Mediaboss Marketing

Immigration reform is a term used in political discussion regarding changes to current immigration policy of a country. In its strict definition, "reform" means to change into an improved form or condition, by amending or removing faults or abuses.[1] In the political sense, "immigration reform" may include promoted, expanded, or open immigration, as well as reduced or eliminated immigration.

"Immigration reform" in the United States of America is widely used to describe proposals to increase legal immigration while decreasing illegal immigration, such as the guest worker proposal supported by President George W. Bush. Illegal immigration is a controversial issue in the United States. Proponents of greater immigration enforcement argue that illegal tarnish the public image of immigrants, cost taxpayers an estimated $338.3 billion, and jeopardize the safety of law enforcement officials and citizens, especially along the Mexican border.[2]

Vicente Fox, former Mexican president, writes that in 2001, President George W. Bush, and the leadership of both parties of Congress were about to pass significant immigration reform legislation benefiting Mexican emigration to the U.S.[3]

The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 made it illegal to hire or recruit illegal immigrants, but left the immigration system without a key component - a workable non-immigrant visa system program for lesser-skilled workers to enter the United States. Following the 1986 amnesty, almost 12 million undocumented workers came across the U.S. border. It was estimated that this undocumented workforce made up about five percent of the U.S. workforce. It was also estimated that about 70 percent of those undocumented workers were from the country of Mexico.[4]

In 2006, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Border Protection, Anti-terrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005, and in 2006 the U.S. Senate passed the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006. Neither bill became law because their differences could not be reconciled in conference committee.[5] The legislative negotiations and national activism behind immigration reform from 2001-2007 is the subject of 12-part documentary film series How Democracy Works Now.

In 2009 the immigration reform became a hot topic, since the Barack Obama administration recently signaled interest in beginning a discussion on comprehensive immigration reform before year's end.[6][7] The proposed comprehensive immigration reform plan had as its goal bipartisan support and includes six sections designed to have "something for everyone." These six sections are: (1) to fix border enforcement, (2) interior enforcement, such as preventing visa overstays, (3) preventing people from working without a work permit, (4) creating a committee to adapt the number of visas available to changing economic times, (5) an 'amnesty' type of program to legalize undocumented immigrants, and (6) programs to help immigrants adjust to life in the United States.[8]

A 2010 academic study[citation needed] has shown that when immigration issues receive national media attention, established residents living in places that have seen influx of new immigrants suddenly become much more politicized against immigration. This suggests that it is not the influx of new residents or new proximity to established residents that stir anti-immigrant sentiments; rather, resentment is spurred by the heated and prominent nature of the debate itself[dubious discuss]. The study, done by Georgetown University and published in the American Political Science Review, Politicized Places: Explaining Where and When Immigrants Provoke Local Opposition, examined more than twelve different surveys relating to immigration and local anti-immigration ordinances, spanning the years 1992 to 2009. During a period of high national attention to immigration, anti-immigration attitudes among established residents in fast-changing counties increase by 9.9%. The studys author states that ethnic and racial surroundings appear to affect Americans political attitudes far less than previously thought: Those who live near larger proportions of immigrants do not consistently exhibit more negative attitudes. Rather, the author concludes, day-to-day encounters can be shaped by salient national issues.[9]

On January 28, 2013, a bi-partisan group of eight Senators announced principles for comprehensive immigration reform (CIR). The Senators involved include: Chuck Schumer of New York, Dick Durbin of Illinois, Bob Menendez of New Jersey, and Michael Bennet of Colorado, and Republicans John McCain of Arizona, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Marco Rubio of Florida, and Jeff Flake of Arizona.[10]

The policies envisioned by the Senators include the following provisions:

In April 2013, according to Congressional Quarterly, the existence of a bipartisan group of lawmakers working to reform immigration was revealed during a question and answer session at a Ripon Society event with House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH).[12]

Here is the original post:

Immigration reform - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Americas immigration system is broken. Too many employers game the system by hiring undocumented workers and there are 11 million people living in the shadows. Neither is good for the economy or the country.

Together we can build a fair, effective and common sense immigration system that lives up to our heritage as a nation of laws and a nation of immigrants.

The Presidents plan builds a smart, effective immigration system that continues efforts to secure our borders and cracks down on employers who hire undocumented immigrants. Its a plan that requires anyone whos undocumented to get right with the law by paying their taxes and a penalty, learning English, and undergoing background checks before they can be eligible to earn citizenship. It requires every business and every worker to play by the same set of rules.

Vea esta seccin en Espaol.

The Presidents proposal gives law enforcement the tools they need to make our communities safer from crime, enhances our infrastructure and technology, and strengthens our ability to remove criminals and apprehend and prosecute threats to our national security.

Legal immigration should be simple and efficient. The Presidents proposal provides visas to foreign entrepreneurs looking to start businesses here, helps the most promising foreign graduate students in science and math stay in this country after graduation, and reunites families in a timely and humane manner.

The Presidents proposal provides undocumented immigrants with a legal way to earn citizenship so they can come out of the shadows. It holds them accountable by requiring they pass background checks, pay taxes and a penalty, go to the back of the line, and learn English. It requires everyone to play by the same rules.

The Presidents proposal is designed to stop businesses from exploiting the system by knowingly hiring undocumented workers. It holds these companies accountable, and gives employers who want to play by the rules a reliable way to verify that their employees are here legally.

To learn more about the Presidents efforts to advance immigration reform, read the Immigration Blueprint [PDF].

Thank You

Read the rest here:

Immigration | The White House

Nearly half ofimmigrantsfacing deportation from the US are now winning their cases before animmigrationjudge, their highest success rate in more than 20 years, says a new report.

Nearly half ofimmigrantsfacing deportation from the US are now winning their cases before animmigrationjudge, their highest success rate in more than 20 years, according to a new analysis of court data published Thursday.

Subscribe Today to the Monitor

Click Here for your FREE 30 DAYS of The Christian Science Monitor Weekly Digital Edition

The US government has been losing more deportation cases each year since 2009, according to the Transaction Records Clearinghouse at Syracuse University, which collects and studies federal prosecution records.

It does not say how many deportation casesImmigrationand Customs Enforcement, whose lawyers represent the government inimmigrationcourts, successfully appealed to the Board ofImmigrationAppeals. The government can appealimmigrationcourt rulings to the Board ofImmigrationAppeals, part of the Justice Department.

Since the start of the 2014 budget year in October,immigrationjudges ruled in favor ofimmigrantsin about half of the 42,816 cases heard, TRAC reported. In 2013 the government won about 52 percent of cases.

Immigrantsin California, New York and Oregon have been most successful recently, while judges in Georgia, Louisiana and Utah have sided more often with the government, according to TRAC.

Immigrationsupporters accuse the Obama administration of deporting too many people, but Republicans say the president is too lenient onimmigrantsliving in the country illegally.

Nearly 2 millionimmigrantshave been removed byImmigrationand Customs Enforcement under President Barack Obama.

Read this article:

Immigration reform: More and more deportations are defeated in court

Distilled to their discouraging essence, Republicans reasons for retreating from immigration reform reflect waning confidence in American culture and in the political mission only Republicans can perform restoring U.S. economic vigor. Without this, the nation will have a dismal future only Democrats can relish: government growing in order to allocate scarce opportunity.

Many Republicans say addressing immigration will distract from a winning focus on Obamacare. But a mature party avoids monomania, and Obamacares manifold defects are obvious enough that voters will not require nine more months of reminders.

Many Republicans say immigration policy divides their party. If, however, the party becomes a gaggle of veto groups enforcing unanimities, it will become what completely harmonious parties are: small.

Many Republicans see in immigrants only future Democratic votes. This descent into Democratic-style identity politics is unworthy of Republicans, and unrealistic. U.S. history tells a consistent story the party identified with prosperity, and hence opportunity, prospers.

Many Republicans have understandable cultural concerns, worrying that immigrants from this hemisphere do not experience the psychological guillotine that severed trans-Atlantic immigrants from prior allegiances. But are there data proving that U.S. culture has lost its assimilative power? Thirty-five percent of illegal adult immigrants have been here at least 15 years, 28 percent for 10 to 14 years and only 15 percent for less than five years. Thirty-five percent own their homes. Are we sure they are resisting assimilation?

Many Republicans rightly say that control of borders is an essential ingredient of national sovereignty. But net immigration from Mexico has recently been approximately zero. Border Patrol spending, which quadrupled in the 1990s, tripled in the 2000s. With illegal entries near a 40-year low, and a 2012 Government Accountability Office assessment that border security was then 84 percent effective, will a border surge of $30 billion more for the further militarization (actually, the East Germanization) of the 1,969 miles assuage remaining worries?

Many Republicans say Barack Obama cannot be trusted to enforce reforms. This is, however, no reason for not improving immigration laws that subsequent presidents will respect. Besides, the Obama administrations deportations are, if anything, excessive, made possible by post-9/11 technological and manpower resources. As the Economist tartly noted, a mass murder committed by mostly Saudi terrorists resulted in an almost limitless amount of money being made available for the deportation of Mexican house-painters.

Many Republicans say immigration runs counter to U.S. social policies aiming to reduce the number of people with low levels of skill and education, and must further depress the wages of Americans at the bottom of the economic ladder, who are already paying the price for todays economic anemia. This is true. But so is this: The Congressional Budget Office says an initial slight reduction of low wages (0.1 percent in a decade) will be followed by increased economic growth partly attributable to immigrants. Immigration is the entrepreneurial act of taking the risk of uprooting oneself and plunging into uncertainty. Small wonder, then, that immigrants are about 20 percent of owners of small businesses, and that more than 40 percent of Fortune 500 companies were founded by immigrants or their children.

George W. Bush was the first president since Woodrow Wilson to serve two terms and leave office with the average household income lower than when he entered it. Obama may be the second when he leaves during the eighth year of a wretched recovery. Forty-seven percent of the House Republican conference has been in Washington 37 months or less; 21 percent of them have never held any other elective office. Many plunged into politics because they were dismayed about the nations trajectory under the current president and his predecessor. Many are understandably disposed against immigration because they have only dim memories of a more dynamic United States and have little aptitude for politics suited to, and aimed at restoring, vibrancy.

Some Depression-era progressives, expecting capitalisms crisis to produce a prolonged and perhaps permanent scarcity of jobs, hoped Social Security would open jobs for the young by encouraging older workers to retire. Progressives often are ambivalent about scarcities because they see themselves as administrators of rationing. But President Bill Clinton, refuting opposition much of it from Democrats to the North American Free Trade Agreement, splendidly said: Protectionism is just a fancy word for giving up.

Read more:

Will: Why immigration reform matters

Distilled to their discouraging essence, Republicans reasons for retreating from immigration reform reflect waning confidence in American culture and in the political mission only Republicans can perform restoring Americas economic vigor. Without this, the nation will have a dismal future only Democrats can relish: government growing in order to allocate scarce opportunity.

Many Republicans say addressing immigration will distract from a winning focus on Obamacare. But a mature party avoids monomania, and Obamacares manifold defects are obvious enough that voters will not require nine more months of reminders.

Many Republicans say immigration policy divides their party. If, however, the party becomes a gaggle of veto groups enforcing unanimities, it will become what completely harmonious parties are: small.

Many Republicans see in immigrants only future Democratic votes. This descent into Democratic-style identity politics is unworthy of Republicans, and unrealistic. U.S. history tells a consistent story the party identified with prosperity, and hence opportunity, prospers.

Many Republicans have understandable cultural concerns, worrying that immigrants from this hemisphere do not experience the psychological guillotine that severed trans-Atlantic immigrants from prior allegiances. But is there data proving that American culture has lost its assimilative power? Thirty-five percent of illegal adult immigrants have been here at least 15 years, 28 percent for 10 to 14 years and only 15 percent for less than five years. Thirty-five percent own their homes. Are we sure they are resisting assimilation?

Many Republicans rightly say control of borders is an essential ingredient of national sovereignty. But net immigration from Mexico has recently been approximately zero. Border Patrol spending, which quadrupled in the 1990s, tripled in the 2000s. With illegal entries near a 40-year low, and a 2012 Government Accountability Office assessment that border security was then 84 percent effective, will a border surge of $30 billion more for the further militarization (actually, the East Germanization) of the 1,969 miles assuage remaining worries?

Many Republicans say Barack Obama cannot be trusted to enforce reforms. This is, however, no reason for not improving immigration laws that subsequent presidents will respect. Besides, the Obama administrations deportations are, if anything, excessive, made possible by post-9/11 technological and manpower resources. As The Economist tartly notes, a mass murder committed by mostly Saudi terrorists resulted in an almost limitless amount of money being made available for the deportation of Mexican house-painters.

Many Republicans say immigration runs counter to U.S. social policies aiming to reduce the number of people with low levels of skill and education, and must further depress the wages of Americans who, at the bottom of the economic ladder, are already paying the price for todays economic anemia. This is true. But so is this: The Congressional Budget Office says an initial slight reduction of low wages (0.1 percent in a decade) will be followed by increased economic growth partly attributable to immigrants. Immigration is the entrepreneurial act of taking the risk of uprooting oneself and plunging into uncertainty. Small wonder, then, that immigrants are about 20 percent of owners of small businesses, and that more than 40 percent of Fortune 500 companies were founded by immigrants or their children.

View original post here:

George F. Will: Why immigration reform matters