As the congressional Super Committee struggles to cut the federal deficit by $1.2 trillion by next Wednesday, pro-immigrant advocacy groups are amplifying their calls to dial back on border security as a way to reap savings.
The federal government stands to save $2.6 billion a year by deporting only violent criminals, capping yearly border patrol budget increases, and ending a government program to level minor criminal charges against people crossing portions of the U.S.-Mexico border illegally, according a National Immigration Forum report released Tuesday.
The latest iteration of the 2012 Department of Homeland Security budget calls for spending $5.5 billion on Immigration and Customs Enforcement and $11.8 billion on Customs and Border Protection. That’s nearly double the spending levels for both compared to fiscal 2000, and up from $5.1 billion and $9.3 billion in fiscal 2008. Declining numbers of arrests along the Southwest border are evidence that this ramped-up spending is an unnecessary use of taxpayer dollars, the report concluded. According to government data, border patrol arrests fell about 28 percent between October 2010 and August 2011 in California, New Mexico, Texas and Arizona.
“The number of people arrested for trying to cross the border illegally, used as a proxy for measuring the total number of people trying to cross illegally, is at its lowest point since 1972,” the report said. “We are spending more and more money so that we don’t have to apprehend fewer and fewer people.”Read more...
When it comes to immigration policy, the candidates vying for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination agree: the first imperative is to halt the flow of illegal immigration across the U.S.-Mexico border.
Immigration has proved to be a contentious issue in the Republican primary. Texas Gov. Rick Perry was lambasted for signing a bill offering in-state tuition to some undocumented students, and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich drew criticism from his right flank for suggesting that immigrants with deep roots and family ties should have a path to legalization. But throughout this discord, every candidate has invoked the need to "secure the border" before pursuing any other reforms.
Before suspending her candidacy, Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., proposed building a "double fence" that spanned "every mile, every foot, every inch" of the border. Perry has vowed to police the border by fortifying the U.S. Border Patrol, which already deploys a record number of agents. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney has embraced the border-first approach, and his focus on enforcement helped him win the endorsement of Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, the architect of the harsh Arizona immigration law that became a model for other states.
"What I support is focusing on securing the border, and when we secure the border and have convinced the American people that we do not have a flow of illegal aliens coming into the country, then we can address what we're going to do with the 11 or 15 million that are here," Romney told the Washington Examiner.
America arrived at the Annual Society of the United Nations and walked in, seeing other countries dancing and chatting. Instead of discussing important topics, their meetings were always just fun and games. America sat down and drank a cup of punch. Then she chatted with Indonesia until Canada asked her to dance, because they were neighbors. While they were dancing, Canada asked, "Why are you so prosperous?" America thought a little and answered, "Between 1880 and 1920, many people immigrated to me, arriving in the millions. In all, there were 25 million people that came."
"There is no way that there were 25 million immigrants passed through your borders! It is impossible!" cried China, who had been listening. "Impossible!"
"I am like this punch I am drinking, made up of various ingredients. Immigrants from all over the world brought different foods, clothing, and religions. I am proud of the diversity. The exchange of ideas makes everybody more open-minded and accepting. If you walk down one of my busy streets nowadays, you will see many different shops: Chinese, Hispanic, Middle Eastern, all side by side and getting along.
The city of Austin didn’t like Arizona’s controversial immigration-enforcement law — SB1070 — when it first passed in 2010, and it still doesn’t like the measure today as the U.S. Supreme Court prepares to hear arguments for and against it.
In 2010, the city of Austin quickly passed a resolution that urged city departments to sever ties with businesses in that state.
Council members said then they wanted to send a message that they opposed racial discrimination of any kind, and they didn’t want to risk subjecting city employees to “unfounded detentions while on official city business” in Arizona.
Now, Austin — along with the city of Laredo and Dallas County — is again expressing dismay over the measure in an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court. Oral arguments in the case are scheduled for April 25.
Meanwhile, a leading immigration-policy think tank has issued a report stating that if the justices rule in Arizona’s favor, individuals may still bring additional legal claims to halt the policy depending on how it is enforced.
The court will review four provisions of the Arizona law, which has been enjoined by a federal district court. They include a requirement that police officers attempt to determine the immigration status of a person stopped if they suspect the person is in the country illegally; a requirement that immigrants register with the federal government and carry a registration card with them; a provision that makes it a crime for an unauthorized immigrant to work, apply for work or solicit work; and a provision that allows officers to arrest immigrants without a warrant if probable cause exists that they have committed a deportable offense.
The amicus brief, joined by 41 cities, the United States Conference of Mayors and the National League of Cities, argues that the law, and others like it, open the door for racial profiling and adversely affect community policing efforts.Read more...
The LAC Docket is the newsletter of the American Immigration Council's Legal Action Center. To view individual editions of the newsletter, please click the links below. Archives of our former newsletter -- the Litigation Clearinghouse Newsletter -- can be found here.
This issue of the Docket highlights our ongoing litigation to establish a right to appointed counsel for children in immigration proceedings, as well as fair procedures for Central American families detained in Artesia, New Mexico. This issue also discusses our work to promote fundamental fairness in PERM adjudications, hold immigration agencies accountable for misconduct, and ensure paths to legal status for eligible immigrants.
This issue of the Docket discusses our litigation involving eligibility for 212(h) waivers; adjustment of status for individuals granted TPS, but who entered without admission; and whether Border Patrol Agents can be liable for damages for Fourth Amendment violations. It also highlights our advocacy around the DACA renewal process and provides links to our updated practice advisory on the Equal Access to Justice Act.
The American Immigration Council’s strong association with the immigration law community means the International Exchange Center is both sensitive to attorney-client relations and uniquely suited to assist attorneys at every step of the J-1 process.
Please note that all applications are now filed electronically; we no longer use paper applications. Begin an application by clicking the green "Apply Now for Our J1 Program" button on the right.