Page 10

We at Branigan and Associates are global immigration reformists. We are also some of the top immigration lawyers in the U.S. We certainly support U.S. immigration reform in the United States. If you need a greencard, a visa, or have an immigration matter we help both private citizens and corporations understand the law. CALL US NOW AT 973.744.2223. Immigration reform is a term used in political discussion regarding changes to current immigration policy of a country. In its strict definition, "reform " means to change into an improved form or condition, by amending or removing faults or abuses.^[1] In the political sense,immigration reform may include promoted, expanded, or open immigration, as well as reduced or eliminated immigration.

[edit]Immigration reform in the United States

This term is also widely used to describe proposals to increase legal immigration while decreasing illegal immigration, such as the guest worker proposal supported by George W. Bush. Illegal immigration is a controversial issue in the United States. Proponents of greater immigration enforcement argue that illegal immigrants cost taxpayers an estimated $338.3 billion dollars and jeopardize the safety of law enforcement officials and citizens, especially along the Mexican border.^[2]

Former Mexican president, Vicente Fox, writes that in 2001, President George W. Bush, and the leadership of both parties of Congress were about to pass significant immigration reform legislation benefiting Mexican emigration to the U.S., but then the terrorists attacked.^[3]

The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 made it illegal to hire or recruit illegal immigrants.

In 2006, the U.S House of Representatives passed the Border Protection, Anti-terrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005, and in 2006 the U.S. Senate passed the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006. Neither bill became law because their differences could not be reconciled in conference committee.^[4] The legislative negotiations and national activism behind immigration reform from 2001-2007 is the subject of 12-part documentary film series How Democracy Works Now.

In 2009 the immigration reform became a hot topic, since the Barack Obama administration recently signaled interest in beginning a discussion on comprehensive immigration reform before year's end.^[5][6] The proposed comprehensive immigration reform plan had as its goal bipartisan support and includes six sections designed to have "something for everyone." These six sections are: (1) to fix border enforcement, (2) “interior enforcement,” such as preventing visa overstays, (3) preventing people from working without a work permit, (4) creating a committee to adapt the number of visas available to changing economic times, (5) an 'amnesty' type of program to legalize undocumented immigrants, and (6) programs to help immigrants adjust to life in the United States. ^[7]

A 2010 academic study has shown that when immigration issues receive national media attention, established residents living in places that have seen influx of new immigrants suddenly become much more politicized against immigration. This suggests that it is not the influx of new residents or new proximity to established residents that stir anti-immigrant sentiments; rather, resentment is spurred by the heated and prominent nature of the debate itself. The study, done by Georgetown University and published in the American Political Science Review, “Politicized Places: Explaining Where and When Immigrants Provoke Local Opposition,” examined more than twelve different surveys relating to immigration and local anti-immigration ordinances, spanning the years 1992 to 2009. During a period of high national attention to immigration, anti-immigration attitudes among established residents in fast-changing counties increase by 9.9%. The study’s author states that ethnic and racial surroundings appear to affect Americans’ political attitudes far less than previously thought: “Those who live near larger proportions of immigrants do not consistently exhibit more negative attitudes.” Rather, the author concludes, “day-to-day encounters can be shaped by salient national issues.”^[8]

[edit]Arizona SB 1070

In 2009, services provided to illegal aliens, including incarceration, cost the state of Arizona an estimated $2.7 billion.^[9]

Citing Congress’ failure to enforce U.S. immigration laws, the state of Arizona confronted reform and on April, 23, 2010 Republican Governor Jan Brewer signed the Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act (Arizona SB 1070), the broadest and strictest immigration reform imposed in the United States.^[10]

The SB1070 Arizona immigration law directs law enforcement officials to ask for immigration papers on a "reasonable suspicion" that a person might be an illegal immigrant and make arrests for not carrying ID papers. ^[11] Previously, police could not stop and check identification papers on a mere suspicion that someone might be an illegal immigrant. Police could only ask about an individual's immigration status if they are suspected of involvement in another crime.^[12]

On July 6, 2010, the US Department of Justice filed suit against Arizona. The intent of the suit is to prevent Arizona from enforcing the law and asks the court to find certain sections of the legislation null and void.^[13] The United States Congress has left this issue untouched as many feared such a vote could threaten their chances at reelection.

Being the first state to pass such legislation, Arizona has set a precedent for other states, but this legislation has also caused Arizona to carry a large burden. Arizonans have faced boycotts and protests from their commercial businesses to sporting events and concert. Although the response has cost the state between $7 million and $52 million, some in the state still feel that this outcome will outweigh the initial cost.^[14]

Due to conflict and protest, the week after she signed SB 1070, Governor Brewer signed the Arizona legislature passed House Bill 2162 (HB 2162) amending text in the original document. HB 2162 includes that race, color, and national origin would not play a role in prosecution; in order to investigate an individual's immigration status, he or she must be “lawfully stopped, arrested or detained."^[15]

Opponents of the law say that it will ultimately cost the state “$26.4 billion in economic activity, $11.7 billion in gross state product and approximately 140,024 jobs” if all illegal immigrants are removed from the state.^[16]

[edit]Immigration reform in the United Kingdom

As of 2010, in the United Kingdom, there is some cross-party support for immigration reform, largely under the auspices of the Strangers into Citizens campaign. Although the Liberal Democrats are the only major party to fully support reform, some Labour MPs (including former leadership candidate John McDonald [1]), the IPPR (a Labour-leaning think-tank) and Boris Johnson (the Conservative Mayor of London) also support a selective amnesty for illegal immigrants. Under the Liberal Democrat proposal, this would involve regularisation for illegal immigrants who have lived in the country for at least ten years and who do not have a criminal record.

It is argued that bringing many of these (estimates varying widely from 300,000 to 800,000^[17]) individuals into the legal economy would allow police to concentrate resources on tackling people traffickers and criminals - and would raise billions in tax revenue - whereas deporting them would cost £4.7 billion and take 30 years.^[17] This issue is still a matter of political debate today in the United Kingdom.^[18][19]

[edit]See also

• DREAM ACT
• Illegal immigration
• Immigration to the United States
  • Illegal immigration to the United States
  • Immigration reduction
  • English-only movement
  • H1B visa
• National Alliance of Latin American and Caribbean Communities
• Open immigration
• March for America March 21, 2010, protest in Washington, DC

[edit]References