BY ALFONSO CHARDY
achardy@ElNuevoHerald.com
Posted Thursday, June 24, 2010 at
http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/06/24/1697263/immigration-policy-change-rumored.html
Eight Republican senators sent a letter to President Barack Obama this week asking for confirmation that the White House is planning to defer deportations or grant parole to millions of undocumented immigrants, pending congressional debate on immigration reform.
An aide to Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, told El Nuevo Herald on Wednesday that the White House has not replied to the senators' letter. Moira Mack, a White House spokeswoman, said the administration was not aware of the letter. "We have not yet received the letter,'' said Mack in an e-mail message. "We will review it upon receipt.'' She did not answer whether Obama was contemplating such a plan.
The senators' query is confirmation of widespread rumors swirling in recent weeks in the U.S. capital that Obama could be planning a surprise executive action to prohibit the continuing deportations of undocumented immigrants who have no criminal convictions.
PRIORITIES
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials have been saying for months that their priority is detention and deportation of foreign nationals who have been convicted of crimes in the United States. But officials have also said they are still detaining and removing non-criminal undocumented immigrants, though these are now described as "low priority.''
Figures released by ICE last week for the Oct. 1-June 7 period indicate a downward trend in the number of deportations of non-criminal undocumented immigrants compared to removals during fiscal years 2008 and 2009. But immigrant-rights advocates expressed skepticism about the statistics and blamed Congress for the lack of immigration reform.
"The senators acknowledge that immigration laws need to be fixed,'' said Cheryl Little, executive director of Florida Immigrant Advocacy Center, referring to the senators' letter to Obama. "Yet it is Congress that clearly has failed to approve desperately needed comprehensive immigration reforms, reforms that these very senators have blocked.
''Immigrants were cautiously optimistic about a possible deferral of deportations, but they were not overly enthusiastic since their hopes for legalization have been dashed repeatedly before.
"If it happens, it would be good because it would lessen the fears that now exist in the community,'' said Alberto Pérez, a 26-year-old Guatemalan landscaper who was watching the U.S.-Algeria World Cup soccer match at a WeCount! Community Worker Center in South Miami-Dade on Wednesday.
Neither Obama nor any of his principal immigration advisors have made any public reference to suspending removals of non-criminal undocumented immigrants. But many immigration advocates have been urging Obama to take executive action to defer deportation in light of congressional reluctance to deal with immigration reform which could lead to legalization.
DEMONSTRATION
Nora Sándigo, executive director of American Fraternity, is planning a July 28 demonstration by U.S.-born children of undocumented parents in front of the White House to demand an end to deportations of undocumented immigrants who have no criminal records.
The letter to Obama was signed by Grassley and seven other Republican senators: Orrin Hatch of Utah, Jim Bunning of Kentucky, Saxby Chambliss and Johnny Isakson of Georgia, Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma, Thad Cochran of Mississippi and David Vitter of Louisiana.
"We understand that there's a push for your administration to develop a plan to unilaterally extend either deferred action or parole to millions of illegal aliens in the United States,'' the letter reads. ``While deferred action and parole are Executive Branch authorities, they should not be used to circumvent Congress' constitutional authority to legislate immigration policy, particularly as it relates to the illegal population in the United States.''
Supreme Court Injects Reason into Immigration Felony Definition
June 15, 2010
Washington D.C. - Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court voted unanimously in Carachuri-Rosendo v. Holder that a lawful permanent resident who is convicted of minor drug possession offenses does not warrant classification as having been convicted of an "aggravated felony." As a result, the Court held that Mr. Carachuri-Rosendo cannot be deported without an opportunity to make a case for why he should be allowed to remain in the United States.
Many individuals like Mr. Carachuri-Rosendo, who had two misdemeanor convictions in the criminal court system, then face a separate set of rules under the federal immigration court system. The government had urged the Court to adopt a rule which would allow the immigration authorities to reclassify a misdemeanor conviction as an aggravated felony, which would subject even a lawful permanent resident to mandatory deportation.
The Supreme Court found the folly in this approach and notes in its decision, "It is quite unlikely that the 'conduct' that gave rise to Carachuri-Rosendo's conviction would have been punished as a felony in federal court." Applying a common sense approach, the court found that Carachuri-Rosendo's "petty simple possession offense is not typically thought of as an 'aggravated felony.'"
Before 1996, only the most serious criminal convictions could be defined as aggravated felonies. In 1996, Congress expanded the definition of aggravated felonies - lengthening the list of crimes that could trigger deportation for an immigrant, including even minor crimes where the person did not serve any jail time.
"The Supreme Court's decision restores a level of measure and rationality to immigration policies that often are unnecessarily strict and unforgiving," said Beth Werlin of the American Immigration Council's Legal Action Center.
"The decision is an important step toward addressing some of the absurdities of the immigration laws passed in 1996 that treat a shoplifter and a murderer in the same manner. Those laws have largely taken away the ability of immigration judges to look at the facts of a case and determine if the punishment fits the crime," said Benjamin Johnson, Executive Director of the American Immigration Council.
In far too many cases, immigration judges still lack discretion. Congress now should follow the Supreme Court's lead and restore immigration judges' discretion to take into account the individual circumstances of each case before taking the drastic measure of ordering a person deported.
Washington D.C. - Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court voted unanimously in Carachuri-Rosendo v. Holder that a lawful permanent resident who is convicted of minor drug possession offenses does not warrant classification as having been convicted of an "aggravated felony." As a result, the Court held that Mr. Carachuri-Rosendo cannot be deported without an opportunity to make a case for why he should be allowed to remain in the United States.
Many individuals like Mr. Carachuri-Rosendo, who had two misdemeanor convictions in the criminal court system, then face a separate set of rules under the federal immigration court system. The government had urged the Court to adopt a rule which would allow the immigration authorities to reclassify a misdemeanor conviction as an aggravated felony, which would subject even a lawful permanent resident to mandatory deportation.
The Supreme Court found the folly in this approach and notes in its decision, "It is quite unlikely that the 'conduct' that gave rise to Carachuri-Rosendo's conviction would have been punished as a felony in federal court." Applying a common sense approach, the court found that Carachuri-Rosendo's "petty simple possession offense is not typically thought of as an 'aggravated felony.'"
Before 1996, only the most serious criminal convictions could be defined as aggravated felonies. In 1996, Congress expanded the definition of aggravated felonies - lengthening the list of crimes that could trigger deportation for an immigrant, including even minor crimes where the person did not serve any jail time.
"The Supreme Court's decision restores a level of measure and rationality to immigration policies that often are unnecessarily strict and unforgiving," said Beth Werlin of the American Immigration Council's Legal Action Center.
"The decision is an important step toward addressing some of the absurdities of the immigration laws passed in 1996 that treat a shoplifter and a murderer in the same manner. Those laws have largely taken away the ability of immigration judges to look at the facts of a case and determine if the punishment fits the crime," said Benjamin Johnson, Executive Director of the American Immigration Council.
In far too many cases, immigration judges still lack discretion. Congress now should follow the Supreme Court's lead and restore immigration judges' discretion to take into account the individual circumstances of each case before taking the drastic measure of ordering a person deported.
Supreme Court ruling in favor of immigrant clarifies automatic-deportation law
The Texas man was ordered deported for possession of a marijuana cigarette and one Xanax pill. But justices say only serious crimes warrant the removal of legal immigrants from the country.
By David G. Savage, Tribune Washington Bureau
June 14, 2010 9:11 a.m.
Reporting from Washington — The Supreme Court blocked the government Tuesday from deporting legal immigrants for minor drug possession charges, ruling that only serious or violent crimes called for removing otherwise law-abiding people from this country.
In a 9-0 decision, the justices stopped the deportation of a Texas man who had pleaded guilty at different times to having a marijuana cigarette and a single Xanax pill, a prescription anti-anxiety drug.
Based on these convictions, an immigration judge and the U.S. Court of Appeals slated Jose Carachuri-Rosendo for deportation to Mexico, where he was born. At age 4, he had come to Texas with his parents and had become a lawful permanent resident with a wife and four children.
His case illustrates the potentially harsh effects of a 1996 federal law that requires the deportation of non-citizens who are guilty of an "aggravated felony." Congress did not carefully define this term, however, and some immigration judges have said that a second drug-possession conviction could qualify as an aggravated felony.
The Supreme Court rejected that view in Tuesday's opinion in Carachuri-Rosendo vs. Holder. "We do not usually think of a 10-day sentence for the unauthorized possession of a trivial amount of a prescription drug as an 'aggravated felony,' " wrote Justice John Paul Stevens.
The 1996 law and its automatic-deportation rule applies to all non-citizens who are living in the United States.
david.savage@latimes.com
Copyright © 2010, The Los Angeles Times
By David G. Savage, Tribune Washington Bureau
June 14, 2010 9:11 a.m.
Reporting from Washington — The Supreme Court blocked the government Tuesday from deporting legal immigrants for minor drug possession charges, ruling that only serious or violent crimes called for removing otherwise law-abiding people from this country.
In a 9-0 decision, the justices stopped the deportation of a Texas man who had pleaded guilty at different times to having a marijuana cigarette and a single Xanax pill, a prescription anti-anxiety drug.
Based on these convictions, an immigration judge and the U.S. Court of Appeals slated Jose Carachuri-Rosendo for deportation to Mexico, where he was born. At age 4, he had come to Texas with his parents and had become a lawful permanent resident with a wife and four children.
His case illustrates the potentially harsh effects of a 1996 federal law that requires the deportation of non-citizens who are guilty of an "aggravated felony." Congress did not carefully define this term, however, and some immigration judges have said that a second drug-possession conviction could qualify as an aggravated felony.
The Supreme Court rejected that view in Tuesday's opinion in Carachuri-Rosendo vs. Holder. "We do not usually think of a 10-day sentence for the unauthorized possession of a trivial amount of a prescription drug as an 'aggravated felony,' " wrote Justice John Paul Stevens.
The 1996 law and its automatic-deportation rule applies to all non-citizens who are living in the United States.
david.savage@latimes.com
Copyright © 2010, The Los Angeles Times
Q&A Guide to Arizona's New Immigration Law
What You Need to Know About The New Law and How It Can Impact Your State
June 2, 2010
Washington, D.C. - Tomorrow Arizona Governor Jan Brewer will meet with President Obama to discuss border security and Arizona's controversial new immigration law SB 1070. Barely a month after passage of SB 1070, both opponents and proponents are attempting to assess the impact the new law may have on residents of Arizona-citizens and immigrants alike. At the same time, approximately 22 states (at last count) are considering similar legislation. Multiple lawsuits have been filed challenging the constitutionality of the law, opponents are mounting a boycott, and numerous polls show that a majority of the public both supports the Arizona law and comprehensive immigration reform.
The Immigration Policy Center has developed a Q&A Guide to Arizona's New Immigration Law. This guide provides key answers to basic questions about Arizona's law - from the substance of the law and myths surrounding it to the legal and fiscal implications. As other states contemplate similar legislation, knowing the answers to basic questions about Arizona's law will prove to be critically important in furthering the discussion.
To view the guide in its entirety see:
Q&A Guide to Arizona's New Immigration Law (IPC Special Report, June 2, 2010)
June 2, 2010
Washington, D.C. - Tomorrow Arizona Governor Jan Brewer will meet with President Obama to discuss border security and Arizona's controversial new immigration law SB 1070. Barely a month after passage of SB 1070, both opponents and proponents are attempting to assess the impact the new law may have on residents of Arizona-citizens and immigrants alike. At the same time, approximately 22 states (at last count) are considering similar legislation. Multiple lawsuits have been filed challenging the constitutionality of the law, opponents are mounting a boycott, and numerous polls show that a majority of the public both supports the Arizona law and comprehensive immigration reform.
The Immigration Policy Center has developed a Q&A Guide to Arizona's New Immigration Law. This guide provides key answers to basic questions about Arizona's law - from the substance of the law and myths surrounding it to the legal and fiscal implications. As other states contemplate similar legislation, knowing the answers to basic questions about Arizona's law will prove to be critically important in furthering the discussion.
To view the guide in its entirety see:
Q&A Guide to Arizona's New Immigration Law (IPC Special Report, June 2, 2010)
Immigration Enforcement without Immigration Reform Doesn't Work
Throwing Good Money After Bad
May 26, 2010
Washington, D.C. - This week, the Senate is considering amendments to the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Bill that would add thousands of additional personnel along the border (including the National Guard), as well as provide millions of dollars for detention beds, technology, and resources. Yesterday, bowing to pressure, President Obama announced that he would send 1,200 National Guard troops to the border and request $500 million for additional resources. Some senators are upping the ante, proposing up to $2 billion for this effort. All of this attention on resources for the border, however, continues to ignore the fact that border enforcement alone has never been enough. Throwing money at this problem as the sole means of solving it is not only fiscally irresponsible, but history teaches us it is ineffective.
For more than two decades, the U.S. government has tried without success to stamp out unauthorized immigration through enforcement efforts at the border and in the interior of the country without fundamentally reforming the broken immigration system that spurs unauthorized immigration in the first place. Ironically, while billions upon billions of dollars have been poured into enforcement, the number of unauthorized immigrants in the United States has increased dramatically.
The annual budget of the U.S. Border Patrol stood at $3.0 billion in Fiscal Year (FY) 2009 - a nine-fold increase since FY 1992. The number of Border Patrol agents stationed along the southwest border with Mexico grew to 16,974 in FY 2009 - a nearly five-fold increase since FY 1992.
Yet, the unauthorized-immigrant population of the United States has tripled in size, from roughly 3.5 million in 1990 to 11.9 million in 2008.
The enforcement-only approach to our immigration problems is clearly not yielding the results needed. It is time for Congress and the President to propose comprehensive solutions to the complex problem of our broken immigration system.
For more detailed data on the costs of enforcement:
Throwing Good Money After Bad (IPC Fact Check, May 26, 2010)
Second Grader Speaks to First Lady on behalf of 5.5 Million Children in the U.S.
May 20, 2010
Washington D.C. - In the midst of a loud, long and contentious battle over immigration, a soft voice emerged yesterday which spoke volumes about our nation's broken immigration system - and the fear and havoc it creates in the lives of million of young people in America. "My mom... she says that Barack Obama is taking everybody away that doesn't have papers," whispered a second grade girl in Silver Spring, Maryland, to Michele Obama during her visit to that school yesterday. Her honesty was powerful testimony on behalf of 5.5 million children (75% of which are U.S. Citizens) in America, who have at least one parent without proper immigration status.
For several years a range of academics have documented the powerful effect this uncertain future is having on the lives of children in America. The Immigration Policy Center has produced fact sheets and provides links which highlight these various studies.
Washington D.C. - In the midst of a loud, long and contentious battle over immigration, a soft voice emerged yesterday which spoke volumes about our nation's broken immigration system - and the fear and havoc it creates in the lives of million of young people in America. "My mom... she says that Barack Obama is taking everybody away that doesn't have papers," whispered a second grade girl in Silver Spring, Maryland, to Michele Obama during her visit to that school yesterday. Her honesty was powerful testimony on behalf of 5.5 million children (75% of which are U.S. Citizens) in America, who have at least one parent without proper immigration status.
For several years a range of academics have documented the powerful effect this uncertain future is having on the lives of children in America. The Immigration Policy Center has produced fact sheets and provides links which highlight these various studies.
- The Ones They Leave Behind: Deportation of Lawful Permanent Residents Harm U.S. Citizen Children highlights more than 100,000 children were affected by deportation of a legal immigrant parent between 1997 and 2007. At least 88,000 of these children were U.S. citizens and 217,000 other immediate family members were affected by the deportation of a legal permanent resident.
- Protecting Children in the Aftermath of Immigration Raids highlights the consequences of parental arrest, detention, and deportation on 190 children in 85 families in six locations across the country. The report found that raids and other ICE actions that separate parents and children pose serous risks to children's immediate safety, economic security, well-being, and long-term development. In most cases, two-parent homes became single-parent families after one parent was detained. At least 20 families in the study were forced to decide whether children-many of whom are native born U.S. citizens-would leave the country with their deported parent or remain with the other parent or other relatives. The Urban Institute interviewed families affected by ICE actions at the following six sites.
A Portrait of Unauthorized Immigrants in the United States, by the Pew Hispanic Center, finds that a growing share of the children of unauthorized immigrant parents - 73% - were born in this country and are U.S. citizens.
Obama takes immigration reform off agenda
By SUZANNE GAMBOA, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON – Immigration reform has become the first of President Barack Obama's major priorities dropped from the agenda of an election-year Congress facing voter disillusionment. Sounding the death knell was Obama himself.
The president noted that lawmakers may lack the "appetite" to take on immigration while many of them are up for re-election and while another big legislative issue — climate change — is already on their plate.
"I don't want us to do something just for the sake of politics that doesn't solve the problem," Obama told reporters Wednesday night aboard Air Force One.
Immigration reform was an issue Obama promised Latino groups that he would take up in his first year in office. But several hard realities — a tanked economy, a crowded agenda, election-year politics and lack of political will — led to so much foot-dragging in Congress that, ultimately, Obama decided to set the issue aside.
With that move, the president calculated that an immigration bill would not prove as costly to his party two years from now, when he seeks re-election, than it would today, even though some immigration reformers warned that a delay could so discourage Democratic-leaning Latino voters that they would stay home from the polls in November.
Some Democrats thought pushing a bill through now might help their party. If it failed, they could blame Republican resistance, though in reality many Democrats didn't want to deal with an immigration bill this year either.
Perhaps seeing the handwriting on the wall, top Senate Democrats released a legislative framework for immigration reforms anyway. The draft proposal, obtained by The Associated Press on Tuesday, called for, among other things, meeting border security benchmarks before anyone in the country illegally can become a legal permanent U.S. resident.
By Wednesday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi offered little hope that the issue was still alive on Capitol Hill.
"If there is going to be any movement in this regard, it will require presidential leadership, as well as an appetite, is that the word? ... as well as a willingness to move forward in the Congress," she said.
House Republican leader John Boehner was more blunt. "There is not a chance that immigration is going to move through the Congress," he said Tuesday.
Rep. Luis Gutierrez, the Democrats' leading advocate for immigration reform, has said he voted for health care reform on the understanding that Obama and congressional Democrats would move a major immigration bill.
Even though he would like to see Latinos turn out to vote for Democrats in 2010, Gutierrez said "many will probably decide to stay home." However, he added, a strict, new immigration law in Arizona may change that dynamic. The law requires law enforcement officers to question anyone they suspect is in the country illegally.
"On one hand you are not going to vote because you don't believe people you voted for are doing a good enough job," Gutierrez said. "Then you say, 'I got to vote, because the enemy is so mean and vindictive, I got to get out there.'"
WASHINGTON – Immigration reform has become the first of President Barack Obama's major priorities dropped from the agenda of an election-year Congress facing voter disillusionment. Sounding the death knell was Obama himself.
The president noted that lawmakers may lack the "appetite" to take on immigration while many of them are up for re-election and while another big legislative issue — climate change — is already on their plate.
"I don't want us to do something just for the sake of politics that doesn't solve the problem," Obama told reporters Wednesday night aboard Air Force One.
Immigration reform was an issue Obama promised Latino groups that he would take up in his first year in office. But several hard realities — a tanked economy, a crowded agenda, election-year politics and lack of political will — led to so much foot-dragging in Congress that, ultimately, Obama decided to set the issue aside.
With that move, the president calculated that an immigration bill would not prove as costly to his party two years from now, when he seeks re-election, than it would today, even though some immigration reformers warned that a delay could so discourage Democratic-leaning Latino voters that they would stay home from the polls in November.
Some Democrats thought pushing a bill through now might help their party. If it failed, they could blame Republican resistance, though in reality many Democrats didn't want to deal with an immigration bill this year either.
Perhaps seeing the handwriting on the wall, top Senate Democrats released a legislative framework for immigration reforms anyway. The draft proposal, obtained by The Associated Press on Tuesday, called for, among other things, meeting border security benchmarks before anyone in the country illegally can become a legal permanent U.S. resident.
By Wednesday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi offered little hope that the issue was still alive on Capitol Hill.
"If there is going to be any movement in this regard, it will require presidential leadership, as well as an appetite, is that the word? ... as well as a willingness to move forward in the Congress," she said.
House Republican leader John Boehner was more blunt. "There is not a chance that immigration is going to move through the Congress," he said Tuesday.
Rep. Luis Gutierrez, the Democrats' leading advocate for immigration reform, has said he voted for health care reform on the understanding that Obama and congressional Democrats would move a major immigration bill.
Even though he would like to see Latinos turn out to vote for Democrats in 2010, Gutierrez said "many will probably decide to stay home." However, he added, a strict, new immigration law in Arizona may change that dynamic. The law requires law enforcement officers to question anyone they suspect is in the country illegally.
"On one hand you are not going to vote because you don't believe people you voted for are doing a good enough job," Gutierrez said. "Then you say, 'I got to vote, because the enemy is so mean and vindictive, I got to get out there.'"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)