We began as a nation of immigrants, all people coming to seek their prosperity and freedom. We are also a Nation of laws. Those early legal immigrants and those that came legally after the originators created a great nation of people and customs coming together for a better future.


We are still this country today. Our country is better for all the different cultures brought to our shores, legally. The United States is the place all oppressed people want to live, legally. We happily accept those that want to help America better and seek prosperity by legal means.


We have not seen meaningful reform even discussed since the Comprehensive Immigration Bill of 2009. Today we need to begin this reform!

Immigration Becomes a State Issue

GOP states move to block sanctuary cities after Trump order


Sanctuaries Update: 1 Down, 305 to Go


One of Sheriff Mark Garber's first acts upon taking office in Lafayette Parish, Louisiana, last month was to rescind the controversial and misguided sanctuary policy that had been implemented by his predecessor. The approximately 300 other jurisdictions around the country that have similar policies obstructing immigration enforcement would be wise to follow suit.


These policies are inconsistent with federal law, according to a new report by the Justice Department’s Inspector General (OIG), and could result in debarment from certain federal grants, claw backs of previously awarded funds, or other consequences, including prosecution. This report was requested by Rep. John Culberson (R-Texas), who chairs the House appropriations sub-committee in charge of the DOJ budget.


The OIG used a list of sanctuary jurisdictions published by the Center for Immigration Studies and determined which of those agencies had received the most funding from DOJ. Their policies were examined for compliance with 8 USC 1373, which states that state and local governments may not have policies, ordinances, or practices that "in any way" prohibit state or local officials from communicating or exchanging information with federal immigration agencies.

Among the OIG findings:




  • All of the 10 jurisdictions selected for the OIG investigation had sanctuary policies that were inconsistent with federal law. The jurisdictions were: the state of California; the state of Connecticut; Chicago; Clark County, Nev. (home of Las Vegas); Cook County, Ill. (which includes Chicago); Miami-Dade County, Fla.; Milwaukee County, Wisc.; Orleans Parish, La. (New Orleans); New York City; and Philadelphia.


  • These 10 jurisdictions received more than $342 million from DOJ, representing 63 percent of the total value of the active DOJ law enforcement funding at the time of the report.


  • In addition to the 10 sanctuaries that were investigated, the report identified several others with problematic policies: Newark, N.J.; Taos, N.M.; New Orleans; and San Francisco.


  • Common efforts by sanctuaries to evade the applicability of 8 USC 1373 with a "savings clause," for example by including language that says "except as provided under federal law" are not sufficient to be considered compliant with federal law and will not protect them from potential consequences of maintaining a sanctuary policy.

The OIG recommended four steps that DOJ could take to make sure that no federal funding is awarded to non-compliant jurisdictions: 1) tell jurisdictions that they are expected to comply with 8 USC 1373 as a condition for receiving DOJ funding; 2) require them to certify and document that they are compliant when they apply for funding; 3) consult with ICE about whether the jurisdictions are cooperating; and 4) ensure that jurisdictions inform their personnel that they are allowed to communicate and share information with ICE.


The application deadline for the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program funds, in which the DOJ provides partial reimbursement for incarcerating criminal illegal aliens, was in April, 2016. DOJ has had language on its web site about the requirement to comply with 8 USC 1373, together with a warning of the consequences for non-compliance, which include criminal prosecution for a false statement.


ICE provided the OIG with an updated list of 155 jurisdictions that have a policy or law that limits or prohibits cooperation with ICE and that had rejected detainers between January 1, 2014, and June 30, 2015. According to a similar report published by the Texas Tribune covering a slightly different time period, there were 165 counties and 1,160 detention locations in the United States that had rejected detainers between January 2014 and September 2015.

In the near future, the Center will publish an updated map and list of sanctuary jurisdictions to reflect this new information.

The 'Line' For Legal Immigration Is Already About 4 Million People  

Heard on All Things Considered by TED ROBBINS

In the back and forth between Congress and the White House over immigration, both sides seem to agree that people now in the U.S. illegally should wait at "the back of the line" for legal residency — meaning no green card until all other immigrants get theirs.

But that presents a problem, because the wait for a green card can take decades.

Maria has been waiting in line with her husband for 16 years and counting for what the government calls a priority date for legal residency. Because she is in the U.S. without documents, Maria asked NPR to use only her first name.

Her story, though, is typical: Maria's mother-in-law is a U.S. citizen. So Maria's husband, who was born in Mexico, is eligible for a green card. While he's waiting, he is in the U.S. illegally, running a small construction business and, Maria says, paying taxes. When her husband gets his green card, Maria can apply for one.

But their lawyer, Mo Goldman, says it will be a while longer before applicants from 1997 are eligible.

"The date that they're currently processing right now is back to 1993 — and it doesn't move," he says.

In other words, grown Mexican-born sons and daughters of U.S. citizens are at the front of the line for permanent legal residency after applying two decades ago. Different family categories have different "lines" — spouses wait less time than siblings. Different job categories also have different lines — college graduates wait less time than lower-skilled workers.

"So it turns out there are many lines," says Hiroshi Motomura, a law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, who is writing a book on the immigration system. "There's something certainly questionable in the logic of a system that, on the one hand, says you qualify, but ... you have to wait 20 years."

Lawyer Goldman says this isn't the way it was a century ago when immigrants came through Ellis Island.

"It's apples and oranges," he says. "There's no way of comparing that because we didn't have this quota system. People got off a boat, you know, they were processed through, they got their medical examination, and ... they became permanent residents."

That is, if you were from Europe. If not, it was tough to immigrate even back then.

So in the 1960s, Congress tried to make things more fair by granting an equal number of green cards for each country. That means there are country quotas now, on top of all those family and employment categories. But some countries are larger than others — or, as Motomura says, they have more people who want to immigrate because of geography or political and economic ties.

"Right now, those countries are China, India, Mexico and the Philippines," he says. "So if you're from those countries, you have to wait longer."

The total estimated backlog for legal immigration is 4 million people. And Motomura thinks that long wait may have fueled illegal immigration.

That's what Stuart Anderson thinks, too. He was an immigration official during the George W. Bush administration and is now with the nonpartisan National Foundation for American Policy, a Virginia think tank.

Anderson says people who need jobs or want to join their family won't endure a two-decade wait.

"The combination of that with increased border enforcement has led people to come in illegally and then end up staying once they got into the country because it's become more difficult to cross in the first place," Anderson says.

That brings us back to Maria and her husband from Mexico. They crossed and stayed in Tucson, Ariz., illegally at the same time his mother applied for him to live in the U.S. legally. And here's the kicker: Goldman, their lawyer, says if they do leave the United States and get caught coming back, the law automatically adds another 10 years to their wait.

"I stay here," Maria says. "I never come back to Mexico," even after deaths in her family.

Maria and her husband are not about to lose their place in line, even if they don't know how long the line is.

It's why almost everyone pushing an immigration overhaul says any new law has to ease the current backlog of legal green card applicants before putting the estimated 11 million undocumented in line behind them.

Print Print | Sitemap
© Coalition for Policy Reform 2017-2019