What is the right way?

“A CBS News/New York Times poll conducted last week shows that Americans support tougher immigration enforcement laws like the controversial Arizona Senate Bill 1070.” The problem now is how is illegal immigration going to be fixed said the head of the Customs and Border Protection agency. Bersin, the agency’s commissioner said any immigration overhaul should be based on principles of secure borders, a guest-worker program and a path to citizenship for people living in the U.S. illegally. He says many people will not tolerate another amnesty like in 1986 that allowed 2.7 million people to become citizens. The downside of no amnesty is that the government can’t deport 8 million to 10 million people.

A solution that I thought could be part of is the DREAM Act (Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act). This act is for those people who came here with their parents and finished High School, but can’t go to college, work legally, or pay taxes. This act would allow those people to make their dream come true. The requirements would be:

--if they were brought to the United States before they turned 16, are below the age of 35,
--have lived here continuously for five years,
--graduated from a U.S. high school or obtained a GED
--have good moral character with no criminal record and
--attend college or enlist in the military

There hasn’t been any recent news to the status of this act, but there is hope that this act will pass.

*If you wish to support this act there is a website you can go to sign a petition http://www.dreamact.com/

http://immigration.about.com/b/2010/05/05/new-poll-shows-americans-support-arizona-senate-bill-1070.htm

http://www.wsvn.com/news/articles/national/MI86619/

http://www.change.org/ideas/view/the_dream_act_for_america_in_2010

How Will This End?

Following the recent new about Arizona’s new immigration law and immigration reform a voter has many hard choices when it comes to voting for a senate. We are the land of the free and are made up of immigrants. A person in Europe spends a lot of time and money to get to America for a better life. They have to first of all have someone form America ask and fill out a lot of paperwork for them to begin the process of moving. Then every family has to go through tests to prove that they are worthy to come to our country. After that they come to this country with nothing but what is in a few bags that they where allowed to bring. Once they are on this side of the world they have low monthly payments that pay their plane tickets. On the other hand you see someone who decided that they wanted to go to America to have a better life and instead of coming legally they “jumped” the boarder. They live in our country and take our jobs. Arizona is legalizing a new law that will let a police ask for proof of legalization to anyone they suspect is an illegal immigrant. Karl Rove who was a former adviser of George W. Bush said “I applaud Arizona for taking action (The New York Times)”. Senators are torn at this point and do not know who’s side to be on. They want the vote of the people who are for the law, but Latinos do make up a great number of voters. Senates have to please the public in order to get elected. Who is going to vote for them if they do not like what that senate is standing up for. Suspecting that after Arizona’s law comes into action immigration reform will have to happen and quickly. Washington will move to legalize Latino immigrants and we will be able to secure the southern boarders more. Linda Chavez who is the republican chairwoman of the Central for Equal Opportunity said that “the fact is, you can’t secure the boarders if you don’t fix immigration, because the two go hand in hand (The New York Times)”.

Republicans Feel the Heat of The Arizona Law

Reported by the New York Times, In the wake of Arizona's controversial immigration law, politicians have been forced to take a stand on the issue and although there is a consensus on the issue among Republicans in Washington the problem lies with Republican lawmakers and candidates in the states because they are, "-torn between the need to attract Latino support, especially at the ballot box, and rallying party members to support tougher action". A candidate or lawmakers decision as whether to support or oppose the Arizona law can have immediate political consequences for the politician in question. The latest example of this fact lies with Meg Whitman's declining popularity. For months Whitman enjoyed an advantage over Steve Poizner (the other Republican nomination for governor of California), however, when Poizner publicized that Whitman opposed the Arizona law Whitman saw a falling in her advantage over her rival by 23 percent. Now Whitman proclaims in her new advertisement that she is 100 percent against amnesty of illegal immigrants. As the article puts it, “State Republicans now find themselves in a balancing act, trying to seize a moment of Congressional stalemate to demonstrate leadership while not repelling voters on either side of the debate, a challenge that is particularly daunting for those in a primary fight”. That is not to say that Democrats don’t have problems with party division in the states caused by the Arizona law but the split is less pronounced than it is for Republicans who are afraid of alienating Hispanics or their main conservative base. The bottom line is, though, that it doesn’t matter whether lawmakers or candidates are Republican or Democrats, they should stick to what they truly believe and not bend to the wills of the constituents for popularity and fluctuate so much in their views.

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/22/us/politics/22immig.html?hp

Obama Administration Trying to File a Lawsuit on Arizona's new law

“In the legal battle over Arizona's new immigration law, an ironic subtext has emerged: whether a Bush-era legal opinion complicates a potential Obama administration lawsuit against Arizona.” The document that was written in 2002 by the Justice Department’s Office of legal Counsel states police officers have “inherent power” to arrest undocumented immigrants. The reason the arrest would be justified was due to the fact that illegal immigrants violate federal law. This memo was issued by Jay S. Bybee. He helped to write memos that sanctioned harsh interrogation of terrorism suspects. Due to the fact that the memo has not been withdrawn, supporters of the Arizona law said it would be awkward for the Obama administration to make a Justice Department Lawsuit against Arizona. The question is “How can you blame someone for exercising authority that the department says they have?” This has become a hard question to answer. As long as the memo is in place it seems like it will be hard for the Obama administration to file a lawsuit against Arizona. Even though the Obama administration has been having trouble in filing a federal lawsuit, civil rights groups have filed. On Monday they filed what they said was the fifth federal lawsuit over the legislation. Cecilia Wang, managing attorney of the ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project said that the power the Arizona law gives to police “goes far beyond” the basic authority cited in the memo. Wang has called for the Obama Justice Department to withdraw the 2002 memo. She states that the memo give Arizona and other states a comfort to pass overbroad and extraordinary anti-immigration measures.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/17/AR2010051702175.html?sub=AR

Immigration, Trade, and Drug Violence the focus of Obama and Calderon Meeting this Wednesday

Though immigration has been a source of tension between the United States and Mexico for quite some time, the controversial Arizona Immigration law recently enacted has only added strain to an already precarious relationship. In order to reaffirm their commitment to comprehensive immigration reform President Obama and Mexican president Felipe Calderon will meet tomorrow in Washington to discuss what steps to take in this raging debate that has enticed their countries. Calderon is already feeling the heat of the debate, however, since he is facing pressure from some Mexican lawmakers to break commercial ties with Arizona. In itself this would be devastating news for Arizona because putting the morality of illegal entry to the states aside Arizona’s economy has become very dependent on the labor and consumerism of the illegal immigrants in the state and for Mexico to cut ties with Arizona at this stage would only work to encourage uncooperative attitudes between both countries. In addition to immigration discussion, though, a senior administration official has also added a statement about the meeting saying that President Obama and President Calderon will also discuss border security as well as the ongoing drug violence that has affected both sides of the border. As things are more than 22,700 people have been killed since Calderon deployed troops and federal police across Mexico in order to combat drug traffickers but although Washington has been a strong supporter, pledging training and equipment under the $1.3 billion Merida Initiative, only about 25% of the funds and equipment promised have actually been delivered. In any case this meeting is sure to be productive since both sides expect to come away from the meeting with a number of concrete announcements about the ways in which both governments can work together.

Sources:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100518/ap_on_bi_ge/us_obama_mexico_2

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/05/18/us.mexico.presidential.visit/index.html?section=cnn_latest

http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/markets/economy/illegal-immigration-provides-benefits-states-despite-rhetoric

Immigration Reform Unhinges Congressman

May 18, 2010

Even before Arizona’s highly controversial immigration law was signed by Governor Jan Brewer, Illinois Congressman Luis Gutierrez was already making threats. Gutierrez is the chairman of the Democratic Caucus Immigration Task Force and he is fond of portentous pronouncements. Either pass the immigration reform this year or Latinos will not vote in November.
In fact, Gutierrez continues to threaten his Democratic colleagues with a wide specter of Latinos sitting out on the November mid-term-elections unless the whole political establishment changes gears and delivers comprehensive immigration reform before the August Congressional recess. Voters should realize, however, that to sit at the sidelines will only give their rivals a chance to gain the advantage and not really solve anything. Considering, for example, that as much as the news makes it seem unlikely with all its coverage of the outrage civil liberties groups and some individuals feel over the Arizona immigration reform, national polls show that 60% of people or more actually agree with the law. Although Gutierrez' speeches may play well with Latinos and undocumented people desperate for a chance at the American Dream they are not a replacement for a real political strategy to persuade legislators.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/fernando-espuelas/immigration-reform-unhing_b_578702.html

Myths Affecting Comprehensive Immigration Reform Debate

As the November elections approach and the immigration debate comes once again to the forefront of American politics, mostly in part because of the controversial Arizona immigration reform law, voters should be as informed as they can on the issue. Especially since several widespread myths about immigration reform have come to be misunderstood as facts. In an effort to debunk some of the widespread myths here is an excerpt from an article written by ­­­­­­­­Moses Apsan (the Past-President of the New Jersey Chapter, ­Federal Bar Association and an attorney who has been practicing U.S. immigration law for over 25 years).

Myth #1: A deportation-only policy will fix our immigration problems. Deporting 12 million undocumented immigrants from the United States would cost an estimated $230 billion and result in a shortage of 2.5 million workers, according to a 2005 study from the Center for American Progress. And, in addition to damaging families and industries, a deportation-only policy does not address the fundamental dysfunction of our immigration system.

Myth #2: Immigrant workers suppress American wages. An overwhelming majority of economists agree that immigrants actually increase economic productivity and the wages of American workers. Additionally, the White House Council of Economic Advisers concluded in a 2007 report that roughly 90 percent of native born workers experience wage gains due to immigration, which total between $30 billion and $80 billion per year.

Myth #3: The United States spends billions on welfare for undocumented immigrants. Undocumented immigrants are not eligible to receive welfare benefits – ever. Even legal, permanent residents are severely limited when it comes to the benefits they can receive. They must pay into the Social Security and Medicare systems for about 10 years before they are eligible to receive retirement benefits. Furthermore, the percentage of U.S.- born children of immigrants – documented and undocumented – who are eligible for federal assistance is declining.

Myth #4: Undocumented immigrants are more likely to commit crimes than U.S. citizens. A 2007 study by the University of California, Irvine, found that, among men ages 18- 39 (who comprise the majority of the U.S. prison population), the incarceration rate for native-born citizens was 3.5 percent, five times higher than the rate for immigrants in 2000.

Myth #5: Immigrants don’t assimilate into U.S. society. In states with a long tradition of immigration, such as California, it has been found that immigrants do learn English and climb the socio- economic ladder over time, with each successive generation closing the income and education gap between themselves and white, native-born Americans.

Source: http://news.jornal.us/article-5007.Myths-Affecting-the-Comprehensive-Immigration-Reform--Debate.html