by Frank Sharry
There is something about being under attack that makes a movement stronger.
But in 2005, with the rise of the Minutemen and fresh attention from Capitol Hill, many in the Republican Party started to turn immigration into a wedge issue. They demonized hardworking immigrants as criminals and moochers. They blocked national reform and passed harsh state laws aimed at purging immigrants. Their goal: to make life so miserable for undocumented immigrants that they would be forced to leave the country. Democrats were divided, our opponents were on the march, and we in the immigrants’ rights movement were on the defensive. Fortunately, we had a community we could learn from, look up to, emulate. And that was the LGBT movement.
The lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community might have been even more marginalized than ours. In fact, I used to joke with a friend who works for an LGBT activist group about who was lower on the totem pole, gays or immigrants. But the LGBT movement bounced back from significant setbacks a decade ago to win multiple state referenda on marriage equality, turn the Obama administration around on the federal Defense of Marriage Act and repeal “don’t ask, don’t tell.”
Read the rest of this article here.
NYTimes by Adam Davidson
Earlier this month I met Pedro Chan at his small apartment above an evangelical church in Brooklyn’s Sunset Park neighborhood. Chan, who shares the place with three others, is short and muscular. He has a quiet voice and a patient demeanor that seems to have served him well on his journey to New York. In 2002, he left his Guatemalan village for a long trip through Mexico and, with the help of a smuggler, across the Texas border. In 2004, he made it to Brooklyn, where his uncle helped him find work on small construction crews.
These days, Chan helps skilled (and fully documented) carpenters, electricians and stucco installers do their jobs by carrying heavy things and cleaning the work site. For this, he earns up to $25,000 a year, which is considerably less than the average entry wage for New York City’s 100,000 or so documented construction workers. Chan’s boss, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said that unless he learned a specialized skill, Chan would never be able to move up the income ladder. As long as there are thousands of undocumented workers competing for low-end jobs, salaries are more likely to fall than to rise.
Read the rest of this article here: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/17/magazine/do-illegal-immigrants-actually-hurt-the-us-economy.html?_r=0
This article from yesterday’s Washington Post takes a look at the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) and why it didn’t work as expected. The truth is, much of what the author explores here has been well know for the last two decades, and can be found clearly outlined in this article by Douglas S. Massey.
There are ways to address immigration and to prevent a future where we continue to have ever-increasing number of undocumented workers living and working in the U.S. The problem is that most politicians don’t like the solutions. They include:
1) a federal tamper-proof identification card. Yes, there are problems with this idea, but it works in other developed countries.
2) a temporary worker visa that allows workers to find work on their own (e.g., not tied to a particularly industry or employer). The current temporary visa program is slow to respond to labor needs and requires that employees work for a particular employer, leaving workers vulnerable to their employers
3) criminalizing employers who hire undocumented workers. Right now we blame the worker rather than the employer who often creates a workplace that only a person with few options (e.g., the undocumented) would select. We have to acknowledge that U.S. industry benefits from the current situation, and strongly limit the incentives for hiring undocumented workers.
One of the most familiar (and frustrating) misconceptions about the 11 million undocumented residents of the U.S. is that they’ve failed to “stand in line” to receive legal immigration status. The Washington Post tackles the five misconceptions about this idea today in their “Five Myths” column.
There are four family-based categories for many relatives, called “preferences,” and five based on employment. The number of green cards issued through each is limited by country of origin, but there is no cap for “immediate relatives” — spouses of U.S. citizens, U.S. citizens’ unmarried children under age 21 and parents of adult U.S. citizens over 21.
Immigrants and their lawyers track their “place in line” in the State Department’s monthly Visa Bulletin, which lists cut-off dates for each preference and country. For example, the February 2013 bulletin lists EB-1 “priority workers” — superstars in their fields, such as rock stars and neurosurgeons — as “current,” meaning they are likely to wait just the four to six months it takes to prepare visa paperwork and schedule a consular interview.
2. Anyone can get in line.
3. Once you are in line, the wait is not too long.
4. If you broke the law, it’s only fair that you get at the back of the line.
5. There’s no way to make the line any shorter.
WASHINGTON — The immigration debate is threatening to split the Republican Party, pitting those who focus mainly on presidential elections against those who care mostly about congressional races.
Strategists say that if Republicans are to win presidential elections, which they’ve been losing lately, partly because of dismal support from Hispanic voters, they must soften their rhetoric about illegal immigrants and embrace some version of “immigration reform.”
But granting illegal residents a path to citizenship, which critics call “amnesty,” is deeply unpopular in many House Republicans’ districts.
President Barack Obama wants such a pathway. So do some prominent GOP lawmakers who are seeking a way out of their party’s jam.
The plans differ on when and how citizenship might occur, with border security a central issue. Resolving these differences may determine whether a major law is enacted in the coming months.
Some GOP strategists fear they will lose either way.
If by the next election Latino voters think Republicans opposed and possibly blocked a comprehensive immigration overhaul, they might turn against the party in even bigger numbers.
On the other hand, converting millions of illegal Hispanic residents into citizens might produce large numbers of new voters who will lean Democratic for years.
“This is a perilous debate that Republicans have entered into,” said John Ullyot, a Republican consultant and a former Senate aide.
Obama won 71 percent of the Hispanic vote last November and 67 percent in 2008. GOP campaign professionals say Republicans are dooming themselves if they don’t show a more welcoming face to this fast-growing segment of voters.
“Republicans need to solve this issue, politically, if they wish to win national elections, and they know it,” said Texas-based GOP consultant Matt Mackowiak.
Winning House elections, however, is a different matter.
A number of Republican lawmakers and aides say “amnesty” for illegal immigrants triggers strong resentment among their constituents. The upcoming debates could stir passions further, even in swing districts.
Rep. Steve Chabot, R-Ohio, lost his Cincinnati-area seat to a Democrat in 2008, then regained it two years later. He opposes giving illegal immigrants an eventual route to citizenship.
“It is unfair to allow those who have willfully and intentionally broken our nation’s immigration laws to, in essence, cut in front of those who have been patiently and legally waiting their turn to become U.S. citizens,” Chabot wrote on his House blog. Republicans should appeal to Hispanic voters “on principle,” he said, not by agreeing to liberal immigration policies. “Republicans are better for Hispanics because our policies are better for them,” Chabot said.
Republican leaders hope to minimize internal conflicts by finding a compromise that Obama and the Democratic-controlled Senate will accept.
A bipartisan group of senators has proposed a plan that would allow illegal immigrants to pursue citizenship only after steps, yet to be detailed, are taken to further secure the border with Mexico. The plan is backed by Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., whose parents were born in Cuba. He is seen as leading player on immigration.
Read the full article on the Washington Post.
A bipartisan group of eight senators will unveil a framework for comprehensive immigration reform later today. It is based on the following principles:
- Creating a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants already here, contingent upon securing the border and better tracking of people here on visas.
- Reforming the legal immigration system, including awarding green cards to immigrants who obtain advanced degrees in science, math, technology or engineering from an American university.
- Creating an effective employment verification system to ensure that employers do not hire illegal immigrants.
- Allowing more low-skill workers into the country and allowing employers to hire immigrants if they can demonstrate they couldn’t recruit a U.S. citizen; and establishing an agricultural worker program.
It’s good thing that lawmakers are grappling with the issue, in fact, it’s long overdue. The entire framework, available here, does a great deal to address the basic unfairness of our current immigration system and if enacted, would help move millions of immigrant workers in the U.S. out of their second-tier status and offer more opportunities. My concern is that the plan is contingent on “secure borders.” I’ve written extensively about the folly of this idea, that it is money wasted when there are other solutions, like temporary visas, that could address the border issue.
It is too early to criticize the framework, whatever its deficiencies. At this point we should hope that it moves beyond framework and debate and into meaningful legislation