Mediaboss Marketing

Americans love to joke theyll move to Canada for any number of reasons (Tim Hortons, poutine, healthcare). But some U.S. employers may be taking a serious look at their options thanks to recent, opposing moves by the Trump administration and the nation's northern neighbor.

While one country contemplates closing borders and pausing international visa programs in favor of domestic job development, the other has expedited visa programs, encouraging highly skilled, English-speaking talent from abroad to apply.

In other words, the U.S./Canadian border may be one front in the battle between prevailing worldviews over talent and globalization.

Talent shortages, particularly in tech or STEM positions, plague American employers of all types. Some companies, like InfoSys, have opted to reignite their U.S. hiring programs in response to the Trump administrations call to Hire American. Others have brought their concerns straight to the White House.

But more than anything else, employers in every country hate uncertainty. While solid immigration policy may still be years in the making in the U.S., companies are looking for solutions now.

And some are betting on Canada.

In the short-term, U.S. companies with international ties may weather the brewing storm over immigration and visa policies. But in the long term, employers already struggling to find talent may find some American wells have dried up and moved north.

Examining the American take on immigration requires a full-360 view of the other domestic concerns currently absorbing the White Houses attention. Immigration reform was one of Trumps main campaign platforms, but Republican Congressional leaders have focused mainly on the Affordable Care Act and pushing through tax reform and infrastructure planning.

Immigration has been lower on the priority list and that may not be a surprise to politicos.

Immigration reform has always been the bull in the china shop, Jorge Lopez, chair of the Global Mobility and Immigration Practice Group at Littler Mendelson, told HR Dive. Hes worked in immigration law for more than 30 years. Its there but no one wants to talk about it.

Its more common for immigration leaders to talk about enforcement first, then shift to visas and benefits, he noted, which is what we are seeing now. A new I-9 form was recently released and Trump has spoken favorably of E-Verify in the past. However, Trumps Hire American executive order did have a clause focused specifically on H-1B visas, changing the lottery award system to focus on skills so that American workers arent undercut by lower-cost foreign workers.

Proponents of the Trump stance on immigration tough on undocumented immigrants and calling for a reform of the guest visa program argue that visa limitations can actually help streamline the high-skilled immigration system and make it fairer. Various reports claim that large conglomerates unfairly hijack the visa lottery system, making it nearly impossible for other companies obtain any.

There is no consensus on the best way to handle immigration reform and its Rubiks cube of complexities.The conservative Heritage Foundation favors a visa auction system. Even liberal-leaning organizations like The Economic Policy Institute have advocated for an H-1B program that requires American companies to try and hire U.S. workers first and a lottery that favors employers who will pay visa holders more than the prevailing wage.

Immigration reform has seen bipartisan support in the past, but it often gets stalled in favor of other domestic issues or mired in debate over single elements of reform, such as deportations, Lopez said. Questions over staffing are rarely answered in the debate, leaving employers in the lurch.

Canada introduced its new immigration initiative, the Global Skills Strategy,in June. Evan Green, senior partner at Green and Spiegel and specialist in Canadian immigration law, broke it down for HR Dive.

The current plan splits employers into two categories: A and B.

Category A employers are those that are specifically increasing their employment levels in Canada and need foreign individuals to scale up their company overall. To qualify employers must:

Once approved, category A employers can then bring in specialized employees with an advanced degree or advanced experience (five or more years, usually, Green said) that will make upwards of $80,000 per year.

Category B employers include the short supply occupations, such as computer technology, web design, electronic engineering and the like jobs that many employers are struggling to fill worldwide. To qualify, employers must:

Once those qualifications are met, employers can bring in talent to fill their needs. If those employees are highly skilled and meet NOC 0 or NOC A requirements (essentially, Canadas skill classification system), such visas can be turned around in two weeks.

Employees are also scored on a point system, largely based on age, education, work experience and whether they have family in Canada. A PhD graduate who is fluent in English would score pretty well, Green said, and the points required for visas have come down.

Its obviously too early to tell how effective Canadas global skills initiative program will be, but it does represent an interesting conundrum for U.S. employers.

Canadas program emphasizes spending on local initiatives to encourage longer-term investments, which may not be ideal for every employer. But companies are curious, Green noted.

Companies are looking at this and asking, How do we take advantage of this? Green said. He has even heard of some companies considering moving their development centers to Canada thanks to the new plan, especially those in category B.

While U.S. H-1B visa applications reached their limit in only five days this year, the amount of applications actually decreased for the first time in five years. That decrease surprised Lopez, though he questioned whether some employers opted out of the process to avoid the issue entirely.

The Buy American, Hire American executive order could change H-1B visa management from a three-year approval period down to an 18-month approval period, which Lopez said would be horrible for businesses, as they would have to file for extensions more often.

That could make the H-1B visa more trouble than it's worth for many companies but many dont have much of a choice, Lopez said.

Could the U.S. see a brain drain to Canada? Looking at the current comparison, Green said, 100 percent yes.

A year ago, I would have said it was very hard for someone without Canadian work experience to apply to work in Canada, Green said. But now its easier.

For some employers, the skills gap is serious enough to warrant existential worry. Some see Canada as an option for expansion due to its proximity to the U.S., a shared language, similar government systems and their already-intertwined economies.

The issue is not so much immigration, per say, but filling the jobs that need to be filled in the U.S. economy, Lopez said. If those jobs cant be filled here, [employers] are going to look elsewhere.

The travel ban is its own Pandoras box. While direct impact on employers is limited, it did spread unease among immigrant communities, which could lead to long-term effects on American talent availability. Applications to Canadian universities have substantially increased at the same time that international applications to U.S. universities have decreased. Some speculate that this shift may be due to students uncertainty that they will be able to live and work in the U.S. after graduation, Green said, and that could post problems for U.S. employers five or 10 years from now.

Complex policy like immigration will not have fast or easy fixes. Immigration policy set now could have ramifications for years thanks to international student enrollment numbers and company strategy shifts that will be difficult to change on the whim of any administration.

Real discussions on immigration policy are unlikely until issues with the domestic talent pipeline are also addressed. A lack of proper upskilling, the image gap, bias and even opioids have all eaten away at the availability of American talent in a variety of industries.

In essence, immigration policy will likely remain mired in the culture wars a polarizing central tenet of the globalization versus insulation debate. Employers, in the meantime, will likely be following the available talent. Will that talent be in Canada? Time will tell.

View original post here:
As US immigration reform stalls, will employers be pressed to move to Canada? - HR Dive

The polls of white Americans also showed that American college graduates are even more opposed to immigration than the average American, flipping the commonplace claim that people with additional years of education are more welcoming of divide-and-rule diversity than are blue-collar Americans.

The little-known 2010 report also showed that almost three-of-four white liberals hide their preference for zero immigration. According to the survey, which was conducted in 2005:

Political liberals are considerably more likely than moderates or conservatives to conceal support for immigration restrictionism. While 26 percent of liberals claim to support cutting off immigration in response to a direct question, 71 percent of liberals [when asked indirectly] support immigration restrictionism.

The second poll was conducted in 2010 and was published in 2014. It showed similar opposition to any and all immigration plus a greater willingness by employed Americans to reveal their opposition. The second study concluded:

The results suggest that respondents mask their opposition and [that] underlying anti-immigration sentiment is far higher than direct estimates suggest even before the financial crisis We implore future efforts to measure anti-immigration sentiment to be cautious about direct measurement of opposition, as these measures underestimate anti-immigration sentiment both before and after the financial crisis.

The surveys help explain popular opposition to the establishment-boosted cheap-labor-and-amnesty Comprehensive Immigration Reform bill of 2013, and also help explain the hidden public support for candidate Donald Trump in the 2016 election.

Both polls focused on white people because they are cheaper and simpler to survey. Other polls show large but hidden opposition to immigration among African-Americanand Latinopopulations, who also share whites sympathy for striving migrants.

Under pre-Trump policies, the federal government annually imports 1 million legal immigrants into the United States, just as 4 million young Americans turn 18.The federal government also awards roughly 1.5 million temporary work permits to foreigners, grants temporary work visas to roughly 500,000 new contract workers, such as H-1B workers, and also largely ignores the resident population of eight million employed illegal immigrants. These new migrant foreigners serve both as lower-wage workers to drag down labor costs, but also as welfare-aided consumers to push up consumption of company products and services.

This nations cheap-labor immigration policy has a huge impact on the economy and it creates massive financial incentives for investors and employers to inflate public support formass immigration. For example, Facebook founder Marc Zuckerberg funded a skewed poll in 2014 to boost apparent public support for the Gang of Eight comprehensive immigration bill in 2013. In contrast, very few public polls try to find out what people really think about immigration.

The first of the two surveys were conducted by academic Alexander Janus, now teaching at Edinburgh University, and was published in December 2010 by the peer reviewed journal, Social Science Quarterly.It is titled The Influence of Social Desirability Pressures on Expressed Immigration Attitudes.Janus conducted his survey from October 2005 through February 2006 via the existing Time-Sharing Experiments for the Social Sciences survey.

He divided his sample of 700 non-Hispanic whites into two demographically similar groups.

The first group was told: Now I am going to read you three/four things that sometimes people oppose or are against. After I read all three/four, just tell me HOW MANY of them you oppose. I dont want to know which ones, just HOW MANY.The issues were federal government increasing assistance to the poor, professional athletes making millions of dollars per year, and large corporations polluting the environment.

The second group was presented with the same question and the same list of issues plus an unobtrusive fourth issue about Cutting off immigration to the United States.The first group showed the baseline answer and the increased response in the second group showed the hidden answer to the immigration question.

This chart shows the percentage of people who support cutting off immigration to the United States in theunobtrusive estimate column:

The unobtrusive column shows 61 percent of all respondents favor cutting off immigration. So do 71 percent of liberals, 63 percent of Democrats, 71 percent of college graduates but only 41 percent of people with postgraduate degrees.

The paper also shows that roughly one-third of the 61 percent or 19 points hide their real opinion from pollsters. Almost two-thirds of college graduates 42 points of the 71 percent also hide their opinions. According to the survey paper:

This study suggests that almost one out of three (31 percent) Americans who are in favor of cutting off immigration hide their restrictionist sentiments when asked directlly

This studys findings serve as a call to immigration scholars to be more sensitive to self-presentational concerns within the survey interview, a topic that for a long time has captured the interest of the racial attitudes literature but has received scant attention from scholars who study immigration.

The group effect question refers to a section where the pollsters asked people if they have a warm or cool attitude towards immigrants. It revealsonly a small difference between the two groups on cutting off immigration.

The second survey has793 people in the first control group, plus 816 people in the unobtrusive group who were asked the extra question about immigration. It is titled Has Opposition to ImmigrationIncreased in the U.S. after theEconomic Crisis? An ExperimentalApproach, and itconcluded:

Opposition to immigration, although higher thanthat estimated directly, does not increase after the economic crisis. Instead,the post-crisis period is marked by greater tolerance to overtly expressedanti-immigration sentiment, despite little change in the underlying truelevels of opposition.This suggests that the U.S. general population of referencesees appearing tolerant as less favorable/important.

A third careful academic survey on immigration shows that Americans attitudes about H-1B visas are not linked to attitudes about immigration by Indians, many of whom are H-1B workers. Instead, their attitudes about H-1Bs are based on worry about economic threats. The study is called Economic Explanations for Opposition to Immigration: Distinguishing between Prevalence and Conditional Impact.

When asked by Breitbart News about his survey, Janus responded by urging more studies to determine what Americans focus on when they think about immigration:

I would be cautious about drawing too much from the results of this study. Respondents could have had different interpretations of the immigration item. Does immigration refer to legal or undocumented immigration? My sense is that one of the most divisive issues is what to do about the people who are already in this country illegally, but we do not ask about this. Additional studies that use alternative methodologies that control for social desirability or that use alternative immigration questions are clearly needed.

The two studies show far greater opposition to immigration than most polls partly because most polls are designed to manipulate Americans white, Latino and African-American into declaring support for immigrants and immigration. In general, the poll numbers are easy to manipulate because Americans do like many individual immigrants, and they do want to be seen liking immigration.

But opposition to the mass immigration policies is often visible in the business-funded polls. For example, the 2014Zuckerberg poll got high approved for amnesty by asking skewed questions but it also showed that intense Latino concerns. For example, 78 percent of Hispanic respondents supported substantially increasing security among US-Mexican border. and 77 percent favored rules requiring companies to check job applicants documents.

The media is often loath to admit what the numbers show. A July 2016 poll by vox.com showed that Midwesterners were particularly opposed to immigration, foreshadowing Trumps decisive victory in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. But Voxs progressive staffers simply ignored their data and claimed that the numbers show public concerns about physical security crime and terrorism are more important than concerns about jobs and the economy.

Media polls are usually skewed by professional and political alliances. In fact, one D.C.-based pollster for a famous newspaper told his reporter in 2014 that he polled people to find out how they respond to questions, but not to find out what they really believe.

Pollsters and polling companies do not want to irritate business and political clients who favor the mass inflow of workers and consumers. So they have a commercial incentive to not collect, not notice and not publish anti-immigration, pro-American results from the public.

Pro-American advocacy groups have sometimes exposed the publics worry about mass-immigration but their data has been treated as unreliable.But a few pollsters have produced good data on the issue, including Kellyanne Conway, who helped Trump shape his pro-American not anti-immigrant message in 2016.

Very few media people have recognized the deep public opposition to mass immigration. For example, Julia Preston, the former chief immigration reporter at the New York Times, rarely wrote about the publics suppressed attitudes towards cheap-labor immigration. Instead, she served as a megaphone for foreigners concerns when she was employed at the NYT, and in her subsequent work as a reporter for the Marshall Project. For example, Preston wrotethis recent article about migrants worries:

Tens of thousands of families from El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala, and some from Mexico, came here citing their need forprotection from predatory gangs and criminal violence. Now, they face the prospect of being sent back to countries they fear have not become any less dangerous.

Of nearly100,000parents and children who have come before the courts since2014, most asking for refuge, judges have issued rulings in at least 32,500cases, court records show. The majority 70percent ended with deportation orders in absentia, pronounced by judges to empty courtrooms.

But her views are out of step with public opinion. For example, the comments by the mostly liberal readers of the Washington Postshowed near-universal hostility to Prestons welcome-the-migrants theme. The top-ranked comment, for example, says:

This is stupidity. Just because your home nation is filled with violence and savagery, doesnt make you Americas problem.I feel bad for these people, but they still have no case.

To read more about immigration polls, click here.

The currentannual floodofforeign laborspikes profits and Wall Street valuesbycutting salariesfor manual and skilled labor offered by blue-collar and white-collar employees. It also drives up real estate prices,widens wealth-gaps, reduceshigh-tech investment, increasesstate and local tax burdens, hurtskids schoolsandcollege education, and sidelinesat least 5 million marginalizedAmericansand their families.

Follow this link:
Surveys Show 60 Percent Opposition to all Immigration - Breitbart News

WASHINGTON An Immigration and Customs Enforcement operation to arrest people who entered the country without authorization as kids or as families ended up mostly sweeping up other people who officers encountered along the way.

Of 650 arrests carried out during the operation last week, 70 percent of those detained were not the targets, ICE officials said Tuesday. One-fifth of the total arrested had criminal convictions.

The Trump administration is carrying out what its officials promised: sweeping arrest efforts that do not exempt anyone, regardless of their criminal records or whether theyre the person ICE set out to detain.

The purpose of Operation Border Guardian/Border Resolve was to pick up people who came to the U.S. as unaccompanied minors or family units. But such people made up only about 30 percent of the total arrests: 120 people who entered the country as unaccompanied minors and 73 as part of families, versus 457 who were encountered during this operation, as ICE put it in a statement. An ICE spokeswoman confirmed that those 457 people were not the targets of the operation.

During targeted operations, ICE officers frequently encounter additional suspects who may be in the United States in violation of federal immigration laws and arrests them when appropriate after evaluation, the agency said in its initial statement.

To critics of the Trump administrations tactics, the fact that a majority of arrests were not the people ICE targeted is more evidence that while officials talk of going after MS-13 gang members and bad hombres, they see an upside to using random enforcement to scare people.

Seventy percent of people picked upjust happened to be living in the same neighborhood as those they sought to arrest, said Frank Sharry, president of the pro-immigration reform group Americas Voice. That is a neighborhood sweep, not a targeted enforcement action and it just shows how out of control ICE has become.

The targets of the operation, according to ICE, had been issued a final order of removal, with no pending appeals or motions to reopen their cases. The unaccompanied minors had turned at least 16 and had criminal histories or suspected gang ties, according to the release.

Illegally entering the United States as a family unit or UAC does not protect individuals from being subject to the immigration laws of this country, ICE acting director Thomas Homan said in a statement. I urge anyone considering making the dangerous and unlawful journey to the United States: Please do not take this risk. Ultimately, if you have no basis to remain in the United States, you will be identified, apprehended and returned to your home country.

Homan has previously defended ICEs arrests of people without criminal convictions, including those who had been regularly checking in with the agency for years or entered as children. When Donald Trump became president, his administration eliminated policies set under President Barack Obama to focus on certain immigrants for removal while declining to deport others under prosecutorial discretion.

If youre in this country illegally and you committed a crime by entering this country, you should be uncomfortable, Homan told a congressional committee in June. You should look over your shoulder, and you need to be worried.

View original post here:
ICE's 'Targeted Enforcement Operation' Mostly Arrests Immigrants It Wasn't Targeting - HuffPost

The news from San Antonio two weekends ago was sickening: Ten migrants died inside a trailer parked in a Wal Mart shopping center in sweltering heat. The victims were among as many as 70 human beings who were being smuggled into the United States by ruthless human traffickers.

The tractor-trailer where the migrants were locked in had no air conditioning. No water was available. This disregard for human life is not the first time ruthless human smugglers have show their callousness. Nineteen people died in a similar 2003 case in Victoria, about 123 miles southeast of San Antonio.

Federal lawmakers who have been unable to cobble together legislation that will end the loss of human lives, both in tractor-trailer trucks where they are packed like sardines, or in hostile environments of barren deserts.

It is easy to put the blame on human smugglers, but everyone who benefits from undocumented immigration bears part of the guilt. From the employers who hire them, to the customers who benefit from the crops they pick or the services they provide, to federal lawmakers who believe a secure the border first approach is the answer.

We are all guilty!

Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick placed the blame on the recent incident on sanctuary cities.

Sanctuary cities entice people to believe they can come to America and Texas and live outside the law, said Patrick. Sanctuary cities also enable human smugglers and cartels.

Employers and consumers in the U.S. also enable human smugglers and cartels. Without a market for their labor, undocumented immigration would dry up.

Efforts like Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) are just a Band-Aid for a serious issue.

So is a bipartisan DREAM Act introduced last month in the House which would allow hardworking young immigrants who arrived in the U.S. as minors to apply for legal status and eventual citizenship if they meet certain educational or military requirements, successfully pass a background check, and remain in good legal standing.

Like DACA, this does not address the majority of about 11 million undocumented residents who have worked, lived and stayed out of trouble in this country.

This is all political. When a bipartisan group of Senators introduced legislation in 2013 that would take a big step toward fixing the countrys immigration system, the House never brought it up for a vote. Never mind that there were enough votes to pass the bill.

President Donald J. Trump has made building a wall on the U.S.-Mexican border a high priority, even though experts doubt that will dry up undocumented immigration to this country. More than half of undocumented immigrants do so by overstaying their visa rather than by crossing the border.

Until this country gets serious about immigration reform, expect more deaths due to inhumane traffickers.

More:
Lack of immigration reform takes a deadly toll - Vida en el Valle

Ali Noorani. Photo by Joel Geertsma.

Ali Noorani is the director of the National Immigration Forum, an organization that highlights immigrants contributions to American society and seeks to reform immigration law. He was previously director of the Massachusetts Immigrant and Refugee Advocacy Coalition. Nooranis recently published book There Goes the Neighborhood: How Communities Overcome Prejudice and Meet the Challenge of American Immigration draws on his efforts to engage a wide range of conversation partners on the issue.

Whats gone wrong in the debate over immigration?

For years the debate has been about policy or politics. But for the majority of Americans, immigration is about culture and values. At the National Immigration Forum, we find that peoples first questions about immigration are: Is my culture going to change? Are my values going to change? Is my neighborhood going to change? We have to understand the cultural debate.

What do you mean by cultural debate?

People struggle with this issue through the lens of their faith, or through their belief that this is a nation of laws, or through a belief in a free market. Faith, a legal framework, capitalismthese are elements of American culture and these elements need to be engaged. In this case, I think the church in particular has a crucial role to play.

What does it take to engage these subjects?

It is first of all a matter of understanding where people are coming from. You have to listen to the language and listen to the concerns. After that, you can develop a way to have the conversation. Ive learned how important the language of welcoming the stranger is in a faith context, and Ive also learned why people are committed to wanting to live in a nation of laws that are obeyed. I appreciate the tension that sometimes exists between these two commitments.

Does the conversation on values depend on Americans sharing the same culture or set of values?

I am not sure that we do share a common definition of what it means to be American, but I think the way we recapture that common definition and understanding is not through the political process. We cant depend on political parties to provide moral clarity. We need to work through churches, schools, the military, businesses. That is where people are either forced to or given the opportunity to get out of their bubbles.

Do churches help people get out of their bubbles?

I write in the book about how First Baptist Church in Spartanburg, South Carolina, is welcoming Syrian refugees regardless of their religious identity. Spartanburg is small-town South Carolina. I think we can find lots of examples where churches are creating these bridges. In fact, Im not sure there is a more important institution in America than the church in resolving these differences.

What is the role of clergy and religious leaders in this conversation?

Russell Moore of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, Archbishop Thomas Wenski, and other faith leaders have shown me that the job of faith leaders is not to speak to matters of policy but to speak to the values and the cultural framework underneath a policy. If we ask a pastor to speak to a policy detail, we are actually taking one of the most trusted players off the field. Pastors can educate their congregations, but on matters of values, not about a particular visa program.

Do you find yourself, as a result of these conversations, thinking about policy in a different way?

My policy framework isnt different. The goal is still a functioning immigration system with legalization and eventual citizenship for the undocumented. But I realize we have to do a much better job of communicating how that framework of reform maps onto values that people are expressing. If we want conservative voters in the Midwest to understand why immigration is a benefit to them, we need to understand what their fears and hopes are. Over time, you can have a conversation where you move to clarity about what you agree on and what you disagree on. Once you have established that level of trust, you can look for a common set of principles and ways to share those common principles with networks.

Can you give an example of how this works?

In 2010 Utah was slated to be the next place after Arizona where a show me your papers law for immigrants was going to go into effect. Conservative faith leaders, law enforcement officials, and business leaders came together to find an alternative route. They developed what came to be called the Utah Compact, consisting of principlesnot policiesrelated to family, security, and the free market, principles that resonated deeply with Utahans. These principles became the rallying point for the initial group of signatories that included the Catholic Church, the Republican attorney general, faith leaders from the Mormon community, and the Utah Chamber of Commerce. It quickly moved into the legislature. The Utah Compact stopped the show me your papers law in its tracks.

Legislators recognized that their constituents did not want a replica of the Arizona law. They wanted something that fit the culture and values of Utah. So we could move forward on immigration if we could bring the right people into the room and articulate the right principles.

What is the future of this strategy?

Since 2011, the forum has put a priority on engaging faith leaders, law enforcement officials, and business leaders. We stumbled on the phrase Bible, Badges, and Business, based on the idea that if you hold a Bible, wear a badge, or own a business, you want a common-sense solution to the immigration system. We now have a network of trusted leaders who look to the forum for how to move forward.

Coming out of the election, I wondered if the network would stick together. A large number of people in our network voted for Trump. While a few have questioned whether we really need comprehensive immigration reform after the election, 99 percent of the network has stuck together. This network is finding its voice. For example, the Evangelical Immigration Table sent the Trump administration a letter urging it to help the Iraqi Christian community, which is being threatened with deportation. That might not have happened right after the election. The law enforcement community is also trying to find its voice, as Congress is considering enforcement-only legislation that they dont fully support.

How far out is comprehensive immigration reform?

Far. But if there is one president who could help pass comprehensive immigration reform, it is Donald Trump. He has an incredible opportunity to fix this problem. I am not sure his base will allow him to do that, but maybe there will be an opportunity. For the president, its a question of political will.

Could you offer me a story that gives you hope?

In Spartanburg we recently held an event at the Hispanic Alliance. There were more than 80 people in the room, and they included not only the Hispanic community, but representatives of the Baptist community, the local sheriffs office, and the business community. They all wanted to advance a constructive dialogue on immigrants and immigration in South Carolina, one of the most conservative states in the country.

A version of this article appears in the August 16 print edition under the title Talking together about immigration.

More:
Why churches still matter for immigration reform - The Christian Century