Immigration Experiment Under the Microscope: Very Costly, Unintended Consequences

Another community reports that its effort to rid itself of immigrants, ends up costing dearly.  For some the goal is to GET RID OF both legal and undocumented immigrants.  (It's pretty easy to call this Racism.)  For others it is an unintended consequence.  Either way, the community pays, both financially and through lost enrichment of life.

“The Hispanic businesses and malls are empty. You used to see 100 people at the shopping center, and after the resolution, you'd see five. You noticed the difference."

This quote describes the fallout from Prince William County’s polarizing local immigration law which was passed in 2007 and modified in 2008. A three-year, $385,000 University of Virginia study of the policy released this week found that it drove out a significant number of immigrants—both legal and undocumented.
Under the original policy, local police were directed to check the immigration status of any individual they had probable cause to believe was in the country without authorization. After much controversy, Prince William limited the measure in 2008 to require police officers to check the immigration status of all arrestees.
Clearly, Prince William’s immigration actions cost the county the contributions of thousands of immigrant taxpayers, workers and consumers. From 2006 to 2008, Prince William’s non-citizen Hispanic population dropped by 22 percent, or by 7,700 people. During the same period, the undocumented population decreased by an estimated 3,000 to 6,000 people.
Immigration hawks are quick to separate legal from undocumented immigrants; we’re told harsh laws aren’t anti-immigrant because they only target undocumented immigrants. The UVA study shows us that this is a naïve assumption. Too often, restrictive immigration enforcement and the corresponding policy debates also impact legal immigrants and the broader Hispanic community.

Whether UVA’s findings are indicators of the policy’s success or troubling evidence of collateral damage depends on who you ask. For county supervisors, driving out legal immigrants and Hispanics was never a goal of the measure, but an “unintended consequence.” For others, this was a victory. From the report:

Some actors in the drama of the resolution’s passage had quite different goals. Some in the community who advocated the policy made clear…that they were hoping to “take back the County” by reversing the tide of rapid in-migration of Hispanics to Prince William County.

Immigration restrictionists also counted this as a win for “attrition through enforcement,” a strategy that calls for crafting harsh laws to make life so untenable for undocumented immigrants they choose to leave—an approach best described as “a product of delusion and cruelty.”

Should other localities follow Prince William’s approach to immigration enforcement? The authors conclude that their results should be only applied to other jurisdictions with “great caution.” ..... Moreover, these less-than-stellar results cost Prince William almost $3 million to implement. One author of the study advises would-be copycats: “This not a free policy…Don’t try this if you don’t want to spend some money.”

See more of this article:  http://www.dmiblog.com/archives/2010/11/under_the_microscope_one_count.html

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

National Suicide: Expelling Non-Criminal Immigrants

National Suicide

La política del gobierno federal de Estados Unidos de expulsar inmigrantes que no han cometido ningún delito en medio de una frágil economía es equivalente a “un suicidio nacional”, afirmó este lunes el alcalde de Nueva York, Michael Bloomberg.
“Esto es un suicidio nacional, estamos deliberadamente enviando a nuestro futuro fuera del país”, aseguró el edil durante su aparición en el programa de televisión Morning Joe en el canal MSNBC.
El alcalde indicó que lo que el país necesita en momentos de dificultades económicas son más inmigrantes, “que crean más empleos de los que toman”.
“Necesitamos más inmigrantes. Lo dije antes y he sido ampliamente criticado por eso. Si quieren impulsar la economía de las ciudades, hay una solución muy simple y es que el gobierno otorgue visas para que la gente pueda entrar aquí”, manifestó el funcionario.
El alcalde explicó que el gobierno federal debería comenzar un programa para dar visas de trabajo por siete años a trabajadores inmigrantes, lapso después del cual podrían obtener la ciudadanía completa tanto ellos como sus familias.
Advirtió sin embargo que aquellos inmigrantes que cometieran un crimen bajo este esquema serían rastreados y deportados sin dilación.

  BBC Mundo:   http://mexico.cnn.com/mundo/2011/08/08/el-alcalde-de-nueva-york-considera-un-suicidio-expulsar-a-los-migrantes

Telling the New American Dreamers - "Go Elsewhere !"

By JENNIFER EPSTEIN | 6/15/11 8:02 AM EDT Updated: 6/15/11 4:18 PM EDT

In a major speech to the Council on Foreign Relations on Wednesday, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg says the United States risks “national suicide” if it doesn’t adopt a more welcoming immigration policy.

“We will not remain a global superpower if we continue to close our doors to people who want to come here to work hard, start businesses, and pursue the American dream,” Bloomberg said.

 "The American dream cannot survive if we keep telling the dreamers to go elsewhere,” the mayor adds. “It’s what I call national suicide – and that’s not hyperbole.”

Immigration reform, he argues, is the key to creating new jobs and setting the economy on a steady path into the future.
Bloomberg’s speech comes as the Partnership for a New American Economy, of which he is a co-chair, releases a report looking at the role that immigrants play at Fortune 500 companies and the potential. Forty percent of Fortune 500 companies were founded by immigrants or the children of immigrants, the report notes.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0611/57013.html#ixzz1UVNClVIv

"Where did all the hate come from?" asks friend of Norway's murderer

Peter Svaar, a former classmate and companion of Anders Breivik, tells BBC Mundo of his shock at discovering the identity of Oslo's author of the massacre.  Svaar, a journalist, had spent years in high school and college, studying and camping with his friend, Anders.  The were very similar in many ways.  But what caused one to join the corp of journalism, while the other fomented hatred toward outsiders, joining anti-immigration organizations living in fear of what lies outside his comfort zone, scheming and intricately planning the outburst of his inner torment?

Translated below from Spanish into English

Odio

No era un hombre muy diferente de mí. Teníamos la misma edad, estudiamos en los mismos lugares.

"Todavía no puedo entender el origen de todo ese odio"

A ninguno de nosotros nos ha faltado nada material ni hemos sido víctimas de alguna injusticia social importante, en este país que tiene un amplio estado de bienestar.
Por supuesto, nunca he pasado años delante de mi computadora investigando recetas de bombas o visitando sitios web de la extrema derecha.
Y, lo que es más importante, nunca he sentido el tipo de ira o de odio que él debió haber tenido en su interior.
Todavía no puedo entender el origen de todo ese odio.
La mayoría de la gente ahora lo considera un monstruo.
Pero yo aún recuerdo su sonrisa y sus bromas.
Recuerdo cómo Anders a veces se le acercaba a uno por detrás y, en tono de broma, le gritaba "kra!" en el oído, sólo para darle un buen susto.
Era su saludo habitual en el patio de la escuela en esos años.

Translated to English by Immigration Reform Issues:

HATRED
He was not unlike me.  We were the same age.  We studied in the same places.  "Still I cannot understand the source of all that hatred?"
None of us lacked anything in the way of material goods, nor were we victims of some social important injustice, in this country which has such a widespread state of well-being.
Of course, I have not spent years in from of my computer investigating bomb making recipes, or visiting extreme right wing websites.
And, most importantly, I have not felt the type of anger and hatred that he must have had inside.  Still, I can't understand the origin of all this hatred.  Most people now consider him a monster.  But I still remember the smile and his jokes.  I remember how Anders used to come up behind one of us, and in a joking voice, would cry "kra" [growl] in our ear, just to give us a good scare.
That was his usual greeting on the playground in those years.

Source:  BBC Mundo: http://www.bbc.co.uk/mundo/noticias/2011/07/110730_noruega_oslo_ataques_anders_breivik_infancia_amigo_mt.shtml

Immigration policy affects individuals not just numbers.

How are these people affected by our immigration policies?

Why Does America Welcome Immigrants

Matthew Spalding, Ph. D., has given us a very well thought out description of why America welcomes immigrants.

By the very nature of the principles upon which it was founded, the United States—more than any other nation in history—beckons to its shores the downtrodden, the persecuted, and all those “yearning to breathe free.” It embraces those who come to this country honestly, armed with their work ethic, in search of the promises and opportunities of the American Dream. Why does America welcome immigrants?

The key to the uniquely successful story of American immigration is its deliberate and self-confident policy of patriotic assimilation: America welcomes newcomers while insisting that they learn and embrace its civic culture and political institutions, thereby form­ing one nation from many peoples—e pluribus unum. While there are differences of opinion about the number of immigrants the nation should accept and the process by which they should become citizens, there has always been widespread, bipartisan agreement that those who come here should become Americans.
The overwhelming result of this policy of assimilation, throughout American history, has been a strengthening of our social capital, the continuing expansion of our economy, and the constant renewal of our national purpose. America has been good for immigrants, and immigrants have been good for America.
Rather than assuming that civic allegiance rests on an ancient claim to divine right, or ethnic or religious identity, the American Founders began with equal rights and consent. As the Declaration of Independence states: “We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.” All men—not just all Americans—are equal, because all possess fundamental rights that exist by nature.

Legitimate government is instituted to secure these fundamental rights, deriving its just powers from the consent of the governed. “The mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs,” as Jefferson put it, “nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately, by the grace of God.”[1] This new form of civic obligation creates not sovereigns and subjects, but equal citizens who rule in turn. The requirement of consent and the practice of self-government creates the conditions of citizenship.

Other excerpts of this article will be posted later.  To see the complete article click::  The Heritage Foundation

Arizona Sheriff's Office in Bed with Drug Lord.

Three employees of the self-proclaimed strictest sheriff in the USA, were arrested on charges of trafficking people and drugs, authorities reported on Monday.

Maricopa county sheriff, Joe Arpaio said that three of his employees, two of them women, were among 12 people detained for forming an international narco trafficking network, centered in Phoenix.

One worker, Marcela Hernández, told authorities she was married to the presumed leader of the Sinaloa drug cartel.

See complete story:  El Universal

Education in Mexico: Changing the need to emigrate

By DAMIEN CAVE

The New York Times

AGUA NEGRA, Mexico — The extraordinary Mexican migration that delivered millions of illegal immigrants to the United States over the past 30 years has sputtered to a trickle, and research points to a surprising cause: Unheralded changes in Mexico have made staying home more attractive.
A growing body of evidence suggests a mix of developments — expanding economic and educational opportunities, border crime and shrinking families — are suppressing illegal traffic as much as economic slowdowns or immigrant crackdowns in the United States.
In the red-earth highlands of Jalisco, one of Mexico's top three states for emigration in the past century, a new dynamic has emerged. For a typical rural family like the Orozcos, heading to El Norte without papers no longer is an inevitable rite of passage. Instead, homes are filling with returning relatives; older brothers who once crossed illegally are awaiting visas; and the youngest Orozcos are staying put.
"I'm not going to go to the States because I'm more concerned with my studies," said Ángel Orozco, 18.
Indeed, at the new technological institute where he is earning a degree in industrial engineering, all the students in a recent class said they were better educated than their parents — and that they planned to stay in Mexico.
Douglas Massey, a director of the Mexican Migration Project at Princeton, an extensive, long-term survey in Mexican emigration hubs, said his research showed interest in heading to the United States for the first time had fallen to its lowest level since at least the 1950s.
"No one wants to hear it, but the [illegal] flow has already stopped," Massey said. "For the first time in 60 years, the net traffic has gone to zero and is probably a little bit negative."
The decline in illegal immigration, from a country responsible for roughly six of every 10 illegal immigrants in the United States, is stark. The Mexican census recently discovered 4 million more people in Mexico than had been projected, which officials attributed to a sharp decline in emigration.
U.S. census figures analyzed by the nonpartisan Pew Hispanic Center also show the illegal Mexican population in the United States has shrunk and that fewer than 100,000 illegal border-crossers and visa-violators from Mexico settled in the United States in 2010, down from about 525,000 a year from 2000 to 2004. Although some advocates for more limited immigration say the Pew estimates that do not include short-term migrants, most experts agree far fewer illegal immigrants have been arriving.
The question is why. Experts and U.S. politicians from both parties generally look inward, arguing about the success or failure of border enforcement and tougher laws limiting illegal immigrants' rights — such as those passed in Alabama and Arizona. Deportations have reached record highs as total border apprehensions and apprehensions of Mexicans have fallen by more than 70 percent since 2000.
But Mexican immigration always has been defined by both the push (from Mexico) and the pull (of the United States). The decision to leave home involves a comparison, a cost-benefit analysis, and just as a Mexican baby boom and economic crises kicked off emigration waves in the 1980s and '90s, research shows the easing of demographic and economic pressures is helping keep departures in check.
In simple terms, Mexican families are smaller now, shrinking the pool of likely migrants. Despite the dominance of the Roman Catholic Church in Mexico, birth-control efforts have pushed down the fertility rate to about two children per woman from 6.8 in 1970, according to government figures. So, while Mexico added about 1 million potential job seekers annually in the 1990s, that figure has fallen to an average of 800,000 since 2007, according to birth records. It is expected to drop to 300,000 by 2030.
Even in larger families such as the Orozcos' — Ángel is the ninth of 10 children — the migration calculation has changed. Crossing "mojado," wet or illegally, has become more expensive and more dangerous, particularly with drug cartels dominating the border. Educational and employment opportunities also have expanded greatly. Per capita gross domestic product and family income have each jumped more than 45 percent since 2000, according to one prominent economist, Roberto Newell. Despite depictions of Mexico as "nearly a failed state," he argued, "the conventional wisdom is wrong."
A significant expansion of legal immigration — aided by U.S. consular officials — is also under way. Congress may be debating an overhaul of immigration policy, but in Mexico, visas without a congressionally mandated cap on how many people can enter have increased from 2006 to 2010, compared with the previous five years.
State Department figures show Mexicans who have become U.S. citizens have legally brought in 64 percent more immediate relatives, 220,500 from 2006 through 2010, compared with the figures for the previous five years. Tourist visas also are being granted at higher rates of around 89 percent, up from 67 percent, while U.S. farmers have legally hired 75 percent more temporary workers since 2006.

The recession cut into immigrant earnings in the United States, according to the Pew Hispanic Center, even as wages have risen in Mexico, according to World Bank figures. Jalisco's quality of life has improved in other ways, too. About a decade ago, the cluster of the Orozco ranches on Agua Negra's outskirts received electricity and running water. New census data shows a broad expansion of such services: water and trash collection, once unheard of outside cities, are available to more than 90 percent of Jalisco's homes. Dirt floors now are found in only 3 percent of the state's houses, down from 12 percent in 1990.

Still, education represents the most meaningful change. The census shows the number of Jalisco's senior high schools or preparatory schools for students aged 15 to 18 increased to 724 in 2009, from 360 in 2000, far outpacing population growth. The Technological Institute of Arandas, where Ángel studies engineering, is one of 13 science campuses created in Jalisco since 2000 — a major reason professionals with a bachelor's degree or higher also more than doubled to 821,983 in 2010, up from 405,415 in 2000. Similar changes have occurred elsewhere, and data from secondary schools like the one the Orozcos attended in Agua Negra suggest the trend will continue.

See complete article:  Illegal entries from Mexico slow to trickle

Send them HOME !

They are stealing our jobs.  They aren't paying any taxes.  They are a drain on our society.  They are having babies so they can claim social services and stay in our country.  They don't speak our language.  Send them HOME !

Send us your huddled masses.

 Irish immigrants a century ago.

Republican Senator of turns against Hispanic heritage

"I can't think of a more generous immigration policy than the one his parents benefitted from," Gutierrez, a liberal from Chicago of Puerto Rican descent, told POLITICO on Wednesday. "All they had to do was show up."He was referring to Sen. Marco Rubio (R- Fla), the newly elected representative born of Cuban immigrant parents.

"It is the story of a bartender and a maid in Florida. Today their son serves here in the Senate, and stands as a proud witness of the greatness of this land." says Rubio.

So what does this star example of the American Dream advocate in the way of today's immigration reform efforts? 
"Senator Rubio repeatedly and consistently stressed border security and E-Verify would be his immediate priorities."....Rubio has dismissed the DREAM Act as “blanket amnesty” for illegal immigrants.
America's Voice blasted : "Marco Rubio Sells out Hispanic Community."

“Marco Rubio has become a go-along Washington insider overnight," said Lynn Tramonte, deputy director of America’s Voice. "By championing mandatory E-Verify, the big government program with a 50 percent fail rate, Rubio has thrown Hispanics under the bus in order to cozy up to anti-immigrant ‘leaders’ in Congress like Sen. Grassley and Rep. Lamar Smith. ...
"The fact that Marco Rubio put his name on this bill shows that he just doesn’t get it. He is incapable of being a real bridge to the Latino community for the GOP."

Read more of this and other articles:  http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/0611/Gutierrez_goes_after_Rubio_on_immigration.html

We are all Americans

Miguel, a friend of ours, lived and worked in the U.S. for 3 years with a green card - legally, that is.  Part of his work here involved helping other immigrants make the adjustments to a new culture, finding housing, work, understanding what was expected of them.  He has a unique perspective, having worked with immigrants who both wanted to assimilate and continue living here legally, as well as some who just came for a short term job and were more interested in returning to their families in Mexico as soon as possible.  Miguel himself, returned a few years ago to his family in Cuernavaca, Mex. where he continues to teach.  He writes:

The field of immigration is a large, historical one, with many branches to follow.  But what if one day all these Hispanics return home? We know what would happen; much industry would stop because the anglos will not work those job.  The cost of producing goods and services would be affected by leaps and bounds, if that happened.

In my opinion there are jobs for all.  However, many anglos  have and do business with Hispanics, and have increased their business because of that. Hispanics are in every area of ​​the U.S. working to conserve a source of employment and I think those Hispanics who achieve citizenship would be very grateful to the United States as a country that offered them a source of income.

In this issue of immigration no one loses and everyone wins. We are all Americans and as Americans we share a little of what there is for each person, without that wealth being accumulated by just a single person.

What are you thinking? Comment here.

Immigration Fraud: businesses taking advantage of immigrants

According to Alicia Acuña of Fox News/Latino, the U.S. Department of Justice, along with the Department of Homeland Security and the Federal Trade Commission announced this week a major crackdown on businesses that take advantage of immigrants to the United States.  Specifically, individuals who run sham operations claiming to be immigrant consultants or attorneys, who provide expertise and services to those applying for residency, work visas and citizenship.

"We have been working together to take a stand," said Tony West, Assistant Attorney General at a press conference, "against those who prey upon immigrant communities by making promises they do not keep and charging for services they are not qualified to provide."

Read more: http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/politics/2011/06/10/nationwide-crackdown-on-immigration-notarios/#ixzz1P8BfemP3

Add a COMMENT

Comprehensive Immigration Reform - the smart choice

With a comprehensive approach to immigration reform we can improve life in the USA for

1. All workers
2. Honest employers
3. Tax payers.

Most illegal aliens are paying taxes:

• property taxes, either directly if they own a home, or through rent;
• sales tax on everything they buy;
• Social Security tax collected by their employers, which they will never get back if it is on a false ID
• Medicare tax - same as Soc Sec
• State income tax - same as above

If it is illegal to enter this country or overstay without proper documentation, it is equally illegal to hire an undocumented person.  Therefore, if we want to send illegals back home, we must also deport employers who hire them.
How well do you think that would work?   What politician would suggest this solution?

Farmers: E-Verify a disaster for Americans

It sounds like the E-verify program, by itself, would cause a sudden and disastrous change in our way of doing things in America. 

Photo:  tribwekchron.com

If 80% of our farm workers are illegal immigrants, and if we suddenly enforce the laws which keep the farmers from hiring them, what happens to the food?  What happens to the farmers?  What happens to the illegals?  What happens to us when we want to buy groceries or eat a meal?

Will farmers just lose their farms?  Will the banks that have loaned money to the farmers foreclose on the farms?  Do the banks want the farmland?  What will it cost Americans to buy all our food imported from Mexico?  Will the farmers go on welfare? -- they may not be trained in office jobs and most of our factory jobs have already been sent abroad.

Most farmers will tell you that in their efforts to hire workers, they can't find enough legal workers to harvest their crops - or should we say "OUR" crops, since we are the consumers of those crops?

Alicia A. Caldwell from the Associated Press highlights the dilemna we face in answering these questions:

The agriculture industry fears a disaster on the horizon if the bit of new immigration policy that Congress seems to agree on becomes law.
A plan to require all American businesses to check their employees through E-Verify, a program that confirms that each is legally entitled to work in the U.S., could wreak havoc on an industry where 80 percent of the field workers are illegal immigrants.
"We are headed toward a train wreck," said Rep. Zoe Lofgren, a California Democrat whose district includes agriculture-rich areas.
Lofgren said that farmers want to hire legal workers and U.S. citizens but that it's nearly impossible given the relatively low wages and back-breaking work.
Wages can range from minimum wage to more than $20 an hour. But workers are often paid by the piece; the faster they work, they more they make. A steady income lasts only as long as the planting and harvesting seasons.
"Few citizens express interest, in large part because this is hard, tough work," Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsak said last week. "Our broken immigration system offers little hope for producers to do the right thing."
Last year the United Farm Workers launched a Take Our Jobs campaign to entice Americans into the fields. But President Arturo Rodriguez said that of about 86,000 inquiries, only 11 workers took jobs.
"That really was thought up by farmworkers trying to figure out what is it we needed to do to show that we are not trying to take away anyone's job," Rodriguez said.
Manuel Cunha, president of Nisei Farmers League, a group representing growers in Central California, said farmers don't have the wherewithal to verify workers' status.
"If we were to use E-Verify now, we'd shut down -- either that or farmers would go to prison," said Cunha, a Fresno-based citrus farmer.
Shawn Coburn, a politically active farmer who grows thousands of acres of almonds in west Fresno County, said he favors tighter borders, a guest worker program and a path to citizenship for those already in the U.S., or at the very least their children. But, like Cunha, he believes that a mandatory E-Verify plan would be nothing but trouble for the industry.
"I don't think it's going to happen, but if it does it would throw the California economy for a loop," Coburn said.
Without a broad policy overhaul in the works, industry officials have focused on improving the H-2A temporary agricultural workers visa program, which is aimed at allowing seasonal workers to work on U.S. farms.
The program, is costly, time-consuming and inefficient, however, according to Cathleen Enright, vice president of federal government affairs for the Western Growers Association.
Lee Wicker, deputy director of the North Carolina Growers Association said the H-2A program "is too expensive, it's too litigious, it's too bureaucratic.
Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., said farmers in his area want to do the right thing and hire legal workers but are frustrated with the stifling bureaucracy that comes with the visa program.
"It's a labyrinthine visa process, with the slow walking of applications," Gowdy said.
"You could not by accident come up with a better plan to ruin the small family farm."
Farmers, he said, "are just at their wits' end."

H-2A Temporary Agricultural Workers

Could you meet the requirements of this program, if you wanted to hire some help?

Perhaps if you ran a company the size of Google or Microsoft, you could afford the research and paperwork necessary to prove these requirements.  But get real, folks.  99% of businesses can't afford the costs of meeting the hurdles of this H-2A program.  Here is what  the Dept of Homeland Security's site:  U. S. Citizenship and Immigration Services has to say about hiring temporary farm workers, if you want to do it legally:


The H-2A program allows U.S. employers to bring foreign nationals to the United States to fill temporary agricultural jobs for which U.S. workers are not available. 

To qualify for H-2A non immigrant classification:

• The job offered must be of a temporary or seasonal nature
• The employer must demonstrate that there are not sufficient U.S. workers who are able, willing, qualified, and available to do the temporary work
• The employer must show that the employment of H-2A workers will not adversely affect the wages and working conditions of similarly employed U.S. workers

Agriculture Worker Visa Program for migrant workers

How easy is it to find agricultural workers who are legally in the US?  According to D.A. King of the Gwinnett Daily Post  it sounds fairly easy and profitable.  "An ag employer (farmer) can bring to the U.S. as many legal workers as he wants under the H2A Agriculture Worker Visa program."  

We'd love to hear from some farmers who have tried this program.  What were the obstacles?  Did it cost you more?  Was it worth the price?  Did you, or could you pass on these costs to your customers?  How many workers did you bring in under this program?  What does it mean to "bring in" ?  Did you have to go to Mexico (or elsewhere) to find workers, or just sign up with the government as a "host" for foreign workers?  Did you pay for them to come?  Would you use this method again to find workers?  How hard is it for you to find U.S. citizens to work for you?  What are your crops?
=========================================

Article By
   D. A. King

There is currently much consternation and hand wringing over the fact that the Georgia legislature may actually move to protect jobs by clamping down on illegal hiring with the no-cost federal E-Verify system. But a key component of the story is not widely known.
The argument du jour from the usual suspects opposed to enforcement is that Georgia would somehow lose its agriculture industry if we comply with the federal law making employment of illegal aliens well, you know — illegal.
While the media have faithfully reported on the agriculture angle, the existence of the legal alternative to continuing to hire black market farm laborers who have escaped capture at our borders has so far eluded mention.
It is something called the H2A agricultural worker visa.
This agricultural program establishes lawful means for agricultural employers who anticipate a shortage of domestic workers to bring an unlimited number — no ceiling! — of temporary foreign workers into the United States.
But the grateful, legal, temporary workers looking for a better life must be treated with dignity and respect. Employers must provide free housing that meets lawful safety and health standards and provide workers’ compensation insurance to workers at no cost to the worker.
The wage for H2A workers must be the same as that for U.S. workers. The rate must also be at least as high as the applicable prevailing wage rate the wage.
The employer must provide either three meals a day to each worker or furnish free and convenient cooking and kitchen facilities for workers to prepare their own meals. If meals are provided, then the employer may charge each worker a certain amount per day for the three meals.
These requirements obviously make hiring the more “flexible” and desperate illegal labor considerably more profitable. And there is little fear of federal punishment.
An H2A visa is usually issued for a period of one year and can be extended by two one-year extensions for a maximum of three years. Then the temporary workers must return to their home country — making them poor prospects for creating a resentful “oppressed” and “victimized” political constituency willing to march in American streets demanding legalization.
The concept that illegal workers are integral in or necessary for Georgia’s largest industry is complete fertilizer.
Readers may want to pass the H2A facts on to their state lawmakers and remind them that illegal immigration is a direct result of illegal employment.
And that with E-Verify — and courageous vigilance — we have the tools to stop illegal hiring.
D.A. King is a nationally recognized authority on illegal immigration and president of the Georgia-based Dustin Inman Society, which advocates for enforcement of immigration and employment laws. He has been an authorized E-Verify user since 2005

Read more from the Source: http://www.gwinnettdailypost.com/opinion/headlines/KING_E-Verify_not_a_risk_to_our_agriculture_114331934.html?storySection=story

Supreme Court on Immigration

Supreme Court Upholds Arizona Law Penalizing Businesses For Hiring Illegal Immigrants

Protesters in Phoenix rally against Arizona's new immigration law July 29, 2010. (AP)

BOB CHRISTIE and MARK SHERMAN   05/26/11 08:07 PM ET  

PHOENIX — The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld an Arizona law that penalizes businesses for hiring workers in the country illegally, buoying the hopes of supporters of state crackdowns on illegal immigration.
They predicted the ruling would lead to many other states passing laws that require employers to use the federal E-Verify system to check that workers aren't illegal immigrants. And some said the ruling bodes well for the prospects of a much broader and more controversial immigration law in Arizona, known as SB1070, to be found constitutional.
The state is appealing a ruling blocking portions of that law from taking effect.
But some legal experts said the ruling should not be read as a broad validation of such tactics. While they acknowledge that other states will now pass similar employer sanctions, they cautioned that the court did not make any sweeping endorsement of states' rights to enforce federal immigration laws.

See more of this and other articles on :  The Huffington Post

Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration

 

The New Americans: Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The New Americans: Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration is a 1997 study on the demographic, economic, and fiscal consequences of immigration to the United States by the National Research Council (NRC) of the National Academy of Sciences The NRC report found that although immigrants, especially those from Latin America, were a net cost in terms of taxes paid versus social services received, overall immigration was a net economic gain due to an increase in pay for higher-skilled workers, lower prices for goods and services produced by immigrant labor, and more efficiency and lower wages for some owners of capital. The report also notes that although immigrant workers compete with domestic workers for some low skilled jobs, some immigrants specialize in activities that otherwise would not exist in an area, and thus are performing services that otherwise would not exist, and thus can be beneficial for all domestic residents.  The U.S. Census Bureau's  Survey of Business Owners: Hispanic-Owned Firms: 2002 indicated that the number of Hispanic-owned businesses in the United States grew to nearly 1.6 million in 2002. Those Hispanic-owned businesses generated about $222 billion in revenue.^[3] The report notes that the burden of poor immigrants is not born equally among states, and is most heavy in California.^[4]
On the poor end of the spectrum, the "New Americans" report found that low-skill low wage immigration does not, on aggregate, lower the wages of most domestic workers.

Click to see more of this article from Wikipedia

Immigration Measures Fail

States' immigration efforts fizzle

LAURA WIDES-MUNOZ, the AP Hispanic Affairs Writer for the Seattle Times in Miami, writes about the failures of several states in their effort to pass laws similar to the Arizona law SB 1070.  What would cause legislators around the country to have second thoughts about these anti immigration measures?  Are they looking at the economic repercussions?  Are they asking the moral questions?  Are they thinking of the mixed families who would be broken up as a result?  Are they concerned about the illegal bread-winner being sent back to his country, leaving a spouse and children who would now be forced to go on welfare, when they were self-supporting before?

Nearly every state in the union tried to tackle immigration on its own this year in the absence of any congressional movement on the matter, and more than half considered Arizona-style enforcement measures, up from just six in 2010.
But an Associated Press review found that in legislature after legislature, nearly all the most punitive measures failed.
What had passed as of Monday mostly reinforced current federal law, though a small number of states actually passed legislation that was helpful to illegal immigrants.
Many measures were set aside so lawmakers could focus on pressing budget crises, but immigrants have also developed more sophisticated lobbying efforts, and business owners came out strongly against tougher sanctions. Some worried about losing sources of labor and gaining extra paperwork. Others feared tourism boycotts like the one organized against Arizona.
Early in the year, high unemployment, a slew of newly Republican-dominated legislatures and nationwide frustration over the failure by the White House or Congress to address the problem suggested Arizona's law would be copied.
That law makes it a state crime for an illegal immigrant to work, penalizes employers who hire them and encourages local authorities to turn over illegal immigrants to federal authorities, among other measures. An appellate court has blocked provisions that require immigrants carry visa documents and allow police broad leeway to question the immigration status of those they suspect are in the country illegally.
Louisiana State Rep. Joe Harrison, a Republican, said federal inaction prompted his interest in state laws on immigration.
"I'm just trying to give them a little Taser move in the right direction," he said.
But Harrison's bill has yet to move out of committee, and most of the others failed, as did most of the proposals requiring businesses to use the federal government's electronic E-verify system to check the eligibility of new hires. Only a few states made any serious attempt to crack down on employers.
So far, only Georgia and Utah have passed comprehensive bills. South Carolina and Alabama are still considering them. Utah's law includes a provision to allow illegal immigrants to work in the state, and the American Civil Liberties Union has already sued Utah over the law's enforcement provisions.
Georgia was the shining example for those hoping to step up enforcement and the closest to Arizona. Its new law allows local officers to check the immigration status of a suspect who can't produce an accepted form of ID. It also includes a provision requiring employers with more than 10 employees to use E-Verify by July 2013, similar to a 2007 law Arizona. Georgia Gov. Nathan Deal signed the bill earlier this month and opponents say they plan to sue the state.
Following the failure of the recent Dream Act in Washington - which would have provided a path to legalization for qualified illegal immigrant students and other young adults - several states adopted legislation this session that helps illegal immigrant students. Maryland approved in-state college tuition for illegal immigrants, Illinois is likely to set up a private scholarship fund for them, and Connecticut expanded in-state tuition for graduate school. An in-state tuition bill in Oregon passed the Senate but has yet to reach the House floor.
Arizona lawmakers ordered school districts to report students' residency, but that was geared toward keeping children who live across the Mexican border from enrolling in Arizona schools.
Only Indiana passed a law to prohibit in-state tuition for those in the country illegally, a largely symbolic move.
Most legislation never gets out of committee, and compromise is always key.
But experts on both sides credit businesses for much of the legislations' failure.
"Business owners came out of the woodwork in a way they hadn't done before," said Tamar Jacoby, president of ImmigrationWorks USA, a national federation of mostly small-business owners who support immigration reform.
Many Florida businesses said they feared the economic damage that would be caused if the state were hit by a tourism boycott like the one immigrant rights groups organized against Arizona.
In Arizona, 60 top executives signed a letter to Arizona's Senate president, asking for a moratorium on immigration bills.
---
Associated Press writers Josh Loftin in Salt Lake City, Kate Brumback in Atlanta, Ken Kusmer in Indianapolis, Molly Davis in Baton Rouge, La., and Roger Alford in Frankfort, Ky., contributed to this report.

 Click for more on this and other articles:  Source:  The Seattle Times