Author: Julissa Trevino

Lawmakers have voting records on immigration legislation that are inconsistent with a significant portion of their constituents, according to the National Latino Congreso’s Immigrant Justice Report Card-Interim Progress Report. Developed over the last three months by four research and advocacy groups, the report offers a statistical review of congressional actions and voting records on selected immigration legislation in the 110th and 111th Congresses.

The report found that while there is national public support for progressive immigration reform, around half of lawmakers are failing to meet the expectations of an important, growing segment of constituents: the foreign-born immigrant and minority populations, especially Latinos. In the House, 236 members had anti-immigrant voting and/or sponsorship records and 41.3 percent of members with a significant immigrant constituent population (50,000 people or more) had a record of anti-immigrant voting (that is, voting against pro-immigrant legislation or voting for anti-immigrant legislation). Forty-six senators had anti-immigrant voting and/or sponsorship records and 25.9 percent of senators with a significant immigrant constituent population showed a record of anti-immigrant voting.

In the Senate, Idaho, Tennessee and Wyoming had the worst record from the perspective of immigration advocates, with no votes for pro-immigrant legislation. There were 18 senators who supported anti-immigrant legislation over pro-immigrant legislation 100 percent of the time — not surprisingly, all Republicans — including senators from states with large immigrant populations. In the House, Alaska, Oklahoma, Utah and Wyoming also received zero percent.

There is a serious mismatch between constituents and lawmakers, said Thomas Saenz, president of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, during a conference call with advocacy groups and authors of the report card. “Unless the Congress acts soon, consistent with their constituencies, this mismatch will get worse,” he said, noting the rising population of immigrants and minorities in the country.

The report’s authors picked legislation based on how well it represented either pro- or anti-immigration reform and how positively or negatively it affected immigrant and Latino communities. The next report card will be released later this year in October. Until then, this report could serve immigrant and minority communities when deciding who they should vote for in November, said Angela Sanbrano of the National Alliance of Latin American and Caribbean Communities.

Via Newswire, a study released today shows that immigration laws are not targeting the most dangerous illegal immigrants. The study, conducted by the law schools of the University of California, Berkeley, and the University of California, Davis, reports that changes to immigration law in 1996 have led to large numbers of deportations of legal permanent residents (LPRs), or green card holders, over a 10-year period due to non-violent, minor crimes: They now make up nearly 10 percent of all immigrants deported from the country.

From the report:

In 1996, Congress passed the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) and the Illegal Immigrant Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA), which together introduced additional immigration restrictions on LPRs convicted of crimes. The law expanded the category of crimes designated as aggravated felonies to encompass a broad range of minor and non-violent offenses. Lawful permanent residents convicted of an aggravated felony are subject to mandatory deportation and other severe immigration consequences. Currently, a conviction may fall into this category without being a felony and without involving any aggravated circumstances.10 Even expunging such a crime from an individual’s record does not remove the immigration consequences it triggers.

Until 1996, most lawful permanent residents with criminal convictions facing deportation were entitled to a hearing before an immigration judge who would balance an individual’s criminal convictions against his or her positive contributions to the United States. At this hearing, an immigration judge could consider the impact that deportation of an LPR parent would have on U.S. citizen children and, if warranted, could decide to allow an LPR to remain in the country. However, the 1996 immigration laws eliminated such hearings for LPRs facing deportation based on convictions classified as aggravated felonies.

The report claims that more than 68 percent of LPRs are deported for minor crimes, including driving under the influence, simple assault and non-violent drug offenses, and that 88,000 U.S. citizen children have lost their legal immigrant parents through these laws.

James M. Chaparro, director of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Office of Detention and Removal Operations, apparently implemented his own plan to increase the number of deportations of undocumented immigrants, The Washington Post reported Saturday. This announcement was made in a Feb. 22 memo to field directors around the country after he explained the number of deportations this year will be about 20 percent behind last year’s numbers, “well under the Agency’s goal of 400,000 [deportations].”

From the Post:

Beyond stating ICE enforcement goals in unusually explicit terms, Chaparro laid out how the agency would pump up the numbers: by increasing detention space to hold more illegal immigrants while they await deportation proceedings; by sweeping prisons and jails to find more candidates for deportation and offering early release to those willing to go quickly; and, most controversially, with a “surge” in efforts to catch illegal immigrants whose only violation was lying on immigration or visa applications or reentering the United States after being deported.

That same day the Post revealed the memo, ICE Assistant Secretary John Morton released a statement saying that portions of Chaparro’s message did not reflect ICE’s policies and had been sent out without authorization. “We are strongly committed to carrying out our priorities to remove serious criminal offenders first,” Morton concluded, “and we definitively do not set quotas.”

Still, the memo hasn’t been overlooked as an isolated, individual action.

Democracy Now! today reported that the memo sets a quota for non-criminal deportations, even though the administration promised to focus on cases that actually pose threats.

The moves outlined in the memo differ from public pledges by Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano to focus enforcement on the most dangerous undocumented immigrants… Joan Friedland of the National Immigration Law Center criticized the ICE memo, saying quotas will encourage agents to target easy cases, not the ones who pose the greatest safety risk.

Pro-immigration reform activists have also taken notice, criticizing ICE and the Obama administration for their continuation of what they call inhumane immigration policies. From an article in yesterday’s Spanish-language newspaper La Opinión:

Participant of yesterday’s Los Angeles march for immigration reform, lawyer [Jessica] Domínguez criticized the memo’s plan, now that raids will focus on detaining and deporting any [non-criminal] undocumented immigrant.

“I know that the community will not give up, that they are hopeful, but we have to be careful because this memo is very specific in increasing the number of immigrants deportated even if the only violation is being in the country illegally,” she said.

For Juan José Gutiérrez, one of the organizers of yesterday’s march, it’s a betrayal by President Obama.

“He promised us there would be a reform for immigrants in the first year, and the only thing we’ve had is more raids and more deportations than in the worst year during the Bush administration,” he said. “The quotas that have been assigned to the immigration department are unjust, inhumane and they will betray the promise the president made to the people.”

The debate over counting illegal immigrants on the census has been discussed over and over again.

But what about immigrant detainees awaiting deportation? The Texas Observer yesterday highlighted an interesting loophole in which immigrant detainees in detention centers are counted in the census. Then, those immigrants are deported, leaving their local or state jurisdiction with more money and political power.

The government will allocate more than $100 million in additional funds to places where immigrants are detained….

More than funding is at stake: The composition of legislative districts, county board districts, and city council districts could be skewed by soon-to-be-deported prisoners. Census data are used on the state and national levels to determine the sizes and shapes of these districts. The inclusion of detainees in the count means fewer eligible voters per elected official in places like Cameron County. It also violates the principle of “proportional representation.”

For decades, the government has included prisoners in the census, regardless of their immigration status. In the past, the impact of immigrant detainees has been slight. This is the first decennial census since the re-organization of immigrantion [sic] agencies and the subsequent boom in immigration detention. Immigration prisons have expanded from 7,500 beds in 1995 to more than 30,000 in 2010. About one-third of the nation’s immigrant detainees are held in Texas…

Until this census, the count had never identified exactly where “group quarters” like prisons are and how many people occupy them. For the first time, this census will let states decide whether to count detainees in local populations. By excluding prisoners, states would get a more accurate population count and would ensure that funds are not distributed according to locations of large detention centers. The amount of federal funding directed to the state would not change.

There’s been debate about where to count prisoners for the census — should they be counted in their home state or as residents of their prisons? Most states don’t allow prisoners to claim residency in the state where they are held. But since 1790, the Census Bureau has counted people using the “usual residency” rule, meaning their residency is where they spend most of their time.

The Prison Policy Initiative, a non-profit, non-partisan organization that documents the impact of prisoners on communities, recently released a report detailing why counting prisoners where they’re held can be damaging to the community as well as unconstitutional.

Unlike U.S. citizens in prisons (who will most likely still reside in the country when they’re released) these immigrant detainees don’t have that option.

As the Texas Observer noted, Texas is home to the largest number of immigrant detainees of any state. There are more than 200  detention facilities in the country, most of which are privately operated. Texas has six ICE-operated detention centers — more than any other state. Arizona and California come in second with three each.

Counting immigrant detainees — and illegal immigrants altogether, for that matter — in these states may strongly impact redistricting and the allotment of congressional seats. While many agree there are flaws in the way the census counts people — especially prisoners and illegal immigrants — some politicians who stand to benefit from these counts are defending the current policy. The Observer writes:

In Washington, there appears to be confusion about the inclusion of immigrant detainees in the census. Congressman Henry Cuellar, a Laredo Democrat, represents a district that includes the 1,900-bed South Texas Detention Center and the 450-bed Laredo Contract Detention Facility. He defended the inclusion of immigrant detainees: “Vitally important funding that supports these facilities relies, in part, on census data.”

There’s no official count available on the current number of active immigration PACs, but according to TWI research, there are at least eight immigration PACs — two of which are pro-immigration — raising and spending in the 2010 cycle.

Together, these eight PACs raised only $1.46 million through Dec. 31, according to year-end reports filed in January with the Federal Election Commission. Anti-immigration PACs accounted for $1.35 million raised. While these numbers are hardly staggering, it’s plausible that more money will pour into these groups as the immigration debate heats up.

Leading in terms of money raised in this group, according to our research, are the following PACs: Minuteman PAC ($594,200), Team America PAC, ($323,904) led by Tom Tancredo and Bay Buchanan, and Minuteman Civil Defense Corps PAC ($189,141).

The two pro-immigration PACs, which advocate an “earned pathway” toward citizenship for immigrants, lag far behind. So far, Immigrant’s List has raised $78,542 through Dec. 31 and Immigrationpac raised $32,103.

Last week, Sens. Kay Bailey Hutchison and John Cornyn, both Republicans from Texas, urged the Obama administration to take action against the drug violence along the southern border after U.S. citizens were killed in Juarez. Texas governor Rick Perry echoed the senators’ concerns, asking for Predator Drones and 100 National Guard troops. And Cornyn is now readdressing the issue.

Cornyn penned a letter to Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Immigration, Refugees and Border Security Subcommittee, requesting a committee hearing as soon as possible on border violence, according to a press release (via Texas Insider).

But are these politicians really looking for solutions or is this just a political tactic?

Melissa del Bosque from the Texas Observer thinks it’s all talk:

Oh, the political hand wringing over border violence. It’s as if the problem had just surfaced this week.

U.S. Senators John Cornyn and Kay Bailey Hutchinson want a “concrete plan” according to a (much publicized) letter to President Obama  yesterday.

Governor Perry wants a predator drone. Yeah, that will help.

More political grandstanding and no action in changing a disastrous U.S. drug policy that tore Colombia apart and now has Mexico on the brink.

Jeremy Roebuck of The Monitor, a Texas newspaper, argues that Cornyn contradicted himself while talking about border violence — first saying that the U.S. encounters cartel violence, then saying there is no spillover violence.

Cornyn’s own statements Wednesday straddled both sides of that line.

“The spillover violence in Texas is real and escalating,” Cornyn and Hutchison wrote in their letter to the president. “Our border patrol agents and local law enforcement are more regularly engaged with gunmen associated with drug cartels.”

He contradicted himself, however, in a conference call with reporters later in the day in which he said, “As far as the Texas border is concerned, we have not had spillover violence, per se.”

The senator’s staff later said that he misspoke in his second statement, pointing to a kidnapping case at a McAllen Walmart that Rodriguez described earlier this week as “cartel related.”

Dave Montgomery of The Star-Telegram connected Perry’s talk about spillover violence to the governor’s upcoming re-election:

“Spillover violence,” as it’s now officially labeled, is a much-feared Mexican import that nobody wants. But law enforcement officials, municipal leaders, political figures and diplomats disagree on whether it is already showing up in Texas — and to what extent. It has also emerged as an issue in the governor’s race between Republican incumbent Rick Perry and Democratic challenger Bill White.

Responding last week to the slaying of a U.S. Consulate worker and two others in Juarez, Perry ramped up law enforcement operations along the border by activating a year-old contingency plan to deal with spillover violence. Several border-area mayors said Perry took the action without consulting them, and White suggested that Perry may be overstating the dangers for political gain.

“Exaggerating border violence can undermine economic development efforts of border communities, and that hurts Texas,” White, a former three-term mayor of Houston, said in criticizing Perry’s “secret” contingency plan.

Cornyn’s letter was signed by six other GOP committee members: Sens. Orrin Hatch (Utah), Jeff Sessions (Ala.), Lindsey Graham (S.C.), Chuck Grassley (Iowa), Jon Kyl (Ariz.), and Tom Coburn (Okla.).

Read more about it here.

Frank Deffer, assistant inspector general for the department of Homeland Security, told Congress yesterday that the federal government is not prepared to handle the increase in legalization applications that would accompany a proposed immigration legalization bill.

The Washington Times reports:

Mr. Deffer said U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), an agency of the Department of Homeland Security, is in the midst of trying to move from being a paper-based system to having electronic records. He warned that adding millions of new applications, as the bill would do, would be a bad idea.

“Adding 12 million more people to the system would be the mother of all backlogs. Clearly to us the systems could not handle it now,” Mr. Deffer told the House Judiciary Committee’s immigration subcommittee. “It’s going to take a few years, so it’s something for Congress to consider that, when they implement this, they don’t have a date too soon.”

But Alejandro Mayorkas, director of USCIS, thinks otherwise. “We will be ready for comprehensive immigration reform when it is enacted,” Mayorkas said after the hearing, according to the Times.

Today, Immigration Impact, the blog of the Immigration Policy Center, reported on a shift in tactics in the immigration debate: A growing number of Republican lawmakers say the party needs to adjust its positions on Comprehensive Immigration Reform (CIR) in order to boost Latino support:

More Republicans have acknowledged that the GOP must change its tune on Latinos and immigration, especially in the lead-up to midterm elections. This week, RNC Chair Michael Steele not only agreed to a meeting with an immigration advocacy group (after the group staged a sit-in), but went a step further to say that he’s concerned with harsh GOP rhetoric on immigration…

Last week, the newly formed Latino Partnership for Conservative Principles held a panel on reclaiming CIR for conservatives. Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-FL), who says he has been working on a secret congressional working group on immigration, reiterated that President Obama failed to deliver on his promise of immigration reform in his first year. Diaz-Balart also pinned blame on Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi for not allowing any immigration legislation to hit the floor until health care passed, then committed his support for CIR.

Last week, Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) became the second Republican senator to publicly state his efforts for reform. Cornyn told a Spanish-language news wire, just before the release of the immigration blue print, that he was committed to working toward finding “common ground” for a reform bill. He also said he had spoken to Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and was ready to work out their disagreements over a proposed bill.

And while last week’s revealing poll on Latino voting power or Sunday’s rally for reform may or may not prompt bipartisan support for a reform bill, a small segment of the GOP appears to be listening to pro-immigration concerns.

From Immigration Impact:

In the months leading up to midterm elections, we will likely see more Republicans reaching out to Latinos, distancing themselves from anti-immigrant groups and criticizing the President for inaction on immigration reform. Let’s hope that if and when an immigration reform bill is on the floor, that these same critics will hold themselves accountable for their own pledges of support or risk alienating many of the voters they seek to court.

More than 200,000 people gathered on the National Mall today to participate in March for America, a rally advocating comprehensive immigration reform.

Organized by Reform Immigration for America, the rally brought together groups from around the country — including Service Employees International Union, Midwest Organic and Sustainable Education Service, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Democracia Ahora and the Coalition for Human Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles — to send a message to lawmakers: “The time for immigration reform is now.”

President Obama delivered a message from the big screens in the crowd in which he assured the demonstrators of his commitment to passing comprehensive immigration reform.

Several lawmakers also spoke at the event, including Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.), and several marchers had signs that read, “Luis Gutierrez for President.” Gutierrez, a leading advocate of immigration reform in the House, said, “If America has a problem it can’t solve, it blames immigrants. We’ve been patient long enough. … I know how you can get heard in the Capitol. You raise your voice. Our day is coming.”

Reps. Yvette Clark (D-N.Y.), Joe Crowley (D-N.Y.) and Michael Honda (D-Calif.) — as well the only Latino in the Senate, Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) — were among the other lawmakers who spoke at the rally. “It’s time to put the politics of fear aside,” said Menendez.

Although a large portion of the rally was geared toward the Spanish-speaking community (over half of the speakers, in fact, spoke Spanish during their speeches), there were organizations and speakers representing Asians and Africans, and many other minority groups participated in the event to show their support.

“I hope the elected officials will consider comprehensive immigration reform for those who are willing to work and stop deportations,” said Matu Ahmed, an immigrant from Ghana, who came to the rally from New York City with a group of African community members. “You can’t take children from families. This is the time for reform for those children.”

For Ahmed and many others at the rally, immigration reform is a civil rights issue. Ahmed believes the White House should be “humane” and consider families when proposing reform. “We are not criminals. We want to contribute to the American dream. We want to be part of the U.S.”

Today’s events also included a religious service before the main program with representatives of several religious organizations and a march to RFK Stadium after the program.

The Latino community could have a disproportionate impact on this year’s midterm elections, according to a new poll by America’s Voice, a pro-immigration reform organization. The study found that 73 percent of respondents are very likely to vote in November, and 20 percent said they were somewhat likely to vote. Sixty-five percent of all respondents said they were more likely to support Democrats in the House and Senate than Republicans; 20 percent said they planned to vote Republican.

The study found that immigration is a key issue for Latinos: 72 percent said they would not consider voting for a candidate who supports mass deportation of illegal immigrants. A majority of respondents trust Democrats in Congress over Republicans to do “the right thing” on immigration.

After the release of a report by America’s Voice in February, which was recently updated, on the Latino influence on state races, The Washington Post reported:

“Most politicians understand the importance of the Latino vote in presidential years, but what we’re saying is that Latino voters will have a huge impact in the mid-term elections,” Frank Sharry, executive director of America’s Voice, said on a conference call with reporters Monday. “The number of voters coming of age and registering continues to grow. You have seen growth even when a presidential race isn’t at the top of the ticket.”

Nearly one in five Congressional Districts has a Latino population that is at least a quarter of the district.

The nation’s fastest growing population is also one of the fastest growing parts of the American electorate, according to Census figures. Between 2000 and 2008, Latino voter registration grew 54 percent and turnout grew 64 percent. In the 2004 presidential race, 7.5 million Hispanics voted. In the 2006 midterm election, 8 million voted. And in the 2008 presidential race, 10 million cast ballots.

Hispanic students graduate from college at a lower rate than white students at all levels of college selectivity, according to a new report from the American Enterprise Institute using data from 600 colleges.

This may not be anything new, but as The Chronicle of Higher Education points out, this study could help the Obama administration guide its attempts to reform the education system:

The report, “Rising to the Challenge: Raising Hispanic Graduation Rates as a National Priority,” comes at a time when the Hispanic population in the United States is rapidly growing and the academic success of Hispanic students is seen as crucial to meeting President Obama’s goal that the nation have the world’s highest proportion of college graduates by 2020.

The report questions whether the United States can achieve the president’s educational goal, given the overall low college completion rates of the growing Hispanic population. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, 37 percent of the 44 million Hispanic U.S. residents are under the age of 20, and by 2020, Hispanics will make up 22 percent of the nation’s college-age population.

“These are the students who are going to replace the baby boomers, and who we will rely on to drive our economy over the next several decades,” said Hilary Pennington, director of education, postsecondary success, and special initiatives at the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

The report found that 51 percent of Hispanics students attain a bachelor’s degree within six years compared to 59 percent of white students at the same schools. The report doesn’t touch on the number of Hispanics, compared to white students, entering college.

A central problem, the study shows, is one of information: Hispanics often lack knowledge about the cost of college, and they are often “undermatched,” enrolling at colleges that are less selective than they are qualified to attend.

Obama’s education plans aim to address this information gap. Over the weekend, the president unveiled his blueprint for national education reform. His plan calls for college and career preparation instead of just handing out more diplomas, and it would give incentives to states that adopt standards for college preparation and accountability measures.

From the report:

Reforms that help to disseminate information about which schools are within students’ reach, both financially and academically, and which schools have a successful track record with Hispanic students could lead to a better match between the qualifications of Hispanic students and colleges and universities. This would in turn increase graduation rates.

Without higher retention and graduation rates on the part of Hispanic students–who will make up an increasing share of the college-age population in the years to come–the country will be hard-pressed to reach the goals set out by Obama.

If immigration reform doesn’t get support from both sides of the aisle, we could see another failed attempt at comprehensive reform reminiscent of 2006 and 2007. But it seems like very few senators are willing to touch immigration reform, a potentially toxic political issue, as they try to navigate health care and financial legislation.

Only a couple of years ago, negotiations over a huge reform bill brought in Republican senators like John McCain, Mel Martinez, Sam Brownback, Jon Kyl and [Lindsey] Graham. That list has withered away. Some are gone from the Senate; others are just gone.

Only Mr. Graham remains. … Unless Republicans come around, Mr. Obama pulls some political capital from his depleted account, or Mr. Schumer and Mr. Graham pull off some legislative magic, we may be headed for another stalemate. That’s the worst ending: each side blaming the other, trying to extract political gain from an abject legislative failure.

Three senators — Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.), Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) and Mel Martinez (R-Fla.) — who wanted immigration reform in 2007 are no longer in the Senate. Sens. Sam Brownback (R-Kans.), Arlen Specter (then-R, now D-Pa.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.), who sponsored immigration reform bills in 2007, are mostly keeping away from immigration these days.

The State reported last week:

Graham, a Seneca Republican, waded back into a political minefield that has prompted conservative activists across the nation to vilify him since he helped lead a failed Senate bid to overhaul the immigration system in 2007.

McCain, the 2008 Republican presidential nominee, is facing a stiff GOP primary challenge this year from former Rep. J.D. Hayworth, now a conservative radio commentator. McCain has shied away from re-engaging on the polarizing immigration issue that inflames conservatives. White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said Thursday that it’s up to Graham to find other Republican senators willing to support immigration reforms.

McCain, in fact, is focusing much more on border security and enforcement than comprehensive reform.

Obama pledged last week after immigration meetings at the White House to find Republican support for the reform, without which it can’t pass. But so far, Republicans are staying away.

And what about support from the left?

Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) has been working with Graham on a proposal, and Fox News points out that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) might make immigration a top priority. But according to the Arizona Republic, Democrats are likely to ignore the issue because of the risks that accompany both support for and opposition to immigration reform. “For most elected officials, it’s a no-win situation,” John Garcia, a political science professor at the University of Arizona, told the Republic. “It’s just such a volatile and divisive issue.”

In the House, 100 pro-reform Democrats wrote a letter to Obama in October reminding him of his promises on immigration. Today, one of the few active advocates of immigration reform, Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.), did the same in a blog post:

The need for comprehensive immigration reform is urgent. The proposals exist. The road to reform is clear. Then, as a candidate, Barack Obama said he was ready to travel that road. Now, as President, we need him to hold to that promise and begin the journey today.

Add to the immigration debate following yesterday’s White House meetings a few recently published studies that could prove to be useful in pushing for comprehensive immigration reform.

One study shows that comprehensive immigration reform could add $1.5 trillion to the country’s GDP over the next 10 years by increasing consumption and investment. Comprehensive immigration reform, here, is defined as a plan that “creates a pathway to legal status for unauthorized immigrants in the United States and establishes flexible limits on permanent and temporary immigration that respond to changes in U.S. labor demand in the future.” According to this Center for American Progress and Immigration Policy Center study, comprehensive reform would also boost wages for both native-born and newly legalized immigrant workers.

But even now, immigration is actually benefiting U.S.-born workers. Based on data from 1994 to 2007, the Economic Policy Institute published a study in February showing immigration raised the wages of U.S.-born workers by 0.4 percent ($3.68 per week), although it lowered the wages of foreign-born workers by 4.6 percent ($33.11 per week).

According to another study by the Immigration Research Initiative at the Fiscal Policy Institute, in 25 of the largest metropolitan areas, immigrants (foreign-born U.S. residents, regardless of immigration status) make up 20 percent of the population and are responsible for 20 percent of economic output. The study found that economic growth and immigration are closely connected and immigrants contribute to the economy proportionally to their population.

Pro-immigration reform advocates may be applauding President Obama’s immigration meetings at the White House today, but anti-immigration groups are pushing back hard.

Immigration reform has been on the back burner of the Obama administration’s agenda because of the recession and health care, but now it seems to be gaining momentum — particularly with today’s two White House meetings on immigration and the scheduled March 21 immigration reform rally in Washington. Now several anti-immigration groups have unveiled new campaigns and strategies to obstruct the “amnesty” plans.

“ALIPAC is releasing a three pronged strategy today designed to defeat the current push by President Obama, and Senators Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Lindsay Graham (R-S.C.) to give Amnesty to over ten million illegal immigrants in American thus turning them into competitive workers and voters,” Americans for Legal Immigration, an anti-illegal immigration PAC, wrote in a press release. And as a “counter measure” to the immigration rally, ALIPAC announced yesterday it would help organize protests, led by Tea Party Against Amnesty, on April 15 to coincide with other Tea Party rallies across the country. According to the Against Amnesty Website, the anti-immigration protests currently have 5,839 supporters.

To counter the March 21 rally in D.C., the anti-immigration group NumbersUSA held a conference call Monday on suggestions for talking points when calling their lawmakers. Callers suggested that Mexican women are the “new welfare queens” and asserted, “They have dependents. We have babies.”

But certain agendas get even more bizarre and accusatory: The conservative Whistleblower magazine, in its March issue, includes a story about how Obama might be “stealing” the 2012 election by using amnesty for illegal immigrants as a way to maintain power.

The president has also come under attack from pro-immigration groups and activists because nothing’s been done yet.

“What’s been missing,” said Frank Sharry, executive director of America’s Voice, a pro-immigration reform organization, “is a clear and public commitment from the president to use his political capital to advance reform this year as promised.”

Early this afternoon, Obama met with fourteen representatives at the White House at from the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), the National Hispanic Leadership Agenda, the Catholic Church, the Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees International Union and the National Immigration Forum, among others, according to Politico. He assured them he was dedicated to passing comprehensive immigration reform, thought it was unclear when that would happen.

At 3 p.m., Sens. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) met with the president to discuss what they hope will be a bipartisan immigration reform bill. Obama will also discuss immigration when he meets with the Congressional Hispanic Caucus tonight.

No one will be claiming a turnout of two million, but Howard Dean and company managed to draw a healthy crowd for their health care rally today in Washington’s Dupont Circle.

About 500 people turned out this morning to push for health care reform and stand up against health insurance companies. The message of the rally? Health insurance companies and reform opponents should stop being greedy and help insure the millions of people who need health care. Organized by Health Care for America Now, a national grassroots campaign fighting for affordable health care, the protest couldn’t attract the thousands that some anti-health care protests have drawn, but it still managed to assemble one of the larger crowds of pro-health care rallies.

Speakers, including Dean, the former governor of Vermont and founder of Democracy for America, and Hilary Shelton, director of the NAACP’s Washington bureau, called attention to the need for demanding immediate health care reform.

Members of the dozens of labor unions and community organizations participating in the rally held signs reading “Stop Corporate Lobbyists,” “enough greed and selfishness” and “I kill for profit,” among many others.

“I’m here for my son,” said Skip Roberts, a Service Employees International Union member from D.C. who held a sign with the “criminal record” of Well Point CEO Angela Braly. Roberts’ son, who’s too old to be on his parents’ plan, had just started a new job and doesn’t get benefits for three months. And with asthma as a pre-existing condition for his son, Roberts said insurance prices are outrageous.

Near the end of the short rally at the circle, an organizer called on the crowd to march down M Street to the Ritz-Carlton where they would “issue warrants of arrests” of health insurance lobbyists and CEOs. America’s Health Insurance Plans, a national association representing about 1,300 health insurance companies, is currently holding a conference at the hotel. About 1,000 more people were meeting at the Ritz for a speaking program and to protest.

Every Friday, TWI will highlight the week’s top immigration news, focusing on the issues that affect immigration policy debates in Washington. Here is the first weekly roundup:

-Mexican federal police officers and the U.S. Border Patrol are working together for the first time to crack down on cross-border violence, drug trafficking and immigration. While the operation will be working on enforcement in the Arizona-Mexico region, the initiative is likely to expand to other regions. Both the U.S. and Mexican governments hope the initiative will lead to the creation of a Mexican border patrol.

-Passed by the Arizona Senate on Monday, a new bill could drastically change immigration law in the state. The bill would allow illegal immigrants to be charged with trespassing and prohibit state and local governments from adopting policies that restrict the enforcement of immigration laws. It targets day laborers by making it illegal for someone to enter a vehicle stopped on the street and penalizing drivers attempting to hire day laborers if they impede traffic. It would also require police to make a “reasonable attempt” to determine the someone’s immigration status. Read more about the bill here.

-Private prison companies and a growing pool of attorneys and marshals are profiting — via taxpayer money — from the detention of undocumented immigrants in the same prisons where mistreatment and death have been known to occur.

-A recent legal settlement has exposed the realities of many of the federal guest workers in a program known as H2B. Superior Forestry Services, which hired workers from Mexico and Central America to plant pine trees in the Southeast, agreed to pay $2.75 million for unpaid wages and pledged compliance with the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act and Fair Labor Standards Act. H2B workers, aside from wage theft, have experienced mistreatment, exploitation and lack of proper working gear.

–Another lawsuit has hit “America’s Toughest Sheriff” Joe Arpaio and the Maricopa County’s Sheriff’s Office, this time by a former undocumented worker detained in a raid. She accuses the sheriff’s office of mistreatment and negligence while she was being detained and during her three-month detention. The lawsuit is just one of the many already facing Arpaio, who is a criminal grand jury investigation for abuse of power, but just last week, he announced his plans to train 881 of his deputies to enforce immigration laws.

-Yesterday, Idaho’s House State Affairs Committee killed Republican state Rep. Phil Hart’s anti-immigration bill, which focused on punishing employers for knowingly hiring illegal immigrants. The bill had already met with opposition by farmers, businesses and other groups.

-As of November 2009, 3,369,455 family-based applicants — people who have a relative who is a U.S. citizen or permanent resident — were on the waiting list for immigrant visas. The number of employment-seeking applicants was 130,509. Because the United States will issue no more than 226,000 family-based visas and about 150,000 employment-based visas, the wait could be years long for most applicants. Mexico, the Philippines, China, India and Vietnam lead with the highest number of applicants.