IMMIGRATION REFORM AND AURORA’S ‘DREAMERS’: Dream or nightmare? Change is near

449

AURORA | The most contentious piece of President Donald Trump’s new proposal to protect the so-called Dreamers has nothing to do with them. It’s the plan’s potential impact on legal immigration that sparked fierce Democratic opposition last week and appeared to sink chances for a bipartisan deal in Congress.

The immigration issue heated up even more after Trump’s State of the Union Address.

“As he was talking about the American Dream I thought he was going to pivoted to immigration, but he pivoted toward (Mexican gangs),” Aurora GOP Congressman Mike Coffman told the Aurora Sentinel just after the speech. “In my view there was too much of an emphasis on that as opposed to talking about these young people just like he talked about other people’s stories. But he didn’t do that. He kind of went negative. MS-13 (gangs) is a problem, no question about it. But relative to other problems? Any loss of life is significant, but there are a lot of aspirational stories in these young people.”

Trump’s proposal outlined by the White House last week would end much of family-based immigration and the visa lottery program, moves that some experts estimate could cut legal immigration into the United States nearly in half.

The plan would protect some 700,000 young immigrants from deportation and provide a pathway to citizenship, an offer the White House described as a concession to Democrats. But it also represented a victory for immigration hawks and a seismic shift for immigration policy in the U.S., which has long centered on the question of how to stop illegal border crossings, not how to curb legal immigration.

“It’s an enormous change in rhetoric and position,” said Alex Nowrasteh of the conservative Cato Institute. “Forever, people have talked about illegal immigration and now this anti-legal immigration position is standard for much of the Republican Party.”

The Senate’s top Democrat, Chuck Schumer of New York, dismissed the White House plan as a “wish list” for hard-liners. He acknowledged the bipartisan common ground on protections for the immigrants now shielded by the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, or DACA. But he accused Trump of using them as “a tool to tear apart our legal immigration system and adopt the wish list that anti-immigration hardliners have advocated for years.”

But a bipartisan group of 48 House members, including Coffman, have agreed to several provisions related to Dreamers and border security.

Included in their plan, Coffman, Boulder Congressman Jared Polis and 46 other House members agreed on a pathway to earned citizenship, nearly $1.6 billion for border infrastructure and $1.12 billion for border security that doesn’t include a wall, like surveillance technology and border patrol retention.

The Problems Solvers Caucus agreement also, like Trump’s plan, eliminates the diversity visa lottery and emphasizes a merit-based system. Half of annual visas would go to “priority countries.” Preferences for visa applicants from those countries, according to caucus documents, include formal education, employment, civic engagement and knowledge of English. Preferences would depend on the needs of the U.S. workforce.

The caucus agreed to prohibit Dreamers from sponsoring their parents for legal status, but parents of Dreamers would be granted a three-year renewable legal status.

“This plan shows that when Democrats and Republicans work together, we can find real solutions on contentious issues like immigration,” Polis said in a statement. “Together we were able to agree on a way to address the crisis for Dreamers and create a pathway to citizenship, as well as address border security. We are hopeful that congressional leadership will allow us the chance to get this bipartisan plan over the finish line.”

In Aurora, the lack of an agreement has many feeling tense about the future of Dreamers.

This past November, Aurora City Council passed a resolution calling on Congress to pass a clean DACA bill. It took the council four attempts and several meetings to pass the non-binding resolution. Some members voted against the resolution because it did not include support for entirely overhauling the immigration system.

Councilman Charlie Richardson, who introduced and pushed the two different versions of the resolution, said it was important that the measure was for a clean DACA bill.

“I’m very disappointed the Trump administration is trying to link the wall to DACA,” he said. “I thought Mexico was going to pay for the wall.”

Newly elected Ward I councilwoman Crystal Murillo said her biggest concern regarding the immigration talks it’s “keeping people in limbo.” And while a previous council did pass the DACA resolution, she said, “We (the city) could be a little more firm and be clear where we stand on DACA. I often feel people are confused because of how diverse we are (as a city) but we don’t outwardly and proactively support that community. We could be a little more vocal.”

Some of Aurora’s state delegation have voiced concern about the lack of progress on a solution for Dreamers, too.

“I’m just holding my breath, hoping for a resolution that doesn’t punish the thousands of people in my house district and across Colorado, let alone the hundreds of thousands of people across America who have done nothing wrong,” said Rep. Dominique Jackson. “The Republicans in Congress are using these kids as pawns, and I think that’s pretty shameful.”

Democrats forced a government shutdown in January in attempt to expedite negotiations over the Dreamers, who are set to lose protection from deportation in March. Trump’s proposal was the first detailed public offer from the White House.

On Friday, the president accused Schumer of complicating the talks. “DACA has been made increasingly difficult by the fact that Cryin’ Chuck Schumer took such a beating over the shutdown that he is unable to act on immigration!” Trump wrote on Twitter.

By including curbs to legal immigration in his proposal, Trump elevated ideas that have been advocated by a slice of hardliners for decades, although with little momentum in Washington. Trump has framed the proposals as an attempt to prioritize immigrants with specific skills rather than family connections.

Throughout the immigration debate local law enforcement agencies have stressed that they want everyone, regardless of their immigration status, to feel comfortable talking to local police.

An Aurora police spokesperson declined to comment on the pending legislation and what it could mean for law enforcement, but referred to Chief Nick Metz’s statement after the 2016 election stressing that local police aren’t interested in a person’s immigration status.

“Many members of that community have fears of reaching out to the police and other emergency services in a time of need because of their documentation status,” Metz said. “I want to reassure members of those communities that if they find themselves in a situation where they need help that they should not be afraid to call 911. Our policy remains the same; officers will not enforce, investigate, or detain individuals based solely on their immigration status.”

The U.S. takes in about 1 million legal immigrants annually, and nearly 13 percent of the country’s residents were born overseas, the highest share in nearly a century. Immigration hawks argue that the influx drives down native-born Americans’ wages and strains public resources.

“When you’re bringing in the equivalent of a major metropolitan area every year, that has an impact on every aspect of life,” said Ira Mehlman of the Federation for American Immigration Reform, which is the other major group advocating for fewer immigrants.

But many economists and businesses say there’s little data showing that immigration is bad for the economy, and much showing it is a net benefit. Though a few have found immigrants can depress some workers’ wages, most believe there’s little negative impact on U.S. workers. In fact, because native-born U.S. citizens are having fewer and fewer children, some warn the U.S. faces a looming worker shortage and that immigrants are essential to keep the country growing.

A panel from the National Academy of Sciences in 2016 found that immigration had a small negative impact on some native-born workers who hadn’t graduated high school but also had many important benefits, such as fueling growth, innovation and entrepreneurship.

“At the end of the day. We’re either going to believe the data coming from businesses that are trying to grow the nation’s economy, or we can believe press statements,” said Ali Noorani of the National Immigration Forum, which supports increasing immigration. “Ultimately, this is not a question about economics. This is about the cultural anxiety coursing through the country that has been given an outlet by saying ‘immigrants are taking our jobs.’”

Trump tapped into that anxiety to win the election, pledging to build a wall along the southern border and make Mexico pay for it. He also vowed to end former President Barack Obama’s program to protect people brought to the U.S. as children and now living here illegally. But when he announced an end to DACA in September, he asked Congress to come up with a way to make the program permanent, arguing the young immigrants don’t deserve deportation.

Democrats offered to fund Trump’s border wall, then later retracted the offer. The administration then added to its list of demands, including changes to the family-based immigration system and an end to the lottery for visas for people from countries under-represented in the U.S. to its list of demands.

The plan would eliminate hundreds of thousands of family-related visas. Immigrants would only be allowed to sponsor their spouses and underage children to join them in the U.S., and not their parents, adult children or siblings.

But rather than shift those open slots to immigrants under a skills-based system, they would be applied to the backlog of immigrants waiting for a U.S. visa. Then, when that backlog is ended, the slots would be eliminated.

Nowrasteh of Cato estimates that the result could be a 40 percent to 45 percent reduction in overall immigration over time. The numbers depend on how the visas are applied to the backlogs — the immigration backlogs are so immense in some categories it could take decades to whittle them down. It’d take more than 130 years, he estimates, for all Mexicans waiting for a legal visa to get one.

Still, some immigration hawks were disappointed with the plan, arguing it could take decades before the reductions kick in. “The cuts in immigration don’t happen for 15 years,” complained Roy Beck of Numbers USA.