Follow posts tagged #immigration law in seconds.Sign up
“Our nation's immigration laws … are not designed to be blindly enforced without consideration given to the individual circumstances of each case. Nor are they designed to remove productive young people to countries where they may not have lived or even speak the language. Discretion, which is used in so many other areas, is especially justified here.”—Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano • In a statement explaining the Obama Administration’s new immigration policy, which will be imposed by executive order and focus on granting younger immigrants work permits while prosecuting “individuals who pose a national security or public safety risk.” source (via • follow)
“Everything I've worked for, it's, like going down the drain in a matter of days. I consider myself an American. [Deportation] would mean I'd leave a country and go back to a country that I don't remember, a country [where] I don't feel at home, and I don't even graduate high school.”—North Miami, Fla. High School senior Daniela Palaez • On finding out that she faces deportation by the end of the month. Palaez, who was brought to the U.S. on a tourist visa when she was four years old, has an insane 6.7 GPA, was to be the school’s valedictorian, and only found out Monday that she had to leave the country after a federal immigration judge denied her request for a green card. Her lawyer plans to appeal, which might delay her deportation by a number of years. (She has a brother in the military who has the right to live in the U.S. permanently, and her father is able to stay because of this. However, her mother has been in Colombia for five years after returning for cancer surgery, and cannot return to the U.S.) Palaez found strong support from her school, who held a rally for her Friday. Should someone in Congress step in to prevent this from happening? Does this reflect what immigration law is supposed to do? What do you think?
That thing that everyone said would happen is now happening.
Background: Not to be outdone by Arizona, misguided lawmakers in Georgia in May passed their own “papers, please” law that allows law enforcement to question certain people about their immigration status. And, unlike Arizona’s anti-immigrant legislation, the Georgia law also creates stricter reporting requirements for businesses that hire workers and harsher punishments for companies that employ undocumented workers.
Authorities in Georgia will begin enforcing the law July 1.
What’s happening now: Undocumented workers are now leaving Georgia en masse as the enforcement date approaches – leaving millions of dollars of rotting crops in the fields and sabotaging the state’s farming economy because no one else will fill the labor void they’ve left.
“Georgia labor officials estimate a shortage of some 11,000 workers in the agriculture sector, and the state has enacted a program where people on probation, who often have difficulty finding jobs, are sent into the fields,” reported the AFP. But employers are finding that, when given the opportunity to work in place of an undocumented laborer, America’s probationers aren’t nearly as productive. This disruption to Georgia’s farming economy will hurt consumers.
Postmaster: Number of passport applicants up
Montgomery Postmaster Donnie Snipes told WSFA the amount of people coming in to apply for a passport has increased since the Alabama passed a new immigration law.
About 496 people applied in June, Snipes told the station. The post office usually averages about 300 people, he said.
He said a majority of the applicants were racial minorities, according to WSFA.
Questioning the "I" word: illegal, undocumented, or other...?
When the U.S. Supreme Court hears arguments next week on Arizona’s controversial anti-immigrant bill, SB 1070, headlines across the country will no doubt contain language referring to immigrant communities as “illegal.”
“Illegal immigrant” is currently acceptable in AP Style, in The New York Times and, as a result, in most newspapers in the United States. However the notion that this is a proper, or even legally accurate term, is in question. Not only have organizers within the undocumented community spoken out against the use of “illegal,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor used the term “undocumented” in the December 2009, marking the Court’s first use of the term.
I use the term “undocumented” and do not support the term “illegal” when referring to a person in the immigrant community. I feel I owe an explanation why I choose not to use illegal—both for transparency within this project and also because my rationale might add something to a debate that is about much more than semantics. Here is why:
Study: Impact of Undocumented workers on wages 'negligible'
A recent study by economists at the Atlanta Federal Reserve may discredit one of the most common arguments used to justify state-based immigration crackdown laws.
Hiring undocumented workers has a ‘negligible’ impact on the wages of documented workers in the same firm, a recent study by the Atlanta Federal Reserve found.
Georgia takes economy hit BC of immigration law
Georgia’s economy is projected to take a $391 million hit and shed about 3,260 jobs this year because of farm labor shortages, according to a report released Tuesday by the state’s agricultural industry.Enlarge photo
Vino Wong, firstname.lastname@example.org Gary Paulk of Paulk Farm in Irwin County said in June he had to abandon five acres of blackberries because he couldn’t get enough workers to pick the fruit.
The report does not cite the reasons for the worker shortages in Georgia’s $68.8 billion agricultural industry, the state’s largest. But many farmers complained this year that Georgia’s new immigration law — House Bill 87 — has scared away the migrant Hispanic workers they depend on, putting their crops at risk.
“[I]t is not only rational but also realistic and efficient for USCIS to rely on the records of the Immigration Court when calculating how many days have run on an applicant's asylum clock. . . . This system is efficient; it prevents the duplication of work; and it decreases the risk of inconsistent calculations. ”—
Gjondrekaj v. Napolitano
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90233 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 2, 2011)
Supreme Court will review Arizona immigration law
Earlier this week the Supreme Court announced that it would review whether the Arizona anti-immigration law is preempted by the Immigration and Nationality Act (the INA). We’ve discussed what’s involved with preemption on Law for the People in some detail. Check out this five part primer on exactly what states can do about immigration:
The Ninth Circuit & district court upheld a preliminary injunction on Arizona’s law — which means it won’t be enforced until and unless the court upholds the law as valid and constitutional — because the law was, at least in part, likely to be preempted by federal law.
There are two main reasons the court found that the INA might preempt Arizona’s law. One is the threat of 50 states layering separate immigration enforcement rules on top of the INA. Two, Congress said, in the INA, that “State and local officers shall be directed by the Attorney General.” The court found that this means that state laws can’t tell state and local officers how to enforce the INA - only the AG can do that.
The name of Arizona’s harsh anti-immigration law is, incidentally, “Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act. It’s unclear whether the Supreme Court will also answer the question of how Arizona manages to come up with such sneaky and clever names for laws that do mean things, while the federal government puts together laws called “Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996” and the “Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act.”
Clearly Arizona has something to teach us. Probably just not something about enforcing immigration laws.