Mediaboss Marketing

The Trump administration has been making news by suggesting that enforcement of the immigration laws public charge provision needs to be tighter enforced. The Washington Post reported on January 31, The Trump administration is considering a plan to weed out would-be immigrants who are likely to require public assistance, as well as to deport when possible immigrants already living in the United States who depend on taxpayer help

It has long been a tenet of immigration law that would-be immigrants may not be admitted if they are likely to be a burden on the U.S. taxpayer. If immigrant visa applicants cannot demonstrate that they will be self-supporting, they are excludable. In more recent times, provisions were adopted that allowed a third party to sign an affidavit of support for the visa applicant in order to overcome the public charge assumption for someone without a job to go to and without substantial savings would become a public charge. The problem with that procedure was that it has a very generous test of what level of support is required 25 percent above the poverty level. That is a level where many means-tested public assistance benefits are available. In addition, no means existed to hold the sponsor liable for the support that was promised.

For that reason, in 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) provided that means-tested benefits were banned to immigrants for the first five years they were in the country, and it required the sponsor to execute the affidavit of support under oath so that it could be legally binding. It allowed the immigrant to sue the sponsor if the support were not provided.

If that system were working as planned there would be no issue today. The flaws that continue to exist include the absence of a mechanism for government entities such as a public hospital to either recover costs of services to indigents from the immigrant or from the sponsor. Thus, there is no record of reliance on the public service.

The other major loophole was created by the Department of Justice in 1999, when it established that non-cash or special-purpose cash benefits are generally supplemental in nature and do not make a person primarily dependent on the government for subsistence. Those benefits include:

Medicaid and other health insurance and health services (including public assistance for immunizations and for testing and treatment of symptoms of communicable diseases; use of health clinics, short-term rehabilitation services, and emergency medical services) other than support for long-term institutional care,

Childrens Health Insurance Program (CHIP),

Nutrition programs, including Food Stamps, the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC), the National School Lunch and School Breakfast Program, and other supplementary and emergency food assistance programs,

Housing benefits,

Child care services,

Energy assistance, such as the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program,

Emergency disaster relief,

Foster care and adoption assistance,

Educational assistance (e.g., public school), including benefits under the Head Start Act,

Job training programs,

In-kind, community-based programs, services, or assistance (such as soup kitchens, crisis counseling and intervention, and short-term shelter).

Thus an immigrant may be paying no income taxes while receiving indigent medical care or other non-cash benefits as well as TANF, CHIP, and other benefits as well as means-tested welfare programs for U.S.-born dependents without becoming deportable under the public charge provision of the law.

These major loopholes in the application of the public charge provision may be what the Trump administration wants to revisit.

Read the original post:
Public Charge: Curtailing the Immigrant Burden - ImmigrationReform.com (blog)

Americans argue, persuasively I might add, that immigrants who qualify should be able to adjust to lawful status in the United States and eventually take steps to obtain lawful permanent residence by virtue of time spent as good and valuable residents.

A counter argument advanced by President Trump calls for forced removal. The president argues that we are a nation of laws and leaving the country is the first step in making things right. He believes that rewarding law breakers by permitting them to adjust to lawful immigration status in the United States is a prescription for chaos.

Since Trump is president of all Americans, its important to know where Americans stand on the issue. Recent polls indicate that nearly 70 percent of Americans favor a plan to permit non-legal residents who have resided here for more than 5 years, have developed equities and set roots in America, and have become productive members of society to have a path to lawful permanent residence. Only 1 in 5 American adults (19 percent) favor any type of forced deportation. Support from a majority of Americans for a path to lawful residence for individuals without legal immigration status has been stable for more than a decade.

As the nation tries to divine a course of action that will provide the greatest national good, we need to know which federal statutes were violated by individuals here without legal status. There are normally two types of violations: improper entry and unlawful presence. Both infractions are now and have always been civil, not criminal, violations of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Subsequent deportation and associated administrative processes that flow from these violations are civil, not criminal proceedings.

The distinction between civil and criminal law turns on the difference between redress and retribution. Lawmakers must be careful not to confuse redress with revenge. Civil law seeks redress of wrong doing by compelling compensation or restitution from offenders. The offender is not punished but suffers as much redress as is necessary to remedy the venial wrong that has been committed. In the instant case, the INA calls for a minimum of a $50 fine for first time violations of either statute.

On the other hand, when considering violations of criminal statutes, the main objective of the law is to seek retribution by punishing the criminal in a way that will provide a strong inducement not to commit another crime. In other words, that sentiment is to satisfy the public sense that wrongdoing ought to meet with strong punishment.

In ethics and law, the phrase "Let the punishment fit the crime" is a principle that means the severity of penalty for a misdeed or wrongdoing should be reasonable and proportionate. Proportionality requires that the level of punishment be scaled relative to the severity of the offending behavior.

Yet, when trying to conjure up comprehensive immigration reform legislation, there remains a temptation on the part of some in Congress to seek retribution by treating these infractions as though criminal acts. They seek to create heavy penalties in exchange for a path to lawful residence. They believe offenders must pay dearly for entering or remaining in the country unlawfully. Like Shylock, in the Merchant of Venice, they are determined to extract their pound of flesh.

Deporting the roughly11 millionnon-legal men, women, and children who now live in the United States, three-fifthsof whom have been here for more than a decade, for a violation of civil law would be horrendously cruel, inhumane and totally out of proportion to Americas sense of justice. The destruction of lives, families, and communities would be immense, with the worst trauma inflicted upon those children who have never known any home other than the one they had in this country. This is not redress; this is the most drastic form of retribution.

If the moral and ethical arguments along, with humanitarian concerns, arent persuasive enough, there is the question of cost. Rounding up, detaining, obtaining deportation orders and removing 11 million individuals will require an increase in the immigration enforcement budget of hundreds of billions of dollars. Plus, removing 11 million workers and consumers from the country would inflict significant damage on the U.S. economy. Its much like throwing the baby away with the bath water.

Soon, I expect some type of immigration reform legislation to be initiated. Nearly all Americans believe that a successful adjustment program should combine measured penalties with clear and achievable goals which will enroll the maximum number of people into a benefit program, identify the relatively few who do not belong here based on criminal activity,and integrate those who can contribute their talents as quickly as possible.

In 1987, Alan Bock wrote that our immigration problem is caused by the American Dream. The Dream, he wrote, although tattered around the edges and undermined by an accretion of rules, regulations and conventions is still alive. Those of us who have had the privilege of living here all our lives may have complaints about many things, but for those who view us from afar, whether from across the oceans or from across the border, this is as close to the Promise Land as this troubled world affords.

Just think how much richer America would be if we could re-discover our heritage of nourishing liberty and opening our hearts to those seeking the same legacy.

Lets draw the line at doing the right thing, America.

Ricardo Inzunza was appointed to serve as deputy commissioner of the former Immigration and Naturalization Service by President Reagan. During his 8-year appointment, his office was the central source for the development, implementation and oversight of all immigration service policies and practices.

The views expressed by contributors are their own and are not the views of The Hill.

Link:
Trump faces complicated road to immigration reform | TheHill - The Hill (blog)

February 17, 2017 5:17 PM

Students protest immigration reform outside Bryan Adams High School (Chopper11)

Follow CBSDFW.COM: Facebook|Twitter

DALLAS (CBSDFW.COM) Hundreds of Dallas ISD students left their campuses Friday to protest President Donald Trumps immigration reform plans for a second day in a row.

Students milled around outside their schools late morning as word began to spread on social media about a protest forming.

Many students wore black shirts for the walkouts that began around 2:00 p.m.

CBS11 saw dozens of students standing outside Skyline High School.

Students protest immigration reform outside Skyline High School (CBS11)

Its a cause and a protest against you know the President and to show we too can create an impact, said Antonio Hernandez, a junior at Skyline High.

Students also congregated at Molina High School in southwest Dallas.

The school went on lock down to prevent its students from joining the protest.

My parents are immigrants, said Molina High student Carlos Rosales. I want to protest for them. Because they cant say it, you know? So the protest is about them.

Several dozen students held Mexican flags and signs outside Bryan Adams High School at the end of the school day.

(2017 CBS Local Media, a division of CBS Radio Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.)

Read the original here:
DISD Students Protest Immigration Reform CBS Dallas / Fort Worth - CBS Local

The Trump administrations attempts to translate the presidents hard-line campaign rhetoric on immigration into reality have run into two major roadblocks: the complexity of reshaping a sprawling immigration system and a president who has not been clear about how he wants to change it.

In his first four weeks in office, President Trump has sought to use his executive powers to punch through Washingtons legislative and bureaucratic hurdles and make quick progress on pledges to crack down on illegal immigrants and tighten border control.

But Trump has been vague about his goals and how to achieve them and his aides have struggled to interpret his orders.

The resulting turmoil has included a successful legal challenge halting his immigration travel ban, fears among congressional Republicans over the White Houses more extreme measures and widespread anxiety among immigrant communities across the country.

The latest flash point erupted Friday over reports that the Department of Homeland Security was considering mobilizing 100,000 National Guard troops to help round up millions of unauthorized immigrants in 11 states, including some such as Colorado and Oregon far from the southern border.

The disclosure surprised state officials who oversee the troops and rattled immigrant rights advocates, who have accused federal authorities of exploiting fuzzy White House edicts to frighten vulnerable populations. Trump aides quickly distanced the White House from a memo that federal authorities called a very early draft of an implementation plan for Trumps early executive orders that had not been seen or approved by DHS Secretary John Kelly.

That is 100% not true, press secretary Sean Spicer told reporters. There is no effort at all ... to utilize the National Guard to round up illegal immigrants.

[Trump calls the news media the enemy of the American people]

Some immigration hard-liners viewed the leak of the memo to the Associated Press, which first reported on it, as evidence that anonymous bureaucrats were intent on undermining the administration.

Trump has faced pockets of resistance within the government to his immigration orders, including the ill-fated travel ban on all refugees and on immigrants from seven majority-Muslim countries that former acting attorney general Sally Yates said she would not defend in court. Although Trump fired her, the order was later suspended by a federal judge.

Trump has promised to put forward a new travel ban order next week.

To border control hawks, the presidents bumpy start has fostered a sense that a White House stocked heavily with political newcomers is learning the hard way just how difficult amending immigration policies can be. Both the Obama and George W. Bush administrations unsuccessfully pursued sweeping comprehensive reform legislation that failed to win congressional approval.

Despite his Archie Bunkerisms that he was deporting everyone during the campaign, Trump and his aides are still getting their sea legs on immigration, said Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, which pushes for lower immigration levels. Theyre starting to realize that it takes time to turn an aircraft carrier around.

On the other side, immigrant rights advocates pointed to a series of episodes as evidence that federal agents are overstepping their bounds to accommodate the wishes of a president who at one point campaigned on plans for a nationwide deportation force.

In one recent case, an undocumented woman seeking a protective order from an abusive boyfriend was arrested by immigration agents at a Texas courthouse.

Among Trumps earliest executive orders were measures to vastly expand the pool of immigrants who were priorities for deportation and a move to revive a program started by the George W. Bush administration that would deputize local police with immigration enforcement powers.

There are clear signs that this administration is, in fact, going on a manhunt, said Marielena Hincapi, executive director of the National Immigration Law Center. She called the administrations tactics deeply troubling we believe unlawful.

[Federal immigration raids net many without criminal records, sowing fear]

Within the West Wing there is a sharp ideological split among the presidents senior advisers over just how far to go on enforcement measures. Strategist Stephen K. Bannon, policy director Stephen Miller and other hard-liners have advocated for forceful restrictionist policies in keeping with Trumps campaign rhetoric, while others such as Chief of Staff Reince Priebus remain wary of the potential political fallout from the most severe measures.

Preibus, the former Republican National Committee chairman, oversaw a 2013 report that said the party must embrace comprehensive immigration reform that included legalization measures to make inroads within the fast-growing Latino population.

Their disagreements over how to proceed have been accentuated by indecision from Trump himself. The president who vowed to get them all out! during the campaign has equivocated on a promise to immediately terminate an Obama administration program that has granted work permits to hundreds of thousands of immigrants who entered the country illegally as children.

Trump had derided the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, which President Obama created through executive authority in 2012, as an unconstitutional executive amnesty.

But at a news conference Thursday, Trump called the fate of the program one of the most difficult subjects I have and vowed to show great heart as he deliberates over the programs fate.

I have to deal with a lot of people, dont forget. And I have to convince them what Im saying is right, Trump said. I find it very, very hard doing what the law says exactly to do and, you know, the laws rough.... Its very, very rough.

[Trump lashes out at so-called judge who temporarily blocked travel ban]

One of the people Trump will have to persuade is Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), a conservative on immigration who was one of his earliest campaign supporters. King praised some of the presidents early moves to ramp up enforcement raids, but he said hes been meeting regularly with like-minded rule-of-law conservatives to discuss Trumps delays on ending DACA.

Trumps presidency pivots on whether he keeps this promise, King said. So that means you simply cannot legalize people that are here illegally and you cannot ratify an edict of President Obama that is blatantly unconstitutional.

Immigration lawyers said they are uncertain about what to advise their clients. Although DHS continues to process DACA applications, advocates were jolted by the reports this week that a 23-year-old Mexican man in Seattle who is covered by the program was arrested during an enforcement raid.

The detention came after enforcement actions in several cities netted 683 immigrants. The mans lawyers have denied allegations from authorities that he has gang ties.

Im going to watch it carefully, and Im also going to see if other DACA recipients are targets, said Patrick Taurel, an immigration lawyer in Washington with clients in the program. If that happens, it could be death by thousand cuts. Rather than issue a new executive order terminating a very popular program and a very sympathetic program, he could effectively end it by creating fear.

To Stuart Anderson, executive director of the nonpartisan National Foundation for American Policy, the Trump administrations early missteps threaten to erode its credibility on the presidents signature issue.

It makes people highly suspect of even more reasonable measures that might be able to get more support, Anderson said. It basically starts to make all their policies on immigration radioactive.

Thomas Gibbons-Neff, Ed OKeefe and Sandhya Somashekhar contributed to this report.

See the rest here:
Trump's hardline immigration rhetoric runs into obstacles including Trump - Washington Post

Cathy Young

Cathy Young is a regular contributor to Reason magazine and Real Clear Politics.

Controversy over President Donald Trumps immigration policies has flared up with reports of raids and deportations of people in the country illegally.

While liberals and progressives denounce the inhumanity of these actions, many conservatives see them as proper law enforcement and fulfillment of campaign promises. They also cry double standard, claiming that President Barack Obama was deporting just as many people.

Whos right and what should be done?

Conservative arguments contain something of a paradox: One moment Obama was soft on people here illegally, the next he was just as tough as Trump. This paradox was evident when candidate Trump addressed crowds vowing to end lax Obama policies that let thousands of criminal aliens roam our streets, then complained that he was being demonized for promising deportations when Obama had moved millions of people out and nobody talks about it.

Obama indeed deported more such people than any other president, though some conservatives have said that the numbers were inflated by counting people caught right after crossing the border. It is not quite true that no progressives complained; some immigrant advocates dubbed Obama deporter in chief.

It seems clear that deportation priorities have shifted under Trump. Under Obama, Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents focused primarily on deporting people here illegally who had committed serious offenses. (In 2015, more than 90 percent of those deported had criminal records.) Trump, too, is prioritizing removal of criminals, but with instructions to include immigration-law violators. Even a Seattle man protected under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program and lacking a criminal record may face deportation.

One case that has gotten a lot of attention is that of Guadalupe Garca de Rayos of Mesa, Arizona. The 35-year-old mother of two, brought here by her Mexican parents at 14, got a criminal record after she was arrested in a 2008 workplace raid and convicted of criminal impersonation for having a fake Social Security card. After that, she was deportable; however, after each annual check-in with the Phoenix immigration office, she was allowed to return to her family. (Her husband is also unauthorized; their American-born teen children are citizens.) Last week, despite protests, Garca de Rayos was sent back to Mexico.

For advocates for immigrants, the case symbolizes the heartlessness of deportations. Garca de Rayos is clearly not a danger, and separating her from her children seems pointlessly cruel. For many conservatives, its a simple matter: She was here illegally, and you dont selectively decide which laws to enforce.

In fact, laws are selectively enforced all the time, and tempering legality with humanity is a time-honored tradition. The immigration debate pits those who view illegal immigration as not only a legal but a moral offense an assault on Americas sovereignty against those who see it as a technicality akin to, say, working as a hairdresser without a license.

What seems clear is that the status quo with regard to people here illegally is leaving huge numbers in a bizarre legal limbo. They are known to the authorities, subject to deportation at any time, allowed to stay in the United States, but not allowed to seek gainful employment.

Polls show widespread support for reforms that would allow these people to obtain permanent residency or citizenship. In a saner world, Trump could use his image as an immigration hard-liner to push for such reforms in combination with tougher border enforcement. Unfortunately, so far, this administration gives little reason to hope that were in a better world.

Cathy Young is a regular contributor to Reason magazine and Real Clear Politics.

See original here:
Little hope for immigration reform from Donald Trump | Newsday - Newsday