Coming up: Immigration Bills in the House

Tomorrow, the House judiciary committee will markup H.R. 2131 the Supplying Knowledge-based Immigrants and Lifting Levels of STEM Visas Act (SKILLS Visa Act) and H.R. 1772 the Legal Workforce Act. Both of these bills are piecemeal approaches to immigration reform and address only certain aspects of our immigration system. If they pass out of the committee they would stand to be debated by the full House floor. 

Our General Assembly policy calls for immigration reform that preserves family unity. As people of faith we recognize the importance of having healthy families that are united. Not only do families promote the integration of migrants into society and create healthy, viable communities but they also increase participation in our economy. Today's push for immigration reform has highlighted the pain and suffering caused by the separation of families and the need to create legal avenues for families to stay together, not drive them apart. The SKILLS Visa Act is written to help U.S. employers hire immigrants in high-tech industries but it does so by reducing family-based visas over time, thus making the legal immigration system less accessible for U.S. citizens and Lawful Permanent Residents who are trying to reunite with their close family members. The bill would abolish the opportunity for U.S. citizens to have their brothers or sisters join them in the United States and it would prevent any siblings with approved petitions who have been waiting years to join their family members from entering the country.

Our General Assembly also calls for the protection of workers and for employment laws that protect the right to organize and seek redress for grievances. The Legal Workforce Act mandates the use of an electronic employment eligibility verification system (EEVS) by every employer in the U.S. within 2 years. The bill increases penalties for employers who knowingly hire or employ unauthorized workers and there are limited remedies for workers who may be fired due to an error in the EEVS. The bill would also allow for employers to condition a job offer on a worker’s final verification by the EEVS and limits the documents that may be used to prove employment eligibility and identity.

What happened last week in the House?

Despite the hundreds of calls made by the faith community, the House passed the SAFE Act out of the judiciary committee last week. The SAFE Act’s focus is to expand immigration enforcement and detention. If enacted it will lead to the expansion of racial profiling, unconstitutional arrests, and mass detention and deportations. House leaders Rep. John Boehner (R-OH) and Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) can now decide not to bring the SAFE Act up for a vote in the House.

The House judiciary committee also passed, Goodlatte’s Agricultural Guest Worker bill. The bill would create a new agricultural guest worker program without an opportunity for undocumented farmworkers to earn immigration status or citizenship. Current undocumented farmworkers and their families would be expected to self deport. Farmworkers would be allowed to return to the U.S. if an employer sponsors them for a temporary work visa but they would not be allowed to bring family members. The bill would limit worker access to judicial relief and legal assistance to protect their few rights and would also eliminate the 50% rule, which requires employers to hire qualified U.S. workers who apply for work during the first half of the season.

Immigration Legislation in the House of Representatives--Update

Tomorrow the Senate will continue debate on The Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act (S.B. 744). As we pay attention to Senate proceedings, we must also be aware of what is happening in the House where legislation has also been introduced and is scheduled for markup beginning this week. Unlike the Senate, the House is taking a piecemeal approach to reforming our nation’s immigration laws. This means that several pieces of legislation have been introduced to address specific components of our immigration system instead of a comprehensive piece of legislation. Tomorrow, the House Judiciary Committee will begin markup of the SAFE Act (H.R. 2278), which was introduced by Representative Gowdy. Following the SAFE Act, the Committee will begin markup of Representative Goodlatte’s Agricultural Guest Worker Act (H.R. 1773).

H.R. 2278, the SAFE Act introduced by Representative Gowdy, would bring a dangerous expansion of interior enforcement, detention, and deportation that would further criminalize our immigrant brothers and sisters. Below is a summary of key sections of the SAFE Act put together by the National Immigration Law Center. The bill would: 

• Grant states and localities full authority to create, implement, and enforce their own criminal and civil penalties for federal immigration violations so long as the penalties applied do not exceed those under federal law. This provision would directly overturn the Supreme Court’s decision last year in Arizona v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 2492 (2012), which reaffirmed that states cannot enact their own criminal penalties for violations of federal immigration law, even when the state law mirrors the federal provision. Allowing all 50 states and countless localities to enact their own immigration enforcement laws is unworkable and will decrease public safety and adversely impact our nation’s foreign relations.

• Require the federal government to assume custody over every person identified by a state or local government as inadmissible or deportable upon request by such agency. Such persons must be held in detention in a federal, contract, state, or local prison, jail, detention center, or other facility. This section takes away the ability of the Secretary of Homeland Security to exercise discretion in deciding whether a person should be released on bond, under an order or supervision, or on their own recognizance rather than continuing to detain a person.

• Allow state or localities to detain people who are inadmissible or deportable for 14 days after the completion of their jail or prison sentences in order to transfer the person to ICE custody. This unprecedented and unconstitutional expansion of detention authority hinges on an untrained local officer’s determination of whether a person is inadmissible or deportable. This section also allows state and local law enforcement officers, untrained in federal immigration law, to issue an immigration hold (detainer) and to detain the individual indefinitely until the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) assumes custody. This completely unchecked authority to detain individuals in prison for 14 days or longer will result in the prolonged detention of U.S. citizens and lawfully present immigrants.

• Make changes that would expand the failed 287(g) program. This provision strips away federal control by requiring that DHS accede to any state or local jurisdiction’s request to participate in the program, except where good cause exists to refuse participation. Under current law, either DHS or the state or local party to the 287(g) agreement may terminate for any reason, however this provision restricts DHS’ ability to terminate. This is particularly problematic given the many documented abuses by deputized state and local officers that have occurred under the program.

• Prohibit states and localities from limiting compliance with ICE detainer requests and from issuing policies, resolutions, or ordinances that restrict local cooperation with federal law enforcement. This section is a direct response to a number of jurisdictions—most prominently Cook County, Illinois—that have adopted policies or ordinances setting guidelines for when local law enforcement will extend the detention of a person based on an ICE detainer request. This undermines the ability of state and local agencies to direct their policing resources based upon the public safety needs of the communities they serve.

• Dramatically expand the crime of illegal entry to include virtually anyone who entered without inspection. This section removes the traditional limit on the crime of illegal entry, which only criminalized individuals apprehended while entering the United States and instead makes it a continuing offense until the time an individual is discovered by federal officials. This would dramatically expand the number of individuals subject to this criminal penalty and comes shockingly close to criminalizing unlawful presence in the United States.

• Attempts to authorize the indefinite detention of persons who have been ordered removed. In Zadvydas v. Davis, 33 U.S. 678 (2001), the Supreme Court held that indefinite detention of a non- citizen who has been ordered removed, but whose removal is not significantly likely to occur in the reasonably foreseeable future, would raise serious constitutional concerns. This section attempts to overturn the Zadvydas decision except for a narrow category of cases. Worse the provision also appears to restrict court review of indefinite detention for individuals who cannot be removed and limits the decision to continue to detain to the sole discretion of DHS.

• Create new grounds of inadmissibility and deportability for persons whom DHS knows or “has reason to believe” are current or former members of a criminal gang. Such persons would be subject to mandatory detention and barred from receiving asylum and Temporary Protected Status. This would sweep in people who have never been convicted of a crime and are merely suspected of being in a gang, as well as people who are erroneously listed on gang databases due to living in neighborhoods with gang activities.

Immigration Reform Debate and General Assembly Policy

A Resource by the Office of Immigration Issues

Many times the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) has voiced concern about the need for change in our nation’s immigration policy. The General Assembly has called for changes that will meet the needs of our country and our families. The need for reform is rooted in our rediscovery of ourselves as the church of the stranger, the biblical mandate to welcome and love immigrants, and the need to alleviate the suffering created by an unjust system.  

While recognizing the right and responsibility of U.S. to maintain our country’s borders, the General Assembly has expressed concern about the militarization of our nation’s southern border and the human toll of a policy that focuses primarily on enforcement. Further, the General Assembly has lifted up civil and human rights violations in the border and internal enforcement policies of the United States. The General Assembly has stated that enforcement policies should comport with notions of due process and aim to reduce human smuggling and migrant deaths. Click here to read our earlier post on the most current General Assembly Immigration policy.

In November 2012 eight Senators, four democrats and four republicans, began work on comprehensive immigration reform to modernize our nation’s immigration policy. Known as “The Gang of 8,” the Senators introduced legislation in April 2013, Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act (S.B. 744), and that legislation has gone through an amendment process in the Senate Judiciary Committee. It will be debated in the full Senate in June 2013.

Below is an outline of major provisions of the legislation and how it fits in with General Assembly policy.

A pathway to citizenship for people already working and living in the U.S.

• Individuals in the U.S. without authorization would be able to apply for Registered Provisional Immigrant (RPI) status, which if eligible and granted, would give people authorization to work and remain in the country. After 10 years in RPI status, these individuals could apply for lawful permanent residence status (LPR). After three years in LPR status they could apply for citizenship.
• This process is accompanied by “triggers.” No one could apply for RPI status until a border enforcement and maintenance plan is created and implemented. No person in RPI status could apply for LPR status until all people in the “back logs” have received their “green card.”
• Individuals applying for status under this plan would pay a fine, learn English and Civics, and have to prove fulfillment of tax obligations.
• There are numerous other provisions and eligibility requirements too detailed for this handout, see below for additional information.

The DREAM Act

• This provision would offer a shorter pathway to citizenship and an exemption to penalty fines to people brought to the U.S. as children.
• DREAMers would have to fulfill requirements related to education or military service to remain eligible under this provision

Some positive family immigration changes

• Spouses and minor children of LPR are re-classified as immediate relatives so they can immediately be reunited as opposed to waiting 2-7 years under current law.

Reduction in backlogs

• Recapturing unused visas from prior years
• Increasing per country caps from 7% to 15%

Integration of new immigrants

• Creates a Task Force on New Americans
• Renames and expands the duties of the Office of Citizenship to help immigrants integrate
• Establishes a foundation to provide resources to programs assisting New Americans

Future Flow

• Creates new avenues to lawfully enter the U.S. for individuals who may not have options under current law
• Use of unemployment data to increase/decrease non-immigrant visas according to needs of economy and employers

There are many other provisions of the legislation that are in-line with General Assembly policy, including: improvements to detention standards, better treatment for adopted and stepchildren in the immigration process, improvements to the refugee/asylee program, and investments in the immigration court system.

Even though the legislation is in-line with the General Assembly policy, overall, there are some changes needed. The office of Immigration Issues will work in partnership with our interfaith partners to improve the legislation.

• The cut off date of January 1, 2012 for U.S. presence for gaining status
• Lengthy process Ten years in RPI status plus three in LPR for citizenship  
• Family unity changes: elimination of category V – siblings of USC and caps adult children to under 31
• Continued build up at the border in the form of agents, fence, and use of drones 

SB 744 will head to the full Senate for debate in June 2013. Presbyterians are urged to contact their Senators and encourage them to support comprehensive immigration reform that has a pathway to citizenship, eliminates back logs, provides a commonsense plan for future flow, avoids the militarization of our southern border, and provides for humane enforcement.

The General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) has affirmed the right of congregations, presbyteries, and the denomination as a whole, to speak out clearly and constantly to the media and others regarding our call to serve all those in need and to stand with the oppressed. (217th General Assembly 2006). If you have questions about how to share your faith in the public square, please see the resources below.

•  Comprehensive Immigration Reform Tool Kit from the office of Immigration Issues website to learn how to involve your community in the movement to seek justice for aspiring Americans. Available in English and Spanish.
• The office of Public Witness has created a packet to assist Presbyterians in contracting their elected representatives.
• Interfaith Immigration Coalition is a tool kit for visits with your congressional representatives.  

For more detailed analysis, please explore the resources below:

• Migration Policy Institute
• Immigration Policy Center
• Alliance for Citizenship (many resources in English and Spanish) 
• Review General Assembly policy at www.pcusa.org/immigration