Category:

Barack Be Nimble: Go BIG and BOLD on Comprehensive Immigration Reform

11/11/2012

Angelo Paparelli, ABIL Immediate Past President
Nation of Immigrators

The caramelizing of the American electorate manifested itself last Tuesday in sweet, polychromatic splendor. Clearly, American voters -- especially the youth vote, and ethnic communities of Hispanic and Asian-Pacific origin -- chose "leaders who are likely to welcome rather than reject our nation's courageous and deserving immigrants." With the elasticity of a yoga master, former CIR stalwarts in the Senate, who had later pivoted to the Tea-Party right to survive reelection, including Orrin Hatch (who's "willing to listen" on CIR), Lindsay Graham (who wants the poison pill of Birthright Citizenship added to CIR) and John McCain (who has moved from "complete the danged fence" to "support[ing]" CIR), are now bowing in "downward dog" to the popular will.

Sensing the prospect of irrelevance (an "angry white guy" problem) and perhaps extinction, much like the Beach Boys, whose fans -- according to Bill Maher -- "are dying" out, Republicans now are bending quite flexibly in an their about-face "evolution" on comprehensive immigration reform (CIR), including support for a path to citizenship, even if dubbed "amnesty."

Post-election discussions of strategy among family- and employment-based immigration stakeholders have ranged from the taking of baby steps in the lame duck session to more fundamental reforms in the next Congressional term. Although in a different political environment I've recognized the CIR-piecemeal approach of politics as the art of the possible ("Timing is Everything for Hungry Immigration Reformers"), I think the country has shifted tectonically in its embrace of CIR, as confirmed by exit polls revealing a 65% preference among all voters for granting unauthorized immigrant workers "a chance at legal status."

Like Lyndon Johnson upon his unforeseen ascent to the highest office in the land, the timing is perfect for President Obama to seize the moment and go BIG and go BOLD on CIR, as I suggest in my post-election interview on LXBN.TV, available in the 12-minute uncut version here, and in the summary version at this link and the video below:

In forthcoming blog posts, I'll drill down with specific suggestions to improve the immigration system, to make it more fair and welcoming, to reverse the brain drain and instead to serve as a multi-trillion-dollar stimulus. I'll also discuss strategy by -- among other approaches -- using GOP talking points to gain consensus on massive skill-based immigration quota increases.

As with the Fiscal Cliff and the imminent increase of revenue (through elimination of the Bush tax cuts) and the automatic spending cuts (demanded by Sequestration), so too with immigration. President Obama holds the upper hand, and Republicans can be made to stand tall like a skier in Dancer's Pose or to fall in the new American yoga of immigration reform. His Administration's exercise of executive power through DACA -- a cost-free contribution to his reelection -- is but one of many examples of "pen-stroking" actions he can take to change the system, preferably with, but if necessary, without, Congressional cooperation on legislation.

0 Comments

Will Immigration Electrify the Presidential Debates?

9/26/2012

0 Comments

Angelo Paparelli, ABIL Immediate Past President
Nation of Immigrators

Immigration has been dubbed the third rail of American politics, along with Social Security, Medicare, gun control, and a variety of other hot-button issues. To me, it's more like a downed power line snaking low across the ground and electrocuting whomever fails to give it respectful attention. As the eyes of the nation turn to the first Presidential debate this Wednesday, will immigration supercharge the colloquy or -- as in years past -- be wholly ignored or disregarded as annoying static electricity? Will Candidate Romney repeat his offensively tone-deaf line, "I'm running for office, for Pete's sake, I can't have illegals"?

Will President Obama be asked to explain why he waited so long, all along claiming a lack of authority to use his executive power to ameliorate immigration hardships, and then reversed course in the campaign's end-game as a seemingly craven political ploy to curry Latino votes?

No one knows what Jim Lehrer, debate moderator emeritus, will ask in the first debate? A petition is circulating that implores him to "include immigration reform in the domestic policy debate."

Certainly there are many menu items in the candidates' recent campaign pratfalls, the parties' respective platforms and their Congressional antics that offer delectable interrogatory opportunities, as I suggest in these posts ("The Immigration Week That Was," "The GOP Position: Immigration under Glass," "The Democrats' Immigration Position: Better But Blemished," and "Immigration Buffets and Buffeting in Congress"), and in my recent LXBN interview:

While pundits handicap debate strategies, I offer a few more immigration questions for Mr. Lehrer to pose:

Governor Romney, do you think the federal government should tax employers $10,000 for each H-1B worker they sponsor?
President Obama, why should the American people believe your recent pledge to tackle immigration reform right away in your second term when you failed to honor the same commitment in your first term?
Governor Romney, your immigration advisor, Kris Kobach, has supported laws which reportedly have caused economic harm to states and localities adopting them. What immigration measures would you adopt to spur their economies?
President Obama, your Secretary of Homeland Security has instructed Immigration and Customs Enforcement to treat LGBT couples as "family relationships" in removal proceedings, and your Justice Department no longer defends the Defense of Marriage Act. Will you issue a regulation or executive order in your second term that authorizes the approval of same-sex, marriage-based immigrant visa petitions?
Governor Romney, the Mexican Government has accepted an American labor union claim that Alabama's anti-immigrant law (HB 56) violates a U.S./Mexico trade agreement. How will a Romney Administration respond?
President Obama, why are 31-year-old and older DREAMers ineligible to file for DACA benefits?

Whatever the outcome of the debates and the November election, maybe all this electrifying talk about immigration is simply the wrong metaphor. Americans seem far less troubled about immigration, according to a recent report from the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press:

Immigration is . . . less of a focus in 2012. In [our] new survey, 41% view the issue of immigration as very important – the lowest of 12 issues tested – compared with 52% in August 2008.

Maybe the best debate questions should therefore be posed to each of them:

What specific actions will you take to cattle-prod Congress into enacting comprehensive immigration reform?
Why won't you lead us, by solving, once and for all, our immigration challenges?

0 Comments

The Immigration Week That Was

9/23/2012

0 Comments

Angelo Paparelli, ABIL Immediate Past President
Nation of Immigrators

Youthful fans of Saturday Night Live may be forgiven for assuming, however mistakenly, that SNL invented satirical television comedy. The patent for this invention probably ought to go instead to other earlier contenders, Jack Paar, Sid Caesar, Imogene Coco or Steve Allen. While I love these past and present paragons of humor, I'll never forget the laughs my Dad and I shared watching an earlier NBC show, a precursor to SNL, the short-lived political revue, That Was the Week That Was.

TW3, as it was known, an émigré from the BBC, hosted in the U.K. and the U.S. by David Frost, ran here only for two seasons, from 1964 to 1965 -- but a hilarious two years they were. The format for the show was simple: Take the news of the past week and turn it into song-and-dance sketches reeking with ridicule, irony, satire and scorn. With ballads by piano-thumping political troubadour, Tom Lehrer, TW3 featured timeless classics like "National Brotherhood Week" (enjoy the audio here, and the lyrics here).

That Was the Week That Was came reverberatingly to mind with the news of the last seven days.

The week began with the airing of a surreptitiously recorded video of presidential candidate Mitt Romney wishing out loud to an audience of wealthy contributors that, if his dad, George, the late Michigan governor, had not been born in Mexico of an American mother and father but instead of "Mexican parents, I'd have a better shot at winning this. I mean, I say that jokingly, but it would be helpful to be Latino." As the week proceeded, his campaign staff had to walk back Romney's claim that he'd never met anti-immigrant lawyer and father of AZ's SB1070, Kris Kobach (according to CNN, "Romney and Kobach have, in fact, met before at campaign events — but not in formal policy meetings”). The week ended with the resolution of a controversy stirred up by Stephen Colbert suggesting that the candidate had applied tanning spray before his appearance on Univision as a pander to its Latino viewers. The truth is that Romney's Ricardo Montalban look, as Univision has confirmed, came at the heavy hand of the network's make-up artist who daubed on too much "MAC Studio Fix powder and foundation."

President Obama likewise had his turn on the Univision hot seat, admitting (duh!) that his biggest failure was failing to pass comprehensive immigration reform, and splitting hairs with the moderators over whether he had promised or not promised to do so (or merely try) in his first year in office or first term.

Another laughable moment came when the White House issued a statement and the State Department a video claiming how much easier than perceived it now is to visit America. Yes, they are right that more consular resources, enhanced customer service training and better queuing at ports of entry, among other measures, will improve the inbound traveler's experience. But nothing will fundamentally create better first impressions until minimal standards of fairness are established for consular visa interviews and CBP interrogations. Yet another Administration official, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, surprised many with the risible observation that immigration hasn't been much of “a linchpin, red hot issue" in the presidential campaign. Tell that to the 10 million Hispanic-Americans whose votes may be suppressed this year.

Congress too contributed to the week's fatuous merriment with the "BRAIN-STEM" follies. Senator Schumer proposed a new BRAINS act which would allow a smart foreigner with family members to enter every time we deport an equivalent number of permanent residents. In the other chamber, House partisans bickered and failed to pass a green-cards-for-STEM-students bill that failed -- as Bill Clinton might say -- over "arithmetic." Republicans wanted to eliminate 55,000 Diversity-Lottery visas to provide the immigrant-visa currency for the additional Science, Technology, Engineering and Math graduates from U.S. universities who would receive green cards, while the Democrats wanted to add, not subtract, green-card quota numbers for additional STEM graduates.

On the international front, an Italian court affirmed criminal convictions in absentia of 22 Americans (allegedly CIA operatives) by tossing a creamy tiramisu (a confection translated as "lift me up") at a Bush-era immigration policy known as rendition -- the act of removing (airlifting?) individuals from one country and forcibly immigrating them to another where they are likely to be tortured. In other judicial news, a federal judge in Arizona lifted an injunction on the surviving piece of SB1070, known as the "show me your papers" provision, which many fear will play out as a "driving or walking while Hispanic" basis for arrest and removal.

The week's levity aside, some important and serious things happened as well:

600 city and county government agencies in Georgia reportedly face penalties for failing to comply with the state's mandatory E-Verify enrollment law, an analogue to the Arizona statute upheld last term by the Supreme Court.
Reports like this one, entitled "Time to reject false choices and fears about immigration: Basic freedom of movement across borders is fundamental to human dignity," added to the body of work showing that economic prosperity and human rights can be married successfully by revising outdated immigration laws.
The pejorative, "illegal immigrant," continued to be lambasted by such courageous DREAMers as Jose Antonio Vargas and others as a grammatically and legally incorrect term meant to demean and demonize a population.
Rinku Sen of Colorlines wrote a must-read piece entitled, "Immigrants Are Losing the Policy Fight. But That’s Beside the Point," emphasizing the importance of real-world stories on immigrants and immigration as the best way to win over American hearts and minds.
R. Blake Chisam issued a report through the National Foundation for American Policy, "DOL Threatens Personal and Commercial Privacy in Proposal Directed Against Skilled Foreign Nationals" -- ironically, the very same H-1B workers entitled to DOL's statutorily mandated labor protections.
Both presidential candidates pledged, if elected, to fight for comprehensive immigration reform.

Thinking back to TW3, I am reminded that the polarization and class warfare we see today likewise existed in '64 and '65, as acerbic songster Tom Lehrer croons in his timeless ditty, "National Brotherhood Week":

Oh, the poor folks hate the rich folks,

And the rich folks hate the poor folks.

All of my folks hate all of your folks,

It's American as apple pie.

0 Comments

The Obama Dream Program - What Is It Really?

6/15/2012

0 Comments

Charles Kuck, ABIL President
Musings on Immigration, en español

President Obama announced a significant change in its previously announced prosecutorial discretion program. Effective immediately (although without a process to use yet), any person who meets the following criteria can be considered for an exercise of prosecutorial discretion, can live free of the fear of deportation, can get a work permit:

came to the United States under the age of sixteen;
has continuously resided in the United States for a least five years preceding June 15, 2012, and is present in the United States on June 15, 2012;
is currently in school, has graduated from high school, has obtained a general education development certificate, or is an honorably discharged veteran of the Coast Guard or Armed Forces of the United States;
has not been convicted of a felony offense, a significant misdemeanor offense, multiple misdemeanor offenses, or otherwise poses a threat to national security or public safety; and
is not above the age of thirty.

Here is the really important part: No individual should receive deferred action under this policy unless they first pass a background check and requests for relief pursuant to this memorandum are to be decided on a case by case basis. DHS cannot provide any assurance that relief will be granted in all cases. That means that if you apply and are denied, you can be placed in removal proceedings, OR if a new President comes in and decides to change the policy, you can be put into removal proceedings.

How Will People Apply?

The Secretary of Homeland Security has ordered Immigration and Customes Enforcement (ICE), U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to do the following for the following types of people:

1. With respect to individuals who meet the above criteria, ICE and CBP should immediately exercise their discretion, on an individual basis, in order to prevent low priority individuals from being placed into removal proceedings or removed from the United States.

USCIS is instructed to implement this memorandum consistent with its existing guidanceregarding the issuance of notices to appear.

This means that there is NOTHING to apply for today. This will likely take, at least for USCIS at least 60 days to put into effect. Do NOT trust Notarios, and understand there is nothing to file now.

2. With respect to individuals who are in removal proceedings but not yet subject to a final order of removal, and who meet the above criteria:

ICE should exercise prosecutorial discretion, on an individual basis, for individuals who meet the above criteria by deferring action for a period of two years, subject to renewal,in order to prevent low priority individuals from being removed from the United States.
ICE is instructed to use its Office of the Public Advocate to permit individuals who believe they meet the above criteria to identify themselves through a clear and efficient process.
ICE is directed to begin implementing this process within 60 days of the date of this memorandum.
ICE is also instructed to immediately begin the process of deferring action against individuals who meet the above criteria whose cases have already been identified through the ongoing review of pending cases before the Executive Office for Immigration Review.

3. With respect to the individuals who are not currently in removal proceedings and meet the above criteria, and pass a background check:

USCIS should establish a clear and efficient process for exercising prosecutorialdiscretion, on an individual basis, by deferring action against individuals who meet the above criteria and are at least 15 years old, for a period of two years, subject to renewal, in order to prevent low priority individuals from being placed into removal proceedings or removed from the United States.
The USCIS process shall also be available to individuals subject to a final order of removal regardless of their age.
USCIS is directed to begin implementing this process within 60 days of the date of this memorandum.

For individuals who are granted deferred action by either ICE or USCIS, USCIS must accept applications to determine whether these individuals qualify for work authorization during this period of deferred action.

So, what should you do right now? First, make an appointment and go see an experienced attorney, do NOT go to a Notario! Second, Take a picture with a newspaper from June 15, 2012 to document your presence in the United States today. Third, begin collecting evidence of your physical presence in the United States for the last five years, for most folks this will be through school records and tax returns; Finally, relax! There is no ability to apply immediately. At least for those not in removal proceedings there is no set process yet to follow.

0 Comments

Pre-Election Bipartisanship -- Except on Immigration, Where Sen. Grassley Stubbornly Obstructs

4/7/2012

0 Comments

Angelo Paparelli, ABIL Immediate Past President
Nation of Immigrators

At President Obama’s signing ceremony for the JOBS Act last week, White House guests slapped high fives with bipartisan glee. They came to the Rose Garden to help “Jumpstart Our Business Startups,” as the new law’s title optimistically promises to do. With pen in hand, the President joined in the merriment, observing that it’s not about blather but action:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/photos-and-video/video/2012/04/05/president-obama-signs-jobs-act

One of the great things about America is that we are a nation of doers -- not just talkers, but doers. We think big. We take risks. And we believe that anyone with a solid plan and a willingness to work hard can turn even the most improbable idea into a successful business. So ours is a legacy of Edisons and Graham Bells, Fords and Boeings, of Googles and of Twitters. This is a country that’s always been on the cutting edge. And the reason is that America has always had the most daring entrepreneurs in the world. . . . [M]aybe one of them or one of the folks in the audience here today will be the next Bill Gates or Steve Jobs or Mark Zuckerberg. And one of them may be the next entrepreneur to turn a big idea into an entire new industry. That’s the promise of America. That’s what this country is all about.

With an eye to November and an 11% approval rating, members of the House and Senate are trying at last to rebrand themselves as a “done-something” Congress. Would it were so with the DREAM Act or with urgently needed reforms to our antiquated system of legal immigration whose last major enactment occurred in 1990. Regrettably, when it comes to immigration, the American people get claptrap not high fives.

Three years ago the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) issued a bipartisan report and recommendations on U.S. immigration policy, the work of a task force study led by Florida Governor Jeb Bush and Thomas F. "Mack" McLarty III, former White House Chief of Staff to President Clinton. Last month, another bipartisan CFR task force, this one headed by Condoleezza Rice, former Secretary of State under the second President Bush, and Joel Klein, ex-Chancellor of the New York City education department and Counsel in the Clinton White House, issued its study and suggestions to improve U.S. national security by reforming education.

Taken together, these reports sound a clarion call for immediate legislative action on legal immigration.

As the Bush-McLarty report proposed:

The Task Force recommends that the United States tackle head-on the growing competition for skilled immigrants from other countries and make the goal of attracting such immigrants a central component of its immigration policy. For decades, the primary goal has been to ration admission; in the future, recruiting the immigrants it wants must be the highest priority.

The Rice-Klein study on education reform and national security concurs:

Too many schools have failed to provide young citizens with the tools they need to contribute to U.S. competitiveness. This, coupled with an immigration system in need of reform, poses real threats to the prospects of citizens, constrains the growth of the U.S. talent pool, and limits innovation and economic competitiveness.

The epicenter of the logjam on immigration bipartisanship – at least in the Senate – is Iowa Republican, Chuck Grassley. Although he voted “Yea” on the bill that became the JOBS Act, Sen. Grassley is an immigration obstructionist, seemingly blind to the links between employment-based visas, U.S. prosperity and job creation for our citizens.

Despite passage in the house by a 389 to 15 vote margin, he has held up a vote on the Fairness for High-Skilled Immigrants Act — a bill that would eliminate the per-country caps on employment-based immigrants and thus allow foreign workers born in China, India and other quota-backlogged countries to obtain a green card more quickly. Sen. Grassley has also blockaded a proposal pushed by fellow Republican Senator, Scott Brown, which would give Irish citizens parity with Australians in receiving E-3 visas.

The Iowa senator worries that “flooding the employment market with foreign workers when high-skilled Americans are seeking jobs at unprecedented levels, just doesn't square with improving the home-team advantage, let alone fostering a level playing field.”

Even more worrisome to Sen. Grassley are immigration fraudsters who steal jobs from Americans. He sees them everywhere, much like the young boy, Cole Sear, in the 1999 film, The Sixth Sense, who sees dead people all around:

Cole Sear (played by Haley Joel Osment): I see dead people. Malcolm Crowe (played by Bruce Willis): In your dreams? [Cole shakes his head no]

Malcolm Crowe: While you're awake? [Cole nods]

Malcolm Crowe: Dead people like, in graves? In coffins?

Cole Sear: Walking around like regular people. They don't see each other. They only see what they want to see. They don't know they're dead.

Malcolm Crowe: How often do you see them?

Cole Sear: All the time. They're everywhere.

Sen. Grassley wants to place even more rigid controls on the H-1B visa (for Specialty Occupation Workers) and the L-1 visa (for Intracompany Transferees). The senator would inflate the wages that U.S. employers must pay skilled foreign workers (even though the law of supply and demand is producing that result already without an act of Congress), require feckless labor market testing of workers in occupations with low unemployment rates, and give even more authority to the Labor Department to send disruptive auditors to the worksites to investigate the supposedly ever-present fraud that he perceives.

And as Congress dawdles on legal immigration, Sen. Grassley has been a one-man lightning rod, jolting the immigration agencies under the W and Obama administrations and intimidating them so that they jump to his bidding.

Under pressure from Sen. Grassley, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and the Department of State have denied and revoked visas and work petitions, while sending ever larger legions of immigration gumshoes from the USCIS Fraud Detection and National Security Directorate (FDNS) on unannounced and repeated visits to worksites around the country.

Not content to engage in officious intermeddling with an Executive Branch immigration agency, Sen. Grassley has also been busy tasering the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Inspector General (IG) into issuing breathless reports based on unscientific measurements that unpersuasively document "evidence" of perceived fraud (links available here, here and here). It's not as if the IG has nothing to do; rather, he should be spending more time investigating DHS's internal operations.

No knowledgeable observer would deny the existence of immigration fraud. I see its victims often among the immigrants who seek my counsel after having been bamboozled not just by a few unscrupulous lawyers but also by the larger ranks of incompetent and dangerous consultants and notarios – a population still coddled by the Labor Department even though USCIS, quite laudably, has mounted a campaign against them. And of course, some percentage of employers will bend or break or simply misunderstand the befuddling “rules” that the immigration agencies have written (or failed to write) in response to the existing crazy-quilt of laws passed by Congress since at least the 1950s. Despite the massive aggrandizement of law-enforcement resources to guard the immigration system since September 11, little evidence exists to show that visa fraud is widespread or that it occurs at any greater rate than in other federal programs.

We can electrify and fortify our borders, and send in the immigration drones and detectives, but we still need law-abiding sojourners and immigrants to reinvigorate our economy and uplift our people.

As much as NationOfImmigrators assails the wrongdoing of the immigration agencies, this blogger knows nonetheless that they are peopled mostly with patriots trying to do the right thing (as a USCIS Service Center Director correctly reminded me last week and as the USCIS’s Fiscal Year 2011 Highlights Report confirms).

They make mistakes, to be sure, and engage in insincere Washingtonian wordsmithing. Take for example the oft-repeated conceit that FDNS site visits are merely cleverly surprising methods to insure integrity in immigration petitions and are not law-enforcement actions subject to Fourth Amendment protections.

The veil’s been lifted on that falsehood, however, with the issuance of a March 30, 2012 federal court order in a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) suit by the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) against USCIS and DHS. AILA’s lawsuit seeks release of three USCIS documents, viz., its H-1B Benefits Fraud Compliance Assessment Report (BFCA), H-1B Petition Fraud Referral Sheet and H-1B Compliance Review Worksheet. Although the suit continues, the court generally affirmed for now USCIS’s assertion that its actions in refusing disclosure are justifiable under the FOIA exemption found at 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(E). This section protects records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes from disclosure “to the extent that the production of such law enforcement records or information . . . would disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions if such disclosure could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the law.” The agency relies on exemption 7E because the requested records, as USCIS’s own pleadings assert, have been “withheld to preserve the integrity and effectiveness of certain techniques and operations of current law enforcement significance.”

On what are these “techniques and operations of current law enforcement significance” based? The court’s order offer’s a tantalizing snippet:

The final page of the BFCA Report identifies several primary fraud or technical violation(s) indicators: (1) firms with 25 of fewer employees have higher rates of fraud or technical violation(s) than larger-sized companies; (2) firms with an annual gross income of less than $10 million have higher rates of fraud or technical violation(s) than firms with annual gross income greater than $10 million; (3) firms in existence less than 10 years have higher incidences of fraud or technical violation(s) than those in existence for more than 10 years; (4) H-1B petitions filed for accounting, human resources, business analysts, sales and advertising occupations are more likely to contain fraud or technical violation(s) than other occupational categories; and (5) beneficiaries with only bachelor’s degrees had higher fraud or technical violation(s) rates than those with graduate degrees.

Ironically, many of the same putative indicators of fraud or technical immigration violations are attributes that describe the precise traits of “Business Startups” – the very entities which bipartisan supporters in Congress hope to “Jumpstart” by passing the JOBS Act. Newly established businesses typically employ less than 25 workers at the outset, initially gross less than $10 million per year, by definition have been in existence less than 10 years, and, just like larger firms, may choose the H-1B visa category to hire accountants, HR specialists, business analysts and workers in sales and advertising jobs for persons who hold only a bachelor’s degree. Clearly, USCIS and its FDNS unit are now running scared by Sen. Grassley’s gassy harrumphing, and see fraud where the President and most members of Congress, including the Senior Senator from Iowa, see opportunities for job creation.

The solution is to debunk the notion that American job losses are caused by increased legal immigration; rather, as the National Foundation for American Policy has shown, more employment-based immigration creates more jobs for U.S. workers.

One true believer in the power of immigration, Steve Case (former AOL founder and now venture capitalist), who was instrumental in gaining the votes for the JOBS Act, says, "[m]omentum begets momentum." Case now has set his sights on passing job-creating immigration laws before the November election (a controversial subject among some immigration proponents who believe that only a comprehensive solution, including remedies for the undocumented, will rectify America's immigration dysfunctions).

Perhaps with the help of Steve Case and other business leaders, Sen. Grassley may yet be persuaded to spend less time calling the President “stupid” and, instead let his love of job-creating startups push him to transform his antipathy into appreciation for employment-based, legal immigration reform.

0 Comments

Barack Be Nimble: Go BIG and BOLD on Comprehensive Immigration Reform

Will Immigration Electrify the Presidential Debates?

The Immigration Week That Was

The Obama Dream Program - What Is It Really?

Pre-Election Bipartisanship -- Except on Immigration, Where Sen. Grassley Stubbornly Obstructs

TO SUBSCRIBE

ABIL

Archives

Categories