Immigration 08 Blog

Posted 04/05/12 at 05:46pm By Web Team

BREAKING: Bill Proposing Changes to HB 56 Introduced in Alabama House

Breaking from Mike Hubbard's Communications Director, Todd Stacy:

 

More information soon.


Posted 03/05/12 at 02:42pm By Web Team

Happy Fourth Anniversary, America’s Voice!

birthday cakeIn early 2008, our Executive Director, Frank Sharry, had an idea.

‘There will be a new president in November,’ he thought.  ‘With change will come another opportunity to pursue something this country desperately needs—comprehensive immigration reform.’

‘Advocates of this fight need to be stronger,’ he thought.  ‘There is a need in the movement for a war room, a rapid-response communications shop that can push out a pro-reform message and push back against the extremists and the status quo.’

And with that—and with the help of many friends and allies along the way—came the birth of America’s Voice. At every step of the way, we’ve been privileged to work with outstanding allies who make this fight their life’s work.  Today, we want to thank everyone who has helped bring the movement this far.

The last four years have been ones of great struggle.  We in the immigration reform movement watched as Barack Obama went on to win a historic election, hopeful that he would fulfill a campaign promise to prioritize immigration reform during his first year.  Though that effort faltered, we were able to pass the DREAM Act in the House of Representatives and push for the closest Senate vote on the DREAM Act ever, 55-41 in the last few days of the 111th Congressional session.  We fought hard against the passage of anti-immigrant state laws in Arizona and Alabama, and successfully stopped such bills in states like Florida.

We defeated E-Verify—for now.  We helped push Lou Dobbs off the air.  And this year, we are making it clear to the GOP presidential candidates that their anti-immigrant extremist rhetoric will come with a price in November, when they find out just how many Latino voters care about immigration policy in swing states and and other places throughout the country.

Every day at America's Voice, we hear incredible stories from the immigrants and new Americans who help make this country great.  We hear the stories of their hopes and dreams, and we hear the stories of their fear and terror.  In an era where Republicans can get away with comparing immigrants to feral hogs that should be gunned down by helicopter, sometimes the toughest part of the fight involves reminding Americans that immigrants are people, too.

At this point in a birthday celebration, a typical organization might hopefully salute “to another four years!”  We here at America’s Voice, however, strive every day to work ourselves out of a job.  The immigrants being harassed in Arizona can’t wait another four years.  Neither can the families struggling to live without water in Alabama.  We don’t want another four years.  We want immigration reform now. 

Thank you for taking a stand.


Posted 01/26/12 at 01:07pm By Web Team

Mitt Romney Runs (but Can’t Hide) From DREAMers

After leaving Miami Dade College yesterday following his interview with Univision's Jorge Ramos, Romney went on to an event at the historical Freedom Tower where he spoke to Cuban-Americans about US-Cuba relations and his support for the Cuban community.  Obviously, immigration was not discussed at this event.

Not surprisingly, some insistent DREAMers were waiting for Romney outside of this event, chanting “Education Not Deportation”.  Check out the video here: 

Shortly after the forum, we were able to get reactions from Miami Dade College students, as well as from Lucy -- the DREAMer in NY who was able to confront Romney at a fundraising event -- and other DREAMers, who were waiting outside to ask why Romney won’t support their DREAMs. Watch some of their reactions here:

Romney once again chose to walk past them and not give them the time of day.

View pictures of the day's events here.


Posted 01/06/12 at 12:17pm By Web Team

Obama Administration Announces New Family Unity Waivers

immigrant familiesMajor development on immigration today, as reported by Julia Preston at the New York Times:

Obama administration officials announced on Friday that they will propose a fix to a notorious snag in immigration law that will spare hundreds of thousands of American citizens from prolonged separations from immigrant spouses and children.

The change that immigration officials are offering would benefit United States citizens who are married to or have children who are illegal immigrants. It would correct a bureaucratic Catch-22 that those Americans now confront when their spouses or children apply to become legal permanent residents.

So, what does this mean? America’s Voice Education Fund and American Immigration Lawyers Association explain.

In a notice in the Federal Register today,  the government announced that  they will be publishing a new regulation in the coming weeks  that will direct certain visa applicants to file their applications for family unity waivers in the U.S.  Currently, U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents face unnecessary and dangerous bureaucratic hurdles in obtaining lawful permanent resident status for their spouse or child.  They have to file a visa petition, and once the petition is approved and the visa appointment scheduled, the spouse or child has to travel to a U.S. consulate in their home country to be interviewed.  Any needed waiver must be applied for while the applicant is waiting in the home country, and the decision on the waiver often takes weeks, months or even over a year to be completed.   Meanwhile, families are separated and spouses and children are forced to wait in potentially dangerous situations until a waiver decision is made and then can complete their visa processing and return to the U.S. with their lawful permanent resident document (“green card”).

Today’s announcement is a limited, common sense processing change.  Lawmakers who claim to like LEGAL immigration but abhor ILLEGAL immigration should embrace it.  Government bureaucracy should not get in the way of family unity.

The new procedure will allow husbands, wives and children (under the age of 21)  of U.S. citizens to remain united with their family members and spend only a short time in Ciudad Juarez or at another U.S. consulate abroad, where they will still have to go to have their final visa interview and obtain their lawful permanent resident status.

While the government announcement indicates that the new procedures will apply only to U.S. citizen family members when they go into effect, there is no valid reason not to extend the same processing to immediate family members of lawful permanent residents whose spouses and children face the same obstacles and dangers when required to wait abroad for their waiver adjudications.

Government bureaucracy shouldn’t stand in the way of keeping families together: The American people understand the importance and value of family unity.  That’s why our immigration laws provide that U.S. citizens and lawful residents can apply for “green cards” for their foreign-born spouses and children and unite their families.  But government bureaucracy has created decades-long backlogs and put up other obstacles that keep husbands, wives and children separated for years.  One of these bureaucratic obstacles is the current waiver process that requires husbands, wives and children to wait outside the U.S. for weeks, months, or even years before getting a decision on their waiver application.

Stateside waiver processing is a rational solution to a simple problem: Waiver applications are often referred by U.S. consulates abroad back to DHS offices in the U.S. for adjudication.  Processing these applications “stateside” in the first place will save consular resources abroad, allow U.S. consulates to focus staff resources on their core mission of serving U.S. citizens in foreign lands, and will allow a professional cadre of DHS staff in the U.S. develop the expertise to adjudicate cases and apply uniform legal standards to those adjudications.

Husbands, wives and children should not have to risk their lives to get their lawful visa: There is no rational reason to make a husband, wife or child of a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident wait for months in a dangerous place for lawful status for which they qualify.  Tragic cases of family members being assaulted or killed as they await their waiver decision should never happen in our legal immigration system.

Removing unnecessary obstacles to family unity strengthens the fabric of U.S. society and benefits all Americans: Husbands, wives and adult children who are forced to remain separated from their loved ones for several months while waiting for a decision on their waiver application are not the only ones who suffer from this situation.  U.S. citizen and lawful resident spouses and parents who wait for their loved ones to return are deprived of the help, care and income that often sustains them.  And when the businesses and homes that are left behind cannot be sustained by those who remain in the U.S., entire communities suffer.

 

BACKGROUND:

Under U.S. immigration law, U.S. citizen and lawful permanent residents can apply for lawful permanent resident status (a “green card”) for their spouse or child.  While spouses and minor children of U.S. citizens are immediately eligible for their visa, the numbers of “green cards” issued each year to the spouses and children of lawful permanent residents are limited, so many of these family members are forced to wait in lengthy backlogs until their “priority date” becomes available and they can apply for their actual “green card.”

Spouses and children may be already living in the U.S. when their visa application is filed.  But when their visa appointment is scheduled, or their “priority date” is finally reached, they must travel back to their home country to be interviewed for their “green card.” In a “Catch 22” of U.S. law, when they leave the U.S. to go to their visa appointment at a U.S. consulate, their departure triggers a provision of law known as the “3 and 10 year bar” which prevents them from returning to the U.S., even if their “green card” is approved, for up to 10 years. 

Certain family members are eligible for a family unity waiver of the 3 and 10 year bar—those whose U.S. spouse or parent would suffer “extreme hardship” if they weren’t allowed to come back.  In a further “Catch 22” however, these family members cannot even apply for the waiver until they are back in their home country.  Mexican nationals, the majority of U.S. visa applicants, must travel to Ciudad Juarez to apply for a waiver at the U.S. consulate there.  They must then wait, sometimes several months or even more than a year, for an answer.  In 2009, 94,000 Mexican nationals applied for lawful permanent resident status in Ciudad Juarez.

Conditions in Ciudad Juarez are unbelievably dangerous.  Well-documented violence has resulted in travel warnings from the United States itself.  But family members have no choice but to go there if they have any hope of seeking a waiver and returning lawfully to the United States to live with their spouse or parent.

THE NEW PROCEDURE:

Given these conditions, DHS has decided to process waiver applications for certain family members of U.S. citizens here in the U.S. before the applicant has departed for their visa interview.  With a provisionally approved waiver in hand, the family member can then complete their travel and visa appointment in a shorter time, and avoid having to wait in dangerous circumstances in Ciudad Juarez or other dangerous or unstable places in the world.

This new procedure does not change the legal standard for the family unity waiver.  The applicant will still have to meet the burden of showing that a 3 or 10 year bar from the U.S. would cause their U.S. citizen spouse or parent “extreme hardship”.

ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND MATERIALS:


Posted 01/05/12 at 02:53pm By Web Team

Mitt Romney’s Vow To Veto DREAM Act Will Hurt GOP in General Election

Yesterday, Mitt Romney was endorsed by John McCain. Today, McCain expressed concerns about the Republican strategy on immigration. From First Read:

Yesterday, one of us interviewed John McCain after he endorsed Romney at an event in New Hampshire. Toward the end of the interview, we asked McCain this question: Is Arizona in play in the general election? And his reaction was especially telling. He paused for a few moments and replied, “I think that if not this election cycle, the demographics are that Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, even Texas will all be in play.” McCain, who was once a principal architect of comprehensive immigration reform but who no longer supports it until the border is secured, added: “We have to fix our problems with the Hispanics.” Where does it start? “It starts with a way to address the issue of immigration in a humane and caring fashion -- at the same time emphasize the need to secure our borders.”

McCain might want to share some of that perspective with Romney. The Latino vote is critical in this election cycle. It was the last election cycle, too. McCain lost in Florida, Colorado, New Mexico and Nevada because of the Latino vote. He's a classic example of the GOP's problem with immigration reform. Like Romney, McCain used to be for it. Not now. McCain even voted against the DREAM Act back in December of 2010. And, that brings us back to Romney and the DREAM Act.

Romney's vow to veto the DREAM Act continues to reverberate.

Today on a press call, experts on Latino voters, the politics of immigration, and the DREAM Act highlighted how Mitt Romney's recent pledge to veto the DREAM Act will imperil his chances in the general election.  Romney's comments sit right at home with the GOP field, which has continued to stick to a strategy of tacking to the hard right on immigration throughout the primary season.  However, as speakers discussed today, findings from an updated America's Voice report suggest that this strategy only serves to threaten the GOP's chances in the general election.

Eliseo Medina, International Secretary Treasurer of SEIU, assessed the current state of play regarding the immigration debate, Latino voters, and the 2012 presidential race:

It’s not looking good for anti-immigrant Mitt here. Latino voters are paying attention to how Republicans talk about them, and their rejection of sensible programs like the DREAM Act are not playing well with the community.  Republicans think if they don’t appear in Hispanic media or at Hispanic venues Latinos won’t know what they’re up to—well, guess what? We speak English too. They can run but they can’t hide.

Supporting the DREAM Act means everything to the Latino community.  According to Lorella Praeli, Member of the National Coordinating Committee for United We Dream:

 For our communities, the DREAM Act has been a litmus test of whether a policy maker stands with us or against us. We’ve never heard a candidate for president say they’d veto the DREAM Act and we won’t stand for it now. Candidates should remember that language matters, and our communities are listening, and that we as DREAMers will make sure that our families and friends know where these candidates and policy makers stand. 

As the polls show, taking a hardline stance on immigration--and the DREAM Act in particular--will hurt GOP candidates with Latino voters, and is unpopular with the general electorate as well.  Polling from impreMedia and Latino Decisions in February 2011 shows that 58% of all voters support the DREAM Act.  In addition, 84% of Latino voters continue to overwhelmingly support the DREAM Act.

Latino polling expert Matt Barreto, Political Science Professor at University of Washington and Principal at Latino Decisions, furthered this research by saying:

Poll after poll shows that a clear majority of the American public, and over 80% of Latino voters, support passage of the DREAM Act. Governor Romney's veto comments put him at great risk of alienating Latino voters and Independent voters nationwide.

According to David Damore, Professor of Political Science at the University of Las Vegas, Nevada, Latinos have been playing a critical role in elections throughout his battleground state of Nevada:

As the 2010 U.S. Senate election in Nevada between Harry Reid and Sharron Angle demonstrated, the Latino vote and issues such as the DREAM Act can make the difference in America’s new swing region. As a consequence, Mitt Romney is likely to rue the day he promised to veto the DREAM Act as without even lifting a finger, President Obama’s 2012 prospects for winning not just Nevada, but also Arizona, Colorado, and New Mexico improved.

As the updated America's Voice report shows, the anti-immigrant rhetoric and policies have been echoed by others in the GOP field.  Rick Santorum made yet another attempt to appeal to the far right on immigration by calling himself “a Steve King guy on immigration,” modeling himself after one of the most xenophobic and extreme congressional voices on immigration.  Additionally, fellow GOP contender Ron Paul supports repealing birthright citizenship and voted against the DREAM Act in 2010.  Paul also revealed that his opposition to “amnesty” for undocumented immigrants has a distinctly political element and stems from not wanting them to become voters: at an August debate, Paul said, “I don’t think that we should give amnesty and they become voters.”   

Frank Sharry, Executive Director of America’s Voice, put it like this:

Romney's commitment to veto the DREAM Act not only slams the door on opportunity for young immigrants who are Americans in all but paperwork, but further slams the door on his ability to win the Latino vote.  This is the most radical position a candidate can take, and for Latinos that are interested in the future of their communities, it is unacceptable to vote for someone that stands in the way of the aspirations and ambitions of young people who have done everything asked of them to contribute to the only country they know and love.

In an interview with Univision's Mariana Atencio, Gaby Pacheco provided an excellent analysis of what Romney's DREAM veto means:


Posted 01/05/12 at 11:06am By Web Team

“Defiant” Joe Arpaio Says He Will Cooperate with DOJ Discrimination Investigation

joe arpaio

Yesterday was the deadline for Maricopa Sheriff Joe Arpaio to indicate whether he would cooperate with the United States Department of Justice. On December 15 2010, DOJ released the findings of a three-year study of racial discrimination in Arpaio's department, which found evidence of what we've long known.  Arpaio has "engage[d] in a pattern or practice of unconstitutional policing"  and "a chronic culture of disregard for basic legal and constitutional obligations." 

Well, Arpaio did respond -- in typical Sheriff Joe fashion with some bravado and attitude:

It was a pledge for cooperation with a dose of confrontation when Sheriff Joe Arpaio told the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division that he would cooperate with the federal government's efforts to resolve allegations of widespread discrimination in the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office.

 Maricopa County Sheriff's Office's letter to the Department of Justice

Arpaio's promise Wednesday to cooperate came with a detailed 29-page request for more than 100 pieces of information that U.S. Department of Justice investigators compiled during the years-long probe of the Sheriff's Office, including the identity of sheriff's employees interviewed during the course of the investigation and the names of Latino residents against whom Arpaio's deputies have allegedly discriminated.

The Phoenix News Times Blog has more, noting Arpaio's continued "whining" -- and a prediction that this will end up in court:

A defiant sheriff, however, also says he "will not cower to the threat of litigation" -- the DOJ says it plans to take the sheriff to court if he fails to cooperate.

Arpaio says his cooperation is contingent on the fed's ability to "play ball" -- he's demanded the DOJ produce evidence of all the allegations it's made against the MCSO before the sheriff will consider cooperating. He's given the DOJ until January 18 to cough up the proof.

From the sound of the sheriff's letter -- which includes more whining about the DOJ's "political witch hunt," and griping about the timing of the announcement of the fed's report -- it seems like Arpaio and the feds are destined to find themselves in a courtroom, which will cost taxpayers even more community coin defending America's priciest sheriff.

We'll continue to watch how this plays out. Arpaio can talk tough and be defiant, but he may have finally met his match in Tom Perez and the US Department of Justice.


Posted 01/04/12 at 03:50pm By Web Team

Round-Up: Iowa Caucuses Guarantee that Immigration Will Be a Key Issue in 2012

Last night was the official first start for the 2012 race to the White House, and as we expected the issue of immigration was never far from the limelight.

Without a doubt, Mitt Romney’s recent promise to veto the DREAM Act was the biggest news out of Iowa. Speaking to a crowd in Ice Cream Capital of the World, Le Mars, Iowa Romney said, “The question is if I were elected and Congress were to pass the Dream Act, would I veto it and the answer is yes."

Romney’s statements set off a firestorm online. Matt Viser of the Boston Globe, David Axelrod and Ben Smith tweeted about it just minutes after he made is statement.

Last fall, Lionel Sosa, a Republican strategist who worked for George W. Bush and John McCain, predicted to the New York Times that Romney “can make as many trips to Florida and New Mexico and Colorado and other swing states that have a large Latino population, but he can write off the Latino vote.  He’s not going to gain it again.”

Romney’s statements on DREAM – while maybe the final nail in his Latino Vote coffin – weren’t the only immigration take-a-way from Iowa. Rick Perry raised some eyebrows by romping around the state with America’s Worst Sherriff, Joe Arpaio back in December.

Despite the fact that Perry admittedly did not know the details about the Justice Department’s charges against Arpaio, Perry said, “I would suggest to you that these people are out after Sheriff Joe," He went on to say, "He is tough. And again, when I'm the president of the United States, you're not going to see me going after states like Arizona or Alabama, suing sovereign states for making decisions."

Whoops!

In the final days before the Iowa caucuses, Santorum made yet another attempt to appeal to the far right on immigration by calling himself “a Steve King guy on immigration.” But no one ever expected that Santorum to be good on immigration, or win the Latino vote (or win the GOP nomination.)

 But a recent Pew Hispanic Center report showed that, "84% of Latinos favor granting in-state tuition to unauthorized immigrants." Over 91% favor the DREAM Act.

Christina Costantini of the Huffington Post wrote,

"At nearly every mention of immigration, Santorum invokes the beauty of the "American melting pot" and his own identity as the son of an Italian immigrant. Simultaneously, Santorum is insistent that drastic measures be taken to strengthen border security and stays safely ambiguous on what should be done with the 11 million undocumented immigrants who are already here. He says, "we'll have that discussion [after]" the border is secured.”

 Costantini also points out that:

“Latinos account for 16.3 percent of the U.S. population, but only 5 percent of Iowa's populace -- making the state an imperfect testing ground for Santorum's popularity with the important voting block. The Pew Hispanic Center estimates that Latinos represented about one tenth of eligible voters in 2010.”

So, Iowa is over. But, the debate about immigration is only beginning.


Posted 01/04/12 at 11:04am By Web Team

DREAMers Challenge Romney on DREAM Veto threat. Romney Doubles Down Against Them

Last night, Mitt Romney won the Iowa Republican Caucus by 8 votes. The campaign now moves to New Hampshire, South Carolina and Florida. Romney's recent vow to veto the DREAM Act continues to dog him -- and will be a major issue moving forward, especially in Florida.

The Miami Herald published a letter to Romney from a number of our DREAMers, which was also sent our way:

Open Letter to Governor Mitt Romney from DREAMers

Governor Mitt Romney,

You recently stated that if elected president of the United States, you would veto the federal DREAM Act and would not support any legislation that grants in-state tuition for undocumented students.

At this point, we are wondering whether you know the facts about the DREAM Act as your statement appears highly inconsistent considering your political record. Your political history indicates that you once supported several immigration reforms, some of which included the DREAM Act.

* In 2005, you supported an immigration reform plan that Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ), and Sen. John Cornyn, (R-TX) proposed and called it a "reasonable proposal". During an interview with the Boston Globe in November 2005, you showed your support and said it was not amnesty. The Comprehensive Enforcement and Immigration Reform Act of 2005 (S. 1438), which failed to pass in Congress, would have required undocumented immigrants to pay a fee and would be allowed to apply for citizenship.

* In 2007, you also supported the McCain-Kennedy immigration reform that provided a pathway to citizenship for those who entered the country illegally. During an interview with Meet the Press, you showed your support for the bill saying, "My own view is...those people who come here illegally and are in this country, the 12 million or so that are here illegally, should be able to sign up for permanent residency or citizenship."

* Two months later, in 2008, while running for president for the first time, you changed your stance on illegal immigration and campaigned against it.

* Now, in your second attempt to run for president, you are again opposing creating a path to legalization for the undocumented immigrant population. During a Republican presidential debate in November you stated, "To say that we're going to say to the people who have come here illegally that now you're going to get to stay or some large number are going to get to stay and become permanent residents of the United States, that will only encourage more people to do the same thing. People respond to incentives and if you can become a permanent resident of the United States by coming here illegally, you'll do so."

Vitriolic, anti-immigrant rhetoric has been the platform for some of the current presidential Republican candidates. However, we want you to set the record straight on the DREAM Act. You have to recognize the positive impact this legislation would have on the U.S. and the lives of the 2.1 million undocumented young immigrants who would benefit from it.

A 2010 study by the UCLA North American Integration and Development Center estimates that the total earnings of DREAM Act beneficiaries over the course of their working lives would be between $1.4 trillion and $3.6 trillion. This translates into greater tax revenue and scores of new jobs. If you are serious about fixing the economy, the DREAM Act is the solution, not the problem.

On Saturday, you said you support creating a path to legalization for undocumented immigrants who serve in the military. In fact, this is included in the DREAM Act. You also said that if elected president, you would veto the federal DREAM Act and that you don't support giving benefits to young immigrants, such as in-state tuition. Once again, the current DREAM Act does not give undocumented youth in-state tuition or preferences over U.S. citizens. Instead, it would allow each state to decide whether or not to grant undocumented students in-state tuition and would only allow them to apply for student loans and federal work-study programs.

Moreover, your recent stance on opposing a pathway to citizenship is contrary to the wishes of the American people. A recent Fox News national poll showed that 66 percent of Americans think there should be a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, but only if individuals meet requirements such as paying back taxes and learning English. Indeed, your current stance will not give you the support from our immigrant community and Latino voters, who will be a determining factor in the 2012 presidential race. According to a Pew Hispanic Center poll released in December, 88 percent of Latino registered voters nationwide support the DREAM Act.

Over the past 10 years, since the DREAM Act was first introduced, Republicans and Democrats have used us to score cheap political points, and we will no longer stand for that.

Even though we are still not allowed to drive, work, and use our college degrees, we have not given up. We will continue to mobilize our communities until we're given the opportunity to give back to this country we love and call home.

Sincerely,

DRM Capitol Group

Maryland DREAM Team

El Cambio in North Carolina

Arizona DREAMers

New Mexico DREAMers in Action

Connecticut Students for a DREAM

New York DREAMers

DREAM Team Los Angeles

Gaby Pacheco, Trail of Dreams

DREAM Big Vegas

But, Romney is sticking with his opposition to DREAM. This morning, CNN reported "Romney defends DREAM Act Stance": 

Mitt Romney, fresh from a narrow win in the Iowa caucuses, defended Wednesday his opposition to the DREAM act, which would allow a path to citizenship for minors in the country illegally.

"You know, the Hispanic-American voters I speak with are overwhelmingly concerned with opportunity," Romney said on CNN's "Starting Point with Soledad O'Brien."

As polls have shown, "Hispanic-American voters" are overwhelmingly supportive of the DREAM Act, which provides an opportunity for immigrant youth. In February, Matt Barreto from Latino Decisions wrote a post titled, Why the DREAM Act will matter in the 2012 election, which examined the support for DREAM:

Looking to 2012, it is clear that immigration and the DREAM Act will still be on the minds of Latino voters. As a recap, 60% said immigration was one of the most important issues in the 2010 election, and 47% said it was the top issue in February 2011 – more than any other issue. Not surprisingly, support for the DREAM Act is strongest, indeed almost universal, among those who say they will vote for Obama in 2012. 

So, Mitt should really read -- and heed -- that open letter from the DREAMers. He won't. But, he should.


Posted 01/03/12 at 11:32am By Web Team

Romney’s New Year’s Resolution: Veto the DREAM Act

In case you missed, it over the holiday weekend, Mitt Romney told Iowa caucus voters that he would veto the DREAM Act if elected president. We all knew Romney was running to the far right on immigration in Iowa, but this was his most definitive stance to date.

Here’s the video:

Romney’s statement on New Year’s Eve set off a firestorm online. Matt Viser of the Boston Globe first broke the story, but within minutes everyone from David Axelrod to Ben Smith tweeted about it.  His comments were also widely reported in Spanish media and put the nail in the coffin of any hope Romney may have had of competing for Latino voters in the general election.

Polling from impreMedia and Latino Decisions in February 2011 found that 85% of Latino voters across the political spectrum support the DREAM Act.  Matt Barreto of Latino Decisions wrote:

Looking to 2012, it is clear that immigration and the DREAM Act will still be on the minds of Latino voters…We broke out support for the DREAM Act by intended vote choice in 2012 and found regardless of how Latinos will vote, a very strong majority support the DREAM Act. Among Obama voters, 79% strongly support and 14% somewhat support the DREAM Act – that’s 93% support for seeing this bill passed among the President’s Latino base. Further, among those who say they are undecided 62% strongly support DREAM with 23% somewhat support, all told 85% in favor.  Even among those who plan to vote for a GOP candidate in 2012, Republican contenders should take note, that Republican leaning Latinos also supported the DREAM Act by a big margin: 52% strongly support and 23% somewhat support, totaling to 75% approval of the bill.

Frank Sharry, Executive Director of America’s Voice, provided our perspective:

Romney will find it virtually impossible to reach the 40% threshold among Latino voters that Republican candidates need to win the White House.  This will make it much more difficult for Romney to be competitive in the key swing states of Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Nevada and New Mexico.


Posted 12/22/11 at 05:09pm By Web Team

Happy Holidays from America’s Voice!

It’s been a crazy year in immigration.

As 2011 winds to a close and we reflect back upon the year, it’s hard to believe that just 12 months ago, we were watching the DREAM Act fail in the Senate by a historic 55-41 vote.

So much has happened since then--many fights, many victories, a few ongoing battles.

We halted DREAMer deportations and kept students like Mariano and Mandeep at home.  We stopped Lamar Smith’s anti-immigrant E-Verify bill dead in its tracks and watched the Maryland DREAM Act become law.

We fought anti-immigrant legislation state by state, stomping out the flames of intolerance wherever they sprung up.  Texas, Florida, and California are among the states that are safe from SB 1070-like laws, at least for now.

We did not win every battle.  HB 56, the nation’s harshest immigration law, continues to ravage through communities in Alabama.  You can bet that we’ll continue the push to repeal it next year, and work to keep such bills from spreading.

We couldn’t have done any of this without you.  Thank you so much for being involved and for taking the time to make a difference.

We hope that you and your loved ones will have a wonderful holiday and a happy new year.  See you in January!

Peace on earth and goodwill towards all, 

 

America's Voice


Posted 12/22/11 at 04:47pm By Web Team

Victor Palafox of Alabama DREAMers for the Future: My Story of Alabama’s HB 56 Immigration Law

victor palafoxBelow is a guest post by Victor Palafox, a 19-year-old DREAMer and a leader of Alabama DREAMers for the Future.  Since the state of Alabama began implementing its HB 56 immigration law in late September, Victor has watched the law profoundly affect his friends, family, neighbors, and community members.  He shares his thoughts with us in the blog post and video below:

On June 9, 2011, Governor of Alabama Robert Bentley, with the support of the Alabama legislature, signed into law the now-infamous HB 56 immigration bill.  Composed of social, political, and economic barbs, the law has completely changed life as we’ve known it for all undocumented immigrants throughout the state.

The effects of the law were immediate and could be seen first-hand.  In my neighborhood, I remember an individual packing; I remember seeing a bright-red truck packed to the brim with furniture, bags of clothes, and various other miscellaneous items.  Throughout the neighborhood, signs that indicated whether a house was for sale or for rent popped up in a matter of hours, and even people who had lived there for decades simply left.  Many people asked what would happen to us, what would become of our families, what would become of all that we had worked for and earned in this country. 

As an organizer, I have met immigrants from all different parts of the state.  The pain here is something visible, something in the air, something in our hearts.  You can be talking to someone, seeing them smile, hearing their laughter, and then watch that all dissipate as soon as you ask them about HB 56.  This law doesn’t represent us, and it certainly doesn’t represent me.  The view of many Alabamians is best summed up by a waitress I had the chance with to converse with one day:

“This [the law] is wrong!” she said.  “People are people, and you shouldn’t treat them like that.”

I met a man who loves his state, loves his country, but most importantly, loves his wife.  According to the state of Alabama, he fell in love with the wrong woman--an undocumented Salvadorian--and the state will do its best to punish them both for it.  His wife cannot stand to live in Alabama for much longer, and when she leaves, he will leave with her.  He will be forced to leave Alabama rather than allow a law to come between him and his wife.   Truly, the most hateful part of HB 56 is how it turns ordinary individuals into lawbreakers for daring to have any contact with undocumented immigrants.

The effects of HB 56 are rampant.  Schools are seeing students leave in record numbers, business owners are watching some of their best workers depart, and undocumented families are being broken apart.  Alabama never had very many undocumented immigrants to begin with.  Those who are leaving are those who have lived here for years.  They are business owners, they are parents to American citizens, they are taxpayers who are investing in our state. 

I remember one instance when I was driving home with one community leader.  I vividly recall the desperation in his voice:

"Why is this happening, Victor?" he asked.  "Why do I have to leave Alabama? I like Alabama! Why am I having to choose to leave or stay when I have given it all for this state?" 

Since HB 56 was passed, all undocumented immigrants in this state are facing that decision.  Will they stay in the state they have called home for decades?  Or admit that they have nothing more to gain here, and everything to lose?

And of course, I have a small confession to make.  I myself am an undocumented student.  I am a high school graduate with a passion for classical guitar, and I do not have papers.  My guitar tutor once intended for me to study classical guitar at a Georgia university, but I always knew that I would be unable to accept that offer because of the limitations that my legal status puts upon my future.  Regardless of the fact that I was accepted into universities throughout the South, I am not in university.  Yet I still consider myself a student: over the past months, I have learned things that I could never have learned in university, and those lessons will never leave me. 

I am hoping to send one clear message: that we are all Alabama, we are all Arizona, we are all Utah, Georgia, and South Carolina. Fostering hope is the only way to maintain a direction of progress, to keep the wheels turning, and to keep the people moving forward.


Posted 12/15/11 at 05:29pm By Web Team

The Worst of Maricopa County’s Sheriff Joe Arpaio

joe arpaioAs the Department of Justice’s investigation has shown, Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s discriminatory practices and abuses of power have made him a Bull Connor for the 21st century. Below are some of the highlights--or rather, lowlights--of Arpaio’s career: terrorizing immigrants and detainees such as the mother he forced to give birth in shackles; abusing power and embracing corruption, including misusing $100 million in taxpayer money to fund his own pet projects; and ignoring serious crime in his county, including letting over 400 sex crimes cases go uninvestigated.

April 2008: Over 40,000 Un-Served Felony Warrants 
In an interview with Arpaio, an Arizona Republic reporter pointed out that the county had over 40,000 unserved felony warrants, and quoted Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon saying that Arpaio had created “a sanctuary county” for felons.

June 2008: 2,700 Lawsuits Filed Against Arpaio
Between 2004 and 2007, 2,700 lawsuits were filed against Sheriff Joe Arpaio in federal and county courts – 50 times the number of suits filed in New York, Los Angeles, Chicago and Houston combined.

October 2008: Arpaio Stages Phony Murder Plot Against Himself, Accused Released for Wrongful Imprisonment, County Pays Over $1 Million to Settle
In 2004 a man was released from prison after being wrongly accused of plotting to kill Arpaio. Evidence suggested that Arpaio’s office staged the plot and the County agreed to pay over $1 million to settle the case. The County’s insurance policy paid an additional un-released amount.

October 2008: Judge Says Conditions in Arpaio’s Jails “Violate the Constitution”
A federal judge ruled in October 2008 that Sheriff Arpaio and county health officials “violated the Constitution by depriving jail inmates of adequate medical screening and care, feeding them unhealthy food and housing them in unsanitary conditions.”

May 2009: Arpaio Stalks Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard
On the day the Arizona Republic ran an article about an FBI investigation of Arpaio’s office that quoted Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard, Arpaio’s deputies went to Goddard’s home. They sat in a squad car watching the house for ninety minutes before leaving.

November 2009: Arpaio Forces Mother to Give Birth while Handcuffed to Bed
In a story reported by Telemundo in 2009, Sheriff Arpaio forced Alma Minerva Chacon to give birth while she was in shackles. Following the birth, Chacon was told that unless someone came to pick up the newborn in 72 hours, her child would be turned over to state custody.

December 2009: Arpaio Under FBI Investigation for Using his Power to Intimidate Political Opponents
After Arpaio and a political ally attempted to indict local officials they saw as enemies, the FBI launched an investigation into whether Arpaio was abusing his position to target his opponents. As local TV station KPHO reported: “The merit of the charges” Arpaio filed against opponents “are lost on a public who is becoming increasingly cynical of the persecution of political foes in Maricopa County even for a local folk hero like Arpaio.”

October 2010: Violent Crime Rates Rise Under Arpaio, Fall in Rest of Arizona 
From 2002 to 2009, the rate of violent crime across the state of Arizona fell by 12%, and cities within Maricopa County saw significant decreases as well. Areas policed by Arpaio’s sheriff’s office, however, increased by 58% during this time. Meanwhile, 911 response times in Maricopa County increased significantly.

March 2011: Sheriff Joe Arpaio Blames School and Parents of Hispanic Children For Cancelled Event
After Sheriff Joe Arpaio was uninvited from reading to sixth-graders at an elementary school in Phoenix, he blasted out a nasty press release blaming “parents of Hispanic students," as well as the school’s administration. 

April 2011: Arpaio Suspected of Misspending $100M in Taxpayer Funds, Refuses to Turn Over Records
An investigation into the Maricopa County sheriff’s office discovered that Arpaio, the Bull Connor reincarnate of immigration enforcement, inappropriately spent $99.5 million from two jail funds over the last eight years to pay for other law enforcement operations—including immigration patrols.  When the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors met to discuss the investigation, Arpaio didn’t attend--he was busy leading an immigration raid on a dry cleaners in Mesa.

May 2011: Sheriff Joe Arpaio Is Too Busy Chasing Immigrants to Investigate 400 Sex Crime Cases
ABC 12 News in Arizona reported that the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office (MCSO) failed to adequately investigate more than 400 sex-crime cases over a two-year period, many of which involved children from 2 to 16 years old.   Many of these victims were the children of undocumented immigrants.  Perhaps it’s unsurprising that Arpaio was so uninterested in investigating cases when immigrants were the victims instead of the perpetrators: as Arpaio once told Larry King, his deputies arrest “very few” non-Hispanics.

July 2011: Sheriff Joe Arpaio Settles $200k in Racial Profiling Case
Arpaio paid $200,000 in a settlement to Julian and Julio Mora, a father and son who his agents zip-tied and held for three hours during a 2009 raid of the Phoenix landscaping firm Handyman Maintenance Inc., where the father worked.

September 2011: Sheriff Arpaio Comes Out as Birther, Assigned “Cold Case Posse” to Obama Birth Certificate CaseAs World Net Daily reported: “Arizona’s Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio told WND [World Net Daily] he has assigned a five-member ‘Cold Case Posse’ to investigate the authenticity of Barack Obama’s birth certificate.” 

September 2011: Arpaio’s Department Sued for Killing Puppy in Raid Conducted for Steven Seagal’s Reality Show
During filming of his reality show Steven Seagal: Lawman, actor Steven Seagal  went with Arpaio’s deputies to film an anti-animal cruelty raid on a cockfighting facility. Ironically, the raid resulted in the deaths of one dog and over 100 roosters, and the owner sued the sheriff’s office and Seagal.


Posted 12/02/11 at 06:23pm By Web Team

Rep. Steve King Thinks Racial Profiling Is Legal in the United States

Steve KingNothing should surprise us about Rep. Steve King. The Iowa Republican is proudly one of the leading anti-immigrant legislators in Congress. 

Yesterday, we posted about King's attack on Art Venegas, the Army Vet who served as Chief of Police in Sacramento, during a House Judiciary Committee hearing. Venegas is also a naturalized U.S. citizen.  King basically asked Venegas to see his papers. 

The hearing was on Secure Communities and one issue discussed repeatedly was on racial profiling. In fact, Huffington Post's article on the hearing was titled, Democrats Say Secure Communities Needs More Safeguards Against Racial Profiling.

But, guess who doesn't think there need to be safeguards against racial profiling? Rep. Steve King.

Why?

King apparently think racial profiling is perfectly legal in the United States. As we tweeted from the hearing:

Steve King bravely comes out in favor of racial profiling. "Is there a federal law prohibiting racial profiling?"

Yes, you read that right: King actually asked the witnesses whether any federal law prohibits racial profiling. And he insisted that Congress actually hasn’t enacted a law on this subject. Art Venegas challenged King's assertion, noting the Civil Rights Act and the US Constitution, specifically the 4th and 14th amendments. 

King was unimpressed by the answer from Venegas. When King asked Gary Mead, Executive Associate Director of Enforcement and Removal Operations
for the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), that same question about racial profiling, Mead replied, "I can't answer that question." Yeah, couldn't answer it.

Congress didn't pass a specific law relating to racial profiling and that's all that matters to him. Pretty clear that King wouldn't want such a law either.

 


Posted 12/01/11 at 04:21pm By Web Team

Rep. Steve King to Former Police Chief and US Army Vet Art Venegas: Show Me Your Papers

Yesterday, the House Judiciary Committee held yet another hearing on immigration. Titled, "Is Secure Communities Keeping Our Communities Secure?," the hearing provided another opportunity for Republicans on the Committee to burnish their ugly anti-immigrant credentials. And, true to form, Rep. Steve King (R-IA), the leading anti-immigrant voice in the GOP, exhibited egregious behavior during his questioning of former Sacramento Police Chief Art Venegas, a naturalized U.S. citizen.

Huffington Post's Elise Foley reported on the stunning interaction:

Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) took a moment on Wednesday to question a congressional witness about how he moved to the United States from Mexico, after the former police chief mentioned in his testimony that he is an immigrant. At the same hearing, Democrats on the House immigration subcommittee pushed for immigration officials to add safeguards against racial profiling in immigration enforcement.

"You said you're likely the only immigrant on the panel," King said to Arturo Venegas, who was testifying in front of the House immigration subcommittee. "I wonder if you could tell us how was it you were inspired to come to the United States."

Venegas, a former Sacramento police chief, responded by telling King that his U.S.-born mother brought him to the country after he was born in Mexico. "Can you just tell us what year and what visa, then, Mr. Venegas?" King asked.

King never followed up with a reason for his questions, which came after Venegas testified about his experiences as Sacramento, Calif., police chief and his service on a task force to reform Secure Communities, a key immigration enforcement program.

One of our colleagues who attended the hearing, "To witness it was just surreal."

We caught up with Venegas today to talk to him about his interaction with King. He told us:

It took me by surprise. Why did he even ask the question? What kind of a visa I came on? After serving as a police chief and in the Vietnam war, it was insulting to have my legality, my legitimacy questioned.  After my 40 years of public service, I never assumed I’d have to worry about that. I’ve probably been in public service longer than he has.  When he asked me what intention my parents and grandparents had in coming here, I wish I had said they were the same interests as his ancestors had.

King doesn't even try to hide his anti-immigrant views. They were on full display yesterday. There's a painful pattern here. Just this week, King authored a "Dear Colleague" letter, which outlined his opposition to HR 3012, Fairness for High Skilled Immigrants Act, a (rare) bipartisan immigration bill. The bill passed by an astounding margin of 389 -15. King, one of the 15 nay votes, wrote:

H.R 3012 moves our American culture in a direction away from assimilation and grows ethnic enclaves among the nationalities of the largest immigrant populations who are the slowest to assimilate. Open borders proponents of the bill have demanded and received an expansion of family-based visas which do nothing for skill shortages and instead consume visas that highly skilled immigrants could otherwise use....H.R. 3012 increases the number of immigrants coming to the United States from a handful of countries such as China, India, Mexico, and the Philippines and will exacerbate the problem of chain migration. 

"Ethnic enclaves" and "chain migration" are classic code words among the anti-immigrant crowd -- and just what we'd expect from one of their leaders: Steve King. Again, the bill passed 389 - 15. 

Also, at yesterday's Judiciary Committee hearing, King appeared to intimate that racial profiling is legal.  He asked the witnesses whether any federal law prohibits racial profiling, noting that Congress actually hasn’t enacted a law on this subject. Art Venegas reminded King about the Civil Rights Act and the US Constitution, specifically the 4th and 14th amendments.. 

Every time we think King has reached a new low, he outdoes himself. Attacking former police chief and vet Art Venegas was another embarrassing and despicable action from the GOP's leading messenger on immigration.

Cross-posted at Daily Kos.


Posted 11/21/11 at 04:33pm By Web Team

Follow the Launch of the Campaign Against HB 56 in Alabama Today through Twitter and UStream

It's a big day in Alabama with the launch of the campaign against HB 56.

The Alabama Coalition for Immigrant Justice (ACIJ) is livestreaming today's activities via UStream.

And, there's a twitter feed from activists in Alabama in the extended post. Click "read more" below to check it out.

Click here to read more.
Posted 11/03/11 at 04:23pm By Web Team

Congressman Jeff Duncan (R-SC) Compared Immigrants to Vagrants and Animals

Jeff DuncanHouse Republican Jeff Duncan (SC) is just the latest in a long line of Republicans to say something horribly impolitic about immigrants, only to backtrack later. He readily joins the club as one of their most nonsensical members.

Earlier this week, Duncan described the US border as “like having a house…taking the door off the hinges and allowing any kind of vagrant or animal or just somebody that’s hungry, or somebody that wants to do your dishes for you, to come in.”

In the same sentence, Congressman Duncan manages to go from comparing immigrants to animals to poor people who are seeking economic opportunity to hard-working people who are willing to make the most of their time here by helping the most lazy of us do our chores.

It's a little confusing, but I’m pretty sure he meant it as an insult.

According to the Huffington Post, the Congressman was taking part in a Q&A event with Furman University students to “talk about what their first year impression of Congress has been,” according to Professor Danielle Vincent. Her question to the Congressman was “When do you take an imperfect bill that’s compromise and when do you decide it will be better to wait, ” using the example of the 2007 immigration bill.

Despite saying something clearly and horribly offensive, he’s now on the defensive. (You can watch the video here.)  Here’s more from the Huffington Post:

Duncan's camp was quick to clarify the remarks. Spokesman Allen Klump told Easley (S.C.) Patch that the freshman congressman's statement was not intended to link undocumented immigrants to animals:

"Congressman Duncan was simply saying what South Carolinians already know, that securing our borders is just like securing our homes. A border with no fence is like a house with no doors, where anyone or anything can come and go as they please. Congressman Duncan believes we have to secure our borders and enforce our immigration laws. As recently as two weeks ago, the Congressman introduced a bill pointing out the need to secure our Southern border from the terrorist threat coming from Iran."

South Carolina, the Congressman’s home state, just this week became the new Alabama, passing an anti-immigrant bill comparable to the Arizona’s SB 1070. While the Alabama law is still the worst of the worst, South Carolina is proving that it’s all the same Juan Crow.    


Posted 10/13/11 at 10:27am By Web Team

South Park Takes on Immigration and Border Patrol

For your viewing pleasure this morning, we're forwarding around clips from last night's episode of South Park, "The Last of the Meheecans."  Hilarious and relevant, it's also a sign of how thoroughly the immigration debate has permeated pop culture and the American consciousness.  Butters IS the "last of the Meheecans," immigrants from Mexico decide to return home, and the Border Patrol--among other Americans--realize how necessary immigrants are.

We can't embed the full episode, but below are a couple of clips.  The whole episode can be viewed here.


Posted 09/16/11 at 04:43pm By Web Team

“They Tuk Our Jerbs!” and Other Videos That Remind us of Lamar Smith and E-Verify

The House Judiciary Committee began marking up Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX)'s E-Verify bill this week, leading us to run a whole series of blog posts explaining how harmful, unproductive, and ineffective the bill is.  E-Verify is an incredibly flawed government database system that is supposed to keep track of who is and isn't allowed to work in the U.S., but its glitches mean that it regularly flags lawful, legal workers.  Forcing all businesses across the nation to use E-Verify would lead to 770,000 legal workers--including native-born Americans--to lose their jobs, and more than 1 million workers would have to fix their records.  

In "honor" of this nonsense, and in honor of it being Friday, we at America's Voice have pulled together a few fun clips that remind us of the echo chamber around these GOP legislators:  

Little Britain UK, "Computer says no." (aka, 'what E-Verify will probably look like.'  Want a job?  Compu'er saiys nooooo.)

South Park, “They Tuk Our Jerbs!...Durka Durrrr!” (Yup, the economy's a problem; let's point fingers and cast blame instead of really getting down to do something about it.)

 
 

Family Guy, "Okay, come on over."

The Daily Show, 'Rick Perry said something sensible on immigration! Boooooo!' (They also cheered for the death of people who didn't have health care.  The Tea Partiers are really out there.)

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Indecision 1776 - Ye Cobblestone Road to the White House - Tough Tea Party Crowd
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog The Daily Show on Facebook

Posted 08/31/11 at 12:46pm By Web Team

Mark Krikorian: the President Has the Authority to Exercise Prosecutorial Discretion

Mark Krikorian on Prosecutorial DiscretionThere's been a lot of discussion about the Obama Administration's new deportation policy. One thing that is crystal clear is that the policy is well within the President's authority. At The New Republic, Nathan Pippenger explained this (twice):

Here:

James Ziglar, who served as Commissioner of the Immigration and Naturalization Service under George W. Bush, told me that prosecutorial discretion has been a common tool in the past. “You can’t just deport everyone,” Ziglar says. “You have to exercise practical judgment.” Doris Meissner, who served as INS commissioner throughout the Clinton administration, concurs. She issued a major prosecutorial discretion memo in 2000 at the urging of several members of Congress (including Lamar Smith, who is now Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee and a leading proponent of stricter immigration policy). “Prosecutorial discretion has been well established for a long time, in a variety of ways,” she says. “You should use your resources to target people who threaten public safety.”

And here:

As I noted yesterday, in exercising discretion, the administration is acting within a well-established bipartisan tradition. It is possible to disagree with the wisdom of this policy. But portraying it as an unprecedented power grab, a “backdoor amnesty” for millions of “illegals,” or a naked refusal to enforce the law is deeply ignorant at best. 

What's most surprising is that one of the nation's most vociferous anti-immigrant leaders, Mark Krikorian, agrees. He said as much to the Daily Caller:

“My sense is that the administration has the statutory authority to do this, because any law has to provide the executive with a certain amount of discretion,” [Krikorian] said. 

That should settle it, right?


Posted 08/30/11 at 10:12am By Web Team

Ten Years of Waiting for the DREAM Act: Lives of DREAMers

Written by Mariano Cardoso:

August 1, 2011, marked the 10-year anniversary of the federal DREAM Act’s introduction in the U.S. Senate in 2001. The DREAM Act (Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors) is a law that would provide conditional permanent residency to certain undocumented students who arrived in the U.S. as minors, have lived in the country for at least five years prior to the bill’s enactment, and have graduated from U.S. high schools.  If the student completes two to four years of higher education or serves two years in the military, he or she can obtain temporary residency for six years.

To honor the DREAM Act, and call attention to the ten years that have passed without it becoming law, Mariano Cardoso—a DREAMer from Connecticut himself—interviewed two fellow undocumented students, Melvin Rico and Sofia Campos.  Watch their stories below:

Sofia is a 21 year old student at UCLA majoring in International Development Studies and Political Science with a minor in Labor and Work Place Studies.  She arrived at Los Angeles from Peru at the age of 6. Currently, she is in her last semester before earning her bachelor's degree. The rising cost of tuition, coupled with a lack of financial aid, has made her undergraduate degree ever more difficult to attain.

Melvin, an undergrad from UCLA, is an undocumented immigrant student who recently graduated with a degree in Biochemistry. He arrived at Las Venturas, California at the age of 15 from Guatemala. He is now 24 years old living in Ojai, California.