Archive for the ‘Immigration Reform’ Category

The Biden Plan for Securing Our Values as a Nation of Immigrants

It is a moral failing and a national shame when a father and his baby daughter drown seeking our shores. When children are locked away in overcrowded detention centers and the government seeks to keep them there indefinitely. When our government argues in court against giving those children toothbrushes and soap. When President Trump uses family separation as a weapon against desperate mothers, fathers, and children seeking safety and a better life. When he threatens massive raids that would break up families who have been in this country for years and targets people at sensitive locations like hospitals and schools. When children die while in custody due to lack of adequate care.

Trump has waged an unrelenting assault on our values and our history as a nation of immigrants.

Its wrong, and it stops when Joe Biden is elected president.

Unless your ancestors were native to these shores, or forcibly enslaved and brought here as part of our original sin as a nation, most Americans can trace their family history back to a choicea choice to leave behind everything that was familiar in search of new opportunities and a new life. Joe Biden understands that is an irrefutable source of our strength. Generations of immigrants have come to this country with little more than the clothes on their backs, the hope in their heart, and a desire to claim their own piece of the American Dream. Its the reason we have constantly been able to renew ourselves, to grow better and stronger as a nation, and to meet new challenges. Immigration is essential to who we are as a nation, our core values, and our aspirations for our future. Under a Biden Administration, we will never turn our backs on who we are or that which makes us uniquely and proudly American. The United States deserves an immigration policy that reflects our highest values as a nation.

Today, our immigration system is under greater stress as a direct result of Trumps misguided policies, even as he has failed to invest in smarter border technology that would improve our cargo screening.

His obsession with building a wall does nothing to address security challenges while costing taxpayers billions of dollars. Most contraband comes in through our legal ports of entry. Its estimated that nearly half of the undocumented people living in the U.S. today have overstayed a visa, not crossed a border illegally. Families fleeing the violence in Central America are voluntarily presenting themselves to border patrol officials. And the real threats to our securitydrug cartels and human traffickerscan more easily evade enforcement efforts because Trump has misallocated resources into bullying legitimate asylum seekers. Trump fundamentally misunderstands how to keep America safe because he cares more about governing through fear and division than common sense solutions.

Trumps policies are also bad for our economy. For generations, immigrants have fortified our most valuable competitive advantageour spirit of innovation and entrepreneurship. Research suggests that the total annual contribution of foreign-born workers is roughly $2 trillion. Key sectors of the U.S. economy, from agriculture to technology, rely on immigration. Working-age immigrants keep our economy growing, our communities thriving, and country moving forward.

The challenges we face will not be solved by a constitutionally dubious national emergency to build a wall, by separating families, or by denying asylum to people fleeing persecution and violence. Addressing the Trump-created humanitarian crisis at our border, bringing our nation together, reasserting our core values, and reforming our immigration system will require real leadership and real solutions. Biden is prepared on day one to deliver both.

As president, Biden will forcefully pursue policies that safeguard our security, provide a fair and just system that helps to grow and enhance our economy, and secure our cherished values. He will:

Joe Biden understands the pain felt by every family across the U.S. that has had a loved one removed from the country, including under the Obama-Biden Administration, and he believes we must do better to uphold our laws humanely and preserve the dignity of immigrant families, refugees, and asylum-seekers.

The Obama-Biden Administration strongly supported the bipartisan comprehensive immigration solution that passed the Senate in 2013 and which would have put our countrys immigration policies on a much stronger footing. When the Republican House refused to even bring that bill to a vote, the Administration took action to fundamentally change the course of our nations immigration policies, offering relief and stability to hundreds of thousands of undocumented immigrants who contribute to our communities every single day.

As Vice President, Biden championed the creation and expansion of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program; the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (DAPA) program; the Central American Minors program, which allowed parents with legal status in the U.S. to apply to bring their children up from Central America to live with them; and the creation of a White House task force to support new Americans and help them integrate into their new homes and communities.

In a departure from their predecessors, the Obama-Biden administration took steps to prioritize enforcement resources on removing threats to national security and public safety, not families. It also issued guidance designed to end mass work-place raids and to prevent enforcement activities at sensitive locations such as schools, hospitals, and places of worship.

Critically, the Obama-Biden administration recognized that irregular migration from the Northern Triangle countries of Central America cannot be effectively addressed if solutions only focus on our southern border. The better answer lies in addressing the root causes that push desperate people to flee their homes in the first place: violence and insecurity, lack of economic opportunity, and corrupt governance. As Vice President, Biden spearheaded the administrations efforts in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Hondurasbringing high-level attention to these issues and securing bipartisan support for a $750 million aid package to help the Northern Triangle countries implement critical, concrete reforms. These efforts were beginning to deliver results and reduce migration rates until Trump froze the majority of the funding, began his campaign to terrorize immigrants and assault the dignity of the Latino community, and created the current humanitarian crisis at our border with his irresponsible and inhumane policies.

As president, Biden will finish the work of building a fair and humane immigration systemrestoring the progress Trump has cruelly undone and taking it further. He will secure our border, while ensuring the dignity of migrants and upholding their legal right to seek asylum. He will enforce our laws without targeting communities, violating due process, or tearing apart families. He will ensure our values are squarely at the center of our immigration and enforcement policies.

Take Urgent Action to Undo Trumps Damage and Reclaim Americas Values

The next president will need to take urgent action to end the Trump Administrations draconian policies, grounded in fear and racism rather than fact, work to heal the wounds inflicted on immigrant communities, and restore Americas moral leadership. As president, Biden will move immediately to ensure that the U.S. meets its responsibilities as both a nation of laws and a nation of immigrants.

In the first 100 days, a Biden Administration will:

Modernize Americas Immigration System

As president, Biden will commit significant political capital to finally deliver legislative immigration reform to ensure that the U.S. remains open and welcoming to people from every part of the worldand to bring hardworking people who have enriched our communities and our country, in some cases for decades, out of the shadows. This is not just of concern to Latino communities, this touches families of every heritage and background. There are approximately 1.7 million undocumented immigrants from Asia in the U.S., as well as hundreds of thousands from Europe, the Middle East, Africa, and the Caribbean. Biden will immediately begin working with Congress to modernize our system, with a priority on keeping families together by providing a roadmap to citizenship for nearly 11 million undocumented immigrants; growing our economy and expanding economic opportunity across the country by improving and increasing opportunities for legal immigration; and preserve the longstanding directive of our immigration system to reunite families and enhance our diversity.

Immigrants are essential to the strength of our country and the U.S. economy. When immigrants choose to come to the U.S., they bring their unique traditions and contributions to the rich cultural tapestry of our country. They are also a key driver of economic growth. The Congressional Budget Office found that the 2013 comprehensive immigration package would have, over time, increased the size of the economy by more than 5 percent. Currently, we are not taking advantage of Americas ability to attract the best and brightest workers in the world. A modern immigration system must allow our economy to grow, while protecting the rights, wages, and working conditions of all workers, and holding employers accountable if they dont play by the rules. Immigrant rights and worker rights are deeply connected. We must ensure that every worker is protected, can join a union, and can exercise their labor rightsregardless of immigration statusfor the safety of all workers.

Joe Biden will work with Congress to pass legislation that:

Welcome Immigrants in our Communities

Immigrants bring tremendous economic, cultural, and social value to their new communities. Even in cities hit hard by the loss of manufacturing jobs, immigrants are a key driver of entrepreneurship and population growth.

According to a 2017 report by the New American Economy, from 2000 to 2015, immigrants accounted for 49.7% of all population growth in the Great Lakes region over 1.5 million people which helped offset the impacts of population decline in cities like Syracuse and Akron. Immigrants are bringing new life to local economiesstarting businesses, paying taxes, and spending their dollars back into their new communities. The Center for American Progress has estimated that DACA recipients will contribute about $460.3 billion to the national GDP over the next decade. The U.S. needs to retain the talents and drive of American-raised Dreamers to secure those benefits for our own economic health.

Its time for the federal government to listen and learn from local municipalities across the country that have built vibrant and inclusive communities and economies by developing concrete policy and program recommendations at the grassroots level to provide opportunities for new immigrants.

As president, Biden will:

Reassert Americas Commitment to Asylum-Seekers and Refugees

The Trump Administrations policies have created a humanitarian disaster at our border and grossly mismanaged the unprecedented resources Congress has allocated for it. Trump has diverted money to terrorize immigrant families, even as CBP facilities at the border are overwhelmed. After almost three years, this Administration still doesnt have a coherent plan for the protection and processing of children and families. CBP officers in the field, who are neither trained nor equipped for this work, are shouldering outsized responsibility for managing this crisis. And through his Migrant Protection Protocol policies, Trump has effectively closed our country to asylum seekers, forcing them instead to choose between waiting in dangerous situations, vulnerable to exploitation by cartels and other bad actors, or taking a risk to try crossing between the ports of entry. In other words, Trumps policies are actually encouraging people to cross irregularly, rather than applying in a legal, safe, and orderly manner at the ports.

As president, Biden will:

Tackle the Root Causes of Migration

The worst place to deal with irregular migration is at our own border. Rather than working in a cooperative manner with countries in the region to manage the crisis, Trumps erratic, enforcement-only approach is making things worse. The best way to solve this challenge is to address the underlying violence, instability, and lack of opportunity that is compelling people to leave their homes in the Northern Triangle countries of El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras in the first place. As Vice President, Biden was the architect of a major program of U.S. assistance to advance reforms in Central America and address the key factors driving migration.

As president, Biden will pursue a comprehensive strategy to strengthen the security and prosperity of Central America in partnership with the people of the region that:

Implement Effective Border Screening

Like every nation, the U.S. has a right and a duty to secure our borders and protect our people against threats. But we know that immigrants and immigrant communities are not a threat to our security, and the government should never use xenophobia or fear tactics to scare voters for political gain. Its irresponsible and un-American. Building a wall from sea-to-shining-sea is not a serious policy solutionits a waste of money, and it diverts critical resources away from the real threats. Today, illicit drugs are most likely to be smuggled through one of the legal U.S. ports of entry. They are hidden among commercial cargo in semi-trucks or in a hidden compartment of a passenger vehicle. A wall is not a serious deterrent for sophisticated criminal organizations that employ border tunnels, semi-submersible vessels, and aerial technology to overcome physical barriers at the borderor even for individuals with a reciprocating saw. We need smart, sensible policies that will actually strengthen our ability to catch these real threats by improving screening procedures at our legal ports of entry and investing in new technology. The border between Mexico and the U.S. shouldnt be treated like a war zone; it should be a place where effective governance and cooperation between our two countries helps our communities thrive and grow togetherfacilitating commerce and connection, and fueling the exchange of cultures and ideas.

As president, Biden will:

Read Joes Plan to Build Security and Prosperity in Partnership with the People of Central America >>

Here is the original post:
The Biden Plan for Securing Our Values as a Nation of Immigrants

Midterms: Lack of immigration reform hurts business, farms, food chain

PEACH BOTTOM, Pa. Thispicturesquevillage in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, is nearly 2,000milesfrom the country's southern border.

But at Graywood Farms inthe heart of Amish country, farmer and co-owner Lisa Graybeal warns of a pressing immigration issue that she and other farmers say isnot getting enough attention: They need migrant workers to keep their farms running and Americans fed.

"This is extremely urgent," Graybeal said. "Without immigrant labor, our dairy farm wouldn't be here."

She and other Pennsylvania farmers say they want Congress to stop attacking each other over immigration andpass reform that will give year-round growers and producers which describes most farms access to the H2-A farmworker program used by seasonal growers and producers. The visa program would ease theworker shortage in the agriculture industry.

A seasonal visa isn't enough at a farm like Graybeal's, where she said it takes two months just to teach someone how to properly milk cows.

"We need long-term workers here. We need workers year-round," she said, adding that a three- or five-year program would be more appropriate.

Many farm ownerswant theU.S. Senate to pass the Farm Workforce Modernization Act that passed the House twice, including with support from 40 Republicans. They have been working with Sens. Mike Crapo, R-Idaho, and Michael Bennet, D-Colo., and feel the window is closing to get it passed.

"Were really desperate at this point," said Bailey Thumm, federal affairs specialist at the Pennsylvania Farm Bureau. "This is not just about farmers and ranchers. It extends to consumers and every constituent."

Farmers are counting on a lame-duck Congress to get it done after the election and before a new Congress is sworn-in in January.

"Immigration reform is something we've been working on for decades, and lawmakers keep kicking the can down the road," Graybeal said."We're obviously not getting comprehensive reform. The system is broken. We cant get that. Can we at least get an immigration bill for the agsector so we can have food security?"

Immigration is on the ballot in Pennsylvania and the other dozen or so battleground states where control of Congress will be decided.

But its not so much about seasonalvisas or labor shortages. Mostly, its about the U.S.-Mexico border where a record number of migrant crossings this year nearly 2.4 million has only intensified the political rancor over immigration.

Its a top talking point for Republican candidates on the campaign trail, who push the potential dangers and social service costs to Americans from record border crossings and call for tougherimmigration policies.

Democrats generally take a softer approach: backinga secure border but without harsh enforcement while advocating for the protection of certain migrant groups, such as dreamers brought over illegally as children years ago.

Much of that nuance has been lost in the wash of political messaging.

Not long ago, immigration was not the polarizing issue it is today, said Doris Meissner, a former commissioner with the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service.

A bipartisan "gang of eight" senators that included two swing state senators up for election this year Bennet of Colorado and Marco Rubio of Florida tried in 2013 to forge a compromise to buildmore fencing, hire20,000 additional patrol agents, revampthe nation's visa program to help employers, and provide a path to citizenship for an estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants.

The bill was approved 68-32, a remarkably decisive outcome in a divided Senate. But it stalled in the GOP-controlled House where tea party conservatives blocked it, labeling it "amnesty."

Prospects of any compromise changed even more dramatically among Republicans in 2016 when Donald Trump ran on a pledge to build a wall on the southern border, Meissner said.

Prior to build the wall and the Trump presidency, there was for decades a consensus at the top levels broadly of both parties that immigration was a positive or was a plus for the country, she said.

The immigration debate in the midterms has been insufficient, according to farmers and other business leaders.

"One side is demagoguing on the issue, and one is in denial," said Rebecca Shi, executive director of the American Business Immigration Coalition Action. "Democrats are sticking their heads in the sand as if there's no problem, and Republicans are engaging in political theater."

Meanwhile, she said, American consumers are paying the price at the grocery store.

A workforce shortage in the farming industry has driven higher food costs, along with asupply chain weakenedby the pandemic and war in Ukraine.

Forecasts from the U.S. Department of Agriculture showa food crisis could worsen in 2023 because of a lower domestic supply. Next year will be the first year in U.S. history when the country will import more food than it produces.

"That's a huge red flag when you rely on other countries for your food," Graybeal said. "That's a national security issue."

Shawn Saylor, co-owner of Hillcrest Saylor Dairy Farm in Somerset County in Pennsylvania, said supply will dry up if there aren't enough workers to produce the product.

"Its been really bad," he said. "This spring we had no help at all."

The country needs an immigration program that provides a stable workforce year-round, Saylor said.

He and Graybeal have both listed farm jobs to try and attract domestic workers. Graybeal said she received zero inquiries. Saylor said local help did not show up for work.

"The migrant workforce is our workforce," he said.

Rubio, Demings spar in Florida Senate debate over topics of inflation, immigration

Republican Senator Marco Rubio and Democrat Congresswoman Val Demings exchanged jabs during the Florida Senate debate as election day gets closer.

Claire Hardwick, USA TODAY

Though farmers in Pennsylvania said they weren't backing a particular candidate because of immigration, the issue could weigh heavily in Nevada, a state that relies on immigrant labor and where incumbentSen. Catherine Cortez Masto is trying to hold on to her seat in a race that could determine control of the chamber.

Immigrants make up 19% of Nevadas population and 25% of its labor force, according to a December report from the advocacy group National Immigration Forum. As for the hospitality industry, the backbone of Southern Nevadas economy, nearly one-third of employees are immigrants.

Las Vegas, as we know it, doesnt work without immigrants, said Michael Kagan, a law professor at the University of Las Vegas, Nevada with expertise in immigration law. When tourists come to Vegas, they often forget that it takes more than 2 million people to make this place work.

But immigration falls far below other pressing issues like the economy.

With inflation rates still high and concerns over a recession increasing, Nevadas Senate race is shaping up to be one of the tightest in the country, with Cortez Masto toe-to-toe in the polls with Republican Adam Laxalt.

The candidates differ on many issues, including immigration. Laxalt saidcurbing illegal immigration is a top priority and promises to work at finishing the wall if elected. He has also spent thousands on ads on his opposition toprotections for dreamers, or undocumented immigrants who were brought to the country as children, per Axios.

Meanwhile, Cortez Masto is a co-sponsor of the DREAM Act a proposal to provide a pathway to citizenship for dreamers and said she is a fervent supporter of comprehensive immigration reform.

But even as the nation's first Latina senator (her fathers parents were Mexican immigrants), experts say Cortez Masto cant rely on the immigrant and Latinovote in the midterms. Laxalts team has ramped up Spanish language attack ads and launched a Latinos for Laxalt coalition.

Demographics is not destiny, said Andrew Lim, director of research for the American Immigration Council, a nonprofit that advocates for immigrants. Just because someone is Hispanic or Asian, (doesnt mean) theyre going to vote a certain way.

Elizabeth De La Cruz, a University of Nevada, Las Vegas, student, said she wasstill deciding between Cortez Masto and Laxalt.

The daughter of two immigrants from Mexico who were undocumented most of her life, De La Cruz said shes shopping around for candidates and plans to vote for a mix of Democrats and Republicans in the midterms.

As for the Senate race, the 23-year-old said shes trying to figure out whichcandidate is the lesser of two evils.

She strongly disagrees with Laxalts stance on abortion. But she also wishes Cortez Masto was more focused on improving education and mental health resources in Nevada.

For De La Cruz and many other voters in Nevada, immigration falls below other priorities like the economy and inflation.

Anthony Diaz, a Hispanic sales manager at a high-end store on the Las Vegas Strip, said he sides with Democrats on immigration but sees really great ideas on both sides.

His parents immigrated from Mexico to the U.S. when they were teenagers and didnt become citizens until their twenties. His familys struggles with the immigration system have influenced his ballot decisions, but the economy reigns as the No. 1 issue this year.

Here in Vegas, our economy is slowly starting to pick back up, which is awesome, he said. But all the talk around a recession is a little frightening.

Laxalts focus on border security appeals to voters like Edward Ely III, a 41-year-old freelance paralegal in Las Vegas who describes himself as a conservative who has issues with both parties.

Ely also said hes voting for the lesser of two evils. For him, thats Laxalt, even though he disagrees with Laxalts hardline stance against dreamers.

It's not because of (Laxalts) immigration policy. Its for a host of things because, again, immigration is not my No. 1issue right now, Ely said, adding that his focus this election is more on the economy, health care, education and keeping taxes low.

A recent poll from USA TODAY and Suffolk University found Cortez Masto is in a statistical tie withLaxalt: 46%-44%, with nearly half of Hispanics polled naming the economy and inflation as their top priority.

Donnie Oldham,president of Sanford Contractors, a construction company based in North Carolina another swing state with a key Senate election is doing something most executives try to avoid turning down money.

His company, which does site development and helps build bridges and buildings, has about 45 open positions, mainlyforemen, pipe layers, equipment operators and truck drivers.

Too many people have left the workforce. It started during COVID and it has continued, Oldham, 67, told USA TODAY. Fortunately, we're in an area where theres a lot of work to be done and we have to turn work down.

Asked if immigration could be a possible answer to the worker shortage, Oldham said he was all for legal immigration.

I am 100% opposed to illegal immigration. Our immigration system is ridiculous. Instead of a system that's based on family, we should have an immigration system based on the needs of the country, he said.For more employees, we should look at legal immigration and it just seems to make sense. But I'm just a common sense contractor.

Oldham said one of his workers, who was in the country legally, had to stop working while thepaperwork to renew his visa gets processed. That process has taken 16 months already with no end in sight.

We should focus on the people that are here legally and get them where they can work instead of spending our time and effort looking after illegals, he said.

Oldham, a right-leaning independent, said the Biden administrations policies on immigration dont make sense.

"Theyre not trying to stop illegal immigration, but it's against the law to hire illegal workers," he said.

Meissner, theformer INS commissioner, said the business-employer wing of the GOP, which wanted ready access to workers including foreign-born ones, has been drowned out of Republican politics.

Now a senior fellow at the Migration Policy Institute, a liberal-leaning think tank on immigration policy, she said Republican candidates rarely tell voters how they support legal immigration in their ads or during debates.

They lump it all together and certainly the impression that they leave is that all of immigration is illegal and is a threat to the country, she said. Thats a fundamental, dramatic shift and it has really pushed the business wing and business voice out."

The U.S. construction industry needs to attract nearly 650,000 additional workers on top of the normal pace of hiring in 2022 to meet the demand for labor, according to a report fromtheAssociated Builders and Contractors.

The workforce shortage is the most acute challenge facing the construction industry despite sluggish spending growth, said ABC Chief Economist Anirban Basu. After accounting for inflation, construction spending has likely fallen over the past 12 months. As outlays from the infrastructure bill increase, construction spending will expand, exacerbating the chasm between supply and demand for labor.

Michael Bellaman, ABC president and CEO, echoed Oldhams sentiment.

While the need to reform our nations immigration system persists, the Biden administrations failure to address the record-breaking influx of illegal border crossings into the United States threatens the ability to enact common-sense laws that can support legal immigration into the country, Bellaman told USA TODAY. It shows a lack of urgency and seriousness from the president and his administration and makes a bipartisan deal on this issue largely unattainable.

Mark Stevens, 51, a computer technician from Winston-Salem, North Carolina, and an independent, said he's leaning more toward Republican candidates.

Republicans have a more practical view towards immigration, whereas Democratic candidates seem to be more, Let's let everybody in. Let's give everybody a path to citizenship.' The Republican candidates seem to be more, We want the people who are willing to work and who are willing to produce and improve our society to be here.

But George Papas, an immigration attorney in Hendersonville,North Carolina, said Republicans have turned thediscourse on immigration into an "if they win, we losezero sumgame."

"The hostility is reflected in the immigration courts in Atlanta and in Charlotte, where the highest denial rates for asylum prevail, he told USA TODAY. They will not be talking about outsourcing workers or about education. The right-wing base of the Republican party has used immigration as a political wedge issue to deflect attention and to deflect media, airwaves, and media space from real issues.

The restrictive legal immigration policies of the Trump eraare coming home to roost, he said.

Increasing visa caps would help the situation by addressing worker shortages and easing pressure on the southern border, Pappas said.

They cannot find farmworkers. They cannot find workers for restaurants; they cannot find them for gas stations. The construction industry doesnot have enough laborers. So here we have a labor crunch, not only in North Carolina, but throughout the country, he said. And what happens if you can't find workers? Companies will go out of business.

Asked to assess the crisis at the U.S.-Mexico border during an October debate, North Carolina Democratic Senate candidate Cheri Beasley didn't spare her own party.

You know, Washington has dropped the ball on immigration, she said.

The 56-year-old former chief justice of the North Carolina Supreme Court, who is running against GOP Rep. Ted Budd, said Congress should pass policies welcomingnewcomers and keeping communities safe. But she said reforming the immigration system cannot happen until the border is secured.

But lets be clear, there are some folks who should not be in this country, Beasley, looking into the camera, told Tar Heel voters.

Beasley's opponent, like many GOP candidates this cycle, has leaned almostexclusively into pushing for atougher policy approach in terms of immigration.

"Border Security is one of the top issues voters bring up on the campaign trail behind skyrocketing inflation," Budd said at an Oct. 19campaign event.

The Budd campaign's website sayshe wants more funding for Border Patrol agents, increased criminal penalties for those who reenter the U.S.illegallyand completion of a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border.

Over the summer and thisfall, hes run multiple ads that mention immigration and criticize the Biden administration for the wide open border.

Polling shows immigration is ahot-button topic more for conservative-leaning voters, who argue a porous border is a national security threat and that undocumented immigrants represent a drain on social services.

If you don't have a border, I don't believe that you have a country, Republican Chris Kuppler, who lives in Charlotte, told USA TODAY.

The 38-year-old surgeon said the farming and agriculture are backbones of North Carolinas economy, and it makes sense to allow temporary visas for migrant workers who flock to the state for that type of labor.

However, he said any process that allows immigrants into the U.S. should follow strict rules.

I am more than more than happy for them to come in and apply for citizenship like everyone else, but not happy to just give a free pass to come in for that, Kuppler said.

But Democrat James Caballero, a 56-year-old information technology specialist who lives in Sanford, saidit's hypocritical for people to be stringently anti-immigration while benefiting from migrant labor.

"They don't want the immigrants in but they sure do want them to go out in their fields and pick the crops or go into the kitchens and wash the dishes or whatever that the average American Joe does not want to do," he said.

Caballero, whose mother immigrated to the U.S. from Mexico, saidhe's planning to vote this fall, but whats happening at the southern borderisnt a "motivating factor" for him.

Other voters, such as independent Geraldine Price, a 60-year-old retired postal worker who lives in Rocky Mount, North Carosaid immigration is "near the bottom" of her concerns.

Price said protecting abortion rights is something she's more concerned about, but added that TV ads calling for stricter immigration rules seemed to be aboutstoking racial prejudice.

"The average American wants that border straightened out," she said. "They're tearing up families. Justgive them a chance. They're not coming here to overthrow the government like our former president."

Read the original:
Midterms: Lack of immigration reform hurts business, farms, food chain

Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 – Ballotpedia

The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) was passed by Congress in 1986 and signed into law by President Ronald Reagan (R) on November 6, 1986. The law made it illegal for employers to knowingly hire individuals unauthorized to work in the United States and established a system for verifying the legal status of employees. The Immigration and Naturalization Service and the U.S. Border Patrol were provided increased funding for the purpose of enforcing immigration law. IRCA also created new, separate visa categories for temporary agricultural work (H-2A) and temporary nonagricultural work (H-2B).

IRCA granted legal status to individuals residing in the United States without legal permission who met certain conditions; this provision of the law applied only to individuals who had entered the country before January 1, 1982. Ultimately, 2.7 million individuals were granted legal status under the law.[1]

In 1978, Congress passed a bill establishing the Select Commission on Immigration and Refugee Policy (also known as the Hesburgh Commission) to study federal immigration policy and make recommendations for changes to the system. According to the Migration Policy Institute, the commission's recommendations led to the introduction of the Immigration Reform and Control Act:[2]

Soon after, President Reagan announced that he would back an immigration compromise modeled on the Hesburgh Commission recommendations. In March 1982, Senator Alan Simpson (R-WY) and Representative Romano Mazzoli (D-KY), who had both been Commission members, introduced the first versions of IRCA (also known as the "Simpson-Mazzoli Act") in Congress.[3]

The bill failed to pass in both the 97th Congress and the 98th Congress.

The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) was introduced as S 1200 in the United States Senate by Senator Alan Simpson (R-Wy.) on May 23, 1985. Its stated purpose was to "revise and reform the immigration laws, and for other purposes." The Senate passed the bill by a vote of 69-30 on September 19, 1985. The House passed an amended version of the bill via a voice vote on October 9, 1986. The Senate disagreed to the House amendments by a voice vote. S 1200 was then moved to conference committee; the House agreed to the conference report 238-173 on October 15, 1986, and the Senate agreed 63-24 two days later. President Ronald Reagan (R) signed the legislation into law on November 6, 1986.[4]

The Immigration Reform and Control Act made it unlawful for any employer to knowingly hire or recruit any individual unauthorized to work in the United States. It also made it illegal for an individual to use fraudulent entry or work documents. Employers were required to verify whether new hires were authorized to work in the country and made it illegal to continue to employ a person once aware of his or her unauthorized work status. Under the law, employers could use the act of having made an attempt to verify an individual's work status as an affirmative defense against allegations of violations of this provision.[4]

The verification system established by the law was as follows:[4]

The law permitted individuals and entities to submit complaints of potential hiring violations and authorized the Immigration and Naturalization Service to investigate such complaints. For noncompliant employers, the law established a system of increasing civil penalties for repeat violations:[4]

For patterns of violations, the law established criminal penalties of a fine of up to $3,000 for each unauthorized person employed and/or up to six months in prison.[4]

The Immigration Reform and Control Act granted temporary legal status to individuals residing in the United States without legal permission who had entered the country before January 1, 1982, had resided continuously in the country since that time, and were otherwise admissible under the law. Individuals who had entered the country legally but whose legal status had since expired were also eligible. Eligible individuals had to apply for such status within 18 months of the effective date of the act.[4]

Individuals who had been convicted of a felony or at least three misdemeanors or had taken part in political, religious, or racial persecution were ineligible to apply for the temporary legal status.[4]

Following the receipt of temporary legal status, such individuals could apply for permanent residency and a Green Card if they had continued to reside in the United States since the grant of legal status, had not been convicted of a felony or at least three misdemeanors, had a minimum understanding of the English language and U.S. civics, and were otherwise admissible. The law also waived most grounds for exclusion, excepting criminal, security, or drug-related grounds, for the purpose of maintaining family unity when possible.[4]

The Washington Post reported that about 2.7 million individuals were ultimately granted legal status under IRCA.[1]

The Immigration Reform and Control Act created new, separate visa categories for temporary agricultural work (H-2A) and temporary nonagricultural work (H-2B). Employers who submitted petitions for H-2A visa applicants were required to attest that there were not enough U.S. citizen workers available for the job and that the wages and working conditions of similarly employed U.S. citizens would not be adversely affected. Under the law, such petitions would be denied if the job was open due to a strike, the employer violated temporary worker admissions terms, the employer had not provided workers' compensation to such workers, or if the employer had not made attempts to hire local workers.[4]

The law also established a program for adjusting the legal status of certain temporary agricultural workers. Individuals would be eligible for permanent residency if they had performed at least three months of seasonal work during the year preceding May 1, 1986, and were otherwise admissible. Eligible individuals were required to apply within 18 months of the effective date of the act.[4]

IRCA established a pilot version of the Visa Waiver Program. The pilot program allowed residents from up to eight countries to enter the United States without a visa.[4]

IRCA also increased funding for both INS and the U.S. Border Patrol for the purpose of enforcing immigration law.[4]

See the article here:
Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 - Ballotpedia

Immigration in the United States: New Economic, Social, Political …

Immigration has shaped the United States as a nation since the first newcomers arrived over 400 years ago. Beyond being a powerful demographic force responsible for how the country and its population became what they are today, immigration has contributed deeply to many of the economic, social, and political processes that are foundational to the United States as a nation.

Although immigration has occurred throughout American history, large-scale immigration has occurred during just four peak periods: the peopling of the original colonies, westward expansion during the middle of the 19th century, and the rise of cities at the turn of the 20th century. The fourth peak period began in the 1970s and continues today.

These peak immigration periods have coincided with fundamental transformations of the American economy. The first saw the dawn of European settlement in the Americas. The second allowed the young United States to transition from a colonial to an agricultural economy. The industrial revolution gave rise to a manufacturing economy during the third peak period, propelling America's rise to become the leading power in the world. Today's large-scale immigration has coincided with globalization and the last stages of transformation from a manufacturing to a 21st century knowledge-based economy. As before, immigration has been prompted by economic transformation, just as it is helping the United States adapt to new economic realities.

For a nation of immigrants and immigration, the United States adjusts its immigration policies only rarely, largely because the politics surrounding immigration can be deeply divisive. As a result, immigration policy has often been increasingly disconnected from the economic and social forces that drive immigration. When changes have been made, they have generally taken years to legislate.

Today, the United States may be on the threshold of major new reforms that would address longstanding problems of illegal immigration, as well as those in the legal immigration system, which has not been updated since 1990. The impetus for comprehensive immigration reform (CIR) has returned to the congressional stage, with bipartisan groups in the House and Senate engaged in significant negotiations to craft legislation that would increase enforcement at the nation's borders and interiors, legalize the nations estimated 11 million unauthorized immigrants, and provide legal avenues for employers in the United States to access future workers they need. CIR, in one form or another, has been under consideration since at least 2001, with major debates in the Senate in 2006 and 2007. After the failure of CIR legislation in the Senate in 2007, the effort to reform the nation's immigration laws was sidelined. The results and voting patterns of the 2012 presidential election gave both political parties new reasons to revisit an immigration reform agenda.

This country profile examines key legislative events that form the history of the U.S. immigration system, the size and attributes of the immigrant population in the country, the characteristics of legal and illegal immigration streams, U.S. policies for refugees and asylum seekers, immigrant integration efforts, postrecession immigration trends, immigration enforcement, immigration policies during President Obama's administration, and prospects for reform legislation.

Early History

In the decades prior to 1880, immigration to the United States was primarily European, driven by forces such as industrialization in Western Europe and the Irish potato famine. The expanding frontiers of the American West and the United States' industrial revolution drew immigrants to U.S. shores. Chinese immigrants began to arrive in large numbers for the first time in the 1850s after gold was discovered in California in 1848.

Federal oversight of immigration began in 1882, when Congress passed the Immigration Act. It established the collection of a fee from each noncitizen arriving at a U.S. port to be used by the Treasury Department to regulate immigration. Arriving immigrants were screened for the first time under this act, and entry by anyone deemed a "convict, lunatic, idiot, or person unable to take care of himself or herself without becoming a public charge" was prohibited.

As the mining boom in the West began to subside, animosity toward the large populations of Chinese laborers and other foreigners surged, and so began a series of legislative measures to restrict immigration of certain racial groups, beginning with nationals of China. The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 was the first such law. It halted immigration of Chinese laborers for ten years, barred Chinese naturalization, and provided for the deportation of Chinese in the country illegally. In a follow-on bill, Congress passed the 1888 Scott Act and banned the return of Chinese nationals with lawful status in the United States if they departed the country. In 1892, the Geary Act extended the ten-year bar on Chinese labor immigration, and established restrictive policies toward Chinese immigrants with and without legal status.

Between 1880 and 1930, over 27 million new immigrants arrived, mainly from Italy, Germany, Eastern Europe, Russia, Britain, Canada, Ireland, and Sweden. This peak immigration periodthe last large-scale immigration wave prior to the current periodalso led to new restrictions.

In an expansion of racial exclusion, and by overriding a presidential veto, Congress passed the 1917 Immigration Act which prohibited immigration from a newly drawn "Asiatic barred zone" covering British India, most of Southeast Asia, and nearly all of the Middle East. It also expanded inadmissibility grounds to include anarchists, persons previously deported within the past year, and illiterate individuals over the age of 16.

Nativist and restrictionist sentiment continued through the 1920s, prompting the United States to introduce numerical limitations on immigration for the first time. The Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1924 established the national-origins quota system, which set a ceiling on the number of immigrants that could be admitted to the United States from each country. It strongly favored northern and western European immigration. The 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act continued the national-origins quota system but for the first time allocated an immigration quota for Asian countries.

The Post-1965 Era

Although the discriminatory nature of the national-origins quota system had become increasingly discredited, it took until the Kennedy era and the ripple effects of the nation's civil-rights movement for a new philosophy guiding immigration to take hold. The resulting Immigration and Nationality Act Amendments of 1965 repealed the national-origins quota system and replaced it with a seven-category preference system based primarily on family unification. Overall, the legislation set in motion powerful forces that are still shaping the United States today.

The 1965 act increased numerical limits on immigration from 154,000 to 290,000. A ceiling on immigration from the Americas (120,000) was imposed for the first time, and a per-country limit of 20,000 was set for Eastern Europe. The new caps did not include "immediate family members" of U.S. citizens (spouses, minor children, and parents). In 1976, the 20,000 per county limit was applied to the Western Hemisphere.

The year before the 1965 Act, Congress terminated the Bracero program, which it had authorized during World War II to recruit agricultural workers from Mexico to fill farm-labor shortages in the United States. In the wake of these and other sweeping changes in the global economy, immigration flows that had been European-dominated for most of the nation's history gave way to predominantly Latin American and Asian immigration.

Today's large-scale immigration began in the 1970s, and has been made up of both legal and illegal flows. Prior periods of large-scale immigration occurred before visas were subject to numerical ceilings, so the phenomenon of "illegal immigration" is a relatively recent element of immigration policy history and debates.

The largest source country of legal admissions, Mexico, has also accounted for the largest share of illegal immigrants who cross the southwest land border with the United States to seek the comparatively higher wages available from U.S. jobs.

By the mid-1980s, an estimated 3 to 5 million noncitizens were living unlawfully in the country. To address illegal immigration, Congress passed the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA), which was intended to act as a "three-legged stool." IRCA included the following:

Ultimately, IRCA failed for several reasons. First, the legalization program excluded a significant slice of the unauthorized population that had arrived after the five-year cutoff date but stayed in the United States and became the core of a new unauthorized population. Second, improvements in border enforcement did not begin in earnest until the 1990s. And the heart of the lawemployer sanctionshad weak enforcement provisions that proved ineffective at checking hiring practices of sizable numbers of unauthorized immigrants.

Four years later, Congress passed the Immigration Act of 1990 to revamp the legal immigration system and admit a greater share of highly-skilled and educated immigrants. It raised legal immigration caps, modified the temporary nonimmigrant visa system, and revised the grounds of inadmissibility and deportation. The law also established Temporary Protected Status (TPS), creating a statutory footing for permission to live and work in the United States to nationals of countries deemed unsafe for return because of armed conflict or natural disaster.

Overall, IRCA and its enforcement mechanisms were no match for the powerful forces that drive illegal migration. Both IRCA and the 1990 Act failed to adequately foresee and incorporate measures to provide and manage continued flows of temporary and permanent immigrants to meet the country's labor market needs, especially during the economic boom years of the 1990s.

As a result, illegal immigration grew dramatically and began to be experienced not only in the six traditional immigration destination states of New York, New Jersey, Florida, Texas, Illinois, and California, but also in many other areas across the southeast, midwest, and mountain states that had not had experience with large-scale immigration for up to a century. Although immigration served as a source of economic productivity and younger workers in areas where the population and workforces were aging, a large share of the immigration was comprised of illegal immigration flows. Thus, the challenge to deeply-held rule-of-law principles and the social change represented by this immigration generated progressively negative public sentiment about immigration that prompted Congress to pass a set of strict new laws in 1996, as follows:

Subsequently, Congress returned to shoring up legal immigration measures in 2000 by enacting the American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act to meet demand for skilled immigrantsespecially in science, math, and engineering specialtiesand enable employers to fill technology jobs that are a critical dimension of the post-industrial, information age economy. The act raised the annual number of H-1B visas given to high-skilled workers in specialty occupations to 115,000 in fiscal year (FY) 2000, then to 195,000 for FY 2001, 2002, and 2003. At present, 65,000 H-1B visas per year are available, with an additional 20,000 H-1B visas (due to a law passed in late 2004) for foreign-born individuals with advanced U.S. degrees.

The 1990s saw the longest period of sustained economic and job growth the United States had experienced since at least World War II. Immigrationat both high and low ends of the labor market, both legal and illegalwas an important element in achieving the productivity and prosperity of the decade. Immigration also contributed to the economic transformation required for the United States to compete in a global economy. With more than 14 million newcomers (legal and illegal), the 1990s reached numerical levels that out-numbered the previous all-time high set during the first decade of the 20th century. The trend has continued into the 2000s with more than 16 million newcomers from 2000-10.

The Lasting Impact of 9/11 on Immigration Policy

No recent event has influenced the thinking and actions of the American public and its leaders as much as the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. In the almost-12 years since 9/11, many aspects of the U.S. immigration enforcement system have become dramatically more robust. The national security threat posed by international terrorism led to the largest reorganization of the federal government since World War II. The overhaul brought about the merger of 22 federal agencies to create the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in 2003.

Because the 9/11 hijackers obtained valid visas to travel to the United States, despite some being known by U.S. intelligence and having been encountered by law enforcement agencies, the immigration system came under particular scrutiny. The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), which had been part of the Department of Justice since 1941, was dissolved and its functions were transferred to three newly created agencies within DHS, as follows:

An additional new post-9/11 immigration entity has been US-VISIT, which is housed in the National Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD) of DHS. It manages the IDENT biometric fingerprint information system used by all immigration agenciesincluding consulates abroad in visa screeningto confirm the identity of noncitizens entering the country.

9/11 also led to the passage of a series of new national security laws with far-reaching implications for noncitizens seeking to travel to or living in the United States. The most well-known is the USA Patriot Act. With regard to immigration, the act expanded the authority of law enforcement agencies to search, monitor, detain, and remove suspected terrorists, and allowed for the detention of foreign nationals for up to seven days before the government files criminal or immigration charges. It also strengthened border enforcement, especially along the northern border with Canada.

Laws that followed include the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002 (EBSVERA), which tightened visa screening, border inspections, and tracking of foreign-born persons, including foreign students, particularly through broad use of biometric fingerprint records. It also served as an impetus to create the US-VISIT program, as the bill mandated information-sharing systems that made national security data available to immigration officers responsible for issuing visas, making removal or admissions decisions, and for investigations and identification of noncitizens.

In June 2002, the U.S. Attorney General began the National Security Entry-Exit Registration System (NSEERS), a program that placed extra travel screening requirements on nationals from a list of 25 countries associated with an Al Qaeda presence (and North Korea). Additionally, males over the age of 16 who were nationals of designated NSEERS countries and already living in the United States were required to register with the federal government and appear for "special registration" interviews with immigration officials. The program was discontinued in 2011.

In 2005, the REAL ID Act prohibited states from issuing driver's licenses to unauthorized individuals, and expanded terrorism-related grounds of inadmissibility, removal, and ineligibility for asylum. One year later, the Secure Fence Act of 2006 authorized the completion of 700 miles of fencing along the southwest border with Mexico.

Heightened security and data-sharing measures adopted after the attacks has enabled the government to meet a post-9/11 goal of "pushing the border out." By screening individuals seeking to enter the United States more times and against more databases than ever before, those who pose a threat to the country can be prevented from ever reaching U.S. soil, often times before they even board a plane. This objective is being bolstered by increased collaboration with foreign governments in law enforcement matters and through international agreements that allow bilateral sharing of information such as Passenger Name Records (PNRs).

One immediate result of tightened screening procedures was a dramatic drop in the number of visas the government issued to individuals wishing to visit, work, and live in the United States. Between 2001 and 2002, the number of nonimmigrant visas fell by 24 percent. Present visa issuances have returned to pre-9/11 levels, but it has taken ten years to rebound.

A Profile of Today's Immigrant Population

The U.S. foreign-born population (legal and illegal) is 40.4 million, or 13 percent of the total U.S. population of 311.6 million, according to 2011 American Community Survey estimates. Although this is a numerical high historically, the foreign born make up a smaller percentage of the population today than in 1890 and 1910 when the immigrant share of the population peaked at 15 percent. The foreign-born share fell to a low of 5 percent (9.6 million) in 1970. About 20 percent of all international migrants reside in the United States, which, as a country, accounts for less than 5 percent of the world's population.

The foreign-born population is comprised of approximately 42 percent naturalized citizens, 31 percent permanent residents (green card holders), and 27 percent unauthorized immigrants. Roughly 11.7 million, or 29 percent of the immigrant population is from Mexico, the largest immigration source country. Chinese and Indian immigrants make up the second and third largest immigrant groups, with 1.9 million or 5 percent of the foreign-born population each. In 2010, India replaced the Philippines as the third largest source country (see Table 1). The top three regions of origin of the foreign-born population are Latin America, Asia, and Europe (see Figure 1).

Table 1. Immigrant Population by Country of Birth Residing in the United States, 1960 to 2011

Figure 1. Foreign Born Population by Region of Origin, 2011

Note: Latin America includes: South America, Mexico, and the Caribbean; Northern America includes Canada, Bermuda, Greenland, and St. Pierre and Miquelon

The foreign-born population is geographically concentrated, with 65 percent residing in the six states that have long been the country's main immigrant destinationsabout 25 percent in California alone (in 2011). The other immigrant-heavy states are New York (11 percent of all foreign born), Texas (10 percent), Florida (9 percent), Illinois (4 percent), and New Jersey (5 percent). The proximity of several of these states to Mexico and longstanding, continuous immigration to traditional metropolitan destinations in New York, New Jersey, and Illinois created strong networks that have grown over time.

While these states continue to draw and represent the bulk of the foreign-born population, newcomersparticularly unauthorized immigrants from Mexicobegan to settle in many additional destinations during the 1990s. Employment opportunitiesparticularly in agriculture, food manufacturing and constructionmainly fueled the new settlement patterns. They combined with lower costs of living and "hollowing out", i.e. depopulation of certain areas of the country due to aging and internal migration. As a result, states like Georgia, Nevada, and many others have become known as the "new growth" or "new destination" immigration states.

Ten states, mostly in the south and west, have experienced over 270 percent immigrant population growth since 1990. They are North Carolina, Georgia, Tennessee, Arkansas, Nevada, South Carolina, Kentucky, Nebraska, Utah, and Alabama. These changes and patterns help to explain why immigration has become an issue of national political concern and debate.

How the Immigration System Works

The guiding principles, and different ways to immigrate to the United States were largely established by the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act and take place through three primary immigration streams. They are family (re)unification for U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents (LPRs or "green card" holders) with close family members; meeting legitimate labor market needs; and refuge for those in need of humanitarian protection (see next section). The most common ways to immigrate are through the family-based or employment-based channels.

Family-based immigration rests on the principle of family unity. Immediate family members of U.S. citizensdefined as their spouses, minor children, and parentscan join their U.S. families without numerical limitations. U.S. citizens can also (re)unify with their adult married and unmarried children, as well as with their siblings, but the waiting times for such (re)unifications are lengthy, as is the case with family reunification for most LPRs. Family-based immigrants must be sponsored by a qualifying relative under any of six categories of relatives. Family-sponsored immigration has accounted for about two-thirds of all permanent immigration to the United States over the last decade.

Employment-based visas for permanent immigration are dedicated to the nation's economic and labor market needs. Employment-based immigration is limited to 140,000 visas per year, and has accounted for between 12 percent (in 2003) and 22 percent (in 2005) of legal immigration in the last decade. In FY2011, it was 13 percent. Employment-based green cards are available for five categories of workers, the majority of whom must be sponsored by their employer.

Table 2. Family and Employment-Based Immigration Channels and Numerical Limits

* At least 77 percent of the total visas available to the 2nd Family Preference (2A and 2B) must be allocated within the 2A category.** Under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) 203(b), the statutory caps for the employment-based categories are listed as percentages of the worldwide level of employment-based visas. Table 1 calculates the actual number of visas allocated in each category in accordance with the current 140,000 annual floor of employment-based visas.++ The Nicaraguan and Central American Relief Act (NACARA), Pub. L. 105-100 (November 19, 1997), further limited the number of visas that may be issued in the 3rd preference other category, by allowing a reduction of up to 5,000 of the 10,000 visas allocated to this category to offset visas issued to NACARA beneficiaries.Source: Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) 201, 203, 204.

Additionally, each year, approximately 50,000 individuals are granted permanent residency through the diversity visa lottery. Under the Immigration Act of 1990, 55,000 applicants from countries that are underrepresented in U.S. immigration streams are granted immigrant visas each year (5,000 are reserved for applicants under the Nicaraguan and Central American Relief Act [NACARA] of 1997).

Noncitizens must qualify for a family-based or employment-based visa, be a refugee or asylee, or be selected in the diversity visa lottery in order to become LPRs, i.e. immigrants. LPRs can permanently live and work in the United States, are eligible to naturalize after a certain number of years, and are subject to removal if they commit a serious crime.

With the exception of spouses, minor children, and parents of U.S. citizens, the number of individuals who can become permanent residents each year is limited in statute by numerical ceilings and per-country limits. However, the demand to immigrate greatly exceeds the number of visas Congress authorizes the government to grant. Additionally, no more than 7 percent of immigrant visas can be issued to nationals of a single country. The result has been delays in granting applications for eligible green card petitioners that frequently span many years, especially for immediate family members from Mexico or the Philippines, for example, which are among the top five source countries for legal immigration but face severe delays in getting a green card.

Over the past 150 years, the levels of legal immigration have varied, from over 1 million people per year during the early 20th century to a trickle during the Great Depression and World War II (see Figure 2). Immigrants legalized under IRCA caused the number of authorized immigrants to peak in the late 1980s. The 1990s and 2000s, until the recession, have registered historic highs in overall immigration levels.

Figure 2. Legal Immigration to the United States, FY 1820 to 2011

Refugee and Asylum Admissions

The United States has long been the world's leading country of refuge, providing protection to victims of political, ethnic, religious and other forms of persecution through asylum and refugee resettlement. Humanitarian protection has been an abiding, albeit sometimes controversial, tenet of U.S. immigration policy.

The statutory determination to qualify as a refugee or asylee is the same. However, the terminology differs: refugees are granted humanitarian relief in a foreign country and travel to the United States for resettlement, while asylees apply for humanitarian status having already reached or are living in the country.

Refugee policy includes a flexible ceiling on admissions that the president and Congress set each year. Slots are allotted regionally to refugees from East Asia, Near East/South Asia, Africa, Europe/Central Asia, and Latin America and the Caribbean. Admissions may also be made from an "unallocated reserve."

The United States admitted large numbers of refugees after World War II, in response to migration waves that occurred in the war's aftermath and in accord with international refugee protocols adopted by the United Nations. In 1980, Congress passed the Refugee Act, a measure that adopted the definition of a refugee in U.S. refugee law with international standards. It established, for the first time, a permanent and systematic procedure for admitting refugees, created a formal refugee resettlement process, and provided a statutory base for asylum for the first time.

Beginning that same year and throughout the 1980s, U.S. refugee and asylum laws became the subject of considerable controversy, when massive numbers of Central Americans from Guatemala, El Salvador, and Nicaragua began to flee civil war and repression in their home countries and apply for political asylum in the United States. Offering protection to these refugees, however, was at odds with the Reagan administration's cold war strategy of providing support to Central American governments being challenged by left-wing rebels. As a result, Salvadoran and Guatemalan asylum claims were approved at extremely low rates, while between 1981 and 1990, almost one million Salvadorans and Guatemalans are estimated to have entered the United States unlawfully.

During the same period as the Cold War ended, large resettlement programs for refugees from Southeast Asia and the former Soviet Union have been replaced with admissions from a more diverse set of countries. One exception is Cuba, a communist country from which hundreds of thousands have fled since its 1959 revolution. This massive emigration led to a 1994 agreement intended to prevent Cubans from trying to reach the United States by boat under life-threatening conditions. In FY 2011, there were 36,452 new immigrants from Cuba, the vast majority entering as refugees.

In the 1970s and 1980s, refugee and humanitarian emergencies led to annual admissions of more than 200,000 during some years. During the last decade and half, and especially since 9/11, both the size of the refugee program and annual asylum grants have decreased (see Figure 3). FY 2011 saw 56,384 refugee arrivals, down from 73,293 in FY 2010. Burma (16,972) Iraq (9,388) Bhutan (14,999), Somalia (3,161), and Cuba (2,920) were the top five refugee-sending countries of FY 2011. That year, 24,988 individuals were granted asylum (defensive and affirmative), a slight uptick from FY 2010 after about ten years of steady decline. There is no cap on asylum approvals.

Figure 3. Refugee Arrivals by Region of Origin, 1990 to 2011

Source: DHS, Yearbook of Immigration Statistics, 1990-2011

Temporary Visitors

Noncitizens who enter the United States for tourism, work, or study reasons are admitted with a temporary nonimmigrant status. There are over 70 categories of visas for nonimmigrants, including tourists, business visitors, foreign students, H-1B workers, religious workers, intracompany transferees, diplomats, and representatives of international organizations. Nonimmigrant visas typically have strict terms and conditions, and allow for periods of stay ranging from a few weeks or months to six or more years. A small number of nonimmigrant visas allow for eventual permanent residency.

In 2011, 7.5 million nonimmigrant visas were granted. Temporary tourism and business visitors represent the vast majority of nonimmigrant visa holders. Nonimmigrant visas issued to foreign students have increased significantly during the last decade. The 447,410 student visas issued in 2011 is more than 50 percent greater than the number issued in 2001. Much of this growth has been driven by the exponential rise in students from China, who now represent 35 percent of all foreign students. South Korea, Saudi Arabia, and India also send students to the United States in high numbers.

Acquiring U.S. Citizenship

Under the 14th amendment of the U.S. constitution, persons born on U.S. soil are American citizens. Citizenship can also be acquired through naturalization. U.S. citizens are entitled to rights and privileges not extended to noncitizens, such as the right to vote, protection from deportation, ability to apply for immigration of family members, and eligibility for federal assistance programs.

Permanent residents are eligible for U.S. citizenship once they are have lived continuously in the country for five years (three years if they are married to a U.S. citizen), are at least 18 years old, have not committed any serious crimes, have good moral character, and have knowledge of the English language and U.S. civics, demonstrated by passing a citizenship test. The current exam emphasizes U.S. history and government, and was introduced in 2008 after years of design, evaluation, and testing.

The average annual number of naturalizations increased from less than 120,000 during the 1950s and 1960s to 210,000 during the 1980s, up to 500,000 during the 1990s, and again to 680,000 between 2000 and 2009. In 2012, there were 757,434 naturalizations, up from 694,193 in 2011 and 619,913 in 2010. As of FY 2011, 8.5 million LPRs were eligible to naturalize but had not applied. A combination of reasons, including inadequate language skills needed to pass the citizenship exam, fear of the exam, an expensive filing fee of $680, and lack of knowledge about the naturalization process, can all discourage potential applicants.

Since the 1990s, a series of new laws and policies have affected naturalization trends. IRCA brought about historically high naturalizations in the mid-1990s as the 2.7 million unauthorized immigrants who obtained LPR status under the law's legalization program became eligible for naturalization. The growing eligibility pool further grew with passage of the 1996 laws described above. They reduced noncitizens' access to federal benefits and legal protections, thus incentivizing naturalization. Between 1994 and 1997, the number of naturalization petitions filed nearly tripled, from 543,353 to 1,412,712.

Naturalization spiked again in 2008 as a result of citizenship outreach campaigns ahead of the 2008 presidential election, coupled with a scheduled increase in the naturalization application fee that many eligible applicants attempted to beat.

In 2012, Mexico accounted for the highest share of naturalizations (13.7 percent), followed by the Philippines (5.9 percent), India (5.7 percent), the Dominican Republic (4.4 percent), and China (4.2 percent). The largest number of new citizens lived in California (21 percent), Florida (13.3 percent), and New York (12.4 percent), according to DHS statistics.

Unauthorized Immigrants

Unauthorized immigrants enter the United States by crossing the land border clandestinely between formal ports of entry, using documents fraudulently for admission at a port of entry, or overstaying a valid temporary visa.

Illegal immigration began to build and reach relatively high levels in the early 1970s. Immigration policymaking in the United States has been preoccupied with the issues it represents for much of the four decades since. The numbers of unauthorized immigrants who were not eligible for IRCA's legalization but remained in the United States, in addition to immigration spurred by rapid job creation in the 1990s and early 2000s, combined with powerful push factors in Mexico, have caused the unauthorized population to grow by 300,000 to 500,000 per year between 1990 and 2006. After reaching an estimated peak of 12 million in 2007, the unauthorized population has declined in recent years, to 11.1 million in 2011, according to the Pew Hispanic Center.

Illegal immigration is a bellwether of economic conditions, growing substantially in a strong economy with high demand for low-skilled labor (the 1990s and early 2000s), and tapering off with economic contraction (since 2008) (see Figure 4). The arrival of unauthorized immigrants in large numbers has revitalized certain communities and contributes to local economic growth. At the same time, rapid and unchecked social change and pressure on public services brought about by individuals here illegally has sparked anger and resentment, making immigration a hotly contested issue of national concern.

DHS estimates that 59 percent of unauthorized residents are Mexican born; with El Salvador accounting for 6 percent, Guatemala 5 percent, Honduras 3 percent, and China 2 percent. The ten leading countries of origin also include the Philippines, India, Korea, Ecuador, and Vietnam, which represented 85 percent of the unauthorized immigrant population in 2011.

Roughly 46 percent of unauthorized adult immigrants are parents of young children. As of 2010, there were 5.5 million minors with at least one unauthorized parent. While 1 million of these minors are also unauthorized, the vast majority4.5 millionare U.S.-born, and are, therefore, American citizens.

Figure 4. Estimated Unauthorized Population, 1990 to 2011 (millions)

Source: Pew Hispanic Center, Bob Warren

Immigrant Integration

While the public debate tends to focus disproportionately on questions of who, how many, and what kind of noncitizens should be admitted to the United States, many see immigrant integration as the true test of a successful immigration system. Unlike other traditional immigration countries, such as Canada and Australia, for example, the United States does not have a federally-driven immigrant integration policies or an agency responsible for making sure immigrants effectively become part of U.S. society. Instead, integration policies are limited, underfunded, largely ad hoc, and often target narrow immigrant groups, such as refugees or migrant workers.

Historically, schools, churches, employers, and community-based groups have taken the lead at the local level to spearhead immigrant integration efforts that include English classes, job training, and health care clinics. In recent years, several states and cities have launched integration initiatives aimed at improving opportunities and services available to immigrants.

Federal policies that affect immigrant integration outcomes include the No Child Left Behind Act passed in 2001 that required schools and funding for states to ensure that limited English proficient (LEP) children become proficient in English. In 2009, the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) was expanded to cover authorized immigrant children. Additionally, the federal Adult Education program funds English education and GED preparation.

Read more from the original source:
Immigration in the United States: New Economic, Social, Political ...

Talking turkey on immigration reform in the lame-duck session – The Boston Globe

  1. Talking turkey on immigration reform in the lame-duck session  The Boston Globe
  2. Democrats confront bleak odds for immigration deal before 2023  POLITICO
  3. Senate Democrats restart talks to try to help DACA recipients during lame-duck session  CNN
  4. Editorial: Ten years of limbo. DACA recipients need permanent relief now  Los Angeles Times
  5. Congress makes last-ditch amnesty push  The Highland County Press
  6. View Full Coverage on Google News

Read the rest here:
Talking turkey on immigration reform in the lame-duck session - The Boston Globe