Immigration Reform: The Newest Wrinkle in Immigration Reform
Texans are trying to redefine language in the US Constitution in an odd twist on immigration reform. Texas state Rep. Leo Berman is seeking to introduce a bill calling for his state to discontinue granting automatic citizenship to US born children of illegal immigrants. At a time when immigrant reform is leaning toward making it easier for illegal immigrants to obtain benefits, employment, and citizenship, this bill is striking out directly at the guarantees of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution.
Lawsuits On The Horizon
It appears that the entire purpose of the bill is to cause a lawsuit. Rep. Leo Berman is hoping in his best case scenario that passing of such a bill will lead to the state of Texas being sued. “If that bill passes, we will be sued immediately. That’s the purpose of the bill,” he said. The reasoning behind this is echoed by a number of lawmakers around the country who seek to redefine how birth certificates are issued and to whom they are issued. If the bill passes the intended outcome is for a lawsuit to reach the Supreme Court and hopefully challenge the current interpretation of the 14th Amendment, as there are no rulings affirming the 14th Amendments current interpretation.
Anchor Babies
The controversy around this proposed bill has generated the rather unappealing term, “anchor babies”. It’s believed that a number of illegal immigrants will try to use their US born children in an effort to gain citizenship for themselves. There is little evidence to support that this occurs on a large scale and most economists will attribute immigration levels to employment opportunities rather than the hope of citizenship, which makes the whole issue more political rhetoric designed to steer thinking.
A Bad Bet
Overall this appears to be a waste of time and resources. Even though the GOP would like to challenge the 14th Amendment in the Supreme Court, most legal scholars seem to agree that the language of the 14th Amendment is very clear. Anyone born in the United States is automatically a citizen.
Posted by Patrick MacPhee
on Oct 21 2010. Filed under Business, Featured, Politics, U.S. Economy.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0.
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
Ignorance is Bliss: Those who have NO CLUE or QUALIFICATIONS about Immigration are those who show their IGNORANCE
There is NO SUCH WORD AS ‘ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT” in Blacks Law Dictionary, or In Merriam Websters Dictionary. Get Educated .
“Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said Wednesday that the claim by some conservative activists that illegal immigration is to blame for all of the state’s fiscal problems is ignorant and bigoted.”
Arturo E. Ocampo of Tracy has been a practicing attorney since 1985, In the 20-plus years I have spent studying, lecturing and litigating immigration issues, two things have always amazed me. The first is the amount and intensity of hate spewed against undocumented workers. The second is the amount of misinformation that is published about them.
On this second point, the quote from Mark Twain is illustrative. “A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes.” I suppose this may be true in part because misinformation, like a lie, requires no accuracy, validation or research; all of which are time-consuming practices.
The recent letters alleging that all undocumented workers are “criminals,” and specifically Veronica Suarez, whose plight was written about in the Tracy Press recently, is a criminal are factually incorrect.
According to the facts (as stated in Sharon Franceschi’s Sept. 7 commentary) Saurez entered the U.S. on a valid visa, overstayed her visa when it expired, resulting in her unlawful immigration status. None of these acts, as stated by Franceschi, constitute a crime under federal or state law. Overstaying a valid visa under the Immigration and Naturalization Act is a civil violation of the law, not a criminal violation. Being in the U.S. in under undocumented status is not a criminal violation, but a civil violation of the INA.
The facts, as stated by Franceschi, do not indicate that Suarez has committed any crime. To call her a criminal is erroneous at best, and libelous at worst.
Furthermore, it is an Americanism that a person is innocent until proven guilty. So until Suarez (or any other undocumented person) is charged and found guilty of a crime, it would be inappropriate to call them “criminals.”
It is important to note that there is a very large difference between civil and criminal violations of law. The distinction is so important that the law makes the erroneous allegation that one has committed a crime of slander or libel, (which means liability is automatic even without proof of damages). One who violates the civil law is no more a criminal than someone who has breached a contract or accidentally damaged another’s property.
It is true that entering the United States without inspection is a misdemeanor under the INA. The misdemeanor is completed once an individual’s entry is complete. Suarez, according to Franceschi, did not enter without inspection; she entered with a valid visa. According to U.S. Immigration and Citizenship Services statistics, about 40 percent of undocumented persons enter legally and overstay their visas (which, as stated above, is not a crime). Consequently, at least 40 percent of the undocumented population has committed no crime in regards to their immigration status.
Therefore, one cannot assume that a person has committed a crime simply because they are undocumented.
Franceschi is also in error in her allegation that getting married and having children while being undocumented in the U.S. is a violation of the law. It is not. Franceschi goes on to say that Suarez “apparently bought a house illegally.” It is unlikely that Franceschi knows exactly how Suarez purchased her home. Consequently, any allegation of illegality is, at a minimum, irresponsible.
It is also important to note that the Immigration and Citizenship Services doesn’t consider all undocumented persons criminals. When the Immigration and Citizenship Services publishes information about its enforcement activities involving undocumented workers, it are always sure to make a distinction between “criminal” and noncriminal aliens.
Another myth is that the term “illegal aliens” is a term of art or is legal jargon. This term is not found anywhere in the INA or in Blacks Law Dictionary. The INA refers to undocumented persons as either an EWI (entered without inspection) or as someone who has overstayed their visa. “Illegal aliens” is a term invented by anti-immigrant groups designed to put undocumented persons in the worst possible light and to instill fear in Americans. It is intentionally designed to associate undocumented persons with criminality.
This xenophobic view that undocumented persons are “simply criminals” comes from the historical stereotype that the foreign-born, especially undocumented immigrants, are responsible for higher crime rates. This misconception has deep roots in American public opinion and popular myth. This myth, however, is not supported empirically and has repeatedly been refuted by scientific studies. Both contemporary and historical data, (including U.S. governmental studies) have shown that immigration is associated with lower crime rates.
The studies have uniformly shown that recent immigrants (including the undocumented) are less likely to be involved in violent crime, and that when there is an increase in immigration patterns, violent crime decreases. This has been shown to be true in large cities with heavy immigrant populations.
In the most recent of these studies, The Myth of Immigrant Criminality and the Paradox of Assimilation (2007), from the Immigrant Policy Institute, it was found that among men age 18 to 39 (who are the vast majority of inmates in federal and state prisons and local jails), immigrants were five times less likely to be incarcerated than the native-born in 2000.
During the Proposition 187 debate, then-Gov. Pete Wilson published statistics that stated that
12 percent to 15 percent of the state prison population had Immigration and Citizenship Services holds or potential holds. The Department of Corrections analyst who compiled these numbers said Immigration and Citizenship Services holds are placed on inmates who were born outside of the U.S. (therefore 12 percent to 15 percent of the prison population was immigrants). The immigrant population at the time in California hovered at about 25 percent, showing immigrants were much less likely to be incarcerated than the native born in California.
In short, the data shows you are much safer if your neighbor is an immigrant.
Franceschi owes Suarez an apology. I am also surprised that the Tracy Press allowed a commentary to run without checking the facts. Although commentaries are designed to allow for the expression of differing opinions, the First Amendment is not as generous with misstatements of facts — especially when the facts can be libelous.
For the immigration debate to be a healthy one, we should strive for a debate based on facts, not myth or tired stereotypes. We should also not let our position on this topic strip us of one of the great qualities we possess as people — the ability to be compassionate.
Arturo E. Ocampo of Tracy has been a practicing attorney since 1985, with an expertise in immigration rights and class action lawsuits on behalf of immigrants, including the way the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 was implemented, Border Patrol’s raids and Proposition 187. He is director of diversity and equal employment opportunity for the San Jose/Evergreen Community College District.
The economics of immigration, Stephen C. Goss, the chief actuary of the Social Security Administration and someone who enjoys bipartisan support for his straightforwardness, said that by 2007, the Social Security trust fund had received a net benefit of somewhere between $120 billion and $240 billion from unauthorized immigrants.
That represented an astounding 5.4 percent to 10.7 percent of the trust fund’s total assets of $2.24 trillion that year. The cumulative contribution is surely higher now. Unauthorized immigrants paid a net contribution of $12 billion in 2007 alone, Goss said.
Previous estimates circulating publicly and in Congress had placed the annual contributions at roughly half of Goss’s 2007 figure and listed the cumulative benefit on the order of $50 billion.
The Social Security trust fund faces a solvency crisis that would be even more pressing were it not for these payments.
Adding to the Social Security irony is that the restrictionists are mostly OLDER AND RETIRED WHITES from longtime American families. The very people, in other words, who benefit most from the Social Security payments by unauthorized immigrants.
It is unbelievable where the Moral, Ethics, Dignity stand of The American people the political blood sport must have an end with the bigot of Brewer or the Reps. Spiced with lies to take advantage of every undocumented. With Black hair and Braun skin color. Who sue her, for using in Arizona the money from undocumented Immigrants of 28.9 Billion ???
The two face of the law of first
the United States without legal status is a civil violation, not a crime. But take everything from undocumented. Now throw them out and take the last the rest what there was working for. Steel from the poor who try to build a new life is that the American face to the world???
It looks so bad from any tourists or Immigrant who calculate to build a business sooner or later
All statistic is shown that undocumented immigrants the most paying thru Social Security 28.9 Billion where they never can take advantage of.
Their contributions by unauthorized immigrants to Social Security — essentially, to the retirement income of everyday Americans — are much larger than previously known, raising questions about the efforts in many states and among Republicans in Congress to force these workers out.
In response to a research inquiry for a book I am writing on the economics of immigration, Stephen C. Goss, the chief actuary of the Social Security Administration and someone who enjoys bipartisan support for his straightforwardness, said that by 2007, the Social Security trust fund had received a net benefit of somewhere between $120 billion and $240 billion from unauthorized immigrants.
That represented an astounding 5.4 percent to 10.7 percent of the trust fund’s total assets of $2.24 trillion that year. The cumulative contribution is surely higher now. Unauthorized immigrants paid a net contribution of $12 billion in 2007 alone, Goss said.
Previous estimates circulating publicly and in Congress had placed the annual contributions at roughly half of Goss’s 2007 figure and listed the cumulative benefit on the order of $50 billion.
The Social Security trust fund faces a solvency crisis that would be even more pressing were it not for these payments.
“If for example we had not had other-than-legal immigrants in the country over the past,” Goss e-mailed me, “then these numbers suggest that we would have entered persistent shortfall of tax revenue to cover starting 2009, or six years earlier than estimated under the 2010 Trustees Report.”
Americans are faced with the difficult choice of cutting pensions, delaying the retirement age or raising taxes if we want to maintain the solvency of what has been the centerpiece of social welfare for ordinary Americans since the 1930s.
Non-citizens, for their part, contributed $28.9 billion, or eight percent of Arizona’s
economic output, resulting in 278,000 full-time equivalent jobs. Their output included
$10 billion in labor income, and $3.3 billion in other property income. The state tax
revenues resulting from this economic activity were approximately $1.08 billion.
They also looked at what would happen if the illegal workers were removed from the
workforce.
Agriculture: A fifteen percent workforce reduction in the agriculture sector would
result in direct losses of 3,300 full-time-equivalent jobs, and losses of $600.9
million in output including lost labor income of $198.6 million, and lost other
income of $116.1 million. The lost direct state tax revenue would be approximately
$24.8 million. Construction:
A fifteen percent workforce reduction in the construction
sector would result in direct losses of 55,700 full-time-equivalent jobs,
and $6.56 billion in output including lost labor income of $2.59 billion
and $450.5 million in other lost income.
The direct lost state tax revenue would be approximately $269.2 million.
Manufacturing: A ten percent reduction in the manufacturing workforce would result
in direct losses of 12,300 full-time-equivalent jobs, and
$3.77 billion in output including lost labor income of $740.8 million, and lost
other income of $286.1 million. The lost direct state tax revenue
would be approximately $104.4 million.
Service industries: In the service sectors analyzed, a sixteen percent reduction in the
labor force would translate to direct losses of 54,000 full-time equivalent-jobs,
and lost output of $2.48 billion including reduced labor income of $901.3 million,
and reductions in other income of $273.0 million. The lost direct state tax revenue
would be approximately $156.9 million.
The study concluded that the state of Arizona took in tax revenue of $1.64 billion from
immigrant workers while the amount the state spent on immigrants was
approximately $1.41billion leaving a net benefit of $222.6 million to the state coffers.
But that is only what they contribute to Arizona’s revenue.
They also pay national income taxes and social security taxes.
Fact: Illegal immigrant is two words and they’re in every dictionary i’ve ever read. Apparently you don’t live in Pheonix where 2000 Americans per year are killed by ILLEGAL IMMIGRAAANTS. This does not include the rapes, robberies, etc not to mention the recent Mexican drug cartel sending hitmen to a little town out that way.
They take American jobs, period.
They stress the health system, period. Have you ever noticed when you fill out an emergency room form that if you are not a legal resident of America you don’t have to fill it out or pay?
There’s a reason countries have borders. By the way…did you know America gave Mexico $1.5 billion to build a wall on their southern border to keep illegals, drugs, etc out of Mexico?
Why don’t you go down to the southern border and hang out? Maybe you can be one of those lucky 1 in 2000.
you have bad information, please, take more news paper…
….all world is need to close the doors for all american people, all american keep in side America….this is the best way for a world to much beter!!!!
I agree so get your ass out of the country.
Moreso than an effort to gain citizenship, most pregnant illegals drop their anchor babies for the benefits that baby will receive. They can get away without paying the dr. and hospital bills, get free healthcare, free education, housing, food stamps, welfare, etc. all because their baby is now considered a citizen. Ridiculous! Babies born to illegal aliens should never gain citizenship. These parents have done nothing for this country except break laws. Hospitals should not deliver those babies unless the woman is a US citizen or unless they pay cash to cover the bill. Why should Americans get stuck paying thousands for delivery and all the other perks the anchor is now entitled to.
Max and Facts….sorry but your posts are just too loooong to read. Don’t wanna read a book here, just pithy comments
DD your last two sentences say it all. You and so many others don’t want to take the time to read the facts, but see no issue in posting hateful comments. Yes, I consider “anchor baby” to be hateful, and my family has been here for five generations. There are indeed flaws in our systems, but instead of spreading hate, why not educate ourselves and try to reach a solution.
Facts & max keep spreading the truth to whoever will listen. God bless.
DSH…its not about hate, its about fairness to legal citizens. What facts should I read…that millions enter this country illegally every year and take a billion $ or so for themselves and their anchors? That states are going broke partially due to what we have to pay for the illegals? So you think it is OK for people of other countries to break as many laws as they feel like and not face the consequences for their crimes?? There is a solution – vigorously enforce the immigration laws and deport those who feel they are above them. Simple!
And why do the illegal lovers and open border crowds always call it “hate” or “racism” whenever people want our immigration laws enforcement? Those 2 words are thrown around so recklessly these days, they have lost all their meaning. Its not hate, its just expectation for people to obey our laws and not milk the system of benefits they have not earned or are not entitled to.
I’m now not sure the place you’re getting your info, however good topic. I needs to spend some time learning much more or figuring out more. Thanks for wonderful information I used to be searching for this info for my mission.
I’ve been exploring for a bit for any high-quality articles or blog posts in this kind of area . Exploring in Yahoo I finally stumbled upon this site. Studying this info So i am glad to show that I’ve a very just right uncanny feeling I discovered exactly what I needed. I so much indubitably will make certain to do not omit this web site and give it a look on a constant basis.
Whats up very nice blog!! Man .. Beautiful .. Wonderful .. I’ll bookmark your website and take the feeds also?I am satisfied to search out so many helpful info right here within the put up, we want work out more techniques in this regard, thanks for sharing. . . . . .