Call for "Humane" Immigration Policy in GOP Presidential Debate

Last night, the candidates for the Republican presidential nomination gathered for their eleventh debate (still thirteen to go). This debate focused on national security issues. Late in the debate, the topic turned to immigration policy and specifically on what to do with the 11 million people in the United States without immigration status.

While most of the candidates only spoke about the need to secure the border, Newt Gingrich, who is currently at the top or near the top of national GOP polling, set himself apart from the crowd by actually addressing the 11 million people who are already here and calling for a "humane" solution. Gingrich indicated that deporting someone who has been living, working, paying taxes, and attending church in the United States for 25 years is not practical and not humane.

"I do believe if you've come here recently and you have no ties to the U.S., we should deport you," Gingrich said, but he stated, "I don't see any reason to punish someone who came here at 3 years of age and wants to serve the United States of America," in apparent support of DREAM Act-type legislation.

Gingrich indicated that for those who have been here for a long period of time with deep roots in our community and have not committed crimes, there should be some way to legalize their status without separating families. He added that if Republicans want to be the party of families, they cannot support ripping these types of families apart. Gingrich recognized the potential political problems his stance could make for him in the GOP, saying, "I'm prepared to take the heat for saying, 'Let's be humane in enforcing the law without giving them citizenship but by finding a way to create legality so they are not separated from their families.'"

Gingrich, the former Speaker of the House with unquestioned conservative credentials, deserves credit for standing apart from the crowd and trying to shift the conversation toward realistic solutions in the midst of a GOP primary.

Mitt Romney's response to Gingrich during the debate was with unflinching opposition to anything that smelled of amnesty. Romney, though, has in the past taken a very similar position to Gingrich regarding those already in the country. As recently as 2007, Romney was quoted in the Lowell Sun newspaper saying, "I don't believe in rounding up 11 million people and forcing them at gunpoint from our country. With these 11 million people, let's have them registered, know who they are. Those who've been arrested or convicted of crimes shouldn't be here; those that are paying taxes and not taking government benefits should begin a process toward application for citizenship, as they would from their home country."

While it would be an overstatement to suggest that there is broad support for any type of immigration reform in the Republican party, the fact that two top candidates for the nomination are (or recently have been before becoming staunchly anti-amnesty) supportive of a humane and realistic approach to dealing with those already in the country without status is the first hint in a long time that there may be some daylight for future immigration reform.

Read the RealClearPolitics article on the immigration exchange in last night's debate here.

Bookmark this post with:

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Tancredo Either Dishonest or Completely Uninformed in 9News Debate with Julien Ross

On Tuesday, Will Ripley of 9 News hosted a debate on immigration and border-related issues with former U.S. Representative and Colorado gubernatorial candidate Tom Tancredo and Colorado Immigrant Rights Coalition Director Julien Ross.

Click here to watch a 9 minute clip of the debate.

For one of the loudest participants in our national dialogue on immigration issues, Mr. Tancredo displayed a surprising naïveté and ignorance on critical issues.

In the face of Mr. Ross’s point that 3/5 of the 11 million undocumented people in this country have been here for over a decade and are deeply rooted to their communities, Mr. Tancredo insisted that implementation of E-verify will cause them all to self-deport. Mr. Ross recommended a more comprehensive approach which would require the undocumented population to come out of the shadows and register, pay taxes, pay a fine, go through a background check, and learn English. This would immediately bring this population out of the shadows and allow immigration enforcement authorities to identify and focus on those who have been convicted of violent or dangerous crimes. In combination with an E-verify-type system, the proposals from Mr. Ross and others could be the backbone of a reform that would both deal with the 11 million undocumented people here now while preventing illegal immigration in the future.

Beyond his naïve belief that E-verify by itself will cause 11 million people to self-deport and resolve our immigration issues, Mr. Tancredo demonstrated startling ignorance of the law on his pet issue. At about minute 5:00 of the clip, the conversation turned to the DREAM Act (Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors). Mr. Ross told the story of a young man named Edgar who was brought to the United States as a seven year old, went to our schools, and then graduated from police academy. Our communities have invested resources in Edgar to educate him and now he is ready to serve his community as a police officer. But Edgar can’t do so because he does not have any documentation. The DREAM Act would allow people like Edgar to obtain a legal status and would allow our society to reap the benefits from these people that we have already invested our resources in.

Mr. Tancredo’s argument against the DREAM Act is that it is a way in which to give amnesty to all of the DREAM Act eligible person’s family members. At minute 6:10, Mr. Tancredo states that the “minute you become a legal resident, you have the ability to apply for that same residency for all of your family.” With Mr. Tancredo’s years of advocacy on immigration issues, he either knows that his statement here is completely untrue but says it anyway to try to advance his agenda or he has been utterly careless in researching an issue on which he holds himself out as an expert. First, DREAM Act students would not immediately become lawful permanent residents but would have to pass through a period of conditional status. Moreover, even when they do eventually become permanent residents, they cannot apply for that same status for all of their families. For instance, a permanent resident from Mexico can file an immigrant petition for his spouse, but under current wait times the spouse would not be able to gain resident status for years. The same would be true for the child of a permanent resident. Under section 1153(a) of Title 8 of the U.S. Code, a permanent resident cannot petition at all for his parents or brothers or sisters. If some day, say in 11 years (six years in conditional status plus five years as lawful permanent resident as required for naturalization), the DREAM Act kid successfully became a naturalized citizen, at that time he could apply for his parents and siblings. Of course, the siblings who were born in Mexico would have to wait for 15-20 more years under current processing times to be able to get their resident status.

The idea that the DREAM Act allows the beneficiary to get amnesty for his entire family “the minute he gets his status” is absurd and can be debunked with a few minutes of research. It’s not immediately clear which would be worse: if Mr. Tancredo knew this and lied about it or if he honestly doesn’t understand and hasn’t researched this issue that he spends so much of his time advocating on.

Kudos to Julien Ross of CIRC for his performance in the debate. As for Tom Tancredo, there are plenty of arguments to be made on different sides of the immigration debate and there is no need for him to make misrepresentations about the facts or the law. If he wants to carry the bullhorn for the anti-immigration reform crowd, he owes it to them research the issues and present the facts honestly.

Bookmark this post with:

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

ABC News Journalist Outs Self as Undocumented in Support of Dream Act

In the wake of Congress failing to pass the DREAM Act (Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors) last year, Jose Antonio Vargas decided to reveal his status as an illegal immigrant.

Vargas is an ABC News Journalist who won a Pulitzer Prize for his coverage of the Virginia Tech shootings in 2007. He arrived in the United States at the age of twelve from the Philippines and did not learn that he did not have immigration status until years later.

Vargas' story is one of many that should put a human face on the potential beneficiaries of the DREAM Act who ended up in the U.S. without immigration status through no fault of their own. Hopefully Congress considers his story and so many others like it and gets DREAM back on the table.

For more, click on the links:

-The short Denver Post article on Vargas speaking out

-Video of Vargas talking about being undocumented

Bookmark this post with:

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

DREAM Act Would Reduce Deficit Over Ten Year Period

The DREAM Act, a bill under consideration by Congress which would create a pathway to citizenship for the children of undocumented workers who meet certain requirements, would reduce the deficit by $1.4 billion over the next 10 years according to a Congressional Budget Office ("CBO"), and independent and nonpartisan agency. The deficit reduction would come as a result of the increase in revenues by having a larger pool of authorized workers.

The CBO report indicates that the longterm effects of the DREAM Act on the deficit are less clear and could potentially increase the deficit after 2020 when beneficiaries of the DREAM Act are eligible to become lawful permanent residents. But according to an article in the Huffington Post by Elise Foley, DREAM Act proponents argue that such longterm projections fail to take into account that beneficiaries of the DREAM Act will enter higher paying jobs over time and will thus increase revenue through paying more taxes.

The DREAM Act is expected to come up for a vote during the current lame-duck session.

To see the CBO report, click here.

Bookmark this post with:

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Dream Act

 Recent poll indicates that 70% of Americans are in favor of DREAM Act.  The DREAM (Development Relief and Education for Alien Minors) Act would allow certain qualifying undocumented immigrants who were brought to the United States when they were young children to become lawful permanent residents. Under the DREAM Act, students who have lived in the United States for at least five years could become lawful permanent residents, so long as they stay out of trouble, earn a high school diploma or G.E.D., and complete at least two years of college or military service. First Focus, a family-advocacy organization, recently conducted a poll that indicates that 70% of Americans are in favor of the DREAM Act, despite strong anti-immigrant rhetoric and a strong push for comprehensive immigration reform. First Focus’ president, Bruce Lesley, believes that the poll shows that most Americans are concerned that not allowing undocumented immigrant students to continue their educations beyond high school could spell harmful economic consequences for American society.  For more information on the DREAM Act, please visit: http://dreamact.info/
For more information on the First Focus poll, please visit: http://firstfocus.net/library/polling-and-opinion-research/public-support-for-the-dream-act

Bookmark this post with:

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
•