Pages
Stay In Touch
More
© 2009 Spar & Bernsteins 'Law link' Blog
As House members mull over the proposed immigration reform bill with red pens in hand as they make amendments, immigration advocates are calling on President Obama to halt deportations of undocumented workers.
Activists are asking for a reprieve for unauthorized workers as amendments to the immigration bill are negotiated. They are calling on the president to keep families together until a decision can be made on whether unauthorized workers who have been living in the country before Dec. 31, 2011 would be able to file for legal status and stay. With the Senate working to include provisional resident status in the proposed legislation, activists are hoping the President will start allowing people to stay in the country who may be eligible if they haven’t committed any offenses.
Nearly 11 million undocumented immigrants call the United States home and roughly 1,100 of them are deported from this country daily according to The Washington Post. Under Obama’s presidency around 2 million undocumented immigrants have been deported, averaging between 370,000 to 390,000 a year according to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. In 2012, ICE deported the highest number of immigrants in history at just under 410,000 individuals.
Back in February, Obama declined another request to curb deportations because he was focused on getting the reform bill passed. Advocates are calling on the President now as they believe that the political climate has changed since the bill has already been introduced to the Senate.
The Senate Judiciary Committee will continue to meet throughout the week to amend the legislation and hopes are that a vote will be held on the bill by the end of the month.
With the legislation already being debated in the Senate, do you believe that Obama should halt deportations?
In the much anticipated move, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted to pass the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act, out of the committee and on to the full Senate for a vote in the next few days. The bill, also known as Senate Bill 744, has spent the past three weeks in the hands of the Senate Committee being marked up for proposed amendments. More than 300 amendments were offered on every aspect of the bill, but only 48 were passed.
The bill was passed by a bipartisan vote of 13 to 5.
Benjamin Johnson, the Executive Director of the American Immigration Council, released the statement below in response to the bill being passed on to the full Senate.
“We congratulate Senator Leahy and the entire Senate Judiciary Committee on the spirit of deliberation, collaboration, and transparency that marked the process. Many amendments added during the mark-up will strengthen the bill in the areas of high-skilled immigration, protections for vulnerable groups and due process. However, other amendments, like those attempting to deny citizenship, may have been driven more by rhetoric than reality. In addition, not providing some relief to siblings who face extreme hardships because of their separation and not ending the discrimination against same sex couples legally married in the United States is short-sighted and bad policy. Yet despite these high costs, the overall bill coming out of committee now gives the Senate an important and rare opportunity to complete the task we have been working on for years—passage of a comprehensive immigration reform bill that finally moves us to our goal of fixing our broken immigration system.”
Do you think the Senate Judiciary Committee succeeded in passing a comprehensive bill, or do you believe that it’s lacking specific details that you find important for the well-being of undocumented immigrants?
In the midst of immigration reform it appears as though President Obama is choosing his battles.
It was announced last week that the controversial immigration reform bill that Obama has championed during his presidency was causing a stir with LGBT activists who called for an inclusion of rights for gay and lesbian families. Although the President has publicly admitted to supporting the issue to include same-sex families, rumors have circulated that he is concerned that such a contentious matter could kill the bill.
It was back in January when the President first unveiled his immigration reform proposal that initially included same-sex couples. When the bill was introduced in April by the ‘Gang of Eight’ the inclusion was no longer part of the legislation.
The Associated Press reported yesterday that two sources familiar with the Senate deliberations said that the White House reached out to Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy, Democratic chair of the Judiciary Committee, to suggest that “it would be best to put off a controversy over gay marriage until a bill goes before the full Senate.”
With immigration reform being one of the major platforms for Obama’s presidency, it is suggested that it is unlikely that he will veto the bill that does not include a provision for same-sex couples.
Leahy has yet to publicly state whether he will seek a vote on the provision in the committee as he could potentially raise the issue again if the bill goes before the full Senate.
Do you think Obama should fight to include a provision that would include same-sex couples, or should he wait until the bill has been passed to introduce it as an amendment?
The already delicate bi-partisan agreement on immigration reform could be canned before it even becomes law due to a proposal to expand gay rights.
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) has sponsored an amendment that would allow United States citizens who are in long-term same-sex relationships to sponsor foreign partners for their green cards.
The combination of sensitive issues like immigration and same-sex marriage have some proponents of the new bill worried that it could be too much for some to support.
The Gang of Eight who constructed the immigration legislation and brought it to Senate last month had previously stated that they would fight against “poison pill” amendments that would disrupt the bill.
To date, members of the judiciary panel have proposed more than 300 changes to the bill, but critics are wondering whether this one could be the biggest issue. The Republican members of the Gang of Eight have already made it clear to their Democratic counterparts that this could cause the bill to fail if it’s adopted during the committee’s deliberations.
“This bill has got to get broad support to have a chance in the House, and with that provision it will not have broad support,” said Gang of Eight member Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) in an interview with The Hill. “A lot of the coalitions that are behind it will go away, and so I think that’s pretty much understood.”
Senate Majority Whip Dick Durban (D-Ill.), who is also a member of the gang declared earlier last week that he strongly supported the amendment, but wouldn’t say whether he would vote for it if it came up in the committee.
“I support it and hope we can find a way to resolve it,” Durban said to The Hill. “It’s a fair thing to do.”
A maze of red tape and financial hurdles is what many immigrants and permanent residents are faced with when they begin their journey towards securing a green card. The paperwork alone is a heavy burden for those looking to start a new life in the United States and assimilation can be daunting. But one aspect just got a little easier.
The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services announced late last month that they would be offering grant opportunities which promote civic integration, allowing immigrants to prepare for permanent residency and citizenship.
USCIS will provide nearly $10 million in funding for such integration programs in communities across the country. It is the goal of the USCIS to “expand the availability of high-quality citizenship preparation services,” according to their website.
The organizations chosen will be expected to provide both citizenship instruction as well as naturalization application services to permanent residents seeking citizenship. The estimated 40 award recipients are expected to be announced in September 2013.
Over the past four years, USCIS has already awarded 142 grants totaling $23.2 million to immigrant-serving organizations. These organizations have gone on to provide citizen preparation services to more than 50,000 people across the country.
Grant applications are due May 22, 2013. For additional information about the program, visit www.uscis.gov/grants.
When it comes to terms used in reference to aspects of the United States government, many are used often in the media with little or no description as to what they mean or who they are referring. It’s common to read through an article and stumble upon a handful of unfamiliar words, especially when thumbing through a legal heavy editorial.
As immigration reform makes headlines with the advent of new proposals that could potentially alter the future of this country, many are left to flip through the dictionary or frantically google terms in a valiant attempt to keep up.
Since we all aren’t fluent in legal jargon, it’s important to learn some of the basics so you can impress your friends with an enlightened conversation during a weekend dinner party or mid-day picnic.
The “Gang of Eight” makes regular appearances in nearly every article written about the new immigration reform, as they should, but exactly who makes up this gang?
The “Gang of Eight” is a term commonly used to reference a set of eight leaders within the United States Congress, four Democrats and four Republican senators. These individuals are responsible for piecing together the new S.744 bi-partisan bill that outlines major changes to immigration in this country.
The group consists of Senators Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), John McCain (R-Ariz.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), and Richard Durbin (D-Ill.).
Among the detailed proposals, the “Gang of Eight” calls for less waiting time for green cards for people with approved visa petitions, to provide green cards to children and young adults who qualify for the Dream Act, and a 241% increase in the number of H-1B visas, among many other things.
The bill was formally filed with the United States Senate late last month, but has yet to be approved.
The Wall Street Journal (WSJ 04/27/11 issue) reported that both France and Italy recently called for the European Union to
“overhaul its border policy in an effort to stop the influx of migrants unleashed by North Africa unrest, but failed to reach a concrete agreement over how Europe should handle the wave”.
Sound familiar doesn’t it?
Europe, like the U.S. is having the same difficulty coming up with an updated immigration policy the various countries on the European Union can agree on. Is this the same Europe that is known for its more liberal interpretation and application of almost any governmental policy you can think of? Yes. That on.
It’s no small comfort to immigration professionals like myself that the European community cannot seem to get its act together on immigration reform like those of us here in the U.S.
We know immigration policy is complex but the upcoming presidential elections have all but assured us that immigration reform here in the U.S. will not even show up until well after 2012.
This from our exclusive Associated Press newsfeed:
Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer on Monday vetoed a bill that would have required President Barack Obama and other presidential candidates to prove their U.S. citizenship before their names could appear on the state’s ballot.
The bill would have made Arizona the first state to pass such a requirement. Opponents had warned the bill would give another black eye to Arizona after last year’s controversy over the state’s illegal immigration enforcement law.
Brewer said in her veto letter that she was troubled that the bill empowered Arizona’s secretary of state to judge the qualifications of all candidates when they file to run for office.
“I do not support designating one person as the gatekeeper to the ballot for a candidate, which could lead to arbitrary or politically motivated decisions,” said Brewer, who was secretary of state until she became governor in 2009.
“In addition, I never imagined being presented with a bill that could require candidates for president of the greatest and most powerful nation on Earth to submit their ‘early baptismal circumcision certificates’ among other records to the Arizona secretary of state,” she said. “This is a bridge too far.”
—————-
Imagine that. The Arizona Governor who thinks that it’s OK to for a state to supersede federal authority on immigration reform, now thinks the ‘birthing bill’ is a bridge too far. We can be thankful that we’ve discovered that she can be counted on to evaluate a proposed law in a fair, balanced context and decide that it’s a bad bill. And it truly is.
This bill came about only because of the sordid and political tale that President Obama has no proof he was born in the United States. You just can’t make this stuff up. Here are grown people…who create legislation on behalf the people who voted them into office…and the ‘birther’ bill is the best they can do? There are no other critical problems to solve in the state of Arizona but that?
Good grief.
Brad
1-800-529-5465
Haven’t heard of this case? You should have already if you follow immigration policy. I imagine that sometime this year you’ll be hearing about this case again as the U.S. Supreme Court decides on it.
This case challenges the Legal Arizona Workers Act, which requires businesses to verify workers’ documentation and penalizes employers who knowingly or intentionally hire undocumented immigrants. According to some estimates, undocumented workers account for about 10% of the workforce in Arizona.
This case examines three important issues:
1. Whether an Arizona statute that imposes sanctions on employers who hire unauthorized aliens is invalid under a federal statute that expressly preempt[s] any State or local law imposing civil or criminal sanctions (other than through licensing and similar laws) upon those who employ, or recruit or refer for a fee for employment, unauthorized aliens.
2. Whether the Arizona statute, which requires all employers to participate in a federal electronic employment verification system, is preempted by a federal law that specifically makes that system voluntary. NOTE: This case was originally called ‘Chamber of Commerce of the United States v. Candelaria’.
3. Whether the Arizona statute is impliedly preempted because it undermines the comprehensive scheme that Congress created to regulate the employment of aliens.
In early December 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court heard the oral arguments from both sides of this issue and their decision is pending.
As I’ve always maintained since Arizona decided to legislatively strike out on its own version of immigration reform last year that their move was unconstitutional. I can’t imagine the Supreme Court of this land deciding that it’s OK for states to determine their own immigration laws above the comprehensive immigration process that Congress created to regulate immigration.
That why we have these checks and balances built into our system and when the Supreme Court decides on this matter, we can hopefully be glad we live in the United States.
Shame on our Congress for not having the sense to deal with immigration reform like it should. Keep an eye on this one.
Brad
This in from our exclusive Associated Press immigration news feed:
PHOENIX (AP) – A federal appeals court on Monday refused to lift a stay blocking major parts of Arizona’s immigration law from taking effect and said the federal government is likely to be able to prove the controversial law is unconstitutional.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals turned down an appeal filed by Gov. Jan Brewer. She had asked the appeals court to lift an injunction imposed by a federal judge in Phoenix the day before the law was to take effect on July 29, 2010.
The U.S Justice Department sued to block the law, saying it violates the U.S. Constitution because enforcing immigration law is a federal issue.
U.S. District Court Judge Susan Bolton issued an injunction preventing four major parts of the law from going into effect pending a trial. Monday’s ruling by the three-judge appeals court panel upheld that injunction.
The panel’s opinion said the government is likely to succeed in its arguments that Congress has given the federal government sole authority to enforce immigration laws, and that Arizona’s law violates the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. One judge dissented.
Brewer’s lawyers said the federal government hasn’t effectively enforced immigration law and that the state law will assist federal authorities.
“I remain steadfast in my belief that Arizona and other states have a sovereign right and obligation to protect their citizens and enforce immigration law in accordance with federal statute,” Brewer said in a statement.
The governor’s office said Brewer, Arizona Attorney General Tom Horne and their legal team – in conjunction with counsel for the Arizona Legislature – will be considering their legal options, including appealing to a larger 9th Circuit panel or seeking an immediate petition for the U.S. Supreme Court, to lift the injunction.
The bill’s author, state Sen. Russell Pearce, issued a statement saying the appeals court ruling was “utterly predictable.”
“SB 1070 is constitutionally sound, and that will be proven when the U.S. Supreme Court takes up this case and makes the proper ruling,” he said. “This battle is a battle of epic proportions. It is about a state’s right to enforce the laws of this land and protect its citizens from those who break our laws.”
———————
When this story first broke last summer, we were right out of the gate noting that this law was unconstitutional from just about any way you looked at it. Nevertheless, Governor Brewer and her legal beagles continue to face into the wind on this who debacle. What’s next? Shall we let states determine what the IRS should get from their citizens? Sure, call me when that happens.
The flip side of this who mess is our federal government who cannot seem to manage it’s way through anything these days without making it a political football. It’s clear that the lack of leadership in focusing on immigration reforms is what has caused Arizona and many other states to make an end run in the name of ‘self-determination’.
I think the Romans had similar problems addressing critical issues of their day and we know how that story ended.
Well, after many months of work, we’re proud to let you know that we’ve just launched our newly redesigned site, www.4immigration.com and our new Spar & Bernstein Landing page at www.spar-bernstein.com!
While both sites offer a fresh new look for our firm, you’ll find the same great content about immigration that we’ve always freely provided to those who visit the site.
BUT THEN WE WENT ONE STEP FARTHER IN OUR IMPROVEMENTS….by adding our exclusive Associated Press (AP) immigration news feed that’s updated every hour of every day in order to give you the immigration news. Again, all designed to help you become a more informed person when it comes to immigration issues, laws, and news.
Please take a moment and check out our fresh new websites. We are in the process of upgrading all of our other legal departments (criminal defense, personal injury, tax relief and family law) and I’ll let you know as they become available. The currently live criminal defense and our personal injury websites will be replaced over the next few weeks.
In the meantime, let me know what you think about our newly designed websites!
Brad
Not for nothing but here’s a story of sorts that just can’t seem to go away no matter how many times it’s been proven to hold no water. Check this out from our exclusive Associated Press newsfeed:WASHINGTON (AP) – Real estate tycoon Donald Trump said Thursday he isn’t convinced that President Barack Obama was born in the United States ,but says he hopes the president can prove that he was.
Officials in Hawaii have certified Obama’s citizenship, but “birthers” have demanded additional proof. And Trump, who is weighing whether to seek the Republican presidential nomination, says not all the questions haven’t been answered.
In an interview broadcast Thursday, Trump told NBC News he plans to decide by June whether to run, and said that if he is the GOP nominee, “I’d like to beat him straight up,” not on the basis of the question of where Obama was born.
Trump insisted he didn’t introduce the citizenship issue, but he isn’t letting go of it either. Since he was asked about it during an interview several weeks ago, the real estate executive said, he’s looked into it and now believes “there is a big possibility” Obama may have violated the Constitution.
“I’d like to have him show his birth certificate,” Trump said. “And to be honest with you, I hope he can.”
Asked in the interview how genuine his presidential ambition is, Trump said, “I always take things seriously, but I’ve never taken it seriously like this. I wish I didn’t have to do it.”
“I wish this was the greatest place in the world,” Trump said. But he said the United States is losing respect in the world at a time when jobs at home are vanishing. He accused Obama of giving the country “a terrible presidency.”
Trump said that if the current fight over budget issues forces a shutdown, “I think the president will be blamed.”
He accused Obama of conducting a confusing policy on the civil war in Libya, saying “nobody knows what’s happening, and now it looks like (Libyan strongman Moammar) Gadhafi is going to beat the United States.”
“I’m only interested in Libya if we get the oil,” Trump said. He said Obama “doesn’t have a doctrine (on foreign affairs.) Foreign affairs is, we take care of ourselves first”.
Of Obama, he said, “I want him to do well. … I love this country, but this country is going to hell. … The world laughs at us. They won’t be laughing if I’m elected president.”
———————————
This whole birth certificate issue was planted throughout the Obama’s initial campaign and was disproved from the get go. Forget whether you like President Obama or not, trying to ‘prove’ to the world that he is not a naturalized citizen is just fantasy.
“When communities are terrorized by ICE immigration raids, when nursing mothers are torn from their babies, when children come home from school to find their parents missing, when people are detained without access to legal counsel, when all that is happening, the system just isn’t working and we need to change it”, are the words of President Obama during a 2008 speech during a campaign stop.
Here’s President Obama’s current response to the call for him to use his Executive powers to suspend deportations from the Hispanic community and immigration advocate organizations.
According to the Associated Press,
“The critics questioned Obama’s recent comment that he could not use his executive order powers to suspend deportations because doing so ‘would not conform with my appropriate role as president.” Obama made the comment at a town hall organized by Univision TV network.
I guess you have to expect some level of flip-flopping these days from politicians from any party. No one has a problem deporting people who are here illegally and have committed serious crimes while here in the United States.
What unfortunately happens when ICE makes raids and conducts other deportation investigations is that people are often scooped up who have not committed any crimes, but may be here as undocumented workers. What happens? Kids come home to find a house with no parents (who have been picked up and deported). Things like this shouldn’t happen in a country like ours that has built its foundation on the backs of immigrants.
Enough said.
How frustrating do you think it is for someone who has had years of specialized training & experience in their home country and find themselves in jobs well outside their expertise? It happens everyday here in the United States.
Most of us Americans think of the job market strictly in terms of the continental United States. Many are under the impression that all the talent we need is right here in the U.S. already. The truth is that we depend upon the global supply of talent for many industries across a broad spectrum.
For example, much of the new start-up activity out of Silicon Valley can be attributed to immigrant talent. People today tend to forget that it has always been the immigration talent pool coming to our shores that plays a large role in American business and industry. It is apparently just too convenient to think everything has to be ‘made in America’ to be worthy, including our talent pool.
The Associated Press had a recent article on this issue entitled the “Brain Waste Thwarts Immigrants Dreams”. Here’s part of the article:
After finishing medical school in Bogota, Colombia, Maria Anjelica Montenegro did it all – obstetrics, pediatrics, emergency medicine, even surgery. By her estimate, she worked with thousands of patients.
None of that prepared her for the jobs she’s had since she moved to the United States: Sales clerk. Babysitter. Medical assistant.
That last one definitely rubbed raw at times.
“I know I was working in my field,” the 34-year-old New York resident said. “But that is medical assistant. I’m a doctor.”
Montenegro is hardly unique, given the high U.S. unemployment rate these days. Her situation reflects a trend that some researchers call “brain waste” – a term applied to immigrants who were skilled professionals in their home countries, yet are stymied in their efforts to find work in the U.S. that makes full use of their education or training.
Most of these immigrants wind up underemployed because of barriers like language, lack of access to job networks, or credentialing requirements that are different from those in other countries. Some are held back even further because they’re also in the U.S. illegally.
An analysis by researchers at the Migration Policy Institute, an immigration think tank, estimated that 1.2 million college-educated immigrants in the United States were underemployed, out of a population of 6.7 million. About another 350,000 were unemployed. The analysis, based on data from the Census Bureau’s 2009 American Community Survey, did not differentiate between legal and illegal immigrants.
Brain waste has consequences for immigrants as well as American employers and the larger economy, said Jeanne Batalova, policy analyst at the institute and co-author of a study on the issue.
For immigrants, it means bringing home less money than they have the potential to earn. For employers, it means fewer skilled applicants in their hiring pools. For the country overall, it means a missed opportunity to leverage already trained professionals in areas where there may be a desperate need for them.
——————————-
In globally connected world where the economies of one nation depends on the economies of other nations, countries that recognize and encourage global talent to arrive on their shores will win the day. Let’s hope the United States wakes up to this fact when it finally decides to re-engineer our immigration policies to reflect the globalization of talent. Our economic future depends on it.
The New York Times reported yesterday that a bill was introduced into the legislature that if passed, would grant certain rights to undocumented workers. For example, this bill would give illegal immigrants the ability to obtain drivers licences. Although there seems to be a bit of excitement about this bill, it does not offer a path to legal residency like the DREAM ACT would have had it passed through our Congressional process.
But it is remarkable that yet another state, my home state of New York, would think that taking immigration policy into its own hands is a good idea. This from the state that can’t even budget straight!
The New York Times reported that “New York allows illegal immigrants to pay in-state tuition, but the bill would give them access to state financial support, including grants, loans and scholarships. Its most ambitious proposals are those seeking to provide certain illegal immigrants with ‘state identification or driver’s licenses’ and ‘work opportunities with the State of New York.’
This is yet another indication that our federal government, whether lead by the President or by Congress or both needs to take the lead on immigration reform and do it now.
We know the importance of immigration reform in the context of how critical it is to our own economy, we often forget how our immigration policies affect other countries economies. For instance, with President Obama traveling through Central America recently, he noted this (as reported by the Associated Press):
“Obama promised a new partnership across Central America to increase trade and economic growth, target drug trafficking and create opportunities so that people can find work in their home countries and “don’t feel like they have to head north to provide for their families.”
He also said anew he would push for a comprehensive reform of immigration laws in the United States, including a “pathway to get right by the law” for those who live in the country illegally. But that volatile issue is stalled in Congress and shows no signs of political life.
El Salvador has one of Central America’s highest rates of emigration, especially to the United States. About 2.8 million Salvadoran immigrants living in the United States sent home $3.5 billion last year, so laws that crack down on immigrants can significantly affect the Salvadoran economy. Obama said Republicans who now exert greater control in Washington were more reluctant than in the past to engage in comprehensive reform, but added, “I am confident that ultimately we are going to get it done.”
——————–
So it’s a delicate balance in the global sense that whatever we do on immigration reform can dramatically affect the economies of many of our partner countries, in this case, many South American countries. You could make the same case for our Caribbean partners as well.
Immigration reform isn’t just about the United States. We need to be aware that as a leader of the free world, whatever we do on immigration reform will impact many of our global partners good, bad, or indifferent.
My wife recently sent a letter to President Obama and she received a reply back via email. I thought I’d share it with you today (in italics):
March 14, 2011
Dear Friend:
Thank you for writing me. I have heard from many Americans concerned about immigration, and I value your input as we work to address this pressing challenge.
We are all united under the principles etched onto our Statue of Liberty: “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.” Our Nation has always prospered from this generous and hopeful spirit. Yet, today, our immigration system is broken and a large portion of our economy depends on millions of workers living in the shadows. We are a Nation of laws and a Nation of immigrants, and we must reconcile those traditions.
For too long, politicians in Washington have exploited this issue to divide us rather than searching for practical solutions that unite us. We must put politics aside and offer a comprehensive solution that secures our borders, enforces our laws, and reaffirms our rich tradition of welcoming immigrants.
There is broad consensus around building a solution that stops the flow of undocumented workers across our borders and prevents employers from hiring undocumented workers. However, we know that enforcement is only part of the solution. We must also require undocumented immigrants who are already here to step out of the shadows and onto a responsible path to earn citizenship by demonstrating sound character, a commitment to America, and a strong work ethic.
To learn more about my policies on immigration, please join me online at: www.WhiteHouse.gov/agenda/immigration. For additional information and resources, visit www.dhs.gov or call 1-800-375-5283. Again, thank you for writing.
Sincerely,
Barack Obama
——————————————————-
We want to encourage you to write the President and all of your Congressional representatives and let them know how important it is for our country to develop a modern and balanced immigration policy. Like I’ve said many times before on this blog, our longterm economic health depends on being able to encourage the best-of-the-best in the global talent pool to come work here in the United States. We also need an immigration policy that accurately acknowledges the millions of undocumented workers who need a well-defined and positive pathway to becoming contributing citizens of this country.
Brad
I thought you might appreciate this from our exclusive Spar & Bernstein AP Newsfeed this morning:
PHOENIX (AP) – Arizona legislators took a timeout from illegal immigration with the Senate easily defeating five related bills, reflecting little appetite for an issue that made the state the focus of national debate and protest last year.
Majority Republicans were split Thursday in their votes on the defeated bills, which included two measures intended to force a U.S. Supreme Court ruling against automatic citizenship for U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants. The other three dealt with health care, public services and everyday activities such as driving.
Supporters of the measures voiced frustration and said there could be political fallout for lawmakers who voted against them.
“The lack of political courage” is the only impediment to step up pressure on illegal immigration, said Republican Sen. Russell Pearce, the sponsor of the 2010 law.
But business leaders have been urging lawmakers to put the issue aside to avoid damaging the still-ailing economy. The 2010 law known as SB1070 resulted in protests, boycotts and legal challenges. A federal judge has put key provisions on hold.
“It’s time for us to take a timeout,” said Republican Sen. John McComish of Phoenix. “It’s something that the people don’t want us to be focusing on.” Critics also said the bills rejected Thursday were over-reaching and flawed.
The two bills on citizenship were defeated on votes of 12-18 and 11-19 as majority Republicans split on the issue. The chamber’s nine Democrats voted against all of the bills. “I’m hopeful that now we can move on and focus on the business of the state,” Democratic Minority Leader David Schapira of Tempe said after the three-hour floor session.
One of the rejected bills would have required hospitals to contact federal immigration officials or local law enforcement if people being treated lack insurance and can’t demonstrate legal status.
Critics said that would burden hospitals, but Republican Sen. Steve Smith of Maricopa said his bill didn’t require much.
“Maybe you forgot it’s illegal to be in this country illegally,” he said during the vote on his bill. “We just ask them to report the crime, not be the judge and executioner.”
Also defeated was a bill to require schools to file reports on enrollments of illegal immigrant students.
The fifth bill was a sweeping measure sponsored by Pearce. It would have made it a crime for illegal immigrants to drive in Arizona. It also had provisions on registering vehicles, workplace hiring and various public benefits.
It would ban illegal immigrants from attending Arizona’s public universities and community colleges. The state does not now have a ban but it does require illegal immigrants to pay higher, non-resident tuition rates.
Pearce’s bill also would have required eviction of public housing tenants who let illegal immigrants live with them and make applicants for vehicle titles and registration prove they are in the country legally.
Pearce and other supporters said cracking down on illegal immigration would provide relief to taxpayers by cutting costs for education, health care and other services.
Earlier Thursday, Gov. Jan Brewer said she didn’t have positions on the bills and she declined to wave off legislators from taking up the issue of illegal immigration again.
“I believe that illegal immigration is an important subject to the populace in Arizona and is something that probably needs to be further addressed,” said Brewer, a Republican who signed SB1070 into law.
Dozens of CEOs of major employers and business groups signed a letter distributed Wednesday by the Greater Phoenix Chamber of Commerce, saying that passage of additional legislation on illegal immigration would damage the economy and tourism.
Arizona should instead push for federal action on immigration and border issues, according to the letter signed by heads of construction companies, hospitals, real estate developers and US Airways.
“Arizona’s lawmakers and citizens are right to be concerned about illegal immigration,” the letter said. “But we must acknowledge that when Arizona goes it alone on this issue, unintended consequences inevitably occur.”
I often hear people make the argument that the United States should require anyone who wants to enter the U.S. prove they can speak the English language. On the surface, that seems like a reasonable point of view…until you think about what it really means. What that requirement would do is put yet another barrier in the natural flow of immigration. It would essentially marginalize immigration into the United States and put a choke hold it.
Imagine if those going through Ellis Island more than 100 years ago had to meet this requirement. They all would have been turned back!!! And some of those who are anti-immigration wouldn’t be here in America today!!
What would our country be like today? I don’t know but I’ll venture a guess that we’d be less of a country for making English a requirement for entering our country legally. Of course, most immigrants do take on English as a second language because the reality is it helps in the economic transition here.
Recently, the Associated Press reported on how Italy and some other European countries are making speaking the native tongue a requirement for entering. Here are a few excerpts from that AP article I thought you might appreciate.
Italy is the latest Western European country turning the screws on an expanding immigrant population by demanding language skills in exchange for work permits, or in some cases, citizenship. While enacted last year in the name of integration, these requirements also reflect anxiety that foreigners might dilute fiercely-prized national identity or even, especially in Britain’s case, pose terror risks.
Some immigrant advocates worry that as harsh economic times make it harder for natives to keep jobs, such measures will become more a vehicle for intolerance than integration. Others say it’s only natural that newcomers learn the language of their host nation, seeing it as a condition to ensure they can contribute to society.
In Austria, terms are tougher. There, where native speakers have been sometimes known to scold immigrant parents for not speaking proper German to their children, foreigners from outside the European Union need to prove they speak basic German within five years of receiving their first residency permit. Failure to do so can bring fines and jeopardize their right to stay.
The government argues that foreigners who master German can better integrate and help foster understanding across cultures. But, like in Italy, critics say it’s a just a pretext for erecting barriers.
“The German language is increasingly being used as a marginalization tool,” said Alev Korun, a Turkish-born member of the opposition Greens party who immigrated to Austria when she was 19.
Austria’s Cabinet approved new rules requiring most immigrants to have elementary German skills before they even enter the country. They’re part of a plan to create a new “red-white-red card” — the colors of the Austrian flag — for a work permit for qualified non-EU citizens aimed at filling gaps left by an aging work force. The legislation now goes to parliament for consideration.
Critics say requiring people to speak basic German before they set foot in Austria would be an unreasonable barrier for people from poor, rural areas who can’t afford or access German classes.
“I think this is a very clear form of discrimination of certain type of immigrants,” said Barbara Liegl, head of the Austrian anti-racism organization ZARA. “I see massive disadvantages for specific groups.”
Terrorism pushed Britain to start strictly enforcing a requirement for English-language competency for prospective citizens. Three of the 2005 London suicide bombers were native Britons of Pakistani descent while the fourth was born in Jamaica.
Since 2005, would-be citizens and permanent residency holders have been asked to prove their command of “Britishness” by answering multiple choice questions, in English, on British history, culture and law, from explaining the meaning behind the fireworks-filled Guy Fawkes Night, to knowing which British courts use a jury system.
Britain’s government has pledged to dramatically cut immigration, and the language requirement is effectively a tool to put a cap on the number of newcomers, said Sarah Mulley, an immigration expert at the Institute of Public Policy Research, a London think tank.
Home Secretary Theresa May, who aims to cut immigration to below 100,000 by 2015, said language tests will help weed out those who don’t plan to contribute to British life. She has singled out spouses seeking marriage visas to join English-speaking partners as a particular concern.
