Copland and Brenner

Table of Contents

1. Limping Legislation, Schlocky Schlafly, Summer Sermonizing
2. In Brief: Recent Developments

1. Limping Legislation, Schlocky Schlafly, Summer Sermonizing

   In our June report on the subject, we informed readers of the stalemate in Washington concerning prospects for immigration reform, whether it will be “comprehensive,” and whether no new law is preferable to bad law. In keeping with traditional legislative processes, the next step should be for the House of Representatives to reconcile its bill (H.R. 4437) with the Senate bill (S. 2611), seeking to reach a consensus to present to the President.

   Instead, the House decided to suspend efforts aimed at building consensus, started referring to the Senate bill as “Reid-Kennedy,” arranged for public “field” hearings (with hand-picked audiences), and began holding Oversight Hearings in Washington. The problem with this approach is that - with names such as “Should We Embrace the Senate’s Grant of Amnesty to Millions of Illegal Aliens and Repeat the Mistakes of the Immigration and Control Act of 1986?” – the hearings seem less like information gathering and more like bad theater where the audience knows the ending. And, with such notables as Phyllis Schlafly weighing in, the approach seems geared less to thoughtful information exchange than rallying the faithful.

   As to Ms. Schlafly, her July 18 testimony before the Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims included the following memorable, if oddball, comments:

   - “Failure to stop the entry of illegal aliens is….unfair to our own high school dropouts who need those low-wage jobs to start building a life.”
   - “The Senate bill gives guest workers a path to citizenship after a few years…it’s obvious that those few years give plenty of time to produce an American-born anchor baby.”
   - “If you have water in your basement, Plan A must be to stop more water from coming in – before you deal with the water already in the basement. Plan A is border security only, House bill 4437.”
   - “The Senate bill would, within 20 years, make 24% of our population foreign born (most of them high school dropouts), even though Pew Research reports that only 17% of Americans support increased immigration. It is impossible in so short a time to assimilate 66 million people whose native culture does not respect the Rule of Law, self-government, private property, or the sanctity of contracts, and who are accustomed to an economy based on bribery and controlled by corrupt police and a small, rich ruling class that keeps most of the people in dire poverty.”
   - “H-1Bs encourage corporations to hire engineers and computer specialists from India, Pakistan and China at half the salary Americans would be paid.”
   - “Of course there are plenty of computer jobs, but not for Americans because big business would rather hire foreigners.”
   - “Private industry will be only too happy to set up Ellis Island Centers in the Philippines (where tuberculosis is rampant) and bring in an unlimited number of lower-paid nurses to decimate the U.S. nursing profession.”
   - “Even if a guest worker plan actually works the way it is promised, it would be immoral and un-American.”
   - “Illegal aliens are bringing in diseases such as Chagas that were formerly unknown in the United States, plus bedbugs and diseases we had eradicated decades ago such as tuberculosis, malaria and even leprosy.”

   Ms. Schlafly’s testimony is but one example of the visceral, reactionary “us” vs. “them” mentality that has helped stymie meaningful immigration reform for years. Unfortunately, such vitriol plays well to middle America, particularly in times of squeezed household budgets, rapidly increasing costs of higher education and overall concerns about the economy. Of course, fallout from the war in Iraq and the 9/11 terrorist attacks on U.S. soil – by men who lied to gain entry to and remain in the U.S.A., used false documents, and otherwise pretended to be something they were not – only exacerbates anti-immigrant sentiment on ostensibly legitimate grounds of national security.

   The reality is that some immigrants will try to take advantage of our laws by fraud. There are some criminal immigrants. Some immigrants will carry disease to the U.S.A. There are some U.S. employers who pay unlawfully low wages to illegal or temporary workers. And there is a connection between our national security and certain aspects of our immigration system. But melding all of these negatives relating to a very small percentage into an argument for enforcement-only immigration reform is to fall prey to the most obvious xenophobia, falsely cast as patriotism.

   The good news is that, in addition to what the American Immigration Lawyers Association ("AILA") dubs the "faux hearings" of the House of Representatives, there actually is meaningful analysis of the U.S. debate on immigration. The question is, will enough of our elected representatives in Washington listen?

   A recent study by Donald Kerwin and Margaret D. Stock, titled National Security and Immigration Policy: Reclaiming Terms, Measuring Success, and Setting Prioirities , seeks to make sense of the "'human rights versus national security' paradigm that has inhibited serious discussion of the role of the U.S. immigration system in a coordinated national security strategy." AILA made the study available to its members on July 25 (AILA Doc. No. 06072515). It is also available on the web site of the Combating Terrorism Center of the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, at http://www.ctc.usma.edu/research/National_Security_and_Immigration_Policy.pdf. The 56-page study is a very useful discussion of the rampant conflation of anti-terrorism/national security/anti-immigrant sentiment against the stated goals of those who advocate for "human rights."
   The authors note that the debate is hindered by the lack of knowledge regarding our immigration system by counter-terror experts, and the inverse lack of counter-terrorism expertise by immigrant rights advocates. They address two questions: what must the U.S.A. do to reduce the terrorist threat, and what role should our immigration system have in our security strategy? In doing so, they note, "after 9/11 the immigration system has been viewed almost exclusively through the lens of security." And, they write, in seeking to overcome the divide between national security and immigrant rights, "[t]he stakes could not be higher."

   The authors write that "the United States must establish a consensus on what it expects from its immigration system as part of a coordinated security strategy," and that doing so "will require a public discussion of the goals of the US immigration system." The also write that "the immigration system must be integrated into the national security apparatus." In the process, the U.S. must "not shut down entire systems in a self-defeating way." Among the conclusions in the study are these:

   - the U.S. should increase , not decrease, the number of foreign students given "benefits in good will and talent."

   - "Immigrants add valuable diversity to the armed forces.

   - "the U.S. needs to know who is in the country for security reasons, and a "national ID number with biometric identifiers would be one way to accomplish this goal with U.S. citizens."

   - the Visa Waiver Program, which foregoes consular interviews for nationals of 27 countries, "remains the U.S. immigration system's area of greatest vulnerability."

   - "immigration measures that target the undocumented cannot be assumed to enhance security;" they "may distract security resources from the real threat" and "drive the undocumented further underground."

   - undocumented workers "represent 25 percent of meat and poultry workers, 22 percent of maids, 20 percent of construction workers and 18 percent of sewing machine operators," and "[t]hese industries would collapse without them."

   - the estimated $206 billion it would cost, over five years, to remove those 12 million undocumented aliens would not "include the disastrous social and financial consequences for hundreds of thousands of U.S. 'mixed-status' families."

   - "the U.S. immigration system does not offer sufficient legal avenues for needed workers and family members to enter the country."

   - the REAL ID Act, which forces states to refuse driver licenses to the undocumented, "promises to drive [them] further beyond the government's reach;" and "means taking 20 million illegal immigrants out of the largest law enforcement database in the country."

   - "integration has been identified as an antidote to the radicalization of ethnic minorities and immigrant communities," and "[50]egal status represents a pre-condition to integration."

   Ultimately, the authors "recommend that Congress pass comprehensive immigration reform as a way to enhance U.S. security." Doing so, they conclude, "may be the most pressing immigration-related security need facing our nation."

   As we have pointed out, immigration reform legislation is stalled in Congress. August is upon us, so that Senators and members of the House of Representatives are likely to be in their home districts, more readily available to constituents. With Phyllis Schlafly's message coming through loud and clear, any opportunity for proponents of comprehensive immigration reform to voice their support should not be ignored.

2. In Brief: Recent Developments

   On August 3, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) announced that special immigrant status is now available for up to 50 qualifying Afghan and Iraqi nationals who have served as civilian translators for the U.S. armed forces. Further details are available online at http://www.uscis.gov/graphics/publicaffairs/factsheets/Translators_080306FS.pdf.

   On July 28, a USCIS press release announced that the H-1B advanced degree cap of 20,000 had been reached for fiscal 2007. The final receipt date for advanced degree H-1B petitions was July 26, and those received on that date will be subject to a random selection process. Additional information is on the USCIS web site at http://www.uscis.gov/graphics/publicaffairs/newsrels/H1BMasters072806PR.pdf.

   Under “Operation Return to Sender,” U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement arrested 2,179 illegal aliens nationwide in June. In continuing operations beginning July 12, “127 criminal aliens, fugitives, and other immigration violators” were arrested in Oklahoma. Later, beginning July 17, 37 criminal aliens, fugitives, and other immigration violators were arrested in Kansas City, Missouri.

   According to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, a July 18 “worksite enforcement operation targeting illegal aliens” at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, nabbed 58 persons with allegedly false or fraudulently obtained identification.

   The Department of Homeland Security on July 26 announced a new voluntary program to help employers avoid illegal aliens in their workforce. The program, called the ICE Mutual Agreement between Government and Employers, or “IMAGE,” appears to be the result of increased employer interest following highly publicized criminal indictments for illegal hiring.

   On July 26, the Department of Justice announced that, effective August 14, the Board of Immigration Appeals “will grant fewer and shorter extensions of initial briefing deadlines” in cases involving detained aliens. The change reduces the extension period from 21 to 15 days. The change is cast as an “effort to reduce detention time for aliens in removal proceedings,” but neglects to point out that the practical consequence is most likely a final order of removal generated a week earlier than under the former rule. The bottom line is that relief from removal by detained aliens and their attorneys/representatives will become more difficult to obtain.

   The Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 (H.R. 4772), enacted on July 27, bars U.S. citizens and permanent residents convicted of “any specified offense against a minor” from filing a family-based immigrant visa petition unless the DHS Secretary – “in his sole and unreviewable discretion” - first determines that the petitioner poses no risk to the beneficiary.