Mediaboss Marketing

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

In a piece for The Huffington Post, Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) Executive Director Bob Dane explains that Trumps potential merit-based immigration overhaul would mean an end to the current system which favors immigrants who already have family in the U.S.:

Today, the U.S. remains a meritocracy in many respects, but not in one notable area: its immigration system. This is why PresidentDonald Trumpscallfor an immigration policy overhaul in favor of applicants whose skills and talents are most likely to benefit the country is so important. Such a merit-based policy would be a radical departure from the way we now select immigrants but one our nation desperately needs. We should not let history hold us back any longer.

For the last half century, America has maintained an immigration policy that can only be described as codified nepotism. Of the approximately1 millionnew immigrants who are legally admitted to the United States each year via green cards, about60 percententer for no other reason than that they have a relative in most cases a recently settled immigrant living in this country. Only about 15 percentof immigrants are admitted because of their skills, while the remainder are admitted onhumanitarian grounds.

Dane says the current system of family chain migration ends up a drain on American taxpayers, as they must foot the bill, writing In 2012, more than half of immigrant-headed households in the United States relied on at least one welfare program, compared with 30 percent of households headed by a native-born citizen, according to a report based on data from the Census Bureaus Survey of Income and Program Participation.

Trump, according to Dane, should focus on creating a merit-based immigration policy where only immigrants who have a high likelihood to succeed are admitted, as this would be in the national interest:

All prospective immigrants to the U.S. should be evaluated based on objective criteria. These include education, job skills and English proficiency. Admission should be granted to those who are most likely to be net contributors to our economy, complement our existing labor force and successfully assimilate into the mainstream of American society. The criteria for admission must also be fluid, understanding that the needs of the country and our economy change over time.

Dane also blasts the infamous open borders advocates favorite catchphrase We are a nation of immigrants in his call for immigration policy to move forward instead of sticking with past measures.

The ballooning population of the U.S., driven largely by legal immigration, is troublesome, as Dane argues, because it is ecologically and socially unsustainable and serves no national interest. Dane says he would like to an immigration system which is capped below 550,000 new immigrants a year.

Instead of the current system of extended family chain migration, where relatives to immigrants living in the U.S. are given priority over others, Dane says immigration should be scaled back to focus on not only skills, but on nuclear families, which solely include parents and their children.

Family-based immigration should be limited to nuclear families. People who choose to immigrate to the United States are making the decision to live apart from their extended families. There should be no reasonable expectation on the part of people who immigrate to the U.S. that our laws will guarantee them the right to have their entire extended families join them here. Moreover, in an age of modern communications and relatively affordable travel, extended family connections can be maintained without chain migration.

Danes support for Trumps pledge of a merit-based immigration system is just the latest endorsement the President has received. As Breitbart Texas reported, the majority of likely American voters say they want to see a merit-based immigration system, rather than the current family chain migration system.

Other immigration experts like NumbersUSA President Roy Beck and the Center for Immigration Studies Director Mark Krikorian have praised Trumps call for a merit-based immigration system, Breitbart Texas reported.

We were thrilled to hear the President once again place struggling American workers at center stage in the rationale for strong immigration enforcement, Beck said at the time. The best news for workers was the Presidents insistence that legal immigration must be reformed so it will stop depressing wages.

John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart Texas. Follow him on Twitter at@JxhnBinder.

More:
HuffPo: U.S. 'Desperately Needs' Trump's Immigration Plan - Breitbart - Breitbart News

Senator Ron Johnson (Republican, Wisconsin).

For the last century or more, immigration policy has been dominated by the federal government. Thats an inversion of what most of the Founding Fathers expected. James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, among many others, objected to the Alien Acts of 1798 in large part because the original meaning of the Constitution did not give Congress any general power to restrict immigration, but rather largely left the issue to the states.

We are unlikely to fully restore the original meaning of the Constitution. But earlier this week, Republican Senator Ron Johnson (Wisconsin), and Representative Ken Buck (Republican, Colorado), put forward a proposal under which states would exercise considerably greater power over migration. The proposal would allow each state to admit guest-workers from abroad for a period of up to three years, that could then be renewed by the state. The visas in question would still be issued by the federal government, but largely at the discretion of the states. Senator Johnsons version of the bill would enable each state to issue visas admitting up to 5,000 workers. There would be an additional pool of 250,000 visas from which states could draw, allocated based on the states population as a percentage of the total US population. In the House version of the bill, the numbers are smaller (2500 per state, plus an additional pool of 125,000). The numbers could potentially go up over time, depending on various factors, such as GDP growth. The cap for an individual state would increase by 10 percent in any year in which 97 percent of the guest-workers sponsored by that state complied with the terms of their visas and did not enter the black market. It would decrease by 50 percent in any year in which the state missed that target. After four years in which they missed the target, the state would be suspended from the visa program for five years.

Participating workers would be barred from virtually all federal welfare and health care benefits, including those available under the Affordable Care Act, the Earned Income Tax Credit, and other progams. The state visas also would not give participants either citizenship or permanent residence status, though Congress could potentially grant either in the future.

Unlike with the current federal H1B visa, Johnson-Buck state visas would not be tied to a particular employer. Workers would be free to change jobs, if they wish. That is extremely important, both because it deters mistreatment of workers by employers and because it enables workers to seek out new positions where they would be more productive, and thereby contribute more to the economy. However, workers would not be allowed to take jobs in a state other than the one that issued them the visa. If they do so, they would lose their legal status, and be subject to deportation. Given the enormous advantages of legal status, that is a significant deterrent to seeking out of state jobs. The proposal does allow participating states to form compacts under which guest workers admitted by one could also seek out jobs in the other, and vice versa.

If the bill passes, the guest workers admitted by the states would be among the biggest beneficiaries. Many thousands would get freedom and economic opportunity, and escape having to languish in poverty and oppression. That is important to consider, because it is unjust to make immigration policy without reference to the rights and interests of potential immigrants themselves. But American citizens also stand to gain, because immigrant workers make major contributions to the American economy. By channeling immigrants into legal employment, this program could also diminish deportations, which come at a high cost to taxpayers.

Wall Street Journal columnist Jason Riley and Cato Institute immigration policy expert David Bier have further commentary on the proposal, outlining several of its advantages. They point out that a state-based visa program would enable to states to make adjustments based on different local economic needs. As with political decentralization on other issues, it could also help mitigate the poisonous partisan conflict created by federal control, where a single, one-size-fits all approach is imposed the entire country. Regional visa programs have worked well in Canada and Australia, two diverse federal democracies with histories and political traditions similar to our own.

The key political question about this bill is whether it can get through Congress. Donald Trump has made clear that he wants to drastically cut legal immigration, as well as illegal. And some of his strongest allies among congressional Republicans feel the same way. By creating a system of state-issued visas without cutting any of those available under current law, the Johnson-Buck proposal would likely result in a substantial increase in legal migration, relative to the status quo. It is thereby a challenge to Trumps restrictionist agenda.

How many congressional Republicans will support the challenge remains to be seen. But it is significant that the proposal has been advanced by two influential conservative Republicans. Johnson is also notable for being Chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, which has jurisdiction over many immigration-related issues.

Another key political question is whether the bill will attract Democratic support. In recent years, Democrats have been increasingly favorable to immigration. But, historically, some elements of the far left have been hostile to it, especially when it comes to guest-worker programs. Senator Bernie Sanders, the rising star of the left, has a long history of hostility to increasing immigration and guest-worker programs (until making a partial reversal during the 2016 Democratic primaries). He once even described open borders as a Koch brothers plot against American labor. Hopefully, progressive Democrats growing sympathy for immigrants and understanding of their contributions to the economy will win out over the zero-sum thinking represented by Sanders and Donald Trump. This is one area where the two of them are eerily similar.

Ultimately, decentralization of immigration policy to the state level is not as good as the even more complete decentralization that would occur if these decisions were made by individual workers and employers. Among other things, the latter are in an even better position to judge relevant economic needs than state officials are. But a state-based worker visa program would still be a major improvement over the status quo. It would boost the economy, provide greater freedom and opportunity for many thousands of people, and save taxpayer money. As always, the best should not be the enemy of the good.

Read the rest here:
A federalist approach to immigration reform - The Washington Post - Washington Post

Markets are among mankinds most powerful inventions. Although they have existed in some form for several millennia, it is only in the past few centuries that we have used them to organize entire economic systems. Once we turned them loose, we unleashed a period of global growth unlike anything that had come before. They are not perfect, but they are truly remarkable and, like most economists, I am a big fan.

Prices are set and resources are allocated based on supply and demand. Innovation is encouraged and rewarded through the potential for profits on goods and services people want or need. Efficiency is mandated by the presence of or threat of entry by other producers. Competition leads to greater consumer choice and better pricing. Markets dont do everything, and there are certainly times when some type of intervention is helpful or necessary, but in general, market forces optimize resources to the benefit of all. Simply stated, markets see problems and solve problems!

What a lot of people have evidently forgotten amid all of the rhetoric of the day is that the increasing levels of immigration in recent years are simply an example of this process at work. Lets step away from all of the controversy for a moment, and look at the big picture.

As the baby boomer generation began to age, it became apparent that a labor shortage was looming. Markets go about the business of solving the problem in multiple ways after all, thats what markets do. There were massive investments in technology that substituted capital for labor or made existing labor more productive. Accommodations to keep people in the workforce also developed. Options such as flex time, job sharing and working at home are now common, and many workplaces offer day care and even parent care on site. Retirees have also been rehired on a part-time or consulting basis. In addition, companies are seeking and hiring workers from elsewhere through immigration skilled and unskilled documented and undocumented.

Immigrants are a vital part of the U.S. economy. The foreign-born population reached 43.2 million in 2015 (according to the Pew Research Center), and immigrants account for 13.4 percent of the U.S. population. That level is almost triple the share in 1970, and is only slightly below the all-time-high level of 14.8 percent immigrant which was way back in 1890. About 11 million of these immigrants are unauthorized.

The Pew Research Center estimates that in 2014, about 27 million immigrants were working in the United States, which is about 17 percent of the total workforce. Most of them are working legally, but about 8 million were undocumented. Lawful immigrants are most likely to be employed in professional, management, business or service jobs. Undocumented workers are most likely to be working in service or construction jobs.

Immigration fluctuates with the economy, particularly within the undocumented segment. During the 1990s and early 2000s when the U.S. economy was expanding, the unauthorized immigrant population was also rising. However, during the Great Recession, more people were leaving than entering, and the undocumented population decreased. Since that time, it has remained fairly stable. The number of unauthorized immigrants in the U.S. labor force has been in the range of eight million or so for several years, which is about 5 percent of the total workforce (they make up about 10 percent of the Texas workforce).

Given that most economists feel that the United States is currently at full employment, it would clearly be difficult to maintain current growth patterns without immigrants. In the future, immigrants and their children are likely to be an increasingly crucial aspect of the workforce as the U.S. population ages and baby boomers continue to retire.

Immigrants and, in particular, the undocumented population function as a flexible part of workforce, rising and falling with economic conditions. However, the process is riddled with inefficiencies, risks, and other problems because we dont recognize it for what it is: an essential way for U.S. companies to get the workers they need. It is no different than new technology or various workplace enhancements it is the refection of the market solving a problem.

Given this phenomenon, it makes perfect sense to enact reforms that allow the market to work better, thus allowing workers to enter and exit the country as needed. The risk to all parties could be eliminated, as well as much of the social cost. The artificial barriers that are now in place do nothing but drag down our economic potential. The market saw a problem. The market found a solution. If we would allow the market to do its work better, efficiency would be optimized, with greater prosperity as a result.

Continue reading here:
PERRYMAN: Common-sense approach to immigration reform - Odessa American

As President Trump continues to vow to come down hard on illegal immigration, supporters of immigrants find themselves at odds over how much to fight for those whose criminal history is fodder for advocates of harsher and broader crackdowns.

L.A. County became an early flashpoint in the debate after officials in response to fears of mass deportations unveiled a $10-million fund to hire lawyers to defend local immigrants without legal status.

Some activists believe that not only should the L.A. Justice Fund help all immigrants but that no one should be deported not even those convicted of violent crimes.

That position puts them at odds with others including Democratic politicians in California and many immigrants themselves who support deporting those convicted of violent and more grave crimes, which was a long-standing policy embraced by President Obama.

Those others want to focus their efforts on preventing deportations of people who simply came to the country for a better life.

I dont think theres a member of Congress Republican or Democrat who believes that if somebody commits an egregious crime, that they shouldnt be deported, said Rep. Tony Cardenas (D-Los Angeles), the son of Mexican immigrants. Public safety is a very important issue to all of us.

L.A. Councilman Gil Cedillo, a key figure in the successful push to allow immigrants who are in the country illegally to get drivers licenses in California, said there are people who should lose the privilege of remaining in the U.S.

I dont want one person taken away from their family, he said. But thats different from narco-traffickers or people who are engaged in sex trafficking. And I dont know how you would try to defend that.

Cedillo argues that the Justice Fund doesnt deny anyone their due process rights. Rather, he said that because it cant subsidize the cost of legal representation for all immigrants facing deportation, leaders decided not to extend it to those who engage in universally heinous acts.

For activists like Pablo Alvarado, executive director of the National Day Laborer Organizing Network, deportation even of convicted criminals ends up sowing chaos in places with weaker criminal justice systems such as Mexico, Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador. And that, he said, causes more people there, including victims of crime, to flee those countries.

Ive been in El Salvador and in Honduras when the planes land with deportees, Alvarado said. Its becoming the penal colony of the United States where criminal dumping is acceptable.

Its a position with far more currency among activists than many of the immigrants they advocate for something evident during the May Day rally Monday that saw thousands of people march to downtown L.A.

While many people carried signs demanding no more deportations, immigrants interviewed expressed reluctance to be lumped in with those convicted of serious crimes. Sitting on a grassy knoll outside City Hall, Rosa Alvarez, 66, said she had no problem with immigrants in the country illegally being deported if they had extensive or serious criminal histories.

Get rid of the bad ones, I say. Deport the criminals and leave the rest of us alone, the ones who are working and dont do anything, Alvarez said.

Nearby, Christian Hernandez, 25, and his mother, Lydia Hernandez, 57, said they came to the march as a way to challenge Trumps anti-immigrant rhetoric.

Christian, a beneficiary of the Obama administrations immigration relief program known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, said he and his mother have been in the U.S. since 1998 and have no criminal records. He said immigrants who commit violent crimes make people like him look bad and should be removed.

But like many immigrants and activists, Christian Hernandez said Trump has stirred racism by broadly painting immigrants in the darkest tones.

The minute he decided to say were all criminals and rapists, it was like a bucket of cold water being thrown at you, he said.

For some activists, though, simply getting rid of the bad ones is more complicated than it sounds. They point out that the Trump administration has already broadened the definition of criminal and also highlight cases of immigrants being detained and deported after minor infractions or after being caught up in raids targeting others.

Though crime in the U.S. is much lower than it was a generation ago when there were far fewer immigrants in the country illegally Trump has successfully rallied many supporters by focusing on immigrants who have committed violent crimes.

Angelica Salas, executive director of the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles, believes all deportations should be suspended until the immigration system is reformed.

Were deporting people without a single penny to their name into abject poverty or homelessness, many of them back to places they havent known, she said. These people are products of our society.

Jorge Gutierrez of the L.A.-based LGBTQ group Familia: Trans Queer Liberation Movement, said there will likely be more pronounced disagreements over which immigrants to defend if the Trump administration hires thousands more Border Patrol and Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents and becomes more aggressive over whom it targets.

He hasnt put the whole infrastructure together, Gutierrez said of Trump. So once he does, its going to create more deportations. And in all of that, this narrative, the tension, is going to become more visible among who is pushing to protect a few and who is pushing to protect everybody.

For many conservatives, there is no debate: Everyone in the country illegally should eventually be deported, they say.

David Ray, communications director for the Federation for American Immigration Reform, said deportations should be prioritized with criminals at the top of the list. FAIR keeps a running list of serious crimes committed by people who lack legal status.

The principal of American fairness is based on the fact that nobody is above the law, Ray said. If we fail to enforce the immigration laws, then people stop respecting them.

Early in his presidential campaign, Trump called for the deportation of all 11 million immigrants estimated to be in the country illegally. But he has also expressed sympathy for DACA recipients, often called Dreamers.

While polls have shown that most Americans are against mass deportations, a 2016 CNN/Kaiser Family Foundation poll found that 55% of Trumps strongest supporters whites without college degrees think everyone lacking legal status should be removed.

Alex Nowrasteh, an immigration policy analyst at the Cato Institute a libertarian think tank based in Washington, D.C. said he understands the ethical point that groups like the National Day Laborer Organizing Network are making. But he said removing people who commit violent or property crimes is whats best for everyone in the U.S.

Part of the deal when you come to this country is youre going to abide by serious laws, he said. There needs to be serious punishment for breaking that beyond just serving time in prison.

The Trump administrations immigration guidelines significantly broaden the definition of who is considered a criminal, making nearly all immigrants in the U.S. illegally susceptible to deportation. Last month, the Department of Homeland Security unveiled a new office to help people victimized by criminal aliens.

According to a Homeland Security report from 2013, there were 1.9 million removable criminal aliens, a figure that includes immigrants here illegally, those with temporary visas and legal permanent residents. The number of immigrants with criminal records who are here illegally is unclear, though the Migration Policy Institute calculated in 2015 that it was about 820,000. The think tank estimated 690,000 of those people had felony or serious misdemeanor convictions.

California state Senate leader Kevin de Len (D-Los Angeles) has introduced a sanctuary state bill that would expand policies prohibiting state and local law enforcement agencies from using resources to investigate, interrogate, detain or arrest people for immigration enforcement purposes.

After changes to the bill, federal immigration officials would be notified when felons who have violent or serious convictions are released, and a recent amendment to the bill would require the state parole board or the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to give ICE a 60-day advance notice of the release date of inmates who have been convicted of a serious or violent felony, or those who are serving time for a nonviolent crime but have a prior conviction for violent or serious crimes.

Alvarado, of the day laborer network, said he knows that deportations will continue and that his belief that criminals should not be automatically removed is hardly shared by most immigrants. But hes undeterred.

As an immigrant, I love this city as much as I love the village where I come from, he said. Its racist to think that its not OK for rapists and murderers to do their actions here, but its OK to do them in El Salvador and Guatemala.

Nowrasteh, of the Cato Institute, said those that hold the most hard-line positions on either side of the debate over deportations are likely to be disappointed in the end.

I dont think well ever get to a point where aliens who commit serious crimes will be allowed to stay, he said, nor will we see a day where the government rounds up 12 million people and ships them out of here.

Times staff writer Ruben Vives contributed to this report.

andrea.castillo@latimes.com

@andreamcastillo

ALSO

O.C. sheriff wants to expand immigration detention

In a California farm town, the border is just a line that must be crossed every day

Feds say they didn't deport 'Dreamer,' but acknowledge error on his DACA status

Read the rest here:
Here's why some immigrant activists say not even criminals should be deported - Los Angeles Times

President Donald TrumpDonald TrumpGeorgia special election breaks spending record CNN host: Colbert went 'too far' with Trump rant Facebooks Zuckerberg has spoken with Trump numerous times on the phone: report MORE experienced some failures with his immigration policies during his first 100 days in office, but it would be a mistake to underestimate him. He has made major changes in enforcement policy.

Destruction of the Home Free Magnet.

PresidentBarack Obamafocused his immigration enforcement efforts primarily on aliens who had been convicted of serious crimes or who had been caught near the border after making an illegal entry, and he protected aliens here unlawfully who were not in a priority category.

His administrations enforcement policy memorandum required ICE officers to obtain permission from a Field Office Director before arresting a deportable alien who was not in a priority category.

This created what I call a home free magnet. Aliens wanting to enter the United States illegally knew that they would be safe from deportation once they had reached the interior of the country unless they were convicted of a serious crime. This was a powerful incentive to do whatever was necessary to enter the United States.

Justice Dept. releases first set of Trump-ordered data on illegal immigrant incarceration rates https://t.co/niY6PLlsNE pic.twitter.com/opyNi27MSX

President Trump destroyed this magnet with tough campaign rhetoric and his Executive Order, Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States, which greatly expanded enforcement priorities. No deportable alien is safe under President Trumps enforcement policies.

This seems to have improved border security already.

In April 2017, CBP reported a sharp decline in the number of aliens apprehended along the Southwest border, and in the number of aliens who were found inadmissibleat ports of entry. In March, 16,600individuals wereapprehended or deemed inadmissible, which was a 30 percent decrease from February, and a 64 percent decrease from the same month in 2016.

Interior enforcement against all aliens who are here illegally may be a more effective deterrent than a wall would be.

This is not the first time that the importance of interior enforcement has been recognized. It was the basis for the last legalization program 30 years ago.

Expansion of Expedited Removal Proceedings.

As of the end of January 2017, the immigrant court's backlog was 542,411 cases. Even if no additional cases are filed, it would take the court two-and-a-half years to catch up with its backlog.

President Trump finessed his way around this problem by expanding the use of expedited removal proceedings with hisExecutive Order, Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements.

In expedited removal proceedings, which are conducted by immigration officers, an alien who lacks proper documentation or has committed fraud or a willful misrepresentation to enter the country, will be deported without a hearing before an immigration judge, unless he requests an asylum hearing.

NEW: Dems observe May Day as immigrant day of action https://t.co/ViZAVyLb8F pic.twitter.com/tdkzrg540O

Asylum hearings, which are conducted by immigration judges, are available to aliens who establish a credible fear of persecution. An asylum officer determines whether the alien has a credible fear of persecution.

The alien cannot have assistance from an attorney in these proceedings, and, because detention is mandatory, his ability to gather evidence in support of his case is severely restricted.

Moreover, Section 208(a)(2)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) limits asylum to aliens who have been in the United States for less than a year (with some exceptions).

If the asylum officer rejects the credible fear claim, the alien can request an expedited review of his credible fear case by an immigration judge, which usually is held within 24 hours but in no case later than seven days after the adverse credible fear determination.

Federal court review is available, but it is restricted to cases in which the alien makes a sufficient claim to being a United States citizen, to havinglawful permanent residentstatus, or to having been admitted previously as a refugee or an asylee.

A federal judge recently held that asylum denials in expedited removal proceedings are not reviewable in federal court and the Supreme Court let the decision stand.

Previous administrations limited expedited removal proceedings to aliens at the border and aliens who had entered without inspection but were apprehended no more than 100 miles from the border after spending less than 14 days in the country.

The Executive Order expands expedited removal proceedings to the full extent of the law. Section 235(b)(1)(A)(iii)(ll)of the INA authorizes expedited removal proceedings for aliens who have been physically present in the United States for up to two years.

It is likely to be very difficult for aliens to establish physical presence of more than two years, and if they do, they will be faced with the one year deadline for asylum applications, which in many cases is the only form of relief available to an undocumented alien.

President Trump will be able to use expedited removal proceedings to deport millions of undocumented aliens without hearings before an immigration judge.

The only way to stop him is to find a way to work with him on a comprehensive immigration reform bill that meets the political needs of both parties, and time is running out.

Nolan Rappaport was detailed to the House Judiciary Committee as an Executive Branch Immigration Law Expert for three years; he subsequently served as an immigration counsel for the Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims for four years. Prior to working on the Judiciary Committee, he wrote decisions for the Board of Immigration Appeals for 20 years. He also has been a policy advisor for the DHS Office of Information Sharing and Collaboration under a contract with TKC Communications, and he has been in private practice as an immigration lawyer at Steptoe & Johnson.

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

The rest is here:
On illegal immigration, Trump ends Obama's 'home free magnet' - The Hill (blog)