After 100 days of aggressive anti-immigrant action, the Trump Administration may be approaching a stumbling block: keeping American farms running without immigrant farmworkers. At a roundtable last month, American farmers explained to Trump that they are dependent on immigrant labor as local hires are rarely willing to work the farms.

Farms across the country, but especially in California, have faced labor shortages for years and as immigration restrictions tighten, the labor supply is quickly dwindling. The White House declined to discuss the specifics of the conversation but Trump reportedly said that he was focused on “criminals” rather than farmworkers and that he won’t destroy the labor force for American farms. However, it is difficult to make such a promise when more than half of American farmworkers are undocumented.

The H 2-A visa program provides agricultural guest workers with legal entry into the United States and as use of the program has risen over the past several years, fewer agricultural workers have been entering the country illegally. However, the H 2-A visa is only a temporary permit. Senate Democrats are currently sponsoring a “blue card” bill that would protect undocumented farmworkers who have worked at least 100 days in each of the past two years from deportation. A “blue card” is a modified green card, designed specially for agricultural workers to fast-track them toward permanent residency in the U.S.

Unfortunately, the bill lacks bipartisan support and there is little incentive for Republican senators to reach across party lines as the majority of their farming constituents voted for Trump, despite the fact that his administration plans to gut spending for farms across rural America. The blue card bill is a viable path to citizenship that will keep farms running and actually stabilize the labor market. Farmers often lose seasonal workers after they return home in the off season and don’t want to risk the passage back into the U.S., but with blue cards, the farmworkers could stay legally and work multiple seasons in a row.

Farmers only stand to benefit from having a steady labor supply but their loyalty to the Trump “pro-business” platform might push them to act against their own self-interest and be satisfied with the empty promise he made at last month’s roundtable. Even if Trump expanded the H-2 visa program, without a path to permanent residency, it is only a Band-Aid over a much more serious labor shortage. The blue card bill could be the path to citizenship that keeps farms running but it’s flown pretty much under the radar up to this point and without a grassroots campaign pushing for it, it will fade before it ever gets close to becoming a law. Undocumented workers do not always have the resources to speak for themselves and fear of deportation after a spike in arrests only makes speaking out seem more dangerous. It is up to the farmers, who have organized unions, lobbying groups and above all, stock with the Republicans, to fight for the blue card bill. If they let this bill fade into obscurity, their farms could take a hit.

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Why Farmers Must Support the “Blue Card” Bill appeared first on Law Street.

According to figures released by Immigration and Customs Enforcement on Wednesday, arrests of undocumented immigrants rose by 38 percent in the first three months of the Trump Administration, compared to the same time period last year.

A vast majority of those arrested, 41,318 from January 22 to April 29, have criminal records. But the number of detained non-criminal undocumented immigrants also rose sharply, reflecting the directive President Donald Trump issued in January that deemed any immigrant in the U.S. without documentation a priority for arrest and deportation.

“These statistics reflect President Trump’s commitment to enforce our immigration laws fairly and across the board,” Thomas Homan, the acting director of ICE, said in a statement. “If you look at the numbers, then men and women of ICE are still prioritizing these arrests in a way that makes sense,” he added in a phone call with reporters after the figures were released.

Acting on his promise to strictly enforce immigration laws, Trump issued an executive order on January 25 “to employ all lawful means to enforce the immigration laws of the United States.” The order effectively reversed an Obama Administration policy that directed ICE agents to prioritize for deportation undocumented immigrants convicted of violent crimes. Under Trump, all immigrants in the country illegally were subject to deportation.

Trump’s crack-down on illegal immigration, a stance that helped propel him to the White House, has not been implemented with impunity, however. A recently-passed spending bill does not include funding for Trump’s long-proposed border wall on the Mexican border. And federal judges throughout the country have stymied his efforts to ban or severely limit travel from a handful of mostly Muslim countries.

Still, Trump is on-track to match or surpass the arrests of undocumented immigrants at the Obama Administration’s peak in 2013, when over 662,000 undocumented immigrants were arrested. After a pointed effort to focus only on high-level criminals, that number dropped in subsequent years.

And although the number of migrants crossing the southern border has precipitously dipped–which accounts for the 12 percent decrease in total deportations this year so far–the rise in arrests of non-criminal undocumented immigrants suggests a greater willingness to enforce the existing rules.

According to the ICE figures, over 10,800 undocumented immigrants without criminal records have been arrested so far. More than 2,700 have been convicted of violent crimes, however, including assault, rape, kidnapping, or murder.

But of those that made up the 38 percent jump in arrests during the first three months of the Trump Administration, over half had been immigrants without criminal records. Their only crime: being in the country without documentation.

Omar Jadwat, the director of the Immigrants’ Rights Project at the American Civil Liberties Union, sees the increase in arrests as a way to beef up numbers without implementing a broader strategy. “What it tells me is that the department is willing to put enforcement numbers ahead of any kind of strategy that would actually try to keep us all safer going forward,” he said.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Arrests of Undocumented Immigrants Jump 38 Percent in Trump’s First Three Months appeared first on Law Street.

Immigration courts have long struggled to handle the caseloads created by years of policies aimed at criminalizing undocumented immigrants. Formal deportation proceedings for apprehended immigrants were emphasized under President George W. Bush and would later define President Barack Obama’s deportation legacy.

The influx of asylum-seeking refugees–many from Central America–that began in 2014 compounded the problem by further increasing caseloads and diversifying the type of cases put before judges. While President Donald Trump has ordered new facilities and an expanded border patrol workforce, his policies will likely confuse an already-tangled system.

Shift to Formal Deportation

In the past, immigration agents “voluntarily returned” the vast majority of undocumented people they apprehended. Under this practice, undocumented immigrants, particularly those apprehended along the border, were deported from the U.S. but were not formally processed or subjected to legal consequences. According to the Migration Policy Institute, the Clinton Administration deported a total of 12.3 million people (including “voluntarily returned” immigrants), but only formally deported about 900,000 people.

Critics demanding the government formally deport anyone found entering the U.S. without documentation referred to voluntary returns as “catch and release.” Soon there was a concerted government effort to implement policies that would essentially criminalize undocumented immigrants. These policies were meant to deter deported migrants from attempting to re-enter the country.

In 2005, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) announced the Consequence Delivery System (CDS), which resulted in an increase in formal deportations. According to the Migration Policy Institute, the Bush Administration deported 10.3 million people (two million fewer than Clinton), and formally deported over 2 million people. This trend continued under Obama, who was either unwilling or unable to rollback formal deportations.

In his two terms, Obama formally deported 3.1 million people in spite of the fact that he deported far fewer people (5.3 million) overall than the Clinton and Bush Administrations. About 7.3 percent of undocumented immigrants were formally deported under Clinton, 19.4 percent under Bush, and 58.5 percent under Obama.

The decades-long commitment to criminalizing undocumented immigration has put enormous pressure on immigration courts. For years, immigration courts have lacked the resources necessary to undertake the hundreds of thousands of deportation hearings. While existing policy demands the criminalization of undocumented immigrants, the courts are struggling to keep pace in spite of controversial methods, such as Operation Streamline, designed to expedite hearing proceedings.

Refugees, Not Immigrants

In the summer of 2014, thousands of Central American refugees fled north in search of protection from violence in their home countries. In years prior, the vast majority of migrants attempting to cross the U.S.-Mexico border were Mexican citizens. Since the 2008 recession however, the number of Mexican migrants has dropped dramatically. In 2014, non-Mexicans outnumbered Mexican migrants for the first time on record.

Immigration officers found that far fewer people were attempting to cross the border undetected; instead, many more people were simply turning themselves in and requesting asylum. While approximately 90 percent of non-Mexican migrants crossing the southern border over the past few years have been from Central America, there is an increasing trend of non-Latin American migrants moving through Mexico in need of asylum.

Unwilling to provide asylum to the thousands seeking help and hoping to ease the strain placed on immigration infrastructure, the Obama Administration pressed the Mexican government to act. On July 7, 2014, Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto announced the Southern Border Plan, which he claimed would both protect the rights of migrants while ensuring security of the region.

Mexico deported nearly twice as many Central Americans in 2015 than in 2014, but the plan did little to discourage refugees from traveling through Mexico. While the number of migrants traveling on traditional thoroughfares north through Mexico decreased, they took lesser-known, more dangerous, routes to avoid detection. Central American refugees and refugees from around the world continue to arrive at the southern border demanding their cases be heard by U.S. authorities.

Under both international and domestic law, the U.S. is required to review the case of anyone who arrives on U.S. soil claiming to be a refugee and requesting asylum. While the Obama Administration approved a fraction of the asylum requests, policy dictated that migrants requesting asylum were entitled to have their case formally reviewed.

Trump’s recent executive order accused refugees of abusing the asylum program by forcing asylum proceedings to delay deportation. Trump’s order upended the asylum process by affording border officers the power to review asylum claims. Reports suggest immigration agents are either reviewing cases in brief or simply refusing to accept asylum claims and turning people around. Critics argue that these practices are in violation of domestic and international laws.

The Courts Under Trump

Trump inherits a system that is plagued by backlogs that have been building for over a decade. Nonetheless, Trump’s persistent rhetoric, his numerous executive orders, and a spate of recent U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids suggest deportation cases will climb under his presidency.

While Trump ordered the expansion of the immigration enforcement workforce and construction of new facilities, the funds would require congressional approval. Furthermore, new appropriations would likely fail to fill existing cracks caused by a decade of aggressive deportation policies. Recent shifts in migration patterns have exacerbated immigration courts’ caseloads.

While Trump’s promises of secure borders and increased deportations won him the support of many, it remains to be seen whether he will be able to fulfill his promises. Trump’s immigration policies present a logistical nightmare for an already overworked system and will likely face numerous legal challenges both domestically and internationally. In attempting to ramp up immigration enforcement to unprecedented levels, Trump may force it to a grinding halt.

Callum Cleary

Callum is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is from Portland OR by way of the United Kingdom. He is a senior at American University double majoring in International Studies and Philosophy with a focus on social justice in Latin America. Contact Callum at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trump’s Policies Could Further Damage Ailing Immigration Courts appeared first on Law Street.

As the Trump Administration cracks down on illegal immigration in the U.S., immigrants have been crossing the border into Canada. In 2016, 1,222 immigrants fled the U.S. to Quebec alone–a fivefold increase from prior years–and there have been similar spikes in British Columbia.

Stories of frostbitten immigrants crossing into remote, unmarked border towns this winter garnered international attention and set conservative Canadians on the warpath, demanding stricter regulation of the border. But the rise of illegal immigration has also led to calls for alterations to (and even the repeal of) the Safe Third Country Agreement, which states that refugees must apply for asylum in the first country they arrive in. Many immigrants who were hoping to seek shelter in the U.S. are crossing into Canada illegally because they believe their asylum claims will be denied in the U.S. but upheld in Canada. If the act was repealed or suspended, immigrants could request asylum at official border crossings and enter the country legally.

In the Justin Trudeau era, Americans tend to glamorize Canada as the last moral outpost on the continent but the nation is not quite the united front we assume it to be. According to a Reuters/Ipsos poll released this week, nearly half of respondents want to send illegal immigrants crossing the Canadian border back to the U.S. and a similar number of respondents disapprove of how the government is handling illegal immigration. The subsets that were most in favor of deportation were men, adults without a college degree, higher income individuals, and older individuals. This is by no means a perfect representation of Canadian attitudes. Yet in an era where xenophobia is encouraged and even enshrined by executive orders, it’s important to keep an eye on shifts in public opinion.

The U.S.-Canada border has historically been a “soft” one but as illegal immigration rates climb, Canada appears to be moving slowly toward a more hardline stance. Trudeau has defended proposed legislation that would allow U.S. customs agents to question, search, and detain Canadians on Canadian soil. Trudeau publicly stated in February that the government would not take steps to quell irregular migration–yet by giving more power to U.S. customs agents, he is essentially passing the buck. Policing the border is a cooperative effort between the two countries and if Trudeau steps away from that responsibility, he will be enabling the Trump Administration.

Trudeau met with Trump earlier this year in a carefully coordinated encounter that let Trudeau hold strong on all of his positions without actively attacking Trump. While it is diplomatic common sense not to antagonize an ally, Trudeau could take a stronger stand against the Trump Administration through legislative action–such as scrapping the Safe Third Country Agreement. Trudeau has done outstanding work with the Syrian refugee population, striving to fast-track their entry into Canada so that tens of thousands of Syrian refugees have now been granted asylum in Canada–but can he keep it up?

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post The Other Border: Pushback Against Illegal Immigration in Canada appeared first on Law Street.

By now, you’ve probably heard the story of Daniela Vargas, a 22-year-old woman who, at the age of seven, was brought to America by her family from Argentina on a visa waiver program. On Wednesday, the Huffington Post reported that Vargas, a Dreamer, was arrested by ICE agents immediately after she spoke about her father and brother, both of whom were detained by ICE agents because of their expired visas, at a news conference put together by immigration advocates in Jackson, Mississippi. Yesterday, the Huffington Post reported that her attorney said that Vargas was set to be deported without a court hearing because she entered the country using the visa waiver program, which abdicates an individual’s right to contest their removal.

Vargas is now being held at an ICE facility in Louisiana, and shared a message through her attorney that the Huffington Post has published: “I don’t understand why they don’t want me. I’m doing the best I can,” part of the statement reads. It continues:

There’s so much that I can bring to the table, so much, like I can even teach music, I’m an excellent trumpet player you can ask my mom about any of that.  I’m great with math, I speak Spanish. You know, there’s a lot of stuff that I can do for this country that they’re not allowing me to do. I’ve even tried to join the military, and I can’t do that. But, I mean that’s not the point, the whole point is that I would do anything for this country.

Her story has sparked outrage from many, and a petition started by the immigrant rights group United We Dream has collected almost 20,000 signatures. While there are many people on both sides of the argument, from people who are fuming at the injustice of the government’s treatment of Vargas to those who think an illegal immigrant is recklessly breaking the law, another perspective has emerged below the fold. It manages to walk the tight-rope between the two binaries and mixes performative empathy with a subtle “rules are rules” detachment. This perspective argues that this whole situation could have been prevented if Vargas had only managed her money better.

The reason why ICE has detained Vargas is because she is not technically a Dreamer with DACA status. According to the Huffington Post, Vargas’ DACA status expired in November and she only recently applied for DACA status again on February 10 because she was raising money for the $495 application fee that those under the reprieve of DACA are required to pay to renew their work permit.

Multiple immigration advocacy websites caution DACA recipients to be cognizant of their renewal dates and of the importance of saving up for the renewal fee. United We Dream recommends that one should renew their DACA status about five months before their status expires. The organization also outlines a variety of savings and fundraising advice for the renewal fee, as well as the opportunity for a fee exemption, though the chances of getting that exemption are very slim.

Some have pointed to Vargas’ inability to prioritize her DACA application fee as the reason why it is so hard for them to sympathize with her. Why didn’t she treat her payment with more urgency? Why doesn’t this 22-year-old have her priorities in order?

The $495 is a fee Vargas absolutely should have paid and planned for. Could she be characterized as mildly irresponsible for not paying this on time? Maybe. But according to the 2016 Consumer Financial Literacy Survey, one out of every five Americans do not pay their bills on time. The difference between these people and Vargas is that when they do have an overdue bill, a government official doesn’t show up to detain them and throw them in a detention facility to be deported.

A distinct freedom in America is the freedom to fail–the freedom to make a small mess and, as the saying goes, pull yourself up by your bootstraps and move on. This is a freedom that is not afforded to people like Vargas who were brought to this country with no choice. People who were raised as Americans and with the privileges that that identity allows, only to be brutally reminded when they reach adulthood that they are not Americans–that they are something else entirely, and every one of their failures is amplified to a dehumanizing degree.

Austin Elias-De Jesus

Austin is an editorial intern at Law Street Media. He is a junior at The George Washington University majoring in Political Communication. You can usually find him reading somewhere. If you can’t find him reading, he’s probably taking a walk. Contact Austin at Staff@Lawstreetmedia.com.

The post The Story of Daniela Vargas: The “Dreamer” About to be Deported appeared first on Law Street.

Imagine taking this test: can you speak English? Can you code? Do you have a college degree? Do you have money saved away? For each “yes,” you get 10 points. If you score enough points, congratulations, you can become a legal resident of America. If not? Sorry, your merits are not up to snuff, and you must return to your home country. This is a crude example of what a “merit-based” immigration system, the kind President Donald Trump mentioned in his Tuesday speech to Congress, would look like.

The idea is hardly new–Congress almost reached a deal to implement such a system in 2007–but with Trump’s comments, it has been brought back to fore of the immigration conversation. Currently, most legal migrants come to the U.S. with immediate family members already living, legally, in the country to sponsor them. This so-called “family-based” system has been in place since the 1960s. Trump, in his remarks on Tuesday, suggested this system is an economic hindrance.

In championing a more “merit-based” system, Trump said “those seeking to enter a country ought to be able to support themselves financially, yet in America, we do not enforce this rule, straining the very public resources that our poorest citizens rely upon.” He said a “merit-based” model would “save countless dollars, raise workers’ wages and help struggling families, including immigrant families, enter the middle class.”

Traditionally politicians are split: some, mostly Democrats, see a shift to a more “merit-based” system as exclusionary and potentially discriminatory against poor people and people of color. Many Republicans support such a system, and say that wages for low-skilled jobs–like kitchen or agricultural work–that are often filled by migrants would increase. Instead of immigrants without high school diplomas filling those jobs, it would be Americans without high school diplomas.

Could Trump Change the System?

Lawmakers, for years, have agreed that the immigration system needs a make-over. But Trump’s tone on immigration, both legal and illegal, has been toxic and incendiary: he has called Mexicans “rapists” and “murderers.” He tried, and failed after a federal court stymied the effort, to enforce a temporary ban on visitors from seven largely Muslim countries. He has ordered a wall to be built on the Mexican border. And his chief strategist, Steve Bannon, sees the West as being “at war” with Islam.

And then there are Trump’s actions on illegal immigration. His administration recently issued an executive order to “take the shackles off” federal agents in deporting people in the U.S. illegally. While President Barack Obama deported record numbers of undocumented immigrants, he focused on high-level criminals, whereas Trump’s order broadens the scope to any lawbreaker–which could apply to all immigrants in the country illegally.

Has “Merit-Based” Been Tried Before?

In 2014, according to data from the Migration Policy Institute, 64 percent of legal immigrants living in the U.S. had been allowed in based on a family member’s sponsorship. Fifteen percent received employment-based preference, and 13 percent were refugees. So in Trump’s view, the weight of legally admitted immigrants to the U.S. would shift from “family-based” to “merit-based.” Such a shift has been attempted before.

President George W. Bush tried to reach a deal with Congress in 2007 to reform the immigration system to prioritize merits over family ties. In exchange for a system overhaul, to placate Democrats, his administration offered to create a legal path to citizenship for the roughly 11 million undocumented immigrants in the U.S. at the time. The legislation was defeated in the Senate. Republicans have intermittently introduced similar bills in subsequent years but, perhaps until now, have not had sufficient political capital to make real progress.

The Australia Example

In the U.S., where about one million immigrants are granted legal status each year, the economic benefits of a “merit-based” system are unclear. But in Australia, a country that Trump pointed to, along with Canada, as having a “merit-based” system, immigration has a “profound positive impact not just on population growth, but also on labour participation and employment, on wages and incomes, on our national skills base and on net productivity,” according to a recent Migration Council Australia report. 

But comparing the immigration models of the U.S. and Australia is comparing apples to oranges. The U.S. lets in about a million legal immigrants each year. Australia on the other hand let in around 262,000 in 2016. Over half of those were highly skilled; the rest are a hybrid of temporary workers, refugees, asylum-seekers, or people sponsored by family members already in the country legally.

As of today, Trump’s stance on legal immigration is foggy, as is the case with many of his views. Is Bannon or Stephen Miller, a highly influential voice in Trump’s policy proposals, running the show? Do Trump and his team really want more highly skilled immigrants in the U.S., to better its future and the future of other people, no matter their faith or cultural background? Or is it a shrouded attempt at limiting all immigration? These are questions that will take time to answer, but one thing is for sure: changing America’s immigration system is no easy feat, and will not happen overnight.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What Would a “Merit-Based” Immigration System Look Like? appeared first on Law Street.

President Donald Trump is getting some praise for his joint address to Congress–specifically his tone and the fact that he didn’t say anything too racist while he was addressing the nation. However, there was one moment during his speech that elicited a groan from his audience. This is not a groan in the abstract sense, but a literal groan. It was when Trump introduced the Victims of Immigration Crime Engagement office (VOICE).

As Trump outlines in his speech, VOICE is supposed to provide a voice (oh, I get it now!) for those who have been affected by crimes committed by illegal immigrants. However, the language Trump used in his speech was vague to say the least.

So what actually is VOICE? Here’s a quick breakdown of where this office came from, what it is, and whether it really is groan-worthy.

VOICE comes from a January 25 Executive Order

Trump has signed a lot of executive orders since he got into office. The one that VOICE is related to was signed on January 25 and called “Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States.” It concerns issues related to illegal immigration and the expansion of the role of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). DHS oversees the Immigrations and Customs Enforcement Agency (ICE).

Aside from threatening to restrict federal funds from jurisdictions that don’t turn over detained illegal immigrants and authorizing the DHS secretary to allow state and local officials to effectively act as immigration officers, the EO calls for two actions that are instrumental to VOICE:

1. The creation of something called the “Office for Victims of Crimes Committed by Removable Aliens,” an office that provides professional services to victims of crimes committed by illegal immigrants. This is basically the start of VOICE (although without that super-cool and snazzy title).
2. An alteration to the Privacy Act so that persons who are not United States citizens or lawful permanent residents are exempt from certain protections.  This is a break from a Bush Administration action that required agencies like the DHS  to afford undocumented immigrants certain privacy rights. According to the New York Times, some of these Privacy Act rights included blocking information obtained by an agency from being shared with other agencies like ICE.

We’ve known about VOICE for almost two weeks now

On February 20, two DHS memos from Secretary John Kelly that were circulating for a while were reported by McClatchy. These memos outlined how the DHS planned to follow through on the executive order’s provisions. One of these memos establishes VOICE, which serves as a “programmatic liaison between ICE and the known victims of crimes committed by removable aliens.” The office plans to provide victims, “to the extent permitted by law,” information about crimes committed by illegal immigrants and victims’ families with information about the suspect, such as their immigration status and custody status.

The memo also directs the Director of ICE to reallocate resources used to “advocate on behalf of illegal aliens” to VOICE instead, and “to immediately terminate the provision of such outreach or advocacy services to illegal aliens.”

It also directs ICE to develop the weekly report that Trump called for in the EO. The memo highlights that the ICE Director will develop a weekly report on a medium that can be accessed by the public.

So what does VOICE do exactly? 

What VOICE does is give victims a voice by not giving illegal immigrants the benefits of the Privacy Act which, with the help of Trump’s executive order, is now a lawful practice for government agencies. VOICE would allow victims to have access to their offenders’ information that had been previously withheld by agencies. The potential cost to immigrants here is that, according to the New York Times, those who are seeking legal status could face a harder citizenship process. According to the Chicago Tribune this could also be used to target immigrants for deportation. And since VOICE is so closely tied to privacy protections for illegal immigrants, what happens to all that information when an illegal immigrant goes through the process to become a citizen? What will the DHS do with that information?

The DHS memo seems to attempt to shed light on this issue, but with very vague language. In the memo, Kelly outlines how the DHS Privacy Office and the Office of the General Counsel will work together to “develop new guidance specifying the appropriate treatment of personal information DHS maintains in its record systems.” We still do not know exactly what that “new guidance” is, which is alarming considering Trump’s joint address has now brought the existence of VOICE to the forefront.

VOICE does a lot to tackle a small national issue

The issue with VOICE lies in its specific acknowledgment of crimes committed by illegal immigrants, and framing the issue as if it is a dire national crisis. A study published by the American Immigration Council shows that not only are immigrants less likely than native-born citizens to engage in criminal behavior, but higher immigration is associated with lower crime rates.

It would be ignorant to say illegal immigrants do not commit crimes, whether violent or non-violent. But we have seen that what illegal immigrants contribute to this country is not simply violence, rape, and crime. We see that immigrants make vital contributions to this country not only in terms of taxes and labor, but through art and culture as well.

VOICE is a practice of proxy racism–it seeks to cover a racist notion of a whole people with a cynical dose of fear for terrifying uncertainties. The office would elevate the worst stories that immigrants have to offer and have them serve as referenda for these human beings as a whole. VOICE shouts over the cries of the vital and vibrant immigrant communities that so desperately want and need to be heard in this country.

Austin Elias-De Jesus

Austin is an editorial intern at Law Street Media. He is a junior at The George Washington University majoring in Political Communication. You can usually find him reading somewhere. If you can’t find him reading, he’s probably taking a walk. Contact Austin at Staff@Lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Here’s What You Need to Know About VOICE appeared first on Law Street.

In his first address to a joint session of Congress on Tuesday night, President Donald Trump spoke for an hour about healing, unity, and, most uncharacteristically, America’s current greatness. The speech was a departure from past addresses in tone and demeanor–there was no “American carnage” to be found–but its content hardly tread new ground. Trump attacked Obamacare, promised to reform the tax code, and floated other ideas–some that skewed closer to Republican orthodoxy, and others that were closer to the left’s policy doctrine.

He began by denouncing bigotry and hatred, two things his opponents often accuse him of espousing: “Recent threats targeting Jewish community centers and vandalism of Jewish cemeteries, as well as last week’s shooting in Kansas City,” he said, “remind us that while we may be a nation divided on policies, we are a country that stands united in condemning hate and evil in all of its very ugly forms.”

In contrast to his dire Inaugural Address, or his smattering of grim remarks throughout the presidential campaign, Trump pointedly spoke to all Americans, not just the slice of the electorate that supported him. “We are one people, with one destiny,” he said. “The time for small thinking is over. The time for trivial fights is behind us. We just need the courage to share the dreams that fill our hearts.” It was unclear if Trump’s mention of “trivial fights” was referring to the skirmishes he incites–he called House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi “incompetent” a few hours earlier–or is he was simply condemning his detractors.

Before addressing his ideas and governing vision, Trump indulged in his election victory, and the movement he ignited, which he called a “rebellion,” and an “earthquake.” His supporters, he said, “were all united by one very simple, but crucial demand, that America must put its own citizens first, because only then can we truly make America great again.”

To do that, Trump said, evoking the vision that shaped his campaign promises, the military would be built-up, manufacturing would make a comeback, and infrastructure would be a top priority. Trump also discussed, at length, his plans for immigration. “My job is not to represent the world,” he said. “My job is to represent the United States of America.”

He said he is open to immigration reform, as long as it would “improve jobs and wages for Americans, to strengthen our nation’s security, and to restore respect for our laws.” He added: “If we are guided by the well-being of American citizens, then I believe Republicans and Democrats can work together to achieve an outcome that has eluded our country for decades.”

Earlier in the day, Trump gave a speech to TV anchors at the White House, where he floated immigration ideas that contrasted his usual sentiments. In mostly improvised remarks, he said he is open to a path to legalization for immigrants who are in the U.S. illegally. He also posited the idea that children brought to the country illegally by their parents–so-called Dreamers–could attain citizenship.

But his speech to Congress made no mention of the potential changes in his thinking on immigration. Instead, he applauded the work immigration agents are doing to remove “gang members, drug dealers and criminals that threaten our communities and prey on our very innocent citizens.” He also asked a pointed question to those in Congress who take a softer stance on immigration: “What would you say to the American family that loses their jobs, their income or their loved one, because America refused to uphold its laws and defend its borders?”

Toward the end of the address, Trump commemorated William “Ryan” Owens, the Navy SEAL who was killed during a raid in Yemen in January. Trump was criticized–by lawmakers and Owens’s father–for approving the raid, and has since placed blame on “the generals” and on the Obama Administration. On Tuesday night, Carryn Owens, the fallen soldier’s widow, sat in First Lady Melania Trump’s box. To a raucous standing ovation, Trump looked at Owens and said: “Ryan’s legacy is etched into eternity.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trump Adopts New Tone, Same Ideas, in Congressional Address appeared first on Law Street.

On President-elect Donald Trump’s first day as commander in chief, he will “cancel all federal funding to Sanctuary Cities,” according to his “First 100 Days” plan. On Monday, a cohort of Democratic mayors in major cities across the United States stood firm in their cities’ practices, despite Trump’s plan and tough rhetoric on illegal immigration.

“Seattle has always been a welcoming city,” Seattle Mayor Ed Murray said on Monday. “The last thing I want is for us to start turning on our neighbors.” Murray was part of a chorus of mayors, including those from New York City, Chicago, Providence, and San Francisco, of so-called “sanctuary cities.”

There is no legal definition for the phrase “sanctuary city.” It does not mean, as its wording might suggest, that undocumented immigrants who commit crimes enjoy shelter and coverage from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials, who are in charge of deportation operations.

Jurisdictions with “sanctuary” policies essentially resist cooperation with ICE. For instance, when ICE requests an “immigration detainer,” a notification that state or local law enforcement agency is releasing a “criminal alien,” jurisdictions with “sanctuary” policies often refuse to comply with ICE’s request. The Texas Tribune found that between January 2014 and September 2015, jurisdictions declined 18,646 “immigration detainer” requests from ICE.

A murder in 2015 renewed the debate on “sanctuary cities” and provided evidence to those who argue that cities with such policies are a danger to society. Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez, an illegal immigrant living in San Francisco, shot and killed a woman named Kate Steinle. Officials in San Francisco, a city that has had “sanctuary”-like policies for years, were criticized because they had not disclosed Lopez-Sanchez’s release from prison to ICE just a few weeks before he killed Steinle. He had also been deported to Mexico five times before.

Trump recently addressed how his administration will tackle immigration in an interview with 60 Minutes that aired on Sunday: “What we are going to do is get the people that are criminal and have criminal records, gang members, drug dealers, where a lot of these people, probably 2 million, it could be even 3 million, we are getting them out of our country or we are going to incarcerate.”

It is unclear where Trump found those statistics, or how he will go about rounding up undocumented immigrants who have committed a crime, or even to what qualifies as a crime worthy of deportation. But as it stands, 300 jurisdictions currently have “sanctuary”-like policies and might continue refusing co-operation with the federal government.

Mayor Rahm Emanuel of Chicago doubled down on his city’s commitment to remaining a “sanctuary city,” regardless of what Trump claims he will do. “To all those who are, after Tuesday’s election, very nervous and filled with anxiety … you are safe in Chicago, you are secure in Chicago and you are supported in Chicago,” Emanuel said at a news conference. “It always will be a sanctuary city.”

The mayors’ calls of reassurance come at a time of great anxiety for many people following Trump’s ascendance to the White House. His inflammatory rhetoric, while short on concrete policies to back up his words, has many people unsure what the future holds.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Mayors Defend ‘Sanctuary Cities’ Amid Trump’s Threat to Pull Funding appeared first on Law Street.

When picking a destination to travel to, most tourists like to factor weather, culture, and affordability into their trip planning, However on the off chance you’re an expecting mother there may be an even bigger deciding factor when choosing where to travel overseas–dual citizenship. Maternity tourism is hardly a new concept, but the recent arrest of a California lawyer by federal agents in connection with a “maternity hotels” investigation has this shady method of gaining citizenship garnering new found attention.

Federal ‘maternity tourism’ case grows with arrest of Irvine, CA attorney http://t.co/JhgR1zY2Uq @eopiniontv pic.twitter.com/qxhBmy8DJG

— Jaoana Dean (@thejaoana) May 19, 2015

According to the LA Times, federal agents arrested 38-year-old immigration attorney Ken Zhiyi Liang Friday and charged him with attempted witness tampering after he allegedly attempted to help a Chinese woman flee the U.S. after she was designated a material witness in an investigation into the illegal immigration of pregnant women.

Maternity tourism involves pregnant women obtaining tourist visas to another country in order for their child to be born a citizen there. In the United States, the Fourteenth Amendment grants unconditional citizenship to any person born on U.S. soil, making it a popular destination for this type of travel. Canada and Hong Kong are also popular destinations because of the former’s healthcare system and the latter’s “right of abode” awarded to its citizens. China’s one-child policy is also another reason for some of its pregnant nationals to seek maternity tourism as a method to circumvent the restrictive rule.

According to the LA Times, investigators in Southern California had been raiding properties suspected to be associated with alleged maternity tourism operators assisting pregnant Chinese women. After one of these raids, authorities named several people as material witnesses in the case, which forbade them from leaving the country. That’s where Liang comes in. Four of these witness hired him to represent them, but authorities believe he was also hired to help them flee the country. One married couple he represented successfully escaped back to China, but another witness was caught at LAX attempting to flee days later, which set off alarm bells for investigators.

The woman who was caught claims she had paid Liang $6,000 for the job and even had proof of their dealings, which she gave to authorities. The LA Times reported that officials in court filings claimed,

She made a video and audio recordings of several telephone and in-person conversations with Liange, in which he pressed her for payment and stressed the need to keep his involvement a secret.

Among other promises, Liang told the woman that for an additional charge, he could arrange with associates to get her aboard a flight to China without any immigration paperwork.

According to Reuters, he faces a maximum sentence of 20 years in federal prison if convicted at trial. It’s important that the safety of these expecting women is ensured, however investigators’ main goal is to to thwart these kinds of schemes which take advantage of the United States’ immigration policies.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post LA Lawyer Arrested Over This Popular Immigration Scheme appeared first on Law Street.

Like the United States, many European nations increasingly face an illegal immigration problem. As the sinking of a boat carrying migrants last week showed, this problem is also very deadly. But what is inspiring these migrants to risk everything and head for Europe? Read on to learn about the immigrants coming into Europe, the groups facilitating that process, and the issues with which Europe needs to contend in light of the influx of illegal immigration.

The Sinking and Legacy

On April 19, 2015, a boat on its way to Italy carrying illegal immigrants from places as far and wide as Eritrea and Bangladesh, capsized off the coast of Libya. The overcrowded boat overturned after ramming a Portuguese cargo ship, the King Jacob. A full count of the deceased is still unknown.

A Recurring Problem

While the recent wreck was a tragedy, it certainly was not the first and likely not the last boat filled with illegal migrants headed for Europe to sink. In fact, such incidents have happened frequently and speak to a much larger trend. In 2014 for example, as many as 218,000 migrants were estimated to have crossed the Mediterranean from Africa to Europe. This year, 35,000 have already been suspected of crossing from Northern Africa into Europe.

Those who have made the crossing must be considered the lucky ones. Attempted crossings lead to a substantial number of deaths at sea. Last year 3,500 people were believed to have perished during the attempted crossing. That number sits at around 1,600 this year, with the most recent sinking taken into account. Unfortunately these numbers are only likely to increase. Prior to this incident, since October 2013, there have been at least four other occurrences in which a boat carrying migrants had sunk while carrying at least 300 people.

Human Trafficking

These trips tend to be organized by human traffickers. The traffickers are predominantly Libyan bandits, militia, and tribesmen. There are two main routes these smugglers take to get their human cargo through Africa and into Europe. The eastern route stretches as far as Somalia, while the western one reaches Senegal. Regardless of the routes’ starting points, migrants are funneled to Libya where they are then launched from either Benghazi or Tripoli in overcrowded and rickety boats toward the coast of Italy.

Unfortunately, traffickers’ tactics have recently began to change, making them even more nefarious and hard to prevent. Many traffickers have begun abandoning their ships en route to Europe–literally leaving the ships without steering of any kind. The smugglers obtain a large cargo ship, then during the trip advise their migrant-manned crews to call for help while they abandon the ship. The reason why the smugglers do this is two fold: First they are paid up front so it does not matter to them whether these migrants actually make it to Europe or not; secondly, by abandoning the boat they reduce their own chances of being arrested and can then smuggle more people and further profit. This practice has extended the smuggling season from spring and summer to all year round, but has made the crossing even more dangerous.

The industry has become especially appealing for traffickers in the last few years as traditional sources of income have disappeared as a result of government upheaval. Additionally, those doing the actual trafficking in many cases are would-be migrants themselves, which makes stopping the practice extremely difficult. The video below briefly explains the harrowing journey from Libya to Europe and all its difficulties.

Why do migrants cross the Mediterranean?

With all these dangers in mind, why do migrants risk crossing the Mediterranean? The answer varies for each individual, yet some reoccurring themes present themselves. Many of these themes are similar to the reasons why people attempt to migrate to the United States. First, many of the migrants are escaping danger back home. This ranges from country to country as well–for example, there has been an increase in migrants from Syria due to the civil war in that country.

Along with danger, another major impetus is economic. Most of the migrants attempting the journey are young men looking for opportunities. The goals of these men naturally vary, but often the promise of success and the ability to send earnings back to their families is a common desire.

While migration to Europe has become popular, it was not always the top destination for migrants. In the past, migrants had also attempted to go to places such as Israel and Saudi Arabia; however, with Israel increasing security and with Saudi Arabia engaged in a military conflict in Yemen, these routes have dried up. Whichever route the migrants take, they risk abuse ranging from robbery to rape and murder. In response to these dangers and the increasing deterioration of Libya, some migrants have tried crossing through Morocco instead, a much more difficult route.

Impact on Europe

When migrants successfully make the journey to Europe, the onus shifts from their handlers to European authorities. Since many migrants arrive in Europe without identification of any kind, it can make it much more difficult to send them back. This, in effect, makes migrants asylum seekers who are then held in refugee camps. Once in these camps, migrants may continue onward in Europe where travel restrictions have been reduced as part of the open-border aspect of the European Union.

Migrants are sometimes also allowed to move throughout Europe due simply to the cost of supporting them. Italy, the destination for many migrants, was spending as much as $12 million dollars a month on its search and rescue efforts in the Mediterranean. Another popular hub, Greece, spent $63 million in 2013 fighting illegal immigration. The problem both these countries, and other southern-European countries, face is that while they are part of the EU, the costs of their efforts have been almost entirely their own burdens to bear. These costs can be especially painful, considering the same countries that serve as these initial destinations for migrants are the ones also currently dealing with recessions. The video below highlights the issues each country in the EU deals with in regards to immigration.

The reason why countries such as Italy and Greece are footing the majority of these bills is due to their immigration laws. According to something referred to as the Dublin Regulation, a migrant must be processed as an asylum seeker upon entering a country. Once the person has been processed in that country, they become the responsibility of that particular nation. The following video shows the strategic routes immigrants take into Europe and reiterates how asylum status is achieved.

The design of this system naturally leads to problems, chief among which are accusations by richer northern-European countries that their southern neighbors are letting migrants pass north in an effort to reduce costs for themselves. In response to these allegations and as a result of bearing what it perceives to be an unfair burden, Italy cancelled its search and rescue mission last year. In its place the EU created the Triton Mission, a program similar to Italy’s, which focuses on rescuing migrants. Moreover, as part of a proposed ten-point plan in response to the most recent ship sinking, the mission is slated to increase in size. Another aspect of that plan is a program that is supposed to be implemented to return refugees to their countries. Nonetheless, even if the EU goes forward with its goal to expand the Triton mission, it will still be smaller than the one Italy disbanded last year.

Conclusion

Despite being described by several sources as modern day slavery, the practice of illegally ferrying immigrants from Africa and elsewhere to Europe is unlikely to stop or even slow down any time soon. This is the result of many things that are not likely to change in the immediate future, such as relatively high standards of living in the EU, crisis in the Middle East and Africa, EU laws regarding migrants, and the lucrative trafficking operations. But if Europe wants to fix its broken immigration system and prevent future tragedies on the scale of last week’s ship sinking it must do more than simply increase patrols.

Resources

ABC News: Libya Migrant Boat Sinking

Wall Street Journal: Rich Smuggling Trade Fuels Deadly Migration Across Mediterranean

BBC News: Mediterranean Migrants: Hundreds Feared Dead After Boat Capsizes

Atlantic: Human Traffickers Are Abandoning Ships Full of Migrants

CNN: Eating Toothpaste, Avoiding Gangs: Why Migrants Head to the Mediterranean

Human Events: Illegal Immigration is Europe Losing Control of Its Borders

Economist: Europe’s Huddled Masses

EUbusiness: Commission Proposes Ten-Point Migrant Crisis Plan

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Illegal Immigration in Europe: Latest Shipwreck Sheds Light on Trend appeared first on Law Street.

As of March 2012, there were roughly 11.7 million undocumented immigrants living in the United States, many of whom had brought their children with them when they crossed the border. America has been left to figure out how to deal with this massive immigration influx and to determine the best course of action for possible immigration reform. Special attention is paid to undocumented youth who were brought to America illegally as children and have been residing in the country for some time. One big question that the country is struggling to answer is should these young people receive in-state college tuition? Read on to learn about the debate.

What action has been taken?

The Obama administration started the program Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), which permits undocumented youth who were brought to the US under the age of 16 and have been in the US for more than five years to work, get a driver’s license, get a loan, and go to college without the fear of being deported. These youths have also attended their local school systems through programs designed to provide undocumented youths with a K-12 education. Now, as these individuals prepare to graduate high school, they are met with an insurmountable financial wall that prevents them from attending college and pursuing high-paying careers. While DACA permits these students to attend college, they are required to pay out-of-state tuition costs based on their immigration status, which can be considerably more expensive than in-state tuition. Out-of-state tuition is often unaffordable for undocumented families. Paying in-state tuition would greatly reduce this financial burden and make college a real possibility for many undocumented students.

Several states have begun passing “tuition equity” legislation that allows undocumented youths who have graduated from state high schools to pay in-state tuition costs at state schools. Advocates see this as a model of immigration and education reform. Seventeen  states currently provide tuition equity. However, this legislation has been met with strong opposition by those who feel that offering undocumented citizens in-state tuition cheapens American citizenship and rewards illegal behavior.

What’s the argument for providing tuition equity?

Advocates argue that tuition equity could benefit undocumented students and US citizens alike by providing a clear and navigable path toward achieving the American dream. Advocates argue that these students should not be blamed for the actions of their parents, and while they are not US citizens they have grown up and received their education in this country, and cannot call any other place home.

US public school districts currently spend roughly $243,000 per student to educate undocumented youths in K-12. Many feel that this effort and taxpayer money is wasted if these students, who have worked hard throughout their K-12 education, are not given a chance at an affordable college education. While many middle-class families currently struggle to afford hefty out-of-state tuition costs for their children, those tuitions are nearly impossible for undocumented citizens to afford. Upon this realization, many undocumented youths are motivated to drop out of high school and fail to live up to their academic potential. Advocates argue that making tuition feasible would inspire more undocumented students to graduate high school, attend college, and pursue a high-paying career, which could potentially benefit US citizens and the American economy.

Having a college education would encourage more of these students to enter the job market as tax-paying American citizens. The influx of more college-trained individuals into the job market could encourage job growth through entrepreneurial enterprises and increase tax revenue from the higher salaries these individual could make by having a college degree. In the long run, advocates say, tuition equity benefits undocumented and documented citizens alike.

What’s the argument against providing in-state tuition?

Opponents of offering in-state tuition to undocumented students argue that tuition equity validates illegal immigration and is inequitable to tax-paying US citizens. The parents of undocumented students often do not pay taxes that contribute to the funding and maintenance of state colleges and universities, and opponents argue that therefore their children should be charged out-of-state tuition costs. The cost of running these educational institutions would instead be deferred to state citizens who are legal residents. Following California’s DREAM Act, a tuition equity bill signed into law in 2011, the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s office estimated that it would require an additional $65 million per year by 2016/2017 in order to provide higher education benefits to undocumented citizens.

Opponents also feel that tuition equity is inherently inequitable toward out-of-state students who are legal residents of the United States. These students would be required to pay a higher tuition merely because they happen to live in a different state than the college they are interested in attending, albeit legally. Some argue that if in-state tuition costs are offered to undocumented residents, then these same lower tuition rates should be offered to out-of-state legal citizens as well, at which point the concept of in and out of state tuition becomes moot.

Because tuition equity is largely backed by Democrats, some opponents feel that it is used merely as a political tool to attract the Latino vote and to secure a growing population for the Democratic Party. Opponents argue that tuition equity and DACA do not actually provide any real immigration reform, but rather pander to Hispanic voters. Momentum for tuition equity has been gaining steadily, however, and this debate will continue to unfold as more states struggle with questions of immigration and education.

Conclusion

The status of children who are brought into the United States illegally by their parents is a tough topic from all angles. Whether or not they should receive in-state tuition for college education continues to be a divisive fight at all levels of government. Some states have moved forward to allow it, while others continue the argument.

 Resources

Primary

Oregon State Legislature: Tuition Equity Bill HB 2787

State of New Jersey: Tuition Equality Act

Additional

USA Today: Why Christie Should Endorse Tuition Equity

Voxxi: Oregon Is One Step Away From Allowing Dreamers to Pay In-State Tuition

American Immigration Council: Tuition Equity Could Be Coming Soon to a State Near You

Students for a Democratic Society: SDS Launches National Push For Tuition Equity

Gazette Times: Tuition Equity Has A Political Agenda

Oregon Catalyst: Tuition Equity Bill: Worst Example of Agency Advocacy

Daily Californian: Children of Illegal Immigrants Should Not Go to College and Gain Legal Status

NJ Policy Perspective: To Put the “Equity” In Tuition Equity, Access to State Aid is Essential

Oregon Public Broadcasting: Tuition Equity Bill Has Backers, Doubters

Washington Post: Seven Immigrants Brought to U.S. as Children Sue For In-State Virginia College Tuition Rates

The New York Times: The Uncertain Cost of Helping Illegal Immigrants Go to College

Joseph Palmisano

Joseph Palmisano is a graduate of The College of New Jersey with a degree in History and Education. He has a background in historical preservation, public education, freelance writing, and business. While currently employed as an insurance underwriter, he maintains an interest in environmental and educational reform. Contact Joseph at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Just a DREAM? In-State Tuition for Undocumented Immigrants appeared first on Law Street.

In Arizona, if you are within 75 miles of the Mexican border, you might just come across a “temporary” border control checkpoint. The goal of these checkpoints is to help control drug trafficking and stop illegal immigration. But the legality of these checkpoints, and what the Border Patrol agents are actually allowed to do is far from clear. The American Civil Liberties Union has now filed an administrative complaint with the Department of Homeland Security on behalf of 15 individuals who claim that their constitutional rights have been violated at checkpoints in Arizona.

Of the individuals involved in the ACLU complaint, the majority say they were never asked about their identity, the supposed purpose of the checkpoints. Some of the complainants claim they were held for over half an hour for not giving the Border Patrol officer consent to search their cars. Other complaints include a gun being pulled on a individual, and the Border Patrol agents attempting to take someone’s cell phone. If these allegations are true, they most likely violate the existing laws on checkpoints.

The highest court of the land has only ruled on interior checkpoints once, almost forty years ago, in United States v. Martinez-Fuerte. Amado Martinez-Fuerte was transporting two illegal immigrants when he was stopped at a fixed interior checkpoint in Southern California. When asked, the two illegal immigrants admitted to their status. Martinez-Fuerte reacted by suing, saying that the checkpoint violated his Fourth Amendment right to not be subject to unreasonable searches. SCOTUS ruled that his rights were not violated, because if there is a reasonable collective suspicion, then individuals can be searched in the interest of public safety. The court stated that Border Patrol agents could briefly question and ask people for identification, without individual suspicion, if they’re at reasonably located checkpoints. The court did not give the Border Patrol the right to search vehicles or occupants without probable cause. The question in Arizona today is if the Border Patrol is abiding by this ruling.

It seems like this administrative complaint may lead to a new look at our laws. These checkpoints have expanded their focus to include more work in drug control, instead of just looking for illegal immigrants. This is problematic because Martinez-Fuerte only serves as a precedent for checkpoints searching for illegal immigrants. Currently at checkpoints, vehicles are examined by drug-sniffing dogs. In Illinois v. Caballes, the Supreme Court ruled that a drug-sniffing dogs could be used during a routine traffic stop, but no court has explicitly ruled that they can be used at Border Patrol checkpoints.

Furthermore, in 2000, the Supreme Court ruled that using these checkpoints for general law enforcement acts violates the Fourth Amendment. James Duff Lyall, the attorney who filed the complaint stated:

The restrictions in the Martinez-Fuerte ruling don’t mean that agents have to turn a blind eye to obvious evidence of drugs or crime, but if you have cases where people are not even being asked about residency status, it raises serious questions about the legitimacy of these checkpoints.

In 1976, the Supreme Court made the Martinez-Fuerte ruling because they felt that in an area with a high number of illegal immigrants, it was not unreasonable to have ID checkpoints on major roads. Using that logic as precedent, I think that it could be argued that due to the large amount of narcotics crossing the border, it is not unreasonable to have cars drive through a checkpoint where drug-sniffing dogs are present. However, there’s no legal basis for that argument yet, and this is not an excuse for the unreasonable searches that the ACLU is alleging are taking place. If the point of these checkpoints is to find drugs, a car should only have to stop for a few moments while the dog sniffs, and then be allowed to move on. Anything beyond that, or a simple examination of a person’s ID, is a violation of the Fourth Amendment. The Border Patrol in Arizona needs to realize this if they want to keep operating their checkpoints.

—

Matt DeWilde (@matt_dewilde25) is a member of the American University class of 2016 majoring in politics and considering going to law school. He loves writing about politics, reading, watching Netflix, and long walks on the beach. Contact Matt at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Ken & Sharon Lotts via Flickr]

Matt DeWilde

Matt DeWilde is a member of the American University class of 2016 majoring in politics and considering going to law school. He loves writing about politics, reading, watching Netflix, and long walks on the beach. Contact Matt at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Interior Checkpoints in Arizona Draw Complaints appeared first on Law Street.

Congress and President Barack Obama have to quickly respond to a recent influx of thousands of Central American child immigrants spilling over the border into Texas. Read on to learn about why they are coming here and why finding a place for them will be a challenge.

How many people are coming over the border?

There has been a recent surge of Central American children illegally immigrating into the United States over the Texas border. 47,000 unaccompanied minors have been detained at the border in the past eight months. This is a 92 percent increase from the eight month period prior to that.

Why now?

Evidence points to two different factors.

First, living conditions in Central America have gotten significantly worse in recent years. According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), 48 percent of the detained minors had experienced abuse from an organized criminal group before fleeing to America. This should not be too surprising. Honduras, the country where the plurality of children are coming from, boasts the highest murder rate in the world. In 2012, there were more than 90 murders per 100,000 people. The next country on the list, Venezuela, only has 53.7 homicides per 100,000 people. It should be no surprise that children want to leave Central America.

Check out this story from The New York Times to learn more about the gang violence that Honduran children are escaping.

You can also watch this report on gang violence in Honduras, but it is graphic:

So it makes sense that children would want to leave this environment, but why are they coming to America? Why do they choose this specific country? Critics of President Barack Obama argue that his immigration policies have convinced illegal immigrants that they will have an easy time entering the country, and there is some evidence to support that. There is a belief among Central Americans that the United States has recently started treating children easier than they treat adults. This is because of the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA). The law requires the United States to ensure the safety of any children repatriated back to their homes. This means that the United States cannot just simply turn away or deport children. Border officials have an obligation to make sure that the environment the children are being deported to is safe. President Obama signed this bill into law March 7, 2013; however, a key part of the law allowing these children to gain legal counsel and appeal to stay in the country was signed by President George W. Bush in 2008.

Republicans also assert that Obama’s enforcement of the DREAM act through executive order is an incentive for children to come to America, but there is less concrete evidence to support this.

What is happening to these children when they come here?

These children would be quickly brought back home if they were coming from Mexico or Canada; however, they have to go through a formal deportation process because they are coming from far-away countries. Thanks to the TVPRA, this process involves month-long hearings where the children can appeal to stay in the country. Currently, there’s a massive 360,000-case backlog preventing many of these children from having their cases heard. Since so many are coming at once, it is likely that they will be stuck in detention for some time until a solution is found.

What is the Obama administration trying to do about it?

Obama has requested $3.7 billion from Congress to deal with the border crisis. The administration is telling Congress that the money will go toward building detention facilities to help ease overcrowding, the hiring of judges to hear the backlog of immigration cases, and border security to prevent more children from illegally entering the country. The plan would also allocate $300 million to the State Department to assist Central American countries in repatriating their citizens.

Watch President Obama present this plan to the press:

How are Republicans reacting?

Not well. Republicans are calling the plan a “blank check” without any accountability. Republicans in Congress are also not happy that Obama is not planning on amending the TVPRA to make it easier to deport illegal immigrants.

Conservatives have been crying foul about this crisis for the last week. Texas Governor Rick Perry even called this situation “Obama’s Katrina.” Most notably, former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin has called for Obama’s impeachment. Palin argues that Obama is deliberately opening the borders and allowing illegal immigrants into the country.

Is Obama going to be impeached? Absolutely not. A President can only be impeached if he has committed high crimes. Obama has not violated any laws. In fact, the current immigration laws are part of the reason this crisis is happening in the first place. Still, Palin’s call for Obama’s impeachment shows that Republicans are angry about this issue.

Watch Boehner blame Obama’s actions for the current problem and criticize the President’s plan to solve the humanitarian crisis:

Law Street’s Allison Dawson lives in the affected area of Texas and has expressed anger at the fact that the children will be housed in abandoned Texas schools that could be used for other purposes.

Across the board, it looks like this has become the newest reason for Republicans to criticize the President.

What does this mean for immigration reform?

Not much. Immigration reform is almost guaranteed not to happen in 2014. Both Speaker John Boehner and President Obama agree that the reform effort is dead.

This is unfortunate because a comprehensive immigration bill could fix many of the problems posed by this spike in illegal immigration, including solving the backlog of cases, sealing the border, and providing a path to citizenship for those who go through the proper channels.

Resources

Primary

US Congress: The Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act

Additional

Washington Post: Central American Immigrants Overwhelm Texas Border

Migration Policy Institute: Surge in Unaccompanied Kids Has Deep Roots

CNN: Honduras Has the Highest Murder Rate

The New York Times: Fleeing Gangs, Children Head to U.S. Border

Appleseed Network: Report: Children at the Border

Washington Post: White House Request $3.7 Billion for Border Crisis

MSNBC: Rick Perry: This is Obama’s Katrina

Breitbart: Sarah Palin: It’s Time to Impeach President Obama

Washington Post: Obama is Accused of ‘Lawlessness’ for Following Law

Slate: Immigration Reform is Dead

Eric Essagof

Eric Essagof attended The George Washington University majoring in Political Science. He writes about how decisions made in DC impact the rest of the country. He is a Twitter addict, hip-hop fan, and intramural sports referee in his spare time. Contact Eric at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Crisis at the Border: Influx of Child Immigrants Causes Major Problems appeared first on Law Street.

“Don’t call me illegal, because I am not, illegal are your laws, and that’s why I’m not leaving.” A group of thirty undocumented youth chanted this rallying cry in the city of McAllen, Texas, while wondering if they had left behind their families and traveled hundreds of miles for just a fleeting glance of America. Jose Antonio Vargas is a reporter who traveled to McAllen to cover this vigil, and for him, it’s personal. He has had much more than a glance of life in America, calling himself the “most privileged” undocumented immigrant in the country. He has written for the New York Times Magazine and TIME Magazine about his experiences, and directed a recent documentary on the immigration issues facing this nation. He has traveled around the country for over three years, with his seemingly American identity and the media recognition he draws keeping him safe from deportation. But now, in McAllen, he may be no different than the undocumented children whose stories he is reporting.

Vargas went to McAllen to cover the vigil for the undocumented children, and to report on shelters set up by citizens of the town. Shortly after his arrival, he began receiving emails from friends asking him how he planned to get out, considering the checkpoints that were set up outside of the town and the airport. Vargas usually flies on his Filipino passport, but these checkpoints require proof of citizenship to pass. Vargas has now been arrested, and like those undocumented children, what will happen to him remains to be seen.

The crisis in McAllen

There are currently waves of undocumented immigrants flooding into Texas, mainly composed of children. McAllen, one of the cities most hard hit, has responded to this crisis in a way that should make Americans proud. Long before the federal government stepped in to help aid the massive influx of immigrants, the people of McAllen answered the call. Local residents began giving out supplies and aid to immigrants at the local bus station, where the children would often be stranded for hours or even days. Makeshift shelters began operating out of the trunks of cars and the basements of churches. The Rio Grande valley, where McAllen is located, has seen a 178 percent increase in the number of migrant workers the past few months. The federal government was not prepared for this and still is not–shelters remain a poorly met necessity in McAllen. But McAllen has answered the call, with volunteers exceeding the number needed on some days.

But the great work the people of McAllen are doing is not without protest. Outside the shelters housing these children are signs declaring that they should be sent home. It is currently legal for the government to send children to live with relatives, family friends, or a foster family until the children face a deportation hearing, which can sometimes take years. At these hearings the judges will have the authority to allow the children to stay or send them home. But many are saying that Obama has the authority to send these children home and should do so. This crisis has quickly become a frantic flashpoint in American politics, with politicians, pundits, and the media all chiming in.

One politician arguing for deportation is Texas Governor Rick Perry. He says, “allowing them to remain here will only encourage the next group of individuals to undertake this dangerous and life-threatening journey here.” Others have said the children should be allowed to stay, especially considering the dangers they face back home. In a surprise move, conservative pundit Glenn Beck has been a huge advocate for allowing the children to stay. In perhaps the one of the wisest statements Beck has ever made, he said, “I’ve never taken a position more deadly to my career than this — and I have never, ever taken a position that is more right than this.”

A change does need to be made because the current system is far to slow to deal with the influx of child immigrants, but that does not mean the solution is to send them back. These children have left places that are ravished by poverty and gang violence. Sending them back could be akin to authoring their death sentences. It’s clear that the people of McAllen have put politics aside to help these children. It would be nice if politicians would do the same.

Jose Vargas: the “most privileged” undocumented immigrant 

So back to Jose Vargas, the celebrity journalist whose story is now inextricably linked with the children who have arrived at our borders. Jose Vargas is now being detained in the McAllen Border Control Headquarters. He was arrested trying to fly out of a local airport. Vargas, almost better than anyone, knew the risk he was taking, as the Border Control was publicly checking IDs at the airport. He tweeted the incident as seen below:

About to go thru security at McAllen Airport. I don’t know what’s going to happen. For updates follow @DefineAmerican & @MAC_UTPA

— Jose Antonio Vargas (@joseiswriting) July 15, 2014

The only IDs I have for security: Philippine passport and my pocketbook US Constitution @DefineAmerican & @MAC_UTPA pic.twitter.com/IFH0Vb4oX7

— Jose Antonio Vargas (@joseiswriting) July 15, 2014

Here's a photo of @joseiswriting in handcuffs, because the Border Patrol has nothing more pressing to do apparently pic.twitter.com/dN8KewqeZr

— Ryan Grim (@ryangrim) July 15, 2014

Considering what Vargas knew, combined with the way he tweeted before going through security, it seems as if he expected to get arrested. It seems that he is trying to prove a point, or perhaps is just trying to draw attention to the situation. If that is the case, he has succeeded–social media and news networks have been all over his arrest. And if he were to be deported, that would be a even bigger story and rallying cry for his supporters.

If this was done on purpose, Vargas has positioned himself to have a huge political impact on the current humanitarian crisis. He may be able to be the voice that these children don’t have. He is showing the world that undocumented immigrants don’t all look the same. It’s an issue that affects all of us. Hopefully his actions have a real world impact–because something needs to be done in Texas.

Update: Jose Antonio Vargas has been released by the Texas Border Control, with an order to appear in front of an immigration judge. There has been no notable progress on the statuses of the thousands of children in McAllen.

—

Matt DeWilde (@matt_dewilde25) is a member of the American University class of 2016 majoring in politics and considering going to law school. He loves writing about politics, reading, watching Netflix, and long walks on the beach. Contact Matt at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Otzberg via Flickr]

Matt DeWilde

Matt DeWilde is a member of the American University class of 2016 majoring in politics and considering going to law school. He loves writing about politics, reading, watching Netflix, and long walks on the beach. Contact Matt at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Stuck in McAllen: Jose Vargas and the Texas Immigration Crisis appeared first on Law Street.

Hey y’all!

President Obama will be coming to Texas today. Yippee! Thankfully he doesn’t plan to come to Houston so I don’t have to worry about the traffic jam disasters he tends to create. We Houstonians have to deal with horrible traffic day in and day out so having that additional stress just makes us less friendly.

Let’s get to the more important stuff: President Obama, Governor Rick Perry, and immigration. So much has come out about these three in the last couple of days that it is making me mad.

But first I want to address the petty topic that Governor Perry has declined shaking President Obama’s hand when he hits the mean Texas tarmac. When I first read this headline I thought, “Oh great, something else for Democrats to grab on to and slander Texas and Republicans with,” but once I read the blurb that went along with that headline it actually makes sense. I love Governor Perry and although I don’t agree with him on everything, I do agree with him on not wanting to simply shake Obama’s hand and take a few pictures. Despite our differences you should always show respect to our Commander in Chief (until Texas secedes from the Union — though we all know that isn’t legal or likely). But if our good ol’ President is going to come to Texas he should probably squeeze in a little time to talk to the Governor and see what’s going on at the border instead of hitting up Democratic party circuit. Squeeze in reality for a few hours sir, you might look like you care about what’s happening down here.

Moving on to something a bit closer to home and a little more important: a Houston Independent School District (HISD) middle school is being considered as housing for immigrant children. I am the product of a HISD education — a craptastic one at that — and my intelligence and creativity come from hard work and influences outside of the HISD realm, but I still feel it is necessary to share that tiny bit of information. HISD is the largest school district in Texas, seventh largest in the United States, and it has 282 schools. Yes nearly three hundred schools, but how many of those are actually in use?

HISD was so kind as to give Homeland Security officials a nice little tour of an abandoned middle school in the Houston area. Why would Homeland Security want to come visit an abandoned school, you ask? Well it’s because this building is being considered for housing for undocumented children who have crossed the Texas-Mexico border in recent months. Most of these kids crossed the border illegally and alone, which has now turned into another issue that the U.S. is being forced to handle. Typically Border Patrol is required to transfer all unaccompanied children over to the federal Office of Refugee Resettlement within 72 hours, but because so many children — 52,000 since October 2013 — have crossed the border it is taking more time and resources to house all of these illegal children. Surprisingly by law, all illegal alien children who are not from Mexico cannot be immediately deported without an additional investigation to ensure that these children are not victims of sex trafficking.

It was news to me to find out that Terrell Middle School, the site of the tour, had been closed since 2001 and is now simply a storage unit for the district. So instead of taking the hard-earned tax dollars of Houston locals and putting them into keeping Terrell as a school, people like Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee and the higher ups within HISD feel it is okay to turn it into a housing facility for children. I have never been a fan of Congresswoman Lee and certainly have very little respect for anyone at HISD, but this is getting a little bit ridiculous. Allowing an abandoned school to go unused is infuriating, but then to turn it into federal housing is even worse. Yes, these children need a place to stay but it is not the responsibility of a school district to house children and the federal government should probably get its act together and do what needs to be done. Terrell could be reopened had HISD used a little bit of a $1.9 BILLION bond to update it instead of just letting it sit there while they tear down and rebuild schools that really don’t need to be renovated or rebuilt altogether.

What else could the abandoned middle school be used for instead of just housing for immigrant children and storage for HISD? Well, the school could be torn down and the property sold to a private investor to create more housing or a shopping center for the area. Or even use the land as a sports arena. At the end of my neighborhood is a parcel of HISD property that is all baseball fields rented out to a local little league association for $1 a year. HISD doesn’t even care to profit from what it already owns. The building could be turned into a public library, police station, or even a community center. Allowing the 14.5 acres to be used in a way that is beneficial to the city of Houston is much more ideal than allowing it to be turned into storage or federal housing for undocumented children.

Everyone knows that getting anything done by the government is like watching paint dry. Slow and painful. And can I ask why President Obama declared back in June that we have an “urgent humanitarian situation” at our border? This is not something new; this has been going on for decades. Sometimes I wonder where the President has been all of these years. I’ve seen the statistics: there have been a larger number of border crossings in the last year but there is a reason for that. I partially blame how bad it is getting south of the border, but I also blame how relaxed we have become about our borders without even realizing it.

I may come across a bit heartless, but I don’t believe in a handout and I don’t believe that just because you cross the border into the United States that you are automatically allowed to live here, even if you are a child. There are laws and regulations that need to be upheld. The first step to becoming an American is to respect the United States.

—

Allison Dawson (@AllyD528) Born in Germany, raised in Mississippi and Texas. Graduate of Texas Tech University and Arizona State University. Currently dedicating her life to studying for the LSAT. Twitter junkie. Conservative.

Featured image courtesy of [Debi Fitzsimmons via Flickr]

Allison Dawson

Allison Dawson was born in Germany and raised in Mississippi and Texas. A graduate of Texas Tech University and Arizona State University, she’s currently dedicating her life to studying for the LSAT. Twitter junkie. Conservative. Get in touch with Allison at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Obama, Perry, and the Crisis at the Texas Border appeared first on Law Street.

Immigration has long been a pressing issue in the United States. The debate has taken a new turn following a drastic increase in unaccompanied children from Central America trying to cross the border illegally. Current facilities for children are not equipped to handle this surge, and immigration courts are already backlogged. Why are children flocking to the United States in the first place, and what is the appropriate action for dealing with the crisis?

Who are illegal child migrants?

“Unaccompanied alien children,” who are generally defined as any unmarried person under 18 years of age illegally coming to the United States without an adult. The recent surge of child migrants from Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador has sparked major concern. Most of the children apprehended range from ages 14 to 17, but more recently the children are even younger. Kids coming to United States by themselves are a particular cause for concern since they are more vulnerable and susceptible to harm. Oftentimes, these children are trying to find family members that currently reside in the United States. Honduras’ President Juan Orlando Hernández described the children fleeing to the United States as war refugees, and the Obama administration has recently termed the escalating situation to be an “urgent humanitarian crisis.”

Where are the child migrants coming from?

Children from Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador account for more than 90 percent of those now in government shelters. Children from Mexico continue to illegally enter the United States, but apprehended children from Mexico are immediately returned to Mexico rather than housed in shelters. The problem now is how to shelter all the children coming from Central America. The graph below shows the scope of the growing problem in the past few years:

According to Border Patrol statistics and a UNHCR Report, the United States saw a 92 percent increase in child migrants ages 18 and under from a year ago, and a fivefold increase since 2011. In the 2011 fiscal year , roughly 4,059 kids from Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador entered the United States unaccompanied. By 2013 fiscal year, that number rose to 21,537 kids. This year, 52,000 children were apprehended at the southwest border from October 1, 2013 to June 15, 2014. The Obama administration anticipates that number to rise to 90,000 before the end of the fiscal year in September. Next year’s estimates show the number of children illegally entering the United States from Central America could soar to as much as 130,000. Last year, fewer than 2,000 of these children were returned to their home countries.

Why are they coming?

A variety of factors contribute to children seeking to enter the United States, and debate surrounds exactly what has driven the children to cross the border.

Violence

Many say civil unrest and gang activity; drug-fueled violence in Central America has led to an influx of children coming to the United States. Parents may feel that the children are not safe at home, more likely to join gangs, or  be subjected to violence. Others have family already in the United States that they are trying to reach. When interviewed, many children cited violence as reasons for leaving their country rather than any knowledge of U.S. immigration policy.

Lax Immigration Policy

Others, including Congressman Bob Goodlatte and House Speaker John Boehner, say that children are coming with the belief that the United States will not push deportation. Some interview-based studies cite that many women who entered the country with children believed the law would allow them to secure a “permiso”, or pass to stay in the county indefinitely. Conservatives blame the 2012 Deferred Action on Childhood Arrivals Policy (DACA), which exempts many undocumented immigrants brought to the country as children from deportation for two-year renewable periods. Recently the White House is trying to make clear that children who have recently crossed the border illegally are not eligible for legal status under the DACA program, since it only applies to immigrants who arrived in 2007 or earlier. Immigrants would not even qualify for the Senate’s recent immigration plan, where the eligibility cutoff was the end of 2011. On June 20, 2014, Vice-President Joe Biden traveled to Guatemala to meet with Central American governmental leaders in an effort to secure their support in dispelling rumors that those who cross the U.S. border illegally would not be deported. Whether or not immigrants are influenced by DACA remains contested, but there is little dispute that those in Central America believe unaccompanied children are more likely to be allowed to stay in the United States.

What does the United States do with the children?

Border officials are overwhelmed since the United States lacks appropriate facilities for the surge of children being apprehended. Children crossing the border are treated differently than adults and are not placed in immigration detention, but in shelters. The laws for processing unaccompanied, illegal children differ from those of adults due to the 2002 Homeland Security Act and the 2008 Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act. The Act was designed to protect children and address concerns involving human trafficking for vulnerable, unaccompanied children. All unaccompanied child migrants not from Mexico have to be screened, housed, and then transferred to the care of the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) under the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

Border facilities have been struggling to supply enough food, beds, and sanitary facilities for the incoming children. Watch the strain on these facilities below:

By law, children can only be held at border facilities for 72 hours before they are transferred to the care of ORR. Due to the recent surge, many children have been held for longer than 72 hours. Border officials are caring for the children rather than spending time apprehending those crossing the border. Many agree the situation is far from ideal. Various reports of abuse in the system have surfaced, and children complain of being denied medical care or being kept in ice-cold holding cells.

ORR is tasked with administering long-term shelters and finding relatives of the children in the United States. Roughly 100 permanent shelters exist and all are currently filled to capacity. Authorities have been forced to open three temporary shelters at military bases in Texas, Oklahoma, and California (CNN). According to Vox, for some 90 percent of children, a relative can be found. Others remain in long-term care or foster homes until their case works its way through the immigration courts. It is possible some of the children could qualify for asylum or some sort of humanitarian protection. However, the minors lack legal representation which would help them obtain such protection, since unaccompanied children are not granted counsel in court proceedings. Many of the released children fail to even show up for their court date. The Department of Homeland Security released a helpful infographic to convey the entire process.

What has the United States done to deal with the problem?

The United States now faces two major issues:

1. What to do with the thousands of children who are need to be sheltered?
2. What to do to stem the future tide of unaccompanied child migrants from Central America?

Solution to the Current Problem

Aside from creating more temporary shelters, President Obama has called for a response through a new Unified Coordination Group. The Group was created to leverage federal resources to provide humanitarian relief using branches of the Department of Human Services and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The President announced a “surge” of immigration officials at the border and sent more immigration judges to Texas to help with backlogged cases.

Preventing future problems

The more difficult issue is how to prevent an influx of children going forward. Biden’s meeting in Guatemala was aimed at preventing false rumors about U.S. immigration policy to make clear that children crossing the border illegally will be deported. Watch for more on Biden’s visit below:

The United States also plans to aid Central American countries to prevent drugs, gangs, and violence while improving security. So far, the United States has announced over $80 million in aid to Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador. Legislation providing $2.28 billion in funds to handle the food, housing, and transportation of illegal children has advanced in Congress – an increase of $1.4 billion from the Obama administration’s original funding request.

Are there any other solutions?

If billions of dollars are provided to federal agencies and more immigration judges are sent to the Southwest, it is likely to reduce the strain of the current crisis. Some still call for stronger legislation regarding child immigration, but it would be difficult to pass a law specifically hard on children. Others in Central America shift the blame to the United States for lax drug policy which fuels the drug trade and generates violence. Some, such as Department of Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson, suggest the United States should launch a campaign in Central America to warn of the dangers of illegal immigration. The problem, as with any refugee situation, is that such campaigns have little effect if the dangers children are trying to evade are much greater than any posed by the United States. Providing aid to Central American countries to assist with safety, security, and aid for at-risk youth all provide a good starting place. However, the United States must first resolve what to do with all of the children already in the country.

Resources

Primary

State Department: Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008

White House: Unaccompanied Children from Central America

US Customs and Border Protections: Southwest Border Unaccompanied Alien Children

Additional

The New York Times: As Child Migrants Flood to Border, U.S. Presses Latin America to Act

Vox: Thousands of Children are Fleeing Central America to Texas – Alone

UNHCR: Children on the Run: UNHCR Report

Mother Jones: Why are More and More Children Walking Across the Border?

US News: Obama Calls Spike in Unaccompanied Children Crossing the Border

LA Times: Enforcement Alone Can’t Stop Surge in Child Migrants

CBS: Thousands of Illegal Immigrant Children Will be able to Attend Public Schools

KIND: A Treacherous Journey: Child Migrants Navigating the U.S. Immigration System

CNN: Daniel’s Journey: How Thousands of Children are Creating a Crisis in America

Huffington Post: These are the Real Reasons Behind our Humanitarian Crisis

AP: Obama: Child Migrants ‘Urgent Humanitarian Issue’

Alexandra Stembaugh

Alexandra Stembaugh graduated from the University of Notre Dame studying Economics and English. She plans to go on to law school in the future. Her interests include economic policy, criminal justice, and political dramas. Contact Alexandra at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The New Immigration Crisis: Children Crossing the Border appeared first on Law Street.

In California, an undocumented immigrant who goes to college, law school, and passes the bar now has the ability to be granted a law license.

It’s all because of a young man named Sergio C. Garcia. He was brought to the United States for the first time when he was just over a year old, and spent his childhood going back and forth from California and Mexico. He moved permanently to California at 17. He was brought by his father, who already had a green card. Garcia was approved for a green card himself by state officials, and told that he would receive one when it became available to him.

He then waited for 19 years for that green card. He put that time he waited to good use. He worked his way through college and law school, and then passed the state bar exam. Now 36, he wants to be a lawyer in the country he has called home for almost two decades. Garcia stated, “I am 36 years old. This is the home I know. This is the country I know. And this is the country I want to work for and fight for.”

When Garcia first passed the bar, there were laws in California that allowed anyone to become a lawyer who had some sort of legal standing–including a student visa or a green card. But because Garcia had never actually physically received a green card, the Justice Department claimed he didn’t qualify. And there is federal law that precludes an undocumented immigrant from being admitted to the bar. A former prosecutor with the state bar named Larry DeSha explained the position of those who did not want to admit Garcia, stating,

He can’t say he is going to fulfill his duties as attorney when one of those duties is to uphold all federal laws, when he’s here illegally. And no one can administer the oath to him knowing he’s going to be illegal the minute he puts his hand down. And the other thing is clients can’t pay him money. And any client who finds out that he is illegal has to fire him under federal law.

Garcia’s case eventually made it to the state Supreme Court. It was at that point that Gov. Jerry Brown and the California legislature passed the law allowing Garcia and those like him to receive their law licenses. This new law went into effect officially on January 1, 2014.

Yesterday, the State Supreme Court ruled that under this new law, Garcia is allowed to receive his law license and officially begin to practice law in his home state of California. The decision by the Court was unanimous. As a result of the new California law, the court wrote, “we conclude there is no state law or state public policy that would justify precluding undocumented immigrants, as a class from obtaining a law license in California.”

The decision has been praised by many. A spokesperson for California Attorney General Kamala Harris exclaimed that California’s success, “has hinged on the hard work and self-sufficiency of immigrants like Sergio.”

This California case may set a strong precedent. Similar cases are up for play in Florida and New York. This story out of California is an interesting twist in American immigration rights and law as the federal government remains essentially deadlocked.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Ed Uthman via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Welcome California’s Newest Lawyer: Sergio C. Garcia appeared first on Law Street.

Mass media essentially dropped it, yet it still affects millions of people around the word. The issue? You guessed it! Immigration.

President Barack Obama’s days are numbered. In a little less than two years, he will be irrelevant, a lame duck. Anything our president has to say about domestic policy will fall on deaf ears.

Obama told a Los Angeles affiliate of Spanish-language television network, Univision that after the government shutdown ends, “the day after, I’m going to be pushing to say, call a vote on immigration reform.”

It is great to see that immigration is back on the table, after the immigration legislation was derailed because of rampant gun violence pulsating throughout the nation.

What is important to note about immigration is not so much the changing regulations, but the legislation and politics behind it all.

The demographics in the United States are changing. The new wave of immigrants yields immense amounts of power.

Although this power is not immediately evident, in years to come, immigrants will have a huge impact on voting outcomes. The electorate will encounter new voters of different background, consequently pandering to the emerging majority

Like wise, public policy will have to account for demographic shift. As a result, policy decisions will evolve drastically.

In the most recent elections, immigrant votes were a major deciding factor in deterring which candidate would win a position, whether that be between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney running for presidency or Cory Booker and Steve Lonegan for a senate position.

And President Obama is thinking for his party as well. Immigrants have a significant impact on voter demographics. Immigration is affecting EVERYTHING around us including significant changes in demographics and cultures.

Most importantly, it is changing legislation as well as politics. Demographics are constantly changing.

[Reuters] [InternationalBusinessTimes]

—

Featured image courtesy of [Icars via Flickr]

Zachary Schneider

Zach Schneider is a student at American University and formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Zach at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Immigration: The Journey is Just Beginning… appeared first on Law Street.

Hazleton, Pa. has lost another round in federal court as they try to enforce ordinances that crack down on illegal immigrants.

The U.S. Court of Appeals has reaffirmed that the town’s law is unconstitutional because it preempts the federal government’s jurisdiction over immigration. The law, initially blocked in 2007 by a district court, would punish landlords for renting to illegal immigrants and penalize the employers who hire them.

The case reached the U.S. Supreme Court after the Third Circuit in Philadelphia, but was originally ruled against in 2010. In 2011, the Supreme Court ordered the Third Circuit to review Hazleton’s ordinances again after the Supreme Court upheld a similar – but narrower – law in Arizona.

[Philly.com]

—

Featured image courtesy of [Icars via Flickr]

Davis Truslow

Davis Truslow is a founding member of Law Street Media and a graduate of The George Washington University. Contact Davis at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Court Rules Against Hazleton Immigration Law appeared first on Law Street.