Hiển thị các bài đăng có nhãn immigrants. Hiển thị tất cả bài đăng
Hiển thị các bài đăng có nhãn immigrants. Hiển thị tất cả bài đăng

Thứ Tư, 8 tháng 5, 2013

Lawmakers split on impact of access to benefits for illegal immigrants in Senate bill

As the Senate prepares to take up comprehensive immigration legislation, one of the most pressing questions is how and when illegal immigrants who set out on the path to citizenship qualify for federal benefits. 

Lawmakers disagree sharply on this front, which could drive debate as they begin formal work on the bill Thursday. 

Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., points out that the proposal says applicants would not qualify for at least 10-13 years -- and would not qualify for another five years after getting a green card, under current law. 

Further, Rubio argues that the proposal has "very specific" rules governing anyone who could be considered a "public charge," or someone who would live off the government dole. 

"If you are a public charge, you don't even qualify for renewal of that temporary status that you're getting," Rubio said. 

But Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., another Republican senator who has emerged as one of the chief critics of the bill, says the law does not properly enforce that provision. 

Sessions told Fox News that the so-called "public charge" law, as currently written, has been "totally ignored" to date. And he argued that many immigrants will be eligible for benefits much sooner than proponents claim -- including the so-called "dreamers," young illegal immigrants brought to the U.S. their parents. 

Sessions said 2-3 million illegal immigrants who claim that status will be able to have access to federal benefits in five years. 

And, he added, eventually "everyone who entered illegally will be able to accept any benefits this country offers." 

After the 15-year waiting period, the number accessing federal benefits could be an additional 10 or 11 million. 

Nevertheless, Rubio insists there will be checks at every stage of the process. 

"When you re-apply at the six-year mark, by the way you're not eligible for any public benefits at that point, you have to prove you're not a public charge," he said. 

A controversial report released earlier this week by the conservative Heritage Foundation estimated that, under the bill, the total cost of legalizing 11 million illegal immigrants could approach $6.3 trillion over the course of their lifetimes. The study factored in taxes those immigrants would pay, but also the services and other benefits that would be spent on them. 

It has come under heavy scrutiny from some conservative economists who say it ignored significant factors - like the possibility of some of these illegal immigrants moving up the income ladder after coming out of the shadows, while expanding the economy and boosting federal tax revenue.
Sessions and other critics are unconvinced. 

"We respect people who want to come to America. We believe that we should accept immigrants," Sessions said. "But we've got to be realistic about the impact." 

As the debate wages on, Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, on Wednesday offered an amendment to end the dispute -- by proposing to let illegal immigrants stay but deny them from ever receiving any "means-tested benefits," or welfare.


View the original article here

Chủ Nhật, 5 tháng 5, 2013

Bill allows for $150M in grants to sign up illegal immigrants to become citizens

A Washington group is criticizing the Senate immigration bill because it allows for up to $150 million for organizations to advertise citizenship opportunities and to help illegal immigrants sign up to become citizens.

The nonpartisan Center for Immigration Services calls the money “slush funds” and earlier this week cited several concerns -- particularly that the money can go to the same groups that helped craft the legislation and that the spending appears to have no cap or oversight.

“It’s virtually a blank check,” Jon Feere, a Center for Immigration Services legal policy analyst, told FoxNews.com. “And the groups that helped draft this bill can now give themselves taxpayer dollars.”

The money is divided into two parts. The first is $100 million in grants to public and private nonprofit groups for programs that help people apply for provisional immigrant status, which includes assistance with completing applications and gathering proof of identification.

The other part is $50 million for additional assistance that includes legal help and public-awareness campaigns that tell illegal immigrants about the “eligibility and benefits of registered immigration status.”

The 844-page bill calls for the grant programs to run through 2018 and be administered by the secretary of Homeland Security through U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.

"Everybody wants to make sure that immigrants assimilate, and our proposal makes sure that they do by mandating that they speak English, pass civic tests and have jobs,” Alex Conant, a spokesman for Florida Republican Sen. Marco Rubio, told FoxNews.com. “This bill is the start of the process, and we welcome suggestions for how it can be improved -- especially when it comes to insuring that taxpayer dollars are not wasted."

Rubio, a Cuban American, is a leader in the bipartisan group of eight senators that drafted the immigration reform legislation, which will impact roughly 11 people now living in the United States illegally.

Though the bill guidelines are specific regarding amounts and which types of groups are eligible, the Center for Immigration Services is also concerned about a provision that leaves open the possibility of addition taxpayer funding and another that says the money can be spent on “any other assistance” considered “useful or necessary.”  

“It seems to me, there’s a need for more guidelines,” Feere said. “Certainly this pro amnesty law is hard. … But one would think there would be volunteers to help immigrants fill out the paperwork.”

His group calls those that helped draft the legislation “pro amnesty lobbyists” and includes such names as La Raza, Casa de Maryland and the American Immigration Lawyers Association.

Sen. Jeff Sessions, an Alabama Republican and critic of the Senate plan, said this week the bipartisan group has “refused” to provide estimates on how their legislation will impact the future migration of immigrants to the United States.

He says conservative estimates show more than 30 million immigrants will be granted legal status in the United States over the next 10 years, though the senators argue their plan “does not significantly increase long-term, annual migration.”

Sessions also argues the estimated 30 million will be able to bring relatives and that the legislation will bring in more low-skilled workers, not high-skilled ones, as the group has projected.


View the original article here

Thứ Sáu, 26 tháng 4, 2013

California bill would let illegal immigrants serve on juries

The California Assembly passed a bill on Thursday that would make the state the first in the nation to allow non-citizens who are in the country legally to serve on jury duty.

Assemblyman Bob Wieckowski, D-Fremont, said his bill, AB1401, would help California widen the pool of prospective jurors and help integrate immigrants into the community.

It does not change other criteria for being eligible to serve on a jury, such as being at least 18, living in the county that is making the summons, and being proficient in English.

The bill passed 45-25 largely on a party-line vote in the Democratic-controlled Assembly and will move on to the Senate. One Democrat — Assemblyman Adam Gray, of Merced — voted no, while some other Democrats did not vote.

Democratic lawmakers who voted for the bill said there is no correlation between being a citizen and a juror, and they noted that there is no citizenship requirement to be an attorney or a judge. Republican lawmakers who opposed Wieckowski's bill called it misguided and premature.

Assemblywoman Diane Harkey, R-Dana Point, said there is no shortage of jurors.

"Jury selection is not the problem. The problem is trial court funding," Harkey said before the vote. "I hope we can focus on that. Let's not break something; it's not broken now. Let's not whittle away at what is reserved for U.S. citizens. There's a reason for it."

Wieckowski's office said the bill is the first of its kind in the nation and suggested that courts regularly struggle to find enough prospective jurors because jury duty is often seen as an inconvenience, if not a burden. His office did not cite any statistics but pointed to a 2003 legislative report that said numerous articles have noted high rates of non-participation.

A 2007 survey by the Center for Jury Studies said 20 percent of courts across the country reported a failure to respond or failure to appear rate of 15 percent or higher. The center is run by the National Center for State Courts, a Virginia-based nonprofit dedicated to improving court systems.

It's not clear, however, if that rate translates to a shortage of jurors in California.

Noting that women were once kept off juries, Assembly Speaker John Perez, D-Los Angeles, said the judicial system should be changed to allow a person to be judged by their peers.

"This isn't about affording someone who would come in as a juror something," Perez said. "But rather understanding that the importance of the jury selection process of affording justice to the person in that courtroom."

An estimated 10 million Californians are summoned for jury duty each year and about 4 million are eligible and available to serve, according to the Judicial Council, which administers the state's court system. About 3.2 million complete the service, meaning they waited in a courthouse assembly room or were placed on call.

In 2010-2011, the most recent year available, only about 165,000 people were sworn in as jurors.

The judicial branch has not taken a position on AB 1401.


View the original article here

Thứ Tư, 3 tháng 4, 2013

A legal immigrant's story

  • 660-Ying-Ma.jpg

The middle-aged woman representing the American Consulate in Guangzhou, China, said something in English. We could not understand, so we turned to her colleague. He looked Chinese and was supposed to be her translator, but he only spoke our language haltingly. My father tried to help with what little English he knew, which consisted of not much more than “how are you” and “thank you.” My brother and I sat quietly and played our part as the well-behaved children of aspiring immigrants to America. My mother looked on nervously.

We lived in China’s third largest city. Chairman Mao had passed away nearly ten years ago but the stench of his failed totalitarian policies was still everywhere. We lived in an apartment that had no running hot water, no refrigerator, no telephone and no modern toilet facilities. 

We applied for immigration to the United States soon after China re-opened its economy to the world in the late 1970s. Now, after about four years of waiting, we had finally gotten to “the front of the line.” But on this day, it was not going to be good enough.

Since we believed that immigrating to America was a privilege, not a right, we did what America asked of us and tried to obtain the impossible.

After a few rounds of back and forth, the Chinese-looking man informed us that we would not be going to America, at least not yet. My mother started crying right on the spot. The middle-aged American woman shifted uncomfortably in her seat.

The Consulate wanted additional proof of my mother’s country of birth—she did not have a birth certificate. Children born in the chaos and poverty of the Third World often did not have the luxury of a birth certificate or the record-keeping habits of holding onto their proof of one.

My mother was born in a dusty and impoverished Indonesian town in the first half of the 20th century. She had disclosed her birthplace when my family first applied for immigration to the United States, and the Consulate accepted the relevant paperwork she provided without raising any objections.

But the Chinese-looking man and his colleague wanted the additional documentation now, and they spoke as if what they sought was easy to obtain. They instructed us to get affidavits from friends and neighbors in Indonesia who could attest to my mother’s place of birth. They were not swayed when we informed them that we knew no one in Indonesia anymore.

My mother left Indonesia for China when she was 10 and escaped one poor country for another. She never returned. 

Now that our family wanted to leave China for America, America would not let us, unless we delivered the affidavits its consular officers demanded. 

Since we believed that immigrating to America was a privilege, not a right, we did what America asked of us and tried to obtain the impossible. 

My mother searched her memory for anyone she could have known who still lived in Indonesia. She sent telegrams to individuals whose names she could barely remember and to addresses she knew were likely no longer valid. 

Our family bought expensive gifts for acquaintances who might travel to Indonesia, begging them to help us find our old friends and neighbors. 

In the end, we found nothing and no one. After each failed attempt—and many times in between, I saw my mother cry quietly in the living room.

Everyone we knew in China wanted to leave for America, and everyone who could leave had already left. 

The backwardness of China’s economy and the lingering cruelty of its policies from decades past were all reasons that fueled our desperation. For my parents, perhaps the biggest reason to leave were their two children, one in elementary school and one in junior high, who barely understood the stakes involved.  

We pursued our fruitless efforts to extract affidavits from Indonesia for months, and seeing that we were getting nowhere, the American Consulate finally relented. We were informed that if my mother could obtain affidavits from her siblings attesting to her birth in Indonesia, then America would consider that to be sufficient proof.

Yet collecting the relevant affidavits from my mother’s siblings turned out not to be trouble-free. Two of her siblings lived in Hong Kong, so we wrote letters beseeching them for their help. They encountered scheduling problems and one had health ailments that kept her from attending to our request. A simple task that could have taken a few weeks dragged on for about nine months.

We waited, wondering if our wait would ever end.

It did end, and after what appeared to be an eternity. When the affidavits were finally signed and delivered to the Consulate,. America in turn granted its formal approval of our immigration application, and we rushed to meet her, excitedly and legally.

This was how my family came to America. 

We did not disrespect U.S. borders, even though our dreams for a better life were no less desperate than many of those who are now illegally in this country. 

Instead, we waited, filled out every form and followed every rule. 

We did not believe that we should show up here illegally, and then once we were here long enough, demand that America grant us legal status or even citizenship-- simply because we were already here and too many others have come here illegally just like us. 

We could not have known that we would have a U.S. president who likes to dole out government goodies to win an election, even when one of those goodies include is the precious commodity of the right to live and work in the United States. 

We could not have expected that the Republican Party would fold like a cheap deck of cards as soon as they saw the cost of not engaging in the same type of racial pandering and political giveaway. 

We certainly did not think that we were entitled to the generosity and kindness of the American people, who simply do not have the stomach to break up families and deport millions of people who had violated U.S. laws. 

So, we chose the path that we chose.

In the years since our arrival in America, after we became U.S. citizens, we attempted to bring to America my aunt in China whom we loved dearly. By then, the immigration lines for family reunification had grown much longer, and the wait for my aunt—from application to approval—would last take over ten years. 

We waited again, as America had told us to, but this time, it indeed would not be good enough. With just a few years left in the immigration lines, my aunt, an able-bodied woman in her forties, passed away after a short battle with cancer. 

Before she fell ill, she had the resources to travel to America and overstay her visa. She did not—and we would not have let her—because it was against America’s immigration laws. 

So we waited for the happy day when she would finally joined us here in the United States. That day never came. We ran out of time, and America’s illegal immigration population grew.  

We could have made a different set of choices, but having made the choices that we did, we certainly would not accuse those who believe in enforcing the country’s immigration laws of  being anti-immigrant or anti-Hispanic. We can only hope that policymakers in Washington would not view protecting U.S. borders as a quaint notion that is no longer worthy of a robust defense.

Ying Ma is a policy advisor at the Heartland Institute and the author of "Chinese Girl in the Ghetto." Her website is yingma.org. Follow her on Twitter @GZtoGhetto.


View the original article here

Thứ Sáu, 1 tháng 3, 2013

Thousands of illegal immigrants already released, according to report

Thousands of illegal immigrants ticketed for deportation have been released from federal detention centers in recent weeks, according to a report that came out even as the White House and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano denied any involvement in the policy.

Plans to release illegal immigrants in anticipation of looming budget cuts were announced earlier this week, but the report by The Associated Press detailed the policy had already taken effect and on a much larger scale. Citing federal documents, the agency said more than 2,000 illegal immigrants facing deportation had been released from immigration jails and plans exist to release 3,000 more people by the end of the month.

The newly disclosed figures are significantly higher than what the Obama administration acknowledged this week as a "few hundred" who were released without the White House’s direct knowledge. And on Friday, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, whose agency oversaw the move, said the decision to release illegal immigrants was made “in the field,” and without her knowledge.

Republicans in Congress, already critical of the plan to release illegal immigrants, demanded details, including the number of illegal immigrants released and the nature of any criminal charges they were facing as part of the deportation process.

"Simply blaming budget reductions as a means to turn a blind eye toward the national security of the American people is a dangerous plan, and one that calls into question the department's preparations for sequestration," wrote two Republican lawmakers, Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa and Rep. Bob Goodlatte of Virginia, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.

The budget documents obtained by the AP show that Immigrations and Customs Enforcement released roughly 1,000 illegal immigrants from its jails around the U.S. each week since at least Feb. 15. The agency's field offices have reported more than 2,000 released before intense criticism this week led to a temporary shutdown of the plan.

Napolitano claimed Thursday that she had no part in her department’s decision to release low-risk detainees as a way to deal with the sequestration cuts that take effect today.

“Detainee populations and how that is managed back and forth is really handled by career officials in the field,” she told ABC News.

The states where immigrants were released include Arizona, California, Georgia and Texas.

The White House has said it was not consulted about the releases, and Napolitano has acknowledged they occurred in a manner she regrets.

White House spokesman Jay Carney on Wednesday said the government had released "a few hundred" of the roughly 30,000 illegal immigrants held in federal detention pending deportation proceedings. Carney said the immigrants released were "low-risk, noncriminal detainees," and the decision was made by career ICE officials.
  
As of last week, the agency held an average daily population of 30,733 in its jails. The internal budget documents reviewed by the AP show the Obama administration had intended to reduce those figures to 25,748 by March 31.
  
The White House did not comment immediately Friday on the higher number of immigrants released.
  
ICE spokesman Brian Hale said Friday the numbers of immigration detainees fluctuate daily, but he reiterated only several hundred illegal immigrants had been released.

"Beyond that normal movement, and as fiscal uncertainty remains over the continuing resolution and possible sequestration, ICE reviewed its detained population to ensure detention levels stay within ICE's current budget and placed several hundred individuals on methods of supervision less costly than detention," Hale said in a statement. "At this point, we don't anticipate additional releases, but that could change."

The immigrants who were released still eventually face deportation and are required to appear for upcoming court hearings. But they are no longer confined in immigration jails, where advocacy experts say they cost about $164 per day per person. Immigrants who are granted supervised release -- with conditions that can include mandatory check-ins, home visits and GPS devices -- cost the government from 30 cents to $14 a day, according to the National Immigration Forum, a group that advocates on behalf of immigrants.

The senior Homeland Security Department official in charge of arresting and deporting illegal immigrants announced his retirement to his staff on Tuesday, the same day the administration first openly confirmed the release of what it called several hundred immigrants. The executive associate director over ICE enforcement and removal operations, Gary Mead, told his staff he was leaving his job with mixed emotions. A career law enforcement officer, Mead will leave at the end of April.

After AP reported on Mead's retirement, ICE spokeswoman Gillian Christensen said his decision was not related to criticism over the jail releases and said Mead had notified the agency's senior leaders "several weeks ago" that he intended to leave. She also called AP's reporting about Mead's departure "inaccurate and misleading." On Thursday, ICE corrected her statement to say that Mead has notified his bosses "more than a week ago," not several weeks ago.

The later government statement also criticized AP's reporting as "ill-informed, inaccurate information" and complained that AP had failed to contact the agency before publishing what it called a "misguided headline," although the AP had noted its unsuccessful efforts to contact Mead directly by telephone and email.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.


View the original article here

Thousands of illegal immigrants already released, according to report

Thousands of illegal immigrants ticketed for deportation have been released from federal detention centers in recent weeks, according to a report that came out even as the White House and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano denied any involvement in the policy.

Plans to release illegal immigrants in anticipation of looming budget cuts were announced earlier this week, but the report by The Associated Press detailed the policy had already taken effect and on a much larger scale. Citing federal documents, the agency said more than 2,000 illegal immigrants facing deportation had been released from immigration jails and plans exist to release 3,000 more people by the end of the month.

The newly disclosed figures are significantly higher than what the Obama administration acknowledged this week as a "few hundred" who were released without the White House’s direct knowledge. And on Friday, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, whose agency oversaw the move, said the decision to release illegal immigrants was made “in the field,” and without her knowledge.

Republicans in Congress, already critical of the plan to release illegal immigrants, demanded details, including the number of illegal immigrants released and the nature of any criminal charges they were facing as part of the deportation process.

"Simply blaming budget reductions as a means to turn a blind eye toward the national security of the American people is a dangerous plan, and one that calls into question the department's preparations for sequestration," wrote two Republican lawmakers, Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa and Rep. Bob Goodlatte of Virginia, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.

The budget documents obtained by the AP show that Immigrations and Customs Enforcement released roughly 1,000 illegal immigrants from its jails around the U.S. each week since at least Feb. 15. The agency's field offices have reported more than 2,000 released before intense criticism this week led to a temporary shutdown of the plan.

Napolitano claimed Thursday that she had no part in her department’s decision to release low-risk detainees as a way to deal with the sequestration cuts that take effect today.

“Detainee populations and how that is managed back and forth is really handled by career officials in the field,” she told ABC News.

The states where immigrants were released include Arizona, California, Georgia and Texas.

The White House has said it was not consulted about the releases, and Napolitano has acknowledged they occurred in a manner she regrets.

White House spokesman Jay Carney on Wednesday said the government had released "a few hundred" of the roughly 30,000 illegal immigrants held in federal detention pending deportation proceedings. Carney said the immigrants released were "low-risk, noncriminal detainees," and the decision was made by career ICE officials.
  
As of last week, the agency held an average daily population of 30,733 in its jails. The internal budget documents reviewed by the AP show the Obama administration had intended to reduce those figures to 25,748 by March 31.
  
The White House did not comment immediately Friday on the higher number of immigrants released.
  
ICE spokesman Brian Hale said Friday the numbers of immigration detainees fluctuate daily, but he reiterated only several hundred illegal immigrants had been released.

"Beyond that normal movement, and as fiscal uncertainty remains over the continuing resolution and possible sequestration, ICE reviewed its detained population to ensure detention levels stay within ICE's current budget and placed several hundred individuals on methods of supervision less costly than detention," Hale said in a statement. "At this point, we don't anticipate additional releases, but that could change."

The immigrants who were released still eventually face deportation and are required to appear for upcoming court hearings. But they are no longer confined in immigration jails, where advocacy experts say they cost about $164 per day per person. Immigrants who are granted supervised release -- with conditions that can include mandatory check-ins, home visits and GPS devices -- cost the government from 30 cents to $14 a day, according to the National Immigration Forum, a group that advocates on behalf of immigrants.

The senior Homeland Security Department official in charge of arresting and deporting illegal immigrants announced his retirement to his staff on Tuesday, the same day the administration first openly confirmed the release of what it called several hundred immigrants. The executive associate director over ICE enforcement and removal operations, Gary Mead, told his staff he was leaving his job with mixed emotions. A career law enforcement officer, Mead will leave at the end of April.

After AP reported on Mead's retirement, ICE spokeswoman Gillian Christensen said his decision was not related to criticism over the jail releases and said Mead had notified the agency's senior leaders "several weeks ago" that he intended to leave. She also called AP's reporting about Mead's departure "inaccurate and misleading." On Thursday, ICE corrected her statement to say that Mead has notified his bosses "more than a week ago," not several weeks ago.

The later government statement also criticized AP's reporting as "ill-informed, inaccurate information" and complained that AP had failed to contact the agency before publishing what it called a "misguided headline," although the AP had noted its unsuccessful efforts to contact Mead directly by telephone and email.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.


View the original article here