Immigration

McCain Blames Immigrants For Forest Fires In AZ and Other Stuff You Missed Over The Weekend

Arizona Senator John McCain is at it again, this week blaming undocumented immigrants for wildfires that are raging out of control in Arizona and New Mexico.

Salon has a great piece up already pushing back on the absurdity of the good Senators comments. Essentially his statements are unverifiable and purely conjuncture, as such his press person is already walking Senator McCain's statements.

Apparently it is a bad week for anti-immigrant firebrands, as it now seems that AZ State Senator Russell Pearce will face a recall election. To make matters worse for the beleageured state Senator a prominent Republican in Arizona wrote a full editorial in the Arizona Republic saying that conservatives in the state think that the demagoguery that Pearce practices is hurting the states economy.

As for actual legislative movement the news was dominated by two issues: E-Verify and Secure Communities.

For E-Verify there were a couple of really good editorials written in The Hill. The first by Eliseo Medina of SEIU does an excellent idea of highlighting the very real problems that making the E-Verify program mandatory would cause the economy.  The second written by Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren zeros in on the fact that E-Verify also creates very real job creation problems. 

Finally the reviews are in on the Obama Administrations fixes to the highly controversial Secure Communities program, which allows the government to run citizenship status checks on incarcerated immigrants. Critics of the program charge that among other things that the government is using the program to deport immigrants who have not been charged with any crime.

The reviews of the adminsitrative changes are unsurprisingly mixed.... The New York Times editorial board says, Too Little Too Late, The Los Angeles Times notes that the Administration taking steps to ensure that the program is actually targeting only criminals, and finally the Washington Post zeroes in on the reforms and notes that the new guidelines issued by ICE give greater discretion over which immigrants should be targeted for removal which should in the future stop the deportation of certain groups of immigrants who have not committed felonies.

21st Century Border-Weekly Roundup June 16, 2011

On U.S. immigration policy:

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg had some harsh words to say about current U.S. immigration policy, calling it "national suicide."  He says:

“We will not remain a global superpower if we continue to close our doors to people who want to come here to work hard, start businesses and pursue the American dream,”

An article from Huffington Post here details the reforms that Mayor Bloomberg supports, such as a startup visa provision, a policy that would graduates with advanced degrees in essential fields to obtain green cards, more H1B visas, and immigration reform for agriculture and tourism.  The full text of the speech is here.

It's impossible to talk about immigration issues this past week without mentioning the House Committee on the Judiciary hearing on “E-Verify- Preserving Jobs for American Workers”.  The debate on whether to make it mandatory for all employers, a move that some said would cause about 1 million Americans to lose their jobs and others believe will be a huge step forward in ensuring that job openings only go to legal citizens, was extremely heated.  Video footage of the hearing can be found here.

On the U.S.-Mexico Border:

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce presented a report today outlining recommendations for a 21st century U.S.-Mexico border; namely: focusing on security, facilitating the flow of trade at the border, significantly investing in infrastructure, and pursuing immigration reform.  Some excerpts are below:

...trade facilitation and security should be viewed as mutually conducive. No factor is more fundamental to future investment, economic growth and job creation than security and the rule of law.

Immigration reform could help substantially alleviate the strain on our border, while adding to the economic vitality of our country. History shows an increase in the number of legal immigrants and temporary guest workers means a decrease in illegal immigration.

At a time when tempers are already strained over the flow of weapons and drugs across the border comes the new discovery of over 150 tunnels strewn along the U.S.-Mexico border used to smuggle people and drugs into America.  According to the AFP article some had been operating for as long as two decades and were sophisticated enough to even have internal rail and ventilation systems. According to James Dinkens, a US Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) official, this discovery is symptomatic of a larger trend:

"Over the past several years, law enforcement has seen a marked increase in the number and sophistication of tunnels," he told a Senate hearing.

California Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein is looking to pass legislation that would elevate the offense of illegal tunnel-making to the level of "conspiracy", calling tunnel-making: "a real serious penetration into the US."

According to a new report from the Department of Homeland Security dozens of U.S. Customs agents have been complicit with Mexican drug cartels, receiving gifts of money or sexual favors in exchange for looking the other way as drugs and people entered the country. The CNN video coverage and article can be found here.

And finally, one thing that you may not have thought about illegally crossing the U.S.-Mexico border: nearly 200lbs of iguana meat.  Not kidding.  The LA Times story is here.

GOP Releases National Mandatory E-Verify Legislation

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith recently introduced legislation for a national mandatory E-Verify. Today the House Sub-Committee on Immigration and Enforcement met to discuss the legislation. We will have analysis of that tomorrow, today we will look at how the introduction is playing across the country.

Faith groups have come out strongly against the legislation, citing the cost of moving forward on the legislation, quoting a Bloomberg story which says that mandatory E-Verify would cost an estimated 2.7 billion dollars a year for small businesses. Gary Martin of The Houston Chronicle  noted that according to leading experts that number could actually be as high as 17.3 billion dollars.

The Los Angeles Times released an Editorial from Raul Reyes, a lawyer living in New York, pushing back on an Op-Ed written by Congressmen Smith and Elton Gallegly.  The editorial does a good job of pushing back on the notion that the E-Verify system is accurate, by citing a report that shows that E-Verify only catches 54% of undocumented immigrants.

Business is actually split on the legislation with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce endorsing the legislation, and the agriculture industry firmly against it.

Below is a summary of the major components of the legislation:

  • Repeals I-9 System:  Repeals the current paper-based I-9 system and replaces it with a completely electronic work eligibility check.
  • Gradual Phase-In:  Phases-in mandatory E-Verify participation for new hires in six month increments beginning on the date of enactment.  Within six months of enactment, businesses having more than 10,000 employees are required to use E-Verify.  Within 12 months after enactment, businesses having 500 to 9,999 employees are required to use E-Verify.  Within 18 months after enactment, businesses having 20 to 499 employees must use E-Verify.  And within 24 months after enactment, businesses having 1 to 19 employees must use E-Verify.
  • Agriculture:  Requires that employees performing “agricultural labor or services” are only subject to an E-Verify check within 36 months of the date of enactment.  Under the bill, an individual engaged in seasonal agricultural employment is not considered a new hire if the individual starts work with an employer for whom they have previously worked.
  • Federal Preemption:  Preempts state laws mandating E-Verify use for employment eligibility purposes but retains the ability of states and localities to condition business licenses on the requirement that the employer use E-Verify in good faith under the federal law. 
  • Safe Harbor:  Grants employers safe harbor from prosecution if they use the E-Verify program in good faith, and through no fault of theirs, receive an incorrect eligibility confirmation.   

A copy of the bill can be found HERE.

Senator Chuck Grassly also release a Senate version which can be read HERE.

U.S. Supreme Court Rejects Challenge to In-State Tuition for Undocumented Students in California

California has passed a local version of the DREAM Act, which has led to law suits which claim that the in state benefits clash with federal immigrations laws.

Fox News Latino has the full story here:

California will continue to allow undocumented immigrants to pay in-state tuition rates universities after the Supreme Court rejected a legal challenge to the state's policy. The justices on Monday refused to review a California Supreme Court ruling that upheld a state law allowing California high school graduates, regardless of their immigration status, to pay in-state tuition rates. The court did not comment on its action.

Little known fact, 11 States already grant similar benefits to undocumented immigrants, they are: Illinois, Kansas, Maryland, Nebraska, New Mexico, New York, Oklahoma, Texas, Utah, Washington and Wisconsin.

Below is a KABC News report about the Supreme Court Decision:

AZ State Senator Russell Pearce Tells Some Half Truths On E-Verify

The Supreme Courts decision to uphold Arizona's Legal Workers Act has set off a firestorm of speculation about how Congress and other states will react to this employment verification legislation. One thing is for certain, a new debate on immigration has shifted towards businesses who employ immigrants.

Arizona State Senator Russell Pearce recently held an interview with Neal Conan on NPR' S Face The Nation. Over the course of the the interview State Senator Pearce made some questionable claims about E-Verify, an employment verification system. One of the most egregious statements State Senator Pearce made was that the program was 99.7 percent accurate:

CONAN: What does an employer have to do to comply?

State Sen. PEARCE: Very simple: You're already required under the law to have your I-9s in your file. E-Verify was designed to benefit the employer, not punish the employer. It's free. It's Web-based. It's 99.7 percent accurate, and it's there to benefit employers.

It may very well be true that E-Verify is 99.7 percent accurate, but currently only a small percentage of businesses use the program. According to the National Councel of State Legislators:

The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) reports that as of December 11, 2010 more than 238,000 employers have registered with the program, with 16 million inquiries in FY2010. In FY2009, there were 8.7 million inquiries, in  FY 2008, 6.6 million, and 3.27 million in FY2007. There are an estimated 7 million employers in the United States and 60 million new hires per year. The 2007 Westat evaluation estimated that 4 percent of newly hired workers are verified using the system.

Bottom line a 99.7 % effective rate for 4% business compliance, a marginal portion of the workforce is not that great of a selling point. While we are at it lets see how E-Verify has helped businesses in Arizona, which it should be noted is undergoing  an incredible economic downturn. State Senator Pearce has sold E-Verify as businesses friendly and a job grower, lets check the facts. The National Immigration Law Center has a fact sheet here:

Although E-Verify has been called a “fast and free program,” small businesses in Arizona have reported that it is difficult to use.20 Unlike large firms, they do not have human resources departments

• For example, Mike Castillo, owner of PostalMax of Scottsdale, signed up for E-Verify in 2008. When he wanted to hire a part-time worker, a technical glitch made it difficult to file the paperwork with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). “If you don’t have the luxury of a human resources staff, or large workforces to compensate for lost productivity while employees resolve errors. The start-up cost associated with technology purchases is absorbed more easily in larger companies than in small “mom and pop” operations.  E-Verify takes time away from your core business,” said Castillo.

• Data compiled by Bloomberg Government show it would have cost the nation’s employers $2.7 billion using E-Verify had been mandatory in fiscal year 2010. Small businesses would have borne the burden for
$2.6 billion of that amount.

• In a survey of employers who currently do not use E-Verify, 25 percent of small employers said that they were not enrolled due to lack of resources and 10 percent said that they lacked a computer with an Internet connection or had a slow connection.23 Nationwide, small businesses are roughly two and a half times as likely as the largest businesses to report insufficient access to high-speed Internet.

The Fight Over Immigration Turns To Businesses

The Supreme Courts decision to uphold Arizona's Legal Workers Act has set off a firestorm of speculation about how Congress and other states will react to this employment verification legislation. One thing is for certain, a new debate on immigration has shifted towards businesses who employ immigrants.

Julia Preston of the New York Times recently held an interview with Neal Conan on NPR' S Face The Nation, which works as a great Q and A about were the current immigration debate is going:

CONAN: And how does this Supreme Court decision change things for employers in Arizona?

Ms. PRESTON: I don't think it actually changes it very much, because this particular law had never been held up by the federal court. The law that the Supreme Court ruled on actually is - was very narrowly tailored to fit a specific terminology in immigration law.  And so it wasn't actually that surprising that the Supreme Court upheld this statute, although what was a little surprising was the sweeping statement that the court made about the possibility and scope of states to act on immigration policy in the way that Arizona did. And I was out in Arizona recently. In fact, the law - the state statute has not been used that frequently so far to prosecute employers. There have been relatively few cases brought in Arizona so far against employers under the state law.

The take away from all this is that, more then anything else, business communities are opposed to these mandatory employment verification programs.

CONAN: Well, the controversial part of the law was what the opponents called the business death penalty.

Ms. PRESTON: Yes, that's right. And so - and I think it's also good to note that Arizona - as it has in other areas of immigration law - went further than most states in this area, so that on the second violation of knowing hiring of an illegal immigrant, a business stands in Arizona to lose its business license permanently. So it's a very severe penalty. I think the cases are hard to make, though.

Later on in the program Arizona State Senator Russell Pearce appeared on the show, I will write about some of his dubious claims in a separate post. In the mean time read the full transcript here.

Lamar Smith Misses The Point On Immigration And The Hispanic Electorate

House Chairman of the Judiciary Lamar Smith has written an op-ed for Politico, which is an interesting take on the dynamic between Hispanic voters and the GOP's increasingly enforcement centric agenda on immigration.

Lets just start with the title of the op-ed, which to these eyes is a little condescending, "Hispanics like law and order too".

That "too" in the title is troublesome. The idea that Smith needed to clarify that Hispanics, contrary to popular belief (?) enjoy law and order is problematic. As if the Hispanic community actually prefers lawlessness and the general public needs to be reassured that, yes, they do in fact also value the rule of law. Was this ever a question?

From there things get better (READ Worse.) Smith starts from a place of statistical truth, the Hispanic population of the United States is exploding, this is undeniable:

According to the 2010 census, the Hispanic population rose to 50.5 million and grew to 43 percent of the population during the past decade. Hispanics are the largest minority in the United States and account for most of its population growth over the past 10 years.

We at NDN are glad that Smith understands the profound demographic change that the country is going through; we have been writing about this for some time. Yet given this information, Smith takes some very old polling data to make some dubious points.

Smith notes that 82% of likely Hispanic voters "support reducing the illegal immigrant population over time by enforcing existing immigration laws, such as requiring employers to verify the legal status of workers and increasing border enforcement."

Never mind that the data he is citing is nearly 2 years old, there is plenty of other data which shows that comprehensive immigration reform is not just popular with Hispanics but across the board. In fact a recent Latino Decision Poll shows that immigration reform remains the most important issues for Hispanic voters.

In fact polling on immigration reform is incredibly consistent across party lines. Democrats, Republicans and Independents all agree that something must be done to fix our immigration system.

Fox News put out a poll in August of 2010, which showed that 65% of Democrats and 67% of Independents supported passing new immigration legislation and securing the borders at the same time.

Finally a recent Pew poll out February of this year shows that the majority of Americans support moving forward on border security and a legislative overhaul of our immigration laws. Meanwhile the poll also reveals that some of the more controversial anti-immigrant proposals such as repealing birthright citizenship are incredibly unpopular with 57% percent of respondents.

Having dealt with the polling issues... There is one last thing that is particularly egregious in Smith's op-ed:

The pro-enforcement movement is not anti-Hispanic; it is pro-rule-of-law. Time and again, American voters -- including Hispanics -- have defeated amnesty attempts, including the 2007 comprehensive immigration reform legislation.

The construct presented above is reductive. The idea that reform of our immigration movement can be boiled down to two factions of the pro-enforcement, pro rule of law vs. pro-amnesty groups is preposterous. Immigration activists acknowledge that enforcement and the rule of law are key to fixing our system; however it is not the only means of reform.

It is unnecessary to point out that Hispanics support enforcement, this Hispanic supports enforcement, so do plenty of others. Furthermore this Hispanic also thinks there are more things to be done then just enforcement, including future flow and dealing with the 11.2 million people currently here.

Immigrant activists are also, to Smith's second point, a pretty diverse group not limited to just Hispanics. There are members of faith groups, business members, labor unions and grassroots activists. The idea that Hispanics can not be both pro-enforcement and pro-reform is a bit insulting to diverse coalition of people working on this issue.

It is mind-boggling that with so many diverse issues associated with immigration reform, the one consistent idea that the Republican party has had for some twenty years (probably more) is enforcement. Furthermore it's not as if over those same last two decades Congress has passed laws to make it easier for immigrants in this country. Perhaps the simple fact that there are now nearly 11.2 million people in the country without documentation would make the GOP rethink a strategy that has been an utter failure...

Given Smith's op-ed, that idea sounds like wishful thinking.

With House GOP Prepping Mandatory E-Verify Legislation Supreme Court Sustains Az. Employer Sanctions Law

As the House preps legislation that would make E-Verify mandatory nationally, the Supreme Court has ruled that Arizona's other immigration legislation which revokes the business licenses of businesses that knowingly hire undocumented immigrants.

After the Supreme court rendered their verdict, Chairmen of the House Judiciary Committee Lamar Smith noted that the House would be moving forward on their own legislation to make E-Verify mandatory:

Smith said he would soon introduce a bill expanding E-Verify and making it mandatory for businesses, many of which have been expecting it this congressional session and have been meeting with Smith and his staff to discuss their concerns. E-Verify will help "turn off the jobs magnet that encourages illegal immigration," Smith said Thursday.

As for the Supreme Court case,  Joan Biskupic of USA TODAY has the full rundown:

By a 5-3 vote, the court rejected arguments from a coalition of business and civil rights groups, including the Chamber of Commerce and ACLU, that the Arizona law conflicts with overriding federal immigration policy and could lead to race discrimination.

This verdict puts a wrinkle in the federal domain argument that the Government has used to fight Arizona's other immigration law SB1070:

key question in challenges to state efforts is whether they are trampling on the domain of the federal government. Congress generally has authority over immigration and for decades has established comprehensive schemes for the admission and treatment of foreigners. In Thursday's case, Chief Justice John Roberts said the 2007 Arizona law penalizing companies that hire illegal immigrants meets a "licensing" exception to the general federal rule dictating that states not set their own civil or criminal penalties in the immigration area.

More on this as it develops.

Contrary To TX Gov Perry's Claims New FBI Data Shows Significant Drop In Crime Along Border

Earlier this week, Texas Governor Rick Perry went on a tour of the border with Greta Van Susteran for her show on Fox News, over the course of the piece Perry made several questionable statments. Chief among those is that  'drug cartels have operational control of a substantial amount' of the border.

Shortly after Congressman Silvestre Reyes released a statement noting that contrary to Governor Perry's statements new FBI data shows violence along the Border is actually down significantly. According to the Congressman's release:

Austin, Texas, where Governor Perry resides in his $10,000-a-month rental mansion at taxpayer expense, reported a 72 percent increase in homicides in 2010.  The city of Austin had more homicides last year than El Paso, Laredo, McAllen, and Brownsville combined.

Congressman Reye's release utilizes FBI Crime Statistics to note that much of the Republican leadership in the House represent districts that have higher rates of murder then cities along the border:

 


Anti-Immigrant Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio's Office Accused of Aiding Drug, Human Smuggling Ring

Joe Arpaio, the virulently anti-immigrant sheriff from Maricopa County Arizona has long been under suspicion of corruption by both federal and state governments. Now it turns out that members of his office were actually helping human and drug smugglers in illegal activities in Maricopa country.

JJ Hensley of the Arizona Republic has the full story here:

Three Maricopa County sheriff's employees, including a deputy in the human-smuggling unit, were arrested Tuesday by authorities who say they were involved in a drug- and human-trafficking ring and used Sheriff's Office intelligence to guide smugglers through the Valley.

On top of this reports have been surfacing for some time that the Maricopa Sheriffs office was under investigation for corruption and civil rights violations. Now details of the corruption case are starting to leak into the press and they are not pretty...

JJ Hensley and Yvonne Wingett Sanchez of the Arizona Republic have the full story here:

Time and again, in public statements and in interviews, Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio has denied knowledge of the corruption and mismanagement within his headquarters. But information in thousands of pages of recently released public records refutes some of Arpaio's claims and, in some instances, places him in the middle of key controversial events.

Essentially these records paint a pretty terrible picture, which puts Sheriff Joe at the center of a very corrupt department. For example:

  • One detective told investigators that Arpaio participated in drafting a search warrant for a failed corruption investigation.
  • The sheriff's former chief financial officer said she warned Arpaio of overtime excesses and other financial problems, as well as former Chief Deputy David Hendershott's "demoralizing" mistreatment of subordinates.
  • Yavapai County Attorney Sheila Polk recounted to state investigators Arpaio's response in September 2009 when she asked why the Sheriff's Office arrested Maricopa County Supervisor Don Stapley after she had told them the case was not ready to charge. "Arpaio blows up: I had PC (probable cause) to arrest, no one tells me who I can/cannot arrest," Polk said.

These documents clearly show that the Sheriff knew what was occurring in his office, a video report on the human trafficking elements can be seen below:

 

Syndicate content