 |
League of Women Voters Manistee County P.O.Box 320, Bear Lake, MI 49614 E-Mail: info@lwvmanisteecounty.org Join US! Be Part Of The Solution!
|
LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS MANISTEE COUNTY
2008 IMMIGRATION ISSUES PAGE | Back To League Information Page
LWV Manistee County Members and public guests met January 10, 2008 at the Farr Center on Main Street in Onekama.
A comprehensive resource section can be viewed by clicking on the following link. League of Women Voters US is currently engaged in a study of the immigration issues and policy decisions facing the country as a whole.
The democratic process whereby LWVUS arrives at a Position Statement is by grass roots discussions and consensus building from the local League levels upward.
Immigration is one of those 'hot button' issues for 2008. We should also note that Manistee County itself was populated by immigrants of many nationalities, many of whom arrived here long before there were any laws governing settlement. An excellent PBS Series " Destination America " can be seen at http://www.pbs.org/destinationamerica/usim.html
It details the many waves of new citizens who now comprise the 'melting pot', and how each new influx raised many of the same animosities, distrust and reactions we are seeing today. Is immigration America's bounty or destined to be the downfall? If we all came from somewhere else, how do we feel about newcomers today? What do we want our next elected government to do about it?
The discussion was detailed and recorded many of the deep concerns we all have about reconciling the principles and desires on which this country was founded with the ability to care for our citizenry and maintain a sustainable environment. How do we reconcile the principles of faith, charity, the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness, the self evident truth that all men are created equal - with mounting prejudice against what are perceived to be trends undermining our local government, our healthcare systems and schools and, perhaps our security? How many is too many? Who gets to decide who gets through the golden door?
League Member, and Secretary, Nancy Behring gave a detailed background on immigration history which can be downlaoded here as a WORD document.
Those present then discussed each area as listed in the Immigration Study Consensus Document (PDF)
Question # 1. Federal Immigration laws should take into consideration criteria such as the following: (Not listed in any particular hierarchy)
Part a: Ethnic and cultural diversity.
On this issue the group was ambivalent toward the phrasing of the question, believing ethnic and cultural diversity has proven to be one of this country's greatest strengths but believing it should play no role in chosing who is and who is not admitted which raises the prospect of artificial quotas.
Economic, business and service employment needs.
Those present discussed the issues from diverse viewpoints noting the heightend restrictions have made life very difficult for area farmers but that future citizens should be viewed as human beings first and a 'skill set' next
Environmental impact / sustainability.
We had the benefit of having in attendance people who had lived in large metropolitan areas and areas with a high immigrant population. It was noted that in this rural area, the prevailing opinions and impacts would be very different from those in San Diego or San Antonio. There was much discussion on the ability of a parched south to cope with immigration from the northern states! And also the concern that changing climate patterns are already having an impact on insect habitat zones and the ability of previously contained diseases to move north.
Family reunification of authorized immigrants and citizens with spouses and minor children. (our emphahsis!)
High priority was placed on allowing legal residents to bring in their immediate family - after all this is how most of Manistee County was originally settled.
History of criminal activity.
The group wanted to know if this referred to being able to confirm a criminal history in the place of origin, and whether this conviction would have been for political dissent which is not a criminal offense here. Also there was considerable discussion about the penalty for criminal activity here of those who had not attained citizenship. Also that a higher emphasis should be placed on felony convictions and an allowance made for individuals, primarily women and children who had been brought here against their will for criminal purposes.
Humanitarian crisis / political persecution in home countries.
High priority was placed on this.
Immigrant characteristics – health and age.
We decided that this was a debate in its own right - should legal immigrants be allowed to bring in ailing older relatives if they had the ability/insurance to care for them? What would the cut off 'age' be? How sick is too sick? What about communicable diseases?
Rights of all workers to safe working conditions and livable wage.
This is something we all wanted for ourselves as well as others.
Rights of families to remain together.
The prospect of seeing young children, born here as citizens, left alone after their parent is deported, caused considerable discussion.
Rights of all individuals in U.S. to fair treatment under the law. (fair hearing, counsel, appeal, humane treatment.)
High priority as how can we disparage others if we don't uphold this country's founding principles?
Education and training.
Who is to judge if an individual has no ability or intent on bettering themselves or contributing to the country they are trying to immigrate to? Over the past 15 years, immigrants founded 1 out of every 4 US public companies that received venture capital. 47% of current venture-backed companies in the US have immigrant founders. About half of these entrepreneurs came to US as students and started their own business within 12 years.
Question #1, Part b: Of the above items, please select the three most important criteria and list them, in order with 1 being the most important.
1.Humanitarian crisis / political persecution in home countries.
2.Family reunification of authorized immigrants and citizens with spouses and minor children.
3.Rights of all individuals in U.S. to fair treatment under the law. (fair hearing, counsel, appeal, humane treatment.)
Question # 2. Unauthorized immigrants currently in the U.S. should be treated as follows:
Deport unauthorized immigrants.
Disagreement hinged on this cut and dried solution.
Some deported / Some allowed to earn legal adjustment of status based on length of residence in U.S.
It was generally agreed that time was too arbitrary a factor to base any decision on.
Some deported / Some allowed to earn legal adjustment of status based on needs of U.S. employers.
Long discussion folowed on this with a prevailing feeling that to base a decision on this was cynical - would an excess of chiropracters mean we deported all chiropracters but grant immunity to all podiatrists??
d. All allowed to earn legal adjustment status by doing things such as paying taxes, learning English, studying civics, etc.
Unless convicted of a felony while here, there was general agreement that if a person had made a genouine attempt to be a contributing member of society this should be taken into consideration just as it is now by earning a Green Card and Alien Registration status prior to citizenship.
If deported, assess fines before possible re-entry.
We disagreed with this, as if the individual had the financial wherwithawl to pay a fine they probably wouldn't have attempted to come in illegally in the forst place. In waht currency would a fine be paid? To whom? Based on what?
Assess fines before allowed to earn legal adjustment of status.
We agreed that a person registered here and earning and paying taxes could have a tax surcharge imposed for a probationary period.
Question # 3. Federal immigration law should provide an efficient, expeditious system (with minimal or no backlogs) for legal entry into the U.S. for immigrants who are:
Immediate family members joining a family member already admitted for legal permanent residence in the U.S.
Entering the U.S. to meet labor needs.
Entering the U.S. as students.
Entering the U.S. because of persecution in home country.
All these seemed to make sense to those in attendance.
Question # 4 a. In order to deal more effectively with unauthorized immigrants, immigration law should include:
Social Security Card or other National Identification Card with secure identifiers for ALL persons residing in the U.S.
Unless there is a fool proof means to prevent forgery, perhaps using biometrics, as well as sufficiently funded and staffed data base management, the group thought this would result in the same chaos as has been evident in issuing passports. Are we prepared to give up more of our personal freedoms?
Question # 4b. Federal immigration law dealing with unauthorized immigrants should be enforced by including:
Physical barriers such as fences and surveillance at borders.
The cost of the border fence is unjustified and only moves crossings to other locations and results in human suffering. The group found it hypocritical to be applauding the removal of the Berlin Wall while building our own. Can we ever employ enough Border Patrol or technology to man a complete US/Mexico border - and what about Canada?
Increased personnel at land, air, and sea entry points.
We agreed there is no substitute for real trained human beings - and that they are woefully understaffed now.
More effective tracking of persons with non-immigrant visas until they leave the country.
The group had little faith that could be done effectively but felt it should be a high priority.
Verification documents, such as Green Cards and Work Permits with secure identifiers.
Because of the ease with which forgeries can be obtained and the lack of a means to ensure the documents are verifiable there was a lively discussion on how to make such a system workable.
Improved technology to facilitate employer verification of employee visa status.
Those employers in attendance begged for this.
Improved technology for sharing information among Federal agencies.
This was deemed a high priority but we all felt there were many miles to go before true cooperation would be realized.
A program to allow immigrant workers to go in and out of the U.S to meet seasonal and sporadic labor needs.
High priority,
Significant fines pro-proportionate to revenue for employers who fail to take adequate steps to verify work authorization of employees.
We felt it was unfair to penalize employers after the fact if the prior increased verification services were not available to them. But those who knowingly ignore or evade legal employment standards SHOULD receive heavy penalties.
Question # 5. Federal immigration law should address and balance the long-term federal financial benefit from immigrants with the financial costs borne by states and local governments with large immigrant populations.
Agreement was unanimous that unfunded mandates take an enormous toll disproportionately.
Question # 6. Immigration law should be coordinated with U.S. foreign policy to pro-actively help improve economies, education, job opportunities, and living conditions of nations with large emigrating populations.
This was considered an incendiary proposal in a time of significant economic hardship for many here. 'Buying' friends and stability overseas wasn't viewed by those in attanedance as having been a success.
Question # 7. Open for comments.
1. We felt a high emphasis should be placed on demonstrating a basic grasp of the english language so the individual could participate fully in government and the legal system.
2. We felt strongly that immigration policy should be both rational, humane and realistic - that those who have little to nothing will always seek a better life as all our forebears did.
3. That any policy which leads to the creation of criminal enterprises that prey on would-be immigrants is unconscionable. Whenever a prohibition has lead to an explosion of criminal and exploitation activity the costs have always outweighed the benefits.
4. That the Immigration and Naturalization Service should become a distinct and stand alone entity again rather than being part of the Department of Homeland Security.
Regular monthly meetings in 2008 are at 7pm on the SECOND Thursday of each month. EVERYONE is welcome!
NEXT MEETING: Febuary 14, 2008
Happy 88th. Birthday, League of Women Voters! This month we are scheduling our dinner meeting at Tuscan Grille - with a panel of invited guests to mix that love/hate relationship we all have with the following topic: "Talking Trash! - Love It or Live In It!" Like many northern Michigan counties, we are struggling to find a means to use/recycle or dispose of the 'stuff' we all throw away every day! With innovative programs and technologies already up and running successfully in other NW MI regions, or elsewhere in the US, are we talking 'trash' or treasure?!
-
LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS MANISTEE COUNTY
MEETING INFORMATION PAGE | Back To Information Page