Just a couple days following my election to AILA National Secretary, I received a phone call from a good friend directing me to a website for an organization describing itself as a champion of American values. After a cursory review, it was obvious the entity was composed of immigrant bashers blaming Hispanics for everything from a depressed housing market to global warming. The site had a vast archive of articles, each ranting about the demise of America because of the “Mexican Invasion.” (Guess someone forgot to tell these people Mexico was already part of America.)

Scrolling down the pages, I noticed a reference to my election from a press release posted on the site. Below were numerous threats and comments describing me as a traitorous, idiotic socialist apparently leading an effort aimed at making Mexico City the next US Capitol. My mother would have been proud – her son right up there with the Anti-Christ. Not bad for a cowboy boot wearing redneck Baptist Republican from Oklahoma City.

I found similar references on other sites and discovered that our AILA President, a fellow conservative Republican, was also the target of several mischaracterizations. I thought, who were these people and why did they hate me? I have never published my views on border policy, enforcement, and quotas. I next reviewed nearly a dozen of these anti-immigrant websites. It didn’t take long to realize these groups not only hate me; they hate you; they hate their neighbors; and they probably hate each other.

It’s obvious that the culture of hate is thriving in our country, but just how bad is it? The Spring 2009 Intelligence Report from the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) gives us a clue. http://www.splcenter.org/intl/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=1027. The report, titled, “The Year in Hate” identifies immigration as a focus point for these groups. The report concluded that there were “926 hate groups active in the U.S., up more than 4% from 888 in 2007. That’s more than a 50% increase since 2000, when there were 602 groups.”

SPLC’s Intelligence Project, originally called Klan watch, was created in 1981 to gather information on the Klan but has now evolved into an effort to monitor domestic hate crimes and hate groups throughout the nation. The SPLC Intelligence Project is recognized as an acknowledged expert on U.S. hate activity.

These hate groups seem to be everywhere, many hiding behind the electronic mask of the internet, not subject to complete discovery by the hate trackers. One thing is certain, the anti-immigration movement has become a foundation for the existence of these extremist and white supremacist groups.

For an interesting read on what SPLC has to say about the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), go to http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2007/12/11/fair-crossing-the-rubicon-of-hate&splcnewsletter;=panewsgen-121107/.

There are also those who spew venomous attacks on immigration advocates in comment and discussion sections following internet media stories. While we certainly guarantee the right to free speech in this country, it’s often difficult to distinguish between their hate messages and legal extremist opinions. They live on the edge of illegality, they are loud and they are being heard.

I previously believed we could eradicate hate through education. Unfortunately, even some of the educated are falling prey to the message of the hate mongers. I am now convinced we must be more vocal and louder than those with twisted minds. We need to post our messages of tolerance, loyalty and compassion to this country and the principles upon which it was founded. We need to blog, publish and be heard. It’s time for each of us to engage the hate.

T. Douglas Stump

Just a couple days following my election to AILA National Secretary, I received a phone call from a good friend directing me to a website for an organization describing itself as a champion of American values. After a cursory review, it was obvious the entity was composed of immigrant bashers blaming Hispanics for everything from a depressed housing market to global warming. The site had a vast archive of articles, each ranting about the demise of America because of the “Mexican Invasion.” (Guess someone forgot to tell these people Mexico was already part of America.)

Scrolling down the pages, I noticed a reference to my election from a press release posted on the site. Below were numerous threats and comments describing me as a traitorous, idiotic socialist apparently leading an effort aimed at making Mexico City the next US Capitol. My mother would have been proud – her son right up there with the Anti-Christ. Not bad for a cowboy boot wearing redneck Baptist Republican from Oklahoma City.

I found similar references on other sites and discovered that our AILA President, a fellow conservative Republican, was also the target of several mischaracterizations. I thought, who were these people and why did they hate me? I have never published my views on border policy, enforcement, and quotas. I next reviewed nearly a dozen of these anti-immigrant websites. It didn’t take long to realize these groups not only hate me; they hate you; they hate their neighbors; and they probably hate each other.

It’s obvious that the culture of hate is thriving in our country, but just how bad is it? The Spring 2009 Intelligence Report from the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) gives us a clue. http://www.splcenter.org/intl/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=1027. The report, titled, “The Year in Hate” sets forth some alarming facts,

From white power skinheads decrying “President Obongo” at a racist gathering in rural Missouri, to neo-Nazis and Ku Klux Klansmen hurling epithets at Latino immigrants from courthouse steps in Oklahoma, to anti-Semitic black separatists calling for death to Jews on bustling street corners in several East Coast cities, hate group activity in the U.S. was disturbing and widespread throughout 2008, as the number of hate groups operating in America continued to rise. Last year, 926 hate groups were active in the U.S., up more than 4% from 888 in 2007. That’s more than a 50% increase since 2000, when there were 602 groups. As in recent years, hate groups were animated by the national immigration debate.



SPLC’s Intelligence Project, originally called Klan watch, was created in 1981 to gather information on the Klan but has now evolved into an effort to monitor domestic hate crimes and hate groups throughout the nation. The SPLC Intelligence Project is recognized as an acknowledged expert on U.S. hate activity.

These hate groups seem to be everywhere, many hiding behind the electronic mask of the internet, not subject to complete discovery by the hate trackers. One thing is certain, the anti-immigration movement has become a foundation for the existence of these extremist and white supremacist groups.

For an interesting read on what SPLC has to say about the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), go to http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2007/12/11/fair-crossing-the-rubicon-of-hate&splcnewsletter;=panewsgen-121107/.

There are also those who spew venomous attacks on immigration advocates in comment and discussion sections following internet media stories. While we certainly guarantee the right to free speech in this country, it’s often difficult to distinguish between their hate messages and legal extremist opinions. They live on the edge of illegality, they are loud and they are being heard.

I previously believed we could eradicate hate through education. Unfortunately, even some of the educated are falling prey to the message of the hate mongers. I am now convinced we must be more vocal and louder than those with twisted minds. We need to post our messages of tolerance, loyalty and compassion to this country and the principles upon which it was founded. We need to blog, publish and be heard. It’s time for each of us to engage the hate.

T. Douglas Stump

We all know that, if you get caught breaking the law, you risk getting arrested and a trip to jail. But we’ve got a pretty fair system, right? You can make a free phone call, talk to a lawyer, and get a hearing in front of a judge, pretty much right away, don’t you? The bad guys go to jail, and the good guys go free, right? We all know how this works, if only from what we learned in school or just watching too much TV.

Unfortunately, that’s not true for immigrants in this country. A person can be arrested and detained by ICE on the most basic suspicion that there’s something not quite right with their immigration status, and we treat them worse than criminals. That’s the rule for anyone who’s not a citizen (and even some who are, but might have trouble proving their citizenship). And the process doesn’t look anything like it what they told us in school or what you learned from reruns of Law & Order: immigrants face death-penalty-like consequences with only traffic court-level protections.

Those arrested often spend hours without knowing why they were arrested, where they will be taken, or whether there is any hope of release, with no way to contact their loved ones. Worse yet, many are pressured to sign away their rights on the threat that they might otherwise spend months in detention before inevitable deportation. Others spend weeks—yes, weeks—shuffled from state to state, before they can make their case for release to an immigration judge. The lucky ones might be able to buy their freedom until their case can be heard, but many can’t afford to pay $10,000 or more for a bond. And that’s cash, mind you: no 10% down or personal recognizance bonds here. Those that can’t pony up the money face months of detention until a judge can decide their fate. Some are detained for years.

And about that lawyer? Well, that doesn’t look like what you learned in school either: there’s no such thing as a public defender for immigrants, and about two thirds of immigrants face the prospect of deportation without a lawyer to help them understand what’s been called the most complex and arbitrary area of the law.

Who are these immigrants? Are they criminals, are they dangerous? Rarely. The overwhelming majority of those arrested by ICE have no criminal history—and those that do were involved with relatively minor offenses, not violent crimes, and even those with the most minor criminal history are rarely eligible for release. So who are tax payers detaining at $100 or more a day? Mostly, we’re talking about families trying to get ahead, people fleeing injustice and persecution, victims of domestic violence and other crimes, hardly a good place to be spending money in such a tight economy. It’s no surprise that the Department of Homeland Security has been criticized for telling Congress that the agency is going after dangerous criminal aliens, but in reality netting only bus boys, construction workers and nannies.

DHS, through its enforcement arm, ICE, claims that detention is necessary to protect the public and prevent immigrants from absconding, but the facts show that just isn’t true. So why does it continue? Because only a small percentage of the population has had to confront the realities of this system, and those that have suffered through this decidedly un-American gulag, are shocked. Somewhere along the way, it became normal and acceptable to lock up immigrants. Strikingly, that was around the same time detention became big business. And the lines between the business interests and government interests have become so blurred that we’ve lost sight of the public interest. tyle=""> It’s time to reevaluate the system.

Last week a member of the CBP committee forwarded an article about a Canadian national, Desiderio Fortunato, who refused to turn his car engine off at a border crossing point east of Vancouver, until and unless the CBP officer said “Please.”

http://a123.g.akamai.net/f/123/12465/1d/www.nationalpost.com/0304_border.jpgDan

Apparently both parties dug their heels in, with the CBP officer continuing to tell the Canadian to turn his engine off–omitting the magic words–and Mr. Fortunato insisting on a modicum of courtesy. Instead, he received a face full of pepper spray, a three-hour interrogation and a request (OK, maybe the word “request” isn’t quite the right word here) to return home.

I have been thinking about the scene for the last week. First I wondered why it wasn’t featured on that hit show “Homeland Security”–maybe it could have saved that wonderful concept from cancellation! Then I imagined the call from the CBP Officer’s mother after she read about her son in the paper: “I’m truly appalled at your behavior, dear. Didn’t I raise you better than that?” Finally I decided that Mr. Fortunato is my new hero.

Clearly, CBP Officers have a vital, and often difficult task. Their jobs call for a balance between quick decision-making and sound judgment, as well as a vast knowledge of both immigration and customs laws. The ultimate goal is to protect our country from threats to national security while allowing access to the U.S. by those who have legitimate reasons to enter.

Most of the time, the reports I hear about encounters with CBP relate to a lack of knowledge of the immigration laws. Some recent examples: A client’s employee, entering in Miami, had her L-2 visa cancelled because she also had an advance parole. She was instructed to use the advance parole only. Yet another employee was threatened at the U.S.- Canada border for using his H-1B while he had an adjustment pending, and told that he would not be permitted to enter the next time. There have been numerous cases in which CBP officers have bullied LPR’s into giving up their green cards after a long absence abroad, notwithstanding re-entry permits and/or significant ties to the U.S. A client of an AILA colleague had an O visa readjudicated at entry–apparently notwithstanding the judgment of a CIS Service Center and a consulate, the individual was simply not that extraordinary, in the eyes of the CBP. My personal favorite from the last few weeks, from my home-town airport–Dulles–was a former F-1 student entering with an immigrant visa after consular processing. The student had a period of unauthorized employment in the U.S. before departing to obtain the immigrant visa. CBP detained him at Dulles, and then put him in proceedings, claiming (and this is after consultation with a supervising CBP officer) that he was subject to the 10 year bar.

These anecdotes are of course, just a sampling, and they are deeply disturbing, both in their seeming arbitrainess, and the lack of solid legal ground evidenced in these decisions. I confess that I am losing patience with the standard response, “It’s a training issue.” At this point, I would offer to train CBP myself, at no cost to the government, and I’m sure I would have an army of willing volunteers from AILA. However, I can even understand that CBP officers can’t know all the rules all the time—as long as they are able to politely excuse themselves to look things up or check with a colleague. But I’m right there with Mr. Fortunato–there is absolutely no place for rudeness at the border.

DHS has to understand that CBP is essentially our face to the outside world. The way anyone is welcomed at a port of entry may well form that individual’s impression of our culture. We are welcoming visitors who want to explore beautiful landmarks (and spend money here) as well as business people who want to explore new investments (and spend money here!) We are welcoming professionals who lend their talents to U.S. enterprises, fiances of U.S. citizens, lawful permanent residents who have chosen our country as their new home. By extending common courtesy on a daily basis to those who come across our borders, CBP could be a symbol of the words of President Obama in his inauguration speech: “Know that America is a friend of each nation and every man, woman and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity.”

That is not to say that we should fling open our doors and let all through who wish to enter. But any person who has read a parenting book or dealt with a toddler tantrum can tell you that it is possible to say “no” firmly and politely. And CBP Officers have more tools at their disposal to deal with uncooperative individuals than parents do. If a foreign national does not respond well to “no,” CBP Officers can do a lot more than send him to his room.

It is really too bad that we can’t regulate manners. And it’s even sadder that we would have to.

It would take pages and pages—far more words than would fit into this blog—for me to describe all the unjust provisions in the immigration statute, but the one that is bothering me at the moment is INA § 241(a)(5), reinstatement of removal.

On its face, reinstatement of a removal order against a foreign national who has reentered the US illegally makes sense. It allows ICE to quickly and efficiently reinstate an existing deportation order without the time and expense of going back to an immigration judge.

After all, who can argue against deporting someone who has already lawfully been ordered removed and, once again, offends our immigration laws by reentering illegally? Fair is fair, isn’t it?

Not so fast. What if the original deportation proceedings were so unfair that the foreign national was denied due process? What if the immigration judge, the Board of Immigration Appeals and, for its part, the Department of Homeland Security collectively denied the foreign national his or her right to a fundamentally fair removal hearing? For example, suppose the foreign national is a long term legal permanent resident but was never advised by the immigration judge of this right to be represented by an attorney at his deportation hearing and his right to ask the immigration judge for a discretionary waiver so he could remain in the U.S. with his family? Or suppose the BIA never bothered to serve him with a copy of its decision so that he could petition the court of appeals for appellate review? Unfortunately such violations happen more often than you might think.

The answer is relatively simple in the federal criminal context because the law limits the government’s ability to prosecute someone for reentry after deportation where the removal proceedings were fundamentally unfair. The criminal trial judge can throw out the indictment or, if the errors are obvious, the U.S. attorney can dismiss the charges.

But terminating the federal prosecution because the underlying removal proceedings were flawed doesn’t prevent ICE from again removing the foreign national based on the same unjust removal order. Once the criminal case is dismissed the foreign national, who has already once been removed unfairly, is again subject to immediate removal under INA §241(a)(5), the reinstatement provision, which operates independently of the criminal indictment.

To be sure, the law does provide for judicial review of a reinstatement order. But in the lion share of the cases it is a hollow remedy. First, review is very limited and it is extremely difficult to collaterally attack the underlying removal order, as flawed as it might be. Second, and perhaps more importantly, ICE typically initiates the reinstatement process shortly after the foreign national is arrested and charged criminally with illegal reentry. Since the reinstatement process involves little more than ICE verifying the identity of the foreign national and completing a form, it only takes a couple of days to complete the entire reinstatement process. Once the reinstatement order is issued, the foreign national has 30 days to appeal it to the circuit court of appeals. But in most cases, the foreign national is detained by the U.S. Marshal Service awaiting trial on the criminal reentry charge. Unless he has the benefit the advice of an immigration lawyer with expertise in the reinstatement process, he will not likely understand that his opportunity to challenge the reinstatement order will be lost if a petition for review in the court of appeals is not filed within the time limit.

So, even where the criminal prosecution falls apart under the weight of an infirm removal order, the foreign national nevertheless remains subject to being once again deported based on the same unfair order.

Foreign nationals who are legally removed from the U.S. and later reenter illegally should be subject to the legal consequences of their actions. But when someone is banished from the U.S. unfairly, the civil reinstatement provision should not be used to again subject that person to removal based on fundamentally flawed removal proceedings.

Reinstatement of removal will not likely be repealed or materially changed in any comprehensive immigration reform package that emerges from Congress in the foreseeable future. And, given the other major problems plaguing our immigration system, perhaps there are more important fixes to make. Nevertheless, the reinstatement provision’s stubborn insistence on repeating the injustice of an unlawful removal stands out as a symbol of much of what is wrong with immigration law and policy in the United States.

Dr. Alena Shkumatava, a postdoctoral researcher from Belarus working at M.I.T., studies micro-genes in zebra fish. One day, her findings will be used in research on human cell behavior and may change the way we diagnose or treat diseases. They may even lead to curing diseases that are currently untreatable. But Dr. Shkumatava said that she will not pursue her research in the in the United States and will return to Europe this year. This is because of what happened last year, when she tried to renew her visa in Moscow. What should have been a short visit home turned into a three-month bureaucratic nightmare of delays that were undoubtedly caused by security advisory opinion (SAO) backlogs. N.Y. Times – Article Dr. Shkumatava http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/03/science/03visa.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&sq;=belarus%20US%20visa%20scientist&st;=cse&scp;=1.

The U.S. Department of State Visa Office that processed over 260,000 SAOs in 2008 has indicated that SAOs now take more than 90 days. The technology-based security clearances, known as the Mantis clearances, “now take six to eight weeks.” 11/5/08 Liaison Minutes American Immigration Lawyers Association meeting with the U.S. Department of State -http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=28120.

The peculiar code name for security name checks are based on animals that “walk-in” and animals that “fly-over.” Name checks that do not require a State Department response are said to “fly-over.” For example, Visas Eagle go to the various police and intelligence agencies. Other security checks, identified by animals that “walk-in,” require State Department response. For example, Visas Donkey usually take much longer, often causing delays of many months for the stranded traveler. No wonder foreign scientists working in the U.S. are getting frustrated, as such delays regularly result in declined invitations to speak at international conferences, low attendance of U.S. meetings by international scholars, not even to speak of missed family events.

As the delays are getting longer, many scientists are saying, “we’ve had enough.” NY Times – “The Real High-Tech Immigrant Problem: They’re Leaving” – http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/02/the-real-high-tech-immigrant-problem-theyre-leaving/?scp=2&sq;=vivek%20wadhwa&st;=cse. With our economy at a crossroads, and with China, India and other emerging nations moving ahead in the sciences, this administration needs to take a hard look at the way scientists are treated, as the government focuses on developing new technologies that might change our dependence on fossil fuels and improve our environment. The waiting lines and other obstacles scientists face when applying for work visas are absurd. We should pin green cards onto their doctoral diplomas and beg them to stay to help us maintain our technological edge. Instead, we send them home, so they can compete against us.

It’s time to look at the way we treat the very people that can keep America in the lead in science – we don’t want to send the next Albert Einstein home!

The LA Times Reports that apprehensions of undocumented migrants are down significantly this year, and appear to have dropped to levels not seen since the 1970s. In fact, the Yuma Sector of the Border Patrol reported not a single arrest for 2 days in December 2008. This from a Sector that was featured on that ridiculous show “Homeland Security” featuring migrants caught last summer. Apparently, there was no guarantee of catching anyone today!

One has to ask: Is this a result of all the money the Bush, and now Obama Administrations have poured into border security and deterrence? Or, is there something much bigger at play here? What comes to mind immediately when these raw statistics are rehearsed is that old James Carville saying from the 1992 election: “Its the Economy Stupid.”

The reality of the economic impact on the sharp reduction of undocumented immigration is played out in the last paragraph of this article when it becomes clear that while there are still folks wanting and even trying to enter the United States without papers (even with the billions that have been spent on increased border enforcement in the last nine years), the job magnet that has drawn millions of people here has virtually disappeared overnight. There are just not any jobs here right now. The bigger question that we MUST consider now is what happens when the economy improves and all these jobs come back? We know that the economy will improve. Without action NOW by Congress on immigratin reform to deal with what we know will be a pent up surge for workers, both skilled and unskilled, when the economy rights itself later this year, we will be faced with more immigrant bashing and the same lack of solutions that we have enjoyed for the last decade.

Hopefully, the Obama Administration can lead on this issue. Certainly President Obama has said he would so lead. And, he is speaking tomorrow, March 10, to the Annual Legislative Conference of the United States Hispanic Chamber of Commerce in Washington D.C. This event would be a perfect forum for him to call out for Congressional Action this year on Immigration. Without leadership from the White House now, and through the spring, summer and fall, it is far to likely that Congress will not have the courage to act on immigration reform.

The Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation released a Study yesterday that indicates placing limits on foreign workers in the U.S. is not the answer to the country’s rising unemployment rate and may undermine efforts to spur technological innovation. You have to ask yourself, “Is anyone surprised by this?” I mean come on. What kind of person actually believes that by STOPPING advanced degreed university graduates from coming to the United States the United States will be better off? I mean, besides the folks in Congress!

The study by Harvard professor Vivek Wadhwa titled America’s loss is the world’s gain: America’s New Immigrant Entrepreneurs, Part IV, surveyed highly skilled immigrants who had studied and/or worked in the United States and subsequently returned to their home countries.

“A substantial number of highly skilled immigrants have started returning to their home countries in recent years, draining a key source of brain power and innovation,” said Robert E. Litan, vice president of Research and Policy at the Kauffman Foundation. “We wanted to know what is encouraging this much-needed growth engine to leave our country, thereby sending entrepreneurship and economic stimulus to places like Bangalore and Beijing.”

The study found that “Immigrants historically have provided one of America’s greatest competitive advantages. Between 1990 and 2007, the proportion of immigrants in the U.S. labor force increased from 9.3 percent to 15.7 percent, and a large and growing proportion of immigrants bring high levels of education and skill to the United States. Immigrants have contributed disproportionately in the most dynamic part of the U.S. economy—the high-tech sector—co-founding firms such as Google, Intel, eBay and Yahoo. In addition, immigrant inventors contributed to more than a quarter of U.S. global patent applications. Immigrant-founded U.S.-based companies employed 450,000 workers and generated $52 billion in revenue in 2006.”

Come on Congress, lets get out heads out of the sand, stop playing games with who is to blame in this economic crisis and THINK your way out of it. Expanding U.S. employers’ ability to bring in the best and brightest from around the world, AND treating this talent as they should be treated, will go a long way to fixing our economic malaise.