By Michelle Chen, Working In These Times
April 3, 2013
The perennial impasse in the immigration debate between labor and business seems to be fading as a group of senators, working with industry and union lobbies, irons out a framework that would bring more migrants into the labor force, purportedly under a system that extends rights and protections for so-called “guestworkers.” But what the new system really means for workers depends on how it is implemented and regulated, and who is controlling the gates.
The proposed W-visa plan reportedly strikes a compromise between business’s desire for low-cost labor and union concerns (represented by the AFL-CIO in Washington) about maintaining jobs for U.S. workers and enforcing wage-and-hour laws. Aimed at less-skilled sectors like restaurant work, the W-visa would differ from previous employment-based visas in two key ways. For one, it would offer immigrants a way to petition for residency and eventually attain citizenship. And unlike much maligned temporary-worker programs, the visa would be “portable,” meaning it would not be tied to a specific workplace or employer. In theory, that would allow a worker to switch jobs without jeopardizing her legal status. [...]
Read the full article:
http://inthesetimes.com/working/entry/14814/a_new_door_for_guestworkers/
Monday, April 8, 2013
Sunday, April 7, 2013
Border Drones Fall Short of Target
Review Shows Surveillance Planes and Blimps Get Light Use, Citing Staff and Equipment Shortages
By Evan Perez and Devlin Barrett, Wall Street Journal
April 2, 2013
WASHINGTON—Tightened border security is at the center of immigration proposals in Congress, and for many lawmakers that means greater use of drones and other high-tech monitoring equipment.
But tryouts of drones and blimps along U.S. borders suggest the aircraft are more expensive and complex to operate than the government expected.
The U.S. Customs and Border Protection, part of the Department of Homeland Security, HOMS +92.31% used its drones just over one-third of the time they were available, owing to shortages of qualified staff, flight limitations imposed by regulators and other issues, according to a May 2012 report by Homeland Security's inspector general. The border agency has used unmanned planes for nearly a decade. [...}
Read the full article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324883604578398453574545348.html?mod=rss_US_News
By Evan Perez and Devlin Barrett, Wall Street Journal
April 2, 2013
WASHINGTON—Tightened border security is at the center of immigration proposals in Congress, and for many lawmakers that means greater use of drones and other high-tech monitoring equipment.
But tryouts of drones and blimps along U.S. borders suggest the aircraft are more expensive and complex to operate than the government expected.
The U.S. Customs and Border Protection, part of the Department of Homeland Security, HOMS +92.31% used its drones just over one-third of the time they were available, owing to shortages of qualified staff, flight limitations imposed by regulators and other issues, according to a May 2012 report by Homeland Security's inspector general. The border agency has used unmanned planes for nearly a decade. [...}
Read the full article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324883604578398453574545348.html?mod=rss_US_News
No More ‘Illegal Immigrants’
By Lawrence Downes, Taking Note blog, New York Times
April 4, 2013
The Associated Press has changed its stylebook entry on the term “illegal immigrant.” It now reads, in part:
“Except in direct quotes essential to the story, use illegal only to refer to an action, not a person: illegal immigration, but not illegal immigrant.”
The new usage should quickly become apparent to readers of the thousands of newspapers and news web sites that follow, or try to follow, the AP’s rules.
Advocates for immigrants are celebrating the change. They hate the phrase.[...]
Read the full article:
http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/04/no-more-illegal-immigrants/?ref=opinion
April 4, 2013
The Associated Press has changed its stylebook entry on the term “illegal immigrant.” It now reads, in part:
“Except in direct quotes essential to the story, use illegal only to refer to an action, not a person: illegal immigration, but not illegal immigrant.”
The new usage should quickly become apparent to readers of the thousands of newspapers and news web sites that follow, or try to follow, the AP’s rules.
Advocates for immigrants are celebrating the change. They hate the phrase.[...]
Read the full article:
http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/04/no-more-illegal-immigrants/?ref=opinion
Friday, April 5, 2013
Confronting the Amnesty Scare
By David L. Wilson, MRZine
April 5, 2013
The anti-immigrant right has been mounting a scare campaign since late January about the supposed dangers of legalizing the country's estimated 11.5 million undocumented immigrants.
-- "When you legalize those who are in the country illegally," Rep. Lamar Smith, Republican of Texas, announced on January 28, "it costs taxpayers millions of dollars, costs American workers thousands of jobs and encourages more illegal immigration."
-- A February 4 "exclusive" on the far-right WND website described a "highly embarrassing and potentially politically explosive" report that was "suppressed" by immigration authorities back in 2000. The report shows that the legalization program in 1986 "failed . . . because it offered an incentive for more illegal aliens to come and take advantage of a future amnesty," according to the article, which quickly circulated through the internet.
-- "Top officials" in the Obama administration "are lobbying for a massive nationwide amnesty that would foster a tsunami of increased illegal immigration for generations to come," ultra-conservative columnist Michelle Malkin warned on February 27.[...]
Read the full article:
http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2013/wilson050413.html
April 5, 2013
The anti-immigrant right has been mounting a scare campaign since late January about the supposed dangers of legalizing the country's estimated 11.5 million undocumented immigrants.
-- "When you legalize those who are in the country illegally," Rep. Lamar Smith, Republican of Texas, announced on January 28, "it costs taxpayers millions of dollars, costs American workers thousands of jobs and encourages more illegal immigration."
-- A February 4 "exclusive" on the far-right WND website described a "highly embarrassing and potentially politically explosive" report that was "suppressed" by immigration authorities back in 2000. The report shows that the legalization program in 1986 "failed . . . because it offered an incentive for more illegal aliens to come and take advantage of a future amnesty," according to the article, which quickly circulated through the internet.
-- "Top officials" in the Obama administration "are lobbying for a massive nationwide amnesty that would foster a tsunami of increased illegal immigration for generations to come," ultra-conservative columnist Michelle Malkin warned on February 27.[...]
Read the full article:
http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2013/wilson050413.html
Wednesday, April 3, 2013
Two Systems of Justice: How the Immigration System Falls Short of American Ideals of Justice
By Immigration Policy Center
March 19, 2013
There is a growing consensus that our immigration system is broken. Severe visa backlogs hurt U.S. businesses, undocumented workers are frequently exploited, and record levels of deportations tear families apart. While much energy is now focused on addressing these problems, one issue that is frequently overlooked is the structure and quality of justice accorded immigrants who are caught in the enforcement net. In reforming our immigration system, we must not forget that the immigration removal system—from arrest to hearing to deportation and beyond—does not reflect American values of due process and fundamental fairness.
The failure to provide a fair process to those facing expulsion from the United States is all the more disturbing given the increasing “criminalization” of the immigration enforcement system. Although immigration law is formally termed “civil,” Congress has progressively expanded the number of crimes that may render an individual deportable, and immigration law violations often lead to criminal prosecutions. Further, local police now play an increasingly active role in immigration enforcement. Consequently, even relatively minor offenses can result in a person being detained in immigration custody and deported, often with no hope of ever returning to the United States.
This special report is a product of the Immigration Policy Center and the Legal Action Center of the American Immigration Council. It lays out the the incongruency of America's criminal justice system and its immigration justice system, and provides recommendations for how these problems could be fixed.
Read the report here.
Read the policy recommendations here.
March 19, 2013
There is a growing consensus that our immigration system is broken. Severe visa backlogs hurt U.S. businesses, undocumented workers are frequently exploited, and record levels of deportations tear families apart. While much energy is now focused on addressing these problems, one issue that is frequently overlooked is the structure and quality of justice accorded immigrants who are caught in the enforcement net. In reforming our immigration system, we must not forget that the immigration removal system—from arrest to hearing to deportation and beyond—does not reflect American values of due process and fundamental fairness.
The failure to provide a fair process to those facing expulsion from the United States is all the more disturbing given the increasing “criminalization” of the immigration enforcement system. Although immigration law is formally termed “civil,” Congress has progressively expanded the number of crimes that may render an individual deportable, and immigration law violations often lead to criminal prosecutions. Further, local police now play an increasingly active role in immigration enforcement. Consequently, even relatively minor offenses can result in a person being detained in immigration custody and deported, often with no hope of ever returning to the United States.
This special report is a product of the Immigration Policy Center and the Legal Action Center of the American Immigration Council. It lays out the the incongruency of America's criminal justice system and its immigration justice system, and provides recommendations for how these problems could be fixed.
Read the report here.
Read the policy recommendations here.
Tuesday, April 2, 2013
Is Gender Justice Getting Shafted in Immigration Reform?
By Michelle Chen, Working In These Times
March 25, 2013
Moua, executive director of the Asian American Justice Center, defended programs allowing families to immigrate together to the U.S. (Courtesy of the DOL)
The politics of immigration touch upon major faultlines in American society: not just the legal boundary between citizen and foreigner, but also lines of race, class, nationality, culture and, increasingly, gender. Women, who make up about half of the U.S. immigrant population and an estimated 40 percent of undocumented adults, face unique challenges as migrants. However, gender issues have gone almost entirely unremarked in official immigration-reform talks--that is, until a Senate hearing last Monday, when Mee Moua, head of the Asian American Justice Center, seized an opportunity to call out the invisibility of women in the debate.
The opening came when Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions (R) asked bluntly which immigrant would be a better candidate for legal status: an applicant for a family reunification visa or a skilled professional from overseas? Although family visas are the channel by which generations of migrants have brought family members to the U.S., Sessions' rhetorical question suggested that skilled professionals make more desirable Americans.
Moua countered that Sessions' hypothetical reflected deep gender imbalances in the immigration system. The “less desirable” migrant, she argued, would likely be “female, would not have been permitted to get an education and if we would create a system where there would be some kind of preference given to say education, or some other kind of metrics, I think that it would truly disadvantage specifically women and their opportunity to come into this country.” [...]
Read the full article:
http://inthesetimes.com/working/entry/14774/gender_justice_getting_shafted_by_immigration_reform/
March 25, 2013
Moua, executive director of the Asian American Justice Center, defended programs allowing families to immigrate together to the U.S. (Courtesy of the DOL)
The politics of immigration touch upon major faultlines in American society: not just the legal boundary between citizen and foreigner, but also lines of race, class, nationality, culture and, increasingly, gender. Women, who make up about half of the U.S. immigrant population and an estimated 40 percent of undocumented adults, face unique challenges as migrants. However, gender issues have gone almost entirely unremarked in official immigration-reform talks--that is, until a Senate hearing last Monday, when Mee Moua, head of the Asian American Justice Center, seized an opportunity to call out the invisibility of women in the debate.
The opening came when Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions (R) asked bluntly which immigrant would be a better candidate for legal status: an applicant for a family reunification visa or a skilled professional from overseas? Although family visas are the channel by which generations of migrants have brought family members to the U.S., Sessions' rhetorical question suggested that skilled professionals make more desirable Americans.
Moua countered that Sessions' hypothetical reflected deep gender imbalances in the immigration system. The “less desirable” migrant, she argued, would likely be “female, would not have been permitted to get an education and if we would create a system where there would be some kind of preference given to say education, or some other kind of metrics, I think that it would truly disadvantage specifically women and their opportunity to come into this country.” [...]
Read the full article:
http://inthesetimes.com/working/entry/14774/gender_justice_getting_shafted_by_immigration_reform/
Monday, April 1, 2013
Reasonable Suspicion: Being a Latino ballplayer in Arizona
By Bryan Curtis, Grantland
March 25, 2013
This spring, Elian Herrera came to Arizona to work. Herrera is 28 years old. He was born in the Dominican Republic. He has dark skin, and though he speaks English, he does so deliberately, in a way that reveals that his first language is Spanish.
In Los Angeles, Herrera is a backup outfielder with the Dodgers. Here at spring training, he's the type of guy who could arouse "reasonable suspicion." A person who's "reasonably suspicious," according to Arizona's immigration law, is one who looks like he or she might be in the United States illegally. That means Herrera faces the same dilemma as a Latino day laborer in Nogales or a Hispanic attorney from Phoenix. If Herrera is pulled over — if he fails to use his blinker, say — a police officer can ask to see his papers.
"Right now, if they want, they can stop and ask," Herrera says. "If there's no ID, they can take you down." [...]
Read the full article:
http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/9096405/arizona-immigration-law-spring-training
March 25, 2013
This spring, Elian Herrera came to Arizona to work. Herrera is 28 years old. He was born in the Dominican Republic. He has dark skin, and though he speaks English, he does so deliberately, in a way that reveals that his first language is Spanish.
In Los Angeles, Herrera is a backup outfielder with the Dodgers. Here at spring training, he's the type of guy who could arouse "reasonable suspicion." A person who's "reasonably suspicious," according to Arizona's immigration law, is one who looks like he or she might be in the United States illegally. That means Herrera faces the same dilemma as a Latino day laborer in Nogales or a Hispanic attorney from Phoenix. If Herrera is pulled over — if he fails to use his blinker, say — a police officer can ask to see his papers.
"Right now, if they want, they can stop and ask," Herrera says. "If there's no ID, they can take you down." [...]
Read the full article:
http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/9096405/arizona-immigration-law-spring-training
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)