Immigration Newsletter

Thursday, October 24, 2013

Obama Urges House Republicans to Act on Immigration - NYTimes.com

Obama Urges House Republicans to Act on Immigration - NYTimes.com


WASHINGTON — President Obama on Thursday renewed his call for an immigration overhaul, telling an audience of activists at the White House that the fate of a bipartisan Senate bill now rests with Republicans in the House.
“Anyone still standing in the way of this bipartisan reform should at least explain why,” Mr. Obama said to repeated applause in the East Room. “If House Republicans have new and different additional ideas for how we should move forward, then we should hear them. I will be listening.”
----
to see the rest of the article at NYTimes.com click the link above.

Thursday, October 10, 2013

Homepage | USCIS

Homepage | USCIS

USCIS.gov is moving to a new page format. Click the link to see what it will look like.

Wednesday, October 2, 2013

The Madness of U.S. Immigration Policy, Continued - Bloomberg

The Madness of U.S. Immigration Policy, Continued - Bloomberg
Here is an excerpt from an Editorial from Bloomberg (click the link to see the rest of the story)

Imagine if Congress mandated that an arbitrary number of jail cells be filled with prisoners -- regardless of the crime rate. Authorities would be required to incarcerate people, no matter the circumstances or the affront to human rights. That’s basically the state of immigration detention in the U.S.


Thanks to a line in the appropriations bill that finances the Department of Homeland Security, 34,000 beds must be available in immigration detention facilities regardless of the flow of illegal immigrants into the U.S. or the rate, or nature, of crimes they commit. The Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency interprets the mandate as a requirement to keep “a yearly average daily population of approximately 34,000 individuals,” former ICE Director John Morton told a congressional panel in March.
As the number of beds has increased -- from 19,702 in 2001 to 34,000 in 2012 -- the number of noncitizens detained has kept pace, at a cost of approximately $120 a day for each prisoner. This is what happens when public policy is written in reverse, mandating outcomes without regard to inputs.
Some detained noncitizens are violent criminals who need to be locked up. Others are mothers or fathers who have committed traffic violations. Their forced separation from families and jobs undermines both social cohesion and the economy -- at taxpayer expense.
Undocumented immigrants tracked in alternative (nondetention) programs appeared for administrative hearings more than 90 percent of the time, according to Julie Myers Wood, a former assistant secretary of Homeland Security in the George W. Bush administration. They complied with final orders 84 percent of the time. Yet ICE detains more than 400,000 immigrants in more than 250 jails and other facilities at an annual cost of $2 billion.
Why?
Partly because punitive actions against undocumented immigrants are popular in some congressional districts and partly because a more rational approach would disrupt cherished revenue streams. Private-prison lobbies have pushed to keep lucrative detention centers open. And local officials have “treated the increase in bed mandates as a source of revenue for counties and a job creator for their region,” according to a 2013 National Immigration Forum report.
-----

My comment:
This is what we call corporate welfare folks -- done at the expense of those who do not have much of a voice in US public policy (although perhaps that is changing). The idea of locking people up in jails without any real regard for whether or not they are dangerous or a flight risk, should cause American citizens shame. It is both "make work" big government spending and tax payer subsidy of for-profit business at the same time. It should be enough to make a Tea Party supporter's head explode -- but guess where it is most popular? I wonder what helps rationalize that cognitive dissonance? I let you the reader reach your own conclusion.