MAPA Analysis of Senate Actions

Mexican American Political Association
June 07, 2007

IMMIGRATION DEBATE UPDATE

Introduction. We are forwarding you these updates on the immigration debate prepared by the Center for Human Rights and Consitutional Law, Attornys Peter Schey and Carlos Holguin. Our advocacy is for fair, humane, and rational immigration reform. We are totally opposed to the off-handed declarations made by compromising individual Latino television comentators or organizations that advocate – NOTHING IS WORSE. In fact, as pointed out in this and future updates, NOTHING WILL BE WORSE in terms of the millions of individuals and families that will be criminalized in perpetuity by the proposed senate legislation.
Senate Immigration Reform: Update Wednesday June 6

Supporters of the Grand Bargain invoked rules effectively requiring an amendment to win 60 votes to keep their delicate coalition from crumbling.

Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., plans to force a test vote as early as Thursday morning to end debate on the Grand Bargain and move on to other matters.

Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., got only 53 votes for his effort to delay shifting U.S. immigration policy away from keeping families together in favor of attracting more foreign workers (the new anti-family “point system”). But that was seven votes short of the 60 needed. Voting against him were 44 senators. The Menendez amendment would have allowed more than 800,000 people who had applied for permanent legal status by the beginning of 2007 to obtain green cards based purely on their family connections – a preference the bill ends for most relatives who got in line after May 2005. Family unity goes down the toilet.

Sen. Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico wanted to allow the hundreds of thousands of new “guest workers” to come for six consecutive years. The Senate voted 57- 41 to reject the amendment, retaining the bill’s call for most guest workers to go home for a year between each of three two-year stints. Any hope of giving these guest workers a path to permanent resident status is slim to none. So they’ll just remain, for the most part, replenishing the undocumented population.

Senator DeMint’s amendment SA 1197 rejected: required as a condition of eligibility for “Z” visa status, that immigrants secure and maintain health care coverage through high deductible health plans (HDHPs) or Health Savings Accounts (HSAs). Only a small minority of employers offer health insurance that meets the HDHP and HAS requirements of SA 1197 and therefore would have created a potentially insurmountable barrier to legalization (not to mention the barriers that already exist in the Grand Bargain).

Cornyn amendment SA 1184 rejected: would have expanded the definition of an aggravated felony, created new grounds of inadmissibility based on aggravated felonies and other crimes, and expanded the definition of gang activity used in determining deportation grounds. It also expands the discretionary authority of DHS to deny naturalization and other benefits based on a finding that an applicant lacks good moral character. Allows deportations based on the unreviewable determination by the Attorney General that a person lacks “good moral character”; determinations can be made based on secret evidence that the person cannot see or effectively challenge.

Criminal penalties —

In fact, the Grand Bargain already turns hundreds of thousands of immigrants into criminals. Here’s a brief summary of a few of the criminal provisions in the Grand Bargain:

Illegal entry – 6 months in prison
2nd illegal entry – 2 years in prison
3 misdemeanors plus illegal entry – 10 years in prison
Felony with 30 months in prison followed by illegal entry – 15 years in prison
Illegal reentry after deportation – 2 years in prison
Visa fraud – 15 years in prison

So, for example, a wife of someone granted Z visa status comes to live with her husband – illegal entry number 1 since she cannot get a visa to live with her Z husband for probably 15-20 years. Lets say she’s lucky and does not get caught so she avoids 6 months in jail.
Her mom dies so she goes home for the funeral and a week or so later reenters illegally and is caught. Bingo – prison for 2 years..
After 2 years she is deported (and of course is now permanently barred from legalizing her status). Desperate to be with her husband (and maybe children), she again enters without inspection and is caught.
Bingo, 10 years in prison.
Halliburton and the other private prison builders pop the champagne and toast the Grand Bargain. By the way, in the federal system, there’s no early release for good behavior.

How about “expedited removal” and the Z visa:

Since 1997 well over a million immigrants have been subjected to “expedited removal.” Expedited removal is a provision in the Immigration and Nationality Act §235(b)(1)(A)(i) under which an immigrant who lacks proper documentation or has committed fraud or willful misrepresentation of facts to gain admission into the United States is inadmissable and may be removed from the United States without any further hearings or review, unless the immigrant indicates either an intention to apply for asylum or a fear of persecution. In August 2004, the expedited removal program was expanded to immigrants encountered by an immigration officer within 100 air miles of the U.S. international southwest land border (about 85% of the immigrants subject to this form of expedited removal are from Mexico). Since the US apprehends and deports about 1 million immigrants each year along the border, the number subjected to expedited removal could be 1-2 or more million. Of those deported how many make it back illegally? No one knows for sure but people assume a very large number try to enter a second or third time and eventually get through.

The Z visa will exclude immigrants previously deported, including those previously removed under expedite removal (deportation) orders. In summary, aside from the outrageously high application fees, penalties, and payment of back taxes, and granting immigrants no more than a “non-immigrant visa,” and denying them the right to have their families join them, and forcing them to work no matter what kind of harsh and unlawful conditions they may endure, and excluding groups like day laborers who are not formally “employed,” the Z visa will also exclude probably 1-2 million immigrants now living here who have previously been deported or removed under expedited removal orders. Who is this a Great Bargain for???

Urge your Senators to amend the Grand Bargain by (1) making Z visas permanent instead of non- immigrant visas, (2) drop all of the fees and penalties by 75% and permit community service in the place of fees for those unable to afford the fees, (3) allow people to qualify even if they have prior deportation orders (as was the case with IRCA in 1986), (4) make Z visa applications confidential, (5) allow for prompt family unity at minimum for spouses and children, (6) do not require applicants to leave the country to obtain lawful permanent resident status, and (7) allow for judicial review of applications denied erroneously or by an officer who abused his or her discretion. This is what it would take to have anything close to a rational and humane legalization program.

Given the current make up of the Senate and occupant in the White House, you have a better chance of winning the lottery than getting these types of amendments considered or approved. But these are the types of rational and humane amendments people should be advocating for with regards to the Z visa as this debate winds down in the Senate.
——————————————————————————–
Peter A. Schey
President
Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law

CONTACT:
Nativo V. Lopez, National President of MAPA (323) 269-1575

bh