Illegal Vs. Legal Immigration Is A Global Issue

The world has become increasingly global and interconnected in the past 10-15 years.  And while people have been on the move since time began, welcomed immigration has tended to move in step with economic conditions—rising when the local economy is strong enough to accommodate the influx of new people and dropping when it is weaker.

Today, it is estimated that more than 200 million people globally live outside their home countries, a number that has increased by more than 40% in the past decade, according to the United Nations.  Immigrants now comprise 3.1% of the world’s population, up from 2.9% in 1990. No one knows for sure how many of the global immigrant population is illegal, but the International Organization for Migration in Geneva estimates the number to be between 15% and 20%.

Here, in the U.S., which at 42 million has more immigrants, legal and illegal, than any other nation, the media reports bits and pieces of the situation, but doesn’t seem to look at the big picture. Congress seems not to want to make the hard decisions and choices in an election year that are needed to address the issue and our President, well, he just doesn’t seem to want to deal with real issues except to orate or to use his “phone and pen.”

Today, across the globe, while the nationalities of the migrants may be different, governments in developed nations are facing huge local public pressure to increase border enforcement and security, even as they welcome legal immigrants to help combat a shortage of skilled labor, such as in Canada, or to back-fill a rapidly declining population, as in Japan.

Over the years, America has prospered through legal immigration. My relatives were German and my wife is Italian. Past legal immigrants to the U.S. and their families have helped make this country great. Recently, I read an article in the Los Angeles Times that described the positive impact Asian immigrants from Korea and Japan to Bangladesh have had on Orange County where I live. They noted that in a county of 3 million residents, today nearly 600,000 Asian Americans make their homes here, up more than 40% since 2000. They discussed the resulting diversity of restaurants, shopping malls, languages spoken and the transformation of sleepy communities into bustling commercial centers as all positive developments.

No matter where you live, positive legal immigration refreshes the community.  The problem we face today is illegal immigration that has no true regulation and generally invites immigrants who often include the criminal element trying to escape from the pursuit of the authorities back home.  Several years ago, I served on a Federal Grand Jury in Orange County. About 30% to 40% of our time was focused on deportation cases of illegal immigrants who had committed crimes in the U.S.

Many of our citizens see the negative impact of illegal immigration on the infrastructure of our country.  It’s a fact that schools, medical facilities, police, related local services and other community resources are stretched well beyond capacity today even without the added burdens of illegal immigration.

When immigrants are legally living and working in the community they too look on the current situation with dismay. A friend of mine, June Farrell, told me the following story:

 ”My housekeeper is a citizen and a native of the Dominican Republic. She recently asked me what I thought about what’s happening on the border. She is totally perplexed. She came here legally, earned her citizenship, reared a fabulous 21-year-old son on her own as a single parent and now feels threatened by this onslaught. I told her the kids involved are pawns and regrettably must go home because they are here illegally and that maybe we can help them in their own country. I was thinking maybe we could devise something like a Marshall Plan.  She asked how and where these kids are getting the money to come here in the first place if they’re so poor…and I asked her what mother sends a child on such a journey in the first place. She asked how we can stop this. I told her we have an election in November and we must ensure that the Congress is Republican so that maybe we can fence in our current President. She agreed.  She’s worried about her own son’s chances in this country if we don’t stem the tide of illegals.”

 The fact is  illegal immigration needs to be stopped and stopped now. The White House can take immediate action to seal the border as Texas has tried by mobilizing its National Guard to assist the border patrol. If we are going to be global, we need legal immigration; but, first and foremost, we need immigration that’s legal, measured and that meets our country’s long-term needs and strategic priorities.

 

 

Source Article from http://www.forbes.com/sites/edfuller/2014/08/06/illegal-vs-legal-immigration-is-a-global-issue/
Illegal Vs. Legal Immigration Is A Global Issue
http://www.forbes.com/sites/edfuller/2014/08/06/illegal-vs-legal-immigration-is-a-global-issue/
http://news.search.yahoo.com/news/rss?p=immigration
immigration – Yahoo News Search Results
immigration – Yahoo News Search Results

Editorial: Frustration over stalled immigration action doesn’t mean Obama can act unilaterally

SECTION: {section=opinions, subsection=null}!!!
INITIAL commentConfig: {includereply=true, canvas_permalink_id=washpost.com/8bvh5zpd9k, allow_comments=true, commentmaxlength=2000, includeshare=true, display_comments=true, canvas_permalink_app_instance=bg52e9xhqr, display_more=true, moderationrequired=false, includefeaturenotification=true, canvas_allcomments_id=washpost.com/km4ey0dajm, comments_period=14, defaultsort=reverseChronological, includevoteofftopic=false, allow_videos=false, includesorts=true, markerdisplay=post_commenter:Post Commenter|staff:Post Writer|top_commenter:Post Forum|top_local:Washingtologist|top_sports:SuperFan|fact_checker:Fact Checker|post_recommended:Post Recommended|world_watcher:World Watcher|cultuer_connoisseur:Culture Connoisseur|weather_watcher:Capital Weather Watcher|post_contributor:Post Contributor, childrenitemsperpage=3, includeheader=true, includeverifiedcommenters=true, defaulttab=all, includerecommend=true, includereport=true, maxitemstop=3, source=washpost.com, allow_photos=false, maxitems=15, display_ugc_photos=false, includepause=true, canvas_allcomments_app_instance=6634zxcgfd, includepermalink=false}!!!

UGC FROM ARTICLE: {allow_comments=true, allow_photos=false, allow_videos=false, comments_period=14, comments_source=washpost.com, default_sort=, default_tab=, display_comments=true, is_ugc_gallery=false, max_items_to_display=15, max_items_to_display_top=3, moderation_required=false, stream_id=}!!!

FINAL commentConfig: {includereply=true, canvas_permalink_id=washpost.com/8bvh5zpd9k, allow_comments=true, commentmaxlength=2000, includeshare=true, display_comments=true, canvas_permalink_app_instance=bg52e9xhqr, display_more=true, moderationrequired=false, includefeaturenotification=true, canvas_allcomments_id=washpost.com/km4ey0dajm, comments_period=14, defaultsort=reverseChronological, includevoteofftopic=false, allow_videos=false, includesorts=true, markerdisplay=post_commenter:Post Commenter|staff:Post Writer|top_commenter:Post Forum|top_local:Washingtologist|top_sports:SuperFan|fact_checker:Fact Checker|post_recommended:Post Recommended|world_watcher:World Watcher|cultuer_connoisseur:Culture Connoisseur|weather_watcher:Capital Weather Watcher|post_contributor:Post Contributor, childrenitemsperpage=3, includeheader=true, includeverifiedcommenters=true, defaulttab=all, includerecommend=true, includereport=true, maxitemstop=3, source=washpost.com, allow_photos=false, maxitems=15, display_ugc_photos=false, includepause=true, canvas_allcomments_app_instance=6634zxcgfd, includepermalink=false}!!

Source Article from http://feeds.washingtonpost.com/c/34656/f/645348/s/3d37693d/sc/1/l/0L0Swashingtonpost0N0Copinions0Cfrustration0Eover0Estalled0Eimmigration0Eaction0Edoesnt0Emean0Eobama0Ecan0Eact0Eunilaterally0C20A140C0A80C0A50C9c7bc1c60E1c1c0E11e40Eae540E0Acfe1f974f8a0Istory0Bhtml0Dwprss0Frss0Ihomepage/story01.htm
Editorial: Frustration over stalled immigration action doesn’t mean Obama can act unilaterally
http://feeds.washingtonpost.com/c/34656/f/645348/s/3d37693d/sc/1/l/0L0Swashingtonpost0N0Copinions0Cfrustration0Eover0Estalled0Eimmigration0Eaction0Edoesnt0Emean0Eobama0Ecan0Eact0Eunilaterally0C20A140C0A80C0A50C9c7bc1c60E1c1c0E11e40Eae540E0Acfe1f974f8a0Istory0Bhtml0Dwprss0Frss0Ihomepage/story01.htm
http://news.search.yahoo.com/news/rss?p=immigration
immigration – Yahoo News Search Results
immigration – Yahoo News Search Results

Rand Paul escapes trap set by immigration activists. But what about 2016?

It was a type of confrontation we may see often as the 2014 elections get closer: a Republican politician who has taken a hard line on immigration arguing with an undocumented immigrant and activist.

Monday’s public argument involved Rep. Steve King (R) of Iowa, one of the House’s fiercest critics of President Obama’s immigration policies. At a fundraiser in Okoboji, Iowa, Representative King suddenly found himself face-to-face with self-identified “DREAMers,” undocumented young people who have benefited from Obama’s 2012 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) executive order, which allows them to legally stay in the country.

What followed was an odd and stilted conversation. It was in many ways a metaphor for the overall Republican dilemma on the issue – not so much for what King said, as for what his seatmate, Sen. Rand Paul (R) of Kentucky did. More on that in a moment.

It began with DREAMer Erika Andiola handing King a card while he ate. It was her DACA card, her documentation that gives her quasi-legal status. She invited King to tear it up.

“I know you want to get rid of DACAs,” Ms. Andiola said. “I want to give you the opportunity, if you really want to get rid of it.”

King did not tear up the card. He tried to explain that he supported a bill in the House to end DACA because among other things he believes it provides a portal for drug smuggling. Last year, he said that for every DREAMer who does well in school, “there’s another 100 out there that weigh 130 pounds and they have calves the size of cantaloupes because they’re hauling 75 pounds of marijuana across the desert.”

Andiola accused King of name-calling, perhaps in reference to this past comment. King wondered aloud if Andiola was going to say she was a drug smuggler. Andiola asked if she looked like a drug smuggler.

“You can tell me,” King said.

“I’m not a drug smuggler, of course not. I graduated from Arizona State University. I have my master’s degree,” said Andiola.

The young woman said that she came to the US from Mexico with her mother when she was 11, and that she’s lived here 17 years. Her mom was escaping an abusive relationship, Andiola said. King said he was sorry she came from a lawless country and asked her to “please not erode the rule of law in America.”

King’s own fortunes won’t be hurt by this. His views are well-known and have not prevented his reelection in his Iowa district. In that sense the DREAMers did indeed pick an easy target for a stunt.

But what of Senator Paul? He was eating a burger right next to King when the activists arrived. He shook their hands, took a bite, then fled, as if he’d forgotten that he’d promised to be somewhere else, like another state.

As a 2016 hopeful, Paul stands to lose much more from an argument about immigration than does King. The national GOP wants some sort of immigration compromise so that they can put the issue behind them and work on attracting Hispanic votes. The House GOP hardliners see that as a sellout and have worked to prevent compromises legislation passing the Congress.

Thus Paul’s walkabout, which spurred much jocularity on social media, but is also a visual manifestation of a tough political problem.

“The awkward scene was a visual reminder of the political tightrope Paul is trying to walk as he woos the tea-party base of the GOP, raising money for a conservative firebrand like King, at the same time he pitches an inclusionary message of a Republican Party that he says must expand its appeal to win future national elections,” writes National Journal’s Shane Goldmacher.

Source Article from http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/Decoder-Buzz/2014/0805/Rand-Paul-escapes-trap-set-by-immigration-activists.-But-what-about-2016
Rand Paul escapes trap set by immigration activists. But what about 2016?
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/Decoder-Buzz/2014/0805/Rand-Paul-escapes-trap-set-by-immigration-activists.-But-what-about-2016
http://news.search.yahoo.com/news/rss?p=immigration
immigration – Yahoo News Search Results
immigration – Yahoo News Search Results

Obama on his own on immigration

Washington (CNN) — With Congress mired in dysfunction over immigration, President Barack Obama says he’ll do what he can to sidestep the legislative logjam.

One possibility: using presidential authority to remove the threat of possible deportation for a few million immigrants living illegally in the country, a step that conservatives decry as amnesty.

Here is a look at how we got here and steps Obama could take in coming months to address what all parties agree is a broken immigration system and boost the Democratic brand, though not necessarily in this year’s congressional elections.

What is the problem?

An estimated 11 million or more immigrants are living illegally in the United States, many of them for years or even decades. They work, go to school and otherwise participate in American society even though they broke the law coming here and lack papers allowing them to stay.

Father and son reunite after 12 years

House passes $694 million border bill

King defends comments on immigrant kids

An increase in tougher enforcement laws and resources without any corresponding legal remedies for undocumented immigrants led to the huge illegal population.

White House mulls steps on immigration it can take on its own

While Obama’s administration has deported or turned back more than 2 million people, it shifted the priority from working immigrants targeted under predecessor George W. Bush to criminals, more recent border crosses and those who keep re-entering illegally.

Obama had promised to pass comprehensive immigration reform in his first term, but wound up focusing on economic recovery and health care reform.

Now he wants to deliver to the Hispanic American community, the nation’s largest minority demographic that strongly backed him in both election victories and is demanding an end to the deportations that it says split up families and tear the social fabric.

What are we doing about it?

Last year, the Senate passed a comprehensive bill that would provide a path to legal status for the millions of long-term undocumented immigrants while also strengthening border security.

The legislation supported by all Senate Democrats and 14 Republicans would require immigrants illegally living in the country to register with the government, pay a penalty, learn English and begin the process of applying for legal status. It also had the backing of the business community, organized labor and religious organizations.

However, House Republicans have refused to consider the Senate bill, which Obama and Democrats claim would pass if put to a vote.

Conservatives say the Senate plan amounts to amnesty for lawbreakers, arguing they should be sent back to their home countries because they drive up the size and cost of government while competing with U.S. citizens for jobs.

Democrats want to remove the legal uncertainty for as many of the undocumented immigrants as possible, allowing them to continue living and working here so they can eventually gain legal status and possibly full citizenship.

Didn’t Obama already stop deporting some children of immigrants?

In 2012, the Obama administration changed its policy by halting deportations of some immigrants brought to the United States illegally as children.

The move came after GOP Senators in 2010 blocked a Democratic bill known as the DREAM Act that would have done much the same thing.

Republicans argue the step meant Obama stopped fully enforcing immigration laws, saying they now mistrust him to carry out provisions for stronger border security that they demand in any new legislation.

Before going home for this year’s summer recess, the GOP-led House voted to reverse Obama’s previous executive actions on immigration and prevent future similar steps. The provision pushed by conservatives has zero chance of passing the Democratic-led Senate.

What about the current immigrant surge in Texas?

Tens of thousands of new arrivals from Central America, many of them unaccompanied children, have overwhelmed immigration facilities and services in Texas in recent months.

Republicans, particularly conservatives, say two policy changes led to the surge — a 2008 anti-trafficking law that requires immigration hearings for most children arriving at the border, and Obama’s 2012 decision to stop deporting some minors.

Rick Perry says youths crossing the border is a ‘side issue’

Combined, the changes created a perception that children who make it into the United States won’t get sent back, the critics argue.

For now, the U.S. government considers the influx from Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras a separate issue from the longstanding problem involving undocumented immigrants who have lived in the country for years.

House passes $694 million border bill

Obama has asked for more money to speed the processing and care of the new arrivals, but said most of the Central Americans arriving now will be returned to their home countries.

So now Obama is going to take more actions on his own?

Yes.

When it became clear this year that the House wouldn’t take up the Senate immigration bill, Obama asked the Justice and Homeland Security departments to come up with steps he could take on his own.

Sources familiar with the matter told CNN that one potential option would expand the deferred deportation program of 2012 for so-called DREAMers — children brought to America illegally by their families.

Other possible steps include granting some kind of legal status to the foreign parents of U.S. citizens, and allowing some undocumented immigrants to apply for temporary work permits, the sources said.

Border crisis: GOP falls into a trap

The total number of immigrants affected could reach 5 million or more, some analysts say.

“There are so many ways they could cut this pie and define and protect a class” of undocumented immigrants, one source told CNN, adding that the decisions expected next month would examine “what’s possible from a legal perspective, a policy perspective and also what’s possible from a political perspective.”

White House spokesman Josh Earnest said Monday that “the review of what the President is able to do is still ongoing,” and whatever options emerge will not be as enduring or as strong as what Congress could do under the Senate legislation.

What is the response?

The Hispanic American community wants to see the details, but supports Obama acting on his own. However, it would protest if it considers the steps too timid.

As expected, conservatives react with alarm and outrage.

GOP Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, perhaps the most vocal opponent on immigration reform, said last week that Obama “wants to issue another 5-6 million work permits to illegal immigrants of any age.”

That would violate existing law and be “a direct affront to every single unemployed American, particularly those in our poorest most vulnerable American communities,” Sessions said.

House Republicans who recently authorized a lawsuit against Obama for changing how the health care reform law gets enforced warn of another legal challenge over further executive action on immigration.

Why is this so hard?

The long-term political stakes are huge.

If reforms allow millions of immigrants now facing potential deportation to get eventual citizenship, Democrats would get the credit and the likely political loyalty of generations of Hispanic American voters.

Republicans, meanwhile, are deeply divided over how to proceed.

Conservatives warn that approving the Senate reforms or something similar would ensure that a Democrat occupies the White House for years to come.

Rubio plunges into immigration debate head first

More moderate Republicans argue that failing to do so would bring the same result.

“We must embrace and champion comprehensive immigration reform,” the Republican National Committee concluded in its post-mortem of the 2012 presidential election, in which GOP nominee Mitt Romney lost to Obama. “If we do not, our party’s appeal will continue to shrink to its core constituencies only.”

Despite that conclusion, House Republicans have blocked the comprehensive reforms passed by the Senate.

Obama said last week such division leaves him no recourse but to act on his own.

If he does before the November election, as expected, it could hurt some Democrats running in traditionally conservative states. That would amount to short-term pain for potential long-term gain.

CNN’s Athena Jones, Deirdre Walsh and Leigh Ann Caldwell contributed to this report.


Source Article from http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/04/politics/immigration-what-next/index.html
Obama on his own on immigration
http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/04/politics/immigration-what-next/index.html
http://news.search.yahoo.com/news/rss?p=immigration
immigration – Yahoo News Search Results
immigration – Yahoo News Search Results

GOP still struggles to find immigration strategy

WASHINGTON (AP) — Republicans can’t figure out what to do about illegal immigration as the 2016 presidential campaign is starting to heat up and just three months before midterm elections.

After the GOP’s 2012 presidential loss, it was the one problem the party declared it must resolve to win future presidential races.

Immigration managed to bedevil the party again last week when House Republicans struggled for a day over how to deal with recent border problems. House Republicans passed a face-saving bill late Friday night before leaving town for a break.

The fiasco proved anew that a small number of uncompromising conservatives have the power to hamper the efforts of GOP leaders to craft coherent positions on key issues — including one that nearly two-thirds of Americans say is an important to them personally, according to an Associated Press-GfK poll released last week.

“It would be very bad for Republicans in the House not to offer their vision of how they would fix the problem,” South Carolina GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham said when the initial House bill on immigration collapsed. While Republicans in the House are able to reject the proposals of Democrats, Graham said, that’s not enough: “At least they have a vision.”

While often a flashpoint issue among Republicans in their primaries this year, the party could get a grace period of sorts in November. Immigration appears likely to have only a modest impact on the roughly 10 Senate races that will determine control of the chamber. The possible exception is the race between Democratic Sen. Mark Udall and GOP Rep. Cory Gardner in Colorado, where Hispanic voters made up 14 percent of the electorate in 2012.

Even if President Barack Obama moves ahead with a proposal to give work permits to millions of immigrants living in the country illegally, removing the threat of deportation, Democratic strategists say Republicans won’t reap much of a benefit. Republicans, they argue, have already squeezed as much as they can from voters angry at the president by hammering at his record on health care, the IRS, foreign policy and other issues.

“There’s a ceiling, and nothing the president can do can get them above the ceiling,” said Rep. Steve Israel of New York, head of the Democrats’ efforts to win House elections. “But swing voters and persuadable voters, they want solutions.”

Hispanics made up less than 3 percent of all registered voters in 2012 in seven other states with competitive Senate races: Louisiana, Arkansas, North Carolina, Iowa, Michigan, Georgia and Kentucky. So any Democratic benefits from an Obama executive action on immigration could be just as limited.

Still, a few Democratic senators in those tight contests — including Kay Hagan of North Carolina and Mark Pryor of Arkansas — are putting some distance between themselves and the president. The White House, Pryor said, is “sending mixed messages: telling folks not to cross the border illegally and then turning around to hand out work permits to people who are already here illegally.”

Both parties agree that immigration is likely to play a bigger role in the 2016 presidential election. Arizona Sen. John McCain, the GOP nominee in 2008, has said his party can’t win without supporting an overhaul of the nation’s immigration laws, while former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush is among the potential candidates to urge the party to liberalize its approach to immigration.

A GOP-sanctioned “autopsy” of Mitt Romney’s 2012 loss made only one policy recommendation: The party “must embrace and champion comprehensive immigration reform,” a term understood to include creating pathways to legal status for millions of immigrants living in the nation illegally.

For that reason, some Republicans found the House hubbub discouraging. Party leaders had to yank an immigration bill from the floor Thursday after realizing they lacked the votes to pass it. Democrats mocked House Speaker John Boehner for declaring that Obama should take numerous steps, “right now, without the need for congressional action, to secure our borders,” while his website also stated, “More unilateral action from the White House will make (the) border crisis worse.”

“I’m just about as conservative, and full-spectrum conservative as it gets, and I was going to go yes” on Thursday, said Arizona GOP Rep. Trent Franks. “So I’m not certain what happened.”

Ultimately, the party’s rank-and-file refused to start Congress’ five-week break without proving the GOP could pass some type of immigration bill. It would clear the way for eventual deportation of more than 700,000 immigrants brought here illegally as children. It also would allocate $694 million for border security efforts, including $35 million for the National Guard.

The action kept Republicans from ending the summer empty-handed on immigration. But that doesn’t mean the party is any closer to untying the nation’s immigration knot.

While solid majorities of Americans say the country’s current immigration policies are unacceptable, many House Republicans owe their jobs to conservative activists who fiercely oppose “amnesty” for immigrants and dominate GOP primaries in districts where Democrats have almost no chance of winning.

Some of those Republicans were among the House conservatives who met last week in the office of Texas Republican Sen. Ted Cruz, who urged them to force concessions from Boehner’s leadership team. And on Friday, Cruz was talking about immigration in the Senate race in New Hampshire, which will hold the first presidential primary of 2016.

In a fundraising message, Cruz attacked Democratic Sen. Jeanne Shaheen for supporting Obama’s “amnesty” immigration policies.

___

Associated Press writers Bill Barrow in Georgia, Thomas Beaumont in Iowa, Steve Peoples in New Hampshire and Jim Kuhnhenn at the White House contributed to this report.

Source Article from http://news.yahoo.com/gop-still-struggles-immigration-strategy-082449672–election.html
GOP still struggles to find immigration strategy
http://news.yahoo.com/gop-still-struggles-immigration-strategy-082449672–election.html
http://news.search.yahoo.com/news/rss?p=immigration
immigration – Yahoo News Search Results
immigration – Yahoo News Search Results

House tumult shows immigration still flummoxes GOP

WASHINGTON (AP) — Midterm elections that will decide control of the Senate are three months away, and the 2016 presidential campaign will start in earnest soon after. Yet the Republican Party still can’t figure out what to do about illegal immigration.

It’s the issue that vexed Republicans as much as any in their 2012 presidential loss. It’s the one problem the party declared it must resolve to win future presidential races. And it still managed to bedevil the party again last week, when House Republicans splintered and stumbled for a day before passing a face-saving bill late Friday night.

The fiasco proved anew that a small number of uncompromising conservatives have the power to hamper the efforts of GOP leaders to craft coherent positions on key issues — including one that nearly two-thirds of Americans say is an important to them personally, according to an Associated Press-GfK poll released last week.

“It would be very bad for Republicans in the House not to offer their vision of how they would fix the problem,” South Carolina GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham said when the initial House bill on immigration collapsed. While Republicans in the House are able to reject the proposals of Democrats, Graham said, that’s not enough: “At least they have a vision.”

While often a flashpoint issue among Republicans in their primaries this year, the party could get a grace period of sorts in November. Immigration appears likely to have only a modest impact on the roughly 10 Senate races that will determine control of the chamber. The possible exception is the race between Democratic Sen. Mark Udall and GOP Rep. Cory Gardner in Colorado, where Hispanic voters made up 14 percent of the electorate in 2012.

Even if President Barack Obama moves ahead with a proposal to give work permits to millions of immigrants living in the country illegally, removing the threat of deportation, Democratic strategists say Republicans won’t reap much of a benefit. Republicans, they argue, have already squeezed as much as they can from voters angry at the president by hammering at his record on health care, the IRS, foreign policy and other issues.

“There’s a ceiling, and nothing the president can do can get them above the ceiling,” said Rep. Steve Israel of New York, head of the Democrats’ efforts to win House elections. “But swing voters and persuadable voters, they want solutions.”

Hispanics made up less than 3 percent of all registered voters in 2012 in seven other states with competitive Senate races: Louisiana, Arkansas, North Carolina, Iowa, Michigan, Georgia and Kentucky. So any Democratic benefits from an Obama executive action on immigration could be just as limited.

Still, a few Democratic senators in those tight contests — including Kay Hagan of North Carolina and Mark Pryor of Arkansas — are putting some distance between themselves and the president. The White House, Pryor said, is “sending mixed messages: telling folks not to cross the border illegally and then turning around to hand out work permits to people who are already here illegally.”

Both parties agree that immigration is likely to play a bigger role in the 2016 presidential election. Arizona Sen. John McCain, the GOP nominee in 2008, has said his party can’t win without supporting an overhaul of the nation’s immigration laws, while former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush is among the potential candidates to urge the party to liberalize its approach to immigration.

A GOP-sanctioned “autopsy” of Mitt Romney’s 2012 loss made only one policy recommendation: The party “must embrace and champion comprehensive immigration reform,” a term understood to include creating pathways to legal status for millions of immigrants living in the nation illegally.

For that reason, some Republicans found the House hubbub discouraging. Party leaders had to yank an immigration bill from the floor Thursday after realizing they lacked the votes to pass it. Democrats mocked House Speaker John Boehner for declaring that Obama should take numerous steps, “right now, without the need for congressional action, to secure our borders,” while his website also stated, “More unilateral action from the White House will make (the) border crisis worse.”

“I’m just about as conservative, and full-spectrum conservative as it gets, and I was going to go yes” on Thursday, said Arizona GOP Rep. Trent Franks. “So I’m not certain what happened.”

Ultimately, the party’s rank-and-file refused to start Congress’ five-week break without proving the GOP could pass some type of immigration bill. It would clear the way for eventual deportation of more than 700,000 immigrants brought here illegally as children. It also would allocate $694 million for border security efforts, including $35 million for the National Guard.

The action kept Republicans from ending the summer empty-handed on immigration. But that doesn’t mean the party is any closer to untying the nation’s immigration knot.

While solid majorities of Americans say the country’s current immigration policies are unacceptable, many House Republicans owe their jobs to conservative activists who fiercely oppose “amnesty” for immigrants and dominate GOP primaries in districts where Democrats have almost no chance of winning.

Some of those Republicans were among the House conservatives who met last week in the office of Texas Republican Sen. Ted Cruz, who urged them to force concessions from Boehner’s leadership team. And on Friday, Cruz was talking about immigration in the Senate race in New Hampshire, which will hold the first presidential primary of 2016.

In a fundraising message, Cruz attacked Democratic Sen. Jeanne Shaheen for supporting Obama’s “amnesty” immigration policies.

___

Associated Press writers Bill Barrow in Georgia, Thomas Beaumont in Iowa, Steve Peoples in New Hampshire and Jim Kuhnhenn at the White House contributed to this report.

Source Article from http://news.yahoo.com/house-tumult-shows-immigration-still-124000474.html
House tumult shows immigration still flummoxes GOP
http://news.yahoo.com/house-tumult-shows-immigration-still-124000474.html
http://news.search.yahoo.com/news/rss?p=immigration
immigration – Yahoo News Search Results
immigration – Yahoo News Search Results

Immigration: What You’ll Be Arguing About this Month

Congress left town last week on a five-week break without taking any productive action on the issue of the tens of thousands of unaccompanied minors who have illegally crossed the Southern border in the past few months. That means two things: the problem will continue to fester, and politicians from both parties will spend the net five weeks blaming each other for the lack of a legislative solution. 

President Obama, in particular, will likely take advantage of Congress being out of session to pummel Republicans on the issue throughout the month of August. In fact, he didn’t even wait until the House of Representatives had left town on Friday night, launching into his criticism of GOP inaction during a Friday afternoon press conference. 

Related: “Do-Nothing Congress” Gets Ready for an Unearned 5-Week Vacation 

As we can expect to keep hearing about the border crisis from both sides for the foreseeable future, The Fiscal Times offers this brief guide to the current state of play, and some of the main issues involved. 

The Border Crisis. A year ago, even six months ago, if someone had referred to the “border crisis,” the general assumption would have been the current rate of illegal immigration, primarily from Mexico, into the Southwestern U.S. But in the past few months, as the public has become increasingly aware of the massive numbers of unaccompanied minors from Central America crossing the border, it has taken on a more specific meaning. The most urgent crisis right now is the need to house and otherwise care for children who have entered the country illegally without a parent or guardian.

Most of these children appear to be from Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador, three of the poorest countries in the Western Hemisphere, and the site of horrific gang violence. Young children are often drafted into the gangs under threat of violence or death, and a large number of the children fleeing to the U.S. are trying to avoid that fate. 

Some of these Central American children will eventually be granted asylum, and others will be deported. But under the law, all of them must get a hearing. This is what is currently causing problems. 

Related: The Immigration Problem We’re Not Talking About 

The Wilberforce Act. Technically the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act, this is the law that everybody loved. Until they didn’t. 

The Wilberforce Act was first passed in 2000 as the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act and was renewed multiple times thereafter, usually without controversy and sometimes with a degree of fanfare. The law was designed to give special protections to minors who cross the border illegally, on the grounds that some may be forced to do so as unwilling participants in the illegal sex trade or other unlawful activity. It also recognized that some might cross in order to escape violence or coercion into the sex or illegal drug trade. 

The law guarantees children from countries other than Mexico and Canada, the right to a hearing in U.S. Immigration Court. 

Originally a popular bipartisan measure, the Wilberforce Act has recently come under fire from many politicians, primarily but not exclusively Republicans, who want to do away with the more formal hearing process in favor of what amounts to expedited deportation hearings. 

Related: U.S. Immigration Court’s Dirty Secret 

The National Association of Immigration Judges has said this is a terrible idea. But they currently have their own problems. 

U.S. Immigration Court The court system that handles immigration cases is not technically part of the Judicial Branch of the government, but is an arm of the Justice Department, and is badly understaffed. There is a backlog of 375,000 cases, with fewer than 230 judges to handle them. That puts the average number of cases per judge at more than 1,500. This means that it can take years for a case to get to court. 

In the case of unaccompanied minors, this creates a problem because the children have to be cared for in the mean time, and while some can be placed with relatives legally living in the U.S., many require government-provided food and shelter. 

This has spurred some U.S. cities and states to offer to house the children in vacant state and federal facilities and other suitable settings. But it has also sparked ugly protests, with anti-immigrant groups, in some cases, gathering to try to block buses of children from coming into their communities. 

Related: Jeb Bush Warns GOP on Immigration Reform 

Many of those protesting the government’s effort to house unaccompanied kids are angry at the Obama administration for what they view as an unconstitutional offer of “amnesty” to children who cross the border. 

Delayed Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) In June 2012, President Obama signed an executive order that allowed illegal immigrants who came to the U.S. as children prior to June 15, 2007 and meet a number of standards the opportunity to apply for deferral of deportation proceedings. Though not a law, DACA had the effect of implementing some of the immigration reform proposals that President Obama had supported through the failed DREAM Act in the first years of his presidency. 

Despite the fact that DACA specifically applies only to immigrants who entered the U.S. prior to June 2007, Republicans claim – with considerable evidence – that the order is encouraging children to cross the border today. Some, they argue, are lied to by “coyotes” – criminals that facilitate illegal border crossings – who tell them that the ruling will cover them. Others, they argue, cross because the fact that a sort of protection granted to child immigrants once, creates hope it might be granted again. 

Congress, of course, has the ability to invalidate DACA by passing some sort of legislation restructuring the immigration system. 

Related: GOP Passes Doomed Border Bill Before recess 

Comprehensive Immigration Reform (CIR) A comprehensive rewrite of federal immigration law is the stated goal of almost everyone involved in the debate over the border crisis. CIR, of course, means different things to different people. To some, it refers to a specific bill passed by the Senate last year. Others see it as a theoretical goal of the current Congress, with many roadblocks in its way. 

Last year, the Senate passed a bipartisan immigration reform bill that, by all accounts, would have passed the House if it had been allowed to come up for a vote at some point. However, the Senate bill is now likely academic for at least two reasons. First, while it did address the issue of unaccompanied minors, it did so in a different context, before the problem became as severe as it currently is. Second, the immigration issue is now politically toxic. Even within the House Republicans majority, difference of opinion on how to address the issue led to a major embarrassment for House Speaker john Boehner (R-OH) last week, when he was forced to pull a bill from the floor due to lack of support from his own party. 

Reality There was a time, earlier this year, when immigration reform might have been passed. But that’s in the rear view mirror now, and when Congress returns to Washington, with mid-term elections just two months away, both parties will have ample reason to let the issue continue to worsen. 

President Obama has stepped up his criticism of Republicans over their failure to pass immigration reform in the House, and because Republican candidates for the House and Senate will essentially be running against Obama in the Fall, passing anything that might be interpreted as a compromise with the administration in the run-up to the election is a losing proposition for GOP candidates trying to energize their base. 

Related: A Long Wait at the Back of the Immigration Line 

On the other side, Democrats are desperately afraid of losing the Senate to the GOP, and know that the immigration issue is important to their voters in general and to the Hispanic vote in particular. By hanging back and blasting Republicans for inaction, they have a ready-made campaign issue that, they hope, will drive voters to the polls. 

Nobody can say for sure what the power structure in Washington will look like after the election. But it seems pretty sure that whoever is running the two houses of Congress will still have the immigration issue on their collective plate. 

Top Reads from The Fiscal Times

Source Article from http://news.yahoo.com/immigration-ll-arguing-month-100000435.html
Immigration: What You’ll Be Arguing About this Month
http://news.yahoo.com/immigration-ll-arguing-month-100000435.html
http://news.search.yahoo.com/news/rss?p=immigration
immigration – Yahoo News Search Results
immigration – Yahoo News Search Results

Experts: Obama can do a lot to change immigration

WASHINGTON (AP) — What can President Barack Obama actually do without Congress to change U.S. immigration policies? A lot, it turns out.

There are some limits under federal law, and anything the White House ultimately decides to do may be challenged in court as unconstitutional. But leading legal experts say the White House almost certainly could delay indefinitely efforts to deport millions of immigrants already in the U.S. illegally, and it could give them official work permits that would allow them to legally find jobs, obtain driver’s licenses and pay income taxes.

Here is what Obama could not do without approval from Congress: He couldn’t generally give large groups of immigrants permission to remain permanently in the United States, and he couldn’t grant them American citizenship. And he couldn’t generally make them eligible for federal or state social benefit programs, such as welfare payments, food stamps or the administration’s health care plans.

“There is prosecutorial discretion which can be exercised in these sorts of situations,” said Leon Rodriguez, a former Justice Department lawyer and the newly confirmed director for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. “In most enforcement realms, generally there is pretty broad discretion.” Rodriguez spoke earlier this week on Capitol Hill during an oversight hearing for the House Judiciary Committee.

With Congress declining to approve significant changes to immigration laws, the White House is hinting that Obama is considering broadening a program known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals to temporarily shield from deportation many young immigrants who came to the U.S. as children and allow them to get a work permit. Immigration reform advocates have been pushing to include parents of U.S. citizens and the parents of young immigrants already protected under the earlier program, which covers more than 700,000 immigrants so far.

All told, expanding the program could affect as many as 5 million immigrants who came to the U.S. illegally.

Republicans in Congress, including House Speaker John Boehner, have complained that Obama is failing to enforce U.S. laws by effectively disregarding illegal immigration. The House Judiciary Committee chairman, Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., said Obama’s immigration policies are “undermining the fundamental constitutional principles that Congress creates the law and president is bound to enforce them.”

In a direct challenge to Obama’s policies, the Republican-led House on Friday night passed legislation that appeared designed to prevent those who’ve already gotten work permits under the deferred action program from renewing them, ultimately making them subject to deportation. With the Senate controlled by Democrats, the bill seemed unlikely to advance.

So, how powerfully can Obama act without approval by Congress?

Obama announced in March that he had directed Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson to review the administration’s immigration enforcement polices and recommend any possible changes. In May, Obama delayed the review to allow Congress time to act on immigration reform before it adjourned this week for the summer.

Before leaving for the August recess Congress did not pass legislation to provide the funding Obama requested to help deal with the more than 57,000 unaccompanied child immigrants, mostly from Central America, who have crossed the border since Oct. 1.

Obama said Friday that House Republicans were trying to pass the “most extreme and unworkable bills,” knowing they wouldn’t make it to his desk. On Friday night, the House approved a bill that would send migrant youths back home without hearings, a measure that also appeared destined to go nowhere in the Senate.

“That means while they’re out on vacation, I’m going to have to make some tough choices to meet the challenge, with or without Congress,” the president said.

Immigration law requires congressional action to create a benefit program for a specific class of people. The Obama administration said the young immigrants protected under the childhood arrivals program don’t count as a class because each request not to be deported is reviewed individually, on a case-by-case basis.

David Leopold, a Cleveland immigration lawyer who has supported Obama’s previous administrative changes to immigration law, said nothing in the law requires the government to deport every immigrant living in the country illegally.

The law “makes someone deportable, but that boils down to enforcement of immigration law. And that is open to enforcement priorities,” Leopold said.

Rodriguez told lawmakers that the government doesn’t have the resources to deport the more than 11 million immigrants estimated to be living illegally in the United States, “so, the question is, are we going to let them persist in the shadow economy or are we going to have them work and pay taxes?”

Obama has already pushed the bounds of his authority on immigration law further than his predecessors.

After a broad immigration bill failed in 2007, President George W. Bush ordered his staff to come up with every possible change he could make without the approval of Congress.

Gregory Jacob, who worked on immigration issues with the president’s Domestic Policy Council, said the list included similarly broad protections from deportation as those implemented by Obama. But Bush’s staff concluded that the president didn’t have the legal authority to grant such “sweeping and categorical” protections, Jacob said.

Bush’s director for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Julie Myers Wood, said much of the discussion at the time focused on small changes to visa programs or other efforts that would impact relatively small groups of immigrants. One concern, she said, was the potential for “unintended consequences” of encouraging more illegal immigration.

Republicans have complained that Obama has done what the Bush administration feared. Many have blamed the president for the influx of more than 57,000 unaccompanied immigrant children, mostly from Central America, who have been arrested at the Mexican border since Oct. 1.

___

Follow Alicia A. Caldwell on Twitter at www.twitter.com/acaldwellap

Source Article from http://news.yahoo.com/obama-room-maneuver-immigration-changes-073104450.html
Experts: Obama can do a lot to change immigration
http://news.yahoo.com/obama-room-maneuver-immigration-changes-073104450.html
http://news.search.yahoo.com/news/rss?p=immigration
immigration – Yahoo News Search Results
immigration – Yahoo News Search Results

Obama has room to maneuver on immigration changes

WASHINGTON (AP) — What can President Barack Obama actually do without Congress to change U.S. immigration policies? A lot, it turns out.

There are some limits under federal law, and anything the White House ultimately decides to do may be challenged in court as unconstitutional. But leading legal experts say the White House almost certainly could delay indefinitely efforts to deport millions of immigrants already in the U.S. illegally, and it could give them official work permits that would allow them to legally find jobs, obtain driver’s licenses and pay income taxes.

Here is what Obama could not do without approval from Congress: He couldn’t generally give large groups of immigrants permission to remain permanently in the United States, and he couldn’t grant them American citizenship. And he couldn’t generally make them eligible for federal or state social benefit programs, such as welfare payments, food stamps or the administration’s health care plans.

“There is prosecutorial discretion which can be exercised in these sorts of situations,” said Leon Rodriguez, a former Justice Department lawyer and the newly confirmed director for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. “In most enforcement realms, generally there is pretty broad discretion.” Rodriguez spoke earlier this week on Capitol Hill during an oversight hearing for the House Judiciary Committee.

With Congress declining to approve significant changes to immigration laws, the White House is hinting that Obama is considering broadening a program known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals to temporarily shield from deportation many young immigrants who came to the U.S. as children and allow them to get a work permit. Immigration reform advocates have been pushing to include parents of U.S. citizens and the parents of young immigrants already protected under the earlier program, which covers more than 700,000 immigrants so far.

All told, expanding the program could affect as many as 5 million immigrants who came to the U.S. illegally.

Republicans in Congress, including House Speaker John Boehner, have complained that Obama is failing to enforce U.S. laws by effectively disregarding illegal immigration. The House Judiciary Committee chairman, Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., said Obama’s immigration policies are “undermining the fundamental constitutional principles that Congress creates the law and president is bound to enforce them.”

In a direct challenge to Obama’s policies, the Republican-led House on Friday night passed legislation that appeared designed to prevent those who’ve already gotten work permits under the deferred action program from renewing them, ultimately making them subject to deportation. With the Senate controlled by Democrats, the bill seemed unlikely to advance beyond the House.

So, how powerfully can Obama act without approval by Congress?

Obama announced in March that he had directed Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson to review the administration’s immigration enforcement polices and recommend any possible changes. In May, Obama delayed the review to allow Congress time to act on immigration reform before it adjourned this week for the summer.

Before leaving for the August recess Congress did not pass legislation to provide the funding Obama asked for to help deal with the more than 57,000 unaccompanied child immigrants, mostly from Central America, who have crossed the border since Oct. 1.

Obama said Friday that House Republicans were trying to pass the “most extreme and unworkable bills,” knowing they wouldn’t make it to his desk. On Friday night, the House approved a bill that would send migrant youths back home without hearings, a measure that also appeared destined to go nowhere in the Senate.

“That means while they’re out on vacation, I’m going to have to make some tough choices to meet the challenge, with or without Congress,” the president said.

Immigration law requires congressional action to create a benefit program for a specific class of people. The Obama administration said the young immigrants protected under the childhood arrivals program don’t count as a class because each request not to be deported is reviewed individually, on a case-by-case basis.

David Leopold, a Cleveland immigration lawyer who has supported Obama’s previous administrative changes to immigration law, said nothing in the law requires the government to deport every immigrant living in the country illegally.

The law “makes someone deportable, but that boils down to enforcement of immigration law. And that is open to enforcement priorities,” Leopold said.

Rodriguez told lawmakers that the government doesn’t have the resources to deport the more than 11 million immigrants estimated to be living illegally in the United States, “so, the question is, are we going to let them persist in the shadow economy or are we going to have them work and pay taxes?”

Obama has already pushed the bounds of his authority on immigration law further than his predecessors.

After a broad immigration bill failed in 2007, President George W. Bush ordered his staff to come up with every possible change he could make without the approval of Congress.

Gregory Jacob, who worked on immigration issues with the president’s Domestic Policy Council, said included in the list was providing similarly broad protections from deportation as those implemented by Obama. But Bush’s staff concluded that the president didn’t have the legal authority to grant such “sweeping and categorical” protections, Jacob said.

Bush’s director for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Julie Myers Wood, said much of the discussion at the time focused on small changes to visa programs or other efforts that would impact relatively small groups of immigrants. One concern, she said, was the potential for “unintended consequences” of encouraging more illegal immigration.

Republicans have complained that Obama has done what the Bush administration feared. Many have blamed the president for the influx of more than 57,000 unaccompanied immigrant children, mostly from Central America, who have been arrested at the Mexican border since Oct. 1.

___

Alicia A. Caldwell on Twitter at www.twitter.com/acaldwellap

Source Article from http://news.yahoo.com/obama-room-maneuver-immigration-changes-073104450.html
Obama has room to maneuver on immigration changes
http://news.yahoo.com/obama-room-maneuver-immigration-changes-073104450.html
http://news.search.yahoo.com/news/rss?p=immigration
immigration – Yahoo News Search Results
immigration – Yahoo News Search Results

Immigration inspector John Vine quits








John Vine


The independent chief inspector of borders and immigration is to leave the role more than six months early.

John Vine had been due to step down in July 2015 when his term ended but will now leave on 31 December this year.

During his six years in the role, his office issued more than 50 inspection reports, some of which were highly critical of the immigration system.

Shadow immigration minister David Hanson said the Home Office had tried to silence Mr Vine’s criticisms.


‘Indictment’

He said Mr Vine had brought a “rigorous and determined approach to the role of scrutinising our borders” and “highlighted flaws in the Home Secretary’s immigration regime”.

His departure, Mr Hanson said, was “an indictment of [Home Secretary] Theresa May’s attempts to silence his criticisms of her failing immigration system”.

Mrs May thanked Mr Vine “for his hard work and dedication in scrutinising the vital work of controlling immigration and protecting Britain’s borders”.

Mr Vine will publish his final annual inspection report in December, which will cover the period 2013/14.

Alongside the reports, the inspector has also made almost 500 recommendations.

Among his findings:

  • In October 2013 he said the Home Office’s multi-million pound e-borders scheme had failed to meet its promises. He said staff at airports were not stopping those with terrorist alerts against them on arrival, and “not one person” had been stopped boarding a plane to the UK
  • He discovered in 2012 that the Home Office had a “migration refusal pool” – people whose temporary or permanent migration application had been refused but whose whereabouts were unknown to the authorities
  • In November 2012 he accused the UK Border Agency of supplying inaccurate information to MPs about the backlog of asylum cases and said Parliament had received incorrect assurances about moves to address this.

Correspondents say Mr Vine had become frustrated that the Home Office had changed the timing of the publication of his reports.

Previously they were released at midnight, ensuring more media coverage, but now they are published during the day.

Mr Hanson said: “It’s a real shame that the home secretary’s increasing manipulation of the release of his reports to try to hide her failures has clearly led to his frustration and ultimately resignation from the role.”

Mr Vine said this was not the reason he had resigned but said he had “raised my concerns with the change in publication processes with the home secretary and the Home Affairs Committee”.


line


Analysis


UK border

Danny Shaw, home affairs correspondent, BBC News

For six years, John Vine painted a bleak picture of Britain’s border and immigration controls. His reports were a severe embarrassment for a government that had pledged to bring down net migration and restore order to the system.

Until January this year, Mr Vine determined when his reports were released – usually with an embargo time that suited newspapers and broadcasters, ensuring maximum coverage.

Then the Home Office decided it would control the publication times, with reports put out at short notice and sometimes grouped together. The result was less publicity.

Publicly, John Vine says that’s not the reason he’s quitting. But there’s a sense that frustration with the new arrangements may well have played a part.


line

Mr Vine said he now wanted a new challenge.

“Leaving at the end of the year and before the next general election, rather than in July 2015 when my term is due to end, makes sense.”

Mr Vine said he was “proud” of establishing the inspectorate, which had been “a catalyst for significant change and improvement across the UK’s border and immigration functions”.

He had previously agreed two extensions to his original term of office.

Mr Hanson said: “John Vine enjoyed cross party support in his independent role and his successor will have a tough job to follow his thorough and expert analysis of our borders, and it is vital the home secretary doesn’t simply appoint someone who will seek not to upset her.”

Keith Vaz, chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee, said Mr Vine had done “outstanding work in holding to account those who manage our borders and immigration service”.

He said: “When Mr Vine last appeared before the committee we were very concerned about the number of reports that he had produced which had not been published by the Home Office. All of these must be released immediately.”

Source Article from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28603557
Immigration inspector John Vine quits
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28603557
http://news.search.yahoo.com/news/rss?p=immigration
immigration – Yahoo News Search Results
immigration – Yahoo News Search Results