Press Release from AmericasVoice.org:

What Would Reagan Say to Republican 2012 Field on Immigration? 

Experts, New Report Show that GOP Field, Including Gov. Perry, Doesn’t Live up to Reagan Legacy on Immigration  

Washington, DC – On the day of the Republican presidential debate at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library, we are reminded of President Reagan’s immigration legacy and his vision for America.  Yet at tonight’s debate, according to experts on immigration and Latino politics who participated in a press call held earlier today, we will likely hear a very different message from the GOP’s 2012 presidential candidates on the issue. 

Upon signing the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act, which granted residency to nearly 2.7 million undocumented immigrants, President Reagan said, “The legalization provisions in this act will go far to improve the lives of a class of individuals who now must hide in the shadows, without access to many of the benefits of a free and open society.”

Yet according to the experts and a new report from America’s Voice, “Why Do Elephants Put Their Heads in the Sand?” the Republican field has fallen far from President Reagan’s centrist immigration approach, adopting a hard-line, anti-immigrant platform that will only further the Party’s dismal showing with Latino voters in 2012 and beyond.  While some Republicans are starting to realize that Latino voters are, in fact, important players in modern-day politics – judged by such developments as early Spanish-language advertising buys from Republican-allied Super PACs – the GOP has not yet shown a willingness to shed its hard-line, anti-immigrant policy agenda for a more Reagan-esque and inclusive approach. 

According to Frank Sharry, Executive Director of America’s Voice, “The Republican Party may try to have it both ways when it comes to immigration and Latino voters this cycle.  They may try to present a less incendiary image to Latino voters while subtly reminding hard-line primary voters that their policies haven’t changed one bit.  Yet even if they put the dog whistle in their pocket, there’s no evidence that they’ve thrown it away.”

Experts and strategists from both sides of the aisle agree that the Republican Party needs to win at least 40% of the Latino vote in a presidential election year in order to win the general election – a task made inordinately difficult given the Party’s current brand image with Latino voters.  Polling released in June 2011 by Latino Decisions and impreMedia found that by a 65% – 19% margin, Latino voters trust President Obama and Democrats more “to make the right decisions when it comes to immigration policy” compared with Republicans.  In the 2010 elections, Latinos voted for Democrats over Republicans by roughly 75%-25%, or a 3-1 margin according to election-eve polling of Latino voters conducted by Latino Decisions in eight key states (AZ, CA, CO, FL, IL, NM, NV, TX).

Dr. Matt Barreto, Ph.D., Associate Professor, University of Washington and Latino Decisions noted, “the tracking poll data from Latino Decisions show very clearly that the Republican Party has an image problem with Latino voters.  So far, we have not seen any signs whatsoever that the Republican presidential candidates are reaching out to Latino voters.  Without serious outreach and a new positive message, the GOP will do very badly with Latinos again in 2012.”

Maria Cardona, Principal at the Dewey Square Group and expert on Latino politics added “There is no question that the road to the White House goes straight through Latino communities across the country.  If the GOP does not address their jaw-dropping deficit of support within the Latino electorate – they need at least 40% support among Latino voters to win and they are currently at  18% – their nominee, no matter who he or she is, will never see the inside of La Casa Blanca.”

The new report from America’s Voice documents GOP 2012 presidential candidates’ past and current positions on immigration and analyzes the politics of the issue for the Republican Party.  For example, even though rivals of Governor Perry (R-TX) are spinning it that he has a moderate record on the issue, such is not the case.  For Perry and the rest of the field, hiding behind vacuous sound bites such as “border security first” – which really means “comprehensive immigration reform never” – or pledging to expel 11 million undocumented immigrants — the vast majority of whom are Latino, and then defending anti-immigrant and anti-Latino laws like Arizona’s SB 1070, simply won’t go over well with the Latino electorate, even if it is said with a smile. 

In reference to Gov. Perry’s immigration stance, Mitch Ackerman, International Executive Vice President of SEIU said, “Will we see the Rick Perry who once campaigned for Texas Latino support or the one who turned his back on Hispanics this year with an agenda that included a harsh immigration bill with many of the components of the Arizona law he originally opposed, as well as a congressional redistricting plan that diluted the voting strength of Latino ad minority voters, and a budget that severely slashed funding for public education in Texas with a student enrollment that is 51 percent Latino? In a short amount of time, it seems, Rick Perry became a born again nativist.”

• Access the America’s Voice report, “Why Do Elephants Put Their Heads in the Sand?” 
• Access the Latino Decisions tracking poll

America’s Voice — Harnessing the power of American voices and American values to win common sense immigration reform.

www.americasvoiceonline.org

###

COMMENT: Then again Reagan might’ve suggested charging all the undocumented folks $10,000 a piece to get legal ($5,000 of they agreed to vote Republican) and using the proceeds to pay off some of the national debt.

From AmericasVoice.org:

Immigration Experts: Crime Victims and Witnesses Are Collateral Damage of “Secure Communities”

New Report, Outcry from Public Show How this and Other Programs Have Hindered Crime-Fighting and Destroyed Community Trust 

Washington, DC – Local and national immigration experts spoke on a call with reporters to relate stories and highlight concerns that Secure Communities and other police-immigration collaboration efforts are destroying the relationship between police and immigrants and making communities across the country less safe.  The federal Secure Communities (S-Comm) program has come under fire from law enforcement, elected officials, and immigrant advocates from across the country for its lack of focus and dangerous impacts on community security.  Tonight, the Arlington, VA community will speak out about this damaging program in the final field hearing of Department of Homeland Security Secure Communities Task Force.  The Task Force is a non-governmental body convened by DHS to examine the program and make recommendations to improve it. 

During the press call, America’s Voice Education Fund (AVEF) released a new report, “Public Safety on ICE: How Do You Police a Community That Won’t Talk to You?”, documenting how immigration enforcement by local police creates a “chilling effect” in immigrant communities, making victims and witnesses of crimes afraid to get help from cops who might deport them. The report includes cases from community advocates and law enforcement officials, demonstrating that the “chilling effect” is being felt in communities around the country as a result of Secure Communities and other policies that blur the distinction between local police and federal immigration agents.

Lynn Tramonte, Deputy Director of America’s Voice Education Fund, who moderated the call, said, “We want criminals to be afraid of the police, not immigrants.  Programs that involve state and local police in immigration enforcement—like S-Comm, 287(g), inherent authority, and state laws—are destroying the relationship between police and the immigrant community.  These programs violate the core principles of community policing, because they make immigrants afraid of having any contact with the police.  This means immigrants are less likely to report crimes, more criminals go free, and entire communities are less safe.” 

Alexsa Alonzo, Associate Director of Advocacy for the American Immigration Lawyers Association, said “Using local law enforcement efforts as a gateway to immigration enforcement erodes immigrant communities’ trust in the police and local governments and makes us less safe.  Police are perceived as no longer just protecting public safety but also as enforcing immigration law.”

“Fear of police in immigrant communities along the U.S.-Canada border is palpable and only heightened by Border Patrol’s increased collaboration with local law enforcement,” said OneAmerica Policy Director, Ada Williams Prince. “Put simply, immigrants stop calling the police during emergencies when they know that Border Patrol will follow close behind.”

Marisa Vertrees, Social Justice Coordinator of St. Charles Borromeo Catholic Church in Arlington, has been working with members of the community to prepare for tonight’s Task Force hearing.  Like earlier field hearings in Dallas, TX; Los Angeles, CA; and Chicago, IL, the Arlington hearing will no doubt demonstrate the level of frustration and fear that Secure Communities has caused in immigrant communities.  Arlington County has been trying to opt-out of the program, but has been unable to do so because of the federal government’s mandate that all cities and states participate.

According to Vertrees: “Through our work with the immigrant community, we in the faith community have seen the harm that local enforcement does to the community.  Tonight at the hearing we will bring forward the stories we have heard from families who have been torn apart by overly aggressive enforcement programs, as well as immigrants, both documented and not, who are now afraid to deal with the police and are forced to live in the shadows. And because for the first and only time translation services will be available at the hearing, the Task Force will have the chance to hear these stories from the immigrant community themselves.  We hope that bringing forward what we have seen will convince the administration to end the deeply flawed Secure Communities program.”

• Link to New Report: Public Safety on ICE: How Do You Police a Community That Won’t Talk to You?
• Link to Recording of Today’s Press Call: http://americasvoiceonline.org/page/-/americasvoice/audio/Scomm_aug24_2011.mp3

###

COMMENTARY: As the former City Attorney of a border city I can speak first hand to the problem of crime victims being afraid of reporting being victimized when the consequences are deportation.

Just because someone entered the country illegally does not take away their basic human rights….but the way our system has worked the result has been to create an underclass of people who can be the targets of criminals with no consequences because the victims cannot report the crimes.

The real solution is to find a way to legalize the existing illegal immigrant community…my recommendation is “probationary preserce”, tighten up the border to stop further illegal entery, create a worker visa program, and really crack down on drug smugglers.

Alas…there is too much poilitical gain in the status quo….

and if the prosecutorial discretion being used by the Obama Administration is a form of amnesty…well what is the alternative? ICE totally blew it trying to jack up their statistics by deporting crime victims. Dumbass plan…just like ATF’s dumbass gun walking scheme.

Obama’s Adminustrration has been a disaster for progress on securing our border and immigration reform because Obama’s leaders at DHS, Border Patrol, ICE and ATF have not played straight, have lied, have manipulated statistics…and are getting caught.

None of this makes anyone want to trust the feds with broad scale immigration law reform.

Warning to Dream kids: “DHS has also been clear that last week’s announcements do not impact individuals who are not currently in removal proceedings. Thus, ‘DREAM’ students and others unlawfully present in the United States, but not in removal proceedings should not actively seek out the immigration authorities. Since there are no guarantees that an individual removal case will be administratively closed, anyone who seeks to be placed in removal proceedings could end up being deported.”

Press Release from American Immigration Council:

DHS: Prioritizing Enforcement and Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion

Experts Welcome New Guidance, But Agree the Devil is in the Details

 August 22, 2011

Washington D.C. – Today, the American Immigration Council hosted a briefing to discuss the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) announcement last week that it would issue agency-wide guidance to make certain that prosecutorial discretion is exercised in a manner that ensures the agency’s enforcement resources are used to remove those who pose the greatest risk to public safety. DHS also announced the creation of a joint committee with the Department of Justice (DOJ) that will review nearly 300,000 cases currently in removal proceedings to determine which ones are low priority and can be administratively closed in order to begin unclogging immigration courts. 

While it is unclear how these proposals will play out in practice, the federal government must continue to assert its authority over immigration given the rise of state legislative initiatives that seek to impose different priorities on immigration enforcement.  

Melissa Crow, Director of the Legal Action Center at the American Immigration Council discussed the practical implications of the use of greater prosecutorial discretion and had a warning for immigrants not in removal proceedings:

“Prosecutorial discretion is not a new concept, and is exercised on a daily basis by law enforcement agencies.  It refers to the authority of a law enforcement agency or officer to decide whether – and to what extent – to enforce the law in a particular case. Prosecutorial discretion can take a variety of forms, depending on the nature of the case involved.

DHS has also been clear that last week’s announcements do not impact individuals who are not currently in removal proceedings. Thus, ‘DREAM’ students and others unlawfully present in the United States, but not in removal proceedings should not actively seek out the immigration authorities. Since there are no guarantees that an individual removal case will be administratively closed, anyone who seeks to be placed in removal proceedings could end up being deported.”

Clarissa Martinez, the Director of Immigration and National Campaigns at the National Council of La Raza discussed the Administration’s move:

“This is a huge step forward for our country. This means that DHS will be using its resources more effectively. For those attacking this approach, I would challenge them to say what should be prioritized over national security and public safety. Every law enforcement agency uses prosecutorial discretion to do just that.”

Javier Morillo-Alicea, President of Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Local 26 in Minnesota said:

“For years now we have reminded the Administration that their stated enforcement priorities of going after criminals—not law-abiding citizens—was not an on-the-ground reality. Last week’s announcement, if properly implemented, will give teeth to long-stated enforcement priorities which is an extremely important move on the part of the Administration. It is right on policy and it is right on politics.”

To listen to a recording of the briefing or view other resources on Prosecutorial Discretion see:

•  Prosecutorial Discretion and Executive Action: A Resource Page   

###

Press Release from National Association of Former Border Patrol Officers:

National Association of Former Border Patrol Officers calls for new immigration policy to be rescinded.

Group says that policy will encourage further illegal immigration and damage respect for law by foreigners; says President has abandoned duty to law.

The administration announced last week that it would implement a new policy that will permit hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens to remain in the United States despite being in deportation proceedings already. This policy is clearly designed to sidestep congressional authority to regulate immigration. It should cause great concern amongst Americans who demand a secure border and desire only fair, even-handed enforcement of our nation’s immigration laws.

In a letter to selected senators, Janet Napolitano, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, cited public safety and clogged immigration court dockets as justification for the new policy. She asserts that DHS resources “must continue to be focused on our highest priorities” in order to avoid having resources diverted away from “individuals who pose a threat to public safety.”

Americans should understand that the policy has just granted amnesty in fact to approximately 300,000 illegal aliens already in deportation proceedings. The new policy means that they will be permitted to stay in the United States without fear of removal and will be given employment authorization valid for the foreseeable future. Past experience tells us that ultimately they will be given permanent residence and then citizenship. The policy promises similar haven to millions more. Those who are arrested in coming years will have a legitimate claim to this benefit if their “only” crime was entering the United States illegally or overstaying their visa. Thus, the incentive for following our nation’s legal immigration process has been effectively removed.

Aliens in deportation proceedings did not get there by happenstance. They have already had their circumstances individually reviewed by an officer who is trained and legally empowered to determine alienage. This official determined they were here in violation of the law with no apparent legal right to remain in the United States. After examining all factors, a deportation hearing before an Immigration Judge was determined to be in the best interest of the United States.

The administration would have the public believe that illegal aliens who pose a threat to public safety must wait in line behind those with lesser criminal records: that is absurd. The administration has the authority to move aliens deemed to be threats to an immediate hearing. If they were sincerely concerned about enforcing the law the immigration court backlog would have prompted a request for more Immigration Judges and resources to speed the process. Instead, the administration has made a transparent play for ethnic votes, thereby showing once more its contempt for law and the Constitutional requirement that the President see that the laws be faithfully executed.

This autocratic, misguided policy sends a clear message to foreigners contemplating an illegal entry—the agency charged with removing them does not intend to do so. History tells us that an increase in illegal immigration occurs any time our politicians even discuss a change in policy or law that makes it easier for illegal aliens to enter or remain in the United States. This policy will reverse the hard-fought gains in border security that have been accomplished at such a high cost. It also defies what the majority of Americans have made clear they want, and what has Congress has called for: a secure border and control of illegal immigration.

NAFBPO therefore demands that it be rescinded immediately. If the Obama administration chooses not to do so, we urge Congress to act quickly to rein in this failure of constitutional duty and limit its negative impacts upon the country.

From AmericasVoice.org:

On New Deportation Policy, Will GOP Cement its Anti-Hispanic Brand?

Republican Criticism of New Policy Wrong on the Policy & Suicidal on the Politics

Washington, DC – Yesterday’s announcement of the Obama Administration’s important step towards bringing deportation practices in line with its enforcement priorities already is generating predictable responses from many Republicans and their mass-deportation allies.  Typical of the reaction was the statement from Governor Jan Brewer (R-AZ), who noted, “This plan amounts to backdoor amnesty for hundreds of thousands — if not millions — of illegal aliens.”  Right on cue, Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) said, “The Obama administration has again made clear its plan to grant backdoor amnesty to illegal immigrants.” Such reactions are not only flat out wrong on policy, they are terrible politics for a Republican Party that already has huge problems with Latino voters – just as the 2012 cycle kicks into high gear.

According to Frank Sharry, Executive Director of America’s Voice, “One of the surest ways for the Republican Party to help re-elect President Obama is to oppose this common sense policy change.  The message these hard liners send is clear: Latinos are not welcome in this country no matter how hard they work, how much they achieve and how much they contribute.  A young person who is a valedictorian and wants to go to college but can’t because they arrived in diapers and have no legal status?  The Republican response: Any relief would be “amnesty,” only deportation is in order.  A loved one of a hero who fought for his country in Iraq and Afghanistan?  The Republican response: no relief, only deportation.  A mother who has lived in America for 15 years with her U.S. citizen husband and four U.S. citizen children?  No relief, only deportation.  For these ideologues, anything short of the mass deportation of 11 million people is an amnesty. They are wrong. Yesterday’s announcement is a limited measure that says ‘let’s target the worst of the worst rather than best and the brightest.’”

Mindful of the way yesterday’s news is likely to infect the Republican presidential field and GOP members of Congress, below are assessments about the actual policy implications of yesterday’s news, as well as a reminder about the political state of play regarding immigration and Latino voters.

• What This Policy Announcement Actually Does – and Why GOP Opponents are Wrong:  Yesterday’s announcement is based on common sense – it recognizes that it is both a smart use of limited resources and sound law enforcement practice to go after drug smugglers, violent felons and serious criminals rather than wasting resources on young people who are attending college or members of military families.  This new policy spells out particular classes of people that should be less likely to be entered into deportation proceedings as a result of yesterday’s news, including veterans and military personnel, minors and elderly, those present in the U.S. since childhood, long-term lawful permanent residents, and victims of domestic violence and trafficking.  Hard line opponents claiming that this is “backdoor amnesty” are not only engaging in an outrageous distortion of this limited and temporary relief in which low-priority individuals will be considered on a case-by-case basis, they reveal their own agenda: they believe that it is practical and desirable to try to drive out of the country 11 million people, a population the size of the state of Ohio. 

• Why This Matters to Latino Voters:  Latino voters see immigration as a top priority because it is an issue that affects their families, their future and their sense of being fully accepted in America. In a 2010 election eve poll conducted by Latino Decisions in eight states, 83% of Latino voters said that immigration was an important issue in their voting decisions, and fully 60% said it was the most important issue or one of the most important issues.  Polling released in June 2011 by Latino Decisions and impreMedia shows that a majority of Latino voter poll respondents, 51%, thinks immigration reform is the single most important issue facing the Latino community, ahead of economy/jobs (35%) or education/schools (18%).  Why is this such a mobilizing and defining issue for Latinos?  Because the issue is personal.  June polling by impreMedia/Latino Decisions found that a majority of Latino voters (53%) said they know someone who is undocumented, while one-fourth (25%) said they know a person or have a family member who is facing deportation or who has been deported.  The findings about Latino voters’ personal connection to the immigration debate echo 2010 polling of Latino voters in twelve states by Bendixen & Amandi, who found that 78% of Latino voters considered the immigration issue important to them and their families, including 51% who called it “very important.”  Additionally, 62% of respondents in the Bendixen & Amandi poll reported knowing an undocumented person vs. only 33% who did not. 

• Why This Has Big 2012 Implications:  Anti-immigrant hard liners are the face of the Republican Party these days to Latino voters and the GOP has a earned its reputation as anti-Latino – a very dangerous development leading into 2012.   Most experts say the Republicans have to win 40% of the Hispanic vote if they are to take the White House in 2012, but right now, the GOP tops out at 18% with Hispanic voters.  June 2011 polling of Latino voters found that by a 65% – 19% margin, Latino voters trust President Obama and Democrats more “to make the right decisions when it comes to immigration policy” compared with Republicans.  Again, immigration is the biggest driver behind these numbers.  Polling of Latino voters in twelve states by Bendixen & Amandi found that 72% of Latino voters would not even consider voting for a congressional candidate who was in favor of forcing most undocumented immigrants to leave the country vs. only 19% of Latino voters who would consider it.  

Said Sharry, “If the Republican presidential field takes the bait and follows Rep. Lamar Smith and Governor Jan Brewer into strident opposition of this new common sense policy, they will be following these hard liners over the political cliff.  Just imagine the general election Spanish language ads in which President Obama says, ‘my Administration targets felons and drug dealers and not DREAM Act kids and military families,’ while the Republican nominee and his/her party want to deport everyone.”  

America’s Voice — Harnessing the power of American voices and American values to win common sense immigration reform.

www.americasvoiceonline.org

More….

Obama halts deportations…300,000 to get amnesty

Illegal immigrants do not have a “right to work” in the United States

ICE Agent union objects to back door amnesty scheme of agency boss

US House to debate bill that would increase deportations

Fight about reforms to Secure Communities program heats up

Secure Communities Sucks and must be changed

The two aspects of the border debate

From the Arizona Republic August 19, 2011:

Big shift in deportation policy

Feds may toss thousands of low-level migrant cases
by Daniel González – Aug. 19, 2011 12:00 AM
The Arizona Republic

Thousands of illegal immigrants without criminal records who are currently facing deportation could have their cases thrown out as part of a revamped deportation policy that focuses primarily on removing immigrants convicted of crimes, the Obama administration announced Thursday.

The government also will direct immigration-enforcement agents not to place immigrants into deportation proceedings simply for being in the country illegally. That would allow agents to focus deportation resources on removing serious criminals, senior White House officials said.

The changes, which would allow some illegal immigrants to stay in the country indefinitely, come amid growing criticism heading into the 2012 presidential election from Latino and immigrant advocates. They are angry that President Barack Obama’s administration has deported record numbers of people after failing to fulfill a campaign promise to enact a legalization program for millions of undocumented immigrants and other immigration reforms.

They have been especially critical of a rapidly expanding program known as Secure Communities that has led to the deportation of thousands of immigration violators with no criminal records or who have committed low-level crimes along with thousands of immigrants convicted of serious crimes.

On the other side of the immigration debate, immigration-enforcement supporters quickly denounced the decision to throw out some low-priority cases and not pursue others as a form of amnesty that uses Obama’s administrative authority to bypass Congress.

“(The new policy) clearly demonstrates the Obama administration’s defiance of both the constitutional separation of powers and the will of the American public in its relentless effort to gain amnesty for illegal aliens,” said Dan Stein, president of the Federation for American Immigration Reform, a group in Washington, D.C., that advocates less immigration and more immigration enforcement.

Besides the economy and high unemployment, immigration reform is a major concern for many Latino voters, who often have seen family members deported or know others who have been deported, said Rodolfo Espino, an assistant political-science professor at Arizona State University.

As a result, Obama is under pressure from Latinos and immigrant groups to back off from record deportations, he said. The government deported 392,862 people in fiscal 2010, according to Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

“For a lot of these people, it’s reached the boiling point,” Espino said.

On Tuesday, Latino activists protested outside Obama’s 2012 campaign headquarters in Chicago, calling for an end to the Secure Communities program. The federal program screens the fingerprints of people booked into jails across the country to look for immigration violators or illegal immigrants who have committed crimes.

Senior White House officials denied that the new deportation policy is in response to the criticism over the administration’s deportations.

They said that changes to the Secure Communities program have resulted in more criminals being deported and that the program is now deporting more criminals than non-criminals, a shift from the past.

Louis DeSipio, a political-science professor at University of California-Irvine, said Obama appears to be trying to strike a middle ground heading into the 2012 election to appease both Latinos and immigration-enforcement supporters.

He doubts either side will be satisfied. Enforcement supporters will view the new policy as softening on illegal immigration, while Latinos and immigrant advocates will remain disillusioned with Obama for failing to get immigration reform passed, he said.

Under the changes announced Thursday, senior White House officials said the government will review 300,000 pending immigration cases one by one to look for low-priority cases that could be thrown out under a process known as “prosecutorial discretion.” Low-priority cases would include illegal immigrants living in the U.S. for a long time with families, as well as undocumented students who had been brought to this country at a young age, officials said. Gay couples would be included in the definition of families, they said.

Eliminating the low-priority cases would help unclog the Immigration Court system and free up resources that could be used to focus on illegal immigrants convicted of crimes, the officials said in a conference call with journalists. They said the policy change would be handled on a case-by-case basis.

Cases being reviewed could include a combination of people now being held in ICE detention facilities and others who are free awaiting hearings.

Undocumented immigrants who have their cases thrown out would not gain any legal status and would remain illegal immigrants if they chose to stay in the country, though some might qualify for work permits, officials said. The cases could be reopened later, they said.

Norma Bernal, 40, an Avondale resident and undocumented immigrant from Sinaloa, Mexico, said she hopes the new policy will allow her to remain in the United States.

In July 2010, Bernal was arrested as part of a worksite raid conducted by Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio at a Sizzler steak house on Indian School Road in west Phoenix. Bernal, who stocked the salad bar, was arrested on suspicion of using false documents to gain employment. She spent three months in jail before she was turned over to immigration-enforcement officials. She said she spent another 10 months in a federal immigration-detention center in Eloy before she was released while she fights the government’s attempt to deport her.

“That is my hope, that the government will look at my case and realize that the only thing I wanted to do was work and take care of my family,” said Bernal, who has two daughters born in the U.S. and has lived in the country since 1995.

Gerald Burns, a Chandler immigration lawyer, said the immigration court in Phoenix is so backlogged, it is taking on average 3.5 years to 4 years for cases to conclude. He said some immigration judges are setting final hearings for cases as far away as October 2016.

Even though immigration officials said they are deporting more criminals than non-criminals, that does not appear to be the case in Phoenix.

Most of the cases Burns sees are low-level cases involving undocumented immigrants swept up in raids by the Sheriff’s Office or programs such as Secure Communities.

“You go to court on any given day and 90 percent of the cases you see in the courtroom are people charged with illegal re-entry or visa overstays,” Burns said.

Delia Salvatierra, a Phoenix immigration lawyer, said throwing out some low-level immigration cases might allow some immigrants to remain in the country until Congress takes up immigration reform in the future. Congress is not expected to revisit the issue until after the 2012 election at the earliest.

“I would rather see (Obama) do this administrative bandage than see people separated from their families,” she said.

Republic reporter Richard Ruelas contributed to this article.

From Fox News:

Obama Administration to Review All Deportation Cases, Apply DREAM Act-Style Criteria

The Obama administration announced Thursday that it would launch a case-by-case review of illegal immigrants slated for deportation, in a move that could grant a reprieve to so-called DREAM Act beneficiaries and thousands of others.

More….

From the Los Angeles Times:

U.S. will review cases of 300,000 illegal immigrants in deportation proceedings

The Obama administration said it will review the cases of 300,000 illegal immigrants currently in deportation proceedings to identify “low-priority” offenders — including the elderly, crime victims and people who have lived in the U.S. since childhood — with an eye toward allowing them to stay.

More…

COMMENTARY: Latino political leaders have been demanding Obama execrise “prosecutorial discretion” and look the other way when deciding who to enforce the immigration laws on.

“Prosecutorial Discretion” is urged to change immigration policy

Even though Obama originally had been saying he’d leave immigration policy to Congress, he’s obviously changed his mind. Got to get those Latino votes in 2012.

There is one major problem…we cannot assume the processing of the 300,000 candidates for being allowed to stay is going to actually weed out real criminals.

The last time the federal government tried to process a lot of illegal aliens to decide who got legal status, the system was overrun with fraud and the federal government looked the other way and let a lot of people stay they should have deported.

That’s why people call the 1986 immigration reform act “amnesty”.

Federal government ineptness main enemy of immigration law reform

The rising complaints from cities about Secure Communities probably influenced Obama’s decision. A good idea…deport illegal alien criminals as a priority…but turned into another one of Obama’s stat games…ICE grabbed anyone including crime victims and “removed” them. Local communities got to distrusting the feds because if crime victioms are being deported for reporting being victims of crimes, they won’t report the crime. The criminals get a free ride.

Instead of trying to make his government work better…demanding ICE concentrate on deporting real criminals… Obama has admitted his government failed with Secure Communities and now he needs to protect what he considers “innocent’ illegal aliens who have committed no crimes since commiting the crime of ilegal entry.

A lot of people do not buy this distinction.

Here are some articles to put this in context:

Illegal immigrants do not have a “right to work” in the United States

ICE Agent union objects to back door amnesty scheme of agency boss

US House to debate bill that would increase deportations

Fight about reforms to Secure Communities program heats up

Secure Communities Sucks and must be changed

The two aspects of the border debate

From AmericasVoice.org press release:

GOP 2012 Field on Immigration – The Self-Defeating Strategy Continues

Candidates, Including Rick Perry, Continue to Alienate Latino Voters

Washington, DC – Just as they have in past election cycles, Republican presidential candidates are struggling with the issue of immigration.  Judging from early lessons from the burgeoning 2012 race, the Republicans’ strategy appears to be: stick to their border security sound bites and avoid the other immigration issues at all costs.  Yet such a balancing act remains increasingly tenuous for any of the 2012 candidates – including the newest entry into the field, Gov. Rick Perry (R-TX).  Unless leading Republicans change their anti-immigrant ways, they will have a hard time winning a national election.   

At last Thursday’s FOX News debate, the GOP presidential candidates ducked and dodged a key question on immigration: “as President, what would they do about the 11 million undocumented immigrants in our country today?”  We heard the usual talking points about border security, but little about what the candidates would do with undocumented immigrants living in this country today.  Governor Huntsman was directly asked, but didn’t answer.  None of the candidates were pushed, which isn’t surprising given the venue.  FOX News just accepted the spin. 

But as Andres Oppenheimer points out in his column in yesterday’s Miami Herald, even if they avoid saying the words, they still send the message that they are for mass deportation.  Oppenheimer believes the Republicans’ immigration strategy could cost them the election, as the debate cements the GOP’s anti-Latino image among Latino voters.    

According to Lynn Tramonte, Deputy Director of America’s Voice: “When you try to please everyone, you end up pleasing no one.  A hard line and avoiding tough questions on immigration won’t win Republican candidates support from the Latino community.  Embracing practical, comprehensive immigration reform would improve their image with both Latino voters and the broader electorate.”

During last week’s debate, the candidates stressed mainly the need for “border security first” and their love of “legal” immigration.  The fact is, the border is far safer than portrayed by Republican politicians, and the flow of immigrants coming into the U.S. illegally has dropped to all-time lows.  Declaring that the border must be “secure” before any other immigration reforms are considered is a political talking point, not a plan to fix the broken immigration system.   

“When will the border be ‘secure enough’ that Republican presidential candidates agree to move onto other issues, like the status of undocumented immigrants who have been here for years, working and raising families?  My guess is, not while Barack Obama is president,” Tramonte continued.      

Texas Governor Rick Perry’s entry into the race is unlikely to change things.  As governor, the only thing consistent about Perry’s immigration views is his inconsistency.  After initially criticizing Arizona’s SB 1070 ‘papers, please’ anti-immigration law, Perry tried to ram through a police state law that mimics key portions of the Arizona law.  And Perry supports the Texas law that allows some undocumented students to attend state colleges at in-state tuition rates, but opposes the federal DREAM Act which would allow these same students to work legally after graduating from college. 

“Latinos are the fastest-growing voter group, and they are not easily fooled.  The GOP’s hard-line anti-immigration approach is making it impossible for Republican candidates to compete for these voters.  Instead of embracing a practical solution that is in line with what the vast majority of Latino voters and other Americans want, the GOP primary field is throwing red meat to the base and hoping Latino voters aren’t listening or don’t understand. 

“Perhaps the only GOP candidate who is being up front with Latino voters in Rep. Ron Paul, who said that he opposes ‘amnesty’ because it could turn immigrants into voters.  That’s a very revealing statement.  Rather than working to win over this electorate by embracing policies they support, he’d like to keep them from voting in the first place,” Tramonte concluded. 

For more on the politics of immigration and Republican 2012 Presidential candidates, see:

• America’s Voice report on Latino Republican candidates:  http://americasvoiceonline.org/research/entry/attn_gop_latino_candidates_not_enough_to_win_latino_vote

• America’s Voice report on GOP 2012 candidates and immigration: http://americasvoiceonline.org/research/entry/report_why_do_elephants_put_their_heads_in_the_sand

America’s Voice — Harnessing the power of American voices and American values to win common sense immigration reform.

www.americasvoiceonline.org

###

NOTE: I try to run press releases from both sides of the immigration debate so you the readers can make up your own mind about the issue.

The immigration debate is tainted by a sense of entitlement from illegal aliens that they have some kind of right to illegally cross our border and work in the United States.

Having talked to many illegal immigrants over the years several arguments are made for why they crossed illegally into the US:

The primary argument is that there is no work or opportunity for them where they live, and in order to feed their families they must go “al norte”.

The second and related argument is there is “trabajo”…work…waiting for them in the US.

The third and more recent vintage argument is it is so difficult to cross and it costs so much in coyote fees that the initial illegal immigrant can’t go back and forth, and thus the family must join him or her in the US. That’s why we’ve seen a significant increase in woman and children crossing illegally in recent years.

All of these arguments are true as far as they go.

But they leave out some significant issues which Americans are responding to legitimately and with increasing anger.

On the first justification, the driver behind illegal immigration is the failure of Mexico’s economy (and other countries) to provide enough good job opportunities so folks can stay in their home countries and feed their families.

While the US may have some indirect responsibility for the failure of economies like Mexico to be able to absorb its own work force (NAFTA’s agricultural impact on Mexican subsistence farmers) the bottom line is it is not the United States of America’s responsibility to solve the unemployment problem in Mexico or anywhere else.

It is the failure of Mexico to create a vibrant economy that can fully employ its own people. Mexico is pushing people out of its country rather than solve its own problems.

Rather than directly address that problem, Mexico has been exporting that problem to the United States for decades. This is a relief valve for Mexico because if millions of poor Mexicans were stuck inside their country, they might have another revolution.

The point from our side of the border is we have no duty or responsibility to solve the problems of Mexicans or immigrants from any other country that can’t get good paying work  feed their families at home. We certainly have enough problems inside our country creating jobs for our own people.

Where I believe a lot of the anger against illegal aliens comes from is this “entitlement” attitude of the immigrants that since they have problems in their own country, they can leave, illegally enter our country, and expect to have their problem solved at our expense.

The second justificati0on…that there are jobs waiting for the illegal immigrants…has been true for decades. They wouldn’t come to solve their own personal financial problems if there was not a solution waiting for them on our side of the border.

That is the “pull” side of the equation.

And, like it or not, there are a lot of jobs like farm work that American citizens will not do in sufficient numbers to keep our agribusiness functioning to capacity.

This creates a serious opportunity to exploit illegal immigrants because they have no rights like an American worker to things like a minimum wage or safe working conditions.

American businesses that hire illegal aliens benefit hugely from the cheap and unprotected labor pool.

If the illegal alien workers complain about working 12 hours a day 7 days a week, guess who calls ICE to have the troublesome workers deported?

We have a nasty form of slavery going on in the US…I call it “rent a slave”.

The third element is the effectiveness of securing our border which has made illegal entry more difficult and expensive.

The mistake in US border policy was to assume if the easy illegal entry points in border cities were choked off, the illegal immigrants would not risk their lives trying to cross through our harsh deserts and rugged mountains.

Wrong.

The economic pressures the illegal immigrants face create a desperation that does not dissuade them from trying anyway. And the real fact is if they are determined enough, they will succeed eventually. How else do you think we accumulated 5 or 6 million illegal aliens who illegally crossed out border?

Because of the increased difficulty to illegally cross and the higher coyote fees, the historic back-and-forth migration of workers changed, and now the families are moving north. At $2,000 a person, ultimately it is cheaper to import the rest of the family than go back and forth from work to home in Mexico. So our border security effort has had the counter effect of increasing the permanent resident population of illegal aliens from the south.

But that doesn’t giove the first illegal immigrant thr right to import his family to the US.

So what do we do?

On the first issue the illegal immigrants really need to lose that sense of entitlement that they can break our laws because of their personal needs.

They in effect saying “screw US sovereignty” by illegally crossing.

The “open borders” advocates agree with that entitlement claim and argue that for some reason in spite of our being a sovereign nation the folks living outside our border have some kind of “right” to come here because historically this was once part of Mexico, or because we have a land border, or whatever.

Americans are not buying the right to illegally enter our country. 

Interesting Hispanic American especially don’t agree with the “open borders” advocates because all this is doing is devaluing the people who played by the rules and came here legally.

One of these days the Repuiblican Party will figure out that instead of  voices like Russell Pearce or Joe Arpaio ranting about illegal aliens, this needs to be turned into a public safety issue for legal Hispanic residents of the country whose quality of life is degraded by illegal aliens.

It is not a race issue. It is who plays by the rules and who does not issue.

The voice for cracking down on illegal entry and securing our border should come from Hispanic Republicans. And I believe it will.

We’re getting our backs up because this is an invasion and we absolutely have the sovereign right to decide who can enter our country and on what terms and conditions.

Until and unless both the illegal immigrant community and their allies in the US understand that there is absolutely no right to illegally enter our country because it serves the illegal immigrants’ goals, the debate about immigration reform will remain stuck.

That is one of the core issues of the “no amnesty” position many take in the US.

If you broke our laws by illegally entering our country, that’s one big strike against you to gain some kind of right to stay.

That’s why all immigration reform proposals have elements of existing illegal immigrants having to admit to the crime of illegal entry, pay a fine, go to the back of the line, etc. before gaining legal status.

Interestingly I do not see immigrant rights groups accepting that the first step to legalize anyone is going to have to be a punitive element.

And we absolutely have the right to deport every single on of the 11 million illegal aliens in the country now.

Our problem is this is enormously expensive and impractical.

But to the degree that illegal aliens soak up welfare benefits, create costs for local governments, and fuel a crime wave in Hispanic neighborhoods, it may be just a question of time before some illegal alien commits an outrageous enough crime to push the country over the edge.

SB 1070 was fueled by the death of Douglas rancher Bob Krentz, and the murder of Border Patrol agent Brian Terry south of Tucson by an illegal alien has just added fuel to the fire to seal our border and deport the illegal aliens already here.

Immigrant rights advocates need to understand and appreciate that we must gain control and secure our border and stop the flow of illegal aliens and drug smuggling criminal aliens into the US. Period.

We must be able to decide who can come in and who cannot.

Right now illegal alien criminals have just as much opportunity to get into the US and wreak havoc on us and especially Hispanic communities as illegal workers. We can’t sort them out. Maybe the solution is throw them all out.

But first we must stop the flow before getting to the rest of the issues.

Until immigrant rights advocates accept securing the border to the maximum extent we’re not going anywhere.

Maybe we’re not talking about moats and alligators but we sure as hell are talking about opening up federal lands next to the border to secure it and not put protecting lizards ahead of securing our border.

A message to immigrant rights advocates…the environmentalists who oppose securing the border to protect the lizards are your worst enemy because if we cannot fully secure our border, there is nothing to talk about regarding immigration reform.

Turning to the next issue…the job magnet drawing illegal immigrants: Arizona did the right thing in cracking down on employers and the US Supreme Court said we can do this.

The more we can impose penalties on hiring illegal alien workers the better.

Sure the farmers in California and elsewhere will have a problem in the near term…all the more reason to support getting access to the border on federal lands to shut down the flow of illegal aliens and then work up some kind of guest worker visa program that will be effective.

The farmers dependent on illegal aliens need to support the efforts to secure our border. Not whine about how many peaches are going to rot this season because there aren’t enough workers on their farms. Not whine about E-Verify without putting a better alternative onb the table.

We get to another dimension of the problem…the US government has no credibility in being able to sort out the 11 million illegal aliens already inside the country to decide who gets legal status and who gets “removed”.

The 1986 “amnesty” was an “amnesty” because a huge percentage of the applicants for legal status used fraudulent paper to get in, and the US government knowingly looked the other way.

That’s why I have suggested the processing of illegal aliens be delegated to the states and funded from fees charged to illegal alien applicants for legal status. The states will do a lot better job than the feds will.

Finally, we do need a guest worker visa program to allow unskilled labor into the country…provided that labor pool does not gain resident of citizenship opportunity status as a result. Come here and work and go home.

Labor unions have been a big obstacle in creating a guest worker visa program.

Somehow they think if they can cut off the immigrant worker supply, they will protect their union members. That is what comes out the back end of a horse.

Labor unions need to get out of the way and concentrate on their own problems which are numerous and resulting in the decline of the labor movement in this country.

Again we have a massive administration issue with a guest worker visa program. Remember INS “lost” 5 or 6 million legal entrants who overstayed their visas.

Allowing workers to come in on worker visas just exacerbates the problem if no one can keep track of them and make sure they went home after their work visa expired.

I have yet to see a serious proposal that addresses the failure of the federal government to manage its existing visa program and propose an alternative that will work, without costing us taxpayers any more money.

Those who need immigrant workers really need to dig into this issue and come up with a program…I suggest administered again by states…that will make sure only non-criminal aliens get work visas and that they go home when their visas expire.

____________________________________

Comprehensive immigration reform…a proposal

What will it take to end illegal immigration?

States must have an important role in immigration reform

Why do they immigrate? The problem is Mexico

Federal government ineptness main enemy of immigration law reform

The two aspects of the border debate

Two faces of the border

Long hot summer predicted on immigration law reform debate

Poll shows Latinos taking immigration debate personally

U.S. Chamber Report Offers Recommendations for Creating a 21st Century U.S.–Mexico Border

Environmentalism vs. Border Control: A Complex Battle of Survival

Counting Grain Cars by Jack McGarvey

Mexican drug cartels need to be designated as terrorists

An immigrant’s story …my family comes to America

Migrants or mules? by Katie Micik….from The Progressive Farmer

Would you pick lettuce in Yuma?

“Prosecutorial Discretion” is urged to change immigration policy

Where is the border with Mexico? At the official border or 100 miles inland?

Recycling illegal aliens so they can commit more crimes in the United States

Smuggling of migrants into the US a $6.6 billion dollar business

Wilderness Areas on the border? What a great idea if you are a cartel drug smuggler

Cybercoyotes guiding illegal aliens around the Border Patrol with cell phones

Another Open Letter to Obama…this one from the residents in Eastern Arizona on their border situation

An open letter to Obama about the border

Legalizing 11 million illegal aliens does not mean 11 million Democrat votes

“Probationary Presence” not “amnesty” needed in immigration reform