E-verify

Weekly Immigration Update (con.): E-verify controversy, Al Franken, and CIR Recommended by Task Force for Economy, Security

E-VERIFY - DHS reported today that starting Sept. 8, the E-Verify system, an online tool that checks a worker's Social Security number and immigration status, will be mandatory for all  contractors and subcontractors and their employees assigned to federal contracts.  Moreover, these contractors and subcontrators now have to run all employees - not just new hires - though the system.

Soon after the announcement, the Senate approved by voice vote an amendment to the FY10 Homeland Security appropriations bill offered by Sen. Jeff Sessions that would make the soon-to-expire – and increasingly criticized – E-Verify program permanent.  

A lesser-known provision was inserted by Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy to permanently authorize the EB-5 visa program, which enables foreigners who invest at least $500,000 in the United States to obtain a green card (yes, a fact unknown to most Americans is that you CAN buy a legitimate green card…if you can afford it).  

The Senate also voted 54-44 to adopt an amendment from Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), that would require the department to build up to 700 miles of fencing along the Southwest border (because those taxpayer dollars have been SO well spent until now) – nice way for those Republicans to “cut back unnecessary spending.”  

AL FRANKEN – WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR IMMIGRATION REFORM? – Yes, with Franken in the Senate Dems now have 60 votes.  Yes, Democrats have the votes, but many are still missing the backbone to fix the broken immigration system.  While Franken is exemplary in his support of immigration reform, this is still not the case for many of his colleagues. 

The vote on the e-verify amendment presented the first break between Franken and the Senior Senator from Minnesota, Amy Klobuchar (Dem leadership and Franken voted against the amendment, Klobuchar voted in favor).  It is these kinds of New Dems who will have to be whipped into shape (figuratively) to recognize the urgency and need for immigration reform.  

HOW TO CONVINCE THEM? – Many of us who study the issue of immigration on a daily basis are fully aware of the economic and social net benefit that reform will bring to all Americans.  Luckily, today's developments coincided with the release of a bipartisan task force report that said overhauling the nation's immigration system and giving millions of undocumented workers a path to legal citizenship is critical to America's national security and economic interests.  Comprehensive legislative changes should be "a first-tier priority for the Obama administration and Congress," said the report, released by a Council on Foreign Relations task force led by former Florida Republican Gov. Jeb Bush and Thomas (Mack) McLarty, who served as President Bill Clinton's chief of staff.

The authors of the report essentially reiterated what I wrote in my Weekly Update on Monday:  "The United States, a country shaped by generations of immigrants and their descendants, is badly mishandling its immigration policy, with serious consequences for its standing in the world," the report said.

Among other things, McLarty disputed the notion that giving undocumented workers now in the country a path to citizenship would be akin to giving them amnesty. They would have to first pay fines, learn English, assimilate and wait behind current applicants, McLarty said.

 

Brooks Unloads on Republicans, Rep. Kingston Proves His Point

David Brooks today hammers the Republican Party for its wholly inadequate response to the Great Recession and to President Barack Obama's plans for economic recovery:

The Democratic response to the economic crisis has its problems, but let’s face it, the current Republican response is totally misguided. The House minority leader, John Boehner, has called for a federal spending freeze for the rest of the year. In other words, after a decade of profligacy, the Republicans have decided to demand a rigid fiscal straitjacket at the one moment in the past 70 years when it is completely inappropriate.
The G.O.P. leaders have adopted a posture that allows the Democrats to make all the proposals while all the Republicans can say is “no.” They’ve apparently decided that it’s easier to repeat the familiar talking points than actually think through a response to the extraordinary crisis at hand.

If the Republicans wanted to do the country some good, they’d embrace an entirely different approach.

If Republicans were to treat this like a genuine emergency, with initiative-grabbing approaches, they may not get their plans enacted, but voters would at least give them another look. Do I expect them to shift course in this manner? Not really.

Instead of offering reasonable policy choices, Republicans argue that we shouldn't do anything other than try to change a couple banking rules to restore lending. This, and many of Brooks' proposals, shows a deep misunderstanding about the causes of the Great Recession. There were fundamental problems in the American economy long before the financial meltdown, including the stagnation of wages and incomes for everyday Americans, despite strong productivity and GDP growth. This wage-productivity gap had never been seen before in American economics, and, unless policymakers move to create a 21st century economy, recovery will not come the way we'd like. This necessitates, unlike Brooks argues, bold action to restructure much of what was not working.

As an example of the backwards response that Republicans are exhibiting on the economy, enjoy U.S. Rep. Jack Kingston of Georgia on Morning Joe:

Honestly, I’m not sure which part of his argument is more ridiculous, that the President can't walk and chew gum at the same time or that E-verify is more important to economic recovery than building a 21st century economy.

Weekly Update on Immigration: Posturing on E-verify and Immigration Policies That Bring Shame and Danger to Our Communities

I. Immigrants Bear the Brunt of Political Posturing Yet Again - It is no coincidence that this morning USA Today published an article citing "experts" alleging that undocumented immigrants would obtain jobs from the money provided under the economic stimulus.  It just so happens that the U.S. Senate is considering an omnibus bill today that could extend the electronic verification system known as "E- verify" through September of 2009, or longer (depending on passage of certain amendments).  The absence of data indicates that these "experts" are simply jumping in on the politicking to vent their anti-immigrant views and to try to persuade public opinion to favor renewal of the current e-verify, which has been determined to be ineffective and impractical.  The article cites that "pro-immigrant and business groups" call e-verify dangerous and ineffective, but fails to note that e-verify is also determined as such by legitimate research institutions, government agencies (GAO and Inspector General reports, etc.), Congress, and others.   These "experts" provide no methodology to support their contention that of all the jobs created under the stimulus, 300,000 construction jobs would go to "illegal immigrants."  

Funds go to the construction industry because it's among the hardest hit, not because it employs immigrants.  The numbers used by CIS are from 2005, long before - as reported just a few days ago, also by USA Today - the unemployment rate in the construction industry hit 21.4%, causing layoffs among largely Hispanic workers, thus contributing to the now 10.9% unemployment rate among Latinos.  Leaders of labor groups have openly stated that the construction industry is in a "near depression."  According to the White House estimate of the impact of the stimulus, 18.4% of overall job creation would occur in the construction industry, translating to about 678,000 jobs.  CIS believes that half of these jobs would go to undocumented immigrants, but provides no basis for this. Yes, most construction workers are minorities, but CIS leaps to a very fragile connection between minorities and legal status, given that most Hispanics/Latinos in this country are in fact not "illegals."

Moreover, CIS has no credibility.  As we have discussed before, CIS is a recognized hate group.  Second, it has lost credibility because it's always wrong.  It was wrong about everything from the GOP no longer needing Latino voters to its allegations of the "surge" of immigrants that would "flood" into the U.S. after the 2008 Presidential election. Not only are their assumptions flawed, they even contradict each other.  In July 2008, CIS alleged that a "homeward-bound" exodus of immigrants leaving the U.S. was happening, and a few months later, in October, it argued there would be a "surge" of immigrants that would "flood" the U.S. after the elections.  Neither has occurred.  Clearly, their "research" is full of discretionary "data" and assumptions come up as needed, when needed.

Lastly, CIS has said it itself: it is against both legal and illegal immigration.  Data actually suggests that immigrants (both legal and illegal) contribute to state economies, as indicated by IPC research in several states.

This is yet another example of why Congress and the Administration can't be centrists on the issue of immigration.  As long as Comprehensive Immigration Reform is not enacted,  domestic policy and items like the omnibus will continue to get caught in the crossfire and held up over immigration proxy wars and political posturing.  This demonization of our community has to stop.

II. Immigration Policies That Bring Global Shame on the U.S. and Put Us At Risk - Another ember kindling the hatred against Hispanics is a little-known program called "287(g)," named after the section of immigration law that contains it. The 1996 immigration law ("IIRIRA")brought 287(g) into being, authorizing the federal government to enter into agreements with state and local law enforcement agencies to train local officers to perform functions of an immigration officer.  This week GAO presented testimony before Congress once again pointing out concerns about the inefficiency and dangers in this program, in addition to the fact that it is an unfunded mandate.  GAO concluded that the program lacks key internal controls: guidance on how and when to use the program authority is non-existent or inconsistent, there are no guidelines on how ICE officials are to supervise officers in participating agencies, and there are no performance measures to track and evaluate progress toward meeting the program objectives - probably because GAO also found that program objectives have not
been documented in any materials.  These findings are serious, and the investigation also concluded that 287(g) participation has led to documented violations and racial profiling.  Racial profiling, stopping motorists because they "look illegal" can't be accepted in the America that elected Barack Obama as president - a president that speaks about how we are all one, how we are all our brother's keeper.  

More than a "program," I see 287(g) as a symptom of a larger disease; it is an expression of the disease of hate and demonization of Hispanics that has spread across the country. It is telling that 287(g) came into being in 1996, but the first 287(g) agreement didn't come into being until 2002 - that means that for six years we had undocumented migration, but no one felt it necessary to send police after immigrants.  But all that changed after 9/11.  The desire to seek out and scapegoat immigrants for all our ills took hold as the far right, anti-immigrant talk show hosts and narrative flared.  From 2002-2008, we saw the number of 287(g) agreements balloon to 67, in 29 states. 

Although the GAO did not track the amount of resources a state diverts away from fighting actual crime when it decides to shift its energy to acting as immigration police, there are plenty of other reports documenting the increase in the number of criminal investigations that languish unsolved as police decide to instead stake out U.S. residents or citizens of color to make sure they're "legal."  This lack of attention to criminals and particularly to organized crime could not come at a worse time.  We are definitely facing a war against drug traffickers at the border.  And this war is not only the responsibility of the Mexican government, the U.S. must decide to fully engage its resources - DHS, FBI, DOJ - to find and pursue the drug buyers and suppliers in the U.S. - the ones providing Mexican cartels with business.  Therefore, the unintended consequences of 287(g) go far beyond the serious offense of racial profiling, we are putting our communities at risk by irrationally and unjustly changing the priorities of our first responders.  The priority should be to keep our communities safe and pursue criminals. Immigrants do not threaten our lives and our safety, criminals and drug traffickers do. With limited resources, let's keep our eye on the ball.   

For more information, check out an IPC fact sheet on 287(g) partnerships, and a report by Justice Strategies.

III. More on the Economics of Immigration - Scientists fear that the broken immigration system and the troublesome visa system will drive foreign students to other countries.  Business Week reports that some data shows skilled immigrants are actually leaving the U.S. as debate over programs like the H-1B visa intensifies. And a very interesting article in Nashville, TN reminds us of an important lesson: Tennessee has actually used immigration to bolster its economy since the era of Reconstruction.

IV. We Can't Stress the Importance of the 2010 Census enough - The GAO presented assessments of Census methodology at House and Senate hearings last week, and warns that at this moment, the bureau is behind schedule.  Moreover, the accuracy of the 2010 Census remains threatened by computer problems and untested methods the Census Bureau plans to use for conducting the count, according to testimony by Robert Goldenkoff, director of strategic issues for the GAO. And we can't forget that the Congressional Black Caucus has been calling for a very involved President in the development of the Census.  If they work together, the CHC and CBC can carry a great deal of influence on this process to the benefit of minority communities.  

V. The Race for Rahm's Seat - Cook County Commissioner Mike Quigley won the Democratic special primary election to contend for Rahm Emmanuel's seat on April 7.  On immigration, Quigley noted, "I sponsored a measure with Cook County Commissioner Roberto Maldonado to create an immigrant protection ordinance in our Cook County system."  This is another race in which we have a pro-CIR Democratic candidate against an anti-immigrant Republican candidate.  In this case, the Republican is Rosanna Pulido, director of the Illinois Minuteman Project (I know, go figure).  We'll keep a close eye on this one. 

VI. And in case you missed it - the "Top 10 Immigration Issues From 2008."

Recovery Without E-verify and Buy American

For months, NDN has written a great deal about what we believe should be in an economic recovery plan. We’ve argued for investment in provisions that will both spur the economy now and create the basis for future prosperity.  We’ve argued for investments in clean and traditional infrastructure, broadband access, electronic health records, and computers in schools. While we have some concerns about what will end up in the final bill, all in all we think the recovery plan that is emerging is a good one and should be passed as soon as possible. We applaud the work of this young Administration and Congress for moving so swiftly and so assuredly to take the kind of action required at this challenging time for the nation.  

However, there are two provisions being discussed that we believe should not be in the final bill: mandatory E-verify usage by employers receiving stimulus funds and "Buy American" requirements for materials involved in stimulus funded projects. We believe that, in coming days, these provisions should be removed from the economic recovery legislation. While they are well intentioned provisions, we, like many others, do not believe that they will function as a stimulus for the economy and will do more harm than good.

As President Obama pointed out yesterday in Elkhart, Indiana, there are many effective ways to make America more competitive in the global economy, but we believe that "Buy American" provisions, which, depending on the version of the bill, would force steel, iron, and other materials used in stimulus projects to be American-made, are not among them. We have serious concerns that Buy American provisions, while well-intentioned, place us right on the edge of our international legal commitments and open the door to dangerous retribution from other nations also in the midst of grave economic challenges at home. America not only imports from abroad, but our workers and our companies sell a great deal abroad.   Enacting provisions that would slow American exports and potentially diminish the overall volume of trade at a time of an accelerating global slowdown could tip the world into a global depression. As many have pointed out, America tried this strategy in the early 20th century, and it was instrumental in bringing about the Great Depression.  

Similarly, however laudable the goal of using the nascent E-verify system by all companies receiving stimulus funds to ensure that these funds go to legal workers, the reality is that the system is not yet ready for broad, mandatory deployment. Indeed, mandating its use could have adverse consequences for the economic recovery, as it would almost certainly slow the use of funds, be incredibly costly to employers, and, because of the consequences of false "no matches" (which are easily triggered and all too common), would delay the recovery plan’s goal of putting Americans back to work.  For those policymakers interested in the United States having national, effective electronic immigration verification system, they should work with the President to include it in a broader effort to fix our broken immigration system later this year.  

As members of Congress debate the economic recovery plan in conference committee over the next few days, we trust that they will keep an eye out for provisions that are clearly not in the economic interests of the United States. The inclusion of Buy American and E-verify provisions fall well short of this measure and should be removed from the legislation.

Weekly Update on Immigration: Two Themes - The Economy and Hate

I.  We begin with the good news from this week - The President signs a children's health bill into law that provides for legal immigrant children.  Even though the recent debate over funding health insurance for children was contaminated by fears that "illegal immigrants" would sign up for the program, the bill still passed Congress and was signed into law this week.  It is a very encouraging sign that Members of Congress could see past the politics and recognize that this bill - and the provision that was for granting legal immigrant children care - was the best policy.  Congress and the American people showed how they are now ready to rise above the insults and demagoguery to enact smart policy.  The accusations rang hollow - that the bill would encourage more people to come to the United States to "get on the government dole," or that there was "no verification system to speak of ... in the bill," as stated by Lisa Sylvester on CNN's "Lou Dobbs Tonight," while the phrase "illegal alien bailout" flashed on the screen - all this was kicked to the curb because policy makers knew better.  They knew the truth, and demonstrated a desire to focus on solving problems as opposed to hating immigrants.  Donna Cohen Ross, director of outreach at the Washington-based Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, said she was not surprised by the Lou Dobbs rhetoric.  Still, after studying the House bill's language, she concluded that there was "nothing about the rules that would allow illegal immigrants to use the program."

But the fight is not over, as Simon has stated, "The immigration system is broken and there are a lot of people who live in this country who are not legal citizens,....So the issue of whether benefits are conferred upon them will come up again and again."  Hence the urgency to pass comprehensive immigration reform as a way to stop having domestic policy held up by immigration proxy fights. 

II. Mixed Messages - The debate in D.C. is focused around the economic stimulus package this week.  And while everyone says they care about helping businesses and helping "everyday working Americans," the "economic recovery" plans laid out by Congress are full of mixed messages - I won't delve into NDN's perspective on these issues individually at this time, I'm only pointing out key items that - to me - seem a bit contradictory: 

1.  On the one hand, the Senate kind of backed off the original "Buy America" provisions, diluting them after public outcry.  And yet, after diluting buy America, Senators turned around and came out against increasing H1-B - foreign - workers. 

2.  "He giveth and he taketh away" - A week after the Federal government decided to delay mandatory implementation of the E-Verify system for government contractors, the economic stimulus package could mandate that all recipients use this ineffective system.  Let me get this straight - you have companies that are struggling to the point they need government aid, and somewhere, someone believes it's a good idea to then turn around and impose an additional requirement on them that will potentially dilute any benefit conferred by the stimulus.  Mandating e-verify could require businesses to hire additional Human Resources personnel to become trained in and handle the e-verify checks.  Additionally, it will cause a delay for businesses in receiving the stimulus because most do not currently use e-verify, which means they can't get stimulus until they are trained and registered on the system.  Businesses will have to deal with DHS and SSA on a regular basis, and many workers will potentially lose their jobs as their data is run through e-verify, many unjustifiably.  At this time, all energy and money should be going to helping business get on its feet, and that should be the ONLY goal at this time, not to impose a bureaucratic process that does not even fulfill its intended role.  By all means, we support a functional system that could provide certainty to employers making hiring decisions, but that is not the current e-verify.  Let's worry only about stimulus at this point, then revisit E-verify as one part of a bill to enact comprehensive reforms to the entire broken immigration system.  

And lest we forget - the E-verify database does not contain immigration information, it was created by SSA to verify benefits with W-2s, it was never intended to serve as a system to check legal status.  As reported by the House Committee on Small Business, implementing this now will only hurt businesses - small businesses above all, who already suffer inflation, poor sales, and job loss.  

Finally, I have a test case that demonstrates what happens to business when you mandate the current - flawed - e-verify system: the State of Arizona.  IPC has data about this case, and NILC and CATO have written about it as well.  As Rep. Gabrielle Giffords testified during a committee hearing:

I believe that the Arizona experience should inform the ongoing debate about employment verification and whether the current E-Verify program administered through DHS should be extended and/or mandated Nationwide. 
Some of the businesses that have signed up have reported a variety of challenges and problems using E-Verify. They are finding it complicated, unreliable, and burdensome. They are having great difficulty getting answers from DHS to their problems about the system.  I have heard from employers, employees, and privacy rights advocates who are very vocal that nationally mandating E-Verify as it is would be potentially disastrous for our Nation. They are all experiencing the downfalls of using an inaccurate database with inadequate privacy protections.  Between October of 2006 and March 2007, roughly 3,000 foreign-born U.S. citizens were initially flagged as not work-authorized.  These errors have specifically impacted Arizona workers who have their ability to work wrongfully impacted. The experience of Arizona employers and employees makes it clear that we can do better and that action is needed.

III. Money = Policy.  A great piece by Nina Bernstein of the New York Times this week continued exposing details of how Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) actually strayed away from its mission to protect us for the sake of meeting ridiculous "quotas" of arrests, originally reported in California last week.  Under President Bush, Immigration raids garnered bigger increases in money and staff from Congress than any other program run by ICE even as complaints grew that teams of armed agents were entering homes indiscriminately.  Raids on private homes around the country were billed as carefully planned hunts for dangerous immigrant fugitives, and given "catchy" names like Operation Return to Sender.  Federal immigration officials had repeatedly told Congress that among more than half a million immigrants with outstanding deportation orders, they would concentrate on rounding up the most threatening - criminals and terrorism suspects.

Instead, newly available documents show, the agency changed the rules, and the program increasingly went after easier targets. A vast majority of those arrested had no criminal record, and many had no deportation orders against them, either. Internal directives by immigration officials in 2006 raised arrest quotas for each team in the National Fugitive Operations Program, eliminated a requirement that 75 percent of those arrested be criminals, and then allowed the teams to include nonfugitives in their count.  In the next year, fugitives with criminal records dropped to 9 percent of those arrested, and nonfugitives picked up by chance - without a deportation order - rose to 40 percent. Many were sent to detention centers far from their homes, and deported.

What exactly was Congress expecting when it funded this particular program the most, and then did not partner that funding with oversight?  Money is policy, and if you put your dollars into making arrests, it's not exactly a shock when the recipient of the money focuses on making arrests - without regard for the type of arrest.  This is an example of why it's so important for advocates and for members of our community to look at where the dollars are going, and to shape where funding goes because that will necessarily dictate policy priorities. 

Now, as the Obama administration vows to re-engineer immigration policy to target criminals, we certainly hope they reverse these "internal directives," participate in oversight, and work with Congress so that relevant committees also understand their role in funding certain programs, and then continuing oversight after they decide to appropriate funds.  It will be interesting to see the role Janet Napolitano decides to play in all this - now that she has left Arizona politics behind, Ms. Napolitano is free to prove this is not Arpaio's America, where the mob rules and immigrants are subject to ritual attack and humiliation.

IV. Where is the Outrage? Speaking of ritual humiliation, even though 21st Century America is nothing like Sheriff Arpaio's America, this man refuses to let down.  This "Sheriff" from Maricopa County, AZ paraded more than 200 men and women in shackles and prison stripes, marched under armed guard past a gantlet of TV cameras to a tent prison encircled by an electric fence. They were inmates being sent to await deportation in a new immigrant detention camp minutes from the center of America's fifth-largest city.  Two things are troubling:  1) this has not been recognized as a NATIONAL civil rights issue by the media, most activists, and elected officials.  How can a man - particularly in the position of Sheriff - allowed to parade people like cattle, dehumanizing and humiliating them while they are in a legal proceeding.  We forget - MOST awaiting deportation are not criminals.  Where is our community's outrage at this man, and the outrage of the entire country, that people are paraded in such fashion in the United States of America?
And 2) Arpaio's tactics are even more infuriating given that his office's budget has nearly doubled since 2001. In the meantime, criminals have the run of Maricopa County. As reported by the Goldwater Institute and the East Valley Tribune, the sheriff has 40,000 outstanding felony warrants in his jurisdiction and 2,700 lawsuits filed against him.  So the money is going to pulling stunts as opposed to doing his job.  If he wants celebrity, let him step down. The duty of Sheriff is to keep people safe.  With crime rising, and being in a state that is largely involved in the drug trafficking fight, he should be more concerned with organized crime and fighting real criminals, as opposed to humiliating members of the community.  I share NCLR's call to action against him: 

Arpaio's newest scandal will by no means improve the safety of his community but no doubt get him more publicity. The images that this march will provoke are shocking: horrific shots of people chained, marching through public streets at lunchtime. Perhaps it's a ploy to increase the ratings of Sheriff Joe's new reality show, which is in its seventh week. Are you tired of his antics yet?  Here's what you can do:

1. Request that the Department of Justice investigate Arpaio's abuses.
2. Forward this email to all of your family and friends, post it on Facebook, and circulate it as far and wide as you can. Send a clear message to Arpaio and his thugs that we will not stand for these kinds of abuses in our nation.

Arizona Republic: Arpaio to Move Illegal-immigrant Inmates
Hundreds to be relocated to segregated area of Tent City; sheriff says plan will cut costs
February 4, 2009
By JJ Hensley and Yvonne Wingett

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2009/02/04/20090204arpaiojail0204.html

Sheriff Arpaio Chains Together Immigrants and Forces
March
February 4, 2009
By Dan Weiss
http://imagine2050.newcomm.org/2009/02/04/sheriff-arpaio-chains-together-immigrants-and-forces-march

Stop Arizona. Stop Arpaio. Stop the Circus.
February 4, 2009
By Rev. David L.
Ostendorf
http://imagine2050.newcomm.org/2009/02/04/stop-arizona-stop-arpaio-stop-the-circus/

"Chain gang?" He should be worried about real gangs. So that you can see the "chain gang" for yourself:

Weekly Immigration Update

Updates from our last report on the Elections and Immigration: Georgia's Senate Race just two weeks away - The runoff election will take place on December 2 and early the voting period began on Monday in many of the state's counties. Saxby Chambliss and Rep. Jim Martin - the Democratic challenger - are battling voter fatigue, they have to persuade supporters to come out again to vote. A Democratic win in Georgia would be yet another severe blow to the GOP in a state considered a stronghold for them. For immigration advocates, a win by pro-CIR Jim Martin would mean another win for those of us working for immigration reform.

Begich Defeats Convicted Sen. Ted Stevens in Alaska - Senator-elect Begich (D) defeated Stevens by 3,724 votes, a margin of more than 1 percentage point, putting Democrats closer to the 60 seat mark in the Senate. While Stevens has conceded this election, in Minnesota the candidates are still fighting in out. Election officials began a recount yesterday in the race between Republican Sen. Norm Coleman and Democrat Al Franken. So far Coleman leads Franken by 216 votes out of 2.9 million cast.

Obama picks scholars to develop immigration plan - Alexander Aleinikoff, Dean of the Georgetown University Law Center, and Mariano Florentino Cuellar, professor at Stanford Law School will lead the policy working group designated for immigration. Click here to read some articles by Dean Aleinikoff, and here to read more about Florentino Cuellar. In addition, it's looking more and more like Gov. Janet Napolitano will take on the important position of DHS Secretary. In the meantime, Julie Myers is officially no longer at ICE, and John Torres will take the helm through the end of this administration. And according to Adfero Group, these are the 10 most important jobs to be filled at ICE.

New Bedford Factory Targeted in Raid to pay $850,000 in overtime - The owners of the factory settled a class action lawsuit this week, agreeing to pay 764 current and former workers $850,000 owed in overtime.

The Texas GOP just doesn't get it - the Texas State Legislature will see several bills related to illegal immigration this session - "Advocates for a crackdown on illegal immigrants, apparently undaunted by their failures in the last Legislature, have filed a slew of bills for the upcoming session that are even stronger in tone and approach." The GOP is allegedly panicked about their lack of support among Hispanics, but Texas Republican legislators don't seem to get it. The bills go beyond the usual, one is for English-only, another would require public schools to check the citizenship of their students. Another would require illegal immigrants to be banished to self-described "sanctuary cities." Author Leo Berman, R-Tyler said, "The federal government is requiring us to give free education and health care to illegals," Mr. Berman said. "It's the largest unfunded mandate in the history of our nation." Another bill filed for the 2009 session allows police to check people's immigration status under "reasonable suspicion" that they might be illegal immigrants - really. Another refuses birth certificates to children born in the U.S. to parents who are here illegally.

On the flip side, a bill by Rep. Roberto Alonzo, D-Dallas, prohibits cities from restricting landlords on who can rent homes from them - a direct criticism of Farmers Branch's efforts to keep illegal immigrants from renting homes there. Another bill would create a task force to fight human trafficking. "The reality is that these problems can only be solved in Washington, D.C.," said Rep. Rafael Anchía, D-Dallas. "Even if every immigration-related bill passed in the Texas House, it would be wholly ineffective at dealing with the larger issue of how we align our immigration policy with the needs of our labor force. And that's what's driving illegal immigration." I wholeheartedly agree - and so far I've heard many doubts as to whether immigration reform will even be addressed by the 111th Congress.

Will Reform Happen in 2009? - Well, Congress should do so - after the 2006 midterm elections two years ago, congressional job approval was 26%. In this week's Gallup poll, Congressional approval is now at at 19%, with a 74% disapproval rating. Polling data consistently shows that immigration is not the third rail of politics - it's not that people are against reform, if you take the time to ask, people are against the broken immigration system and they want it fixed. Two-thirds of all voters support a comprehensive approach to immigration reform. Patience is not a virtue when it comes to immigration reform - how much longer can we wait? Obama is facing pressure from immigration advocates and from voters, particularly mixed-status families, to pass reform. Many articles posit that Latinos "may" question Obama on immigration - I disagree, Latinos will question Obama on immigration.

As reported by La Jornada, "the Latino vote is not a blank check...it represents the aspiration for change, social and economic justice for Latinos." Hopefully President Obama will work with Congress to fix our very broken immigration system, and fight against the few who confuse reform for "open borders." The Americas Policy Program attempted to explain how the two camps are "retrenching" on the issue of immigration reform, but their explanation merits comment - their article argues that opponents of reform argue that CIR can't happen during a time of economic downturn for fear "we'll lose jobs." The unemployment rate has increased for many reasons that have nothing to do with immigration policy.  All data demonstrates that undocumented immigrants perform jobs that Americans don't want, and by legalizing those without papers, we would be bringing them out of the shadows and improving wages for all, thus increasing wages across the board and fostering a more productive consumer base. The economic crisis is no argument against reform, if anything, CIR can be used as a tool to help improve the economy. The article says proponents of reform are arguing that the new administration "owes" the Hispanic/Latino electorate, i.e., they should pass it because we want it. Not really - while the Democratic party can certainly expect a backlash at the polls for not fixing the broken immigration system, it will come not only from Latinos, but from all the voters who currently feel Congress has not delivered solutions. Yes, Hispanic voters will be watching to see whether Obama "keeps all his promises," and you can bet he won't feel the love next time at the polls if he does not, but CIR shouldn't pass just because Latinos want it, it should be passed because from a policy and a political standpoint, the right and the best thing to do is to pass it in 2009.

Instances of Mistreatment of Children under CPB and ICE custody - A study released by the Center for Public Policy Priorities (CPPP) found that more than 43,000 undocumented, unaccompanied children have been mistreated while in custody and denied access to representation by Customs and Border Protection (Border Patrol) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and then transported home unsafely. The story was also reported by Latin American press, with reports of children being caged, neglected, and denied medical care.

Decorated immigration agent arrested on crystal meth charges.

Read the signs - A CQ article from this week makes some good points, but slightly misread the polling data from Lake Research, saying the issue of immigration has "cooled" - hardly. As Hispanics are being attacked and ostracized throughout the country, a more accurate point in the story that should be highlighted: "Hispanics could blame Democrats for immigration inertia, or feel that implicit campaign pledges weren't honored." A post-election poll by Lake Research Partners for America's Voice found that Hispanics turned their backs on the GOP - even though President Bush and Sen. John McCain , R-Ariz., both favored comprehensive legislation - because of perceptions that Republicans blocked the immigration overhaul in 2007 and used inflammatory rhetoric in the process. And Hispanics will only continue to determine candidates' political fate based on this important issue, as Robert Paral and Associates have reported - the 2008 election results demonstrate that, "even in states where the Hispanic community is relatively small, they can tip those states, they can be kingmakers if the other groups are evenly balanced." Paral expects the Hispanic vote to be the pivotal swing in future elections too, as more Hispanics register to vote, not only in traditional immigrant-receiving states, but also in states with fewer immigrants, such as New Hampshire, Connecticut, Oregon and Pennsylvania.

E-Verify not Ready for Prime Time - According to the ITAA, the final rule published this week requiring federal contractors and subcontractors to screen workers and new hires through the E-Verify system each year will put significant new burdens on those employers at least in the short term.

Immigration authorities need to release the guidelines they use in deciding 'stipulated removal' cases - In the last few years, the number of illegal immigrants in detention who waived their right to plead their case to remain in the United States has shot up from 5,500 in 2004 to 35,000 this year. In all, nearly 100,000 people have agreed to leave the country under "stipulated removal." Not surprisingly, troubling reports have surfaced of immigrants who say they were encouraged to self-deport without knowing that they had valid legal claims to remain in the U.S. and to have a hearing before a judge. Immigrants' rights groups are suing the Department of Homeland Security and other federal agencies, demanding they divulge their procedures for informing detainees of their rights. The department, which has made only half-hearted attempts to comply, should be made to do so.

Querétaro, Mexico gets appropriation for immigrants - The lower chamber of the Mexican Congress approved 704 million pesos to support immigrants returning to 10 states of the country, 50 million of this sum will go to the state of Querétaro.

Oberlin, OH considering becoming sanctuary city.

UN Trade Chief sees up to 6 percent drop in migrant remittances in 2009 - Migrant remittances, a vital source of income for poor countries, could decline by up to 6 percent next year due to worsening economic conditions around the world, the U.N.'s trade chief said last Friday.

Words Have Consequences - Click to read our coverage of hate crimes. Most recently, the death of Ecuadorian immigrant, Marcelo Lucero.

Weekly Update on Immigration: As the Economy Dives, DHS Targets the "Engine of Our Economy"

I. Immigrants continue to head south, Prop. 202 in Arizona remains under scrutiny, and here's an interesting op-ed by Jorge Castañeda linking trade, the economy, and immigration.

II. Fear and loathing continues at McCain rallies.

III. What Constitution? Charlie Savage and the New York Times report (surprise, surprise) the Bush administration has informed Congress that it is bypassing a law intended to forbid political interference with reports to lawmakers by the Department of Homeland Security. The August 2007 law requires that the reports on activities that affect privacy be submitted directly to Congress "without any prior comment or amendment" by superiors at the department or the White House.

IV. DHS Can't Sit Still: Not happy with the results of their brilliant "Deport Yourself" initiative or the outrage caused by USCIS detainee conditions and the mistaken detention of U.S. citizens during ICE raids, on October 23, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued a final administrative rule that sets new procedures for employers who receive "no-match" letters from the Social Security Administration (SSA). Each year, SSA sends businesses ''no-match'' letters with the names of workers whose Social Security number on W-2 forms don't match SSA records. The DHS rule would require employers to correct the discrepancy or fire the worker within 90 days. Failure to comply could bring prosecution and heavy fines.

Setting aside the flawed policy behind this rule for a moment, could Secretary Chertoff have picked a worse time to issue this rule? Definitely not. This rule, made public 11 days before a Presidential election during which minorities and naturalized citizens have the power to swing numerous battleground states, and during which the incumbent Administration's candidate is far behind in the polls, could be interpreted by Hispanics (native and foreign-born) and immigrants of all races and ethnicities as another expression of the Republican party's anti-immigrant stance. Additionally, this "enforcement-only" approach places greater financial and legal burdens on employers, while simultaneously putting workers at risk of losing their jobs during a time of severe economic crisis - the federal government is spending hundreds of billions of dollars trying to rescue the nation's banking, credit and housing markets, yet Secretary Chertoff is pushing ahead with a potentially job-crippling program that, at the end of the day, is ineffective in curtailing undocumented immigration.

Luckily, a court injunction will remain in place against the rule until the Court issues its final decision. The next hearing in this litigation is set for November 21, 2008 to set a schedule to present arguments, so this case won't be resolved anytime soon. Accordingly, SSA will not send any no-match letters to employers until the matter is resolved. Therefore, notify the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the AFL-CIO, or the National Immigration Law Center (NILC) if you know of any employer trying to implement this rule.

This final rule is basically unchanged from its original version, issued in August 2007, despite a court ruling in June of this year that: a) Questioned whether DHS had a reasoned analysis to change its position in regards to employer liability, b) Found DHS had exceeded its authority by interpreting anti-discrimination provisions in immigration law (IRCA), and c) Violated the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) by not conducting the analysis of the rule's impact, as required by law (doh!, that pesky analysis thing).

This rule is misguided, too costly, and ineffective:
1. Originally
SSA no-match letters were an attempt by SSA to correct discrepancies in their records that can prevent workers from getting credit for their earnings. These letters were never intended to be used as an immigration enforcement tool--no-match letters are not evidence of an immigration violation. As stated in a judicial opinion, no-match "does not automatically mean that an employee is undocumented or lacks proper work authorization. In fact, the SSA tells employers that the information it provides them ‘does not make any statement about . . . immigration status.'"

2. The implementation of this rule is far from a solution - it will only increase unemployment at a time of severe economic crisis.
a. According to DHS, it would cost $36,624 a year for the largest small businesses to comply, not including the costs of termination and replacement of workers. It could have a staggering impact on businesses caught between the financial and legal liability they would face if they fail to comply, and the financial and legal liability they would face for wrongly firing a worker whose name was listed in error. If implemented, the rule also could have a chilling effect on millions of immigrant workers in construction, agriculture and service industries at a time when the U.S. economy can ill afford it. Many businesses, too, fearing government prosecution will decide to dismiss or not hire workers that they suspect may have an immigration problem.

b. An economic analysis by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce estimated that under the new rule, 165,000 lawful U.S. workers could lose their jobs, at a cost to employers of approximately $1 billion per year. In her testimony before the Immigration Subcommittee, U.S. Representative Gabrielle Giffords discussed the effects of mandatory use of E-verify at the state level in Arizona, and reported that between October 2006 and March 2007, 3,000 foreign-born U.S. citizens were initially flagged as not authorized to work.

c. Under a mandatory E-Verify program, USCIS has estimated that annual employer queries of newly hired employees would be an average of 63 million. A GAO study from June 2008 found that about 7% of the queries initially appear as a "no-match" to SSA, and about 1 percent cannot be immediately confirmed as work authorized by USCIS, and:

The majority of SSA erroneous tentative nonconfirmations occur because employees' citizenship or other information, such as name changes, is not up to date in the SSA database, generally because individuals do not request that SSA make these updates.

Taking the modest estimate of 63 million queries per year, at the 7% initial error rate found by GAO, that translates to 4.41 million potential no-matches, i.e. persons who could be pushed to unemployment, again, at a time when the national unemployment rate is above 6%. If we extrapolate 7% unconfirmed queries to the existing civilian workforce - over 154 million people - the number jumps to 10.7 million people in danger of losing their jobs.

3. Mandatory e-verify would require an increase in capacity at USCIS and SSA to accommodate the estimated 7.4 million employers in the U.S. The GAO study found that e-verify would cost a total of about $765 million for fiscal years 2009 through 2012 if only newly hired employees are queried through the program and about $838 million over the same 4-year period if both newly hired and current employees are queried.

A study performed by Dr. Richard Belzer, former official of Office of Management and Budget, concluded that this program would cause an estimated increase of 610,000-2.7 million visits per year to SSA. He also pointed out that DHS made no estimate of the authorized worker unemployment that would result from erroneous no-match letters.

4. The rule is ineffective because it ignores unintended consequences:
a. Instead of discouraging undocumented immigration, the rule will only increase identity theft by making it more valuable for unauthorized workers to have genuine social security numbers.
b. The rule will have to be followed by more rounds of rulemaking, for example, how to deal with duplicate instances of SSA numbers, in addition to "no-match."
c. The rule will shift unauthorized workers into independent contracting and the "underground" economy, which will only risk pushing wages down during a time of economic crisis.

5. E-Verify is vulnerable to acts of employer fraud and misuse. GAO found:

- The current E-Verify program cannot help employers detect forms of identity fraud, such as cases in which an individual presents genuine documents that are borrowed or stolen.
- As USCIS works to address fraud through data sharing with other agencies, privacy issues may pose a challenge. In its 2007 evaluation of E-Verify, Westat reported that some employers joining the Web Basic Pilot were not appropriately handling their employees' personal information...and anyone wanting access to the system could pose as an employer and obtain access by signing a MOU with the E-Verify program.
- Westat reported that some employers used E-Verify to screen job applicants before they were hired, an activity that is prohibited. Additionally, some employers took prohibited adverse actions against employees-such as restricting work assignments, reducing pay, or requiring employees to work longer hours or in poor conditions-while they were contesting tentative nonconfirmations.

We've tried the enforcement-only approach for decades, and it has not curtailed undocumented immigration. Rep. Zoe Lofgren said it best during our latest forum on Immigration, as DHS has focused its resources on raids, there's been a 38% decline in prosecution of organized crime at the border, so "we've ended up with an expensive, stupid system that has not solved" the issue of a broken immigration system.

A verification program without comprehensive reform is ineffective. NDN has long advocated for the importance of matching legal immigration visas with the economic need for immigrants as a way to curtail undocumented immigration. Only by moving immigrant workers through legal channels, providing immigrants already here with an earned path to citizenship, reducing the backlog in family visas, and developing a sensible system for future flow will immigration will become manageable, and enforcement at the border and at the workplace will become more effective.

Even the Chief of the Border Patrol, David Aguilar agrees, "We cannot protect against the entry of terrorists and the instruments of terror without also reducing the clutter....To most effectively secure our border, we must reform our immigration system to relieve this pressure. We need comprehensive immigration reform."

Syndicate content