Illinois, U.S.A. — A new report from the Center for Immigration Studies provides a detailed picture of immigrants (legal and illegal) in the United States and in Illinois.  The statistics reveal Illinois’ immigrant population as being significantly poorer and less-educated than the state’s native-born population. Using the latest Census Bureau data from 2010 and 2011, the study shows a high rate of poverty with over one-third of immigrant headed households using at least one major welfare program.

The report is online at http://cis.org/2012-profile-of-americas-foreign-born-population.

• Illinois’ Immigrants:

Illinois’ immigrant population (legal and illegal) grew 15 percent (231,000) from 2000 to 2010.  Nationally the immigrant population grew percent over the same period. Immigrants (legal and illegal) accounted for 14 percent of the state residents in 2010 and 16 percent of workers in the states. Of Illinois immigrants and their U.S.-born children (under 18), 22 percent live in poverty compared to 12 percent of natives and their children.

Immigrants and their U.S.-born child (under 18) account for 18 percent of the state’s overall population and 28 percent of all persons in poverty in the state. Of Illinois immigrants and their U.S.-born children (under 18), 27 percent lack health insurance, compared to 12 percent of natives and their children (under 18).  Immigrants and their children account for 32 percent of the state’s uninsured.

Of households headed by immigrants in Illinois, 36 percent used at least one major welfare program, primarily food assistance and Medicaid, compared to 22 percent of native-headed households.

Illinois immigrants’ home ownership rate tends to be relatively high (61 percent) compared to immigrants in other states. The rate for natives in the state is 69 percent. The lower socio-economic status of Illinois’ immigrants is not because most are recent arrivals. Their average length of residence in the United States is 19 years.

One of the primary reasons immigrants in the state tend to be poor and access welfare programs at high rates is a large share arrive in the U.S. as adult with relatively low levels of education.

Of adult immigrants (25 to 65) in the state 24 percent have not completed high school, compared to 6 percent of natives. However, the share of immigrants in the state that have a bachelor’s degree (31 percent) is much closer to the 36 percent for natives.

In 2010, 23 percent of public school students in Illinois were from immigrant households.  Overall, one in four public students in the state speaks a language other than English at home.

• Illegal Immigrants in Illinois:

Our best estimate is that 31 percent of Illinois immigrants are in the country illegally. Illegal immigrants and their U.S.-born children (under 18) account for 6 percent of the state’s overall population, 13 percent those in poverty, 16 percent of the uninsured and 9 percent of the school age population.

The article Of Illinois Immigrants, 22% Live in Poverty appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

Washington, U.S.A. — A new report from the Center for Immigration Studies provides a detailed picture of immigrants (legal and illegal) in the United States and in Nevada. Using the Census Bureau data from 2010 and 2011, the study reveals Nevada’s immigrant population as one of the fastest growing of the top immigrant receiving states.

The report is online at http://cis.org/2012-profile-of-americas-foreign-born-population.

• Nevada Immigrants:

Nevada’s immigrant population (legal and illegal) grew 61 percent (192,000) from 2000 to 2010. Nationally the immigrant population grew 28 percent over the same period. Immigrants accounted for 19 percent of Nevada residents in 2010, the fifth largest share in the country. Immigrants are 23 percent of workers in the state.

Of Nevada immigrants and their U.S.-born children (under 18), 20 percent live in poverty compared to 13 percent of natives and their children. Immigrants and their U.S.-born children (under 18) account for 25 percent of the state’s overall population and 34 percent of all persons in poverty.

Of Nevada immigrants and their U.S.-born children (under 18), 31 percent lack health insurance, compared to 18 percent of natives and their children (under 18).  Immigrants and their children account for 37 percent of those without insurance in the state.

Nevada immigrants’ home ownership rate of 53 percent is similar to the 58 percent for natives. Of households headed by immigrants in Nevada, 25 percent used at least one major welfare program, primarily food assistance and Medicaid, compared to 18 percent of native-headed households.

The lower socio-economic status of Nevada’s immigrants relative to natives is not because most are recent arrivals. Their average length of residence in the United States is 20 years. One of the primary reasons immigrants in the state tend to be poor than natives is a large share arrive in the U.S. as adults with relatively low levels of education.

Of adult immigrants (25 to 65) in the state 30 percent have not completed high school, compared to 7 percent of natives. The share of immigrants in the state with at least a bachelor’s degree (21 percent) is lower than the 27 percent of natives.

In 2010, more than one third of public school students in Nevada were from immigrant households. Overall, 34 percent of public school students in the state speak a language other than English at home.

• Illegal Immigrants in Nevada:

Our best estimate is that slightly less than half of Nevada immigrants are in the country illegally. Illegal immigrants and their U.S.-born children (under 18) account for 12 percent of the state’s overall population, 20 percent those in poverty, 24 percent of the uninsured and 22 percent of the school age population.

Image Courtesy of   spirit of america / Shutterstock.com

The article Nevada has the Fastest Growing Immigrants Population in the US appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

Washington, U.S.A. — A new report from the Center for Immigration Studies provides a detailed picture of immigrants (legal and illegal) in the United States and in Florida. Florida has the fourth largest immigrant population in the country. Using the latest Census Bureau data from 2010 and 2011, the study shows Florida’s immigrants tend to be poorer than the state’s native-born.

The report is online at http://cis.org/2012-profile-of-americas-foreign-born-population.

• Florida’s Immigrants:

Florida’s immigrant population (legal and illegal) grew 37 percent (1 million) from 2000 to 2010. Nationally the immigrant population grew 28 percent over the same period.

Immigrants accounted for 19 percent of Florida residents in 2010, the fourth largest share in the country. Immigrants are 22 percent of workers in the state.

Of Florida immigrants and their U.S.-born children (under 18), 21 percent live in poverty compared to 14 percent of natives and their children. Immigrants and their U.S.-born children (under 18) account for 23 percent of the state’s overall population and 31 percent of all persons in poverty.

Of households headed by immigrants in Florida, 31 percent used at least one major welfare program, primarily food assistance and Medicaid, compared to 20 percent of native-headed households.

Of Florida immigrants and their U.S.-born children (under 18), 34 percent lack health insurance, compared to 18 percent of natives and their children (under 18). Immigrants and their children account for 36 percent of those without insurance in the state. Florida immigrants’ home ownership rate is 61 percent, compared to 70 percent for natives.

The lower socio-economic status of Florida’s immigrants is not because most are recent arrivals. Their average length of residence in the United States is 20 years.

One of the primary reasons immigrants in the state tend to be poorer than natives is a large share arrive in the U.S. as adults with relatively low levels of education.

Of adult immigrants (25 to 65) in the state 16 percent have not completed high school, compared to 7 percent of natives. However, the share of immigrants in the state with at least a bachelor’s degree (30 percent) is similar to that of natives — 32 percent.

In 2010, more than one in four public school students in Florida were from immigrant households. Overall, 29 percent of public school students in the state speak a language other than English at home.

• Illegal Immigrants in Florida:

Our best estimate is that slightly more than one-sixth of Florida immigrants are in the country illegally. Illegal immigrants and their U.S.-born children (under 18) account for 4 percent of the state’s overall population, 9 percent those in poverty, 11 percent of the uninsured and 8 percent of the school age population.

The article New Study Examines Florida’s Immigrants Rates appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

Washington, U.S.A. — A new report from the Center for Immigration Studies provides a detailed picture of immigrants (legal and illegal) in the United States and in Washington State. Washington has the nation’s 10th largest immigrant population. Using the latest Census Bureau data from 2010 and 2011, the study reveals that the state’s immigrants are significantly poorer and less-educated than the native-born population.

“There is considerable concern in this country about issues like poverty and the large uninsured population.  But what has generally not been acknowledged is the impact of immigration on these problems,” notes Steven Camarota, the Center’s Director of Research. “Absent a change in policy, 11 to 15 million new immigrants are likely to settle in this country in the next decade and may further exacerbate present problems.”

The report is online at http://cis.org/2012-profile-of-americas-foreign-born-population.

• Washington’s Immigrants:

Washington’s immigrant population (legal and illegal) grew 44 percent (272,000) from 2000 to 2010. Nationally the immigrant population grew 28 percent over the same period.

Immigrants (legal and illegal) accounted for 13 percent of the state residents in 2010 and 17 percent of workers in the states.

Of Washington immigrants and their U.S.-born children (under 18), 20 percent live in poverty compared to 10 percent of natives and their children.

Immigrants and their U.S.-born children (under 18) account for 18 percent of the state’s overall population and 30 percent of all persons in poverty.

Of Washington immigrants and their U.S.-born children (under 18), 22 percent lack health insurance, compared to 12 percent of natives and their children (under 18).  Immigrants and their children account for 29 percent of the state’s uninsured.

Of households headed by immigrants in Washington, 40 percent used at least one major welfare program, primarily food assistance and Medicaid, compared to 21 percent of native-headed households. Although they tend to be significantly poorer than natives, homeownership is relatively high among Washington’s immigrants (55 percent), compared to 65 percent for natives. The lower socio-economic status of Washington’s immigrants is not because most are recent arrivals. Their average length of residence in the United States is 18 years.

One of the primary reasons immigrants in the state tend to be poor and access welfare programs at high rates is a large share arrive in the U.S. as adults with relatively low levels of education.

Of adult immigrants (25 to 65) in the state 22 percent have not completed high school, compared to 4 percent of natives. However, the share of immigrants in the state that have a bachelor’s degree matches that of natives —34 percent.

In 2010, 23 percent of public school students in Washington were from immigrant households. Overall, 23 percent of public students in the state speak a language other than English at home.

• Illegal Immigrants in Washington:

Our best estimate is that 40 percent of Washington immigrants are in the country illegally. Illegal immigrants and their U.S.-born children (under 18) account for 7 percent of the state’s overall population, 12 percent those in poverty, 18 percent of the uninsured and 9 percent of the school age population, 5 to 17 years of age.

• National Figures:

The number of immigrants (legal & illegal) in the country hit a new record of 40 million in 2010, a 28 percent increase over the total in 2000. Immigrants (legal and illegal) account for 16 percent of all workers in the country.

In 2010, 23 percent of immigrants and their U.S.-born children (under 18) lived in poverty, compared to 13.5 percent of natives and their children. Immigrants and their children accounted for one-fourth of all persons in poverty in the United States.

Immigrants make significant progress the longer they live in the country. However, even immigrants who have lived in the United States for 20 years have not come close to closing the gap with natives.

The poverty rate of adult immigrants who have lived in the United States for 20 years is 50 percent higher than that of adult natives. The share of households headed by an immigrant who has lived in the United States for 20 years using one or more welfare programs is nearly twice that of native-headed households.

The share of households headed by an immigrant who has lived in the United States for 20 years that are owner occupied is 22 percent lower than that of native households.

The article Washington’s Immigrant Population Grows 44% in 10 Years appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

Washington, U.S.A. — A new report from the Center for Immigration Studies provides a detailed picture of immigrants (legal and illegal) in the United States and in Georgia.  Of the top immigrant receiving states, Georgia’ immigrant population is one of the fastest growing in the country. Using the latest Census Bureau data from 2010 and 2011, the study reveals a high rate of poverty with a corresponding high use of welfare.

The report is online at http://cis.org/2012-profile-of-americas-foreign-born-population.

• Georgia’s Immigrants:

Georgia’s immigrant population (legal and illegal) grew 63 percent from 2000 to 2010. Nationally the immigrant population grew 28 percent over the same period.

Immigrants account for 10 percent of Georgia residents in 2010, the highest level ever recorded by the Census Bureau for the state. Immigrants are 13 percent of workers in the state. Of Georgia immigrants and their U.S.-born children (under 18), 25 percent live in poverty compared to 18 percent of natives and their children.

Of Georgia immigrants and their U.S.-born children (under 18), 37 percent lack health insurance, compared to 18 percent of natives and their children (under 18).  Immigrants and their children account for 22 percent of those without insurance in the state.

Georgia immigrants’ home ownership is 56 percent, compared to 67 percent for natives.

Of households headed by immigrants in Georgia, 30 percent used at least one major welfare program, primarily food assistance and Medicaid, compared to 24 percent of native-headed households. One of the primary reasons a larger share of immigrants than natives in the state are poor is a large share arrive in the U.S. as adults with relatively low levels of education.

Of adult immigrants (25 to 65) in the state 26 percent have not completed high school, compared to 8 percent of natives.

However, the share of immigrants in the state with at least a bachelor’s degree (30 percent) is similar to the 33 percent for natives.

In 2010, 17 percent of students in Georgia public schools were from immigrant households. Overall, one in seven public school students in the state speaks a language other than English at home.

• Illegal Immigrants in Georgia:

Our best estimate is that more than half of the immigrants in Georgia are in the country illegally. Illegal immigrants and their U.S.-born children (under 18) account for seven percent of the state’s overall population, 12 percent of those in poverty, 16 percent of the uninsured and 8 percent of the school age population, 5 to 17.

The article Georgia Immigrant Population Grew 63% in Last 10 Years appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

Washington, U.S.A. — A new report from the Center for Immigration Studies provides a detailed picture of immigrants (legal and illegal) in the United States and in Texas. Using the latest Census Bureau data from 2010 and 2011, the study reveals Texas’ immigrant population as one of the largest, fastest growing and poorest of the top immigrant receiving states.

The report is online at http://cis.org/2012-profile-of-americas-foreign-born-population.

• Texas Immigrants:

Texas’s immigrant population (legal and illegal) grew 43 percent from 2000 to 2010. Nationally the immigrant population grew 28 percent over the same period.

The immigrant population in the state stood at 4.1 million, up 1.5 million in the last decade. Immigrants account for one out of six Texas residents in 2010, the highest level ever recorded by the Census Bureau. Immigrants account for 20 percent of workers in the state.

Of Texas immigrants and their U.S.-born children (under 18), 28 percent live in poverty compared to 15 percent of natives and their children. Immigrants and their U.S.-born children (under 18) account for 23 percent of the state’s overall population and 36 percent of all persons in poverty.

Of Texas immigrants and their U.S.-born children (under 18) 41 percent lack health insurance, compared to 21 percent of natives and their children. Immigrants and their children account for 37 percent of those without insurance in the state.

While a large share of Texas immigrants have low incomes, their rate of home ownership (58 percent) tends to be relatively high both compared to natives (65 percent) and relative to immigrants in other states.

Of households headed by immigrants in Texas, 45 percent used at least one major welfare program, primarily food assistance and Medicaid, compared to 24 percent of native-headed households.

The lower socio-economic status of Texas’ immigrants is not because most are recent arrivals. Their average length of residence in the United States is 18 years.

One of the primary reasons so many immigrants in Texas are poor, lack health insurance and access the welfare system is a large share arrive in the U.S. as adults with relatively low levels of education.

Of the top immigrant receiving states, Texas immigrants are among the least educated— 46 percent of adult immigrants in the state have not completed high school, compared to 10 percent of natives.

The share of immigrants (25 to 65) in the state that have a bachelor’s degree is 21 percent compared to 30 percent of natives. In 2010, 31 percent of students in Texas public school were from immigrant households.  Overall 37 percent of public school students speak a language other than English at home.

• Illegal Immigrants in Texas:

Our best estimate is that slightly less than half of the immigrants in Texas are in the country illegally. They comprised one in ten workers in the state. Illegal immigrants and their U.S.-born children (under 18) account for ten percent of the state’s overall population and one-fifth of those in poverty, one-fourth of the uninsured and one seventh of the school age population, 5 to 17.

The article Texas’ Immigration is One of Fastest Growing in the Country appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

Washington, U.S.A. — A new report from the Center for Immigration Studies provides a detailed picture of immigrants (legal and illegal) in the United States and in New Jersey. Using the latest Census Bureau data from 2010 and 2011, the study reveals that New Jersey’s immigrants tend to be more prosperous and better-educated than the population in other top immigrant receiving states. However, they lag behind natives in the state in most measures of economic well-being. As a result they comprise a very large share of the state’s poor and uninsured.

The report is online at http://cis.org/2012-profile-of-americas-foreign-born-population.

• New Jersey’s Immigrants:

New Jersey’s immigrant population (legal and illegal) grew 25 percent (368,000) from 2000 to 2010. Nationally the immigrant population grew 28 percent over the same period. Immigrants accounted for 21 percent of New Jersey residents in 2010, the third highest of any state. Immigrants are 28 percent of workers in the state.

Of New Jersey immigrants and their U.S.-born children (under 18), 13 percent live in poverty compared to 9 percent of natives and their children. Immigrants and their U.S.-born children (under 18) account for 28 percent of the state’s overall population and 37 percent of all persons in poverty.

Of New Jersey immigrants and their U.S.-born children (under 18), 29 percent lack health insurance, compared to 11 percent of natives and their children (under 18). Immigrants and their children account for 51 percent of those without insurance in the state.

New Jersey immigrants’ home ownership rate is 54 percent, compared to 70 percent for natives.

Of households headed by immigrants in New Jersey, 26 percent used at least one major welfare program, primarily food assistance and Medicaid, compared to 17 percent of native-headed households. The lower socio-economic status of New Jersey’s immigrants is not because most are recent arrivals. Their average length of residence in the United States is 19 years.

One of the primary reasons so many immigrants in the state are poor and access the welfare system is a large share arrive in the U.S. as adults with relatively low levels of education.

Of adult immigrants (25 to 65) in the state 19 percent have not completed high school, compared to 4 percent of natives. The share of immigrants in the state with at least a bachelor’s degree is 34 percent compared to 41 percent for natives.

In 2010, 30 percent of students in New Jersey public schools were from immigrant households. Overall, 29 percent of public school students in the state speak a language other than English at home.

• Illegal Immigrants in New Jersey:

Our best estimate is that about one-fifth of New Jersey’s immigrants are in the country illegally. Illegal immigrants and their U.S.-born children (under 18) account for 6 percent of the state’s overall population, 14 percent those in poverty, 21 percent of the uninsured and 9 percent of the school age population, ages 5 to 17.

Image Courtesy of  Ryan Rodrick Beiler / Shutterstock.com

The article Immigrants Comprise the 21% of New Jerseys Residents appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

The DREAM Act could not have been more appropriately christened. Stuck in the whirring cog of bipartisan politics, the legislation has stagnated for over a decade in both the House and the Senate. What was recently announced as the Deferred Action Process for Young People was not the DREAM Act.

Under this process, qualifying applicants are only eligible for the typical two-year work card. Unlike the DREAM Act, Deferred Action will not provide a path to legalization. It will only allow qualifying applicants to legally work and pay taxes. That particular road ends there. Not exactly the reward for a group who, if deserving, should be given the opportunity to obtain that elusive legal status, which remains unchanged by a work permit.

The idea behind the DREAM Act is that children brought to this country, whether legally or illegally, were brought at the behest of their parents and not their own. It’s a simple enough argument: if a young child is brought across the border what say did he or she have at the time? Sometimes these children are brought as young as babies, are raised here for the vast majority of their lives, and are not even fluent in the language of their country of origin.

Sometimes they’re not aware of their lack of status. A social security number does not become a concern until certain milestones begin to appear: getting a first job, obtaining a license, going away for spring break, attending college. A college education can quickly become a pricey illusion, reserved for someone with a different type of birth certificate.

But I digress. The biggest deterrent for the DREAM Act is a factor that is in the very nature of the bill: it lies within the hazy realm of immigration politics. No other political topic can be so adversely affected by other issues in the way that immigration can be. The barometer of immigration can be placed in many fields—in the economy, in international relations, in the interests of big business, and in the murky waters of race politics. Shades of gray abound in this arena.

I am not by any means claiming objectivity here, but I will allege the persuasion of logic. It is hard to argue that laws were intentionally broken by babies and young children. It becomes even sillier to argue that they should be punished for the choices of others, namely their parents who, by the way, should hardly be demonized for trying to give their kids a chance.

I cannot see the harm in rewarding young adults for becoming educated members of society, or for choosing to serve in the armed forces of a nation they desperately wish to call their own.  A chance to allow determined spirits—with a clean criminal record—to legitimately work and pour money into a drained system can only work wonders. This is a system which, by the way, has already devoted many tax dollars towards the education and healthcare of this brood.

Let’s allow them to pay us back for a hefty sum that was—and continues to be—invested, throughout the span of (admittedly short) lifetimes. It only makes sense.

Image Courtesy of  spirit of america / Shutterstock.com

The article Why We Have Yet to Listen to Reason appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

Washington, U.S.A. – American Jewish Committee (AJC) applauds President Obama’s announcement of June 15 of a new Administration policy to stop deporting undocumented youth from the U.S. who would qualify for the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act.

“President Obama’s decision will enhance educational opportunities for deserving students, level the playing field for all children, and bolster America’s role as a leader in the competitive global economy,” said Richard Foltin, AJC’s Director of National and Legislative Affairs.

There are an estimated 50,000-65,000 undocumented students who graduate from American high schools each year. “Many came to the U.S. at a young age, have grown up in American schools, developed American values, and are American in every sense except their citizenship,” said Foltin.

Following President Obama’s announcement on June 15, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) will begin a process for granting “deferred action” to undocumented youth who are in the U.S. and would otherwise qualify for relief under the version of the DREAM Act passed by the House of Representatives in December 2010.

Eligible individuals – including but not limited to those who are currently in deportation proceedings – will be allowed to remain and work in the U.S. for a renewable two-year period.

“While granting deferred action to these students is an important step towards desperately needed reform of our immigration system, we will continue to advocate for legislation that establishes a permanent path to citizenship for these DREAM Act students,” said Foltin.

Citing a UCLA study that concluded that DREAM Act participants could contribute $1.4-$3.6 trillion to the U.S. economy during their working lives, Foltin continued, “These students are vital to our nation’s future. Allowing them to stay in the United States not only benefits them, but also enhances America’s rich, vibrant, and diverse culture.”

Since its founding in 1906, AJC has been a strong voice in support of fair and generous immigration policies that are consistent with humanitarian values and with the need to treat all individuals with respect, while allowing the United States to implement its immigration laws and protect our national security.

The National League of Cities

The following statement is from Don Borut, executive director of the National League of Cities, responding to President Obama’s decision to stop deporting young immigrants who came to the United States as children.

“The President has made a sensible decision to allow young immigrants who came to the United States as children and have little connection to their countries of origin to stay and continue to contribute to our country. This change reflects the many positive contributions that these individuals are making to local communities.

“The Administration deserves praise for recognizing the poor performance of the nation’s existing immigration policy. Today’s action only represents a small piece of the reform that needs to occur.  This change does not replace the urgent need for Congressional action to enact comprehensive immigration reform.”

The National League of Cities is dedicated to helping city leaders build better communities. NLC is a resource and advocate for 19,000 cities, towns and villages, representing more than 218 million Americans.

The article AJC and NLC Support President Obama Passing DREAM Act appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

Miami,U.S.A. – When twenty-four renowned authors come together to record personal anecdotes on migration and the United States, the result is an anthology as rich and colorful as the experiences that transpire in or derive from the “great country up north.” Sam no es mi tio, published by Alfaguara.

Each Hispanic has a story, personal or collective, real or imaginary, to tell concerning the United States. At one point in our lives, one way or another, we have all crossed paths with the “North.” For this reason, the twenty-four writers in this unique anthology set out to portray America-The Americas, their Americas.

As Ailen El-Kadi, who along with Diego Fonseca edited this anthology, says “We wanted confessions, we wanted stories that were personal, stories that weren’t that easy to tell. And what did we find? We found that behind the Unites States and behind every person passing through US customs a host of fantasies exist. Our chroniclers, like millions of others,  came face to face with reality when they reached the North.

Things are not as you imagine they would be, whether for someone shopping in Miami or going to University, or for those who leave their countries, families, jobs, and loved ones behind in search of a better life or a decent wage. In Sam no es mi tio readers will find just that, diverse and distinct stories from all types of people, confessions from those who have dared to reveal the myths that Latin Americans have been piling up for years regarding the United States.”

These chronicles take the reader through fascinating paths, they narrate encounters, miss-encounters, disappointments, happiness, triumphs, and reality. “The book’s central question is: how would you describe, today, the relationship between Latin Americans and the United States?,” says Diego Fonseca, co-editor of the book. “Giving a single absolute explanation to this discussion is impossible.

This group of texts fulfills the task of a chronicle: an in-depth exploration of stories that are testimony to a much broader phenomena.” And so, these accounts are the echo of migrants who no longer belong to one place but are now a part of them all.

Authors included in the anthology: Daniel Alarcon, Jon Lee Anderson, Joaquin Botero, Joao Paulo Cuenca, Andre De Leones, Aileen El-Kadi, Gabriela Esquivada, Diego Fonseca, Eduardo Halfon, Yuri Herrera, Hernan Iglesias Illa, Andrea Jeftanovic, Camilo Jimenez, Juan Pablo Meneses, Edmundo Paz Soldan, Claudia Pineiro, Santiago Roncagliolo, Carola Saavedra, Ilan Stavans, Wilbert Torre, Eloy Urroz, and Jorge Volpi.

The article Sam no es mi tío: Stories of Migrants appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

When taking a look at the United States’ history, you learn that it is a country built by immigrants. This cultural mix has brought the country to a point so high that the fathers of the Constitution could have never imagined it. Today, South Americans are the ones going into the so-called ‘Land of Opportunities’, and they are doing so very rapidly.

The latest census data indicated that in 2008, there were around 46.7 million documented Hispanics residing in the U.S., which represents more than 15 percent of the U.S. population. Of this, about 18 million voters are registered to vote. With presidential elections just around the corner and with the growing Hispanic population, it appears that these citizens will play a predominant role in the elections since they constitute such a large number of voters.

In the 2008 elections, over 60 percent of Hispanics voted for Obama, motivated by his promises of immigration reform. Today, many of them feel disappointed and cheated because they think that Obama will not follow through, especially since Democrats lost their hegemony in the House of Representatives. Neither have they forgotten that under a President Obama mandate, there have been more illegal immigrants deported than ever.

However, different surveys indicate that the vast majority of Latinos will vote for President Obama again, not because they are happy with what he has done, but to punish the Republicans, who they accuse of being anti-illegal immigrant. Arizona is one of the “anti-illegal immigrant” bastions. It was there the controversial SB1070 law was approved. This could bring overwhelming Latino support for Obama in Arizona, which could be lethal against Romney’s aspirations.

Romney is not doing much to obtain the support of this part of the electorate. He supports the Arizona law and seems to refuse the Dream Act law. Today, Latinos are nearly 16 percent of the country, and in 2050, they will make up about 30 percent, so Republicans must change their illegal immigration policy if they want more votes.

The first step has been given by the Republican Vice Presidential candidate, Marco Rubio, who has Cuban roots. An immigration bill that he says is a “humanitarian mission” and that he plans to promote is the way to win over an electorate that seems to only trust Obama nowadays .

In every presidential election since 1992, the Republican Party has won about one quarter of the Latino vote, while the Democratic Party has received at least half of the support of this community. The remaining 25 percent is at stake. Who will win the election in 2012?

Image Courtesy of   Natursports / Shutterstock.com

The article The Hispanics’ Role in the U.S. Election appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

The government recently unveiled a new set of rules outlining better care for immigrants and asylum seekers detained while waiting for their deportation hearings.

The guidelines, issued by the Immigration and Customs Enforcement service (ICE), have been assailed by congressional Republicans, who say they amount to coddling illegal immigrants.

The controversy heated up last week in a hearing called “Holiday on ICE,” held by Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, who has referred to the new rules as “a hospitality guideline for illegal immigrants.” He pointed in particular to a new federal facility in Texas that the administration has held up as an example of a less penal approach to non-criminal immigration detainees.

The guards there don’t wear uniforms, and the facility has, as Smith pointed out, a soccer field, volleyball court and cable TV. The $32 million center was built by a private contractor, and ICE claims it will cost less per day to house detainees there than in other facilities.

Smith, as well as the head of the union representing ICE agents, says the new guidelines are too loose on security, and that the government’s focus should be on deporting undocumented immigrants faster. Meanwhile, immigrant rights advocates say detainees who aren’t criminal offenders shouldn’t be treated as such.

So, what are the new guidelines, and what prompted the changes to ICE’s policy?

The government detains about 400,000 illegal immigrants each year. On a given day, roughly 32,000 people are held, about half of them in jails rather than immigrant detention facilities. (PBS’ “Frontline” provides a useful history of changes to U.S. detention policy and an interactive map of ICE detention centers.)

The rules, which are gradually taking effect, are meant to address areas of detention that have long been problematic.

Access to medical care: More than 100 immigrants in detention have died since 2003, many from lack of access to medical care or proper medication. The New York Times reported in 2010 that immigration officials covered up many deaths and that few safeguards for transparency were in place. The new guidelines promise better regular medical care, including mental health and separate standards for women’s health.

Protection against sexual abuse: The American Civil Liberties Union found 185 reported incidents of sexual abuse between 2007 and 2010. Immigration detention centers are not covered by legislation aimed at reducing prison rape, and the new guidelines are supposed to improve supervision of detainees as well as the process for reporting sexual abuse.

Access to family and legal help: Because detainees are spread across hundreds of facilities, often in isolated areas, and frequently transferred, it was difficult for family members or lawyers to remain in close contact with them. A Human Rights Watch report found that 46 percent of detainees were moved at least twice, and 3,600 detainees were transferred 10 times or more.

The new guidelines improve access to bilingual interpreters, and call for better communication with families and legal counsels about transfers. (ICE also issued a directive this year to minimize transfers.) Facilities are “encouraged to provide opportunities for both contact and non-contact visitation.”

Advocates have pointed out that many aspects of new guidelines and the new Texas facility, such as increased freedom of movement and contact visitation, bring the ICE guidelines in line with the standards at many federal correctional facilities, especially low-security ones.

The government plans to build more facilities like the one in Texas, though most detainees will still find themselves housed in less plush environs. Only about 14 percent are expected to be held in new facilities like the one in Texas.

The administration has continued a policy begun under President George W. Bush in which asylum seekers and undocumented immigrants are detained until their court dates. Arrests and deportations have risen steadily since Obama took office.

The administration is billing the rules and new construction as part of a shift in focus away from non-criminal immigrants to catching and deporting criminal immigrants.

by Cora Currier, ProPublica, April 3, 2012, 1:35 p.m.

Image  Courtesy of   CREATISTA / Shutterstock.com

The article The Facts Behind the Government’s New ‘Hospitality’ Guidelines for Immigrant Detainees appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

Rick Perry, the governor of Texas and one of the current GOP presidential candidates, has the most experience when it comes to finding solutions to illegal immigration, border patrol, and drug cartels in Mexico. Drug cartels are a rapidly growing threat to Mexico as a whole and also have the potential to spew over the border into the United States if something is not done, and done soon.

Perry is trying to come up with some solutions to solve the crisis that has not been effectively addressed by Washington. Perry’s potential plan of action to solve the ongoing threat of drug cartels in Mexico was presented in New Hampshire this past week. He stated, “It may require our military in Mexico working in concert with them to kill these drug cartels and to keep them off of our border.”

Although the idea seems sufficient for dealing with crimes in Mexico, the Mexican government has not responded with open arms to the hypothetical idea. Arturo Sarukhan, the Ambassador to Mexico stated, “The matter of the participation or presence of U.S. troops on Mexican soil is not on the table.”

This is not the first time Perry has been faced with concerns involving Mexico. Being along the border, Perry has had his hands full and dug deep into the pockets of the constituents in his state to control illegal immigrants from crossing the border.

Perry has spent more than  $230 million dollars in securing the Texas-Mexico border from his office’s budget, including putting more Texas police on the ground near the border, surveillance cameras, and hiring additional law enforcement. He also believes it is the job of the Federal government, and not the state, to deal with the problem of border patrol.

Another issue facing Perry is how to handle the immigrants that are already in the state of Texas that have successfully crossed the border. One of his policies allows in-state tuition for illegal immigrants, saving them close to $100,000 in schooling over four years. He stated, “In 2001, we had this choice: Are we going to kick these children over to the curb and say you cannot have access to college? Because the fact of the matter is there’s no way they could pay the out-of-state tuition.”

This plan quickly backfired in the most recent debate and several  candidates challenged him on this topic, including Rick Santorum referring to him as “soft” on immigration. Santorum also pointed out  problems with Perry’s stance on illegal immigration in a Newsmax  interview. He concludes that Perry is doing three things wrong in dealing with illegal immigrants.

First he thinks Perry’s opposition to a fence along the border and using  troops on the ground instead to defend the border has been ineffective. Secondly he believes that Perry has promoted incentive programs that attract immigrants to come to the country illegally such as the in-state tuition policy.

Lastly, Santorum thinks Perry isn’t doing enough about illegal immigrants as far as locating and  deporting them. From illegal immigration, border patrol, and drug cartels it seems as if Rick Perry has been faced with them all. Whether other candidates agree with Perry or not, he has probably spent more time and money on the issue than any other candidate running for election in 2012.

He may be the best qualified in providing  solutions regarding these issues.

Image Courtesy of  http://www.flickr.com/photos/gageskidmore/

The article Rick Perry vs The Mexican Border appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

Since the late 2008,when the program Secure Communities initiated,there has been confusion about its enforcement and its interpretations.

Documents containing hundreds of messages, mostly copies of emails sent between officials of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and public relations advisers from early 2009 and the present time,show all the uncertainty and the misunderstanding created by this obscure and vague program.

“I’m totally confused now. I’ve got so many versions of the opt-out language I don’t know what’s current and what’s not. It seems like we have different language for different purposes and it’s confusing. Can we put this on today’s agenda to talk about?”

This is one of the emails,written on June 2010 by a member of the ICE staff who expressed his perplexity on the question,and it is just one of the many collected by the National Day Labourers Organizing Network with the help of the Center for Constitutional Rights and the Cardozo School of Law.

Secure Communities is a program wanted by the Obama administration to enforce the laws of immigration and crime and,by 2013 it should be spread to all local jurisdictions in any states. It consists of a collaboration between the state and the local police. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) databases are put at their disposal to check either the criminal records and the immigration history of those immigrants who are arrested.

Since the program started in 2008 has led to the deportation of about 58.300 immigrants with criminal convictions but, groups of immigrants advocacy opposing to the program say that in reality it has led to the unjust deportation of thousands of illegal immigrants with no criminal records or of people arrested just for minor traffic infractions, tearing established families apart.

According to ICE are 39 the states where Secure Communities is at the present time. Still many states are opposing the enforcement of the program. New Jersey, the state with the nation’s sixth largest immigrant population, is one of those refusing to join it and also supporting the protest against the inefficiency of Secure Communities.

The confusion is mostly related to the fact that it’s not clear whether the program is voluntary or mandatory. Can the local law enforcement agencies opt out of it or not?

Over these years the responses of ICE have been different and conflicting, changing every time. There isn’t any legal and official mandate that indicates the program enforcement is mandatory, but DHS decided in October 2010 that local jurisdictions could not opt out of Secure Communities, giving no clear explanations about the legality of this imposition. Thus the doubts about the constitutionality of making the program mandatory are still strong.

Moreover even at the technical level it is totally confusing how exactly should the criminal identification process work. The FBI databases are shared with the DHS databases now,so apparently there is no way, technically, to limit the ICE’s filtering by the local jurisdiction, even if those refuse to participate to the program.

Highlighting all these problems due to the conflict and the obscurity of the program,the immigration advocates oppose strongly Secure Communities, pointing the question that immigration is a federal problem and any state should enforce specific federal laws and, especially should be free to opt out of the program.

So can a state law so vague and confusing be enforced obligatory by every local jurisdiction?

The article Confusion Over The Immigration Program Secure Communities appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.