Peter Schey pschey@centerforhumanrights.

org Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law on Senate Immigration Reform Proposals
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE April 17, 2013 CONTACTS: Peter Schey, pschey@centerforhumanrights.org 323-251-3223 Carlos Holguin crholguin@centerforhumanrights.org 213-388-8693 ext. 309 Antonio Alvarenga aalvarenga@centerforhumanrights.org 213-388-8693 ext. 301 Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law Opposes Border Militarization and Major Increases in Domestic Arrests and Detention; Will Advocate for a Fairer, More Efficient, and Less Costly Path to Legalization for Families and Workers Los Angeles. -- The landmark immigration reform proposal is more Red than Blue. The Senate immigration proposal is all red when it comes to enforcement. By significantly increasing the militarization and sealing of the border with Mexico, while only mildly addressing enforcement against usually non-Latino non-immigrant visa overstays, or enforcement along the US-Canadian border, the Senate proposal moves the United States closer to an isolationist policy rather than a regional partnership with its neighbor and other countries to the South. While migration is clearly a regional issue, with many of the primary causes for migration lying outside the United States, there is no indication impacted countries have been consulted in the formulation of the proposed Senate bill. Border communities will continue to experience the range of harms associated with the increased militarization and battle zones made of their communities. As this enforcement is ramped up at a cost greater than the FBI's entire budget, smugglers and traffickers obviously become more hardened and armed criminals, the only ones willing to risk heavy prison terms for running smuggling operations. Deaths and disappearances along the border will certainly increase as the militarization increases. The conditions that propel migrants to leave their communities, usually dire economic conditions or political strife, will not change and nothing in the proposed legislation seeks to address the long-term structural conditions that give rise to undocumented migration. Migrants will find ways, no matter how dangerous, to circumvent the walls built along the Southern border, whether hidden in vehicles, passing through tunnels, floating on boats, or flying to Canada and traveling south. The number of migrants seeking to enter the U.S. from Mexico and Central and South American may be lowered, but not stopped, and tens or more likely hundreds of thousands of migrants will continue to enter each year without inspection through Canada or simply overstay their visitors visas. The proposal that legalization provisions will not trigger unless certain milestones are met in enforcement is unwise and simply serves to keep a large undocumented population in underground exploitable status far longer than necessary. It extends for many years the wide range of harms suffered by these immigrants and their communities (and the country) as a result of their underground status. The proposal to defer legalization

will likely extend the time period to achieve citizenship well beyond 15 years, depending on the Administration in power and its view of the family-values and economic considerations that'll be taken into account when deciding whether the triggers have been substantially achieved. The proposal is also more red than blue in its requirements for massively increased domestic enforcement. A kind of "zero-tolerance" for undocumented presence going forward. This will unquestionably have a profound and adverse impact on hundreds of thousands of families and their communities. Domestic searches, arrests, short-term and long-term detention, and the costs associated with these efforts will all increase. Work-place raids will likely increase, especially under a new Administration that wishes to ramp up work-site arrests. Local police involvement in immigration enforcement will likely increase whether initiated at local levels or later at the federal level under a new Administration that supports local police involvement in immigration enforcement. On the blue side, the DREAM provision of the proposed bill is a manifestation of the advocacy work done by the DREAMERs for several years. Not satisfied with being part of a "grand bargain," and recognizing their unique equities, the DREAMERs successfully advocated for a fairer and more efficient five-year path to citizenship, exemption from fines, and the ability for deported DREAMers to return. On the red side, most migrants would face a minimum 15 year wait for citizenship, if everything went smoothly. The law envisions around 13 years of processing time, and each application stage usually takes a year. However, even this long wait may easily be extended if sealing the border has not been almost fully effective or if existing visa backlogs are still in place, which could easily be the case. By contrast, the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act only required 19 months as a "temporary resident," followed by five years as a permanent resident, to apply for citizenship, less than half the time proposed in the Senate bill. On the blue side, some form of temporary lawful status will obviously be a major benefit to millions of immigrants now living in underground undocumented status. It will significantly decrease the opportunities for exploitation on and off the job, will hopefully allow them to apply for drivers licenses and attend colleges, allow them to travel home to visit relatives and return legally, and will increase their participation as taxpayers and involvement in community affairs. On the red side, it is a major injustice that families who have been living here for 10 or 20 years and have U.S. citizen children are not treated more like the DREAMers, with a relatively straightforward five year path to citizenship. We would also like to see Congress make more annual visas available for victims of serious crimes who cooperate with law enforcement and victims of human trafficking. On the red side, with high unemployment in this country and the historical willingness of employers to exploit foreign imported labor, regardless of protections written into federal and state laws that are only occasionally enforced, we do not see the need for an expanded guest worker program despite support for such a program by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Most of the sectors of industry seeking foreign workers do not have legitimate seasonal needs for temporary labor that cannot be met by U.S. workers. The Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law will review the Senate proposal and provide a more detailed analysis to CBOs and NGOs shortly, and will continue to advocate for more enlightened, humane and rational border and domestic enforcement policies, and a more inclusive and efficient path to citizenship for undocumented migrants who have not been convicted of serious crimes and contribute to their families and their communities in positive ways ###

The Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law (www.centerforhumanrights.org) is a non-profit legal advocacy and services organization that has litigated numerous major class action cases on behalf of lowincome immigrant communities, including several class action cases involving the 1986 legalization program that resulted in tens of thousands of rejected applicants being processed for legal status. The Center engages in litigation, training, technical support and advocacy on issues impacting low-income vulnerable communities including immigrants, refugees, children, prisoners in solitary confinement, LGBT communities and other insular minorities.