Making the Dream Come True for Kids:

Position Brief on Immigration

Jacquie Amos Congressional Candidate (I-CA-1) July, 15, 2011 Hope, CA

1 Of 8 Authorized by the Committee to Elect Jacquie Amos

Making the Dream Come True for Kids: Position Brief on Immigration
by Jacquie Amos, Congressional Candidate (CA-1)
July 15, 2011 Executive Summary There has been much fervor surrounding the issue of immigration reform but it seems to be the majority who has presented a solution. They want to amend the 14th Amendment so that there will be no more such thing as "anchor babies". An anchor baby is a child who is born on U.S. soil to parents who are not citizens. Naturally, the discussion is only focused on those who are recognized as illegal immigrants, but there are many others who are non-recognized stakeholders: the children. When a parent, illegal immigrant, is deported, what happens to the anchor babies? Well, they are placed in foster care. There is no neglect or abuse but the cases will be classified as such, once again, skewing statistics, making a revenue-maximizing machine seem even needier for funding. Then, there are actually situations where parents are legal immigrants, yet deported and children placed in foster care for no reason of their own. This is reported as abuse and neglect, falsely fashioning the national statistics. All these current child welfare policies in dealing with illegal and legal immigrants are reeking havoc upon state and local governments in managing their child welfare operations. It creates unnecessary financial strains upon already stressed local budgets and further creates fiscal burdens to the nation's Medicaid system, as Targeted Case Management is the largest funding stream in foster care. The position background on the mock immigration ballot initiative I have adopted is to attack the constitutionality of the language. As the language was verbatim to California Proposition 187 (1994), I used the 9th Cir. and CA District rulings to support my position. On July 13, 2011, Zeph Baker, Congressional Candidate (CD-1), announced public praise from Dr. Paula E. Peinovich, president National Labor College. On July 14, 2011, the National Labor College formally endorsed Proposition YES 2011, a mock state ballot initiative on anti-immigration. The significance of these actions are beyond ethical reproach as there is indication that these solicitations of support were deceitfully secured. The National Labor College is under the auspices of 2 Of 8 Authorized by the Committee to Elect Jacquie Amos

the AFL-CIO where its public policy position on immigration 1 starkly contrasts that of the YES 2011 initiative. In addition, Dr. Peinovich and the National Labor College have now been casted in a light which questions their institutional integrity because the language of YES 2011 has been borrowed from the California Proposition 187 (1994), also known as Save Our State (SOS), which was challenged by the ACLU. In March 1998, U.S. District Judge Mariana Pfaelzer issued final ruling that the language was unconstitutional despite its passage at the polls . 2 CHRONOLOGY OF PROPOSITION 187 November 8, 1994 California voters pass Proposition 187. The stated purpose of the Proposition is to "provide for cooperation between [the] agencies of state and local government with the federal government, and to establish a system of required notification by and between such agencies to prevent illegal aliens in the United States from receiving benefits or public services in the State of California." November 9, 1994 After Proposition 187 passes, several actions challenging its constitutionality are commenced in California state and federal courts. Gregorio T. v. Wilson 3 brought by the ACLU/SC and MALDEF, contests all provisions of the initiative. Ultimately, five suits are filed in the United States District Court. The plaintiffs seek to bar the Governor and other state officials and entities from implementing and enforcing the provisions of Proposition 187. November 1994 A temporary restraining order is issued, barring Proposition 187 from being implemented. August 22, 1996 President Clinton signs the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRA) of 19964 into law. The PRA creates a statutory scheme that restricts and defines the eligibility of certain non-citizens for federal, state and local benefits and services. September 30, 1996 President Clinton signs into law the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRAIRA), further supplementing the federal immigration regulatory scheme. March 13, 1998 The district court issues decisions, ruling that sections 1, and 4 through 9 of Proposition 187 are preempted by the federal PRA, IIRAIRA, and other federal law. June, 1999 Governor Davis initiates a request for mediation to resolve the appeal of Proposition 187. July 29, 1999 The mediated agreement is signed by all parties and submitted to the court.

YES 2011 is verbatim to the official language, with the exception of the reference to Immigration and
1 National Legal and Policy Center, Why Unions Promote Mass Immigration: Behind Organized Labor's Interest-Group Alliances http://nlpc.org/pdfs/union_immigration_Special_Report_5_24_06.pdf 2 http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/sov/1994-general/1994-general-sov.pdf 3 League of United Latin Am. Citizens v... , 131 F.3d 1297, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 35552, 97 Cal. Daily Op. Service 9311, 97 D.A.R. 15021, 39 Fed. R. Serv. 3d (Callaghan) 1336 (9th Cir. Cal. 1997) 4 http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-104hr3734enr/pdf/BILLS-104hr3734enr.pdf

3 Of 8 Authorized by the Committee to Elect Jacquie Amos

Customs Enforcement (ICE), of the California Proposition 187 5, whose language was determined as unconstitutional. The issue now raised is why the language of this ballot initiative was approved by California Secretary of State. My positions on the language of this ballot initiative have been conferred with the U.S. House Judiciary Minority Chief of Staff, Perry Apapelbaum and I have reached out to Corey Stewart, Chairman of Prince William County, Virginia Board of County Supervisors for more insight into identifying gaps and recommendations to improve the operations and resources of local law enforcement.
5

California Proposition 187 - Limits the Privileges and Rights of Legal Aliens In a statewide referendum in November 1994, California voters approved Proposition 187 by a 3 to 2 majority. Section 1: Findings and Declaration. The People of California find and declare as follows: That they have suffered and are suffering economic hardship caused by the presence of illegal aliens in this state. That they have suffered and are suffering personal injury and damage caused by the criminal conduct of illegal aliens in this state. That they have a right to the protection of their government from any person or persons entering this country unlawfully. Therefore, the People of California declare their intention to provide for cooperation between their agencies of state and local government, and to establish a system of required notification by and between such agencies to prevent illegal aliens in the United States from receiving benefits of public services in the State of California.

Section 2: Manufacture, Distribution or Sale of False Citizenship or Resident Alien Document: Crime and Punishment. Any person who manufactures, distributes or sells false documents to conceal the true citizenship o resident alien status of another person is guilty of a felony, and shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for five years or by a fine of seventy-five thousand dollars ($75,000). Section 3: Use of False Citizenship or Resident Alien Documents: Crime and Punishment. Any person who uses false documents to conceal his or her true citizenship or resident alien status is guilty of a felony, and shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for five years or by a fine of twentyfive thousand dollars ($25,000). . . . Section 5: Exclusion of Illegal Aliens from Public School Services. . . . (b) A person shall not receive any public social services to which he or she may be otherwise entitled until the legal status of that person has been verified as one of the following: (1) A citizen of the United States. (2) An alien lawfully admitted as a permanent resident. (3) An alien lawfully admitted for a temporary period of time. . . . 4 Of 8 Authorized by the Committee to Elect Jacquie Amos

The Dream Act The region of Hope, CA is home to one of the largest portals, a dense concentration of undocumented youth population, in the United States. H.R. 1571 American Dream Act 6 Over three million students graduate from U.S. high schools every year. Most get the opportunity to test their dreams and live their American story. However, a group of approximately 65,000 youth do not get this opportunity; they are smeared with an inherited title, an illegal immigrant. These youth have lived in the United States for most of their lives and want nothing more than to be recognized for what they are, Americans. The DREAM Act is a bipartisan legislation pioneered by Sen. Orin Hatch [R-UT] and Sen. Richard

Section 6: Exclusion of Illegal Aliens from Publicly Funded Health Care. . . . (b) A person shall not receive any health care services from a publicly funded health care facility, to which he or she is otherwise entitled until the legal status of that person has been verified as one of the following: (1) A citizen of the United States. (2) An alien lawfully admitted as a permanent resident. (3)An alien lawfully admitted for a temporary period of time. . . . Section 7: Exclusion of Illegal Aliens from Public Elementary and Secondary Schools. (a) No public elementary or secondary school shall admit, or permit the attendance of, any child who is not a citizen of the United States, an alien lawfully admitted as a permanent resident, or a person who is otherwise authorized under federal law to be present in the United States. (b) Commencing January 1, 1995, each school district shall verify the legal status of each child enrolling in the school district for the first time in order to ensure the enrollment or attendance only of citizens, aliens lawfully admitted as permanent residents, or persons who are otherwise authorized to be present in the United States. . . . (f) For each child who cannot establish legal status in the United States, each school district shall continue to provide education for a period of ninety days from the date of notice [of violation of the law]. Such ninety day period shall be utilized to accomplish an orderly transition to a school in the child's country of origin. Each school district shall fully cooperate in this transition effort to ensure that the educational needs of the child are best served for that period of time.

Section 8: Exclusion of Illegal Aliens from Public Postsecondary Educational Institutions. (a) No public institution of postsecondary education shall admit, enroll, or permit the attendance of any person who not a citizen of the United States, an alien lawfully admitted as a permanent resident in the United States, or a perso who is otherwise authorized under federal law to be present in the United States. (b) Commencing with the first term or semester that begins after January 1, 1995, and at the commencement of each term or semester thereafer, each public postsecondary educational institution shall verify the status of each person enrolled or in attendance at that institution in order to ensure the enrollment or attendance only of United States citizens, aliens lawfully admitted as permanent residents in the United States, and persons who are otherwise authorized under federal law to be present in the United States. . . .
6 http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h1751ih.txt.pdf

5 Of 8 Authorized by the Committee to Elect Jacquie Amos

Durbin [D-IL] that can solve this hemorrhaging injustice in our society. Under the rigorous provisions of the DREAM Act, qualifying undocumented youth would be eligible for a 6 year long conditional path to citizenship that requires completion of a college degree or two years of military service. E-Verify E-Verify is an Internet-based system that compares information from an employee's Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification, to data from U.S Department of Homeland Security and Social Security Administration records to confirm employment eligibility. Why E-Verify? Why do people come to the United States illegally? They come here to work. The public can, and should, choose to reward companies that follow the law and employ a legal workforce. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security is working to stop unauthorized employment. By using E-Verify to determine the employment eligibility of their employees, companies become part of the solution in addressing this problem. Employment eligibility verification is good business and it's the law. Who Uses E-Verify? More than 225,000 employers, large and small, across the United States use E Verify to check the employment eligibility of their employees, with about 1,000 new businesses signing up each week. While participation in E-Verify is voluntary for most businesses, some companies may be required by state law or federal regulation to use E-Verify. For example, most employers in Arizona and Mississippi are required to use E-Verify. E-Verify is also mandatory for employers with federal contracts or subcontracts that contain the Federal Acquisition Regulation E-Verify clause. Enforcement Must Be Coupled With Real Solutions to Fix Broken Immigration System FEB 10, 2011 (Washington) Today at the House Judiciary Immigration Subcommittee hearing on E-Verify Preserving Jobs for American Workers, Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr. (D-Mich.) argued that making E-Verify mandatory and continuing to pursue an enforcement-only approach would not fix the countrys broken immigration system and do nothing to solve the countrys problems. E-Verify, an electronic employment eligibility verification system that was first initiated as a pilot program in 1997, is currently used by a small percentage of the nations employers to verify the employment eligibility of all workers, U.S. citizen and noncitizen alike. Proposals to improve and expand E-Verify have been included in comprehensive bills to reform our broken immigration laws since 2005. Below is an excerpt of Mr. Conyers opening remarks: First, no one argues that we should stop enforcing our immigration laws. But enforcement without 6 Of 8 Authorized by the Committee to Elect Jacquie Amos

reform will promote a race to the bottom that only hurts the American worker. That is why AFL-CIO and Change to Win, representing over 16 million workers and more than 60 unions, have opposed an enforcement-only approach and have called for real solutions that fix our broken immigration system. These organizations recognize that an enforcement-only approach does not diminish the demand for willing workers. Rather, it simply pushes undocumented workers further into the shadows. This makes them more susceptible to abuse and exploitation, which drives down wages and working conditions for all workers citizen and non-citizen alike. That is one of the many dangers for American workers if we rush to make E-Verify mandatory for all employers, without also fixing our immigration system. We know that the Congressional Budget Office estimates that doing E-Verify without broader immigration reform will suck $17.3 billion out of our federal tax revenues. That is because millions of workers who are currently on-the-books and paying payroll taxes will simply go off-the-books into the underground economy, which empowers bad employers and endangers everyone. Second, I would note that immigrants often fill critical gaps in our own workforce. Even in this difficult economy, there are some instances in which there are simply no Americans willing to take some of these jobs. Last Congress, we learned at a hearing on agricultural workers that experts on all sides of the debate agree that Americans are not returning to the fields to work. We learned that the increase in wages needed to get American workers to perform seasonal agricultural work would put American farmers out of businessa story told by the Republicans own witness demonstrated the economic harm that would be done if we followed their enforcement-only approach. A grower who established a program to attract American workers to plant and harvest sweet potatoes had to close down the program because it just could not be profitable. Imagine the damage we would cause if our entire agricultural industry and the millions of jobs held by American workers that are sustained by that industry was off-shored because it could no longer compete with international growers. That is the reality if we make E-Verify mandatory for all employers, including those in the agriculture industry. If our goal is to preserve jobs for American workers, rather than shutting down industries and shipping jobs overseas, doing E-Verify alone is not the answer. As we confront the complex issues facing our broken immigration system, we need to look at the issues facing all workers in the United States and to consider how ignoring the systemic problems will affect our economy and our communities. The issues of immigration are not limited to one specific population, nor are the issues exclusively confined to an age range as one is led to believe via the media. Just as there exists the issues with undocumented Polish and Yemenese families in Hamtramck, Michigan, who have had their children taken out of schools and parents and placed in detention, there are complexities in the disjointed laws and policies. The path to a civil society can only be forged through the independent thought of a peaceful meeting of the minds.

7 Of 8 Authorized by the Committee to Elect Jacquie Amos

8 Of 8 Authorized by the Committee to Elect Jacquie Amos