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:

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Decline in Unauthorized Aliens Residing in US

Whether it is the economy or an increase in worksite enforcement, the number of unauthorized aliens in the United States has declined since 2008. According to the Congressional Research Service report published September 22, 2001, an estimated 10-11 million unauthorized aliens lived in the U.S. as of 2010, compared to over 12 million in 2007. The report surveyed the U.S. Census Bureau's Current Population Surveys (CPS) published since 1986, and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Office of Immigration Statistics (OIS) reports based on the U.S. Census Bureau's American Community Survey (ACS) since 2000.

The report analyzed data collected not only on the number of unauthorized aliens in the U.S., but also countries of origin, residence in the United States, and year of arrival. The majority of unauthorized aliens residing in the U.S. as of 2010, approximately 30% of the total population, entered between 2000 and 2004. Only 9% of the current unauthorized alien population entered the U.S. between 2005 and 2009 according to a 2010 CPS report. Unauthorized aliens migrating from Mexico have declined since 1986, from 69% to 57% in 2010, while aliens originating from Asia have increased by 6%. The greatest number of unauthorized aliens continue to reside in California and Texas. According to the report, Colorado is not even in the top ten states "with unauthorized resident aliens" with a 2010 headcount between 140,000 to 325,000.

Contributing factors to the rise and fall of the unauthorized alien population in the U.S. since 1986 included economics, legislation, and enforcement. Some analysts attributed the rise of unauthorized aliens to "lax enforcement of employer sanctions," introduced in 1986 (Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) of 1986). These analysts point to the decrease in unauthorized aliens since work site enforcement increased in 2007-2008. However, the decrease in population since 2007 may also be attributed to the 2008 housing downturn and the subsequent recession.

In addition, the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigration Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA) "may have inadvertently increased the population of unauthorized resident aliens." Among other penalties, the act introduced the three and ten year bars to admission for aliens unlawfully present in the US for 180 days or more. These provisions "coupled with incrased resources for border enforcement" in the wak of the 911 terrorist attacks, according to the report, have created a "caging effect" that has "stymied what had been a rather fluid movement of migratory workers along the southern border." The result of IIRIRA "raised the stakes" and "created an incentive for those who succeed in entering the United States to stay."

Bookmark this post with:

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

First Reported Cases Benefiting from 8/18/11 Obama Administration Announcement

Scattered reports in the media have indicated that the August 18, 2011 announcement by the Obama Administration may be starting to have some effect.

CNN reports that an Arizona attorney was contacted by Department of Homeland Security (DHS) officials and told that she should request that her case be dismissed. The Huffington Post reports that two teenage men in Georgia have also had their deportation cases closed under the new policy.

Despite these reports of what seems to be an implementation of the August 18 announcement, it is important to recognize that the announcement is not an amnesty and does not grant anyone legal status. There is no new application that can be filed or that a person can sign up for. The announcement does not create any new way to file for a work permit either. The American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) put out a consumer advisory warning that there is no sure way to know whether one's case would be safely considered "low priority" under the new announcement and no sure way to know that a particular "low priority" case won't be prosecuted anyway.

While it will be interesting to see if these sporadic reports turn into a general trend of closing cases deemed "low priority" by DHS, for the time being there seems to be little change on the ground.

To read the CNN article, click here;

For the Huffington Post article, click here;

To review the AILA consumer advisory, click here.

Bookmark this post with:

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Obama's Amnesty? Not so Fast

The Obama Administration announced on Thursday that it will make a case-by-case review of some 300,000 immigrants facing possible deportation in immigration courts around the country. The stated goal of the review is to focus on removing convicted criminals who might pose a threat to national security or public safety.

The Thursday announcement follows a June memo from the director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), John Morton, outlining when and how ICE agents could use prosecutorial discretion in immigration cases.

Administration officials, to this point speaking anonymously, have indicated that those whose deportations are put on hold may be eligible for work authorization. Whether this would come in the form of an order of deferred action or some other way is unclear.

In fact, much of how this new policy will play out on the ground remains unclear. We know that it does not give anyone a new path to lawful permanent resident status. As of yet, there is no known way to affirmatively apply to have one's case put on hold or to apply for work authorization based on the new policy.

How this new policy unfolds will depend on how DHS officers and attorneys implement it. Which immigrants actually end up benefiting from this new policy is still far from clear.

Read the Washington Post Article.

Bookmark this post with:

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

New Mexico Mandates Local Police to Inquire About Immigration Status Upon Arrest

The Santa Fe New Mexican reports today that Governor Susana Martinez has directed state police on Monday to start asking about the immigration status of people arrested for crimes. This follows a nation-wide movement toward using local law enforcement officials as lead enforcers of federal immigration law. At first glance, one might think that these laws make perfect sense. After all, what better time to figure out a person's immigration status than after she has been arrested for a crime?

The problem with mandatory directives like the one imposed by Governor Martinez is that it will cause a chilling effect between the local immigrant communities and the police. For instance, if a woman knows that her boyfriend does not have immigration status and they get into a volatile argument, might she be less likely to call the police when that argument starts to cross a line into abuse? Similarly, in some jurisdictions the police have mandatory arrest policies for domestic violence calls. If there has been a fight, many times both parties are arrested and the actual facts are sorted out later after the situation has been calmed. This possibility of a dual arrest could further dissuade domestic violence victims from contacting police. Our law enforcement officers rely on their relationship with the communities they serve in and we should think long and hard before enacting any policy which discourages victims and witnesses from reporting crime to police. As the country marches further and further toward using local law enforcement as the dragnet to round up and deport immigrants, such efforts in the name of the rule of law could actually come at the expense of the effectiveness of our local law enforcement.

To read the story about Governor Martinez ordering New Mexico Police Officers to inquire about immigration status on arrest, click here.

Bookmark this post with:

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

House Passes DREAM Act, Senate Vote Likely Today

By a 216-198 vote, the U.S. House of Representatives yesterday passed the Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors ("DREAM") Act, setting the stage for a vote in the Senate today.

The DREAM Act was drafted as a way to create a path to legal status for immigrants who were brought to this country illegally when they were under the age of 16. To qualify, the applicant would have to have lived in the United States for at least five years, obtain a high school or GED diploma, demonstrate that they are a person of good moral character, and attend college or serve in the armed forces for at least two years.

By most accounts, the DREAM Act faces an uphill battle in the Senate where it is likely to require 60 votes to overcome a filibuster.

To read the CNN article on the House vote, click here.

Bookmark this post with:

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Birthright Citizenship is Settled Law and Why We Shouldn't Change It

Over the last few weeks, politicians have been all over the cable news channels proposing hearings into whether the 14th Amendment really does mean that those born on American soil automatically citizens, regardless of whether their parents have immigration status. The crux of their argument (elaborated here) is the phrase in the 14th Amendment extending citizenship to those born in and “subject to the jurisdiction of” the United States. Some argue that this could be interpreted to exclude the children of undocumented aliens from birthright citizenship.

The problem with this argument is that it has already been heard and rejected by the Supreme Court in the 1898 case of U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark. Given the longstanding precedent on this issue, any change to birthright citizenship would need to come through an amendment to the Constitution.

Though some are loudly calling for just such an amendment, the reality is that the elimination of birthright citizenship would be disastrous public policy. America should be proud of its history of success in assimilating wave after wave of immigrants from all corners of the world, even in the face of different periods of anti-immigrant sentiment. That the children of immigrants are born as Americans and are invited to fully participate in our democracy is key to our incredible history of successful integration of immigrant communities into this nation. To take this away risks bringing up a generation of stateless children who speak English like any other American but have no incentive to buy into the system and become productive members of society.

As Linda Chavez points out in a recent Wall Street Journal opinion piece, “Our history has been largely one of continuously expanding the community of people regarded as Americans, from native-born whites to freed slaves to Indians to naturalized citizens of all races and ethnicities. Since the abolition of slavery, we have never denied citizenship to any group of children born in the U.S.—even when we denied citizenship to their parents, as we did Asian immigrants from 1882 to 1943. This expansive view of who is an American has been critical to our successful assimilation of millions of newcomers.”

If this formula has helped drive so much success throughout our history, why change it now?

Bookmark this post with:

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Immigrants Have Many Faces

In a recent interview with the news media Arizona Governor Jan Brewer stated that individuals entering the United States illegally are “accosted by drug cartels” and in essence forced into servitude as carriers of illegal drugs. Unfortunately, instead of envisioning the wholly inhumane treatment of a people constantly under siege and terrorized by the cartels, Governor Brewer continued to label individuals trying desperately to flee as “illegal trespassers” and “drug mules.”


The truth is that the United States has a severe problem with controlled substances. As law enforcement works diligently to keep illegal drugs out, cartels in Mexico and South America find new ways to supply the demand. Human beings are, in fact, daily “accosted” by the increasingly violent and cruel cartels that have a stranglehold on Mexico, its citizens and government.

However, it is important to remember that immigrants have many faces, many stories, many backgrounds, and a world of complications and issues that cannot possibly be encompassed in one broad, sweeping statement that all individuals entering the country are “drug mules.” Our only border is not the Southern Border, and our population of undocumented immigrants does not only come from Mexico. Not all individuals who immigrate to the United States do so illegally, not all individuals who are immigrants entered through our Southern Border, not all individuals who are presently in the United States without documents entered illegally.

The overwhelming majority of individuals who desire nothing more than a life in the United States want to be here legally, and with documents, whether they are escaping a life that many of us cannot even begin to imagine or not. If we as a country are ever going to solve the current problem we have of “illegal immigration” it is going to take a comprehensive overhaul of a system that is wholly archaic. There are many people who are unaware that individuals who are present in the United States without documents cannot simply “become legal” or even apply for themselves. Until we as a nation choose to fix the current law, our undocumented populations will grow.

In all fairness, no matter what side of the immigration debate one is on, no one believes in illegal immigration. Both sides want there to be a day when illegal immigration does not exist. The question is how, do we as a country, choose to address the issue.

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2010/06/27/jan.brewer.drug.mules.ktvk?hpt=T2

Bookmark this post with:

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
•