HS News Network

How Immigration Reform Will Let Families Reunite Without Becoming Criminals

2013-05-24T18:01:42+00:00

A Human Rights Watch (HRW) study released this week found that 85,000 immigrants were prosecuted for illegal entry or re-entry in 2013. The three main reasons that HRW found for illegal entry or re-entry were “to seek work, to reunite with family…, or to flee violence or sometimes persecution abroad.” Illegal entry is a misdemeanor punishable with a maximum six-month jail sentence, but illegal re-entrants can receive sentences that vary between two years and twenty years for immigrants who have prior aggravated felonies. The study recommends that immigration violators to be given criminal charges only when they are convicted for serious, violent felonies. Desperation to reunite with family often drives immigrants to risk death and attempt border crossings. The sobering reality of why illegal re-entry continues can be summarized by one migrant deported to Mexico who said, “My heart is there. My body is here.” From the time of Operation Streamline — an effort in which federal officials expedited the process of sentencing 40 to 80 immigrants at a time in a mass-deportation trial — criminal prosecutions and imprisonment were required for immigrants who were unlawfully present. In these processes, immigrants who often times do not understand the extent of their criminal charges and are rushed by lawyers to sign a paper announcing their guilt, are charged with a misdemeanor offense after the first conviction and then with a felony charge if they are caught again with illegal re-entry. Although international human rights law suggests prosecuting undocumented immigrants with civil, not criminal charges, there are no explicit prohibitions for the use of criminal sanctions against illegal re-entrants. As a result, an immigrant are still be treated as a criminal despite not being a public safety threat. Federal prosecutions of immigration-related offenses have made illegal re-entries the top criminal charge for undocumented immigrants who are caught coming into the U.S. In 2010, “twenty percent of defendants charged with illegal re-entry had prior felony convictions for violent offenses,” yet criminal convictions have skyrocketed by 227 percent in a ten-year period. Many of these immigrants are seeking to reunite with their loved ones, so an immigration bill should frame its priority on not criminalizing family reunification. A House immigration reform bill has not come out yet, but GOP members have been focused on approaching immigration through a piecemeal process that eliminates the naturalization process. Without a path to citizenship however, important sticking points like family reunification would be made more difficult because of the long wait times that immigrants have to go through in order to see their relatives. Although Sen. Grassley (R-IA) had sought to maximize penalties for people charged with illegal entry and reentry through his failed amendment, the current Senate immigration bill still would include harsh consequences. The House bill, while unknown, would likely take a similar penalizing attitude as hinted by more senior ranking Republican committee members who dispenses with a family reunification concept in lieu of a chain migration effect.

Hispanic High School Graduates Pass Whites in Rate of College Enrollment

2013-05-10T21:53:17+00:00

A record seven-in-ten (69%) Hispanic high school graduates in the class of 2012 enrolled in college that fall, two percentage points higher than the rate (67%) among their white counterparts,1 according to a Pew Research Center analysis of new data from the U.S. Census Bureau.2 This milestone is the result of a long-term increase in Hispanic college-going that accelerated with the onset of the recession in 2008 (Fry and Lopez, 2012). The rate among white high school graduates, by contrast, has declined slightly since 2008. The positive trends in Hispanic educational indicators also extend to high school. The most recent available data show that in 2011 only 14% of Hispanic 16- to 24-year-olds were high school dropouts, half the level in 2000 (28%). Starting from a much lower base, the high school dropout rate among whites also declined during that period (from 7% in 2000 to 5% in 2011), but did not fall by as much. Read the full Report Here

PEW STUDY: 75% of US Residents Believe Immigration System Needs Fixing

2013-05-09T17:16:46+00:00

Three-quarters of U.S. residents believe that the immigration system needs major changes, including a path toward legalizing the status of the undocumented population, according to a national survey released Thursday by the Pew Research Center. Of the more than 1,500 people surveyed by Pew early this month, 35 percent said the immigration system should be “completely rebuilt.” However, the poll revealed a lack of consensus about how to deal with the 11 million undocumented people already in the United States with 73 percent saying there must be a way for them to remain in the country legally, 44 percent supporting a route to citizenship and 25 percent saying that the most appropriate response is for them to only be able to request legal residence. Fifty-six percent of those surveyed said that they think that those who violate the laws should not receive the “reward” of legalization, as the detractors of immigration reform argue. The survey results suggest that the April 15 bombings at the Boston Marathon had little impact on public opinion regarding the problem of illegal immigration. With regard to border security, 53 percent of Americans think that the government in Washington can do much more to reduce the number of undocumented immigrants who cross the southern border, and just 13 percent think that there is little or nothing that can be done to increase monitoring in the area. The survey emphasized the ideological differences on border security, given that 68 percent of conservative Republicans believe the government should do more on that score while just 37 percent of progressive Democrats share that opinion.

New Study: Nearly Half of Latinos Less Likely to Report Crime Due to Immigration Fears

2013-05-08T17:21:46+00:00

Federal legislation to improve the nation’s immigration system is taking a step forward this week, when the Senate Gang of 8 immigration bill goes into markup, but advocates today are reminding President Obama of the high cost of strict immigration enforcement and what he can do to alleviate the problem. A new study from Lake Research Partners, commissioned by PolicyLink, released today found that current immigration enforcement policies have a negative impact on public safety. Their report, Insecure Communities: Latino Perceptions of Police Involvement in Immigration Enforcement, found that programs like Secure Communities that use local law enforcement agencies as proxies for immigration enforcement, lead to a growing mistrust of the police—and a disinclination to report crimes. Among the findings of the study: 44% of respondents reported they are less likely to contact police officers if they have been a victim of a crime for fear they or someone they know will be asked about their immigration status 45% of respondents indicated they are less likely to voluntarily offer information about crimes they know have been committed because they are afraid the police officers will ask them or someone they know about their immigration status 43% of respondents feel “less safe because local law enforcement is more involved in immigration enforcement” 38% of respondents feel afraid to leave their home because local law enforcement officials are more involved in immigration enforcement As Dr. Nik Theodore, a University of Illinois-Chicago professor and the author of the study said: The decision to enlist police in immigration enforcement has driven a wedge between police and Latino communities. The increased involvement of police in immigration enforcement has significantly heightened the fears many Latinos have of the police, leading to a mistrust of law enforcement authorities and a reduction in public safety. Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO), who will hold a panel discussion about the report on Capitol Hill on Wednesday, agreed: This report highlights how local law enforcement’s greater role in immigration enforcement has created mistrust between the Latino community and local police, making all of our communities less safe from crime.

Voter Suppression Group Fear Mongers Over Immigration Reform: It Will Allow ‘Millions’ To Vote

2013-05-07T16:20:47+00:00

Following other far-right attacks on comprehensive immigration reform, True the Vote, a Tea Party group purporting to combat voter fraud, is now rallying against the Senate’s immigration bill. In a fundraising email to supporters, True the Vote founder Catherine Engelbrecht warned that the bill presents a “golden opportunity” to allow “millions of newly legalized immigrants” to “undermine our electoral system.” The email stays vague on the details of how exactly the bill will do this. Rather, Engelbrecht argues that the bill is automatically suspicious because “the Progressives seem to love everything about this bill.” She also equates legalized immigrants with fraudulent voters: This bill is chock-full of loopholes and new regulations in its nearly 1,000 pages. The Progressives seem to love everything about this bill. And that is scary. Leftists would like nothing better than to be able to take advantage of more liberal residency requirements and national ID laws to swamp voting places with millions of fraudulent voters. If this bill passes, millions of newly legalized immigrants could overwhelm local and state election offices. And you can bet the ACLU, La Raza, and all the other anti-voter ID groups will be fighting us even harder if this bill is passed. They will claim that sensible voting rules are suppressing the new immigrant vote! In reality, immigrants who become legal under the bill would have to wait 14 years to gain citizenship and the accompanying right to vote. However, True the Vote’s unfounded suspicion that minorities voting is inherently illegal is nothing new. Despite the group’s stated intention of fighting in-person voter fraud, an exceedingly rare phenomenon, the legislation they advocate for, such as voter ID, limited voter registration, and voter purges, has been found time and again to target minorities’ voting rights. In the last election cycle alone, the Justice Department blocked 4 supposedly anti-voter fraud laws in 3 states because they would clearly make it harder for minorities to vote. Florida and Colorado also threatened to purge suspected non-citizens — most of whom were Latino — from their voter rolls if the individuals could not prove their citizenship in time. Florida found a single non-citizen voter from Canada, and Colorado ultimately gave up after confirming citizenship for the vast majority of suspected non-citizens. Even though citizens have the right to vote regardless of origin or language, anti-immigrant lawmakers have also pushed for legislation targeting non-English speaking voters. New bills would restrict non-English speakers’ access to interpreters at the polls and require ballots and election materials to be printed only in English. After the November election, many Republicans pointed to high minority turnout as sufficient proof of voter fraud. In Colorado, a Republican poll worker expressed concern over “a very high concentration of people of color,” while the head of the Maine GOP claimed “dozens, dozens of black people” cast ballots that had to be illegal because “nobody in town knows anyone who’s black.”

Terrified Nativists Unleash Everything They’ve Got Against Senate Immigration Bill

2013-05-04T00:13:50+00:00

Nativists are terrified by the Senate immigration bill. Legal status for most unauthorized immigrants; a pathway to citizenship for those who are legalized; more flexible limits on future immigration—all of these are anathema to the nativist vision of what the United States should become. So it’s not surprising that the nativists are letting loose with every empirically unsupported argument and scrap of misinformation in their intellectual arsenal. In particular, the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) has been relentless in its attacks against the Senate bill: S.744, “The Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act.” Just in the month of April, for instance, CIS has made the following, sometimes outlandish claims: We must “secure the border” before we can even discuss “amnesty”: The billions we have already spent on border security, the hundreds of miles of fencing, the thousands of new Border Patrol agents, the surveillance drones—none of it is enough. We’ve been pouring greater and greater amounts of money and manpower into border security for two decades, but if we just keep going…How far must we go? Perhaps until the border is impermeable, which is an impossibility. Regardless, the CIS perspective ignores the fact that channeling unauthorized immigrants and future immigrants into legal pathways, where they are subject to background checks, does more to improve the nation’s security than border fencing.

How New Immigration Bill Could Have Caught Two Suspects Arrested In Connection With Boston Bombing

2013-05-03T00:06:17+00:00

Federal authorities on Wednesday announced they had arrested three suspects for allegedly helping the Boston Marathon bombers in the aftermath of the attacks. Two of the suspects are Kazakh nationals Azamat Tazhayakov and Dias Kadyrbayev, who had already been detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement in the days following the bombing for overstaying their student visas. Though some Republicans have called for halting immigration reform in light of the bombing, the case of these two Kazakh students demonstrates how immigration reform is needed. The Senate’s proposed immigration overhaul would have made it much less likely that Kadyrbayev and Tazhayakov would have slipped off federal authorities’ radar, since it creates a tracking system for those who have overstayed their visas. As Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) pointed out a few weeks ago on CNN’s State Of The Union, this will make it easier to catch those who might have dangerous intentions: GRAHAM: I think now is the time to bring all the 11 million out of the shadows and find out who they are. Most of them are here to work, but we may find some terrorists in our midst who have been hiding in the shadows. When it comes to the entry/exit visa system, the 19 hijackers, all students, overstayed their visas and the system didn’t capture that. We’re going to fix that. In our bill, when you come into the country, it goes into the system. And when your time to leave the country expires and you haven’t left, law enforcement is notified. So we are addressing a broken immigration system. It’s likely that, no matter the facts of the bill, the news that anyone related to the bombing had overstayed a student visa will cause a dust-up in Congress’s ongoing conversation over comprehensive immigration reform. When Rep. Steve King (R-IA), for example, discovered that bombers themselves were immigrants — older brother Tamerlan Tsarnaev was a permanent resident, while younger brother Dzhokhar was a naturalized citizen — he called for the process to be put on pause. According to Mother Jones, “Federal authorities allege that these two friends of Tsarnaev’s removed evidence from Tsarnaev’s dorm room at the University of Massachusetts–Dartmouth after the April 15 bombing.” Fox News adds, “Kadyrbayev and Tazhayakov are suspected of taking computers and other equipment from Dzhokhar Tsarnaev’s apartment and trying to dispose of it after the bombings.” The boys’ lawyer maintains that they are innocent. UPDATE A federal official told the AP on Wednesday afternoon that Tazhayakov was permitted to return to the United States on January 20, despite having his visa revoked for academic dismissal from his university.

HS News Presents TODAY IN LATIN AMERICAN HISTORY

2013-05-01T22:07:44+00:00

Discover what happened today in history. Read about major past events that happened today including special entries on crime, entertainment, and more. From Columbus to Chavez, the History of Latin America is long and fascinating. Here you’ll find the people, places and events that made history . Articles covering important events in Latin American history and their effects on the world. Click here for more Today In Latin America.

States Move Forward To Allow Undocumented Immigrants To Drive Legally

2013-05-01T00:19:51+00:00

In a stark change from the harmful measures that swept across states in previous years, 2013 has started out as a good year for immigration reform at the state level. Lawmakers continue to push for pro-immigrant policies to help immigrants already living in the U.S., while the Georgia legislature’s passage of an anti-immigrant bill stands out as an outlier instead of the norm. There have been resolutions endorsing the need for immigration reform and bipartisan support for allowing undocumented immigrants to pay in-state tuition at state colleges and universities. And in several states, lawmakers either have passed or are pushing for policy changes so that undocumented immigrants can apply for driver’s licenses. While we’re waiting for reform at the federal level, state driver’s license efforts will allow immigrants to drive legally and make the roads safer for us all. In Oregon, for example, the state Senate approved a bill by a 20-7 vote that would grant short-term driver’s licenses to undocumented immigrants. That is a significant change from five years ago when Oregon state legislators passed a measure requiring proof of citizenship or lawful residency to get a license. The bill now goes to the House for consideration. The Colorado Senate also passed legislation allowing undocumented immigrants to apply for driver’s licenses. The policy change would create a separate category of driver’s licenses for undocumented immigrants that would be marked to “specify that the license is not valid for federal purposes, voting or public benefits.” Despite amendments to the bill before it passed, advocates said the bill still accomplishes its purpose. “The end result is still a driver’s license that will be accepted by law enforcement in our state,” said Tania Valenza, a volunteer with Driver’s Licenses for All. Outside of these two states, lawmakers are still considering driver’s license bills in California and Texas, while Democrats in Connecticut are renewing their push for the measure. Residents in Illinois, New Mexico, and Washington already can apply for driver’s licenses regardless of immigration status, and Utah allows undocumented immigrants to have driver’s permits, which cannot be used for identification. On top of efforts in state legislatures for undocumented immigrants to have driver’s licenses, governors or state officials in every state except Arizona and Nebraska have confirmed that undocumented immigrants who receive temporary legal status through Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) policy can apply for driver’s licenses. Having a driver’s license enables undocumented immigrants who have lived in the U.S. for years to go to work, take their children to school, and generally get around without fear of deportation for driving without a license. And allowing undocumented immigrants to apply for driver’s licenses could help public safety. Having drivers be licensed and insured helps to make roads safer. In Illinois, for example, uninsured drivers were estimated to cost $64 million in damage claims. Additionally, a study released in January by the California Department of Motor Vehicles found that unlicensed drivers in the state – most of whom are undocumented immigrants – are three times more likely to be involved in a fatal car accident. But having drivers meet “modest requirements necessary to get a license,” like passing a written exam and driving test, could help reduce the number of fatalities, the report suggested. Some advocates and officials told the Los Angeles Times earlier this year that the study bolsters the case for why the state should permit undocumented immigrants to apply for driver’s licenses. There is much to be done at the federal level to improve U.S. immigration policy as a whole, but these changes at the state level are complementary to national immigration reform efforts. The Senate has already held a hearing on the Gang of Eight’s immigration bill, and other measures could be introduced in the House. But in the meantime, state driver’s license efforts will allow immigrants to drive legally and make the roads safer for us all.

Open Letter From Dreamers to “Gang of 8”- Don’t Reinvent the Wheel & Pass Senate Bill

2013-04-29T19:14:12+00:00

Dear Speaker John Boehner, Rep. Nanci Pelosi, and House “Gang of 8”, In the Senate, the bipartisan “Gang of 8” - group of Senators leading immigration legislation - has negotiated a delicate compromise that is a first step to meet our country’s economic, family, and security needs. The Senate Judiciary committee has also held more than 6 days of extensive hearings and heard testimony from over 40 witnesses. With legislation ready for mark up in the coming weeks and up for a vote in early June, DREAMers are asking House leadership and the House “Gang of 8” to not reinvent the wheel with its own bill. Rather, to ensure progress and a solution to our country’s outdated immigration system, we urge you and the House leadership to take up the Senate bill. Over the past few months, momentum from Congress to tackle immigration reform has been on a positive scale. The American people from all stripes are demonstrating significant support for a path to citizenship, intelligent border and interior enforcement, and a system that prioritizes families. Indeed, both the House and Senate have debated with hearings and through the media the complex issues needed to be resolved. All this has and will allow the country to get intimately familiar with the issues. At the same time, Republican and Democratic House leadership must not fall into redundancy by debating issues to a public that already knows and is demanding an expeditious solution. Chairman Goodlatte has been responsible ensuring that all members are educated on immigration policy. However, the country cannot afford legislating on immigration via piece meal nor replicating efforts. Indeed, such decision by the Chairman has been the result of a deadlocked House “gang of 8” that has fallen short to come up with a final product, including on the guest worker program. Now it is the time for Congress to finally resolve immigration. And it is House leadership that can deliver a solution by employing their procedural acumen to move expeditiously to ensure the country can meet the demands of the 21st century. Sincerely, DREAM Action Coalition DREAM Action Ohio NorCal DREAMers

A “Keeping Families Together” Story- But I Never Lost Hope.. ( VIDEO)

2013-04-22T15:42:45+00:00

I am from Ecuador and I came to this country 15 years ago. When I was a kid I was a victim of domestic violence at home and then when I was 16 I had encountered another domestic violence experience. I came to this country was to escape that life. The person who helped me come to the United States took away my passport once we arrived to this country, made me work for $80 a month, didn’t feed me and threaten me with calling ICE on me. Her husband and nephews also kept touching me inappropriately. But I never lost hope that this nightmare was going to end someday. When I made it to Boston, I started to take classes and found REACH, a nonprofit that works with victims of domestic violence. They thought me to lose my fear and to talk about my experience and story. My message for all is that we don’t have to live in fear. As an immigrant I have to fight for me, my children and my community. We need to work together in this campaign. If we don’t come out of the shadows, we will never be heard.

Morning Joe Host Shames Senators Who Killed Gun Reform: We’re The 90 Percent

2013-04-18T17:15:41+00:00

The morning after the U.S. Senate failed to pass a bipartisan compromise to expand background checks to gun shows and online sales, MSNBC’s ‘Morning Joe’ host Joe Scarborough raged against the lawmakers who blocked the bill. Scarborough, a former Republican Congressman, predicted both his party as well as the “Democrats who cowered in the corner” would “pay a heavy price” in the 2014 midterm elections. As the show flashed images of each senator who voted against the measure, Scarborough reminded viewers that 90 percent of Americans support universal background checks, an even more extensive proposal than the one ultimately included in the failed bill. The former GOP legislator warned that his party will face “extinction” for opposing such an overwhelmingly popular bill: You don’t ignore 90 percent of what the voting population wants when you’re talking about the safety of Americans, of our families, of our communities, of our schools. The safety that we feel when we send our kids to malls, to churches, to college…I just want to be clear. I said this party is heading towards extinction. Talking about the 2013 version of the Republican Party. A new Republican Party, though, is going to come in its place. This sort of extremism is going to be called out by the 90%. We’re the 90% and we are going to win. This is just the first battle. Watch it: Indeed, the senators voting for the gun violence prevention measure represent 194 million people, roughly 65 percent of the entire American population, yet were defeated by a minority representing just 118 million people. Scarborough’s fury over these counterintuitive numbers echoes President Obama, who called out senators yesterday for choosing special interests over the American people. Background checks are also exceedingly popular with gun owners and NRA members, though the gun lobby threw its full weight behind killing the measure. A full 87 percent of gun owners and 57 percent of NRA members support universal background checks.

2 Page Summary of 844 page Bill from Sen. Rubio Office - Immigraiton Reform Bill Summary

2013-04-17T17:53:04+00:00

MYTH: “180 days after Obama signs bill, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano submits two border security plans to Congress. No further action is required.” (Conn Carroll, “The Gang of Ocho’s Path to Citizenship in 7 Easy Steps,” Washington Examiner, 4/16/13) FACT: Not only is a plan submitted, the plan has to be funded by Congress and implementation of the plan has to begin. MYTH: “Prove they have been in the U.S. since December 2011.” (Conn Carroll, “The Gang of Ocho’s Path to Citizenship in 7 Easy Steps,” Washington Examiner, 4/16/13) FACT: Prove you have been in the U.S. since before December 2011. MYTH: “Ten years after obtaining RPI status, immigrants may apply for ‘Lawful Permanent Resident’ status.” (Conn Carroll, “The Gang of Ocho’s Path to Citizenship in 7 Easy Steps,” Washington Examiner, 4/16/13) FACT: Ten years after obtaining RPI status, immigrants may apply for ‘Lawful Permanent Resident’ status provided the security triggers have been met.” Immigration reform bill summary by Brett LoGiurato

Read The Senate Immigration Bill Outline Here

2013-04-16T14:54:42+00:00

Outline of the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013 Millions of illegal immigrants would be put on a pathway to legal status and eventually have the chance to apply for citizenship in exchange for paying fines and taxes, under the terms of the immigration overhaul unveiled this week. According to an outline of the bill released, the massive legalization program would be twinned with a multibillion-dollar effort to boost border security. Outline of the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013 Link to document

Poll of Undocumented Immigrants Reveals Strong Family and Social Connections in America

2013-04-15T22:05:38+00:00

Groundbreaking poll of Latino undocumented immigrants shows 85% have U.S. citizen family members; and 87% would plan to apply for citizenship if immigration reform passes A new poll of Latino undocumented immigrants finds they have deep roots in America, with strong family and social connections to U.S. citizens, painting a portrait of a community that is very integrated into the American fabric, and hopeful of a chance to gain legal status and ultimately citizenship. Today, Latino Decisions releases a ground-breaking poll of undocumented Latino residents of the United States, conducted on behalf of the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials (NALEO) Educational Fund and America’s Voice Education Fund. In the midst of the debate over the future of immigration policy in the United States, the time was right to assess the social and familial ties between undocumented immigrants and American citizens. The poll finds a very strong connection between immigrant communities and other Americans. [PDF of poll results] The key findings from the poll include: Undocumented Immigrants are closely tied to the American citizens. 85% of undocumented immigrants have a family member who is a U.S. citizen. Among these, 62% have at least one U.S. born child, and 29% have a spouse who is a U.S. citizen or legal permanent resident. Beyond children or spouses, an additional 20% have another family member who is a U.S. citizen, such as a sibling, niece or nephew, aunt or uncle. Immigrants come to the United States to work and better their families. Opportunity is identified as the principal reason for coming to the United States. Overall, 77% came to the U.S. for better economic opportunity, or to create a better life for their family. Approximately 39% of our respondents said “better jobs and economic opportunity” as the reason for migration, while another 38% said “to create a better life for [your] family and children.” Another 12% came to reunite with family members. Immigrants are here as families. Whether citizens, legal permanent residents, or something else, a vast majority of undocumented immigrants have other family members also living in the United States. Across all questions about family members, 95% of respondents have at least one other family member in the U.S. About three-quarters (74%) have children living here in the U.S., 62% have a spouse in the U.S., and the same amount, 62% have a brother or sister here, and 61% have a cousin. Undocumented immigrants are overwhelmingly in family environments, not in isolation. Undocumented immigrants want to be American citizens. When asked what they would do if the law changed to allow a process for them to eventually apply for citizenship, an overwhelming 87% indicated their intention to become a U.S. citizen. Undocumented immigrants are hopeful that the time for comprehensive immigration reform has come. Over two-thirds describe themselves as more optimistic and hopeful about the chances for CIR compared with other years’ efforts. Undocumented immigrants are incorporated into the American economy. Large majorities (71%) are in households that own cars, and 15% reported owning their home. Undocumented immigrants are young, with long work-lives ahead of them. With baby-boomers rapidly aging toward retirement, undocumented persons significantly lower the age of the taxpaying population. The poll finds nearly a quarter of undocumented persons arrived in the U.S. below the age of 18, and 81% of all undocumented respondents arrived at or below 30 years of age. Undocumented immigrants have deep roots and are not newcomers. Over two-thirds of respondents (68%) have been living in the U.S. more than a decade. By contrast, 22% have been here between 5 and 10 years and only 11% of respondents had been here 5 years or less. About the poll: Latino Decisions interviewed 400 Latino adult immigrants self-identifying as non-citizens and not “Legal Permanent Residents” or not having any other type of visa or documentation. The poll was conducted between March 4 and March 29, 2013, and all respondents were selected at random in both landline and cell-phone only households. The nominal margin of error is +/- 4.9%. Interviews were conducted in Spanish and English at the subject’s discretion. Additional data points will be released later this week. Read the entire report here

How Panda Express, Taco Bell, And McDonalds Rebrand Food As ‘Healthy’ Without Changing Much

2013-04-12T15:10:47+00:00

As a growing number of Americans cite obesity as the most urgent health problem facing the country, the food industry is looking for a way to profit. Despite playing a critical role in enabling America’s obesity epidemic, fast food chains have recently announced attempts to make their product seem healthier — a number of new menu items that may substitute whole grain for white or turkey for red meat. But for many of these companies, the rebranding is superficial: Panda Express: Customers at Panda Express will have three rice choices: Steamed white rice, steamed brown rice or fried brown rice (brown rice has more nutritional value) Chief Marketing Officer Glenn Lunde described how Panda Express hopes to avoid shocking customers. “If you just sell steamed brown rice, you’re not going to sell that much.” He added, “Aren’t we fabulous?” Taco Bell: The chain that popularized Doritos Locos Tacos announced it would make 20 percent of its meals meet nutritional guidelines, but not before 2020. Burger King: Burger King’s limited time turkey burger is its attempt at a “game-changer” healthier option. It still weighs in at 530 calories. McDonalds: McDonalds’ new McWrap uses a green label to trick customers into thinking it’s healthier. Its “healthy” Egg White Delight is 40 calories less than the original and complete with bacon and cheese. Many executives say they are hesitant to make any major changes, because they expect healthy foods to taste bad and perform poorly. Huffington Post’s Joe Satran described the motivation for the incremental change: Chains add new items “to make consumers think of their restaurants as healthy — or at least not gratuitously unhealthy — and, by extension, OK to visit. In other words, healthy menu items are marketing tools. Like any other new product introduction, they bring attention to the chain; unlike, say, Cool Ranch Doritos Tacos, they shift perception of the brand toward virtue.” Of course, the problem is not limited to fast food, with sugary drink brands suddenly advertising their nutrition. At least now consumers will have more information to make healthier choices. Obamacare requires chains with more than 20 locations to post calorie counts on their menus.

Young Hispanics’ Changing Attitudes About Money

2013-04-10T17:03:35+00:00

As April 15th approaches, everyone who has earned money this year is making sure they’ve given Uncle Sam his due. As a result, it’s that time of year for reflecting on matters of money — a particular concern for young adults, who have come-of-age during a recession and have been disproportionately affected by it. At an age when previous generations were establishing careers, starting families, and buying houses, today’s young adult is still await the expansive opportunities that were promised to them. For many – Hispanics in particular – those prospects have yet to appear. When it comes to employment, Hispanic young adults have it rough. Hispanics 18 to 34 overall have an unemployment rate that’s 25% above that of non-Hispanic whites, according to a recent analysis of Bureau of Labor Statistics data by the think tank Demos. Research indicates, 1 out of 7 Hispanics ages 18 to 24 are looking for a job but can’t find one. The lack of job growth in the market is hitting the youngest adults especially hard: in 2012, labor force participation for total 18 to 24-year-olds fell to its lowest point in over four decades. Combining findings from its 2012 research study “Hispanic 18-34s Living the ‘Next Normal’” with information from other sources, Tr3s has prepared some research on young Hispanic adults and their changing attitudes toward money. Ostentatious wealth is “out.” For Boomers and Xers, brand names and high-priced products were status symbols. Tr3s found that young adults today don’t have that luxury. Money is tight, so overspending is not really an option. In addition, it’s a source of resentment — they connote frivolous spending, which they blame for our current economic problems, with poor judgment. This is true not just for young Hispanics, but young adults in general. Money as a protective talisman is “in.” Because anything can happen, money in the bank is an insurance policy against tough times that might lie ahead, according to Tr3s research. For many, that savings account will also make it possible to move out of their parents’ house someday. Hispanic young adults want to do better than their parents. Being financially better off than their parents is very important for 7 out of 10 Hispanic young adults, according to the 2012 Maximo Report. They’re almost twice as likely as white non-Hispanics to have this desire. In spite of their difficulties, they’re optimistic about the future. The Maximo Report found that 6 in 10 Hispanic young adults feel the recession is getting better (a 116 index vs. white non-Hispanics). Tr3s also found that 61% of Hispanics 18 to 29 considers themselves to be very happy. Source: Tr3s 2012 “Hispanic 18-34s Living The ‘Next Normal’”; Maximo Report 2012, NGLC, Motivo Insights, and Tr3s; Demos, “Stuck: Young America’s Persistent Jobs Crisis,” 4/4/13; The New York Times, “ Do Millennials Stand a Chance in the Real World?,” 3/26/13

Why Walgreens’ Decision To Provide Primary Care Is A Glimpse Into The Future Of U.S. Health Care

2013-04-05T17:44:46+00:00

On Thursday morning, Walgreens became the first-ever chain retailer to announce that it would become a direct provider of primary care services, moving beyond the pharmacy’s current practice of administering vaccinations to diagnosing and treating Americans with asthma, diabetes, and high cholesterol. The decision holds particular promise for Americans suffering from chronic conditions by giving them an easily-accessible “medical home” for managing illnesses that require preventative or ongoing care — and it might just herald the future of the American health care industry. Walgreens has been planning something along these lines for some time now. In January, the company announced that it would be launching its own take on Obamacare’s Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs) — coordinated arrangements in which normally stratified health workers collaborate to provide better patient care while lowering costs — in an effort to become “care extenders” that implement the plans drawn up by physicians. As this announcement proves, they were serious about that: Walgreens officials say they will have nurse practitioners and physician assistants at more than 300 Take Care Clinics in 18 states and the District of Columbia to do tests and make diagnoses – and also write prescriptions, refer patients for additional tests and help them manage their conditions. “We’re not trying to take over primary care, but we think we can help support physicians and transform the way care is delivered to provide more access points at a time when people need it the most,” said Heather Helle, a division vice president at Walgreens. [...] She said physicians will help oversee Walgreens’ clinics – and the clinics can transmit test results and other information electronically to doctors’ offices. She noted that clinics could help people find doctors too. Many would have an affiliation or other link with the stores’ clinics. Retail clinics generally appeal to consumers looking for convenience and cost savings. Costs are roughly 30 percent to 40 percent less than similar care at doctor’s offices and 80 percent cheaper than at an emergency room, according to a 2011 study published in the American Journal of Managed Care. The cynically-minded may point out that there’s a financial motivation to all this, as Walgreens’ main revenue source is its pharmacies, where the costs of generic versions for prescription drugs are considerably higher than at independent, online, and wholesale retailers. Still, this shift would provide substantially added value to purchasing those drugs at Walgreens chains by eliminating the need for a hospital trip, and the idea of an ubiquitous source of cheap primary care should excite health reform advocates, as the planned coordination model is exactly the sort of innovation that reformers and Obamacare are hoping will take root. American Academy of Family Physicians president Dr. Jeffrey Cain slammed Walgreens’ decision, stating that it could be risky and confusing for patients to receive care through non-doctor practitioners — but this critique completely ignores the needs and realities of U.S. health care. The fact is, increasing reliance on practitioners and physician assistants to provide primary care is absolutely critical to meeting increased patient demand as an increasing number of Americans gain coverage under Obamacare. That’s why the reform law encourages the expansion of community health clinics and these collaborations in the first place. Having easily-accessible chain pharmacies like Walgreens to carefully monitor patients’ chronic care needs is also likely to increase patients’ compliance with their treatments. That’s huge, considering that noncompliance — especially with medication regimens — leads to $300 billion in wasteful health expenditures every year. Pharmacy-based primary care medical homes would also open up access to disadvantaged populations, like low-income Americans or Americans living in isolated rural communities.

Small Business Owners Support Comprehensive Immigration Reform

2013-04-04T20:04:50+00:00

Small business owners throughout the United States have a pulse on the goings on within their local communities. They recognize that immigrant workers and their families are also consumers, which helps to create additional jobs and bolster local economies. Within that context, two new polls highlight small business owners’ perspectives of immigration and its positive effects on the ground in communities. Overwhelmingly, the surveys show small business owners, regardless of political affiliation, support comprehensive immigration reform. Small Business Majority recently released the results from a poll exploring the extent to which small businesses support comprehensive immigration reform. The results stem from an internet survey conducted in early March of a sample of 500 small business owners from across the United States. Main Street Alliance and the American Sustainable Business Council released the results of a similar survey yesterday. Their results derive from a telephone interview survey of small business owners also conducted in March. The sample populations for both surveys were demographically, geographically, and politically diverse, with strong bipartisan agreement across party lines for most items in each report. The detailed Small Business Alliance report and Main Street Alliance report both contain similar key findings around small business owners’ views on immigration reform and immigration’s impact on local economies and communities: Most small business owners – nine in ten – in the Small Business Majority report recognize that our current immigration system is tragically flawed and the majority of respondents support a bipartisan effort to reform it. Similarly, the Main Street Alliance report shows strong small business support for immigration reform, with further emphasis on the role of immigrants in the economy and in communities. The Small Business Majority report shows that small business owners recognize that immigration and immigration reform is good for America (84 percent) and that immigrant entrepreneurs help facilitate business and economic growth for the country (66 percent). According to the Small Business Majority report, almost three-quarters of small business owners recognize the need to allow more high-skilled workers to enter the country to benefit the overall economy, while 64 percent agree that there is an economic need to allow more less-skilled workers to enter the U.S. Many small business owners (73 percent) in the Small Business Majority report see a need to revise the guest worker system by creating a new worker visa that would allow portability and mobility for workers to change employers as part of a protection from abusive employers, as well as a path to transition beyond temporary status. The Main Street Alliance report shows that two-thirds of small business owners support a roadmap to citizenship for immigrants already living in the U.S., and 61 percent favor a roadmap to citizenship for future immigrants over a temporary worker program with no path to citizenship. Most small business owners (three-fourths) in the Small Business Majority report support a pathway to citizenship for the 11 million undocumented immigrants currently in the U.S. Furthermore, the Main Street Alliance report finds small businesses largely agree with the following three statements about immigration’s role in American communities, economy, and society: 82 percent agreed with the statement: “Generations of new Americans, both business owners and workers, have helped build strong local economies and communities. Today, outdated and out-of-touch immigration policies are hindering our economic progress. Addressing immigration is important.” 71 percent agreed with the statement: “Our immigration policies should encourage the economic integration of new American immigrants. This will strengthen the customer base for small businesses, bring new talent to the nation and help those businesses grow and create jobs.” 67 percent agreed with the statement: “Small business owners and their employees are like family. When an employee’s family is separated by our current immigration laws, it impacts morale and focus in the workplace. Keeping families together is important to ensure a productive and focused workforce for small businesses.” These two survey reports offer yet more evidence that small business owners value immigration reform not only for its economic impact, but for the role it plays in strengthening families and communities. While small businesses see the positive impacts of immigration in local economies and communities, big business is also beginning to get that message too, as the example of Facebook supporting a new comprehensive immigration reform group suggests. More and more, immigration reform is being recognized for what it is—one of the ways that we can create a better and more productive country that benefits everyone.

Poll: Latino Voters Personal Connections to Immigration Reform

2013-03-18T19:42:09+00:00

Latino Decisions released new polling data today highlighting why immigration reform has become the number one political issue for Latino voters, and the answer is close personal connections between Latino voters and Latino undocumented immigrants. The poll finds that 58% of Latino registered voters now cite immigration reform as the top priority for the Congress and President, up from 35% in November 2012. One reason is that 63% of Latino voters say they personally know someone who is an undocumented immigrant, either a member of their family or a close personal friend. Further, 39% of Latino voters say they personally know someone, or a family who has faced deportation or detention for immigration reasons, and increase of 14 points over 2011, when 25% of Latino voters said they personally knew someone who had faced deportation or detention. It is clear that the immigration reform issue is one that Latinos agree with in principle, but that Latino voters are also directly connected to, and intertwined with the undocumented immigrant population in the United States. Finally, the poll asked Latino voters if they knew any young immigrants who had applied for the 2012 “deferred action” program that would allow DREAM Act-eligible immigrants to live in the U.S. and attend college with temporary visas. More than one in five Latino voters (22%) knows someone who has already applied for deferred action, with 18% saying they know someone who is eligible, but not yet applied. According to Gary Segura, co-founder of Latino Decisions, who delivered the webinar briefing today, “There is no segmenting Latinos into those for whom immigration is important and those who have little interest. Immigration reform is a highly salients issue across all generations, national origin groups and even political parties. Latino voters are asking for comprehensive immigration reform. Period.” Latino voters demonstrated very strong support for comprehensive immigration reform that includes a pathway to citizenship. When asked to compare two proposals, one that included a clear path to citizenship, and a second which made citizenship contingent on “securing the border” a clear majority of Latinos - 70% - favored a clear path to citizenship. When asked what a fair and reasonable amount of time undocumented immigrants who qualify should have to wait for citizenship, 79% said 5 years or less, while 15% said 5 to 10 years. Only 4% preferred an option that had 10 years or more waiting period. Segura added: “If the motive to act on immigration reform is electoral, a path to citizenship without unreasonable waits is key. While the numbers here suggest that Latino voters understand and accept a process, excessive delay—to say nothing of excluding a path to citizenship altogether—is clearly not acceptable and would not yield the electoral change that is sought.” Finally, the poll asked Latino voters how they would evaluate the Republican Party vis-a-vis immigration reform. Respondents were told that Democrats and Republicans were currently working together in a bi-partisan effort, and then asked if the GOP continued to work and deliver enough votes to pass the bill, would they be more or less likely to vote Republican? Overall, 32% of Latino voters would be more likely to vote Republican, including 26% of Latinos who voted for Obama in 2012, if the Republicans work alongside Democrats to ensure a bill is passed. However, when we asked respondents how they would react if the bi-partisan immigration bill is blocked by House Republicans, 39% said they would be less likely to vote for the GOP, including sizable percentages of Latino Republicans who said they would not support their party if the House blocks reform. These results are consistent with data we released last week which showed not just the Republican Party, but individual Republican candidates have much to gain in supporting a path to citizenship. When asked if they would be more or less likely to support a GOP candidate who advocated for comprehensive immigration reform with a path to citizenship, 44% of Latinos voters were more likely, including 43% of Latinos who had voted for Obama. “No matter how you slice the data, looking at Democrats, independents, and Republicans, it is clear that there is opportunity for Republican candidates to improved their share of Latino votes if they can get out in front on this issue which is SO important to Latino families,” Segura offered in conclusion. Read more on Poll here

Perpetuating Latino Slurs for Profit: Clear Channel’s KFI AM Clinches Onto the Term “Illegal”

2013-03-18T17:25:57+00:00

The nation’s focus on immigration has created a widespread discussion as to whether terms such as “illegal(s),” “illegal immigrants,” “illegal aliens,” etc., should continue to dominate the immigration debate. For progressive leaders and groups, including NHMC, this is a no brainer. Using words such as “illegal” continues to polarize the immigration debate—using charged terminology clouds the issue instead of fostering a substantive discussion. What’s the big deal? Contrary to general belief, using terms such as “illegal” does in fact create a profound negative effect on listeners. A national poll by NHMC and Latino Decisions found that respondents react more negatively when the term “illegal alien” is used, compared to when the term “undocumented immigrant” is used. More shocking is the fact that over 30 percent of survey respondents believe that a majority of U.S. Latinos are undocumented. Spokespersons and organizations left and right, have taken a stance against such terms. Even conservative group, Hispanic Leadership Network, has suggested “Dos and Don’ts of Immigration Reform”to GOP members last month. Why does the media continue to use terms that offends one of the largest subgroups in the United States? It’s no surprise that media personalities such as Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly, Michael Savage, etc. use inflammatory language to enrage their listeners and boost up ratings. And without getting into the media consolidation debate, let’s just say that most media decision-makers are not Latinos and/or have a history of alienating Latinos (cough cough, Fox News… cough cough,Clear Channel). How are these decisions being made? And what is the rationale behind them? Case in point: Clear Channel KFI AM’s Program Director Robin Bertolucci, who in an interview with RBR-TVBR, an online publicly traded news site, personifies the trouble with media decision-makers who misguidedly support using terms such as “illegal.” This program director catches our attention because we are leading a campaign against the station’s talk show host, precisely for using inflammatory language. Last year KFI AM’s shock jocks from “The John and Ken Show,” released the personal mobile number of an immigrant activist, after which the activist received over 400 messages, some of them threatening his life. The campaign has mostly involved informing advertisers about the effects of hate speech in the media. While John and Ken have “toned” down since the start of our campaign, the interview really made us understand that for some people old habits die hard, even when you “look at yourself in the mirror.” When Bertolucci was asked, “Do you have to go over what not to say so as not to offend parts of the audience, a la John and Ken Show?” She responded, “We’ve really looked at ourselves in the mirror, like one of those magnifying mirrors that shows all of your pores. We’ve seen the areas where we can be better than that, where we can improve. One of the things that we’ve changed a year ago, for example, is we don’t say the word “illegals” when we talk about people that are here in this country illegally. We say “illegal aliens” or “illegal immigrant” but we don’t shorthand, because people aren’t illegal.” I wonder how long they looked in the mirror. I guess using “illegal aliens” is better than using the term “illegals.” Or is it? If this passes as reflection, at this rate it seems the term “illegal” will be dominating the immigration rhetoric for a while. Bertolucci misses the point; using the term “illegal” and associating a criminal term to individuals not yet convicted of a crime creates an inherent negative misperception and obscures the real issue, regardless of whether you follow the word with “immigrant” or “alien.” But not all hope is lost. Some media executives have recognized the effect of this inflammatory language. Fox News’ CEO, Robert Ailes, was quoted in favor of this point: “I think the word ‘illegal immigration’ is a false name,” [Ailes] continues. “You are talking about two separate issues. One is sovereignty. . . . The media trying to make America feel guilty because we want borders—that, to me, is complete bullshit. Immigration is a separate issue. . . . We should all defend sovereignty, then take a Judeo-Christian approach to immigration. I don’t have any problem with a path to citizenship.” (See the full article, here). With continued advocacy by leaders such as Antonio Vargas, Drop the I Word campaign, and other coalitions, we hope leaders will drop this divisive term and focus on substantive issues, just like Ailes suggest. With all this push from different voices we hope KFI AM will truly reflect and change its ways, but we won’t hold our breath though.

Latino Voters Favor Gun Restrictions

2013-03-12T15:27:28+00:00

The grim statistics and on-going stories about children, men and women killed by guns in America have led many to conclude that enough is enough; something must to be done to curb the senseless loss of lives gun violence. That something needs to be done is without controversy as Americans across the ideological divide desire safer communities. The controversy occurs over what needs to be done. The ensuing gun debate pits those who believe that the road to safer communities will come by way of reductions and restrictions against those who believe such efforts will do little to reduce gun-related violence. Latino Decisions conducted a national survey of the Latino electorate to establish where these voters stand on different gun control policy options under consideration in national, state and local governments. Specifically, these voters were asked if they supported or opposed: (1) requiring background checks before people can buy guns in stores and gun shows; (2) establishing a national database of gun owners; (3) making it illegal for people with documented mental illness to purchase and own guns; (4) limiting the capacity of magazines; (5) a ban on semi-automatic and assault weapons, and (6) allowing teachers. The results clearly indicate the majority of Latino voters hold a consistent set of opinions, supporting proposals that would reduce and restrict guns and ammunition. Over half of all Latino voters support all five of the gun control restrictions included in the survey. The majority (57%) also oppose expanding laws to allow teachers or authorized campus personnel to carry loaded weapons in public schools. Policies that emphasize prevention and tracking are the most widely supported. Criminal background checks for potential gun owners is the most popular proposal, with 84% in favor, and a mere 13% opposed. A national database of gun owners is also widely supported by 69% of Latino voters. Another restrictive policy option, banning the mentally ill from owning guns, is supported by 64%. Limits on weapons and ammunition also garner significant support from Latino voters, including 64% in favor of a ban on high capacity magazines, and 54% favoring a ban on semi-automatic and assault weapons. Most Latinos do not want loaded weapons in their public schools, 57% oppose the proposition of allowing teachers and/or security personnel to carry loaded guns on campus. The current debate over gun control largely falls along partisan lines. On the one hand, Democratic lawmakers, and President Obama, are calling for a ban on assault weapons and high capacity ammunition magazines, background checks, and other measures which are outlined by the House Democratic Gun Violence Prevention Task Force. On the other hand, Republican lawmakers and the NRA are opposed to many of these measures and prefer to focus on deterrence efforts and preventing persons with mental disorders from purchasing guns. Where do Latino attitudes fall along the Democratic and Republican divide? In most instances Latino voters are on the same side of these policy issues, regardless of their partisan identification. To put these numbers in sharper context, 50% of Latino voters identify as Democrats, 38% as Independent, and 11% Republican. The illustration above shows most self-identified Democrats, Independents and Republicans agree on several policy proposals, including background checks, banning mentally ill from owning guns, creating a national gun owner database, and limiting magazine capacity. Latino Democrats and Republicans are also on the same side on the matter of armed school personnel, less than half of Republicans (42%) and Democrats (35%) support the idea, though a very slight majority (51%) of independents are in favor. Banning assault weapons is the only issue where a clear partisan division emerges, with 65% of Democrats in favor, compared to only 41% of Republicans, and a mere 31% of independents Last week the Senate Judiciary Committee held its first hearing on Senator Dianne Feinstein’s efforts to reinstate the ban on assault weapons. Our survey shows that Latinos are not indifferent to these debates. Large numbers are supportive of the Democratic proposals that allow law-abiding Americans access to certain types of guns and rifles. Latinos, like many Democrats, draw the line when it comes to assault weapons and high capacity magazines. A majority favor background checks and the use of a national databank of gun owners. There is little enthusiasm for having armed teachers and security guards in public schools. In short, our results demonstrate that gun violence and gun control matter to Latinos, and we contend the perspectives of the Latino electorate should not be lost on lawmakers tasked with the critical effort to address the tragedies of gun violence in the United States. About the poll Latino Decisions interviewed 500 Latino registered voters via landline and mobile phone, across all 50 states, from February 20-28, 2013. Interviews were conducted in English or Spanish, at the preference of the respondent, and all interviewing staff was fully bilingual. The survey averaged 7 minutes in length and has an overall margin of error or +/- 4.4%

Recognizing Immigrant Women’s Needs in Immigration Reform

2013-03-11T15:27:33+00:00

While the recent debate over reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act and the Trafficking Victims Protection Act may have reminded the nation that there are “women’s issues” in immigration law, it doesn’t necessarily follow that most people regard immigration reform as a woman’s issue. Despite the fact that immigrant women make up a growing share of workers, entrepreneurs, single heads of households, and new voters—while remaining primary caregivers in families—the laws we craft to reform our broken immigration system have often been insensitive to the obstacles and challenges immigrant women face in applying for immigration status. As Kavitha Sreeharsha identified in a 2010 paper for the Immigration Policy Center, there are pitfalls we face in crafting inclusive immigration laws: “…a CIR package must include a path to legalization that values the contributions of immigrant women as part‐time and informal workers. It must recognize that women need independent opportunities to apply for legalization (as opposed to merely deriving it from a spouse or father). It must account for the fact that many immigrant women—who make significant contributions to the workforce—nonetheless have had less formal access to educational and employment opportunities. CIR must also consider the role that women play in immigrant families and as the predominant beneficiaries in the family immigration system.” In other words, laws that appear neutral on their face might, in fact, make it more difficult for undocumented women to access a legalization program or for women hoping to immigrate to the U.S. to obtain a visa. And in the meantime, in the absence of such reforms, the existing deportation and removal laws and policies often weigh most heavily on women, who are either left to try to keep their families together while their husbands or partners face deportation charges, or find themselves caught up in the net of Secure Communities and other enforcement activities that most often pull otherwise law-abiding immigrants into removal proceedings through traffic stops and other low-level encounters with police. Two examples from the current debate help to illustrate how the legal requirements that appear neutral may make it more difficult for women to access the immigration system. The legalization proposals in 2006 and 2007 included full-time employment requirements as a condition of either registering for legalization, maintaining that status, or transitioning to lawful permanent resident status. It was often assumed that women and children would apply for “derivative” status—that is they would ride along on the principal (husband’s) application. While many people challenge the employment provision in general, one of the most significant criticisms against it has been that women who are full-time caregivers or who are only employed part-time would have no independent means to apply for legalization. The assumption that family members can or should ride along on an application isn’t a problem in itself—it is often more efficient and less expensive to process a whole family at once—but it does assume a family dynamic that isn’t always in place. Similarly, the 2007 CIR bill would have drastically cut family-based immigration in favor of a points system that would privilege applicants with higher education and skills. In all likelihood, such a proposal could have hurt the chances of immigrant women to enter the U.S., as many currently enter under the family category—and may come from countries where their access to education or other opportunities is limited precisely because they are women. Thus, an immigration system based solely on credentials at the time of entry would miss out on the rich contributions of many immigrant women who realize their true potential when they move to the United States. Fortunately, the concerns from past debates are being raised today thanks to a growing network of immigrant women’s groups, immigration groups, and the broader women’s movement. They are using the month of March to focus on lobbying Congress, marching on Washington, and pressing for a different kind of immigration debate. This is yet more evidence that the significance of the 2013 immigration reform efforts are no longer just about immigration. As diverse communities come together in support of immigration reform, they send a loud and clear message to Congress: fixing the broken immigration system isn’t just about changing laws, but is instead about how America values its people—women and men alike.

Pew Study: Closing the Digital Divide: Latinos and Technology Adoption

2013-03-07T20:31:26+00:00

Latinos own smartphones, go online from a mobile device and use social networking sites at similar, and sometimes higher, rates than do other groups of Americans, according to a new analysis of three Pew Research Center surveys. The analysis also finds that when it comes to using the internet, the digital divide between Latinos and whites is smaller than what it had been just a few years ago. Between 2009 and 2012, the share of Latino adults who say they go online at least occasionally increased from 64% to 78%. Among whites, internet use rates also increased, but only by half as much (80% in 2009 to 87% in 2012). Over the same period, the gap in cellphone ownership between Latinos and other groups either diminished or disappeared. In 2012, 86% of Latinos said they owned a cellphone, up from 76% in 2009. Among the biggest drivers of these increases are spikes in technology adoption among foreign-born Latinos and Spanish-dominant Latinos. Both groups’ rates of going online and of owning cellphones increased sharply since 2009, helping to reduce the digital divide between Latinos and whites and also reducing gaps within the Latino community itself. This analysis, based on three national Pew Research Center surveys of more than 7,500 adults combined conducted between May and October of 2012, also finds: Cellphone Ownership: Fully 86% of Latinos say they own a cellphone, a share similar to that of whites (84%) and blacks (90%). Among Latinos who do not own cellphones, 76% are foreign born and 24% are native born. Smartphone Ownership: Among adults, Latinos (49%) are just as likely as whites (46%) or blacks (50%) to own a smartphone. Going Online from a Mobile Device: Latino internet users are more likely than white internet users to say they go online using a mobile device (76% versus 60%). Black internet users are equally as likely as Latinos to access the internet from a mobile device. Social Networking: Among internet users, similar shares of Latinos (68%), whites (66%) and blacks (69%) say they use social networking sites like Twitter and Facebook at least occasionally. Among Latinos who use social networking sites, 60% say they do so mostly or only in English, 29% say they do so mostly or only in Spanish and 11% say they use English and Spanish equally. Computer Ownership: Some 72% of Latinos say they own a desktop or laptop computer, compared with 83% of whites. Among blacks, 70% are computer owners. Half of Hispanic computer owners are foreign born. By comparison, 73% of Hispanics who do not own a computer are foreign born. Internet Use: Nearly eight-in-ten (78%) Latino adults go online at least occasionally, compared with 87% of whites and 78% of blacks. Half (50%) of Hispanic internet users are native born and half are foreign born. The report, “Closing the Digital Divide: Latinos and Technology Adoption,” was written by Mark Hugo Lopez, associate director of the Pew Hispanic Center; Ana Gonzalez-Barrera, research associate with the Pew Hispanic Center; and Eileen Patten, research assistant with the Pew Research Center’s Social & Demographic Trends Project. It is available at the Pew Research Center’s website, www.pewresearch.org.