You are here: Home / Archives for FAIR Gov't Relations Team

House Passes VAWA, GOP Leaders Cave on Immigration

May 17, 2012 By FAIR Gov't Relations Team 18 Comments

On Wednesday evening, the House passed its version of the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act (VAWA), H.R. 4970, in a close 222-205 vote.

As introduced, H.R. 4970 would have taken steps to make the U visa a true non-immigrant visa. First, the original bill would have removed a provision from federal law that allows U visa holders to obtain legal permanent residency after three years, per the discretion of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Second, it would have prevented U visa holders from extending the temporary four-year visa period by an additional four-year period. (See H.R. 4970 § 806 as introduced) (To read more about the U Visa, see FAIR’s Policy Statement)

Unfortunately, over the weekend, House leadership changed course and decided to strip these provisions from the bill. According to news reports, House Leadership quietly invited outside groups — including the National Organization for Women and the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence — to the Capitol last weekend to develop the amendment package and win their support.

As a result, the night before the bill was to be voted on, the House Rules Committee adopted a manager’s amendment offered by Rep. Sandy Adams, the author of H.R. 4970, which weakened several of the key immigration provisions in the original bill. (See House Rules Committee Website)

As amended, the bill now provides that U visa holders will receive a green card if the offenders are aliens, are convicted, and are deported to the visa holder’s home country. Moreover, the amended bill reinstates a provision allowing aliens under the U visa program to extend their visa while waiting for a green card.

The amendment also weakens safeguards in the original bill to protect against fraud by lowering the standard of evidence required to demonstrate an alien was a victim before the government can cancel an order of removal against them and grant them a green card. (See H.R. 4970 § 801)

President Obama, nonetheless, has threatened to veto the House version of the bill due its immigration-related provisions, as well as unrelated provisions affecting tribal authority and the LGBT community. (Statement of Administration Policy, May 15, 2012)

It is now up to House and Senate conferees to draft a compromise of the chambers’ competing bills. Stay tuned to FAIR as details unfold…

Filed Under: Crime, Law, National, Politics, Population, Society

House Passes Important Immigration Measures

May 16, 2012 By FAIR Gov't Relations Team 2 Comments

The following story appeared in FAIR’s May 14 Legislative Update. To subscribe to FAIR’s Legislative Update click here.

Last Thursday, the House of Representatives passed several key immigration measures as part of broader bills.

First, the House adopted an amendment to H.R. 5326, the FY 2013 spending bill for the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and Science (CJS), that defunds the Obama Administration’s lawsuits against several states that seek to strike down their immigration enforcement laws. The amendment, introduced by Rep. Diane Black (R-TN), is based on a bill she introduced earlier this year (H.R. 3842) to defund the suits. (See FAIR Legislative Update, Jan. 17, 2012)

Second, the house adopted another amendment to the CJS appropriations bill that strips certain funding from sanctuary cities. The amendment, introduced by Rep. Joe Walsh (R-IL), prohibits the Department of Justice from reimbursing sanctuary cities through the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP). SCAAP provides federal funding to state and locals to defray the costs of incarcerating illegal aliens. (See Bureau of Justice Assistance Website, May 13, 2012)

Finally, as a part of a House budget reconciliation package aimed at saving hundreds of billions of dollars over the next decade, the House passed language proposed by Rep. Sam Johnson (R-TX) that would prevent illegal aliens from receiving of the additional child tax credit (ACTC). (See H.R. 5652 § 611; see also CQ Today, May 9, 2012) The ACTC is a refundable tax credit that allows individuals with three or more children to reduce their federal income tax by up to $1,000 for each child who meets certain criteria. (See TIGTA Report 2011-41-061, July 7, 2011)

Currently, illegal aliens are eligible for the ACTC because the IRS only requires applicants for the ACTC to provide an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (ITIN), which it indiscriminately hands out to illegal aliens. Last year, the Inspector General for the U.S. Treasury Department released a report revealing that illegal aliens annually receive $4.2 billion in refundable tax credits, primarily through the ACTC. (Id.; see also FAIR Legislative Update, Sept. 6, 2011)

Having passed both the CJS and budget reconciliation bills on Thursday, both bills are headed to the Senate. President Obama, however, has threatened to veto the CJS appropriations bill because of various amendments made to the bill, and Majority Leader Harry Reid has indicated that the Democrat-controlled Senate is unlikely to take up the Republican House’s budget reconciliation package. (Fox News, May 10, 2012; Wall Street Journal, May 10, 2012)

Filed Under: Border, Crime, Law, National, Politics, Population, Society

Justice Dept. Seeks to Intimidate Alabama School Districts

May 8, 2012 By FAIR Gov't Relations Team 1 Comment

The following story appeared in FAIR’s May 7 Legislative Update. To subscribe to FAIR’s Legislative Update click here.

In its relentless quest to prevent state and local officials from enforcing immigration laws, the Department of Justice (DOJ) last week sent another letter of intimidation to the Alabama State Department of Education. In the letter, Civil Rights Division chief Thomas Perez drops a thinly veiled threat of litigation to persuade Alabama officials to back away from its immigration enforcement law, HB 56, and specifically the provision that requires schools to collect immigration data on its students.

To-date, Perez writes, the DOJ investigation shows that “H.B. 56 has had significant and measurable impacts on Alabama’s school children.” These impacts, Perez states, have weighed most heavily on Hispanic and English language learner students.

Perez states these findings are based on local school data and anecdotal evidence. The local school data, which Perez says raises “significant concern,” shows that between the start of the school year and February 2012, 13.4 percent of Alabama’s Hispanic schoolchildren withdrew from school. Remarkably, however, Perez appears unable to explain whether those school children re-enrolled in the same school district, re-enrolled in another Alabama school district, or left the state. He also does not specify what the normal withdrawal rate is in any given year to provide context.

Perez cites no other data given to him by the Alabama Department of Education to support his conclusions. Instead, he writes that anecdotal evidence backs up his claim that HB 56 is unlawfully impacting Hispanics residing in Alabama. Writing with deliberate vagueness, Perez states that “many” Hispanic students reported staying home from school or withdrawing out of fear and that “many students” conveyed that HB 56 made them “feel unwelcome in the schools they had attended for years.” “Hispanic children,” he adds, “reported increased anxiety and diminished concentration in school, deteriorating grades, and increased hostility, bullying, and intimidation.”

This letter from the DOJ to the Alabama Department of Education is not the first. In November 2011, Perez sent a letter to Alabama demanding its schools provide data about student absenteeism since the beginning of the 2011-2012 school year. (See FAIR Legislative Update, Nov. 7, 2011) At first, Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange balked at the request for local school data, but later the state agreed to cooperate with the DOJ investigation. However, it appears that the local school data, which Alabama sent to the DOJ in early April, did not provide the DOJ with the evidence of discrimination it sought as the most recent letter focused almost entirely on anecdotal reports and recitations of existing federal law.

The timing of this last DOJ letter was also unmistakable. It was sent to Alabama officials the very week the state legislature was scheduled to debate and vote on changes to HB 56. As it turns out, however, the Alabama Senate postponed debate on the legislation to amend HB 56 (HB 658) to this week.

Filed Under: Crime, Jobs, Law, Local, National, Politics, Population, Society

Sen. Schumer Engages in Political Theater Prior to SB 1070 Hearing

May 2, 2012 By FAIR Gov't Relations Team 10 Comments

The following story appeared in FAIR’s May 1 Legislative Update. To subscribe to FAIR’s Legislative Update click here.

In an attempt to discredit Arizona’s immigration enforcement law the day before the U.S. Supreme Court was scheduled to hear oral arguments on it, Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) convened a hearing of the Senate Judiciary’s Immigration Subcommittee to examine the “constitutionality and prudence” of state and local immigration enforcement laws. (See Sen. Schumer Letter, Feb. 23, 2012)

Sen. Schumer, who chairs the Subcommittee, wasted no time before speaking out against the Arizona legislation, SB 1070. Calling it “counterproductive and unconstitutional,” he threatened to introduce a bill that would prohibit state and local police from enforcing immigration laws unless they are doing so pursuant to an explicit agreement with the federal government and are trained and supervised by federal officials. (Bloomberg Government Transcript, Apr. 24, 2012) Current law specifically provides that an agreement is not required for state and local officers to assist in the identification, apprehension, detention, or removal of illegal aliens. (INA § 287(g)(10); 8 U.S.C. 1357(g)(10))

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL), the only other Member of the Subcommittee to attend the hearing, echoed Schumer’s opposition to the law, and used the hearing as a platform for his failed DREAM Act. As an aide held up enlarged photographs of illegal alien minors that would qualify for amnesty under the DREAM Act, Sen. Durbin declared that it “is wrong and counterproductive to criminalize people because of their [immigration] status.” (Bloomberg Government Transcript, Apr. 24, 2012) He then argued that the several illegal alien minors whose photos he showcased would be deported if SB 1070 were allowed to go into effect.

Former President of the Arizona State Senate and author of SB 1070 Russell Pearce was the only witness invited to speak in support of the law. Underscoring the need for his legislation, Pearce told Sens. Schumer and Durbin that illegal immigration costs Arizonans billions annually. That figure, he told them, “is just to educate, medicate, and incarcerate and… don’t reflect the cost of crimes committed by those here illegally or jobs lost.” He also reminded them that several of the 9/11 hijackers were in the country illegally, emphasizing the connection between enforcement of immigration laws and terrorist threats. “Four of the five leaders of the 9/11 attack were in violation of our immigration laws and had contact with law enforcement and were not arrested. The failure to enforce the immigration laws was instrumental in the deaths of nearly 3,000 people on that tragic day in America,” he said.

Republicans on the Subcommittee boycotted the hearing, telling reporters it was merely a political stunt. “I will not participate in today’s hearing because it is strictly political theater,” said Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ), who serves on the Subcommittee. He continued, “The timing of the hearing just one day ahead of the Supreme Court’s review of the law suggests that its purpose is either to influence the court’s decision or to garner publicity.”

Filed Under: Border, Crime, Law, Local, National, Politics, Population, Society

A Good Day for Arizona’s Immigration Enforcement Law at the Supreme Court

April 25, 2012 By FAIR Gov't Relations Team 12 Comments

As the saying goes, “Don’t count your chickens before they hatch.” It also ain’t over until the ladies and gentlemen who wear the black robes render their decision (expected in June). But from the tenor of the oral arguments and the questions posed by the eight U.S. Supreme Court justices at today’s hearing (Elena Kagan recused herself due to her previous tenure as Solicitor General), there is reason to be optimistic that the Court will side with Arizona on key provisions of its immigration enforcement law, SB 1070.

This morning’s oral arguments indicate that the justices were skeptical about the Obama Administration’s arguments for seeking to enjoin key provisions of SB 1070. Even Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who was appointed to the high court by President Obama, stated that the Administration’s arguments pertain to status verification checks were “not selling well.”

In particular, the Justices expressed skepticism about the Obama Administration’s contention that its enforcement priorities (or lack thereof) preempt SB 1070. Justice Antonin Scalia asked U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, who was arguing the case for the Administration, whether he knew of any cases in which the basis of preemption is the “Attorney General’s enforcement discretion,” calling such “an extraordinary basis for saying that the state is preempted.” This is because the standard for preemption has always been based on congressional intent—not the whim of whichever President currently resides in the White House.

Justice Scalia also dismissed Solicitor General Verrilli’s argument that federal law preempts SB 1070 because it would interfere with the national government’s ability to forge and maintain relationships with other countries. In response to this argument, Justice Scalia incredulously asked him, “So we have to enforce our laws in a manner that will please Mexico?”

Finally, the Justices questioned the Administration’s desire to enforce U.S. immigration law. Mid-hearing, Chief Justice John Roberts hit the nail on the head when he made the following comment to Solicitor General Verrilli, “It seems to me that the federal government just doesn’t want to know who is here illegally or not.”

Based on what we saw and read about today’s Supreme Court hearing, we have strong reason to be optimistic about the forthcoming ruling…but, of course, it ain’t over until the eight men and women in black robes begin writing.

Filed Under: Border, Crime, Law, Population, Society, White House Watch

Illegal Aliens Continue Going Public to Avoid Deportation

April 25, 2012 By FAIR Gov't Relations Team 5 Comments

One of the newest trends illegal aliens are embracing as a means to escape deportation might surprise you: they’re going public.

This brazenness is thanks to the Obama Administration’s issuance of prosecutorial discretion guidelines, which direct DHS agents to ignore illegal aliens so long as they are not convicted of crimes the Administration deems serious. (See FAIR’s Morton Memos Summary, Jan. 2012)

This mandated “discretion” sends a clear message to illegal aliens that it’s okay to break the law. The amount of confidence bestowed by President Obama’s administrative amnesty policies has been enough to encourage illegal aliens to come out of hiding, stage their own rallies, and even challenge immigration authorities directly.

Here is a sampling of these “coming out” stories:

• In February, José Luis Zelaya, a graduate student at Texas A&M University, gained attention by running for the highly publicized position of Student Body President, integrating his illegal status into his campaign platform. (Fox News Latino, Feb. 29, 2012)

• Daniela Palaez of Florida gained nationwide attention in March when she was named her high school’s 2012 valedictorian. Palaez, who was brought to the U.S. as a young child, was facing imminent deportation until her story went viral and Florida Reps. Illeana Ros-Lehtinen and David Rivera, as well as Sens. Marco Rubio and Bill Nelson, made public appeals on her behalf. Within four days, ICE granted Palaez a two-year deferment of deportation, citing prosecutorial discretion. (FOX Phoenix, March 2, 2012; see also CBS Miami, March 6, 2012)

• In mid-April, Florida State University Law School graduate and tourist visa overstayer Jose Godinez-Samperio was spotlighted by the media when he petitioned for admission to the Florida Bar Association. The Florida Board of Bar Examiners is now requesting decision assistance from the Supreme Court, which marked the case “high profile.” (Chicago Tribune, April 16, 2012; see also Orlando Sentinel, April 15, 2012)

• Mohammed Abdollahi, an illegal alien residing in Michigan, brazenly explained that “the more public [illegal aliens] are with our stories, the safer we are.” (USA Today, March 12, 2012) Abdohalli, fearing he would be deported after years of living in the country illegally, got himself arrested and publicly pled his case. Sure enough, his lawyer was notified by an immigration official that Abdohalli would not be pursued for deportation. (Id.) Abdollahi now works for the National Immigrant Youth Alliance (NIYA).

• Most recently, Dulce Matuz, an illegal alien and graduate of Arizona State University, was granted a coveted spot on TIME Magazine’s 2012 list of the Top 100 Influential People in the World. Matuz, who is the founder of the Arizona DREAM Act Coalition, is working hard to reach Latino voters in Arizona with her belief that illegal immigrants deserve a pathway to citizenship. (WCVB-Boston, April 20, 2012; see also TIME Magazine, April 18, 2012)

So many illegal aliens feel comfortable going public under this Administration that they’ve even created their own day of recognition. National Coming Out of the Shadows Day was first hosted in 2010 by the Immigrant Youth Justice League (IYJL). The group’s Facebook page proudly notes that their event spurred “actions of civil disobedience” in a multitude of states. (See IYJL Facebook Page; see also Business Week, April 16, 2012) One such action took place in Philadelphia, where two illegal alien students challenged immigration officers by entering an ICE field office and declaring their illegal status. They were arrested for blocking a street and ICE initially filed detainers on the two students, but eventually released them without consequence. (Bi-College News, March 20, 2012)

While some illegal aliens choose to “remain in the shadows,” a growing number continue to flaunt their status as if their unlawful presence alone merits citizenship, and suddenly a different descriptor comes to mind: entitled.

The rise in confrontational tactics by illegal aliens provides clear confirmation that President Obama’s administrative amnesty measures are serving as positive reinforcement to the illegal community, cementing the idea that illegal aliens deserve citizenship simply due to their presence.

Filed Under: Border, Crime, Jobs, Law, National, Politics, Population, Society
« Older Posts