Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Friends, I posted a version of this several months ago. With a week before the election and early voting well underway, I've decided to post this again. This isn't just about the fact that Barack has better positions on immigration than John McCain. This is a special opportunity. As Barack reminded us yesterday, we have the chance to choose our history this election.
Barack Obama - The Inspiration Factor--Why I support Barack Obama
Barack Obama represents a rare opportunity for Americans to elect a President that will bring hope and inspiration to a nation that has been riddled with the politics of division, scapegoating, and blame. His vision of America is one that we can all get behind.
I was eleven years old when John Kennedy was elected President. I have vivid memories of the all-too-brief period that he served as the commander-in-chief. His intellect, his humor, his charm, and his presence made him quite the perfect character for this role. I and countless others were always interested in what he had to say, what he was doing, and, amazingly in retrospect, we even paid attention to reports of his press conferences. But what made JFK so very special—in many ways a once in a lifetime leader—was his ability to inspire Americans to come together, to engage in community service, to be better persons, to strive to do great things in the interest of humankind. His call to “Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country” became more than an inaugural catch phrase. It set the tone for his administration and his generation, as well as a new generation of which I was a part. His idealism was infectious.
Like any human being, JFK was not perfect, however, his inspirational mark on the psyche of the nation was unmistakable. Certainly, other great Americans have come along in my lifetime with the presence and ability to inspire us in similar ways—Bobby Kennedy, Martin Luther King, Cesar Chavez, Yuri Kochiyama, but none with the advantage of the presidential bully pulpit to take center stage on a regular basis to lead the nation to do the right thing.
As the presidential primary season progressed, it was hard not to realize that something very special was happening. When Barack Obama announced his candidacy in February 2007 in Springfield, Illinois, a crowd of 15,000 gathered to cheer him on. Why, I wondered, until I heard his opening words: “We all made this journey for a reason. It's humbling, but in my heart I know you didn't come here just for me, you came here because you believe in what this country can be. In the face of war, you believe there can be peace. In the face of despair, you believe there can be hope. In the face of a politics that's shut you out, that's told you to settle, that's divided us for too long, you believe we can be one people, reaching for what's possible, building that more perfect union.” His presence and his speech on the tube were awe-inspiring. But I had to see for myself. So a month later on St. Patrick’s Day 2007, my twenty-something kids and I went to hear Barack speak in front of Oakland’s City Hall where thousands more gathered. His dynamism and charisma are for real. His appeal to an old generation (me) and a new one (my children) is for real. The similar crowds that have gathered across the country to hear Barack are for real. The potential for a new Kennedy-esque President is for real. There is a reason that this past weekend 100,000 gathered to hear Barack speak in Denver.
Like others, I have parsed through the different positions that the presidential candidates have taken since the primaries, paying close attention to issues of particular interest to me (and no doubt others): the economy, the war, health care, immigration. Barack Obama consistently demonstrated the courage to stand up to do the right thing in spite of political danger such as his support of drivers licenses for the undocumented and the DREAM Act.
The huge difference and overwhelming factor in my decision to support Barack is his potential to lead and inspire the country beyond the politics as usual that we have lived with since the Nixon Administration. As much as I admire Jimmy Carter, he was unable to move the nation to higher aspirations even before his administration was de-railed by the hostage situation in Tehran. Ronald Regan was transformative, but in a negative manner that put us years and steps behind in our nation’s progress toward economic, gender, and racial justice. And while Bill Clinton was a masterful politician, he did not inspire us to greatness and ended up agreeing to compromises that ended up hurting the working class (NAFTA), the poor (welfare reform), and immigrants (1996 legislation and Operation Gatekeeper). Barack has the special qualities to break out of the leadership morass that has deepened since 1968.
I am not so naive to believe that every single policy that a President Obama might support would be great, from my perspective. But I do believe that unlike any other candidate, he can inspire all of us to rise above our differences. I have now spoken with individuals who have known Barack growing up, in high school, in college, in law school, and on the streets of Chicago. To a person, they all attest to his honesty, integrity, openness, and most importantly, his ability to lead. He is special. So special, that while he may be a once-in-a-lifetime President for my children, this could be the second time in my life that I truly can be inspired by the President of the United States--a President who has the ability to inspire Americans to come together, to engage in community service, to be better persons, to strive to do great things in the interest of humankind. A President who is not afraid to share his inspirational idealism.
Groups Sue for Release of Government Documents related to Local Immigration Raid
LOS ANGELES - A coalition of civil rights lawyers is suing federal immigration officials who have illegally failed to release information about reported racial profiling, intimidation and denial of access to counsel by workers detained during a huge workplace raid in Los Angeles.
On Tuesday, the National Immigration Law Center (NILC), the ACLU of Southern California and the National Lawyers Guild of Los Angeles filed a federal lawsuit asserting that the government's lack of response violates the Freedom of Information Act. The three groups first requested basic information from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Department of Homeland Security nearly seven months ago. The government has failed to release a single document.
"The government has squandered an opportunity to allay community concerns about the manner in which it is conducting immigration raids. If the government truly believes that it is conducting these raids in a humane and lawful manner, it should release the documents this lawsuit seeks," said NILC staff attorney Karen Tumlin.
On February 7, federal immigration agents raided a Micro Solutions Enterprises manufacturing plant in Van Nuys. Agents interrogated and detained well over 200 employees, though they only had arrest warrants for eight, raising concerns that workers were presumed guilty under the immigration laws based solely or primarily on their race/ethnicity. The documents the government has failed to produce would shed light on agents' conduct during the raid, including whether they adhered to their own policies concerning the manner in which workplace raids should be conducted and whether appropriate screening was done to determine whether detained individuals should be released to care for minor children or other dependants.
"The public has a right to know whether the immigration agents followed the law when conducting this massive worksite raid. The government's refusal to provide the information speaks volumes about its own confidence that it is complying with federal law and the Constitution," said ACLU-SC Director of Immigrants' Rights and National Security, Ahilan Arulanantham.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement has been under scrutiny for its aggressive tactics in conducting increasingly frequent workplace raids over the last two years. In some cases, federal agents have separated mothers from nursing infants. Last month, legislation was introduced in the U.S. Senate to set guidelines that would ensure immigration raids are conducted in a humane manner that does not trample on individuals' civil rights or presume guilt based on skin color.
"We are pleased to represent NILC in this case, which stands for the fundamental principle that those enforcing the law must abide by it," said Ann Robinson, an attorney at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP which is serving as pro bono counsel for NILC in the lawsuit.
The lawsuit, National Immigration Law Center v. Department of Homeland Security, sues both the Department of Homeland Security, and its sub-agency, the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), which conducted the February 7, 2008 raid in Van Nuys. The plaintiffs in lawsuit are: the National Immigration Law Center, the ACLU of Southern California, and the National Lawyers Guild of Los Angeles. The National Immigration Law Center is representing itself along with the law firm of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, which is serving as pro bono counsel for NILC. The ACLU of Southern California is representing itself and the National Lawyers Guild of Los Angeles. In addition to Arulanantham,Robinson, and Tumlin other counsel in the case include: Linton Joaquin and Nora Preciado of NILC; Maurice Suh and Katherine Smith of Gibson Dunn, and Jennifer Pasquarella of the ACLU of Southern California.
Nora Preciado, NILC
Gordon Smith, ACLU/SC
Liz Valsamis, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher
The Bush administration wants to implement a controversial plan to collect DNA samples from federal detainees starting Dec. 31, amid an outcry by immigrant advocacy organizations and uncertainties about federal funding.
Last spring, the U.S. Department of Justice published a proposed regulation that set the December deadline to start collecting DNA from an estimated 1.2 million people arrested each year by federal agents, including hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants detained along the nation's borders. The DNA samples would then be added to the FBI's national DNA database, which contains the genetic codes of millions of convicted felons. For the story, click here.
The Social Science Research Network (www.ssrn.com) has posted three articles that touch on immiugration that are worth a read:
"An Assessment of Latcrit Theory Ten Years After" Indiana Law Journal, KEITH AOKI (UC Davis) & KEVIN R. JOHNSON (UC Davis). Abstract: This article is published in a symposium issue on Latina/os and the Law. This essay assesses LatCrit theory a decade after Latina/o Critical Legal Studies ("LatCrit") began publishing symposia that attempted to gather and organize a diverse group of scholars working on diverse scholarly projects using a diverse set of methodologies. This essay recognizes both LatCrit's achievements and shortcomings. LatCrit has articulated an anti-essentialist and anti-subordination agenda, creating an important social network for young scholars of color at the annual LatCrit Conference. However, LatCrit theory, as represented by the annual publication of papers solicited at the Conference, has been uneven and this essay considers reasons why this is and what might be done to address this unevenness. LatCrit theorists, through an organized institutional structure, have instrumentally built a community of scholars and fostered a collective commitment to issues of social justice. Moreover, to its credit, LatCrit theory in little over a decade has produced a considerable body of scholarship analyzing race and racism, as well as other forms of subordination, in the United States and globally. It has, for example, made important contributions to the analysis of the Black/white paradigm of civil rights, which historically has marginalized Latina/o civil rights concerns. LatCrit theory has also shed fresh new insights on deep, enduring, and complex issues of Latina/o identity, as well as criminal justice, immigration enforcement, and the building of mulitiracial coalitions for social justice. From its outset, LatCrit has stood firmly committed to anti-essentialism - the acknowledgment of the great diversity in the Latina/o community - and anti-subordination. These two foundational principles are now so embedded in the critical literature that they are difficult to seriously dispute today. However, one vitally important-and unquestionably fundamental-question inevitably nags at virtually any scholar in evaluating critical Latina/o theory at this time in its history: beyond some original insights at the movement's inception, what has LatCrit come to affirmatively stand for today as a scholarly movement? Given the current state of LatCrit scholarship, one would be hard pressed to answer this question with any degree of certainty. A review of LatCrit's sprawling body of work reveals that the unifying themes and common threads are difficult to identify with specificity. In 2006, LatCrit theory published a symposium issue commemorating its tenth annual conference, an important milestone. In this essay, we hope to use this historical moment as an opportune time to assess both LatCrit theory's scholarly achievements as well as its future trajectory. In so doing, we bring to print issues that have been discussed extensively inside and outside of LatCrit circles for many years. These sensitive issues, however, have largely escaped commentary in LatCrit scholarship-effectively sacrificed to the goal of inclusion and to the concerted efforts to construct a lasting scholarly community. In our estimation, the prolonged silence about the unevenness of LatCrit scholarship jeopardizes the intellectual component of the burgeoning movement.
"Three Models of Citizenship" PETER H. SCHUCK (Yale University) Abstract: This conference paper, focusing on the citizenship debate in the U.S., elaborates three distinctive models of citizenship, which I call nationalistic, human rights, and Marshallian (after sociologist T. H. Marshall's seminal essay). I analyze each model along three normative dimensions: justification, territoriality, and entitlements. The nationalistic model is justified by a theory of mutual democratic consent and emphasizes bounded territoriality as the main basis for membership. A liberal, highly individualistic polity like the U.S. takes a decidedly ambivalent view of entitlements. On the one hand, they are part of the quid pro quo, the social contract on which consensual membership rests, at least in contemporary society. Moreover, most Americans manifestly believe that even in a liberal polity - or perhaps especially in such a polity - certain minimum entitlements are in fact necessary to secure a dignified, participatory, independent life for their fellow citizens and for at least some of the non-citizens who reside and work among them. On the other hand, Americans also manifestly believe that additional entitlements, either in kind or amount, threaten these very same values, especially independence, and would at the margin reduce the motivation to work and to take responsibility for oneself and one's family. Although all developed societies exhibit this ambivalence, different ones strike the balance among the benefits, costs, and risks of entitlements quite differently, with the U.S. being an outlier in limiting publicly-funded welfare supports. The human rights model is justified by the imperative of securing individual and group rights that will assure humane and protective conditions for those who are unfortunate enough to reside in cruel or despotic states, and for those who are outside their country of nationality and at risk of unequal and inhumane treatment in their new locations. The human rights model's domain is emphatically transnational, not territorially bounded. On this account, one's birth in a particular state and to particular parents is adventitious; such a locational accident is arbitrary and should not determine one's access to rights that, as a matter of distributive justice, should be enjoyed universally, not only by national members. On entitlements, this model is keen to preserve, not diminish, the full panoply of civil and political rights that are already guaranteed (constitutionally or by statute) to nationals in the U.S., European states, and other liberal democracies. These rights constitute the baseline for entitlements; the model's goal is to extend them to all people who are located within the state and thus subject to its governmental authority The Marshallian model focuses not on the rights of non-citizens but rather on what he viewed as the incomplete set of rights accorded to those who are already full citizens. Its justification lies in its aspiration for social equality for all citizens, including their equal access to those resources that are essential for full and equal participation in community life. It has little to say about territoriality, perhaps because he assumes the autonomy of the nation-state, specifically his own, the United Kingdom. Unlike the other models, Marshall's fails to discuss the phenomenon so central today of large-scale immigration and the consequent claims against the state by non-citizens. On entitlements, the model focuses on full participation in the society, polity, and economy. Its proponents view the U.S. as a "welfare laggard" in this respect, a premise that I question by calling attention to six complicating factors: size, immigration, demography, privatization, globalization, and intra-EU dynamics. For each model, the paper poses what strikes me as the most urgent, and usually neglected, question to be raised about it, and I offer a very tentative and all-too-brief and simple, if not simplistic, answer to each question. For the nationalistic model, the question is about its continuing relevance in a rapidly globalizing world. For the human rights model, the question is whether it contains any real limits, internal to itself, on the obligations that it would impose on states in their dealings with people who are often (not always) perfect strangers in all but a universalistic, humanistic sense. The question for the Marshallian model is why it has gained much less public support in the United States than in most of the European states. The conclusion briefly speculates about the future of the Marshallian model in both the U.S. and Europe. It predicts that a distinctively liberal, individualistic, privatistic form of nationalist citizenship will continue to flourish, one that will bewilder Europeans even as they edge their way inexorably toward their own more communitarian version of it.
"The Canadian Indian Free Passage Right: The Last Stronghold of Explicit Race Restriction in United States Immigration Law" North Dakota Law Review PAUL SPRUHAN (Navajo Nation Supreme Court) Abstract: The paper discusses the little-known provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act that allows Canadian Indians of 50% or more of the "blood of the American Indian race" to cross the United States-Canada border free of visa and other immigration requirements. Through archival documents, the paper traces the origins of the right through the 1794 Jay Treaty between the United States and Great Britain to a statute passed by Congress in 1928. The paper discusses the interpretation of the 1928 statute by the Immigration and Naturalization Service, which first applied a political definition of the term "Indian" based on Canadian law, then shifted to a racial definition based on American naturalization law. Finally, the paper discusses the 1952 amendment to the statute, which added the blood quantum requirement, and reveals the reasons why a racial definition was added at the same time American immigration law generally moved beyond racial distinctions to control entry to the United States. Based on this discussion, the paper analyzes the implications of the provision for current concerns in federal Indian law and immigration law over racial classifications. Noting that Congress' authority over Indian law and immigration law both depend on historically unfettered "plenary power," the paper suggests that the Canadian Indian statute might be used to distinguish other statutes defining American Indians by blood quantum and to challenge the Supreme Court's exemption of racial immigration provisions from equal protection review.
Monday, October 27, 2008
in a memorandum to the President-Elect printed in Newsweek (November 3 issue), Big Apple Mayor Michael Bloomberg has this to say about immigration:
"Immigration reform is central to getting our economy back on track. The elements of the most practical and effective plan combine ideas from both the left and the right: imposing tighter border security; creating a 21st-century worker identification card that will allow employers to verify the legality of a job applicant and allow the federal government to enforce the law; increasing lawful opportunity for those seeking the American Dream; and—following in the footsteps of President Reagan—allowing those who are here illegally the chance to earn the right to stay."
With the November 4th election just days away, the Migration Policy Institute is providing election profiles that examine voter registration by country of birth. The fact sheets, available online, provide breakdowns for foreign-born citizens in each state and the size of their vote during the 2004 general election. The election profiles also outline the size and growth of the foreign-born population (citizen and non-citizen) as a share of each state's total population, and provide voter breakdowns by ethnicity. Election fact sheets for all 50 states and the District of Columbia are available online at: www.migrationpolicy.org/voter_factsheets.php.
The findings are based on data from the Census Bureau's 2006 American Community Survey; the Federal Election Commission, the Migration Policy Institute Data Hub and the Pew Hispanic Center. For more state-by-state information on the foreign born, including income, workforce, education, language, demographic and country of origin data, please visit the MPI Data Hub at www.migrationinformation.org/datahub
Catholic Legal Immigration Network (CLINIC) invites you to join its webinar entitled "NACARA Section 203 - Eligibility and Recent Changes" on November 5th, 2008 at 2 pm Eastern/1 pm Central/Noon Mountain/11 am Pacific. This webinar is free to all IAN members, but individual technical assistance (including sending follow-up emails) is available only to CLINIC affiliates. The only costs for this webinar are long distance telephone charges. In this webinar Debbie Smith, Attorney from Immigration Advocates Network (IAN) and Peggy Gleason, CLINIC Attorney, will describe eligibility for NACARA principals and dependents. Common barriers to eligibility will be discussed, and 2008 changes in definition of ABC class members will be described. US CIS Asylum Officer and NACARA Coordinator Carlos Fernandez will talk about current processing issues with the remaining NACARA cases, NACARA Liaisons in CIS, and handling of Chaly-Garcia v. U.S. class members. To register, visit http://www.immigrationadvocates.org/link.cfm?11067
For a video interviewing the creators of "Obama waffles," who claim to be adding some levity to this election season in ways that others may claim are just plain racist, click here. Besides playing into many stereotypes about African Americans and promoting falsehoods about Senator Obama, the Obama waffle box maligns Latina/os and Senator Obama's immigration positions ("open borders," as erroneously characterized on the waffle box).
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is finalizing the Supplemental Proposed Rule published on March 26, 2008 and reaffirming regulations providing a “safe harbor” from liability under section 274A of the Immigration and Nationality Act for employers that follow certain procedures after receiving a notice—either a “no-match letter” from the Social Security Administration (SSA), or a “notice of suspect document” from DHS—that casts doubt on the employment eligibility of their employees. DHS is also correcting a typographical error in the rule text promulgated in August 200 7. FR Doc. 2008-25544 Filed 10/27/2008 at 8:45 am; Publication Date: 10/28/2008.
"This final rule allows TSA to begin implementation of the Secure Flight program, under which TSA will receive passenger and certain non-traveler information, conduct watch list matching against the No Fly and Selectee portions of the Federal government’s consolidated terrorist watch list, and transmit a boarding pass printing result back to aircraft operators." FR Doc. 2008-25432 Filed 10/27/2008 at 8:45 am; Publication Date: 10/28/2008.
A small Pennsylvania town that few people had heard of just a few years ago will be in the news again later this week. Two years ago, Hazleton, PA passed the Illegal Immigration Relief Act. The law never took effect and a federal judge struck it down last summer. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in Philadelphia plan to hear oral arguments in an appeal in the case on Thursday. For a news story on the latest developments in the case, click here.
The three judges who will hear argument and decide the case are Judges McKee, Nygaard, and Siler. Ronald Reagan appointed Richard Nygaard to the Third Circuit in 1988. Eugene Siler, sitting by designation from Sixth Circuit, was appointed by the first President Bush in 1991. President Clinton appointed Theodore McKee in 1994.
This final rule (Download secure_flight.pdf ) allows the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) to begin implementation of the "Secure Flight program," under which TSA will receive passenger and certain non-traveler information, conduct watch list matching against the No Fly and Selectee portions of the Federal government’s consolidated terrorist watch list, and transmit a boarding pass printing result back to aircraft operators.
FR Doc. 2008-25432 Filed 10/27/2008 at 8:45 am; Publication Date: 10/28/2008.
Sunday, October 26, 2008
The 1980s saw the emergence of a "sanctuary" movement to offer refuge to those persons fleeing the civil unrest in Central America. A "new" -- and more general -- sanctuary movement protecting undocumented immigrants is emerging. For a website on the movement, click here. For a news story about the movement, click here.
The Houston Chronicle offers an update on the Bush administration's efforts to implement a plan to collect DNA samples from federal detainees starting Dec. 31, amid an outcry by immigrant advocacy organizations. Last spring, the U.S. Department of Justice published a proposed regulation that set the December deadline to start collecting DNA from an estimated 1.2 million people arrested each year by federal agents, including hundreds of thousands of immigrants detained along the nation's borders. The DNA samples would then be added to the FBI's national DNA database, which contains the genetic codes of millions of convicted felons. Supporters say the increase in federal DNA collection would help law enforcement. In contrast, immigrant rights organizations have questioned the legality and fairness of collecting and storing people's unique genetic makeup when they are merely under suspicion of a crime or immigration violation.
Senior Staff Attorney/Associate Director of the Center for Gender and Refugee Studies
The Center for Gender and Refugee Studies (CGRS) seeks applicants for a full-time Senior Staff Attorney/Associate Director. CGRS, the nation’s leading organization on gender asylum, works to positively impact the development of the law through a combination of appellate litigation and policy advocacy, public education and organizing strategies. CGRS provides extensive technical assistance and training, and publishes a broad range of materials providing guidance and analysis on cutting edge asylum issues. CGRS also operates as a national clearinghouse for gender asylum, tracking decisions in individual cases and maintaining an extensive database with case information.
Job Description: The Senior Staff Attorney/Associate Director will assist the Director in the administration and management of CGRS, including supervision of development and legal staff. He or she will be involved in all aspects of CGRS’s substantive legal work – from development of legal strategies to implementation of these strategies. He or she will be engaged in writing for a broad range of constituencies, and writing responsibilities may include drafting of briefs and analytical memos on legal developments; practice advisories for attorneys, and talking points for coalition partners. In addition, he or she will be expected to carry a significant management and supervision role.
Qualifications: Applicants must be admitted to practice law (any state) and have at least ten years of legal experience in asylum and related areas (i.e. withholding and Convention against Torture). The ideal applicant will have had experience in mentoring and supervising more junior attorneys, as well as in management and development. Applicants must be self-motivated, be able to work with a minimum of supervision, and be capable of complex analytical work. Applicants must have a proven track record demonstrating that they possess exemplary research and writing skills. They must also possess outstanding communication skills which allows them to communicate effectively to a variety of constituencies. Preference will be given to applicants with prior experience in, and demonstrated commitment to social justice and public interest law.
Salary and benefits: Salary is based on experience and qualifications. There is an excellent package of full benefits.
Application procedure: Applications will be accepted until the position is filled. To apply, send a substantive cover letter, resume and list of references to the address below. Please no phone calls or emails. Applications must be in paper form, and addressed as follows:
CGRS Senior Staff Attorney Search Committee
Center for Gender & Refugee Studies
U.C. Hastings College of the Law
200 McAllister Street
San Francisco, California 94102
Believe it or not, you have a chance to take a cruise with a heavy-hiting anti-immigrant group that includes former Attorney General John Ashcroft, former Senator Alan Simpson, and Congressman Tom Tancredo!! Annika Carlson has blogged about the cruise that is scheduled to embark just a few days before Valentine's Day!
Nothing says “I love you” like a romantic cruise with John Ashcroft and Tom Tancredo. The Young America’s Foundation cordially invites you to “surprise your sweetheart” with tickets to a ten-night adventure on the high seas with a bunch of über-conservative old white dudes. Because trust me–no girl can say no to spending Valentine’s Day sharing “pressing thoughts with individuals who have done so much to advance the Conservative Movement.” Click here for more.
Richard Herman of Richard T. Herman & Associates, an immigration law firm in Cleveland, Ohio reports that
"The business community in the election battleground Great Lakes states are asking the presidential candidates to make `high skill immigration law reform' a pillar of a job-creating, economic stimulus package in the next administration. Please see: "Obama and McCain Must Commit to Creating Jobs in Great Lakes States," Op-Ed, Joe Roman, CEO, Greater Cleveland Partnership, October 26, 2008, Cleveland Plain Dealer " Ohio is a key swing state, and the Cleveland region helps determine how the state vote comes out. That means we have a unique opportunity to promote our priorities and speak with one voice to make sure the candidates hear and understand our message. To add clout, we aligned our efforts with those of the Great Lakes Region Coalition. The coalition is composed of more than 30 metropolitan chambers of commerce - including the GCP - in the 12 Great Lakes states. Our agenda includes a comprehensive immigration policy, shaped by the GCP with input from community partners. We need this policy to help our region attract skilled workers. Collectively, the Great Lakes region, which has 33 percent of the nation's population and is responsible for 32 percent of the gross national product, represents some of the most politically unpredictable and economically challenged citizens in the nation.... The agenda that the GCP and the Great Lakes Region Coalition are advancing includes: Adopting a comprehensive immigration policy that can help bring talent to the region's metropolitan areas. Diversifying the region's economy by boosting innovation and entrepreneurialism.... These recommendations are necessary steps the federal government must take if the nation's economy, that of its heartland and Northeast Ohio are to thrive in the global marketplace. Over the past 30 years, targeted investments of this scale have helped other regions in the nation grow - often at our expense. The realities of a worldwide economy require a dramatically different approach from Washington in dealing with the tough challenges facing Northeast Ohio and other metropolitan areas in the Great Lakes region. Both presidential candidates must listen to those who represent the job providers on the frontlines of global competition. As our president for at least the next four years, the winner of this election must deliver on many of these agenda items, if economic prosperity is to be achieved and sustained. Roman is president and CEO of the Greater Cleveland Partnership." http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/othercolumns/index.ssf?/base/opinion/122492366886970.xml&coll=2
For a detailed reading of the High-Skill Immigration Policy recommendations from the Great Lakes Region, please also see: "A Business Agenda for Economic Transformation in the Great Lakes Region." http://www.detroitchamber.com/docs/bizagenda.pdf
Of the report's top five priorities, #3 is a federal immigration policy that allows the Great Lakes region to attract and retain the job-creating immigrant high-skill talent, entrepreneurship and capital.
Congratulations to the Greater Cleveland Partnership for taking the lead in formulating the immigration policy initiatives in the report which has been adopted by commerce chambers in Chicago, Detroit, Minneapolis, Columbus, Milwaukee, Indianapolis, Des Moines, Toledo, N. Kentucky, Buffalo, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, etc."