DOCSLIB.ORG

History Shows on Immigration: First Executive Action, Then Legislation1

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
History Shows on Immigration: First Executive Action, Then Legislation1 FACT SHEET October 2014 History Shows on Immigration: First Executive Action, Then Legislation1 In June 2013, the U.S. Senate passed bipartisan legislation to reform immigration laws. After first repeatedly indicating his intention to enact immigration reform in the House, in June 2014 Speaker John Boehner told President Obama that he would not schedule any votes on immigration in this session of Congress. The president promptly announced that while he preferred the comprehensive and permanent reforms that could be achieved only by legislation, he would soon take executive action to do what he could to fix the broken immigration system. The president’s announcement stimulated as the bracero program, an action Congress an outcry from critics who assert that such ratified a year later. When the authorization action would be unprecedented unless expired in 1947, the Truman administration first authorized by Congress. In fact, the continued to operate the program until it record demonstrates the exact opposite. was reauthorized in 1951.2 Before it ended in When it comes to immigration policy, in the 1964, millions of workers had entered the U.S. modern era it’s almost routine for presidents under the auspices of the bracero program, to act first to permit the entry of people hundreds of thousands under executive—not outside normal immigration channels and/ legislative—authority. or to protect large numbers of people from deportation, with legislation ratifying After the war ended in 1945, President Truman executive action coming later. used his executive authority to permit 250,000 people from war-ravaged Europe to enter and/ In the midst of World War II in July 1942, or stay in the U.S. outside normal immigration President Roosevelt’s secretary of agriculture channels. It was only three years after this initiated negotiations with the Mexican exercise of presidential discretion that in 1948 government for a temporary worker Congress passed the Displaced Persons Act, agreement that eventually became known permitting some 400,000 additional entries.3 History Shows on Immigration: First Executive Action, Then Legislation UnidosUS In April 1975, at the end of the Vietnam Critics like to point out that most of these War, President Gerald Ford used his parole were temporary provisions for fairly small authority to authorize evacuation of up groups. However, the record shows that to 200,000 South Vietnamese to this Congress made many executive orders of country; it was not until a month later that temporary relief permanent, often years after Congress passed and the president signed the fact. For example, just before and after the Indochina Migration and Refugee Act of Fidel Castro took power in Cuba in 1959, 1975, which provided resettlement funding more than 900,000 Cubans fled to the U.S., for some 130,000 of those parolees.4 Full the vast majority of whom were paroled legislative authorization to protect and into the country by Presidents Eisenhower, resettle those fleeing Vietnam, Laos, and Kennedy, and Johnson. It was not until 1966, Cambodia did not come until 1980, when some seven years after the influx began, that Congress eventually passed the Refugee the Cuban Adjustment Act was passed. The Act, overhauling the nation’s refugee and act theoretically only provides discretion to asylum policy, which resulted in the eventual parole Cubans into the U.S. and eases access permanent resettlement of some 1.4 million to lawful permanent resident status, although Indochinese in the U.S. Although technically in practice few Cubans who reach U.S. soil are most entered as bona fide refugees, hundreds ever returned.8 of thousands were paroled into the U.S., both prior to 1980 and afterward when statutorily Fourteen years later, in 1980, 130,000 Mariel authorized numbers proved inadequate.5 Cubans and nearly 40,000 Haitians arrived in South Florida. Most, but not all, of the Cubans But these broad exercises of discretion were paroled into the U.S. by President were unusual situations, limited to refugees Carter. Haitians initially were protected from fleeing shooting wars a long time ago, and deportation only by successful litigation are not applicable to people already here, challenging the denials of their asylum claims; right? Wrong. Presidents have exercised most of these Haitians, and some Cubans their discretion more than 20 times since whose entry had been challenged, eventually the mid-1970s to permit people already in received discretionary “Cuban-Haitian entrant the U.S. from being returned to their home status” in the Reagan administration. Six countries. Some, such as Czechoslovakians, years later, the Immigration Reform and Hungarians, Romanians, and Poles, sought to Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) created a process avoid being returned to a Soviet Bloc country. leading to lawful permanent resident status Iranians in the 1980s would have been forced for Cuban-Haitian entrants.9 to live under the regime that had occupied the American embassy and held our people In 1987, President Reagan’s attorney general, hostage. Afghans in the 1980s and 1990s Edwin Meese, directed the Immigration and were protected first from the Soviet puppet Naturalization Service (INS) to not deport state and later from the Taliban. Others, from any of the estimated 200,000 Nicaraguans Rwanda, Ethiopia, Uganda, Lebanon, Kuwait, in the U.S. without authorization, including and Serbia, would have been returned to those whose asylum claims had been face civil strife or civil war. Still others, from denied. Subsequently, after Congress had in Sierra Leone and Burundi and several Central 1990 first authorized 18-month temporary American countries in the 1990s, sought refuge protected status for Salvadorans fleeing from natural disasters such as famine-induced their country’s civil war, President George drought or hurricanes abroad.6 It was not H.W. Bush instructed the attorney general to until 2003, several decades after the practice provide “deferred enforced departure status” of country-specific relief from deportation to an estimated 190,000 Salvadorans. It was was first deployed, that Congress specifically not until Congress passed the Nicaraguan authorized and codified the practice now and Central American Relief Act in 1997, known as “temporary protected status.”7 more than a decade following Meese’s initial 2 History Shows on Immigration: First Executive Action, Then Legislation UnidosUS exercise of discretion,that all members of Other exercises or discretion have gone these groups were permitted to adjust to well beyond specific emergencies or events lawful permanent resident status.10 like the Census. In 1977, President Carter’s attorney general, Griffin Bell, temporary In 1989, President George H.W. Bush’s suspended the deportation of an estimated attorney general, Richard Thornburgh, 250,000 people in the so-called “Silva class” instructed the INS to provide temporary who had successfully argued in federal court deferred enforced departure status to that they had unfairly been denied visas by a some 80,000 Chinese students in the U.S. quirk in the allocation process. It was not until who feared returning to the civil strife that nearly a decade later, via IRCA in 1986, that eventually led to the Tiananmen Square all of these cases were resolved.14 massacre. Two years later, President Bush issued an executive order extending their In 1990, George H.W. Bush’s INS commissioner, deferred enforced departure status. Congress Gene McNary, issued a “Family Fairness” policy then passed the Chinese Student Protection deferring the deportation of and granting Act in 1992, some three years following the work authorization to 1.5 million immediate attorney general’s initial executive action, family members of people who had qualified making the students eligible for lawful for legalization under IRCA, building on an permanent resident status.11 earlier, more limited exercise of discretion in 1987 by Edwin Meese. It was not until late Okay, so major exercises of prosecutorial 1990, more than three years following Meese’s discretion have benefitted those fleeing war, original executive action, that Congress seeking to avoid returning to civil strife, or codified the practice in the Immigration Act of whose situations involved Cold War foreign 1990, making all of those affected eligible for policy considerations, but never for domestic permanent residence.15 policy reasons, right? Wrong again. Broad executive actions have been used by virtually In 1997, President Clinton provided deferred every modern administration on more than a enforced departure status to some 40,000 dozen occasions to further purely domestic Haitians previously paroled into the U.S. who policy and humanitarian objectives. For had applied for asylum before December 1, example, in the aftermath of various domestic 1995. At the end of the 105th Congress a year emergencies—the San Francisco earthquake, later, legislation allowing these Haitians to the 9/11 attack, Hurricanes Katrina and Ike, adjust their status was enacted.16 and wildfires in California and elsewhere— immigration and disaster relief officials The historical record is clear: presidents of both typically have relaxed enforcement efforts, parties have used their discretionary powers on in part to advance public health and safety multiple occasions to protect various groups goals.12 Every recent administration in office from deportation for an enormously wide during a decennial Census, beginning with variety of reasons. Moreover,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • In the Supreme Court of the United States
    Nos. 18-587, 18-588, and 18-589 In the Supreme Court of the United States DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JOINT APPENDIX (VOLUME 2) NOEL J. FRANCISCO ROBERT ALLEN LONG, JR. Covington & Burling, LLP Solicitor General Department of Justice One CityCenter Washington, D.C. 20530-0001 850 Tenth St., N.W. [email protected] Washington, D.C. 20001 (202) 514-2217 [email protected] (202) 662-5612 Counsel of Record Counsel of Record for Petitioners for Respondents Regents of the University of California and Janet Napolitano (No. 18-587) PETITIONS FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI FILED: NOV. 5, 2018 CERTIORARI GRANTED: JUNE 28, 2019 Additional Captions and Counsel Listed on Inside Cover DONALD J. TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE, ET AL. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI BEFORE JUDGMENT TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT KEVIN K. MCALEENAN, ACTING SECRETARY OF HOMELAND SECURITY, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. MARTIN JONATHAN BATALLA VIDAL, ET AL. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI BEFORE JUDGMENT TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT Additional Counsel For Respondents THEODORE J. BOUTROUS, JR. MICHAEL JAMES MONGAN Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher Solicitor General LLP California Department of 333 South Grand Ave. Justice Los Angeles, CA. 90071 455 Golden Gate Ave., Suite 11000 [email protected] San Francisco, CA. 94102 (213) 229-7804 [email protected] (415) 510-3920 Counsel of Record Counsel of Record for Respondents for Respondents Dulce Garcia, Miriam States of California, Maine, Gonzalez Avila, Saul Maryland, and Minnesota Jimenez Suarez, Viridiana (No.
    [Show full text]
  • Executive Order 14013 of February 4, 2021
    8839 Federal Register Presidential Documents Vol. 86, No. 25 Tuesday, February 9, 2021 Title 3— Executive Order 14013 of February 4, 2021 The President Rebuilding and Enhancing Programs To Resettle Refugees and Planning for the Impact of Climate Change on Migration By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the Immigration and Nation- ality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq., I hereby order as follows: Section 1. Policy. The long tradition of the United States as a leader in refugee resettlement provides a beacon of hope for persecuted people around the world, promotes stability in regions experiencing conflict, and facilitates international collaboration to address the global refugee crisis. Through the United States Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP), the Federal Govern- ment, cooperating with private partners and American citizens in commu- nities across the country, demonstrates the generosity and core values of our Nation, while benefitting from the many contributions that refugees make to our country. Accordingly, it shall be the policy of my Administration that: (a) USRAP and other humanitarian programs shall be administered in a manner that furthers our values as a Nation and is consistent with our domestic law, international obligations, and the humanitarian purposes ex- pressed by the Congress in enacting the Refugee Act of 1980, Public Law 96–212. (b) USRAP should be rebuilt and expanded, commensurate with global need and the purposes described above. (c) Delays in administering USRAP and other humanitarian programs are counter to our national interests, can raise grave humanitarian concerns, and should be minimized.
    [Show full text]
  • May 2009 a Monthly Legal Publication of the Executive Office for Immigration Review Vol 3
    U.S. Department of Justice http://eoirweb/library/lib_index.htm Executive Office for Immigration Review Published since 2007 Immigration Law Advisor May 2009 A Monthly Legal Publication of the Executive Office for Immigration Review Vol 3. No.5 Assistance in Persecution Under Duress: In this issue... The Supreme Court’s Decision in Negusie v. Holder and the Misplaced Reliance on Page 1: Feature Article: Fedorenko v. United States Assistance in Persecution Under Duress: The Supreme Court’s by Brigette L. Frantz Decision in Negusie v. Holder ... Page 5: Federal Court Activity t is a difficult issue faced by the immigration courts. An individual appears in immigration court seeking asylum on account of a Page 12: BIA Precedent Decisions Istatutorily protected ground—race, religion, nationality, membership Page 13: Regulatory Update in a particular social group, or political opinion. The Immigration Judge hears testimony revealing that the respondent is fully credible and has, in fact, suffered persecution and appears eligible for asylum. Yet, the Immigration Judge finds that the respondent is statutorily barred from The Immigration Law Advisor is asylum in the United States based on his participation and assistance in the a professional monthly newsletter of the Executive Office for Immigration persecution of others. This statutory provision, more commonly referred Review (“EOIR”) that is intended to as the “persecutor bar,” precludes the granting of asylum to anyone who solely as an educational resource has “ordered, incited, assisted, or otherwise participated in the persecution to disseminate information on of any person on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a developments in immigration law particular social group, or political opinion.” Section 208(b)(2)(A)(i) of pertinent to the Immigration Courts the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C.
    [Show full text]
  • CWS Strongly Opposes the RAISE Act, Urges Congress to Reject Anti-Family, Anti-Refugee Bill
    CWS Strongly Opposes The RAISE Act, Urges Congress to Reject Anti-Family, Anti-Refugee Bill Church World Service (CWS), a 71-year old humanitarian organization representing 37 Protestant, Anglican, and Orthodox communions, strongly opposes the “Reforming American Immigration for a Strong Economy” (RAISE) Act. We urge all Members of Congress to reject this anti-family and anti- refugee legislation introduced by Senators Cotton (R-AR) and Perdue (R-GA) and supported by President Trump. The RAISE Act would permanently cap refugee admissions at 50,000 per year, the lowest resettlement goal in U.S. history, during the largest global refugee crisis in world history. Despite the sponsors’ citation of an arbitrary “13-year average”, the average annual resettlement goal between when Congress passed the 1980 Refugee Act and today has been 95,000, and the average number of resettled refugees has been 80,000.1 Such a drastic, permanent cut to resettlement would reduce U.S. leadership abroad and tie the hands of the State Department in key diplomatic negotiations to encourage other countries to keep their doors open to refugees and allow refugees to work and refugee children to go to school. Refugee resettlement is a cost-effective form of humanitarian relief that is a lifeline for those who cannot return to their homes or rebuild their lives in a nearby country.2 Refugees contribute meaningfully to the U.S. economy as earners and taxpayers, including more than $56 billion in spending power.3 This bill dishonors the sanctity of families and commodifies the worth of individuals by making family reunification inaccessible and essentially only permitting individuals who have certain education levels, employment, and English-language ability to enter the United States.
    [Show full text]
  • Border Myths: How U.S. Policies and Practices Are Controlling the Border Narrative at the Expense of Asylum Seekers
    Woods: Border Myths: How U.S. Policies and Practices Are Controlling the Woods camera ready (Do Not Delete) 1/18/2020 12:00 PM BORDER MYTHS: HOW U.S. POLICIES AND PRACTICES ARE CONTROLLING THE BORDER NARRATIVE AT THE EXPENSE OF ASYLUM SEEKERS CINDY S. WOODS* TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ............................................................................. 82 I. TRUMP’S BORDER WALL IMPERATIVE ...................................... 84 II. INTERNATIONAL LAW OBLIGATIONS AND THE UNITED STATES’ APPROACH TO ASYLUM SEEKERS ................................... 87 A. International Law Obligations to Asylum Seekers ....... 88 1. The Non-Refoulement Principle ............................. 88 a. Non-Rejection ................................................... 89 b. Access to Fair and Efficient Asylum Procedures ................................................ 90 B. U.S. Interpretations of International Obligations ........ 91 1. Exclusion of the Non-Rejection Principle ............. 92 2. Punitive Measures for Illegal Entrants ................. 93 3. Expedited Removal and the Credible Fear Process ............................................................... 94 III. THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION’S ATTEMPTS TO CONTROL THE BORDER NARRATIVE ............................................................. 96 A. Port of Entry Denials .................................................. 96 B. CBP Abuse at the Border .......................................... 102 C. Increased Prosecution of Illegal Border Crossers ... 107 * J.D. Georgetown University Law
    [Show full text]
  • Harvard Kennedy School Journal of Hispanic Policy a Harvard Kennedy School Student Publication
    Harvard Kennedy School Journal of Hispanic Policy A Harvard Kennedy School Student Publication Volume 30 Staff Kristell Millán Editor-in-Chief Estivaliz Castro Senior Editor Alberto I. Rincon Executive Director Bryan Cortes Senior Editor Leticia Rojas Managing Editor, Print Jazmine Garcia Delgadillo Senior Amanda R. Matos Managing Editor, Editor Digital Daniel Gonzalez Senior Editor Camilo Caballero Director, Jessica Mitchell-McCollough Senior Communications Editor Rocio Tua Director, Alumni & Board Noah Toledo Senior Editor Relations Max Wynn Senior Editor Sara Agate Senior Editor Martha Foley Publisher Elizabeth Castro Senior Editor Richard Parker Faculty Advisor Recognition of Former Editors A special thank you to the former editors Alex Rodriguez, 1995–96 of the Harvard Kennedy School Journal of Irma Muñoz, 1996–97 Hispanic Policy, previously known as the Myrna Pérez, 1996–97 Harvard Journal of Hispanic Policy, whose Eraina Ortega, 1998–99 legacy continues to be a source of inspira- Nereyda Salinas, 1998–99 tion for Latina/o students Harvard-wide. Raúl Ruiz, 1999–2000 Maurilio León, 1999–2000 Henry A.J. Ramos, Founding Editor, Sandra M. Gallardo, 2000–01 1984–86 Luis S. Hernandez Jr., 2000–01 Marlene M. Morales, 1986–87 Karen Hakime Bhatia, 2001–02 Adolph P. Falcón, 1986–87 Héctor G. Bladuell, 2001–02 Kimura Flores, 1987–88 Jimmy Gomez, 2002–03 Luis J. Martinez, 1988–89 Elena Chávez, 2003–04 Genoveva L. Arellano, 1989–90 Adrian J. Rodríguez, 2004–05 David Moguel, 1989–90 Edgar A. Morales, 2005–06 Carlo E. Porcelli, 1990–91 Maria C. Alvarado, 2006–07 Laura F. Sainz, 1990–91 Tomás J. García, 2007–08 Diana Tisnado, 1991–92 Emerita F.
    [Show full text]
  • Challenging Canada's Participation in the Canada
    SETTLAGE_MACRO (DO NOT DELETE) 11/27/2012 1:25 PM INDIRECT REFOULEMENT: CHALLENGING CANADA’S PARTICIPATION IN THE CANADA-UNITED STATES SAFE THIRD COUNTRY AGREEMENT RACHEL GONZALEZ SETTLAGE* ABSTRACT In December 2004, the Canada-United States Safe Third Country Agreement (STCA) entered into effect. Pursuant to this agreement, each country recognizes the other as a safe third country in which asylum- seekers are protected from persecution and accordingly requires asylum seekers to request asylum protection in the first of whichever of the two countries they arrive. However, U.S. and Canadian refugee laws are not entirely consistent, and U.S. law and policy does not adequately protect bona fide asylum seekers from refoulement (the return of the refugee to a country in which his life or freedom would be threatened). This article argues that U.S. laws and policies that result in the refoulement of bona fide asylum seekers to their country of feared persecution violate U.S. obligations under the UN Refugee Convention. In turn, when Canada refuses to hear the claim of a bona fide asylum seeker arriving from the United States and returns that asylum seeker to the United States pursuant to the STCA, if that asylum seeker is then refouled, Canada is also responsible for violating the UN Refugee Convention. This article then explores a 2007 legal challenge to Canada’s participation in the STCA before the Canadian Federal Court, Canadian Council for Refugees et al. v. Her Majesty the Queen, which was ultimately unsuccessful on appeal. However, in a March 2011 decision, John Doe et al.
    [Show full text]
  • How REAL ID's Credibility and Corroboration Requirements Impair
    CONROY_MACRO2 (DO NOT DELETE) 4/20/2009 9:47:08 AM Real Bias: How REAL ID’s Credibility and Corroboration Requirements Impair Sexual Minority Asylum Applicants Melanie A. Conroy† I. INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................2 II. SEXUAL MINORITIES AND THE LAW OF ASYLUM.......................................3 III. PRE-REAL ID CREDIBILITY AND CORROBORATION LAW AND PROBLEMS..................................................................................................5 A. Pre-Real ID Corroboration Law......................................................... 5 B. Pre-Real ID Corroboration Problems................................................. 7 i. Corroborating the Persecution of Similarly-Situated Individuals ...................................................................................8 ii. Corroborating One’s Sexual Minority Membership ..................10 C. Pre-Real ID Credibility Law............................................................ 11 D. Pre-Real ID Credibility Problems .................................................... 13 i. Airport Statements .....................................................................13 ii. The Social Visibility Requirement: Demeanor, Plausibility, and Consistency .........................................................................15 iii. Social Constructions of Gender and Sexuality: External Consistency................................................................................18 IV. REAL ID: ITS HISTORY, CONTENT,
    [Show full text]
  • Fulfilling US Commitment to Refugee Resettlement
    Texas A&M Law Review Volume 5 Issue 1 1-12-2018 Fulfilling U.S. Commitment ot Refugee Resettlement: Protecting Refugees, Preserving National Security, & Building the U.S. Economy Through Refugee Admissions Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinical Program Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.tamu.edu/lawreview Part of the Civil Law Commons, Civil Rights and Discrimination Commons, Criminal Law Commons, Immigration Law Commons, International Humanitarian Law Commons, International Law Commons, Law and Politics Commons, Law and Society Commons, Legislation Commons, Nonprofit Organizations Law Commons, Other Law Commons, Other Public Affairs, Public Policy and Public Administration Commons, Peace and Conflict Studies Commons, Public Affairs Commons, Public Law and Legal Theory Commons, Public Policy Commons, Social Policy Commons, Social Welfare Commons, Social Welfare Law Commons, Supreme Court of the United States Commons, and the Transnational Law Commons Recommended Citation Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinical Program, Fulfilling U.S. Commitment ot Refugee Resettlement: Protecting Refugees, Preserving National Security, & Building the U.S. Economy Through Refugee Admissions, 5 Tex. A&M L. Rev. 155 (2018). Available at: https://doi.org/10.37419/LR.V5.I1.5 This Essay is brought to you for free and open access by Texas A&M Law Scholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Texas A&M Law Review by an authorized editor of Texas A&M Law Scholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. \\jciprod01\productn\T\TWL\5-1\TWL106.txt unknown Seq: 1 29-DEC-17 8:20 REPORT FULFILLING U.S. COMMITMENT TO REFUGEE RESETTLEMENT: PROTECTING REFUGEES, PRESERVING NATIONAL SECURITY, & BUILDING THE U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • PUBLIC CHARGE and the THREAT to IMMIGRANT FAMILIES in CALIFORNIA Reducing the Chilling Effect on Medi-Cal Participation
    PUBLIC CHARGE AND THE THREAT TO IMMIGRANT FAMILIES IN CALIFORNIA Reducing the Chilling Effect on Medi-Cal Participation Grace Kim • Renee Lahey • Marcus Silva • Sean Tan CALIFORNIA IMMIGRANT POLICY CENTER ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Thank you to the following individuals whose significant contributions were instrumental in developing this report: Prof. Mark A. Peterson, Primary Advisor Prof. Wesley Yin, Second Advisor Almas Sayeed, California Immigrant Policy Center Irma Livadic, Iman Nanji, Josh Summers, Caio Velasco, Ryan Weinberg; Peer Reviewers We would also like to thank the following individuals for their help in refining our analysis: Nancy Aspaturian Hon. Brian Nestande Adam Barsch Mike Odeh Connie Choi Prof. Ninez Ponce Prof. Darin Christensen Prof. Sarah Reber Madeleine Ildefonso Eric Schattl Mitchell Jacobs Kristen Golden Testa Sabrina Kim Prof. Abel Valenzuela Prof. Gerald Kominski Virdiana Velez Marielle Kress Joseph Villela Thai Le Prof. Steve Wallace Laurel Lucia AJ Young Disclaimer This report was prepared in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Master of Public Policy degree in the Department of Public Policy at the University of California, Los Angeles. It was prepared at the direction of the Department and the California Immigrant Policy Center as a policy client. The views expressed herein are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Department, the UCLA Luskin School of Public Affairs, UCLA as a whole, or the client. 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary 5 Glossary 6 Acronyms and Initialisms 7 Chapter
    [Show full text]
  • Protecting Undocumented Workers on the Pandemic's Front Lines
    GETTY STIRTON IMAGES/BRENT Protecting Undocumented Workers on the Pandemic’s Front Lines Immigrants Are Essential to America’s Recovery By Nicole Prchal Svajlenka December 2020 WWW.AMERICANPROGRESS.ORG Contents 1 Introduction and summary 3 Undocumented immigrants in the U.S. workforce 10 Undocumented immigrants on the front lines of the pandemic response 13 Positioning the United States for recovery means including undocumented immigrants 17 Conclusion 18 About the author 19 Methodological appendix 29 Endnotes Introduction and summary Across the United States, Americans continue to face the harsh reality of life amid a global pandemic and the ensuing economic fallout. More than 7 million people have lost their jobs since February 2020.1 Americans are worrying about whether and when their children can safely return to school; they have watched their favor- ite restaurants close, first temporarily and then permanently; and they have been forced to spend holidays without their families and loved ones. And with cases continuing to rise, this public health crisis is far from over. Among those Americans bearing the brunt of the pandemic and its economic fall- out are 10.4 million undocumented immigrants.2 At the same time, over the past nine months, millions of these immigrants have worked alongside their neighbors to keep the country functioning and safe. They have worked as doctors and nurses caring for loved ones and fighting this pandemic, but these unique times have also highlighted their crucial work as agricultural workers harvesting Americans’ food; clerks stocking grocery shelves; and delivery drivers bringing food to the safety of people’s homes.
    [Show full text]
  • Calendar No. 80
    Calendar No. 80 113TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! 1st Session SENATE 113–40 BORDER SECURITY, ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY, AND IMMIGRATION MODERNIZATION ACT JUNE 7, 2013.—Ordered to be printed Mr. LEAHY, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the following R E P O R T together with ADDITIONAL AND MINORITY VIEWS [To accompany S. 744] The Committee on the Judiciary, to which was referred the bill (S. 744), to provide for comprehensive immigration reform, and for other purposes, having considered the same, reports favorably thereon, with an amendment, and recommends that the bill, as amended, do pass. CONTENTS Page I. Background and Purpose of the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act ........................................................ 1 II. History of the Bill and Committee Consideration ....................................... 22 III. Section-by-Section Summary of the Bill ...................................................... 75 IV. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate ................................................ 161 V. Regulatory Impact Evaluation ...................................................................... 161 VI. Conclusion ...................................................................................................... 161 VII. Additional and Minority Views ..................................................................... 163 VIII. Changes to Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported ........................... 186 I. BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE OF THE BORDER SECURITY, ECONOMIC
    [Show full text]