Moonhowlings

Guest contributor Eric Byler weighs in on the Immigration Resolution, the tragic fatal wreck, and comprehensive immigration reform. He has been out in Phoenix as well as other areas, watching the immigration issue unfold before his eyes. He has talked to many people and heard a variety of opinions in his travels.

Any statements and opinions by guest contributors do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the administrators of moonhowlings.net.

The fact that this drunk driver was turned over to ICE in 2008, after the
“Immigration Resolution” was put into effect, brings up some real
questions about the wisdom of expensive policies at the local level
that redirect the time and resources of local law enforcement toward a
focus on immigration status rather than public safety. For 2 months
in the spring of 2008, the policy in Prince William County was very
similar to that proposed in Arizona’s SB 1070. But we corrected our
course on April 29, 2008 so that we check the status of ALL
individuals who are arrested for an underlying crime, rather than
people out on the streets who have not committed underlying crimes but
fit a “probable cause” standard. Just about everyone in our county
agrees that the repeal of the “probable cause” mandate made for a more
effective, more fiscally responsible, and more legally defensible
policy. Still it did not prevent this tragedy.

Read more…

The following editorial appeared in the New York Times on yesterday, January 5, 2010.

The Editorial is printed in its entirety.

The quest for overhauling immigration received two very welcome lifts on New Year’s Day.

Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York City, at his inauguration, pledged to help the Obama administration pass immigration reform. Mr. Bloomberg is a force to reckon with, as he proved with his national campaign against illegal guns. On the same day, four young people in Miami, current or former students at Miami Dade College, began their own determined march to Washington in an effort to bring pressure from the grass roots.

Three of the four were brought to this country illegally as children. Like thousands of other young people, they bear no blame for their status, and they are frustrated that their hard work and bright promise lead to a brick wall. Their protest for a chance to become Americans is courageous because it exposes them to possible arrest and deportation. “We are risking our future because our present is unbearable,” one of them, Felipe Matos, told The Times.

Read more…

Virginia Association of Counties’ (VACo), Position Statement on Comprehensive Immigration Reform

VACo maintains a strong commitment to ensuring the security and safety of our communities. Legislative reforms must recognize the contributions of immigrants to a complex economy as well as the costs associated with welcoming immigrants into our communities. The U.S. Congress must enact comprehensive immigration reform that provides a funding stream sufficient to address the fiscal impact on state and local governments for any guest worker program and earned legalization program. The states and local governments require a national immigration system that is fully funded at the federal level, recognizes the realities of the marketplace, eases the fiscal stress on states and localities, and properly secures our borders. It is important that the federal government establish a clear and understandable path to citizenship for those who are eligible.

Introduced in November 2009 by County Board Member J. Walter Tejada, Arlington, VA

VACo approved and adopted in November 2009 as VACo’s Position Statement on Immigration Reform

My first question is this….Does Corey know? This “Position Statement” seems purposefuly vague, vague enough that I don’t think any elected official would be willing to stand up in opposition.

Who could be against “securing the safety of our comminities” ?

So, what I am wondering, is how does this “statement” turn in to actual meaningful legislation?

Also, I am wondering, who actually affirmed our vote from Prince William County, do they have the authority to sign onto such a statement?

In a remarkably candid letter to members of Congress, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said her department could have to delay pursuits of illegal immigrants while waiting for horses to be brought in so agents don’t trample protected lands, and warns that illegal immigrants will increasingly make use of remote, protected areas to avoid being caught.

The above quote from the Washington Times makes one take note. In fact, Rep. Rob Bishop (R-Utah) has been crusading to shore up the gaps between DHS border control and environmental rules coming from the Dept. of the Interior. He confirms his displeasure over border initiatives to install towers associated with the virtual fence being denied because of wilderness designation.

Read more…

Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano has called for an overhaul of US immigration policy early next year. The move is expected to rekindle the immigration flames, which could be problematic in an election year.

Additionally, opponents and conservative media is billing any reform initiative as giving illegal immigrants amnesty. The Huffington Post quotes Napolitano:

Ms. Napolitano said the immigration landscape has changed sharply since 2007, when attempts at a comprehensive overhaul failed because many members of Congress lacked confidence in the government’s ability to enforce existing laws, she said. Immigration overhauls backed by the Bush administration and some congressional leaders from both parties foundered in part because critics portrayed them as rewarding illegal immigrants with “amnesty” for violating U.S. law.

Since then, government statistics show a 23% drop in the number of illegal immigrants caught trying to enter the U.S. in the past year, and a 67% decline since 2000, a trend Ms. Napolitano attributed to the weak economy and stronger enforcement. The government has also stepped up efforts to audit employers’ compliance with immigration laws, she said.

“These are major differences that should change the immigration conversation,” said Ms. Napolitano. Without congressional action, “what I fear is we will see another wave of illegal immigration” when the economy improves, she said. “When Congress is ready to act, we will be ready to support them.”

The Washington Times, a conservative newspaper, puts a different spin on Secretary Napolitano’s words:

Declaring success in border security and immigration enforcement, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said Friday that the federal government has done its work and now it’s time for Congress to pass a broad bill to legalize illegal immigrants.

Her speech signals President Obama will make good on his promise to push Congress to pass an immigration bill next year – adding yet another hot-button issue to an already long and contentious list.

Ms. Napolitano said members of Congress and voters who balked at an immigration bill two years ago, fearing a repeat of the 1986 amnesty that only made the problem worse, can be assured this time is different. She said in those two years, the flow of illegal immigrants across the border has dropped dramatically and the government is doing more to catch fugitive aliens inside the U.S.

I have tried for several days to find a direct quote that sounds like what Ms. Napolitano was quoted as saying in the Washington Times. I have not been able to find it. It sounds incendiary to me and quite a stretch from what actually was said.

Here is the link to what DHS Secretary Napolitano did say. It is too lengthy to post here.

Geraldo called his boss because of the rumor that Lou Dobbs was leaving CNN and coming on over to Fox.
The boss said NO.

Geraldo defends the presence of immigrants in this country and reviles the defamatory tone used when discussing comprehensive immigration reform.  He blames Lou Dobbs for setting the tone that affects all Latino people.

Geraldo stated the following which was reported in the Huffington Post:

Rivera told the crowd, “One of the aspects of our reality in the United States right now is the defamatory tone of the immigration debate and how that immigration debate has slandered an entire race of people. It has been reckless beyond imagining, it has been reckless beyond precedent.”

He then trained his sights on Dobbs: “Lou Dobbs, a man who was an accomplished journalist, and who left to start his own venture in the digital media… and then came back to CNN, and nobody was watching his program. He discovered that one of the ways he could get people to watch was to make of the image of a young Latino trying to get into this country a profoundly negative icon. Lou Dobbs is almost singlehandedly responsible for creating, for being the architect of the young-Latino-as-scapegoat for everything that ails this country.”

From The Washington Post

By E.J. Dionne Jr.

Monday, May 4, 2009

On many questions, President Obama’s approach is full speed ahead. On immigration reform, he prefers to take things one step at a time. There really is no alternative.  Immigration is politically vexing because it splits both parties and scrambles the usual ideological alignments. There is no clear majority on this issue. Roughly a third of Americans strongly favor granting illegal immigrants a way to become citizens, while another third is strongly opposed.  An ambivalent middle knows the status quo is unsustainable and wants a comprehensive solution, yet is also upset about the government’s failure to stop illegal immigration.

Moving us in that direction is not about doing favors for illegal immigrants. It’s about strengthening the American community. Obama needs to use the time he is buying himself to make that case.

 

The Obama administration has particular worries of its own. Obama won last year with overwhelming support from Latino voters who helped him carry such swing states as New Mexico, Colorado and Nevada. Latino political leaders are appropriately insistent that the president keep his promise to fix immigration and end a system that, in Obama’s words, “keeps those undocumented workers in the shadows.”

 

But the president’s lieutenants are well aware that Obama also won in swing states where there is less sympathy for a path to legalization (Indiana, North Carolina and Ohio) and do not want to throw immigration reform into an already combustible legislative mix.

So Obama has been sending two signals simultaneously: Yes we can, but not quite yet.

Read more…

S.P.L.C. Receives Kudos

The Editorial Board of the New York Times gave kudos to the Southern Poverty Law Center for their report “The Nativist Lobby,” which was released on Tues. S.P.C.L. examines the connects between three Washington-based organizations that have advocated for severe restrictions to immigration from Hispanic countries as well as restrictions for those who are here already.

The three groups examined are ones you will be very familiar with:
Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), the Center for Immigration Studies and Numbers USA — a lobbying group, think tank, and grassroots organizer, respectively. In fact, these organizations all had a hand in policy setting when the Immigration Resolution was ushered in. The criticism is strong.

Read more…

According to the Gainesville-Times, Corey Stewart is not too happy with the McCain Campaign because Senator McCain did not address the immigration issue. McCain supports a pathway to citizenship and co-sponsored an Immigration Reform bill in 2007 which went down in defeat.

Apparently, Corey Stewart felt that the McCain Campaign dissed him and his fellow Republican leaders at the October 18 rally at the County Complex:

…Stewart resented what he perceived as the McCain camp’s attempt to distance itself from the county’s crackdown.
“We had no real place other than getting introduced through a long line of people,” Stewart said of his fellow Republican county supervisors, referring to an honorees list read by Clerk of the Circuit Court Michele McQuigg.
Though she had asked the audience to hold their applause until the end, Stewart’s name was the only one cheered after she read it.
“I don’t feel that proper protocol was respected, and I think that’s going to hurt him, frankly. The local Republicans know how to win elections here,” said Stewart.
“I’m very, very disappointed in McCain’s campaign here,” he added.

Earlier in the week Stewart bragged that he has practically begged the McCain campaign to come to Prince William County. The Gainesville-Times further elaborates on the immigration issue in Prince William County and how it relates to Stewart.

One issue noticeably absent from Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain’s speech to supporters in Prince William on Saturday was illegal immigration.
Unlike the majority of the Republican base, McCain has supported a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants.
So for him to stop in the county that was the national hotbed for illegal immigration controversy just last year and not talk about the issue troubled of Board of County Supervisors Chairman Corey Stewart (R).

Stewart complained :

“But I think that clearly McCain’s campaign has tried to distance itself on Prince William County’s local crackdown on illegal immigration,” he said. “And I think that’s a blunder. And I use that word very strongly and I mean it.”

In order to connect with the crowd on illegal immigration, “All he had to say was ‘Protect the borders’ and unlike [Democratic president nominee Sen.] Barack Obama, he does not favor workforce rights and giving driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants. That’s all he had to say,”

Does this mean that Corey is going to just get angry and support Obama? Somehow I can’t see that happening. What I do see here is a sore loser. I wonder what he thinks about the campaign choosing Tito the Builder over him?

Did Corey think the McCain Rally was his very own little pep rally, just for him and his buds? Let’s hope Corey doesn’t trip over his lip.

According to an Associated Press article in the Washington Times, the Republican Party will also most likely remain silent on the issue of immigration because the positions between both Presidential candidates are so similar.

Personally, I believe McCain will be the better candidate to deal with this because Republicans will be more likely to work with him than with Obama.

ST. PAUL, Minn — It’s the unmentioned issue — Democrats were nearly silent on immigration during their convention, and on Sunday House Minority Leader John Boehner said the Republican convention won’t say much about it either.

“Probably nothing,” Mr. Boehner told reporters. “In every election cycle, some issues rise to the top and others fall to the wayside.”

The issue, which rocked the Senate in 2007, has fallen in importance in part because the election doesn’t offer voters much of a choice.

Both Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama and presumptive Republican nominee John McCain sharing similar positions: Both men support a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants, though Mr. McCain now says that must come after border security, while Mr. Obama says they must be combined.

At Democrats’ convention several speakers did mention the issue, including Sen. John Kerry, who criticized Mr. McCain for backtracking from the broad bill the Republican wrote along with Sen. Edward M. Kennedy.

“Are you kidding? Talk about being for it before you’re against it,” he said.

This Op-Ed in the NY Times, hits the nail on the head. We owe it to our law enforcement officers to come up with a workable federal immigration policy that does not force police departments to succumb to political pressures to ‘reduce immigration by using racial profiling and harassment’.

Without a national immigration policy, a new culture of lawlessness will increasingly permeate our society. In cities, politicians will pressure police departments to reduce immigration by using racial profiling and harassment. At the same time, immigrants who fear that the police will help deport them will rely less on their local officers and instead give thugs control of their neighborhoods.

Many top law enforcement officials were part of the community policing revolution of the 1980s and ’90s. We have a deep concern for constitutional rights and social justice. We believe that effective policing requires residents, regardless of immigration status, to trust the police.

We are also students of the mistakes of our predecessors. Past police practices helped lead to the civil unrest of the 1960s, which tore our nation apart along racial and political lines. We do not want to repeat those mistakes.

…

America’s police officers deserve thoughtful federal leadership so that we can continue doing our best to provide our country with the security that defines a civilized society.

Ruben Navarrette Jr., a CNN contributor offers a reasonable response for fixing our immigration system.

SAN DIEGO, California (CNN) — In a recent commentary, I spelled out what bothers many Hispanics about the immigration debate. In response, many readers demanded to know — for all my criticisms — how I would go about fixing our broken immigration system. I thought they’d never ask.

First, let’s keep it real. Congress doesn’t have the appetite to reform the immigration system — no matter which party is running the show. It’s always the same story. After all the huffing and puffing, any workable solution needs to have two components: employer sanctions with teeth and a tamper-proof identification card for all U.S. workers to tell employers who is eligible to work. Republicans won’t allow the first; Democrats won’t allow the second. Game over.

But, if it were so inclined, here’s what Congress should do:

1) By way of enforcement — stiffen penalties against employers with a “three strikes” law (first offense, a warning; second, $10,000 fine; third, 10 days in jail); revise the 1996 Immigration Reform and Control Act by removing the word “knowingly,” as in employers only face punishment if they knowingly hire an illegal immigrant; create an identification card; instead of adding more border patrol agents (the agency can’t meet hiring goals as it is), give the agents already on the line better tools, including tunnel detection equipment; extend the deployment of the National Guard on the border, now set to expire on July 15; continue workplace raids but, for heaven’s sake, arrest an employer every once in a while; and speed up deportations.

2) By way of legalizing the undocumented — make it contingent on meeting enforcement goals, or “triggers”; establish a cutoff so that only those who can prove that they’ve been in the country for five years or more are eligible to apply for legal status and deport more recent arrivals; require applicants to learn English, pay a $5,000 fine, undergo criminal background checks, return to their home country to be processed, and take their place in the back of the line behind all those who are trying to enter the country legally; and, for those who are eventually given legal status, institute a lifetime ban on receiving welfare, Medicaid or food stamps but allow them to collect what they’ve contributed to Social Security.

3) By way of reforming the system for those who immigrate legally — increase the allotment of green cards and work visas, including H1B visas for highly skilled workers; triple the number of legal immigrants currently admitted from 1 million to 3 million, or 1 percent of the total U.S. population; abandon the current system of using family reunification as the main criteria for admitting new immigrants but don’t adopt the silly and offensive idea of a point system that rewards education and skills; instead, let the market drive the process by making labor demands the major criteria so (how’s this for radical?) we always have jobs for those who come here instead of admitting engineers and doctors if what we really need are teachers and nurses.

This isn’t brain surgery. But some of this will take courage and common sense. The bad news is, those can be scarce commodities in Washington.

Image from the Loudoun Times Mirror.

Source: Loudoun Times-Mirror
TUESDAY, JUNE 10 2008
UPDATED TUESDAY, JUNE 10 2008

Jose Andrade is a bashful 13-year-old living in Leesburg. He’s a graduate of Catoctin Elementary School, and in a few days, he will have completed seventh grade at J. Lupton Simpson Middle School.

His teachers describe him as a pleasure to have in class, a hard-working student with a positive attitude who takes pride in his work, although on occasion he can be a class clown.

His Boy Scout troop leader calls Jose the most dedicated 13-year-old Scout in the troop.

And when he grows up, he says he wants to be a policeman — mostly because of the cool uniform, but also to help protect people.

But it’s unlikely Jose will be able to realize his dreams.

A native of El Salvador, the teen has until July 16 to leave the country – alone and without his family.

The journey here

Born in Guatajigua, El Salvador, in 1994, the youngster experienced the fallout of the county’s brutal civil war, which had ended in 1992.

His mother, Mirna Andrade, left the country in 2000 to find work in the United States. Jobs were hard to come by in El Salvador, and providing for her family was difficult, she said.

“I was a single mother and it’s difficult to get ahead,” said Mirna, now 33. “I heard that there was work [here].”

Mirna received a visa, allowing her to work in the United States shortly after arriving.

Jose stayed in El Salvador with his mother’s sister’s family.

“I sent him money,” Mirna said, but it wasn’t getting to him.

“They only gave him a quarter. When a week passed, they told him they didn’t have [any] money. This he didn’t tell me.”

Mirna said her sister pulled Jose out of school and used him to run errands, like retrieving water.

“Two months passed that they didn’t send him to school,” she said.

During phone conversations with her, Jose would act timid, Mirna said. She felt something was wrong.

In 2005, 11-year-old Jose, followed his mother’s route to the United States.

She said her son’s education was a primary reason for bringing him here, adding it was important to her that she be with her son.

“I want [my children] to study,” said Mirna, who has two younger children who are U.S. citizens by birth.

“If God allows, [school will] help them realize a good career so that they know how to support themselves.”

The route, which wound from El Salvador to Guatemala, through Mexico and finally across the Rio Grande into Texas, is more than a month’s journey traveling by foot and car, Mirna said.

“We were hungry all the time, and tired,” Jose said.

The youngster traveled with two cousins.

Jose walked across the Rio Grande from Mexico into Texas at a shallow point on a hot day in September 2005. He was arrested by federal police awaiting new arrivals on the other side. One cousin did not make it across the border; the other was arrested with Jose and sent back to El Salvador.

“They took us someplace that looked like a jail,” he said.

He was held at a youth detention center in Harlingen, Texas, for nine days, until his mother came and got him.

“I was happy I wasn’t going to be in there anymore,” said Jose, who said he worried he would never see his mom again.

From that point on, the family has fought an uphill legal battle to keep Jose in the United States.

Tough choices

Torn between loosing her son and abandoning her two younger children, Mirna tears up when she talks about having no choice but to let Jose go back to El Salvador without her.

Looking back, she said she had always hoped, but never believed, that Jose would get to stay.

Once he was released into his mother’s custody in 2005, Jose’s case was moved to the Arlington immigration court, which tries cases for residents of Virginia and Washington, D.C.

Since then, the teen has had three hearings on his immigration status.

Seeing no alternative, Jose’s lawyer – L. Christina Carlier, a lawyer for Catholic Immigration Services based in Washington, D.C. — applied for voluntary removal of the teen at his final hearing in March. This allowed Jose and his family to have 120 days to prepare for his departure, and he would be able to come back to the United States for visits.

If he had tried to run or hide, Jose would have been put into another detention center and held until deported. He also would not be allowed to return to the United States for 10 years.

Although voluntary removal was granted, Mirna says it is unlikely Jose will get to visit because the trip is dangerous and expensive.

The 13-year-old cannot legally return to live in the United States until he turns 18 and can apply for a visa.

“I wanted to be with my mom.” Jose said. “I wanted to develop a career. It’s not good to have to leave when your mother is here.”

For the time being, the teen lives in an apartment off Plaza Street with his mother and her fiance, and Jose’s two siblings — brother Hever Garcia, 5, and 1-month-old baby sister Yaritza.

Jose said it’s not fair he should have to leave. He doesn’t fully understand why he’s being asked to go; he said children should get to stay with their parents.

Could he have stayed?

U.S. immigration law prohibits children not born in the United States from living here unless their parents are U.S. citizens, said Immigration Attorney Christina Wilkes, who works for Ayuda.

Ayuda, which means “help” in Spanish, provides legal aid for immigrants seeking legal residence in the United States.

Wilkes said because Jose’s mother was not a citizen, he must return to El Salvador.

Mirna’s work permit, which is valid until 2009, allows her to stay here. Up until Yaritza’s birth, Mirna worked at the Panera Bread restaurant by Leesburg Corner Premium Outlets.

She has applied for a green card, which would allow her to be a permanent U.S. resident, using her brother who is a citizen as a reference.

It could be another 10 to 15 years before Mirna’s green card application is processed. She could have to wait an additional 10 years or more before she can become a citizen, Wilkes said.

“It’s very backlogged,” the attorney said of the immigration courts system. She said this could be the reason why it took the courts three years to deport Jose.

But even if Mirna had a green card and was on the road to citizenship, she would not be able to keep Jose here.

Before applying for voluntary removal, the family tried and failed to gain political asylum status for Jose.

“Over 88 percent of the children who are apprehended across the border come from El Salvador,” Wilkes said.

Many of them, she said, are fleeing violence, domestic abuse or gang recruitment — the results of a civil war that has left El Salvador’s economy, government and security in disarray.

Wilkes said these are reasons why parents who don’t want their children returned to El Salvador apply for political asylum.

At the end of the day, both lawyers said there is nothing else that can be done.

“We tried to do our best to keep the boy here,” said Carlier.

When Jose moves back to El Salvador, he will live with another of his mother’s sisters.

“He will be living with family, but it won’t be the same,” Mirna said. “You want your family to be together.”

Jose said: “It’s not good to be separated from your mom.

Struggling to fight off tears, Mirna said, “I want to have him with me. I will miss him a lot, badly.”

From John McCain:Border Security and Immigration Reform

I have always believed that our border must be secure and that the federal government has utterly failed in its responsibility to ensure that it is secure. If we have learned anything from the recent immigration debate, it is that Americans have little trust that their government will honor a pledge to do the things necessary to make the border secure.

As president, I will secure the border. I will restore the trust Americans should have in the basic competency of their government. A secure border is an essential element of our national security. Tight border security includes not just the entry and exit of people, but also the effective screening of cargo at our ports and other points of entry.

But a secure border will contribute to addressing our immigration problem most effectively if we also:

Recognize the importance of building strong allies in Mexico and Latin America who reject the siren call of authoritarians like Hugo Chavez, support freedom and democracy, and seek strong domestic economies with abundant economic opportunities for their citizens.

Recognize the importance of pro-growth policies — keeping government spending in check, holding down taxes, and cutting unnecessary regulatory burdens — so American businesses can hire and pay the best.

Recognize the importance of a flexible labor market to keep employers in business and our economy on top. It should provide skilled Americans and immigrants with opportunity. Our education system should ensure skills for our younger workers, and our retraining and assistance programs for displaced workers must be modernized so they can pursue those opportunities

Recognize the importance of assimilation of our immigrant population, which includes learning English, American history and civics, and respecting the values of a democratic society.

Recognize that America will always be that “shining city upon a hill,” a beacon of hope and opportunity for those seeking a better life built on hard work and optimism.

Border security and our failed immigration system are more examples of an ailing Washington culture in need of reform to regain the trust of Americans. In too many areas — from immigration and pork barrel spending to Social Security, health care, energy security and tax relief — business-as-usual politics prevents addressing the important challenges facing our nation.

And, from Obama’s Blueprint for Change –

BARACK OBAMA’S PLAN FOR IMMIGRATION REFORM

“The time to fix our broken immigration system is now. … We need
stronger enforcement on the border and at the workplace. … But for
reform to work, we also must respond to what pulls people to America.
… Where we can reunite families, we should. Where we can bring in
more foreign-born workers with the skills our economy needs, we
should.”
–Barack Obama, Statement on U.S. Senate Floor,
May 23, 2007

AT A GLANCE
Comprehensive Reform
Barack Obama has fought for comprehensive immigration reform that secures our border, fixes our broken immigration bureaucracy and puts the 12 million undocumented immigrants on a responsible path to citizenship.

Commitment
If Congress does not act in the interim, Obama will revive immigration reform in the first year of his
presidency.

THE PROBLEM
Undocumented Population is Exploding
The number of undocumented immigrants in the country has increased more than 40 percent since 2000.
Every year, more than a half-million people come illegally or illegally overstay their visas.
Immigration Bureaucracy is Broken
The immigration bureaucracy is broken and overwhelmed, forcing legal immigrants to wait years for
applications.
Immigration Raids are Ineffective
Despite a sevenfold increase in recent years, immigration raids only netted 3,600 arrests in 2006 and have placed all the burdens of a broken system onto immigrant families.

BARACK OBAMA’S PLAN
Create Secure Borders
Obama wants to preserve the integrity of our borders. He supports additional personnel, infrastructure and technology on the border and at our ports of entry.
Improve Our Immigration System
Obama believes we must fix the dysfunctional immigration bureaucracy and increase the number of legal immigrants to keep families together and meet the demand for jobs that employers cannot fill.
Remove Incentives to Enter Illegally
Obama will remove incentives to enter the country illegally by cracking down on employers who hire
undocumented immigrants.
Bring People Out of the Shadows
Obama supports a system that allows undocumented immigrants who are in good standing to pay a fine, learn English, and go to the back of the line for the opportunity to become citizens.
Work with Mexico
Obama believes we need to do more to promote economic development in Mexico to decrease illegal
immigration.

OBAMA RECORD
Crack Down on Employers
Obama championed a proposal to create a system so employers can verify that their employees are legally eligible to work in the U.S.
Fix the Bureaucracy
Obama joined Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-IL) to introduce the Citizenship Promotion Act to ensure that
immigration application fees are both reasonable and fair. Obama also introduced legislation that passed the Senate to improve the speed and accuracy of FBI background checks.
Respect Families
Obama introduced amendments to put greater emphasis on keeping immigrant families together.