Mediaboss Marketing

Raquel Garay lives just a few minutes walk from the U.S.-Mexico border, the line that has separated her from her family for more than two years. Since being deported from the U.S., where she lived for more than 40 years, in 2013, she lives alone in a country that feels foreign to her while her husband, children and grandchildren remain just a few hours away, across a border bridge she cant cross.

The story is familiar for many deported immigrants, potentially hundreds of thousands, who have been torn away from their families in the United States. Its what spurred President Barack Obama to pledge last year a smarter immigration policy that focuses on deporting felons, not families. While he has pushed executive action to shield those with strong family ties in the U.S., he has also touted an 80 percent increase in the number of immigrants with criminal convictions deported from the U.S. during his presidency.

That stirs conflicted feelings for Garay, who is a convicted felon who was removed from the U.S. for a deportable, although nonviolent, offense -- and also a mother, grandmother and wife of U.S. citizens who had barely recovered from two devastating medical traumas in the family before their lives were again upended by her deportation.

"Its affected all of us here, said Mario Jr., Raquels 24-year-old son. They separated a family.

Raquel, now 54, had lived in the United States since age 12 after her parents brought her over the border in the 1970s. Eventually she married Mario Garay, a U.S. citizen, got her green card and built a home and family with him in Grand Prairie, Texas.

But soon, the Garays discovered that their infant daughter Celia was having problems with her sight. After going from doctor to doctor, Celia eventually wasdiagnosed with retinoblastoma, a rare form of eye cancer. But the cancer already hadprogressed by the time the diagnosis came, and the Garays had to have both Celias eyes removed.

While Mario worked to support the family, Raquel ferried Celia to a slew of specialist visits and treatments while helping her navigate the world without sight. Eventually, Celias condition stabilized and Raquel enrolled her in a school for the blind. But years of stress and worry already hadtaken their toll, and during that time, Raquel said, she began to make mistakes.

I got into a lot of trouble in my relationship with my husband, with my drinking, she said. I was thinking of the future -- what was going to happen with my daughter? She was blind, and she was going to be blind forever.

In 1997 she was arrested for possession of a controlled substance: less than 3 grams of cocaine found in her car. She was convicted of a felony and deported in 2000.

I had a lot of anger and a lot of sadness, Raquel said. I was going through a lot of trauma with my daughter's cancer. Its something you never get over. But she acknowledges it was still a grave lapse of judgment on her part. I know I made a lot of mistakes, she said.

Excerpt from:
Immigration Reform: When Deporting Felons Breaks Families Apart

Often discussed immigration reform will most likely be a long time coming, but several county residents are taking matters into their own hands, lobbying Congress to act now to speed up the waiting time for green cards.

Germantown resident Shyam Sriram is one of them. He is vice president of the Maryland Chapter of Immigration Voice, a grass roots organization concerned about the backlog of green card applications.

Its not ridiculous, its outrageous, Sriram said. The way the laws are written it can take 70 years to [get a green card].

A green card allows an immigrant to become eligible for permanent resident status and work in the U.S. It is also a first step towards becoming a U.S. citizen. It allows holders to open new businesses, change jobs, ask for a raise, travel to their home countries and return to the United States and be assured that they will not have to leave the country if they lose their jobs.

With an H-1B visa for highly skilled workers, that most Immigration Voice members have according to Sriram, those simple acts are difficult if not impossible.

Sriram, 35, came to the United States from India to attend graduate school at the University of Texas, Arlington. He has a masters degree in electrical engineering and works in the transportation business. He has a H-1B visa which allows him to work.

He has to stay with the same employer, in the same job he said. His employer is his green card sponsor and any change in his employment means he must reapply for a green card with the new employer as his sponsor and that would bump him to the end of the line. He has had his application for a green card in for six years, he said, and thinks it will take another 10 years.

Its a complex issue, he said. We want [Congress] to understand the immigration system should be fair to immigrants as well as Americans.

The system as it is now set up works to the advantage of big corporations, he said.

The problem right now is bigger companies are taking advantage of the system by hiring people and keeping them in the same position, he said. The unintended consequence is it hurts Americans as well. The way the law is written employers hire immigrants and keep them.

More here:
It

Now that a federal judge has enjoined President Obamas unilateral amnesty, immigration reform will have to be achieved the old-fashioned and constitutional way: by compromise with Congress. A grand bargain is not impossible, but it will require a broad re-framing of the issues and a clear sense of what is at stake. For one thing, any such bargain should end, once and for all, governmental discrimination on the basis of race.

Affirmative action and immigration might, at first glance, appear unrelated; in fact, they are profoundly and perversely intertwined. It is often said that anti-immigration sentiment is driven by a fear of competition; Americans are said to fear competing against new immigrants for jobs, for contracts, for educational opportunities. This account leaves out a crucial part of the story: Americans have never lacked competitive spirit or feared a fair fight. What many Americans fear is that these competitions will, in fact, be rigged from the outset. The sad fact is that they are right.

American law and policy will discriminate in favor of most immigrants those of favored races such as blacks and Hispanics and their children, and their childrens children. Correspondingly, American law and policy will discriminate against Americans of disfavored races Asian Americans, Indian Americans, Caucasian Americans and their children, and their childrens children. This discrimination is enshrined in federal law, in state law, and in private policy abetted by law. It is called affirmative action.

This systematic discrimination is pervasive in American life in private employment, state employment and federal employment; in state contracting and federal contracting; at private universities and state universities. And in practice, it is no mere tie-breaker; it is a massive thumb on the scale in favor of some races and against others. A first-generation Asian American who has made his home in, say, Wisconsin and worked hard to earn for his children their chance at the American dream might, in principle, favor liberal immigration reform, so that more ambitious immigrants might follow in his footsteps. This Asian American may be happy to know that the son of a new Hispanic immigrant who settles next door would have an excellent chance of claiming his share of the American dream: With a respectable GPA and LSAT, such a boy would have, for example, a 62 percent chance of admission into the University of Wisconsin Law School. But this Asian American also may know a deeply perverse and unjust fact: If his own son earns identical credentials, that boy will have a mere 16 percent chance of admission, simply because of his race. State law, federal law, private schools and public schools will all dramatically favor a Hispanic immigrants child over an Asian American child, simply on the basis of race. This is one of the great injustices of American life, and it is one of the great political and moral hurdles to immigration reform.

As a political matter, there is a natural bargain here. Democrats believe that immigration is a winning political issue for them; they believe that it makes them look compassionate while it makes Republicans look churlish. Affirmative action, on the other hand, is a political winner for Republicans; polls overwhelmingly oppose it, and it allows Republicans to argue for the ringing principle of equality under law, while Democrats are left to defend the status quo of institutional discrimination and racial spoils. The connection between these two issues creates the potential for a grand congressional compromise. Republicans could agree to comprehensive immigration reform, if Democrats would agree to end governmental discrimination on the basis of race.

Meanwhile, for President Obama, this would be more than a political victory; it would be a historic moral triumph. There is a broad consensus that our immigration system is broken and that it can be downright cruel in its current dysfunctional form. President Obama has wanted to achieve immigration reform since before the beginning of his presidency. As for affirmative action, President Obama is uniquely well qualified to explain the moral case for equality under law. His soaring speech in Selma last month reminded us all of how eloquent he can be on this topic: as he declared, the heroic marchers of 50 years ago didnt seek special treatment, just the equal treatment promised to them almost a century before. Our newest Americans seek exactly the same thing. It is President Obama alone who can say to them:

Welcome to the United States of America. We are a nation of immigrants, a nation of opportunity. We are not a land of discrimination; we are a nation of equality under law. This is a nation where the son of a Kenyan immigrant may grow up to be president of the United States. Come to our shores and we make you this promise: We will treat you like everyone else. We will not discriminate against you based on your race, your color, your country of origin. And we will not discriminate in your favor either. Your children will be treated like our children. We will not discriminate in favor of your daughters on the basis of their race. But neither will we discriminate in favor of my daughters, Malia and Sasha, on the basis of theirs. We know that, like the marchers at Selma, you seek not special treatment but equal treatment, and that is what we promise you. You are welcome here, and we offer you a uniquely American constitutional guarantee. We promise you our Fourteenth Amendment promises you equal protection of the law.

This is the speech that President Obama was born to give, a speech that no one else could, a perfect complement to his speech at Selma. In one historic moment, he could renew the pride that we all felt six years ago when our first black president swore his oath of office. He could at once reform our immigration laws and, in the same moment, redeem the true promise of equal protection the promise, in Justice Harlans words, that [o]ur Constitution is color-blind and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens.

In 2008, President Obama promised to fundamentally transform[] the United States of America; here, at last, is the transformation that would assure his legacy. For the first time in American history, we could welcome immigrants of all colors to the nation of Martin Luther Kings dream, a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. And President Obama could, for all time, be the one who made Martin Luther Kings dream come true.

Continue reading 10 minutes left

Read the original post:
Volokh Conspiracy: Immigration and Equality

A growing number of officials from U.S. cities are urging a Texas judge who blocked President Barack Obamas executive action on immigration to consider what they say are the significant harms the delay imposes on local governments. More than 70 mayors and state representatives across the country have signed the Cities United for Immigration Action, an effort spearheaded by New York Mayor Bill de Blasio and Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti highlighting the Deferred Action for Parental Accountability, theexpansion of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals andthe perceived benefits immigration reform has for cities across the country.

Continuing to delay implementation of the Presidents executive action on immigration hurts our economy and puts families at risk, de Blasio said in an emailed statement Monday. Among the advantages cited in the groups brief, filed Monday, are job creation, increased local tax revenue and improved public safety. Our cities are united, and we will fight for the immigration reform this nation needs and deserves -- whether in the courtroom, in Congress, or in our communities. Make no mistake about it: our voices will be heard, said de Blasio.

In November, Obama bypassed Congress in signing an executive order shielding nearly 5 million immigrants from deportation and granting benefits to some parents of citizens and legal residents. The topic has become an important talking point among lawmakers leading up to the 2016 presidential elections.

Republicans quickly denounced the unilateral movement and accused the president of overstepping his boundaries. A U.S. District Judge in Texas later blocked the actions after 26 states, led by Texas, sued to have the President Obamas actions stopped.

Democrats have defended the presidents action. I proudly stand with my fellow Mayors throughout the country in support of President Obamas executive actions on immigration that promote family stability, economic growth, and community cohesiveness, Boston Mayor Martin J. Walsh said in the statement. Mayors see firsthand the importance of having immigrant populations in our cities and likewise, the detrimental effects of a broken immigration system.

Go here to see the original:
Immigration Reform 2015: US Cities Call For Delay Of Obama Executive Order To End

Now that a federal judge has enjoined President Obamas unilateral amnesty, immigration reform will have to be achieved the old-fashioned and constitutional way: by compromise with Congress. A grand bargain is not impossible, but it will require a broad re-framing of the issues and a clear sense of what is at stake. For one thing, any such bargain should end, once and for all, governmental discrimination on the basis of race.

Affirmative action and immigration might, at first glance, appear unrelated; in fact, they are profoundly and perversely intertwined. It is often said that anti-immigration sentiment is driven by a fear of competition; Americans are said to fear competing against new immigrants for jobs, for contracts, for educational opportunities. This account leaves out a crucial part of the story: Americans have never lacked competitive spirit or feared a fair fight. What many Americans fear is that these competitions will, in fact, be rigged from the outset. The sad fact is that they are right.

American law and policy will discriminate in favor of most immigrants those of favored races such as blacks and Hispanics and their children, and their childrens children. Correspondingly, American law and policy will discriminate against Americans of disfavored races Asian Americans, Indian Americans, Caucasian Americans and their children, and their childrens children. This discrimination is enshrined in federal law, in state law, and in private policy abetted by law. It is called affirmative action.

This systematic discrimination is pervasive in American life in private employment, state employment and federal employment; in state contracting and federal contracting; at private universities and state universities. And in practice, it is no mere tie-breaker; it is a massive thumb on the scale in favor of some races and against others. A first-generation Asian American who has made his home in, say, Wisconsin and worked hard to earn for his children their chance at the American dream might, in principle, favor liberal immigration reform, so that more ambitious immigrants might follow in his footsteps. This Asian American may be happy to know that the son of a new Hispanic immigrant who settles next door would have an excellent chance of claiming his share of the American dream: With a respectable GPA and LSAT, such a boy would have, for example, a 62 percent chance of admission into the University of Wisconsin Law School. But this Asian American also may know a deeply perverse and unjust fact: If his own son earns identical credentials, that boy will have a mere 16 percent chance of admission, simply because of his race. State law, federal law, private schools and public schools will all dramatically favor a Hispanic immigrants child over an Asian American child, simply on the basis of race. This is one of the great injustices of American life, and it is one of the great political and moral hurdles to immigration reform.

As a political matter, there is a natural bargain here. Democrats believe that immigration is a winning political issue for them; they believe that it makes them look compassionate while it makes Republicans look churlish. Affirmative action, on the other hand, is a political winner for Republicans; polls overwhelmingly oppose it, and it allows Republicans to argue for the ringing principle of equality under law, while Democrats are left to defend the status quo of institutional discrimination and racial spoils. The connection between these two issues creates the potential for a grand congressional compromise. Republicans could agree to comprehensive immigration reform, if Democrats would agree to end governmental discrimination on the basis of race.

Meanwhile, for President Obama, this would be more than a political victory; it would be a historic moral triumph. There is a broad consensus that our immigration system is broken and that it can be downright cruel in its current dysfunctional form. President Obama has wanted to achieve immigration reform since before the beginning of his presidency. As for affirmative action, President Obama is uniquely well qualified to explain the moral case for equality under law. His soaring speech in Selma last month reminded us all of how eloquent he can be on this topic: as he declared, the heroic marchers of 50 years ago didnt seek special treatment, just the equal treatment promised to them almost a century before. Our newest Americans seek exactly the same thing. It is President Obama alone who can say to them:

Welcome to the United States of America. We are a nation of immigrants, a nation of opportunity. We are not a land of discrimination; we are a nation of equality under law. This is a nation where the son of a Kenyan immigrant may grow up to be president of the United States. Come to our shores and we make you this promise: We will treat you like everyone else. We will not discriminate against you based on your race, your color, your country of origin. And we will not discriminate in your favor either. Your children will be treated like our children. We will not discriminate in favor of your daughters on the basis of their race. But neither will we discriminate in favor of my daughters, Malia and Sasha, on the basis of theirs. We know that, like the marchers at Selma, you seek not special treatment but equal treatment, and that is what we promise you. You are welcome here, and we offer you a uniquely American constitutional guarantee. We promise you our Fourteenth Amendment promises you equal protection of the law.

This is the speech that President Obama was born to give, a speech that no one else could, a perfect complement to his speech at Selma. In one historic moment, he could renew the pride that we all felt six years ago when our first black president swore his oath of office. He could at once reform our immigration laws and, in the same moment, redeem the true promise of equal protection the promise, in Justice Harlans words, that [o]ur Constitution is color-blind and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens.

In 2008, President Obama promised to fundamentally transform[] the United States of America; here, at last, is the transformation that would assure his legacy. For the first time in American history, we could welcome immigrants of all colors to the nation of Martin Luther Kings dream, a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. And President Obama could, for all time, be the one who made Martin Luther Kings dream come true.

[Cross-posted from The Volokh Conspiracy]

Go here to read the rest:
Immigration and Equality