(713) 589-2085 Call now to schedule a consultation.

How Immigrant Entrepreneurs Fare in the New Immigration Bill

Posted on by Ruby Powers in immigration bill, Immigration Law, Immigration Trends, Legislative Reform Leave a comment

How Immigrant Entrepreneurs Fare in the New Immigration Bill

shutterstock_64313536With the Senate Judiciary Committee’s vote last week to pass S.744 on to the Senate floor, a new proposal for spurring immigrant entrepreneurship and innovation will be before Congress. Title IV, Subtitle H of the bill creates the INVEST visa (Investing in New Venture, Entrepreneurial Startups, and Technologies) for immigrant entrepreneurs. This new visa program would allow immigrant entrepreneurs to come to the United States, start businesses, and create jobs in America. There would be two types of INVEST visas. A nonimmigrant INVEST visa would be renewable provided certain initial investment, annual revenue, and job creation criteria are met within an initial three-year period. The immigrant version of the INVEST visa would have basically the same criteria just at higher thresholds. The committee also adopted an amendment that permanently authorizes the EB-5 Regional Center Program, which has created tens of thousands of American jobs and attracted over $1 billion in investments since 2006.

 

While there is always room for improvement of proposed immigrant pathways, the INVEST visa represents progress for immigration and entrepreneurship.

While we’ve heard little about the proposed entrepreneur visa programs amid the broader comprehensive immigration reform conversation, they are important to include due to the substantial contributions immigrant entrepreneurs make to the United States. Immigrant entrepreneurs have founded some of the most successful large businesses in the United States. And immigrant small business owners operate establishments in local communities from coast to coast and throughout America’s heartland. 

The contributions of immigrant entrepreneurs and small business owners are clear. For example, the Fiscal Policy Institute reports that immigrant-owned small businesses employed 4.7 million people in 2007 and generated an estimated $776 billion in receipts. Immigrants make up 37 percent of restaurant owners and 43 percent of hotel and motel owners in communities across America. Furthermore, a report for the Partnership for a New American Economy shows that immigrants started 28 percent of all new U.S. businesses in 2011 but only accounted for 13 percent of the U.S. population, and the rate at which immigrants started new businesses grew by more than 50 percent from 1996 to 2011.

Amid the wealth of evidence on the positive benefits immigrant entrepreneurs bring to the United States, local places are beginning to take note and highlight these contributions. Cities across the Rust Belt and Midwest, for instance, are implementing various “welcoming” initiatives aimed at integrating immigrants and immigrant businesses into their communities. As these communities experience demographic change and native-born population decline, they’re seeking ways in which to attract immigrants to settle, start businesses, create jobs, and spur economic growth. Examples of such initiatives include Global DetroitWelcome DaytonGlobal ClevelandWelcoming Center for New Pennsylvanians, and the Chicago Office of New Americans, among others. As these programs recognize, immigrant business owners often play a critical role in helping revitalize local communities that may otherwise have succumbed to blight and decay. Ultimately, places of welcome are places that thrive. Welcoming initiatives throughout the country – from small towns to large metropolitan areas – are poised to encourage an environment where immigrants and immigrant entrepreneurs can help reinvigorate aging populations, renew communities, and revitalize local economies.

While there is always room for improvement of proposed immigrant pathways, the INVEST visa represents progress for immigration and entrepreneurship. And while immigrant business owners may come through all immigrant channels, a visa program that effectively encourages and facilitates more entrepreneurship and job creation is economically beneficial.

http://immigrationimpact.com/2013/05/28/how-immigrant-entrepreneurs-fare-in-the-new-immigration-bill/


Will Immigration Reform Correct the Immigration System’s Gender Bias?

Posted on by Ruby Powers in immigration bill, Immigration Law, Immigration Trends Leave a comment

Will Immigration Reform Correct the Immigration System’s Gender Bias?

shutterstock_29804098Within the current immigration system, many women confront systematic barriers when trying to gain legal status. This is one of the main conclusions drawn from a study conducted by social scientists Cecilia Menjivar and Olivia Salcido. Based on a 10-year-long research project on immigrant women in Arizona, the authors identify specific instances in which gender inequality is ingrained in the formulation, interpretation, and implementation of immigration laws.

 

Because of gender biased structural barriers, women who apply for permanent residence tend to rely on male relatives to petition for them in the legalization process.

According to the study, immigration law presumes and reinforces women’s status of dependency, hindering women’s legal incorporation in the host society. For example, for women, employment-based visas are very difficult to obtain. This is true even for many women who “support their families as heads of households by literally working day and night.” In part, this relates to the types of occupations that the law encodes as high-demand jobs. These occupations tend to be elusive for women, and the types of work typically performed by immigrant women are not adequately recognized in the current system. As a result, women who apply for permanent residence tend to rely on male relatives to petition for them in the legalization process. Because of additional structural barriers—such as access to education and skill acquisition in their countries of origin—women have fewer opportunities than men to apply as principal visa holders. 

Other problems identified by the study relate to the specific obstacles that women encounter when they seek protection through the Violence Against Women Act or petition for asylum. These hurdles range from burdensome and difficult-to-obtain paperwork (e.g. proof of abuse) to more structural issues concerning how “well-founded fear” of persecution is defined. In particular, the authors underscore that the standard interpretation of immigration and refugee law is based on male experiences and, therefore, does not adequately recognize the risks that women are exposed to in their home countries.

Moreover, the obstacles for women’s legal integration do not end with the petitioning phase. Even after a woman successfully begins the legalization process, it is sometimes difficult for her to secure employment outside the home because work authorizations often take a long time to be issued.

Reforms in immigration law that are currently being debated offer an opportune moment to address these issues. In particular, the recently introduced “Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act’’has raised concerns regarding the potential gender bias in some provisions.  For example, evidentiary requirements for different steps in the legalization process (e.g., continuous employment or proof of work requirements) may put women who work at home at a disadvantage. Similarly, the merit-based point system may not offer realistic avenues for immigration for caregivers or women from countries with few opportunities for human-capital acquisition. As the bill continues to be debated, these issues cannot be overlooked if achieving greater gender equality is a goal.

http://immigrationimpact.com/2013/05/29/will-immigration-reform-correct-the-immigration-systems-gender-bias/


Anti-immigrant advocates have it wrong on the labor market

Posted on by Ruby Powers in Immigration Law, Immigration Trends Leave a comment

Anti-immigrant advocates have it wrong on the labor market
By Jennifer Rubin, Published: May 30, 2013 at 11:00 amE-mail the writer

Milton Friedman (left) shakes is greeted by President Ronald Reagan and first lady Nancy Reagan (The Washington Post)

Milton Friedman (left) shakes is greeted by President Ronald Reagan and first lady Nancy Reagan (The Washington Post)

Next to Ronald Reagan there is no greater icon in the pantheon of modern conservatives than Milton Friedman.
His name has been taken in vain in the immigration reform debate, so Stephen Moore sets the record straight:
In 1984, when I was working at the Heritage Foundation, I surveyed the top 75 economists in the country on their views on the economics of immigration. There are few issues that economists agree on so universally: The views of the Keynesians and free marketers ran equally about 9 to 1 in favor of immigration.
Friedman responded to the survey by saying that “legal and illegal immigration has a very positive impact on the U.S. economy.” He believed that one of the most powerful forces of freedom was that people could “move across borders and vote with their feet.” He wholly rejected the idea that immigrants are undesirable because they compete with Americans for jobs and lower wages. The free enterprise system, he argued, “created the high wages in the first place.”
Friedman also abhorred the welfare state. Moore responds:
As another late great economist — William Niskanen, a member of President Reagan’s Council of Economic Advisers and chairman of the Cato Institute — once put it: “Better to build a wall around the welfare state than the country.”
It is ironic that the right-wingers who argue against protectionism, against the minimum wage, against unions (which inflate wage rates) and against Obamacare want to keep domestic wages artificially high by restricting the labor market (e.g. keeping out immigrant workers). That effort is not only inconsistent with free market principles, but, according to stacks of research, it also is empirically dubious.
The recent buzz that there really isn’t a shortage of science, technology, engineering and math (known collectively as STEM) workers is belied by the experience of hundreds of tech companies that are willing to expend additional money in finding and relocating skilled workers from overseas. There, too, research suggests the anti-immigrant forces are peddling snake oil.
Are these companies are mistaken about a STEM shortage? Jonathan Rothwell and Neil G. Ruiz of Brookings are out with a new study that says no, there really is a reason why U.S. companies have to go overseas:
The vast majority — 90 percent — of H-1B applications are for jobs requiring high-level STEM knowledge. This finding is based on our analysis of Department of Labor survey data on the knowledge needed to perform occupations. The evidence shows that these vacancies are harder to fill than other job openings.
Labor market experts interpret the duration of a job opening as an indicator that qualified candidates are hard to find. Such an interpretation of vacancy survey data is empirically grounded in both historical and many contemporary labor market surveys from private firms and state governments. . . . H-1B workers are paid more than U.S. native-born workers with a bachelor’s degree generally ($76,356 versus $67,301 in 2010) and even within the same occupation and industry for workers with similar experience. This suggests that they provide hard-to-find skills.
In sum, if you believe in free markets, you shouldn’t advocate artificially restricting the U.S. labor market and you should consider the market-driven behavior of a raft of industries. But then again, the anti-immigration forces believe many things that aren’t so. That is the prerogative I suppose, but they shouldn’t invoke Friedman when doing so, and lawmakers should understand what they are saying isn’t supported by evidence.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2013/05/30/anti-immigrant-advocates-have-it-wrong-on-the-labor-market/?utm_source=AILA+Mailing&utm_campaign=d52811544d-AILA8_6_3_13&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_3c0e619096-d52811544d-287739493


NEWS RELEASE: ATTORNEY GENERAL’S OFFICE SHUTS DOWN FRAUDULENT “NOTARIOS” AND UNAUTHORIZED IMMIGRATION CONSULTANTS IN SOUTH TEXAS

Posted on by Ruby Powers in Immigration Law, Immigration or Notario Fraud Leave a comment

NEWS RELEASE: ATTORNEY GENERAL’S OFFICE SHUTS DOWN FRAUDULENT “NOTARIOS” AND UNAUTHORIZED IMMIGRATION CONSULTANTS IN SOUTH TEXAS

Posted on May 31, 2013
For the original OAG press release, with links to court documents in the cases mentioned below, please visit: https://www.oag.state.tx.us/oagNews/release.php?id=4413

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
May 29, 2013
www.texasattorneygeneral.gov CONTACT
Press Office at
(512) 463-2050
Attorney General’s Office Shuts Down Fraudulent “Notarios” and Unauthorized Immigration Consultants in South Texas

State secures judgments that permanently shut down three unlawful firms operated by “notarios”

MCALLEN – Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott announced today that he has shut down three fraudulent “notario” operations in the Rio Grande Valley.
A Hidalgo County district court granted the State’s request and issued permanent and temporary injunctions against the following four defendants:
• Veronica G. Garcia and Cecilia H. Solis, doing business as Garcia & Solis Services (permanent injunction);
• Ana Isabel Lumbreras, doing business as Montemayor Services (permanent injunction);
• Marilia Luz, doing business as Immigration Help (permanent injunction);
• Jairo Romanovich, doing business as Romanovich Charitable Service Inc. (temporary injunction).

Earlier this month, the State filed separate enforcement actions against the four defendants and charged each of them with violating the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA) and the Notary Public Act. At the State’s request, a Hidalgo County district court ordered the four defendants to pay civil penalties for unlawfully representing that they were legally authorized to process immigration cases before federal authorities. During the discovery process, state investigators discovered that the defendants were neither licensed attorneys nor accredited to offer immigration-related legal services.

Under federal law, only licensed attorneys and organizations accredited by the U.S. Department of Justice’s Board of Immigration Appeals may offer immigration consulting services.Texas law authorizes notaries public to witness the signing of legal documents – but specifically forbids them from providing immigration services unless they hold a separate license to practice law. Scam artists have long exploited the misunderstanding between the term “notary” and the similar-sounding Spanish term “notario público,” which is used in Latin America to describe highly experienced, specialized attorneys.

The State’s cases against the four defendants were part of the Office of the Attorney General’s (OAG) month-long crackdown on immigration scams in Hidalgo County. The OAG’s case against Jairo Romanovich – doing business as Romanovich Charitable Service Inc. – remains pending. On May 21, a Hidalgo County district court granted the State’s request for a temporary restraining order stopping Romanovich and his firm from offering unauthorized immigration-related legal services.

Since assuming office in 2002, Attorney General Abbott has shut down more than 75 businesses for providing unauthorized legal services. Former or current clients of an unauthorized legal services provider should file a complaint with the Attorney General’s Office at (800) 252-8011 or online at www.texasattorneygeneral.gov.

FOR OTHER ITEMS ASSOCIATED WITH ATTORNEY GENERAL ANNOUNCEMENTS, ACCESS OAG NEWS RELEASES ONLINE ATWWW.TEXASATTORNEYGENERAL.GOV.

This entry was posted in News. Bookmark the permalink.

http://www.ailatexas.org/2013/05/news-release-attorney-generals-office-shuts-down-fraudulent-notarios-and-unauthorized-immigration-consultants-in-south-texas/


What Would the Proposed Border Security, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013 Mean for Business-Related Immigration?

Posted on by Ruby Powers in Border Enforcement, immigration bill, Immigration Law, Legislative Reform Leave a comment

What Would the Proposed Border Security, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013 Mean for Business-Related Immigration?
By stacey On May 20, 2013 · Add Comment

inShare
26
The Border Security, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013 sets the framework for Congress to address many immigration issues that have been suspended in a gridlock for several years in Washington. The proposed bill, crafted jointly by a group of four Democrats and four Republicans, together known as the Gang of Eight, was crafted to address four major immigration issues. If approved, this Act would: (i) tighten border controls, (ii) allow greater numbers of workers to immigrate legally, (iii) require employers to verify that all workers have legal status, and (iv) create an opportunity for those who are in the U.S. illegally to gain citizenship by following a detailed legal process.

Background

The U.S. is currently in its fourth and largest immigration wave. This wave began in 1965 reflecting the end of immigration limits based on nationality. According to Nancy Benac of the Associated Press in her April 8, 2013, article on the proposed act, the foreign-born population now accounts for approximately 1 in 8 U.S. residents, or approximately 13% of the population. Ms. Benac also states that out of the record 40.4 million immigrants who live in the United States, more than 18 million are naturalized citizens, 11 million are legal permanent or temporary residents, and more than 11 million are in the country without legal permission. (AP article published at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/gang-of-eight)

Under present laws, the U.S. permits the granting of a significantly larger proportion of permanent green cards to family members of citizens and current permanent residents than to foreigners with job or other prospects here. About two-thirds of permanent legal immigration to the U.S. is family-based, compared to about the 15% that is employment based. Many members of Congress are interested in boosting employment-based immigration to help the U.S. economy, and to help the U.S. to compete more effectively with other countries around the world by attracting talent to the domestic workplace.

Business owners, entrepreneurs and business lobbying organizations are keenly interested in Congress changing the immigration system to allow the U.S. to attract foreign-born workers with various skill sets. Advocates also wish for workers who have legally worked in the U.S. for an extended period of time to qualify for permanent resident status with fewer obstacles. Despite guarded opposition by labor unions, language in the 2013 bill addresses these issues.

How Will the Bill Affect Business-Related Immigration?

The bill proposes a migration to a more merit-based immigration system by eliminating certain categories of family preferences that promote chain migration, while wholly eliminating the diversity visa lottery. The bill would prevent citizens from bringing in siblings while allowing citizens to sponsor married sons and daughters only if those children are under the age of 31. These changes set the stage for more business-based visas.

The bill would raise the cap on visas for highly-skilled workers seeking H1-B visa status from 65,000 to 110,000, which would be a huge coup and certainly appreciated by the immigration bar – few of us were immune to the frenetic rush to file before the April 1 deadline, and even then far too many legitimate prospective beneficiaries simply missed the boat due to the unreasonable limitations in this critical area.

The bill also proposes to increase the current cap for H-1B STEM graduates with advanced degrees from 20,000 to 25,000. STEM graduates possess degrees based around the natural sciences.

All of these proposed changes to the H-1B visa will allow students who have gone to universities in the U.S. to study and receive advanced degrees to stay in this country to work, and the U.S. will lose less of this pool of talent to foreign competitors. All of these proposed changes are expected to produce positive economic results.

Additionally, the bill creates a start-up visa for foreign entrepreneurs. Under the INVEST program, two new types of visas, one for non-immigrant visas and the other for immigrant visas, have been proposed for entrepreneurs as detailed below:

(1) The non-immigrant INVEST visa is a renewable 3-year visa for investors who can show at least $100,000 in investment in his or her business from angel investors and/or other qualified investors over the past 3 years, and whose business has created no fewer than 3 jobs while generating at least $250,000 in annual revenues in the U.S. for the two years immediately prior to filing.

(2) The INVEST immigrant visa would be an entrepreneurial green card, the number of which would be capped at 10,000 per year. The INVEST immigrant visa would require that the applicant must:

Have significant ownership in a U.S. business (need not be majority interest);
Be employed as a senior executive in the U.S. business;
Have had a significant role in the founding/initial stages of the business;
Have resided for at least 2 years in the U.S. in lawful status;
and

Have in the 3 years prior to filing a significant ownership in a U.S. business that has created at least 5 jobs and which business must have received at least $500,000 in venture capital or other qualified investments; or
Have in the 3 years prior to filing a significant ownership in a U.S. business that has created at least 5 jobs, and the business has generated at least $750,000 in annual revenue for the 2 years immediately prior to filing.
Finally, the bill also proposes a guest worker visa program. This is among the more controversial aspects of the Gang of Eight bill and is known as “W visas.” This program would issue guest worker visas for low-skilled workers, defined in the bill as those whose jobs don’t require a bachelor’s degree.

Guest workers would serve three-year stints, renewable indefinitely, and would be allowed to bring their families with them. The program sets a first-year cap of 20,000 for the program, but the agency running it would be allowed to increase that to as high as 200,000 visas per year. This program could create a potentially huge source of future migration to the U.S., and raises the question of whether or not these foreign workers will be eligible for permanent residence or citizenship in later years.

Conclusion

Much of the proposed legislation in the Border Security, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013 is just an outline and framework that which the full Congress can refine and eventually act. Amendments and additional provisions will no doubt be included in any final version of the bill that is enacted by both houses. Congress has vowed to give this bill a long period of consideration and multiple hearings for comments and testimony. It will undoubtedly be many months before the final version of the bill is drafted and passed in any form. It is hoped that this detailed level of scrutiny will allow for a comprehensive and effective new immigration law that will have a positive effect on business and on the economy.

http://ecouncilinc.com/?p=2117&utm_source=eCouncil+Inc&utm_campaign=a3287d7f6e-May_Newsletter6_3_2013%283%29&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_896120c70f-a3287d7f6e-26001245


House Immigration Group Resolves Dispute

Posted on by Ruby Powers in immigration bill, Immigration Law Leave a comment

Cesar Maxit, of Washington, who is originally from Argentina, hold a sign that says

ERICA WERNER  720 

WASHINGTON (AP) — House members writing a bipartisan immigration bill said Thursday they had patched over a dispute that threatened their efforts, even as they and the rest of Congress prepared to return home for a weeklong recess where many could confront voters’ questions on the issue.

The eight lawmakers in the House immigration group have struggled for months to come to agreement on a sweeping bill that would have a chance in the GOP-controlled House while satisfying Democrats’ objectives.

Talks almost broke down last week, only to resurrect and then break down again this week over the question of providing health care for those here illegally who would gain legal status under the bill, lawmakers and aides said.

Republicans in the group want to ensure that those immigrants don’t get taxpayer-funded care and could be subject to deportation if they don’t pay their health bills, said Rep. Raul Labrador, R-Idaho, a member of the group. But an agreement reached last week on that question apparently sparked concern among House Democratic leaders, causing Democrats in the group to back away.

After meeting Thursday afternoon in the Capitol, the lawmakers said they were back on track. Labrador said agreement remained that immigrants shouldn’t get taxpayer-funded care, but he said there had apparently been a misunderstanding that led Democrats to believe Republicans were trying to deny emergency care to immigrants.

“I think maybe there was some confusion about some details, but I think we’re all good,” Labrador told reporters.

“I’m very pleased,” said Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill., also part of the group. “We’re going to get there. There’s going to be justice done for our immigrant community.”

The developments with the House group came two days after the Senate Judiciary Committee passed a comprehensive bill with a bipartisan vote to remake immigration laws, enhance border security and put the estimated 11 million people living here illegally on a path to citizenship.

The full Senate is to take up the legislation in June. Supporters are hoping to see the bill pass by a wide margin, with as many as 70 votes in the 100-member Senate.

That’s seen as a way of pressuring the House to act. If the Senate does pass a bill, it’s likely to be more liberal than what the House group might produce and more to the liking of many liberals in the House, including some of the Democratic leadership.

But House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, issued a statement along with his top lieutenants Thursday promising the House would act on the issue, but making clear House members would not accept any bill passed by the Senate.

“The House remains committed to fixing our broken immigration system, but we will not simply take up and accept the bill that is emerging in the Senate if it passes,” the statement said.

“The House will work its will and produce its own legislation,” it said.

Officials said Boehner has privately said he hopes to have a bill through the House by August, though there is no strategy yet on what it would include. They spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss private deliberations.
Copyright 2013 The Associated Press.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/house-immigration-group-resolves-dispute.php?utm_source=AILA+Mailing&utm_campaign=f8589ff156-AILA8_5_28_13&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_3c0e619096-f8589ff156-287739493


Houston Attorneys Speak Out On Immigration Reform

Posted on by Ruby Powers in immigration bill, Immigration Law, Legislative Reform, State and Local Immigration Rules Leave a comment

THELAW.TV Houston
Houston Attorneys Speak Out On Immigration Reform
Friday, May 24, 2013

By THELAW.TV

Immigration reform has dominated the political landscape in Washington for much of the year.
There’s widespread agreement that the immigration system needs a comprehensive overhaul. Yet, there’s little agreement on what the change should look like. Democrats want a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants. But many Republicans oppose anything that looks like “amnesty.”
We asked prominent Houston-area immigration attorneys to speak out on this hot button issue.
Here’s what they had to say:

Q: As an experienced immigration attorney, do you believe that we will see comprehensive immigration reform become law during this President Obama’s administration?

“It’s like trying to swallow an elephant. I hope Congress has the stomach for it.”
– Adan G. Vega, Esq., Law Offices of Adan G. Vega & Associates

“I think the House and Senate are too far apart to reach a compromise.”
– Emily Neumann, Esq., Reddy & Neumann, P.C.

“Yes, I believe that the groundswell of support is growing within Congress to enact this needed legislation this year. Both parties have been applauded for their bipartisan efforts and the chance to show that Washington can work together. The majority of Congress do not want to appear to be obstructionists.”
– Pamelia Barnett, Esq., Barnett Law Group

“Change is on the horizon during this administration because minorities made a huge impact on the 2012 presidential election and showed us all that they are a force to be reckoned with. I support an immigration reform bill that affords the same rights to all qualifying individuals, irrespective of their sexual orientation. Immigration reform should include LGBT individuals and their families. Times are changing and as Americans we must lead the way.”
– Gia Samavati, Esq., Samavati & Samavati

“Immigration attorneys are reluctant to be hopeful for comprehensive immigration reform due to many failed prior attempts. However, I believe we are closer than we have been in many years to a resolution. It is in both parties’ interest to pass comprehensive legislation that will ultimately impact millions of lives, improve security, and boost our economy.”
– Ruby L. Powers, Esq., The Law Office of Ruby L. Powers

What do you think about immigration reform? Will it happen? What will it look like? Let us know.

http://blog.chron.com/legalnews/2013/05/houston-attorneys-speak-out-on-immigration-reform/


Experts from Left and Right Agree on Economic Power of Immigration Reform

Posted on by Ruby Powers in Immigration Trends, Legislative Reform Leave a comment

shutterstock_115685188

In recent years, study after study has demonstrated a simple yet economically powerful truth about broad-based immigration reform: workers with legal status earn more than workers who are unauthorized—and these extra earnings generate more tax revenue, as well as more consumer spending, which creates more jobs. As a new report from the Center for American Progress (CAP) points out, this fact implies that states with appreciable unauthorized populations stand to gain economically from immigration reform that includes a legalization program for the unauthorized. Moreover, a new open letter to Congressional leaders released by the conservative American Action Forum illustrates that it is not only liberal advocacy groups like CAP which recognize the economic potential of immigration reform.

The CAP study begins by quantifying the immense economic gains to the nation as a whole that would flow from a new legalization program:

“If the 11.1 million undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States were provided legal status, then the 10-year cumulative increase in the gross domestic product, or GDP, of the United States would be $832 billion. Similarly, the cumulative increase in the personal income of all Americans over 10 years would be $470 billion. On average over 10 years, immigration reform would create 121,000 new jobs each year. Undocumented immigrants would also benefit and contribute more to the U.S. economy. Over the 10-year period they would earn $392 billion more and pay an additional $109 billion in taxes—$69 billion to the federal government and $40 billion to state and local governments. After 10 years, when the undocumented immigrants start earning citizenship, they will experience additional increases in their income on the order of 10 percent, which will in turn further boost our economy.”

The study then calculates the economic gains from legalization over the course of 10 years for 24 states where 88 percent of all unauthorized immigrants live. Among these are:

Arizona: Legalization would yield a cumulative increase in Gross State Product (GSP) of $23.1 billion; $1.5 billion in additional taxes paid by formerly unauthorized immigrants; and an average of 3,400 new jobs created annually.

Florida: Legalization would yield a cumulative increase in GSP of $55.3 billion; $3.1 billion in additional taxes paid by formerly unauthorized immigrants; and an average of 8,000 new jobs created annually.

Pennsylvania: Legalization would yield a cumulative increase in GSP of $14.8 billion; $810 million in additional taxes paid by formerly unauthorized immigrants, and an average of 2,100 new jobs created annually.

Virginia: Legalization would yield a cumulative increase in GSP of $16.3 billion; $670 million in additional taxes paid by formerly unauthorized immigrants, and an average of 2,400 new jobs created annually.

The study rightly points out that “the sooner we grant legal status and provide a pathway to citizenship to undocumented immigrants, the sooner all Americans will be able to reap these benefits.”

Lest pro-reform views be portrayed as the exclusive domain of political liberals, the May 23 American Action Forum letter to Congressional leaders was signed by 111 conservative economists, including  American Action Forum President Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a former Director of the Congressional Budget Office; Arthur B. Laffer, former Chief Economist at the Office of Management and Budget; and R. Glenn Hubbard and Edward Lazear, former Chairmen of the White House Council of Economic Advisers. The letter acknowledges that “immigration reform’s positive impact on population growth, labor force growth, housing and other markets will lead to more rapid economic growth. This, in turn, translates into a positive impact on the federal budget.” Therefore, the signatories urge Congressional leaders “to pass a broad-based immigration reform bill that includes a U.S. visa system more attuned to economic policy objectives. We believe a reformed and efficient immigration system can promote economic growth and ease the challenge of reforming unsustainable federal health and retirement programs.”

Both the CAP report and the American Action Forum letter are signs that numerous experts from across the political spectrum recognize the economic power and potential of immigration reform. Done right, immigration reform legislation could serve as a significant stimulus for the U.S. economy. The dysfunctional status quo, on the other hand, serves no one’s best interests.

http://immigrationimpact.com/2013/05/24/experts-from-left-and-right-agree-on-economic-power-of-immigration-reform/


First Hurdle Cleared in Immigration, but Bigger Ones Remain

Posted on by Ruby Powers in immigration bill, Immigration Law, Immigration Trends, Legislative Reform, pathway to citizenship Leave a comment

By 

Updated: May 21, 2013 | 8:50 p.m.
May 21, 2013 | 8:00 p.m.

An American flag, about 150 years old, is flown during an immigration-reform rally at the Capitol last month. (AP Photo)

The first step in passing major immigration legislation went pretty smoothly, all things considered. The Senate Judiciary Committee late Tuesday approved a bill that would give 11 million undocumented immigrants a path to citizenship and require employers to electronically verify all new hires.

The bill offers the biggest changes to immigration law in almost 30 years.

The committee’s action clears the way for a full-fledged Senate to take up the bill after Memorial Day. But making progress toward passage will only get more difficult. The “Gang of Eight” Republican and Democratic sponsors are fighting for every additional Republican vote in the full Senate, hoping that the measure will pass with “yes” votes from almost all of the 55 members in the Democratic caucus and at least 15 of the Senate’s 45 Republicans.

The latest supporter of the bill is Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, who voted for the bill out of committee after reaching a deal to ease access to H-1B visas for highly skilled foreign workers. He is asking for a few more changes to the bill before a Senate vote, but his support in committee is significant.

Reform advocates are happy with the committee vote, even though they know there are many ways the bill could still die. After five arduous days of debate, with committee members slogging through hundreds of amendments, the immigration proposal emerged largely unchanged from the basic framework initially offered in April by the Gang of Eight.

The bill’s path to citizenship is still intact, despite attempts from some committee Republicans to remove the ability of newly legalized immigrants to become naturalized citizens. The electronic verification requirement is still being phased in over several years to accommodate small businesses, despite an attempt to speed up the mandate that would have threatened businesses’ support of the bill.

Advocates consider the legislation the answer to problems raised in 1986, when Congress passed legislation giving amnesty to 3 million undocumented immigrants and put in place a paper authorization system for employers.

America’s Voice Executive Director Frank Sharry, an avid supporter of legalization for undocumented immigrants, noted that the 1986 bill didn’t allow for future immigrants to enter the country for low-skill jobs such as restaurant workers, roofers, or nannies. So those workers simply entered illegally. Now there are 11 million of them. The immigration legislation on the table would create several ways for employers who need those foreign workers to get them here and not be forced to pay them under the table.

“You have options where those immigration categories didn’t exist before,” Sharry said. “We now have a lever to turn. If the demand goes up, you can increase the visas because you have a visa category that didn’t exist before. You couldn’t do that.”

The final hours of the committee’s deliberation illustrated the deep emotional struggles that the bill’s sponsors grappled with in order to reach agreement with members of the opposing party and those with opposing viewpoints. Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., waited until the bitter end of the hours-long session to discuss his controversial amendment that would give same-sex couples the same immigration benefits as heterosexual couples. The proposal was dubbed a deal-killer by Republicans, so Leahy did reluctantly withdrew it.

“I don’t want be the senator who asks Americans to choose between the love of their life and the love of their country,” Leahy said.

“There will be another day, Mr. Chairman,” said Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., a bill sponsor who said he would have voted against Leahy’s proposal because it upset the agreement from the Gang of Eight.

Another amendment offered by Sen. Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, to allow U.S. citizens to sponsor siblings or married adult children for green cards in cases of extreme hardship, was rejected with regrets from otherwise supportive Democrats. The ability to sponsor siblings and adult children for green cards, a right that exists under current law, was traded away in favor of merit-based visas to end so-called chain migration, at the request of Republicans.

If those amendments were difficult for Democrats to deal with, the Republicans on the Gang of Eight had their own problems. Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., noted that he and Sen. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., had been voting for days against amendments that they themselves wanted because they knew it would upset Gang Democrats. For example, Flake and Graham voted against proposals to increase the number of guest workers allowed in the bill, because Democrats did not want to upset unions that are vigorously attempting to keep the visa numbers low to protect American jobs.

As the bill moves to the full Senate, its sponsors got a huge boost on the Republican side from Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, who said Tuesday that he would not stand in the way of the legislation on the Senate floor. “The Judiciary Committee has not in any fundamental way undone the agreements that were reached by the eight senators. And so I’m hopeful that we’ll be able to get a bill that we can pass here in the Senate,” he said.

Even with a pass from McConnell, other Republicans are expected to make a fuss, and it will be an exercise in patience and political savvy to navigate their protests. Gang member Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., who is not on the Judiciary Committee, says the bill won’t pass if all 100 senators don’t have their say. That’s going to mean a lot of floor time for senators to talk about everything from drones to chicken-processing plants to dairy workers.

For more information:http://www.nationaljournal.com/first-hurdle-cleared-in-immigration-but-bigger-ones-remain-20130521?utm_source=AILA+Mailing&utm_campaign=6e48f3428c-AILA8_5_23_13&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_3c0e619096-6e48f3428c-287739493


Immigration Policy Center

Posted on by Ruby Powers in Immigration Law Leave a comment

Immigration Policy Center.


« Previous   1 2 ... 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 ... 27 28   Next »

Facebook

YouTube

LinkedId