Mediaboss Marketing

Abstract

The House Republican leadership recently released its Standards for Immigration Reform, which amount to little more than a repackaging of the flawed and harmful Senate bill. The principles of the House leadership match up almost exactly with the framework laid out by the Senates Gang of Eight for the Senate bill. Both chambers promise new enforcement, border security, and visa reforms in exchange for amnestya costly, unfair, and unworkable policy that didnt work in 1986 and wont work now. Congress should reject dangerous policies that do not fix the problems of the U.S. immigration system but only make it worse. Rather than repeat the mistake of 1986, the House leadership should focus on how it can encourage President Obama to enforce existing law.

The House Republican leadership recently released its Standards for Immigration Reform.[1]Regrettably, these standards amount to little more than a repackaging of the flawed and harmful Senate bill. The principles of the House leadership match up almost exactly with the framework laid out by the Senates Gang of Eight for the Senate bill.[2 ]

The House. It is the fundamental duty of any government to secure its borders, and the United States is failing in this mission. We must secure our borders now and verify that they are secure. In addition, we must ensure now that when immigration reform is enacted, there will be a zero tolerance policy for those who cross the border illegally.[3]

The Senate. To fulfill the basic governmental function of securing our borders, we will continue the increased efforts of the Border Patrol by providing them with the latest technology, infrastructure, and personnel needed to prevent, detect, and apprehend every unauthorized entrant.[4]

Analysis. There is next to no difference between the Senate bill and the House principles. It is well known that the Senate bill directs billions of dollars to border security and uses flawed metrics that do not effectively measure how many immigrants are still illegally entering the U.S. every year.[5] The Houses Border Security Results Act sets up similarly misguided metrics and requires at least 10 additional reports for Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to give to Congress, half of which are recurring.[6] While the proper metrics can be important, ultimately what is needed are actual results, which neither the House principles nor the Senate bill can ensure.

The House. There will be a zero tolerance policy for those who cross the border illegally or overstay their visas in the future. Faced with a consistent pattern of administrations of both parties only selectively enforcing our nations immigration laws, we must enact reform that ensures that a President cannot unilaterally stop immigration enforcement.[7]

The Senate. We will demonstrate our commitment to securing our borders and combating visa overstays by requiring our proposed enforcement measures be complete before any immigrant on probationary status can earn a green card.[8]

Analysis. While the two are very similar, here the Senate bill actually makes enforcement more difficult by providing the executive branch with additional discretion and waivers.[9] What the House principles and the Senate bill have in common on this point is that neither the House nor the Senate has a way of ensuring that the President will actually enforce the law. The House may claim that it does, but, if the President already disregards current laws, how can the House really ensure that President Obamaor a future Presidentwill respect a new immigration law?[10] Ultimately, both the Senate and House promise more enforcement, but neither can actually deliver it.

The House. A fully functioning Entry-Exit system has been mandated by eight separate statutes over the last 17 years. At least three of these laws call for this system to be biometric, using technology to verify identity and prevent fraud. We must implement this system so we can identify and track down visitors who abuse our laws.[11]

See the original post:

House Standards for Immigration Reform Nearly Identical to Flawed Senate Bill

Waiting for a Green Card: Immigration Reform
The legal immigrants, patiently waiting for jobs. Is reform coming? WNWO #39;s Jim Blue takes a look at immigration reform in America, Thursday at 6pm on WNWO Ne...

By: WNWOtv

See the original post:

Waiting for a Green Card: Immigration Reform - Video

A tale of two districts
Reps. Jeff Denham and Tom McClintock, both Republicans of California, discuss their opposing views on immigration reform. Reps. Jeff Denham and Tom McClintoc...

By: Andre Johnson

More here:

A tale of two districts - Video

The American Farm Bureau Federation study says said that fruit and vegetable growers would be among the hardest-hit in changes to agricultural labor reform focusing solely on immigration enforcement.(Photo: John Moore, Getty Images)

WASHINGTON The country's largest farm group said Monday that changes to agricultural labor reform focusing solely on immigration enforcement would raise food prices by 6% and reduce the country's food and fiber production by as much as a $60 billion annually.

In a 45-page study released by the American Farm Bureau Federation, the agriculture group said that fruit and vegetable growers and livestock owners would be hit the hardest.

According to the report, under an enforcement-only scenario fruit production would plummet in the United States by 30% to 61%, vegetable output by 15% to 31%. The impact to fruits and vegetable crops would be the most severe because they must be picked by hand, meaning a sudden loss in workers would increase the chance that some of the produce would go unpicked and rot in the field. Livestock also would be hit with production falling by 13% to 27%,the farm group said.

The report found that consumers and the agricultural sector would benefit from a comprehensive approach that includes an overhauled guest-worker program, the chance for skilled workers to earn an adjustment of status over time and immigration enforcement. A mixed approach would have little to no effect on the price consumers pay for food, and farm income would be cut by less than 1%.

The report was conducted for the Farm Bureau by World Agricultural Economic and Environmental Services.

"Status quo is not a viable option for anyone involved in this issue, and as a nation, we expect better," said Bob Stallman, president of the American Farm Bureau.

"Over five years, an enforcement-only approach would lead to losses in farm income large enough to trigger large scale restructuring of the sector, higher food prices, and greater dependence on imported products," Stallman said. "With a reworked guest worker program, and by allowing skilled laborers to earn an adjustment of status, food prices remain stable and there are only marginal impacts on production."

The chance of immigration reform grew even more uncertain after House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, last week cast doubts that a bill can pass this year, saying House Republicans weren't moving a bill because of "widespread doubt about whether this administration can be trusted to enforce our laws." Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., who sponsored the comprehensive immigration reform bill that passed the Senate last year, has proposed letting the law be enforced in 2017, after President Obama leaves the White House.

STORY: Boehner: Distrust of Obama drags down immigration bill

Follow this link:

Farm group pushes for broad immigration reform

As Bloomberg View wrote last week, American views on immigration have been changing very, very quickly.

In 1986, the last time Congress passed comprehensive immigration legislation, easing the way to citizenship for several million undocumented immigrants, the public was in no mood to host newcomers. A Gallup poll that year showed 49 percent of Americans supported a decrease in immigration, while only 7 percent supported an increase. Another 35 percent endorsed the "current level" of immigration.

The change in views has been astonishingly rapid. Since dipping to 8 percent in the fearful wake of Sept. 11, support for increased immigration has risen remarkably, hitting 23 percent in the most recent Gallup poll in July 2013. In the same poll, support for decreased immigration, which was 50 percent in the wake of the economic meltdown in 2009, hit a record low of 35 percent. An April 2013 polling report by Public Opinion Strategies, a top Republican polling firm, stated: "It is clear that Americans' attitudes have shifted to be much more positive over time when it comes to the perceived impact of immigration." In November 2006, the firm found 64 percent of Americans saying immigration "hurts more than helps," while only 36 percent said it "helps more than hurts." By March 2013, the views were upside down -- 48 percent said it "helps more," while 40 percent said it "hurts more."

What's going on?

I asked a few pollsters and immigration experts, via e-mail, whether a surge in cosmopolitanism -- for lack of a better word -- might be driving greater acceptance of immigrants. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, 80 percent of Americans lived in an urban area in 2010, and 40 million residents are foreign-born. It's been a while since we were defined by "American Gothic." As economist Bryan Caplan points out, support for immigration reform is weakest in places where immigrants are fewest. In other words, exposure to immigrants -- and perhaps to diverse populations generally -- appears to be closely related to support for immigration.

"For me, it's pretty stunning that we had the Great Recession without a backlash against immigrants," Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg said. Of course, Arizona, Alabama and Georgia all passed anti-immigrant legislation even as border crossings from Mexico declined. But given how recent the economic crisis was, and how mediocre the economy has been since, support for immigrants is surprisingly strong. Greenberg points out that more than one-third of New York City residents are foreign-born; roughly 40 percent of Californians are. The U.S., he said, has "passed some tipping point on scale, density and familiarity" with immigrants. "Also, note that the undocumented used to concentrate around the border states, but with stronger border enforcement, they are much less likely to return to Mexico and have dispersed to metro areas around the country."

"The average American lives somewhere where the immigrant population is large or growing, they have personal connections, and the average American knows that immigrants are not stealing jobs or siphoning social services, they are working hard and contributing to America," wrote Matt Barreto, a pollster for Latino Decisions. "The DREAM movement really gave a public face to this cause, showing hard-working, assimilated young American immigrants who want a chance to continue their educations and be able to contribute more fully to their home country."

Asked about the current historical anomaly of strong public support for immigrants, Marshall Fitz, an expert at the liberal Center for American Progress, wrote: "Americans are much more comfortable with diversity than ever before, that is also an historical anomaly. But I think the reason is the sweeping nature of the demographic shifts. They have diminished (somewhat) the fear of the 'other.' Relatedly, millennials are growing up in a far more diverse society than we did and they don't even have to react to a demographic shift -- it's what they know. And the influence of millennials on cultural norms is significant."

One of the changing norms, as Peter Beinart explains, is belief in American exceptionalism. Only 27 percent of 18- to 29-year-old Americans agree that "the U.S. stands above all other countries." Among Americans age 65 and over, 50 percent agree.

"Think of it as somewhat similar to support for same-sex marriage," Barreto wrote of growing support for immigration. "Among younger folks, let's say under 35, things like gay rights and immigrant rights are not controversial, because they have grown up knowing more people who are gay or who are immigrants. So as the immigrant population increases and becomes more visible -- AND -- the overall U.S. population ages, the people who are 18 and over voicing their opinions in surveys are becoming more tolerant of diversity issues as a whole."

Visit link:

Gay Rights Can Unlock Immigration Reform - Bloomberg