BISBEE — A special report issued earlier this month by the Immigration Policy Center called “Discrediting ‘Self Deportation’ as Immigration Policy” argues that forcing all illegal immigrants to leave the United States would make life difficult for everyone.
The strategy called “attrition through enforcement” was conceived by national immigration restrictionist organizations, including the Federation for American Immigration Reform, Center for Immigration Studies and Numbers USA.
“While these groups favor severe restrictions on all immigration and support mass deportation, they are also proponents of this strategy. Recognizing the current political reality, they have sought to market the idea of attrition through enforcement as a kinder, gentler alternative to the harsh, expensive, and unworkable strategy of mass deportation,” states the Immigration Policy Center report.
“According to CIS (Center for Immigration Studies), attrition through enforcement involves reducing the number of unauthorized immigrants living in the U.S., and deterring future unauthorized immigrants from coming, by stepping up enforcement of existing laws and increasing the incentives for immigrants to ‘deport themselves.’ As Numbers USA puts it: ‘There is no need for taxpayers to watch the government spend billions of their dollars to round up and deport illegal aliens; they will buy their own bus or plane tickets back home if they can no longer earn a living here,’” it continues.
According to its Web site, the Immigration Policy Center is the research and policy arm of the American Immigration Council. IPC’s mission is to shape a rational conversation on immigration and immigrant integration. In its report, the group points out that attrition through enforcement has not resulted in a significant reduction in the unauthorized immigrant population, and it has had a devastating impact on communities.Read more...
Ever wonder where in the world J-1 exchange visitors live before and after the time they spend as trainees or interns in the United States?
We're lucky to receive applications from all over the world, and the number and variety of countries and regions represented changes often. Below is a visual representation of the various countries our April, 2010 exchange visitors call home:
Can you identify all of them? If not, don't worry -- we've made a list for you:
Austria, Bulgaria, Canada, China, Denmark, Germany, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Macau, Russia, Singapore, Slovenia, Spain, Switzerland, Turkey, and finally, the United Kingdom.
Consensus doesn’t seem to have a place in policy discussions about the state of the U.S. immigration system. But there is, at least, widespread agreement that the system needs fixing.
“Everyone will tell you the laws aren’t working,” says Brittney Nystrom, director of policy and legal affairs at the National Immigration Forum in Washington, D.C. But beyond that starting premise, views on immigration laws start to splinter.
“On both sides of this debate, there are deeply held beliefs about what immigration means to America,” says Nystrom. “On one side, you have the idea that we’re a nation of immigrants, and it’s healthy and important to keep that tradition alive. On the other side, you have the argument that immigrants are a burden. Trying to factually discuss immigration becomes almost impossible when people tend to fall into one camp or the other based on what they’re told.” Read more...
The LAC has long advocated for the right to appointed counsel for indigent immigrants in removal proceedings, as well as fair standards and procedures to remedy the sometimes devastating results of ineffective assistance of counsel. Access to counsel lies at the very core of our legal system and is integral to ensuring a fair process and a meaningful opportunity to be heard. Without counsel, vulnerable noncitizens are often deported without inquiries into their ability to comprehend the proceedings against them.
Cronkite News listed IPC statistics in an article about the deferred deportation program preparing to accept applications on August 15, 2012. The numbers come from IPC's "Who and Where the DREAMers Are," and breaks down the numbers of eligible immigrants living in Arizona by congressional district: Read more...
As money is poured into border enforcement, it is critical that lawmakers consider the facts. The following resources provide key answers to basic questions about the U.S.-Mexico Border and the issues that surround it--from the fiscal implications of policies to the struggle to fight drug cartels.Read more...
The IPC's Director, Mary Giovagnoli, was quoted in a recent article in the Christian Science Monitor on what could be expected from the new reform package from the Senate:
"Pro-reform analysts say that’s a good thing: The bill is replacing illegal workers with legal ones, these advocates argue, thus allowing American employers legally to meet legitimate business needs and uniting families kept apart by poorly fashioned immigration laws.
“You’re having to play catch-up for 20 years of neglect of this system,” says Mary Giovagnoli, director of the Immigration Policy Center and a former aide to the late Sen. Edward Kennedy (D) of Massachusetts during the 2007 immigration reform effort.
Without creating a functional (and larger) legal immigration system, they say, the lures for illegal immigration will remain."
Gustavo Villageliu was appointed to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) as a Board Member in July of 1995. The BIA is the highest administrative body for interpreting and applying immigration laws. Mr. Villageliu came to the United States from Cuba as a refugee in 1962 when he was thirteen years old. He and his family lived in Miami for twelve years, then moved to Iowa, where his parents taught as University professors.
Mr. Villageliu attended law school at the University of Iowa, graduating cum laude in 1977. After serving as Johnson County Attorney Prosecutor Intern in Iowa City, Iowa, he joined the Board of Immigration Appeals as a staff attorney in January, 1978. He received numerous achievement awards for his work specializing in war criminals, investors, and criminal alien cases. In September of 1989 he moved to Miami as an Immigration Judge, where he handled cases of detained Cubans at the Krome detention center. As a BIA Board Member, Mr. Villageliu dissented in the landmark case, Matter of N-J-B. In that February 1997 decision, the BIA held that the service of an Order to Show Cause under prior law terminated the period of physical presence for purposes of applying for suspension of deportation, even though the Order was served before the 1996 Act's effective date. This ruling would have resulted in the deportation of tens of thousands of persons who may have qualified for suspension of deportation under previous law. On July 10, 1997, the Attorney General vacated the Board's decision in that case essentially adopting Mr. Villageliu's opinion. Mr. Villageliu and his wife Carmen live in Falls Church with their three children.
"Yet, three months after the Senate passed immigration reform legislation (S. 744), the House of Representatives continues to dawdle. Other than giving speeches and mulling over a few backward-looking, enforcement-only bills, the House has done nothing to revamp the broken U.S. immigration system or put forward any vision of what to do with the 11 million unauthorized immigrants now living in the United States — 210,000 of whom call Virginia home. The standard excuse for this inaction is that there are too many other high-priority items on the legislative agenda right now — so immigration reform will have to wait.
"But while Congress waits, dollars and lives are being lost."