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

Immigrants Are Regularly Kept Locked Up For Months After Deportation Orders

Written by Kristin Macleod-Ball

When the U.S. government orders that an immigrant in its custody must be deported, the person isn’t supposed to remain incarcerated for long. Yet the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) often does not deport people promptly. This means thousands of people suffer in detention for months after they’re ordered deported. 

This is what the DHS’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) found in a report earlier this month. 

The federal watchdog looked at the cases of everyone in DHS custody with removal orders on a single day. Immigration law generally requires that DHS deport people within 90 days after a final removal order. But DHS held 3,053—almost a quarter of the people in custody with final removal orders—for longer than that. When OIG checked back in on those people three months later, it found that 1,284 were still detained. 

More than 1,000 immigrants were still locked up more than 6 months after they received their final removal orders. 

Almost 20 years ago, in a case called Zadvydas v. Davis, the Supreme Court ruled immigrants with final removal orders can’t be forced to stay in detention for an unlimited period of time. Even if the government can’t physically deport someone from the United States, the person can’t sit in jail indefinitely just because of their removal order. 

If deportation is not foreseeable, it’s usually considered unreasonable to keep a person jailed for more than 6 months after a removal order. There is an exception for people who haven’t been deported because they are challenging a removal order in the courts. Many of the people described in the OIG report were still in detention for this reason. However, others stayed detained for months because DHS or foreign governments delayed getting necessary travel documents or flight arrangements. 

Forty percent of the people detained for at least 90 days after their removal orders were held because of this type of government-created delay. 300 of them were still in DHS custody 3 months after that. 

While the OIG report’s findings are disheartening, they are not surprising. Under the Trump administration, DHS has expanded its capacity to detain immigrants. Currently, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement detains 48,000 immigrants every day. President Trump has requested funding to increase immigration detention even more. 

 

Regardless of the reason for the prolonged detention, it should not be regular DHS practice to incarcerate immigrants for months after they are ordered removed. Immigration detention is a form of civil detention—meaning it is not a form of punishment for any unlawful conduct. Keeping people locked up because they are exercising their legal rights to challenge their deportation or because of government-created delays is unjust. 

Fuente: www.immigrationimpact.com/

https://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a4080-Immigrants-Are-Kept-Locked-Up-After-Deportation-Orders.html

Taking H-4 Spouses Out Of The US Workforce Would Hurt Women The Most

Written by Walter Ewing

The Trump administration is set to issue a proposed rule that would prevent the spouses of certain high-skilled temporary foreign workers from getting jobs while they are in the United States. The rule—which would bar employment for those in H-4 status—would waste economic potential and have a disproportionate impact on women. 

This new rule derives from President Trump’s “Buy American and Hire American” executive order, which incorrectly assumes that fewer jobs for foreigners automatically translates into more jobs for natives. But barring an entire group of skilled workers from the labor force would at most have no impact on employment opportunities for native-born Americans. At worst, it may actually decrease the number of jobs available to natives. 

The foreign nationals with H-4 status who could lose their work authorization are the spouses of high-skilled foreign temporary workers in H-1B status. Roughly 90 percent are women. Since 2015, these H-4s have been allowed to apply for work authorization in the United States if their H-1B spouses meet certain requirements on the path to permanent residence. 

While the Trump administration believes that native-born workers can simply move into the jobs vacated by H-4s, the economics of job creation does not work that way. According to an analysis by the Cato Institute, pulling the spouses of H-1B workers out of the labor force would result in significant economic losses—including the possible loss of jobs among the native-born. 

As Cato notes, the spouses of H-1B workers tend to be highly educated and, when given a chance, economically productive: 

• Nearly 60 percent have a graduate degree.
• About three-quarters (around 91,000 people, primarily women) are employed.
• Two-thirds of employed H-4s work in STEM fields (science, technology, engineering, and math), much like their H-1B spouses
• About 7 percent are self-employed; meaning that some also employ other workers.

Given their high earnings, this group adds around $5.5 billion to the U.S. economy. This contribution would stop if the labor force loses them. It would reduce federal tax revenue by $1.9 billion and state and local tax revenue by $530 million. 

The impact on employment is harder to quantify. While pulling all H-4s out of the labor force might open up a few thousand jobs for the native-born, this would be cancelled out by the loss of jobs when self-employed H-4s are forced to close their businesses and let go of their native-born employees. 

On top of that, the presence of foreign workers in the labor force—H-4s included—boosts both job opportunities and earnings for the native-born. 

Foreign and native workers have skill sets which complement each other. Employing foreign workers enhances natives’ productivity and, in turn, their wages. Foreign workers also create jobs by spending their earnings in the U.S. economy and paying U.S. taxes. Eliminating them from the labor force would cause both jobs and earnings to drop, hurting native workers. 

Contrary to the claims of the Trump administration, there is no economic gain from keeping H-4 spouses unemployed. They add to the U.S. economy, create jobs and businesses, generate tax revenue, and raise wages for native-born Americans. There’s no down side to this arrangement in economic terms. 

It’s clear the administration’s proposed rule will do more harm than good. It also amounts to a needlessly punitive action against high-skilled foreign spouses—particularly women—who are already putting their talents to use in the U.S. economy. 

Fuente: https://immigrationimpact.com/

https://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a4072-United-State-forbid-work-to-spouse-h4.html

Appeals Court Says Asylum Seekers May Now Challenge Their Deportation in Federal Court

Written by Emma Winger

Many asylum seekers who travel to the United States seeking protection often receive something much less—they are arrested by immigration officials and provided no meaningful way to challenge their deportation in federal court. 

Last week, in Thuraissigiam v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals became the first federal appeals court to say that depriving these asylum seekers of federal court review violated the U.S. Constitution. This decision adds a key level of protection for a vulnerable population currently under attack by the Trump administration. 

Because of their circumstances, asylum seekers are often unable to meet the legal requirements to enter the United States. If they lack proper documentation, they are forced into an expedited removal process. A single asylum officer decides whether their fear is credible and there is only a cursory review by an immigration judge. In Fiscal Year 2016, 41 percent of all deportations were through this expedited removal process. 

The process is deeply flawed. Immigration officers routinely violate even the minimal protections in place for asylum seekers in expedited removal proceedings. Immigration officers fail to inform migrants that they may seek asylum in the United States, do not inquire about their fear of persecution, provide inadequate interpretation, and fail to correctly record the results of the interview or explain the reasons for denying a claim. When an asylum seeker asks for review by an immigration judge, they often do not have an immigration attorney. 

Vijayakumar Thuraissigiam, an asylum seeker from Sri Lanka, faced this flawed expedited removal process. In his case, the asylum officer and immigration judge failed to follow the required procedures and failed to apply the correct legal standards when they evaluated his fear claim. He tried to challenge it in federal court, but the district court held that it could not consider Mr. Thuraissigiam’s claims under the immigration laws. 

When he appealed that decision, the Ninth Circuit reversed it, concluding that the laws limiting federal court review violated the Suspension Clause. The court explained that the Suspension Clause—part of the original Constitution and therefore pre-dating even the Bill of Rights—was designed to protect access to the courts. This vital protection, available through habeas corpus proceedings, has been accessible to non-citizens as well as citizens in the United States since its founding. 

The court concluded that Mr. Thuraissigiam and other asylum seekers who raise similar procedural challenges to the expedited removal process have the right to challenge their expedited removal process in federal court. 

Though the government could ask for an additional review from a larger group of Ninth Circuit judges or take the case to the Supreme Court, the decision in this case is significant. For now, more asylum seekers may have their day in court, securing a vital protection and giving them an opportunity to challenge a rushed deportation process. 

Fuente: http://immigrationimpact.com/

https://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a4062-Asylum-Seekers-May-Now-Challenge-Their-Deportation-in-Federal-Court.html

Written by Tory Johnson

Family reunification has long been the cornerstone of U.S. immigration policies. Yet, last year when the administration made changes to guidance around “public charge”—a policy that many consider an economic litmus test for who can come to or stay in the U.S.—advocates decried the impact it would have on families.

These fateful predictions are ringing true, as the U.S. Department of State (DOS) denied a record-number of visas after the changes went into effect. 

According to recent government data, DOS issued fewer immigrant visas overall in fiscal year (FY) 2018 compared to the previous year. Yet one figure was particularly noticeable. The number of visas denied on “public charge” grounds jumped more than 300 percent from FY 2017 to FY 2018. 

In order to qualify for an immigrant visa to the United States, many immigrants must show that they are not likely to become a public charge—someone who is primarily dependent on state benefits. In FY 2018, DOS reported that 13,450 immigrant visas were initially rejected on public charge grounds, up from 3,237 denials in FY 2017 and 1,076 in FY 2016. 

What caused such a dramatic increase in these visa denials? 

Experts point to revised instructions in the DOS Foreign Affairs Manual (FAM) involving the “public charge test.” State Department officials in U.S. embassies and consulates abroad use the FAM when deciding whether to grant permission to someone applying for a visa to enter the United States on a permanent (immigrant) or temporary basis (nonimmigrant). 

The revisions changed how officials examine the main factors in the public charge test. Before the revised instructions, an immigrant visa applicant’s sponsor could provide an affidavit of support to show they agreed to support the new immigrant in the United States. This support on its own was generally enough to overcome negative findings in the public charge test. 

Now, an affidavit of support is just another piece of evidence for an official to consider. As a result, the changes in the FAM instructions likely led to a much higher number of visas denied on public charge grounds. 

Since visa applicants can submit new evidence after the initial denial and in the next fiscal year, it is not yet clear how many of the FY 2018 denials may ultimately be overcome. 

It is important to note who is most impacted by these changes. The majority of denials in FY 2018 were for immigrant visa applicants, such as non-U.S. citizens seeking entry to the country to join or reunite with family members who are U.S. citizens or permanent residents. As a former DOS official said in a recent interview: 

“These denials are for immigrant visa applicants and primarily impacted family immigration cases, leading to separations of family members (mainly spouses, parents and children of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents).” 

While the FAM revisions were relatively narrow compared to the Department of Homeland Security’s proposed regulations redefining the legal term “public charge,” they appear to have profoundly affected DOS visa adjudications. This may signal how seriously visa numbers could change under the proposed regulatory changes. 

In the end, the spike in DOS visa denials on public charge grounds is a clear example of how the Trump administration has made quiet policy changes to dramatically affect the U.S. immigration admissions system, making it more difficult for families to reunite through the existing legal immigration channels. 

Source: http://immigrationimpact.com/

http://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a4058-Families-Hit-Hardest-by-State-Department-Visa-Denial-Uptick.html

The Demand For Highly-Skilled Foreign Workers Is Undeniable

Written by Walter Ewing

There is little doubt that highly skilled natives and immigrants have worked together for years to drive innovation in a broad range of fields and to build America’s private sector. 

However, despite ample evidence of the complementary nature of the work done by highly skilled foreign-born professionals, the anti-immigration community in the United States is once again attempting to cast doubt on the value of their economic contributions. 

One of the latest attacks is a report that calls into question the worth of degrees awarded by colleges and universities virtually anywhere outside of the United States. Yet this attempt by the anti-immigration crowd is marred by the use of an irrelevant data set that in no way measures a foreign-born worker’s professional knowledge or subject matter expertise. 

The data set used in the report comes from the Program for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies (PIAAC)—an English-language test of literacy, numerical proficiency, and computer savvy administered in the United States and 23 other countries. PIAAC is not intended as a measure of specialized knowledge in any particular field of study. Rather, it assesses the practical, day-to-day, “core competencies” of adults in reading, writing, math, and using a computer—in English. 

The report finds that, among college-educated natives and immigrants who took the test in the United States in 2012 and 2014, natives significantly outperformed immigrants on all measures. The report also finds that this performance gap persists even for immigrants who have been in the country for more than five years before taking the test and who presumably had time to improve their English-language skills. 

While all of this may be true, the report uses the gap in PIAAC scores to support a conclusion that goes far beyond what PIAAC actually measures. Namely, that “policy-makers should therefore be cautious in treating foreign degrees as evidence of ‘high-skill’ immigration.” 

Yet PIAAC doesn’t measure the specialized skills of degree holders; it only measures core competencies in the use of the English language, numbers, and computers. It does not assess the engineering expertise of an engineer or the sociological expertise of a sociologist. 

If foreign degree holders were as unskilled as the report implies, they would not be in high demand among U.S. employers. But they are. Consider that, each year, the statutory cap on H-1B temporary visas for highly educated foreign professionals is now filled in a matter of days after becoming available. 

On average, H-1B workers earn higher wages than comparable U.S.-born workers, even after accounting for differences in age and occupation. This holds true in fields like computer and information technology, engineering, healthcare, and post-secondary education. In other words, employers aren’t saving money by hiring H-1B workers, which suggests that these workers have skill sets which are in high demand. 

The economic importance of highly skilled foreign workers—who may have earned degrees both here and abroad—is also apparent from their sheer numbers in STEM fields (science, technology, engineering, and math). They account for over one-third of all software engineers, more than one-quarter of computer programmers, over one-quarter of electrical engineers, nearly half of medical scientists—and the list goes on. Some of these professionals received their higher education in the United States and some did not. But all are in demand. 

In short, the report begs the question of why immigrants with foreign degrees are in such high demand by U.S. employers if they aren’t actually qualified in their fields of study. 

This latest anti-immigrant report misuses PIAAC scores in a cynical attempt to denigrate anyone who received a higher education beyond the borders of the United States. But this attempt doesn’t withstand scrutiny because PIAAC scores were never intended to measure specialized bodies of knowledge that highly skilled foreign professionals possess. Knowledge was not invented in the United States, and there are very knowledgeable people who were actually born in other countries. 

 

Source: http://immigrationimpact.com/ 

http://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a4051-Highly-Skilled-Foreign-Workers-Is-Undeniablein-in-United-States.html

Number Of Undocumented Immigrants In US At A 25-Year Low

Written by Walter Ewing

Contrary to President Trump’s claim that “large-scale unlawful migration” across the southern border constitutes a “national emergency” that requires building a wall, research suggests that undocumented immigration across the U.S.-Mexico border is actually the lowest it’s ever been in the past 25 years. The Center for Migration Studies (CMS) has issued a report with this conclusion, which reinforces the findings of a similar report released by the Pew Research Center in November 2018. 

According to CMS, the total number of undocumented immigrants in the United States has decreased by one million since 2010 and now stands at about 10.7 million. At the same time, apprehensions at the border have dropped dramatically, falling from 1.6 million in 2000 to about 300,000 in 2017—a decline of more than 80 percent. These numbers would not seem to signal an “emergency” at the border. 

CMS also reports that from 2010 to 2016, about two thirds of new undocumented immigrants became undocumented by overstaying temporary visas, while only one third entered across the southern border without authorization. A wall is clearly not going to have an impact on visa overstays. 

According to the report, the undocumented population is shrinking mostly because there are more undocumented immigrants leaving the country than coming. Undocumented arrivals fell from 1.4 million in 2000 to about 550,000 in 2007 and have continued near that level. But the number of undocumented immigrants who left the country—either of their own volition or because they were deported—kept increasing and grew from 370,000 in 2000 to 770,000 in 2016. 

This is occurring despite the fact that the U.S. labor market is in reasonably good shape, meaning that the economic “pull” factors which have traditionally drawn undocumented immigrants to the United States are not exerting nearly as much force as they once did. CMS points to heightened immigration enforcement in the United States and improved economic conditions in Mexico as likely causes of this new pattern. 

CMS points out that the official statistics they use to estimate new undocumented arrivals are likely inflated to some degree by the erroneous inclusion of Central American asylum seekers. Asylum seekers are exercising a right recognized under international and domestic law to request safe haven in another country—meaning that they are not undocumented immigrants. But in official statistics, asylum seekers and the undocumented are frequently conflated with each other. 

The declaration of a “national emergency” at our southern border may be politically expedient for the Trump administration, but it has no basis in fact. Migratory pressures along the border are at all-time lows. 

Nevertheless, the situation of asylum seekers who are being stymied by the Trump administration in their quest to seek protection in the United States is a serious problem that must be addressed. But it is a problem that a wall is not going to fix.

Source: http://immigrationimpact.com/

http://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a4039-number-of-undocumented-immigrants-in-United-States-decreases.html

Congress Members and Others Argue Against Turning Back Asylum Seekers

Written by Karolina Walters

The Trump administration’s policy of turning back asylum seekers has been devastating, as vulnerable people are repeatedly denied access to the asylum process at ports of entry (POEs) along the U.S.-Mexico border. 

Now, Members of Congress, states, organizations, and law professors are standing up to the administration by supporting a lawsuit that challenges the government’s inhumane actions. These prominent groups filed amicus briefs that collectively dismantled the government’s arguments seeking to dismiss the lawsuit, Al Otro Lado v. Nielsen. 

In the lawsuit, the organizational plaintiff Al Otro Lado, Inc. and thirteen individual plaintiffs argue that turning back asylum seekers denies them their statutory right to access the asylum process and their constitutional right to due process of law. The practice also violates U.S. obligations under international law. 

The government argues its treatment of asylum seekers is justified, maintaining it has the right to control the flow of persons at the border and that it does not have the “capacity” to process all those seeking access to the asylum process at the southern border. It also argues U.S. law does not apply to asylum seekers who were prevented from accessing the asylum process, even if they were denied access by U.S. officials mere feet from the border. 

The amicus brief filed by 77 members of Congress argued that the government’s policy violates the congressional intent behind the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). The Act protects access to the asylum process and makes that access mandatory. 

It does not allow the government to deny access to the asylum process, even temporarily, based on the whims of the Executive Branch. 

The brief also provided evidence against the government’s “lack of capacity” arguments. The evidence showed U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is processing asylum seekers below their own stated capacity and that the administration has not prioritized increasing capacity in budgetary requests. 

Attorneys General from 19 states and the District of Columbia filed a second brief detailing the inhumane and traumatizing conditions faced by asylum seekers turned back from the U.S. border. The Attorneys Generals argue their states and the District welcome more than 73 percent of the asylees entering the United States and will have to divert additional resources to public schools and health systems, among other service providers, to “assist the victims of the unnecessary trauma that defendants’ Turnback Policy causes.” 

A group of immigration law professors filed another brief attacking the government’s claims that asylum seekers’ rights are determined solely by a border line drawn on a map. The law professors argue that U.S. officials act under U.S. law when they keep asylum seekers from accessing the asylum process: 

“ [T]heir very ability to exert governmental power on [asylum seekers] shows that those [asylum seekers] had reached the place where U.S. power exists… [Moreover], if U.S. power projects beyond the map line, then so too does the Constitution’s demand that the government not deprive [these individuals] of due process. ” 

Amnesty International filed a brief explaining that under international law, the United States cannot return someone to any place where they may fear for their lives. The brief outlines how the Mexican border region qualifies as such a place for asylum seekers. Five other organizations which advocate for immigrant youth, including Kids in Need of Defense, focused on the particular dangers faced by unaccompanied minors subjected to the policy. 

19 other organizations presented evidence that undermined the government’s justifications for its treatment of asylum seekers. Despite the claim of insufficient capacity to process asylum seekers, the brief included data that in October 2016, CBP processed more than twice as many individuals at POEs than in December 2018. 

“Since October 2016,” the brief states, “every field office at the U.S.-Mexico border has reported significant declines in the processing of undocumented immigrants. ” 

It asserts that the real motivation behind the government’s policy is not a lack of capacity, but rather “blatant animus toward immigrants, particularly those from Latin America, and a desire to deter current and future migrants from seeking asylum in the United States.” 

These six diverse briefs share a common theme: the law and the facts do not justify, or even support, the government’s turn backs of asylum seekers at the U.S.-Mexico border. 

 

 

Source: http://immigrationimpact.com/

http://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a4034-argue-rejection-against-asylum-seekers.html

Workers Detained In Massive Tennessee Immigration Raid Sue ICE

Written by Walter Ewing

Workers who were detained during the first large-scale workplace immigration raid under the Trump administration filed a class action lawsuit against the government on Thursday. The raid, which took place in April 2018, decimated a meat processing plant in Bean Station, a rural community outside of Knoxville, Tennessee. 

The raid by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents resulted in the detention of almost 100 primarily Mexican workers. The suit alleges violation of the workers’ rights against illegal seizures and to equal protection under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. 

This raid was a response to a criminal investigation of the family-owned plant for tax evasion, filing false tax returns, and hiring undocumented immigrants. The owners pled guilty to the charges in August 2018. 

The suit alleges that, even though federal officers only had a search warrant to investigate the owners’ tax evasion, ICE agents used the warrant as a pretext to carry out a discriminatory mass immigration enforcement. Officers allegedly raided the plant and detained every worker in the plant who looked Latino, regardless of their actual citizenship or documentation. 

In fact, many of the workers weren’t asked about documentation until hours into the raid, at which point many had already been handcuffed, transported to a new location, and held in isolation, unable to contact family members or attorneys. At the same time, white workers were neither detained nor questioned about their documentation and were allegedly permitted to leave. 

Two of the named plaintiffs also allege that they were assaulted by ICE officers, including one plaintiff who was punched in the face and another plaintiff who had a gun pointed to his head without reason. The plaintiffs are seeking monetary damages due to the governments’ violation of their rights. 

However, the impact of the raid extends beyond the fate of the detained workers or the owners of the plant. According to Meredith Stewart, senior supervising attorney for the Southern Poverty Law Center: 

“What happened in East Tennessee was law enforcement overreach, plain and simple. We as a nation have a shared set of ideals, rooted in the Bill of Rights: we have a right to be free from racial profiling and unlawful arrests. If we are not willing to uphold those ideals for everyone in this country, then we are all at risk of losing our rights.” 

History has taught us that these sorts of immigration raids will do little to deter unauthorized immigration. Raids have devastating effects on families, businesses, and local economies. They also generate trauma in children who are separated from their parents. Reports indicate that a day after the Bean Station raid, at least 600 students did not show up for school. Another negative outcome is that these tactics make immigrant communities less safe. In communities where crackdowns take place, residents are less likely to cooperate with the police or report crimes for fear of being arrested or deported. 

Raids not only affect the social fabric of communities, but their economies as well. In Tennessee, immigrant-led households paid $1.5 billion in federal taxes and $493.9 million in state and local taxes in 2014 alone. If immigrants are unable to go to work for fear of being apprehended and deported, their economic contributions are greatly diminished. 

As the Trump administration pursues its strategy of spreading fear throughout immigrant communities, more large-scale worksite raids like Bean Station’s are a real possibility. The unfortunate truth is that the administration is willing to sacrifice families, communities, and local economies throughout the country in its quest for greater levels of immigration enforcement. 

Source: http://immigrationimpact.com/

http://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a4028-Workers-Detained-in-masiive-raid-sue-ICE.html

Border Towns Are Among The Safest In The United States

Written by Melissa Cruz

On Monday evening in El Paso, Texas, two very different images of the U.S.-Mexico border emerged.

President Trump held a rally to make the case for his border wall again, repeating his usual talking points on the supposed dangers lurking in the region. Just a block away, former Democratic Representative from El Paso, Texas Beto O’Rourke held an opposing rally to counter the president’s claims on immigrants, refugees, border town safety, and the need for a wall. Both events were characterized as a final attempt to sway congressional leaders, who must come to an agreement on whether to provide border wall funding by Friday.

These two demonstrations show just how easy it is to stir up the public around the issue of immigration, particularly when the backdrop is the southern border region. However, the truth is the communities along the U.S.-Mexico border are among the safest in the United States.

El Paso, the site of the two rallies, has been considered one of the safest cities in the nation for the last 20 years, long before any border fencing was built.

In fact, in the last week, two governors of border states ordered their National Guard troops to withdraw from patrolling the border, calling Trump’s recent decision to deploy troops there as nothing but “political theater.”

New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham was the first to withdraw troops from her state’s southern border last week. In total, 118 National Guard troops had been called to New Mexico, traveling from Arkansas, Kansas, Kentucky, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Wisconsin.

In a statement announcing the withdrawal, Grisham said:

“I reject the federal contention that there exists an overwhelming national security crisis at the southern border, along which are some of the safest communities in the country. …New Mexico will not take part in the president’s charade of border fear-mongering by misusing our diligent National Guard troops.”

On Monday, California Governor Gavin Newsom also ordered troops to be withdrawn from his state’s southern border with Mexico. He echoed Grisham’s sentiment, saying the president had created “a manufactured border crisis.”

Other elected officials from border regions have opposed Trump’s rhetoric on the state of the border. Republican congressman Will Hurd, whose Texas district has the longest border with Mexico, called a concrete border wall “the most expensive and least effective way to do border security.” And Texas Representative Vincente Gonzalez recently pointed out that the border town of McAllen, Texas had zero murders in 2018 and ranks as the seventh safest city in the United States.

Government statistics back this up. FBI data shows that border towns have statistically lower violent crime rates than other parts of the country. Former Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Commissioner David Aguilar even testified that “border communities are safer than the interior locations of each of the border states.”

The reality of many of these border communities is simple—they have low crime rates, residents feel safe, and their elected officials understand border security does not mean a border wall. In making its decision on border security funding this week, Congress should take a closer look at where the real problems are.

 

Source: http://immigrationimpact.com/ 

http://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a4019-Border-Towns-The-Safest-In-The-United-States.html