Debunking Major Myths About Immigrants’ Socioeconomic Status in the US

 By: Walter Ewing - www.immigrationimpact.com/ - Fotografía: Arog Vila

Opponents of immigration often claim that European immigrants who came to the United States in the late 19th and early 20th centuries are radically different than the Latin Americans and Asians who immigrate here today.

A new book by two economic historians disproves that by examining several of the most widely held myths about economic success and cultural integration among immigrants and their children. The book, Streets of Gold: America’s Untold Story of Immigrant Success, was written by Ran Abramitzky and Leah Boustan. The authors recently discussed their book in a webinar held by the American Immigration Council.

The authors draw upon their own groundbreaking research comparing the Europeans who came to this country between 1880 and 1920 with the Latin American and Asian immigrants who have arrived since 1965... More information  https://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a5515-Myths-About-Immigrants-Socioeconomic-Status-in-the-US.html

US policy toward haitian immigrants is part of a long, troubled history

 

Shocking images have emerged of Border Patrol officers on horseback charging toward Haitian immigrants in and around the border town of Del Rio, Texas. Thousands of Haitians have come to our southern border as conditions in their home country continue to deteriorate following a devastating earthquake in August and the assassination of President Jovenel Moise in July. Though the Biden administration acknowledged the horrific conditions in Haiti as it extended Temporary Protected Status to Haitians in May 2021, it has decided to remove thousands of Haitians from our southern border.

The administration’s treatment of Haitian migrants has received extensive criticism. Yet its actions are a continuation of a long history of mistreating Haitian migrants.

More information https://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a5251-Haitians-is-part-of-a-long-and-turbulent-history.html

USCIS Plans Massive Fee Hike For Access To Genealogical Records

If you have ever wanted to trace your family’s immigration history, you should do it now—accessing genealogical records from the 1800s and 1900s may soon become far more expensive than ever before.

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) is planning to increase its fees to access millions of historical records held under the agency’s Genealogy Program. This includes citizenship and alien registration files, naturalization records, visa applications, and other documents.

In some cases, the fees to access these files would triple. In other instances, the fees would increase by nearly 500%, shooting up from $130 to $625 to obtain a single paper file.

This fee hike would price many people out of obtaining their own families’ immigration records. more: https://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a4692-Fee-Hike-for-Access-to-Genealogical-Records.html

 

Source: www.immigrationimpact.com

The Trump Administration Wants To Return To A Pre-Civil Rights Immigration System

 

By Walter Ewing

The ideology of President Trump is about more than limiting how many immigrants enter the United States each year; it’s about turning back the clock on U.S. social history.

A recent analysis by law professor Robert Tsai explores how President Trump’s ideology—labeled “Trumpism”—is the latest installment in a long-standing conservative movement to dismantle the legacy of the civil rights era and return the country to a more “traditional” social order.

This traditional order, which prevailed in the 1950s, has very little room for immigrants—particularly non-white immigrants from the developing world.

Tsai’s analysis begins by noting a key historical fact: that the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1965 was an integral part of the civil rights struggle—just as much as the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. It broke down racial barriers that had dominated U.S. immigration law for decades. The fundamental principle behind all three laws was simple: the promotion of equality.

The Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1965 also had two other guiding principles: the preservation of family unity and the presumption that immigrants are capable of assimilating or integrating into U.S. society.

Although the new immigration system was not perfect, it did radically reduce the level of overt racial discrimination would-be immigrants to the United States had to endure. Prior to 1965, a “national origins quota” system dominated the U.S. immigration system for more than 40 years. That system favored immigrants from northern and western Europe, while discriminating against virtually everyone else in the world.

The 1965 law scrapped that system and significantly opened immigration from Latin America, Asia, and Africa, as well as Europe in its entirety.

As Tsai argues, that began to change after 9/11, when institutional discrimination against Muslims skyrocketed in the name of “national security.”

The situation has gotten worse under the Trump administration. Both Latinos and Muslims are portrayed as existential threats to the nation. The Trump administration also ignores that immigrants have a long history of successfully integrating into U.S. society. According to Tsai, Trumpism is fueled by anxieties over the demographic and cultural changes the nation has experienced since the adoption of a more open immigration system in the 1960s. In this sense, Trumpism is what Tsai calls an “ethno-nationalist movement.”

But Trumpism also borrows from other strains of conservative ideology, ranging from the Tea Party to the Moral Majority. As a result, it targets a host of “enemies” in addition to immigrants, such as the United Nations and the global trade regime.

Another key feature of Trumpism is its dependence on the unilateral power of the presidency to implement any policy change. With the House in Democratic hands and the Senate in Republican hands, Congress is effectively deadlocked.

The Trump administration therefore falls back on claims of “national security” or “national emergency” to justify its use of executive orders and federal regulations as it attempts to implement a sweeping agenda for which it has no clear mandate. As Tsai notes, President Trump has made no secret of his preference for immigrants from Nordic countries—and his disdain for immigrants from places like Haiti, El Salvador, and basically any African country.

This attitude reflects more than just the president’s views on immigration. It reflects his views on race as well. It’s no wonder that he wants to lead the nation back to the 1950s, before the civil rights movement dared to challenge the racial hierarchy of U.S. society.

 

Source: www.immigrationimpact.com 

https://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a4578-Return-to-a-Pre-Civil-Rights-Immigration-System.html

Immigration “Restrictionists” Hitting Their Stride Under Trump, But We Can Stop Them

By Wendy Feliz www.immigrationimpact.com 

Short-term thinking is inferior to long-term thinking, some argue, because it does a disservice to the future and those who will live it. Two long-term thinkers who have profoundly impacted U.S. immigration policy were recently in the headlines: John Tanton and Cordelia Scaife May.

Both helped give rise to the current immigration “restrictionist” movement in America through four decades of building and funding a network to advance their cause. 

Tanton was a Michigan-based ophthalmologist who recently died at the age of 86. He was also the architect of the modern-day “restrictionist” movement. He founded groups like the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) , Center for Immigration Studies, and the Immigration Reform Law Institute. Each group seeks to severely limit immigrants, and non-immigrants, from entering the United States. 

May died in 2005. However, the New York Times recently unpacked her legacy in print and on its podcast, The Daily. May was a key partner to Tanton, providing the funding to prop up the research and advocacy activities of his restrictionist groups. They left behind a well-financed network.

Since FAIR’s founding in 1979, the network has argued that America needed to “restrict” who came into the United States in order to control population growth and other environmental concerns. However, while the network claims their policies are not animated by racial animus, Tanton’s writings, revealed late in his life, tell a different story. 

In 1993, he famously wrote, “I’ve come to the point of view that for European-American society and culture to persist requires a European-American majority, and a clear one at that.” He also shared dire warnings of a “Latin” onslaught that needed to be stopped. 

More dangerous than policymaking alone, the network has worked to persuade the public and advance a narrative that the nation is under threat from newcomers through their work in the media and public square. They have played on the public’s biases and fears for decades and encouraged Americans to turn their backs on newcomers and to fear diversity. 

Today, the leaders groomed by this network sit in key offices within immigration agencies and even in the White House. Their long-standing plans for severe restrictions on who can enter the country are beginning to take hold. 

In just the last few years, their acolytes have placed unnecessary and burdensome hurdles in front of newcomers. One of the most recent is the Trump administration’s new public charge rule, which makes it far easier for the government to deny entry to someone based on their perceived economic status. This now means only privileged individuals have a shot at the American dream. 

They have also increased scrutiny and denial of visas and closed many immigration field offices worldwide, making it even harder for an individual to apply for and obtain a visa. They are even discouraging international students from attending U.S. universities by making visas far more difficult to obtain. This is in addition to making it increasingly difficult for asylum seekers and refugees to seek safety in the United States. They are now forcing asylum seekers to wait in dangerous countries for long periods before they are considered for safe passage. 

They have also unveiled strategies to purge immigrants who are already living in the United States—some for decades—through policies that end Temporary Protected Status for thousands, expand detention, and fast-track deportations by removing court hearings from the process, a program known as expedited removal. 

By mainstreaming their restrictionist views, they have even primed some of the public to accept and even support these restrictive, cruel, and un-American policies. Increasingly Americans see immigration as a problem and not an opportunity. 

What we now see play out every day on immigration policy is no accident. It’s the result of a long-term vision of a nation that strictly limits who may enter. 

All Americans who are concerned with America’s legacy and future must take a step back and assess how we have been countering the restrictionist movement and what new strategies we need to roll back their impact and advance the vision of the America we want to live in. We must act quickly before the United States abandons this legacy and becomes a fundamentally unwelcoming nation. 

Source: www.immigrationimpact.com 

https://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a4420-Immigration-Restrictionists-Hitting-Their-Stride-Under-Trump.html

Making Sense of the Rising Number of Families Arriving at the Border

Written by Aaron Reichlin-Melnick

Over the past few months, a new trend has emerged at the U.S.-Mexico border: more families are crossing and presenting themselves to U.S. officials to ask for asylum. But even though the number of people crossing the border are still at historically low levels, the Trump administration alleges it is overwhelmed by the arrival of families. These changes in migration patterns have exposed Customs and Border Protection’s (CBP) inability to respond in a humane and effective way. 

In February 2019, the Border Patrol apprehended 66,450 individuals after crossing the border. This number represented the largest number of arrests at the border in years. However, it was only 5,000 higher than a similar spike in overall arrivals in spring 2014. During that last spike, only 38 percent of people arriving at the border were families and unaccompanied children. Last month, that percent rose to nearly 65 percent—42,999 in total. 

This is the largest number of families apprehended at the border in one month since the government began keeping records in 2012. 

CBP border stations were originally created to receive, hold, and process single Mexican adults who were more quickly returned to their home country. In the past, many families were detained in these stations for days at a time, where they suffered freezing temperatures, lack of hygiene, and inadequate medical care. Many would then be transferred to family detention centers, where they were locked up with their children for weeks or months. 

But now that more than half of all border crossers are asylum-seeking families, in recent weeks the government has started to release families along the border, citing a lack of capacity. 

Government officials are not legally required to detain asylum-seeking families. Officials have always had the discretion to release or parole into the country those who come to the border with instructions to appear at an immigration court for a removal hearing at a later date. Yet CBP has presented its inability to hold everyone in detention as a crisis. 

Days after President Trump took office, he issued an executive order which required CBP to reduce the use of humanitarian parole. Following this executive order, CBP increased the use of detention at the border even for individuals who were not flight risks, partly to deter other families from coming. This inhumane practice caused concrete harm to those forced to remain in immigration custody for long periods of time. 

Although the agency claims to be overwhelmed, it has had to deal with large numbers of children and families in the past, including in 2014 and 2016. Instead of coming up with solutions to care for children its custody, CBP doubled down on detention and deterrence. By shifting to more readily releasing families now, the government is recognizing that it can’t detain its way out of the current situation and that release is a viable option. 

Most of the recently released families will end up appearing in immigration court and seeking protection, as is their right. By avoiding the use of detention, CBP is saving taxpayer money and choosing not to subject asylum seekers to harmful detention which deprives them of access to counsel and limits their ability to obtain relief. 

The rise in family apprehensions masks the reality that the border is more secure than ever. With Central Americans making up more than 90 percent of individuals apprehended crossing the border, the days of large numbers of Mexican immigrants coming across the border for work is almost gone. New studies show that with improving economic conditions and a resurgence in national pride, few Mexicans are interested in traveling to the United States.

Faced with these new migration patterns, the Trump administration must recognize that rising border apprehensions do not present the same challenges as in the past. To address the changes, the administration should invest in better infrastructure, including ensuring that families and children are not subjected to deplorable conditions while in CBP custody. 

Fuente: www.immigrationimpact.com/

https://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a4086-Rising-Number-of-Families-Arriving-at-the-Border.html

This Citizenship Day Marred by Government’s Focus on Stripping People of Their Citizenship

Written by Emily Creighton

Each year on September 17, America marks Citizenship Day, an annual opportunity to reflect on the benefits and responsibilities of U.S. citizenship. In years past, it was used as a day to celebrate new Americans and encourage others who are eligible to become U.S. citizens. However, this year is different, as the security associated with becoming a U.S. citizen may be slipping away. 

A new focus on “denaturalization” by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) takes the agency’s mandate in a troubling direction. Instead of finding ways to preserve, they are devoting resources to stripping people of their citizenship. In June, USCIS Director Francis Cissna revealed the agency’s efforts to staff a new office in Los Angeles focused on evaluating whether individuals should have been naturalized in the first place. 

The targets of this focus on denaturalization are individuals such as Norma Borgoño, a U.S. citizen and grandmother originally from Peru. A denaturalization suit was filed against her alleging she should have revealed her role in a fraud scheme during her citizenship process—a scheme that benefitted her boss, not her—and where she cooperated with the FBI in making a case against her former boss. At the time she applied for naturalization, she had not been charged with any crime, yet the agency will attempt to use this as a way to strip her of her citizenship. 

The Trump administration’s decision to reinvigorate and coordinate denaturalization efforts also comes with a hefty price tag. 

In its proposed 2019 budget , the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) explains that $207 million will be used to fund hundreds of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents focused on “the prevention and detection of immigration benefit fraud and the investigative work necessary to adjudicate applications.” 

Initiatives include Operation Second Look —an attempt to review approximately 700,000 case files of naturalized individuals to find who may be ineligible for citizenship—and Operation Janus, an initiative that formally began in 2010 where USCIS refers cases to the Department of Justice (DOJ) to pursue denaturalization. 

Though a 2016 government inspection detailed some improper naturalizations as a result of incomplete fingerprint record keeping by USCIS (approximately 800 citizenship grants were reportedly made to individuals who were previously ordered deported), the number of individuals stripped of their citizenship has been very low. According to some reporting , only about 300 denaturalization cases were pursued between 1990 to 2017. 

More information is being sought about the administration’s denaturalization efforts through requests under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). 

One FOIA request asks for documents detailing organized efforts to review naturalized citizens’ files in order to identify misrepresentations in their naturalization applications. The request highlights “denaturalization complaints” filed in the Middle District of Florida, District of Connecticut, and District of New Jersey “against two men of Pakistani origin and one man of Indian origin.” After DOJ and ICE failed to respond to the request, Muslim Advocates filed a lawsuit in federal court in Washington D.C. 

Another request asks for information about the process of denaturalization review, the establishment of any new offices focused on denaturalization, and any new recommendations for denaturalization. 

There is a history of revoking citizenship in this country, but this administration’s hyper focus on immigration fraud gives good reason for concern that denaturalization initiatives will be overzealous and that minor mistakes in the citizenship application process may result in a person having to defend their citizenship in court. 

In addition, there is a great and demonstrated need for USCIS to address citizenship cases that are already pending. A recent report pointed out there has been a 35 percent increase in the backlog of citizenship applications from July 2017 to July 2018 and a 77 percent increase since July 2016. 

Given the extraordinarily small number of individuals against whom denaturalization cases are brought, there should be widespread agreement that the focus of USCIS resources should be on processing immigration benefits, not rooting out imaginary fraud.

 

Source: www.immigrationimpact.com  

http://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a3908-Citizenship-Day-on-Stripping-People-of-Their-Citizenship.html

The Military’s Strategic and Recruitment Goals Fail When Immigrants Can’t Serve

Written by Melissa Cruz in Humanitarian Protection, How the Immigration System Works 
 
The United States Armed Forces has long valued the contributions of immigrants—from the War of 1812 to the ongoing conflicts in the Middle East, U.S.-born and immigrant soldiers have fought alongside one another with no concern for nationality or immigration status. Yet, within the first several months of the Trump presidency, the administration has created additional and unnecessary barriers for immigrants looking to serve.

A detailed history of immigrants’ service in the military is outlined in a new report from The National Immigration Forum, For the Love of Country: New Americans Serving in Our Armed Forces. The report details the military’s need for a broader pool of eligible applicants and how immigrants could—if allowed—fulfill that need with critical foreign-language, medical, and cultural skills.

Approximately 40,000 immigrants serve in the U.S. military, with 5,000 noncitizen soldiers typically enlisting each year. As of 2016, approximately 511,000 immigrants were veterans. Moreover, 11 percent of all U.S. veterans come from an immigrant background; they are either foreign-born themselves or have an immigrant parent. In addition, 20 percent of all Medal of Honor recipients—the highest distinction given in the military—are immigrants.

The sheer volume of immigrants willing to serve is critical as the pool of eligible applicants nation-wide continues to shrink. Accounting for all of the factors that render young adults unavailable or unqualified for the military, only 13 percent of 17- to 24-year-olds are eligible to serve.

The Army, for instance, estimates that out of a total target recruitment population of 33.4 million, only 136,000 young people (0.4 percent) would be qualified to serve. For its own recruitment efforts, the Army estimates that it will need to spend an extra $300 million in advertisements to recruit 6,000 additional soldiers to fulfill its target of 68,500 recruits by the end of the fiscal year.

By actively recruiting immigrants, the military could significantly reduce this gap. According to the report, immigration is predicted to be the only future source of net growth in the U.S. population among 18- to 29-year-olds, the target age range for military recruits. Currently, the number of noncitizens who are both recruitable and in this desired age range is approximately 1.2 million.

Beyond the numbers, the talent immigrant recruits provide is unique. From 2009 to 2016, the military made a special effort to recruit noncitizens specifically for their ability to speak certain languages, cultural competency, and medical skills. Noncitizen recruits are also far more likely to stay for the entire length of their service, saving the military valuable money and time.

Yet the Trump administration’s new, additional barriers for immigrants wishing to serve have largely blocked the Armed Forces from accessing this group of young people.

In October 2017, the administration reversed a long-standing policy that allowed immigrants serving in the military to fast-track their pathway to citizenship. Now, in addition to completing an extensive set of background checks, immigrant soldiers must navigate new bureaucratic obstacles to obtain citizenship.

The Pentagon is also reportedly considering a halt to The Military Accessions Vital to the National Interest (MAVNI) recruitment program, which was open to noncitizens (and even some undocumented immigrants) who possessed critical language or medical skills. If the program is halted, 1,800 troops recruited through the MAVNI program could lose their enlistment contracts. It is estimated that roughly 1,000 of those immigrant recruits could be out of status, opening them up to the risk of deportation.

In addition, the Pentagon has also implemented a new policy that indefinitely halts all enlistments involving green-card-holderslooking to join the Army Reserve and National Guard.

There is also an unacceptable future potentially awaiting some immigrant veterans upon returning to the United States: the risk of deportation.

Should immigrant veterans—some of whom battle unemployment, physical, and psychological stress after returning from deployment—ever commit a crime that is considered an “ aggravated felony” under immigration law, they could face deportation and permanent banishment from the country that they served.

The immigrants serving in the United States Armed Forces must be treated with respect, just as any U.S.-born soldier would expect. This means actively recruiting immigrants who wish to serve, as well as giving them all of the benefits for which they are entitled upon returning home. To do anything less is un-American.

Source: www.immigrationimpact.com 
http://inmigracionyvisas.com/a3717-How-the-Immigration-System-Works.html 

Pentagon May Deport Immigrants Who Have Served in the Military

Written by Melissa Cruz 

The Pentagon is considering halting a program that allows immigrants with urgently needed skills to serve in the military, putting the thousands of soldiers promised expedited citizenship in exchange for their service at risk for deportation.

According to an undated Defense Department memo, the Pentagon may terminate the Military Accessions Vital to National Interest program (MAVNI), an initiative that has allowed noncitizens with specialized linguistic and medical skills to enlist in the military and receive fast-tracked citizenship. Since the program’s launch in 2009, these immigrant troops have filled in the gaps for jobs deemed critical to the military’s operation, but are in short supply in American-born troops. 

The memo, however, cites the “potential threat” posed by these immigrant troops, referencing their “higher risk of connections to Foreign Intelligence Services.” Officials have now assigned threat level tiers to the 10,000 troops in the MAVNI program—the majority of whom serve in the Army—despite the rigorous vetting they endured to enter the military in the first place. 

Attorney and Retired Lieutenant Coronel Margaret Stock, the founder of the MAVNI program, told NPR that these security concerns were exaggerated: “If you were a bad guy who wanted to infiltrate the Army, you wouldn’t risk the many levels of vetting required in this program.” 

Other immigrants would not even be able to reach basic training—ending the MAVNI program would also cancel the contracts of recruits in the delay-entry program, a holding pool of recruits awaiting their assigned training date. 

As a result, 1,800 enlistment contracts for immigrant recruits would be cancelled, putting roughly 1,000 at risk for deportation. Those recruits’ visas expired while waiting for the military’s travel orders. An additional 2,400 part-time troops would also be removed from service. 

The Pentagon also plans to subject roughly 4,100 service members—most of whom are already naturalized citizens and have been deployed around the world—to “enhanced screening,” though the memo acknowledges the “significant legal constraints” of “continuous monitoring” of citizens without cause. 

Stock said the Pentagon’s proposal may violate the U.S. Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause. 

“They’re subjecting this whole entire group of people to this extreme vetting, and it’s not based on any individual suspicion of any of these people,” the former lieutenant colonel said. “They’ve passed all kinds of security checks already. That in itself is unconstitutional.” 

Though the program itself may have been an Obama-era initiative, immigrant troops have aided the U.S. military for centuries, dating all the way back to the Revolutionary War. To cut this essential program now—particularly as the Trump administration calls for a heightened military presence around the globe—may not only be unconstitutional, it is a disservice to centuries of American military tradition that has relied on the skills of foreign-born service members. 

Photo by MarineCorps NewYork

Source: www.immigrationimpact.com 
http://inmigracionyvisas.com/a3666-Pentagon-Deport-Immigrants.html