Mediaboss Marketing

Former Gov. Paul LePage sought to limit the flow of immigrants to the state during his eight years in office, cutting public support for noncitizens seeking asylum and ending the states participation in refugee resettlement.

Gov. Janet Mills reversed many of those policies over the past four years, supporting public assistance for legally present noncitizens and speaking out about the importance of welcoming immigrants, migrants and asylum seekers as both an economic and moral imperative.

The two major party candidates running for governor have well-established, and nearly opposite, records when it comes to the emotionally charged topic of immigration. And its an issue that will be front and center again for whoever wins in November.

Business leaders struggling with severe workforce shortages say asylum seekers, refugees, seasonal migrant workers and foreign student workers are crucial to the economy of an aging state that historically has recorded more deaths than births.

At the same time, an influx of asylum seekers who must wait for permission to work is straining public resources and the availability of affordable housing in Portland and other communities, feeding opposition to taxpayer-funded assistance for noncitizens.

The race between a sitting governor and former governor offers an unusual opportunity to compare records and not just rhetoric. The third candidate on the ballot, independent Sam Hunkler, has never held public office and described only a general philosophy that Maine should welcome immigrants who arrive legally and can help fill the demand for workers.

The LePage campaign did not respond to a request to interview the former two-term governor for this story and did not respond specifically to questions sent by email.

LePages political strategist, Brent Littlefield, provided a statement criticizing Mills for supporting public assistance to asylum seekers and saying LePage supports comprehensive immigration reform to fix a broken system and allow vetted, law abiding, people into the United States and Maine. He also supports efforts to ensure that those here legally can get any required certifications quickly to become employed.

This summer, Republicans opened multicultural community centers in Portland and Lewiston as part of what the party said is a national outreach campaign to immigrant communities. And LePage has softened his rhetoric on the subject.

We are all immigrants in this country, LePage said at a campaign event in Lewiston in June. As long as we come here legally and do it right, we are one big happy family.

But LePage, who was governor from 2011 to 2019, also has continued to say he does not believe asylum seekers are here legally, even though they are allowed to remain in the country while pursuing their application for permanent status.

In an interview with the Press Herald this month, Mills discussed the important role immigrants can and should play in the states economy, saying businesses are looking for ways to better integrate new Mainers in the workforce.

And shes been pushing for immigration reforms on the national level that include addressing the immigration court backlog and shortening the waiting period before asylum seekers can work.

Many of them come here with not only availability, but skill, Mills said. Some have advanced degrees. Some have experience in the trades. Many of them have skills we need in our workforce today and thats what businesses are telling me and asking for.

COMMON GROUND

A close look at their records in office shows there is one area of agreement between Mills and LePage.

Both acknowledge the importance of both foreign students holding J-1 visas and seasonal migrants working under H2A and H2B visas.

While supportive of most of former President Donald Trumps immigration proposals, LePage did not agree with Trumps efforts to end the seasonal migrant and foreign student worker visa programs. LePage expressed his opposition in two separate letters to the president in 2017.

This tight labor market, combined with our status as the oldest state in the nation, is creating a workforce shortage, LePage wrote. If Maines workforce supported these jobs, I assure you we would hire American workers first. We are working to solve the problem of our aging workforce, but we need to stay open for business in the interim.

He added, the elimination of these programs would leave a gap in Maines tourism industry, the backbone of our economy, and would result in slowing our economic growth.

Mills also has written federal officials, requesting more worker visas, which were curtailed during the pandemic. In 2021, she wrote to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, requesting more H2B visa workers. In early January, she joined governors from seven other states in writing President Biden, calling for more J-1, H2A and H2B visa workers.

Again, we request your help to increase the flow of work-based visas as an additional tool to help address our workforce shortages and the cascading economic consequences of those shortages, the governors wrote.

LEPAGES HARD LINE

Beyond worker and student visas, however, their records mostly show they implemented opposing policies when it comes to noncitizens hoping to start new lives in Maine.

LePage staked out a hard line on immigration even before winning election as governor.

As mayor of Waterville, LePage wrote Democratic Gov. John Baldacci in 2004, blasting his executive order that prohibited state employees from asking about immigration status when providing public benefits.

One of LePages first actions as governor was rescinding that executive order and then eliminating the ability of noncitizens, including those in the country legally seeking asylum, to receive state-funded Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. They remained eligible for federal TANF funds.

In 2016, LePage wrote to President Barack Obama, saying he was formally withdrawing Maine from participation in the federal refugee resettlement program because of concerns about screening immigrants and the burden on the states welfare programs, which supports immigrants who already have been processed and can immediately seek work and full citizenship status. The action did not stop the flow of refugees because the federal government can work directly with private resettlement agencies to do the work of placing and supporting refugees.

LePage was a vocal supporter of Trumps proposals to restrict entry into the United States of people from Muslim-majority nations and to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, which allows the children of illegal immigrants to remain in the U.S. and apply for drivers licenses, social security numbers and work permits.

LePage strongly opposed public assistance for noncitizens, sometimes incorrectly arguing they are here illegally.

Throughout his terms and while campaigning this summer, LePage has repeatedly described asylum seekers as being in the country illegally, even though federal law allows foreign nationals to remain in the country while their asylum applications are decided. Foreign nationals are eligible for asylum if they are fleeing persecution for reasons such as political or religious beliefs.

LePage repeatedly criticized Portland for supporting noncitizens and falsely described it as a sanctuary city, which generally means the city does not allow law enforcement to help immigration authorities. Portland has no such prohibition.

In 2014, he sought to punish Portland other municipalities that provided asylum seekers with General Assistance, a state-funded safety net program that provides vouchers for shelter, food and medicine for those in need.

In court, he secured a partial victory in that effort. He successfully argued that the 1996 federal welfare reform act, signed by Democratic President Bill Clinton, prohibited noncitizens from receiving public benefits unless a state has enacted a law specifically making them eligible. LePage accurately noted that Maine had never enacted such a law, despite years of providing assistance. And the court ruled in his favor.

The Republican-controlled Legislature responded by passing a law making asylum seekers eligible for assistance. It became law when LePage failed to veto that and 64 other bills before the statutory deadline.

LePage, however, sought to restrict eligibility through rulemaking, prohibiting some asylum seekers who are legally present in the country from receiving benefits, including victims of human trafficking.

MILLS REVERSES COURSE

Mills set herself apart from LePage well before she became governor. The pair clashed when Mills was attorney general and publicly opposed Trumps travel ban from Muslim-majority countries and his effort to end DACA.

Mills also engaged in a high-profile confrontation with LePage over General Assistance for asylum seekers. She sided with the Maine Municipal Association, Portland and other communities when LePage threatened to withhold funding.

As governor, Mills rewrote the strict, LePage-era eligibility rules for asylum seekers to receive GA to ensure that all asylum seekers who had been excluded by LePage, including the victims of human trafficking, would be eligible for assistance.Mills has supported efforts to reduce the amount of time asylum seekers need to wait before they can work.

Mills has not taken steps to unwind the state-funded TANF rule approved by the LePage administration, but she worked with the Legislature to restore MaineCare eligibility for noncitizen children under 21 and pregnant women who are not citizens.

That came in response to the sudden arrival of hundreds of migrant families that entered the U.S. through the southern border to seek asylum and traveled to Portland in 2019. Virtually all of these migrant families were from sub-Saharan Africa, including Angola and the Democratic Republic of Congo.

Over the last two years, the number of asylum seekers coming to Portland has grown. The Mills administration helped secure hotel rooms to shelter the migrants, and other people seeking housing, during the pandemic.

The cost of those rooms is being covered by federal funding. That funding is set to expire soon, although a spokesperson for the Department of Health and Human Services said no date has been announced. So the Legislature added $10 million in additional General Assistance funding in Mills supplemental budget to help offset costs in the event federal funding is not renewed.

And Mills allocated an additional $22 million to secure transitional housing for asylum seekers, and others experiencing homelessness. A spokesperson said that $750,000 in funding has been invested into a new partnership with the Immigrant Legal Advocacy Project, a Portland nonprofit that helps asylum seekers with their applications for asylum and work permits.

Mills also has increased investments in English language programs, which are key to helping asylum seekers become integrated into the community and gain meaningful employment.

Mills increased adult education funding by 14 percent since taking office in January 2019, including a $1.2 million increase specifically in adult education workforce development funding, according to a 2021 release from the Department of Education.

Mills steps to support noncitizens have nevertheless fallen short of some advocates hopes.

Immigrant leaders, as well as elected and administrative officials in Portland, issued a very public call for Mills to create a new asylum settlement office and help coordinate on-the-ground services, such as transportation, food, medicine and other services that are currently being delivered by area nonprofits.

At the time, a spokesperson for Mills said the governor would consider the request.

When asked in an interview with the Press Herald last month where her administration was in evaluating this request, Mills emphasized the steps she has already taken, without committing to do more.

We have been doing a lot of things in different ways, she said.

Invalid username/password.

Please check your email to confirm and complete your registration.

Use the form below to reset your password. When you've submitted your account email, we will send an email with a reset code.

Previous

Next

Original post:
Records show Mills' and LePage's nearly opposite views on immigration - Press Herald

Oklahoma has 33,000 teachers who are certified, but choose not to teach. Ginnie Graham and Bob Doucette talk about the state's teacher shortage forcing districts to rely on emergency certifications and more. Plus, why are extremists harassing our county election board workers?

Leave it to Ken Burns to point out what America looks like at its best and its worst.

In his three-part docuseries The U.S. and the Holocaust, Burns sheds light on how the U.S. government walked a tight wire of helping Jewish refugees flee Nazi Germany while navigating strong anti-immigrant sentiment at home.

Burns, along with co-authors Lynn Novisk and Sarah Boststein, wrote a piece published in the Tulsa World on Sept. 18 that detailed the ways in which Nazi leadership looked to American laws on immigration policy and treatment of Black and Native peoples to fashion their own framework for what ultimately led to the Holocaust.

That column speaks for itself, so Im not going to get into that here. Instead, I want to look at what has long troubled me about our country: the conflict of its lofty ideals and its sometimes bitter realities.

People are also reading

My own family history shows just how good America can be to newcomers. My mother came to the U.S. from Germany as the wife of an Air Force enlisted man. She knew little of American culture and didnt speak the language when my parents settled in Virginia in the early 1960s.

She learned the language, worked as a nurse, held plenty of other jobs and had a side business when I was in high school. Her story is one of tens of millions representing immigrants who came to the U.S. and flourished.

Thats one of the things that make America great. When were at our best, we live up to the words inscribed on the Statue of Liberty, which say in part, Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.

The unspoken clause following this line is that these people, leaving dire circumstances in their homelands, can come here and find the opportunity to build a new, prosperous and happy life.

Many have done so. Some work tough jobs and grind out a living. Others start businesses and build empires. Many of their children become entrepreneurs, teachers, physicians, soldiers, researchers and more.

The U.S. has a history of positive assimilation, one where peoples of all nationalities, faiths and ethnicities have sought and found dreams unavailable to them in the countries where they were born.

The U.S. is a microcosm of humanity, something few other countries can boast. We owe that to the high ideals of our founders that everyone is created equal, with unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, as written in the Declaration of Independence.

You can see how someone living in a place where rights are fluid, or flatly denied, might be attracted to a country with such egalitarian principles.

I believe this exists here, and get confirmation of that with every story we do on naturalization ceremonies conducted in Tulsa. Each new citizen looks happy to be part of this ongoing American experiment.

Unfortunately, this rosy picture is incomplete. While our ideals are high and success stories real, the relationship we have with immigrants has been fraught with nativism, racism and fear.

For me, that hit home in 2006. Back then, I found myself concerned about how the midterm elections would pan out. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were not going well. I worried about what a Democratic takeover of Congress might mean for the country.

Ive long held that the country needs healthy liberal and conservative parties, but some of what I was hearing at the time from the left gave me pause.

I tuned into various pundits, looking for any sort of message that could counter the impending blue wave. Repeatedly, the answer was the same: Bash the immigrants, particularly those from Latin America or anyone hinting of Middle Eastern descent. Predictably, the issue was a loser. Democrats mopped up in the midterms, then took control of the White House two years later. For me, it struck deeper. My faith tells me that were all Gods image bearers. Demonizing foreigners was the opposite of what Christian scriptures teach. I did a lot of reevaluating in those days.

One particular truth stood out: Anyone trafficking in the politics of fear was someone of whom to be wary.

Burns documentary illustrated that. Anti-Chinese laws shut the golden door to people from eastern Asia. Italians, eastern Europeans and more were all, at various times, singled out by strict immigration quotas. Mexican immigrants were welcomed for a time, but they, too, became targets of anti-immigrant fear.

Fear-based persecution wasnt relegated to newcomers. For centuries, Black Americans werent legally recognized as people. Until emancipation, they had no rights. Afterwards, Jim Crow laws sought to claw back rights given to freed slaves and their descendants. Liberated Blacks were viewed by many as a threat.

Native Americans suffered their own horrors, between wars, displacement and relegation to reservations where many tribes teetered on the edge of extinction. Weve barely scratched the surface of confronting those traumas.

During World War II, Americans of Japanese descent were wrested from their homes and confined in bleak internment camps, their loyalties questioned solely on the basis of who they were.

To Burns point, the attitudes that birthed these calamities affected Jews as well. American sentiments toward Jewish refugees in the run-up to World War II were, at best, mildly indifferent. At worst, it was the type of callous spite that deprived beleaguered European Jews of safe harbor here during their hour of need.

State Department resistance toward offering more help cost untold thousands of Jewish lives; had we been more open, Anne Frank and most of her family may have lived out their lives in America instead of dying in Nazi concentration camps.

Id like to think weve advanced beyond those times, but American nativism has never been eradicated. It ebbs and flows.

What do we see now? I still see those stories of new Americans being naturalized in joyous ceremonies. Tulsa owes its new surge of growth and the economic opportunities that come with it to a steady rise in immigrant communities from around the world.

I see a suburban church actively helping Afghans, Burmese, Ukrainians and more begin new lives far from the troubles of where they were born.

But I also watch as politicians preen in front of the southern border, stoking fear of the foreigner. I see them equate undocumented immigrants to thugs and rapists. I hear the term invasion on repeat, even though these same elected officials do nothing about reforming our outdated and cumbersome immigration system.

As a result, all sorts of people end up in the crossfire, targets of violence at stores, synagogues, churches and on the street. All because they look, talk and believe differently.

Immigration reform is needed. The surge of people flooding our southern border attests to that, as do unheeded pleas from businesses that would love to greet a pool of eager new hires.

Such reform is hard. Its far easier to complain than it is to act.

But Id rather try to do the latter. It would mean that while were looking to satisfy our own interests, were also viewing those who want to come here as people and not problems.

And that brings me back to the two-edged sword we wield on immigration. If we live up to the core of our beliefs, America is displayed at its finest. At our worst, when fear guides our actions, we can be deadly cold.

Get opinion pieces, letters and editorials sent directly to your inbox weekly!

See the original post here:
Bob Doucette: I've seen us at our best - and our worst - on immigration - Tulsa World

In 20062007, millions of people participated in protests over a proposed change to U.S. immigration policy.[1] These large scale mobilizations are widely seen as a historic turn point in Latino politics, especially Latino immigrant civic participation and political influence, as noted in a range of scholarly publications in this field.[1] The protests began in response to proposed legislation known as H.R. 4437, which would raise penalties for illegal immigration and classify illegal aliens and anyone who helped them enter or remain in the US as felons. As part of the wider immigration debate, most of the protests not only sought a rejection of this bill, but also a comprehensive reform of the country's immigration laws that included a path to citizenship for all illegal immigrants.

The 2006 immigration protests were a series of demonstrations that began in Chicago and continued throughout major cities nationwide for a period of eight weeks. The first major demonstration in Chicago was held on March 10, 2006, and was estimated to have about 100,000 participants. It was the initial impetus for many of the other protests which followed throughout the country.[2] The largest single protest occurred on March 25, 2006, in downtown Los Angeles with an official estimate of more than 500,000 people marching in what organizers called "La Gran Marcha" ("The Great March") .[3] Organizers of La Gran Marcha, however, state that the actual revised number of participants is somewhere between 1.25 and 1.5 million estimated through later photographic analysis.[4] The largest nationwide day of protest occurred on April 10, 2006, in 102 cities across the country,[5][6] with 350,000500,000 in Dallas. The overwhelming majority of the protests were peaceful and attracted modest media attention. Additional protests took place on May Day.

The marches reached a climax on May 1, 2006, and were nicknamed "A Day Without Immigrants." Naming the protests in such way encouraged immigrants and aliens to quit their daily labor-intensive jobs for a day to draw attention to their significant contributions to U.S. daily life. Latino immigrants and aliens across the country were urged to boycott work, school and other economic activities. Those outside the Latino community were shocked to see the growing workforce of janitors, nannies, restaurant workers and many other service workers leave their jobs to join the protests.[7] The mobilization of working-class illegal aliens was intended to challenge the belief that the United States would be able to prosper without illegal immigrants.

The protests took place on May 1, a date meant to honor workers throughout the country. The May 1st marches reflected the immigrant protesters' identities as workers and significant contributors to U.S. society. Most immigrants of Latin American descent come to the United States seeking economic prosperity for themselves and their families,[8] they infrequently accept low wage jobs to survive in the United States. Therefore, missing work for a day burdened their families. Yet, thousands of immigrants risked their jobs and joined the marches to demand political recognition.

Mexicans were not considered "immigrants" until 1960, when the United States issued visas to emigrate to America. Before 1960, Mexicans could only apply for work visas as Braceros or cross the border without inspection. Mexicans didn't have a "legal" way to enter the United States before then.[9]

To understand the 2006 immigrant protests and the discourse behind illegal immigration as a leading topic in U.S. political debate, it is necessary to understand the history of illegal immigration.[1] Since the 19th century, mass illegal immigration from Latin American countries to the United States has greatly impacted Latino politics. Illegal immigrants are individuals who arrive and live in the United States without legal documentation. In many cases, individuals arrive to the United States with legal documentation such as tourist or student visas and overstay the amount of time they are allowed to remain in the United States, thus becoming illegal immigrants.[10] Many others cross the borders between the United States and Mexico, or the United States and Canada, without legal documentation. Today, undocumented entry to the United States is a misdemeanor.Illegal immigration did not always exist to the extent that it does today. Before 1965, the United States did not have numerical restrictions on immigration from countries in the western hemisphere. In 1965, the United States passed the Immigration Nationality Act and repealed the 1924 National Origins Act designed to limit migration from southern and eastern European countries,[11] thus making it possible for eastern-hemisphere countries to have equal access to visas in addition and consequently restricting migration from the western hemisphere for the first time. Furthermore, the 1965 Act provided unlimited number of visas for family reunification because it allowed naturalized U.S. citizens and permanent residents to request permission to bring their family members to the United States.[11] The 1965 Act influenced Latinos/as citizens and permanent residents to request visas that allowed their family members to immigrate to the United States. This resulted in a shift of the country's ethno racial makeup and the creation of a large Latino population in the United States. The 1965 Act's restriction on the number of visas allotted to western hemisphere countries created the phenomenon of large scale illegal western hemisphere migration,[11] particularly from Latin American countries like Mexico.

In the 1980s, the United States government began to express concern about the large scale flow of illegal immigration, which led to the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) of 1986. First, the Act made it illegal for employers to hire workers who could not provide proof of legal immigration to the United States. Second, it allowed for the legalization of immigrants who could prove residency in the U.S. since January 1, 1982 and agricultural workers who began working in the United States prior to May 1986.[12] Out of the 3 million migrants that applied for IRCA, 2.7 million, many of whom were Mexican, were given a path to citizenship. However, in the long term, IRCA was not successful in reducing the flow of illegal immigration to the United States. As a result, the U.S. government began to increase the funding of Border Patrol as a means to regulate the flow of undocumented immigrants to the United States. These actions proved to have little impact on illegal immigration, resulting in about eleven million illegal immigrants living in the United States, the majority being of Mexican origin. Therefore, discourse about the flow of illegal immigration has been known as a "Mexican" or "Latino" problem. The large scale flow of illegal migrants and the significant ethno-racial shift that occurred as a result of 1965 Act, have resulted in anti-immigrant backlash that targets Latino immigrants.[13]

Spanish-language media outlets, in particular Univision, Telemundo, Azteca Amrica and La Opinin (Los Angeles' largest Spanish newspaper), advertised the protests on their front page.[1] They called it a "Mega Marcha", a mega march, as a way to emphasize the large scale of the marches. This strategy allowed for the spread of mobilizations throughout the country. KMEX- TV in Los Angeles, an Univision owned and operated television station, called the protests "Pisando Firme", stepping strong, to remind protesters to march "with pride, with dignity, with order, for your children, for your people, for your community."[8] Although television and newspapers effectively mobilized protesters, it was radio stations which truly promoted the protests.

Various Spanish-language radio stations across the country, in large part aided in mobilizing people for the protests. Eddie "Pioln" Sotelo, a Spanish-language radio personality from Los Angeles, persuaded eleven of his counterparts from Spanish-language radio stations based in Los Angeles to also rally listeners to attend planned protests.[14][15][16] Piolin Por La Maana, is known to be one of the most popular radio shows in the country. The Pioln's radio show, recorded near Los Angeles, is broadcast in 47 markets across the country including Chicago, Dallas, Houston, Miami, Phoenix, San Francisco and New York, many of the cities where the protests took place.[17] In addition to mobilizing thousands of immigrant protestors, Eddie "Piolin" Sotelo made multiple appearances during protests, which increased his moral authority towards his Latino audience.

Religious leader Cardinal Roger M. Mahony, from the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, showed his support of immigrant protesters and urged Catholics, many of whom are Latino, to support the protests.[1] He urged the Catholic community to spend Lent fasting and praying for an immigration reform that would counteract HR-4437 and the criminalization of immigrants. Cardinal Mahony made an official statement against HR-4437 through which he instructed Catholic priests to defy any law that required them to ask immigrants for legal documents.[18] He stated that immigration was not about politics, rather the way in which human beings treat one another, while asserting that all Americans are of immigrant ancestry and share universal citizenship.

It was not media alone that mobilized protesters, rather the media in partnership with migrant organizations and leaders.[19] When analyzing the immigrant civic participation in the 2006 protests simply acknowledging the media's influence is not enough. It absolutely necessary to understand the "meta-network" of activists and leaders that used media as a call to action.

The initial protests caused much controversy after some protesters waved Mexican and Central American flags instead of American flags. Various talk-radio hosts and columnists played up the contentious nature of displaying non-U.S. flags during the protests.[20] One particular incident referred to involved a protest at Montebello High School in California, where a Mexican flag was raised on a flagpole over a United States flag flying in the distressed (or upside-down) position.[21]

As part of the backlash over the protests and the controversy over the flag symbolism issue, a group calling themselves "Border Guardians" burned a Mexican flag in front of the Mexican Consulate in Tucson, Arizona, on April 9, 2006.[22] The following day the group proceeded to burn two Mexican flags during protest in Tucson which was estimated to have had 15,000 participants. After the police seized a student who had thrown a water bottle at the "Border Guardians", they followed the police officers calling for them to let the student go. As the situation escalated violence broke out and 6 were arrested with dozens being pepper-sprayed. The next day the police arrested the leader of the Border Guardians, Roy Warden, for charges including assault and starting a fire in a public park.

Because of the controversy, organizers of the protests encouraged protesters to leave their Mexican flags at home, with Cardinal Roger Mahony telling Los Angeles protesters to not fly any flag other than the United States flag because, "...they do not help us get the legislation we need."[23] As a result of this controversy later protests featured fewer Mexican flags and more protesters carrying American flags.[24]

In addition, California's Oceanside Unified School District banned flags and signs from its campuses after "Mexican flag-wavers clashed with U.S. flag-wavers."[20]

The Washington Post reported that, in the Washington, D.C. suburb of Herndon, a day labor center at which suspected illegal aliens gathered was closed and its mayor and two aldermen lost reelection, in part due to immigration concerns.[25][26]

Membership in the Minuteman Project increased due in part to backlash from the protests. On May 3, responding to the May 1 boycotts, the Minutemen embarked on a caravan across the United States in an effort to bring attention to a need for border enforcement. The caravan was expected to reach Washington, D.C. on May 12.

Regarding the Tucson-based anti-immigration movement: In 2006, the Southern Poverty Law Center wrote: "Roy Warden, 59, emerged this spring as one of the country's most controversial, volatile, and, many believe, dangerous characters of the anti-immigration movement."[27]

Although HR-4437 failed to pass through the Senate, it left a trail of consequences that affected the immigrant community. One of those consequences was intensive Immigration Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids during the final years of the Bush administration which continued throughout the Obama presidency. In the next couple of years, more than 300,000 undocumented immigrant were deported to their home countries, that is 100,000 more than the number of deported immigrants in 2005, a year before the protests.[28] The increase in deportations caused fear of retaliation within the undocumented community and resulted in rapid demobilization.

Although HR-4437 did not become a law at the federal level, it did not prevent individual states from passing similar laws. In 2006, Pennsylvania passed the Illegal Immigration Relief Act, which fined landlords who rented housing to undocumented immigrants and also fined business owners who hired them. The State of Arizona passed S.B. 1070, which led to racial profiling and required police officers to request legal documentation from anyone they suspected was undocumented. Both laws, along with similar others, were deemed unconstitutional in part because the U.S. Constitution assigns control over immigration to the federal government, not individual states.[29]

Since undocumented immigrant communities were unable to vote, lobby, or influence politicians in more traditional ways, Latino leaders mobilized immigrants through non-voting activities, such as protests.[30] Many Latinos indicated that the marches were the beginning of a new social and political movement that sought to gain civic empowerment.[1] A report released by the Pew Hispanic Center indicated that Latinos would most likely vote in subsequent elections and The National Immigration Forum found that Latino voters were more enthusiastic to vote in 2006 due to the immigration debate,[31] and the need to prevent legislation like HR-4437 from being approved by Congress. "Today we march, tomorrow we vote," was one of the most popular slogans during the 2006 immigrant protests.[32] Such slogan indicated the value and need for Latino/a political contribution and recognition.

H.R. 4437 (The Border Protection, Anti terrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005) was passed by the United States House of Representatives on December 16, 2005, by a vote of 239 to 182. It is also known as the "Sensenbrenner Bill", for its sponsor in the House of Representatives, Jim Sensenbrenner. H.R. 4437 was seen by many as the catalyst for the 2006 U.S. immigration reform protests.[68]

The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 previously gave "amnesty" to 2.7 million undocumented immigrants. Proponents of the measure, including then-President Reagan, said the measure, paired with stricter employer rules and a better path for legal entry, would reduce illegal immigration.

The companion bill passed by the United States Senate was S. 2611, which never passed conference committee. The House Republican leadership stated that it rejected S. 2611 wholly and would only pass legislation that addressed border security. The end of the 109th Congress marked the death of this bill.

The USA Supreme Court on June 16, 2008, ruled in Dada v. Mukasey, per ponente Justice Kennedy ruled (54) "that someone who is here illegally may withdraw his voluntarily agreement to depart and continue to try to get approval to remain in the United States." The Court held that complying with a deportation order did not strip an immigrant of the right to appeal that deportation order.[69] The lawsuit is about 2 seemingly contradictory provisions of immigration law. One prevents deportation by voluntary departure from the country. The other section allows immigrants who are here illegally but whose circumstances have changed to build their case to immigration officials, and who must remain in the US. In the case, Samson Dada, a Nigerian citizen, overstayed beyond the expiration of his tourist visa in 1998. Immigration authorities ordered him to leave the country as he agreed to leave voluntarily, but to allow his legal re-entry, unlike if he had been deported.[70][71]

The following organizations mobilized from hundreds (FAIR) to millions of people (Great American Boycott) around immigration reform in the United States during 2006.

Typically anti-illegal immigration movements focus on grassroots recruiting tactics; the Minutemen Civil Defense Corps and Minuteman Project use these methods to boost membership. After the 2006 immigration reform protest, anti-immigration movement participation increased by 600%.[citation needed]

Anti-illegal immigration groups often do not pursue the same agenda in the same ways; however, they do form coalitions when their agendas match other movements. One of the major joint efforts that these groups engage in is access to mailing lists for individuals who have donated money in the past to support the movement; Federation for American Immigration Reform and Minutemen Civil Defense Corps have shared lists of mailers with one another in recent years.[citation needed]

Continue reading here:
2006 United States immigration reform protests - Wikipedia

William Lyons| Guest columnist

You've seen the move before. In fact, you may have seen it last month in "Top Gun: Maverick" when Tom Cruise's character pilots a fighter jet at incredible speeds past scores of enemy fighters and later just happens upon a functional U.S. plane undamaged in a hangar in an enemy airfield. It takes a willing suspension of disbelief to make this all so appealing. I willingly suspended mine.

White House: Migrants bused, flown north is a 'political stunt'

GOP governors are taking credit for busing and flying migrants and asylum seekers north in order to spotlight various immigration issues.

Scott L. Hall, USA TODAY

Were mixing Tom Cruise movie metaphors, but todays political Mission Impossible is bipartisan immigration reform. Can there be no doubt that an open border is not acceptable or sustainable?

This, like so much, is caught deep within the gears of todays political dysfunction machine. Governors have a lot at stake and a lot of opportunity to help on the margins. But this is a national challenge that has sadly gone unmet for decades. The belief is that this issue is politically unsolvable.

Washington once engaged. The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 was the last gasp of bipartisan cooperation. That was at a time when the Republican Party had a significant constituency who fully understood how newcomers could fill the need for motivated, talented employees. But newcomers must come through a legal process.

The legislation was sponsored by Sen. Alan SImpson, D- Wyoming, and Rep. Romano Mazzoli, D-Kentucky. It was supported by bipartisan majorities in both houses and signed by President Ronald Reagan. It balanced needed security with a process for legalized entry. Over 3 million people were granted permanent residency. The act is widely regarded as a failure. It did not fulfill its intention of discouraging the often exploitive hiring of undocumented workers. Conservative critics pointed to its amnesty as a beacon for more immigrants.

There was one more serious try in 2013. Sen. Marco Rubio, along with others in the gang of eight four Republicans and four Democrats, advanced a major immigration reform bill through the Senate. However, it failed in the Republican-led House.

Hear more Tennessee voices:Get the weekly opinion newsletter for insightful and thought-provoking columns.

The legislation would have provided border security, made sure foreign workers left the country when their visas expired, put 11 million of those here illegally on a path to citizenship, secure the borders and ensure that foreigners left the United States upon the expiration of their visas. It all fell apart. Rubio stepped back. Immigration reform became impossible, and since then its been a recurring policy failure.

First theres the status of those who came without documentation to the country as children. A majority of Americans favor a path to citizenship for them, but it hasnt happened. And Rubio, once the Republican spokesperson for change, read the party tea leaves and stepped back behind the curtain..

Democrats have not exactly embraced immigration as a major line of demarcation between the parties. The issue has simply become too divisive. People want some kind of reform, but theres no consensus on what that would look like.

Easing a path for citizenship is a persisting, worsening challenge. Millions of those who came illegally and their children are here, working hard and making major contributions. Yes, it is challenging to appear to reward prior illegal behavior. But reality is a compelling concept, and the reality is the status quo is not sustainable. The border is becoming a concept in name only. Another reality is that the country needs the energy and work ethic these newcomers bring.

Ironically, busing newly arrived Venezualians to New York and other cities shows signs of benefiting both the asylum-seekers and communities in need of willing workers. Thats always been the point of common interest that just might encourage a few brave political souls to take on this mission and motivate those in their separate but adjacent theaters to cautiously cheer them on.

Theres an opportunity, if anyone chooses to accept it, for the kind of political heroics that can only come from a willing suspension of political disbelief. And, of course, with a very large dose of courage.

William Lyons is Director of Policy Partnerships for the Howard Baker Jr. Center for Public Policy and Professor Emeritus of Political Science at the University of Tennessee. He also served as Chief Policy Officer for Knoxville Mayors Bill Haslam, Daniel Brown and Madeline Rogero.

The views and opinions expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Howard Baker Jr. Center for Public Policy or the University of Tennessee.

Read this article:
Mission Impossible: Immigration reform and the suspension of disbelief - Knoxville News Sentinel

Gov. Charlie Baker criticized national Republicans and Democrats Monday, who he said have used a group of Venezuelan migrants sent to Marthas Vineyard earlier this month to score political points.

A group of 50 migrants unexpectedly landed on the island nearly two weeks ago at the behest of Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, who quickly claimed credit for flying them from San Antonio, Texas, to Massachusetts. It was a move that renewed a national conversation over immigration policy, outraged locals, and touched off a lawsuit filed in federal court in Boston.

Baker said he has watched national Republicans and Democrats who are jockeying to run for president tee off on each other, a situation he said does not help solve the problem of immigration reform.

What we really need is immigration reform in this country, Baker said on GBHs Boston Public Radio. Ive been saying this for over 10 years, and it means that both Republicans and Democrats would have to compromise, and they would probably lose some edge that they might currently have with this issue. But the vast majority of the country would like to have this issue dealt with. And I think the way its being dealt with now gets us nowhere.

Baker, who has decided not to run for reelection and is now a lame-duck governor, also backed off criticizing DeSantis for the move, which some Democrats on Beacon Hill have described as a political stunt.

Im not running for president, he said. So why engage in what is obviously a presidential debate.

The migrants, many of whom had crossed thousands of miles before ending up Texas, were shuttled off Marthas Vineyard after spending two nights in a local church. Officials on the island scrambled to provide immediate shelter, food, medical services and legal assistance when they first arrived on two private jets.

The Baker administration moved the group to Joint Base Cape Cod, and in the weeks since, a debate over proper immigration policies, challenges communities face at the southern border, and how unauthorized immigrants should be dealt with has ensued.

Boston-based legal firm Lawyers for Civil Rights also filed a lawsuit in federal court last week where they are asking a judge to prohibit DeSantis from transporting migrants across the county. The suit alleges the Florida governor violated the Constitutional rights of the migrants, as well as other federal laws.

DeSantis Communications Director Taryn Fenske said in a statement that it is opportunistic that activists would use illegal immigrants for political theater.

If these activists spent even a fraction of this time and effort at the border, perhaps some accountability would be brought to the Biden Administrations reckless border policies that entice illegal immigrants to make dangerous and often lethal journeys through Central America and put their lives in the hands of cartels and Coyotes, Fenske said in a statement.

Baker said many of the migrants left Texas before they were processed by immigration officials.

One of the reasons why theres been a lot of activity with the attorneys is to actually clean up a lot of the work that normally would have happened when they were in Texas, he said, adding some of the migrants have already left Massachusetts to stay with friends and family.

Florida public records show the DeSantis administration paid out a total of $1.5 million to Vertol Systems Company Inc. for a relocation program of unauthorized aliens, including $615,000 a week before the migrants landed in Massachusetts and $950,000 the day after they arrived.

Top Democrats in Florida have asked their House speaker and budget chief to formally object to the spending, which they argue is contrary to a $12 million program the states Legislature authorized over the summer to send unauthorized aliens out of state.

Baker said immigration policy in the United States should be enforceable.

Canada, many other countries that we consider to be sort of moderate on this issue, have figured it out, he said. Theres no reason why we cant if we want to.

More:
Bluster over migrants sent to Mass. impeding immigration reform, Baker says - MassLive.com