Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Article: How the Democratic Party Platform Addresses Immigration. By Joshua Breisblatt

Collapse
X
Collapse

  • Article: How the Democratic Party Platform Addresses Immigration. By Joshua Breisblatt

    How the Democratic Party Platform Addresses Immigration

    by


    democratic_national_conventon

    In contrast to the Republican Party Platform on immigration released last week, which was generally negative on immigration and lacked any practical ideas for reforming U.S. immigration, the recently released Democratic Party Platform discusses immigration as a positive for America and identifies specific policy fixes to help update our outdated immigration system. As the platform notes, “immigration is not just a problem to be solved, it is a defining aspect of the American character and our shared history.”

    The platform describes how the current immigration system is separating families and failing to incorporate undocumented immigrants into our society. It also acknowledges that there is a need to create a path to citizenship for those currently in the U.S. without status.

    The platform also describes fixing the immigration visa backlog in an effort to reunite families. Specifically the platform notes, the “immigration bureaucracy is full of backlogs that result in U.S. citizens waiting for decades to be reunited with family members, and green card holders waiting for years to be reunited with their spouses and minor children.”

    It also discusses repealing the three and ten-year and permanent bars which force individuals “in mixed status families into the heartbreaking dilemma of either pursuing a green card by leaving the country and their loved ones behind, or remaining in the shadows.”

    Additionally, as part of reshaping the current immigration system, the platform commits to protecting DACA, and fighting to implement DAPA, as well as other executive actions on immigration.

    On immigration enforcement the platform states it must be “humane and consistent with our values” and that includes ending immigration raids, noting they “unnecessarily sow fear in immigrant communities.”

    It also describes a roll back of detention and acknowledges the problems with privately-run detention facilities. The platform explicitly states it will “fight” to end all contracts, at the federal, state and municipal level, with private detention centers and for-profit prisons. It also prescribes a way to end family detention noting that “we will ensure humane alternatives for those who pose no public threat.”

    Lastly, on refugee policy and violence in Central America, the platform recognizes the importance of addressing root causes and the importance of giving those individuals due process. The platform specifically states, for the first time ever, that unaccompanied children in immigration court should be appointed counsel at the government’s expense. The platform also lists specific ways the government should protect Central American refugees by “strengthening in-country and third-country processing, expanding the use of humanitarian parole, and granting Temporary Protected Status.”

    When contrasting the Republican and Democratic platforms it appears the two political parties could not be further apart on immigration. It’s clear after reading them that the parties view the role of immigrants in American society quite differently and each perspective is reflected in their solutions for changing it.

    Photo by Jim Hutchinson.

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


    About The Author

    Joshua Breisblatt is a Policy Analyst at the American Immigration Council. Prior to joining the Council he worked at the National Immigration Forum for over four years where he was Manager of Advocacy and Policy. In that role, Josh was the Forum’s main point of contact with U.S. government agencies and the U.S. Congress. He also specialized in border issues, including enforcement, civil rights, oversight of Customs and Border Protection, and trade and commerce at U.S. ports of entry. Josh earned his J.D. from The George Washington University School Law and his B.S. from Arizona State University. Prior to attending law school, he worked for Former Congressman Harry Mitchell from Arizona.


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


    • Guest's Avatar
      #1
      Guest commented
      Editing a comment
      Comment

      Unfortunately, except for a few executive discretion items that are being challenged in court, those objectives require the enactment of an immigration reform bill, and the Democratic Party Platform fails to provide a way to move such a bill through Congress. I am tired of hearing immigration advocates and politicians promise reforms that aren't possible. It's getting very depressing.

      I can suggest a different approach that could work, but it would require serious compromise with the republicans, another thing the Democratic Party Platform neglects. See my article, "It is time to try a different approach to comprehensive immigration reform" (May 2, 2014),
      http://discuss.ilw.com/content.php?3...t-approach-to- comprehensive-immigration-reform-By-Nolan-Rappaport
    Posting comments is disabled.

Categories

Collapse

article_tags

Collapse

There are no tags yet.

Latest Articles

Collapse

  • Birthright Citizenship Is Not A Legal Assumption; It's the Law by Kristie De Pena
    ImmigrationDaily

    08-21-2018, 03:12 PM
  • Blogging: Trump's "National Security" Abuses: First, Muslim Ban; Next, Security Clearance Revocation.. By Roger Algase
    ImmigrationDaily
    Trump's "National Security" Abuses: First, Muslim Ban; Next, Security Clearance Revocation. Trashing Immigrant Rights Endangers Freedom of All Americans.

    CNN reports on August 21 that 175 former US officials have denounced Donald Trump for revoking the security clearance of former CIA director John Brennan for speaking out in opposition to Trump.

    https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/20/polit...ent/index.html

    Presidential use of "national security"
    ...
    08-21-2018, 12:54 PM
  • 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
Working...
X