Cover letter dated August 22, 2012 from Fernando Pineiro Jr., FOIA Officer, Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, to Melissa Crow, Director, Legal Action Center, indicating that 5 pages of records were releasable in full, 42 pages were partially releasable, and 42 pages were withheld in full under 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(5) and (b)(6).
Pages 1-12: Partially redacted internal CRCL e-mails from April 2012 and drafts of memos from Tamara Kessler, Acting Officer for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, to Audrey Anderson, Deputy General Counsel, DHS, requesting advice on legal consequences of Border Patrol officers’ initiation of immigration investigations while providing Spanish interpretation services to local law enforcement agencies. Redactions under (b)(5) appear to relate to the substance of the requests. A series of illustrative incidents from Washington, Montana, California and Louisiana, most of which were taken from press reports, is set forth as an appendix to the memo (at 10-11).
Pages 13-18: Partially redacted internal DHS e-mails from April and May 2012 regarding the above-referenced draft memo. Read more...
As the New York Times reported today, the Obama administration has reiterated its intention to tackle comprehensive immigration reform this year. Recent statements from Speaker Pelosi and Senator Reid have also signaled their support. Yet some observers had assumed that the promise President Obama made during his campaign to reform the dysfunctional U.S. immigration system during his first year in office would be sidelined by the current recession. But, as the White House made clear today, the President intends to make good on his promise. The following is a statement by Angela Kelley, Director of the Immigration Policy Center (IPC) in Washington, DC.
On Thursday, May 22, the House Homeland Security Subcommittee on Border, Maritime, and Global Counterterrorism will hold a hearing on "The Border Security Challenge: Recent Developments and Legislative Proposals."
Washington D.C. - This Sunday, the editorial pages of the Washington Post included a piece penned by journalist George Will on the topic of birthright citizenship. Will highlights a scholar who argues against giving those born in the United States birthright citizenship and characterizes the repeal of a 150 year-old constitutional tenet as "a simple reform." Normally, the idea of stripping those born in America of their right to citizenship has been relegated to the domain of immigration restrictionists and select politicians who try to exploit it for electoral gains. In endorsing this argument, Mr. Will has looked past a whole body of research which examines the dramatic and far- reaching consequences this would have on American society.
The arguments about birthright citizenship revolve around the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, which affirms that all persons born in the United States (and subject to its jurisdiction) have a birthright to citizenship. A repeal of the 14th amendment is sometimes raised as a "cure" to our current broken immigration system, when in reality it takes us further away from the larger conversation that must be had about how we can fairly and efficiently revamp American immigration. Proposing solutions to the symptoms, rather than the root causes of a broken system, do nothing to solve our overall immigration problems and create divisions and dysfunctions in our society at all levels.
Foreign-Born Job Gains Do Not Equal Native-Born Job Losses
Released on Fri, Oct 29, 2010
Washington, D.C. - Today, the Pew Hispanic Center released a report that has an attention-getting headline, but pays little attention to detail. The report makes much of recent data indicating that unemployment has fallen slightly among foreign-born workers over the past year, while rising slightly among native-born workers. Some observers will undoubtedly conclude from this that the jobs which went to foreign-born workers would have otherwise gone to native-born workers if not for the presence of immigrants in the labor market. However, this is not the case. In reality, immigrant and native-born workers are not interchangeable, nor do they compete with each other for some fixed number of jobs in the U.S. economy. Moreover, many immigrants are highly skilled professionals who create jobs through their inventiveness and entrepreneurship.
Unfortunately, the Pew report provides no detail about the skill level of the workers who have gained or lost jobs since last year, nor does it tell us where in the country they live. Yet this is critical information in determining how many unemployed natives might have filled jobs which went to immigrants. As the Immigration Policy Center (IPC) pointed out in an August 2009 report, employed immigrants and unemployed natives “tend to have different levels of education, to live in different parts of the country, to have experience in different occupations, and to have different amounts of work experience. As a result, they could not simply be ‘swapped’ for one another.”Read more...