Immigration Info Site

This week marks a concerted effort between the White House executive branch staff working together with senators to refine a bill that will formalize the immigration quotas that have been discussed since before the presidential election during 2016. Immigration Law Center sees this as a good opportunity to learn about the future changes in immigration policy.

Tal Kopan of CNN writes:

The Trump administration is working with two senators on a bill that would restrict and revamp some of the legal avenues for immigrating to the United States, sources confirm to CNN, but the bill remains a long way from potential passage in Congress.

The bill from Republican Sens. Tom Cotton of Arkansas and David Perdue of Georgia was introduced in February but will be re-introduced with some changes, Cotton’s office confirmed.

The original version of the bill cut back on what’s referred to as “chain migration,” ways of immigrating to the United States that are based on family or not based on skills. The bill would limit the types of family members of immigrants that can also be brought to the US to primarily spouses and minor children, would eliminate the international diversity visa lottery and limit the number of annual refugee admissions.

An administration official characterized the discussions as one of many efforts to work with lawmakers on potential pieces of immigration reform. Politico was first to report the talks.

The over-arching goal for the Cotton-Perdue bill, the official said, is to install a system where immigrants are allowed into the country based on their skills and contributions, as opposed to familial connections or a lottery.

With all the new changes in US Immigration laws, we thought this helpful Q&A from cleveland.com would help clear up some issues. For more detailed and personal help just contact an immigration lawyer in Cleveland at immigrationlawctr.com. Michael Sangiocomo writes:

Last Sunday, The Plain Dealer told the story of Jesus Lara Lopez, an undocumented worker who faces deportation next week after working in the United States for 16 years.

He is not a criminal and has been supporting his wife and four American-citizen children, working with the permission of immigration authorities. This spring he became one of thousands of immigrants swept up in the Trump administration’s directive to immigration authorities to deport most anyone in the country illegally.

Many readers asked why Lara Lopez didn’t just “sign up” or “get in line” to become a citizen during the years he has lived here. We sought some answers and found that there are no such options for undocumented immigrants in the United States.

Lara Lopez’ lawyer, David Leopold of Cleveland, said that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the Department of Homeland Security have the authority to allow people like Lara Lopez to stay until the immigration laws are revised.

But under the current system, an undocumented worker in the United States has no options to become legal. He or she would have to leave the United States and start the process to enter the country from the beginning, a process that could take decades or may not even be possible.

“Unauthorized immigrants who want to regularize their status in this country cannot just ‘get in line,'” according to the American Immigration Council, a non-profit group that aids immigrants.

“There are lines, but a large number of aspiring immigrants are not eligible to be in any of them,” the council’s website says. ” Even if a prospective immigrant does meet the formal requirements to immigrate, the wait can be very long if she or he is applying from countries that are currently oversubscribed.”

Barring a last-minute reprieve, Lara Lopez, who recently bought a house in Willard in Huron County, will be on a plane at Cleveland Hopkins International Airport on July 18, for a one-way trip to Mexico City, leaving his wife and children behind.

Lara Lopez’ story about coming to America is not uncommon. He said his decision to come in 2001 was made out of desperation for a job that could help support his mother. His father had died when he was an infant and he had grown up poor, he said.

“I grew up with needs, my mother tried to help me move forward but I couldn’t, I grew up seeing my good mother suffering and I decided to come here where I am today,” he said in a translated email. “I didn’t have the privileges then that I have now. I had always heard about ‘El Norte, USA.’

“It was very difficult for me to get to this beautiful place that is full of opportunities, and I thank God for letting me be here in this place where I’ve been living for 16 years,” he continued.

Lynn Tramonte of America’s Voice, an immigration support group, said there were very few jobs in Chiapas, Mexico, where Lara Lopez grew up, and none that paid enough for him to support his family.

She said he had no real skills, such as carpentry or plumbing, and no way to learn them. She said it would be literally impossible for someone in his position to have gotten a visa to enter the U.S. legally.

“People in situations like that are desperate,” Tramonte said. “Their prospects are so bleak that they will risk their lives to come to the United States for a better life. They will travel through the hot desert, risking running into dangerous people, but they do it for themselves and their families. After all, none of us have a say in where we are born. It just happens. We are the lucky ones to be born here.”

The council offers a primer for the challenges faced by undocumented immigrants in the United States to become legal. Here’s a look at some relevant immigration facts and policies:

What are current ways that people can come into the methods of immigration into the United States on a temporary or permanent basis?

Today, a new bill introduced by Repbulican Senators Tom Cotton and David Perdue gives additional insight on the Trump administration’s real immigration policy. The bill would reduce the number of legal immigrations by 50% over the next 10 years and as one of the first formal immigration proposals of the administration, it shows that President Trump actually intends to fulfill some of his campaign promises on immigration policy.

Bessi Levin in Vanity Fair writes:

“The most public components of Donald Trump’s nativist agenda are also, somewhat reassuringly, the most symbolic. Yes, the president wants to build an expensive wall along the southern border to keep “rapists” and “criminals” from Mexico from illegally entering the country, but as even Republicans have pointed out, building a wall is just about the least effective way to secure the border. Life will go on, regardless of whether the president adds an extra foot or two of barbed wire to the eyesore that already stretches across several hundred miles of Texas, Arizona, and California. Trump also wants a figurative fence around the country, in the form of his executive order banning travel from several Muslim-majority countries, but said ban was always designed to be temporary. The president’s long-term ambitions to curtail immigration, meanwhile, have mostly flown under the radar: a plan dreamt up by the White House’s resident nationalists Steve Bannon and Stephen Miller to crack down on legal immigration.

Now, Trump’s endgame appears to be moving into public view. According to a new report from Politico, Miller and Bannon—the latter of whom apparently keeps reminders to himself to restrict immigration “scribbled on the walls of his office” like other people keep reminders to order more ink for the printer—have been working on a bill with Republican Senators Tom Cotton and David Perdue that would cut the number of legal immigrants coming into the U.S. by half, to 500,000, as of 2027. The bill is said to be a “revised and expanded” version of the RAISE Act that Cotton and Perdue presented in February and discussed with the president in March.

The lawmakers, along with Miller, Bannon, and Trump, argue that allowing lower-skilled immigrants into the country hurts job prospects and suppresses wages for American-born workers. In addition to wanting to restrict the overall number of legal immigrants, they want to shift to a merit-based system in which foreigners who are granted entry, for example, hold advanced degrees or demonstrate a particular “extraordinary ability” in their given field. That dovetails with the White House’s desire to “limit citizenship and migration to those who pay taxes and earn higher wages.” Last month, in a display of his infinite generosity, particularly toward those who haven’t “made a fortune,” Trump promised that legislation banning legal immigrants from coming into the U.S. if they were expected to rely on any kind of welfare would be coming “very shortly.”

The move will likely appeal to Trump’s base. Unfortunately, a restrictionist immigration policy could backfire for the same set of voters. In April, 1,470 economists wrote an open letter to the president explaining that, actually, the economy benefits from immigration, describing it as “not just a good thing” but “a necessity.” Senators like Lindsey Graham and John McCain have also argued that the economy gets a boost from cheaper labor. Mountains of evidence suggest native workers aren’t interested in the kind of grueling, seasonal, low-wage employment that is typically the domain of recent immigrants. Experts have warned that a crackdown on immigration could, for example, destroy the U.S. agriculture industry, whose workforce is disproportionally made up of foreigners.

Of course, wanting to drastically restrict legal immigration and actually getting a bill passed to do so are two very different things, and Team Trump faces a steep uphill battle, given that G.O.P. lawmakers like Graham and McCain are against it. There are also more pressing matters to attend to, including but not limited to: health care, tax reform, and avoiding a government shutdown in September. Building a border wall around the entire country might have to wait.”

original source

The post Trump clarifies his immigration policy appeared first on Immigration Law Firms.

via Immigration Law Firms https://immigrationlawctr.com/trump-clarifies-immigration-policy/

At theimmigrationforum.com a recent article highlights the ongoing partisan controversy on revisions to the United States’ immigration policies. As a presidential candidate, Donald Trump stirred emotions and used inflammatory proposals to sway conservatives to support him. However current surveys show that the majority of Americans do not support the majority of his initiatives.

Original article:

As a candidate, Donald Trump promised a different approach to immigration policy. As president he is seeking congressional funding to build a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border and to hire thousands more immigration agents to arrest and deport immigrants in the U.S. Immigration agents are now, more than in recent times, routinely picking up and deporting immigrants with no criminal history who have lived and worked in the U.S. for many years.

Researchers have attempted to gauge public reaction to these initiatives through public opinion surveys. Overall public reaction so far has been negative, but the answers to questions about the administration’s immigration initiatives reveal a partisan divide.

One thing has not changed despite the wide swing in policy in recent months. The public has supported policy solutions that allow undocumented immigrants — most of whom have lived in the U.S. for many years — to remain in the U.S. and gain legal status if they meet certain conditions. Support for this idea crosses party lines in most surveys, with Republicans, Independents, and Democrats all in favor.

This paper takes a look at public opinion surveys conducted by mainstream media and other sources since the November 2016 election. These polls have included questions about a path to earned legality for undocumented immigrants, about the administration’s deportation policies, and about other immigration-related actions.

General Views on Immigration and Illegal Immigration

Some of the surveys conducted since the November election have asked general questions to gauge public attitudes toward immigration and diversity, about the importance of immigration as an issue facing this country, about their concern over illegal immigration, and about President Trump’s performance on the immigration issue. In this time frame, the public has been somewhat more positive toward immigrants and immigration than in the past.

A Pew Research Survey in February 2017 asked respondents whether they believed “having an increasing number of many different races, ethnic groups, and nationalities in the United States makes this country a better place to live …” Nearly two-thirds (64 percent) said that diversity makes the country a better place to live. Only 5 percent said it makes the country a worse place to live, while 29 percent said it doesn’t make much difference. Democrats were more supportive of diversity — three-quarters (76 percent) said that growing diversity makes the country a better place to live, while half of Republicans (51 percent) thought so.

In April 2017, an NBC News-Wall Street Journal poll asked whether respondents thought that “immigration helps the United States more than it hurts, or immigration hurts the United States more than it helps.” By a nearly 2-to-1 margin, respondents said that immigration helps more than hurts (60 percent vs. 32 percent). This is the largest margin since the questions was first asked in 2005.

In June 2017, the Washington Post and Kaiser Family Foundation released a poll conducted in April to gauge differences between Americans living in rural, suburban and urban areas. Asked whether they thought that “immigrants today strengthen our country because of their hard work” or that “immigrants today are a burden on our country because they take our jobs, housing, and health care,” a majority of respondents overall (62 percent) said that immigrants helped strengthen our country. Urban dwellers were most positive (71 percent said that immigrants strengthen the country) while a plurality of rural residents (48 percent) took the positive view. Suburbanites were in between at 62 percent.

Shortly after the election, in November 2016, Quinnipiac University asked an open-ended question about what respondents thought should be President Trump’s top priority when he assumed office. Only 6 percent said immigration, with 1 percent saying building the border wall should be the top priority, and another 1 percent saying border security should be the top priority.

A poll by Politico and Harvard University conducted in December 2016 asked its nationwide sample of adults how serious a problem they thought it was that there were “currently millions of unauthorized immigrants living in the U.S.” For Trump voters, the presence of undocumented immigrants was a big deal — 90 percent of them thought it was a “very serious problem” or a “somewhat serious problem.” The general public overall was less concerned — 30 percent considered it a “very serious problem,” and an additional 27 percent thought it was a “somewhat serious problem.”

Treatment of Undocumented Immigrants

For more than a decade, public opinion surveys have been asking Americans how they feel about a proposal that would allow undocumented immigrants to remain in the U.S. and eventually become citizens or remain in the U.S. with legal status but not citizenship. The questions have tracked policy ideas that have been part of actual immigration reform legislation Congress has considered but never passed. In general, the pattern in responses to these questions has been that the more detailed the question is (by including some of the proposed requirements — learning English, paying back taxes, passing a criminal background check, etc.), the more likely the public favors allowing undocumented immigrants to stay. Majority support for providing the opportunity for earned legal status or citizenship for the undocumented crosses party lines.

A different pattern emerges in opinion surveys conducted since the election of November 2016. President Trump’s initiatives to deport more undocumented immigrants yields a sharp partisan divide in responses. Unlike the idea of an opportunity for earned citizenship, which majorities of both Democrats and Republicans support, the Republican president’s deportation initiatives in most surveys draw overwhelming opposition from Democrats and enthusiastic support from Republicans. Independents fall between Democrats and Republicans but, in general, a majority of Independents have opposed the president’s deportation and other immigration initiatives.

Earned Legal Status

For more than a decade, the American people have supported proposals that will allow undocumented immigrants to remain in the U.S. if they meet certain conditions. The National Immigration Forum has documented this support in past reports summarizing public opinion surveys.[vi] Even as a new president has begun to enforce immigration laws more strictly, public support for allowing undocumented immigrants to stay has not wavered. In most surveys conducted since the presidential election, support crosses party lines, with Republicans, Democrats, and Independents all supporting a proposal to allow undocumented immigrants to stay. Even respondents who said they were Trump supporters were supportive in the surveys breaking out that demographic.

The first chart above shows the level of support for allowing undocumented immigrants to stay in the U.S. —with the opportunity either for citizenship or for legal status without citizenship. These data come from surveys conducted between November 2016 and March 2017 and show support broken down by party and among Trump supporters.

As the next chart indicates, this support has been steady for the past two years, through a campaign season and change in government marked by harsh immigration rhetoric. Public support for allowing undocumented immigrants to stay actually has increased slightly.

Shortly after the election, Quinnipiac University conducted a survey in which it asked a sample of voters across the U.S. which came closest to their views on the treatment of “illegal immigrants who are currently living in the United States.” A majority (72 percent) thought they should be allowed to stay. In this and other surveys, respondents are given the option to choose whether these undocumented immigrants should be allowed “to eventually apply for citizenship” (60 percent chose that option) or “to stay but not be allowed to apply for citizenship” (an additional 12 percent). Breaking this down by party affiliation, 90 percent of Democrats, 71 percent of Independents, and 50 percent of Republicans supported allowing undocumented immigrants to remain in the U.S. and either apply for citizenship or to remain without the option of citizenship.[vii]

In the Politico-Harvard University poll conducted in December 2016, respondents were asked which approach to unauthorized immigrants came closest to their views. A majority (55 percent) said that undocumented immigrants should be allowed to stay — including 46 percent who favored eventual citizenship, provided the immigrants “meet certain requirements,” and another 9 percent who favored legal status but not citizenship.[viii]

A Quinnipiac University poll in January 2017 asked a sample of voters which came closest to their views on the treatment of “illegal immigrants who are currently living in the United States.” A majority (68 percent) thought they should be allowed to stay “and to eventually apply for citizenship” (59 percent) or to stay but not be allowed to apply for citizenship (9 percent). By party affiliation, 86 percent of Democrats, 74 percent of Independents, and just under half of Republicans (48 percent) supported allowing undocumented immigrants to remain in the U.S. This was the last poll during this time frame in which support for allowing undocumented immigrants to stay in the U.S. was below 70 percent.

In a CBS News poll conducted in January 2017, respondents were asked which came closest to their views about “illegal immigrants who are living in the U.S.” The top response, of 61 percent of respondents, was that they “should be allowed to stay in the U.S. and eventually apply for citizenship” (emphasis added). An additional 13 percent said they should be allowed to stay but not allowed to apply for citizenship (for a total of 74 percent favoring allowing them to stay). Democrats were most favorable toward allowing undocumented immigrants to stay (86 percent), followed by Independents (75 percent). A majority of Republicans (58 percent) also favored the path to citizenship or legal status.

Respondents in a February 2017 McClatchy-Marist poll were asked whether they “favor or oppose Congress providing a way for undocumented immigrants who are currently in the U.S. to gain legal citizenship if they learn English, pay fines, and have jobs that pay taxes.” More than three-quarters (80 percent) of respondents favored allowing undocumented immigrants to gain citizenship under those terms. Only 15 percent were opposed. Respondents of all party affiliations supported citizenship for undocumented immigrants in this poll — 87 percent of Democrats, 69 percent of Republicans and 83 percent of Independents. This survey found favor for the proposal even among Trump supporters (72 percent).

In another CBS News survey in mid-February 2017, respondents were asked which came closest to their views about “illegal immigrants who are living in the U.S.,” and only 23 percent overall favored requiring them to leave. A majority (60 percent) of respondents thought they should be allowed to “stay in the U.S. and eventually apply for citizenship.” An additional 13 percent thought that they should be allowed to “stay in the U.S. legally, but not be allowed to apply for citizenship,” for a total of 73 percent who favored allowing them to stay in the U.S. Respondents across party lines favored allowing undocumented immigrants to remain— including 51 percent of Republicans, 91 percent of Democrats, and 73 percent of Independents.

In a poll by CNN/ORC in March, respondents were asked which policy goal should be the government’s top priority in dealing “with the issue of illegal immigration.” The top response, chosen by 60 percent of respondents, was “developing a plan to allow those in the U.S. illegally who have jobs to become legal residents.” This option was the top choice for 81 percent of Democrats, 60 percent of Independents, and 37 percent of Republicans.

Another question, using more detailed language than most other polls to describe undocumented immigrants and policy options for them, showed overwhelming support for allowing undocumented immigrants to stay in the U.S. if they meet certain conditions. Asked “how the U.S. government should treat illegal immigrants who have been in this country for a number of years, hold a job, speak English and are willing to pay any back taxes that they owe,” 90 percent of respondents said they would favor “a bill that allowed those immigrants to stay in this country rather than being deported and eventually allow them to apply for U.S. citizenship.” Only 9 percent opposed this proposal. This proposal was heavily favored across party lines: 96 percent of Democrats, 89 percent of Independents, and 87 percent of Republicans. Even Trump supporters overwhelmingly favored this proposal, with 84 percent support compared with 15 percent opposition.

In the March 2017 Quinnipiac University poll mentioned above, respondents were asked which came closest to their views on the treatment of “illegal immigrants who are currently living in the United States.” A majority (74 percent) thought they should be allowed to stay and either “eventually apply for citizenship” (63 percent) or to stay but not be allowed to apply for citizenship (11 percent). Again, respondents across party lines favored allowing undocumented immigrants to stay, including 92 percent of Democrats, 74 percent of Independents and 51 percent of Republicans. Requiring these individuals to leave the U.S. was favored by 23 percent of respondents.

Respondents in a March McClatchy-Marist poll were asked if they favored or opposed “Congress providing a way for undocumented immigrants who are currently in the U.S. to gain legal citizenship if they learn English, pay fines and have jobs that pay taxes.” As with other polls that describe in some detail the policy options considered for undocumented immigrants, support was very strong among all respondents: 83 percent were in favor of the proposal, an increase from a similar poll conducted the previous month. Respondents across party lines favored the proposal by significant margins, including 90 percent of Democrats, 85 percent of Independents, and 71 percent of Republicans. Seventy-one percent of Trump supporters favored the proposal.

An April 2017 Texas Lyceum poll asked a sample of Texas adults whether they supported or opposed “allowing illegal immigrants living in the U.S. the opportunity to become citizens after a long waiting period if they pay taxes and a penalty, pass a criminal background check, and learn English.” Most Texans (90 percent) support the idea. Just 9 percent are opposed. On this issue, there was broad agreement along partisan lines, with 91 percent of Republicans, 90 percent of Democrats, and 90 percent of Independents “strongly” or “somewhat” in favor. These results reinforce the correlation of broad support and an immigration proposal that is described in some detail.

In June, 2017, the Public Religion Research Institute released the results of interviews with 40,000 persons across the U.S., conducted between May 18, 2016 and January 10, 2017. In this massive survey, 64 percent of Americans said that “immigrants who are currently living in the U.S. illegally” should be allowed “to become citizens provided that meet certain requirements.” An additional 15 percent said that these immigrants should be allowed to become permanent residents but not citizens. Only 16 percent said the immigrants should be identified and deported. Large majorities of Democrats (90 percent) and Republicans (68 percent) favor allowing undocumented immigrants to stay and either become citizens or permanent residents. This survey was large enough to include a sample of respondents from every state, and in every state there was majority support for a path to citizenship. Support ranged from a high of 74 percent in Maryland to a low of 55 percent in Wyoming.

Attitude toward Mass Deportation

The Trump Administration has stepped up deportations of undocumented immigrants, and the president’s executive order on immigration enforcement calls for the hiring of 10,000 additional immigration enforcement agents. Many opinion surveys since December have tested public attitudes toward the increase in deportations.

In general, a majority of the respondents in these public opinion polls have opposed the idea of deporting all undocumented immigrants, and the public thinks the administration has moved too aggressively. But answers are split along partisan lines. Republicans and Trump voters are generally supportive of stepped-up enforcement. There was more unity when surveys asked about support for deportation of immigrants who had committed crimes. When this subset of immigrants was the focus, support for deportation grew.

In the December 2016 Politico-Harvard University poll on domestic priorities for the president’s first 100 days, respondents were asked whether they favored or opposed several of the president-elect’s proposals. A majority (55 percent) opposed “deporting unauthorized immigrants who are currently in the U.S.” Trump voters (61 percent) and Republicans (64 percent) favored the proposal, while Democrats were opposed (76 percent). In a separate question about how the government should treat undocumented immigrants, 42 percent favored deportation, but respondents were given the choice between “identify and deport those with criminal records,” and “identify and deport all of them.” Only 8 percent of the general public favored deportation of all undocumented immigrants, and support was not much greater among Republicans or Trump voters (13 percent each).

The March 2017 CNN/ORC poll included several questions on deportation. When asked what the government’s top priority should be in dealing “with the issue of illegal immigration,” just 13 percent of respondents chose “deporting immigrants already in the U.S. illegally.” This choice came in last among all three partisan groups, chosen by 5 percent of Democrats, 21 percent of Republicans, and 14 percent of Independents. (The top choice was “developing a plan to allow those in the U.S. illegally who have jobs to become legal residents.”)

In a separate question about deportation, respondents were asked whether the government “should attempt to deport all people currently living in the country illegally.” Nearly three-quarters (71 percent) said the government should not. A majority of Republicans (55 percent) said the government should not attempt to deport all undocumented immigrants, along with 86 percent of Democrats and 71 percent of Independents. However, when asked whether the government “should attempt to deport all people currently living in the country illegally who have been convicted of other crimes while living in the U.S.,” the response flipped, with more than three-quarters (78 percent) saying the government should attempt to deport these individuals.

Respondents in this same survey were asked whether they were more concerned that immigration enforcement efforts would go too far, or would not go far enough. The majority, 58 percent, said they were more concerned that “deportation efforts will go too far and result in deportation of people who haven’t committed serious crimes.” Forty percent said they were more concerned that “deportation efforts won’t go far enough and dangerous criminals will remain in the United States.” There was a partisan split on this question, with 80 percent of Democrats and 61 percent of Independents concerned that deportation efforts would go too far, and 68 percent of Republicans concerned deportation efforts would not go far enough.

A Quinnipiac University survey in March 2017 asked respondents whether they thought the Trump administration has “been too aggressive in deporting immigrants who are here illegally,” or if it has not been aggressive enough. A plurality of all respondents (49 percent) thought the administration has been acting too aggressively. Only 9 percent of respondents overall thought the administration was not being aggressive enough. Thirty-four percent of respondents thought the administration was acting appropriately. Both Democrats (81 percent) and Independents (52 percent) thought the administration was being too aggressive, while a majority of Republicans (71 percent) thought the administration was acting appropriately.

Another question in this survey tried to break out treatment of the undocumented population depending on whether individuals had committed crimes or not, and whether any crimes committed were serious. Respondents were asked whom they thought should be deported: “Should no illegal immigrants be deported, only illegal immigrants that have committed a serious crime, only illegal immigrants that have committed any crime, or should all illegal immigrants be deported?” A majority, 55 percent, said they thought only those who had committed serious crimes should be deported. This includes nearly half of Republicans (48 percent) as well as 53 percent of Democrats and 54 percent of Independents.

In the April 2017 Texas Lyceum poll, a sample of Texas adults were asked whether they wanted the president to “deport millions of illegal immigrants currently living in the U.S.” Only 31 percent said yes. Nearly two-thirds (61 percent) were opposed. A majority of Republicans (59 percent) favored mass deportation, while Democrats (84 percent) and Independents (65 percent) were opposed.

Another Quinnipiac University poll in April 2017 asked respondents whether they thought the Trump administration has “been too aggressive in deporting immigrants who are here illegally,” not aggressive enough, or if the level of deportations was appropriate. A plurality of Independents (46 percent) and a majority of Democrats (79 percent) thought the administration was too aggressive. Most Republicans thought the current level of deportations was appropriate (72 percent) or that the administration was not aggressive enough (17 percent). Overall, a plurality, 47 percent, thought the administration’s deportation policy was too aggressive. Only 9 percent thought the policy was not aggressive enough.

Visit https://immigrationlawctr.com/news/ for more immigration news.

The post Public Opinion On Immigration Policy appeared first on Immigration Law Firms.

via Immigration Law Firms https://immigrationlawctr.com/public-opinion-immigration-policy/

Immigrants across America have been unfairly criticized for a negative impact on the economy and society. But the reality is that immigration has been vital to the growth and strength of the nation since its very beginning. Jason Hidalgo published a heart-felt article on rgj.comabout the challenges that many immigrants face and overcome. Moreover the underlying message is clear the U.S. needs to do a much better job of offering legal opportunities for immigrants to find work integrate into society and ultimately seek citizenship if they choose to. Mr. Hidalgo writes: Three king beds are squeezed together inside a tiny motel room in downtown Reno like a life-size game of Tetris. Just inches away people shufflein and out of a tiny shared bathroom some in halfway-buttoned work shirts others still wrapped in towels with almost assembly line efficiency. What time is the bus coming? one girl asked in Filipino as she hurriedly buttoned her shirt. Youll be fine one man responded. Just two and a half months ago both workers were living halfway around the world in the Philippines. On this day however they are happily living their slice of the American dream. Here in a cramped room of an aging motel built during Jimmy Carters first year in office six roommates marveled at just how vast their opportunities can be in the United States. Clark Dixon Ravanes eyes widened with disbelief as the fresh-faced 20-year-old talked about how much money he was making at a local hotel-casino. Ravanes has been busing tables to the tune of $8.25 an hour since coming to America. In Nevada Ravanes pay is the minimum wage allowed for jobs that do not provide health benefits. For the young man however it is a veritable jackpot. In the Philippines Ravanes earned the equivalent of less than $7 working at a hotel. That by the way was for one whole day. Before coming here one days salary for me in the Philippines was just 340 pesos Ravanes said. Here you get to earn that in just one hour! In two weeks Ravanes and his roommates who came to the United States on nonimmigrant J-1 visas will be back home in the Philippines as the terms of their work-exchange program expire. All six however dream of coming back someday and joining the ranks of Americas immigrants. They are not alone. From 2014 to 2015 the number of immigrants in the United States rose nearly 900000 to 43.3 million according to the American Community Survey. Add second-generation family members to the mix and immigrants and their children comprise nearly 1 in 4 Americans according to a National Academy of Sciences immigration study released last September. Fueled by their dreams and the promise of a better life immigrants continue to make an impact not just on American society and culture but the U.S. economy and its labor force. Today immigrant workers comprise a sizable chunk of American industry including traditional sectors such as construction agriculture and service occupations. In addition to making up a significant number of technology sector workers immigrants also helped found several disruptive and high-profile tech companies such as Google Tesla and Flirtey. At the same time immigrants find themselves at the center of a national debate that has only gained strength with the election of President Donald Trump. Nearly 1 in 5 Nevada workers in 2014 for example are undocumented immigrants according to the Pew Research Center.Although undocumented immigrants attract the biggest spotlight some groups such as the Center for Immigration Studies whose data was cited by Trump during his campaign are also calling for a reduction in legal immigration citing alleged impacts on job availability and wages for native-born residents as well as social services. Despite the fierce debate however many immigrants continue to eye a new life in America. Ogenloyd Bryan Lopez Silva a 26-year-old who shared a room with Ravanes at Renos Time Zone Motel says the reason for the United States allure to immigrants is simple. America is opportunity to us Silva said. Here you can have a nice future. Project manager Eugenio Henio Medina stands inside a two-story house under construction in Reno Nevada on June 23 2017. Medina co-owner of Camp;E Builders immigrated to the U.S. from Mexico. (Photo: Andy Barron/RGJ) Dreaming big I DIDNT COME TO THE U.S. TO BE A DISHWASHER. Eugenio Medina squinted before donning his sunglasses on a scorching 98-degree day in late June. Medina known to friends and co-workers by his nickname Henio developed a reputation in Renos construction circles as a hotshot house framer. On this day Medina was visiting Renos Skyline neighborhood to inspect the framing job his company was doing on a new home. Back in 1998 I went to help my brother in construction one weekend Medina said. I liked it so much that I decided to quit my excavating job and do framing on my own. Today the 44-year-old Medina counts himself as an American citizen and a job creator. Medina is one-half of the brain trust for framing and custom home company Camp;E Builders which he co-founded with partner Chris York in 2011. Twenty-four years ago however his situation was much different. One night in 1993 Medina was shivering in the cold as he tried to sleep in the desert during his first attempt to cross the U.S. border. Medina who described himself as poor but happy at the time once dreamed of becoming an architect in Mexico. His family however could not afford to send him to college and Medina says he was destined to become a struggling laborer there. Camp;E Builders co-owner Henio Medina examines the frame work on a two-story house in Reno Nev. on June 23 2017. Medina immigrated to the U.S. from Mexico.(Photo: Andy Barron/RGJ) Medina decided to leave his home state of Nayarit and pay his cousin $2450 to act as his coyotaje or guide across the border. We got caught twice and sent back to Mexico and we would try again the next day Medina said. You hear a lot of stories about people getting killed and dying in the desert but I was lucky to make it. After being caught in the U.S. and deported once more in 1994 Medina would make it back to the United States once again to try his hand at various jobs including cooking and washing dishes. Medina however wanted more. I didnt come to the U.S. to be a dishwasher Medina said. Medina would find his place in Nevadas construction industry. At first he only did simple labor on job sites before moving up to operating heavy machinery. As Medinas skill sets and management know-how improved he was placed in charge of overseeing worker crews. I saw a lot of opportunities here and went for it said Medina who was naturalized in 2001. I decided to stay. Nevada which enjoyed an extended run as the fastest-growing state in the nation prior to the recession remains a popular destination for immigrants. The Silver State looks even more appealing when compared to places such as Arizona which passed stricter immigration laws said Jeffrey Passel senior demographer at the Pew Research Center. Arizona saw its undocumented immigrant population peak at 500000 in 2007 before the recession and tougher laws combined to reduce that number by 40 percent to 300000 by 2012 the Pew Research Center found. In Nevada legal and undocumented immigrants comprise 19 percent of the population which is significantly higher than the national average of 13.5 percent said state demographer Jeff Hardcastle. The U.S. Census Bureau estimates Nevadas total population to be at 2.94 million in 2016. The state also has a more established immigrant population. Nearly 62 percent of Nevadas immigrants entered the country prior to 2000 compared to 56 percent nationally Hardcastle said. Nevada also tops the nation in one key metric. When you look at the states with the largest share of undocumented immigrants a lot of them are Western states Passel said. Nevada however is No. 1. President Donald Trump accompanied by Vice President Mike Pence Homeland Security Secretary John F. Kelly and others holds up an executive order for immigration actions Jan. 25 in Washington. (Photo: Pablo Martinez Monsivais/AP) Winners and losers IF YOU LIKE THE BENEFITS THAT IMMIGRATION CREATES THEN YOUVE GOT TO OWN THE INCOME REDISTRIBUTION. Although Nevadas total numbers for undocumented immigrants pale in comparison to states such as California Texas and Florida they account for a larger share of the states population. Nevada had 210000 undocumented immigrants in its workforce in 2014 based on the latest data available from Pew Research Center. The number is down by 40000 from 2007 but represents 19 percent of the Nevada workforce the highest of any state Passel said. Undocumented immigrants in Nevada also account for a little over 7 percent of the states total population more than double the national rate. That reflects the kind of economy that Nevada has where the jobs are accessible to this population Passel said. Even as Nevada sees success in diversifying its economy through logistics manufacturing and aerospace as well as the arrival of tech heavyweights such as Apple Tesla and Google its tourism and gaming industry remain a big part of the state economy. Nationwide 10 percent of U.S. immigrants work in the leisure and hospitality industry. In Nevada the number shoots up to 26 percent according to a 2015 Pew Research Center employment study. The large share that immigrants hold in certain jobs sectors is raising concerns among some groups about the impact on opportunities for native-born residents. Every policy including immigration will always have winners and losers said Steven Camarota director of research at the Center for Immigration Studies. The Washington D.C.-based organization advocates for lower rates of immigration and is no stranger to controversy arising from its views. If you like the benefits that immigration creates then youve got to own the income redistribution which is huge and often comes out of the wages of the least educated and poorest Americans Camarota said. They are disproportionately represented among the losers. A look at the top 10 jobs with workers that are most likely to be immigrants include stylists agricultural work tailoring transportation and construction according to data from the Pew Research Center. An estimated 59 percent of plasterers and stucco masons are immigrants. Of that number 36 percent are undocumented. Representatives of the construction industry point to the challenge of finding workers domestically which is further aggravated today by strong building demand stemming from a nationwide housing shortage. In addition to losing workers from retirement as well as the Great Recession there is often a stigma attached to construction which is sometimes seen as a career of last resort said Brian Turmail senior director of public affairs for the Associated General Contractors of America. You cant have it both ways Turmail said. You cant disinvest in vocational education (for construction) and expect to have a robust construction workforce. The same argument is being used by other sectors that hire employees through work visas. Whether it be skilled technology workers through H-1B visas or service workers using J-1 visas many companies depend on that workforce to deal with critical shortages in their hiring pool said Mike Kazmierski president and CEO of the Economic Development Authority of Western Nevada. One solution that is often suggested to attract more non-immigrant workers to do less skilled jobs is to raise wages. Kazmierski however says that increasing worker pay is easier said than done. All that companies will do is pass the costs to their customers Kazmierski said. If your prices are too high then youre no longer competitive and you go out of business. Critics are not buying the business cost argument. Camarota pointed to real wages for U.S. workers being essentially flat in the last three-and-a-half decades which is backed by data from the Pew Research Center as well as the more labor-leaning Economic Policy Institute. Camarota tied everything back once more to income redistribution echoing an opinion by Harvard Kennedy School professor and labor economist George Borjas. Wages do not vanish into thin air Camarota said. What immigration has done is redistribute income around from some workers to the owners of capital. Entrepreneurial drive I SAW MY FATHER STRUGGLE IMMIGRATING TO (OTHER) COUNTRIES SETTING UP JOBS AND WORKING FOR OTHER PEOPLE. Like the tea that his company makes Kunall Patel is a product of the world. Born in Kenya the 37-year-old Patel spent his formative years living in India Portugal and the United Kingdom as his father chased opportunities wherever he could find them. Although the experience enriched Patels worldview it also showed him the harsher side of immigration. I saw my father struggle immigrating to those countries setting up jobs and working for other people Patel said. For some reason we just never made it. Patel cited the experience as one reason for developing a strong laser-focused drive to succeed. From Wales Patel moved to New Jersey in 2001 to finish college landing a job with JPMorgan Chase in New York City once he graduated. It was after marrying a third-generation organic tea grower however that Patel would find his true calling. Patel and wife Promilla whose family has been growing tea since the 1920s decided to go west from New York after buying an old tea company in Reno called Davidson Organics. Since taking over the business 10 years ago the couple has invested half a million dollars in new machinery and infrastructure while growing its original staff of six to about 30 people. For the well-traveled Patel running a company that sources its teas from various countries was a perfect fit. Tea is a melting pot Patel said. Its comprised of ingredients from different regions and cultures and ethnicities. In that sense tea serves as the perfect metaphor for the United States diversity Patel said. It also symbolizes one of the most powerful hooks for immigrants to come to America: entrepreneurship. Kent Young CEO of Nevada-based internet gaming business Spin Games started two companies after moving to the United States from Australia in 2000. One was sold successfully within two years of its creation and the other continues to grow he said. Young also counts two more immigrants one from India and another from Belgium in his companys executive team. Spin Games CEO Kent Young is originally from Australia. Besides Young the companys president and director of product development are also immigrants.(Photo: Johnstone Studios) Young who became an American citizen two years ago credits the business environment and market opportunities available in the United States for his success. Starting a company in the United States is also easier with laws being more conducive to entrepreneurship he said. Compared to Australia the market here is generally a lot more open to being successful for entrepreneurs Young said. The ability to start a business is a lot more seamless. It is a notion shared by many immigrants. While immigrants represent 15 percent of the population they account for a quarter of U.S. entrepreneurs according to a 2016 analysis by the Harvard Business Review. Immigrants also represent a similar share of patents and inventions. The same analysis found that 35 percent to 40 percent of new firms have at least one immigrant entrepreneur involved in their founding. Although high-profile companies with venture capital backing such as drone delivery company Flirtey typically get most of the attention immigrants are making their mark in the small business sector as well. The business ownership rate for immigrants is at 10.5 percent compared to 9.3 percent for U.S.-born citizens according to a 2012 Small Business Administration report on immigrant entrepreneurs. The difference is more notable when looking at the number of businesses formed each month. About 620 out of 100000 immigrants start a business per month compared to 280 out of 100000 for non-immigrants. Although there might be some merit to arguments about immigrants being uniquely entrepreneurial or innovative Camarota of the Center for Immigration Studies says theres likely another reason for their higher rates of patent and business creation. It mainly reflects their educational attainment Camarota said. A report released earlier this year by the U.S. Census Bureau found that about a third of Americans age 25 and older have college degrees. The number is a slight improvement over the 30 percent reported by Pew in 2015. That same Pew report however found that a higher rate of immigrants 41 percent who came to the U.S. in the last five years had a college degree. Pews Passel also notes that there is a distinction between undocumented and legal immigrants. While undocumented immigrants typically have lower levels of education legal immigrants have higher rates for obtaining college degrees. Regardless the impact of immigrants on the U.S. economy is significant according to the Small Business Administration. Immigrants have high business formation rates and many of the businesses they create are very successful hire employees and export goods and services to other countries the SBA wrote in its report about immigrant entrepreneurs. Clark Dixon Ravanes 20 talks about his experiences working in the United States from inside a motel room he shares with five other people in downtown Reno. (Photo: Jason Hidalgo) Hunger and ambition AS LONG AS YOURE IN THE UNITED STATES ITS STILL BEAUTIFUL. A box of American candies and canned meat lies on the floor of the Time Zone Motel in Reno a telltale sign for Filipinos that someone is going back home. American items have been a popular pasalubong or souvenir to bring home to the Philippines since World War II when American GIs shared Milky Way bars Spam and Marlboro cigarettes to the Filipinos they encountered. This box belongs to Ravanes who quickly filled it up after being introduced to an American consumer tradition known as the Costco run. He looked at the box flashed a sheepish smile and simply shook his head. I spent so much Ravanes said. Ravanes adventures in capitalism further sank him in the red. The money he earned for a couple months work although a lot by Filipino standards did not come close to the $6000 in travel expenses and fees he and his companions each paid to a Filipino agency to take part in the exchange program. They told us we would be staying for three months to work and have an extra month to travel said 21-year-old Honey Mae Canoy. But we were only here for two and a half months. Despite the cost and challenges they faced all six described their time in the United States as an overwhelmingly positive experience. Elah Kaye Bajao 20 did not even mind being squeezed into a tiny motel room like sardines with a bunch of other people. For Bajao just being able to experience living and working in America made everything worth it. As long as youre in the United States its still beautiful Bajao said. The six Filipinos say that they are more determined than ever to look for programs that will give them an opportunity to gain permanent employment in the U.S and join its large immigrant labor force. Its a workforce that continues to grow. In 1995 immigrants accounted for 12 percent of the U.S. civilian labor force according to the Pew Research Center. By 2014 they comprised 17.1 percent of the U.S. workforce 27.6 million out of 161.4 million workers. Davidson Organics co-owner Kunall Patel plucks tea leaves in Selimbong Small Farmer Tea Garden in Darjeeling India.(Photo: Davidson Organics) The number is expected to grow even more. As boomers enter retirement immigrants are expected to fuel the nations expanding workforce adding 17.6 million workers through 2035. Without immigrants the U.S. working-age population would drop by more than 4 percent during the same time period. Legal immigration averages just over a million per year according to the National Academy of Sciences. At the same time immigration continues to be a polarizing topic especially when it concerns unauthorized immigrants. In 1995 there were 5.7 million undocumented immigrants in the United States. By 2014 that number has nearly doubled to 11.1 million the National Academy of Sciences found. There is a reason why immigration reform continues to languish despite shared support from lawmakers across the aisle as well as business and civil rights groups Camarota said. When you have the editorial pages of the New York Times and Wall Street Journal in favor (of immigration reform) thats a pretty darn broad coalition Camarota said. And the reason it fails is because one interest group remains unconvinced and thats the public. The argument raised by critics against more immigration run the gamut from lowering wages and taking jobs from native-born workersto siphoning resources from public programs. The National Academy of Sciences study however found that immigrations impact on wages and native-born workers are minimal. While immigration reduces the hours worked mostly by native teens for example it does not reduce their employment levels the study found. Impacts on federal state and local budgets meanwhile show an interesting dichotomy. First-generation immigrants had a less favorable impact on government budgets but the trend reverses at age 60 when native-born citizens become more expensive due to a greater use of Social Security benefits. Second-generation immigrant adults meanwhile showed more favorable impacts contributing more in taxes than their parents or other native-born Americans. Immigrants also showed a generally negative effect on state and local budgets. This is largely due to education benefits provided to children combined with revenue systems that recoup relatively little from their later contributions as adults the study found. Conversely immigrants provided a generally positive impact at the federal level due to their tax contributions over several years. Immigrants such as Young pushed back against the notion that they have it easier or possess an unfair advantage. The market and infrastructure in America really allows everyone to take advantage of opportunities Young said. If youre willing to put in the hard work then it pays dividends. Patel agreed. If there is one advantage immigrants might have it would be the shared hardship many of them experience prior to arriving in the United States. Seeing your parents struggle even after working so hard can be a powerful source of motivation according to Patel. Many come to America knowing that their hard work more often than not will be rewarded. One reason you see immigrants become successful is because they are hungry Patel said. Many have seen their families struggle or fail in the past so they come here wanting to be successful. Theyll sweep the floors if they have to in order to understand what it takes to rise up the ranks. The post Chasing The American Dream appeared first on Immigration Law Firms. via Immigration Law Firms https://immigrationlawctr.com/chasing-american-dream/

The Los Angeles Daily News reporter Elizabeth Chou wrote today about the Immigration Bill discussions in the House of Representatives. This highly controversial issue will require a great degree of cooperation from both political parties to be resolved. This file photo shows Mayor Eric Garcetti at Los Angeles City Hall. Ms. Chou writes: Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti panned a pair of bills aimed at cracking down on illegal immigration that cleared the U.S. House of Representatives Thursday evening saying the GOP-backed measures run counter to the spirit of cooperation that the city has built with its immigrant communities. Safety in our city depends on a spirit of trust cooperation and partnership that we have built carefully over decades in Los Angeles he said. The policies that guide our officers interaction with immigrants are well within the law and the legislation passed today in the House would do nothing to make our communities better or safer. He went to say lawmakers should spend more time fixing the nations broken immigration laws. Congress should turn its attention toward the comprehensive immigration reform that America needs and deserves he said. The House voted 228-195 to approve H.R. 3003 a bill also known as The No Sanctuary for Criminals Act that would penalize cities that take certain actions limiting enforcement efforts by federal immigration officials. RELATED STORY: LA leaders approve $2 million for legal fund to defend immigrants facing deportation The bill would allow federal funds to be withheld from cities and other jurisdictions that prevent their officers from communicating with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Jurisdictions that comply with requests from federal immigration enforcement officials to detain people would gain protections from being sued under the bill. Victims of a crime would also obtain greater ability to sue jurisdictions that do not comply with requests to detain immigrants with criminal histories. Also in the bill are provisions that would make sure immigrants who are in the country unlawfully and have convictions or arrests for driving under the influence are kept in detention during removal proceedings. The House also voted 257-167 to pass H.R. 3004 or Kates Law which would impose harsher penalties for someone with a felony who returns to the United States after being deported. The legislation is named after Kate Steinle who was shot and killed two years ago in San Francisco reportedly by a man with a lengthy criminal record who had been deported five times. Corresponding bills in the Senate still need to be approved before the measures can move to President Donald Trumps desk for signing. Rep. Darrell Issa R-Vista hailed House passage of the two bills saying they would beef up enforcement of federal immigration laws and increase safety. Two years ago Kate Steinle died needlessly at the hands of a criminal alien repeatedly deported and convicted of numerous felonies he said in a statement. Her death is made all the more devastating given how preventable it was had our immigration laws been enforced. Rep. Judy Chu D-Pasadena slammed the bills calling them a return to the Republican Partys strategy of fear and punishment on the issue of immigration. The bill targeting so-called sanctuary jurisdictions effectively declares war on American cities law enforcement and immigrant communities by making deporting immigrants more of a priority than protecting communities she said. Chu added that Kates Law is even worse pointing to provisions in it that she said criminalize immigrants trying to rejoin their families or refugees fleeing violence. This is shameful she added. And it doesnt even accomplish what it sets out to do. Kate Steinle whose tragic death inspired this law would not have been saved had this law been in place as her murderer repeatedly crossed the border despite serving 16 years in prison. article source:http://www.dailynews.com The post Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti Criticizes Houses Immigration Bill appeared first on Immigration Law Firms. via Immigration Law Firms https://immigrationlawctr.com/los-angeles-mayor-eric-garcetti-criticizes-houses-immigration-bill/

Immigration Info
Address : 299 N Main Ave
San Antonio, TX 78205

Tel # : (866) 978-9220

email: info@immigrationlawctr.com

Immigration Lawyers | Immigration Attorneys Specializing In Deportation Visas And Citizenship Cases | Trusted Local Immigration Law Firms In Your Area

Website URL: http://immigrationlawctr.com/