STEM legislation and a certain Congressman from Texas

Imagine a law that would say this:  if someone comes here to go to college and graduates with a degree in the sciences, technology, engineering or mathematics (hence the "STEM").  Rather than sending this person back to their homeland to directly compete against our own STEM workers (I'm told that somewhere we actually have produced a handful or so of STEM workers all on our very own), we would give them a green card and encourage them to stay and fuel our technological advances rather than, oh let's just say, China's.  That would be a good thing, wouldn't it?

The timing for such a bill would be welcome for the U.S. economy because at present a software engineer from India would have to wait 70 years or so because of the backlog caused by an antiquated quota system.  In seventy years, our grandkids will probably be working in a call center for the Bank of Mahindra or Shanghai Express.

It bears pointing out that immigrants have always been major contributors to our economic success.  According to a study by the Kaufman Foundation,

in a quarter of the U.S. science and technology companies founded from 1995 to 2005, the chief executive or lead technologist was foreign-born. In 2005, these companies generated $52 billion in revenue and employed 450,000 workers. In some industries, the numbers were much higher; in Silicon Valley, the percentage of immigrant-founded startups had increased to 52 percent. Indian immigrants founded 26 percent of these startups—more than the next four groups from Britain, China, Taiwan, and Japan combined.   

I recently interrupted a meeting of angry minuteman at the Arizona/Mexico border and asked the question about the value of STEM workers and after a robust discussion during which I pointed out that the digital thermal gun sights they were using were the invention of an immigrant (I was probably correct--although I was making it up) there was near unanimous assent for the idea, proving that even the most ardent immigrant bashers understand the contributions that "them foreigners" make to our country.  So when I heard that the U.S. House of Representatives was going to take up the STEM legislation, I figured that it would literally fly right through without any problems.  Or at least until I heard who was chairing the committee that would hear testimony on the bill.

Lamar Smith, congressman from San Antonio, Texas, champion of the restrictionists and patron saint of the minutemen, held the gavel for the hearing. He is the long time nemesis of Comprehensive Immigration Reform, and was the chief architect of the 1996 immigration enforcement-only laws that have served to paralyze our immigration system and ironically swell the numbers of illegal immigrants living in the U.S.  Indeed, putting him in charge of these hearings is a little like putting Chuck Kuck in charge of buying the refreshments for the office Christmas party.  (Chuck, for those who don't know, is a good friend and former president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association.  He is also a inspiring and devout Mormon).  But at least Chuck would try to do the right thing.

I'm not so sure about Mr. Smith.  It was reported that he rejected assistance from Rep. Zoe Lofgren, whose congressional district encompasses much of Silicon Valley, because a) she is a Democrat, and b) she wouldn't support his eVerify bill.  It was also reported that he is a little uneasy with the general prospect of simply having more scientists come to America.  So lets all take a minute and sent an email to Mr. Smith and let him know that we want American to continue to lead the world in the STEM categories. 

https://lamarsmith.house.gov/Contact/default.aspx

The Hispanic Vote, Immigration and the 2012 Presidential Elections

A recent poll from the Public Policy Polling reaches an interesting conclusion that has the potential to tip the 2012 presidential election.  For all the talk about how Hispanic voters are disillusioned with Obama, especially for his failure to fulfill his promise to pass Comprehensive Immigration Reform, his numbers are even better than they were in the 2008 election.  According to the poll:

On our weekly national poll for Daily Kos this week Obama's approval with Hispanics came in at only 50%. Yet on our last national horse race poll Obama led Mitt Romney by 38 points (67-29) with that group and against Rick Perry his advantage went all the way up to 43 points at 70-27.  Obama won the Hispanic vote by 36 points nationally in 2008 so his margins over both Romney and Perry represent an improvement.  Hispanics may not be enamored with Obama but they're a whole lot bigger on him than they are Romney (29/52 favorability) and Perry (16/61 favorability).  http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2011/09/obama-and-hispanics.html

So as the Republican candidates pander to their base, falling over one another in their willingness to vilify and demonize undocumented aliens, they are sowing the seeds to a Republican defeat in 2012.  Nobody in America is affected by our broken immigration system more than the Spanish speaking communities across the country, and no group of people understand the hardship and unjust effect of the recent spate of legislation targeting "illegals".  The recent legislation in Alabama, as it did in Arizona and other states, targets people who appear to be illegal, (i.e. people who look Hispanic) and it is not lost on these communities that the authors and proponents of these bills tend to be of the same political stripe as Mitt, Perry, Paul et al.  Not only that, but Latino voters are becoming relevant in some unexpected places.  According to the Pew Research Center, Hispanics make up 8% of the population of Georgia, 7% in Virginia and North Carolina.  In Indiana and Ohio, they make up 5% and 3% respectively, but those states were won by Obama with a razor thin edge.  While safely Republican (for now), Utah and Idaho have 12% and 11% Latino populations. 

Latinos are now the largest minority group in the country replacing African-Americans.  In Nevada, with their 20% of the vote, they made the difference in the reelection of Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, when his opponent ran an ad showing Mexicans in stocking caps menacingly climbing through a hole in a fence destined to steal your car or sell your kid drugs.  Estimates are that the Hispanic vote went to Reid by a 90%-10% margin.  In the end, the election wasn't even close.

The PPP report cites Florida and Colorado as two swing states that Obama needs to win to ensure his reelction. 


Hispanics are really what's keeping Obama in the game in Sunshine State- strip them out and he trails Romney 49-43 and leads Perry only 47-46.  But their overwhelming support is worth 6-7 points to Obama on the margin, giving him a 1 point lead over Romney and a 7 point one over Perry overall.  Again the story here is a strong dislike for the GOP frontrunners- Romney's favorability with Hispanics is 36/50 and Perry's is 25/68

Obama's building on his 2008 advantage with Hispanics in Colorado as well.  He won them by 23 points last time but now has a 32 point lead over Romney with them at 63-31 and a 45 point margin on Perry at 71-26.  Obama's doing well enough in Colorado that he'd be leading the state even without his overwhelming support form Hispanic voters but it certainly gives him a nice cushion. Romney's favorability with Hispanics there is 26/57 and Perry's is 23/51.

Now, to be fair, many observers are saying that a disillusioned Latino electorate will just sit this one out and stay home in droves.  But I disagree.  The Latino voters I know are a hardy bunch.  They have faced more disappointment and difficulty that anyone I know, and the stakes are very high.  What's more, there is a new generation of young dynamic leadership that are anything but ambivalent.  Then there's the big issue that Mitt, Rick and the rest seem to be unaware:  Of the 12-15 million undocumented aliens in this country, the overwhelming majority are Latino, and the majority of those have at least one family member who is a U.S. citizen. A voting U.S. citizen.    

So not that you need my advice, Republican candidates, but keep up the "boots on the ground" and "build the fence" talk.  Keep ranting about how the DREAM Act is nothing more than rewarding scofflaws.  Repeat the lies of the nativists and racists.  Do these things and alienate key voters in key swing states that you will need to claim the White House in 2012.  

Musings on last night's Republican Primary debate

Watching the Republican Presidential Primary debate last night, I found myself feeling sorry for Governor Perry of Texas.  One by one the candidates pronounced how they would be "tough" on illegal immigration.  The audience cheered lustily when an increasingly cranky Ron Paul said he would deny them benefits (the audience apparently oblivious to the fact that illegal immigrants are not eligible now for benefits).  Had Congresswoman Bachman been asked, no doubt she would wax wistfully about the successes of the Chinese Exclusion Act.  The heretofore irrelevant former Pennsylvania Senator, Rick Santorum, with a cheesy grin reminiscent of a sarcastic Jerry Seinfield, attacked Perry for his support of the Texas DREAM Act, which allows residents of Texas regardless of their immigration status to attend college in Texas and pay resident tuition.  While no fan of Governor Perry, and indeed , all recent governors of Texas (except Ann Richards), I have to congratulate Perry for his Lone Star State size cajones:  it takes guts to pronounce as "heartless" those who would deny a college education to an innocent young person.  (as if "heartless" in this group would be seen as anything other than a positive attribute)  This flash of thoughtfulness amidst a cavalcade of "hooray for me and to hell with you" (which should be the new slogan of the Tea/Republican party) was noteworthy and deserves acknowledgment.  The fact that he was booed really doesn't mean as much when you consider this was the same audience that booed an active volunteer member of our fighting armed forces who disclosed that he was gay. 

So good for you Governor Perry, you moved the needle for me, albeit a fraction of a millimeter, and for only a brief moment.  But I'm gratified that you understand that it is unjust to punish a young person, brought into this country by parents seeking a better life.  I would be a lot more gratified if you and the other Republicans could tell the truth about the record number of deportations, the net decline of illegal immigrants in America, the urgent need to deal with the humanitarian needs of millions of mixed status families in this country, and particularly the plight of the DREAMers. 

B-4 Retirement Visa--an idea whose time has come?

Back in the 1990's, every session of Congress would find a certain Florida Representative, Bill McCollum, pushing for a retirement visa.  To receive this renewable visa the applicant would have to be from an approved list of countries, show that they had passive income sufficient to meet their financial needs, show proof of health insurance, and own a residence in the United States.  For a variety of reasons, this effort was never fully adopted by the mainstream immigration advocate community and never really got off the ground.  Recently, the issue resurfaced in the Huffington Post.  With the current economic situation and particularly the severely depressed real estate market in the once thriving sun belt it may be time to dust off this proposal and give it the consideration it deserves.

I would propose a non-immigrant visa that would be good for three years.  It could be renewed indefinitely in the same way an E non-immigrant visa is renewable.  The applicant or their spouse must be at least 50 years old, and clear the same background checks that someone would need when they are applying for permanent residence.  The applicant or their dependents would not be able to be employed, but could legally go to school (paying non-resident tuition).  They would not be eligible for any public benefits (social security, welfare, food stamps, etc.).  They would have to demonstrate proof that they have medical insurance, passive income in an amount at least 300% of the poverty level (approximately $45,000 annually for a married couple).  The applicant would have to demonstrate that they have at least $250,000 in equity in a residence located in the United States that they intend to occupy.  Of course, aliens with criminal records or other legally undesirable characteristics would not be approved.

It is not difficult to imagine what such a visa would do to the devastated housing market in such hard hit places as Las Vegas or Miami.  New home buyers would also need to purchase furniture and fixtures, hire maintenance workers, purchase an insured automobile, and so forth.  We can immediately create more good jobs, rescue the housing markets and turn around the economies of some of the areas hardest hit by the current recession, and in doing so demonstrate the benefits of a thoughtful immigration policy--something that has been sadly lacking in this country for many years. 

Law Offices of Peter L. Ashman is pleased to announce the opening of Utah Legal Immigration

The Law Offices of Peter L. Ashman, providing innovative and high-profile solutions to complex immigration problems for over 20 years is pleased to expand its services to the Salt Lake City/Provo area.  We provide the highest quality of legal services to businesses, families and individuals seeking to navigate our nation's complex system of immigration laws.

Peter Ashman is a graduate of Brigham Young University and Southwestern University School of Law.  He is active in immigration advocacy on a national level and is frequently featured in the print and electronic media.  He lectures at national conferences of the American Immigration Lawyers Association and the American Bar Association, as well as numerous state and regional conferences.  He was recently named to Who's Who in International Business Immigration Lawyers, and is the only attorney in Utah to receive that honor.