What Have We Learned About Immigration? Is it time for Comprehensive Reform?

Recently, a friend asked us what we really thought about immigration.  With some reflection, we put our thoughts together in the following reply:

    A few years ago we began trying to educate ourselves on the issue, visiting our local immigration prison, which is owned and operated by a private corporation, the GEO Group.  We were bothered by the idea of people making a profit from rounding up and incarcerating others.  This seemed to us like something that should only be done by the government, if it had to be done at all.  We had a vague idea that somehow the profit motive likely would creep into the mix in a way that was not good.  Some investigation turned up that the GEO Group and the Corrections Corporation of America, both privately owned corporations, were spending mega bucks lobbying to get anti-immigration laws passed in several states including Arizona, Utah and Alabama and So. Carolina.  Why would they do this?  Because they want to fill their rooms at close to $200 per nite, just like any good business.  With more stringent laws against immigrants, more customers would come.  Of course, they couldn't come out and say this.  What we have seen is an increase in messages about immigrants taking our jobs, not paying taxes, depleting social services, adding to our crime rates etc.

   So, we started reading more on the issue, spent some time working with a local Latino service organization, took workshops, and finally started this blog last May with the idea of looking at the problem from several points of view.

Through all of this we have drawn some conclusions:

    1.  Anti-immigrant sentiment is nothing new nor limited to our current affairs or just the U.S.:  all over the world immigrants are shunned and the outside ethnic group is always seen as inferior.  Just a few which come to mind:  Shiite and Sunni,  Japanese and Chinese, Kurds and Turks, Slavs and Croats, Romanians in Spain ( the Spanish gov. recently was offering them money to go back to Romania, if they promised to stay there for 5 yrs ! ), Catholic Irish vs. English Protestants, the Algerians in France etc.  In the US we have historically found groups that were easy to discriminate against:  Native Americans, Italians, Germans, Irish, Chinese, Japanese, Africans, and now Latinos.

    2. There is always an element of "otherness" commonly based on religion or skin color or language in the "outside" group.

    3.  Those in a position of influence ( talk show hosts, politicians, religious leaders, and in some cases even teachers) tend to take sides.  Those who exacerbate the dislike of the scapegoat, usually focus on the "otherness" and try to foment fear of the unknown.  Most people naturally have certain fears of that which is outside their comfort zone, their realm of familiarity.  So, this is an easy way to persuade the populace of the demons in "those people."   We hear terms like "the axis of evil," and "They are either for us, or against us." or "They are taking away our jobs."  This is a common one in our current financially stressful world.

    4.  With the passage of time, at least in the US, our "social mind-set" or popular image softens toward many of our formerly disliked groups.  Think of the changes we have seen in attitudes in our lifetime toward, say, African Americans, Japanese, and the Vietnamese.  These changes come slowly, with influence makers and moms in sneakers speaking out. 

    5.  Seeing the above pattern repeat itself several times in our lives, we now are much more skeptical of accepting the initial demagoguery.

    6.  Based on our own experiences and observations, we have found the Mexicans we have met here in the US and Mexico, mostly genuine, generous, hard-working people, who are trying to make the best of their lives.  The newly emigrated are leaving poverty, violence and corruption, looking for a new beginning, a second chance.  When we recently read in an internet forum a comment from a woman who described herself as a conservative, born again Christian who thought that all Mexicans should be deported, what came to mind was that the essence of both Christianity and immigration is a second chance, a new beginning, an opportunity to start fresh.  She obviously saw life differently from us.
    7.  Attempts to force immigrants out of our communities has proven repeatedly unworkable.  The resulting economic impact is disastrous to those who pass such legislation.  The immigrants, both legal and illegal, have their lives and families thrown into chaos.  For some, this may be the goal.  For us, it is unfathomable.

    8.  So, indeed, we would favor changing our laws to provide a path to citizenship.  Perhaps fines may be a part of the equation, but few will be able to pay them.  If it is found that back taxes are owed, certainly employers would be required to pay their portions, along with penalties and interest.  We think that it will be nearly impossible to find small business employers who have relied in the past on undocumented workers, now willing to step up and pay these back taxes, fines and interest.  Hence, "making up for the past" is a difficult part of the solution.  Criminal records should be examined and not allowed for violent crimes.  Service to the country (USA) in the form of work in the Peace Corps, Americore etc would be a good thing.  Basic English proficiency should be required, as well as knowledge of our governmental system.  We see this not as amnesty.  Rather it represents a means of earning a way into our system.  In the early days of our country, many people earned their way in - as indentured servants.  When they could not pay for their passage across the ocean, they "borrowed" the money from a landowner already living in this country, then worked for that owner for five to seven years without pay.

HISTORY OF IMMIGRATION IN USA 
(source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_immigration_to_the_United_States )

1630 to 1830
The peak New England settlement occurred from about 1629 to about 1641 when about 20,000 Puritan settlers arrived.   In the next 150 years, their  descendants largely filled in the New England states and parts of upstate New York.
While the 13 colonies had differences in detail, they had many things in common. Nearly all were settled and financed by privately organized groups of English settlers or families using private free enterprise without any significant English Royal or Parliamentary government support or input.
They nearly all established their own popularly elected governments and courts on as many levels as they could and were nearly all, within a few years, mostly armed, self governing, self supporting and self replicating. This self ruling pattern became so ingrained that almost all new settlements by one or more groups of settlers would have their own government up and running shortly after they settled down for the next 200 years. Nearly all, after a hundred years plus of living together, had learned to tolerate other religions than their own.
Nearly all colonies and later, states in the United States, were settled by migration from another colony or state, as foreign immigration usually only played a minor role after the initial settlements were started. Many new immigrants did end up on the frontiers as that was where the land was usually the cheapest.
Although Spain set up a few forts in Florida, notably San Agustín (present-day Saint Augustine) in 1565, they sent few settlers. Spaniards moving north from Mexico founded the San Juan on the Rio Grande in 1598, and Santa Fe in 1607-1608.
There was relatively little immigration from 1770 to 1830; indeed there was significant outmigration to Canada, including about 75,000 Loyalists as well as Germans and other looking for better farms in what is now Ontario.  Nearly all population growth up to 1830 was by internal increase; about 98.5% of the population was native-born.  Large scale immigration resumed in the 1830s from Britain, Ireland, Germany and other parts of western Europe.
1830
Between 1831 and 1840, immigration more than quadrupled to a total of 599,000. These included about 207,000 Irish, starting to emigrate in large numbers following Britain's easing of travel restrictions, and about 152,000 Germans, 76,000 British, and 46,000 French, constituting the next largest immigrant groups of the decade.
Between 1841 and 1850, immigration nearly tripled again , totaling 1,713,000 immigrants, including at least 781,000 Irish, 435,000 Germans, 267,000 British and 77,000 French immigrants.
By 1850, this had shifted to about 90% native-born. The first significant Catholic immigration started in the mid 1840s, shifting the population from about 95% Protestant down to about 90% by 1850.
In 1848, the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, concluding the Mexican War, extended U.S. citizenship to approximately 60,000 Mexican residents of the New Mexico Territory and 10,000 living in California. An additional approximate 2,500 foreign born California residents also become U.S. citizens.
In 1849, the California Gold Rush brought in over 100,000 would-be miners from the eastern U.S., Latin America, China, Australia, and Europe.

1870

After 1870 steam powered larger and faster ships, with lower fares. Meanwhile farming improvements in southern and eastern Europe created surplus populations that needed to move on. As usual, young people age 15 to 30 predominated among the newcomers. This wave of migration, which constituted the third episode in the history of U.S. immigration, could better be referred to as a flood of immigrants, as nearly 25 million Europeans made the voyage. Italians, Greeks, Hungarians, Poles, and others speaking Slavic languages constituted the bulk of this migration. Included among them were 2.5 to 4 million Jews.
Anti Immigration
Their urban destinations, their numbers, and perhaps an antipathy towards foreigners led to the emergence of a second wave of organized xenophobia. By the 1890s, many Americans, particularly from the ranks of the well-off, white, native-born, considered immigration to pose a serious danger to the nation’s health and security. In 1893 a group of them formed the Immigration Restriction League, and it, along with other similarly inclined organizations, began to press Congress for severe curtailment of foreign immigration.

Irish and German Catholic immigration was opposed in the 1850s by the Nativist/Know Nothing movement, originating in New York in 1843 as the American Republican Party. It was empowered by popular fears that the country was being overwhelmed by Catholic immigrants , who were often regarded as hostile to American values and controlled by the Pope in Rome.

Shortly after the U.S. Civil War, some states started to pass their own immigration laws, which prompted the U.S. Supreme Court to rule in 1875 that immigration was a federal responsibility.^[26] In 1875, the nation passed its first immigration law, the Page Act of 1875, also known as the Asian Exclusion Act, outlawing the importation of unwilling Chinese women for sex slavery.^[27]
The Dillingham Commission was instituted by the United States Congress in 1907 to investigate the effects of immigration on the country. The Commission's analysis of American immigration during the previous three decades led it to conclude that the major source of immigration had shifted from northern and western Europeans to southern and eastern Europeans.   The 1910s marked the high point of Italian immigration to the United States. Over two million Italians immigrated in those years, with a total of 5.3 million between 1880 and 1920.
About 1.5 million Swedes and Norwegians immigrated to the United States within this period, due to opportunity in America and poverty and religious oppression in united Sweden-Norway.
Over two million Eastern Europeans, mainly Catholics and Jews, immigrated between 1880 and 1924.  People of Polish ancestry are the largest Eastern European ancestry group in the United States.
Congress passed a literacy requirement in 1917 to curb the influx of low-skilled immigrants from entering the country.
Congress passed the Emergency Quota Act in 1921, followed by the Immigration Act of 1924, which was aimed at further restricting the Southern and Eastern Europeans who had begun to enter the country in large numbers beginning in the 1890s.  In 1924  quotas were set for European immigrants so that no more than 2% of the 1890 immigrant stocks were allowed into America.
Restriction proceeded piecemeal over the course of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, but immediately after the end of World War I (1914-1918) and into the early 1920s, Congress did change the nation’s basic policy about immigration. The National Origins Formula of 1921 (and its final form in 1924) not only restricted the number of immigrants who might enter the United States but also assigned slots according to quotas based on national origins. A complicated piece of legislation, it essentially gave preference to immigrants from northern and western Europe, severely limited the numbers from eastern and southern Europe, and declared all potential immigrants from Asia to be unworthy of entry into the United States.
The legislation excluded the Western Hemisphere from the quota system, and the 1920s ushered in the penultimate era in U.S. immigration history. Immigrants could and did move quite freely from Mexico, the Caribbean (including Jamaica, Barbados, and Haiti), and other parts of Central and South America. This era, which reflected the application of the 1924 legislation, lasted until 1965.
In 1952, the McCarran Walter Immigration Act affirmed the national-origins quota system of 1924 and limited total annual immigration to one-sixth of one percent of the population of the continental United States in 1920, or 175,455. The act exempted spouses and children of U.S. citizens and people born in the Western Hemisphere from the quota.
In 1954, Operation Wetback forced the return of thousands of illegal immigrants to Mexico. [4]. Between 1944 and 1954, "the decade of the wetback," the number of illegal immigrants coming from Mexico increased by 6,000 percent. It is estimated that, in 1954, before Operation Wetback got under way, more than a million workers had crossed the Rio Grande illegally.
It is difficult to estimate the number of illegal immigrants that left due to the operation—most voluntarily. The INS claimed as many as 1,300,000, though the number officially apprehended did not come anywhere near this total. The program was ultimately abandoned due to questions surrounding the ethics of its implementation. Citizens of Mexican descent complained of police stopping all "Mexican looking" people and utilizing extreme “police-state” methods including deportation of American-born children who by law were citizens.^[40]
In 1986, the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) was passed, creating, for the first time, penalties for employers who hired illegal immigrants. IRCA, as proposed in Congress, was projected to give amnesty to about 1,000,000 workers in the country illegally. In practice, amnesty for about 3,000,000 immigrants already in the United States was granted. Most were from Mexico. Legal Mexican immigrant family numbers were 2,198,000 in 1980, 4,289,000 in 1990 (includes IRCA) and 7,841,000 in 2000.

SOME CURRENT ARGUMENTS ABOUT IMMIGRATION

(Source: Immigration Policy Center: 

Fuzzy Math: The Anti-Immigration Arguments of NumbersUSA Don't Add Up

According to the anti-immigration group NumbersUSA, immigration to the United States is all about arithmetic: immigration increases the U.S. population, and more people presumably means more pollution, more urban sprawl, more competition for jobs, and higher taxes for Americans who must shoulder the costs of “over-population.”  At first glance, this argument is attractive in its simplicity: less immigration, fewer people, a better environment, more jobs, lower taxes. However, as with so many simple arguments about complex topics, it is fundamentally flawed and misses the point.  “Over-population” is not the primary cause of the environmental or economic woes facing the United States, so arbitrary restrictions on immigration will not create a cleaner environment or a healthier economy.

Environment

• According to the World Resources Institute, the United States is home to 23% fewer people than the European nations of the EU-15, yet produced 70% more greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, as of 2000.

• Environmental degradation is caused by a host of factors unrelated to population size, such as the degree to which a society depends upon polluting and non-renewable fossil fuels; utilizes pollution-reduction technologies; develops systems of mass transit to minimize individual automobile use; uses plastics and other non-biodegradable materials in manufacturing and packaging consumer goods; recycles potentially recyclable materials; and controls agricultural run-off into waterways.

• A few people can pollute a lot, or a lot of people can pollute a little, depending on the systems of production and consumption within a society.  The problem is less about how many people are in the United States, and more about how the United States produces and consumes.

Economy:

• NumbersUSA argues that immigration imposes a financial burden on U.S. taxpayers because most immigrants earn relatively low wages and therefore don’t pay enough in taxes to cover the cost of the public benefits and services they receive.
• This argument is based on a narrow and misleading fiscal snapshot of how much the health and educational services utilized by immigrants and their children—even those born in the United States—“cost” in comparison to the taxes they pay at a single point in time. In reality, the income levels and tax contributions of immigrants tend to increase over time, and all children are “costly” when they are still in school and not yet working, tax-paying adults.  A more accurate fiscal analysis would estimate how much immigrants and their children pay in taxes and utilize in public services over their lifetimes.
• Even a lifetime fiscal accounting does not capture the many other economic contributions that workers—both immigrant and native-born—make through their consumer purchasing power and formation of new businesses, both of which increase the nation’s economic output, create jobs, and provide federal, state, and local governments with additional revenue through sales, income, business, and property taxes.
• Because it ignores the many economic contributions that workers make over their lifetimes, the one-year fiscal snapshot favored by NumbersUSA would also incorrectly portray the more than 32 million native-born Americans who live below the federal poverty line, as well as nearly all native-born retirees, as a net “burden” on U.S. taxpayers.

Immigrants Don’t “Steal” Jobs

• NumbersUSA portrays immigrant workers as little more than job competition for native-born workers.  In truth, most immigrants are not competing with most natives for the same jobs.
• Immigrants tend to have either very little education or a great deal of education, while most natives fall somewhere in the middle of the educational spectrum, which means they are filling different niches in the labor force.  As a result, immigrants usually complement the native-born workforce—which increases the productivity, and therefore the wages, of natives.
• A 2006 study by economist Giovanni Peri of the University of California-Davis found that, between 1990 and 2004, the roughly 90% of native-born workers with at least a high-school diploma experienced wage gains because of immigration that ranged from 0.7% to 3.4%, depending on their level of education.
• A May 2009 report by Rob Paral & Associates demonstrates that, even in the midst of the current economic recession, there is no correlation between the presence of immigrants in the labor market of a particular locale and the unemployment rate among native-born whites, blacks, Latinos, or Asians.
• The reliance of the U.S. economy upon immigrant workers is unlikely to diminish in the coming decades given the seriousness of the “aging” crisis precipitated by the impending retirement of the Baby Boom generation.
• A 2008 report by demographer Dowell Myers of the University of Southern California estimates that the ratio of seniors (age 65 and older) to working-age adults (25 to 64) will increase by 67 percent between 2010 and 2030. Immigrants, who tend to be younger than natives, will be increasingly important as workers, taxpayers, and homebuyers.

Taxes and State Services

.   1.    I have a friend who is an employer, currently looking to hire someone.

    2.    If he hires someone “above board,” paying all taxes, it will cost him  $ 15 per hour after collecting the taxes from the employee, adding the employer's portion of the taxes and sending them to the government.  ( This is the only legal way to do it.)

    3.    If he hires a legal citizen “under the table” without sending any taxes to the government, he might get the same work done for $ 11 per hour.  For various reasons many citizens prefer this.

    4.    If he hires an illegal immigrant he might get the work done for $ 8 per hour.

    5.    What then is the value of the work?  Those who argue that illegals are “stealing our jobs” would have to say that the value is $15 per hour since that is what they see as the loss to their income.  The government would agree.

    6.    In a quid pro quo equation there are two parts:  the worker gives an hour of time; the employer gives $15.

    7.    BUT when an illegal gives his hour of time and the employer only gives up $8, who is shorting the system (State of Calif., for instance) causing the state to go bankrupt?  It's not the immigrant and his kids who are draining the system dry. 

       Now, if all the farmers, business owners and homeowners who have hired someone to do their gardening would just pay back all the money they have pocketed by paying immigrants below the prevailing wages, plus interest and penalties, the state system would be solvent.  The real moral question is, "Who has stolen the money from the state?"

    8.    For a good book that illustrates this concept of thinking deeper, asking the right questions, look at the #1 best seller Freakonomics by Levitt and Dubner.

What does the face of the undocumented immigrant look like?  What is the face of hope?

Border Patrol Agent turns migrant supporter

Former Border Patrol Agent,  John Randolph, decides it has not worked to chase people around and detain them for wanting to cross our border and find a better job to support their families. 

In my twenty-six years as a US Border Patrol/ICE Agent, I caught many people. At the time, common sense told me that the vast majority of the people who I caught were good, hard working people. I began to wonder why immigrants had to be chased like animals, and why I was being paid to chase them.

Early on in my career, death and injury brought it all into perspective. In the early 1980's one of my classmates who transferred over to DEA was murdered during an undercover rip-off. Another co-worker friend was shot to death while on surveillance of an alien smuggling ring. I witnessed a young Mexican man fall to death from a freeway overpass while running from me. I myself fell out of the passenger side of a patrol unit when my partner blindly accelerated before I could get back in the car. I saw a young Mexican woman who while running at full speed in the dark, hit her head on the dropped cement ceiling of a drainage tube. She required hospitalization and facial surgery.
One night, after coming home from a day of work, I had a dream of a high-speed pursuit in which the car that I was chasing crashed. I ran up to the overturned car to apprehend the perpetrator. When I opened the car door, I found that my own son, injured inside. This dream had a profound effect on me.
Since my days as a Border Patrol Agent, I've had a change of heart. I'm now a musician and a migrant activist, above all else. It's all hard to put into words, I suppose. Hungry people, friends getting killed, and no real sense that what we were doing was doing any good. "What are we doing here? Why am I chasing these people?", I'd ask myself.
I learned early in my twenty six year career as a US Border Patrol Agent, INS Criminal Investigator, and a DHS Special Agent, that we neither had nor were provided the resources to stop people or drugs from entering the country. I knew officers who worked at the port of entry in San Diego. They told me of the large amounts of drugs that were being intercepted. I naturally wondered how much must have been getting through.
After thirty-five years of working and observing our government's failed immigration and drug enforcement systems, I am now convinced that both are insidiously designed to fail. The failure of NAFTA and the unrelenting violence of the US-backed war on drugs in Mexico have created conditions for a Mexican exodus. There have been close to 40,000 drug war-related deaths in Mexico since 2006. I know the real victims of these two forces; I've met them. They are the poor and hard-working Mexican citizens who only want a better life. The border is really meant to keep the good people from both sides from joining together, from knowing each other, and from prospering.
I therefore support the use of asylum as a means of protection for such Mexican citizens whose lives are put in danger everyday by the US backed drug war. While the Obama administration just announced its decision to back off of the deportation of "low priority" immigration cases, I believe that this is not true immigration reform. Rather, it postpones any actual case decisions from being made. I also believe we should support the millions of US Dream Act kids and undocumented Mexicans with the use of immigration hearings as a vehicle for reform. I say we should turn the 300,000 case back log into a million case backlog. It is now clear to me that Washington will not reform failed drug or immigration systems until it is put in the position where it is forced to do so.

After twenty-six years of chasing people on the behalf of the U.S. government, finally, I have to ask our politicians this question: How many more people will die until our system fundamentally changes?

See article:  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-randolph/from-border-patrol-agent-to-immigration-reform-activist_b_943799.html?ref=tw

They just don't want to work farm jobs - No quieren un trabajo en el campo

U.S. Farmers can't find enough Citizens to harvest our crops. Even unemployed people won't go out in the field and work at these labor-intensive positions. Granted, it is not easy work, but people complain that we have over 9% unemployed and blame the immigrants for their woes. This is nothing new, we've always found a foreign scapegoat. It's easier to blame others.

Larry Kleinman on Illegal Farm Workers

As the annual sweet corn harvest season ends, Colorado farmer, John Harold has learned something very interesting as it relates to the immigrant labor work ethic.
When the season started in July Harold decided not to hire legal Mexican migrants with a H2A visas but opted to hire locally.  He was motivated to do so seeing the local unemployment rate at 9.8% and some hirer costs getting visa workers.  With that decision he saw lines of applicants but few that could do the work and even fewer that stayed to do the work.
Typically he hires 150 seasonal migrant workers to hand pick the corn and pays them $10.48/hour, the same rate he was offering his new hires.  The result was for every three U.S. citizens he hired only one stayed.  As of last Thursday he just has 39 workers instead of the 150 he needs. 
He has documented every resignation and the fact that he has been advertising throughout Colorado, New Mexico and Oklahoma for these positions.  Harold will be taking those facts to his local Senator and advocating for immigration reform.  Harold concluded: “You have to understand there is a work ethic of migrant laborers that is just not found with local labor.”

See more of this and other articles on immigration: http://www.hispanicallyspeakingnews.com/notitas-de-noticias/details/something-to-think-about-u.s.-farmer-cant-find-u.s.-citizens-to-replac/

Inmigrantes a la Venta --- Immigrants for Sale

What happens to someone who is detained on immigration issues?  Can  investors gain from having a large supply of detainees?  If so, what could investors do to increase their profits?  What kind of legislation would they support?

(Click for English Version)





Se puede ganar desde los detenidos?  Si eso es, ¿cuál tipo de normas prefererían los invesionistas?

Alabama HB 56 anti immigration law still undecided

Federal Judge Sharon Blackburn is pondering one of the most anti-immigrant proposals to come before the court.  It is HB 56 from Alabama.  Proponents say it should open up work opportunities for unemployed US citizens in construction and farm labor.  But farmers say their crops are rotting in the fields.

The law makes it a crime to have an undocumented person in your vehicle or to rent to or have someone stay in your home who lacks proper paperwork.

From Inmigrante TV:

Alabama. Tras la audiencia ante la jueza federal Sharon Blackburn para suspender la polémica ley HB 56 de Alabama, ella aún no emite una resolución.
La jueza se reunió por más de nueve horas con los abogados del Gobierno Federal y una coalición de grupos de derechos civiles, que argumentaron que la ley, que entra en vigor el 1 de septiembre, denigra los derechos civiles.
Así mismo enfatizaron que el tema de la inmigración debe ser regulado por el Gobierno Federal y no por los estados.
William Orrick, vicefiscal federal, afirmó ante la jueza que no hay espacio para que los estados estén legislando en este tema.
La polémica HB 56 fue promulgada en junio por el gobernador Robert Bentley, es considerada una de las más duras contra los inmigrantes indocumentados. Desde su firma,  muchos inmigrantes indocumentados se marcharon del estado de Alabama. Esto provocó que agricultores y empresas de construcción enfrentaran escasez de mano de obra, y que las cosechas se estén echando a perder en los campos.
Quienes respaldan la ley aseguran que aislará a los trabajadores que no tengan un estatus legal de Alabama, y dejará vacantes disponibles para ciudadanos desempleados. Por otra parte, afirman que se ahorrarán fondos al estado vinculados con gastos de salud y educación.
Sin embargo, sus opositores advierten que impulsa la discriminación, viola derechos como libertad de expresión y libre tránsito y afecta a las compañías.
La HB 56 autoriza a la policía a solicitar documentos migratorios a personas sospechosas de estar indocumentadas en el país, que sean detenidas por infracciones de tránsito. También prohíbe que personas transporten o alberguen a inmigrantes sin papeles y criminaliza a quienes lo hagan.

See more articles on immigration:  http://blog.inmigrantetv.com/?p=8520

The economic effect of deportation and expulsion of immigrants

Is this what is best for your town?  Will you still be able to pay your mortgage if all the immigrants in your community leave, or are forced out?  Often, those who oppose immigrants claim that the foreigners are taking away our jobs.  However, the evidence does not support this view.  This video shows just one town's realization after trying to exclude immigrants, that they play a vital role in our society and that we need their contribution.  Click to view it.

Change in US Immigration Policy - Cambio político migratorio - EEUU

BBC Mundo reports a reprieve in deportation of illegal immigrants.  The Obama administration is shifting it's emphasis under pressure from the hispanic community and it's supporters.  Authorities are now trying to sort through the nearly one third of a million people held in U.S. prisons under immigration charges, to find and deport only those who have criminal records other than crossing the border without proper paperwork, or overstaying the alloted time limit of visas issued legally.

Este jueves los miles de hispanos indocumentados recibieron una buena noticia: la Casa Blanca anunció que postergará indefinidamente las causas de deportación de extranjeros sin papeles que no tengan expedientes criminales o que no representen una amenaza a la seguridad nacional.

La decisión -comunicada por dos altos funcionarios de gobierno en una conferencia telefónica de la que participó BBC Mundo- introduce un cambio importante en las políticas migratorias de la gestión de Barack Obama, durante la cual se ha alcanzado un número récord de deportaciones.

Contenido relacionado

• Arizona hoy: ¿cómo es ser hispano bajo la ley antiinmigración?
• Georgia, en un “día sin inmigrantes”
• Obama al margen de las leyes contra indocumentados

Las organizaciones que luchan por los derechos de los migrantes celebraron la propuesta de aplazar indefinidamente un buen número de causas, por considerar que atiende a razones humanitarias.
"La administración del presidente Obama ha dado señales de que es capaz de ofrecer ayuda a las familias inmigrantes. Esperamos con impaciencia que miembros de la comunidad confirmen que sus familias ahora pueden estar juntas y quedarse en este país", expresó la ONG Casa de Maryland, en un comunicado enviado a BBC Mundo.

Sin garantías

"Esperamos con impaciencia que miembros de la comunidad confirmen que sus familias ahora pueden estar juntas y quedarse en este país"

ONG Casa de Maryland

En el año fiscal 2010, el Departamento de Seguridad Interior expulsó del territorio estadounidense por vía legal a más de 392.000 indocumentados, según cifras oficiales, el mayor número de la historia del país.
El gobierno señaló que las nuevas políticas regirán sólo para personas que tengan una causa de deportación pendiente (lo que técnicamente se conoce como removal procedures) y permitirán que estos inmigrantes postulen para un permiso de empleo, aunque sin garantías de que éste les sea concedido.
Aunque no existe un cálculo oficial, se estima que se beneficiará así a miles de hispanos indocumentados, cuyos casos serán evaluados uno a uno por un comité.
Sin embargo, eso no significa que sus causas de deportación vayan a quedar cerradas: sólo serán congeladas y podrán ser reabiertas por el gobierno en cualquier momento, si reciben información sobre presuntas conductas delictivas de los beneficiarios o a discreción de los funcionarios de migración.

Cortes saturadas

Las nuevas políticas regirán sólo para personas que tengan una causa de deportación pendiente.

Altas fuentes del gobierno estadounidense, que pidieron reserva de su nombre, reconocieron ante BBC Mundo que el número de causas de deportación que aguardan un veredicto -unas 300.000- excede la capacidad de las cortes de inmigración encargadas de revisarlas, lo que genera demoras de hasta dos años.
El cambio de estrategia apuntará ahora a concentrar los recursos en casos de indocumentados convictos por crímenes diversos, personas que hayan cruzado ilegalmente la frontera recientemente (en lugar de aquellos sin papeles que llevan muchos años instalados en el país) o que hayan reincidido en el ingreso ilegal después de haber sido deportados en el pasado.
Son, en la jerga de las dependencias de migración estadounidense, "residente ilegales de nivel 1" o de alto riesgo. Los demás casos serán considerados "no prioritarios".
Los anuncios continúan los lineamientos expresados por el secretario del Servicio de Inmigración y Control de Aduanas (ICE, por sus siglas en inglés), John Morton, en un memorándum de junio pasado. En él, instruía a sus empleados a utilizar el "criterio de discrecionalidad" a la hora de iniciar un proceso de deportación y evaluar cuestiones tales como cuánto tiempo lleva la persona en el país, si tiene cónyuge o hijo estadounidense o si posee antecedentes delictivos.

Escépticos

"La administración de Obama simplemente ha decidido usurpar la autoridad constitucional del Congreso e implementar un programa de amnistía para millones de inmigrantes ilegales"

Dan Stein, presidente de la Federación Estadounidense para la Reforma Migratoria (FAIR)

Otros recibieron la novedad con escepticismo, al considerar que lo que se anuncia desde las oficinas de Washington "no siempre se ve reflejado en el terreno", donde los indocumentados continúan siendo detenidos de a centenares.
"Somos escépticos sobre la habilidad del ICE y las patrullas fronterizas de hacer de esta política la nueva norma, teniendo en cuenta cómo han operado estas agencias durante años. Pero este anuncio establece un nuevo nivel de responsabilidad y claridad que deberían llevar seguridad y estabilidad a miles de familias que hoy se ven desmembradas por las deportaciones", apuntó la organización civil America's Voice, que aboga por una reforma migratoria integral.
En tanto, los grupos reacios a suavizar las políticas migratorias consideraron el anuncio como una velada "amnistía administrativa".
"Habiendo fracasado por el proceso legislativo, la administración de Obama simplemente ha decidido usurpar la autoridad constitucional del Congreso e implementar un programa de amnistía para millones de inmigrantes ilegales", señaló Dan Stein, presidente de la conservadora Federación Estadounidense para la Reforma Migratoria (FAIR, por sus siglas en inglés).

See more of this and other articles from BBC Mundo:  http://www.bbc.co.uk/mundo/noticias/2011/08/110818_eeuu_deportaciones_suspension_cch.shtml

Thousands of Mexican Professionals emigrating to USA

With salaries ten times larger for some professionals in the US, violence and insecurity at home, thousands have been leaving home in another version of the "Brain-Drain" phenom.  The majority head north.  This trend contradicts the recent drop-off in Mexican immigration statistics.

By

Alberto Nájar

BBC Mundo

La emigración de México a Estados Unidos ha disminuido, según datos oficiales de ambos países. Pero existe un grupo de mexicanos que parece caminar en sentido contrario a la tendencia.

Cada año miles de profesionales abandonan el país en busca de mejores oportunidades o para huir de la inseguridad, reconocen especialistas y autoridades.

Contenido relacionado

• El "sueño americano" atrae a menos mexicanos
• México pierde a sus científicos

Estados Unidos es el destino de la mayoría. La Secretaría de Educación Pública informó que en la última década se duplicó el número de mexicanos con licenciatura y posgrado que emigraron al país.
En 2000 había 411.000 de estos profesionales, y para 2010 el número aumentó a más de un millón. Uno de cada cinco mexicanos con doctorado vive en Estados Unidos.
El fenómeno alarma a las autoridades, que han implementado varios programas para retener y repatriar a los migrantes altamente capacitados, pero hasta ahora el proceso migratorio no se ha detenido, le dice a BBC Mundo Camila Tigau, especialista del Centro de Investigaciones Sobre América del Norte (CISAN).
"Hubo la perspectiva optimista de que con la crisis de 2008, como iba a haber menos empleo en Estados Unidos y Canadá se resolvería el problema de la fuga de cerebros en México, pero eso no ha pasado", explica.
"Ha habido factores más importantes que llevan a la gente fuera, entonces en vez de que tengamos un retorno importante lo que hay es una salida importante de gente".

Sueldos

Un recién graduado puede ganar casi diez veces más en Estados Unidos que en México.

La diferencia salarial parece ser uno de los principales estímulos para la migración de profesionales.
De acuerdo con la Oficina de Estadísticas Laborales de Estados Unidos un ingeniero civil recién graduado obtiene un ingreso mensual de US$4.500.
En México, en cambio, el sueldo de un profesional de este nivel es de unos US$590 cada mes, según la Secretaría del Trabajo.
Tal vez por eso aumentó la migración de ingenieros, sobre todo de los especializados en mecánica.
Recientemente la Asociación Mexicana de la Industria Automotriz dijo que la demanda de estos profesionales en el mercado estadounidense está al alza, pues muchos ingenieros de ese país se jubilarán en los próximos años.
Así, la semana pasada la Asociación de Ingenieros Universitarios Mecánicos Electricistas (AIUME), dijo que unos 40.000 ingenieros mexicanos emigran cada año a Estados Unidos en busca de mejores empleos.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/mundo/noticias/2011/08/110810_migracion_profesionistas_mexico_an.shtml

Million skilled immigrants await 120k visas -- Results: Brain Drain

More than one million skilled immigrant workers, including scientists, engineers, doctors and researchers and their families, are competing for 120,000 permanent U.S. resident visas each year, creating a sizeable imbalance likely to fuel a "reverse brain-drain" with skilled workers returning to their home country, according to a new report released today by the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation.
The situation is even bleaker as the number of employment visas issued to immigrants from any single country is less than 10,000 per year with a wait time of several years.
"The United States benefits from having foreign-born innovators create their ideas in this country," said Vivek Wadhwa, Wertheim fellow with the Harvard Law School and executive in residence at Duke University. "Their departures would be detrimental to U.S. economic well-being. And, when foreigners come to the United States, collaborate with Americans in developing and patenting new ideas, and employ those ideas in business in ways they could not readily do in their home countries, the world benefits."
Conducted by researchers at Duke University, New York University and Harvard University, the study is the third in a series of studies focusing on immigrants’ contributions to the competitiveness of the U.S. economy. Earlier research revealed a dramatic increase in the contributions of foreign nationals to U.S. intellectual property over an eight-year period.
In this study, "Intellectual Property, the Immigration Backlog, and a Reverse Brain-Drain," researchers offer a more refined measure of this rise in contributions of foreign nationals to U.S. intellectual property and seek to explain this increase with an analysis of the immigrant-visa backlog for skilled workers. The key finding from this research is that the number of skilled workers waiting for visas is significantly larger than the number that can be admitted to the United States. This imbalance creates the potential for a sizeable reverse brain-drain from the United States to the skilled workers’ home countries.
The earlier studies, "America’s New Immigrant Entrepreneurs" and "Entrepreneurship, Education and Immigration: America’s New Immigrant Entrepreneurs, Part II," documented that one in four engineering and technology companies founded between 1995 and 2005 had an immigrant founder. Researchers found that these companies employed 450,000 workers and generated $52 billion in revenue in 2006. Indian immigrants founded more companies than the next four groups (from the United Kingdom, China, Taiwan and Japan) combined.
Furthermore, these companies’ founders tended to be highly educated in science, technology, math and engineering-related disciplines, with 96 percent holding bachelor’s degrees and 75 percent holding master’s or PhD degrees.
Among key findings in the most recent report:

• Foreign nationals residing in the United States were named as inventors or co-inventors in 25.6 percent of international patent applications filed from the United States in 2006. This represents an increase from 7.6 percent in 1998.
• Foreign nationals contributed to more than half of the international patents filed by a number of large, multi-national companies, including Qualcomm (72 percent), Merck & Co. (65 percent), General Electric (64 percent), Siemens (63 percent) and Cisco (60 percent). Forty-one percent of the patents filed by the U.S. government had foreign nationals as inventors or co-inventors.
• In 2006, 16.8 percent of international patent applications from the United States had an inventor or co-inventor with a Chinese-heritage name, representing an increase from 11.2 percent in 1998. The contribution of inventors with Indian-heritage names increased to 13.7 percent from 9.5 percent in the same period.
• The total number of employment-based principals in the employment-based categories and their family members waiting for legal permanent residence in the United States in 2006 was estimated at 1,055,084. Additionally, there are an estimated 126,421 residents abroad also waiting for employment-based U.S. legal permanent residence, adding up to a worldwide total of 1,181,505.

Using data from the New Immigrant Survey, the authors find that, in 2003, approximately one in five new legal immigrants in the United States and about one in three employment-based new legal immigrants either planned to leave the United States or were uncertain about remaining. The authors had no data on how many foreign nationals have actually returned to their homelands.
"Given that the U.S. comparative advantage in the global economy is in creating knowledge and applying it to business, it behooves the country to consider how we might adjust policies to reduce the immigration backlog, encourage innovative foreign minds to remain in the country, and entice new innovators to come," said Robert Litan, vice president of Research and Policy at the Kauffman Foundation.

Read more:  http://www.kauffman.org/Details.aspx?id=1020

Legal Immigration: How long Is the Wait?

National Foundation for American Policy (NFAP), in a May 2006 study entitled "Legal Immigrants: Waiting Forever An Analysis of the Green Card Backlogs and Processing Delays Affecting Families, Skilled Professionals and U.S. Employers," concluded:

"Why don’t people wait to immigrate legally to the United States? The answer is that many people do come here legally but processing delays and the family and employment-based immigration quotas legislated by Congress result in significant wait times – and much frustration – for potential immigrants and U.S. employers. [...] Many Americans do not realize the significant waiting times foreign visitors and business travelers experience to obtain a visa to enter the United States...

Those who 'play by the rules' are likely to wait many years to become a lawful permanent resident, whether they are sponsored by an employer or a family member. Waits for green cards (permanent residence) in the Skilled Workers and Professionals category have worsened considerably in the past few years, with the current wait for a newly sponsored high skill immigrant in this category exceeding 5 years...

Siblings of U.S. citizens can expect to wait 11 to 12 years from today before immigrating to America (22 years from the Philippines). Unmarried adult children can anticipate waiting 6 years, but 13 years if from Mexico and 14 years from the Philippines. A spouse or minor child of a legal resident (green card holder) from Mexico has a 7 year wait (a 5 year wait from other countries)."

May 2006 - National Foundation for American Policy (NFAP)

See more of this and similar articles:  http://immigration.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=000760