H.R. 15 combines two bipartisan measures – the Senate-passed Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act (S. 744) and the House Homeland Security’s Border Security Results Act of 2013 (H.R. 1417).   It incorporates most of the provisions in S. 744 including the 13-year path to citizenship, but replaces the Hoeven/Corker amendment on border security with H.R. 1471.  The amendment sponsored by Senators Corker (R-TN) and Hoeven (R-ND), the so-called ‘border surge,’ calls for 20,000 more border agents, hundreds of miles of additional fencing, and more surveillance equipment at a cost of $46 billion.  (For more details on the Senate bill see July Human Needs Report.)  H.R. 1417 does not set a price nor mandate a number for security hires or miles of fence. Rather, it instructs the Department of Homeland Security to write a plan that Congress would approve that ensures apprehension of 90 percent of undocumented border crossers using existing methods including cameras, radar and unmanned drones within 5 years.

Thus far the House has taken a piece-meal approach to immigration reform, passing 5 smaller bills in committees.  Advocates favor a comprehensive approach and they understand how difficult it would be to pass a bill if the House waits until next year when elections are on the horizon.  They also understand that both the comprehensive Senate bill (S. 744) and the Democratic House bill (H.R. 15) are far from perfect.  The path to citizenship is long, immigrants would not have access to the Affordable Care Act for at least a decade, and they are denied access to basic government assistance programs including nutrition and student aid.  Advocates will continue to work on a bipartisan basis to pass comprehensive immigration reform and strengthen provisions that make citizenship possible for the 11 million undocumented immigrants in our country.

The post CHN: House Democrats Introduce Immigration Bill appeared first on Coalition on Human Needs.

Advocacy organizations and many Democratic members of Congress plan to make the point during August recess that comprehensive immigration reform is badly needed and would be positive for the economy.  One proponent of reform, Representative Paul Ryan (R-WI), told his constituents that October could be the month when the House votes on a plan to provide probationary visas to undocumented immigrants.  Other reports suggest that the House is drafting a KIDS Act that could be voted on in the fall that would bear some similarity to the DREAM Act for immigrants brought to the United States as children that failed to pass the Senate by one vote in 2010.

Thus far the House has used a piecemeal approach to immigration reform. Four partisan bills were approved in the Judiciary Committee, some of whose members are openly hostile to immigration reform with a path to citizenship.  One bill passed 28-0 in the more immigration-friendly Homeland Security Committee in May, the Border Security Results Act of 2013 (H.R. 1417).  It provides an approach to border security, a key issue for many Republicans and some Democrats, that is favored by advocates over the approach that was inserted into the Senate bill to assure bipartisan passage.

The Senate agreed to an amendment sponsored by Senators Corker (R-TN) and Hoeven (R-ND), the so-called ‘border surge,’ that calls for 20,000 more border agents, hundreds of miles of additional fencing, more surveillance equipment including additional aerial drones, and biometric tracking systems at all international ports and airports to detect people who have overstayed visas. The amendment authorizes the Border Patrol to search without warrant 100 miles from the southern border, compared to 25 miles on the northern border, and ignores the pleas of many local authorities along the border who have developed positive relationships with their neighbors in Mexico. The cost of border enforcement in the bill is $46 billion. Although the amendment was adopted in the Senate, there is bipartisan sentiment that the expenditure is unwarranted.

H.R. 1417 does not set a price nor mandate a number for security hires or miles of fence. Rather, it instructs the Department of Homeland Security to write a plan that Congress would approve that ensures apprehension of 90 percent of undocumented border crossers using existing methods including cameras, radar and unmanned drones within 5 years.   If H.R. 1417 were brought to the floor and passed it could form the basis for a conference with the Senate.  Senator Corker, architect of the Senate plan, has indicated openness to supporting the bill.

The House Republican strategy for dealing with the issue will likely not be clear until September. There are a number of options: leadership could still introduce their own comprehensive bill; combine a package of individual bills into one bill; pass a single bill and take it to conference with the Senate; amend the Senate bill; or simply take no action. A number of conservative Republicans clearly do not support a path to citizenship for immigrants, a position that is unacceptable for Democrats. Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) has repeatedly said that he will not bring a bill to the floor without the support of the majority of the Republican caucus.  It is likely a bipartisan majority for immigration reform could be achieved in the House, but less clear how it could be done if the Speaker continues to insist on a bill with a majority of House Republicans on board.

The post Immigration Reform: Ball is in House’s Court When Congress Returns appeared first on Coalition on Human Needs.

Provisions in this historic legislation include a minimum 13-year path to citizenship for many of the 11 million immigrants currently without lawful status, an expedited 5-year path for DREAMers brought to the United States before age 16 and an accelerated path for some agriculture workers.  The bill also establishes new categories of visas, provides access to some federal student loans for DREAMers and to federal housing assistance for qualified survivors of domestic violence, incorporates worker protections including due process for those misclassified under the electronic employment eligibility verification (E-Verify) system and implements training for Border Patrol agents.  Advocates successfully fought off attempts to include in the bill provisions to deny low-income tax credits to immigrants currently eligible to claim them.

While the Coalition on Human Needs, many key civil rights, labor, faith, and other groups supported passage of S. 744, there is realization that it is far from a perfect bill. The path to citizenship laid out in S. 744 will not be easy.  Many families will find the fines and penalties onerous, and in some cases, insurmountable.  Once they reach registered provisional immigrant (RPI) status, all immigrants will be paying taxes to help support a safety net system for which they will not be eligible until they attain citizenship years later.  Nor will they be eligible to receive health insurance premium subsidies through the new health care law, putting them at risk of harmful health consequences.  Some immigrants who have already been paying taxes will be denied Social Security credit for the quarters of coverage earned between 2004 and 2014 before getting on the road to citizenship, forcing them to work an additional decade to earn back those credits. Potential for employer abuse or errors in the E-Verify system and exploitation of workers still exists.  S. 744 does not address state and local laws and policies that have resulted in profiling. (For more details and analysis of S. 744 see the National Immigration Law Center website.)

It became evident when the Senate began the 3-week floor debate on S. 744 that in order to garner enough support from Republicans even more stringent border security provisions would need to be incorporated.  This demand seemed to ignore the realities that since 2004 the number of Border Patrol agents have more than doubled to over 21,000; that the number of undocumented immigrants attempting to enter the United States from the southern border is at a 40-year low; and that the base bill already required that the Department of Homeland Security hire 3,500 more agents by the end of 2013, authorized the National Guard to construct more fencing, and increased mobile surveillance.

Ultimately, the Senate agreed to an amendment sponsored by Senators Corker (R-TN) and Hoeven (R-ND).  The so-called ‘border surge’ provisions call for 20,000 more border agents, hundreds of miles of additional fencing, more surveillance equipment including additional aerial drones, and biometric tracking systems at all international ports and airports to detect people who have overstayed visas.  The amendment authorizes the Border Patrol to search without warrant 100 miles from the southern border, compared to 25 miles on the northern border, and ignores the pleas of many local authorities along the border who have developed positive relationships with their neighbors in Mexico.  The cost of border enforcement in the bill is $46 billion. There is bi-partisan sentiment that the expenditure is unwarranted.  Senator Leahy (D-VT) said the amendment “reads like a Christmas wish list for Halliburton, the military contractor likely to sell equipment or services to carry out the enforcement “surge.” Senator Collins (R-ME) said, “This unprecedented surge is excessive, wasteful, and would be enormously expensive.”  Even amendment sponsor Corker commented that the new border provisions are “almost overkill.”  The additional $30 billion expenditure in the Corker-Hoeven amendment was viewed as more plausible after the Congressional Budget Office released a report on June 18, stating that enactment of S. 744 would decrease the federal deficit by net savings of $175 billion over the first 10 years of enactment and by $700 billion in the second decade, from increased economic activity and tax payments by immigrants with legal status.  That happy outcome made it possible to pay the cost of the Corker-Hoeven amendment.  The only member who voted for the amendment but did not vote for final passage of the bill was Senator Wicker (R-MS).

House:  Attention now turns to the House where the bi-partisan group working on comprehensive reform has repeatedly missed self-imposed deadlines to introduce its bill. Their work has been kept secret, but it seems that they have failed to reach agreement on how to treat health care for immigrants in their initial registered provisional immigrant (RPI) status as well as finalizing other details in the bill.  In the meantime, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Robert Goodlatte (R-VA), with the blessing of Republican leadership, is pursuing a piecemeal approach, having marked up in his Committee four separate bills within the last two weeks.  None of the bills deal with a path to citizenship. H.R. 1772 would establish an E-Verify system without some of the same worker protections in S. 744.  H.R. 2278 would give state and local law authorities greater power over immigration enforcement.  H.R. 1773 would create a new agricultural guest worker program.  H.R. 2131 would increase visas for high-skilled workers from 65,000 to 155,000 and add visas for immigrants with advanced degrees in science, technology, engineering and mathematics. All four bills passed the Judiciary Committee on party-line votes.  Democrats voiced objections to the content of the bills and to the fact that none would establish a path to citizenship for the 11 million immigrants.

It is unclear how the House will proceed.  There are a number of options: leadership could still introduce their own comprehensive bill; combine a package of individual bills into one bill; amend the Senate bill; or simply take no action.  A number of conservative Republicans clearly do not support a path to citizenship for immigrants, a position that is a non-starter for Democrats.  Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) has repeatedly said that he will not bring a bill to the floor without the support of the majority of the Republican caucus.  House Republicans have scheduled a meeting for July 10 to determine their strategy.

Economic Benefits of Immigration Reform:  The Congressional Budget Office report cited earlier documents that passage of S. 744 will result in a stronger U.S. economy based on fuller participation by an estimated net increase of 10.4 million permanent residents and an increase in temporary workers.  Provisions in the bill will lead to a growth in the U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) of 3.3 percent by 2023 and 5.4 percent by 2033.

Advocates are hopeful that comprehensive immigration reform that provides a path to citizenship for the 11 million immigrants who are in our country will be passed into law.  For too long immigrants have been working hard in often difficult jobs to support their families while fearing deportation that would separate them from those they love.  Now is the time to end this injustice.

The post CHN: Comprehensive Immigration Reform Passes the Senate, Now It’s the House’s Turn appeared first on Coalition on Human Needs.

Border Security:  Border security has become the focus for both Republicans who may ultimately not want to see the bill pass as well as for some Democrats from conservative states who may also worry about how the issue of immigration reform will affect their reelection campaigns in 2014.  Some contend that a major shortfall of the last comprehensive immigration bill which passed in 1986 was its failure to secure the Southern border, and they often fail to acknowledge recent dramatic investments in border security.  Border security was also the issue that derailed the last attempt at comprehensive reform in 2007.   According to a recent Center for American Progress report, there have been significant increases in security and technology on the Southern border in the past few years.  In 2004, there were 10,000 Border Patrol agents.  That number has grown to 21,370 today.  The number of undocumented immigrants attempting to enter the United States is at a 40-year low.  S. 744 requires the Department of Homeland Security to hire 3,500 more agents by the end of 2013, authorizes the national Guard to construct more fencing, and increases mobile surveillance.

The first and only amendment considered during the first week of debate was one offered by Senator Charles Grassley (R-IA) that would prohibit immigrants from entering registered provisional immigrant (RPI) status, the first step to citizenship, until the Secretary of Homeland Security has maintained effective control of the borders for 6 months.  Amendment opponents argued that this process could take years and result in indefinite delays for immigrants to pursue the path to citizenship.  S. 744 already requires ‘effective control’ (defined as persistent surveillance of the Southern border and a 90 percent rate in preventing illegal crossings) before immigrants can gain lawful permanent resident (LPR) status, the step following 10 years in RPI status.  The amendment was tabled (i.e. effectively ‘killed’) on a vote 57-43 vote with Democrats Manchin (WVA) and Pryor (AR) voting against tabling and Republicans Graham (SC), McCain (AZ), Rubio (Fla.), Flake (AZ) and Murkowski (AK) voting to table the amendment.  After that vote, the process broke down as leaders failed to reach agreement on how to proceed with consideration of over 100 pending amendments.  Bill consideration will resume the week of June 17.  Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has warned that it could be a long two weeks as he is committed to finishing the bill prior to July 4 recess which is set to begin on June 29.

Difficult Path to Citizenship:  Opponents of S. 744 contend that it gives amnesty to immigrants.  Supporters reject this argument, pointing to the difficult requirements that immigrants must meet.  They must undergo criminal background checks, pay fines and fees, pay back taxes assessed by the IRS, maintain work requirements, pass English-language and citizenship exams, and wait in line for a green card.  Immigrants who satisfy these requirements will still be denied access to means-tested safety-net programs (SNAP, Medicaid, TANF, and SSI). To enter RPI status each adult in a family would have to pay a $500 fine and an application fee good for 6 years and another $500 fine along with an application fee and second background check to renew at the 6-year point.  To gain LPR status after 10 years requires a $1000 fine, a fee and a third background check.  The immigrants must also prove that they have been steadily employed or have the resources that put them at least at 125 percent of the federal poverty line, an indication that they will not be dependent on government resources.  While the fees have not been specified in the bill, the current charge to file for a green card (that is, LPR status) is $985 and to apply for citizenship is $680.  (For more details see the National Immigration Law Center document.)   In 2010, according to the National Council of La Raza, 43 percent of all immigrants who attended naturalization workshops delayed applying because of the cost.

While non-U.S. citizens are not eligible to receive federal means-tested public benefits, current law does allow them to: access the refundable Child Tax Credit if they are undocumented but file taxes using and ITIN (Individual Taxpayer Identification Number); receive the refundable Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) once they receive work authorization and a Social Security number; and apply for credit for work that they did and for which they paid taxes prior to entering RPI status that will be used to determine their Social Security benefits.  Senators Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and Jeff Sessions (R-AL) plan to offer amendments that reverse current law in these areas when the Senate resumes floor debate.  These are benefits that immigrants have earned.  In the case of the EITC, if the amendment were to pass it would create a two-tier tax system for low-income working families.  Advocates are working to educate Members of Congress on the devastating impact these amendments would have on immigrant families.

Developments in the House:  A bi-partisan group of Representatives in the House has also been working on comprehensive immigration legislation which has not yet been introduced.  One of the sticking points is how to deal with health care for immigrants in RPI status and going forward.  Under S.744, immigrants in RPI status would not be eligible for premium support subsidies in the Affordable Care Act exchanges until they achieved LPR status.  In the meantime, they could participate in the exchanges only if they paid the full premium, a burden likely too costly for many immigrants.  Without insurance their only option for health care services would be the emergency room.  The inability of the House working group to agree on health care seems to have been the impetus for one of its members, Rep. Raul Labrador (R-ID), a vocal Tea Party member and former immigration attorney, to announce on June 5 that he was withdrawing from the group.  At the same time Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), who has unquestioned influence among some House members, expressed his support for the work the bi-partisan group is doing and for comprehensive immigration reform.

It is not clear whether the House will take up one comprehensive bill drafted by the bi-partisan group, or whether Judiciary Committee Chairman Robert Goodlatte (R-VA), who has not supported a path to citizenship, will take a piecemeal approach by addressing individual components of the bill in his Committee of jurisdiction. The Committee has introduced incremental bills and heard testimony related to an agriculture guest worker program (H.R. 1773), mandatory employment verification (H.R. 1772), border security (H.R. 2278), and high-skilled workers (H.R. 2131).   The House Judiciary Committee has a number of Republican members that clearly oppose a path to citizenship.  One of them, Rep. Steve King (R-IA), sponsored an amendment to the 2014 Department of Homeland Security funding bill to defund President Obama’s orders relaxing the deportation policy for undocumented immigrants who came to the United States as children, focusing instead on those who have committed crimes.  The amendment passed mostly along party lines (224-201), portending a difficult road ahead for immigration legislation in the House.

Because there is strong opposition to a path to citizenship from many conservative Members of the House, if such a bill is to pass, it will likely need strong Democratic support.   If the Senate is successful this summer in passing a comprehensive bill with bi-partisan support and House efforts fail, pressure could intensify on House Republican leadership to keep the legislation moving by amending the Senate bill and sending it back to the Senate.  Many believe that failure by House Republicans to act on immigration reform could have electoral consequences down the road.

The post CHN: Senate Floor Debate on Immigration Begins appeared first on Coalition on Human Needs.

A range of amendments were approved in the Judiciary Committee.  A sampling of those amendments include: one motivated by the Boston bombing that would terminate the asylum or refugee status of anyone who returns to his or her home country;  in response to a 9/11 Commission recommendation, the Committee approved an amendment requiring the Department of Transportation to expand the use of a biometric tracking system (using fingerprinting, facial imaging and other data) at U.S. airports with a high volume of international travel; an amendment that requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to conduct regular audits to ensure that registered provisional immigrants (RPI) are not receiving federal means-tested public benefits; and an amendment to permit immigrants who are victims of family violence to be eligible to receive certain public and assisted housing.  Among the amendments that failed were: one that requires payment of back taxes as of the date of entry into the United States as a prerequisite to apply for RPI status; an amendment that would allocate a certain percentage of visas for family-sponsored immigrants to address separations that result in extreme hardship; one that denies immigrants with RPI status eligibility for the Earned Income Tax Credit; and an amendment to shorten to 18 months the deadline by which companies must be ready to utilize the E-Verify system which confirms that employees are eligible to work  (For the full list of amendments considered see the report on the Judiciary Committee website.)  Republicans have announced that they will offer amendments when S. 744 comes to the floor to strengthen border security even more and will again offer some of the amendments that were defeated in the Committee related to benefits for immigrants.

In an attempt to expand Republican support for S. 744 in the Judiciary Committee beyond Senators Graham and Flake (Gang of 8 bill co-sponsors) Democrats have been working with Senator Hatch to resolve his concerns about requirements on companies who hire high-skilled workers in the H-1B visa program.  Hatch has become an advocate for tech companies who hire many foreign workers.  Senator Schumer worked out a deal with Hatch to loosen the requirements on companies with fewer than 15 percent of its high-skilled workers from foreign countries to first seek potential U.S. employees, and to raise the minimum annual number of H-1B visas from 110,000 to 115,000 (the current minimum cap is 65,000; the maximum remains 180,000).  This was one of the bigger changes in the bill and was opposed by the AFL-CIO, which had carefully worked out the H-1B provision in the bill with the Chamber of Commerce before S. 744 was introduced.  Many of the Democrats were uncomfortable with the agreement but voted ‘yes.’  This agreement, however, was not enough to clinch his support for the final bill; Hatch said that his support will further depend on amendments related to tax and health benefits that he will offer when the bill comes to the floor.  He also said that he would seek to attach an unrelated amendment to the bill disallowing waiver authority within the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program that had previously been announced by the Administration.  Deference to Hatch is based on the belief by some Democrats that if he supports the final bill, other Republicans will follow his lead.

Just before the Committee took its vote on passage of the bill, Judiciary Committee Chairman Senator Leahy (D-VT) expressed his deep concern that the bill does not provide equal access to visas for LGBT families. He was ready with an amendment to provide that access, but did not offer it because Republicans in the Gang of 8 have said inclusion of that provision would end their support for the bill. The President has also encouraged Democrats not to offer amendments that would kill the bill.

On May 23, the House bi-partisan group negotiating immigration reform legislation [Republicans Sam Johnson (TX), John Carter (TX), Mario Diaz-Balart (FL), and Raul Labrador (ID) and Democrats Xavier Becerra (CA), Luis Gutierrez (IL), Zoe Lofgren (CA), and John Yarmuth (KY)] announced for the second time that they’d come to agreement on a framework for a bill.  The announcement a week earlier fell apart on the issue of health care.  Current law does not allow immigrants access to means-tested programs including Medicaid, but according to federal law hospitals must serve those who come to emergency rooms.  Republicans wanted to require immigrants to buy health care coverage, which would likely be unaffordable to most, or risk deportation.  Democrats found that provision unacceptable.  Reportedly, negotiators have agreed that immigrants can receive emergency Medicaid services without being deported but will have to pay the bill.  They may also buy into the Affordable Care Act exchanges but will not be eligible to receive subsidies. The House agreement has not yet been written into legislative language but the bill will purportedly include a 15-year path to citizenship, much stricter border enforcement than the Senate bill, and a trigger that would require that if the E-Verify system is not up and running in 5 years all immigrants would have to revert to the status they now have.  The path to citizenship in the House bill will undoubtedly prove much more onerous for immigrants to navigate.

S. 744 is scheduled to go to the floor of the Senate the week of June 10^th, after the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) determines the bill’s cost.  Bill architects claim that it will be deficit-neutral.  CBO has agreed that it makes sense to use dynamic scoring when analyzing the cost.  This will allow for consideration of the positive benefits to the economy of bringing immigrant workers out of the shadows and the new tax revenues that will be generated, as well as the costs associated with enhanced border enforcement, the E-Verify system, and other provisions.   The bill will likely be on the Senate floor for 3 weeks.  Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has said that he will urge his caucus not to use parliamentary procedures to block the bill from coming to the floor.  House drafters hope to have their bill ready for committee consideration in early June.

There is still a long road ahead.  Some Members of Congress unequivocally oppose giving immigrants a path to citizenship.  Some anti-immigration reform organizations have expressed outright opposition to the Senate bill.  Among those opposed are the National Citizenship and Immigration Services Council and the National Immigration and Customs Enforcement Council, the unions representing immigration and deportation agents that together represent 20,000 Department of Homeland Security employees charged with enforcing the nation’s immigration laws.  Their complaints include concern that they were not consulted during the development of the Senate bill, that their officers are pressured to rubber stamp applications, that the systems within their agencies are insurmountably bureaucratic, and that DHS is already using its discretion to waive fees of applicants under the deferred action for childhood arrivals (DACA) program and will likely replicate the practice for immigrants under S. 744.  See letter written by the National Citizenship and Immigration Services Council President Kenneth Palinkas.

The post CHN: Immigration Bill Passes Senate Judiciary Committee appeared first on Coalition on Human Needs.

Certain ‘triggers’ related to border security must be met before immigrants can start to be admitted to RPI status or be allowed into LPR status after 10 years.  The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) must submit to Congress a Comprehensive Southern Border Security Strategy and a Southern Border Fencing Strategy within 180 days after the bill is enacted into law.  The goals of the plans include greater surveillance in areas where more immigrants have attempted to enter the country, a 90 percent apprehension rate of those who try to enter the country without permission at these ‘high risk sectors’, and implementation of an electronic employment eligibility verification system (E-Verify).  The bill appropriates $4.5 billion for additional surveillance equipment, fencing, and funding for border agents.  This expenditure would occur when staffing on the border is already at a record high number and migration from Mexico has dropped precipitously.  DHS Secretary Napolitano said during an April 23 hearing that additional fencing does not make sense.  The money would come from fees paid by various visa holders and employers.  Advocates are concerned about the growing militarization of the border that would occur as a result of the National Guard being deployed to construct fencing and checkpoints and engage in surveillance and other activities.  In a positive move, the bill establishes a 26-member Border Oversight Task Force that includes elected officials, civil rights advocates, and representatives from law enforcement, education, and the faith community to address human rights violations at the border.

Immigrants must have resided in the United States as of December 31, 2011 in order to seek RPI status.  Before new immigrants can begin the path to citizenship the current backlog in the family- and employment-based visas must be reduced.  Immigrants seeking admission to RPI status will be required to pay large fines, fees and taxes assessed by the Internal Revenue Service, and demonstrate a record of regular employment with no more than a 60-day gap.  Prior to receiving RPI status they must have remained in the United States, except for brief departures, since December 31, 2011.  A person with RPI status can apply for the status for their dependent children and spouse.  The fines required of adults include $500 at the time of filing for RPI status, $500 at the 6-year renewal point, and another $1000 when applying for LPR status.  In addition, application fees of yet-to-be-determined amounts would be assessed.  RPI status must be filed within one year from the time DHS publishes final regulations implementing the bill’s provisions unless DHS uses its waiver authority to extend the time.  A study of English and civics is also required.  These prerequisites could prove insurmountable for low-income immigrants.  According to the Migration Policy Institute, more than 25 percent of undocumented families have incomes of less than $20,000, making it extremely difficult to afford the fees and fines.  Local governments are cutting back on adult education programs so there is less access to English-language classes.  Documenting regular employment could also prove difficult.   Waivers in the bill allow for exceptions for some provisions based on age, physical and mental disabilities and other factors.

The initial PRI status is valid for 6 years, after which immigrants can apply to renew their status for a maximum of 6 more years.  At the time of renewal the applicant must show that they have been regularly employed (with gaps of no more than 60 days) and are not likely to become dependent on public cash assistance (such as TANF) or institutionalized for long-term care at government expense OR they must demonstrate an average income or resources (assistance from other entities that could include relatives) not less than 100 percent of the poverty level throughout the RPI period.  These criteria also apply at the time of application for LPR status with the income or resources threshold raised to 125 percent of the poverty level.  This demonstration of the lack of dependence on government resources aims to hold down the cost to government of having more documented immigrants.   Prior to admitting any immigrants to LRP status, DHS must have implemented the E-Verify system.

Farm workers and those who entered the United States before the age of 16, the so-called DREAMers who meet the school or military service requirement, would be eligible for an expedited 5-year path to citizenship.  After 5 years in RPI status, DREAMers would immediately be eligible for citizenship.  Unlike prior DREAM Act legislation, S. 744 does not put an upper limit on the current age of those who came to the United States when they were less than 16 years old.  Farm workers who can demonstrate that they have worked a minimum of 100 days in the two years prior to the enactment of the legislation would be eligible for an agriculture ‘blue card’.  Farm workers who work at least 100 days a year for 5 years or 150 days for 3 years can receive LPR status if they have paid any back taxes, have not been convicted of a serious crime, and pay a $400 fine.

Last June, DHS announced that immigrants who came to the United States as children and met certain guidelines could request consideration of deferred action for a period of two years, subject to renewal, and would be eligible to work.  These immigrants’ status is referred to as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA).  Eligibility in the program requires that they must have been under the age of 31 as of June 15, 2012, came to the United State before the age of 16, have been continuously present for 5 years, met the education or military service requirement, and passed the criminal background check.  S. 744 does not specifically say that DACA status would count toward the amount of time in RPI status nor that they would automatically be granted RPI status, but they could be given the status at the discretion of the DHS Secretary.

Certain categories of visas are eliminated as of 18 months after the bill’s enactment – including sibling visas and those for married children over 30 whose U.S. parents wish to sponsor them.   Advocates are concerned that eliminating these two categories will harm family unity, an important expression of deeply-held values in our immigration system.  The diversity visa lottery, the main source of immigration from African and Eastern Europe, would also be eliminated as of October 1, 2014.  One rationale for eliminating these visas is to make room for high caps in other visa categories, especially high skilled workers.

While some visas have been eliminated, S. 744 creates others.  Some, like ‘V’ visas, are nonimmigrant visas for workers temporarily in the country or visas for family members waiting for green cards so they can physically join their family members in the United States.  ’W’ nonimmigrant visas are for temporary low-wage workers who work for 3 years with registered employers in an occupation with labor shortages.  ‘W’ visa holders can renew for 3 more years, switch to another registered employer, and could eventually apply for a merit-based green card.  The bill would allocate immigration visas in a new two-track, merit-based point system.  Track One allows for 120,000 visas per year with the number increasing to as high as 250,000 per year depending on the unemployment rate.  Factors in the point system that would be considered include education, work experience, needs of U.S. employers, age and U.S. citizen relatives.  Track Two visas would be available for families and workers caught in the immigration backlog for many years.

There are multiple visa programs currently operating which provide avenues for individuals to be admitted legally into the United States.  The H-1B visa program is a temporary visa program for high-skilled workers.  The bill calls for increasing the number of visas in the program to not less than 110,000 and not more than 180,000 for any fiscal year.  During a hearing on April 21, Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) argued that too many of those visas are going to companies headquartered outside of the United States.  The legislation also includes green cards for foreign students who graduate in STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) fields.

Immigrants in the RPI status are not eligible for means-tested benefits.  Currently even adults who become lawful permanent residents are not eligible for SNAP (food stamps), Medicaid, TANF or SSI until after a 5-year waiting period. Non-citizen children of undocumented immigrants are also denied access to these programs. They are eligible for nutrition programs like school lunches and WIC, however.  The Senate bill does allow immigrants who may have used fraudulent Social Security numbers to get jobs to claim Social Security benefits for work they performed while undocumented, without fear of prosecution.  Immigrants will be eligible to claim the Earned Income Tax Credit once they are working under RPI status and paying taxes.

 S. 744 outlines the provisions that employers of immigrants with specific visas must follow, including requirements to first offer jobs to U.S. workers and to not displace U.S. workers.  Employers of temporary agriculture workers must abide by certain wage guidelines, provide insurance for injuries if the job is not covered by state worker’s compensation laws, and provide housing that meets standard for temporary labor.  The bill also set fines for employers who violate the guidelines.

(For further details see National Immigration Law Center comprehensive summary and analysis of S.744.)

Judiciary Committee Chairman Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) plans to begin marking up S 744 in Committee on May 9.  Dozens of amendments could be filed, so several subsequent markup dates have been scheduled in May.  Action is expected on the Senate floor as soon as June.

A bi-partisan group of Representatives in the House has also been working on comprehensive immigration legislation which has not yet been introduced.  However, Judiciary Committee Chairman Robert Goodlatte (R-VA), who has not supported a path to citizenship, recently indicated that he prefers to focus individually on components of the bill rather than one comprehensive bill.  Many see this strategy as a delay tactic.  If the Senate is successful this summer in passing a comprehensive bill with strong bi-partisan support, the pressure will be on conservative House Republicans to adopt a more comprehensive approach.

The post CHN: High Hurdles on Path to Citizenship appeared first on Coalition on Human Needs.

There are currently 11.1 million undocumented immigrants in the country, down from the pre-recession peak of 12 million in 2007.  About 63 percent of them have been in the United States for 10 or more years.  Often these immigrants are part of families that include both documented and undocumented members, many of which have at least one U.S.-born child.

Contrary to common myth, immigrants do not take jobs from American workers and granting them legal status would actually create jobs.  Legalizing the approximately 11 million who currently lack documentation would strengthen the economy by creating jobs and increasing tax revenues.  The Center for American Progress estimates that immigration reform that includes legalizing the 11 million undocumented would add $1.5 trillion to the gross domestic product over 10 years.

The bi-partisan group of Senators has agreed to a framework that includes a path to citizenship for many of the undocumented (a 10-year path from a probationary period to a green card and at least 3 more years to citizenship), changes in the criteria for new immigrants, an effective employment verification system, and an improved process for admitting future immigrant workers.  It is understood that the path to citizenship will include passing a background check, learning English and paying fines and taxes, but important questions remain about the legislation.  Will payment of taxes require looking back at a work history that might include decades for which documentation is not possible, or as advocates support, will paying taxes start from the beginning of the probationary period?  Will the legislation call for mandatory participation by employers in a sometimes inaccurate E-Verify system to check an employee’s work authorization status?  Resolving the issues around who will receive new visas has proven to be among the most difficult for legislation drafters.

Visas

There are multiple visa programs which provide avenues for individuals to be admitted legally into the United States.  The largest is the family reunification program.  Two-thirds of the green cards are currently issued under that program.  Backlogs in the program mean that some families wait for more than two decades.   The new legislation is expected both to address the backlog and to apportion a smaller percentage of green cards in the family reunification program.  Advocates would be concerned about a reduction in those visas to make room for more high-skilled worker slots.  Other visa programs provide annual quotas for people from specific countries or with specialized work skills.

Labor and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce have agreed on a new “W” visa program for lower-skilled workers, setting parameters for the minimum (20,000) and maximum (200,000) number of new guest workers each year.  The agreement would require employers to pay their workers either the prevailing wage or the typical U.S. citizen’s wage – depending on which is higher. Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) led negotiations between the farm workers’ union and the agriculture industry over the number of agriculture workers and their wages.  The number of farmworkers is expected to increase, and the legislation is expected to provide them with an expedited path to citizenship.  Advocates are concerned that those workers are particularly vulnerable to being exploited and need protection.

Individual Senators are advocating including more visas for people from countries that are represented among their constituencies.  It is expected that the legislation will also include green cards for foreign students who graduate in STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) fields.

Enforcement

The new legislation will likely include a set of goals to reduce illegal crossings on the U.S. southern border and call for a system to monitor entry and exit from airports and seaports.  Although the southern border is already more secured than the benchmarks called for in the failed 2007 immigration reform bill, the Department of Homeland Security will reportedly be charged with planning and implementing strategies to further strengthen enforcement.  Over 21,000 agents and 1,200 National Guard troops are now stationed along the border.  A fence has already been built along 651 miles of the 2,000 mile border between the United States and Mexico, and extensive surveillance and radar systems have been installed.  Border crossings are at a 40-year low and net illegal immigration is zero.  A report from the Migration Policy Institute reveals that the United States spent $18 billion on immigration enforcement in 2012 alone and a total of $187 billion since 1986.

The Senate bill will also require businesses to use the E-Verify system run by the Department of Homeland Security to affirm that a potential employee has the documentation to work in the United States.  This internet-based system has produced inaccuracies estimated to affect tens of thousands of workers in the most recent year.  It will be important to improve the E-Verify system and that there be a process for those non-confirmed through the system to correct inaccuracies.

Access to the Safety Net

In an attempt to keep the first 10-year cost of an immigration bill low, there will likely be no changes in immigrant eligibility for key federal means-tested programs.   Currently even adults who become lawful permanent residents (i.e. receive green cards) are not eligible for SNAP (food stamps), Medicaid, TANF or SSI until after a 5-year waiting period.  However, there are high costs in denying immigrants health coverage.  People without health coverage can end up costing the system more because they access care when there is an emergency.  Children of undocumented immigrants are also denied access to these programs.  They are eligible for nutrition programs like school lunches and WIC.  (See National Immigration Law Center guide to immigrant eligibility for Affordable Care Act subsidies and key federal means tested programs.)

Judiciary Committee Chairman Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) has scheduled immigration hearings for April 19 and 22, and plans to mark up the Senate bill in Committee in early May.  Action is expected on the Senate floor this summer.

There is also a bi-partisan group of House members negotiating on immigration reform (Republicans Sam Johnson (TX), John Carter (TX), Mario Diaz-Balart (FL), and Raul Labrador (ID) and Democrats Xavier Becerra (CA), Zoe Lofgren (CA), and John Yarmuth (KY)).  House negotiators have reportedly come to agreement on a 15-year path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants currently in the country – a 5-year probationary period followed by 5 years to learn English, pay fines and back taxes, after which they can receive a visa.  It would then take another 5 years to gain citizenship.  House Republican negotiators have rejected the deal made between labor and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce on low-skilled workers that is expected to be in the Senate bill, thinking that it is too favorable to workers.  They have indicated that they may move immigration legislation in pieces instead of in a comprehensive bill as the Senate has, an approach rejected by House Democratic leadership.

The polls show that by a margin of 3-1, the American public supports immigration reform, and by a margin of 2-1they support a path to citizenship.  The 11million undocumented immigrants anxiously await the legislation, hoping it will reflect values of fairness and justice and encourage them to emerge without fear from the shadows.

The post CHN: Immigration Bill Imminent in the Senate appeared first on Coalition on Human Needs.

A continuing source of contention lies with tribal court provisions in the bill. S. 47 allows tribal courts to prosecute non-American Indians who are accused of acts of domestic violence against American Indian victims on tribal lands. The White House has gone on record in strong support of the tribal court provision, citing the fact that American Indian women experience some of the highest rates of domestic violence of any group in the nation. Even though some Republicans have questioned whether the constitutional rights of non-Indians might be tampered with in tribal courts, the Senate rejected Senator Charles Grassley’s (R – IA) alternative to S. 47 on February 7, which would have authorized $25 million for federal judges and prosecutors in tribal areas to handle domestic violence cases instead of authorizing the jurisdiction of tribal courts. This issue remains a sticking point between the House and Senate.

Among Senate amendments to be considered is a proposal to allocate funds to combat human trafficking, and others related to fighting sex trafficking of children, cases of rape and notifications of exposure to sexually transmitted diseases.

Another area of contention that held VAWA back from passage at the end of last year was a revenue provision included in the Senate legislation by Democrats hoping to make additional U visas available to abused immigrants. House Republicans refused to adopt the provision, saying that it was unconstitutional because all legislation involving revenue is required to originate in the House. This revenue measure was dropped from S. 47 in hopes of accelerating the passage of the legislation.

In years past, VAWA has received strong support in both the House and the Senate. The original legislation was passed in 1994 (PL 103-322), and was renewed with bipartisan support in 2000 and 2005.  The Senate passed a reauthorization bill last year by a vote of 68-31, which extended protections to gay, lesbian and immigrant victims in addition to the tribal provisions.  With the exception of the U visa increase noted above, the other expanded protections remain in S. 47.

A House Republican compromise written by Representatives Darrel Issa (R-CA) and Tom Cole (R-OK) calls for non-American Indian defendants to have the right to have their cases moved to federal courts if there is any cause to believe that their constitutional rights had been violated in a tribal court. The two legislators wrote a similar compromise at the end of last year and Issa has gone on record saying that he believes that their current language may soothe tensions between the parties and ease passage of the House bill when it comes to the floor.

Despite these disputes, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) made a statement on February 6 that the House will make reauthorizing VAWA a priority.

The post CHN: VAWA Expected to Pass in Senate This Week; House Bill Still in the Works appeared first on Coalition on Human Needs.

He was joined in the call to fix our broken immigration system by four Republican and four Democratic Senators who agreed to a framework to tackle issues associated with the close to 11 million undocumented people in our country.

Yet there is still plenty of uncertainty.  The Senate “Gang of Eight” (Republicans Marco Rubio (FL), John McCain and Jeff Flake (AZ), and Lindsey Graham (SC) and Democrats Charles Schumer (NY), Robert Menendez (NJ), Michael Bennet (CO), and Richard Durbin (IL)) agreed on four basic “pillars:”  a path to citizenship for many of the undocumented, changes in the criteria for new immigrants, an effective employment verification system, and an improved process for admitting future immigrant workers.  Their framework leaves many important details to be worked out.  One key point that drew criticism from immigrant advocates is that the pathway to citizenship for those here now would be contingent on securing the nation’s borders, with no clear definition of border security.

The Senate framework allows those who came illegally as adults to gain probationary legal status if they pay back taxes and a fine, learn English and American civics and go to the back of the line among those seeking permanent legal status. Those that comply may earn a green card, but aren’t eligible for any social services despite their status as tax-paying residents.  Their probationary period could last decades thanks to the backlog in approving legal immigrant status.  The undocumented brought here as children (known as the “dreamers,” who are now benefiting from a path to legal status through executive action by the Obama Administration) would not face the same requirements and penalties as those who came as adults.

Despite the Senate’s bipartisan progress, there is still opposition among some Republicans to a pathway to citizenship.  Some prefer to grant legal status without citizenship.   House Judiciary Committee Chair Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) has expressed reluctance to grant citizenship status.  He presided over the House Judiciary Committee’s first immigration hearing this year on February 5, which focused on ways to change the criteria for admitting new immigrants, such as greater emphasis on educational attainment.  The Senate Gang of Eight proposals also encourage legal status among immigrants earning graduate degrees in the United States, providing them with green cards after graduation.

Undocumented workers have been an undeniable economic force.  Not only have they kept American industries afloat by supplying low-wage labor, but they also pay taxes.  A CBO study shows that about 50-75% of undocumented workers pay state sales taxes and federal and state income taxes.  Additionally, undocumented workers contribute billions of dollars through Social Security and Medicare taxes, programs from which they are unlikely to benefit.

Understanding the economic impact of undocumented workers, the Senators who developed the bipartisan framework propose an agricultural worker program, which establishes another different, yet again unknown process towards legal status.  Though the program will ensure a steady supply of labor to the American agriculture industry, caution should be taken.  A proposal built around temporary and restricted legal status to work is likely to keep wages for back-breaking work exploitively low.

Additionally, non-agricultural workers still need to comply with the framework for the system to work.  Under the current provisions, it remains to be seen if the proper incentives exist to go through this burdensome legalization process.  For some undocumented people who must pay back taxes and fines, learn English and American civics and wait up to thirty years just to obtain lawful permanent residency without access to public benefits, the risk of immigrating illegally may be preferable.

Advocates of comprehensive immigration reform view this as a human rights issue. Perhaps the political impetus of both parties to satisfy the increasingly powerful Latino voters can overcome the roadblocks to reform and extend rights to millions now without the protections of law.

The post CHN: Bipartisan Push for Immigration Reform appeared first on Coalition on Human Needs.

VAWA provides grants and programs that address the needs of victims of violence including specific population groups: women in the military, elderly women, women with disabilities, women of color, women living in rural communities, those on college campuses, runaway and homeless youth, and children who witness violence.  VAWA programs give police, prosecutors, and judges the tools they need to hold accountable perpetrators of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault and stalking.  It makes services available through grants to battered women’s shelters, rape crisis centers, community centers, transitional housing programs and services on tribal reservations.  VAWA funds provide mental health and legal services, job training for survivors, intervention, prevention, and recovery programs, and the National Domestic Violence Hotline.

Subsequent reauthorizations of VAWA strengthened protections.  In 2000 the main improvements related to law enforcement responses to domestic violence, enhanced education and training on issues related to violence against women, and services for certain populations of victims.  It also defined and addressed dating violence.  VAWA reauthorization in 2005 focused on victim assistance, especially the needs of victims of domestic violence and sexual assault.

The Senate’s Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2011 (S. 1925) provides additional protection for three vulnerable groups who, according to the National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic Violence Against Women, are currently underserved by the law: immigrants, Native Americans, and members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) communities.

Abuse among immigrants often goes unreported due to fear of deportation, lack of understanding of the laws and legal system and visa dependence on the status of a spouse.  Immigrants married to a U.S. citizen or legal permanent resident often have their immigration status used as a tool by their abusers who either fail to file the necessary paperwork or threaten to withdraw their status.  “Self-petitioning” was created in the 1994 legislation so that immigrant victims could confidentially report crimes without fear of deportation.  In 2000 U-visas were created to provide special protections for undocumented immigrant victims of violence.  If victims cooperated with law enforcement on the prosecution of their perpetrator, they could apply for a U-visa allowing them to remain in the United Sates without depending on their spouse or partner to sponsor them.  Annually 10,000 U-visas may be granted.  Since 2007, a total of 5,000 U-visas went unused.  S. 1925 allows these to be used in upcoming years along with the annual allocation. The Senate bill also affirms that children of U-visa holders receive the same benefits as their parents.

Violence against Native American women has reached epidemic proportions and, according to the Census Bureau, 50 percent of all Native American married women have non-Indian husbands.  Federal law requires tribes to rely on federal or state officials to investigate cases involving domestic violence against a non-Indian perpetrator on tribal land; and in many cases, there is no investigation.  S. 1925 gives American Indian authorities limited power to prosecute non-Indians accused of abusing Indian women for crimes of domestic violence, dating violence, and violations of protection orders.  The defendant must reside or be employed in the Indian country or be the spouse or intimate partner of a member of the prosecuting tribe.

The Senate bill earmarks funds for community organizations that serve LGBT victims, prohibits discrimination against them by law enforcement and domestic violence shelters, and explicitly allows states to use federal money to help them.  VAWA protects victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault and stalking from eviction or denial of a housing benefit based on their status as victims or the actions of their perpetrators.  S. 1925 requires owners, managers and public housing authorities to relay these rights when serving eviction notices.

Previous authorizations of VAWA bills have been bi-partisan and most recently the 2005 reauthorization bill was unanimously supported.  This year however, some Republicans objected to the expansion of protections for LGBT victims, opposed granting more U-visas, and resisted giving Indian authorities the power to prosecute non-Indian abusers.  The Senate turned back a broad substitute amendment (37-62) sponsored by Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) that included new mandatory minimum sentences for sex crimes. After much partisan wrangling in the Senate, 15 Republicans joined all Democrats in supporting the bill passing it 61-38.

On May 8 the House Judiciary Committee marked up its bill, H.R. 4970, the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2012.  Advocates for victims of domestic violence and sexual assault have many concerns about the House bill. It eliminates confidentiality protections for victims that self-petition by requiring notification to the alleged abuser that his/her spouse has applied for a U-visa; it fails to recognize the authority of tribal courts to hold non-Indian perpetrators accountable; it has weak provisions that do not address the issues of the LGBT community; and it does not require owners, managers and public housing authorities to notify potential victims of their rights to avoid unlawful eviction. Furthermore, H.R. 4970 would require more VAWA resources to be diverted to pay for costly new audit requirements.

A number of Democratic amendments failed during committee consideration.  Among them, the committee rejected Representative Sheila Jackson Lee’s (D-TX) amendment that would have dropped language blocking U-visa recipients from gaining permanent residence.  It also turned back Delegate Pedro Pierluisi’s (D-P.R.) amendment adding 5,000 U-visas per year to the current 10,000 total.  The committee rejected Representative Zoe Lofgren’s (D-CA) amendment to replace the House bill immigrant language with that from the Senate bill.  The committee also rejected amendments to better serve the LGBT community and to strike the bill’s mandatory prison sentences for aggravated sexual assault convictions.  The bill passed the Judiciary Committee by a vote of 17-15 with Representative Ted Poe (R-TX) joining all Democrats in opposing it. The House bill is expected to be considered on the floor soon.

S. 1925 set an annual funding authorization level for VAWA programs of $659.5 million, a drop of $136.5 million from VAWA authorization in the 2005 bill.  However, appropriators have not provided full funding for VAWA; in fact, funds have steadily decreased over recent years.

The post CHN: Senate Passes Strong Violence Against Women Act; Weak Bill Advances in the House appeared first on Coalition on Human Needs.