It’s a little unnerving when the Grinch tweets you just before Christmas.

It started Wednesday when I read a shocking article in the New York Times about an undocumented immigrant who suffers from a life threatening kidney disease and requires dialysis.  Because of a bizarre legal anomaly the government will cover the cost of his dialysis—$75,000 a year—but not the cost of a kidney transplant—$100,000—which would make the dialysis unnecessary and save hundreds of thousands of dollars over time.

The article quoted Rep. Dana T. Rohrabacher, Republican of California, who opposes giving any medical aide to undocumented immigrants.  While I believe his position is extreme, indeed self-defeating, Rohrabacher is obviously entitled to his view. But what was appalling was the mean spiritedness with which he expressed it. “If they’re dead” Rohrabacher said, “I don’t have an objection to their organs being used.”  He added, “If they’re alive, they shouldn’t be here no matter what.”

Was the Congressman really saying that the only worthwhile illegal immigrant is a dead one?   I certainly hope not, but given the ugly language of the anti-immigrant restrictionists including, sadly, some members of Congress, it wouldn’t surprise me.

I tried to put the whole thing out of my mind.  But later that evening, while catching up on my Twitter feed, the following tweet about Rohrabacher’s callous comment popped up from America’s Voice.

 Award 4 the most heartless statement in the face of human suffering 2 @DanaRohrabacher http://bit.ly/vi4FjV

I realized I wasn’t alone.  Others were shocked by the cold-bloodedness of Rohrabacher’s remark.  But it was late at night, so I just retweeted the AV’s tweet and went to bed.  I slept well, figuring the issue of Rohrabacher’s insensitivity in the face of human affliction had been settled on the social network.

I was wrong.

When I awoke the next morning I discovered that just after midnight Rohrabacher had sent me the following tweet:

 glad benevolent people like U willing to reduce health&ed benefits to your own families for illegals rather than tax us

Then, about an hour later, he tweeted again,

U mean our own people suffering because not enough to care for them…or illegals on whom u’d spend our limited $?

His tweets included a nice picture of Rohrabacher leaning against a railing in front of a bay. “Well”, I thought, “at least he’s more discrete than Anthony Weiner.”  In any event, I immediately tweeted Rohrabacher back, hoping to favorably inform his views on immigration and impress upon him that he should become an advocate for comprehensive reform.  But it’s tough to do that in 140 characters or less.  So I tweeted:

I mean #immigration reform will create jobs and increase wages for #Americans, Y dont you understand that?

To which the Congressman tweeted back:

R U kidding? Permitting illegals to stay& work draws tens of millions more, bidding down wages, draining health&ed funds

At this point I figured Rohrabacher needed some facts and figures; something other than the half-baked restrictionist talking points he has apparently been reading.  My return tweet referred him to a joint report published in early 2010 by the Immigration Policy Center and the Center for American Progress entitled Raising the Floor for American Workers which makes it crystal clear that immigration reform, including a pathway to lawful compliance for the millions of undocumented foreign nationals, will boost the economy to the benefit of all Americans:

W all due respect Congressman, ur wrong; CIR will add 1.7t to GDP, in tax rev; and 1m jobs; read IPC report

But Rohrabacher would have none of it—apparently not wanting the facts to get in the way of his views.  He tweeted:

thanks 4 the respect, but if U believe that legalizing those here and drawing tens of millions more is good for US Ur dreaming

Dreaming?  I guess I am.  As are a lot of other people—including thousands of undocumented immigrant youth who long to give back to the only country they know and have struggled against all odds to enrich.  So I tweeted,

Mabye I’m dreaming–like many others–but the current situation is a nightmare; America needs solutions not empty talk.

But the Congressman, determined to have the last tweet, responded,

if Ur so-called solution is legalizing the status of illegals give me empty talk, Ur solution will bring more & make it worse

I’m not sure what to make of my ongoing twitter conversation with Congressman Rohrabacher.  Sure, it’s tempting write him off as a heartless old Grinch.  But I’m not going to do that.  After all, this is the holiday season, a time of reflection, renewal, and goodwill towards others. I want to believe that if Rohrabacher allows himself to see the injustice and pain caused by America’s broken immigration system then his heart, like the mean old Grinch’s, just might grow three full sizes. Maybe then he won’t long to steal Christmas from the most vulnerable among us.

In the meantime I’m going to go check my Twitter feed.  Who knows? Maybe Ebenezer Scrooge is following me.

Two weeks ago, the immigration world was abuzz due to the bipartisan support received for a narrow, extremely technical fix to employment- and family-based immigration quotas.  We learned yesterday, however, that one senator has blocked the bill from coming to a vote without substantial changes, making it extremely unlikely to be passed at all.  Hearing that reminded me of what may be the least effective legislature of all time, the Sejm of the 18th Century Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, in which any member could nullify the work of the whole session of the legislature by shouting, “Nie pozwalam!” (“I do not allow!”).  Here we are, back in the Sejm instead of the Senate, and a single member is effectively vetoing the entire legislature’s work.

The bill we are talking about is called HR3012, the Fairness for High-Skilled Immigrants Act.  The thing is, HR3012 does not add any new visas to address the quota backlogs for approved legal immigrants awaiting the availability of immigrant visas each year.  You read that correctly: HR 3012 would not allow in one more immigrant than current law allows.  It would merely change the rules of distributing our current quotas of new immigrants per year, allowing higher-skilled immigrants from India and China to wait the same length of time as higher-skilled immigrants from all the other countries in the world, and reducing the disparity in the family-based system between the worldwide backlogs and the longer backlogs faced by natives of Mexico and the Philippines.  (Readers interested in more detail can check out the National Foundation for American Policy’s incredibly detailed report on the quota backlogs.)

Legislation needs to pass through both the House and the Senate, however, before it can be presented to the President and become a law.  And in today’s Senate, it is becoming apparent that just one Senator can stop a bill from coming to a vote, even where the other 99 senators would agree with the 96% of the House that voted for the bill (The House voted overwhelmingly — 389-15– in favor of HR3012 two weeks ago).  The Senator blocking the bill is Charles Grassley (R-IA).

Senator Grassley has placed a “hold” on HR3012, preventing it from coming to the floor for a vote.  Senator Grassley released a statement saying that his hold was motivated by concern about “future immigration flows” and that “it does nothing to better protect Americans at home who seek high-skilled jobs” in today’s tough economy.  Here’s a reminder for Senator Grassley, however: every high-skilled immigrant affected by this bill has already been certified as filling an otherwise-empty vacancy in the US labor market, or having skills that are in our national interest to retain in the US.

Was the Senator concerned with the merits of the bill, about which I am rather agnostic?  The bill, after all, simply changes the rule of visa allocation to “first come, first served,” which certainly seems fair enough.  The primary question the bill addresses — given that it does not change the number of high skill immigrants allowed in per year — is whether a surgeon from India should have to wait 3-6 years for a green card, while an engineer from the Philippines or Germany doesn’t have to wait at all, as under current law, or whether the surgeon and the engineer should both have to wait 1-2 years.

Of course, Senator Grassley should know this, given that he is the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee and sits on the Immigration, Refugees and Border Security Subcommittee.  His real objection appears to be not to fairness in the process of allocating green cards for high skilled immigrants, but to the temporary visas companies and hospitals use to hire those high-skilled immigrants while they wait for their green cards.  Yesterday on the floor of the Senate, Senator Grassley said he was willing to release his hold, but only if HR3012 was changed substantially – eliminating any changes to family based visa allocation, being less fair to immigrants from India and China, and tacking on a package of onerous restrictions for temporary work visas – a package that the House and Senate have refused to consider a number of times over the past years.

Senator Grassley’s thwarting the will of the majority in pursuit of his own narrow vision of which immigrants should be allowed in to the United States highlights the dysfunction of today’s Senate.  That dysfunction has been noted elsewhere.  While such a procedural move may prevent the majority from considering a bill that a minority opposes, this “hold” is on a bill with a very limited effect – and with overwhelming, bipartisan support.  The lesson of the 18th century Sejm is instructive: paralyzed by vetoes, the legislature was unable to react to a changing world, and eventually their country was divided up between larger European powers.  If one Senator can stop even a legislative “tweak” like this from happening, I am not optimistic about our government’s ability to make laws to govern this country in the 21st century.

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.

It happened again yesterday.

A foreign worker—this time from Honda—was arrested in Alabama and cited under the state’s new immigration law.

Sound familiar? It should.

The same thing happened a couple of weeks ago to Detlev Hager, a German executive from Mercedes-Benz, who was in Alabama to check on the company’s plant in Vance. This time the unlucky scofflaw was a Japanese employee of Honda. Like the unlucky German before him, he was arrested by Alabama cops after he forgot his visa in his hotel room.

In a blog posted last week I made the point that the hate ridden immigration law does little more than crush civil rights, wreak havoc on the state’s economy, and sully Alabama’s reputation. I also pointed out that a foreign company (or any company for that matter) would have to be nuts to locate in a state like Alabama that enacts a law which so flippantly subjects foreign managers and workers to arrest.

They say the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. Exactly what result do Alabama politicians expect by continuing to enforce HB56?

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: 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.

Today is an anniversary that will go virtually unnoticed. It marks 15 years since the Congress enacted the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRAIRA). For many practicing young lawyers who came into the field wanting to keep families united, this law suddenly changed the playing field tipping it in a way that made it even harder, and in many cases impossible, to seek justice. IIRAIRA made practicing immigration law that much more complex.

I’m not quite sure where to start.

This blog could be devoted to how IIRAIRA removed justice from the immigration courts by stripping judges of their ability to evaluate individual immigrants and their contributions to America.

Or it could focus on the married couples and families torn apart as a result of IIRAIRA’s punitive bars to re-admission which apply to foreign nationals who have overstayed their visas in the U.S.   Added to the law as deterrent to illegal immigration, the bars have clearly had the reverse effect, serving instead as an incentive for people to hunker down and remain in the U.S. unlawfully rather than be separated from their U.S. citizen spouses and children.

Or this blog could describe the stories of countless immigrants who gave up their fight for justice in the immigration courts rather than languish for months, even years, in mandatory detention because IIRAIRA denied them reasonable bail.

Or it could describe how IIRAIRA, coupled with the anti-immigrant panic that gripped the nation after 9/11, led to a virtual police state for immigrants; an America where midnight warrantless arrests, secret trials, and special registrations of distinct ethnic groups were the norm.

Finally, this blog could make the argument that the ramifications of IIRAIRA’s unduly harsh provisions have not been limited to the courtrooms, detention centers, or ports of entry. So too, have business visa petitions been subject to years and years of increasingly restrictive agency interpretation and adjudications which have only served to stifle education, innovation, and entrepreneurship.

Today a key author of the law, Rep. Lamar Smith, now chairs the House Judiciary Committee. A few years after IIRAIRA was enacted Smith signed a letter to then-Attorney General Janet Reno calling for more careful use of prosecutorial discretion. The plea never would have been necessary but for the harsh consequences of IIRAIRA, which was spreading injustice while doing little to improve America’s immigration system.

In the end, the lesson of IIRAIRA is that good immigration policy cannot be made by slapping together specious sound bites and talking points. That just makes an already dysfunctional immigration system more dysfunctional. America deserves immigration solutions, not more detention, deportation, and exclusion. We don’t need more IIRAIRA’s. We need a comprehensive policy that secures the border, keeps our communities safe, protects America’s economic edge, and restores and protects due process.

Let’s hope Lamar Smith and the other sponsors of IIRAIRA have learned this lesson, too.

By T. Douglas Stump, AILA First Vice President

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.