Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Article: Four Immigration Issues Covered at the First Democratic Primary Debate. By Eric Gibble

Collapse
X
Collapse

  • Article: Four Immigration Issues Covered at the First Democratic Primary Debate. By Eric Gibble

    Four Immigration Issues Covered at the First Democratic Primary Debate

    by


    Screenshot

    The first Democratic debate of the 2016 presidential campaign was held Tuesday in Nevada, which is home to 529,164 immigrants and the highest percentage of undocumented immigrants of any state. Yet the topic of immigration was not a major topic of discussion, receiving only a few minutes of attention in the 120 minute debate.

    Juan Carlos Lopez of CNN en Espanol posed the first immigration question to Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders on his voting record on comprehensive immigration reform. From there, the candidates dived into their policy positions on additional key immigration issues. Here’s how they responded:

    1. Addressing comprehensive immigration reform
      While Sanders did vote for the 2013 Senate Immigration reform bill, S. 744, Lopez questioned his vote against immigration reform in 2007. Sanders explained that vote was due to his concerns around guest worker programs and potential worker exploitation: “Guest workers are coming in, they’re working under terrible conditions, but if they stand up for their rights, they’re thrown out of the country.” Sanders went on to affirm his commitment to a comprehensive approach to fixing our immigration system as well as including a pathway to citizenship.


      Over the course of the debate, no candidate on the stage stated any opposition to immigration reform. Former Senator and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton endorsed comprehensive reform. Former Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley explained that immigration is a positive contribution for all Americans, highlighting a report from the Congressional Budget Office, which found immigration reform would “make wages go up in America $250 for every year.”


      Former Virginia Senator Jim Webb also addressed the issue and said, “I actually introduced an amendment in the 2007 immigration bill … giving a pathway to citizenship to those people who had come here.” However, he was among the Senators  who blocked the 2007 McCain-Kennedy immigration reform bill by voting no on a procedural motion that would have brought the bill to a full vote.


    1. Healthcare access for undocumented immigrants
      O’Malley’s immigration plan includes allowing undocumented immigrants to enroll in Obamacare, and Lopez asked Hillary Clinton if she also supports this position. Clinton said she supports “the opportunity for immigrants to be able to buy in to the exchanges under the Affordable Care Act” but stated it raises many issues and concerns because it would be difficult to administer. Clinton went on to pivot back to comprehensive immigration reform as a solution.


      When Webb was asked to address the question, he simply stated “I wouldn’t have a problem with that.”


    2. Increasing educational opportunities for young undocumented immigrants
      Both Sanders and O’Malley have publicly supported policies that allow undocumented students to pay the same in-state college tuition rates as other students. When Clinton was asked on her stance, she said: “My plan would support any state that takes that position, and would work with those states and encourage more states to do the same thing… if their states agree.” However, the details of how she would do this have yet to be unveiled.


      O’Malley, who signed the Maryland DREAM Act and strongly defended the law when it was put in limbo after Maryland’s Republican lawmakers successfully petitioned for a statewide referendum on the issue, also added that “the more our children learn, the more they will earn, and that’s true of children who have yet to be naturalized but will become American citizens.”


    3. Upholding and expanding executive action on immigration
      Both O’Malley and Clinton took a firm stance on expanding President Obama’s executive action on immigration, though they did not provide any insight into what this would entail. O’Malley said that the country is strengthened by immigrants, and that Americans “need to understand that our country is stronger in every generation by the arrival of new American immigrants… I would go further than President Obama has on DACA, and DAPA.”

      Clinton also said that after meeting with DREAMers, undocumented young people brought to the United States as children, she felt compelled to support policies that “…would go further than even the executive orders that President Obama has signed when I’m president.”


    The Democratic debate was a stark contrast from the positions outlined by the Republican candidates at their first primary debate in August, which primarily focused on more enforcement mechanisms and ramped-up border security. As the debate season continues, hopefully we will hear more on their views about pressing immigration issues, including whether they will end family detention, how they will instill more grace and discretion in an overly punitive enforcement system and how they, unlike their predecessors, will actually get Congress to reform immigration.

    Photo Courtesy of CNN.

    This post originally appeared on Immigration Impact. Reprinted with permission.


    About The Author

    Eric Gibble is the Online Communications Associate at the American Immigration Council. Eric has a B.A. in Communication from Cabrini College, where he became passionate about the need for humane immigration policies and organized students to lobby legislators for comprehensive immigration reform. Previously, he was a Lobby Associate at NETWORK, a National Catholic Social Justice Lobby. At NETWORK, he covered immigration issues and developed social media initiatives for the 2012 Nuns on the Bus campaign. He has also worked with various faith-based organizations to expand their online presence. Eric now manages the Council's websites, social networks, and online communications strategy.


    The opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the opinion of ILW.COM.


    • Guest's Avatar
      #2
      Guest commented
      Editing a comment
      I agree with Retired INS that the presidential hopefuls are pandering to voters. That's how presidential hopefuls become presidents. I just wish one of them thought that a plan to get a comprehensive immigration reform bill through Congress would please the voters.

    • Guest's Avatar
      #3
      Guest commented
      Editing a comment
      @Retired INS: " Today, almost all working illegal immigrants have fake green cards and are paid with a check,"
      What is your evidence for this statement? Or is it pure conjecture? How many "illegal immigrants" today are you directly and personally aware of that "have fake green cards and are paid with a check?"

      i understand and agree with the rationale for in-state tuition, and support comprehensive reform. But I avoid sweeping generalizations unsupported by evidence.

    • Guest's Avatar
      #4
      Guest commented
      Editing a comment
      Originally posted by steviesteele
      @Retired INS: " Today, almost all working illegal immigrants have fake green cards and are paid with a check,"
      What is your evidence for this statement? Or is it pure conjecture? How many "illegal immigrants" today are you directly and personally aware of that "have fake green cards and are paid with a check?"

      i understand and agree with the rationale for in-state tuition, and support comprehensive reform. But I avoid sweeping generalizations unsupported by evidence.
      I spent 39 years with immigration and 29 of those years as a field manager. I set up the amnesty program in California's Central Valley, where we had more applicants than the entire state of Florida. I spoke to groups of farm workers at PTA meetings and similar community meetings from 1984 to 2011. When I first started talking to these workers I asked the question: "How many of you are paid in cash, under the table?" Almost everyone raised their hand. By the time I retired in 2011 everyone claimed to be paid by check. That means deductions for taxes, social security, workers comp., unemployment, etc. were made. Because of employer sanctions, illegal immigrants must have a counterfeit ID before an employer can hire them. It doesn't matter the ID is counterfeit. The employer can say he didn't know should ICE come and check his workers. With the number of individual farms in California, the chances of being audited are small. California does not require employers to use E-Verify, so farm employers can easily get away with hiring illegals as long as they pay them with checks, which shows an attempt was made to hire legal aliens. I supervised the INS agents doing the first employer audits, and I set up the amnesty program. I supervised the admission of all legal aliens in Central California and supervised the naturalization of 300,000 new citizens. I know what I am talking about when it comes to immigration issues. I taught immigration law and citizenship law at the INS academy. I worked closely with California members of Congress. I have seen the adds in underground newsletters offering to pay for information off people's green cards and social security cards. With this information counterfeiters can produce a document that will pass our computer checks (such as E-Verify).

      We do need immigration reform, but it needs to be presented in a more positive manner. Senator Rubio had a good plan 2 years ago, but neither the republicans nor the democrats supported it. Why should democrats support a plan a republican would get credit for. Partisanship is more important than what is best for America.
    Posting comments is disabled.

Categories

Collapse

article_tags

Collapse

There are no tags yet.

Latest Articles

Collapse

  • Article: The EB-5 Immigration Program and the Investors Process By H. Ronald Klasko
    ImmigrationDaily

    If you are having difficulty viewing this document please click here.

    08-20-2018, 08:15 AM
  • Article: Immigration Judges’ Union Fights for Judicial Independence By Karolina Walters
    ImmigrationDaily
    Immigration Judges’ Union Fights for Judicial Independence by Karolina Walters The National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ), the union that represents the nation’s immigration judges, is challenging the government’s decision to remove an immigration judge from a well-known case and replace him with a judge who immediately ordered the immigrant in the case deported. NAIJ’s grievance addresses the treatment of one immigration judge, but its resolution will have implications for judicial independence throughout the entire immigration court system. The grievance was filed on behalf of Philadelphia-based immigration judge Steven A. Morley, who was presiding over the case of Mr. Reynaldo Castro-Tum. Castro-Tum’s case rose to national importance earlier this year when Attorney General Jeff Sessions chose to refer the case to himself to reconsider the Board of Immigration Appeals’ previous decision in the case. In reconsidering the decision, Sessions effectively eliminated judges’ use of administrative closure, a docket management tool. Sessions sent Castro-Tum’s case back to Judge Morley, noting that the immigration court order Castro-Tum removed if he did not appear at his next hearing. Castro-Tum did not appear at the next hearing. However, Judge Morley continued the case to resolve whether Castro-Tum received adequate notice of the hearing. Due process requires, at a minimum, that an individual be given notice of proceedings and an opportunity to be heard by a judge. But before the next hearing could take place, the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) replaced Judge Morley with an Assistant Chief Immigration Judge who ordered Castro-Tum removed when he did not appear at court again. In their grievance, NAIJ asserts that the decision to remove Judge Morley from Castro-Tum’s case and reassign many other cases from his docket resulted in unacceptable interference with judicial independence. The grievance specifically claims that EOIR’s actions violate immigration judges’ authority under the regulations to exerci...
    08-17-2018, 11:12 AM
  • Article: Indirect Refoulement: Why the US Cannot Create a Safe Third Country Agreement with Mexico By Sophia Genovese
    ImmigrationDaily
    Indirect Refoulement: Why the US Cannot Create a Safe Third Country Agreement with Mexico by Sophia Genovese The Trump Administration is seeking to create and implement a safe third country agreement with Mexico . Under this agreement, asylum seekers arriving at the US border who have travelled through Mexico would be denied the ability to file their asylum claims in the US. Such an agreement would trample on the rights of asylum-seekers, violating both international and US asylum law. In particular, the US would be violating the international principle of non-refoulement , which provides that no State “shall expel or return (“refouler”) a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his [or her] life or freedom would be threatened,” where Mexico has a proven track record of being anything but safe for asylum seekers . The US has also codified Article 33(1) of the Refugee Convention into Section 208(a)(2)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) which provides that it will not return an asylum seeker to his or her country of origin, but may, at the determination of the Attorney General, remove the asylum seeker to a “safe third country… where the [asylum seeker] would have access to a full and fair procedure for determining a claim to asylum or equivalent temporary protection.” Although Mexican officials have not yet indicated whether they would sign a safe third country agreement with the US, asylum advocates should proactively seek to prevent such a devastating policy with a country that lacks adequate asylum protections. As reported by Human Rights First and Amnesty International , 75 percent of asylum seekers apprehended and detained by the National Institute of Migration (INM), the Mexican immigration enforcement agency, were not informed of their right to seek asylum. Even if asylum seekers are able to make their claims, only 30% of the asylum proceedings are ever concluded , and even fewer are granted, leaving many bona fide asylum seekers stranded without a resolution. The treatment of unaccompanied minors’ asylum claims in Mexico are even more dismal. Of the 35,000 minors apprehended by the INM in the first half of 2016, only 138 were able to apply for asylum , of which only 77 were granted protection. Beyond the failing asylum system in Mexico, asylum seekers are also in extreme danger of kidnapping, murder, rape, trafficking, and other crimes by INM officers and civilians. A safe third country agreement with Mexico would violate the United States’ international obligations under the 1967 Optional Protocol to the Refugee Convention, to which we are a signatory, which adopts by incorporation the obligations outlined in the 1951 Refugee Convention, to which the US is not a signatory. Take the example of an asylum-seeker, Mrs. H, who is fleeing politically-motivated violence in Honduras. Her husband, Mr. H, was a vocal political activist who opposed the National Party and members of the Honduran government. Mr. H began to receive death threats due to his political beliefs and reported such threats to the authorities. The authorities, however, di...
    08-16-2018, 02:32 PM
  • Article: Flawed Statistics Undermine USCIS/ICE/SEVP’s Restriction of D/S for Unlawful Presence By Eugene Goldstein, Esq.
    ImmigrationDaily

    Flawed Statistics Undermine USCIS/ICE/SEVP’s Restriction of D/S for Unlawful Presence

    by


    On August 9, 2018 USCIS published a “Policy Memorandum” restricting the 20-year-old calculation of Duration of Status (D/S) for F-1, J-1 and M-1 entrants (and their derivative families). https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/...immigrants.pdf

    USCIS also published an announcement (hereinafter “announcement”) “USCIS Issues Revised Guidance on Unlawful Presence for Students and Exchange Visitors https://www.uscis.gov/news/uscis-iss...hange-visitors , and a general discussion “Unlawful Presence and Bars to Admissibility” ...

    08-15-2018, 12:57 PM
  • Article: Update On Express Entry Immigration To Canada By Edward C. Corrigan and Selvin Mejia
    ImmigrationDaily
    Update On Express Entry Immigration To Canada by Edward C. Corrigan and Selvin Mejia On January 1, 2015 the Federal Conservatives introduced significant changes to Canada’s economic immigration program. Formerly called the Skilled Worker program the new program was re-branded as Express Entry which included Skilled Workers, the Federal Skilled Trades program, and the In-Canada Experience Program. Canada modelled its revamped economic immigration program on New Zealand’s. There is also an Atlantic Immigration program. In addition there is a separate Live-In Caregiver program where individuals can apply for Permanent Residence after two years employment in this category. EXPRESS ENTRY The initial object of the changes was to create a list of Applicants where the Federal Government could select the best and the brightest from the list of Applicants. The Express Entry was supposed have applicants who had an approved Labour Market Impact Assessment (LMIA) and a valid job offer from an approved Canadian Employer. Under the Comprehensive Ranking System (CRS) candidates were award 600 points for having an approved job offer. Applicants would have achieved a point score of around 1,000 with the 600 points for having a valid offer of employment under the CRS. The provinces in Canada were also allowed to select Applicants according to their economic needs and these applicants that were selected through the respective provincial nominee programs by a province were awarded 600 points to be added to their score. Ontario also has a program where graduates from an Ontario University with a Master’s or who were in a PhD. program would be approved and awarded 600 points which virtually assured that they would be approved and provided with an invitation to apply. There is a quota that governs this graduate program. LABOUR MARKET IMPACT ASSESSMENTS Things did not go according to plan with Federal Express Entry. Very few Applicants were able to attai...
    08-14-2018, 12:50 PM
  • Article: USCIS Finalizes Unlawful Presence Policy Putting F, J and M Nonimmigrants In Great Jeopardy By Cyrus D. Mehta
    ImmigrationDaily
    USCIS Finalizes Unlawful Presence Policy Putting F, J and M Nonimmigrants In Great Jeopardy by Cyrus D. Mehta The USCIS finalized its unlawful presence policy for F, J and M nonimmigrants on August 9, 2018. The final policy makes no significant changes from the draft policy of May 10, 2018. My earlier blog noted the flaws in the draft policy, which persist in the final policy. The final policy incorrectly breaks down the distinction between violating status and being unlawfully present in the US. As of August 9, 2018, F, J and M nonimmigrants who have failed to maintain nonimmigrant status will start accruing unlawful presence. Individuals who have accrued more than 180 days of unlawful presence during a single stay, and then depart, may be subject to 3-year or 10-year bars to admission, depending on how much unlawful presence they accrued before they departed the United States. See INA § 212(a)(9)(B)(i)(I) & (II) . Individuals who have accrued a total period of more than one year of unlawful presence, whether in a single stay or during multiple stays in the United States, and who then reenter or attempt to reenter the United States without being admitted or paroled, are permanently inadmissible. See INA § 212(a)(9)(C)(i)(1). Prior to August 9, 2018, foreign students (F nonimmigrants) and exchange visitors (J nonimmigrants) who were admitted for, or present in the United States in, Duration of Status started accruing unlawful presence on the day after USCIS formally found a nonimmigrant status violation while adjudicating a request for another immigrant benefit or on the day after an immigration judge ordered the applicant excluded, deported, or removed (whether or not the decision was appealed), whichever came first. F and J nonimmigrants, and foreign vocational students (M nonimmigrants), who were admitted until a specific date certain accrued unlawful presence on the day after their Form I-94 expired, on the day after USCIS formally found a nonimmigrant status violation while adjudicating a request for another immigration benefit, or on the day after an immigration judge ordered the applicant excluded, deported, or removed (whether or not the decision was appealed), whichever came first. This will no longer be the case. Under the new policy effective August 9, 2018, any status violation will start the accrual of unlawful presence. The nonimmigrant will not be provided with any formal notice of a status violation, and any violation from the past that has been discovered would have already started the accrual of unlawful presence. According to the pol...
    08-14-2018, 10:51 AM
Working...
X