June 10, 2011 11:19 am
Seven Democratic members of California’s Congressional Delegation called on Gov. Jerry Brown Friday to suspend California’s participation in the Secure Communities immigration enforcement program.
In recent weeks, governors in Illinois, New York and Massachusetts sought to suspend or declined to enter into Secure Communities participation agreements. Earlier this week, the Los Angeles City Council voted nearly unanimously to support legislation allowing communities to opt out of the program.
Gov. Brown “should side with both the officers who patrol our communities and the people they protect and end Secure Communities in California,” said Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard (D-Los Angeles).
Under the program, the fingerprints of all arrestees booked into local jails are forwarded to Immigration and Customs Enforcement for screening. It was touted as a way to target serious criminals for deportation but has generated controversy because many of those detained are either not convicted of crimes or are low-level offenders.
A California bill that seeks to modify Secure Communities and allow counties to opt out is making its way through the Legislature but whether states and counties can legally decline to participate is not clear.
In addition to Roybal-Allard, Reps. Judy Chu (D-Monterey Park), Maxine Waters (D-Los Angeles), Linda Sanchez (D-Lakewood), Grace Napolitano (D-Norwalk) and Karen Bass (D-Los Angeles) signed the letter. It was organized by Rep. Xavier Becerra (D-Los Angeles).
Supreme Court: State can offer illegal immigrants reduced tuition
Washington (CNN) -- The Supreme Court has upheld a California law giving illegal immigrants living there reduced in-state tuition rates at public universities, the same rates legal state residents enjoy.
The justices without comment Monday refused to accept an appeal from out-of-state students attending California schools, who said it was unfair that as U.S. citizens, they had to pay as much as $20,000 more than illegal immigrants. They claimed such "preferential treatment" violated federal law.
The court decision is a victory for immigrant rights groups. California is one of a dozen states that make undocumented aliens conditionally eligible for in-state tuition, according to the legal brief filed by the suing students. Those various laws will remain intact for now.
The California law was passed a decade ago, and has been the subject of litigation ever since. It requires illegal immigrants to attend a California high school for at least three years, and to successfully graduate.
At issue is whether these state laws step on a congressional law limiting public education benefits for those in the country illegally. That 1996 federal law said "residence within a state" cannot be used as the basis to allow "any postsecondary benefit" -- including lower tuition rates -- unless all U.S. citizens would similarly benefit.
The California Supreme Court had unanimously ruled the state law relied on other important criteria -- especially the gradation requirement -- not residency, and was therefore proper. The out-of-state students had claimed in their appeal they were there were being discriminated against, by paying higher rates. They argued it was improper to deny U.S. citizens a benefit undocumented aliens are allowed. As in California, the difference can be significant. Full-time out-of-state students pay as much as five times more tuition than in-state counterparts at the various University of California campuses.
State education officials in their brief to the high court estimated about 41,000 students in 2010 benefited from the lower tuition, mostly those attending community colleges.
At the larger, four-year, state-chartered University of California system -- with its 10 campuses statewide, about 2,019 students paid in-state tuition in 2009 under the state law at issue. An estimated 600 were believed to be illegal immigrants, said the state.
The other states with similar laws are: Illinois, Kansas, Maryland, Nebraska, New Mexico, New York, Oklahoma, Texas, Utah, Washington and Wisconsin. Another dozen states have passed specific laws refusing in-state tuition for illegal immigrants.Congress is considering a similar law, called the DREAM Act. It would speed citizenship for younger illegal immigrants who attend college or join the military.
Other states, led by Arizona, have passed legislation cracking down on undocumented residents. A statute currently under review by the federal courts would, among other things, give police authority to check a person's immigration status if officers have a "reasonable suspicion" that the individual is in the country illegally. The issue here is whether such state action steps on traditional federal authority over immigration matters.
The case turned aside Monday is Martinez v. Regents of the University of California (10-1029).
The justices without comment Monday refused to accept an appeal from out-of-state students attending California schools, who said it was unfair that as U.S. citizens, they had to pay as much as $20,000 more than illegal immigrants. They claimed such "preferential treatment" violated federal law.
The court decision is a victory for immigrant rights groups. California is one of a dozen states that make undocumented aliens conditionally eligible for in-state tuition, according to the legal brief filed by the suing students. Those various laws will remain intact for now.
The California law was passed a decade ago, and has been the subject of litigation ever since. It requires illegal immigrants to attend a California high school for at least three years, and to successfully graduate.
At issue is whether these state laws step on a congressional law limiting public education benefits for those in the country illegally. That 1996 federal law said "residence within a state" cannot be used as the basis to allow "any postsecondary benefit" -- including lower tuition rates -- unless all U.S. citizens would similarly benefit.
The California Supreme Court had unanimously ruled the state law relied on other important criteria -- especially the gradation requirement -- not residency, and was therefore proper. The out-of-state students had claimed in their appeal they were there were being discriminated against, by paying higher rates. They argued it was improper to deny U.S. citizens a benefit undocumented aliens are allowed. As in California, the difference can be significant. Full-time out-of-state students pay as much as five times more tuition than in-state counterparts at the various University of California campuses.
State education officials in their brief to the high court estimated about 41,000 students in 2010 benefited from the lower tuition, mostly those attending community colleges.
At the larger, four-year, state-chartered University of California system -- with its 10 campuses statewide, about 2,019 students paid in-state tuition in 2009 under the state law at issue. An estimated 600 were believed to be illegal immigrants, said the state.
The other states with similar laws are: Illinois, Kansas, Maryland, Nebraska, New Mexico, New York, Oklahoma, Texas, Utah, Washington and Wisconsin. Another dozen states have passed specific laws refusing in-state tuition for illegal immigrants.Congress is considering a similar law, called the DREAM Act. It would speed citizenship for younger illegal immigrants who attend college or join the military.
Other states, led by Arizona, have passed legislation cracking down on undocumented residents. A statute currently under review by the federal courts would, among other things, give police authority to check a person's immigration status if officers have a "reasonable suspicion" that the individual is in the country illegally. The issue here is whether such state action steps on traditional federal authority over immigration matters.
The case turned aside Monday is Martinez v. Regents of the University of California (10-1029).
Secure Communities program: A flawed deportation tool
The program, once billed as a voluntary partnership between the Department of Homeland Security and localities, is now mired in controversy.
LA Times Editorial
May 23, 2011
When federal officials first announced the Secure Communities program in 2008, they billed it as a powerful tool in the battle to identify and deport illegal immigrants who had been convicted of violent crimes. Dozens of states, including California, signed on, agreeing that police would submit the fingerprints of all arrestees to be checked against federal databases for criminal convictions and deportation orders.
But the program, once billed as a voluntary partnership between the Department of Homeland Security and localities, is now mired in controversy. The government is investigating whether it has failed to nab dangerous criminals and has instead been used to target low-level nonviolent offenders. Since its launch, more than half of those deported under Secure Communities had minor or no criminal convictions, according to Department of Homeland Security statistics. In Los Angeles County, for example, nearly half of the 11,774 deported under the program from August 2009 to January 2011 had no convictions or had committed misdemeanors. They were targeted for deportation because the program doesn't distinguish between criminals and those who illegally entered the U.S. or overstayed a visa — a civil violation.
What's more, in some cities with large immigrant communities, police are concerned that their participation in the program will have a chilling effect on immigrants' willingness to report crimes or provide useful information. They point to cases like that of Isaura Garcia, an immigrant living in Los Angeles, who called 911 in February to report an alleged beating by her partner. Because police often arrest both parties in domestic disputes, her fingerprints were submitted to immigration officials; despite having no criminal record, she was flagged for deportation proceedings because she was in the country illegally. Another case involved a street vendor with no prior criminal record who was was arrested in downtown Los Angeles last month after she ran when police approached her. The woman remains detained, though no charges were filed, and is awaiting deportation for being in the U.S. illegally.
The result is that a growing number of states that were initially drawn to the program are telling the Department of Homeland Security that they want to withdraw or modify their participation. A bill sponsored by Assemblyman Tom Ammiano (D-San Francisco) would require that only the fingerprints of convicted felons be submitted to immigration officials. It would also allow any county to opt out of the program. The bill is now before the full Assembly.
If federal immigration officials are unwilling to target the people they said they would target, then Ammiano's proposal will set modest and sensible limits. It would help focus enforcement efforts on felons who commit rape, murder or other violent crimes instead of street vendors and domestic violence victims.
See this and other related stories at: http://latimes.com/news/opinion/opinionla/la-ed-secure-20110523,0,4886580.story
LA Times Editorial
May 23, 2011
When federal officials first announced the Secure Communities program in 2008, they billed it as a powerful tool in the battle to identify and deport illegal immigrants who had been convicted of violent crimes. Dozens of states, including California, signed on, agreeing that police would submit the fingerprints of all arrestees to be checked against federal databases for criminal convictions and deportation orders.
But the program, once billed as a voluntary partnership between the Department of Homeland Security and localities, is now mired in controversy. The government is investigating whether it has failed to nab dangerous criminals and has instead been used to target low-level nonviolent offenders. Since its launch, more than half of those deported under Secure Communities had minor or no criminal convictions, according to Department of Homeland Security statistics. In Los Angeles County, for example, nearly half of the 11,774 deported under the program from August 2009 to January 2011 had no convictions or had committed misdemeanors. They were targeted for deportation because the program doesn't distinguish between criminals and those who illegally entered the U.S. or overstayed a visa — a civil violation.
What's more, in some cities with large immigrant communities, police are concerned that their participation in the program will have a chilling effect on immigrants' willingness to report crimes or provide useful information. They point to cases like that of Isaura Garcia, an immigrant living in Los Angeles, who called 911 in February to report an alleged beating by her partner. Because police often arrest both parties in domestic disputes, her fingerprints were submitted to immigration officials; despite having no criminal record, she was flagged for deportation proceedings because she was in the country illegally. Another case involved a street vendor with no prior criminal record who was was arrested in downtown Los Angeles last month after she ran when police approached her. The woman remains detained, though no charges were filed, and is awaiting deportation for being in the U.S. illegally.
The result is that a growing number of states that were initially drawn to the program are telling the Department of Homeland Security that they want to withdraw or modify their participation. A bill sponsored by Assemblyman Tom Ammiano (D-San Francisco) would require that only the fingerprints of convicted felons be submitted to immigration officials. It would also allow any county to opt out of the program. The bill is now before the full Assembly.
If federal immigration officials are unwilling to target the people they said they would target, then Ammiano's proposal will set modest and sensible limits. It would help focus enforcement efforts on felons who commit rape, murder or other violent crimes instead of street vendors and domestic violence victims.
See this and other related stories at: http://latimes.com/news/opinion/opinionla/la-ed-secure-20110523,0,4886580.story
Immigration Court Backlog Likely to Get Worse Before It Gets Better
May 18, 2011
by Ben Winograd
See Original Article at: Immigration Court Backlog Likely to Get Worse Before It Gets Better
Our nation’s immigration courts are backlogged. Historically backlogged. At the end of last year, more than 260,000 cases remained pending before immigration judges. Across the country, the average wait was nearly sixteen months. In California, thousands of cases have been pending for more than two years. While justice is not always swift, our immigration courts are getting increasingly further from the finish line.
Numbers aside, the delays remain problematic from both a legal and practical standpoint. For individuals with no viable claims of relief, the backlogs delay the point by which they must inevitably leave the country. Meanwhile, immigrants wrongfully placed in removal proceedings—and asylum seekers whose fates hinge on the outcome of a hearing—remain stuck in legal limbo and can needlessly languish in detention. At the same time, Immigration Judges may feel (perhaps subconscious) pressure to resolve cases quickly rather than thoroughly.
Unfortunately, as numerous witnesses testified today before the Senate Judiciary Committee, the backlogs are likely to get worse before (or if) they get better. Juan Osuna, the Director of the Executive Office for Immigration Review, noted that immigration judges’ burgeoning caseloads are “directly tied to annual increases in cases filed in the immigration courts by DHS.” In other words, the more immigrants are swept into removal proceedings through cooperation with state and local law enforcement, including programs like Secure Communities, the longer the backlog will be.
At the same time, the witnesses agreed that hiring more immigration judges alone could not fix the problem. Karen Grisez, appearing on behalf of the American Bar Association, recommended more extensive use of pre-trial settlement conferences, which allow attorneys to mutually resolve claims before hearings begin, and the initial referral to trained DHS officers of asylum claims raised for the first time in removal hearings. Noting the frequency of meritless claims unwittingly filed by unrepresented immigrants, Grisez also suggested expanding access to the Justice Department’s Legal Orientation Program, which currently is available only to immigrants in detention facilities.
Another witness, Julie Myers Wood, who headed ICE during the second half of the Bush Administration, stressed that government attorneys should more frequently exercise prosecutorial discretion when deciding which cases to bring. A former federal prosecutor, Myers Wood said the hardest cases to litigate involved defendants representing themselves, and thus recommended the appointment of counsel for vulnerable immigrants—such as unaccompanied minors, certain asylum seekers, and those with mental disabilities.
But not every means of reducing the backlog is a good one. For example, Myers Wood, along with Senator John Cornyn (R-TX), suggested expanding a process—known as “expedited removal”—in which certain immigrants can be deported with no hearing at all. Though expanding expedited removal could potentially lessen the caseload on immigration courts, efficiency alone is never a valid justification for sacrificing immigrants’ legal rights.
The final point of agreement at the hearing was that the enactment of comprehensive immigration reform would be the best way to ease the burden on immigration courts. By reducing the number of immigrants eligible for deportation, Congress would, by necessity, reduce the number of immigrants placed in removal proceedings. Yet given the lack of Congressional movement on immigration reform or Administrative relief, the backlog of removal hearings, like the undocumented population itself, appears here to stay for the foreseeable future.
La Opinión: Editorial - Baca and Secure Communities
May 17, 2011
http://org2.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=O4D4T8SqWG4Uq8B3kcOimivF7b3vw0bc
Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee Baca supports the Secure Communities program, as he explained a few days ago on the radio program "Which Way LA?" Ironically, the reasons he gave for his support are precisely the problems of a program that has been misused and is prone to being abused.
Secure Communities was intended as a public safety program to arrest and deport undocumented dangerous criminals. However, its implementation has strayed far beyond that goal, and people without criminal records have been arrested and deported. For example, it is estimated that 3,000 individuals, almost one-fourth of those deported from Los Angeles since August 2009 under this program, did not meet the definition of "dangerous criminal."
This is not a problem for Baca. According to his explanation, when an undocumented immigrant is arrested by a sheriff’s deputy, it is equivalent to being guilty of a crime since the undocumented do not have civil rights like everyone else. In practice, under the Immigration and Customs Enforcement program, being a suspect is the same as being found guilty of a crime.
This is the essential problem with this program. When suspects are taken to county jail by a police officer or sheriff’s deputy, they are within the reach of immigration authorities. Baca seems to think every arrest made by the police or sheriff’s deputies is justifiable beyond a shadow of a doubt. But it is common knowledge that this perfection does not exist and that —as with everything else— some officers abuse their authority, have bad intentions or just make mistakes during arrests.
When someone reports a crime and the officer in charge sees, perceives or thinks that there is an irregularity regarding the victim or the person reporting it, the situation can take a 180-degree turn and end in the complainant being deported. This can happen, and is a fear many undocumented immigrants have. Because of this, the enforcement of Secure Communities undermines the trust that exists between law enforcement and immigrant communities.
The Latino community does not support the Secure Communities program, as the sheriff believes. Everyone wants dangerous criminals to be taken off the streets, but not at the cost of deporting the innocent. Nor is there complete faith in the infallibility of an arrest such that it should be used to determine that a crime was committed and who committed it.
We have been worried about Sheriff Baca’s enthusiasm for the Secure Communities program. We are much more concerned now after hearing his position, and the arguments to end this program are even stronger.
http://org2.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=O4D4T8SqWG4Uq8B3kcOimivF7b3vw0bc
Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee Baca supports the Secure Communities program, as he explained a few days ago on the radio program "Which Way LA?" Ironically, the reasons he gave for his support are precisely the problems of a program that has been misused and is prone to being abused.
Secure Communities was intended as a public safety program to arrest and deport undocumented dangerous criminals. However, its implementation has strayed far beyond that goal, and people without criminal records have been arrested and deported. For example, it is estimated that 3,000 individuals, almost one-fourth of those deported from Los Angeles since August 2009 under this program, did not meet the definition of "dangerous criminal."
This is not a problem for Baca. According to his explanation, when an undocumented immigrant is arrested by a sheriff’s deputy, it is equivalent to being guilty of a crime since the undocumented do not have civil rights like everyone else. In practice, under the Immigration and Customs Enforcement program, being a suspect is the same as being found guilty of a crime.
This is the essential problem with this program. When suspects are taken to county jail by a police officer or sheriff’s deputy, they are within the reach of immigration authorities. Baca seems to think every arrest made by the police or sheriff’s deputies is justifiable beyond a shadow of a doubt. But it is common knowledge that this perfection does not exist and that —as with everything else— some officers abuse their authority, have bad intentions or just make mistakes during arrests.
When someone reports a crime and the officer in charge sees, perceives or thinks that there is an irregularity regarding the victim or the person reporting it, the situation can take a 180-degree turn and end in the complainant being deported. This can happen, and is a fear many undocumented immigrants have. Because of this, the enforcement of Secure Communities undermines the trust that exists between law enforcement and immigrant communities.
The Latino community does not support the Secure Communities program, as the sheriff believes. Everyone wants dangerous criminals to be taken off the streets, but not at the cost of deporting the innocent. Nor is there complete faith in the infallibility of an arrest such that it should be used to determine that a crime was committed and who committed it.
We have been worried about Sheriff Baca’s enthusiasm for the Secure Communities program. We are much more concerned now after hearing his position, and the arguments to end this program are even stronger.
President Obama on Fixing Our Broken Immigration System: "E Pluribus, Unum"
Posted by Jesse Lee
on May 10, 2011 at 05:52 PM EDT
In a debate where the participants on all sides are too often portrayed as caricatures, the President sought to break through the stalemate by reminding us all that it is a debate about real people. Speaking in El Paso, Texas, he talked about the graduates from 181 countries at Miami Dade Community College, who erupted with applause as the American flag came out before the President’s commencement address there recently. He talked about a Marine who came from Papua New Guinea and deployed to Iraq three times – when asked about becoming an American citizen, he said, “I might as well. I love this country already.”
He was also up front about the legitimate frustrations that American citizens, including those who immigrated legally, can feel:
"Others avoid immigration laws by overstaying their visas. Regardless of how they came, the overwhelming majority of these folks are just trying to earn a living and provide for their families. (Applause.) But we have to acknowledge they’ve broken the rules. They’ve cut in front of the line. And what is also true is that the presence of so many illegal immigrants makes a mockery of all those who are trying to immigrate legally."
Perhaps his central argument for fixing an immigration system that we all know is broken, however, was that it’s an integral part of America winning the future and creating a stronger economy for our kids:
"So one way to strengthen the middle class in America is to reform the immigration system so that there is no longer a massive underground economy that exploits a cheap source of labor while depressing wages for everybody else. I want incomes for middle-class families to rise again. (Applause.) I want prosperity in this country to be widely shared. (Applause.) I want everybody to be able to reach that American dream. And that’s why immigration reform is an economic imperative. It’s an economic imperative. (Applause.)
And reform will also help to make America more competitive in the global economy. Today, we provide students from around the world with visas to get engineering and computer science degrees at our top universities. (Applause.)
But then our laws discourage them from using those skills to start a business or a new industry here in the United States. Instead of training entrepreneurs to stay here, we train them to create jobs for our competition. That makes no sense. In a global marketplace, we need all the talent we can attract, all the talent we can get to stay here to start businesses -- not just to benefit those individuals, but because their contribution will benefit all Americans.
Look at Intel, look at Google, look at Yahoo, look at eBay. All those great American companies, all the jobs they’ve created, everything that has helped us take leadership in the high-tech industry, every one of those was founded by, guess who, an immigrant. (Applause.)
So we don’t want the next Intel or the next Google to be created in China or India. We want those companies and jobs to take root here. (Applause.) Bill Gates gets this. He knows a little something about the high-tech industry. He said, “The United States will find it far more difficult to maintain its competitive edge if it excludes those who are able and willing to help us compete.”
So immigration is not just the right thing to do. It’s smart for our economy. It’s smart for our economy. (Applause.) And it’s for this reason that businesses all across America are demanding that Washington finally meet its responsibilities to solve the immigration problem. Everybody recognizes the system is broken. The question is, will we finally summon the political will to do something about it? And that’s why we’re here at the border today."
The President also spoke about another piece of legislation that has been stalled in the stalemate over all things immigration-related -- the DREAM Act:
"And we should stop punishing innocent young people for the actions of their parents. (Applause.) We should stop denying them the chance to earn an education or serve in the military. And that’s why we need to pass the DREAM Act. (Applause.) Now, we passed the DREAM Act through the House last year when Democrats were in control. But even though it received a majority of votes in the Senate, it was blocked when several Republicans who had previously supported the DREAM Act voted no.
That was a tremendous disappointment to get so close and then see politics get in the way. And as I gave that commencement at Miami Dade, it broke my heart knowing that a number of those promising, bright students -- young people who worked so hard and who speak about what’s best in America -- are at risk of facing the agony of deportation. These are kids who grew up in this country. They love this country. They know no other place to call home. The idea that we’d punish them is cruel. It makes no sense. We’re a better nation than that. (Applause.)
So we’re going to keep fighting for the DREAM Act. We’re going to keep up the fight for reform. (Applause.) And that’s where you come in. I’m going to do my part to lead a constructive and civil debate on these issues. And we’ve already had a series of meetings about this at the White House in recent weeks. We’ve got leaders here and around the country helping to move the debate forward.
But this change ultimately has to be driven by you, the American people. You’ve got to help push for comprehensive reform, and you’ve got to identify what steps we can take right now -- like the DREAM Act, like visa reform -- areas where we can find common ground among Democrats and Republicans and begin to fix what’s broken."
Again turning to the real people affected by this issue, he told the story of José Hernández, who went from picking cucumbers and strawberries with his parents as a child to flying 100 miles above the surface of the Earth on the shuttle Discovery:
"Think about that, El Paso. That’s the American Dream right there. (Applause.) That's what we’re fighting for. We are fighting for every boy and every girl like José with a dream and potential that's just waiting to be tapped. We are fighting to unlock that promise, and all that holds not just for their futures, but for America’s future. That's why we’re going to get this done. And that's why I’m going to need your help."
See original article here: President Obama on Fixing Our Broken Immigration System: "E Pluribus, Unum
on May 10, 2011 at 05:52 PM EDT
In a debate where the participants on all sides are too often portrayed as caricatures, the President sought to break through the stalemate by reminding us all that it is a debate about real people. Speaking in El Paso, Texas, he talked about the graduates from 181 countries at Miami Dade Community College, who erupted with applause as the American flag came out before the President’s commencement address there recently. He talked about a Marine who came from Papua New Guinea and deployed to Iraq three times – when asked about becoming an American citizen, he said, “I might as well. I love this country already.”
He was also up front about the legitimate frustrations that American citizens, including those who immigrated legally, can feel:
"Others avoid immigration laws by overstaying their visas. Regardless of how they came, the overwhelming majority of these folks are just trying to earn a living and provide for their families. (Applause.) But we have to acknowledge they’ve broken the rules. They’ve cut in front of the line. And what is also true is that the presence of so many illegal immigrants makes a mockery of all those who are trying to immigrate legally."
Perhaps his central argument for fixing an immigration system that we all know is broken, however, was that it’s an integral part of America winning the future and creating a stronger economy for our kids:
"So one way to strengthen the middle class in America is to reform the immigration system so that there is no longer a massive underground economy that exploits a cheap source of labor while depressing wages for everybody else. I want incomes for middle-class families to rise again. (Applause.) I want prosperity in this country to be widely shared. (Applause.) I want everybody to be able to reach that American dream. And that’s why immigration reform is an economic imperative. It’s an economic imperative. (Applause.)
And reform will also help to make America more competitive in the global economy. Today, we provide students from around the world with visas to get engineering and computer science degrees at our top universities. (Applause.)
But then our laws discourage them from using those skills to start a business or a new industry here in the United States. Instead of training entrepreneurs to stay here, we train them to create jobs for our competition. That makes no sense. In a global marketplace, we need all the talent we can attract, all the talent we can get to stay here to start businesses -- not just to benefit those individuals, but because their contribution will benefit all Americans.
Look at Intel, look at Google, look at Yahoo, look at eBay. All those great American companies, all the jobs they’ve created, everything that has helped us take leadership in the high-tech industry, every one of those was founded by, guess who, an immigrant. (Applause.)
So we don’t want the next Intel or the next Google to be created in China or India. We want those companies and jobs to take root here. (Applause.) Bill Gates gets this. He knows a little something about the high-tech industry. He said, “The United States will find it far more difficult to maintain its competitive edge if it excludes those who are able and willing to help us compete.”
So immigration is not just the right thing to do. It’s smart for our economy. It’s smart for our economy. (Applause.) And it’s for this reason that businesses all across America are demanding that Washington finally meet its responsibilities to solve the immigration problem. Everybody recognizes the system is broken. The question is, will we finally summon the political will to do something about it? And that’s why we’re here at the border today."
The President also spoke about another piece of legislation that has been stalled in the stalemate over all things immigration-related -- the DREAM Act:
"And we should stop punishing innocent young people for the actions of their parents. (Applause.) We should stop denying them the chance to earn an education or serve in the military. And that’s why we need to pass the DREAM Act. (Applause.) Now, we passed the DREAM Act through the House last year when Democrats were in control. But even though it received a majority of votes in the Senate, it was blocked when several Republicans who had previously supported the DREAM Act voted no.
That was a tremendous disappointment to get so close and then see politics get in the way. And as I gave that commencement at Miami Dade, it broke my heart knowing that a number of those promising, bright students -- young people who worked so hard and who speak about what’s best in America -- are at risk of facing the agony of deportation. These are kids who grew up in this country. They love this country. They know no other place to call home. The idea that we’d punish them is cruel. It makes no sense. We’re a better nation than that. (Applause.)
So we’re going to keep fighting for the DREAM Act. We’re going to keep up the fight for reform. (Applause.) And that’s where you come in. I’m going to do my part to lead a constructive and civil debate on these issues. And we’ve already had a series of meetings about this at the White House in recent weeks. We’ve got leaders here and around the country helping to move the debate forward.
But this change ultimately has to be driven by you, the American people. You’ve got to help push for comprehensive reform, and you’ve got to identify what steps we can take right now -- like the DREAM Act, like visa reform -- areas where we can find common ground among Democrats and Republicans and begin to fix what’s broken."
Again turning to the real people affected by this issue, he told the story of José Hernández, who went from picking cucumbers and strawberries with his parents as a child to flying 100 miles above the surface of the Earth on the shuttle Discovery:
"Think about that, El Paso. That’s the American Dream right there. (Applause.) That's what we’re fighting for. We are fighting for every boy and every girl like José with a dream and potential that's just waiting to be tapped. We are fighting to unlock that promise, and all that holds not just for their futures, but for America’s future. That's why we’re going to get this done. And that's why I’m going to need your help."
See original article here: President Obama on Fixing Our Broken Immigration System: "E Pluribus, Unum
Senators Reintroduce the DREAM Act
May 11, 2011
Washington, D.C. - Today, Senators Richard Durbin, Harry Reid, and Robert Menendez re-introduced the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act. Last fall, the DREAM Act passed the House of Representatives, and garnered the support of a majority in the Senate, but was ultimately defeated when the Senate failed to invoke cloture and proceed to debate. The sponsors of the DREAM Act hope to build on last year’s momentum and continue to highlight the importance of fully utilizing the talent and potential of thousands of young people who are Americans in every way but their birth certificates.
First introduced in 2001, the DREAM Act would address the plight of young immigrants who have been raised in the U.S. and managed to succeed despite the challenges of being brought here without proper documentation. The proposal would offer a path to legal status to those who have graduated from high school, stayed out of trouble, and plan to attend college or serve in the U.S. military for at least two years.
Each year, approximately 65,000 undocumented students graduate from high school, many at the top of their classes, but cannot go on to college, join the military, work, or otherwise pursue their dreams. They belong to the 1.5 generation: immigrants brought to the United States at a young age who were largely raised in this country and therefore share much in common with second-generation Americans. These students are culturally American and fluent in English, growing up here and often having little attachment to their country of birth.
The moral, intellectual and practical rationale for the DREAM Act is overwhelming. The White House supports it. The Departments of Homeland Security (DHS) and Justice, entrusted with enforcing and implementing our immigration laws, support it. The Department of Education and America's academic and faith community support it, as well as state legislators, community groups, and the American public. The DREAM Act is even part of the Department of Defense's 2010-2012 Strategic Plan to assist the military in its recruiting efforts.
Despite broad support for the legislative proposal, the divisive political environment around immigration poses an enormous challenge for the DREAM Act. If Congress fails to act, the Administration can and should take more decisive steps to ensure that the values driving their legislative agenda are reflected in their implementation and interpretation of current law. DHS should ensure that its officers use their prosecutorial discretion to defer the removal of any eligible student caught up in the broken immigration system.
For research and resources on the DREAM Act visit IPC's resource page:
IPC DREAM Act Resource Page
IPC Executive Action Resource Page
Washington, D.C. - Today, Senators Richard Durbin, Harry Reid, and Robert Menendez re-introduced the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act. Last fall, the DREAM Act passed the House of Representatives, and garnered the support of a majority in the Senate, but was ultimately defeated when the Senate failed to invoke cloture and proceed to debate. The sponsors of the DREAM Act hope to build on last year’s momentum and continue to highlight the importance of fully utilizing the talent and potential of thousands of young people who are Americans in every way but their birth certificates.
First introduced in 2001, the DREAM Act would address the plight of young immigrants who have been raised in the U.S. and managed to succeed despite the challenges of being brought here without proper documentation. The proposal would offer a path to legal status to those who have graduated from high school, stayed out of trouble, and plan to attend college or serve in the U.S. military for at least two years.
Each year, approximately 65,000 undocumented students graduate from high school, many at the top of their classes, but cannot go on to college, join the military, work, or otherwise pursue their dreams. They belong to the 1.5 generation: immigrants brought to the United States at a young age who were largely raised in this country and therefore share much in common with second-generation Americans. These students are culturally American and fluent in English, growing up here and often having little attachment to their country of birth.
The moral, intellectual and practical rationale for the DREAM Act is overwhelming. The White House supports it. The Departments of Homeland Security (DHS) and Justice, entrusted with enforcing and implementing our immigration laws, support it. The Department of Education and America's academic and faith community support it, as well as state legislators, community groups, and the American public. The DREAM Act is even part of the Department of Defense's 2010-2012 Strategic Plan to assist the military in its recruiting efforts.
Despite broad support for the legislative proposal, the divisive political environment around immigration poses an enormous challenge for the DREAM Act. If Congress fails to act, the Administration can and should take more decisive steps to ensure that the values driving their legislative agenda are reflected in their implementation and interpretation of current law. DHS should ensure that its officers use their prosecutorial discretion to defer the removal of any eligible student caught up in the broken immigration system.
For research and resources on the DREAM Act visit IPC's resource page:
IPC DREAM Act Resource Page
IPC Executive Action Resource Page
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)