On March 21, we joined a busload of Central New Yorkers on a trip to Washington, D.C., where tens of thousands of people rallied for comprehensive immigration reform. We returned home ready to face the usual barrage of falsehoods that poison our national discourse on immigration — myths meant to demonize immigrants and prevent reform.
But the Immigration Policy Center, a major opponent of the new law, says FAIR's data do not accurately portray SB1070's potential outcome. “They count the costs and don’t look at the benefits. We tend to look at the benefits more closely,” said Council spokeswoman Wendy Sefsaf.
“It is like having a roommate and counting how much they cost in toilet paper and incidentals without looking at the benefits of having help with the rent,” she said.
“Overall, every comprehensive study has shown that immigrants are a net benefit to states. If you add their children, they are a very great benefit.”
The Center’s cost crunching found that "if all unauthorized immigrants were removed from Arizona, the state would lose $26.4 billion in economic activity, $11.7 billion in gross state product and approximately 140,324 jobs,” -- a disaster for the Grand Canyon State.
Much has been said about Arizona’s Senate Bill 1070, allowing state law enforcement officials to stop, question, detain and report individuals based on suspicion of undocumented status. Outrage against this bill is pervasive. Some say it hearkens back to Jim Crow, others say it legalizes racial profiling.
Immigrants — both legal and illegal — are surprisingly important to Utah's economy and future, according to a new compilation of data about them.
The Immigration Policy Center, a Washington-based research group, spent a year looking at academic studies and U.S. Census Bureau data about immigrants in each state, and released fact sheets for each on Wednesday.
"Facts are sadly lacking in the immigration debate," said Mary Giovagnoli, director of the center. She said too many people "seek to manipulate information to project an image of immigrants — both those here legally and illegally — as drains on society who make no positive contributions. The facts demonstrate something entirely different."
This practice advisory addresses the term “religious occupation,” as it is used with respect to certain categories of religious workers. It also addresses federal courts cases overturning AAO decisions that erroneously imposed heightened requirements for “religious occupation.”
When Eleanor Sreb, of the Smithsonian Folklife Center, and Ross Holland, National Park Service Associate Director for Cultural Resources Management, approached artist Phillip Ratner to create artwork for Ellis Island, Ratner initially thought, "How do I fit the entire world into a single piece?" Ratner sat for hours on a bench in the Great Hall at Ellis Island sketching, thinking, observing--trying to capture the essence of the immigration experience. Ratner conjured up images of the millions of immigrants who passed through that Great Hall--travel weary people of all ages, creeds and nationalities who hungered for a new life in America. "I picked up the ghosts," Ratner said, "and it changed my life. I felt my grandparents' energy and that of the thousands of immigrants who passed through those halls."
Some researchers noted that the Pew figures did not identify families where both parents were illegal immigrants. “If anything, the Pew report highlights how complicated this issue is, given that so many unauthorized immigrants live in families that include U.S. citizens and legal immigrants,” said Michele Waslin, senior policy analyst for the Immigration Policy Center, a group that supports legalization for illegal immigrants.
This practice advisory discusses entries in three common situations: where a noncitizen is “waved” through a port of entry with no questions asked; where entry is gained by fraud or misrepresentation; and where there is a false claim to U.S. citizenship. With respect to each situation, the practice advisory explores whether an “admission” has occurred, the individual’s immigration status upon entry, and the immigration consequences of the action. It also discusses the impact of these three types of entries on a DACA application.
Illustrated with her family photographs, and written in a straightforward prose, No Pretty Pictures offers valuable lessons on the Holocaust and survival for adolescent readers. In this lesson, students will read, reflect and use maps and text to study the "push-pull factors" of the immigrant experience.
Acknowledging the large numbers of illegal Europeans in the U.S., the government devised ways for them to remain in the U.S. legally. *Deserving* illegal European immigrants could benefit from various programs and legalize their status. The 1929 Registry Act allowed *honest law-abiding alien[s] who may be in the country under some merely technical irregularity* to register as permanent residents for a fee of $20 if they could prove they had lived in the U.S. since 1921 and were of *good moral character.* Roughly 115,000 immigrants registered between 1930 and 1940—80% were European or Canadian. Between 1925 and 1965, 200,000 illegal Europeans legalized their status through the Registry Act, through *pre-examination*—a process that allowed them to leave the U.S. voluntarily and re-enter legally with a visa (a *touch-back* program)—or through discretionary rules that allowed immigration officials to suspend deportations in *meritorious* cases. Approximately 73% of those benefitting from suspension of deportation were Europeans (mostly Germans and Italians).