Emanuel and Durbin push bill to help educate undocumented immigrant children

http://www.suntimes.com

By Abdon M. Pallasch Political Reporter/apallasch@suntimes.com May 13, 2011

Mayor-elect Rahm Emanuel and Sen. Dick Durbin headlined a rally for immigrant rights Friday.

During the mayoral campaign, Emanuel’s rivals accused him of side-lining immigration reform in favor of other issues.

While Emanuel won all the city’s black wards and most of the city’s white wards, he did not do as well in the Hispanic wards.

But on Friday, Emanuel pledged his full support to the state’s “Dream Act” — which aims to help raise private money to put young undocumented immigrants through school — and also to the much more ambitious and less likely federal Dream Act, which would grant citizenship to illegal immigrants for military service or completion of college....

“If we keep the pressure up, keep our voices loud, we will pass the Illinois Dream Act,” Emanuel said, noting his own family’s immigrant background. “It’s only fitting that ... on the issue of immigration reform, Illinois does not follow the path that some are beating toward what Arizona has done, Passing the Illinois Dream Act, we will show the country a different path.”

Read Entire Article Here

Mayor Emanuel's Next Move on Immigration Policy

Afton Branche

Immigration Policy Analyst, Drum Major Institute for Public Policy

On the campaign trail, Mayor-elect Rahm Emanuel faced tough criticism from opponents for his inaction on immigration policy issues. Immigration advocates, on the ground and in Congress, claimed that he stood in the way of progress on comprehensive immigration reform during his time as White House chief of staff. It didn’t help that Emanuel’s most-quoted statement on immigration calls it the untouchable “third rail of politics.”

As Chicago’s next mayor, Emanuel will have a crucial opportunity to prove his critics on immigration policy wrong. To build trust and support in immigrant communities, the mayor must deliver on campaign promises as well as commit to new policies aimed at integrating immigrants, who represent 20 percent of Chicago’s population, into the fabric of the city. Setting an ambitious integration agenda will surely help the Mayor-elect win over critics of his national immigration record, but it will also generate significant social and economic benefits for the city as a whole.

The new mayor can begin by looking to other immigrant-friendly cities, where many of the best immigrant integration policies have already been implemented. New York’s language access policy is a perfect example. Passed in 2008, the policy directs all city agencies to provide language services in the city’s six most commonly-spoken foreign languages. Enacting a similar policy in Chicago would yield city-wide results, at a lower cost. Translation and interpretation services, for example, would enable immigrant parents to participate in local schools and encourage undocumented crime witnesses to speak up to local police.

Second, Emanuel should implement his Chicago “DREAM Act,” which was a leading campaign promise. Under the proposal, the first of its kind in the nation, immigrant students would receive loans for community colleges and four-year universities at low interest rates provided they meet certain residency and age requirements. With affordable higher education, these students can get better jobs and pay more in taxes to support Chicago’s economy. Emanuel has said he intends to fund the plan by raising $5 million from business and civic leaders.

But access to higher education is only one of many challenges immigrant families face. Mayor-elect Emanuel should consider opening a Chicago Office of Immigrant Affairs to partner with city and community leaders in identifying pressing issues for new and established immigrant groups and advancing proven policy solutions to address them. Immigrant affairs offices in New York, Houston, San Francisco and elsewhere also promote civic participation and educate immigrants about their rights and responsibilities as city residents. Successful immigrant integration programming involves multiple city agencies and their partners in local communities; centralizing these efforts can help stakeholders avoid duplicating services and wasting limited resources.

Everyone wins when immigrants participate fully in city life, by buying homes, applying for small businesses or simply by accessing the vital services to which they are entitled; the city should play a role in ensuring this process happens quickly.

Political considerations influenced Rahm Emanuel’s weak support for immigration policy reforms during his White House tenure. But as he prepares to lead one of the country’s top immigrant destinations, Mayor-elect Emanuel will have to deal with these issues head-on. Advancing proven integration policies to welcome new immigrants and maximize their contributions to city of Chicago is an excellent place to start.

Follow Afton Branche on Twitter: www.twitter.com/AftonBrancheDMI

Republicans Must Walk Fine Line on Immigration

http://www.nytimes.com

By ROSS RAMSEY

The growth of the state’s Hispanic population and the rise of immigration as a political issue puts Texas Republicans in a tight spot.

It’s clear in the polls, on the political stump, on the news, at rallies and in the aisles of the Legislature that voters strongly support tougher enforcement of immigration laws and that conservative and white voters strongly support more restrictions and fewer benefits for illegal immigrants and their children.

It’s also clear that Hispanic voters — part of the fastest-growing group in the state’s population — don’t agree with their fellow Texans on many of those issues. Can Republicans keep their current voters happy without alienating the Hispanics they hope will support them in statewide races in the future?

This isn’t new. When George W. Bush was governor, he was careful with immigration issues. He had watched California Republicans run some tough-nosed campaigns on immigration that resulted in a backlash that helped the Democrats take over their state government. Mr. Bush also wanted to bring Hispanics into the Republican Party, to win their votes and to unravel the historical ties between those voters and Texas Democrats.

Bill Hammond, a former Republican legislator who now heads the Texas Association of Business, thinks immigrant-bashing legislation could undermine the G.O.P., making Hispanics feel unwelcome and hurting businesses at the same time. “I think you suffer in the short term as well as the long term,” Mr. Hammond said.

When Gov. Rick Perry talks about immigration, he doesn’t talk about immigration. He talks about border security and other law enforcement-related subjects like sanctuary cities. He’s not anti-immigration, just pro-law enforcement. Mexico’s drug gangs haven’t hurt the argument for border security, either: Mr. Perry’s ads on the subject in 2006 were so effective that he used them again in 2010.

Now the climate has changed, visible in the makeup of the Legislature. Republicans have 101 seats in the 150-member House, and 19 in the 31-member Senate. The clarity of what G.O.P. voters want is reflected in the bills filed by their elected officials. They’re talking about taking in-state college tuition away from the children of illegal immigrants who live in Texas. They’ve proposed Arizona-style legislation to make local police the enforcers of federal laws. They’re calling on the federal government, meanwhile, to enforce those laws and to — this is Mr. Perry again — send more people to patrol the border in the interest of safety. They’ve renewed calls to crack down on businesses that hire illegal immigrants.

Mr. Perry added sanctuary cities to his list of “emergency” legislation that can be considered by the Legislature during what is normally a law-passing blackout for the first 60 days of the session. But he has been careful with it, saying he doesn’t want to require local police to enforce federal immigration laws, as Arizona does. He wants to outlaw bans on that practice, and says simply that local police should be allowed to enforce those laws as they wish. No requirement, no ban, no bashing — just law enforcement.

His sanctuary-cities ban is a product of the governor’s race in November and illustrates how he has walked the political line. In that contest, Mr. Perry accused his Democratic opponent, Bill White, of running a sanctuary city as mayor of Houston, preventing the police from enforcing immigration laws. And Mr. Perry closed his campaign with an ad featuring a Houston police officer whose husband, also an officer, was shot to death by an illegal immigrant during an arrest.

With the Legislature in town, it’s harder to modulate the responses to public calls for tougher enforcement. If you’re a governor or a lawmaker who wants to be governor some day, all of that raises the political question above: Is it possible to keep lawmakers from doing something that will sink the party in the future? And is it possible to escape this legislative session with a package of bills moderate enough to keep Hispanic voters in the fold without forfeiting the 2012 primary elections to current Republicans, including the noisy Tea Partyers, who want a stronger hand?

“I don’t think this is the kind of issue that defeats you in a Republican primary,” Mr. Hammond said. “You have to be atrocious to get defeated in a Republican primary. Taxes might fall into atrocious activity, but I don’t think this does.”

rramsey@texastribune.org

Immigrants Need the Violence Against Women Act -- Let's Stop Blaming the Victims

by Rep. Raul Grijalva
Congressman, Arizona's 7th district


When I listened to the testimony yesterday of Ms. Antonia Peña, a domestic worker who volunteers at Casa de Maryland, I heard a story I've heard many times that never fails to affect me. Her friend Maria, who was born in El Salvador and has a two-year-old daughter, was in an abusive relationship. Because of her immigration status, coming forward led to legal retaliation against her. In her case, and in those of countless other women across the country, the law existed not to protect her but to protect her abuser. She was literally trapped in her own family and her own home. The status quo made it difficult for her to seek shelter for herself and her daughter, and she is currently fighting deportation proceedings. The crimes against her -- violence, threats, intimidation -- continued for months. Law enforcement, rather than sending her to El Salvador, should have opened a Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) protection case on her behalf.

Even abused women, if they are undocumented, will often be punished with deportation and imprisonment if they go to the police for help. Where it is in the public interest to remove criminals and dangerous individuals, we should do so -- and we are. But the public interest is also best served when we protect abused women and help children lead healthy lives. When Congress reauthorizes VAWA later this year, maintaining legal protections for battered immigrant women needs to be a priority. Some protections already exist: abused women are able to adjust their immigrant status independently of a spouse's sponsorship if an abusive relationship can be proved. But even this crucial protection is often overlooked, especially when Department of Homeland Security and Department of Justice officials carry out crackdowns or operations with local partners unaware of VAWA's language on immigrants.

This issue cannot and must not become an occasion for demagogues to spin their wheels. Abusive relationships are not a political issue -- they're a public health and human rights issue. Making sure women don't have to suffer beatings in silence, whatever their immigration status, has to be a priority. No one deserves to be beaten. No child deserves to grow up in an abusive environment. Whatever other laws may apply to a family's situation, VAWA must ensure that abuse cannot continue in silence.

I was proud to listen to the testimony Ms. Peña and our other witnesses offered yesterday. Yesterday was one of the strongest displays I've ever seen of why VAWA and other federal laws and regulations must play a central role in our thinking. There will be many opportunities to highlight the ways federal lawmakers can better protect immigrants, women, mothers and children. But I will remember what I heard on Feb. 10 very clearly.

Below is the video of Ms. Peña's testimony:

What's Next For U.S. Immigration Policy?

NPR's Michele Norris speaks to Fawn Johnson, who covers immigration issues for the National Journal, about what's coming up for immigration policy — both at the federal level, and in the states.

By Kevin Caufield

countyreporter@newstrib.com

http://www.newstrib.com

Quieter than the bipartisan bickering over extension of the Bush-era tax cuts in Congress is an issue with far-reaching implications on immigration. It’s called the Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act, aka the DREAM Act. It was first introduced in the U.S. Senate in 2001 and was re-introduced in 2009. The act would allow illegal immigrants who have graduated from high school and are of “good moral character” and who arrived in the U.S. illegally as minors while remaining here illegally for at least five years to be eligible to apply for permanent resident status, if they perform one of the three following criteria: n Graduate from a two-year community college or; n Complete at least two years toward a four-year college degree or; n Serve two years in the U.S. military. If the illegal immigrants choose college, they would not be eligible for federal higher education grants but would be able to apply for student loans and work study programs. The Senate moved Thursday to delay a politically charged showdown vote on legislation carving out a path to legal status for foreign-born youngsters brought to this country illegally, putting off but probably not preventing the measure’s demise. Facing GOP objections, Democrats put aside the Dream Act and said they’d try again to advance it before year’s end. They’re short of the 60 votes needed to do so, however, and critics in both parties quickly said they won’t change their minds in the waning days of the Democrat-controlled Congress. IVCC instructor backs DREAM ACT legislation Saturday, December 11, 2010 Share With Friend By Kevin Caufield countyreporter@newstrib.com Quieter than the bipartisan bickering over extension of the Bush-era tax cuts in Congress is an issue with far-reaching implications on immigration. It’s called the Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act, aka the DREAM Act. It was first introduced in the U.S. Senate in 2001 and was re-introduced in 2009. The act would allow illegal immigrants who have graduated from high school and are of “good moral character” and who arrived in the U.S. illegally as minors while remaining here illegally for at least five years to be eligible to apply for permanent resident status, if they perform one of the three following criteria: n Graduate from a two-year community college or; n Complete at least two years toward a four-year college degree or; n Serve two years in the U.S. military. If the illegal immigrants choose college, they would not be eligible for federal higher education grants but would be able to apply for student loans and work study programs. The Senate moved Thursday to delay a politically charged showdown vote on legislation carving out a path to legal status for foreign-born youngsters brought to this country illegally, putting off but probably not preventing the measure’s demise. Facing GOP objections, Democrats put aside the Dream Act and said they’d try again to advance it before year’s end. They’re short of the 60 votes needed to do so, however, and critics in both parties quickly said they won’t change their minds in the waning days of the Democrat-controlled Congress. “This is mainly a political exercise rather than a serious attempt to deal with our broken immigration system,” Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), told the Associated Press.

Dream Act Failure Would Leave Undocumented Supporters In Limbo

by Elise Foley
elise@huffingtonpost.com











Harvard student Eric Balderas was granted deferred action in June on his deportation proceedings.


WASHINGTON -- Matias Ramos, 24, was arrested by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents in February after he attempted to go through airport security in Minnesota with identification from his native Argentina. Ramos, a writing fellow at UCLA's Center for Labor Research and Education, now faces deportation from the country where he has lived since he was 13. Ramos is slated to sit down with an ICE agent more than a year later, this coming Feb. 28, to make the case that he should be allowed to remain in the United States.

"It's like you're in limbo," he said. "You're relieved that you didn't get immediately deported, but you still have to deal with these issues later on. It puts your life plans on hold a little bit if you let it."

With a degree from UCLA and a work permit, Ramos would be eligible for the Dream Act, a bill that would grant conditional legal status to undocumented immigrants who entered the country as children and agree to spend two years in college or the military. The bill passed the House of Representatives last week. But as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) attempts to round up 60 votes for the bill in the busy weeks before the end of the session, it remains unclear whether enough undecided senators will vote in support of the bill.

If the vote fails, the fate of potential beneficiaries, like Ramos, could remain uncertain for years.

"I would be stunned if there were a wholesale roundup the day after -- that wouldn't happen," said David Leopold, an immigration lawyer who recently volunteered to represent Bernard Pastor, an 18-year-old facing deportation after a minor traffic accident.

"What we will see is continued removal of kids who have excelled," he said. "I think we are going to see a lot of promising kids removed from the U.S. because there is no Dream Act, and I think that's a real tragedy."

The problem, according to critics of the immigration system, lies with laws that do not allow pathways to legal status for many undocumented immigrants already in the United States. If would-be Dream Act beneficiaries come across the radar of ICE, they typically wind up in deportation proceedings, though the agency's stated priority is to deport those illegal immigrants classified as dangerous.

"Unfortunately, the reality is that when people get into the sights of ICE, they will do their job -- although I'd argue it's not their job because their priorities state differently," Leopold said.

Once in removal proceedings, it is difficult to get out of them. But some would-be Dream Act beneficiaries have been granted reprieve -- at least temporarily -- in the form of "deferred action," a status that allows them to stay in the country, although they are not actually granted legal status.

The Department of Homeland Security has no official policy stating that those who could benefit from the legislation should be granted deferred action from deportation proceedings, despite requests by Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), the bill's chief sponsor, to postpone their cases across the board.

"Though they are technically out of status, DREAM Act students should not be removed from the United States," Durbin wrote in an April 21 letter to DHS officials. "Deferred action for DREAM Act students would conserve limited enforcement resources. ... Deferred action for DREAM Act students would be more efficient than the existing ad hoc system."

So far, though, ICE officials have declined to create a catch-all policy -- meaning Dream Act-eligible students whose deportations were delayed or deferred will not be allowed to rest easy if the bill fails.

"We are focused on sensible, effective immigration enforcement that focuses first on criminal aliens who pose a threat to our communities while we continue to work with Congress to enact reform," ICE spokeswoman Gillian Brigham said. "ICE uses discretion on a case-by-case basis as appropriate, and has the authority to grant a deferral of removal action based on the merits of an individual's case and a review of specific facts."

The high-profile nature of many Dream Act supporters, who have engaged in sit-ins and hunger strikes in support of the bill, might help some immigrants avoid deportation. Immigration lawyers say individuals who draw heavy attention from media and advocacy groups tend to be granted deferred action more often than individuals who go through more routine deportation proceedings.

Harvard University student Eric Balderas, for example, was slated for deportation after he used a Mexican ID at an airport. But he was granted deferred action in June after Harvard officials and students rallied behind efforts to halt his deportation.

Still, for many Dream Act supporters, advocacy has come at the cost of maintaining secrecy about their undocumented status, meaning they run higher risk of detection by authorities.

"When people engage in civil protest, they have to accept the consequences," Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who opposes the Dream Act, said Tuesday when asked what should happen to the bill's undocumented supporters if it fails.

Beyond potentially impacting their legal status, a failure on the Dream Act would be demoralizing to activists who have long supported the bill, Ramos said.

"Some people have been watching every step of the Senate on the Dream Act for 10 years," he said. "It takes a toll on you to see how dysfunctional the government is with immigration. We were kids when this thing got started; I think it would be heartbreaking if it failed."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com