The DREAM Act

With DACA slated to end in six months, it is incumbent on Congress to pass an immigration bill that would protect the individuals who would be deported without the protection of DACA. The DREAM (Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors) Act of 2017, S.1615, would do just that and more. Thankfully both of our Senators are co-sponsors of this bill and it currently has bipartisan support in the Senate, where this bill will need to fight for its survival is in the House.

The DREAM Act is a long one, so this post will focus on a summary of the key points of this bill. If you would like to read the text of the bill, this link will take you there: https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/1615/text.

As you may know, there have been multiple versions since 2001 of the DREAM Act, with the 2010 version coming closest to passing. This current version of the DREAM Act is considered stronger than many of these past bills and provides individuals three paths towards U.S. citizenship: “college, work, or the armed services” (https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/dream-act). There also are different statuses of residency that an individual would go through: conditional permanent residence, lawful permanent residence and then naturalization – the process by which someone who is not born into U.S. citizenship becomes a U.S. citizen.

The American Immigration Council explains these different phases of residency as follows, “

STEP 1: CONDITIONAL PERMANENT RESIDENCE

An individual is eligible to obtain conditional permanent resident (CPR) status for up to eight years, which includes work authorization, if the person: entered the United States under the age of 18; entered four years prior to enactment and has since been continuously present; has not been convicted of a crime where the term of imprisonment was more than a year, or convicted of three or more offenses for which the aggregate sentence was 90 days or more (with an exception for offenses which are essential to a person’s immigration status); and has been admitted to an institution of higher education, has graduated high school or obtained a GED, or is currently enrolled in secondary school or a program assisting students to obtain a diploma or GED. In addition, anyone who has DACA would be immediately granted CPR status.

STEP 2: LAWFUL PERMANENT RESIDENCE

Anyone who maintains CPR status can obtain lawful permanent residence (LPR status or a “green card”) by satisfying one of the following requirements: Higher education: Complete at least two years of higher education; Military service: Complete at least two years of military service with an honorable discharge; or Work: Demonstrate employment over a total period of three years. Individuals who cannot meet one of these requirements can apply for a “hardship waiver” if the applicant is a person with disabilities, a full-time caregiver of a minor child, or for whom removal would cause extreme hardship to a U.S. citizen spouse, parent, or child.

 

 

STEP 3: NATURALIZATION

After maintaining LPR status for five years, an individual can apply to become a U.S. citizen. According to the Migration Policy Institute, as many as 3.4 million individuals would qualify under the 2017 version of the Dream Act, and over 1.5 million would eventually obtain a green card (https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/dream-act).”

This current DREAM Act would also, “Improve college affordability for undocumented youth and other immigrants by changing rules that limit their access to in-state tuition and college loans.… [In addition], There is also a hardship exception for people who cannot meet the education, military, or employment requirement. These are important factors which recognize that not everyone is on a college track and that people may have unique circumstances, such as being the caregiver of a minor child…. Another way in which this bill is stronger than prior versions is the more generous age requirement. People who entered the U.S. before their eighteenth birthday can qualify, and there is no upper age limit. Previous versions limited the act’s benefits to people who entered before their sixteenth birthday and were under age 30…. [Another key aspect of the bill is that it] does not currently contain provisions that expand border militarization, detentions, or deportations,” (https://www.nilc.org/issues/immigration-reform-and-executive-actions/dreamact/dream-act-2017-summary-and-faq/).

As noted, there is going to be a fight over this bill in the House and House Democrats are pledging to make it an epic one. Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.), “threatened… to back a government shutdown if the House failed to pass the Dream Act… Gutierrez is hoping to pass an immigration bill by December, [stating], The coming Christmas has to be a Christmas of joy for all of us or none of us,” (http://thehill.com/homenews/house/349940-house-dem-well-shut-down-the-government-if-house-doesnt-pass-dream-act). The Huffington Post reports that the House will allow any Congress member who wants to be a co-sponsor on the bill to become one, previously people had to sign up in pairs, one Democrat and one Republican so that the bill would always have equal support and have a low number of co-sponsors since Democratic sponsors exceed Republican sponsors. Following this change, Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) stated that the House Democratic leadership would be going for 100% support from Democrats, all 246 – that is a whole lot of co-sponsors (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/dream-act-house-sponsors_us_59b07519e4b0b5e531037e8c; https://www.congress.gov/members?q={%22congress%22:%22115%22}). And to ensure that there will be a fight, House Speaker Ryan has stated that the DREAM Act will not pass the House without new immigration enforcement being added to the bill, “Look, here’s the point I keep making on this, is this DACA dilemma that we are experiencing here, why do we have it? It is a symptom of a bigger problem. And the bigger problem is we do not have control of our borders. And because we do not have control of our borders, we have this problem. So it’s just reasonable and natural that we should address the root cause of this problem, lack of control of our borders, and get border security, interior enforcement, the things that you need to do to secure your borders so that you don’t have a DACA problem 10 years from now. So we want to address the cause and the effect, the symptom and the root cause of the problem. And that is only reasonable. And that is what our point is. And so there is a compromise to be had here, and that’s what this compromise looks like, in my mind…. If we just rubber-stamp a standalone [sic] Dream Act, then we’re going to have another Dream Act that we’re going to need in 10 years from now,” (https://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2017/09/08/ryan-the-house-will-not-pass-the-dream-act-without-new-immigration-enforcement-measures-n2378928).

Thus it is incumbent upon us to reach out to Duncan Hunter and let him know that we want him to become a co-sponsor of the DREAM Act and support a “clean” bill i.e. no amendments adding immigration enforcement.

Additional information on this bill can be found at: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/05/us/politics/dream-act-daca-trump-congress-dreamers.html

http://www.npr.org/2017/09/08/549549872/after-reaching-budget-deal-democrats-look-to-trump-on-dream-act

A Few Facts on the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) Program

With Congress back in session it is time to resume our emails, phone calls and efforts at having our voices heard. With Mr. Trump signaling that he will repeal the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, the onus for protecting these Americans shifts to Congress and thus let us contact Mr. Hunter and express our support for DACA recipients.

Since facts do matter, here are some basic facts on DACA….

According to U.S. Citizen and Immigration Services,

“You may request DACA if you:

1. Were under the age of 31 as of June 15, 2012;
2. Came to the United States before reaching your 16th birthday;
3. Have continuously resided in the United States since June 15, 2007, up to the present time;
4. Were physically present in the United States on June 15, 2012, and at the time of making your request for consideration of deferred action with USCIS;
5. Had no lawful status on June 15, 2012;
6. Are currently in school, have graduated or obtained a certificate of completion from high school, have obtained a general education development (GED) certificate, or are an honorably discharged veteran of the Coast Guard or Armed Forces of the United States; and
7. Have not been convicted of a felony, significant misdemeanor, or three or more other misdemeanors, and do not otherwise pose a threat to national security or public safety”. (Source:https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/consideration-deferred-action-childhood-arrivals-daca#guidelines).

The fee for applying is $495 and biometric data (for example, fingerprints) are gathered as well as recorded as part of the application process. Once an individual receives approval under the DACA program, that person cannot be deported for the next two years – an individual needs to reapply for DACA status every two years – and receives a work permit as well as driver’s license (depending on their state). Someone who has received DACA status cannot vote or receive any federal entitlement programs such as food stamps, Social Security or federal financial aid. In addition while under DACA status an individual cannot become a U.S. citizen and/or receive amnesty. Thus it is important to keep in mind that DACA simply defers potential deportation and allows the individual to go to school and/or work while their potential deportation is put on hold. Source: https://s3.amazonaws.com/i-src.defineamerican.com/2017/08/170825-DACA-Facts.pdf

The Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy found the following positive impacts from DACA [note, format has been changed and references to footnotes have been removed]:

“1. The 1.3 million young undocumented immigrants enrolled or immediately eligible for DACA contribute an estimated $2 billion a year in state and local taxes. This includes personal income, property, and sales and excise taxes.

 

2. DACA-eligible individuals pay on average 8.9 percent of their income in state and local taxes. Their effective tax rate is higher than the average rate paid by the top 1% of taxpayers in state and local taxes of just 5.4 percent and is on par with the average rate paid of 9.4 percent paid by the middle 20 percent of taxpayers.

 

3. Continuing DACA and ensuring all who are eligible for the program are enrolled would increase estimated state and local revenue by $425 million, bringing the total contribution to $2.45 billion, and increasing the effective tax rate for those enrolled to 9 percent.

 

4. Replacing DACA with a path to citizenship could provide nearly $505 million in additional state and local taxes, increasing total contributions to at least $2.53 billion a year.

 

5. Repealing the temporary legal status and work authorizations permitted by DACA would reduce estimated state and local revenues by nearly $800 million, and drop the total contributions to just over $1.2 billion annually.

 

6. Every state benefits from the economic contributions of the young immigrants eligible for DACA (see Appendices 1 and 2). For example, the 379,000 young immigrants living in California are contributing more than $534 million to the golden state while the 2,000 immigrants in our nation’s capital contribute $2.7 million to the District. Likewise, every state stands to lose considerable revenue if we do not maintain the protections and opportunities DACA has allowed.” Source: https://itep.org/state-local-tax-contributions-of-young-undocumented-immigrants/

On the topic of state and local taxes… the Pew Research Center states that California leads the nation with the number of DACA recipients. Out of the roughly 790,000 immigrants who have received DACA 222,795 are Californians (this is the number of people who have received DACA, which is not the same as the number of applicants – since individuals need to renew every two years and the program has existed for five years, the number of applications exceeds the number of people in the program). Source: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/09/01/unauthorized-immigrants-covered-by-daca-face-uncertain-future/

And a 2016 United We Dream, National Immigration Law Center and the Center for American Progress survey of DACA recipients found the following to be true of DACA recipients:

“95% [are] currently working or in school

48% got a job with better working conditions [due to their DACA status]

63% got a better paying job [due to their DACA status]

90% got a driver’s license or state ID

54% bought their first car

12% bought their first home

41% have an immediate family member who is a U.S. citizen over the age of 18, 80% of whom are registered to vote”. Source: https://unitedwedream.org/press-releases/new-national-survey-of-daca-recipients-proof-that-executive-action-works/

If you want to read more and learn about the real lives of some DACA recipients, the Center for American Progress has a podcast and few articles of note:

https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/immigration/news/2017/08/30/438173/bonus-episode-fate-hands-mr-trump/

https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/immigration/reports/2017/06/22/434822/taking-giant-leaps-forward/

https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/early-childhood/reports/2017/07/31/436377/trumps-immigration-policies-harming-american-children/

Hunter Must Speak Out Against Trump’s Anti-Investigation Crusade

Whether or not Republicans, including our Representative, are willing to speak up against Mr. Trump’s pushing on the limits of democracy, we need to speak up. As many political pundits have noted, Mr. Trump’s statements and behaviors this past week seem to indicate that he is toying with ideas on how to squash or discredit Mr. Mueller’s Russia investigation. If there is no or not enough of a push-back, the odds greatly increase that Mr. Trump will pursue one of his tactics, which unequivocally will weaken our democracy. Having an outcry after he has done the action, while important, cannot rewind time and retroactively protect the separation of powers, which are integral to our democracy.

Representative Hunter has made no public statements on this matter. In fact, his last official statement on Mr. Trump and Russia was on May 17^th of this year entitled, “Hunter: Let President Trump try to work with Russia” (https://hunter.house.gov/hunter-let-president-trump-try-work-russia). Thus it is important that we are a voice of wisdom for Rep. Hunter and urge him to take a stand against the unethical acts Mr. Trump is toying with. Let us urge Rep. Hunter to warn Mr. Trump that there is such a thing as going too far. (If you need a dose of encouragement about contacting our oh so not receptive Representative: http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/07/21/the_resistance_is_already_planning_for_when_trump_fires_robert_mueller.html).The acts we want Rep. Hunter to speak up against are Mr. Trump trying to have Attorney General (AG) Sessions resign or firing him, striving to discredit the Mueller investigation and potentially pardoning all those involved in the Russia debacle.

The reason for getting AG Sessions out of the way is that contrary to Mr. Trump’s opinion, the Special Counsel position i.e. Mr. Mueller reports to the AG and only the AG (or in this case the Deputy AG, since Mr. Sessions has recused himself from the Russia investigation) can terminate the Special Counsel; hence if Mr. Trump wants Mr. Mueller fired Trump needs to replace Mr. Sessions (https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2017/07/23/sessions-may-be-trumps-achilles-heel/?utm_term=.25512873b8b3). The President’s initial attempt at pushing Mr. Sessions to resign came in Mr. Trump’s now famous New York Times articles from July 19^th, where Mr. Trump gave a vote of no confidence on Mr. Sessions by stating that Mr. Trump would not have hired Mr. Sessions had Trump known Mr. Sessions would recuse himself from the Russia investigation (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/19/us/politics/trump-interview-sessions-russia.html). Another, potential, effort to push Mr. Sessions out of office is the recently leaked information that Mr. Sessions spoke with the Russian Ambassador about policy issues during the campaign – and hence lied under oath to the Senate (http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2017/07/21/sessions-discussed-trump-campaign-related-matters-with-russian-ambassador-intelligence-intercepts-show/TXVDiLIOQFbJ09pSf4MGwI/story.html?p1=BGMenu_Article).

The second avenue of inappropriate behaviors is the Administration’s attempts at discrediting Mr. Mueller and the investigation. There are two arms of this approach, the first is stating that Mr. Mueller’s appointment is illegitimate and the second is claiming that there are egregious conflicts of interest within the Special Counsel’s team. The supposed illegitimacy of Mr. Mueller being the Special Counsel has to do with Mr. Mueller having been interviewed for the position of FBI Director and the fact that Mr. Mueller worked with and knows Mr. Comey. When this, faulty, logic is expressed by Trump allies it is never explained why these facts make Mr. Mueller’s position illegitimate. The argument that campaign contributions are conflicts of interest is erroneous in that making a campaign contribution is specifically not on the Justice Department’s list of identified conflicts of interests. In addition to pushing these spurious claims, the Administration is actively digging through the backgrounds and lives of the Special Counsel’s team in order to find damaging information. Sources: http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/343164-trump-launches-all-out-assault-on-mueller-probe; https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/20/us/politics/donald-trump-robert-mueller-russia-investigation.html; https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trumps-lawyers-seek-to-undercut-muellers-russia-investigation/2017/07/20/232ebf2c-6d71-11e7-b9e2-2056e768a7e5_story.html?utm_term=.040ab9ae3a0f; http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-pardon-power-amid-white-houses-escalating-war-on-russia-probe-2017-7.

The final concerning action of Mr. Trump’s with regard to the Russia investigation is Mr. Trump’s alleged research into his pardon power alongside his statements that he has total pardon power. It came to light earlier in the week that Mr. Trump was having his legal team look into aspects of his pardoning power, including whether a President can pardon himself. Since this breaking news the Administration has been putting out statements and commentaries intended to change course – the current party line is that of course the President is not looking into this and why would he need to pardon anyone since the whole Russia issue is all made-up anyways, to quote Mr. Trump, “While all agree the U. S. President has the complete power to pardon, why think of that when only crime so far is LEAKS against us. FAKE NEWS” (http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/23/politics/donald-trump-pardon/index.html). Additional articles on this issue: http://www.latimes.com/politics/washington/la-na-essential-washington-updates-trump-tweets-that-president-has-1500725784-htmlstory.html, http://thehill.com/homenews/sunday-talk-shows/343369-talk-of-trump-pardons-reverberates-on-sunday-shows, https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/22/us/politics/donald-trump-jeff-sessions.html, https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/the-latest-trump-asserts-pardon-power-in-morning-tweets/2017/07/22/c6a5f28a-6f40-11e7-abbc-a53480672286_story.html?utm_term=.f9a7b09d2961, http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-lawyer-open-question-president-pardon/story?id=48791366. Regardless of any legal issues regarding the President’s pardon powers, the statements he made about having and using them are a clear message to the Special Counsel’s investigative team that even if they find wrongdoing by Trump and associates, no one will pay any consequences.

 

 

 

An Outcry to Have Jared Kushner’s Security Clearance Reviewed and Revoked

Today we add our voices to those of countless other Americans as well as numerous Democrats in Congress who are calling for Jared Kushner’s security clearance to be at minimum reviewed and possibly revoked.

Mr. Kushner’s behaviors, not partisan politics, underlie this outcry. These behaviors are as follows: 1) Mr. Kushner has had numerous meetings with Russians, politicians and citizens, none of which he revealed. The latest revelation occurred this past week. In short this meeting was with a Russian government linked lawyer and the meeting was stated to be part of Russia’s efforts to help Mr. Trump win the election. For more information on this meeting: http://www.npr.org/2017/07/12/536782047/donald-trump-jr-admits-to-meeting-with-russian-lawyer; http://www.npr.org/2017/07/14/537219554/donald-trump-jr-meeting-included-second-russian, 2) Mr. Kushner has had to revise the form he completed in order to gain his security clearance, essentially Mr. Kushner lied on his application. For more information on this issue: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/jared-kushner-security-clearance-forms/, 3) Mr. Kushner asked the Russian Ambassador, Sergei Kislyak, to establish a secret back channel, in the Russian embassy, for communication between the Trump administration and the Russian government. For more information on this issue: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/report-russian-amb-kushner-wanted-secret-communications-backchannel/story?id=47672306

A security clearance allows one to receive, have access to, essentially know information that if disclosed would damage the U.S. Thus the process someone goes through before gaining a security clearance is a process designed to determine if the person would be appropriate with the information, if the secrets of the nation would be safe with this person. There are three levels of security clearance: confidential, secret and top secret and even with a security clearance one, should, only receive information on a need to know basis; however with Kushner’s position in the Trump Administration it is fair to assume he receives all the information, (https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/7/14/15964338/jared-kushner-security-clearance-explained).

Ultimately it is the President who is the final arbiter on who does or does not get security clearance in that the President can change the criteria, can revoke someone’s clearance and can give someone clearance: “The security clearance process is ultimately rooted in executive authority, not law, meaning the president himself is the ultimate arbiter. It is extremely rare for a president to wade into such an issue, experts said, but Trump does have the power, if he wanted to, to demand that Kushner keep his clearance. ‘If the president wants someone to have a clearance and access to classified information, there’s no one to tell him no,’ said Steven Aftergood, a government secrecy expert with the Federation of American Scientists. And this is a president who is fiercely loyal to his family. As Trump biographer Tim O’Brien put it, ‘Trump has always put family first, even if family members lack the skill or experience for the type of job they’re being asked to do.’ ‘Trump wouldn’t take away his security clearance himself,’ O’Brien said. ‘He would have to be convinced by his own attorneys and his staff that the issues had moved beyond familial loyalty. That’s going to take a lot of arm-twisting and convincing.’ Not having a security clearance would hobble him from doing large swaths of his job. On many days, he receives classified briefings, according to a senior administration official — and he is often in the room with his father-in-law for sensitive decisions about classified issues. He has traveled overseas with top military commanders and calls foreign leaders on his own. One source said Kushner sometimes comes to National Security Council meetings ‘at least for part of the meeting’ and that he often talks to Secretary of State Rex Tillerson,” (http://www.politico.com/story/2017/07/16/jared-kushner-security-clearance-240575).

And now to the outcry, here are some of the words & thoughts from those who are calling for a review and possible revocation of Mr. Kushner’s security clearance:

Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) tweeted, “Jared Kushner’s security clearance must be immediately revoked. #ProtectOurDemocracy” (http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2017/07/13/democratic-leader-pelosi-kushner-security-clearance/)

“A review of Kushner’s clearance, [Richard] Blumenthal [D-CT] said on Wednesday, was ‘now no longer a matter of choice’. A security clearance entitles Jared Kushner to full access to the most secret and potentially significant information about our national defense and security, the identity of our agents who may be operating in countries like Russia. It’s the keys to the kingdom in terms of our nation’s crown jewels.’”, (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jul/12/jared-kushner-security-clearance-russia-meeting-donald-trump-jr).

“Laurence Tribe, a professor at Harvard law school, wrote in an email: ‘Jared Kushner’s failure to disclose that memorable (and probably unlawful) June 2016 meeting with a Russian attorney is itself a serious and independent crime under 18 USC section 1001 punishable by five years in prison, and it would no doubt justify revocation of his security clearance…. ‘If it is not revoked, the reason can only be that his father-in-law is President Trump. But that is no reason at all in a republic rather than a hereditary monarchy and under a constitution that bars titles of nobility. So I’d say his security clearance certainly ought to be revoked.’”, (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jul/12/jared-kushner-security-clearance-russia-meeting-donald-trump-jr).

“Norm Eisen, the former ethics tsar in Barack Obama’s administration…. said: “I think, certainly, the security clearance should be re-evaluated. One must balance the principle of innocent until proven guilty with the less prudential standards that go into giving a security clearance. The pattern of omission by Kushner and others in Donald Trump’s circle increasingly points to a consciousness of guilt. Once a security clearance is granted it’s much harder to take away, and if this pattern of omission had been known when the security clearance was being considered, I doubt it would have been conferred.’”, (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jul/12/jared-kushner-security-clearance-russia-meeting-donald-trump-jr).

Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), the Ranking Member on the House Intelligence Committee also called for Kushner’s security clearance to be reviewed and possibly revoked, in light of the “deeply disturbing” reports that Kushner met with an alleged former Soviet counterintelligence officer in a June 2016 arranged by Donald Trump Jr. [He stated on Twitter:] “Reports Kushner amended security form “should cause his clearance to be reviewed”, and if he was not candid ‘immediately revoked’”., (https://thinkprogress.org/in-congress-growing-calls-to-revoke-jared-kushners-security-clearance-41280e597d67).

Rep. Red Liu (D-Calif) tweeted: “Jared Kushner must lose his security clearance immediately! This is not a partisan issue, it is our national security. #RevokeKushner,” (https://thinkprogress.org/in-congress-growing-calls-to-revoke-jared-kushners-security-clearance-41280e597d67).

Danielle Brian, executive director of the Project on Government Oversight [stated that] “They [other government officials with security clearance] would lose their job immediately … Their clearance would be gone,” (http://www.politico.com/story/2017/07/16/jared-kushner-security-clearance-240575).

Eric Swalwell (D-CA) tweeted, “With Trump Jr. admissions on #RussiaHacking, here’s what must happen:
— Ind. Commission — Revoke Kushner clearance — No sanctions relief” (http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2017/07/13/democratic-leader-pelosi-kushner-security-clearance/).

So… add your voice to this outcry and share your opinion regarding reviewing Mr. Kushner’s security clearance or revoking his clearance with our representatives.

 

HR 3102 Helping Non-US-Citizen Military Personnel Navigate the Immigration Process

It is easy to forget that since the inception of America, individuals who were not US citizens have fought alongside US citizens in every war – from the Revolution and Civil War right on down to our current wars. In bygone ages it was one way for an immigrant community to prove how loyal and American they actually were, for example there were three Irish only units during the Civil War (http://www.history.com/topics/american-civil-war/the-irish-brigade).

“Since the American Revolution, immigrants have been woven into the fabric of our military. According to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), the foreign-born composed half of all military recruits by the 1840s, and were 20 percent of the 1.5 million service members in the Union Army during the Civil War. Reportedly, half a million foreign-born troops from 46 countries served in World War I, amounting to 10 percent of the U.S. armed forces. During World War II, Congress expedited naturalization applications of noncitizens serving honorably in the U.S. armed forces, exempted them from existing age, race, and residence requirements, and ‘eliminated the requirement for proof of lawful entry to the U.S.’ Noncitizens served in the Vietnam, Korea, and Desert Storm conflicts, and immigrant service continues to be of vital importance in the post-September 11 period of conflict. Roughly 70,000 noncitizens enlisted into active duty service between 1999 and 2008, representing about 4 percent of all new enlistments. As recently as 2012, there were 24,000 noncitizens in the military, with 5,000 [lawful permanent residents (LPRs)] LPRs enlisting every year…. Overall, there are about 608,000 living foreign-born veterans of the U.S. armed forces from all over the globe,” (http://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/DISCHARGED-THEN-DISCARDED-fixed.pdf). Throughout our history it has been and still is Congress that grants permission and sets the requirements for non-US-citizens to participate in the military. To learn more about the current requirements, go to page 14 of the above pdf.

Despite service to their adopted home, many service members and Veterans do not gain assistance navigating the complex immigration process, which many people need legal help to complete, and which can prove to be life changing if the service member or Veteran gets into legal troubles or other situations that can result in deportation. It should be noted that having a clear criminal history is a requirement for getting into the military and many experts argue that legal problems often arise in part due to the experiences war exposes people to. The well documented struggles transitioning out of the military to civilian life as well as the mental health struggles of Veterans apply regardless of the individual’s citizenship status (http://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/DISCHARGED-THEN-DISCARDED-fixed.pdf).

HR 3102 aims to rectify this injustice by creating an “Office of Service Member Naturalization” within the Department of Defense (https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/3102/text?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22HR+3102%22%5D%7D&r=1). The purpose of this office would be: “(1) to identify members of the uniformed services, including new recruits, who are not citizens of the United States; (2) to inform such members of the availability of naturalization assistance to facilitate such members in becoming citizens; (3) to help such members complete the naturalization process before their separation from the uniformed services; and (4) to coordinate points-of-contact at military installations to ensure that personnel who are responsible for assisting members through the naturalization process successfully complete their assignments,” (source: see above). These points of contact would make the necessary forms (Form N–400, Application for Naturalization, and Form N–426, Request for Certification of Military or Naval Service) available and would, “assist members of the uniformed services, including new recruits, who are not citizens of the United States in completing the process to become a citizen of the United States. If, through no fault of the member, a member whose service has been honorable is unable to complete the naturalization process before separation from the uniformed services, the naturalization office shall continue to work with the member until completion of the naturalization process, “(source: see above).

It should be noted that this bill does not impact the Military Accessions Vital to National Interest (MAVNI) program, which the Trump administration referenced ending last week (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world-0/us-politics/trump-immigrant-soldiers-military-army-scheme-deportations-president-considers-scrapping-a7821636.html). Per the Department of Defense, “The Secretary of Defense authorized the military services to recruit certain legal aliens whose skills are considered to be vital to the national interest. Those holding critical skills – physicians, nurses, and certain experts in language with associated cultural backgrounds – would be eligible,” (https://www.defense.gov/news/MAVNI-Fact-Sheet.pdf). In essence this program offers citizenship as an incentive for foreign-born individuals, who have professional skills the military needs, to work with the US military and is a program that primarily has been used to recruit individuals specific to a country the US has a military presence in (https://www.law360.com/articles/941737/sen-urges-mattis-to-honor-citizenship-for-service-contracts; http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/pentagon-considers-ending-program-to-speed-up-citizenship-for-foreign-born-service-members/article/2627677). HR 3102 applies to individuals (the majority of whom came to the US as children) who have voluntarily enlisted into the US military independent of any incentives, regardless of skill levels and generally out of a sense of loyalty, duty and patriotism.

A very interesting and possibly unexpected fact is that, “By the Pentagon’s own analysis, noncitizens have demonstrated commitment to the military beyond their citizen peers. Marine Corps Gen. Peter Pace, the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testified before Congress that “[they] are extremely dependable … some eight, nine, or ten percent fewer immigrants wash out of our initial training programs than do those who are currently citizens. Some ten percent or more than those who are currently citizens complete their first initial period of obligated service to the country.” General Pace’s testimony has been echoed in various reports prepared by and for the military, with one report stating “relative to citizen recruits, noncitizen recruits generally have a stronger attachment to serving the United States, which they now consider to be ‘their country,’ and have a better work ethic.” As service time increases, noncitizens’ retention rates surpass those of U.S. citizens by even wider margins, with the dropout rate for noncitizens reportedly nearly half that of U.S. citizens when service reaches four years. Noncitizen soldiers have also served with great distinction, with immigrant service members accounting for 20 percent of all individuals who have been awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor. Just like their citizen brothers and sisters, noncitizens have given their lives to protect and serve the United States.” (http://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/DISCHARGED-THEN-DISCARDED-fixed.pdf).

These facts speak for the issue and it is hard to close on a powerful note, but the words of former CA Assemblyman Nathan Fletcher eloquently speak to the issue, “”If you are willing to give your life for your country, your country should be willing to give you citizenship” (http://www.deportedvets.org/).

California is actually doing quite a bit to help Californians who have served and are not US citizens become naturalized and an interesting article on this is: https://www.courthousenews.com/san-diego-leaders-lobby-bring-back-deported-veterans/. A non-profit working to help deported Veterans is: http://www.deportedvets.org/ and the ACLU report referenced earlier is a resource rich in history, information and data: http://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/DISCHARGED-THEN-DISCARDED-fixed.pdf. If you don’t have an opinion on this issue and thus this bill, I encourage you to gain more knowledge.

HR 2826 A New, Less Compassionate Stance on Refugees

At present there are roughly 20 million refugees in this world, which is a number so large it is hard to wrap one’s mind around… but one can always try (http://www.unhcr.org/refugees.html). Let’s try to make this number more understandable by looking at our home state. CA has an estimated population of 39,523,613 million making 20 million individuals just over half of our state’s residents. San Diego County has an estimated population of 3,316,192 meaning that six San Diego Countys would be roughly the number of refugees in this world and it would take 133 Escondidos to equal the number of peoples on our planet that have had to flee their homes (All population data taken from: http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/E-5/ – download the spreadsheet to look at the population estimates).

It should be noted that this number of refugees does not count those individuals who are displaced within their own countries or who fled but do not meet the definition of a refugee, by some estimates the number of people who have fled their homes is closer to 40 million (source: Washington Post article, link is below). Needless to say, we are living through a time period which will be remembered for the extreme number of refugees and displaced peoples; some experts regard our current situation as the worst in recorded history while others regard the world’s situation as the worst since WWII (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/06/18/graphic-the-worlds-refugee-crisis-is-the-worst-in-recorded-history/?utm_term=.b20a3a0e2fd2, http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/20/world/world-refugee-day-worst-crisis-in-history/index.html, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jan-egeland/refugee-crisis-wwii-aid-_b_5791776.html).

As noted there is a definition for what it means to be a refugee. This definition was crafted at a United Nations Conference in 1951 and updated in 1961, the definition reads as follows: “A person who owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it,” (http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/who-is-a-refugee-1.1191503). Phrased a bit more simply, “A refugee is someone who has been forced to flee his or her country because of persecution, war, or violence. A refugee has a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership in a particular social group. Most likely, they cannot return home or are afraid to do so. War and ethnic, tribal and religious violence are leading causes of refugees fleeing their countries,” (http://www.unrefugees.org/what-is-a-refugee/). If you are curious what the definitions and differences between someone with refugee versus asylum status versus internally displaced person are, then go to: http://www.unrefugees.org/what-is-a-refugee/.

With so many people in dire need, it made sense when President Obama, in 2015, decided to increase the number of refugees America accepts each year, from a maximum of 70,000 to 100,000 (https://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/21/world/europe/us-to-increase-admission-of-refugees-to-100000-in-2017-kerry-says.html). As then Secretary of State John Kerry stated, “This step that I am announcing today, I believe, is in keeping with the best tradition of America as a land of second chances and a beacon of hope,” (source: see above).

Oh how long ago those days seem… HR 2826 would change our nation’s stance on refugees and this bill has been voted to come out of committee and be voted on by the full House, by our Rep. Hunter. Five key changes this bill puts forward are as follows: 1) the number of refugees admitted to the U.S. is changed, 2) preferential status is given to certain groups, 3) the role of the states and localities is altered 4) the definition of refugee is changed and 5) the assumption that refugees are fraudulent and dangerous is present within the bill. For the full text of the bill: https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/2826/text?r=1

Change # 1) the number of refugees admitted to the U.S. is changed. As noted, as of now the maximum number of refugees allowed into the US each year is 100,000. This bill changes that to 50,000 and gives the President the prerogative, after consulting with Congress, to increase or reduce this number as deemed appropriate, “SEC. 2. Annual adjustment of the number of admissible refugees. (a) In general.—Section 207(a)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1157(a)(2)) is amended by striking all that follows after ‘shall be’ and inserting the following: ‘50,000. The President may, after appropriate consultation, submit a recommendation to Congress for the revision of such number not later than 6 months prior to the beginning of such fiscal year, setting forth the justification for such revision due to humanitarian concerns or that such revision is otherwise in the national interest,’” (source: see above).

Change # 2) preferential status is given to certain groups. At present Christians from the Middle East do not receive preference or priority when it comes to receiving refugee status, something that the conservative right finds abhorrent (http://www.newsmax.com/BillDonohue/christian-christians-refugee-u-n-/2017/02/01/id/771455/). So it should come as no surprise that HR 2826 would boldly give preferential status to those with a minority religion, “SEC. 4. Priority consideration for certain applicants for refugee status. ‘(6) When processing refugee applications from individuals seeking refuge from a country listed as a ‘Country of Particular Concern’ in the annual report of the Commission on International Religious Freedom under section 203 of the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 for the year prior to the current year, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall grant priority consideration to such applicants whose claims are based on persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution based on religion by reason of those applicants being practitioners of a minority religion in the country from which they sought refuge,’” (source: see above).

Change # 3) the role of the states and localities is altered… it is not too dramatic to say that this bill gets the US one step closer to sanctioned xenophobia, “SEC. 9. Limitation on resettlement. “(g) Limitation on resettlement.— Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, for a fiscal year, the resettlement of any refugee may not be provided for— ‘(1) in any State in which the Governor of that State or the State legislature have taken any action formally disapproving of resettlement in that State; or ‘(2) in any locality where the chief executive of that locality’s government, or the local legislature, has taken any action formally disapproving of resettlement in that locality,’” (source: see above).

Change # 4) the definition of refugee is changed. If you review the United Nations definition of a refugee you will notice that a “well-founded fear of being persecuted” is central to the definition, however if HR 2826 became law then a person would actually have to be a victim of persecution before being eligible for refugee status… no longer would the US follow the internationally recognized definition and people fleeing to protect themselves, to prevent themselves from becoming victims of violence would no longer be eligible for refugee status in the USA. “SEC. 13. Limitation on qualification as a refugee. Section 101(a)(42) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(42)) is amended by inserting ‘For purposes of this paragraph, a person may not be considered a refugee solely or in part because the person is displaced due to, or is fleeing from, violence in the country of such person’s nationality or, in the case of a person having no nationality, the country in which such person last habitually resided, if that violence is not specifically directed at the person, or, if it is directed specifically at the person, it is not directed at the person on account of that person’s race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion,’” (source: see above). It should be noted that if the person seeking refugee status is a religious minority (presumably Christian), then having “well-founded fear of persecution” is sufficient to quality for refugee status, see change #2 and read the text of the bill.

Change # 5) the assumption that refugees are fraudulent and dangerous is present within the bill, as the sections shown below demonstrate. While there is nothing wrong with determining how and where fraud occurs, the final point, SEC 16(C) sheds light on the presumptions behind this bill. “SEC. 10. Benefit Fraud Assessment. Not later than 540 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Fraud Detection and National Security Directorate of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services shall— (1) complete a study on the processing of refugees by officers and employees of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services including an identification of the most common ways in which fraud occurs in such processing and recommendations for the prevention of fraud in such processing; and (2) submit a report on such study to the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives and the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate.

SEC. 11. Document fraud detection program. Not later than 2 years after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall establish a program for detecting the use of fraudulent documents in applications for admission as a refugee, including— (1) placement of Fraud Detection and National Security officials who are under the direction of the Fraud Detection and National Security Directorate of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services at initial refugee screening in conjunction with the resettlement agency and with the authority to hold a refugee application in abeyance until any fraud or national security concerns are resolved; and (2) creation of a searchable database of scanned and categorized documents proffered by applicants at initial refugee screening to allow for discovery of fraud trends and random translation verification within such documents.

SEC. 12. Recording of Interviews to Protect Refugees and Prevent Fraud[.]….

SEC. 16. GAO report on U.S. Refugee Admissions Program. Not later than 18 months after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United States shall conduct a review and report to Congress on the following: (1) The security of the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program, including an examination of— (A) how the U.S. Government conducts security screening and background checks, including the agencies or U.S. Government partners involved and the systems and databases used; (B) how the U.S. Government determines whether applicants are eligible for refugee resettlement and admissible to the United States; and (C) the number of individuals who were admitted into the United States as refugees and subsequently convicted as a result of a terrorism-related investigation by the U.S. Government since fiscal year 2006,” (source: see above).

As these proposed changes show, this bill is not in keeping with, “the best tradition of America as a land of second chances and a beacon of hope,” (https://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/21/world/europe/us-to-increase-admission-of-refugees-to-100000-in-2017-kerry-says.html). Let us contact Rep. Hunter and let him know that we do not stand behind this bill and neither should he.

HR 3004… A Fiercely Anti-Immigrant Policy Couched as a Source of Protection

HR 3004, known as Kate’s law, would institute fines and mandatory jail sentences for undocumented immigrants who return to the U.S. after having been denied admission, deported or ordered to be deported. If the individual has committed no prior crimes then the jail sentence would be for 2 years. If the individual had previously been convicted of an offense(s) the sentences begin to escalate: 3 or more misdemeanors or a felony would result in 10 years, a past sentence of 30 months or less would lead to 15 years in jail, 60 months or less would result in 20 years, 3 or more felonies would result in 25 years and prior offenses such as murder, rape or kidnapping would also result in 25 years in jail (https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-115hr3004ih/xml/BILLS-115hr3004ih.xml). The bill provides for no exceptions and no appeals process: “Greg Chen, director of government relations at the American Immigration Lawyers Association, said ‘It’s a one-size-fits-all justice that is going to produce sentences that don’t fit the person’s circumstances or facts of life…. People who have lived here a long time may go to visit family in Mexico and then get picked up on the way back in’” (http://thehill.com/policy/335717-republicans-look-to-fulfill-trumps-vow-on-kates-law).

This bill is named after Kate Steinle who died a tragic death and whose life was wastefully cut short. Her shortened life is a deep tragedy, which nothing, including this bill, can make better. The conservative right has taken her name, the circumstances of her death and used them to cloak a prejudicial policy, used them to pretend that this bill is about protecting and safeguarding Americans.

Ms. Steinle’s tragic death occurred as follows: “Kate Steinle, a thirty-two-year-old woman… was inadvertently killed by an undocumented Mexican immigrant, Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez, on a San Francisco pier in July of 2015. According to the ballistics expert who testified in the preliminary court hearing, in August 2015 in San-Francisco courts, Lopez-Sanchez’ gun was pointed towards the ground. He shot the gun-foolishly enough, trying to shoot seals-and the bullet ricocheted off the pavement, fatally wounding nearby Kate Steinle. Lopez-Sanchez, admittedly is a terrible representative of any group of people; he had been deported on five separate occasions previously, and immigration authorities had wanted him for a sixth deportation” (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/samanta-honigman/kates-law-and-the-license_b_9789508.html).

Shortly after Ms. Steinle’s death Bill O’Reilly began crafting a proposal, championing and pushing for “Kate’s Law”, ignoring all facts, reality and the impact this law would have: http://insider.foxnews.com/2015/07/09/kates-law-petition-oreilly-calls-new-federal-law-after-kate-steinles-murder, https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/09/kates-law-mandatory-sentencing/403990/. Since O’Reilly’s rally cry this bill has been introduced in various fashions and up until now it has always been defeated by Democrats. This bill has also become near and dear to the hearts of the conservative right, including Mr. Trump’s.

Regarding those pesky facts… in 2015 it was estimated that the law (the current bill is not an exact replica of the 2015 bill but quite close) would increase the federal prison population by 57,000 people and that the bill would cost roughly $2 billion per year (the U.S. Bureau of Prisons annual budget request in 2015 was $7 billion) (https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/09/kates-law-mandatory-sentencing/403990/). In addition to being quite expensive, this bill operates entirely independent of reality. Reality is that immigrants are less dangerous than native born individuals, as the following excerpt from the American Immigration Council’s Special Report shows:

“Higher Immigration is Associated with Lower Crime Rates

Between 1990 and 2013, the foreign-born share of the U.S. population grew from 7.9 percent to 13.1 percent and the number of unauthorized immigrants more than tripled from 3.5 million to 11.2 million.

During the same period, FBI data indicate that the violent crime rate declined 48 percent—which included falling rates of aggravated assault, robbery, rape, and murder. Likewise, the property crime rate fell 41 percent, including declining rates of motor vehicle theft, larceny/robbery, and burglary. 

Immigrants are Less Likely than the Native-Born to Be Behind Bars 

According to an original analysis of data from the 2010 American Community Survey (ACS) conducted by the authors of this report, roughly 1.6 percent of immigrant males age 18-39 are incarcerated, compared to 3.3 percent of the native-born. This disparity in incarceration rates has existed for decades, as evidenced by data from the 1980, 1990, and 2000 decennial censuses. In each of those years, the incarceration rates of the native-born were anywhere from two to five times higher than that of immigrants.

The 2010 Census data reveals that incarceration rates among the young, less-educated Mexican, Salvadoran, and Guatemalan men who make up the bulk of the unauthorized population are significantly lower than the incarceration rate among native-born young men without a high-school diploma. In 2010, less-educated native-born men age 18-39 had an incarceration rate of 10.7 percent—more than triple the 2.8 percent rate among foreign-born Mexican men, and five times greater than the 1.7 percent rate among foreign-born Salvadoran and Guatemalan men.

Immigrants are Less Likely Than the Native-Born to Engage in Criminal Behavior 

A variety of different studies using different methodologies have found that immigrants are less likely than the native-born to engage in either violent or nonviolent “antisocial” behaviors; that immigrants are less likely than the native-born to be repeat offenders among “high risk” adolescents; and that immigrant youth who were students in U.S. middle and high schools in the mid-1990s and are now young adults have among the lowest delinquency rates of all young people.” (excerpt taken from:https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/criminalization-immigration-united-states).

Thus it is imperative that we speak up and let Rep. Hunter know that we do not support this unfounded bill, which will do nothing to improve the safety of all who live in our beautiful border region.

HR 3003 – A Federal Ban on Sanctuary

An often touted fundamental fact of U.S. democracy is that it takes time for a bill to become law: it must go through committees, sometimes even subcommittees, it gets debated, voted on, amended, voted on again and debated a new, all before the final vote. Well throw that out the window when it comes to two anti-immigrant bills that are on this week’s House schedule. HR 3003 and HR 3004, both slated to be voted on this Friday, were introduced by Rep. Goodlatte of VA on Thursday of this past week – meaning that the bills will move from being introduced to getting voted on in nine days without being reviewed by any committees. Just to highlight how unconventional, inappropriate and subversive of the democratic process this is, the official website for the U.S. Congress (www.congress.gov) has not had enough time to register and post the bills’ text.

Today, we will look at HR 3003 – the “No Sanctuary for Criminals Act”. Since this bill is slated to be voted on this week, a text of the bill is available through the House Majority Leader‘s schedule; a link to the bill’s text is: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-115hr3003ih/xml/BILLS-115hr3003ih.xml. HR 3003 dovetails with Mr. Trump’s “Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States” Executive Order. This Executive Order, amongst other things, stated that, “Sanctuary jurisdictions across the United States willfully violate Federal law in an attempt to shield aliens from removal from the United States.  These jurisdictions have caused immeasurable harm to the American people and to the very fabric of our Republic…. It is the policy of the executive branch to empower State and local law enforcement agencies across the country to perform the functions of an immigration officer in the interior of the United States to the maximum extent permitted by law…. [The Executive Order would] ensure that jurisdictions that fail to comply with applicable Federal law do not receive Federal funds … except as deemed necessary for law enforcement purposes by the Attorney General or the Secretary [Secretary of Homeland Security]” (https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/01/25/presidential-executive-order-enhancing-public-safety-interior-united). Just as an aside this is the Executive Order that decreed the hiring of 10,000 more Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) personnel. A one statement summary of this order would be that the President declared political war on Sanctuary municipalities.

As you may also remember from this past January, California brought forward a measure (CA SB 54 – https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB54) that would make CA a sanctuary state. In its essence the concept of sanctuary is that everyone is better served, better protected when the local police and county sheriff do not take on the enforcement of federal immigration laws (research supports this and more information on this research as well as on the bill can be found in the blog post from March 17, 2017). An ironic turn of events is that CA SB 54 is close to becoming law – it has traveled through committees, debates, votes, amendments, a second and final vote in the Senate and has come out of committee in the House, had its first vote as well as debate and is gearing up for its second vote; meaning that these two bills, if they become law, are on a collision course.

HR 3003 has several provisions for federal and local law enforcement, the key ones are as follows: 1) barring other laws, law enforcement can ask someone about her or his immigration status, 2) local law enforcement would need to tell ICE when they had contact with someone who was undocumented and information on this person would need to passed on – this includes apprehensions for driving under the influence, 3) on a yearly basis ICE would report to Congress the states as well as localities that were not in compliance i.e. were sanctuaries, 4) certain federal funding/monies would be revoked from sanctuary states, 5) people who are the victims of crime where the assailant was an undocumented individual could sue the sanctuary state or city in which the crime occurred if the perpetrator had at a prior time been incarcerated and released by the state/city, 6) all local law enforcement would need to comply with federal detainers (source: see the link to the bill).

This last point, complying with federal detainers, has received the most commentary. In short HR 3003 requires that local law enforcement hold someone, who does not have legal residence in the US, as long as needed i.e. regardless of local laws so that an ICE official can be notified to come and take that individual into ICE custody. Needless to say deportation would be a probable outcome for that individual. Currently there are over 200 states and municipalities that do not comply with current ICE detention requests (http://theweek.com/speedreads/708002/house-vote-2-major-immigration-laws-next-week).

This bill is cloaked in the language of justice, the tragedy of cruel crimes and defending America’s morality. Rep. Goodlatte, the bill’s author, knows how to spin that narrative: “For years, the lack of immigration enforcement and the spread of dangerous sanctuary policies have failed the American people and cost too many lives. The deaths of innocent Americans, such as Kate Steinle, Sarah Root, Grant Ronnebeck, and too many others, are tragic. Their deaths are especially devastating since they could have been prevented if our immigration laws had been enforced…. I have introduced two, straightforward bills to enhance public safety. The bills crack down on dangerous sanctuary policies that needlessly put innocent lives at risk. They enhance penalties for deported felons who return to the United States and ensure unlawful immigrants convicted of drunk driving, or arrested for other dangerous crimes, are detained during their removal proceedings. We owe it to the families of those who lost loved ones to take action to prevent these horrible crimes. They have waited far too long” (http://www.nbc29.com/story/35739128/rep-bob-goodlatte-introduces-bills-to-combat-sanctuary-cities).

H.R. 1873 the Electricity Reliability and Forest Protection Act – Allowing Energy Companies to Clear Vegetation as They See Fit

The House votes today on H.R. 1873 the Electricity Reliability and Forest Protection Act. This bill directly impacts us – we all remember the recent fires and know that we live in a fire prone region; hence this bill is our action item. Quick note on this last minute timing, the majority leader in the House (Kevin McCarthy) puts out the weekly schedule which lists the bills that will be voted on and on which days the vote will occur. This week’s schedule was posted at the beginning of this week hence today is our first action item following my learning of this bill.

H.R. 1873 the Electricity Reliability and Forest Protection Act bill rests on two premises: 1) the federal government does not have a unified approach for allowing utility companies to clear vegetation near power lines and 2) once plans for vegetation removal are crafted and proposed to the federal government it takes too long for the federal agencies to approve the plan. The bill proposes to resolve these premises by allowing the owner of the right-of-way of the land (this is the energy company) to opt-out of submitting a vegetation removal plan to the US Department of the Interior and the US Department of Agriculture – thus allowing the energy company to clear vegetation on federal lands however the company deems appropriate (it should be noted that this bill does not set a limit on the amount of acreage the utility company could deem necessary to clear, the bill gives the utility company the right to clear “adjacent” land but the term “adjacent” is not defined). At first glance this may not seem like a major change, but the critical change is that currently vegetation plans must be submitted and the plans are evaluated for their impact on the flora as well as fauna that dwell on the federal lands. This calls into question what federal lands are for – are they for the preservation of the environment, are they for the benefit of the American people or are they for corporations or are they for all of these and if so how does one prioritize the differing needs of each of these ‘constituents’?

This bill also gives the energy company the right to remove any vegetation they regard to be an imminent risk to power or distribution lines and within 24 hours after the removal of the vegetation to contact and inform the local authorities.

If the US Department of the Interior or the US Department of Agriculture does not approve a plan the energy company submitted or somehow blocks the removal of an imminent risk and a fire occurs then the energy company bears no legal or fiscal responsibility.

As can be guessed this bill is supported by the energy industry, specifically the Edison Electric Institute, which is an association of all US investor-owned electric companies (SDG&E is a member of Edison Electric Institute), the American Public Power Association, which is an association of community owned electric services (the power departments of Puerto Rico, LA, Sacramento and Seattle, etc… are members of the American Public Power Association) and the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, which is an association of not-for-profit, consumer-owned electric cooperatives. The Western Governors’ Association has also endorsed this bill (https://dailyenergyinsider.com/news/4216-bipartisan-bill-increase-safety-reliability-electric-grid-federal-lands-introduced-house/, http://www.eei.org/about/mission/Pages/default.aspx, http://www.eei.org/about/members/uselectriccompanies/Documents/memberlist_print.pdf, http://www.publicpower.org/about/?navItemNumber=37583,http://www.publicpower.org/joinappa/landing.cfm?ItemNumber=32562&navItemNumber=38715,http://www.politico.com/tipsheets/morning-energy/2017/06/20/perry-preps-for-house-grilling-today-220934, https://www.electric.coop/our-mission/).

The arguments for this bill are expressed most clearly and ardently by the bill’s Republican and Democrat co-sponsors. Rep. Doug LaMalfa (R-CA) states, “This bipartisan legislation is beneficial for everyone involved, decreasing the risk of blackouts, lowering costs for utilities and the Forest Service, and preventing forest fires. A single tree falling on a transmission line can cause blackouts for thousands of homes and spark a fire that devastates a National Forest, but existing red tape can prevent removal of dangerous trees for months. Under this legislation, rural electric co-ops, utilities, and municipal power providers will be able to proactively remove hazardous trees before they become problems, not after they’ve caused a fire. I’m pleased to work with Rep. Schrader and our bipartisan coalition to ensure that the federal government works with electric providers to keep the lights on, protect rural communities, and keep our National Forests safe” and Rep. Kurt Schrader (D-OR) opines, “Properly maintained rights-of-way is essential for public safety and enhancing the reliability of our electrical grid. The LaMalfa-Schrader bill is a no-brainer and this should not be controversial. Preventing forest fires and maintaining a reliable electrical grid should be a priority for everybody. Our utilities need a streamlined and consistent process for being able to get out on the ground and remove hazardous vegetation before it can cause a wildfire. This is exactly what our bill does. State and federal laws require routine maintenance on federal lands, but bureaucratic red tape from federal agencies has been stalling that maintenance, slowing down our electrical utilities’ ability to safely supply dependable electricity. As long as there is a management plan in place that has been agreed to, there should be no need to revisit every project when the project conforms with the management plan. Doing so is a waste of money and time, and is extremely dangerous to our grid’s reliability. Our bill will significantly improve the process by providing clearer, more commonsense regulations that will allow for regular maintenance, permitting utilities to provide consistent electricity to all of our communities.” (https://lamalfa.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/lamalfa-and-schrader-introduce-legislation-to-protect-electrical)

The main arguments against this bill are that: 1) this bill gets rid of the public’s right to give & the public’s avenue through which to give feedback on vegetation removal plans, 2) it weakens the National Environmental Policy Act by gutting the informed decision making and public involvement requirements 3) project delays are not due to red tape (a study is cited backing up this claim) and thus this bill will do nothing to expedite vegetation removal projects, 4) approval of submitted plans, which are voluntary to submit, must be approved within 3 days by the Departments of Interior and Agriculture, if they are not approved within 3 days then they are approved by default and thus risky projects will be allowed to move forward, 5) the Department of Interior has expressed concerns about this bill and does not support this bill due to point four, 6) this bill does not address the Forest Service’s most critical need, which is increased funding and 7) the bill did not follow the standard protocol of having hearings in all the relevant committees but rather was pushed out of one supportive committee (the House Natural Resources Committee) and rushed to the floor for a vote (http://www.sequoiaforestkeeper.org/pdfs/signon_letters/Oppose_HR_1873.pdf). This bill is opposed by a host of environmental groups, which wrote a letter opposing the bill – see link above, including the Sierra Club. The opponents of the bill strongly agree that there needs to be the removal of vegetation that could cause fires if a power line fell, it is just that they do not agree that this bill would do justice to all concerned constituents, in other words their concern is that this bill puts the needs and desires of the energy companies above the needs and desires of we the people and the environment, both of which the government is mandated to watch out for.

A summary of the bill can be found at: https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1873?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22HR+1873%22%5D%7D&r=1

The complete bill can be found at: https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1873/text?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22HR+1873%22%5D%7D&r=1