ARE BUDGET CUTS REALLY "RELEASING" IMMIGRANTS?

Background:

President Obama has recently decided on budget cuts which will be taking effect later this week. The new economic plan cuts $85 billion dollars from Federally funded programs, including ICE (Immigration Customs Enforcement). The budget debate has been a tough one, with Republicans and Democrats still not in agreement on how to lower the United State's deficit, and unable to come up with successful plans. Obama began on Monday with listing budget cuts by state, and shortly after Janet Napolitano addressed the effects these cuts would have on the security of our border. Ms. Napolitano stated there would be delays in certain areas of the border, but that citizens should not feel endangered.

Releasing Immigrants:

ICE has immediately felt the results of the budget cuts, being unable to provide beds for all of the detained immigrants in their facilities. ICE chose to release several hundred individuals who were determined to be "low-risk" or in other words "non criminals" back into society due to the unavailability of space and money. Although these immigrants have been released by ICE, they will more than likely be sent back to their country of origin in the future. ICE officials also stated these immigrants are still being supervised under electronic monitoring or monitoring through phones.

Opinion:

It seems as though agencies such as ICE, could have "gotten by" on less federal funding from the start. These budget cuts have clearly showed there are alternatives to detaining every immigrant at the border, especially those who are "non criminal" and not posing any immediate threats to society. The United State budget deficit is something that needs to be addressed, and Obama has chosen to take action. As stated in the article, these immigrants are still facing deportation, and are still be processed through the court system, just on less money.

Los Angeles Times

Yahoo

IMMIGRATION RESTRICTIONS HURTING MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY?

 

H1B Visa:

This is a non-immigrant visa the federal government allows U.S. employers to use. This visa allows immigrants to be employed for up to six years by a U.S. company. This is not something the immigrant themselves can apply for, but instead, the employer must petition for the immigrant to be given an H1B Visa. The visa is typically used for "specialty" professions, those requiring a specific knowledge, such as engineers, or scientists. The federal government further regulates the use of the H1B Visa by setting a numerical cap, which is currently set at 20,000 per year. Last year, the allotment for these visas was reached in a mere ten days.

Manufactures in Need:

There is no doubt that President Obama's recent state of the union address was centered around the U.S. economy and economic growth. The need for constant expansion and prosperity is a goal of both the government and manufacturers. Although it is a common goal, manufacturers are struggling to reach it. There are not enough qualified U.S. born citizens to fill all of the positions needed and there are not enough H1B Visas to go around. Many of the visas are allotted to technological companies such as Intel or Microsoft, but companies like Caterpillar and Cummins are in need as well. In order for our economy to be the most successful, corporations need to hire the best individual for the job, which may involve hiring from outside the U.S. In recent years, manufacturers have been forced to let go, or pass over immigrants because of a lack in visas and other documentation. These companies are planning on hiring thousands of individuals to boost production, which means these companies may have to look outside the U.S. Immigration reform is not only wanted by these companies, but it seems to be a necessity, which will hopefully be answered.

http://www.green-cards.com/company/h1b_visa.htm

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/12ce6d3c-740e-11e2-a27c-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2LGuBtap6

http://www.immigrationdirect.com/immigration-news/green-card/manufacturing-companies-need-higher-cap-on-work-visas/index.html

http://images.search.yahoo.com/images

"STREAMLINING" IMMIGRANTS THROUGH THE FEDERAL SYSTEM

Operation Streamline: A "Zero Tolerance" Policy

 What is it?

Operation Streamline was first proposed and put into place during the Bush Administration in 2005 in Del Rio, Texas. The Operation has since spread along much of the Southern border including, Yuma, Arizona, Del Rio, Laredo, and the Rio Grande Valley in Texas.This program seeks to bring Federal criminal charges upon those crossing the border illegally, regardless of circumstance, origin, or gender, every individual gets processed in the same manner. For an immigrant's first entry into the country, he or she is charged for a misdemeanor, which is punishable for up to eight months. A second entry on the other hand, calls for felony prosecution which is punishable for up to twenty years. These cases are typically resolved within two days, sometimes even less. The program speeds up due process for undocumented immigrants, giving these individuals inadequate representation in the legal system, and denying them of all other options.

 Consequences?

During the Bush Administration alone, federal criminal prosecutions of immigrants more than quadrupled, drawing more attention from law enforcement, courts, judges, and prosecutors. This trend continued under our current federal government, the Obama Administration. In April, 2009 criminal immigration cases outnumbered white collar crime, civil rights crime, environmental crime, drug related crime, and all other criminal crimes combined. The trend has continued on, where in 2012, Federal criminal prosecution of immigrants accounted for more than fifty-three percent of federal criminal prosecutions throughout the nation. Operation Streamline has also inspired other programs such as the Arizona Denial Prosecution Initiative in Tucson, AZ. This program enures immigrants can face up to 180 days in jail, a formal removal, and permanent denial of legal reentry.

Concerns?

There are both financial and societal consequences being seen from Operation Streamline. The financial costs alone include costs of incarceration, costs for operating the courts, and paying employees of the courts, and attorney fees. Attention is also being taken away from crimes that may be a more pressing matter, such as drug trafficking, violent crimes, or crimes that threaten the safety of the public.

The Washington Post

Unproven Benefits Outweighed by Cost to Taxpayers

Operation Streamline Fact Sheet

WAR ON DRUGS VS. WAR ON IMMIGRATION: HOW DIFFERENT ARE THEY?

I am currently reading "Operation Gatekeeper and Beyond" which has brought up some interesting points I thought I might discuss. Many have heard about the "War on Drugs" which was started by former President Nixon, but what some may not be aware of the coincidental correlation this movement has had with the increasing attention on illegal immigration. The need for border enforcement first began drawing attention in the 1960's when Americans increasingly concerned about border security, and how much control the government had over it. This carried over into the 1970's, which was the beginning of a new era in American history; both the "War on Drugs" was launched, and there was an obvious increase in attention being focused on the U.S.-Mexico border (Nevis: 2010, 77-80)

Former President Nixon, who launched the war on drugs, continually looked toward Mexico as the source of illicit drug sales and supply in the U.S.  President Ford, who was elected after Nixon, put General Leonard Chapman in charge of the INS (Immigration and Naturalization Service), continuing to point the finger at immigrants from the South for illicit drugs and economic problems. As one can probably predict, the media also began influencing these movements, airing stories that focused on the problems immigrants from Mexico were creating in the U.S.

Moving into the Carter administration in 1977, it was announced the size of the Border Patrol would be doubled, which led to a very large increase in federal resources being given to border enforcement; it had become a national security matter. Former President Reagan than took office in 1981 when "congressional funding appropriations increased 130 percent and staff positions grew 41 percent for the INS" (Nevis: 2010, 84). This major increase in funding was justified by maintaining the goal of decreasing drug trafficking from the border and ultimately the "War on Drugs" was being intertwined with the war on immigration once again. During former President Reagan's time in office, Border Patrol began to take on the role of Drug Enforcement agents as well.

In my opinion, it seems as though, starting with former President Nixon, the Federal government has been successful in masking the "war on immigration" behind the highly publicized "War on Drugs". This goal of curtailing illicit substances from being smuggled in to the U.S. has been used as a justification for the explicit amounts of energy and money being put into border enforcement. Immigrants coming from Mexico have been portrayed as dangerous, drug dealing individuals who need to be stopped. It would not hurt for people to take a step back and think twice about why America has the policies it does, and where these policies originated.

Nevins, Joseph. Operation Gatekeeper and Beyond. 2nd. New York: Routledge, 2010. 76-85. Print.

OPINION: OBAMA MISSING KEY ELEMENTS OF REFORM IN HIS IMMIGRATION REFORM

President Obama's recent speech on Immigration Reform fell short of anything resembling a plan of action. In typical political fashion, the President stated America's immigration system was broken, stating there are 11 million undocumented immigrants in the world. The president than focused his speech on specific areas of immigration, such as emphasizing the majority of undocumented immigrants are contributing members of society, while also taking credit for the significant reduction in illegal border crossings (80%). He gave other facts such as 1 in 4 immigrants complete high tech startups or are small business owners. President Obama then laid out what he deemed the "three principles of immigration reform", which I feel many Americans would agree with, but President Obama failed to provide a plan of action for how the Federal government will achieve these principles. These principles included:

1. Strengthening security and enforcement which was broken into several components. The first component involves cracking down on those companies and employers who hire undocumented workers. Doing so creates an unfair competition between those hiring undocumented individuals and companies who hire U.S. citizens. The second component addresses enforcement and involves "dealing with those who are already here illegally". 
2. Creating a pathway to citizenship was the second principle Obama outlined. It is no secret that achieving U.S. citizenship can be a very long, tedious process. According to the U.S. Citizenship website, it can take anywhere from 5 months to 2 years for individuals to gain citizenship.
3. The third principle Obama outlined was the need for improvements in the legal immigration system. The immigration system currently operating in America is not functioning as it should. The system needs to be updated to reflect the technology and capabilities of society today. 

While each of these principles are in my opinion, necessary for immigration reform it would have been more substantial if President Obama had laid out a plan if action to implement these principles. The speech seemed as though The President placed the responsibility on Congress to develop new, useful legislation regarding immigration. Although Congress is more than likely capable of this task, it is always encouraging to see The President standing behind his political agenda, rolling up his sleeves, working alongside Congress to tackle immigration reform, and leading this country in a positive direction.

 http://www.uscitizenship.info/ins-citizenship-process.html