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

Thứ Ba, 14 tháng 5, 2013

Senators reject biometric tracking in immigration reform

A traveler uses a biometric scanner at the George H.W. Bush Intercontinental Airport in 2008. (Dave Einsel/Getty …

A bipartisan group of senators voted against adding a biometric system to the sweeping immigration reform bill that would ensure people on tourist, student and other temporary visas leave the country when they are supposed to. The failed amendment was one of the most controversial additions to the bill considered by the Senate Judiciary Committee at Tuesday's hearing.

Sen. Jeff Sessions, a Republican from Alabama, backed the amendment that would have required the government to use fingerprints and other biometric data to track visitors when they leave the country at airports and other ports of exit. Democrats, including Sens. Chuck Schumer and Dick Durbin, argued the system would be too expensive to implement. It was voted down 6-12, with two Republicans joining the 10 Democrats in opposing it. Lindsey Graham, a Republican from South Carolina who helped draft the original bill, said he opposed the amendment because the government hasn't shown "the will or the desire" to implement the system, and he doubted including it in the bill would change that.

Despite some conservative opposition to the immigration bill, attempts to significantly alter the bill have failed in the committee mark-up process so far.

The current immigration reform bill seeks to legalize most of the 11 million unauthorized immigrants in the country and prevent future illegal immigration though an employment verification system and more border security measures. About 40 percent of the unauthorized immigrants currently in the country entered legally and then overstayed their visas, which Sessions argued raises national security concerns.

After the Sept. 11 attacks, Congress passed a bill mandating that the government institute a biometric tracking system for people on temporary, nonimmigrant visas such as for tourism. Twelve years later, the system still hasn't been implemented due to cost and other complications.

The Department of Homeland Security estimated it would cost up to $6.4 billion to implement a biometric tracking system in the nation's airports, according to a report in USA Today. It's unclear how much it would cost to install similar technology in the country's land ports, where nearly 80 percent of people enter the United States.

Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., said at the hearing that he was concerned that requiring the biometric system would delay the citizenship process for the 11 million unauthorized immigrants who will benefit from the bill. The amendment said none of those immigrants would be able to apply for citizenship before the biometric system was put in place. The current bill lays out a 10-year waiting period for citizenship for the group.

A spokesman for Sen. Marco Rubio, a Republican from Florida and a member of the "Gang of Eight" that drafted the bill, told The Hill he was "disappointed" with the vote, and that he would try to reintroduce it once senators begin debating the bill on the Senate floor.

Another rejected amendment, introduced by Sessions on Tuesday, sought to significantly reduce future legal immigration. Sessions argued it would help the American economy to keep legal immigration numbers down. All of Sessions' colleagues on the committee, Republican and Democrat, voted against the measure.


View the original article here

Legal immigration focus of Senate panel

May 13 (Reuters) - Leading money winners on the 2013 PGATour on Monday (U.S. unless stated): 1. Tiger Woods $5,849,600 2. Brandt Snedeker $3,388,064 3. Kevin Streelman $2,572,989 4. Billy Horschel $2,567,891 5. Matt Kuchar $2,493,387 6. Phil Mickelson $2,220,280 7. Adam Scott (Australia) $2,207,683 8. D.A. Points $2,019,702 9. Steve Stricker $1,977,140 10. Graeme McDowell $1,910,654 11. Jason Day $1,802,797 12. Webb Simpson $1,759,015 13. Dustin Johnson $1,748,907 14. Hunter Mahan $1,682,939 15. Charles Howell III $1,561,988 16. Russell Henley $1,546,638 17. Martin Laird $1,531,950 18. ...


View the original article here

Thứ Ba, 7 tháng 5, 2013

GOP: Stronger borders or immigration bill will die

WASHINGTON (AP) — Landmark immigration legislation is doomed to fail in Congress unless border-security provisions are greatly strengthened, Republican senators bluntly warned on Tuesday.

"If in fact the American people can't trust that the border is controlled, you're never going to be able to pass this bill," declared Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, top Republican on the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.

His admonishment, joined by those of other GOP lawmakers, came as both Democratic and Republican senators filed a flurry of amendments ahead of the first votes Thursday in a separate committee on the far-reaching bill to deal with an estimated 11 million immigrants who are in the U.S. illegally and the millions more who might be expected to try to enter in the future. Some of the amendments could destroy the legislation's prospects by upending the carefully crafted deal negotiated over months by four Republican and four Democratic senators, supporters say.

Border security was the major sticking point on Tuesday.

"If we're going to get immigration reform through, if you're going to get it through the House, we're going to have to do a whole lot more on what is the definition of a controlled border than what is in this bill," said Coburn.

Sens. Rand Paul, R-Ky., and Ron Johnson, R-Wis., voiced similar concerns at a hearing to examine border security provisions of the bill. One of the legislation's authors, Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., has already acknowledged that the bill will face a tough road to passage if those elements are not made stronger, and in a statement Tuesday he welcomed possible changes.

"In order for this bill to become law, it will have to be improved to bolster border security and enforcement even further and to limit the federal government's discretionary power in applying the law. In addition, additional measures will be required to address potential costs to taxpayers," Rubio said.

Later Tuesday, Rubio met privately with a large group of conservative activists to try to sell them on the bill, in part by offering assurances that their concerns could be addressed as the legislation moves forward. "I think it will move significantly to the right," Alex Nowrasteh, a policy analyst with the Cato Institute, said after emerging from the meeting.

Paul, a tea party favorite who has voiced support for comprehensive immigration overhaul, insisted his goal in raising questions about the bill is to make it better so it can pass not just the Democratic-controlled Senate but also the Republican-run House. He denied that he's out to kill the measure or slow it down.

"I want to be constructive in making the bill strong enough that conservatives, myself included, conservative Republicans in the House, will vote for this, because I think immigration reform is something we should do," Paul said.

"If it's not any stronger than this I don't see it getting through the House."

Echoing concerns raised by a number of Republicans, Paul said that the bill relies too much on setting goals and requiring studies about border security instead of insisting on actual accomplishments. Under the bill, "You have to have a plan to build a fence, but you don't have to build a fence," he complained.

Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., an author of the legislation, defended the border security provisions and said that for some Republicans, border security is just their excuse to oppose immigration overhaul legislation.

Durbin said that border security is stronger than ever, but nonetheless "we went the extra step in this bill and they're saying it's still not enough. You kind of reach a point where you have to question their commitment to immigration reform."

The bill would allocate $5.5 billion for border measures aimed at achieving 100 percent surveillance and blocking 90 percent of illegal border crossers and would-be crossers in high-entrance areas.

The Homeland Security Department would have six months to create a new border-security plan to achieve the 90 percent effectiveness rate. Also within six months, the department would have to create a plan to identify where new fencing is needed. Once that happened, people who were in the U.S. illegally could begin to apply for a provisional legal status.

If the 90 percent rate wasn't achieved within five years, a commission made up of border state officials would make recommendations on how to do it.

After 10 years, people with provisional legal status could apply for permanent residency if the new security and fencing plans were operating, a new mandatory employment verification system was in place, and a new electronic exit system was tracking who leaves the country.

Among other things, Rubio has discussed strengthening the "triggers" that require certain steps to be taken before a path to citizenship can begin.

Officials with the Department of Homeland Security testified Tuesday that the U.S.-Mexico border is more secure than ever but they said the provisions in the bill would help them make it even stronger. They praised the pending legislation for directing more resources to the agency for surveillance equipment and for authorizing 3,500 new Border Patrol officers.

The hearing touched briefly on the Boston Marathon bombings, which exposed some failures, including an apparent lack of communication among federal agencies when one of the alleged bombers, Tamerlan Tsarnaev, traveled to Russia last year. A student from Kazakhstan accused of hiding evidence for one of the bombers also was allowed to return to the U.S. in January without a valid student visa.

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., an author of the immigration bill, said the legislation could be amended to address any such problems, particularly in the areas of humanitarian visas and student visas.


View the original article here

Thứ Hai, 6 tháng 5, 2013

Battle over immigration bill starts in Congress

By Caren Bohan and Thomas Ferraro

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Congress this week opens its first debate in six years on a comprehensive immigration reform bill, testing whether business and labor groups can hold together on a delicately crafted deal that already is under attack.

For 11 million illegal residents, the legislation in the Senate is their best hope of removing the threat of deportation and charting a path to eventual U.S. citizenship after a major push in Congress to reform a 1986 law died in 2007.

The ambitious bill would put more federal dollars into strengthening the southwestern U.S. border against illegal crossings and aims to revamp a dated visa system so that more foreign workers - high- and low-skilled - could enter.

But in a preview of the tough fight ahead, the conservative Heritage Foundation on Monday released a study concluding that the legislation would end up costing the U.S. government $6.3 trillion over the next 50 years as illegal immigrants become citizens and thus eligible for government programs.

The study was quickly attacked by other conservatives, who said it failed to take into account the economic benefits of legalizing the 11 million people.

Amendments to the 844-page bipartisan bill, the product of months of negotiations, were flowing into the Senate Judiciary Committee, which will begin considering the measure on Thursday.

If its backers including President Barack Obama get their way, the legislation will emerge from the committee later this month positioned for approval by an overwhelming majority in the full Senate.

But first, groups ranging from gay rights activists to construction industry representatives are converging on Capitol Hill, trying to win changes.

"Every lobbyist who has any interest in immigration reform is going to be all over the Hill," said Emily Lam, of the Silicon Valley Leadership Group, which represents high-tech companies such as eBay, Microsoft and Yahoo! as well as other companies such as Citibank and Verizon.

In the first quarter of 2013, 500 organizations and companies registered to lobby on immigration. A sampling includes the Commissioner of Baseball, MGM Resorts , the U.S. Olympic Committee, Perdue Farms, JPMorgan Chase & Co., and a variety of companies in the business of secure identification, such as Cogent, a 3M Company .

The lobbying activity has the eight senators who wrote the bill - four Democrats and four Republicans - nervous that any change could unravel the entire effort.

But that is not discouraging lobbyists from trying.

The construction industry and other business representatives plan to push for increases in the number of low-skilled foreign workers they would be allowed to hire. If successful at any stage of a complicated legislative process, organized labor's support for the bill could erode amid fears the bill would undercut American workers.

Several business groups also are concerned about E-Verify, a system for checking the legal status of workers. All businesses would be required to use it for new hires. Businesses do not object to the mandate but want to make sure they are not held liable if the system turns up erroneous information.

ANGLING FOR A BIG VOTE

Meanwhile, gay-rights activists want the legislation to allow U.S. citizens and permanent legal residents to sponsor their same-sex partners for residency.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy of Vermont introduced the same-sex partner provision as a separate measure earlier this year, along with Republican Senator Susan Collins of Maine. Immigrants' rights groups expect him to offer it as an amendment to the immigration bill.

Including such an amendment "will virtually guarantee that it (the bill) won't pass" the Senate, said Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, one of the eight senators who wrote the legislation.

He made the prediction in an interview last week with the newspaper Politico.

If any of the controversial amendments do clear the Senate Judiciary Committee, they could complicate strategists' efforts for a resounding vote in the full 100-member Senate.

Anything less than 70 votes for passage, they fear, may not be enough to build the type of momentum needed to get the measure through the more resistant Republican-led House of Representatives.

"Seventy (Senate) votes would give the bill a big boost," a senior Senate aide said. "Less than 70 wouldn't kill it, but it would make it a heavier lift."

The strategy of building a big Senate vote to help create momentum to get legislation through the House worked twice before this year: Once on a bill to avert "the fiscal cliff" of steep, across-the-board tax hikes, and also on a measure to renew a landmark law combating domestic violence against women.

The Senate passed the two measures on bipartisan votes of 89-8 and 78-22, respectively.

In both cases, House Speaker John Boehner cleared the way for passage even though a majority of his Republican lawmakers were not on board.

House Speakers generally do not like passing bills opposed by the members of their own party and if they do it too often, it could stir up a political firestorm.

But with the growing number of Hispanic-Americans becoming more influential in U.S. elections, Boehner has expressed support for immigration reform, though he has not endorsed the Senate bill.

"Boehner could decide to save Republicans from themselves by allowing immigration reform to pass," said Ron Bonjean, a former House Republican leadership aide turned political strategist. "And it could cost him the speakership," he added.

(Additional reporting by Richard Cowan; Editing by Fred Barbash and Cynthia Osterman)


View the original article here

Could immigration bill set off another backlash?

WASHINGTON (AP) — As a Senate committee prepares to begin voting this week on far-reaching immigration legislation, advocates are watching warily to see whether opposition, thus far subdued, builds into the same kind of fierce backlash that shut down Congress' last attempt to remake the nation's immigration system.

That time around, in 2007, angry calls overwhelmed the Senate switchboard and lawmakers endured raging town hall meetings and threats from incensed constituents. The legislation ultimately collapsed on the Senate floor.

"I've been through this battle, and it's ugly," said former Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., who supported the bill. "My phones were jammed for three weeks and I got three death threats, one of which I turned over to the FBI. So it's rough business."

Supporters of the immigration bill, released last month by a group of four Republican and four Democratic senators, have been cautiously optimistic about their prospects because of factors including public support for giving citizenship to immigrants, a large and diverse coalition in support of the bill, and a growing sentiment among Republican leaders that immigration must be dealt with if they are to regain the backing of Hispanic voters. Backers have been working hard to build alliances and strategies aimed at avoiding the mistakes of 2007, when critics largely defined the bill and some supporters ended up turning against it.

Opponents acknowledge that supporters started out better organized and mobilized than last time around, and they also anticipate that outside groups pushing the legislation — including efforts headed by New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg — will outspend them. Supporters include large and influential groups including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, AFL-CIO and the Catholic Church, while opponents include lesser-known think tanks or advocacy organizations such as NumbersUSA, the Federation for American Immigration Reform and the Center for Immigration Studies. Both sides have already begun running ads.

But critics also have important grass-roots influence, including from talk radio hosts who were instrumental in defeating the bill in 2007, and opponents argue that as the public absorbs the content of the legislation, the tide will turn against it. They say that there are already signs that it's happening. Although conservative commentators on Fox News Channel and elsewhere have been more muted so far than in 2007, some talk radio hosts including Mark Levin and Rush Limbaugh have begun to voice deep unease about the bill despite the efforts of its conservative standard bearer, Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., to sell the legislation to them and other conservative opinion leaders.

"The supporters promoted the bill aggressively before anybody saw the language, and certain Republicans and conservative voices sort of held their fire, but that's beginning to change," said Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., who was a leading voice in the Senate against the bill in 2007 and is reprising that role this time around, making floor speeches, issuing press releases and holding briefing calls with reporters to argue that the bill would unlock a much larger volume of immigration into the U.S. than advertised, to the detriment of U.S. workers and jobs.

"It's going to be like that mackerel in the sunshine — the longer it's out there the worse it smells," Sessions said.

The bill would aim to boost border security, fix legal immigration and worker programs, require all employers to check their workers' legal status and offer eventual citizenship to the estimated 11 million immigrants already living in the country illegally.

Joyce Kaufman, a host on a Florida radio station, WFTL, said that opposition to the bill was soft at first but grows daily.

"Yes, we believe this is amnesty," Kaufman said. "Citizen activists are outraged."

Lott said that supporters of the legislation still haven't come up with an argument as concise and effective as that one word — "amnesty" — from opponents. He said he's spoken with Rubio, among others, to make clear that supporters of the bill need to hone their arguments.

"Last time our explanation was three paragraphs. Theirs was a word," Lott said. When that happens, he said, "You're dead."

The Democratic-led Senate, where the Judiciary Committee takes up the bill on Thursday, is already going to be a tough challenge. But if the bill does pass the Senate, opponents are betting it gets stopped in the Republican-led House. A bipartisan group of House lawmakers has been promising for months to release their own bill mirroring elements of the Senate legislation but taking a tougher tack. So far they haven't delivered.

Meanwhile, to the dismay of immigration advocates, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee has announced plans to move forward with individual, single-issue immigration bills, rejecting the comprehensive approach in the Senate that's backed by President Barack Obama, who's made immigration legislation a top second-term priority. The legislation was also a priority in 2007 for then-President George W. Bush, but he was unsuccessful in persuading Republican lawmakers to get behind the bill, and Democrats who at the time controlled Congress were divided, too.

In the 2007 debate, a turning point came when the conservative Heritage Foundation released a report saying that the legislation would cost taxpayers $2.6 trillion, including benefits to immigrants and other expenditures. Although the analysis was disputed it carried weight with GOP lawmakers. Now under the leadership of former Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., another lead opponent of the legislation in 2007, Heritage is preparing to release an updated version of that report.

In a sign of how supporters of the bill are working hard not to repeat mistakes from the past, conservative groups that support the legislation have already sought to pre-empt the Heritage report, with the Cato Institute deriding it ahead of time as "fatally flawed," and Cato and others arguing that immigration reform would boost the economy by growing the labor market. Nonetheless officials with Heritage argue their report could have the same impact this time around as in 2007.

"There's been a lot of posturing, a lot of talk. We haven't really gotten to the heart of the debate yet," said Dan Holler, communications director for Heritage Action for America, the Heritage Foundation's activist arm. "We have the right policy, the numbers are going to be there, and the debate is going to shift. And no amount of ads will be able to shift it back."

___

Follow Erica Werner on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ericawerner


View the original article here

All about immigration: Green cards? Citizenship?

WASHINGTON (AP) — This may be the year Congress decides what to do about the millions of immigrants living illegally in the U.S. After years of gridlock, there are ideas whizzing all around Washington.

For now, all eyes are on an 844-page Senate proposal with the you-said-a-mouthful title of the "Border Security, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013."

Look for the Senate Judiciary Committee to take its first votes on the legislation on Thursday.

What's in that bill? Is there a Plan B? And who are all these immigrants, once you get past the big round numbers?

A big dose of facts, figures and other information to help understand the current debate:

___

WHY NOW?

Major problems with U.S. immigration have been around for decades.

President George W. Bush tried to change the system and failed. President Barack Obama promised to overhaul it in his first term but never did.

In Obama's second term, he's making immigration a priority, and Republicans also appear ready to deal.

Why the new commitment?

Obama won 71 percent of Hispanic voters in his 2012 re-election campaign, and he owes them. Last year's election also sent a loud message to Republicans that they can't ignore this pivotal voting bloc.

It's been the kind of breathtaking turnaround you rarely see in politics. Plus, there's growing pressure from business leaders, who want to make it easier for the U.S. to attract highly educated immigrants and to legally bring in more lower-skilled workers such as farm laborers.

___

WHAT'S THE PROBLEM?

Talk about "comprehensive immigration reform" generally centers on four main questions:

—What to do about the 11 million-plus immigrants who live in the U.S. without legal permission.

—How to tighten border security.

—How to keep businesses from employing people who are in the U.S. illegally.

—How to improve the legal immigration system, now so convoluted that the adjective "Byzantine" pops up all too frequently.

___

WHAT'S THE GANG OF EIGHT?

A group of four Democrats and four Republicans in the Senate that crafted a bill to address all four questions. In a nutshell, this proposal would tighten border controls, allow more high- and low-skilled workers to legally immigrate, require employers to verify their workers have legal status, and create an opportunity for those who are in the U.S. illegally to eventually become citizens.

___

IS THERE A PLAN B?

And C and D.

Obama has his own backup plan in case congressional talks fail, but he's given his support to the Senate bill as a worthy compromise.

In the House, Republican Rep. Bob Goodlatte, the head of the House Judiciary Committee, says his committee will tackle the main immigration issues one by one, instead of starting with a single sweeping bill.

Separately, there's a bipartisan House group working on legislation.

Obama says he will keep an open mind about the various proposals, but the final deal has to address all the big issues.

___

COMING TO AMERICA

A record 40.4 million immigrants live in the U.S., representing 13 percent of the population. More than 18 million are naturalized citizens, 11 million are legal permanent or temporary residents, and more than 11 million are in the country without legal permission, according to the Pew Hispanic Center, a private research organization.

Those in the U.S. illegally made up about 3.7 percent of the U.S. population in 2010. While overall immigration has steadily grown, the number of immigrants in the U.S. illegally peaked at 12 million in 2007.

___

WHERE FROM?

Twenty-nine percent of the foreign-born in the U.S., or about 11.7 million people, came from Mexico. About 25 percent came from South and East Asia, 9 percent from the Caribbean, 8 percent from Central America, 7 percent South America, 4 percent the Middle East and the rest from elsewhere.

The figures are more lopsided for immigrants living here illegally: An estimated 58 percent are from Mexico. The next closest figure is 6 percent from El Salvador, says the government.

___

WHERE TO?

California has the largest share of the U.S. immigrant population, 27 percent, followed by New York, New Jersey, Florida, Nevada, Hawaii and Texas, according to the Migration Policy Institute, a private group focused on global immigration issues.

California has the largest share of immigrants in the U.S. illegally, at 25 percent, followed by Texas with 16 percent. Florida and New York each has 6 percent, and Georgia has 5 percent, according to the Department of Homeland Security.

___

GETTING IN

Here's one way to think about the ways immigrants arrive in the U.S: Some come in the front door, others the side door and still others the back door, as laid out in a report from the private Population Reference Bureau.

—Arriving through the front door: people legally sponsored by their families or employers. Also refugees and asylum-seekers, and immigrants who win visas in an annual "diversity" lottery.

—Side door: legal temporary arrivals, including those who get visas to visit, work or study. There are dozens of types of nonimmigrant visas, available to people ranging from business visitors to foreign athletes and entertainers. Visitors from dozens of countries don't even need visas.

—Back door: Somewhat more than half of those in the U.S. illegally have come in the back door, evading border controls, Pew estimates. The rest legally entered, but didn't leave when they were supposed to or otherwise violated terms of their visas.

___

IS IT A CRIME?

Simply being in the United States in violation of immigration laws isn't, by itself, a crime; it's a civil violation.

Entering the country without permission is a misdemeanor criminal offense. Re-entering the country without authorization after being formally removed can be felony.

Pew estimates that a little less than half of immigrants who lack legal permission to live in the U.S. didn't enter the country illegally. They overstayed their visas, worked without authorization, dropped out of school or otherwise violated the conditions of their visas.

___

WHAT'S IN A NAME?

There are varying and strong opinions about how best to refer to the 11 million-plus people who are in the U.S. without legal permission.

Illegal immigrants?

Undocumented workers?

Unauthorized population?

Illegal aliens?

The last has generally fallen out of favor. Some immigrant advocates are pressing a "Drop the I-Word" campaign, arguing that it is dehumanizing to refer to people as "illegal."

"Undocumented worker" often isn't accurate because many aren't workers, and some have documents from other countries. Homeland Security reports refer to "unauthorized immigrants," but the agency also reports statistics on "aliens apprehended."

___

DEFINITIONS, PLEASE:

—Legal permanent residents (LPRs): people who have permission to live in the U.S. permanently but aren't citizens. They're also known as "green card" holders. Most of them can apply for citizenship within five years of getting green cards. In 2011, 1.06 million people got the cards.

—Refugees and asylees: people who come to the U.S. to avoid persecution in their home countries. What's the difference between the two terms? Refugees are people who apply for protective status before they get to the U.S. Asylees are people who apply upon arrival in the U.S. or later.

—Naturalization: The process by which immigrants become U.S. citizens.

___

GOING GREEN

Is there an actual green card? Indeed there is.

It's the Permanent Resident Card issued to people who are authorized to live and work in the U.S. on a permanent basis. In 2010, the government redesigned them to add new security features — and make them green again.

The cards had been a variety of colors over the years. New green cards are good for 10 years for lawful permanent residents and two years for conditional residents.

___

PATH TO CITIZENSHIP

There's a lot of talk about creating a "path to citizenship" for immigrants who are in the U.S. without legal status.

But there's vigorous debate over what conditions these immigrants should have to satisfy to get citizenship — among them are paying taxes, fines and fees, and passing background checks.

Some legislators want to set additional conditions, such as improvements in border security and in tracking whether legal immigrants leave the country when required. Others want to limit immigrants who are in the U.S. illegally to some sort of legal status that stops short of citizenship.

But more than 60 percent of Americans think those who are here illegally should have a way to become citizens, according to an Associated Press-GfK poll conducted in April.

The Senate bill would allow those in the country illegally to obtain "registered provisional immigrant" status six months after the bill was enacted if they met certain conditions.

Additional border security improvements would have to go into place before anyone obtained green cards or citizenship.

It would take immigrants living here illegally at least 13 years to get all the way to citizenship. They'd have to pay taxes, fees and $2,000 in fines. No one who entered the country after Dec. 31, 2011, or had a felony conviction or more than three misdemeanors would be eligible.

___

THE A-WORD

Nothing stirs up a hornet's nest like talk of amnesty for immigrants who are in the country illegally, although there's a lot of disagreement over how to define the term.

A 2007 effort to overhaul the immigration system, led by Bush, failed in part because Republicans were dismayed that it included a process to give otherwise law-abiding immigrants who were in the country illegally a chance to become citizens. Critics complained that would be offering amnesty.

All sides know it's not practical to talk about sending 11 million-plus people back to their countries of origin. So one big challenge this time is finding an acceptable way to resolve the status of those who are in the country illegally.

Backers of the Senate bill stress that those who are in the country illegally would have a longer and more difficult path to citizenship under their plan than would immigrants who followed all the rules.

___

GETTING A REPRIEVE

While the larger immigration debate goes on, the government already is offering as many as 1.76 million immigrants who are in the country illegally a way to avoid deportation, at least for now.

Obama announced a program in June that puts off deportation for many people brought here as children. Applicants for the reprieve must have arrived before they turned 16, be younger than 31 now, be high school graduates or in school, or have served in the military. They can't have a serious criminal record or pose a threat to public safety or national security.

Applications for the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program are averaging more than 3,000 a day. By mid-April, nearly 489,000 people had applied and more than 268,000 had been approved, with most of the rest still under consideration.

Applications have come from all 50 states, with the largest number coming from California and Texas. Nearly 75 percent of the applicants are originally from Mexico.

In some ways, the program closely tracks the failed DREAM Act, which would have given many young illegal immigrants a path to legal status. Obama's program doesn't give them legal status but it at least protects them from deportation for two years.

___

HISTORY: DOING THE WAVE

The U.S. is in its fourth and largest immigration wave.

First came the Colonial era, then an 1820-1870 influx of newcomers mostly from Northern and Western Europe. Most were Germans and Irish, but the gold rush and jobs on the transcontinental railroad also attracted Chinese immigrants.

In the 1870s, immigration declined due to economic problems and restrictive legislation.

The third wave, between 1881 and 1920, brought more than 23 million people to the U.S., mostly from Southern and Eastern Europe, aided by cheaper trans-Atlantic travel and lured by employers seeking workers.

Then came the Great Depression and more restrictive immigration laws, and immigration went into decline for decades.

The fourth wave, still underway, began in 1965 with the end of immigration limits based on nationality. Foreign-born people made up 1 in 20 residents of the U.S. in 1960; today, the figure is about 1 in 8.

___

HISTORY: HERE A LAW, THERE A LAW

Until the late 1800s, immigration was largely a free for all. Then came country-by-country limits. Since then, big changes in U.S. immigration law have helped produce big shifts in migration patterns.

Among the more notable laws:

—1965 Immigration and Nationality Act: Abolished country-by-country limits, established a new system that determined immigration preference based on family relationships and needed skills, and expanded the categories of family members who could enter without numerical limits.

—1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act: Legalized about 2.7 million immigrants living in the U.S. illegally, 84 percent of them from Mexico and Central America.

—1990 Immigration Act: Increased worldwide immigration limit to a "flexible cap" of 675,000 a year. The number can go higher in some years if there are unused visas available from the previous year.

—1996 Immigrant Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act. Expanded possible reasons for deporting people or ruling them ineligible to enter the U.S., expedited removal procedures, gave state and local police power to enforce immigration laws.

—Post-2001: In 2001, talk percolated about a new immigration plan to deal with unauthorized immigrants, guest workers and violence along the Mexican border. But the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks of 2001 put an end to that, amid growing unease over illegal immigration.

___

ABOUT LAST TIME. ...

The last big immigration legalization plan, in 1986, took six years to get done.

The law, signed by President Ronald Reagan, had three main components: making it illegal to hire unauthorized workers, improving border enforcement and providing for the legalization of a big chunk of the estimated 3 million to 5 million immigrants then in the country illegally.

The results were disappointing on two central fronts: The hiring crackdown largely failed because there was no good way to verify eligibility to work, and it took a decade to improve border security. As a result, illegal immigration continued to grow, fueled by the strong U.S. economy.

What did work as intended: Close to 3 million immigrants living in the U.S. without permission received legal status. By 2009, about 40 percent of them had been naturalized, according to Homeland Security.

___

LATINOS RISING

Census figures show that between 1960 and 2010, immigration from Europe declined while the numbers coming from Latin America and Asia took off. As the immigrants' points of origin changed, so did their destinations. Concentrations shifted from the Northeast and Midwest to the South and West.

A few Census Bureau snapshots:

—In 1960, there were fewer than 1 million people in the U.S. who were born in Latin America. By 2010, there were 21.2 million.

—In 1960, 75 percent of foreigners in the U.S. came from Europe. By 2010, 80 percent came from Latin America and Asia.

—In 1960: 47 percent of the foreign-born lived in the Northeast and 10 percent in the South. By 2010, 22 percent lived in the Northeast and 32 percent in the South.

___

THE FENCE

The fence between the U.S. and Mexico runs off and on for 651 miles along the 1,954-mile border. Most of it has been built since 2005. At some points, it's an 18-foot-high steel mesh structure topped with razor wire. At others, it's a rusting, 8-foot-high thing, made of Army surplus landing mats from the Vietnam War.

The fencing is one of the more visible manifestations of a massive effort over the past two decades to improve border security. The results of that effort are dramatic. Those images of crowds of immigrants sprinting across the border illegally while agents scramble to nab a few are largely a thing of the past.

Two decades ago, fewer than 4,000 Border Patrol agents worked along the Southwest border. Today there are 18,500.

Plummeting apprehension statistics are one measure of change: 357,000 last year, compared with 1.6 million in 2000. The numbers are down in part because fewer are trying to make it across.

The border isn't sealed but it is certainly more secure.

The Senate bill would require the government to have even tougher border security plans before those who are in the country illegally could become legal permanent residents.

___

WHO'S HANGING AROUND

With tighter border security and years of economic difficulty in the U.S., it turns out that most of the immigrants who are in the U.S. without permission have been there for a while. Just 14 percent have arrived since the start of 2005, according to Homeland Security estimates. In contrast, 29 percent came during the previous five years.

At the peak in 2000, about 770,000 immigrants arrived annually from Mexico, most of them entering the country illegally. By 2010, the pace had dropped to about 140,000, most of them arriving as legal immigrants, according to Pew.

___

WHO'S LEAVING?

Mexicans, mostly. Since 1986, more than 4 million noncitizens have been deported. Deportations have expanded in the Obama administration, reaching 410,000 in 2012 from 30,000 in 1990. Most of those deported — 75 percent — are sent back to Mexico. Nearly half of those removed had prior criminal convictions. So far, the Obama administration has deported more than 1.6 million people.

___

TO NATURALIZE OR NOT

Lots of U.S. immigrants who are eligible to become naturalized citizens don't bother. As of 2010, about two-thirds of eligible immigrants had applied for citizenship, according to the Migration Policy Institute. That lags behind the rate in other English-speaking countries such as Australia and Canada, which do more to promote naturalization.

___

WHY BOTHER?

What's so great about citizenship?

Naturalization offers all sorts of rights and benefits, including the right to vote and run for office. Naturalized citizens are protected from losing their residency rights and being deported if they get in legal trouble. They can bring family members into the U.S. more quickly.

Certain government jobs and licensed professions require citizenship. Citizenship also symbolizes full membership in U.S. society.

In 2010, there was a 67 percent earnings gap between naturalized citizens and noncitizen immigrants, according to a report from the Migration Policy Institute. Even after stripping out differences in education, language skills and work experience, naturalized citizens earned at least 5 percent more.

___

SKIPPING IT

Nearly two-thirds of the 5.4 million legal immigrants from Mexico who are eligible to become U.S. citizens haven't done so, according to a Pew study released in February. Their rate of naturalization is half that of legal immigrants from all other countries combined. The barriers to naturalization cited by Mexican nonapplicants include the need to learn English, the difficulty of the citizenship exam and the $680 application fee.

___

WORKERS

How do immigrants who are in the U.S. without permission fit into the nation's jobs picture?

In 2010, about 8 million were working in the U.S. or trying to get work. They made up about 5 percent of the labor force, according to Pew. Among U.S. farm workers, about half are believed to be in the country illegally, according to the Government Accountability Office.

Business groups want a system to legally bring in both more highly skilled workers and more lower-skilled workers such as agricultural laborers. The idea is to hire more when Americans aren't available to fill jobs. This has been a sticking point in past attempts at immigration overhaul. Labor groups want any such revamped system to provide worker protections and guard against displacing American workers. Current temporary worker programs are cumbersome and outdated.

The Senate bill would establish a agriculture worker visa system and create more visa programs for high- and low-skilled workers. Farm workers already here illegally would be able to qualify for green cards after five years if they'd already worked in agriculture in the U.S. for two years and if they kept working in the industry.

___

EMPLOYERS

Current law requires employers to have their workers fill out a form that declares them authorized to work in the U.S. Then the employer needs to verify that the worker's identifying documents look real. But the law allows lots of different documents, and many of them are easy to counterfeit.

The government has developed a mostly voluntary employment verification system called E-Verify, which has gradually gotten better. But so far just 10 percent of employers are using it, according to the Migration Policy Institute. The system is now required in varying degrees by 19 states.

The Senate proposal would require all employers to implement it within four years.

___

FAMILIES VS. JOBS

A big question in the immigration debate centers on how much priority to give to the family members of U.S. citizens and permanent residents.

Under current law, the U.S. awards a much larger proportion of green cards to family members than to foreigners with job prospects here. About two-thirds of permanent legal immigration to the U.S. is family-based, compared with about 15 percent that is employment-based, according to the Migration Policy Institute. The rest is largely humanitarian.

Some policymakers think employment-based immigration should be boosted to help the economy. Advocates for families want to make sure any such action doesn't come at the expense of people seeking to join relatives in the U.S.

The Senate plan would prevent citizens from bringing in siblings and would allow them to sponsor married sons and daughters only if the children were under 31. It would raise the cap on visas for high-skilled workers, create a startup visa for foreign entrepreneurs, and set up a new merit visa that would award points to prospective immigrants based on their education, employment, length of residence in the U.S. and other factors.

___

WHO CARES?

For all the attention being devoted to immigration right now, it's not the top priority for most people, even for most Hispanics. It ranked 17th on a list of policy priorities in a recent Pew Research Center poll. Among Hispanics, one-third said immigration was an extremely important issue to them, behind such issues as the economy and jobs, education and health care.

___

A VIEW FROM THE SOUTH

Is life actually better in the U.S.? A little more than half of Mexican adults think so, according to a 2012 Pew Global Attitudes poll. Thirty-eight percent said they'd move to the U.S. if they had the chance. Nineteen percent said they'd come even without authorization.

___

Sources: Pew Hispanic Center, Migration Policy Institute, Department of Homeland Security, Census Bureau, Government Accountability Office, Population Reference Bureau, Encyclopedia of Immigration.

___

Associated Press writers Alicia Caldwell and Erica Werner contributed to this report.

___

Follow Nancy Benac on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/nbenac


View the original article here

All about immigration: Green cards? Citizenship?

WASHINGTON (AP) — This may be the year Congress decides what to do about the millions of immigrants living illegally in the U.S. After years of gridlock, there are ideas whizzing all around Washington.

For now, all eyes are on an 844-page Senate proposal with the you-said-a-mouthful title of the "Border Security, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013."

Look for the Senate Judiciary Committee to take its first votes on the legislation on Thursday.

What's in that bill? Is there a Plan B? And who are all these immigrants, once you get past the big round numbers?

A big dose of facts, figures and other information to help understand the current debate:

___

WHY NOW?

Major problems with U.S. immigration have been around for decades.

President George W. Bush tried to change the system and failed. President Barack Obama promised to overhaul it in his first term but never did.

In Obama's second term, he's making immigration a priority, and Republicans also appear ready to deal.

Why the new commitment?

Obama won 71 percent of Hispanic voters in his 2012 re-election campaign, and he owes them. Last year's election also sent a loud message to Republicans that they can't ignore this pivotal voting bloc.

It's been the kind of breathtaking turnaround you rarely see in politics. Plus, there's growing pressure from business leaders, who want to make it easier for the U.S. to attract highly educated immigrants and to legally bring in more lower-skilled workers such as farm laborers.

___

WHAT'S THE PROBLEM?

Talk about "comprehensive immigration reform" generally centers on four main questions:

—What to do about the 11 million-plus immigrants who live in the U.S. without legal permission.

—How to tighten border security.

—How to keep businesses from employing people who are in the U.S. illegally.

—How to improve the legal immigration system, now so convoluted that the adjective "Byzantine" pops up all too frequently.

___

WHAT'S THE GANG OF EIGHT?

A group of four Democrats and four Republicans in the Senate that crafted a bill to address all four questions. In a nutshell, this proposal would tighten border controls, allow more high- and low-skilled workers to legally immigrate, require employers to verify their workers have legal status, and create an opportunity for those who are in the U.S. illegally to eventually become citizens.

___

IS THERE A PLAN B?

And C and D.

Obama has his own backup plan in case congressional talks fail, but he's given his support to the Senate bill as a worthy compromise.

In the House, Republican Rep. Bob Goodlatte, the head of the House Judiciary Committee, says his committee will tackle the main immigration issues one by one, instead of starting with a single sweeping bill.

Separately, there's a bipartisan House group working on legislation.

Obama says he will keep an open mind about the various proposals, but the final deal has to address all the big issues.

___

COMING TO AMERICA

A record 40.4 million immigrants live in the U.S., representing 13 percent of the population. More than 18 million are naturalized citizens, 11 million are legal permanent or temporary residents, and more than 11 million are in the country without legal permission, according to the Pew Hispanic Center, a private research organization.

Those in the U.S. illegally made up about 3.7 percent of the U.S. population in 2010. While overall immigration has steadily grown, the number of immigrants in the U.S. illegally peaked at 12 million in 2007.

___

WHERE FROM?

Twenty-nine percent of the foreign-born in the U.S., or about 11.7 million people, came from Mexico. About 25 percent came from South and East Asia, 9 percent from the Caribbean, 8 percent from Central America, 7 percent South America, 4 percent the Middle East and the rest from elsewhere.

The figures are more lopsided for immigrants living here illegally: An estimated 58 percent are from Mexico. The next closest figure is 6 percent from El Salvador, says the government.

___

WHERE TO?

California has the largest share of the U.S. immigrant population, 27 percent, followed by New York, New Jersey, Florida, Nevada, Hawaii and Texas, according to the Migration Policy Institute, a private group focused on global immigration issues.

California has the largest share of immigrants in the U.S. illegally, at 25 percent, followed by Texas with 16 percent. Florida and New York each has 6 percent, and Georgia has 5 percent, according to the Department of Homeland Security.

___

GETTING IN

Here's one way to think about the ways immigrants arrive in the U.S: Some come in the front door, others the side door and still others the back door, as laid out in a report from the private Population Reference Bureau.

—Arriving through the front door: people legally sponsored by their families or employers. Also refugees and asylum-seekers, and immigrants who win visas in an annual "diversity" lottery.

—Side door: legal temporary arrivals, including those who get visas to visit, work or study. There are dozens of types of nonimmigrant visas, available to people ranging from business visitors to foreign athletes and entertainers. Visitors from dozens of countries don't even need visas.

—Back door: Somewhat more than half of those in the U.S. illegally have come in the back door, evading border controls, Pew estimates. The rest legally entered, but didn't leave when they were supposed to or otherwise violated terms of their visas.

___

IS IT A CRIME?

Simply being in the United States in violation of immigration laws isn't, by itself, a crime; it's a civil violation.

Entering the country without permission is a misdemeanor criminal offense. Re-entering the country without authorization after being formally removed can be felony.

Pew estimates that a little less than half of immigrants who lack legal permission to live in the U.S. didn't enter the country illegally. They overstayed their visas, worked without authorization, dropped out of school or otherwise violated the conditions of their visas.

___

WHAT'S IN A NAME?

There are varying and strong opinions about how best to refer to the 11 million-plus people who are in the U.S. without legal permission.

Illegal immigrants?

Undocumented workers?

Unauthorized population?

Illegal aliens?

The last has generally fallen out of favor. Some immigrant advocates are pressing a "Drop the I-Word" campaign, arguing that it is dehumanizing to refer to people as "illegal."

"Undocumented worker" often isn't accurate because many aren't workers, and some have documents from other countries. Homeland Security reports refer to "unauthorized immigrants," but the agency also reports statistics on "aliens apprehended."

___

DEFINITIONS, PLEASE:

—Legal permanent residents (LPRs): people who have permission to live in the U.S. permanently but aren't citizens. They're also known as "green card" holders. Most of them can apply for citizenship within five years of getting green cards. In 2011, 1.06 million people got the cards.

—Refugees and asylees: people who come to the U.S. to avoid persecution in their home countries. What's the difference between the two terms? Refugees are people who apply for protective status before they get to the U.S. Asylees are people who apply upon arrival in the U.S. or later.

—Naturalization: The process by which immigrants become U.S. citizens.

___

GOING GREEN

Is there an actual green card? Indeed there is.

It's the Permanent Resident Card issued to people who are authorized to live and work in the U.S. on a permanent basis. In 2010, the government redesigned them to add new security features — and make them green again.

The cards had been a variety of colors over the years. New green cards are good for 10 years for lawful permanent residents and two years for conditional residents.

___

PATH TO CITIZENSHIP

There's a lot of talk about creating a "path to citizenship" for immigrants who are in the U.S. without legal status.

But there's vigorous debate over what conditions these immigrants should have to satisfy to get citizenship — among them are paying taxes, fines and fees, and passing background checks.

Some legislators want to set additional conditions, such as improvements in border security and in tracking whether legal immigrants leave the country when required. Others want to limit immigrants who are in the U.S. illegally to some sort of legal status that stops short of citizenship.

But more than 60 percent of Americans think those who are here illegally should have a way to become citizens, according to an Associated Press-GfK poll conducted in April.

The Senate bill would allow those in the country illegally to obtain "registered provisional immigrant" status six months after the bill was enacted if they met certain conditions.

Additional border security improvements would have to go into place before anyone obtained green cards or citizenship.

It would take immigrants living here illegally at least 13 years to get all the way to citizenship. They'd have to pay taxes, fees and $2,000 in fines. No one who entered the country after Dec. 31, 2011, or had a felony conviction or more than three misdemeanors would be eligible.

___

THE A-WORD

Nothing stirs up a hornet's nest like talk of amnesty for immigrants who are in the country illegally, although there's a lot of disagreement over how to define the term.

A 2007 effort to overhaul the immigration system, led by Bush, failed in part because Republicans were dismayed that it included a process to give otherwise law-abiding immigrants who were in the country illegally a chance to become citizens. Critics complained that would be offering amnesty.

All sides know it's not practical to talk about sending 11 million-plus people back to their countries of origin. So one big challenge this time is finding an acceptable way to resolve the status of those who are in the country illegally.

Backers of the Senate bill stress that those who are in the country illegally would have a longer and more difficult path to citizenship under their plan than would immigrants who followed all the rules.

___

GETTING A REPRIEVE

While the larger immigration debate goes on, the government already is offering as many as 1.76 million immigrants who are in the country illegally a way to avoid deportation, at least for now.

Obama announced a program in June that puts off deportation for many people brought here as children. Applicants for the reprieve must have arrived before they turned 16, be younger than 31 now, be high school graduates or in school, or have served in the military. They can't have a serious criminal record or pose a threat to public safety or national security.

Applications for the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program are averaging more than 3,000 a day. By mid-April, nearly 489,000 people had applied and more than 268,000 had been approved, with most of the rest still under consideration.

Applications have come from all 50 states, with the largest number coming from California and Texas. Nearly 75 percent of the applicants are originally from Mexico.

In some ways, the program closely tracks the failed DREAM Act, which would have given many young illegal immigrants a path to legal status. Obama's program doesn't give them legal status but it at least protects them from deportation for two years.

___

HISTORY: DOING THE WAVE

The U.S. is in its fourth and largest immigration wave.

First came the Colonial era, then an 1820-1870 influx of newcomers mostly from Northern and Western Europe. Most were Germans and Irish, but the gold rush and jobs on the transcontinental railroad also attracted Chinese immigrants.

In the 1870s, immigration declined due to economic problems and restrictive legislation.

The third wave, between 1881 and 1920, brought more than 23 million people to the U.S., mostly from Southern and Eastern Europe, aided by cheaper trans-Atlantic travel and lured by employers seeking workers.

Then came the Great Depression and more restrictive immigration laws, and immigration went into decline for decades.

The fourth wave, still underway, began in 1965 with the end of immigration limits based on nationality. Foreign-born people made up 1 in 20 residents of the U.S. in 1960; today, the figure is about 1 in 8.

___

HISTORY: HERE A LAW, THERE A LAW

Until the late 1800s, immigration was largely a free for all. Then came country-by-country limits. Since then, big changes in U.S. immigration law have helped produce big shifts in migration patterns.

Among the more notable laws:

—1965 Immigration and Nationality Act: Abolished country-by-country limits, established a new system that determined immigration preference based on family relationships and needed skills, and expanded the categories of family members who could enter without numerical limits.

—1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act: Legalized about 2.7 million immigrants living in the U.S. illegally, 84 percent of them from Mexico and Central America.

—1990 Immigration Act: Increased worldwide immigration limit to a "flexible cap" of 675,000 a year. The number can go higher in some years if there are unused visas available from the previous year.

—1996 Immigrant Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act. Expanded possible reasons for deporting people or ruling them ineligible to enter the U.S., expedited removal procedures, gave state and local police power to enforce immigration laws.

—Post-2001: In 2001, talk percolated about a new immigration plan to deal with unauthorized immigrants, guest workers and violence along the Mexican border. But the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks of 2001 put an end to that, amid growing unease over illegal immigration.

___

ABOUT LAST TIME. ...

The last big immigration legalization plan, in 1986, took six years to get done.

The law, signed by President Ronald Reagan, had three main components: making it illegal to hire unauthorized workers, improving border enforcement and providing for the legalization of a big chunk of the estimated 3 million to 5 million immigrants then in the country illegally.

The results were disappointing on two central fronts: The hiring crackdown largely failed because there was no good way to verify eligibility to work, and it took a decade to improve border security. As a result, illegal immigration continued to grow, fueled by the strong U.S. economy.

What did work as intended: Close to 3 million immigrants living in the U.S. without permission received legal status. By 2009, about 40 percent of them had been naturalized, according to Homeland Security.

___

LATINOS RISING

Census figures show that between 1960 and 2010, immigration from Europe declined while the numbers coming from Latin America and Asia took off. As the immigrants' points of origin changed, so did their destinations. Concentrations shifted from the Northeast and Midwest to the South and West.

A few Census Bureau snapshots:

—In 1960, there were fewer than 1 million people in the U.S. who were born in Latin America. By 2010, there were 21.2 million.

—In 1960, 75 percent of foreigners in the U.S. came from Europe. By 2010, 80 percent came from Latin America and Asia.

—In 1960: 47 percent of the foreign-born lived in the Northeast and 10 percent in the South. By 2010, 22 percent lived in the Northeast and 32 percent in the South.

___

THE FENCE

The fence between the U.S. and Mexico runs off and on for 651 miles along the 1,954-mile border. Most of it has been built since 2005. At some points, it's an 18-foot-high steel mesh structure topped with razor wire. At others, it's a rusting, 8-foot-high thing, made of Army surplus landing mats from the Vietnam War.

The fencing is one of the more visible manifestations of a massive effort over the past two decades to improve border security. The results of that effort are dramatic. Those images of crowds of immigrants sprinting across the border illegally while agents scramble to nab a few are largely a thing of the past.

Two decades ago, fewer than 4,000 Border Patrol agents worked along the Southwest border. Today there are 18,500.

Plummeting apprehension statistics are one measure of change: 357,000 last year, compared with 1.6 million in 2000. The numbers are down in part because fewer are trying to make it across.

The border isn't sealed but it is certainly more secure.

The Senate bill would require the government to have even tougher border security plans before those who are in the country illegally could become legal permanent residents.

___

WHO'S HANGING AROUND

With tighter border security and years of economic difficulty in the U.S., it turns out that most of the immigrants who are in the U.S. without permission have been there for a while. Just 14 percent have arrived since the start of 2005, according to Homeland Security estimates. In contrast, 29 percent came during the previous five years.

At the peak in 2000, about 770,000 immigrants arrived annually from Mexico, most of them entering the country illegally. By 2010, the pace had dropped to about 140,000, most of them arriving as legal immigrants, according to Pew.

___

WHO'S LEAVING?

Mexicans, mostly. Since 1986, more than 4 million noncitizens have been deported. Deportations have expanded in the Obama administration, reaching 410,000 in 2012 from 30,000 in 1990. Most of those deported — 75 percent — are sent back to Mexico. Nearly half of those removed had prior criminal convictions. So far, the Obama administration has deported more than 1.6 million people.

___

TO NATURALIZE OR NOT

Lots of U.S. immigrants who are eligible to become naturalized citizens don't bother. As of 2010, about two-thirds of eligible immigrants had applied for citizenship, according to the Migration Policy Institute. That lags behind the rate in other English-speaking countries such as Australia and Canada, which do more to promote naturalization.

___

WHY BOTHER?

What's so great about citizenship?

Naturalization offers all sorts of rights and benefits, including the right to vote and run for office. Naturalized citizens are protected from losing their residency rights and being deported if they get in legal trouble. They can bring family members into the U.S. more quickly.

Certain government jobs and licensed professions require citizenship. Citizenship also symbolizes full membership in U.S. society.

In 2010, there was a 67 percent earnings gap between naturalized citizens and noncitizen immigrants, according to a report from the Migration Policy Institute. Even after stripping out differences in education, language skills and work experience, naturalized citizens earned at least 5 percent more.

___

SKIPPING IT

Nearly two-thirds of the 5.4 million legal immigrants from Mexico who are eligible to become U.S. citizens haven't done so, according to a Pew study released in February. Their rate of naturalization is half that of legal immigrants from all other countries combined. The barriers to naturalization cited by Mexican nonapplicants include the need to learn English, the difficulty of the citizenship exam and the $680 application fee.

___

WORKERS

How do immigrants who are in the U.S. without permission fit into the nation's jobs picture?

In 2010, about 8 million were working in the U.S. or trying to get work. They made up about 5 percent of the labor force, according to Pew. Among U.S. farm workers, about half are believed to be in the country illegally, according to the Government Accountability Office.

Business groups want a system to legally bring in both more highly skilled workers and more lower-skilled workers such as agricultural laborers. The idea is to hire more when Americans aren't available to fill jobs. This has been a sticking point in past attempts at immigration overhaul. Labor groups want any such revamped system to provide worker protections and guard against displacing American workers. Current temporary worker programs are cumbersome and outdated.

The Senate bill would establish a agriculture worker visa system and create more visa programs for high- and low-skilled workers. Farm workers already here illegally would be able to qualify for green cards after five years if they'd already worked in agriculture in the U.S. for two years and if they kept working in the industry.

___

EMPLOYERS

Current law requires employers to have their workers fill out a form that declares them authorized to work in the U.S. Then the employer needs to verify that the worker's identifying documents look real. But the law allows lots of different documents, and many of them are easy to counterfeit.

The government has developed a mostly voluntary employment verification system called E-Verify, which has gradually gotten better. But so far just 10 percent of employers are using it, according to the Migration Policy Institute. The system is now required in varying degrees by 19 states.

The Senate proposal would require all employers to implement it within four years.

___

FAMILIES VS. JOBS

A big question in the immigration debate centers on how much priority to give to the family members of U.S. citizens and permanent residents.

Under current law, the U.S. awards a much larger proportion of green cards to family members than to foreigners with job prospects here. About two-thirds of permanent legal immigration to the U.S. is family-based, compared with about 15 percent that is employment-based, according to the Migration Policy Institute. The rest is largely humanitarian.

Some policymakers think employment-based immigration should be boosted to help the economy. Advocates for families want to make sure any such action doesn't come at the expense of people seeking to join relatives in the U.S.

The Senate plan would prevent citizens from bringing in siblings and would allow them to sponsor married sons and daughters only if the children were under 31. It would raise the cap on visas for high-skilled workers, create a startup visa for foreign entrepreneurs, and set up a new merit visa that would award points to prospective immigrants based on their education, employment, length of residence in the U.S. and other factors.

___

WHO CARES?

For all the attention being devoted to immigration right now, it's not the top priority for most people, even for most Hispanics. It ranked 17th on a list of policy priorities in a recent Pew Research Center poll. Among Hispanics, one-third said immigration was an extremely important issue to them, behind such issues as the economy and jobs, education and health care.

___

A VIEW FROM THE SOUTH

Is life actually better in the U.S.? A little more than half of Mexican adults think so, according to a 2012 Pew Global Attitudes poll. Thirty-eight percent said they'd move to the U.S. if they had the chance. Nineteen percent said they'd come even without authorization.

___

Sources: Pew Hispanic Center, Migration Policy Institute, Department of Homeland Security, Census Bureau, Government Accountability Office, Population Reference Bureau, Encyclopedia of Immigration.

___

Associated Press writers Alicia Caldwell and Erica Werner contributed to this report.

___

Follow Nancy Benac on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/nbenac


View the original article here

Thứ Tư, 1 tháng 5, 2013

At NYC May Day rally, calls for a more liberal immigration reform bill

Protesters hold up signs criticizing the current immigration reform bill on May 1, 2013 in New York City. (Goo …

One might imagine that activists at the pro-immigrant, pro-labor May Day rally in New York City would be happy about the bipartisan immigration reform bill currently in the Senate. But signs and activists at Wednesday's rally called the current draft bill an "unjust" plan that will leave out too many immigrants in its legalization scheme and focus too much on increased enforcement at the border.

One popular sign at the rally featured the face of Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-New York, behind barbed wire. The words: "No to Schumer and the Gang of 8," in Spanish—referring to the eight senators who hashed out the plan.

Activists said the immigration compromise—which trades stricter enforcement of current laws for a 13-year path to citizenship for most of the nation's 11 million unauthorized immigrants—is unjust and unacceptable.

The rally was part of 85 May Day demonstrations taking place in Los Angeles, Chicago, Phoenix and other cities pushing for immigration reform and labor rights. They drew thousands of protesters, according to organizers.

"I speak for most immigrants when I say the gang of 8 is doing a bill that will give us almost nothing," said Carlos Canales, a community organizer from Freehold, N.J. "It's going to end up to be an elitist immigration reform."

Canales said he's organizing a hunger strike in front of Schumer's New York office in the coming weeks to urge him to change the bill to address criticisms from the left. Canales objects to the requirement that immigrants who want to be legalized must prove they've been employed since December of 2011 to qualify. He said many unauthorized immigrants will have trouble proving employment because they work in more transitory jobs that don't keep records.

A Schumer spokesman, Max Young, said the bill has drawn "wide support among prominent Latino and pro-immigration organizations." And an organizer of the May Day rallies, Ben Monterroso, stressed that "there's so many good things in the bill," even if activists have some concerns.

"Senator Schumer is working with the length and breadth of the Hispanic community to pass an immigration bill that accelerates family reunification and that sets a path to citizenship that gets all eligible 11 million people out of the shadows and into legal status as quickly as possible," said Young.

Other activists at the rally said they object to the way the bill will shift the legal immigration system to prioritize skill- and employment-based visas. Under the current proposal, visas for adult siblings of U.S. citizens will be eliminated, and a cut-off age for applying for green cards for adult children will be instituted.

Christina Chang, an advocacy associate for the Korean American group Minkwon Center for Community Action, said she does not believe the current bill is unjust, but that she hopes it changes substantially in the coming weeks. "It's a fundamental change from a family-based immigration system to one that's merit based," Chang said.

Her group also believes that immigrants could end up waiting 20 years or longer to become citizens under the bill, if lawmakers continue to make the process contingent on the U.S.-Mexico border meeting certain security standards.

The Senate Judiciary Committee is scheduled to hold a hearing on the bill May 9. Advocates believe it will be introduced on the Senate floor by May 25.


View the original article here

Thứ Năm, 25 tháng 4, 2013

House Republican offers few assurances on immigration bill

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Two key authors of a bipartisan bill to revamp U.S. immigration laws said on Thursday that they are hopeful most Senate Democrats and Republicans will end up supporting their White House-backed measure.

"It is very doable," Republican Senator John McCain of Arizona said of the prospects of attracting such backing. Democratic Senator Charles Schumer of New York agreed.

Speaking at a breakfast roundtable with reporters sponsored by the Christian Science Monitor, they said their aim is to muster strong support in the Democratic-led Senate to help the measure's chances in the Republican-led House of Representatives.

(Reporting by Thomas Ferraro; Editing by Vicki Allen)


View the original article here

Thứ Tư, 24 tháng 4, 2013

Can Talk Radio, Again, Derail Immigration Reform? Probably Not

It’s odd standing in the middle of a dozen talk-radio hosts, all broadcasting from the same hotel ballroom. From the outset, it's just a dozen people talking (or ranting) to themselves. But you know hundreds of thousands are listening. Walking down the row of hosts on Wednesday was like strolling through a sliding radio dial on a conservative-only frequency. Snippets of chatter fade in and out:

“Where’s the violence from the tea party?” ... “Has he visited the survivors of Benghazi yet?”...  “And Janet Napolitano’s been lying her ass off.”

The hosts were just a few feet from one another, separated by red-velvet curtains in the hotel just blocks from the Capitol. It didn’t seem impossible for one broadcaster’s voice to be in the background of another’s show.

This was the Federation for American Immigration Reform’s seventh-annual “Hold Their Feet to the Fire,” radio row. Forty-six conservative talk-show hosts, from media markets across the nation, came to this hotel to discuss (or eviscerate) the bipartisan immigration reform bill that was unveiled 2 a.m. Wednesday. The bill seeks to give a path to legal residency and eventual citizenship for the 11 million undocumented immigrants in the country, provided that certain border-security conditions are met. 

Roy Beck, founder of NumbersUSA, a group that seeks to bring immigration to pre-1965 levels, comes every year. This year, he was making the rounds to 10 radio stations.

“It’s a little bit like being at a day labor site,” he said, describing the event.

“Or like speed dating?” I asked.

“It is like speed dating, that’s true,” he said. “But it is like a day labor site, you’re just there. The little pickup truck drives by. Drives real slowly. And I go, 'I’m available! I’m cheeep!'"

FAIR provides a corral of guests like Beck—heads of interest groups, border-town sheriffs, ranchers, and some congressional representatives (Marco Rubio made an appearance Thursday)—available for the radio show’s disposal. While FAIR doesn’t mandate the hosts talk to anyone in particular, the forum allows for a consistent message. And their intentions are clear: “Our view is that we would like to know as much about this proposal as possible, and we would like to defeat it early on,” FAIR President Dan Stein said.

Related Story: Who Are the 11 Million Undocumented Immigrants?

Sheriff Paul Babeu of Arizona is one of more popular guests in the stable. Babeu—you may recall—provided one of the more interesting side stories of the 2012 election. He stepped down from cochairing Romney’s campaign in Arizona and eventually his congressional bid after allegations that he had threatened a former male lover with deportation. He has denied this.

In uniform, with big gold “SHERIFF” pins on his shirt collars, he said he was scheduled to talk to 30 radio hosts. As a sheriff in a county near the Mexican border, he has become a totemic critic of the Homeland Security Department. “What we want out of this is a secure border that protects our state, protects our country,” he said. “As recent as this week that we had large groups of 100-plus [border crossers] that we haven’t seen for years. That’s a clue that the reason what’s happening is because of the prospect of amnesty, the prospect of a path to citizenship."

His voice, his opinion as a border-area sheriff, would reach hundreds of thousands. “Literally I can go from one interview to the next,” he said, “Talk to somebody in Alabama, talk to somebody in Virginia, and then talk to somebody in Phoenix. You can’t do that normally. Now we have a nucleus to get this information out in a coordinated effort.”

***

There’s a bit of déjà vu here. Or a least a déjà vu FAIR would like to recreate. In the summer of 2007, such a coordinated effort among talk-radio hosts killed a George W. Bush-backed, bipartisan immigration deal that was gaining momentum in Congress.

“The conservative hosts really did make a crusade,” Mark Jurkowitz, a media researcher with Pew, said. “It’s hard to quantify how many [senators’] votes were changed in 2007, I don’t know. But I do know the talk hosts—and probably no one more so than Rush Limbaugh—are very capable of motivating their listeners to make calls about a certain issue.” (Limbaugh was not present at the FAIR event. It was mostly regional outlets.)

During the lead up to the vote in the Senate, immigration was the No. 1 story across mediums. It amounted to 9 percent of the news hole, a slightly higher share than the burgeoning presidential race. But conservative talk radio took it to the next level—immigration made up 31 percent of their coverage.

Trent Lott, the Republican Senate whip in 2007, received a lot of those calls from talk-radio listeners. "I've had my phones jammed for three weeks,” he told The Washington Post at the time. “Talk radio is running America,” he lamented after the bill’s defeat. “We have to deal with that problem.”

But it’s not 2007. There’s a growing libertarian bent in the Republican Party, a bent that might favor a freer flow of labor. Then there’s Marco Rubio, a "Gang of Eight" member and rising conservative star. While his legislation is not finding favor among the talk-radio hosts, he still holds their respect.

And while Pew no longer collects week-by-week data on news coverage, it doesn’t take a survey to know immigration is not the top story. That was apparent just walking around the broadcast stations. Much of the talk was about Boston.

“Obviously the attention is going to be there and should be there,” Helen Glover, a Rhode Island-area host (and former Survivor contestant) said. “It’s a balance, because we’re so close to Boston, it needs to have equal amount. We try to weave them both in at the same time.”

“I’m afraid [immigration] is going to be subdued,” she said.

And then, it was like a talk news broadcast for one.

“As Rahm Emanuel said, never let a good crisis goes to waste.... Does this mean you go ahead and start this discussion now without giving Boston the respect it deserves? It’s not the time to be putting this information out, or god forbid, scheduling hearings.”


View the original article here

Thứ Tư, 17 tháng 4, 2013

NHCLC Applauds Proposed Senate Immigration Reform Bill

We Are Inches Away from Crossing the 'Jordan' of Reform

WASHINGTON, April 17, 2013 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference, the nation's largest Christian Hispanic organization, the Hispanic Evangelical Association, and NHCLC President, Rev. Samuel Rodriguez, applaud the proposed Senate bill on immigration reform.

(Logo: http://photos.prnewswire.com/prnh/20120912/CL72800LOGO )

Rodriguez will join Senator Marco Rubio and the bipartisan Senate "Gang of Eight" in a press conference in Washington, D.C on Thursday, April 18, 2013, as they outline their proposed immigration reform bill. The Senate introduced legislation, which serves to solve the immigration reform process, at 2 a.m. this morning (http://www.schumer.senate.gov/forms/immigration.pdf).

Rev. Rodriguez, praising this movement and momentum for reform, said, "Engaging a biblical narrative as a metaphor, the immigration cause no longer resides in the Egypt of political apathy or the desert of inevitable deportation. Today, this just cause stands before the 'Jordan' called reform. With prophetic courage, spiritual fortitude and political will, we will cross into the promise land of integration thus protecting our values, borders and dream.

"Ironically the same issue that once polarized our nation now serves as a conduit for bipartisan collaboration. Now is the time."

Today, on the same day that the Senate introduced immigration reform legislation, hundreds of evangelical congregants and leaders from over 24 states descended upon Washington, D.C. for the first-ever national "Evangelical Day of Prayer and Action on Immigration Reform." Dr. Carlos Moran, Board Member, National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference and NHCLC Immigration Spokesperson is one of several leaders speaking at this event in D.C, many of whom believe the Unites States is on the verge of a major and much anticipated breakthrough on immigration reform.

Dr. Carlos Moran, said, "As Evangelicals, as born again believers, as the spiritual heirs to the mantles of Billy Graham and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., we affirm our conviction that it is the time to reconcile border security with security of our values; values that include faith, hope and charity. Values that prompt us to worship our Lord and welcome the stranger. For at the end of the day, passing immigration reform is not, as Rev. Samuel Rodriguez reminds us, about advancing the agenda of the donkey or the elephant. Immigration reform is about living out the agenda of the lamb."

Rev. Wilfredo "Choco" DeJesus, profiled along with Rev. Rodriguez's description of the Latino Reformation in the April 15th TIME magazine feature story, and Pastor of New Life Covenant Church, NHCLC Vice President and NHCLC Illinois Chapter Director, said, "Comprehensive Immigration Reform is long overdue. As long as a pathway to citizenship remains at the heart of this bill I remain hopeful that undocumented families will be offered the opportunity to stay together and not be torn apart by our current broken immigration system. These families are woven into the fabric of our daily lives – their children attend school with our children, they worship and are active in our churches, they are contributing members of our society. As a pastor and NHCLC Vice President of Social Justice, I will continue to advocate and stand for the millions of undocumented families that deserve a pathway to citizenship as the word of God instructs me to do."

ABOUT THE NHCLC  
The National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference, the nation's largest Christian Hispanic organization, is the Hispanic Evangelical Association unifying, serving and representing millions in the Hispanic Born Again Community-including Puerto Rico-via 40,118 member churches by reconciling the vertical and horizontal of the Christian message through the 7 Directives Including Family, Life, Compassionate Evangelism, Stewardship, Justice, Education and Youth.

TO BOOK an INTERVIEW or SPEAKING ENGAGEMENT with REV. SAMUEL RODRIGUEZ
Matti Stevenson • 719.360.0586 • mattistevenson@nhclc.org

SOURCE National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference


View the original article here

Thứ Ba, 16 tháng 4, 2013

Obama endorses bipartisan immigration overhaul

By Caren Bohan and Richard Cowan

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama on Tuesday embraced a sweeping overhaul of the nation's immigration system put forward by a bipartisan group of senators, saying it was "largely consistent" with his own principles for immigration reform.

The Democratic president, who had said previously that he would submit his own bill if he was not satisfied with the Senate proposal, urged Congress to "quickly move" the bill forward and pledged to do "whatever it takes" to help.

He spoke after meeting with two of the measure's chief sponsors, Senators John McCain, a Republican from Arizona, and Charles Schumer, a Democrat from New York.

Obama's endorsement and the bipartisan support for the bill improves its chances for passage but by no means ensures it.

The four Democrats and four Republicans sponsoring the bill likely face a months-long battle, with the biggest challenge expected in the Republican-led House of Representatives.

Some opposition surfaced Tuesday, even though many House members, including Republican leaders, resolved to stay silent for the day because of the Boston Marathon bombing on Monday.

Republican Representative Lamar Smith of Texas slammed the senators' plan and said it would encourage even more illegal immigration, favor foreign workers and treat illegal immigrants better than those who have played by the rules.

McCain, who lost the 2008 presidential election to Obama, warned that the defeat of any one of the key provisions of the complex legislation could jeopardize the whole effort.

He told reporters that it was "carefully crafted" to keep Republicans, Democrats and different interest groups on board and that if "certain things" were changed, "we would lose one side or the other."

For this and other reasons, Republican Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, another of the bill's sponsors, said the group planned on taking its time with the legislation.

"It's a complicated issue and I think people want to learn more about it," the Cuban-American lawmaker told reporters. "This will be a while. This is not going to be done in a week or quite frankly in a month."

'SERIOUS BORDER SECURITY'

Rubio's comment underscored the delicate construction of the proposal, which would create a new legal status for millions of undocumented immigrants, as urged by immigrant advocacy groups and large segments of the Democratic party.

But to lure Republican support, it conditions a path to permanent legal status - and ultimately a chance for citizenship - on the success of a multibillion-dollar effort to make U.S. borders less porous, using unmanned aerial surveillance, the construction of double and triple lawyers of fencing and the deployment of thousands of additional border patrol officers along with the National Guard.

To get business support, the bill would create a new system of visas for temporary agricultural workers and low-skilled laborers as well as expand the number of specialized, highly-trained foreigners allowed to enter the country to work for technology companies.

To avoid alienating fiscal conservatives in both parties, the proposal denies most federal benefits to the immigrants until they achieve permanent status in the United States, which could take 10 years.

Supporters insist that the bill would not provide an amnesty to illegal immigrants.

The eight senators are trying to pull together broad Republican and Democratic support in hopes that doing so will save the legislation from the fate of failed efforts to comprehensively reform immigration over the past three decades.

That strategy began to pay off Tuesday, even before the bill had been formally introduced.

Conservative anti-tax activist Grover Norquist, head of Americans for Tax Reform, was among those who praised the immigration reform effort. He said he would attend a news conference later this week sponsored by the bipartisan group of senators backing the bill.

"They are doing serious border security. They are making sure that the 10 or 11 million who are here without papers can stay and work as long they are not criminals as long as they're working. So you're weeding out bad guys and allowing people who are good and decent and hard-working to be able to stay and work and get in line in questions of citizenship ..."

Rather than being a cost to the country, the bill would be a "boon" to the economy and would save taxpayers money because those with the provisional visas won't be eligible for federal benefits, Norquist said.

The Senate proposal has been embraced by a range of groups, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the AFL-CIO labor organization and immigrants rights activists.

"As a bipartisan product in a time of hyperpartisanship, it's good, strong policy and I think it's also good enough to attract the kind of bipartisan support it needs to pass," said Frank Sharry, executive director of America's Voice, a group that favors immigration reform.

The bill faces a smoother path in the Senate, where it will move first. A bipartisan group in the House has been trying to craft an immigration bill as well, but has yet to produce one.

Representative Raul Labrador, a Republican from Idaho who is backed by the conservative Tea Party movement, cautioned Congress against moving too quickly to change immigration laws.

"You're going to see legislation going through the (House) judiciary committee. It is going to be slow and methodical," Labrador told reporters.

The argument that the new law would be too costly has struck a chord with Tea Party conservatives and could become a central theme of opposition in the House.

(Additional reporting by Rachelle Younglai, Kim Dixon, Alina Selyukh, Anna Yukhananov and David Lawder in Washington and Nick Carey in Chicago; Editing by Fred Barbash and Paul Simao)


View the original article here