Written by: Deborah Notkin, AILA Media-Advocacy Committee Chair

Much has been recently said about the need to reform our immigration laws to make our laws and regulations more hospitable to the best and the brightest—the scientists, the foreign born graduates of U.S. universities and, especially, the entrepreneurs.  All of this is true but we suffer from a dysfunctional government system that allows one senator to block even the smallest positive immigration initiatives.

It is not only the higher skilled among the foreign born that are important to economy.  The 8 to 11 million undocumented are also an economic factor to be reckoned with and the concept of creating “self deportation” through increasing the hardship to our nation’s undocumented makes no economic sense.

The business community in the State of Kansas is trying to initiate a different type of legislation. As reported in the Feb. 2, 2012 issue of the Guardian, a bill that would attempt to give employment authorization to workers in sectors that require additional workers is being put forward.  Eligible workers would have to establish that they have resided in Kansas for five years, have a clean criminal record and will work in industries requiring additional workers.  The need is notable in Western Kansas where a thriving livestock and dairy industry have created almost full employment.

While the wisdom of state immigration initiatives remains in serious doubt, this is nevertheless a refreshing idea which stand in stark contrast to the economic disasters that have ensued in the states of Georgia and Alabama since enactments of draconian state immigration laws.  Georgia’s HR 87 resulted in rot and waste of 50% of the state’s agriculture produce.  An economic study at the University of Alabama estimated an $11 billion loss since the passage of Alabama’s state immigration law, partly as a result of the loss of consumer spending and taxes caused by an exodus of Hispanic workers.

The conservative CATO Institute, which estimates that there are 8 million undocumented persons in the U.S. estimates that deporting 1/3 of them would cost the U.S. economy $80 billion.

All of this should be a wake-up call.  It is time to get over the xenophobia put forward by the immigration restrictionists and look at solutions that work for our fragile economy.

Written by: Mo Goldman, AILA Media-Advocacy Committee

Watching the Florida Republican Primary Debates this week again demonstrated that these final four candidates simply refuse to understand the dynamics of our draconian immigration system.  Perhaps they just don’t understand the complexity of it and the numerous roadblocks that serve as a barrier to those who want to legally immigrate to the United States.  Three of the remaining candidates contend that we must deport anyone who is not legally present in the country.  The other candidate thinks it would be wise to set up some sort of citizen review panel, which sounds more like a bad game show.  Since this seems to be so difficult to comprehend, allow me to demonstrate why their ideas are shameful composed through a format that they might relate to and understand: Nursery rhymes (Note: the following rhymes are based on true stories)

Jack and Jill Meet the Ten Year Bar

Jack and Jill came to Chapel Hill,

To make a new life for themselves.

Undocumented for more than a year,

Now they live in fear.

Jack was pulled over by the police,

He was forced to his knees.

Jack was deported back to Chile,

A ten year bar left Jill lonely.

INA §212(a)(9)(B)(i)(I) bars a person for three years if they remain in the U.S. without proper documentation (unlawfully present) for more than 6 months.  INA §212(a)(9)(B)(i)(II) bars a person for ten years if they remain in the U.S. without proper documentation for more than a year.  Therefore, this law provides a disincentive for a person to self-deport as suggested by Governor Romney.  There are limited waivers available for these bars, but most people are too fearful to leave the U.S. and face these harsh penalties.  Attrition through enforcement only makes sense if people actually leave, eliminating state benefits is not going to force people out.  Plus, it is inhumane.

Humpty Dumpty Waited and Waited…

Humpty Dumpty sponsored his son for a green card,

Humpty Dumpty didn’t realize that the process would be this hard,

One year became two years became five years,

Twenty years passed by and his son was still waiting in tears.

We welcome anyone to take an hour (or a week) and try to make sense out of what is known as the Visa Bulletin.  This is published by the U.S. Department of State on a monthly basis.  Processing times can vary from one category to the next, but most family-based sponsored immigration can take a decade or longer.  Conservative economists consistently decry the current system that does nothing more than separate families and hurt the U.S. in competing for the best and brightest foreign workers.  Making the argument that undocumented immigrants should leave and get in the back of the line is completely illogical since the “line” has no end in sight.

Little Boy Blue and Needs Hope

Little Boy Blue, he missed his dreams.

“A waste of talent,” he often screams.

Where is the boy who picks your grapes?

He’s sweating his ass off and can’t escape.

Will you help him?  Santorum says no.

He hopes that Little Boy Blue self deports.

DREAM Act anyone? Comprehensive Immigration Reform?  Newt Gingrich talks about the plight of grandparents who are in this country without legal status.  What about the rest of the family?  What about the children of immigrants who came to this country when they were minors and have grown up in the United States?  To deny these individuals, many of whom are no longer minors, an opportunity to go to college and join the military and someday become a U.S. citizen is un-American.  The government should give these young people an opportunity to thrive and use the skills they developed in our system.  For that matter, it is high time that Congress passes a reasonable comprehensive bill to provide a path to citizenship for all undocumented immigrants in the United States. 

Written by: Tony Weigel, AILA Media-Advocacy Committee

I have participated in several meetings with Congressional staffers about immigration policy since 2006.  I have had the same thoughts and questions about these interactions every time.  I hoped to make some minimal impact, naïve as that may seem.  Afterwards, I mainly focused on the question of whether or not I had just wasted my time?  Was this person truly engaged?  Did they make some note of the issues discussed?  Would they share anything meaningful with their member of Congress?  Most importantly, did my interaction with this politician’s representative engender any trust?

I suspect that interactions and agreements among politicians and candidates are somewhat similar.  If they are, you have to wonder what goes on behind the scenes to garner endorsements.

Following the New Hampshire Republican primary, two separate endorsements of candidate Mitt Romney caught my attention.  On January 11^th, the Romney campaign announced that Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach endorsed his campaign, welcomed him to the team, and looked forward to working with him.  On that same day, it was reported that the Romney campaign was running Spanish-language campaign advertisements in south Florida featuring Congressional Representatives Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and Mario Diaz-Balart and former Congressman Lincoln Diaz-Balart.

It is hard to imagine how the Romney campaign managed to pull this off.  On one hand, you have three of only eight House Republicans who voted for the December 2010 version of the DREAM Act (H.R. 5281).  On the other, you have a politician that has opposed the DREAM Act at every turn, labeling it an “amnesty.”  Politician Kobach has even taken the extreme position of labeling Representative Lamar Smith’s draconian, E-Verify mandate bill, H.R. 2164, as yet another amnesty.

It would be interesting to know more about how these two diverse endorsements came together.  Did these three Florida Republicans know about the pending Kobach endorsement?  If they knew their endorsement would run concurrently with Kobach’s, exactly how did this impact their respective decisions to endorse Romney and participate in the Spanish language ad?

Regardless if these Florida Republicans knew or did not know, it is hard to imagine how one can reconcile policy differences as distinct from each other as the cold winter streets of Topeka, Kansas, and the sun-splashed beaches of Miami.  Candidate Romney has promised to veto the DREAM Act and fully endorsed Kobach’s policies.  These policy positions stand in stark contrast to those supported by these Florida Republicans and a majority of Republicans, as expressed in a recent Fox News poll.

We may never know what happened or why, but something generated mutual trust among an unlikely group of allies.  Given the incomparable divide on immigration policies, time will tell which side will win out over the other in a prospective Romney Administration.

By Lori Chesser, AILA Media Committee

In the Catholic tradition, December 28 is the feast of the Holy Innocents. These are the babies that were killed by Herod’s soldiers when he learned of the birth of a new “king” in Bethlehem. Jesus escaped because an angel came to Joseph in a dream telling him to flee to Egypt.

I realized hearing the story again this year that our current immigration policy has resulted in innocents paying the price for the failure of Congress to make reasonable changes in the last 20+ years.

Who are these “innocents”?  They include first, the “DREAMers”:  Those that were brought here by their parents and have known only U.S. culture and education for most of their lives. They did nothing to create their situation and Congress will do nothing to alleviate it.

Second, the victims of human trafficking:  Those who are eligible for T or U visas, but are deported because law enforcement is either unaware or unwilling to recognize their plight.  While Postville is the most obvious example, countless other enforcement efforts prosecute victims.

Third, U.S. citizens living in fear of a family member’s deportation:  Those whose relatives cannot immigrate legally because of the outdated and arbitrarily-limited system.

Finally, the story of the Holy Innocents also sheds light on the failure to make a reasonable policy decision about those who are not “innocent” because they did make a mistake in entering or overstaying, but are otherwise fully integrated in our communities and way of life.  The Holy Innocents were killed because Herod felt threatened and did not want to take time to distinguish who was the real threat.  It was the ultimate “throwing the baby out with the bathwater”.

Similarly, there is no doubt that some people in the U.S. unauthorized should be shown the door and not allowed to return.  But many others are no threat and are instead a benefit to our society, culture and economy, not to mention humans deserving respect as such.

Although it may be hard for us in the land of plenty to imagine, we may have made the same choices given the same situation.  In fact, the right to immigrate for survival was exercised by Joseph to save the baby Jesus and by the relatives of the Old Testament Joseph coming to Egypt during the great famine.  It was this latter migration that eventually resulted in another slaughter of innocents by King Ramses when the Hebrews grew too numerous.  Moses was spared by the quick thinking of his mother, and later led his people to freedom as chronicled in the Book of Exodus.

Members of Congress should reflect on this story too, because it shows the dire results of failing to make just policies.  If you haven’t read it, let’s just say it didn’t work out so well for the Egyptians.

No matter our beliefs and faith traditions, these stories are timeless and instructive because they communicate truths about human nature and justice.  Let’s help our leaders remember them.

Written by: Warren Leiden, AILA Media-Advocacy Committee

One month ago, barely three weeks into the new federal fiscal year, the entire annual quota of temporary visas specially set aside for foreign national professionals with advanced degrees (at least a Master’s) was used up. And as of November 22, the entire year’s numerical cap on H-1B visas for all foreign national professionals has been reached. The exhaustion of these visas came earlier than it did during the last two fiscal years.

These visa requests require sponsorship by a U.S. employer eager to hire the individual, and sponsoring employers are required to pay the higher of a prevailing wage or the actual wage at the workplace and attest so in writing to the Department of Labor.

How can we Americans be so short-sighted as to block the lawful presence and talent of these highly skilled professionals, who are needed by U.S. employers? Particularly in the so-called STEM (science, technology, engineering, mathematics) disciplines, America is a competitor in a global competition for high skilled talent. These highly skilled professionals are inventors, innovators, and job-creators who can drive the growth of our economy, and yet we discourage them from coming to or staying in the United States with absurdly low annual quotas, and we make them feel unwelcome.

Stay in America? Yes, nearly 40% of the Master’s and PhD’s in STEM fields awarded by U.S. universities go to foreign students who have been here for years. When U.S. employers want to hire each year’s new crop of students graduating with advanced degrees in STEM, four out of ten will be foreign nationals. This reality has led commentators and Congress members to (only half-jokingly) suggest that a “green card” should be stapled to their diplomas. Most would like to stay and work in America, but the annual quota of visas runs out quickly, and why stay where you are not wanted?

And, permitting U.S. employers to sponsor highly skilled foreign professionals contributes to the education and training of U.S. workers. Every U.S. employer who sponsors an individual of the professionals’ visa must pay either $750 or $1500 (depending on the size of the employer) into a federal fund for the education and training of U.S. workers, providing over $125 million a year for this purpose.

This is another example of what Vivek Wadwha, tech entrepreneur turned academic, recently testified before a Congressional committee, saying the U.S. is “giving an unintentional gift to China and India by causing highly educated and skilled workers, frustrated by long waits for visas, to return home.”

It’s high time for Congress to wake up and help America and the U.S. economy by raising the outdated visa quota for highly skilled professionals. In the face of stiff global competition and our stuttering economy, we can’t afford to squander this opportunity.

Written by: Peter Ashman, AILA Media-Advocacy Committee

Recently in Salt Lake City, Utah, a diverse group of government and business leaders held a press conference to commemorate the one year anniversary of the Utah Compact. The compact was the result of a collaboration of business, religious and elected leaders in Utah to articulate a broad statement of shared values designed to guide decision makers “as they address the complex challenges associated with a broken national immigration system.”

What is significant about the Compact is that Utah has a legacy as one of the most conservative states in America and in recent years turned out incumbent Senator Bennett and Congressman Cannon for being “soft” on immigration. Yet the Compact resonates with a pragmatic tone that sounds nostalgically Reganesque in its lofty aspirations of keeping families together and acknowledging the economic contributions of immigrants. It acknowledges that immigration is a federal, not state, issue and that “local law enforcement resources should focus on criminal activities, not civil violations of federal code.” The Compact concludes with “[t]he way we treat immigrants will say more about us as a free society and less about our immigrant neighbors. Utah should always be a place that welcomes people of goodwill.” The full text of the Utah Compact is available here.

One year after the Compact was written it is being credited for changing the tone of the immigration debate not only in Utah, but in the entire country.  At the press conference was recently elected Arizona State Senator Jerry Lewis, who ousted S.B. 1070 architect and restrictionist poster child, Russell Pearce. Senator Lewis credited the Utah Compact with having an impact on Arizona politics, including his election over fellow conservative Republican Pearce, and cited an Arizona poll with 78% of Arizonans supporting comprehensive solutions of immigration laws, not just the “enforcement only” policies of S.B. 1070. Utah’s Attorney General, Mark Shurtleff, a self described conservative Republican, indicated that in the past year the Compact has received the support of conservatives who want real solutions and not just harsh rhetoric. He pointed to the election of Lewis as an example, and warned against pandering to the far right extremists.

So as we watch our current crop of presidential candidates talk about electrical fences and boots on the ground, and as Alabama’s agricultural bounty spoils unpicked in the field, a new voice is being heard. It appeals to all political views because its values are apolitical and universal. It is a growing voice that speaks of moderation, and inclusion and reminds us of our heritage as a nation of immigrants. It is a voice that is coming from, of all places, Utah.

Written by: Palma Yanni, AILA Media-Advocacy Committee

On November 10, 2011, the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) and the American Immigration Council (AIC) issued a report chronicling the implementation of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Director John Morton’s June 17, 2011, guidance on “Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion Consistent with the Civil Immigration Enforcement Priorities of the Agency for the Apprehension, Detention, and Removal of Aliens.” The report is remarkable. In a large majority of offices, ICE personnel stated either that the guidance didn’t change anything, or that it would not be implemented until further guidance is received.

The memorandum “provides U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) personnel guidance on the exercise of prosecutorial discretion to ensure that the agency’s immigration enforcement resources are focused on the agency’s enforcement priorities. The memorandum also serves to make clear which agency employees may exercise prosecutorial discretion and what factors should be considered.” The memorandum lists nineteen factors to consider, and instructs that decisions should be based on the totality of the circumstances, with the goal of conforming to ICE’s enforcement priorities. Certain positive and negative factors are highlighted for particular consideration.

How then can ICE personnel almost universally claim they need more guidance?

Every cop on every beat exercises prosecutorial discretion daily. Anyone who has received a warning instead of a ticket for rolling through a stop sign or speeding has benefited from prosecutorial discretion. Recently in my county, a Sheriff responded to a disturbance at an unoccupied house and saw people – likely many underage kids – scattering on foot from a Halloween party leaving behind lots of alcohol. The Sheriff admired a Reno 911 costume and called the shocked owner of the house, so she could pick up her son who organized the party, and lock up the house. There were simply more important things to do, and more serious threats to public safety than the fleeing partiers presented. The common sense of law enforcement officers at all levels regularly trumps what would be futile efforts to enforce every law in every jurisdiction every day. It just isn’t that hard.

ICE agents are enforcing civil, not criminal, laws. The Department of Homeland Security’s priorities have been clearly set forth in a March 2, 2011, memorandum as well as the June 17^th memo, namely the promotion of national security, border security, public safety, and the integrity of the immigration system. Only by sensible use of limited resources can those priorities be effectuated. The union representing ICE agents and other employees has clearly stated its opposition to the enforcement priorities and the guidance on prosecutorial discretion, and the AILA/AIC document reports on multiple direct refusals to follow instructions, such as “the ICE union told [ICE personnel] to ignore the June 17 memo.”  “A decision was made not to follow the memo.” ICE “does not consider the memo binding.” In many workplaces, this is called insubordination and results in termination of employment.

These employees do not need further guidance on the substance of the memorandum; they need a lesson in the chain of command.

For more information, read AILA’s press release on the report.

Written By: Deborah Notkin, AILA Media-Advocacy Committee

For many years, I have received inquiries from foreign students attending U.S. universities about post-graduation employment visa options. What is strikingly different this year is that many students are not interested in visas to fit prospective job offers in the U.S. Rather, they are calling to find out how they can legally start up their own businesses and set down roots here. Many are Science, Engineering, Mathematics or Technology (STEM) graduates and are eager, innovative and willing to risk everything to transform their U.S. educations into American businesses which will create jobs for U.S. workers.

More often than not our current visa system disappoints these creative young minds. America’s limited work visa options for start-up entrepreneurs, coupled with USCIS’s increasingly hostile interpretation of the regulations, inhibit these eager young foreign nationals from achieving their dreams in the U.S. Just last week the media and blogosphere was shocked when USCIS denied a visa to Amit Aharoni, a budding engineer from Israel. Mr. Aharoni had secured $1.65 million in venture capital funding to launch a company called CruiseWise.com, an online cruise booking company. He employed nine U.S. workers and his website was ranked by Business Insider, as one of the “20 Hot Silicon Valley Startups You Need to Watch.”

Mr. Aharoni got his visa after ABC News reported the story. But his petition approval should have happened without going to the media. More tragically, this case is not an isolated circumstance. Denials of these types of petitions have become the norm at U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Many immigration lawyers, including myself, struggle everyday trying to get legal status for these budding entrepreneurs. Unfortunately, USCIS has made the standards stricter rather than being more open to these job creating, innovative foreign entrepreneurs.

Even with our current economic woes, the U.S. remains the country of choice for many to build businesses and set down roots. It might be because of the openness of America or our multi-cultural melting pot traditions, or maybe the perception that class background and government connections are not necessary to succeed here. Whatever it is, by making entrepreneurial options harder we are losing talent and new job opportunities for U.S. workers. A 2006 study by Stuart Anderson and Michaela Platzer, commissioned by the National Venture Capital Association, concluded that 95% of immigrant founders of private companies would choose the U.S. as the country to start new companies if given the choice.

Much has been written recently about this immigrant entrepreneurial power and how the U.S. is losing out. In an article in Techcrunch, Vivek Wadhwa – well-known entrepreneur, academic, and author on immigrant entrepreneurial power – has laid out examples of immigrant entrepreneurs who left the U.S. because of visa problems and established enterprises in other countries which provided hundreds of jobs. In June 2011, the Partnership for a New American Economy published a report about the entrepreneurial track record of immigrants in the U.S.

Our current restrictive policies on non-immigrant visas which have been used for entrepreneurs, along with the inability of Congress to act on productive legislation to improve these opportunities are to blame.

The E-2 Treaty Investor visa is available to nationals of countries that the United States has a treaty of friendship, commerce and navigation, or a free trade agreement that includes the E-2 visa option. But we don’t have treaties with many countries who have eager entrepreneurs. Of particular note is the absence of an E-2 treaty option with India, the People’s Republic of China and Israel (Mr. Aharoni’s country of nationality) which could provide the U.S. with the job-creating innovators we need.

The H-1b visa, commonly used for professional positions, had in the past been used successfully for foreign nationals who were investors in viable businesses employing themselves and others. But a recent change in policy narrowing the technical definition of “employee” has thwarted the H-1b option. Although USCIS has indicated it is in the process of reviewing its policy and educating its adjudicators, there has not been a significant improvement in adjudications reported.

A current legislative proposal, the Immigration Driving Entrepreneurship in America (IDEA) ACT of 2011 introduced by Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), creates new options for foreign nationals wanting to develop start-ups in the U.S. and provides a pathway to U.S. permanent residence predicated on success of the business. But the chances of this bill being given thoughtful consideration by the current Congress, even as a starting point of discussion, are slim to none.

There is no one solution to fix our ailing economy, but clearly facilitating opportunities for foreign entrepreneurs to create businesses and jobs for workers in the U.S. should be a no-brainer. Both the current Administration’s policies and the logjam in Congress preventing meaningful initiatives from getting accomplished are hurting positive economic opportunities and negatively impacting the U.S. position in the global economy.

Written by: Tony Weigel, AILA Media-Advocacy Committee

What it “is” is becoming more clear. We pro-immigration advocates have a lot of work to do.

Our country has had an ongoing policy war over immigration since its inception. This history includes both positive and negative periods, each influenced by the day’s politics, economics, and the varying attitudes this “nation of immigrants” has harbored towards its more recent immigrants.

For some, the current debate is helplessly and hopelessly fixated at the border. Candidates for public office talk of “front door” and “back door” immigration policies without acknowledging they are both attached to the same “house.” Our country has failed to fundamentally address the immigration needs of our economy, yet many of our leaders have embraced the flawed logic that walling ourselves in from the world and adopting and vigorously enforcing draconian laws at the federal and state levels will end unauthorized immigration. These efforts have not only failed to spur federal legislative action, they have paralyzed those with the legitimate responsibility and ability from acting. For example, since 2007, Congress has twice failed to pass the DREAM Act by only a handful of votes.

Among those seeking our country’s highest office in 2012, there is little serious discussion about reasonable immigration policy solutions. The current administration has failed to affect significant, positive reforms, legislatively or administratively, has steadfastly advanced programs like Secure Communities and indiscriminately ramped up enforcement. Republican contenders have failed to effectively defend or advance positive solutions. In the words of former political strategist for George W. Bush and ABC News political consultant, Matthew Dowd, “You can’t have a thoughtful conversation about it in the Republican Party right now. You’re either [former U.S. Rep. and anti-immigration advocate] Tom Tancredo, or you’re for sanctuary cities.” The failure of Republican debate participants to speak out against a proposed policy of electrocuting human beings reflects that tragic, political reality.

We as AILA members are all participants in the current chapter of our country’s immigration history. The good news is that we have several shining examples of the kinds of work that can and should be done to change the storyline.

• AILA leader Laura Lichter recently served on a prominent, ICE Advisory Task force.
• DC-area member Paromita Shah, Associate Director of the National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild, has been engaged at a high-level in opposing Secure Communities.
• A group of 13 members: Debbie Smith, Vikram Badrinath, Stephen Manning, Russell Abrutyn, Cynthia Aziz, Aaron Tarin, Kimberly Herrera, Rebecca Sharpless, Farrin Anello, Socheat Chea, Eli Echols, Mark Barr, and Andres Benach, have worked tirelessly on amicus briefs in opposition to state laws in Arizona, Utah, Georgia, Alabama and South Carolina.
• 135 AILA members in 31 states have volunteered to represent young adults through the AD2 program.  A group of 9 senior AILA members, organized by Mo Goldman, serve as mentors to the group.
• Iowa member Lori Chesser has served as a leader in the Iowa Immigration Education Coalition, which has brought together a broad coalition in support of positive immigration policies.

The opportunities to make a difference are out there and the resources to help write the rest of the present chapter are at our fingertips. AILA offers a variety of great tools to advocate for better policies. Additionally, the Immigration Policy Center develops and maintains a wealth of information and critical analyses of the misinformation driving today’s bad policy decisions. Changing the tone and tenor of today’s debate requires reaching out to our communities, making meaningful connections, and helping educate those in the media and others about facts to counter the tide of fear.

We all have things we must do to pay the bills, but it simply makes me sick to read stories like those coming from Alabama, and it incenses me to hear the top leaders of a major political party recklessly use the bigoted words “illegals” and “anchor babies.” The time to act is now.

Please do.

Written by: Mo Goldman, AILA Media-Advocacy Committee

October 18, 2011: A day that will live in U.S. immigration infamy.  ICE proudly boasts the news that in Fiscal Year 2011 the U.S. deported a record number of individuals (396,906). On PBS Frontline: Lost in Detention, Maria Hinojosa exposes the deplorable immigration detention conditions and widespread abuse, along with how President Obama’s policies and Secure Communities have been an unmitigated failure.  Meanwhile on CNN, we watch the Republican presidential candidates play a game of “who will build the biggest border fence” and debate who did or did not hire undocumented immigrants (for the record, Perry won that argument).  But, all this doesn’t matter to Cesar Adan Hernandez Montoya.  Cesar doesn’t have time to focus on debates or television.  He has to worry about himself and his family.  He has been held for 60 days in detention without bond.  Time is ticking for Cesar and his future in the U.S. Cesar has a dream to go to college and be a role model and mentor to young kids in his community.  For now that dream is on hold.

Hope and Change!  Hope and Change!  Change.  Well, one out of two isn’t bad, right?  And it hasn’t really been change for the better.  The Department of Homeland Security has continued the record number of deportations in an effort to meet that magic number of 400,000 deportations per year.  Remember, if they don’t come close to their numbers they may lose the appropriations from Congress.  According to ICE, nearly 55 percent of those removed were convicted of felonies or misdemeanors.  This means that nearly 45 percent of those removed were non-criminals like Cesar, who committed only civil immigration or other minor violations.  So why should we care about Cesar and other non-criminals facing removal?  They’re just a number right?  If President Obama shows that he’s tough on enforcement perhaps that will convince the Republicans to join him in passing Comprehensive Immigration Reform.  Back to CNN to see what the Republican candidates think about our current get-tough policy:

“I say we build a border fence along the entire border!”

“I say we build a double border wall along the entire border!”

“Well, I say we build an electrified fence along the entire border and…I’m just joking!”  The crowd at the debate laughs along with Mr. Cain.  Apparently electrocuting Mexicans is humorous.

Hope is lost and what we are witnessing is change for the worse.

Hope is lost? But what about that memo that John Morton published on June 17, 2011?  The memo that called for a greater exercise of prosecutorial discretion, along with providing detailed criteria for ICE agents and attorneys to determine whether deportation cases are a low priority.  And how about that letter from Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano that called for the review of 300,000 pending cases?  Apparently the ICE office in Michigan may have overlooked or ignored that memo and policy change.  Apparently they aren’t the only ones.  When asked about review for low priority cases, most immigration attorneys are receiving a similar response, “we are awaiting guidance” on how to proceed.  Although Secretary Napolitano’s announcement was made public in August, it appears that no procedures or protocols have been provided to the ICE rank and file.

On PBS Frontline, Cecilia Munoz, an adviser to President Obama on immigration, blames our current crisis on a broken system of laws.  She states that the president is enforcing the law of the land.  She says that the solution to this problem is immigration reform.  Yes, that would be the solution Ms. Munoz if both political parties could work together.  However, the reality is that they are not working together and you have the power to shape policy and ensure that your enforcement priorities are being followed by the people on the ground.  You can stop deporting 180,000 non-criminal individuals.  You can make a difference in the lives of many and keep families together.  You can make that simple call that could save Cesar from being deported to a country he hardly knows.

October 19, 2011: A rally was held for Cesar in front of ICE Headquarters in Detroit.  Soon we will find out if Cesar is going to remain in the U.S. to fulfill his dreams or become another number included in the FY 2012 year-end removals.  Perhaps his impending removal will be halted and we will see the start of a new day and life for Cesar.  A day that won’t be as infamous as yesterday.  A day that will bring him hope and change.