May 13, 2013
Southern District of Texas Leading in Record Year for Immigration Prosecutions
Texas alwas does things larger than life. The latest available data from the Justice Department show that during the first six months of FY 2013 the government reported 50,468 new immigration prosecutions. If this activity continues at the same pace, the annual total of prosecutions will be 100,936 for this fiscal year. According to the case-by-case information analyzed by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC), this estimate is up 9.8% over the past fiscal year when the number of prosecutions totaled 91,941.
Former Guatelmalan Leader Guilty of Genocide
A Guatemalan court on Friday found Gen. Efraín Ríos Montt, the former leader of Guatemala "during one of the bloodiest periods of its long civil war, guilty of genocide and crimes against humanity. The verdict marked the first time a former head of state had been found guilty of genocide in his or her own country. Judge Yasmín Barrios sentenced General Ríos Montt, 86, to 80 years in prison. His co-defendant, José Mauricio Rodríguez Sánchez, who served as the director of intelligence under the general, was acquitted of the same two charges."
During Rios' rule in the early 1980s, many Guatemalans fled the small Central American nation and sought asylum in the United States.
May 12, 2013
Can We Have a Reasoned Debate Over Immigration Reform?
I am always amazed by the harsh anti-immigrant comments posted on virtually any story discussing immigration on the web. Here are a few select ones following a May 11 L.A. Times story "L.A. County officials worried about costs of immigration overhaul." And, no, I did not make them up (and the spelling and grammer errors are in the originals. My personal favorite: "These people will never assimulate." And a close runner-up: "We are supposed to feel lucky for having a multi culteral society."
Joe Doakes1 at 2:01 AM May 12, 2013
"Immigrant rights advocates said that because applicants for legal status will pay taxes, they should be entitled to a safety net."
Article [IV] The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
ISN'T THE COST FOR BREASTFEEDING MEXICAN ILLEGALS AN UNREASONABLE SEIZURE OF US TAXPAYER'S MONEY? The cost of housing MEXICO'S ARMY inside the US is the burden of Mexico.
Computer Forensics Expert at 6:51 AM May 12, 2013
Take a look at pictures of Van Nuys Blvd., near the civic center, in 1965 and compare them to today. Welcome to TJ, people!!!!!!
Joe Doakes1 at 1:43 AM May 12, 2013
You mean ILLEGAL ALIENS ARE BLEEDING AMERICAN TAXPAYERS the way an invading army would?
The same way HITLER'S NAZIS bled Europe?
What have REAL AMERICANS been telling you OBABBLERS for years?????
terru2000 at 8:55 PM May 11, 2013
For years Illegals lovers kept on telling that ILLEGALS pay more than their share. So where is teh problem. Ask Tony Valor, Golina and other Bankrupters (pro-illegals) of LA?
Alumni-Reader at 8:41 PM May 11, 2013
Many Mexicans in Mexico will communicate to each other, "Go north. USA is giving free services. You can get Drivers' license, heath and education. No lie. You can will even be allowed to vote in USA elections. They're proposing new immigrants to vote in elections. [LOL]. We can really mess things up in USA. [LOL}.
MTKayak at 7:40 PM May 11, 2013
Liberals don't even want a border, most Democrats would rather give California back to Mexico.
Sam Clorox at 6:06 PM May 11, 2013
Yet another perfect example of how these parasites that are here ILLEGALLY are far more of a burden on the taxpayers than what little if anything that these cockroaches contribute.
vdptydg at 8:01 PM May 11, 2013
We are supposed to feel lucky for having a multi culteral society. Push #1 for English and #2 for Spanish. These people will never assimulate.
Happy Mother's Day! And What Immigrant Moms Want for Mother's Day
Reshma Shamasunder, Director of the California Immigrant Policy Center, writes about What Immigrant Moms Want for Mother's Day.
May 10, 2013
Adios Jason Richwine (Formerly) of the Heritage Foundation: Author of Immigration Report Quits
Neil King Jr. and Sara Murray of the Wall Street Journal report that the co-author of a controversial immigration report issued this week by the Heritage Foundation has left the conservative think tank. Jason Richwine, who was a senior policy analyst at Heritage, has resigned. Richwine co-authored the report, which estimated the cost to taxpayers of legalizing 11 million undocumented immigrants. The report stirred controversy. Richwine drew fire for work he had done studying relative IQs of different immigrant groups. "In his Harvard University dissertation, he argued that persistent differences between immigrants’ IQs and those of white Americans should be a factor in determining who should be allowed to permanently come to the U.S." Click here to see the full dissertation, which was accepted by a committee headed by Professor George Borjas, a Latino whose work is often cited by opponents of immigration reform, click here.
The State of Media Coverage of Immigration in 2012-2013
The 2012 Presidential election marked a new era for immigration policy reform with both sides of the aisle calling for commonsense reform. Media coverage also began to change in ways that could both help and hamper effective change, especially an emphasis on immigration politics instead of the impact of policies on immigrants and communities. The Opportunity Agenda analyzed mainstream media coverage during seven-month period, September 2012 through February 2013, and crafted a set of recommendations to strengthen advocates' media strategies and help them shape a fairer and more just immigration policy. Here are some key findings:
• The conservative shift on immigration reform is dominating the media spotlight, a trend that progressives must be wary of in coming legislative battles.
• Though DREAMers have brought more attention to immigration reform, coverage of the everyday struggles of immigrants remains inadequate.
• There has been little in-depth coverage of immigration enforcement issues, or of state anti-immigrant laws, in the media.
• The politics of immigration policy reform are overshadowing the impact of enforcement and legislation on immigrants and communities.
• Use of the term “illegal” to describe undocumented immigrants has reduced slightly, but few media outlets are actively avoiding it.
• There is virtually unanimous support in op-eds and other newspaper commentary for immigration reform packages that frequently include an explicit path to citizenship.
• Coverage of immigration policy reform often lacks details about specific proposals on the table.
Here are the report's recommendations:
1. Because the discourse concerning immigration policy reform lacks details about specific proposals on the table or their expected impact on communities, provide reporters and other audiences with greater detail on the proposed immigration policy changes and the implications.
2. Advocates should seize media’s increased attention to immigration policy reform to become a dominant source of information for reporters. In the pre- and post-election coverage we studied, journalists quoted conservative spokespeople almost twice as often as progressive voices. Naturally, conservatives’ dramatic shift from largely opposing to largely supporting immigration reform captured the media’s attention. However, progressives and other traditionally pro-immigrant advocates must be careful to prevent this trend from continuing throughout the legislative battle for reform.
3. Replace the current notion that there is a “line” immigrants must get into for citizenship with a description of the outdated and problematic processes that exists now.
4. Further highlight the harmful consequences of harsh immigration enforcement in communities around the country by using examples, such as the need for well-trained police departments that keep us all safe and are not distracted with immigration enforcement duties thrust on them.
5. Underscore that a significant majority of Americans support policy reform that includes citizenship.
6. Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals has generated increased discourse about the lives of immigrants in the U.S. Leverage this opening to see that more stories of immigrants of all ages are reaching journalists across the full spectrum of immigration issues, e.g., consequences of laws such as Secure Communities, and the positive and diverse contributions of immigrants to American society.
7. Continue to talk about immigrants as contributing members of society and about the values shared by immigrants and native-born Americans, such as hard work and family, themes now echoed not only by pro-immigrant advocates but also by politicians of both major parties.
8. Pitch stories and contribute commentary that move coverage from a largely political frame to a narrative of shared values, positive contributions, and moving forward together.
9. Elevate due process and human rights violations—and particularly instances of racial profiling— which currently receive inadequate coverage. Connect the dots for reporters between human stories, systemic practices, and community impact. Make it clear that these are important concerns for Latino voters, along with many other Americans of all backgrounds.
Here is the report.
Immigration Article of the Day: Revisiting INS v. Lopez-Mendoza: Why the Fourth Amendment Exclusionary Rule Should Apply in Deportation Proceedings by Elizabeth Rossi
Revisiting INS v. Lopez-Mendoza: Why the Fourth Amendment Exclusionary Rule Should Apply in Deportation Proceedings by Elizabeth Rossi U.S. District Court April 18, 2013 Columbia Human Rights Law Review, Vol. 44, 2013
Abstract: The U.S. Supreme Court's justification for its holding in INS v. Lopez-Mendoza rests on flawed intellectual ground and should therefore be reexamined and overturned. The Supreme Court held in 1984 that the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule “need not apply” in deportation proceedings. It reached that conclusion by weighing the costs and benefits of applying the exclusionary rule in the immigration context and ultimately based its decision on two main considerations: first, that deportation proceedings were “civil” proceedings, and second, that introducing constitutional litigation into immigration courts would complicate what was supposed to be a streamlined process. In light of changes to the immigration enforcement system since 1984, neither of these assumptions can support the Court's holding in Lopez-Mendoza. First, deportation proceedings are no longer distinct from the criminal justice system, and as such, they cannot be considered “purely civil.” Second, because a plurality of the Court qualified its holding, constitutional litigation on search and seizure issues has flooded immigration courts. In Part V of the opinion, a plurality provided that evidence might be excluded from deportation proceedings in the event of an “egregious” Fourth Amendment violation. A circuit split has arisen out of this egregious violations exception. Relying on Justice Harry A. Blackmun's papers, housed at the Library of Congress, as well as a close reading of the *478 case, the parties' briefs, and oral argument transcripts, this Article analyzes the intended meaning of the egregious violations exception to the Lopez-Mendoza holding. It also examines lower courts' divergent interpretations of the exception and argues that the resulting uncertainty in the law threatens the due process rights of non-citizens in deportation proceedings. Given the enormous increase in suppression litigation in deportation proceedings, the confusion created by the Supreme Court's egregious violations exception to the Lopez-Mendoza holding, and the so-called criminalization of immigration enforcement, Lopez-Mendoza should be revisited and overruled. The Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule should apply with full force in deportation proceedings.
May 09, 2013
Sen. Lindsey Graham: Mexico a "Hell Hole"
I was sitting at my desk this morning listening to the Senate Judiciary Committee's "mark up" of the comprehensive immigration reform and jarred by the comments of Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) who repeatedly used the phrase “hell hole” to refer to Mexico and explain why people migrate from Mexico to the United States. “We have a Canadian border . . . . Why are we OK up there and not OK to the South? [It’s a] tale of two borders — why is one a problem and the other is not? Because Canada is a place where people like to stay. They like Canada. We like Canada. We love to have them visit. They want to go home because it’s a nice place.” Graham continued: “The people coming across the Southern border live in hell holes, they don’t like that. They want to come here. Our problem is we can’t have everybody in the world who lives in a hell hole coming to America.”
The World Bank does not describe Mexico as a "hell hole":
"Mexico, the second largest economy in Latin America, has remained resilient to the U.S. slowdown and the financial turmoil from Europe. Although the country is closely integrated with the U.S. industrial production sector and international capital markets; its strong fundamentals, sound policy frameworks and management have resulted in favorable financial conditions that have supported national economic activity."
Immigration Policy Center Releases Updated State-by-State Fact Sheets
Today, the Immigration Policy Center releases the first twenty of fifty updated state-by-state fact sheets with accompanying infographics, which highlight the demographic and economic impact of New Americas, Asians and Latinos in each state. The states represented by members of the Senate Judiciary Committee are included.
To view the state-by-state fact sheets, click on the links below:
• New York
Markup Process Begins on Immigration Reform Bill
This morning, the Senate Judiciary Committee commences the markup process for the Border Security, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Modernization Act. With more than 300 amendments filed this week, immigration reform is clearly front and center for Congress. Keep up to date on the process here.
UPDATE (5/9, 4:25 p.m.): The bipartisan legislation was introduced on April 17, and the original text and the proposed amendments can be found on links on this page. The following amendments to the legislation were considered on May 9:
• Sponsors' Amendment (MDM13313) - Vote: 14-4 (Agreed To)
• Leahy1-(EAS13369) - Adopted by Voice Vote
• Grassley2-(HEY13238) - Adopted by Voice Vote
• Grassley5-(ARM13617) - Adopted by Voice Vote
• Sessions36-(MDM13430) - Adopted by Voice Vote
• Cornyn6-(ALB13436) - Adopted by Voice Vote
• Flake1-(MDM13451) - Adopted by Voice Vote
• Flake2-(MDM13456) - Adopted by Voice Vote
• Feinstein6-(MDM13537) - Adopted by Voice Vote
• Feinstein7-(MDM13459) - Adopted by Voice Vote
• Feinstein8-(MDM13520) - Adopted by Voice Vote
• Hirono24-(ARM13613) - Adopted by Voice Vote
• Grassley4-(EAS13439) - Vote: 6-12 (Not Agreed To)
• Schumer2-(EAS13444) - Vote: 14-4 (Agreed To)
• Lee4-(MDM13493) - Vote: 6-12 (Not Agreed To)
• Grassley1-(HEY13237) - Adopted by Voice Vote
• Grassley24-(DAV13369) - Adopted by Voice Vote
• Feinstein9-(MDM13538) - Adopted by Voice Vote
• Sessions37-(MDM13365) - Vote: 7-11 (Not Agreed To)
• Coons2-(EAS13605) - Withdrawn
• Blumenthal10-(DAV13376) - Adopted by Voice Vote
• Cruz1-(MDM13528) - Vote: 5-13 (Not Agreed To)
• Hirono23-(EAS13376) - Vote: 10-8 (Agreed To)
• Sessions38-(MDM13366) - Withdrawn
• Feinstein11-(ARM13559) - Withdrawn
• Feinstein1-(EAS13279) - Vote: 10-8 (Agreed To)
• Feinstein10-(MDM13491) - Adopted
• Leahy4-(EAS13416) - Adopted by Voice Vote
• Sessions9-(MDM13544) - Vote: 6-12 (Not Agreed To)
• Cornyn1-(ARM13593) - Vote 6-12 (Not Agreed To)
• Feinstein2-(HEN13550) - Adopted by Voice Vote
• Sessions11-(MDM13441) - Vote: 6-12 (Not Agreed To)
• Cornyn2-(MDM13521) - Withdrawn
NPR in "Immigration Bill Remains Largely Intact After 1st Hearing" summarized as follows: "A Senate panel began working through hundreds of amendments to the bipartisan immigration bill Thursday. Most were filed by Republicans hoping to slow down, weaken or kill the legislation. And of the most contentious, which would allow same-sex spouses of Americans to apply for green cards, will likely not come up until next week at the earliest."
Immigration Article of the Day: Teaching the Arizona v. United States Immigration Case by Corey Ciocchetti
Teaching the Arizona v. United States Immigration Case by Corey Ciocchetti University of Denver - Daniels College of Business - Department of Business Ethics & Legal Studies April 17, 2013.
Abstract: Arizona v. U.S. was one of the most anticipated decisions of the Supreme Court's October 2011 term. The case pits the state of Arizona and its immigration policy of "attrition through enforcement" against a much less aggressive federal immigration policy under President Obama. These slides help tell the story and can be used to teach the case as well as important constitutional law issues such as: (1) enumerated powers, (2) preemption, (3) federalism, (4) state sovereignty and more.
May 08, 2013
From the Bookshelves: The Old Man's Love Story by Rudolfo Anaya
A deeply personal tale of love and loss
“There was an old man who dwelt in the land of New Mexico, and he lost his wife.” From that opening line, this tender novella is at once universal and deeply personal. The nameless narrator, a writer, shares his most intimate thoughts about his wife, their life together, and her death. But just as death is inseparable from life, his wife seems still to be with him. Her memory and words permeate his days. In The Old Man’s Love Story, master storyteller Rudolfo Anaya crafts the tale of a lifelong love that ultimately transcends death.
An elegy not just for the dead but for the vitality of youth, the old man’s story captures both the heartaches and ironies of old age. We follow him as he proceeds through days of grief and memory, buying his few groceries, driving slower than the other travelers on the road. He talks with his wife along the way. “Go slow,” he hears her admonish. As he sits in the garden with their dogs, he senses her worry over his loneliness. A year passes. He longs to care for someone, but—to love again?
Like characters in Anaya’s previous fiction, the old man lives in a real New Mexico, but one inhabited by spirits. Death provides a gateway to other worlds, just as memories connect him to other times and places. When he eventually begins a new friendship with a woman, a widow, they share a bittersweet understanding of joy mixed with sorrow, promise mixed with loss.
Anaya’s reflections, as shared through the experiences of this old man, point to the power and importance of love at every stage of life. Lyrical and earthy, sad yet suffused with humor, The Old Man’s Love Story will speak to all readers, perhaps especially to those who have suffered a recent loss.
The underworld of raiteros
Michael Grabell of ProPublica reports how some of America's best-known companies and largest temp agencies benefit from—and tacitly collaborate with—an underworld of labor brokers, known as "raiteros," who charge workers fees, pushing their pay below minimum wage. Grabell followed buses and vans from the early-morning pickups in Chicago to the warehouses in the far suburbs, and conducted more than 60 interviews with workers, raiteros, temp agency recruiters, managers of check-cashing stores, and others. The ProPublica team examined check stubs, court records, labor department files, and undercover video shot by the Chicago Workers' Collaborative, an advocacy group that opposes some temp agency practices.
MALDEF REPRESENTS DREAMERS IN SEEKING TO DEFEND DACA FROM FEDERAL COURT CHALLENGE: Files for Intervention to Offer Statutory Defense to Court
MALDEF filed for intervention yesterday in Crane v. Napolitano, a federal lawsuit in which ten Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents are seeking to block the implementation of the federal Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. MALDEF seeks to intervene on behalf of Pamela Reséndiz and Carolina Canizalez, two young women who received deferred action and work authorization under DACA, and the University Leadership Initiative (ULI) and its members, to ensure their perspective is considered in the case and to protect their ability to pursue higher education and lawful employment. ULI is a student organization at the University of Texas, Austin that encourages immigrant students to attain higher education and promotes civic participation.
“DACA has been a boon to our nation's economy, while protecting some of the most valuable future contributors to our nation,” said Thomas A. Saenz, MALDEF President and General Counsel. “A handful of rogue ICE agents should not be allowed to threaten our national progress through a meritless court challenge."
The DACA initiative is the result of a federal June 2012 memorandum from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security; it allows ICE agents to defer removal proceedings for undocumented immigrant students and young workers who meet certain age, educational, and other requirements, and who have never been in trouble with the law. Undocumented immigrants not in removal proceedings may also apply under DACA for protection and work authorization. Represented by Kansas Secretary of State, Kris Kobach, plaintiff ICE agents claim that DACA is unconstitutional and that it forces agents to violate federal law. Kobach filed suit in the Northern District of Texas against Secretary Napolitano; ICE Director, John Morton; and Director of United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, Alejandro Mayorkas, in October 2012. Plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary injunction against DACA is pending before the Court.
MALDEF is also filing an amicus brief presenting defenses not previously raised in the case that, if successful, would dispose of the case. Among them is an argument that Plaintiffs are wrongfully applying federal law, which allows the federal government to defer removal of persons who have been residing continuously in the U.S. for more than two years. By contrast, DACA requires a minimum of five years for eligibility. If successful in challenging DACA, the ICE agents would actually be able to violate the law that Congress enacted.
Attempts to block the implementation of the DACA initiative will ultimately harm undocumented immigrant youth who received deferred action under the program, such as Ms. Resendiz and Ms. Canizalez who graduated from college, are now working full time, and are contributing to economic prosperity in America. Many undocumented immigrant student members of ULI have either received, or are eligible for, deferred action, and require it in order to continue to pursue higher education without the threat of deportation interfering with their studies. Moreover, these students rely on income earned through work authorization obtained through deferred action in order to be able to afford college. If DACA is blocked by the Court, ULI members could lose their deferred action status and work authorization, and won’t be able to support themselves and their families lawfully.
“We look forward to giving DREAMers a voice in this case,” stated Marisa Bono, MALDEF's lead counsel on the case. “These are hardworking, law-abiding young people who should have every opportunity to achieve their full academic potential and contribute meaningfully to their communities after graduation. They have lived in the shadows long enough.”
MALDEF seeks to participate as amici curiae in the case if its intervention is not granted. Edward Cloutman III of Cloutman and Cloutman will serve as local counsel. A copy of MALDEF’s amicus brief is available here.
From the Bookshelves: To Sin Against Hope: How America Has Failed Its Immigrants: A Personal History by Alfredo Gutierrez
To Sin Against Hope: How America Has Failed Its Immigrants: A Personal History by Alfredo Gutierrez A moving life story from a leading voice in America’s immigrant rights struggle.
Alfredo Gutierrez’s father, a U.S. citizen, was deported to Mexico from his Arizona hometown—the mining town where Alfredo grew up. This occurred during a wave of anti-immigrant hysteria stoked by the Great Depression, but as Gutierrez makes clear, in a book that is both a personal chronicle and a thought-provoking history, the war on Mexican immigrants has rarely abated. Barack Obama now presides over an immigration policy every inch the equal of Herbert Hoover’s in its harshness. His family experiences inspired Gutierrez to pursue the life of a Chicano activist. Kicked out of Arizona State University after leading a takeover of the president’s office, he later became the majority leader of the Arizona State Senate. Later still, he was a successful political consultant. He remains an activist, and in this engrossing memoir and essay, he dissects the racism that has deformed a century of border policy—leading to a record number of deportations during the Obama presidency—and he analyzes the timidity of today’s immigrant advocacy organizations. To Sin Against Hope brings to light the problems that have prevented the US from honoring the contributions and aspirations of its immigrants. It is a call to remember history and act for the future.
What CIR Opponents Support and Want
David Brooks has a nice op/ed on what opponents of immigration reform are really trying to do:
1. "[I]mmigration opponents are effectively trying to restrict the flow of conservatives into this country."
2. "[I]mmigration opponents are trying to restrict assimilation."
3. "[I]mmigration opponents are trying to restrict love affairs."
4. "[I]mmigration opponents are trying to restrict social mobility. "
5. "[I]immigration opponents are trying to restrict skills.
6. "Finally, opponents of reform are trying to hold back the inevitable."
Immigration in Top 5 of Subjects Deserving More Attention in the Legal Academy
A few weeks ago, Brian Leiter's Law School Reports blogged on a poll getting to the question of "So which areas of law deserve more attention in the legal academy?" The top five:
1. Consumer Law
2. Energy Law/Natural Resources Law/Water Law
3. Employment Law
4. Alternative Dispute Resolution
5. Immigration Law
Immigration Article of the Day: What Marriage Law Can Learn from Citizenship Law (and Vice Versa) by Govind Persad
What Marriage Law Can Learn from Citizenship Law (and Vice Versa) by Govind Persad, Stanford Law School, Stanford University - Department of Philosophy; University of Pennsylvania - School of Medicine May 3, 2013 Law & Sexuality, Vol. 22
Abstract: Citizenship and marriage are legal statuses that generate numerous privileges and responsibilities. Legal doctrine and argument have analogized these statuses in passing: consider, for example, Ted Olson’s statement in the Hollingsworth v. Perry oral argument that denying the label “marriage” to gay unions “is like you were to say you can vote, you can travel, but you may not be a citizen.” However, the parallel between citizenship and marriage has rarely been investigated in depth. This paper investigates the marriage-citizenship parallel with a particular focus on three questions prompted by recent developments in law and policy: 1) Should we provide second-best statuses? Some couples — in particular gay and lesbian couples—have been offered permanent statuses, like civil unions, that bear legal privileges but fall short of full marriage equality. In contrast, similar differentiations within citizenship are generally resisted. The history of citizenship may presage the increasing unacceptability of differentiations within status in the gay marriage context. Meanwhile, the history of marriage equality efforts may help present-day citizenship advocates choose legal strategies. 2) Should statuses be a gateway to rights? Some early gay rights advocates unsuccessfully argued that advocates should challenge the primacy of marriage, rather than seek access to the institution. Advocates attempting to expand the rights of current noncitizens face similar choices: should they seek to give current noncitizens greater access to citizenship, or challenge the reservation of important rights to citizens? 3) Can status relationships be plural? Many critics of dual and multiple citizenship argued that allegiance to multiple states was immoral, unadministrable, or both. More recently, polygamous marriage has become a topic of legal and political discourse, first as a foil in anti-gay marriage arguments and later as a political possibility in its own right. I will consider whether polygamous marriage advocates can profitably draw on arguments for multiple citizenship, and how multiple-citizenship advocates should responsibly respond to the analogy with polygamy.
May 07, 2013
Insecure Communities: Latino Perceptions of Police Involvement in Immigration Enforcement
Many Latinos say they are less likely than before to report crimes because local police are increasingly involved in enforcing immigration laws, leading to a sharp increase in deportations, according to a new study. About 44% of Latinos surveyed said they were less likely now to contact police if they were victims of a crime because they fear officers will inquire about their immigration status or the status of people they know. The figure jumps to 70% among Latinos who are in the country unlawfully. The report, “Insecure Communities: Latino Perceptions of Police Involvement in Immigration Enforcement,” is based on a telephone survey of 2,004 Latinos in Los Angeles, Houston, Chicago and Phoenix." For a L.A. Times story on the report, click here.
What's at Stake for the State: Undocumented Californians, Immigration Reform, and Our Future Together By Manuel Pastor and Enrico Marcelli With Vanessa Carter and Jared Sanchez
“What’s at Stake for the State" paints a multi-hued picture of the state's 2.6 million unauthorized Californians, providing data at the state and regional levels on their demographics, their potential income gains, and how to make the most of their authorization. Building off a methodology originally pioneered by co-author, Enrico A. Marcelli (Demographer, Department of Sociology, San Diego State University) to estimate the unauthorized, “What’s at Stake for the State” is the first report to estimate undocumented Californians at this breadth and level of detail. One in six California kids have at least one undocumented parent and 81% of those kids are citizens. Nearly half (49%) of undocumented Californians have lived here more than 10 years. And they are nearly 7% of California’s total population, 8% of all adults and 9% of the state's workforce. The report also estimates the economic benefit of legalization and naturalization for undocumented Californians - by state and region. The authors estimate that annual aggregate income of the currently undocumented will increase by $4.6 to $7.9 billion. And, since undocumented workers tend to be lower-income, they will spend their paycheck rather than put it into savings – meaning a strong multiplier effect on local economies. But to get at these gains will require a clear and quick roadmap to citizenship. Also, federal immigration reform needs to take immigrant integration seriously. And, the day after reform, we will need to invest in programs to raise education levels, increase English fluency and improve job skills as a way to maximize the potential of undocumented Californians and build a stronger state.
In addition, the Immigration Policy Center released Adding It Up: Accurately Gauging the Economic Impact of Immigration Reform by Raul Hinojosa Ojeda and Sherman Robinson.