Undocumented Mexican migrants who won their legalization during the 1986 amnesty showed a marked improvement in their economic status, education levels increased substantially and thousands visibly moved out of poverty without relying on public assistance.
Preliminary Findings from the National UnDACAmented Research Project
Released on Thu, Aug 15, 2013
Washington D.C. - Today, on the one-year anniversary of USCIS’ implementation of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, the Immigration Policy Center, in partnership with the Center for the Study of Immigrant Integration at the University of Southern California, releases early findings from the National UnDACAmented Research Project (NURP)—a longitudinal mixed-methods study of the impact of DACA on the educational, labor market, health, and civic engagement outcomes of young adult immigrants.
While the DACA program does not provide permanent legal status or a path to citizenship, it does provide a two-year renewable grant of deferral from deportation for certain young immigrants and allows them to apply for work permits and social security cards. The research finds that DACA is increasing their opportunities for economic and social incorporation. According to the survey, many recipients also seek further social integration beyond DACA. In fact, almost all DACA recipients indicate that they would apply for U.S. citizenship if given the opportunity. The study also shows that DACA recipients are often fearful that family members and friends could be deported at any time.
Overall, the research indicates that although DACA opens up some economic opportunities for young aspiring Americans, it does not address the constant threat of deportation still facing those closest to them, including mothers, fathers, and siblings.
The Center for American Progress and the Immigration Policy Center released a report today quantifying the potential economic benefits of comprehensive immigration reform. Legalize unauthorized workers, the study concludes, and the American GDP would grow by an additional $1.5 trillion over the next 10 years (kick them all out — never mind the cost of deportation — and we'd lose $2.6 trillion in the process).
Washington D.C. — The American Immigration Council, American Civil Liberties Union National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild, and National Immigration Law Center today sued the federal government to challenge its policies denying a fair deportation process to mothers and children who have fled extreme violence, death threats, rape, and persecution in Central America and come to the United States seeking safety.
The groups filed the case on behalf of mothers and children locked up at an isolated detention center in Artesia, New Mexico — hours from the nearest major metropolitan area. The complaint charges the Obama administration with enacting a new strong-arm policy to ensure rapid deportations by holding these mothers and their children to a nearly insurmountable and erroneous standard to prove their asylum claims, and by placing countless hurdles in front of them.
"These mothers and their children have sought refuge in the United States after fleeing for their lives from threats of death and violence in their home countries," said Cecillia Wang, director of the ACLU's Immigrants' Rights Project. "U.S. law guarantees them a fair opportunity to seek asylum. Yet, the government's policy violates that basic law and core American values — we do not send people who are seeking asylum back into harm's way. We should not sacrifice fairness for speed in life-or-death situations."
According to the complaint, the Obama administration is violating long-established constitutional and statutory law by enacting policies that have:Read more...
One study shows that comprehensive immigration reform could add $1.5 trillion to the country’s GDP over the next 10 years by increasing consumption and investment. Comprehensive immigration reform, here, is defined as a plan that “creates a pathway to legal status for unauthorized immigrants in the United States and establishes flexible limits on permanent and temporary immigration that respond to changes in U.S. labor demand in the future.” According to this Center for American Progress and Immigration Policy Center study, comprehensive reform would also boost wages for both native-born and newly legalized immigrant workers.
President Obama urged Congress today to pass “comprehensive immigration reform,” warning that a lack of federal action would encourage “misguided efforts” such as those in Arizona.
But Mary Giovagnoli of the Immigration Policy Center says there’s a lot the administration could do if it wanted to create a stronger immigration policy. And she said the work would start with Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano.
Sir, David Pinsen’s unfounded and inaccurate accusations against Mexican and unskilled immigrants should not be allowed to go unanswered (Letters, May 10). Contrary to the myth that unskilled immigrants consume more in government resources than they pay in taxes, an April 21 study by the Immigration Policy Center shows that Arizona’s immigrant workers contributed $2.4bn in state tax revenue in 2004. One can assume that not many of these workers had PhDs.
The same study shows that Latinos and Asians in that state wield nearly $37bn in consumer purchasing power, the businesses they own had sales of $12.2bn and employed nearly 65,000 people. Studies by the same organisation of many other states show similar results. For every study by an anti-immigrant group alleging that Mexicans cannot assimilate, there is a more objective study.
There are plenty of features of the law that critics find objectionable. Among them are the penalties. Under federal law, violations of immigration statutes by someone in the U.S. illegally may in some cases be punished with a jail sentence but are often penalized by deporting the individual instead, if the government proves its case to a judge through a comprehensive set of procedures. Arizona, lacking the authority to deport anyone, will enforce jail sentences laid out in its new law for, say, failing to carry one’s immigration authorization documents or soliciting day work by the side of the road, said Mary Giovagnoli, director of the Immigration Policy Center, a pro-immigrants’ rights group. While the federal system is far from perfect (thousands of people are locked up in federal detention centers indefinitely awaiting deportation decisions), the addition of new immigration crimes at the state level with jail time attached isn’t the answer, she added.
Now, unless a federal judge decides otherwise, law enforcement officers will be required starting Thursday to check the status of anyone they have “reasonable suspicion” to be in the United States illegally.
In a report released this month by the Immigration Policy Center in Washington, D.C., an Arizona attorney voiced concerns about how the law could be interpreted and carried out throughout the state.
This Practice Advisory discusses the changes that the REAL ID Act made to INA § 242(a)(2)(B) and outlines an analysis for whether §242(a)(2)(B) applies to a particular case. It also discusses federal court jurisdiction over discretionary decisions after the REAL ID Act in the removal and non-removal contexts.