Two reports with bearing on the immigration debate were released in Washington yesterday: an Urban Institute study finding that three-fourths of the 5.5 million children of undocumented parents were born in the United States and live under the fear that their parents will be arrested, separated from them or deported; and a study from the American Bar Association (ABA) concluding that the overload of deportation cases urgently requires restructuring of immigration law at both legislative and administrative levels.
Media outlets also continued coverage of Monday’s presentation of the President’s budget and its emphasis on funding deportation programs.
The New York Times today uncovers how U.S. immigration authorities under President Bush colluded with a Mississippi marine oil-rig company to punish workers exercising their basic labor rights. The article details shocking correspondence between the employer, Signal International, and the federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), which advised the company how to privately deport workers who were complaining about mistreatment on the job.
Apparently, ICE’s advice to the company was this:
Don’t give them any advance notice. Take them all out of the line on the way to work; get their personal belongings; get them in a van, and get their tickets, and get them to the airport, and send them back to India.
Outrageous.
The Signal case is a clear and compelling example of how the Bush Administration prioritized enforcement policies over labor rights to the detriment of all workers, as a recent report from American Rights at Work described and as we, at America’s Voice, have consistently highlighted.
Putting the needs of dishonest employers before the rights of workers is un-American. It’s time for a full investigation into the allegations of misconduct that occurred during the Bush years.
We need to ensure that the enforcement of immigration laws no longer trumps the protection of workers’ rights.
Andrea Nill reports at the Wonk Room on White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs’ statements yesterday evening, responding to growing criticism that President Obama did not say enough about immigration during his State of the Union address last week. Here is the video of Gibbs’ comments:
GIBBS: I think the President’s position on immigration reform and what he supports is enormously clear. He campaigned on it, he worked on legislation I think is quite similar to what would come up this year in the House or the Senate with people like John McCain or Lindsey Graham in 2005 and 2006 in the Senate. Like climate change there are bipartisan efforts that are ongoing to bring legislation like this to the fore and to create bipartisan majorities to get it passed. The president hosted a meeting here not too long ago to keep that process going and we look forward to taking part in it.
Nill argues that it is more crucial than ever to emphasize the economic merits of reform, with a bipartisan group in Congress slated to move it forward :
According to Gibbs, the question isn’t whether President Obama still supports passing comprehensive immigration reform, but rather, whether the White House can be convinced that there is enough bipartisan support to get it passed. A recent affirmative statement from Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) indicates that at least one key GOP member is reaching out to his colleagues and encouraging them to embrace the immigration issue. Meanwhile, the majority of Republican and Independent voters already support comprehensive immigration reform.
Ultimately, immigration has always come at the end of a long list of priorities and promises that President Obama optimistically pledged would be realized within his first couple years in office. Immigration advocates who would like to see the issue addressed in 2010 have already pointed out that immigration reform has become “low-hanging fruit” on a legislative tree that has fewer and fewer branches. Yet it’s perhaps even more critical to emphasize how immigration would fit into Obama’s broader policy agenda in terms of creating jobs, growing the Democratic Party, minimizing losses in 2010, and removing an obstructive wedge that has plagued American politics for decades.
Blogger Duke at The Sanctuary argues the pure political merits of passing reform now:
Yesterday, Rep. Luis Gutierrez sent a political warning to his fellow Democrats: If immigration reform doesn’t pass, as promised, Latinos won’t vote.
Without progress, the congressman warned that many Latinos would stay home from the polls.
According to exit polls, Obama received 70% of the Latino vote in 2008, boosting him to victory in the swing states of Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada and Florida.
A poll last December by Latino Decisions, a research team specializing in the Latino vote, found that significant numbers of Latino voters would defect without passage of immigration reform.
“Democrats have to be very careful that they don’t push Latinos from frustration to an active attitude of punishing them for inaction,” said Antonio Gonzalez, president of the William C. Velasquez Institute, a nonpartisan public policy analysis organization.
America’s Voice has been saying the same thing for months. The reason Barack Obama won states like Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico, and Florida was because of heightened Latino turnout and support. As a candidate, President Obama promised to pass immigration reform during his first year in office, winning him strong support among Latinos that continued through 2009. A poll conducted by Bendixen and Associates last May showed that 72% of Latinos trusted the president to keep that promise to pass reform, and 83% trust that he will ultimately “do the right thing” on immigration.
An under-reported development in 2008 was also the swing within the Latino immigrant vote (foreign-born, naturalized citizens who are Latino) – which swung from 52-48 Kerry-Bush to 75-25 Obama-McCain. Not only is the Latino immigrant vote a highly volatile segment of the Latino electorate, but immigration reform with a path to earned citizenship is a top issue priority for these voters.
In other words, Latino immigrant voters, are the group that Democrats need to consolidate and that Republicans can potentially0020chip away at (they can call it a “reconquista”).
La Opinión quotes Rep. Gutierrez saying, “I think we’re all disillusioned by the lack of importance the President gave the issue during his (State of the Union) address,” and warning that a failure to act on reform could have consequences for Democrats in November.
Univisión’s website, Univision.com, echoes the call to march, as does the EFE. The BBC’s website carries the headline “March will be ‘crucial’ month for immigration reform” (“Marzo, “crucial” para reforma migratoria”).
A blog post on MaribelHastings.com, an America’s Voice site, also notes Rep. Gutierrez’ warning that inaction on immigration reform could suppress voter turnout among Latinos.
Today, the AFL-CIO will host a forum in Los Angeles to debate immigration reform. La Opinión reports that the meeting, which will be held in LA’s historic Olvera Street neighborhood, will feature Representatives Luis Gutierrez (D-IL), Lucille Roybal-Allard (D-CA) and Judy Chu (D-CA); Bishop Alexander Salazar of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles; LAPD Chief Charlie Beck; Angélica Salas, Executive Director of CHIRLA; and Maria Elena Durazo of the AFL-CIO.
A Notimex feature story notes that the White House is pushing privately for immigration reform. The article includes quotes from Frank Sharry, Executive Director of America’s Voice, from a meeting with reporters last Friday.
Friday’s edition of San Diego’s La Prensa also included an op-ed column from Frank Sharry contradicting the conventional wisdom in Washington on immigration reform.
