Immigration Policy Center

Published on Mon, Aug 01, 2011

Every now and then a piece of legislation comes around with a terribly creative acronym. The USA PATRIOT Act back in 2001 was one example. But rarely do two bills on the same issue appear in Congress with such diametrically opposed names and policy goals as the DREAM and HALT Acts.

The DREAM and HALT Acts are both currently being considered in Congress. DREAM stands for Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors and laudably aims to offer specific pathways to US citizenship for undocumented students, most of whom entered the United States when they were very young. Despite being called a “win-win” by the Boston Globe and numerous other editorial boards as well as gaining elusive bipartisan support, the legislation died in the Senate during the last Congress’ lame-duck December session. Introduced again, it faces even longer odds in the current Congress, particularly in the Republican-controlled House, which has its own immigration “reform” plans.

Now consider the HALT Act, or Hinder the Administration’s Legalization Temptation Act, which was introduced this July. Sponsored by Congressman Lamar Smith of Texas and Senator David Vitter of Louisiana, the bill would strip President Obama’s immigration discretionary powers until January 2013, when the winner of the 2012 election is sworn in. Hypocritically (or forgetfully), Smith once called for an expansion of these powers. The executive branch can only intervene in deportations in extraordinary cases, primarily in keeping families together if a spouse, parent or child of a citizen is found to be undocumented.

“Current immigration law often disregards the human right to family unity,” Grace Meng of Human Rights Watch wrote in The Hill. “This power to provide discretionary relief not only helps undocumented immigrants, but provides unquestionable help to their US citizen families as well.”Read more...

Published in the The Nation

Published on Thu, Aug 18, 2011

As election season nears, immigration will undoubtedly be cast into the national spotlight as a hot-button campaign issue for many candidates. But as public officials make broad statements about U.S. immigration policy — widely acknowledged to be a broken system — a new study shows that the reality of immigration may be far different from what the political rhetoric implies.

A new study from the Pew Hispanic Center and the RAND Corporation focusing on Mexican migration patterns into the U.S. shows that immigration from Mexico has waned in recent years, and that fewer Mexicans are leaving for the U.S. “The number of Mexicans annually leaving Mexico for the U.S. declined from more than one million in 2006 to 404,000 in 2010 – a 60% reduction,” the report states.

However, while Mexican immigration to the U.S. declined over the past decade, the study also shows that the Mexican-American population grew rapidly. From 2000 to 2010, births increased the Mexican-American population by 7.2 million, while immigration increased it by 4.2 million. The decade marked a turnaround from the previous two decades, when the number of new immigrants outpaced the number of births in the Mexican-American community.

What’s the impetus for such a shift? The report explains:

On the U.S. side, declining job opportunities and increased border enforcement may have made the U.S. less attractive to potential Mexican immigrants. And in Mexico, recent strong economic growth may have reduced the “push” factors that often lead Mexicans to emigrate to the U.S.Read more...

Published in the PBS

Published on Sat, Aug 06, 2011

As Hazleton's ill-considered anti-immigration ordinance migrates to the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals for further arguments, it continues to be based partially on a false premise.

The ordinance results partially from the notion that illegal immigrants are an economic drain and a service burden on the government.

That view, however, is rooted in only one side of the ledger. An analysis by the Immigration Policy Center recently detailed how tax-paying illegal immigrants bolster government treasuries.

In Pennsylvania alone, the analysis found, families headed by illegal immigrants pay $135 million a year in state and local taxes - nearly $35 million in state and local wage and income taxes, more than $7 million in property taxes and more than $81 million in sales taxes.

The analysis does not count another substantial contribution. The national debate over "entitlement" reform usually fails to note the huge surplus for Social Security generated by illegal immigrants. Earlier this year Stephen Goss, chief actuary for Social Security, estimated that illegal immigrant workers contribute about $12 billion a year to the trust fund.

By law illegal immigrants may not collect Social Security benefits, so their contributions are a net gain. The contribution is even more significant because of demographics: illegal immigrants generally are much younger than the average American worker.

None of that diminishes the need for rational immigration reform at the federal level. But it does call for greater context to the debate.

Published in the The Times-Tribune

Published on Fri, Aug 19, 2011

Sheriff Neil Warren, dubbed "Wild West Warren" by pro-immigration groups, has racked up nearly 15,000 immigration-related arrests in Cobb Country north of Atlanta. A new deportation policy announced Thursday by the Department of Homeland Security could mean that many of those arrested by Mr. Warren may not only get out of jail, but could go back to Cobb County with a legal work visa in hand.

Responding to criticism that the US deportation net has been cast too wide – sweeping up college kids, grandparents, and other noncriminal illegals – the Obama administration on Thursday formalized new rules that could mean release for many of the 300,000 people currently facing deportation in the US. Its goal will be to focus on deporting only the worst and most hardened criminals.

The move centers on prosecutorial discretion, with the Obama administration deciding whom it will and won't deport. Clearly, the shift has political ramifications, with Latino groups lauding the decision and conservative critics calling it a backdoor "administrative amnesty."

But perhaps more important to Main Street America is the question of how the new policy will affect police departments, primarily in the West and Southeast. Many of these departments have used federal programs as a means to arrest every illegal immigrant they come across. Now, the Department of Homeland Security's announcement introduces new uncertainty about whether many of those arrested will simply be sent back.

It is further proof that, until comprehensive immigration reform passes Congress, states and federal agencies will continue to nibble at the issue with different and often contradictory measures. In the meantime, the latest move makes for a "law enforcement nightmare," says the union that represents US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) personnel.Read more...

Published in the Alaska Dispatch

Published on Wed, Aug 10, 2011

On August 3, 2011, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals set a new legal precedent when it issued its opinion in Prestol Espinal v. Attorney General, No. 10-1473 (2011) granting the client of San Francisco immigration lawyer Jacqueline Brown Scott petition for review. The Court invalidated the so-called "post-departure bar" on motions to reopen and motions to reconsider, finding that the regulation prohibiting such motions conflicts with the clear language of the statute. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) had denied the timely motion by Brown Scott's client to reconsider on jurisdictional grounds. The Third Circuit reversed and remanded the case to the BIA so that it could consider the legal arguments presented in the motion to reconsider.

Federal immigration law gives noncitizens the right to file motions to submit new evidence or arguments after their removal orders become final. Nevertheless, the BIA has maintained for decades that it cannot consider such motions if a foreign national is outside the United States, even if the government, the other party in the litigation, is the cause of removal of the foreign national.

The government has an incentive to remove noncitizens from the country before they have an opportunity to file such motions. "In my client's case, this is exactly what happened-the government forcibly removed him during the 30-day period in which he was permitted to file his motion to reconsider," explains Brown Scott.

Brown Scott says this new ruling means people who are in immigration court proceedings in the jurisdiction of the Third Circuit will not be denied their statutory right to file one motion to reopen or reconsider, and submit new evidence or advance new legal arguments, even if the government has already removed them from the country. The fact that they may no longer be in the United States is irrelevantRead more...

Published in the San Francisco Chronicle

Published on Sun, Aug 28, 2011

Hilda Jauregui and dozens of women at an Orange County immigration detention center recently gathered to hear the news on television that the Obama administration will review thousands of deportation cases with an eye closing those considered "low-priority."

FOR THE RECORD:

Deportation order: An article in the Aug. 29 LATExtra section about the Obama administration's plans to review 300,000 deportation cases was missing the word "toward" in the first paragraph. The paragraph should have said: Hilda Jauregui and dozens of women at an Orange County immigration detention center recently gathered to hear the news on television that the Obama administration will review thousands of deportation cases with an eye toward closing those considered "low-priority." Also, an earlier version of this online article stated that the Jauregui family had ignored a deportation order issued more than 10 years ago. The family actually appealed the order.

"Everyone was shouting and hugging each other," Jauregui said in a telephone interview from the James A. Musick jail facility last week. "One woman said 'I'll qualify because I'm older,' another said she had children who were born in the country. Everyone was trying to find something positive that would make them qualify."

U.S. Homeland Security Sec. Janet Napolitano announced the review Aug. 18 as the administration was seeking to counter criticism that it has been too harsh in its deportation policies. The case-by-case review is intended to refocus efforts on felons and other public safety threats, officials said.

Now immigrants around the country are trying to find out how the review of nearly 300,000 deportation cases will actually work. The administration has said it would try to identify immigrants considered low-priority — including students, the elderly, victims of crime and people who have lived in the U.S. since childhood.Read more...

Published in the Los Angeles Times

Published on Wed, Aug 24, 2011

If there was ever any doubt that the only thing President Obama is truly gifted at is getting people to hope for change, we need look no further than his recent announcement to review the cases of up to 300,000 illegal immigrants facing deportation.

Too bad it's false hope.

Despite initial excitement of the immigrant advocacy organizations who are fighting for nothing less than a full 1980s-style amnesty -- and the correlated anger from conservatives who believe that last week's decision to re-evaluate the existing enforcement priorities is just that -- this is not a big step in immigration policy.

This latest Obama re-election campaign stunt won't affect 97 percent of the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants in our country. It is causing a lot of confusion within the very communities it is supposed to assuage, and it is further alienating those who must come to the negotiating table to hammer out a compromise for our immigration quagmire.

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer chimed in quickly after the news broke, denouncing this plan as a "backdoor amnesty." She and others can be forgiven for initially thinking that. At first blush it sounded as though, at the very least, 300,000 lucky souls who were close to being deported had gotten a reprieve.

Many immigration experts and advocacy organizations are urging caution. They're scrambling to tell the immigrant community to not turn themselves in to authorities or try to get themselves detained for the purposes of becoming "legal." The possibility -- and it is just a possibility -- of getting a slate cleaned is open only to the 300,000 already in the pipeline for deportation. Each case will be reviewed by a panel and, if the case is closed, legal resident status will not be granted.Read more...

Published in the Herald Extra Utah Valley News

Published on Tue, Aug 23, 2011

The implementation of a case by case review of at least 300,000 deportation proceedings, announced by the Department of Homeland Security last week, has left room for questions among immigrant advocate groups.

With this announcement, Homeland Security said it will implement prosecutorial discretion measures laid out in a June 2011 memo issued by John Morton, director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (aka ICE).

Melissa Crowe, director of the Legal Action Center at the American Immigration Council, said on a conference call Monday, ”We are not sure how” Homeland Security’s commitment “will play out in practice” and what recourse individuals will have “if they believe their cases have been mischaracterized as high priority.”

Crowe added that in an ideal world, Homeland Security “officers throughout the country would stop issuing charging documents on low priority cases so they never enter the system to begin with.”

Mohammad Abdollahi of DREAM Activist writes in an email that “the decision from [Homeland Security] and Obama was nothing new, it pretty much just spelled out what they already had on the books.”

Last week’s announcement, based on the June 2011 memo issued by Morton, lays out a path to implement immigration law enforcement priorities put forward in a 2010 memo also issued by Morton that prioritized the detention and deportation of three groups: “aliens who pose a danger to national security or a risk to public safety,” “recent illegal entrants” and “aliens who are fugitives or otherwise obstruct immigration controls.”Read more...

Published in the Florida Independent

Published on Tue, Aug 23, 2011

SAN DIEGO — The Department of Homeland Security has long said that its priority is to deport criminals and immigrants who pose a threat to national security. But enforcement of immigration laws has tightened beyond that guideline, with almost 80,000 non-criminal immigrants across the country deported since 2009.

New guidelines on "prosecutorial discretion" grant law-enforcement agents the ability to decide, on a case-by-case basis, whether an undocumented immigrant ought to be deported.

"The Administration is talking about cases that are pending in every immigration court around the country, not just the border regions," said Melissa Crow, director of the Legal Action Center at the American Immigration Council, a Washington-based nonprofit advocacy group.

"They're talking about cases at various stages of proceedings, and also on appeal to the federal courts. And also all different kinds of cases, definitely not just DREAM Act-eligible students."

Among other effects, the new rules would mean undocumented students could be allowed to stay and even apply for work permits. Military families, victims of crime, gay couples and others who pose no threat to public safety are also included. DHS says the move will prevent low-priority cases from continuing to clog the court system.

Published in the KPBS

Published on Thu, Aug 18, 2011

Gay and lesbian married bi-national couples like San Francisco’s Bradford Wells and Anthony John Makk may get some relief from the threat of deportation under the Defense of Marriage Act, thanks to action by the Obama administration today.

In a letter to Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said a new working group will be established to identify low-priority cases for immigrant deportation. The administration will exercise prosecutorial discretion, widely practiced by all law enforcement officers, to identify which low-priority deportation cases to ignore. The policy is also posted on the White House website.

Napolitano cited a memorandum issued last June by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, which contains a long list of mitigating factors to weigh in deciding whether to pursue deportation. These include whether the immigrant is married to a U.S. citizen, as Makk is, as well as whether the immigrant is the primary caregiver of a citizen, which Makk also is. Other factors include such things as length of lawful stay in the United States, criminal record and the like.

Sexual orientation is not specifically mentioned, but Mary Kenney, a senior staff attorney with the Legal Action Center arm of the Immigration Policy Center said the administration has indicated that same-sex marriages are included in the definition of family for the purposes of the enforcement memo. She called the move “very encouraging.”

Napolitano said President Obama asked her to respond on his behalf, having said that “it makes no sense to expend our enforcement resources on low-priority cases.” She said the June memo is now “being implemented.”

Wells and Makk have gotten huge media attention, including a spot on CNN, since the Chronicle’s second story on their case this month. You read about their case first in the Chronicle last June.Read more...

Published in the San Francisco Chronicle