Mediaboss Marketing

Immigration reform in the United States is a term used in political discussion regarding changes to current immigration policy of the USA.

In the United States of America, immigration reform is a term widely used to describe proposals to maintain or increase legal immigration while decreasing illegal immigration, such as the guest worker proposal supported by President George W. Bush, and the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization or "Gang of Eight" bill which passed the U.S. Senate in June 2013. Illegal immigration is an extremely controversial issue in the United States that has received a lot of attention in recent decades without any forward action in response to the issue.[1] Proponents of greater immigration enforcement argue that illegal immigrants tarnish the public image of immigrants, cost taxpayers an estimated $338.3 billion (however, opponents claim that this figure is erroneous and misleading assertions and state that published studies vary widely but put the cost to government at a small fraction of that total),[2] and jeopardize the safety of law enforcement officials and citizens, especially along the Mexican border.[3]

Since early 2013, the term immigration reform has been applied to efforts to "overhaul" the broken immigration system in the United States. In his November 20, 2014 speech on immigration, U.S. President Obama summarized the need for revision to immigration laws and procedures as follows:

"Today, our immigration system is broken, and everybody knows it. Families who enter our country the right way and play by the rules watch others flout the rules. Business owners who offer their workers good wages benefits see the competition exploit undocumented immigrants by paying them far less. All of us take offense to anyone who reaps the rewards of living in America without taking on the responsibilities of living in America. And undocumented immigrants who desperately want to embrace those responsibilities see little option but to remain in the shadows, or risk their families being torn apart."[4]

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 step-wise implementation (rather than a package approach) with border security and interior enforcement preceding "paths" to legal status.[5] 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.[6] 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."[7]

In a series of Sunday television interviews on November 1, 2015, newly elected U.S. House of Representatives speaker Paul D. Ryan indicated that the House majority would not try to work further with the Obama administration on revising immigration regulations. This, the New York Times concluded, meant effectively pushing off the issue to at least 2017. Although Ryan blamed President Obamas go it alone executive orders for the legislative impasse, having the House refrain from further bipartisan efforts at immigration overhauluntil after the 2016 national electionsalso seemed consistent with the new speakers view that Congressional Republicans should now be clearer up front about what they can and cannot achieve.[8]

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. The law did not provide a legal way for the great number of low-skilled workers wishing to enter the United States. Following this 1986 law, almost 12 million undocumented workers came illegally across the U.S. border. It was estimated that this illegal workforce made up about five percent of the U.S. workforce. It was also estimated that about 70 percent of those illegal workers were from Mexico.[9]

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.[10] The immigration reform which Bush and Fox hoped for was put on hold after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.[11]

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.[12] The legislative negotiations and national activism behind immigration reform from 2001 to 2007 is the subject of the 12-part documentary film series How Democracy Works Now.

In 2009, immigration reform became a hot topic again since the Barack Obama administration signaled interest in beginning a discussion on comprehensive immigration reform before that year's end.[13][14] The proposed comprehensive immigration reform plan had bipartisan support as one of its goals, and included six sections designed to have "something for everyone". These six sections were:

Individual states can regulate or produce immigration policies.[16]

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. During a period of high national attention to immigration, anti-immigration attitudes among established residents in fast-changing counties increase by 9.9%. The studys 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. Rather, the author concludes, day-to-day encounters can be shaped by salient national issues.[17] The studys conclusions are still only tentative.[18] 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.[19]

Ral 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.[20]

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.[21] Approximately 5,100 children with a detained or deported parent were in the public child welfare system in 2011.[22] 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.[23]

In 2009, services provided to illegal immigrants, including incarceration, cost the state of Arizona an estimated $12.7 billion.[24]

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.[25]

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.[26] 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.[27]

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.[28]

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.[29]

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."[30]

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.[29]

The Donald Trump administration quickly turned to action in altering the H-1B visa to better suit the American economy. Previously, the 85,000 visas that were available only to highly skilled foreigners were assigned randomly from a pool of applicants; it worked very similarly to a lottery system. With Trump's new executive order in place, those 85,000 visas are granted only to the most valuable people that either have master's degrees or earn the highest income.[31]

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.[32][33] 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 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program 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.[34] The policy expands the Department of Homeland Securitys prosecutorial discretion policy, focusing finite resources on criminals and other threats to public safety.[35]

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.[36] In the fiscal year 2013 ICE removed 151,834 individuals who didnt have a criminal conviction.[37] In 2013, ICE released thirty-six thousand individuals with criminal records, including 193 found convicted of murder and 426 convicted of sexual assault.[38] Additionally, ICE encountered about sixty-eight thousand aliens with criminal records who they did not prosecute.[39] 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. 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.[40]

In 2014, the number of individuals apprehended at the border was up 16 percent from the previous fiscal year, and the number of deportations from within the United States dropped 24 percent from the previous fiscal year.[41] That year, Operation Streamline[42] was ended.[43] The number of individuals deported by the Obama Administration up through 2014, was lower than that of any previous administration.[44]

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 of 1992 to $2.7 billion in the fiscal year of 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. [45]

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.[46]

The policies envisioned by the Senators include the following provisions:

In April 2013, according to Congressional Quarterly, the existence of a bipartisan group of lawmakers working to reform immigration was revealed during a question and answer session at a Ripon Society event with House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH).[48]

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.[49] 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, a temporary worker program, increased visa numbers for skilled foreign workers, and a nationwide employment eligibility verification system.[50]

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.[51] 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.[52]

The border crisis in 2014 where thousands of children alone or with their mothers crossed the border and turned themselves in to the Border Patrol has been seen, in part, as a result of ambiguous US immigration policies. Numbers arriving in the first part of 2014 were at a pace more than double that of a year earlier. Cecilia Muoz, director of the White House Domestic Policy Council, acknowledged in June 2014 "rumors and reports, or suggestions, that the increase may be in response to the perception that children would be allowed to stay or that immigration reform would in some way benefit these children," but added that "it seems to be quite clear that what is driving this is whats happening in their home countries. Mexico and Central American countries have since taken measures to try to reduce the flow, the U.S. border patrol has sought to speed apprehensions, and the Obama administration has requested additional funding for screening and deportation, and tougher penalties on smugglers. Arrivals of children at the U.S. borders slowed from in August 2014, compared to May and June.[53][54]

On November 20, 2014, in a televised address from the White House, President Barack Obama announced a program of "deferred action" which would allow roughly 45% of illegal immigrants to legally stay and work in the United States.[55] The largest prior deferral action, in 1990, during the administration of President George H.W. Bush, affected 40% of undocumented immigrants then.[56] Up to 3.7 million undocumented parents of individuals who are U.S. citizens, or who have been legal permanent residents in the country for at least five years, are eligible for the new deferrals, as are about 300,000 immigrants who arrived as children before January 2010. Members of this second group would be eligible by expansion of the existing Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, which previously covered 1.2 million people, the expansion bringing the new coverage total to 1.5 million.[57] The new deferrals would be granted for three years at a time. Supplemental executive actions also announced include an end to the Secure Communities program, increased resources for border enforcement, and new procedures for "high-skilled immigrants". These other "parts of the president's plan" could provide "protection from deportation" for roughly "an additional one million people". President Obama's actions were clearly presented as a response to Congress having been unable in recent years to agree on a general legislative overhaul of U.S. immigration policy. Obama indicated:

"[By] acting where Congress has failed...[I hope] to work with both parties to pass a more permanent legislative solution. And the day I sign that bill into law, the actions I take will no longer be necessary."[4][55]

On December 16, 2014, Arthur J. Schwab, a United States federal judge in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, ruled that President Obama's executive action on immigration was unconstitutional[58] in a case involving a Honduran man facing criminal charges for returning to the United States after being deported. As the New York Times put it, this finding "had no immediate effect".[59] On December 4, 2014, a more direct challenge was, however, filed in federal court by the attorney general of Texas, on behalf of 17 states.[60]

By January 26, 2015, the number of states participating in the lawsuit had grown to 26.[61] On February 12, testifying before the House of Representatives, officials from Ohio and Kansas stated that, due to the actions of the Obama Administration, it was difficult to determine whether illegal immigrants had registered to vote. The Senators claimed that, despite the rigorous repercussions for falsifying registration information, a considerable number of still illegal immigrants might take advantage of the ongoing and adapting bureaucratic efforts on the part of those filtering the applications. The illegal immigrants seeking to gain the right to vote in America were alleged to be facilitated not only by the new and large influx of legitimate applications, but also by the ready availability of the necessary registration forms, which could be obtained by anyone with access to a local DMV, a shopping mall, or one of a growing number of "curbside registration drives".[62]

On February 16, 2015, Judge Andrew S. Hanen, of Federal District Court in Brownsville, Texas, issued a temporary injunction[63] against the Deferred Action for Parental Accountability (DAPA) program. On February 17, 2015, just one day before undocumented immigrants were set to begin applying for work permits and legal protections, Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson announced a delay in implementing the DAPA program, but also said that the district court ruling would be appealed. USA Today noted the expectation of Cornell University law professor Stephen Yale-Loehr that the appeal will likely eventually succeed since federal courts generally give "the president broad authority to shape the enforcement and implementation of immigration laws".[64]

The appeal was heard on an expedited basis by three judges of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on July 10, 2015. On November 9, the divided circuit court affirmed the preliminary injunction of February 2015, and ordered the case back to the district court in Texas for trial.[65] Judge Jerry Edwin Smith, joined by Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod agreed with the district court that Texas has standing because of the cost of issuing drivers licenses to aliens, and that President Obamas order violated the rulemaking requirement of the Administrative Procedure Act.[65] The majority made a new finding that the Immigration and Nationality Act flatly does not permit deferred action.[66] Judge Carolyn Dineen King dissented, arguing that prosecutorial discretion makes the case non-justiciable, and that there had been no justification for the circuit courts delay in ruling.[66] On 20 November 2015, the United States Department of Justice appealed directly to the United States Supreme Court.[66][67][68][69] On January 19, 2016, the Supreme Court agreed to review the case.[70] In United States v. Texas, the Supreme Court deadlocked 4-4 on June 23, leaving in place the appeals court ruling blocking Obama's executive actions.[71] On June 15, 2017, Homeland Security Secretary John F. Kelly announced that the order establishing the DAPA program was rescinded.[72]

Continued here:
Immigration reform in the United States - Wikipedia

Migration and Refugee Services/Office of Migration Policy and Public AffairsThe United States Conference of Catholic BishopsAugust 2013

According to the Pew Hispanic Center, there are currently 11.2 million unauthorized persons residing in the United States. Each year, approximately 300,000 more unauthorized immigrants enter the country. In large part, these immigrants feel compelled to enter by either the explicit or implicit promise of employment in the U.S. agriculture, construction, and service industries, among others. Most of this unauthorized flow comes from Mexico, a nation struggling with severe poverty, where it is often impossible for many to earn a living wage and meet the basic needs of their families.

Survival has thus become the primary impetus for unauthorized immigration flows into the United States. Todays unauthorized immigrants are largely lowskilled workers who come to the United States for work to support their families. Over the past several decades, the demand by U.S. businesses, large and small, for lowskilled workers has grown exponentially, while the supply of available workers for lowskilled jobs has diminished. Yet, there are only 5,000 green cards available annually for lowskilled workers to enter the United States lawfully to reside and work. The only alternative to this is a temporary work visa through the H2A (seasonal agricultural) or H2B (seasonal nonagricultural) visa programs which provide temporary status to lowskilled workers seeking to enter the country lawfully. While H2A visas are not numerically capped, the requirements are onerous. H2B visas are capped at 66,000 annually. Both only provide temporary status to work for a U.S. employer for one year. At their current numbers, these are woefully insufficient to provide legal means for the foreignborn to enter the United States to live and work, and thereby meet our demand for foreignborn labor.

In light of all of this, many unauthorized consider the prospect of being apprehended for crossing illegally into the United States a necessary risk. Even after being arrested and deported, reports indicate that many immigrants attempt to reenter the United States once again in the hope of bettering their lives.

Adding to this very human dilemma is the potentially dangerous nature of crossing the Southern border. Smugglers looking to take advantage of wouldbe immigrants extort them for exorbitant sums of money and then transport them to the U.S. under perilous conditions. Other immigrants have opted to access the U.S. by crossing through the Southwests treacherous deserts. As a result, thousands of migrants have tragically perished in such attempts from heat exposure, dehydration, and drowning.

The Catholic Catechism instructs the faithful that good government has two duties, both of which must be carried out and neither of which can be ignored. The first duty is to welcome the foreigner out of charity and respect for the human person. Persons have the right to immigrate and thus government must accommodate this right to the greatest extent possible, especially financially blessed nations: "The more prosperous nations are obliged, to the extent they are able, to welcome the foreigner in search of the security and the means of livelihood which he cannot find in his country of origin. Public authorities should see to it that the natural right is respected that places a guest under the protection of those who receive him." Catholic Catechism, 2241.

The second duty is to secure ones border and enforce the law for the sake of the common good. Sovereign nations have the right to enforce their laws and all persons must respect the legitimate exercise of this right: "Political authorities, for the sake of the common good for which they are responsible may make the exercise of the right to immigrate subject to various juridical conditions, especially with regard to the immigrants' duties toward their country of adoption. Immigrants are obliged to respect with gratitude the material and spiritual heritage of the country that receives them, to obey its laws and to assist in carrying civic burdens." Catholic Catechism, 2241.

In January 2003, the U.S. Catholic Bishops released a pastoral letter on migration entitled, "Strangers No Longer: Together on the Journey of Hope." In their letter, the Bishops stressed that, "[w]hen persons cannot find employment in their country of origin to support themselves and their families, they have a right to find work elsewhere in order to survive. Sovereign nations should provide ways to accommodate this right." No. 35. The Bishops made clear that the "[m]ore powerful economic nationsave a stronger obligation to accommodate migration flows." No. 36.

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) opposes "enforcement only" immigration policies and supports comprehensive immigration reform. In Strangers No Longer: Together on the Journey of Hope, the U.S. Catholic Bishops outlined the elements of their proposal for comprehensive immigration reform. These include:

Earned Legalization: An earned legalization program would allow foreign nationals of good moral character who are living in the United States to apply to adjust their status to obtain lawful permanent residence. Such a program would create an eventual path to citizenship, requiring applicants to complete and pass background checks, pay a fine, and establish eligibility for resident status to participate in the program. Such a program would help stabilize the workforce, promote family unity, and bring a large population "out of the shadows," as members of their communities.

Future Worker Program: A worker program to permit foreignborn workers to enter the country safely and legally would help reduce illegal immigration and the loss of life in the American desert. Any program should include workplace protections, living wage levels, safeguards against the displacement of U.S. workers, and family unity.

Familybased Immigration Reform: It currently takes years for family members to be reunited through the familybased legal immigration system. This leads to family breakdown and, in some cases, illegal immigration. Changes in familybased immigration should be made to increase the number of family visas available and reduce family reunification waiting times.

Restoration of Due Process Rights: Due process rights taken away by the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) should be restored. For example, the three and ten year bars to reentry should be eliminated.

Addressing Root Causes: Congress should examine the root causes of migration, such as underdevelopment and poverty in sending countries, and seek longterm solutions. The antidote to the problem of illegal immigration is sustainable economic development in sending countries. In an ideal world, migration should be driven by choice, not necessity.

Enforcement: The U.S. Catholic Bishops accept the legitimate role of the U.S. government in intercepting unauthorized migrants who attempt to travel to the United States. The Bishops also believe that by increasing lawful means for migrants to enter, live, and work in the United States, law enforcement will be better able to focus upon those who truly threaten public safety: drug and human traffickers, smugglers, and wouldbe terrorists. Any enforcement measures must be targeted, proportional, and humane.

The rest is here:
Catholic Church's Position on Immigration Reform - usccb.org

President Trump will propose to Congress an immigration reform agenda focused on border security, interior enforcement, and the creation of a merit-based visa system, a senior White House official told reporters Sunday evening.

In response to speaking with interagencies and rank-and-file lawmakers, the administration compiled a list of to-do items as Congress mulls over how to respond to the winding down of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program.

The White House official made no mention of DACA, former President Barack Obama's 2012 executive action, but said the three items on the administration's proposal represent the top line findings of what various federal departments said was necessary to reform. The administration is expected to share its plan with Congress this week.

"Rather than asking what policies are supported by special interests, we asked America's law enforcement professionals to identify reforms that are vital to protect the national interest," Trump said in a letter. "In response, they identified dangerous loopholes, outdated laws, and easily exploited vulnerabilities in our immigration system current policies that are harming our country and our communities."

Keeping with Trump's campaign promise to secure the U.S.-Mexico southwestern border, the administration will recommend the "full funding" of the wall, but did not disclose the estimated cost of such an undertaking.

The majority of border security changes will be directed at policies that relate to people who arrive at or are apprehended by Customs and Border Protection officers or Border Patrol agents while attempting to enter the U.S.

"Border security has changed a lot since the 1990s," the White House official said. "A lot of illegal immigrants who have learned how to game the system and smugglers who have learrned to game the system [have been able to] escape any kind of removal."

The Trump administration will propose reforming laws regarding unaccompanied minor children, or UACs, so that they may be "expeditiously returned to their countries." The effect of doing so will help lift the burden on the backlog of asylum requests, which currently has more than 500,000 people waiting to have their cases heard by a judge.

An additional 370 immigration judges, 1,000 U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement attorneys, and 300 federal prosecutors will also be requested as a means of clearing the backlogs.

Trump also wants harsher penalties for people who attempt to re-enter the U.S. after being deported and will ask for Kate's Law to be included in any congressional reforms to immigration policy. The bill would increase the penalties for illegal immigrants who are caught trying to return to the U.S. after being deported.

The second component to the administration's immigration reforms proposal is enhanced interior enforcement.

The White House official who spoke with reporters said the biggest problem facing ICE officers who focus on this aspect of immigration is simply a "lack of resources and the lack of authorities to enforce interior immigration."

The president wants 10,000 officers hired to supplement the 6,000 officers in ICE's Enforcement and Removal Operations agency, which he first called for in his Jan. 25 executive order.

The move would focus primarily on visa overstayers, which make up the largest number of illegal immigrants in the U.S., not southern border trespassers.

Despite being dealt a setback by a federal judge in Illinois last month, the administration will ask Congress to limit grants for sanctuary cities that do not comply with federal detainer requests and create incentives for cities and states that do.

Trump will also ask for the legal immigration system to be changed into a merit-based one that ends chain migration.

In August, Trump endorsed the revised Raise Act. Republican Sens. Tom Cotton of Arkansas and David Perdue of Georgia rolled out the update and touted it as a way to do away with a system that often benefits family members of current U.S. residents and replace it with one that weighs the skills sets of potential candidates and favors those who meet industry needs.

The RAISE Act marks a new approach to immigration reform than Sens. John McCain of Arizona, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Marco Rubio of Florida attempted in 2013 with the "Gang of Eight" bill. It is the most significant type of green card reform since the GOP-majority Congress unsuccessfully tried to cut immigration numbers with a provision in 1996.

Family immigration categories would be narrowed to no longer include extended family members and adult children of U.S. citizens. However, citizens are able to apply for renewable, temporary visas for elderly parents.

If passed, the 1 million legal immigrants who enter the U.S. annually would drop to somewhere between 500,000 and 600,000 people by 2027, putting it in line with historic norms.

E-Verify, which gives employers a way to go online and check a job applicant's legal ability to work in the U.S., will also be required on a nationwide basis and government contactors who do not comply will see their contracts canceled.

House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte praised the proposal Sunday evening.

"The Trump administration has put forth a serious proposal to address the enforcement of our immigration laws and border security. Many of these policies have been included in legislation passed by the House Judiciary Committee," Goodlatte said in a statement.

"As a member of the Speaker's working group on immigration, we will take time to review the administration's priorities and consider their implications for our immigration system and the rule of law. One thing is clear, however: we cannot fix the DACA problem without fixing all of the issues that led to the underlying problem of illegal immigration in the first place."

While campaigning last year, Trump promised to "immediately terminate" the 2012 policy that permitted illegal immigrants who entered the U.S. as minors to receive a two-year period of deferred action and work permit. Recipients' approval would last two years and could be renewed if the individual remained in good legal standing.

As a candidate, Trump blasted the "amnesty" program that Obama's second term Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson imposed by memo because Congress could not pass comprehensive immigration reform.

Conservatives have called DACA "amnesty" because it forgives the removes the conseuquences from an illegal action taken by the parents of the recepients.

Shortly after his inauguration, Trump appeared to be wavering in his commitment to rescinding DACA. He told one news outlet recipients "shouldn't be worried" because "we're going to take care of everybody."

Then in April, Trump reiterated that compassionate view when he said "we need special heart" to "understand the other side of that equation" as it relates to DACA recipients.

Trump had said he would rescind DACA by March, and encouraged Congress to pass legislation protecting immigrants who were brought to the country illegally as children.

Three bills relating to DACA have been introduced in recent months, including the Border Security and Deferred Action Recipient Relief Act by Sen. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz.; the Dream Act by Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill.,; and the Succeed Act by GOP Sens. James Lankford of Oklahoma and Thom Tillis of North Carolina. The White House has not endorsed any of the bills.

Trump mentioned the RAISE Act during discussions with Republicans and Democrats two weeks ago. Democrats indicated they would be able to work out a deal with Trump that creates a legislative version of DACA, in return for tougher border security.

But the deal as described by Democrats mostly favored their position: they said they would insist on a path to citizenship for Dreamers, and said the border measure they could support is essentially language calling on the government to create a border enforcement plan.

House Homeland Security Chairman Michael McCaul has said the government is in the best position to achieve progress on border reforms and has a plan that just needs to be implemented.

See original here:
immigration reform plans - washingtonexaminer.com

Fort Worth Star Telegram (blog)

An opening for immigration reform, courtesy of Trump? Fort Worth Star Telegram (blog) President George W. Bush, who made passing comprehensive immigration reform the primary (albeit ultimately futile) goal of his second term, pushed back against those who called for the deportation of all people in the country illegally. "It is neither ... Trump's Wall and immigration reform Dreamers, deportations and a deal?Fox News Immigration Reform News 2017: Will Trump Agree to Protect ...Christian Post Trump aides plot a big immigration deal that breaks a campaign promiseMcClatchy Washington Bureau Politico -The Hill -Townhall -Texas Attorney General all 101 news articles »

View original post here:
An opening for immigration reform, courtesy of Trump? - Fort Worth Star Telegram (blog)

As the Chicago hotel and restaurant scene booms, so, too, does the scramble for workers, and some businesses say they need more immigration, not less, to meet their labor needs.

Those were among the sentiments captured in a new report from the Chicago Council on Global Affairs that analyzed the hospitality industry's reliance on immigrant labor across the Midwest, which comes as the Trump administration moves to reduce immigration.

With hospitality job growth expected to continue and the region's U.S.-born population graying, shrinking and opting for higher-skill jobs, the report says the sector needs access to an immigrant workforce to keep the doors open.

Leisure and hospitality jobs, which account for nearly 10 percent of employment in Illinois and across the Midwest, are disproportionately filled by immigrants, who not only wash dishes and clean hotel rooms but also launch small businesses that create more jobs, according to the report, released Thursday and the last in a series.

Immigrants, who make up 13 percent of the U.S. population, account for 31 percent of hotel workers and 22 percent of food service workers, according to the report. Immigrant entrepreneurs comprise 43 percent of owners of small hotels and motels and 37 percent of small restaurant owners.

But about 1.3 million hospitality workers across the country work without legal authorization. Twenty percent of the nation's cooks and 28 percent of its dishwashers are here illegally, the report says.

Report author Sara McElmurry, assistant director of immigration at the think tank, spent two years interviewing several dozen restaurant and hotel owners and managers, labor organizers and trade associations across the Midwest to understand the industry's labor concerns in the region.

The consensus is that "we need reforms that responsibly expand the immigration system to hire more of these workers," McElmurry said. In addition, she said, "what I heard consistently was let's build some sort of pathway that allows workers to adjust their legal status."

The White House and some Republican lawmakers have taken the opposite stance, saying immigration, particularly for low-skill jobs, hurts American workers who must compete.

President Donald Trump, whose toughened immigration enforcement policies have raised fears among some hospitality businesses that they could be subject to workplace raids, this month endorsed proposed legislation that would reduce legal immigration by 50 percent by giving priority to highly skilled, educated and English-speaking immigrants, and deprioritizing extended family members of current legal residents. It did not address what to do with immigrants already in the country who are here illegally.

But some of the toughest jobs to fill are low-wage, low-skill hospitality jobs, according to the council's report, especially in areas like Chicago with an exploding food scene.

"In Chicago it is so competitive, there are so many restaurants, it is difficult to get staff and good staff," said Billy Lawless Sr., whose family owns the Gage, the Dawson and several other popular restaurants in the city.

Lawless, himself an immigrant from Ireland and an advocate of immigration reform, said it has always been difficult to find dishwashers and table bussers, but now the labor crunch is across the board.

"Of course we'd like to employ citizens, absolutely, why wouldn't we," said Lawless, who estimates at least 30 percent of his staff are immigrants, most of whom earn more than minimum wage. "They just won't apply to the menial jobs."

But Dave Gorak, executive director of the Midwest Coalition to Reduce Immigration, said the notion Americans won't do the work is a "falsehood" because many already do.

"The availability of cheap foreign labor, especially the illegal variety, is preferred because employers know it serves to hold down labor costs," said Gorak, whose group is based in La Valle, Wis. "Without this plentiful source of workers, these employers would be forced to make a greater effort to recruit Americans and raise wages."

To be sure, there are areas of Chicago with high rates of unemployment and the city talks often about a crisis of youth joblessness that plagues parts of the South and West sides.

But while there are pipeline programs to help employ people with barriers, such as criminal records or bouts with homelessness, report author McElmurry said they have found "varying rates of success."

"A lot of employers have told me the most consistent source of workers has been immigrant labor," she said.

Immigration is particularly important to the Midwest, where the population is not only aging into retirement but also growing more slowly than the rest of the nation and losing people of prime working age, McElmurry said.

The industry also has felt squeezed as teens and young adults who used to take entry-level hospitality jobs prioritize other activities, like internships or summer school, and gravitate toward jobs that give them benefits and holidays off, her report said.

Teens made up 17.4 percent of the restaurant workforce in 2016, up from 16 percent in 2010 but still down from 21 percent in 2007, according to the National Restaurant Association.

Low pay and physically demanding work also make it difficult to fill certain jobs with U.S.-born workers who have other options. In the Chicago metro area, the mean wage for housekeepers is $12.81 an hour, or $26,650 a year, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. For dishwashers, the mean wage in the area is $10.88, or $22,620 a year.

Mario Garcia, who until last year worked as a weekend manager at a suburban Best Western, said nearly all of the workers he hired at the hotel were immigrants because they accepted low pay for difficult jobs without complaint. Most earned minimum wage, which in Illinois currently is $8.25 an hour.

Americans who applied usually were hired to work the front desk, where their language skills were most useful. They didn't want the physically punishing jobs like housekeeping once they learned the wage, he said.

Hiring immigrants became "a cycle," he said, because it was easier for the Spanish-speaking supervisors to train new workers in their language. Sometimes it was positive, because they could communicate with international guests. But the language barrier also prevented some workers from advocating for themselves, such as when years went by without a raise, he said.

While critical to the industry, immigrant workers are vulnerable to exploitation, Garcia said. They work hard without complaint for fear of a reduction in their hours or of being replaced by another willing applicant.

Garcia said he didn't think the hotel wanted to make wages more appealing because it counted on saving money on its workforce so it could invest in hotel renovations.

McElmurry said the industry needs to take a holistic approach to its labor challenges and address low wages, demanding or unsafe working conditions and high worker turnover in addition to immigration reform.

The report offers several policy recommendations to benefit workers and employers, including streamlining the tangle of worker visas that allow people to work in the U.S. seasonally or temporarily if they are transferred from abroad or are in training.

Other recommendations include providing a pathway for immigrants in the U.S. illegally to become legal and, subsequently, a mandatory system for employers to verify the legal status of their new hires.

The report also recommends Congress create a permanent visa channel for foreign-born entrepreneurs, who drive many dining innovations.

Despite the federal gridlock over immigration, Illinois and Chicago were highlighted for creating environments where immigrants can flourish.

In Chicago, the $30 million Hatchery incubator for food and beverage entrepreneurs is being built in collaboration in part with Accion Chicago, which serves immigrants. The city also partnered with area universities to launch a Global Entrepreneurship in Residence Program to sponsor entrepreneurs with H-1B visas, and it is creating municipal identification cards for people living here illegally.

Illinois, meanwhile, is the only state in the Midwest that extends driving privileges to immigrants in the U.S. illegally, helping them get to work. And Gov. Bruce Rauner has said he plans to sign the Trust Act, which would prohibit state and local police from arresting or detaining people solely because of their immigration status.

Sam Toia, president and CEO of the Illinois Restaurant Association, said in an emailed statement that the report "definitely drives the conversation forward with pragmatic immigration reform policy recommendations that will help the Midwest's hospitality industries thrive."

aelejalderuiz@chicagotribune.com

Twitter @alexiaer

More:
Hospitality industry needs more immigrant workers to survive, report says - Chicago Tribune