It has been stated frequently over the past few years that the global competiveness of the United States depends in substantial measure on our ability to attract and retain the best talent internationally. This includes keeping the foreign students who have been educated in U.S. universities.

According to a report by Deloitte University Press published this month, we may be losing this talent to other countries. The report provides a survey which indicates that in 2010 we were eighth in the world in the percentage of highly educated individuals among foreign born populations.  Among the countries with higher percentages are Canada, the United Kingdom and Australia.  We are competing for badly needed innovative talent which is important to our economy if we are to maintain our position as the world’s leading nation.

Many of these foreign nationals work here under H-1B visas.  The truth is that for the most part, the skills these workers bring to our economy augment rather than compete with the skills of U.S. professionals.

While the promise of increased H-1B numbers in the Senate’s immigration reform bill, S. 744, is positive, some of the restrictive provisions would render the increased numbers ultimately ineffective in obtaining the talent that we need.  For example, an amended required wage structure would require unrealistic salary levels for talented, entry level graduates of U.S. schools.  A distorted wage system, which will create an inflated rather than prevailing wage, would put businesses in a difficult position of paying foreign workers more than their U.S. worker counterparts. Another provision, adding to yet more bureaucracy, is a proposed recruitment process to be designed by the Department of Labor.

The H-1B visa has been grossly misrepresented in some quarters as being a program which takes jobs from U.S. workers.  The truth is that foreign talent, especially those educated in our country’s graduate programs, only enhance the job prospects of Americans.  Much has been documented about these job creators.  According to an October 2012 report by the Kaufman Foundation, twenty four percent of engineering and technology companies founded between 2006 and 2012 has at least one foreign born founder.  This figure rises to 43.9% when the survey is limited to the Silicon Valley.  In 2012, these companies were responsible for approximately 560,000 jobs and $63 billion in sales.

In reality, if we want to continue as a leader in this competitive, global economy, we need to facilitate rather than inhibit visas for the talented foreign born who want to build their careers and lives in the U.S.  Many educators legitimately say that we need to examine revamping the U.S. primary and secondary educational system to include some of these skills.  But we can’t wait for our domestic population to provide us with enough of these needed workers if we want to maintain our global competitiveness.

We badly need a comprehensive immigration reform package to provide a path for the 11 million paperless immigrants, secure our borders and provide a reasonable temporary worker program for lesser skilled workers. But it would be a tragedy if this package created unworkable and unnecessary burdens on the ability of the U.S. to provide visas to essential global talent.

Written by Deborah J. Notkin, Chair, AILA Media-Advocacy Committee

Imagine you’re a hardworking staff member for a U.S. Senator.  You’re looking at an immigration reform bill that’s nearly a thousand pages, seemingly covers a million different issues and includes provisions that will impact tens of millions of people.  Immigration isn’t necessarily your area of expertise but your boss is going to have to vote on it, so you dive in.

You’re looking at a provision, or an amendment, and trying to figure out what it means.  Not just what the legislative jargon translates to but you need to know what it will mean to real people.  Because when you’re trying to help frame potential responses to a question or issue or prep your boss to have all the information he or she needs to determine which way to vote, well, you need to really “get” the human element behind a provision.

You’re going to need to know what the consequences for real people are if this amendment or that amendment passes. The impact could be that a family is separated, that children lose a parent’s presence for years, that a brother will likely never get the chance to have his sister join him in the States, or a business will lose out on the best talent in the world.  If you could only point to an example of an immigrant or business in Senator So and So’s state that would be impacted and explain precisely how that impact would be manifested, then that real life “reality check” could make a difference.

Explaining a complicated issue by sharing an example is a far more appealing, approachable, and universal way to make the case for good immigration reform. The staff at AILA National are great, but they aren’t us.  They do not work with clients—individuals and businesses—every day and when they need an example of why immigration reform matters, they turn to us as a resource, the best resource for sympathetic stories about how our system is broken and what impact change could have.

We need to get them that information.  The problem is that we are all busy, we all want to guard our clients’ privacy and sometimes our clients are wary of sharing a story.  None of these things are necessarily insurmountable obstacles. We need to take the time to tell the story because the reality is that it takes less time to do so than we think. We need to proactively ask clients for permission to share and, if they are wary, talk to them about ways to share their story without including any identifying information to offer them a greater sense of security through anonymity. What we cannot do is rely on someone else to do this important task, because there is success in numbers. Each of us needs to share that story that kept us up at night, that made us cry with sadness or with joy or that reminded us why we do this very important work.

I was able to share a story about an anonymous business client of mine that had an L-1 denied on grounds that had nothing to do with the law or the facts, but everything to do with the paranoia surrounding investors from certain countries and the threat of offshoring. The result of the denial was that the entire department which was to be built around this worker has been eliminated in the U.S. and the company (a U.S. company with a foreign subsidiary and not the other way around) has moved all related operations offshore. This was of course the exact opposite result from the one our country needs given that it eliminated potential well-paying jobs out of ignorance. My hope is that as the Members of Congress look at this example, they will see that the very measures they are proposing to prevent offshoring and protect U.S. workers will result in the opposite. These measures are simply more stringent statutorily mandated variations of what we are already seeing as a matter of adjudicative practice and their effect has been to eliminate, not create, jobs for U.S. workers.

I have also shared several stories of DACA applicants who, under current law, are permanently barred from obtaining residence, by virtue of having claimed U.S. citizenship on the newest version of Form I-9. I know from Capitol Hill visits that many members of Congress are not fully aware of the impact and magnitude of this problem and are generally dismayed when they learn of it. My hope is that these examples will ensure that this very common and frankly relatively innocent action will not have permanent negative consequences for the very people almost everyone agrees should be helped.

Please, take a few minutes and ask your clients if you may  share a case example or encourage your clients to do so.

It may not seem like one story could make a difference, but when all of immigration law is pretty much on the table as it is right now, that’s exactly what could happen.

Submit your case examples through the tool AILA has set up online.  If you have any questions, please contact Brittany Young (byoung@aila.org).

Written by Dagmar Butte, Member, AILA Board of Governors

Last week the Associated Press (AP) changed its style manual so that the term “Illegal” is to be used to describe an action or procedure, but not a person.  No more “illegal immigrant” in AP stories.

News organizations have debated the use of the term “illegal immigrant” before because it provokes such a strong negative reaction from many people.  “No person is illegal” has been a popular sign and bumper sticker since the push for immigration reform started in earnest in 2005.

The problem has been what to use instead?  Some prefer “undocumented immigrant” but this term provokes an equally negative reaction in others that say it is disingenuous and suggests that no law has been broken.  Still others have pushed for “unauthorized immigrant” as a compromise that refers to the administrative nature of most immigration rules.

AP came to its decision from a different angle.  After talking with advocates for those with mental illness, they learned that people preferred to be referred to as “diagnosed with schizophrenia” rather than “a schizophrenic”, for example.

Following this reasoning, they realized what immigration advocates had been saying:  Labeling people objectifies them.  We don’t care very much about objects (that don’t have feelings or relationships).  The genocide in Rwanda, for instance, gained momentum when members of one tribe starting publicly referring to members of the other as “cockroaches”.

“Illegal immigrant” is also less accurate.  For example, a news story about a person not legally present in the U.S. that is hoping the law will change and allow him to stay would invoke a different reaction if the person is a 20-year-old that has been here since he was 2 than if it was a 50-year-old that came here last year on a visitor visa and refused to leave.  Defaulting to the term “Illegal immigrant” does not tell the whole story.

The question for immigration reform is whether AP’s decision is a style change only, or if it signals (or will facilitate) a broader attitude change that will lead to honest debate and problem solving.  Here’s hoping.

Written by Lori Chesser, Vice Chair, USCIS Benefits Policy Liaison Committee

We are witnessing the most robust debate in more than a generation on how to reform our antiquated immigration laws to meet the demands of our twenty-first century economic and security needs. In coming up with a broad framework for this comprehensive legislation, we must stand firm against ideologies that do not serve our national interests.

To provide true reform, there must not only be a pathway to citizenship for the undocumented, but such a pathway must be free of any unnecessary obstacles, such as getting stuck in a newly created “status” for undocumented individuals before being eligible to receive legal permanent status which is counterproductive. Clearly our government must be able to conduct background checks to weed out criminals, but once that is done, the next logical step is permanent residency which in turn must give way to full citizenship. Under current law, this waiting period is usually five years. Anything short of this will result in failure.

We have already experimented with laws that provide less than full citizenship to foreign workers. The “bracero” program of the late ‘50s recruited a record number of laborers from Mexico. Just through El Paso alone, over 80,000 braceros arrived in Texas on an annual basis. Within a few short years however, the program failed. By 1964, there had been numerous reports of underpaid, overworked, harassed workers which led the officials at the U.S. Department of Labor to refer to the program as “legalized slavery.”

Another example of such failed policy occurred in “post-war” Germany. According to the Berlin Institute for Population and Development, approximately 3 million Turkish immigrants living in Germany who were unable to achieve full German citizenship are now less effectively integrated than other immigrant groups, and thus are more likely to be poorly educated, underpaid, and unemployed. In contrast, according to Sara Silvestri, a social scientist at the University of Cambridge, in the U.K. where full citizenship was granted to all qualified immigrants, Turks adapted to the British lifestyle, became fluent in English, and became involved in civil society.

The Germans learned from their mistake and over a decade ago reformed their immigration laws and provided full citizenship to their qualified migrant workers. I pray that our politicians also learn from past missteps and avoid marginalizing over 10 million individuals by only offering them an effectively permanent second class status in America.

Full citizenship is an honor and a tradition that must not be denied to any qualified immigrant in our country. Qualifications for becoming a citizen must be rooted in our heritage as a nation of immigrants and not in some newly designed artificial scheme being concocted by the restrictionists. Specifically, applicants must be able to pass a civics and history test, as well as show proficiency in English and show good moral character. Learning about our nation’s history and form of government is a vitally important way to encourage them to participate in our democracy, not a means for punishment.

As President Obama said in his State of the Union address: “We are citizens. It’s a word that doesn’t just describe our nationality or legal status. It describes the way we’re made. It describes what we believe.”

Written by Ally Bolour, Member, AILA Media-Advocacy Committee

If you are reading this column, it is probably not written for you.  It is written for your friends, relatives or neighbors that may not fully understand what has happened, what has not happened and what may happen this year with immigration reform.  For those reasons, I write this with only one request of you: please spread the word to people that do not fully understand what is going on.  They could be easy victims for scammers who want to take advantage of this confusing and exciting time.

I have personally received calls the past few weeks about the “new law” or “nueva ley” that is in effect in immigration.  Some reports are that people are already charging for services based on a legalization program or “amnesty.” NO SUCH PROGRAM exists at this time.  So, below I separate out fact from fiction to help make sure people are not taken advantage of.  You should know what has occurred and what has not occurred during the past several months and make sure to share this with others.

What has really happened:

• Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA): This allows some qualified individuals to apply for a work permit based on their physical presence in the United States, age and other factors.  IMPORTANT: There is no deadline for filing for DACA, as some have been hearing.  Also, there is no official processing time being provided by the Department of Homeland Security.  However, many applications are now taking close to six months to process.
• Provisional (Stateside) Waivers: This is not a legalization program but is instead a process that allows some individuals who are immediate relatives (certain spouses, children and parents of U.S. citizens) to apply for a provisional unlawful presence waiver while they are waiting in the United States.  Currently the regulation only applies to a narrow group of people and does not go into effect until March 4, 2013.  Therefore, if you may think you or a relative qualifies you should do some research now, before going further with any applications.

What has not happened:

• Comprehensive Immigration Reform: This has not happened yet, and it is going to be months before we have any idea of whether it will happen.  We don’t know what this law, if passed, will look like and who it will help.  No one should pay a deposit for work regarding a law that does not yet and may never exist.  Don’t let someone scam your friends, family, or members of your community.

Whenever there is media interest and talk about some sort of immigration reform there tends to be a lot of confusion about it and the process.  There are also, unfortunately, individuals who are already trying to take advantage of this confusion like scammers, notarios, and others.  So it is very important that you learn more about what is really happening with immigration reform and update your friends, relatives and neighbors who may not fully understand what is going on or have access to a computer.

Make sure to stay updated with any breaking news through websites such as the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) and other organizations that provide up-to-date and accurate information.

Written by Maurice Goldman, Member, AILA Media-Advocacy Committee

There is growing agreement that the immigration system in the United States is a moral, humanitarian and economic disaster.  While I welcome the attention Congress, President Obama and the media are finally giving to immigration reform, I cannot seem to shake my growing feeling of uneasiness and overall concern about the process and where it is headed.  There are too many warning signs to ignore, and although many immigrants and their allies (especially on the grassroots level) have been vocal in their support of broad, meaningful, humane and just reform, far too many of our elected officials do not seem to share the same expansive and inclusive goals.  Unless we can persuade them by speaking up and fighting back – immediately – I fear that we’ll be stuck with a legislative package that leaves far too many deserving people without relief, and possibly even makes things worse (hard as that is to imagine).

With that in mind, here is a list of some of the most pressing questions on my mind as Immigration Reform, Version 2013 heats up.  Of course this list is not exhaustive, and many of the answers are obvious.  But I do believe there is value in the asking.  So here they are:

Why…

1. Can’t people who claim to support “tough but fair” immigration reform realize just how tough, punishing and oppressive everyday life already is for undocumented migrants in the US, not to mention their families?
2. Doesn’t every news story on immigration center the stories and voices of immigrants themselves – and especially those without legal status?
3. Do so many US citizen advocates and allies forget that this is not *our* movement, and that it is up to those suffering through the daily terror caused by our immigration system to determine the path to their liberation.  Shouldn’t our role be to support those directly impacted by our out of control immigration system in whatever way they would like, and not to lead them or tell them what to do/think/support/oppose?
4. Does the starting point for Immigration Reform 2013 seem to be the failed and deeply flawed bills of the past several years, rather than something new, fresh and bold?
5. Are very few immigrants – and especially undocumented migrants – invited into the back rooms when legislation is being discussed and drafted?
6. Are many of the same elected officials who have failed over and over again to improve the immigration system once again in charge of reform?
7. Can’t we cap the number of congressional failures an elected official can have before they lose the right to lead future efforts in the same area?
8. Is Congress debating proposals that could leave millions out in the cold, and might even lead to increased incarceration and deportation?
9. Isn’t the study showing that the government spends more money on immigration enforcement than on every other federal law enforcement agency combined posted on the doors of every elected official who thinks we are not doing enough to enforce the immigration laws?
10. Can’t we figure out a creative way to deal with politicians lobbying for even more enforcement funding and refusing to support a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants?  Clearly they are not moved by such inconveniences as facts or statistics.  Maybe we need a handful of people to follow them around reading the names of every person deported and everyone they had to leave behind?
11. Do elected officials think it is necessary or acceptable to invest even one additional dollar on immigration enforcement, when we should be completely overhauling the enforcement regime by drastically reducing funding and resources (mainly for humanitarian but also for economic reasons) and limiting the ways the government can detain and deport immigrants?
12. Do Democrats seem to care more about bipartisanship and not upsetting Republicans than about truly fighting for the people they claim to want to help?
13. Isn’t everything on the table — starting with repealing the horribly unjust 1996 laws that increased the severity of punishments while creating new ones altogether, expanded the definition of immigration crimes, required countless non-violent offenders to be locked up without bail, prevented judges from considering an immigrant’s family, work and community ties, and set in motion the mass deportations (and accompanying terror and trauma) that continue to this day?
14. Is amnesty such a toxic word and completely off limits in the debate over immigration reform?  If it was good enough for Ronald Reagan, doesn’t it at least deserve to be debated on its merits?  Same with open borders.  They may be extreme in today’s political environment, but surely no more extreme than deporting record numbers of people year after year.
15. Is the fate of millions of people born outside the US – most of whom are young, not wealthy and of color – decided by mostly old, wealthy, white men who are far removed from the consequences of their actions?
16. Is it so hard for me to picture most elected officials really thinking about what it is like for a child to cry herself to sleep because her dad was deported, or for spouses to say goodbye in the morning without knowing if their partner will return in the evening, or how someone enduring backbreaking labor for the benefit of others feels when the boss refuses to pay him what he has earned?
17. Aren’t immigrants – especially undocumented migrants – invited to testify at every congressional hearing on immigration reform?  It shouldn’t have to take an act of civil disobedience for their voices to be heard.
18. Is it acceptable for immigrants – undocumented as well as permanent residents (green card holders) – to be punished twice for a crime: once through the criminal justice system and then after they have completed that punishment, by continued immigration detention and deportation?
19. Do we allow the government to lock up and deport thousands of green card holders every year for minor offenses they committed in the distant past and for which they long ago completed their punishment?
20. Don’t more people outside of the communities directly impacted know that the government’s enforcement criteria for “priority” cases and definitions for “criminal” immigrants are so broad that nearly every immigrant can get caught in such a wide net?
21. Should an immigrant’s criminal record be the most important factor in determining whether they should benefit from future reform, especially in light of the how the criminal justice system overwhelmingly discriminates against people of color and the poor?  Instead, shouldn’t the main (and possibly only) factor be whether they are a serious public safety threat right now?
22. Does there seem to be more of an emphasis (especially in the media) of the effects of parental deportation on a US citizen child?  If we agree that protecting children from senseless suffering is a worthy goal, why should it matter where that child was born?  Every time the government deports a parent, a family is broken and a child is traumatized, regardless of whether that child is a citizen of the US or some other country.
23. Can’t I get the quote “When the only tool you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail” out of my head?  How does our government not see that there are countless better ways of dealing with problems and challenges?
24. Is mainstream media so hesitant to connect (or incapable of connecting) the exploitation, suffering and oppression of migrants with ongoing structural and institutional racism and similar forms of violence in the US?
25. Won’t journalists ask elected officials if the reason they are setting seemingly unreachable immigration enforcement goals is because they have no intention of actually doing what they claim to want to do, namely help the vast number of people who are suffering?
26. Do our elected officials, with the help of mainstream media, continue to avoid any discussion of the root causes of migration – poverty, war, political instability, environmental destruction, etc. – and especially any inquiry into how US trade, foreign, military and environmental policy causes or contributes to the destabilizing of countries throughout the world?
27. Does anyone think that changing immigration laws without changing how the US – through its government, military and businesses – interacts with other countries will lead to a sustainable and just outcome either here or abroad?
28. Doesn’t Congress hold hearings on all the ways the US can redirect foreign aid to ensure that it helps create the type of local opportunities that will allow would-be migrants to lead meaningful lives in their home countries and not feel the desperate need to leave?
29. Can’t we also talk about serious and long overdue reforms to the criminal justice system so that immigrants, people of color and the poor are no longer discriminated against through racial profiling and similar police initiatives, unequal prosecution, disparate sentencing and more?  While we’re at it, why can’t we just start over and create both a new criminal justice system and an immigration system that is based on fairness, justice and equality under the law?
30. Are private prison corporations and the politicians they fund the ones who benefit the most from the unjust status quo?
31. Do far too many elected officials and members of the media insist on using the “I——” word, when it is morally reprehensible and factually inaccurate?
32. Is there still such a significant gap between President Obama’s words and deeds when it comes to immigration?  He speaks openly about the urgent need for reform, including a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, and recognizes the “heartbreaking” consequences of deportation.  Yet he refuses to halt or even slow the record pace of deportations that will undoubtedly lead to more suffering among those he says he is committed to helping.
33. Is it that the people who passed and enforced the laws that have led to a human rights crisis of epic proportions in the US now hold the key to legislative and political reform, and that nothing good on a large scale will happen without them?
34. Can’t we have publicly financed elections already, so that our representatives can truly represent all of us, and not just the ones who believe in a hyper focus on enforcement, the continued criminalization of immigrants, and the division of immigrants into good (highly educated, entered at a young age, no criminal record) and bad (those with criminal records)?
35. Do our far too many of our elected leaders – from President Obama to Congress to state governments – continue to refuse to acknowledge, let alone apologize for and take immediate steps to end, the devastation they have caused – and continue to cause through their immigration laws and policies?
36. And finally, why, in spite of all of this, do I feel even moderately hopeful that “Comprehensive Immigration Reform 2013” will lead to justice for immigrants?  This one I’ll answer, since it just may be the most important question of all: It’s because of the courage, tenacity, organizational smarts, creativity and wisdom of immigrant leaders – especially undocumented youth.  They understand (far better than their citizen “allies”, yours truly included) the urgency of the moment, and how to use an inside-outside combination of political lobbying, direct action/civil disobedience, community organizing, public education and social media to win the change they demand.  They continue to pave the way forward, and if we truly want to see sensible, humane and just immigration reform come to pass, it is up to everyone who claims to support immigrant rights to figure out how we can support their efforts.

Written by Michael Mandel, AILA Media Advocacy Committee Member

These days, there are daily advancements on the road to the realization of Comprehensive Immigration Reform (CIR).  President Obama campaigned on it.  The House of Representatives needs it. The Senate has a bipartisan Gang of Eight working on it.  It appears that all parties are ready and set to cross that finish line.

Yet, audible in all of this positive and productive activity on CIR are the disruptive, unproductive, and familiar voices of restrictionists such as Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) – the former Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Rep. Lou Barletta (R-PA) member of Immigration Reform Caucus, and Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) member of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Rep. Smith is responsible for the 3 and 10 year bars which he pushed into law by championing the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA).  These 3/10 year bars have resulted in a mass of undocumented individuals who are essentially stuck in the United States, massive spending by our federal government, and immeasurable grief and heartache for families all over our country.

Rep. Lou Barletta (R-PA) appears to be unable to comprehend the urgent need for CIR by stating: “Republicans will never win Latino voters in any case, because they are government-dependent and will always vote Democratic as a result: They will become Democrats because of the social programs they’ll depend on.”  Use of such language is beneath the office which he holds in trust.

Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) objected to the framework by his Senate colleagues, saying the guidelines “contemplate a policy that will grant special benefits to undocumented immigrants based on their unlawful presence in the country.”  Mr. Lee’s statement is just factually untrue.

Regrettably, Senate history is littered with the unsuccessful efforts of “gangs” charged with solving the many issues facing our country.  Remember the Gang of Six working on the debt ceiling?  Or the other Gang of Six on healthcare?  How about the Gang of 14, regarding the filibuster? We need to be vigilant and vocal by reminding everyone that we need CIR because it is good for America, not because it may or may not favor any particular party.

Let us not erect new barriers in the form of astronomical fees, unconscionable wait times or impractical procedures as a price for CIR.  If the road to legalization becomes an obstacle course, it will ultimately result in people not coming out of the shadows.  Let us stay true to the spirit of real, comprehensive, bipartisan reform so we don’t have to do this again.

Written by Ally Bolour, AILA Media Advocacy Committee Member

With anticipation, I awaited President Obama’s inauguration speech.  As I have listened over the years to many presidents speak, I waited for a call to action.  Most years, we were lucky to hear a couple of words that referred in passing to the need to “secure the borders” (at the cost of 18 billion dollars in 2012) or the “rule of law” (after laws were passed in Congress to make it difficult if not impossible to keep families together and for employers to hire skilled workers).

We’ve all known of the needs of the vast number of people who have been living in the US for many years.  The cause of immigration reform has been taken up by individuals, families, attorneys, churches, social groups, businesses for profit and non-profit, politicians – the list goes on and on.  Everyone (well almost everyone) agrees that the system is broken.  Immigration laws do not meet the needs of the United States in an increasingly interconnected world.  The flame of the lady has drawn  generations of immigrants seeking a better future to our shores, through the promise of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  This idea has helped our young nation to be exceptional among a world of states.  The idea of equality inspires and is embodied by the flame.  As citizens of America, it is our duty to ensure that we do not allow the flame to be extinguished.

President Obama made a call to action last Monday: “our journey is not complete until we find a better way to welcome the striving, hopeful immigrants who still see America as the land of opportunity; until bright young students and engineers are enlisted in our workforce rather that expelled from our country.”

Each year at the American Immigration Lawyers Association National Day of Action, we have carried forth under the flame seeking comprehensive immigration reform.  Well this year, the banner for this journey is being taken up by President Obama.  Join the AILA National day of Action on April 11, 2013 in Washington DC.  We need to reach out to our friends, the undecided and our opponents to join us in this journey.  Each election has its own way of creating a new reality.  The last Presidential election demonstrated that you cannot win without the Hispanic and immigrant votes.  This will help us in our journey and motivate new travelers to join us.

I am an immigration lawyer married to my wife Iris from Honduras; together we have two young US citizen boys Max and Alex.  My father was from Colombia and my mother from Belgium.  Each year, I have believed that this is the year for immigration reform.  Let’s make 2013 the year that President Obama’s call for a journey takes us back to the ideas which founded this nation.  America is and always has been a land of immigrants.

Written by Mario Ramos, AILA Media-Advocacy Committee

Kudos to Illinois for joining Washington and New Mexico as the only states to allow undocumented immigrant motorists to apply for driver’s licenses.  Last week Governor Pat Quinn promised to sign a bipartisan bill that will allow approximately 250,000 undocumented immigrants to obtain a three year, renewable Temporary Visitor Driver’s License (TVDL) if they have lived in Illinois for at least one year and provide proof of residence and auto insurance.  Illinois’ decision to make these temporary licenses – which are currently available for foreign nationals living in Illinois with authorization but who are not eligible to receive a social security number – accessible to all drivers regardless of immigration status is good policy and makes sense for public safety, economic and moral reasons.  And the fact that it was supported by a large bipartisan majority shows that politicians can work together to pass sensible reform that benefits everyone – immigrants and native born citizens alike.

Illinois’ TVDLs are visually distinct from regular driver’s licenses and can only be used for driving.  They cannot be used for identification purposes or to buy guns, vote or board a plane. Undocumented immigrants with a TVDL cannot obtain state or national benefits that they otherwise are not entitled to receive, as these licenses do not confirm legal immigration status, which still must be shown to receive such benefits.

Like all drivers applying for a license, undocumented immigrants in Illinois will need to demonstrate good driving skills by passing a driving test.  Studies have found an increasing trend in the proportion of fatal car accidents involving unlicensed drivers, while noting that unlicensed drivers are several times more likely to be involved in a fatal crash than licensed drivers.  At the same time, law enforcement officers waste a significant amount of time dealing with issues stemming from unlicensed driving – time that could be spent on more pressing public safety issues.  These are some of the many reasons why law enforcement supports TVDLs.

Another benefit of making driver’s licenses available to undocumented immigrants is that taxpayers will save on their insurance rates through reduced premium costs associated with uninsured motorist coverage.  When New York considered offering driver’s licenses to undocumented immigrants, the NY State Department of Insurance estimated that it would have saved taxpayers $120 million each year.  It is estimated that Illinois taxpayers spend $64 million annually to cover uninsured damage claims.

Although preventing car accidents and reducing crime while saving money should be reasons enough to support an expanded driver’s license program, the main reason I have always been an enthusiastic supporter is simple: it’s the right thing to do.  Driver’s licenses are symbolic of the larger issue of how immigrants are viewed: either as equal members of our community, deserving of the same dignity and respect that U.S. citizens expect, or as easily exploitable drains on society.  I am appalled that parents are terrified of driving their children to school, and I will support any initiative that seeks to make life easier for people who are as much a part of our communities as anyone else.

Of course, temporary driver’s licenses are not the solution to all the immigration problems that plague our country.  They are simply a small step in the right direction.  It is also clear that making temporary licenses available to undocumented immigrants in a largely immigrant-friendly state is not nearly as difficult as convincing a normally immigrant hostile Congress to embrace the type of large scale pro-immigrant reform necessary to ensure justice for all immigrants – legal and undocumented.  Yet many commentators have noted that November’s election was a game changing wake up call to politicians.  The electorate will no longer tolerate their inflexibility and failure to pass meaningful immigration reform.  The only way for politicians – and their parties – to stay politically relevant in the coming years is to take immediate action to support sensible and systemic immigration reform.  Fortunately, Congress can look to Illinois as proof that it can be done.

Written by Michael Mandel, AILA Media-Advocacy Committee

Last week’s national elections made it abundantly clear that the Latino communities and new citizens from other parts of the world have changed the equation on the issue of immigration.  The impact these communities had on the re-election of Barack Obama has clearly changed the political landscape for the prospects for comprehensive immigration reform. Republicans in Congress including Speaker of the House Boehner to commentators as conservative as Sean Hannity have acknowledged that there needs to be a more humane solution than “self deportation” for the undocumented.

There are lessons to be learned from the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) of 1986 under President Reagan as well as the framework of the McCain-Kennedy bill in 2005.  Two more recently pressing parts of an immigration reform equation is an increased need for streamlined immigration policies for foreign nationals possessing important skills in STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) fields and the need for a workable visa for entrepreneurs who are willing to risk everything to start innovative businesses in the U.S. if given the chance.

The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) of 1986 created a program which legalized roughly three million immigrants but was unable to pass a provision for a reasonable temporary worker program.  During the period that followed, the U.S. experienced an unprecedented economic boom with practically full employment.  In the absence of a temporary worker program to fill year round work with an optional path to permanent residence, thousands if not millions of lesser skilled positions went begging.  Unable to get visas, but possessing a willingness to work hard, many immigrants crossed borders or overstayed visas to fill these jobs.  Opposition from those on the Democratic side of Congress to a temporary worker program was a major factor in its exclusion from IRCA and in recreating in larger numbers a vulnerable undocumented population in the U.S.

The McCain-Kennedy bill recognized the need to provide for a temporary lesser skilled worker program with pathways to permanent residence for those immigrants who remained in the workforce and chose to stay.  Although this was easier to do in a better economy, it must nevertheless be part of the equation now, along with the pressing human need to legalize those presently in this country in violation of the law.  Immigration legislation is hard to pass and Congress must create a bill that will work in both a full economy as well as in a recession.  It almost goes without saying that a temporary worker program would need employers to establish an absence of U.S. workers for needed lesser skilled jobs and that adequate wages and working conditions be put in place to protect both U.S. workers and foreign workers who would be the beneficiaries of these visas.  We cannot repeat the mistakes of the past by ignoring fluctuating needs for lesser skilled workers.  The cumbersome, seasonal H-2A agricultural worker program and the H-2b worker programs are testaments to the fact that the U.S. continues to need foreign workers in non-professional positions to maintain some sectors of U.S. businesses.

Also recognized under McCain-Kennedy was the need to avoid static caps on key employment based H-1b visas as well as employment based permanent resident numbers.  However, the McCain-Kennedy bill failed to address important needs regarding reforming the family-based immigration system.  The long backlogs imposed on reuniting with close family members has made much of the family based categories to immigrate non-starters.  Especially egregious is the imposition of waiting lists in the family based category (F-2A) for after acquired spouses and children of U.S. permanent residents.  In the interests of keeping nuclear families together, this category should have no numeric backlogs and be treated identically to spouses and minor children of U.S. citizens.

These urgently needed changes cannot be held hostage by the empty phrase of “controlling our borders first.” As reported by the Pew Hispanic Center, undocumented crossings on the southern border have been greatly reduced over the past several years, possibly even to a trickle.  Smart border control is important, which is why the Administration has been so effective at stopping illegal immigration. It makes no sense to continue hold up a major reform of our immigration system to what is clearly a hollow sound bite.

It is time to learn from past mistakes, oversights and congressional gridlock and finally get the job of comprehensive immigration law done.

Written by Deborah J. Notkin, Chair, Media-Advocacy Committee