Originally published on Huffington Post

Every day the news is replete with stories showing the immigration system is badly broken. Amid the dysfunction — the approximately 12 million unauthorized aliens living in the shadows; the scores of American families torn apart by deportation; and the inability of American businesses to bring in workers to fill shortage occupations — there are a few bright spots within the immigration system that actually work. One is the Violence Against Women Act enacted by Congress seventeen years ago, in a bipartisan effort to protect victims of domestic violence, stalking, sex crimes, and human trafficking.

VAWA stands as a shining example of what Congress can do when it leaves politics at the door of the Capitol building, rolls up its collective sleeves, and gets to work for the good of the American people. While not perfect, VAWA is among the few provisions of the immigration law that all Americans can be proud of because it keeps American families safe, secure and together, and honors America’s commitment to stand as a beacon of hope and freedom to deserving immigrants in need of shelter.

But now VAWA is in danger. It has become the latest victim of the vicious partisanship that plagues Washington.

It started a couple of weeks ago when the House Judiciary Committee, chaired by Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), put VAWA front and center in what can only be described as an attack on battered immigrants and victims of violence. The Judiciary Committee, discarding nearly 20 years of bi-partisan commitment to VAWA, reported out H.R. 4970 with ugly provisions that would roll back the law’s steadfast commitment to the protection of women, children, and elderly victims of crimes. Even with amendments to the House bill that the sponsors filed, the bill will unnecessarily curtail important protections for battered immigrants.

Most egregious is the requirement that immigration officers consider any and all evidence provided by the abuser, even if it is uncorroborated and the only source of negative information. Abusers frequently use the immigration process as a tool of abuse, threatening to report them to immigration authorities and refusing to help their spouses apply for lawful status. VAWA removes that tool, allowing victims of domestic violence to apply for lawful status on their own. Taking into account an abuser’s side of the story is unworkable — after all, what abuser is going to provide useful, credible information when he has already done all that he can to prevent his victim from obtaining the legal status for which she is eligible.

And that’s not all. There are other amendments which do heavy damage to VAWA’s protections for victims, including one that closes off the opportunity for victims to apply for green cards — subjecting them to deportation for reporting a crime, and makes it harder for victims of domestic violence and other crimes to qualify for protective visas. In order to qualify for a U visa, law enforcement must sign off certifying the victim’s helpfulness. Under H.R. 4970, only victims who obtain these certifications while the investigation or prosecution is on-going would qualify, leaving many victims vulnerable to further abuse and violence.

Take Julia — a victim of repeated physical and sexual violence during her marriage. Her husband, Raul, repeatedly raped, punched, and strangled Julia during drunken rages. After a particularly serious attack, Julia found the courage to call the police. The police arrested Raul and, with Julia’s help, Raul pled guilty and was deported to his home country — Julia’s home country also. It was not until after his conviction that Julia learned about U visas. Today, she and her children are protected from deportation. If H.R. 4970 passed, Julia would have been ineligible for a U-visa because the prosecution already occurred, and she would be facing deportation back to her abuser.

Last night, as the VAWA bill was considered and passed by the full House of Representatives, Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) and the Republican leadership squandered a golden opportunity to show much needed leadership by rejecting this ugly legislation designed to do nothing more than hurt defenseless victims of domestic violence, stalking, sex crimes, and human trafficking. The Speaker, who hails from the politically critical swing state of Ohio, should have seized upon this rare opportunity to show the nation (and his state) what he and the GOP are really made of. Sadly, Boehner and the Republican House leadership turned their backs on America’s families and collaborated to pass the VAWA bill in what has now become an ugly war against immigrant women and other victims of violent crime.

But amid the cowardice and betrayal that infected the House floor were 23 shining lights — the Republicans who had the guts to defy their misguided leadership and vote to reject the bill. Knowing they will face serious political heat for doing the right thing, these members of Congress demonstrated something Speaker Boehner and his political lieutenants did not — a steadfast commitment to women, children and all victims of violence.

Written by Tony Weigel, AILA Media-Advocacy Committee

After serving for nearly two years on AILA’s Media-Advocacy Committee, I have closely followed a number of immigration policy issues. There are clearly some issues that spark more controversy than others, but many wholeheartedly agree that our policies should encourage immigration that directly contributes to investment and job growth in the U.S. Though surprisingly, in spite of consensus across party lines, little to nothing has been done.

My worldview, skewed as it may be, is one of being born and living most of my life in the Midwest, where politeness is the norm, the benefit of the doubt lives on, and second chances abound. However, even I am growing tired of the excuses and have heard enough double-talk from our leaders in Washington, DC. Now is the time to pass and implement critical business immigration measures to sustain and jump-start job growth. Some days, usually after telling a client of his or her limited visa options or of potential waits for an employment-based green card, I feel like reenacting the scene from the 1976 movie Network and screaming from my window, “I am mad as hell and I’m not going to take this anymore!”

Across America, many AILA members have directly interacted with international students, long-term H-1B workers, and the business community. I have volunteered time at the University of Missouri-Kansas City, Institute for Entrepreneurship and Innovation in a few capacities. Last fall, I presented at a session with international students about their visa options. Some could not or did not want to believe the disparity between the information available on www.uscis.gov about their options and the unreasonable, restrictive policy and adjudication standards that foreclose dreams. There was even greater disappointment with the state of legislative solutions.

It has been over two decades since the Immigration Act of 1990 was passed with bi-partisan support. Times have changed since then. Both technology and business models have evolved, yet our laws that facilitate the incorporation of foreign talent have not.

That level of disappointment spikes for these prospective job creators once their attention shifts to the abysmal availability of employment-based immigrant visas, especially for those from India and China. Why? Because if they are lucky enough to stay beyond their student visas and later seek a green card, they will take their place among the ranks of tens of thousands of other talented foreign nationals stuck in a long and growing line.

The potential loss of this country’s international student population would be a travesty, but consider the impact if every H-1B worker holding that status for longer than 6 years packed up and left the U.S. That collective transfer of experience, knowledge, and talent would be detrimental to our economy. Without doubt, we should have a functional permanent residence process, not a dysfunctional permanent application process.

Our elected leaders in Washington, DC constitute 537 of the most powerful people in the world. But when collectively pressed to address these issues, they answer, “We understand the problem and would like to help, but …” It is always “but” something. Don’t they realize they are destroying dreams and killing opportunities of foreign nationals and their prospective investments of talent and treasure? Don’t they care about U.S. workers in dire need of better employment opportunities that would flow from these investments?

Everyone knows things are bad. A quick read of the U.S. Department of State projections regarding employment-based visa availability is a prime example. However – unlike the reality-based fictional problems in the movie Network - we have leaders who seem to know what to do and there can be an end to these problems.

It would be a game changer if Congressional leaders could agree to promptly consider the solutions offered up in legislation like Representative Lofgren’s IDEA Act, H.R. 2161, or the current version of the Startup Act, championed by Senators Moran and Warner, and pass focused measures to help jump-start job growth in the U.S.

Fortunately, there are areas in which the Administration doesn’t have to wait for Congress to act. It can and should address the overall tenor of USCIS adjudications. The “culture of no” has transformed itself into the “status quo of no.” That needs to change. The January 2010 Neufeld memorandum is killing job growth opportunities and needs to be withdrawn.

Unfortunately, little has resulted from the high-level, 2011 pronouncements from the both the White House and the Department of Homeland Security with respect to administrative fixes to business immigration policy. The Administration’s Entrepreneurs in Residence proposal includes several positive steps for foreign nationals, such as permitting entrepreneurs to petition for permanent status, but to date there have been few concrete results. Even the simplest of actions, like making Premium Processing available for international manager and executive immigrant visa petitions, are inexplicably held up. According to a USCIS panel held in Lincoln, Nebraska, on May 9, 2012, Premium Processing will become available “eventually” as more training is required before going live.

We have big problems. Starry-eyed adoration of “job creators” and meaningless rhetorical efforts will not fix these problems. Serious work needs to be done now! The cost of inaction is too high. At some point, international students and long-term H-1B workers will stop dreaming about their long-term opportunities in the U.S. The business community will eventually conclude that Washington, DC, will never get this right. No one wins if we continue to erect artificial, irrational barriers to job growth.

I’m tired of all the talk. The U.S. can be a beacon of opportunity, not a place of disappointment. Elected leaders, please go to work tomorrow and do something to address these problems now while there is still time on the clock.

Now, you must excuse me. I’m headed to the nearest window to scream. Feel free to join me.

By Denyse Sabagh, AILA Past President, and Shoba Sivaprasad Wadhia, AILA Amicus Committee

NSEERS (National Security Entry and Exit Registration System) was a controversial tracking program launched in the wake of 9/11 and aimed at visitors from predominantly Arab and Muslim countries. Those subject to NSEERS or special registration were fingerprinted, photographed and interrogated at ports of entry, inside a local immigration office and upon departure from the United States.  The NSEERS program contained all of the features of bad policy, as it appeared to target individuals based on their religion and national origin; caused thousands of men to be placed in removal proceedings after complying with the program; and proved to be ineffective as a counter-terrorism tool.

Last month, the DHS released a memorandum to address the scores of people who did not register under NSEERS when they were supposed to. It clarifies that innocent individuals who failed to previously register should not suffer immigration consequences, such as a denial of a green card or a deportation charge. The memo could help a countless number of young men who have laid down roots, built families and/or been steadily employed in the United States but whose immigration status is vulnerable because of an NSEERS issue.

The April Memo provides that individuals who “willfully” failed to register under NSEERS in the past may be subject to immigration violations. It goes to elucidate the definition of willful as “deliberate, voluntary, or intentional, as distinguished from that which was involuntary, unintentional, or otherwise reasonably excusable”; instructs that the burden of proving that his registration was not willful is on the non-citizen (which may not be satisfied if failure to comply was based on fear or inconvenience); and notes that even where an individual is found to have “willfully” failed to register, the agency may exercise prosecutorial discretion in accordance with its litany of memoranda on the topic.

Previous adjudications of “willful failure” did not give credence to the applicant’s statements such as “I was 16 years old when I entered, I could barely speak English and my family was not involved in the community, I did not know about special registration.”  In some cases, applicants were not even asked the question “Why didn’t you register”? ICE took the passports and stamped them  “willful failure” and told individuals that everything would be fine. Things were not fine and many people ended up in deportation. People’s lives have been damaged due to this program and it is critical that DHS conveys its intent clearly to rectify this to the field with training and specificity.  Without it, even with the April Memo, the hoped for result will fail.

The April Memo is an encouraging step but what is ultimately needed is a termination of NSEERS and a clear policy that protects all people affected by NSEERS from immigration consequences unless DHS can prove that such protection is adverse to the public interest.  The NSEERS program has brought more than a decade of fear and damage—the Department’s own Inspector General, civil rights and immigration advocates, and the private bar have all recommended that the NSEERS program be terminated.

By: Mo Goldman, AILA Media-Advocacy Committee and Jerry Burns, Arizona Chapter Chair

April 24, 2010:

Governor Jan Brewer signed the controversial SB 1070 bill into law thus securing her re-election.  Russell Pearce was the lead sponsor of the bill and a leader in the Arizona State Senate.  Andrew Thomas had just resigned as the Maricopa County Attorney to run for Arizona Attorney General.  While serving as County Attorney, Thomas focused much of his efforts prosecuting and persecuting undocumented immigrants.  Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio was spending considerable time self-promoting on Fox News as “America’s Toughest Sheriff.”  Sheriff Joe, who is a first generation American after his parents emigrated from Italy, was expending substantial county resources on “crime” sweeps rounding up non-criminal undocumented immigrants.

April 24, 2012:

It has been two years since that infamous date in Arizona history.  We have been asked the question:  What is the feeling in Arizona leading up to SB 1070’s date with the US Supreme Court?  Fever pitch?  Nope.  Tense anticipation?  Maybe.  Perhaps the most intriguing aspect about the buildup is that immigration no longer monopolizes the headlines in Arizona.  Why?  Perhaps it’s because Arizonans have realized that there are much more important things to worry about.  Perhaps it’s because the business community asked our legislature to stop with the harmful and unnecessary immigration legislation.  The hateful rhetoric seems to have toned down a bit and people seem to be growing comfortable with the crazy notion that immigration is not the only game in town, rather that the Latino immigrants may not be the cause of everything that ails society.

Another possibility for the lull in the action may be that for the loudest voices of insanity, Russell Pearce, Andrew Thomas and Joe Arpaio, the fall has been long and hard.  Especially hard for Pearce and Thomas (we are not gloating).  The jury is still out on Arpaio, which constantly seems to be the case.  The Department of Homeland Security yanked 287(g) authority from Maricopa County Jails due to findings by Department of Justice’s findings of discriminatory policing practices within the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office.  While he’s laughing off serious accusations of racial profiling, Sheriff Joe is also facing allegations of abuse of power, neglect of responsibilities, misappropriating taxpayer dollars, and facing a mounting number of lawsuits while costing the Arizona taxpayer millions of dollars each and every year.

Former State Senator Russell Pearce was recalled by the voters in his own district.  A first for a sitting legislator in Arizona!  The recall initiative was spurred on by the local grassroots organization “Citizens for a Better Arizona” and the drive to recall Pearce became a referendum on his ineffectiveness to lead or produce results on anything other than divisive legislation.  Pearce was defeated by Sen. Jerry Lewis, who by all accounts is a rational, decent human being who ran on a simple message: how can we get the economy of our great state back on track with job creation, providing quality education to all children in Arizona and tossing aside the myopic views espoused by Pearce on immigration.  What is Pearce up to these days?  He is Chairman of Ban Amnesty Now. 

This month, former Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas was disbarred for a buffet of misdeeds, mostly involving dishonesty, corruption, and the misuse of the powers of his office to destroy the careers and lives of anyone who dared to question him, Pearce, or Arpaio.

Governor Brewer is still in the same position wagging her disrespectful finger and claiming that headless bodies are littering our deserts.  She is not the best public relations benefit to our state, but whether she likes it or not, she sure keeps us amused.  Gov. Brewer continues with the tired rhetoric about sealing the border, but hardly anyone takes her seriously. We suspect her 15 minutes are just about up.

Last but certainly not least controversial: the ringleader of the SB 1070 sideshow, Sheriff Joe (whose favorite catch-phrase should be “you have not been served,” a reference to the hundreds of sexual abuse cases that his office failed to investigate), has been remarkably silent in recent months.  This coming from a man whose bombastic tough talk and full-on assault on the average Maria and Jose dominated the evening news in 2010.  Not a peep from him on SB 1070 since Pearce was recalled.  Not a peep after Mr. Thomas’ bar card was revoked.  Not much tough talk on possible litigation stemming from an extensive DOJ investigation into racial profiling concerns under his leadership.

While we wait for SCOTUS to hear the constitutional arguments on SB 1070 in Arizona v. U.S., the fall of Pearce, Thomas and, to some extent, Joe, has been cathartic to the many individuals and families whose lives have been destroyed by the prospect of SB 1070 and other laws lashing out at undocumented immigrants.  In the words of Jon Stewart, Arizona became known as the “meth lab of democracy” and now the world will watch as the high court will put the most virulent, anti-immigrant experimentation law to the test.  Their decision will not only impact Arizona but will likely signal a significant precedent on how other states will approach anti-immigrant litigation.  Meanwhile, thanks to the fall of some of the loudest and most hateful voices in Arizona, things are much quieter on the crazy front.  Only when the Court strikes down SB 1070 will sanity be restored and the real healing can begin.

Written by: Ruth Leitman (Director) and Steve Dixon (Producer)

What a difference a year can make!  When we attended the AILA convention 2011 in San Diego, we were in the thick of screening Tony & Janina’s American Wedding across the country, asking viewers of the film to visit our website (http://tonyandjanina.com) and TAKE ACTION, sending letters to President Obama, asking him to intervene in Janina’s case, and working hard to get everyday Americans engaged in dialog about Tony and Janina’s story and immigration reform.

For those of you unfamiliar with the film, it charts one family’s effort to navigate the US immigration system, culminating with wife and mother Janina Wasilewski being deported to Poland after nearly 20 years in the US and her failed attempt to gain legal status.  The film charts her husband Tony’s efforts over the subsequent 4 years to bring his wife Janina and their 6 year old  US citizen son back to America.  The film is an intimate look at the ill effects of the 3 and 10 year bar, and the ‘extreme hardship’ process on one family.  As you all know too well, spouses of those who have been deported, must prove this ‘extreme hardship’- (a term that is not clearly defined) in order to gain re-entry to the US.

Shortly after we returned from San Diego, our efforts were successful:  Tony and Janina’s ‘Motion To Reconsider’ was sustained by the Department of Homeland Security, allowing Janina and her son Brian to return to Chicago after 4 years of separation.  Their American Dream-turned-nightmare was finally over.  They now have the opportunity of re-building that American Dream again from the ground up in an economy worse than any of us have seen in our lifetime.  But they are so grateful for the chance.

We are thankful for all the true hands on support we received along the way – first and foremost to AILA, Crystal Williams, David Leopold, family attorney Royal Berg, and many more within the national AILA community, as well as Representatives Gutierrez, Quigley, and Lofgren, and Senator Durbin – all of whom offered their support to The Wasilewski’s legal effort, and our mission to use the film at the center of the advocacy to reunite the family.

Our goal has always been two-fold:  to reunite the Wasilewski’s in the US, and to use the film as broadly as possible to engage the country in substantive dialog about our current broken immigration system.  Having achieved the first part of our goal, we’re setting our sites on rolling out the film with a new ‘happy ending’ / epilogue in late 2012 and beyond.  We feel that the new version of Tony & Janina’s American Wedding will be a most powerful and effective tool to garner new hope and reframe the issue of immigration reform.

We look forward to seeing you in Nashville on Wednesday, June 13th at 9:30 PM at our opening night screening at the AILA Annual Conference, and to working locally, regionally and nationally with you and your committed organization to bring the film to your town in 2012 and beyond!

People write to us weekly sharing personal heartfelt stories of frustration about our immigration system, knowing that the influence of these stories-on-film can have. We are gathering these stories with plans of an online campaign to highlight this systemic immigration problem in the US.  Please visit the tonyandjanina.com website for updates, screening events and more. Please stay strong in your efforts to draw attention to the millions of families in the same situation that Tony, Janina and Brian were in, who need our help.

See you in Nashville!

For more information about the film, or to book a screening, please contact Steve at steve.ruthlessfilms@hotmail.com

This blog is the second in a series on the 2012 AILA Film Fest. Stay tuned in coming weeks as several of the filmmakers featured at this years’ event will be blogging about their films. For more information, including a complete list of films titles and trailers, visit the AILA Film Fest homepage.  For more information on AILA’s Annual Conference, please visit: www.aila.org/ac.

Sometimes you read an article and think “something doesn’t quite follow here.”  An April 7, 2012 article in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram titled “Fort Worth engineer who got Obama’s attention still doesn’t have a job” is one such article.

The article lays out a tale with which one can readily sympathize: an engineer loses his job in the midst of the Great Recession, and remains out of work three years later.  He receives expressions of interest from companies and recruiters all over the country, but cannot pursue them because a custody agreement requires he stay in the area where he now lives. It’s an impossibly tough dilemma: wedded by a vitally overarching family commitment to a geographic location where your skills are not in demand, and unable to pursue opportunities in places where demand for your skills does exist.

But the article fills in some more information. The engineer’s job loss was being used by immigration opponents to argue that H-1B specialty occupation professionals should not be allowed into the United States because here is an engineer who needs a job.  This was raised with no less than the President of the United States in a video chat.

This chat exchange received considerable publicity, and immediately the engineer was being contacted by potential employers from all over the country.  Alas, none of these employers were in the North Texas area.  And the engineer couldn’t leave the area.  So the calls have stopped and the engineer stays unemployed.

But here’s what doesn’t follow.  The article goes on to quote Senator Grassley and the engineer’s wife as saying that the engineer is out of work because of  foreign nationals on H-1B visas.  The fact that the engineer cannot go where the jobs are does not seem to be considered a factor.  Leaping over barrels of  facts to a conclusion that doesn’t follow from the facts, the fault is placed at the feet of  foreign-born professionals who will go where the jobs are.

In those leapt-over barrels is the acknowledged fact that employers all over the country were beating down this engineer’s door.  Why would they do that unless there are jobs available in some fields and employers wanting to fill them with U.S. workers who have the right skills?  But these employers cannot pull up entire operations (and lay off their existing workforce) in order to move to the locale of a single person; the person needs to move to the job. If the person cannot move to the job because of a family obligation, that is to be respected.

But no one should blame “the foreigners” for it.

A version of this blog was originally posted on April 19, 2011 and on the Huffington Post

This week Jews all over the world celebrate Passover. Extended families, friends and strangers gather together and relive the story of the Exodus from the bondage of the Pharaohs of Egypt. It is a holiday of freedom and hope. And also a celebration of springtime and renewal. At the seder table, we not only tell the story of the Exodus from Egypt, we relive it. In fact, the Haggadah (“the story telling”) that we read at the seder table, and which recounts the story of redemption from slavery, instructs that the history of liberation be remembered as a personal experience, commanding that parents tell the story to their children in the first person — a recounting of what happened when “I myself went free from Egypt.”

Unfortunately, that is not hard to do.

My father, for example, need only describe his harrowing escape from Nazi Germany in 1938. To me, Passover is not the recounting of an ancient biblical story, it is personal family history.

Passover is also about welcoming the sojourner, the stranger in our midst. Abraham, we are reminded, was a stranger in a strange land. Today, in America, there are millions of undocumented “strangers” who, regardless of how they came here, also deserve to be welcomed with kindness, compassion and respect. They are not faceless “illegal aliens” as some would label them, but mothers, fathers, children, uncles, aunts, neighbors and friends.

They include thousands of undocumented youth who grew up as Americans, but lack the papers necessary to take part in the American Dream. Many of them grace the high end of their class honor rolls and dream of working toward a higher education. Others long to serve our nation in uniform. But their lives and futures are put on hold once they finish high school. Their lack of immigration status makes it impossible for them to study or serve their country.

This spring, as many of us celebrate Passover or Easter, we should all hold in our hearts those among us who are bound by the injustice of a broken immigration system. Let’s hope that next year they too will be able to celebrate a new life in America governed by a safe, orderly and fair immigration policy.

Written By:  Robert L. “Rusty” DeMoss II, Director of AILA Board of Governors

For many, if not most, of us in the U.S., spring has come early.  Already here in Alabama, the azaleas, dogwoods and wisteria are peaking, and I understand the cherry blossoms around the Tidal Basin in our nation’s capital were breathtaking this year.  Spring brings the annual reminder for “spring cleaning,” in our garages, closets, even offices.  And no less is spring cleaning needed than in our legislatures, when it comes to our country’s immigration laws.

As we all know, immigration is in a mess.  Did you know that now 37 states have been involved in the passage of harsh immigration laws?  Immigration has always been a federal, not state prerogative.  Aside from the significant constitutional issues these laws raise, they are being enacted in a mean spirit.  They are lashing out at immigrants themselves, in a so-called effort to “protect” the states, rather than at the reason immigrants, particularly the undocumented, are in the situation in which they find themselves in the first place:  a broken immigration system.

What is the source of this mean-spiritedness, which we are witnessing from the states, within so much of Congress, and some presidential candidates we see in the media every single day?  It’s myth, xenophobic myth.  Here are just a few of the popular examples:

• Every job filled by an immigrant, especially an illegal immigrant, is a job that could be filled by an unemployed American.
• Immigrants come to the United States for welfare benefits.
• Foreign workers do not pay U.S. taxes.

And what’s the truth?

• Immigrants typically do not compete for jobs with native-born workers, and immigrants create jobs as entrepreneurs, consumers, and taxpayers.
• Undocumented immigrants are not eligible for federal public benefit programs, and legal immigrants face stringent eligibility restrictions.
• Foreign workers residing in the U.S. pay the same taxes on worldwide income as U.S. workers.  They also pay the same social security, unemployment and state taxes.

These are not dreamlike, anecdotal assertions, but hard facts.  Check them out on “AILA Resources on the Economic Benefits of Immigration,” (particularly, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s report from last year and the CompeteAmerica study).

Congressional offices have been flooded with these myths for years.  It’s time we do all we can to shed light on the truth so that Congress, and our state legislators, will see, maybe even for the first time, that immigration is not a threat but a benefit to our nation.  Good immigration policy is vital to our slow, but effective, economic recovery.  It provides critical economic benefits.  And it’s the right thing to do.

Help Congress, and the states, with this much needed spring cleaning.  Come to AILA’s National Day of Action this Thursday, March 29.  Talk to your state legislators.  Our AILA national office will supply you with talking points, effective materials and other resources so that you’ll be fully prepared.  Immigration has been, and is now, a hot issue.  You’ll be armed with the truth so that you can, and will, make a difference.

Written by: G. Vernon Leopold

Eighty years ago I was a child in Germany, where my family had lived for generations.  My father, a decorated officer of the German Air Force, who had proudly served his country in World War I, could never have imagined that in just a few years he would be singularly focused on saving our lives.

Last summer Alabama adopted its Public Law 56 or, as it’s commonly known, HB56; a law that under the guise of controlling illegal immigration will deny undocumented immigrants employment, housing, schooling, and other rights and benefits equal to those guaranteed to its other residents. In effect, if not in intent, Alabama’s law closely follows the playbook of the racially restrictive decrees that the Nazis initiated in Germany beginning with Hitler’s takeover in January 1933 when the Nazis started to throw undesirable “Non-Aryan” Jewish Germans into concentration camps.

Since brown skinned Latinos comprise a visible minority in Alabama, HB56 now empowers, in fact requires, Alabama law enforcement officers to profile and detain as “suspicious” without warrant Latinos regardless of citizenship status if they are unable to identify themselves on demand as lawful U.S. residents. And as the Nazis’ Nuremberg laws that progressively restricted and then barred German businesses from employing Jews and Jewish households from engaging “Aryan” domestics, Alabama’s HB56 imposes heavy penalties on employers of undocumented aliens.  Like the Nuremberg measures in Nazi Germany that revoked the licensure of “Non-Aryan” professionals such as Jewish physicians, judges and lawyers and barred them from receiving pension benefits, HB56 bars unauthorized foreign nationals in Alabama from employment as teachers, from admission to public schools and universities, and from receiving health and welfare benefits. And like the Nazis’ measures that in 1938, in line with their earlier Nuremberg laws, had decreed the mass, overnight deportation of all Polish Jewish residents from Germany, HB56 now mandates the summary deportation of undocumented aliens from Alabama.

For the time being, enforcement of Alabama’s HB56 is stayed on appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11^th Circuit. But unless this racially targeted law is voided as unconstitutional by the courts, where will Alabama’s legal mayhem of civil rights and due process end?56 court o

The Nazis built their state of terror gradually and deliberately though propaganda, violence, mixed with colossal perversions of the rule of law. By the end of 1938 through violence, fines and confiscation the Nazis had progressively destroyed or seized all Jewish-owned property.  By 1944 they had deported and murdered six million Jews. It took millions more in American, and allied lives during World War II to stop Hitler’s calculated attempts to render Europe “JUDENREIN”—free of Jews.  Hopefully the U.S. courts will put a stop to Alabama’s legislative effort to make its territory “LATINO-REIN”.

Mr. Leopold, a retired lawyer, is a graduate of Harvard Law School who in 1938 (at the age of 15) fled Nazi Germany with his family, came to the U.S. as a refugee, and enlisted in the U.S. Army where he served in the European theater in the most decorated platoon in World War II.

Written by: Jeff Joseph, AILA Board of Governors

Anyone listening to the Republican primary debates would assume that immigration is at the forefront of the national consciousness and that immigration has become a defining issue in this election cycle. Given the heat and rhetoric surrounding the immigration debate and the frequency with which immigration is being used as a wedge issue in the primaries, one is left to ponder: Why have our elected leaders continuously dropped the ball on this critical issue? More importantly:  Why, on earth, would I continue to spend my time and resources to advocate for immigration reform when my elected officials do not seem to be listening?

As I ponder these legitimate questions, I am reminded of Aesop’s fable “The Crow and the Pitcher.” In the fable, a crow, half-dead with thirst, came upon a pitcher which had once been full of water; but when the crow put its beak into the pitcher he found that only a little water was left in it, and he could not reach far enough down to get at it.  He tried, and he tried, but at last had to give up in despair. Then a thought came to him, and he took a pebble and dropped it into the pitcher. One after the other, he tediously dropped pebbles into the pitcher.  At last, he saw the water mount up near him, and after casting in a few more pebbles he was able to quench his thirst and save his life. The moral of the story, of course, is that little by little, persistence pays off and helps us to accomplish our goals.

Let’s be realistic.  Immigration reform in an election cycle seems like drops of water at the end of an empty pitcher.  Nevertheless, it is critically important that our Association, and we as individual members, keep the dialogue regarding the need for immigration reform in the mainstream. While our advocacy efforts on the Hill might not get traction this year, we should not pause. We should continue to drop pebbles. At this time, more than ever, we should focus our energies on our communications, public relations and messaging. It is our duty as advocates to continue to put out our very simple message:  Immigration and immigrants are good for America. By propagating this message with clear examples of the clients with whom we work, we can change the hearts and minds of Americans so that when reform becomes a reality (which it will) the everyday voter will be ready to go to the ballot box and support it.

Whether you are blogging, appearing in the media, speaking in public fora, or attending the annual National Day of Action, I challenge you to do what you can to promote our messages regarding the positive contributions of immigrants and advocate for sensible immigration laws that will benefit our clients for generations to come. Immigration reform is not an option for us. It is a challenge, but one which we must accomplish and eventually will through simple persistence. I will see you at in Washington, D.C. on March 29th for AILA National Day of Action 2012.