Reports released by the Social Security and Medicare Boards of Trustees this week have re-focused public attention on the deteriorating financial condition of the nation’s main health and retirement programs. These reports underscore not only the severity of the current recession, but also the demographic crisis confronting the nation as the native-born population ages. The coming wave of retiring Baby Boomers reminds us of the increasingly important role that immigrants play in the U.S. economy as taxpayers, workers, consumers, and homebuyers.
State legislators in 25 states (see list below) planned to introduce SB 1070 clones in upcoming legislative sessions, according to Immigration Impact. Of course, not all — or even most — of these laws will pass. However, Republicans picked up the most seats in the modern era of state legislatures in 2010 — more than Republicans did in 1994 or Democrats in the post-Watergate wave of 1974. Republicans hold both houses and the governorship in fifteen states (sixteen including Nebraska’s unicameral legislature).
In the first scenario, the proponents of SB 1070 achieve their stated goals and all current unauthorized immigrants leave the state-taking their labor, their spending power, and their tax dollars with them. In the second scenario, unauthorized immigrants are offered a pathway to legal status, thereby enabling them to earn higher wages, spend more, and pay more in taxes. The economic modeling shows that deporting all of Arizona's unauthorized workers, consumers, and taxpayers would eliminate 581,000 jobs and reduce state tax revenues by $4.2 billion. Conversely, legalizing the state's unauthorized immigrants would create 261,000 jobs and increase tax revenues by $1.7 billion.
According to Raúl Hinojosa-Ojeda, the report's author and founding director of the North American Integration and Development Center at UCLA: "The key issue is that bills like SB 1070 that seek to eliminate the undocumented population, if successful, would represent a severe shock to the Arizona economy and create a deep hole that the state would have to claw out of. The size of that hole is what this new report measures.Read more...
In March 2008, the Ninth Circuit issued a decision, Orozco v. Mukasey, 521 F.3d 1068 (9th Cir. 2008) , finding that a noncitizen who obtains entry into the U.S. by fraudulent means is statutorily ineligible for adjustment of status under INA § 245(a) because he or she has not been “admitted.” Following the Ninth Circuit’s decision, which was later vacated (Orozco v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 1147 (9th Cir. 2008)), numerous immigration courts throughout the country were questioning whether Matter of Areguillin, 17 I&N Dec. 308 (BIA 1980), was still good law. In Matter of Areguillin, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA or Board) had held that an admission occurs when an inspecting officer “permits the applicant to pass through the port of entry.” Thus, the BIA found that Areguillin was “inspected and admitted” within the meaning of the adjustment statute, INA § 245(a), when she was waived through the port of entry, even though she was inadmissible at that time due to lack of proper documents. Ultimately, in July 2010, the BIA issued a precedent decision affirming the rule in Matter of Areguillin.
In the following cases, the LAC submitted amicus briefs to the BIA arguing that Matter of Areguillin, 17 I&N Dec. 308 (BIA 1980), should be reaffirmed and that a noncitizen was “admitted” when an immigration officer at a port of entry inspected him and allowed his entry, even if he was inadmissible at the time.Read more...
I guess this is how Republicans do the Latino-outreach thing: Demonize Latino children, threaten to take away their birthright citizenship, and blatantly lie about the numbers of “anchor babies” being born by mothers coming here specifically to have citizen children.
Here’s Sen. David Vitter yesterday on Fox News, promoting his new federal bill to strip American-born children of undocumented immigrants of their birthright citizenship:
VITTER: It’s a very real problem. About 200,000 women come into this country annually from other countries legally, with a tourist visa, something like that, to give birth in this country so that child can automatically become a U.S. citizen. 200,000 a year!
I’m guessing that Vitter’s source for this number is either somewhere up his own nether regions, or those of hate groups such as FAIR and CIS that pump out fake statistics like this for eager Latino-bashers like Vitter and his three Senate colleagues to regurgitate into policy.
Because, as ABC News explained in their own report on this legislation:
Of the 4.2 million live births in the United States in 2006, the most recent data gathered by the National Center for Health Statistics, only 7,670 were children born to mothers who said they do not live here.
Some of those mothers could be “baby tourists,” experts say, but many could be foreign college students, diplomatic staff, or vacationers. The government does not track the reasons non-resident mothers are in the United States at the time of the birth or their citizenship.
Indeed, as the story notes, the “anchor baby” problem is a statistical pimple:
“There’s no evidence that birth tourism is a widespread problem,” said Michele Waslin, a senior policy analyst with the Immigration Policy Center. “There are ways to dealing with that issue without such sweeping changes. This is like using a sledgehammer, not a scalpel.”Read more...
Washington, D.C.—The American Immigration Council strongly condemns last week’s ruling from the Board of Immigration Appeals holding that immigrants arrested without a warrant are not entitled to certain Miranda-like warnings prior to questioning by immigration officers. In a precedent decision, the Board held that noncitizens need not be informed of their right to counsel or warned that their statements can be used against them until after they have been placed in formal deportation proceedings.
For decades, immigrants placed under arrest have been entitled to these critical advisals. Like “Miranda” warnings for criminal suspects, such notifications help to ensure that statements made during questioning are not the product of coercion. As a result of last week’s ruling, noncitizens under arrest will now be even more vulnerable to pressure from interrogating officers, and immigration judges will face greater difficulty determining whether statements made during questioning were truly voluntary.
“This decision epitomizes the substandard system of justice that’s been created and imposed on immigrants in the United States,” said Melissa Crow, Director of the American Immigration Council’s Legal Action Center. “The Board’s ruling renders the advisals practically meaningless and makes immigrants less likely to remain silent when questioned and less likely to assert their right to counsel.”
The Board of Immigration Appeals is the highest administrative tribunal on immigration and nationality matters in the United States. Decisions of the Board may be subject to review by federal courts or by the Attorney General. The ruling came in Matter of E-R-M-F- & A-S-M-, 25 I&N Dec. 580 (BIA 2011).