Posts tagged immigration

100 Years Of Immigrants In America, In Two Graphs

Immigrants make up roughly the same share of the U.S. population today as they did a century ago.

But changes in the global economy, and in U.S. immigration law, have dramatically shifted where U.S. immigrants are coming from.

The Supreme Court’s immigration ruling dramatically expands executive power.
Arizona v. United States, Monday’s Supreme Court opinion striking down most of an Arizona law that strengthened immigration enforcement, is largely being seen through the lens of federalism. On this view, the Supreme Court has confirmed that the national government takes the lead on immigration policy and the states must fall into line. In fact, the ruling matters more for what it says about the advance of executive power in the United States, especially in connection with President Obama’s decision not to enforce immigration laws against certain young illegal immigrants.
Arizona argued that its laws did not conflict with federal law but enhanced it. The state reasoned that the purpose of federal immigration law is to regulate the flow of migrants and foreign workers. Arizona was just trying to “help out!” and help strengthen the enforcement of U.S. immigration law. Arizona failed to make their case because they overlooked the role of the president’s discretion in enforcing the law in the first place.
Arizona v. United States was not between Arizona law and federal law. It was between Arizona law and the president’s policy of not enforcing, or selectively enforcing, federal law. After all, Arizona state troopers enforcing Arizona law would have no authority to distinguish between illegal aliens who are young and educated and illegal aliens who are dangerous criminals. Both groups would be checked, detained, arrested, and jailed—and this conflicts with President Obama’s policy, not with the federal immigration statute. The Az vs US ruling only enforces the President’s power of discretion in enforcing federal law.

The Supreme Court’s immigration ruling dramatically expands executive power.

Arizona v. United States, Monday’s Supreme Court opinion striking down most of an Arizona law that strengthened immigration enforcement, is largely being seen through the lens of federalism. On this view, the Supreme Court has confirmed that the national government takes the lead on immigration policy and the states must fall into line. In fact, the ruling matters more for what it says about the advance of executive power in the United States, especially in connection with President Obama’s decision not to enforce immigration laws against certain young illegal immigrants.

Arizona argued that its laws did not conflict with federal law but enhanced it. The state reasoned that the purpose of federal immigration law is to regulate the flow of migrants and foreign workers. Arizona was just trying to “help out!” and help strengthen the enforcement of U.S. immigration law. Arizona failed to make their case because they overlooked the role of the president’s discretion in enforcing the law in the first place.

Arizona v. United States was not between Arizona law and federal law. It was between Arizona law and the president’s policy of not enforcing, or selectively enforcing, federal law. After all, Arizona state troopers enforcing Arizona law would have no authority to distinguish between illegal aliens who are young and educated and illegal aliens who are dangerous criminals. Both groups would be checked, detained, arrested, and jailed—and this conflicts with President Obama’s policy, not with the federal immigration statute. The Az vs US ruling only enforces the President’s power of discretion in enforcing federal law.

Who’s making the $money by locking up immigrants with laws like SB1070?

Remember who voted for the DREAM Act! President Obama announced a new immigration policy because the DREAM Act was not passed in Congress. The bill was brought up for a vote in 2010 but conservatives filibustered it in the Senate.

Remember who voted for the DREAM Act! President Obama announced a new immigration policy because the DREAM Act was not passed in Congress. The bill was brought up for a vote in 2010 but conservatives filibustered it in the Senate.

Foul-mouthed liberty: Playing politics

So Republicans immediately claimed that Obama is going for a “power-grab” ahead of the election with today’s announcement his administration will stop deportations and begin granting work permits for some Dream Act-eligible students. I have no doubt that electoral timing has something to do with his announcement. To which I ask - who cares?

When Democrats make an announcement that is motivated by electoral timing, it tends to be something that expands rights. Republicans, on the other hand, make their announcements about policies which disenfranchise or otherwise limit certain groups. Suddenly, in the 11th hour Gov Rick Scott of Florida decides it’s okay to purge 180 thousand voters from the voting roles. Somehow this is justified in Republican eyes because they literally found FOUR cases of illegitimate voter registrations, but when Obama decides he wants to provide a legal path to citizenship to law abiding young people who are productive and live in this country through no fault of their own, instead of ripping families apart, that’s a “power grab.”

So again, I ask: who cares if Obama’s decision was timed to pick up the Hispanic vote? It’s a good thing. People will benefit tangibly. It is a tiny step toward making America more inclusive. That is a good thing.

Who wants to expand rights, and who wants to take them away? In the end, it’s really all that matters to me. Especially when I consider the Michigan “vagina” debacle yesterday and the fact that Republican men took away female politicians’ rights of speech as they tried to represent their constituents.

Join the discussion in the Jsmog Discussion forum…

Politics is about playing politics. We all know it. Who is playing for us?

Home again in Mexico: Illegal immigration hits net zero

This is the new face of rural Mexico. Villages emptied out in the 1980s and ’90s in one of the largest waves of migration in history. Today there are clear signs that a human tide is returning to towns both small and large across Mexico.

One million Mexicans said they returned from the US between 2005 and 2010, according to a new dem-ographic study of Mexican census data. That’s three times the number who said they’d returned in the previous five-year period.

And they aren’t just home for a visit: One prominent sociologist in the US has counted “net zero” migration for the first time since the 1960s.

Experts say the implications for both nations are enormous – from the draining of a labor pool in the US to the need for a radical shift in policies in Mexico, which has long depended on the billions of dollars in migrant remittances as a social welfare cornerstone.

motherjones:

Self-deportation: It’s not just a weird thing Mitt Romney says—it’s a nationwide push by conservative politicians and private prison lobbyists (among other groups) and we really think you should know about it. That’s why we’ve compiled this comprehensive database of state immigration laws, complete with maps, charts, and an investigation into the impact Alabama’s new “papers, please” law. Check it out.

motherjones:

Self-deportation: It’s not just a weird thing Mitt Romney says—it’s a nationwide push by conservative politicians and private prison lobbyists (among other groups) and we really think you should know about it. That’s why we’ve compiled this comprehensive database of state immigration laws, complete with maps, charts, and an investigation into the impact Alabama’s new “papers, please” law. Check it out.