ASSOCIATED PRESS - Media Mogul Rupert Murdoch and New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg have joined several leading businessman to push for comprehensive immigration reform with a pathway to citizenship. Read it here. Excerpts Below:
Chief executives of several major corporations, including Hewlett-Packard, Boeing, Disney and News Corp., are joining Mayor Michael Bloomberg to form a coalition advocating for immigration reform – including a path to legal status for all undocumented immigrants now in the United States.
The group includes several other big-city mayors and calls itself the Partnership for a New American Economy. It seeks to reframe immigration reform as the solution to repairing and stimulating the economy.
Bloomberg and Rupert Murdoch, chairman and CEO of News Corp., appeared together Thursday on Fox News to discuss the effort.
It reflected what Simon Rosenberg, the head of the left-leaning New Democratic Network, says are lingering tensions even in a party of diversity.
"With the Republicans (changing demographics) is an evolving story," Rosenberg said. "And I think the Obama team clearly understood this more than the older parts of the Democratic Party.
"There are a lot of Democratic politicians who grew up in 20th Century America and are at the end of their careers and look around and see kids with I-Pads and all these people of color (and say), 'That is not the world that I understand, that is not the world I grew up in.' "
There has been a lot of immigration news to keep up with recently, and we here at NDN do our best to keep up to date to bring you the reader all the latest information.
Every once in a while we get out in front of something that the national media has not gotten around to covering. This was the case with a recent blog post on SB1070 Copy Cat Laws, the full post can be read here.
Michael W. Savage of the Washington Post recently wrote a story on the same subject, and quoted our post. Law Makers Across the Country Taking Immigration Policy into their own Hands can be read here.
Excerpts are below:
With widespread attention focused on Arizona's tough new law against illegal immigration -- and a measure approved this week in the small town of Fremont, Neb. -- similar proposals are under consideration across the country. Five states -- South Carolina, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and Michigan -- are looking at Arizona-style legislation, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. NDN, a Washington think tank and advocacy group, said lawmakers in 17 other states had expressed support for similar measures.
The New York times published a story on the border recently entitled On Border Violence, Truth Compared to Ideas it can be read here.
Some excerpts can be read below.
the rate of violent crime at the border, and indeed across Arizona, has been declining, according to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, as has illegal immigration, according to the Border Patrol. While thousands have been killed in Mexico’s drug wars, raising anxiety that the violence will spread to the United States, F.B.I. statistics show that Arizona is relatively safe.
Below are some of the statistics cited in the story. The FBI puts out a report called the Preliminary Annual Uniform Crime Report. The section on Arizona is below.
A closer examination of the statistics shows that from 2008 to 2009 crime has actually gone down. The full FBI Report can be seen here.
And here is the Department of Homeland Security Report on the Estimates of Unauthorized Immigrant Populations Residing in the United States: January 2009. Below is a brief excerpt.
In summary, DHS estimates that the unauthorized immigrant population living in the United States decreased to 10.8 million in January 2009 from 11.6 million in January 2008. Between 2000 and 2009, the unauthorized population grew by 27 percent. Of all unauthorized immigrants living in the United States in 2009, 63 percent entered before 2000, and 62 percent were from Mexico.
NDN/NPI is pleased to announce that Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs, Arturo Valenzuela, will be coming to NDN on Monday, June 28th to deliver remarks about the current state of US-Latin American relations.
The event will begin promptly at 2pm, and end at 3pm. After his remarks the Assistant Secretary will take questions from the audience at NDN and on-line.
To attend the event or to watch the event online, please RSVP. We look forward to seeing you on the 28th.
The headline of a recent Washington Post-ABC News poll reads, "Most Americans Back New Immigration Law," while this is true it only tells half the story.
While most Americans support the Arizona law they equally support a pathway to citizenship.
It is true that there is support for SB1070, lets look at the cross tabs:
31. A new law in Arizona would give police the power to ask people they've stopped to verify their residency status. (Supporters say this will help crack down on illegal immigration.) (Opponents say it could violate civil rights and lead to racial profiling.) On balance, do you support or oppose this law? Do you feel that way strongly or somewhat?
-------- Support -------- -------- Oppose --------- No
NET Strongly Somewhat NET Somewhat Strongly opinion
6/6/10 58 42 16 41 12 29 2
58% of Americans strongly support the Arizona law, however there is almost equal support for a pathway to citizenship.
30. Would you support or oppose a program giving ILLEGAL immigrants now living in the United States the right to live here LEGALLY if they pay a fine and meet other requirements?
Support Oppose No opinion
6/6/10 57 40 3
4/24/09 61 35 3
12/19/07 49 46 5
11/1/07 51 44 4
6/1/07 52 44 4
57% of Americans support a pathway to citizenship provided the immigrants pay back taxes and meet other requirements.
It is important that that political pundits and legislators recognize, that while SB1070 is popular,fixing our broken immigration system is equally popular.
Not only does the polling data shows that Americans want something done on comprehensive immigration reform, but it shows consistent support for immigration reform going back three years.
Also of note within this poll there is broad support for federal enforcement of immigration law vs. state only enforcement.
The question in the poll reads:
In general do you think states should be allowed to make and enforce their own immigration laws or should they be left to federal jurisdiction.
53% of the respondents said that the federal government should be responsible for making and enforcing immigration laws.
It is significant, that the general public recognizes that the federal government should be responsible for passing and enforcing immigration laws.
This statistic is another indicator that the public would rather have federal comprehensive legislation then allow states to create their own laws.
In my last post I presented a recent Gallup Poll on Hispanic Voter turnout and SB1070. While it is still too early to draw any firm conclusions from these polls, upon further reflection, there is a more comprehensive analysis worth presenting. Again direct your attention to the poll below.
There are two very important data points to highlight here.
First, this poll shows a very clear rise in Hispanic Voter intent. The aggregate increase in Hispanic voter intent, from the very enthusiastic and somewhat enthusiastic, is a 4 percentage point swing upwards in just three months.
As NDN President Simon Rosenberg has pointed out Hispanic voter intent has been down all year. In the last Daily Kos/Research 2000 poll Hispanic voter intent had dropped from 19 percent to 16 percent, from April 22 to June 3rd. Given the context of this precipitous voting intent drop off, a four percent swing up is significant.
Secondly, while there has been an absolute increase in Hispanic voter intent there has also been a relative increase compared to non-Hispanic whites and non-Hispanic black voters. While both of these voting groups intent remains stagnant or decreased Hispanics are showing an increase.
If voter intent among this block of voters continues to increase this could significantly effect elections in places with high concentrations of Hispanic immigrant voters, particularly Arizona, California, Nevada and Texas. We will keep our eye on these trends as they develop, but what this poll shows is that there is evidence now of a national Hispanic reaction to the awful situation in Arizona.
UPDATE: UPON FURTHER REVIEW OF THE RECENT GALLUP POLL ON HISPANICS AND SB1070 I HAVE DERIVED A MORE COMPLETE ANALYSIS PLEASE SEE MY NEW POST HERE.
There has been much written about how Arizona's immigration legislation SB1070 would affect Hispanic Voter turnout in the 2010 Mid-Terms.
Some have opined that it would negatively affect Hispanic turnout for the Mid-Terms.
Others have said that it would tip the national Hispanic vote further away from Republicans.
Gallup has just released a poll that shows both of these assumptions are incorrect.
Public Policy Poling, released some polling way back towards the end of April, that showed in Arizona both the Senatorial and Gubernatorial Democratic candidates received some bumps up among Hispanic voters.
Nationally it seems that Hispanic voters are more or less where they were before the passage of SB1070.
The Gallup Poll below shows that Hispanics nationally were wary of GOP candidates before and are just as wary after the passage of SB1070:
Many people also thought that SB1070 would motivate Hispanics to vote in higher numbers to express their anger over the law.
This assumption has also been rendered moot... Much like voting preference, enthusiasm has remained the same. Hispanics are more or less as enthusiastic about voting as they were before the law passed.
This polling is clearly not the last word on how Hispanics will vote in the Mid-Terms. Political prognisticators will not truly know what the effect of SB1070 had on the Hispanic electorate until after the Mid-Terms are over. Even after the dust has settled there will be a debate as to what the polling data tells us.
However from the outset of all of this one thing is clear:
Hispanics will come out and vote.
It is important to lay to rest the notion that Hispanics do not consistantly vote in elections. Hispanics have consistently increased their voter turnout in each of the successive Presidential and Midterm elections.
For a more comprehensive historical voting trends be sure to check out Hispanic Rising 2010. And stay tuned here for more demographic analysis as we get closer to the Mid-Terms.
If you work in any capacity on Immigration issues, this simple fact is inescapable. It is hard to dislike legislation that gives children an opportunity to seek a higher education.
Education, as the great equalizer, is a notion deeply tied to the American ideal of equity. The idea that anyone, no matter what their social class, can come to this country work hard, get an education and rise above their economic class is a powerful American narrative.
For the reasons mentioned above The DREAM Act remains very popular to both political parties. Senators Richard Durbin (D) and Richard Lugar (R) have co-sponsored legislation in the Senate.
Below is an excerpt from a Congressional Research Service (CRS) report on the Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act of 2009.
Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act of 2009 or the DREAM Act of 2009 - Amends the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 to repeal the denial of an unlawful alien's eligibility for higher education benefits based on state residence unless a U.S. national is similarly eligible without regard to such state residence.
Authorizes the Secretary of Homeland Security to cancel the removal of, and adjust to conditional permanent resident status, an alien who:
(1) entered the United States before his or her 16th birthday and has been present in the United States for at least five years immediately preceding enactment of this Act;
(2) is a person of good moral character;
(3) is not inadmissible or deportable under specified grounds of the Immigration and Nationality Act;
(4) at the time of application, has been admitted to an institution of higher education or has earned a high school or equivalent diploma;
(5) from the age of 16 and older, has never been under a final order of exclusion, deportation, or removal; and
(6) was under age 35 on the date of this Act's enactment.
Sets forth the conditions for conditional permanent resident status, including:
(1) termination of status for violation of this Act; and
(2) removal of conditional status to permanent status.
Authorizes an alien who has satisfied the appropriate requirements prior to enactment of this Act to petition the Secretary for conditional permanent resident status.
(1) exclusive jurisdiction
(2) penalties for false application statements
(4) fee prohibitions
(5) higher education assistance
(6) a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report respecting the number of aliens adjusted under this Act.
Now to decode some of the jargon in this very dry, very wonky legispeak.
The bulk of what this legislation does is undo some of the terrible policies passed in the 1996 Illegal Immigration and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA).
It is somewhat amazing, in the current climate of enforcement and continued hysteria over all things Immigration, that before IIRIRA was enacted, your immigration status was not an impediment when applying to college.
This legislation also provides undocumented immigrants the ability to apply for conditional permanent residency (under a list of caveats listed above) which would then give them the opportunity to go to college.
If you want to get really wonky, you can look up the definition of what a permanent resident is over at the Department of Homeland Security website here.
The rest I think speaks for itself. Read the whole thing here and make sure to follow the Trail of Dreams, which follows a group of undocumented immigrants on their journey from Miami, FL to Washington D.C. to share their stories, "so that everyday Americans understand what it’s like for the millions of young immigrants like us, unable to fully participate in society."
Talk on Capitol Hill has recently turned to passing the DREAM Act in conjunction with Agriculture Jobs or passing one or the other as a stand alone bill.
The Hill put together a fairly good summary of where the legislative process stands at the moment, it can be read here.
Both the DREAM Act and Ag Jobs legislation posses positive policy merits and have significant bipartisan support.
Having said that, there are two very real dangers in passing either of these pieces of legislation as stand alone bills.
The Amendment process in the Senate: The recent Military Supplemental amendment process showed exactly where many Republicans and Democrats stand on Immigration at the moment. There was a veritable bonanza of enforcement only amendments proposed. As is the case with most amendments, for every Republican one there is usually a Democratic side by side version.
Either one of these pieces of legislation is good, but if either is brought up alone, the flood gates for punitive Enforcement amendments would be opened. Passing these bills as part of large package provides an opportunity to have a broader discussion within the context of comprehensive immigration reform.
Bringing Republicans to the Table: At the moment no Republicans have stepped up and said they would be interested in working on CIR. Both the DREAM Act and Ag Jobs have healthy bipartisan support. Not much else associated with CIR does at the moment. Passing either of these two pieces of legislation alone takes two huge bargaining chips off the table. Both pieces of legislation cut across the aisle and would give both parties political parties cover with their specific constituencies.
No one is under the illusion that CIR is going to be anything other then an unruly difficult lift for both parties to pass out of the Senate. Passing the DREAM Act and AG Jobs seperate will make passing it that much harder.
Again. both of these pieces of legislation have their merits. and deserve to be passed. Check back here for more in depth blog posts on these two pieces of legislation later and be sure to stay tuned for more news on immigration as it develops.
"Older politicians will have to get beyond their ideological blinders to recognize the opportunity waiting for any candidate or political party that can embrace both halves of the Millennial era civic ethos paradox."