21st Century America Project

For years the team at NDN/NPI has been a leader in helping policymakers better understand the changing demographics of the United States. We are excited to announce that we are bringing our demographic and public opinion research together under a single banner: The 21st Century America Project. The project will feature work by Morley Winograd and Mike Hais, NDN/NPI Fellows, authors of the critically acclaimed book Millenial Makeover; Alicia Menendez, our new Senior Advisor, who has extensive experience working in these emergent communities; and other NDN/NPI Fellows and collaborators.

Below, please find some of the highlights of our past work on 21st Century America:

2010 Highlights

A Continued Look at the Changing Coalitions of 21st Century America, Poll and Presentation, by Mike Hais and Morley Winograd

Hispanics Rising 2010

The American Electorate of the 21st Century, Poll and Presentation, by Mike Hais and Morley Winograd

Millennial Makeover, a blog by Mike Hais and Morley Winograd

Data Matters Columns, a blog by Mike Hais

2009 Highlights

The Drop Dobbs Campaign

The Anti Vitter-Bennett Amendment Campaign

The New Constituents: How Latinos Will Shape Congressional Apportionment After the 2010 Census, by Andres Ramirez

NDN Backgrounder: Census 2010, Immigration Status and Reapportionment, by Andres Ramirez

Latino Vote in 2008, by Andres Ramirez

2008 Highlights

End of the Southern Strategy, by Simon Rosenberg

Hispanics Rising II

2007 Highlights

The 50 Year Strategy, by Simon Rosenberg and Peter Leyden in Mother Jones

Deaths of Immigrants Crossing Sonoran Desert on the Rise

As the summer heat kicks into high gear deaths along the Sonoran border beginning to pile up. 

Before this gets turned into a talking point for the need to secure our out of  control border, it should be noted that the deaths are not American nor tied to any drug violence.

The deaths I am writing about are those of immigrants who attempt to cross the large expanse of the Sonoran desert in 110 degree weather in order to reunite with their family or find below minimum wage work.

In fact the number of deaths of immigrants in the desert is more than all of those killed along the border by drug dealers or any other immigrant related violence north of the border.

Edward Schumacher-Matos of the Washington Post puts a finer point on it in his Op-Ed Immigration Reform is within our Grasp, Meanwhile People Die:

Last year, 317 Americans died fighting in Afghanistan. Guess how many migrants, mostly Mexicans searching for work, died crossing illegally into America? The Border Patrol collected 422 in the last fiscal year, part of a rising trend.

Mid-summer is generally the peak time for immigrants to cross the scorching desert. The period between May and August is always a grizzly one along our southern border, this year is turning into one for the record books.

So many bodies of unauthorized migrants are being found in the Arizona desert this month, the Associated Press reported, that the Pima County Medical Examiner was stacking them like boxes of fish in a refrigerated truck.

Forty bodies were found in just the first half of the month.

With such a shocking amount of death, with so much human life lost, one would think that this would play into the political debate in Washington D.C. This of course is not the case.

Yet these deaths figure little in the debate over immigration. There is faint sense of scandal, of tragedy or, certainly, of urgency to agree on a solution. The extremists rule, with one side calling for more enforcement and the other saying enforcement doesn't work.

The former has the louder voice today, making it the bigger culprit, but the latter -- humanitarian groups, for one -- share in the blame. They seem not to find any enforcement policy they like, abandoning responsibility.

And this particular dichotomy has created an environment where not much is done about fixing our broken immigration system. There has been little movement on increasing work Visa's, creating a temporary work program, improved workplace enforcement, and recruitment of highly skilled immigrants. Meanwhile people die terrible deaths trying to cross the desert, to find below minimum wage work.

According to Derechos Humanos's a non-profit that does humanitarian work along the border, since 2000 there have been 2,004 deaths along the border.

It is not just the deaths in and of themselves that makes the current political conversation and lack of movement on CIR so frustrating, it is how people crossing the border are dying. Often the bodies found in the desert cannot be identified because they have been reduced to mummified remains. Schumacher-Matos recounts the experience in his op-ed:

And most die in the desert. Here is how Luis Alberto Urrea, in his book, "The Devil's Highway," described what happens:

"Dehydration had reduced all your inner streams to sluggish mudholes. . . . Your sweat runs out. . . . Your temperature redlines -- you hit 105, 106, 108 degrees. . . . Your muscles, lacking water, feed on themselves. They break down and start to rot. . . . The system closes down in a series. Your kidney, your bladder, your heart."

As the summer heat continues, the remains continue to pile up, when there are so many ways to begin on fixing our immigration system, nothing much is done.

Senate Republicans Block President Obama's Request For Border Security Funds

Senate Republican's have voted not to include up to $700 million in border security emergency funds for states.

H.R. 4899 The Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2010 contained an amendment for $700 million dollars in border security funds.

According to Peter Nicholas of the LA Times, President Obama had requested $600 million in June:

To hire another 1,000 Border Patrol agents, acquire two drones and enhance security along the Southwest border.

The money would also pay for an additional 160 Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents and extra Border Patrol canine teams, according to a senior White House official who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly.

The full article can be read here.

The House passed bill added a $100 million in border security emergency funds, by the time the supplemental reached the floor of the Senate that number had dropped to $500 million.

Ultimately the money was stripped out completely when the Senate rejected the Motion to Concur the House Amendment to the Senate Amendment to H.R. 4899 Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2010.

Looking at the vote count which can be seen here, both Senators from Arizona,  John (complete the danged fence) McCain and Jon Kyl voted against this legislation.

In fairness a number of Democrats also voted against the legislation as well.

However it should also be noted that save for two Republican's who did not vote, all of the GOP in the Senate voted against the supplemental and Border Security.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid released a statement on the loss of funds:

“Congress needs to pass comprehensive immigration reform that secures our borders, cracks down on unscrupulous employers, and requires those here illegally to get right with the law, learn English, pay taxes, pass criminal background checks, and go to the back of the line.  But to accomplish this, we need bipartisan support, and Republicans refuse to work with us.  In the meantime, we need to do whatever we can to protect our national security and ensure our borders are secure, which is why Democrats tried to pass an important $500 million border security initiative that the President requested.

 "But Republican obstruction reared its ugly head again – they blocked this legislation to crack down on border-related crime and smuggling and chose empty rhetoric over action.  I urge my Republican colleagues to stop blocking common-sense measures and start working with Democrats in good faith to achieve comprehensive immigration reform.”

 

AZ Judge Will Not Block All of SB1070 State Immigration Law

Yesterday, Arizona District Judge Susan Bolton indicated that she would not strike down Sb1070 in its entirety but rather focus in on a couple of the measures and decide whether those were unconstitutional.

There are 14 sections of SB1070.

Judge Bolton intends to examine the legality of three sections in particular:

1. The Enforcement Arrest Section

2. The Documentation Section

3. Removal Section

It is possible that the Judge, will strip out the most pernicious parts of the law without striking the whole thing

The judge could strike down a federal injunction, but strip out the portions of the law that could create instances of racial profiling, then allow the law to go into effect in a new modified form.

The Arizona Republic has the full story here:

(District Judge Susan) Bolton held hearings Thursday on two of the highest-profile legal challenges to Senate Bill 1070, making attorneys on both sides of the aisle sweat as she challenged their legal arguments and forced them to focus on specific portions of the law.

She didn't issue a ruling, and it is unknown when she will. But the clock is ticking toward next Thursday, when the law goes into effect.

Bolton did make one thing clear: She has no intention of invalidating the entire law but is considering halting the enactment of a handful of its 14 sections.

In the hearing Judge Bolton noted that she did not consider SB1070 to be a statute, but rather a combination of several new laws and amended works.

She cited three sections of SB1070 in particular that she would examine and put forth for legal debate:

Section 2: Enforcement, arrest

There are two parts of this section of the law that Bolton and the attorneys debated.

The first prohibits state and local government from restricting law enforcement from enforcing federal immigration law to the fullest extent permitted by federal statute.

Bolton asked ACLU attorney Omar Jadwat and later Department of Justice attorney Edwin Kneedler why the state should not be allowed to require all local law enforcement to enforce federal immigration law.

"Why can't Arizona be as inhospitable as they wish to people who have remained and entered the United States illegally?" the judge asked. "Who am I to stop the state of Arizona?"

But she also held the state's lawyer, John Bouma, to the fire with questions about whether this portion of the state law pre-empts federal law. Bouma said it did not.

"Law-enforcement officers have been enforcing federal immigration laws for years," he said.

The other part of this section of the law that was addressed was the portion that states that any person arrested must have his or her immigration status determined before he or she can be released.

Bolton asked Bouma whether lawmakers really intended that anyone arrested, regardless of his or her legal status or whether the arrest involved citing and releasing someone on the spot or booking him or her into jail, had to have immigration status determined before being released from jail.

Section 6: Removal

Section 6 of SB 1070 as amended allows law-enforcement officers to, without a warrant, arrest people suspected of committing offenses that make them "removable from the United States."

Bolton seemed to have serious concerns about this portion of the law. She said there is no list of crimes deemed to be removable offenses and questioned who would make that determination and at what point during the arrest it would be made.

"How can a police officer make a determination that a person has committed a removable offense when that decision can only be made by a federal judge?" she asked.

Section 3: Documentation

Section 3 of SB 1070 as amended creates the state crime of "willful failure to complete or carry an alien registration document."

Attorney Nina Perales with the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, one of the civil-rights groups that filed the lawsuit along with the ACLU, said this portion of the law creates new classes of non-citizens because it doesn't offer exceptions for individuals who may be in the midst of citizenship or asylum proceedings and have permission to be in the country but don't yet have documents.

Bouma responded that that argument gets into a hypothetical "chamber of horrors" that people would be hauled off and thrown into jail to wait until someone could determine whether they belonged there.

We will be following this closely, check back for more as it develops.

Arizona Challenges DOJ Lawsuit on SB1070

With oral arguments set to be heard on the federal lawsuit against SB1070 in a district court on Thursday, Arizona has filed an objection claiming that the state is acting within its powers.

Tim Gaynor of Reuters has the full story:

Arizona on Tuesday urged a federal judge to reject the U.S. government's bid to quash its strict new immigration law, arguing the border state is acting within its powers.

The law takes effect on July 29. It requires state and local police to investigate the immigration status of anyone they reasonably suspect of being an illegal immigrant.

Lawyers for Governor Brewer are confident that the lawsuit will be struck down:

"Arizona merely seeks to assist with the enforcement of existing federal immigration laws in a constitutional manner," lawyers for Arizona Governor Jan Brewer said in documents filed with the court late on Tuesday.

"It is (the Obama administration) that is attempting to impose immigration policies and priorities that contravene and conflict with federal law and unambiguous congressional intent."

The full article can be read here.

SB1070 Will Seperate Children From Their Families

Congressman Raul Grijalva (D-AZ) has been in the news a lot recently, he has been an outspoken critic of SB1070 and called for a boycott of the state until the law is repealed.

He recently held an Ad-Hoc hearing in Congress on the adverse effects that SB1070 will have on families. It was the contention of the witnesses at the hearing that SB1070 will separate families. In particular American children of illegal immigrants will be separated from their parents, and become wards of the state.

Two witnesses in particular brought this reality home.

Heidi Ruby Portugal is a 12 year old who had to learn to cook for her brothers and sisters when she was ten because her mother has been detained by Sherriff Joe Arpaio.

At only 10 years of age I had a sad awakening the day of February 11. When I woke up, I found out that my mother had been arrested.  I thought “Was she in a wreck? Or what happened?  But I could not understand was why she was arrested working.  My biggest preoccupation was my 2 little brothers and sister.  What was going to happen to them?  And what about my little brother that my mother was breast feeding? 

I ask myself “Why did I have to suffer so much and I had to take on a huge responsibilities and charge? Waking up early and getting my little sister ready and with great agony having to leave my 2 little brothers.

Maybe you are saying “We have heard this before, but have you thought about the great damage that you have done to my mind, completely going through this personal suffering.

Mathew Perea an 11 year old born in the United States representing thousands of children from migratory families.

The laws in Arizona are just unjust and make me fear for my family.  I am always worried when my family leaves the house that something might happen to them.  I think about it when my dad goes to work that he might not come back or when I go to school that there might not be someone to pick me up when I get out.

SB 1070 is all about hate.  This is something that we don’t need.  I feel mad that they are already separating kids from their parents. I feel mad when Arpaio goes out to our parents jobs or through our neighborhoods.  Why does Arpaio arrest our parents, it is not the kids fault or their parents either.  I don’t know what happens to kids left alone when their parents are deported.  I have heard that they take them away too. 

Video of the hearing is below, the children's testimony begins 2 minutes in.

 

 

>

 

 

SB 1070 lawsuits could bankrupt local governments

Hugh Holub of the Tucson Citizen has a story up today on the financial cost of defending the lawsuits against SB1070.

The lawsuits in question are not the seven lawsuits filed to stop SB1070 from going into effect. The lawsuits referred to in this article are the ones that would arise once the law is enacted.

In subsection G of SB1070, there is a provision that would allow citizens to sue, law enforcement officials if they thought that they were not enforcing immigration law. Section G is below, the full law can be seen here:

G.  A PERSON MAY BRING AN ACTION IN SUPERIOR COURT TO CHALLENGE ANY OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE THAT ADOPTS OR IMPLEMENTS A POLICY THAT LIMITS OR RESTRICTS THE ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAWS TO LESS THAN THE FULL EXTENT PERMITTED BY FEDERAL LAW. IF THERE IS A JUDICIAL FINDING THAT AN ENTITY HAS VIOLATED THIS SECTION, THE COURT SHALL ORDER ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:
     
1. THAT THE PERSON WHO BROUGHT THE ACTION RECOVER COURT COSTS AND ATTORNEY FEES.

2. THAT THE ENTITY PAY A CIVIL PENALTY OF NOT LESS THAN ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS AND NOT MORE  THAN FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS FOR EACH DAY THAT THE POLICY HAS REMAINED IN EFFECT AFTER THE FILING OF AN ACTION PURSUANT TO THIS SUBSECTION.

If we read this subsection carefully, the problem with this provision becomes apparent. Under this subsection, the person who brings the lawsuit can recover their court costs and attorney fees. Who pays for the legal costs of someone who files suit under this subsection, the state. If the state is paying these legal fees, then ultimately this cost would be brought down to the tax payer.

One of the more pernicious elements of SB 1070 is allowing citizens to sue local governments if it is believed the local law enforcement agencies are not enforcing SB 1070 as vigorously as Sheriff Joe Arpaio, State Senator Russell Pearce and their gang of  anti-immigrant folks desire.

So who is going to pay for the lawsuits against local governments when it is claimed they are not vigorously enforcing SB 1070?

Taxpayers.

Many local law enforcement officials outside of Maricopa County in Arizona are saying that they will not enforce SB1070 even if it is enacted. There is speculation that Subsection G of SB1070 is designed to force compliance from cities who will not comply with SB1070.

One can safely assume that as soon as SB 1070 goes into effect, a bunch of suits will be filed against those cities and counties where law enforcement leaders have questioned SB 1070. The City of Tucson and Santa Cruz and Pima counties for example.

This is aimed at forcing jurisdictions who don’t agree with the Arpaio/Russell point of view to toe the line of making illegal immigration the only law enforcement issue in Arizona.

For local governments already struggling to make ends meet SB1070 law suits could mean financial ruin.

If your city, town or county disagrees, you are going to be hit with enormous legal costs as the Arpaio/Pearce gang’s lawyers sue over lack of SB 1070 enforcement.

Santa Cruz County, for example, is hanging by a thread financially. They could be forced into bankruptcy if they are buried in SB 1070 enforcement litigation.

The full Tucson Citizen article can be read here.

Obama Gains Evangelical Allies on Immigration

Laurie Goodstein of the New York Times has a story up on the growing number of evangelicals who support Comprehensive Immigration Reform.

The article notes that this coalition presents significant problem's for conservative politicians who do not want to pass comprehensive immigration reform. Evangelicals, are typically on the opposite side of many issues that President Obama champions. However on Immigration, there is much agreement.

“I am a Christian and I am a conservative and I am a Republican, in that order,” said Matthew D. Staver, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel, a conservative religious law firm. “There is very little I agree with regarding President Barack Obama. On the other hand, I’m not going to let politicized rhetoric or party affiliation trump my values, and if he’s right on this issue, I will support him on this issue.”

Evangelical's also see the importance and value of Hispanics to the continued prosperity of the country;

“Hispanics are religious, family-oriented, pro-life, entrepreneurial,” said the Rev. Richard D. Land, president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, the Southern Baptist Convention’s public policy arm. “They are hard-wired social conservatives, unless they’re driven away.

They also, have a message for the Republican party:

“My message to Republican leaders,” said the Rev. Samuel Rodriguez, the president of the evangelical National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference and one of the leaders who engaged his non-Hispanic peers, “is if you’re anti-immigration reform, you’re anti-Latino, and if you’re anti-Latino, you are anti-Christian church in America, and you are anti-evangelical.”

About 70 percent of Hispanics in the United States are Catholic, but some 15 percent are evangelicals, and they are far more likely than the Catholics to identify themselves as conservative and Republican.

The full article can be read here.

Obama Strong on Enforcement of Federal Immigration Law

A common talking point for those that criticize the current Administrations stance on Immigration reform is that they do not currently enforce Federal Immigration laws.

However, according to Garance Burke, of the Associated Press, for better or worse federal prosecutions of immigrants, has actually increased under President Obama's administration, full article can be read here:

Federal prosecutions of immigrants soared to new levels this spring, as the Obama administration continued an aggressive enforcement strategy championed under President George W. Bush, according to a new study released Thursday.

The 4,145 cases referred to federal prosecutors in March and April was the largest number for any two-month stretch since the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency was created five years ago, the Syracuse University-based Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse found. They ranged from misdemeanor illegal entry to prosecutions of immigrants with criminal records.

The government's heavy focus on immigration investigations already is creating a heavy burden for the swamped courts along the U.S.-Mexico border, whose judges handle hundreds more cases than most of their counterparts in the rest of the country.

From a process standpoint, this article presents an interesting counterpoint to the current immigration debate over enforcement.

While there has been a heavy emphasis on enforcement, and an overall increase in the number of enforcement personnel, there has not been a similar increase in the number of judges who can actually process the large number of cases brought up with increased enforcement.

While there is debate over whether federal law enforcement officials should be the sole enforcers of immigration laws, it is common knowledge that only federal immigration judges can process immigration cases.

So while the number of cases has increased there are around the same number of judges. So undocumented immigrants, often have to wait long periods of time to be deported.

This is yet another reason why the conversation should not just center on enforcement but around passing Comprehensive Immigration Reform, which could address the number of immigration judges.

Two Utah State Workers Responsible for "Illegal Immigrant" List

Robert Gehrke of the Salt Lake Tribune is breaking news that the Utah Government was in fact tangentially involved with creating a "hit list" of purported "illegal immigrants."

The state has identified and placed on leave at least two employees from the Department of Workforce Services who accessed state data to compile a list of 1,300 people who were purportedly in the country illegally.

“This is a very calculated, deliberate, patiently prepared violation of security protocols of how we gather information at the state,” Gov. Gary Herbert said Friday morning on KSL.

“Release of such private, sensitive information is deplorable,” the governor said in a statement. “When someone does business with the state of Utah, they deserve to know that their private information will be kept private.”

The two employees have been placed on administrative leave pending completion of the full investigation, according to the governor’s office. Others may be identified as the review continues, with results to be turned over to the Utah Attorney General’s Office.

The full story can be read here.

While it is a relief that the governor, has condemned the actions of a few rogue state government workers, it is still deeply troubling that this list was created.

It is disturbing that any state government on American soil could produce a "list" akin to something that Stalin, or the Nazi's in Germany would condone.

Conservative Evangelical Leaders Testify Before House Committee on Immigration

Yesterday, the House Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security and International Law held a hearing on: the Ethical Imperative for Reform of our Immigration System.

Evangelical leaders are among the most passionate advocates for passing comprehensive immigration reform. Their testimony at the hearing was both insightful and intelligent.

Richard Land, President, Southern Baptist Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission described:

three pillars” of any comprehensive reform bill: border security, interior enforcement, and legalization/guest worker program.

“Fundamentally, Southern Baptists and other Evangelicals view immigration through the lens of their faith,” said Land.  “As citizens of the United States, we – meaning Southern Baptists – have an obligation to support the government and the government’s laws for conscience’ sake. 

We also have a right to expect the government to fulfill its divinely ordained mandate to punish those who break the laws and reward those who do not. 

But, Southern Baptists also recognize a biblical mandate to care for “the least among us”, to care for the “strangers” who reside in our land, and to act justly and mercifully. Later in the hearing, Land said,

“In 2006 the Southern Baptist Convention, the last time the Congress was debating this issue, passed a resolution overwhelmingly. 95% plus vote and you understand that when the convention passes a resolution those are elected messengers from the 44,000 churches each local church elects a member to go to the convention and vote their conscience.

And I think any fair reading of that resolution is a policy that secures the borders and then finds a way toward legal status an earned pathway toward legal status.”

This is a great framework for how to discuss immigration among faith based conservative voters. Andrea Nill over at Think Progress, has a great post up from the hearing about the definition of "Amnesty." 

The post focuses on an exchange between the ranking member on the committee Steve King (R) and witness Mathew Staver, Founder and Chairman, Liberty Counsel and Dean, Liberty University School of Law over the definition of Amnesty. The full post can be read here, with the video and transcript below.

KING: I would define amnesty this way [...] — to grant amnesty is to pardon immigration lawbreakers and reward them with the objective of their crime. And I just submit that definition to you and ask as a lawyer, an attorney, as a pastor, and as someone who has studied this thoroughly, how you would react to that definition. [...]

STAVER: Congressman King, that definition would not be consistent with the rule of law. It would not be consistent with the definition that is Blackstone or Black’s Law dictionary. Amnesty would be forgiveness — complete forgiveness — where you have absolutely no penalty. That’s what Ronald Reagan did, I don’t support what Ronald Reagan did. I don’t suppose that that is what I’m proposing here. [...]

KING: Then I would submit then Reverand that the path that you’ve described here is pay a fine, pay back taxes, learn English. Those things are designed to provide the objective of the person who has already broken the law. [...] I don’t see that as a penalty or any kind of recompense for breaking the law. [...]

Syndicate content