Immigration Reform: Shame on all of us for we have failed

Twenty-one years ago, at the height of his political power, Ronald Reagan moved through Congress the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986. It granted amnesty to the roughly 3mil undocumented immigrants and promised increased border security and stricter enforcement of employer sanctions. We now know that that law was not only highly flawed, but set the stage for today's current immigration debate.

Today as the Senate prepares to vote on the current immigration reform bill, we are once again at a crossroads. …and once again we are about to take a path that will most assuredly lead to problems of even greater scope and scale than were ever caused by IRCA.

But before going into detail as to how great a mistake we are about to make, we need take to look at just how we got to this place


The rumblings about immigration began long before the 2004 Presidential race. Prior to being thrust into reality by the events of September 2001, a newly elected President Bush had made "immigration reform", in the form of a greatly increased guest worker program, a cornerstone of his new administration's policy agenda.

Back-burnered by world events, the issue lay dormant for a few years as a growing current of anti-immigrant sentiment grew in the right-wing of the President's party. Shortly after salvaging the 2004 election with a combination of wedge issues and personal attacks, the Republicans went looking for a new wedge to divide the Democrats and bring out the party faithful. Newly appointed Democratic Chairman, Howard Dean, warned at that time that immigration would be the next great wedge.

With a highly unpopular war, record federal and trade deficits, wage stagnation, a growing health care crisis, and an under-funded and failing education system, only a wedge issue of epic proportions could save the Republicans from sure defeat in the next election cycle.

And so the "immigration crisis" was born.

To the Democrat's delight the wedge has blown up in the Republican's face and divided the party as never before. Exposing the fragility of the coalition first put together by Nixon's Southern Strategy and honed by Reagan with the inclusion of the Christian Right and Reagan Democrats, the immigration issue, fueled by nativist xenophobia on one side and corporate greed on the other, has cleaved the party down the middle.

But in so doing, it has now left the nation equally divided and put us in a position where one of the worst pieces of legislation ever written is about to leave the Senate.

But now it is no longer solely a Republican problem. Democrats, through their inability or unwillingness to stick to the liberal and progressive ideals on which the modern party was built, are now equally culpable in enacting legislation that will manage to not only virtually enslave millions of current and future immigrants in a system of second-class citizenry, but also attacks the very working Americans who have long been the backbone of the party.

The greatest failure of the Reagan legislation, contrary to popular opinion, was not its lack of enforcement and employer oversight, or an amnesty that sent a message of permissiveness to a world anxious to take advantage of our perceived weakness.

In the years following the legislation there was no great rush to the border by all those "waiting for the next amnesty." In fact, the numbers of undocumented immigrants remained stable at around 3.5 mil for nearly ten years, until the mid-nineties, when border crossing soared.

The same is true of border enforcement. In the 21 years since the bill was enacted the number of border patrol agents has increased from 3,243 in 1986 to 11, 106 today. Spending on border security has gone from $700 mil to $2,792 mil.

Additionally with the enactment of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 hundreds of miles of border walls and fences were built along the most heavily populated and traveled illegal entry routes, yet with all this added man-power and spending, the number of border apprehensions went down from 1,692,544 in 1986 to 1,188,977 currently, while the undocumented population soared to 12 mil.

This is because the true flaw in the Reagan legislation was that it never changed the fundamental dynamics of illegal immigration because in didn't make the needed and fundamental changes in the legal immigration system.

Reagan essentially asked for a "do-over" and got it without changing the rules of the game. There were no quota changes, no changes in the number green cards issued, no change in processing of paperwork, no changes in the path to citizenship for those qualified, no provisions made for any further immigration. Basically 3mil undocumented immigrants...many of them refugees from Reagan's Dirty Wars in Central America were made legal essentially over night ...then business was resumed as usual....without addressing why there were 3 mil undocumented immigrants here in the first place.

And we are about to repeat the same situation again. In fact, outside of the roughly 3mil green cards that will be used to alleviate the backlog that was caused by our current failed system...once it's been cleared up, there will be 200,000 less green cards available on a yearly basis then there are even today…. and we all know what that will lead to....in five years or ten...we'll be right back where we started.

Additionally, we will end up with 12 million people in the perpetual limbo of the Z visa system where they will pay continual fees to remain in legal status while never being able to convert to LPR status (green card holder) due to the constraints of a merit system intended to keep them on the margins of society while favoring the kind of high-skilled workers already stressing certain sectors of the native –born workforce through the various temporary worker programs already in place such as the H1-b visa program.

These perpetual Z workers will never become citizens, never fully join society, never have a voice in the political system, and never achieve the rights all workers deserve to organize and demand fair treatment due to the fact that their very ability to stay in the country will hinge upon their ability to remain employed. If they get fired …and are not re-employed within sixty days …they lose all rights and privileges. … no matter how long they've been here.

But, perhaps the most insidious aspect of this legislation is the new temporary worker program which will serve no purpose outside of supplying a perpetual supply of little more than indentured servants to a corporate system all too willing to exploit foreign workers to keep the wages of all workers artificially low.

These are only the most glaring faults of the legislation, but anyone whose read through it can attest to the hundreds of loopholes, infringements on basic rights and protections that will not only apply to immigrants but all US citizens, capitulations to business interests and lack of protections of workers both immigrant and native-born.

But who is to blame for this monstrosity?

It's easy to blame the politicians, the corporate boogiemen, the opposition party, DINOS, RINOS, the DLC, Bush, special interests, and lobbyists.

But the only ones we can really blame are ourselves. The liberals, the progressives, the left, the unions …. All of those who are supposed to be the conscience of the Democratic party.

WE had an opportunity, after twenty one years, to right a wrong, to fix a broken system, but instead we sat back either relishing the meltdown of the opposition party, or spent the time infighting.

As we have done so many times in the past, we have allowed our small differences to divide us. Those concerned with the human rights issues surrounding immigration reform fight with those advocating for H1-b visa reform. Those who favor guest worker programs as a path towards citizenship fight with those who oppose the plans on the grounds they are exploitive.

We have allowed those who first brought this issue to the forefront to frame the debate. We argue in the language of the Republican right and corporate wings. We argue in the language of Lou Dobbs, Tamar Jacoby, Tom Tancredo and George Bush. "Open Borders", "willing employers" "amnesty", "rule of law", "xenophobe" "anchor baby", "Mexican invasion", "English only", "Nation of immigrants", "Jobs Americans won't do"...this is how we have argued this debate….and shame on us for doing so.

These are their words … not ours. These terms were not part of the Democratic lexicon. They were spawned in the think tanks and PR firms of the Manhattan Institute and Frank Luntz.

We could have held firm to our values and beliefs as liberals and progressives.

• We could have focused on workers rights and workplace enforcement of labor laws.



• We could have focused on addressing the root causes of migration and demanded changes to trade agreements and foreign policy to guarantee a change of the conditions in sender nations.



• We could have worked to change the quota system to ensure that it reflected our true labor needs as opposed to those imposed by corporate interests.



• We could have demanded that all new immigrants were guaranteed the same worker protections and rights afforded all workers to end the exploitive practices that lower wages for all.



• We could have ended all the exploitive guest worker programs that lower standards for all workers.



• We could have fixed the legal immigration system so that it worked for all Americans and those wishing to become Americans.

But instead we dropped the ball. We allowed ourselves to lose sight of our core beliefs and got caught up in a Republican cat fight.

We could have led on this issue - instead we followed. And now we will reap what we have sown.

To those who sat back and watched the Republican melt-down in glee, I say shame on you.

To those who allowed themselves to be blinded by the faux populism of the Republican right, I say shame on you.

To those whose rigid adherence to humanitarian concerns allowed them to lose sight of the bigger picture, I say shame on you.

To liberals, progressives and Democrats, I say shame on us…shame on us all.

Read More...

Summary only...

This week's upcoming immigration fight

The Senate spent most of today's afternoon session on little more than a series of long-winded speeches in attempts to set the stage for this weeks upcoming immigration fight.

Tomorrow morning the main event should resume with a series debates on proposed amendments and voting.

With the defeat of the Vitter (R-LA) amendment to strike title VI from the bill by a vote of 29-66 and the Dorgan (D-ND) amendment to kill the Y-visa program by a vote of 31-64 during the first week of debate, it's appearing as though the bill's opponents will not be able to muster the needed votes to kill this legislation in the Senate.

Having tested the two most controversial aspects of the bill, the earned legalization provisions that have been characterized as "amnesty" by the right, and the guest worker program opposed by those on both sides of the debate - and failed on both accounts - it looks highly unlikely that opponents will be able to stop the bill on lesser grounds.

Not surprisingly, the World Street Journal reported this past weekend that business interests have now moved their lobbying efforts over to the House.

In a further sign that passage is expected, business lobbyists and others seeking changes in the bill already were starting to make their cases in the House, which would take up the issue after Senate passage. The Bush administration was pushing hard for a top business priority: increasing the number of laborers who would be allowed in each year under a new temporary-worker program.

WSJ

The same is true of those on the left looking to modify the legislation. The Mexican American Political Association (MAPA) has advised that while still working to make the Senate bill more palatable through the amendment process, it is now the House that should become the center of focus.

The debate on and the amendments to the "grand bargain" in the Senate will continue this week, but shortly the debate will move to the House. In reality, this is where we will have more leverage. The main focus of our attention should be on the House Subcommittee on Immigration, chaired by Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren.

Link

Yet with that said, there are still many important amendments to be considered by the Senate, and they will be taking up 14 of them in the next few days...some the bill's architect, Jon Kyl (R-AZ), characterized today as deal breakers.

This weeks upcoming amendments

Those highlighted in red are highly troubling and should be opposed by all looking for meaningful progressive reform

1. Grassley 1166 - This amendment would broaden the restriction on judicial review of visa revocations. Currently, judicial review of visa revocation is already severely restricted. Judicial review is, however, permitted in the context of removal proceedings if the revocation is the sole ground for removal.


2. Cornyn 1184 - The amendment severely limits who would be eligible for legalization programs. Makes anyone who is inadmissible under 212(a) ineligible for the legalization program. This is virtually the entire undocumented population. Also makes ineligible anyone unlawfully present for one year or more and subsequently reentered. Significantly expands class of “Aggravated Felony” crimes and makes them retroactive. Gives the AG unreviewable discretion to use secret evidence to determine if an alien is ‘described in’ the national security exclusions within immigration law. Adds new grounds of deportability for convictions relating to social security account numbers or social security cards and convictions relating to identity fraud


3. Dodd-Menendez 1199 - amendment would undo damage in the compromise that makes it more difficult for the parents of U.S. citizens to obtain a visa. The compromise would place a limit on the number of visas for parents at roughly half the current usage. The amendment retains the limitation but raises it to 90,000 visas per year or roughly the current usage.


4. Menendez-Hagel 1194 - to extend the date for those eligible for back-log reduction green cards from May 2005 to Jan. 2007 to ensure that the entire family backlog already in line to become legal permanent residents will get addressed. The current bill would essentially toss out all applications filed after May 2005. Also calls for increased quotas in all categories (family based, employment based, and asylum/refugee) of green cards set aside for back-log reduction.


5. McConnell 1170 - Each State shall require individuals casting ballots in an election for Federal office in person to present a current valid photo identification issued by a governmental entity before voting. Each State shall be required to comply with the requirements of subsection (a) on and after January 1, 2008


6. Feingold 1176 – to set up a commission on wartime treatment of European Americans of Italian and German decent during WWII and a commission to address the wartime treatment of Jewish refugees during WWII.


7. Durbin-Grassley 1231 - to require all employers seeking a Y worker to first attempt to recruit US workers. Removes exemptions for employers in occupations and areas that the DOL has determined there is a shortage of US workers.


8. Sessions 1234 - to deny Earned Income Tax Credit to Y and Z visa holders paying back taxes.


9. Sessions 1235 - to deny Earned Income Tax Credit to legal immigrants with less than five years in the US,


10. Lieberman 1191 - to improve treatment of immigrants seeking asylum and to establish clear standards for treatment of immigrants in detention.


11. Allard 1189 - to remove the supplemental schedule for merit-based points for Z visa holders that gives credit for past employment, home ownership and having medical insurance when applying for green cards. In essence would eliminate the majority of Z visa holders from eventually obtaining permanent residency.


12. Cornyn 1250 - removes the confidentiality protections for legalization applicants and orders the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of State to provide the information furnished in applications filed under section 601 and 602, and any other information derived from such furnished information, to any law enforcement entity, intelligence agency, national security agency, component of the Department of Homeland Security, court, or grand jury in connection with a criminal or civil investigation.


13. Clinton-Hagel 1183 - to ensure that the spouses and children of legal permanent immigrants can immigrant into the United States to be with their family members.


14. Obama-Menendez 1202 - to sunset the point system after five years. The Senate never had the opportunity to debate the system out in the open; the result is a proposal that would gut family-sponsored immigration

Call your Senators – 1-800-417-7666 in English or 1-800-882-2005 en Espanol

UPDATES:

Grassley (#1166) abolishing judicial review on visa revocations made by the Secretary of State. Agreed to by unanimous consent on 6/4/07

Allard (#1189) to remove the supplemental schedule for merit-based points for Z visa holders. Failed by vote of 62-31 on 6/5/07

Durbin-Grassley (#1231) to require all employers seeking a Y worker to first attempt to recruit US workers. Passed 71-22 on 6/5/07

Read More...

Summary only...

The good, bad and ugly: Today's Senate immigration action

It's a given that no one likes the current immigration compromise moving through the Senate. So there's no need to rehash all the pro's and con's of the bill.

But since there is still a chance this thing might see the light of day and actually make it out of the Senate, it's important to try our best to influence those who are supposed to represent us to make the necessary changes to it.

In general, the debate thus far has followed a predictable path. Democrats, in concert with the labor unions and the immigrants-rights lobby, have been trying to limit guest worker programs and add more labor protections to them. They have also tried to ease the quotas and restrictions on family based immigration and family reunification.

The Republican immigration hawks are trying to stiffen penalties and limit participation in legalization programs, and the corporate wings of both parties are just trying to get the bill through with as few changes as possible.

Yesterday we had one major change to the bill when the total number of Y-visas guest workers was cut in half. There were also a few important modifications made by both side of the aisle.

• Senator Bingaman (D-NM) entered an amendment to cut the number of Y-visa guest workers from 400k to 200K – despite opposition from Kennedy (D-MA) and Martinez (R-FA) - the amendment passed - 74-24.


• Senator Feinstein (D-CA) introduced an amendment that attempts to improve the way the federal government treats those unaccompanied alien children in its custody who have no other family members in this country - amendment was agreed to by voice vote.


• Senator Graham (R-SC) introduced an amendment calling for mandatory minimum penalties for those who have been removed from the country and attempt to reenter unlawfully. The amendment calls for a minimum mandatory jail sentence of 60 days for anyone previously removed and who attempt an unlawful reentry or is found to be present unlawfully in this country. It also calls for jail sentences ranging from a minimum of one year to a maximum of 20 years for those who attempt to reenter unlawfully after having been convicted, prior to removal, of 3 misdemeanors or 1 felony. - amendment was accepted by unanimous consent.


• Senator Gregg (R-NH) introduced an amendment to provide additional resources aimed at shoring up the southwest border, above what is already called for in the underlying bill. Specifically, the amendment calls for an additional 375 miles of real and virtual fencing along the border, additional CBP agents, and detention beds above what is already called for in the underlying bill It also requires certification that the requirements have been satisfied before implementation of certain other provisions in the larger bill can be triggered , including the new worker program. Finally, that the Secretary of DHS certify in writing that they have achieved and demonstrated operational control over 100% of the U.S.-Mexico land border. - amendment was accepted by voice

That brings us to today's action:

THE GOOD

Menendez/Hagel Amendment - amendment to restore the ability of over 800,000 U.S. citizens to be reunited with close family members. Without this bipartisan amendment, they would lose their place in the legal immigration line and get shifted into the untested and unpredictable Point System for visa allocation. Reducing opportunities for citizens who have waited to be reunited with close family members should not be part of the overall compromise. This amendment limits the damage to families and should be the first amendment to be debated and voted upon today.

Clinton/Hagel Amendment – this amendment would treat spouses and minor children of permanent residents as 'immediate relatives' for immigration category purposes. If adopted, the amendment would mean that spouses and minor children would no longer have to endure up to five years of waiting for their visas.

Menendez/Obama Amendments - offer two amendments that would reduce the negative impact on family reunification that would be created by the new Point System. (1)would end the Point System after 5 years unless Congress studies and extends it and (2) give family members a better chance of emerging from the Point System with enough points to qualify for a visa

Dodd/Hatch Amendment - This bipartisan amendment would undo damage in the compromise that makes it more difficult for the parents of U.S. citizens to obtain a visa. The compromise would place a limit on the number of visas for parents at roughly half the current usage. The amendment retains the limitation but raises it to 90,000 visas per year or roughly the current usage.

Sanders (I-V) Amendment(#1223) an amendment to significantly increase employer fees on H-1B Visas and use the resulting resources for scholarships in math, science, engineering and nursing education. The scholarship program would award merit-based scholarships of up to $15,000 per year for students to pursue associate, undergraduate or graduate level degrees in mathematics, engineering, nursing, medicine, or computer science. The scholarships would be awarded to over 65,000 American students each year and would be funded by increasing the current $1,500 employer fee per H-1B worker to $8,500 per worker.

THE BAD

McCaskill Amendment - . In addition to the $5,000 fine, would add various application fees and eight or more year process for eventual legal status that is already in the compromise, the potential McCaskill Amendment would force individuals seeking legal status to admit to the misdemeanor of entering the United States without authorization and to perform hundreds of hours of 'community service.'

THE UGLY

Cornyn (R-TX) Amendment - Expanding Restrictions on Immigration Benefits and Due Process (#1184)
The amendment severely limits who would be eligible for legalization programs. Makes anyone who is inadmissible under 212(a) ineligible for the legalization program. This is virtually the entire undocumented population. Also makes ineligible anyone unlawfully present for one year or more and subsequently reentered. Significantly expands class of “Aggravated Felony” crimes and makes them retroactive. Gives the AG unreviewable discretion to use secret evidence to determine if an alien is ‘described in’ the national security exclusions within immigration law. Adds new grounds of deportability for convictions relating to social security account numbers or social security cards and convictions relating to identity fraud

Coleman (R-MN) Amendment– (#1158) - an amendment to outlaw state and local policies that prevent their employees—including police and health and safety workers—from inquiring about the immigration status of those they serve if there is “probable cause” to believe the individual being questioned is undocumented. Essentially outlaws "sanctuary" legalization or policies by municipalities and states. There is no exception where such policies are necessary to protect the health and safety or promote the welfare of the community


There are probably a few I've missed as these amendments are coming out fast and furious.

Please take the time to call your Senators to let them know what you think of these various amendments.

If we are to end up with this legislation passing, we need to do all we can to make sure it's at least better than what we started with at the beginning of the process. It will be a long summer of immigration debate so get ready to start participating ....or you've got no one to blame but yourself if when it's all over and you don't like what we end up with.

Call the Capitol Switchboard at (202) 224-3121 to be directly connected to your Senators’ offices. OR Call your senators using this toll-free number: 1-800-417-7666

[UPDATE]: 6:00 PM EST - Coleman Amendment defeated by one vote. - Sanders Amendment passes 59-35

Read More...

Summary only...

MPI releases data on merit based point systems for immigration

The Migration Policy Institute, a non-profit think tanks that studies global migration and refugee policies , has released a report that sheds some additional light on the proposed "merit system" contained in the compromise immigration reform legislation now being debated in the Senate.

The report, authored by the Institute's President, Demetrios Papademetriou, who is viewed as a leading expert on the use of point systems internationally and has advised more than 20 countries on their immigration policies, looks at how point systems work in general, and more importantly examines recent US immigration trends to see how various immigrant groups from around the world would be effected by the new proposal.

The MPI backgrounder titled, "Proposed Points System and Its Likely Impact on Prospective Immigrants", looks at the current demographic data on the foreign born in the United States as it relates to the immigrant selection criteria expected to be part of "merit system" proposal. These include age, educational attainment, occupation, English proficiency, and labor force participation.

In the report, Papademetriou sets four criteria by which to judge the effectiveness of any point based system:

Things To Watch For

At the end of the day, points selection systems are a bit like government budgets: They tell the reader where a government and a society’s priorities lie. The following are the things to watch for in that regard:

1. The “pass mark,” that is, the points total one would have to earn in order to be admitted to the United States. Setting a high pass mark would likely disqualify applicants with fewer formal skills and less education  but skills which may nonetheless be essential. If the pass mark is allowed to fluctuate (the term of art is “float”) those with the highest formal qualifications and degrees will crowd out all others.

2. The overall number of visas allocated to points selected immigrants. The supply of visas would always be lower than the demand for them by people eager to come to the United States. However, if the number of visas allocated and the difficultly of obtaining sufficient points for entry are not aligned, and not all who earn enough points to qualify for visas can obtain them, the immigration system would once again become clogged by large and growing backlogs.

3. The internal distribution of points—both the categories chosen but, more importantly, the weight distribution within each category. Allocating many points for education but few for employment in high-demand occupations such as carpenters and home health aides, for example, would skew the immigration system toward the high-skilled. Allocating many points for age (youth) or for participation in a proposed apprenticeship program but fewer for employment in a specialty occupation requiring a college degree would skew immigration toward the low skilled. Small changes in the allocation of points could have very large ramifications for the composition of immigrants granted entry through a merit-based system.

4. Mechanisms for revising or adjusting the system. Many of the current problems in the US immigration system – visa supply being out of line with labor force supply and demand, high rates of illegal immigration, persistent backlogs, and systemic delays  all have roots in the inflexibility of the current immigration system. Revisions to the immigration system can happen more quickly and with less national anguish if flexibility is built into the statute and Congress does not need to revisit immigration law on a regular basis in order to update laws to match constantly changing social, economic, and demographic realities. The qualifications desired of immigrants in 2009 may not be the qualifications desired in 2012 or 2020, so the ability to review the points system and revise as needed/desired would become crucial.

Proposed Points System and Its Likely Impact on Prospective Immigrants, Immigration Policy Institute

In light of MPI's criteria for effective point systems, we must look at exactly what has been proposes in the current legislation.

The proposed merit system is intended to replace the current "employment based" system for allotting green cards which has relied on employer sponsorship as well as other criteria for determining eligibility. Under the proposed legislation the current number of employment based green cards of 140,000 would be replaced as follows:

Merit worldwide ceiling: Sets 3 different worldwide ceiling levels.

First five fiscal years post-enactment will be set at the level made available during FY05 ( 247K).

• 10K set aside for exceptional Y guestworker visa holders (although Y program won’t be up and running for at least 18 months – 2 years)


• 90K set aside for reduction of employment-based backlog existing on date of enactment


Next 3 or 4 fiscal years (until first undocumented Z visas can start adjusting), sets level at 140K

• 10K set aside for exceptional Y visa holders


• 90K set aside for employment-based reduction of backlog existing on date of enactment


Once undocumented start adjusting (outside the worldwide ceilings), sets level at 380K

• 10K set aside for exceptional Y visa holders

These future green cards would then be issued using the following merit based point criteria:

Section 502. Merit-Based Evaluation System for Immigrants

Eliminates employment preference categories 1, 2, and 3 and replaces it with a merit-based preference system.

Eliminates the labor certification process. Maintains the special immigrant and EB-5 categories but cuts their numbers (total of 7,000 available annually).

Merit points are initially assigned as follows with a total of 100 points that could be earned:

Employment: 47 maximum total points can be earned for:

• U.S. employment in a specialty occupation (20 points)


• U.S. employment in a high demand occupation (16 points)


• U.S. employment in a science, technology, engineering, mathematics (STEM) or health-related field, current for at least one year (8 points)


• From employer willing to pay 50% of LPR application fee: U.S. job offer or U.S. employer attestation for current employee (6 points)


• U.S. work experience (2 points per year/10 points max)


• Age of worker between 25-39 (3 points)

Education: 28 maximum total points can be earned for:

• Advanced Graduate degree (20 points)


• Bachelor’s degree (16 points)


• Associate’s degree (10 points)


• High School diploma/GED (6 points)


• Certified vocational degree (5 points)


• DOL registered apprenticeship (8 points)


• Associate’s degree or above in STEM field (8 points)

English/Civics: 15 total points can be earned for:

• Native English speaker or TOEFL score 75 or above (15 points)


• TOEFL score 60-75 (10 points)


• Pass USCIS Citizenship test in English and civics (6 points)

Extended Family: for those with total of 55 or above in above categories, 10 total points can be earned for:

• Adult (21 or over) child of USC (8 points)


• Adult (21 or over) child of LPR (6 points)


• Sibling of USC or LPR (4 points)


• Visa application in any category above after May 1, 2005 (2 points)

In addition, the following allocation has been set aside for the new Z visa category:

Agricultural Work: 25 total points can be earned for:

• Agricultural work for 3 years, 150 days/year (21 points)


• Agricultural work for 4 years, 150 days for 3 years, plus 100 days for 1 year (23points)


• Agricultural work for 5 years, 100 days per year (25 points)

U.S. Employment: 15 total points can be earned for:

• 1 point per year of lawful U.S. employment

Home Ownership: 5 total points can be earned for:

• 1 point per year of ownership of place of residence in U.S.

Medical Insurance: 5 points total can be earned for:

• Current medical insurance for entire family (5 points)

Gives DHS authority to establish regulations regarding petition process for merit-based system and creates a standing commission on immigration and labor markets for evaluating the relative weighting and selection criteria included in the point system. Petitions that have not been granted within a 3 year period are deemed denied.

Section-by-Section Summary of the Senate “Grand Bargain” Bill , AILA

Given the details as presented thus far in the legislation it has obviously not met MPI's first test. The legislation makes no mention whatsoever of a "pass mark" or how these points are to be evaluated. Are the top 140,000 applicants in a given fiscal year to be accepted? Is there a minimum "grade" that must be attained? Will the "pass mark" float? These are all questions that should be answered in the legislation before any serious consideration of this proposal can be made.

So just how will this merit system effect future immigration patterns?

MPI looked at the demographic data from recent immigration and found that the merit system as written will favor certain immigrant groups while making it much more dificult for others to enter.

Some Initial Observations From The Data

The question everyone is trying to answer can be posed most simply (and directly) as follows: In applying the new admissions’ criteria to those who entered during the past 15 years, what would the impacts be on groups with different skill and education mixes?

Immigrants from many Asian countries would likely fare well under a points system as it is currently being described.

• Two-fifths of all recent Asian immigrants to the United States (i.e., those who entered since 1990), and at least one-third from the top five Asian sending countries are in the age range (25-39) that would garner points under the proposed system.

• Over half of recent immigrants from China, the Philippines, and Korea, and 76 percent from India have a bachelor’s or higher degree. If we add those with associates’ degrees, the strong educational advantage of a points system for Asians widens further. (Vietnam is the only significant exception in this regard.)

• The majority of recent immigrants from the Philippines and India report speaking English “very well” and would fare well under a points system.

• About half of recent immigrants from India work in IT, science and engineering, or healthcare occupations, while another 20 percent work in other professional occupations. About one-quarter of recent immigrants from the Philippines work in healthcare occupations. Employment within each of these occupations is preferred under the proposed points system. About one-quarter of recent immigrants from China work in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics occupations, while another quarter work in other professional occupations.

Immigrants from Latin American countries will likely face more difficulties in obtaining entry through the points system, depending on how categories are weighted. Age and occupational characteristics may benefit immigrants from this area, while formal educational attainment and English ability may become barriers.

• More than two-fifths of recent Central American/Caribbean and South American immigrants are in the preferred age range of 25-39. Forty-eight percent of recent Mexican immigrants and 53 percent of recent Salvadoran immigrants are 25 to 39 years of age, as are 48 percent of recent immigrants from both Brazil and Ecuador.

• The vast majority of recent immigrants from South America have at least a high school diploma, and 31 percent have a bachelor’s or higher degree. However, just 45 percent of recent immigrants from Central America and the Caribbean have a high school diploma or higher. Cuban and Dominican immigrants are exceptions in this regard, with high relative rates of college education compared to other countries in the region.

• The vast majority (about 80 percent) of Central American/Caribbean recent immigrants and a strong majority (about 60 percent) of South American recent immigrants lack English proficiency. The trend holds true for the top five sending countries from both areas, with the exception of immigrants from Venezuela, 44 percent of whom report that they are proficient in English. Only 15 percent of recent Mexican immigrants are proficient in English.

• The occupations common among Central American and Caribbean immigrants may earn points under the “high demand” occupation category. Most of the occupations expected to experience the highest job growth over the next ten years require only on-the-job training. The majority of Central American/Caribbean immigrants work in such lowerskill, high-growth occupations as construction, extraction, transportation, service, manufacturing, and installation. Extremely small shares of immigrants from the largest sending countries in the region work in preferred science, engineering, or health occupations.

• The occupations of South American immigrants follow a similar trend to those for Central American and Caribbean immigrants, though slightly higher shares of South Americans work in mid-level or high-skill occupations.

While the United States has received relatively few immigrants from Africa, those who have entered have language, age, and educational characteristics that could help them earn points for entry.

• As with the other world regions examined, about two-fifths of recent African immigrants fall in the preferred age range of 25-39.

• Recent African immigrants tend to be well educated. Thirty-eight percent of all recent African immigrants have a bachelor’s or higher degree, and fully two-thirds have some college education. Those from Nigeria, Egypt, and South Africa have the highest levels of educational attainment among the top African sending countries: over half from each have a bachelor’s or higher degree. Fewer Ethiopian immigrants have bachelor’s degrees – under a quarter – but 60 percent do have some college education.

• English proficiency tends to vary by country but is high overall. Eighty-seven percent of recent Nigerian immigrants, and 96 percent of South African immigrants are English proficient, while just over half from Ethiopia and Egypt are English proficient. Looking at all recent African immigrants, two-thirds are English proficient.

• About 15 percent of African immigrants work in preferred health occupations (27 percent of Nigerian immigrants do so) while the great majority of African immigrants work in low-skill occupations. Very small shares work in science or engineering occupations, though those from South Africa have higher rates of professional occupations than immigrants from other parts of Africa.

Proposed Points System and Its Likely Impact on Prospective Immigrants, Immigration Policy Institute

While there will certainly be intense debate over this hotly contested issue in Washington, we can only hope that those trying to craft this legislation do so not solely with an eye to the next election cycle, or the local polls in their state or district... but with the best interests of both the American people and those who will be future Americans in mind.

Related:

Annual Immigration to the United States: The Real Numbers, MPI, May, 2007

Selecting Economic Stream Immigrants through Points Systems, MPI, May, 2007

A "high demand occupation" as defined in the legislation is one listed on the Bureau of Labor Statistics top 30 projected 10 year growth occupations:

BLS Occupations with the largest job growth, 2004–14

41-2031Retail salesperson
29-111 Registered nurses
25-1000 Postsecondary teachers
43-4051 Customer service representative
37-2011 Janitors and cleaners, except maids and housekeeping cleaners
35-3031 Waiters and waitresses
35-3021 Combined food preparation and serving workers, including fast food
31-1011 Home health aids
31-1012 Nursing aids, orderlies and attendants
11-1021 General and operations managers experienced
39-9021 Personal and home aides
25-2021 Elementary school teachers, except special education
13-2011 Accountants and auditors
43-9061 Office clerks, general
53-3032 Laborers and freight stock, and material movers, hand
43-4171 Receptionists and information clerks
37-3011 Landscaping and groundskeeping workers
53-3032 Truck drivers, heavy and tractor trailer
15-1031 Computer software engineers, applications
49-9042 Maintenance and repair workers, general
31-9092 Medical assistants
43-6011 Executive secretaries and administrative assistants
41-4012 Sales representatives, wholesale and manufacturing, except technical and scientific products
47-2031 Carpenters
25-9041 Teachers assistants
39-9011 Child care workers
35-2021 food preparation workers
37-2012 Maids and housekeeping cleaners
53-3033 Truck driver light or delivery services
15-1051 Computer systems analysts

Occupational employment
projections to 2014, table #3 Bureau of Labor Statistics

Read More...

Summary only...

AILA Releases Detailed Summary of Immigration Reform Compromise

The American Immigration Lawyer Association has just released a section by section summary of the immigration compromise legislation announced last Thursday. A daft of the legislation was made available over the weekend, but given its complexities, it has fueled as much misinterpretation and speculation by those without the legal expertise to interpret it correctly, as it has shed light on exactly what the compromise means.

The AILA now breaks down the complete bill, section by section, and summarizes its contents in plain English for those of us who have struggled to get firm grip on exactly what it contains.

I've posted a copy for download HERE

Now that the contents of the proposed compromise are available, I will be posting up more detailed analysis of this compromise shortly.

Read More...

Summary only...

A look at proposed Merit-Based system in Immigration Reform Compromise

One of the most controversial aspects of the proposed immigration reform compromised announced Thursday is the switch from an immigration system based upon family ties and family reunification to one based on a "merit system" that gives greater weight to educational level, jobs skills, and English proficiency.

Advocates of the compromise claim that the "merit system" will insure that those who qualify for Permanent Residence Status (green card) under the new system would be those who can make the greatest contributions to society.

Those opposed the plan claim it's a high-risk, large-scale social experimentation that would have adverse effects on families and disregards a fundamental, longstanding principle of American immigration policy and of real family values. Additionally they claim it would establish a class of workers who lack family and community roots that would seriously undermine efforts to integrate new immigrants into the American way of life.

There have come assurances from those advocating for the compromise that the "merit system" can still honor the tradition of family values. But from a look at the way points will be allocated under the new system, I don't believe that to be the case. 75% of the points are allocated for education and skills, 15% for English proficiency, and only 10% of the points are allocated for family ties.

Link to Draft Copy of Bill - The Secure Borders, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Reform Act of 2007


The following is the breakdown of the point allocations under the new merit system.

It comes from a draft copy of the legislation that is unverified and my not be complete …but does give us an idea of how those working on the legislation are looking at the different areas and how they plan on assessing the points.

Category	Description	Max pts
Employment Occupation National interest/ critical infrastructure Employer endorsement Experience Age of worker	U.S. employment in Specialty Occupation (DoL definition) – 20 pts U.S. employment in High Demand Occupation (BLS largest 10-yr job growth, top 30) – 16 pts U.S. employment in STEM or health occupation, current for at least 1 year – 8 pts (extraordinary or ordinary) A U.S. employer willing to pay 50% of LPR application fee either 1) offers a job, or 2) attests for a current employee – 6 pts Years of work for U.S. firm – 2 pts/year (max 10 pts) Worker’s age: 25-39 – 3 pts	47

Education (terminal degree)

M.D., M.B.A., Graduate degree, etc. – 20 pts Bachelor’s degree – 16 pts Associate’s degree – 10 pts High School diploma or GED – 6 pts Completed certified Perkins Vocational Education program – 5 pts Completed DoL Registered Apprenticeship – 8 pts STEM, assoc & above – 8 pts

28

English & civics	Native speaker of English or TOEFL score of 75 or higher – 15 pts TOEFL score of 60-74 – 10 pts Pass USCIS Citizenship Tests in English&Civics–6 pts	15
Extended family (Applied if threshold of 55 in above categories.)	Adult (21 or older) son or daughter of USC – 8 pts Adult (21 or older) son or daughter of LPR – 6 pts Sibling of USC or LPR – 4 pts If had applied for a family visa in any of the above categories after May 1, 2005– 2 pts	10
		100
Supplemental schedule for Zs Agriculture National Interest U.S. employment exp. Home ownership Medical Insurance	Worked in agriculture for 3 years, 150 days per year – 21 pts Worked in agriculture for 4 years (150 days for 3 years, 100 days for 1 year) – 23 pts Worked in agriculture for 5 years, 100 days per year – 25 points Year of lawful employment – 1 pt (max 15pts) Own place of residence – 1 pt/year owned (max 5pts) Current medical insurance for entire family (5pts)	25 15 5 5

To see how this new system would work, not only for new applicants, but also the millions of Z card holders who will be part of the proposed "amnesty" program who would eventually be eligable for green cards - one need only check the chart.

A 25 year old foreign applicant with a job prospect, a high school diploma and limited or no English proficiency would receive 15 pts ...par for the course for most unskilled workers from Mexico or Central America (and most traditional immigrants for the last 100 years)...If he/she never finished high school..knock that down to 9pts

The let's take the case of a 30 year old Z card holder with a high school diploma, whose been employed in th US for five years, has an employer sponsor and is now fluent in English - he/she would get a maximum of 45pts.

That's pretty indicative of the max level that most unskilled/semi-skilled worker could attain.

Even someone here 15 years with the same qualifications as our 30 year old plus owning his/her own home and carrying family health insurance would max out at 65 pts.

Compare this to a recent college graduate with a BA from anywhere in the world (16pts), who also spoke English (15pts) and could compete in any of the top 30 fastest growing professions in the nation (16pts), and a willing employer (8pts) ... they would start with a minimum of 55pts.

Add in higher degree, STEM, and a specialty employment and that number goes up to 71 pts...before setting foot in the country

The legislation doesn't mention any parameters as how the merit system "grades" would effect these two applicants, but it's safe to assume that with a finite number of green cards available each year, the low-skilled workers from areas like Mexico and Central America who currently make up the bulk of both legal and undocumented workers would end up somewhere on the bottom of the priority list.

It is quite clear that this is a dramatic change from the family based immigration of the past 40 years. It is also quite clear that it is meant to change the demographic make-up of future immigration. ...favoring high-skilled people who speak English over the working-people and the poor that have made up the bulk of the immigrant population for over two hundred years.

For more detailed information on how the merit system will work and how it will effect future immigration demographics see: MPI releases data on merit based point systems for immigration

Read More...

Summary only...

Summary of Senate Compromise on Immigration Reform

The website for the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) has posted up a brief summary of the The Secure Borders, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Reform Act of 2007, the compromise immigration legislation announced earlier today. The summary provides an outline of the major points of the legislation and gives us a broad idea about the various aspects of the compromise ... but it is in no way gives a complete picture.

As with all legislation the devil is in the details.

As soon as the complete legislation comes up online, I'll post a link.

Border Security and Immigration Reform Act of 2007

Title I

Title I requires the Secretary of Homeland Security to certify that the triggers are met before the Title IV (Guest Worker) and Title VI (Z visa ) programs can begin, with the exception of probationary status for Z workers and the programs for agricultural workers.

• Triggers include:
  • 18,000 (CBP) Border Patrol hired
  • Construction of 200 miles of vehicle barriers and 370 miles of fencing
  • 70 ground-based radar and camera towers along the southern border
  • Deployment of 4 Unmanned Aerial Vehicles and supporting systems
  • The ending of catch-and-release
  • Resources to detain up to 27,500 aliens per day on an annual basis
  • The use of secure and effective identification tools to prevent unauthorized work.
  • The receiving and processing and adjudicating of applications for Z status.

• Title I also includes authorities and resources to augment border security including:
  • physical infrastructure along the border
  • additional field and investigative agents
  • comprehensive plans and studies of the border region
  • revisions to law enforcement techniques and enhanced authorities.

Title II

Title II provides for interior enforcement of immigration laws.

• The stiffening of laws and penalties relate to:
  • the detention of criminal aliens
  • the definition of aggravated felony
  • gang violence
  • passport, visa, and immigration fraud, including marriage fraud

• Other provisions include language regarding:
  • Increased penalties for illegal entry and reentry
  • encouraging aliens to depart voluntarily
  • prohibiting aliens from possessing firearms
  • alternatives to detention
  • state and local law enforcement reimbursement and training
  • the streamlining of background checks for immigration status

Title III

Title III addresses workplace enforcement by increasing penalties, revising and making mandatory a system of electronic employment verification, and promoting information sharing.

• This Title designs a worksite enforcement system that relies on electronic employment verification and a reduced list of documents that may be presented to employers to prove identity and work eligibility.
  • Also increases penalties significantly over current law for unlawful hiring, employment, and recordkeeping violations.

• Verification of employees: As of the date of enactment, employers in national security-related industries, industries involving critical infrastructure, and federal contractors may be required to electronically verify employees, including new hires and/or current employees, with additional employers or industries added after 6 months.
  • All employers would be required to electronically verify new hires within 18 months of enactment, or on the date on which the Secretary certifies that the system is operational.
  • Once the system is implemented, all employers would be required to verify all current employees within by 3 years after enactment.

• Structure of the EEVS: After the date of hire but no later than the first day of employment, the employer must transmit to the EEVS via the Internet the data that the employer has taken from the worker's identity and work eligibility documents.
  
  
• Inconclusive determinations: Where the EEVS cannot conclusively determine the status of a worker's eligibility, a further action notice is issued and the individual must contact the appropriate federal or state agency to initiate resolution of status and the individual continues to work while the agency resolves his or her status.
  
  
• Final nonconfirmation: If the employer has received a final non-confirmation regarding an individual, the employer must terminate the employment of the individual, unless the individual files an administrative appeal of a final non-confirmation notice within 15 days.
  
  
• Data and Information Sharing: The Commissioner of Social Security must information to the Secretary of DHS regarding data contained within the Social Security database as in relates to employment verification.
  
  
• Fraud and tamper resistant social security cards: Not later than 180 days after date of enactment, the Commissioner is required to begin work to administer and issue fraud-resistant, tamper-resistant Social Security cards.

Title IV

Title IV establishes a new temporary Y worker program to address future labor needs of temporary foreign workers and discourage future illegal employment of undocumented individuals. The title also includes measures to protect the rights of U.S. and foreign workers and prevent the U.S. employer from abusing the program.

• Structure of new visa programs: This title creates a new future temporary worker program for workers who are coming to the U.S. to perform temporary job that the U.S. employer is unable to fill. It provides for:
  • non-seasonal Y temporary worker (Y-1 visa)
  • seasonal temporary worker
    • Y-2A for agricultural workers, sheepherder, goat herders, and dairy workers
    • Y-2B for non-agricultural workers; and
  • their spouses and minor children (Y-3 visa).

• Matching Willing Workers with Willing Employers: All Y workers must be matched to a "willing employers" through an electronic database in order to qualify for a Y worker visa.

• Families of Y visa holders: can only accompany Y workers if the worker can:
  • show proof of valid medical insurance and
  • demonstrate that the wages of the principal Y nonimmigrant(s) are 150% above poverty level for the household size.
  • Spouses and children who do not qualify for Y-3 visa may be admitted under other nonimmigrant status.

• Period of admission: A Y-1 worker can be admitted for a two year period that can be renewed twice if that worker spends a period of one year outside the United States between each admission.
  • A Y-1 accompanied by dependents is afforded a single two year visa, non-renewable.
  • Workers with Y-2A and Y-2B visa qualify for 10 month visas; no extensions may be granted.

• Permanent Bar: Y worker who fails to timely depart is permanently barred from any future immigration benefit.

• Wage: The employer must attest that the Y worker will be paid not less than the greater of the actual wage paid by the employer to all other similarly situated workers or the "prevailing competitive wage."

• Numerical Limitation: The Y-1 visa program has an initial cap of 400,000 with yearly adjustments based on market fluctuations.
  • There are no numerical limitations for Y-2A while the Y-2B visas are initially capped at 100,000 with yearly adjustment based on market fluctuations.
  • The market-based fluctuation is adjusted every 6 months during the fiscal year.
  • The Y-3 visa for spouses and minor children limit may not exceed 20% of annual limit for Y-1 visas.
  • A newly created Standing Commission will make recommendations to Congress regarding the Y visa numerical cap for each fiscal year following the initial year of the program

Title V

Title V restructures and rebalances the current system by which green cards are distributed.

• Rebalancing of Immigrant Visa Allocation: Resets the number of family-based, family backlog, merit-based immigrants, and eventual Z immigration green cards.
  • The family categories are less than under current law since several of the extended family categories are reduced, while the merit-based is increased over the current employment-based levels after the processing of the family-based backlog.
  • An annual total of 440,000 visas are allotted to process the backlog of family-based categories.
  • It is estimated that the family backlog cases can all be processed in 8 years.
  • An annual total of 10,000 visas are set aside for exceptional Y workers.

• Merit Based Points System: The current employment based green card system will be replaced by a merit based points system.

• Reducing Chain Migration and Permitting Petitions by Nationals: Elimination and reconfiguring of the following family-based preference categories:
  • First: Unmarried Sons and Daughters of Citizens
  • Second: Unmarried Sons and Daughters of Permanent Residents other than spouses and minor children of permanent residents
  • Third: Married Sons and Daughters of Citizens
  • Fourth: Brothers and Sisters of Adult Citizens
  • Sets cap of 40,000 per fiscal year on category for parents of U.S. citizens.
  • Sets cap of 87,000 per fiscal year on the second preference category for spouses and children of permanent residents.

• Elimination of Backlog: If the family-based visa petition in the eliminated category is filed before May 1, 2005, the petition can be processed under the prior law.

Title VI

This title provides a new visa for most individuals currently living within the U.S. illegally.

• Creates a new four-year, renewable "Z" nonimmigrant visa to address the undocumented population within the U.S. The visa is split up into three groups:
  • a principal or employed alien (Z-1),
  • the spouse or elderly parent of that alien (Z-2),
  • and the minor children of that alien (Z-3).

• Cut off Date: In order to be eligible for this visa, one must have been illegally present within the U.S. before January 1, 2007.

• Fees and Penalties: To apply, an alien seeking Z-1 status must be currently employed and pay fees and penalties totaling $5,000 (less for derivative Z's) to be eligible for a green card under the merit-based system.

Probationary, the Permanent Z Status: Once an applicant submits a completed application, fingerprints, and is cleared by one-day background checks he will receive probationary benefits which can eventually be converted to a Z nonimmigrant status after all background checks are clear and the triggers set forth in Title I are achieved.

• LPR Status: A Z-1 nonimmigrant may adjust status to lawful permanent residence after the family backlog under Title V is eliminated if the Z applicant:
  • Satisfies the merit requirements in the points schedule set forth in Title V.
  • files the application for adjustment in the Z-1's country of origin and
  • pays a penalty of $4,000.

• DREAM ACT: Individuals under the age of 30 that were brought to the United States out of their own control as a minor are eligible to receive their green card after 3 years rather than 8.

Title VII

Title VII includes a number of miscellaneous provisions involving assimilation, including increased funding for the office of citizenship and integration ($100M)

AILA

Cite as "AILA InfoNet Doc. No. 07051768 (posted May. 17, 2007)"

Read More...

Summary only...

The reviews are coming in on immigration compromise

It's early yet, and a lot of the details of the compromise crafted between the Bush Administration and Senate leaders are not known, but if today's announcement can be viewed as the opening act in the Great Immigration Compromise Show ….the early reviews are in, and they're far from glowing.

As of right now it's the guestworker program and the switch from family based green cards to a "merit system" that are drawing the most opposition. For some they may in fact turn out to be deal-breakers.

Without any path to legalization, no guestworker program will be easily accepted.

There was already a split between those who opposed guest workers under any circumstance and those willing to accept them because at least they offered a means for future un-skilled immigrants to enter the country and eventually earn a path to legalization....without that path, it's questionable if anyone will accept them. The proposed plan really looks to be just a new a Braceros program, and even those who were willing to make massive compromises won't accept that.

Without modification, there is a great chance that this legislation would end up to be just another IIRIRA ...an amnesty with no provisions made for future un-skilled immigration.

This is the exact reason that those like La Raza who were originally willing to compromise on guest workers in the first place have changed their tune...because they didn't want a IIRIRA repeat.

The other sticking point is the switch from family based immigration preferences to a merit system based on education, skills and linguistic ability. This shift is obviously an attempt to change the demographic make-up of future immigration.

One of the biggest complaints about the old system was that the employment based green card quotas allowed for only 5000 unskilled workers a year. This made it nearly impossible for un-skilled workers to enter legally... But at least there was family unification for those lucky enough to have family ties here, so there was some limited option for the un-skilled workers that make up the bulk of immigration from Mexico and Central America.

Removing family unification and switching to a system that favors those with "advanced degrees and sophisticated skills", as the Republicans pushed for, would essentially cut off almost all the legal immigration from those areas...just like Pat Buchanan wanted in the first place.

But enough of my take on this ….on to the reviews:

STATEMENT FROM THE NATIOANL COUNCIL OF LA RAZA

Washington, DC –The National Council of La Raza (NCLR), the largest national Hispanic civil rights and advocacy organization in the U.S., today acknowledged the hard work of a bipartisan team of senators for their role in crafting a compromise immigration bill which will proceed to the Senate floor this week.

“Successful immigration reform cannot happen unless it includes a path to citizenship for immigrants who are living, working, and contributing to their communities in the United States. This proposal contains this crucial element, and this debate is the first step,” said Janet Murguía, NCLR President and CEO. “The debate on this vital issue will finally begin in the United States Senate. Latinos, and all Americans, are eager for Congress to act on immigration reform, and we are glad to be at the starting gate.”

However, NCLR expressed concern with some of the provisions included in the Senate bill. These include dramatically changing the legal immigration system by eliminating visa categories which allow U.S. citizens to petition for their families; a point system which would for the first time in nearly a century make visas available to anyone in the world based on educational attainment and English-language ability; and a proposed new temporary worker program.

“For a temporary worker program to function and to serve the interests of this country, workers must have an avenue for putting down roots and earning their way to U.S. citizenship over time,” said Murguía.

“While we have serious reservations about some elements of this bill, we will engage in vigorous efforts to improve it,” added Murguía. “We are deeply committed to moving legislation forward and seeing this process through to the House and ultimately to the President’s desk. We salute the senators who have taken the first step and look forward to engaging in the debate to its conclusion.”.

NCLR

STATEMENT FROM THE SEIU

SEIU APPRECIATES HARD WORK OF SENATORS TO REACH COMPROMISE

BUT URGES THEM TO KEEP WORKING TO FIX FLAWS

“SEIU is encouraged that Senate Democrats and Republicans have reached an agreement and brought a comprehensive, bipartisan bill into the light of day. This is progress, but it is just a starting point. There is much work needed to get successful legislation across the finish line.

As it stands, the bill has the potential to improve our nation’s security by helping 12 million undocumented immigrants come out from the shadows and get on a path to citizenship. It also makes positive commitments to ending the notorious visa backlog that has kept families apart for as long as 15 years.

However, the package will require significant improvements before it becomes the real comprehensive, long-term immigration fix that the American public is waiting for. In order to end illegal immigration as we know it, restore order, unite families, and protect worker’s rights, we urge Senators to pay particular attention to the following defects.

“Temporary is temporary” is a recipe for more illegal immigration and is out of line with U.S. values. All workers know that temporary workers depress wages and create a second class workforce that is disconnected from the U.S. mainstream and not equal. SEIU will not endorse a repeat of failed guest worker programs that chip away at long-established labor protections, drive down wages for all American workers, and add more chaos to our broken immigration system. Senators must fix this provision so that future immigrant workers will be able to get on a path to citizenship, and have the right to improve their wages and working conditions.

• Touchback provisions that require immigrants to return to their home countries as a requirement to achieve legal status may dissuade many from coming out from the shadows and will create more chaos at the border and in our U.S. Consulates abroad.

•Replacing the family-based sponsorship program with a point system to determine who can come to this country has the potential to become a disastrous social experiment. Establishing a class of workers who lack family and community roots will seriously undermine efforts to integrate new immigrants into the American way of life. Any point system that would deny entry to the workers our economy most depends upon is unworkable, and will fail to address the root causes of our current, broken system.

SEIU is committed to working with Congress to fix these and other critical issues so that we can fix our broken immigration system once and for all. As this debate moves forward in the Senate and House, we urge lawmakers not to compromise on our nation’s values of opportunity, family, and fairness.

PRESS RELEASE FROM AILA ON IMMIGRATION COMPROMISE

AILA Urges Support of Comprehensive Reform, but Not At Expense of Fundamental Principles

A group of Democratic and Republican Senators announced today that their backroom negotiations over immigration reform have produced a "grand bargain." The American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) has emphatically supported the need to fix our broken immigration system by balancing the needs of families, employers, our economy, and our national security to make legality the norm in our country. Unfortunately, it appears that desperate times may have resulted in a cobbling of compromises, which is no grand bargain to the thousands of employers and families who will lose a voice in a hazily outlined process. AILA cannot support such a bargain.

AILA looks forward to being able to review the proposal in detail to be able to try to ascertain its true short and long term impact. In general, AILA would be opposed to a system that: (1) eliminates four out of five family-based green card categories; (2) replaces our current employment-based immigration system with a radical, untested "merit-based" point system that basically eliminates consideration of employers' needs while at the same time eliminating labor market protections for U.S. workers; (3) fails to recalibrate current green card levels to meet the demands of our economy at both ends of the skill spectrum; and (4) bars most temporary workers from any path to permanent residence.

Any final bargain containing these four unacceptable elements would reorient our immigration system from one grounded in familial and employment relationships to one disconnected from direct ties to the U.S. and the U.S. economy. No longer would U.S. citizens be permitted to sponsor their adult children for permanent residence and no longer would employers be permitted to sponsor immigrants for actual jobs that need to be filled. Combined with the creation of a large, churning pool of "guest workers" who cannot lay down roots in the U.S., this point system raises the specter of a new tide of immigrants lacking the infrastructure and opportunity to effectively assimilate into this country.

"This is nothing short of high-risk, large-scale social experimentation. By untethering the system from its moorings to employer and family relationships, we threaten to dissolve the social fabric that binds immigrant communities," announced Carlina Tapia-Ruano, President of AILA. "Moreover, by restricting the ability of new 'guest workers' to bring their families with them or transition to permanent status, we are creating a dynamic that will generate the next group of illegal residents."

In highlighting these concerns, it would be irresponsible to lightly dismiss the historic gains notched on the positive side of this bargain: (1) an opportunity for 12 million, hard-working undocumented people in this country to earn permanent residence; (2) significant reductions in the hopelessly backlogged family categories (albeit with some arbitrary limitations built in); (3) the DREAM Act; and (4) AgJOBS. These are enormously important policy objectives, ones that AILA has pursued aggressively for many years. AILA agrees that any reasoned and rational compromise would include such provisions. But the cost of fixing the serious problems created by our broken system should not be the creation of a totally new immigration process cutting families and business out of the process and the imposition of unworkable provisions that will potentially lead to even bigger social and economic problems in the future.

AILA cannot support any final bill that contains these dangerous, untested, and economically destabilizing features. We hope that as debate proceeds on a compromise, Congress will heed the will of the American people and reform our system in a way that embraces the immigration principles upon which this country has flourished for more than two centuries. AILA will work diligently to engage Senators and Representatives on both sides of the aisle to vigorously address the concerns set forth above and to pass real and workable comprehensive immigration reform this year.
AILA

STATEMENT FROM THE NATIONAL IMMIGRATION FORUM

Senate Deal Launches Immigration Reform Process Towards Getting a Bill Enacted This Year

Bill a Good Start, with Room for Improvement

We are pleased that the process is moving forward. The clock is ticking on whether we are going to get a bill signed by the President this year, but now we have a starting point. Failure to act guarantees more national frustration and divisiveness, deteriorating confidence that our leaders can lead, more deportations that divide families, more immigrants dying in the desert because there is no way to come legally, and greater danger that our borders and visa system will be exploited by criminals and terrorists.

...snip...

The earned legalization program for the estimated 12 million undocumented immigrants already here presents a realistic opportunity for them to gain legal status and make restitution. They will be able to work legally, will be protected against deportation, be able to rent apartments, change jobs, get driver's licenses and know that their family members here will see them at the end of the work day.

...snip...

So the package is generous for those who are already here and those who have waited patiently to come legally. How the deal treats immigrant families and workers coming in the future is where the biggest problems lie.

At issue is whether the United States maintains our commitment to families and equality or tilts too far towards elitism through a "merit-based" points system. For four hundred years, we have welcomed some of the most ambitious and energetic people in the world to this continent regardless of income or education. For more than 40 years we have welcomed immigrants who have existing ties to the United States through employment or family connections. The radical changes to who gets to come legally to America in the future and under what conditions present perhaps the most troubling aspects of the Senate proposal. It is up to our elected leaders to call out those who feel this way and squash this miscalculated and misguided feeling.

While reuniting families on the one hand, the proposed bill cuts family immigration categories in the future. Any points system must account for family ties sufficiently or we will have departed severely from tradition and our commitment to sustaining strong families. The Senate and House must commit themselves to improve this aspect of the bill.

For workers coming in the future it falls short of a workable solution because it fails to provide a realistic path to permanency. We will know who the workers are, they will come with visas not smugglers, and they will have better labor protections than they have now working in the black market. However, without fixing the path to permanency, we will create conditions that will lead to a rapidly increasing pool of undocumented immigrants in the future or creating a pool of second class non-citizens, defeating the goals of this reform

If the new points system is constructed correctly so that people with ties to the U.S. have an advantage and people from humble origins don't have a disadvantage, there is a good chance that it could be implemented in a way that is consistent with American values.

National Immigration Forum

STATEMENT FROM FAIR IMMIGRATION REFORM MOVEMENT

Statement of the Fair Immigration Reform Movement:

"The immigration deal struck by a bipartisan group of senators and the White House responds to the demands of the immigrant rights movement for a path to citizenship for undocumented workers now in the U.S., but its provisions on future migration to the United States are immoral, unworkable and unacceptable. While the proposal appears to include an important path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, recognizing their work and contribution to America, we find the elimination of the family immigration system, the creation of a new temporary worker program that would create a permanent underclass of workers with few rights and no ability to become citizens, and the limitations on due process to be anti-family, anti-worker and fundamentally un-American.

"As one of the largest grassroots coalitions of immigrant rights and community organizations in the country, the Fair Immigrant Rights Movement (FIRM) believes the following principles must guide legislative consideration of this and other proposals: simple and broad legalization for undocumented workers and families; strong worker protections and a path to citizenship for future immigrant workers; family reunification by maintaining the current family preference categories; preservation of due process and civil rights; and fair treatment of students and agricultural workers as embodied in the DREAM Act and AgJobs legislation. We will be continuing to pressure Congress to adopt humane immigration legislation that is consistent with these principles, and we are prepared to vigorously oppose legislation that is inconsistent with our values.

"We are deeply troubled by two reported aspects of the deal as we understand it.

"First, the architecture of the deal includes appalling provisions driven by Republican Senators that would fundamentally undo the family immigration system created in the 1965 immigration bill; opening the doors to millions of working class people and people of color. This proposal would replace that system with a "rich man's immigration system" that would shift immigrant preference to high-skilled, English speaking people, and deny American citizens and immigrants the opportunity to bring loved family members into this nation. This is a violation of a fundamental, longstanding principle of American immigration policy, and of real family values. We hope that Senators recognize that many of them would not be in this country under the immigration system proposed in the deal.

"Second, the deal would not allow for a path to citizenship for future 'guestworkers' thereby creating a two tier labor market that could undermine worker protections for all Americans. Such an approach would recreate problems of the disastrous bracero program, depress wages and working conditions for U.S. workers, and would be fundamentally inconsistent with American values of fair play and equal treatment.

"If these provisions are not fixed, this Congress will repeat the mistakes of past immigrant legislation that has created today's humanitarian crisis with unconscionable family backlogs, thousands dying at the borders and U.S. citizen children been torn apart from their parents. FIRM will stand strongly behind its principles for reform and will oppose any legislation that fundamentally undermines them.

"These family and worker provisions must be fixed in any final comprehensive immigration reform bill. FIRM will fight to make these improvements. The immigrant rights movement, like the congressional immigration debate, is only just getting started."

FIRM

STATEMENT OF AFL-CIO ON IMMIGRATION DEAL

Statement by AFL-CIO John J. Sweeney on New Immigration Deal

Unfortunately, the immigration deal announced today does not address the roots of the immigration crisis. And it abandons long-standing U.S. policy favoring the reunification of families and protecting workers by limiting the size and the scope of guestworker programs – which frequently amount to virtual servitude, where workers’ fates are tied to their employers and their workplace rights are impossible to exercise. The proposal unveiled today includes a massive guestworker program that would allow employers to import hundreds of thousands temporary workers every year to perform permanent jobs throughout the economy.

Without a real path to legalization, the program will exclude millions of workers and thus ensure that America will have two classes of workers, only one of which can exercise workplace rights. As long as this two-tiered system exists, all workers will suffer because employers will have available a ready pool of labor they can exploit to drive down wages, benefits, health and safety protections and other workplace standards.

We intend to work with our allies in Congress and in the immigrant community to pass comprehensive immigration reform that will protect all workers in a humane and just manner

AFL-CIO

Read More...

Summary only...