Arizonans for Immigration Reform

WE CONTINUE TO OPPOSE SB1070

2010-04-01T14:58:00.000-07:00

The Arizona Interfaith Network and Arizonans for Immigration Reform continue to oppose SB1070 because of the many problems cited by Fr. Glenn Jenks in his testimony on March 31 before the House Military Affairs and Public Safety Committee, which went well beyond the one concern reported by the Arizona Republic in the following article.

They included:

Employers will face increased scrutiny of their employment practices which could discourage them from hiring Latinos in order to avoid lawsuits.
Arizona’s economy will be hurt by driving away Latinos, who do pay taxes, and by discouraging new businesses from moving to Arizona.
Members of the Latino community will feel less willing to cooperate with law enforcement for fear of being challenged regarding their citizenship status.
Law enforcement officers will be authorized to arrest, without a warrant, any person the officer believes to be in Arizona without legal documentation.
Volunteers driving elderly to appointments could be found guilty of unlawful transporting if they had reason to believe the passenger was undocumented. Personal vehicles could be impounded if the driver were charged with unlawful transport.

April 1, 2010 Arizona Republic: House Weighs Migrant Bill

For a print version, click here.

THE RIGHT WAY TO MEND IMMIGRATION

2010-03-19T16:07:00.003-07:00

To view the original article, click here.

By Charles E. Schumer and Lindsey O. Graham

Friday, March 19, 2010
Our immigration system is badly broken. Although our borders have become far more secure in recent years, too many people seeking illegal entry get through. We have no way to track whether the millions who enter the United States on valid visas each year leave when they are supposed to. And employers are burdened by a complicated system for verifying workers' immigration status.
Last week we met with President Obama to discuss our draft framework for action on immigration. We expressed our belief that America's security and economic well-being depend on enacting sensible immigration policies.
The answer is simple: Americans overwhelmingly oppose illegal immigration and support legal immigration. Throughout our history, immigrants have contributed to making this country more vibrant and economically dynamic. Once it is clear that in 20 years our nation will not again confront the specter of another 11 million people coming here illegally, Americans will embrace more welcoming immigration policies.
Our plan has four pillars: requiring biometric Social Security cards to ensure that illegal workers cannot get jobs; fulfilling and strengthening our commitments on border security and interior enforcement; creating a process for admitting temporary workers; and implementing a tough but fair path to legalization for those already here.
Besides border security, ending illegal immigration will also require an effective employment verification system that holds employers accountable for hiring illegal workers. A tamper-proof ID system would dramatically decrease illegal immigration, experts have said, and would reduce the government revenue lost when employers and workers here illegally fail to pay taxes.
We would require all U.S. citizens and legal immigrants who want jobs to obtain a high-tech, fraud-proof Social Security card. Each card's unique biometric identifier would be stored only on the card; no government database would house everyone's information. The cards would not contain any private information, medical information, nor tracking devices. The card will be a high-tech version of the Social Security card that citizens already have.
Prospective employers would be responsible for swiping the cards through a machine to confirm a person's identity and immigration status. Employers who refused to swipe the card or who otherwise knowingly hired unauthorized workers would face stiff fines and, for repeat offenses, prison sentences.
We propose a zero-tolerance policy for gang members, smugglers, terrorists and those who commit other felonies after coming here illegally. We would bolster recent efforts to secure our borders by increasing the Border Patrol's staffing and funding for infrastructure and technology. More personnel would be deployed to the border immediately to fill gaps in apprehension capabilities.
Other steps include expanding domestic enforcement to better apprehend and deport those who commit crimes and completing an entry-exit system that tracks people who enter the United States on legal visas and reports those who overstay their visas to law enforcement databases.
Ending illegal immigration, however, cannot be the sole objective of reform. Developing a rational legal immigration system is essential to ensuring America's future economic prosperity.
Ensuring economic prosperity requires attracting the world's best and brightest. Our legislation would award green cards to immigrants who receive a PhD or master's degree in science, technology, engineering or math from a U.S. university. It makes no sense to educate the world's future inventors and entrepreneurs and then force them to leave when they are able to contribute to our economy.
Our blueprint also creates a rational system for admitting lower-skilled workers. Our current system prohibits lower-skilled immigrants from coming here to earn money and then returning home. Our framework would facilitate this desired circular migration by allowing employers to hire immigrants if they can show they were unsuccessful in recruiting an American to fill an open position; allowing more lower-skilled immigrants to come here when our economy is creating jobs and fewer in a recession; and permitting workers who have succeeded in the workplace, and contributed to their communities over many years, the chance to earn a green card.
For the 11 million immigrants already in this country illegally, we would provide a tough but fair path forward. They would be required to admit they broke the law and to pay their debt to society by performing community service and paying fines and back taxes. These people would be required to pass background checks and be proficient in English before going to the back of the line of prospective immigrants to earn the opportunity to work toward lawful permanent residence.
The American people deserve more than empty rhetoric and impractical calls for mass deportation. We urge the public and our colleagues to join our bipartisan efforts in enacting these reforms.
Charles E. Schumer is a Democratic senator from New York. Lindsey O. Graham is a Republican senator from South Carolina.

UPDATE as of MARCH 12, 2010

2010-03-15T10:13:00.000-07:00

The National Conversation on Comprehensive Immigration Reform is slowly beginning. The President met yesterday with Senators Charles Schumer (NY) and Lindsey Graham (SC) to discuss their ideas for a comprehensive immigration reform bill. All gave their verbal support to fix the nation’s broken immigration system, but substantial obstacles still remain: completion of health care reform, the narrowing window for debate given the mid-term elections, and finding a second Senate Republican co-sponsor. Still, we await an actual bill to be introduced in the Senate to concretely begin the conversation. This will require both parties to set aside mid-term election concerns.

The White House and Democratic leadership must decide to expend actual political capital, and some Republicans must chose to work in a bi-partisan manner and get behind Comprehensive Immigration Reform legislation. Our strategic work continues to be to build a non-partisan constituency to support passage of national legislation. Civic Academies continue throughout the state and Arizonans for Immigration Reform leaders have been in constant contact with members of the Arizona Congressional Delegation. We are also heavily focused on opposing dangerous state legislation that further targets the undocumented.

Comprehensive Immigration Reform: TOO BIG TO FAIL

2010-01-14T20:28:00.002-07:00

Conventional wisdom has it that the odds are stacked against comprehensive immigration reform passing Congress before the “silly season” of electioneering sets in. The reason, of course, is that Wall Street is prospering once again while Main Street continues to suffer devastating unemployment, frozen small business credit and a new wave of home foreclosures.

Can immigration reform possibly succeed in this environment? We believe the answer is yes, it can. Here’s why.

First, President Obama and the Democratic party cannot afford to fail on this one. They are in too deep. Immigration, perhaps more than any other issue, tests the moral fiber of the President and the political party of which he is a part. Failing to meet this challenge will expose President Obama and his party as the hollowest of politicians incapable of summoning the courage to do what’s right. Last time around in 2007, it was Republicans who failed to do the right thing in the face of political expediency. Now it is entirely in Democrat hands as they dominate both the House and Senate.

Second, as People of Faith, we along with other reform advocates have grown in capacity, political sophistication and unity on this issue. We are willing to fight for comprehensive reform by holding President Obama and the Democrat Party’s feet to the moral fire. We are capable of spelling out the irreparable damage to President Obama and the Democrats that will flow from failure to fix the broken immigration system this year. Our growing capacity in this regard, as it becomes part of the larger political calculus, will help drive immigration reform home to a successful conclusion.

Where Immigrants Contribute Most to Economic Growth

2009-12-11T11:00:00.000-07:00

Another good study on immigration and the economy was recently published by the Fiscal Policy Institute. One of the more interesting points in the study shows that the cities with the least increase in immigrant workforce from 1990 to 2005 were also the areas with the least amount of economic growth during that period.

Detroit, Pittsburgh, and Cleveland all had fewer than 4.5% increases in immigrant workers for that 15 year period. Out of the 25 most populous cities in the U.S., those three were at the bottom in terms of economic growth. While the U.S. average percentage of growth was 48%, those three cities fell well below the average all under 23%.

In contrast, Phoenix had a 12.4% increase in immigrant participation during that time frame and Phoenix was number one on the list as far as percentage points for economic growth, at 126%. Only Dallas had a larger jump in immigrants joining the workforce with a 12.6% increase and their economy grew 73% during the time period.

This study is another method to rebuke claims that immigrants do not play an integral role in our economy. Rather than spreading the fear of economic woe due to immigrant participation, we should be confident that immigrants not only contribute in a meaningful manner, but would continue to do so moving forward.

NAPOLITANO'S STRONG STATEMENT

2009-11-20T09:25:00.000-07:00

On Friday November 13th, Secretary Janet Napolitano delivered an important address on Immigration Reform http://www.dhs.gov/ynews/speeches/sp_1258123461050.shtm. It's worth reading the entire text. In it, she reiterated the Administration’s commitment to Comprehensive Immigration Reform. “So even as we press to end this recession and get America back to work, we are determined to deal with long lingering problems that cloud our future. And another problem that has been punted from year to year, from Congress to Congress, from Administration to Administration, is the clear need for immigration reform.”

The Secretary went on to explain, “Over the past ten months, we’ve worked to improve immigration enforcement and border security within the current legal framework. But the more work we do, the more it becomes clear that the laws themselves need to be reformed.” Napolitano's approach to ‘immigration reform’ includes a “three-legged stool”:

a serious commitment to effective enforcement,
improved legal flows for families and workers,
and a "firm but fair" way to deal with those who are already here.

Napolitano's speech notwithstanding, any attempt to put her ideas into law is certain to face a political firestorm. Walter Shapiro, of the New York Times, describes the political climate in Washington D.C. in his November 17th article, Immigration, Yet Another Issue: How Many Hard Votes Can Congress Take?
As Shapiro observes, “The President may be ‘fully committed,’ but so is Congress, which is already up to its neck with health care and climate change legislation, financial regulation and a stomach-wrenching recession.” Simon Rosenberg, the president of NDN, a D.C. think tank, stated that “Unlike health-care, this will be more of a political debate than a legislative debate, since we know the contours legislatively.”

The fact remains that Comprehensive Immigration Reform will be won or lost outside the confines of Washington D.C. It will be won or lost in congregations, neighborhoods, businesses and labor unions. That is why it is our responsibility to become as informed as possible on this issue and engage others. Our call is to continue to move the debate forward.

WORKERS' RIGHTS & IMMIGRATION REFORM

2009-11-19T10:22:00.000-07:00

An important new study powerfully demonstrates the need for comprehensive immigration reform from the perspective of the rights of workers and their families as well as service to the common good.

The report entitled “Iced Out: How Immigration Enforcement has Interfered with Workers’ Rights” was written by the AFL-CIO. It establishes the fact that despite United States Supreme Court protection of undocumented immigrants under the National Labor Relations Act, (See Sure-Tran, Inc v. NLRB, 467 U.S. 883, at 892 (1984)), immigration enforcement without due consideration of workplace law violations allows employers to violate the rights of workers without fear of prosecution. In fact, attempts by workers to secure their rights often have been and continue to be met with deportation or the threat thereof. Examinations of substandard wages and other workplace abuses under existing labor laws are buried by the deportation of the workers involved.

One consequence of this practice is that business owners trying to do the right thing often end up resorting to slashing the wages of their own workers in order to remain competitive with the bad actors.

This perverse, not to mention immoral, race to the bottom will cease only when comprehensive reform becomes a reality and laws pertaining to employers and employees alike are fairly enforced. Arizonans for Immigration Reform encourages conversations about these morally and economically challenging realities.

POLITICAL IMPACT ON IMMIGRATION REFORM

2009-11-16T10:01:00.003-07:00

Internal divisions within the Republican Party will have major impact on the coming Congressional debate over comprehensive immigration reform. The New York Times has recently published two articles describing this shifting ground.

On November 3rd, in the article entitled, Conservative Loses Upstate House Race in Blow to Right, New York’s northernmost district is featured. The 23rd District had been a Republican stronghold and has been represented by a Republican candidate since the 19th century. When President Obama appointed long serving Republican Congressman, John M. McHugh, as Secretary of the Army, the seat became vacant and a special election was called. Eleven leaders of the county committees that encompass the vast congressional district nominated Dede Scozzafava to be the Republican candidate. This drew the ire of “conservative” members of the party such as Sarah Palin, Minn. Gov. Tim Pawlenty, Rush Limbaugh, and Glenn Beck. A Conservative Party candidate, Douglas L. Hoffman, was supported by most of Washington’s “conservative establishment” and the result was a Democrat winning the seat after over a century of Republican control.

On November 11th, the New York Times also reported S.C. Senator Gets Slammed Back Home. Senator Lindsey Graham was rebuked by a unanimous Charleston County Republican vote “for many of the positions he has taken that do not represent the wishes of the people of South Carolina, such as: passing a ‘cap and trade’ energy bill, bailing out banks and granting amnesty for illegal aliens.” A spokesman for Sen. Graham responded, “Like former President Reagan, he strongly believes elected officials need to find common ground and work together to solve difficult problems…Working to solve problems and being conservative are not mutually exclusive.”

Voters in the moderate middle of hotly contested congressional races will hold the key to what, if anything, happens with comprehensive immigration reform in 2010. We have our work cut out for us!

EMPLOYER SANCTIONS LEGAL BATTLE

2009-11-09T20:02:00.002-07:00

The United States Supreme Court has recently requested that the Obama administration declare its position on Arizona’s employer-sanctions law. The law, passed in 2007, “punishes companies for hiring illegal immigrants and requires all Arizona employers to use a federal electronic system (E-verify) to verify the work status of employees.” (See Justices may hear disputed Arizona law)

The Arizona Republic believes that the Supreme Court may be interested in hearing the case. According to the Republic, “A coalition of business groups, immigrant-rights advocates and civil-liberties groups maintains that the 2007 law is unconstitutional because it infringes on the federal government’s authority over immigration laws and mandates the use of the federal government’s electronic-verification system…even though it is a voluntary program.”

Recently, we wrote a post concerning State’s rights and the Supremacy Clause. This case may help define the limits of a states authority when it comes to legislating Immigration.

“At the end of the day, we still feel that immigration lies at the federal level,” said Glenn Hamer, president of the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry. “We have this crazy quilt of state and local laws, and we believe this is better left to the federal government, and we certainly see this as an encouraging sign that the Supreme Court will consider the case and make it clear that immigration is a federal matter.”

The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said in a ruling that upheld the law, “(The law) reflects rising frustration with the United States Congress’ failure to enact comprehensive immigration reform.” Last year, during his campaign, President Obama declared that the proliferation of state immigration laws “underscores the need for comprehensive immigration reform so local communities do not continue to take matters into their own hands.”

Two conclusions may be drawn from this article.

The growing discontent with the consequences of a broken federal immigration policy is leading many to call for the U.S. government to enact comprehensive immigration reform.
A widening array of unlikely allies is emerging in response to the local legal chaos engendered by federal inaction.

How or if President Obama makes good on his campaign promise remains to be seen.

RELIGIOUS VOICE NOW PART OF THE DEBATE

2009-10-26T11:33:00.000-07:00

As the much anticipated Congressional debate on Immigration Reform draws near, religious leaders are stepping up efforts to bring a more humane, thoughtful voice to the issue.
The Arizona Republic published an article on October 19 quoting Bishop Minerva Carcaño, Desert Southwest Annual Conference of the United Methodist Church, as follows: “We truly are with you…And we believe that God is on your side too.”

On October 8, testimony was given to the Senate Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees, and Border Security by key religious leaders on Comprehensive Immigration Reform. Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, Archbishop Emeritus of Washington D.C. testified that “Our nation requires an immigration system that marries legal immigration with our long-term economic needs, the principle of family unity, and basic human rights. This will help restore the rule of law to our immigration system. Now, our immigration system accomplishes none of these goals…In truth, the church position in favor of reform seeks to restore the rule of law and provide order and legality to an otherwise chaotic system.”

Cardinal McCarrick outlined the key elements the U.S. Catholic Bishop’s Committee on Migration believes should be addressed in any immigration reform legislation:
1.   Bring the undocumented population in this country out of the shadows and give them a chance, over time, to achieve permanent residency and citizenship.
2.   Preserve family unity by strengthening family-based immigration.
3. Create legal avenues for migration, so that migrant workers, who labor in   many important industries in our nation, are able to enter the country legally and in a sage and orderly fashion.
4. Give immigrants their day in court by restoring due process protections removed in 1996 legislation.

Reverend James A. Tolle, Senior Pastor of The Church on The Way in Los Angeles with over 20,000 members and more than 50,000 affiliated churches also testified before the Subcommittee. Reverend Tolle spoke to the Senate stating: “In Seeking Comprehensive Immigration Reform, I am motivated by the phrase in the Declaration of Independence which states that ‘all men are created equal…with certain unalienable rights.’ Unalienable rights are those human rights which transcend law and the preferences of other people….My pursuit of comprehensive immigration reform comes from Leviticus 19:34, which states, ‘ The stranger who dwells with you shall be unto you just as one born among you, and you shall love him as yourself.”

Values reflection, including exploration of the religious foundations of our commitment to Comprehensive Immigration Reform, will help our state and nation successfully grapple with a broken immigration system that must be fixed.

ARPAIO V. NAPOLITANO/HOLDER

2009-10-19T10:39:00.001-07:00

It would be remiss of us not to comment on the recent media blitz Sheriff Joe Arpaio has stirred up over the last couple of weeks. It all began when the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), headed by former Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano, unveiled an attempt to repair the immigrant detention system rife with human rights abuses. It seems a letter written by Reps. Nydia Velazquez, D-NY and Luis Gutierrez, D-IL, along with concerns raised by organizations like ours, prompted the reconsideration and action.

The Gutierrez/Velazquez letter chided federal officials for their failed oversight of rogue law enforcement under existing law. “We do not believe that allowing state and local police to racially profile and target our immigrant communities inspires confidence in our ability to enact (comprehensive immigration reform),” the Gutierrez/Velazquez letter stated. “It is our experience that state and local law enforcement officials actually use their expanded and often unchecked powers under the program to target immigrants and persons of color. It is our opinion that no amount of reforms, no matter how well-intentioned, will change this disturbing reality.”

Maricopa County has emerged as the test case. In Maricopa County, the new agreement between DHS and Sheriff Joe Arpaio is intended to limit Arpaio and his deputies to checking only the immigration status of jail inmates.

But this assertion of federal authority has prompted Sheriff Arpaio to declare his open and aggressive defiance of federal oversight through word and deed. Congressmen Gutierrez and Velazquez raise the disturbing possibility that future defiance of federal authority may include outright refusal to follow federal statute should some version of comprehensive immigration become the law of the land this spring.

RESPECT FOR HUMAN LIFE

2009-10-12T06:41:00.001-07:00

Whatever a person's feelings about the immigration issue, we can all agree that human life is precious.

According to the Washington Post last week (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/29/AR2009092903212_pf.html) there are already more reported deaths this year due to border crossings than all of last year. Even though most border agencies are reporting less people attempting to come across the border, the death toll in the desert continues to rise.

In the last fifteen years, there has been a concerted, mostly successful effort to block men, women and children from entering into the U.S. through urban border towns such as El Paso and San Diego. As a result, increasing numbers of these families are choosing to cross through more dangerous, more remote desert areas, like along our Arizona border. Their decision to cross despite the warnings and very real dangers is a testimony to their determination.

Every 24 hours one of them dies - from thirst, starvation, extreme weather, fatigue or some combination.

Arizonans for Immigration Reform respects life, all human life. We know that the tragedy of desperation and death played out on Arizona's border will only end with the passage of comprehensive immigration reform. Respect for human life should be an important part of moral conversations about immigration reform now ongoing in congregations throughout our state.

IMMIGRATION: A FEDERAL ISSUE?

2009-10-02T10:44:00.001-07:00

“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” Article VI U.S. Constitution Sec 1, cl. 2

The above passage is commonly referred to as the Supremacy Clause. This section of the U.S. Constitution effectively prohibits States and local governments from making laws that are expressly or impliedly regulated by Congress. When dealing with immigration issues, however, the situation becomes muddled. Do the states have authority to make anti or pro-immigration laws?

In 1952, Congress passed the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). This solidified the federal government’s control over immigration. In 1986, Congress passed the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA), which defined the conditions of employment for immigrant and anti-discrimination provisions preventing employers from discriminating against immigrants while complying with the IRCA. So does this answer our question? Not really.

Although Federal laws preempt State and local authorities’ abilities to make laws on the same subject matter, issues become blurred when the Federal Law does not “expressly” regulate a certain issue. In other words, when the federal government leaves gaps, the states attempt to fill them. For example, Secretary of Homeland Security and former Governor Janet Napolitano indicated that “immigration is a federal responsibility, but signed House Bill 2779 [Legal Arizona Workers Act] because it is abundantly clear that Congress finds itself incapable of coping with the comprehensive immigration reform our country needs.” The question becomes even more convoluted when Congress passed the CLEAR (Clear Law Enforcement for Criminal Alien Removal) Act and Homeland Security entered into 287(g) agreements with state and local police. This underlines the importance of Comprehensive Immigration Reform being adopted by Congress.

On September 29th, an Arizona Guardian Headline read, “Pearce tries again for anti-illegal immigration package.” According to the Guardian, State Senator Russell Pearce will again attempt to garner the support needed to pass legislation covering five major components:

• Allow a person to sue a government body that acts to limit or restrict the enforcement of federal immigration laws. It includes fines of $1,000 to $5,000 for government bodies that continue the polices after the actions have been filed.

• Make the act of entering or remaining in Arizona in violation of federal law a state crime as well. The measure would allow local law-enforcement authorities to arrest suspected illegal immigrants on state trespass charges, or to turn over suspected illegal immigrants to federal authorities for deportation.

• Provide the state attorney general and county attorneys new subpoena authority in employer sanctions cases.

• Make it illegal for illegal immigrants to solicit day work, and for anyone with an Arizona business license to aid, harbor, conceal or transport illegal immigrants for day work. It includes mandatory fines of $1,000 for every illegal immigrant being transported and the mandatory impoundment of a vehicle used to transport workers.

• Make it a misdemeanor for employers not to sign up use the federal E-Verify system, which is already required for employers.

Former Republican Presidential Candidate Mike Huckabee, while Governor of Arkansas, strongly opposed a proposed Arkansas law that would have denied immigrants public services because he saw the law “as inflammatory…race-baiting and demagoguery…{The bill} inflames those who are racist and bigots and makes them think there’s a real problem. But there’s not.”

Action by Congress to adopt Comprehensive Immigration Reform will reassert the authority of the Supremacy Clause and preempt States and localities from enacting the kind of anti-immigrant, socially inflammatory, and economically self-destructive legislation embraced by Senator Pearce and his followers.

***Based on Research Paper by Karla M. McKanders, The Constitutionality of State and Local Laws Targeting Immigrants, May 2009.

HEALTH CARE AND IMMIGRATION REFORM

2009-09-29T14:04:00.001-07:00

During the last few months, the debate over health care reform has been increasingly linked to the immigration issue. Opponents of Comprehensive Immigration Reform have sought to tar health care legislation with the claim that illegal immigrants will receive benefits at taxpayer’s expense.

There is in fact a major problem with some of the bills circulating in Congress but it has nothing to do with benefits going to the undocumented.

As of now about 7 million legal immigrants in the United States do not have any health insurance at all. In addition, most of the 4 million U.S. citizen children of undocumented parents are also not insured. These realities, not the false claims of immigration reform opponents, require action.

As Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-IL) recently put it, "We understood that undocumented immigrants would get no taxpayer subsidy, and that there would be a verification system… ‘We said 'okay.' Bitter pills were swallowed." But after Rep. Joe Wilson’s "You Lie" outburst during President Obama’s recent speech to Congress, "… the White House started saying that illegal immigrants cannot even purchase health care on the free market health care exchange." Rep. Gutierrez went on to address the U.S. citizen children of illegal immigrants who are also at risk of not receiving health care, although legally entitled to it. "Last time I checked 3rd and 4th graders don't go around buying health insurance for themselves, they get it from their parents…To deny the parents is to deny their children."

Rep. Gutierrez is not alone. Senators Rockefeller (D-WV), Menendez (D-NJ) and Bingham (D-NM) co-sponsored legislation that would eliminate the current 5-year period legal immigrants must wait in order to participate in government programs such as Medicaid. Currently tax-paying legal permanent residents and other legal immigrants fall under existing rules that bar them from health coverage for the five year period.

"Five years is a long time to have to rely on the emergency room for expensive coverage (that we all pay for) and it is a lifetime for a child. It is fiscally and socially wise to include all tax-payers equally in a reformed health insurance system," said Ali Noorani, Executive Director of National Immigration Forum. (www.immigrationforum.org )

Once again, we are calling for deep, thoughtful conversations about these issues informed by careful study and concern for the common good. We believe these conversations will help inform congressional deliberations as they go forward.

POSITIVE IMPACT OF IMMIGRANTS ON ARIZONA'S ECONOMY

2009-09-18T12:28:00.002-07:00

Positive Impact of Immigrants on Arizona’s Economy Opponents of comprehensive immigration reform regularly trot out the claim that immigrants are a drain on Arizona’s economy due to the governmental benefits they receive. They have it wrong.

The Immigration Policy Center recently put together an excellent 3 page fact sheet (http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/images/File/factcheck/New%20Americans%20in%20the%20Grand%20Canyon%20State%202009.pdf ) proving that in 2004 immigrant workers contributed $2.4 billion in state tax revenue. The total economic output attributable to Arizona’s immigrant workers was $44 billion in 2004, which sustained roughly 400,000 full time jobs.

Efforts to paint immigrants as the recipients of “our hard earned tax dollars” who give nothing back to our communities, state and nation are false and misleading. As the immigration reform debate moves forward in Arizona, the net positive contributions of immigrant families to our society’s economic well being should be front and center. We need to create the space and take the time in our congregations and communities to explore this reality.

IMMIGRATION AND EMPLOYMENT

2009-09-11T13:36:00.002-07:00

Several new studies examine the actions of employers who take advantage of undocumented workers for purposes of squeezing extra dollars for themselves. What is made clear in these studies is that both immigrant families and our society as a whole are negatively impacted by our broken immigration system. Two studies in particular, one by the National Employment Law Center (NELP) (http://nelp.3cdn.net/59719b5a36109ab7d8_5xm6bc9ap.pdf) and the other by the Cato Institute (http://www.freetrade.org/node/949) examine this issue.

The NELP study establishes conclusively that undocumented workers in this country are often paid less than the minimum wage, are rarely paid for overtime, and endure conditions that are unhealthy and dehumanizing. In some respects, the situation in which immigrant workers find themselves resembles slave labor. In addition, when the wage bar is set lower than U.S. labor laws allow, honest employers who do not hire undocumented workers are forced to drive down wages for all employees in order to stay competitive.

In Los Angeles, Chicago, and New York taken together more than $56.4 million dollars are lost in any given week due to employment and labor law violations. If immigrant workers were paid an honest wage these wages would become taxable and reduce the tax burden on the rest of us. Sales tax revenues would be boosted if immigrant workers were paid an honest wage.

In the second study by the Cato Institute, a conservative think tank, researchers calculated that establishing a visa tax would raise $180 billion new dollars annually. The Cato study also finds that when compared with a strict immigration/deportation policy, a Comprehensive Immigration Reform bill that allows for a guest-worker program would yield a $260 billion dollar benefit to American households.

In summary, because undocumented workers from other countries receive far less than their worth for work being done, the wages of our society as a whole suffer. Systemic violation of U.S. Labor standards by unscrupulous employers causes us all to suffer. Conversely, regularizing the status of immigrant workers will pay dividends for all.

Far from being the economic drain that adversaries of immigration reform claim, Comprehensive Immigration Reform in fact will redress moral wrongs while promoting national economic well being.

REMEMBERING KENNEDY, LOOKING FORWARD

2009-09-04T10:37:00.002-07:00

As Americans mourn the passing of Senator Edward Kennedy, those of us committed to immigration reform must come to terms with the loss of a staunch ally. The first major bill Senator Kennedy managed to pass was the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 – an answer to the growing frustrations felt by immigrants from such countries as Greece, Poland, Portugal, and Italy. Critics at that time charged that immigration quotas favored Northern and Western Europeans. The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 gave an equal opportunity to newcomers from all nations across the globe.

Since then, Senator Kennedy’s name has been attached to every progressive immigration bill fashioned through bipartisan negotiations, passed by Congress and signed by Presidents in those 44 years. During the same period all restrictive immigration bills drew the Senator’s ire and opposition.

Why was Senator Kennedy such an ardent advocate for immigration reform? When asked, Senator Kennedy referenced his own family history. “There was an enormous sense of discrimination against the immigrants that grew, and discrimination against the Irish—which I remember hearing about in great detail from my grandfather.” He told me that in his world the message relentlessly delivered by nativists was “…no Irish need apply for jobs. They were constantly ostracized and discriminated against, primarily against employment and every other aspect of social-political and economic life.”

Just as Kennedy’s family story helped inform his political positions, we think it’s important for Americans to probe their own family histories as the debate over immigration moves forward. Questions about where we came from and how we got here are central not only to how our own families have pursued the American Dream but also how the nation as a whole has grown in diversity and vitality since our founding.

In the coming months, as Congress attempts to broker a deal on comprehensive immigration reform, we intend to challenge ourselves and others to probe our own family stories as they intersect with the American Story. In so doing we may help strengthen a common narrative thread linking those who have already arrived to those yet to come. Sharing these stories in public conversations large and small may help engender support for the kind of Comprehensive Immigration Reform vigorously endorsed by Senator Edward Kennedy.

--“There are a lot of people who haven’t had opportunities in other places as a result of dictatorships and totalitarian regimes and discrimination. Are we going to say we refuse to let any of those individuals come in because we’ve got someone who has happened to have a more advantaged situation? I’m not sure that’s what this country is all about.” --Edward Kennedy (February 22, 1932 – August 25, 2009)

IMMIGRANTS AND UNEMPLOYMENT

2009-08-28T14:50:00.002-07:00

With Labor Day approaching and many of our families hurting as a result of the recession, misconceptions coupled with feelings of frustration lead some people to want to blame recent immigrants for taking jobs from unemployed citizens. A question asked by many who support Comprehensive Immigration Reform is "How do I debunk the myth that the immigration issue correlates with unemployment, or job loss, in an area?" The Immigration Policy Center just recently completed a three-part report addressing this issue. http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/images/File/specialreport/Part%203%20-%20Unemployed%20Natives%2008-17-09.pdf

The study finds that "there is little apparent relationship between recent immigration and unemployment rates at the regional, state, or county level." By comparing unemployment rates in communities with both more and less immigrant populations, the study finds absolutely no relationship between the two. The fact that a community or state has large presence of immigrant families does not in turn mean that such a community or state has a higher unemployment rate. New York State has 8.2% of their population defined as recent immigrants and yields an unemployment rate of 7.8%. However, states like Maine and Mississippi both have higher unemployment rates (Maine 8.1%; Mississippi 9.4%) while both still having less than 1% of their populations defined as recent immigrants. These examples illustrate the point made in the study.

The study finds that a correlation exists between the unemployment rates in rural areas compared to unemployment rates in metropolitan areas. Overall, counties across the nation that are considered metropolitan have an unemployment rate of only 8.3% while 5.4% of their populations are immigrants. In non-metropolitan counties or rural communities, whose immigrant population is only 1.3% of the total population, unemployment rates are 1.1% higher at 9.4%. The relationship between unemployment rates and communities can best be summed up as to whether the area is rural and has a manufacturer based economy or metropolitan and non-manufacturer based in nature. Immigrants, in fact are more prevalent in areas that offer more jobs and those jobs are found in cities.

When making arguments in defense of a sensible immigration policy, it is best to be well informed and gain a strong basic understanding of the issue. We are confronted everyday with misinformed "facts" and have to educate ourselves in order to best serve our countries needs. Studies such as these can go a long way towards dispelling the myths.

UNDERSTANDING MIXED MESSAGES

2009-08-21T09:37:00.004-07:00

Last week President Obama met with the leaders of both Mexico and Canada to discuss various issues; among them was immigration reform. The President stated publicly that he felt immigration reform would not be addressed until next year, citing health care reform and financial regulation reform as issues that would need to be implemented first. Despite outcry from several pro-immigration reform groups, believing that the President has postponed reform, the timetable is consistent with his message from June of this year.

Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY), who is leading the charge in the Senate for immigration reform, has previously stated that he believes a working draft of the bill will begin to be brought to Senate committees sometime after Congress resumes its session after Labor Day. Senator Schumer's timetable for reform has not deviated from its originally stated schedule and is consistent with the President's remarks from last week. It is believed that draft legislation will be introduced by Senators from both sides of the aisle and will remain in committees through the end of this year. The hopes are that a bill to be voted upon will be ready at the beginning of next year and will be passed sometime in the spring. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) has recently joined Senator Schumer in gaining support from other GOP members. Wes Hickman, a spokesman for Senator Graham, said in a statement that "Senator Graham is ready and willing to play a key role in immigration reform. He intends to work with many of his colleagues on both sides of the aisle." Senator Graham historically has supported the previous efforts to reform immigration policy.

Although many seem to be disappointed with the President's timetable last week and view his remarks as putting immigration reform on the “back burner," it seems clear that nothing has changed in regards to when legislation is to be formed and then hopefully passed. Knowing that a bill will not reach the Senate floor until next year allows time for us to continue to hold workshops in our institutions to broaden the understanding and active support for CIR. This is an opportunity to reach out to other individuals and to keep our Members of Congress informed as to how critical we believe reform of our immigration policy is.

It remains to be seen whether Senator McCain will join Senators Schumer and Graham in leading efforts for CIR. Senator McCain will be facing a primary challenge next year and his opponent, Chris Simcox, is known as the founder of the Minutemen Movement. It will be the challenge of the citizens of Arizona to keep Senator McCain proactive despite the difficult road his reelection may take.

IMMIGRANT DETENTION CENTERS

2009-08-14T16:36:00.006-07:00

A major issue within the framework of Comprehensive Immigration Reform is Detention Centers, those prisons where undocumented persons are held pending resolution of their status.

Three events occurred last week regarding Detention Centers that illustrate the multiple levels at which CIR moves forward.
Two reports documented in exacting detail the deplorable conditions and the inhuman treatment in these facilities, which are operated by a variety of public and private entities with little or no guidelines or oversight.
Action occurred legislatively. Senators Menendez (D-NJ) and Gillibrand (D-NY) introduced bills to correct deficiencies. Thus, detention centers become the third area of CIR, after AgJobs and DREAM Act, to have its own bills. Whether or not any of these bills advance on their own, they serve as possible legislation to be folded into a comprehensive bill.

Action also occurred administratively. Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security for ICE, John Morton, announced plans to overhaul the immigration detention system. His action demonstrates that progress can often be accomplished administratively, given the proper political climate.

More details are available at the Arizonans for Immigration Reform Web Site under Detention Centers, http://www.arizonansforimmgrationreform.org

IN IT FOR THE LONG HAUL

2009-08-07T09:59:00.005-07:00

As anyone following national politics knows, congressional leaders have altered their timetable for healthcare reform legislation by pushing key committee votes out beyond the August recess. This means that the window for action on comprehensive immigration reform before the 2010 electoral season kicks off is narrowing.

We think this makes the slow and careful work of education, conversation and organization still more vital…and timely. Arizonans for Immigration Reform in collaboration with Arizona Interfaith Network organizations are in it for the long haul.

We also think that increased scrutiny of law enforcement relationships with Immigration Control Enforcement (ICE) and the Department of Homeland Security flow from our central concern for families and communities. Despite vociferous attacks on Secretary of DHS Janet Napolitano by activists around the country, it’s not yet clear to us how policy changes will impact Arizona. We continue to reserve judgment until the experience of families in congregations and communities across the state more fully informs our verdict.

THE D.R.E.A.M. ACT

2009-07-30T14:32:00.008-07:00

The concept of “comprehensive” legislation refers to a number of issues being included in a single bill. A comprehensive bill may include one or more parts that can also stand on their own as separate legislation. A good example in immigration reform is the DREAM Act (Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act) which is part of comprehensive immigration reform as well as separate legislation.

This bipartisan legislation, reintroduced on March 26, 2009, addresses the situation faced by young people who were brought to the United States years ago as undocumented immigrant children, and who have since grown up here but are being denied the ability to fully contribute to society. The DREAM Act would provide certain undocumented youth conditional legal status and eventual citizenship, if they attend college or join the military. It would also allow immigrant students access to higher education by returning to states the authority to determine who qualifies for in-state tuition.

Requirements:

Age: Immigrant students who must have entered the U.S. before age 16.

Academic: The student must have been accepted for admission into a two-year or four-year institution of higher education or have earned a high school diploma or a GED certificate.

Long-term U.S. residence: The student must reside in the U.S. when the law is enacted. In addition, those eligible must have lived in the U.S. for at least five years preceding the date of the enactment of the act.

Good moral character: Immigrant students must demonstrate good moral character as defined in immigration law. In general, students must have no criminal background.
If the requirements are met, the student can apply for conditional status, which would last up to six years. Within six years, the student must: graduate from a 2-year institution of higher education, serve in the U.S. Military for at least 2 year, or complete at least 2 years toward a 4-year degree.

What it means for students: In 2006 the Arizona Interfaith Network organized against Proposition 300 (now a law that requires undocumented students to pay out of state tuition). AIN surfaced hundreds of stories from students who moved to the USA with their families while they were infants/children. Many of these students did not know they were undocumented until their teenage years. The DREAM Act could allow these students to come out of the shadows and fulfill their human potential.

Economic Connection: The DREAM Act could provide a way to increase the tax base for state, federal and local governments, According to the US Department of Commerce; a high school graduate earns $1.2 million in the course of a 40-year span career compared to $2.1 million for a person with a Bachelor’s degree. A person holding a master’s degree on average earns $2.5 million in a 40-year period. Therefore a single person with a bachelor’s degree who earns an average $60,000 of taxable income will pay $11,564 in taxes and welfare annually; in a 40-year span they will have contributed $462,560.

National Security Implication: Allowing undocumented students a pathway to citizenship by joining the armed forces will support our national security efforts and lessen their pressure on recruitment.

OUR CURRENT POLITICAL BACKDROP

2009-07-29T14:46:00.001-07:00

July 24, 2009:

Regardless of political affiliation, any politician seeking office in Arizona faces the challenge posed by the broken federal immigration policy. No exceptions. The situation is especially acute in Congressional districts and Senate races with an intensely polarized electorate. Our response is not to further inflame an already divided electorate but to explore the basis for building mutual respect, primarily through education and conversation.

Let’s start with how our Congressional leaders seem to line up on the issue as of now. Broadly speaking, all of Arizona’s Congressional delegation, with the exception of Senator John Kyl and Representatives John Shadegg and Trent Franks, support comprehensive immigration reform. But the devil is in the details…. and in 2010 electoral politics.

Senator John McCain, who has paid an historic price for attempting to advance comprehensive immigration reform in past years, will be contested in the Republican U.S. Senate primary by Chris Simcox, founder of the Minutemen. This poses a special challenge to Senator McCain’s participation in the coming legislative battle over CIR. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick, Rep. Jeff Flake and Rep. Harry Mitchell all run in districts with strong, vocal and numerous opponents of CIR. Again, a 2010 electoral challenge in each case.

The current focus by New York Senator Charles Schumer, who is taking the lead on CIR in the Senate, is on border security. Senator Schumer seems to believe that an aggressive stance in this area will help create the space inside of which CIR can move forward.

President Obama is trying to move health care reform through Congress. After that comes climate change legislation and credit market reforms. Then immigration reform, if all goes as planned.

AIR, in collaboration with AIN organizations and allies, propose a course of action that will be constructive regardless of the fate of specific legislative initiatives, whether immigration reform moves forward to passage …or not…in whole or in part.

Frank Pierson

HOW WE ARE DIFFERENT

2009-07-29T14:35:00.007-07:00

July 17, 2009:

Arizonans for Immigration Reform will focus on the Arizona implications of the national debate surrounding Comprehensive Immigration Reform. Our perspective differs somewhat from the national reform movement and DC-based CIR messengers because of our unique angle of vision – we live the outcomes of a broken system every day in a state that is Ground Zero for the consequences of failed immigration policies.

We also should observe in this first update that on occasion our perspective will differ from that of some activists who often make news in Arizona. A case in point is our response to DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano’s initiative recently announced to reform use of the 287g program as implemented by ICE.

We take this move by Secretary Napolitano to be a potentially important step towards reining in rogue law enforcement in Arizona, and particularly the behavior of Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio. In two separate sessions with DHS Undersecretary John Morton organized by Maricopa County Supervisor Mary Rose Wilcox, Valley Interfaith Project leaders presented the case for stronger oversight and a clear policy change to targeting serious crime. Secretary Napolitano seems to be listening.

Arizona faith communities have firsthand experience dealing with the consequences of Sheriff Arpaio’s sweeps. We will be the first to know if the new DHS oversight will or will not improve the situation as it is lived out by families in Maricopa County communities.

Frank Pierson