Archive for the ‘Immigration Reform’ Category

Is It Possible to Resist Deportation in Trump’s America? – New York Times


New York Times
Is It Possible to Resist Deportation in Trump's America?
New York Times
During the Obama years, most immigrant rights organizations focused on big, idealistic legislation: the Dream Act and comprehensive immigration reform, neither of which ever made it through Congress. But Puente kept its focus on front-line battles ...

Here is the original post:
Is It Possible to Resist Deportation in Trump's America? - New York Times

Cheshire Students Debate Immigration Reform – Patch.com


Patch.com
Cheshire Students Debate Immigration Reform
Patch.com
Using high-touch technology on tablets provided by the Institute, students took on the role of U.S. Senators and worked together to build and pass a bill renewing the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013.

Read the original here:
Cheshire Students Debate Immigration Reform - Patch.com

Government & Politics Comprehensive Immigration Reform Subterfuge – Patriot Post

A couple of politically tone-deaf GOP congressmen, Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) and Rep. Ken Buck (R-CO), have introduced the State-Sponsored Visa Pilot Program Act of 2017, a proposal aimed at allowing individual states to set up their own guest-worker programs. My concept of border security includes a robust guest-worker program, Johnson declared. Its going to be a whole lot easier to secure the border when youre not having to clamp down on people coming here to seek the opportunities that America provides.

While the federal government would still control the issuance of visas, states would be granted the discretion to admit guest workers for as long as three years, after which their visas could be renewed.

Johnsons proposal allows each state to issue visas to as many as 5,000 workers, and draw from additional pool of 250,000 visas based on the states population relative to its percentage of the nations total population. The House version reduces those numbers to 2,500 and 125,000, respectively.

In addition, states could increase their caps by 10% in any year where 97% of their sponsored guest workers comply with their visa requirements and stay out of the black market. Any year a state missed that target would engender a 50% cap reduction. A state missing its target for four years would be suspended from the program for five years.

To make the proposal more palatable, participating workers would be barred from accessing welfare state benefits, such as ObamaCare or the Earned Income Tax Credit, and granting citizenship or permanent resident status to these workers would be prohibited. Workers would be able to change jobs, ostensibly as protection against possible abuse, but would be required to seek other employment only in the state that issued the visa, unless states formed compacts allowing workers multi-state employment access. Violators would lose their status and be subject to deportation.

Unsurprisingly, champions of comprehensive immigration reform are extolling the proposals virtues. Columnist Shikha Dalmia hails the great upside of an approach that would sidestep the messy politics in Washington that have long made sensible immigration reform well nigh impossible. The libertarian Cato Institutes David Bier applauds an approach in accordance with Americas long tradition of federalism in almost every other policy area, one that has the potential to increase support for immigration across the country, allowing America to set aside harmful protectionism and move closer to an economically competitive system.

At what price? We begin with the American Lefts dream of unassailable power, underscored by the reality that the 500,000 guest workers who could enter the country on renewable three-year visas per year would be allowed to bring with them their spouses and children who would not be counted as part of the cap. Under Johnsons proposal, this would allow more than a million people to enter the country annually a country in which more than half of illegal aliens overstayed their visas rather than crossed the border.

Enter birthright citizenship. As the law stands now, the hypothetical American-born child of state-based guest workers would be granted immediate U.S. citizenship and access to federal benefits, National Reviews Fred Bauer explains. At the age of 21, a U.S. citizen can sponsor his or her parents to become permanent residents and, eventually, citizens.

As the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) notes, those citizens would overwhelmingly support Democrats. The enormous flow of legal immigrants into the country 29.5 million from 1980 to 2012 has remade and continues to remake the nations electorate in favor of the Democratic Party, a 2015 CIS report stated. A follow-up study by the University of Marylands James G. Gimpel confirmed that assessment, revealing, Each one percentage-point increase in the immigrant share of a large countys population reduces the Republican share of the two-party vote by nearly 0.6 percentage points, on average.

Add incrementalism to the mix. As Bauer warns, it wouldnt be long before Democrats would demand that guest workers and their families have access to at least some federal benefits, health care likely chief among them, even as they would smear Republicans as cold-hearted and anti-immigrant for resisting.

Bauer further notes the horrendous optics ripe for leftist exploitation, including tenements swollen with guest workers and their beleaguered families and tearful U.S. citizens waving goodbye to their guest-worker parents, who have to leave the country because theyve lost their jobs. He also worries about the diminishment of civic health attached to a large class of residents who are viewed purely as economic resources with no stake in American society.

If that sounds familiar, its because America abided a similar arrangement once before it was called slavery.

Hot Air columnist Jazz Shaw focuses on security, warning that though the H-1B visa program is exploited by large companies to replace American workers with cheaper foreign counterparts, its also one of the only ways to find out if someone is no longer complying with the rules or is in an overstay situation. This proposal would engender a red carpet invitation to abuse the visa system and disappear into the crowd.

Regardless, Johnson remains wedded to the prevailing and demonstrably false assertions driving ideas like this. We have a shortage of workers in all different areas of the economy, he insists. We need to recognize that a one-size-fits-all federal model for visas or guest workers doesnt work.

No, we need to recognize that, as is so often the case, government is determined to fix a problem on the wrong end. If there is a shortage of high-skill American workers in certain fields, it makes far more sense to reform a failing educational system that churns out Americans ill-equipped to compete in the 21st century economy.

As for the jobs Americans refuse to do, the notion that government would simultaneously underwrite millions of able-bodied dependents who refuse to work (or believe that certain work is beneath them) and the additional economic costs that attend themselves to accommodating millions of guest workers and their families is utterly absurd.

Last week, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) revealed 17% of the American labor force is foreign born. For the 25 million workers added to that work force between 1996 and 2016, the percentage rises to nearly 50%.

What percentage of foreign workers constitutes critical mass? One that adversely affects not only the economic future of millions of Americans but the nations societal and cultural ethos as well?

I had thought that the current agenda for any sort of immigration reform was pretty clear following the last election cycle, Shaw writes. There would be no discussions of amnesty or any other priorities of liberals and open borders advocates until the border was secure and progress was being made on getting at least the worst offending criminal illegal aliens out of the country. Apparently I was mistaken.

Once again, the publics foremost immigration concerns, as in national security and the Rule of Law, are being ignored by Republicans still pushing comprehensive immigration reform by any subterfuge necessary.

They would like to pretend the 2016 election never happened. But it did. And they ignore its mandate at their own peril.

Read the original post:
Government & Politics Comprehensive Immigration Reform Subterfuge - Patriot Post

COFFMAN: Sanctuary cities and the need for immigration reform – Aurora Sentinel

The question of sanctuary cities is a topic charged with emotion as the controversy has come to a head with the U.S. Justice Department demanding the cooperation of local law enforcement agencies in enforcing federal immigration laws. Sanctuary cities are those local jurisdictions that have taken a formal stand in refusing to cooperate with federal immigration authorities under any circumstances.

They are constitutionally correct in that the federal government cannot compel them to enforce federal laws but the federal government does have the discretion to withhold federal funds, particularly in the form of law enforcement-related grants, to these self-proclaimed sanctuaries.

The argument, from a federal perspective, is not only about enforcing immigration laws but public safety by deporting those with violent histories who are illegally in the United States. No doubt, local law enforcement resources are limited and they should not be expected to do the job of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials in ascertaining the immigration status of its residents but when it comes to public safety, they should do what they legally can do to cooperate with ICE.

However, the debate over sanctuary cities is misplaced and ignores the broader question of the need to fix our broken immigration system. Sanctuary cities are only a symptom of a much broader problem brought about by current immigration policies.

No doubt, we need to have secure borders and have rational immigration laws that are uniformly and strictly enforced. I believe that there should be zero tolerance for illegal immigration but I also know that immigration laws have either been completely ignored or selectively enforced for decades. For example, in November 2016, PEW Research published a study that estimated that one out of twenty workers, or 140,000, in the State of Colorado are here illegally.

The magnet for illegal immigration is the ability to find work in the United States. The best way to stop illegal immigration is less about building a wall than simply by mandating an E-Verify system on all employers, with stiff penalties for those who violate the law, to remove the incentive to come to the United States illegally to find work.

Today, only businesses with federal contracts are required to verify the legal status of their workers. Immigration reform must include an effective and efficient federally-mandated E-Verify system for all employers.

In fact, given that illegal crossings on our southern border have dropped to record low numbers, the majority of illegal immigration is now from visa overstays. This is when someone has a visa to come to the United States temporarily (i.e. a tourist visa) but never leaves.

There are no tracking and enforcement mechanisms in place when a visa holder is in the country beyond the expiration of their visa. Reforming our immigration system must include tracking visa overstays to make sure that they leave the country when their visas expire.

However, to get to a system of zero tolerance for illegal immigration will require a recognition that we have had immigrants who have lived illegally in the United States for most of their adult lives and that most have not violated laws other than immigration-related ones.

I believe that before we move to a system that strictly enforces the immigration changes that we agree to, we must be realistic in recognizing the need for a transitional period for those who have been residing in the United States illegally and give them a limited window of opportunity to come out of the shadows, undergo a criminal background check, pay a fine for having violated our immigration laws, and then be allowed to remain in the United States with a legal status that removes the fear of deportation and allows them to freely live and work in this country.

Unlike the adults who came illegally, who knowingly broke U.S immigration laws, there are many young people living in the United States who were taken to this country, illegally, when they were children.

They grew up here, went to school here, and often know of no other country besides the United States. They should also be allowed to remain in the United States but have a clear path to citizenship based on military service, work history, or through their education.

Sanctuary cites are only a symptom of a greater problem that requires fixing our broken immigration system and I look forward to working with my colleagues in Congress, on both sides of the aisle, to get the job done.

U.S. Rep. Mike Coffman represents Aurora and the 6th Congressional District.

Link:
COFFMAN: Sanctuary cities and the need for immigration reform - Aurora Sentinel

Our immigration mess needs real solutions not militarized enforcement – Fox News

This week'sOpinion article by Representatives Goodlatte and Labrador begins: One of the most important aspects of immigration reform is bolstering enforcement of existing immigration law. I and other immigration reformers agree with that statement, as far as it goes. The article then tries to make the case for legislation being marked up in the House Judiciary Committee, the Davis-Oliver Act. This proposed legislation doubles down on the enforcement-only strategy for immigration control first tried in California in Proposition 187 and enacted at the federal level twenty years ago. Lest we Republicans forget, the result of the first experiment was twenty years of Democrat dominance of state politics in California, and of the second was 11 million undocumented immigrants, two-thirds of whom have lived in the United States for at least 10 years.

Representatives Goodlatte and Labrador acknowledge at the outset that most unlawful immigrants come to the U.S. seeking a better life for themselves and their families. Their bill, however, does not deal with the reality created by the 1996 enforcement bill signed by President Clinton: for those who wish to immigrate legally, most paths to legal status were closed off, even if they were desirable immigrants who worked hard, payed taxes and supported U.S. citizen families. The authors of the 1996 closed off loopholes that were actually important safety valves in the immigration system. From the 1950s to 1996, for example, the law recognized that long-term illegal residents who had US family members that would suffer hardship if they were deported should be given legal status. The 1996 massively restricted the discretion of immigration officers and judges. The end result is millions of people in the United States who pay taxes and have families here, but who have no way to get legal because of the 1996 law.

Communities around the heartland are now getting a crash course in the consequences of the 1996 law. In Granger, Indiana, a woman who voted for Trump saw her husband detained and removed from the United States by ICE. Provisions of the 1996 law prevented her familys lawyers from getting her petition on his behalf considered. In Beaver, West Virginia, three men one married to a local woman and in the country for 20 years were detained for removal. By the time these detentions take place, it is likely too late for US citizen relatives to do anything for their loved ones.

The Davis-Oliver Act does nothing to try to help sort out the situation of these US families, or of other immigrants like those brought by their parents to the US at a young age, now grown up in the US but without status. Congress could address our outdated system to provide a path to legal status for people like medical students, servicemembers, and entrepreneurs brought here illegally through no fault of their own.

The House Judiciary Committees bill tries to ratchet up the failed promise of the 1996 Act: if only taxpayers spend even more money, allow even more incarceration, and permit assault-rifle-wielding federal officers in their communities, that people from other countries who share our values and have contributed to our country will no longer want to stay here. The Davis-Oliver Act would add 12,000 officers to the federal payroll and mandate arming them with assault rifles, nearly doubling the size of the largest armed police force in the federal government. It would increase detention mandates and enrich the private prison industry with further taxpayer millions. It would mandate that states and localities spend their resources to do the federal governments job, violating the Tenth Amendment more extremely than the Brady gun control bill that was struck down by the Supreme Court. It would also criminalize all immigration violations, a provision rejected by the Senate in 2005.

DHS Secretary Kelly recently stated that DHS has already substantially reduced illegal immigration merely by executing the laws Congress has already enacted. ICE has all the legal tools it needs to round up criminals, as well as immigrants whose only violation was to come seeking to become American. The real tools Congress needs to provide are paths back to legal status for those given no options by our outdated immigration system. Congress needs to provide that path to the majority of hardworking, honest immigrants who just want the chance to continue contributing economically to our country. Enforcement resources can then be focused on real dangers to our communities.

William A. Stock is an attorney and president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association.

Here is the original post:
Our immigration mess needs real solutions not militarized enforcement - Fox News