Immigration at the Border
In Heart of Texas, Sheriff Takes Heat for Honoring Immigration Detainers
A local election in Travis County, Texas, is bringing to light important questions surrounding the controversial Secure Communities program. As recently reported by the Texas Tribune, Democratic primary challenger John Sisson has criticized incumbent Sheriff Greg Hamilton for honoring federal immigration “detainers”—the lynchpin of Secure Communities—because of their harm to immigrant communities. While Hamilton has said he is bound by federal law, contrary policies in jurisdictions around the country show the sheriff is either misinformed or confused. Read More
After Justice Department Admits Mistake, Immigrant Advocates Ask Supreme Court to Fix Prior Opinion
Of the many problems with our immigration system, one of the least known—but most frustrating—is that when the government deports immigrants whose appeals are still pending, it offers little to no help returning to the United States if they ultimately prevail in court. Immigrant advocates were thus perplexed when the Justice Department filed a Supreme Court brief in 2008 claiming to have a “policy” of helping such immigrants return to the country. Now, more than three years after the brief was filed, the current administration has conceded that no such policy existed at the time—and immigrant advocates have asked the Court to modify a portion of its ruling that relied on the government’s misstatement. Read More
Rubio Proposal Overlooks Obstacles Ahead For DREAMers
Though it has yet to be introduced in Congress, Senator Marco Rubio’s alternative to the DREAM Act received an appraisal from the Washington Post this week, which noted that it represents an effort to shake the hard-line anti-immigrant sentiment voiced by many leading conservative politicians. The editorial also noted, however, that the outlines of his proposal promote what’s tantamount to “permanent second-class status.” Read More
Changes to Alabama’s Extreme Immigration Law Not Enough, Critics Say
Following numerous protests, lawsuits, damaging economic reports and problems enforcing the law, Alabama Rep. Micky Hammon of Decatur proposed a bill (HB 658) that tweaks key provisions of the state’s immigration enforcement law, HB 56. Last week, the Alabama House approved those changes, some of which scaled back provisions of the law and others which actaully expanded existing provisions. While Rep. Hammon claims the tweak bill “removes confusing language and makes the law easier to enforce,” opponents assert that no amount of tweaking can fix this broken law and that the only solution is a full repeal. HB 658 is now pending in the state Senate which is expected to take up the bill this week. Read More
Border Patrol Agents Abusing Role as Interpreters
Over the past year, advocates in states along the northern border of the United States have reported that Border Patrol agents frequently “assist” local law enforcement officers by serving as Spanish-English interpreters and participating in 911 dispatch activities. Capitalizing on their access to noncitizens, Border Patrol agents are using these opportunities to facilitate immigration enforcement. This collaboration between Border Patrol and local law enforcement agencies, however, violates the letter and the spirit of federal language access requirements under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Executive Order 13166, Improving Access to Services for Persons with Limited English Proficiency (August 11, 2000). Read More
Study Shows Self-Deportation is Irrational Behavior and a False Premise
Proponents of “attrition through enforcement” would have you believe that, given the right conditions, unauthorized immigrants will choose to leave the U.S. and return to their home countries. The Myth of Self Deportation, by Alexandra Filindra, questions the assumptions behind the attrition strategy and concludes that self-deportation is not rational because unauthorized immigrants have invested too much in the U.S. to return home. Read More
The Myth of “Self-Deportation”
How Behavioral Economics Reveals the Fallacies behind “Attrition through Enforcement” By Alexandra Filindra, Ph.D. The concept of “self-deportation” rests on a deceptively simple premise. According to its supporters, if the federal government invests more in enforcing immigration laws, and if states and localities take on additional immigration control responsibilities, the costs and risks of staying in the United States will increase substantially for undocumented immigrants. Faced with a high risk of being caught and imprisoned, “rational” undocumented residents will “give up and deport themselves” returning to their home countries rather than remain in the U.S. However, preliminary evidence from studies conducted in states where such enforcement laws have been enacted shows that immigration restrictionists have gotten it wrong. Immigrant population in these states has remained in place and the predicted exodus never materialized. Economic factors, rather than enforcement, have played a far more important role in reducing the rate of undocumented entry into the United States. This report uses important research findings from cognitive psychology and behavioral economics to explain why restrictionists have gotten it wrong and people do not behave in the “rational” way that restrictionists expect them to. Read More
SB1070 Author Shares Fears About America Becoming a “Minority, Majority” Nation
On the same day the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Arizona v. United States the Washington Post published an article featuring Michael Hethmon, general counsel for the Immigration Reform Law Institute. Hethmon is the lesser-known legal mind behind SB1070, and a variety of other anti-immigrant measures. His legal counterpart, Kris Kobach tends to get the spotlight; however Hethmon didn’t shy away from the Washington Post this week and was frank about his views on the real issues underlying SB1070. Read More
Nebraska Upholds Bill that Provides Prenatal Care to Undocumented Women
In a move that brought together an unusual group of allies, Nebraska’s Republican-controlled legislature recently upheld a bill that allows undocumented pregnant women to access state-funded prenatal care, overriding a veto by Republican Governor Dave Heineman. Nebraska Right to Life, Nebraska Catholic Conference, Planned Parenthood, and Nebraska Appleseed actually came together to support LB599, a bill the governor worked hard to kill. Why would Gov. Heineman, a man who describes himself as the one of the most pro life governors in America, oppose a bill that helps protect unborn children? Because, as the New York Times put it, he believes “government-financed health care for poor women is an acceptable thing, unless the women were in violation of immigration laws, in which case it was a terrible waste of taxpayer dollars.” Read More
DHS’s Current Southern Border Enforcement Strategy a Bust, Group Says
A comprehensive new report finds that the fortification of the U.S.-Mexico border which began two decades ago has reached the limits of its effectiveness, has produced severe negative side effects, and should be systematically re-evaluated. In Beyond the Border Buildup: Security and Migrants Along the U.S.-Mexico Border, the Washington Office on Latin America and the Colegio de la Frontera Norte argue that the U.S. border buildup has never been guided by a comprehensive security strategy. But now that unauthorized immigration has reached historic lows, says the report, the time is ripe to stop throwing money into fragmented enforcement efforts and determine precisely what those enforcement efforts are supposed to accomplish. Read More
Make a contribution
Make a direct impact on the lives of immigrants.
