ThinkProgress Logo

Stories tagged with “Immigration Restrictionists

Immigration

Congressional Support For Bill To End Birthright Citizenship Continues To Drop

Rep. Steve King (R-IA)

Rep. Steve King (R-IA)

Despite lobbying by anti-immigration groups like the Federation for American Immigration Reform, NumbersUSA, and U.S. Border Control, the number of co-sponsors for the proposed Birthright Citizens Act has dropped significantly over the past several Congresses. The proposal, sponsored by Rep. Steve King (R-IA) would prevent the children of undocumented immigrants from becoming citizens – in direct violation of the 14th Amendment.

When the proposal was first introduced in 2007, then-Rep. Nathan Deal (R-GA) enlisted 104 co-sponsors — 102 of them Republicans. His 2009 version attracted 95 co-sponsors. After Deal’s election to the Georgia governorship, King took over as chief sponsor in 2011 and got 90 Republican co-sponsors. Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) introduced a Senate version with four GOP co-sponsors.

But with Republicans pursuing immigration reform in the aftermath of the presidential election, the measure has experienced a significant decline in support. Just two Senators have co-sponsored Vitter’s 2013 Senate bill. And Rep. King’s House version has just 24 co-sponsors to date — all Republicans.

Only a small amount of the drop-off can be attributed to turnover: 16 co-sponsors from the 112th Congress either lost re-election or retired and just one freshman (Michigan’s Kerry Bentivolio) has signed on thus far. And while it is only four months into the 113th Congress, more than two-thirds of the eventual House co-sponsors had already signed on at this point two years ago.

The 51 House incumbents who co-sponsored the bill in the last Congress but have not done so this year include a wide range of Republicans, including Members from swing districts won by President Obama (Reps. Gary Miller of California, Mike Coffman of Colorado, and John Kline of Minnesota) and the nation’s most rock-ribbed Republican districts (Reps. Spencer Bauchus and Robert Aderholt of Alabama and Reps. Ralph Hall and Kevin Brady of Texas). Rand Paul (R-KY) and Jerry Moran (R-KS) have (so far) dropped from the ranks of the Senate co-sponsors.
Read more

Immigration

What Immigration Restrictionists Get Wrong About The Economics Of Reform

The restrictionist Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) is at it again, with a new paper claiming that immigrants lower the wages of low-skilled native workers. But don’t be fooled: The study is a round-up of old research re-packaged as new, and misses the overall point that immigration reform is a net positive for the economy.

The report, from Harvard Economist and immigration skeptic George Borjas, argues that while immigrant workers add to the U.S. economy, they do so by lowering the wages of native workers, particularly low-wage workers. But this is only one school of thought, and as our colleagues David Madland and Nick Bunker have argued, far more research and researchers (for example Heidi Sheirholz, Gianmarco Ottaviano and Giovanni Peri, Adriana Kugler and Mutlu Yuskel, Giovanni Peri, and David Card,) have actually shown that the opposite is true: Immigrants have a small, but positive affect on the wages of native-workers, and in some cases lead to native workers entering higher-skilled jobs. And even Borjas concludes that the economic benefits to the native born from immigration are “equal to $35 billion a year — or about 0.2 percent of the total GDP in the United States.”

More importantly, Borjas and CIS are attempting a classic misdirection. They are trying to apply an analysis of increases in the labor supply to the current debate, while ignoring the fact that the actual debate on immigration reform is about providing legal status and citizenship for the 11 million undocumented immigrants. These immigrants are already here, and already working alongside their native colleagues in the labor force. Legal status and citizenship will not be a shock to the labor supply, and CIS’s claims of immigration leading to lower wages for native workers simply would not happen. In fact providing legal status and citizenship within 5 years would increase the wages the undocumented, and consequently raise the wages of all Americans by $618 Billion over a decade.

Borjas also does not take into account the fact that the higher wages from immigration reform increases the size of the American economy, creates more demand for goods and services, and leads to more business and job creation, benefits that accrue to all Americans. Providing legal status and citizenship within 5 years would add an estimated $1.1 trillion to the cumulative U.S. GDP over a decade, and an average increase of 159,000 new jobs per year. Immigration reform would also bring in more immigrants in the future, which economist Douglas Holtz-Eakin of the conservative American Action Forum has found would increase per capita GPD, and reduce the federal deficit.

It’s no wonder that conservative groups like Grover Norquist’s Americans for Tax Reform have rejected attempts to downplay the economic effects of immigration reform. Put simply, immigration reform is good for the economy.

Philip E Wolgin is a Senior Policy Analyst on the CAP Immigration Policy team and Patrick Oakford is a Research Assistant on the Economic Policy team.

Politics

House Immigration Hearing Is Stacked With Reform Opponents

House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-VA)

Today marks the first hearing Congress will hold on immigration since the Senate and President Obama released their versions of basic principles to include in comprehensive immigration reform. In addition to keeping families together and creating a legalized workforce, immigration reform would add $1.5 trillion to GDP over 10 years. According to an AP-GfK poll, 62 percent of Americans back Congress’ renewed push to let immigrants stay and legally work in the U.S.

But at today’s House Judiciary Committee hearing on immigration, members won’t hear much in favor of the popular position on comprehensive reform. The two-panel hearing includes no representation from pro-immigration reform groups, and just one strong proponent, San Antonio Mayor Julian Castro. The second Democratic witness is Migration Policy Institute Director Muzaffar Chishti, who testifies in the second panel.

Rather than hear the facts on a position most Americans favor — a pathway to citizenship for 11 million undocumented immigrants — House Republicans, led by immigration hardliner Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), invited a set of opponents to immigration reform and proponents of increased border security.

Of the eight witnesses testifying, four are opposed to comprehensive immigration reform, and one is clearly in favor. Two witnesses come from academic backgrounds and don’t offer a clear position. Below is a sample of some of the opponents:

Julie Myers Wood, head of ICE under President George W. Bush: Wood’s controversial track record, for instance, includes awarding a costume prize to someone who appeared as a “Jamaican detainee” in “a striped prison uniform, wearing a dreadlock wig, and his face darkened with makeup.”

Jessica Vaughan, the Center for Immigration Studies: Center for Immigration studies is a group founded by anti-immigration activist John Tanton, and has earned a label as an intolerant group. In 2007, it was part of the successful network that fought against comprehensive reform. CIS’ claims of the costs of immigration have been thoroughly debunked by other groups.

Christopher Crane, Immigration Customs Enforcement President: Crane is head of the group that filed a suit against the Obama administration on so-called lenient policies they claim undermine officers from “enforcing many laws enacted by Congress.” However, deportation has gone up under the Obama administration.

Michael Teitelbaum, fellow of the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation: Teitelbaum is a long-documented skeptic of increased legal immigration. The president of ImmigrationWorks USA told Talking Points Memo Teitelbaum is a worrying witness because he maintains there is no need for more worker visas.

The stacked hearing comes as little surprise since House Republicans come from districts that are typically much whiter and less Latino than Democratic members. 131 House GOP hail from districts that are more than 80 percent white.

Adam Peck contributed reporting

Justice

Republican Gov. Sandoval Flatly Refuses To Consider Alabama’s Immigration Law For Nevada

ThinkProgress filed this report from the Western Republican Leadership Conference in Las Vegas, Nevada.

At a conference for Western Republicans in Las Vegas this week, GOP governors had varied reactions to Alabama’s radical anti-immigration law. Gov. Jan Brewer (R-AZ), who signed Arizona’s infamous SB17070 law, told ThinkProgress that she would like to implement the Alabama model, which goes further than her state by targeting school children and even making it illegal for undocumented immigrants to get water in their homes.

Gov. Brian Sandoval (R-NV), however, said Alabama’s law would not be right for his state:

KEYES: What about Alabama’s immigration law?

SANDOVAL: That’s in litigation right now, so–

KEYES: Is that something you see as a model that Nevada might be able to use?

SANDOVAL: I don’t. I don’t.

KEYES: You don’t think it’d be appropriate?

SANDOVAL: I don’t see it as being a model.

Watch it:

Nevada and Arizona are both states with a large immigrant population. The two divergent policy positions between Brewer and Sandoval highlights the larger schism in the Republican Party in terms of immigration and the Hispanic population.

Despite a federal court blocking parts of the Alabama law for now, including the schools provision, hundreds of Hispanic children have refused to show up at school and many families are fleeing the state.

Justice

Arizona Governor Jan Brewer Endorses Alabama’s ‘Papers, Please!’ Law For School Children

The “Papers, Please!” anti-immigration movement could be moving into Arizona’s elementary school classrooms soon. Gov. Jan Brewer (R-AZ), the conservative governor responsible for Arizona’s SB1070 law, would like to adopt Alabama’s draconian anti-immigrant measures for her state.

The Alabama law goes farther than what Arizona has already passed. The Alabama law forces schools to check the immigration status of students. Since the law provides new requirements for any Alabama resident to be screened before using public facilities of almost any type, public water utilities have began checking the immigration status of customers.

ThinkProgress caught up with Brewer in the spin room after the CNN debate last night. Brewer referenced the fact that the federal courts have blocked certain provisions of the law, but told us that if Alabama’s law eventually passes constitutional muster, that she would like to see it implemented in her own state of Arizona:

KEYES: Governor, what do you make of Alabama’s recent immigration law?

BREWER: I think that they’re frustrated and they’ve been impacted by illegal immigration down there. Again, states cannot afford it. We cannot afford the health care, the education, the incarceration, and what it does to our communities.

KEYES: Do you think some of the provisions would be appropriate for Arizona as well? For instance, schoolchildren and their families are being asked about their immigration status upon enrolling in school?

BREWER: I don’t really have a problem with that. When I was going to school we always had to bring our birth certificates for whatever reason they needed it at that point in time. Bottom line is that I believe in federalism. With federalism, I think states should have rights, and as long as those taxpayers are paying the tab then they ought to know if they’re legal or illegal. The bottom line of illegal immigration is its all about the rule of law. We are a nation of laws, we ought to abide by the law.

Watch it:

After speaking with Scott Keyes, Brewer confirmed her position in another brief interview with Lee Fang. “I think its important to find out who is going to our schools and if they’re legal or if they’re illegal,” said Brewer.

Despite a federal court blocking parts of the Alabama law for now, including the schools provision, hundreds of Hispanic children have refused to show up at school and many families are fleeing the state.

LGBT

Following Obama’s ‘Low Priority’ Immigration Directive, Judge Halts Deportation Hearing For Binational Lesbian Couple

Sujey and Violeta Pando with their attorney, Lavi Soloway

Last week, the Obama administration announced that it would review all 300,000 active deportation cases to ensure that they are consistent with the nation’s enforcement priorities. The case-by-case review will allow the government to focus its resources and efforts on high priority targets — individuals who pose a threat to public safety and national security or repeat immigration law violators — while exempting low priority groups, including binational same-sex couples, from deportation, the administration maintained. In a letter sent to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano explained that the new approach would also allow immigration judges “to more swiftly adjudicate high priority cases, such as those involving convicted felons.” “This process will also allow additional federal enforcement resources to be focused on border security and the removal of public safety threats,” she said.

On Friday, an immigration judge in Denver, Colorado implemented the administration’s directive and halted the deportation of Sujey Pando — an undocumented immigrant from Mexico who is married to a U.S. citizen. As Pando’s attorney Lavi Soloway explains on his Stop the Deportations blog, the judge rescheduled the deportation hearing and specifically cited the review directive in her decision:

Because today’s hearing was intended to be a final decision day on Sujey’s deportation, the judge’s action was unusual; she spent 45 minutes methodically considering the procedural posture of the case. In the end, the Judge set aside the intended purpose of the hearing, citing developments including the Attorney General’s intervention in a similar case in May (Matter of Dorman) and noted that the issues involved in this case existed in a context that was “fluid” and “in a state of flux.” The Judge referred to events that occurred as recent as yesterday as having an impact on how to proceed.

The Denver Post notes that “Pando’s mother and stepfather brought her from Chihuahua, Mexico, into the U.S. when she was 16 and promptly kicked her out when she revealed she is a lesbian.” “Her mother, who has permanent residency status, obtained citizenship for her three sons, but not her daughter, because she is gay.” Pando married her longtime partner in Iowa in 2010.

The 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) prohibits the federal government from recognizing Pando’s same-sex marriage and prohibits the couple from petitioning the federal government for the same immigration benefits that are afforded to separate-sex couples. The Immigration Policy Center estimates that there are “approximately 36,000 same-sex binational couples living in the United States, and approximately half of these couples are raising children.”

Justice

GOP Rep. Brooks Refuses To Back Down From Saying He’d Do ‘Anything Short Of Shooting’ Illegal Immigrants

Rep. Mo Brooks (R-AL)

Despite pressure from Hispanics and Republican groups, GOP Rep. Mo Brooks (AL) refuses to back away from his inflammatory comment that he would do “anything short of shooting” illegal immigrants to get them out of the United States. Brooks made the comment at a June town hall meeting — the same month when Alabama’s governor signed the toughest state immigration measure into law.

Brooks’ comments led to bipartisan calls for a retraction and apology. Rep. Charles Gonzalez (D-TX), who is head of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, called on Republicans in Congress to repudiate Brooks’ comments; on its website, the national group “Somos Republicans!” called for Brooks to apologize; and Arizona Hispanic Republicans said Brooks is “no Christian Compassionate.”

Brooks insisted this week that he was speaking in hyperbole when he said in June: “I will do anything short of shooting them. Anything that is lawful, it needs to be done because illegal aliens need to quit taking jobs from American citizens.” But even this new interpretation of his own violent rhetoric cannot be squared with the facts.

When Georgia’s draconian anti-immigration law recently caused undocumented workers to flee the state, it led to such a severe shortage of farm workers that the governor had to “beg convicts to take these jobs.” Similarly, Alabama’s own anti-immigrant law, which is the subject of a pending lawsuit, could threaten reconstruction in parts of the state destroyed by April tornadoes while further straining the state’s already severe budget woes.

As Lee Fang wrote about Brooks’ original comments, “Undocumented immigrants have faced attacks, police brutality, and other forms of violence because of exactly the same type of dehumanization and hatred espoused by lawmakers like Brooks,” and Brooks is hardly alone even among Alabama lawmakers in his use of violent rhetoric against immigrants. Earlier this year, Alabama state Sen. Scott Beason (R) advised Republicans to “empty the clip” on illegal immigrants.

Justice

Rep. Mo Brooks (R-AL) On Undocumented Immigrants: ‘I Will Do Anything Short Of Shooting Them’

Rep. Mo Brooks (R-AL)

Controversy has erupted throughout the state as Alabama enacted the most draconian anti-immigration legislation in the nation. Freshman Rep. Mo Brooks (R-AL) has poured gasoline on the fire by making clear that he has no compassion for any undocumented person he encounters.

At a town hall recently, Brooks told constituents that he would do anything to an “illegal immigrant” short of literally shooting them to get them out of the country. Speaking with WHNT News, a local television station, Brooks repeated his threat enthusiastically:

“I wanted to ensure people that I have an intensity on this subject that we have to address the illegal alien issue,” said Congressman Mo Brooks. [...] “They have no right to be here. They are clogging up our emergency rooms, and making our education system more expensive. If you go to the Madison County Jail, there are far too many illegal aliens there because they have victimized Americans,” added Brooks.

Brooks’ intensity is clear. He did not flinch when asked to repeat what he said during a recent town hall meeting. “As your congressman on the house floor, I will do anything short of shooting them. Anything that is lawful, it needs to be done because illegal aliens need to quit taking jobs from American citizens,” added Brooks.

What is Brooks referring to when he says he will do anything short of shooting people? Does he mean he will cheat them, or defraud them, or exploit them in some way, as long as he’s not breaking the law but making their lives miserable? He already has no problem scapegoating tens of thousands of people just to score cheap political points.

Brooks may think that making threats against immigrant communities could help him politically, but he disgraces his office with such rhetoric. Undocumented immigrants have faced attacks, police brutality, and other forms of violence because of exactly the same type of dehumanization and hatred espoused by lawmakers like Brooks.

Justice

Georgia Gov: Hire Former Criminals To Replace Undocumented Workers Fleeing Anti-Immigrant Law

Last month, Georgia Gov. Nathan Deal signed a draconian law intended to keep undocumented immigrations from working in that state. As a result, Georgia is now facing a farm labor shortage of close to 11,000 jobs — and Gov. Deal is proposing a unique solution to the labor shortage:

I asked Department of Corrections Commissioner Brian Owens and Commissioner Black to  review the current situation and offer possible options.  Commissioner Owens has indicated that there are 100,000 probationers statewide, 8,000 of which are in the Southwest region of the state and 25 percent of which are unemployed.  Commissioner Owens is working with Commissioner Black and other state agencies to connect unemployed probationers–especially those in the Southwest part of the state–and others who are preparing to reenter the workforce to employers who are seeking labor.

Advocates of harsh anti-immigrant laws frequently claim that such laws are necessary to prevent undocumented workers from taking Americans’ jobs. Indeed, this is the driving value behind the House Reclaim American Jobs Caucus, a coalition of right-wing lawmakers formed to combat “the direct link between unemployment and illegal immigration.” Watch:

Georgia’s experience, however, gives the lie to their claim. Unemployment among former inmates is both a serious problem and a leading cause of recidivism, but the fact that Georgia farms can’t find anyone to pick their crops shows that U.S. citizens have little interest in backbreaking migrant farm labor. 11,000 workers left Georgia, and the state now has to beg convicts to take these jobs.

Moreover, if Georgia can’t find a way to clean up the mess Gov. Deal’s law has made quick, the state could lose even more jobs. The Georgia Fruit and Vegetable Grower Association reports that around $300 million worth of crops could rot on the vine if no one can be hired to pick them. As of last month growers only found 30 percent to 50 percent of the workers needed.

In other words, after all that Republicans and advocates of immigration reform have said about illegal immigrants taking American jobs, Georgia’s assault on undocumented workers has only succeeded in proving that the opposite is true.

–Sarah Bufkin

Justice

Lamar Smith Moves Forward On Bill That Would Allow For Indefinite Detention Of Deportable Immigrants

House Judiciary Chairman Lamar Smith (R-TX) scheduled a markup on the “Keep Our Communities Safe Act,” a bill that Smith claims will “stop the release of dangerous criminal immigrants into American communities.” The reality, however, is much darker:

To understand the scope of Chairman Smith’s bill, take the example of someone who commits a crime and serves a five-year term. If he’s a U.S. citizen, after his prison sentence, he is released into society. If he’s an immigrant, lawfully in the country or not, the U.S. can move to deport him after his five years in prison.

However, if he is a legal immigrant but from a country such as Cuba, with which the U.S. does not have diplomatic relations, he probably cannot be deported. There are a handful of countries around the world with which the U.S. has such constrained diplomatic relations that deportation is very difficult.

What this bill would do is allow the government to lock that person up indefinitely. All it would take is a written certification every six months from the Homeland Security secretary that the detainee is a risk to the community.

The bill’s critics argue that it is an unconstitutional bill that will lead to foreign nationals who pose no threat to society being detained indefinitely — and there are two Supreme Court decisions that strongly suggest they are right about the bill’s unconstitutionality. According to Antonio Ginatta of Human Rights Watch:

[A] person who completes his sentence is suddenly subject to a lifetime in detention based purely on the unilateral and unappealable decision of an administration appointee. It gives that official full authority to subject someone to incarceration well beyond the criminal sentence imposed by the judge or jury. [...] This bill gives the president imperial power over the judiciary and the legislature when it comes to locking up immigrants.

Human Rights First also notes that the bill “contains several provisions that have nothing to do with dangerousness or safety assessments or even flight risk.” In fact, it will likely lead to the indefinite incarceration of “asylum seekers fleeing religious, political and other forms of persecution and seeking protection in the United States – who do not warrant that description and whose detention is unconnected to community safety.” The organizations also claims that since 2003, “immigration authorities have spent more than $300 million of taxpayer dollars detaining thousands of asylum seekers in jails and jail-like facilities under a system that lacks basic due process safeguards.”

The prolonged detention of refugees and asylum seekers hasn’t worked out so well for Australia. Suicide is common among detained refugees in Australia, and riots erupted in April in the country’s detention centers over Australia’s prolonged mandatory detention policy.

Salvatore Colleluori over at Political Correction further argues that Smith’s bill is “an attempt to correct a statistically small problem.” In his testimony on the bill, Immigration and Customs Enforcement official Gary Mead pointed out, “Since the beginning of FY 2009, ICE has released 12,567 individual aliens. … Of this amount, 868 were re-booked into ICE custody, which is a relatively low re-detention rate of 7 percent.”

Older

Switch to Mobile
ThinkProgress Signup Overlay Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress

Sign Up