Posted by Michael Pollak on Mon, Aug 02, 2010 @ 01:55 PM
An interesting read from Julia Preston of the New York Times regarding allegations from Republican lawmakers that the Obama administration is attempting to enact “meaningful immigration reform absent legislative action” — that is, without the consent of the American people through a vote in Congress. USCIS MEMO
Immigration Policy Aims to Help Military Families by Julia Preston
The Obama administration, responding to requests from Democratic and Republican lawmakers, has taken steps to make it easier for illegal immigrants who are spouses and family members of Americans serving in the military to gain legal status.
The new policy was described in an internal memorandum from Citizenship and Immigration Services that was released last week by Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa, and caused a furor in Washington on Friday.
The memo outlined measures that the agency could take under existing laws to “reduce the threat of removal for certain individuals present in the United States without authorization,” instead of waiting for Congress to pass an immigration overhaul to give legal status to millions of illegal immigrants.
With the title “Administrative Alternatives to Comprehensive Immigration Reform,” the memo prompted protests from Mr. Grassley and other Republicans that the Obama administration was trying an end run around Congress, rather than confronting a divisive debate on immigration legislation during an election season. The memo was first reported on the Web site of The National Review, a conservative magazine.
Officials of the immigration agency denied on Friday that they were pursuing any plan to legalize millions of illegal immigrants by fiat.
Aside from a title that administration officials acknowledged was provocative, the memo describes possible changes to the immigration agency’s interpretation of immigration law, including several that have been recommended by lawmakers from both parties to make it easier for immigrants who are trying to work within the system to gain legal status.
According to the memo, one of those changes has been quietly put into practice since May. The new policy allows illegal immigrants who are spouses, parents and children of American citizens serving in the military to complete the process of becoming legal residents without having to leave the United States — a procedure that is known in immigration law terms as granting parole. The memo says agency officials approved the new parole approach “to preserve family unity and address Department of Defense concerns regarding soldier safety and readiness for duty.”
In a letter on July 9, 18 members of the House, including nine Republicans, urged Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano to make broader use of that measure and several others to “provide some relief” to active-duty soldiers with close relatives who did not have legal immigration status. The measures the lawmakers advocated are also proposed in the immigration agency’s memo, including the broader use of “deferred action,” a power that allows immigration authorities to cancel deportations.
Among the Republicans signing the letter were Representatives William M. Thornberry of Texas and Representative Michael R. Turner of Ohio, both members of the House Armed Services Committee, as well as Representatives Mike Pence of Indiana and Sam Johnson of Texas. Mr. Turner and Mr. Johnson are staunch opponents of amnesty for illegal immigrants. The letter was also signed by Representative Zoe Lofgren of California, the Democrat who is chairwoman of the House immigration subcommittee.
Department of Homeland Security officials estimate that many thousands of military service members have close relatives who are illegal immigrants. Under a legal Catch-22 in immigration law, those families could face as much as 10 years of separation if the immigrant relative leaves the United States to pursue a legal visa.
The representatives’ letter cited the case of Lt. Kenneth Tenebro, an Army officer and American citizen who had served in Iraq. His Philippine-born wife, Wilma, had been caught in that same legal bind. On July 6, the immigration agency granted deferred action for one year for Mrs. Tenebro, suspending the threat of deportation and offering her new channels to fix her status. Until now, officials said, they have applied the new policy for the military on a case-by-case basis.
Mr. Grassley and 11 other Republican senators who signed a letter this week to Secretary Napolitano about the immigration agency memo, said they were concerned that immigration officials would use their discretionary powers to grant a blanket legal status to millions of illegal immigrants.
“We remain concerned about potential plans for a large-scale effort to offer parole or to defer action on undocumented aliens in the United States,” the senators wrote. “We do not believe that such actions should be used for a large population of illegal aliens or used to bypass Congress and the legislative process.”
Mr. Grassley and a group of Republicans had written a similar letter on June 21.
Administration officials sought to play down the memo. They said the proposals were largely “notional” and most had not been approved as policy by Alejandro Mayorkas, the director of Citizenship and Immigration Services. However, the memo is signed by some of the highest officials in the agency, including Roxana Bacon, the general counsel, and Denise Vanison, the chief of the office of policy and strategy.
The memo finds that it is “theoretically possible to grant deferred action to an unrestricted number of unlawfully present individuals,” but rejects that option as politically “controversial” and too expensive. The memo suggests the agency could instead “tailor the use of this discretionary option for particular groups.”
Christopher Bentley, the spokesman for the immigration agency, said, “To be clear, D.H.S. will not grant deferred action or humanitarian parole to the nation’s entire illegal immigrant population.”
Posted by Michael Pollak on Fri, Jul 30, 2010 @ 05:38 PM
Just hours before the law was to take effect, Judge Susan Bolton of Federal District Court issued a preliminary injunction blocking the most controversial parts of Arizona’s immigration enforcement law that have re-ignited the national immigration debate.
Although Judge Bolton's ruling is not final, it seems likely to halt, at least temporarily, an expanding movement by states to combat illegal immigration by making it a state crime to be an immigrant without legal documents and by imposing new requirements on state and local police officers to enforce immigration law. It sets up a lengthy legal battle that could end up before the Supreme Court – ensuring that a controversial law, which inspired similar measures nationwide, created fodder for political campaigns and raised tensions with Mexico will stay in the spotlight.
Judge Bolton did allow some, less debated provisions of the law to go into effect, including banning ordinances for "sanctuary cities" that have deemphasized their policies for alerting federal agents about illegal immigrants.
But Judge Bolton found that the law was on the side of the Justice Department in its argument that many provisions of the Arizona statute would interfere with longstanding federal authority over immigration and could lead to harassment of citizens and legal immigrants.
“Preserving the status quo through a preliminary injunction is less harmful than allowing state laws that are likely pre-empted by federal law to be enforced,” she said.
“There is a substantial likelihood that officers will wrongfully arrest legal resident aliens,” she wrote. “By enforcing this statute, Arizona would impose,” she said, citing a previous Supreme Court case, a “ ‘distinct, unusual and extraordinary’ burden on legal resident aliens that only the federal government has the authority to impose.”
“This fight is far from over,” said Ms. Brewer, whose lawyers had argued that Congress granted states the power to enforce immigration law particularly when, in their view, the federal government fell short. “In fact,” she added, “it is just the beginning, and at the end of what is certain to be a long legal struggle, Arizona will prevail in its right to protect our citizens.”
Posted by Karen Pollak on Wed, Jul 21, 2010 @ 12:39 PM
Katie Couric talks to experts on both sides of the Arizona immigration law (SB 1070) that has ignited a firestorm of controversy as well as a federal lawsuit. She is joined by Christina Rodriguez, a Law Professor at NYU; Doris Meissner, a Senior Fellow at Migration Policy Institute and a former INS Commissioner; and Dan Stein, President of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR).
The guests share their contrasting perspectives on the following topics:
- What Should be or Can be Done to Control Illegal Immigration in the United States?
- Arizona Law Defined
- Racial Profiling
- Why Do So Many Break the Law?
- Are Illegal Immigrants Taking American Jobs?
Good dialogue to help formulate an opinion on a highly controversial subject.
Posted by Karen Pollak on Tue, Jul 06, 2010 @ 03:13 PM
The United States v. Arizona
Drawing a Clear Line Between Federal and State Immigration Authority
July 6, 2010
Washington, D.C. - Today, the United States Department of Justice filed a lawsuit against the state of Arizona in federal court. The lawsuit, prompted by passage of SB 1070 in the Arizona legislature, will argue that federal law trumps the state statute and enforcing immigration law is a federal responsibility. The Department has requested a preliminary injunction to delay enactment of the law, arguing that the law's operation will cause "irreparable harm."
"The federal government is taking an important step to reassert its authority over immigration policy in the United States, said Benjamin Johnson, Executive Director of the American Immigration Council. "While a legal challenge by the Department of Justice won't resolve the public's frustration with our broken immigration system, it will seek to define and protect the federal government's constitutional authority to manage immigration."
Although states have always played a role in federal immigration enforcement, over the last 10 years more and more states have chosen to impose their local policies, priorities, and politics on our national immigration system. America can only have one immigration system, and the federal government must make clear where states' authority begins and where it ends. The federal government must assert its authority to establish a uniform immigration policy that it can be held accountable for. In the current environment it is unclear who is responsible for setting immigration enforcement priorities and who is responsible for their success or failure.
Also, while we applaud the administration's decision to challenge the constitutionality of the Arizona law, we urge it to also look inward and correct other policies and programs that confuse the relationship between federal and state authority to enforce immigration laws. For example, the Department of Justice should rescind an Office of Legal Counsel memo issued in 2002 which opened the door for greater state action by reaching the, politically motivated, decision that states had inherent authority to enforce immigration laws. In addition, the Department of Homeland Security should rescind the 287(g) agreement in Maricopa County, Arizona where it has become clear that the agreement is being abused.
At the end of the day, a lawsuit alone will not end the vacuum created by the lack of workable immigration laws. While the Department of Justice takes up the legal challenge, the Obama Administration and Congress must put the immigration issue squarely back where it belongs - in the halls of congress and on the desk of the President of the United States.
Posted by Michael Pollak on Tue, Jul 06, 2010 @ 10:19 AM
As a follow up to President Obama's immigration speech last week, Kiran Chetry, Anchor of CNN's American Morning interviews Univision anchor Jorge Ramos, author of a new book, "A Country for All". Ramos comments on President Obama's speech and urges him to make comprehensive immigration reform a priority. Last week, President Obama called for securing the borders and paving the way for an estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants to become legal citizens.
Posted by Karen Pollak on Sat, Jun 19, 2010 @ 02:17 PM
This article really struck me about the impact of Arizona's tough, new immigration law. Although, they are all living and working in the US legally, they could be adversely impacted as the new law requires state and local law enforcement officials to inquire about immigration status during any lawful stop such as a minor traffic violation.
While the legislature eliminated language that would prohibit basing a reasonable suspicion that a person is in the country illegally based "solely" on race or ethnicity, it gave no guidance as to what constitutes a reasonable suspicion. Therein lies the problem. It is likely that U.S. citizens, lawful permanent residents, and other legal residents and visitors may still be subject to discrimination and racial profiling once the law goes into effect.
__________________________________________________________________
PHOENIX - Dozens of these young Latino men have crossed the border into Arizona. Some are just teenagers, some are in the United States for the first time. Many don't speak English.
Illegal immigrant fighter sheriff Joe Arpaio need not be concerned. They already have all the paperwork an immigrant - and baseball player - could want.
The Arizona Rookie League starts Monday, with some 150 or so prospects from Latin America taking part. Unless a court decides otherwise, the state's much-debated immigration law will take effect on July 29. The season ends a month later.
The Cleveland Indians have taken extra precautions to be sure their young Latin players aren't caught unaware and unprepared.
"We held a seminar under the direction of our cultural development director, Lino Diaz," said Ross Atkins, the Indians' player development director. "We brought in a local police officer to explain the situation and issued each player an ID card so they don't have to rely on carrying around their visas and paperwork with them."
The Milwaukee Brewers believe they are ready for the law, having issued identification cards to their players for the past three years. Each card has the player's photo and information on how to contact Brewers officials if authorities question why the player is in Arizona.
"It's a preventative measure," assistant general manager Gord Ash said. "We haven't had any problems so far."
The Brewers started the program because they were staying in a crime-plagued part of south Phoenix. The club has since moved to a hotel near the Glendale entertainment district but still issues the cards.
The Dominican Republic, as evidenced by big league rosters, is fertile ground for prospects. According to baseballreference.com, 503 Dominicans either have played or are playing in the majors, including Arizona Diamondbacks pitchers Esmerling Vasquez and infielder Tony Abreu.
For Dominican players today, the Arizona Rookie League is often the first step into the pro game.
The preliminary roster of the San Diego Padres includes 10 players from the Dominican Republic and one apiece from Colombia and Mexico. Their ages range from 19 to 21.
This is where concern about the new immigration law comes in.
The statute requires police, while enforcing other laws, to ask about a person's immigration status if there is reasonable suspicion that the person is in the country illegally. A young Latin player who speaks no English might fit that description.
The law ignited protests around the country, including some at Arizona Diamondbacks road games, by those who feel it encourages racial profiling by unfairly targeting Hispanics.
The singing duo of Daryl Hall and John Oates recently canceled a scheduled appearance following a Diamondbacks game to protest the immigration law. There were calls to pull next year's All-Star Game out of Phoenix, but commissioner Bud Selig said play on.
Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, who signed the bill into law, said the state had to do something about illegal immigration because the federal government wasn't.
Polls have shown wide support for the law in Arizona and around the country, but at least half-dozen lawsuits have been filed challenging it. The U.S. government may file one, too, so it's uncertain whether the law will take effect as scheduled.
Some team officials said they weren't overly concerned because they don't allow players to wander far from the hotel where they are staying.
"Major League Baseball has a great relationship with local authorities," Kansas City Royals general manager Dayton Moore said. "... We have local police come in and talk about areas players should avoid. There's security at the hotel. You've got to go out of your way to mess up. That's not to say we don't have situations occur. But when it does happen, it's usually centered around alcohol or females."
The issue is not confined to the rookie league. The Cincinnati Reds this year became the 15th major league team to have its spring training facility in Arizona. Players are coming and going all the time, for extended spring training, rehab work or a variety of other reasons. At spring training next year, their numbers will grow to the thousands, from the big league clubs and throughout their minor league systems. A significant percentage will be from Latin America.
Many of the ballparks are at the far edges of the suburban sprawl that is greater Phoenix. The San Francisco Giants, though, play in downtown Scottsdale, within walking distance of restaurants, bars and a big shopping mall.
"We keep players pretty close to the complex, going to the hotel and mall," said Bobby Evans, the Giants' vice president of baseball operations. "Guys don't have cars or a lot of means of getting out. It's a little different now (with the new law). We haven't had any problems and we don't anticipate any. The players have been there a while now, since spring training, so since the law came out and they know about it. Our staff keeps the players apprised."
Tony Reagins, general manager of the Los Angeles Angels, said he's been around player development long enough to know that at some point, some 17- or 18- or 19-year-old will get in trouble.
"So you have to give them the proper resources and information, so that at least you can be ahead of it as opposed to trying to react to it,'" he said. "Our staff down there has done a great job of keeping our guys in line."
It's business as usual for the Angels in the rookie league - almost.
"We haven't altered the way we develop our players in any way," Reagins said. "We're still sending the same types of players to the Arizona Rookie League and into the state of Arizona, so that hasn't changed. We have just made our players aware that they should have their identification with them at all times. But other than that, we don't see any difference in how we're going to operate."
AP Baseball Writer Janie McCauley, AP Sports Writers Colin Fly and Doug Tucker and AP freelance writer Chuck Murr contributed to this report.
Posted by Michael Pollak on Thu, Jun 10, 2010 @ 10:59 AM
Is South Carolina about to pull an Arizona? Illegal immigration has become a hot topic around the nation and there's even discussion that South Carolina may pass a similar law to Arizona.
Senator Graham thinks the best way to solve immigration is for the federal government to "secure our borders and have a national immigration policy". His hope is to sit down with some Democrats and Republicans, and come up with a comprehensive immigration plan that would make people feel like they are secure and immigration system is no longer broken.
But securing the border has been a topic of conversation since the mid 1980s and lacks credibility with voters. How can politicians convince the public otherwise? According to Senator Graham, the key to border immigration reform is confidence. "Why would you give these 12 million a second chance if we are going to have 20 million more in the future? People ask me all the time if we give them a second chance which I'm not opposed to in principle, convince me we won't have 20 million more. And that is the key."
Senator Graham questions the President's commitment to securing our borders saying, "if he would show as much urgency now about securing the border it would help me and other people be able to work with him to solve the other parts of the problem. But this lackadaisical attitude about border security makes it impossible to do a comprehensive bill. The President should go to the border like he's going down to Louisiana, spend a night in Arizona or Texas, understand why people feel so frustrated, take a tour of the southern border and come back to Congress with an agenda to fix it and get 80, 90 votes for strong border security in 2010. In 2011 we'll deal with the other parts of the problem."
Posted by Michael Pollak on Wed, Jun 02, 2010 @ 07:55 PM
What You Need to Know About The New Law and How It Can Impact Your State
Washington, D.C. - Tomorrow Arizona Governor Jan Brewer will meet with President Obama to discuss border security and Arizona's controversial new immigration law SB 1070. Barely a month after passage of SB 1070, both opponents and proponents are attempting to assess the impact the new law may have on residents of Arizona-citizens and immigrants alike. At the same time, approximately 22 states (at last count) are considering similar legislation. Multiple lawsuits have been filed challenging the constitutionality of the law, opponents are mounting a boycott, and numerous polls show that a majority of the public both supports the Arizona law and comprehensive immigration reform.
The Immigration Policy Center has developed a Q&A Guide to Arizona's New Immigration Law. This guide provides key answers to basic questions about Arizona's law - from the substance of the law and myths surrounding it to the legal and fiscal implications. As other states contemplate similar legislation, knowing the answers to basic questions about Arizona's law will prove to be critically important in furthering the discussion.
To view the guide in its entirety see:
Posted by Michael Pollak on Mon, May 17, 2010 @ 10:15 AM
Given the firestorm of controversy surrounding Arizona's new immigration law (SB 1070), we are providing a copy of the law for your reference. Whichever side you take, it is important to read the law so that you can formulate an opinion based on the facts.
Senate Bill 1070
Posted by Michael Pollak on Mon, May 17, 2010 @ 09:40 AM
Nothing like one of the NBA's greatest coaches and most recognizable personalities adding a little fuel to the immigration embrolio. In fact, the timing couldn't be any better as "Los Suns" face Jackson's Lakers in the NBA Western Conference Finals.
Nash's comments on Arizona's tough, new immigration law as a guest on ESPN's PTI triggered intense reaction. 
Nash opposes the law and said that it "damages our civil liberties...it opens up the potential for racial profiling and racism...I think that it is a bad precedent to set for our young people. I think it represents our state poorly in the eyes of the nation and the world. I think we have a lot of great attributes here and I think that it's something that we could do without and I think it hopefully will change a lot in the coming weeks."
So the Zen Master and spiritual soul who believes in the importance of all living things, supports the Suns' actions and Nash's views, right? Oh contraire...In a conversation with ESPN.com's J.A. Adande recently, Jackson, indicated he had no problem with Arizona's tough, new immigration law (Senate Bill 1070).
"Am I crazy, or am I the only one that heard [the legislature] say ‘we just took the United States immigration law and adapted it to our state,'" Jackson said.
I told him they usurped the federal law. "It's not usurping, it's just copying it is what they said they did, and then they gave it some teeth to be able to enforce it," Jackson said. [...]
"I don't think teams should get involved in the political stuff. And I think this one's still kind of coming out to balance as to how it's going to be favorably looked upon by our public. If I heard it right the American people are really for stronger immigration laws, if I'm not mistaken. Where we stand as basketball teams, we should let that kind of play out and let the political end of that go where it's going to go."
It's fascinating and bit hypocritical that a guy who publicly has approached the game with a deeper sense of purpose and seems to understand the importance of the world beyond the sport is taking the position that the Suns should focus on the court and steer clear of the political landscape.
Whichever side of the debate you support and/or whichever team you support, this should make for some great basketball and bring even more attention to a controversial issue that needs a significant overhaul.