in federal court, with the Carter administration supporting the plaintiffs. By the time the case, Plyler v. Doe, reached the Supreme Court, Ronald Reagan was president, and there was a major debate within his administration over whether to change sides. Rex E. Lee, the admirable solicitor general, refused to do so.
In June 1982, by a vote of 5 to 4, the Supreme Court struck down the Texas law. Justice William J. Brennan Jr. wrote for the majority that the constitutional guarantee of equal protection prohibited the state from imposing “a lifetime hardship on a discrete class of children not accountable for their disabling status.” Justice Lewis F. Powell Jr., a Nixon appointee and the swing justice of his day, provided the fifth vote. The law “threatens the creation of an underclass of future citizens and residents,” he wrote.
I have no doubt that but for that ruling, public school systems all over the country would be checking papers and tossing away their undocumented students like so much playground litter. Blocked from that approach, local governments now try others. The city of Hazleton, Pa., passed a law that made it a crime for a landlord to rent an apartment to an undocumented immigrant. A federal district judge struck down the law on the ground that immigration is the business of the federal government, not of Hazleton, Pa.
Indeed, federal pre-emption would appear to be the most promising route for attacking the Arizona law. Supreme Court precedents make clear that immigration is a federal matter and that the Constitution does not authorize the states to conduct their own foreign policies.
My confidence about the law’s fate in the court’s hands is not boundless, however. In 1982, hours after the court decided the Texas case, a young assistant to Attorney General William French Smith analyzed the decision and complained in a memo: “This is a case in which our supposed litigation program to encourage judicial restraint did not get off the ground, and should have.” That memo’s author was John G. Roberts Jr.
So what to do in the meantime? Here’s a modest proposal. Everyone remembers the wartime Danish king who drove through Copenhagen wearing a Star of David in support of his Jewish subjects. It’s an apocryphal story, actually, but an inspiring one. Let the good people of Arizona — and anyone passing through — walk the streets of Tucson and Phoenix wearing buttons that say: I Could Be Illegal.
Correction: An earlier version of this Op-Ed essay referred incorrectly to the provisions of the new Arizona immigration statute. The version of the bill signed by the governor no longer includes a section under which undocumented immigrants would be guilty of trespassing for being on Arizona soil.
Arizona passes strict illegal immigration act
The bill mandates that police determine people's immigration status if there is a 'reasonable suspicion' they are undocumented. Immigrant rights groups say it amounts to a police state.
By Nicholas Riccardi
4:47 PM PDT, April 13, 2010
Reporting from Denver
Arizona lawmakers on Tuesday approved what foes and supporters agree is the toughest measure in the country against undocumented immigrants, making it a crime to be an illegal immigrant in Arizona and allowing local police to determine whether people are in the country legally.
The measure, long sought by opponents of illegal immigration, passed 35 to 21 in the state House of Representatives.
The state Senate passed a similar measure earlier this year, and Republican Gov. Jan Brewer is expected to sign the bill.
The bill's author, State Sen. Russell Pearce, said the law simply "takes the handcuffs off of law enforcement and lets them do their job."
But police were deeply divided on the matter, with police unions backing it but the state police chief's association opposed the bill, contending it could erode trust with immigrants who could be potential witnesses.
Immigrant rights groups were horrified, and contended that Arizona had transformed into a police state."
It's beyond the pale," said Chris Newman, legal director of the National Day Laborer Organizing Network. "It appears to mandate racial profiling."
The bill, known as SB 1070, makes it a misdemeanor to lack proper immigration paperwork in Arizona. It also requires police officers, if they form a "reasonable suspicion" that someone is an illegal immigrant, to determine the person's immigration status.
Currently, officers are not required to investigate immigration status and can inquire about it only if the person is a suspect in other crimes. The bill allows officers to avoid the immigration issue if it would be impractical or hinder another investigation.
Citizens can sue to compel police agencies to comply with the law, and no city or agency can formulate a policy directing its workers to ignore the law -- a provision that advocates say prevents so-called "sanctuary" orders that police not inquire about people's immigration status.
The bill cements the position of Arizona, whose border with Mexico is the most popular point of entry for illegal immigrants into this country, as the state most aggressively using its own laws to fight illegal immigration. In 2006 the state passed a law that would dissolve companies with a pattern of hiring illegal immigrants. Last year it made it a crime for a government worker to give improper benefits to an illegal immigrant.
Mark Krikorian at the Center for Immigration Studies, a Washington, D.C., think tank that advocates tougher immigration enforcement, said the new law is a logical extension of the state's previous enforcement efforts."
It makes sense that they would be the first to do it since they're ground zero for illegal immigration," he said.
Krikorian added that he doubted the law would be used much. "Obviously, their prosecutors aren't going to go out and prosecute every illegal alien," he said. "It gives police and prosecutors another tool should they need it."
Opponents, however, raised the specter of officers untrained in immigration law now being required to determine who is in the country legally. They noted that though the bill says race cannot solely be used to form a suspicion about a person's legality, it implicitly allows it to be a factor."
A lot of U.S. citizens are going to be swept up in the application of this law for something as simple as having an accent and leaving their wallet at home," said Alessandra Soler Meetze, president of the American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona.
The ACLU and other groups have vowed to sue to block the bill from taking effect should Brewer sign it. They note that a federal court struck down a New Hampshire law in 2005 that said illegal immigrants were trespassing, declaring that only the federal government has the authority to enforce immigration. Another provision of the Arizona law, which makes day laborers illegal, violates the 1st Amendment, critics contend.
The issue of local enforcement of immigration laws has been especially heated in Arizona, where Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio has taken an aggressive stance, conducting sweeps in immigrant-heavy neighborhoods to round up illegal immigrants.
His actions have drawn a civil rights investigation from the U.S. Department of Justice but strong praise from Arizonans. Other agencies have argued against Arpaio's stance, saying that they illegal immigrants to trust them enough to report crimes.
Brewer, a Republican, has not taken a public stance on the bill. She replaced Janet Napolitano, a Democrat who became President Obama's Homeland Security chief last year. Napolitano had vetoed similar bills in the past. Brewer faces a primary challenge next month; most observers expect her to sign the measure.
Some Republicans have privately complained about the bill, which Pearce has been pushing for several years, but were loath to vote against in an election year. The House was scheduled to approve it last week but the vote was delayed until Tuesday to give sponsors a chance to round up enough votes. It picked up steam after the killing late last month of a rancher on the Arizona side of the Mexican border. Footprints from the crime scene led back to Mexico.
In an impassioned debate Tuesday afternoon, both sides relied on legal and moral arguments."
Illegal immigration brings crime, kidnapping, drugs -- drains our government services," said Rep. John Kavanagh, a Republican. "Nobody can stand on the sidelines and not take part in this battle."
Democrats were just as passionate. "This bill, whether we intend it or not, terrorizes the people we profit from," said Rep. Tom Chabin.
nicholas.riccardi@latimes.com
Copyright © 2010, The Los Angeles Times
By Nicholas Riccardi
4:47 PM PDT, April 13, 2010
Reporting from Denver
Arizona lawmakers on Tuesday approved what foes and supporters agree is the toughest measure in the country against undocumented immigrants, making it a crime to be an illegal immigrant in Arizona and allowing local police to determine whether people are in the country legally.
The measure, long sought by opponents of illegal immigration, passed 35 to 21 in the state House of Representatives.
The state Senate passed a similar measure earlier this year, and Republican Gov. Jan Brewer is expected to sign the bill.
The bill's author, State Sen. Russell Pearce, said the law simply "takes the handcuffs off of law enforcement and lets them do their job."
But police were deeply divided on the matter, with police unions backing it but the state police chief's association opposed the bill, contending it could erode trust with immigrants who could be potential witnesses.
Immigrant rights groups were horrified, and contended that Arizona had transformed into a police state."
It's beyond the pale," said Chris Newman, legal director of the National Day Laborer Organizing Network. "It appears to mandate racial profiling."
The bill, known as SB 1070, makes it a misdemeanor to lack proper immigration paperwork in Arizona. It also requires police officers, if they form a "reasonable suspicion" that someone is an illegal immigrant, to determine the person's immigration status.
Currently, officers are not required to investigate immigration status and can inquire about it only if the person is a suspect in other crimes. The bill allows officers to avoid the immigration issue if it would be impractical or hinder another investigation.
Citizens can sue to compel police agencies to comply with the law, and no city or agency can formulate a policy directing its workers to ignore the law -- a provision that advocates say prevents so-called "sanctuary" orders that police not inquire about people's immigration status.
The bill cements the position of Arizona, whose border with Mexico is the most popular point of entry for illegal immigrants into this country, as the state most aggressively using its own laws to fight illegal immigration. In 2006 the state passed a law that would dissolve companies with a pattern of hiring illegal immigrants. Last year it made it a crime for a government worker to give improper benefits to an illegal immigrant.
Mark Krikorian at the Center for Immigration Studies, a Washington, D.C., think tank that advocates tougher immigration enforcement, said the new law is a logical extension of the state's previous enforcement efforts."
It makes sense that they would be the first to do it since they're ground zero for illegal immigration," he said.
Krikorian added that he doubted the law would be used much. "Obviously, their prosecutors aren't going to go out and prosecute every illegal alien," he said. "It gives police and prosecutors another tool should they need it."
Opponents, however, raised the specter of officers untrained in immigration law now being required to determine who is in the country legally. They noted that though the bill says race cannot solely be used to form a suspicion about a person's legality, it implicitly allows it to be a factor."
A lot of U.S. citizens are going to be swept up in the application of this law for something as simple as having an accent and leaving their wallet at home," said Alessandra Soler Meetze, president of the American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona.
The ACLU and other groups have vowed to sue to block the bill from taking effect should Brewer sign it. They note that a federal court struck down a New Hampshire law in 2005 that said illegal immigrants were trespassing, declaring that only the federal government has the authority to enforce immigration. Another provision of the Arizona law, which makes day laborers illegal, violates the 1st Amendment, critics contend.
The issue of local enforcement of immigration laws has been especially heated in Arizona, where Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio has taken an aggressive stance, conducting sweeps in immigrant-heavy neighborhoods to round up illegal immigrants.
His actions have drawn a civil rights investigation from the U.S. Department of Justice but strong praise from Arizonans. Other agencies have argued against Arpaio's stance, saying that they illegal immigrants to trust them enough to report crimes.
Brewer, a Republican, has not taken a public stance on the bill. She replaced Janet Napolitano, a Democrat who became President Obama's Homeland Security chief last year. Napolitano had vetoed similar bills in the past. Brewer faces a primary challenge next month; most observers expect her to sign the measure.
Some Republicans have privately complained about the bill, which Pearce has been pushing for several years, but were loath to vote against in an election year. The House was scheduled to approve it last week but the vote was delayed until Tuesday to give sponsors a chance to round up enough votes. It picked up steam after the killing late last month of a rancher on the Arizona side of the Mexican border. Footprints from the crime scene led back to Mexico.
In an impassioned debate Tuesday afternoon, both sides relied on legal and moral arguments."
Illegal immigration brings crime, kidnapping, drugs -- drains our government services," said Rep. John Kavanagh, a Republican. "Nobody can stand on the sidelines and not take part in this battle."
Democrats were just as passionate. "This bill, whether we intend it or not, terrorizes the people we profit from," said Rep. Tom Chabin.
nicholas.riccardi@latimes.com
Copyright © 2010, The Los Angeles Times
Enforcement Gone Wild
OIG Report Highlights Continued Failures of ICE Enforcement Program
April 2, 2010
Washington, D.C. -Today, the Department of Homeland Security's Office of the Inspector General (OIG) issued a long-awaited report that offers a damning critique of the 287(g) program, confirming many of the criticisms levied against the program by community leaders, law enforcement officials, and immigration groups, including the Immigration Policy Center. Despite problems with the 287(g) program, it has recently been expanded to additional jurisdictions.
The report, The Performance of 287(g) Agreements, identifies numerous shortcomings that lead to abuse and mismanagement and raises serious questions about the wisdom of state and local immigration enforcement partnerships with ICE.
According to the report, the 287(g) program:
This report follows on the heels of recent revelations and reports that ICE is failing to prioritize genuine threats to the community. The Washington Post recently reported that a senior ICE official sent a memo to field offices outlining an enforcement strategy which emphasized large enforcement quotas rather than focusing on serious criminals. Similarly, the OIG found that 287(g) programs have not prioritized serious criminal immigrants, and performance standards by which local officers are evaluated focus on the number of immigrants encountered, not the seriousness of their crimes.
"The OIG report is further evidence that the Administration has yet to distinguish between deporting large numbers of immigrants and making us safe," said Mary Giovagnoli, Director of the Immigration Policy Center. "In the rush to engage state and local law enforcement on federal immigration matters, ICE has created a program that lacks oversight, undermines community relations, and breeds mistrust. As proven time and time again, a deportation-driven strategy exacts a high toll on individuals and communities with little real impact in stopping illegal immigration."
For more information on the 287(g) program, read:
Local Enforcement of Immigration Laws Through the 287(g) Program: Time, Money, and Resources Don't Add Up to Community Safety (IPC Fact Check, April 1, 2010)
DHS Progress Report: The Challenge of Reform (IPC Special Report, March 2, 2010)
April 2, 2010
Washington, D.C. -Today, the Department of Homeland Security's Office of the Inspector General (OIG) issued a long-awaited report that offers a damning critique of the 287(g) program, confirming many of the criticisms levied against the program by community leaders, law enforcement officials, and immigration groups, including the Immigration Policy Center. Despite problems with the 287(g) program, it has recently been expanded to additional jurisdictions.
The report, The Performance of 287(g) Agreements, identifies numerous shortcomings that lead to abuse and mismanagement and raises serious questions about the wisdom of state and local immigration enforcement partnerships with ICE.
According to the report, the 287(g) program:
- Is poorly managed and supervised, and ICE has not instituted controls to promote effective program operations;
- Lacks strict guidelines for implementation, which results in different implementation methods in different jurisdictions;
- Lacks an adequate and consistent vetting process for jurisdictions that apply for the program, as well as for officers applying to be deputized under the program;
- Does not gather data necessary to track how the program is being used;
- Lacks a process for reviewing Memorandums of Agreement (MOAs) on a regular basis, and for modifying or terminating an MOA as necessary.
- Has not taken action against law enforcement agencies that are clearly violating the terms of the MOA, nor adequately trained deputized officers about immigration law or their authority under the MOA;
- Lacks public outreach efforts, and often provides the public with misleading or inaccurate information about the 287(g) program.
This report follows on the heels of recent revelations and reports that ICE is failing to prioritize genuine threats to the community. The Washington Post recently reported that a senior ICE official sent a memo to field offices outlining an enforcement strategy which emphasized large enforcement quotas rather than focusing on serious criminals. Similarly, the OIG found that 287(g) programs have not prioritized serious criminal immigrants, and performance standards by which local officers are evaluated focus on the number of immigrants encountered, not the seriousness of their crimes.
"The OIG report is further evidence that the Administration has yet to distinguish between deporting large numbers of immigrants and making us safe," said Mary Giovagnoli, Director of the Immigration Policy Center. "In the rush to engage state and local law enforcement on federal immigration matters, ICE has created a program that lacks oversight, undermines community relations, and breeds mistrust. As proven time and time again, a deportation-driven strategy exacts a high toll on individuals and communities with little real impact in stopping illegal immigration."
For more information on the 287(g) program, read:
Local Enforcement of Immigration Laws Through the 287(g) Program: Time, Money, and Resources Don't Add Up to Community Safety (IPC Fact Check, April 1, 2010)
DHS Progress Report: The Challenge of Reform (IPC Special Report, March 2, 2010)
Breaking Down the Problems & Focusing on the Solutions
IPC Problems & Solutions Series Released to Provide Details for Senate Framework
March 24, 2010
Washington D.C. - Today, the Immigration Policy Center (IPC) releases its final problem and solutions series which outline the key challenges in our current immigration system and provide an overview of the various areas that must be addressed in a legislative immigration reform package. Last week, Senators Schumer and Graham released an outline for reform, advancing the process one more step. However, the details that will fill-in their outline are critical and can make the difference between solving our immigration problems and maintaining the status quo.
To read the papers in their entirety see:
Focusing on the Solutions: Key Principals of Comprehensive Immigration Reform
(IPC Special Report, March 23, 2010)
Breaking Down the Problems: What's Wrong With our Current Immigration System
(IPC Special Report, October 21, 2009)
Also see the Problems & Solutions PowerPoint Presentation based on these reports.
March 24, 2010
Washington D.C. - Today, the Immigration Policy Center (IPC) releases its final problem and solutions series which outline the key challenges in our current immigration system and provide an overview of the various areas that must be addressed in a legislative immigration reform package. Last week, Senators Schumer and Graham released an outline for reform, advancing the process one more step. However, the details that will fill-in their outline are critical and can make the difference between solving our immigration problems and maintaining the status quo.
To read the papers in their entirety see:
Focusing on the Solutions: Key Principals of Comprehensive Immigration Reform
(IPC Special Report, March 23, 2010)
Breaking Down the Problems: What's Wrong With our Current Immigration System
(IPC Special Report, October 21, 2009)
Also see the Problems & Solutions PowerPoint Presentation based on these reports.
The Right Way to Mend Immigration
By Charles E. Schumer and Lindsey O. Graham
Friday, March 19, 2010
Our immigration system is badly broken. Although our borders have become far more secure in recent years, too many people seeking illegal entry get through. We have no way to track whether the millions who enter the United States on valid visas each year leave when they are supposed to. And employers are burdened by a complicated system for verifying workers' immigration status.
Last week we met with President Obama to discuss our draft framework for action on immigration. We expressed our belief that America's security and economic well-being depend on enacting sensible immigration policies.
The answer is simple: Americans overwhelmingly oppose illegal immigration and support legal immigration. Throughout our history, immigrants have contributed to making this country more vibrant and economically dynamic. Once it is clear that in 20 years our nation will not again confront the specter of another 11 million people coming here illegally, Americans will embrace more welcoming immigration policies.
Our plan has four pillars: requiring biometric Social Security cards to ensure that illegal workers cannot get jobs; fulfilling and strengthening our commitments on border security and interior enforcement; creating a process for admitting temporary workers; and implementing a tough but fair path to legalization for those already here.
Besides border security, ending illegal immigration will also require an effective employment verification system that holds employers accountable for hiring illegal workers. A tamper-proof ID system would dramatically decrease illegal immigration, experts have said, and would reduce the government revenue lost when employers and workers here illegally fail to pay taxes.
We would require all U.S. citizens and legal immigrants who want jobs to obtain a high-tech, fraud-proof Social Security card. Each card's unique biometric identifier would be stored only on the card; no government database would house everyone's information. The cards would not contain any private information, medical information, nor tracking devices. The card will be a high-tech version of the Social Security card that citizens already have.
Prospective employers would be responsible for swiping the cards through a machine to confirm a person's identity and immigration status. Employers who refused to swipe the card or who otherwise knowingly hired unauthorized workers would face stiff fines and, for repeat offenses, prison sentences.
We propose a zero-tolerance policy for gang members, smugglers, terrorists and those who commit other felonies after coming here illegally. We would bolster recent efforts to secure our borders by increasing the Border Patrol's staffing and funding for infrastructure and technology. More personnel would be deployed to the border immediately to fill gaps in apprehension capabilities.
Other steps include expanding domestic enforcement to better apprehend and deport those who commit crimes and completing an entry-exit system that tracks people who enter the United States on legal visas and reports those who overstay their visas to law enforcement databases.
Ending illegal immigration, however, cannot be the sole objective of reform. Developing a rational legal immigration system is essential to ensuring America's future economic prosperity.
Ensuring economic prosperity requires attracting the world's best and brightest. Our legislation would award green cards to immigrants who receive a PhD or master's degree in science, technology, engineering or math from a U.S. university. It makes no sense to educate the world's future inventors and entrepreneurs and then force them to leave when they are able to contribute to our economy.
Our blueprint also creates a rational system for admitting lower-skilled workers. Our current system prohibits lower-skilled immigrants from coming here to earn money and then returning home. Our framework would facilitate this desired circular migration by allowing employers to hire immigrants if they can show they were unsuccessful in recruiting an American to fill an open position; allowing more lower-skilled immigrants to come here when our economy is creating jobs and fewer in a recession; and permitting workers who have succeeded in the workplace, and contributed to their communities over many years, the chance to earn a green card.
For the 11 million immigrants already in this country illegally, we would provide a tough but fair path forward. They would be required to admit they broke the law and to pay their debt to society by performing community service and paying fines and back taxes. These people would be required to pass background checks and be proficient in English before going to the back of the line of prospective immigrants to earn the opportunity to work toward lawful permanent residence.
The American people deserve more than empty rhetoric and impractical calls for mass deportation. We urge the public and our colleagues to join our bipartisan efforts in enacting these reforms.
Charles E. Schumer is a Democratic senator from New York. Lindsey O. Graham is a Republican senator from South Carolina.
Friday, March 19, 2010
Our immigration system is badly broken. Although our borders have become far more secure in recent years, too many people seeking illegal entry get through. We have no way to track whether the millions who enter the United States on valid visas each year leave when they are supposed to. And employers are burdened by a complicated system for verifying workers' immigration status.
Last week we met with President Obama to discuss our draft framework for action on immigration. We expressed our belief that America's security and economic well-being depend on enacting sensible immigration policies.
The answer is simple: Americans overwhelmingly oppose illegal immigration and support legal immigration. Throughout our history, immigrants have contributed to making this country more vibrant and economically dynamic. Once it is clear that in 20 years our nation will not again confront the specter of another 11 million people coming here illegally, Americans will embrace more welcoming immigration policies.
Our plan has four pillars: requiring biometric Social Security cards to ensure that illegal workers cannot get jobs; fulfilling and strengthening our commitments on border security and interior enforcement; creating a process for admitting temporary workers; and implementing a tough but fair path to legalization for those already here.
Besides border security, ending illegal immigration will also require an effective employment verification system that holds employers accountable for hiring illegal workers. A tamper-proof ID system would dramatically decrease illegal immigration, experts have said, and would reduce the government revenue lost when employers and workers here illegally fail to pay taxes.
We would require all U.S. citizens and legal immigrants who want jobs to obtain a high-tech, fraud-proof Social Security card. Each card's unique biometric identifier would be stored only on the card; no government database would house everyone's information. The cards would not contain any private information, medical information, nor tracking devices. The card will be a high-tech version of the Social Security card that citizens already have.
Prospective employers would be responsible for swiping the cards through a machine to confirm a person's identity and immigration status. Employers who refused to swipe the card or who otherwise knowingly hired unauthorized workers would face stiff fines and, for repeat offenses, prison sentences.
We propose a zero-tolerance policy for gang members, smugglers, terrorists and those who commit other felonies after coming here illegally. We would bolster recent efforts to secure our borders by increasing the Border Patrol's staffing and funding for infrastructure and technology. More personnel would be deployed to the border immediately to fill gaps in apprehension capabilities.
Other steps include expanding domestic enforcement to better apprehend and deport those who commit crimes and completing an entry-exit system that tracks people who enter the United States on legal visas and reports those who overstay their visas to law enforcement databases.
Ending illegal immigration, however, cannot be the sole objective of reform. Developing a rational legal immigration system is essential to ensuring America's future economic prosperity.
Ensuring economic prosperity requires attracting the world's best and brightest. Our legislation would award green cards to immigrants who receive a PhD or master's degree in science, technology, engineering or math from a U.S. university. It makes no sense to educate the world's future inventors and entrepreneurs and then force them to leave when they are able to contribute to our economy.
Our blueprint also creates a rational system for admitting lower-skilled workers. Our current system prohibits lower-skilled immigrants from coming here to earn money and then returning home. Our framework would facilitate this desired circular migration by allowing employers to hire immigrants if they can show they were unsuccessful in recruiting an American to fill an open position; allowing more lower-skilled immigrants to come here when our economy is creating jobs and fewer in a recession; and permitting workers who have succeeded in the workplace, and contributed to their communities over many years, the chance to earn a green card.
For the 11 million immigrants already in this country illegally, we would provide a tough but fair path forward. They would be required to admit they broke the law and to pay their debt to society by performing community service and paying fines and back taxes. These people would be required to pass background checks and be proficient in English before going to the back of the line of prospective immigrants to earn the opportunity to work toward lawful permanent residence.
The American people deserve more than empty rhetoric and impractical calls for mass deportation. We urge the public and our colleagues to join our bipartisan efforts in enacting these reforms.
Charles E. Schumer is a Democratic senator from New York. Lindsey O. Graham is a Republican senator from South Carolina.
The First Year of Immigration Policy Under the Obama Administration
Struggling to Turn Principles Into Practice
March 2, 2010
Washington D.C. - The month of March marks the seventh anniversary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which is home to the nation's three immigration agencies. It also marks the end of a sweeping internal review ordered by DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano - a review which has not been made public. Therefore, in order to assess the first year of immigration policy under the Obama Administration, the Immigration Policy Center releases DHS Progress Report: The Challenge of Reform.
The report compares DHS's record to the "Transition Blueprint," a document delivered to the Obama transition team by immigration policy experts and advocates which focused on administrative improvements to the immigration system.
IPC's overall analysis finds that while DHS struggles towards reform it has failed to meet some key expectations in many of the blueprint areas. The department has engaged thoughtfully and strategically on some issues and has made some fundamental changes in how it conducts its immigration business. However, turning principles into practice has fallen short, and the practical realities for individuals caught up in the system have not necessarily changed for the better.
Ultimately, this first year was both promising and frustrating, a year in which the promise of reform seemed to conflict daily with the dynamics of an entrenched, enforcement-driven culture. For every two steps forward, it seems that the Department takes one step back, inching its way toward a more humane and just system. There is clearly much more that can and should be done at an administrative level. However, without Congressional action on immigration reform, there are limits to how much the system can be changed.
To read the report in its entirety see:
DHS Progress Report: The Challenge of Reform
March 2, 2010
Washington D.C. - The month of March marks the seventh anniversary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which is home to the nation's three immigration agencies. It also marks the end of a sweeping internal review ordered by DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano - a review which has not been made public. Therefore, in order to assess the first year of immigration policy under the Obama Administration, the Immigration Policy Center releases DHS Progress Report: The Challenge of Reform.
The report compares DHS's record to the "Transition Blueprint," a document delivered to the Obama transition team by immigration policy experts and advocates which focused on administrative improvements to the immigration system.
IPC's overall analysis finds that while DHS struggles towards reform it has failed to meet some key expectations in many of the blueprint areas. The department has engaged thoughtfully and strategically on some issues and has made some fundamental changes in how it conducts its immigration business. However, turning principles into practice has fallen short, and the practical realities for individuals caught up in the system have not necessarily changed for the better.
Ultimately, this first year was both promising and frustrating, a year in which the promise of reform seemed to conflict daily with the dynamics of an entrenched, enforcement-driven culture. For every two steps forward, it seems that the Department takes one step back, inching its way toward a more humane and just system. There is clearly much more that can and should be done at an administrative level. However, without Congressional action on immigration reform, there are limits to how much the system can be changed.
To read the report in its entirety see:
DHS Progress Report: The Challenge of Reform
(IPC Special Report, March 2, 2010)
Our overloaded immigration courts
The result of the government's get-tough policies has been imperfect justice at best.
Los Angeles Times
February 22, 2010
It sounds counterintuitive, but since the failure of comprehensive immigration reform in 2007, the prevailing wisdom in Washington has been that the way to earn public support for allowing this country's approximately 11 million undocumented immigrants a path to citizenship is for the federal government to vigorously prosecute violations of immigration law. Tough enforcement, in other words, will convince Americans that reform is warranted.
To that end, the Obama administration picked up where its predecessor left off -- adding miles of new fencing and hundreds of new agents to the border and deporting undocumented immigrants at a record-breaking pace. The volume is all the more notable given that fewer migrants are coming in illegally and that almost 1 million left voluntarily last year.
The result of the increased enforcement is a mountainous caseload overwhelming the nation's immigration courts. (They are not courts in the usual sense, and do not belong to the judicial branch of government. Rather, judges are employees of the attorney general.) In 2008, for example, 231 judges completed an average of 1,200 proceedings each, and the numbers keep climbing. The work is "like holding death penalty cases in traffic court," Dana L. Marks, an immigration judge in San Francisco and the president of the National Assn. of Immigration Judges, told the New York Times.
A recent report by the American Bar Assn. calls for making the court system independent of the Justice Department to reduce "public skepticism" and increase respect, and paints a harrowing picture in which final decisions are rushed, haphazard and inconsistent. At times the outcome of removal proceedings depends less on the facts of an immigrant's case than on which judge hears the case, the report says. It calls for hiring 100 additional immigration judges as soon as possible, adding new training and requiring more written, reasoned decisions from judges.
Many of the recommendations in the report would require congressional approval. Others should be afforded careful consideration by the Department of Homeland Security. The ABA, for example, calls on DHS personnel to use prosecutorial discretion and stop clogging the system by hauling noncitizens into court needlessly even if they are entitled to remain and claim legal permanent resident status, and litigating cases after the facts make removal unlikely.
A comprehensive overhaul of the nation's immigration laws is now securely on Washington's back burner. That's lamentable because the best way to ease the burden on the court system would be to see reform accomplished. But as the ABA's report demonstrates, there are plenty of changes that should be made in the meantime.
Copyright © 2010, The Los Angeles Times
Los Angeles Times
February 22, 2010
It sounds counterintuitive, but since the failure of comprehensive immigration reform in 2007, the prevailing wisdom in Washington has been that the way to earn public support for allowing this country's approximately 11 million undocumented immigrants a path to citizenship is for the federal government to vigorously prosecute violations of immigration law. Tough enforcement, in other words, will convince Americans that reform is warranted.
To that end, the Obama administration picked up where its predecessor left off -- adding miles of new fencing and hundreds of new agents to the border and deporting undocumented immigrants at a record-breaking pace. The volume is all the more notable given that fewer migrants are coming in illegally and that almost 1 million left voluntarily last year.
The result of the increased enforcement is a mountainous caseload overwhelming the nation's immigration courts. (They are not courts in the usual sense, and do not belong to the judicial branch of government. Rather, judges are employees of the attorney general.) In 2008, for example, 231 judges completed an average of 1,200 proceedings each, and the numbers keep climbing. The work is "like holding death penalty cases in traffic court," Dana L. Marks, an immigration judge in San Francisco and the president of the National Assn. of Immigration Judges, told the New York Times.
A recent report by the American Bar Assn. calls for making the court system independent of the Justice Department to reduce "public skepticism" and increase respect, and paints a harrowing picture in which final decisions are rushed, haphazard and inconsistent. At times the outcome of removal proceedings depends less on the facts of an immigrant's case than on which judge hears the case, the report says. It calls for hiring 100 additional immigration judges as soon as possible, adding new training and requiring more written, reasoned decisions from judges.
Many of the recommendations in the report would require congressional approval. Others should be afforded careful consideration by the Department of Homeland Security. The ABA, for example, calls on DHS personnel to use prosecutorial discretion and stop clogging the system by hauling noncitizens into court needlessly even if they are entitled to remain and claim legal permanent resident status, and litigating cases after the facts make removal unlikely.
A comprehensive overhaul of the nation's immigration laws is now securely on Washington's back burner. That's lamentable because the best way to ease the burden on the court system would be to see reform accomplished. But as the ABA's report demonstrates, there are plenty of changes that should be made in the meantime.
Copyright © 2010, The Los Angeles Times
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)