(Credit: Newscom)

In a post-vote press conference, Sessions said, “The political consultants and pollsters and people (managing the bill) … anticipated everything that was going to occur…they planned on careful attacks to neutralize critics.” The crux of Sessions’ argument was that the Obama administration was not doing enough for border security. Yet, the bill would expand on enforcing a photographic biometric system that would track entries and exits. He also made a last attempt to use the cost of immigration reform to strongly rebuke his fellow Republicans from approving the measure. He cited the $6.3 trillion figure that the Heritage Foundation had used in its findings done in part by the widely-criticized author Jason Richwine.

What Sessions calls ‘careful attacks’ are actually bipartisan studies outlining the economic benefit of immigration reform. Those in support of it include the pro-immigration legislation findings commissioned by Sen. Rubio (R-FL) and anti-tax conservative Grover Norquist’s group Americans for Tax Reform. The conclusion drawn by vast majority of bipartisan groups commissioned steadfastly remain that costs associated with legalization would actually be mitigated by the long-term monetary contribution of undocumented immigrants over a ten-year period.

(Credit: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

Over five days of intensive and sometimes emotional debate, the Senate Judiciary Committee passed the first hurdle of advancing the immigration legislation by reaching a 13-5 vote on Tuesday night, with Sens. Lindsay Graham (R-SC), Orrin Hatch (R-UT), and Jeff Flake (R-AZ) siding with the Democrats who voted unanimously. The measure will move to floor debate in June.

Of the 161 amendments offered during markup, the panel accepted numerous provisions to strengthen the bill, while keeping out any poison pills that could endanger the legislation. Below is a list of how the Senate Judiciary Committee improved immigration reform:

1. Racial profiling serves as a disincentive to prosecute an individual. Blumenthal 10 would prohibit federal government from reimbursing local detentions and prosecutions that were found to have come through racial profiling.

2. Children would be treated humanely. The Committee unanimously approved Franken 7, which provides a range of protections for children separated from their parents or guardians who are being deported. Hirono 22, as amended, would protect children trafficking victims by making sure that all unaccompanied children are provided care by the Office of Refugee Resettlement within three days of their apprehension while Feinstein 6 would allow children to receive both emergency and adequate medical and mental health care and basic necessities like food and bedding. Coons 2 will also limit dangerous deportation practices like dropping people off in the middle of the night.

4. Back taxes and penalties can be paid in an installment plan. Undocumented immigrants have to pay fines and back taxes before achieving legal status. Hirono 12 allows those fines to be paid in installments.

5. An expedited path to citizenship offered through military service.
Blumenthal 12 will allow an expedited path to citizenship for DREAMers who want to join the military. This amendment will allow individuals in temporary legal status to apply for naturalization after they have honorably served in the military.

6. Federal aid for DREAMers. Hirono 21 would allow DREAMers to access some student loans and federal work study programs. They would not be eligible for Pell grants, however.

7. Streamlining E-Verify so that employers and employees can have assurance of its accuracy. The Senate bill requires employers to use E-Verify and three key amendments help address privacy concerns associated with the system’s accuracy. Blumenthal 18 prohibits employers from withholding employment-relevant records from employees. Coons 1 requires the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to put in place a system that would allow employees to know whether they have been confirmed or denied by the E-Verify system. Franken 2 also requires a study of accuracy rates.

8. Humane treatment for detained immigrants. Blumenthal 2 limits ICE’s policy of using solitary confinement and explicitly prohibits the use of solitary confinement to “protect” a detainee based on their sexual orientation or gender identity.

9. More visas for sub-Saharan Africa and Caribbean countries. Responding to concerns from the African American community, who feared that the loss of the diversity visa program would impact immigration from African and Caribbean countries, Schumer 3 adds 10,000 nonimmigrant E Visas for certain nations in sub-Saharan Africa and Caribbean countries.

(Source: CSPAN)

The vote came following an emotional debate over a pro-LGBT provision that would have recognized, for purposes of immigration, married same-sex couples. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) withdrew the amendement after Republican senators, including members of the so-called Gang of 8, signaled that they would abandon the underlining bill if it was included. “If you redefine marriage for immigration purposes [by the amendment], the bill would fall apart because the coalition would fall apart,” Graham said. “It would be a bridge too far.”

“I do not believe we should ask Americans to choose between the love of their life and love of their country,” Leahy explained. “So, with a heavy heart, and as a result of my conclusion that Republicans will kill this vital legislation if this anti-discrimination amendment is added, I will withhold calling for a vote on it at this time.”

The full Senate is expected to debate the bill on the floor next month. Earlier on Tuesday, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) pledged to “vote for the motion to proceed so we can get on the bill and see if it we’re able to pass a bill that actually moves the ball in the right direction.”

(Credit: Getty Images)

The intent of the amendment served as a response to the recent Boston Marathon Bombings in which the suspect Tamerlan Tsarnaev purportedly received terrorist training when he went to Russia and Dagestan even though he was granted asylum status in 2002. Asylees and refugees may have legitimate reasons for returning to their countries, but instead of judging each case individually, the automatic prohibition would broadly disregard those excuses. The repercussions of the amendment may curtail asylees and refugees from traveling abroad altogether.

The committee also approved an amendment inspired by the failure of the immigration system to catch the Boston bombings offered by Sen. Grassley (R-IA) last week, in which foreign students would be more heavily scrutinized when they change their immigration status.

A significant point of contention in the immigration reform legislation currently undergoing mark-up in the Senate Judiciary Committee is whether individuals in binational same-sex couples should have the same right to sponsor their partners for citizenship as opposite-sex couples already enjoy. Because of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), the federal government does not recognize same-sex marriages and thus extends those couples no immigration benefits. Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) has been adamant about adding these protections to the bill through amendment versions of his Uniting American Families Act (UAFA), but Republicans like Sens. Marco Rubio (FL) and Lindsey Graham (SC) have made it clear the protections are a deal-breaker for reform.

Committee mark-up is nearing its end this week and Leahy’s amendments have still not been introduced. Sources suggest that President Obama encouraged Leahy not to introduce these amendments in committee, but save them for introduction on the floor of the full Senate. Obama has said publicly he believes that including protections for same-sex couples is the right thing to do, but UAFA would likely face an even bigger hurdle on the Senate floor than it would if included with the bill in committee.

Despite Republicans’ threats to let the inclusion of same-sex families derail the entire bill, several of the major conservative groups that support the bill also back UAFA’s protections. Some, like The DOMA Project’s Lavi Soloway, have called out Senate Democrats on the committee for caving to these threats rather than defend the gay community’s inclusion on principle. United Methodist Church Bishop Minerva G. Carcaño has suggested that any Senator willing to walk away from the bill over the inclusion of LGBT families “should be ashamed of themselves.”  In contrast, blogger Bil Browning argues that immigration reform is too important for all LGBT immigrants to worry about specific protections for couples. The legislation does contain some provisions that will especially help LGBT people, including a protection that people cannot be targeted for solitary confinement because of their sexual orientation or gender identity.

Nevertheless, the absence of UAFA would limit gay, lesbian, and bisexual immigrants to one less path on the roadmap to citizenship. Should the Supreme Court overturn Section 3 of DOMA next month, however, the federal government may be able to recognize same-sex couples for immigration purposes.

There are estimated to be at least twenty-four thousand binational same-sex couples in the United States and many will undoubtedly be helped by the bill’s legalization provisions. Countless stories of these families being separated by deportation have permeated the media over the past few years. Republicans are insisting that this should remain the status quo, and it seems they might just have the political leverage to keep it that way.

Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT)

One of Lee’s amendment would re-insert back into law “the criminal offense of knowing use of a fraudulent immigration document,” could severely impact the number of people who can apply for RPI status. Another amendment would “make attempted misuse of a passport a criminal offense” and could potentially misidentify undocumented immigrants as national security threats. The current undocumented population makes up about five percent of the workforce and about three-quarters of “other-than-legal immigrants [who] pay payroll taxes.”

Lee’s amendments would make it a federal offense for workers to continue using false Social Security numbers, but it could potentially hurt the chances of current undocumented immigrants who do not know that they have secured Social Security numbers under false pretenses, like undocumented teenagers whose parents do not tell them of their status. Many undocumented immigrants use fake documents to find employment, but they are paying around $8.1 billion a year into the earnings suspense file of the Social Security Trust Fund. According to some studies, undocumented immigrants are keeping the trust fund solvent because they are unable to withdraw from those accounts.

Criminalizing undocumented immigrants who are contributing to the tax system would not only prevent them from gaining provisional status, but it also has the implications of delaying the legalization process by subjecting them to extensive scrutiny.

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA)

Grassley defended his amendment by asking, “what does country of origin have anything to do with profiling?” In response, Gang Of Eight member Sen. Dick Durbin (D-ILL) tore down Grassley’s definition of racial profiling, explaining that the language in the bill is a necessary protection and even the same practice embraced by Bush administration officials:

DURBIN: Senator Grassley, let me say two or three things about this. First, there is no mention of country of origin in the language of this bill. We specifically do not mention country of origin and that was the basis of your argument. And so I’d ask you and your staff to take another look at it. We do not raise that issue. Number two, the language –
[...]

GRASSLEY: Why then don’t you mention it as — so that it’s –

DURBIN: Because what we’ve done is specify that you cannot use race or ethnicity. Now, how did we come up with race or ethnicity? This was the standard established –

GRASSLEY: I’m not arguing that point I think you’re right by including that in the bill. But what does country of origin have anything to do with profiling?

DURBIN: It’s not mentioned nor religion. Why did we pick race and ethnicity? Those were the standards were established by Attorney General John Ashcroft in 2003. We took the Ashcroft profiling guidance, issued by this Department of Justice, and embodied it in this. It is not a radical departure from past practice. In fact, it embodies the practice of former conservative Republican attorney general under a Republican president.

Durbin went on to recount examples of African-American and Hispanic women facing strip searches at airports far more often than white passengers. “The GAO did a finding on it, an investigation: African-Americans were twice as likely — pardon me, nine times as likely, Hispanic Americans were nearly four times as likely, as white passengers to be strip searched,” Durbin said. “And there were no — there was no evidence of contraband in those groups that were being strip searched. This was clearly a waste of effort and embarrassing and insulting exercise of authority.”

Grassley’s amendment, which was slammed by immigration advocates, was defeated by a voice vote.

The letter to Congress sent by Crane and NCISC president Kenneth Palinkas detail the dissatisfaction of deportation officials with what they perceive to be a rushed demand to approve legal status of applicants. In breaking with pro-immigration reform AFL-CIO, parent company of NCISC, Palinkas said that his officers were “pressured to rubber stamp applications instead of conducting diligent case review and investigation.”

Crane wrote, “U.S taxpayers are currently tasked with absorbing…the strain put on our Social Security system that has been depleted by an onslaught of refugees receiving SSI benefits as soon as their feet touch U.S. soil.” Mainstream economists have disparaged the characterization that immigrants are moochers, and instead have noted that immigrants are keeping the Social Security Trust Fund solvent.

He also wrote, “Currently, USCIS reports a 99.5 percent approval rating for all illegal alien applications for legal status filed under the Obama Administration’s new Deferred Action For Childhood Arrivals (DACA) policies.” However, as of the latest April statistics, DACA approval rating operated at 57 percent.

Crane has worked with or appeared alongside nativist groups and immigration restrictionists, including Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach and the Heritage Foundation, which is embroiled in a racism scandal. At a mid-May Tea Party sponsored tele-town hall conference with Heritage VP Derrick Morgan, Crane called the immigration reform bill “blanket amnesty” which would “provide a path to citizenship for the most criminal street gang…. all they have to do is make a claim that they’re going to renounce their gang affiliation. We know that all of these members are going to renounce their affiliation and continue their gang activity.”

Last week, the bipartisan immigration reform bill survived its second week of Senate Judiciary Committee markups largely intact and faithful to the “Gang of 8’s” core principals, which would provide a pathway to earned citizenship for the 11 million undocumented immigrants in America.  Today, the Committee will debate proposed amendments to Title III of the bill, which will address interior enforcement of immigration laws, including asylum procedures, indefinite detention, and solitary confinement.  Here’s a rundown of what some upcoming amendments mean for LGBT immigrants:

Asylum

Homosexuality is currently a crime in 78 countries around the world.  The right to seek asylum from persecution is a core right necessary to protect LGBT people around the world from persecution.  Unfortunately, a major obstacle to LGBT immigrants availing themselves of asylum in the United States is a bureaucratic one.   Under the current law, asylum seekers are required to file an asylum application within one year of entering the U.S.  Currently, under the one-year filing deadline, refugees with credible claims are denied asylum simply because of a bureaucratic technicality.  The elimination of the one-year filing deadline is particularly important for LGBT asylum seekers, who often miss the one-year deadline because they either do not know that sexual orientation or gender-based persecution are grounds for seeking asylum or do not feel safe disclosing their LGBT status to U.S. government officials within a year of arriving in the United States.

The Bill currently would end the one-year filing deadline, but Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) has proposed two amendments that would compromise this improvement:

• Grassley’s amendment 27 would completely remove the language ending the one-year filing deadline.
• Grassley’s amendment 52 would substantially delay the elimination of the one-year filing deadline for asylum applications.

Indefinite Detention and Solitary Confinement

Immigrants in detention, including asylum seekers, are locked up in jail-like facilities, separated from their families and communities.   LGBT detainees often experience increased rates of discrimination, mistreatment and abuse both at the hands of fellow detainees and by guards.  Furthermore, a New York Times story this spring found that prolonged solitary confinement has been used on LGBT detainees under the guise of protecting them.  Some upcoming amendments improve the situation of LGBT immigrants in detention facilities, while others place them at greater risk of harm:

• Sen. Richard Blumenthal’s (D-CT) amendment 2 would prohibit the use of solitary confinement based on sexual orientation and gender identity and stop ICE from using solitary confinement for “protection” of detainees.
• Despite Constitutional precedent prohibiting the indefinite detention of immigrants, Grassley amendment 53 requiring the indefinite detention of immigrants who cannot be deported, without even the basic protection of a bond hearing to determine if they should be detained in the first place.  His amendment would also require the prolonged detention of arriving asylum seekers, including people seeking protection in the US from persecution on account of their sexual or gender identity.
• Grassley 51 would eliminate the bill’s expansion of alternatives to detention.  Alternatives to detention seek to make detention less restrictive and less costly for immigrants who have no criminal background and do not pose a flight risk.  For LGBT detainees, who have historically faced unsafe conditions in traditional detention facilities, alternatives offer a way to remain in their support communities while awaiting the outcome of their cases.
• Senator Jeff Session’s (R-AL) amendment 5 would impose a mandatory 60-day sentence of imprisonment for any immigrant who overstays his or her visa unless the person can be removed within 90 days.  Not only would the amendment require incarceration with no determination of an immigrant’s actual risk to public safety, it would also subject some asylum seekers and Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals to mandatory imprisonment.

(Credit: Joe Raedle/Getty Images)

On Friday, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) released the latest DACA statistics for April 2013. Overall, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has granted deferred action to 57 percent or 291,859 applicants of the 515,922 applications, which can be seen in the adapted chart:

(Credit: USCIS, adapted)

In the month of April alone, an additional 23,498 applicants have been approved for work authorization, up from March 2013. Applicants from Mexico still lead the top number of individuals applying for DACA, with Central American countries and South Korea trailing behind.

In recent letters sent to Congress, president of the ICE union Chris Crane stated that 99.5 percent of all DACA applications have been approved. In fact, 96 percent or 497,960 requests of applications have been accepted to move on to the “lockbox” stage in which applications are screened, processed, and decided upon. But these are separate from applicants who have been accepted and granted work authorization.

The economic benefits of legal status have been intensely studied by numerous bipartisan groups, most recently by Robert Lynch and Patrick Oakford of the Center of American Progress, which issued a report on the state-by-state breakdown of the positive economic benefits of 24 states in which 88 percent of undocumented immigrants reside.

The number of DACA applicants closely parallel the states that stand to gain the most from granting legal status to undocumented immigrants. Of the estimated 2.5 million undocumented immigrants in California, over 87,000 DACA applicants have been approved for work authorization and are presumably on their way to contributing to the $68 billion that all Californian state residents seeks to gain from legalization over a ten-year period. This deferral will allow young immigrants to boost their standard of living and also increase their tax contributions. If passed, the Senate immigration bill would allow the 2.1 million so-called DREAMers to contribute $329 billion to the economy, which includes the creation of 1.4 million jobs.

Jason Richwine. (Credit: The Heritage Foundation.)

Harvard students delivered a petition last week demanding an investigation into how a thesis built on those views and assumptions was able to make it through the approval process in the first place. “Academic freedom and a reasoned debate are essential to our academic community,’’ the petition read. “However, the Harvard Kennedy School cannot ethically stand behind academic work advocating a national policy of exclusion and advancing an agenda of discrimination.” As of last Wednesday, May 15 the students had collected 1,200 signatures.

Several days ago, 24 student groups at Harvard wrote a letter condeming the university’s approval of Richwine’s dissertation, saying it “debases” all their degrees.

Richwine himself hit back at the students on Friday, suggesting their demands were an attack on free speech and academic inquiry. David Ellwood, the dean of the Kennedy School, defended the committee that accepted Richwine’s thesis as “highly respected and discerning.” George Borjas, one of the members of that committee, characterized Richwine’s work as “sound.” Borjas himself previously lent his pen to arguments against immigration on economic grounds.

Meanwhile, recently completed research failed to find an identifiable racial gap in IQ, and the entire assumption that race is a stable and reliable biological category suffers from its own problems. Even using IQ as a measure of intelligence often fails to acknowledge that what we mean by “intelligence” is itself dependent on historical and social context, and buffeted by a wide array of structural forces.

The Governor’s disagreement with the DACA program may be a rational political or policy view in the broad sense – reasonable people certainly can disagree on an issue as complex and difficult as immigration – but it provides no justification for saying that an Arizona driver’s license may be issued to one person who has been permitted to remain temporarily in the country on deferred action status – say for an individual humanitarian reason – while another person who has been permitted to remain temporarily in the country on deferred action status under the DACA program is denied a license. … The Governor’s political disagreement with the DACA program as “backdoor amnesty” does not change the fact that both individuals have been allowed by the federal government to live and work here, nor does it identify a reason that one of the individuals presents less of a driver’s-license-related risk to the State.

The DACA program was intended to give young undocumented immigrants access to legal employment while they remain in the country, but depriving these beneficiaries of driver’s licenses of and other basic government services imposes major obstacles to achieving that goal. This hostility toward federal immigration policy should come as no surprise from the state that brought us SB 1070 and other discriminatory immigration laws, many parts of which have already been struck down by courts.

In opting not to block Brewer’s policy pending trial, Judge Campbell reasoned that the plaintiffs were not suffering irreparable harm, because most of them either continued to drive without a license out of necessity, or had other means of transportation. But this does not mitigate the risk that these immigrants incur every day they drive without a license, nor the public safety risks and hundreds of millions of dollars in insurance claims costs imposed by uninsured drivers. These factors will likely be a consideration in a final ruling by Campbell, and he appears poised to find Arizona’s policy a violation of the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause. Campbell also rejected the state’s motion to dismiss the case.

Since last November’s Presidential election, immigration reform with a road map to citizenship for the 11 million unauthorized immigrants living in the country has been gaining momentum. On April 16 the bipartisan Senate “Gang of 8″ introduced their immigration bill, and diverse groups such as organized labor, evangelical Christians, and business leaders have lent their support for reform.

Just last month, the board of the Sierra Club, the oldest environmental organization in the United States voted to add their voice to the movement, officially supporting immigration reform, including a pathway to citizenship. In doing so they joined other well-known environmental leaders like Bill McKibben and Van Jones.

Immigration reform and environmental protection are progressive issues that are in alignment, as the Sierra Club’s support illustrates: immigrants are affected by climate change and care about the environment, and the environmental movement is in turn strengthened by the inclusion of immigrant voices.

Here are the top five things you need to know about immigrants and the environment:

1. Immigrants are already a part of the environmental movement. Immigrants and people of color have long been key players in the environmental justice movement, which has been fighting back against environmental injustice that has disproportionately affected communities of color and low-income communities. Environmental justice organizations, for example, often speak out against polluting and toxic businesses, like power plants and fuel tank facilities that are sited in or near communities of color. But while immigrants have been active in the more localized environmental justice movement, they need to have a larger role in the overall environmental movement which has all too often been criticized for a lack of diversity. In a recent Grist post, One America board member Sudha Nandagopal wrote, “… we don’t just need to add diverse faces to the crowds at environmental protests. We need inclusive strategies and a diversity of ideas. Communities of color must be equitable partners in identifying problems, crafting solutions, and pushing for change.”
2. Immigrants have a big stake in the health of the planet. Historically, immigrants and people of color have borne a greater share of environmental burdens in their communities and at their jobs. According to the Sierra Club, 43 percent of Latino voters either live or work near a toxic site (such as a power plant, refinery, highway or factory.) This figure has increased by close to 10 percent since 2008, showing a dangerous uptick in the number of Latinos potentially exposed to dangerous environmental conditions, and the need among this community for a cleaner, healthier planet.
3. Immigrants tend to lead low-carbon lifestyles. More than half of all immigrants live in large metropolitan areas, which have some of the lowest per capita emissions in the U.S. In fact, CAP analysis has found that cities with the lowest carbon footprint had an average immigrant population of 26 percent, while the 10 highest per-capita carbon emitting cities have an average immigrant population below 5 percent. In addition to living in big cities, immigrants are almost three times more likely to take public transportation and nearly two times more likely to carpool than native-born residents.
4. Immigrants are helping to drive the green economy. Immigrants are leading new businesses in the green and high-tech industries, having launched 40 percent of publicly traded, venture-backed companies and nearly half of private, venture-backed startups. Additionally, immigrants occupy many “green-collar” jobs (blue-collar jobs in the green goods and services industry) and use their skills to advance energy efficiency, clean energy and sustainability. Green-collar employment includes jobs in wind turbine manufacturing, solar power project construction, home weatherization, solar panel installation, etc.
5. Immigrants support environmental policies. A recent poll found that 7 out of 10 Latino voters support environmental protections while 9 out of 10 feel a sense of “moral responsibility” when it comes to protecting the environment. A similar study of Asian American voters in California found that 3 out of 4 are extremely or very concerned about environmental issues, and 7 out of 10 believe that environmental regulations “provide an important benefit to society and protect health, air and water.” Immigrants from Latin American and Asian countries represent more than 60 percent (over 24 million residents) of the U.S. foreign-born population and these polls indicate that they can be strong advocates for environmental protections.

In coming out in support of immigration reform, Sierra Club President Allison Chin stated, “By establishing an equitable path to citizenship for the 11 million undocumented immigrants living in America today, we can empower those in our society who are most vulnerable to toxic pollution to fully participate in our democracy, fight back against polluters and demand public health protections and clean energy solutions.” The intersection of environmentalism and immigration reform will continue to benefit and strengthen both movements.

(Credit: AP)

Once they attain legal status, immigrants will be able to contribute to the increased consumption of goods and services that boosts business sales and raises the earnings of all Americans. They will pay taxes on their higher wages and increase the gross state product (GSP). Additionally, immigrants will be able to use their new legal status by integrating their skill set and education into creating jobs and raising productivity.

Opponents of a pathway to citizenship have offered numerous “poison pill” amendments that could undermine reform and jeopardize passage of the bipartisan bill making its way through the senate. The House of Representatives has a number of lawmakers working against it, as well. Here are several of the states that would benefit from legalization, which are represented by vocal opponents or Republican leaders:

Arizona: Gov. Jan Brewer

– Undocumented immigrant population: 400,000
– Cumulative increase in GSP: $23,100,000,000
– Cumulative increase in earnings of all state residents: $15,300,000,000
– Average number of jobs created annually: 3,400

Pennsylvania: Rep. Lou Barletta

– Undocumented immigrant population: 160,000
– Cumulative increase in GSP: $14,800,000,000
– Cumulative increase in earnings of all state residents: $9,300,000,000
– Average number of jobs created annually: 2,100

Texas: Sens. John Cornyn, Ted Cruz

– Undocumented immigrant population: 1,600,000
– Cumulative increase in GSP: $144,600,000,000
– Cumulative increase in earnings of all state residents: $74,700,000,000
– Average number of jobs created annually: 21,000

Utah: Sen. Mike Lee

– Undocumented immigrant population: 110,000
– Cumulative increase in GSP: $8,600,000,000
– Cumulative increase in earnings of all state residents: $4,600,000,000
– Average number of jobs created annually: 1,200

Nationally, immigration reform will generate $832 billion in GDP, create 121,000 new jobs, and increase the personal income of all Americans by $470 billion, the report finds. Americans stand to gain more from immigration reform since immigrants could pay upwards of $184 million in tax revenue.

Hours before the Thursday announcement, there were still tense negotiations that the House bill would fall apart. Among the major issues for contention was the funding costs associated with immigrant health care that Republicans insisted did not come from taxpayer money, for which Rep. Raul Labrador (R-ID) was the last holdout. He is a major stakeholder in the House Gang of Eight “because he represents Majority Leader Eric Cantor’s interests.” One of the more partisan hurdles that both groups worked through was that Republican members insisted on making the E-Verify system universal and checking in at the five-year mark. If E-Verify was not put in place by then, then the legalization program would end.

Because the bipartisan House group has been more fractured in its compromise than Senate immigration bill negotiators, this agreement represents a significant change of bipartisan effort to overhaul the immigration system. Carter, a member of the group, has been a strong opponent to immigration legislation such as the Dream Act bill of 2010 that fell five votes short of passage, but a vocal advocate for the controversial Arizona’s ability to check an individual’s immigration status.

(Credit: AP)

A top anti-immigration advocate referred to Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) using a homophobic slur during an appearance on the Laura Ingraham radio show on Thursday.

Mark Krikorian, the Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies, argued that Rubio is critical to building Republican support for reform, but is either misleading lawmakers about the bill or is unaware of the provisions included in the measure.

“Without Rubio, there is no bill, I mean, it just can’t happen,” Krikorian said, “because Rubio’s job basically was to be the beard for this bill.” The phrase “beard” became popularized in the 1960s to describe a woman helping a man hide his homosexuality.

The Center for Immigration Studies was established by John Tanton, a strict a nativist who once wrote a paper titled “The Case for Passive Eugenics” and has openly professed his preference for white people. CIS has produced reports with racist undertones and Krikorian himself has jokingly suggested that immigrants are responsible for the subprime mortgage meltdown.

In 2007, he accepted an invitation to speak at the Michigan State University chapter of Young Americans for Freedom, a group that had posted “Gays Spread AIDS” fliers across campus.

(Credit: Creative Commons)

Whereas state and federal penitentiaries must contract with the lowest bidder, county immigration detention centers like WCDF in Richmond, CA, can choose to go with a contractor that nets them the most kickbacks. In this case, WCDF went with Global Tel* Link which paid $75,000 for the contract and also forced families of detainees to buy credit before they can find out how much the phone calls cost.

Immigrant detainees at WCDF pay upwards of $20 to place a five-minute phone call. A connection fee of $3.25 is charged for all phone calls within the state with “per-minute rates running as high as 25 cents for interstate calls and an additional 30 cents when phoning out-of-state.” Calls are often dropped, but detainees must pay the connection fee regardless. A 20-minute phone call costs $14, which means that WCDF receives a 57 percent commission, or $7.98.

Reverend Deborah Lee of the Interfaith Coalition for Immigrant Rights said in an interview, “Families are being overcharged for the most basic things,” she said, “like telling relatives you love them, or speaking with their attorneys about their cases.” Inmates’ relatives often pay anywhere from $25-$50 for two or three brief calls. “It’s cruel and inhuman,” said Lee, “the stories we hear are heartbreaking.”

Without the financial wherewithal to contact lawyers, immigrant detainees could be detained longer than they otherwise would. Because prison systems do not consider contracts based on immigrant needs, like lower phone rates, they instead will continue contracts with phone systems that help them stay profitable.

The Census Bureau presents three scenarios different only on the “level of net international migration they assume.” In every scenario, the minority immigrant population would become the driver of population growth sometime between 2027 and 2038. As shown, the “middle series” assumes a consistent flow of 725,000 between 2012 to 2060.

(Credit: U.S. Census Bureau)

In the “low series” projection, annual levels of would increase net immigration from 700,000 in 2012 to 824,000 by 2060. The “high series” graph would increase from 747,000 in 2012 to 1.6 million by 2060. The high series estimate also projects that the “single-race white” population will be in the minority by 2041.

The influx of legal immigrants from comprehensive immigration reform will provide a net benefit of $410 billion over the next 50 years, according to actuary data gathered by Social Security at the behest of Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL). Nearly 6.6 million more workers will be paying Social Security taxes which would allow immigrants to continue helping to keep the Social Security Trust Fund solvent for the aging baby boomer population and contribute to the economy. As a result, making many immigrants into newly legalized taxpayers would directly counter so-called costs that immigration opponents claim burdens the system.

While conservatives leaders and organizations have roundly criticized the Heritage study, Jim DeMint has not said anything about the controversial former employee. The activists take DeMint’s silence as a sign of his solidarity with Richwine’s racially tinged history. Deepak Bhargava, executive director of the Center for Community Change stated in an interview with Chris Hayes, “the issue is that [Richwine] was hired knowingly by Heritage with these views way out of the mainstream by the pillar institution of modern Conservatism in America.”

Carrying pink slips and a banner, the activists approached DeMint as he exited the Heritage Foundation, but he quickly slipped back in through another door. As they stacked pink slips in front of the doors of the Heritage Foundation, they shouted “Jim DeMint Has Got to Go!” Watch it:

Because illegal re-entry is a felony, Rivas can be held in prison for up to two years even though he does not have prior convictions. Rivas had once before voluntarily left after being captured by ICE officials in a raid targeted at his coworker who has a criminal record.

Under the Senate immigration bill, Rena Rivas would qualify for registered provisional immigration (RPI) status, even though he violated federal law for reentering back into the U.S. Both Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) and Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) have created amendments that will prohibit deportees from being considered for RPI status.

A study released in March shows that one of the top immigration offenses was “reentry of deported alien.” While in the past, illegal re-entry had been used to describe violent criminals, the uptick in deportations shows immigrants with lesser offenses being given such labels. If passed under the Title II provision at the Senate markup hearing, this would impact numerous deported immigrants, some of whom had been deported for misdemeanors like marijuana possession. The Senate bill would not automatically grant deportees the right to return, but it would allow the Secretary of Homeland Security to have discretion in granting waivers.