How will we know border is 'secure'?

Arizona Republic
February 1, 2013
by Bob Ortega and Rebekah Sanders

As Congress moves to tackle meaningful immigration reform this year, one of the obstacles may be determining when the border between the U.S. and Mexico can be declared secure.

For years, even as border enforcement increased dramatically, Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer and other critics charged that the federal government doesn't do enough to prevent illegal immigrants and drugs from crossing the border and that the border must be secure before there can be any action on immigration reform.

But a secure border is in the eye of the beholder.


There isn't a specific point at which one can declare the border is secure, said Jessica Zuckerman, Homeland Security research associate at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank.
"It's a fictitious point," she said. "We can always do more. What we need to do is make the best decisions about what we should do."

A bipartisan proposal put forward Monday by eight senators, including Republicans John McCain and Jeff Flake of Arizona, aims to shift the discussion by moving on immigration reform and border security at the same time.

The plan would allow undocumented immigrants to apply for legal permanent status and eventually earn citizenship.

But the path to citizenship would stay on hold until the Department of Homeland Security, advised by a commission of border governors, state attorneys general and other border-community leaders, agreed that the border was secure.

On Tuesday, President Barack Obama unveiled his own immigration-reform proposal. He didn't peg reform to better border security but called for more spending on surveillance and other technology along the border. He also proposed upgrading infrastructure at various ports of entry.

Defining a secure border is as much a matter of politics as numbers, said Doris Meissner, a senior fellow at the nonpartisan Migration Policy Institute and former commissioner of the Immigration and Naturalization Service under President Bill Clinton.

"Border enforcement has been a conversation stopper for at least six years," she said. "So, it is high time, given the incredible investment we've made, to get past the simplistic statement that our borders are out of control and talk in an informed way about how you assess the billions that Congress has invested in border security."

In 1986, as part of a law that offered amnesty to undocumented migrants, Congress began increasing funding for border security, a move that gained momentum after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
Since 1986, the government has spent more than $219 billion, adjusted for inflation, on the border and immigration enforcement. Last fiscal year alone, two agencies, Customs and Border Protection and Immigration and Customs Enforcement, spent more than $17.9 billion.

In the past seven years, the number of Border Patrol agents has doubled to more than 21,000. The fence along the southwestern border has grown to more than 641 miles from 135 miles in 2005.
Apprehensions of undocumented migrants, since peaking at 1.7 million in 2000, dropped to 340,252 in fiscal 2011, the last year for which figures are available.

The Border Patrol says enhanced security has made it more difficult and dangerous to cross illegally, discouraging such attempts; analysts say the economic downturn played a major role.
The rapid increase in Border Patrol staffing has been problematic.

According to an internal Homeland Security report obtained by the Center for Investigative Reporting, lower standards and reduced screening of candidates has left the Border Patrol vulnerable to corruption.

In the past eight years, 147 agents and officers have been convicted of or charged with corruption-related offenses such as accepting bribes to let drugs in and stealing government money.

In one recent example, two months ago in Yuma, officials say an agent hired in 2010 was arrested while loading 150 pounds of marijuana into his patrol vehicle while he was on duty.

Then, too, the Border Patrol hasn't developed good ways of measuring how effectively it uses its agents and other resources, according to a Government Accountability Office study released last month.

The GAO said the Border Patrol also hasn't set clear goals or timelines for improving.

On Monday night, more than 100 southern Arizona residents packed a town hall in Douglas, a few blocks from the reddish metal border fence and a busy port of entry, to talk with U.S. Rep. Ron Barber, D-Ariz., about border security and the GAO report.

Barber said the Border Patrol needs to do better.

"If you (get) hundreds of new agents and you have lots of new technologies, lots of mobile surveillance systems, and you have a lot of sensors, and you have drones, all of these new assets, and we still have a very high level of illegal traffic, both people and drugs, there's something missing," the congressman said. "What I think is missing is what this study revealed -- that the Border Patrol does not yet have good goals that can be measured and good decision-making about where to deploy these assets."

At the meeting, ranchers complained about agents being stationed 25 miles or more north of the border, sometimes facing north, allowing smugglers to cross through ranchlands that sprawl east of Douglas. Ranchers said they feared dangerous encounters with smugglers as well as lost cattle when smugglers cut their fences to pass through.

Asked if the answer is to hire more Border Patrol agents, one rancher said, "Hell no. We have too much damn Border Patrol. We don't need more."

Instead, the ranchers repeatedly called for agents to patrol closer to the border.

"We feel our pleas for help have been neglected," said Sue Krentz, widow of Robert Krentz, who was killed on their ranch in 2010, reigniting the border-security debate across the country. "I believe the Border Patrol is doing their honest best. But it's like in your home: You don't let people walk through your living room."

Acting Chief Patrol Agent Manuel Padilla Jr., the Border Patrol's top agent in the area, said the agency understands the concerns and is developing a strategy to address them.

"If you go back to 2004 in Douglas, we saw huge groups of people and narcotics driving through the streets. It was a chaotic border environment. ... That is no more," Padilla said. "However, we do have a lot of work to do because that traffic has now moved into the more difficult terrain for us to detect and respond to that traffic."

In a phone interview Wednesday, Meissner said Homeland Security has been developing better performance yardsticks for the Border Patrol and Customs and Border Protection, centering on using surveillance and other data to show not just how many people they are apprehending, but how that compares with the ones who get away.

Homeland Security is completing an index of data on border trends, based on comments by outside reviewers, spokesman Peter Boogaard said in a written statement.

Meissner said Homeland Security needs to try harder to make that information public. She said she supports the proposed commission.

By involving governors and others in border states whose views may differ from the rest of the country, it offers an opportunity to discuss appropriate levels of security.

But not everyone is convinced that defining how secure the border is will hold up immigration reform.

"What they're proposing is a fig leaf," said Steven Camarota, director of research at the Center for Immigration Studies, which advocates for robust enforcement of immigration laws. By giving undocumented immigrants provisional legal status immediately, "any talk of the amnesty being contingent on enforcement is made meaningless on the first day," he said.

Zuckerman, at the Heritage Institute, which opposes linking immigration reform to border security, said, "Both proposals were just laying out principles. Until we see legislation, we're not going to know what some of this means."


http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/2013/01/30/20130130how-will-we-know-border-secure.html#ixzz2JiLsUxsb

Key question in immigration debate: Is U.S. border secure?

Washington Post
January 30, 2013
by David Nakamura

The debate over a national immigration overhaul has quickly begun to focus on a key question: Are the U.S. borders secure enough?

Leading Republicans say much more needs to be done to control the illegal flow of migrants from Mexico, and they have vowed not to authorize a path to citizenship for the nation’s 11 million undocumented residents until stricter enforcement provisions are in place.

But the Obama administration contends that it has invested more heavily in enforcement efforts than ever before. Several high-profile studies have found that the federal response has helped reduce the flow of illegal immigrants, bringing net migration between the United States and Mexico to a virtual standstill.

Last year, the government spent $18 billion on immigration control, 24 percent more than all other federal law enforcement agencies combined, according to a study released this month by the nonpartisan Migration Policy Institute. The Obama administration deported nearly 410,000 people in 2012 — a record, and 25 percent more than in 2007.

At the same time, the number of people apprehended at the Mexican border trying to enter the United States dropped to 340,000, a 40-year low, in 2011. Immigration advocates say the decline shows that the heavy investment in border agents and surveillance technology has effectively deterred foreign nationals from attempting to cross.

Obama administration officials also say the government has largely met, and in some cases surpassed, enforcement benchmarks set in 2007, when a comprehensive immigration reform bill failed in the Senate in part because of concerns about border control.

“I certainly feel very comfortable saying that never before has the border been as protected as it is now,” said Nestor Rodriguez, a sociology professor at the University of Texas who has studied immigration from Mexico and Central America. “The large undocumented population is partly a result of that success: People are afraid to go back home because it’s hard to get back in.”

That progress, advocates say, largely renders moot the demand from leading Republicans, including Sen. Marco Rubio (Fla.), that a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants be contingent on stricter border-control measures that remain largely undefined.

“Incredible resources have been spent on the interior and border enforcement, and we need to make sure the road to citizenship is not subject to that,” said Marielena Hincapie, executive director of the National Immigration Law Center. The GOP position “raises the question of whether the border can ever be completely secured and is that road to citizenship even achievable or not?”

The issue is quickly emerging as a key obstacle in the latest round of immigration reform negotiations. Talk show host Rush Limbaugh pressed Rubio on Tuesday to vow he would not support a path to citizenship without tying it to stricter border control.

“If there is not language in this bill that guarantees that nothing else will happen unless these enforcement mechanisms are in place, I won’t support it,” Rubio responded.

Obama has also emphasized that he supports increased enforcement at the border as a key element of any immigration plan. But he did not endorse a proposal this week from Rubio and seven other senators that would establish a border commission to monitor security and make recommendations that would be used as a “trigger” to allow undocumented migrants to pursue citizenship.

Administration officials and advocates fear such a mechanism could create long delays and create a class of legal residents without full benefits.

With border apprehensions plummeting in recent years, most experts agree that the number of migrants attempting to enter the United States illegally has probably dropped sharply. They attribute the trend to several factors, including reduced labor demand in the United States as the result of a sluggish economy.

Still, the experts agree that federal enforcement is also a likely reason for the reduced flow. Increased federal funding has paid for more than 21,000 federal agents at the border with Mexico, 651 miles of fencing, 300 camera towers and nine surveillance drones to monitor remote areas.

Last April, the Pew Hispanic Center found that the net migration between the United States and Mexico had fallen to zero, reversing four decades of “the largest wave of immigration in history from a single country to the United States.”

Marc Rosenblum, an immigration policy specialist for the Congressional Research Service, wrote in a report last year that Congress “may consider the possibility that certain additional investments at the border may be met with diminishing returns.”

Republicans argue that as the U.S. economy improves, the flow of undocumented workers is likely to pick up again. And they cite a report last month from the Government Accountability Office that determined that the U.S. Border Patrol was intercepting just 61 percent of migrants who attempted to cross illegally into the country from Mexico.

That study found that the agency was unable to apprehend nearly 209,000 migrants at the border, of which about 86,000 successfully escaped into the United States. Both numbers, however, were down significantly from 2006.

“There has been some progress,” said House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Michael McCaul (R-Tex.). “But the bottom line is that we are far from having operational control of our borders.”

Rubio and other GOP leaders also include improved workplace verification of immigration status as part of the broad conversation over enforcement. Democrats, including Obama, agree that new safeguards must be established to help employers identify undocumented workers.

Some conservatives view worker identification as a more vital issue. Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, which promotes stricter immigration control, said the border commission proposed by the Senate working group is “a gimmick” that has little value but is designed to appeal to conservatives who would otherwise reject comprehensive reform efforts.

“It’s easier to talk about fences and border-control agents than it is to deal with the more difficult issues of work-site enforcement,” Krikorian said.

The National Association of Retired Border Patrol Officials has opposed allowing illegal immigrants to become legal residents, saying it rewards lawbreakers. But many retired agents agree that the number of illegal migrants has fallen dramatically.

“We have never seen the level of control we have now,” said David B. Ham, a retired Border Patrol officer and president of the National Border Patrol Museum in El Paso. “The numbers are way down — there’s no doubt.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/key-question-in-immigration-debate-is-us-border-secure/2013/01/30/0c20b168-6afc-11e2-95b3-272d604a10a3_story_1.html

Senators reinforce call for tightened borders as part of immigration reform

The Guardian
January 30, 2013
by Karen McVeigh

The citizenship ambitions of an estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants in the US could rest on a fight over the definition of what constitutes a secure border, experts predict.

Barack Obama, in a milestone speech on immigration reform on Tuesday, echoed Republicans' tough language on border enforcement. But he did not go as far as a demand by a bipartisan group of senators that the US border be declared secure before people who are in the US illegally be given a "path to citizenship".

Those senators argue that a commission be set up to rule on whether the border is secure before a single undocumented immigrant is given a chance to move towards a fully legal status. Obama's failure to endorse explicitly that demand has already raised suspicions among Republicans.

Marco Rubio, a prominent Latino senator and one of the eight who set out their own proposals a day earlier, warned the president not to ignore his party's concerns about border security. "I think that would be a terrible mistake," Rubio told Fox News. "We have a bipartisan group of senators that have agreed to that. For the president to try to move the goalposts on that specific requirement, as an example, does not bode well in terms of what his role's going to be in this or the outcome." He added: "If that's not in the bill, I won't support it." 

Senator Jeff Flake, a newly elected Republican senator for the border state of Arizona, echoed Rubio's demand for a clear statement from an independent commission on border security. "This provision is key to ensuring that border security is achieved, and is also necessary to ensure that a reform package can actually move through Congress," he said in remarks quoted by Reuters.

The question of what constitutes a secure border is likely to be be crucial in determining the success of the latest plans to reform what is widely accepted to be a "broken" immigration system.

A framework set out by the bipartisan "gang of eight" senators on Monday talks about the need to "prevent, detect and apprehend every entry". But Michelle Mittelstadt, director of communications at the Migration Policy Institute, said it would be impossible to meet that demand literally. "If it has to reach a point where there are zero illegal entrants – that is just not achievable," she said. "No police force could guarantee on an annual basis that there would be zero homicides or zero crimes of violence."

The demands for "enforcement first" stem from previous attempts at immigration reform. But despite the implicit suggestion that border security is lax, the opposite is true.

The number of border control agents has doubled in six years, and there has been a massive increase in federal spending on enforcement. Last month, a report by the Migration Policy Institute, Immigration Enforcement in the United States: The rise of a Formidable Machinery, found that the Obama administration spent $18bn on immigration enforcement last year, significantly more than its spending on all the other major federal law enforcement agencies combined.

"We've sketched a dramatic transformation of the immigration enforcement system since 1986," said Mittelstadt. She said it had reached a "level unparalleled in this country's history".

Obama noted in his speech on Tuesday that the "tide of illegal immigrants" from Mexico had been stemmed by increased border security. "We put more boots on the ground on the southern border than at any time in our history. And today, illegal crossings are down nearly 80% from their peak in 2000," he said. Obama also noted that deportations of criminals "is at its highest level ever".

But Thad Bingel, who was chief of staff, US Customs and Border Protection from 2005 to 2009, said the legacy of the last overhaul over the immigration laws, the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, had created a generation sceptical of reform without border control.

"Even although we've seen significant progress, there's a recognition from the senators that the public need to be convinced that we have not done enough. I agree with that. You need to assure people." He agreed with the senators' proposal on how to define border security. "They want to have a commission made up of attorney generals, governors and leaders of the border states, and that makes sense. The sticking part will be the membership of that commission and what its powers are."

Bingel cited a doubling of border patrol agents, from 10,000 in 2004 to 21,000 today as one of many recent improvements. There had also been a drop in the number of people apprehended for attempting to cross the border illegally, from about one million a year in 2000 to 327,000 in 2011. "That is significant progress. But the debate now is what will be an acceptable number," he said.

He said that border security has a different meaning today, pointing out that 50% of those who are in the US illegally had entered the country legally, but overstayed their visas. That posed different challenges: "You need a mix of things, including technology on the border itself, employment verification and an exit control system on land, looking at documents that can be scanned when someone leaves the country."

Bingel also said border security had become more dangerous. "It's a different battle now. Because the border had become more difficult to cross, we have seen an increase in criminal organisations using more violent tactics to defeat border security. Organisations that used to smuggle narcotics have diversified into people smuggling. You need a different set of tools."

Mittelstadt, of the Migration Policy Institute, said that the answer to the question of border security was not more enforcement but to look at where the gaps were. "More enforcement of the existing system will not yield results. There continue to be gaps and one is in employment enforcement. What is needed is to address those gaps."

Mittelstadt welcomed the framework set out by the bipartisan group of eight senators as a "significant breakthrough". But she added: "It is, however, just a framework. There remains the filling in of details between the document and the legislative text."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jan/30/republicans-border-control-immigration-plan

Obama pushes Congress on immigration, split emerges

Reuters
January 29, 2013
by Matt Spetalnick

Just over a week into his second term, President Barack Obama took his fight for immigration reform to the West on Tuesday and pushed Congress to quickly find a path to citizenship for 11 million undocumented residents.
But as Obama praised a bipartisan immigration plan during a speech in Las Vegas, disagreement emerged between the White House and Republicans that underscored the difficulty of resolving an emotive issue that has long defied a legislative fix.

"I'm here today because the time has come for common-sense, comprehensive immigration reform," Obama said at a high school. "The time is now. Now is the time."

After years on the back burner, immigration reform has suddenly looked possible as Republicans, chastened by Latino voters who rejected them in the November election, appear more willing to accept a thorough overhaul.

Action on immigration was sidelined by economic issues and healthcare reform during Obama's first term but it is part of an ambitious liberal agenda the Democratic president laid out last week in his second inaugural address. That agenda also includes gun control, gay rights and fighting climate change.

Hispanic voters were crucial in winning Nevada for Obama in November and the crowd at the high school was supportive.

"Si se puede," yelled some, using a Spanish phrase that harked back to Obama's 2008 "Yes we can" campaign slogan. Some in the audience were brought to tears when he talked about the difficulties some immigrants have experienced.

In Washington, however, differences quickly emerged between what Obama would like and the proposals by the bipartisan "Gang of Eight" senators, whose plan is heavy on border security.

Obama pushed for a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants that is faster than the one the Senate group proposed.

Rather than emphasize border security first, he would let undocumented immigrants get on a path to citizenship if they first undergo national security and criminal background checks, pay penalties, learn English and get behind those foreigners seeking to immigrate legally.

"We all agree that these men and women should have to earn their way to citizenship. But for comprehensive immigration reform to work, it must be clear from the outset that there is a pathway to citizenship," he said.

For Republicans, this is a sticking point. The Gang of Eight plan envisions first taking steps to toughen security along the U.S.-Mexican border before setting in motion the steps illegal immigrants must take to gain legal status.

That difference was enough to raise concerns among Republican lawmakers who are trying to frame a package that can pass the Republican-led House of Representatives.

RUBIO "CONCERNED"

A Hispanic Republican, Senator Marco Rubio, complained that Obama's speech neglected border security and left the impression that "he believes reforming immigration quickly is more important than reforming immigration right."

"I am concerned by the president's unwillingness to accept significant enforcement triggers before current undocumented immigrants can apply for a green card," he said. "Without such triggers in place, enforcement systems will never be implemented and we will be back in just a few years dealing with millions of new undocumented people in our country."

Republicans will likely oppose any immigration plan that doesn't put border security first.

"This provision is key to ensuring that border security is achieved, and is also necessary to ensure that a reform package can actually move through Congress," said newly elected Senator Jeff Flake of the border state of Arizona.

In addition, Obama made no mention of creating a temporary guest worker program geared to the low-skilled, labor-intensive agricultural industry. Labor unions do not yet support such a program.

Another point of contention is expected to be whether same-sex couples are granted the same benefits as heterosexual couples under immigration reform - something the White House says Obama will insist upon but which the Senate group did not deal with.

Obama's speech in Nevada, coming a little more than a week after his second inauguration, reflects the growing clout of Hispanic voters, as does Republican willingness to move on the issue.

The president said that if Congress is unable to act in a timely fashion, he will propose immigration legislation of his own and "insist that they vote on it right away."

Immigration reform could give Obama a landmark second-term legislative achievement, but the White House is mindful that success on such a divisive issue will require a delicate balancing act.

The last major attempt at an immigration overhaul was done by Republican President George W. Bush in 2007. It collapsed in Congress. Obama did not follow through with a promise to seek an overhaul in his first term, fearing a repeat of the earlier debacle.

"We can't allow immigration reform to get bogged down in an endless debate. We've been debating this a very long time. So it's not as if we don't know technically what needs to get done," Obama said.

Republicans who saw their presidential nominee, Mitt Romney, receive only 27 percent of the Hispanic vote in the election loss to Obama are adamant that steps must be taken to draw more Hispanics to their party's ranks.

This could be a slow process to change hearts and minds.

"I don't know about voting for them (the Republicans) yet but they definitely are starting to talk about things we want to hear," said Maxima Guerrero, 22, a community college student in Phoenix. Originally from Morelos, Mexico, she was brought to the United States at age five.

In addition to dealing with Republican demands, Obama needs to watch his left flank, where unions worry about temporary workers' programs.

And the American Civil Liberties Union warned against an erosion of rights under plans to tighten the employment verification system that determines whether a worker is in the United States legally.

"While there are components of the Senate plan that provide millions of aspiring citizens the legal status they deserve to live, work, and raise their families free of fear, others, such as mandating E-Verify and continued wasteful and unnecessary spending on the border, raise serious civil liberties concerns," said Anthony D. Romero, ACLU executive director.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/29/us-usa-immigration-obama-idUSBRE90S06U20130129

Want tighter border security? You’re already getting it.

Washington Post
January 29, 2013
by Suzy Khimm

Legislators have failed to pass a sweeping immigration overhaul for more than five years. But there’s one piece of the 2007 immigration reform bill that they’ve managed to accomplish: pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into border security.

Under the Senate’s new blueprint for reform, the legalization of undocumented immigrants would only happen if the government “finally commit[s] the resources needed to secure the border,” as well as strict visa enforcement for legal immigrants. It’s a provision that’s similar to Bush’s 2007 immigration bill, which also made legalization contingent on beefed-up border security.

The Senate’s language suggests that the government has held back from devoting money, equipment and personnel to border security. In fact, even though the 2007 immigration bill ultimately failed, we’ve nevertheless hit nearly all of the targets that it established for increased border security—except for achieving absolute “operational control” of the border and mandatory detention of all border-crossers who’ve been apprehended.

The 2007 bill sought to increase the number of Border Patrol agents to 20,000; in FY 2011, we hit 21,444 agents.

The 2007 bill proposed to erect 300 miles of vehicle barriers, 370 miles of fencing, 105 radar and camera towers, and four drones; by 2012, we completed 651 miles of vehicle fencing—including 352 miles of pedestrian fencing and 299 vehicle barriers—300 towers, and nine drones, according to Customs and Border Patrol.

The 2007 bill asked for the resources for Immigration and Customs Enforcement to detain up to 31,500 people per day; ICE now has funding to detain up to 34,000 individuals at any time, per FY 2012 appropriations.

Finally, the 2007 bill also called for what’s known as “operational control” of the entire border, which the 2006 Secure Fence Act defined as “the prevention of all unlawful entries into the United States, including entries by terrorists, other unlawful aliens, instruments of terrorism, narcotics, and other contraband.”

Experts generally agree that “absolute” control of the border is practically impossible, so DHS has instead defined “effective” operational control as “the ability to detect, respond, and interdict illegal activity at the border or after entry into the United States,” as a Congressional Research Service report explains. By that definition, the government had 57 percent of the southern border under “effective control,” up from 31 percent in 2007, due to the new border security measures that were implemented since then. (The 2007 bill also called for mandatory federal implementation of workplace immigration enforcement measures like E-Verify; these have only been put into effect by certain states.)

Such enforcement has come with a large price tag: Last year, Congress funded Customs and Border Protection at $11.7 billion—64 percent more than FY 2006 and $262 million more than in FY 2011, despite the new climate of austerity . And that doesn’t count the $600 million that Congress provided in a separate border security bill in 2010. But the Obama administration believes that it’s also paid dividends: In 2011, apprehensions at the border were at 340,252—the lowest level since 1971—while the Obama administration has deported immigrants at a faster rate than Bush.

Pro-immigration advocates believe that all this is proof that we’ve already done enough on the border security front. “The border security issue is, at this point, 90 to 95 percent solved,” says Frank Sharry, head of America’s Voice.

Republicans, however, contest the claim that border security has improved under Obama. They point out, for instance, that the drop in apprehensions simply reflects the fact that illegal immigration itself has fallen sharply since the U.S. economy has gone into free fall. Gordon Hanson, an economist at University of California, San Diego, disputes DHS’s definition of “effective control” of the border.

“I don’t think it has much scientific merit… It’s a measure of investment. It’s not a measure of return on investment,” Hanson told Politifact. He acknowledges, however, that increased enforcement has indeed contributed to at least half the drop in illegal immigration over the last five years.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/01/29/the-2007-immigration-bill-set-border-security-targets-weve-hit-most-of-them/

US immigration plan 'a good start': Proposal's tie to El Paso border region security questioned

El Paso Times
January 29, 2013
by Diana Washington Valdez

Community leaders and advocates in the El Paso border region said Monday that they welcome the news that U.S. lawmakers are working to adopt new immigration legislation aimed at legalizing the status of more than 11 million undocumented immigrants living in this country.   A group of U.S. senators on Monday announced their general framework for bipartisan immigration legislation. President Barack Obama plans to unveil his own proposal today in Nevada.

An estimated 11.5 million undocumented immigrants lived in the United States in 2011, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security reported last year, at least half of them in California and Texas.

The Center for Border Farm Workers in El Paso estimates that up to 30 percent of the 5,000 to 14,000 migrant workers in West Texas and Southern New Mexico are undocumented. The higher number is the most usually hired during peak harvest seasons.


U.S. Rep. Robert "Beto" O'Rourke, D-El Paso, said, "I am encouraged that it looks like Congress is finally going to address this issue. It's a good start. I am happy to see that the proposal includes a path to citizenship for 11 million people who are here in an undocumented status. I am also glad to see a fast-track plan for the Dreamers," referring to youths who were brought to the United States by undocumented parents and remain in an immigration limbo.

O'Rourke also said he believes he can use his role on the Homeland Security Committee to help propel sound immigration legislation.


He and Ruben Garcia, executive director of the Annunciation House, which assists at-risk migrants, said they challenge the notion that immigration reform must be conditioned on first assuring that the border is secure.

"I am surprised at the extent that 'securing the border' is still such a big part of the conversation, and that reform is being conditioned on making the border safe," Garcia said. "These legislators need to look at what the U.S. has done in relation to enforcement over the past 10 years. However, I am glad to see that the momentum for immigration reform is building, and I'm very happy that President Obama will speak about this (today)."


In recent years, crime statistics compiled each year by the FBI indicate that overall crime is down in U.S. cities along the border with Mexico. El Paso continues to be ranked among the safest cities for its size in the United States, despite its proximity to Juárez, Chihuahua, which experienced extraordinary levels of violence during the drug cartel wars of 2008-2012.

Eight Republican and Democrat U.S. senators released a copy of their general framework for immigration reform that includes these goals:

Creating a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, contingent upon securing the border and better tracking of people who are here on visas.

Reforming the legal immigration system, including awarding green cards to immigrants who obtain advanced degrees in science, math, technology or engineering from a U.S. university.

Creating an effective employment verification system to ensure that employers do not hire undocumented immigrants.

Allowing more low-skill workers into the country, and allowing employers to hire immigrants if they can demonstrate they were unable to recruit a U.S. citizen for the work; and establishing an agricultural worker program.

The senators who are expected to support these guiding principles for immigration reform are Democrats Charles Schumer of New York, Dick Durbin of Illinois, Robert Menendez of New Jersey and Michael Bennet of Colorado. The Republicans involved in the legislation are John McCain of Arizona, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Marco Rubio of Florida and Jeff Flake of Arizona.

"While there are still many details to be worked out, I recognize that in order to address the many facets of immigration reform, it's going to take a bipartisan commitment. Yes, 'the devil's in the details,' and not everyone is going to like everything, but sitting idly by is not a responsible approach," Flake said in a statement that covered details of the senators' proposal.

"I have always insisted that any reform plan not include a blanket amnesty and these principles reflect that. I'm also particularly pleased that there is bipartisan support to include the input of border communities," Flake said. "Not only will security be strengthened according to Washington, D.C,. but border communities will have a say as well."

Under the senators' proposal, the undocumented immigrants would have to pass background checks and pay fines and taxes in order to qualify for a probationary legal status that would allow them to live and work here. And they could not qualify for federal benefits, including health care, before being able to apply for permanent residency, the step toward citizenship.

Once they are allowed to apply, they would be allowed to do so only behind everyone else who is already in line for a green card within the current immigration system.

Sen. Tom Udall, D-N.M., said "I am very encouraged by the bipartisan framework that has been unveiled in the Senate to modernize our broken immigration system. Reform is long overdue. The proposal contains the elements necessary to overhaul the system, including securing our borders, a roadmap to earned citizenship and employment verification to hold employers accountable.

"I'm also pleased that it would provide further certainty for DREAMers and recognizes the importance of workforce stability within the agriculture industry. As a border state, this is good news for New Mexico," Udall said in a statement. "I look forward to reviewing the details of this legislation as it takes form and working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to give this issue the attention it deserves."

Besides politicians and advocates, religious leaders across the United States had called on Congress to adopt immigration reform.

In a statement, Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, said, "The senators have introduced principles for a bill that has a true chance of passing. I think they sense this is a real opportunity. Not only should we be encouraged but we should understand that this is truly what St. Paul would call a 'kairos,' or propitious, moment to be seized. The momentum needs to be used to pass significant and helpful immigration reform."

Carlos Marentes, director of the Border Farm Workers Center, which assists migrant agricultural workers in the region, and Fernando Garcia, executive director of the Border Network for Human Rights, a coalition of advocacy organizations, said they are glad to see U.S. lawmakers embark on immigration reform, but are troubled by some aspects of the senators' proposal.

"The Border Network recognizes this as a first and very important step to address the core issue of immigration reform, which is providing a path to citizenship for 11 million undocumented people living and working in the U.S.," said Garcia, who's unrelated to Ruben Garcia of the Annunciation House. "But we cannot ignore the problems within these principles. We are deeply concerned and disappointed that the senators would connect the much-needed legalization program to new border enforcement triggers and further militarization of our southern border.

The bipartisan proposal, Garcia said, calls for the deployment of more drones (unmanned aerial vehicles), more Border Patrol agents, more infrastructure and military technology, and for national, mandatory E-Verify, which would be very close to a national ID.

Marentes said he is concerned about the U.S. government might come up with a new "bracero-type" program for migrant farm workers that will permit employers to exploit them at will.

"We don't know what safeguards will be extended from this legislation to farmworkers," Marentes said.

"The new legislation, as proposed, is very different from the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act. I just can't see how you can end up with a just and humane law as long as immigration reform is being linked to the issue of national security."

http://www.elpasotimes.com/news/ci_22470164/immigration-plan-good-start

The Big Conversation

Texas Tribune
January 29, 2013
by David Muto

A major new federal immigration proposal has corralled bipartisan support, but Texas Republicans aren't biting.

The proposal — unveiled Monday by a group of four Republican and four Democratic U.S. senators — includes a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants and increased border security. The unveiling came a day before President Barack Obama is expected to lay out a plan of his own that is said to be moderately more liberal than the senators' proposal.

But in Texas, the senators' proposal isn't winning much GOP support. Both of the state's U.S. senators, Republicans John Cornyn and Ted Cruz, expressed reservations about the plan.

"There are some good elements in this proposal, especially increasing the resources and manpower to secure our border and also improving and streamlining legal immigration," Cruz said in a statement. "However, I have deep concerns with the proposed path to citizenship. To allow those who came here illegally to be placed on such a path is both inconsistent with rule of law and profoundly unfair to the millions of legal immigrants who waited years, if not decades, to come to America legally."

A spokeswoman for Cornyn told the The Dallas Morning News, "There are many facets to immigration reform, but one that must be addressed first and foremost is our porous border."

In a statement, U.S. Rep. Lamar Smith, a San Antonio Republican and member of the House Judiciary Committee's immigration subcommittee, called the plan "amnesty," adding, "When you legalize those who are in the country illegally, it costs taxpayers millions of dollars, costs American workers thousands of jobs and encourages more illegal immigration."

The opposition from Texas Republicans may mirror the pushback the plan receives from Republicans in Washington, especially in the GOP-controlled House, whose speaker, John Boehner, on Monday offered a tepid response to the proposal.

http://www.texastribune.org/2013/01/29/brief-top-texas-news-jan-29-2013/