"Just Between Us!" Television Program with Attorney Arnold Jaffe Now Online
From: William Smithers
Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2011 11:32 AM
To: Arnold Jaffe
Subject: Your "Just Between Us!" interview is now online
Dear Mr. Jaffe --
Today, your interview with Lorrie and me for the Channel 17 television program "Just Between Us!" has been posted to our web site:
http://sb-justbetweenus.com/
Each week, a different previously-broadcast episode of the show is posted to the site, and there is a Directory of TV Interviews to access episodes posted earlier.
Friends, family, co-workers who missed the original broadcast or who would like to see it again now have the opportunity to see it online.
We would suggest that you and they might also like to sample other interviews as well; there are interesting people in Santa Barbara!
Best wishes from us both,
Bill Smithers
POTENTIAL IMMIGRATION IMPLICATIONS FOR SAME-SEX COUPLES OF JUSTICE DEPARTMENT'S ANNOUNCEMENT REGARDING DOMA SECTION 3
February 24, 2011
By David A. Isaacson
The Justice Department announced Wednesday, that, based in part on the recommendation of Attorney General Eric Holder, President Obama has determined that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is unconstitutional, and will no longer defend it in court. This is because, facing litigation within the jurisdiction of a circuit court of appeals (the Second Circuit) that has never ruled on the appropriate standard of review to be applied to laws concerning sexual orientation, the Administration determined that a heightened standard of review is appropriate, and that Section 3 of DOMA cannot withstand review under such a standard (although the Justice Department had previously argued that Section 3 could survive the looser rational-basis test applicable under the precedent of some courts of appeals). The announcement is available online at http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2011/February/11-ag-222.html, and a related letter sent by Attorney General Holder to Speaker of the House John Boehner is available at http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2011/February/11-ag-223.html.
The announcement states, however, that Section 3 of DOMA will remain in effect until either it is repealed or “there is a final judicial finding that strikes it down,” and until such time “the Executive Branch will continue to enforce the law.” The letter to Speaker Boehner states even more specifically that “the President has instructed Executive agencies to continue to comply with Section 3 of DOMA, consistent with the Executive’s obligation to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, unless and until Congress repeals Section 3 or the judicial branch renders a definitive verdict against the law’s constitutionality.”
Section 3 of DOMA, 1 U.S.C. § 7, provides that for purposes of federal law, “the word ‘marriage’ means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word ‘spouse’ refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.” Among other consequences under federal law, this means, according to the consistent interpretation of USCIS and the former INS, that a same-sex spouse cannot be granted immigration benefits by virtue of his or her marriage to a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident. This aspect of DOMA, as interpreted in a 2003 memorandum by William Yates of USCIS, was discussed in a March 2004 web article by Cyrus D. Mehta (http://www.cyrusmehta.com/News.aspx?MainIdx=ocyrus200591724845&Month=&Source=Zoom&Page=1&Year=All&From=Menu&SubIdx=964).
The recent Administration announcement suggests that, following successful litigation, same-sex spouses whose marriages are recognized by their state of residence may find themselves able to seek immigration benefits based on their marriages, although this will for the moment not be possible without litigation given the Administration’s position that Section 3 of DOMA will continue to be enforced until a court declares it unconstitutional. Litigation is not certain to succeed, however, because Congress or individual members of Congress may intervene to defend the constitutionality of DOMA. Indeed, one of the purposes of the statutory provision, 28 U.S.C. § 530D, that required Attorney General Holder’s notification to Speaker Boehner was to enable such defense by a House of Congress or individual members, and the Attorney General said of the pending challenges to Section 3 of DOMA in his letter that Justice Department attorneys “will also notify the courts of our interest in providing Congress a full and fair opportunity to participate in the litigation in those cases.” Moreover, there is some risk that any challenge to Section 3 of DOMA could be less likely to succeed in the immigration context than in other contexts, given the “plenary power” doctrine and the history of judicial deference to Congress in this context – as in Fiallo v. Bell, 430 U.S. 787 (1977), where the Supreme Court upheld a provision of the INA that discriminated against illegitimate children – although it is also possible that Section 3 of DOMA will be voided in all contexts by a judicial holding that it is, as a general matter, unconstitutional.
Given the uncertainty regarding the timing and nature of final judicial action on this subject, it would be extremely risky for same-sex married couples to affirmatively seek immigration benefits in reliance on this announcement. It could even be quite risky for same-sex couples to marry in reliance on the announcement, if the current status of one of the spouses depends on showing a foreign residence and no intent to abandon it (such as with a B-1/B-2 visitor or F-1 student). This risk and others were discussed in more detail in a July 8, 2010 advisory from Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD) following their victory in a district court case challenging Section 3 of DOMA, http://www.immigrationequality.org/template.php?pageid=1115.
Same-sex spouses of U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents who are already in removal proceedings, however, should consider seeking adjustment of status under INA § 245 based on an I-130 petition filed by their spouse if they are otherwise eligible for that relief, and/or cancellation of removal under INA § 240A(b) based on the hardship to their spouse if they were to be removed if they are otherwise eligible, and preserving the issue for judicial review. Similarly, same-sex couples who are not yet married could consider moving to a state that recognizes same-sex marriages if they do not reside in one already, entering into a state-recognized marriage, and seeking adjustment of status or cancellation of removal for the non-U.S.-citizen spouse based on that marriage—bearing in mind that like any other marriage, a same-sex marriage could only be a basis for immigration benefits if it were established to the satisfaction of the immigration authorities that such a marriage was bona fide, that is, was truly meant to establish a shared life together rather than being done purely for immigration purposes, and that in the case of adjustment of status based on a marriage entered into while one spouse is in removal proceedings, INA sections 204(g) and 245(e) would require a showing by clear and convincing evidence that the marriage was not entered into for immigration purposes. The concerns raised by GLAD in its previous advisory continue to apply, however, and it is therefore this author’s view that the preferable course in cases where removal proceedings have not already been commenced would generally be to await further developments before filing any petition or application based on a same-sex marriage.
By David A. Isaacson
The Justice Department announced Wednesday, that, based in part on the recommendation of Attorney General Eric Holder, President Obama has determined that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is unconstitutional, and will no longer defend it in court. This is because, facing litigation within the jurisdiction of a circuit court of appeals (the Second Circuit) that has never ruled on the appropriate standard of review to be applied to laws concerning sexual orientation, the Administration determined that a heightened standard of review is appropriate, and that Section 3 of DOMA cannot withstand review under such a standard (although the Justice Department had previously argued that Section 3 could survive the looser rational-basis test applicable under the precedent of some courts of appeals). The announcement is available online at http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2011/February/11-ag-222.html, and a related letter sent by Attorney General Holder to Speaker of the House John Boehner is available at http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2011/February/11-ag-223.html.
The announcement states, however, that Section 3 of DOMA will remain in effect until either it is repealed or “there is a final judicial finding that strikes it down,” and until such time “the Executive Branch will continue to enforce the law.” The letter to Speaker Boehner states even more specifically that “the President has instructed Executive agencies to continue to comply with Section 3 of DOMA, consistent with the Executive’s obligation to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, unless and until Congress repeals Section 3 or the judicial branch renders a definitive verdict against the law’s constitutionality.”
Section 3 of DOMA, 1 U.S.C. § 7, provides that for purposes of federal law, “the word ‘marriage’ means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word ‘spouse’ refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.” Among other consequences under federal law, this means, according to the consistent interpretation of USCIS and the former INS, that a same-sex spouse cannot be granted immigration benefits by virtue of his or her marriage to a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident. This aspect of DOMA, as interpreted in a 2003 memorandum by William Yates of USCIS, was discussed in a March 2004 web article by Cyrus D. Mehta (http://www.cyrusmehta.com/News.aspx?MainIdx=ocyrus200591724845&Month=&Source=Zoom&Page=1&Year=All&From=Menu&SubIdx=964).
The recent Administration announcement suggests that, following successful litigation, same-sex spouses whose marriages are recognized by their state of residence may find themselves able to seek immigration benefits based on their marriages, although this will for the moment not be possible without litigation given the Administration’s position that Section 3 of DOMA will continue to be enforced until a court declares it unconstitutional. Litigation is not certain to succeed, however, because Congress or individual members of Congress may intervene to defend the constitutionality of DOMA. Indeed, one of the purposes of the statutory provision, 28 U.S.C. § 530D, that required Attorney General Holder’s notification to Speaker Boehner was to enable such defense by a House of Congress or individual members, and the Attorney General said of the pending challenges to Section 3 of DOMA in his letter that Justice Department attorneys “will also notify the courts of our interest in providing Congress a full and fair opportunity to participate in the litigation in those cases.” Moreover, there is some risk that any challenge to Section 3 of DOMA could be less likely to succeed in the immigration context than in other contexts, given the “plenary power” doctrine and the history of judicial deference to Congress in this context – as in Fiallo v. Bell, 430 U.S. 787 (1977), where the Supreme Court upheld a provision of the INA that discriminated against illegitimate children – although it is also possible that Section 3 of DOMA will be voided in all contexts by a judicial holding that it is, as a general matter, unconstitutional.
Given the uncertainty regarding the timing and nature of final judicial action on this subject, it would be extremely risky for same-sex married couples to affirmatively seek immigration benefits in reliance on this announcement. It could even be quite risky for same-sex couples to marry in reliance on the announcement, if the current status of one of the spouses depends on showing a foreign residence and no intent to abandon it (such as with a B-1/B-2 visitor or F-1 student). This risk and others were discussed in more detail in a July 8, 2010 advisory from Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD) following their victory in a district court case challenging Section 3 of DOMA, http://www.immigrationequality.org/template.php?pageid=1115.
Same-sex spouses of U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents who are already in removal proceedings, however, should consider seeking adjustment of status under INA § 245 based on an I-130 petition filed by their spouse if they are otherwise eligible for that relief, and/or cancellation of removal under INA § 240A(b) based on the hardship to their spouse if they were to be removed if they are otherwise eligible, and preserving the issue for judicial review. Similarly, same-sex couples who are not yet married could consider moving to a state that recognizes same-sex marriages if they do not reside in one already, entering into a state-recognized marriage, and seeking adjustment of status or cancellation of removal for the non-U.S.-citizen spouse based on that marriage—bearing in mind that like any other marriage, a same-sex marriage could only be a basis for immigration benefits if it were established to the satisfaction of the immigration authorities that such a marriage was bona fide, that is, was truly meant to establish a shared life together rather than being done purely for immigration purposes, and that in the case of adjustment of status based on a marriage entered into while one spouse is in removal proceedings, INA sections 204(g) and 245(e) would require a showing by clear and convincing evidence that the marriage was not entered into for immigration purposes. The concerns raised by GLAD in its previous advisory continue to apply, however, and it is therefore this author’s view that the preferable course in cases where removal proceedings have not already been commenced would generally be to await further developments before filing any petition or application based on a same-sex marriage.
Is More Getting Us Less? Real Solutions for Securing our Border
February 15, 2011
Washington D.C. - Today, the House Committee on Homeland Security's Subcommittee on Border and Maritime Security held a hearing entitled "Securing our Borders - Operational Control and the Path Forward." Continued oversight of border security is commendable, but the subcommittee should avoid falling into the same old paradigm presented today and exemplified by Congressman Mike Rodgers of Alabama. The Congressman asked Michael J. Fisher, Chief of the Border Patrol at the Department of Homeland Security, "What do you need to secure the border?" What do you need to provide that rock solid prevention of illegal immigration?" These types of wrong-headed questions have resulted in a decade of misguided solutions. Congress continues to appropriate record amounts of money for personnel and technology at the border, but refuses to enact immigration reforms that would address the root causes of unauthorized immigration and other border problems.
To provide perspective, the Immigration Policy Center releases Is More Getting Us Less? Real Solutions for Securing our Border by Eric Olson and David Shirk. Their research at the Mexico Institute of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars and the Trans-Border Institute at the University of San Diego has shown that record levels of spending on border security have, in fact, made our border less secure. That spending, coupled with a lack of legal avenues for entry, have become a boon to the criminal cartels who have capitalized on a growing industry of smuggling migrants into the U.S. Enhanced security has also had the unintended consequence of interrupting historical, cyclical flows of migration, where migrants would come and go seasonally. The authors disentangle the multitude of issues that arise along the border, and make solid recommendations for seriously tackling our border problems.
To read the piece in its entirety see:
Is More Getting Us Less? Real Solutions for Securing our Border
(IPC Perspectives, February 15, 2011)
Deeper into the Shadows: The Unintended Consequences of Immigration Worksite Enforcement
February 9, 2011
Washington D.C. - Today, the Immigration Policy Center releases Deeper into the Shadows: The Unintended Consequences of Immigration Worksite Enforcement by Jeffrey Kaye. This paper examines what happens to workers and their employers after an I-9 audit, and argues for worksite enforcement that is more targeted.
Before the onset of the Great Recession, immigrant labor was cited as a boon to the U.S. economy. In towns and cities across the country, immigrant labor - documented or otherwise - filled positions in growing businesses and industries where demand outpaced the supply of native-born workers. Since the onset of the economic downturn in 2008 and the rise in U.S. unemployment, some analysts and politicians - looking for a convenient scapegoat - have turned on that immigrant workforce and their employers, arguing that deporting eight million undocumented immigrant workers will create eight million new jobs for the native-born. This over-simplified equation ignores the complicated and interdependent roles that immigrants play in our economy. Only by overhauling our current immigration system and replacing it with one that meets the needs of the 21st century will we get past the hardships and quandaries Mr. Kaye so ably details in his report.
To view the special report in its entirety see:
Deeper into the Shadows: The Unintended Consequences of Immigration Worksite Enforcement by Jeffrey Kaye. (IPC Special Report, February 9, 2011)
THIS WEEK IN IMMIGRATION
http://www.immigrationimpact.com/
The Rally Against State Immigration Legislation Continues
A Washington Post article this week highlighted what many state business groups, law enforcement officers and concerned legislatures have been cautioning for months - at a time of economic uncertainty, states simply cannot afford the costly legal battles and political backlash caused by Arizona-style immigration legislation. Over the past month, SB1070 copycat bills in Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, and Utah, have been met with considerable hesitation and criticism from constituents worried about the social and economic impact on their state. Some states, like Mississippi and Wyoming, have even rejected initial versions of copycat bills due to high costs. But as other states consider enforcement legislation (California joined the fray this week, as did Georgia's state Senate), those worried about how enforcement legislation will cost their state feel they can no longer afford to be quiet. Read more...
How Reuters, Northeastern University Stifle Immigration Debate by Suppressing Labor Analysis
On January 20, Reuters published a news article with the following headline: "Exclusive: Over a Million Immigrants land U.S. jobs in 2008-10." The article, which reported on data exclusively provided to Reuters by the Center for Labor Market Studies (CLMS) at Northeastern University in Boston, appeared just a few days before the House Immigration Subcommittee held its first hearing of the new Congress criticizing the Obama Administration on worksite enforcement. The article was also quoted in testimony by Mark Kirkorian of the Center for Immigration Studies as proof that the native-born are losing out to immigrants in the work force. The CLMS "study," however, which supports the flawed restrictionist theory that America can deport its way out of unemployment, actually backfired during the hearing. Read more...
Senator Cornyn, Republicans Continue to Stammer on Immigration Reform
The official Republican response to the State of the Union address may have been delivered by Congressman Paul Ryan (R-WI), but the immigration response came from Texas Republican Senator John Cornyn who fired off an editorial questioning the President's commitment to border security and immigration reform. While the Administration has certainly heard Sen. Cornyn's accusations before, his mixed messaging on border security and reform efforts seem indicative of a larger Republican problem - one in which words don't quite match up with deeds. Read more...
Study Shows 287(g) Program Fails to Prioritize Serious Criminals
This week, the Migration Policy Institute released a new study on ICE's 287(g) program, Delegation and Divergence: A Study of 287(g) State and Local Immigration Enforcement. The study, which assesses the implementation, enforcement outcomes, costs, community impacts of the program generally, and provides an in-depth study in seven jurisdictions: Cobb County, GA; Frederick County, MD; Gwinnett County, GA; Los Angeles County, CA; Prince William County, VA; Las Vegas, NV; and the state of Colorado, found that 287(g) program is not living up to its promise. In fact, the study finds that ICE's allows jurisdictions to "operate the 287(g) program in fundamentally different ways across the country." Read more...
What Does the Vitter-Paul Resolution to Amend the Constitution Solve, Exactly?
In the latest attack on the Constitution and U.S. citizenship, Senators David Vitter (R-LA) and Rand Paul (R-KY) introduced a resolution (S. J. RES. 2) last week proposing an amendment to the constitution to limit citizenship to children born in the U.S. if 1) one parent is a U.S. citizen, 2) one parent is a legal permanent resident residing in the U.S., or 3) one parent is on active duty in the U.S. military. Arizona State Rep. Kavanaugh also introduced two bills last week attempting to deny citizenship to children born in the state to undocumented immigrants and require state officials to issue distinctive looking birth certificates to those children the state does not consider citizens. While these bills might make for splashy headlines, they do nothing to end undocumented immigration. In fact, it would make life more difficult for every person in the U.S., who would then have to prove their citizenship status in order to determine the status of their newborns. Read more...
This Week in Council Publications:
Federal Court Upholds Immigrants' Right To Reopen Cases From Outside the U.S.
(LAC Press Release, February 3, 2010)
Responding to State Immigration Legislation: A Resource Page
The Rally Against State Immigration Legislation Continues
A Washington Post article this week highlighted what many state business groups, law enforcement officers and concerned legislatures have been cautioning for months - at a time of economic uncertainty, states simply cannot afford the costly legal battles and political backlash caused by Arizona-style immigration legislation. Over the past month, SB1070 copycat bills in Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, and Utah, have been met with considerable hesitation and criticism from constituents worried about the social and economic impact on their state. Some states, like Mississippi and Wyoming, have even rejected initial versions of copycat bills due to high costs. But as other states consider enforcement legislation (California joined the fray this week, as did Georgia's state Senate), those worried about how enforcement legislation will cost their state feel they can no longer afford to be quiet. Read more...
How Reuters, Northeastern University Stifle Immigration Debate by Suppressing Labor Analysis
On January 20, Reuters published a news article with the following headline: "Exclusive: Over a Million Immigrants land U.S. jobs in 2008-10." The article, which reported on data exclusively provided to Reuters by the Center for Labor Market Studies (CLMS) at Northeastern University in Boston, appeared just a few days before the House Immigration Subcommittee held its first hearing of the new Congress criticizing the Obama Administration on worksite enforcement. The article was also quoted in testimony by Mark Kirkorian of the Center for Immigration Studies as proof that the native-born are losing out to immigrants in the work force. The CLMS "study," however, which supports the flawed restrictionist theory that America can deport its way out of unemployment, actually backfired during the hearing. Read more...
Senator Cornyn, Republicans Continue to Stammer on Immigration Reform
The official Republican response to the State of the Union address may have been delivered by Congressman Paul Ryan (R-WI), but the immigration response came from Texas Republican Senator John Cornyn who fired off an editorial questioning the President's commitment to border security and immigration reform. While the Administration has certainly heard Sen. Cornyn's accusations before, his mixed messaging on border security and reform efforts seem indicative of a larger Republican problem - one in which words don't quite match up with deeds. Read more...
Study Shows 287(g) Program Fails to Prioritize Serious Criminals
This week, the Migration Policy Institute released a new study on ICE's 287(g) program, Delegation and Divergence: A Study of 287(g) State and Local Immigration Enforcement. The study, which assesses the implementation, enforcement outcomes, costs, community impacts of the program generally, and provides an in-depth study in seven jurisdictions: Cobb County, GA; Frederick County, MD; Gwinnett County, GA; Los Angeles County, CA; Prince William County, VA; Las Vegas, NV; and the state of Colorado, found that 287(g) program is not living up to its promise. In fact, the study finds that ICE's allows jurisdictions to "operate the 287(g) program in fundamentally different ways across the country." Read more...
What Does the Vitter-Paul Resolution to Amend the Constitution Solve, Exactly?
In the latest attack on the Constitution and U.S. citizenship, Senators David Vitter (R-LA) and Rand Paul (R-KY) introduced a resolution (S. J. RES. 2) last week proposing an amendment to the constitution to limit citizenship to children born in the U.S. if 1) one parent is a U.S. citizen, 2) one parent is a legal permanent resident residing in the U.S., or 3) one parent is on active duty in the U.S. military. Arizona State Rep. Kavanaugh also introduced two bills last week attempting to deny citizenship to children born in the state to undocumented immigrants and require state officials to issue distinctive looking birth certificates to those children the state does not consider citizens. While these bills might make for splashy headlines, they do nothing to end undocumented immigration. In fact, it would make life more difficult for every person in the U.S., who would then have to prove their citizenship status in order to determine the status of their newborns. Read more...
This Week in Council Publications:
Federal Court Upholds Immigrants' Right To Reopen Cases From Outside the U.S.
(LAC Press Release, February 3, 2010)
Responding to State Immigration Legislation: A Resource Page
House Subcommittee on Immigration Policy and Enforcement: A Preview of What's to Come
January 26, 2011
Washington D.C. - Today, the newly named House Subcommittee on Immigration Policy and Enforcement held its first hearing of the new session entitled, "ICE Worksite Enforcement - Up to the Job?" The name change seems to be a signal that Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith and Subcommittee Chairman Elton Gallegly will focus on enforcement, rather than immigration reform this session. It is hardly surprising, then, that the first hearing of the year was designed to challenge the Obama administration's decision to move from the massive worksite raids of the past to the use of employer worksite audits.
The following statements were made today during a pre-hearing press conference call organized by the Immigration Policy Center:
Mary Giovagnoli, Director of the Immigration Policy Center said:
The Obama Administration's stepped up worksite enforcement efforts include conducting a record numbers of I-9 audits and collecting millions of dollars in fines. While this is an improvement over the arrests and round-ups involved in large-scale raids, which targeted workers, this new strategy is not without controversy. Across the country, I-9 audits, when not carefully conducted within the guidelines ICE has set for itself, can inadvertently lead to hardships for employers and workers alike, leading to the firing of thousands of workers, and leaving employers without the workers they need. If today's hearing is any indication of the committee's long-term vision, then we are in for sound bites rather than substance, and a call for the good old days of immigration enforcement first and forever."
Emily Tulli, Policy Attorney at the National Immigration Law Center said:
"This enforcement-only agenda, with military-style raids as its centerpiece, may make for good PR, but it is ineffective policy. These raids terrorize communities, shutter businesses, and hurt our local economies. This enforcement-only model is not only unsustainable and inhumane, but also doesn't fix our broken immigration system. Instead of looking backwards, we need to focus on practical solutions that help American workplaces thrive. ICE has a unique opportunity to meet their goals while helping to support labor law enforcement. Our economic recovery depends upon allowing good employers to thrive, while ensuring that bad apple employers who exploit workers are appropriately punished. ICE should use its significant enforcement dollars to target and penalize the worst employers, helping to create an incentive for employer compliance with immigration and labor law."
Javier Morillo-Alicea President of Service Employees International Union Local 26 in Minneapolis, Minnesota said:
"We are going to see more and more small business going underground and paying people off the books as a way not to be audited. The assumption that an ICE audit results in unauthorized workers being replaced by authorized workers should be checked. It's time for us to look at the problem and understand that we cannot deport our way out of illegal immigration nor can we audit our way out of illegal immigration."
Dan Siciliano, Senior Lecturer in Law and Associate Dean for Executive Education and Special Programs at Stanford Law School said:
"There is no evidence to support the idea that worksite raids open up jobs for U.S. workers. Most immigrant workers-mid-skill, low skill, documented and undocumented-don't compete with American workers. The 2010 Census is showing us that this trend has accelerated over the last decade. We have a low-skilled worker gap in the country. The overall skill level of US workers is increasing, which means those low skill jobs are becoming harder to fill. It isn't right to look at the economy and workforce as a set of little boxes whereby you pluck someone out of workplace, leaving a perfect empty seat for someone to fill. Labor force dynamics are much more complex than that."
Also see additional IPC resources on this topic:
A Framework for Effective Immigration Worksite Employer Enforcement (IPC, Jaunary 25, 2011) This paper provides background on immigration worksite enforcement efforts and lays out principles that can be used to evaluate the effectiveness of the administration's immigration worksite enforcement program. The principles include: accountability to stated priorities, accessibility of information, uniformity and consistency of standards, and proportionality of sanctions.
After the Raid is Over: Marshalltown, Iowa and the Consequences of Worksite Enforcement Raids (IPC Special Report, January 25, 2011) This paper examines the effects of a large immigration raid on a single company in America's heartland. It reviews the ICE raid on the Swift & Company pork processing facility in Marshalltown, Iowa in 2006 and the toll it has taken on the community's financial, social, and human capital.
"We are going to see more and more small business going underground and paying people off the books as a way not to be audited. The assumption that an ICE audit results in unauthorized workers being replaced by authorized workers should be checked. It's time for us to look at the problem and understand that we cannot deport our way out of illegal immigration nor can we audit our way out of illegal immigration."
Washington D.C. - Today, the newly named House Subcommittee on Immigration Policy and Enforcement held its first hearing of the new session entitled, "ICE Worksite Enforcement - Up to the Job?" The name change seems to be a signal that Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith and Subcommittee Chairman Elton Gallegly will focus on enforcement, rather than immigration reform this session. It is hardly surprising, then, that the first hearing of the year was designed to challenge the Obama administration's decision to move from the massive worksite raids of the past to the use of employer worksite audits.
The following statements were made today during a pre-hearing press conference call organized by the Immigration Policy Center:
Mary Giovagnoli, Director of the Immigration Policy Center said:
The Obama Administration's stepped up worksite enforcement efforts include conducting a record numbers of I-9 audits and collecting millions of dollars in fines. While this is an improvement over the arrests and round-ups involved in large-scale raids, which targeted workers, this new strategy is not without controversy. Across the country, I-9 audits, when not carefully conducted within the guidelines ICE has set for itself, can inadvertently lead to hardships for employers and workers alike, leading to the firing of thousands of workers, and leaving employers without the workers they need. If today's hearing is any indication of the committee's long-term vision, then we are in for sound bites rather than substance, and a call for the good old days of immigration enforcement first and forever."
Emily Tulli, Policy Attorney at the National Immigration Law Center said:
"This enforcement-only agenda, with military-style raids as its centerpiece, may make for good PR, but it is ineffective policy. These raids terrorize communities, shutter businesses, and hurt our local economies. This enforcement-only model is not only unsustainable and inhumane, but also doesn't fix our broken immigration system. Instead of looking backwards, we need to focus on practical solutions that help American workplaces thrive. ICE has a unique opportunity to meet their goals while helping to support labor law enforcement. Our economic recovery depends upon allowing good employers to thrive, while ensuring that bad apple employers who exploit workers are appropriately punished. ICE should use its significant enforcement dollars to target and penalize the worst employers, helping to create an incentive for employer compliance with immigration and labor law."
Javier Morillo-Alicea President of Service Employees International Union Local 26 in Minneapolis, Minnesota said:
"We are going to see more and more small business going underground and paying people off the books as a way not to be audited. The assumption that an ICE audit results in unauthorized workers being replaced by authorized workers should be checked. It's time for us to look at the problem and understand that we cannot deport our way out of illegal immigration nor can we audit our way out of illegal immigration."
Dan Siciliano, Senior Lecturer in Law and Associate Dean for Executive Education and Special Programs at Stanford Law School said:
"There is no evidence to support the idea that worksite raids open up jobs for U.S. workers. Most immigrant workers-mid-skill, low skill, documented and undocumented-don't compete with American workers. The 2010 Census is showing us that this trend has accelerated over the last decade. We have a low-skilled worker gap in the country. The overall skill level of US workers is increasing, which means those low skill jobs are becoming harder to fill. It isn't right to look at the economy and workforce as a set of little boxes whereby you pluck someone out of workplace, leaving a perfect empty seat for someone to fill. Labor force dynamics are much more complex than that."
Also see additional IPC resources on this topic:
A Framework for Effective Immigration Worksite Employer Enforcement (IPC, Jaunary 25, 2011) This paper provides background on immigration worksite enforcement efforts and lays out principles that can be used to evaluate the effectiveness of the administration's immigration worksite enforcement program. The principles include: accountability to stated priorities, accessibility of information, uniformity and consistency of standards, and proportionality of sanctions.
After the Raid is Over: Marshalltown, Iowa and the Consequences of Worksite Enforcement Raids (IPC Special Report, January 25, 2011) This paper examines the effects of a large immigration raid on a single company in America's heartland. It reviews the ICE raid on the Swift & Company pork processing facility in Marshalltown, Iowa in 2006 and the toll it has taken on the community's financial, social, and human capital.
"We are going to see more and more small business going underground and paying people off the books as a way not to be audited. The assumption that an ICE audit results in unauthorized workers being replaced by authorized workers should be checked. It's time for us to look at the problem and understand that we cannot deport our way out of illegal immigration nor can we audit our way out of illegal immigration."
President's Plans for Winning the Future Include Immigration Reform
Discusses Immigration Policy in Plan for Economic Prosperity
January 26, 2011
Washington, D.C. - Last night in his State of the Union address, President Barack Obama called on Republicans and Democrats to work together to "win the future" by taking on challenges that have been decades in the making - challenges like updating our current immigration laws to meet the needs of the country. The President outlined an ambitious agenda focused on innovation, education, and reform designed to expand economic growth and personal opportunity for all Americans. He specifically called on Congress to work with him to reform our laws so that we are able to attract the best and brightest minds from around the world, retain highly educated foreign students by making it easier for them to live and work in the United States, stop wasting the talent of students brought to this country illegally as children, and to end the problem of illegal immigration once and for all.
The following is a statement from Benjamin Johnson, Executive Director of the American Immigration Council:
"President Obama reminded Americans that they are capable of big things and big ideas. By acknowledging the contributions of immigrants - as entrepreneurs, innovators, students and workers - in his vision of a renewed America, the President reiterated that creating a 21st century immigration system is part of the solution for America's full economic recovery and future growth. But the President went a step further, decrying immigration policies that simply don't make sense, such as turning away the best and brightest minds from around the world, sending foreign students back to their countries to compete against us, or denying an education to students who have the potential to fill the jobs of the future.
By placing his discussion of immigration policy squarely within his plans for economic prosperity, the President continues the important work of reframing the immigration debate that he began during a major immigration speech last summer. By coupling his analysis with calls for civil discourse and more bipartisanship, he set the stage for a fresh start on this often divisive issue. We urge the Members of Congress to follow the President's lead and to come together to reform an immigration system that has, for too long, been out of step with what the country needs - innovators, entrepreneurs, skilled workers of all sorts, and dreamers."
January 26, 2011
Washington, D.C. - Last night in his State of the Union address, President Barack Obama called on Republicans and Democrats to work together to "win the future" by taking on challenges that have been decades in the making - challenges like updating our current immigration laws to meet the needs of the country. The President outlined an ambitious agenda focused on innovation, education, and reform designed to expand economic growth and personal opportunity for all Americans. He specifically called on Congress to work with him to reform our laws so that we are able to attract the best and brightest minds from around the world, retain highly educated foreign students by making it easier for them to live and work in the United States, stop wasting the talent of students brought to this country illegally as children, and to end the problem of illegal immigration once and for all.
The following is a statement from Benjamin Johnson, Executive Director of the American Immigration Council:
"President Obama reminded Americans that they are capable of big things and big ideas. By acknowledging the contributions of immigrants - as entrepreneurs, innovators, students and workers - in his vision of a renewed America, the President reiterated that creating a 21st century immigration system is part of the solution for America's full economic recovery and future growth. But the President went a step further, decrying immigration policies that simply don't make sense, such as turning away the best and brightest minds from around the world, sending foreign students back to their countries to compete against us, or denying an education to students who have the potential to fill the jobs of the future.
By placing his discussion of immigration policy squarely within his plans for economic prosperity, the President continues the important work of reframing the immigration debate that he began during a major immigration speech last summer. By coupling his analysis with calls for civil discourse and more bipartisanship, he set the stage for a fresh start on this often divisive issue. We urge the Members of Congress to follow the President's lead and to come together to reform an immigration system that has, for too long, been out of step with what the country needs - innovators, entrepreneurs, skilled workers of all sorts, and dreamers."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)