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.

E-Verify is the federal government’s Internet-based system that attempts to verify workers’ eligibility by cross-checking a potential employee’s information with the Social Security Administration and the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services databases. Lamar Smith’s bill would make it mandatory for all employers in the United States to use E-Verify before hiring any new employees. Currently, only 4% of businesses use the system, and increasing this number to 100% will be very costly. The Center for American Progress estimates that this bill will cost employers $2.6 billion annually, on top of additional first year startup costs. To operate, it will cost the Social Security Administration and the Department of Homeland Security a minimum of $1 billion over five years.

Furthermore, the E-Verify system has considerable flaws. If E-Verify were made mandatory, it is estimated that 3.5 million workers would be forced to resolve an erroneous rejection because of system errors.  Resolving these errors would translate into a jobs “tax” of $190 for workers who had to produce documents to show they were legally employed.  Many legal workers would not be successful in disputing their rejection, resulting in an estimated 770,000 legal workers, including U.S. citizens, losing their jobs due to system errors. The system has even greater error rates when screening unauthorized workers, catching only 46% of illegal workers.  .  With errors so rampant in the E-Verify system, analysts question whether the cost to business, workers, and government is justified by the results.

The DREAM Act: On the other side of the immigration debate, on Tuesday, June 28th, the Senate Committee on the Judiciary held the first-ever hearing on the DREAM Act, which was first introduced ten years ago in 2001 by Senator Hatch (R-UT).  The DREAM (Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors) Act offers young individuals who came to the United States illegally as minors, age 15 or younger, a chance to gain legal status and citizenship if they meet a stringent set of criteria and attend college or enroll in the military. In last year’s 111th Congress, the DREAM Act fell just five votes short of passage in the Senate after it was successfully passed in the House.  Notable witnesses at Tuesday’s hearing included Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano, Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, and Under Secretary of Defense Dr. Clifford Stanley.

At the hearing, the witnesses focused on the military and economic benefits of the Act.  If passed, the bill would reduce the deficit by $1.4 billion over 10 years and enable talented students to fill the more than 1.8 million vacant jobs in science and engineering.  In addition to generating more revenue, this act would significantly reduce the criminal justice and social services costs to taxpayers.  The DREAM Act would also significantly enlarge the pool of recruits for the United States military, which is expecting a sharp decline in enrollment when the economy eventually recovers.  While this hearing does help to refocus a fading light on immigration reform, it does little more. It is extremely unlikely that any federal immigration reform legislation will be passed before the 2012 elections, as the Democrats will be unable to overcome a filibuster of the bill.

The post CHN: E-Verify Bill Will Cost Americans Jobs; Senate Judiciary Committee Holds Historic DREAM Act Hearing appeared first on Coalition on Human Needs.

Despite having the support of the majority of Senators, the DREAM Act fell five votes short of securing the 60 votes needed to prevent a filibuster in the Senate. The vote on cutting off debate (cloture) failed 55-41. Three Republicans voted in favor of the measure; five Democrats voted against. Advocates found it a bitter disappointment that Senators Brownback (R-KS), Collins (R-ME), Hatch (R-UT), Hutchinson (R-TX), McCain (R-AZ), Nelson (D-NE) and Snowe (R-ME), who had supported or voted for the bill in the past, failed to vote for cloture. Through tears and disappointment, DREAM Act supporters vowed to continue fighting for the bill.

Every year that passes thousands more students graduate from high school and are denied the opportunity to realize their dreams and make a full contribution to this country. The dreams and stories of some of the would-be beneficiaries of the DREAM Act are captured in the DREAM Act 2010 Yearbook produced by the National Immigration Law Center and a coalition of civil rights, education, child advocacy, and labor organizations. Failure to pass the DREAM Act is not just their loss. The country stands to gain from giving young people the chance to contribute. According to the National Immigration Law Center the DREAM Act would reduce the federal deficit by $2.2 billion over 10 years.

The post CHN: DREAM Denied for Immigrant Youth appeared first on Coalition on Human Needs.

Taxes
The stakes will be high as Congress decides which provisions in the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts will be allowed to expire on December 31, which will be extended, and whether the extensions will be permanent or temporary.  There is broad agreement among Democrats, Republicans and the Administration that the tax cuts for the bottom 98 percent of taxpayers should be extended. At issue are the tax breaks for the wealthiest two percent. Most Democrats believe those should be allowed to expire.  Republicans under the leadership of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) want to extend all of the Bush tax cuts.  Allowing the top marginal income tax rates for wealthy taxpayers, currently set at 33 and 35 percent, to remain in place – for income above approximately $210,000 and $375,000 – rather than reverting to 36 and 39.6 percent rates, and retaining the 15 percent rate on capital gains and dividends rather than the pre-2001 rate of 20 percent, carries a $700 billion price tag over 10 years.  If the two top rates are not extended, those same taxpayers would still benefit from retaining the lower 10, 15, 25, and 28 rates on their initial income.  Proponents of extending tax breaks for the wealthiest argue that this will lead to job creation and economic growth, but there is little evidence to support their position.  There is considerable evidence that spending a small fraction of that amount on unemployment benefits, for example, would provide a far more effective boost to the economy.

Advocates will be working to ensure that the improvements to the refundable Child Tax Credit and the Earned Income Tax Credit included in ARRA passed in 2009 are linked with the extension or permanency of the middle-class tax cuts.  For low-income families who receive the refundable credits the national average per-family benefit of retaining the improvements is $1,330, according to a Citizen for Tax Justice report.   President Obama’s plan, supported by most Democrats, extends all of the Bush tax cuts for individuals making up to $200,000 and couples up to $250,000, including the improvements in the refundable credits.  The Republican plan forwarded by Senator McConnell does not call for extending the refundable credits and extends all tax cuts for the wealthiest.  Under the Republican plan, the bottom 60 percent of U.S. taxpayers would pay $124 more and the richest one percent would pay $45,893 less in 2011, on average, then they would under President Obama’s plan, according to a Citizens for Tax Justice report.

Prior to Thanksgiving break Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) indicated that he would schedule a vote on extending tax cuts for the bottom 98 percent and hoped that Minority Leader McConnell would agree not to block the vote if there is also a vote on his plan to extend all of the tax cuts.  Currently there are not 60 votes to pass either plan.  The majority of Democrats oppose extending the tax breaks for the upper two percent and Republicans, emboldened by election gains, are pressing for full extension.  It is unclear how this will get resolved, but if they do not act by January all taxpayers will face an increase in their taxes that will show up immediately in lower take-home pay.

Appropriations for FY 2011
After failing to pass any of the 12 appropriations bills that fund discretionary (annually appropriated) programs by October 1 when Fiscal Year 2011 began, Congress has passed two stopgap continuing resolutions (CR’s) to continue funding programs.  The current CR is set to expire on December 3.  The CR funds most appropriated programs at their FY 2010 levels.  Democrats on the House and Senate Appropriations subcommittees along with Senate Republicans have been working to come to agreement on funding levels for each of the twelve FY 2011 spending bills that would then be bundled into an omnibus package.  Initially Senator McConnell (R-KY) agreed to the plan that would provide overall funding for discretionary programs at $16 billion below the President’s FY 2011 budget which itself calls for freezing non-military, non-homeland security spending.  The agreed-upon level is consistent with an amendment sponsored by Senators Jeff Sessions (R-AL) and Claire McCaskill (D-MO) that narrowly failed earlier this year.  However, under pressure from House Republicans who want even steeper cuts in non-security spending and who will be in charge in the House in the next Congress, Senator McConnell is backing away from his agreement.

The House Republican’s “Pledge to America” campaign document calls for funding non-security discretionary programs in FY 2011 at $105 billion, or 21.7 percent, less than the $483 billion in the President’s budget.  This level is $101 billion less than what was provided in 2010 when adjusted for inflation.  If those austere cuts are passed, well-funded lobbyists will press for less aggressive cuts to politically well-connected programs like roads or medical research, which will result in even deeper cuts for programs that address the needs of low- and moderate-income people.  These cuts would fall hard on state and local governments already facing the largest deficits in recent history.  Programs affected may include K-12 education, low-income housing, job training and employment services, nutrition, and services for the elderly and disabled – all critical for vulnerable populations.  (See Center on Budget and Policy report including state-by-state cuts that could result if the Republican plan is adopted.)  Most economists have warned against cutting domestic spending for at least another year, since the job and business income losses sure to result will threaten the very fragile economic recovery.

Advocates are working for passage of an omnibus bill in the lame-duck session. Reaching final agreement on funding for discretionary programs will be difficult as newly elected Republicans are anxious to demonstrate their desire to cut spending regardless of economists’ warnings.

Dream Act
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has pledged to bring the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act for a vote in the Senate during the lame duck session. The DREAM Act is bipartisan legislation that would provide certain immigrant students who grew up in the U.S. an opportunity to obtain legal status if they go to college or serve in the U.S. military. Multiple versions of the DREAM Act have been introduced in Congress since 2001. Senate Majority Whip Richard Durbin (D-IL,) a longstanding champion of the bill, along with Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN) introduced the DREAM Act in the Senate, S. 729, in this Congress. Representatives Howard Berman (D-CA), Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-FL) and Lucille Roybal-Allard (D-CA) introduced a House companion bill, H.R. 1751.

In preparation for a vote on the bill in the Senate, Senator Durbin introduced two new versions of the bill, S. 3962 and S. 3963, before the Thanksgiving break. The difference between both bills has to do with the qualifying age of individuals. In S. 3962 individuals have to be less than 35 years old when the bill is enacted to qualify for adjustment of status. In S. 3963 the cut-off age is 30. Both bills eliminate a provision that was in earlier versions giving states the option to provide in-state tuition without regard to immigration status. These changes were made in an effort to build greater support for the legislation. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) has also indicated that she would like to bring the DREAM Act for a vote in the House during the lame duck session.

Child Nutrition Reauthorization 
House leaders may bring the Senate-approved Child Nutrition Reauthorization bill, S. 3307, for a vote on the floor when they return from the Thanksgiving break. Passage of a Child Nutrition Reauthorization bill stalled in Congress after some House members raised concerns over parts of the Senate bill. S. 3307 provides $4.5 billion over 10 years for better child nutrition through more afterschool and summer meals, higher reimbursements to school lunch providers, improved administration of WIC and meals programs, including easier enrollment of children, and more funding for WIC program improvements.  House members have supported legislation with more funding and greater expansion of summer food and school breakfast programs and more streamlined access provisions. But the biggest sticking point for some House members has been the Senate’s use of future SNAP/food stamp cuts to pay for provisions in the Senate bill.  In August, 106 Representatives sent a letter to Speaker Pelosi opposing SNAP cuts.  (To learn more about the House members objections see the October 5 Human Needs Report.) House proponents are working with the Administration to identify ways during the lame duck session to prevent SNAP cuts from taking effect.  Child nutrition programs are set to expire on December 3.

According to new data released by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, 17.2 million children, or almost a quarter of all children in the U.S., struggled against hunger in 2009. The U.S. continues to experience high rates of food insecurity with 50 million Americans living in households struggling against hunger last year. However, worth noting is that while food insecurity grew significantly from 2007 to 2008, during the first year of the recession, in 2009 there was only a slight increase. This trend continued into 2010. An analysis by the Food Research and Action Center of data from the Gallup-Healthways Well-Being Index shows that food hardship actually declined slightly this year. It is significant that food hardship and insecurity did not rise significantly in 2009 and 2010 given the high rates of unemployment during these time periods. The leveling off of food insecurity rates coincides with the increase in SNAP benefits that were enacted as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.  This indicates the effectiveness of SNAP in ameliorating hunger and stresses the importance of maintaining a strong SNAP program, especially given the slow pace of recovery.

SSI Benefits
On October 1, up to 5,600 impoverished refugees and other immigrants in the U.S. on humanitarian grounds were cut off from their Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimates that another 5,600 could be cut off over the next 13 months unless Congress acts. Advocates are pushing Congress for a one-year extension of SSI eligibility and are also working with the Administration to determine a long-term solution for this population.

In 1996, a seven-year time limit for SSI benefits was imposed on humanitarian immigrants. It was assumed that seven years would give individuals sufficient time to obtain citizenship, and thereby maintain their benefits. However, processing delays and other obstacles in the immigration system made it nearly impossible for people to naturalize within the seven-year time period. Two years ago Congress overwhelmingly approved a two-year extension of SSI benefits for refugees, lengthening the eligibility level from seven years to nine.

Qualified Individual Program
Unless Congress acts in the lame-duck session, two programs critical to low-income Medicare beneficiaries will be terminated, the Qualified Individual (QI) Program and the therapy caps exception process.  The QI program is a federal grant to states that pays the Medicare Part B premium (covering doctors’ services and outpatient care) for individuals with income between 120 and 135 percent of the federal poverty level (about $13,000 to $14,600 in 2010) who are not otherwise eligible for Medicaid.  The program, currently serving 1.5 million low-income Medicare recipients, was created in 1997 and has been extended on a year-to-year basis since 2002.  If the QI program lapses these beneficiaries will lose approximately $1,100, the yearly cost of Part B premiums, forcing them to pay the premium out-of-pocket or drop coverage.

Also at risk is the therapy caps exception process, protecting low-income Medicare beneficiaries from being denied medically necessary services when they exceed limits on outpatient physical therapy, occupational therapy and speech-language services.  Treatment limitations include a combined $1,860 cap for speech and physical therapy services, and a separate $1,860 cap for occupational therapy.  Advocates are counting on Congress to extend these programs vital to low-income seniors.

The post CHN: Congress Returns to Lame-Duck Session Facing Full Plate of Unfinished Business appeared first on Coalition on Human Needs.

REPAIR contains a mix of promising and concerning provisions. The proposal does contain a path to legalization for the majority of the undocumented population. Undocumented immigrants living in the country from the date the bill is introduced would be eligible for an initial registration program that would grant them provisional status with work authorization and an ability to travel abroad. They would be able to adjust their status to legal residents once the current backlog for family members applying to enter the country through the current system is cleared. The bill assumes that this process will take eight years.  Eligibility for the adjustment of status will be dependent on applicants’ ability to meet certain criteria, such as passing criminal background and security checks, paying taxes and acquiring English language skills.  The proposal also incorporates the DREAM Act, which would provide a path to legalization for undocumented youth who came to this country as children.

As already stated REPAIR proposes clearing the backlogs in the family immigration system over eight years and would institute changes in the system to reduce the likelihood that major backlogs will develop in the future. There are also key protections for workers involved in labor disputes and stronger enforcement of standards relating to the treatment of immigrants in immigration detention centers. REPAIR also proposes creating new pathways for low- and high-skilled workers to join the labor force. It would boost the number of visas for non-seasonal, non-agricultural workers. Currently, just 5,000 of these visas are made available each year. It is believed that the lack of visas for these types of workers has been one of the driving forces in illegal immigration. In REPAIR, these visa-holders could renew the visa once or become permanent residents if they meet certain criteria. Also, high-skilled immigrants graduating from universities in the U.S. will be given the opportunity to gain permanent residency.

REPAIR places a heavy emphasis on border control and law enforcement. The proposal starts with a set of triggers that must be met prior to the adjustment of status to permanent residence for undocumented immigrants. The triggers include an increase in Customs and Border Patrol officers and Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, modernized or expanded technology and infrastructure at the border, and increased immigration court resources. There are also other provisions besides the triggers calling for greater resources for enforcement at the border and ports of entry. One of the aspects of the proposal most troubling to immigrant advocates and some employers is a new employment verification system that involves a Social Security card with a biometric identifier. The fear is that this untested biometric card will replicate existing problems with current employment verification programs that have led to incorrect classification of workers as ineligible to work. The American Immigration Lawyers Association has prepared a helpful summary of REPAIR.

The window of opportunity for Congressional action this year on immigration reform is closing fast. Advocates continue to urge the Administration and Congress to make a serious push for reform. They point to a new law enacted in Arizona as another case in point for the urgent need for federal action on the issue. Recently, the Governor of Arizona signed into law a controversial bill, S.B. 1070, that gives police officers authority to stop, question, detain, and arrest people on a “reasonable suspicion” of being undocumented. Many civil rights groups, legal experts, elected officials and police chiefs have denounced the law as extreme, discriminatory, and unconstitutional.  Legal suits will be mounted to challenge S.B. 1070.

The post CHN: Framework for Immigration Bill Released appeared first on Coalition on Human Needs.

Upon entering office, President Obama promised to tackle immigration reform during his first year in the White House. However, with health reform dominating the legislative calendar this year there has been little time for some of the President’s other priority issues. In August, President Obama admitted that in all likelihood it would not be until early next year when immigration reform would really begin to gain traction.

Advocates and immigrant rights leaders continue to urge the Administration and Congress take up the issue as early as possible. Representative Luis Gutierrez (D-IL), an ardent supporter of immigration reform who for the last year has been touring the country documenting how families and citizens have been harmed by our outdated immigration laws, will likely be the first to answer their call. At the rally he announced that he will introduce a bill in the coming weeks and outlined his principles for comprehensive and humane immigration reform, which include:

• A pathway to legalization for undocumented workers, farm workers and students;
• Border and interior enforcement that is professional, effective and humane;
• Worker protections;
• Verification systems;
• Family unity; and
• Immigrant integration.

Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) will lead the reform effort in the Senate. He has also promised to introduce legislative language this fall.

The post CHN: New Push for Immigration Reform on the Horizon appeared first on Coalition on Human Needs.