Archive for the ‘Illegal Immigration’ Category

OPINION EXCHANGE | Mexico’s misery, and a resurgence of illegal immigration, could be any new administration’s first crisis. – Minneapolis Star…

Since 2017, more than 1 million Central Americans have made their way to the U.S. southwestern border, triggering a disjointed but brutal crackdown by the administration of President Donald Trump. Although the combination of tighter border controls and the coronavirus has reduced these flows, they will resume when the COVID-19 lockdowns lift.

Only this time, Mexicans are likely to join the exodus. The resulting tensions could destabilize one of the worlds most tightly woven bilateral relationships, jeopardizing cooperation on everything from counternarcotics to water rights and the prosperity that closer ties have underpinned on both sides of the border.

Mexican migration to the U.S. peaked at the turn of the last century. At the end of the 1990s and early 2000s, hundreds of thousands of Mexicans moved north every year, many evading border sentries along the way. They fanned out across the nation, drawn to enclaves in California, Texas, Illinois and Arizona, but also to newer locations: Colorado, Florida, Georgia and Idaho. And many switched from seasonal work in the fields to more permanent year-round jobs in child care, landscaping, hotels and car services.

By the mid-2000s, the exodus slowed. For the past 15 years, more Mexicans have left the U.S. than come each year. This shift reflects economic progress at home, not least an end to the financial booms and busts of the 1980s and 1990s. Beefed-up enforcement at the U.S. border has also discouraged circular migration, with workers now rarely returning home for a few months between planting seasons.

Better schooling also helped. With the number of years of education nearly doubling since 1990, the average Mexican 16-year-old is in class, not the workforce. So have changing demographics: Starting in the 1980s Mexican families have had fewer kids, now averaging just over two per household. Compared with the 1990s, fewer Mexicans are turning 18 every year and searching for work either at home or in the U.S.

But in place of Mexicans came a swelling wave of Central Americans, driven by poverty, violence and devastating droughts due to climate change. The majority have been women and children, pulled, too, by the presence of family, friends and economic ties in the U.S.

The Trump administration has made aggressive efforts to stop them. It changed asylum rules, attempting to disqualify those fleeing gang or domestic violence, to limit the right to apply to those arriving at official border crossings, and to otherwise make it more difficult to seek protection. Those families who did enter the U.S. system were often subjected to inhumane living conditions, with children separated from parents and placed in detention pens resembling cages.

The U.S. leaned hard on Central American governments to stop these would-be migrants from leaving in the first place. Under pressure, Mexico also acquiesced to holding tens of thousands of Central Americans for months or more as they waited to have their claims heard in U.S. immigration courts.

The number of Central American migrants did decline. In the start of 2020, flows fell almost by half compared with the year before. With COVID-19 restrictions, the movement nearly ceased in April and May. Yet the reasons pushing families to leave havent changed. Instead, the pandemic is making them all the worse. And not just in Central America, but also in Mexico.

The biggest factor driving a resurgence of Mexicans north is economic desperation: Mexicos economy is expected to shrink by more than 10% this year. Even before the pandemic, both public and private investment had fallen to historic lows. Since then more than 12 million Mexicans have lost their livelihoods, as the government is doing little to keep companies going or preserve jobs. And in addition to the consequences of President Andres Manuel Lpez Obradors misguided economic policies, his reversal of education reforms has made it less important and likely that students will stay in school. Those who do will be less likely to learn the skills needed in a 21st-century Mexican economy.

Rising violence is also driving hundreds of thousands of Mexicans from their homes and communities. Last year homicides topped 34,000. The first half of 2020 has been even more deadly.

As these factors push Mexicans to leave, economic and familial ties pull them north. Mexicans represent the biggest migrant population in the U.S. (the majority here legally). Even with a soft U.S. economy, these fellow citizens can provide a contact, a first place to stay and a lead on a job for future aspiring migrants.

If the past is any guide, many more Mexicans will head north. Their numbers are already ticking up: Since January, more Mexicans than Central Americans have been apprehended at the border.

The Trump administrations methods to discourage Central Americans wont work with Mexico. Lopez Obrador and his National Guard arent able to stop citizens who have a constitutional right to leave their country. Mexican migrants are less likely to be asylum-seekers (even as many flee incredible violence), so the rule changes wont dissuade their journeys. And Mexicans are also more likely to succeed in making it into the U.S.; the nations proximity means that those who have been deported can easily try their luck again.

A migration surge could be a game changer for U.S. politics and policy. On the foreign policy side, it could rupture the bonhomie between Lopez Obrador and Trump, as migration becomes a defining electoral campaign issue. Mexicos president has so far ignored or endured U.S. slights, but a full frontal attack on his citizens would be harder to take given his long-standing (and popular) defense of Mexican migrants.

For the U.S. presidential race, a surge in Mexican migration would mobilize both sides. It would provide anti-immigrant fodder that Trump could use to feed his base. But his tirades could also motivate more of the tens of millions of Mexican Americans, weary of the ugliness directed at them by association, to turn out to vote. With Latinos representing 13% of the electorate, Democrats could benefit.

The hardest part will come later. Whoever wins in November wont have the policy tools to manage this migration effectively or humanely. Outdated laws and an already strained immigration system provide little recourse, and political polarization makes it all the harder to fix them. Mexican migration could easily become the new administrations first big crisis.

Shannon ONeil is a senior fellow for Latin America Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York.

Link:
OPINION EXCHANGE | Mexico's misery, and a resurgence of illegal immigration, could be any new administration's first crisis. - Minneapolis Star...

FAIR: Census Should Count Everyone, but Illegal Aliens Should Not Get Representation at the Expense of Legal Residents – PRNewswire

WASHINGTON, July 21, 2020 /PRNewswire/ --The following statement was issued by Dan Stein, president of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), in regard to President Trump's Executive Order mandating that only legal U.S. residents be counted in the Census for the purpose of apportioning congressional representation:

"Today's Executive Order by President Trump is an honest attempt to ensure that the Constitutional mandate to count every person residing in the United States and guarantee full and fair representation to every citizen and lawful immigrant will be carried out.

"For decades, the inclusion of illegal aliens in the Census tally for the purpose of apportioning representation in Congress has resulted in American citizens and legal immigrants being denied representation. The practice has also robbed Americans in some states of federal resources and awarded federal dollars to states with large populations of illegal aliens. Often, the states that gain representation and federal resources encourage illegal immigration through sanctuary policies and generous benefits to illegal aliens.

"The president's order instructs the Department of Commerce to use all available data to identify illegal residents and subtract them from the reapportionment count. While the available data cannot identify every illegal resident, Supreme Court precedent affirms the president's authority to act on the information that is available.

"The apportionment of federal representation is a zero-sum game. Additional seats in Congress are awarded to some states because they have large illegal alien populations, meaning that other states and their citizens lose seats and federal money. The process of including illegal aliens in the Census count for the purpose of reapportionment, as it has been practiced in recent decades, is fundamentally unfair to law-abiding Americans, and the president should be applauded for taking long overdue action to safeguard their interests and constitutional rights."

Contact: Matthew Tragesser, 202-328-7004 or [emailprotected]

ABOUT FAIR

Founded in 1979, FAIR is the country's largest immigration reform group. With over 2 million members and supporters nationwide, FAIR fights for immigration policies that serve national interests, not special interests. FAIR believes that immigration reform must enhance national security, improve the economy, protect jobs, preserve our environment, and establish a rule of law that is recognized and enforced.

SOURCE Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR)

http://www.fairus.org

See the original post here:
FAIR: Census Should Count Everyone, but Illegal Aliens Should Not Get Representation at the Expense of Legal Residents - PRNewswire

SUDDEATH COLUMN: How will history treat us? | Opinion – Evening News and Tribune

What were they thinking is the question most of us ask when we consider our ugly history of slavery and those who supported the cause.

Seeing statues of Confederate leaders razed before our eyes leads us to imagine how people of that time period could have justified such a barbaric and cruel enterprise. Theres no excuse or rationalization that can be offered to normalize enslaving another human being. It doesnt matter what time period our ancestors lived in, they were simply wrong for allowing the practice to continue as long as it did.

As we know, slaveholders werent just limited to the South. And as weve seen time and time again, racism isnt confined to one region of our country. There were always those who knew slavery was wrong, and some spoke out against it while others waited until a civl war was waged before truly taking a side. It was easy to justify slavery for some during the early 19th Century, just as systematic racism has been simple for those of us who have benefited from it to overlook because thats just how things are.

Were coming to grips with our reality, and we should always question our ways of thinking. Life evolves and so should we.

But as we castigate our ancestors and tear down statues, its important that we also hold ourselves accountable. Recent protests have brought to the forefront issues of police brutality and racism against black people, and hopefully well see meaningful change as a result of this movement. However, as we consider how history will view us in 150 years, we may realize that this is just the tip of the spear.

For example, think about how weve dealt with immigration, particularly over the past decade. Multiple presidential administrations have not seen a problem with locking kids in cages or having families torn apart in the name of fighting illegal immigration. Decades from now, especially with the Latino population projected to grow substantially in the coming years, how will our treatment of immigrants, both legal and illegal, be viewed?

Before you answer, remember that legality isnt ultimately a barometer of right and wrong. Slavery was legal in our country at one point in time. Until the Suffrage Movement, it was illegal for women to vote. Segregation was also within the rights of business owners during a time in our not so distant history.

Certainly rights for LGBTQ citizens have come a long way just in the last decade. From gay marriage to the Supreme Courts recent decision banning discrimination against LGBTQ employees in the workplace, several key victories have been won in the fight for equality.

But Im still young enough to remember when homophobic slurs were thrown around loosely and not just as locker room talk.

Many religions still stand in opposition to homosexuality. How will they be remembered in 150 years?

Who knows what the future might bring? Do you really believe in 2170, well still be eating meat raised from livestock?

Eating meat is so engrained in our society that we overlook obvious animal abuse. We dont view what we eat as being real, but share a link to a story about a dog market from China on your Facebook page and see how many angry emojis you get as a response.

In 150 years, its likely any meat we eat will have been created in a lab. Might we be viewed as animal abusers because of our current diets and our reluctance to view factory farming as inhumane?

Heres another topic thats always causing a stir and one honestly that comes down to opinion. How will abortion be viewed in the years to come? Will pro-choice be the norm, or will the practice ultimately be banned?

Many advocates believe abortion is a womans choice. If that standpoint ultimately withstands the test of time, will pro-life supporters be viewed as misogynistic and controlling?

What if abortion is ultimately banned? Will history label those who supported it as murderers?

How about guns? As thousands of people die to gunfire each year in our country, how will the topic be broached long after weve been laid to rest?

What about our culture? Will academics centuries from now judge us as being a little dense because we argue all day over societal problems while our movies glorify violence and our music praises womanizing?

Winston Churchill was famously quoted as saying History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it.

Churchill probably never would have guessed that in 2020, the words Was a Racist would be scrawled on his statue in Parliament Square.

The point is, whats accepted now may seem odd, if not downright evil, in the future.

The protests are causing many to argue over whether or not a group of people has the right to block a street, or if we need police, or if a statue should be torn down. What they should be teaching us is that we should always be cognizant of our decisions, that we should take part in our government and be active in the community, and that it might not hurt to envision how our lifestyles and beliefs may be viewed long after were gone.

Visit link:
SUDDEATH COLUMN: How will history treat us? | Opinion - Evening News and Tribune

Mexican president to hold first meeting with Trump on July 8 – Reuters

MEXICO CITY (Reuters) - Mexican President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador will hold bilateral talks with U.S. counterpart Donald Trump on July 8 in Washington, where he will underline his commitment to trade and investment, Mexicos foreign minister said on Wednesday.

FILE PHOTO: Mexico's President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador speaks during a news conference at the National Palace in Mexico City, Mexico June 29, 2020. Mexico's Presidency/Handout via REUTERS

The leftist Lopez Obrador has not left his country since taking office in December 2018, and paying his first foreign visit to Trump is politically risky because the Republican U.S. president is widely disliked in Mexico.

TheMexican president has described the planned visit, which is intended to celebrate the start of a new North American trade deal on July 1, as a matter of economic necessity.

Mexican Foreign Minister Marcelo Ebrard said Lopez Obrador would hold bilateral talks with Trump on the afternoon of July 8. Trilateral matters that include Canada will be on the agenda on the morning of July 9, he added.

Mexico wanted to stress its commitment to trade, investment and social welfare at the Washington summit, Ebrard told a news conference, standing alongside Lopez Obrador.

Trump said in a statement he looked forward to welcoming Lopez Obrador to the White House for talks on trade, health and security issues, as they marked the July 1 start of the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA). The USMCA is replacing the 26-year-old North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).

Mexico has urged Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to take part in the meeting, and Ebrard said he expected Canadas government to detail its plans soon.

So far, Canada had not responded to the invitation to participate in Washington, Lopez Obrador said.

Many Mexicans have held Trump in low regard since he described Mexican migrants as rapists and drug runners in his 2015-16 election campaign and vowed to make Mexico pay for his planned border wall.

He has also made repeated threats against Mexicos economy to pressure its government to stem illegal immigration.

Reporting by Dave Graham and Anthony Esposito in Mexico City; Additional reporting by Eric Beech in Washington; Editing by Bernadette Baum and Jonathan Oatis

Read the rest here:
Mexican president to hold first meeting with Trump on July 8 - Reuters

View: Trump’s H-1B visa suspension may have more to it than meets the eye – Economic Times

US President Donald Trumps decision to suspend work visas and pause issuance of green cards hits one country the hardest -- India. His executive order is temporary, but that wont shorten the chain of disappointment, or mitigate suffering of thousands of families.

Last weeks proclamation suspended H-1B (high-skilled workers), H-4 (spouses of H-1Bs), L-1 (intra-company transfers) visas, among others, until the end of 2020. The stated reason: the US economy and high unemployment. Unstated reason: shoring up Trumps base and tapping potential voters who have turned fearful of immigration because of the coronavirus pandemic.

There are two sides to the order: an obvious political one, and a potentially deeper regulatory problem, which could negatively impact hundreds of thousands of Indians awaiting green cards.

The executive order is red meat to Trumps base and completes the circle of his initial, Buy American, Hire American edict. Fear is easy to exploit in any political season, but its easier with an economy in dire straits and a second wave of coronavirus hitting the country.

Donald Trumps poll numbers are bad, and he seems nervous about re-election, going by his Twitter meter. He let anti-immigration hawkish advisor Stephen Miller loose to do what scores of US business leaders opposed. Apple, Google, Microsoft, Amazon et al have criticised the suspension of H-1B visas, saying it would hurt the US economy and lead to more off-shoring. Canada is already a beneficiary.

But the #AmericaFirst crowd is happy, and sees the decision as a much-needed correction. Critics have long claimed the H-1B progamme is nothing but a vehicle for cheap labour to be exploited by large corporations. In reality, H-1B visas have become increasingly burdensome.

So, whats the real impact of Trumps latest disruption? First, US embassies and consulates stopped processing visas on March 20 because of the coronavirus pandemic. Its unclear when those services will resume, and uncertainty adds to the misery of those caught in the middle.

Second, Trumps order affects future applicants, not existing ones. Trump clearly split the difference between Millers extremism and other advisors moderation. But if the economy doesnt improve and the suspension continues, things will get tougher.

Third, US companies have cut back on projected budgets as they try to stabilise in this virus-hit environment where safety regulations and social distancing make hiring more difficult.

Fourth, Indian IT companies have already adjusted their business models -- they are less reliant on H-1B visas. The story has changed over time given the constant attacks, bad press, rising visa fees, and the growing jungle of paperwork required for H-1Bs.

Indian IT majors have steadily increased local hiring with as much as 70% of the work force coming from within the US. Infosys, TCS, Wipro and Tech Mahindra have thousands of Americans working for them. That cant be news to Miller or the anti-H-1B lobby. But facts rarely interfere in an ideological battle.

Its true that most of the H-1B visa holders are Indian, and the vast majority are employed by US tech titans, not Indian companies. In 2019, of the 388,403 H-1Bs, 72% were from India. China is in second place at 13%. The story is the same for green cards.

This is where the regulations to enforce Trumps order could be the devil of the detail. The new regulatory framework is expected soon but no one knows when. If existing rules are changed, more than 350,000 Indian professionals on H-1Bs awaiting green cards could become vulnerable.

The Indian line is long, because the US issues 140,000 employment-based green cards annually, and the 7% per country limit has swelled Indian numbers over the years. They are perfectly legal as of now. But Miller and his ideological friends in various agencies could demand new labour certification through new regulations. That would prompt legal challenges taking the fight to the courts.

The US Congress could help by lifting the 7% cap on green cards. But a powerful Democrat -- Senator Dick Durbin -- has effectively blocked recent bipartisan efforts to do precisely that.

Everyone agrees Americas immigration is broken. Attempts at comprehensive reform have failed over the years because Democrats and Republicans cant agree on a fix. Tinkering and piecemeal solutions have given temporary relief. But thats about it.

Now the two parties are so far apart, a bipartisan solution seems distant. The Democrats essentially see immigration as a human right and want any deal to include a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants. The Republicans want no such amnesty, only the best and the brightest. Trump knows Americas mood has changed on immigration. He has been busy erecting walls.

Originally posted here:
View: Trump's H-1B visa suspension may have more to it than meets the eye - Economic Times