Mediaboss Marketing

Sarah Jawhari, Columnist February 24, 2017 Filed under Columns, Opinion

Unless you are of Native American descent, you are a descendant of someone who did not originally inhabit the area that we now consider to be our nation. It seems this is a difficult truth to accept for conservative Americans touting immigration reform. The entitlement is not surprising, though it is frustrating. Before American borders expanded to California, there were people living on the land. Many immigrants in states like Texas and Arizona have family roots that run far deeper in America than the uprooted European lineage of their white counterparts.

Considering all that immigrants sacrifice to come to the United Statesas well as all they have contributed and continue to givewhy now are they receiving negative attention? We owe much of our diversity, our economic growth, our expansive infrastructure and our vast labor pool to immigrants and slavesforeigners who came to the U.S. because their own countries could not provide for them, or foreigners who were brought here by force to work and be sold as property.

Banning immigrants from the nation or threatening to deport those who are here wont do much to improve the U.S. In fact, their exclusion would quickly devastate the economy and cripple the diverse career fields of which they are a part.

If you dont believe me, or if youre still intent on ousting the immigrants who are stealing American jobs, well start at your breakfast table. Lets say the low-pay farmers that shipped those almonds to you are based in California. Unfortunatelyand expectedlytheres no accurate way to measure how many illegal aliens are working these jobs, but in September 2014, a massive study by the University of Southern California tried. The project found that undocumented Americans constitute up to 10% of the states workforce and contribute over 130 billion annually to Californias gross domestic product (GDP). Data was pulled and combined from the national census and other state logistics, including figures from the California Immigrant Policy Center. The same study found that undocumented Americans make up 38 percent of the agriculture industry, and nearly half of these immigrants have been part of the U.S. for over 10 years.

On the other side of the country, new economic data found that undocumented Americans contributed $588 million annually in state and local taxes in Florida. This figure was drawn from sales tax, excise tax and property taxes. Nationallyaccording to state and local tax data analyzed and published by the Institute on Taxation and Economy Policyundocumented immigrants contribute $11.6 billion to the economy annually.

The downside is that few studies can predict or name the total cost of undocumented Americans. And like all citizens, they do consume services and resources. Their native-born children will attend American public schools to learn, visit hospitals when they are sick and generally benefit from public servicesthe same programs whose existence has been a question for the Trump administration since the days of his campaign trail. But if we are to simplify the complex cost-benefit debate, the numbers tell a positive story: cost is offset by benefit. Its clear that undocumented immigrants are paying taxes, working low-pay jobs to reduce consumption costs for other Americans and contributing to the strength of our economy. At the end of the day, the main strain on the federal budget from undocumented migrants is the billions spent on enforcement including checkpoints, surveillance, Border Patrol weaponry and employees and private prisons; not to mention the border wall Trump has proposed and is currently planning, an unnecessary pressure on the American taxpayer that willaccording to expertsdo little to stop demonized illegals. We wont raise the question of priorities here for the sake of space.

In September 2016, the National Academy of Sciences issued The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration, a 508-page report which outlined the benefits and detriments of immigrants living in the U.S. Because the subject is complex at its core, the report made no attempt to simplify or condense, and for this reason the data was interpreted differently in opposing political spheres. Conservatives quoted lost wages as the price Americans pay for immigrants, though there is no agreement on the extent or value of these lost wages. But the same report lists businesses, landowners and investors as those who reap nearly all the benefits from immigrants, and it is these same benefactors that comprise the Republican party.

In terms of crime, several studies have concluded that immigrants are far less likely to commit crimes than citizens. So essentially, the radical vilification of immigrants makes no sense. They are benefiting your pocket directly, they arent committing all the crime you claim they are and they are directly contributing to the economy through taxes, which you would otherwise have to pay yourself.

This is why strict immigration reform has roots in xenophobia and racism, because objectively immigrants as a group serve us more than they hurt us. But it is easier to point a finger at those different than us than it is to hold up a mirror and ask what is lacking in ourselves and lacking in America.

Follow this link:
The Observer : Jawhari: Issues exist with modern immigration reform - The Observer

Media Matters for America (blog)

Facebook CEO's Immigration Reform Group Donated To Trump's Transition To Curry Early Favor With Administration Media Matters for America (blog) Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg's immigration reform lobby FWD.us, donated $5,000 to President Donald Trump's transition according to a report from Politico. Despite a contentious history opposing Trump's anti-immigrant policies, the group donated to ... Zuckerberg group donated to Trump transition | TheHillThe Hill (blog) all 4 news articles »

Go here to see the original:
Facebook CEO's Immigration Reform Group Donated To Trump's Transition To Curry Early Favor With Administration - Media Matters for America (blog)

Iowa knows better than perhaps any other state in the union the tendency of politicians to talk about one of the most pressing issues immigration just once every four years. Then the issue fades away, with little meaningful action taken, until the next election. In the meantime, our outdated immigration system hampers our nations economic opportunity, preventing Iowa businesses from reaching their full potential.

To draw attention to the economic benefits immigrants provide, the Ames Chamber of Commerce is joining the New American Economy (NAE) and thousands of business and community leaders across the country. Armed with critical data to support our cause, we are making a case for common-sense immigration reform.

Iowa is home to more than 150,000 immigrants, a population more than twice the size of the city of Ames. In our congressional district alone, immigrants paid $205.4 million in state and local taxes in 2014. Of that, over $135.1 million went to mandatory spending programs such as Social Security and Medicare. Statewide, immigrants have $3 billion in spending power. These financial resources are reinvested into our communities, our small businesses, our schools and our public infrastructure. Additional revenue is not the only reason immigration reform is necessary and right for Iowa.

The single biggest issue for our employers is workforce availability and finding a steady, reliable source of employees to fill the growing need for qualified labor across all sectors of Iowas economy. This is especially true in science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) fields. In 2014 alone, 32,697 STEM jobs were advertised online in Iowa. At that time, there were only 628 unemployed STEM workers to fill the positions. This translates to a staggering 52-to-1 employment gap.

At that time, students on temporary visas made up roughly one out of every four students earning a STEM masters degree at an Iowa university, and 48.6 percent of students earning a Ph.D.-level degree in STEM. The bad news? Even after receiving their degree, many of these promising students struggle or are unable to remain in the country after graduation. In 2014, Iowa State University had 4,802 foreign-born students, 58.2 percent of whom were enrolled in a STEM field. Unfortunately, due largely to outdated immigration policies, only 28.9 percent of these highly-skilled students were able to stay in Ames and Story County upon graduation.

Our antiquated immigration system makes it difficult for STEM employers to sponsor the high-skilled workers they need to fill key positions. This is problematic as it slows business growth and expansion, and limits the employment opportunities firms can provide for foreign and U.S.-born workers alike.

What is especially troubling is that STEM fields continue to expand at a record pace and are helping the economy grow by continually adding promising job opportunities to the market. NAE estimates that there will be 800,000 new STEM jobs created nationwide by 2024. These are lucrative careers in innovative fields, and attracting an educated workforce to fill these positions will allow us to capitalize on this growth and seize this opportunity.

If Iowa truly wants to reach its economic potential, we must be able to recruit, and more importantly, retain the workforce our local employers need. We must stop allowing bright, highly trained individuals, educated at American institutions of higher education, to go out into the world and compete against us, rather than working with us.

The longer we allow our current immigration system to remain unchanged, the easier we make it for competing nations to attain the highly-skilled and talented individuals we are denying. That is why the Ames Chamber of Commerce stands with the New American Economy in strongly encouraging our elected officials to implement a responsible, pro-growth immigration reform that will allow us to retain the best and brightest and give our employers the help they need.

Read the original post:
Letter: The state of Iowa needs responsible, pro-growth immigration reform - Iowa State Daily

Northwest University, a private Christian college in Kirkland, is hosting a symposium of immigration experts in hopes of finding common ground across political divides.

Were living in a country of uncompromising division. It seems that just about every issue demands alignment with a political party or ideology and none more than immigration.

But local conservative leader Joseph Castleberry disagrees.

Castleberry is president of Northwest University, a private Christian college in Kirkland. An evangelical and a Republican, he also identifies as pro-immigration and thinks more religious conservatives should do the same.

The most-often repeated ethical injunction in the Old Testament is the injunction to be kind and to be just with immigrants, says Castleberry. In the New Testament, there are many scriptures that call on us to be hospitable to foreigners and strangers.

Whats more, immigrants are the source of a red-hot religious revival in Christian communities in America, says Castleberry, who wrote about this phenomenon in his recent book The New Pilgrims: How Immigrants are Renewing Americas Faith and Values.

But he says religion isnt the only reason conservatives should soften their stance toward immigrants including those who live here illegally and support comprehensive immigration reform.

He says immigrants provide needed labor in our state. They also pay taxes, create jobs through entrepreneurship and represent billions of dollars in spending power. And research released this week by the New American Economy, a bipartisan coalition of business leaders and politicians for comprehensive immigration reform, agrees.

The report, Map the Impact, explores the economic role of immigrants across the United States. It confirms that Washington state boasts the 10th-largest immigrant population in the country, and that our region benefits from their contributions in sectors such as technology, agriculture, service, education and tourism.

Republicans, naturally, normally, would be pro-immigration because of the economic benefits, says Castleberry, who believes this natural alliance has been further obscured by a bitter election year.

In an attempt to start a dialogue exploring those similarities, Northwest University is hosting a symposium Friday, Feb. 24, titled Immigration in Uncertain Times: Goals for a New Immigration System. The event brings together immigration experts from around our region and Mexico.

Jorge Madrazo is an organizer of and speaker at the symposium. Hes a former attorney general of Mexico and current director of a local satellite of UNAM, the National Autonomous University of Mexico. He says his first concern is preserving the civil rights of Mexicans living in the United States and planning for how Mexico might respond to mass deportations.

Unfortunately, our people are living in fear. Children not going to school; people of faith are not going to church, says Madrazo, explaining the community impact of threatened deportations. He hopes Fridays event will help provide a road map for moving forward.

What is our common ground? Do we have common ground? he asks, urgency in his voice. Can we work to realize that common ground?

Castleberry believes we can, and he spends much of his time propagating that belief on conservative talk-radio shows around the country.

He is a proponent of an expanded guest-worker program to help meet labor needs in sectors like agriculture, as well as the legalization of people living illegally in the U.S. and expanded quotas to allow more people to enter legally.

But Castleberry says compromise is the key to moving forward on immigration reform.

To that end, he says he supports increased border security, believes immigrants living here illegally should pay a fine that covers the cost of their legalization and agrees that immigrants who are violent felons should be deported (though he disagrees with the deportation of people guilty of minor infractions).

Not everyone will be happy, says Castleberry, referencing the compromise required to reach a new agreement about immigration. But there needs to be a rational process for providing for our labor needs and providing a safe haven for people who literally are fleeing for their lives.

So is compromise possible in todays political climate?

Its a complex problem, but were Americans, says Castleberry with a smile. Were problem-solvers.

Lets hope thats enough common ground to get us started.

See the original post:
Can religion bridge the divide over immigration policy? - The Seattle Times

Its been a long and winding road, this journey to craft effective immigration policy in the U.S., and one that has encountered not a few dead-ends along the way.

Experts say the modern debate over immigration has its roots in a 1986 law signed by President Ronald Reagan, which enabled 3 million people in the country illegally to attain legal status. It became known as the Reagan Amnesty.

There were promises of a new era of enforcement, and strict adherence to a law barring employers from hiring workers who didnt have permission to work in the U.S. But they were never fully realized.

Revisions were completed in 1990 under PresidentGeorge H.W. Bush and in 1996 under President Bill Clinton. Still there was dissatisfaction.

In the 2000s, Republican President George W. Bush proposed a comprehensive immigration reform package. That went nowhere. Democratic President Barack Obama also tried and failed to steer something through both houses of Congress.

In the absence of reform, there have been persistent cries that the system is broken. Against that backdrop, Donald Trump road a tidal wave of discontent all the way to the White House. And on Tuesday, the president gave the clearest indication yet where he is going on immigration, when it was announced federal authorities would deportanyone convicted of any criminal offense, whether serious or minor.

Trump is not only different from Obama, he is very different from George W. Bush, saidKarthick Ramakrishnan, UC Riverside professor and associate dean of the universitys School of Public Policy.

Experts suggested that both Bush and Obama were tough in their approach to enforcing immigration laws. Deportations reached 2 million under Bush and exceeded 2.5 million the most of any president under Obama.

Obama was not called the deporter-in-chief by accident, saidRamakrishnan, who authored a book titled, The New Immigration Federalism.

Yet, said Jack Pitney, a government professor at Claremont-McKenna College, They were both broadly sympathetic to immigration and not wanting to deport millions of undocumented immigrants.

Manuel Pastor, USC professor of sociology and director of the universitys Center for the Study of Immigrant Integration, saidBush set the stage for Obama tried to do later.

Bush was a border governor and had a great deal of familiarity with immigrants in his own state, Pastor said.

At the same time, Bush sought to bolster the GOPs outreach to Latino voters, he said.

Advertisement

But then something called 9/11 happened. The response to the nations deadliest terror attack consumed Bushs agenda, and immigration became predominantly a national security issue.

When youre worrying about whether your gardener is illegal, thats different than worrying about whether the person sitting on the airplane next to you is illegal, Pastor said.

In his second term, Bush circled back and tried to push forward a program for immigration reform.That ran into a buzz-saw of opposition from conservatives and also from trade unions who were worried about competition, he said.

Then, when Obama leaped onto the scene, Pitney said, he vowed to deliver comprehensive immigration reform as well. But, like Bushs, Obamas plan was abruptly reshaped by a earth-shattering event early on: the worst economic crisis to hammer the country since the Great Depression, he said.

Pastor saidObama was absorbed with trying to rescue the economy, expand health care and reform immigration.

He focused on the first two and squandered a lot of political capital, Pastor said.

Meanwhile, Obama stepped up deportations, he said.

Pastor said Obama believed that, if he signaled he was tough on enforcement, hed garner political support to pass reform legislation. And he managed to persuade the Senate to pass a bill in 2013.

It got bottled up in the House, he said.

Frustrated with the roadblock in Congress, Obama signed an executive order in 2014 providinga legal reprieve for undocumented parents of U.S. citizens.

And here we are today.

What Trump is doing now is dramatically increasing the number of people who are going to get targeted for deportation, Ramakrishnan said.

He said the president set the stage for many more deportations than were processed under either Obama or Bush.

Ramakrishnan said the stepped-up enforcement comes when the undocumented population is stable: There are an estimated 11 million living in this country, as many as were here a decade ago.

The Pew Research Center and the Public Policy Institute of California say more than 10 percent 1.3 million reside counties Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside and San Bernardino counties.

Because the population is stable, Pastor said, todays community is different than a decade ago. In 2008, he said, 40 percent of undocumented immigrants had been here a decade. Today, 60 percent have been here that long.

And, he said,Heavy removal is much more likely to affect a family now someone who has kids, someone who has a home, someone who is a neighbor, someone who has had a job for a very long time.

Pitney it is unclear how the administrations policy will play out.

With Donald Trump, the one certainty is that what he says and what he does is not always the same thing, said Pitney. But already he has taken a tougher approach to immigration than his predecessors.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Read this article:
Immigration reform failures set stage for Trump's strategy - LA Daily News