Critics of Obama's immigration positions and actions have nevertheless also called for policy changes. "Standards for immigration reform" announced in January, 2014 by Congressional Republicans are mostly compatible with the Obama administration's legislative proposals, except that the Republicans favor stepwise implementation (rather than a package approach) with border security and interior enforcement preceding "paths" to legal status. Journalist and immigration critic Roy Beck supports portions of this agenda involving “immigration reduction": specifically endorsing bills to limit family-sponsored immigration to spouses and children, to end “birthright citizenship,” and to tighten “interior enforcement” and employer verification requirements. Another Obama critic, Congressman Tom Tancredo, has been an “outspoken” advocate “for immigration reform” in the sense of stricter controls on illegal entries (though he also attends naturalization ceremonies to support new citizens “doing it the right way"). These examples are indicative of the broad spectrum of potential and proposed changes encompassed under "immigration reform."
President Obama announced on June 15, 2012 is an example of the incremental reform sought by such groups. Under the program, illegal immigrants who were brought to the U.S. before age fifteen can apply for a work permit and a two-year deferment from deportation proceedings. The policy expands the Department of Homeland Security’s prosecutorial discretion policy, focusing finite resources on criminals and other threats to public safety.
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement removal proceedings Since President Obama took office in 2008, more than two million unauthorized immigrants have been deported. Most of these people were not a danger to society. In the fiscal year 2013 ICE removed 151,834 individuals who didn’t have a criminal conviction. If immigration reform becomes law, many of those who entered the country illegally would likely be able to remain in the United States.
The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, also known as ICE, has enforcement priorities that involve: apprehension of terrorists, violent criminals, gang members, which are categorized under three priorities. The first and highest priority is to remove aliens who pose a danger to national security or a risk to public safety (other than drunk driving, home invasion, or other "victimless crimes").
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement removal proceedings Since President Obama took office in 2008, more than two million unauthorized immigrants have been deported. Most of these people were not a danger to society. In the fiscal year 2013 ICE removed 151,834 individuals who didn’t have a criminal conviction. If immigration reform becomes law, many of those who entered the country illegally would likely be able to remain in the United States.
The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, also known as ICE, has enforcement priorities that involve: apprehension of terrorists, violent criminals, gang members, which are categorized under three priorities. The first and highest priority is to remove aliens who pose a danger to national security or a risk to public safety (other than drunk driving, home invasion, or other "victimless crimes").
Immigration reform in the United States, 1986-2009 The most recent major immigration reform enacted in the United States, the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, made it illegal to hire or recruit illegal immigrants, but left the immigration system without a key component: a workable non-immigrant visa system program for lesser-skilled workers to enter the United States. Following this 1986 law, almost 12 million undocumented workers came across the U.S. border. It was estimated that this undocumented workforce made up about five percent of the U.S. workforce. It was also estimated that about 70 percent of those undocumented workers were from the country of Mexico.
Former Mexican president Vicente Fox wrote that, in 2001, President George W. Bush and the leadership of both parties of Congress were ready to pass significant immigration reform legislation benefiting Mexican emigration to the U.S. The immigration reform which Bush and Fox hoped for was put on hold after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.
In 2005, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Border Protection, Anti-terrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005, and in 2006 the U.S. Senate passed the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006. Neither bill became law because their differences could not be reconciled in conference committee. The legislative negotiations and national activism behind immigration reform from 2001-2007 is the subject of 12-part documentary film series How Democracy Works Now.
In 2009 the immigration reform again became a hot topic, since the Barack Obama administration signaled interest in beginning a discussion on comprehensive immigration reform before that year's end. The proposed comprehensive immigration reform plan had as one of its goals bipartisan support, and included six sections designed to have "something for everyone." These six sections were:
Former Mexican president Vicente Fox wrote that, in 2001, President George W. Bush and the leadership of both parties of Congress were ready to pass significant immigration reform legislation benefiting Mexican emigration to the U.S. The immigration reform which Bush and Fox hoped for was put on hold after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.
In 2005, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Border Protection, Anti-terrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005, and in 2006 the U.S. Senate passed the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006. Neither bill became law because their differences could not be reconciled in conference committee. The legislative negotiations and national activism behind immigration reform from 2001-2007 is the subject of 12-part documentary film series How Democracy Works Now.
In 2009 the immigration reform again became a hot topic, since the Barack Obama administration signaled interest in beginning a discussion on comprehensive immigration reform before that year's end. The proposed comprehensive immigration reform plan had as one of its goals bipartisan support, and included six sections designed to have "something for everyone." These six sections were:
to fix border enforcement,
- “interior enforcement,” such as preventing visa overstays,
- preventing people from working without a work permit,
- creating a committee to adapt the number of visas available to changing economic times,
- a program to provide a path to legal status for undocumented immigrants, and
- programs to help immigrants adjust to life in the United States.
Effects on the US economy A 2010 academic study done by Georgetown University and published in the American Political Science Review, “Politicized Places: Explaining Where and When Immigrants Provoke Local Opposition,” indicates that when immigration issues receive national media attention, established residents living in places that have seen influx of new immigrants suddenly become much more politicized against immigration. This suggests that it is not the influx of new residents or new proximity to established residents that stir anti-immigrant sentiments; rather, resentment is thought to be spurred by the heated and prominent nature of the debate itself (as estimated by the number of mentions of immigration by CBS, ABC and USA Today.). The study, done by Georgetown University and published in the American Political Science Review, “Politicized Places: Explaining Where and When Immigrants Provoke Local Opposition,” examined more than twelve different surveys relating to immigration and local anti-immigration ordinances, spanning the years 1992 to 2009.
” Rather, the author concludes, “day-to-day encounters can be shaped by salient national issues.” The study’s conclusions are still only tentative. Other studies suggest that immigration reform which includes legalization of unauthorized immigrants might add considerably to U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) over 10 years, and increase wages for workers generally.
” Rather, the author concludes, “day-to-day encounters can be shaped by salient national issues.” The study’s conclusions are still only tentative. Other studies suggest that immigration reform which includes legalization of unauthorized immigrants might add considerably to U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) over 10 years, and increase wages for workers generally.
Raúl Hinojosa-Ojeda, founding director of the North American Integration and Development Center at the University of California, Los Angeles, has estimated that in just the first three years following legalization for undocumented immigrants, the “higher earning power of newly legalized workers translates into an increase in net personal income of $30 to $36 billion, which could generate $4.5 to $5.4 billion in additional net tax revenue. Moreover, it is estimated that an increase in personal income of this scale would stimulate consumer spending sufficient to support 750,000 to 900,000 jobs.”
The U.S immigration system determines who enters the country, and how many, either by order or under certain circumstances. It also decides who can apply for permanent visas for family and relatives. Advocates of increased admission of family members characterize the current system as "broken," for preventing family reunification. They argue that family reunification will reduce waiting lines and conflicts over the number of visas of children and spouses. Approximately 5,100 children with a detained or deported parent were in the public child welfare system in 2011. Advocates for reducing immigration have, however, argued that making family reunification migration easier would tend to erode important distinctions between citizens and non-citizens, and lead to higher overall immigration levels.
Arizona SB 1070 In 2009, services provided to illegal immigrants, including incarceration, cost the state of Arizona an estimated $2.7 billion.
Citing Congress’ failure to enforce U.S. immigration laws, the state of Arizona confronted reform and on April 23, 2010 Republican Governor Jan Brewer signed the Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act (Arizona SB 1070), the broadest and strictest immigration reform imposed in the United States.
The SB1070 Arizona immigration law directs law enforcement officials to ask for immigration papers on a "reasonable suspicion" that a person might be an illegal immigrant and make arrests for not carrying ID papers in keeping with federal requirements. Previously, police could not stop and check identification papers on a mere suspicion that someone might be an illegal immigrant. Police could only ask about an individual's immigration status if they are suspected of involvement in another crime.
On July 6, 2010, the US Department of Justice filed suit against Arizona. The intent of the suit is to prevent Arizona from enforcing the law and asks the court to find certain sections of the legislation null and void.
Being the first state to pass such legislation, Arizona has set a precedent for other states, but this legislation has also caused Arizona to carry a large burden. Arizonans have faced boycotts and protests from their commercial businesses to sporting events and concerts. Although the response has cost the state between $7 million and $52 million, some in the state still feel that this outcome will outweigh the initial cost.
Due to conflict and protest, the week after Governor Brewer signed SB 1070, the Arizona legislature passed House Bill 2162 (HB 2162) amending text in the original document. HB 2162 includes that race, color, and national origin would not play a role in prosecution; in order to investigate an individual's immigration status, he or she must be “lawfully stopped, arrested or detained."
Opponents of the law say that it will ultimately cost the state “$26.4 billion in economic activity, $11.7 billion in gross state product and approximately 140,024 jobs” if all illegal immigrants are removed from the state.
Immigration Court reform In the absence of comprehensive immigration reform at the federal level, many advocacy groups have focused on improving the fairness and efficiency of the immigration court system. They propose incremental steps the executive branch can take to stop an “assembly line approach” to deportation proceedings. These groups have identified several issues that threaten the due process rights of immigrants, including reliance on low quality videoconferencing to conduct hearings, inadequate language interpretation services for non-English speakers, and limited access to court records. They also focus on problems arising out of the recent increase in immigration law enforcement without a commensurate boost in resources for adjudication. Immigration Judges and DHS Trial Attorneys are overworked, and the pro bono community has been unable to meet the demand for representation: 49% of individuals facing removal proceedings in 2011 were unrepresented. Other calls for reform include increased transparency at the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) and more diversity of experience among Immigration Judges, the majority of whom previously held positions adversarial to immigrants.
The U.S immigration system determines who enters the country, and how many, either by order or under certain circumstances. It also decides who can apply for permanent visas for family and relatives. Advocates of increased admission of family members characterize the current system as "broken," for preventing family reunification. They argue that family reunification will reduce waiting lines and conflicts over the number of visas of children and spouses. Approximately 5,100 children with a detained or deported parent were in the public child welfare system in 2011. Advocates for reducing immigration have, however, argued that making family reunification migration easier would tend to erode important distinctions between citizens and non-citizens, and lead to higher overall immigration levels.
Arizona SB 1070 In 2009, services provided to illegal immigrants, including incarceration, cost the state of Arizona an estimated $2.7 billion.
Citing Congress’ failure to enforce U.S. immigration laws, the state of Arizona confronted reform and on April 23, 2010 Republican Governor Jan Brewer signed the Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act (Arizona SB 1070), the broadest and strictest immigration reform imposed in the United States.
The SB1070 Arizona immigration law directs law enforcement officials to ask for immigration papers on a "reasonable suspicion" that a person might be an illegal immigrant and make arrests for not carrying ID papers in keeping with federal requirements. Previously, police could not stop and check identification papers on a mere suspicion that someone might be an illegal immigrant. Police could only ask about an individual's immigration status if they are suspected of involvement in another crime.
On July 6, 2010, the US Department of Justice filed suit against Arizona. The intent of the suit is to prevent Arizona from enforcing the law and asks the court to find certain sections of the legislation null and void.
Being the first state to pass such legislation, Arizona has set a precedent for other states, but this legislation has also caused Arizona to carry a large burden. Arizonans have faced boycotts and protests from their commercial businesses to sporting events and concerts. Although the response has cost the state between $7 million and $52 million, some in the state still feel that this outcome will outweigh the initial cost.
Due to conflict and protest, the week after Governor Brewer signed SB 1070, the Arizona legislature passed House Bill 2162 (HB 2162) amending text in the original document. HB 2162 includes that race, color, and national origin would not play a role in prosecution; in order to investigate an individual's immigration status, he or she must be “lawfully stopped, arrested or detained."
Opponents of the law say that it will ultimately cost the state “$26.4 billion in economic activity, $11.7 billion in gross state product and approximately 140,024 jobs” if all illegal immigrants are removed from the state.
Immigration Court reform In the absence of comprehensive immigration reform at the federal level, many advocacy groups have focused on improving the fairness and efficiency of the immigration court system. They propose incremental steps the executive branch can take to stop an “assembly line approach” to deportation proceedings. These groups have identified several issues that threaten the due process rights of immigrants, including reliance on low quality videoconferencing to conduct hearings, inadequate language interpretation services for non-English speakers, and limited access to court records. They also focus on problems arising out of the recent increase in immigration law enforcement without a commensurate boost in resources for adjudication. Immigration Judges and DHS Trial Attorneys are overworked, and the pro bono community has been unable to meet the demand for representation: 49% of individuals facing removal proceedings in 2011 were unrepresented. Other calls for reform include increased transparency at the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) and more diversity of experience among Immigration Judges, the majority of whom previously held positions adversarial to immigrants.
During a period of high national attention to immigration, anti-immigration attitudes among established residents in fast-changing counties increase by 9.9%. The study’s author states that ethnic and racial surroundings appear to affect Americans’ political attitudes far less than previously thought: “Those who live near larger proportions of immigrants do not consistently exhibit more negative attitudes.
Second priority is recent illegal entrants; those who have recently violated immigration control at the border such as overstay visas. The third priority is aliens who are fugitives or otherwise obstruct immigration control, for instance, reentries after prior order of deportation. ICE resources are limited; an estimated 400,000 aliens can be removed per year, but that is less than 4 percent of the illegal population in the United States.
High cost The immigration enforcement has increased rapidly since the 1990s. The U.S Border Patrols's annual budget has increased by 714 percent. The cost went from $362.2 million in the fiscal year 1992 to $2.7 billion in the fiscal year 2009. Also the U.S Immigration and Customs enforcement has grown 73 percent, from $3.3 billion since its inception to $5.9 billion in 2014.
Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013, or S.744 On January 28, 2013, a bi-partisan group of eight Senators, known as the "Gang of Eight" announced principles for comprehensive immigration reform (CIR). The Senators involved include: Charles Schumer of New York, Dick Durbin of Illinois, Bob Menendez of New Jersey, and Michael Bennet of Colorado, and Republicans John McCain of Arizona, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Marco Rubio of Florida, and Jeff Flake of Arizona.
High cost The immigration enforcement has increased rapidly since the 1990s. The U.S Border Patrols's annual budget has increased by 714 percent. The cost went from $362.2 million in the fiscal year 1992 to $2.7 billion in the fiscal year 2009. Also the U.S Immigration and Customs enforcement has grown 73 percent, from $3.3 billion since its inception to $5.9 billion in 2014.
Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013, or S.744 On January 28, 2013, a bi-partisan group of eight Senators, known as the "Gang of Eight" announced principles for comprehensive immigration reform (CIR). The Senators involved include: Charles Schumer of New York, Dick Durbin of Illinois, Bob Menendez of New Jersey, and Michael Bennet of Colorado, and Republicans John McCain of Arizona, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Marco Rubio of Florida, and Jeff Flake of Arizona.
|
The policies envisioned by the Senators include the following provisions:
As soon as people declared their intention to become citizens, they received multiple low-cost benefits, including the eligibility for free homesteads in the Homestead Act of 1869, and in many states, the right to vote. The goal was to make the country more attractive, so large numbers of farmers and skilled craftsmen would settle new lands. By the 1880s, a second approach took over, treating newcomers as "immigrants by contract". An implicit deal existed where immigrants who were literate and could earn their own living were permitted in restricted numbers.
|
On April 16, 2013, the "Gang of Eight" in the United States Senate introduced S.744, the long-awaited Senate version of the immigration reform bill proposed in congress. The bill was a product of bipartisan cooperation among Senate lawmakers, business groups, labor unions, agricultural interests, and immigration advocates, who negotiated many compromises resulting in an architecture for reform – including a path to citizenship for eleven million illegal immigrants, an temporary worker program, increased visa numbers for skilled foreign workers, and a nationwide employment eligibility verification system.
On June 27, 2013, the United States Senate approved S.744, known as the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013 in a historic 68-to-32 vote. The immigration reform bill was sent to the United States House of Representatives, but has not since then been brought to the House floor for debate or an up-or-down vote. University of North Carolina law professor Hiroshi Motomura has identified three approaches the United States has taken to the legal status of immigrants in his book Americans in Waiting: The Lost Story of Immigration and Citizenship in the United States. The first, dominant in the 19th century, treated immigrants as in transition; in other words, as prospective citizens. Once in the United States, they would have limited legal rights, but were not allowed to vote until they became citizens, and would not be eligible for the New Deal government benefits available in the 1930s. The third and more recent policy is "immigration by affiliation", which Motomura argues is the treatment which depends on how deeply rooted people have become in the country. An immigrant who applies for citizenship as soon as permitted, has a long history of working in the United States, and has significant family ties, is more deeply affiliated and can expect better treatment.
|
| ||||
It has been suggested that the US should adopt policies similar to those in Canada and Australia and select for desired qualities such as education and work experience. Another suggestion is to reduce legal immigration because of being a relative, except for nuclear family members, since such immigrations of extended relatives, who in turn bring in their own extended relatives, may cause a perpetual cycle of "chain immigration".
Interpretive perspectives
Interpretive perspectives
The Statue of Liberty was a common sight to many immigrants who entered the United States through Ellis Island The American Dream is the belief that through hard work and determination, any United States immigrant can achieve a better life, usually in terms of financial prosperity and enhanced personal freedom of choice. According to historians, the rapid economic and industrial expansion of the U.S. is not simply a function of being a resource rich, hard working, and inventive country, but the belief that anybody could get a share of the country's wealth if he or she was willing to work hard. This dream has been a major factor in attracting immigrants to the United States.