Ronald Reagan once said that “All great change in America begins at the dinner table”.

He was right.

Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner is a 1967 American drama film starring Spencer Tracy, Sidney Poitier and Katharine Hepburn. The film considered the then controversial subject of interracial marriage, which had been illegal in most states, and was still illegal in 17 states, until June 12, 1967, when anti-miscegenation laws were struck down by the Supreme Court in Loving v. Virginia.

The plot centers on a daughter’s return to her affluent American home in San Francisco, bringing her new fiancé to dinner to meet her parents. She finds it difficult to comprehend her liberal parents’ reaction to her plan to marry an African American. While they taught her to treat others as equals, the parents strike a different tone when it comes to their daughter’s choice of a life mate. The fiancé’s parents fly up from Los Angeles to the dinner but, like the parents of the bride to be, they are shocked when they learn their son intends to enter into an interracial marriage. The dinner evolves from an awkward dinner party to a meeting of tolerance and understanding as family and friends try to accept the couple’s choice.

Today the subject of Immigration Reform can also make for an uncomfortable dinner party. Like the gradual but important acceptance of interracial marriage in the 1960s, immigration concerns the evolution of America’s dearly held founding principles.

By recently reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act, Congress rightly reiterated that we are a Nation which will continue to protect our most vulnerable members of society – women and children. Congress proved it can put politics aside and work together to do the right thing for women and for America. As our leaders come together to continue the dialogue on the reform of our immigration system – the parameters have been set.

To start, on January 29, 2013 President Obama outlined his principles for immigration reform: maintaining border security, building a path to citizenship for the 11 million undocumented, stopping employers who game the system by illegally employing unauthorized immigrants, and streamlining our legal immigration procedures to ensure family unity for all Americans, including same-sex couples.

The Senate bipartisan framework for immigration reform presented on January 28, 2013 sets forth similar principles for reform but it does not mention binational same sex couples.

Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) lead the effort in the Senate last year by introducing the Uniting American Families Act (UAFA). UAFA would give binational same-sex couples the same immigration rights afforded to heterosexual couples — including the right to petition for green cards for partners or spouses. She has made clear that she is committed to getting the legislation passed, either on its own or as part of comprehensive immigration reform package. UAFA was reintroduced in the House as a bipartisan bill for the first time this past February. Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) reintroduced the bill with the backing of Reps. Charlie Dent (R-PA) and Richard Hanna (R-NY). They signed on in support of the bill last year, but the legislation has never before been introduced with Republican co-sponsors.

The inclusion of same-sex bi-national couples as part of an immigration reform package has received support from many advocates, including the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. Because of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) even legally-married same-sex couples are unable to petition for legal status for a foreign-born member. This translates into partners being separated by deportation or the inability to obtain visas, with couples at times living apart for long periods of time or leaving the United States entirely.

The Williams Institute at UCLA estimated in 2011 that there were about 40,000 couples who were ineligible to receive the same treatment on immigration as heterosexual couples. Nearly 25,000 children had parents who fit into that category, according to the institute.

As members of Congress come together at the “dinner” table to discuss the reform of our dysfunctional immigration system there is no question that immigration benefits for same sex binational couples should be part of the conversation and proposed reforms.

You heard right, guess who’s coming to dinner? Our nation’s history, founding principles and evolution are all indicators that the dinner table can no longer be missing an important member of our society. LGBT families are truly part of the American family, and not just a partisan political issue. There are many who may be “shocked and offended and appalled”, but the time is here and the time is now to end all the prejudices, bigotry, blind hatred and irrational fears surrounding two individuals falling in love and building a family.

The reform of our immigration system must demonstrate that America is a nation of values, founded on the idea that all people are created equal and that all people have rights, no matter what they look like, where they came from, or what their sexual orientation is.

America must seize this historic opportunity. As Spencer Tracy’s character taught us, it does not matter what others think of another’s relationship. What is important is how much they feel for each other and if it is half of what we feel for our loved ones, that’s everything!

This week, USCIS launched the new I-601A provisional waiver program, allowing certain relatives of American citizens who are in the country illegally to get a decision on their waiver case, before leaving the United States.

The exact numbers are not known, but it is clear that the new rules will impact thousands of US families.  For those who wouldn’t undertake the artificially-imposed, but very real risk of “touching back” to their home country under the old rules, the new regulations mean that it’s finally safe to complete the residency process.  For thousands of others, the goodwill shown by immigration authorities in trying to alleviate the hardship created by the meaningless departure requirement has inspired them to start a process that was unthinkable before the new rules were put into place.

There is no question that the new rule is an overwhelmingly positive development for American families.  Immigrants and their citizen family members now have some measure of peace, knowing that their loved one will not be stranded in a foreign country for an unknown length of time, potentially risking life and limb, while waiting for a decision on their case.  USCIS’s continued impressive handling of deferred action applications has shown that the agency has the capacity to handle a large volume of applications, and get it done right.  And, promisingly, USCIS has indicated that the provisional waiver process should be extended to qualified relatives in other family categories, as resources allow.

In the context of immigration reform, this “solution” to a problem that never should have existed in the first place this begs the question of why we punish American families (and U.S. employers) by forcing the very immigrants that already have a path to citizenship to undergo separation, financial and emotional hardship, and risk their safety to attend a 10 minute interview abroad, when the same process can be achieved at a local USCIS Field Office.

Unfortunately, for many other equally qualified relatives, the new provisions will do nothing to fix their immigration problems, and they and their family will remain stranded by the unworkable scheme Congress put into place nearly two decades ago.  Moreover, the new processing rules do nothing to fix the draconian “permanent bar” which results in de facto exile of a decade or more for immigrant family members.  As we move forward to try to find real solutions to our broken immigration system, Congress would be wise to consider the real cost to American families and U.S. competitiveness when trying to retain the failed policies or create new penalties which do nothing but harm the very people who already have a path to citizenship.

Regrettably, despite numerous comments from immigrant communities and advocates, the new rules perpetuated some of the absurdities of the process.  Instead of fixing the problems identified by experts in the field, the agencies inserted a glaringly punitive rule, inexplicably excluding individuals who had already started the process and had already paid the required government fees.   The irony is that this change serves only to leave out in the cold those families who were playing by the (old) rules.

As a result, thousands who had bravely begun the very last chapter of the application process have been stranded—ironically, after most put their cases on hold because the agency announced the proposed process over a year ago in draft form.  Under the final rules, those individuals cannot take advantage of the new procedures and must risk waiting outside the US for an indeterminate amount of time, without any sense of whether their case might—or might not be granted.

Not even filing a new consular application will allow a person with an approved petition to benefit from the new procedures.  The only way to have the same protections as other families appears to be withdrawing all applications and starting a case over from the very beginning.  In practical terms, this means that applicants who were nearly at the front of the line after years of processing, are being forced to choose between going forward, with all the uncertainty and risk of the “old” system, or abandoning their applications, getting into the back of the line, waiting years until they might see a new appointment and, to add insult to injury—paying twice for the privilege.

So, is there any reason these families are being singled out and put at risk?  No one involved in the process seems to have an answer, much less a defensible reason for this oversight.  If this feels like being in a long line at the grocery store and being relieved to see a new lane open, only to have the clerk take the guy behind you first, you’re not far off.  Except in this analogy, you not only get stuck at the back of the line, you end up paying for your groceries twice.

Written by Laura Lichter, AILA President

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

To every immigrant, nothing rings more true than the words of the Emma Lazarus Poem engraved on the Statue of Liberty

“Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

And nothing exemplifies the meaning of such words more than the actions taken by the Senate this week in reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). The Senate did the right thing in continuing to protect the most vulnerable members of our society – abused women and children. Now it’s up to the House of Representatives, where Republican leaders still haven’t signaled what they plan to do.

The bill passed the Senate 78 to 22. Among the Senators voted against VAWA reauthorization were Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Chuck Grassley (R-IA), and Marco Rubio (R-FLA). Senators Graham and Rubio are members of the “Gang of Eight” who have offered a bipartisan framework for Comprehensive Immigration Reform.. Sen. Grassley tried to push amendments to VAWA that would have undermined the protections for victims of domestic violence. Thankfully, his harmful amendments did not get into the final bill, but there is a risk they will reappear when the House takes up the measure.

VAWA is a landmark piece of legislation first enacted in 1994 to improve responses to violence against women—including domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault and stalking. It was later reauthorized in 2000 and 2005. VAWA changed the landscape for victims who once suffered in silence. VAWA made it clear that that our society would no longer tolerate crimes of violence against women, children and the elderly. VAWA was scheduled for reauthorization in 2010, yet it took Congress two more years to act.

The 1994 VAWA included provisions to allow immigrant victims of domestic violence to obtain immigration relief independent of their abusive spouse or parent through a process called “self-petitioning.” The Battered Immigrant Women Protection Act of 2000 (VAWA 2000) created new forms of immigration relief for immigrant victims of violent crime – the U visas and victims of sexual assault or trafficking – the T visas. Finally, the Violence Against Women Act of 2005 expanded these protections and included some victims of elder abuse. It is important to note that the 2013 Senate bill does not create any new immigration benefits yet it makes important improvements to the VAWA immigration protections. Some of the noteworthy ones are, for example, preventing children listed in their parent’s U visas applications from “aging-out” – that means protecting them, even if they turn 21 years of age before the application is adjudicated. It also adds “stalking” to the list of crimes covered by the U visa which is a critical law enforcement tool.

The 2013 VAWA Senate bill also provides for vital disclosures regarding any violent criminal histories of sponsoring U.S. fiancé(e)s /spouses and other safeguards to give foreign fiancé(e)s/ spouses of U.S. citizens information they need to protect themselves from entering abusive marriages. Significantly, the 2013 VAWA Senate reauthorization bill strengthens essential services for LGBT victims of domestic violence ensuring that all programs receiving funding from VAWA provide services regardless of a person’s actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity. It explicitly includes the LGBT community in its grant program, which provides funding to care providers who collaborate with prosecution and law enforcement officials to address domestic violence. The bill also establishes a grant program specifically aimed at providing services and outreach to underserved populations, including those who face obstacles to care based on their sexual orientation or gender identity.

The Republican House of Representatives has an opportunity to protect America’s women and children by passing the Senate’s reauthorized VAWA bill. Protection of victims of domestic violence deserves bipartisan support that will ring true to the principles and legacy of our founding fathers – and as President Obama declared in his State of the Union address: “Above all, America must remain a beacon to all who seek freedom during this period of historic change.” This includes the freedom from abuse and fear.

Now is the time to seek bipartisan support for VAWA reauthorization in the House. Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA.) can make history by reauthorizing VAWA so that Lady Liberty may continue to stand tall…

“A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.”

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

“Tough, but fair.” That’s how President Obama described a critical element of any immigration reform plan:  a pathway to citizenship for millions of immigrants now living in the shadows. For these aspiring Americans, many of whom have been caught in our dysfunctional immigration system for more than a decade, a pathway to citizenship will allow them to become full members of our communities.  It’s the right thing to do—for our country, for our economy, and for our communities. And yes, the time IS now, and we cannot afford more partisan bickering and immigrant bashing.

So why is a path to citizenship so critical for reform, and what might “tough but fair” really mean?  Without a path to full inclusion, reform simply won’t work.  Without a path to full inclusion, we will be again left with an underclass in our communities.  The prize of U.S. citizenship comes with serious obligations, yet every day, thousands of would-be Americans come to our shores, sometimes risking life and limb for a chance to become one of “us.”  And why?  Because fairness is one of America’s core values.

Under both the Bipartisan Senate principles and President Obama’s plan, those seeking a path forward would be required to pay a fee and submit to background checks in order to receive a provisional status.  There’s nothing particularly controversial about that—criminal and national security checks are a long-established part of the immigration process and USCIS regularly requires filing fees, whether for a DREAMer requesting deferred action, or a long time resident starting the citizenship process.  And when it comes to keeping our borders safe and secure this illustrates yet another reason why real immigration reform isn’t amnesty, but actually a path to smart immigration enforcement.  Registration and background checks mean we know who’s here and can easily identify—and take action—if someone is a threat to our communities or national security.

But when the roadblocks begin to obstruct the road ahead, that’s when it stops being fair.  The requirement that would-be citizens pay back taxes is fair, but any plan should also recognize that undocumented immigrants already account for more than $11.2 billion dollars in just state and local taxes.  What about Selective Service?  Immigrant youth (males between the ages of 18 and 26) not already long to register, but we know—even before the President’s deferred action initiative—that these undocumented Americans so love this country that they want the right to serve in our military.

The plans call for additional fees and penalties, as well as a requirement that would-be citizens learn English and U.S. civics.  As under current law, under the proposed reform principles five years after receiving a green card, individuals will be eligible to apply for U.S. citizenship like every other legal permanent resident. Ironically, the commitment we would require for a green card is the same or more than we demand from long-term residents seeking naturalization. Many families will manage the financial burden, but for others, it will be out of reach.  That’s not one of our core values, either.

Much has been made about making those who might benefit from a path forward go to the back of the line, to wait until those who “played by the rules” make it through the lengthy and convoluted process.   But it’s our broken system—with decades-long waitlists for green cards—that caused these problems in the first place.  In fact, many of the 11 million who need reform are already “in line.”  Without meaningfully addressing visa backlogs, making someone wait at the end of a line to nowhere makes no sense.

If we’re going to achieve meaningful reform, any path to citizenship must be fair—and that means that it should not contain insurmountable obstacles that will dissuade people from even trying in the first place.  If it’s too tough, then it’s not fair.

What we have yet to see is whether Congress is actually going to work with the President to pursue meaningful reform and common sense workable ideas to fix this mess, or whether this historic opportunity will disintegrate into the same old partisan bickering and gridlock.

Call me an optimist—it’s not a label you will find frequently used by those who work with our immigration laws—but I know we can do this.

As the President said in Las Vegas “Now is the time.”

Written by Laura Lichter, AILA President

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