Sacramento Bee | Economy would benefit from meaningful immigration reform Sacramento Bee My family immigrated to the United States from Cape Town, South Africa, when I was just a year old, so I understand on a very personal level why people are willing to leave their family, friends and all that they know to start a new life here. |
More here:
Economy would benefit from meaningful immigration reform - Sacramento Bee
Sacramento Bee (blog) | State Latino leaders are ready to fight Trump on immigration. Here's why their approach is all wrong Sacramento Bee (blog) Would comprehensive immigration reform have protected many of the undocumented people now vulnerable to Trump's politics? Yes. No matter. For California leaders who have pledged to protect undocumented immigrants, Trump is an adversary they are ... Trump's hardline immigration rhetoric runs into obstacles including Trump 'We Are Turning the Clock Back' A day without immigrants: do such strikes have any impact? |
Read the original post:
State Latino leaders are ready to fight Trump on immigration. Here's why their approach is all wrong - Sacramento Bee (blog)
The Trump administration has been making news by suggesting that enforcement of the immigration laws public charge provision needs to be tighter enforced. The Washington Post reported on January 31, The Trump administration is considering a plan to weed out would-be immigrants who are likely to require public assistance, as well as to deport when possible immigrants already living in the United States who depend on taxpayer help
It has long been a tenet of immigration law that would-be immigrants may not be admitted if they are likely to be a burden on the U.S. taxpayer. If immigrant visa applicants cannot demonstrate that they will be self-supporting, they are excludable. In more recent times, provisions were adopted that allowed a third party to sign an affidavit of support for the visa applicant in order to overcome the public charge assumption for someone without a job to go to and without substantial savings would become a public charge. The problem with that procedure was that it has a very generous test of what level of support is required 25 percent above the poverty level. That is a level where many means-tested public assistance benefits are available. In addition, no means existed to hold the sponsor liable for the support that was promised.
For that reason, in 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) provided that means-tested benefits were banned to immigrants for the first five years they were in the country, and it required the sponsor to execute the affidavit of support under oath so that it could be legally binding. It allowed the immigrant to sue the sponsor if the support were not provided.
If that system were working as planned there would be no issue today. The flaws that continue to exist include the absence of a mechanism for government entities such as a public hospital to either recover costs of services to indigents from the immigrant or from the sponsor. Thus, there is no record of reliance on the public service.
The other major loophole was created by the Department of Justice in 1999, when it established that non-cash or special-purpose cash benefits are generally supplemental in nature and do not make a person primarily dependent on the government for subsistence. Those benefits include:
Medicaid and other health insurance and health services (including public assistance for immunizations and for testing and treatment of symptoms of communicable diseases; use of health clinics, short-term rehabilitation services, and emergency medical services) other than support for long-term institutional care,
Childrens Health Insurance Program (CHIP),
Nutrition programs, including Food Stamps, the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC), the National School Lunch and School Breakfast Program, and other supplementary and emergency food assistance programs,
Housing benefits,
Child care services,
Energy assistance, such as the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program,
Emergency disaster relief,
Foster care and adoption assistance,
Educational assistance (e.g., public school), including benefits under the Head Start Act,
Job training programs,
In-kind, community-based programs, services, or assistance (such as soup kitchens, crisis counseling and intervention, and short-term shelter).
Thus an immigrant may be paying no income taxes while receiving indigent medical care or other non-cash benefits as well as TANF, CHIP, and other benefits as well as means-tested welfare programs for U.S.-born dependents without becoming deportable under the public charge provision of the law.
These major loopholes in the application of the public charge provision may be what the Trump administration wants to revisit.
Read the original post:
Public Charge: Curtailing the Immigrant Burden - ImmigrationReform.com (blog)
Americans argue, persuasively I might add, that immigrants who qualify should be able to adjust to lawful status in the United States and eventually take steps to obtain lawful permanent residence by virtue of time spent as good and valuable residents.
A counter argument advanced by President Trump calls for forced removal. The president argues that we are a nation of laws and leaving the country is the first step in making things right. He believes that rewarding law breakers by permitting them to adjust to lawful immigration status in the United States is a prescription for chaos.
Since Trump is president of all Americans, its important to know where Americans stand on the issue. Recent polls indicate that nearly 70 percent of Americans favor a plan to permit non-legal residents who have resided here for more than 5 years, have developed equities and set roots in America, and have become productive members of society to have a path to lawful permanent residence. Only 1 in 5 American adults (19 percent) favor any type of forced deportation. Support from a majority of Americans for a path to lawful residence for individuals without legal immigration status has been stable for more than a decade.
As the nation tries to divine a course of action that will provide the greatest national good, we need to know which federal statutes were violated by individuals here without legal status. There are normally two types of violations: improper entry and unlawful presence. Both infractions are now and have always been civil, not criminal, violations of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Subsequent deportation and associated administrative processes that flow from these violations are civil, not criminal proceedings.
The distinction between civil and criminal law turns on the difference between redress and retribution. Lawmakers must be careful not to confuse redress with revenge. Civil law seeks redress of wrong doing by compelling compensation or restitution from offenders. The offender is not punished but suffers as much redress as is necessary to remedy the venial wrong that has been committed. In the instant case, the INA calls for a minimum of a $50 fine for first time violations of either statute.
On the other hand, when considering violations of criminal statutes, the main objective of the law is to seek retribution by punishing the criminal in a way that will provide a strong inducement not to commit another crime. In other words, that sentiment is to satisfy the public sense that wrongdoing ought to meet with strong punishment.
In ethics and law, the phrase "Let the punishment fit the crime" is a principle that means the severity of penalty for a misdeed or wrongdoing should be reasonable and proportionate. Proportionality requires that the level of punishment be scaled relative to the severity of the offending behavior.
Yet, when trying to conjure up comprehensive immigration reform legislation, there remains a temptation on the part of some in Congress to seek retribution by treating these infractions as though criminal acts. They seek to create heavy penalties in exchange for a path to lawful residence. They believe offenders must pay dearly for entering or remaining in the country unlawfully. Like Shylock, in the Merchant of Venice, they are determined to extract their pound of flesh.
Deporting the roughly11 millionnon-legal men, women, and children who now live in the United States, three-fifthsof whom have been here for more than a decade, for a violation of civil law would be horrendously cruel, inhumane and totally out of proportion to Americas sense of justice. The destruction of lives, families, and communities would be immense, with the worst trauma inflicted upon those children who have never known any home other than the one they had in this country. This is not redress; this is the most drastic form of retribution.
If the moral and ethical arguments along, with humanitarian concerns, arent persuasive enough, there is the question of cost. Rounding up, detaining, obtaining deportation orders and removing 11 million individuals will require an increase in the immigration enforcement budget of hundreds of billions of dollars. Plus, removing 11 million workers and consumers from the country would inflict significant damage on the U.S. economy. Its much like throwing the baby away with the bath water.
Soon, I expect some type of immigration reform legislation to be initiated. Nearly all Americans believe that a successful adjustment program should combine measured penalties with clear and achievable goals which will enroll the maximum number of people into a benefit program, identify the relatively few who do not belong here based on criminal activity,and integrate those who can contribute their talents as quickly as possible.
In 1987, Alan Bock wrote that our immigration problem is caused by the American Dream. The Dream, he wrote, although tattered around the edges and undermined by an accretion of rules, regulations and conventions is still alive. Those of us who have had the privilege of living here all our lives may have complaints about many things, but for those who view us from afar, whether from across the oceans or from across the border, this is as close to the Promise Land as this troubled world affords.
Just think how much richer America would be if we could re-discover our heritage of nourishing liberty and opening our hearts to those seeking the same legacy.
Lets draw the line at doing the right thing, America.
Ricardo Inzunza was appointed to serve as deputy commissioner of the former Immigration and Naturalization Service by President Reagan. During his 8-year appointment, his office was the central source for the development, implementation and oversight of all immigration service policies and practices.
The views expressed by contributors are their own and are not the views of The Hill.
Link:
Trump faces complicated road to immigration reform | TheHill - The Hill (blog)
February 17, 2017 5:17 PM
Students protest immigration reform outside Bryan Adams High School (Chopper11)
Follow CBSDFW.COM: Facebook|Twitter
DALLAS (CBSDFW.COM) Hundreds of Dallas ISD students left their campuses Friday to protest President Donald Trumps immigration reform plans for a second day in a row.
Students milled around outside their schools late morning as word began to spread on social media about a protest forming.
Many students wore black shirts for the walkouts that began around 2:00 p.m.
CBS11 saw dozens of students standing outside Skyline High School.
Students protest immigration reform outside Skyline High School (CBS11)
Its a cause and a protest against you know the President and to show we too can create an impact, said Antonio Hernandez, a junior at Skyline High.
Students also congregated at Molina High School in southwest Dallas.
The school went on lock down to prevent its students from joining the protest.
My parents are immigrants, said Molina High student Carlos Rosales. I want to protest for them. Because they cant say it, you know? So the protest is about them.
Several dozen students held Mexican flags and signs outside Bryan Adams High School at the end of the school day.
(2017 CBS Local Media, a division of CBS Radio Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.)
Read the original here:
DISD Students Protest Immigration Reform CBS Dallas / Fort Worth - CBS Local