Mediaboss Marketing

Immigration hard-liners whose fortunes are rising under the Trump administration have released a confidential year-old letter from the Justice Departments immigration court that blasted left-leaning lawyers for targeting them with derogatory name-calling based on a report by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

At issue was the SPLCs repeated claim that the Federation for American Immigration Reform is a hate group as well as its escalating efforts to prove that the federation, which favors stricter control over legal and illegal immigration, is racist.

The immigration courts letter sent during the Obama administration does not resolve that dispute. But the decision to release it illuminates the fight for credibility in the national immigration debate, with both sides emboldened after the election of President Trump.

[Read the letter from the immigration court]

Advocates for immigrants, who have won key victories to block Trumps immigration crackdown in court, would like the government not to consider the views of the federation and its allies, whose leaders have made statements that critics say evoke racism.

But the federation and other critics of illegal immigration say they do not discriminate and are fueled by concern about jobs and resources for Americans. Trump has embraced many of their views and is appointing top officials whom they count as allies, including former federation director Julie Kirchner, recently named ombudsman for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.

What [immigrant advocates] want is to delegitimize all skepticism of the open-borders, globalist immigration model, as if such a position can never be legitimate for America, said Dale L. Wilcox, executive director and general counsel of the Immigration Law Reform Institute, the federations legal arm.

They label as morally deficient concerned citizens who happen to worry that theres a connection between things like immigration and urban sprawl or increased labor supply and lower wages.

Wilcox released a letter dated March 28, 2016, from the immigration courts disciplinary counsel, Jennifer J. Barnes, that resolved a dispute about whether the federation should be allowed to file friend-of-the-court briefs on issues before the Board of Immigration Appeals. The board had asked the federation and the American Immigration Lawyers Association to weigh in on cases for years, including in 2014 and 2015.

Lawyers for the SPLC and for groups representing immigrants involved in the cases objected to the request for input from the federation, arguing that it is a hate group, white supremacist, eugenicist, anti-immigrant, anti-Semitic and anti-Catholic, the courts letter said.

The federation called those descriptions McCarthyite ad hominem attacks and asked the board to sanction the lawyers.

In response, Barnes issued a four-page rebuke of the SPLCs lawyer and three others from immigrant advocacy groups. She said their efforts were frivolous behavior that overstepped the bounds of zealous advocacy.

None of this language was related or relevant to the underlying factual or legal matters or FAIRs amicus briefs, and its sole purpose was to denigrate FAIR and its staff, she wrote, using an acronym for the federation. Such language is not appropriate in a filing before the Board.

Barnes asked the lawyers to keep the letter confidential, and did not open a formal disciplinary proceeding. The lawyers said they took the letter as an informal reprimand.

Wilcox said his organization, which wants to slash legal immigration from about 1million people a year to 300,000 a year, an idea also floated by Trump and conservative members of Congress, did not initially consider releasing the letter. Then the SPLC added the federations legal arm to its formal list of hate groups this year. In response, the federation filed a complaint with the IRS against the SPLC, accusing it of violating its tax-exempt status by engaging in political activity, which the SPLC denied.

Richard Cohen,president of the SPLC, saidhis group researched the published papers and remarks of foundation founder John Tanton and other foundation officials and published them on its website. Among the many examples are a 1993 Tanton letter that said he favored a European-American majority in the United States. He also published a journal that critics said featured racist texts.

Cohen said the SPLC typically labels as hate groups those that vilify entire groups of people based on characteristics such as race, religion, ethnicity or sexual orientation.

The question is whether they are a biased advocate. Are their positions infected with racism? Cohen said. We would say yes.

The four lawyers targeted by the foundations complaints to the appeals board said Barnes never notified them about the criticism or gave them a chance to respond.

The foundation also filed state bar complaints against the four lawyers. Cohen and the other lawyers said the bar complaints were dismissed.

See the original post:
Newly released letter shows growing battle between groups in immigration debate - Washington Post

Sign Up for

Our free email newsletters

President Trump is a man who prefers blunt instruments: He thinks he can solve America's complex immigration issues with a "big, beautiful wall." Meanwhile, two members of his party Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin and Rep. Ken Buck of Colorado have come up with a vastly more elegant solution to help the country meet its future labor needs. (Sen. John McCain has signed on as a cosponsor, too.) There are no walls involved just a plan to let states set up their own guest worker programs.

Besides being inherently sound, the great upside of this approach is that it would sidestep the messy politics in Washington that have long made sensible immigration reform well nigh impossible. And we know that it works: It already does in Canada.

You wouldn't know this from all the restrictinionist screaming about mass immigration, but the American labor market is very tight, and growing tighter, as the latest jobs numbers show. On the high end, companies need at least twice as many foreign tech workers as Uncle Sam will let them hire. As usual, this year's annual H-1B visa cap for 85,000 high-skilled workers filled up within days of opening. Companies that don't land a visa this year will have to wait a year before they can re-enter the H-1B lottery by which time the foreign techie they were planning to hire will be working for an Australian or Singaporean company.

But high-tech companies are the lucky ones. Matters are far worse on the low-skilled front. Farmers need H-1A visas to hire farmhands. But the requirements for these visas are so onerous and the outcome so uncertain that they are practically unusable. Meanwhile, the demand for seasonal laborers in industries such as construction, landscaping, and hospitality is about four times the annual allotment of visas. The worst part, though, is that by the time federal bureaucrats are done processing the applications, the season is done.

Johnson and Kirk want employers to have options beyond the rotten choices Uncle Sam makes available. Their bill, called the State-Sponsored Visa Pilot Program Act of 2017, would give each state a modest 5,000 annual allotment to hire whoever it wants from abroad regardless of skill level, confining the federal government's role to conducting security and health checks. This allotment would be adjusted each year based on economic growth.

The foreign workers brought in on these visas would be confined to working in the sponsoring state or states that form a compact to honor each others' visas which is a whole lot better for workers than being tethered to the sponsoring employer. States that feel strongly about keeping out foreign workers don't have to participate. And to ensure that these workers don't skip town and illegally take up employment elsewhere, the participating states would require these workers to post a $4,000 bond that would be returned at the end of their term if they stayed put.

States that have more than a 3 percent non-compliance rate would lose 50 percent of their visa allotment the following year (and would be required to up their bond amount by $1,000 per visa). Conversely, those that meet the stipulated compliance rate which won't be hard to do given that only 2 percent of illegal overstays involve guest workers would be rewarded with a 10 percent increase in their visa quota in subsequent years.

These elaborate provisions were included to placate restrictionist states that don't want to be flooded with foreigners. But it's actually overkill, at least if the experience of our neighbor to the north is any indication.

Canada implemented a similar Provincial Nominee Program 20 years ago. And even without bonding and other requirements, provinces on average are able to retain 80 percent of the sponsored workers. This is particularly remarkable given that the PNP program hands foreigners' permanent residency the equivalent of America's green card and not temporary work visas as the Johnson bill is proposing. This means they are free to work anywhere in the country from the day they land in Canada.

Why have provinces been so successful in hanging on to foreign workers when they are free to work anywhere? Essentially because they do such a granular matching of foreign workers and local labor needs that these workers don't need to go looking for work in better climes.

One great upside of the Johnson-Buck approach is that it could offer a workable fix to the amnesty war by allowing states to sponsor undocumented workers as part of their allotments and potentially take them off the hands of states that don't want them. Utah's conservative legislature, appalled by its neighbor Arizona's harsh treatment of undocumented Latinos, has been asking the federal government for permission to do just that, in fact.

Immigration is a federal function under the U.S. Constitution, but that doesn't mean that Uncle Sam can't hand over some of its authority to states to craft their own immigration policies. Indeed, the Johnson-Buck proposal is in the best traditions of American federalism that allows states to become the laboratories of democracy on immigration, exactly as the Founders intended.

States that fear the fiscal burden or native job losses from more foreign workers can bow out. And those that believe the reverse can opt in without Washington imposing a one-size-fits-all solution on everyone.

Trump can keep pounding his fist and demanding his border wall. But this bill offers an amicable and costless way forward on an issue that has polarized Americans for far too long. It is no skin off anyone's back not even the most ardent restrictionists' and therefore deserves widespread support on Capitol Hill.

Read this article:
The GOP's brilliant new plan to copy Canada's immigration system - The Week Magazine

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

In a piece for The Huffington Post, Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) Executive Director Bob Dane explains that Trumps potential merit-based immigration overhaul would mean an end to the current system which favors immigrants who already have family in the U.S.:

Today, the U.S. remains a meritocracy in many respects, but not in one notable area: its immigration system. This is why PresidentDonald Trumpscallfor an immigration policy overhaul in favor of applicants whose skills and talents are most likely to benefit the country is so important. Such a merit-based policy would be a radical departure from the way we now select immigrants but one our nation desperately needs. We should not let history hold us back any longer.

For the last half century, America has maintained an immigration policy that can only be described as codified nepotism. Of the approximately1 millionnew immigrants who are legally admitted to the United States each year via green cards, about60 percententer for no other reason than that they have a relative in most cases a recently settled immigrant living in this country. Only about 15 percentof immigrants are admitted because of their skills, while the remainder are admitted onhumanitarian grounds.

Dane says the current system of family chain migration ends up a drain on American taxpayers, as they must foot the bill, writing In 2012, more than half of immigrant-headed households in the United States relied on at least one welfare program, compared with 30 percent of households headed by a native-born citizen, according to a report based on data from the Census Bureaus Survey of Income and Program Participation.

Trump, according to Dane, should focus on creating a merit-based immigration policy where only immigrants who have a high likelihood to succeed are admitted, as this would be in the national interest:

All prospective immigrants to the U.S. should be evaluated based on objective criteria. These include education, job skills and English proficiency. Admission should be granted to those who are most likely to be net contributors to our economy, complement our existing labor force and successfully assimilate into the mainstream of American society. The criteria for admission must also be fluid, understanding that the needs of the country and our economy change over time.

Dane also blasts the infamous open borders advocates favorite catchphrase We are a nation of immigrants in his call for immigration policy to move forward instead of sticking with past measures.

The ballooning population of the U.S., driven largely by legal immigration, is troublesome, as Dane argues, because it is ecologically and socially unsustainable and serves no national interest. Dane says he would like to an immigration system which is capped below 550,000 new immigrants a year.

Instead of the current system of extended family chain migration, where relatives to immigrants living in the U.S. are given priority over others, Dane says immigration should be scaled back to focus on not only skills, but on nuclear families, which solely include parents and their children.

Family-based immigration should be limited to nuclear families. People who choose to immigrate to the United States are making the decision to live apart from their extended families. There should be no reasonable expectation on the part of people who immigrate to the U.S. that our laws will guarantee them the right to have their entire extended families join them here. Moreover, in an age of modern communications and relatively affordable travel, extended family connections can be maintained without chain migration.

Danes support for Trumps pledge of a merit-based immigration system is just the latest endorsement the President has received. As Breitbart Texas reported, the majority of likely American voters say they want to see a merit-based immigration system, rather than the current family chain migration system.

Other immigration experts like NumbersUSA President Roy Beck and the Center for Immigration Studies Director Mark Krikorian have praised Trumps call for a merit-based immigration system, Breitbart Texas reported.

We were thrilled to hear the President once again place struggling American workers at center stage in the rationale for strong immigration enforcement, Beck said at the time. The best news for workers was the Presidents insistence that legal immigration must be reformed so it will stop depressing wages.

John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart Texas. Follow him on Twitter at@JxhnBinder.

More:
HuffPo: U.S. 'Desperately Needs' Trump's Immigration Plan - Breitbart - Breitbart News

Senator Ron Johnson (Republican, Wisconsin).

For the last century or more, immigration policy has been dominated by the federal government. Thats an inversion of what most of the Founding Fathers expected. James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, among many others, objected to the Alien Acts of 1798 in large part because the original meaning of the Constitution did not give Congress any general power to restrict immigration, but rather largely left the issue to the states.

We are unlikely to fully restore the original meaning of the Constitution. But earlier this week, Republican Senator Ron Johnson (Wisconsin), and Representative Ken Buck (Republican, Colorado), put forward a proposal under which states would exercise considerably greater power over migration. The proposal would allow each state to admit guest-workers from abroad for a period of up to three years, that could then be renewed by the state. The visas in question would still be issued by the federal government, but largely at the discretion of the states. Senator Johnsons version of the bill would enable each state to issue visas admitting up to 5,000 workers. There would be an additional pool of 250,000 visas from which states could draw, allocated based on the states population as a percentage of the total US population. In the House version of the bill, the numbers are smaller (2500 per state, plus an additional pool of 125,000). The numbers could potentially go up over time, depending on various factors, such as GDP growth. The cap for an individual state would increase by 10 percent in any year in which 97 percent of the guest-workers sponsored by that state complied with the terms of their visas and did not enter the black market. It would decrease by 50 percent in any year in which the state missed that target. After four years in which they missed the target, the state would be suspended from the visa program for five years.

Participating workers would be barred from virtually all federal welfare and health care benefits, including those available under the Affordable Care Act, the Earned Income Tax Credit, and other progams. The state visas also would not give participants either citizenship or permanent residence status, though Congress could potentially grant either in the future.

Unlike with the current federal H1B visa, Johnson-Buck state visas would not be tied to a particular employer. Workers would be free to change jobs, if they wish. That is extremely important, both because it deters mistreatment of workers by employers and because it enables workers to seek out new positions where they would be more productive, and thereby contribute more to the economy. However, workers would not be allowed to take jobs in a state other than the one that issued them the visa. If they do so, they would lose their legal status, and be subject to deportation. Given the enormous advantages of legal status, that is a significant deterrent to seeking out of state jobs. The proposal does allow participating states to form compacts under which guest workers admitted by one could also seek out jobs in the other, and vice versa.

If the bill passes, the guest workers admitted by the states would be among the biggest beneficiaries. Many thousands would get freedom and economic opportunity, and escape having to languish in poverty and oppression. That is important to consider, because it is unjust to make immigration policy without reference to the rights and interests of potential immigrants themselves. But American citizens also stand to gain, because immigrant workers make major contributions to the American economy. By channeling immigrants into legal employment, this program could also diminish deportations, which come at a high cost to taxpayers.

Wall Street Journal columnist Jason Riley and Cato Institute immigration policy expert David Bier have further commentary on the proposal, outlining several of its advantages. They point out that a state-based visa program would enable to states to make adjustments based on different local economic needs. As with political decentralization on other issues, it could also help mitigate the poisonous partisan conflict created by federal control, where a single, one-size-fits all approach is imposed the entire country. Regional visa programs have worked well in Canada and Australia, two diverse federal democracies with histories and political traditions similar to our own.

The key political question about this bill is whether it can get through Congress. Donald Trump has made clear that he wants to drastically cut legal immigration, as well as illegal. And some of his strongest allies among congressional Republicans feel the same way. By creating a system of state-issued visas without cutting any of those available under current law, the Johnson-Buck proposal would likely result in a substantial increase in legal migration, relative to the status quo. It is thereby a challenge to Trumps restrictionist agenda.

How many congressional Republicans will support the challenge remains to be seen. But it is significant that the proposal has been advanced by two influential conservative Republicans. Johnson is also notable for being Chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, which has jurisdiction over many immigration-related issues.

Another key political question is whether the bill will attract Democratic support. In recent years, Democrats have been increasingly favorable to immigration. But, historically, some elements of the far left have been hostile to it, especially when it comes to guest-worker programs. Senator Bernie Sanders, the rising star of the left, has a long history of hostility to increasing immigration and guest-worker programs (until making a partial reversal during the 2016 Democratic primaries). He once even described open borders as a Koch brothers plot against American labor. Hopefully, progressive Democrats growing sympathy for immigrants and understanding of their contributions to the economy will win out over the zero-sum thinking represented by Sanders and Donald Trump. This is one area where the two of them are eerily similar.

Ultimately, decentralization of immigration policy to the state level is not as good as the even more complete decentralization that would occur if these decisions were made by individual workers and employers. Among other things, the latter are in an even better position to judge relevant economic needs than state officials are. But a state-based worker visa program would still be a major improvement over the status quo. It would boost the economy, provide greater freedom and opportunity for many thousands of people, and save taxpayer money. As always, the best should not be the enemy of the good.

Read the rest here:
A federalist approach to immigration reform - The Washington Post - Washington Post

Markets are among mankinds most powerful inventions. Although they have existed in some form for several millennia, it is only in the past few centuries that we have used them to organize entire economic systems. Once we turned them loose, we unleashed a period of global growth unlike anything that had come before. They are not perfect, but they are truly remarkable and, like most economists, I am a big fan.

Prices are set and resources are allocated based on supply and demand. Innovation is encouraged and rewarded through the potential for profits on goods and services people want or need. Efficiency is mandated by the presence of or threat of entry by other producers. Competition leads to greater consumer choice and better pricing. Markets dont do everything, and there are certainly times when some type of intervention is helpful or necessary, but in general, market forces optimize resources to the benefit of all. Simply stated, markets see problems and solve problems!

What a lot of people have evidently forgotten amid all of the rhetoric of the day is that the increasing levels of immigration in recent years are simply an example of this process at work. Lets step away from all of the controversy for a moment, and look at the big picture.

As the baby boomer generation began to age, it became apparent that a labor shortage was looming. Markets go about the business of solving the problem in multiple ways after all, thats what markets do. There were massive investments in technology that substituted capital for labor or made existing labor more productive. Accommodations to keep people in the workforce also developed. Options such as flex time, job sharing and working at home are now common, and many workplaces offer day care and even parent care on site. Retirees have also been rehired on a part-time or consulting basis. In addition, companies are seeking and hiring workers from elsewhere through immigration skilled and unskilled documented and undocumented.

Immigrants are a vital part of the U.S. economy. The foreign-born population reached 43.2 million in 2015 (according to the Pew Research Center), and immigrants account for 13.4 percent of the U.S. population. That level is almost triple the share in 1970, and is only slightly below the all-time-high level of 14.8 percent immigrant which was way back in 1890. About 11 million of these immigrants are unauthorized.

The Pew Research Center estimates that in 2014, about 27 million immigrants were working in the United States, which is about 17 percent of the total workforce. Most of them are working legally, but about 8 million were undocumented. Lawful immigrants are most likely to be employed in professional, management, business or service jobs. Undocumented workers are most likely to be working in service or construction jobs.

Immigration fluctuates with the economy, particularly within the undocumented segment. During the 1990s and early 2000s when the U.S. economy was expanding, the unauthorized immigrant population was also rising. However, during the Great Recession, more people were leaving than entering, and the undocumented population decreased. Since that time, it has remained fairly stable. The number of unauthorized immigrants in the U.S. labor force has been in the range of eight million or so for several years, which is about 5 percent of the total workforce (they make up about 10 percent of the Texas workforce).

Given that most economists feel that the United States is currently at full employment, it would clearly be difficult to maintain current growth patterns without immigrants. In the future, immigrants and their children are likely to be an increasingly crucial aspect of the workforce as the U.S. population ages and baby boomers continue to retire.

Immigrants and, in particular, the undocumented population function as a flexible part of workforce, rising and falling with economic conditions. However, the process is riddled with inefficiencies, risks, and other problems because we dont recognize it for what it is: an essential way for U.S. companies to get the workers they need. It is no different than new technology or various workplace enhancements it is the refection of the market solving a problem.

Given this phenomenon, it makes perfect sense to enact reforms that allow the market to work better, thus allowing workers to enter and exit the country as needed. The risk to all parties could be eliminated, as well as much of the social cost. The artificial barriers that are now in place do nothing but drag down our economic potential. The market saw a problem. The market found a solution. If we would allow the market to do its work better, efficiency would be optimized, with greater prosperity as a result.

Continue reading here:
PERRYMAN: Common-sense approach to immigration reform - Odessa American