Los Angeles, CA – The Los Angeles Unified School District Board of Education unanimously approved a board resolution to call on President Barack Obama to initiate “federal administrative action to suspend any further deportations of unauthorized individuals with no serious criminal history to ensure that families are kept together.”

Board Member Bennett Kayser who introduced the resolution declared, “We have a broken immigration system that is harming families and children in this school district. On their behalf, I authored this motion calling on President Obama to immediately cease the deportations that are separating parents from their children.”

Los Angeles City Councilmember, Gil Cedillo, appeared before the board to encourage the members to follow the example of the City of Angeles and recognize that immigration reform legislation this year was not in the cards and therefore “there is no strategic reason to continue deportations or removal of individuals who would otherwise qualify for a legalization program.” He reminded them to “put children first and to protect their interest and the integrity of their families.”

The LAUSD is the second largest school district in the U.S. with 73 percent Mexican and Latino enrollment, and “has witnessed the largest displacement of children from its classrooms as a result of the federal practices and policies of detention and removal,” according to Professor Armando Vazquez-Ramos from the Protect Our Families-Save the Children Campaign, the group that initiated resolutions in multiple jurisdictions beginning with the Los Angeles City Council on December 18, 2013.

Angela Sanbrano, representing CARECEN, the oldest community organization of Central Americans in the U.S., and the Protect Our Families Campaign, pointed out that President Obama’s administration had already deported 2 million persons, and emphasized that “that was 2 million too many.”

“We are now living in the New Repatriation Era under the Obama administration similar to what occurred under the 1930s’ Repatriation Act wherein 365,000 Mexicans and their American-born children were removed from the U.S. soil,” presented Nativo Lopez of Hermandad Mexicana. He concluded that, “More American Citizen minors of Mexican heritage have been de facto removed from their homeland under Obama then all of the deportees of the 1930s.”

Board Member Monica Garcia moved to approve the resolution and was seconded by board member Steve Zimmer. The motion was unanimously approved by the board. Garcia also requested that Superintendent John Deasy make the resolution a teaching moment in the classrooms throughout the district schools.

###

LAUSD Keeping Families Together Resolution by Board Member Kayser

Approved April 8, 2014 (Moved by Garcia, seconded by Zimmer)

Whereas, The Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) is the second largest public school district in the nation with over 650,000 students;

Whereas, According to the Pew Hispanic Center, in 2011, there were 11.1 million unauthorized immigrants living in the United States;

Whereas, California is home to approximately 10.3 million immigrants of which approximately 2.6 million are unauthorized to live in the U.S.;

Whereas, Each year since 2009, record levels of deportations have occurred, averaging nearly 400,00 year;

Whereas, As immigration continues to be at the center of national debate, President Obama and Congress must implement a more humanitarian immigration policy that keeps families together;

Whereas, Separation of children from their parents, irrespective of immigration status, always results in severe consequences for young children who are left with no parental guidance or care and a highly unstable financial situation;

Whereas, it is necessary to expand the protections of our future citizens that were established by the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program and grant them to the family and neighbors and all those who have made their lives here but are yet fully recognized;

Whereas, the LAUSD Board of Education unanimously passed a resolution in support of DACA eligible students allowing them to timely receive their transcripts so they may obtain work status in California;

Whereas, Los Angeles City Councilmember Gil Cedillo, District 1, presented a resolution to the Los Angeles City Council supporting the federal administrative action to suspend any further deportations of unauthorized individuals with no serious criminal history;

Whereas, The California Legislature has affirmed the resolution presented and passed at the Los Angeles City Council; now therefore be it

Resolved, the Los Angeles Unified Board of Education joins Councilmember Gil Cedillo, the Los Angeles City, Council, the California Legislature, and the millions of supporters of this action to ensure that families are kept together.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
President Obama: I'm ‘champion-in-chief’ on immigration

By REID J. EPSTEIN | POLITICO ~ March 6, 2014

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/03/obama-immigration-reform-104356.html#ixzz2vE78PCc8

President Barack Obama called himself the “champion-in-chief” of comprehensive immigration reform Thursday but said once again that there’s nothing he can do stem the flow of deportations.

Speaking at a health care town hall program sponsored by Telemundo, Univision and La Opinion-impreMedia, Obama passed the buck on deportations to Congress, which he said is responsible for funding government positions responsible for deportations.

“I am the champion-in-chief of comprehensive immigration reform,” Obama said. “What I’ve said in the past remains true: Until Congress passes a new law I am constrained in what I can do.”

Obama said the 2012 executive action order that allowed so-called Dreamers to remain in the country with a path to legalization was the most he could do on his own.

“That already stretched my administrative capacity very far,” Obama said. “At a certain point, the reason that the deportations are taking place is Congress said you have to enforce these laws.”

Obama, whose administration has made dozens of changes to the health care rules – including on Wednesday allowing people to keep pre-existing subpart insurance plans through 2017, said he does not have sufficient authority to halt deportations.

Pressure on Obama to halt deportations has risen sharply this week. The National Council of La Raza, the nation’s largest Latino advocacy organization, on Tuesday labeled Obama the “deporter-in-chief.” Sens. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) this week also called for Obama to act unilaterally on deportations.

“I cannot ignore those laws anymore than I can ignore any of the other laws on the books,” Obama said.

Hosts Jose Diaz-Balart and Enrique Acevedo pressed Obama on concerns that “mixed status” families have that U.S. citizens who provide personal information required to enroll in Obamacare would lead to the deportation of family members who are undocumented.

“None of the information that is provided in order for you to obtain health insurance is in any way transferred to immigration services,” Obama said.

Obama held the town hall event as part of the White House effort to enroll minorities in Obamacare before the March 31 deadline to acquire health insurance for 2014.

Throughout the event, he was faced with skepticism about how much the Latino community can trust his administration on health care when so many are being deported.

“I think the community understands that I’ve got their back and I’m fighting for them,” Obama said. “The main point that I have for everybody watching right now is you don’t punish me for not signing up for health care, you’re punishing yourself or your family.”

Obama, as he often does, blasted Republicans for opposing the health care law without offering any “serious” alternative. But then in the next breath he said all the good health care ideas are already embedded in Obamacare.

“There’s a reason why [Republicans] have never put forward a serious alternative,” Obama said. “The reason is because we have taken the best ideas, conservative ideas and liberal ideas, we’ve put them together and we’re now implementing them.”

And the president reiterated his pitch that health insurance will be subsidized for those who can’t afford it and won’t be a burden for any family.

“The average cost could be much lower than people expect, in many circumstance you may end up paying $100 or less a month to have really good health insurance — for less than it costs you for your cell phone bill or your cable bill,” he added.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Barack Obama under siege over deportations

By: Reid J. Epstein and Seung Min Kim, March 6, 2014

The White House is finding itself increasingly on defense over deportations of undocumented immigrants, as key Democrats and a top immigration reform group have gone public this week with their desire for President Barack Obama to act.

National Council of La Raza President Janet Murguía called Obama the “deporter-in-chief” in a major speech Tuesday, leading to angry phone calls from senior White House officials — including adviser Valerie Jarrett — according to three people familiar with the calls.

Jarrett told Murguía that Obama was “very disappointed” with the statement, the sources said.

Neither Murguía nor the White House would characterize the specifics of the calls or which officials called her, but Murguía said it was clear Obama officials were unhappy with her actions.

“It’s fair to say I heard from the White House and they were disappointed,” Murguía said in an interview Thursday.

The White House declined to comment on the calls.

Immigration reform advocates have raised pressure on Obama to use his executive authority to stop the deportation of undocumented immigrants, as it becomes more and more unlikely the House will pass a bill creating a pathway to citizenship this year. But the White House says it’s done all it can and only comprehensive legislation will address the issue.

Asked about the “deporter-in-chief” line during a health care town hall session with Spanish-language television reporters, Obama defended himself, saying he has pushed for comprehensive immigration reform since his first presidential campaign.

“I am the champion-in-chief of comprehensive immigration reform,” Obama said. “But what I’ve said in the past remains true, which is until Congress passes a new law, then I am constrained in terms of what I am able to do.”

The White House has been touchy about criticism over deportations, and immigration activists who work with it have complained previously about receiving angry phone calls after speaking publicly. But NCLR is no normal ally – the group is also working closely with Obama on health care enrollment, enthusiastically backs the president’s for a minimum wage increase and also supports the White House budget proposal.

“We see ourselves still as key allies to this White House,” Murguía said.

Before this week, the National Council of La Raza had not publicly pressed Obama publicly on deportations, having adopting the White House line of blaming House Republicans for not passing a bill. But Murguía’s speech has opened a floodgate of similar comments from Democrats.

Three of four Democratic members of the Gang of Eight that wrote the Senate’s comprehensive immigration reform bill called this week on Obama to act on deportations.

“The current deportation apparatus is an outrage, and it’s a tragedy,” said Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) on Tuesday.

Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin, the second-ranking Senate Democrat, told reporters Wednesday that he has been urging Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson and other administration officials to reduce the number of deportations of immigrants who are in the country illegally.

And Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) on Thursday told POLITICO that if there is no movement in the House on immigration by September, Obama should stop deporting people in October – just before the midterm elections.

Also on Thursday Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti told reporters during a trip to Mexico that Obama should cut the rate of deportations, according to The Associated Press.

Immigration groups that have been demanding Obama act to stop deportations for months blasted Obama for characterizing himself as the “champion-in-chief” of reform.

“His statement is simply not true,” said Pablo Alvarado, executive director of the National Day Laborer Organizing Network. “The president has not done nearly enough to exercise discretion using existing laws. To the contrary, his exercise of discretion has been inadequate and counterproductive.”

The White House also worries that while taking executive action on deportations would elate Democrats and immigration advocates, Obama risks infuriating congressional Republicans by making such a unilateral move. House Republicans have cited a distrust of the president as a chief reason why they are holding off on moving immigration bills on the floor, and even pro-reform GOP lawmakers have warned against such a move.

Murguía said Obama’s remarks pressing Congress to pass a reform bill are helpful, but added that he needs to act on his own to stop the deportations.

“For us, we want to thank the president for reaffirming his strong commitment to comprehensive immigration reform,” she said. “We know that the president has our community’s back on comprehensive immigration reform. We just need him to have our back on unnecessary deportations too.”
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Deporter-In-Chief Label Ups the Pressure for Action from Obama

By Suzanne Gamboa, NBC News (March 6, 2014)

President Barack Obama is being tagged with a new label - deporter in chief - that is coming from a usual Latino ally and his own party.

Janet Murguía, president of the National Council of La Raza, one of the pre-eminent Latino organizations, called Obama "deporter in chief" in a speech at the organization's gala Tuesday.

The President clearly heard what was said. On Thursday, at a town hall on Latino health care enrollment, Obama said "I am the champion in chief of comprehensive immigration reform," when asked a question about enrollment information and immigration status. He added he had to enforce the laws passed by Congress.

Murguia's statement was intended to deride Obama for at or near 2 million people deported under his watch and to pressure him to use presidential powers to reduce deportations. It also served as a slam on House Republican claims that they can't go forward with immigration reform legislation because they don't trust the president to enforce U.S. law.

"Seriously? Failing to enforce our laws? For us, this president has been the deporter in chief," Murguía said in her gala speech.

The deporter-in-chief term had been used previously against Obama by immigration groups that are more left than NCLR. Pablo Alvarado, president of the National Day Labor Organizing Network, used the term in a news release after Obama spoke at NCLR's 2011 annual conference. But NCLR's criticism adds a whole new level of pressure to the president and members of Congress, some of whom have themselves begun asking Obama to reduce deportations.

"The community has spoken. These big organizations have aligned themselves with the community. It's now an opportunity for one of two actors, either the president or the House to take action," said Gabby Pacheco, an immigrant who arrived in the U.S. illegally, but whose deportation was temporarily waived through the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, DACA, program.

Pacheco said NCLR's tougher stand gives the president cover to move forward on immigration. NCLR is an umbrella group for hundreds of organizations that provide health, housing, financial, immigration and other services to the Latino community.

A similar pattern occurred before the Obama administration initiated the DACA program, Pacheco said.

"As soon as the senators gave their backing and gave their okay, that's when we were able to see a chance with the DACA program," said Pacheco, executive director of the Bridge Project, an immigration reform group.

Although he didn't use the deporter-in-chief label, Sen. Bob Menendez, D-N.J., also called for action on deportations at Tuesday's gala. "I urge the president to take action today and halt needless deportations that are splitting our families and communities," Menendez said. He urged the president to end deportations of relatives of U.S. citizens, legal permanent residents and young people who arrived illegally in the country with their parents.

Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., also called for a reduction in deportations, Politico reported. House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi of California has asked said deportations should be limited to people who have committed felonies and other crimes and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid told the Las Vegas Review-Journal he hoped the president would take "do what he can to take a look at deportations."

On the other side of the aisle, Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill., hung the moniker on Obama from the House floor where he compared the president's immigration enforcement record to his predecessors, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. He gave Obama five gold stars while deriding Republicans mistrust claims. "Five stars _ the highest rank we give out, and it goes to the Deporter in Chief President Barack Obama," Gutierrez said.

Democratic political strategist Maria Cardona said Murguía's use of deporter in chief for Obama was more of a blast on Republicans and House Speaker John Boehner.

"She was putting the onus on the president the way NCLR always has," Cardona said. "But the deporter in chief comment came from her taking Boehner to task for his lame excuse and not moving on immigration."

Luis Miranda, former White House spokesman for Latino media and a political strategist, said no one would consider Murguía's comments an attack on the president. He said the missive was "as much a call to action as anything else."

As they seek votes from Hispanics, Republicans have often spoken of broken promises by the president, pointing to health care and the economy. Some will also remind Latinos that Obama promised to get immigration reform done.

But two Republican Latinos declined to cheer Murguía in pasting the label on Obama. When asked about the label, New Mexico Gov. Susan Martinez, the first Hispanic female elected governor, said "we have to respect the presidency and he is the president of the United States ... that person deserves the respect of the leader of a free country." She had not seen Murguía's speech, she said Wednesday.

Former Puerto Rico Gov. Luis Fortuño, who was announcing a GOP initiative to recruit more diverse candidates, said the president "deserves all our respect." But he added that the Hispanic community had high hopes that Obama would provide leadership to move immigration reform. "We all know that did not occur," Fortuño said. "There is not need to resort to name calling."

However, the label may hurt Democrats with Latinos. Carlos Martinez, chair of the College Democrats of America Hispanic Caucus, tweeted about the impact of Murguia's comment.

Carlos Martinez @CarlosA_011 Mar 5

When the #NCLR calls Pres. Obama the "deporter-in-chief' and can’t really defend him against the statement ,,,#latinodemocrats #latism

from Austin, TX

In a telephone interview, he said the deporter in chief label was demeaning to the president and to NCLR, "to stoop to something like that." It is also divisive at a time when "we need a united front" on immigration, he said.

"That kind of label is not going to help our cause in the Latino community," said Martinez, who helped organize votes for Obama in 2102 on the University of Texas campus, where he is a junior.

"People like me we try to be loyal to our party and our party's head but we are also loyal to our communities, but in our communities, we are seeing people deported," Martinez said.

Rep. Ruben Hinojosa, chairman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, also was cautious in insisting "no family should be torn apart." Asked to comment on Murguía's choice of word, Hinojosa, D-Texas, said the caucus "agrees that only Congress can deliver a permanent solution to this problem" of a broken immigration system.

Tom Saenz, president of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, said he welcomed NCLR's support for severely reducing deportations. Though he seemed reluctant to endorse the deporter-in-chief label, he said it is "a choice of language I think certainly is accurate. He has deported more than anyone."

Meanwhile, the League of United Latin American Citizens' most important objective remains trying to get Congress to move on immigration reform. Shifting pressure to the president would mean they have given up on that, and they LULAC believes it’s still possible to get reform this year, said Brent Wilkes, LULAC's executive director.

Suzanne Gamboa is a senior writer for NBCNews.com. She started in January 2014. Gamboa is responsible for editing, reporting and writing stories about Latinos and how the population's expansion is reshaping the U.S. Gamboa joined NBCNews.com from NBC Latino, where she was political editor, responsible for writing, editing and assigning political coverage.

Prior to her role at NBC Latino, Gamboa had worked 13 years in the Washington, D.C. bureau of The Associated Press, where she covered politics, immigration and border and U.S.-Mexico issues, veterans, the Texas congressional delegation and most recently race and ethnicity, a beat she helped build. She also worked at the AP in Texas and at the Austin American-Statesman. Gamboa lives in Washington, D.C.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Advocates pressure Obama to ease deportations, or risk Latino vote

Immigration reform advocates push the president to take executive action, or risk losing Latino voters’ support…

By Kathleen Hennessey kathleen.hennessey@latimes.com & Brian Bennett, L.A. Times ~ March 7, 2014

http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/politicsnow/la-pn-obama-immigration-deportations-20140306,0,6249812.story#ixzz2vO1E2M1g

WASHINGTON — With their hopes for broad legislation to overhaul immigration policies all but dead for the year, advocates have turned quickly to a new target: Pushing President Obama to take executive action to ease deportations of immigrants in the country illegally.

In a coordinated, aggressive and sharp-elbowed campaign, leaders who stood behind the White House not long ago as the president called immigration reform his top second-term priority are now attacking Obama for not doing enough on his own. Dismissing Obama’s insistence that his hands are tied by the law, advocates plan to pile on until he relents -- as he did once before in the run-up to an election.

This week, the president of the National Council of La Raza, the country’s largest Latino advocacy organization and one of the White House’s most loyal allies, blasted Obama as the “deporter in chief.”

In remarks on the House floor, Rep. Luis V. Gutierrez, Obama’s fellow Illinois Democrat, pointed to portraits of Presidents Clinton, George W. Bush and Obama and compared deportations under each. “President Obama has detained more immigrants in jails, prisons and detention facilities than any other president,” Gutierrez said.

The charge is not new; Obama has long faced criticism for presiding over a record number of deportations, roughly 2 million to date. Still, the strategy sends a mixed message to a key Democratic constituency before the midterm election. Democrats hoped to see immigration advocates assail Republicans who held up the overhaul bill.

Advocates suggest their goal is to play one off the other, arguing that Republicans in Congress may feel compelled to advance legislation if they think the president is on the verge of taking unilateral action.

“Republicans can either be participants in how this country advances more sensible immigration policies or they can simply sit on the sidelines while the president does it with his ‘phone and pen.’” Gutierrez said, picking up the president’s shorthand for his promise to wield his executive power to take action without Congress.

Frank Sharry, executive director of America’s Voice, an immigration advocacy group, thinks it’s likely Obama will eventually act. “The administration is deporting people every day who the administration says should be given legal status and a path to citizenship, so the question is: If Republicans continue to stall, does the president have the authority to make things better?” Sharry said. “We think he will act even though he’s not talking like it now.”

For now, the White House is absorbing the criticism, careful not to return fire and potentially alienate Latinos voters, a constituency that cares about immigration reform and has been loyal to the president.

Obama on Thursday argued that he was not the “deporter in chief” but the “champion in chief” of the stalled comprehensive immigration reform effort. Speaking at a White House-sponsored town hall on Latinos and healthcare, the president argued he was constrained by statute in how he treats immigrants who are in the country illegally. “I cannot ignore those laws any more than I can ignore any of the other laws that are on the books,” he said. “That’s why it’s important to get comprehensive immigration reform done this year.”

Obama has repeated a version of the comment scores of times. But its little surprise the immigrant community isn’t taking it at face value. The president made very similar statements about the limits of his executive power in 2012 -- before he announced his Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals order, which allowed young immigrants brought illegally to the U.S. as children to apply for work permits and avoid being deported.

Advocates want Obama to expand that order to include other immigrants with strong ties to the U.S. and no criminal history.

That’s the sort of sweeping change the White House says is beyond its power. The legal basis for the president’s deferred-action order would erode if it were expanded, administration officials say privately. But they haven’t ruled out smaller changes.

Advocates want Obama to end the Secure Communities program, which checks the immigration status of people fingerprinted at state and local jails and, if need be, notifies immigration authorities. They want to cancel agreements that allow local law enforcement officials to coordinate with immigration agents. They want the administration’s policy on prosecutorial discretion revised so fewer immigrants with minor criminal offenses are deemed “high priority.” And they want to end Operation Streamline, which brings criminal charges against border-crossers.

The administration has defended these policies and has encouraged immigration agents to focus on deporting immigrants with criminal records before those with strong family ties who pose no threat to public safety. But vacancies at the top of both Immigration and Customs Enforcement and U.S. Customs and Border Protection have made it difficult for the administration to change the culture at those agencies.

The renewed pressure from migrant advocacy groups and labor groups, such as the AFL-CIO, may provide the president with the cover to make changes in response to growing national support.

If the president does not act, he could put his party at risk in the election. There is some evidence that deportations have eroded Obama's standing with Latino voters in the past. In late 2011, before the president issued his deferred-action order, roughly 60% of Latinos surveyed by the Pew Hispanic Center said they disapproved of Obama’s deportation policy. Among that group just 36% approved of his job performance, compared with 46% of all Latinos at the time.

The possibility that Latinos, disappointed by the president and Congress over stalled immigration, may sit out the November elections poses a danger to Democrats.

It also threatens Obama’s legacy with immigrants such as Pilar Molina, the owner of a tortilla company in Norristown, Pa., whose husband was arrested by immigration agents in January. “President Obama has the right to stop deportations; he just don’t want to do it,” Molina said. “When I first saw President Obama, tears came to my eyes because I said, ‘He’s the one who is going to bring us out of the shadows.’ Now when I see him, I see a future that is uncertain for myself and everyone else.”
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Council of La Raza leader calls Barack Obama ‘deporter-in-chief’http://www.politico.com/story/2014/03/national-council-of-la-raza-janet-murguia-barack-obama-deporter-in-chief-immigration-104217.html?hp=r5

POLITICO, March 3, 2014

President Barack Obama has lost the nation’s largest Latino advocacy organization.

The National Council of La Raza is set to declare Obama “the deporter-in-chief” and demand that he take unilateral action to stop deportations.

NCLR, the nation’s largest Latino advocacy organization, had been the last significant progressive grass-roots immigration-reform organization publicly defending the White House immigration stance. NCLR President Janet Murguía will on Tuesday night demand Obama put a halt to his administration’s deportations.

“For the president, I think his legacy is at stake here,” Murguía said in an interview in advance of NCLR’s annual Capital Awards dinner, where she will deliver a speech lambasting Obama’s deportation policy. “We consider him the deportation president, or the deporter-in-chief.”

(POLITICO's ful coverage of immigration)

By April, Obama will have overseen more than 2 million deportations, activists say, far more than any previous president. Obama has insisted — including when he was interrupted by a protester — that Congress has tied his hands and he cannot reduce the number of people being deported unilaterally. Latino groups are planning a series of mass demonstrations April 5 to protest the deportations and force lawmakers to choose between criticizing Obama or facing a populist wrath.

Murguía said NCLR has been privately urging the White House for months to do something about deportations — which will soon number 2 million since Obama took office. The group was also using its megaphone to blame Congress and not Obama for the deportations. Just three weeks ago, NCLR called for an end “to unnecessary deportations” and asked supporters to “ask Republican leadership to take a stand for family values and pass immigration reform.”

Now that focus is being directed at the White House.

“We respectfully disagree with the president on his ability to stop unnecessary deportations,” Murguía will say during a Tuesday night speech to NCLR’s annual Capital Awards dinner, according to prepared remarks. “He can stop tearing families apart. He can stop throwing communities and businesses into chaos. He can stop turning a blind eye to the harm being done. He does have the power to stop this. Failure to act will be a shameful legacy for his presidency.”

The White House has deep ties with NCLR. Cecilia Muñoz, the director of the White House Domestic Policy Council, was NCLR’s director of research and advocacy before joining the administration. But NCLR faced pressure from its members and from other grass-roots immigration organizations that have been agitating for Obama to halt deportations.

POLITICO reported last month that NCLR and the Center for American Progress were virtually alone among progressive immigration groups in defending the White House — criticism that stung Murguía.

“There have been different times when we’ve hit the president pretty hard,” she said. “But I know not everybody agrees with that.”

Tuesday’s push, Murguía said, will be part of what she described as a “three-pronged” strategy. NCLR will continue to press Congress and aims to register 250,000 new Latino voters ahead of the November midterm elections.

Murguía said people no longer believe Obama cannot act alone. “Their credibility is growing thinner and thinner by the day and people know that they did it before and I think we believe that they can do it again,” she said.

It’s not the first time NCLR has crossed Obama on deportations — though Murguía’s remarks do mark the first time NCLR’s leadership has done so in such a direct and public manner. Obama was heckled by a large portion of the crowd during a June 2011 speech to NCLR — protesters chanted “yes you can” at him to send a message that he should halt deportations.

A year later, during the midst of his reelection campaign, Obama announced deferred action for so-called Dreamers, allowing young people brought illegally to the United States as children a path to citizenship.

The White House has said it does not have authority to take a similar step again. Press secretary Jay Carney last week reiterated Obama’s position that only Congress can halt the deportations.

“The job of the executive branch is to carry out the laws that are passed by Congress,” Carney told reporters last week . “The administration has taken a series of steps to focus our resources and make immigration enforcement more strategic, including focusing on criminals and the use of deferred action for young immigrants known as Dreamers. The only permanent solution is a legislative one that would provide a broad-based path to earned citizenship, and that can only be achieved by Congress. It can’t be achieved by the president.”

Obama has gone mostly silent on immigration in recent months in an attempt to give House Republicans political space to push their own immigration reform bills. He hasn’t made a major immigration speech since November and devoted just 120 words to it during his State of the Union address in January. And the president has limited his Spanish-language media appearances to radio interviews focused on the Affordable Care Act, limiting his exposure to uncomfortable questions about deportations or the congressional immigration stalemate.

Murguía said the White House deportation policy began as an effort to win credibility among Republicans but has careened out of control. She said Obama sought to deport more people than had President George W. Bush to get Republicans to cooperate on a larger immigration reform bill — a strategy that has not worked in the House.

“I don’t think it’s lost on anyone that there may have been a strategy in place to demonstrate they were tough on deportations,” Murguía said. “Former [Homeland Security] Secretary Janet Napolitano didn’t shy away from the notion that if we can show we’re tough on deportation, we’ll be able to get some of these Republicans to come around.”

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
America’s deportation machine: The great expulsion

Barack Obama has presided over one of the largest peacetime outflows of people in America’s history…

The Economist ~ Feb 8, 2014

SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS- It is the drowsy after-lunch slot in one of San Antonio’s immigration courts, housed anonymously on the third floor of a squat brown office building, when the case of Pedro Rochas begins. Most of the men who appear before immigration courts tend to favour hardly worn suits with matching shoes, as if going to church.

Mr Rochas, a slight 33-year-old, is dressed less smartly in jeans and a red sweatshirt. He came to America at 16 and works as a part-time cook in a retirement home in Cedar Park, a town on the outskirts of Austin, where he met his wife. They have three children, all born in America. The offence that placed Mr Rochas in court on a cold day just before Thanksgiving was the purchase of a Social Security card, which allowed him to get work. He will probably be deported for it.

Last year America removed 369,000 undocumented migrants, an increase of nine times compared with 20 years ago (see chart 1). This takes the total number of the deported to almost 2m in Barack Obama’s presidency.

While this has been going on, the number of people entering America illegally via the south-western border has dropped. There are no official numbers on how many people become illegal immigrants by overstaying their visas. But the data that are collected, combined with estimates to fill the gaps, suggest that in the past couple of years, for the first time since people started to talk about illegal migration, the outflow has been greater than the inflow.

On one measure this is a great success. It is hard to find many areas where the federal government is so effective in implementing laws passed by Congress. Yet it is harmful—not just for the deported, who often have a miserable time once they are expelled (see article), but for the country they leave behind, something which even the deporters have come to recognise.

It is also a political problem for Mr Obama. The president was heckled while giving a speech on immigration in California in November by a man who shouted that he had the authority to halt the deportations and ought to use it. “Actually, I don’t,” replied Mr Obama: an unusual thing for a president to say. At the other end of the political spectrum, his administration is criticised for not deporting enough people. When the deportation numbers for 2013 were released Bob Goodlatte, the chair of the House Judiciary Committee, said that the slight decline compared with the year before was “just more evidence that the Obama administration refuses to enforce our immigration laws.”

How has a president who campaigned hard on migration reform come to preside over the expulsion of more migrants than ever? The government has long had the authority to expel undocumented migrants, but deporting them all is impractical (there are reckoned to be 11.7m). It has therefore chosen to concentrate on getting rid of criminals. This category is more elastic than it might seem. It was expanded in 1996, when a Republican-controlled Congress passed a tough immigration law and illegal border crossings were running at four times their current level.

That law reclassified several misdemeanours as “aggravated felonies” if they were committed by an illegal immigrant, lowering the legal barriers to deportation. The expanded list included stumbles that undocumented migrants are quite likely to make, such as failing to appear in court or having fake papers. It also removed time limits on these offences, so that crimes committed by teenagers could lead to deportation 20 years later.

One government lawyer in San Antonio says that some of the cases he argues stretch back decades. “You can be in your 40s or 50s and have a marijuana conviction from 20 years ago and be deported for it,” explains Doris Meissner of the non-partisan Migration Policy Institute.

The effects of this change in the law were limited at first. The year after it passed 115,000 people were deported. This is because the means to enforce it were not available. That changed after the September 11th 2001 terrorist attacks when, by an odd jump of logic, a mass murder committed by mostly Saudi terrorists resulted in an almost limitless amount of money being made available for the deportation of Mexican house-painters.

America now spends more money on immigration enforcement than on all the other main federal law-enforcement agencies combined (see chart 2).

Much of that spending has created a border agency that can operate throughout the country. Before the September 11th 2001 attacks it was considered a threat to liberty for agencies to share too much information. After the report of the 9/11 Commission the opposite became true.

The result is that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the agency charged with doing the deporting, can now quickly determine whether someone serving a prison sentence for a serious crime is eligible to be deported when their time is up. More controversially, it also allows ICE to see whether someone charged by the police with relatively minor offences can also be deported.

Of the 369,000 people deported last year, roughly two-thirds were people who had been stopped while trying to cross the border. The rest—134,000 of them—were picked up in the interior of the country. One of them was Adrian Revuelta, 29, who had lived in Oklahoma for ten years and worked at IHOP, a pancake house, before being deported for driving without a licence.

In jail, he says, his documents were torn up and his contact numbers, jacket and cap were thrown in the bin. Worst of all was his criminal record: “It means I can never go back.” Yet all the time, he says, his brain is full of memories of his friends and colleagues in Oklahoma. On Facebook, he winces when people he knows talk about meeting at Denny’s, or to play soccer. “It is like a knife stuck in my side,” he says. “The way you are treated is not human.”

The turning of police officers into immigration officials has brought border enforcement into areas of the country far from the deserts of the south-west. Secure Communities, the name given to the programme that links police work to the immigration database, began life in a single jurisdiction in Texas in 2008 at the end of George W. Bush’s presidency. By May 2013 it was operating everywhere.

This worries some policemen. “I would sooner see Secure Communities go away,” says Mark Curran, an Illinois sheriff. He thinks that the programme makes policing harder because it erodes trust between his officers and the people they are supposed to police. Anecdotal evidence suggests that people are more likely to flee the scene of a car crash in places where there are lots of undocumented migrants to avoid being asked for their papers.

Some people take more drastic steps to avoid triggering a match on the database. In November ICE arrested a doctor in Boston who flew in regularly from the Dominican Republic to alter fingerprints. A full set of unrecognisable fingertips cost $4,500.

While the police have been tracking down migrants, the Department for Homeland Security has continued to raid workplaces and audit companies to see if they employ undocumented workers. In November Infosys, an Indian IT firm, agreed to pay fines of $34m for immigration offences.

Farmers who need lots of pairs of hands to pick things are favourite targets for these checks. Maureen Torrey, a farmer in New York state, says her business has been subjected to aggressive raids by immigration officials. Last year officers turned up at 6.30am and removed 44 workers to check their status. They were eventually dropped off at a 7-Eleven store two hours from the farm.

Who’ll pick America’s spinach now?

As the system for tracking people down has become more powerful, there has been a huge increase in the number of plaintiffs appearing before immigration courts. Some 1.1m people are somewhere on the docket: that is nearly 5,000 immigration cases per judge. More than half of all federal prosecutions are now for immigration-related offences.

To deal with this overload, courts have sprung up all over the place: close to the border, but also in Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska and New Jersey. They all have the same blue carpets, dark wood benches and American flags, identikit outposts of the Justice Department tucked away unannounced in office buildings.

The system does a good job of giving each plaintiff a decent hearing. One typical day in the San Antonio court featured a Vietnamese woman, married to an American citizen, fighting deportation, a young couple hoping to get married soon, and a man who had a conviction for abandoning a child.

The judges were patient and, working through interpreters, did their best to render legalese into plain English. This lent the process a certain dignity, but in most cases the outcome was clear from early on.

In the holding pens

The number of people deported is largely determined by the number of beds available in detention centres, which are the holding pens for the people America expels. Each year Congress mandates funding for a certain number of beds for immigration detention and stipulates that the occupancy rate must be kept high. In 2013 that number was 34,000. The president asks for less funding in his budgets but Congress gives him more, such is the political appeal of spending on border security.

Some of these places are run by private companies for ICE, like the one in Pearsall, a small Texas town decorated with churches, car-parts shops and a high-school football field. The facility can house up to 1,800 men at any one time, sleeping on iron bunk-beds in dormitories of up to 100. This is not a prison but it has few windows, is surrounded by fences topped with razor wire and is run by the GEO Group, a company that also runs prisons.

The Pearsall detention facility is quiet inside, apart from the noise of thick metal doors opening and closing. A manager explains that the colour scheme, mostly khaki, has been carefully chosen to keep the inmates calm. More people spend time in such places in any given year than serve time in federal prisons. Housing them all cost $2 billion in 2012, or nearly $5,000 per person deported.

Even with all this funding, the beds the government is mandated to provide exceed the number of places available in detention facilities, so the excess are housed in ordinary prisons. In other words, they are locked up with ordinary felons. The requirement to keep the beds filled means that as soon as one group of people are deported another arrives to replace them.

On the day your correspondent visited the Pearsall detention centre the occupancy rate had dipped to 95%, so the staff were expecting a new delivery of people. The average length of stay in these places before deportation is about a month. Multiply the number of beds by 12 and you get close to the number of people deported each year.

In the Pearsall facility the men wear colour-coded boiler-suits: blue for minor offences, orange for mid-level ones and red for the most serious offenders. The government is keen to focus its efforts on serious criminals, the red boiler-suits, and boot them back over the border.

But in the Pearsall detention centre there are a lot of people wearing blue. TRAC, a database maintained by Syracuse University of each case that comes before the courts, shows that just one in seven filings to deport is based on allegations of criminal activity.

The government has to make sure that the countries where detainees were born will have them back. In rare cases this proves impossible. Families for Freedom, an NGO, says it is working with a Kenyan man who has been in immigration detention in New York for eight years.

From the detention centres the deportees are rounded up and put on planes. ICE has its own air operations division which flew 44 charter flights a week in 2013, and runs a daily flight to deposit people in Central America. When flying to more unusual destinations, an ICE agent will babysit the deportee on a commercial flight.

This is a remarkable feat of logistics. And yet it could be more extensive. It would take many more years of deportations running at their current level to remove all 11.7m undocumented migrants. Yet most Americans think this is unrealistic, a view shared by those doing the deporting. “You cannot enforce your way out of this problem,” says an ICE official. “Nobody is more convinced of the need for immigration reform than us. Our people want to be doing law enforcement.”

The great expulsion which America is carrying out is removing some people who have committed violent crimes. But it is also expelling economic migrants, some of whom have been working in America for decades, and splitting up families. In the two years to September 2012, 205,000 parents were deported.

Judges do have the discretion to halt a deportation if it will cause extraordinary distress to the family. But in the case of Mr Rochas, the care-home worker, the distress of his wife and children, who face growing up without their father, was of the ordinary variety; and besides, the clemency quota had been filled already.

Barack Obama, deporter-in-chief

Expelling record numbers of immigrants is a costly way to make America less dynamic

The Economist ~ February 8, 2014

http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21595902-expelling-record-numbers-immigrants-costly-way-make-america-less-dynamic-barack-obama

OCTAVIO NAVA CABRERA was pulled over by police in Illinois in April 2013 for going through a stop sign. He had arrived in the state in 1986, aged 13, and most of his family still live there. He did not have a proper driving license and had an immigration violation dating from 1997, when he was stopped at the border after a trip to Mexico.

Mr. Nava Cabrera was imprisoned for seven months and then deported, leaving a son behind. He is now sleeping on the floor of a friend’s apartment in Mexico City and slightly baffled by the whole experience. “I don’t know anything about Mexico,” he says.

America is expelling illegal immigrants at nine times the rate of 20 years ago (see article); nearly 2m so far under Barack Obama, easily outpacing any previous president. Border patrol agents no longer just patrol the border; they scour the country for illegals to eject. The deportation machine costs more than all other areas of federal criminal law-enforcement combined. It tears families apart and impoverishes America.

The strongest economic arguments in favor of a more liberal immigration policy are techies like Satya Nadella, Microsoft’s new Indian-born boss. Half of those who earn science and technology PhDs at American universities are foreign-born, as are the authors or co-authors of four-fifths of drug patents.

America’s reluctance to allow foreign graduates to stay in the country when they finish college will reduce its chances of bagging future Mr. Nadellas. Yet the unskilled immigrants who are being shipped back to Mexico enrich America too. They work, pay taxes and fill niches that the native-born shun. Farms, hotels and restaurants depend on them; so do professional couples who need someone to hold the children while Dad writes code and Mum drills teeth.

Why would a supposedly liberal president oversee something so illiberal, cruel and pointless? The Machiavellian explanation is that it motivates Latinos, who associate such barbarism with Republicans, to keep voting for the Democrats. Mr. Obama’s defenders prefer two other excuses.

First, he is merely following laws written by nativist Republicans. This is a cop-out. As president he sets priorities for the executive branch, which cannot catch and prosecute everyone who breaks any of the gazillions of federal rules. He can find ways to slow the deportation of harmless immigrants and concentrate on those who have committed serious crimes. He has already delayed action against those who arrived as children.

The second excuse is that this is all part of Mr. Obama’s grand strategy to secure immigration reform this year, including a path to legal status for the 12m illegal immigrants now in the country. There is room for a deal (see article). The House Republicans have long believed that letting in more people like Mr. Nadella is a good thing, and they are inching towards some sort of amnesty process for undocumented workers like Mr. Cabrera.

They still dislike the idea of illegal immigrants becoming citizens (and voting for Democrats), while the Democrats are suspicious of temporary-worker schemes. These differences would be bridgeable, with a little trust. Given its absence, Mr. Obama will only win Republican votes by showing that the border is secure.

Immigration reform is indeed a great prize. But die-hard nativists are unlikely to be swayed, no matter how tough the laws, and reform can pass without their votes. There are very few things about America that are as vindictive and self-defeating as its deportation machine.

Rather than making excuses for keeping it, Mr. Obama should be exposing its awfulness and leading the campaign to de-fang it.

Deported Mexicans: Bordering on cruelty

United States expulsion policy toward migrants carries a big human cost

The Economist ~ February 8, 2014

NUEVO LAREDO- They are flown down to the Mexican border by the planeload, and then released across the bridge at night. They shuffle into Mexico wearing the look of defeat. Their shoes are untied and their trousers hang down; their laces and belts are in a plastic bag. Often these are all they carry.

Many have no papers. Some have no money. A few have lived so many years in the United States that they cannot even speak Spanish. All have wives, children or friends that they have left behind, yet they have been thrown out without so much as a change of clothes.

A government agency from the north-eastern state of Tamaulipas, the Tamaulipas Migrant Institute, offers them free telephone calls when in Mexico. They are shown on a map exactly where they are and offered discounted bus tickets to their home towns—if, that is, they decide not to try to cross the border again. “I’m not going back,” one elderly man shouts out. “Better to go home. Up there, they don’t want us any more.”

Such comments may sound like vindication for the architects of the United States’ deportation policy; it is designed to deter. The vast majority of foreigners expelled last year were Mexicans—322,900, according to Mexican government statistics. That is 11% below the year before, but it fails to capture the growing number of Central Americans also shipped back to Mexico—sometimes because they pretend to be Mexicans, in order not to be sent all the way home, and have no papers to prove otherwise.

So far, the social impact of the mass deportations appears to be greater than the economic one. According to Sárah Martínez Pellegrini of El Colegio de la Frontera Norte, a border university, people who benefited from remittances may slip below the poverty line when the breadwinner is repatriated. The deportee may find it hard to get a job. In Michoacán, a south-western state where drug-related violence has been a focus of attention this year, some deportees have taken up arms and joined vigilante groups fighting drug gangs.

The Mexican government, meanwhile, is concerned about the rights of the deportees. Reyna Torres, a foreign-ministry official, says that some of those arrested are not given the chance to call a consul, nor sent to judges who specialise in migration cases. If they are held in detention for longer than 30 days, their documents, including IDs, are destroyed. She says there is “mistreatment and abuse” at the hands of firms subcontracted to handle detention and expulsion.

Too often Immigration and Customs Enforcement, a federal body, shrugs off such abuses as the subcontractors’ fault. The deportees are sent into Mexico often far from where they lived in the United States, adding to their disorientation.

Such was the case with Vasilio Martínez, a 39-year-old irrigation worker, who was caught in Arizona trying to return to his wife and five children in Washington state, where he had lived for nine years. Since he had been deported previously, he was jailed for 2½ years. Then he was shunted to deportation facilities in South Carolina and Georgia.

On the day he was repatriated to Nuevo Laredo—about 1,500km (950 miles) east of where he had originally crossed—he did not know where he was. All he knew was that the city had a reputation for drug violence. Instead of relief at being back in Mexico on his first day of freedom, he was terrified. And he had no idea when he would see his family again.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We Need Truth-Tellers Not Stewards on Immigration

Huff Post Latinovoices ~ February 25, 2014

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/felipe-matos/immigration-needs-truthtellers-not-stewards_b_4849169.html?view=print&comm_ref=false

Three years ago, we stood up in the middle of a speech President Obama was delivering to National Council De La Raza and interrupted him with chants of "Yes you can."

After the DREAM Act had failed to pass in Congress months earlier, immigrant youth mounted a successful campaign for an executive order that eventually resulted in the president granting a segment of us temporary relief from deportations and the authorization to work in this country through the deferred action program.

During the fight for the DREAM Act we became used to hearing we were selfish, that we could derail larger reform, and that the president was our ally, not our target. But we were undeterred, and undocumented youth who had found our power weren't going to be stopped by the White House denying its abilities or the organizations who helped defend it.

Three years later, it looks like we're in a very similar moment. Only this time, the demand for executive action is even broader and certainly more urgent. Just as it made sense to give relief to immigrant youth then, it makes sense to expand that relief to our loved ones. Right now.

We may not be in the balcony at NCLR, but we still want to tell the president, "Yes you can," and we hope that call is carried by every organization that considers itself a voice for immigrants who are currently denied an equal opportunity at attaining citizenship.

A Politico article this week observed that "those who want the president to act increasingly own the narrative." That's not because of masterful messaging or high-paid consulting groups. It's because our families deserve relief and equality, and they deserve it now. Anyone connected to immigrants knows that because it's what we talk about at the dinner table and as we look in the rearview mirror on our way to work.

But the Politico article also highlighted a dangerous development that the closer groups get to the White House, the quieter they get on deportations.

One advocate described her position as being a "steward of the immigration legislation," saying that we're all on the same team just playing different roles.

To us, it's not a question of positioning within a movement, it's a question of our purpose. The difference between undocumented people and political operatives in Washington DC comes from our core belief that we deserve to exist and to thrive. Their pursuit of a personal climb to power is different than our pursuit for liberation.

We know what it's like to be a caregiver to siblings at too early an age because of a deported parent and haven't turned that experience into a talking point or converted it into a paycheck.

Immigration reform is not a game that we're playing and, frankly, our communities don't need stewards in Washington, we need allies. We need those with access not to allow themselves to be silenced but to use it to open space for our own voices to be heard, even when what we have to say targets the president.

At NCLR three years ago, we had to interrupt for a demand for administrative relief to be heard. Now the absence of the organization's voice is being noted by the press.

After the risks we took then and that undocumented immigrants (like Ju Hong who interrupted the president last year) continue to take, we send the same message we tell the president to the groups who may for whatever reason, be afraid to critique him and really defend our communities, "Yes you can."

Young Immigrants Turn Focus to President in Struggle Over Deportations

By JULIA PRESTON, NEW YORK TIMES, FEB. 23, 2014

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/24/us/politics/young-immigrants-turn-focus-to-president-in-struggle-over-deportations.html?_r=1

PHOENIX — More than 500 leaders of a national network of young immigrants, frustrated that House Republicans said they would not move on immigration this year, have decided to turn their protests on President Obama in an effort to pressure him to act unilaterally to stop deportations.

After months of lobbying, rallies and sit-in demonstrations ended with no movement in the House on a pathway to citizenship for immigrants here illegally, the youths who gathered in Phoenix this weekend for an annual congress of the network, United We Dream, said they felt disappointed by Republicans and Democrats. Pointing to Mr. Obama’s pledge early this year to use his phone and pen when Congress did not move on his agenda, they said they would demand that he take executive action to increase protections for immigrants without papers.

“The community we work with is telling us that these deportations are ripping our families apart; this has to stop,” said Cristina Jiménez, the managing director of the network, the largest organization of immigrants who grew up in this country without legal status after coming as children and who call themselves Dreamers. “And we know the president has the power to do it.”

The young immigrants’ demands will be uncomfortable for Mr. Obama in a midterm election year when his low approval ratings could allow Republicans to make important gains. Polls show wider sympathy among Americans for young immigrants than for others without legal status, and the young people have often been leaders in setting strategy among immigrant groups.

The youths said they would press the president to expand the deportation deferrals he provided to them by executive action in 2012. More than 520,000 young people have received deferrals so far, allowing them to work legally and obtain driver’s licenses in many states. The program, known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, has been very popular among Latino and immigrant voters, and Mr. Obama has cited it as an example of his commitment to overhaul the immigration system.

With their shift to concentrate on Mr. Obama, the youths are sharply scaling back their expectations. Last year, after a comprehensive immigration bill passed the Senate, they hoped the House would follow through and also open a direct pathway to citizenship for most of 11.7 million illegal immigrants in the country.

This month, House Republican leaders offered principles on immigration, including legalization but not citizenship for most of those immigrants. But days later, Speaker John A. Boehner said his caucus was not ready to move forward on the divisive issue this year.

Lorella Praeli, a leader of the youth network, told the gathering here that Republicans had adopted a strategy of “death by delay” for immigration. But network leaders did not appear disheartened. An organization that only a few years ago held its meetings clandestinely to avoid detection by immigration authorities, the network held its congress this year in the Sheraton hotel in downtown Phoenix. They filled the main ballroom with strategy debates, protest singalongs and group hugs. Other guests were surprised to encounter slogan-chanting youths parading through the lobby.

They chose Phoenix, leaders said, to confront Gov. Jan Brewer, a Republican, who has not allowed youths with deportation deferrals to apply for driver’s licenses, as other states have.

On Saturday afternoon, the group marched through downtown Phoenix and rallied at a Department of Homeland Security detention center. Their chants were mainly directed toward the president. “Obama, Obama, don’t deport my mama!” the crowd members shouted.

In Washington, a perception gap has emerged over enforcement, with House Republicans arguing that Mr. Obama has been lax on illegal immigration and border security, so they cannot trust him to enforce any new law. Administration officials counter with figures showing Mr. Obama has deported more than 1.9 million foreigners, a record for an American president.

The youths here said they had no doubts about the impact of the Obama administration’s deportation policies, because their families felt they were under siege from immigration authorities.

“We can’t wait for Washington to continue playing around with our lives,” said Julieta Garibay, another network leader. “Our people see deportations every single day. They say, ‘Maybe this might be the last day I get to see my mom because she might get deported tomorrow.’ We’re fed up with that.”

The youths said they would ask Mr. Obama to cut back programs that have greatly expanded the local reach of federal immigration authorities and to grant deportation deferrals to undocumented parents of youths who had received them.

The president has insisted he does not have legal authority to grant more deferrals. But recently he hinted that he might revisit that position if legislation remained stalled.

In spite of the inertia in Washington, the youths, who represented 50 organizations in 25 states, said their ranks grew rapidly last year as measures to expand opportunities for them advanced in many states. At least 18 states now allow foreign-born students without legal residency to pay in-state tuition rates.

The youths said they were not giving up entirely on legislation efforts and planned drives in several districts in Florida, Nevada, New Mexico and Texas to register and mobilize Latino voters against Republicans who have resisted legalization.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

California senator proposes restoring bilingual education

By Patrick McGreevy, L.A. Times ~ February 20, 2014

http://www.latimes.com/local/political/la-me-pc-california-senator-proposes-restoring-bilingual-education-20140220,0,6194709.story#ixzz2uBfa9NFL

SACRAMENTO -- Sixteen years after California voters approved an initiative requiring public school instruction in English, state Sen. Ricardo Lara (D-Bell Gardens) introduced a measure Thursday to repeal the requirement of Proposition 227.

Lara's proposal would place an initiative on the ballot that would give parents a choice to have their children receive bilingual education.

"English will always remain the official language of California, but we cannot ignore the growing need to have a multilingual workforce," Lara said.

He said the global economy requires those who graduate from school to be able to communicate in multiple languages. "Employers seek multilingual employees and all students - English and non-English learners alike - deserve access to this invaluable skill," Lara added.

The percentage of elementary school-age students enrolled in some form of multilingual program declined from 39% in 1997, the year before the ballot measure, to 13% in 2001, Lara said.

SB 1174 is supported by groups including the California Assn. for Bilingual Education and Californians Together, a coalition of parents, teachers, education advocates and civil rights groups.

“Becoming biliterate will not only give students a valuable 21st century skill, but also celebrate diversity and multiculturalism and recognize that languages are an asset to our nation and society,” said Shelly Spiegel-Coleman, executive director of Californians Together.

State Sen. Ricardo Lara (D-Bell Gardens), shown in 2013, on Thursday proposed to repeal the ban on bilingual education. (Katie Falkenberg / Los Angeles Times / March 20, 2013)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senator hopes to provide healthcare to immigrants lacking legal status

By Soumya Karlamangla, L.A. Times ~ February 14, 2014

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-lara-healthcare-bill-20140214,0,246082.story#ixzz2tV6w53LS

State Sen. Ricardo Lara (D-Bell Gardens) introduced legislation Friday that would allow immigrants without legal status to receive or buy health insurance through the state.

Such immigrants are the single-largest group of people who remain uninsured under the Affordable Care Act. The national law explicitly bars immigrants without legal status from receiving any kind of federal money, which means that in California, they can't buy insurance through the Covered California exchange, or qualify for the state's low-income health plan, Medi-Cal.

"Healthcare for everyone should mean everyone," Lara said at a news conference Friday in Los Angeles. "Only when we include everyone can we truly have a healthy California."

Lara's bill, SB 1005, proposes that California use state money to expand Medi-Cal eligibility to those who meet the financial requirements -- an annual income of about $15,000 or less for one person -- but have not been able to qualify because of their immigration status.

The bill, which Lara calls "Health for All," also proposes setting up an exchange that would be run by Covered California officials through which immigrants without legal status could purchase insurance. The exchange would also provide the same premium assistance and cost-sharing that Covered California does, but paid for with state money.

Lara said the state spends about $1.4 billion annually providing expensive emergency care to people without insurance. He said that he expects his plan to cost a bit less, or the same as that amount, but it would provide insurance instead of just one-time visits.

"It's better care, and it'll cost us less," he said.

California is home to more than 2 million immigrants who lack legal status, the largest population of any state. Experts predict that five years from now, between 3 million and 4 million Californians will be uninsured, and a quarter of them will be immigrants without papers.

Imelda Plascencia, 28, described her experience trying to get healthcare services at Friday's event. Her family moved to the United States from Mexico when she was 5.

"I've been living with gallstones since 2008," she said. She has spent hours waiting in emergency rooms to get care, and has been in pain for years, she said.

Healthcare advocates worry that infrastructure that in the past has supported people without insurance, many of whom lacked documents, will not be as strong in the future as more people get insurance under the Affordable Care Act.

"The situation for the undocumented is not improving under the Affordable Care Act and it's possible it will even get worse," said Dr. Steven Wallace of the UCLA School of Public Health.

In Los Angeles County, between 980,000 and 1.3 million people will remain uninsured, according to Dr. Mitchell Katz, director of the county Department of Health Services
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The South County Labor Council votes to support the Protect our Families and Save the Children Campaign

February 22, 2014 ~ Hawthorne, California

The South County Labor Council, which represents affiliated labor unions from South L.A. and Orange counties, unanimously approved the following motion in support of the Protect Our Families and Save the Children campaign:

"That the South County Labor Council votes to support the Protect Our Families and Save the Children Campaign that seeks to have resolutions passed by local city councils, county and school boards, and Senate Resolution 25 by the California legislature; based on Councilman Gil Cedillo's resolution adopted unanimously by the L.A. City Council, on December 18, 2013- International Immigrants' Day".

The intent of the Protect Our Families and Save the Children Campaign is to have local resolutions adopted that call upon President Obama to expand temporary protective status to all legalization-eligible immigrants through executive action, to initiate a 'deferred action' legalization process (as with the DACA program for Dreamers) and thereby cease the deportation of all eligible immigrants and families, other than criminals, until Congress adopts humane and inclusive comprehensive immigration reform legislation.

The cities of San Francisco and Carson have already passed resolutions similar to the Cedillo Resolution, and many others are pending in cities throughout the U.S., including Santa Ana, Long Beach, Hawthorne, West Los Angeles, Sacramento, Chicago, Seattle and the Anaheim School Board.

This is another great victory! The meeting was attended by a large number of local elected officials and candidates, including mayors, all of whom supported the resolution and pledged to take it to their city councils.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Deportee Chronicles: The Girl from Guajajalmiton

Frontera NorteSur: on-line, U.S.-Mexico border news Center for Latin American and Border Studies, New Mexico State University Las Cruces, New Mexico

FNS Feature February 9, 2014Editor's Note: More than 768,000 people were deported from the United States during 2012 and 2013 alone. While mass media coverage of the ongoing immigration debate focuses on events in Washington and other parts of the United States, little attention has been paid to the lives of people in Mexico and other counties who have already been deported.

A large group of people who were largely invisible on this side of the border are now in the same condition on the other side of the line. In an effort to help fill the media gap, Frontera NorteSur begins an occasional series on the faces, the lives and the dreams of deportees now residing in Mexico. Today's article is the story of one young woman who was suddenly ordered out of a country she called home.

She moves between the tables with the grace of the dolphins that sometimes delight the bayside diners of Puerto Vallarta, Mexico. Greeting customers in Spanish and English, the server has the poise, the demeanor and the intellect to work with an international clientele. Born in Mexico and raised in the United States, Danae is a student of European history, a lover of Romeo and Juliet, and a fan of thrash metal music. "I love Shakespeare!" she declares.

She also likes poetry, blackjack, Jack Daniels and tatoos.

Though seemingly at ease on the Bay of Banderas, Danae confesses she would rather be somewhere else. “Honestly, I feel out of place here in Mexico. I feel that I don’t belong. It’s hard to start over in a place you don’t know,” says the waitress. “I actually feel more American than Mexican. Sometimes I feel out of place. I’d call myself a pocha. I’m proud of my parents and my Mexican heritage they gave me. I’m also thankful to my teachers and friends in the U.S. who gave me the culture I know.”

A pocha, or a pocho for a male, is a longtime slang term for a Mexican reared in the United States.

Sitting down for an interview, Danae makes it clear she would prefer to converse in English, which she calls her “first language.”

As the afternoon currents roll in and the bay fades from blue to gray, Danae recounts a life journey that began in the tough Mexican state of Sinaloa, extended into the U.S Midwest, touched Parris Island and Pearl Harbor, reached Afghanistan, and then took an unexpected detour back to Mexico.

Along the way, she’s encountered narcos, the Ku Klux Klan, proud U.S. Marines, Vietnam vets, dopers, strippers, tongue-gagging Guatemalan evangelicals, the Taliban, corporate offshorers, and other members of the “Pocho Nation,” who also wound up involuntarily back in their ancestral homeland.

Danae is all of 20 years old.

Because of possible litigation over her U.S. immigration status, the young woman, whose first name comes from a character in Greek mythology, agreed to share her life story on the condition that her last name not be used.

Danae’s story begins in 1993 in Culiacan, Sinaloa, the state capital of the Pacific Coast state known for its narco economy and culture. As an infant, Danae’s mother and step-father took her to Hamilton, Ohio, a small city which is located about 30 minutes from Cincinnati. Brought up in the Midwest, Danae was acculturated on a diet of McDonald's, Taco Bell and the "best mini-hamburgers in the world" dished out by Ohio's White Castle chain.

Her family was part of a new wave of Latino immigrants that settled communities off the beaten path of the more popular migratory destinations of California, the U.S. Southwest and cities like Chicago and New York.

In a paper submitted for a human rights writing contest, Miami University anthropology student Heather Hillenbrand noted the economic context of the new Latino immigration.

"Latinos are the only group of people currently coming into Hamilton at a significant rate; the city’s population peaked in 1960 at 72,345 (U.S. Census 1970) and has been steadily declining since," Hillenbrand wrote. "This is largely due to a loss of many high-paying blue-collar jobs as the city lost its industrial firms based in paper manufacturing, iron works and machine works to outsourcing. Recent economic growth has largely been in low-wage jobs..."

The U.S. Census counted around 62,000 people in Hamilton during the 2010-2012 time frame, a slight increase from the 2000 census, with Latinos steadily inching up to 6.4 percent of the population.

Enough Mexicans moved into Hamilton, Danae says, that the city acquired a Spanish nickname: “Guajajalmiton.” According to the former resident, the name derives from the large number of people living in the city who can trace their roots to the Mexican city of Leon, Guanajuato.

In the early 21st century, racial and ethnic tensions boiled over in “Guajajalmiton.” In 2005, the alleged rape of a young girl by a Latino immigrant resulted in the burning of the suspect’s home, as well as a flurry of local agitation by the Ku Klux Klan.

While she was a young girl, Danae says members of the racist group passed out literature at a local shopping mall. "It was scary," she recalls. "The KKK once tried to kick all the Mexicans out of Hamilton."

But Danae says she acquired a more positive, enduring image of the country. When she was about 6 years old, the child saw a Marine, rose in hand, standing stoically among the crowd in an airport.

"I could remember him perfectly. If I could draw him, that's him. How serene he was. I grew up with the mentality that I wanted to be that guy."

Soon enough, the star-struck girl got a chance to don the uniform that so fascinated her. In the middle of the last decade, the U.S. was at war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Especially in Iraq, the constant ambushes and roadside bombs did not make good recruitment hooks for the armed forces, and enlistments tanked. In return for promises of citizenship, military recruiters signed up the Danaes of the world.

The girl from Guajajalmiton was "15 about to turn 16" when she answered Washington's call.

"There were immigrants from all over the world," Danae says of her new comrades. "They were Europeans, people from China, Russia, signing up because they went to get their (citizenship) papers."

In a 2008 report, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) contended that U.S. military recruiters were violating the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, ratified by the U.S. Senate in 2002, which established 16 as the absolute minimum age of enlistment. Further, the ACLU charged, the U.S. had agreed to a "binding declaration" that raised the minimum recruitment age to 17.

By 2010, Danae was serving with the U.S. Marine Corps in Afghanistan. Her baby face turning somber, Danae declines to discuss combat details but says "many friends" were killed. The US, she insists, lost many of its "best" young people in a land long known for chewing up foreign invaders. "It was like a band of sheep following the cattle to slaughter," Danae reflects.

In her own Afghan chapter, survival depended on fellow Marines, the "lucky charm" of a loved one's photo and letters from back home.

Years later, Danae has a perspective on America's longest war. She's met much older vets, from the Vietnam War era, and compares Afghanistan with Vietnam. The young vet holds a certain respect for her former Afghan foes, considering them among the most "patriotic" people in the world and willing to fight "tooth and nail" against the most technologically-superior military machine the globe has ever witnessed.

Danae admits her tour of duty resulted in "a little bit of PTSD." While in public, she keeps a close eye on following cars, suddenly closing doors and even little children, who in Afghanistan might have been strapped with explosives. The nightly fireworks that boom on the beach and light up the sky over Banderas Bay are "the worst" call-backs to a nightmarish time, she adds.

Barely into her third decade of life, Danae says she grew up real fast and missed out on the abandon of youth pursued so relentlessly by many of her teen peers. "Wisdom comes with age," she observes, "but your childhood only comes once and it never comes back."

For all her sacrifices, Danae still doesn't have citizenship papers. According to the former U.S. resident, she was instead giving an ultimatum by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency to board a one-way flight out of the country within 48 hours.

The startling order came one day in 2011, when ICE agents came knocking on Danae's door while she was inside watching a DVD and thinking about reenlisting in the Marine Corps.

To this day, the ex-Marine claims she doesn't know the exact reason for the deportation, but acknowledges that the ICE agents showed her a paper she supposedly signed that permitted the action. Technically, the order is not a deportation,

Danae clarifies, since she could go back to the U.S. either on a student visa or with citizenship papers. Practically speaking, however, an order to leave the country is just what it means.

Arriving in Mexico with a suitcase, a laptop and a dog, Danae suddenly found herself living with a difficult aunt in the bustling city of Guadalajara and, to her surprise, acting as a surrogate mother for three cousins. Together with other young deportees and military vets from the "Pocho Nation" diaspora, Danae found work through a temp agency in Guadalajara's call centers, specifically with Bank of America and T-Mobile.

Answering questions in flawless English, the customer service rep assisted often befuddled, older callers who had trouble with a credit card bill or operating a cell-phone. Corporate America's onetime voice to the world describes stressful days filled with calls from "idiots" like the women who couldn't work her cellphone to function because she had taken the battery out of it, or the nasty individuals who would end conversations with racist rants.

"If they heard an accent, they would call you a Filipino even if you weren't a Filipino. 'Wetbacks! You're taking all our jobs!"

For her skills in diplomacy and public relations, Danae earned about $3.50 an hour at the Bank of America job and approximately $4.00 per hour for the T-Mobile gig, she says. The regular Mexican benefits of social security, government housing and savings accounts were part of the package. While the pay was much better than the wages paid at Guadalajara's numerous, foreign-owned electronics industry plants, the money was still about half the U.S. minimum wage.

While she was living and working in Mexico's Silicon Valley, Danae met and married a U.S. citizen. The couple then moved to Puerto Vallarta, where the union soured after Danae ended up being the sole breadwinner and caught her "lazy" husband cheating with a man, she says.

Needing a well-paying job in a tourism-dependent city where such positions are few and far between, Danae then accepted a job as a hostess at a strip club. She soon was "graduated" to a drink girl, enticing customers to purchase expensive drinks while holding conversations with them. According to the bilingual woman, the management fired her after she refused to have sex with customers.

Nowadays, Danae works at a place where the table action is more mundane. Along with a few dozen other U.S. vets, the 20-year-old says is contemplating a lawsuit against the U.S. government for its alleged failure to live up to the deal of citizenship papers for military service.

"A lot of hopes and dreams were in that," Danae says of the government's bundle of promises. "A lot of families were in there, and in 2011 everything was gone."

When she is not working, Danae devotes time to online studies in history that will hopefully culiminate in a bachelor's degree from a Mexican university. Her goal is to earn a master's degree and go on to a doctorate, perhaps leading to a teaching position in academia.

Danae is fascinated by European history, especially World War Two, Hitler's Germany and the Holocaust. Her voice projects a sense of duty as she explains why it is important to know about genocides that most people prefer to forget. "There is so much there that needs to come out to the world," Danae muses. "Everything happened because we let it happen."

A young woman who came of age in the heart of the Buckeye State, Danae doesn't mince words when it comes to the immigration reform quagmire on the Potomac. Only the Native Americans, Danae says, can lay claim to a non-immigrant status in a nation of immigrants.

"(Politicians) should cut the bull..America was built with immigrants," she adds. "If they should get rid of the immigrants, they should start with the Senate and Congress, because they would all be gone..."

-Kent Paterson

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Two Long Beach colleges will offer Dream scholarships

By Carla Rivera carla.rivera@latimes.com, L.A. Times ~ February 4, 2014

Two Long Beach colleges are among 12 nationally that will offer scholarships to low-income students who are in this country illegally and not eligible for federal financial aid, officials announced Tuesday.

Long Beach City College and Cal State Long Beach are participating in the new national program called TheDream.US, an initiative launched by several prominent philanthropists.

The name refers to the federal Dream Act, which would offer a pathway to citizenship for the estimated 1.7 million young people brought to the country illegally as children.

In 2011, California adopted a version that provides immigrants in the state illegally access to state financial aid at public colleges and universities. The state also allows these students to pay in-state tuition.

The new scholarship program will cover tuition, fees and book costs of as much as $25,000 for 2,000 students over the next decade.

"Assisting these students achieve their academic goals is good for our community and our economy as once they obtain a college credential, their families are more likely to contribute to the economy in positive ways," Long Beach City College President Eloy Ortiz Oakley said in a statement.

To be eligible for a scholarship, applicants must have graduated from a U.S. high school with a cumulative grade point average of 2.5 or higher, must qualify for the federal deferred action immigration program, must demonstrate financial need, must show strong motivation to succeed in a career-ready or bachelor's degree program and be enrolled in a participating institution. The deadline to apply is March 31.

"This initiative represents an excellent opportunity for our two institutions to serve these hard-working and motivated students in reaching their personal and career goals," Cal State Long Beach Interim President Donald Para said in a statement.

The scholarship program was launched by former Washington Post executive Donald E. Graham, Democratic activist Henry R. Munoz III and Carlos Gutierrez, who was Commerce secretary under President George W. Bush. The group raised $25 million from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Bloomberg Philanthropies, the Fernandez Foundation and others.

Other participating colleges are in New York, Texas, Florida, New Hampshire and Washington, D.C.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Protect Our Families Campaign

Campaña de Protección a Nuestras Familias

San Francisco Board of Supervisors' Vote for Immigrant Rights Resolution Is Unanimous

By ALAN BENJAMIN

JAN. 29 -- Yesterday afternoon, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to approve a resolution that calls upon President Obama to (1) stop the deportations, (2) extend DACA [Deferred Action] to all undocumented immigrants, and (3) end the firings of undocumented immigrants by means of I-9 audits, E-Verify and employers' sanctions. The resolution -- which was initially adopted by the San Francisco Labor Council -- was introduced by Supervisors David Chiu, David Campos and Scott Wiener.

Earlier in the day, the San Francisco Labor Council and numerous immigrant rights and community-based organizations in the city held a rally / press conference on the steps of City Hall to convey the urgency of approving this resolution. Speaker after speaker decried the more than 2 million deportations under Obama and the tens of thousands of workers fired -- with their families torn apart -- because of lack of papers.

Rally chair Olga Miranda, president of SEIU Local 87 (Janitors Union) and secretary-treasurer of the San Francisco Labor Council, quoted Los Angeles Council member Gil Cedillo, who, at a luncheon the day before hosted by Local 87, took strong issue with Obama for being the main deporter of immigrants in the nation's history, stating, "How can Obama claim to support the DREAMers, when he is deporting their mothers and fathers?"

Rally speakers included workers who had been fired from their jobs under E-Verify, two young DREAMers [see statement below by Itzel], representatives from community organizations, members of the clergy, and Supervisors Chiu and Campos [see attached photo of Supervisor David Campos addressing the mid-day rally].

All speakers underscored the importance of adopting this resolution and sending a resounding message to Washington that working people and their organizations in San Francisco and across the country will not stand by idly while Obama continues to deport and separate families, and while workers everywhere are fired from their jobs for lack of papers.

* * * * * * * * * *

Statement by Itzel (Undocumented Student) to the SF Bd of Supervisors on January 28, 2014

[Note: Itzel is a DREAMer who benefited from DACA. But as a low-income student who finished high school out of state, she does not qualify for in-state tuition at City College of San Francisco, where she has completed two semesters of study. This semester Itzel was not able to register for classes. The college's new payment policy requires that all students pay the coming semester's tuition up front -- as opposed to throughout the semester -- which for Itzel means coming up with $3,000 to register for her third semester, something that is way beyond her and her family's means. Student activists at CCSF are mobilizing to fight the payment policy and to demand that the college and the city make available scholarships for low-income students like Itzel.]

Good afternoon, my name is Itzel and I am an undocumented immigrant.

I came to the United States when I was 4 years old along with my mother and younger brother to meet up with my father in California. It was not easy growing up with two working parents, I had to take care of my brother at an age when I could barely take care of myself.

Years would go by where we'd see my dad for only 30 minutes a day. He would come home to eat and leave for his second job. We were not able to spend time together like most families do. The same goes for thousands of families across the country.
My father works for a water-proofing company in the city and has to go in through the back door of the building he's working in because he doesn't have an I.D. to show at the front door.

By extending DACA to undocumented immigrants while Congress figures a out a real solution that will benefit this community would be a start to ending this harsh reality that many seem to ignore. It would grant temporary relief to those who have always been living in the shadows.

However, I stand here today happy that the San Francisco community supports undocumented families. I strongly support the resolution submitted by the Supervisors to urge President Obama to stop the deportations, extend the DACA program and eliminate the I-9 audits.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Boehner’s weak immigration excuses

By Washington Post, Editorial Board, February 8, 2014

JUST A week ago, House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) issued a set of Republican principles that established a framework for reforming the nation’s broken immigration system. Now, in a whirlwind about-face, the speaker declares that the prospects for immigration legislation this year are slight because Republicans don’t trust President Obama to enforce laws the House might pass.

The suggestion that the president doesn’t or wouldn’t enforce immigration laws is transparently false. In the very near future, the Obama administration will deport its 2 millionth illegal immigrant, a pace much faster than that of President George W. Bush or any previous president. Under Mr. Obama, apprehensions along the Southwest frontier — a reflection of illegal border crossing activity — have fallen to a four-decade low. The number of Border Patrol agents has doubled in the past decade, to say nothing of sharply higher spending on other agencies and resources meant to stop illegal crossings.

Has all of this been lost on Mr. Boehner?

No, the speaker’s assertion is a smoke screen designed to obscure the fact that rank-and-file Republicans refuse to tackle immigration reform. Many persist in the fantasy that 11.7 million illegal immigrants, among them at least 7 million with jobs, should be forced to leave the country, and that anything short of that amounts to amnesty. Some might not buy into the self-deportation myth but fear a primary challenge if they appear lax. Others, more calculatingly, are loath to debate an issue that could prompt a venomous internecine fight, divert attention from what they see as the debacle of the Affordable Care Act and diminish GOP prospects in this fall’s midterm elections.

Mr. Boehner might have summoned the spine to quiet those doubts and coax his party toward immigration reform anyway. Or he could have acknowledged that despite his best efforts, he found the political problems within his party insurmountable. Instead, he blamed the GOP’s paralysis on Mr. Obama — concocting a weak excuse about the president’s supposed trustworthiness — in hopes that the best defense is an aggressive offense.

Mr. Boehner appears to genuinely support immigration reform and to grasp that it is a slow-motion demographic and political disaster for his party to continue to obstruct it. Perhaps his strategy is to wait and grapple with his caucus another day. But he undercuts his case when he lends credence to the canard that immigration law is not being enforced.

The reality of enforcement under the Obama administration is measured in deportations that have fractured hundreds of thousands of families and upended hundreds of thousands of lives. It is apparent in long stretches of the border, once highly permeable, that are now so highly militarized that illegal crossings are difficult to impossible. It is reflected in the fact that for the first time in years, as many or more illegal immigrants have been leaving the country as entering it.

By recycling the lie about lax enforcement, Mr. Boehner encourages those in his party who would demand unattainable levels of border impermeability as a precondition for reform. That’s a recipe for paralysis.

Note:

Washington Post Editorials represent the views of The Washington Post as an institution, as determined through debate among members of the editorial board. News reporters and editors never contribute to editorial board discussions, and editorial board members don’t have any role in news coverage
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Protect Our Families Campaign

Campaña de Protección a Nuestras Familias

Más senadores estatales se suman a resolución para proteger familias migrantes

Contactos para medios:

Angela Sanbrano (323) 371-7305 ~ Red Mx

Armando Vázquez-Ramos (562) 430-5541 ~ Centro de Estudios California-México

Un total de siete senadores de California respaldan la resolución SR 25, que pide al presidente Barack Obama detener las deportaciones y otorgar un estatus de protección legal a inmigrantes sin documentos, mientras el poder legislativo federal no adopte una reforma migratoria integral.

El anuncio se dio a conocer el 4 de febrero en Sacramento cuando una delegación de Los Angeles integrada por miembros de la Campaña Protección a Nuestras Familias realizó una jornada de cabildeo enfocada a los senadores de California.

Los senadores Ron Calderón (quien originalmente presentó la resolución), Leland Yee y Lou Correa anunciaron en una conferencia de prensa realizada en Sacramento, que aparte de ellos, los senadores Block, Hancock, Leno, Liu y Hannah-Beth Jackson, se sumaron como co-autores de la SR 25.

Representantes de la Red Mexicanas de Líderes y Organizaciones Migrantes (Red Mx), el Centro de Recursos Centroamericanos (CARECEN) y DreaMoms, visitaron las oficinas de los senadores Ben Hueso, Alex Padilla, Norma J. Torres, Kevin De León, Ricardo Lara, Mark Leno y Lois Wolk.

Otras organizaciones que se sumaron al cabildeo fueron la Asociación Política Mexico-Americana (MAPA), el Concilio Laboral para el Avance Latinoamericano AFLCIO (LCLAA), el Concilio sobre Relaciones Islámico-Americanas (CAIR) y el Consorcio Chicano, entre otras organizaciones.

Angela Sanbrano, directora de la Red-Mx y miembro de la campaña Protección a Nuestras Familias, informó que la delegación obtuvo una respuesta positiva por parte de los senadores, sin embargo, destacó que es importante continuar la presión para que los legisladores apoyen la resolución SR 25 presentada por el senador Ron Calderón.

Agregó que es de suma importancia que organizaciones y miembros de la comunidad participen y exhorten a los legisladores a votar en favor de la resolución. La meta es lograr la firma de la mayoría de los legisladores.

De acuerdo al Pew Hispanic Center, en el 2011 había más de once millones de personas sin documentos viviendo en Estados Unidos.

En California, residen alrededor de dos millones 600 mil personas indocumentadas.

La administración del presidente Obama ha deportado a un promedio de 400 mil personas al año, desde el 2009, alcanzando un cifra récord de alrededor de dos millones de personas.

De acuerdo al Centro Legal Nacional de Inmigración, más de mil inmigrantes son separados de sus familias y comunidades todos los días.

La campaña Protección a Nuestras Familias dará seguimiento a esta importante iniciativa y mantendrá informada a la comunidad a través de los medios de comunicación y por medio de nuestra página: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Protect-Our-Families-Protección-a-Nuestras-Familias/236415353199819.

Los Angeles, California a 5 de febrero del 2014.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Obama ignora clamor contra deportaciones, movimiento pro inmigrante Proteccion a Nuestras Familias intensificará acciones

El presidente Obama no debe continuar evadiendo su responsabilidad histórica de ejercer su poder ejecutivo para detener el dolor que enfrentan miles de familias migrantes debido a las deportaciones, en tanto no exista una reforma migratoria justa.

La Campaña Protección a Nuestras Familias continuará sus esfuerzos enfocados a que el presidente responda al clamor migrante de proteger a las familias. En alianza con funcionarios electos en las ciudades, juntas de supervisores y representantes de congresos estatales y federales, continuaremos una serie de acciones para proteger a las familias migrantes de las deportaciones.

El hecho de que la Cámara de Representantes anunciara que en los próximos días dará a conocer su propuesta de reforma migratoria, no garantiza que habrá una reforma migratoria integral y justa.

Sabemos que la propuesta que surja de la Cámara Baja no beneficiará en general a los más de once millones de indocumentados en el país.

La campaña Protección a Nuestras Familias pide al presidente Barack Obama que mientras el congreso no apruebe una ley de reforma migratoria justa e incluyente, ordene:

1) Al Departamento de Seguridad Nacional que dé instrucciones a la agencia de enforzamiento migratorio ICE para que cesen las deportaciones.

2) Ponga fin a programas como Comunidades Seguras y 287(g) que permite la cooperación de agencias del orden con agentes migratorios para deportar a miles de personas.

3) Termine el programa e-verify, que exige a los empleadores verificar el estatus migratorio de los trabajadores.

4) Otorgue protección legal a todas las personas no autorizadas que no tengan antecedentes delictivos serios hasta que haya una ley migratoria humanitaria, justa e incluyente.

Si el presidente Barack Obama continúa ignorando el clamor de justicia de los migrantes, permitiendo que sean rehenes de los intereses políticos de los republicanos, intensificaremos nuestra campaña para pedir apoyo las autoridades ciudad por ciudad, estado por estado para que se logre justicia para millones de personas a quienes se les niegan sus derechos fundamentales.

Los Angeles, California, a 28 de enero del 2014
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
With an immigration deal possible, advocates mount new push to end deportations

By David Nakamura, Washington Post ~ February 3, 2014

New momentum in Congress for a broad overhaul of border-control laws has prompted White House allies to demand that President Obama halt deportations of millions of illegal immigrants, many of whom would be allowed to remain in the country under a legislative deal.

The advocates, including the AFL-CIO and pro-immigration groups, argue that Obama should use his executive authority to expand a 2012 decision that halted deportations of young people brought to the United States illegally by their parents. The administration’s aggressive approach to enforcement — which has resulted in nearly 2 million deportations during Obama’s tenure — makes little sense at a time when Congress could be on the verge of providing legal relief, advocates say.

The push places the White House in a difficult political position as it attempts to negotiate with a House Republican caucus sharply divided on immigration. Leading conservatives said over the weekend that the chief impediment to a deal is their distrust that Obama would enforce new border-security provisions if a large portion of the nation’s 11.7 million illegal immigrants are granted legal status.

The White House has consistently said that Obama cannot legally expand the effort — known as the deferred action program — and some advisers fear that doing so would expose the president to more Republican criticism. Obama’s predicament was reflected in a muddled answer that he gave Friday during an online chat, when he was asked whether he would consider using his executive power to stop deportations.

“If, for some reason, we’re seeing it not getting done,” the president said of a legislative bill, “I will look at all options to make sure we have a rational, smart system of immigration. But I’m going to do everything I can in the coming months to see if we can get it over the finish line.”

Administration officials said Obama was not shifting his position and that he stands by previous statements that he must enforce the law. This spring, the Obama administration will surpass 2 million deportations — more than the George W. Bush administration removed from the country in eight years, in part because Congress boosted border control resources in the mid-2000s.

But immigration advocates argued that the pending legislation in Congress lends new urgency to the matter. In a 41-page rulemaking petition to be filed Tuesday with the Department of Homeland Security, the National Day Laborer Organizing Network says that “it is sound policy and consistent with the President’s authority to make a categorical determination to prioritize resources away from the estimated 8 million” people who would qualify for legal status, and possibly citizenship, under a plan approved by the Senate last summer.

AFL-CIO President Richard L. Trumka said in an interview last week that the White House would actually improve its bargaining position with House Republicans if Obama unilaterally suspended deportations. Millions of undocumented immigrants would be allowed to join the public debate, Trumka said, putting more pressure on a party struggling to broaden its appeal with Latinos and Asian Americans. “If I were president, I would have said the following: ‘It’s a broken system. Except for violent criminals, no more deportations until you help me fix a broken system,’ ” Trumka said.

Legal analysts said the truth probably lies somewhere between the White House’s position and the advocates’ demands. Courts have ruled that the executive branch can employ “prosecutorial discretion” in deciding which cases to enforce in light of limited financial resources.

In 2011, John T. Morton, then the director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, wrote in a memo to his staff that the agency should make deporting violent criminals and those who could present national security risks a higher priority than minors, the elderly, people who are ill or pregnant, and those who have served in the U.S. military.

Critics say Morton’s guidelines have been haphazardly followed by agents who have sought to deport people arrested on unrelated matters through trumped-up charges.

Under mounting pressure during the 2012 election, Obama announced the deferred action program for hundreds of thousands of young people who were brought into the country illegally by their parents. Known as “Dreamers,” they are allowed to live and work in the country legally under a two-year waiver that can be renewed.

The administration points to a 10 percent drop in deportations, from 410,000 in 2012 to 369,000 last year, as evidence that it has successfully used discretion and focused on high-priority cases. More than 60 percent of those deported had been convicted of another crime, officials said.

Still, deferred action “is not a permanent solution,” said Peter Boogaard, a Department of Homeland Security spokesman. “Only Congress can comprehensively reform the immigration system.”

Republicans, and some ICE officers, have challenged the legality of the deferred action program, and a report by the Congressional Research Servicelast year found that the White House’s authority to defer deportations is limited.

Congress “would appear to have considerable latitude in establishing statutory guidelines for immigration officials to follow,” the report concluded, such as “prohibiting DHS from considering certain factors in setting enforcement priorities.”

But Hiroshi Motomura, a UCLA professor who has written extensively on prosecutorial discretion, said the Obama administration could, in effect, seek to formalize the Morton memos by creating a “sliding scale” of enforcement priorities.

“There’s not a clear answer how far they could go legally,” Motomura said. “But they’d hit the political limits before reaching their legal limits. No one thinks they can just suspend immigration laws. But we’re way, way short of that.”

David A. Martin, who served as principal deputy general counsel for the Department of Homeland Security in the first two years of the administration, said the amount of flexibility Obama has would probably not satisfy most advocates.

“One of the anti-deportation efforts is called, ‘Not one more,’ but it’s politically counterproductive; it’s not feasible,” said Martin, now a professor at the University of Virginia. “Not every deportation is unfeasible. Not every deportation breaks up a family.”

The “not one more” campaign was started by the National Day Laborer Organizing Network, whose tactics have included immigrants handcuffing themselves to the White House gates and blocking deportation buses in Arizona. Jessica Karp, an attorney for the group, said the rulemaking petition to the Homeland Security agency is meant to provide legal arguments to buttress the group’s demonstrations.

“The president’s stated policy since taking office is ‘enforcement on steroids’ in order to gain credibility and give him leverage on negotiations over immigration reform,” Karp said. “That strategy is a failure. It’s failed politically and caused untold suffering in the immigrant community. It’s time for a new strategy.”
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Debate over immigration reform continues in California and nationwide

By ALEJANDRO CANO, Fontana Herald News ~ Thursday, February 6, 2014

Members of the immigrant community living in the United States are pleased that some representatives of the Republican Party are becoming open to the idea of legalizing a segment of the undocumented population and even offering citizenship to some.

However, immigration activists are upset that a plan disclosed to the media last week by House members differs radically from the immigration proposal which was approved by the Senate last year.

Moderate Republicans have received criticism not only from Democrats (who generally are in favor of immigration reform) but also from conservative Republicans who oppose any type of assistance to undocumented residents.

While those differences are being debated, some Democratic leaders from California are asking President Barack Obama to halt deportations of “legalization-eligible” undocumented immigrants.

On Jan. 23, Sen. Ron Calderon introduced Senate Resolution 25, which calls on Obama to halt deportations of those people who may be eligible to receive legalization.

Two days later, seven more senators joined the “Protect Our Families” campaign, including senators Leland Yee, Lou Correa, Marty Block, Loni Hancock, Mark Leno, Carol Liu, and Hanna-Beth Jackson.

“Increased deportations and a broken immigration system exacerbate the living conditions of U.S. citizen children whose parents have been deported," said Calderon. “Separating children from their parents, regardless of immigration status, results in severe consequences for children who are left with no parental guidance or care in a highly unstable financial situation."

According to the Pew Hispanic Center, in 2011 there were 11.1 million unauthorized immigrants living in the country. California is home to 10.3 million immigrants, of whom about 2.6 million are undocumented, added the Center.

Under Obama, deportations have reached record levels, rising to an annual average of 400,000 since 2009 -- many of them people with no prior convictions.

California is considered the front runner when dealing with immigrant rights. Last year, Gov. Jerry Brown signed legislation that gives undocumented drivers the opportunity to obtain a valid driver’s license. Human rights activists said that move will prevent hundreds of thousands of people from losing money when trying to recover their impounded vehicles at DUI checkpoints.

During his State of the Union speech, Obama called on Congress to act to fix the broken immigration system.

However, Robin Hvidston, a member of the Claremont-based group We the People, California's Crusader, said the system is not broken and Congress should focus more on helping citizens rather than offering amnesty to “illegal aliens."

“The House GOP leaders and members of Congress should be focused on issues such as unemployment, homelessness and veterans," said Hvidston. "This is the wrong time to be focused on individuals in the United States illegally when millions of Americans are suffering, more than 20 million looking for a job and our veterans are in desperate need of programs and assistance, not to mention the burgeoning homeless Americans."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Behind Retreat on Immigration, a Complicated Political Interplay

By CARL HULSE, New York Times, February 6, 2014

WASHINGTON — Speaker John A. Boehner would sorely like to help engineer an overhaul of immigration policy to bolster his legacy, help his party politically and address a difficult social and economic problem. He just cannot seem to persuade other Republicans, who see the immigration debate as a major threat to their drive to win the Senate and increase their House majority in November.

The tension between Mr. Boehner’s desire to forge ahead on immigration and a Republican sense that staying focused on the new health care law is the path to victory in the midterm elections contributed to the speaker’s sharp retreat on Thursday from his new push for an immigration consensus.

Given that Mr. Boehner’s negative comments on the prospects for immigration came on the same day Senate Republicans again blocked an extension of emergency unemployment aid, Republicans risk being portrayed as a force of obstruction if the year becomes one long impasse. After Mr. Boehner’s comments, Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, the House Democratic leader, said that if Republicans did not intend to legislate, “why don’t we just pack up and go home?”

But Republicans knowledgeable about the issue said immigration was not yet completely off the table. Instead, they said, reaching any agreement has become appreciably harder because of a Republican reluctance to get caught up in an internal feud and stomp on their increasingly bright election prospects.

At the same time, Republicans say President Obama’s increasing reliance on executive authority to impose his agenda has stirred real resentment among the rank-and-file. It has also deepened their suspicion that Mr. Obama would not follow through on tough border enforcement and other aspects of immigration policy that Republicans favor — resulting in the lack of trust that Mr. Boehner cited in his remarks.

“He is running around the country telling everyone he’s going to keep acting on his own,” Mr. Boehner told reporters, accusing the president of “feeding more distrust about whether he is committed to the rule of law.”

Much more is at work than the question of trust between congressional Republicans and the White House in what is becoming a complicated interplay of issues and politics.

Republicans, through Mr. Boehner’s remarks and other channels, are letting the White House know that one way it can begin to win back the confidence of House Republicans is to work with them on issues such as expanded trade authority despite House and Senate Democratic resistance to new trade deals.

Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York, the No. 3 Senate Democrat who has been in quiet talks with top Republicans on immigration, suggested the speaker was also giving himself room to push through an increase in the federal debt limit in coming days.

“He is sending messages; there are so many things going on,” Mr. Schumer said. “I believe that there is a good portion of the Republican leadership that wants to do a bill. I believe they know it’s difficult. I believe they know it’s not a straight line process.”

At the White House, officials expressed some disappointment at the speaker’s comments but also said they did not think reaching a deal on immigration was completely out of the question this year.

Other Democrats saw the blocking of unemployment aid and the backing off on immigration as part of a familiar pattern: deep Republican refusal to embrace policies that have broad support even among some Republican allies. To them, Mr. Boehner’s remarks were a calculated effort to extricate himself from the immigration debate while turning the blame on the president.

It was Mr. Boehner of Ohio and his fellow House leaders who breathed life back into the subject last week by embracing an overhaul that opened the door to millions of illegal immigrants’ gaining legal status, if not citizenship.

But hard-line conservatives remained dug in against any change that could be seen as amnesty. And some Republicans who have been open to a new approach to immigration said the timing seemed wrong, given the political advantage the party seems to be enjoying on the health care issue.

If they have Democrats on the run, the argument went, it makes no sense to plunge into a contentious debate that would expose bitter party divisions, potentially spur resentment from Hispanics, lead to primaries for some Republican incumbents and sap voter enthusiasm in the fall, leaving Republicans short in their drive for Senate control.

Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the man who would like to be the leader of a new Senate Republican majority, said Tuesday that he saw little chance for legislation this year, further dampening its outlook.

But Mr. Boehner and other Republicans still see an opening — though a narrowing one — to get a deal that could pay political benefits for the party and possibly give them leverage with the White House on trade and economic issues.

Other Republicans believe it would be smarter to wait until after the midterms and pursue immigration in 2015 leading up to the presidential election, when Republicans will be more motivated to increase their appeal to Hispanic voters. If the midterm goes their way, they will be strengthened in Congress.

But there are no guarantees that making major immigration law changes will get easier. If the effort dies this year, some Republicans may find themselves in 2015 agonizing that they missed a chance to get a difficult subject behind them.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Immigration Impasse Could Rekindle Fight Over Deportations

House's Retreat on Legislation Puts Obama Administration in a Tight Spot…

By Laura Meckler laura.meckler@wsj.com,
The Wall Street Journal ~ Feb. 7, 2014
The House's retreat on immigration may produce an unintended ripple in the form of increased pressure on President Barack Obama to unilaterally stem his record-setting rate of deportations.

The matter has long been a source of tension between the Obama administration and many immigrant-rights groups. These groups, who are central to the liberal side of the immigration debate, are furious at the administration for deporting people who could legally stay in the U.S. under legislation that the president supports.

"The president can show the Republicans he is not waiting to bring the country in line with our national values," said B. Loewe of the National Day Laborer Organizing Network, among the most active groups pushing the White House. He said that while Mr. Obama has pressed for legislation, advocates wonder: "Is he a reformer or is he the deporter-in-chief."

His group filed a petition this past week formally requesting regulatory changes to halt deportations. The National Immigration Law Center also filed a memo to the administration suggesting a menu of legal options to ratchet down deportations.

The pressure puts the White House in a bind. If Mr. Obama chose to shift his position on deportations, he would anger the same Republicans he needs to make any final deal to revamp the immigration system. House Speaker John Boehner on Thursday cited a lack of faith among Republicans that the president would enforce any law they passed as one reason passing immigration legislation this year would be difficult.

Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R., Fla.), who has surveyed most of his colleagues in trying to find consensus for an immigration bill, said unilateral action by the president on deportations "absolutely" would make a hard road even harder, regardless of the merits.

"This administration is seen as selectively enforcing the law," he said in an interview Friday. "It's a major part of the problem we have with passing immigration reform."

The White House responds by pointing to its aggressive work to secure the border. Since Mr. Obama took office, the Department of Homeland Security has tallied record annual deportations almost every year, with nearly 369,000 people removed last year. The administration emphasizes that it prioritizes apprehensions at the border and people with criminal records.

The issue will gain fresh attention this spring, when the Obama administration is expected to deport its two millionth person from the U.S., based on previously reported deportation rates. To mark the milestone, advocates plan a "national day of action" for April 5 with rallies in dozens of cities around the theme of "two million too many." And on Presidents Day this month, faith leaders plan a civil disobedience event at the White House to protest deportations.

Immigration advocates are divided on this approach, and those based in Washington in particular have kept a focus on Congress. "Inevitably more and more advocates will be calling on the president to step in to roll back" deportations, said Frank Sharry, who heads America's Voice, a group pressing for an immigration overhaul. He said this pressure is "a bit premature" and that advocates should continue to press Republicans on Capitol Hill.

The White House says Mr. Obama doesn't have the power to halt deportations on his own and that legislation is the only way to provide permanent relief to some 11.5 million people living in the U.S. illegally.

In November, Mr. Obama, responding to a heckler at an event in San Francisco, said, "If, in fact, I could solve all these problems without passing laws in Congress, then I would do so."

He gave a less definitive response a week ago when asked about deportations, saying that if it became clear an immigration bill wouldn't pass Congress this year, "I'm going to look at all options to make sure that we have a rational, smart system of immigration."

Advocates note that in 2012, the Obama administration suspended deportations of many young people who were brought to the U.S. as children. Before doing that, administration officials said they didn't have authority to do so.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hermandad Mexicana Humanitarian Foundation

Apartheidesque Republican Immigration Principles - Dead On Arrival
By: Nativo-Vigil :Lopez© ALL RIGHTS RESERVED - 1/31/14

What did you expect from the Republican Party on immigration matters? This is not Ronald Reagan's party any more. Twenty-seven years ago he signed into law the Immigration Reform Control Act of 1986, which ultimately legalized 3 million undocumented persons with permanent resident status. Five years hence these same newly legalized immigrants qualified for U.S. citizenship. Not this Republican Party, not now, and probably not ever.

The long-awaited "Republican Immigration Principles 2014" regurgitate legislative proposals and rhetoric authored and heard from Republican federal legislators all year long. There is nothing new here. However, a closer look reveals that these are broad stroke proposals that actually mirror many of the current immigration policies and practices of the Obama administration.

The first principle - Border Security and Interior Enforcement. This has been Obama's mainstay. He has increased 8,000 additional border guards along the U.S. - Mexico border, used the National Guard, incorporated military technology perfected in Iraq and Afghanistan, including drones, and built 700 miles of border wall. The expansive and mandatory use of Secure Communities Program really became a reality under this administration. The creeping intermeshing of federal and local police authority and database exchange has never been so invasive and thorough. No other president in the history of the United States has deported more migrants than the first black president - 2 million and counting. At this rate, more than three million migrants, the majority of Mexican origin, will have been removed by the end of Obama's second term. The annual budget of the Department of Homeland Security for immigration purposes has never been more robust.

The second principle - Implement Entry-Exit Visa Tracking System. On this score Obama has not been overly ambitious. It is estimated that 40 percent of the current undocumented population actually entered the U.S. lawfully with a visitor, tourist, business, or student visa, but overstayed. This has historically been the case notwithstanding the persistent border enforcement emphasis. However, the Republicans will find no argument with the president in this regard.

The third principle - Employment Verification and Workplace Enforcement. President Obama has expanded workplace enforcement more than his previous three predecessors. He has aggressively expanded the use of the E-verify program - employment verification - with both private and public employers nationally. This has come to be recognized as electronic deportation through employment termination effectively undermining migrant workers' ability to thrive economically, and thus force what Mitt Romney called self-deportation.

The fourth principle - Reforms to the Legal Immigration System. This proposal portends probably the greatest shift away from family reunification emphasis in our legal immigration system since the 1965 overhaul under President Lyndon Johnson (enacted in 1968), which moved the country from the racially oriented national origin formula in effect since the 1920s. The new proposed emphasis would be employment-based immigration, and preferably high skilled, over family relationships. The second tier of this preference would be for low-skilled temporary workers to meet the ever urgent needs of the agricultural industry, but others as well. This is nothing more than a renewed call for plenty of guest-workers - the 21st Century bracero program. Again, this is consistent with proposals advocated by President Obama, and even shamefully acquiescence to by the AFL-CIO, SEIU, and the UFW, among other trade unions.

The fifth principle - Youth. Everyone loves a Dreamer. The Republicans propose a path to legal resident status, and ultimately U.S. citizenship, for young eligible undocumented, who "through no fault of their own" were brought to the U.S. by their parents, and would be required to serve "honorably" in the military or attain a college degree. President Obama actually facilitated this proposed measure by his executive order of the Deferred Action for Children Arrivals, popularly known as DACA, in 2012 just prior to the presidential elections.

The sixth principle - Individuals Living Outside the Rule of Law. This is probably considered the most contentious proposal due to its requirement that the undocumented applicants for a probationary legal status declare an admission of guilt of having committed the civil/criminal offense of unauthorized entry into the U.S. Additional requirements are the same as those presently imposed to obtain permanent legal residency and U.S. citizenship. In other words, an extremely high standard would be required for a tenuous legal status with no guarantee of obtaining permanent status or citizenship. These would include - "pass a rigorous background check, pay significant fines and back taxes, develop proficiency in English and American civics, and be able to support themselves and their families (without any access to public benefits)." This is an extremely high bar to jump, and the unmistakable risk to applicants making such an admission of guilt is that they would waive all constitutional protections against self-incrimination, and if not qualified for the legal status they could be removed from the U.S. and precluded from ever returning or gaining lawful status in the future. President Obama has balked at this formula, which does not guarantee a "path to citizenship" to his credit. However, he may be so desperate for a deal that he ends up conceding to this Apartheidesque second-class status for migrants - a work permit with no rights or access to benefits.

However, the Republican proposition also declares, "none of this can happen before specific enforcement triggers have been implemented to fulfill our promise to the American people that from here on, our immigration laws will indeed be enforced." This truly places the Republican principles in the category of Dead-On-Arrival, beyond the pale, non-negotiable, and totally unacceptable.

Obama has demonstrated his willingness to go down this slippery slope with his enforcement on steroids policies and practices supposedly to prove to Republicans that he is serious about protecting America's borders. The question that Latino families have for this president is - what did two million deportations, hundreds of thousands of employment terminations, prolonged incarcerations in private ICE detention centers, tens of thousands of minors of deported parents placed in foster-care, and unprecedented numbers of U.S.-born children deported with their undocumented parents - get you in the way of fair and humane immigration reform? Answer us that, Obama.

1/31/14 - Reprint with author's permission

nativolopez@gmail.com

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hermandad Mexicana Humanitarian Foundation

January 13, 2014

"The Hermandad Mexicana Humanitarian Foundation launches Radio Hermandad in effort to give voice to the voiceless, the millions of migrant workers, families, and youth who have been shut out of the traditional mainstream and even liberal alternative media outlets in the U.S.," according to Sergio Trujillo, director of Hermandad Mexicana.

Radio Hermandad will be an online radio program produced by Sergio Muñoz Jr. and hosted by Nativo Lopez. While the former has a cultural/artistic and journalistic background, the latter is recognized for his more than 40 years of political involvement in multiple social movements for change in the Mexican and Latino communities. Both share a common desire for the social uplift of their community.

Lopez intends on having program guests representative of different periods, activism, and careers known to him personally from the 1960s and 1970s (student activism of the Chicano Movement); activist attorneys of the 1970s and 1980s; the immigrant rights movement from the 1970s to the present; Latinos in the labor movement from the 1980s to the present; Latinos in academia from the 1970s to the present, the founding of Chicano/a Studies; Latinos and the cultural movement of the 1970s to the present; electoral politics and Latino elected officials from the 1990s to the present; and these will address the relevant issues of the day as well as from their era of active participation in movements for social change.

The first show will host Los Angeles Councilman Gil Cedillo, formerly California State Senator and Assemblyman from Los Angeles, and author of the driver's license legislation and the California Dream Act, amongst 100 legislative bills authored by the guest during his 14 year tenure in the California legislature.

An important focus of the interview will cover the recent city council resolution successfully introduced by Cedillo calling on President Barack Obama to stop deportations and grant protected legal status to all eligible undocumented in the country.

Radio Hermandad will launch its first show on January 10, 2014, which will be podcast on iTunes and posted on numerous other social network sites and aired on other radio outlets to be announced.

http://radiohermandad.blogspot.com/2013/12/the-show-on-011014.html

@RadioHermandad on Twitter

Play on iTunes: http://bit.ly/JQ7diw

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ICE Stops Arresting Immigrants at Kern County Courthouses

By Reyna Olaguez for South Kern Sol ~ January 25, 2014

http://www.southkernsol.org/2014/01/25/ice-stops-arresting-immigrants-at-kern-county-courthouses/

BAKERSFIELD, Calif. – Immigration Customs Enforcement (ICE) will no longer arrest immigrants at Kern County Courthouses, announced a top ICE official on January 10. The moves comes after the American Civil Liberties Union complained that immigration officials were arresting undocumented immigrants while they were using courthouse services, like paying traffic tickets.

ICE officials will now only arrest undocumented immigrants at the courthouse in “exigent” circumstances, according to Thomas Homan,Executive Associate Director of ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations.

The decision puts an end to deportations that are put into motion after an immigrant appears at the courthouse to pay fines, attend a court hearings, or get married.

“These arrests have impeded residents from complying with the law and accessing essential court services, and deterred them from doing so in the future,” wrote ACLU attorney Michael Kauffman, in a letter written to ICE on Oct. 17.

Obeying the law is important to Gema Perez, 48, a mother of a Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) recipient, who said it saddened her that people could be arrested for “just trying to be in good terms with the law.”

Sergio Villatoro, one of the detained immigrants cited by Kauffman in the letter to ICE, was at the courthouse waiting to pay a traffic ticket for driving without a license when ICE agents entered the building, blocked the exits told the five other Latino individuals who were there that they were being arrested for being the country illegally.

In October, South Kern Sol reported the case of a young woman who was deported after trying to pay a ticket for a ‘broken’ taillight.

Kern County resident Jesus Perez was also deported after appearing at the courthouse, leaving behind his 22-year-old daughter, Blanca Perez. Perez said she was happy about ICE’s decision to halt arrests at the courthouse.

“I think it’s great news, it allows people to come out of the shadows and it will allow people to exercise their rights. Now people can speak up,” says Perez.

One South Kern resident said he considers the ICE announcement a victory.

“It is a great triumph for the immigrant community of Kern County who has been experiencing harassment and wrongful arrests of innocent people by ICE,” says Daniel Jimenez, 22.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
House Republicans to Offer Broad Immigration Plan

By ASHLEY PARKER and JONATHAN WEISMAN, New York Times ~January 25, 2014

WASHINGTON — House Republicans are preparing to unveil their own broad template for overhauling the nation’s immigration system this week, potentially offering a small opening for President Obama and congressional Democrats to pass bipartisan legislation before the end of the year.

Speaker John A. Boehner of Ohio and other Republican leaders are expected to release a one-page statement of immigration principles this week at their annual retreat in Cambridge, Md., according to aides with knowledge of the plan. The document is expected to call for border security and enforcement measures, as well as providing a path to legal status — but not citizenship — for many of the 11 million undocumented immigrants in the country, the aides said.

The Republican effort comes as Mr. Obama is expected to push once again for an overhaul of the immigration system in his State of the Union addressTuesday, and as lawmakers from both parties describe immigration as one of the few potential areas for bipartisan compromise before the end of the current Congress.

“The principles they lay out I’m sure won’t satisfy everybody,” Michael R. Bloomberg, former mayor of New York City, said at an immigration forum on Friday. But, he added, “if we can make some compromises here for the good of the country, I think we have a very good chance for the first time in a long time of changing something that is really damaging all of us.”

The Senate, led by Democrats, passed a broad bipartisan measure in June to overhaul immigration that included a 13-year path to citizenship. But the legislation stalled in the Republican-controlled House, where some of the party’s more conservative members oppose any form of legal status as “amnesty.”

But heading into the three-day Republican retreat, even some of the most ardent conservatives say consensus is forming around an immigration package that would include several separate bills on border security; a clampdown against the hiring of undocumented workers; expanded guest-worker programs; a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants brought to the country as children; and a path to legal status for undocumented workers with family ties to citizens or employer sponsors.

The White House has said it wants a path to citizenship for both children and adults in any new immigration legislation.

“The president’s pathway to citizenship is a stumbling block,” said Representative Andy Harris, a conservative Republican who represents the Maryland district that will host the retreat. “But legalization with no path to citizenship can gain some votes.”

Representative Peter T. King, a Republican of New York and a longtime critic of proposals to change the immigration system, said it was significant that both the third-ranking Republican in the House, Representative Kevin McCarthy of California, and the Judiciary Committee chairman, Representative Robert W. Goodlatte of Virginia, had voiced support in recent days for legal status for some immigrants living in the country illegally — and have taken very little heat for their remarks on either side of the aisle.

But the divisions that have slowed progress in the House have not been entirely mended. Representative Raúl R. Labrador, a Republican of Idaho and once a leading immigration negotiator in the House, said it would be a mistake to push forward.

“The president has shown he’s not willing to work with us on immigration,” Mr. Labrador said. “It’s not worth having a party divided when we have so many issues we can come together on.”

On Thursday, aides to House conservatives who oppose the leadership’s plan gathered in the office of Senator Jeff Sessions, Republican of Alabama and a fierce opponent of the immigration push, to plot a strategy to torpedo it.

Critics worry that House Republican leaders and Senate Democrats are essentially negotiating a final deal, bypassing formal House-Senate negotiations, where conservatives had hoped to derail the process. Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York, one of the Democratic architects of the Senate bill, said: “One thing is certain, just as with the budget, at some point both the House and the Senate will have to sit down and resolve all the contentious issues.”

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Protect Our Families Campaign

‘Pare las deportaciones’, piden a Obama funcionarios electos de California

Convocatoria a conferencia de prensa, Viernes 24 de enero a la 1:00 pm

Contactos de prensa:

Angela Sanbrano (323) 371 73 05- Red Mx

Armando Vázquez-Ramos (562) 430 55 41- Centro de Estudios California-México

Bertha Rodríguez (213) 908 98 35 Frente Indígena de Organizaciones Binacionales

A unos días de que el presidente Barack Obama rinda su informe a la nación, oficiales electos de California se suman al llamado de organizaciones pro inmigrantes para que el presidente detenga las deportaciones y extienda un estatus de protección a las familias indocumentadas.

El senador Ron Calderón es el legislador que recientemente anunció su respaldo a la causa migrante, sumándose al concejal de Los Angeles, Gil Cedillo y David Chiu, presidente de la Junta de Supervisores de San Francisco, quienes han presentado resoluciones ante sus concilios respectivos, para pedir al presidente Obama una solución a la crisis humanitaria causada por la separación de las familias a causa las deportaciones.

La resolución de San Francisco, que será sometida a votación el 28 de enero, incluye una moratoria al e-verify.

Ambos funcionarios electos harán declaraciones a los medios de comunicación este viernes 24 de enero durante una conferencia de prensa programada a las 13:00 horas en en la galería del Instituto Cultural Mexicano, localizado en la Placita Olvera (125 Paseo de la Plaza, Los Angeles, California 90013).

Se espera que el Senador Estatal de California Ron Calderón presente próximamente una resolución ante el Caucus Latino y después al pleno del congreso estatal para pedir al primer mandatario que ante la falta de acuerdo legislativo a nivel federal, él con su poder ejecutivo declare un alto a las deportaciones y extienda la acción diferida a millones de personas sin documentos.

Integrantes de la Campaña Protección a Nuestras Familias, declararon el 24 de enero como el Día Nacional de Acción para proteger a las familias frente a las deportaciones, haciendo pública una carta abierta al presidente Obama en respaldo a la iniciativa de los representantes federales Raúl Grijalva e Yvette Clark quienes el 5 de diciembre publicaron una misiva hacia el presidente pero que hasta el momento no ha recibido repuesta.

Se espera que más ciudades, se sumen al movimiento que busca un alivio a la situación migratoria que afecta a más de 12 millones de personas indocumentadas en Estados Unidos.

La carta abierta a Obama argumenta que cientos de miles de niños nacidos en Estados Unidos han sido deportados junto con sus padres indocumentados y que decenas de miles de menores han quedado bajo custodia de los departamentos locales de servicios sociales y dejados en centros de adopción, a expensas de altos costos para los contribuyentes.

“Señor presidente, el 28 de enero del 2014, otorgue estatus legal protegido a todos los inmigrantes elegibles para la legalización, comience con su proceso de legalización como lo ha hecho con los “dreamers” y con ello ponga fin a las deportaciones”, le piden los miembros de la campaña.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Legisladores de CA adoptarán resolución que exige a Obama protección para indocumentados--

Por Bertha Rodríguez (*), Los Angeles, California ~ 25 de Enero 2014

En las próximas semanas, la legislatura de California discutirá la aprobación de la resolución SCR 25 que pide al presidente Barack Obama suspender las deportaciones y otorgar protección legal a las familias migrantes que actualmente se encuentran en el país sin documentos, anunció el senador Ron Calderón en Los Angeles en una conferencia de prensa realizada el viernes.

Calderón fue respaldado por los concejales Gil Cedillo de Los Angeles y Mike Gipson, de Carson, así como líderes religiosos de diferentes iglesias y representantes de una coalición de organizaciones pro inmigrantes que llevan a cabo la campaña Protección a Nuestras Familias.

El 23 de enero, el senador demócrata por Montebello, presentó la resolución SCR 25 ante la cámara de senadores con lo que dicha iniciativa seguirá un proceso de audiencias y aprobación en el congreso estatal.

Calderón explicó que por tratarse de un tema que requiere una acción de emergencia podría ser considerada en las próximas semanas en ambas cámaras.

“El presidente tiene la autoridad legal, él tiene la obligación moral de prevenir que los ciudadanos del mañana sufran debido a la inacción política y tenemos que hacer algo al respecto hoy mismo”, señaló Calderón.

Dijo que bajo la administración del presidente Obama se han deportado a más de 400 mil familias cada año, es decir, más de mil personas son separadas de sus familias todos los días. “Esto tiene que terminar, ocupamos una reforma migratoria humanitaria que proteja y mantenga a las familias unidas, es vital que el estado de California tome una posición formal que proteja a los niños y familias de nuestro estado”.

Alrededor de 10.3 millones de inmigrantes radican en California, de los cuales unos 2.6 millones carecen de documentos legales.

Calderón señaló que el aumento en las deportaciones y la existencia de un sistema de migración que no funciona, exacerba las condiciones de vida de menores estadunidenses cuyos padres han sido deportados.

“Separar a los niños de sus padres sin tomar en cuenta que son ciudadanos siempre resulta en consecuencias severas para los niños quienes son dejados sin guía y protección de sus padres, y en situaciones financieras altamente inestables”, dijo.

“Mi resolución exhortará al presidente Obama a cesar las deportaciones y la legalización de migrantes que califiquen, y expande un estatus de protección a todos, (que sería como) la expansión del DACA u otro remedio administrativo”.

Expresaron su apoyo a los migrantes, el sacerdote católico Richard Estrada, el rabino Jonathan Klein, el pastor de la iglesia metodista unida de Echo Park, David Farley, la pastora Nancy Frausto de la iglesia episcopal Saint Mary y el reverendo Francisco García del ministerio de Paz y Justicia de la Iglesia de Todos los Santos de Pasadena.

Los líderes religiosos, al igual que los funcionarios electos, respondieron al llamado de la campaña Protección a Nuestras Familias, encabezada por Armando Vazquez-Ramos, Nativo Lopez, Angela Sanbrano, Gonzalo Santos, el padre Richard Estrada y otros integrantes de organizaciones por los derechos de los migrantes.

La directora ejecutiva de la Red Mexicana de Líderes y Organizaciones Migrantes (Red-Mx), Angela Sanbrano indicó que la crisis humanitaria desatada por las deportaciones afecta a “padres, madres, hermanos, hermanas, niños, niñas y abuelos que están siendo separadas del seno familiar, la estructura más sagrada de nuestra sociedad”.

Los organizadores de la campaña esperan que en estos días las ciudades de Sacramento, San Francisco y Chicago pasen resoluciones similares a la aprobada en Los Angeles el 18 de diciembre pasado, con la resolución presentada por los concejales Gil Cedillo y Curren Price.

El concejal Gil Cedillo dijo que el estado de California es uno de los estados modelo en donde se han aprobado varias leyes a favor de protección al medio ambiente, a las familias migrantes “y todas las acciones han sido emuladas en toda la nación y el mundo”.

Comentó que como lo ha demostrado el gobernador Jerry Brown, al aprobar leyes que reconocen los derechos de los migrantes, éstos deberían trabajar aquí legalmente.

Agregó: “Hemos hecho casi todo lo que podemos en California para mejorar la calidad de vida, la dignidad que los migrantes merecen y ahora ese el momento de que el presidente actúe”.

Mike Gipson, concejal de Carson dijo que el concejo de su ciudad va a aprobar próximamente una resolución en apoyo a los migrantes.

“Tenemos que hablar como una sola voz para que nuestro presidente entienda que esto nos afecta a todos, y que ya no se puede dividir a las familias. Vivimos en el país más grandioso del planeta que es Estados Unidos y si no hablamos con la verdad al poder, ¿Quién lo va a ser? Cuenten conmigo”, expresó.

El concejal, quien es parte de la organización Young Elected Officials, propondrá a los 800 legisladores de todo el país que son miembros del grupo, que aprueben resoluciones similares. La organización se caracteriza por estar formada por políticos jóvenes de hasta 18 años de edad.

Gonzalo Santos, de la Coalición de Kern por una Ciudadanía dijo que su organización y otras del área lograron presionar para que agentes del ICE dejaran de detener a las personas que acudían a la corte de Bakersfield a realizar trámites como el pago de multas por violaciones de tráfico y casamientos, entre otros.

Como madre de familia afectada por las deportaciones, Rosa María Carmolinga habló del dolor que la política migratoria ha causado a los suyos.

Su esposo es ciudadano y ella residente pero su hijo, quien fue traído a Estados Unidos desde los siete años carecía de documentos legales.

El joven (padre de cuatro menores estadounidenses) se encuentra en el centro de detención de Adelanto por haber intentado reingresar al país, después de ser deportado luego de revelar su estado migratorio al recibir una infracción de tránsito por no llevar puesto el cinturón de seguridad.

“Por favor, señor Obama, antes que ser presidente, usted es un ser humano, mi hijo ha sido afectado (… ) Por favor entienda, un gran presidente tiene que ver por su ciudadanos. A todos sus colaboradores, por favor, a todos los que tengan la oportunidad de detener esta injusticia, si fuera en otra parte del mundo, el presidente Obama hasta enviaría a su ejército a detener esto que nos está pasando, a sus estadunidenses, a sus propios ciudadanos. Si fue a Irak, por favor actúe aquí en Estados Unidos: yo quiero a mi hijo libre este día si es que me escucha y si no, mis congéneres se lo harán saber”.

(*) Coordinadora de prensa de la campaña Protección a Nuestras Familias

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nativo Lopez hosts new Latino podcast

By ROXANA KOPETMAN / ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER Jan. 21, 2014 ~ Jan. 22, 2014

Southern California Latino leader Nativo Lopez, who had removed himself from the public eye after decades of activism, is back with a new radio podcast aimed at migrant workers, families and youth.

Lopez hosts Radio Hermandad, or Radio Brotherhood, an online English-language radio program available as free podcasts on iTunes.

The weekly show launched on Jan. 10 by Hermandad Mexicana Humanitarian Foundation says it aims to “give a voice to the voiceless,” provide information on immigration reform and other current events while adding historical perspective, with guests representing different periods of the immigrant rights movement.

“As it evolves, the idea is to provide different types of programming, with alternative music, commentary, news and interviews from social movements in Mexico,” Lopez said. “We don’t want to limit it to one type of format or one type of program.”

Though Lopez is active with the new program, he said his involvement in Radio Hermandad is not a return to public life.

“I don’t project or pretend to be a political figure in any organization although I consult with many,” said Lopez, 63, who declined to say where he now resides.

“I’m a private citizen expressing my views,’’ he said, adding he hopes to facilitate others expressing their views through the podcasts.

Lopez was active in immigrant rights issues for more than four decades until he announced in 2012 that he was retiring from public life and resigning from all boards and organizations he was involved with, including his leadership posts at Hermandad Mexicana Latinoamericana, formerly known as Hermandad Mexicana Nacional, as well as the Mexican American Political Association.

Hermandad’s mission is to defend the rights of immigrant workers and families. At the time, he expressed frustration in trying to change “the system” and said he planned “to work from the private side.”

While lauded by many for his advocacy work, Lopez also has been embroiled in several controversies, including issues that led to his recall in 2003 as trustee of the Santa Ana School Board. (A federal appeals court later ruled that the recall was improper because petitions were not translated into Spanish.)

Most recently, he pleaded guilty in 2011 to a felony county of voter-registration fraud related to charges that he lived in Santa Ana when he registered to vote in Los Angeles in 2008. Other controversies included whether Hermandad improperly registered immigrants who were not citizens as voters during a close race in 1996 between Democrat Loretta Sanchez and then incumbent Bob Dornan. No charges were filed in that case.

Last October, Lopez’s long-time work was singled out during a bill-signing press conference with Gov. Jerry Brown, when Los Angeles Councilman Gil Cedillo publicly thanked Lopez for his work on a new law that will allow undocumented immigrants to apply for driver’s licenses.

Cedillo, a former California senator and assemblyman, was the first guest on Radio Hermandad. The second show included Cecilia Muñoz, President Obama’s domestic policy advisor.

The program is produced and co-hosted by Santa Ana resident Sergio C. Muñoz.

Eventually, the show could include programming in native Indian languages of Mexico and be available 24/7 and through other mediums, like iCloud, Lopez said.

“This is my opportunity to have fun in life without all the intense political stuff going on,” he said. “I’m too young to collect Social Security and I don’t fish.”

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

White House dials it down on immigration

By: Reid J. Epstein, POLITICO ~ January 21, 2014

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/01/immigration-white-house-2014-102451.html

The White House is trying to dial down the partisan rhetoric on immigration — and it’s asking its allies to do the same.

In meetings with immigration reform advocates, White House officials have said President Barack Obama won’t threaten to take unilateral executive action — at least not yet — and that he wants to give House Republicans some breathing room to try to pass legislation this year, said immigration advocates who have participated in the sessions.

While Obama is blaming Republicans for blocking the rest of his domestic agenda, and congressional Democrats see immigration as a winning 2014 issue for them if Republicans are seen as the boogeymen responsible for blocking reform efforts, activists in touch with the White House said Obama won’t use his bully pulpit to embarrass or chasten the GOP on immigration. That includes Obama’s State of the Union address next Tuesday.

“You’re not going to see the president talking critically or negatively about Republicans on an issue like this when he wants to see this happen,” said Jim Wallis, president of the Christian social-justice organization Sojourners. “They’re not looking for conflict here, they are looking for cooperation and collaboration.”

The president has softened his language of late. He went from demanding the House pass the Senate’s comprehensive bill to saying at a pre-Christmas news conference that it was “a concept that has bipartisan support. Let’s see if we can break through the politics on this.” Before a Cabinet meeting last week, Obama issued a vanilla reminder that “we know that we need to get immigration reform done — a major piece of unfinished business from last year.” Obama also discussed immigration reform during his Wednesday night session with Senate Democrats, according to the White House.

“I’m not getting the sense that they are going to spend half the speech on this,” Ali Noorani, the executive director of the National Immigration Forum, said of the White House. “What we’re looking for in the State of the Union is quality and not quantity.”

A White House official declined to discuss the details of the State of the Union address but said Obama will give House Republicans time and space to reach an immigration solution. “We’re focused more on the result and less about the process,” the official said. “If they have to jump through a series of hoops, we’re happy to let the House work its will.”

House Republicans have pledged to issue long-awaited principles on immigration in the coming weeks that would lay out their alternative to the comprehensive reform bill the Senate passed in June. A key sticking point between the forthcoming House GOP principles and the White House and immigration reformers will be placing undocumented immigrants on a path to legal status, rather than citizenship, according to people briefed on the discussions.

Meanwhile, unlike other issues in which Obama is threatening to use executive actions, White House officials are telling immigration activists what the president has been saying publicly for months: Sit tight and stick with us, because there will be no executive action to stop the record number of deportations that has enraged Obama’s more liberal critics.

“We’ve said the same thing privately that we’ve said publicly,” White House spokesman Bobby Whithorne said. “The administration will continue to enforce the law and pursue meaningful legislative reform. The only way to effectively address these concerns to reform the system is for Congress to pass common-sense immigration reform.”

Republicans remain skeptical of the White House approach.

“Playing nice has not been a hallmark of this administration,” said Brendan Buck, a spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio). “But if we’re going to solve our immigration challenges, the White House and its allies will have to understand that the House is going to take its time and get this done the right way.”

The immigration reformers that deal directly with the White House remain hopeful the president will take unilateral action if it becomes clear there will be no congressional solution.

“As far as I’m concerned, we have the next five months to get something done, and if nothing gets done, it will be an issue that needs to be addressed by the president,” said Eliseo Medina, the longtime union activist who organized the Fast for Families tents outside the Capitol late last year.

At last week’s Cabinet meeting, Obama kicked his all-by-myself theme into high gear, saying 2014 would be a year of executive actions and orders to advance his agenda wherever he can.

“We are not just going to be waiting for a legislation in order to make sure that we’re providing Americans the kind of help that they need,” Obama said. “I’ve got a pen and I’ve got a phone — and I can use that pen to sign executive orders and take executive actions and administrative actions that move the ball forward.”

The White House and allies maintain Obama’s unilateral action on economic matters doesn’t preclude him from seeking cooperation on immigration. The stance on slowing deportations is roughly the same as it was before Obama announced deferred action for DREAMers in 2012 — outside his legal authority. Politically, doing so would torpedo any chance to get cooperation from congressional Republicans who, after witnessing a host of administrative changes to Obamacare, fear the president would try to alter whatever immigration law passes.

“They seem interested in signaling that if Congress doesn’t act, the president will,” Frank Sharry, the executive director of America’s Voice, said of the White House. “On immigration, that’s much more complicated, and they’ve been straining to say, ‘We’re not going to do anything, we don’t have the authority to do anything more.’ If he signals the willingness to do executive authority, it might turn them off.”

Just because immigration-minded groups are not hammering Republicans now does not mean they are disarming. The National Council of La Raza on Thursday is launching an effort to register 250,000 Latino voters in states “where there is potential to advance the national dialogue on issues important to Latinos, such as immigration reform,” the group said Monday.

Obama’s GOP allies on immigration reform are gearing up for their own campaign to back House action. Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who was once a Republican, is hosting an immigration forum Friday in Washington with Michigan’s GOP Gov. Rick Snyder, former Bush administration Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez and Chamber of Commerce Senior Vice President Randy Johnson.

Obama, said Jeremy Robbins, the director of Bloomberg’s Partnership for a New American Economy, is working hard to foster cooperative working relationships on immigration, even if White House officials aren’t directly involved in the intra-GOP talks.

“There’s a lot of mistrust, and he has to be careful that he doesn’t set the process back; they’ve been really cognizant of that,” Robbins said.

Obama can offer Republicans an olive branch on immigration without offering any new agenda, Sharry said, by reiterating his willingness to endorse the piecemeal agenda House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) seeks.

“It’s a sign of flexibility without giving away anything,” Sharry said.

Explicitly backing a House piecemeal approach would allow Obama to advance the cause of reform without discussing executive actions to slow deportations demanded by his progressive base.

Obama faced down an anti-deportation heckler at a San Francisco event in November, and last month, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) — Obama’s strongest House ally — said during a Univision interview she doesn’t “see any reason for these deportations.”

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear colegas, students & friends,

Please share with all your contacts the letter to President Obama that we have sent on behalf of the Protect our Families Campaign.

Please use this information to request any elected official that you know may be interested in proposing a resolution in a city council, county or school board, based on the Cedillo Resolution and/or the S.F. Board of Supervisors Resolution.

As a cover letter template, you may use our letter to Senator Ricardo Lara requesting the California Latino Legislative Caucus to also adopt a resolution.
A media advisory and press release will follow with more details.

Please let us know what city, county or school board you may be able to solicit for a resolution in support of the Grijalva/Clarke letter and the Protect our Families letter to President Obama.Saludos and best wishes to all in 2014 !

El profe Armando

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How the Obama Administration Can Use Executive Authority to Stop Deportations

Whether or not Congress enacts immigration reform in 2014, the status quo is unacceptable. More than 1,000 immigrants are separated from their families and communities each day. The Obama administration has both the legal authority and the moral responsibility to prevent tomorrow’s citizens from suffering the consequences of political inaction.

“Administrative relief,” which is based on prosecutorial discretion, is a broad term that encompasses various forms of temporary relief from removal from the United States without the granting of a legal immigration status. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS’s) prosecutorial discretion powers include the ability to refrain from placing a potentially deportable person in deportation proceedings, suspend or even terminate a deportation proceeding, postpone a deportation, release a person from detention, or deprioritize the enforcement of immigration laws against a person because it does not serve enforcement interests.

Some forms of prosecutorial discretion include a grant of work authorization—a critical need for many members of immigrant communities. Eligibility for work authorization should include more categories of people, such as people whose removal cases have been administratively closed.

DHS has the capability to expand its prosecutorial discretion guidelines.[*] There are several existing forms of prosecutorial discretion, including existing DHS administrative remedies, that can be expanded. This table also describes some forms of discretionary relief that are based on the immigration statute, such as temporary protected status (TPS).

To access the table, whose categories are "Form of relief," "Description," "Authority for relief," "Who is eligible?," "Is a work permit available?," and "Example," click here or on the PDF icon, above.

* See Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion Consistent with the Civil Immigration Enforcement Priorities of the Agency for the Apprehension, Detention, and Removal of Aliens, a memorandum to all ICE field office directors, special agents in charge, and chief counsel from John Morton, director, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, June 17, 2011, www.ice.gov/doclib/secure-communities/pdf/prosecutorial-discretion-memo.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Legislator to push healthcare for those in California illegally

State Sen. Ricardo Lara says immigration status should be irrelevant if the goal of the new law is to provide coverage to the uninsured...

State Sen. Ricardo Lara (D-Bell Gardens) said immigration status should be irrelevant if the goal of the federal healthcare law is to provide coverage to the uninsured. (Katie Falkenberg / Los Angeles Times / March 20, 2013)

By Patrick McGreevy patrick.mcgreevy@latimes.com & Melanie Mason melanie.mason@latimes.com, LA. Times ~ January 10, 2014

http://www.latimes.com/local/la-me-healthcare-immigration-20140111,0,7582750.story#ixzz2q6wEgFp8

SACRAMENTO — Immigrants who are in California illegally should have access to health insurance through a state version of the Affordable Care Act, the head of the Legislature's Latino caucus said Friday.State Sen. Ricardo Lara (D-Bell Gardens) said immigration status should be irrelevant if the goal of the federal law is to provide coverage to the uninsured, so he will introduce legislation to involve the state in providing coverage to those in the country illegally.

"Immigration status shouldn't bar individuals from health coverage, especially since their taxes contribute to the growth of our economy," Lara said.

The federal law bars those in the country illegally from obtaining coverage through Covered California, the state health insurance exchange.

An estimated 2.6 million immigrants are in California illegally, but many of them are insured through employer plans, so approximately 1 million might be left uninsured if no action is taken, said Ron Coleman, a manager at the California Immigrant Policy Center.

He and other activists are working with Lara on details of a coverage plan.

Alternatives they are examining include a further expansion of Medi-Cal, California's health program for the poor, or the creation of a separate program within or outside of Covered California that might provide subsidies from the state but not the federal government.

"By the end of this year, Covered California will be entirely self-sustaining anyway," said Anthony Wright, executive director of Health Access, an advocacy group working with Lara to fashion a bill. "It will not be federally funded, it will not be state funded. It's funded by a small fee on each policy sold."

Using Covered California could present legal problems, according to Timothy Jost, health law professor at Washington and Lee University's School of Law.

"If California wanted to set up its own completely independent healthcare program for undocumented aliens, it could certainly do that," Jost said. "But in terms of using Covered California, the exchange that is recognized under federal law as the Affordable Care Act exchange for California, I just don't see how they can do that."

Lara is also looking at another alternative, one already being used in 10 California counties, including Los Angeles, Riverside and San Francisco. They provide healthcare services for noncitizens.

In Los Angeles, the program Healthy Way LA Unmatched — named because it does not receive federal matching funds — pays for care for people who aren't covered by Medi-Cal, including those who don't qualify because of immigration status.

Another option would be to expand Medi-Cal to cover people in the country illegally, Wright said.

California has for decades covered legal immigrants not eligible for the federal Medicaid program, such as those who have been in the country less than five years. California pays all of their Medi-Cal costs instead of splitting the cost with the federal government as it does for most Medi-Cal patients.

"The same logic could apply to other populations" such as noncitizens, Wright said. "There is precedent for California to be a leader. There is precedent for California to piggyback on federal programs but take an extra step to expand to additional folks."

Lara, whose immigrant parents were once in the country illegally, said his proposal is a natural follow-up to last year's legislation allowing such immigrants wide access to driver's licenses and permitting them to practice law in California.

But Lara's idea drew swift criticism from some Republican lawmakers, including Assemblyman Tim Donnelly of Twin Peaks, a candidate for governor.

"California cannot afford to create another incentive to attract people to come to our state illegally in pursuit of taxpayer-subsidized benefits," Donnelly said. "It's shameful that … Lara would trade on the plight of those who are ineligible."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RESOLUTION SUBMITTED TO SF BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

WHEREAS, any official position of the City of San Francisco with respect to legislation, rules regulations, or policies proposed to, or pending before a local, state or federal government or agency must have first been adopted in the form of a Resolution by the Board of Supervisors with the concurrence of the Mayor; and

WHEREAS, according to the Pew Hispanic Center, in 2011, there were 11.1 million undocumented immigrants living in the United States; and

WHEREAS, deportations have reached record levels under President Obama, rising to an annual average of nearly 400,000 since 2009; and

WHEREAS, according to Congress members Raul M. Grijalva and Yvette Clarke, although the Obama Administration reportedly prioritized deporting only criminals, many individuals with no criminal history have been consistently deported; and

WHEREAS, increased deportations and a continuously broken immigration system exacerbate the living conditions of U.S. citizen children whose parents have been deported; and
WHEREAS, separation of children from their parents, irrespective of immigration status, always results in severe consequences for young children who are left with no parental guidance or care and a highly unstable financial situation; and
WHEREAS, as immigration continues to be at the center of national debate, President Obama and Congress must implement a more humanitarian immigration policy that keeps families together and respects the right of all workers to support their families; and

WHEREAS, California is home to approximately 10.3 million immigrants of which approximately 2.6 million are unauthorized to live in the U.S.; and

WHEREAS, many members of Congress recently signed a letter requesting President Obama to suspend any further deportations and extend Deferred Action; and

WHEREAS, over a thousand undocumented workers have been fired from their jobs in San Francisco -- including hundreds of janitors -- by means of I-9 audits and the use of the E-Verify system, both of which are methods for enforcing employer sanctions; and

WHEREAS, firing these workers has caused immense hardship on San Francisco families and children, driving them into the underground economy, increasing unemployment, poverty and homelessness, and creating an atmosphere in which workers fear to protest low wages and bad conditions; and

WHEREAS, President Obama and his administration has the power to discontinue this brutal method of enforcing immigration law by ending the practice of using I-9 audits and E-Verify to identify workers without documents in the workforce, and then sending lists of those workers to employers, ordering employers to fire them, and

WHEREAS, San Francisco is home to large number of undocumented immigrants from all parts of the world, the City should therefore make it a priority to keep families together and continue to press Congress and President Obama for a solution to our broken federal immigration system that includes a fair legalization program and an end to employer sanctions;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, with the concurrence of the Mayor, that by adoption of this Resolution, the City of San Francisco, hereby includes in its 2013-2014 Federal Legislative Program SUPPORT for administrative action to (1) suspend any further deportations of unauthorized individuals with no serious criminal history, (2) extend Deferred Action to all eligible undocumented members of immigrant families, and (3) stop thefirings of undocumented workers by stopping the I-9 audits and the use of the E-Verify system.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aumentan latinos en California pero no la integración

El aislamiento lingüístico y el aumento de la población inmigrante en el estado están conduciendo a un aislamiento racial en varias comunidades

NOTAS RELACIONADAS

Rebasa California los 38 millones de residentes

Más de 3 millones son pobres en el sur de California

Por: AP/La Opinion ~ Dec. 28, 2013

WATSONVILLE.— En una plaza del centro de la ciudad, algunos músicos con llamativas vestimentas de vaquero tocan una pieza de mariachi mientras caminan por el lugar.

Al mismo tiempo, numerosas personas que hablan español recorren diversos puestos de comida, prueban guisos de nopales, aspiran el aroma de los chiles asados y compran paquetes de tamales calientes rellenos con carne de cerdo.

La escena es cada vez más típica en localidades de todo California, donde los hispanos están por convertirse el año entrante en el mayor grupo étnico del estado.

Watsonville es sólo una de las decenas de comunidades en California donde los hispanos superan en número a los caucásicos.

La localidad de 52,000 habitantes está ubicada en la pintoresca costa del centro de California, donde la buena calidad de la tierra y un clima agradable favorecen los cultivos de fresas y lechugas, y donde una fuerza laboral de bajos sueldos pero de empuje y decidida es el motor de diversas fábricas que producen de todo, desde artesanías de vidrio hasta amortiguadores de tecnología avanzada.

El español es el medio de comunicación en la mayoría de las casas y negocios en la ciudad, y una de cada cinco familias tiene aislamiento lingüístico, es decir, ninguno de sus integrantes mayor de 14 años habla inglés.

El incremento de la inmigración no aumentó la diversidad en Watsonville; ésta es una comunidad que se dirige hacia el aislamiento racial, un fenómeno que se amplía en el estado en lo que sería un panorama del posible cambio en una nación en momentos en que los blancos no hispanos pasarán a ser minoría en los próximos meses.

Al igual que en la mayoría de las localidades estadounidenses, Watsonville se formó con las oleadas de inmigrantes, croatas, portugueses, filipinos y japoneses, cada una de las cuales trajo su propia lengua, costumbres y gastronomía. La actual marea hispana trajo una influencia latinoamericana.

"Para mí, el centro de Watsonville es como un pequeño poblado mexicano", dijo Oscar Ríos, que fue el primer alcalde hispano de Watsonville. "Todos hablan español. Los restaurantes son mexicanos. (Watsonville) tiene un sabor muy distinto a las localidades típicas estadounidenses", agregó.

Ríos llegó al cargo después de un histórico caso dirimido hace 25 años sobre derechos electorales en el que se consideró discriminatorio al sistema de elección por mayoría y se dispuso elecciones distritales para poner fin a la autoridad política caucásica. En aquel entonces, 50% de los habitantes eran hispanos.

En la actualidad, 82% de los habitantes son inmigrantes, o descendientes de inmigrantes, en su mayoría procedentes de México, pero también de otras latitudes de América Latina.

"Las comunidades donde viven los hispanos se vuelven cada vez más hispanas al paso del tiempo", dijo el sociólogo John Logan, de la Universidad Brown. "Y ante la llegada de más hispanos, éstos continúan viviendo en vecindarios muy separados", agregó.

Sin embargo, los vecindarios predominantemente blancos también registran una afluencia de latinos, dijo Logan.

Hans Johnson, del Instituto de Política Pública de California, dijo que hay indicios de un aumento de la segregación residencial, pero esta coyuntura se convierte en un problema sólo cuando los lugares son muy segregados y terminan económicamente marginados durante generaciones de inmigrantes.

La socióloga Susan Brown, de la Universidad de California, dijo que al paso de las generaciones, localidades como Watsonville se volverán más norteamericanizadas, aunque al mismo tiempo algunas cosas de la cultura mexicana han permeado en el tejido social estadounidense, agregó.

Señaló que la salsa hace tiempo que rebasó a la cátsup como el principal condimento en la nación.

Brown dijo que grandes símbolos de Estados Unidos como los hot dogs y las hamburguesas son legado de una oleada de más de cinco millones de inmigrantes alemanes que llegaron al país hace un siglo.

"Esta oleada mexicana constituye un grupo numeroso", afirmó Brown. "Sin embargo, olvidamos la llegada del enorme número de alemanes y la absorbimos", agregó.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------California back on growth path, but North Dakota sets the pace

http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-north-dakota-fastest-population-growth-20131230,0,2024439.story#ixzz2p51pWvS6

By Michael A. Memoli, L.A. Times ~ December 30, 2013

WASHINGTON -- North Dakota’s population boom, driven by the state’s thriving oil and gas industry, continued in 2013, expanding at nearly twice the rate of the next-fastest-growing state, according to new census estimates released Monday.

The West and South continued to drive population growth nationally, accounting for more than four in five new residents, while growth in the Northeast and Midwest continued to lag behind.

Population estimates are eagerly watched by state officials since they determine the flow of money into many federal programs and, ultimately, representation in Congress. The number of representatives each state has in the House gets readjusted each decade.

California (38,332,521) and Texas (26,448,193) remain the nation’s most populous states, with New York (19,651,127) narrowly maintaining its third position over Florida (19,552,860) as of July 1. The Sunshine State will soon surpass New York, if it hasn’t already, because its population grew three times faster, according to the census estimates, which are based on data measuring births, deaths and migration.

California’s population growth again outpaced the national trend, with an increase of 332,643 year to year, or 0.9%. Texas actually saw a greater raw population increase, however, expanding by 387,397.

North Dakota’s population stood at 723,393 on July 1, according to the census data, a 3.1% increase from 2012. Since the 2010 census, North Dakota’s population has grown 7.6%, far outpacing the national growth rate of 2.4% during that period.

Population in the District of Columbia also grew at a sustained clip, rising 2.1% year to year to 646,449. Utah grew next fastest, at a rate of 1.6%, followed by Colorado (1.5%), Texas (1.5%) and Nevada (1.3%).

West Virginia and Maine actually saw slight population declines in the last year. Pennsylvania, New Mexico, Vermont and Illinois posted the slowest population growth, all at or near a tenth of a percentage point year to year.

The national population stood at 316,128,839 on July 1, an increase of 2.3 million, or 0.7% from the previous year. Population growth in the South accounted for half of all population growth nationally, though the West grew at a slightly faster pace in the last year.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
December 19, 2013

Talking Points Re: New ICE Deportation Statistics Reported for 2013

Every Removal has a Personal Story The administration will attempt to paint people caught at the border as unknown, suspicious, and undesirable. But frequently they are people who were trying to return to their families after travelling across the border to attend a funeral or a birth. Perhaps they are people trying to return home to the US. The White House says it prioritizes “egregious immigration offenders” and “recent border crossers,” which begs the question: how many of these are people whose families are divided between countries and separated by broken policies? How many people reentering are simply trying to come back to children they love?

White House Deportation Policy is Politically Motivated and Morally Indefensible It’s clear that the President’s dual position of “deporter-in-chief”and champion-of-reform is untenable and mutually exclusive. It’s universally accepted--and confirmed by today’s report--that the president has discretion when it comes to immigration enforcement. The fact that he hasn’t fully exercised this discretion reflects the limitations of his political calculus not his legal authority. The White House has sought to blame and appease nativists at the same time: blame them for blocking reform while appeasing them by expanding the criminalization of immigrants and a culture of suspicion. The politics are changing though, as it is unpopular to be responsible for separating families. However, the policies just aren’t changing fast enough. To accelerate the process, the President needs to reverse the deportation apparatus he’s built in the past five years and expand relief so that people don’t have to worry about being one of the statistics reported today.

Ju Hong Was Right: President Obama Has Discretion to Reduce Deportations AND Expand Relief If the numbers can be lowered in the fifth year of his administration, they could’ve been lowered in the first. The President’s hands are not tied. Today is evidence that he has options when it comes to the suffering caused by deportation. Removal numbers can go down further, and deferred action eligibility can expand. The President still has to answer for the hundreds of thousands of families he has already separated. And looking forward, especially with a new DHS Secretary, the administration needs to clearly define its goals for enforcement and discretion, and it needs repudiate the deportation quota once and for all.

Numbers Will Go Up and Down, but Criminalization has Been Woven into Fabric of this Administration As we’ve witnessed, deportation numbers can be driven up or down based on the political whims of the administration and Congress. But what’s consistent is the path of criminalization paved by the Obama White House during its tenure. By prosecuting re-entries as criminal felonies, entangling local police in immigration enforcement through the Secure Communities deportation quota program, and perpetuating a narrative of “deserving and undeserving” immigrants, the administration has transformed the landscape of immigration policy in Sheriff Arpaio’s image.

President Obama will have to decide: Is his legacy Arizona or California? The President has the authority today to sever ICE’s ties with demagogue sheriffs and states like Arizona, where SB1070's Section 2(b) (the infamous “racial profiling” section) is still in effect. At this point, with demonstrable rights violations, continued collaboration marks the Obama Administration as an accomplice wherever it continues to empower racist law enforcement. Whatever political gains the President made by distinguishing himself from Arizona 1070 supporters are now over. In fact, his own policies now resemble Arizona's more than other places. In the weeks ahead, California will implement its TRUST ACT to put brakes on S-Comm in the state. Will the President's next move bring him closer to California (and his own rhetoric), or will he continue the Arizonification he started with Napolitano?

For More information, please contact B Loewe: bloewe@ndlon.org
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. reports 10% drop in deportations

The 2013 decline is the first under President Obama and offers fuel for both sides of the immigration debate...

By Brian Bennett brian.bennett@latimes.com, L.A. Times ~ December 19, 2013, 7:52 p.m.

WASHINGTON — The number of immigrants deported from the country decreased this year for the first time since President Obama came into office, reflecting the impact of new policies intended to focus enforcement on immigrants with criminal backgrounds.

Both sides in the highly contentious debate over immigration policy seized on the annual figures released Thursday by the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency. Advocates for immigrants, who have repeatedly criticized the administration for the high levels of deportations under Obama's tenure, said the approximately 369,000 immigrants deported in the 12 months ending Sept. 30 remained too many. Conservative groups denounced the decline as a sign of lax law enforcement.

In its five years so far, the Obama administration has removed nearly 2 million immigrants, the highest number of deportations under any president.

The roughly 10% decline from last year's record-high 409,849 deportations involved several changes in administration policy over the last two years. The change with the biggest effect, officials said, was the move to give higher priority to deporting immigrants with criminal records and multiple immigration violations. Finding and removing criminals in the country without visas takes longer than deportations in noncriminal cases, officials noted.

The totals "make clear that we are enforcing our nation's laws in a smart and effective way and meeting our enforcement priorities by focusing on convicted criminals," said John Sandweg, acting director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

A recent increase in the number of immigrants caught entering the U.S. illegally from El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala has also slowed the removals, because returning a deportee to Central America takes longer than sending a person back to Mexico, which remains home to the largest share of deportees, Sandweg told reporters.

As congressional action on immigration reform legislation has stalled over the last several months, immigrant advocates have been holding sit-ins and demonstrations at immigration offices across the country to pressure the Obama administration to stop deportations that split up families.

This week, the Los Angeles City Council passed a resolution calling on Obama to suspend deportations of all individuals who lack serious criminal histories, joining House Democrats who have asked the president to stop removals of any immigrants who would qualify for legalization under proposed immigration reform bills. A coalition of immigrant rights groups is pushing for the passage of similar resolutions in other major California cities.

The Senate passed an immigration bill in June that would create a 13-year pathway to citizenship for many of those in the country illegally as well as boost spending on border security by more than $30 billion. That legislation has stalled in the Republican-controlled House.

Republicans may take up a series of more narrowly framed immigration bills in the spring. The president has said he won't sign an immigration bill unless it includes a way for some of the 11 million people in the country without authorization or who overstayed their visas to eventually become U.S. citizens. The idea of a separate pathway to citizenship for people who entered the country illegally has become a sticking point for many House Republicans.

A Pew Research Center poll released Thursday showed that changing the law to end the threat of deportation remains the top priority for Latinos. By 55% to 35%, Latinos polled said being able to live and work in the U.S. legally was more important than a pathway to citizenship. Among Latino immigrants who came to the U.S. legally, just 44% have become citizens, according to the Pew study.

Marshall Fitz, an immigration expert at the Center for American Progress, a liberal policy group, said the decline in deportations this year was "encouraging." But the decrease, he said, was "not huge" and "there is still much more work to be done" to focus deportations on people who pose a threat to public safety.

Over Obama's tenure, the administration has moved away from raids on workplaces and has used criminal databases to help identify and deport people with criminal convictions. Of the people deported in the 2013 fiscal year, 216,810 had been previously convicted of a crime or immigration violation. That was 59% of all those removed, up from 31% five years ago.

But longtime immigration advocate Frank Sharry said that many people being deported were classified as criminals only because they had previously violated immigration laws and kept coming back into the country to be with their families. "They should be deporting people who have been convicted of crimes and a more carefully defined set of bad actors," Sharry said. "They've expanded what it means to be a criminal in order to justify the deportations; it is insulting to the immigrant community."

Similarly, Jorge-Mario Cabrera of the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles called the decline "a drop in the bucket" and said ICE should not deport people whose only crime was a previous immigration violation.

By contrast, conservative critics, who favor more deportations, said the new numbers proved the administration was not committed to policing the border. "The Obama administration just isn't serious about enforcing our immigration laws," Kris Kobach, a lawyer and Kansas secretary of state who has filed lawsuits challenging the administration's immigration policy, said in a phone interview. "They seem to be looking for more and more categories of people not to deport."

Alonzo R. Peña, who was the No. 2 official at the immigration agency from 2008 to 2010, said ICE had decided at the beginning of the Obama administration to focus on arresting people who had criminal records and posed a danger to the community.

At the same time, immigration officials decided to increase deportations of newly arrived unauthorized immigrants. A decade ago, most of those recent border crossers would have been immediately returned without having the removal marked on their records. The number of people deported who were caught near the border has increased by 55% compared with five years ago. The increase corresponds with a surge in the number of Border Patrol agents. "There are emotional factors when you remove someone who has children in schools and bought homes and are part of the community — those removals are more difficult," Peña said in a telephone interview.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
L.A.'s Eric Garcetti: Mayors will lead on immigration

Published in Politico

Big-city mayors will help lead a national push on immigration reform and expanding early childhood education in 2014, Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti predicted Friday.

In an interview with POLITICO, Garcetti said that he and his fellow newly-elected mayors intended to speak out in the coming year on issues that have languished in a gridlocked Washington. He met Friday morning with other mayors and mayors-elect – including Ed Murray of Seattle, Betsy Hodges of Minneapolis, Mike Duggan of Detroit and Rick Kriseman of St. Petersburg, Fla. – at Washington’s Hay-Adams Hotel ahead of a White House sit-down with President Barack Obama.

The 42-year-old Garcetti, who was inaugurated last spring as the mayor of America’s second-largest city, said he hoped to find “a cohort of big-city mayors” who can press for policy change in a coordinated way nationwide.

“I think there will be strong voices that come from mayors about the importance of immigration reform. I would hope we’ll help move that in 2014,” Garcetti said. “I think you’ll see things happen with early education and youth: universal preschool, something that [New York City Mayor-elect Bill] de Blasio ran on, that we’re working on in LA and that’s a priority of the president.”

The Democrat also mentioned climate change as an area where cities have more room for activist leadership. A member of the Obama administration’s climate change task force, Garcetti said the initial meeting of that committee emphasized “the importance of cities and states, but cities in particular with municipal utilities.”

Like many mayors, Garcetti downplays the partisanship of his position and noted that he had to capture both Democratic and Republican votes in order to win his office in the first place. But the national, mayor-friendly agenda he sketched out was plainly in line with the increasingly progressive message of the White House.

“On things like the minimum wage, where cities as well as states are increasingly looking at income disparity, mayors will have, I think, a very strong voice,” he said.

The former Los Angeles city council president has already been bandied about as a future candidate for statewide or federal office in California, where both senators and the governor are all Democrats over the age of 70.

But Garcetti said he has no expectation that the governor’s office in Sacramento will be open anytime soon. While incumbent Gov. Jerry Brown has not yet announced whether he will run for reelection in 2014, Garcetti said it’s only a matter of time.

“I’m confident that he will announce he wants to run again,” Garcetti said. “I think he finally has cracked the code in California of how to be both pragmatic and practical, so I expect that he’ll be serving for another five years.”

An early endorser of Obama’s 2008 campaign who saw former President Bill Clinton weigh in against him during the mayoral race earlier this year, Garrcetti said he would be “excited” about a Hillary Clinton candidacy in 2016 – and related a warm exchange he had with the 42nd president, who reached out immediately after the Los Angeles election.

“He left a message, I called him right back, he picked up his cell phone and we had a wonderful conversation,” Garcetti said. “I understand relationships. My opponent worked for the Clinton administration … Every election – President Clinton acknowledged this – you have to win on your own.”

Garcetti called himself an admirer of Hillary Clinton, and said his endorsement of Obama had more to do with his relationship with the president than any objection to the former first lady’s candidacy.

“I have always been a fan,” he said. “I’d be very enthusiastic to see her running.”
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

White House Looks Past Congress for Its Agenda

By Steven T. Dennis, Roll Call ~ Jan. 7, 2014

President Barack Obama is heading into the next year looking in many ways past a gridlocked Congress — eyeing regulations and other ways of acting on his stalled agenda.

A senior administration official held a deep background briefing for reporters Tuesday, under the condition that no direct quotes would be reported.

The official said that while Congress is important — and the president still hopes to pass an immigration overhaul, an unemployment benefits extensionand assorted other measures in the coming year, such as a surface transportation bill — he will increasingly look to his pen to take executive actions and his phone to advocate efforts aside from legislation.

That includes pushing forward on the president’s climate change agenda, which includes a crackdown on carbon emissions from power plants.

The executive action push isn’t particularly new, of course — the administration has been talking up executive actions since the Republicans took back the House in 2010.

But the renewed emphasis comes after numerous presidential legislative initiatives crashed and burned in 2013 — yielding perhaps more realism inside the White House of its prospects for success in a divided government.

Heading into the Jan. 28 State of the Union address, the president will be focusing in the coming few weeks on trying to finish up last year’s unfinished business, including unemployment benefits. He will also be unveiling his recommendations for revising the National Security Agency’s surveillance programs. He is set to meet Thursday with lawmakers to discuss the topic.

There remains hope in the White House that House Republicans will ultimately agree to pass an immigration bill this year, but the official said GOP leaders will have to decide whether they want to do it. The president will keep pushing the issue but will not be beating Speaker John A. Boehner up every day to pass the Senate bill. The goal is to give the Ohio Republican space to find a way to get it done.

The official said that the president continues to have strong support from his political base but has lost 5 to 7 points since Election Day, largely from moderates. He pointed to the government shutdown, the Affordable Care Act website’s woes and the NSA issue as distractions from what the public wants the president’s focus to be on: the economy and jobs.

And Obama’s poll ratings are still better than other leaders and institutions in Washington, despite the fact that a recent Gallup poll showed the president dropping from a high of 52 percent favorability at the beginning of 2013 to a low of 41 percent.

The official also downplayed the possibility of more sweeping White House staff changes to come at the start of the year, including any purge of officials involved in the rollout of the website. The focus remains on improving implementation of the health care law and ramping up outreach efforts now that the website has dramatically improved from where it was Oct. 1.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Más de 17 mil mexicanos están en prisiones de EU por delitos migratorios; son el 78% de los sentenciados por ello

Por: Redacción / Sinembargo - Diciembre 25 de 2013

Nueva York, 25 Dic (Notimex).- El número de mexicanos que purga sentencias en Estados Unidos por delitos relacionados con la migración se disparó en los últimos años, y en la actualidad son 17 mil 720 los que están en prisión, revelaron cifras del gobierno estadounidense.

La Oficina de Estadísticas de Justicia (BJS, por sus siglas en inglés) precisó que el número de mexicanos en prisiones federales por delitos migratorios se incrementó de dos mil 74 en 1994 a 17 mil 720 en el año fiscal 2010, último periodo del que hay cifras disponibles.

Los mexicanos representan el 78 por ciento de todas las personas sentenciadas en Estados Unidos por delitos migratorios, cada una de las cuales recibe una condena de 15 meses en promedio.

La vasta mayoría de los delitos migratorios son por ingresar o reingresar de manera ilegal al país (90 por ciento), seguido por contrabando de personas (cerca del 10 por ciento) y fraude con visas (menos de 1.0 por ciento), según el gobierno estadunidense.

El porcentaje de personas en cárceles federales por delitos migratorios también se disparó en Estados Unidos respecto al total de reos, debido a que eran 19 por ciento de todos los convictos en el año 2000, mientras que en 2010 eran el 29 por ciento.

Ese repunte hizo que el número de personas sentenciadas por delitos migratorios en 2010, un total de 28 mil 589 individuos, sea ligeramente menor que el de convictos por crímenes relacionados con drogas.

La cifra de convictos por crímenes migratorios en prisiones federales es independiente de las personas que no enfrentan cargos penales, pero que se encuentran en centros de detención por haber ingresado sin documentos a Estados Unidos.

En promedio, al día 34 mil personas permanecen en centros de detención en Estados Unidos o en las camas alquiladas por la Oficina de Inmigración y Aduanas (ICE, por sus siglas en inglés) a una red de más de 200 cárceles estatales o del condado.

La gran mayoría de las personas en centros de detención son de origen mexicano y pasan un promedio de 33.5 días confinados.

Organismos civiles como Detention Watch Network han denunciado que en los centros de detención y en las prisiones en que se mantiene a individuos acusados de crímenes migratorios, abundan los abusos.

Informes dan cuenta de falta de acceso a nutrición y a ejercicio apropiado, cuidado médico, materiales legales y educativos, teléfonos y visitas, también documentan que “son comunes los reportes de abuso sexual y físico, privación del sueño y aislamiento”.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EU gasta más en vallas contra migrantes, armas y drogas, que en la FBI y la DEA

Informe promueve el éxito de medidas, pese a no contenerse el flujo

Ciro Pérez Silva, Periódico La Jornada, Lunes 23 de diciembre de 2013

Aun cuando el cuantioso presupuesto del gobierno de Estados Unidos en materia de seguridad para la frontera con México le permite el uso de la tecnología más elaborada como el uso de aviones no tripulados (drones), cámaras y detectores de calor, entre otros, las vallas que ha levantado para intentar frenar la migración irregular, el tráfico de armas o de drogas, continúan siendo el emblema de esta política de seguridad fronteriza.

Desde hace varios años ese país gasta más en la política de migración que en el resto de las principales agencias federales de aplicación de la ley penal combinadas, con casi 18 mil millones adjudicados en el año fiscal 2012. Esto es 24 por ciento más alto que el gasto colectivo para el FBI, la DEA, el Servicio Secreto, el servicio de Marshals y la Oficina de Alcohol, Tabaco, Armas de Fuego y Explosivos,

Y si elegir un nuevo elemento electrónico para detener el flujo de migrantes en la frontera con México requiere un análisis presupuestal, de conveniencia técnica y estratégica, el análisis para elegir un elemento tan simple como una valla, no lo es menos.

Según la página de la Patrulla Fronteriza existen formalmente cuatro tipos básicos de vallas, aunque su combinación puede dar lugar a 22 estructuras, que van de una malla similar a la que se utiliza en los gallineros hasta la conocida como Normandía, réplica de las que utilizaron las fuerzas de Adolfo Hitler para intentar detener el desembarco de los aliados el día D, justo en la costa de esa ciudad del noroeste de Francia.

Para decidir qué tipo de valla hay que levantar, se ponderan elementos como montañas, ríos, bosque o desierto, así como otras características geográficas y climáticas. Para auxiliarse en la selección de materiales y diseño, los estadunidenses recurren a un apartado conocido como Toolbox Fence, que despliega la gama de posibilidades para detener el paso de los migrantes, narcotraficantes y posibles terroristas, entre otros.

Pese a que todo este esfuerzo no ha impedido que el flujo de migrantes, armas y droga continúe, el éxito de todas las medidas en su conjunto es altamente promovido en el Informe de Inmigración y Control de Estados Unidos.

Como ejemplo señala que más de 4 millones de personas, la mayoría inmigrantes sin papeles, han sido deportados de Estados Unidos desde 1990, con 30 mil 39, y 391 mil 953 repatriados en el año fiscal 2011.

Menos de la mitad de los deportados se retiran tras una audiencia formal ante un juez de inmigración, aunque la mayoría es deportada por el Departamento de Seguridad Nacional a través de su autoridad administrativa.

El informe de 182 páginas ofrece un análisis detallado del sistema actual de control migratorio que se puso en marcha con la aprobación de la Ley de Reforma y Control de Inmigración en 1986. Describe la evolución del sistema, sobre todo en la era posterior al ataque a Estados Unidos del 9 de septiembre de 2001, en términos de presupuestos, personal, medidas de aplicación y tecnología.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Boehner Is Said to Back Change on Immigration

By MICHAEL D. SHEAR and ASHLEY PARKER, January 1, 2014

WASHINGTON — Speaker John A. Boehner of Ohio has signaled he may embrace a series of limited changes to the nation’s immigration laws in the coming months, giving advocates for change new hope that 2014 might be the year that a bitterly divided Congress reaches a political compromise to overhaul the sprawling system.

Mr. Boehner has in recent weeks hired Rebecca Tallent, a longtime immigration adviser to Senator John McCain, the Arizona Republican who has long backed broad immigration changes. Advocates for an overhaul say the hiring, as well as angry comments by Mr. Boehner critical of Tea Party opposition to the recent budget deal in Congress, indicates that he is serious about revamping the immigration system despite deep reservations from conservative Republicans.

Aides to Mr. Boehner said this week that he was committed to what he calls “step by step” moves to revise immigration laws, which they have declined to specify.

But other House Republicans, who see an immigration overhaul as essential to wooing the Hispanic voters crucial to the party’s fortunes in the 2016 presidential election, said they could move on separate bills that would fast-track legalization for agricultural laborers, increase the number of visas for high-tech workers and provide an opportunity for young immigrants who came to the country illegally as children to become American citizens.

Although the legislation would fall far short of the demands being made by immigration activists, it could provide the beginnings of a deal.

For Mr. Boehner, hiring Ms. Tallent suggests a new commitment to confronting an issue that has long divided the Republican Party. Ms. Tallent is a veteran of more than a decade of congressional immigration battles and fought, ultimately unsuccessfully, for comprehensive overhauls of the immigration system in 2003 and 2007.

Although Mr. Boehner’s aides say she was brought on to carry out his views and not her own, advocates of immigration change say the only reason for Mr. Boehner to have hired Ms. Tallent is his desire to make a deal this year.

In addition, immigration advocates say that Mr. Boehner’s end-of-year rant against Tea Party groups — in which he said they had “lost all credibility” — is an indicator of what he will do this year on immigration. The groups are the same ones that hope to rally the Republican base against an immigration compromise, and while Mr. Boehner cannot say so publicly, he will have more room to maneuver on the issue if he feels free to disregard the arguments from those organizations.

Aides continue to say that Mr. Boehner remains opposed to a single, comprehensive bill like the Senate-passed measure that would tighten border security, increase legal immigration and offer an eventual path to American citizenship for an estimated 11 million illegal immigrants. Conservatives are staunchly opposed to sweeping legislation that would offer a path to citizenship.

“The American people are skeptical of big, comprehensive bills, and frankly, they should be,” Mr. Boehner told reporters recently. “The only way to make sure immigration reform works this time is to address these complicated issues one step at a time. I think doing so will give the American people confidence that we’re dealing with these issues in a thoughtful way and a deliberative way.”

Nonetheless, immigration activists say they are hopeful that politics may ultimately lead Mr. Boehner to ignore conservative voices who oppose a path to citizenship. Mitt Romney, the Republican nominee for president in 2012, who took a hard line on immigration, won only 27 percent of the Hispanic vote — a key reason for his loss to President Obama.

Mr. Obama has in the meantime said he is open to the piecemeal approach on immigration favored by House Republicans, but only if it does not abandon comprehensive goals in legislation that passed the Senate last summer. Reconciling the House approach with the broader ambitions of the Senate bill is the biggest hurdle, strategists in both camps say.

“We’ve got to grab the brass ring while it’s there,” said Kevin Appleby, the director of migration policy at the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. “I’ve been in this debate long enough to know you can’t rely on anything happening at a certain time or on assurances that we’re going to do something this year.”

Advocates for an immigration overhaul will start 2014 with a race against the election-season clock and a new campaign aimed at forcing action on Capitol Hill. Civil disobedience demonstrations are planned in Washington and elsewhere. Business groups are readying lobbying blitzes on Capitol Hill. Labor leaders and evangelical ministers are considering more hunger fasts to dramatize what they say is the urgent need to prevent deportations.

The most likely legislative approach, according to lawmakers, White House officials and activists, is a push to pass legislation in the House by May or June — after most Republican lawmakers are through with their primary campaigns — with the goal of reaching a compromise that Mr. Obama could sign before the 2014 midterm election campaigns intensify next fall.

“That’s our first window,” said Jim Wallis, the president of Sojourners, a Christian social justice organization in Washington that is working to change the immigration laws. “We are organizing, mobilizing, getting ready here. I do really think that we have a real chance at this in the first half of the year.”

If a comprehensive overhaul is not completed by summer, strategists say they could make another push during a lame-duck session at the end of the year, after the November elections. If it did not happen then, lawmakers could wait until 2015, although advocates would have to start again in the Senate because the legislation would expire at the end of 2014.

Some party strategists on Capitol Hill remain skeptical about the willingness of Mr. Boehner and the House to embrace changes in the face of conservative critics who say the Senate bill represents amnesty for lawbreakers and does not do enough to seal the border against future illegal immigrants.

“They won’t try to push through something that conservatives can’t live with,” one top Republican aide said.

House Republicans have a retreat scheduled this month, and are unlikely to make any strategic decisions about immigration before then. Representative Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin, the chief House negotiator on the budget compromise, is expected to play a large, if behind-the-scenes, role.

Immigration change advocates continue to demand an end to deportations, many of which have wrenched illegal immigrants from their families. The deportations have energized immigrants, religious leaders and some law enforcement groups behind their current push for legislation.

“I would bet money that it will be done before the presidential election of 2016, but I think there’s a very good chance it will get done considerably sooner than that — in 2014,” said Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York and one of the architects of the immigration legislation in the Senate.

The advocates say they are in no mood to wait for something else to interfere. “I’m going to be pushing hard to try to get it done early next year,” said Representative Mario Diaz-Balart, a Florida Republican who is a proponent of an immigration overhaul. “The earlier the better, I think.”

Michael D. Shear reported from Washington, and Ashley Parker from Honolulu.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
California court grants law license to Mexican immigrant

http://www.latimes.com/local/la-me-immigrant-lawyer-20140103,0,4034460.story#ixzz2pNWfYHQk

Sergio Garcia, who passed the State Bar four years ago, is still waiting for a green card from the federal government. The court's ruling sets a precedent…

By Maura Dolan, L.A Times ~ January 2, 2014

SAN FRANCISCO — A Mexican immigrant without a green card on Thursday won the right to practice law in California, an unprecedented ruling that will permit others in similar circumstances to become lawyers.

The state Supreme Court agreed unanimously that Sergio C. Garcia — who passed the bar examination four years ago — should receive a law license while awaiting federal approval of his green card application. The court, which has the final word on licensing lawyers, said it was able to approve Garcia's admission to the State Bar because the Legislature had passed a law last year that cleared the way.

"The fact that an undocumented immigrant's presence in this country violates federal statutes is not itself a sufficient or persuasive basis for denying undocumented immigrants, as a class, admission to the State Bar," Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye wrote for the court.

The ruling was the first of its kind in the country. Decisions in similar cases are pending in New York and Florida, and immigrant-rights advocates predicted the California ruling would ease the way for others seeking a law career.

The Legislature acted after the justices in a September hearing indicated that federal rules required that they deny Garcia, 36, a law license.

According to a 1996 federal law, states may not award public benefits to immigrants who lack legal status unless legislatures specifically approve exemptions. The state law signed by Gov. Jerry Brown in October provided that exemption for law licenses.

James Wagstaffe, who represented the State Bar in its efforts to admit Garcia, called Thursday's decision "a landmark case in favor of inclusiveness."

"It is not just about undocumented immigrants," Wagstaffe said. "It is also saying we are going to decide the qualifications of a lawyer based on individual character, not based on class."

University of San Francisco law professor Bill Hing estimated that at least two dozen immigrants without green cards graduate from California law schools each year. He said many immigrants were sworn in to practice before the State Bar began asking about immigration status in 2008.

"California now is the only state that has said specifically that undocumented immigrants can practice law," Hing said. "The hero in this whole saga is the state Legislature and Jerry Brown for acting so swiftly."

Garcia, a resident of Chico, Calif., came to the U.S. with his family when he was 17 months old. He returned to Mexico when he was 9 and reentered the U.S. without authorization when he was 17. His father, an agricultural worker who obtained U.S. citizenship, applied for a green card for his son in 1994. The federal government accepted the petition in 1995, but Garcia is still waiting for the card.

Under federal rules, the number of visas issued each year is limited and based on an immigrant's native country. Garcia has had to wait in line behind a large backlog from Mexico. The court said it may take Garcia at least two years and "perhaps many more" to be scheduled for a visa interview.

Garcia graduated from a California high school, attended Butte College, Cal State Chico and Cal Northern School of Law. He received his law degree in May 2009 and passed the California bar examination that same year. He has been working as a motivational speaker.

In its ruling, the court said there was no disputing that Garcia could practice law free of charge and outside the U.S. But, the justices noted, there was disagreement about whether someone like Garcia legally could work as an independent contractor and charge fees.

The U.S. Justice Department has said that would not be allowed. The State Bar has said it was permissible. The court did not rule on the question Thursday.

"We assume that a licensed undocumented immigrant will make all necessary inquiries and take appropriate steps to comply with applicable legal restrictions and will advise potential clients of any possible adverse or limiting effect the attorney's immigration status may pose," the court said.

The bar's investigation "establishes that Garcia is a well-respected, hard-working, tax-paying individual who has assisted many others and whose application is supported by many members of the community, by past teachers, and by those for whom he has worked, but the record also reveals that Garcia's conduct has not been entirely flawless," the court said.

When he was 17, Garcia provided a false "alien registration number" to a grocery store where he worked and inaccurately claimed he was a lawful permanent resident, the court said. Garcia did not initially disclose that falsehood to state bar investigators examining his moral fitness to practice law, according to Thursday's ruling.

The bar decided to overlook the transgression because Garcia had relied on poor legal advice in not immediately disclosing the incident, the court said. Garcia also acknowledged "the wrongfulness of his conduct" and blamed it on his youth, imperfect understanding of English and a moment of panic when the store asked him to complete the form, the court said.

He also once was cited for driving without a license or insurance, the court said. He paid a fine and stopped driving until he obtained a license from Oregon, which at the time did not require proof of lawful residency, the court said. Bar examiners decided that Garcia believed in good faith that he had met the requirements for an Oregon license, although it was not clear whether he had lived in the state for the required six months, the court said.

Garcia, who wants to practice civil litigation, has said he plans to be self-employed and will hire bilingual U.S. citizens to assist him.

Nick Pacilio, a spokesman for Atty. Gen. Kamala D. Harris, praised the state Supreme Court decision, saying: "California's success has hinged on the hard work and self-sufficiency of immigrants like Sergio."

And the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles said the ruling ushered in "a bright new day in California history."

"We start 2014 with high hopes that soon justice will also be a reality for millions of undocumented immigrant workers who give it their all for the sustenance of their children, the strength of their families, and the vitality of an immigrant nation," the group said.

Sergio Garcia of Chico, Calif., was brought into the United States when he was a child. As an adult he worked his way through law school and passed the State Bar. He is waiting federal approval for a green card. (Don Bartletti, Los Angeles Times / May 27, 2012)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abogado indocumentado luchará por reforma migratoria

Sergio García quiere recaudar fondos para ofrecer becas universitarias y ayudar a través de la fundación que lleva su nombre

Por María Peña / Maria.pena@impremedia.com ~ 4 de Enero 2014

WASHINGTON, D.C.-- Sergio C. García vivió su infancia rodeado de pobreza en su natal Michoacán, pero desde niño supo que quería ser abogado.

En entrevista con La Opinión, celebró un histórico fallo del Tribunal Supremo de California, que le permitirá recibir su licencia de la Barra de Abogados Estatal y ejercer su profesión en el estado pese a ser indocumentado y que ahora piensa usar para luchar por jóvenes en su misma situación en Estados Unidos.

Para comenzar, García se ha puesto como reto inmediato recaudar $100 mil dólares en unos 30 días con el propósito de ofrecer becas universitarias a través de la fundación que lleva su nombre. "Tuve lágrimas de felicidad. Este caso le abre las puertas a todos los demás muchachos que esperan convertirse en abogados; y podrán hacerlo por esta lucha de los últimos cuatro años", dijo García, de 36 años de edad.

Su meta es anunciar las becas el día de su juramentación en un evento "muy bonito" en el capitolio estatal en Sacramento, ante el exjuez Cruz Reynoso, el primer juez chicano (1982–87) de esa corte. "Mi mensaje a los Soñadores es que nunca se den por vencidos y le pediría a mi gente que dejen esa apatía y se fijen en los asiáticos, que son muy unidos. Eso nos hace falta", dijo.

"Esto es un acercamiento más hacia la justicia social para nuestra gente inmigrante. Estoy dispuesto a liderar una campaña por la reforma migratoria integral; será difícil pero no imposible", subrayó García, que tiene presencia en Twitter, Facebook e Instagram, redes sociales donde ha recibido un sinnúmero de comentarios de apoyo, pero también en contra, por querer ejercer como abogado si violó las leyes migratorias.

García, quien piensa especializarse en litigios civiles, en particular en casos de accidentes, aunque también prevé contratar a un abogado experto en inmigración, tachó la actitud de sus críticos como una "terrible ignorancia" porque él —dice— no ha cometido "ningún crimen, y estar sin papeles es una infracción civil".

García no podrá ser contratado por un bufete legal y no está claro si, aún como independiente, tendrá trabas para representar a clientes en los tribunales si alguien cuestiona su estatus migratorio.

Y aún con las críticas en contra, surge el tesón y optimismo que lo han acompañado desde su infancia en Villa Jiménez, donde creció en el seno de una familia "muy humilde".

"Pienso en el relato de Don Quijote, cuando Sancho Panza le dice: 'Señor, ladran los perros' y él le contesta 'no te preocupes Sancho, es señal que avanzamos", bromea.

Ser abogado era un sueño que tuvo desde los 10 años de edad, cuando empezó a ser conciente de las injusticias que pasaba la gente pobre en México. "Lo irónico, lo chistoso es que era un niño muy tonto, o muy inocente más que tonto, porque siendo tan pobre nunca se me ocurrió pensar cómo lo iba a lograr", recordó García, segundo de seis hijos.

Sus padres lo trajeron la primera vez con apenas 17 meses de edad, mientras trabajaban en los campos de California, y regresaron a México en 1986, ocho años más tarde; ya de adolescente volvió ilegalmente a EEUU, apiñado junto a otros en una camioneta pick up.

En la secundaria fue un alumno sobresaliente por lo que prestigiosas universidades lo cortejaron, pero no pudo asistir a ninguna de ellas, ni con becas, por ser indocumentado.

Trabajó en el campo junto a su padre y después en una tienda mientras asistía a un colegio universitario, donde obtuvo dos diplomados en ciencias sociales y administración de empresas. También obtuvo un certificado de asistente jurídico de Chico State University.

Se graduó en leyes en California Northern School of Law en mayo de 2009 y pasó el examen de la Barra estatal en su primer intento, dos meses después. Desde entonces comenzó una batalla legal cuando el Gobierno federal argumentó que una ley de 1996 prohíbe otorgar licencias profesionales a indocumentados.

García solicitó en 1994 la residencia permanente a través de su padre y esta fue aceptada a trámite en 1995. Quizá tenga que esperar otros cinco años para recibirla, una "eternidad" que le parece "ridícula".

Solicitado por la prensa nacional e internacional, García señala que su historia no es la de un héroe sino una de paciencia y perseverancia. Un consejo en su cuenta de Twitter reza: "Soñar es hacer, porque ningún sueño puede realizarse si no está acompañado de la acción".
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge allows access to emails about Arizona immigration law

Opponents of SB 1070, considered the country's toughest state law against illegal immigration, may examine correspondence to see whether it contains racial overtones, the ruling says. By Cindy Carcamo, L.A. Times ~ January 5, 2014

TUCSON — A federal judge has given opponents of Arizona's sweeping anti-illegal-immigration law access to emails, letters and memos between supporters of SB 1070 and legislators to see whether there are racial overtones in the messages.

In December, U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton in Phoenix rejected arguments made by two of the law's supporters, who maintained that communications sent to lawmakers who created and supported SB 1070 were confidential.

Challengers to SB 1070 called Bolton's ruling a victory because their lawsuit was based partly on allegations that legislators meant to discriminate against Latinos and other people of color. If so, the challengers argue, the law could violate the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution.

This is just the latest twist in an ongoing dispute on the surviving and most divisive provision of Arizona's immigration enforcement law, considered the toughest state law against illegal immigration in the country. Both inside and outside Arizona, the measure generated scorn as well as praise, with some states using it as a model for their own immigration laws.

Bolton's ruling covers more than just the communications about SB 1070. Challengers also want to see emails, letters and memos related to the creation of earlier immigration measures. She did not set a deadline for turning over the emails.

In late December, the attorneys for two anti-illegal-immigration groups, the Federation for American Immigration Reform and the Immigration Reform Law Institute, filed a motion for the decision's reconsideration, which will probably bring the issue back before the same judge. The judge's order applies to emails from the two groups to legislators, as well as replies.

Dan Stein, president of the Federation for American Immigration Reform and chairman of the board at the Immigration Reform Law Institute, criticized the decision, calling it an "invidious fishing expedition."

"It's broad and vastly intrusive and interferes with our 1st Amendment liberties to interact with public officials," Stein said.

Bolton rejected such arguments.

In the Dec. 11 ruling, she said there was nothing in the "law that protects from public view communications with public officials in their official capacity about a matter of public concern.

Indeed, Arizona law makes all such communications available to the public under its freedom of information law."SB 1070, which Gov. Jan Brewer signed into law in 2010, contained several measures intended to give local law enforcement more power to detain people who were in the country illegally.

In 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down key provisions of SB 1070 but allowed the most controversial portion to take effect: Arizona can compel law enforcement officials in most circumstances to check the status of someone they stop for lawful reasons if they suspect the person is in the country illegally.

Immigrant rights activists filed suit and have been battling in court since to have the provision blocked, claiming that the Arizona Legislature intended to discriminate against Latinos and other minorities.Victor Viramontes, senior legal counsel with the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, said the law's opponents subpoenaed communications that specifically mention certain words, including "day laborer," "alien," "Hispanic," "Mexican" and "wetback."

"We'll be looking for any kind of explicit derogatory depictions of Latinos," Viramontes said. "Anything with racial overtones with regards to Latinos or Mexicans and any kind of communication that suggests the true reason this law was passed, to target and discriminate against Latinos."

The border fence in Naco, Ariz. (Don Bartletti / Los Angeles Times / February 24, 2013)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Immigration reform’s narrow window for survival
By: Seung Min Kim
January 7, 2014 06:03 PM EST

Immigration reform backers see a narrow window in late spring to push a sweeping overhaul through the House — a goal that eluded them in 2013.

The politics of immigration in the Republican-controlled chamber is still tough — and might be impossible — with many lawmakers opposed to any measure that could be seen as providing amnesty to millions of immigrants living in the United States illegally.

But proponents of an immigration rewrite on and off Capitol Hill hope the tension will ease once Republicans get past primary season and don’t have to worry about challenges to their conservative credentials.

(POLITICO's full coverage of immigration issues)

“For many members, they’d be more comfortable when their primaries are over,” said California Rep. Darrell Issa, an influential Republican who has favored immigration reform.

Alfonso Aguilar, the executive director of the Latino Partnership for Conservative Principles, said waiting out the primaries makes “perfect sense” — although he’s not convinced that the GOP base is as riled up over immigration as it is over other issues such as Obamacare.

“However, perception is reality, so you have members that are concerned, and the perception is out there that our base does not like this,” Aguilar said.

Jeremy Robbins, the executive director of the Partnership for a New American Economy — the pro-reform group with ties to former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg — said reform “certainly gets easier” after the primaries pass.

(Also on POLITICO: Obama renews call for Senate immigration bill)

“I think there are multiple viable windows … and that makes us optimistic,” Robbins said, adding that primary deadlines are a “big factor.”

“We are planning all of our organizing around these windows,” he said.

The Democratic-controlled Senate passed a broad immigration overhaul last June, but the effort stalled in the House, where Republicans are pursuing a piecemeal strategy of individual bills instead of one comprehensive piece of legislation.

House Republican leaders have said publicly that they still want to take up immigration reform but have not committed to a specific time frame for bringing bills up for a vote. In a memo sent to members earlier this month, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) listed immigration among several issues that “may be brought to the floor over the next few months.”

Meanwhile, Democrats are pushing their own comprehensive immigration overhaul bill that has three Republican co-sponsors, but it isn’t likely to make it to the House floor.

(PHOTOS: 10 wild immigration quotes)

Even if they wanted to, it would be tough to push immigration to the top of the agenda. The beginning of the congressional year is clogged with deadlines for other must-do legislative items such as passing a funding bill to keep the government running and approving a new five-year farm bill.

And another major fiscal deadline looms in late February or early March: the debt ceiling.

The primary season will be in full swing by that point. Though primaries can occur as late as September, most of the filing deadlines for more than 80 percent of sitting House Republicans will have come and gone by the end of April, according to a POLITICO analysis.

Three of the five states with the largest number of House Republicans in their delegations — Texas, Pennsylvania and Ohio — will have held their primaries by the end of May. Texas is the earliest, with a March 4 primary. The two others — California and Florida — are where Republican lawmakers generally have been more amenable to an immigration overhaul.

But some Republicans aren’t enthusiastic about waiting out the primary calendar, noting that unforeseen circumstances could take over Capitol Hill’s legislative agenda. That’s what happened last fall when the crisis in Syria, the government shutdown and the fallout over Obamacare demanded lawmakers’ attention.

“I think that’s too cute by half,” said Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), a member of the Gang of Eight that wrote the immigration bill in the Senate.

But other immigration backers disagree. Kentucky Rep. John Yarmuth, a Democrat who had labored in immigration negotiations for months with House Republicans, said filing deadlines for primary candidates could be a key factor on the timing for any immigration bills.

“It depends where you are. I know in my delegation, they’re not concerned about primary challengers over immigration,” Yarmuth said. “On the other hand, I think Texas matters.”

Yarmuth was part of the House bipartisan group with two Texas Republicans — Sam Johnson and John Carter – that privately negotiated for months on a comprehensive immigration bill but disbanded in the fall. The two Texans, after facing heat back home during the August recess about their work on immigration reform, announced in September that they were quitting the group.

Republicans have reason to be concerned after watching onetime tea party darling Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) lock arms with four Senate Democrats and three Republicans to craft a sweeping immigration overhaul with a pathway to citizenship — only to see his poll numbers tumble. And that message is being relayed to advocates — one House Republican told a member of the pro-reform U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops that it was likely the chamber will move on immigration bills after certain primary deadlines, according to a source familiar with the conversation.

But it’s unclear whether a lawmaker’s stance on immigration will actually matter in a primary.

Several influential outside groups who have muscled their way into GOP primaries in the past few election cycles say immigration isn’t an issue they’re involved in. Officials from the Club for Growth, Americans for Prosperity and FreedomWorks all say they plan to stay out of the immigration fight.

Heritage Action is one major conservative advocacy group that has lobbied Capitol Hill against the type of immigration reform that passed the Senate, but the organization doesn’t get involved in electoral politics.

Still, the Madison Project, a conservative organization chaired by former Kansas GOP Rep. Jim Ryun, says it will make sure immigration remains a top issue in key congressional races. The group has already made several endorsements in Senate and House races, most notably backing Milton Wolf, a distant cousin of President Barack Obama, over sitting Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.).

“Immigration policy is absolutely one of the biggest concerns for conservatives in the coming years, and it will definitely be a make-or-break issue with candidates,” the group’s policy director, Daniel Horowitz, said in an email. “Whereas a few years ago, this issue was basically dormant, it is now something we feel all our candidates must get right.”

There are at least two political groups aimed at backing candidates who take a tougher stance on immigration, but they are not well-known: U.S. Immigration Reform PAC and Americans for Legal Immigration PAC.

The latter group called for a primary challenger for sophomore Rep. Renee Ellmers (R-N.C.) after she said in a statement that she favored a legal work status for the millions who are living in the country illegally, while toughening border security.

Now, she faces an intraparty contest from conservative talk show host Frank Roche, who said in a statement that one motivating factor behind his candidacy was Ellmers’s “support for the comprehensive immigration reform legislation making its way through Congress.” A campaign spokeswoman for Ellmers said the campaign was not concerned about the role that immigration could have in the primary race.

Though anecdotes of immigration-fueled challenges may be few, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), another co-author of the Gang of Eight bill, said of a primary threat: “If it’s in the minds of people, it’s legitimate.”

“If it helps to do this after some primary dates are behind us, fine,” said Graham, who expects the immigration issue to surface in his own primary race. “I just want to get the thing done.”

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pressure and Passivity on Immigration

By THE EDITORIAL BOARD, NEW YORK TIMES ~ November 26, 2013

President Obama made the case for immigration reform again on Monday, in a speech in San Francisco that seemed mostly directed to Republicans in Congress, who aren’t listening.

Noting the Republican resistance to passing a single comprehensive bill, he struck an oddly lighthearted note. “It’s Thanksgiving,” he said. “We can carve that bird into multiple pieces — a drumstick here, breast meat there.”

This drew chuckles. By suggesting that large-scale immigration overhaul can be done incrementally, he was retreating from an argument that has guided reform advocates for a decade: fixing the broken system requires three things at once — tighter enforcement, an improved flow of new immigrants and legalization for the 11 million living here outside the law.

A comprehensive bill passed the Senate with a strong bipartisan majority five months ago and could pass the House in a heartbeat. But, as long as the House speaker, John Boehner, refuses to allow a vote, it is going nowhere.

With legislation thus stalled and the Obama administration continuing deportations at an unmatched pace, immigration advocates have turned up the pressure with a grave urgency that is not shared on Capitol Hill. The tension is unsustainable. So is the suffering.

In a tent on the National Mall, Eliseo Medina, a veteran of the farmworkers’ movement, Cristian Avila and Dae Joong Yoon have been on a fast since Nov. 12, and they vow to continue to the point of collapse. They point out that their sacrifice does not match that of those living in shadows and lost from their families. Others across the country are fasting in solidarity.

Advocates have prayed at Mr. Boehner’s offices in Washington and Ohio. They have crossed the border and tried to return, offering themselves up to federal agents. They have held vigils at detention centers and tried to block deportation buses.

They have put their lives and futures at risk to push for reforms that a minority is obstructing and to beg Mr. Obama to slow his deportation surge.

One of them, a young man named Ju Hong, interrupted the president on Monday to make his plea. “I’ve not seen my family,” he said. “Our families are separated. I need your help. There are thousands of people. ... ”

Mr. Obama then cut him off and began a misleading ad-lib about how halting deportations would be illegal. While the president cannot throw out whole sections of immigration law to bypass Congressional inaction, he does have discretion in choosing how to enforce it wisely.

Mr. Obama was firmly within the law when he selectively halted deportations for some immigrants brought here illegally as children and for spouses and children of service members and veterans. He can undoubtedly expand administrative efforts to protect other immigrants left stranded by legislative failure.

Mr. Obama said on Monday that he was up for the hard, messy work of reform. “I am going to march with you and fight with you every step of the way,” he said.

But, as he keeps making such promises to people whose family members he is deporting in record numbers while protesting that he is powerless to stop himself, it seems only fair to ask: How hard are you fighting, really?

A Plea to Carry Out a Principled Immigration Policy

New York Times Letter to the Editor ~ Dec. 5, 2013

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/05/opinion/a-plea-to-carry-out-a-principled-immigration-policy.html

In “Pressure and Passivity on Immigration” (editorial, Nov. 27), you correctly point out that President Obama seriously understates his ability to mitigate the effect of immigration law while he confronts Republican intransigence in the House. But unfortunately, where the administration has exercised discretion, it has too often been on the side of even harsher enforcement.

Data just released by a think tank at Syracuse University reveal that immigration prosecutions reached a record high in the last fiscal year: nearly 100,000 cases. Most of those prosecutions — 55 percent — were for simple illegal entry.

This is no aberration. The administration has set many records, including those for overall deportations, year after year.

No doubt, President Obama has made a political calculation that ramping up deportations and prosecutions will establish his bona fides as he challenges House Republicans on reform. By now it must be clear to everyone that this policy has yielded nothing but more broken families and interrupted lives.

The best way to challenge “know nothings” on immigration policy is to “do something.” The president should use his discretion, carry out a principled immigration policy and let the House Republicans come to him begging for compromise.

ROBERT M. MORGENTHAU
New York, Nov. 27, 2013

The writer is of counsel to Wachtell Lipton Rosen & Katz and a former Manhattan district attorney.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nancy Pelosi pushes Obama on deportations
By Seung Min Kin - Politico - 12/16/13

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi spoke out against the Obama administration’s pace of deportations, adding pressure on a president already under fire from advocacy groups for the number of undocumented immigrants who have been removed under his tenure.

In an interview over the weekend with Telemundo’s “Enfoque,” Pelosi said the administration should exercise some discretion about who is being deported. The California Democrat said she has seen deportations that were “totally unjustified” in her hometown of San Francisco.

“Our view of the law is, if somebody is here without sufficient documentation, that is not reason for deportation,” Pelosi said during the interview. “If someone has broken the law or committed a felony or something, that is a different story.”

(Also on POLITICO: Fast for Families immigration march)

“When most people are apprehended, they are deported,” she continued. “I don’t see any reason for these deportations.”

Pelosi declined to answer whether President Barack Obama had executive authority to halt deportations – a subject that has triggered legal debate in the immigrant community. Some of her remarks were not aired by Telemundo, but a transcript was released Monday by the DRM Action Coalition, an advocacy group.

A spokesman for Pelosi, Drew Hammill, said her remarks were simply restating her “long-held belief that being an undocumented immigrant is not a basis for deportation.”

(PHOTOS: 10 wild immigration quotes)

Still, the comments could raise the profile of an issue that has become an uncomfortable source of conflict between the Obama administration and immigrant-rights activists.

Immigrant advocacy groups say on average, about 1,100 undocumented immigrants have been deported from the United States every day under the Obama administration. Lawmakers on Capitol Hill have been more quiet on the administration’s rate of deportations, instead focusing their energy toward pressuring the Republican-led House to move immigration reform bills.

But as reform languishes on Capitol Hill, attention has been turning toward the administration. Earlier this month, 29 House Democrats wrote to Obama asking him to stop deportations for undocumented immigrants who would qualify to become legalized under immigration reform bills, such as the Gang of Eight legislation that passed the Senate in June.

Pelosi said she hoped she would see “action” from Obama as immigrant-rights groups present petitions and letters urging him to halt deportations that would split families. And she said enacting comprehensive immigration reform through Congress would put the issue to rest.

“For years, we have been after the administration not to have this disparity of discretion that is used,” Pelosi said. “It’s wrong.”
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Obama Approval Down Most Among Latinos in Past Year
Hispanics' approval has fallen from 75% in December 2012 to 52% in November

By Jeffrey M. Jones, Gallup Poll (December 5, 2013)

PRINCETON, NJ -- President Barack Obama's job approval rating averaged 41% in November, down 12 percentage points from 53% last December, his high-water mark since his first year in office. Hispanics' approval has dropped 23 points over the last 12 months, the most among major subgroups, and nearly twice the national average. His approval rating also showed above-average declines among low-income Americans, nonwhites, moderates, and moderates who identify with or lean toward the Democratic Party.

Hispanics' approval ratings of Obama have shown the most variation of any group's ratings throughout his presidency. That means their views of him are less firmly anchored than those of other groups, which may help explain why their opinions of the president soured more than any other group's in recent months. Despite the significant decline in their approval ratings over the past 12 months, a majority of Hispanics, 52%, still approve of the job Obama is doing.

All major subgroups showed at least some decline over the past year in their views of the way Obama is handling his job as president.

The subgroups showing the smallest changes are those that are generally least approving of Obama, and thus had less room to drop -- conservatives who identify with or lean toward the Republican Party (from 7% to 5%), self-identified Republicans (from 11% to 8%), and self-identified conservatives of any party affiliation (from 26% to 20%).

Obama's approval rating among his core political supporters -- who started at higher levels of approval last December -- show declines that match or exceed the national average. This includes a 13-point drop among self-identified Democrats, 14 points among self-identified liberals, and 11 points among liberals who identify as Democrats or lean toward the Democratic Party.

Still, these groups remain among the president's strongest supporters, as 78% of Democrats, 70% of liberals, and 82% of liberal Democrats still approve of Obama. Blacks give Obama the highest approval rating of any major subgroup, at 83%, although their approval has fallen by nine points in the last year.

Implications

Obama was re-elected with a 50% job approval rating, based on his October 2012 monthly average, which increased to an average 53% in December 2012. But the president has had a rough start to his second term, with the budget sequester in March, a partial federal government shutdown in October, and problems with the rollout of the 2010 healthcare law this fall. As a result, his job approval declined to 41% in November, matching the lowest monthly average of his presidency to date.

The decline is apparent among all major subgroups, but tends to be higher among groups that are predisposed to support the president, perhaps because those groups had higher levels of approval at his recent peak last December and thus had more room to decline. But if the U.S. economy and other national conditions improve in the future, those same groups are likely to lead a resurgence in Obama's approval ratings. The more substantial drop in Hispanics' approval of the president may reflect, in part, the more volatile nature of their ratings. But it is also a troubling sign for the Democratic Party, given that Hispanics represent an increasingly important segment of the electorate.

Explore President Obama's approval ratings in depth and compare them with those of past presidents in the Gallup Presidential Job Approval Center.

Survey Methods (For more details on Gallup's polling methodology, visit www.gallup.com)

Results for this Gallup poll are based on telephone interviews conducted Nov. 1-30, 2013, on the Gallup Daily tracking survey, with a random sample of 14,352 adults, aged 18 and older, and living in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia.

For results based on the total sample of national adults, the margin of sampling error is ±1 percentage point at the 95% confidence level.

For results based on the total sample of 1,185 Hispanics, the margin of sampling error is ±4 percentage points at the 95% confidence level.Interviews are conducted with respondents on landline telephones and cellular phones, with interviews conducted in Spanish for respondents who are primarily Spanish-speaking. Each sample of national adults includes a minimum quota of 50% cellphone respondents and 50% landline respondents, with additional minimum quotas by region.

Landline and cell telephone numbers are selected using random-digit-dial methods. Landline respondents are chosen at random within each household on the basis of which member had the most recent birthday.

Samples are weighted to correct for unequal selection probability, nonresponse, and double coverage of landline and cell users in the two sampling frames. They are also weighted to match the national demographics of gender, age, race, Hispanic ethnicity, education, region, population density, and phone status (cellphone only/landline only/both, and cellphone mostly). Demographic weighting targets are based on the March 2012 Current Population Survey figures for the aged 18 and older U.S. population. Phone status targets are based on the July-December 2011 National Health Interview Survey. Population density targets are based on the 2010 census. All reported margins of sampling error include the computed design effects for weighting.

In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear colegas,

The L.A. City Council just approved unanimously the attached resolution and we’re now poised to get California local legislative bodies to approve similar resolutions.

This is a historic action by the 2^nd largest city in the U.S., and we anticipate many other cities to follow the same course of action as called for by the national “Protect our Families” campaign.

In fact, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors have scheduled for January 14, 2014 to consider approving a resolution based on the Cedillo resolution approved today.

If you know a local elected official at a personal level, please ask for them to consider providing the leadership role to seek approval of similar resolutions, respectively.

Please confirm if you are able to do that and when it may be possible, before our next meeting.

The “Protect our Families” campaign will meet next Monday, Dec. 23 at 7:00pm in the Gallery of the Mexican Cultural Institute at Plaza Olvera (125 Paseo de la Plaza, Los Angeles, Cal. 90012).

For you reference, we’ve attached other relevant documents useful to draft your own version and let me know if we can provide you any assistance.

Saludos y un abrazo,

Armando

BOLETIN DE PRENSA DE LA CAMPANA ‘PROTECCION A NUESTRAS FAMILIAS’

Contactos de prensa de la campaña “Protección a Nuestras Familias” para medios:

Armando Vázquez-Ramos, Centro de Estudios California-México: (562) 430-5541

Angela Sanbrano, Red Mexicana de Líderes y Organizaciones Migrantes: (323) 371-7305

Resolución que pide fin a las deportaciones y acción diferida para indocumentados, es aprobada por el Concilio de Los Angeles

En un hecho histórico, el Concejo de Los Angeles aprobó en el Día Internacional del Migrante, una resolución que respalda la carta de los legisladores Raúl Grijalva e Yvette Clark, firmada por 29 legisladores bipartidistas, que pide al presidente Barack Obama que detenga las deportaciones y extienda la acción diferida a millones de personas sin documentos.

La resolución 130002-S148 fue aprobada con diez votos. Inicialmente fue presentada por Gil Cedillo el 13 de diciembre y el día de la votación fue secundada por el concejal Curren D. Price Jr.

Las organizaciones pro inmigrantes que respaldaron al concejal Cedillo consideran que se trata de un hecho histórico “ya que Los Angeles es la segunda ciudad más grande de Estados Unidos y anticipamos que ciudades como San Francisco, Seattle, San Antonio, Nueva York y Oakland, entre otras ciudades del país, muy pronto adopten medidas similares”, indicó el profesor Armando Vazquez-Ramos, presidente del Centro de Estudios California-Mexico.

La resolución hace un llamado al presidente Obama para poner fin a las deportaciones, pidiéndole “que actúe ahora y expanda el programa de Acción Diferida a todas las familias migrantes que no han cometido delitos serios”, expresó Gil Cedillo.

Antes de la votación, el concejal argumentó que “respetamos el proceso legislativo pero cuando ese proceso no funciona, es un llamado para el liderazgo. El Congreso falló en actuar en este asunto que tiene un impacto sobre once millones de familias; dos millones de personas han sido deportadas y 500 mil de esas familias tienen niños nacidos en Estados Unidos y como consecuencia estos niños están siendo enviados a centros de adopción o incluso son deportados. Esto es una atrocidad y es inaceptable”.

Cedillo agregó: “hoy estamos aquí para pedir que nuestro presidente Barack Obama, detenga las deportaciones y que escuche a los 29 líderes del Congreso así como a las comunidades que le están pidiendo que detenga las deportaciones y que proporcione una extensión de la acción diferida”.

Hizo notar que el presidente Obama no es el mismo hombre que pidió el apoyo de la comunidad latina cuando era candidato. “No es el mismo hombre por el que hice campaña en Texas, Nevada y California; este no es el hombre por el que yo voté como un campeón a favor de los inmigrantes. Tristemente, él se ha convertido en el campeón de las deportaciones”, concluyó el concejal por el distrito uno, de los Angeles.

El concejal Curren Price descató el hecho de que en la administración de Obama se haya registrado un número récord de deportaciones, lo cual está dividiendo a las familias; dijo que es necesario dejar de penalizar a los inmigrantes.

Hijo de inmigrantes mexicanos, el concejal José Huízar dijo que “hasta que no tengamos una reforma migratoria integral que arregle el sistema migratorio que no funciona, que no refleja el espíritu americano y que no ha hecho más que separar a las familias, hagamos algo que arregle esta situación para expandir el Programa de Acción Diferida”.

“Le estamos diciendo al Congreso y al país, que no vamos a dejar este asunto; necesitamos arreglar esas cosas que son inaceptables”, añadió Huízar.

El padre Richard Estrada, quien ha trabajado con la comunidad migrante por 35 años dijo que las deportaciones son algo moralmente equivocado ya que “no es bueno para las familias, para las comunidades ni para la nación. Esto es una vergüenza y ustedes están haciendo lo correcto al pasar esta resolución”.

Reprobó el maltrato que se da a las personas arrestadas por agentes migratorios y que son enviadas a los centros de detención y expresó que son inaceptables las muertes de migrantes en la frontera.

“Dios no quiere que dejemos a nuestro gobierno que siga separando a los niños de sus familias”, indicó el sacerdote católico.

Angela Sanbrano, de Red Mx y parte de la campaña “Protección a Nuestras Familias”, señaló que en todo el mundo se celebra el Día Internacional del Migrante por lo que el 18 de diciembre fue el día apropiado para respaldar la resolución presentada por el concejal Gil Cedillo y Curren Price.

Sanbrano comentó que todos los días, más de mil 200 personas son deportadas causando dolor y sufrimiento a miles de familias; las deportaciones también provocan un gran daño social y económico a las comunidades.

“En los últimos 5 años, el presidente Obama deportó más de dos millones de personas, el mayor número de deportados que cualquier otro presidente en la historia de Estados Unidos”, dijo.

Resaltó el hecho de que el mayor daño que ocasionan las deportaciones afecta especialmente a los niños y jóvenes. “ En los últimos dos años, el 23 por ciento de las personas que fueron deportadas eran padres de niños ciudadanos de Estados Unidos. Muchos niños son enviados a centros de adopción y muchos padres que han sido deportados han perdido la comunicación con sus familias”, señaló.

Rita Medina, de la Coalición por los Derechos Humanos de los Inmigrantes (Chirla) explicó a los concejales que las deportaciones no sólo afectan a las mil 200 personas que diariamente son expulsadas del país, sino que lastima a los niños y a familias enteras, además de afectar a los empleadores.

Intercedió a favor de la resolución y las familias migrantes, especialmente por aquellas personas que no podrán estar con sus familiares en estas fiestas navideñas debido a las deportaciones.

Luego de mencionar que sus abuelos fueron inmigrantes que llegaron de Irlanda y Alemania, el concejal Tom LaBonge comentó que la aprobación de la resolución es un esfuerzo por mantener a las familias unidas y “mejorar este triste capítulo” de las políticas migratorias en el país.

En el mismo sentido se pronunció el concejal Mitch O’Farrell quien destacó la importancia de que a nivel local las autoridades envíen un mensaje a Washington después de que los congresistas fallaron en aprobar una legalización.

Los Angeles, CA a 18 de diciembre del 2013 ~ Día internacional del Migrante.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“PROTECT OUR FAMILIES” LETTER TO PRES. OBAMA

Current cosigners:

Raúl M. Grijalva, Yvette Clarke, John Delaney, Jan Schakowsky, Del. Eni Faleomavaega, Dina Titus, Mark Pocan, Marc Veasey, Alcee L. Hastings, Mike Honda, Tony Cardenas, Barbara Lee, Lloyd Doggett, Charles Rangel, Rubén Hinojosa, Filemon Vela, John Lewis, Grace Napolitano, Del. Eleanor Holmes-Norton, Sam Farr, Sheila Jackson Lee, Rush Holt, Bobby L. Rush, Madeleine Bordallo, Gwen Moore, Beto O’Rourke

Dear Colleague,

We ask that you join us in signing the letter below asking President Obama to expand the successful deferred action program and suspend any further deportations of those who would be potential citizens under immigration reform.

The civil disobedience action on Tuesday, October 8th has shown our commitment to making sure immigration reform is brought to the floor and families stop being separated. Thousands of people, including labor unions and faith groups, joined our effort on Tuesday to underscore the urgent need for House Republican leadership to take concrete action to ensure that the House of Representatives has votes on immigration reform this year. Those affected by deportations spoke at the rally, including Angel Aguilar, an eleven year old boy whose father was deported. Support Angel and children just like him by urging the President to stop deportations while the House works on a comprehensive immigration reform bill.

The United States is now deporting people at a faster rate than at any time in our modern history, more than 1,100 people per day. Between the years 2008 and 2012, an estimated 1.5 million immigrants were deported. Although the administration has reportedly prioritized deporting only criminals, our broken immigration policy has separated far too many families. According to a 2009 report by the Department of Homeland Security, only 11% of those detained were held for violent crimes.

As we continue our push for immigration reform, and as it is met with opposition, working people should not have to continue to live in fear of separation from their families and our communities. Deferred action would give millions of families the opportunity to contribute to our great nation in a variety of ways. We urge you to join us in building a humane immigration system that addresses our needs as a single society connected by family values, economic needs, and the desire to create a life for ourselves and those we love.

Some of our colleagues worked with representatives from 543 organizations across the nation making this request to the President and we are pleased to formalize it in this letter.

If you would like to join us or have any questions, please contact Christina Partida at christina.partida@mail.house.gov or at 5-2435.

Raúl M. Grijalva Yvette Clarke

Member of Congress Member of Congress

Dear Mr. President,

The undersigned Members of Congress respectfully request that you expand the successful deferred action program and suspend any further deportations of those who would be potential citizens under immigration reform.

We stand by the 543 faith-based, labor, neighborhood, legal, and civil rights organizations, including the AFL-CIO, MALDEF, United We Dream, and NDLON that support this proposal, and agree that this is the best way to advance the path to citizenship for undocumented individuals across the country.

We appreciate your commitment to reforming our nation’s broken immigration policies for the benefit of all. In the context of the intransigence of a small number of legislators that are willing to hold the legislation hostage unless we pass a series of incredibly extreme proposals, a cessation of the deportation of the 1,100 potential citizens expelled daily would do a great deal to set the parameters of the conversation.

Let us not take these policies lightly. Every deportation of a father, a sister, or a neighbor tears at our social consciousness; every unnecessary raid and detention seriously threatens the fabric of civil liberties we swore to uphold. We are talking about American families and American communities. Criminalizing American families or giving local law enforcement the responsibility to choose who stays and who goes, is not the right option.

Our efforts in Congress will only be helped by the sensible and moral step of stopping deportations.

As we have seen with deferred action for childhood arrivals, such relief brings with it the benefit of active participation in the debate by undocumented people themselves. When their stories are known and voices are heard, we have witnessed how the debate shifts. The fear and xenophobia that block progress only shrink in the display of their courage. But left unchecked, the threat of deportations will prevent so many from coming forward and contributing to the national conversation. Instead, the specter of deportation removes the human and grounding element in any political discussion—those individuals who are most directly impacted.

The senseless opposition that neither reflects the public’s will, nor the moral responsibility we hold, should not allow us to prolong the needless suffering of those who could so soon have their place in our society fully recognized. In fact, taking a strong step toward granting relief would move us in the direction of where the immigration debate rightfully should start, with the legalization of eleven million men and women who call the United States their home.

As the debate proceeds, it is necessary to expand the protections of our future citizens that were established by the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program and grant it to the family and neighbors and all of those who have made their lives here but are yet to be fully recognized.

We cannot continue to witness potential citizens in our districts go through the anguish of deportation when legalization could be just around the corner for them. We look to you to firmly contribute to advancing inclusion for immigrants by suspending deportations and expanding DACA.

Sincerely,

The undersigned

California Congress Members not signed-on to Grijalva/Clarke letter to Pres. Obama:

Name	Phone	Committee Assignment
Huffman, Jared	202-225-5161	Budget Natural Resources
Garamendi, John	202-225-1880	Agriculture Armed Services Transportation and Infrastructure

Thompson, Mike	202-225-3311	Ways and Means Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence
Matsui, Doris O.	202-225-7163	Energy and Commerce
Bera, Ami	202-225-5716	Foreign Affairs Science, Space, and Technology

McNerney, Jerry	202-225-1947	Energy and Commerce
Denham, Jeff	202-225-4540	Agriculture Transportation and Infrastructure Veterans' Affairs
Miller, George	202-225-2095	Education and the Workforce
Pelosi, Nancy	202-225-4965	Democratic Leader

Speier, Jackie	202-225-3531	Armed Services Oversight and Government Reform
Swalwell, Eric	202-225-5065	Homeland Security Science, Space, and Technology
Costa, Jim	202-225-3341	Agriculture Natural Resources
Honda, Mike	202-225-2631	Appropriations
Eshoo, Anna G.	202-225-8104	Energy and Commerce
Lofgren, Zoe	202-225-3072	House Administration Judiciary Science, Space, and Technology
Farr, Sam	202-225-2861	Appropriations
Valadao, David	202-225-4695	Appropriations
Nunes, Devin	202-225-2523	Ways and Means Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence

Capps, Lois	202-225-3601	Energy and Commerce
Brownley, Julia	202-225-5811	Science, Space, and Technology Veterans' Affairs
Chu, Judy	202-225-5464	Judiciary Small Business
Schiff, Adam	202-225-4176	Appropriations Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence
Sherman, Brad	202-225-5911	Financial Services Foreign Affairs
Waxman, Henry	202-225-3976	Energy and Commerce
Becerra, Xavier	202-225-6235	Ways and Means
Negrete McLeod, Gloria	202-225-6161	Agriculture Veterans' Affairs
Ruiz, Raul	202-225-5330	Natural Resources Veterans' Affairs
Bass, Karen	202-225-7084	Foreign Affairs Judiciary
Sanchez, Linda	202-225-6676	Ethics Ways and Means
Roybal-Allard, Lucille	202-225- 1766	Appropriations
Takano, Mark	202-225-2305	Science, Space, and Technology Veterans' Affairs

Waters, Maxine	202-225-2201	Financial Services
Hahn, Janice	202-225-8220	Small Business Transportation and Infrastructure

Sanchez, Loretta	202-225-2965	Armed Services Homeland Security
Lowenthal, Alan	202-225-7924	Foreign Affairs Natural Resources
Vargas, Juan	202-225-8045	Agriculture Foreign Affairs House Administration
Peters, Scott	202-225-0508	Armed Services Science, Space, and Technology
Davis, Susan	202-225-2040	Armed Services Education and the Workforce

* MEMBERS ALREADY SIGNED-ON TO GRIJALVA/CLARKE LETTER TO PRES. OBAMA:

Cardenas, Tony	202-225-6131	Budget Natural Resources Oversight and Government Reform
Napolitano, Grace	202-225-5256	Natural Resources Transportation and Infrastructure
Lee, Barbara	202-225-2661	Appropriations Budget

------------------------------------------------------------------------

GOP’s McCarthy: No House votes on immigration this year

Third-ranking House Republican tells immigration advocates no House votes this year…

By Donna Cassata, Associated Press, Nov. 8, 2013

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The third-ranking House Republican told immigration advocates that lawmakers won't vote this year on the issue, confirming what many had long assumed.

California Rep. Kevin McCarthy, the majority whip, said in a meeting with immigration proponents that there weren't enough days left for the House to act and he was committed to addressing overhaul of the nation's immigration system next year. The congressman's office confirmed what he said.

Angelica Salas, the board chairwoman for the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles, described her conversation with McCarthy in a conference call with reporters on Friday and a subsequent interview with The Associated Press. "What he said was, there's 13 days left, it's very hard to do anything in 13 days," Salas said of McCarthy.

The House returns next week after a weeklong break, but only has a few legislative days remaining.

The Senate passed a comprehensive bill in June that would provide a path to citizenship for the 11 million immigrants in the country illegally and tighten border security, but piecemeal bills in the House have languished since the summer.

Salas and about a dozen women occupied McCarthy's Bakersfield, Calif., office on Thursday to increase the pressure on the Republican to move ahead on immigration legislation. Around 11 p.m. that night, McCarthy and his wife, Judy, met with the group protesting the delay.

"He said, 'Ladies, I hear you want to talk to me. This is just not the way to do it,'" Salas recalled. She said McCarthy and the group spoke for about an hour, and the women explained that while they appreciated his support for immigration reform, it was imperative for the House to act as soon as possible. "This is about political will to do what is right," Salas said. "This is what we're challenging."

Most House Republicans reject a comprehensive approach as well as the Senate bill, with many questioning the offer of citizenship to people who broke U.S. immigration laws to be in this country. The House Judiciary Committee has moved forward with individual, single-issue immigration bills.

Erica Elliott, a spokeswoman for McCarthy, said Friday that he "supports fixing our broken immigration system. He also believes that it is incumbent upon all participants in the debate to work together to address immigration reform on an issue-by-issue basis rather than demanding that any reform only happen in the context of a massive bill that fails to appropriately address the underlying problems plaguing the current process."

Although House Republican leaders say they want to resolve the issue, which has become a political drag for the GOP, many rank-and-file House Republicans have shown little inclination to deal with immigration. The bitter standoff with President Barack Obama on the budget and near default further angered House Republicans, who have resisted any move that might give Obama an immigration overhaul, the top item on his second-term domestic agenda.

Many House Republicans also are wary of passing any immigration legislation that would set up a conference with the Democratic-controlled Senate, fearing the House could lose out in final negotiations.

The Senate bill, strongly backed by the White House, includes billions for border security, a reworked legal immigration system to allow tens of thousands of high- and low-skilled workers into the country and a 13-year path to citizenship for those living here illegally.

The conference call was sponsored by America's Voice, an advocacy group.

Details of McCarthy's conversation comes as the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops stepped up pressure on the House to act on immigration legislation before the end of the year, calling the issue "a matter of great moral urgency" that cannot wait.

Cardinal Timothy Dolan, the archbishop of New York, said in a letter to House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, on Thursday that he was troubled by reports that immigration reform is delayed in the House since lawmakers have a responsibility to resolve the issue. Writing on behalf of the 450-plus U.S. cardinals and bishops, Dolan said they respectfully request that the House address the immigration issue as soon as possible.

"As a moral matter ... our nation cannot continue to receive the benefits of the work and contributions of undocumented immigrants without extending to them the protection of the law," Dolan wrote. "Keeping these human beings as a permanent underclass of workers who are unable to assert their rights or enjoy the fruits of their labor is a stain on the soul of the nation."

------------------------------------------------------------------------

How immigration reform diedBy Russell Berman, The Hill - 11/12/13

Rep. Luis Gutiérrez’s phone was ringing. It was President Obama’s chief of staff.

Gutiérrez (D-Ill.) was part of a bipartisan group of lawmakers in the middle of May that was on the cusp of a breakthrough agreement on immigration reform.

Denis McDonough told Gutiérrez that Obama opposed a key concession that Democratic negotiators had made to House Republicans.

Sen. Charles Schumer later called. The New York Democrat, the architect of more liberal legislation from the Gang of Eight that was advancing in the Senate, delivered an even blunter message.

“Stop the progress on the House bill,” Gutiérrez described Schumer as saying. “I want you to stop. You are damaging the Senate proposal moving forward.”

The White House and Senate Democrats did not want a more conservative House plan —designed to pass muster with a Republican majority — to emerge before the Gang of Eight’s proposal had passed on the Senate floor.

Lacking support from party leaders, Democrats in the House group suffered from internal divisions over how far to bend in their bid to reach a deal that could set up a compromise with the more favorable Senate bill.

Tempers flared frequently between Gutiérrez, the colorful Chicago lawmaker revered by immigration advocates, and Rep. Xavier Becerra (Calif.), a Los Angeles liberal who had risen up the ranks of the Democratic leadership.

Immigration reform is widely seen as dead in this Congress, and the finger-pointing has already started.

Both parties are responsible for the effort’s demise.

Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), for example, refused pleas from GOP negotiators for a commitment to move the House bill. Republicans could never give Democrats a clear sense of how many GOP lawmakers might support the proposal if it ever reached the floor.

Inside the House Group of Eight, momentum toward a deal slowed as negotiations became bogged down in a dispute over healthcare. By the end of May, the group had lost its self-described conservative hardliner, Rep. Raúl Labrador (R-Idaho), who quit despite pleas from top Republicans, including Rep. Paul Ryan (Wis.), that he stay at the table.

The remaining seven met through the summer, but their moment had passed.

“I think Raúl figured that no matter what happened, we weren’t going to make a deal,” said Gutiérrez, one of four House Democrats in the group. “When he left, everybody said we were still alive, but I didn’t think we were.”

The group’s collapse after more than four years of talks left the House without a bipartisan immigration proposal to rival the Senate bill that passed in June, and a year after Obama’s re-election, the prospects for his top second-term domestic priority are bleak.

Abandoning the legislation in September, Texas Reps. Sam Johnson and John Carter cited a growing lack of trust in the Obama administration’s commitment to implementing the law.

But in a series of interviews with The Hill over the past two months, Democratic and Republican negotiators said the group’s failure stemmed from divisions among Democrats over strategy and policy, as well as Boehner’s refusal to put his weight behind the bill and help steer it through the House.

This account is drawn from extensive interviews with six members of the group and several of their advisers. Some spoke on the condition of anonymity to reconstruct, for the first time, private negotiations that occurred over several years.

ROLLING THE DICE

Leaders in both parties, including Boehner, once had high hopes for the group, which formed before Obama took office in 2009. The Speaker had made clear in public and in private that the House needed to tackle immigration reform after the 2012 election, and he told Republicans he thought the group represented the chamber’s best chance for success.

Ryan, the popular House GOP budget chief and 2012 vice presidential nominee, worked with members of the group behind the scenes and bolstered it publicly with words of support at critical moments.

The group began under humble auspices in 2008, when Becerra approached Johnson, a deep-red conservative and a colleague on the Ways and Means Committee.

Johnson, a respected former POW in Vietnam, had served as a founding member and chairman of the conservative Republican Study Committee years earlier, and publicly he gave no indication that he would be a deal-maker on immigration. To this day, Johnson’s website boasts that he has “zero tolerance for those who break the rules” and supports an “enforcement-first” policy.

“If you are here illegally, you ought to be deported,” Johnson says in a quote atop the website’s immigration section.

“We vote almost the opposite of each other,” Becerra noted.

But during those early private talks they found common ground on immigration. “Do we want to roll the dice and expand?” Becerra recalled them asking each other. “So we said yes.”

Gutiérrez had been a co-sponsor of bipartisan House legislation during the last major immigration push in 2006-2007. He attended early meetings of the new group, but when he saw the discussions moving to the right, he bolted.

At its peak, the group included more than 20 members. Its hallmark was secrecy.

Meeting over take-out dinners in House conference rooms, the members kept their deliberations hidden not just from the public, but also from the Obama White House.

While Democratic negotiators occasionally updated senior officials and the president was aware of the group, Democrats refused to tell the White House which Republicans were at the table. And even after they drafted and reviewed a 500-page bill earlier this year, lawmakers never showed it to senior White House officials.

In the early months of the Obama presidency, immigration reform fell down the list of priorities, and when the political environment turned toxic over healthcare, Democrats pulled back.

When Republicans won the House majority in the wave election of 2010, the bill was shelved.

“Maybe we should just lay low for a while,” Becerra said he told Johnson.

‘ALMOST ALL OF THE MEMBERS WERE GONE’

For the next two years, members of the group had only informal conversations, but after Obama won a second term in November 2012, he signaled that immigration reform would be a top priority in 2013.

Across the Capitol, Schumer and Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) reunited and formed what would be become known as the Gang of Eight.

On the House side, Becerra had become the chairman of the Democratic Caucus, the fourth-ranking leadership post. He once again approached Johnson, but they quickly recognized a more immediate challenge.

“Almost all of the members were gone,” Becerra said.

Whether by retirement or defeat, several of the negotiators had left the House, and each side went searching for replacements. On the Democratic side, Becerra and Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) remained. The Republicans had Carter, Johnson and Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (Fla.), whose brother, Lincoln, was an original member of the group.

To replace the Democrats, Becerra recruited Rep. John Yarmuth (D-Ky.) and sounded out Gutiérrez, who returned, reluctantly, with a demand that the group soften a provision requiring immigrants in the country illegally to appear in a federal courtroom before they could gain probationary legal status.

The Republicans brought in Labrador, a former immigration attorney who had, in just one term, built a reputation as a conservative firebrand.

An early order of business was changing the initial process for legalization that Carter had crafted.

Under the new process, immigrants would appear instead in an immigration court, where they would formally receive an order of probation to defer the adjudication of their deportation proceeding. Under the terms of probation, they would have to take a number of steps, including the payment of fines, learning English and obeying the law, and they would not be eligible to apply for green cards for at least a decade.

“We had agreed on a process to help transition the undocumented that was rigorous,” Becerra said. “It was tough, but I thought it was fair. It wasn’t an effort to try to treat them as criminals.”

The negotiators operated under the assumption that of the 11 million estimated illegal immigrants now in the U.S., a sizable portion would not make it through the process of legalization.

“We knew that many of them would not pass the test, but we felt that was fair,” Becerra said.

RACING THE SENATE

As winter turned to spring in 2013, the House negotiators — still working nominally in secret —were racing against their much more public counterparts in the Senate to lay down the first marker on immigration reform.

Once the members had settled on a path to legalization, the talks advanced quickly, and some in the group wanted to go public with a framework for legislation, if not a complete bill.

“That was a consideration,” Becerra said.

Ultimately, the Senate Gang of Eight finished first, unveiling its 844-page bill with fanfare on April 16.

The concessions made by Schumer and fellow Democratic Sens. Dick Durbin (Ill.) Robert Menendez (N.J.) and Michael Bennet (Colo.), spilled over into the House talks, where Democrats were forced to drop demands for provisions favored by liberals, such as a diversity visa program prized by the Congressional Black Caucus and by the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus.

“That set a bar,” Yarmuth said of the Senate bill. “We understood that we could not be, whatever provision it was, could not be to the left of the Senate.”

A HARD TRIGGER

To win conservative support, Republicans demanded a “hard trigger” to tie the path to legalization for immigrants to progress in implementing either the border security or interior enforcement parts of the bill. One idea that Democrats rejected was to give immigration enforcement power to state and local law authorities, similar to controversial Arizona legislation that the Supreme Court had partially invalidated.

Democrats instead agreed to a trigger on the employment verification system, known as E-Verify, which could have resulted in immigrants losing their probationary legal status if the new program was not implemented within five years.

In interviews, Democrats said they backed the proposal based on assurances from the White House that the E-Verify program would take a maximum of three years to complete. That would leave as many as four years of extra time, because the clock would not start until the first immigrants applied for probationary status one or two years after enactment of the bill.

Still, Becerra objected to the provision and insisted that the full Democratic leadership weigh in.

“Somebody doesn’t implement E-Verify properly and they’re told, ‘We’re deporting you now.’ I did not agree with that,” he said in an interview.

When the Democrats in the group met with the leadership, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) gave her approval of the concession, though she went around the room and asked each of the negotiators if they agreed. Gutiérrez, Lofgren and Yarmuth all said yes. Becerra said no.

Gutiérrez confronted Becerra, pointing out that while Becerra was balking at the E-Verify provision as unfair, he had been the one to agree, years earlier, to a legalization path that Gutiérrez had characterized as the “criminalization” of immigrants in the country illegally.

The E-Verify trigger remained in the bill.

“I lost. I lost,” Becerra said.

THE WHITE HOUSE, AND SCHUMER, COME CALLING

Neither the White House nor Senate Democrats were happy. The Senate bill contained no such hard trigger, and with that proposal advancing steadily toward a floor vote, party leaders worried that the introduction of a more conservative House proposal would scare off Senate Republicans — particularly Sen. Marco Rubio (Fla.) — or cause them to demand similar concessions in the Gang of Eight plan.

“If this proposal had moved forward before the Senate bill passed, there would have been no bill in the House, and no bill in the Senate, period,” a Senate Democratic aide said.

McDonough called Gutiérrez and Lofgren to voice the president’s opposition. Schumer and other Senate Democrats followed suit, urging them, at the very least, to hold off on any announcement before the Senate bill made it off the floor.

“The request wasn’t that the House never move forward, the request was that the House wait,” the Senate aide said. “Democratic senators, the White House, and Leader Pelosi believed that pushing a proposal to the right of the Senate bill before it had even been passed would have sent Republican senators running from the bipartisan process, and would have all but eliminated any hopes of having a path to citizenship at the end of the day.”

The House Democrats refused to make that commitment, but despite pressure from Republicans — including Boehner — to speed up their bill, the negotiations dragged through May and June.

Schumer declined to comment for this article.

Multiple Democrats in the House group said they understood the concerns of McDonough and Schumer, but said the White House never took seriously their warnings that the House GOP would not accept the Senate bill and that the lower chamber needed its own bill to set up a conference committee.

“It is clear to me that there was no strategy on the White House’s part post-Senate victory. Because the Senate victory was the strategy,” Gutiérrez said.

In an interview, the director of Obama’s Domestic Policy Council, Cecilia Muñoz, would not comment on the calls from McDonough, but said the White House needed to be flexible as it dealt with two very different chambers of Congress.

“Our strategy has been focused on getting the best possible vehicles out of the Senate and the House at the earliest possible date,” she said. “That’s been true for a long time and it continues to be true. That also requires some flexibility and fluidity given the dynamics in each chamber.”

While the White House worked with both Democratic and Republican members of the Senate Gang, its involvement with the House group was more limited and less formal, in part because Republicans did not want to be seen as negotiating with Obama.

“As we did with the Senate group, we tried very hard to be useful without being heavy handed,” Muñoz said. “And the signals we were getting from the House group was that we needed to give them the space to do their work. That’s what we did.”

Two Texas Republicans were about to take a leap. A big one.

Reps. John Carter and Sam Johnson had worked for more than four years to craft a bipartisan immigration overhaul, risking their political reputations to join with liberal Democrats on the kind of legislation that many conservatives reviled.

In the summer of 2013, the 500-page bill was written, reviewed and endorsed by their four Democratic colleagues. But Carter and Johnson needed something more — a commitment from Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) that the proposal would move and not be left hanging for immigration reform foes like Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) to use for target practice.

Boehner wouldn’t give it to them.

Time and again, the Speaker’s response was the same: Finish your work, introduce your bill and we’ll see what happens.

“Why should we risk our political capital?” Carter said. “Our leadership is not willing to move forward.”

Back home in their districts over the August recess, the two faced criticism from constituents and conservative groups.

Carter cited the “vitriol” of critics who opposed the very premise of immigration reform.

When lawmakers returned to Washington in September, heated debates over a military intervention in Syria and then a government shutdown consumed the Capitol. The bipartisan group of seven never met again in person. On Sept. 20, Carter and Johnson announced their withdrawal in a lengthy public statement that blamed the Obama administration for its selective enforcement of immigration law and its move to delay the healthcare employer mandate.

“If past actions are the best indicators of future behavior; we know that any measure depending on the president’s enforcement will not be faithfully executed,” Carter and Johnson said. “It would be gravely irresponsible to further empower this administration by granting them additional authority or discretion with a new immigration system.”

The exit of Carter and Johnson, two of the group’s original members four years earlier, was the fatal blow for an effort that had already been severely weakened months earlier by the departure of another conservative, Rep. Raúl Labrador (R-Idaho).

While it was internal squabbles and outside interference that undercut Democrats in the group, it was ultimately a lack of political will that sapped Republicans, according to interviews with negotiators and their key advisers.

“There was a lot of will upfront, and over time that will waned,” a Democrat involved in the talks said.

THE HARD-LINER ENTERS, AND EXITS

Labrador had joined the group in January to replace Republicans who had left Congress since the discussions first began. A sophomore firebrand who had withheld his vote from Boehner for Speaker, he was seen as key to getting support from many of the younger, Tea Party-aligned conservatives elected to the House in 2010 and 2012.

A longtime immigration attorney, Labrador both impressed and infuriated Democrats in the group with his command of, and obsession with, the practical details of the legislation.

“We always had some concerns that he was going to be difficult, but he actually was very constructive in the process,” Rep. John Yarmuth (D-Ky.) said.

Labrador embraced the role of hardliner, and he chafed at what he saw as attempts by Democrats to reopen agreements in the bill, on issues like a requirement that immigrants pay back taxes as a condition for legal status, that he thought were settled.

Democrats involved in the talks described him as “explosive” and “volatile” at times, yet they also viewed his expertise on immigration law as invaluable. It was Labrador, for example, who worked with Rep. Luis Gutiérrez (D-Ill.) to soften Carter’s original stipulation that immigrants in the country illegally appear before a federal judge before they could receive probationary status to remain in the country.

As the group neared an agreement in the spring, Labrador — who has eyed higher office — drew a bright line on healthcare: immigrants in a probationary status would have to be responsible for their own insurance, and they could not receive any taxpayer subsidies, particularly any offered under the new healthcare reform law.

Democrats had conceded the point, and a provision in the Senate bill explicitly barred immigrants on the path to citizenship from receiving Obama-Care subsidies. But as Labrador demanded even more explicit legislative language, Democrats feared he was using the immigration bill to re-open President Obama’s signature law, and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) became concerned that Democratic negotiators were overstepping their bounds by negotiating on healthcare.

The White House also weighed in, with Obama chief of staff Denis McDonough voicing concerns to Democratic negotiators about the healthcare issue.

Pelosi brought in an author of the Affordable Care Act, Rep. Henry Waxman (Calif.), and other senior Democrats to help draft language that would satisfy Labrador without creating a scenario in which immigrants could face deportation if they got into an accident or were diagnosed with cancer and couldn’t pay emergency hospital bills.

The two sides exchanged proposals for more than a week, and Democrats even enlisted Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) to help broker an agreement on healthcare and persuade Labrador to stay in the group. Ryan, the popular House GOP budget chief and a supporter of immigration reform, did try to keep Labrador from leaving, an aide said, but to no avail.

Labrador left in early June, unpersuaded on the healthcare issue and convinced that the White House and Democratic leaders would not allow their negotiators to sign onto a bill more conservative than the Senate’s Gang of Eight proposal.

The remaining seven announced they were moving forward with an agreement in principle, and they set about putting the finishing touches on the bill. But they knew Labrador’s exit had dealt a critical blow, jeopardizing their chances of winning significant conservative support.

MAJORITY OF THE MAJORITY

A preoccupation of the group both before and after Labrador’s departure was the question of how many Republican votes the bill could ultimately garner from the conservative House GOP conference.

Rep. Xavier Becerra (D-Calif.) repeatedly assured Republicans that Democrats could deliver a vast majority of their conference — as many as 180 votes, Yarmuth said — if necessary. Republicans couldn’t counter with their own number, an uncertainty that frustrated the Democrats.

“We never whipped it,” Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-Fla.) said.

Labrador was hoping to achieve a bill that could win 150 Republican votes, a total that Democrats considered a pipe dream and would mean significant losses on their own side.

Diaz-Balart said the goal was always a majority of Republicans, even before Boehner publicly declared in late June that any immigration bill would have to cross that threshold to come to the floor.

“We talked about that a million times — strategy and everything,” Diaz-Balart said. “The fact remained that in order to move legislation in the House, we gotta get the majority plus one. That was just the reality.”

Yet as the weeks dragged on, it became clear to members of the group that the proposal would sink if it were introduced without a firm commitment from Boehner to push it forward.

Members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus met with Boehner in June, and many lawmakers emerged cautiously optimistic. Boehner had reminded them he broke with the Republican Conference in 2005 by opposing immigration legislation favored by hardliners.

But the Speaker made no promises, and members took note that he urged them not to say nice things about him to reporters.

By the summer, Diaz-Balart said, he knew the group’s bill would not win support from a majority of Republicans without more changes. Conservatives regularly raised concerns that they could not trust the Obama administration to implement the security portions of the bill once it announced its unilateral decision to delay the employer mandate in the healthcare law.

“That was what broke the camel’s back,” Diaz-Balart said.

Democrats had long since given up hope on the conservative chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), who publicly professed support for immigration reform but advanced piecemeal bills through his panel solely on party-line votes. He said repeatedly he looked forward to seeing the group’s bill, but he wouldn’t commit to giving it a vote in the committee.

“Goodlatte is not working to achieve immigration reform. He is working to scuttle it,” a Democrat involved in the talks said.

Goodlatte declined to comment, but a committee aide said he was “working hard to reform our broken immigration system, starting with enforcement.”

Time and again, Boehner’s response was the same. He wouldn’t go around or pressure Goodlatte, and he wouldn’t deem the group’s bill the official House plan.

Carter and Johnson wouldn’t officially withdraw until September, but Democrats knew the bill was dead.

“Before we left for recess, it was cooked,” Gutierrez said. “It wasn’t even on life support."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Latino leaders silent in the face of immigration policy crisis

By Arturo Carmona, November 12, 2013

Marcela Espinoza and Marco Pacheco stood solemnly as Capitol Hill police arrested them last Monday. The two members of the “DREAM 30”, immigrant students seeking to re-enter the country after being deported or leaving the U.S. voluntarily, were arrested on the orders of a very powerful member of Congress.

One might expect the arrest order to come from one the legions of Republicans (still) committed to angering the more than 55 million Latinos in the country with their opposition to real immigration reform. But instead, the order to arrest Espinoza and Pacheco came from the office of Rep. Rubén Hinojosa (D-Texas), the Latino Democrat who is chairman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus.

The arrest of the immigrant rights activists by one of the most powerful Latinos in Congress is more than just ironic. Rather, it reflects how profoundly the complex politics of immigration reform have changed.

Increasingly, Democrats from President Obama on down, are the object of growing numbers of protests, marches, sit-ins and other acts of civil disobedience designed to push Democrats to stop the greatest, most immediate threat to immigrant life: the detention and deportation madness that has led Democrat Obama to become what some are calling “Deporter-In-Chief” and “the worst immigration President in US history.”

And more than any other Democrats, the members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus (CHC) and their chairman, Rubén Hinojosa, have a responsibility to lead and pressure Obama and the Democrats away from catastrophic immigration policies.

While not limited to Latinos, the destructive policies of the Obama administration - and the CHC’s obedient silence - have a disproportionate effect on Latinos. The overwhelmingmajority (more than 90 percent) of the 400,000-plus immigrants jailed yearly are Latino.

Eighty six percent of those jailed have no criminal record. President Obama, whose administration (still) labels those immigrants it’s jailing and deporting “criminals”, continues and expands immigration policies that have caused Latinos to become the single largest group jailed in federal prisons.

And then there’s the tragic truth that can’t be muted with hollow calls of “Si Se Puede!” at rallies for an “immigration reform” that has no chance of passing: the overwhelming majority of the soon-to-be 2 million people deported by the administration are Mexican and Central American.

Meanwhile, as the entire immigrant rights community escalates its activism in its call to end this tragedy, Hinojosa and many members of the CHC attack Republicans, get DREAMers arrested, but remain silent before President Obama’s unprecedented devastation of Latinos.

That silence raises important questions for a caucus that’s supposed to represent Latino interests. Why have many (not all) CHC members sat quietly during the greatest immigration crisis of our time, a crisis that disproportionately affects Latinos? Who does the CHC really represent? What can be done to help Hinojosa and the CHC be more than just uncritically loyal members of the Democratic and Republican parties?

While the CHC’s mission and name say it’s supposed to represent Latinos, its members’ refusal to stand up to disastrous immigration policies indicates they represent their parties more than theirpeople. With some exceptions like Rep. Filemon Vela (D-Texas), among others, the Democrats who make up the majority of the Hispanic Caucus, seem unable or unwilling to even pronounce the three words that would make all the difference in immigration reform: “Obama deports millions.”

Instead of simply pointing the finger at obstinate Republicans, Hinojosa and the CHC should pressure Obama, who has caused far more devastation in the lives of immigrants than the most radical Republicans. But you wouldn’t know that from CHC press releases and speeches. Some members, like Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.), have even gone so far as to accept money from PACs directly linked to the prison industry that profits from the imprisonment of hundreds of thousands of Latinos with no criminal record.

Though not a member of the Caucus, ranking Latino Republican Senator and major immigration policy shaper, Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), has also taken money from the prison lobby.

Democrat or Republican, Latino elected officials must represent the interests of their constituents over the interests of the prison lobby or their political party. Failure to do so makes “Latino politics” a lap dog of party politics and the powerful interests that increasingly define them.

We must move away from such a precarious and dangerous situation and towards a Latino politics that responds to the needs of the Latino community. Hinojosa and the CHC must break with internal party protocols and do what’s right: expose Obama’s failed immigration policies and push for change.

We can longer afford to put the party before the people.

Carmona is executive director of Presente.org, the largest national Latino online advocacy organization in the country.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Obama Approval Rating Drops On Economy, Immigration

The Huffington Post | By Ariel Edwards-Levy ~ 11/08/2013

President Barack Obama's approval rating has continued to drop during his second term, according to a Pew Research survey released Friday.

The poll found Obama's approval rating to be just 41 percent, down 11 points since January.

The decline in the president's rating this year has been more gradual than abrupt. Obama's numbers have declined across a variety of issues. His rating on immigration dropped significantly in the past six months, falling from 43 percent in June to 32 percent today.

His approval rating on the economy, which had hovered in the low 40s for most of this year, is now at 31 percent -- the lowest received by Obama or any of his three presidential predecessors, according to Pew.

His approval on health care is at a record low of 37 percent, slightly below where it stood during the 2010 battle over passing the Affordable Care Act. His rating on foreign policy, a winning issue for him until this year, is now at just 34 percent, little changed from September.

A bare majority still approves of the way Obama has handled of the threat of terrorism, the poll found -- the only issue tested for which he did not earn a negative rating.

The downward trend in presidential approval ratings is not without precedent.

"Obama’s second-term job ratings have followed a similar downward trajectory as those of his predecessor, George W. Bush. A year after his reelection, 36 percent approved of Bush’s job performance, down from 48 percent in December 2004," according to the Pew Research report. "In contrast, the two prior presidents who won reelection -- Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan -- enjoyed positive ratings over the course of the next year."

The results align with other recent polling. An NBC/Wall Street Journal survey released in late October put Obama's approval at an "all-time low."

Pew Research surveyed 2,003 adults between Oct. 30 and Nov. 6, using live phone interviews.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

President Obama needs legacy, GOP needs votes

By ROGER SIMON | POLITICO ~ Nov. 12, 2013

What if Texas starts turning blue due to increase in the Hispanic vote, Simon asks. | Reuters

If you like your president, you’re going to be able to keep him.

In fact, even if you don’t like your president, you’re going to keep him. He’s not like health insurance.

He’s here until Jan. 20, 2017, with no cancellation notices going out in the mail.

The president not only knows this, he has started talking about it. Friday, at a fundraiser in Florida, he said: “I’ve run my last election. And along with the gray hair, what comes with being president is that you take the long view and you start thinking about 10 years from now or 20 years from now or 30 years from now.”

Except not really. Barack Obama is an activist president who still has an agenda to pass in his second term, and he is thinking about 10 months, 20 months and 30 months from now.

And in his second term, he wants a big legacy issue, like health care was in his first term. He wants immigration reform and a path to citizenship for the 11 million undocumented workers in the United States.

At one time, this did not look so difficult. Politically, immigration reform helps both parties.

It is now clear, however, that there is a group of Republicans in the House, the so-called Kamikaze Caucus, that will vote against anything that Obama wants, even if it helps Republicans, too.

The Senate has passed a comprehensive immigration bill, but the House wants to chop it up into separate bills and deal with it piecemeal.

Why piecemeal? Let’s say House Republicans pass a law making E-Verify mandatory instead of voluntary. E-Verify is an Internet-based system used by some employers to determine if a job applicant is in the United States legally. (It is far from flawless, producing both false positives and false negatives, but it’s the best thing we’ve got.)

Democrats say, whoa, if you make E-Verify mandatory, without giving legal status to the 11 million already here, the system will be used just to deport people. If undocumented workers come out of the shadows, they will be “self-deporting.”

Republicans are also very big on securing our 2,000-mile border with Mexico, some wanting to make an absolutely secure border a necessity before anybody already in the United States gets legalized. (Nobody much cares about our 5,500-mile border with Canada.)

The current plan is to spend an incredible $46.3 billion for security along our southern border, about $30 billion of which is to double our number of border agents to 41,000.

A force of 41,000 to secure a 2,000-mile strip is a big security force. (We currently are using 48,000 U.S. troops to secure all of Afghanistan, which is 252,000 square miles.)

Sen. John McCain, Republican of Arizona, who helped write the Senate bill providing for all that security, said recently it was mostly political hooey.

“I’ll give you a little straight talk, we don’t need 20,000 additional Border Patrol agents,” McCain told the AFL-CIO. “I voted for it so friends of mine would have comfort that we are securing the border. But the real securing of the border is with technology as opposed to individuals, although we do certainly need individuals.”

Even the conservative Wall Street Journal editorial page is not happy with the planned border security “surge.” Its editorial stated: “Here’s the real story: For some Republicans, border security has become a ruse to kill reform. The border could be defended by the 10th Mountain Division and Claymore antipersonnel mines and it wouldn’t be secure enough. As we noted last month … the U.S.-Mexico border is more secure today than it has been in decades. According to Border Patrol statistics, illegal entries are at a 40-year low.”

But some Republicans are insisting on the piecemeal approach and the security ruse, even though there is a very good reason for Republicans to pass immigration reform.

That reason is math.

Take the four U.S. megastates: California, Texas, New York and Florida. California and New York are safely Democratic in presidential elections. Florida went Democratic in the past two presidential elections. Texas has been safely Republican.

But what if currently red Texas starts turning Democratic blue given the increase in the Hispanic vote? Not overnight. But eventually, inexorably.

If the Democrats could be assured of victory in all four megastates, it would give them 56 percent of the 270 electoral votes they need to elect a president, an enormous advantage.

“When Texas is purple, there will be no more Republican presidents,” an immigration expert told me Monday.

The expert also said that if comprehensive immigration reform is dead in this Congress — and it looks like it could very well be — it could pass in an election year or even by a lame-duck Congress. Obama has said he will sign any bill that includes a path to citizenship for the 11 million.

This could be his legacy and, ironically, the only hope the Republicans have to be more than a whites-only party, rowing against a demographic tide.

“If the Republicans decided to pass it,” Obama said Friday of immigration reform, “it would be to their political advantage to do it.”

The Republicans in the House could continue to hold out and hope for a Republican White House in 2016. But every election they delay immigration reform puts the White House further from their grasp.

Roger Simon is POLITICO’s chief political columnist.

(Also on POLITICO: More political columns from Roger Simon)

(PHOTOS: Immigration reform rally on the National Mall)

------------------------------------------------------------------------

‘Not One More’

By THE EDITORIAL BOARD ~ THE NEW YORK TIMES, October 27, 2013

President Obama urged Congress on Thursday to revive immigration reform, which is not dead but not moving, either. He was talking mostly to House Republicans, though he also urged business, labor and religious groups to “keep putting the pressure on all of us to get this done.”

It’s good that Mr. Obama said “us.” It acknowledges his own role in this continuing disaster.

Much of the responsibility to fix what Mr. Obama calls the “broken immigration system” lies within his own administration. He can’t rewrite immigration laws, but he can control how well — or disastrously — they are enforced.

He can begin by undoing the damage done by his Homeland Security Department. Mr. Obama has just nominated Jeh Johnson, a former Defense Department general counsel, to replace homeland security secretary Janet Napolitano, who resigned in July. It’s the perfect opportunity for a fresh start.

Here is what it might look like:

STOP NEEDLESS DEPORTATIONS

The Obama administration has kept up a frantic pace of 400,000 deportations a year, and is closing in on two million. Those numbers are driven by politics, not public safety. Immigration and Customs Enforcement has wide discretion to determine whom it detains and deports. It can retool all its policies to make non-criminals and minor offenders — the people most likely to benefit from the reform now stalled in Congress — the lowest priority for deportation.

The deportation surge is fed by programs like Secure Communities, which does immigration checks on everyone arrested by local and state law enforcement, and Operation Streamline, in which border crossers in the Southwest are prosecuted en masse, with little access to legal representation.

Mr. Obama turned the dragnet on, and can turn it off. In marches and vigils across the country, protesters have made one plea on deportations to Mr. Obama: “Not one more.” He should heed it.

ACKNOWLEDGE THE CRISIS

As he makes the case for immigration reform, Mr. Obama often mentions the economic consequences of failure — jobs unfilled, crops unpicked, investments not made and taxes not collected. He would do well to highlight the human costs of enforcement without reform, in separating families, and violating the civil and labor rights of workers.

Defiant advocates in Tucson, Ariz., recently blocked buses carrying Operation Streamline detainees, drawing attention to the damage done by indiscriminate deportation. In East Haven, Conn., last week, two police officers were convicted of abusing Latino residents, part of an egregious pattern of abuse. There and elsewhere, the Justice Department has done much to investigate and stop illegal policing and civil rights abuses; Mr. Obama should redouble administration efforts to protect the rights of immigrants and noncitizens.

GET BEYOND POLITICS

The talk in Washington has focused on how, after the shutdown debacle, Republicans and Democrats might exploit immigration for political advantage. But last week, the genuine immigration crisis intruded, as if from another universe. Busloads of Arizonans — parents, children, students known as Dreamers — lined up outside House Speaker John Boehner’s office, pleading for a meeting and praying for action on reform. Mr. Boehner had no time for them.

The shutdown was a fake emergency. Immigration is a real one, harming lives every day in every state. Mr. Obama has sometimes been resentful when immigrant advocates remind him of his failures. Now, at least, he has invited their pressure.
Letter to the Editor of the New York Times Editorial Pages

Dear editor:

Congratulations on your timely editorial ‘Not one more’ (Oct. 27, 2013), long overdue by a prominent newspaper and historic for its courage and content.

Reasonably, your editorial advices President Barak Obama on a much needed political and moral opportunity: bring relief to immigrant families by stopping the ongoing massive deportation of non-criminal undocumented immigrants.

Better yet, we believe that in order to protect the rights of all non-criminal, law-abiding, undocumented immigrants, President Obama should order deferred action as he did with the Dreamers, or grant Temporary Protected Status (TPS) as long as Congress doesn’t pass an immigration reform. This would end deportations, kick-start the legalization process and generate revenue from fees and penalties.Protected status for all undocumented immigrants would be a win-win move by President Obama: push Congress to act on immigration now, or risk losing the House of Representatives next year due to a highly motivated Latino turn-out at the polls.

To do otherwise, President Obama will seal his legacy as the Great Deporter-in-chief president of all time.

Sincerely,

Prof. Armando Vazquez-Ramos, California State University at Long Beach, and Primitivo Rodriguez, Research Associate at El Colegio de Mexico, Mexico City.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Giant U.S. Deportation Machine Runs Amok

Even American citizens aren't safe as Homeland Security kicks more than 1,000 people out of the country every day...

By Robert Morgenthau, The Wall St. Journal Opinion ~ Oct. 27, 2013

President Obama has now moved to place a new team at the head of the Department of Homeland Security, nominating Jeh Johnson for secretary of Homeland Security, to join Stevan Bunnell as general counsel. Both men are eminently qualified, but they'll need to hit the ground running.

At least with respect to immigration enforcement, Homeland Security is an agency that has lost sight of its own policies. The result is that several hundred thousand of the immigrants passing through state or county jails each year are then flagged on DHS orders—often in violation of the department's own policies meant to separate ordinary people from dangerous criminals and terrorists—and end up being deported. Some of the deportees are even U.S. citizens.

Since 2003, the department's Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency has turned into a deportation machine, spending a budget of $18 billion that exceeds the budgets of all the rest of federal law enforcement combined—the FBI, Drug Enforcement Administration and Secret Service—in order to deport record-breaking numbers of immigrants. At last count, ICE was deporting over 1,000 people a day—more than 400,000 a year. The agency may also have set a record for issuing enlightened policy statements about just which immigrants should be the focus of deportation efforts.

The problem is the legions of deportations bear no resemblance to the policies. The official policy is to focus deportation efforts on those who are a danger to America—convicted criminals, suspected terrorists and gang members. But every year, the percentage of deportees fitting any of those categories has proved to be a small (and shrinking) number. In the last fiscal year, the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse reports, less than 14.5% of those hauled into immigration court were either criminals or suspected terrorists.

At the end of 2012, ICE resolved to be more responsible in its use of "detainers"—immigration holds that prevent inmates in local police lockups from being released, even after they have made bail, served their sentence or had their case dismissed.

For years, ICE has been under fire for using detainers indiscriminately. How indiscriminately? Consider one case reported recently in the New York Law Journal: A teenager was arrested on a minor offense. Immigration officials were ready to deport him—luckily, the young man had a lawyer. The lawyer discovered that his client was a U.S. citizen, and thus not subject to deportation. Had the teenager gone unrepresented—as most immigrants are unrepresented—the U.S. would likely have deported one of its own citizens.

That is what happened to a 15-year-old from Dallas who was arrested in 2011 for shoplifting. The Christian Science Monitor reported in January 2012 that after her arrest she was put on a plane and deported to Colombia before Homeland Security discovered, eight months later, that she was a U.S. citizen. Only then was she brought home to be reunited with her American family.

The New York City Council became so fed up with these sorts of abuses that it passed legislation in 2012 directing City Corrections not to honor ICE detainers, except for those lodged against suspected terrorists, serious criminals, and others who pose a real threat to our safety.

That is when ICE announced that it was promulgating new standards and promised to focus enforcement on the most dangerous. The agency even revised its detainer form, requiring an issuing agent to specify the basis for every detainer.

They must be regretting that pledge now. The Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, a think tank at Syracuse University, analyzed the data and reported that for the first six months of 2013, just over 10% of ICE detainers met the agency's promised goal of targeting those who pose a serious threat to public safety or national security.

And the news gets even worse: Nearly two-thirds of those against whom detainers were lodged had no criminal convictions whatsoever—not even for a traffic infraction. If you exclude convictions for marijuana possession and traffic violations (including DWI), barely over one-quarter of the detainers were lodged against those with any criminal conviction.

Many of those detainers were lodged pursuant to a federal program called "Secure Communities." When the program was announced in 2008, the Department of Homeland Security called it a voluntary federal-local partnership that would enable the DHS to focus on deporting the most serious criminals and others, like suspected terrorists, who posed real threats to our safety.

After New York's Gov. Andrew Cuomo looked at how the voluntary program actually operated and decided to opt-out his state, DHS said Secure Communities was always mandatory and would keep operating in New York whether invited or not. In an unrelated case a federal judge reviewed that history of bait-and-switch and wrote, "there is ample evidence that ICE and DHS have gone out of their way to mislead the public about Secure Communities."

The New York City Council did what it could to bring some sanity to bear. Twice it passed legislation that would limit cooperation with ICE; for example, the law says detainers should not be honored except for real criminals, suspected terrorists or gang members.

Such measures are still not enough. Data released by the New York City Department of Corrections this month reveal that of 11,876 foreign-born inmates discharged from city custody in fiscal year 2013, 3,459 were discharged with an ICE detainer. In other words, nearly one in three of those who earn their liberty will lose it, even though New York has no reason to restrict their freedom.

When Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano resigned earlier this year, along with her ICE Director John Morton, many hoped that new leadership could do more to reduce the fear of arrest and deportation among law-abiding immigrants and, in so doing, strengthen local efforts to cut crime. Truer words were never said. As district attorney of New York County, I learned that the trust and cooperation of our immigrant population is essential to apprehending and prosecuting the true criminals among us.

Today, there is hope for real reform. Jeh Johnson is tough, smart and fair. The Senate should waste no time in confirming him as secretary of Homeland Security. His talents are desperately needed to steer an out-of-control agency in the right direction.

Mr. Morgenthau, a former district attorney for New York County, is of counsel to Wachtell, Lipton Rosen & Katz.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually, Obama Has Been Terrible for Immigrants

The first black president has deported more brown people than anyone before him...

By Fawn Johnson, October 10, 2013 THE NEXT AMERICA

The first black president could be the one who detains and deports the most brown people in U.S. history. Without a course correction, that's the legacy President Obama is building, and it could put him and his Democratic allies at odds with the fastest-growing demographic in the country.

Obama is on track to deport 3 million immigrants without papers by the end of his second term, more than any other president. George W. Bush deported about 2 million over two terms. Obama will likely hit that mark this month. Bill Clinton didn't even get to 1 million.

The average daily count of immigrants in detention now is about 33,000. In 2001, it was 19,000. In 1994, it was 5,000, according to the Detention Watch Network. Almost all of the detainees and deportees are Latino. True, the population of illegal immigrants has also doubled in that time to more than 11 million. But the detainee and deportee counts have escalated more than twice as fast.

"He could go down as the worst president in history toward immigrants," said Arturo Carmona, executive director of the liberal activist group Presente.org.

Carmona is willing to say publicly what many in the Hispanic community have been saying privately for years: They can't count on Obama. Yes, the president supports a major overhaul of immigration, but when Congress can't achieve it, he continues to lock up or forcibly remove their people when it's not necessary. They see the policy as a continual reminder that they aren't welcome when the president could, if he wanted to, slow the deportations to about half the current rate.

To be fair, this White House is not any different from its predecessors. Major immigration legislation didn't happen under Bush either, despite support from him and many in Congress. Administratively, Obama is simply following a course that was put into place in the Clinton administration and solidified by Bush.

Under Clinton, a harsh immigration law passed in 1996 that mandated detention for unauthorized immigrants who had any kind of brush with the law. During the Bush years, Congress starting using its annual appropriations to require that the detention centers remain full, and lawmakers even mandated an additional 8,000 detention beds. As a result, about 40 percent of the detainees don't need to be there.

The problem for Obama is that he promised Latinos he would be their champion. He guaranteed an immigration bill in the first year of his presidency. He decried deportations that separated families.

Then he failed to deliver. "He made the broadest, biggest promises. You didn't expect that much from George Bush," said Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill., who campaigned for Obama in 2008 and has since cried foul over the growing deportations.

Could Obama wind up being the worst president ever for immigrants? "In the absence of Barack Obama signing a comprehensive immigration-reform bill, God, I think the case can be made," Gutierrez said.

This administration has shown it can be lenient toward the unauthorized population. In 2012, Obama deferred deportations for young adults who were brought here illegally as children. But that was after he spent two years insisting he didn't have the legal authority. He is now using the same argument to explain why he can't stop deportations for other non-criminals.

In 2011, the president told immigration authorities to make pregnant women or family breadwinners a low priority in deportations. But last year, the Homeland Security Department deported 17,000 unauthorized immigrants who had no criminal background.

The flip-flops give fodder to Republican critiques. "Fourteen hundred a day," said Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart, R-Fla., of Obama's running deportation tally. "There are not 1,400 criminals a day.... This is a president who selectively enforces the law."

DHS officials say they are focusing on deporting undocumented lawbreakers. Fifty-five percent of the 409,000 deportees in 2012 fell under the category of "convicted criminals." But not all of those crimes were rape, murder, or theft. They also included using a forged ID, a common practice by immigrants looking for work, and one that employers tacitly sanction.

None of this will be a problem for Obama if legislation passes that creates a path to citizenship for a sizable chunk of the undocumented population. If that doesn't happen, though, he will be stuck with his deportation numbers.

Politically, Obama was fortunate in 2012 that Hispanic voters didn't see another option. "The only explanation as to why so many Latino voters keep going Democratic is because the other offering is worse," said Oscar Chacon, executive director of the National Alliance of Latin American and Caribbean Communities.

"We need to become, formally, independents. "For the next Democratic presidential candidate, the luck may not hold. "Republicans are being boneheaded on immigration," says Alfonso Aguilar, who ran DHS's Citizenship and Immigration Services under Bush. Aguilar believes 40 percent of the Hispanic electorate is up for grabs if Republicans become more friendly toward immigrants-say, along the lines of Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida or Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin.

But many House Republicans disagree. They say at least two-thirds of Hispanics will always vote Democratic, so why bother? Those members could be enough to stop a major immigration bill-and leave Hispanics with little reason to support the GOP.

Signs of disaffection from both parties are already apparent, however. Latino turnout was 2 percentage points lower in 2012 than in 2008, according to the Census Bureau. The looming question for Democrats, then, is whether Latinos will continue to vote for them or choose not to vote at all.

The looming question for Democrats, then, is whether Latinos will continue to vote for them or choose not to vote at all.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revive immigration reform

The heavy lifting has been done. The House should stop stalling and get to work...

L.A. Times Editorial ~ October 27, 2013

With the government shutdown finally concluded, the threat of a strike on Syria on the back burner and no serious chance that the U.S. will default on its debts for at least the next 3 1/2 months, perhaps Congress can pull itself together and get back to work on stalled legislation. It should begin by tackling comprehensive immigration reform.

After all, much of the heavy lifting on this complicated and controversial issue has been done. Earlier this year, the Senate passed a sweeping bipartisan bill that calls for allowing more high-skilled and low-skilled workers into the U.S. while also establishing a new guest-worker program that includes additional protections for farm workers.

It would set out a 13-year path to citizenship for the estimated 11 million immigrants who are in the U.S. illegally, but only after they paid fines and passed a background check, and after additional border security measures were put in place. It's not a perfect plan, but it takes the kind of broad approach that is needed to restructure the dysfunctional system.

The Republican-led House, however, has not signed on, opting instead for a piecemeal approach. Among the separate proposals waiting to reach the floor are an enforcement bill known as the SAFE Act, which would for the first time designate as criminals all immigrants in the U.S. illegally, and would allow states such as Arizona to enforce their own immigration laws.

Another bill would create a new guest-worker program that would likely please growers but leave farm laborers unprotected from abusive employers. Two other bills would expand the use of federal databases to verify the immigration status of new employees.

The two sides are far apart, obviously. But there is some reason for hope after months of stalemate. In an effort to repair some of the political damage the GOP inflicted on itself during the shutdown, some House Republicans apparently are calling for action on immigration reform to win back moderate support.

If the House approved just one of its piecemeal bills, it could move to a conference committee, where Senate and House members could begin to reconcile their differences. If it goes that route, the House should pass its border security measure, which is the best of the bills introduced so far. But it's unclear whether Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) will allow any of the bills to move forward.

The reality is that the current immigration system isn't working for American employers, who rely on the low-wage labor that comes in over the border, or for the millions of immigrants stuck in the underground economy. That's why a broad coalition of religious, law enforcement and business leaders has repeatedly called for a compromise.

Immigration reform can still be achieved, if only GOP lawmakers stop stalling, stop grandstanding and get to work.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

House GOP plans no immigration vote in 2013 By: Anna Palmer and Jake Sherman POLITICO ~ October 25, 2013

House Republican leadership has no plans to vote on any immigration reform legislation before the end the year.The House has just 19 days in session before the end of 2013, and there are a number of reasons why immigration reform is stalled this year.

Following the fiscal battles last month, the internal political dynamics are tenuous within the House Republican Conference. A growing chorus of GOP lawmakers and aides are intensely skeptical that any of the party’s preferred piecemeal immigration bills can garner the support 217 Republicans — they would need that if Democrats didn’t lend their votes. Republican leadership doesn’t see anyone coalescing around a single plan, according to sources across GOP leadership. Leadership also says skepticism of President Barack Obama within the House Republican Conference is at a high, and that’s fueled a desire to stay out of a negotiating process with the Senate. Republicans fear getting jammed.

(WATCH: Barack Obama on immigration: 'Let's do it now')

Of course, the dynamics could change. Some, including Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.), are eager to pass something before the end of the year. Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) has signaled publicly that he would like to move forward in 2013 on an overhaul of the nation’s immigration laws. If Republicans win some Democratic support on piecemeal bills, they could move forward this year. But still, anything that makes its way to the floor needs to have significant House Republican support

And Obama is also ramping up his messaging on immigration reform. “It’s good for our economy, it’s good for our national security, it’s good for our people, and we should do it this year,” Obama said Thursday. That same afternoon his chief of staff Denis McDonough met with business CEOs to strategize on immigration reform. Attendees included representatives from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers.

Getting immigration through this deeply divided Congress in 2014 — an election year — would be incredibly difficult. That’s why immigration reform supporters are growing increasingly worried that the window for a bigger reform package could be slipping away since it would be even more difficult to try and forge ahead in an election year.

(Also on POLITICO: Darrell Issa to introduce immigration bill)

“I think there are a lot of folks who are concerned about this issue not getting solved, and I think legitimately so,” Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-Fla.) told POLITICO. “Because I do think that every day that goes by, it makes it more and more difficult.”

Other prominent immigration supporters like Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) have also backed off any deal, saying the Obama administration has “undermined” negotiations by not defunding his signature health care law. Rep. Raul Labrador (R-Idaho) went further, saying Obama is trying to “destroy the Republican Party” and that GOP leaders would be “crazy” to enter into talks with Obama.

That rhetoric combined with signals in private conversations with lawmakers and staff has led some immigration advocates to say they see the writing on the wall and they aren’t going to invest heavily until there’s more momentum.

(PHOTOS: Immigration reform rally on the National Mall)

“After Obama poisoned the well in the fiscal showdown and [House Minority Leader Nancy] Pelosi now is actively trying to use immigration as a political weapon, the chances for substantive reforms, unfortunately, seem all but gone,” said one GOP operative involved in the conservative pro-immigration movement.

Many of the groups that ran ads after the Senate passed its immigration bill — including the American Action Network and U.S. Chamber of Commerce — have gone silent on air. Several immigration reform proponents said that until House Republicans come up with legislation, there won’t be any television advertising campaigns.

Liberals’ patience with House Republicans is also waning, as many argue that its time for the Obama administration to step in. National Day Laborer Organizing Network Executive Director Pablo Alvarado has been leading the charge, pressing the White House to use his “existing legal authority to alleviate the suffering of immigrants.”

Frank Sharry of America’s Voice said there is a “strong preference” for action before the end of the year.

“We’re either going to pass immigration reform or punish Republicans who block it,” Sharry said. “If they can’t convince their leadership then of course we want a Democratic majority that will … We’d much rather have a signing ceremony on immigration reform than a punishing electoral campaign where we’re trying to take people out.”

It’s unclear how exactly the outside groups will put pressure on members up for reelection. Sharry said he it is unlikely they would get involved in primaries, but could exert influence in the general election in Colorado, California, Nevada, Florida, Texas and Illinois where there are large Latino populations.

Whether groups on the right follow suit is unclear.

“The left is going to start ramping it up big time. The question is what are the business community and the center-right groups going to do,” said one immigration lobbyist.

For now, conservative and business groups are focused on putting pressure on Republicans to take action.

Conservative immigration reform groups will bring more than 400 local business, law enforcement and religious leaders next week to Washington to try and increase the pressure on rank-and-file GOP lawmakers to force leaders to move on reform.

And champions of the effort argue there is still a possibility for forward movement.

“There is still an appetite to get comprehensive immigration reform done this year,” U.S. Chamber of Commerce head Tom Donohue told reporters recently. “There is still strong support among the public and lawmakers. And our nation—our economy, our businesses, and our workers—need it more than ever.”

The Chamber is also releasing Friday an immigration “Myths and Facts” document trying to debunk some fallacies on immigration reform.

And even if passage of any kind of reform passage doesn’t happen by the end of December, it doesn’t mean the fight is over. Partnership for a New American Economy’s Jeremy Robbins said the question is when “the next moment” would be for reform. And

“There’s a lot of political challenges, but it’s also a very real opening,” Robbins said. “Coming out of this opening. If we get immigration reform fantastic, if not, then how are we poised to be bigger and stronger for the next opening in the spring.”

Carrie Budoff Brown and Seung Min Kim contributed to this report
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
President Obama on immigration: ‘Let’s do it now’

By REID J. EPSTEIN POLITICO ~ 10/24/13

Immigration reform may not pass, but that’s no reason to give up the fight, President Barack Obama said Thursday.

The president made his long-awaited return to the issue in a brief East Room speech urging advocates to keep the pressure on House Republicans to take action on the Senate’s immigration bill, saying that only public pressure will lead to action.

And yet Obama expressed some of the same skepticism he decried, saying that while immigration reform is “the right thing to do,” it doesn’t have a clear path to success.

“Just because something is smart and fair and good for the economy and fiscally responsible and supported by business and labor and evangelical community and many Democrats and many Republicans, that does not mean that it will actually get done,” Obama said with a laugh. “This is Washington, after all.”

The East Room address comes as the White House grapples with fallout from the disastrous launch of HealthCare.gov. The return to immigration reform comes weeks after the White House signaled in September it would soon make a renewed effort to back comprehensive immigration reform. That push was put off while Obama dealt with the government shutdown and debt limit crisis.

Obama’s call for the House to vote on the Senate-passed bill represents his effort to duplicate what his allies saw as a victory on the fiscal showdown – get legislation that can be labeled bipartisan through the Senate and then try to apply public pressure to force it through the House.

Republicans — including George W. Bush — have supported immigration reform, Obama said. As he said during the shutdown fight, Obama implied that a small faction of House Republicans are blocking progress.

“We’ve got the time to do it. Republicans in the House, including the speaker, have said we should act. So let’s not wait,” Obama said. “It doesn’t get easier to just put it off. Let’s do it now, let’s not delay, let’s get this done and let’s do it in a bipartisan fashion.”

But while that approach worked for the fiscal cliff in January and to end the shutdown this month, those episodes featured hard deadlines that carried the threat of fiscal calamity. Immigration reform does not.

And as the Senate debated immigration reform for months earlier this year, Obama kept a public distance as White House and Senate aides maintained that the legislation had a better chance to proceed without an appearance of the president being directly involved.

Now with the House GOP leadership calling for a “step-by-step approach” instead of the comprehensive solution Obama seeks, the president is shifting from the inside approach that won votes in the Senate to an outside push to pressure House Republicans.

Speaker John Boehner’s spokesman said the House won’t be calling a vote on the Senate’s immigration bill any time soon.

“The Speaker agrees that America has a broken immigration system and we need reform that would boost our economy,” spokesman Brendan Buck said. “He’s also been clear that the House will not consider any massive, Obamacare-style legislation that no one understands. Instead, the House is committed to a common sense, step-by-step approach that gives Americans confidence that reform is done the right way. We hope that the president will work with us — not against us — as we pursue this deliberate approach.”

Obama, who would like to keep advocates from carping at the White House for its failure to pass a reform bill, praised the gathered immigration reformers for their work and urged them to keep up pressure on House Republicans.

“I want to tell you, you’ve got to keep it up. Keep putting the pressure on all of us to get this done,” Obama said. “There are going to be moments, and there are always moments like this in big efforts at reform where you meet resistance and the press will declare something dead, it’s not going to happen, but that can be overcome.”

Obama added to applause: “You look fired up to make the next push.”

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Putting immigration on right path
By: Pablo Alvarado October 21, 2013 10:18 PM EDT

As immigration reform re-emerges at the center of political debate, President Barack Obama can do more than urge on a gridlocked and dysfunctional Congress: There’s much he can do — right now — to provide overdue relief to America’s immigrant families.

The first step: Admit that his previous strategy of appeasing nativists through Arizona-style policies like Secure Communities and deporting record numbers of immigrants is not working. So far, Obama’s approach has done little more than earn him the title of Deporter in Chief among immigrant communities and moved the immigration debate unrecognizably to the right, ratifying the premises of the very xenophobes holding Congress hostage.

Some political strategists will tell us that such cruelty was necessary for the administration to build its “enforcement credentials” as a down payment for reform. But a quick glance at proposals like the Corker-Hoeven Amendment in the Senate, which would militarize the U.S.-Mexico border, or the SAFE Act in the House, shows how dangerous it is to keep bargaining with obstructionists. Give an inch in that direction and get Arizona’s human rights crisis in every jurisdiction.

What we need instead is leadership that can pull the conversation back to where it should be centered: achieving the political equality of the millions whose sacrifice, risk and courage put the issue squarely on the national agenda in the first place.

Multiple local governments are rejecting the administration’s criminalization and repairing the damage it has done by passing bills aimed to keep trust in local law enforcement from being eroded by distrust in federal immigration authorities. The president now needs to do the same by reversing course: Stop deportations and expand the temporary protection program he already created for certain young people.

This isn’t a fallback plan — a “Plan B” in the face of a recalcitrant Congress. Stopping deportations should be “Plan A” to improve any bill’s chance and to alleviate the suffering of those whose lives have been left in limbo.

Obama’s decision to grant deferred action to childhood arrivals (DACA) showed that incremental progress and a reduction in deportations are possible and can even galvanize momentum for broader legislation at the same time. But its limited scope also raises the question now repeatedly asked of the president by the press: Why isn’t he doing more?

The president’s answer — that he is out of options — is unacceptable. The White House’s argument is not based on the limitations of the law but the limitations of the administration’s political calculus. As the entity that proposes the Department of Homeland Security’s budget to Congress, oversees its implementation and sets its priorities, the president has the power to ease the pain his policies currently cause.

Obama’s own former assistant secretary for legislative affairs at DHS, Nelson Peacock, described the president’s ability to stop deportations as his “trump card” on immigration. Sen. Marco Rubio agreed and recently warned his conservative base that if immigration reform fails in Congress, the president might just act on his own.

If his legal authority is not in question, then it’s only a matter of political will. In determining his way forward, the president must decide what side of history he wishes to be on: with the reformers or with the obstructionists. That’s why seven undocumented people handcuffed themselves to the White House fence calling on him to act and hundreds more shut down immigration and customs enforcement operations in Arizona earlier this month in hopes of spurring the president to follow suit.

Obama should also consider who’s on the other side of this debate: fringe lawmakers who have vowed to oppose him no matter what. The lesson from last week’s budget showdown is clear: The president must no longer capitulate to a vocal, irrational minority in Congress. With the stroke of a pen, he has the power to advance the immigration debate and do right by thousands of families who just want a chance at a better life. What is he waiting for?

Pablo Alvarado is executive director of the National Day Laborer Organizing Network.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Luis Valdez's 'Valley of the Heart': It ought to play in L.A.

Valdez drew on his own childhood to write the play, a quintessentially California production that opened and closed with little fanfare. That's too bad.

By Miriam Pawel, L.A. Times Op-Ed ~ October 27, 2013

"Valley of the Heart" is a quintessentially California play, written by a master of the genre. It is a history lesson wrapped in a love story, with themes that could not be more contemporary: struggling immigrants, xenophobia and racism, cultural confusion and identity.

Luis Valdez has drawn on his own childhood to craft what he calls a "memory play": A Mexican American sharecropper family takes over a ranch whose Japanese American owners are interned in 1942, just as Valdez's parents took over a Japanese grower's farm when he was 2 years old. The play showcases Valdez's gift for making people care about experiences far outside their own ambit. Humor defuses tension; moral outrage provokes tears. Simple motions convey complex emotions.

I wish you could see the play, so you could smile at the broccoli-picking dance, cry as the Yamaguchis are taken to Heart Mountain internment camp, laugh at the cross-cultural jokes. But "Valley of the Heart" premiered in the tiny mission town of San Juan Bautista, 300 miles north of L.A., ran for four weeks to sold-out crowds, and then closed.

Drawn by word of mouth, theatergoers from Los Angeles, Sacramento, Fresno and San Francisco, 100 miles to the north, filled the old packing shed that is home to Valdez's theater company, El Teatro Campesino. But no major daily or weekly paper reviewed the first play in 13 years written by the father of Chicano theater.

Los Angeles would seem the logical city to embrace a Luis Valdez play that probes injustice against Japanese Americans, viewed through Chicano eyes, on a ranch in the Valley of Heart's Delight (better known today as Silicon Valley). As the lead character tells the audience at the end of the play: "California is now half Latino and Asian, and there's not a damn thing anybody can do about it."

But the odds of "Valley of the Heart" playing nearby seem slim. Valdez has had preliminary discussions with the San Diego Rep, a longtime collaborator with the Teatro Campesino, but there have been no overtures in the major theater centers of Los Angeles and San Francisco.

We need memory plays as powerful as this one, in venues up and down the state. Too many people have forgotten, or never knew, that tens of thousands of Americans were rounded up, interrogated and sent to camps for no crime other than their Japanese ancestry. In an era of secret terrorism courts, widespread government surveillance and Minuteman patrols, we need to be confronted with the realities of 1942 — the acts of bravery, the gestures of kindness, the humanity as well as the tragedy.

Memories seem particularly short in the theater world, especially in the shadow of Hollywood, land of the meteoric rise and fall. Valdez's early successes are ancient history: "Zoot Suit," the fictionalized account of Mexican American youths falsely imprisoned amid anti-immigrant fever in the 1940s, broke box office records at the Mark Taper Forum in 1978. "La Bamba," the Ritchie Valens biopic that Valdez wrote and directed, was nominated for a Golden Globe in 1988. Most of Valdez's contemporaries, the generation who championed his work, are retired. Yet, at 73, Valdez is trying to return to the spotlight.

The mountains and fields outside Salinas anchor Valdez to the people and land so central to his work. He sees the Teatro's upcoming 50th anniversary as a defiant validation of his choice to remain in San Juan Bautista, a celebration "not only of creativity but of survival."

He began on the picket lines with Cesar Chavez in 1965, teaching farm workers to perform plays on the back of a flatbed truck. "We are a people's theater, part of the working class," Valdez says. "We've held on. We come from the dirt, literally.… We're not in L.A., we're not in the city, yet we're still vibrant. We're still moving."

Those roots are what make his plays resonate for an audience that does not typically go see theater. The Teatro's longevity should be celebrated across California, and the 50th anniversary should remind those with short memories — and those too young to remember — why Valdez's work is so important and holds such widespread appeal.

"Zoot Suit" was an improbable hit, a story of Mexican American pachucos that struck universal chords to achieve cross-cultural success. Thirty-five years later, "Valley of the Heart" deserves a chance to make the same leap.

Miriam Pawel's latest book, "The Crusades of Cesar Chavez: A Biography," is due to be published in March.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DACA no es solución permanente dice Napolitano

Janet Napolitano habló de las deportaciones y sostuvo que DACA no es la solución definitiva sino la reforma migratoria…

Por: María Peña/EFE, La Opinion, Agosto 15, 2013

WASHINGTON DC.-La secretaria de Seguridad Nacional de EE.UU., Janet Napolitano, afirmó hoy que el programa de "acción diferida" ha suspendido la deportación de más de medio millón de jóvenes indocumentados desde 2012, pero aseguró que no es una solución permanente al "anticuado" sistema migratorio del país.

Napolitano, que pronto dejará su cargo para presidir la Universidad de California, recurrió a un blog del Departamento de Seguridad Nacional para destacar los beneficios del programa de "acción diferida", puesto en marcha exactamente hoy hace un año, y pedir una solución a largo plazo para los once millones de indocumentados en EE.UU.

El programa, conocido por su sigla en inglés "DACA", ofrece un permiso de trabajo y suspende durante dos años la deportación de estudiantes indocumentados, conocidos como "dreamers" ("soñadores").

La medida está dirigida a jóvenes de hasta 31 años de edad y que entraron a EE.UU. antes de los 16 años, pagan 465 dólares por los trámites y cumplen con una serie de requisitos, incluyendo no tener antecedentes penales.

Pero la Administración Obama y grupos progresistas han prometido seguir presionando para que el Congreso apruebe este año una reforma migratoria integral que abra una vía para la legalización y eventual ciudadanía de toda la población clandestina.

Según Napolitano, el programa ha permitido al Gobierno concentrarse en la expulsión de criminales peligrosos o que suponen una amenaza para la seguridad pública y nacional.

"DACA no es una solución a largo plazo para los desafíos más amplios que presenta nuestro anticuado sistema de inmigración", dijo Napolitano, al elogiar la reforma migratoria que aprobó el Senado el pasado 27 de junio y que afronta un muro de oposición de los republicanos en la Cámara de Representantes.

Napolitano subrayó que esa reforma ayuda a la economía, moderniza el sistema migratorio, amplía la vigilancia fronteriza, sanciona a empresas que contratan a indocumentados y exige que estos cumplan con numerosos requisitos para su legalización.

"Espero que la Cámara de Representantes seguirá el liderazgo mostrado por una fuerte mayoría bipartidista en el Senado y trabaje para corregir nuestro maltrecho sistema migratorio. Mientras, DACA seguirá siendo un medio importante para que los jóvenes que entraron cuando eran menores puedan permanecer acá y continuar contribuyendo a este gran país", puntualizó.

Sus palabras encontraron eco en Cecilia Muñoz, directora del Consejo de Política Nacional de la Casa Blanca, quien reiteró que la inacción del Congreso supondría un "alto costo" para la recuperación económica del país, porque la reforma aportaría 1,4 billones de dólares adicionales a la economía y crearía dos millones de empleos en una década.

Según la Oficina de Servicios de Inmigración y Ciudadanía (USCIS, por su sigla en inglés), entre agosto de 2012 y el mes pasado, recibió 573.404 solicitudes para la "acción diferida", de las cuales aprobó 552.918 y rechazó 20.486.

Una investigación de la Institución Brookings señaló que el 74,9 % de las solicitudes fue de inmigrantes de México, seguido por el 10 % de Centroamérica, el 6,9 % de Suramérica, el 4,2 % de Asia, el 1,7 % del Caribe, el 1 % de África, y el 0,9 % de Europa.

Cuando el programa fue anunciado por el presidente Barack Obama, en plena campaña de reelección, se calculaba que alrededor de 936.000 jóvenes indocumentados podían acogerse a la medida.

El 54 % de los solicitantes eran jóvenes menores de 21 años, y la mayoría de los beneficiados se concentró en California, Texas, Nueva York, Illinois y Florida, estados que tradicionalmente han tenido un mayor porcentaje de extranjeros, dijo por su parte, durante un acto en el Centro para el Progreso Estadounidense, Audrey Singer, investigadora de Brookings, .

En entrevista con Efe, Erika Andiola, estudiante de Arizona y una de las líderes del movimiento nacional de los "Dreamers", afirmó que los activistas continuarán la lucha hasta que el Congreso apruebe la reforma y Obama cese las deportaciones.

"La pelea no está solo en Washington, y vamos a seguir luchando durante el receso legislativo de agosto en todos los distritos con la misma advertencia: si a los republicanos les importan las elecciones (generales) de 2016, tienen que reevaluar su postura y recordar que el voto latino va en aumento", dijo Andiola.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Piden a Obama aprobar un TPS para todos los indocumentados

Profesores de EE.UU. y México se unen para hacer una petición al presidente, Barack Obama, para que apruebe un Estatus de Protección Temporal mientras se concreta la reforma migratoria…

Por: La Opinion, EFE Agosto 16, 2013 7:18 pm EST

LOS ÁNGELES.- Profesores que promueven la colaboración entre prestigiosas universidades de México y EE.UU. propusieron al presidente, Barack Obama, que apruebe un TPS para inmigrantes indocumentados en caso de que el Congreso no dé luz verde este año a la reforma migratoria.

"El presidente, Barack Obama, tiene la oportunidad de pasar a la historia como un liberador, como un Abraham Lincoln, oponiéndose a los que no aprueban la reforma migratoria", dijo Armando Vázquez, profesor de estudios chicanos de la Universidad Estatal de California en Long Beach (CSULB).

"El presidente tiene la potestad de una acción ejecutiva para aprobar un Estatus de Protección Temporal (TPS, en inglés) para todos los indocumentados de la misma manera en como aprobó esa protección a nacionales de ocho países", explicó.

Vázquez junto al sociólogo Gonzalo Santos, de la Universidad Estatal de California en Fresno, y Primitivo Rodríguez, investigador académico del Colegio de México (ColMex), de ciudad de México, publicaron recientemente una carta en internet en la que realizaban esta petición a Obama (https://www.california-mexicocenter.org/).

"Los derechistas que controlan el Congreso quieren demorar para ver si hasta el 2015 aprueban una reforma migratoria real y mientras ese tiempo pasa más gente seguirá siendo deportada", señaló Vázquez.

"Con un TPS para todos se detendrían inmediatamente las deportaciones, ayudaría a que los trabajadores no sean explotados, a que no vivan con miedo y comenzarían a pagar impuestos, mientras los legisladores se ponen de acuerdo", aseguró.

El Servicio de Inmigración y Ciudadanía (USCIS) renueva por periodos cortos permiso de trabajo y tarjeta de identificación TPS a beneficiarios de Siria, Somalia, Sudán, Sudán del Sur, Haití, Honduras, Nicaragua y El Salvador.

Rodríguez dijo a que "una acción ejecutiva para aprobar un TPS para todos los indocumentados sería una jugada de jaque mate a los que se oponen a la reforma migratoria".

El Senado federal aprobó en junio pasado una propuesta de ley de reforma migratoria que legalizaría la situación de once millones de trabajadores indocumentados.

Sin embargo, la Cámara de Representantes todavía debate esta iniciativa, pero los republicanos, que controlan la Cámara Baja, no son partidarios de aprobar una reforma integral y rechazan que ésta incluya un camino a la ciudadanía.

"Lo que se está jugando para las próximas elecciones es a quién le van a echar la culpa del fracaso de una reforma migratoria, a los republicanos por no aceptar lo que aprobó el Senado o a los demócratas por no aceptar pedazos de reforma como proponen republicanos", analizó Rodríguez.

"Por eso un TPS para todos, aprobado por Obama, sería la solución temporal a ese problema", finalizó.

~~~

Maestros piden a Obama TPS si no pasa la reforma migratoria

Por Noticiero Televisa ~ Redacción. Fuente: EFE 2013-08-16

Tres académicos publicaron en internet la solicitud al mandatario para que dé Estatus de Proteción temporal para todos los indocumentados a fin de evitar deportaciones

LOS ÁNGELES, Estados Unidos, ago. 16, 2013.- Profesores que promueven la colaboración entre prestigiosas universidades de México y Estados Unidos propusieron al presidente, Barack Obama, que apruebe un TPSpara inmigrantes indocumentados en caso de que el Congreso no dé luz verde este año a la reforma migratoria.

"El presidente, Barack Obama, tiene la oportunidad de pasar a la historia como un liberador, como un Abraham Lincoln, oponiéndose a los que no aprueban la reforma migratoria", dijo a Efe Armando Vázquez, profesor de estudios chicanos de la Universidad Estatal de California en Long Beach (CSULB).

"El presidente tiene la potestad de una acción ejecutiva para aprobar un Estatus de Protección Temporal (TPS) para todos los indocumentados de la misma manera en como aprobó esa protección a nacionales de ocho países", explicó.

Vázquez junto al sociólogo Gonzalo Santos, de la universidad Calstate Fresno, y Primitivo Rodríguez, investigador académico del Colegio de México (ColMex), de ciudad de México, publicaron recientemente una carta en internet en la que realizaban esta petición a Obama (https://www.california-mexicocenter.org/).

"Con un TPS para todos se detendrían inmediatamente las deportaciones, ayudaría a que los trabajadores no sean explotados, a que no vivan con miedo y comenzarían a pagar impuestos, mientras los legisladores se ponen de acuerdo", aseguró.

Rodríguez dijo a Efe que "una acción ejecutiva para aprobar un TPS para todos los indocumentados sería una jugada de jaque mate a los que se oponen a la reforma migratoria".

"Porque sería el presidente Obama, solo, sin el Congreso el que resolvería, al menos temporalmente, el problema de los indocumentados y el presidente podría ganar muchísimo dejando un legado histórico", afirmó.
El Senado federal aprobó en junio pasado una propuesta de ley de reforma migratoria que legalizaría la situación de once millones de trabajadores indocumentados.

Sin embargo, la Cámara de Representantes todavía debate esta iniciativa, pero los republicanos, que controlan la Cámara Baja, no son partidarios de aprobar una reforma integral y rechazan que ésta incluya un camino a la ciudadanía.

"Por eso un TPS para todos, aprobado por Obama, sería la solución temporal a ese problema", finalizó.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rubio’s warning should be Obama’s next step for immigration reformOp-Ed by Neidi Dominguez, California Immigrant Youth Justice Alliance August 15, 2013

The President should mark the one year anniversary of the implementation of deferred action by expanding it to the rest of our family members. Marco Rubio might warn that Obama could act alone if Congress fails to pass immigration reform. But the truth is that the President to should act now in order to help immigration reform’s chance of passing at all.

Ironically, in a quote being spread widely, Rubio said that Obama could issue “an executive order as he did for the DREAM Act kids a year ago, where he basically legalizes 11 million people by the sign of a pen,” and doing so doesn’t require the intolerable compromises we’ve seen in Congress. Rubio goes on to say, “We won’t get any E-Verify. We won’t get any border security. But he’ll legalize them.”

As someone who’s lived with the fear that comes with being undocumented since I came to the US and continues to live with the worry that my mother could be deported at any moment, hearing the option that Rubio laid out for the President actually sounds pretty good. The question isn’t will the President expand DACA if Congress fails to pass reform. It’s why hasn’t he done it already?

Deferred action, a program that has granted relief from the threat of deportation and legal status to hundreds of thousands of Dream-eligible youth, is neither amnesty nor a new policy invented by Obama. It’s a long-standing form of executive power used as far back as 1971. The fact that Rubio warns against its expansion shows us two things. First, his statement is really a warning that Republicans in the House don’t want to move on anything that recognizes the political equality of the undocumented. And second, he actually highlights the responsibility of the President to take immediate action.

Obama leading on immigration reform and showing that our equality is not to be bargained with is not a last resort after a logjam in Congress but a step that needs to be taken now to prevent it. The militarization that Rubio warns won’t come to fruition is a $46 billion waste that meets the interests of defense contractors but not the American people and not those who want to see the inclusion of the 11 million people who already call the US home.

As we celebrate the anniversary of DACA this summer, we also mark the anniversary of immigrant youth meeting with the White House attorneys and proving that the President had full authority then to grant administrative relief to Dream Act eligible youth. It’s been a year since we gave them an ultimatum and since immigrant youth sat-in Obama campaign offices, finally forcing the President to create the program. This summer also marks the anniversary of the No Papers No Fear riders who were arrested at the Democratic National Convention asking him to expand it. It’s been the courage and sacrifice of the immigrant community that’s got us this far. Now it’s time for the President, Rubio, and other politicians to stop playing politics with our lives and have a fraction of that same courage to make real progress.

Marco Rubio and the President actually have a lot in common. Both have said they want to see legalization for the undocumented and both have done little to stop the deportations of those same people. Except where immigration is a talking point for Senator Rubio, deportations are daily policy for the President. What Rubio warns as a potential reality if immigration reform fails, the removal of the threat of deportation for those who call the US home without any increase in criminalization and militarization, should be the President’s next step in the debate. Doing so would be within the tradition of past presidents, and unlike much of current immigration enforcement practice, relief from the executive branch would be completely constitutional.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unrecognized Guid format.Articles from August 14, 2013:
Marco Rubio returns on immigration reformHis goal is to reignite momentum behind a reform package that fizzled this summer…

By ANNA PALMER and BURGESS EVERETT | POLITICO 8/13/13 6:03 PM EDT

Marco Rubio’s back in the ring on immigration reform and he’s got a new move: Congress needs to fix the problem — or Barack Obama will.

The line is meant to touch a nerve with conservatives who might dislike the idea of immigration reform, but loathe the idea of Obama taking on any major issue on his own — let alone immigration.

Rubio’s goal is to re-ignite momentum behind a reform package that fizzled this summer in the House, where most Republicans have balked at the idea of a path to citizenship for millions of undocumented workers.

(Also on POLITICO: Immigration reform: Rubio warns of executive order)

The fierce House “no” caucus argues its base doesn’t want immigration reform and passing it would just hand Obama a gift — and the Democratic Party millions of new voters.

But if Rubio has a shot at building the urgency needed to convert enough Republicans to pass a comprehensive bill, the end of the August recess could be his best bet, since it’s a time when the news cycle is slow and lawmakers can be pressured before heading back to Washington in September.

“It’s not an empty threat,” said Frank Sharry, a veteran immigration reform proponent at the organization America’s Voice. “If Republicans block reform with a path to citizenship, immigration reform activists will look at all their options, including broad executive action.”

Republicans on the Hill have started to mull that possibility, and outside groups put out August recess talking points for lawmakers that reform would take away Obama’s ability to pick which immigration laws he is going to enforce. They believe the argument could improve the outlook for a bill. Speaker John Boehner has said he won’t bring a measure to the floor unless it has the “vast” support of the Republican conference.

“The specter of Obama doing this could encourage some movement,” said one aide to a Republican lawmaker who voted for the Senate’s immigration bill.

After playing a central role in selling the Senate’s Gang of Eight immigration bill to prominent Republicans and conservative media, Rubio has been more deferential to the House this summer, preferring to push defunding Obamacare rather than publicly tweak House Republicans for the delay on immigration.

But on Tuesday Rubio was more aggressive, offering a new rhetorical flourish when pressed on immigration by Tallahassee radio host Preston Scott. Rubio explained his argument several times.

“I believe that this president will be tempted, if nothing happens in Congress, he will be tempted to issue an executive order like he did for the DREAM Act kids a year ago, where he basically legalizes 11 million people by the sign of a pen,” Rubio told the Florida radio host. “A year from now we could find ourselves with all 11 million people here legally under an executive order from the president.”

A Rubio adviser dismissed the notion that the senator has been ducking immigration questions in the press, pointing to recent interviews on the subject with Sean Hannity and Hugh Hewitt, both conservative radio hosts. And he said Rubio’s stance in the radio interviews was not a big change for the senator. “Senator Rubio continues to believe that the House should be given the time and space to pass its own version of immigration reform,” the adviser said.

Rubio has been hinting at the consequences of congressional inaction for months now. He told conservative radio host Mark Levin in April that “it’s possible that [the White House] could give legal status like they did to the DREAM Act qualifiers” to millions more people. A month later Rubio wrote in an op-ed for The Wall Street Journal that failing to pass a new law “would leave the issue entirely in the hands of President Obama.”

But his message on Tuesday was even sharper, coming as some reform advocates are growing antsy with the laborious process of getting a bill through both chambers of Congress.

“What he is saying, and I think everybody realizes is, we need to add some urgency to the situation,” said Ali Noorani of the National Immigration Forum. “While the growing number of House Republicans want to get to yes, they have to get to yes in a timely fashion.”

Democrats were a bit puzzled by Rubio’s messaging. One aide who worked on the Senate bill that passed in late June said it was implausible for anyone to think that an executive order would be able to process 11 million immigrants during the remaining three years of Obama’s presidency, especially given inevitable court action to challenge an executive order. The aide also said a wide order halting deportations could motivate the right in 2016.

A House Democratic staffer called the argument “a bit far-fetched” and said that it “leaves me concerned it will give hard line [Republicans] an opportunity to double down on their anti-immigration reform stance.”

Opponents of the Senate bill, like Roy Beck of NumbersUSA don’t believe conservatives will fall for Rubio’s messaging.

“Rubio is trying to play on the worst fears of conservatives to push through his amnesty. I don’t think conservatives are going to buy it,” Beck said.

The “it” in this case would be an executive order by President Barack Obama dealing with the country’s 11 million undocumented immigrants, a scenario that Rubio believes conservatives detest even more than the Gang of Eight bill that he helped write.

Rubio gave some precedent for Obama eyeing a sweeping executive order, mainly last year’s executive order to temporarily put an end to the deportation proceedings of some young, undocumented immigrants. That move essentially bypassed Rubio’s work on a stalled bill to help immigrant children avoid deportations. Rubio’s response then was that Obama had ignored the Constitution and was essentially forcing “a policy like this down the throat of the American people.”

So is the president eyeing a move from the White House to legalize millions of immigrants if Congress fails to do so? The White House says no.

“The only solution to this problem is for Congress to fix the broken immigration system by passing comprehensive reform,” said Bobby Whithorne, a White House spokesman.

Obama has even been asked pointedly whether he would pursue such an executive order and told Telemundo in January that while he has some discretion over enforcement his job is to execute the law.

“I’m not a king,” Obama said.

Despite the White House denial that Obama would ever be “tempted” to pursue an executive order granting legalization to millions of undocumented immigrants, the administration is still working the immigration debate. The White House released a report on Tuesday afternoon highlighting the benefits of a path to citizenship that the Senate immigration bill provides.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Immigration-overhaul advocates make big August pushBy Holly Yeager, Washington Post August 14, 2013

An unusual alliance of advocates — including Internet moguls and evangelicals, representatives of big business and labor unions — is working across the country during the August congressional recess in an all-out push for immigration reform.

The broad effort, which also includes immigrant rights groups, is using diverse tactics, too. There are roundtables and rallies, sit-ins and voter registration drives, as well as expensive radio and television ads. In Georgia, activists plan to deliver Mexican, Korean and other international food to a congressman’s office Thursday to highlight the many immigrant communities that are part of his district.

Participants acknowledge that with such a broad coalition, there could be disagreements about the finer points of any eventual legislation. But for now, following Senate approval of a bill that would tighten border security and offer a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, they agree on their goal: getting the House to act.

“We’re trying to get to the playoffs,” said Frank Sharry, executive director of America’s Voice, an immigration advocacy organization. “We’ve got to win August so we can go into September with momentum.”

House GOP leaders have said they will not support the Senate’s bill. Instead, the House has started work on more limited proposals focused on border security and visas for high-skilled workers and establishing ways for the children of illegal immigrants to seek permanent legal status or citizenship, with a decision expected after the five-week recess on how to proceed on other parts of the debate.

Advocates for comprehensive legislation say they worry that House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) will proceed with the more controversial elements of the overhaul only if he has the support of a majority of his Republican members, and they are pressing their case with GOP leaders and rank-and-file lawmakers.

The National Association of Manufacturers, whose members warn about a shortage of skilled labor, unveiled last week what it called “a significant radio ad buy,” with 60-second spots set to run for two to three weeks in Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Texas, Utah and Wisconsin promoting “common-sense immigration reform” that includes a path to citizenship.

Opponents of this kind of approach are also pressing their case with rallies and ads but acknowledge that they are outgunned by the many forces supporting sweeping immigration change.

“It’s a staggering, well-financed hard push by the left and the right,” said Bob Dane, communications director at the Federation for American Immigration Reform, which advocates tougher measures to discourage illegal immigration.

Several thousand pro-reform activists from across California are scheduled to converge Wednesday at the Bakersfield office of Rep. Kevin McCarthy, the House majority whip, as part of a Caravan for Citizenship organized by labor and immigration rights groups, including the United Farm Workers, the AFL-CIO and the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Articles from August 13, 2013

America's Farm-Labor Pool Is Graying

Growers Say Reliance on Aging Workers Shows Urgent Need for Immigration Overhaul

By MIRIAM JORDAN, Wall Street Journal, August 13, 2013

David Cox, left, tends his almond trees with 20-year employee Domingo Cortez, 58. Mr. Cox says young American workers aren't as productive.

When Bruce Frasier surveys his sprawling south Texas farm during the harvest, he sees "a bunch of grandparents bunching onions," he says.

In California's Central Valley, nurseryman David Cox says he sees young Americans stacking his trees who are less productive than the older, predominantly Mexican workers he lost to an immigration audit.

From Vermont and Michigan to Texas and California, the nation's long-standing pool of farm labor is graying.

"You have to remember that the last amnesty happened 27 years ago," says Mr. Frasier, referring to a U.S. immigration overhaul in 1986 that legalized 2.7 million immigrants. "The average age I have is pushing 50," he adds.

Government data confirm that the workers who got legal status nearly three decades ago are now 49 years old, on average. The average age of farm workers overall is around 37, according to the data, up from 31 in 2000.

This aging workforce, farmers say, is just one of the problems that highlight American agriculture's urgent need for an overhaul of the nation's immigration system. Beefed-up patrols and drug violence along the Mexican border are discouraging potential migrants from journeying to the U.S. And, as the oil patch booms in Texas and construction recovers in California, other industries are competing for the same supply of low-skilled labor.

A crackdown on illegal immigration, meanwhile, has pushed many farmers, including Mr. Cox, to use the government's E-Verify system to ensure new employees are legal, only to discover the quality of their workforce has declined.

"If we have border security and E-Verify without giving [illegal] workers already here a way to pass muster, agriculture is screwed," says Mr. Cox, whose nursery raises fruit and ornamental trees that he sells to farmers, landscapers and garden-center retailers.

That's because net migration from Mexico, which has long supplied the bulk of U.S. field workers, has come to a standstill, according to the Pew Hispanic Center. Not only has crossing the border become riskier for these mostly undocumented immigrants, but the U.S. economy has remained relatively weak while the Mexican job market has improved.

Farm workers who benefited from the amnesty in 1986 represent only about 10% of today's field workers. Since then, many of those workers have taken jobs in other parts of the economy, returned to their native country or died. Still, about three-fourths of all crop workers were born abroad, and more than half of them work in the U.S. illegally, according to official estimates

A bipartisan bill passed by the Senate offers an expedited path to legal residency for undocumented field workers who remain in agriculture for a minimum number of days over three or five years. To guarantee a steady future flow of legal labor, the bill also includes two kinds of agricultural guest-worker visas. If such legislation were passed by both houses of Congress it would "provide labor certainty" that has been absent for years, says Philip Martin, an agricultural-labor expert at the University of California, Davis.

Leaders of the Republican-controlled House, however, have pledged to ignore the comprehensive Senate bill in favor a piecemeal approach that would start by addressing border security. That approach is raising concerns among farmers who fear that no agreement on new legislation will be possible until after next year's midterm elections.

"The frustration level is rising," says Julia Rothwell, chairwoman of the Michigan Apple Association, which represents growers and shippers.

Apple farmers in the state expect a bumper crop this fall following a freeze that decimated production last year. But a labor shortage looms.

"There's continuous talk about securing the border," says Mrs. Rothwell. "We would contend our borders are secure because we aren't able to find workers."

The labor supply is even more restricted for farmers who use the government's electronic system to verify whether new hires are eligible to work in the U.S.

Mr. Cox began to use E-Verify after his tree business, L.E. Cooke Co., in Visalia, Calif., lost a quarter of its workers to an immigration inspection in November 2010. Since then, he says, he has had to employ 10% more workers to complete the harvest, even though his current labor force is generally younger than the workers he was forced to let go. He says absenteeism is common, and some workers clock just enough hours to enable them to resume collecting unemployment.

After a fist fight erupted at the end of a work shift, Mr. Cox added to the manual for his workers that "no guns or knives are allowed" on the premises, even if left in cars.

"Only immigration reform can broaden my labor pool," says Mr. Cox. "We need this thing done, and we need it quick."

In Carrizo Springs, Texas, Mr. Frasier says he can't rely on the shriveling population of workers who benefited from the 1986 legalization to keep his cantaloupe and onion farm productive. Mr. Frasier, whose family started planting onions 100 years ago, is among growers who have made trips to Washington to persuade House Republicans to act on a bill.

To counter the labor shortage and better compete for workers with oil companies in the nearby Eagle Ford area, he runs vans that ferry workers to his farm during the onion and cantaloupe harvests, which together stretch from November to July.

"Those cantaloupes don't know if it's Sunday or the Fourth of July when they're ready to go," he said a few weeks ago as he watched boxes of the fruit being loaded on trucks.

Write to Miriam Jordan at miriam.jordan@wsj.com

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rubio advierte que Obama podría dar ciudadanía a todos

El legislador republicano de Florida afirmó que el Congreso tiene que tomar acciones antes de que el Presidente se vea tentado a actuar por su cuenta…

Por: ERICA WERNER / AP PUBLICADO: Aug, 13, 2013

WASHINGTON — Si el Congreso no aprueba la reforma migratoria, el presidente Barack Obama puede actuar por su cuenta para ofrecer la ciudadanía a los 11 millones de inmigrantes que ya se encuentran en Estados Unidos sin autorización legal, advirtió este martes el senador republicano por Florida Marco Rubio.

Posible candidato presidencial y uno de los autores del proyecto de ley de inmigración integral aprobado en junio por el Senado, Rubio señaló que el gobierno de Obama tomó medidas el año pasado para dar estatus legal a muchos inmigrantes traídos aquí sin permiso legal cuando eran niños. Dijo que sin medidas del Congreso, el Presidente también podría tener la tentación de hacer lo mismo con todos los demás que se encuentran en el país sin autorización legal.

"Creo que si no pasa nada en el Congreso, este Presidente se verá tentado a emitir una orden ejecutiva como lo hizo con los niños de (la ley) DREAM Act hace un año en la que básicamente legaliza a 11 millones de personas de un plumazo", dijo Rubio en el programa radial "The Morning Show with Preston Scott".

Añadió que esa posibilidad subraya la necesidad de las acciones del Congreso, porque la alternativa sería la legalización sin seguridad fronteriza o un sistema de E-Verify para exigir a los empleadores que verifiquen el estatus legal de sus trabajadores.

"No podemos dejarlo, en mi opinión, en la forma en que se encuentra pues creo que dentro de un año podríamos encontrarnos con las 11 millones de personas aquí legalmente en virtud de una orden ejecutiva del presidente, pero sin E-Verify, sin más seguridad fronteriza, sin más agentes fronterizos; ninguna de las otras reformas que necesitamos desesperadamente", dijo Rubio.

Refuta la Casa Blanca

Cuando le preguntaron si el presidente Barack Obama estaría "tentado" a emitir órdenes ejecutivas como el congresista Rubio sugirió, el portavoz de la Casa Blanca, Bobby Whithorne, dijo: "No. La única solución a este problema es que el Congreso arregle el estropeado sistema de inmigración al aprobar una reforma integral".

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Immigration 'Plan B' Focuses on White HouseBy Fawn Johnson, National Journal, August 8, 2013

Immigration-reform activists aren't supposed to talk publicly about a Plan B. They can't, or won't, answer questions from the media about what they will do if no bill passes this year to legalize the undocumented population. But as August wears on and there is no clear sense of what the House will do on immigration, some are starting to speak out.

"There are groups that are for immigration reform no matter what. Then there are groups like us, grassroots.... We have the other track," said Adelina Nicholls, the executive director of the Georgia Latino Alliance for Human Rights. "The other track is Barack Obama."

The idea behind the "other track" is to freeze the current undocumented population in place through an administrative order, give them work permits, and hope for a better deal under the next president, with the hope that he or she is a Democrat. It's a significant gamble, but some advocates—particularly those outside of the Washington legislative bartering system—argue that it's better than what they stand to see under the legislation being discussed now.

Many advocates have been discussing Plan B quietly for months, but they have kept a disciplined public message solely focused on supporting a comprehensive immigration bill in Congress. Even if they are uncomfortable with some of the bill's provisions (like, say, excluding anyone who has been convicted of petty theft from legalization), advocates don't want to appear fractured before a group of politicians who are wary about voting for anything that gives unauthorized immigrants legal status. As soon as reluctant lawmakers smell dissension in the ranks, they flee.

The Obama administration is different. It has already flexed its muscle and shown that it is willing to exert authority to stop the deportation of hundreds of thousands of undocumented youth through its deferred-action program announced last year. The immigrant community argues that there is no reason that this administrative authority cannot expand further to include other "low priority" candidates for deportation—i.e., parents of "Dreamers" or parents of children who are citizens because they were born here, people who are employed, people who are caregivers, and so on.

The same advocates who now are pushing Congress for an immigration overhaul were pushing the administration then for the deferred action program for undocumented youths who were brought to the country as children. Once it finally happened, it worked like a charm. To date, the Homeland Security Department has approved some 365,000 applications.

The same legal reasoning for not seeking deportation for unauthorized immigrants—there is no safety-related reason to do so—applies to other noncriminal aliens, immigration analysts argue. Politically, all President Obama needs is proof that Congress can't get the job done. That could happen in a matter of months with the Republican-led House still unsure of how it will deal with the undocumented population. (To date, no legislation has surfaced in the House, although there is talk of a limited legalization program for undocumented children.)

Meanwhile, the immigrant-advocacy community has a host of complaints about the Senate bill that passed in June, which would provide a tangled, treacherous 13-year path to citizenship for immigrants here illegally. It would also double the border patrol and require all employers to electronically check that their workers have papers.

Activists fear the Senate bill would militarize the border such that no one could live there without constantly being stopped and asked for a passport. They fear that it will drive undocumented immigrants who don't qualify for legalization further underground. They have a hard time saying that they enthusiastically support it.

"We tentatively support it, but our concern is that the bill is only going to get worse. We're not committed to continue to support it," said Kate Woomer-Deters, a staff attorney at the Immigrant Rights Project for the North Carolina Justice Center.

"It's divisive to the community, kind of pitting needs against each other. I can't say we have a real position on this," said Juanita Molina, executive director of Humane Borders, a group that has tracked deaths along the Arizona border with Mexico for 12 years. "Some people feel like we need to cut our losses, legalize as many people as we can."

Others in the Molina's group "feel very strongly" that the legislation would be harmful because it would make conditions so much more difficult along the border. "These people find people dead in the desert," she said.

Nicholls, of the Georgia Latino Alliance, can't even say she supports the bill. "What we want is to stop the unnecessary expansion of military-style [enforcement]," she said. "We do not believe that the border is going to be sealed. It is an impossible dream."

Nicholls, Molina, and Woomer-Deters are all in Washington this week as part of a planning session with a broader activist coalition called CAMBIO, which focuses on the civil- and human-rights issues involved in immigration reform.

Most activists for immigration reform have been so wrapped up in getting legislation through the Senate that they haven't had time to look up and see what's down the road. They are doing so now. "We're saying, 'What if? What are the next steps? If we come to a crossroads, what are the next strategies, the next talking points?' " said Lizette Escobedo, communications and development director for the Latino group Mi Familia Vota. "Our groups on the ground are seeing this as a new challenge. And when you get a new challenge, you just need to turn up the heat."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Immigration reform: Marco Rubio warns of executive orderRubio emphasizes his fear that doing nothing at all will force the president's hand…

By BURGESS EVERETT | POLITICO ~ 8/13/2013

If Congress doesn’t pass a comprehensive immigration reform law in the next year then President Barack Obama might be “tempted” to legalize 11 million undocumented immigrants by executive order, Sen. Marco Rubio said Tuesday morning.

Stalling on Capitol Hill might force the president’s hand, the Florida Republican said. That could result in a mass legalization of undocumented immigrants without any of the reforms included in the Senate-passed immigration bill that Rubio played a key role in writing and negotiating. Rubio said continued delay in Congress could create a scenario in which the nation misses out on his bill’s technological advances along the border with Mexico, drones, cameras, more Border Patrol agents and a national E-Verify system.

There’s precedent for such a move by the White House, Rubio said: The 2012 decision to temporarily halt deportation of some young people after the DREAM Act got hung up in the Capitol.

“I believe that this president will be tempted, if nothing happens in Congress, he will be tempted to issue an executive order like he did for the DREAM Act kids a year ago, where he basically legalizes 11 million people by the sign of a pen. Now, we won’t get an E-Verify, we won’t get any border security. But he’ll legalize them,” the Florida senator told Tallahassee radio host Preston Scott.

Scott said his email was piling up during the show with messages critical of Rubio’s work on immigration reform, an effort currently on the back burner in the House of Representatives. Scott said listeners were asking why the laws on the books can’t just be enforced now. Rubio responded that the current laws are outdated, with little incentive for installation of a national employment E-Verify system and watered-down border security laws.

He called the current policy of “de facto amnesty” both “crazy” and “terrible” because the government knows little of undocumented immigrants’ criminal history and whether or not they are paying taxes.

He said the legal immigration system is rooted in the past century, failing to track visitors and requiring skilled immigrants to jump through hoops more onerous than those moving to the United States because of family ties.

But most of all, Rubio emphasized Tuesday that he fears doing nothing at all will force President Obama’s hand — because without action from Congress, the country’s immigration problems will “only get worse as time goes on.”

“Unless we’re going to try to round up and deport 11 million people — something that not even the most vociferous opponent of the [Senate] bill proposed — then we are going to have to at some point address this issue,” Rubio said. “We can’t leave, in my mind, the way it is. Because I think a year from now we could find ourselves with all 11 million people here legally under an executive order from the president, but no E-Verify, no more border security, no more border agents, none of the other reforms that we desperately need.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/08/marco-rubio-immigration-executive-order-95487.html#ixzz2bsiMEszR
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Articles from August 12, 2013:
MPI Study Finds Wide State, Country-of-Origin Variation in Application Rates among
Unauthorized Immigrant Youth for Deferred Action Program

Video Chat to Discuss Findings Scheduled Wednesday, August 14 at 2:30 pm ET

WASHINGTON – As the one-year anniversary of the Obama administration’s program providing a temporary reprieve from deportation for qualified unauthorized immigrant youth draws near, a new analysis by the Migration Policy Institute’s National Center on Immigrant Integration Policy finds wide variation in application rates across states and national-origin groups for the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. The study also finds that 49 percent of the currently eligible population has applied to date.

Based on an innovative new methodology to analyze U.S. Census Bureau data, MPI estimates that up to 1.9 million unauthorized immigrants under age 31 are potentially eligible for DACA — with 1.09 million currently meeting the age, education, length of residence and other criteria; 423,000 appearing to fulfill all but the education requirements; and 392,000 who are too young to apply now but would become eligible once they reach age 15 if they stay in school or obtain a high school degree or equivalent.

DACA, which was implemented on August 15, 2012, offers work authorization as well as a two-year reprieve from deportation for eligible unauthorized immigrants who entered the United States before the age of 16; meet length of residence, education and other requirements; and were under the age of 31 as of June 15, 2012. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has reported that as of June 30, 2013, it had accepted 537,662 applications for processing, of which 400,562 had been approved and 5,383 denied to date.

A new issue brief published today, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals at the One-Year Mark: A Profile of Currently Eligible Youth and Applicants, provides MPI’s most up-to-date estimates of the current and prospective DACA population by educational attainment, English proficiency, state of residence, country of origin, age, gender, labor force participation, poverty and parental status.

Using USCIS figures and the MPI analysis of Census data, MPI researchers estimate that 49 percent of the currently eligible population nationwide had applied as of June 30, with pronounced differences in uptake rates by state.

North Carolina represents the high, with an estimated 74 percent of its currently eligible youth population applying, while New York and Florida are substantially lower at 34 percent and 35 percent respectively. California and Texas, which together account for 45 percent of all applications accepted by USCIS, are closer to the national average, with 49 percent and 54 percent respectively of currently eligible youth applying.
“There are a number of potential explanations for state variation in application rates, among them differences in immigrant youths’ workforce participation and the relative importance of obtaining work authorization, public transportation options and the relative urgency of obtaining a driver’s license, the climate of reception for immigrants and availability and cost of legal assistance to navigate the DACA application process,” said Michael Fix, co-director of MPI’s National Center on Immigrant Integration Policy.

Among MPI’s other findings regarding the population currently eligible for DACA:

There are significant variations in application rates by national-origin groups. Individuals from Mexico, El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras account for 68 percent of the currently eligible population when looking at the ACS data but represent 85 percent of those who had applied as of June 30. Youth from the Philippines and the Dominican Republic appear to have particularly low application rates: 16 percent and 14 percent respectively. Chinese youth are also notably absent: while China ranks ninth in MPI’s estimates of the currently eligible population, it was not among the top 20 countries for which USCIS has provided a breakdown.
266,000 (or 24 percent) of the currently eligible are enrolled in high school. An additional 482,000 (44 percent) have earned a high school diploma or equivalent, but have not obtained a college degree and are not enrolled in college. About 10 percent have completed an associate degree or higher, and an additional 22 percent are in college.
Most currently eligible youth have strong English language skills, reflecting their long-term U.S. residence and schooling. An estimated 60 percent are bilingual and 9 percent speak only English. The remaining 31 percent are limited English proficient.
35 percent live in families with incomes below 100 percent of the federal poverty level, and 66 percent in families with incomes below 200 percent of federal poverty.
55 percent are already in the workforce.
11 percent are parents with children living in the home.

Of the 423,000 individuals who meet the age criteria but appear to be currently ineligible because they are not enrolled in school and do not have a high school diploma or equivalent, MPI estimates 58 percent have completed some high school, while 42 percent have not completed any high school grades. Over two-thirds (69 percent) are limited English proficient, and 71 percent are in the labor force. USCIS
has not publicly released educational attainment or enrollment characteristics for DACA applicants. In light of the possibility that some share of the 423,000 has enrolled in a qualifying adult education, literacy or training program, an alternative approach that examines the total ages 15-30 population, regardless of educational attainment, suggests 36 percent of the entire DACA population has applied.

“Our analysis demonstrates this population faces several barriers to meeting DACA’s requirements. In addition to lower educational attainment, these youth have lower English proficiency and lower incomes than their currently eligible peers and are more likely to have work and parenting responsibilities,” said Margie McHugh, co-director of the National Center on Immigrant Integration Policy. “All these factors may create substantial barriers to participation in adult education or career training, preventing this group of unauthorized youth from meeting the DACA requirements — and leaving them in unauthorized status absent any changes in U.S. immigration policy. Expanding the availability of adult education, literacy and workforce programs shown to be effective with such youth would be key to maximizing DACA participation.”

The brief is available at: www.migrationpolicy.org/pubs/CIRbrief-DACAatOneYear.pdf

The brief’s authors will conduct a video chat on Wednesday, April 14 at 2:30 p.m. p.m. ET to discuss their findings and answer audience questions. To get the coordinates for the chat, click here.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Immigration Reform 2013: Advocates Call On Obama to Use Executive Action

By Laura Matthews, International Business Times, August 08 2013

Immigration reform advocates, weary of the pace at which the legislation is moving in Congress, say they are growing dissatisfied with President Barack Obama’s approach and are calling on him to use his executive authority to send a message to lawmakers to fix the status quo now.

They want Obama to use executive action to suspend deportation, grant some form of administrative relief, and expand the "deferred action" program to the millions of undocumented immigrants waiting to come out of the shadows.

Obama, who has been out front on other contentious issues like gun control, largely stayed behind the scenes as senators crafted a comprehensive immigration reform bill, passed it and sent it to a reluctant House.

That bill doubles patrol agents on the Mexican border and includes a path to citizenship for the undocumented. But the House is taking a piecemeal approach that is mainly focused on border security, interior enforcement and worker visas. If House Republicans do look at legalizing immigrants, they would likely limit their focus to children who were brought to America illegally.

Adelina Nicholls, executive director of Georgia Latino Alliance for Human Rights, said bold action from the president will force a conversation about the issue. Her group is working with other advocates, who say Obama's involvement, now seen as a “Plan B”, should have been “Plan A.”

Nicholls added that it’s somewhat of a contradiction that Obama is talking about immigration reform while Congress has now pushed the issue to the back burner and more than 1,000 people are being deported daily.

“We are not waiting [until the end of 2013] to request, or to ask, or to demand President Barack Obama to give us an administrative relief,” Nicholls said. “I think we have kind of seen enough from the Congress, that inaction, the lack of participation and therefore, while they are in recess …[we] will be doing several events around the country in regards to that.”

Nicholls said with the introduction and implementation of Arizona-style anti-immigrant laws in other states, there is urgency in the immigrant community, as families are being separated and children left behind.

“I think right now [it’s] kind of a humanitarian crisis that we need to solve,” she said. “The most traumatic event in your life could be being separated from your parents.”

The separation and alleged racial profiling are fostering a lack of trust between immigrants and the police, she said.

“It is a problem,” she said. “It is a humanitarian crisis of our families.”

The Georgia Latino Alliance is working with the National Day Laborer Organizing Network and other advocacy groups in several other states to mount pressure on the president to step to the forefront on the issue.

The NDLON seeks to improve the lives of laborers and protect and expand their rights. Chris Newman, the organization’s legal director, said his group supports the Georgia Latino Alliance’s approach, not because of a lack of faith that a 2013 immigration reform bill will pass, but because “bold action from the president in reducing deportation and expanding deferred action will actually improve chances for a good bill to make its way through Congress.”

Without Obama’s active involvement in the process, 14 Republican senators felt comfortable enough to back the measure in June so it could clear the chamber. Newman said he isn’t worried that having Obama at the helm on immigration reform would kill it. In fact, the president's reticence has done nothing to soothe the fears of some Republicans, but has “emboldened them.”

“Essentially, the president’s position is either the Republicans in the House should come around to support citizenship or he’ll be forced to keep deporting people,” Newman said. “That’s an untenable position. The president himself is responsible for deporting approximately 1,000 people per day and he has the power to stop doing that.

“One of the things that’s starting to emerge is that people are no longer satisfied allowing either political party to take political credit for sort of a continuation of the status quo,” he added. “For over 10 years immigration has been an issue that has been used for partisan advantage and we haven’t made any progress.

In fact, the only time we ever made significant progress was when the president used his executive authority to grant deferred action to childhood arrivals. So I think the idea of allowing this to continue to be a kind of partisan football … those days are over.

People want to see results and we want to see results from both Congress and also the executive branch.”

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Immigration Advocates Will Urge Obama Executive Order if Reform Fails

NEWS MAX, Saturday, August 3, 2013

If immigration reform sputters in the deeply divided U.S. Congress, supporters are planning to push President Barack Obama to act on his own to help 11 million illegal aliens, lawmakers and immigration advocates said.

Immigration law experts, some senators and House Democratic aides speculated that if Congress cannot agree on a wide-ranging immigration bill this year, Obama could use his executive authority to stop deporting parents of children living in the United States illegally.

Many of those children have won temporary reprieves on deportation and broadening the protection to their parents would be a way of keeping immigrant families together.

Navigating around Congress comes with plenty of drawbacks, though, since anything Obama could do would not be as lasting as enacting a law. Furthermore, he could not use his own powers to make sweeping changes, such as creating a pathway to citizenship for the 11 million undocumented.

Any such measures are certain to provoke a reaction from Republicans. But immigrant groups would argue that some action from the White House is better than putting up with existing conditions.

Obama also could sidestep Republican opposition to legislation by helping a broader spectrum of illegal residents who have been in the United States for prolonged periods, say 10 years or more, for temporary legal status if they have clean records.

"You could make a persuasive policy argument that those are the people who have most fully sunk roots into communities, most convincingly demonstrating they're contributing in the labor market," said Doris Meissner, a senior fellow at the Migration Policy Institute. "Many are paying U.S. taxes and raising families in their adopted country."

With Congress in a five-week recess and many Republicans balking at "amnesty" for those living in the United States illegally, chances are worsening for passing a comprehensive immigration bill this year, even with the Senate's bipartisan backing in June for such a measure.

"There's a huge degree of effort and support going into immigration reform and if it fails (in Congress), all of that effort and support will turn right back on the administration to do something for constituents that have been hurting and are important to the president," Meissner said.

Senior Republican Senator Orrin Hatch, who voted for the Senate-passed bill, told Reuters, "There are a lot of people speculating" about the demands for Obama to act unilaterally if legislation fails.

Republican Senator Marco Rubio, who helped write the Senate bill, concurred, saying, "I have always suspected that's a real possibility."

But Hatch and Rubio both warned Obama against taking matters into his own hands, even if legislation fails.

Bill Hing, a University of San Francisco professor who specializes in immigration law, said in a telephone interview: "I think it's going to begin ... with just huge pressure on the administration to cut back on its Secure Communities" program.

Controversial among city and county governments, this federal program gathers fingerprints and other information from local law enforcement that can be used to identify undocumented people.

Hing said the program has been aggressively used by the administration and the result has been the deportation of many for minor violations such as traffic infractions.

PRESIDENTIAL MUSCLES

After spending most of his first term as president refusing to use his executive powers to ease deportations of illegal immigrants, Obama flexed his presidential muscles in mid-2012. With his campaign for re-election gearing up, he had his Department of Homeland Security temporarily halt deportations of undocumented children who were brought to the United States by their parents, often at a very young age.

Seeing the effectiveness of that executive action and the absence of successful legal challenges, Obama could be emboldened to expand it with the stroke of his pen.

Presidential action may be the least desirable outcome for supporters of immigration reform, however, because it is a temporary remedy that can be reversed by future presidents and because there are only limited steps that can be taken.

"The importance of legislation is that it's a permanent fix," said Ali Noorani, executive director of the National Immigration Forum. He also said Obama could not order a "pathway to citizenship" for the 11 million but could ease their short-term deportation fears.

Legal status leading to citizenship is a key demand of immigration groups as they seek passage of legislation.

Executive branch action also would not create more high-tech visas or new categories of temporary work permits. The Senate legislation would accomplish those things, much to the pleasure of U.S. business.

Further complicating matters, Obama would have to make a political calculation before acting, assessing the potential impact of any administration directives on 2014 congressional elections.

For now, backers of immigration legislation do not want to acknowledge this executive branch avenue since it detracts from their message that Congress will manage to pass a bill this year.

"I don't want to even entertain that thought," Senator Lindsey Graham, a Republican who helped write the Senate-passed bill, said of potential Obama action.

Senator Charles Schumer, the leading Democratic author of the bill said, "I'm not even going to get into that," and insisted he is "more optimistic every day" of legislation passing the Republican-controlled House of Representatives.

Even the White House tried to squelch speculation. "The only way to fix this problem is for Congress to pass comprehensive reform. There are no other options," a spokesman said.

Any steps by Obama likely would prompt an outcry from Republicans who would again accuse him of trampling the Constitution by deciding which laws he was going to enforce and which ones he was going to ignore. That was their reaction in mid-2012.

"I think the White House has to be careful," Hatch said. "They've been doing an awful lot of unilateral legal action without authority and if that keeps up, the president is going to find himself in real difficulty."

(Editing by Fred Barbash and Bill Trott)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Articles from August 10, 2013:

Everything you know about immigration is wrong

By Ezra Klein, Washington Post ~ August 10, 2013

Everything you know about immigration, particularly unauthorized immigration, is wrong.

So says Princeton University’s Doug Massey, anyway. Massey is one of the nation’s preeminent immigration scholars. And he thinks we’ve wasted a whole lot of money on immigration policy and are about to waste a whole lot more.

Massey slices the history of Mexico-to-U.S. migration in five periods. Early in the 20th century, there was the era of “the hook,” when Japan stopped sending workers to the U.S. and the mining, agriculture and railroad industries begged Mexican laborers to replace them. It’s called “the hook” because laborers were recruited with promises of high wages, signing bonuses, transportation and lodging, most of which either never materialized or were deducted from their paychecks.

Then, during the Roaring Twenties, came “flood tide” — almost 650,000 Mexican workers came legally, causing the number of Mexicans in the U.S. to rocket to almost 750,000 in 1929 from 100,000 in 1900.

The Great Depression ended all that. Jobless Americans took out their anger on jobless Mexicans, and thus began the “era of deportations.” From 1929 to 1939, 469,000 Mexicans were expelled from the U.S.; by 1940, the Mexican-born population had fallen to 377,000.

Enter World War II. With so many American men fighting overseas, Mexican labor was once again in high demand. The U.S. and Mexico negotiated the Bracero Program, which gave Mexican workers access to temporary U.S. visas. That kicked off the “Bracero era.” In 1945, the program brought in 50,000 Mexican guest workers. By 1956, it was up to 445,000. Mexico was also freed from quota limitations on legal immigration, so by 1963, more than 50,000 Mexicans were immigrating each year. With so many legal ways to enter the country, illegal immigration was virtually unknown.

In 1965, the U.S. ended the Bracero program and began to limit Mexican immigration. The number of guest-worker permits dropped to 1,725 in 1979 from more than 400,000 in 1959. The number of residence visas declined to 20,000 after previously being unlimited. But the demand for Mexican labor remained strong. And so the “era of undocumented migration” began. Border apprehensions rose to 1.7 million in 1986 from 55,000 in 1965. But even as millions of Mexicans entered the U.S. illegally, millions also returned. About 85 percent of new entries were offset by departures. Consequently, the growth of the undocumented population was slow.

After passage of a comprehensive immigration law in 1986, the U.S. began militarizing the border with Mexico even as the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and, later, the North American Free Trade Agreement strengthened economic ties with Mexico. From 1986 to 2000, trade with Mexico increased eightfold.

Until this point, there isn’t much to dispute in Massey’s narrative. But here his immigration story takes a turn that confounds Washington’s conventional wisdom and makes a mockery of the current political debate.

According to Massey, the rise of America’s large undocumented population is a direct result of the militarization of the border. While undocumented workers once traveled back and forth from Mexico with relative ease, after the border was garrisoned, immigrants from Mexico crossed the border and stayed.

“Migrants quite rationally responded to the increased costs and risks by minimizing the number of times they crossed the border,” Massey wrote in his 2007 paper “Understanding America’s Immigration ‘Crisis.’” “But they achieved this goal not by remaining in Mexico and abandoning their intention to migrate to the U.S., but by hunkering down and staying once they had run the gauntlet at the border and made it to their final destination.”

The data support Massey’s thesis: In 1980, 46 percent of undocumented Mexican migrants returned to Mexico within 12 months. By 2007, that was down to 7 percent. As a result, the permanent undocumented population exploded.

The militarization also had another unintended consequence: It dispersed the undocumented population. Prior to 1986, about 85 percent of Mexicans who entered the U.S. settled in California, Texas or Illinois, and more than two-thirds entered through either the San Diego-Tijuana entry point or the El Paso-Juarez entry point. As the U.S. blockaded those areas, undocumented migrants found new ways in — and new places to settle. By 2002, two-thirds of undocumented migrants were entering at a non-San Diego/El Paso entry point and settling in a “nontraditional” state.

In recent years, the net inflow of new undocumented immigrants arriving from Mexico has fallen to zero. Some of the decline is due to the U.S. recession and a falloff in construction, which employed a lot of migrant workers. But some is due to an improving economy in Mexico, where unemployment is 5 percent and wages have been rising. “I personally think the huge boom in Mexican immigration is over,” Massey said.

Yet the political debate over immigration is stuck in 1985. Congress is focused above all on how to further militarize an already militarized border — despite the fact that doubling the size of the border patrol since 2004 and installing hundreds of miles of barriers and surveillance equipment appears to have been counterproductive. At any rate, the flow of unauthorized immigration has slowed dramatically. “Listening to the Republicans, you’d think waves of people are crossing the border,” Massey said. “But illegal migration stopped four years ago and has been zero since.”

In light of these facts, the debate is backward. Republicans in the House of Representatives are focused on further militarizing the border against the people who are no longer crossing it; at the same time, they are loath to do anything about the millions of real undocumented immigrants who are the legacy of the last buildup. At best, we can hope to waste tens of billions of dollars on further enforcement in return for a lengthy and complicated path to citizenship. At worst, we’ll do nothing — in which case this will be known as the era of wasted opportunity.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Articles from August 9, 2013
Stopping Deportations Should Be 'Plan A' for Immigration Reform

For Immediate Release // Excuse Cross Posting // Share at: http://bit.ly/potusplana

Contact: B. Loewe, NDLON, 773.791.4668, bloewe@ndlon.org

August 9, 2013 - Los Angeles, CA

With multiple reports citing administrative relief as a 'Plan B' to legislation in Congress and with outlets raising the question of executive action before the President's vacation, Pablo Alvarado, Executive Director of the National Day Laborer Organizing Network issued the following statement calling for a suspension of deportations as a precursor to reform:

"The President has the legal authority and moral obligation to do more in order to advance immigration reform. Rather than sit on the sidelines and merely seek political advantage from potential gridlock in Congress, the President can and should take steps today both to help immigrants and to improve prospects for legislation.

"Anyone who thinks the President should suspend deportations as a 'Plan B' is missing the point. The President should make a suspension of deportations and an expansion of deferred action part of a 'Plan A' precisely to help move a bill forward in Congress. His decision to grant deferred action to childhood arrivals (DACA) showed that we can make incremental progress and galvanize momentum for an omnibus bill at the same time. But it also begged the question: Why isn't the President doing more?

"We think now is the time for him to do more. The Corker Militarization Amendment showed how dangerous it is to keep bargaining with nativists for reform. Now, members in the House are talking about criminalization and the SAFE Act. Enough is enough.

"The President needs to make clear that people's political equality and eventual citizenship will no longer be held hostage by a dysfunctional Congress. Bold executive action can keep the debate on track and focused on its core mission.

"If things eventually stall in Congress, all eyes will be on the President for relief. He is after all the 'Deporter in Chief.' But things don't have to stall. By leading the immigration reform debate through actions and not just words, the President can break the impasse and focus Congress's attention on getting something done this year. We call upon the President to suspend deportations immediately, end his shameful Secure Communities program, and expand deferred action to help accompany immigrants several steps down the proverbial path to citizenship."

See International Business Times "Advocates to Obama: Time to Use Execution Action"
See Politico "6 Pre-Vacation Questions for Obama"

See National Journal "Immigration 'Plan B' Focuses on White House"

See Reutuers "Immigration Advocates WIll Urge Executive Order if Reform Fails"

See Nelson Peacock in LA Times "Obama Has a Trump Card on Immigration"

See Pablo Alvarado in theHill.com "44,000 Can't Wait for Immigration Reform in Congress"

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Articles from August 8, 2013

'Dream 9' members freed to seek asylum

The immigration activists are released from an Arizona detention center and allowed to return to their American homes while awaiting their day in court...

"Dream 9" members, in gowns from left, Maria Peniche, Lizbeth Mateo and Adriana Gil Diaz, are greeted by immigrant rights activists and news crews after being released from detention and arriving in Tucson. (Cindy Carcamo / August 7, 2013)

By Cindy Carcamo, L.A. Times August 8, 2013

TUCSON — Lizbeth Mateo won't be late for her first day of law school after all — despite weeks in a federal detention center after protesting U.S. immigration policy. She and other members of the "Dream 9" were freed Wednesday while they pursue U.S. asylum.

Born in Mexico, Mateo, 29, has spent most of her life in Los Angeles. On Monday, she is to begin studies at Santa Clara University School of Law. Now she's even more determined to succeed.

"I am absolutely ready to go to law school," Mateo said.

Moments earlier, Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials had released her and the other members of the Dream 9 from Eloy Detention Center in Arizona, allowing them to return to their American communities until they can argue their case in court. They take their name from the Dream Act, which would provide a path to legalization for immigrants like them who were brought to the U.S. illegally as children.

The nine were transported by bus about 60 miles south to Tucson, where immigrant rights activists and news crews awaited them.

"You're here!" someone shouted. Some of the freed activists and their supporters cried.

The five women came off the bus first. They wore graduation gowns and mortar boards, the same attire as when they were arrested last month while trying to cross from Mexico back into the U.S. Next came the four men, dressed in street clothes.

It could take several years before any of them get their day in court, said the group's attorney, Margo Cowan. They hope some sort of immigration relief will become law before then, she said.

The Dream 9 staged a brazen protest at the Nogales, Ariz., port of entry to draw attention to the more than 1 million people deported under the Obama administration. When they tried to reenter the U.S. on July 22, they were arrested, and they had been in federal custody ever since.

In the detention center, Mateo said she spoke to several people like her.

"I want the government to recognize that there is a group of people, Dreamers, who grew up in this country and belong here because these are their homes," Mateo said. "They shouldn't have to go through what we went through. They should come home."

Immigration asylum officers decided this week that all nine had credible fear of persecution or torture in their birth country, Mexico, and could therefore not be immediately deported. They received temporary parole into the U.S.

Now their cases go to an immigration judge. Experts say 98% of Mexican asylum cases are denied.

Mateo, Marco Saavedra of New York and Lulu Martinez of Chicago voluntarily crossed into Mexico before trying to reenter the U.S. as an act of protest. The other six were attempting to return after leaving for Mexico more than a year ago for various reasons.

Maria Peniche, 22, left a year ago to live in Mexico City. She came to the U.S. legally when she was 10, she said, and overstayed her visa. In Boston, Peniche said, she worked three jobs to pay for college and grew frustrated that there was no immigration relief in sight.

She left three days before the Obama administration announced a deferred action program, which allows people who were brought into the country illegally as children to stay in the U.S., at least for two years.

Life in Mexico was difficult, Peniche said; she was targeted because she'd lived so long in the U.S. She was relieved to be free, and grateful to be back in the U.S., she said. "It's amazing. I feel like I have so much freedom here. I can be myself and not be afraid," she said.

Martinez, 23, was brought to the U.S. at age 3. She said she endured her recent detention by thinking of her family.

"Just being there waiting, I thought of … coming home to my family," she said.

But the "Dream 9" members aren't done protesting. A couple hours after their release, they went back to Eloy Detention Center, where they held a vigil and a rally for those still inside.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

44,000 can’t wait for immigration reform in Congress

By Pablo Alvarado - 08/02/13

For the 44,000 people expected to be expelled from the country during Congress’ August recess, immigration reform won’t come soon enough and executive action is already overdue.

While the end result of the immigration debate in Congress is uncertain when in session, we know that nothing will move while legislators are on vacation. Nothing, that is, other than the gears on the deportation machine that has been assembled and placed on overdrive under the Obama administration.

Having allowed Janet Napolitano and John Morton to mold immigration enforcement into Arizona’s image, the president is in an uncomfortable position as the heads of DHS and of ICE end their tenure. Their attempt to appear tough on enforcement to win reform credentials with conservatives has placed the administration to the right of some Republicans by continuing to deport the very people that both parties agree deserve legalization.

The fact that people continue to be torn from their loved ones at the same time the president and others advocate for their inclusion only adds insult to injury. As Jim Wallis of Sojourners told the New York Times in February, “Enforcing a broken system aggressively right before we’re about to change it is not just not compassionate, it’s cruel.”

Luckily for the president and for those victimized by the current broken system, such cruelty is optional. Building upon prosecutorial discretion and the deferred action for childhood arrivals program, the president has it in his executive authority to expand the relief he’s granted dream-eligible youth to their parents, neighbors, and the other potential citizens who are watching the Congressional debate closely.

In fact, if and when the president will stop prolonging the suffering of people in deportation proceedings and use his authority has become a repeated question any time he addresses Spanish language media. As limitations of the Senate bill are being reported and a few obstructionist legislators seek to imperil progress, hundreds of organizations have looked to the administration to take action and help break a possible logjam.

His response to whether he will step in: “Probably not. I think that it is very important for us to recognize that the way to solve this problem has to be legislative. I can do some things and have done some things that make a difference in the lives of people by determining how our enforcement should focus.”

Obama’s words are an echo of the response he told dreamers prior to announcing DACA, the deferred action program that granted them work permits and legal status that protects them from deportation. As pressure mounted on the administration to grant relief to immigrant youth in 2010, the president tried to deflect, saying, “I know there are some folks who think I should bypass Congress. I can’t. But what I can do is sign a law…” But the DREAM Act failed to clear Congress and the President reversed his position and took action in both a moral and strategic move that transformed the landscape on immigration.

For undocumented people who weren’t included in DACA, the situation today looks even more dire than what moved him to action a year ago. People with deportation dates before Congress returns from recess like Israel Lopez Bautista, a day laborer in the president’s hometown of Chicago who was arrested when ICE agents raided the street corner where he looks for work, or Luciana Hernandez Ocampo, one of the latest victims of Sheriff Arpaio’s ongoing raids in Arizona, are ready for the president to be more than a bystander in the debate.

Imagine how different the conversation would be and how much stronger reform's prospects would look if the president told obstructionist Republicans that deportations are suspended until a legalization bill is passed, as some of his own advisors have recommended.

The same legal expertise that proved Obama has the executive authority to implement DACA applies to his authority to broaden it. As United We Dream’s Lorella Praeli stated then, “It’s not a question of whether the president can or can’t. It’s a question of whether he will or he won’t.” Until he is doing everything in his power, we’ll hold the president to the same standards as Congress. The fate of at least 44,000 people expected to be deported during the August recess alone depends on it.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Dream 9 and the Dream Act's future

A risky act by nine young men and women calls attention to the nation's dysfunctional immigration system — and Congress' refusal to fix it.

Protesters pleaded with Rep. Ed Pastor's staffers in Phoenix, Ariz. on July 24 to meet with them regarding the detention of the "Dream 9" arrested at the United States-Mexico border. The so-called "Dream 9" have since been released and on Tuesday, federal officials agreed to allow their cases to go before an immigration judge, who will decide whether they should be granted asylum. (Ross Franklin / Associated Press / August 7, 2013)

By The Times Editorial Board, August 7, 2013

Nine young men and women whose parents brought them to the United States as children without proper documentation were arrested last month after staging a bold protest. By traveling to Mexico and then trying to legally reenter the U.S., they hoped to highlight the plight of an estimated 1.7 million young immigrants who also came to the U.S. as children — and to press for passage of the Dream Act, which would offer them a conditional pathway to citizenship.

The nine protesters took a huge risk. They might not have been allowed back into the U.S.; as it was, they were held for the better part of a week in an Arizona detention center while the government figured out what to do with them. But Tuesday, federal officials agreed to allow their cases to go before an immigration judge, who will decide whether they should be granted asylum.

Surely, deporting them will serve no purpose. They, like other so-called Dreamers, merely want to make a life in the only country they have known as home. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that if all 1.7 million were permitted to participate in the U.S. economy, it would result in revenue of more than $2 billion annually, mainly from income and corporate taxes paid by the newly legalized workers.

Whether or not the nine win their bid for asylum, it won't resolve the predicament of the rest, who remain in limbo because the Republican-led House has repeatedly blocked the Dream Act, which holds out the hope of citizenship for young immigrants who graduate from high school and go on to college or the military. The House recently upped the stakes by threatening to de-fund the Obama administration's order that grants young immigrants a temporary reprieve from deportation.

Now the House is once again stalling, claiming that a piecemeal approach to immigration reform is the best way to fix the nation's dysfunctional immigration system while at the same time cynically refusing to allow any legislation to come to a vote on the floor.

Preventing these young people from gaining legal status won't help deter illegal immigration. All it will do is punish them for the deeds of their parents.

There are plenty of moral and economic reasons for Republicans to support the Dream Act, if they could briefly put partisanship and ideology aside.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Immigration 'Plan B' Focuses on White House

By Fawn Johnson, The National Journal, August 8, 2013 | 6:00 a.m.

Undocumented student Alma Castrejon is originally from Mexico and holds two college degrees, but she was not allowed to work legally in the U.S. (AP Photo/Damian Dovarganes)

Get the latest news and analysis delivered to your inbox. Sign up for National Journal's morning alert, Wake-Up Call, and afternoon newsletter, The Edge. Subscribe here.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Articles from August 1, 2013:

Despite ambitious goals, millions would be left out of immigration deal

By David Nakamura, Published: July 26

President Obama has staked his bid to rewrite the nation’s immigration laws on providing a path to citizenship for immigrants living in the country illegally. Failing to do so, he told a Spanish-language television station, would mean 11 million people “permanently resigned to a lower status.”

But even if the Senate legislation favored by Obama became law tomorrow, more than one in four illegal immigrants would remain undocumented and outside the system, according to federal estimates.

That gap worries many reform proponents, who fear that the system would leave millions living in the shadows without legal protection. They would also be subject to harsher workplace requirements and enforcement measures included in the plan.

“We are very disappointed with that number, because we really want to reform the system once and for all and make sure we legalize all people who are not committing crimes,” said Gustavo Torres, executive director of CASA of Maryland, an advocacy organization.

The bipartisan legislation that passed the Senate last month would set up a 13-year process toward citizenship for undocumented immigrants, including mandatory fines and other requirements. The Congressional Budget Office projected that 8 million immigrants would attempt to gain citizenship under the plan but that an additional 3.5 million would not qualify or would decide not to pursue it.

There is also no guarantee that those who begin the process will reach the goal of becoming naturalized. The Social Security Administration estimates that 400,000 of those who gain provisional status would drop out within six years because they would not meet the financial requirements.

The question of how many immigrants attain citizenship could be crucial to the success of an overhaul. When President Ronald Reagan signed the 1986 immigration bill, about half of the nation’s 5 million undocumented immigrants gained legal status. The other half became the base for the current undocumented population.

“The whole point of fixing the system is to do it in a way that improves our country by ending this system of second-class citizenry,” said Ana Avendaño, director of immigration at the AFL-CIO, which supports a path to citizenship to help ensure that employers do not exploit unauthorized immigrants for lower wages. “We do not want to create arbitrary conditions that re-create the exact same problem we’re trying to fix.”

Senate negotiators emphasized that the comprehensive immigration bill, which was approved by a 68 to 32 vote, was crafted to be as inclusive as possible, given Republican demands for financial penalties and other requirements.

“This was the best possible outcome in terms of creating a tough but accessible path to citizenship that will address the 11 million living in the shadows,” said Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), a key architect of the legislation.

In the GOP-controlled House, leaders have said they will not take up the Senate bill and will instead pursue smaller-scale bills that do not include a path to citizenship. Some advocates fear that the House would further limit the number of immigrants eligible for legal status if it takes up that issue.

White House spokesman Bobby Whithorne said the Senate bill represents a compromise the president is comfortable with. “Under the Senate bill, we believe that a vast majority will be eligible to earn citizenship if they choose to follow the rules, pay a fine, pay taxes, obey the law and get a background check,” he said.

Who would not qualify

Most of the immigrants who would not qualify under the bill fall into three categories: those convicted of a felony or more than two misdemeanors; those who cannot meet the work and financial requirements; and those who arrived in the United States after Dec. 31, 2011.

There are hundreds of thousands more immigrants who qualify for provisional legal status but will choose not to pursue it, analysts said. That includes those who do not understand the process, those who are fearful of being deported or those who do not plan to remain in the United States for the rest of their lives.

The federal analyses of how many immigrants would pursue citizenship are based partially on government data, but much uncertainty remains. For example, although experts said that 500,000 to 700,000 people entered the country illegally after the 2011 cutoff date, that number is growing each day.

Some immigration proponents said the legislation includes arbitrary barriers that exclude too many immigrants.

For instance, felony statutes vary by state, meaning that a person convicted of a felony in one state might not be considered a felon in another. Applicants for legal residency and citizenship must show that they have been continuously employed, with gaps of no more than 60 days at a time — which could be difficult in a weak economy.

The fees required to gain provisional legal status — $500 per person at the start, escalating to at least $2,000 over 10 years — could be a barrier for poorer applicants.

Perhaps most arbitrary of all, immigration advocates said, is the cutoff date, the product of extensive negotiations this spring.

Senate aides said Democrats wanted to allow all immigrants who entered the country before the date the bill becomes law to be eligible for the path to citizenship. But Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) countered with a deadline set five years prior to the enactment of a new law, arguing that only immigrants who had established deep economic and social ties deserved to pursue full legal status.

The December 2011 date represents a compromise roughly in the middle, assuming Obama were to sign the law by the end of the year, aides said.

“If Republicans are going to take a political risk by voting to legalize, they might as well go all the way,” said Kevin Appleby, migration policy director at the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, which supports a path to citizenship. “It’s not like they get political credit because 3 million didn’t get legalized and 8 million did.”

Compromise splits family

Some immigration analysts said the Senate compromise is better than the one struck in 1986, when lawmakers decided that those who entered the country after 1982 would be ineligible.

“This is a balancing act. You’ve got to reconcile a set of tensions and contractions. They’ve done so pretty well,” said Doris Meissner, who served as Immigration and Naturalization Services commissioner in the Clinton administration.

Among those who would be left out is Yessenia, 31, who left a violent town in El Salvador and entered the United States illegally in April with her 17-year-old brother and 4-year-old daughter.

After paying $21,000 for human smugglers to help negotiate the month-long trip, Yessenia said she was caught by immigration authorities in Houston. They sent the three to live with her mother in Montgomery County while she awaits a court date this fall.

Yessenia’s mother, who has lived in the country illegally for eight years, would qualify for legal status under the Senate bill. But Yessenia and her brother and daughter would not. If they are sent back, she said, she fears that her brother will be forced into one of the violent gangs controlling her home town.

Speaking through a CASA of Maryland interpreter on the condition that her last name not be used, Yessenia said, “Even people who have been here for less than a year deserve a chance.”

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Immigrant parents' experiences helped shape lawmakers' views

17 members of the California Legislature have parents born outside the U.S.

The parents of Assemblywoman Bonnie Lowenthal (D-Long Beach) were brought to New York as children by families escaping pogroms against Jews in Russia. (Don Bartletti / Los Angeles Times / August 8, 2008)

By Patrick McGreevy

July 27, 2013, 9:20 p.m.

SACRAMENTO — Seventeen members of the California Legislature have parents who came to the U.S. from other countries. Many say their family histories inform their actions as lawmakers.

The parents of Assemblywoman Bonnie Lowenthal (D-Long Beach) were brought to New York as children by families escaping pogroms against Jews in Russia. One of her grandfathers had survived under a pile of dead bodies during a massacre near Minsk.

Lowenthal authored a law last year intended to protect immigrant warehouse workers by requiring their employers to provide pay stubs showing wages and hours worked, after many complained they were being shortchanged.

The mother of Assemblyman Rob Bonta (D-Alameda) came to the United States on a student visa from the Philippines, to escape civil unrest there, just months before martial law was declared.

Cynthia Bonta said she spent her early years in the United States working for a church, accepting poverty-level wages to care for the children of farmworkers, many of them undocumented.

"My mom came here for the opportunity," said her son — and it paid off. "I went to Yale Law School and Oxford."

After his election last November, Bonta co-authored a resolution supporting a path to citizenship for the 11 million people in the country without papers. Assemblyman K.H. "Katcho" Achadjian (R-San Luis Obispo) broke from his party's line and supported the measure.

Achadjian lost grandparents in the Armenian genocide. His parents survived and moved to Lebanon. He came to the United States on a student visa; his mother emigrated later to escape the bloodshed of Lebanon's civil war.

The parents of state Sen. Ted Lieu (D-Torrance) had little money when they emigrated from Taiwan with 2-year-old Ted. He recalls helping them sell trinkets at Ohio flea markets in the early days, to put food on the table. Eventually, the family business included a chain of six jewelry and gift stores.

Lieu said he spoke Mandarin before learning English as a child. He introduced a bill this year to make sure health insurers are accurately translating their conditions of coverage so non-English speakers are not misled. It has passed the Senate and is awaiting an Assembly vote.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Immigration divides GOP colleagues

Central Valley Rep. Jeff Denham says an immigration overhaul is important to California and the Republican Party. Fellow GOP Rep. Dana Rohrabacher of Orange County flatly rejects the idea.

Republican Rep. Jeff Denham, right, of California’s Central Valley, is a staunch supporter of efforts to overhaul immigration law, putting him at odds with many of his GOP colleagues in the House. (Evan Vucci, Associated Press / July 23, 2013)

By Richard Simon

July 27, 2013, 10:10 p.m.

WASHINGTON — Reps. Jeff Denham and Dana Rohrabacher are California GOP colleagues usually on the same side of issues — except immigration.

Denham, who represents District 10 in the Central Valley, supports legislation that would grant millions of immigrants legal status and says an overhaul of immigration laws is important to the state's economy and the Republican Party's future.

The issue is personal, too. He is married to the daughter of a legal Mexican immigrant. His sister married an immigrant who entered the country illegally but now has legal status.

"I witnessed the trials and the joys of immigration through my own family," he said at a Capitol Hill hearing last week, later speaking in Spanish.

Rohrabacher, of Orange County, flatly rejects what he considers "amnesty" for lawbreakers and contends that granting legal status to immigrants won't bring Latinos into the Republican fold, but will infuriate the GOP base.

"This idea that we're going to get all these Hispanic votes … that's just not going to happen," Rohrabacher said.

The sharp differences between the two underscore the difficulty of moving comprehensive immigration legislation through the GOP-controlled House. It also spotlights the wide-ranging views of the 15 Republicans from California, whose views have in part been shaped by factors such as their districts' demographic makeups and their own political vulnerabilities.

Immigrant rights groups have been working to gain the support of California Republicans because of the state's sizable Latino population and its growing political influence. California is home to about a fourth of the nation's estimated 11 million immigrants without legal status. Four of the state's GOP lawmakers represent districts where Latinos make up 40% or more of the population; five represent districts where it's at least 30%.

The Senate last month approved a landmark bill that would allow immigrants to gain legal status after 10 years and citizenship three years later. The measure calls for a $46-billion security buildup at the border and new guest-worker programs, including for agricultural workers. It also requires employers to verify the legal status of all new hires.

House Republicans are considering measures that would tighten border security, permit more agricultural and high-tech workers in the country temporarily and grant legal status to young immigrants who were brought into the country illegally as children. House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) has pledged not to bring immigration legislation up for a vote unless it is backed by a majority of Republicans.

The views among the California Republicans run the gamut. Some vehemently oppose granting

legal status to anyone who entered the country illegally, or won't consider doing so until convinced that the border is secure.

"Until our current immigration laws are enforced, there's no reason to believe that future laws will be enforced," Rep. Tom McClintock (R-Granite Bay) said.

Others are open to granting legal status to some immigrants but unsure about or opposed to providing a path to citizenship.

Rep. Ken Calvert (R-Corona) said that if Congress were to strengthen border security and require a system for verifying workers' legal status, he would consider "some kind of legal status, though not citizenship" for immigrants in the country illegally if they meet conditions, such as paying back taxes and passing English proficiency tests.

Denham and Rohrabacher have often been on the same side of significant legislation. Both voted to repeal President Obama's healthcare law and expand offshore energy exploration.

Denham, a two-term representative who turns 46 on Monday, is perhaps best-known to Californians as a leading critic of the state's high-speed rail project. He represents a 40% Latino district that relies on immigrants to pick the crops. He survived a challenge from a Latino Democrat in a district won by Obama last year and has been targeted by Democrats again for defeat next year.

A recent survey by Democratic-leaning Public Policy Polling found 44% of voters surveyed in Denham's district would be less likely to support him if he voted against immigration reform. Immigrant rights groups see him as a potentially important ally.

Denham has worked to court Latino voters, conducting "listening sessions" on immigration — and brought GOP colleagues from Florida and South Carolina to his district to hear his constituents' views on the issue. He says the Senate bill goes in the "right direction."

Denham was recently one of six House Republicans who opposed an effort to cut off funding for an Obama administration program that halted deportation of young immigrants who are in high school or college or have served in the military. And he is sponsoring legislation that would allow people in the country illegally to gain legal status through U.S. military service.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
L.A. town hall meeting exposes deep rift on immigration overhaul

Rep. Karen Bass meets with constituents to discuss measures being debated in Congress; the crowd is sharply divided. Bass sees little prospect for passage of 'comprehensive' reform bills in the House.

Rep. Karen Bass, shown in 2010, held a town hall session in Los Angeles on Saturday to discuss immigration overhaul measures currently being debated in Congress. Members of the audience were sharply divided on the issue. (Irfan Khan / Los Angeles Times)

By Seema Mehta

July 27, 2013, 7:58 p.m.

Rep. Karen Bass (D-Los Angeles) said Saturday that she is pessimistic about the prospects for a broad overhaul of the nation's immigration system in the House of Representatives.

"I am not optimistic that comprehensive immigration reform is going to be brought up in the House of Representatives any time soon," said Bass, a member of the Judiciary Committee, which is hearing most of the immigration bills. "The bills making their way through the House I would not want to see go anywhere — they are very onerous; there is no pathway to citizenship in the bills."

Immigration reform legislation, which has cleared the Senate but is being debated in the House, was highlighted in the news in recent days because of a controversial statement made by Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), who said most children who are in the country illegally are marijuana traffickers, not valedictorians. Politicians on both sides of the aisle denounced his statements, including top leaders of the Republican Party.

Bass said she thinks that the Republicans who denounced King's statements share many of his positions but express them differently.

"There is the crude and there is the sophisticated," she said. "At the end of the day, I think both opinions are pretty much the same in terms of the disrespectful viewpoint of immigrants."

Bass made the remarks shortly before she held a two-hour town hall on the issue at the California Science Center. The congresswoman outlined the legislation that passed the Senate earlier this year, which included a pathway to citizenship along with stricter border enforcement. She asked those who support the measure to urge House Speaker John Boehner to allow the matter to come up for a vote in the House, and to contact the 15 Republican Congress members from California, several of whom are believed to be open to considering supporting immigration reform.

About 300 people attended the meeting, and despite Los Angeles' deeply liberal bent, the crowd was sharply divided over what should be done with the millions of people who are living in this country illegally.

Diana Ramos, 20, said her parents came to the country illegally. She said her older sister and younger brother were born here, but she was born when the family returned to Mexico for a year. Crying, the community college student said she is terrified at the prospect of her family being torn apart.

"It is wrong to separate me from my sister, who has been my role model. It is wrong to separate me from my brother, who has been my motivation. It is wrong to separate me from my mother and father, the soul and the core of my family," she said. "Immigration reform is not about politics but rather a human rights issue. It is time for Congress to give us a vote on the bill with a pathway to citizenship that keeps our families together."

Several spoke out against a pathway to legalization, saying it would reward those who broke the law by entering the country illegally. Others pointed to the economy and unemployment and argued that the job prospects of Americans — particularly African Americans — would be harmed.

Keith Hardiner, 57, said he is the descendant of slaves.

"They were separated from their families, but we had to fight and struggle," said the Silver Lake resident. "And now I feel like we are being set back and the country is being kind of stolen from us."

One man said that Bass and other politicians could be arrested by any American for failing to uphold the Constitution.

"Are you going to do a citizens' arrest?" Bass asked, and her supporters in the crowd chuckled. "Do I get read my rights?"

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point man in the push for immigrant rights

State Sen. Ricardo Lara, left, laughs with nephew Ernesto Lara, center front, his father, Venustiano Lara, center back, and his sister, Jackie Lara, right, during a cookout at his parents' home in East Los Angeles. More photos

California state Sen. Ricardo Lara, whose father swam a frigid canal to get to America, is often at odds with others in the immigration debate.

By Patrick McGreevy

Photography and video by Katie Falkenberg

Reporting from Sacramento

July 27, 2013

The subject was illegal immigration, and Ricardo Lara, head of the Legislature's Latino Caucus, was livid.

Lara, then a Democratic Assemblyman from Bell Gardens, wanted to grant driver's licenses to some undocumented Californians. A Republican lawmaker was objecting.

Some of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorists used driver's licenses to get through security checkpoints and board planes they later flew into the World Trade Center, said Assemblyman Tim Donnelly (R-Twin Peaks).

If people here illegally "can board an airplane, think of the damage they can do," said Donnelly, a former member of the volunteer border patrol group known as the Minutemen.

Lara rose from his seat when it was his turn to speak, steely-eyed and stiff, visibly trying to control his anger. His father had been smuggled across the border from Mexico nearly 50 years before, a broke 19-year-old in search of work.

"We've asked all our children in this country to work hard and you will succeed, and these kids are not any different," Lara told the hushed chamber. The proposal he co-sponsored "would simply allow these students to go to school, to get a license and to continue their dream of pursuing a better life for themselves and their families."

That was a year ago, a fight that Lara and his caucus ultimately won in the Democratic-dominated Legislature. The governor signed the license measure into law last fall, allowing those who qualify for President Obama's temporary amnesty program to drive legally in California.

Ricardo Lara, right, is pictured at 8 years old with members of his family, including his father, Venustiano Lara. (Lara family photo) More photos

Lara, now a state senator, has emerged in recent years as a key figure in the push for immigrant rights — the point man on the caucus' often controversial agenda. His out-front role frequently puts him at odds with those who oppose the use of taxpayer resources to benefit people in the country illegally.

He has helped pass college scholarships for undocumented students, more on-the-job protection for California farmworkers and a law preventing police from seizing undocumented drivers' cars, among other policy changes. That's a turnabout in a state where less than 20 years ago voters passed Proposition 187, containing some of the harshest treatment in the nation for those here illegally. The measure would have cut off government services to such immigrants but was voided by the courts.

"I can't help but think of my parents," Lara said, recalling the highly charged battle over the measure, "when I hear such hate from people who don't understand the price paid by immigrants."

His father, Venustiano Lara, had struggled to swim across a deep, frigid canal on the moonless night when he came to America, rushed along by a coyote as a fellow migrant disappeared beneath the surface. Soaked and afraid, with just a quarter in his pocket, he rode 500 miles to a farm near Fresno for a job picking cotton and tomatoes.

Eight years later, he met his future wife, Maria Dolores Tadeo. She had overstayed a U.S. visa, working as a housekeeper and seamstress without legal papers, often humiliated by her employers.

I knew that we were different from other families when my mom and dad would tell us: 'If we ever are missing, just go immediately to your aunt's house.' "

— Ricardo Lara

One of nine children, she too had fled an impoverished Mexican family. Her dinner some days had been whatever egg yolk she could sop up from the abandoned plates of the men in the family, who ate first.

The Laras raised their five children in a working-class neighborhood of East Los Angeles, where they still live. Ricardo Lara, now 38, grew up worrying that on any given day, his parents might not return from work. Would they be picked up and deported?

"I knew that we were different from other families when my mom and dad would tell us: 'If we ever are missing, just go immediately to your aunt's house,' " he said.

His father paid taxes but could not get many government services. He paid cash for the birth of each of his children. Then, after President Ronald Reagan's 1986 amnesty grant, the Laras became U.S. citizens.

"Their struggle emboldens me ... when I am legislating or advocating on behalf of an issue in Sacramento," Ricardo Lara said recently, sitting with his parents in their home, a 10-minute drive from his own.

Ricardo was the first in his family to earn a college degree, a bachelor's in journalism with a minor in Chicano studies from San Diego State. He found a passion for politics, organizing rallies against Proposition 187 — "a direct attack on people like my parents" — and was elected vice president of the student body.

After graduation, he dived into Los Angeles County politics, learning the ropes as a staffer for Democratic legislators with whom he shared a bond: At least one parent had come illegally from Mexico.

GRAPHIC: Legislators' family histories

Lara helped draft a law that passed in 2001, allowing immigrants without legal status to attend California universities at in-state rates if they spent three years in a California high school. In 2010, he was elected to the Assembly, then made chairman of the 24-member Latino Caucus in his first term. Today he represents nearly a million people in the Senate.

Fellow Democrats admire his industriousness.

"Nothing was handed to Ricardo," said Sen. Kevin de Leon (D-Los Angeles), who as a member of the lower house had put Lara on his staff. "He had to work very hard to get where he is."

One of Lara's early floor fights came with a bill he offered to allow migrants grants and fee waivers from California's public universities if they served in student government.

The proposal provoked a firestorm of protest from Republicans, whose upraised microphones signaled they wanted to speak. Donnelly weighed in against it. So did several others. As tensions boiled over, Assemblyman Allan Mansoor (R-Costa Mesa) called Lara's proposal a "slap in the face" to legal immigrants.

Lara, center, attends a Senate Rules Committee meeting at the Capitol in Sacramento. Lara's parents immigrated to the United States from Mexico, and their struggle has influenced how he legislates. More photos

The bill passed both houses and was signed into law. "I just hope," said Lara, "that one day we get to the point where we embrace our diversity, we embrace our differences."

Lara does not always win. One of his bills would have increased enforcement against schools charging pupils extra fees; another would have set educational requirements and ethics training for city council members across the state. But he doesn't dwell on the failures.

In December of last year, soon after his election to the Senate, he proposed another law, one that could create a state Office of New Americans. It would aid immigrants in obtaining government services and help smooth the path to citizenship.

An ombudsman could have helped his parents when they were trying to emerge from the shadow of illegality, said the senator.

Recently, Lara's father recalled the day his son took his first oath of office, sworn in by the chief justice of the California Supreme Court. It had been 46 years since the plunge into that cold canal near Mexicali.

Venustiano Lara had stood with Ricardo in the state Assembly, tears shining in his eyes.

"That day," the father said, "was one of the proudest moments of my life."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
President Obama’s no-Congress strategy

The president is done caring about congressional Republicans calling him a dictator. | AP Photo

By EDWARD-ISAAC DOVERE 7/30/13

President Barack Obama is planning to bypass congressional Republicans with a surge of executive actions and orders on issues like voting rights, health care, job creation, the economy, climate change and immigration.

And this time, he really, really, really means it. Really.

Obama’s started to sell his pitch to congressional Democrats, meeting with caucus groups at the White House and going to the Hill on Wednesday morning to speak with House and Senate Democrats.

“I have to figure out what I can do outside of Congress through executive actions,” Obama told the Congressional Black Caucus earlier this month, according to Rep. Karen Bass (D-Calif.).

“He’s very ready to use his executive powers whenever possible,” said Rep. Judy Chu (D-Calif.) who heard Obama discuss the new approach at a meeting of the Congressional Asian Pacific Caucus to the White House last week.

With the clock running on Obama’s time in office — he’s even started marking the number of days left in public speeches — the president is done caring about congressional Republicans calling him a dictator. Or calling him at all.

Obama can’t ignore Republicans forever. There’s no way for the president to avoid negotiations to get continuing resolutions to avoid a government shutdown and raise the debt ceiling — and depending how things go, rebuff GOP efforts to defund Obamacare and possibly a compromise on immigration reform. Chief of staff Denis McDonough’s functioning as an almost one-man legislative affairs office can’t do it all.

(Also on POLITICO: W.H. seeks to redefine grand bargain)

And he’s used the executive authority tactic before, including last summer’s controversial move to cut deportations for younger illegal immigrants and the mental health focus he announced as part of his gun control agenda after the Newtown massacre.

But administration officials and advisers say what’s ahead will be more extensive and frequent than previous efforts, and the White House is on the hunt for anything that can move without congressional approval, including encouraging efforts like Attorney General Eric Holder’s lawsuits to find new avenues of enforcement in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision on the Voting Rights Act last month.

He’s even started soliciting suggestions for where to move next. Bass and other CBC members asked him to change the Medicaid process in territories to base allocations on income level, to repeal the Bush minimum wage federal contractor policies and to address child welfare. The CAPAC members also offered suggestions like changing the federal government’s process of recognizing native Hawaiians.

Obama told them he was open to all of them, and said his staff is working on others in the model of the new emission standards he announced as part of his climate agenda last month.

Eventually, executive actions and orders will be unveiled as part of the economic agenda Obama began hinting at in his speeches last week, addressing things like mortgage refinancing and restructuring — which is about as extensive as the White House expects things to get, even as they talk of welcoming negotiations with Republicans over the debt ceiling. And get ready, he’s told people, for a whole lot more recess appointments if Republicans start blocking his nominees again.

Executive actions are a familiar move for second-term presidents, and one that Bill Clinton and George W. Bush came to know well: rules and regulations can have deep and wide impact, and they come without all the messiness of Capitol Hill.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/07/obamas-no-congress-strategy-94947.html#ixzz2afea6rUz
Obama's trump card on immigration

The president can push ahead on reform without Congress...

By Nelson Peacock, L.A. Times Op-Ed, August 1, 2013

President Obama is tantalizingly close to passing comprehensive immigration reform, a legacy achievement. The Senate has provided a bipartisan bill, and the House is working on reform. The key issues are border security and a legal pathway to citizenship for the estimated 11 million who are here illegally.

The political reasons for the House to negotiate a deal are many. A recent Gallup poll showed that 87% of Americans support comprehensive reform that includes a pathway to citizenship. Moreover, growing numbers of Latino voters in key states turned out in historic numbers for Obama in last year's election, which strongly suggests that, in the long run, Republicans need to address this constituency or continue to lose votes.

However, Speaker John A. Boehner, the Republican's point man in the House, doesn't have the luxury of operating in the long term. The conservative bloc of House Republicans is digging in against reform that includes a pathway to citizenship, and with what promises to be a bloody spending fight with Democrats looming, the speaker needs to strengthen his position with his conference.

It's no wonder the speaker has instructed his committee chairmen to send up smaller, incremental bills for consideration, with a final decision on the path forward to come this fall.

Regardless of what Boehner and the committee chairmen come up with, most of the millions of unauthorized immigrants here now will almost surely stay because it is expensive and time-consuming to deport them.

The immigration enforcement system is currently funded to deport roughly 400,000 immigrants a year, funding that's unlikely to increase in difficult budgetary times, and it can take years to get many cases in front of immigration judges.

In part for those reasons, the Department of Homeland Security does not treat all deportations equally. In recent years, the agency has expanded its use of prosecutorial discretion in immigration enforcement, focusing on recent border crossings and public safety threats. Today, deportations of immigrants with strong connections to the U.S. are unlikely.

Indeed, prosecutorial discretion is a guiding principle of this administration's immigration enforcement policy. With it, the administration has moved immigration enforcement from an ad hoc system in which individuals are removed indiscriminately to one that prioritizes criminals, recent border crossers and fugitives.

In 2012, 96% of all removals were based on these priorities. Opponents of the policy call it amnesty, but with limited resources, it's obvious why an agency charged with protecting the homeland is focusing its deportation efforts on national security and public safety.

For Obama, expanding prosecutorial discretion in deportations has been good policy and politics. It might just be the trump card he needs to bring House Republicans to the negotiating table.

Last summer, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano announced the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals policy, which established the first program in which a subset of those here illegally could come forward and register with the government.

If you were brought here as a child, are currently in school or the military and have no criminal record, you can get protection from deportation and you can petition for work authorization.

This program, aimed at so-called Dreamers, triggered a wave of enthusiasm in the Latino community, and many political analysts believe it helped the president weather 50% disapproval ratings last summer and win a historic 75% of the Latino vote in November. Nearly 520,000 people have received relief under this program since it was announced.

Now the president should turn again to this playbook and expand the program to other sympathetic categories of immigrants, such as those with a longtime presence in the United States or those with U.S.-citizen family members.

The legal parameters and operational protocols have been established, and because this program, like the original Deferred Action program, would be funded from immigrants' fees, it would not require a congressional appropriation. An expanded Deferred Action program could be up and running within weeks.

Of course, those committed to defeating reform would trot out the tired criticism that the president doesn't enforce the laws on the books. They conveniently forget that both parties share the blame for the current system, and they ignore the record-low estimates of border crossing attempts and the record-high number of deportations. (A recent Pew Hispanic Center analysis found net migration from Mexico has fallen to zero in recent years.) Nothing the administration does would change their minds.

It is a near-certainty that expansion of prosecutorial discretion will occur if the House defeats all reform efforts or the House and Senate can't reach an agreement. Perhaps the president can force negotiations by reminding critics that, in the absence of real reform, a president — any party's president — still has to govern. For Boehner and the House GOP, the alternative to negotiating would be expanding "amnesty" without any of the security and business enhancements that the Republicans want and the nation desperately needs.

If the president acts boldly, he might be able to wrest a bill from Congress that could establish his legacy and, more important, secure the real immigration policy changes this country needs.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
McManus: Obama's defensive offensive

The president wants to make sure blame falls on the GOP

By Doyle McManus

July 28, 2013

President Obama sounds like a man back on the offensive.

The president is reprising his core message that what the economy needs is more federal spending on popular priorities such as infrastructure and education, not less.

And his stump speeches last week in Illinois, Missouri and Florida put Republicans on notice that he will blame them if a standoff over spending results in a government shutdown or a financial crisis over the federal debt ceiling this fall.

"Repealing Obamacare and cutting spending is not an economic plan," Obama lectured his opponents. "You can't just be against something; you've got to be for something."

But is that true?

House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) doesn't seem to think so. When asked recently about the glacial pace of legislation in the House, he responded: "We should not be judged on how many new laws we create. We ought to be judged on how many laws that we repeal."

Boehner has a point. The number of bills a Congress passes is no guarantee that it's doing important work. Roughly a third of the measures Congress passes are inconsequential actions such as renaming post offices.

But there's also a flaw in Boehner's argument. Although the current Congress is on pace to pass even fewer laws than the previous one (which set a modern record for lack of productivity), it hasn't succeeded in repealing many laws either. The GOP-led House has voted nearly 40 times to repeal all or part of Obama's healthcare law, for example, but hasn't succeeded in overturning the act — although it has cut its funding.

Boehner has said he has no intention of shutting down the government during budget talks this fall, a move he believes would be counterproductive.

As one of his allies, Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.), put it last week: "The only way Republicans will lose the House is to shut down the government or default on the debt. Shutting down the government is not in the best interests of the American people, and it makes you look politically irresponsible."

But Boehner doesn't always control the majority of his own caucus. Tea partyradicals in both chambers of Congress are demanding a hard line, with some, including Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, promising to block any increase in the federal debt ceiling unless Obama's healthcare law is repealed — a proposal another Republican, Sen. Richard M. Burr of North Carolina, called "the dumbest idea I ever heard."

That's no guarantee it won't gain traction. Members of Congress in safely partisan districts — including some liberal Democrats as well as tea party conservatives — can be remarkably indifferent to broader public opinion. That's one reason Congress' approval rating dropped last week to an all-time low of 12% in the NBC News-Wall Street Journal Poll, far below Obama's anemic rating of 45%.

It's also well below the level Congress sank to last year, when Sen. John McCain(R-Ariz.) joked that its only remaining supporters were "paid staff and blood relatives."

Obama hasn't given up hope that he can spur legislators to action. He's trying to win legislative battles on both immigration and the budget by striking bipartisan compromises in the Senate, which still has a sizable faction of Republicans who say they want to negotiate with the president.

Even as he denounced House Republicans last week, Obama doled out elaborate praise for a few, unnamed Republican senators who he said were working toward bipartisan compromises.

"The Senate is their only hope," said Norman J. Ornstein, a congressional scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. "If you begin to get 70 or 75 votes for things in the Senate, then you get a different conversation; it becomes clear that there's only one group of people [the House conservatives] standing in the way."

Obama is doing everything he can to cast the opposition as being obstructionist. But will his return to the campaign trail have any real effect on Congress?

The too-easy answer is no. He's given speeches like these before. He's got no new proposals to unveil. And the House members who stand in his way aren't worried about pressure from voters who support the president; they are more worried about primary challenges from even more conservative Republicans to their right. Speeches from the president aren't going to change their minds.

But that's not what Obama's campaign is about. On one level, it's about influencing votes in the Senate, not the House. And on another, it's about making sure that if this fall's budget battles do result in a government shutdown or, even worse, a financial crisis over the debt ceiling, the president and his party don't get blamed.

Obama may look and sound as if he's on the offensive, but his strategy has an awful lot of defense in it too.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Immigration bill: John McCain says ‘border surge’ isn't certain

He says the border-security provision may change in a potential House-Senate compromise. | AP Photo

By SEUNG MIN KIM | POLITICO 7/30/2013

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) signaled Tuesday that the dramatic boost in border-security in the Senate’s comprehensive immigration bill could be one of the provisions that may be changed in a potential House-Senate compromise.

During an immigration forum hosted by the AFL-CIO Tuesday, McCain – a key Senate Gang of Eight negotiator – said while a pathway to citizenship for the nation’s undocumented immigrants is a “fundamental element” of the bill, the “rest of it could be adjusted.” He singled out the border security parts as an example.

“We don’t need 20,000 additional border patrol agents,” McCain said Tuesday. “But what we do need is use of technology that has been developed where we can survey the border more effectively.”

(PHOTOS: 20 quotes on immigration reform)

The border-security provisions in the Gang of Eight bill, written by Republican Sens. Bob Corker of Tennessee and John Hoeven of North Dakota, would set aside more than $46 billion to double the number of border patrol agents along the southwestern U.S. boundary, add new surveillance technology and to complete the 700-mile border fence.

Corker and Hoeven drafted their amendment in the final days of the Senate immigration debate, and it was critical to luring several wavering Republican and Democratic senators on board with the overall bill.

“I voted for it so friends of mine would be comfortable that we are securing the border,” McCain said Tuesday. “But the real securing of the border is with technology, as opposed to individuals.”

(Also on POLITICO: Ryan: Immigration vote in October)

Several Latino and immigration advocacy groups have expressed outrage at the Senate Gang of Eight bill and its border-security provisions since the overall legislation passed in June.

Last week, more than 30 Latino organizations wrote to Congress, calling on House lawmakers to oppose the Senate immigration bill partly because of what the groups called “border militarization” in the legislation.

Meanwhile, Republicans and Democrats alike in the House have been highly critical of the Corker-Hoeven proposal. A border-security measure in the House has gained bipartisan backing and could be among the first immigration bills voted on by the full House later this fall.

Both of the namesakes of the Corker-Hoeven plan indicated Tuesday that they were open to changes. In particular, Hoeven noted that the House border-security bill, written by Homeland Security Committee Chairman Michael McCaul (R-Texas), was similar to a proposal he advanced during the negotiations that was ultimately scrapped in favor of the “border surge” approach.

”All along, we’ve said we’re at halftime, not at the finish line,” Hoeven said Tuesday. “There’s going to be more work to do and we look forward to working with the House on what they come up with.”

========================================================

Articles from July 25, 2013:

L. A. Times Editorial- House gets something right

By The Times editorial board, July 23, 2013

It isn't often that the House gets it right on immigration reform, at least not in recent years. Yet it has done so with the Border Security Results Act of 2013, a sensible piece of legislation that has miraculously emerged from the Committee on Homeland Security and that strikes a fair balance between enforcement and fiscal responsibility.

Unlike the Senate's approach, which throws $46 billion at the U.S.-Mexican border without any real strategy behind it, the House bill would require the Department of Homeland Security to provide a status report on illegal crossings and develop a strategy to thwart the vast majority of unauthorized entries.

The House and Senate bills share some of the same goals, including calling for a dramatic increase in surveillance of the border and ensuring that 90% of those attempting to cross illegally are either turned back or arrested. But the House bill would require far more analysis before spending billions for more boots on the ground and additional technology.

U.S. IMMIGRATION LAW: Decades of debate

For example, the House bill calls on Homeland Security, as part of its status report, to identify high-traffic areas within three months of the bill becoming law. The department would have another 30 days to create metrics to measure the state of border security. Within nine months of the bill's approval, the department would have to have a border security strategy up and running. Only after those benchmarks were met would Congress provide additional funding for expanding the strategy across the entire border.

The bill also demands far more accountability from the department, including progress reports to Congress and Government Accountability Office oversight. Unlike the Senate bill, it does not tie the promise of a path to citizenship for millions of immigrants who are illegally in the U.S. to border security, which is outside their control.

Much of the credit for the bill belongs to Reps. Michael McCaul (R-Texas), the chairman of the committee, and Candice S. Miller (R-Mich.), the vice chair, both of whom worked across the aisle and consulted with academics and experts rather than give in to the arbitrary demands of some GOP House members who feel that nothing short of a U.S. version of the Great Wall of China will guarantee border security.

On Tuesday, the committee is scheduled to hold hearings to compare the House and Senate approaches to border security. We hope that McCaul and Miller continue to prove that some House Republicans are still capable of having a sane and credible discussion on immigration reform.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(traducción al español de la versión en inglés)

El 18 de Julio, 2013

En referencia a: Oposición Fuerte al Proyecto de Ley S.744 por Lideres y Organizaciones Latinas, Inmigrantes y de Pueblos Indígenas.

Estimado Diputado:

Nosotros los suscritos representantes de organizaciones y comunidades latinas, inmigrantes y de pueblos indígenas le escribimos para pedir que rechace al Proyecto de Ley S.744 en su versión existente. Después de mucha reflección hemos llegado a la conclusión que el Proyecto S.744 hace más daño que bien a la causa de una reforma justa y humanitaria. Se anticipa que el proyecto solo empeorará y se enfocará aún más en “seguridad fronterizo-primero” al pasar a la Cámara de Diputados. Se sabe por medio de encuestas recientes hechas por Latino Decisions que los votantes latinos no apoyan la militarización fronteriza ni cláusulas de legalización inefectivas en la S.744.

Marchamos, protestamos y votamos por una verdadera reforma migratoria. Pero en vez de cumplir la promesa de ciudadanía para 11 millones de gente indocumentada viviendo en el país, nos dieron la legislación S.744, la cual hundirá a millones que se encuentran en comunidades inmigrantes y fronterizas a una crisis profunda de la que ya enfrentan. Esta legislación fallida comienza con la premisa equivocada y peligrosa que pone como preferencia un castigo por encima del pueblo y aplicación dura de ley por encima de la ciudadanía. La S.744 ni es incluyente ni justa. No podemos apoyar a la S.744 con conciencia limpia sin que haya cambios grandes. Nuestro rechazo no soporta la derrota a una reforma migratoria. Al contrario, representa la decencia y dignidad de una comunidad que pone un hasta aquí contra mas castigo contra inmigrantes. Estos mismos valores serán la guía de nuestra lucha por reforma migatoria justa y humanitaria en 2013 y más allá.

En práctica la S.744 hará:

Impedirá a los de estatus provisional (RPI) obtener la residencia permanente o la ciudadanía por décadas o para siempre;
Excluirá y descalificará a través del tiempo más de 5 millones de personas indocumentadas de poder obtener el estatus provisional (RPI) y sujetará a los de estatus provisional (RPI) a condiciones represivas e inaceptables por diez o más años para poder sostener el estatus legal;
Incrementará la discriminación y perfil racial de personas de color a través del “E-Verify (verificación de derecho a empleo) de todo trabajador, ciudadano o no ciudadano, en el país; y
Creará un estado policiaco virtual y creará desastres ambiental en los 27 condados fronterizos al militarizar la frontera México-U.S. que pretende incluir el uso de aviones espía sin piloto (drones) con capacidad de utilizar armas, 40,000 agentes fronterizos y 700 millas de muros.

Tal propuesta no refleja de ninguna manera la clase de valores humanitarios, inclusivos y de sentido común que visualizamos antes y después de las elecciones de 2012. Le escribimos a reunirse a nosotros en rechazar esta legislación en el nombre de la lucha que sigue por una verdadera reforma migratoria.

Favor de comunicarse con Arturo Carmona, Director Ejecutivo de Presente.org si tiene cualquier comentario o pregunta al respecto a Arturo@presente.org.

Atentamente,

Organizaciones Nacionales y Regionales

Dignity Campaign

Frente Indígena de Organizaciones Binacionales (FIOB)

Hermandad Mexicana

Mexican American Political Association (MAPA)

National Latino Farmers & Ranchers Trade Association

Presente.org

Red Mexicana de Lideres y Organizaciones Migrantes

Southwest Voter Registration Education Project (SVREP)

Southwest Workers Union (SWU)

William C. Velasquez Institute (WCVI)

Organizaciones Estatales y Locales

Alianza Latinoamericana por los Derechos de los Inmigrantes (ALIADI)

Association of Mexicans in North Carolina

AMEXCAN

Anahauk Youth Soccer Association

Association for Residency and Citizenship of America (ARCA)

Border Angels, San Diego

Cesar E. Chavez Legacy and Educational Fund

Coalicion de Derechos Humanos, Tucson, Arizona

Coastal Bend Committee for Human Rights

Communion of Independent Catholic Churches, San Diego, CA

Community Union, Inc.

DosCentavos.net

Durango Unido in Chicago

Federacion Zacatecana, A.C., (FEDZAC)

Gente Unida, San Diego, CA

The Hispanic Community Dialogue, Virginia Beach, VA

Institute for Socio Economic Justice, Inc.

Latino/Latina Roundtable of the San Gabriel Valley and Pomona Valley

Los Amigos De Orange County

LULAC, Inland Empire

San Bernardino Community Service Center, Inc

Mundo Maya Foundation

Red Mexicana de Acción Frente al Libre Comercio., México, D. F.

Seminario Permanente de Estudios Chicanos y de Fronteras

Texas Indigenous Council

Tonatierra

Individuos

Barbara Alvarez

Jess Araujo, Justicia Productions

David Avalos

Herman Avilez, Director, California Drug Counseling

Juan Rafael Avitia, Mexican American Political Association

Carlos Balderas, Hermandad Latinoamericana

Elissa Behar Hauptman, Samaritans

Nelson Benítez Tobar, la Asociación Ecuador Unido de Chicago

Ruben Botello, Director, National League of Latin American Citizens, PA (NLLAC)

Juan José Bocanegra

Roberto Bravo, Hermandad Mexicana

Josefina Cardenas

Dr. Henry J. Casso, Director, Project Uplift

Camilo M. Castrillo

Raúl Ceja

Jorge Corralejo, Chairman, Latino Business Chamber of Greater Los Angeles

Marian Cruz

Maria Cuellar

Laura Cummings

Mark Day

Abelardo de la Peña Jr., AdlP & Associates

Antonio Diaz

Bob Divine, Tucson Samaritans

Dick Eiden, North County Forum

Marie Elwood, Coalición de Derechos Humanos

Jason Flores, California Central Valley Journey for Justice

Alan Fiszman

Celia Gaitz

Julie García

Jose S. Garza, Executive Director, East Harlem Business Capital Corporation

Roberto Garza, OPTION COM

Mike Gómez, Latinos Unidos

Prof. Emeritus Gilbert G. González, Latino Studies, UCI

Maria C. González, AA Militarized Border

Martina Grifaldo, Alianza Mexicana

Alfredo Gutierrez, Author of To Sin Against Hope, Former majority leader of the Arizona State Senate

Barry Hermanson, Green Party Candidate for Congress - CA 12

Raymundo Hernández, im:arte collective

Suzanne Hesh

Rodrigo Ibarra

Eugenio A. Juarez Sanchez, United Latino Voices

Sam Maestas

Jose Maldonado, Los Angeles Mission College

Daniel E. Martinez, GWU

Jose R. Matus, Alianza Indígena Sin Fronteras

Juan Mayoral, Hermandad Mexicana

Diana Montes-Walker, LATINO CIVIL RIGHTS COMMITTEE

Dorinda Moreno, International Tribunal of Conscience, U.S. Representative

Jose Moreno, Los Amigos of Orange County

Eleanor Navarro

Rael Nidess, M.D.

Gigi Owen

Corina Padilla, Dominican Sisters of Peace

John Perez

Bret Polish

Sebastian Quinac, Guatemalan Committee

Eduardo Quintana

Rosalinda Quintaran

Annette Quintero

Marty Ramírez

Dan Ramos, (former) BCDP Chair

Roberto Reveles

Tom Reyes, President, East San Gabriel Valley-LULAC

Sal Reza

Primitivo Rodríguez

Oscar Rosales Castañeda, El Comité

Michael Rubin

Roberto Rubio

Sara Rusk

Marta Sanchez, Movimiento Migrante Mesoamericano

Fidel Sandoval

Patricia Schano Allen, President, Research Applications

Claudia Schwebel, The Seven Challenges

Michael Shane, MECAWI

Frank Sifuentes, Compton USD

Dr. J. Alfred Smith, Jr., Senior Pastor, Allen Temple Baptist Church

Francisco Solá, President Executive Director, Latino Voter Registration Project

Melanie Stuart, Public Policy Chairperson for the American Association of University Women-Chula Vista

Rick Swartz, President, Strategic Solutions Washington

Víctor Manuel Torres, Spokesperson, El Grupo, North San Diego County

Carlos Valdez

Prof. Armando Vazquez-Ramos, President, California-Mexico Studies Center

C. T. Weber, Peace and Freedom Party of California

Tamar Diana Wilson, Community4ImmigrantRights

Rachel Winsberg, Coalición de Derechos Humanos

Ann Yellott, Ph.D., Nonviolence Legacy Project

Prof. Chris Zepeda-Milllan, Loyola Marymount University

Kimberly Ziyavo

Apéndice 1: Critica del S.744 por Organizaciones de Latinos, Inmigrantes e Indígenas

Después de mucha reflexión, hemos concluido que S.744 hace mas daño que bien a la causa por una reforma migratoria justa y humana.

A continuación, una explicación más completa de nuestras preocupaciones principales de S.744:

El programa de Registro de Inmigrante Provisional (RPI) propuesto en S.744 excluirá y/o descalificara sobre tiempo a 5 millones de personas indocumentadas de ajustar su estatus legal.

Excluyendo a los beneficiarios del Dream Act y los trabajadores Agrícolas, las provisiones en la legislación S.744 le fallan a la mayoría de las 11 millones de personas indocumentadas en los Estados Unidos. De acuerdo con un estudio reciente por parte de la Oficina del Presupuesto del Congreso, solo 8 de los 11 millones de indocumentados en E.U. podrán recibir estatus RPI inicialmente.

Por otra parte, un análisis reciente, hecho por uno de los abogados principales de inmigración y defensor nacional Peter Schey del Centro de Derechos Humanos y Derecho Constitucional (CHRCL), acerca de las provisiones de legalización en la propuesta del Senado S.744 encontró que (1) hay varias razones por las que la población entera de RPI pueda no ser elegible para aplicar por residencia permanente o ciudadanía y (2) aun si esos obstáculos fueran derrotados, por lo menos la mitad de los sobrantes 8 millones de inmigrantes indocumentados podrían quedar fuera de calificar para residencia permanente (o ciudadanía) por el requisito difícil de mantener empleo continuo y de alcanzar el nivel federal de pobreza, aparte de los costos altos combinados con el requisito de pagar impuestos pasados. Presione aquí para ver el análisis legal y demográfico del Camino a Legalización y Ciudadania de la propuesta del Senado S.744 hecho por Schey.

El programa RPI tendrá un impacto negativo desproporcionado sobre mujeres inmigrantes las cuales solo tienen 60% de participación en el ámbito laboral, según un estudio reciente del Instituto de la Política Migratoria.

Ante estos hechos, aquellos proponiendo que serán “11 millones” los que se legalizaran, están exagerando. Hacen un mal tanto al público estadounidense, como a, más importantemente, los millones de individuos y familias que no saben que podrían estar excluidos por S.744.

Las provisiones de S.744 que exigen empleo continuo y 125% de ingresos sobre el nivel federal de pobreza someterán a inmigrantes en estatus RPI a discriminación, explotacion y abuso sexual en el lugar de empleo.

Aun aquellos "afortunados" en cumplir con los requisitos para obtener el estatus RPI se encuentran en alto riesgo de convertirse en sirvientes empleados, sujetos a empleo continuo excesivamente opresivo y obligaciones de ingreso por lo menos diez-y tal vez quince o más años-dada las provisiones de la "acumulación de casos/final de la fila" y "seguridad fronteriza”.

Los RPI serán privados de seguro medico y no serán elegibles para beneficios federales. Serán excluidos al acceso a miles de millones de dólares en beneficios de seguridad social ya previamente pagados.

Los RPI del S.744 serán negados su poder más básico como empleados - su derecho de suspender labores si un empleador los abusa, explota o acosa. Por el contrario, los empleadores tendrán la facultad de participar violaciones de leyes laborales. Aquellos RPI que resistan abusos de sus empleadores arriesgan perder empleo por lapsos de 60 días o más. Esto los pone en alto riesgo de perder su condición de RPI y/o ser inelegible para la residencia permanente.

Mujeres con estatus de RPI serán afectadas de manera desproporcionada. Por ejemplo, dentro del S.744 algunas amas de casa son permitidas estatus "dependiente", es decir, depende de un empleo continuo de sus maridos y su relación continúa. En práctica, "dependientes" que sufren violencia doméstica, incluyendo los niños, se desaniman mucho de dejar su hogar o reportar abuso a las autoridades.

En particular, las provisiones que obligan a que el estatus de residente permanente no se otorgue a los calificados RPI al finalizar el período de prueba de varios años, a menos que la frontera sea "segura" y que la acumulación de solicitudes de visa pre-existentes se resuelvan, crean un escenario de retrasos inevitables e impredecibles. No habrá manera objetiva de "comprobar" que se han cumplido las cuestiones principales de seguridad fronteriza, como se describe en S.744, o garantías de se pueda lograr 100% de resolución de las solicitudes de visas pendientes en 10 o 20 años, o mas. Por ejemplo, actualmente las solicitudes pendientes incluyen casos de más de 20 años de edad. Los requisitos de S.744 de “seguridad fronteriza” y “solicitudes pendientes” garantizan un número indeterminado de años de retraso antes de que las personas de estatus RPI puedan solicitar la residencia permanente.

Al mismo tiempo, S.744 aumenta significativamente a jueces, tribunales y los mecanismos legales para detener y deportar aquellos excluidos del estatus RPI o en última instancia negarles la elegibilidad de residente permanente legal.

Programa E-verify de S.744 's es fatalmente defectuoso

E-verify sólo aumentará perfiles raciales y discriminación. Coloca una carga excesiva de costos a pequeñas empresas y si se aplican enteramente, minimizaran el crecimiento laboral.

La ampliación de E-Verify para todos los trabajadores de los E.U. establece como base un sistema de identificación nacional y sistemas nacionales de monitoreo, los cuales la mayoría de personas en E.U. se oponen.

La provisión de “licencia de manejo mejorada” adopta los requisitos de la sección 202 de la Ley REAL ID de 2005, lo cual permite gobiernos estatales y el federal compartir fotografías de licencias de manejo, un programa que 25 estados ya han opuesto. Entendemos que sólo 13 estados se han unido al programa “licencia de manejo mejorada” de la Ley REAL ID a partir del 2012. Esta ley también elimina las adaptaciones religiosas que 20 estados ofrecen en forma de licencias de conducir sin fotografías por razones religiosas.

E-Verify, de hecho identifica erróneamente el uno por ciento de los solicitantes de empleo estadounidenses como indocumentado. La GAO ha predicho que aproximadamente 164,000 ciudadanos estadounidenses por año recibirán un “No provisional” ("TNC") solo por cuestiones relacionadas con cambios de nombre. Decenas de miles más podrían recibir este “No provisional”, debido a problemas de transliteración, errores tipográficos simples que existen en las bases de datos gubernamentales o robos de identidad.

Incluso en el uso limitado actual de E-Verify se ha demostrado que los TNC’s erróneos producen resultados discriminatorios que afectan principalmente a los ciudadanos con nombres extranjeros, ciudadanos naturalizados e inmigrantes legales. Por otra parte, errores de este tipo afectaran de manera desproporcionada a las mujeres y los inmigrantes los cuales las bases de datos tienen informacion incorrecta debido a, por ejemplo, los cambios de nombres por matrimonio o apellidos con guión.

E-Verify obligatorio también puede reducir ingresos de impuestos a las nominas estatales y federales ya que muchos empleadores empezaran a pagar a sus trabajadores no autorizados por RPI y trabajadores futuros por debajo de la mesa para evitar detección.

Bajo S.744, cientos de miles de trabajadores estadounidenses podrían ser requeridos, dentro de los 10 días de haber recibido un TNC, a ponerse en contacto con una agencia federal apropiada y "presentarse en persona...." Como experiencia ha demostrado, un número significativo de trabajadores estadounidenses no corregirán TNC’s erróneos, con un número desproporcionado siendo mujeres y trabajadores de bajo recursos.

Se ha estimado que el uso mandatorio nacional del programa E-Verify costará empleadores con menos de 500 empleados aproximadamente $2.6 mil millones al año.

El incremento de seguridad fronteriza que sugiere S.744 es innecesario, y aumentará significativamente las muertes en la frontera, así como violaciones de los derechos humanos y civiles.

Hoy, $18 mil millones en infraestructura fronteriza ya está en marcha después de diez años, que incluye 300 torres, cientos de kilómetros de muros, equipos de vigilancia electrónicos y miles de agentes fronterizos. En una frontera que el FBI certifica como segura, dando prioridad a la "seguridad fronteriza" representa un incremento inaceptable de un comportamiento ya peligroso de violencia y desperdicio.

La migración neta de México ha sido cero o cercana a cero durante varios años y cruzadas fronterizas no autorizadas han sido los más bajos en una generación. Secretaria del DHS, Janet Napolitano certifico la frontera como "segura".

La “Seguridad Fronteriza", con un precio de $47 mil millones de dólares, aumentará significativamente muertes fronterizas al obligar a migrantes valientes tomar circunstancias aun mas peligrosas. Esto se ha documentado a través de los últimos años ya que incrementos en seguridad fronteriza han causado aumento de muertes en la frontera significantemente a pesar de que el número de migrantes se ha reducido.

El aumento de seguridad en la frontera causara violaciones de los derechos civiles de los residentes en la frontera E.U. 40,000 guardias fronterizos reforzados por equipo electrónico de vigilancia y docenas de los llamados “drones”, aviones espías sin piloto, ocuparan las comunidades fronterizas en búsqueda de perfiles de “inmigrantes indocumentados” los cuales son, en práctica, indistinguibles de la mayoría de ciudadanos y población legal. Cincuenta y Cuatro por ciento (54%) de los 7.5 millones de habitantes de condados fronterizos son Latinos, de acuerdo con el Censo 2012.

El aumento en seguridad fronterizo también afectará negativamente a las comunidades indígenas, cuyos antepasados han vivido en la zona y trabajado la tierra durante cientos de años, como Lipan Apaches, Kickapoo, y la nación Tohono O'odham. Los pueblos indígenas de las zonas fronterizas han sufrido la destrucción de sus tierras, perdida de sus títulos de tierra, y la extinción unilateral de los títulos de propiedad, más recientemente, a través de Operación “Gatekeeper”, Operacion “Hold the Line” (1993/4), la Operación “Salvaguarda” (1995), Iniciativa Frontera Segura (2005) y la Acta de Reja Segura (2006).

Por último, como se expone recientemente en el New York Times y Los Ángeles Times, S.744 es una concesión corrupta entre el gobierno federal y las prisiones privadas y las industrias de tecnología de vigilancia que han aún más miles de millones de dólares en contratos para la vigilancia en la frontera, para más "prisiones de inmigrantes", y para la aplicación de e-verify.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Inminente salida de jefe del IME

Arnulfo Valdivia Machuca, entonces director del Instituto de los Mexicanos en el Exterior, habló con grupos de inmigrantes en Dallas en abril.

ALFREDO CORCHADO/DMN | 7/24/2013

Arnulfo Valdivia Machuca, entonces director del Instituto de los Mexicanos en el Exterior, habló con grupos de inmigrantes en Dallas en abril.

Ciudad de México -- Arnulfo Valdivia, nombrado hace apenas unos meses para supervisar la extensa diáspora mexicana en Estados Unidos, parece estar a punto de dejar su puesto, que algunos consideran uno de los cargos de política exterior más importantes para el equipo del presidente Enrique Peña Nieto.

Valdivia es titular del Instituto de los Mexicanos en el Exterior, dependiente de la Secretaría de Relaciones Exteriores. Su salida, de acuerdo a dos funcionarios mexicanos, es inminente.

En la oficina de Valdivia dijeron el martes no tener conocimiento de algún cambio; pero dos funcionarios del gobierno mexicano dijeron que Valdivia fue escogido por el presidente para ser el próximo embajador en Colombia.

Cuando se le preguntó por la nominación, la oficina de Valdivia no respondió.

Un portavoz del consulado mexicano en Dallas también rehusó comentar, limitándose a decir que "el doctor Arnulfo Valdivia continúa" en su puesto.

La inminente partida de Valdivia, dicen los críticos, demuestra que más de una década después de que el IME fuera creado por el entonces presidente Vicente Fox como un reconocimiento sin precedentes a la creciente población mexicana en Estados Unidos, México aún no aprovecha su potencial ni ha hecho nada "sustancial" para reducir la brecha con sus hijos e hijas en el exterior, dijo Primitivo Rodríguez, director de la Coalición por los Derechos Políticos de los Mexicanos en el Exterior.

Su última reunión con Valdivia no hizo más que confirmar sus sospechas, dijo.

En las últimas tres décadas los inmigrantes mexicanos en todo el mundo, pero sobre todo en Estados Unidos, se han vuelto foco de interés para los gobiernos mexicano y estadounidense, ya que son vistos como un puente cultural, político y económico entre dos países que guardan estrechos vínculos inevitables, afianzados por un intercambio comercial de más de $500,000 millones y lazos de sangre que solo parecen aumentar.

Dado lo que muchos consideran un despertar político de los latinos en Estados Unidos, la mayoría de ascendencia mexicana, actores políticos de ambos países -- y también de Israel -- han estado midiendo su fuerza.

Los judíos estadounidenses han estado estrechando nexos con líderes latinos, organizado conferencias en todo Estados Unidos, incluso habiendo llevado a algunos a Israel para instruirlos en el cabildeo político.

"Valdivia me dijo que no estaba haciendo lo que quería hacer, y que la Secretaría no lo dejaba trabajar", dijo Rodríguez. "Lo que esto nos dice es que, a casi dos décadas de que fue creado el IME, la Secretaría de Relaciones Exteriores todavía no sabe qué hacer con los inmigrantes. Todavía no lo sabe porque Valdivia no tenía mucha influencia y su impacto fue limitado".

El nombramiento de Valdivia este año fue motivo de elogios por su aparente cercanía con Peña Nieto de cuando trabajaron en el Estado de México, del que el presidente fue gobernador.

No obstante, Valdivia, educado en Harvard, no logró generar mucho interés entre la comunidad mexicana, ni siquiera dentro de la propia Secretaría, según los funcionarios consultados.

Aunque se pensaba que tenía una relación con el presidente, no era considerado parte de su círculo más cercano.

Manuel Rodela, presidente de la Federación de Clubes Zacatecanos del Norte de Texas, dijo que esperan que el próximo titular del IME le "ponga ganas" al encargo.

"Lo que esperamos es que de su labor sea para todos los mexicanos. Esperamos un buen desempeño", dijo. "Lo que le pedimos es que trate a todos como iguales. En México es muy común que el gobierno te haga para un lado. Tenemos que cambiar ese pensamiento para gozar de los beneficios que nos tocan por ley".

José Luis Flores, activista de Arlington, brevemente consejero-electo del IME en una elección que luego fue impugnada, dijo que el IME necesita gente nueva y limpiar su imagen.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(traducción al español de la versión en inglés)

El 18 de Julio, 2013

En referencia a: Oposición Fuerte al Proyecto de Ley S.744 por Lideres y Organizaciones Latinas, Inmigrantes y de Pueblos Indígenas.

Estimado Diputado:

En práctica la S.744 hará:

Impedirá a los de estatus provisional (RPI) obtener la residencia permanente o la ciudadanía por décadas o para siempre;
Excluirá y descalificará a través del tiempo más de 5 millones de personas indocumentadas de poder obtener el estatus provisional (RPI) y sujetará a los de estatus provisional (RPI) a condiciones represivas e inaceptables por diez o más años para poder sostener el estatus legal;
Incrementará la discriminación y perfil racial de personas de color a través del “E-Verify (verificación de derecho a empleo) de todo trabajador, ciudadano o no ciudadano, en el país; y
Creará un estado policiaco virtual y creará desastres ambiental en los 27 condados fronterizos al militarizar la frontera México-U.S. que pretende incluir el uso de aviones espía sin piloto (drones) con capacidad de utilizar armas, 40,000 agentes fronterizos y 700 millas de muros.

Favor de comunicarse con Arturo Carmona, Director Ejecutivo de Presente.org si tiene cualquier comentario o pregunta al respecto a Arturo@presente.org.

Atentamente,

(vea la lista parcial de las organizaciones e individuos firmantes abajo)

Organizaciones Nacionales y Regionales

Dignity Campaign

Frente Indigena de Organizaciones Binacionales, FIOB Hermandad Mexicana

Mexican American Political Association (MAPA) Presente.org

Red Mexicana de Lideres y Organizaciones Migrantes Southwest Voter Registration Education Project (SVREP) Southwest Workers Union (SWU)

William C. Velasquez Institute (WCVI)

Organizaciones Estatales y Locales

Alianza Latinoamericana por los Derechos de los Inmigrantes (ALIADI) Association of Mexicans in North Carolina, AMEXCAN

Anahauk Youth Soccer Association

Association for Residency and Citizenship of America (ARCA) Border Angels, San Diego

Cesar E. Chavez Legacy and Educational Fund Coalicion de Derechos Humanos,Tucson, Arizona Coastal Bend Committee for Human Rights

Communion of Independent Catholic Churches, San Diego, CA Durango Unido in Chicago

The Hispanic Community Dialogue, Virginia Beach, VA

Latino/Latina Roundtable of the San Gabriel Valley and Pomona Valley

LULAC, Inland Empire

San Bernardino Community Service Center, Inc

Mundo Maya Foundation

Seminario Permanente de Estudios Chicanos y de Fronteras y Red Mexicana de Acción frente al Libre

Comercio.,México, D. F.

Individuos

Juan Jose Bocanegra

Alfredo Gutierrez, Author of To Sin Against Hope, Former majority leader of the Arizona State Senate

Sal Reza

Primitivo Rodríguez

Patricia Schano Allen, President, Research Applications

Melanie Stuart, Public Policy Chairperson for the American Association of University Women-Chula Vista

Rick Swartz, President, Strategic Solutions Washington

Victor Manuel Torres, Spokesperson, El Grupo, North San Diego County

Prof. Armando Vazquez-Ramos, President, California-Mexico Studies Center
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

National Progressive Latino, Immigrant, and Indigenous Organizations

PRESS RELEASE

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

July 23, 2013

CONTACT PERSONS:

Angela Sanbrano (323)371-7305 – Los Angeles, California

Roberto Lovato (202) 503-6141 – Washington, D.C.

Taina Vega (714) 541-0250 – Orange County, California

Prof. Armando Vazquez-Ramos (562) 972-0986 – Long Beach, California

Carlos Arango (733) 988-1408 - Chicago, Illinois

Alfonso Gonzalez (347) 546-0255 – New York, New York

Enrique Morones (619) 269-7865 – San Diego, California

Lydia Camarillo (210) 849-4496 – San Antonio, Texas

Antonio Gonzalez (323) 343-9299 – Los Angeles, California

Salvador Reza (602) 446-9928 – Phoenix, Arizona

GROWING NUMBER OF LATINO LEADERS AND ORGANIZATIONS OPPOSE S.744

BORDER SURGE AMENDMENT IN S.744 IS A DEAL KILLER

REGISTERED PROVISIONAL IMMIGRANT AN INFERIOR DACA STATUS

LOS ANGELES - A growing number of Latino leaders and organizations have declared their opposition to Senate Bill 744, the U.S. Senate’s version of comprehensive immigration reform, which now languishes in the House of Representatives. This new grouping of national, state, and regional organizations signed-on to a joint letter and position paper sent to Democratic and Republican federal legislators. (SEE ATTACHED OR LINK)

“The border surge amendment was a deal killer for us and a growing number of advocacy groups and individuals, which had sought fair and humane immigration reform, not authoritarian immigration policies in the interior and a militarization of the border with Mexico,” declared Angela Sanbrano of the National Network of Migrant Leaders and Organizations.

The groups have conducted polling and direct consultation with their constituents and concluded that they could no longer support the Senate version.

According to Taína Vega, Director of Hermandad Mexicana, the oldest Mexican immigrant rights organization in the U.S., “after thousands of interviews with our members explaining the finer details of S.744, we have found extremely high opposition to President Obama’s take on comprehensive reform, although high hopes for fair reform.” She added, “single female heads-of-household will be disqualified due to the annual income requirement of 125% of the federal poverty guideline.

“Numerous reputable organizations, and even the Office of Congressional Budget, have reported that it is quite probable that less than half of the estimated 11 million undocumented would qualify for the RPI permit, which doesn’t even constitute legalization or a path to citizenship, and the remainder would be deported according to S.744,” observed Arturo Carmona, Executive Director of Presente.org.

“We held out much hope for the “gang of eight’s” compromise legislation, but the disqualifying hurdles for the Registered Provisional Immigration (RPI) permit would result in mass deportations and decades long servitude,” explained Carlos Arango, Director of CASA Aztlan of Chicago, Illinois.

“The guest-worker provisions of S.744 for both skilled professionals and unskilled workers and for farm-laborers takes the country back a century in the unscrupulous use of contract labor exceeding the annual numbers used in the infamous Bracero Program during 1942 to 1964,” stated Professor Armando Vazquez-Ramos of California State University at Long Beach.

Professor Alfonso Gonzalez of CUNY in New York explained that, “It appears that the only undocumented that would have an easier path to full legal residency are the so-called Dreamers, youth born elsewhere but brought to the U.S. by their parents, yet we are observing growing opposition from them to the many obstacles posed under S.744 for their parents and older siblings.”

Salvador Reza of Tonatierra based in Phoenix, Arizona along with Enrique Morones of Border Angeles of San Diego, California decried the mounting border deaths resulting from the increased border militarization over the past fifteen years. “The border surge clause in S.744 will only exacerbate the current situation,” concluded Reza.

The National Progressive Latino, Immigrant, and Indigenous Organizations have launched a national campaign to oppose S.744 and advocate for fair and humane immigration reform, which includes generous legalization provisions, no criminalization of immigrants or militarization of border communities. These organizations represent long-time on the ground advocates and organizers for immigrant rights.

Spokespersons are available for interviews. Please review the contact persons above.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

National Progressive Latino, Immigrant, and Indigenous Organizations

Comunicado de Prensa

El 23 de Julio 2013

PERSONAS DE CONTACTOS:

Angela Sanbrano (323)371-7305 – Los Angeles, California

Roberto Lovato (202) 503-6141 – Washington, D.C.

Taina Vega (714) 541-0250 – Orange County, California

Prof. Armando Vazquez-Ramos (562) 972-0986 – Long Beach, California

Carlos Arango (733) 988-1408 - Chicago, Illinois

Alfonso Gonzalez (347) 546-0255 – New York, New York

Enrique Morones (619) 269-7865 – San Diego, California

Lydia Camarillo (210) 849-4496 – San Antonio, Texas

Antonio Gonzalez (323) 343-9299 – Los Angeles, California

Salvador Reza (602) 446-9928 – Phoenix, Arizona

CRECE EL NUMERO DE LIDERES Y ORGANIZACIONES LATINOS CONTRA S.744

MILITARIZACION FRONTERIZA EN S.744 QUEBRANTA CUALQUIER APOYO

EL PERMISO DE ESTATUS PROVISIONAL INFERIOR AL PERMISO DACA

LOS ANGELES – Un número creciente de líderes y organizaciones latinos han declarado su oposición al Proyecto de Ley S.744, la versión del senado de reforma migratoria, la cual ahora queda rezagado en la cámara de diputados. Esta agrupación de líderes y organizaciones nacionales, estatales y regionales que firmó una carta conjunta y un documento detallado se envió a los legisladores federales tanto Demócratas como Republicanos. (VEA LOS DOCUMENTOS ADJUNTOS).

“La enmienda de militarizar a la frontera quebrantó nuestro apoyo y lo de un creciente número de grupos e individuos que habíamos visualizamos una reforma justa y humana, más no una política migratoria autoritaria en el interior y la militarización de la frontera con México,” declaró Angela Sanbrano de la Red Nacional de Líderes y Organizaciones Migrantes.

La agrupación de líderes y organizaciones ha llevado a cabo encuestas y consultas directas con sus afiliados y han concluido que ya no más pueden apoyar la versión del senado.

De acuerdo a Taina Vega, Directora de la Hermandad Mexicana, la organización mexicana más antigua de derechos al inmigrante en Estados Unidos, “después de miles de entrevistas con nuestros miembros explicándoles los pormenores de S.744 encontramos una oposición extremadamente alta a lo que el Presidente Obama llama reforma migratoria integral, aunque mantienen altas esperanzas para una reforma justa.” Añadió, “las madres solteras cabeza de casa quedarán descalificadas ya que no podrán cumplir con el requisito de ingresos anuales 125% por encima del nivel normativa de ingresos anuales de la pobreza establecido por el gobierno federal.

“Numerosas organizaciones de alta reputación, incluyendo a la Oficina de Presupuesto de Congreso, han informado que es muy probable que menos de la mitad del estimado 11 millones de indocumentados calificarían por el permiso llamado RPI (por sus siglas en ingles) ofrecido y este permiso ni siquiera constituye una legalización o un camino a la ciudadanía y los no-calificados quedarán deportados bajo S.744,” explicó Arturo Carmona, Director Ejecutivo de Presente.org.

“Tuvimos mucha esperanza por la legislación bipartidista del “grupo de ocho” pero los obstáculos para obtener el permiso RPI resultarían en deportaciones masivas y décadas de servidumbre,” observó Carlos Arango, Director de CASA AZTLAN de Chicago, Illinois.

“Las clausulas de trabajadores huéspedes de S.744 tanto para profesionistas calificados y obreros comunes y trabajadores de campo regresaría al país un siglo en cuanto al uso inescrupuloso de obreros contratados hasta excediendo a los números anuales usados en el impopular Programa Bracero durante los años 1942 a 1964,” recordó el Profesor Armando Vazquez-Ramos de la Universidad Estatal de California en Long Beach.

El Profesor Alfonso González de CUNY en Nueva York examinó que, “tal parece que los únicos indocumentados que encontrarían un camino más fácil a la residencia permanente serían los llamados soñadores, jóvenes nacidos en el extranjero pero traídos por sus padres a los Estados Unidos, sin embargo, estamos observando una oposición creciente entre ellos mismos a los muchos obstáculos puestos en S.744 contra sus padres y hermanos mayores.”

Salvador Reza de Tonatierra de Phoenix, Arizona y Enrique Morones de Angeles de la Frontera de San Diego, California denunciaron el creciente número de muertos fronterizos como resultado del aumento de militarización de la frontera con México. “La clausula en S.744 sobre mayor vigilancia fronteriza tipo militar solo resultará en mayores muertos,” comentó Reza.

Las Organizaciones Nacionales Progresistas Latinos, de Inmigrantes y de Pueblos Indígenas han lanzado una campaña nacional contra S.744 y a favor de una reforma justa y humana que incluiría clausulas generosas de legalización, no criminalización a los inmigrantes ni militarización de comunidades fronterizas.

*Están disponibles para entrevistas los portavoces. Favor de referirse a las personas enumeradas arriba.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Steve King Defends DREAMer Comments Condemned by Boehner, Cantor

By Matt Fuller and Emma Dumain, July 23, 2013

Updated 11:07 p.m. | Rep. Steve King is defending his comments that children who were brought to the U.S. illegally don’t deserve “amnesty” because they’re not “all valedictorians” despite a firestorm of criticism from Republican leaders and Democrats.

Speaker John A. Boehner called the comments “wrong” and his language “hateful.” Majority Leader Eric Cantor called them “inexcusable.” Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., called the remarks “reprehensible.” And Florida Democrat Joe Garcia said they were “beneath the dignity” of a member of Congress.

The Iowa Republican told the conservative website NewsMax last week that he is sympathetic to the situation in which many undocumented children find themselves. But he said those so-called DREAMers are not all created equal.

“Some of them are valedictorians — and their parents brought them in. It wasn’t their fault. It’s true in some cases, but they aren’t all valedictorians. They weren’t all brought in by their parents.

“For everyone who’s a valedictorian, there’s another 100 out there who weigh 130 pounds — and they’ve got calves the size of cantaloupes because they’re hauling 75 pounds of marijuana across the desert. Those people would be legalized with the same act.”

King said until there is some way to tell the difference between the “innocent ones” and those who have been “undermining our culture and civilization and profiting from criminal acts,” no one should advocate for “amnesty.”

King himself appeared unbowed amid criticism late Tuesday, telling Radio Iowa that he got the physical description “essentially” from the Border Patrol:

“It’s not something that I’m making up. This is real. We have people that are mules, that are drug mules, that are hauling drugs across the border and you can tell by their physical characteristics what they’ve been doing for months, going through the desert with 75 pounds of drugs on their back and if those who advocate for the DREAM Act, if they choose to characterize this about valedictorians, I gave them a different image that we need to be thinking about because we just simply can’t be passing legislation looking only at one component of what would be millions of people.”

Boehner sharply criticized King in a statement. “What he said is wrong,” the Ohio Republican said. “There can be honest disagreements about policy without using hateful language. Everyone needs to remember that.”

Cantor also slammed the remarks. ”I strongly disagree with his characterization of the children of immigrants and find the comments inexcusable,” the Virginia Republican said in a statement.

During a Tuesday House Judiciary hearing on finding a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrant children, Garcia denounced King’s comments while the Iowa Republican, a fellow panel member, sat in the room.

“When members of this committee, when members of this House, use inflammatory language, use offensive language, it does not help the process,” Garcia said, using King’s words to Newsmax as an example of rhetoric “beneath the dignity” of Congress. However, Garcia did not explicitly attribute the rhetoric to King himself.

After Garcia finished with his opening statement, King was called upon next for his opening remarks. But he did not show signs of taking offense, nor did he offer any explanation for his comments.

Instead, he spoke broadly against any effort to change the country’s immigration system while Democrats controlled Washington and “amnesty” was on the table.

“I think what’s on course here … is we’ll just move this little sliver here because this one tugs at our heart,” King said. “It tugs at my heart, too. But … we have to uphold the rule of law.”

After the hearing, Gowdy, who chairs the Immigration and Border Security subcommittee, called King’s comments to Newsmax “reprehensible.”

Gowdy also took offense at King’s criticism during the hearing of the South Carolinian’s own comments about needing a permanent immigration law solution.

“Did you hear his five minutes?” Gowdy asked a scrum of reporters about King’s statement. ”He took one line from my opening statement about a remedy that lasts a lifetime and lectures me about the rule of law. I was a prosecutor for 15 years.”

When asked how Republicans, particularly those in leadership, can reach out to members like King and implore them to keep inflamatory rhetoric at bay, Gowdy said flatly, “You can’t.”

And while King has said he has the muscle to sink any piecemeal immigration bill, Gowdy scoffed.

“The number of people who have a Steve King precise ideology on immigration isn’t going to be sufficient to sink anything.”

Meanwhile, Rep. Ted Poe, R-Texas, tweeted his disapproval as well: “Such inflammatory and hateful comments are out of touch with reality and do nothing to fix our broken system.”

At the hearing, King was the lone voice against giving legal status to undocumented young immigrants, and he was held up by Democrats as an example of how his party is starting to leave him behind.”Look how far we’ve come in such a short time,” said Rep. Luis V. Gutierrez, D-Ill.The DREAM Act, which was incorporated into the Senate-passed immigration bill, would give many illegal immigrants brought to the United States as children legal status and an accelerated path to citizenship.

Steven T. Dennis and Emily Pierce contributed to this report.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Articles from July 23, 2013:

Republicans Need to Face the Facts on Immigration Reform

By Rep. Lamar Smith, July 22, 2013

America already admits 1 million legal immigrants every year, far more than any other nation. That generosity should continue. But in writing our immigration laws, we should put the interests of American workers and taxpayers first.

Others want to put illegal immigrants and foreign workers first. They seize on two numbers to club opponents into submission — 27 percent and 11 million. Both figures are used in deceptive ways.

In running for president, Mitt Romney received about 27 percent of the Hispanic vote. During the past three decades, the average for Republican candidates has been 30 percent. (Bob Dole garnered 21 percent in 1996.)

The 27 percent is often compared unfavorably to the 40 percent George W. Bush won, according to one poll in 2004. Other surveys found Bush closer to 32 percent. Furthermore, Bush outspent John Kerry in 2004 on Spanish-language media while Barack Obama outspent Romney in 2012 by 12-to-1! It’s a wonder Romney took 27 percent.

Another fact is that Romney attracted far more support from middle-class Hispanics. Romney garnered only 17 percent of Hispanic voters with an income of less than $50,000 a year but 39 percent among Hispanics with an income of $50,000 or more. (The average income of an illegal immigrant household is $35,000 to $38,000.) The obvious message to Republicans is to help Hispanics join the middle class.

Republicans can and must appeal to Hispanic voters, but we should start with the facts, not fiction, before deciding on the best way forward.

A 2012 Pew Hispanic Center poll found that immigration ranks below the economy, jobs, and health care for Hispanic voters. So the way forward is clear — emphasize the need for educational opportunities for young Hispanics and the need for more and better jobs for adults.

As for Democrats claiming that Republicans must endorse legalization for the millions of people in the country illegally, we know their real motive from their own words.

Here is a statement from the director of the TransBorder Project: “The legalization of 11 million new immigrants would likely cement the Democrat party’s position as the majority party for decades to come.”

Illegal immigration will always exist, regardless of what immigration bill is enacted. Some immigrants will not want to wait in line, others will work illegally and still others will use fraudulent documents. Legalizing everyone in the country will not solve the problem; rather, it will encourage more illegal immigration.

Also, legalization would enable illegal immigrants to work in the United States. The increase in competition would harm employment prospects and depress the wages of American workers, as a recent Center for Immigration Studies report shows.

Some politicians say immigration is a “gateway” issue that must be resolved before Hispanic voters will listen to Republicans. Well, yes, if Republicans keep talking about immigration to the exclusion of other subjects.

That is exactly what Democrats want Republicans to do — keep playing on their turf. Republicans should refuse to be lured into the trap and instead address issues more important to Hispanics.

Republicans can splinter the clubs of 27 percent and 11 million if they stick to the facts, pick the right issues and go on the offense.

Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, is the former Judiciary chairman, and he serves on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rep. Bob Goodlatte floats pathway to legalization

By SEUNG MIN KIM | POLITICO 7/23/13 4:57 AM EDT

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte recently threw a curveball into the immigration debate by floating what has been anathema to House Republicans — a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants.

The Virginia Republican’s idea: legalize the 11 million undocumented immigrants and allow them to apply for citizenship using ways that already exist — including marriage to a U.S. citizen or sponsorship by another relative or an employer.

As chairman of the committee with primary control over immigration matters, Goodlatte is a key point man for House Republicans on immigration policy. It’s unclear whether his comments reflect the larger view of House Republicans, many of whom are flat-out resistant to the idea of allowing a pathway to citizenship to those here illegally.

(PHOTOS: 10 wild immigration quotes)

But the chairman’s July 11 comments have piqued interest among immigration advocates. Reformers want to hear more about what the powerful chairman is thinking. Many are encouraged that Goodlatte is seeking solutions for undocumented immigrants. But others note that Goodlatte’s proposal could be legally unworkable.

“Are they trying to create space for a Republican version of legalization with a citizenship option for some but not all? Or are they trying to pretend that they want a solution as they gear up to get to ‘no’?” said Frank Sharry, the executive director of the pro-reform group America’s Voice. “I genuinely don’t know.”

Goodlatte has said on multiple occasions that he does not support a “special” pathway to citizenship, meaning that he opposes a new legal category created especially for immigrants who came to the United States illegally. The Senate Gang of Eight bill includes a 13-year pathway to citizenship for such immigrants, but they would essentially have to go to the back of the line of those who are waiting to obtain green cards before they, themselves, could become permanent residents.

In a C-SPAN interview earlier this month, Goodlatte said he and other House Republicans were “open-minded” to a path to legalization. After obtaining that status, those immigrants could then apply for green cards, and ultimately citizenship, through methods already available to other immigrants.

“All of those are ways that they could then eventually find themselves permanent residents and ultimately citizens, but none of those would be special ways that have been made available only to people who are here illegally because that’s the Senate’s approach,” Goodlatte said in the interview. “We don’t agree with that approach.”

The pathway is the source of a major divide between House Democrats and Republicans. Democrats have said any legislative remedy that falls short of a shot at citizenship would unfairly create a second-class tier of U.S. residents. House Republicans are split: Many are uncomfortable with a path to citizenship but are open to some avenue to a legal status. Some support a path to citizenship, and still others oppose legalization altogether.

(PHOTOS: 20 quotes on immigration reform)

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), a key member of the Senate Gang of Eight, indicated that he is open-minded to Goodlatte’s proposal. He and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) met with Goodlatte last week on immigration and discussed how the two chambers can agree on reform.

“What the Democrats have said and I have said is that a path to citizenship is the game breaker,” McCain said. “So if he can find other ways to reach that goal, we’d be glad to discuss it.”

“I think the fact that he’s trying to solve the problem is very encouraging,” Graham added. “I like Bob Goodlatte. The fact that he’s trying to be practical and reject self-deportation is a good start.”

(PHOTOS: Pols react to immigration deal)

Still, some immigration law experts said Goodlatte’s proposal would not be allowed under existing statutes.

Under provisions in the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, it would be essentially impossible for immigrants who had been in the country illegally for more than 180 days to apply for legal status using existing avenues, they said. Congress would have to revise the 1996 law to make Goodlatte’s plan possible.

“It’s a simplistic response to the current situation, or it shows a lack of understanding of the current immigration system and how immigration law is so complex and unfortunately, it requires a complex solution,” said Marielena Hincapié, executive director of the National Immigration Law Center.

David Leopold, past president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, said the main problem with Goodlatte’s plan is that it would exclude a significant swath of current undocumented immigrants.

“You still have a system that does not accommodate people with no family ties or employment ties,” he said.

That’s a sentiment also noted by Gang member Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.).

“That provision would still leave millions of people undocumented or in limbo for a long period

Still, the response to Goodlatte’s comments is in marked contrast from the reaction to another one of his proposals. He and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) are writing legislation that would create a legal status for children who were brought without authorization into the United States.

Even though Cantor and Goodlatte have yet to unveil details about their bill — aside from the fact that it would differ from the DREAM Act, the well-known legislation that could give those young immigrants a pathway to citizenship — prominent advocacy groups and lawmakers have panned it. Their argument is that a plan addressing legalization and citizenship for just children is unacceptable.

Rep. Xavier Becerra (D-Calif.), who has been highly critical of Cantor and Goodlatte’s Kids Act, said it would be “interesting” to see what the Judiciary Committee chairman will come up with on legalization for the broader population.

“The good news is that I think they’re recognizing that they’re out of touch with where the American people are and where the American voters are” on immigration, Becerra said. But “it’s hard when he just sort of uttered it in an interview. It’s not anything in policy.”

For many, the key takeaway from Goodlatte’s comments is that the conservative chairman is increasingly warming up to different ways to achieve a path to legalization and ultimately citizenship.

“I think it’s a really clear indication that Goodlatte wants to get to the right policy,” said Ali Noorani, the executive director of the National Immigration Forum. “I don’t think it’s a deal breaker or a deal maker.”

House committees have cleared five separate bills on immigration this year, but none addresses what to do with immigrants who are living in the country illegally. The Kids Act by Cantor and Goodlatte is the first step that House Republicans have taken on the issue.

A bipartisan House group of seven lawmakers is writing a comprehensive reform bill that is expected to include a 15-year pathway to citizenship with triggers tied to a workplace verification system. Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) said it is not a “special path” but is “inclusive.”

Lofgren declined to comment on Goodlatte’s proposal, but two of her colleagues in the bipartisan group said they saw the chairman’s idea as a positive sign. Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-Fla.) said of Goodlatte’s idea: “That’s got to be on the table.” And Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.), while not commenting specifically on the proposal, said: “I see this all as progress.”

And then there will be those who view Goodlatte’s idea as too generous for undocumented immigrants.

“Anything that would happen before we actually have demonstrated we have true control over the immigration system, I think, is going to be very unpopular in [Goodlatte’s] conference,” said Roy Beck, the executive director of NumbersUSA, which advocates reduced immigration. “I also think that probably anything he proposes is going to be so short of what the other side wants right now.”
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/07/bob-goodlatte-immigration-legalization-94595.html#ixzz2Zswyoxrt

Slicing And Dicing The Immigration Bill

By JIM AVILA (@JimAvilaABC) and SERENA MARSHALL (@SerenaMarsh), July 23, 2013

House Republicans today begin an effort to carve comprehensiveimmigration reform into little pieces. The House Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing to address the immigration status of undocumented immigrant children, known as DREAMers.

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., and Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, have been crafting a bill, expected to be called the Kids Act, to offer a path to citizenship only to children who were brought to the U.S. illegally by their parents -- a move critics said would separate families by sending parents home and only addresses a fraction of the 11 million undocumented people living in the United States.

Goodlatte, in a statement released Monday, said today's hearing was part of the House's "step-by-step" approach to reform.

"These children came here through no fault of their own and many of them know no other home than the United States," he said in the statement. "Any successful immigration reform plan must improve our legal immigration programs, strengthen border security and the interior enforcement of our immigration laws, and find a way to fairly deal with those who are currently in the country unlawfully."

Cantor, R-Va., the second-highest-ranking Republican in the House and a Tea Party leader, said last week at a GOP press conference the only path to citizenship he favors is the one for DREAMers, as "it's an issue of decency, of compassion."

"These, in many instances, are kids without a country if we don't allow them to become full citizens of our country," Cantor said. "Where else would these kids go?"

DREAMers, however, reject the Kids Act or any similar legislation because it is not expected to include a pathway to citizenship for the remaining undocumented individuals currently in the country, including their parents. "As DREAMers, we oppose the Kids Act and any other effort of piecemeal legislation," Cristina Jimenez, United We Dream managing director, said on a conference call with reporters Monday. "[We are] very much outraged. ... [House Republicans] would provide a pathway to immigrant youth while intending to leave our parents behind. ... We won't allow Republicans to divide our families."

Jimenez called any legislation that does not include a pathway to citizenship "unacceptable." …"Our parents sacrificed everything to bring us here for a better future for us and our families," Jimenez said. "We wouldn't be here without them and we won't leave them behind."

"I know what is true in my heart and I know what is true in talking with mom," Lorella Praeli, United We Dream director of advocacy and policy, said on the call with reporters. "She doesn't want to be stuck in something that grants her a second-class citizenship ... permanent underclass. ... That is not what America stands for."

Praeli believes DREAMers will decide whether or not to support the House depending upon what House leadership is willing to do -- allow a vote for comprehensive immigration reform or continue with the current, piecemeal approach.

She believes that if the senior leadership allowed the Senate's comprehensive immigration reform bill or a yet-unreleased bill from the House bipartisan group of seven to come to the floor, comprehensive immigration reform could pass.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

White House Open to Piecemeal Immigration Reform

Newsmax, July 12, 2013

The White House has sent out a not-so-subtle hint that it would is ready to consider the "piecemeal" or "incremental" solution to the immigration problem that House Republicans appear to favor overwhelmingly.

At Thursday's White House briefing for reporters, Press Secretary Jay Carney was asked flatly whether President Barack Obama would reject the "piecemeal" approach to immigration "if it were to come out of the House and Senate after they go to conference, particularly if it doesn’t include a path to citizenship for the undocumented?"

Carney made it clear that the president preferred a "comprehensive" approach to immigration reform, but he did not rule out that Obama would sign individual pieces of legislation instead of the broad package enacted by the Senate and backed by the president.

"The president has always made clear that the right way to do this is comprehensively and that the criteria he laid out are essential to successful comprehensive immigration reform," said Carney. "And among those criteria were improved border security and a clear pathway to citizenship, a mechanism to improve legal immigration, and also, of course, to ensure that everybody was playing by the same rules, including all businesses in their hiring."

"If that's accurate — and I'll leave it to you to decode [Carney's] response — that's huge," Republican Rep. Todd Rokita of Indiana told Newsmax shortly after the White House briefing.

Rokita said that when he and his fellow House Republicans met in a conference meeting to discuss immigration this week, "there was a lot of basic agreement to do a lot of different things."

These specifically included "action on border security, E-Verify, visa reform and a temporary-worker program," according to Rokita.

But he also made it clear there was little sentiment among House Republicans for the "path to citizenship" for illegal immigrants, pushed by Democrats such as New York Sen. Chuck Schumer and supported by the president.
"Who says we have to move on doing something about the 11 million [illegal immigrants] now, just because Schumer says we do?" Rokita asked.

Rokita said there was strong feeling among Republicans at the conference meeting to "secure a commitment" from the House leadership that if House and Senate bills go to conference, the House side would be instructed to stay away from "anything near a 'path to citizenship.'"

His view was strongly echoed by another participant in the Republican conclave, Ohio Rep. Bill Johnson, who told Newsmax: "Any move to go to conference where the Senate bill has the upper hand will be strongly opposed. And we will just continue to keep working for the things [House Republicans] are united on: border security and to do something about allowing workers we need to move the U.S. forward, such as mathematicians and scientists."

As for a "path to citizenship," Johnson said: "There is no stomach for amnesty. It just isn't going to fly."

The White House, of course, sees it differently. But in again emphasizing that "we need to act on comprehensive immigration reform," Carney did not rule out the approach of House Republicans.

"Our takeaway from the readouts of the meeting in the House is that there is a recognition that action has to be taken here. And we consider that a good sign that progress is possible," Carney said.

As to whether the White House actually believes addressing the issue in piecemeal form is "a good sign" will be a telling moment in the ongoing immigration debate.

John Gizzi is chief political columnist and White House correspondent for Newsmax.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Young immigrants stage a risky border protest

Three activists brought illegally to the U.S. as children fly back across the border, then seek to reenter. They and others are being held in Arizona while their case is considered.

By Cindy Carcamo cindy.carcamo@latimes.com, L.A. Times, July 22, 2013,

NOGALES, Ariz. — Lizbeth Mateo paid her tuition Sunday for Santa Clara Law School, where classes begin next month. On Monday, she paused to send the school an email. "I'm letting them know I may not make it in time," she said.

The reason for her delay: an unorthodox — and risky — protest at the U.S.-Mexico border. Mateo, 29, who was brought into the United States illegally at age 10, voluntarily flew back across the border recently in a protest aimed at recognizing the thousands of people deported from the United States over the last five years as the Obama administration has struggled to adopt a long-range program for overhauling immigration laws.

The protest Monday focused on the U.S. border station in Nogales. Mateo and two other young immigrants who had been brought into the U.S. as children asked to be admitted legally across the border they had surreptitiously traversed so many years ago and had spent much of their lives trying to avoid.

The immigration debate has focused on how a sweeping bill now in Congress might affect an estimated 11 million people who entered the country illegally or overstayed their visas. Lost in the debate, Mateo and other protesters say, are those already expelled from the country. Deportations have increased from just under 300,000 in 2007 to nearly 400,000 in 2011, according to federal statistics.

"We should not forget the people who have been deported," she said.

Monday's action quickly grew as about 30 others spontaneously joined the petitioners at the border, taking activists by surprise. Organized by the National Immigrant Youth Alliance, the immigrants planned to ask for humanitarian parole, which would allow them into the country, or, failing that, asylum.

As part of the planned protest, the trio was joined by six other immigrants who had returned to Mexico more than a year ago. The nine were questioned and transferred to a holding facility in Florence, Ariz. Activists in contact with the attorney for the youths said that they were denied humanitarian parole and that immigration officials would consider their request for asylum while holding them in Florence.

Immigration officials declined to comment on Monday's events and had said previously that people hoping to enter the country had to meet standard immigration requirements.

The border action highlights the plight of children of who are in the country illegally. Many have grown up in the U.S., have attended American schools — Mateo graduated from Cal Sate Northridge — and hope to maintain a connection to their pasts without fear of losing their futures in the U.S.

With Mateo were Marco Saavedra, 23, of New York, and Lulu Martinez, 24, of Chicago. Both came to the United States when they were 3 years old.

Saavedra, a graduate of Kenyon College with a degree in sociology, says he's American in every way except for his lack of legal papers.

"There have to be alternatives," Saavedra said of the nation's immigration system. He recalled how his 60-year-old grandfather, who lives in Mexico, makes a perilous trip each time he visits relatives in the United States. "Why does it have to be almost a death sentence every time he wants to go see his daughters?" Saavedra asked.

Martinez, a student at the University of Illinois at Chicago, said that the symbolism of their action was important, even if critics have called it unwise, and that someone had to take a stand. "We've been accused of being petulant children," she said. "We realize that it had to be us."

Wearing graduation caps and gowns, Mateo, Saavedra and Martinez chanted "undocumented, unafraid" as they paraded Monday from Nogales, Sonora, to Nogales, Ariz. They were joined by five other young immigrants, also in graduation attire. Unlike the original trio, who had traveled to Mexico to make a political point, four of the others had voluntarily left the U.S. years ago because life had become too difficult. The fifth was deported.

"They are insane, but my respect is with them," Luis Leon, one of the five, said of the trio. "Nobody throws away 20 years of their lives for someone else."

Leon, brought to the U.S. when he was 5, had been living in North Carolina when he returned to Mexico in 2011 because he thought immigration reform would never happen. He says he regrets that now. He's tried to return to the U.S. six times but without success.

As the eight immigrants headed to the border, they were joined at the last minute by a ninth immigrant who had left the U.S. voluntarily some time ago. As word of the action spread, as many as 30 more young people presented themselves at the border, but their status was unclear.

By returning to Mexico voluntarily, the three immigrants have put themselves at considerable risk. Under an immigration package backed by the Obama administration, young immigrants deported could apply to return to the U.S. Those who leave voluntarily would not have that option, immigration experts say.

Mateo, Saavedra and Martinez are old hands at activism and civil disobedience. Saavedra once occupied an immigration facility in Florida and was detained. Mateo joined a sit-in at the Tucson office of Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.).

Immigration authorities offered Saavedra and Mateo the chance to apply for the Obama administration's deferred deportation program, which allows immigrants who were brought into the country illegally as children to stay in the U.S., at least temporarily.

Both declined, saying they wanted their cases adjudicated — a way of putting a spotlight on the nation's immigration system.

Mateo recalled how she and her mother crossed the desert to enter the United States 19 years ago. "I've never been as thirsty as then," she said.

She described how they drank from rank pools of water and how her mother struggled — sometimes pulling, sometimes pushing — to keep her going north. Eventually, they settled in Los Angeles.

If she is ultimately deported, Mateo said, she will not attempt another desert crossing; she can't do that again.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Articles from July 21, 2013:

Five ways the election calendar threatens immigration reform in the House

By Karoun Demirjian (contact), Sunday, July 21, 2013

Washington — The House of Representatives has zero chance of completing its work on immigration before the start of the August recess. And that means, from here on out, the fate of comprehensive reforms will be inextricably linked with the 2014 election calendar.

The August recess marks the unofficial re-election campaign kick-offs, especially for those lawmakers in swing districts.

But once a candidate commences a campaign, no vote in Washington can escape scrutiny – especially not on a hot topic like immigration reform.

The calendar, at every turn, is paved with potential pitfalls for immigration in the House.

Tackling immigration quickly after recess might work – if Congress weren’t going to be preoccupied with the political fight that will accompany finalizing the 2014 budget and raising the debt limit.

The early winter months of 2014 are also an option – but there’s always the threat of a looming primaries come spring to make Republicans think twice.

That leaves next summer – but only if Republicans decide that cooperating with Democrats to pass an immigration bill on the eve of a general election will kick some voters into their column, and not send them with celebratory fervor over to the Democrats’ camp.

And lastly, there’s always the lame duck Congress at the tail end of the year. But that will be overshadowed by who knows what election results.

Despite the unrelenting chronology, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is sure that the House will eventually abandon plans to run through immigration as a set of piecemeal bills, and take up the Senate’s compromise bill.

“The House is going to pick it up, the House is going to do it,” Reid told Nevada reporters Wednesday. “I don’t know when. It won’t be in the next two weeks, but they will pass it.”

Whether the House handles immigration comprehensively or in combination, for the various pieces of the immigration puzzle, timing may be everything.

Border Security

It’s difficult for border security to fall out of vogue in the Republican conference, where fences and foot soldiers along the U.S.-Mexico line have been promoted as critical components of immigration reform for years.

But the bar for Republicans is no longer just resources – the want to prove the resources are achieving their aim.

In the House and Senate, a majority of Republican lawmakers have backed a border and worksite security strategy that puts heavy emphasis on triggers: such as Congress cannot possibly contemplate pathways to citizenship until extensive security measures have been implemented resulting in measurable apprehensions, arrests, and illegal migration.

Last month, the Senate passed a comprehensive bill that included security measures more extensive, than any Republican proposal that had been divined in either house. But that arrangement only required that the security materials be rolled out according to a set schedule.

Republicans in the Senate who designed and voted for those security elements have made it their project to try to convince their Republican colleagues that the measures to step up border security are generous enough to demand their support.

But the more time that elapses, the less direct pressure there is on House Republicans to side with the 17 senators who rubber stamped the compromise – and not simply demand even higher, more stringent, results-driven standards in the legislation they approve.

How a lawmakers comes down on that question is sure to play in any Republican primary that may arise.

The Pathway to Citizenship

The most controversial part of the immigration matrix for Republicans is also the most non-negotiable for Democrats.

Three years ago, offering a pathway to citizenship for just DREAMers – young immigrants brought to the country illegally as children who enroll in college or the military – would have been the answer to Reid’s dreams. But coming off the 2012 election and a 67-vote approved Senate immigration bill, that’s no longer good enough.

“The DREAMers are for comprehensive immigration reform,” Reid said Wednesday. “They are not going to be used as a pawn for the Tea Party.”

A pathway to citizenship, however, is the one thing Tea Party Republicans hate most. They have turned on Florida Sen. Marco Rubio for advocating for it. They have called for primaries against anyone who might speak out in favor it.

No wonder, then, that Nevada Rep. Mark Amodei’s recent open query for a Republican bill on earned legal status has sounded with all the reverberations of a lone voice in the wilderness.

Once the primary season is through, it might be easier for Republicans – especially the more moderate ones – to take a vote in favor of a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants of all ages.

But that’s if – and only if – Republican leaders decide to put a bill that includes it on the House floor.

Tea Party Pressure

The Tea Party is not just a phenomenon Harry Reid loves to rage against – it’s also a faction of the House that bats above its weight class when it comes to pressuring the Republican conference to take increasingly conservative stands.

Tea Party-affiliated members convinced House Speaker John Boehner to all but swear an oath last month that he would not bring up an immigration bill that lacked support from “a majority of the majority” – eschewing a bipartisan coalition in favor of party solidarity.

Senate Republicans have tried to coax Boehner away from this stance – unsuccessfully.

But Tea Party influence comes in waves – and Boehner has past experience in letting it flourish and fade.

For Republicans, Tea Party pressure is at its zenith during the primary season, when ultra-conservative candidates who might not seem to have cross-party appeal can rally support within the Republican Party to challenge incumbents, and win nominations. (Think Sharron Angle.)

A vote for immigration reform, while in keeping with nationwide sentiment that is pro-reform, could easily be a rallying point for conservatives in a Republican primary.

But after the primaries are settled, the threat lessens of Tea Party backlash to a pro-immigration vote. The only significant recourse put-out Tea Partiers have at that point is to withhold their vote for the Republican candidate – a move that makes it easier for the Democratic challenger to win.

The Democrats’ Takeover Strategy

Tea Party pressure is the force pushing Republicans to lean conservative on immigration reform during primary season, but come general election time, the threat of a Democratic challenger can push a Republican incumbent to a more moderate position.

The truth is, Democrats don’t have endless ability to put Republican incumbents in a position to respond to their electoral pressure.

According to the chairman of the House Democrats’ campaign arm, immigration could be the swing issue in 23 House races where an incumbent Republican faces a district with a large Hispanic immigrant population.

That is enough to swing the majority of the House to the Democrats’ favor, as they need to take only 17 seats away from Republicans.

But 23 Republican incumbents in crosshairs is nowhere near a governing plurality in the House Republican conference. In fact, it’s fewer than the number of House Republicans who affiliate with the Tea Party.

Should the House get to next summer with no resolution on immigration, a vote for a comprehensive bill could get certain Republicans in high-immigrant concentration swing districts – such as Nevada’s Rep. Joe Heck – out of a bind.

But if those 23 Republicans don’t find themselves in a particularly tight spot, the GOP may decide there is no need to touch a live wire like immigration reform until the election outcomes are known.

The Hispanic vote

The story of the rising Hispanic vote is well told at this point. In election after election, Hispanic voters have improved turnout and widened victory gaps.

While voters in this bloc rarely cite immigration as their primary public concern, immigration has nonetheless become a key factor in determining how and for whom they vote.

In 2012, many Republicans -- including Nevada’s Sen. Dean Heller -- decided that the Hispanic vote was cleaving too heavily toward Democrats, and that a demonstrable change in immigration stance was necessary to win back community support.

But some Republicans who weathered the 2012 cycle, might also consider themselves immune to the pressure.

Thanks to gerrymandering and population dynamics, the Hispanic vote -- like many minority voting blocs -- is localized, and doesn’t affect that many districts. Again, Democrats see Hispanic voters as a seat-turning force in only 23 congressional races.

And because of the 70-30 split favoring Democrats, the Hispanic vote isn’t a significant factor in most Republican primaries.

Furthermore, with no presidential race in the offing, and no high profile senate race in Nevada either, the immigration issue is not guaranteed as strong a spotlight as in past election cycles.

The challenge for organizers, then, will be to keep the Hispanic community engaged at full throttle for the next year and a half.

If they fail to plead a convincing-enough case, the challenge for incumbent Republicans will be to explain themselves as free thinkers separate from their party’s position -- and hope that voters buy the explanation.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Articles from July 19, 2013:

Statement by the United Church of Christ, Justice and Witness Ministries

Throughout our history the General Synod of the United Church of Christ has spoken prophetically on justice issues related to our federal immigration and border policy. The most recent Synod in Long Beach, CA reaffirmed the church's commitment to justice in immigration policy by adopting a resolution in support of immigration reform, and called on us to protect the human rights of migrants.

Faith advocates have worked to advance immigration reform that is comprehensive, compassionate, and humane. Unfortunately much of the congressional debate around immigration reform is increasingly centered on a perceived need to secure and militarize our southern border. Over the next 10 years, the bipartisan "border surge" in the Senate's proposal (S.744) will create one of the most militarized border zones in the world. As the House takes up its own border security bill, the outcome could be much worse.

The 7 million people who live in the border region - Americans, Mexicans and Native Americans alike - are living with the reality of ever increasing militarization within their communities. Their quality of life is being sacrificed for the sake of an illusion of safety to be found in building yet another wall.

Enough is enough. We need real, comprehensive immigration reform, not endless militarization of our border communities. The costs - economic, environmental, and human - are simply too high.

Join in a National Day of Action Against Border Militarization !

Rev. Mari Castellanos, D. Min.
United Church of Christ
Justice and Witness Ministries
Washington, DC

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Articles from July 18, 2013:

Immigration reform: It's alive!

The 'Gang of Eight' bill that passed in the Senate won't fly with Republicans in the House, but that doesn't mean all is lost...

By Tamar Jacoby, LAT’s Op-Ed, July 18, 2013

Reports of the death of immigration reform are greatly exaggerated. The debate isn't over. Reform isn't tanking. It's alive and well, with the Republican-controlled House preparing to take up where the Democratic Senate left off a few weeks ago.

Yes, the debate in the lower chamber will be very different than it was in the Senate. House Republicans are divided, with some, including many in the House leadership, eager to move ahead with reform, others adamantly opposed and yet others still uncertain. But that doesn't mean they won't make progress in months ahead — perhaps even surprising progress by House standards.

Let's be realistic. The Senate has been working on immigration since November. It's been a highly public process, endlessly analyzed in Washington and in the media. But at no time during the Senate debate did any House Republicans, even those most favorable to an immigration overhaul, show the slightest inclination to take up the Senate bill.

The bipartisan House group crafting a reform package was crystal clear: It was working on its own proposal. Leadership concurred: The House was going to do things its own way. And rank-and-file Republicans were blunter still, leaving little doubt about their disdain for anything — particularly a take-it-or-leave-it omnibus package — handed down from the upper chamber.

Still, last week, when Speaker John A. Boehner announced for perhaps the sixth time that the House was not going to take up the Senate bill, many reformers exploded with indignation.

Sorry, folks, the fault's not in the House. It's in your unrealistic playbook.

But the point is there's no reason to despair now. The House isn't backtracking or being obstructionist — it's doing what it said it would do all along, moving ahead in its own way.

Pessimists mischaracterize the House strategy, complaining that leadership is gearing up to move "piecemeal" — which, because it's not a comprehensive approach, is seen as intransigent and inimical to progress. But this insistence that there's only one way to do things could end up doing more harm than good.

Even if House Republicans were unanimously in favor of reform, in the wake of Obamacare, it's unlikely that they would pass an omnibus, 1,200-page legislative package. Big is bad in Washington these days, especially among Republicans. Lawmakers want to move carefully. They want to break things into bite-sized pieces. And on a controversial issue like immigration reform, they don't want to find unpleasant surprises tucked away in the corner of bills they otherwise support.

But that doesn't mean House Republicans aren't prepared to address the issues in the Senate bill. On the contrary. House committees — Judiciary and Homeland Security — have already approved targeted measures dealing with border security, E-Verify, interior enforcement, highly skilled immigrants and an agricultural guest-worker program. Another important measure still in the works would create a guest-worker program for nonfarm workers.

House Republicans have been deliberating for months about how to get these measures across the finish line, and many expect the bills to come to the floor separately, passing one by one, each with a slightly different combination of Democrats and Republicans. Then leadership is expected to string the bills together, like beads in a necklace, in a package that can be reconciled with the Senate omnibus. Think of it as a hybrid approach: less than comprehensive, more than piecemeal, but ultimately compatible with the package produced by the Senate.

What about the 11 million immigrants living and working in the U.S. illegally? Look for a surprise here too. Those waiting for the House to pass a straightforward path to citizenship are all but sure to be disappointed. But members are on course to consider a version of the Dream Act, providing relief for young people brought to the U.S. illegally as children. And I hear more and more House Republicans talking about a path to legal status for adults: the ability to work and travel and remain in the U.S. legally, with citizenship perhaps available through some other, already established visa program.

The White House and the so-called Gang of Eight insist this is unacceptable, that anything short of a direct path to citizenship for all 11 million will be dead on arrival. But that's just today's brinkmanship. It doesn't tell us anything about what could ultimately play out if House Republicans meet the Senate halfway, and if millions of Dreamers and their families come forward to make the case that the perfect is the enemy of the good and they'd rather have something than no reform at all.

Most House Republicans can't endorse a special or direct path to citizenship, and many can't use the word "citizenship" at all in a conversation about people who entered the United States illegally. But that doesn't mean the House can't be part of a solution, can't clear a path that would work for many people and in other ways improve the Senate bill.

Can the House come through? It won't be easy. But the answer isn't the Senate way or nothing — and insisting that it is can only limit the options for a breakthrough.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Key players in immigration debate step back

As immigration overhaul efforts shift to the House, Republican Sen. Marco Rubio and President Obama — two major advocates — are taking the sidelines...

By Lisa Mascaro and Christi Parsons, LAT’s July 17, 2013

WASHINGTON — Sen. Marco Rubio played a crucial role in orchestrating passage of the bipartisan immigration overhaul in the Senate last month, but the Florida Republican and potential 2016 presidential contender has bowed out of the messy battle as it moves to the House.

Key senators behind the immigration bill admonished top business leaders in a session at the Capitol this week to put more pressure on reluctant House Republicans, but Rubio was notably absent. The bill's supporters were counting on his voice as a Latino and tea party favorite to help sell the measure to conservatives.

At the same time, President Obama has adopted a lofty approach, speaking of the benefits of immigration but staying above the fray, aware that efforts to rouse public opinion would almost certainly chase away House Republicans who typically distance themselves from his initiatives.

Obama did a round of interviews with Spanish-language television anchors on Tuesday. He said nothing new, but his message to House Republicans, though not overt, was clear: Millions of Latino voters are watching.

PHOTOS: 2013's memorable political moments

The decisions by Rubio and Obama to step back leave the two highest-profile champions of changing the nation's immigration laws in cameo roles for what is expected to be the toughest part of the fight.

Instead, the most influential advocates for comprehensive reform will probably be business and religious leaders who hold more sway over House Republicans than either the Florida senator or the president.

Sens. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) and John McCain(R-Ariz.), who along with Rubio were among the chief architects of the Senate bill, told those leaders at the session that it was past time to launch a high-level campaign.

McCain delivered a "stern" message, according to one source in the room. And Schumer said, "You guys are working, but you need to ramp it up," according to another source familiar with the meeting.

Rubio's decision reflects a broader conflict among immigration advocates of how best to prod the House, where the GOP majority remains cool to the cornerstone of the legislation, the path to citizenship for the estimated 11 million immigrants in the nation illegally.

Schumer and McCain sought to build political momentum that would leave the House little choice but to act.

U.S. immigration law: Decades of debate

Rubio appears to have decided to give House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) space to work with his often unruly majority. He has no plans to continue meeting with the other senators who wrote the bill with him.

"The House has an opportunity to improve on the Senate's efforts and advance reform further, but they should be given the deference to decide the best way forward," said Rubio spokesman Alex Conant.

Boehner engaged on the issue Wednesday by suggesting he would favor a path to citizenship limited to immigrants brought to the country as children.

"This is about basic fairness," the Ohio Republican said. "You know, these children were brought here of no accord of their own, and frankly they're in a very difficult position. And I think many of our members believe that this issue needs to be addressed."

Democratic lawmakers and Obama are likely to resist that approach as insufficient.

Obama has called some House members, mostly Democrats, but he believes his most effective role is to keep the pressure on Republicans with a public campaign, administration officials said.

On Tuesday, the administration held a Spanish-language media day at the White House, hosting four anchors fromTelemundo and Univision stations in Los Angeles, New York, Denver and Dallas. Obama did eight-minute interviews with each, welcoming them with a hearty "mucho gusto" — a customary Spanish greeting — and launched into an argument that a "pathway to citizenship" was an essential component of any immigration reform.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Immigration bill 2013: House ‘gang’ punts immigration bill again
By: Seung Min Kim, POLITICO ~ July 17, 2013 11:23 AM EDT
Don’t expect the House immigration group to roll out its comprehensive reform bill this summer.

The bipartisan coalition of seven lawmakers has essentially agreed to punt the release of its legislation until at least September, according to several sources close to the private discussions.

Multiple sources described the thinking as this: Unveiling the bill now, shortly before the August recess, would leave the House group little time to educate the public and fellow members about its bill before lawmakers head home to their districts for the month-long break. It could also potentially open up the bill to attack without defenders.

(PHOTOS: Pols react to immigration deal)

And because House Republicans left last week’s immigration confab with no clear legislative strategy forward, that has bought the bipartisan group more time to fine-tune its bills. The Republican-led House appears unlikely to take up any immigration reform measures on the floor this month.

Still, though the House group’s comprehensive bill – standing at about 500 pages — has mostly been drafted, there are still some details that lawmakers have to iron out.

One issue is the matter of back taxes. The negotiators generally agree on the concept that current undocumented immigrants should pay what they owe in order to become legalized. But lawmakers haven’t finalized a plan for a “fair” system that determines who owes back taxes that doesn’t pose a burden on employers, according to one source.

(PHOTOS: At a glance: The Senate immigration deal)

Some of the border security details aren’t yet set in stone, either. Rep. John Carter (R-Texas), one of the group’s members, wants to add more helicopters as part of the border security plan, and the group is determining how to incorporate that into its proposal, according to a source.

Once the legislation is completely finished, the group plans to solicit additional co-sponsors for its measure, sources said.

The seven House negotiators are Democrats Xavier Becerra and Zoe Lofgren of California; John Yarmuth of Kentucky; and Luis Gutierrez of Illinois; and Republicans Carter and Sam Johnson of Texas and Mario Diaz-Balart of Florida.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Articles from July 17, 2013:

Bipartisan group in House closes in on immigration reform compromise

By Greg Sargent, The Washington Post ~ July 17, 2013

The bipartisan “gang of seven” group of House members negotiating over immigration is closing in on a plan that would include a path to citizenship, but would impose new triggers on citizenship — and new conditions on the initial legal status the undocumented would enjoy — that would put the bill significantly to the right of the Senate effort.

The details on the emerging plan — which were shared with me by an aide to one of the members of the gang — are important, because the tougher conditions it will impose could give some House Republicans a way to embrace comprehensive reform, at a time when many conservatives are still insisting on a “piecemeal” approach or are opposing any action at all. At the same time, it could conceivably be acceptable to some Dems and immigration advocates, too.

More broadly, the emerging plan could provide a test case, or an opportunity, for GOP leaders — such as John Boehner and Paul Ryan — to show they are prepared to lead on immigration by putting their weight behind a compromise proposal that has plenty both sides don’t like, and selling it to their caucus. The hope is it could be difficult for Republican leaders to flatly turn down this compromise if leading Latino Democrats — such as Reps. Luis Gutierrez and Xavier Becerra, both members of the gang — are willing to accept something to the right of the Senate bill on their side.

Here are the details, shared with me by the aide:

* The new plan would take the provisional legal status and right to work granted to the undocumented at the outset and reconfigure it as “probation.” The plan would require undocumented immigrants to admit having broken U.S. laws and admit guilt (in a civil sense), and enter into a probationary phase, during which they’d have very similar legal rights to the ones they would have under the provisional legal status in the Senate bill.

This concession is designed to help Republicans embrace comprehensive reform. It is meant to give Republicans a response to the charge of “amnesty” — the claim that a path to citizenship will reward lawbreakers — by instead requiring the undocumented to take themselves out of the shadows, admit wrongdoing, and put themselves on a species of probation.

* The plan would put in place a new trigger involving E-Verify that would be required to end that period of “probation.” The plan would stipulate that E-Verify — the system to allow businesses to determine eligibility to work in the U.S. — must be fully operational after five years. If it isn’t, all of those on probation would lose that status and revert to illegal status.

This is significantly tougher than the Senate bill, which requires E-Verify to be operational for the path to citizenship to be set in motion, but would not revoke provisional legal status if it isn’t operational.

And so this, too, is meant as a way for Republicans who say they want “hard triggers” to support citizenship. This is a hard trigger. And as many immigration advocates argue, it would be a “hard trigger” that directly impacts the border. After all, the thinking goes, if it’s harder for undocumented immigrants to get jobs (as E-Verify is designed to accomplish), they will be far less likely to take the risk of entering the country illegally.

However, at the same time, if E-Verify is operational after five years, undocumented immigrants would at that point leave the “probationary” stage and enter into a temporary legal phase for another five years. At the end of this they would be able to apply for a green card, putting them on a path to citizenship that would end five years later (a total of 15 years).

I was unable to determine who gets to say whether E-Verify is fully operational. But experts following this debate fully expect there to be no problems with getting it to that point in only several years.

Indeed, while the above provisions may strike some on the left as onerous, immigration advocates might be able to accept them, albeit grudgingly. That’s because this is a far more achievable trigger than the border security triggers some Republicans (such as John Cornyn) want — while it simultaneously deprives Republicans of another argument (no triggers!!!) against accepting citizenship.

“This House bill is to the right of the Senate bill — the hard trigger on E-Verify will give progressives conniptions and may well even split them,” Frank Sharry, the head of the pro-immigration America’s Voice, tells me. “But if Republicans can garner significant support for the legalization and citizenship in exchange, it will be hard for Democrats and reformers to say No, because the trigger is achievable. It might be the makings of a deal.”

I’m also told that haggling continues, because some Republicans on the gang of seven are still pushing for border triggers to be added to the bill. Thus far, however, Dems have held off that push, and the above could be what the final bill ends up looking like.

Ultimately, what this is all about is finding a way for House Republicans to get to conference negotiations with a bill that includes a path to citizenship. There is no telling whether a majority of House Republicans can bring themselves to embrace the above outline.

But the thinking among Dems on the gang of seven is that even if this framework is much more onerous than the Senate bill, it provides at least a chance that Republicans will end up supporting something with citizenship in it. And getting to conference with a package that includes citizenship is preferable to the alternative, because it increases the chances of a good bill at the end.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Se dividen los grupos pro reforma

Algunos grupos pro inmigrantes consideran que el enfoque actual de una reforma migratoria no es por lo que han estado luchando…

Por: Pilar Marrero / pilar.marrero@laopinion.com JULIO, 15, 2013

Un creciente número de activistas y organizaciones consideran que el proyecto de ley de reforma migratoria que se aprobó en el Senado es excesivamente restrictivo y punitivo, incluso comienzan a sugerir que quizá sería una buena idea que no llegara a ser ley si es que la Cámara de Representantes lo va a "empeorar" aún más.

Esta postura abre una brecha de opinión entre los grupos que aún apoyan la medida con la esperanza de que se apruebe por lo menos lo que hizo el Senado y los que opinan que esa versión en sí misma ya es inaceptable y nociva para la comunidad latina y para el país.

"¿Qué haría el veterano (congresista) Ed Roybal si se enfrentara a S744 (el proyecto que aprobó el Senado?", especula Antonio González, presidente del Instituto William C. Velásquez. "Creemos que el 'viejo', como se le llamaba cariñosamente, hubiera permitido que se hundiera este acuerdo porque hubiera sabido que no ley es mejor que una mala ley".

Roybal, el legendario congresista mexicoamericano del Este de Los Ángeles, padre de la actual congresista Lucille Roybal, era un genio negociador, pero en 1982 decidió "matar" con enmiendas inaceptables un proyecto de ley que antes apoyó a favor de la legalización de indocumentados, tras determinar que se habían añadido demasiadas cláusulas nocivas para los inmigrantes. En 1984, Roybal y sus aliados protestaron en la convención de su propio partido y se salieron en protesta, cuando el liderazgo "permitió que las fuerzas antiinmigrantes tomaran control del proyecto".

González se une a una lista de organizaciones y activistas que ya no tienen mucha fe en que este proyecto se pueda mejorar. Entre ellos está Presente y MAPA (Mexican American Political Association).

Otros están dando la voz de alarma aunque aún no están en abierta oposición, como Asian American Advancing Justice, antes conocida como Asian Pacific American Legal Center.

La lista de objeciones a la medida comienza con los miles de millones de dólares añadidos en el Senado para hacer el proyecto más "aceptable" para un puñado de republicanos en esa cámara. Inicialmente se propuso 5 mil millones adicionales, pero la versión final añadió otros 40 mil millones, aviones teledirigidos (drones), más muro y 20 mil patrulleros fronterizos.

"El gasto de miles de millones adicionales en una frontera que ya está segura es un error trágico", dice Stewart Kwoh, presidente de Advancing Justicequien también objeta otras partes de la medida, como las reformas a las categorías de inmigración familiar.

La realidad de que el proyecto del Senado enfrenta un futuro aún más difícil en la Cámara de Representantes, es una con la que los grupos que siguen empujando el proyecto tienen que vivir, dijo Angélica Salas, de la Coalición por los Derechos Humanos de los Los Angeles (CHIRLA).

"Claro que vale la pena", dijo Salas. "Tenemos un proyecto que legaliza a gente joven, con uno de los planes más generosos de legalización para dreamers Tenemos que continuar peleando, luchando contra los ataques de los antiinmigrantes. Los republicanos pidieron demasiado a cambio de muy pocos votos. Continuaremos organizando y usando el músculo político para lograr una política que merecemos".

Peter Schey, abogado de derechos civiles que representó por años a los excluidos por la amnistía de 1986, concluyó en un análisis de la ley que de los 11 millones de indocumentados sólo unos dos millones de trabajadores del campo y dreamers, más 4 ó 5 millones del resto terminarían legalizándose. El resto "quedarían excluidos" por lo complicado del proceso y por una serie de condiciones, como las del trabajo contínuo, pago de altas multas y lo extendido del proceso.

Roberto Lovato, de la organización Presente.org, que ha salido en oposición a la medida, dijo que los demócratas han cedido demasiado."¿Hasta cuando vamos a ceder?. Esta es una política fracasada en los últimos diez años y estamos cansado de este intercambio, más seguridad y más represión ¿a cambio de qué? No vale la pena".

Eliseo Medina, secretario y tesorero del Sindicato Internacional de Empleados de Servicio (SEIU), piensa que sería "una tragedia para los inmigrantes y para el país si se deja pasar esta oportunidad. "Mientras sigamos luchando tenemos oportunidad de ganar. De otra forma, condenamos a la gente a esta situación horrible que tenemos ahora".

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Articles from July 16, 2013:

House Republicans becoming more assertive on immigration reform

Robert Robb - Opinion, The Coloradoan, Jul. 14, 2013

Supporters of comprehensive immigration reform have discovered that there really is a thing in Washington, D.C., called a House of Representatives. Moreover, before a bill becomes a law, a majority of that body actually has to vote in favor of it.

Worse, the joint is controlled by Republicans who apparently didn’t get the memo saying that their only choice was capitulation or extinction. They actually think they have the option to exercise independent judgment on the issue.

And worst of all, Speaker of the House John Boehner has said that he has no desire to prematurely become ex-Speaker Boehner and won’t bring to the floor any immigration bill that doesn’t have the support of a majority of his caucus.

Suddenly, the bull market on comprehensive immigration reform has turned quite bearish. So, what to do, if you believe comprehensive immigration reform is right for the country (as I do)? The place to begin is with a realistic understanding of the state of Republican politics on the issue.

Reform advocates deluded themselves into believing that the last election, in which Barack Obama waxed Mitt Romney within the growing tide of Latino voters, had produced a Republican epiphany. According to the lore, Republicans now understood that they had to get on the right side of the immigration issue or go the way of the Whigs.

The comprehensive immigration reform approved by the Senate this year is considerably more conservative than the one approved in 2006. The border security and workplace enforcement provisions are much stronger, the path to citizenship more lengthy and difficult.

Yet the 2006 immigration reform bill got 23 Republican votes in the Senate; the 2013 version just 14. There were more Republicans in the Senate in 2006 than in 2013, but even on a percentage basis, Republican support for comprehensive immigration reform has gone down, not up. In 2006, 42 percent of Republican senators voted for it; in 2013, only 30 percent.

Comprehensive immigration reform advocates apparently believe that they can pressure, intimidate or shame House Republicans into supporting something that’s not materially different from what the Senate passed. That’s doubtful.

The political careers of most House Republican members won’t be affected if they never get another Latino vote. While the temperature on the issue is lower among populist conservatives, giving Republican members more room to maneuver if they want, the political risks remain decidedly more downside than upside. GOP House members aren’t going to make their political lives more difficult just to make that of the eventual GOP presidential nominee in 2016 easier.

Still, there is a sense of duty to resolve a festering and important issue. And a recognition that resolving this issue would give Republicans a better shot at a more respectable share of the Latino vote in races where it does matter.

So, what might win a House GOP majority on the merits?

Maybe nothing. It may be that a majority of House Republicans will oppose any legal status for current illegal immigrants no matter what.

On the other hand, the amendment offered by Texas Sen. John Cornyn, tying a pathway to citizenship to confirmation that 90 percent of illegal border crossers are being apprehended, received the support of over 90 percent of Republican senators. Importantly, Cornyn didn’t tie legal status to border security in his unsuccessful amendment, only a pathway to citizenship.

Another possibility might be to provide what amounts to permanent legal residency, but without an automatic pathway to citizenship. Current illegal immigrants could legally live and work in the United States. But the issue of citizenship would be left for another day.

I think that there should be a pathway to citizenship. But it would be better, at least for illegal immigrants if not for Democrats, to have legal status rather than a continuing political issue.

Comprehensive immigration reform advocates have said that a bill without a pathway to citizenship, or a pathway tied to a border security trigger, is unacceptable. But that was before they discovered that there really is a House of Representatives. And that Republicans didn’t lose every election in 2012.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scrap Delusional Immigration Bill and Start Over

By Ramesh Ponnuru , National Review Jul 15, 2013

The U.S. Senate has passed an immigration bill, and now all the great and good are urging the Republican-led House to pass it, too. It should decline.

That bill would substantially increase immigration into the U.S., especially the number of low-skilled immigrants -- something thatAmericans don’t want, that serves no pressing economic need and that will make assimilation harder.

The bill’s guest-worker programs subvert civic ideals by creating a large class of people who work here but can’t be full participants in American life. Its provisions against illegal immigration are weak -- the Congressional Budget Office’s most optimistic take suggests the bill would reduce future levels by only half -- and there is reason to think they will be set aside as previous enforcement promises have been.

The status quo, flawed as it is, is preferable to passing this bill. What would be better, though, would be for Congress to pass an alternative.

Like the current bill, an alternative would include provisions to enforce the laws against illegal immigration. But it could differ in refusing to simply throw money at the border, and it could take the problem of people who come to the country legally and then overstay their visas more seriously.

Also like the current bill, the alternative would include an amnesty for undocumented immigrants -- but a less sweeping one, applying only to people whose illegal stay began while they were children and who have otherwise followed the law. This amnesty shares the assumption of the so-called Dream Act proposed in several recent Congresses: These people didn’t do anything wrong and have no other home.

It would go further than the Dream Act, though, because it wouldn’t require young people to go to college or join the military to get permanent-residency rights. The path to citizenship for these young people should be more rapid than the one in the Senate bill, which stretches out the process for no purpose other than to be punitive.

Good Faith

The danger of a more sweeping amnesty is that it would encourage new illegal entrants by signaling that they will eventually be legalized, too. Congress should therefore hold off on that step while making sure that enforcement is up and running -- and that the political forces that are supportive of amnesty have an incentive to make enforcement work rather than subvert it. Limited amnesty would be a good-faith gesture to show that the promise of future legalization isn’t merely words.

An alternative should also take a different approach on legal immigration. It should encourage immigration by highly skilled individuals, especially scientists and engineers, for the sake of higher economic growth. It should at the same time cut back on immigration based on reuniting extended families, which is nice but shouldn’t be a national priority. In fact, we should stop reuniting adult siblings altogether until we have brought in the backlog of spouses and children of legal residents.

And, finally, the alternative shouldn’t include a guest-worker program. We don’t need to import a helot class.

Such a bill might have a better chance of being enacted. It would offer a better chance of enforcement actually taking place. Supporters of the current approach would have a better shot at getting the amnesty they want. And Silicon Valley would have a better chance of getting the high-tech workers it seeks.

To make such an alternative a reality, opponents of the current Senate bill have to hold firm and keep anything like it from passing the House. Having then failed for a third time with this approach, supporters of the bill might be willing to try a new one.

But opponents would have to do something else, too: Accept a limited amnesty now and a bigger one later. Some House Republicans would surely balk, thinking that any amnesty is a retreat from the rule of law and that there is no demand for such a package of reforms in their districts.

Right Instincts

Other Republicans, though, oppose the Senate bill for different reasons. They don’t think that every illegal immigrant already here should be deported or have to live in fear of it; they just don’t want today’s amnesty to lead to tomorrow’s.

They appreciate that bending on this issue could improve their image nationally, especially among Hispanics, and make it more likely that they will someday have a Republican Senate and president to work with; they’re just not willing to pass bad legislation for this political purpose.

Polls suggest that the public favors tougher enforcement, is open to amnesty for some undocumented immigrants and opposes major increases in immigration. The public seems to me to have the right instincts on all these matters, and it can get what it wants if Congress writes a new bill.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Articles from July 15, 2013:

How Momentum for Comprehensive Immigration Reform Collapsed in the House

It took only a month for conservatives to derail the Senate’s comprehensive approach and pathway to citizenship...

The National Journal, by Tim Alberta ~ July 14, 2013

What a difference one month makes.

It wasn't that long ago—June 5, in fact—that conservatives in the House of Representatives were pushing the panic button, convinced that the momentum behind comprehensive immigration reform was becoming irreversible. They had watched with horror as the Gang of Eight bill, which included a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants, sped through the Senate.

And on this day, at a special immigration summit hosted by the Republican Study Committee, they saw members of their own chamber—some longtime opponents of "amnesty"—coming around to the case for comprehensive immigration reform, and agreeing with GOP senators that Republicans must act quickly to address what had become both a policy dilemma and political nightmare.

It looked awfully bleak for the likes of Iowa Rep. Steve King, who emerged from that meeting red in the face and wondering aloud whether his fellow conservatives had lost their nerve -- if not their minds. He marveled at how "so many otherwise smart people" in his chamber were being seduced by Florida Sen. Marco Rubio.

He described that immigration summit, and the supposed ideological shift among his colleagues, as "surreal." To King, the writing was on the wall: The House was going to pass some form of comprehensive immigration reform, and probably sooner rather than later. But by July 10, everything had changed. Emerging from a conference-wide immigration meeting, King and his newly vocal band of conservative comrades were floating. After convening for more than two hours to plot the path forward on immigration reform, members were still not entirely sure what the House approach would be.

But this much they knew: The Senate bill was, as Speaker John Boehner said without equivocation, "dead on arrival." The House would act, the speaker vowed. But it would not follow the Senate.

There would be no comprehensive package. There would be no rush to approve legislation this year. And, in all likelihood, there would be no path to citizenship.

How did the dynamic shift so quickly?

It began with an exasperated, wits-end King on June 6. One day removed from the RSC summit, King began visiting his colleagues—the same ones who were silent during that meeting—and asking for their signatures to force another gathering. This one would be longer and more thorough, he told them, involving the entire conference. Soon he had collected the 50 signatures needed to trigger what he and other lawmakers would later describe as a "family meeting."

On June 12, a week after King launched his petition drive, Boehner's leadership team scheduled a July 10 special conference meeting to discuss immigration. (Leadership aides insist Boehner had long been planning such a session.)

With less than one month to organize the opposition, King went to work. He checked back with the conservative members who had signed his petition, asking them to attend an "anti-amnesty" rally the following Wednesday on the East Lawn of the Capitol. King wanted to bring his coalition out of the shadows, and perhaps even more, he wanted the grassroots opposition that was simmering beneath the political surface to be seen from the windows of the Capitol Building.

As King strategized behind the scenes, Boehner began feeling the heat in public. On June 17, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif., told a radio show that Boehner "should be removed as speaker" if he brought an immigration bill to the floor without the support of a majority of House Republicans, a violation of the so-called "Hastert Rule."

At a conference meeting the next day, Boehner promised his members that he would do no such thing. He also emphasized that immigration proceedings would go through regular order, with House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., working through a series of single-issue bills.

Speaking to reporters later that day, Boehner publicly repeated his promise, saying, "I don't see any way of bringing an immigration bill to the floor that doesn't have a majority support of Republicans."

Feeling a sudden surge of momentum, King prepared to capitalize on Boehner's pledge. The next afternoon, conservative activists swarmed around a makeshift stage on the Capitol lawn, listening as King and his chorus of conservative allies railed against "amnesty" for illegal immigrants and begged House Republicans to reject the Senate bill, which was on track to pass in the coming week.

Energized by the swollen crowd of activists, King took the stage and cried: "I can feel it! I can feel we're going to defend the rule of law! We're going to defend the Constitution! We're going to defend our way of life!"

The momentum, King said, was shifting in front of Washington's eyes. The camps were becoming clearer, King told National Journal during the rally. "But," he added, "ours is getting bigger."

As the tension intensified outside the Capitol, lawmakers also felt the pressure up close. Twice that week, the Heritage Foundation's Robert Rector—who had co-authored the organization's controversial study on comprehensive immigration reform—headlined private policy forums for members of the House GOP. Sparring with the CATO Institute's Alex Nowrasteh, his ideological counterpart, Rector did at those meetings what he had done for months in private visits with lawmakers: Lobby them against any comprehensive bill.

The following Thursday, Boehner again told reporters he would not bring any immigration bill up for a vote unless it had majority support. But this time, the pledge included any House-Senate compromise that could be ironed out in a conference committee. The speaker had now made it unequivocal: Either immigration reform would pass in a manner pleasing to his House majority, or it would not pass at all. There would be no back-door deal with the Senate.

Hours later, the Senate passed its bill on a 68-32 vote, with 14 Republicans joining a unanimous Democratic caucus. The response from across the Capitol erased any doubt about the House's willingness to follow suit. Boehner released a statement saying, "The House is not going to take up and vote on whatever the Senate passes." The speaker reiterated that Goodlatte, an outspoken proponent of incremental legislation, would continue with regular order, and that the House would focus on "real border security."

Rank-and-file members were not as passive. King called the Senate triumph "a meaningless political trophy." Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann said it amounted to "amnesty now, border security never." It wasn't just the hardliners, either. Alabama Rep. Martha Roby, not known as a firebrand, called the Senate bill a "monstrosity."

The House Republican Conference, having opened itself to modulating on immigration following Mitt Romney's drubbing among Hispanics the previous November, had hardened its position once more.

When the July 10 summit arrived, House Republicans were ready. Having recently returned from their districts, where they heard from constituents about immigration over the Fourth of July recess, lawmakers had specific expectations for the meeting.

In interviews with more than a dozen members prior to the immigration summit, there was remarkable consensus. On the policy side, they wanted leadership to focus on border security now and everything else later.

And on the process side, they wanted a renewed commitment to a slow, incremental approach that unhurriedly tackled one issue at a time. If those expectations were met, members said, the meeting would go fine.

By five-thirty that afternoon, the transformation was complete. Emerging from the same room he had one month earlier, King looked like a changed man. As his conservative comrades met with reporters to share their satisfaction with the meeting,—and declare victory for "the rule of law" in America—the Iowa lawmaker hung back, savoring the scene.

King didn't need to be quoted. His smile said it all.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Right lacks might on immigration

By: Seung Min Kim http://www.politico.com; July 15, 2013

As the immigration debate moves to the House, influential conservative groups are using their considerable clout to persuade Republican lawmakers to support reform.

So far, House Republicans aren’t biting.

Pro-business and religious groups — constituencies that typically hold sway in the GOP-controlled House — are flooding the TV airwaves, purchasing full-page newspaper ads and sending letters to Capitol Hill in support of reform. And they plan to do even more.

But many conservative lawmakers simply don’t feel the urgency. For a variety of reasons, the politics of the immigration debate are different than in the Senate, where a comprehensive bill passed with big margins in June. GOP members don’t see immigration as a top priority of their constituents — most of them aren’t hearing about it at home — and many don’t represent districts with heavy Hispanic populations.

One of the biggest splits, for instance, is between religious groups and some conservative lawmakers over a pathway to citizenship, which many of those organizations support as compassionate public policy.

“I am more likely to be persuaded by one person with a compelling argument than I am with a $20,000 media buy,” said Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), who chairs a key House subcommittee on immigration.

“If they’re bringing ideas … great. Do that any stage,” said Rep. James Lankford (R-Okla.). “But if it’s just a matter of making noise and ginning up members, that’s not gonna help.”

The diverse coalition of outside groups that have aligned in favor of rewriting immigration laws — from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to labor interests, from evangelicals to Silicon Valley — has been one major reason that, at least so far, reform has trod a smooth path in Congress.

But pro-reform Republican constituencies don’t reflect the entire conservative movement’s thinking on immigration. The conservative community is split — National Review Editor Rich Lowry and The Weekly Standard Editor Bill Kristol penned an op-ed urging Republicans to kill the Gang of Eight bill, while The Heritage Foundation has been a leading voice against the type of comprehensive reform that the Senate legislation calls for.

And the House is already proving to be a much more complicated maze than the Senate. Despite an all-hands-on-deck meeting Wednesday to help chart a path forward on immigration reform, Republicans left the confab with little specifics on a legislative strategy, a timeline or a resolution on significant policy provisions — such as what to do with the 11 million immigrants living in the country illegally.

California Rep. Devin Nunes, a pro-reform Republican, said the influence of outside groups could go one of two ways: They could be helpful, or they could reinforce what lawmakers already believe.

“It’s not a waste of money for all the consultants. They’ll all get rich,” Nunes said of the immigration-focused ad campaigns. “But at the end of the day, I’m not sure it’s going to sway anybody. I think it hardens people.”

Some of the biggest names in the GOP have publicly pressed the need to enact reform — from former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush to Americans for Tax Reform President Grover Norquist to 2012 vice presidential nominee Rep. Paul Ryan to former Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour.

“What is the Republican Party if it isn’t people who are somewhat religious and who run businesses and have jobs?” Norquist said in an interview. “That is the Republican Party.”

But some House conservatives are diverging from the broader GOP. One of the biggest policy splits that has emerged in the immigration debate is between many House Republicans and religious organizations.

The latter are loudly pushing a pathway to citizenship for the nation’s undocumented immigrants, arguing that it’s a symbol of compassion that is emblematic of their faith.

Four Christian groups — Sojourners, National Association of Evangelicals, The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention and the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference — stressed that point in letters distributed to House offices last week.

But House Republicans are deeply divided on the issue — with some lawmakers calling for a pathway to citizenship and others protesting any sort of legalization as “amnesty.” Many are trying to find middle ground.

Some GOP lawmakers simply aren’t buying the compassion argument.

“Look, I come from a community where the evangelical community matters greatly,” Gowdy, of South Carolina, said. “But you talk about compassion and equity, it’s also easy to ask: What are the equities of jumping ahead of a couple waiting in Ecuador for 20 years the way we ask them to?”

Pro-reform outside groups know they can’t use the same advocacy strategy in the House as they did in the Senate.

“We recognize the tactics and strategies we have to employ, or deploy, will be different,” said Dan Conston, the communications director for the American Action Network, one of the most prominent conservative groups in the immigration battle. “The Senate required a top-down approach where we recognize in the House that it will most likely be a bottom-up approach.”

That’s in sync with the message from key House Republicans, which is this: If you want me to hear you out on immigration, go out into my district.

“I put a lot of stock in what the U.S. Chamber or evangelical groups say, but I listen a lot more to my local business community, and that’s what they would expect. And I listen more to local congregations,” Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.) said. “If they really want to change attitudes here, they’re really going to have to change minds in a lot of districts right now.”

In its advocacy efforts, American Action Network has used a mix of member outreach, policy research and advertisements on air and online.

A conservative group with a different goal in the immigration debate — Heritage Action, the political arm of The Heritage Foundation — is centering its efforts on educating lawmakers and their aides against what it calls an “amnesty-first” approach and conveying that message to their constituents.

In particular, Heritage Action is warning House Republicans against going to conference with the Senate.

“I think their message is falling flat,” the group’s communications director, Dan Holler, said on pro-reform groups.

It remains to be seen whether conservative groups backing immigration reform will muscle their way into primary battles by threatening to challenge Republicans who don’t support their cause. So far, there’s little indication that will happen.

House Republicans, even those who want to get immigration reform done, are warning outside groups against going down the primary path.

“If you have to go into this issue and threaten people, bully people, what that proves to me is that you can’t, frankly, win on the arguments,” said Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-Fla.), who has been negotiating a comprehensive immigration package with Democrats for years.

Instead, conservative groups — as they have in the Senate — are more likely to run ads providing cover for House Republicans who decide to stick their necks out in favor of immigration reform.

American Action Network already did that for Republican Sen. Marco Rubio with a $50,000 ad buy in Florida earlier this month, thanking the Gang of Eight senator for writing an immigration bill that includes a significant uptick in border security.

And a conservative super PAC, Republicans for Immigration Reform, is designed to “provide political support” for GOP politicians that push reform. Earlier this year, it aired an ad applauding Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), a Gang member who is up for reelection in 2014.

Still, many House Republicans remain unconvinced that lobbying from traditionally Republican allies will do much to influence the immigration debate.

When asked whether efforts from business groups and similar constituencies would help prod members to support reform, conservative Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-Kan.) said: “I presume it’s the same folks who spent $100 million on the last presidential campaign and didn’t win either.”

“It’s an insider strategy, an inside Washington strategy,” added Huelskamp, a frequent thorn in the side of House GOP leadership. “It’s not grass-roots; it’s grass-tops.”

And then there are other lawmakers who believe outside influences can only help.

Rep. Jeff Denham (R-Calif.), who has talked privately and publicly on the need to enact reform, said outside groups such as business and religious organizations should “absolutely” do more in the immigration battle.

“They’ve got a great opportunity to have an extreme amount of effect in this debate,” Denham said. “As long as we are focused on policy and not on politics.”

(PHOTOS: 20 quotes on immigration reform <http://href.li/?http://www.politico.com/gallery/2012/11/20-quotes-on-immigration-reform/000551-007827.html> )

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Group opposing immigration bill plans full-scale campaign on House

Leading activist group NumbersUSA is preparing a fax and phone blitz as the immigration bill moves into the House, where it is less popular than it was in the Senate.

By Brian Bennett and Joseph Tanfani, July 13, 2013,

WASHINGTON — The day after the Senate passed its immigration overhaul in June, leading opponent Roy H. Beck convened his top strategists at a corner table of a pricey restaurant to discuss what went wrong and to plan ways to stop the bill from becoming law.

They brainstormed over rockfish and steak for 2 1/2 hours on how to derail any talk in the House of legalizing millions of undocumented immigrants — which Beck and his supporters view as unacceptable amnesty.

"Believe me, we are expecting a fight," Beck said later.

Beck heads NumbersUSA, arguably the most powerful advocacy group opposing the immigration overhaul. Its political muscle comes from tens of thousands of devoted supporters who can be mustered at short notice to protest at public gatherings and to swarm congressional offices with angry phone calls and faxes.

In 2007, when Congress last tried overhauling immigration law, NumbersUSA flooded lawmakers' offices with a million faxes in opposition. The outpouring caught the overhaul's supporters by surprise, and helped set off a wave of conservative resistance that killed the bill.

Now Beck says the group will mount a full-scale assault on the Republican-led House, where immigration reform is far less popular than in the Senate. The plan is likely to include another fax and phone blitz, and targeted TV ads in some districts encouraging supporters to speak out at town hall meetings, along with other lobbying efforts.

"On a grass-roots level, it is all about trying to hold the Republicans" in line, Beck said.

Pro-immigration reform forces, including some Republicans, are fighting to hold NumbersUSA in check.

They note that NumbersUSA, which shares a $6.5-million budget with a related foundation, seeks to drastically cut both illegal and legal immigration with the goal of stopping U.S. population growth. Some of NumbersUSA's money comes from groups that support Planned Parenthood and other abortion rights groups that are anathema to many social conservatives, as well as environmental organizations that work on climate change.

"They are influential because they are masking themselves as conservative," said Alfonso Aguilar, executive director of the Latino Partnership for Conservative Principles, a Washington-based advocacy group that works to integrate Latinos into the conservative movement. "Say where you stand on population control and global warming. You will see the reaction with conservatives. That's the problem. The dishonesty."

Critics on both the left and right say NumbersUSA's clout has waned as public opinion has shifted. Last month's 68-32 vote in the Senate to approve the immigration bill proved that, they say.

"While NumbersUSA might credit themselves with killing immigration reform in 2007, they can also credit themselves with helping Republicans lose the 2012 election" because of its hard-line stance, said Domenic Powell, senior organizer for Center for New Community, a Chicago-based advocacy group. "I think the Republican Party has recognized that and isn't offering them the same echo chamber."

Beck, 65, a former newspaper reporter in Michigan, started NumbersUSA in 1996 with John Tanton, an ophthalmologist who was prominent in environmental and zero-population-growth groups but who was accused of associations with white supremacist groups.

For the first six years, contributions to Beck's group were funneled through Tanton's nonprofit foundation, U.S. Inc. Another Tanton-backed group, ProEnglish, which lobbies to make English the official U.S. language, still shares office space with NumbersUSA in Arlington, Va.

Beck says his group has been independent of Tanton, who suffers from advancedParkinson's disease, since 2002. He says pro-immigration reform forces use Tanton to suggest NumbersUSA is anti-Latino. That isn't true, he says.

"To talk about changing immigration numbers is to say nothing against the individual immigrants in this country," Beck wrote on the group's website. "Illegal aliens deserve humane treatment even as they are detected, detained and deported."

Beck portrays NumbersUSA as a populist movement fighting the nation's most powerful interests. In his telling, they include "the union establishment, the business establishment, the media establishment with their editorial policies, the religious establishment — Jewish, Protestant, Catholic, evangelical; the Republican establishment, the Democratic establishment."

Beck says adding millions of immigrant workers would increase unemployment, depress wages and worsen economic disparity. In his view, neither political party stands up for low-wage workers.

"You've got the Democrats who believe their future is in having a larger and larger population with shallow roots in this country and who need a nanny state, and you have the Republicans who are working for the robber barons of today," he said in an interview at his office.

Opponents counter that reforming immigration would boost the economy and lift wages. They argue that Beck's populist talk is a smoke screen for his anti-immigration views.

"They don't do anything to fight for low-income American workers other than fight to derail immigration reform," said Frank Sharry, executive director of America's Voice, a Washington-based group that seeks immigration reform. "It makes it pretty obvious that it's not that they care about American workers, but that they don't like immigrants."

Beck said he didn't foresee the Senate passing the immigration bill last month, believing his war room operation would pressure vulnerable members, as it had in the past. The names and phone numbers of all 100 senators are written — Republicans in red, Democrats in blue — on long rolls of white paper still tacked to a wall at the NumbersUSA offices.

As the debate heated up, members and supporters — using phone numbers provided by NumbersUSA — made as many as 20,000 calls in one day to lawmakers. The group's leaders said they overloaded some Senate phone lines.

But Beck hadn't counted on a last-minute "border surge" plan that included $46 billion to boost security along the southwestern border, he said. It helped win votes from eight Republicans as well as every Democrat.

As he talked strategy, Beck pointed across the Potomac to Washington, where a dark thundercloud hovered over the white monuments along the National Mall, all the way down to the Capitol.

"Wait a minute, wait a minute," Beck said, seeing an omen. "I think the Senate office buildings are in darkness, in shadow, but the House office buildings are brilliant. That is a good sign. It is a good sign."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“Border Surge” Chafes Border Lawmakers

House Members Near Mexico Worry a Crackdown Will Alienate a Key Trading Partner…

By KRISTINA PETERSON kristina.peterson@dowjones.com, The WSJ July 15, 2013

WASHINGTON—Efforts in Congress to beef up border security are drawing criticism from a group with an ear close to the ground: the lawmakers who represent House districts along the border with Mexico.

The Senate recently included what many called a "border surge" of new federal agents, fencing and other measures as part of an immigration-law overhaul it passed, and the House is expected to call for additional security provisions. Those measures show that the border discussion has taken a wrong turn, say some of the eight House Democrats who, along with one Republican, represent communities on the nearly 2,000-mile Southern border.

A U.S. Border Patrol agent near La Joya, Texas, earlier this year.

These lawmakers, whose districts tilt more Democratic and Hispanic than many others in border states, worry that a crackdown, and the tone of debate surrounding it, will alienate Mexico, one of the country's most important trading partners. They argue that instead of pumping billions of dollars into efforts that they say would militarize the border, the government could divert some of that money to make legal crossings easier and cut down on delays at land crossings, which they say create a drag on the economy.

"All other arguments about defense aside, just the symbolic nature of constructing more fence along the border of a country with whom we have such great business relationships doesn't make any sense," said Rep. Filemon Vela, one of five Democrats to represent the Texas border with Mexico.

Most House Republicans argue that tighter border enforcement is necessary to halt the flow of illegal immigrants before lawmakers can consider a pathway to citizenship to people already in the U.S. illegally.

Rep. Henry Cuellar (D., Texas) said he recently returned from a three-day trip to Mexico, where lawmakers and business officials were astounded by the tone of the border debate. "The first thing they said was, 'What are you all up to there in the United States? What are you trying to do to us?' " he said.

The border-security provisions of the Senate bill have caused tensions among Democrats in the House. Earlier this month, Mr. Vela resigned from the Congressional Hispanic Caucus in protest of its support for the Senate bill.

"The Senate bill perpetuates an environment of fear and separation," Mr. Vela wrote in the Houston Chronicle.

The sole Republican to represent a border district also has concerns. Adding more fencing "just doesn't work," said Rep. Steve Pearce of New Mexico. However, strengthening border security through other methods, including more sophisticated technology, is popular at home, said Mr. Pearce, whose district is more than half Hispanic.

"Pretty much everybody in our district would like to see [more] border security—Hispanics and non-Hispanics alike," he said in an interview.

The "border surge" amendment added to the Senate bill to generate more GOP support would double the number of Border Patrol agents to nearly 40,000 and require 700 miles of fencing to be completed, among other measures. The Congressional Budget Office said those provisions would cost about $40 billion over 10 years.

House Republicans made clear last week that their first step in passing any roster of immigration bills would begin with attempts to reduce illegal immigration at the border. Many say the Senate measure doesn't do enough to tighten the flow of immigrants, with some on Capitol Hill citing continued illegal immigration after a 1986 law that legalized many immigrants and included measures to stop illegal crossings. "The question is can we actually get the border secure and not have this happen again?" Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.) said on NBC Sunday. "We need to seriously beef up the border security part."

Several House Republicans are focusing on curtailing illegal immigration by giving state and local authorities new powers to enforce federal immigration laws. States have certain, limited powers to enforce federal immigration law, but courts have voided some of their efforts.

Expanding the scope of state powers would help enforce the law, some lawmakers say. More fencing alone won't, for example, help winnow the number of people remaining illegally in the U.S. after overstaying their visas, said Rep. Trey Gowdy (R., S.C.), a member of the House Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Gowdy, a former federal prosecutor, said he was sensitive to concerns that some might perceive officers' actions as racial profiling.

"I have seen the destructiveness when any constituency does not trust law enforcement," he told Bloomberg on Friday. But Mr. Gowdy didn't see that concern as a reason to cordon off immigration enforcement from local authorities. "We trust state and local law enforcement with every other category of crime," he said.

Border-district Democrats have stepped up efforts to shift the focus of the immigration debate to the economic impacts of actions along the border. "We have to dispel this myth that the border is primarily a threat," said Rep. Beto O'Rourke (D., Texas), whose office dispatched to every House lawmaker an analysis of how U.S.-Mexico trade affects all U.S. states.

Spending money to speed legal crossings at border entry-points would help commerce and boost the flow of people trying to enter the U.S. to shop, said Rep. Ron Barber (D., Ariz.). He said entrance points on the Arizona border can have waits of nearly three hours.

"We have to do better than that," said Mr. Barber, who has invited a bipartisan group of lawmakers to come visit part of his 84-mile stretch of Arizona border next month.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Senate Immigration Bill Better Than the Status Quo?

By Daniel Costa
July 12, 2013, 12:33 p.m.

Senate passage of immigration reform legislation, S 744, begs the question: Is it better than current law? Probably, but the answer could change.

Parts of the bill do improve both the immigration system and the labor market. New rules limit abuses of internationally recruited workers, make union organizing easier and protect immigrants from employer retaliation. S 744 also prioritizes permanent immigrants with skills over family connections and creates a Bureau of Immigration and Labor Market Research that would make the system more data-driven. And regularizing unauthorized migrants would bring exploitable workers and their families out of the shadows, allowing them to assert their rights and bargain collectively. Both immigrants and Americans would benefit as wages rise, and law-abiding employers would no longer have to compete in a race to the bottom.

But much more should have been achieved.

Applicants for Registered Provisional Immigrant status — the status afforded to qualifying unauthorized immigrants in S 744 — must pay processing fees and back federal taxes, as well as meet minimum income and employment tests, and then go to the back of the imaginary immigration “line.” The result? An estimated one-fourth to one-half of the 11 million unauthorized migrants might never attain legal status — dooming us to repeat history. The amnesty legislation in 1986 offered a speedier and more direct path to legalization. Yet it turned out to be too restrictive, leaving out 2 million to 3 million immigrants, who became the core of today’s unauthorized population.

The new Bureau of Immigration and Labor Market Research should be an independent agency that can give Congress the information needed to adjust immigration levels to real-world economic conditions, while increasing transparency and public support. Instead, S 744 limits its role and places it in an inappropriate Homeland Security subagency with no research or analytic expertise and that serves corporate clients.

Too much of the bill is corporate giveaways, at the expense of wage growth and job opportunities for U.S. workers. A massive guest worker program will fill year-round jobs in lower-skilled occupations like housekeeping and landscaping, and a separate, existing seasonal program for similar jobs will double in size. The Senate apparently doesn’t care that wages have been flat and unemployment in double digits for years in these occupations.

The tech sector’s lobbying firestorm — based on unsupportable claims about severe labor shortages in science, technology, engineering and math fields — paid off. S 744 nearly triples the troubled H-1B guest worker program without fixing its loopholes and abuses despite little evidence of a high-tech labor shortage. Most H-1B guest workers are employed in information technology jobs, where wages are stuck at 1990s levels and unemployment remains above pre-recession levels.

To the benefit of contractors and supplier firms, the bill wastefully spends $46 billion for more drones, equipment and manpower to further militarize the southern border. The additional 20,000 border patrol agents the bill mandates will have little to do since the net flow of unauthorized migrants from Mexico is already near zero and, because of Mexican demographic trends, is unlikely to increase significantly.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Articles from July 14, 2013:

The California exception on immigration

The state's House GOP representatives have to face the electoral math on immigration reform.

By Harold Meyerson, LAT’s Op-Ed July 11, 2013

The fight for immigration reform has landed in the lap of House Republicans, which is a bad place for it to land. Though it's hard to see a way that Republicans can retake the White House as long as they remain intent on denying citizenship to Latinos and Asians who are in the country illegally, the House Republicans seem blissfully indifferent to political consequences. By controlling just one house of Congress, they have discovered, they can bring government either to a standstill or close to it, and increasingly, that seems to be their raison d'etre.

The House Republicans have shown themselves to be indifferent not just to the needs of the nation but to the needs of their party and even the credibility of their own speaker. They seem to fear nothing save their own defeat, and for most House Republicans, nestled comfortably in gerrymandered districts, that means the only thing they have to fear is a primary challenge from some tea party zealot if they ever vote for something that also has the support of President Obama or congressional Democrats.

The big exception is California.

Of the state's 53 House members, 15 are Republicans, and those 15 are among the few House GOP-niks who have to worry about more than a primary challenge from their right. Thanks to the nonpartisan redistricting that state voters established by initiative, a number of those 15 have districts that are neither safe nor overwhelmingly white. Indeed, a number have districts that are heavily Latino or Asian, and that doesn't bode well for the representatives' long-term (and in some cases, short-term) electoral prospects if they oppose a path to citizenship for those who are in the country illegally.

Of the 234 House Republicans, only 38 represent districts with populations that are at least 20% Latino — but 12 of those 38 come from California. Nine of these Californians represent districts that are at least one-third Latino; three of them represent districts in which Latinos have a plurality; seven represent districts where whites make up less than 50% of the population.

In David Valadao's San Joaquin Valley district, for example, 19% of the residents are white, while 71% are Latino. Obama carried the district last year with 55% of the vote.

In Gary G. Miller's Inland Empire district, which Obama carried with 57% of the vote, Latinos outnumber whites by 49% to 30%. In two other Los Angeles-area districts, Howard P. "Buck" McKeon's in northern Los Angeles County and Ed Royce's in Orange County, Obama won 48% and 47% of the vote, respectively. Latinos constitute 35% of the population in McKeon's district. They come to 33% in Royce's, and Asians constitute an additional 39%.

There are, to be sure, disproportionately fewer Latino voters than Latino residents, both because some aren't citizens and because so many Latinos are young. The median age of U.S. Latinos is 27; of U.S. whites, it's 42. Latinos make up 51% of Californians younger than 18. Today's population percentages are likely to become tomorrow's voter participation percentages.

In other words, for at least half if not more of California's Republican House members, a vote against citizenship for those who are in the country illegally, or the Republican caucus' refusal to let such a vote be taken, is politically suicidal — if not in 2014, then by the decade's end. Then again, GOP congressional representatives indifferent to winning the White House may be just as indifferent to the prospect of their party losing their districts once they've stepped down.

But even if the most rudimentary kind of enlightened self-interest is beyond many House Republicans, there remains the question of the duty of an elected representative, and whether he is the tribune merely of the electorate or of the entire population of his district.

The nine California Republicans whose districts are at least one-third Latino, not to mention those with heavily Asian districts, have thousands of constituents for whom immigration reform means that they, their friends or relations will be able to come out of the shadows and live more productive and normal lives. They may not factor just yet in these Republicans' electoral calculations, but they should certainly factor in these Republicans' economic and moral calculations.

Just how many constituents can a representative safely, or ethically, imperil? That's the question, like it or not, before California's House Republicans.

Harold Meyerson is editor at large of the American Prospect and an op-ed columnist for the Washington Post.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parties seek advantage in immigration dance
By: Jake Sherman and Ginger Gibson, July 11, 2013 07:25 PM EDT

Now that House Republican leaders have committed to bite-size immigration reform, the real political calculus begins.

Speaker John Boehner and his team are feeling the pressure to pass an immigration bill and probably need Democratic votes to do so. And while Democrats by and large prefer a comprehensive bill like the Gang of Eight plan, they could supply enough votes to get something out of the House and into conference, with their sole purpose of hoping it comes back looking more like the Senate bill. But for conservatives, who by and large loathe the Senate’s legislation, that might help move the GOP into a process that many fear will end up a disaster.

Boehner says the House cannot pass the Senate’s immigration bill, which passed with 68 votes in the upper chamber. So without a House product, immigration reform would go the way of a grand deficit deal, sequester replacement and highway bill.

(Also on POLITICO: The start of the filibuster's end?)

Top lawmakers have already begun informally whipping Democratic members and talking to Democratic leaders about proposals like beefed-up border security, E-Verify, more high-tech visas and some pathway to legal status.

The theory is that each bill would pass with a different coalition: Some Democratic members will feel compelled to vote for legislation to get to conference; some lawmakers will have the political compulsion to support border security; others want more visas for high-tech companies.

If they are able to pass those measures, Republicans would then draw up guidelines for what they can accept from a conference negotiation, and appoint negotiators.

But there’s another political calculation at play: if a House/Senate conference blows up, the death of immigration reform won’t fall squarely on Republicans. Fingers will be pointing in all directions much like the supercommittee of 2011.

Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) — who is driving the immigration process far more than Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.), and maybe more than Boehner — thinks this is a winning approach.

“We need to have a coalition, and we think we have a path to getting to conference, to getting a good bill,” Ryan told POLITICO. “We’re going to be establishing minimums for the House majority to pass legislation. This isn’t like the fiscal cliff, where there’s some deadline, some backstop. The speaker will do what the majority of the majority needs.”

Asked if Democrats should vote for these bills, Ryan said “they’ll have to if they want to get to conference.”

But there are plenty of skeptics. Rep. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) said he would “potentially” vote against the bills, which he said he considers “otherwise meritorious.” The issue is what can happen after any House votes.

“I don’t see why we go to conference when we’re not worlds apart but galaxies apart,” Cotton said in an interview. “It’s not the Senate bill, it’s the Senate approach.”

The variety of opinion is evident in the Democratic Party, as well.

“I think Democrats are pretty united on a comprehensive bill, path to citizenship,” said House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer of Maryland. “But I don’t want to preclude — I don’t know exactly what they’re going to do … I don’t want to prejudge where we are, first of all I want to talk to our people.”

For Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), an ally of Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), that’s out of the question.

“I won’t vote for an immigration bill that doesn’t have a pathway for citizenship for undocumented aliens,” Waxman told POLITICO. “I wouldn’t vote for a bill that Republicans might put out to throw more money for police at the border and hope it comes back to be a decent bill. I’m not going to vote until it’s a decent bill.”

Pelosi, for her part, said she told Boehner that she’s “respectful of any way he wants to bring it to the floor, [in] parts, or in whole or whatever it is.”

“But we really should get moving on it and see where there are areas of agreement so we can pass a bill and then go to conference and have further discussion,” she told reporters Thursday.

There’s another wrinkle — the House’s bipartisan Gang of Seven bill is getting new life. Boehner is under pressure from some Republicans and Democrats to give the legislation a chance in his chamber. Ryan has told Republicans privately he likes elements of the Gang of Seven bill — a huge endorsement in the House GOP Conference. So if all the piecemeal bills fail, the House could find itself voting on that as-of-yet-unreleased bill.

“The speaker has encouraged us to continue our effort — and all seven of us are continuing to do that,” said Rep. John Yarmuth (D-Ky.), a member of that group. “So I think there’s still a possibility of that on final analysis — there’s no guarantee that any of their bills can pass.”

Yarmuth said he “won’t support piecemeal” because he doesn’t want to “betray the pledge we’ve all made to support a comprehensive approach.”

Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.), who has the White House’s ear on strategy, said “it’s not going to work” if you want to pass small parts of bills on a week-by-week basis.

But even in the tightknit gang, opinion isn’t uniform. Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), another member of the group, said she will “take each bill on its merits.”

Senate Democrats and the White House do not prefer the idea of an unruly conference. The White House is fearful that it would be used to kill the bill. Their goal is to make Boehner have no choice but to put the Senate bill on the floor — laughable if you ask his aides.

Obama, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) discussed a plan Thursday to get the supportive coalition — business, labor, Hispanics — moving on a plan of action that can be put into motion over the August recess, according to sources briefed on the meeting.

The goal: convince swing Republicans and make it so uncomfortable for Republicans who oppose immigration reform that they pressure Boehner to get it off their plate.

Senate Democrats are hopeful their House colleagues stand strong against the small-bore bills, while the far right opposes them as well.

That leaves the Senate bill as the last option, which Democrats say could pass if Boehner allowed it to come up for a vote.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Articles from July 11, 2013:

Young Immigrants Stage Citizenship Ceremony at the Capitol

By JULIA PRESTON, NYT’s July 10, 2013

WASHINGTON – Four hundred young immigrants gathered near the Capitol on Wednesday to hold their own version of a citizenship ceremony, kicking off a nationwide campaign to push legislation through the House of Representatives that would offer eventual citizenship to millions of undocumented immigrants.

With House Republicans planning to meet later Wednesday to plot their immigration strategy, the only certainty was that they would not take up a sweeping bill like the one the Senate passed last month, which included a pathway to citizenship for the 11 million immigrants in the country illegally. But while House Republican leaders were trying to lower expectations and weighing whether to tackle smaller pieces of an immigration overhaul, the young people, who call themselves Dreamers, were increasing their demands.

Leaders of United We Dream, the largest national network of young immigrants, said they would not accept any plan that offered citizenship to them but not to other immigrants who are in the country illegally.

“We have come today to claim our citizenship,” Lorella Praeli, a leader of the organization, told the crowd. “2013 is not the time for separate but equal. It is not the time for legalization for some and citizenship for others.”

Some supporters and opponents of an immigration overhaul were starting their ground games in Washington this week for a House debate that has no clear direction and could be influenced by populist pressure from both sides.

The young immigrants wield wide influence among Latinos, Asians and immigrants. An Obama administration program giving them reprieves from deportation has an 86 percent approval rating among Latinos, a Pew Hispanic Center poll found, and it drove Latino voters to help re-elect President Obama.

The youths’ message of growing up in this country without legal papers while striving for education and betterment is an appealing American narrative, which they use to maximum political effect. Some Republican leaders have suggested there might be a compromise in offering them a separate, fast track to legal status and perhaps citizenship, without the same deal for other undocumented immigrants.

But as the legislation moved to the House, the young people have encountered strong resistance. House Republicans made their position clear last month when they took a largely symbolic vote to defund the deportation reprieve program.

In response, the youths’ strategy is to stress their patriotism and family values. In a carefully choreographed move on Wednesday, they created a tableau with the Capitol in the background and American flags on all sides. Arriving on buses from around the country, they wore suits and party dresses for the big day of their ceremonial swearing-in.

They stood up, raised their right hands and swore an oath they had written for the occasion. “I hereby pledge to live out the highest values of this land,” they said, and ended, none too modestly, with: “I am the future of this nation. I am the American dream.”

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NO A LA PROPUESTA S 774
ORGANIZAR HACIA UNA POLÍTICA DE INMIGRACIÓN JUSTA Y HUMANA

El Frente Unido de Inmigrantes se pronuncia en contra de la propuesta del Senado S774 por las siguientes razones:

1. Militariza la frontera México - Estados Unidos creando más muros, duplica el número de agentes de la patrulla fronteriza, e incrementa el presupuesto para cárceles y centros de detención para personas indocumentadas. La propuesta incrementaría a 40,000 los guardias de la patrulla fronteriza y 700 millas de alambrado. Esta legislación aumentaría el número de muertes en la frontera, declararía un estado policiaco en las comunidades fronterizas del sur de Estados Unidos, incrementaría las redadas, deportaciones, detenciones injustificadas y separaría aún miles de familias. En suma aumenta la criminalización de la inmigración.

2. Establece el sistema E-Verify como un sistema de verificación del status migratorio de todos los empleados a nivel nacional. Este sistema es un modelo discriminatorio contra las personas con apellidos hispanos o de apariencia mexicana u otros migrantes de color. Afectaría igualmente a los inmigrantes o ciudadanos.

3. Otorgaría un status temporal a las personas que hayan llegado a Estados Unidos sin documentos hasta el 31 de diciembre del 2011, sin que hayan cometido un delito mayor o tres faltas menores, pagado los impuestos y una multa inicial de 500 dólares. Estas personas aunque podrán salir y retornar al país tendrán que esperar mínimo 10 años para obtener la residencia permanente, si es que pueden demostrar ingresos mayores al 125% del nivel de pobreza y mantener un trabajo estable, sin estar desocupado por más de 60 días. Además de prohibirles el uso de servicios públicos. En el mismo sentido se les cancelaria todos los créditos acumulados bajo el sistema de seguridad social y tendrían que empezar desde cero a acumular nuevos créditos. En caso de que no se cumplieran esos dos requisitos, las personas perderán su residencia provisional y serían sujetos a un proceso de deportación.

4. La llamada vía a la ciudadanía quedará abierta después de 13 años, tiempo que ocuparan para obtener la residencia permanente y después 5 años para solicitar la ciudadanía. Solamente para las personas que puedan cumplir con los requisitos establecidos por la propuesta del Senado, porque ya desde ahora se podría prever que el número de personas que alcance la ciudadanía estadounidense estaría muy acotada significativamente. Para que las personas con un status provisional tendrán que esperar en la línea para obtener la residencia permanente hasta que el secretario de estado certifique que visas disponibles para aquellas personas que solicitaron su residencia antes de que sea proclamada la ley de seguridad fronteriza, oportunidad económica y modernización de la inmigración.

5. La propuesta del senado resolvería de manera más sencilla la situación de los jóvenes soñadores que podrían obtener la residencia permanente en cinco años si continúan en la escuela o se adhieren a las fuerzas armadas.

6. Se estima que entre los jóvenes soñadores y los trabajadores agrícolas, la propuesta del senado podría legalizar a 2 millones de personas. Lo que se refiere a los trabajadores agrícolas tendrían que permanecer en la realización de esos trabajos y no tener movilidad hacia otro tipo de empleo.

7. El dilema que deja la propuesta de ley del Senado son los aproximadamente 7 millones de indocumentados que no calificarían para ningún beneficio migratorio y solamente les espera sumergirse en la sociedad de manera más marginal, y a todos aquellos que tengan el infortunio de ser capturados por el ICE, sometidos a detenciones en cárceles privadas de inmigración o a deportaciones masivas y sumarias que detrás de si dejarían mayor separación de familias, niños separados de sus padres, colocándolos en hogares temporales y desde luego un aumento en los operativos anti-inmigrantes en los centros de trabajo y las comunidades.

8. Si esto fue lo que salió del Senado, nos horroriza pensar lo que se podría producir en la Cámara de diputados donde la extrema derecha del partido republicano controla la conversación y el debate. Ya la cámara baja ha aprobado en el comité judicial, convertir en una ofensa criminal entrar a los estados Unidos sin autorización-como lo proponía la ley H4437-de Sensembrener y que a quien se le identifique como pandillero jamás podrá legalizarse.

Ante el inminente debate en la cámara de representantes proponemos lo siguiente:

1. Llamar a los congresistas latinos y del Cacus progresista a pronunciarse contra la propuesta del senado S774, ya que estarían validando la creación de un estado policiaco en estados Unidos, que se ha proclamado la tierra de la libertad y oportunidad.

2. Llamar nuevamente al Presidente Obama a proclamar un cese inmediato a las deportaciones y separación de familias.

3. Llamar al congreso a restablecer la ley 245(i) para ajustar el status de los padres indocumentados de niños ciudadanos estadounidenses que han alcanzado la edad de 21 años, ajustar el estatus migratorio de los cónyuges de ciudadanos estadounidenses que se encuentran irregularmente en el país.

4. Otorgar la residencia permanente inmediata a los jóvenes que han sido aprobados con la Acción Diferida, así como a todos los que recibido el Status Temporal Protegido (TPS).

5. Otorgar la posibilidad de obtener una legalización a todas las personas que se encuentran en el país de manera irregular bajo las mismas condiciones que se establecieron en la Ley de Reforma de Inmigración y Control promulgada en 1986, solamente cambiando las fechas de elegibilidad.

También nos pronunciamos por:

1. Derogar Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996.

2. Derogar las sanciones a los patrones de la ley de 1986.

3. Poner fin a la política de la militarización de la Frontera.

4. Llamar a Estados Unidos a subscribir la Convención Internacional por los derechos de los Inmigrantes y sus familias.

5. Formar una comisión de los congresistas y la sociedad civil para formular una política de inmigración justa y humana.

Join us in this prolonged campaign for driver's licenses and visas for our families. The first step in making change is to join an organization that pursues the change we desire. We welcome you to our ranks.

Other organizations leading this movement include: Hermandad Mexicana Latinoamericana, Mexican American Political Association (MAPA), Liberty and Justice for Immigrants Movement, National Alliance for Immigrant's Rights, and immigrant rights coalitions throughout the U.S..

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Republicans in House Resist Overhaul for Immigration

By ASHLEY PARKER and JONATHAN WEISMAN, NYT’s July 10, 2013

WASHINGTON — Meeting for the first time as a group to hash out their approach to immigration, House Republicans on Wednesday came down overwhelmingly against a comprehensive overhaul of the nation’s immigration laws, putting in jeopardy the future of sweeping legislation that includes a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants.

Despite the resistance, Speaker John A. Boehner warned about the steep price of inaction, telling House Republicans that they would be in a weaker political position against a bipartisan Senate coalition and President Obama if they did nothing to answer the immigration measure passed by the Senate last month.

House Republicans huddled in a crucial two-and-a-half-hour session in the basement of the Capitol as their leaders tried to devise some response to the demand for immigration legislation, especially the Senate provision that would grant a path to citizenship for the 11 million undocumented immigrants already in the country. The bill also mandates tough border security provisions that must be in place before the immigrants can gain legal status.

The bottom line was clear: The Republican-controlled House does not plan to take up anything resembling the Senate bill, which many believe is bad policy and smacks of an amnesty strongly opposed by the conservatives who hold sway over much of the rank and file. The House also does not intend to move very quickly, and some Republicans are wary of passing any measure at all that could lead to negotiations with the Senate, talks that could add pressure to the House to consider a broader plan.

The Republicans met just hours after former President George W. Bush added his voice to the immigration debate during a naturalization ceremony at his new presidential center outside Dallas. His speech was a reminder to Republicans that he had long believed it necessary to overhaul the system in a way much as the Senate bill outlined. “The laws governing the immigration system aren’t working,” Mr. Bush said. “The system is broken. We’re now in an important debate in reforming those laws. And that’s good.” Mr. Bush said he did not intend “to get involved in the politics or the specifics of policy. But I do hope there is a positive resolution to the debate, and I hope during the debate that we keep a benevolent spirit in mind and we understand the contributions that immigrants make to our country.”

House Republican leaders struck a defiant tone after the meeting, issuing a joint statement declaring the Obama administration “cannot be trusted to deliver on its promises to secure the border and enforce laws as part of a single, massive bill like the one passed by the Senate.” Mr. Boehner repeatedly reassured Republicans that he would pass nothing through the House that did not have the support of a majority of his party, and lawmakers left the meeting certain that nothing significant would move through the House until September — and possibly much later.

“ ‘Comprehensive’ has always been a swear word in the House of Representatives, but having a step-by-step approach that deals with the issue comprehensively, I don’t think that’s dead,” said Representative Raúl Labrador, Republican of Idaho, a Hispanic legislator who until recently had been part of a bipartisan group in the House working on a broad immigration proposal.

Instead, House Republicans will consider a piecemeal approach, passing several individual bills rather than one large package, as the Senate did. Any immigration proposal, members said, is likely to concentrate on border security and enforcement; a path to legalization or citizenship, they stressed, must come later — if at all.

Though they may pass one or two modest bills before the August recess, many members said they felt no urgency to deal with an immigration overhaul, with the fall likely to be dominated by fights over the budget and the federal debt ceiling.

House Republicans find themselves in a difficult spot on immigration, caught between the needs of the national party to broaden its appeal to Hispanics, and the views of constituents in gerrymandered, largely safe conservative districts.

Many returned to Congress this week after hearing from constituents in their districts who do not trust the federal government to overhaul the nation’s immigration laws, as well as mounting evidence that conservative opinion is beginning to harden against a broad immigration push.

House Republicans largely believe that the concerns of their national party elite are overblown, and that their political future and 2016 prospects do not hinge on passing an immigration bill this year.

“Is this an issue that people care about? Yes. Is it one that keeps them up at night? Probably not,” said Representative Charlie Dent, Republican of Pennsylvania, who is among the more moderate Republicans who could be part of a compromise.

Representative Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin, a respected voice in theRepublican Party who has been working behind the scenes to help push an immigration overhaul, spoke during the meeting in favor of immigration generally. He said fixing the nation’s broken system would be good for both economic growth and national security.

Emotions ran high, with members lining up 10 deep at each of two microphones waiting to speak their piece. Representative Mo Brooks, Republican of Alabama, read an obscure line from “America the Beautiful” to make his point that respect for the rule of law must be inviolable: “Confirm thy soul in self control, thy liberty in law,” he intoned.

Participants portrayed a Republican conference still divided over the question of citizenship. Some said they were open to a path to citizenship, or at least legal status; others said they worried about even going to negotiations with the Senate, where, they fear, any bill to emerge would constitute amnesty.

Representative Steve King, Republican of Iowa, took the lead for stalwart opponents of any legislation that could lead to what they view as amnesty. “You can’t separate the Dream Act kids from those who came across the border with a pack of contraband on their back, and they can’t tell me how they can do that,” Mr. King said, referring to the undocumented immigrants brought here by their parents as young children and known as “Dreamers.”

“Once you start down that line you’re destroying the rule of law.” But the response to his pitch was not as robust as it had been in the past: “It was not a standing ovation,” he conceded.

In fact, the one area where the legislators showed signs of some consensus was around the “Dreamers,” who many agreed should not be punished for the mistakes of their parents. Hours before the meeting, hundreds of young immigrants who had grown up in the country without legal papers held a mock citizenship ceremony on a Senate lawn. “We have come today to claim our citizenship,” said Lorella Praeli, a leader of United We Dream. But she insisted young immigrants would not agree to any plan that included only them and not all undocumented immigrants. “2013 is not the time for separate but equal.”

Representative James Lankford of Oklahoma, a member of the Republican leadership, said after the meeting that whatever the House did would not mirror the Senate’s bill: “They will both deal with the topic of immigration,” he said. “That may be the only common ground they have.”

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Articles from July 10, 2013:

Posicionamiento de la Comisión de Asuntos Políticos del Consejo Consultivo del Instituto de los Mexicanos en el Exterior -CCIME ante el Acta de Seguridad Fronteriza, Oportunidad Económica y Modernización de Inmigración S.774.

A los Mexicanos

Al Gobierno de México

Al C. Presidente Enrique Peña Nieto.

Los integrantes de la Comisión de Asuntos Políticos del CCIME hacemos un llamado al gobierno mexicano para pronunciarse públicamente ante la propuesta S.774 aprobada en el Senado del Congreso de los Estados Unidos, en virtud del impacto que ésta tendría en las futuras relaciones económicas, políticas, diplomáticas y de derechos humanos entre ambos países que a su vez comparten una frontera de 3,326 kilómetros.

Durante la discusión de la propuesta S.744, fue sometida una enmienda legislativa que aumentaría el presupuesto a 40 mil millones de dólares destinados a la asignación de 20 mil agentes de la patrulla fronteriza, sumándose éstos a los 20 mil ya apostados en la frontera; la construcción de muros y alambrados, y el uso de tecnología avanzada para detectar el movimiento de las personas en la zona.

La enmienda contenida en la propuesta S.774 aprobada por el Senado estadounidense, habla de un proceso de militarización en la frontera de Estados Unidos y México, acelerado, desproporcionado y lesivo a la agenda bilateral entre ambos países, en detrimento del cruce de cientos de miles de personas por los puntos de entrada fronterizos. Por otro lado, se contempla un aumento de muertes en la frontera de aquellos inmigrantes que busquen ingresar a los Estados Unidos de manera irregular, siendo éstos expuestos a corrupción, robos, asaltos y uso de rutas más peligrosas.

Asimismo, la implementación de esta medida generará un estado de persecución, perfil racial y discriminación contra las personas de origen mexicano y latinoamericano radicados en los estados fronterizos, ya que serán perseguidos independientemente de su condición migratoria, y por la existencia de leyes como la SB1070 en Arizona que permite el uso de la patrulla fronteriza dentro de las ciudades.

Al mismo tiempo la propuesta S.774 garantiza la asignación de presupuesto para la creación y mantenimiento de centros de detención para indocumentados que no califiquen en la obtención del 'estatus temporal' y que en consecuencia serán considerados como criminales y detenidos en cárceles privadas entre 2 y 5 años, con un mínimo de garantías jurídicas para su defensa, y una vez juzgados serán deportados a su país con un expediente criminal.

La llamada legalización con una vía a la ciudadanía estadounidense es casi un eufemismo, ya que en primer lugar se calcula que de once millones de indocumentados, cifras proporcionadas por el 'establishment' estadounidense, calificarían solo 4 millones que podrían comprobar que han estado ininterrumpidamente en el país antes del 31 de diciembre del 2011, no tener record 'criminal' y poseer una estabilidad laboral. Las personas serían registradas con un estatus temporal, teniendo que pagar multas y todos los impuestos desde que llegaron. El proceso de obtención de la residencia permanente podría durar hasta 10 años, siempre y cuando se tengan ingresos mayores a los 140% de lo que establece el nivel de pobreza federal, y no se haya estado desempleado por más de sesenta días continuos. Y por si fuera poco, aquellos solicitantes del registro provisional no tendrán acceso a los servicios de salud por más de 10 años. Cualquier incumplimiento a alguno de los requisitos llevará a la cancelación del permiso y estarán sujetos a deportación. Los que logren pasar este 'embudo', en alrededor de 15 años podrán solicitar la ciudadanía, los cuales no rebasaran en nuestra estimación un millón y medio de personas.

Dos sectores beneficiados con la propuesta, serían los jóvenes soñadores - DREAMers- y los trabajadores agrícolas, cuyo tiempo de espera para la residencia permanente es de 5 años. Los primeros deberán continuar en la escuela universitaria o servir durante dos años en las fuerzas armadas, y ambos grupos deberán cumplir una serie de requisitos y someterse a castigos de deportación por incumplimiento. Entre otros puntos, se expedirán 20 mil visas más para los trabajadores agrícolas y ello variará según la demanda.

Al interior, se contempla la implementación del sistema de verificación electrónica (E- verify), que es una continuación de la actual ley de sanciones a los patrones perfeccionada, la cual cruzará las bases de datos de todas las agencias gubernamentales para convertir en un crimen el emplear a personas indocumentadas y buscar empleo si no se tiene la autorización que otorgaría la ley.

Como se aprecia, esta ley que propone el Senado convierte a los trabajadores y trabajadoras en una mercancía usable y desechable y el derecho laboral será aquel que no reconoce ningún código jurídico, ético, ni humano. En realidad, retrasaría el desarrollo y crecimiento de la comunidad mexicana y latinoamericana en los Estados Unidos sumiendo a los trabajadores y trabajadoras inmigrantes dentro de un sistema de marginalización, que contrario a lo que se piensa, enfrentarían niveles de pobreza y estarían sometidos a un aparato de control y seguridad permanente que continuaría con la deportación de los y las inmigrantes, exacerbando con ello la separación de miles de familias.

Ante lo expuesto, hacemos un llamado al gobierno de México y al jefe del Ejecutivo Federal para que se tomen las medidas necesarias para crear programas para los migrantes en retorno. De aprobarse ante el Congreso una ley de esa naturaleza, que proyecta una respuesta punitiva en la Cámara de Representantes (diputados), seremos testigos de las deportaciones masivas de nuestros connacionales y hermanos latinoamericanos.

Pedimos al Gobierno de México haga un posicionamiento ante el Gobierno de los Estados Unidos y a la Cámara de Senadores, en protesta por la militarización de la frontera y el uso de muros y alambrados como parte de políticas resolutivas para una reforma migratoria; ¡cuando en otras regiones del mundo se avanza hacia la regionalización e integración de economías y los pueblos!

Reconocemos que el gobierno del Presidente Enrique Peña Nieto da seguimiento a la política mexicana de 'no intervención' en los asuntos internos de otros países; sin embargo, el fenómeno migratorio no es ni debe ser tratado como un asunto unilateral. Se trata de la vida y la suerte de millones de compatriotas que viven, trabajan y producen riqueza para ambos países, por lo tanto este es un asunto que debe ser resuelto y tratado dentro de una agenda bilateral.

Países como Corea del Sur, Irlanda, Canadá, Polonia y La India están buscando acuerdos para sus inmigrantes, aún más, los presidentes de Guatemala y El Salvador también han exhortado a la Administración del Presidente Barack Obama a garantizar los derechos de sus connacionales en Estados Unidos, y nos preguntamos ¿por qué México sigue callado?

Exhortamos al Gobierno de México y al Presidente Enrique Peña Nieto a hacer uso de las instancias políticas, diplomáticas y de cabildeo por una Reforma Migratoria Justa e Integral de respeto a los derechos humanos de la comunidad inmigrante que radica en los Estados Unidos.

¡El cese inmediato de Detenciones y Deportaciones!

¡No a la Militarización de la Frontera!

¡Alto a la Separación de Familias! ¡Reunificación Familiar Ahora!

¡Por el reconocimiento al respeto de los Derechos Humanos y Civiles de la comunidad inmigrante!

Comisión de Asuntos Políticos

Generación 2012-2014

Consejo Consultivo del Instituto de los Mexicanos en el Exterior

Lic. Elvia Y Torres.Coordinadora

Lic. Adelina Nichols

Sub- Coordindora.

Lic. Verónica ToscánoSecretaria

Lic. Gerardo Torres

Sub- Secretario

Carlos ArangoRoberto Bravo

Frank de Ávila

Andrés Herrera

Leticia Alánís

Gilberto Camacho

Juan Fierro

Aaron Hernández

Ernesto VargasAntonio Barajas

Mary Lou Masón

Maricela Medrano

José Antonio Vallejo

Victor Manuel Sánchez

Elio Víllaseñor

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Obama and Bush Promote Benefits of Immigration

By PETER BAKER, NYT’s July 10, 2013

President Obama and former President George W. Bush found themselves on the same side of a public policy debate on Wednesday as they promoted the virtues of immigration at a time when Congress is considering rewriting the rules to accept millions here illegally.

Mr. Obama’s White House released a new report arguing that a bill passed by the Senate creating a pathway to citizenship for many of the 11 million immigrants in the illegal shadow economy would spur job growth, innovation and productivity while strengthening Social Security.

“America has always been a nation of immigrants, and throughout the nation’s history, immigrants from around the globe have kept our work force vibrant, our businesses on the cutting edge, and helped to build the greatest economic engine in the world,” the White House report said. Mr. Obama planned to meet Wednesday morning with the Congressional Hispanic Caucus to discuss immigration legislation.

The report was released as Mr. Bush led a naturalization ceremony at his new presidential center just outside Dallas and used the opportunity to likewise tout the benefits of welcoming foreigners into the United States. Although Mr. Bush said he would not take a position on specific legislation, his speech was a reminder to Republicans that he has long believed it was necessary to overhaul the system in a way much like the Senate bill outlined.

“America can be a lawful society and a welcoming society at the same time,” Mr. Bush said at the ceremony, broadcast live over the Internet. “We can uphold our traditions of assimilating immigrants and honoring our heritage as a nation built on the rule of law.

“But we have a problem,” he added. “The laws governing the immigration system aren’t working. The system is broken. We’re now in an important debate in reforming those laws. And that’s good. I don’t intend to get involved in the politics or the specifics of policy. But I do hope there is a positive resolution to the debate, and I hope during the debate that we keep a benevolent spirit in mind and we understand the contributions that immigrants make to our country.”

Mr. Bush’s speech came hours before House Republicans were scheduled to meet behind closed doors on Capitol Hill for a long discussion of how to handle immigration. While the Senate passed its bill creating a pathway to citizenship and toughening border enforcement on a bipartisan vote, House Republican leaders have made clear that they do not accept it. The session Wednesday could help the party’s leadership take the temperature of its caucus and formulate its approach going forward.

Representative Eric Cantor of Virginia, the Republican majority leader, said he was worried that the administration might enforce the sections easing rules for illegal immigrants while not following through on the tougher border security provisions. “We need to go and make sure that there are definite matrixes, if you will, of accountability — how we can ensure that the border is secure, and that the law is being enforced,” Mr. Cantor told Sean Hannity of Fox News. He added: “We’re a country of laws, and it ought to be applied evenly and fairly to all.”

Whether Mr. Bush’s voice will be influential with House Republican critics is uncertain, but he does not have the same sway he once did in his own party. He made a big push for legislation similar to the Senate bill while he was president only to be thwarted in part by opposition from conservative Republicans and he viewed it as one of his biggest disappointments.

Mr. Bush has resisted delving too directly into current public policy debates, but the event at his presidential center not only added his voice to the debate, it teamed him up directly with Mr. Obama. After 20 immigrants were sworn in as new citizens while Mr. Bush watched, a video from Mr. Obama was played welcoming them. “You can help write the next great chapter in our American story and together we can keep the beacon that is America burning for all the world to see,” Mr. Obama said in the video. “I’m proud to welcome you as a new citizen of this country.”

After the ceremony, the Bush center was holding three panel discussions, one on how immigration has benefited Texas, another on the broader national economic benefits of immigration and the last on how immigrants serve the United States in military and civic spheres.

The Obama White House tried to quantify those benefits. It argued that in 2033, the American economy would be 5.4 percent larger if the Senate bill is passed by the House, productivity would be up by 1 percent, real wages would be up by 0.5 percent, deficits would be reduced by $850 billion and the solvency of the Social Security system would be extended by two years.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Articles from July 9, 2013:

After Recess, House Democrats Seek Path Forward on Immigration

By ASHLEY PARKER, NYT’s July 9, 2013

The message from Congressional Democrats on Tuesday was sharp and clear: Any immigration bill that passes the House of Representatives must include a pathway to citizenship.

Returning from recess this week after the Senate passed a broad bill that would overhaul the nation’s immigration laws, House Democrats huddled with the four Democratic senators who helped draft the original bill, completing plans to help push immigration legislation through the Republican-controlled House.

The bottom line? “Without a path to citizenship, there is not going to be a bill,” said Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York and a member of the bipartisan group of senators that wrote the Senate legislation. “There can’t be a bill.”

Mr. Schumer added that heading to a conference committee between the House and Senate without a path to citizenship would be “a path to a cul-de-sac, to no immigration bill.”

In Tuesday morning’s meeting, according to an aide familiar with Mr. Schumer’s remarks, the senator outlined what he described as Speaker John A. Boehner’s five possible options for handling the issue — doing nothing; opting for a piecemeal approach of several separate but related immigration bills; passing a comprehensive bill that does not include a path to citizenship; passing a comprehensive bill that does include a path to citizenship that is different, and likely stricter, than the one offered in the Senate bill; or taking up the legislation that has passed the Senate.

The thinking, Democratic aides said, is that if Democrats hold back their support for any legislation that does not include a citizenship component, House Republicans, faced with a core group of conservative members who oppose almost any immigration bill, will be unable to pass something on their own.

In a sign of mounting conservative opposition, William Kristol, editor of The Weekly Standard, and Rich Lowry, editor of National Review, penned a joint blog post Tuesday called “Kill the Bill,” in which they urged House Republicans to “kill it without reservation,” adding, “There’s no rush to act on immigration.”

On Wednesday, House Republicans are scheduled to hold a special full conference meeting to discuss the best way forward on immigration. The issue has especially vexed them since the 2012 presidential elections, when Mitt Romney lost Hispanic voters to President Obama by 71 percent to 27 percent.

Representative Zoe Lofgren, Democrat of California and a member of a bipartisan group in the House hoping to unveil a broad immigration plan shortly, also spoke during Tuesday’s meeting. According to an aide present in the room, Ms. Lofgren warned against a piecemeal approach, pointing to the five immigration bills that have already passed through House committees, largely on party-line votes. Those bills, she said, according to the aide, are not compromise pieces of legislation.

Speaking after the meeting, Representative Xavier Becerra, Democrat of California and a member of the bipartisan House group, again stressed that a path to citizenship was critical to any House plan.

“We hope our Republican colleagues in the House will be ready to reach across the aisle to work with us, because I don’t believe that the House of Representatives can pass any major immigration reform without Democratic support,” he said. “I don’t see how Speaker Boehner and the House Republicans can pass real immigration reform that fixes the broken immigration system without Democratic votes.”

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ON IMMIGRATION, HOUSE AND SENATE MAY NOT BE AS FAR APART AS YOU THINK

Nation of Change, July 9, 2013

The Senate immigration reform bill’s $46 billion “border surge” was supposed to bring more conservatives on board. While it helped get enough conservatives for a solid 68-vote majority in the Senate, many other conservatives are attacking it as wasteful government spending (as if tax cuts are the secret to preventing illegal immigration.)

The most recent attack comes from House Homeland Security Committee Chair Mike McCaul, who said yesterday on CBS’ Face The Nation that “What the Senate just passed was, again, a bunch of candy thrown down there.”

This colorful line grabbed some headlines. But dig a little deeper into his rhetoric and you see that this key House player is laying the groundwork for a final deal.

McCaul complained that the Senate bill amounts to “throwing forty-six billion dollars at a problem without any plan, without any strategy, without any definition of operation control.” He later noted that, “I passed a bipartisan bill out of my committee that will be, I think, the centerpiece of the enforcement and border security piece … [It was a] unanimously approved, completely bipartisan bill.” Then he said he expected his bill and some other piecemeal bills to clear the House, which “will put the House and Senate in a conference committee position … as early as late this year, maybe early next year.”

Does McCaul actually want to see the House and Senate come to terms? Sure looks like it. “My concern is the political backdrop could be that the White House would like to see this fail in the House, so that he can blame the House of Representatives for that and then try to take back the House of Representatives and then all bets are off on his agenda.”

In all of the above, what you don’t see is an outright rejection of the Senate bill. He’s just complaining the Senate money doesn’t come with enough of a plan.

Well, that’s what conference committees are for. It won’t be too hard to take a bipartisan House border security plan and marry it with bipartisan Senate border security money. The two concepts are not in conflict.

(The hard part will be deciding whether to use the McCaul plan’s goal of “apprehending 90% of illegal border crossers” as a hard “trigger” before allowing currently undocumented workers to be put on a path to citizenship, which the Senate ultimately decided against after much deliberation.)

Democratic Rep. Xavier Becerra also sounded a hopeful note on CBS following the McCaul interview: “I think there’s a reason to feel comfortable with a lot of what Chairman McCaul just said because he did pass a bill that was a bipartisan vote on border security. He did talk about getting this done. Where we probably disagree is on trying to do this in a piecemeal way which won’t fix the entire machine. You got to fix the entire machine.”

This is a minor disagreement. The House may pass piecemeal bills over the summer, but any House-Senate conference committee will involve the Senate’s comprehensive bill. So long as McCaul speaks for a sufficient number of Republicans when he expresses fear that gridlock spells doom for their control of the House, a conference agreement could easily end with either a single bill, or several bills that get enacted on parallel tracks.

For example, an agreement could allow a border security bill to be voted on first in the House – letting conservatives say they secured the border first – with the understanding that if the House doesn’t pass the other elements of the package, nothing will pass the Senate.

While there is plenty of reason for hope, there’s no reason to be complacent. This is the same House that couldn’t pass a farm bill and preferred the crude sequester over budget negotiations. Republicans will need to feel the pressure to be sufficiently motivated to put their votes behind reform legislation.

But you can tell from the rhetoric, if you look closely enough, that top Republicans know there is a steep political price to pay if they fail.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pope Francis criticizes indifference toward immigrants' plight

By Tom Kington, L.A. Times, July 8, 2013

ROME -- Against a backdrop of growing anti-immigration sentiment in Europe, Pope Francis on Monday used his first papal trip outside the Vatican to denounce the "globalization of indifference" to migrants, calling their suffering "a painful thorn in my heart."

The pontiff traveled to the tiny Italian island of Lampedusa to drop a wreath of flowers into the Mediterranean in mourning for the thousands of migrants and asylum seekers who have drowned while sailing from Africa to Europe in search of a better life.

"We have become used to the suffering of others," said Francis, who made the surprise decision to visit Lampedusa after reading about the recent sinking of a boat that resulted in the deaths of a dozen migrants.

"Has any one of us wept for these persons who were on the boat? For the young mothers carrying their babies? For these men who were looking for a means of supporting their families?" he asked. "We are a society which has forgotten how to weep, how to experience compassion."

Addressing Muslims on the island, the pope said that "the church is with you in the search for a more dignified life for you and your families."

Francis' fiercely worded homily, delivered before a crowd of 10,000 people, highlighted his focus on the plight of the poor and marginalized.

Just 70 miles off the coast of Tunisia, Lampedusa is a favored landing point in Europe for African migrants, who travel on rickety fishing boats that often run out of fuel or sink in rough weather. About 8,400 migrants landed in Italy and the nearby island of Malta in the first half of this year, up from 4,500 in the same period last year, but down from the many thousands who headed for Lampedusa during the political upheaval of the Arab Spring in 2011.

More than 6,000 people are believed to have drowned in the waters around Lampedusa between 1994 and 2012. TheUnited Nations recorded 500 deaths of migrants attempting to cross the Mediterranean during 2012.

Hostility toward immigrants is on the rise in Europe as the region contends with a stubborn economic recession. Countries such as Britain are trying to tighten restrictions on newcomers; anti-immigrant political parties, some on the far right, have become potent forces in France, Greece, the Netherlands and Scandinavia. In 2009, Italy struck a deal with Libya's then-ruler, Moammar Kadafi, to send back migrants intercepted at sea without hearing claims for asylum.

Pope Francis, whose own forebears migrated from Italy to Argentina, was accompanied by a flotilla of local fishing boats as he sailed into Lampedusa's harbor after dropping a wreath of yellow and white flowers from an Italian coast guard vessel.

The pope celebrated Mass on a sports field near where the wrecks of migrants' vessels have been piled up. He used an altar fashioned from a small boat and a lectern made from the helm of one of the vessels. His staff and chalice were also made from piece of wood taken from the wrecks.

The pope met a group of migrants and thanked locals for their kind treatment of new arrivals.

After his visit, he tweeted: "God will judge us on the basis of how we have treated the most needy."

~~~

Pope Francis commemorates migrant dead at Lampedusa

By Alessandro Bianchi, LAMPEDUSA, Italy | Mon Jul 8, 2013

(Reuters) - Pope Francis celebrated mass on the tiny Sicilian island of Lampedusa on Monday to commemorate thousands of migrants who have died crossing the sea from North Africa, underlining his drive to put the poor at the heart of his papacy.

The choice of Lampedusa for his first official trip outside Rome was highly symbolic for the pontiff, who said news reports of the deaths of desperate people trying to reach a better life that had been like "a thorn in the heart".

Thousands of islanders waving caps and banners in the Vatican's yellow colors welcomed Francis at the fishing port where he arrived aboard a coastguard vessel accompanied by a flotilla of fishing boats and cast a wreath into the water.

He spoke to young African migrants before celebrating mass in a sports field that served as a reception center for tens of thousands of mainly Muslim migrants who fled Arab Spring unrest in North Africa in 2011, greatly increasing an exodus that has gone on for years.

His trip came at the start of the summer months when the island, one of the main points of entry into the European Union and just 113 km (70 miles) from Tunisia, sees a steady flow of rickety and unsafe boats arriving on its shores.

He saluted the migrants, many of whom are preparing to fast during Ramadan, and thanked the people of Lampedusa for taking them in and setting an example of solidarity to a selfish society sliding into "the globalization of indifference".

"We have become used to other people's suffering, it doesn't concern us, it doesn't interest us, it's none of our business!" he said during his homily from an altar built from an old fishing boat painted in Italy's red, green and white colors.

With the Church struggling to get to grips with financial shenanigans at the Vatican bank and memories of the pedophile priests scandal still fresh, the visit to Lampedusa was an opportunity to turn away from internal upheaval.

He had harsh words for people smugglers who he said profited from the misery of others as well and asked pardon for "those, whose decisions at a global level have created the conditions which have led us to this drama".

During the mass he used a wooden chalice carved from the wood of a migrant vessel by a local carpenter.

THOUSANDS ARRIVING

At the height of migrant influx in 2011, when over 62,000 arrived in Italy, dozens of boats carrying hundreds and even thousands of people were arriving in Lampedusa every day and although the numbers have declined, arrivals have continued.

Shortly before the pope arrived, a boat carrying 165 migrants from Mali pulled into port, while on Sunday, 120 people, including four pregnant women, were rescued at sea after the motors in their boat broke down 7 miles off the coast.

According to U.N. figures, almost 8,000 migrants and asylum seekers landed on the coasts of southern Italy in the first half of the year, the vast majority of them from North Africa, mainly Libya, which has been in turmoil since the overthrow of Muammar Gaddafi in 2011.

So far, the United Nations said 40 people were known to have died crossing from Tunisia to Italy this year, down from 2012 when almost 500 were reported dead or missing. The improvement follows better coordination between Italy and nearby Malta.

The islanders have sometimes seen their home transformed into a refugee center, with improvised campsites dotting the hills above the port but they have largely welcomed the migrants and there have been few tensions or problems.

Normally a sleepy island that lives mainly from tourism and fishing, Lampedusa's normal population of some 5,000 has been outnumbered on several occasions by migrants waiting at the portside or in the main reception center to be transferred to Sicily and mainland Italy.

Reminders of the crisis are everywhere on the island, notably in the portside scrapyard of old fishing boats, normally chosen by migrant smugglers in the knowledge that they would have only one voyage to make.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The border isn't the problem

House Republicans are insisting that the U.S.-Mexico border be sealed as a prerequisite to approving broader immigration reform. But that ignores the progress that's been made…

EDITORIAL by the L.A. Times Editorial Board, July 9, 2013,

Now that the Senate has passed a sweeping bipartisan bill to overhaul the nation's immigration laws, it's the House's turn to act. But as expected, Republicans in that chamber are once again insisting that the border between the U.S. and Mexico be sealed as a prerequisite to approving broader reforms. Unless 90% of illegal border crossings are stopped once and for all, they say, they will not support any plan to grant legal status to the 11 million immigrants who are already living in the country illegally.

Such requirements, however, are pointless. The reality is that the border is more secure today than at just about any time in this nation's recent history. The number of immigrants who entered the U.S. illegally at the nine major crossing points from California to Texas fell by an astounding 86% between 2006 and 2011, according to the Government Accountability Office. Overall, the number of immigrants coming illegally to the United States is at a 40-year low, having dropped from slightly more than 1 million in 2005 to fewer than 365,000 in 2012 and 2011, according to the Border Patrol.

Clearly, the decline in illegal immigration is due to changes on both sides of the border, including the sluggish U.S. economy and greater economic opportunity in Mexico. But much of the shift is also the result of heightened border enforcement that began during the George W. Bush administration and continues today. More than 20,000 agents are assigned to patrol the border, assisted by drones and other technology.

U.S. IMMIGRATION LAW: Decades of debate

Such gains are conveniently overlooked by border hawks in the House, including Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), who apparently believes that anything less than a U.S. equivalent of the Great Wall of China is insufficient. But even the final Senate immigration bill — in which border security spending was jacked up at the eleventh hour from $4.5 billion to $46 billion — would not establish an impenetrable border.

The United States has a right to determine who should be allowed into the country. But the best way to reduce illegal entries is to ease the bottleneck for legal immigration and to tighten penalties against employers who sidestep the law. And that's exactly what the Senate bill does, increasing the number of green cards for high- and low-skilled workers while providing temporary visas to seasonal workers.

The Senate has done its job. Now let's hope House Republicans can figure out a way to do theirs and deliver much-needed comprehensive immigration reform.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

House Republicans refuse to budge on Senate immigration bill

By Noam Levey noam.levey@latimes.com, LAT’s June 30, 2013, 9:06 a.m.

WASHINGTON — Leading House Republicans reiterated their opposition Sunday to the immigration compromise passed by the Senate last week, highlighting the uncertain prospects for enactment of a major overhaul of the nation’simmigration laws.

“The Senate bill is not going to pass in the House,” House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) said on CNN’s “State of the Union,” echoing statements made by House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and other senior GOP lawmakers.

Even Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), a leading supporter of the Senate legislation, acknowledged the difficult path the bill faces in the Republican-controlled House.

U.S. immigration law: Decades of debate

“I’m concerned about the task ahead,” he said on “Fox News Sunday.” “It’s not going to be easy.”

Boehner has said that he will not bring up an immigration bill for a vote that does not have the support of the majority of the GOP House caucus.

Goodlatte noted Sunday that the vast majority of Senate Republicans voted against the Senate bill, which would create a system to confer legal status on 11 million immigrants in the country illegally while bolstering border security and tightening employment rules through an electronic system to verify workers’ immigration status known as e-verify.

But many conservative lawmakers say the security provisions of the Senate bill are inadequate and may never be implemented.

“There is a diminution of trust among our fellow citizens,” Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), who chairs the House Judiciary Committee’s immigration subcommittee, said on Fox News. “And the notion that I can tell them, ‘We are going to provide legalization, but trust us on the border security, trust on the internal security, trust on e-verify,’ that’s not going to fly in South Carolina.”

One lawmaker was bullish on the legislation, however. Sen.Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), a leading architect of the Senate bill, predicted on Fox News that Boehner would look to House Democrats to pass the Senate’s immigration overhaul, even if many House Republicans oppose the bill.

"I believe that by the end of this year, the House will pass the Senate bill," Schumer said.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Border 'surge' plan would be financial bonanza for private firms

The $46-billion security package in the immigration bill would benefit aerospace, technology and security companies, as well as border states.

By Joseph Tanfani and Brian Bennett, July 8, 2013, 4:00 a.m.

WASHINGTON — A plan to check fingerprints of foreigners leaving the U.S. is popular in Congress — but not at the Homeland Security Department, where officials say the technology would do little to halt illegal immigration.

But thanks in part to lobbying by security contractors, the Senate immigration bill that goes to the Republican-led House this week includes a computerized "biometric" exit system that could cost more than $7 billion.

The plan is part of the bill's $46-billion border "surge" of security measures, a 10-year spending gusher that would produce a financial bonanza for some of America's largest aerospace, technology and security companies, as well as some border states.

The legislation would force the Homeland Security Department — which has a total proposed budget of $39 billion in fiscal year 2014 — to absorb a staggering increase in funding, equipment and staff at a time when most federal agencies and departments are struggling with budget cutbacks, furloughs and reduced services.

After months of wrangling, a bipartisan group of eight senators initially had proposed spending $4.5 billion for border security as part of an overhaul of immigration laws. However, that sum jumped tenfold in the final days of debate last month in a bid to win over Republicans who demanded stronger measures before they would consider a path to citizenship for the estimated 11 million people in the country illegally.

If the law is enacted, the Treasury Department would set aside $46.3 billion in a special trust fund account to protect it from lawmakers who might seek to draw on or reduce the money in future budget battles.

Critics, even those who support reform, say the bill is laden with pork and that politics has trumped policy. Among other problems, the Homeland Security Department, which was created after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, has a reputation of poor management and wasteful spending.

The Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of Congress, considers Homeland Security Department acquisition programs to be at "high risk" for abuse. A GAO report in February concluded that major acquisitions "continue to cost more than expected, take longer to deploy than planned, or deliver less capability than promised."

"There could be abuses," said Stewart Baker, former head of policy at Homeland Security, warning it would take "gut-straining effort" to complete the surge in 10 years.

"You can say without fear of being wrong that tens of millions, hundreds of millions will be wasted," said Edward Alden, an immigration policy expert at the nonpartisan Council on Foreign Relations. "I don't know of anybody who thinks this is the best expenditure of money."

The spending plan already has generated opposition in the House. The bill is "throwing $46 billion at a problem without any plan, without any strategy, without any definition of operational control," Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas), chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, said Sunday on CBS' "Face the Nation."

The immigration bill is unusual in its specificity. It sets aside $7.5 billion to build a 700-mile, high-tech fence, giving the secretary of Homeland Security the authority to "waive all legal requirements" to get the project built quickly.

It would spend $30 billion to add nearly 20,000 agents to the Border Patrol, doubling the size of the force and making it the nation's biggest law enforcement agency. Nearly all would be posted along the Southwest border.

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano supports the bill but has said repeatedly that more border agents are not necessary.

"It's an irrational build-up," said Chris Rickerd, policy counsel on immigration at the American Civil Liberties Union. "It doesn't correspond to security needs or any reasonable approach to securing the border."

The bill specifies what the agents will get and where: 4,595 ground sensors, 507 radiation detectors, 917 camera towers, 820 pairs of night vision goggles and more.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection, which includes the Border Patrol, flies 10 unarmed Predator drones along the border, but the bill requires nonstop airborne surveillance: Internal documents show that would require enlarging the fleet to 24 drones.

The expansion will significantly benefit a California company. The border agency recently signed a $128-million sole-source contract with General Atomics, based in Poway, to provide operations and maintenance for its 10 Predators. The same contract taps the company to sell and service 14 additional drones if Congress approves the funding. The expected purchase cost is $252 million.

"It is a huge expense," said Jennifer Lynch, a lawyer with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, an advocacy group based in San Francisco. "We haven't seen anything … showing that increasing surveillance on the border would benefit the country and justify the costs."

General Atomics, which spent $2.5 million lobbying Congress last year and $720,000 in the first quarter this year, did not return multiple requests for comment.

The bill also requires the purchase of 15 Black Hawk helicopters from Connecticut-based Sikorsky Aircraft, along with six Vader radars, a drone-mounted radar system developed by Virginia-based Northrop Grumman to detect insurgents planting bombs in Afghanistan. Each Vader costs $9.3 million.

The border crackdown includes more than $50 million to increase prosecutions of border crossers in Arizona, and $50 million to reimburse other border states. Most immigration violators are sent to jails and detention facilities owned or run by private companies under contracts with Immigrations and Customs Enforcement, and the U.S. Marshals Service. Their role is likely to grow substantially.

Prosecution of more border crossers "would be a huge boon for the private companies," said Judith Greene, director of Justice Strategies, a nonprofit research group that is critical of the prison industry.

In Arizona, the immigration detention business is dominated by Corrections Corp. of America. The Tennessee-based company was paid $750 million under federal contracts last year, and spent more than $1 million to lobby officials in Washington, records show.

Steve Owen, a spokesman for CCA, said the company didn't lobby Congress for policies to increase the number of prisoners. "We certainly advocate for full funding of our contracts," Owen said.

Biometric companies have also lobbied in favor of the bill — and will profit if it passes.

Immigration agents check fingerprints to screen foreigners coming into the country, but no one checks travelers' fingerprints when they leave. Other biometric systems could include iris scans or facial recognition software.

Proponents say such scans would help identify those who overstayed their visas and remain in the country illegally. Critics say it might deter such people from leaving and facing possible prosecution. Airline executives say the extra screening would delay flights and inconvenience foreign visitors.

Senior Homeland Security Department officials say reconfiguring airports with fingerprint stations and installing a computerized system isn't worth the money since the current system — checking passport information and passenger lists — is more than 90% accurate and can be improved.

"It's very hard to justify the expenditure of $7 billion," said a senior Homeland Security official, speaking on condition of anonymity because the issue is before Congress.

But the biometric industry lobbied authors of the Senate bill, saying immigration officials were working from outdated estimates and that the cost would be much lower.

"We are trying to give them as much data as they need to show it's affordable and it's feasible and it would be effective," said Daniel Vassy, president of MorphoTrak, which manufactures the equipment. "And we have spent considerable energy to tell them that."

A spokesman for Accenture, a Virginia-based company that has received $508 million in contracts since 2004 for the system used to fingerprint arriving foreign visitors, posted a paper on its website arguing that a biometric exit system is necessary for immigration reform.

"So the question isn't whether to implement an exit program. It's how. Accenture can help," it reads.

In the end, it wasn't a hard sell. Senators rejected a proposal to require fingerprinting at all airports and seaports, but approved an amendment by Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) to install the system within two years at the nation's 10 busiest airports for international travel, and later expand it across the country.

"There are some members of Congress who are just obsessed" with biometric exit systems, said Paul Rosenzweig, a former Homeland Security deputy assistant secretary for policy who now heads a consulting company. "The private sector guys on the sidelines are more than happy to make money."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pathway to citizenship not expected to include all

By Carrie Dann, Political Reporter, NBC News

The nation is celebrating another birthday even as Americans are embroiled in a heated debate over who should be able to become a bona fide resident of the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave.

Of the estimated 11.5 million undocumented residents of the U.S., only about half would be expected to become permanent legal residents if the current immigration reform bill becomes law according to the best expert estimates and historical comparisons. And of that number, an even smaller percentage would be expected to pursue full citizenship.

The battle over comprehensive immigration reform most heatedly centers around the question of whether those present in the United States illegally should ever have a pathway to American citizenship. Proponents of the reform bill passed by the U.S. Senate last week say that anything short of the possibility of citizenship would create a permanent underclass of individuals whose only crime was committed when they first entered the country; opponents say such a measure amounts to “amnesty.” Skeptical Republicans also say that a “pathway to citizenship” merely creates legions of new Democratic voters.

But somewhat glossed over in the debate is the question of just how many undocumented immigrants would actually take the steps required to become United States citizens – with the right to vote and run for federal office.

It’s impossible to come up with an estimate that’s exact, but there are some clues in history, in polls and in analyses of the Senate legislation that help inform the guessing.

One first clue is the 1986 law that created a path to citizenship for immigrants in the country illegally. That bill, now derided as deeply flawed by both friends and foes of the current reform bill, resulted in the granting of green cards to about 2.7 million immigrants.

In 2010, a Department of Homeland Security survey found that just 40 percent of those 2.7 million had become American citizens.

Okay, but what about the bill that just passed the Senate – almost 30 years later, when many in the undocumented population have much deeper roots in their communities?

S. 744, the sweeping immigration reform that passed the Senate last week, would offer such a pathway – starting with a probationary legal or “registered provisional immigrant” status -- to undocumented immigrants who meet certain criteria: They must have been physically present in the United States before December 31, 2011, have maintained a continual presence in the country since that date, and have no convictions for a felony or three or more misdemeanors. (The law does provide for waivers in some circumstances – a point often made by opponents of the citizenship provision.)

The universe of undocumented immigrants in the United States is probably somewhere between about 11 and 12 million; the Congressional Budget Office uses an estimate of about 11.5 million; in 2011, the Pew Hispanic Center pegged the number at about 11.1 million at the end of 2011.

But, under the Senate law, undocumented immigrants wouldn’t automatically get that legal status the day the president signed the legislation. They’d have to apply for it through the Department of Homeland Security – a process which includes the payment of $1,000 in fines.

So how many of those 11 million or so individuals – in the country illegally either by unauthorized entry or visa overstay – would actually apply for legal status?

In its report on the Senate bill, CBO estimated that about 8 million undocumented residents would gain legal status under the bill.

That’s based on the belief that 6.8 million people would initially register for RPI status, although a number of them would not meet the requirements. An additional 1 million undocumented residents would register as temporary agricultural workers, CBO estimates, with another half million spouses and dependents of those individuals also eligible to apply for the agricultural “blue card” program.

After 10 years, individuals with RPI status would be available to apply for “Legal permanent resident” (LPR) status --- a green card. The “blue card” agricultural workers and their families - as well as RPI status individuals who were brought to the US as children -- are eligible to apply for green cards on a slightly faster track – if they pay fines and complete work requirements.

So, by 2023, CBO estimates, about 1.4 million “blue card” workers would have adjusted to green card status, along with an additional 400,000 previously undocumented individuals who were brought to the country as children.

Between 2025-2028, when the first round of “RPI” status residents are eligible to move up to legal permanent resident status, another 3.9 million would get their green cards.

That adds up to somewhere in the neighborhood of 5.7 million new green card holders who were previously undocumented immigrants.

But while green card holders may be as patriotic as the next legal inhabitant of the U.S., they don’t have all the trappings of a card-carrying citizen. A green card holder can work wherever they choose (with the exception of some government jobs) and generally travel freely, but they cannot vote, serve on a jury, travel with a U.S. passport, or run for federal office. Citizens also do not risk deportation if they are convicted of a crime, unlike green card holders.

So what percentage of those who are ELIGIBLE for citizenship will actually apply?

Mark Hugo Lopez, the director of research for the Pew Hispanic Center, says the answer may lie somewhere between public polling and the historical record.

According to a poll by the Center in 2012, nine-in-ten Hispanic immigrants who are not citizens (including those in the country illegally) say they want to become citizens.

But, Lopez notes, the reality is far from that, particularly for Hispanic immigrants who struggle with the cost or language requirements.

“Even though many people desire to become a U.S. citizen, barriers such as leaning to speak English and also the financial cost of even applying for citizenship are barriers that many point to for why they have not yet applied for citizenship even though they are in the United States legally,” he said.

The numbers of naturalization are lower for Hispanic immigrants than for others, and particularly low for Mexican immigrants who are eligible to become citizens.

Only 46 percent of Hispanic immigrants who are eligible to become citizens have applied, compared to 71 percent of non-Hispanic immigrants, Pew calculates. Just 36 percent of eligible Mexican immigrants have naturalized.

Of course, all of these numbers are estimates and extrapolations that can’t take into account the myriad factors that go into a decision to seek American citizenship -- like family and work considerations and the desire to be involved in the Democratic process. (One can’t forget what’s currently a $680 price tag on the application process as well.)

But it’s fair to say that cries of “11 million new voters!” are overwrought – or at least a few decades early.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rep. Filemon Vela quits Congressional Hispanic Caucus to protest lawmakers’ acceptance of border ‘militarization’

Republish from: Chron, Texas on the Potomac. July 02, 2013
Texas Rep. Filemon Vela, who represents a South Texas border district, resigned from the Congressional Hispanic Caucus in protest of the group’s embrace of a Senate immigration bill that contains millions of dollars for drones, fences and border agents, officials said Tuesday.

The first-term Brownville Democrat announced his decision to resign in a short email over the weekend following overwhelming Senate approval of the enforcement-heavy legislation.

Vela said he was concerned that the bill conditions a pathway to citizenship for people living in the country illegally on militarization of the border, including additional hundreds of miles of border fence.

“I hereby resign,” Vela said.

A spokesman for the caucus, Kristian Ramos, declined immediate comment on the resignation.

It followed an impassioned floor speech last week in which Vela invoked the dismantling of the Berlin Wall and its symbolism of unity and economic growth.

“Erecting more border fence drives a wedge between border communities which are culturally united,” Vela said.

The Congressional Hispanic Caucus, is a 27-member organization made up of Latino Democrats in the House and Senate, including Sen. Bob Menendez, D-N.J., an author of the bipartisan Senate immigration bill.

The CHC did not officially endorse the Senate bill, although many of its members made statements of support following its passage in the Senate.

The resignation caught some by surprise. Democratic House members have praised the Senate legislation as an alternative to immigration proposals in the GOP-led House, which do not include citizenship.

Rep. Ruben Hinjosa, D-Mercedes, the chairman of the caucus, was on vacation with family and could not be reached for comment, a spokeswoman said.

Hinojosa had praised the Senate bill after its passage as “landmark legislation designed to create a path for citizenship for millions of undocumented residents who will contribute to this great country.”

The bill also was endorsed by Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill., the chairman of the CHC task force on immigration.

Gutierrez favors the Senate bill over separate immigration measures in the House that have been adopted by theJudiciary Committee.

“Republicans are falling backwards and fully embracing failed and discredited notions like ‘self-deportation’ and round-ups of immigrants by local police,” said Gutierrez, who also is working on a bipartisan bill that could be introduced in the House this month.

Other Texas lawmakers, including Rep. Pete Gallego, D-Alpine, and Rep. Beto O’Rourke, D-El Paso, have criticized enforcement measures in the Senate bill as wasteful measures that could hinder trade.

But no other lawmaker has resigned from the caucus over the bill. House Republicans, meanwhile, are expected to meet next week to determine how to proceed on immigration.

Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said legislation coming out of his panel would not include a pathway to citizenship.

Dear Friends:

INTRODUCTION: We applaud the courage of Texas Rep. Filemon Vela, who represents a South Texas congressional border district, for his resignation from the Congressional Hispanic Caucus due to its support for S.744, which includes unprecedented interior and border enforcement measures disguised as “comprehensive immigration reform.” Vela is about building bridges not walls.

His statement says it all. We call on other members of the Caucus to join Vela, be courageous, and oppose S.744 for what it really is - a criminalization of immigrants and a border militarization legislation. And, while it is touted as a bipartisan legislation, the reality is that it is more Democratic than it is Republican. If this is what the Democrats stand for, Latinos should no longer stand for Democrats. Enough said.

Join us in this prolonged campaign for driver’s licenses and visas for our families. The first step in making change is to join an organization that pursues the change we desire. We welcome you to our ranks.

Other organizations leading this movement include: Hermandad Mexicana Latinoamericana, Mexican American Political Association (MAPA), Liberty and Justice for Immigrants Movement, National Alliance for Immigrant’s Rights, and immigrant rights coalitions throughout the U.S.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Progress on an Immigration Overhaul in 5 Areas

By ALICIA PARLAPIANO and JULIA PRESTON, June 27, 2013

The Senate has passed its version of an immigration overhaul with bipartisan support. The bill now goes to the Republican-controlled House, where it faces significant opposition from conservative members.

Core topics:

Border Security
Legalization
Legal Immigration
Interior Enforcement
Temporary Visas

Border Security

A focal point of the immigration debate. Republicans have insisted on stricter measures to secure the border with Mexico before they could support any bill.

What’s in the Senate bill

Increases spending by roughly $40 billion over the next decade to bolster border security, adding 20,000 new Border Patrol agents and 700 miles of fencing along the southern border. After border security goals are met, undocumented immigrants could begin the path to citizenship.

Would create an exit system to confirm the departure of foreigners at airports and seaports.

Potential for House passage

House Speaker John A. Boehner has said he would not bring any immigration bill to the floor unless it had the support of a majority of House Republicans. “One of our principles is border security,” he said. “I have no intention of putting a bill on the floor that the people in this room do not believe secures our borders. It’s not going to happen.”

Legalization

Democrats and a number of Republicans have generally accepted a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants. Conservatives have sought to tighten restrictions limiting those immigrants from receiving federal benefits and to strengthen provisions requiring them to pay back taxes.

What’s in the Senate bill

Includes a path to citizenship for 11 million undocumented immigrants that would take a minimum of 13 years.

After passing background checks and paying fees and back taxes, immigrants could gain provisional legal status. After 10 years, and only when the current backlog of visa applications is cleared, formerly illegal immigrants could apply for green cards. After three years with green cards, those immigrants could apply for citizenship.

A faster track would be available for young illegal immigrants who came here as children and for agricultural workers.

Potential for House passage

A bipartisan group in the House has agreed on a bill that includes a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, though it is expected to be longer. That bill has not been introduced.

Legal Immigration

The Senate bill would create a new merit-based point system, shifting the priority over time from family-based immigration to grant about half of all visas each year based on job skills. Republicans have sought to limit what they called family chain migration.

What’s in the Senate bill

Would make more family and employment-based visas available to reduce the current backlog.

Would create a new merit-based point system for future immigration, based on education, current employment, job skills and family ties.

Would allow immediate immigration for spouses and children of green card holders.

Would eliminate the diversity visa lottery and the current green card category for siblings of citizens, and require that married sons and daughters of citizens seeking green cards be under 31 years old.

Potential for House passage

House Republicans also favor a merit-based system.
Interior Enforcement

Lawmakers broadly agreed on a nationwide mandatory system to verify the work authorization of new hires, to prevent illegal immigrants from taking jobs.

What’s in the Senate bill

Within five years, would require all employers to use a federal electronic verification system to determine that all newly hired employees, including American citizens, are authorized to work.

Potential for House passage

Republicans and Democrats in the House bipartisan group agreed to a provision requiring a national E-Verify system to be operational within five years, or formerly illegal immigrants could lose their provisional status. A separate E-Verify bill, which does not include any legalization provisions, was approved by the House Judiciary Committee.

Temporary Visas

Technology companies want more visas for highly skilled workers. Democrats have been concerned that foreigners would take tech and engineering jobs from Americans. Businesses also seek low-skilled seasonal laborers, and growers want more farmworkers.

What’s in the Senate bill

Would increase limits for temporary high-skilled H-1B visas to 115,000, rising to a maximum of 180,000, from the current 65,000 per year.

Would create a new temporary “W” visa for low-skilled workers, offering 20,000 visas in the first year, increasing to 75,000 annually and possibly higher, based on the labor market.

Would create a separate W visa program for agricultural guest workers.

Would create a new three-year visa for entrepreneurs who start companies in the United States.

Potential for House passage

House members disagree over guest worker visas, with Democrats favoring the Senate plan supported by business and labor organizations, and some Republicans seeking more visas than labor would like.

·Border Security
·Legalization
·Legal Immigration
·Interior Enforcement
·Temporary Visas

·Border Security
·Legalization
·Legal Immigration
·Interior Enforcement
·Temporary Visas

---------------------------------------------------------------

Immigration Campaign to Target 11 House Republicans

By JULIA PRESTON

One of the largest coalitions of immigrant, labor and voter groups supporting an immigration overhaul said it will wage “all-in throw-down” campaigns in July in the districts of seven Republican leaders in the House of Representatives, and four lawmakers in purple districts that could become Democratic in future elections.

Leaders of the coalition, the Fair Immigration Reform Movement, and the Service Employees International Union, one of the most active unions working to pass the overhaul, said they would spend more than $1 million on radio ads, telephone banks and social media drives in the districts.

They will focus on the House leadership, including Speaker John A. Boehner of Ohio, Representatives Eric Cantor of Virginia, Kevin McCarthy of California and Peter Roskam of Illinois, as well as three other top Republicans: Darrell Issa of California, Greg Walden of Oregon and Cathy McMorris Rodgers of Washington.

Other Republicans the groups will focus on as possible swing votes are Representatives Buck McKeon of California, Mike Coffman of Colorado, Daniel Webster of Florida and Michael Grimm of New York.

Coalition leaders said focusing on those districts would be part of a nationwide campaign to push House lawmakers to hold a vote before the end of this month on a broad immigration bill that would include a path to citizenship for the 11 million immigrants in the country illegally. The campaign would also concentrate on Republican districts in California and Texas and in districts with many Latino voters in Central Florida, they said.

“We need a vote on citizenship,” said Eliseo Medina, international secretary-treasurer of the service sector union, the S.E.I.U. “The immigrants deserve that, and our country deserves that.”

House leaders have given no sign that a vote on one comprehensive immigration bill is part of their strategy. A broad bill that includes a path to citizenship passed the Senate last week, with 14 Republicans joining 52 Democrats in support. But no similar bill has been introduced in the House. The House Judiciary Committee is preparing four immigration bills, but none of them include legalization for undocumented immigrants. Mr. Boehner has tipped his hand only to say that any bill must pass with a majority of Republican votes.

Deepak Bhargava, executive director of the Center for Community Change, a central organization in the coalition, said many immigrant communities were spurred to action after House Republicans passed a measure last month to halt a program giving reprieves from deportation to young undocumented immigrants, which has been very popular in those communities.

“House Republicans have already gone a long way in stoking our families’ outrage,” Mr. Bhargava said.

But the leaders said they would appeal to Republicans’ long-term political interests. Although the number of House districts with a significant amount of Latino and immigrant voters is not more than 40 (out of 435), it is large enough to cost House Republicans their majority in elections next year if they repel those voters by blocking the overhaul, Mr. Medina said.

“The G.O.P. day of reckoning is not far-off in the future, it is now,” he said.

Carlos Duarte, the state director in Texas for Mi Familia Vota, a Latino voter registration group, said that aside from town-hall meetings and other activities during July, the organization would continue to court new Latino voters. Mr. Duarte said the group registered more than 40,000 Latinos in Texas who voted for the first time in 2012.

Both Texas senators, Republicans John Cornyn and Ted Cruz, voted against the Senate bill. “I think they made a mistaken political calculus,” Mr. Duarte said. “We are not going away any time soon.”

---------------------------------------------------------------

Supporters of Immigration Bill Offer Amendment Focused on Women

By JULIA PRESTON June 20, 2013, 4:20 pm 24 Comments

Saying the immigration overhaul bill now before the Senate would discriminate against future immigrants who are women, 13 female senators have introduced an amendment that would make it easier for foreign women to come to the United States under a new merit system in the legislation.

The amendment is part of a new effort by supporters of the bill to attract votes by framing immigration as a women’s issue. Its lead sponsors are two Democrats, Senator Mazie K. Hirono of Hawaii and Senator Patty Murray of Washington, and sponsors also include a Republican, Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska.

On Tuesday, dozens of women from local and national organizations waged a lobbying blitz on Capitol Hill. Pramila Jayapal, a leader of a coalition that organized the women’s campaign, said some of them visited senators who are leading the effort to pass the bill — including Senator Patrick J. Leahy, a Democrat from Vermont — wearing colored fedoras that they tipped to show their support. Other women turned up with feather dusters in the offices of a dozen senators who earlier this month voted against allowing the Senate to debate the bill, to encourage those lawmakers to “clean up their act,” Ms. Jayapal said. Read more…

As Senate Begins Debate, Organized Labor Makes Immigration Push

By JULIA PRESTON June 11, 2013

As the Senate opens debate on an overhaul of the nation’s immigration laws, organized labor is picking up the pace of its advocacy for the bill.

The Service Employees International Union, which claims more than two million members, said it had purchased more than $1 million in television advertising to run in June on cable networks nationwide. Five advertisements, which will rotate, feature police officers, Republicans and small-business owners — not traditional supporters of labor — calling on Congress to stop fighting over immigration and “fix what’s broke” in the system. The ads call for a pathway to citizenship for 11 million immigrants in the country illegally.

The A.F.L.-C.I.O., the nation’s largest labor federation, said it would take 50 union leaders from 27 states to Washington on Wednesday to lobby in the Senate and the House. The organization said it was also starting a call-in campaign by union members focusing on about two dozen senators, including lawmakers from Alaska, Georgia, Illinois, North Carolina, Ohio and Tennessee, who have not made public their positions on the legislation. Richard L. Trumka, the president of the A.F.L.-C.I.O., was among an array of supporters who appeared with President Obama when he spoke from the White House on Tuesday morning to urge the Senate to pass the bill.

Immigrant workers, especially Latinos, have brought growth to unions that had struggled for years with declining membership. The A.F.L.-C.I.O reached a hard-fought agreement with business earlier this year on a program for future temporary low-skilled foreign workers, which is included in the Senate bill.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

México del Norte: El Rastro del Billete

Jorge Mújica Murias mexicodelnorte@...; 3 de Julio, 2013

"Follow the Money" (sigue el dinero), dicen los detectives de los programas chafas de televisión cada vez que no tienen ninguna pista para resolver un caso. Y por chafas que sean, la receta no falla. En la política gringa esto no es la excepción sino más bien la regla del juego. Y en la atrocidad que nos quieren vender como "reforma migratoria", es más verdadero que nunca.

Empecemos a seguir el dinero. En la última sesión del Senado hubo varias propuestas de cambio que no se aprobaron porque "el arroz ya estaba cocido" con el acuerdo entre Demócratas y Republicanos de "asegurar la frontera" a base de meterle millones de dólares, pero que nos dejan ver como va a venir la discusión en la Casa de Representantes.

Entre otras cosas, se propusieron: una multa para las remesas si el que manda lana no puede probar que está aquí sin papeles; extender la autorización de un programa que dure hasta el 2018 de "prevención del crimen en la frontera" para financiar gobiernos locales y tribales; usar las multas que paguen los indocumentados para financiar la corte migratoria, y una autorización sin restricciones para que el Departamento de Seguridad Nacional compre "todo el equipo que necesite" para asegurar la frontera.

Para dar idea del "equipo necesario", nomás en el Sector Yuma-Tucson de la frontera se "requieren": 50 torres de vigilancia; 73 cámaras fijas con sistemas de vigilancia por video; 28 sistemas portátiles de vigilancia con video; 685 sensores terrestres para detección de temblores, imágenes y con capacidad infrarroja, y 22 equipos manuales portátiles para detección de imágenes térmicas y lentes para visión nocturna. Para toda la frontera, se "necesitan" 86 torres de vigilancia, 286 cámaras fijas, 232 sistemas de vigilancia móviles, 4,595 nuevos sensores, cuatro aviones no tripulados (drones), 27 nuevos helicópteros, incluidos 10 Blackhawk, y 30 navíos. Si todo eso suena como a equipo militar, es porque eso es.

Lana Sube, Lana Baja

Como quien dice, lana, lana y más lana. No asombra. De por si, los Republicanos que siempre se quejan de que "el gobierno es muy grande y hay que reducirlo", incluyeron como parte del acuerdo aumentar ese mismo gobierno en 20 mil trabajadores, agentes de la Patrulla Fronteriza, en lo cual se van a reventar 38 mil millones de dólares. Claro, los trabajos irán a comunidades en los Distritos Electorales Republicanos que se sentirán agradecidas con el congresista en turno y votarán por él en la próxima elección.

Según reportes de El Diario de El Paso, las compañías Mobile Demand, Special Tactical Services, Pepperball, TSG, Stress Vest, la israelí RT y Academi (nuevo nombre de la empresa de seguridad privada Blackwater, responsable de docenas de asesinatos en Irak, ahora propiedad de Monsanto), ya se reunieron con la Patrulla Fronteriza, Aduanas y Protección Fronteriza, la DEA y el alcalde de El Paso para ofrecer sus servicios y concretar contratos por varios años basados en la "reforma migratoria".

Según la revista Forbes, los contratistas del ejército Northrop Grumman, Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics y Rockwell Collins dicen que como ya no hay guerra en Afganistán han perdido muchos contratos y están listos para entrarle a la frontera. Y según el periódico New York Times y la Revista "New Defense", la propuesta del Senado "parece una lista navideña de compras de estas empresas". La compañía alemana Heckler & Koch y la Remington Arms están listas para vender armamento y municiones, y la corporación de seguridad Chenega se apuntó ya para entrenar a los nuevos elementos de la Patrulla Fronteriza. Y el famoso muro fronterizo cuesta un promedio de 15 millones de dólares por milla, y la propuesta de "reforma" ordena construir 700 millas.

Y muy escondido, en las páginas 218 a 220, el proyecto incluye también "fondos para las organizaciones que ayuden a los solicitantes elegibles". Los otorga, a "las organizaciones no lucrativas comunitarias, religiosas y otras, cuyo personal demuestre capacidad y experiencia en dar servicios a inmigrantes, refugiados y asilados", para "informarlos sobre la elegibilidad y beneficios del registro provisional de inmigración, asistirlos para solicitar el registro", bla, bla, bla, y para "elegir a los solicitantes que sean elegibles, completar las solicitudes, completar su documentación y educarlos sobre las responsabilidades de los ciudadanos, en civismo, en inglés y ayudarlos para naturalizarse ciudadanos de Estados Unidos".

Ahí salta la pulga. Las organizaciones que apoyan esta "reforma" simplemente van también detrás de la lana, que "se otorgará de 2014 a 2018".

Pero se venden baratas. O más bien, venden baratos a los inmigrantes. Sus 30 monedas son miserables 50 millones de dólares anuales. En total, 300 millones de dólares en cinco años. Migajas, comparados con los 38 mil millones de dólares que costará "asegurar" la frontera y hacerle la vida imposible a los indocumentados.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

El gobierno mexicano, a través de SRE, dio la ‘‘bienvenida’’ a la enmienda

Periódico La Jornada, Viernes 28 de junio de 2013

La aprobación del Senado estadunidense, un avance, dijo.

El gobierno de México, a través de la Secretaría de Relaciones Exteriores (SRE), dio la ‘‘bienvenida’’ al avance que representa la aprobación por el Senado de Estados Unidos de una iniciativa de reforma migratoria integral, e hizo votos ‘‘para que impere una visión compartida sobre el valor de los vínculos entre las sociedades, las complementariedades económicas en América del Norte y el desarrollo de una frontera más moderna y eficiente’’.

Por medio de un comunicado de prensa la cancillería reconoce que la aprobación de una reforma migratoria –que debe pasar a la Cámara de Representantes para su aprobación, modificación o rechazo– ‘‘tendría el potencial de mejorar las condiciones de vida de millones de mexicanos que viven actualmente en Estados Unidos. Generaría un ambiente más favorable para su desarrollo y el respeto a sus derechos, así como para potenciar sus significativas contribuciones a las comunidades donde residen’’.

Esta declaración está precedida de un fuerte pronunciamiento que hizo el canciller José Antonio Meade Kuribreña el martes pasado en nombre del gobierno mexicano, en contra del incremento de efectivos de la Patrulla Fronteriza, la ampliación del muro y el aumento de aviones no tripulados (drones) para vigilar la línea divisoria entre ambos países, que promovieron los senadores republicanos como condición para votar en favor de la ley aprobada ayer.

‘‘Las bardas no son la solución al fenómeno migratorio y no son congruentes con una frontera moderna y segura’’, declaró entonces el secretario de Relaciones Exteriores, luego de enfatizar que en el diálogo que sostuvieron los presidentes Enrique Peña Nieto y Barack Obama en la reciente visita de este último a México, acordaron ‘‘trabajar de manera integral, coordinada en nuestra frontera común, de modo que ésta sea una región próspera, segura, sustentable y promotora del desarrollo’’.

En la respuesta que dio ayer jueves, el gobierno de México, reiteró que ha transmitido ‘‘a actores clave’’ de Estados Unidos su convicción de que los marcos legales en la materia deben reflejar la realidad demográfica de la región.

‘‘Ha expresado también que aquellas medidas que afectan los vínculos entre las comunidades se alejan de los principios de responsabilidad compartida y buena vecindad que ambas naciones han acordado impulsar. México considera que las políticas públicas deben ser coordinadas para impulsar la competitividad, la creación de empleos y el bienestar social de los dos países.’’

Asistencia consular

El gobierno mexicano reiteró además el compromiso de seguir con atención este proceso legislativo en Estados Unidos y mantener una estrecha interlocución con los actores involucrados en el tema, además de reforzar los esquemas de comunicación y de asistencia consular en apoyo de los mexicanos en el exterior, ‘‘sin importar su condición migratoria’’.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

San Lázaro, 25 de junio 2013

EN LAS FRONTERAS SE DEBE IMPULSAR CRECIMIENTO, DESARROLLO ECONÓMICO Y SOCIAL, EMPLEO E INVERSIÓN Y NO SU MILITARIZACIÓN: DIPUTADA AMALIA GARCÍA MEDINA

La diputada del GPPRD presentó el informe semestral de la Comisión de Asuntos Migratorios
Llamó a Enrique Peña Nieto a no mantenerse en silencio y se pronuncie sobre éste grave asunto; inaceptable que permanezca callado

La Presidenta de la Comisión de Asuntos Migratorios de la Cámara de Diputados, Amalia García Medina, cuestionó severamente la decisión del Congreso Americano de militarizar la frontera de Estados Unidos con México y demandó se impulse el crecimiento, desarrollo económico y social, empleo e inversión para las fronteras y no su militarización.

Al presentar el primer informe semestral de la Comisión de Asuntos Migratorios de la Cámara de Diputados, de la cual es presidenta, llamó a Enrique Peña Nieto a no mantenerse en silencio y se pronuncie sobre éste grave asunto, y afirmó que “su silencio, su prudencia no se justifica y no es aceptable que permanezca callado”.

Afirmó que “México debe mostrar una actitud activa y no pasiva; la reforma migratoria que involucra a millones de mexicanos, no debe atenderse con la óptica militar como un asunto policíaco, construir un muro es ignominia, eso es inaceptable”.

Por el contrario, dijo, las fronteras requieren el desarrollo económico de la región y no el reforzamiento militar. “Deben ser zonas de prosperidad, inversión, empleo y crecimiento, hay que impulsar su dinamismo”.

“Esos 46 mil millones de dólares que el Senado Norteamericano aprobó invertir para mil 125 kilómetros de muro, aviones no tripulados alta tecnología para cazar a seres humanos y 40 mil elementos de la patrulla fronteriza, deben ser invertidos en el desarrollo de la frontera y en las regiones de origen de los migrantes”, sentenció.

Dijo que es importante que los 50 consulados mexicanos en Estados Unidos protejan, orienten e informen a nuestros compatriotas; “lamentablemente hay un silencio preocupante de las autoridades mexicanas, ante esta acción de sellar la frontera entre ambos países, donde la industria armamentista va ser quien salga ganando”.

Consideró que es una mala señal, y no habla de buena vecindad que el gobierno norteamericano decida desplegar miles de agentes fronterizos, sofisticada vigilancia aérea para caza de personas como ha aprobado el Senado Americano.

Agregó que los migrantes no son un peligro, son trabajadores que han aprovechado la economía norteamericana pero también le ha generado enormes ganancias, y consideró que “la migración sólo se va a frenar con desarrollo en sus lugares de origen”.

Expresó su preocupación porque “el Plan Mérida se convierta en un instrumento contra los migrantes centroamericanos que cruzan por México en la búsqueda del sueño americano”.

Reiteró la importancia de crear una región de desarrollo incluyente en México, Centroamérica, El Caribe y los Estados Unidos, región que garantice empleo, producción, educación y espacio de conocimiento que resuelva la migración a Estados Unidos quedándose en sus países de origen, encontrando ahí oportunidades económicas, de mejoramiento social y vida digna.

Llamó a que México impulse acuerdos mutuamente benéficos que impacten en el crecimiento y en la economía de la región en lugar de criminalizar a los migrantes, y satanizándolos.

Dijo que “es inaceptable y un grave error ver a los migrantes como un riesgo para la seguridad de los Estados Unidos” y agregó: “basta de criminalizarlos para explotarlos según la exigencias del mercado”.

Por otra parte, al detallar algunos aspectos de los trabajos que realizó la Comisión que encabeza, dijo que el fenómeno de la migración se puede resolver a través del desarrollo económico, incluyente y sostenible para que nadie deje su tierra, forzado por las circunstancias.

Destacó que es responsabilidad de los gobiernos involucrados en el tema migratorio actuar con hospitalidad, solidaridad y garantía de acceso a la educación y salud de los migrantes y cumplir de manera irrestricta los tratados del derecho internacional, además de combatir el tráfico de personas.

Llamó, igual, al gobierno de México loas derechos adquiridos de los inmigrantes, y destacó que las niñas, niños y adolescentes tienen derecho a tener una familia y auxiliarlos para garantizarles su reencuentro.

La legisladora informó que la Comisión presentó 3 iniciativas; 4 dictámenes con reformas y 3 puntos de acuerdo.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Congressional Budget Analysts Release Positive Economic Assessment of Immigration Overhaul

By ASHLEY PARKER, NYT’s July 3, 2013

Congressional budget analysts on Wednesday released apositive economic assessment of the broad overhaul of the nation’s immigration laws that passed the Senate last week, saying that the new legislation would cut more than $800 billion from the federal deficit over the next two decades and lead to 9.6 million new legal residents in the country.

Though the Congressional Budget Office had offered in June a similar estimate of the immigration bill that was then being debated in the Senate — in a report that found the benefits of an increase in legal residents from the immigration overhaul would outweigh the costs — the new report provides an analysis of the actual bill recently passed by the Senate.

At the time, the budget office’s report was seen as a boonfor immigration advocates and Senate Democrats.

The new report on the final bill, which includes several provisions to further strengthen border security, estimates that the net effect of adding new tax-paying residents in the first decade after the immigration bill is carried out would cut the federal budget deficit by $158 billion. The deficit reduction would be even greater in the following decade, from 2024 to 2033 — an estimated $685 billion, or 0.2 percent of the gross domestic product, according to the report.

The deficit reduction figures over the first decade, however, do not account for the net discretionary spending costs of $23 billion to implement the bill, making the net savings slightly lower — $135 billion.

Though the legislation would cut the budget deficit by $843 billion over the next 20 years, that number is a fraction of the $47 trillion that the Congressional Budget Office projects will be spent in just half that time.

Perhaps more important, especially to many Republicans, the report also found that the legislation would further reduce future waves of illegal immigration — the result, in large part, of a border security amendment added by Senators Bob Corker of Tennessee and John Hoeven of North Dakota, both Republicans.

Though the original report found that the bill would reduce the number of immigrants in the country illegally by just 25 percent, the analysis of the final bill estimates “that the net inflow would be reduced by between one-third and one-half compared with the projected net inflow under current law.”

The Senate-approved bill, according to a letter from the budget office to Senator Patrick Leahy, Democrat of Vermont and the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, “would significantly increase border security relative to the committee-approved version of the bill, and it would strengthen enforcement against those who stay in the country after their authorization has expired.”

Thus, the letter continued, “the Senate-passed act would reduce both illegal entry into the country and the number of people who stay in the country beyond the end of their authorized period.”

In a statement, Senator Charles E. Schumer, the Democrat of New York who helped write the Senate bill, said the budget office “has reaffirmed that immigration reform reduces the debt and grows the economy. It also shows that the Corker-Hoeven amendment further substantially reduces the flow of illegal immigrants, even using a methodology that underestimates how effective immigration reform will be in reducing that flow.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

U.S. Jesuit Conference critical Statement on S.744 CIR legislation
http://www.jesuit.org/2013/06/27/u-s-jesuit-conference-statement-on-passage-of-the-senates-border-security-economic-opportunity-and-immigration-modernization-act-of-2013/
June 27, 2013--Today, the U.S. Senate voted in favor of S.744, the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013.
S.744 is the product of various compromises among Senators across the political spectrum. As such, it includes many provisions that the U.S. Jesuit Conference supports, but also many that we believe are wasteful and inhumane policy choices.
Most disappointing are the provisions introduced by Senators Corker and Hoeven that dramatically militarize our border with Mexico at an estimated cost of 46 billion dollars. These provisions double the number of Border Patrol agents and provide warfare technology for non-military operations by introducing drones, infrared sensors, and 140 million dollars’ worth of Blackhawk helicopters into civilian border communities.

All of this will be implemented despite serious transparency and accountability failures by Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and despite unprecedented growth in the immigration enforcement apparatus over the last decade. We must express our deep concern about the impacts these policies will have on the civil rights of border residents, the humane treatment of migrants, and the natural environment at the southern border.
Despite the negative impact this legislation will have on our southern border, we welcome the positive provisions in S.744. Many of our undocumented brothers and sisters will qualify for citizenship. The DREAM Act included in S.744 is the strongest version of that legislation to date. Agricultural and guest workers, abused and neglected for so long, will gain important workplace protections.

Other positive aspects of the final Bill include language deterring racial profiling in immigration apprehensions, the clarification and publication of Border Patrol use of force policies, limitations on immigration raids at churches, schools, and hospitals, and constraints on dangerous deportation practices.
Now that the Senate has passed this Bill, we look forward to working with the House of Representatives as they debate immigration reform. Whether the House decides to address reform in a piecemeal or comprehensive manner, we insist on legislative action to address the needs of the 11 million undocumented persons in our country. We also urge the House of Representatives to reject the path of egregious overspending and militarization of the southern border region taken by the Senate.
As Members of Congress begin their work on immigration reform, we remind them that the U.S. Jesuit Conference supports legislation that includes the following elements:

A pathway to citizenship that ensures all undocumented immigrants have access to full rights, including voting rights;
Due process protections and accountable and humane enforcement of our immigration laws;
A legal employment structure that protects both migrants and U.S. workers;
And economic assistance to, and fair competition with, developing countries.

The passage of S.744 is a significant step, but much legislative work remains before our nation can say that it has implemented comprehensive and humane immigration reform. The U.S. Jesuit Conference will continue to work with our elected officials until just, comprehensive, and humane immigration reform becomes a reality for all our undocumented brothers and sisters.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

United Methodist justice agency calls Senate immigration bill inadequateGeneral Board of Church & Society says legislation does not address what truly needed…

For immediate release

Contact: Wayne Rhodes
Director of Communications
General Board of Church & Society
(202) 488-5630 / wrhodes@umc-gbcs.org

WASHINGTON, D.C. — The General Board of Church & Society (GBCS) of The United Methodist Church praises the U.S. Senate for its initiative in finally passing a bill to reform immigration laws. Unfortunately, though, the agency believes the legislation passed is not what is needed to truly repair the broken U.S. immigration system.“The Border Security, Economic Opportunity, & Immigration Modernization Act” (S.744), which passed 68-32 June 27, represents important steps forward by including a pathway to citizenship for some undocumented immigrants — though the pathway is arduous — and by eliminating the visa backlog for some immigrant families, assessed Bill Mefford, director of Civil & Human Rights at GBCS.

“I pray the U.S. House of Representatives has the fortitude to keep those aspects of reform in their legislation,” Mefford said, “though they need to go further than the Senate for the reform to be humane and effective.”

The Senate bill contains many aspects, however, that make this legislation unworkable, according to Mefford.

The Senate bill creates a 13-year path to citizenship for undocumented individuals. It places a stay-of-removal on deportations of individuals qualified for the pathway, and includes their spouse and children under age 21 in their application, enabling families to go through the process together.

DREAMers, defined as persons who entered the United States before they turned 16, and agricultural workers would have a shortened pathway to citizenship.

All of this, however, is contingent on a dramatic, documentable increase in border security. The Dept. of Homeland Security (DHS) would have to submit border security plans to achieve 90% effectiveness in apprehensions and returns through additional fencing, surveillance, technology and personnel.

The bill allocates$46 billion to improvements, including 20,000 additional patrol officers — in effect doubling the force on the U.S.-Mexico border — and completing 700 miles of fencing. No permanent resident green cards would be issued until those enhancements and others are in place according to DHS. The contingency also includes an employment verification system for all employers.

“The 'border surge' represents more of the wrong direction that we have been following for years,” Mefford declared. “Border communities reject this Senate bill because they do not want to live under the occupation of 40,000 troops, nor under the military hardware that includes layers of fencing for hundreds of miles, drones, sensory fencing and helicopters.”

Mefford pointed out that United Methodists have long advocated for genuine immigration reform that is focused on upholding the civil and human rights of immigrants through providing a pathway to citizenship with minimal obstacles and reuniting families, including same-sex families. The United Methodist Social Principles urge recognizing “the gifts, contributions, and struggles of those who are immigrants and to advocate for justice for all.”

“Unfortunately, S. 744 does not include these crucial elements,” Mefford said. “While we are not opposing S. 744, we cannot endorse this legislation.”

The attention to immigration reform now turns to the House of Representatives, which is developing its own legislation.

“We will continue to build a movement among United Methodists dedicated to preserving and protecting the rights of all immigrants,” Mefford said. “We will continue to work for genuine reform that is humane and effective."

The General Board of Church & Society is one of four international general program boards of The United Methodist Church. Prime responsibility of the board is to seek implementation of the Social Principles and other policy statements on Christian social concerns of the General Conference, the denomination’s highest policy-making body. The board’s primary areas of ministry are Advocacy, Education & Leadership Formation, United Nations & International Affairs, and resourcing these areas for the denomination. It has offices on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., and at the Church Center for the United Nations in New York City.

Bill Mefford can be reached at (202) 488-5657 or via email at bmefford@umc-gbcs.org.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

¡Que desaparezcan los indocumentados!

Tal parece que es eso lo que realmente quieren decir los republicanos.

Ana Paula Ordorica, Exelsior Julio 1, 2013

http://www.excelsior.com.mx/ana-paula-ordorica/2013/07/01/906686?utm_source=Bolet%C3%ADn+Exc%C3%A9lsior&utm_campaign=a4a4b680b6-Exc_lsior8_24_2012&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_0c3fbe4479-a4a4b680b6-301476349

La bolita queda en la cancha de la Cámara de Representantes de EU. Es ahí en donde se va a decidir si realmente se hará una reforma migratoria integral o si se quiere mantener el actual sistema en donde hay mucha seguridad en la frontera México-Estados Unidos —más que nunca en la historia — con flujos de migrantes que hoy son descendientes, pero que continúan buscando mejorar sus condiciones de vida del otro lado.

¿Qué harán los republicanos en la Cámara baja?

Muchos —desde demócratas hasta ciudadanos y activistas pro migrantes— han querido ganar el voto de los republicanos argumentando que es la única forma que tiene el partido para recuperar la presidencia. Que sin el voto hispano no van a poder obtener los votos suficientes para ganar las llaves de la Casa Blanca y que para ello requieren aprobar la reforma migratoria.

Sin embargo, no todos los republicanos ven así la ecuación. Para muchos de ellos el dar la ciudadanía a los que llegaron sin papeles a EU significa no sólo premiar a los que rompieron la ley, si no la posibilidad de hacer más larga la fila de votantes, pero para los demócratas. No para su partido.

¿Cuál es el incentivo entonces de darles papeles a estos individuos?

Mejor están viendo la oportunidad de construir muros y de reforzar su frontera para evitar que estos millones de hispanos sigan llegando a EU. Por ello la enmienda Hoeven-Corken que se agregó a la reforma aprobada la semana pasada en el Senado que aporta más de 40 mil millones de dólares para la seguridad fronteriza.

Esta enorme cantidad de dinero representa para algunos dinero tirado a la basura. Dinero de los contribuyentes, muchos de los cuales están furiosos con este dispendio que no ordena los flujos migratorios.

No obstante, fue la única manera como los demócratas y la Pandilla de los Ocho senadores, que incluyó a cuatro republicanos, pudo sumar el voto de otros diez republicanos para sacar avante la reforma migratoria.

Sólo mediante la construcción de un enorme muro. Y ese mismo discurso, pero corregido y aumentado, parece que será el tono de las discusiones en la Cámara de Representantes.

Ahí ha prevalecido la postura del congresista Bob Goodlatte, quien como presidente del Comité Jurídico ha promovido la aprobación de medidas como el conocido SAFE Act que criminaliza a quienes no tienen documentos y por ello permite que cualquier policía persiga a alguien sólo por el hecho de parecer un inmigrante.

Tal parece que los republicanos lo que realmente quieren es decir ¡que desaparezcan los migrantes! Saben que forman parte de un segmento importante y creciente de la población en EU, pero no les gusta que quieran entrar a EU ni que sean un segmento importante del electorado demócrata.

Y por ello proponen medidas que deberían ser anacrónicas pero que implican que, por ejemplo, en la frontera México-EU se estén contemplando medidas como las aplicadas en la Segunda Guerra Mundial para dividir dos bloques ideológicamente distintos.

@AnaPOrdorica

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pros y contras de la ley bipartidista de inmigración del Senado

LatinoCalifornia.com, 27 de junio, 2013

http://latinocalifornia.com/home/2013/06/pros-y-contras-de-la-ley-bipartidista-de-inmigracion-del-senado/

La Ley de Seguridad Fronteriza, Oportunidad Económica y Modernización Migratoria de 2013 (S. 744) es un proyecto bipartidista con muchas disposiciones excelentes y otras que preocupan. Enseguida presentamos los pros y los contras.

LOS PROS

La mayoría de los inmigrantes indocumentados en el país pueden hoy en día conseguir un camino a la ciudadanía, empezando con el estatus de Inmigrante Provisional Registrado (RPI). Algunos de ellos tendrán una vía acelerada a la ciudadanía.

Después de 10 años con el estatus RPI, los ex inmigrantes indocumentados pueden solicitar la tarjeta de residente. Una vez que la tengan, su espera para la ciudadanía es más corta que en el proceso tradicional (3 años en lugar de 5).

Las familias pueden solicitar el estatus migratorio para todos sus miembros, ahorrando dinero en costosas multas. Si una persona pierde su estatus, otros integrantes de la familia pueden continuar con su vía a la ciudadanía.

Los solicitantes tendrán la opción de pagar sus cuotas a plazos, haciendo el proceso mucho más asequible para familias de bajos ingresos.

Dependiendo de cómo sean implementadas las disposiciones, amas de casa, jubilados, jornaleros y otros inmigrantes meritorios con diferentes circunstancias pueden solicitar.

La información contenida en las solicitudes se mantiene confidencial, y se anima a los empleadores a ayudar a los inmigrantes a cumplir con los requisitos de documentación.

Si el Departamento de Seguridad Nacional (DHS) rechaza una solicitud de estatus RPI, el inmigrante tiene el derecho a revisión judicial.

Ciertos grupos de residentes de larga estadía tienen una vía simplificada a la ciudadanía:

ü Cualquiera que haya estado aquí legalmente durante diez años (como los que tienen TPS o DED) son elegibles para la tarjeta de residente a partir de 2014 y para la ciudadanía después de tres años más

ü Los participantes en el programa de Acción Diferida para Quienes Llegaron Durante la Niñez (DACA) pueden tener sus solicitudes para RPI de manera expedita

ü Los DREAMers que se han graduado pueden solicitar la tarjeta de residente en cinco años y la ciudadanía inmediatamente después; los DREAMers que hayan servido en las fuerzas armadas tendrán la misma vía a la ciudadanía de forma acelerada, como otros no ciudadanos. No hay límite de edad al momento de la solicitud. Las multas para los DREAMers también son bajas

ü Los trabajadores agrícolas pueden participar en un programa especial de “tarjeta azul” con multas más bajas y una vía de 5 años para la residencia legal permanente, si continúan trabajando en el campo

Un grupo limitado de inmigrantes que fueron deportados pueden regresar al lado de sus familias a Estados Unidos, con base en una exención discrecional: DREAMers y padres o cónyuges de ciudadanos estadounidenses o residentes legales permanentes.

Inmigrantes elegibles que enfrentan deportación entre el día en que el proyecto se convierta en ley y el día que entre en vigor el programa RPI aún tendrán una oportunidad de solicitar.

Las disposiciones ayudarán a muchas familias a reunirse tras años de separación y permitirán a algunas mantenerse juntas en el futuro.

Ahora mismo, algunos inmigrantes tienen que esperar varios años e incluso décadas para reunirse con sus seres queridos en Estados Unidos. El proyecto de ley permite a todos aquellos que están en espera de una visa familiar o de empleo inmigrar dentro de los siguientes 8 años.

Hijos y cónyuges de residentes legales permanentes pueden solicitar tarjetas de residentes sin demora.

Otros inmigrantes en espera de una visa familiar pueden permanecer en Estados Unidos en lugar de en el extranjero. También pueden trabajar para ayudar a mantener a sus familias mientras están en Estados Unidos, así como lo pueden hacer los cónyuges de quienes tienen la visa H-1(b).

Un nuevo programa de visas de trabajo reemplazará la migración no autorizada con trabajadores legales que tengan derechos laborales y una vía a la ciudadanía.

El proyecto de ley crea una visa W para personas que buscan trabajo en el sector de servicios, hotelería, construcción y otras industrias excluidas de los existentes programas de visa.

El programa de visa W prevé protecciones laborales para trabajadores inmigrantes y estadounidenses, incluyendo normas salariales, requisitos de protección en el lugar de trabajo y de contratación, así como protecciones para informantes.

Los trabajadores con visa W tienen el derecho de cambiar de empleo y solicitar tarjetas de residentes. Sus familias pueden venir a Estados Unidos con ellos y trabajar.

El proyecto de ley añadirá otras protecciones laborales clave en la ley.

Elimina importantes incentivos a empleadores que contratan y explotan a inmigrantes indocumentados, dándoles a éstos el derecho de regresar si son despedidos injustamente y por proteger a informantes.

Nuevas protecciones laborales están previstas en programas de visa para el campo a fin de asegurar que los trabajadores sean tratados con justicia.

Al hacer obligatorio el programa E-Verify para todos los empleadores, el proyecto de ley incluye importantes protecciones del debido proceso para trabajadores que han sido incorrectamente catalogados como no autorizados para trabajar.

Algunas disposiciones empiezan a restaurar equidad para inmigrantes después de años de políticas severas que deterioraron derechos y oportunidades.

Los inmigrantes que se encuentran detenidos tendrán el derecho a solicitar la liberación a un juez en el momento oportuno, y se exhorta a los jueces a considerar alternativas a la detención. Se requiere de ICE que limite el uso de confinamiento solitario de inmigrantes detenidos.

El proyecto otorga a los jueces discrecionalidad para descartar casos de deportación contra residentes que cumplan con parámetros muy limitados.

Cuando los padres sean detenidos durante un operativo migratorio, se pedirá al DHS que considere el bienestar de los hijos cuando decida si va a realizar la deportación.

Los niños, las personas con discapacidades mentales y otras en situación de extrema vulnerabilidad que se encuentran en procedimientos de deportación, finalmente tendrán el derecho a consejería gubernamental pagada, según sea necesario.

El proyecto de ley codificará, expandirá y dará fondos a Programas de Orientación Legal para inmigrantes en proceso de deportación.

El proyecto eliminará la arbitraria fecha límite de un año para presentar los documentos de petición de asilo, reforzando el compromiso de nuestra nación para proteger a los refugiados.

Penas más duras para el “fraude de notarios” ayudará a proteger a los inmigrantes de “consejeros” sin escrúpulos, cuya labor puede poner en peligro su estatus migratorio.

El proyecto de ley deroga una sección de la Ley de Reforma de Inmigración Ilegal y de Responsabilidad del Inmigrante de 1996 que hacía más difícil para las universidades públicas ofrecer tasas locales de matrícula para residentes indocumentados.

LOS CONTRA

El proyecto de ley tendrá como resultado una masiva –y masivamente innecesaria—militarización de la frontera sur.

La frontera está más segura que nunca. De cualquier manera, la S. 744 original ya incluía incrementos sustanciales en fondos para la frontera, personal y tecnología. La enmienda Corker-Hoeven aumenta drásticamente dicha seguridad, lo que constituye una militarización de la frontera.

Tal como está el proyecto de ley (con la adición de la enmienda Corker-Hoeven) efectivamente duplicaría la cantidad de agentes de la Patrulla Fronteriza a 38,405 a lo largo de la frontera sur en diez años. Esto requeriría la construcción de 700 millas de muro. Y destinaría $46.3 billones a DHS para poner en práctica esos requisitos y adquirir más cámaras, torres, aviones no tripulados y otra tecnología. Esta militarización significará una carga enorme para las comunidades fronterizas y resultará probablemente en violaciones de las libertades civiles.

Además, el proyecto de ley requiere que esa expansión de la Patrulla Fronteriza y la construcción del muro —así como otros requisitos de seguridad, como la implementación de E-Verify— sea terminada antes de que empiecen los pasos clave en el proceso de legalización. Los llamados “detonantes” son una artimaña que juega a la política con la vida de personas, sin una base política.

Algunos inmigrantes meritorios serán obstaculizados para obtener el estatus de Inmigrante Provisional Registrado (RPI), tarjetas de residente y ciudadanía.

Cada día hasta que el proyecto de ley sea aprobado, la gente que sería elegible para el estatus RPI será deportada.

El 31 de diciembre de 2011 como fecha de cierre para el estatus RPI significa que cientos de miles de inmigrantes que llegaron en 2012 y 2013 serán excluidos.

El proceso será costoso —en algunos casos incluso prohibitivo—para trabajadores de bajos ingresos y sus familias. Mientras que los inmigrantes pueden pagar a plazos, los principales solicitantes pagarán $2000 en multas a lo largo del programa, más los costos de la solicitud para ellos mismos y los miembros de su familia. Los costos de solicitud para todo el proceso podrían llegar a $1000 o más por persona.

Debido a los rigurosos requisitos del programa, los inmigrantes necesitarán tiempo para reunir los documentos, dinero y asistencia legal necesarios para presentar una solicitud como se debe. El proyecto sólo les da un año para hacer todo esto, con una extensión opcional de 18 meses.

Las barreras penales al estatus legal son aún más rigurosas que la ley actual, la cual ya rechaza a personas con base en delitos menores de hace décadas.

Personas con estatus RPI se mantienen en un nivel superior a otros solicitantes para recibir tarjetas de residente. Ellos tienen que demostrar que están realizando estudios de inglés y de historia de Estados Unidos, o comprobar que ya son competentes. Actualmente, el requisito del idioma inglés es parte del proceso de ciudadanía, no para la residencia permanente.

Para algunos de esos requisitos, hay exenciones disponibles para inmigrantes que no pueden cumplirlos debido a lo difícil u otras circunstancias. Sin embargo, el proyecto de ley pone límites estrictos sobre quién puede solicitar una exención, y la implementación del proceso puede tardar aún más —excluyendo a buenas personas que merecen una consideración flexible. Esto es de especial preocupación para los inmigrantes con antecedentes penales que solicitan exenciones, quienes tendrán que esperar a que el DHS encuentre a las víctimas de sus delitos y “consultarlas” antes de otorgarles las exenciones.

Los padres deportados y hermanos de DREAMers y otros que obtengan el estatus RPI no podrán lograr una exención y reunirse con sus familias en Estados Unidos.

La intención de este programa debería ser abarcar a tanta gente como sea posible, de tal manera que empecemos con un borrón y cuenta nueva, no hacer el proceso más difícil y caro para que muchos permanezcan en las sombras.

En algunos casos, consideraciones políticas triunfan sobre las metas de política pública.

A las personas con estatus RPI se les pide que paguen impuestos y adquieran seguro médico con base en la Ley de Cuidado Asequible, pero están excluidas de opciones de cuidado médico asequible y de beneficios de protección social.

Inmigrantes legalizados no recibirán crédito del Seguro Social para los impuestos que pagaron mientras eran indocumentados: aun cuando ya hayan pagado dentro del sistema durante años mientras trabajaban bajo la mesa, nunca podrán recibir los beneficios por las contribuciones que se han ganado.

El proyecto de ley elimina algunas vías migratorias que promueven la diversidad y la unidad familiar, sin reemplazarlas adecuadamente en otros programas.

Ciudadanos de Estados Unidos y residentes permanentes con parejas del mismo sexo se quedan sin la posibilidad de patrocinar a sus seres queridos para inmigrarlos, aun cuando estén legalmente casados. Esto deja a decenas de miles de familias estadounidenses en el limbo hasta que nuestro sistema de justicia intervenga para poner fin a la discriminación.

Son muy extremas las leyes actuales que disparan la deportación o excluyen a un inmigrante de obtener estatus legal con base en conducta delincuencial, y los jueces tienen poco o nulo margen de discrecionalidad para impedir deportaciones incluso en las situaciones más apremiantes. El nuevo proyecto de ley expande la lista de delitos que conllevan esas graves y permanentes consecuencias. Las condenas por reingreso ilegal y fraude con documentos pueden hacer que se excluya a inmigrantes indocumentados habituales de la legalización. El gobierno tendrá aún más amplia autoridad para definir la actividad de pandillas, DUI y delitos de violencia doméstica, de tal forma que perjudica a gente inocente y víctimas de delitos, en lugar de enfocarse en las verdaderas malas personas.

El proyecto de ley mantiene varias injusticias del actual sistema de seguridad migratoria, tal como la extremadamente amplia definición y exagerado trato a individuos con la llamada condena por “delito grave” (lo cual no tiene que ser “grave” ni delitos reales para derivar en deportación); continuación del defectuoso programa Comunidades Seguras; y la operación de un masivo sistema de detención migratoria que se supone es civil en su naturaleza, pero criminal en su diseño.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Border Militarization Amendment Prevails with Majority Democratic Vote: No Faustian Bargain for Us

We are living in unprecedented times. Today is another day of infamy in the annals of attempted immigration reform in these United States of America. The U.S. Senate approved an amendment to S.744, the heralded bi-partisan comprehensive immigration reform legislation supported by President Obama, to double the number of border patrol agents from the current 21,000 to 40,000 along the U.S.-Mexico border. Other elements of the amendment proposed by Republican Senators Bob Corker of Tennessee and John Hoeven of North Dakota, include 700 additional miles of border wall, more drones, towers, cameras, and sensors to the tune of a $30 billion price-tag. The vote was 67-27. The majority of the aye votes were cast by Democratic Senators.

Senator Charles Schumer from New York, Democratic Party senate leader, and considered the architect of the “gang of eight” bi-partisan CIR initiative, cut the deal with his Republican colleagues who rightly recognized that their amendment was over the top on the enforcement side. New Jersey Senator Robert Menendez also voted for the border surge amendment. The Democrats explained their action as the compromise price to pay for getting the 70 vote margin desired to report the bill out of the Senate.

When all the other punitive measures embedded in S.744 are taken into consideration we literally have a bill of unprecedented measures. The border amendment is the final proverbial straw that broke the camel’s back. The legislation is anything but fair and humane to immigrant families and foretells an immigration point system inclined towards addressing fictional labor demands in detriment to family reunification, the permanent criminalization of immigrant workers, and the militarization of the southern border - without exaggeration. Other actions include:

The unprecedented police build-up in the work-place via the mandatory use of E-verify nationally with all employers. This is the greatest intervention of the federal government into the private world of work.
The unprecedented creation of a biometric ID for immigrant workers that could easily be expanded to obligate all American citizens to possess.
The unprecedented enhanced collaboration between local and state police agencies with the Department of Homeland Security for database sharing, detention, and transfer of detainees.
The unprecedented punitive requirements that condition the provisional status offered under the legislation to the undocumented contrast greatly with how European immigrants were treated in earlier eras. It’s hard to qualify the status as anything but indentured servitude under the sophism of “earned legalization.” The decade length of provisional status is conditioned by paying all back taxes, paying hefty fees and fines, passing a criminal background check, no lapses of unemployment greater than 60 days during 10-years, annual earnings of 125 percent of the federal poverty guideline ($28,812 for a family of four, for example), and learn English and American civics and history (heretofore a requirement for U.S. citizenship).

It’s apparent that the legislators are demanding a quality of resident superior in character and worthiness than the citizens who populate the nation. Numerous research institutions have verified that the majority of the undocumented have been in the country in excess of five years. More than half have resided here for at least ten. When the decade-plus provisional period is tacked on most applicants will have completed between 15 to 20 years of “earning their permanent status” just short of the citizenship opportunity.

Two additional immigration enforcement bills have already surfaced in the House side of Congress, in the House Judiciary Committee, which portends worst things to come. One, the unprecedented change from civil offense to criminal offense for unauthorized entry to the U.S., and two, a bill that would disqualify any youth affiliated or identified with a gang for any form of legalization.

Over the past 30 years local police agencies have received inordinate Justice Department funding to create “gang” databases in their respective communities. Latino and black youth have been the natural targets of the racial profiling that resulted from such programs. Once in the database youth pay hell to get off it.

House Speaker John Boehner recently declared that he has every intention of applying the Hastert principle of not moving any immigration legislation that is not supported by a majority of Republican House members. However, since the Senate moved so harshly to the right with the Corker-Hoeven amendment such a majority threshold may not be far-fetched. For example, even conservative Arizona Governor Jan Brewer has now expressed favor for S.744.

On the other hand, private conversations with various members of Congress admit that a majority of the 11 million undocumented will not qualify to legalize their status and will naturally be the new deportees. The clauses of the legislation tell the story themselves. Is this the kind of America that we want for ourselves and our posterity? Many of the Washington, D.C.-funded immigrant advocacy agencies and coalitions, and their affiliates nationally, have accepted the Faustian bargain presented to them by Obama and the Democratic Party leadership. The “advocates” have offered their souls in exchange for the ostensible diabolical favors. Some have even deluded themselves into believing that any form of legal status obtained, however tenuous and painful, can be the basis for continued organizing for improvements in any bill signed into law. This is false on its face, and actually quite dangerous.

Hermandad Mexicana is the oldest immigrant membership organization of the Mexican and Latino communities in the U.S., founded in 1951, and has experienced many cycles of legislation advocacy, repression, mass deportations, bracero programs (Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson), the McCarran-Walter Act of 1952 (Truman), Operation Wetback of 1952-54 (Eisenhower), the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 (Johnson), IRCA of 1986 (Reagan), the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (Clinton), and the mega-marches of 2006 forward.

We stand on the shoulders of our founders and leaders and their many experiences and lessons on organizing under the most trying of circumstances. We are not funded by corporations and private foundations or their political parties, and therefore, not beholden to them. No president or CEO can tell us to “shut the fuck up” and not tinker with the proposed legislation by amendments as did Obama to his selected “Latino leaders” at the White House in May 2013. Our members are flesh and blood, not virtual, and we meet and consult with thousands of them regularly and solely to them are we beholden. There is no Faustian bargain for us. S.744 smells rotten to the core and the most recent border militarization amendment and the corollary House Judiciary Committee bills moved us to oppose this legislation.

We admonish those “advocates” who do not recognize the national security character of the proposed legislation and related amendments under the guise of “comprehensive immigration reform” that moves the country closer to a police state with all the insidious totalitarian trappings. We are living in perilous times. We have a responsibility to be truthful and more insightful and not allow ourselves to be used for partisan interests foreign to those of our families. The political parties and their politicians need us more than we need them. Our strength devolves from our faith and ability to organize ourselves and to persevere. Put your trust in the people, not in the politicians and the parties and corporations that they serve.

June 24, 2013 – Team Hermandad

Analysis of Senate Bill 744’s Pathway to Legalization and CitizenshipBy: Peter Schey, President

CHRCL, Center for Human Rights & Constitutional Law

Missing from the current debate on comprehensive immigration reform has been a rigorous analysis by advocates of the likely impact of the proposed legalization program on immigrants and their communities if S. 744 is enacted in roughly its present form. A detailed analysis is attached in PDF format.

The linked report (click here to download report) examines nine (9) critical provisions in the Senate bill’s legalization section and is based on available demographic data as well as my 35-plus years of engagement in landmark cases on behalf of immigrants involving implementation of federal immigration laws, including over 15 years of litigation focused on implementation of the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act, the last legalization program enacted by Congress.

In summary, Title II of S. 744, the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act, includes a pathway to legalization for millions of undocumented immigrants. It allows immigrants who meet certain requirements to apply for Registered Provisional Immigrant (RPI) status (Subtitle A, Sec. 2101), and RPI’s after 10 years may have the opportunity to apply for lawful permanent residence. (Subtitle A, Sec. 2102.)

For purposes of this analysis, I assume that approximately 800,000 of immigrant youth would be legalized under Section 2103 (DREAM Act), and approximately one million under Title II, Subtitle B—(Agricultural Worker Program). These provisions of the Senate bill create mechanisms that are relatively efficient and fairly straightforward, and should therefore successfully legalize most of the intended target populations. Most migration experts agree there are about 11.1 million undocumented immigrants living in the U.S. Assuming that about 2 million of these immigrants will be legalized through the Agricultural Worker Program and DREAM provisions, the remaining 9 million people must be legalized, if at all, under the general legalization program offered in the Senate bill.

Because of several provisions in the Senate bill (discussed in detail in the attached report) that create significant obstacles to legalization for these 9 million immigrants, once implemented on the ground over the next 10 to 20 years, it is likely that approximately four to five million mostly low-income immigrants will not have discretion favorably exercised in their cases by USCIS agents who will ultimately be responsible for adjudicating the vast majority of applications for provisional status and later for permanent resident status.

In the attached analysis I address in sequence the likely impacts of (1) the indeterminate “Back-of-the-Line” requirement, (2) the Average Income requirement, (3) the Continuous Employment requirement, (4) the Payment of Taxes requirement, (5) the thirteen to twenty-year waiting period and “Triggers”, (6) fees and penalties for program participation, (7) ineligibility for public benefits, (8) the discretionary Grant Program to assist eligible applicants, and (9) the disqualification of non-immigrants

The 4 to 5 million immigrants unable to legalize their status under the Senate bill's terms will be left facing an extremely harsh and unforgiving set of laws that will eventually force their detention and deportation (if detected) or more likely leave them in undocumented status for the rest of their lives (if undetected).

At the same time, as explained in the attached report, the “continuous employment” provisions of the Senate bill will perpetuate and possibly increase opportunities for unscrupulous employers to violate health and safety, anti-discrimination, and wage and hour laws over the next ten to twenty years.

The bi-polar political environment in which we find ourselves today--in which strongly held views see the issue of "comprehensive immigration reform" through very different lenses and adopt very different solutions--may or may not offer the best time to fix a broken system. Many experienced advocates believe that in the present environment the country and immigrant communities would be best served by (1) reconsidering draconian provisions of law adopted in 1996 that have blocked millions of long-term residents with close family ties in the US from legalizing their status, and (2) promptly and efficiently legalizing targeted groups of longer-term residents and those with special equities or skills (without the obstacles to legalization imposed by the Senate bill). Others seek to move forward now, believing that an imperfect law will make things better than the status quo. Regardless of the approach, this analysis will inform advocates who want a deeper understanding of how implementation of the SB 744 will likely play out in the real world of millions of immigrant families dealing directly with thousands of USCIS adjudication agents over the next 10 to 20 years.

click here to read full analysis

Analysis of Senate Bill 744’s Pathway to Legalization and Citizenship
By: Peter Schey, President, CHRCL1

(June 2013)

Title II of S. 744, the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration

Modernization Act, includes a pathway to legalization for millions of undocumented

immigrants.2 It allows immigrants who meet certain requirements to apply for Registered

Provisional Immigrant (RPI) status (Subtitle A, Sec. 2101), and RPI’s after 10 years may

have the opportunity to apply for lawful permanent residence. (Subtitle A, Sec. 2102.)

Missing from the current debate on comprehensive immigration reform has been a

rigorous analysis by advocates of the likely impact of the proposed legalization program

on immigrants and their communities if S. 744 is enacted in roughly its present form.

The analysis below of nine (9) critical provisions in the Senate bill’s legalization

section is based on available demographic data as well as 35-plus years of engagement in

landmark cases on behalf of immigrants involving implementation of federal immigration

laws, including over 15 years of litigation focused on implementation of the 1986

Immigration Reform and Control Act, the last legalization program enacted by Congress.

Recommendations are made for how the legalization provisions of the S. 744

could be improved. These include both modifications to the Senate bill that may be

“politically viable” in today’s bi-polar environment (when its comes to immigration

reform), and those that are cost-effective, efficient, and rational from a public policy

standpoint, though unlikely to be enacted in today’s highly polarized environment.

For purposes of this analysis, we assume that approximately 800,000 of

immigrant youth would be legalized under Section 2103 (DREAM Act), and

1 Contact at pschey@centerforhumanrights.org

2 This analysis refers to the text of the bill as of May 28, 2013, as reported by the Senate

Judiciary Committee.

Analysis of Legalization Provisions of Senate Bill 744

June 17, 2013

Page 2

approximately one million under Title II, Subtitle B—(Agricultural Worker Program).

These provisions of the Senate bill create mechanisms that are relatively efficient and

fairly straightforward, and should therefore successfully legalize most of the intended

target populations. Most migration experts agree there are about 11.1 million

undocumented immigrants living in the U.S. Assuming that about 2 million of these

immigrants will be legalized through the Agricultural Worker Program and DREAM

provisions, the remaining 9 million people must be legalized, if at all, under the general

legalization program offered in the Senate bill.

Because of several provisions in the Senate bill (discussed below) that create

significant obstacles to legalization for these 9 million immigrants, once implemented on

the ground over the next 10 to 20 years, it is likely that approximately four to five million

mostly low-income immigrants will not have discretion favorably exercised in their cases

by USCIS agents who will ultimately be responsible for adjudicating the vast majority of

applications for provisional status and later for permanent resident status.3

The proposed program for 9 million undocumented immigrants is so complex,

costly, drawn out over time, and burdened with obstacles that its implementation will

likely legalize no more than half of the remaining 9 million undocumented immigrants

now living in the U.S. Below I address in sequence the likely impacts of (1) the

indeterminate “Back-of-the-Line” requirement, (2) the Average Income requirement, (3)

the Continuous Employment requirement, (4) the Payment of Taxes requirement, (5) the

thirteen to twenty-year waiting period and “Triggers”, (6) fees and penalties for program

participation, (7) ineligibility for public benefits, (8) the discretionary Grant Program to

assist eligible applicants, and (9) the disqualification of non-immigrants

About 4 to 5 million immigrants will most likely be left facing an extremely harsh

and unforgiving set of laws almost certain to eventually force their detention and

deportation (if detected) or more likely leave them in undocumented status for the rest of

their lives (if undetected).

At the same time, the “continuous employment” provisions of the Senate bill will

perpetuate and possibly increase opportunities for unscrupulous employers to violate

health and safety, anti-discrimination, and wage and hour laws over the next ten to twenty

years.

3 By way of comparison, the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) resulted

in the legalization of about 2.7 million undocumented immigrants. While IRCA required

five years of continuous residence to qualify and the Senate bill, by the time

implementation commences, will require only about three years of residence, this

difference is not significant since the vast majority of undocumented immigrants have

been living here for much longer than three or five years. What is noteworthy is that

IRCA’s path to legalization and citizenship was far more efficient, cost-effective, prompt,

and substantially less burdened with obstacles than the Senate’s legalization proposal.

Analysis of Legalization Provisions of Senate Bill 744

June 17, 2013

Page 3

1. Indeterminate “Back-of-the-Line” Requirement

The Senate bill provides that the status of a registered provisional immigrant “may not be

adjusted to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence … until after the

Secretary of State certifies that immigrant visas have become available for allapproved

petitions for immigrant visas that were filed under sections 201 and 203 before the date

of the enactment of the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration

Modernization Act.” (Emphasis added).4

• Despite other provisions intended to wipe out existing backlogs of about 4.4

million visa applications5 over a 10 year period, there are several reasons why the

backlog may not be eliminated for 10 or even 20 years.

• As has happened in the past, administrative resources may be diverted from

wiping out the existing backlog of visa applications as a result of resource allocation

decisions influenced by any number of factors including budget controls exercised by

Congress, unexpected “spikes” in one or another visa or benefits programs, or unexpected

influxes of migrants due to catastrophic events abroad.

• In addition, in most programs USCIS has a residual of complex or simply

ignored cases that may be pending for 10 or 20 or more years after applications were

submitted.6 These “straggler” cases, even if small in number, could block temporary

residents from getting permanent resident status for decades.

Recommendation: The “back-of-the-line” concept has political currency but could

easily leave immigrants with Provisional Immigrant status unable to seek

permanent resident status for 20 years or longer. The laudable goal of adjudicating

4 S. 744, the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization

Act Sec. 2102(a), amending 8 U.S.C. 1255 by inserting Sec. 245C(c)(2).

5 Annual Report of Immigrant Visa Applicants in the Family sponsored and Employment

based preferences Registered at the National Visa Center as of November 1, 2012.

http://www.travel.state.gov/pdf/WaitingListItem.pdf

6 It is our experience (and the experience of many other legal representatives of

immigrants) that in almost every program there are applications or petitions raising novel

issues or assigned low adjudication priority that have been pending for many years

without resolution, including some as a result of administrative or judicial appeals. For

example, by about 2005 USCIS had still not adjudicated thousands of IRCA applications.

In 2009, USCIS was still adjudicating applications for adjustment of status for 1986

IRCA applicants whose adjustment of status applications were mostly filed around 1991-

1993. More Than IRCA: US Legalization Programs and the Current Policy Debate,

December 2010, http://www.migrationpolicy.org/pubs/legalization-historical.pdf

Analysis of Legalization Provisions of Senate Bill 744

June 17, 2013

Page 4

all pending visa cases promptly can be achieved through other provisions in the bill

without mandating that Provisional Immigrants cannot be granted permanent

resident status until every single pending visa application has been fully

adjudicated, something that literally may never happen. At minimum, Congress

should permit applicants with earlier filed family or employment-based visa

applications pending to adjust their status when their old priority dates become

current. For those without prior visa applications pending, they should be permitted

to adjust to permanent resident status after waiting a reasonable number of years in

provisional resident status without waiting until “all” other pending applications

have been fully adjudicated. They could be required to engage in community service

to adjust status rather than waiting in Provisional status for every pending

application to be adjudicated, something that could take decades.

2. Average Income Requirements

If immigrants cannot show regular employment during the initial six-year provisional

status period, which as many as half of all eligible immigrants may not be able to show,

the bill requires immigrants to “demonstrate average income or resources that are not less

than 100 percent of the Federal poverty level throughout the period of admission as a

registered provisional immigrant” in order to renew their RPI status.7

In order to adjust their status to that of a lawful permanent immigrant, the bill requires

immigrants to establish that during his or her period of status as a registered provisional

immigrant s/he can “demonstrate average income or resources that are not less than 125

percent of the Federal poverty level throughout the period of admission as a registered

provisional immigrant.”8

• Based on our experience representing tens of thousands of low-income undocumented

immigrants, and demographic studies that confirm our experiences, we believe as

many as 40% of all undocumented immigrants living in the U.S. may be disqualified

from the legalization provisions of the Senate bill by its harsh employment and

income requirements.

• It is well known that “[t]he unauthorized immigrant population is mostly low-income:

high shares have incomes below the poverty level ...”9 In 2011, 32 percent of

unauthorized adults had family incomes below the federal poverty level (FPL); 44

7 S. 744, the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization

Act Sec. 2101(a), amending 8 U.S.C. 1255 by inserting Sec. 245B (c)(9)(B).

8 S. 744, the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization

Act Sec. 2102(a), amending 8 U.S.C. 1255 by inserting Sec. 245C (b)(3)(A).

9 Capps, Randy, James D. Bachmeier, Michael Fix, and Jennifer Van Hook (2013) A

Demographic, Socioeconomic, and Health Coverage Profile of Unauthorized Immigrants

in the United States. Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute at 4.

Analysis of Legalization Provisions of Senate Bill 744

June 17, 2013

Page 5

percent of adults and 63 percent of children had incomes below 138 percent of FPL.10

Researchers estimate that 3 million unauthorized adults over the age of 19 had family

incomes below the federal poverty level.11

Recommendation: Immigrants granted Provisional Immigrant status should have

their status extended and qualify for permanent resident status as long as they can

show that they are “not likely to become a pubic charge.” This is the test that has

applied to all new immigrants for over 50 years and the standard applied to legalize

under the 1986 IRCA.12

3. Continuous Employment Requirement

The bill disqualifies registered provisional immigrants from renewing their status or

adjusting their status to lawful permanent resident status if they have been out of work for

more than 60 days. It provides that “an alien may not be granted an extension of

registered provisional immigrant status … unless the alien establishes that, during the

alien’s period of status as a registered provisional immigrant, the alien . . . was regularly

employed … allowing for brief periods lasting not more than 60 days.”13

Furthermore, an immigrant granted provision status may not be granted permanent

resident status unless s/he was “regularly employed throughout the period of admission as

a registered provisional immigrant, allowing for brief periods lasting not more than 60

days.”14

• The “continuous employment” requirement may exclude 40-50% of all

undocumented immigrants from having their provisional status renewed or from

successfully transitioning to permanent resident status.

10 Id.

11 Id.

12 For purposes of determining inadmissibility, “public charge” means an individual who

is likely to become primarily dependent on the government for subsistence, as

demonstrated by either the receipt of public cash assistance for income maintenance or

institutionalization for long-term care at government expense.

13 S. 744, the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization

Act Sec. 2101(a), amending 8 U.S.C. 1255 by inserting Sec. 245B (c)(9)(B).

14 S. 744, the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization

Act Sec. 2101(a), amending 8 U.S.C. 1255 by inserting Sec. 245B (c)(9)(B). If an

immigrant cannot show regular employment, s/he can alternatively show annual income

above federal poverty levels.

Analysis of Legalization Provisions of Senate Bill 744

June 17, 2013

Page 6

• The Migration Policy Institute estimates that in 2011 about 79 percent of

undocumented men and 48 percent of undocumented women immigrants were

employed.15

• Given that different immigrants will be unemployed during different years, it is very

likely that measured over a ten year period, 30-40 percent of undocumented men and

as many as 90 percent of undocumented women will experience periods of

unemployment lasting longer than 60 days making them ineligible for extensions of

their provisional status or adjustment to permanent resident status.

• It is well known that most undocumented workers are employed in low-wage

industries (a third in service jobs, restaurants, janitors or cleaners) where turnover is

high and extended periods of unemployment routine.

• Based on demographic studies, economic forecasts, and our own experience

representing thousands of legalization applicants, it would be reasonable to assume

that implementation of the “continuous employment” requirement may result in 50%

of all otherwise eligible immigrants being disqualified from extending their

provisional status or denied adjustment to permanent resident status.16

15 Capps, Randy, James D. Bachmeier, Michael Fix, and Jennifer Van Hook. 2013. A

Demographic, Socioeconomic, and Health Coverage Profile of Unauthorized Immigrants

in the United States. Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute at 4. Young

unauthorized women (under age 35) had a still lower employment rate (43 percent)

because they were more likely to be raising young children or in school full time.” Marc

R. Rosenblum, Randy Capps, and Serena Yi-Ying Lin. Effects of Proposed Requirements

on Unauthorized Men, Women, and Children. Migration Policy Institute: January 2011 at

9-10.

16 The proposed bill includes exemptions to the continuous work requirement, including

if the applicant is younger than 15 years on the date on which he or she files an

application for provisional status, or is at least 60 years of age when s/he files an

application for an extension of provisional status, or at least 65 years of age on the date of

application for adjustment of status, or if the applicant has a physical or mental disability

(as defined in the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990) or as a result of pregnancy, if

such conditions are evidenced by the submission of documentation to be prescribed by

the DHS Secretary. About 10% of the undocumented population are minors whose status

is addressed elsewhere in the Senate bill. The vast majority of undocumented immigrants

are between the ages of 20 and 55. Only about 4% are over 55 years old and therefore

may benefit from the old-age exemption in the Senate bill. The number of immigrants

with documented disabilities as defined by the ADA will also be relatively small, and

many of these immigrants may be ineligible for legalization anyway under the “likely to

become a public charge” ground of inadmissibility.

Analysis of Legalization Provisions of Senate Bill 744

June 17, 2013

Page 7

• The continuous employment requirement will require that provisional status

immigrants retain their jobs at any cost and many if not most will seek proof of their

employment from the best source: Their employers. This will force millions of

immigrants to endure exploitation, sexual harassment, discrimination, health and

safety violations and wage and hour violations for ten years or longer.

• The Secretary may waive the employment requirements with respect to any

individual who demonstrates “extreme hardship to himself or herself or to a spouse,

parent, or child who is a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident.” This

discretionary waiver will be available at most to about 50% of the eligible population

(those with a spouse, parent, or child who is a United States citizen or lawful

permanent resident). Even as to applicants with a US citizen or lawful permanent

resident spouse, parent, or child, similar waivers under existing law are only granted

in highly exceptional cases such as when a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident

spouse, parent, or child has suffered a catastrophic illness.

Recommendation: Unless the goal of the law is to eliminate several million otherwise

eligible immigrants from legalizing their status, the “continuous employment”

requirement should be dropped from the legalization provisions of the bill. A “likely

to become a public charge” ground of inadmissibility would be a sufficient

requirement especially when one considers that legalized immigrants are in any

event ineligible for public services for more than 10 years.

4. The Payment of Taxes requirement

An applicant may not be granted provisional status, an extension of provisional status, or

adjustment to permanent resident status “unless the applicant has satisfied any applicable

Federal tax liability.”17 This means “all Federal income taxes assessed in accordance with

section 6203 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.”18

• A substantial number of low-income otherwise eligible immigrants will be unable to

afford to pay their back taxes or have no way of determining how much back taxes

they actually owe because of the absence of normal employment records (such as W-

2s or 1099s).

17 S. 744, the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization

Act Sec. 2101(a), amending 8 U.S.C. 1255 by inserting Sec. 245B (c)(2)(governing

application for RPI status); S. 744, the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and

Immigration Modernization Act Sec. 2101(a), amending 8 U.S.C. 1255 by inserting Sec.

245B(c)(9)(C)(governing extension of RPI status); S. 744, the Border Security, Economic

Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act Sec. 2102(a), amending 8 U.S.C. 1255

by inserting Sec. 245C (b)(2)(governing adjustment of status from RPI to LPR).

18 Id.

Analysis of Legalization Provisions of Senate Bill 744

June 17, 2013

Page 8

• The requirement that immigrants pay all back taxes before they can be granted

provisional status, an extension of provisional status, or later receive lawful

permanent resident status will have several results when implemented on the ground.

First, it will unquestionably create a cottage industry in “notarios” and “tax

consultants” who will urge immigrants to file false tax returns just to satisfy the tax

payment requirement.

• Based on our experience representing thousands of low-income immigrants, and

demographic data on immigrant income levels, we believe 15% to 20% of all

immigrants otherwise eligible for legalization will be deemed ineligible based upon

their inability to resolve back tax obligations.19

Recommendation: In order to reduce the inducement to fraud, avoid a cottage

industry developing to “help” immigrants meet the tax payment requirements of the

proposed law, and avoid eliminating a significant number of low-income immigrants

from eligibility based solely on their inability to pay both back taxes and high

application fees, we recommend that this provision be deleted from the bill in its

entirety or, at minimum, limited to a reasonable period of time prior to the date

when the applicant seeks permanent resident status.

5. Duration of Status requirement and “Triggers”

The initial period of authorized provisional immigrant status ”shall remain valid for 6

years unless revoked … and … may be extended for additional 6-year terms if … the

alien remains eligible for registered provisional immigrant status [and] … meets the

employment requirements ….”20

Immigrants will be allowed to apply for permanent resident status if certain “triggers” are

met.21 The “triggers” provide that the DHS Secretary “may not adjust the status of aliens

who have been granted registered provisional immigrant status … until the Secretary,

after consultation with the Comptroller General of the United States, submits to the

President and Congress a written certification that-- (i) the Comprehensive Southern

Border Security Strategy has been submitted to Congress and is substantially deployed

19 To make matters more difficult, Senators Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and Marco Rubio (R-FL)

have proposed an amendment (amendment 1247) that would require undocumented

workers to prove they have paid both income and payroll taxes since they entered the

U.S., effectively requiring millions of workers to produce earnings and tax records for

many years in the past that, “in many cases, will be impossible for them to obtain.”

Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3974

20 S. 744, the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization

Act Sec. 2101(a), amending 8 U.S.C. 1255 by inserting Sec. 245B(c)(9)(A).

21 S. 744, the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization

Act Sec.3(c).

Analysis of Legalization Provisions of Senate Bill 744

June 17, 2013

Page 9

and substantially operational; (ii) the Southern Border Fencing Strategy has been

submitted to Congress, implemented, and is substantially completed; [and] (iii) the

Secretary has implemented the mandatory employment verification system … for use by

all employers to prevent unauthorized workers from obtaining employment in the United

States; and (iv) the Secretary is using an electronic exit system at air and sea ports of

entry that operates by collecting machine-readable visa or passport information from air

and vessel carriers.”22

• Combined with average processing times of 12-24 months, the “path to citizenship”

under the Senate bill could easily be 15 to 20 years. By comparison, under the 1986

IRCA, the path to citizenship was less than seven years. If the goal of the proposed

law is to integrate immigrants into the American mainstream and encourage them to

become citizens, creating a 15 plus-years path with numerous obstacles along the way

is counter-productive.

• The proposed triggers requiring close to fully effective border enforcement before

provisional residents could seek permanent resident status may not be achieved in 10

years, 20 years, or perhaps ever. Whether and when the triggers are activated may

also depend on who, ten years from now, controls the Administration and the

Congress. Their assessment regarding the effectiveness of controls along the U.S.-

Mexico border may be influenced by any number of factors (political, ideological,

economic, the state of bilateral relations with Mexico, etc.) that will determine

whether provisional status immigrants may finally attain permanent resident status.23

• Triggers tied to achieving operational control of the US-Mexico border enforcement

assume that U.S. technology, drones, double-fencing, etc. will succeed in stopping

virtually all unlawful migration from Mexico and Central and South America. This

result is unlikely to be achieved. The major causes of migration are profound, and

there are many ways to illegally enter the U.S. without going through the land

between Southern ports of entry where enforcement will be increased.24Triggers

linked to successful border enforcement may never be activated.

22 S. 744, the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization

Act Sec. 3(c).

23 Dr. Wayne Cornelius, Director Emeritus of the Center for Comparative Immigration

Studies at the University of California, San Diego, and Theodore Gildred Distinguished

Professor of Political Science and U.S.-Mexican Relations, believes that the practical

difficulties involved in meeting the 90% border enforcement efficacy standard may well

be so formidable that the entire legalization program could be rendered moot. He points

out that DHS does not have the data, nor a defensible methodology for collecting it, to

measure border enforcement efficacy in the way required by the legislation.

24 With about 75 million personal vehicles entering the U.S. each year along the USMexico

border, some 120 million personal vehicle passengers, 42 million pedestrian

entries, sea routes, and about 9 million people getting non-immigrant visas to enter the

US each year with no exit controls (something only superficially addressed in the Senate

Analysis of Legalization Provisions of Senate Bill 744

June 17, 2013

Page 10

• Extending the path to citizenship for at least 15 years and possibly much longer

combined with forced employment and ineligibility for essential social services will

create a long-standing and large sub-class of families and workers living in

conditions akin to apartheid, unable to vote, with many tied to exploitative

employment situations they cannot leave for fear of becoming ineligible for renewal

of temporary status or adjustment to permanent resident status in the future.

Recommendation: The path to permanent resident status and then citizenship

should be substantially reduced. The 1986 IRCA approach was well thought out and

proved successful in legalizing a significant portion--about 1.6 million through

general legalization and 1.1 million through the Special Agricultural Worker

program--of the undocumented immigrants living in the U.S. in 1986. The Senate

bill should be amended so that provisional status lasts about two to three years,

followed by a three year period of permanent resident status after which

immigrants may apply for citizenship.

Recommendation: Congress may consider alternative “population specific”

programs that from 1986 to 2010 have legalized far more people than the general

legalization program in the 1986 IRCA. For example, granting legalization to the

DREAMERS, agricultural workers, the parents and spouses of U.S. citizens and

lawful permanent residents currently blocked from legalizing their status under the

1996 3- and 10-year and related bars, Central Americans who have held Temporary

Protected Status (TPS) status for decades, and other similar identifiable groups,

without imposing numerous obstacles, could promptly legalize 8 million people, all

with special equities and long-term residence in the U.S.

Recommendation: Congress should consider updating the “registry date” in Sec.

249 of the Immigration and Nationality Act from January 1, 1972 (set in the 1986

IRCA) to a more recent date and make it a “rolling” statute of limitations. All

criminal and civil acts of wrong-doing in the U.S. (other than perhaps murder and

illegal entry) are governed by sensible rolling statutes of limitation. Automatically

advancing the registry date at regular intervals is perhaps the only realistic

mechanism to avoid a new build up of the undocumented population over the next

twenty-five years.

bill), the opportunities for illegal entry and immigrants overstaying non-immigrant visas

may not actually change much regardless of another $6 billion dedicated to increased

border patrol agents and contracts for major corporations to use more technology to seal

the US-Mexico border between ports of entry. Furthermore, enforcement has hardly been

at a standstill. The US government spends more on immigration enforcement than on all

other federal criminal law enforcement agencies combined, allocating nearly $187 billion

for immigration enforcement since 1986. Deportations have reached record highs, border

apprehensions 40-year lows, and more noncitizens than ever before are in immigration

detention.

Analysis of Legalization Provisions of Senate Bill 744

June 17, 2013

Page 11

6. Fees and Penalties for program participation

Applicants for provisional immigrant status will be required to pay a processing fee set

by the Department of Homeland Security in an amount “that is sufficient to recover the

full costs of processing the application, including any costs incurred--(I) to adjudicate the

application; (II) to take and process biometrics; (III) to perform national security and

criminal checks, including adjudication; (IV) to prevent and investigate fraud; and (V) to

administer the collection of such fee.” 25 In addition to the processing fee, immigrants not

eligible for adjustment as childhood arrivals “shall pay a $1,000 penalty” to the

Department of Homeland Security. 26 The processing fees may be paid in installments but

must be fully paid before an extension of provisional status may be granted. 27

• Processing fees combined with the “penalty” fees could easily amount to thousands of

dollars. Currently, for example, the fee for an adjustment of status application is

$985, applications for waivers are $585, applications to Adjust Status From

Temporary to Permanent Resident under Section 245A of the INA (IRCA

legalization) are $1,020, appeal fees are $630. As already discussed, more than a

quarter of undocumented families have annual incomes of less than $20,000.

• Based on our experience assisting several thousand immigrants who failed to timely

file for Temporary Resident status and adjustment to Permanent Resident status under

the 1986 IRCA, we believe approximately 10% of all eligible immigrants will not

have the funds necessary to participate in the Senate bill’s legalization provisions.

Recommendation: Congress should determine what fees applicants are likely to be

able to afford based on demographic data and then set reasonable fees for

immigrants to pay at various stages of the application process. Congress should

provide low-income immigrants with the alternative of engaging in community

service while paying affordable fees and penalties.

7. Ineligibility For Public Benefits

Immigrants granted provisional status are “not eligible for any Federal means-tested

public benefit (as defined and implemented in section 403 of the Personal Responsibility

and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1613).” Provisional status

immigrants will not be entitled to the premium assistance tax credit authorized under

25 S. 744, the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization

Act Sec. 2101(a), amending 8 U.S.C. 1255 by inserting Sec. 245B(c)(10)(ii)(application

for RPI status).

26 S. 744, the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization

Act Sec. 2102(a), amending 8 U.S.C. 1255 by inserting Sec. 245C (c)(5)(B).

27 Id.

Analysis of Legalization Provisions of Senate Bill 744

June 17, 2013

Page 12

section 36B of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 for his or her coverage; shall be

subject to the rules applicable to individuals “not lawfully present that are set forth in

section 1402(e) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (42 U.S.C. 18071)”;

and shall be subject to the rules applicable to individuals “not lawfully present set forth in

section 5000A(d)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.”

• Legalizing several million immigrants while making them ineligible for any federal

benefits will shift enormous costs to local governments.

• Discouraging newly legalized immigrants’ participation in the Patient Protection and

Affordable Care Act and other health care benefit programs will discourage people

with communicable diseases from seeking health care, discourage people with

treatable illnesses from seeking health care until their illnesses become catastrophic

and require emergency intervention, and potentially leave millions of immigrant

children without access to essential nutritional and health programs.28

• “Counties are often the health care providers of last resort for the uninsured and

underinsured. There are an estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants in the

U.S., roughly seven million of whom have no health insurance.” 29 Counties provide

for the public safety of all individuals, including undocumented immigrants. Counties

provide free elementary and secondary education without regard to immigration

status.30

Recommendation: In order to protect the health and welfare of local communities,

more evenly share the costs of legalization with local communities, encourage

several million provisional status immigrants moving towards eventual citizenship

to be as healthy and productive as possible, and to reduce the costs of emergency

care, the Senate bill should be amended to provide a broader safety net for newly

legalized immigrants including eligibility for federal tax credits to help them afford

28 As noted by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, “If the immigrant [granted

provisional status] has a child who is a U.S. citizen, the child could be eligible [for

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program or Medicaid], but the worker would not be,

and the family as a whole could face significant hardships such as an inability to pay the

rent, afford groceries, or get needed medical care.”

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3974

29 “Comprehensive Immigration Reform and the Outlook for Counties,” June 2013, at 37

http://www.naco.org/legislation/Documents/NACo-Immigration-Presentation.pdf. The

National League of Cities has also pointed out that cities and towns “will be on the front

lines of any new immigration system.” It urges Congress to pass legislation that includes

the “necessary resources” for cities to implement the new law. http://www.nlc.org/mediacenter/

news-search/nlc-urges-comprehensive-immigration-reform-that-includesnecessary-

resources-for-cities.

30 Id.

Analysis of Legalization Provisions of Senate Bill 744

June 17, 2013

Page 13

insurance on the exchanges and including them in the law’s health insurance

mandate.

8. Grant Program to Assist Eligible Applicants

The Senate bill provides that the DHS Secretary “may” establish a program to award

grants to eligible nonprofit organizations that will use the funding to assist eligible

applicants under section 245B, 245C, 245D, or 245F of the Immigration and Nationality

Act or section 2211 of this Act by providing them with (1) information regarding the

eligibility and benefits of registered provisional immigrant status and (2) assistance

screening prospective applicants to assess their eligibility, completing applications and

petitions, applying for any waivers for which applicants and qualifying family members

may be eligible; and assistance to individuals seeking to adjust their status to permanent

residence.

• Under INA 245a(c), the 1986 IRCA provided that the Attorney General "shall”

provide that applications for legalization could be filed with the former INS “or with

a qualified designated entity [QDE], … if the applicant consents to the forwarding of

the application to the Attorney General.” QDEs were funded by the former INS to

assist millions of immigrants navigate the legalization process. In contrast, under the

Senate bill, the DHS Secretary is not mandated to fund or recognize non-profit

organizations to assist immigrants prepare legalization applications, and is not

directed to permit applications to be filed with such non-profit organizations.

Recommendation: The Senate bill should be amended to require that the DHS

Secretary is required to fund non-profit organizations to assist immigrants prepare

their applications for provisional and permanent resident status, and allow

applications to be filed with such organizations for transmittal to DHS.

9. Disqualification of non-immigrants

The Senate bill disqualifies any immigrant who on April 16, 2013, “according to the

records of the Secretary or the Secretary of State, [was] lawfully present in the United

States in any nonimmigrant status … notwithstanding any unauthorized employment or

other violation of nonimmigrant status.”

• This provision will exclude from the legalization program tens or hundreds of

thousands of immigrants who entered the U.S. on non-immigrant visas before

December 2011 and otherwise qualify for provisional status. It is unclear why an

immigrant who entered the United States on a non-immigrant visa in or before

December 2011, and violated his or her visa (for example by working without

authorization or not attending school), should not qualify for provisional status, but a

similarly situated non-immigrant who departed the U.S. for an hour (or a day) in or

Analysis of Legalization Provisions of Senate Bill 744

June 17, 2013

Page 14

before December 2011, and returned without inspection or by falsely claiming to be a

U.S. citizen, likely will qualify for provisional status.

Recommendation: The Senate bill should be amended to require that nonimmigrant

entrants who have physical presence as required by the legalization

program and violated status or overstayed their authorized period of stay are

eligible for legalization.

Conclusions

While not addressed in this memorandum, the Senate bill extracts a huge price for

its legalization provisions, including major increases in high tech enforcement along the

US-Mexico border, elimination of certain family-based visas, no amelioration of highly

punitive provisions adopted by Congress in 1996 (that among other things block longterm

residents with U.S. family members from legalizing their status), a sprawling new

DHS data network collecting information on almost every worker in the country

regardless of citizenship, and huge new domestic enforcement, all in effect amounting to

a “zero tolerance” policy for undocumented immigrants going forward. These

unprecedented enforcement measures are presented as the cost or “down-payment” for a

legalization program.

Based on 35 years of experience representing and working with undocumented

immigrants, including thousands who sought legalization under the 1986 IRCA, and the

work of migration experts and demographers, we conclude that of the about 11.2 million

undocumented people living in the United States today, under the Senate immigration bill

approximately 2 million people may be legalized under the DREAM provision and

agricultural worker program, leaving about 9 million people. Of these, for the reasons

explained above, about 4 to 5 million immigrants may successfully navigate through the

legalization program over the next 15 to 20 years.

• About 4 to 5 million immigrants will most likely not qualify for permanent

resident status or citizenship in the next 10 to 20 years, and will be left

facing an extremely harsh and unforgiving set of laws almost certain to

eventually force their detention and deportation (if detected) or leave them

in undocumented status for the rest of their lives (if they go undetected).

• Because the Senate bill’s legalization provisions make no distinctions

between categories of undocumented immigrants based upon their length

of residence in the U.S., or family ties in the U.S.,31 the total number of

31 35% of undocumented immigrants have been residing in the U.S. for more than 15

years; 28% have been residing her for 10 to 14 years, and 22% for 5 to 9 years.

Footnote 31 continued: Unauthorized Immigrants: Length of Residency, Patterns of

Parenthood, Paul Taylor, Mark Hugo Lopez, Jeffrey Passel and Seth Motel

Analysis of Legalization Provisions of Senate Bill 744

June 17, 2013

Page 15

unqualified immigrants will include many long-term residents and

immigrants with US citizen and lawful permanent resident family

members. In other words, those excluded from legalization will not be

limited to recent arrivals with no family ties in the United States. Those

who do not qualify for legalization have hundreds of thousands of U.S.

citizen children who will suffer the consequences of a new law that did not

permit their parents to become legalized.

• Unless modified, the continuous employment provisions of the Senate bill

will almost certainly increase opportunities for unscrupulous employers to

violate health and safety, anti-discrimination, and wage and hour laws.

• Low-income immigrants will be desperate to keep their jobs under almost

any circumstances. Unscrupulous employers who previously exploited

undocumented workers will not be eager to change their work-site

practices and lower their short-term profits. The confluence of these

factors will clearly encourage and possibly increase the exploitation of

immigrant workers with provisional status for at least the next ten to

twenty years.

Ultimately, the meaning of comprehensive immigration “reform” depends on

one’s political, social, economic and cultural values. For many elected officials,

immigration “reform” is fairly well limited to massive new enforcement along the U.S.-

Mexico border, along with some additional interior enforcement. To other elected

officials, immigration “reform” mainly involves how to promptly and fairly legalize the

largest number of undocumented immigrants living in the U.S. as possible.

This bi-polar environment in which strongly held views see the problem through

very different lenses and adopt very different solutions may or may not offer the best

time to fix a broken system. Many experienced advocates (both pro-immigrant and proenforcement)

believe that in the present environment the country and immigrant

communities would be best served by (1) reconsidering draconian provisions of law

adopted in 1996 that have blocked millions of long-term residents with close family ties

in the US from legalizing their status, and (2) promptly and efficiently legalizing targeted

groups of longer-term residents and those with special equities or skills (without the

obstacles to legalization imposed by the Senate bill). Others seek to move forward now,

believing that an imperfect law will make things better than the status quo. Regardless of

the approach, this analysis will hopefully inform advocates how implementation of the

SB 744 will likely play out in the real world of millions of immigrant families dealing

directly with thousands of USCIS adjudication agents over the next 10 to 20 years.

http://www.pewhispanic.org/2011/12/01/unauthorized-immigrants-length-of-residencypatterns-of-parenthood/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Budget report gives key push to Senate immigration bill

As the Congressional Budget Office finds that newly legal immigrants would generate more than enough money to offset the bill's costs, senators' differences on border security seem to narrow...

By Lisa Mascaro lisa.mascaro@latimes.com; L.A. Times, June 18, 2013,

WASHINGTON — The sweeping immigration overhaulbill received a boost Tuesday as senators appeared to narrow their differences on border security and the nonpartisanCongressional Budget Office reported that newly legal immigrants would provide more than enough new tax revenue, fees and economic growth to offset the bill's costs.

The budget report gives momentum to the legislation and could be particularly important in attracting Republicansin both the Senate and House who have made spending issues a priority.

"The Senate immigration bill reiterates what economic conservatives have been saying all along: that reform is an economic policy opportunity," said Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a former budget office director and advisor to Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.). "Immigration reform would be an unambiguous policy trifecta: higher growth, significantly reduced deficits and a rational labor policy."

Senators in the bipartisan group that wrote the bill had waited anxiously for weeks for the budget report, and the analysis showed they had largely achieved an overhaul that would not add to the nation's red ink.

The CBO report said the bill would cut the deficit by $197 billion over 10 years. During the first five years after the bill's passage, the unemployment rate would increase slightly, by 0.1%, and average wages would be slightly lower. But over time, the CBO projected, the bill would cause wages and employment to rise, and economic output would bump up by 3.3% over the decade.

"This report is a huge momentum boost for immigration reform," said Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), one of the bill's authors. "Immigration reform is not only the right thing to do to stay true to our nation's principles, it will also boost our economy, reduce the deficit and create jobs."

The leader of the opposition in the Senate, Alabama Republican Sen. Jeff Sessions, said the CBO report did not reflect the higher costs that he believed the bill would impose on state and local governments.

In the Senate, the immigration overhaul has been stalled for a week as senators search for ways to toughen the bill's provisions on border security — a key to winning over several uncommitted Republicans — without disrupting the legislation's core component, a 13-year path to citizenship for the estimated 11 million immigrants living in the U.S. without legal status.

The focus in the Senate has been on bringing enough Republicans on board to send the bill to the House by a sizable margin.

A key issue has been how to determine whether the government has achieved its goals for a secure border with Mexico and whether immigrants seeking citizenship should be required to wait until that happens. The bill requires theDepartment of Homeland Security to have a plan in place to stop 90% of illegal crossings and provides up to $6.5 billion to pay for surveillance drones, troops and a double-layer fence to reach that goal.

But it would allow most immigrants who entered the country illegally or overstayed their visas to obtain provisional legal status in the meantime and would allow them to get green cards after 10 years whether the 90% goal is reached or not.

Many Republicans say they need to have a guarantee of not just a border plan, but results before those immigrants can gain green cards.

Experts say that guarantee is almost impossible, and immigrant advocates say it could negate the promise of eventual citizenship.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has set a Fourth of July deadline to finish the bill, giving senators until the end of next week to wrap up.

Conversations buzzed across the Senate floor Tuesday as senators, cloistered in unusual bipartisan groups, worked on compromise language that could propel the bill forward.

"I'm encouraged, but we still have a ways to go," McCain said. By Wednesday, he said, "you will know whether this thing is coming together or split apart."

The moment arrived none too soon for supporters of the overhaul: The Republican-led House pushed forward with its own measure Tuesday as House Speaker John A. Boehner(R-Ohio) indicated he was unlikely to pursue a bill that did not draw majority support from Republicans.

House Republicans have focused primarily on border enforcement and have shown little interest in the path to citizenship. The House Judiciary Committee is working on a bill that would give states more authority to enforce federal immigration laws. It drew little Democratic support.

Two GOP border amendments have been rejected by the Senate, including one from Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) that would have required 750 miles of double-layer fencing to be built, at a cost of $1 billion, before immigrants could get green cards.

"It's time that we follow through on promises of a more secure border," Thune said.

The proposal emerging Tuesday comes from a newer participant in the immigration battles, first-term Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.), who is working with Republicans, including Sen. Bob Corker of Tennessee, who have shown an interest in the bipartisan overhaul.

Hoeven wants Congress to craft its own border security plan and have agencies in addition to Homeland Security, perhaps the Pentagon or the Government Accountability Office, help determine whether the border has become secure.

"We put a strategic plan in there that they've got to take," Hoeven said. "They've got to have some verifiable standards, metrics, measurements that people can agree on."

Securing the votes of Hoeven and his allies could make the difference between an immigration overhaul that squeaks out of the Senate and one that passes with a big enough majority to push the House to act.

--------------------------------------------------------

Falso, lo que en México creen sobre la reforma migratoria: uno de los latinos más influyentes

De aprobarse, propiciará control más estricto de la frontera y criminalización de quienes no califiquen
Lo que hay en el Senado de EU es un proyecto de seguridad nacional: Antonio González

Periódico La Jornada, Miércoles 19 de junio de 2013, p. 14

Antonio González es hijo de un inmigrante mexicano que cargaba cajas de refrescos y, según la revista Time, uno de los latinos más influyentes de Estados Unidos. En Los Ángeles dirige una organización dedicada a inscribir hispanos en el padrón electoral y un programa de radio, además del Instituto William C. Velasquez. Con ese background, puede ser directo: Todo lo que ustedes creen (en México) que entienden de la reforma migratoria es falso.

¿Cómo, no hay tal proyecto de reforma migratoria a pesar de que en los medios vemos a Barack Obama y a los congresistas estadunidenses hablando sobre el tema?

González evita saltar de rama en rama: Lo que hay en el Senado de EU es un proyecto de seguridad nacional, que contiene una propuesta de legalizar a una pequeña parte de los inmigrantes.

Malo y sin garantías, además, porque según González el proyecto sólo tiene una chance de tres de ser aprobado y firmado por el presidente estadunidense.

Basta echar una ojeada a los medios estadunidenses para dar la razón a González: el proyecto de reforma migratoria se presenta como integral, aunque poco tenga que ver con la agenda que por años han enarbolado los sectores partidarios de la legalización.

“Los medios y el establishment estadunidense han tratado de vender que hay una reforma migratoria integral, pero no es cierto. Los migrantes están totalmente confundidos, porque sólo reciben información de Televisa, de Univisión, en la que les dicen que ahí viene el cielo, que ahí vienen miel y leche, su legalización; es una campaña total de desinformación”, dice González.

Description: Foto

Antonio González, en entrevista con La JornadaFoto José Carlo González. Arturo Cano

El dirigente mexicanoestadunidense esboza lo que puede ocurrir a partir de esta semana, que la mayoría de los medios califican como crucial para la reforma migratoria.

Lo que existe hoy día no es el proyecto final, que además va empeorando en el proceso. Lo que se lee o se ve en la televisión no es cierto, porque día a día va cambiando. El proyecto va al voto en el Senado, con enmiendas. Después pasará a la Cámara de Representantes, donde estará en manos de la derecha republicana, que tiene un montón de cambios por hacer.

La reforma del peonaje

Al incluirlo entre los 25 latinos más influyentes, en 2005, la revista Time consideró que González estaba al frente de la máquina política más grande de los estadunidenses con origen hispano, un proyecto para el registro de votantes y su brazo político, el Instituto William C. Velasquez.

De aprobarse, considera González, la reforma propiciará un control más estricto de la frontera, la criminalización de los que no califiquen –que será el grueso de los indocumentados–, la violación de la privacidad y el peonaje para quienes logren entrar al proceso de legalización, que no será sino el 20 o 30 por ciento de los indocumentados.

González considera que el proyecto contiene sólo dos elementos que forman parte de la agenda migrante: la legalización de los estudiantes que llegaron a EU siendo niños (y que se han agrupado en el movimiento conocido como dreamers) y un programa limitado de trabajadores huéspedes para labores agrícolas.

Ni representa un avance ni hay garantías de que sea aprobado. Del Senado pasará a la Cámara de Representantes, donde hay un proyecto paralelo que es aun peor.

La reforma migratoria implicaría para los indocumentados trabajar sin pausa, porque si dejas de trabajar por 60 días estarás fuera; eso es peonaje. Además, se estima que cada aspirante a la legalización deberá pagar varios miles de dólares.

González critica también el hecho de que el plazo para inscribirse sea de sólo un año. Lo compara con la reforma similar de 1986 (Immigration Reform and Control Act, IRCA). Con la IRCA tuvimos tres años para 3 millones de personas. Ahora, 11 millones tendrán un año. Con IRCA, el gobierno federal dio 5 mil millones de dólares a los estados, iglesias, escuelas, grupos comunitarios, para impartir clases de inglés, español, cívicas, etcétera. En este proyecto no hay ni un dólar. No hay recursos ni tiempo. Por eso digo que es una legalización diseñada para fracasar. Y al fracasar, los que no entran serán clasificados como criminales y sujetos a la deportación inmediata.

El otro ángulo preocupante del proyecto es que va amarrado, dice el entrevistado, de un cierre casi total de la frontera con miles de nuevos soldados, nuevos muros y aviones no tripulados. Al aplicar ese proyecto de seguridad fronteriza se está preparando una confrontación con México.

En tanto que el proyecto se enfoca más a la seguridad nacional que a legalizar a los indocumentados, González sostiene que “afectará la privacidad de todos los estadunidenses y creará un sistema de discriminación total contra personas que ‘parecen’ inmigrantes. Si pasa, las deportaciones subirán” (Obama ya es campeón en esta área, pues durante su mandato han sido deportadas 1.4 millones de personas).

El error estratégico

A pesar de que se vende como una reforma integral, González piensa que es mejor que fracase, porque es mejor ninguna política pública a una mala política. Mejor sigamos con los planes B.

En su opinión, los partidarios de la reforma migratoria cometieron el error estratégico de buscar la ley perfecta, integral, cuando pudo avanzarse en reformas parciales (como la Dream Act y la ley para trabajadores huéspedes).

Para ilustrar su punto, recurre a la historia y recuerda que los afroamericanos demoraron 11 años –entre 1964 y 1975– en lograr diversas reformas que materializaron las demandas del movimiento de los derechos civiles. “En lugar de eso, tenemos un proyecto de ley que es un Frankenstein”.

Las fuerzas progresistas estadunidenses hemos fallado, hemos fracasado en la defensa de los inmigrantes, aunque la lucha todavía sigue, afirma, con pesimismo.

Para González, los indocumentados en Estados Unidos tienen una pistola en la cabeza, pues están frente a la disyuntiva de ser deportados o entrar en cualquier proyecto de legalización, incluso si supone 10 años de peonaje y el pago de miles de dólares.

Los progresistas, cierra González, damos mucho peso a la opinión de los inmigrantes, pero en este caso es como entregar la decisión a una persona que está muriendo de hambre, y ofrecerle un pan envenenado.

Los 8 millones de indocumentados mexicanos, por si fuera poco, están solos.

Para el TLC, 100 millones de dólares; para los migrantes, nada

Es sorprendente que las fuerzas mexicanas han estado totalmente calladas. Entiendo al gobierno que busca mantener su válvula de escape, exportando mano de obra para que la gente no proteste acá. Pero el PRD y Morena no han dicho nada. La izquierda mexicana, casi en su totalidad, no ha jugado ningún papel en la defensa de los inmigrantes, y eso es muy triste, afirma González.

–El gobierno puede decir que ha aumentado su red de servicios consulares para protegerlos.

–¿Por qué no llegan a Washington para hacer cabildeo? No nos han llamado, no han dicho nada. México ha sido muy desilusionante para mí. No ha defendido a sus 8 millones de indocumentados en EU; tal vez apoya que entren al peonaje. El gobierno mexicano invirtió 100 millones de dólares para hacer cabildeo y defender sus intereses en el Tratado de Libre Comercio: ¿Cuánto han invertido para defender los intereses de los indocumentados mexicanos?”

--------------------------------------------------------

Rubio Is Losing Support Among Republican Voters

By MICAH COHEN, NYT’s July 9, 2013

Until recently, Senator Marco Rubio of Florida had occupied something of asweet spot in Republican politics: a favorite of the Tea Party but also trustedby the establishment wing of the G.O.P.

Mr. Rubio’s embrace of comprehensive immigration reform, however, appears to have upset that delicate balance, and his support has slipped among the Republican base. The mention of his name drew boos at an anti-immigration reform Tea Party rally on Capitol Hill in mid-June, and recent public opinion surveys, taken amid the debate on immigration legislation, found his favorability rating falling and his standing in 2016 Republican primary matchups eroding.

Only two surveys, one by ABC News and The Washington Post and one byRasmussen Reports, have tested Mr. Rubio’s popularity since the Senate reached the final stages of passing a comprehensive immigration reform bill. Both measured double-digit drops in his net favorability rating among Republicans.

Description: http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2013/06/29/us/politics/fivethirtyeight-0629-rubio_fav/fivethirtyeight-0629-rubio_fav-blog480-v3.png

Mr. Rubio is still very popular among Republicans, just not as popular as he once was, particularly in the days after the 2012 presidential election when he became a leading Republican voice and began being discussed as a top contender in the 2016 presidential race.

Indeed, Mr. Rubio led in an average of the first few 2016 Republican primary polls released after the 2012 election, but support for him has faded in more recent 2016 primary surveys.

Description: http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2013/07/09/us/politics/fivethirtyeight-0709-rubio2016/fivethirtyeight-0709-rubio2016-blog480-v2.png

In the four national surveys conducted in January, an average of 20 percent of Republicans said they would support Mr. Rubio for the party’s nomination in 2016. That number dropped to an average of 11 percent in the four primary polls conducted in June.

Before the Senate took up immigration reform, Mr. Rubio was largely a blank slate, upon whom both establishment Republicans and Tea Party supporters could project what they wanted (a dynamic that Barack Obama benefited from in 2008). Now Mr. Rubio has chosen a side, at least on immigration, and as long as it is a top issue in the news, Mr. Rubio may be identified more with the moderate wing of his party.

Had he stayed on the sidelines for immigration reform, Mr. Rubio’s wide popularity among Republicans might have lasted longer, but it is unlikely it would have remained so high indefinitely. At some point, he would have been forced to take stands on other issues that divide the Republican establishment from the base. And if he runs for president in 2016, he will have to differentiate himself from other conservative candidates with stands on virtually every issue imaginable.

In other words, Mr. Rubio and his strategists may be playing a long game, sacrificing some support on the right they were likely to lose anyway for support in the middle. And while his stance on immigration reform has not yet earned Mr. Rubio a robust increase in his support among independents, that could still come.

Voters who are not particularly roused to either party tend to follow politics less closely than partisans and are less likely to be focusing on Mr. Rubio’s role in the immigration debate. Mr. Rubio’s support for immigration reform may earn the support of more moderate, unaffiliated voters once they start paying more attention to politics.

Of course, if Mr. Rubio does run for president in 2016, favoring comprehensive immigration reform might make winning the Republican nomination harder (although polls show a majority of Republican voters favor a conditional path to citizenship, primary voters tend to be more conservative than Republican voters over all). But Mr. Rubio will still be able to point to a deeply conservative record on many other issues.

And were he to emerge as the Republican nominee in 2016, his stance on immigration could help him in a general election.

Ultimately, Mr. Rubio’s political talent will help determine whether he can minimize his losses on the right and maximize his gains in the middle.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Press ReleaseNovember 14, 2012

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Russ Oates

roates@pewresearch.org

202-419-4375

An Awakened Giant: The Hispanic Electorate Is Likely to Double by 2030

The record number of Latinos who cast ballots for president this year are the leading edge of an ascendant ethnic voting bloc that is likely to double in size within a generation, according to a Pew Hispanic Center analysis of U.S. Census Bureau data, Election Day exit polls and a new nationwide survey of Hispanics.

The nation's 53 million Hispanics comprise 17% of the total U.S. population, but just 10% of all voters this year, according to the national exit poll. But Hispanics' share of the electorate will rise quickly for several reasons.

The most important is that Hispanics are by far the nation's youngest ethnic group. Their median age is 27 years----and just 18 years among native-born Hispanics----compared with 42 years for that of white non-Hispanics. In the coming decades their share of the age-eligible electorate will rise markedly through generational replacement alone.

According to Pew Hispanic Center projections, Hispanics will account for 40% of the growth in the eligible electorate in the U.S. between now and 2030, at which time 40 million Hispanics will be eligible to vote, up from 23.7 million now.

Moreover, if Hispanics' relatively low voter participation and naturalization rates were to increase to the levels of other groups, the number of votes that Hispanics actually cast in future elections would easily double within two decades.

If the national exit poll's estimate proves correct that 10% of all voters this year were Hispanic, it would mean that as many as 12.5 million Hispanics cast ballots.

But perhaps a more illuminating way to analyze the distinctive characteristics of the Hispanic electorate----current and future----is to parse the more than 40 million Hispanics in the United States who did not vote or were not eligible to vote in 2012.

They are:

Adults who were eligible to vote but chose not to (11.2 million): The estimated 44% to 53% turnout rate of eligible Hispanic voters in 2012 is in the same range as the 50% who turned out in 2008. But it still likely lags well below the turnout rate of whites and blacks this year.

Adult legal permanent residents (5.4 million): The naturalization rate among legal immigrants from Latin America and the Caribbean trails that of other legal immigrants by a sizable margin - 49% versus 72% according to a Pew Hispanic analysis of the 2011 March Current Population Survey (CPS). A new Pew Hispanic survey finds that a major reason Hispanic immigrants naturalize is to gain civil and legal rights, including the right to vote. The survey also finds that more than nine-in-ten (93%) Hispanic immigrants who have not naturalized yet say they would if they could. Of those who haven't, many cite administrative costs and barriers, a lack of English proficiency and a lack of initiative. The flexing of electoral muscle by Hispanic voters this year conceivably could encourage more legal immigrants to become naturalized citizens.

Adult unauthorized immigrants (7.1 million): This group would only become eligible to vote if Congress were to pass a law creating a pathway to citizenship for them. Judging by the immediate post-election comments of leading Democratic and Republican lawmakers, the long-dormant prospects for passage of such legislation appear to have been revived by Latinos' strong showing at the polls.

Too young to vote (17.6 million): The vast majority (93%) of Latino youths are U.S-born citizens and thus will automatically become eligible to vote once they turn 18. Today, some 800,000 young Latinos turn 18 each year, but by 2030, this number could grow to 1 million per year, adding a potential electorate of more than 16 million new Latino voters to the rolls by 2030.

Generational replacement alone will push the age- and citizen-eligible Latino electorate to about 40 million within two decades. If the turnout rate of this electorate over time converges with that of whites and blacks in recent elections (66% and 65% respectively in 2008), that will mean twice as many Latino voters could be casting ballots in 2032 as did in 2012.

The report, "An Awakened Giant: The Hispanic Electorate Is Likely to Double by 2030," authored by Paul Taylor, director, Ana Gonzalez-Barrera, research associate, Jeffrey S. Passel, senior demographer, and Mark Hugo Lopez, associate director, is available at the Pew Hispanic Center's website, www.pewhispanic.org.

The Pew Hispanic Center, a project of the Pew Research Center, is a nonpartisan, non-advocacy research organization based in Washington, D.C. and is funded by The Pew Charitable Trusts.

# # #

Latinos’ election role to fuel new immigration reform

Latino voters' crucial support for President Obama and other Democrats makes the immigration issue a high priority. But significant obstacles remain...

WASHINGTON — The outsized role that Latino voters played in securing victories for President Obama and Democratic Senatecandidates has energized the effort to rewrite America's immigration laws, but opposition in Congress, particularly among House Republicans, remains a significant hurdle.

In his election-night victory speech, President Obama specifically mentioned "fixing our immigration system" as a priority — along with reducing the deficit, reforming the tax system and reducing the country's use of imported oil. Latino leaders made clear they planned to hold Obama to that, noting that the president had promised in his 2008 campaign to push for reform but did not deliver.

"No more excuses, no more obstructions, we want action," Eliseo Medina, the secretary-treasurer of the Service Employees International Union and a prominent strategist among Latino political leaders, said in an interview.

Unlike 2009, when Democrats shied away from a congressional fight over reforms that would have created a path to citizenship for some illegal immigrants, the political dynamics in the coming year favor aggressive moves by the White House and the Democratic leadership.

Latinos were the only large demographic group that supported Obama more heavily in 2012 than in 2008, according to data from exit polls. The president won 71% of Latino votes, compared with 27% for Republican Mitt Romney, bettering the 67% Obama won four years ago.

In addition, Latinos represented a bigger share of the electorate this time. All told, Obama probably netted at least 1.4 million more Latino votes this year than in 2008, the exit poll data suggest.

The increased vote provided his margin of victory in several states, including Colorado and Nevada, and also helped the Democrats win several close Senate contests. It gave Obama a similar margin in Florida, where he is leading but the result is still undecided.

"For the first time in United States history, the Latino can claim to be nationally decisive," said Stanford University professor Gary Segura, one of the principals of the polling firm Latino Decisions, which extensively surveys Latino voters.

In addition to repaying an electoral debt, Democrats have another motivation for pushing immigration reform, party strategists acknowledge — the issue deepens an already significant division among Republicans.

One group of GOP strategists and elected officials argues that the party risks disaster if it fails to reach out to the fast-growing Latino population. Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida and the state's former governor, Jeb Bush, as well as prominent figures associated with former President George W. Bush all have made that argument.

Romney made that argument himself during the secretly videotaped speech to supporters in Florida in which he made his now-famous remarks about not being able to appeal to 47% of Americans. "If the Hispanic voting bloc becomes as committed to the Democrats as the African American voting bloc has in the past, why, we're in trouble as a party and, I think, as a nation," he said.

Many Republican strategists say that moment already has arrived. "There's no more time left demographically to be tinkering at the margins, doing window dressing like they have for 20 years," said Mike Madrid, a Republican campaign consultant based in Sacramento. "That's not going to work anymore."

Surveys by Latino Decisions and other polling firms have shown that immigration is a make-or-break issue for many Latino voters, including Puerto Ricans and Cuban Americans who are not directly affected by the debate. Even though more Latino voters might side with the GOP on other issues, the party's stand on immigration helps create an image of hostility, the polling shows. An analysis of exit poll data by the Pew Hispanic Center showed Obama tied Romney even among Cuban American voters in Florida, who have long been a source of strength for Republican candidates.

"Republicans need to make this go away" before they can attract new voters, Segura said.

On the other side, many Republican members of the House, whose districts often include few Latino constituents, fear a backlash if they move toward compromise on immigration policy. Many of the party's most loyal voters vehemently oppose anything that they consider "amnesty" for illegal immigrants. But a provision that would allow at least some illegal immigrants to achieve citizenship is a minimum requirement for major Latino groups.

Opposition within Republican ranks led to defeat of the last attempt to push a large-scale immigration reform package through Congress in 2007.

That bill, proposed by President Bush, would have created a guest worker program, increased the number of agents patrolling the border and created a path to citizenship for young people brought to the U.S. as children, among other provisions. Conservatives denounced it while labor unions objected that the plan would bring thousands of low-wage guest workers into the United States.

In 2009, Obama White House aides and Cabinet officials spent months hammering out a framework for reform in closed-door talks with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.). But Reid's vote counters saw a difficult midterm election on the horizon and couldn't get enough Senate Democrats to get on board; the effort never saw the light of day.

Any new effort to pass immigration bills will face similar head winds. Democratic vote counters say that at least seven senators on their side who represent states with few Latino voters are reluctant to vote on the issue. Several Senate Republicans who have supported reform efforts in the past, including Lamar Alexander of Tennessee and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, are up for reelection in 2014 and could face primary challenges if they stray too far from party orthodoxy.

The outlook in the Republican-controlled House is even tougher. In an interview with reporters this fall, Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Bakersfield), the third-ranking member of the GOP leadership, said a majority could not be put together in the House for any sort of comprehensive immigration package. At best, the House would be able to pass smaller pieces of legislation tackling the less controversial aspects of immigration policy, he said.

Advocates for immigration reform say they plan to work with business groups to try to put pressure on Republicans to shift their position. The business community is "ripe" to jump into the immigration debate, said Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), citing support from a wide array of business groups including high tech, the restaurant and hotel industries and agriculture.

"If we create movement in the Senate, I do believe there are Republican members in the Senate who will work with us," he said. "Then that all gets driven and placed in the House's court."

At the same time, Latino leaders made clear they opposed a piecemeal approach.

"We need to fix immigration reform once and for all," said Ben Monterroso, national executive director of Mi Familia Vota Education Fund, a labor-backed group that was deeply involved in registering new Latino voters in swing states.

Momentum builds for U.S. immigration reform plan

Immigrants rights advocates march on election night near McCormick Place in Chicago, where President Obama gave his victory speech. (Phil Velasquez, Chicago Tribune / Nov. 6, 2012)

By Brian Bennett, Hector Becerra and David Lauter, Washington Bureau, L.A. Times

November 7, 2012, 5:04 p.m.

By Will Dunham, Reuters (November 11, 2012)

Two U.S. senators launched a fresh move to put together a bipartisan immigration reform plan on Sunday, restarting talks on a proposal that includes a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants already in the country.

Since President Barack Obama was re-elected last week with overwhelming support from Hispanic voters, many Republicans have expressed a new willingness to work with Democrats to pass immigration reform after years of legislative inaction.

Appearing on NBC's "Meet the Press," Democratic Senator Charles Schumer said he and Republican Senator Lindsey Graham have agreed to resume talks on immigration reform that broke off two years ago. "And I think we have a darned good chance using this blueprint to get something done this year. The Republican Party has learned that being ... anti-immigrant doesn't work for them politically. And they know it," Schumer said.

Obama in 2010 called the proposal backed by Graham and Schumer a "promising framework," but it made no headway. There are an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in the United States, most of them Hispanics.

Speaking on the CBS program "Face the Nation," Graham said the tone and rhetoric used by members of his party on immigration "built a wall between the Republican Party and the Hispanic community." He noted that Republican presidential candidates have been steadily losing the support of Hispanic voters since 2004.

"This is an odd formula for a party to adopt: the fastest-growing demographic in the country, and we're losing votes every election cycle. And it has to stop. It's one thing to shoot yourself in the foot. Just don't reload the gun. ... I intend to tear this wall down and pass an immigration reform bill that's an American solution to an American problem," Graham said.

Path To Citizenship

The Graham and Schumer plan has four components: requiring high-tech, fraud-proof Social Security cards to ensure that illegal workers cannot get jobs; strengthening border security and enforcement of immigration laws; creating a process for admitting temporary workers; and implementing a path to legal status for immigrants already in the country.

Schumer said the plan embraces "a path to citizenship that's fair, which says you have to learn English, you have to go to the back of the line, you've got to have a job, and you can't commit crimes."

Graham added, "Sixty-five percent of the people in the exit poll of this election supported a pathway to citizenship."

Many Republican leaders have taken a hard position against illegal immigrants. Obama's unsuccessful Republican challenger, Mitt Romney, during the campaign advocated "self-deportation" of illegal immigrants. Republicans in Arizona and other states have passed tough laws cracking down on illegal immigrants.

Since the election, some influential conservative voices, including television commentator Sean Hannity, have announced support for immigration reform that includes a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants with no criminal record.

"We have nobody to blame but ourselves when it comes to losing Hispanics, and we can get them back with some effort on our part," Graham said.

House of Representatives Speaker John Boehner, the top Republican in Congress, said on Friday the U.S. immigration system is broken. He has expressed confidence Republicans could find common ground with Obama.

The Obama administration announced in June it would relax U.S. deportation rules so that many young illegal immigrants who came to the United States as children can stay and work. The change would allow illegal immigrants who, among other criteria, are younger than 30 years old and have not been convicted of a felony to apply for work permits.

Latinos and the 2nd Obama Administration

CONTENTS

* "Latinos deliver for Obama; now they want something" By Franco Ordonez, Arlington Star-Telegram (Texas) (November 8, 2012)

* "Latinos' Obama Loyalty Misguided" By Ruben Navarrette, Albuquerque Journal (November 10, 2012)

* "What Hispanics can expect in the next four years" By Israel Ortega, VOXXI (November 7, 2012)

* "Fool Me Once, Shame on You. Fool Me Twice...There'll be Hell to Pay" By Robert Deposada, Fox News Latino (November 10, 2012)

Latinos deliver for Obama; now they want something

By Franco Ordonez, McClatchy Newspapers | fordonez@mcclatchydc.com

Arlington Star-Telegram (Texas) (November 8, 2012)

WASHINGTON - Latinos helped deliver President Barack Obama's re-election Tuesday with near-historic support. In return, they're demanding an immigration overhaul and are warning both parties, particularly Republicans, that it's time to get on board and pay closer attention to their issues.

Latinos accounted for 10 percent of those who voted Tuesday. They backed Obama with 71 percent of their vote nationally, compared with Mitt Romney's 27 percent, according to exit polls. It was the highest level of Latino support since President Bill Clinton received 72 percent of their vote in 1996.

Obama arguably won the election in part because of Latino support in the swing states of Colorado, where he carried 75 percent of Latino votes, and Nevada, where he received 70 percent.

"Latino voters confirmed unequivocally that the road to the White House goes through Hispanic neighborhoods," said Clarissa Martinez, the director of civic engagement and immigration at the National Council of La Raza, a Hispanic advocacy organization.

Activists such as Martinez think the election is such a game-changer for Latino issues that Republicans have no choice but to return to the negotiating table and confront the immigration problem.

Latinos are the country's fastest-growing minority bloc. Seventeen percent of eligible Latino voters live in battleground states. Nearly 900,000 eligible Latino voters turn 18 each year.

Knowing those numbers, and even before Obama was named the victor Tuesday night, Republican strategists were calling for a new approach.

"I said this in the spring. In the summer. Biggest mistake was going hard right on immigration. Paying price," John Weaver, a Republican strategist who worked on the presidential campaigns of Sen. John McCain and former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman, tweeted about Mitt Romney.

Attention has turned toward rising Republican star Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, who could serve as the catalyst to bring the sides together. The son of Cuban immigrants, Rubio said earlier this year that he was working on a compromise on the DREAM Act for young undocumented immigrants brought here illegally by their parents.

On Wednesday, he said "Republicans need to work harder than ever" on immigration issues.

Romney seemed to telegraph his predicament last spring. In the same fundraising-dinner video now infamous for his "47 percent" statement, he says trying to attract Hispanic voters is the party's greatest challenge.

"If the Hispanic voting bloc becomes as committed to the Democrats as the African-American voting bloc has in the past, well, we're in trouble as a party and, I think, as a nation," he says in the secretly recorded video.

Yet during the primaries Romney called for a "self-deportation" program and picked one of the authors of Arizona's controversial immigration law as an adviser. Obama, meanwhile, used his executive powers to grant two-year deferrals to hundreds of thousands of young undocumented immigrants.

There's no question that Republicans lost votes because of their hard-line stance, said Gary Segura, a Stanford University political science professor who runs Latino Decisions polling. Some 60 percent of Latino voters know someone who's living in the country illegally, according to the polling.

"When you talk about self-deportation, you're not talking about an abstract immigrant," Segura said. "You're talking about someone that the respondent knows, cares for and may in fact be related to."

The Latino Decisions poll also found that 31 percent of Latino voters would be more likely to vote Republican if the party "took a leadership role" on immigration.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev, pledged Wednesday to introduce an immigration package next year. He told Republicans they'd reject it at their own peril.

A coalition of Latino groups, including the United We Dream youth network, hopes to work with Reid and House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, to find a solution.

They already have begun strategy sessions. One conversation that's happening behind closed doors is whether it's better to push for a larger, comprehensive immigration package or start with a more targeted DREAM Act, which would benefit the most sympathetic illegal immigrants but not necessarily their parents.

Whatever is introduced, the legislation probably would need to be broken into parts to get conservatives on board, said Michael Franc, the vice president of government studies at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative Washington research center.

Republicans are more willing to talk, but the conversation needs to focus more on highlighting economic-growth potential, attracting highly skilled labor and not perpetuating the welfare state, Franc said.

Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush has made the case in the starkest terms. He told New York Magazine last month that he expects the Democratic presidential candidate to win Texas in 2016, which hasn't happened since 1980. Some 26 percent of Texas' eligible voters are Hispanic, the second-largest Hispanic eligible-voter share nationally, according to the Pew Hispanic Center.

"It's a math question," Bush said. "Four years from now, Texas is going to be a so-called blue state. Imagine Texas as a blue state - how hard it would be to carry the presidency or gain control of the Senate."

Republicans leaders more likely will be the ones who trigger change within the party. The chorus continues to grow, from Rubio to Bush to Grover Norquist, the founder of Americans for Tax Reform.

Frank Sharry, the executive director of America's Voice, which advocates for rights for undocumented immigrants, said he expected Republican senators such as McCain and South Carolina's Lindsey Graham, who previously supported comprehensive changes in immigration policy, also to play a role.

"This is not rocket science," Sharry said. "If they want to win the White House again, they need to get immigration off the table."

Latinos' Obama Loyalty Misguided

By Ruben Navarrette | <ruben@rubennavarrette.com> Albuquerque Journal(November 10, 2012)

SAN DIEGO - "Voting is the best revenge."

Such was the charming piece of advice that President Obama gave to Democratic supporters before the election.

Latino voters took those words to heart. Apparently, they live by a creed: When politicians use the immigration issue to make you feel like a second-class citizen in a country where your ancestors have lived for centuries, don't get mad. Don't get even. Just get organized and get down to the polls. Then get even.

Disappointed in both parties, I urged Latinos to "skip the line" and vote for every office except the top one. Rather, they turned out big for Obama, giving him - according to exit polls - 71 percent of their votes.

That's not the highest percentage of the Latino vote earned by a presidential candidate; Bill Clinton got 73 percent against Bob Dole in 1996. But it was still more than enough for Obama to run the board on Mitt Romney to the point where the Republican couldn't win.

Romney received about 27 percent of the Latino vote, a far cry from the 35 percent his campaign was aiming for. He never worked for those votes, and he had at least four strikes against him: the fact that the GOP brand is toxic with Latinos; his shenanigans in the GOP primary, where in an attempt to kneecap Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich, he painted himself into a right-wing corner with harsh rhetoric about not giving "amnesty" to "illegal aliens"; his sophomoric comments at a fundraiser in Boca Raton, Fla., in May suggesting that he'd win the presidency if he were Latino; his glib suggestion that illegal immigrants should simply "self-deport."

Meanwhile, Obama had one major asset going for him with Latinos: He wasn't Romney.

The constituency that was supposed to decide this election turned out to be a cheap date. Given his repressive immigration enforcement policies, and the rhetorical hocus-pocus he uses to cover them up, Obama has not done right by Latinos. He has not been there for them, but they certainly showed up for him.

And so, we learned that the creed has limits. Because Latinos are intensely brand loyal to the Democratic Party, only Republicans are punished for misbehaving.

Both parties need a spanking. Most Latinos don't seem troubled by the fact that Democrats are running an elaborate con game on them - pursuing the party's interest (keeping organized labor happy by stalling immigration reform, which would create competition for jobs by legalizing illegal immigrants) while portraying loudmouth but largely powerless Republicans as the obstacle. Just as most Latinos don't seem to mind that Democrats took a powder on fixing the immigration system during the two years that they controlled both Congress and the White House (2009-11) or that five Senate Democrats killed the DREAM Act by voting against cloture or that the Obama Department of Homeland Security has rounded up and deported a record number of illegal immigrants and divided thousands of families.

So, the day after the election, supporters of the president found themselves circulating contradictory narratives. When it comes to punishing Republicans, we are told, Latino voters care only about immigration. But when they have the chance to punish Democrats, well, suddenly they care about other issues beyond immigration.

I said they were loyal, not logical.

Another reason that Latinos are confused is that, for Obama, the "D" on the ballot stands for deflection. That is the president's gift. When you come to his door with a complaint about something that he has done or hasn't done, he points you in the direction of his opponent and tells you: "Hey, don't look at me. I've got your back. Look over there!"

This works for only so long. Already, Latinos and others who support comprehensive immigration reform, including a pathway to legal status for illegal immigrants, are demanding that Obama finally deliver on his 2008 promise and make it happen - preferably in the first year of his second term.

Don't hold your breath, folks. The political dynamic hasn't changed. Unions are still afraid of competition from immigrants, and Democrats still cater to this fear. Besides, it's bigger than politics; it's human nature. When someone has betrayed and mistreated you, and you take them back without consequences and without conditions, they usually wind up respecting you even less than they did before.

And if you're determined to go down the road of reform, that's not a good place to start.

What Hispanics can expect in the next four years

By Israel Ortega, VOXXI (November 7, 2012)

If the last four years were any indication of what we can expect in the next four years, Hispanics, like all Americans have plenty of reason to remain worried about our country's economy. It's hard to see how a President with a deeply liberal bend will pivot to the center in order to reduce our country's 16 trillion dollar deficit.

For Hispanics, this election was a watershed moment Hispanics went to the polls in larger numbers than they did in the 2008 presidential election, determining President Obama the winner in the important battleground states of Colorado, Nevada, Virginia and Florida. The results are confirming just how consequential the fastest growing demographic will be in shaping the American 21st century.

And yet, it would be premature to write off Hispanics as a reliable liberal voting bloc. From school choice to tax cuts and even Voter ID laws, Hispanics have expressed an openness to conservative policy prescriptions when polled. An articulate Spanish speaking conservative could effectively discredit liberal policy prescriptions by exposing how trillions of dollars of spending have failed to grow the economy, casting serious doubt on the viability of the American Dream for future generations.

What's more, the nearly fifty percent high school drop put rate among Hispanic students is a sobering indictment that the fastest growing demographic could soon add to our already unsustainable entitlement system by depending more on the government dole as employment prospects are effectively cut-off. The liberal policy prescriptions largely centered on more government spending and federal control have largely failed to close the large racial academic achievement gap that doggedly persists.

A series of policy recommendations focused on increased transparency, accountability and school choice has the possibility of resonating with a demographic that has consistently rated education above immigration as a top concern.

Much will be made of conservative's deference to the rule of law concerning immigration even though President Obama has consistently affirmed the uncontested truism that this is a country of immigrants, but also a country of laws. Liberals effectively hijacked the immigration issue by decrying that being against illegal immigration was tantamount to being against all immigration and by defacto being against Hispanics. Of course, the media certainly helped perpetuate this false narrative but conservatives could have certainly been more forceful in describing the need for immediate policy prescriptions in order to create a far more efficient immigration system in order to push back on this grossly false narrative.

Ultimately, we Hispanics will need to accept whether we are comfortable supporting the same failed policies that drove many of our ancestors to leave Latin America in order to make our mark in the United States of America. We must recognize that America has always stood out for its regard to a strong civil society and a limited government in order to make space for the private sector to flourish. This recipe has helped create the most prosperous economy in modern times and it's hard to see a scenario how Latin Americans would continue immigrating to our country if there were no prospects of employment.

As such, it seems the surest way to ensure that we Hispanics can continue to play a large role in determining the course of American history is to return to the policies that created wealth and opportunity. Freedom has largely defined the American experience and it seems silly to turn our back now on this simple proposition that has served our country so well.

Israel Ortega is the Editor of Libertad.org, the Spanish language page of The Heritage Foundation, a public policy think tank in Washington, D.C., www.heritage.org.

Fool Me Once, Shame on You. Fool Me Twice...There'll be Hell to Pay

By Robert Deposada, Fox News Latino (November 10, 2012)

"Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, there'll be hell to pay in the next election". This should be the simple yet loud message Latino voters must send to President Obama as he prepares for a second term. We've heard the campaign promises before and the many excuses that followed. We heard the blame game, over and over again. But this time, no excuses will be accepted nor tolerated.

We have to give credit to President Obama and his team. They ran the most effective Latino campaign we have ever seen. The strategy. The ads. The Get-Out-the-Vote operation. Simply impressive. To make it even better, their opponent ran the most ineffective and amateurish Latino effort we have seen in GOP presidential campaigns. They had no message, no strategy and no ground game. The Latino team Romney assembled to run his Latino campaign was a complete disaster and should be banished from politics forever.

When you look at a precinct analysis of targeted counties in Florida, Nevada, Colorado and Virginia, you realize that not only did Obama scored historically high levels of support, but he also got the largest turnout in Latino voting history. And that turnout was sufficiently high to deliver those swing states and provide President Obama the margin he needed to win reelection. The exit polls do not show the extent of this effort. Precinct results in predominantly Puerto Rican areas in the I-4 corridor in Florida, show Obama received over 84% and the turn out increased by 15 points. Similar data exists for South Florida, Northern Virginia, Las Vegas, Denver and other predominantly Latino neighborhoods.

So Latinos delivered, and delivered big time! What's next?

On the Democratic side, action on immigration legislation needs to happen within the first 100 days of the new administration. If it doesn't happen then, it will not happen at all. If the President is serious about his commitment to this issue, then he needs to make it a legislative priority and have something submitted within the first three months. Otherwise it will become once again a partisan blame game, and once again we will be witnessing four years from now, a Democratic presidential candidate promising to deliver immigration reform.

Many Latino activists at the grassroots level fear that the Obama Administration will make a minor, yet well publicized effort in Congress and not achieve a bipartisan consensus. Then they will drop the ball and once again say "we tried, but the Republicans blocked us."

This time we need to be prepared to challenge that strategy and demand results. At the very least we want both chambers to vote on actual legislation. If it fails it fails, but at least we will know where our elected officials stood on this important issue. We must also demand that the Obama Administration appoints top cabinet members to oversee the legislative strategy and negotiation. And finally, they need to reach out to non-Democrat Latinos to help them gather votes from GOP members of the House and Senate to put us over the top.

The message should be loud and clear: No excuses. You fooled us once in 2008. If you try to fool us again in 2012, there will be hell to pay for Democratic politicians in the 2014 mid-term elections. No excuses.

On the Republican side, they need to make a simple decision: do they want to win the Presidency or a majority in the U.S. Senate ever again? If so, they need to reach out to Latino voters in a more effective way. They need a real strategy and a serious outreach program. Latino elected officials are not an outreach strategy. They are a great vehicle to deliver a message. But elected officials without a grassroots effort and a cohesive positive message will not accomplish much, as we saw on Tuesday.

Governors' Martinez and Sandoval, and Senators Rubio and Cruz did not win their respective elections because of a coordinated party strategy to recruit Latino candidates. They were simply good politicians with an outstanding record of service who got it on their own merits. The Republicans need Latinos doing research, building a grassroots infrastructure, and training operatives and media spokesmen. All in all, Republicans need to build a political operation similar to what Karl Rove and President George W. Bush built for the 2004 campaign.

But most importantly, the Republican Party needs to stop using insulting rhetoric. They need to craft real reforms based on free market principles and an effective communications strategy to promote them. And they need to make Latinos feel that they are truly welcomed and wanted. Not just during a campaign, but in the process of developing policy and political strategies. In other words, treat us as adults.

And yes there is a third option! If the Libertarian Party gets their act together they could become a powerful vehicle for Latinos. Latinos will identify with many of the policies promoted by Libertarians, particularly on immigration, tax reform , foreign policy, education and the failed "War on Drugs". Libertarians just need to professionalize their political operations and target Latino voters. They are staring at zero. But if Democrats continue to use Latinos as campaign props and Republicans continue to insult them, Libertarians will be an incredibly attractive option for millions of Latino voters. They need to be ready to fill the vacuum and take advantage of this opportunity, as they should have done in 2012.

Latinos finally entered the national political stage with a big splash. The question is how they will use this new influence and power. If the average Latino voter does not see quick results after all the promises made, you will see a disillusioned community that will revert to political apathy. Let's make sure that we hold politicians accountable to those who elected them. It's time to get the job done. No excuses accepted nor tolerated.

Robert G. Deposada is the founder and past President of The Latino Coalition and Latinos for Reform, and served as Director of Hispanic Affairs at the Republican National Committee under Chairman Lee Atwater.

Top Menu

Main Menu

Latinos & Immig. Reform

Table of Contents:

POLITICO, March 3, 2014

Immigration Impasse Could Rekindle Fight Over Deportations

House's Retreat on Legislation Puts Obama Administration in a Tight Spot…

How the Obama Administration Can Use Executive Authority to Stop Deportations

By Patrick McGreevy patrick.mcgreevy@latimes.com & Melanie Mason melanie.mason@latimes.com, LA. Times ~ January 10, 2014

White House Looks Past Congress for Its Agenda

Boehner Is Said to Back Change on Immigration

A Plea to Carry Out a Principled Immigration Policy

Even American citizens aren't safe as Homeland Security kicks more than 1,000 people out of the country every day...

The first black president has deported more brown people than anyone before him...

Por Noticiero Televisa ~ Redacción. Fuente: EFE 2013-08-16

Growers Say Reliance on Aging Workers Shows Urgent Need for Immigration Overhaul

Everything you know about immigration is wrong

By Ezra Klein, Washington Post ~ August 10, 2013

44,000 can’t wait for immigration reform in Congress

Immigration 'Plan B' Focuses on White House

Despite ambitious goals, millions would be left out of immigration deal

By David Nakamura, Published: July 26

Articles from July 25, 2013:

Steve King Defends DREAMer Comments Condemned by Boehner, Cantor

Articles from July 23, 2013:

Republicans Need to Face the Facts on Immigration Reform

White House Open to Piecemeal Immigration Reform

Articles from July 21, 2013:

Articles from July 19, 2013:

Articles from July 18, 2013:

Articles from July 17, 2013:

Algunos grupos pro inmigrantes consideran que el enfoque actual de una reforma migratoria no es por lo que han estado luchando…

Por: Pilar Marrero / pilar.marrero@laopinion.com JULIO, 15, 2013

Articles from July 16, 2013:

Good Faith

Right Instincts

Articles from July 15, 2013:

How Momentum for Comprehensive Immigration Reform Collapsed in the House

It took only a month for conservatives to derail the Senate’s comprehensive approach and pathway to citizenship...

“Border Surge” Chafes Border Lawmakers

House Members Near Mexico Worry a Crackdown Will Alienate a Key Trading Partner…

Senate Immigration Bill Better Than the Status Quo?

Articles from July 14, 2013:

Articles from July 11, 2013:

El Frente Unido de Inmigrantes se pronuncia en contra de la propuesta del Senado S774 por las siguientes razones:

5. La propuesta del senado resolvería de manera más sencilla la situación de los jóvenes soñadores que podrían obtener la residencia permanente en cinco años si continúan en la escuela o se adhieren a las fuerzas armadas.

1. Llamar a los congresistas latinos y del Cacus progresista a pronunciarse contra la propuesta del senado S774, ya que estarían validando la creación de un estado policiaco en estados Unidos, que se ha proclamado la tierra de la libertad y oportunidad.

2. Llamar nuevamente al Presidente Obama a proclamar un cese inmediato a las deportaciones y separación de familias.

4. Otorgar la residencia permanente inmediata a los jóvenes que han sido aprobados con la Acción Diferida, así como a todos los que recibido el Status Temporal Protegido (TPS).

5. Otorgar la posibilidad de obtener una legalización a todas las personas que se encuentran en el país de manera irregular bajo las mismas condiciones que se establecieron en la Ley de Reforma de Inmigración y Control promulgada en 1986, solamente cambiando las fechas de elegibilidad.

1. Derogar Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996.

2. Derogar las sanciones a los patrones de la ley de 1986.

3. Poner fin a la política de la militarización de la Frontera.

4. Llamar a Estados Unidos a subscribir la Convención Internacional por los derechos de los Inmigrantes y sus familias.

5. Formar una comisión de los congresistas y la sociedad civil para formular una política de inmigración justa y humana.

Articles from July 10, 2013:

Articles from July 9, 2013:

Immigration Campaign to Target 11 House Republicans

CMSC Newsletter 17, Vol. 3, September 15, ...

CMSC Newsletter 18, Vol. 3, September 23, ...

Related articles