Mediaboss Marketing

Many Americans are upset by the decision of President Obama to issue an executive order to reform immigration policy. The executive order effectively grants undocumented immigrants the legal right to remain in the United States if they have been here five years and are parents, children, or spouses of citizens or of legal residents. The president says that he did this because Congress has not passed an immigration reform bill.

Obamas impatience with Congress on immigration reform is understandable. Government has allowed millions of immigrants to remain in the United States even though they are violating the law by being here. Since it costs about $23,000 to deport an undocumented immigrant, it would be fiscally irresponsible to try to deport a significant percentage of them. Thus, we need to reform immigration policy so that we have a law that we can afford to enforce.

Opponents of the presidents executive order are concerned that it effectively grants amnesty to immigrants who have violated immigration law, thereby undermining the rule of law.

Something is fundamentally wrong when one federal law makes it illegal to hire undocumented immigrants while other laws prohibit firms from considering an applicants nationality, citizenship, or immigration status in hiring decisions. Although talking tough on immigration may win some conservative votes, deporting any substantial number of those here illegally is not a viable alternative. Letting immigrants come or stay if firms are willing to hire them as guest workers could contribute to economic growth, increased tax revenue, and a reduction in government debt.

The most important drawback to welcoming immigrants is the cost of government services that some of them use. The opportunity to work need not be connected to the right to government benefits and if it is, immigrants could be required to pay a fee to reside in the United States. Requiring payment of an additional fee to account for their prior undocumented status might be a good way to provide a path to citizenship or permanent residence for those who are already here.

Then America could again become the land of opportunity that it once was.

-----

Dr. Tracy Miller is an associate professor of economics at Grove City College and fellow for economic theory and policy with The Center for Vision & Values.

View post:
Immigration reform needs scrutiny

U.S. Senate Republicans failed to block funding for President Barack Obamas immigration plan Wednesday for the second time in two days during an ongoing battle over the funding of theDepartment of Homeland Security. The 53-47 vote forestalled another attempt to undermine the Obama executive actions that offer several million undocumented immigrants reprieves from deportation and that agencies under the Homeland Security umbrella are charged with carrying out. Senate Democrats blocked a similar $39.7 billion funding bill Tuesday.

In less than three weeks, the Homeland Security will run out of money. The vote Wednesday should push the White House and congressional Republicans closer to the negotiating table for a bill that funds the department in charge of protecting U.S. residents from terrorist attacks, as well as handing immigration matters. Senate Republicans Wednesday accused their Democratic counterparts of deliberately endangering the American people by blocking the bill.

The legislation Democrats are filibustering would fund the Department of Homeland Security, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said. It would also protect American democracy from overreach described by President Obama as unwise and unfair. Thats it. You would think a bill like this would pass overwhelmingly.

Democrats speaking on the Senate floor Wednesday afternoon said they would consider only a clean Homeland Security funding bill without the provisions attacking the presidents immigration initiatives. If Congress misses its Feb. 27 deadline, many in the departments 240,000-person workforce would have to work without pay, Obama has warned.

Homeland Security consists of 22 different federal agencies that were streamlined to defend against and respond to terrorist attacks; enhance immigration enforcement; and manage the federal response to man-made and natural disasters. In a reorganization, DHS absorbed the functions of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services agencies, as well as the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Famously criticized for its flawed response to Hurricane Katrina in 2005, FEMA absorbed the functions of four other disaster-response offices.

More here:
Immigration Reform 2015: Republican Senators Fail In Second Vote To Defund Obama Immigrant Plan

To hear hard-liners tell it, this nations immigration problem boils down to one issue: border security. Fix it, and everything else will fall into place. In reality, if they were to divert every dollar in President Barack Obamas proposed $4 trillion budget for border security, Americas immigration problem would remain only half-solved.

Increased border security helps deter new migrants from entering and helps boost the number of apprehensions of those who do cross, such as the tens of thousands who surrendered at the border last summer. Yes, tighter border security helped ensure those crossers were captured immediately.

Once in U.S. custody, though, they join the hundreds of thousands already awaiting court hearings to determine whether they merit deportation. An appalling backlog in the nations immigration courts is why border security alone cant solve the problem. According to recent reports, thousands of unauthorized migrants are being told they must wait until 2019 before their day in court arrives.

The backlog is one that Congress has failed repeatedly to address, regardless of which party is in control. The fact that the GOP now controls both houses of Congress means Republicans can no longer avoid the court problem that the hard-liners intransigence on immigration reform has helped worsen.

Emphasis on border security has led to a tripling in staffing by the U.S. Border Patrol since 1997. Theres been a corresponding surge in the backlog faced by U.S. immigration courts because, while it might take only a few minutes to catch a border crosser, it can take an average of more than 800 days to process that migrant through the courts. There are only around 230 judges to handle the nearly 430,000 cases pending.

The frenzy of allocations in last falls federal spending bill to build detention centers and bolster border security didnt include similar increases in funding to hire more immigration court judges. If apprehensions at the border continue to rise as they did last year, the backlog seems destined to go from bad to worse.

Congress must not confuse funding for immigration courts with the threatened withholding of Homeland Security Department funds to punish the president for his unilateral action to protect millions of immigrants from deportation. Immigration courts are under Justice Department jurisdiction. The only way to ensure the speedy processing of those unauthorized immigrants already here is to give the courts the resources they need.

Members of Congress who insist on tougher security to cut the numbers of unauthorized immigrants in this country must give the law a chance to work. Adequate court funding is the only way to clear this horrendous backlog and ensure the rule of law is applied.

Link:
Editorial: Half-solutions to the immigration problem

St. Louis, MO (PRWEB) February 05, 2015

On Wednesday, Brooklyn Attorney General nominee Loretta Lynch answered questions about her stance on immigration reform at her two-day confirmation hearing. While already better received than current Attorney General Eric Holder, Lynch fielded many questions about the President's November executive actions.

When asked by Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) if she agreed with the legality of Obama's policies, Lynch replied that she had reviewed the report to Homeland Security that the Office of Legal Counsel had provided, and saw no "reason to doubt the reasonableness of those views."

Senator Jeff Sessions, of Arizona, told the Huffington Post (01/28/2015) that he disagreed with the policies and feels that the executive action was unconstitutional. He was especially concerned that employers would hire undocumented immigrants instead of United States Citizens.

When asked by Senator Sessions if she agreed with Attorney General Holder's comments that providing citizenship was "essential," Lynch replied that she hadn't studied the issue extensively, but "... people who come to this country in a variety of ways can rehabilitate themselves and apply, but that would have to be something that would be decided on a case-by-case basis."

Attorney Susan Cho Figenshau agrees with Lynch that the matter should be addressed on a case-by-case basis. It is her opinion that the President's executive action would disproportionately benefit people in the US illegally, and hopes for more immigration reform to benefit employers and those who are in the US legally, and who are spending in many cases more than ten years and sometimes tens of thousands of dollars while waiting in queue to become lawful permanent residents.

"The Presidents executive actions present no substantial relief on the horizon for employers with increasingly burdensome regulatory compliance obligations, foreign-born professionals working in their professions sometimes more than a decade, legally, as temporary workers, while waiting permanent residency; or U.S. citizens and permanent residents seeking permanent residency for their spouses."

She also disagrees with Sessions that granting citizenship to more immigrants would negatively impact United States employers, going on to add that the current system daunting and long-term hardships on both legal immigrants and United States employers, stating,

"The elimination of limits for employment-based immigrant petitions would merely reflect employers continuing needs for highly skilled often with advanced STEM degrees professionals. The current per-country quota system, in the meantime, imposes hardship on employers and professionals seeking green cards alike by forcing seekers into what is sometimes a 10-year journey. This plodding green card process does nothing to enhance opportunities for U.S. workers or to reduce employers demand for highly skilled workers."

Later, Sessions pressed Lynch again to find out if she thought that the President's executive action was legal and constitutional. "As I've read the opinion, I do believe it is, Senator," she replied.

View post:
Attorney Susan Cho Figenshau Discusses Immigration Reform

The recent launch of the Law Enforcement Immigration Task Force offers another reason why this country must overhaul its immigration policy.

The task force, which includes more than 30 police chiefs, sheriffs, commissioners and other high-ranking officials, is pushing for a change in policy as a way to improve public safety, including in cities such as South Bend.

An online service is needed to view this article in its entirety. You need an online service to view this article in its entirety.

Or, use your facebook account:

Individuals who have a print subscription of the South Bend Tribune can activate their digital account to gain unlimited access to SouthBendTribune.com.

You need the 10 digit phone number without dashes on the account and your ZIP code to complete this process.

Questions? Please write tosubscriberservices@sbtinfo.comor call our Subscriber Services Department at 574-235-6464.

Long distance (outside St. Joseph County, Ind.), call toll-free 1-800-220-7378.

Need an account? Create one now.

Read more from the original source:
OUR OPINION: Immigration reform for public safety's sake