Immig Blog/Notes (www.sarponglaw.com)

By Daniel González

February 14, 2010

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/2010/02/14/20100214immigrationcourts.html

Stepped-up immigration enforcement is overloading U.S. immigration courts and undermining the ability of judges to rule fairly because they are under growing pressure to decide cases quickly, experts say.

 The flood of cases is creating backlogs that, at least in Phoenix, will take years for judges to decide whether immigrants facing deportation can legally stay in the U.S., according to an examination by The Arizona Republic.

 “There is a huge pressure to run through (cases) to maintain their dockets,” said Gerald Burns, a Chandler immigration lawyer and chairman of the American Immigration Lawyers Association Arizona chapter. “They have an immense pressure to keep their dockets in check.”

 Although the long waits could aid some immigrants with weak cases who hope immigration reform arrives before their hearings do, for many others the delays also can hurt their cases. A witness could move, or a family member with ties to the U.S. could die.

 The consequences aren’t as simple as just being forced to return to their home country. Deported migrants can be separated from wives and children in the U.S. And those denied asylum could face persecution, torture or even death.

 Fighting deportation

 The immigration courts’ judges essentially decide whether the immigrants who appear before them can stay and live legally in the United States or must be deported. The judges aren’t part of the federal judiciary. Instead, they work for the Justice Department, which also employs the prosecutors, in the government’s executive branch.

 That makes them not truly independent, which also could add to pressure to move cases quickly, said Eli Kantor, an immigration lawyer in Beverly Hills.

 In Phoenix, deportation and asylum cases are divided among three judges. Typically, migrants appearing before the court were arrested for a minor crime and taken to jail.

 In the Maricopa County jails, officials check the immigration status of everyone during the booking process. Suspected illegal immigrants charged with serious crimes are turned over to Immigration and Customs Enforcement and held in detention centers for possible deportation after their criminal cases are resolved.

 Those charged with minor crimes are often turned over to ICE, and many agree to leave voluntarily. Those who choose to fight deportation are often released on bond and given a notice to appear in immigration court.

 Take Guillermo Chavez, for example. The 32-year-old Phoenix man said he was arrested by Phoenix police following an accident on Sept. 1. Chavez said he was picking up his daughter at school in north Phoenix when another driver hit his parked truck.

 ”The police came right away and asked for my license,” Chavez said. “I didn’t have one, so they arrested me. It’s that simple.”

 Chavez, a native of Oaxaca, Mexico, said Maricopa County sheriff’s officials checked his immigration status when he was booked into jail and discovered he was in the country illegally. After spending 10 days in the county’s Durango Jail and 20 days in a detention center in Florence, Chavez posted a $4,000 bond for his release. Later he received a notice to appear in immigration court to face removal proceedings.

 ”My kids were born here, and I want a better future for them,” Chavez said. “That is why I want to fight my case.”

 Most of the cases before the immigration courts involve parents like Chavez who have been living in the U.S. for more than 10 years and have U.S. citizen children. Those two factors make them eligible for “cancellation of removal.” To win their cases, immigrants must prove to a judge that their deportation would cause “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” to a U.S. citizen spouse, parent or child.

 Immigration lawyers say the legal standard is extremely difficult to meet, especially if judges are rushing through cases. Exceptional hardship could include, for example, a U.S. relative with serious medical problems.

 There is also a cap that limits the total number of cancellation of removal orders nationwide to fewer than 4,000 annually.

 Nearly 11 million undocumented immigrants live in the U.S., about 460,000 in Arizona, according to the Department of Homeland Security.

 Despite the challenges, a growing number of illegal immigrants facing deportation are taking their chances in court rather than leaving voluntarily, immigration lawyers say.

 For some immigrants, there is an upside to the long waits.

 Uberclein Velasquez Palacios is an example.

 Last summer, the 18-year-old said a Phoenix police officer arrested him while he was riding his bike in south Phoenix and booked him into jail for not having a light and valid ID. Jail officials determined he was in the country illegally and notified ICE. He was issued a notice to appear in court after he decided to fight deportation.

 A lawyer told Velasquez he has a weak case because he doesn’t qualify for cancellation of removal. Even though he has been living here illegally since he was 3, he doesn’t have any direct relatives who are U.S. citizens.

 But Velasquez is hoping that, before his case is decided, Congress passes immigration reform that lets illegal immigrants get green cards. “It buys me some time,” he said.

 For most immigrants, however, the longer their deportation cases are pending, the greater the chance something could go wrong, said Maria Jones, a Phoenix immigration lawyer and chairwoman of the Arizona Bar Association’s immigration section.

 Paperwork can be lost. Neighbors and friends who might help prove time in the U.S. can move away. A U.S. citizen relative needed to qualify for cancellation of removal could die, something that has happened to at least one of Jones’ clients.

 Immigrants can apply for work permits and driver’s licenses while their cases are pending, Jones said. But their lives are in limbo. And they also run the risk of being stopped by police again, turned over to ICE and detained.

 ”They are living with that fear all the time,” Jones said.

 A 15-month study released in June by the Chicago Appleseed Fund for Justice concluded that immigration judges can no longer function properly because of the crush of new cases.

 ”Sometimes delay works to the advantage of an individual, and sometimes delay has adverse effects,” Executive Director Malcolm Rich said. “But from a policy perspective, it says we have a court system that is in trouble and is dysfunctional.”

 Rising caseloads

 While the number of immigration-court judges in Phoenix has remained the same in recent years, the number of cases has soared.

 Last fiscal year, the Phoenix court received 4,867 new cases, up 12 percent from the previous year and up 49 percent from 2007. The cases include bonds, motions and removal proceedings.

 The volume of cases is up nationally, as well. In total, the nation’s 58 immigration courts received 351,477 new cases in fiscal 2008, the most recent year available, up 5 percent from 2007.

 The increase in cases stems from the federal government’s crackdown on illegal immigration. The government has hired thousands of new Border Patrol and Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents in recent years to enforce immigration laws. It also has enlisted local law-enforcement agencies to help identify and arrest illegal immigrants.

 The crackdowns have been especially intense in Arizona.

 Hundreds of the new Border Patrol and ICE agents have been assigned to Arizona to arrest and deport illegal immigrants, contributing to the growing caseloads. Although most illegal immigrants caught at the border are quickly returned, others choose to fight to stay.

 In 2006, Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio also launched a crackdown on illegal immigration that intensified the next year after he signed a dual agreement with ICE that let deputies on the street and sheriff’s officials in the jails double as federal immigration agents.

 In October 2009, the federal government revoked the street portion of the agreement, but deputies continue to turn over to ICE immigration violators encountered during traffic stops and crime sweeps. More than 24,000 suspected illegal immigrants were turned over to ICE from Oct. 27, 2008, to Oct. 31, 2009, as a result of the immigration enforcement at the Maricopa County jail.

 What’s more, the Mesa, Phoenix and Florence police departments, the Arizona Department of Public Safety and the Pinal, Pima and Yavapai county sheriff’s departments all have signed agreements recently with ICE that allow designated officers and deputies to identify and arrest illegal immigrants as part of crime investigations.

 The crush of new cases is delaying deportation rulings by years.

 In early January, Judge Wendell Hollis, one of the three Phoenix immigration judges, didn’t have room on his calendar to schedule final hearings for people seeking cancellation of removal until October 2011, 22 months later.

 Judge Lamonte Freerks was backed up until December 2012, nearly three years later.

 John Richardson, the senior judge, had the fullest calendar. In January, he was scheduling final hearings in August 2013.

 The caseload before the judges hit a 10-year high on April 30, according to researchers at Syracuse University’s Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, which The Republic commissioned to analyze a decade’s worth of court data. The 3,728 pending cases as of that date represented a 155 percent increase.

 Nationally, according to the Syracuse analysis, the total number of pending cases in immigration courts in the past 10 years grew 64 percent.

 Appeals for changes

 In 2006, then-U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales called for hiring more immigration judges to handle the growing number of cases.

 That year, the Justice Department had 228 judges for 55 immigration courts nationwide. The department has since hired 44 new judges, but 31 judges retired or left, according to the Justice Department.

 This year, it plans to hire 46 more: 28 new judges and 18 to fill vacancies.

 Justice Department officials responding to requests for comment about the long waits for deportation hearings said in an e-mail that immigration courts do not have a “backlog” because “all cases are scheduled to be heard before an immigration judge.” They did not elaborate.

 Federal rules prohibit judges from discussing the matter themselves with reporters.

 Critics say hiring more judges should be just a start.

 Just last Monday, the American Bar Association called on Congress to create an independent court for immigration cases because the current system is overwhelmed by an exploding caseload.

 Said Rich of the Chicago advocacy group: “The immigration courts are basically dealing with life and death issues but with the resources of traffic court.” 

By Rob Hotakainen

February 15, 2010

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics/AP/story/1481552.html

As one of the first Latinos in the nation to endorse Barack Obama, Democratic state Sen. Gilbert Cedillo of Los Angeles campaigned hard for the president, but he’s disappointed now.

 The reason: Obama has yet to do anything on a comprehensive overhaul of immigration laws, as he promised to do when he ran for president.

 ”I think he’s in danger of breaking the spirit of solidarity and hope,” Cedillo said. “More than a broken promise, it’s the danger of breaking people’s sense of hope in the Latino community.”

 While the president carried the Latino vote by large margins 15 months ago, many Republicans are out to capitalize on Latino dissatisfaction with Obama and Washington’s Democratic leaders. They think that could help them immensely in the 2010 elections.

 Republican candidates will gain ground from Latinos once Latinos realize “that what the Democrats offer is just a bunch of empty promises,” said Hector Barajas, a communications consultant for the California State Senate Republican Caucus.

 He noted that the president spent only about 10 seconds on immigration at the very end of his State of the Union speech last month. Barajas said the issue had been particularly hot on Spanish talk radio ever since Obama gave that speech.

 ”It’s what didn’t happen,” Barajas said. “I mean, he spent more time talking about gays in the military than he did about providing some immigration reform plan.”

 The White House said that it remained committed to passing a comprehensive overhaul of immigration laws.

 White House spokesman Adam Abrams said the president wanted to sign a bill that strengthened border enforcement and cracked down on employers “who exploit undocumented workers to undercut American workers.” He also said the president wanted to resolve the status of 12 million people who were in the U.S. illegally, “that they should have to register, pay a penalty for breaking the law and meet other obligations of legal immigrants such as paying taxes, or leave the country.”

 ”The president told members of both parties that if they can fashion a plan to deal with these problems, he is eager to work with them to get it done,” Abrams said.

 Jaime Regalado, the executive director of the Pat Brown Institute, a nonprofit public-policy center at California State University, Los Angeles, said Democrats, particularly the president, faced “a scary situation.”

 ”It’s really a colossal hassle for the administration, that there is so much impatience from so many groups – including Latinos – that are hell-bent on having an immigration reform package in 2010, an election year,” he said. “It’s difficult in any season in any year, but this is a very precarious year for Obama.”

 Regalado said Republicans were exploiting the issue “with good reason,” because it was a no-win situation for Democrats: They lose votes from Latinos if they don’t come up with a comprehensive solution to immigration, or they lose votes from more conservative members of their base if they do.

 ”It’s fraught with political peril,” he said. “There’s no question about that.”

 Cedillo, who campaigned for Obama in California, Texas and Nevada and debated on his behalf on Spanish radio, said the president and Democratic leaders needed to show Latinos that they were committed to them “not only during the campaign, but after the election.”

 He predicted that Latinos will provide the determining vote in every upcoming presidential election. Obama was hugely popular among Latinos, receiving 75 percent of the more than 10 million votes they cast in the 2008 presidential election.

 Latinos are gearing up to be big players this fall. Earlier this month, a report by America’s Voice, a group that backs new comprehensive immigration policies, said that immigration could be the deciding factor in as many as 40 congressional races in November.

 Noting the electoral strength of Latinos, Cedillo said: “I would be concerned if I was the White House, if I was a member of Congress.”

 Immigration has taken a back seat to a host of tough issues for Obama, including two wars, the struggling economy and a yearlong effort to get Congress to pass a health care overhaul. The president’s defenders say it would be politically impossible to add the volatile issue of immigration to the mix right now.

 Cedillo doesn’t buy that argument. He said the president knew he would be dealing with other big issues when he made the promises to the Latino community during the campaign.

 ”Those were the conditions that he was campaigning under,” Cedillo said. “It’s not like those were surprises. … I was so proud of him, at how firm and clear he was in those presidential debates. He really provided leadership.”

 Barajas said Latinos recognized that it had been a tough year for Obama and an immigration plan might not be fully implemented immediately, but he said there wasn’t even a plan for proceeding, let alone introducing legislation.

 ”I think the Democratic Party needs to wake up and realize that you can only fool the Latino community for so long,” Barajas said. “There’s a great sense of frustration, there’s a great sense of anger and there’s a big letdown” that will drive more Latinos to the Republican Party.

 Regalado said he didn’t believe that Democrats would switch to the Republican Party in big numbers. “What it does threaten is that Latinos stay home” on Election Day, he said. 

The Law Office of James S. Sarpong, LLC is a Denver, Colorado based US Immigration Law Firm that has several office locations throughout the Front Range and the Denver Metro Area, and provides immigration law services to clients throughout the United States (U.S.) and the world, including Arizona Phoenix, Mesa, Tucson, California Anaheim, Bakersfield, Fremont, Fresno, Glendale, Huntington Beach, Long Beach, Los Angeles, Modesto, Oakland, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, San Francisco, Santa Ana, San Jose, Sacramento, Stockton, Colorado Aurora, Colorado Springs, Denver, District of Columbia Washington, Florida Fort Lauderdale, Hialeah, Jacksonville, Miami, Orlando, St. Petersburg, Tampa, Georgia Atlanta, Columbus, Illinois Chicago, Iowa Des Moines, Kansas Kansas City, Wichita, Maryland Baltimore, Massachusetts Boston, Springfield, Worchester, Michigan Detroit, Grand Rapids, Warren, Missouri Kansas City, St. Louis, Nebraska Lincoln, Omaha, Nevada Las Vegas, New Jersey Jersey City, Newark, New Mexico Albuquerque, New York Buffalo, New York, Rochester, Syracuse, Yonkers, Oklahoma Oklahoma City, Tulsa, Pennsylvania Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Texas Amarillo, Arlington, Austin, Corpus Christi, Dallas, El Paso, Fort Worth, Garland, Houston, Irving, Lubbock, San Antonio, Utah Salt Lake City, Virginia Arlington, Chesapeake, Newport News, Norfolk, Richmond, and Virginia Beach.

The Law Office of James S. Sarpong, LLC is a Denver, Colorado based US Immigration Law Firm that provides immigration law services to clients throughout the United States (U.S.) and the world, including Colorado, Aurora, Colorado Springs, Denver, District of Columbia, Washington (D.C.), Maryland (MD), Montgomery County, Virginia (VA), Arlington, Chesapeake, Newport News, Norfolk, Richmond, and Virginia Beach.

By Spencer S. Hsu
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, February 1, 2010; A03

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/31/AR2010013102081.html

As President Obama vows to refocus Democrats’ attention on jobs and the economy, advocates for overhauling the nation’s immigration laws say they are still gearing up for a battle in the Senate in coming weeks, despite fading hopes for victory.
Washington’s drawn-out health-care debate badly damaged prospects for an immigration bill this winter. It ate up weeks of the Senate’s time, sapped progressive lawmakers’ energy and, most recently, stoked a populist backlash that cost Democrats the seat of the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (Mass.), the chamber’s most prominent champion of liberal health-care and immigration policies.
With time running out before lawmakers want to start focusing on the November elections, “immigration is deader than a doornail,” one veteran Senate lobbyist put it. Advocates’ frustration peaked last week when Obama devoted a single sentence in his 71-minute State of the Union address to a topic he ranked as a top legislative priority last summer, after health care and an energy bill.
“We should continue the work of fixing our broken immigration system,” Obama said, offering no specific remedy or timing, “. .. . and ensure that everyone who plays by the rules can contribute to our economy and enrich our nation.”
Rep. Luis V. Gutierrez (D-Ill.), who has introduced a House bill favored by immigrant groups, said there was “disillusionment” among advocates across the country.
“There’s almost universal consensus that the president — it was too little,” Gutierrez said, noting that by contrast, Obama pledged in the speech to repeal the military’s ban on service by openly gay people this year. “He was very weak on immigration, lackadaisical,” Gutierrez added.
“I had very low expectations, but he [the president] surprised even me with how little he said,” added Frank Sharry, executive director of America’s Voice. He and other advocates are pushing to legalize many of an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants, strengthen enforcement of immigration laws and provide a mechanism to control the flow of immigrant workers.
Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) and Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), who has taken the lead in drafting a Senate bill, rushed to reassure immigrant advocates and Latino groups that they were still working with Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) to find Republican backers for a bipartisan bill, while shying away from setting a timetable.
“It’s something we’re committed to do, and we’ll do it as soon as we can,” Reid told reporters.
A White House official said Obama’s mention of the issue implicitly made it part of his agenda for the year: “What he said in the speech was that we should move the process and legislation forward this year.”
Nevertheless, backers say they will have to thread a needle to move a bill to the Senate floor by a springtime deadline, after which they fear midterm election politics will take hold.
Several stakeholders said a breakthrough is possible only if Schumer strikes a deal with at least two Republican cosponsors, Democrats hold firm and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) wants a bipartisan accomplishment to show voters this fall.
Opponents of increased immigration say they see little political will in Congress to help illegal immigrants at a time when unemployment is near 10 percent.
“The chances that potentially vulnerable congressmen and senators will want to vote on legalizing illegal aliens is now zero,” said Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, which seeks reduced immigration.
In a poll last month by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, the public rated the importance of immigration near the bottom of a list of issues.

Advocates say that, if the health-care debate is resolved quickly, an immigration bill could pass, putting the chance of success at 10 to 15 percent. Because the Senate tried and failed to pass similar legislation in 2006 and 2007, there are fewer details to hammer out and less guesswork over how senators might vote. Immigration may even benefit politically if health-care reform collapses, they said, because both parties may want to show voters they are serious about tackling a tough, long-festering domestic problem.
“They’re going to have to show an accomplishment,” said Angela M. Kelley, an immigration policy analyst at the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank. “There’s not many branches left to hang from, and I think [immigration] is going to become low-hanging fruit.”
Supporters said many Republicans remain uneasy that the party’s support from Hispanics is eroding. Also, immigration advocates have retooled their message during the recession, saying a legalization program could lead to $1.5 trillion in economic growth over a decade, add billions in tax revenue as workers move into the open economy, and protect jobs and wages by stopping illegal hiring.
“We’re not ready to stick a fork in it,” Sharry said. “We think we still have a long shot, but a decent shot.”
Still, the window of opportunity is growing narrow, as the Senate is also preparing a jobs bill and financial regulations package.
Don Stewart, spokesman for McConnell, said it is too soon to judge an immigration bill that has not been introduced. Still, Stewart noted of Democrats, “It hasn’t been on the top of their talking points, and our side’s first question is: ‘How does this create jobs?’ ”
Polling analyst Jennifer Agiesta contributed to this report.

Associated Press
The Associated Press
January 31, 2010
Sacramento

www.chicagotribune.com/topic/ktxl-news-immigrant-inmates-0131,0,177311.story

California prison inmates who are in the country illegally will no longer be allowed to participate in vocational training and work programs.

The Prison Industry Board says the programs should be reserved for inmates who can get California jobs after their release.

A staff report says more than 400 of the 5,700 inmates currently getting training are set to be deported to their home countries after they serve their California sentences.

The program trains inmates for manufacturing and agriculture jobs in 22 of the state’s 33 adult prisons.

The board made the policy change during a meeting Thursday. It takes effect March 1, though inmates facing deportation will be able to complete programs if they are currently enrolled.

By Galen Carey

January 28, 2010

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/galen_carey/2010/01/why_evangelicals_want_immigration_reform_this_year.html

With the significant exception of Native Americans, most of us can trace our ancestry to another country or continent. We are indeed a nation of immigrants and their descendants. It is a checkered history, as evidenced by congressional apologies for injustices committed against both Native and African Americans. But there can be little doubt that our nation has achieved its current prosperity in large part due to our embrace–fitfully at times–of immigrants.

 To be sure, each succeeding wave of immigrants–whether German, Italian, Irish, Chinese or Mexican, to name just a few–has had its critics. Those already here imagined that the newcomers would threaten their jobs or dilute their culture. In fact, just the opposite has been true. Immigrants have always brought energy, hope, and vision, which have fed the continual renewal of both our economy and our culture.

 President Obama is right to join those in both parties, in the faith community and in civil society who have long been calling for reform of our broken immigration system. Our system has failed to keep up with the demand for both work and family reunification. Decade-long waiting periods and absurdly inadequate quotas have resulted in a de facto immigration system in which large numbers of employers and workers bypass the formal immigration regime altogether. This has eroded respect for our laws, compromised security on our borders, and created a large body of second class citizens. We want and need their labor, but we fail to provide a workable system to admit an adequate number of immigrants legally. We consequently fail to offer them the rights and protections enjoyed by other Americans.

 Our current system contradicts our nation’s deepest values. The teachings of almost every religious tradition uphold the virtue of corporate as well as individual hospitality. The Hebrew Scriptures command not only hospitality, but love–because God himself loves the sojourner. Jesus went out of his way to honor the despised Samaritans and fully identified himself with the foreigner. Those who welcome strangers are said to be entertaining angels.

 Evangelicals support immigration reform because we treat the biblical injunctions to welcome the stranger not merely as good advice but as divine instruction for our good. Further, we recognize that human beings are unique and precious individuals created in the image of God, with great dignity and potential to bless their neighbors. We see the hand of God in the movement of peoples throughout history.

 As immigrants have joined our churches and communities, they have become our friends, our co-workers, and indeed, our brothers and sisters. We grieve when families remain separated for decades, when workers are treated unfairly, and when our neighbors lack the basic protection of the law. For these reasons and many others the National Association of Evangelicals, representing 40 denominations with more than 45,000 congregations, has joined other faith communities in asserting the moral imperative of enacting meaningful immigration reform now.

 Republicans and Democrats have recently demonstrated a poor track record of working together. We can think of no greater opportunity for them to put aside partisanship and enact immigration reform this session that will strengthen our recovering economy, restore the rule of law and reinforce our nation’s best values. In the end, our nation’s greatness will be marked by how we treat the most vulnerable, including the stranger, among us.

 Along with partner organizations, we sponsored a meeting in Phoenix, Arizona this week to study the Scriptures, pray and call our leaders to action on immigration reform. Evangelical leaders also led similar events in Denver, Miami, Santa Ana, Chicago and Memphis. We heard noted civil rights leader John Perkins and civil rights historian Troy Jackson challenge evangelicals to stand with immigrants in the struggle for justice. Evangelicals may have largely missed the civil rights battles of the 1960s, but we do not intend to repeat our mistake in 2010. 

January 30, 2010

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/outlook/6843640.html

On Jan. 11, more than 300 clergy from dozens of religious denominations came from the far reaches of the Houston region in support of a critical moral issue, humane immigration reform.

 The local heads of several major religious denominations, including Cardinal Daniel DiNardo, Catholic archbishop of Galveston-Houston; Bishop Janice Riggle Huie of the Texas Conference of the United Methodist Church; the Rt. Rev. C. Andrew Doyle, bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Texas; Bishop Michael Rinehart of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America; Rabbi David Rosen of Congregation Beth Yeshurun; the Rev. Mike Cole of the Presbytery of New Covenant; and the Rev. Harvey Clemons Jr. of Pleasant Hill Baptist Church, along with The Metropolitan Organization, released a Houston Interfaith Statement on Humane Immigration Reform and launched a campaign for reform this year.

 All our faith traditions share a fundamental belief that human beings are made in the image and likeness of God and that we must treat every person with dignity, for “the strangers who sojourn with you shall be to you as the natives among you, and you shall love them as yourself” (Leviticus 19:33-34). The interfaith statement includes seven principles that are rooted in our holy Scriptures, our faith traditions and our sense of American democratic values, which include:

 upholding family unity;

 ???????creating a legalization process for undocumented immigrants;

 protecting workers;

 facilitating immigrant integration;

 ???????restoring due process and just detention protections;

 ???aligning enforcement with humanitarian values;

 ???immigration as a matter of human rights.

 Immigration reform would make us safer as a nation because it would make immigrants register with the government so that we would know who is here and give us the ability to identify those few immigrants who have committed crimes. Giving immigrants a reason to come out of the shadows would also allow them to feel comfortable cooperating with law enforcement to help identify those who are a danger or a threat.

 People often ask, “Aren’t we rewarding illegal behavior by legalizing undocumented immigrants?” The truth is that immigrants are not interested in breaking the law; there simply have not been legal means created for them to do otherwise. As the Rev. John Ogletree, pastor of First Metropolitan Church, stated Jan. 11, “Undocumented immigrants have received an informal invitation to this country.” In other words, because of an insatiable demand by the U.S. economy for both skilled and unskilled labor from abroad, we encourage mass migration to this country. At the same time we have a minuscule number of legal avenues or visas available for these workers and their families, which disrupts the natural flow of what economists call labor and what people of faith know as the right of families to migrate (a right that people have freely enjoyed for thousands of years). We must change the laws so that people are allowed to come in a legal way and to respond to the needs of the economy.

 Another common question is: “Aren’t we undermining our economy by allowing immigrants in when they only take jobs away from native-born workers and use welfare?” This is simply not true; immigrants contribute to the growth and prosperity of our economy. Studies by the conservative Cato Institute and the progressive Center for American Progress show that a legalization plan for undocumented workers would add between $1.2 trillion and $1.5 trillion to the U.S. economy by 2020.

 We know from research polls that as many as 86 percent of Americans support proposals for comprehensive immigration reform that would legalize undocumented immigrants and require them to learn English and register with the government. Studies by the Pew Hispanic Center and the Texas comptroller estimate 1.45 million unauthorized immigrants are currently residing in Texas, working hard to contribute $17.7 billion in gross state product. This issue is important not just to the religious community but also to the business community, as evidenced in support by the Greater Houston Partnership and Americans for Immigration Reform of sensible immigration reform.

 We realize there are different viewpoints on how to solve this complex issue, and we welcome debate and difference of opinion by people of good will. We do, however, have a concern about the study cited by the Center for Immigration Studies in the Houston Chronicle article “Religious leaders’ top wish: passing immigration reform” (Page B1, Jan. 12). This study claims that strong majorities of the faithful disagree with their religious leaders and instead support an enforcement-only immigration strategy. Public Religion Research discredits CIS’ study, saying it “is not based on a scientific random sample of Americans but rather on an opt-in online panel survey.”

 We are not calling for an amnesty or open-borders policy such as our opponents might claim.

 Our intention is to begin meaningful conversation in our congregations about the important moral dimensions of this issue and to urge Congress to act now.

February 1, 2010
 
Washington D.C. - Today, the Immigration Policy Center (IPC) releases the final in our series of “Solutions Papers,” Future Flow: Repairing our Broken Immigration System. The perennial question of how to regulate future employment-based immigration flows has been, by far, one of the greatest sticking points in the immigration reform debate. In 1986, lawmakers passed the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) in an attempt to reign in undocumented immigration through heightened worksite and border enforcement, combined with legalization of most undocumented immigrants already in the country. Unfortunately, IRCA failed to address the fact that immigrant workers would be needed in the future, and the lack of future flow mechanisms resulted in a large unauthorized immigrant population.

Policymakers now have the opportunity to realistically assess our future employment-based immigration needs. This includes permanent and temporary visas, high-skilled and low-skilled workers. Many people agree that our current legal immigration flow is drastically out of sync with America’s labor needs. If the U.S. is to thrive in the globalized 21^st century economy, employment-based immigration must be seen as a strategic resource that can both meet labor market needs and foster economic growth and competition while still protecting U.S. workers and improving wages and working conditions. This paper lays out the key principles for future employment-based immigration flows within the context of comprehensive immigration reform.

 To read the paper in its entirety, see: 

Future Flow: Repairing our Broken Immigration System
(IPC Focusing on the Solution series, February 2, 2010)

Jeffrey Kaye, Journalist and author, Posted: January 29, 2010 10:06 PM

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-kaye/maana-for-immigration-ref_b_442829.html

A long-promised, bi-partisan U.S. Senate bill aimed at comprehensive immigration reform will be delayed until at least March, according to a lobbyist involved in negotiations over the content of the legislation. “The timeline originally was to have a bill by February,” said Sonia Ramirez, legislative representative for the AFL-CIO. “Now I think they’re shooting at having a detailed outline of the direction they’d like to go in the bill by the end of February.” Once the outline is agreed on, she explained, lawyers will draft the text.
The on-again, off again timetable has disappointed immigration reform advocates. Sen. Charles. E. Schumer (D-NY), Chairman of the Senate Immigration Subcommittee, who has been working on an immigration bill with South Carolina Republican Lindsey Graham, indicated during the summer that legislation would be introduced last year “I think we’ll have a good bill by Labor Day,” Schumer, told the Associated Press last July. But it never materialized.
Before and after the presidential election, Barack Obama also promised that he would move on immigration reform. But a one sentence mention of the subject towards the end of his state of the union speech on Wednesday seemed more like an obligatory item on a to-do list than a rousing call to action: “And we should continue the work of fixing our broken immigration system,” said the President, “to secure our borders and enforce our laws, and ensure that everyone who plays by the rules can contribute to our economy and enrich our nation.” End of subject.
The following day at a press conference, when a reporter asked Schumer about plans for immigration reform, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) jumped in with instructions for the New York Senator: “Chuck, let’s not get into any deadlines,” he cautioned. “”You get into trouble by setting deadlines. It is something we’re committed to do. And we’ll do it as soon as we can.” Schumer was obligingly vague about his plans. “We are making good progress,” he said, explaining that he was having difficulty enlisting support from Republican ranks. “Now, I’ve said all along, even before last Tuesday with the Massachusetts election, that we have to have this bill be a bipartisan bill, two Democrats, two Republicans to introduce it. We’re not there yet. We’re still working on getting our Republicans.” Schumer announced that he had met with former CNN anchor Lou Dobbs, whom he said, without elaboration “is changing his views on immigration.” It was unclear what contribution, if any, Dobbs would make to the immigration debate.
The AFL-CIO’s Ramirez indicated that she and other labor leaders are trying to reach a compromise with business representatives on a complicated section of the bill that would set guidelines to regulate the use of migrant workers on either a temporary or permanent basis. Labor organizations have supported a plan for a new Presidential commission to help establish criteria and calculate labor needs. Business groups have said that they would not accept a commission that could be politicized and not suitably responsive to “market forces.” This issue may seem esoteric, but as legislative efforts to enact immigration reform move haltingly along, the ability of labor and business to agree on the fundamentals of migrant worker programs could make the difference between a viable bill and yet another failed effort to fix the broken system. The recently-introduced House immigration bill advocated most forcefully by Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.) and championed by many reform advocates is widely seen as basically dead on arrival because of criticisms from the right that it is too migrant friendly.
Labor’s Ramirez suggested that the commission proposal would not be a deal breaker. “In terms of creating a system–let’s put the word ‘commission’ aside–that contemplates economic need and makes decisions on visas based on demonstrated need, that’s attractive to us both [business and labor]. So I think there is lots of agreement on how to move forward.” Ramirez said that labor would want to insist that migrant workers involved in “future flows” be assured worker protections and rights. Labor is also pushing to make sure that recruiters who bring in foreign workers are better regulated. But she made it clear that the commission idea was more of a subject for negotiation than a key demand. “It’s about crafting a system,” she said, “not calling it a ‘commission.’”
Time is not on the side of immigration reformers. As the 2010 midterm elections approach, politicians on the fence are likely to be seen as loathe to embrace such a controversial issue. One influential senator, Patrick Leahy (D-VT), chairman of the Judiciary Committee, has suggested a more wary piecemeal approach to immigration reform, rather than one big package. Breaking off chunks and dealing separately with the contentious issues of legalization, enforcement, and “future flows” of migrants may seem like a pragmatic short term approach to immigration but is likely to result in once again postponing the issue. And, if it’s not going to be dealt with in 2010, it’s almost certain to be ignored later on as politicos prepare for the 2012 presidential election year.