Blurry line between immigration and security

Among differing views concerning the subcommittee’s jurisdiction, the House Subcommittee on Border Maritime and Global Counterterrorism met to analyze the current state of security found at the United States’s borders and ports of entry. Multiple witnesses expressed support for Rep. Heath Shuler’s (D-N.C.) Secure America with Verification and Enforcement Act (SAVE Act,) an act that would increase the number of border patrol agents, enlarge specialized enforcement programs, and mandate the Employment Verification Program (E-Verify) among employers.

Members of Congress representing border regions spoke on the security challenges that must be met along the border and at ports of entry. They described border patrols in their districts as underfunded and understaffed while emphasizing the need for a more efficient force to combat illegal immigration and drug trafficking and a program to attract and retain border patrol agents. Rep. Silvestre Reyes (D-Texas) added that agents "only need a basic Chevrolet" along the border, a reference to the inappropriate allocation of funds. Witnesses also promoted E-Verify as a way to deter continued illegal immigration.

The fine line between border security and illegal immigration was highlighted by disagreements pertaining to the jurisdiction of the subcommittee. Rep. Gus Bilirakis (R-Fla.) withdrew a question regarding amnesty for illegal immigrants after Chairwoman Rep. Linda Sanchez (D-Calif.) reminded him that the subcommittee’s focus was security. Ranking member Rep. Mark Souder (R-Ind.) said that a comprehensive solution necessitates discussion on a wide range of topics. Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), a member of the House Judiciary Committee, stated that many of the topics in question are under discussion within the Judiciary Committee and that it is careful not to infringe on the jurisdiction of the Homeland Security Committee.

Work place raids leave children without parents

The Workforce Subcommittee held a hearing this morning on “ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) Workplace Raids: Their impact on U.S. Children, Families, and Communities.” The subcommittee is under the Education and Labor Committee chaired by Congressman George Miller. The witnesses included James Spero, acting Deputy Assistant Director of the Office of Investigations from the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Janet Murguia, president of the National Council of La Raza was on hand in addition to Katherine Gibey, principle of San Pedro Elementary school in Ran Rafael, Ca and Simon Romo, chief counsel to the New Mexico Child Protective Services.

The subcommittee convened as there is growing concern over raids in the workplace which are taking children away from their parents. There are reports of children losing their parents in immigration raids, which is resulting in stress, and in some cases post traumatic stress disorder for the children, let alone the issue of tearing families and communities apart. When incidents like this occur children miss school which is further affecting the education system. 4.7 million children have at least one parent that is in this country illegally, and the issues that these situations are causing for children is becoming an issue that is gaining more and more attention.

Last week the largest immigration raid to ever be conducted took place in Iowa where almost 400 people were taken into custody. From Joe Wilson’s (R-SC) testimony, he states that “an article by the Associated Press reported that “56 were released on humanitarian grounds, typically because their arrest would leave a child with no custodian. A handful were released because of medical conditions.””

Immigration visas going unused while backlogs grows

The Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugee, Border Security, and International Law held a hearing today on “ Wasted Visas, Growing Backlogs.” Chair Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Ca.) said the goal of the hearing was to “examine the consistent failure by our immigration agencies to issue all the family- and employment-based immigrant visas authorized by law each year, despite the ongoing demand for such visas.” With Rep. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. (R-Wis.), former chairman of the Judiciary Committee, she has developed legislation to recapture unused visas and to allow the visas to be used in the future.

Michael Aytes, acting deputy director for the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), said that USCIS has made significant changes to maximize the use of the limited number of visas available, which included enhanced information exchange with the U.S. Department of State (DOS). He said USCIS has adopted a production strategy that “focuses on completing cases where visas are immediately available” which should reduce the inventory of applications for visa categories that exceed the number of visas actually available.

Stephen A. Edson, deputy assistant secretary of state for Visa Service in the DOS, said that the goal of DOS is to come as close as possible to the annual limits of visas, without exceeding the limit. Charles Oppenheim, chief of Visa Control and Reporting Division for DOS, said that the recapture of visas would provide relief for employment-based visas and for reuniting husbands and wives. Aytes said USCIS and DOS have increased their coordination efforts, and that USCIS is using the anticipated dates for priority provided by DOS to process petitions.

Lofgren said that in 2007, the Department of Homeland Security Office of Immigration Statistics observed that legal immigration decreased by 17 percent “due primarily to application processing issues at USCIS.” Aytes said part of this decrease was due to USCIS trying to move out of the backlog process, therefore they were not able to process as many applicants. He clarified that there are two types of backlogs: processing backlogs, and backlogs caused by higher demand for immigration than the limits set by the law allow. He said USCIS is making progress in processing immigrant visas, but there is still a long way to go.

Immigration not to blame for high unemployment among blacks

Immigration moderately impacts the employment of young black men, according to the presentation presented to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. At the Economic Effect of Immigration on Black Workers briefing, Dr. Gordon Hanson, Professor of Economics UCSD, said that in 1960, 75% of black men were unemployed, versus 68% unemployment in the year 2000. The decline is accompanied by a rapid increase in incarceration, and he would expect any increase of immigration to impact blacks more because they have less education.

Dr. Gerald D. Jaynes, Professor of Economics and African-American Studies at Yale University, said that data forced him to conclude that negative effects of immigration on the employment of blacks were mostly absent and modest at worst for only a segment of lowest skilled workers. More so than immigration, having a significant minority of disadvantaged young people persisting in low educational achievement, dropping out of high school, and engaging in criminal activity are likely to blame for low employment rates.

Dr. Vernon Briggs, Emeritus Professor of Labor Economics at Cornell University, disagreed. Immigrants, he said, take low skilled jobs from native born blacks, and an enormous amount of those immigrants are illegal. A major problem is that a high skilled person can take a low skilled job, but it doesn't work the other way around. In competition for employment, illegal immigrants are likely to be hired because they can be paid less.

Overall, there are negative effects on the employment of blacks by immigration, but the effects are not major, Dr. Harry Holzer said, Professor of Public Policy at Georgetown University. People do seem to prefer immigrants to native born blacks, he said, but part of that may be that blacks don't appear to be interested in working certain jobs, such as jobs in agriculture. The solution, he said, has six parts. We must improve education, enhance youth mentoring, improve occupational training, reduce incarceration rates (and the barriers to work faced by ex-offenders), extend the Earned Income Tax Credit to childless adults including non-custodial fathers, and lastly reform child support regulations.

The general consensus in the room was that although immigration does have some impact, lack of education and skills are the main problem causing unemployment in young black men.

Attorney General Michael Mukasey testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee

Chairman Patrick Leahy and the ranking member Arlen Specter presided. Also present were Senators Jon Kyl, Richard Durbin, Diane Feinstein, Joe Biden, Edward Kennedy, Orrin Hatch, Charles Schumer, Charles Grassley, John Sessions, Herb Kohl.

In his opening statement Judiciary Committee Chairman Senator Patrick Leahy said that the state of the Department of Justice has declined to the same state as the “dark days” following Watergate. He angrily emphasized torture, zooming in on waterboarding, “Tragically this administration has so twisted America’s role , law and values that our own State Department, our military officers, and apparently, Americas top law enforcement officer, are now instructed by the White House not to say that waterboarding is torture and illegal.”

Waterboarding and other interrogation techniques took center stage. Most of the first questions from each senator focused on that topic.

In his opening statement ranking member Arlen Specter said that Congress should endeavor to “define the parameters” of waterboarding. Specifically he said that Congress should hold hearings on whether “the CIA should be limited to the Army Field Manual.” He also made a brief reference to the contempt citations Congress is considering for White House Counsel Harriet Myers and Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten.

Mukasey read about a fourth of his opening statement focusing on future appointments of Justice officials and waterboarding. Mukasey said that because waterboarding is not currently authorized for use by the CIA and “may never be authorized,” he felt it was not right to comment on it’s legality until he was faced by concrete facts. In response to a question from Sen. John Sessions, Mukasey said that he is not authorized to speak about incidents that have happened in the past declining to comment on use of waterboarding by CIA agents in the past. He did say that the abuse of prisoners and use of waterboarding is not widespread.

Democratic members, specifically Edward Kennedy scolded Mukasey for refusing to comment on the legality or authorization of waterboarding. He asked bluntly, “would waterboarding be torture if it was done to you?”

Mukasey answered, “I would feel that it was.” And proceeded to deconstruct Kennedy’s reasoning, evading a straight answer. Later on he did say that certain techniques are clearly illegal such as maiming or raping a subject.

Mukasey said the the heinousness, or “shocking the conscience of the American people,” of certain interrogation techniques should be balanced against the value of the information to be gained by interrogation. Senator Joe Biden who had asked the question leading to this answer repeated the phrase “shocking the conscience” saying he had never heard anyone in the Justice Department approach the value of potential torture in that way.

The Department of Justice investigation into the destruction of tapes made of interrogations came up, but only briefly as Mukasey said he should not comment in depth about an ongoing investigation. The committee asked to be updated.

Iowa Senator Charles Grassley brought up a Department of Justice opposition to a Senate bill protecting whistleblowers with security clearance, allowing them to report wrongdoing while keeping classified information secret. Mukasey said that the Senate’s idea ignored a chain of command and left out the president.

Illegal immigration and crime prevention programs also came up. Mukasey said that deportation and prosecution of illegal immigrants depends on the specific challenges faced on the border.