British Views on Immigration

   Today, British authorities announced plans to promote a new agenda in parliamentary proceedings. The new agenda is a tougher stance on immigration. This is significant in the immigration debate in the United States.

   The two countries are closely allied and major political changes in either country garner interest in the other. In a time when immigration reform is the hot button issue in the United States, when Britain comes out with a statement that promotes a tough immigration agenda, this is significant.

   On Wednesday, British authorities announced plans to "make it easier to deport foreigners who commit serious crimes, increase fines on companies that use illegal labor and force private landlords to check the immigration status of their tenants. Temporary migrants would also be forced to pay for some health care."

In a time when views on immigration are softening, this puts a wrench in the gears of immigration reform. Time will tell if these views become dominant and are sent across to our lawmakers as anti-immigration fuel.






References:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/09/world/europe/britain-urges-tougher-immigration-laws.html?_r=0 

Economics of Amnesty

     A recent report published by the Heritage Foundation, a politically conservative group, was obtained by Fox News. The focus of the report is to discuss the impact that immigration and amnesty would have on our economic situation. Specifically, it hopes to bring to light the impact that would come about if newly legalized immigrants were able to tap into benefits from the government.

     The report is being called biased and wrong. Stephen Moore, and economist and journalist for the Wall Street Times had this to say about the report:
"You've got to look at both sides of the equation. Yes the immigrants will use benefits no question about that, but as they become more productive citizens and they come out of the shadows, a lot of economists-myself included- think they 'll become more productive and they'll pay more taxes."

     Despite these claims, some are calling the findings alarming. In the report, the Heritage Foundation states that when amnesty is granted to illegal immigrants, the government will have new expenses to the tune of 6.3 trillion dollars. They contrast this amount against a 3.1 trillion dollar increase in revenue as a result of taxes.

     While many find these reports highly alarming, many are calling these numbers erroneous. The loudest criticism is that the report assumes no financial mobility. It assumes that illegal immigrants receiving amnesty would remain in low paying, low skill jobs for the duration of their working lives and this, in all likelihood, would certainly not be the case. 

     Regardless of interpretations and speculations about the future, amnesty would bring a profound change to our country- especially economically, whether for good or bad. 

Source:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/06/study-pegs-cost-immigration-bills-mass-legalization-at-63t/

Alabama Ruling

     Published today via the Los Angeles times is the announcement that the Supreme Court has chosen to not hear the case from Alabama seeking to the right to enforce immigration laws. Specifically, Alabama passed a law allowing law enforcement to arrest and jail anyone that hides or transports illegal immigrants. 

     The law allowed law enforcement officials this right and clearly made the enforcement of immigration issues a state-executed law. The law had been shot down on state levels and was then appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court sided with lower courts, definitively stating that enforcement of immigration laws is strictly the right of the federal government. 

     If you will recall, a similar issue took place after Arizona passed it's controversial SB-1070 law which greatly increased Arizona's strictness compared to other states. That law was also similarly picked apart by the courts. Notable is the victory that this poses for the Obama Administration. The ruling from the Supreme Court was 8-1 with Antonin Scalia dissenting. 

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-supreme-court-alabama-immigration-law-20130429,0,359722.story

Mark Zuckerberg and Immigration

    In an interesting development, Mark Zuckerberg, the founder of Facebook, has announced the plans for creating a new political action group with specific policy goals. In his initial statement, he released the name of this new group as well as an initial policy plan- one that we can be interested in.

    His new group is called FWD.us (or, "Forward U.S.") and represents an ambitious effort to jump into the political scene. His goal is to link investors and entrepreneur-types with politicians-especially in Silicon Valley.

    He stated: "We have a strange immigration policy for a nation of immigrants, and it's a policy unfit for today's world." Perhaps to be taken as a good sign, the group is partnering with members from both political parties showing that a bi-partisan effort is desired. This further shows that momentum is being gained in immigration reform's platform.

GOP Key Players

Key Players

Without an understanding of who the main players are, no one can honestly claim they fully understand the immigration issue. On both sides of the aisle, there are key players who's "stamp of approval/disapproval" steers the agenda. Their opinions serve as rallying forces for or against any agenda and with a tinderbox issue such as immigration, "simple statements" are anything but that.

This blog post will focus on two GOP members that are prominent in the immigration debate: Sen. Marco Rubio and Rep. Raul Labrador. Both are hispanic and their opinions in this issue are extremely important.

Sen. Marco Rubio is a senator from Florida and is the junior member of the Senate from Florida. He is cuban-American has risen to prominence when he was considered as a possible running-mate to Mitt Romney in the 2012 presidential race.

 His influence is important because he is hispanic and is willing to consider immigration reform and rally the GOP behind the issue. He has appeared to distance himself from the Gang of 8, indicating that his approval has yet to be fully earned. If he withdraws support, the GOP support could leave as well.





Rep. Raul Labrador is also hispanic which is beneficial for any GOP showing support or disapproval for the immigration agenda. He is a Congressman that in 2006, was elected to represent the 14th district in Idaho. He is a key player in the immigration reform agenda because he has openly stated that the GOP needs to be "open-minded" on immigration reform.


His support comes with a caveat: in order to compromise on the pathway to citizenship, the GOP needs assurances that their agendas (such as more border security) will be passed. He has stated that this is the main reason that the GOP should support immigration reform.



These are two crucial players in the immigration reform issue. Their support will determine how hard the bill is to pass in Congress (and in fact if it will pass at all). Clearly, they are key players from the GOP and will be in the news prominently as this issue heats up.

Big Changes in Reform

Major Steps Forward

      Changes are certainly in the works. Immigration is moving forward and in the words of the Huffington Post, "immigration momentum is unstoppable." Based on all indications, it seems that immigration reform is inevitable with only one real question in remaining: when.

      On Friday, two major (and historically antagonisitc) sides agreed on a very important deal. Labor and buisness came together and agreed on a proposal that should gain traction in Congress. Under this new plan, a "W" visa will be created for "low skill" workers in industries such as hospitality, construction, and farming. These low skill workers would then have a new and improved path to citizenship.


Under this plan, a new formula for determining the number of visas given will be instituted. In the first year, 20,000 visas will be given, 35,000 in the second, 55,000 in the third, and 75,000 in the fourth. In the fourth year, the economy will dictate whether it will be more or less than 75,000 visas.










Sourced from: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-leopold/immigration-reform_b_2989345.html

Climate Change and Politics

   When thinking about immigration, we can see that there are so many other issues that are wrapped into it. For example, when discussing immigration reform, opponents and proponents can mention economics, national security, morality and race. An often ignored sub-category of immigration however, is its role in climate change.

   In a recent article, Bill McKibbens of the LA Times discusses how climate change relates to immigration. Opponents of immigration reform often declare that more people in the United States only means more carbon in the atmosphere. Clearly, when one becomes more industrialized (which will surely happen when the United States absorbs immigrants from Mexico, Honduras, etc) more carbon will be produced because of the prevalence of First World amenities. 

  Recent studies show that while this is true, it cannot be used by immigration reform opponents. Why? Because when women become industrialized, they have fewer children. So, the statement that it will be more harmful for the environment is unfounded and erroneous. 

  Why is this significant? Even though this blog is not concerned with the environment, it shows that in the politics of immigration, anything is ammunition- even things that are not true. Yet, this very fact can, and may one day be used to further the push for immigration reform.