Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Janet Napolitano spent the past two days testifying in front of congressional committees addressing concerns over President Obama’s fiscal year (FY) 2011 DHS budget. Mixed in among the complaints over proposed cuts in cyber security and the Coast Guard were a number of budget decisions with immigration implications. Chief among those decisions were a cut in border patrol agents, the status of the troubled SBInet program, and worksite enforcement efforts—including the oft-maligned E-Verify program.

Secretary Napolitano confirmed that DHS would be completing the “first phase” of SBInet, but stopping after that and reevaluating the program and technology. She stressed that the long-delayed technology was tough to implement because it was in some of the roughest environmental areas and this delayed construction. Congressional opinions were mixed, with Senators Carper (D-DE) and McCain (R-AZ) calling the program a waste of time and money. House Republicans disagreed, as Representatives Rogers (R-MI), Souder (R-IN), and Miller (R-MI) were quick to extol the virtues of SBInet and plead for more funding. All of this follows a September 2009 report from the Government Accounting Office which implored Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) to analyze whether or not the time and money spent on SBInet was a good investment considering its limited effectiveness.

Napolitano held the company line for DHS on other issues, stressing that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) was focused on detention of “criminal” aliens, despite complaints from Rep. Rogers about the drop in non-criminal arrests of unauthorized immigrants. Napolitano also echoed ICE Assistant Secretary John Morton’s commitment to Secure Communities, a program which is designed to identify and remove “criminal” aliens from the U.S. Napolitano also confirmed that ICE was working to reform medical care for ICE detainees, but was unwilling to offer a timeline.

Others in Congress voiced their displeasure on worksite enforcement on the heels of an article in the yesterday’s Wall Street Journal. Napolitano stressed that I-9 audits were up over the last year, and that E-Verify covered more employers than ever before. However, Napolitano was unable to provide an explanation as to E-Verify’s staggering error rate.

Finally, on a less policy-specific note, Senator McCain showed signs of life on immigration reform. After rightly deriding border fence efforts, he noted that border apprehensions had declined and rhetorically asked Napolitano what was going to happen when the economy recovered. (The implication here is that the apprehensions have gone down not because of failed enforcement efforts, but because of the economy. This apparent understanding will help in enacting smart comprehensive immigration reform, as immigration enforcement without comprehensive reform does not work.)

With all of the time spent discussing immigration enforcement, comprehensive immigration reform (CIR) advocates may be disappointed that only one representative (Roybal-Allard of California) even mentioned CIR. Understandably, the focus of DHS is homeland security, but identifying the 11-12 million unauthorized immigrants currently in the U.S. would seem to be a boon to our nation’s security.

Photo by The National Guard.

Another independent evaluation of the E-Verify program once again confirms what advocates have been saying for years—E-Verify doesn’t work. A new evaluation of the federal employment authorization program—conducted by Westat, a research company, in December 2009—is now available on the E-Verify website. The system only detected unauthorized workers about half of the time. The evaluation found the program couldn’t confirm whether the documents workers were presenting were their own. As a result, “many unauthorized workers obtain employment by committing identity fraud that cannot be detected by E-Verify,” according to Westat. The “inaccuracy rate for unauthorized workers” is about 54%.

Between April and June 2008, Westat found that 96.4% of all cases were found to be work authorized within 24 hours (automatically) while 0.5% were found to be work authorized after employees contested an initial data mismatch (i.e. a tentative nonconfirmation). The remaining 3.1% were found to be unauthorized to work (i.e. they received a final nonconfirmation) either because the employees did not contest the tentative nonconfirmation, or they did contest and were found to be unauthorized.

We have to remember that a good percentage of the approximately 3% who receive final nonconfirmations are actually work authorized. Legal workers might not contest an initial nonconfirmation because they find a different job, or because the employer never tells them that there was a problem that they should fix. And some of those 97% who are confirmed are using fake documents, but E-Verify can’t detect it.

Westat also looked into these possibilities and estimated the total “accuracy” and “inaccuracy” rates. They found that 96% of all E-Verify’s initial responses were correct. However, they also found that 4.1% of initial responses were wrong—0.7% of the time legally authorized workers were flagged as not work authorized, and perhaps most alarmingly, 3.3% of all E-Verify cases involved unauthorized workers who got through the system. In other words, in 3.3% of the cases, E-Verify did not detect that an unauthorized worker was using false documents.

Overall, E-Verify missed about half of unauthorized workers—which is the one thing that E-Verify is supposed to do—root out undocumented workers—and it fails.

It might not seem too important that 4.1% of all initial responses are wrong as people tend to focus on the 96% accurate number. But currently, only about 185,000 employers —or less than 3% of the 7-8 million U.S. employers—use E-Verify. These are relatively small numbers, especially if we look at the possibility of E-Verify being made mandatory for all employers, as some in Congress would like to do. An incorrect 4.1% initial response rate of all workers in the United States would mean that millions of workers could get wrong answers.

Those inaccuracy rates are huge because they mean that U.S. citizens and other legal workers are losing their jobs because E-Verify made a mistake—and, consequently, that unauthorized workers are working because E-Verify made a mistake. Of course, many more unauthorized workers are working “off the books” and never getting checked by E-Verify.

Over the next few weeks, as the job bills make their way through Congress, we are likely to see attempts to expand E-Verify and make it mandatory. Lawmakers should keep Westat’s findings in mind as they seal the fates of millions of U.S. workers and spend billions of U.S. taxpayers’ dollars.

Photo by USCIS.

The collateral damage left in the wake of internal immigration enforcement is far too often overlooked in the immigration debate—especially considering that children bear the brunt of such enforcement policies. There are roughly 5.5 million children currently living in the U.S. with at least one unauthorized parent, and at least three-quarters of these children are U.S. born citizens. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) estimates that over the last 10 years, more than 100,000 immigrant parents of U.S. citizen children have been deported from the United States. As DHS continues to increases its enforcement-heavy budget, it’s important to consider the serous risks raids and other ICE actions that separate parents and children pose to children’s immediate safety, economic security, well-being, and long-term development.

A new report by the Urban Institute, Facing Our Future: Children in the Aftermath of Immigration Enforcement, summarized here, examines the consequences of parental arrest, detention, and deportation on 190 children in 85 families in Grand Island NE, New Bedford, MA, Van Nuys, CA, Postville IA, Miami, FL, and Rogers-Springdale, AK. At least 20 families in the study were forced to decide whether children—many of whom are native born U.S. citizens—would leave the country with their deported parent or remain with the other parent or U.S. relatives.

The report found that:

• When a working parent’s income was lost because they were detained and/or deported, many families experienced housing instability and food insufficiency because of the lost income.
• Most parents observed significant, adverse changes in their child’s behavior. In the six months following a raid or arrest, approximately two-thirds of children experienced changes in eating and sleeping habits. More than half cried or were afraid more often, and more than a third were more anxious, withdrawn, clingy, angry, or aggressive. The majority of children in the study experienced at least four of these behavior changes.
• While community-based organizations, churches, non-profit service providers, lawyers, public human services agencies, and child welfare agencies provided aid to families affected by raids or other arrests, the aid was short term and not a viable long term solution.

These children live in a constant fear of separation, exhibit considerable behavioral changes and often lack the financial support necessary to meet their basic needs. One mother related her sons’ fears:

They’re afraid of going outside and even going to school. They missed a week. ‘We don’t want to go, mom. [What if] they take us from the bus?’…‘No,’ I tell them, ‘they won’t do anything to you.’ It’s very difficult…I’ve sent them to study. Their teacher [sent for them] on Tuesday and they’re studying [at school].

So what can we do to ensure that children are protected from the damaging effects of immigration raids? The Urban Institute made a number of policy recommendations, which include:

• Congress should modify current immigration law so the interests of children, especially U.S. citizen children, are protected during deportation proceedings.
• ICE should continue its informal moratorium on worksite raids.
• ICE should continue to develop alternatives to detention so that parents who do not present a danger to the community or a flight risk are not detained.
• DHS and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) should work together to develop strategies to support state and local governments and non-profit organizations to ensure the well-being of children when their parents are deported.

These solutions, while helpful in the short term, are not viable in the long term. Without comprehensive immigration reform—reform that provides a path to legalization for unauthorized parents of U.S. born children, mixed-status families will continue bear the brunt of bad immigration enforcement policy.

In a new report, The Criminal Alien Program: Immigration Enforcement in Travis County, Texas, the Immigration Policy Center (IPC) and author Andrea Guttin examine the Criminal Alien Program (CAP)—which may be one of the oldest, biggest, and least understood federal immigration enforcement program. While it is ubiquitous in U.S. prisons and jails, very few are aware that it exists or of how it works.

So what, exactly, is CAP and how does it work? CAP is an ICE initiative that screens inmates in prisons and jails, identifies deportable non-citizens, and places them into deportation proceedings. CAP is also one of fourteen federal/local law enforcement programs under the umbrella of ICE ACCESS (Agreements in Cooperation in Communities to Enhance Safety and Security).

According to the IPC report:

CAP is the program responsible 48% of all deportable immigrants identified by ICE in FY 2009—more than the 287(g) program, Fugitive Operations, and the Office of Field Operations combined.

Prisons and jails that participate in CAP provide ICE with a list of people who have been arrested and booked into jail, and ICE agents then interview the arrestees. After ICE interviews the arrested person, they may place an immigration hold (known as a “detainer”) on those who are suspected of being deportable. An immigration detainer is an official request from ICE to another law enforcement agency—such as a state or local jail —that ICE requests custody of the individual once he or she is released from local custody.

In the years since CAP was initiated, there have been concerns about whether or not ICE is actually targeting immigrants with serious criminal records. While ICE claims that CAP’s focus is “dangerous criminal aliens,” the data show that legal as well as unauthorized immigrants with a wide range of criminal history—or no criminal history at all—are being identified for deportation.

The IPC report finds:

• A large percentage of immigrants apprehended under CAP are not criminals at all. An October 2009 DHS report found that 57 percent of immigrants identified through the CAP program in FY 2009 had no criminal convictions, up from 53 percent in FY 2008.

• In Travis County, Texas, a majority of immigrants placed under detainer were arrested for a misdemeanor as their most serious charge. In 2008, 58 percent of the detainers were placed on those charged with misdemeanors—up from 38 percent in 2007 and 34 percent in 2006.

Just like with Secure Communities and the 287(g) program, there are multiple concerns about how CAP is being implemented. Some feel that local police may engage in racial profiling and pretextual arrests in order to get individuals they suspect of being deportable immigrants into jail so they can be screened through the CAP program. Others are concerned that vulnerable populations and immigrant communities will not cooperate with local police if CAP is present in local jails, jeopardizing the safety of entire communities.

Many have also raised questions regarding ICE’s use of immigration detainers. While thousands of detainers are issued every year, many—including law enforcement officers—are unclear about how detainers work. Immigrants under detainer include both legal and unauthorized immigrants, and they often endure long periods of detention, and may be denied bail and other due process rights. (IPC has a fact sheet to help answer some of the frequent questions surrounding detainers.)

Of course, identifying and removing dangerous criminal threats must be a priority for ICE. However, time and time again data show that their methods for prioritizing these individuals are flawed and have negative consequences for noncriminals who get caught in the system. While the new report includes recommendations for how ICE might improve the way CAP is administered, CAP will continue to be problematic unless we pass comprehensive immigration reform—reform that creates a well-functioning immigration system.

Photo by winterofdiscontent.

The number of unauthorized immigrants living in the U.S. dropped by roughly 1 million last year, according to a new report released by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) yesterday. As of January 2009, the number of unauthorized immigrants currently residing in the U.S. totaled 10.8 million, down from 11.6 million in January 2008, marking the second consecutive year of decline. As numerous reports have noted, not since 2005 has the number of unauthorized immigrants been so low.

This decline seems to provide further support for the historic connection between illegal immigration and the economy—when there are no jobs, illegal immigration declines overall. The DHS report itself suggests the dip in unauthorized immigrants “coincides with the U.S. economic downturn”—as does the independent Migration Policy Institute. Some researchers suggest the drop in unauthorized immigrants, a group notoriously hard to measure, may be no drop at all, but instead reflect improved DHS methods for estimating this population. According to demographer Jeffrey Passel of the Pew Hispanic Center:

It’s very clear the undocumented population basically stopped growing after 2006. It’s plausible that the numbers have gotten smaller. But the way that they’re measuring it, if you compare this estimate with the one two years ago, it overstates the degree of decline.

Regardless of the reason, one thing is clear: the smaller the illegal population, the easier it is to move forward with comprehensive immigration reform (CIR). In other words, we should strike while the iron is hot. Why? Consider the following:

• Although 10.8 million people is still mind-boggling, this smaller number reduces the pressure on the government, non-profit agencies, and the private bar to implement a workable legalization program.

• As long as the recession continues, we can expect the overall number to remain low, thereby reducing pressure on enforcement during the legalization period. As former Wall Street Journal publisher and Dow Jones VP, L. Gordon Crovitz, points out in an editorial:“An economic downturn is the right time to move on immigration, one of the few policy tools that could clearly boost growth. The pace of lower-skilled migration has slowed due to higher unemployment. This could make it less contentious to ease the path to legalization for the 12 million undocumented workers and their families in the U.S. … Fewer workers will be lured to the U.S. during a recession, but the ones who come will speed recovery.”

• Unlike 2006 and 2007, no one is clamoring for a massive temporary worker program. While employers continue to want the flexibility of increased temporary worker numbers in the future, the pressure to pass dramatic increases immediately simply isn’t there in the same way that it was during prior CIR debates. Moreover, the growing consensus among workers that immigration reform is good for labor allows for a discussion of reforming existing programs without the additional pressure of a massive influx of new temporary workers That’s not to say that resolving differences between business and labor is easy—but there are openings for creating a new and improved system for future immigration needs without people pouring in illegally at the very time we are trying to solve the problem.

• Immigration restrictionists who insist that the downturn is due to enhanced enforcement efforts are setting themselves up for defeat. We repeatedly heard during the 2007 debate that opponents of immigration reform didn’t actually oppose legalization, et. al.—they simply wanted to see enforcement strategies working first. So, if they want to claim that the numbers are down because of enforcement then they really have no argument left for opposing reform. In other words, you can’t have your cake and eat it, too.

Just today, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi reiterated her support for moving comprehensive immigration reform this year in an interview with La Opinión. Her compassion and commitment are laudable and deserve our respect. But this issue won’t be won solely because it is the right thing to do. Instead, comprehensive immigration reform will make it to the floor of the House and the Senate when compassion and hard-nosed politics meet. The release of new DHS numbers yesterday offers yet more evidence that the time is coming very soon when the right policy and the right politics will be the same thing.

For a further breakdown of DHS’s report numbers, take a look at this CNN article.

Photo by gfpeck.

Today, we celebrate the life and legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., a man whose dream of equality and human rights changed the course of history. His legacy will be remembered this week by people of all colors and creeds who still believe in the American dream and who continue to fight for equality, civil rights and the basic human dignity they deserve. Over the weekend, thousands of human rights activists took to the street in Phoenix, Arizona, to march for civil rights and for “long-overdue federal action on immigration.”

So what is the link between immigration and civil rights? In a recent editorial, Rev. Harvey Clemons Jr., the pastor of Pleasant Hill Baptist Church in Houston, connects Dr. King’s fight for equality with the struggle many immigrants face today.

Immigration is about human dignity and the nobility of parents of different tribes and nations facing the risk of coming to a foreign land, a land of opportunity, to work for a better tomorrow for their children…Dr. King invoked the truth, the truth being that all humans ought to be treated with a certain dignity. It would be natural for us to look to him as an example for fighting for a just cause.

Gerald Lenoir, director of the Black Alliance for Just Immigration, also draws parallels between the struggles of African Americans and the struggles of recent immigrants:

Even some of the migration experiences of African-Americans, coming from the South, leaving conditions of economic injustice and terrorism from both legal authorities and groups like the Ku Klux Klan, we see that same kind of movement in people across borders.

Leaders within the civil rights movement have long been outspoken supporters of immigration reform—especially when it comes to speaking out against broken immigration enforcement policies and racial profiling. Last March, House Judiciary Chair John Conyers, Maricopa County Supervisor Mary Rose Wilcox as well as a bevy of civil rights leaders, presented a petition to the Department of Justice and Homeland Security signed by more than 38,000 Arizona residents calling for an investigation of Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio—a man whose abuse of power, racial profiling and egregious immigration enforcement tactics have earned him numerous law suits, an FBI investigation and a summons to appear before a Grand Jury. At a press conference introducing the petition, Congressman Conyers called for unity in the fight to end racial profiling.

We think, in a lot of ways, our Hispanics brothers and sisters are becoming the new targets of discrimination and profiling that used to occur to African Americans. We’re saying it together—African Americans, Hispanic Americans and everyone else—no more racial profiling.

Similarly, Rev. Al Sharpton, also an outspoken advocate in the fight to end racial profiling, noted that defending civil rights should be an “everybody issue”:

We need to stop comparing disparities and start finding solutions. It is imperative for the African American community to stand together with the Latino community and for the Latino community to stand with the Asian community. You cannot have human rights for some—we need it for all. We must stand together with all our brothers and sisters against this national outrage.

A recent poll conducted by the Pew Research Center reveals that one year after the election of President Barack Obama, “black optimism about America has surged, while Hispanics have become more skeptical about race relation.” According to the poll, Hispanics are now seen as the ethnic group facing the most discrimination—which is not surprising, as America’s Voice blogger Jackie Mahendra says, given the “racially-charged immigration rhetoric that flows from talk radio to nightly news to the halls of Congress.”

Now, more than ever, it’s important to remember Dr. King’s message that all men are created equal—not just for Hispanics and African Americans, but for all people who come to this country in search of the American Dream.

By TYLER MORAN*

The E-Verify website claims that the process for verifying whether workers are authorized for employment in the United States is simple. The practices of the Social Security Administration (SSA), the agency that jointly administers E-Verify with the Department of Homeland Security, tell a different story. According to a report released this month by the SSA Inspector General, though required by law, the agency failed to use E-Verify on nearly 20 percent of their new hires. The report documenting SSA’s myriad mishaps is proof of what workers’ rights advocates have long believed: E-Verify is still not ready for widespread use.

SSA not only failed to use the electronic system in a large percentage of their own hires, but improperly ran checks on 169 volunteers and individuals who had not yet been hired and violated program rules with respect to the timing of its verifications 49 percent of the time. These actions are in direct violation of the law and would have disastrous consequences if mimicked on a national scale.

Like its predecessor Basic Pilot, E-Verify is an electronic employment verification program that attempts to instantly determine whether a new hire is authorized to work in the United States. Unfortunately, this system is riddled with errors that can prevent U.S. citizens and work-authorized immigrants from securing employment. Furthermore, the SSA report shows that improper use of the program can and does occur with alarming frequency.

E-Verify is also susceptible to abuse and misuse by employers who violate program rules. A government-sponsored study, for example, found that 22 percent of employers restricted work assignments, 16 percent delayed job training, and 2 percent reduced pay based on database errors. This can be particularly devastating for foreign-born workers, who have encountered an E-Verify error rate of nearly ten percent. At a time when our unemployment rates hover in the double digits, we need to strengthen workers rights and access to jobs, not impose additional roadblocks.

These problems will be felt deeply by the states and localities that are increasingly adopting mandatory E-Verify laws to “look tough” on immigration. In Arizona, which enacted such a law, use of E-Verify has led to significant hardship for employers and workers alike. A 2008 survey of 376 immigrant workers in Arizona found that 33.5 percent had been fired, apparently because of E-Verify database errors, but that none had been notified by employers that they had the right to appeal the finding

Excessive verification systems that keep authorized workers and citizens out of jobs will harm our economy when we can least afford it. Rather than expand a program that cannot be administered properly by those charged with monitoring it, SSA should work with Congress on creating a system in which workers’ jobs and rights are protected and promoted.

*Tyler Moran is Policy Director at the National Immigration Law Center.

Despite claims of increased transparency, accountability, and oversight, Nina Bernstein of the New York Times has unearthed more cover-ups at Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). These new findings have attorneys, advocates, and the public wondering if and when ICE will make good on its promise to reform the immigration detention system in demonstrable ways. Two issues that have recently come to light cast doubt on these promises.

ICE took an important step when it decided to be more transparent about deaths that occurred in their detention centers. However, new information obtained by the New York Times and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) through a Freedom of Information Act request has revealed not only an initial lack of reporting deaths, but also a dishonest and disturbing track record of ICE officials attempting to cover up the circumstances surrounding those deaths. In the report, Bernstein reveals numerous examples of ICE officials denying knowledge of circumstances surrounding deaths when, in fact, the officials were already planning how to cover up their mistakes.

One case revealed an attempt to falsify records. Medical officials claimed they gave a patient medication when, according to medical records, he was already deceased. Other cover-up attempts include ICE trying to use a “humanitarian release” in order to let a detainee die outside of ICE custody as well as an attempt to deport a man before he died of brain injuries suffered while in ICE custody.  Despite these cover-ups, many of the ICE officials responsible remain employed under the new administration.  As Bernstein states, full transparency remains unlikely as long as the only organization overseeing ICE is ICE itself.

Related and perhaps even more secret are the 186 unlisted and unmarked ICE subfield offices around the country. Officially, these offices are designed to house and confine individuals in transit to detention centers, with 84% of all book-ins going through these subfield offices. In practice, however, these subfield offices are being used to more permanently hold individuals in ICE custody. Because the subfield offices are only designed to be temporary holding facilities, they are not subject to ICE detention standards. This means the facilities have no beds, showers, drinking water, soap, toothbrushes, or sanitary napkins. In addition, those individuals in custody lucky enough to have legal counsel are often unable to contact them, and their attorneys have trouble locating their clients. ICE has no real time database to keep track of individuals held in subfield offices, meaning both attorneys and even ICE officials have trouble locating individuals in custody. Adding to the accountability issue is the fact that most of the subfield offices are unmarked, containing no flags or signs. This lack of identification prompts more questions about an organization that is trying to become more transparent. As to whether ICE is attempting to reform this practice, the answer appears murky at best.

Until these and other issues are addressed—such as making ICE detention standards regulatory, especially when using outside contractors—advocates are rightfully calling ICE’s bluff. Real transparency must be backed up by real oversight, especially when it comes to detention centers.

Photo by decade_null.

There are plenty of genuine issues worthy of debate in immigration reform—how to really create secure borders and communities, how to predict and manage future immigration flows, how to implement a fair and workable employment verification system, and how to ensure that legal immigration incorporates key values represented by family and work. But what is no longer on the table is whether we should be doing immigration reform, particularly legalization of the undocumented. Yesterday’s release of the IPC/CAP report finally puts to rest the question of whether immigration reform is good for the country. The answer—a resounding “Yes!”

It bears repeating that the bottom line finding of this report is that legalization of 12 million people who are already here in the United States would result in a $1.5 trillion increase in the GDP over the decade following implementation of the law. Taking a more lukewarm approach, that is, simply giving those folks a legal status with no path towards citizenship, cuts that benefit almost in half, but is still a shot in the arm to the tune of $792 billion over 10 years. In contrast, pursuing a mass deportation policy leads to a net loss of $2.5 trillion.

Even more telling, these findings are virtually the same as a Cato Institute report issued last August. Two different major reports coming at the issue from different ideological perspectives, both using scientifically respected economic models, pursued independently, reaching the same conclusion—this is something that can’t be ignored.

These reports confirm what many people have been saying all along—immigration reform isn’t just about immigrants. All Americans benefit from immigration reform because it levels the playing field for all workers. It lets employers who are trying to follow the law do so without worrying about unscrupulous employers who undercut the competition by paying under the table and cutting corners on safety. A well-regulated legal immigration system—that includes addressing the 12 million undocumented immigrants currently in the U.S.—leads to improved purchasing power, better wages, and ultimately the preservation of jobs and a stronger economy.

The road to economic recovery is a long one. We aren’t going to get there arguing about whether immigrants steal jobs, which they don’t. We are going to get there by figuring out what will improve our economy, get us back on our feet, and ensure a better future for our kids. Immigration is part of the solution. Legalization is a pragmatic and sound choice to move us forward. Let’s stop bickering over whether we should do it and move forward in 2010 on the how.

Photo by BrittneyBush.

Everyone pulled out the sports analogies last week when Congressman Luis Gutierrez and his 91 co-sponsors introduced H.R. 4321, the Comprehensive Immigration Reform for America’s Security and Prosperity Act of 2009—and rightly so, as this bill marks the opening bell in the 2010 immigration debate. It is not only the first major piece of comprehensive reform legislation introduced in the 111th Congress, but the first since the last debate on immigration reform, which took place in May and June of 2007 in the Senate.

But CIR ASAP also marks the end of a year that has been filled with movement on immigration reform. Most of it was not legislative, but reflected instead the change in Presidential administrations. Among the key developments:

• Janet Napolitano, governor of Arizona, an outspoken supporter of the comprehensive immigration reform and smart enforcement strategies, was named Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. She immediately called for review of enforcement programs that were highly criticized, including 287(g), E-verify, and worksite raids. This review ultimately led to major reforms in detention practices, an end to the massive worksite raids of the past, and a revamping of 287(g).

• President Obama reaffirmed his commitment to CIR over and over again, most notably by calling a White House summit of key Congressional leaders in May, naming Napolitano as his point person for getting reform done. Other cabinet leaders have been pulled into the effort, too. Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis, speaking at the Center for American Progress last week noted that cabinet secretaries and their staff are meeting weekly to coordinate administration efforts on reform.

• The President’s budget included a request for appropriated funds for USCIS, to pay for the costs of processing, asylum refugee, and military naturalization applications. Although Congress ultimately appropriated only a small portion of those funds, the mere fact that the administration recognized the need to revisit current fee structures (in which the agency must fund its operations almost exclusively through fees), marked a major policy departure, and the glimmer of true fee reform.

Still, there’s no denying the significance of the 644 page legislative package introduced last week. While it is a product of 2009, many of the proposals, including detention reforms and family reunification proposals, reflect tremendous work over the years by many of the co-sponsors—including Reps. Woolsey, Roybal Allard, Honda, Grijalva, Reyes, and Berman—while other sections incorporate legislation from Senators Menendez, Durbin, and former Senator Obama. As with all legislation of this type, it is a compilation of new and old ideas, woven together to reflect both a prescription for immigration policy and a plan for bringing along votes.

Does this mean that CIR ASAP is merely a marker bill, one designed to throw down the gauntlet, but not to move? Not exactly. Senator Schumer, as head of the Senate’s immigration subcommittee, and Congresswoman Lofgren, chair of the House Immigration subcommittee, are both expected to champion their own legislative packages in the coming year. It’s anticipated that Sen. Schumer will introduce his own comprehensive package early in 2010, which is likely to change significantly as it goes through committee, and then through the whole Senate. Assuming Senate passage, then the House will have to decide whether to simply take up the Senate bill, introduce a new package, or take CIR ASAP and its fellow proposals (and there will be more, it’s the nature of the game) through committee markups and so forth. So, it’s hard to tell what everything will look like by the time a bill hits the president’s desk. But CIR ASAP contains a number of viable solutions, and the final package will no doubt reflect some of those ideas—and hopefully some of the passion that infuses the bill.

So, while CIR ASAP may be the beginning of an era, it is also the end of a period of transition. The administration has made its position pretty clear. A big chunk of the House has now, too. The next move is Senator Schumer’s—and then the real games begin.

Photo by iQoncept.