Return-Path: <nifl-esl@literacy.nifl.gov>
Received: from literacy (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id f5TKR3f07316; Fri, 29 Jun 2001 16:27:03 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2001 16:27:03 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <B7624D75.3D3%azbecker@mindspring.com>
Errors-To: listowner@literacy.nifl.gov
Reply-To: nifl-esl@literacy.nifl.gov
Originator: nifl-esl@literacy.nifl.gov
Sender: nifl-esl@literacy.nifl.gov
Precedence: bulk
From: Aliza Becker <azbecker@mindspring.com>
To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-esl@literacy.nifl.gov>
Subject: [NIFL-ESL:6214] FW: Immigration Policy Update and ACTION ALERT
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Status: O
Content-Length: 13701
Lines: 280
------ Forwarded Message
From: "Maurice Belanger" <Mbelanger@immigrationforum.org>
Reply-To: <Mbelanger@immigrationforum.org>
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2001 16:07:59 -0400
To: <mbelanger@immigrationforum.org>
Subject: Immigration Policy Update and ACTION ALERT
National Immigration Forum
Date: June 29 , 2001
To: Forum Associates and interested advocates
From: Maurice Belanger
Re: Immigration Policy Update
----------------------------------------------------
CONTENT
1. Supreme Court Rules Against Indefinite Detention
2. ACTION ALERT: U.S./Mexico Bi-lateral Negotiations
3. INS Form Notices in the Federal Register
----------------------------------------------------
IMMIGRATION ADVOCATES ARE 3 FOR 3 IN SUPREME COURT THIS WEEK
On June 28, the Supreme Court issued another immigration-related ruling.
The Court ruled, in a 5-4 decision, that the government cannot indefinitely
detain an immigrant it is seeking to deport, but for whom there is no
prospect of deportation in the foreseeable future. The Court was
considering two cases, one from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals and one
from the Ninth, of so-called "lifers"--immigrants who committed crimes,
completed their criminal sentences, and were being held by the INS pending
deportation. These immigrants are from countries which have not agreed to
accept deportees from the U.S. Among other things, the Court ruled that:
** government detention violates the Due Process Clause of the
constitution
"unless it is ordered in a criminal proceeding with adequate procedural
safeguards or a special justification outweighs the individual's liberty
interest," and that the Due Process Clause applies to all persons within the
U.S.;
** the administrative proceedings by which the INS determined whether to
release an indefinite detainee without the possibility of judicial review
were inadequate;
** Congress's plenary power to create immigration law, and the
administration's power to implement it, is subject to constitutional limits;
and
** Application of the "reasonable time" limit during which the INS may
hold
someone pending deportation is subject to federal-court review.
In issuing guidance to the lower courts, the Supreme Court said that after
being held for six months, if an alien can show "good reason to believe that
there is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable
future, the Government must furnish evidence sufficient to rebut that
showing."
The opinion was issued by Justice Breyer, joined by Justices Stevens,
O'Connor, Souter, and Ginsburg. Justices Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy, and
Rehnquist dissented.
You can obtain the decision (in Zadvydas v. Davis) on the Supreme Court's
website at: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/00slipopinion.html.
A transcript of the oral argument can be obtained at:
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts.html
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
The following is being circulated at the request of the National Campaign
for Jobs and Income Support.
PLEASE SIGN ON TO PRINCIPLES FOR THE U.S./MEXICO NEGOTIATIONS, TO BE SENT TO
PRESIDENT BUSH IN JULY
Advocates for immigrants and low-income communities throughout the U.S. are
following the progress of negotiations between the U.S. and Mexico. Both
sides have indicated that they intend to produce some kind of agreement in
September, which would presumably then be the subject of legislation for
Congress to act upon. While it appears likely that the negotiators will
recommend some kind of temporary worker program, it remains unclear what the
terms of such a proposal will be. It is also unclear if the negotiations
will result in a recommendation to legalize workers already in the U.S., or
those who might participate in a temporary worker program.
Any advocacy aimed at influencing the negotiations must take place this
summer, in advance of the September announcement by the U.S. and Mexico.
Advocates from religious, ethnic, labor, and other organizations need to
raise their voices now to send a message to the White House that the debate
that begins when this agreement is announced must produce positive policy
proposals.
Please sign on to the statement of principles, which will be released at a
media event in Washington on July 11, and circulate the principles to other
organizations that you work with.
SIGN ONS ARE DUE ON JULY 9 - PLEASE SEND THEM TO SON AH YUN OF THE NATIONAL
CAMPAIGN FOR JOBS AND INCOME SUPPORT YUNS@NATIONALCAMPAIGN.ORG AS SOON AS
YOU CAN.
Also included below is a model letter that advocate across the country are
encouraging their Congressional Representatives to send to the White House,
expressing their support for the same principles. A strong signal from the
Senate, in particular, should have a major impact on the White House
position; please encourage your Senators and Congressmembers to sign the
model letter and send it to the White House.
PRINCIPLES FOR THE U.S./MEXICO NEGOTIATIONS
1) Any agreement between the U.S. and Mexico must include opportunities for
adjustment of status. The debate on the need for temporary workers is
incomplete without acknowledging the critical role that immigrant workers,
including those without immigration status, play in our nation's economic
growth. The simple reality is that over 8 million undocumented immigrants
are currently in the U.S. workforce, and the industries in which they work
argue that they could not function without them. Many have been here for
years, share our values, pay taxes, raise families, and contribute to their
communities. It is neither in the interest of the workers themselves, nor of
their employers or of the larger communities in which they live, for this
situation to remain unaddressed in this policy debate. It is time to reopen
the question of legalization, to acknowledge the many contributions of this
segment of the workforce.
2) A Temporary worker program by itself would be an unacceptable outcome.
For most of the last century, temporary worker programs, particularly in
agriculture, have fostered extraordinary abuse and mistreatment of the
workers in those programs, and have undermined wages and working conditions
for U.S. workers in those industries. This model is unacceptable as the
basis for a new relationship between the United States and Mexico. In fact,
an agreement which produces a temporary worker arrangement, in the absence
of other substantial policies, is not acceptable as an outcome for these
negotiations.
3) Any temporary worker program that emerges from this debate must be
markedly different from the existing model. While a "guestworker only"
proposal will be met with vigorous opposition, we acknowledge the reality
that some of the workers who currently come from Mexico and other countries
to work in the U.S. in agriculture and other industries do so with the
intention of returning to their home countries. They do not seek to be
immigrants, and often end up "trapped" in the United States because our
border control policies make it to difficult to depart and re-enter,
swelling the ranks of the undocumented. It is reasonable; then, to
construct a temporary worker framework that provides a role for such workers
whose labor is needed in the U.S. However, this framework must be markedly
different from the existing temporary worker construct. In particular, it
must provide its workers with full labor and civil rights, which are
vigorously enforced, and provide a path to adjustment of status.
MODEL LETTER FOR SENATORS AND CONGRESSMEMBERS
ON THE U.S./MEXICO NEGOTIATIONS
Dear Mr. President:
I write to congratulate you on your historic initiative to enter into
discussions with Mexico's President Vicente Fox. I believe that these
discussions offer an important opportunity to address critical questions of
immigration policy which have languished for too long.
In order to maximize the opportunity created by these historic
discussions,
I strongly urge you to adopt the following principles as a framework for
these negotiations:
1) Any agreement between the U.S. and Mexico must include opportunities for
adjustment of status. The debate on the need for temporary workers is
incomplete without acknowledging the critical role that immigrant workers,
including those without immigration status, play in our nation's economic
growth. The simple reality is that over 8 million undocumented immigrants
are currently in the U.S. workforce, and the industries in which they work
argue that they could not function without them. Many have been here for
years, share our values, pay taxes, raise families, and contribute to their
communities. It is neither in the interest of the workers themselves, nor of
their employers or of the larger communities in which they live, for this
situation to remain unaddressed in this policy debate. It is time to reopen
the question of legalization, to acknowledge the many contributions of this
segment of the workforce.
2) A Temporary worker program by itself is not an acceptable policy
solution. For most of the last century, temporary worker programs,
particularly in agriculture, have fostered extraordinary abuse and
mistreatment of the workers in those programs, and have undermined wages and
working conditions for U.S. workers in those industries. This model is
unacceptable as the basis for a new relationship between the United States
and Mexico. In fact, an agreement which produces a temporary worker
arrangement, in the absence of other substantial policies, is not acceptable
as an outcome for these negotiations.
3) Any temporary worker program that emerges from this debate must be
markedly different from the existing model. While a "guestworker only"
proposal will be met with vigorous opposition, we acknowledge the reality
that some of the workers who currently come from Mexico and other countries
to work in the U.S. in agriculture and other industries do so with the
intention of returning to their home countries. They do not seek to be
immigrants, and often end up "trapped" in the United States because our
border control policies make it to difficult to depart and re-enter,
swelling the ranks of the undocumented. It is reasonable, then, to
construct a temporary worker framework that provides a role for such workers
whose labor is needed in the U.S. However, this framework must be markedly
different from the existing temporary worker construct. In particular, it
must provide its workers with full labor and civil rights, which are
vigorously enforced, and provide opportunities for adjustment of status.
I urge you in the strongest possible terms to maximize this historic
opportunity, and to present recommendations for consideration by the
Congress which are in keeping with these important principles.
Sincerely,
<><><><><><><><><><><>><><><><><><><><><><><><><
FROM THE FEDERAL REGISTER
The majority of notices published in the Federal Register by the INS concern
forms for which the agency is seeking approval from the Office of Management
and Budget. The majority of these notices are "extensions of a currently
approved information collection." That is, the agency is seeking approval
to continue to collect information it already collects on these forms. Each
time the agency seeks approval to collect information on a form (or to
continue to collect the information), it must provide notice in the Federal
Register and allow at least 60 days of public comment. All of this extra
paperwork is the result of the Paperwork Reduction Act. It might be a good
intern project for someone out there to calculate the number of clearcuts in
our Western forests that can be attributed to the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Here are three more notices from this week:
On June 27th, the INS published notices about two forms now being reviewed
by the Office of Management and Budget:
1. Sponsor's Notice of Change of Address. This form will be used by
every
sponsor who has filed an Affidavit of Support to notify the INS of a change
of address in the event the INS must locate a sponsor if there is a request
for reimbursement for federal benefits received.
2. Affidavit of Support Under Section 213A of the Act, and Contract
Between
Sponsor and Household Member. This form is submitted by a petitioning
relative, and creates a contract between the sponsor and any entity that
provides means-tested public benefits.
Both notices concern a request for an extension of the use of these forms,
which are currently in use. The comment deadline for both is July 27.
On June 29th, the INS published a notice about a form currently at the OMB
for approval, "Screening Requirements of Carriers." The form is used to
determine whether a carrier (airline) is improving the screening of its
passengers. The notice provides for an additional 30 days of comment.
[If you are interested in the details of these notices, you can find the
complete Federal Register notices by first going to the website of the
Federal Register at http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/aces/aces140.html and
searching on "immigration" for the specific date of publication of the
notice.]
****************************************
If you would like to be removed from the
National Immigration Forum's immigration
policy e-mail list, send a message to
mbelanger@immigrationforum.org and ask
to be removed from the list.
==============================
Maurice Belanger
Senior Policy Associate
National Immigration Forum
E-Mail: mbelanger@immigrationforum.org
Web: http://www.immigrationforum.org
------ End of Forwarded Message
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Jan 18 2002 - 11:30:47 EST