Mediaboss Marketing

By Kari Barbic

To be an American generally means to be from somewhere else. With the exception of those of Native American descent, U.S. citizens are the children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren, and so on, of the people who left another land to make a better life for themselves and their families. Immigration is the story of America. Its the story of my family, and Id wager its the story of yours. But when we lose sight of this, its easy to muddy the waters of an already complex issue, forget what its actually about, and focus instead on what it isnt.

1. Immigration reform is not about creating open borders.

Responsible immigration reform must address border security, especially in this post-9/11 world, according to Farm Bureau. But wed be remiss to not look to the numbers for the full story. Border security has increased, with double the number of agents employed on the Southwest border since 2000 (totaling more than 17,000 in 2016). U.S. Border Patrol reports apprehensions at the Southwest border to be at historic lows (408,870 in 2016 compared to 1,643,679 in 2000). Add to that, for the first time since the 1940s, migration flow between Mexico and the U.S. actually reversed from 2009 to 2014 due to several factors from increased border security to an improved Mexican economy, according to the Pew Research Center.

In fact, a recent Agriculture Department study found that taking an enforcement-only approach to immigration reform could do more harm than good by putting a strain on U.S. agriculture. An American Farm Bureau Federation economic study on farm labor found that consumers also would feel the impact of an enforcement-only option, with an increase in food prices of 5 to 6 percent, as the U.S. would be forced to bring in more imports of fruit, vegetables and meat to fill the gap in domestic production. Theres no way around it: shutting the door on a foreign workforce means sending agricultural productionand the jobs that go with itoverseas.

2. Immigration reform is not about giving away American jobs.

With a serious recession in recent memory and its effect still being felt in many regions, its not surprising that many Americans fear for their jobs when the topic of immigration comes up. But immigrants actually have a track record of boosting the American economy and adding jobs for citizens. According to USDA, agriculture supported 14.7 million food-related industry jobs in 2014. Farm jobs have a direct link down the food chain, but they are not easy to fill.

Immigrants are hard-working, most often taking the jobs Americans dont want or would rather not do. While foreign-born workers come to build a better life for themselves and their families, that process usually begins with tough manual labor. Although those gritty jobs are first offered to citizens, farmers and other business owners regularly report shortages in their workforce, forcing them to turn to H-2A and H-2B programs to help bring in the workers they desperately need to keep their businesses running.

3. Immigration reform is not about turning a blind eye to illegal entry.

Becoming a U.S. citizen is a longoften decades-longprocess, and its understandable why people may bristle at the idea of anyone breaking the rules and cutting in line. It goes against what we know to be fair in society. But we should also bristle at the idea of friends, neighbors and employees being turned out of their homes at a moments notice and separated from their families.

Achieving an adjustment of status should be tough, but fair. Undocumented workers with a proven track record of hard work and civic responsibility should not be given a free pass but should have the opportunity to follow a strict set of guidelinesincluding paying a fine and passing a criminal background checkto earn legal status.

While tackling immigration reform may not be a simple process, its critical to preserving the unique tradition our country was founded upon, protecting American business and improving our economy.

Contact: Kari Barbic Media Specialist (202) 406-3672 karib@fb.org

View post:
3 Things Immigration Reform Is Not - Farm Bureau News

In November 2014, the Clayton County Sheriffs Office announced it would no longer honor the federal governments request to hold detainees facing possible deportation beyond their scheduled release date on local charges.

The decision, in effect, madeClayton Georgias sole sanctuary community. Claytons policy largely went unnoticed and unchallenged during the past couple of years. But this week, the Trump administrations crackdown on undocumented immigrants has focused new atttention on Claytons claim, which is also at odds with state law.

News that Clayton may be a safe harbor for undocumented workers broadsided local leaders who now are scrambling to determine whether the county is, in fact, a sanctuary community. Sanctuary cities and communities are illegal in Georgia.

A year ago,state lawmakers tightened up their lawon so-called sanctuary cities by requiring local governments to certify theyre cooperating with federal immigration officials in order to get state funding. The state has banned local governments from having sanctuary policies for undocumented immigrants since 2008.

Along those lines, Clayton faces the prospect of losing federal money as well. President Trump has vowed to cut funding to sanctuary city communities in an effort to tighten national immigration laws.

Were trying to get to the bottom of this. We need to find out where this (designation) originated from and correct it and move on from there, said Clayton Commission Chairman Jeff Turner. We cant afford to lose any money.

Clayton officials have sent a letter to the Department of Homeland Security inquiring about Claytons status as a sanctuary community, Turner said.

The controversy surfaced this week after Clayton officials learned the county is the only community in Georgia listed on The Center for Immigration Studies national list of sanctuary cities. The center is a Washington, D.C. group that advocates for restricting immigration.

I was very surprised. I dont know where that came from, Turner said. He noted that officials in the sheriffs office told him they were not aware of ever claiming to be a sanctuary city.

A spokeswoman with Clayton Sheriff Victor Hills office did not return phone calls or respond to an email about the issue. At the time of the announcement, Hills office said it would not hold detainees beyond their release date and that federal authorities would need a judicial warrant in order for Clayton to hold them longer.

Sanctuary City is a term applied to local governments that dont fully cooperate with federal authorities. The communities often do not hold undocumented immigrants for pending federal violations and in many cases local governments will not inquire about the persons immigration status.

In metro Atlanta, different counties have taken different approaches to dealing with the federal government requests when it comes to immigration issues. Some hold the feds at arms-length when it comes to detainees while other extend a hand in helping with immigration enforcement.

DeKalb, for instance, notifies the federal government of pending releases but we wouldnt hold a person beyond their release date, said Sheriffs spokeswoman Cynthia Williams.

That said, Williams added, We dont consider ourselves a sanctuary city.

DeKalb instituted its policy in December 2014 - a month after Claytons.

Conversely, sheriffs departments in Cobb and Gwinnett are part of whats called the 287(g) program which gives them the ability to perform certain duties on behalf of Immigration and Customs Enforcement or ICE. Gwinnett has been part of the 287(g) program since it began in 2009. It enables deputies to identify and place detainers on illegal immigrant criminals for ICE, according to Gwinnett Sheriffs spokeswoman Shannon Volkodav.

In my opinion, a true sanctuary city is one that doesnt share information thats obtained in the course of the jailing or booking process, said Jessica Stern, who owns The CrImmigration Firm. That information, Stern said, would include addresses as well as dates and places of birth.

Stern said since 2014 she has defended about a dozen noncitizens undocumented immigrants as well as permanent residents with green cards who had arrests or convictions in Clayton that triggered possible deportation. None were deported.

They released my clients when they were supposed to be released on local charges, Stern said of Clayton. They didnt play hide-and-seek games waiting on ICE to see what they would do.

Stern said it was a stretch to label Clayton a sanctuary community.

I dont think its fair to have Clayton singled out in comparison to other counties, she said.Stern agrees with law enforcement agencies that stand up to federal authorities.

They are wanting to see probable cause as a basis for why they should hold people (longer), Stern said. Sheriffs are getting sued for holding people longer than theyre supposed to be held and they have had to pay damages because of it.

The Center for Immigration Studies compiles its list of sanctuary cities using information gleaned from ICE, which comes under the Department of Homeland Security, the centers spokeswoman Marguerite Telford said. The list was updated last month.

An estimated 300 sanctuary cities and counties rejected more than 17,000 detention requests from ICE between Jan. 1, 2014 and September 30, 2015, according to the center.

Theres a human costs to these sanctuary policies because the inevitable results is that criminal aliens who should be deported are released back on to the streets to commit more crimes, Telford said. Too many people have died and been raped because people have not been held.

The July 1, 2015 death of Kathryn Steinle, a San Francisco woman killed by a Mexican national with a lengthy criminal record who had been deported five times, became a flashpoint in the debate over immigration reform.

Trump cited the Steinle case during his presidential bid and some say it served as a lightening rod for his recent orders.

Stern believes Trumps actions are an effort to get buy-in from local law enforcement such as sheriffs departments to act on behalf of the federal government because theres not enough money or manpower for the federal government to carry out immigration enforcement duties.

Theres going to be more pressure on sheriffs than ever, Stern said.

The rest is here:
Clayton at center of Trump's national immigration reform efforts - MyAJC

TWIN FALLS, Idaho (KMVT/KSVT) - As the third largest dairy producing state in the county, the Idaho Dairymen's Association calls for federal legislation to create a legal workforce on Idahos dairies.

The Idaho Dairyman's Association, or IDA, issued a labor shortage petition caused by the national conversation surrounding immigration reform.

"So we think it's in the best interest of the country to provide legal status, and legal status isn't amnesty and legal status is not citizenship, but legal status for those workers who are already here," said Bob Naerebout, executive director of the Idaho Dairymens Association.

The petition calls for a visa program for dairy farm workers.

"The programs that are in place like the H-2A program don't work for dairy, they really don't work for other agriculture as well. They're too cumbersome, there's backlogs through the government to get people through, and then they're here for a limited time period and dairy and feedlots and other businesses need workers here 365 days a year, so we need some sort of program that can allow those workers to come in and work and fill that need, said Elizabeth Kohtz, a dairy veterinarian and the president for the Twin Falls County Farm Bureau.

The Idaho Dairymen's Association estimates that up to 90 percent of labor on dairies is foreign born. The US Department of Labor states that, across the agriculture industry, anywhere from 40 to 70 percent of workers do not have legal status.

"If you look at specifically in the Magic Valley, our foreign born labor both in food processing and on dairies and in agriculture, for us it's both Latino immigrants and it's also refugees, said Naerebout. Refugees have started to fill an important void for production agriculture and our plants to where they also have those jobs."

With Idahos three percent unemployment rate, Kohtz, said it's hard for dairies to find workers.

"These are good jobs, and we just aren't able to find American born workers to do the jobs and that's why immigration reform is so important, she said.

The IDA asks people to fill out the petition by the end of February. Their goal is to get 10,000 signatures, then they'll send it to Washington, D.C.

View original post here:
Idaho dairies seek immigration reform - KMVT

President Trumps executive order seeking to halt federal funding to sanctuary cities contends that the main function of such jurisdictions is to protect criminal aliens from deportation, and warns ominously of a public safety threat. The order also would have us believe that public safety would be enhanced if we expanded efforts to remove undocumented immigrants by enlisting local police in a mass deportation campaign.

Quite the opposite is true. Sanctuary jurisdictions 39 cities and 364 counties across the country have policies that limit local law enforcements involvement in enforcing federal immigration laws increase public safety.

Trumps executive order effectively revives two highly controversial programs that aimed to enlist state and local police and sheriffs in immigration enforcement: the 287(g) program and Secure Communities. The 287(g) program deputized local and state police and sheriffs to serve as immigration agentsand was phased out in the latter years of the Obama administration because of excessive costs and administrative inefficiency. Secure Communities required that people arrested and processed in county jails be screened for immigration violations, and it, too, was phased out during the Obama administration, as mounting evidence showed that the program encouraged racial profiling by local law enforcement.

Those responsible for maintaining law and order believe that sanctuary cities are an important tool for ensuring public safety. In a study published last year by the University of Chicago Press, Policing Immigrants: Local Law Enforcement on the Front Lines, researchers interviewed more than 750 police chiefs and sheriffs across the country. In red states and blue states alike, a majority opposed programs like 287(g), expressed serious concerns about involving their officers in immigration enforcement and said that immigration enforcement should remain a federal responsibility.

In particular, a majority of the interviewees placed a high priority on gaining the trust of immigrants. They reported that in places where local police had been involved in immigration enforcement, immigrants were far more reluctant to contact the police if they were victims of, or witnesses to, a crime. A majority also said that involving local law enforcement in immigration enforcement significantly erodes this critical trust.

Around 9 million people are members of mixed-status families who have both undocumented and legal-resident members. If interaction with police can result in arrest and deportation, this population will be reluctant to report crimes, make official statements to policeor testify in court. This undermines public safety for everyone, not just immigrants.

Additional evidence comes from another recent study, Legal Passing: Navigating Undocumented Life and Local Immigration Law, forthcoming from the University of California Press, for which more than 100 undocumented immigrants in Southern California were interviewed. In the regions 21 sanctuary cities and counties, undocumented residents were generally willing to interact with police. Their fears revolved around potential retaliation for reporting gang-related activity, not deportation.

But in cities that partnered with Immigration and Customs Enforcement, undocumented residents were anxious about contacting local police. One immigrant interviewed for the study had witnessed an attempted carjacking in a dimly lit parking lot. Although he disrupted the crime by shouting, he fled the scene when the victim called police, fearful that giving a statement would put him at risk of deportation.

Another rationale for Trumps attack on sanctuary cities is that their existence stimulates more undocumented immigration, but there is no evidence of such a magnet effect. Undocumented migrants, like the vast majority of immigrants in general, are drawn to the United States by economic opportunity and family ties. Some are fleeing gang and drug violence. None of these key drivers of migration would be weakened by the abolition of sanctuary cities.

Trumps rhetoric also presumes a strong link between undocumented immigrants and crime, but research consistently shows that immigrants are less likely than native-born citizens to commit crimes, including violent ones.

In the absence of comprehensive immigration reform that provides a path to legalization for most of todays undocumented population, sanctuary jurisdictions are an important tool for maintaining public safety. Punishing them fiscally and bullying their mayors and county executives into abandoning immigrant protections will sow fear among undocumented and mixed-status families, making them more reluctant to invest in homes, businessesand education. Meanwhile, very few are likely to self-deport. Two-thirds have been living in the United States for more than 10 years and retain no economic base in their countries of origin, according to a 2015 survey by the Pew Research Center.

We need immigration reform, but sanctuary cities are not the problem. Making undocumented immigrants feel more vulnerable serves no useful public purpose, however politically expedient it may be for President Trump.

Wayne A. Cornelius is emeritus professor of political science at UC San Diego. Angela S. Garca is a sociologist at the University of Chicago and the author of Legal Passing: Navigating Undocumented Life and Local Immigration Law. Monica W. Varsanyi is an associate professor of political science at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice and a co-author of Policing Immigrants: Local Law Enforcement on the Front Lines.

Follow the Opinion section on Twitter@latimesopinionandFacebook

Read the original:
Giving sanctuary to undocumented immigrants doesn't threaten public safetyit increases it - Los Angeles Times

Its quickly become a familiar arc in the volatile Donald Trump presidency. First, Trump issues a policy declaration that triggers massive protests in major cities. Then reporters descend on smaller places where they find Trump supporters who say they dont understand what all the fuss is about.

That geographic juxtaposition of Trumps defenders and detractors oversimplifies the dynamic following last weekends eruption against his executive order, which indefinitely bars Syrian refugees, temporarily suspends all other refugees, and temporarily bars citizens from seven Muslim-majority nations from entering the country. The huge crowds that mobilized against the orderjust eight days after millions turned out for the womens marches against Trumpgathered not only in coastal Democratic bastions like Boston, New York, Los Angeles, and Seattle, but also in interior cities like Kansas City, Nashville, and Boise.

Donald Trump Declares a Vision of Religious Nationalism

Yet the gulf between metro and non-urban America is real and widening. That chasm shaped 2016 results, with Hillary Clinton winning 88 of the countrys 100 most populous counties, and Trump carrying about 2,600 of the other 3,000. The unmistakable signal of Trumps first weeks is that his governing agenda will further divide the racially diversifying urban centers increasingly integrated into a globalizing information-age economy from the smaller places that feel excluded, if not threatened, by each of those changes. Its transformation against restoration.

The divide over Trumps protectionist trade agenda provides one measure of that split. But no issue presses at this fault line more powerfully than immigration. Today, his executive order is generating the shockwaves. But Trumps determination to build a border wall with Mexico, his exploration of new limits on legal immigration, and his (underreported) push to intensify the deportation of undocumented immigrants are likely to spark increasing resistance over timeas would any move against the so-called dreamers, who were illegally brought to the United States as children.

Immigration remains an important boundary line between the two Americas the parties now represent. Nationwide, people born abroad now constitute over 13 percent of the total populationthe most since 1910. But in both congressional and presidential elections, Republicans still rely mostly on the parts of the United States least touched by these changes. Thats one reason why, despite some defection primarily from legislators in swing states, Trump has avoided a full-scale revolt against his executive order from congressional Republicans, especially in the House.

In the House, nearly 85 percent of Republicans represent districts where the foreign-born share of the population lags below the national average, according to calculations from the Census Bureaus American Community Survey by my colleague Leah Askarinam. By contrast, over 60 percent of House Democrats represent districts where the foreign-born population exceeds the national average. In the Senate, Democrats hold most of the seats in the 20 states with the highest share of foreign-born residents32 out of 40. Republicans hold 44 of the 60 seats in the 30 states with the fewest.

Similarly, Clinton won 16 of the 20 states where immigrants represent the largest population share; Trump won 26 of the 30 where they represent the smallest share. Of the 100 House districts with the smallest share of foreign-born residents, Trump won 91 and congressional Republicans hold 87. Of the 100 districts with the largest share, Clinton won 94 and congressional Democrats hold 85.

These contrasts all follow the broader measures of demographic divergence between the parties in Congress. The districts with big immigrant populations also tend to have larger-than-average numbers of college-educated whites and minorities, whether native- or foreign-born. Seats with those characteristics are the foundation of the Democratic House coalition. Conversely, the preponderantly white, heavily blue-collar, and often non-urban districts that underpin the House Republican majority almost all have fewer immigrants than average.

Today these patterns favor Republicans because immigrantslike the overall minority population and white college graduatesare concentrated in fewer districts, mostly in urban areas. But each of those three groups is steadily growing as a share of the total population. Immigrants, and minorities more generally, continue to diffuse into new communities beyond the traditional big-city melting pots; dozens of mid-sized heartland cities are now actively recruiting immigrants to reverse population and economic decline.

Over time that diaspora may change the calculus for Hill Republicans who now feel little incentive to question Trumps immigration offensive. Ali Noorani, executive director of the National Immigration Forum, has spent the last several years carefully building support for immigration reform in red communities among law enforcement, religious leaders, and business executives, an experience he recounts in his compelling upcoming book, There Goes The Neighborhood.

Noorani acknowledges that few congressional Republicans represent communities that today feel directly threatened by Trumps immigration hard line. At this moment in time, they remain isolated from the [foreign-born growth], he said. But I would argue that the rate of change in the foreign-born population in [many of] these districts is faster than what we are seeing in other parts of the country. The bubble is going to pop in the very near future.

The appeal of Trumps brusque economic nationalism to blue-collar whites, especially in the Rustbelt, will challenge Democrats to make gains that offset his. That will raise the pressure on Democrats, both in presidential and congressional races, to make breakthroughs in metropolitan centers less receptive to Trumps insular agenda, particularly across the Sunbelt. But the Hill Republicans who are embracing Trumps defensive nationalism on immigration and trade face their own challenge. They are implicitly wagering they can continue to barricade themselves into districts sealed against a society growing more diverse demographically and globalized economically. If that gamble fails, the literal and symbolic walls against the world that Trump is constructing could prove a tomb for the Republican majorities in Congress.

More:
Are Republicans Taking a Gamble Supporting Trump on Immigration? - The Atlantic