USA Green Card Immigration Blog

James W. Ziglar and Edward Alden: The Real Price of Sealing the Border – WSJ.com.

It took a budget crisis of unprecedented proportions, but the U.S. Congress is finally starting to ask some tough questions about what it’s getting for the billions of dollars that have been spent on securing the borders against illegal entry.

The immigration enforcement budget has more than tripled over the past decade, but only recently have some in Congress finally begun to demand a better accounting of the results. In a series of hearings, both Republicans and Democrats who oversee homeland security have sharply criticized the administration over its failure to state clear objectives and measure the outcomes.

The effort is long overdue. Congress and the administration have never defined “border security,” have never spelled out how much immigration enforcement is “enough,” and have not tried to bring immigration laws into line with the resources available for enforcement and the needs of our economy.

Here’s a place to start. The U.S. government already has a rough idea what it would take to meet all the immigration mandates established by Congress, and the numbers are staggering. In 2002, one of us (Mr. Ziglar) initiated an unprecedented analysis of the massive, inconsistent patchwork of mandates imposed on the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) by Congress. Mr. Ziglar testified publicly on the conclusions of that study before the 9/11 Commission, but its findings have never been widely disseminated.

At the time of the study, total INS funding was approximately $6 billion. The study concluded that, by 2010, the INS budget would need to increase at least seven-fold, to more than $46 billion, to meet congressional mandates.

There was not the slightest chance then, nor is there now, that the U.S. will devote that much money to immigration enforcement. The enforcement budget is now more than $17 billion, and congressional immigration mandates have only increased since 2002. In just one of the key metrics is the government even close to reaching the targets suggested by the study — the number of Border Patrol agents, which is currently just under 21,000, double the level of five years ago.

Realistically, there will be little additional money for immigration enforcement. President Obama’s 2012 budget proposal freezes Department of Homeland Security expenditures. House Republicans, for whom rising deficits apparently pose a bigger threat than illegal immigration, have called for deep cuts to the DHS budget, a proposal that Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano called “an experience in whiplash” after years of large budget increases.

Even if additional funds were somehow appropriated, the notion that current immigration laws could be fully enforced if only we had more money and determination is simply wrong-headed. It is not enough, as Sen. John McCain and some others keep insisting, that the border be “secured” before any other action is taken.

What is needed now is a more serious examination of priorities and trade-offs. The number of illegal crossings on the Mexican border is down at least 70% from its peak in 2000. Is this enough security? If not, how much more is needed, and what is Congress willing to pay for it? In terms of discouraging illegal immigration, how does a dollar in additional Border Patrol spending compare with an extra dollar on workplace enforcement? There has been little good research that would help members of Congress answer that question.

What’s needed is to reform our immigration system so that it doesn’t encourage illegal immigration. This requires reforming the laws on legal immigration rather than just the enforcement components. A realistic, flexible visa program that matched available workers to open jobs in both boom times and bust would reduce much of the pressure on limited enforcement resources at the border and in the workplace.

What about legalizing those here illegally? Using and misusing the loaded term “amnesty,” opponents have shut down consideration of any program that could deal with this question realistically. Such opposition has even blocked the Dream Act, which would have given legal status to about 800,000 children brought to this country by their parents, who few in Congress actually want to see deported.

The Obama administration has been pilloried for focusing on the deportation of illegal immigrants with criminal records rather than indiscriminately hunting down every immigration violator. But a sensible legalization program would bring enforcement resources more in line with reality and restore integrity to the laws by increasing the odds that law-breakers will be identified, apprehended and deported.

Few, if any, government agencies outside the immigration services have been allowed to operate for so long under legal mandates so utterly disconnected from their resources and capabilities.

It’s a good first step that members of Congress have begun sensible discussions over what types of enforcement measures may be most needed, and how much the country should be willing to spend. It’s time for all sides to work together to figure out what measures will yield effective and cost-efficient solutions both to our immigration problem and to our needs for high-skilled and low-skilled labor.

Latest Ariz. immigration bills have tougher path – Yahoo! News.

PHOENIX – Fatigue with the illegal immigration issue could stand in the way of new legislation being considered by Arizona lawmakers, including a sweeping bill championed by the same senator whose law last year prompted nationwide protests.

The many provisions of Senate President Russell Pearce’s latest bill target education and other public services as well as activities ranging from hiring to driving.

Pearce’s late-emerging bill and other proposals sponsored by fellow Republicans cleared a Senate committee dominated by conservatives late Tuesday. But two committee Republicans voted against Pearce’s bill, and a GOP senator who’s not on the committee said Wednesday that full Senate votes on the measures will be close.

Minority Democrats regularly vote against most Republican hard-liners’ illegal immigration bills, “and there are other Republicans besides me that have concerns with them,” said Sen. John McComish of Phoenix. “We need a timeout on immigration bills.”

Pearce drafted his bill Friday and introduced it Monday, past the normal deadline.

“This was a very quick fix (at the) last minute to make sure that we did not ignore the voters of this state,” he said, referring to provisions that would tighten illegal immigration laws approved by voters in the last decade.

However, Alessandra Soler Meetze, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona, said, “This bill is miles beyond SB1070 in terms of its potential to roll back the rights and fundamental freedoms of both citizens and non-citizens alike.”

Opponents also said fallout would damage the state’s economy just as businesses are poised to regain lost ground. Passage of SB1070 last year touched off calls for boycotts and a national debate on whether states can enforce federal immigration laws. Key portions of the law have been put on hold by a court pending outcome of legal challenges.

The Senate Appropriations Committee that narrowly endorsed Pearce’s latest bill on a 7-6 vote also approved others targeting automatic citizenship for U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants and requiring hospitals to report patients who cannot show they’re in the country legally.

The measures now face a legal review and discussions by party caucuses before being considered by the full Senate. Passage would send them to the House.

Two committee Republicans joined four Democrats in voting against Pearce’s bill.

It would make it a state crime with a 30-day minimum jail sentence to drive a vehicle while in the country illegally, and Republican Rick Crandall of Mesa said a provision allowing forfeiture of vehicles driven by illegal immigrants could prompt car rental companies to demand proof of legal status from tourists and other visitors.

“It’s the type of thing that completely undoes” a recently unveiled campaign to promote the state’s tourism industry, Crandall said.

The measure allows for business licenses to be suspended if an employer doesn’t use the federal E-Verify system to check the work eligibility of new hires. Workers caught using a false identity to get a job would face mandatory six-month jail sentences.

It also requires schools to collect information on the legal status of students and report them to law enforcement if their parents don’t provide the necessary documents or the documents appear false.

Public universities and community colleges would be barred from admitting students who cannot demonstrate legal status.

In housing, the bill requires public agencies to verify the immigration status of renters and to evict everyone living in a unit if one is found to be an illegal immigrant. For health care, the bill changes some of the document requirements for the state’s Medicaid program.

The bill turns public officials into immigration officers and “launches an unprecedented attack on minorities and people of color,” said Jaime Farrant of the Border Action Network, an advisory group.

But the Appropriations Committee chairman, Republican Sen. Andy Biggs, said the bill was a response “to economic and social costs that we face with the onslaught of illegal aliens in our state.”

“We need to have the moral courage to deal with this issue when there is a vacuum at the federal level,” he said.

Democrats said Republicans should be focused on the state’s ailing economy, not taking steps that would hurt it.

“This is totally the wrong time for the leader of our Senate to throw our state into another state of chaos,” said Democratic Sen. Paula Aboud of Tucson.

Sponsors of the automatic citizenship bill hope it will prompt a court interpretation on an element of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees citizenship to people born in the country and who are “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S.

Bill proponents said the amendment shouldn’t apply to the children of illegal immigrants because such families don’t owe sole allegiance to the U.S.

The committee also approved an accompanying proposal that would establish an interstate compact that defines who is a U.S. citizen and asks states to issue separate birth certificates for those who are citizens and those who are designated as not citizens.

Similar proposals defining who would get automatic citizenship have been introduced in Indiana, Mississippi, Texas, Oklahoma and South Dakota. Backers expect another dozen states will take up the issue this year.

The other bill originally barred nonemergency treatment without proof of legal status but was amended to only require hospitals to report patients who lack valid health insurance and who cannot show they’re in the country legally.

Supporters said it still would help reduce health care costs and burdens on taxpayers. Critics said it could deter some people from seeking needed care.

An analysis of a 2009 census data shows that there has been a sharp decline in the number of illegal immigrants who have been attempting to cross the southern border of the U.S, especially Caribbean, Central America, and South America. The estimated number of illegal immigrants deported by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement has reached a peak of more than 389,000 people last year.

The two major reasons that have caused the decrease in the number of illegal immigrants living in the U.S. are the sour economy and increased law enforcements across the border with Mexico.

Arizona’s new immigration law is considered as the toughest anti-immigration in the country. According to the new immigration law of Arizona, the state officials can question the status of any immigrant under ‘reasonable suspicion.’ There is bitter debate over Arizona’s strict new immigration law and it has now been challenged in federal court.

It has been estimated that the number of illegal immigrants who lived in the U.S. in 2007 was around 12 million and decreased to 11.1 million in 2009. However, according to the Department of Homeland Security, the total number of illegal immigrants is estimated at 10.8 million. The discrepancy in the numbers is due to the fact that the government uses a different method for census survey. On the whole, the number of illegal immigrants in the US now constitutes roughly around 4 percent of the American population, the same as it was in 2005.

From 2008 to 2009, the states that saw the biggest decline include Florida, Virginia, and Nevada. The State of Arizona also saw a decline in the number of illegal immigrants, but the figure was relatively small when compared to other states in the Southeast. To know more about the laws of the U.S government, visit usa-green-card.com. They have a professional team to help applicants process their applications in a fast and efficient way.

Prison Economics Help Drive Ariz. Immigration Law : NPR.

October 28, 2010

Last year, two men showed up in Benson, Ariz., a small desert town 60 miles from the Mexico border, offering a deal.

Glenn Nichols, the Benson city manager, remembers the pitch.

“The gentleman that’s the main thrust of this thing has a huge turquoise ring on his finger,” Nichols said. “He’s a great big huge guy and I equated him to a car salesman.”

What he was selling was a prison for women and children who were illegal immigrants.

“They talk [about] how positive this was going to be for the community,” Nichols said, “the amount of money that we would realize from each prisoner on a daily rate.”

But Nichols wasn’t buying. He asked them how would they possibly keep a prison full for years — decades even — with illegal immigrants?

Laura Sullivan/NPRGlenn Nichols, city manager of Benson, Ariz., says two men came to the city last year “talking about building a facility to hold women and children that were illegals.”

“They talked like they didn’t have any doubt they could fill it,” Nichols said.

That’s because prison companies like this one had a plan — a new business model to lock up illegal immigrants. And the plan became Arizona’s immigration law.

Behind-The-Scenes Effort To Draft, Pass The Law

The law is being challenged in the courts. But if it’s upheld, it requires police to lock up anyone they stop who cannot show proof they entered the country legally.

When it was passed in April, it ignited a fire storm. Protesters chanted about racial profiling. Businesses threatened to boycott the state.

Supporters were equally passionate, calling it a bold positive step to curb illegal immigration.

But while the debate raged, few people were aware of how the law came about.

NPR spent the past several months analyzing hundreds of pages of campaign finance reports, lobbying documents and corporate records. What they show is a quiet, behind-the-scenes effort to help draft and pass Arizona Senate Bill 1070 by an industry that stands to benefit from it: the private prison industry.

The law could send hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants to prison in a way never done before. And it could mean hundreds of millions of dollars in profits to private prison companies responsible for housing them.

Arizona state Sen. Russell Pearce says the bill was his idea. He says it’s not about prisons. It’s about what’s best for the country.

“Enough is enough,” Pearce said in his office, sitting under a banner reading “Let Freedom Reign.” “People need to focus on the cost of not enforcing our laws and securing our border. It is the Trojan horse destroying our country and a republic cannot survive as a lawless nation.”

But instead of taking his idea to the Arizona statehouse floor, Pearce first took it to a hotel conference room.

Enlarge Joshua Lott/Getty ImagesArizona state Sen. Russell Pearce, pictured here at Tea Party rally on Oct. 22, was instrumental in drafting the state’s immigration law. He also sits on a American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) task force, a group that helped shape the law.

Joshua Lott/Getty Images

Arizona state Sen. Russell Pearce, pictured here at Tea Party rally on Oct. 22, was instrumental in drafting the state’s immigration law. He also sits on a American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) task force, a group that helped shape the law.

It was last December at the Grand Hyatt in Washington, D.C. Inside, there was a meeting of a secretive group called the American Legislative Exchange Council. Insiders call it ALEC.

It’s a membership organization of state legislators and powerful corporations and associations, such as the tobacco company Reynolds American Inc., ExxonMobil and the National Rifle Association. Another member is the billion-dollar Corrections Corporation of America — the largest private prison company in the country.

It was there that Pearce’s idea took shape.

“I did a presentation,” Pearce said. “I went through the facts. I went through the impacts and they said, ‘Yeah.’”

Drafting The Bill

The 50 or so people in the room included officials of the Corrections Corporation of America, according to two sources who were there.

Pearce and the Corrections Corporation of America have been coming to these meetings for years. Both have seats on one of several of ALEC’s boards.

Key Players That Helped Draft Arizona’s Immigration Law

Source: NPR News Investigations

Credit: Stephanie D’Otreppe/NPR

And this bill was an important one for the company. According to Corrections Corporation of America reports reviewed by NPR, executives believe immigrant detention is their next big market. Last year, they wrote that they expect to bring in “a significant portion of our revenues” from Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the agency that detains illegal immigrants.

In the conference room, the group decided they would turn the immigration idea into a model bill. They discussed and debated language. Then, they voted on it.

“There were no ‘no’ votes,” Pearce said. “I never had one person speak up in objection to this model legislation.”

Four months later, that model legislation became, almost word for word, Arizona’s immigration law.

They even named it. They called it the “Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act.”

“ALEC is the conservative, free-market orientated, limited-government group,” said Michael Hough, who was staff director of the meeting.

Hough works for ALEC, but he’s also running for state delegate in Maryland, and if elected says he plans to support a similar bill to Arizona’s law.

Asked if the private companies usually get to write model bills for the legislators, Hough said, “Yeah, that’s the way it’s set up. It’s a public-private partnership. We believe both sides, businesses and lawmakers should be at the same table, together.”

Nothing about this is illegal. Pearce’s immigration plan became a prospective bill and Pearce took it home to Arizona.

Campaign Donations

Pearce said he is not concerned that it could appear private prison companies have an opportunity to lobby for legislation at the ALEC meetings.

“I don’t go there to meet with them,” he said. “I go there to meet with other legislators.”

Pearce may go there to meet with other legislators, but 200 private companies pay tens of thousands of dollars to meet with legislators like him.

As soon as Pearce’s bill hit the Arizona statehouse floor in January, there were signs of ALEC’s influence. Thirty-six co-sponsors jumped on, a number almost unheard of in the capitol.  According to records obtained by NPR, two-thirds of them either went to that December meeting or are ALEC members.

That same week, the Corrections Corporation of America hired a powerful new lobbyist to work the capitol.

The prison company declined requests for an interview. In a statement, a spokesman said the Corrections Corporation of America, “unequivocally has not at any time lobbied — nor have we had any outside consultants lobby – on immigration law.”

At the state Capitol, campaign donations started to appear.

Thirty of the 36 co-sponsors received donations over the next six months, from prison lobbyists or prison companies — Corrections Corporation of America, Management and Training Corporation and The Geo Group.

By April, the bill was on Gov. Jan Brewer’s desk.

Brewer has her own connections to private prison companies. State lobbying records show two of her top advisers — her spokesman Paul Senseman and her campaign manager Chuck Coughlin — are former lobbyists for private prison companies. Brewer signed the bill — with the name of the legislation Pearce, the Corrections Corporation of America and the others in the Hyatt conference room came up with — in four days.

Brewer and her spokesman did not respond to requests for comment.

In May, The Geo Group had a conference call with investors. When asked about the bill, company executives made light of it, asking, “Did they have some legislation on immigration?”

After company officials laughed, the company’s president, Wayne Calabrese, cut in.

“This is Wayne,” he said. “I can only believe the opportunities at the federal level are going to continue apace as a result of what’s happening. Those people coming across the border and getting caught are going to have to be detained and that for me, at least I think, there’s going to be enhanced opportunities for what we do.”

Opportunities that prison companies helped create.

Produced by NPR’s Anne Hawke.

Cut deportation business ties, protesters tell Mayor Bloomberg.

Immigration Reform: The Newest Wrinkle in Immigration Reform | U.S. Financial Post.

Texans are trying to redefine language in the US Constitution in an odd twist on immigration reform. Texas state Rep. Leo Berman is seeking to introduce a bill calling for his state to discontinue granting automatic citizenship to US born children of illegal immigrants. At a time when immigrant reform is leaning toward making it easier for illegal immigrants to obtain benefits, employment, and citizenship, this bill is striking out directly at the guarantees of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution.

Lawsuits on the Horizon

It appears that the entire purpose of the bill is to cause a lawsuit. Rep. Leo Berman is hoping in his best case scenario that passing of such a bill will lead to the state of Texas being sued. “If that bill passes, we will be sued immediately. That’s the purpose of the bill,” he said. The reasoning behind this is echoed by a number of lawmakers around the country who seek to redefine how birth certificates are issued and to whom they are issued. If the bill passes the intended outcome is for a lawsuit to reach the Supreme Court and hopefully challenge the current interpretation of the 14th Amendment, as there are no rulings affirming the 14th Amendments current interpretation.

Anchor Babies

The controversy around this proposed bill has generated the rather unappealing term, “anchor babies”. It’s believed that a number of illegal immigrants will try to use their US born children in an effort to gain citizenship for themselves. There is little evidence to support that this occurs on a large scale and most economists will attribute immigration levels to employment opportunities rather than the hope of citizenship, which makes the whole issue more political rhetoric designed to steer thinking.

A Bad Bet

Overall this appears to be a waste of time and resources. Even though the GOP would like to challenge the 14th Amendment in the Supreme Court, most legal scholars seem to agree that the language of the 14th Amendment is very clear. Anyone born in the United States is automatically a citizen.

The issuance of new birth certificates for those U.S. citizens who were born in Puerto Rico has been initiated by the Vital Statistics Office of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico as of July 1, 2010. These certified birth certificates are being issued due to a new Puerto Rico birth certificate law that has been put forth. Those Puerto Rico birth certificates that have been certified before July 1, 2010 will not be valid after Oct. 30, 2010. Except for the validity of the Puerto Rico birth certificates, the new law does not have any impact on the U.S. citizenship status of those born in Puerto Rico.

Impact on the Form I-9 process

• Until Oct. 30, 2010, USCIS will accept all certified copies of Puerto Rico birth certificates from new employees for the processing of Form I-9. Commencing Oct. 31, 2010, during the Employment Eligibility Verification, employers are obliged to check the date in the certified copy of employees’ birth certificate to verify if it is still valid.

• Those certified copies of employees’ birth certificate that have already been verified by the employer for the processing of Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification before Oct. 31, 2010 need not be re-verified.

• Employers who are honored with a federal contract consisting of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) E-Verify clause are required to follow certain special Form I-9 rules when the existing employees are verified. When the Form I-9 for the existing employees is updated, the employee should not be demanded for a certified copy of birth certificate that was issued on or after July 1, 2010.

According to the existing federal law, employers are not allowed to keep the original certified copies of the employee’s birth certificates for the Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification processing. Employers can only have the photocopies of those birth certificates. In case, employers choose to keep the photocopies of the documents, then they should carry out the process for all irrespective of their national origin or citizenship status.

Deportations Hit Record Level – WSJ.com.

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said the U.S. deported a record 392,862 illegal immigrants and arrested more of their employers this past year than ever before.

Nearly half, 190,000, of those removed by the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency in the fiscal year ended Sept. 30 had criminal records. That figure is 70% higher than the number of people with records deported in the fiscal year ended Sept. 30, 2008, Ms. Napolitano told a news conference Wednesday.

She said the administration of President Barack Obama has purposely targeted illegal immigrants who have been convicted of offenses in the U.S. Those crimes range from murder and sexual assault to misdemeanors, such as minor drug offenses and disorderly conduct.

The White House has also stepped up punishment of those who employ illegal workers. In fiscal 2010, the department scrutinized the employment records of more than 2,200 companies, up from 1,400 the previous year, Ms. Napolitano said.

In the past year, the department criminally charged a record 180 owners, employers and managers, compared with 114 in 2009. Since January 2009, it has imposed about $50 million in fines on businesses that employed illegal immigrants.

Last month, for instance, clothing retailer Abercrombie & Fitch agreed to pay $1.04 million to settle charges that the company had deficiencies in its employee-verification system.

“ICE has increased the audit and prosecution of employers who repeatedly and egregiously hire illegal workers,” Ms. Napolitano said.

About 11 million illegal immigrants reside in the U.S., according to Department of Homeland Security estimates.

The Obama administration is under pressure to show it is tough on illegal immigration as candidates for Congress and local office from Nebraska to California focus on the issue ahead of the Nov. 2 midterm election.

The White House also faces Hispanic voters frustrated with stepped-up enforcement and scant progress towards an immigration overhaul that would give illegal immigrants a path towards citizenship. Critics of the program say it wastes resources by arresting minor offenders.

Julie Myers, chief of Immigration and Customs Enforcement during the Bush Administration between 2006 and 2008, commended the stepped up enforcement but said much of the department’s focus has been on small employers. “To make the program overall more effective the way they are seeking, ICE is going to have to bring substantial cases against large employers, as well,” she said.

Ms. Napolitano credited a fast-expanding enforcement program begun in 2008, dubbed Secure Communities, for the steep increase in the deportations. Under the program, law-enforcement officials check the immigration status and the fingerprints of prisoners against national databases. More than 650 localities across the U.S. now participate in the program. The department said it was on track to expand the program to all law-enforcement jurisdictions nationwide by 2013.

Immigrant advocates attribute the surge in deportations to the agency’s apprehension of foreigners who did not commit any crime other than entering the U.S. legally and overstaying their visas. The department has rejected that assertion.

Inclusion of Social Issues in Defense Bill Draws Fire – WSJ.com.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) is attempting to make the DREAM Act a reality through amendment of the current defense-authorization bill in the US Senate.  It would allow some children of illegal immigrants to obtain legal status in the United States if they meet certain conditions:

By NAFTALI BENDAVID

Senators are bracing for a heated fight next week over the $726 billion defense-spending bill, as the inclusion of social issues from gay rights to immigration threatens to upend the traditional debate on counter-insurgency efforts and weapons systems.

“We should choose common sense over discrimination,” he said. “We’re going to match our policy with our principles and finally say that in our country everyone who steps up to serve our country should be welcomed.”

The defense-authorization bill includes a provision to repeal the ban on gay men and lesbians serving openly in the military, and an amendment is set to be introduced that would allow some children of illegal immigrants to obtain legal status if they enlist.

Sen. John McCain (R., Ariz.), the top Republican on the Armed Services Committee, criticized Democrats for introducing social issues into a national-security debate. Mr. McCain noted that the bill repeals the prohibition on performing abortions in Defense Department hospitals (no government funds could be used), and that Democrats may offer an amendment ending the practice of secret “holds” on legislation in the Senate.

Democrats countered that defense-spending measures, like other proposed legislation, routinely include provisions or amendments that aren’t directly related to the underlying bills.

The amendments are “totally unrelated to national defense,” Mr. McCain said on the Senate floor Thursday, echoing the sentiments of others in his caucus.

Senate leaders say some of the hot-button topics will be debated next week, but other provisions will be considered after the November election. “This is a transparent attempt to win an election—that’s what this is all about,” Mr. McCain said.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) rejected Mr. McCain’s criticism.

He cited the immigration amendment, which he introduced and which is aimed at people who were brought into the country illegally at age 15 or younger, have lived in the U.S. for five years and graduated high school.

If they attend college or join the military for two years, they could obtain legal status under the bill, known as the DREAM Act.

Mr. Reid said the bill is connected to national defense because it would encourage talented Hispanics to join the armed forces. “We need these young men and women to join our military,” Mr. Reid said. “We want them to.”

“We need these young men and women to join our military,” Mr. Reid said. “We want them to.”

In a meeting with a three Hispanic lawmakers Thursday, President Barack Obama endorsed the effort. A White House press statement on the meeting said:”The President noted that it is time to stop punishing innocent young people for the actions of their parents.”

Mr. Reid faces a re-election battle in a state where Hispanic voters are an important part of the electorate, and has been engaged in an ongoing immigration debate with Republican opponent Sharron Angle.

The battle over the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” law, which allows the military to expel service members who are openly gay, will be joined in earnest next week, but the debate already has begun.

The bill repeals the law, but only if the president, defense secretary and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff certify that they have considered a Pentagon report on the subject, that the Pentagon is prepared to implement the repeal and that revoking the law won’t hurt military capabilities.

Because the repeal is embedded in the defense bill, opponents likely would need 60 Senate votes to strike it. The House already has passed a version of the bill that includes the repeal.

Mr. McCain said he opposes repeal before the Pentagon has completed work on a survey on the issue of service members, who were asked to respond by Aug. 15.

“It is a blatant message of disrespect to our men and women in uniform,” he said.

Mr. Reid, who supports the repeal, framed the issue as a question of prejudice.

Week in review: Immigration 9/6-9/12 | Center for Investigative Reporting.

The Obama administration is changing the government’s strategy in enforcing immigration laws while repealing birthright citizenship would expand the population of illegal immigrants, who, depending on how you look at it, may or may not be a burden on taxpayers.

USA Today published a Pro Publica round-up report that enumerated how U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement has shifted policies in who the agency targets for deportation, which in turn has reduced the threat of deportation for millions of illegal immigrants.

Meanwhile, the number of removals this year lags slightly behind last year’s figures through 11 months, despite reports that the Obama administration is deporting more illegal immigrants than ever.

Whoever is in the Oval Office in 2050 would have considerably more unauthorized immigrants — at least 5 million — to deport if birthright citizenship is repealed, according to a report by the nonpartisan Migration Policy Institute, a Washington think tank.

“The unauthorized population would rise to 24 million in 2050 under a scenario in which citizenship would be denied to U.S.-born children with one unauthorized immigrant parent, even if the other parent were a citizen,” the report states. Illegal immigration is currently at the lowest it’s been in decades.

But would that be a drag on taxpayers, or a benefit? Depends on how you look at it, Edward Schumacher-Matos, a Washington Post columnist, wrote in the Post:

The truth is that unauthorized immigrants are probably a net burden on taxpayers in the short term, but only if you consider education as a cost and not as an investment in the nation’s future, as it was seen a century ago.

So, how does Congress view illegal immigrants who aspire to attend college? We may find out before November, as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid “intends to move the DREAM Act” before mid-term elections. The proposed legislation, which has been floating around Congress for the better part of a decade, would pave the way toward legal resident status — and possibly citizenship — for young illegal immigrants if they meet certain requirements.

For cities and towns who believe illegal immigrants are a drag on society — and aim to deter them from taking jobs or renting housing in their communities — passing laws with that in mind are not constitutional, a federal appeals court ruled.

The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling, which struck down ordinances adopted by the City of Hazelton, Pa. that also served as models for like-minded towns and states around the country, “is the broadest statement by a court to date on the vexing question of how much authority states and towns have to act on immigration matters that are normally the purview of the federal government,” The New York Times reported.

Despite a down economy and deterrents such as the Hazelton ordinances and other enforcement efforts, the push/pull of illegal immigration persists. Immigration agents in Riverside found 37 smuggled aliens from six countries jammed inside a tiny bedroom where some claim they had been held for weeks, according to an ICE press release. Six job recruiters were indicted for forcing 400 laborers from Thailand to work after luring them to the United States in what the FBI called the largest human-trafficking case in U.S. history, The Associated Press reported.

It’s not just allegedly greedy businesses that are breaking the law. The Los Angeles Times and Washington Post both had stories about misconduct and corruption among Border Patrol agents and customs inspectors.

The Border Patrol is “grappling with a spate of misconduct cases in its ranks, which have expanded from 4,000 agents in the early 1990s to 21,000 today,” the Times reported while the number of Customs and Border Protection “corruption investigations opened by the inspector general climbed from 245 in 2006 to more than 770 this year,” according to the Post.

Corruption cases at its sister agency, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, rose from 66 to more than 220 over the same period. The vast majority of corruption cases involve illegal trafficking of drugs, guns, weapons and cash across the Southwest border.

But, as the Whittier Daily News reported, some agents are allegedly stealing from the government — and taxpayers — too.

Two former Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents were arrested Friday on charges stemming from allegations they falsely claimed nearly $600,000 worth of work hours.