Hispanic / Latino

And we are back.... It has been a while since my last post on Immigration news. A lot has happened since then, in particular the New Policy Institute has released a new report on the effects of immigration and what the passage of comprehensive immigration reform legislation could have on the economy.

It can be read in its entirety here, and there is a pretty awesome appendices which visualizes the report here, finally if you have not read Dr. Shapiro's blog post The Economics of Immigration are Not What You Think, shame on you, it is quite good and raises excellent questions about the way that the economics of immigration are currently being discussed.

Lets now turn our focus to immigration news.

There are excellent stories in both The New York Times and the Washington Post which highlight some of the more recent developments regarding immigration reform and border security.

The New York Times story focuses on the repercussions of President Obama sending the National Guard to the border. The full story, Immigration Overhaul Activists Question Troops can be read here. I have pulled some excerpts below.

On why the White House decided to deploy the troops:

The White House says it is sending the troops solely to combat drug smuggling, a problem highlighted by the recent killing of an Arizona rancher. But any move toward border security invariably raises passions in the immigration debate, and on Wednesday advocates for overhauling the system were questioning the president’s intentions.

They said that in focusing first on border security, Mr. Obama might be giving up his best leverage for winning approval of broader but more politically contentious steps to address the status of the millions of immigrants already in the United States illegally, and the needs of employers who rely on their labor.

The article also highlights the frustration of activists in reconciling the Presidents statements and actions:

“I’m trying to reconcile the stated belief of this president when he was a candidate, what he has said publicly — as recently as a naturalization ceremony last month — and what his actions are,” said Angela Kelley, vice president for immigration policy at the Center for American Progress, a left-leaning organization that is a close ally of the Obama administration. “I think there’s a big gap there."

Finally the story showed how the President's actions and the recently passed SB1070 have affected the state of play in passing comprehensive immigration reform:

The Arizona bill put immigration squarely back on the Congressional agenda, but Mr. Obama has been having trouble persuading Republicans to sign on. During a Cinco de Mayo celebration in the Rose Garden last month, Mr. Obama told an audience of Hispanic leaders that he was determined to pass legislation, but that he could not do so without Republican support.

The decision to send troops could be an attempt to get that support. At a testy meeting with Senate Republicans on Tuesday, before the White House disclosed its decision about the National Guard deployment, Mr. McCain pressed Mr. Obama on what he was doing to improve border security. Mr. Obama did not reveal his border security plan, but did ask for Republicans’ help in passing immigration legislation.

“The president told the Republican caucus yesterday that he wants to move forward; he feels that this problem has festered too long and needs a solution,” said David Axelrod, Mr. Obama’s senior adviser, adding that the decision to send troops was “not related to the meeting.”

The Washington Post story by contrast offers a much stronger view on what is happening in the Senate. In particular it shows how President Obama's move to send troops to the border may have been an attempt to preempt Senator McCain's amendment to the War Supplemental which would have requested 6,000 National Guards troops be sent to the Border. The Washington Post story Senate Defeats McCain Border Security Amendment can be read here. Excerpts are below:

There is a good overview of McCains proposed amendment:

The McCain measure, which needed 60 votes to be considered approved, fell short on a 51-46 vote as part of the Senate's broader consideration of a $59 billion spending bill that funds the troop surge into Afghanistan and other emergency measures. The border-security battle has become the most politically contentious issue surrounding what has otherwise become a routine passage of the war supplemental bill.

The article shows the political side of President Obama's actions:

Sensing the shifting ground, Obama proposed Tuesday a plan that would increase funding by $500 million and temporarily send 1,200 members of the National Guard to the border to help shore up the Border Patrol's efforts to clamp down on illegal immigrants and on security developments with Mexican drug cartels.

And finally the Political fall out:

Republicans rejected Obama's effort as insufficient to deal with something they consider a national crisis. "While it's important to have additional resources there, even on a temporary basis, even on a limited basis, there's a whole lot more that we need to do. We need permanent solutions, not temporary solutions," Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), a member of GOP leadership and co-sponsor of McCain's amendment, told reporters Wednesday.

"....You've got to laugh, in the spirit of bipartisanship," McCain said.

Most Democrats rejected the GOP offer of 6,000 more troops as unnecessary given the latest Obama proposal. "It's sort of throwing an enormous amount of money at the problem that is not as carefully thought out, not as targeted and as effective, quite frankly, as President Obama's plan," Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) said moments before the vote.

Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), the chamber's lone Latino senator, criticized the McCain plan as "militarizing the border" and the "definition of insanity," because it continued the previous efforts at building up a troop presence even as the flow of illegal immigrants continued to flow in from Mexico. "It's a recipe for failure," Menendez said,

What both of these article highlight is the incredible willingness on Congresses part to begin work on an immigration overhaul. The fact that Senator McCains attempt to add his amendment to a War Supplemental, coupled with other enforcement amendments from Senator Cornyn and Senator Hutchison shows that there is movement on immigration reform. It just seems that lately the only movement from both parties has been on enforcement heavy legislation. One has to wonder when there will be movement in Congress on something other then enforcement only immigration measures.

More news clips below

Immigration Round Up:

Washington Post Blog - For Gods Sake: The Bibles Immigration Policy: The Post's religion blog weighs in on the immigration debate with some Biblical verses and observations about immigration.

Los Angeles Times - Justice Department Poised to Challenge Arizona Immigration Law: Rumblings continue to eminate from Justice that they may challenge SB1070.

ABC News - Sandra Day O'connor weighs in on Immigration: A transcript of George Stephanopoulos interview with retired Supreme Court Justice O'connor, her thoughts on SB1070 are actually pretty surprising.

Fox News - Police Chiefs Slam Arizona Law after Meeting with Holder: This is a huge story that I wish more news organizations picked up on. Police Chiefs from all over the country have come out to denounce SB1070. This is an important story because it is local law enforcement who are meant to enforce this law.

Washington Post - The Truth About Arizona's Immigration Law: An op-ed written by Kirk Adams the Republican Speaker of the House in Arizona. Unsurprisingly it is a passonate defense of SB1070.

MSNBC - First Thoughts: G.O.P. and Immigration - Looks like Chuck Todd finally got around to reading Hispanic Rising 2010, this is a great article that shows just how much damage the Republican party has done to its relationship with the Hispanic community.

Los Angeles Times - A Step Towards Border Security- This editorial, begrudgingly credits President Obama with stepping up border enforcement.

AP - Ballot Measure Proposed on Arizona Immigration Law - And here come the ballot measures to repeal or keep the controversial SB1070 law are in the early stages.

Yesterday the New Policy Institute (NPI) released a new report on the impact of immigration and comprehensive immigration reform on the wages of the American worker. The report written by NPI Fellow and Former Under Secretary of Commerce Dr. Robert J. Shapiro, accomplishes five important things.

1. It gives an accurate portrait of America's Immigrant Population.

2. It dispels many misconceptions regarding undocumented immigrants.

3. It provides economic analysis on the impact of immigration on wages.

4. It examines the wage impact of reforms to provide a path to legal status for undocumented immigrants.

5. It also examines the other economic effects of immigration

What is most impressive about this report is its comprehensiveness. Quite simply there is alot of data to wade into. Which is why NPI has also included an appendices which highlights some of the important data within the report.  Finally to get another view on the paper, Dr. Shapiro has written a blog post, The Economics of Immigration Are Not What You Think, discussing what he considers the most important aspects of the paper. 

All are must reads, the links to all three, are below:

The Impact of Immigration and Immigration Reform on the Wages of American Workers, May 27, 2010, Robert Shapiro and Jiwon Vellucci: NPI's new report provides a much needed look at the intersection of America's economy and immigration system.

Appendices to the Impact of Immigration Report, May 27,2010, Robert Shapiro and Jiwon Velluci: Provides a visual representation of the data presented in the NPI report The Impact of Immigration and Immigration Reform on the Wages of American Workers.

The Economics of Immigration Are Not What You Think, May 27,2010, Robert Shapiro: Blog post which highlights important data points to look for in the larger NPI report.

In anticipation of our Monday, May 24th event featuring Mexican Ambassador Arturo Sarukhan and U.S. Commissioner Customs and Border Protection Alan Bersin which will be webcast live starting at 12:15 p.m., you may want to read the following Memorandum of Agreement between the United States and Mexico, which was signed today, May 20th, by President Obama and President Calderon. 

The event will be taking a deeper look at this idea of a "21st Century Border."  We hope you will join us live on the web for this important conversation about this exciting new initiative.

Declaration by The Government Of The United States Of America and The Government Of The United Mexican States Concerning Twenty-First Century Border Management

The Government of the United States of America and the Government of the United Mexican States, hereinafter referred to collectively as the “Participants,”

Acknowledging their shared interest in creating a border that promotes their economic competitiveness and enhances their security through the secure, efficient, rapid, and lawful movement of goods and people;

Expressing a desire to fundamentally restructure the way in which the shared border between Mexico and the United States is managed to enhance public safety, welcome lawful visitors, encourage trade, strengthen cultural ties, and reduce the cost of doing business in North America;

Recognizing the importance of securing and facilitating the lawful flow of goods, services, and people between their countries;

Understanding that joint and collaborative administration of their common border is critical to transforming management of the border to enhance security and efficiency;

Recognizing the potential value, both in terms of enhancing security and reducing congestion, of shifting certain screening and inspection activities, traditionally performed at the immediate border, to geographic departure and transit zones away from the border and of considering other non-traditional border crossing concepts;

Appreciating that enhancing the flow of information needed for effective shared border management requires professionalism in law enforcement, strong institutional capacity, and effective interagency coordination in and between both countries;

Recognizing that transnational criminal organizations threaten the economies and security of both the United States and Mexico and that both countries share responsibility for the conditions that give rise to these criminal organizations and that allow them to endure, as well as shared responsibility for remedying those conditions;

Understanding that law enforcement coordination between the Participants is essential to preventing crime and to disrupting and dismantling transnational criminal organizations;

Sharing an interest in ensuring a legal, orderly system for managing migration between their countries and developing coordinated procedures for managing repatriation and ensuring that it remains safe and humane;

Hereby express their commitment to strengthen cooperation in:

• Enhancing economic competitiveness by expediting lawful trade, while preventing the transit of illegal merchandise between their two countries,
• Facilitating lawful travel in a manner that also prevents the illegal movement of people between their two countries,
• Sharing information that enhances secure flows of goods and people, and
• Disrupting and dismantling transnational criminal organizations and punishing their members and supporters.

I. AREAS OF COLLABORATION

In light of these mutual understandings, the Participants expect to work in a collaborative and coordinated fashion across a wide-range of border-related activities, including:

• Programs focused on reducing congestion and delays in cross-border traffic entering both Mexico and the United States, building a foundation for efficient border and expanded economic growth, improving community safety and quality of life, and reducing unhealthy emissions from idling vehicles;
• The creation, expansion, or mutual recognition of “trusted shipper” programs such as FAST and C-TPAT and “trusted traveler” programs such as SENTRI and Global Entry, allowing enforcement authorities to concentrate their efforts where they are most needed to stop illicit border flows; 
• Pre-screening, pre-clearance, and pre-inspection of people, goods, and products, particularly where such activities increase the Participants’ abilities to intercept dangerous individuals, hazardous goods, and contraband before they cause harm and to alleviate congestion at ports of entry;
• The enhancement of the repatriation processes through the exchange of information and close bilateral cooperation, with special attention to vulnerable people such as unaccompanied minors, pregnant women, and the sick and elderly.
• The improvement of bilateral mechanisms to share information related to aviation security and border security.
• The development of complementary risk management strategies aimed at separating high-risk and low-risk shipments, as well as high-risk and low-risk individuals, including specific procedures for repatriation of individuals with criminal records;
• The standardized collection and single entry of trade data, so that importers and exporters are asked for a given piece of information only once, reducing the administrative burden of compliance and therefore the cost of trade;
• Improved bi-national coordination in planning, financing, permitting, designing, building, and operating ports of entry, as well as optimal staffing of ports of entry;
• Promotion of a closer partnership with the private sector, the trade community, and international partners to secure supply chains;
• Development of shared priorities for public investments in ports of entry along the border, planned in coordination with the infrastructure feeding into them, as well as funding mechanisms for such projects, including private sector participation;
• Joint assessments of threats, development of a common understanding of the operating environment, and joint identification of geographic areas of focus for law enforcement operations;
• Augmentation of their collection, analysis, and sharing of information from interdictions, investigations, and prosecutions to disrupt “criminal flows” and enhance public safety; and
• Bringing together border communities and relevant stakeholders as partners in efforts to, protect public safety by integrating law enforcement efforts with other government functions including social assistance, community outreach, and responsiveness to citizen concerns.

II. IMPLEMENTATION AND OVERSIGHT

To coordinate and facilitate work aimed at furthering the goals noted in this Declaration, the Participants intend to establish a Twenty-First Century Border Bilateral Executive Steering Committee (ESC) composed of representatives from the appropriate federal government departments and offices.  For the United States, this includes representatives from the Departments of State, Homeland Security, Justice, Transportation, Agriculture, Commerce, Interior, Defense, and the Office of the United State Trade Representative, and for Mexico includes representatives from the Secretariats of Foreign Relations, Interior, Finance and Public Credit, Economy, Public Security, Communications and Transportation, Agriculture, and the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic.  Each Participant should integrate its own section of the ESC section into the relevant interagency processes to achieve better bilateral coordination.

It is expected that the inaugural meeting of the ESC, to be convened no later than August 19, 2010, will develop a mutually accepted action plan to realize the goals of this Declaration and identify working groups, drawing, wheere appropriate, upon existing bilateral, border-related groups, to implement the action plan.

III. GENERAL PRINCIPLES

This Declaration represents an understanding between the Participants and does not constitute a legally binding agreement.  The Participants understand that activities in support of the goals mentioned in this Declaration are to be carried out in accordance with the laws and regulations of the Participants’ countries, and applicable international agreements to which the Participants’ countries are parties.  The Participants are expected to bear their own costs in engaging in any such activities.  All such activities are subject to the availability of funds and human resources. 

 

On Monday, May 24th at Noon, NDN will host Ambassador of Mexico to the United States, Arturo Sarukhan and Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Alan Bersin for a discussion of the unprecedented cooperation between the United States and Mexico in both seizing opportunities and better managing the challenges of the region along the common border.

In addition to their general remarks, Ambassador Sarukhan and Commissioner Bersin will reflect upon the discussions this week between the U.S. and Mexican governments during President Calderon's State Visit this week.

While this is a private event, you may watch via our live webcast beginning at 12:15pm.  The event is open to the press.

The recent passage of Arizona's SB 1070 has shed due national light on immigration as an issue that affects all Americans and needs to be addressed.  At NDN, we have said for five years now that our immigration system is broken and needs to be fixed.  That it has taken a draconian measure such as the passage of this bill to give this important issue the attention it deserves is unfortunate but not surprising.  The legislative arm of our government has had a beefy calendar trying to address healthcare, jobs and the economy, environmental concerns, and education. 

In a democratic bureaucracy that was designed to work slowly so as to prevent any person or group from taking over quickly or easily, we must strategically inspire our leaders to take action.  Issues such as education, which affect more people more directly, are often addressed in a timelier manner because constituents put more pressure on their leaders to do so.   In the Fall of 2008, according to the Census, 55.8 million children were enrolled in elementary school through high school - that's nearly 20% of the population. 

The slow rate at which our government works is not its only downfall.  In addition, issues such as education and immigration are often addressed with tunnel vision, eliminating the chance to account for factors outside the issue's scope.  Most education policy only directs money towards schools.  Most proposed immigration policy focuses on toughening the border, providing pathways to citizenship for immigrants already in the country, and managing future flow.  The DREAM Act is an exception that takes a two pronged approach, providing an educational incentive for immigrants by qualifying undocumented youth to be eligible for a six-year long conditional path to citizenship that requires the completion of a college degree or two years of military service. 

The recent wave of education activists that have pioneered immigrant charter schools provide another example of efforts that address the multi-dimensional world in which we live.  These schools, such as the Twin Cities International Elementary School in Minneapolis, MN and the Folk Arts-Cultural Treasures Charter School in Philadelphia, PA work to provide a rigorous education in a culturally sensitive environment.  In Stanford University's 2009 study of charter school performance in 16 states, results suggested that over a third of charter school students performed at a lower level than their public school counterparts.  While this is somewhat disconcerting considering the increasingly substantial role of charter schools in education reform, there were two subgroups in the nationally pooled sample that fared better in charter schools than in the traditional system: students in poverty and English Language Leaners (ELLs).  It should be noted that not all ELL students are immigrants and that the study did not focus solely on immigrant charter schools, but even with these variables, one can reasonably hypothesize that immigrant charter schools would likely be a good place for immigrant students. 

After teaching two years of elementary school, I feel I can say that, students at the elementary school level need more nurturing than those in middle or high school.  As with most people, if they are uncomfortable for any reason, they are less likely to reach their full learning potential.  It seems, then that these immigrant charter schools are a fantastic idea - but only to a certain point.  In the middle school years, when most children are more influenced by their peers than by their teachers, it would be limiting and perhaps debilitating for students to remain in an immigrant charter school.  If we want our children to achieve their dreams in this country, they must not only be able to read, write, and compute.  They must also be woven into the cultural fabric of American society.  There is no better way to do this than to be immersed in it, and an immigrant charter school seems not to be able to provide that opportunity.  Additionally, if this model became pervasive, wouldn't we face the danger of once again segregating our schools?

Ultimately, I believe in doing what it takes for students to succeed, and I support immigrant charter schools.  However, I encourage policy makers, education activists, entrepreneurs, and the like to approach these innovative models with a long term focus and to lead periodic conversations, reflect on positive and negative implications of their work, and make adjustments as they are necessary.

Not to be outdone by the Arizona state Senate, the state House recently passed HB-2281, legislation that outlaws public and charter schools from teaching ethnic studies programs. Text from HB-2281 is below; the full legislation can be read here:

15-112.  Prohibited Courses and Classes: Enforcement

A. A  SCHOOL DISTRICT OR CHARTER SCHOOL IN THIS STATE SHALL NOT INCLUDE IN ITS PROGRAM OF   INSTRUCTION ANY COURSES OR CLASSES THAT EITHER:

        1. ARE DESIGNED PRIMARILY FOR PUPILS OF A PARTICULAR ETHNIC GROUP.

        2. ADVOCATE ETHNIC SOLIDARITY INSTEAD OF THE TREATMENT OF PUPILS AS  INDIVIDUALS.

B. IF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION DETERMINES THAT A SCHOOL DISTRICT OR CHARTER SCHOOL IS IN VIOLATION OF SUBSECTION A, THE SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION SHALL NOTIFY THE SCHOOL DISTRICT OR CHARTER SCHOOL THAT THEY ARE IN VIOLATION OF SUBSECTION A. IF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION DETERMINES THAT THE SCHOOL DISTRICT OR CHARTER SCHOOL HAS FAILED TO COMPLY WITH SUBSECTION A WITHIN SIXTY DAYS AFTER A NOTICE HAS BEEN ISSUED PURSUANT TO THIS SUBSECTION, THE SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION MAY DIRECT THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION TO WITHHOLD UP TO TEN PER CENT OF THE MONTHLY APPORTIONMENT OF STATE AID THAT WOULD BE OTHER WISE DUE THE SCHOOL DISTRICT OR CHARTER SCHOOL.

Reaction to the law is below:

The Nation: Sees this as another reason to boycott the D-Backs, and move the MLB All Star game out of Arizona.

The Los Angeles Times: Has a piece up that gives a fairly detailed outline of what is in the legislation.

KGUN 9 ABC AZ Affiliate: Condemnation of SB-1070 and HB-2281 has gone international. The United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights issued a statement expressing serious concern over laws recently enacted by Arizona.

Fox 11 AZ Affiliate: Has video up of students from the Tucson Unified School Districts protesting the enactment of HB-2281.

Arizona Republic: Despite being openly critical of the ethnic studies programs taught in Tucson the Arizona Republic has an op-ed up condemning HB-2281.

The Washington Post: Is not a fan of the legislation, and does a good job of outlining the  political ramifications of the passage of the bill.

McCain continues to be pulled further and further right of where he once was on immigration.  This ad speaks for itself.

Indicó, sin embargo, que la intención de voto de los hispanos para los comicios legislativos de noviembre próximo está por debajo del promedio nacional, quizá por su decepción por la continua inhabilidad de Washington de abordar una reforma migratoria integral.

La manera en que los demócratas y republicanos enfrenten el tema migratorio en los próximos años, en particular tras la aprobación de una nueva ley antiinmigrante en Arizona, será clave para moldear el futuro político de la población latina, aseveró Rosenberg.

This posting is based on our report, Hispanics Rising 2010, and can also be found on impre.com.

Yesterday, our affiliate New Policy Institute released a report by Andres Ramirez and Kristian Ramos on the rapid increase of the Hispanic population, fueled by recent waves of immigration to the United States.  You can find the Executive Summary here and the full report here.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at ssanchez@ndn.org.

Hispanics Rising 2010 Executive Summary

Hispanics Rising 2010 Full Report

Thanks!