Afton Branche

In this election season, discussions of immigration reform have been light on serious policy talk and heavy on partisan posturing. In his State of the Union Address, President Obama reiterated his commitment to getting immigration reform done, using strikingly similar language to what he said in past addresses. For their part, Republican presidential hopefuls have been committed to spending more money at the border and rejecting any comprehensive immigration reforms. But when the right has presented fresh ideas on immigration, they seem to be motivated by restrictionist ideology rather than a consideration of common sense.

Mitt Romney, former governor of Massachusetts ruffled feathers recently with his strange and inhumane idea that out of status immigrants “self-deport” back to their home countries; fellow frontrunner Gingrich quickly attacked this unrealistic policy. But Romney’s most alienating statement on immigration so far was his stunning promise to Iowa caucus audiences that he would veto the DREAM Act.

The Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act, aka the DREAM Act, would provide a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants who entered the U.S. as children, provided that they graduate from high school and attend college for two years or serve in the military. This legislation has been around for a little over ten years; in December 2010, the DREAM Act passed the House, but failed in the Senate.

Opponents to the bill frequently claimed that DREAM Act eligible immigrants, once legalized, would be able to petition on behalf of their undocumented parents, resulting in massive “chain migration.” It is true that naturalized citizens can petition for residence for their parents; but under the Act, applicants must wait a minimum of thirteen years before even becoming eligible for citizenship. Even then, the fact is that it’s very difficult for relatives already living illegally in the US to become permanent residents through this process. The DREAM Act is hardly the open door to citizenship that opponents claim it to be.

The most troubling line of reasoning against the DREAM Act is based on the idea that undocumented youth and young people are somehow the “other” and that this policy only benefits a special interest group. With legal status, conservative opponents say, these individuals will steal jobs and take spots in colleges that should otherwise be reserved for real Americans. But DREAM Act beneficiaries have grown up in America, speaking English and attending our public schools; despite their origins, these young folks are hardly “aliens.”

And providing a path to legal status for these residents will empower them to give back to our economy and society. According to a new UCLA study, the DREAM Act could yield a whopping $3.6 trillion in economic output over the next forty years; with legal status and the incentive to continue their education, immigrants can get better jobs and contribute much more to our economy. The DREAM Act would enable immigrant youth to start businesses, pay income taxes, and buy more consumer goods; clearly these positive outcomes won’t just pay off for special interest groups.

Thanks in part to the efforts of immigration advocates and youth activists, the 2010 defeat of the DREAM Act was hardly the end. During this election cycle, Republican candidates and conservative voices on immigration have been speaking out against the current iteration of the bill, and suggesting radical ways to improve it.

In an op-ed for The Hill, Robert Gittelson of Conservatives for Comprehensive Immigration Reform proposes a “conservative alternative to the DREAM Act.” To avoid the possibility of a “back-door amnesty” to undocumented parents of eligible children, Gittelson suggests changing the “Democratic version of the DREAM Act” so that beneficiaries would only be allowed to stay in the country as non-immigrants or guest workers. In this way, there is no way for newly legalized immigrants to sponsor anyone for residence. In the beginning of the piece, Gittelson agrees that children of immigrants deserve compassion. Then why limit their options just to appease chain migration alarmists? The fact that DREAM Act beneficiaries may someday be able to sponsor their parents in the future does not warrant consigning them to an inappropriate immigration status today.

Someone who has gone to American high school and speaks English should absolutely not be classified as a guest worker. The endemic problems of our guest worker programs are well documented; in short, these programs leave immigrant workers open to labor exploitation and degrade labor standards that all workers rely on. We should not expand this system without reform. Further, classifying DREAM Act beneficiaries as “non-immigrants” obviously goes against the spirit of the program. The non-immigrant program is for international visitors coming to the U.S. temporarily, a large category that includes fashion models and au pairs, but should not include DREAM Act beneficiaries. There is nothing temporary about migrating to the U.S. as a teenager, learning English, and marrying a U.S. citizen.

Gittelson also suggests lowering the qualifying age for the bill from 35 years old as a way to trim the potential pool of candidates. (This is despite a recent study that finds only 825,000 individuals would realistically be eligible for legalization under the bill.) If we agree that someone brought to the U.S. as a minor who has gotten an education and stayed out of trouble should be allowed to legalize, then lowering the age limit to exclude a 35 year old who meets these requirements seems arbitrary.

The worst “amendment” to the DREAM Act by far would allow undocumented youth to get on the path to citizenship only through military service. Gittelson’s op-ed also endorses this plan, while Republican presidential candidates Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich have come out in support of the bill. The idea that we only offer citizenship to undocumented students willing to serve and potentially sacrifice their lives in the military but not those who want to further their education is ridiculous, and some say racist. To undocumented youth, the message is clear: America doesn’t want you to be an educated citizen, but will let you sacrifice your life to be a veteran citizen.

I understand the need to tweak the DREAM Act and improve its chances, but this is not the right way to do it. Would-be lawmakers and their advisors should come up with a solution to ensure the DREAM Act only covers intended beneficiaries without resorting to needless restrictions. At the end of the day, it’s hard to believe the existing policy is the problem, and easier to think that politics as usual has gotten in the way of a successful DREAM Act.

Afton Branche

Three years into the Obama administration and no comprehensive immigration reform in sight, immigration enforcement policy seems to be going two directions, characterized by smart policymaking at the city level and ill-advised restrictive policies in the states.

This month, legislators in New York and Washington D.C. made it clear that cities don’t have to get in the business of federal immigration enforcement. Yesterday, New York City Mayor Bloomberg signed an important measure limiting the city’s role in federal immigration enforcement. The new law keeps the Department of Corrections from turning over immigrants with no criminal convictions to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) upon their release from local jail, but makes key exceptions for known gang members or those on the terror watch list. Under this legislation, the first of its kind signed into law, local officials will no longer place immigration holds on New Yorkers without criminal histories.

In Washington, all thirteen members of the D.C. Council co-sponsored a bill which prevents the Department of Corrections from detaining suspected undocumented immigrants without current or previous convictions for violent crimes. The measure further stipulates that local jails will release immigrants after 24 hours if ICE officials fail to pick them up—typically, ICE has 48 hours to retrieve immigrants from local custody. Immigrant communities in Washington and New York should feel safer knowing that local law enforcement officers will no longer be doing double duty as ICE agents; so too, should non-immigrants—fewer resources spent on non-criminals necessarily means more resources allocated toward catching criminals and identifying threats to public safety.

Cities shouldn’t participate in enforcing our outdated civil immigration laws, which are enacted and funded at the federal level. Local governments are tasked with upholding public safety and ensuring communities’ trust in city police—there is evidence that civil immigration enforcement undermines both goals. Further, there is little connection between public safety and deporting undocumented immigrants without criminal pasts. And by narrowing the population eligible for jail time, New York and Washington will save millions in jailing and other correctional costs each year.

Across the country, other localities have been taking steps to restrain costly immigration enforcement programs. In Chicago, Illinois, Arlington, Virginia and elsewhere, elected officials have passed resolutions or laws attempting to opt-out of ICE’s controversial Secure Communities program. The fingerprint sharing “partnership” engages local resources in enforcing immigration laws, so that individuals booked for local crimes have their prints automatically forwarded to federal immigration authorities. In practice, this has resulted in thousands of immigrants deported for civil immigration violations, even though they were originally charged with or convicted of for minor crimes like traffic offenses. In addition, a groundbreaking study found that the program sweeps up Latinos in disproportionate numbers, and negatively affects due process for all immigrants apprehended. Despite these concerns, the Obama administration has essentially forbidden localities from exiting the program, and plans to expand Secure Communities nationwide by 2013.

While many cities are crafting smarter policies to mitigate the impact of immigration enforcement, some states are going the other direction, cooking up costly and expansive policies. In 2011, states including South Carolina, Indiana and Alabama have attempted to tighten the screws on immigrants, passing increasingly restrictive and potentially unconstitutional omnibus laws designed to identify, deport and simply drive out undocumented families.

Alabama’s law is the most radical, broadly requiring individuals to show “proof of immigration status for ‘any transaction between a person and the state or a political subdivision of the state.’” The implications of this provision are staggering—citizens could be required to produce papers when signing up for electricity service or garbage pick-up. It also includes language requiring public schools to determine student’s immigration status and barring landlords from knowingly renting to undocumented immigrants. According to Birmingham Mayor William Bell, the new measure “is virtually impossible to enforce.” Indeed, the law goes further than other states’ measures, even Arizona’s infamous SB1070. Beyond the obvious injustice of attempting to drive workers and consumers without papers out of the state, Alabama’s law fails as a sound piece of public policy thanks to its far-reaching unintended consequences.

The legislation allows residents to show driver’s licenses as proof of immigration status; but those with out-of-state licenses or military IDs could be forced to produce other documents when picking up car tags or signing up for membership at the local pool. It’s well known that certain populations, including African-Americans and the elderly, are less likely than the general population to have citizenship documents. Further, in the aftermath of the law, there were reports that immigrant families fled the state. The Center for American Progress found that the resulting labor shortages led to serious negative economic consequences: one farmer lost an estimated $300,000. These and other reported impacts are reportedly forcing Alabama lawmakers to consider “tweaking” the law.

Fortunately, the federal government successfully filed a complaint to halt elements of Alabama’s immigration law, and ultimately the state’s district court prevented key provisions from going into effect.  But the fight is far from over: court challenges were filed this year in Georgia, Indiana, South Carolina to turn back similarly restrictive measures.

Politicians will continue to adopt immigration hawk stances and propose backward-thinking laws against the interests of the general populace, while smart policymakers know that it’s best to leave immigration enforcement to the feds. “Cracking down” on immigration won’t decrease unemployment, improve public schools or create safer neighborhoods; it’s time elected officials put aside silver-bullet immigration laws promising otherwise.

Afton Branche

This week, Immigration and Customs Enforcement announced changes to its management structure, conceived as part of a strategy to “re-brand” the agency to the public. According to the Washington Post, ICE Assistant Secretary John Morton describes it as part of an “image makeover” intended to emphasize ICE’s criminal investigations over its much-scrutinized immigration enforcement work.

Going forward, ICE will be divided into three new directorates focusing on criminal investigations, civil immigration enforcement and management.

It’s true that ICE has a bad reputation; immigration advocates, journalists and lawyers have recently been scathingly critical of the agency’s policies and practices. But this criticism isn’t unfounded. At the end of the day, ICE is responsible for enforcing our broken immigration system. It’s laughable to think that a PR campaign and “new reporting alignment” will distract anyone from this reality.

Even more laughable: “To burnish the agency’s image, ICE officials are considering a strategy that has helped the FBI for years: the aid of Hollywood and other venues of popular culture.” Does this mean we’ll be seeing ICE agents in next summer’s big-budget action flick? Let’s hope not. Glamorizing our federal immigration agency will do nothing to change the fact that immigrants are being deported by the hundreds of thousands each year, the majority for non-criminal offenses.

Ultimately, ICE doesn’t have an image problem, it has a policy problem. The agency will only be viewed more favorably when its programs focus on targeting dangerous criminal aliens, instead of deporting immigrants for petty offenses like fishing without a license.

But it seems that these bureaucratic shifts won’t meaningfully affect how ICE enforces our immigration laws. A message from Assistant Secretary Morton to employees notes that “the realignment is not a restructuring and will not alter any congressional appropriation or authorization…The realignment does not alter ICE’s mission or its priorities.” So the changes won’t affect the agency’s structure, how it spends resources, or how it carries out its mission. This sounds like it’ll be business as usual over at ICE.

The announcement also comes on the heels of a new ICE agreement with the Corrections Corporation of America to make its vast network of detention facilities less restrictive for detainees held on civil rather than criminal immigration charges. But these changes are also superficial; immigrants waiting for deportation may now be able to play bingo, watch movies or wear their own clothing. These changes will do nothing to improve the flawed federal enforcement programs that got them there in the first place.

As Congress continues to put off overhauling our immigration laws, the agency in charge of enforcing them has become more aggressive than ever. This is part of why the public is so frustrated and probably won’t turn down the heat—no matter how much ICE tries to amplify its work targeting counterfeiters or drug smugglers. In the absence of new legislation, ICE can and should ensure that immigration enforcement is more rational and more humane. This may require a bit of re-alignment, but it will certainly require a lot more reform.

Emi Wang

The two resolutions passed by the U.S. Conference of Mayors on Monday condemning SB1070, calling for its repeal and urging federal immigration reform serve as a much-welcomed signal that local officials stand firmly against Arizona’s severe immigration law. But beyond government organs, the groundswell of opposition continues to be fomented by individual citizens and grassroots organizations.

Throughout the spring, the Arizona Diamondbacks have faced protests in cities such as Chicago,Houston and most recently, Boston, and the Major Leagues Baseball Players Association pointedly denounced the legislation in April. Protesters noted that nearly 28 percent of major league baseball players are immigrants and that almost a third of players are of Latino descent.

Meanwhile, in response to amendments passed by the Massachusetts Senate that restrict illegal immigrants’ access to government benefits, the Student Immigrant Movement has camped outside the State House since June 7th in a twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week vigil. Comprised of undocumented students and other supporters, they are also pushing for the passage of the DREAM Act, which would provide a path to permanent residency for immigrant students.

Their efforts highlight the critical need to continue to demonstrate against Arizona’s immigration law and to prevent similar copycat legislation from being enacted in other municipalities and states. The protests also underline the truth that immigrants—as students, workers and members of our communities—have been and continue to be a crucial and productive force in our society.

Afton Branche

Yesterday, The U.S. Conference of Mayors passed two resolutions lashing out against the status quo in immigration policy. The measures denounced Arizona’s harsh new immigration law and highlighted the serious consequences of federal inaction on comprehensive reform.

Sponsored by Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon, the first resolution details the Conference’s strong opposition to SB 1070 and expresses support for challenging the law in court. In his remarks, Gordon said that the law was “morally, economically and legally” wrong, and further appealed to mayors to get involved in efforts to push back against copycat legislation being considered across the country.

Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa sponsored the second, which calls for Congressional action on comprehensive immigration reform as well as the immediate repeal of SB 1070. The document sheds light on the fiscal burden our current system places on city and state governments, and the responsibility of cities to “respect the rights of and provide equal services to all individuals regardless of national origin or immigration status.”

The second measure also included a set of fairly centrist principles for immigration reforms that are intended to shape national legislation:

Providing greater border security and enforcement, with a ‘zero tolerance’ policy against gang members, smugglers, terrorists and undocumented immigrants who commit violent and dangerous felonies while residing in the U.S;

Providing more fiscal support for city and state governments which are disproportionately shouldering the costs of the current broken immigration system;

Implementing a pathway to citizenship of the estimated 11-12 million undocumented immigrants that requires a background check, payment of fines or back taxes, proficiency in English and standing in the ‘back of the citizenship line.’

It is critical that the Conference spoke to the dire need for federal and state immigration policy that works for cities. Mayors, police chiefs and other city leaders are uniquely positioned to deal with the fallout when it doesn’t. Going forward, Congress needs to pay more attention to the concerns of urban leaders like Mayors Gordon and Villaraigosa when crafting immigration reform legislation—these resolutions are a good place to start.

Afton Branche

Today a group of 55 social justice, immigrant and civil rights organizations in New York (including DMI) sent a letter to NYPD Commissioner Ray Kelly asking him to speak out against SB1070, Arizona’s strict anti-immigrant law.

From the letter: 

Your voice would add gravitas and momentum to the growing national consensus opposed to discriminatory policies like SB1070 and at a moment of great uncertainty would serve to reassure both immigrant and non-immigrant New Yorkers that New York City does not share the counterproductive law enforcement strategy being implemented in Arizona.

Here in New York, a public stance against SB1070 would put Kelly in the company of Mayor Michael Bloomberg, Comptroller John Liu and Public Advocate Bill De Blasio, city leaders who have publicly denounced Arizona’s anti-immigrant policy.

As the top law enforcement official in our city, the Commissioner is in charge of keeping New Yorkers safe; he must condemn SB1070 because it undermines the ability of Arizona’s police officers to do the same.

Last month, a group of urban police chiefs, including those from from Los Angeles, Philadelphia and Salt Lake City, met with U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder to argue that Arizona’s law will actually increase crime in U.S. cities, not reduce it. They know from experience that when immigrants are afraid contact with police will lead to deportation, many will hesitate to come forward when they are victims or witnesses of crimes—this is virtually guaranteed under SB1070. Without the cooperation of immigrant communities, it will be extremely difficult for Arizona’s police officers to gather the information needed to catch violent criminals and otherwise do their jobs.

It’s clear that despite the claims of supporters, SB1070 isn’t about public safety. In fact, multiple sources have found that in the past few years, violent and property crime in Arizona has significantly gone down, just as the immigrant population-both legal and undocumented—has rapidly increased.

So let’s recognize Arizona’s law for what it really is: an effort to drive out undocumented immigrants by any means necessary, an effort that threatens to alienate all Arizonans of color.

SB1070 won’t go into effect until July 29. But in the meantime, the number of states considering copycat legislation linked to the far-right continues to grow. Commissioner Kelly must weigh in now on this polarizing issue and make it clear to the nation that the NYPD does not support Arizona’s march toward state-sanctioned racial profiling and discrimination.

Afton Branche

New statistics from TRAC, Syracuse University’s federal data monitoring project, confirms what immigration advocates have known all along: immigration enforcement under the Obama Administration is at an all-time high. According to the study, there are more than 242,000 immigration cases waiting on deck in the Immigration Court system—this figure is six percent higher than just four months ago, and over thirty percent higher than 18 months ago. Perhaps not surprisingly, the Immigration Courts in Los Angeles and New York have the largest backlog, with 42,806 cases and 36,197 cases pending as of March 2010.

This phenomenon is in part due to an acute shortage of immigration judges, which has left one out of six judge positions empty. But the staggering caseload is also clearly a consequence of stepped-up immigration enforcement at the federal and local level. In Las Vegas this week, a prominent immigration lawyer reported a marked increase in the immigration court caseload after the city signed a 287(g) agreement with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)—a partnership which gives trained local police officers the power to start deportation proceedings. Indeed, the city saw a 38 percent rise in backlogged cases 18 months after the start of its 287(g) program.

While our federal immigration agency has focused its efforts on identifying, detaining and deporting immigrants, little attention has been paid to the efforts of courts charged with prosecuting these cases.

A groundbreaking study released earlier this year by the American Bar Association revealed that the immigration adjudication system has been “overwhelmed” by the massive caseload. One particularly troubling finding: immigration judges handle more than 1,200 proceedings per year, with a woefully inadequate number of support staff. The result? Our judges do not have enough time to fully consider each case, and are forced to issue oral rather than written decisions “that are not fully researched and lack sufficient bases in law or fact.” Keep in mind that these judges are responsible for making the life-altering decisions that determine whether or not an individual must leave this country.

Unfortunately, this crisis will only worsen as ICE rapidly scales up its federal-local immigration initiatives, like the Secure Communities and Criminal Alien Programs. These programs are designed to funnel thousands of immigrants, undocumented and legal permanent resident alike, into our already overburdened immigration court system—the sheer scale of this endeavor will make it less likely that they see a fair day in court.

John Petro

A number of police chiefs from across the country have issued a warning about Arizona’s new immigration law: it could lead to an increase in crime.

“Arizona’s law will intimidate crime victims and witnesses who are illegal immigrants and divert police from investigating more serious crimes, chiefs from Los Angeles, Houston and Philadelphia said.”

These are the same concerns that have led some cities to issue municipal identification cards. By giving all residents access to official identification cards, cities allow immigrant communities to feel more comfortable interacting with police officers and other public officials.

And in other news about immigration and crime, the Wall Street Journal reports on a new study that links New York City’s dramatic decrease in crime with rising immigrant populations.

According to the study’s author, “The cities that experience the greatest growth in immigration were the same one that were experiencing the greatest declines in violent crime… While I don’t think I or anyone else will argue that immigration can explain the bulk of the crime drop, it seems like this is an important piece of the puzzle.”

This is consistent with some of the conclusions drawn by Andrew Karmen, criminology professor and author of New York Murder Mystery, which examines the crime crash of the mid-1990s in New York City.

Cristina Jimenez

Pat Young, Long Island Wins blogger, shares with us Suffolk legislator Jack Eddington’s thoughts on why his voters dislike immigrants. Mr. Eddington’s district encompasses the neighborhood where the hate crime against Marcelo Lucero took place. In an interview with Guernica magazine, Mr. Eddington said:

By and large, county residents have not welcomed the influx of Hispanic men… Many white Suffolk County residents directly link the value of their homes to illegal immigrants, who they claim have brought noise, crime, and clutter to their once peaceful communities.

Even though advocates will say they [immigrants] pay taxes,…I will tell you this, come back in the spring, you know what garage sales are? There is nothing but Hispanics going to garage sales. And there is no sales tax on garage sales. There’s a subculture now where they know how to get used stuff.

According to Mr. Eddington immigrants do not pay taxes. But the facts and research show otherwise. The truth is that after subtracting income and payroll taxes, savings, remittances, and property taxes, Long Island immigrants had an estimated $7.5 billion in buying power in 2006. Their total spending produced an economic impact of $10.6 billion.

According to a report by the Hagedorn foundation, in 2006 alone, immigrants contributed an estimated $2.13 billion in taxes and other government revenues, while costing Nassau and Suffolk local governments about $1.06 billion for K-12 education ($772 million), health care ($244 million), and corrections ($44 million). This yields a net benefit to Long Island of about $1.07 billion, or $2,305 per immigrant resident. Not surprisingly, Mr. Eddington’s assumption is flawed.

Immigrants in Long Island do not mind buying “used stuff” and their economic contributions are beyond a visit to a garage sale.

Afton Branche

Federal officials in recent weeks have publicly opposed SB1070, Arizona’s now-infamous immigration law. Department of Homeland Security Secretary (and former Arizona governor) Janet Napolitano said the law could invite racial profiling and hurt local law enforcement. John Morton, head of DHS’ Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) said: “I don’t think the Arizona law, or laws like it, are the solution.”

And President Obama himself called the legislation “misguided,” saying that it threatens to “undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans, as well as the trust between police and their communities that is so crucial to keeping us safe.”

But their words are at odds with the actions of our federal immigration agency. Anyone who has been following the immigration enforcement debate should recognize that these are the same objections that advocates have been raising for months against ICE and the work of its local immigration enforcement partnership programs. The 287(g) program, Criminal Alien Program and other initiatives have come under much-needed scrutiny for their vulnerability to racial profiling and negative impact on police-community relations.

A study by the Warren Institute at UC Berkeley finds compelling evidence of racial profiling in the implementation of the Criminal Alien Program in Irving, Texas. The authors find that CAP encourages local officers to arrest Latinos for petty offenses in an effort to “remove as many undocumented immigrants as possible.” Arizona’s immigration law is designed to do the very same thing, and in so doing will disproportionately impact Latino residents. A leaked e-mail by the architect of SB1070reveals that the law empowers local police to question the legal status of residents who may violate property or housing codes, citing “cars on blocks in the yard” or “too many occupants of a rental accommodation” as examples. This e-mail essentially directs Arizona’s police to use the law as a tool to target and deport undocumented Latino residents.

What about Obama’s point? Arizona’s immigration law certainly risks destroying the relationships between local police and immigrants in their communities, undermining the crime reporting that is essential to keeping everyone safe. This is a major reason that police chiefs in Arizona and elsewhereoppose SB1070. But this, too, is at the center of law enforcement agents’ concerns over 287(g) and other ICE partnership programs; when police act as immigration agents, immigrants who are victims or witnesses of crimes are less likely to contact police for fear of deportation.

Federal officials are willing to recognize and speak out about the dangers of Arizona’s immigration law, but at the same time, they remain silent on the federal programs that result in similarly negative outcomes. And these programs are central to the Obama Administration’s immigration enforcement strategy; ICE federal-local partnerships have rapidly increased in the last year, and will continue to do so. Our leaders seem to agree that Arizona’s immigration law is not the solution to the varied challenges associated with undocumented immigration, but it’s troubling that they won’t admit that neither is the expansion of federal-local immigration enforcement.