Washington (CNN) -- The Supreme Court has backed an Arizona law that punishes businesses hiring illegal immigrants, a law that opponents, including the Obama administration, say steps on traditional federal oversight over immigration matters.
The 5-3 ruling Thursday is a victory for supporters of immigration reform on the state level.
It was the first high court challenge to a variety of recent state laws cracking down on illegal immigrants, an issue that has become a political lightning rod.
The outcome could serve as a judicial warm-up for a separate high-profile challenge to a more controversial Arizona immigration reform law working its way through lower courts. That statute would, among other things, give local police a greater role in arresting suspected illegal immigrants.
The hiring case turned on whether state law tramples on federal authority.
"Arizona has taken the route least likely to cause tension with federal law," wrote Chief Justice John Roberts. "It relies solely on the federal government's own determination of who is an unauthorized alien, and it requires Arizona employers to use the federal government's own system for checking employee status."
Arizona passed the Legal Arizona Workers Act in 2007, allowing the state to suspend the licenses of businesses that "intentionally or knowingly" violate work-eligibility verification requirements. Companies would be required under that law to use E-Verify, a federal database to check the documentation of current and prospective employees. That database had been created by Congress as a voluntary, discretionary resource.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce filed a lawsuit against the state, arguing federal law prohibits Arizona and other states from making E-Verify use mandatory. The group was supported by a variety of civil rights and immigration rights groups. The state countered that its broad licensing authority gives it the right to monitor businesses within its jurisdiction.
The Obama administration recommended a judicial review, and sided with businesses and civil rights groups.
A 1986 federal act significantly limited state power to separately regulate the hiring and employment of "unauthorized" workers. An exception was made for local "licensing and similar laws." Under the law, employees are required to review documentation to confirm someone's right to work in the United States, including checking the familiar I-9 immigration form. Civil and criminal penalties were strengthened, but businesses making a "good faith" effort to comply with I-9 procedures were generally immune from prosecution.
Roberts, backed by his four conservative colleagues, said "Arizona went the extra mile in ensuring that its law tracks (the federal law's) provisions in all material aspects."
In dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor noted E-Verify is a voluntary program, and said criticism that the federal government is not doing enough to enforce the law is irrelevant.
"Permitting states to make use of E-Verify mandatory improperly puts states in the position of making decisions ... that directly affect expenditure and depletion of federal resources," she wrote. Justices Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg also dissented.
Justice Elena Kagan did not participate in the case, since she had been the administration's solicitor general last year when the case was being appealed to the high court.
Gov. Jan Brewer had backed the law, telling CNN in December when the case was argued, "The bottom line is that we believe that if the (federal) government isn't going to do the job then Arizona is going to do the job. We are faced with a crisis."
This case could serve as a bellwether to how the court will view a larger, more controversial state immigration law from Arizona. Much of that statute was tossed out by a federal judge in August and is currently pending at a federal appeals court. It would, among other things, give police authority to check a person's immigration status if officers have a "reasonable suspicion" that the individual is in the country illegally.
The hiring case is Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting (09-115).
This article is courtesy of CNN.
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
Immigration debate in Mesa AZ
A panel that advises Mesa on diversity and human-rights issues has slightly modified a version of the so-called Utah Compact and is urging the City Council to endorse it.
The Human Relations Advisory Board last week voted to recommend that the Valley's second-largest city apply the document's principles to address what the compact calls "the complex challenges associated with a broken national immigration system."
The Utah Compact is a document endorsed by political, business and religious leaders in Utah that is intended to set guidelines for the state's immigration debate.
"The purpose is to have a principal framework for discussion," said Rory Gilbert, the advisory board's vice chairwoman. "We've had debates, but we haven't had a community conversation to talk more about concerns and where do we find common ground.
"We are asking the council to endorse five simple concepts as a basis of where we stand," she said. "They are not the end. They are the beginning."
Mesa is the first Arizona city asked to adopt the compact, which has stirred national interest because of its contrast with Arizona's controversial immigration law, Senate Bill 1070.
The key provisions of SB 1070 are on hold while the statute is under court review.
Mesa is also the home of Arizona's Senate president, Russell Pearce, a Republican and the architect of SB 1070.
While the compact calls immigration a federal issue and says local police "should focus on criminal activities, not civil violations of federal code," SB 1070 makes it a state crime to be in the country illegally.
The compact also says immigration policies should not harm families, the economy or individual liberties.
Opinions of the compact vary among Mesa's City Council members and Mayor Scott Smith.
It is unclear whether they will formally review the advisory board's recommendation.
Though he has frequently deplored the divisive tone of Arizona's immigration debate, Smith said he is not convinced that the compact would be a good fit for Mesa, because Arizona's immigration issues are far different from those in Utah.
Councilman Dennis Kavanaugh, who supports the Human Relations board's proposal, said he is confident that the mayor and council "will give very serious consideration to the board recommendations."
"Our advisory board studied and discussed the Utah Compact in a thoughtful and deliberate way over the past five months," he said.
"They afforded ample opportunity for community members to offer testimony, input and research on the compact. They reached out to officials in Utah for their perspective and experience in drafting and implementing the compact principles in Utah. They adapted the language for Mesa and for Arizona."
Late last year, a group called East Valley Patriots for American Values asked the City Council to endorse the compact.
Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2011/05/29/20110529mesa-immigration-utah-compact.html#ixzz1Nx9QcWS3
The Human Relations Advisory Board last week voted to recommend that the Valley's second-largest city apply the document's principles to address what the compact calls "the complex challenges associated with a broken national immigration system."
The Utah Compact is a document endorsed by political, business and religious leaders in Utah that is intended to set guidelines for the state's immigration debate.
"The purpose is to have a principal framework for discussion," said Rory Gilbert, the advisory board's vice chairwoman. "We've had debates, but we haven't had a community conversation to talk more about concerns and where do we find common ground.
"We are asking the council to endorse five simple concepts as a basis of where we stand," she said. "They are not the end. They are the beginning."
Mesa is the first Arizona city asked to adopt the compact, which has stirred national interest because of its contrast with Arizona's controversial immigration law, Senate Bill 1070.
The key provisions of SB 1070 are on hold while the statute is under court review.
Mesa is also the home of Arizona's Senate president, Russell Pearce, a Republican and the architect of SB 1070.
While the compact calls immigration a federal issue and says local police "should focus on criminal activities, not civil violations of federal code," SB 1070 makes it a state crime to be in the country illegally.
The compact also says immigration policies should not harm families, the economy or individual liberties.
Opinions of the compact vary among Mesa's City Council members and Mayor Scott Smith.
It is unclear whether they will formally review the advisory board's recommendation.
Though he has frequently deplored the divisive tone of Arizona's immigration debate, Smith said he is not convinced that the compact would be a good fit for Mesa, because Arizona's immigration issues are far different from those in Utah.
Councilman Dennis Kavanaugh, who supports the Human Relations board's proposal, said he is confident that the mayor and council "will give very serious consideration to the board recommendations."
"Our advisory board studied and discussed the Utah Compact in a thoughtful and deliberate way over the past five months," he said.
"They afforded ample opportunity for community members to offer testimony, input and research on the compact. They reached out to officials in Utah for their perspective and experience in drafting and implementing the compact principles in Utah. They adapted the language for Mesa and for Arizona."
Late last year, a group called East Valley Patriots for American Values asked the City Council to endorse the compact.
Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2011/05/29/20110529mesa-immigration-utah-compact.html#ixzz1Nx9QcWS3
The following editorial appeared in the Los Angeles Times on Friday, May 27:
On Thursday, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld an Arizona law that permits local officials to revoke the licenses of businesses that knowingly hire illegal workers. The decision makes sense in principle but not in practice.
Under the 2007 Legal Arizona Workers Act, business owners are required to use the federal E-Verify program to confirm if a person is authorized to work in this country. Employers must electronically check workers' names against databases kept by the Social Security Administration and the Department of Homeland Security. Workers found to be ineligible have up to eight working days to straighten out the problem before employers would be required to fire them. If a company is found to have knowingly hired an undocumented worker once, it can have its licenses suspended; twice, the company may be shut down.
The problem with the Arizona statute is not that it penalizes employers who break the law. Businesses that hire undocumented immigrants should face fines or sanctions, as called for under current federal law (although many would disagree with the court's conclusion that states may impose such penalties). The problem is that the law relies on E-Verify, which isn't ready for prime time.
Until now, E-Verify has generally been used on a voluntary basis by employers because of concerns about its accuracy. Conservative estimates put the program's error rate at just under 1 percent - meaning that one out of every 100 legal job applicants could be found ineligible to work. Nearly half of those will not be able to fix the problem even though they are citizens or legal workers, according to the National Immigration Law Center. The reality is that the error rate may be much higher. Consider that in 2008, Intel Corp. reported that just over 12 percent of its workers were wrongly tagged as ineligible, according to the Migration Policy Center in Washington. Or that a survey by Los Angeles County of employees found an error rate of 2.7 in 2008 and 2.0 in 2009, according to a report submitted to the Board of Supervisors. The error rate is especially high in cities with large immigrant communities.
Furthermore, E-Verify doesn't detect identity theft or prevent unscrupulous employers from moving their workforce off the books. Nor does the law guarantee employers that they will be immune from losing their licenses if E-Verify mistakenly allows them to hire an undocumented worker. That lack of protection may, as Justice Stephen G. Breyer noted in his dissent, persuade some business owners to avoid hiring those who look or sound foreign-born.
At the very least, the court's ruling should prompt the Obama administration to act quickly to fix E-Verify and improve its accuracy. And the White House should seek a qualified candidate to serve as the Justice Department's special counsel in charge of enforcing the anti-discrimination provisions of the immigration law.
But the court's ruling doesn't fix the bigger problem: the need for comprehensive immigration reform. Arizona and other states that have passed similar measures are stumbling to create their own immigration laws because the current system isn't working. Thursday's decision should put Washington on notice that in the absence of a federal solution, states will step in to fill the void.
We need to start somewhere! A 1-2% error rate is pretty darn good in my book.
On Thursday, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld an Arizona law that permits local officials to revoke the licenses of businesses that knowingly hire illegal workers. The decision makes sense in principle but not in practice.
Under the 2007 Legal Arizona Workers Act, business owners are required to use the federal E-Verify program to confirm if a person is authorized to work in this country. Employers must electronically check workers' names against databases kept by the Social Security Administration and the Department of Homeland Security. Workers found to be ineligible have up to eight working days to straighten out the problem before employers would be required to fire them. If a company is found to have knowingly hired an undocumented worker once, it can have its licenses suspended; twice, the company may be shut down.
The problem with the Arizona statute is not that it penalizes employers who break the law. Businesses that hire undocumented immigrants should face fines or sanctions, as called for under current federal law (although many would disagree with the court's conclusion that states may impose such penalties). The problem is that the law relies on E-Verify, which isn't ready for prime time.
Until now, E-Verify has generally been used on a voluntary basis by employers because of concerns about its accuracy. Conservative estimates put the program's error rate at just under 1 percent - meaning that one out of every 100 legal job applicants could be found ineligible to work. Nearly half of those will not be able to fix the problem even though they are citizens or legal workers, according to the National Immigration Law Center. The reality is that the error rate may be much higher. Consider that in 2008, Intel Corp. reported that just over 12 percent of its workers were wrongly tagged as ineligible, according to the Migration Policy Center in Washington. Or that a survey by Los Angeles County of employees found an error rate of 2.7 in 2008 and 2.0 in 2009, according to a report submitted to the Board of Supervisors. The error rate is especially high in cities with large immigrant communities.
Furthermore, E-Verify doesn't detect identity theft or prevent unscrupulous employers from moving their workforce off the books. Nor does the law guarantee employers that they will be immune from losing their licenses if E-Verify mistakenly allows them to hire an undocumented worker. That lack of protection may, as Justice Stephen G. Breyer noted in his dissent, persuade some business owners to avoid hiring those who look or sound foreign-born.
At the very least, the court's ruling should prompt the Obama administration to act quickly to fix E-Verify and improve its accuracy. And the White House should seek a qualified candidate to serve as the Justice Department's special counsel in charge of enforcing the anti-discrimination provisions of the immigration law.
But the court's ruling doesn't fix the bigger problem: the need for comprehensive immigration reform. Arizona and other states that have passed similar measures are stumbling to create their own immigration laws because the current system isn't working. Thursday's decision should put Washington on notice that in the absence of a federal solution, states will step in to fill the void.
We need to start somewhere! A 1-2% error rate is pretty darn good in my book.
Marylands new Law...
Maryland has passed a Law for illegal aliens to attend college for nearly $16,000 less than out-of-State residents who are American citizens.
Currently it costs out-of-state residents $24,800 for tuition, with this new law, illegal immigrants would only have to pay $8,400. This is outrageous! Maryland residents have 30 days to get 55,000 signatures to require a state-wide referendum on this law just passed and signed by Democratic Gov. Martin O'Malley.
Read more: 'Crime does not pay' – except at Maryland colleges http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=305061#ixzz1Nx3U4io3
The DREAM Act, if passed, would take care of this problem. Students would legalized and would be able to attend without being considered criminals.
President Obama pass the DREAM Act!
Currently it costs out-of-state residents $24,800 for tuition, with this new law, illegal immigrants would only have to pay $8,400. This is outrageous! Maryland residents have 30 days to get 55,000 signatures to require a state-wide referendum on this law just passed and signed by Democratic Gov. Martin O'Malley.
Read more: 'Crime does not pay' – except at Maryland colleges http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=305061#ixzz1Nx3U4io3
The DREAM Act, if passed, would take care of this problem. Students would legalized and would be able to attend without being considered criminals.
President Obama pass the DREAM Act!
Monday, May 23, 2011
States' immigration reform efforts fizzle
CBS News reports:
MIAMI — Nearly every state in the U.S. has tried to tackle immigration on its own this year in the absence of any congressional movement on the matter, and more than half considered stringent enforcement measures like those that made headlines in Arizona, up from just six in 2010.
But an Associated Press review found that in legislature after legislature, nearly all the most punitive measures failed.
What had passed as of Monday mostly reinforced current federal law, though a small number of states actually passed legislation that was helpful to illegal immigrants.
Many measures were set aside so lawmakers could focus on pressing budget crises, but immigrants have also developed more sophisticated lobbying efforts, and business owners came out strongly against tougher sanctions. Some worried about losing sources of labor and gaining extra paperwork. Others feared tourism boycotts like the one organized against Arizona.
Early in the year, high unemployment, a slew of newly Republican-dominated legislatures and nationwide frustration over the failure by the White House or Congress to address the problem suggested Arizona's law would be copied.
That law makes it a state crime for an illegal immigrant to work, penalizes employers who hire them and encourages local authorities to turn over illegal immigrants to federal authorities, among other measures. An appellate court has blocked provisions that require immigrants carry visa documents and allow police broad leeway to question the immigration status of those they suspect are in the country illegally.
Louisiana State Rep. Joe Harrison, a Republican, said federal inaction prompted his interest in state laws on immigration.
"I'm just trying to give them a little Taser move in the right direction," he said.
But Harrison's bill has yet to move out of committee, and most of the others failed, as did most of the proposals requiring businesses to use the federal government's electronic E-verify system to check the eligibility of new hires. Only a few states made any serious attempt to crack down on employers.
So far, only Georgia and Utah have passed comprehensive bills. South Carolina and Alabama are still considering them. Utah's law includes a provision to allow illegal immigrants to work in the state, and the American Civil Liberties Union has already sued Utah over the law's enforcement provisions.
Georgia was the shining example for those hoping to step up enforcement and the closest to Arizona. Its new law allows local officers to check the immigration status of a suspect who can't produce an accepted form of ID. It also includes a provision requiring employers with more than 10 employees to use E-Verify by July 2013, similar to a 2007 law Arizona. Georgia Gov. Nathan Deal signed the bill earlier this month and opponents say they plan to sue the state.
Following the failure of the recent Dream Act in Washington — which would have provided a path to legalization for qualified illegal immigrant students and other young adults — several states adopted legislation this session that helps illegal immigrant students. Maryland approved in-state college tuition for illegal immigrants, Illinois is likely to set up a private scholarship fund for them, and Connecticut expanded in-state tuition for graduate school. An in-state tuition bill in Oregon passed the Senate but has yet to reach the House floor.
Arizona lawmakers ordered school districts to report students' residency, but that was geared toward keeping children who live across the Mexican border from enrolling in Arizona schools.
Only Indiana passed a law to prohibit in-state tuition for those in the country illegally, a largely symbolic move.
Most legislation never gets out of committee, and compromise is always key.
But experts on both sides credit businesses for much of the legislations' failure.
"Business owners came out of the woodwork in a way they hadn't done before," said Tamar Jacoby, president of ImmigrationWorks USA, a national federation of mostly small-business owners who support immigration reform.
Many Florida businesses said they feared the economic damage that would be caused if the state were hit by a tourism boycott like the one immigrant rights groups organized against Arizona.
In Arizona, 60 top executives signed a letter to Arizona's Senate president, asking for a moratorium on immigration bills.
Indianapolis-based drug maker Eli Lilly was among those who publicly opposed an Arizona-style bill. Last week, Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels signed into law more modest bills: the in-state tuition ban and an end to tax credits for companies that hire illegal immigrants.
In Utah, businesses helped create the Utah Compact, the basis for the most comprehensive immigration law to come out of the states. It resembles Arizona on enforcement but allows illegal immigrants to work in Utah. A judge blocked the bill last week, following the ACLU lawsuit.
Jacoby acknowledged many businesses particularly opposed E-verify.
Indeed, in Florida, the House and Senate couldn't reach a compromise on the E-verify component, and the proposals died. The Indiana and Alabama legislatures faced similar splits between their House and Senate over measures targeting employers.
Jacoby said it was the Arizona-like enforcement sections of the bills that generated the attention and public debate, and that in many states, E-verify went down along with them.
Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, which advocates stricter limits on immigration, believes many businesses concerned about E-verify cynically stoked opposition to the bills by emphasizing the enforcement angle.
"The businesses community really did pull out all the stops on this, and I have to give them props," Krikorian said. "The strategy was to make a big deal about Arizona-style legislation in order to scare off E-verify."
Immigrants and their supporters were also ready to battle, capitalizing on networks they developed in recent years in response to Arizona's law and the federal government's stepped-up deportation efforts.
In Florida, farmworkers, students and other immigrants and activists spent weeks at the Capitol, protesting and praying during committee hearings but also lobbying heavily behind the scenes.
In Kansas, they quickly spread a YouTube clip of Republican State Rep. Virgil Peck likening illegal immigrants to feral hogs, generating a swift backlash nationwide that helped doom bills there.
The progressive Latino group Democracia USA took out ads against proposals in Colorado, Pennsylvania and Florida. President Jorge Mursuli said backers of some state bills couldn't answer basic questions about the legislation, such as whether families hiring nannies would have to use E-verify, or whether employers would be on the hook for unemployment insurance for new hires found ineligible to work.
"A lot of folks were doing this as a political stunt, rather than as a real policy effort," he said.
Still, those itching for action in Washington may get their wish. Immigration groups and those who support enforcement-only measures say they will redouble lobbying efforts at the federal level. Last week, Democratic senators in Washington reintroduced the Dream Act, though it's unlikely to pass the Republican-led House, and certainly not before the 2012 election.
President Barack Obama also gave his second speech in two weeks on immigration.
Krikorian noted the Supreme Court will soon rule on the constitutionality of a 2007 Arizona law that mandated all companies there use E-verify. If that law is upheld, he believes other states will again follow Arizona's lead.
"Then the game isn't over," he said.
(http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/05/23/national/main20065394.shtml)
MIAMI — Nearly every state in the U.S. has tried to tackle immigration on its own this year in the absence of any congressional movement on the matter, and more than half considered stringent enforcement measures like those that made headlines in Arizona, up from just six in 2010.
But an Associated Press review found that in legislature after legislature, nearly all the most punitive measures failed.
What had passed as of Monday mostly reinforced current federal law, though a small number of states actually passed legislation that was helpful to illegal immigrants.
Many measures were set aside so lawmakers could focus on pressing budget crises, but immigrants have also developed more sophisticated lobbying efforts, and business owners came out strongly against tougher sanctions. Some worried about losing sources of labor and gaining extra paperwork. Others feared tourism boycotts like the one organized against Arizona.
Early in the year, high unemployment, a slew of newly Republican-dominated legislatures and nationwide frustration over the failure by the White House or Congress to address the problem suggested Arizona's law would be copied.
That law makes it a state crime for an illegal immigrant to work, penalizes employers who hire them and encourages local authorities to turn over illegal immigrants to federal authorities, among other measures. An appellate court has blocked provisions that require immigrants carry visa documents and allow police broad leeway to question the immigration status of those they suspect are in the country illegally.
Louisiana State Rep. Joe Harrison, a Republican, said federal inaction prompted his interest in state laws on immigration.
"I'm just trying to give them a little Taser move in the right direction," he said.
But Harrison's bill has yet to move out of committee, and most of the others failed, as did most of the proposals requiring businesses to use the federal government's electronic E-verify system to check the eligibility of new hires. Only a few states made any serious attempt to crack down on employers.
So far, only Georgia and Utah have passed comprehensive bills. South Carolina and Alabama are still considering them. Utah's law includes a provision to allow illegal immigrants to work in the state, and the American Civil Liberties Union has already sued Utah over the law's enforcement provisions.
Georgia was the shining example for those hoping to step up enforcement and the closest to Arizona. Its new law allows local officers to check the immigration status of a suspect who can't produce an accepted form of ID. It also includes a provision requiring employers with more than 10 employees to use E-Verify by July 2013, similar to a 2007 law Arizona. Georgia Gov. Nathan Deal signed the bill earlier this month and opponents say they plan to sue the state.
Following the failure of the recent Dream Act in Washington — which would have provided a path to legalization for qualified illegal immigrant students and other young adults — several states adopted legislation this session that helps illegal immigrant students. Maryland approved in-state college tuition for illegal immigrants, Illinois is likely to set up a private scholarship fund for them, and Connecticut expanded in-state tuition for graduate school. An in-state tuition bill in Oregon passed the Senate but has yet to reach the House floor.
Arizona lawmakers ordered school districts to report students' residency, but that was geared toward keeping children who live across the Mexican border from enrolling in Arizona schools.
Only Indiana passed a law to prohibit in-state tuition for those in the country illegally, a largely symbolic move.
Most legislation never gets out of committee, and compromise is always key.
But experts on both sides credit businesses for much of the legislations' failure.
"Business owners came out of the woodwork in a way they hadn't done before," said Tamar Jacoby, president of ImmigrationWorks USA, a national federation of mostly small-business owners who support immigration reform.
Many Florida businesses said they feared the economic damage that would be caused if the state were hit by a tourism boycott like the one immigrant rights groups organized against Arizona.
In Arizona, 60 top executives signed a letter to Arizona's Senate president, asking for a moratorium on immigration bills.
Indianapolis-based drug maker Eli Lilly was among those who publicly opposed an Arizona-style bill. Last week, Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels signed into law more modest bills: the in-state tuition ban and an end to tax credits for companies that hire illegal immigrants.
In Utah, businesses helped create the Utah Compact, the basis for the most comprehensive immigration law to come out of the states. It resembles Arizona on enforcement but allows illegal immigrants to work in Utah. A judge blocked the bill last week, following the ACLU lawsuit.
Jacoby acknowledged many businesses particularly opposed E-verify.
Indeed, in Florida, the House and Senate couldn't reach a compromise on the E-verify component, and the proposals died. The Indiana and Alabama legislatures faced similar splits between their House and Senate over measures targeting employers.
Jacoby said it was the Arizona-like enforcement sections of the bills that generated the attention and public debate, and that in many states, E-verify went down along with them.
Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, which advocates stricter limits on immigration, believes many businesses concerned about E-verify cynically stoked opposition to the bills by emphasizing the enforcement angle.
"The businesses community really did pull out all the stops on this, and I have to give them props," Krikorian said. "The strategy was to make a big deal about Arizona-style legislation in order to scare off E-verify."
Immigrants and their supporters were also ready to battle, capitalizing on networks they developed in recent years in response to Arizona's law and the federal government's stepped-up deportation efforts.
In Florida, farmworkers, students and other immigrants and activists spent weeks at the Capitol, protesting and praying during committee hearings but also lobbying heavily behind the scenes.
In Kansas, they quickly spread a YouTube clip of Republican State Rep. Virgil Peck likening illegal immigrants to feral hogs, generating a swift backlash nationwide that helped doom bills there.
The progressive Latino group Democracia USA took out ads against proposals in Colorado, Pennsylvania and Florida. President Jorge Mursuli said backers of some state bills couldn't answer basic questions about the legislation, such as whether families hiring nannies would have to use E-verify, or whether employers would be on the hook for unemployment insurance for new hires found ineligible to work.
"A lot of folks were doing this as a political stunt, rather than as a real policy effort," he said.
Still, those itching for action in Washington may get their wish. Immigration groups and those who support enforcement-only measures say they will redouble lobbying efforts at the federal level. Last week, Democratic senators in Washington reintroduced the Dream Act, though it's unlikely to pass the Republican-led House, and certainly not before the 2012 election.
President Barack Obama also gave his second speech in two weeks on immigration.
Krikorian noted the Supreme Court will soon rule on the constitutionality of a 2007 Arizona law that mandated all companies there use E-verify. If that law is upheld, he believes other states will again follow Arizona's lead.
"Then the game isn't over," he said.
(http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/05/23/national/main20065394.shtml)
SB 1070 info
Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act, known more commonly as Senate Bill (SB) 1070, was signed into law on April 23, 2010 by Governor Jan Brewer, who said that "decades of federal inaction and misguided policy have created a dangerous and unacceptable situation" in Arizona. SB 1070 did spur the federal government to take action. Unfortunately, instead of siding with the citizens of Arizona in their fight against illegal immigration, the Department of Justice chose to sue the state in order to prevent the law from going into effect, arguing that the Executive Branch has the discretion not to enforce immigration law and can prohibit the states from doing so, as well. A federal court has allowed some parts of the law to go into effect while higher courts decide on the constitutionality of other parts of SB 1070. The court battle is far from over.
Drafted with the aid of FAIR's legal affiliate, the Immigration Reform Law Institute (IRLI), SB 1070 is carefully crafted to conform to federal laws and to protect the civil rights of all legal residents and visitors to Arizona.
They believe that SB 1070 will withstand legal challenges from the illegal alien advocacy network and will serve as a model for other state and local governments that, like Arizona, decide they can no longer wait for the federal government to secure the border and enforce our immigration laws. (FAIRUS.org)
Drafted with the aid of FAIR's legal affiliate, the Immigration Reform Law Institute (IRLI), SB 1070 is carefully crafted to conform to federal laws and to protect the civil rights of all legal residents and visitors to Arizona.
They believe that SB 1070 will withstand legal challenges from the illegal alien advocacy network and will serve as a model for other state and local governments that, like Arizona, decide they can no longer wait for the federal government to secure the border and enforce our immigration laws. (FAIRUS.org)
Sunday, May 22, 2011
United We DREAM tells President Obama to stop using the DREAM Act to campaign
WASHINGTON -- Immigration advocacy groups have a message for President Barack Obama: Stop using the DREAM Act to ask for campaign money unless you can deliver relief from deportation for undocumented youth.
United We DREAM, a group of young people pushing for the bill, started a petition last week asking the president to remove discussions of the bill in campaign literature and fundraising emails unless he is willing to use his executive power to block deportations for DREAM Act-eligible students.
The DREAM Act would grant legal status to some undocumented young people who came to the U.S. as children and are now looking to attend college or join the military.
Although Obama has said repeatedly that he supports the DREAM Act and that undocumented students are not the focus of his immigration enforcement plans, some are nonetheless caught up in a deportation system that removed more than 390,000 people from the country last year.
On Wednesday, a group of DREAM Act supporters gathered outside an Obama fundraiser in Boston to protest against the president's deportation policies.
Vinicius Quirino, 25, a student who is in removal proceedings after overstaying a tourist visa, chanted, "Pass the DREAM Act now!" as attendees filtered into the fundraiser. Although Quirino would not be eligible for the DREAM Act as it is currently written -- he entered the United States from Brazil when he was 17, two years beyond the max entrance age under the bill -- he said he wants to make sure Obama supporters know the president has not delivered on his DREAM Act promises.
"We're just showing to people who were supporting him that he makes promises and he doesn't accomplish anything," he said. "So why are you supporting him? The students are still in the shit." (Huffington Post)
I am in full support of the President for reelection but I would like to see him follow through on more of the promises he made during his first campaign. His acitons are speaking much louder than his words these days and that could prove bad for business.
United We DREAM, a group of young people pushing for the bill, started a petition last week asking the president to remove discussions of the bill in campaign literature and fundraising emails unless he is willing to use his executive power to block deportations for DREAM Act-eligible students.
The DREAM Act would grant legal status to some undocumented young people who came to the U.S. as children and are now looking to attend college or join the military.
Although Obama has said repeatedly that he supports the DREAM Act and that undocumented students are not the focus of his immigration enforcement plans, some are nonetheless caught up in a deportation system that removed more than 390,000 people from the country last year.
On Wednesday, a group of DREAM Act supporters gathered outside an Obama fundraiser in Boston to protest against the president's deportation policies.
Vinicius Quirino, 25, a student who is in removal proceedings after overstaying a tourist visa, chanted, "Pass the DREAM Act now!" as attendees filtered into the fundraiser. Although Quirino would not be eligible for the DREAM Act as it is currently written -- he entered the United States from Brazil when he was 17, two years beyond the max entrance age under the bill -- he said he wants to make sure Obama supporters know the president has not delivered on his DREAM Act promises.
"We're just showing to people who were supporting him that he makes promises and he doesn't accomplish anything," he said. "So why are you supporting him? The students are still in the shit." (Huffington Post)
I am in full support of the President for reelection but I would like to see him follow through on more of the promises he made during his first campaign. His acitons are speaking much louder than his words these days and that could prove bad for business.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)