Really? Seriously?  Wow.

Not the most erudite comment I’ve ever made but that’s what I’m reduced to facing this week’s Amendmentpalooza.  Wow.

I’m looking at the breakdown of proposed amendments to the Senate immigration reform bill (S. 744).  AILA National is conducting careful analysis of the hundreds of amendments, figuring out how they would impact our new favorite reading choice, the “Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act.”

In digging through the 300 amendments proposed by Democrats and Republicans alike, they have found some doozies.  These potential poison pills should be required reading for any immigration attorney, and, for that matter, any business owner and especially for any resident of several states from whom the Senators hail who proposed these outlandish amendments.

This is a bipartisan bill.  That already requires compromise on both sides, but accepting the following amendments wouldn’t be compromising, it would be putting nails in the coffin of a decent immigration bill and burying America’s future with it.

Apparently gutting the legalization process sounds good to several Senators.  Taken together the provisions would essentially ensure that pretty much no one qualified for permanent status—oh, and if Sen. Cruz has his way, no one who was ever willfully unlawfully present would ever get citizenship.  Nope, they’re unworthy.  I’m just surprised that there wasn’t a Scarlet Letter amendment in there too, forcing legalized immigrants to wear an “A” for Amnesty for the rest of their lives.

Businesses would get a pretty harsh wake-up call too, per Sen. Grassley, who would play havoc with the business immigration policies to the extent that American businesses seeking to hire foreign talent—the kind that leads to American jobs and global competitiveness—would be shut out.  At some point, you make an immigration category so difficult that no one will apply.  On the upside, I guess we wouldn’t need to hold an H-1B lottery ever again.

There is amendment after amendment that would roll our immigration policy backward instead of moving it forward, to prevent families from being reunited, and to throw more money at ineffective border security measures, rather than investing in enforcement that will actually make our country safer.  Oh, let’s not forget the amendments that would gut due process and eliminate training for DHS agents in things like civil rights.

Don’t get me wrong—a few stalwart Senators from both sides are offering potentially good amendments, to reunite families, ensure a more inclusive legalization process, and make our immigration system better.  How many of those might be included in any final bill is anyone’s guess.  Again, this is a bipartisan, compromise process so no one will be completely happy but the flip side is that with a decent bill, no one will be entirely disappointed either.

Some things require compromise, but worthless amendments that only serve to destroy the workable framework that the Senate “Gang of Eight” and their staff have built have no place in this process. If you’re in one of the states with a Judiciary Committee member, or have a client from that state, get calls in to your Senators, email their offices, reach out to contacts you made through AILA’s National Day of Action or in-state meetings.  Reach out to local reporters to talk about what is wrong with some of these amendments and why even proposing them is an overt effort to derail immigration reform that our nation desperately needs.  Your voices—and the voices of your clients—need to be heard, but they won’t be, unless you speak out.

Starting March 4, 2013, certain relatives of American citizens who are in the country illegally and need a waiver of unlawful presence before being eligible for a green card can get a decision on their case before leaving the United States.

For those who can take advantage of the new rule, this means peace of mind, knowing that their loved one is likely to successfully complete the immigration process and not be stranded in a foreign country for an unknown length of time.  For some, however, the new rule will do nothing to resolve their immigration issues.

1.      What is the new rule and how can it help my family?

Under current law, many immigrants who enter the country illegally or overstay their visas cannot apply for permanent residence (a “green card”) in the U.S., and instead must finish the immigration process abroad.  Unfortunately, just leaving the country—even to pick up a visa sponsored by a family member—automatically makes the intending immigrant subject to a penalty for their “unlawful presence,” potentially separating them from their family for up to ten years.

For some, but not all, the penalty can be waived.  Before this new rule, immigrants could be stranded outside the country for weeks, months or even years while waiting for a decision on whether they could return to their life in the United States. And all that time, the immigrant was stuck abroad, usually with no legal way to return.  Many families endured the emotional strain, financial hardship and dangerous conditions. Others simply were unwilling to take the risk.

The new rule means that many immigrants will leave the United States, knowing in advance that their case will probably be approved, and they could be back with their families—as a legal resident—in a matter of days.

2.      Who can apply under the new rule?

Only applicants who are an immediate relative of a US citizen (spouses, parents and certain children) can apply at this time, though the rule may later be expanded to other relatives.

The applicant must be physically present in the United States, and not already have a scheduled interview at a U.S. consulate abroad.  Also, the provisional waiver is only available if the sole issue holding up a case is unlawful presence.  Applicants who have criminal issues or other immigration violations cannot use the provisional procedure.

Individuals who are in immigration court or who have an order of removal or voluntary departure may not qualify unless they get special permission from the government and a court order resolving their case.

To be successful, applicants must show that denying the case would be an extreme hardship to their qualifying relative(s); the impact on the immigrant doesn’t count.  Hardship factors can include family separation, economic hardship, medical issues, country conditions abroad, and any other difficulty or harm faced by the qualifying relative(s), if the waiver isn’t granted.

3.      What does it mean that the waiver is “provisional?”

Even if a waiver is granted, the approval is “provisional.”  As a practical matter, this means that the government has reviewed the case and believes that the waiver should be granted, but there is no guarantee that a case will be successful if facts change or new information comes to light.  For example, if an applicant had previous immigration violations or criminal history, the provisional waiver will be revoked.

If any new issues arise, and the applicant is still eligible for a waiver, he or she will be able to re-apply using the existing process, but will have to wait abroad for a decision on their case.

4.      When can I apply?

The new rule goes into effect on March 4, 2013, and no filings will be accepted before that date. You can only apply for a provisional waiver after an immigrant petition has been approved.  If you haven’t filed yet or you’re still waiting for a decision on a pending petition, you can’t apply for the provisional waiver—yet.

5.      What else do I need to know about provisional waivers?

A provisional waiver is not a legal status, and even an approved waiver doesn’t provide work authorization, a social security number or a driver’s license. Having a provisional waiver will not protect you from deportation or any other consequences of being in the country illegally.

If an application for a provisional waiver is denied, there is no appeal.  If you have more or better evidence to prove your case, you can re-file, with a new filing fee. Remember, not everyone can be sponsored or qualify for a waiver, and just as importantly, not everyone needs a waiver.

6.      Do I need to work with an attorney?

The immigration process can take months, even years, and government filing fees and other expenses are significant—it’s best to know your options before investing time and money.  A thorough legal consultation should look at all aspects of your immigration history to find the best solution for your family, not just evaluate eligibility for a provisional waiver.

Always work with a licensed immigration attorney.  Never trust legal advice from an unregulated consultant or notario. Consider consulting with an experienced immigration lawyer before starting the process to make sure that you qualify, and that stateside waiver processing is the best solution for your immigration case.

Additional Resources

Always turn to reputable sources for immigration advice and information about new developments. Finding an AILA lawyer is a good place to start. Members listed on www.ailalawyer.com meet legal education and malpractice insurance requirements, and have been AILA members for at least two years.

AILA Immigration Lawyer Referral Service

AILA Resources for Stateside Waivers

USCIS Resources on Provisional Waivers

Consumer Protection for Victims of Immigration or Notario Fraud

Written by Laura Lichter, AILA President

Kris Kobach, anti-immigrant restrictionist lawyer and Kansas Secretary of State, claims to know something about immigration law, but in our Friday night CNN debate he was able to do little more than throw around phrases like “backdoor amnesty” and “illegal aliens”.  The subtext of these words is sinister–that America is under a Latino invasion which threatens our culture, language, and way of life.    Fixing America’s badly broken immigration system is not part of Kobach’s plan.  What he and his ilk want is to put an end to immigration, period.  And since they have no helpful plan for America, restrictionists like Kobach rely on ethnically charged words and phrases—like the ones used by Kobach on CNN.

Not surprisingly Kobach failed to articulate even a single immigration policy solution.  He started off by making the patently false claim that the proposed processing tweak announced by the Administration on Friday is “phase two” of an “amnesty”.  That couldn’t be farther from the truth.  In fact the proposed change will make it possible for the spouses and children of U.S. citizens to apply for a family unity waiver while in the U.S.   It’s a technical adjustment that will keep American families safe and together during administrative processing.

And contrary to what Kobach said, not one letter of the law was changed.  The immigrants it would affect get nothing to which they were not already entitled.  To obtain the family unity waiver, applicants must still meet the strict letter of the law which requires they prove that family separation will cause their American citizen husband or wife extreme hardship.  Currently, these immigrants must spend months, even years, abroad waiting for the bureaucracy to process their waivers.  The proposed change will permit the waiver request to be decided stateside.  It will alleviate bureaucratic delay and reduce processing backlogs at U.S. embassies abroad.  It’s good government pure and simple.

At some level Kobach must have understood he couldn’t seriously argue with a processing fix that promotes legal immigration, keeps American families together, and protects the integrity of our borders.  Realizing he had nothing of substance to add to the debate, Kobach concluded with the phrase “we can all agree”, words used by those who know they not only have lost the argument but are on the wrong side of the issue with the listening audience.  It’s a time tested debate trick designed to fool the viewers into thinking he and I were not that different.

Fortunately we are.

I advocate for an immigration policy that protects American families, keeps the U.S. globally competitive, and restores civil liberties.  Kobach wants to spread the same climate of fear he helped create in states like Arizona and Alabama which have enacted hate filled anti-immigrant laws he helped write.

I’d like to think that Newt Gingrich, the current GOP front runner, has come out squarely in favor of a pathway to citizenship for the millions of undocumented immigrants in the U.S. Not because I support his presidential candidacy, but because rejection of mass deportation as a solution to America’s broken immigration system raises the level of the national debate about immigration. At least he’s not ginning up the same old sound bites about securing the border and building fences.

But, the devil is in the details. Unfortunately, Gingrich’s proposal falls far short of what is needed to fix the broken immigration system. In fact, his idea would lead to the mass deportation of millions of people and the demise of scores of American families.

The cornerstone of Gingrich’s plan is the so-called “citizen review panels” which would consider whether an undocumented immigrant’s personal circumstances merit a reprieve from deportation. Gingrich likens the idea to the draft review boards of the World War II era.

But listening carefully to Gingrich it becomes clear that under his plan very few undocumented immigrants would even qualify to go before the review panels. Only those that have been in the U.S. for more than 25 years would be considered, even if they have compelling equities such as U.S. citizen relatives, a record of paying taxes, good moral character, and a consistent work history.

A recent report by the Pew Hispanic Center shows that of the approximately 12 million undocumented immigrants in the U.S., only 35% have been in the U.S. 15 years or more—even less have been in the country for more than 25 years. That’s more than 7.8 million people who, according to Gingrich, would be targeted for what he calls “dramatically easier” deportation. It’s not clear what Gingrich means by that ominous phrase, but I imagine it doesn’t include much due process and fairness.

Yet Gingrich’s proposal shines when compared to Mitt Romney’s. Romney suggests that undocumented immigrants, all 12 million of them, should turn themselves in, be given a transition period to get their affairs in order, and self-deport. It’s obvious that Romney hasn’t a clue when it comes to fixing the broken immigration system. Romney bases his proposal on the idea that the undocumented—many of whom have close family ties to America—can simply go home, get in line, and return legally. He obviously doesn’t understand—or worse, doesn’t care—that the broken immigration law includes a myriad of daunting legal obstacles which prevent undocumented immigrants from returning to America and their families for at least a decade or more. His proposal is as ridiculous as it is unworkable.

On the other hand, Romney and Gingrich both argue forcefully for an immigration policy that will attract the best and brightest to America—the innovators, entrepreneurs, and scientists. On this point—although neither would likely admit it—both GOP front runners agree with President Obama. Recalling a time when America opened its doors to highly skilled immigrants to shore up its competitive edge, President Obama has called for innovation, education, and rebuilding of America’s infrastructure. This  necessarily implies an immigration policy that keeps America open for business.

But what neither Gingrich nor Romney seems to get is that high skilled professionals and creative entrepreneurs won’t come to the U.S. if we do not fashion an immigration policy that restores and protects due process. Just ask the scores of business people and scientists who have been stymied by an overly restrictive immigration bureaucracy or targeted for special registration and prolonged security checks over the past decade. (Note: you may need to contact them via email or Skype because many have immigrated to other, more welcoming, countries).

The subtext of the current immigration debate is that undocumented immigrants won’t do what they should to gain lawful immigration status. This assumes that compliance with the immigration law is as easy as filling out a passport application at a local  post office. What none of the candidates seem to understand is that under the current law there is simply no way for most unauthorized immigrants to comply, as much as they might want to, whether they remain the U.S. or go back to their native countries.

Nevertheless, Gingrich’s proposal, as deeply flawed as it is, recognizes that wholesale removal of 12 million is not a solution.  And, if nothing else, that position is a welcome addition to a Republican immigration debate that has thus far been limited to little more than sound bites about border security, boots on the ground, and fences.

Remember Pete Wilson? JD Hayworth? Tom Tancredo?

That’s what I thought.

These guys are a few of the politicians whose anti-immigrant agenda played a big part in the demise of their political fortunes.  And the list continues to grow.  Just ask former Arizona State Senator Russell Pearce, author of Arizona’s SB1070, the “show me your papers” law, who was thrown out of office last month by his own constituents.

So it comes as no big surprise that some of the most conservative voters in the country—Iowa caucus-goers—are, according to a report in NPR, “open to policies that help foreign-born young people educated in the U.S. to enter the workforce, as well as those that help companies hire seasonal and permanent employees for vacant jobs Americans are not filling.”  They also strongly support increasing opportunities for highly-skilled legal immigrants and entrepreneurs to come to the United States.

When you look at these numbers you begin to understand why GOP presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich declared his support for a more humane immigration policy—one which includes a pathway to lawful compliance for the millions of undocumented foreign nationals in the US.

Unlike Mitt Romney, his chief rival for the nomination who continues to pander to the restrictionist fringe, Gingrich’s remarks on immigration have been deftly aimed at the centerist—dare I say more reasonable—Republican voters.  Gingrich understands that America’s economic and social future depends on an immigration policy which attracts the best and brightest to America’s shores and which includes a common sense, humane approach to bringing the scores of undocumented workers out of the shadows and into the sunshine of American life.  In a GOP primary that has offered little more than inane blabber about “amnesty”, “fences”, and “boots on the ground”, Gingrich offers a refreshing perspective.   Though his proposal is still very flawed, he is challenging his party and Republican voters to consider solutions to the nation’s immigration problems rather than pat sound bites.

How then does this explain the Rick Perry’s fall in the polls? Didn’t his moderate approach to immigration, including his support for instate tuition for undocumented immigrants, severely damage his presidential campaign?

No, not so much.

The collapse of Perry’s candidacy has more to do with his debate gaffes and other missteps, not his stance on immigration. Simply put, Perry lost his front runner status because he was not ready for prime time, not because of any one particular issue.

The Iowa poll shows that Americans—liberal, moderate, and conservative—overwhelmingly support a common sense approach to immigration.  This is consistent scores of other studies conducted by pollsters over the years.  American voters long for a modernized immigration system that will create jobs for American workers, protect American families, and restore American due process and fairness.

Politicians who choose to ignore this do so at their own peril.

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.

Last January, Representative Gabrielle Giffords was shot in Arizona during a public meeting with constituents. In the wake of the shooting, the media began a national dialogue about how violent political rhetoric can spark actual violence.

After reading about GOP front-runner Herman Cain’s immigration “policy,” I think it’s time we have that discussion again. In a campaign speech last weekend in Tennessee, Cain proposed an electric fence running the length of the U.S. Mexico border with a voltage strong enough to kill anyone who attempts to cross. “It’s going to be 20 feet high,” he said. “It’s going to have barbed wire on the top. It’s going to be electrified. And there’s going to be a sign on the other side saying ‘It will kill you – Warning.’” Cain also proposed positioning military troops along the border “with real guns and real bullets.” According to press reports, the audience cheered loudly.

Cain’s remarks, and the audience’s cheers, are a pretty accurate illustration of how vitriolic and hate-filled our country’s immigration debate has become. Essentially, Cain is calling for the death penalty for illegal border crossing. Illegal crossing, for first time offenders, is only a misdemeanor under federal law.

Unfortunately, we’ve heard worse. Like Kansas State Representative Virgil Peck Jr.’s comments that “If shooting . . . immigrating feral hogs works, maybe we have found a solution to our illegal immigration problem.” And Representative Mo Brooks’ (R. AL) comment that he would do “anything short of shooting” illegal immigrants to keep them out of the country. And Alabama State Senator Scott Beason’s comment that it’s time to “empty the clip” when dealing with illegal immigration.

In the days following the attack against Representative Giffords, Sarah Palin was criticized for using similar gun rhetoric like “don’t retreat…reload,” in her campaign materials. While the American public ultimately disagreed on whether violent rhetoric incited the attack against Giffords, there was at least some discussion of the idea that language has consequences.

There is plenty of evidence to suggest that violent anti-immigrant rhetoric has life-threatening consequences for immigrants – both legal and illegal, since vigilantes don’t often ask to see papers. The FBI reported that hate crimes against Latinos and Latinas increased by forty percent between 2003 and 2007, the period when political candidates became especially vocal about anti-immigration platforms.

An article in yesterday’s Huffington Post points out some of the most egregious examples. It describes the attack against Alex and Jose Cauich, Mexican nationals who were assaulted outside a bar in San Francisco while their attackers yelled “run like you ran across the border.”

The article also points out that non-immigrants of Mexican descent are being targeted, too. Juan Varela, nine year-old Brisenia Flores and her father were all murdered by anti-immigrant extremists, and all three were American-born U.S. citizens.

The sentiment is spreading to schools, and last week, Assistant Attorney General Tom Perez reported seeing an increase of anti-immigrant bullying in Alabama schools.

Border protection and immigration reform are hot-button issues, and I’m sure we’ll hear much more from the campaign trial. But there’s a difference between policies (and politicians) that treat immigrants as problems and policies that treat them as people. GOP candidate Rick Perry, made this point when he called for an “intellectually appropriate discussion about immigration reform.” Perry, who has been the governor of a border state for more than a decade, has proposed a technological approach, using border cameras and Predator drones to send information to local law enforcement.

We need solutions like those Perry has proposed, and we certainly need reform. But most of all, we need a civil dialogue. If the tone of debate continues to devolve into gun rhetoric, death threats, and calls for violence, these speeches may warrant the same warning sign as Cain’s electric fence.

To: Rick Perry (and any other Republican Candidate that wants to win in 2012)
Re: Proudly Support Immigration Reform Because It Will Put Americans Back To Work

As an immigration advocate and proud conservative who resides in Oklahoma City, a place that even Sarah Palin would agree is smack in the middle of  the “Real America,” I offer the following unsolicited memo to Gov. Rick Perry (the current front runner), and any other Republican candidate who wants to get elected in 2012.

Right or wrong there is an undeniable perception out there that conservative doctrine, particularly as espoused by the Republican Party, is anti-immigration. And, unfortunately, there is good reason for that.  Just listen to the Republican Candidates when they debate the issue. Either they display shocking cluelessness or articulate their immigration positions with an alarming pandering to the extreme right. If I were to summarize the two most recent Republican debates, in particular the CNN Tea Party Debate, it would be limited to blabber about fences and boots on the ground.  Unfortunately, there has been almost no thoughtful discussion about solutions to the broken immigration system.

In fact, to the contrary, the Republican candidates seem to view a record on immigration as a serious political liability. They are using the immigration issue to attack front runner Governor Rick Perry in an attempt to derail his candidacy by vilifying him for his previous support of a temporary worker program and granting in-state tuition to certain undocumented students. Perry’s critics lament his position that we should secure our borders before burdening all U.S. employers with a problem laden E-Verify system. This strategy of rebuking our own for supporting reasonable immigration reform is short-sighted, economically foolish, and potentially disastrous for the future of the G.O.P.  President George W. Bush captured 40% of the Hispanic vote to win the White House and in 2012 that number will undoubtedly need to be higher for Republican success.

The upcoming  election will be about putting Americans back to work.  And because of that, the conventional political wisdom will be that now is not the time to fix the immigration system, including  creating a pathway to lawful compliance for the 11 million-plus undocumented immigrants in the U.S.

It might be easy to package that logic into a sound bite, but it’s not true. All credible studies show—from conservative, centrist, and more liberal think tanks alike—that immigration reform will boost our GDP by millions of dollars, increase America’s revenue, and, most importantly, put hundreds of thousands of Americans back to work.

And this is hardly a revolutionary idea. No less a conservative than Ronald Reagan understood that America’s economic strength depends, in no small way, on an outward looking immigration policy that rewards the independent, hard working spirit that made this nation the greatest on earth. In his farewell to the nation, Reagan described his vision of America as the “shining city on the hill,” where “the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here.”

Reducing an issue as tough and complex as immigration reform to a sound bite about border security or boots on the ground carries grave political danger for the future of the G.O.P. The past several national elections have clearly demonstrated that Latino voters have become a force to be reckoned with. And while immigration reform is hardly the only issue important to Latino voters, a candidate who disparages undocumented workers does so at his or her peril.

In short, I strongly recommend the Republican presidential hopefuls follow Gov. Perry’s example and take a hard look at the immigration issue. Articulated correctly, and with vision, it is a ticket to political success because a functional, fair, and safe immigration policy will not only put Americans back to work, but it’s the right thing to do. As for Rick Perry, my advice to him is that he wear his immigration record as a badge of honor, not something to hide from.

House Judiciary Committee Chair Lamar Smith (R-TX) is in a position to do great things for America.   For the good of our country,  he can rise above the partisan rancor that paralyzes Washington,  roll up his sleeves, get to work, and fashion an immigration overhaul that will protect American workers, help keep U.S. businesses competitive in a global economy, reunite families, and restore due process.

Or not.

Unfortunately Smith has chosen the latter.  Rather than seize the moment and perhaps write his name into the history books as a statesman, Smith has introduced the “Hinder the Administration’s Legalization Temptation Act” a bill that offers a lot of red meat to the anti-immigrant restrictionists but is devoid of a single solution.  I’m not exactly sure what the bill’s title means, but it shortens nicely to HALT!—a command which conjures up the terrifying image of a trigger happy SS officer ordering a fleeing prisoner to…well…HALT!

Smith introduced HALT! as a reaction to the prosecutorial discretion memo issued by ICE Director John Morton last month.  HALT! seeks to prevent the Obama Administration—the bill is actually written to sunset  precisely at the end of the  President’s first term—from focusing immigration enforcement resources on those who would do the country harm: violent offenders and terrorists.  If enacted into law, HALT! would eliminate vital protections Congress legislated for victims of domestic violence; suspend the President’s power to designate Temporary Protected Status for countries like Haiti  and the Sudan  where  environmental  and  human disasters have wreaked havoc.  The bill would even prevent the government from granting a temporary visit to those injured in war, such as a child bomb victim in Iraq urgently in need of medical care like prosthetic limbs.

In fact, HALT! would actually make it more difficult to keep America safe because it forces ICE to go after every low-priority individual instead of pursuing those who threaten our communities and homeland security.  In sharp contrast, Morton’s prosecutorial discretion memo provides the field with an architecture for smart enforcement.

Thankfully HALT has no chance of becoming law.  Even Smith knows that.  But it’s disgraceful that he uses his position as Chair of the House Judiciary Committee to promote anti-immigrant talking points rather than sound immigration policy.