Elise Foley

John Boehner On Immigration: We'll Do It, But 'Don't Ask Me How'

2013-05-23T12:32:41-04:00

WASHINGTON -- House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) said Thursday he's confident the House will "work its will on immigration" reform and come to a deal -- he's just not sure how.

"We're not going to be stampeded by the White House or stampeded by the president," Boehner said at a press conference. "The Senate is working its will, a lot of good work that's going on over there, but the House will work its will. Don't ask me how, because if I knew I'd certainly tell you, but the House is going to work its will."

Boehner has stayed largely out of the immigration debate, stating his support for the members working on a deal but without weighing in on the details. A bipartisan group in the House is currently working on an immigration bill, but although they have said they agreed on major principles, there are still details to be ironed out.

When asked whether he thinks the group is on the brink of collapse, Boehner said, "Well, I've heard that before, too."

"We've got a problem with legal immigration, we've got a problems with illegal immigration, and they've been through an awful lot," he said of the House group. "But I've got to say, there are people on both sides of the aisle who have done their best to try to undermine their ability to get to an agreement."

"Whether they actually finish and agree on everything or not, they've done a lot of really good work," he added later.

Despite his support for the group, Boehner said he is also encouraged by work outside the House's bipartisan team. He commended House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) in particular for holding hearings and offering piecemeal immigration legislation.

"There are a lot of efforts that I've encouraged, because if we're going to solve this problem, we've got to educate our members," he said. "We've got to help educate them about the hundreds of issues that are involved if we're truly going to have immigration reform."

Boehner gave a further response on his view for immigration reform -- albeit still a vague one -- in a joint statement later Thursday with other House GOP leaders. Part of the statement, from Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.), Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), Republican Conference Chairman Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.), and Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), is below:

"While we applaud the progress made by our Senate colleagues, there are numerous ways in which the House will approach the issue differently. The House remains committed to fixing our broken immigration system, but we will not simply take up and accept the bill that is emerging in the Senate if it passes. Rather, through regular order, the House will work its will and produce its own legislation. ... The House goal is enactment of legislation that actually solves these problems and restores faith in our immigration system, and we are committed to continuing the work we’ve begun toward that goal in the weeks and months ahead."

Sean Duffy On Immigration: 'Put Them On A Path To Citizenship'

2013-05-23T12:13:16-04:00

Conservative Rep. Sean Duffy (R-Wis.) said Monday that he supports a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, although at the same event he said they "are draining our coffers."

"Most people come here to work," he said at a town hall meeting, according to the Sawyer County Record. "Most are Hispanics and work hard at tough jobs. We can’t send 11 million people back home. We should put them on a path to citizenship."

Duffy's statement was somewhat surprising coming from a House Republican, given that many of them have said a pathway to citizenship would simply encourage further unauthorized immigration. Congress is currently working on immigration reform in both chambers, although the Senate is moving more quickly.

The bipartisan plan in the Senate, from the so-called gang of eight, would put more money into border security while also offering a pathway to citizenship to undocumented immigrants. A House bipartisan group, which announced last week it had agreed to principles, is expected to create a more arduous pathway.

More consistent with his colleagues was Duffy's insistence that border enforcement come before any legalization of the estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants currently in the United States.

A constituent said in a question that the U.S. "does not take border enforcement seriously," and he worried that many immigrants who come here to work "seem to have no interest in assimilating, adopting the beliefs that the U.S. is built on."

"We're all a country of immigrants," Duffy replied. "I believe it's a valid concern as to where their loyalty is. I believe we have to secure our border; we have to know who’s coming in and out. Nothing will pass the House unless the border is first secured. There should be a legal way for people to come in and out who want to work, when we need those workers. Let’s fix it once and for all."

He later said he agreed when another constituent said the U.S. should support undocumented immigrants by giving them welfare such as food stamps.

Duffy has a B+ rating from NumbersUSA, an organization that supports restricting all immigration -- legal and unauthorized. He said in a questionnaire for the group that he opposes "amnesty" and was rated "leaning yes" for supporting reduction of immigration levels.

LGBT Activists Stand Behind Immigration Reform, Even After Loss

2013-05-22T18:36:23-04:00

WASHINGTON -- Although Democrats abandoned same-sex couple provisions in immigration reform legislation on Tuesday, LGBT activists will continue to support the bill, saying there are aspects of the "gang of eight" plan worth fighting for, even if it leaves out gay couples.

"Immigrants come in all shapes and forms. Is it too much to ask to be looked at as a full human being, as an undocumented immigrant who happens to be gay?" said Jose Antonio Vargas, a journalist and immigration reform advocate who founded Define American.

"That's what I find so frustrating in this whole process," he continued. "But I support this bill. This is not a perfect bill but we need to move forward and this is a bill that gets us forward. So let's go forward."

The Senate Judiciary Committee passed the bipartisan gang of eight immigration bill on Tuesday in a 13-5 vote, with three Republicans -- Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and gang of eight members Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) -- supporting the bill. The vote will send the bill to the Senate floor, but it followed a major loss for the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community; Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) pulled his amendment that would have allowed foreign-born partners in same-sex, binational couples to petition for a green card in the same way heterosexual partners can.

Republicans, including Graham, insisted the amendment would kill immigration reform, giving Democrats little choice. "You've got me on immigration, you don't have me on marriage," Graham said at the markup Tuesday evening, threatening to abandon his own bill. "I just can't tell you more directly. If you want to keep me on immigration, let's stay on immigration."

There are an estimated 40,000 binational same-sex couples in the United States, but there are also an estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants, many of whom would be helped by the bill. Around 267,000 of them are LGBT.

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), a gang of eight member, said if it came down to opposing the same-sex couple amendment or killing the whole bill, he'd have to do the former. He's a longtime proponent of both immigration reform -- particularly the Dream Act to give legal status to undocumented youth -- and equality in the process, and sounded pained as he explained why he wouldn't support Leahy's measure.

"I believe that this is the wrong moment, and this is the wrong bill," he said.

The White House, for its part, indicated that the administration would be willing to accept a compromise bill without the same-sex couple provision, even though President Barack Obama supports it.

It was disappointing news for LGBT and immigrant activists.

"We're outraged by the political lack of interest," said Felipe Sousa-Rodriguez, an undocumented immigrant who works for the LGBT advocacy group GetEqual and whose husband is a soon-to-be U.S. citizen.

After Leahy withdrew the amendment, Immigration Equality Action Fund Executive Director Rachel Tiven, said in a statement that senators "abandoned LGBT families without a vote." Tiven pointed out in an interview on Wednesday that Immigration Equality, despite its marriage focus, also works on other LGBT issues such as helping people who are seeking asylum because they feel unsafe in their home country. She said the immigration reform bill is important even without same-sex couple provisions because it offers a path to citizenship and asylum provisions. Under the bill, a one-year deadline would be eliminated for asylum seekers to make their applications, giving LGBT immigrants worried about coming forward more time to make their claim.

If the Defense of Marriage Act is struck down by the Supreme Court, the issues faced by binational couples would, in part, be moot. In that case, the federal government could recognize legal marriages between two men or two women for immigration purposes, although some couples would have to travel outside their state to get married legally.

For Judy Rickard, the loss of the amendment means there won't be anything in the immigration bill to help her and her wife, Karin Bogliolo. Bogliolo is from the United Kingdom and is in the country legally, but Rickard has been unable to petition for a spousal green card. If they can't stay in the U.S. together, Rickard may decide to leave her country. She said Wednesday she was "still reeling" from what happened.

"I still say we win together or we lose together," she said. "I can't say I am surprised we got left out, but it hurts beyond my imagination, and I realized it as I was watching and listening that Democratic senators would talk about groups of people and pit them against each other."

One of the things LGBT groups find most frustrating is the idea that it's them versus immigrant rights advocates. Gay rights and immigration advocacy groups formed coalitions to push for comprehensive reform, and they plan to stick together despite disappointments.

"The LGBT community did not put ourselves in this position," Dave Montez, the acting president of GLAAD, said. "We said that we were supportive, we continue to say we're supportive. At some point there needs to be conversations about the conservative leaders that created this false dichotomy, that created this false choice between LGBT people and immigrants."

Senate Immigration Bill Passes Out Of Judiciary Committee

2013-05-21T20:26:21-04:00

WASHINGTON -- The Senate Judiciary Committee approved the bipartisan "gang of eight" immigration bill on Tuesday in a 13 to 5 vote after a marathon final day of markup that stretched into the evening.

All Democrats on the committee, along with Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and gang of eight Republican Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), voted in favor of the bill, which will now go to the Senate floor. Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), who voted against the bill out of committee, said he would support allowing it to move forward for debate -- rather than joining a filibuster -- once on the Senate floor. Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), who was also a "no" vote, said if it had been between his vote and moving the bill to the Senate floor, he would have voted in favor.

The crowd in the room erupted into applause when the final vote tally was read, rising to their feet and chanting "Yes we can!" then "Si se puede!"

Democrats seemed equally pleased to vote the bill out of committee.

"The dysfunction in our current immigration system affects all of us and it is long past time for reform," Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) said before the bill's passage. "I hope that our history, our values, and our decency can inspire us finally to take action. We need an immigration system that lives up to American values and helps write the next great chapter in American history by reinvigorating our economy and enriching our communities."

Of 300 amendments offered to the gang of eight immigration bill, the committee debated more than 200.

The bill came out of months of work from the gang of eight, which in addition to Graham and Flake includes Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.), Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) and Bob Menendez (D-N.J.). It includes a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, a streamlined legal immigration process, tougher interior enforcement and increased border security.

One of the final issues to settle was over high-skilled worker visas called H1-Bs. An amendment that simplifies the process for companies to bring in workers in science, technology, engineering and math eventually passed on a voice vote. Hatch and Schumer came to a compromise that led Hatch to agree to vote the full bill out of committee, although he did not commit to supporting its eventual passage.

It was a tough vote for Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), who has previously been wary of expanding H1-B visas. He voted in favor, however, citing the need for compromise and to get the bill through.

"We've made concessions I never thought we'd have to make ... but we've made those concessions to win your support," Durbin said to Hatch. "We need your support, and we want to pass this bill."

The amendment came under fire from the AFL-CIO labor federation, which said the measure would hurt American workers.

"There is no reason why this strong coalition should accept anti-worker amendments," AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka said in a statement. "And let's be clear: Senator Orrin Hatch's H-1B amendments are unambiguous attacks on American workers."

Some measures praised highly by immigrant rights advocates never went to a vote. Leahy brought up his amendment to allow LGBT couples equal protection under immigration law, but withdrew it "with a heavy heart" when it became clear Democrats were willing to drop it so the bill would pass.

A number of provisions lauded by advocates did make it in. The committee voted on Monday to approve Blumenthal's amendment that would block immigration raids in sensitive areas such as schools, hospitals and places of worship, except in extreme circumstances. A separate Blumenthal measure to restrict the use of solitary confinement in immigrant detention also passed on Monday, also on a voice vote.

Although many Republican amendments failed, some GOP senators, such as Hatch, were more successful than others. The committee voted on Monday to require a mandatory biometric exit system at airports with the highest volume of international air travel -- something Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) wanted to do nationwide but without success.

Amendments deemed poison pills failed, unsurprisingly. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) attempted to add a change that would strip the bill of its path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, which is considered absolutely necessary to the bill by President Barack Obama, Democrats and some Republicans. Five Republicans voted for that amendment, while three -- Hatch, Graham and Flake -- joined Democrats in opposing it.

Leahy said the amendment would gut the bill, while Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said "it goes against everything America stands for." Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) similarly disparaged another failed Cruz amendment, this one to bar currently undocumented immigrants from ever being eligible for welfare benefits such as Medicaid and food stamps, saying he doesn't think such an America is one he'd want to live in.

Sessions was also unsuccessful in his efforts to amend the bill, offering 49 amendments and seeing nearly every one that went for a vote fail. On one amendment last week Sessions was the sole "yes" vote, with all of his Republican colleagues abandoning him in his effort to limit legal immigration.

Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii) was one of the rare Democrats to offer an amendment that the gang of eight took down. Schumer and Durbin told her they had to reluctantly oppose her attempt on Tuesday to add a change that would expand family visas so that people in extreme hardship could petition for green cards for their adult children or siblings. It failed with 7 votes in support and 11 against, including Democrats Schumer, Durbin, and Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), all of whom said it was a good amendment but would upset the delicate balance of the gang of eight bill.

"Your heart's in the right place, your amendment's in the wrong place," Durbin said to Hirono.

President Barack Obama applauded the committee for passing the bill.

"None of the Committee members got everything they wanted, and neither did I, but in the end, we all owe it to the American people to get the best possible result over the finish line," he said in a statement. "I encourage the full Senate to bring this bipartisan bill to the floor at the earliest possible opportunity and remain hopeful that the amendment process will lead to further improvements."

Now that the bill passed the Senate Judiciary Committee, it has to go to the Senate floor, where gang of eight members are hopeful it will pass. Schumer and McCain, who is not on the Judiciary Committee, have said they would like to win over a majority of both parties -- around 70 votes in total.

Immigration Reform Amendment For Gay Couples Withdrawn

2013-05-21T19:59:48-04:00

WASHINGTON -- Sens. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) had to make what the New York senator called an "excruciating" decision on Tuesday to come out against including LGBT couple provisions in their immigration reform bill, citing the need to keep the fragile balance in the "gang of eight."

Sounding disappointed, Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) withdrew the amendment after debate during a markup on the bill.

"I take the Republican sponsors of this important legislation at their word that they will abandon their own efforts if discrimination is removed from our immigration system," Leahy said. "So, with a heavy heart, and as a result of my conclusion that Republicans will kill this vital legislation if this anti-discrimination amendment is added, I will withhold calling for a vote on it. But I will continue to fight for equality."

Leahy brought up his amendments on same-sex couples during a markup of the immigration bill after some uncertainty that he would force discussion on it at all. Under current law and the Defense of Marriage Act, same-sex couples cannot petition for legal status for the foreign-born partner, even if they're legally married in their state. That means that thousands are forced to live separately for months or years, or even leave the United States to be with their partners.

The gang of eight bill left out measures that would give LGBT couples the same ability to petition for legal status, even though Democrats in the group said they pushed for it. Although President Barack Obama supports the measure, the White House has also indicated he would accept a bill without it.

As a whole, it put Democrats in a difficult position, as Republicans threatened that adding the measure to the bill would kill their support. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said she supports allowing LGBT couples to petition for legal status, but said she would "implore [Leahy] to hold up on this amendment at this time."

Schumer called it "rank discrimination" to exclude same-sex couples and said it is a "basic principle of fairness" that they should be allowed to petition for foreign-born spouses. But he also said he opposed adding the amendment, "one of the most excruciatingly difficult decisions" in his time in public office.

"As much as it pains me, I cannot support this amendment if it would bring down the bill," he said. "I'm a politician. That means I have chosen my life's work in the constraints of the system to accomplish as much good as I can. I accept the tough choices, the painful but necessary imperfection of compromise, which is a part of our system of government."

Durbin made a similarly pained statement. "I believe that this is the wrong moment, and this is the wrong bill," he said.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), one of the Republicans who has said the LGBT provision would be a poison pill, repeatedly voiced his argument that he could not support the bill if the amendment was added.

"You've got me on immigration, you don't have me on marriage," he said. "I just can't tell you more directly. If you want to keep me on immigration, let's stay on immigration."

LGBT rights groups were dismayed with the decision. Rachel Tiven, executive director of Immigration Equality Action Fund, said in a statement that senators "abandoned LGBT families without a vote."

“There should be shame on both sides of the political aisle today for lawmakers who worked to deny LGBT immigrant families a vote," she said.

Stephanie Pucheta quiere que vuelva su papá deportado (VIDEO)

2013-05-20T14:25:51-04:00

WASHINGTON, D.C.- Cada día, durante dos semanas, Stephanie Pucheta, de 10 años de edad, se sentó frente a una cámara y habló sobre su padre, Julio César Pucheta, quien fue deportado en enero. Habló del día en que un juez le dijo a su padre que iba a ser forzado a dejar la casa, de cómo un día ella misma fue evacuada de la sala del tribunal porque no podía dejar de llorar, sobre la enfermedad crónica y sin cura de la que sufre su madre, y de que está haciendo sus tareas de la escuela sola, porque no tiene la ayuda de su padre.

SI TIENES ALGO QUE DECIR, HAZ CLICK AQUÍ: NOS INTERESA TU COMENTARIO

“Mi vida ha cambiado sin mi papá”, dice Stephanie, una ciudadana estadounidense, nacida en este país, a la cámara en español. Rompe en llanto: “desde que se fue lo extraño cada día. Cada mañana cuando me despierto me pregunto por qué no le dejaron quedarse aquí. ¿Por qué tienen que ser tan crueles con las familias que están aquí?
Cuando lo terminó, envió el video a Cuéntame, una organización que comparte historias de inmigrantes. Cuéntame le había enviado la cámara para que ella la use para contar la suya.

Este video fue su primera toma.

Cuéntame fue uno de innumerables grupos a los que la pequeña niña se dirigió en un intento desesperado de hallar a alguien que le pueda ayudar a impedir que su padre fuese enviado a México. Pero era demasiado tarde. Ahora, como miles de otros niños en Estados Unidos, vive en el país sin uno de sus padres, por una política migratoria que no considera la relación de la familia con los niños.

El Congreso de EE.UU. ha estado debatiendo la reforma migratoria integral desde 2001, con la intención de prevenir tragedias tan predecibles como la que vive la pequeña Stephanie. Familias como la de ella pagan diariamente el precio por el fracaso del Congreso de aprobar una propuesta de ley, pero también por la política de la administración de Barack Obama de deportar a indocumentados a un ritmo récord.

La moción de ley que se está debatiendo en estos momentos en Washington incluye numerosas cláusulas que podrían ayudar a familias como la de Stephanie. La legislación que propuso el así llamado grupo de los ocho – cuatro senadores de cada partido – si se aprueba, proporcionará a algunos indocumentados el camino a la ciudadanía y permitirá a algunos de los que fueron ya deportados volver a Estados Unidos y reencontrarse con sus familias. Se permitirá a los funcionarios de inmigración ser más flexibles al considerar las dificultades que confrontan niños cuyo padre o madre está por ser deportado.

La propuesta de ley tiene todavía que pasar la aprobación del Comité de Asuntos Judiciales del Senado, en donde se está debatiendo actualmente, y luego ser aprobado por el pleno del Senado. En el camino, las buenas intenciones del proyecto pueden ser frustradas por un número de enmiendas propuestas. El senador republicano de Iowa Chuck Grassley, por ejemplo, propuso que los jueces de inmigración no puedan tomar en cuenta a la hora de decidir, el sufrimiento de un hijo o hijo que sea ciudadano de Estados Unidos, causado por la deportación. El senador republicano de Alabama Jeff Sessions propuso otra enmienda que haría llegar a ser ciudadano prácticamente imposible para los indocumentados, a causa de los requisitos de altos ingresos que contiene. Otra enmienda del mismo Sessions hará más difícil que se apruebe la inmigración de candidatos con base en sus vínculos familiares aquí.

Axel Caballero, fundador de Cuéntame, dice que el grupo abriga la esperanza de que el video de Stephanie ayude a los legisladores a pensar sobre las familias como la de ella, cuando debatan la reforma migratoria.

“La historia de Stephanie es emblemática, un ejemplo de más de 25,000 inmigrantes que cada año solicitan perdón migratorio por razones de unidad familiar y que son rechazados por un sistema migratorio que prefiere aplicar políticas severas y ciegas que ser sensible a las soluciones de derechos humanos”, escribe Caballero en un correo electrónico.

“Pedimos a los legisladores que escuchen a Stephanie y a los miles de niños inmigrantes e indefensos, que buscan una solución rápida y eficiente cuando discuten la ley de reforma migratoria”.

Stephanie Pucheta nació en Georgia en 2002, pocos años después de que sus padres llegaran a Estados Unidos de México sin autorización. No supo que los padres eran indocumentados hasta que tuvo 8 años de edad, mientras trabajaba en un proyecto para la escuela.

Su padre fue detenido después de un arresto por DUI – manejaba bajo la influencia del alcohol – en 2012, y mantenido preso durante un año antes de ser deportado. La madre de Stephanie, María Ortiz, sufre de una enfermedad crónica y la familia tiene miedo que Stephanie se quede sola: que su madre muera, que su padre siga deportado.

Stephanie y su madre podrían irse a vivir a México, donde reside actualmente Julio César Pucheta, pero no saben si María podría recibir allí el mismo nivel de atención médica que tiene en este país. Además, Stephanie, ciudadana de Estados Unidos, se resiste a creer que debe dejar el país donde nació. Quiere quedarse aquí y quiere llegar a ser abogada de inmigración.

“A veces pienso sobre eso”, dice en entrevista telefónica sobre la posibilidad de mudarse a México. “Pero otras veces me digo que no debo irme, porque aquí tengo educación, y como dice mi mamá, quiero ser alguien en el mundo”.

Deferred Action Granted To Nearly 300,000 Dreamers

2013-05-20T13:11:27-04:00

WASHINGTON -- Nearly 300,000 undocumented young people have been granted reprieve from deportation concerns since the Obama administration began its Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program last August, according to new data released Monday by the government.

The 291,859 people approved as of April 30 is close to double what it was in January, when more than 150,000 young undocumented immigrants had been granted deferred action. The program means that these young people -- often called Dreamers after the Dream Act that would provide them legal status -- can work legally, obtain driver's licenses, and temporarily be protected from the possibility of deportation at any time.

The Obama administration announced the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals policy last June and it went into effect in mid-August. Thousands of people turned out to apply the first day.

Even 300,000 applications approved is still a small fraction of the estimated number of eligible undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. The Migration Policy Institute estimated in June that there are 1.4 million non-citizens living in the U.S. who are under the age of 30, the upper age limit for applying for deferred action.

Only Dreamers who entered the country as children and are attending or have graduated from school are eligible, and they must also maintain a clean record. They also must be between the ages of 16 and 30, and have lived in the country for at least five years.

Undocumented young people can be rejected based on prior felony convictions, among other grounds, and nearly 20,000 have been rejected of the 515,922 who have applied so far. Many cases are still under review.

The "gang of eight" immigration bill currently being considered in the Senate Judiciary Committee would allow Dreamers a quicker path to citizenship -- five years versus 10 -- than older and younger undocumented immigrants. The legalization of undocumented young people, as laid out under the Dream Act, is considered to be less contentious than legalization of the undocumented population as a whole.

(h/t Think Progress.)

Stephanie Pucheta, 10-Year-Old, On Dad's Deportation: 'Why Do They Have To Be So Cruel?'

2013-05-20T00:02:00-04:00

WASHINGTON -- Every day for two weeks, 10-year-old Stephanie Pucheta sat down in front of a camera and talked about her father, Julio Cesar Pucheta, who was deported in January. She talked about the day a judge told her father he would be forced to leave home, about how she was removed from the room because she couldn't stop crying, about her mother's chronic illness, and about doing her homework alone without her father's help.

"My life has changed without my father," Stephanie, an American citizen born in the United States, said to the camera in Spanish. She began to cry. "Since he's been gone, I miss him every day. Every morning when I wake up I wonder why they didn't let him stay here. Why do they have to be so cruel to the families that are here?"

When she was done, she sent the video to Cuéntame, an organization that shares immigrant stories. Cuéntame had sent her a video camera so she could use it to tell hers. The video above was her first take.

Stephanie had contacted Cuéntame earlier this year, one of countless groups she reached out to in a desperate bid to find someone who could help her stop her father from being sent to Mexico, but it was too late. Now she, like thousands of other children in the U.S., is living in the country without one of her parents because of an immigration policy that often leaves family-child relationships out of the equation.

Congress has been debating comprehensive immigration reform since 2001, aimed at preventing predictable tragedies like the one that hit Stephanie. Families like hers are paying the daily price for the ongoing congressional failure to pass a bill and the Obama administration's track record of deporting immigrants at record-setting rates.

The current iteration of the reform bill includes many provisions that would be good for families like Stephanie's. The legislation proposed by the bipartisan "gang of eight" senators would provide some undocumented immigrants with a pathway to citizenship and allow some who have already been deported to come back to the U.S. and reunite with their families. Immigration officials would be given more discretion to consider the hardships faced by children when a parent is up for deportation.

But the bill has to make it through the Judiciary Committee, where it is now under consideration, and pass on the Senate floor. A number of amendments could threaten those provisions during that process. Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) proposed one that would prevent immigration judges from using discretion to decline to deport someone because of the presumed hardship on their U.S. citizen child. Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), proposed one that would make citizenship an almost impossible goal for poor undocumented immigrants, due to restrictively high income requirements, and another that would make it harder for would-be immigrants to come to the U.S. based on family ties here.

Axel Caballero, the founder of Cuéntame, said the group hopes sharing Stephanie's video will help lawmakers think about families like hers when working on immigration reform. HuffPost readers: If you have a story to tell about deportation or detention, send a clip to openreporting@huffingtonpost.com or call to record your story at 860-348-3376.

"Stephanie’s story is emblematic of the over 25,000 immigrants who apply for family unity waivers each year only to be torn apart by an immigration system that emphasizes blind enforcement policies over sensible and human rights solutions," Caballero said in an email. "We are urging our legislators to listen to Stephanie and the thousands of defenseless migrant children looking for a prompt and effective solution in as they discuss immigration reform provisions."

Stephanie Pucheta was born in Georgia in 2002, a few years after her parents came to the U.S. from Mexico without authorization. She didn't find out about her parents' undocumented status until she was 8 years old while working on a project for school. Her father was picked up after a DUI traffic arrest in 2012 and detained for a year before he was deported. Stephanie's mother, Maria Ortiz, is ill with a chronic condition and the family fears Stephanie could be left alone -- losing one parent to death, the other to deportation.

With Julio Cesar Pucheta in Mexico, Stephanie and her mother could move there to be with him, but they do not know if Maria could receive the same level of medical treatment. And Stephanie, as an American citizen, does not believe she should have to leave her home country. She wants to stay here in the U.S. and become an immigration attorney.

"Sometimes I think about it," she said in a phone interview about moving to Mexico. "But sometimes I say, I shouldn't go because I got an education here, and like my mom said, I want to be somebody in this world."

This story initially stated that Julio Cesar Pucheta was picked up after a traffic arrest. It has been clarified to state that the arrest was for a DUI.

Alabama Immigration Law Asks Doctors For Their Papers

2013-05-18T00:00:01-04:00

WASHINGTON -- Some Alabama physicians and physician assistants were surprised this week to receive a letter with a new demand from the Alabama Board of Medical Examiners: Show us your papers.

Under the state's 2011 immigration law, these medical professionals are now required to prove they are U.S. citizens or in the country legally to maintain their licenses to practice, according to the letter, dated May 16.

The immigration law, H.B. 56, was signed into law two years ago. Based on the the much-contested S.B. 1070 in Arizona, Alabama's law is considered the toughest in the country, in part due to its "papers, please" provision that requires police to ask for an individual's immigration status if they have "reasonable suspicion" the person is undocumented. It was designed specifically to drive undocumented immigrants out of the state, but much of it has since been blocked by the courts.

The medical license component did not kick in until this year. Already-licensed physicians and physician assistants now have only two weeks to get their information to the Medical Licensure Commission. Those applying for a license for the first time will be required to either demonstrate they are in the country legally or sign a declaration of U.S. citizenship and give proof, according to the letter. If they don't provide the information, they will not be able to receive or renew their licenses.

From the letter, signed by Alabama Board of Medical Examiners Executive Director Larry D. Dixon:

A person applying for or renewing a professional license is required to sign a declaration of U. S. citizenship and demonstrate U. S. citizenship or demonstrate lawful presence in the U. S., which is then verified by the federal government. After initial demonstration and verification of U. S. citizenship or lawful permanent residence in the U. S. is made, further demonstration of such status is not required.

H.B. 56 initially made it a crime for undocumented immigrants to engage in business transactions with the state, creating problems for people who wanted to buy utilities or register their mobile homes, among other things. Civil rights groups sued the state on behalf of mobile-home owners, and the provision was blocked by a federal judge in November 2011.

When state lawmakers revised the bill last year -- in part to stem concerns that it was driving out business -- they narrowed that provision but maintained the ban on unauthorized immigrants conducting business with the state for professional licenses, such as those for physicians and physician assistants.

Karen Tumlin, a managing attorney at the National Immigration Law Center, said the license requirement seems to susceptible to the same legal problem as the provision affecting mobile-home owners: The federal government, not the state, has the responsibility to verify immigration status.

"We're deeply troubled by what the board is doing here, because once again it raises the constitutional problem with localities determining who has permission to remain in the United States and who does not," said Tumlin, who has worked to block H.B. 56. "And as a practical matter, we're concerned it would lead to duly licensed individuals in the state of Alabama not being able to contribute to Alabama society and pursue their profession."

House Immigration Group Releases Deal On Principles For Reform

2013-05-16T19:21:59-04:00

WASHINGTON -- A bipartisan group in the House has come to an agreement on principles for a comprehensive immigration reform bill, members said on Thursday.

After a two-hour meeting with the group, Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-Fla.) told reporters off the House floor that the eight members are now working on a final draft of the bill. He declined to say whether pieces of it would move on their own or all in one bill.

"I've always wanted to fix what's broken, and clearly what's broken is the entire immigration system," Diaz-Balart said. "And I think this bill would do that. ... I feel really, really, really, really comfortable with the fact that this is a very complete bill that fulfills what I've always wanted, which is to fix what's broken."

The members have been working for months -- some for years -- on a deal for immigration reform, a tough sell in the Republican-controlled House. They have kept their discussions quiet, and many did not openly acknowledge the group existed until they put out a joint statement in April praising the immigration reform work of the Senate "gang of eight."

The House group includes Democratic Reps. Xavier Becerra (Calif.), Luis Gutierrez (Ill.), Zoe Lofgren (Calif.) and John Yarmuth (Ky.), along with Republican Reps. John Carter (Texas), Diaz-Balart (Fla.), Sam Johnson (Texas) and Raul Labrador (Idaho).

Although members have said in the past that they were close to a deal, there have been setbacks. On Wednesday, Politico reported that two GOP members -- Labrador and Carter -- threatened to leave if a deal was not reached at the Thursday meeting. Carter told reporters on Thursday he was "feeling better" about the group's progress.

House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) said earlier Thursday he was concerned about the deadlock.

"I am concerned that the bipartisan group has been unable to wrap up their work," Boehner told reporters at a press conference. "And I know that there are some very difficult issues that have come up. But I continue to believe that the House needs to deal with this and the House needs to work its will. How we get there, we're still dealing with it."

Diaz-Balart was tight-lipped about details of the deal, and said it is yet to be determined when the group will finish the legislation. Many parts have already been drafted, he said, but the members still need to make some final agreements. He joked it would be "safe to say it's going to be a little over two or three" pages long.

"We have a lot of it drafted ... but these have been very intense negotiations, and so obviously it's got to be finalized drafting," Diaz-Balart told reporters. "And then we're going to have to sit down and, unlike other bills, we've got to read line-by-line and make sure that it's all there."

Diaz-Balart said he expects the group to stick together.

"It's been difficult, arduous process, and we haven't fallen apart yet," Diaz-Balart said. "And now we have an agreement of principle and I think that says it all."

OFA Urges Immigration Reform For Tech Innovation: 'We Want To Keep That Edge'

2013-05-16T15:15:51-04:00

WASHINGTON -- Organizing for Action, the Obama-allied group that sprang from President Barack Obama's campaign network, began its video-driven push for immigration reform on Thursday with the personal story of an immigrant who expanded his business in the United States.

OFA previewed its plan in March to share personal stories on immigration, but released the first video on Thursday. It focuses not on undocumented immigrants, but on tech -- and comes just a few days after the group signed on to a "March for Innovation" with New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg's pro-immigration reform group, The Partnership for a New American Economy.

In the video, Faizan Buzdar, the founder and CEO of Convo.com, talks about difficulties setting up an office in San Francisco, which has taken more than a year -- "light-years" for a start-up. Buzdar immigrated to the U.S. from Pakistan.

"As we look at the future, economies are going to be built on innovation," Buzdar says. "And to be the leader in innovation and new companies, it is in the best interest of the U.S. to reform immigration."

The March for Innovation is bipartisan, and will also include Republicans for Immigration Reform as well as other groups. The virtual "march" will take place next Wednesday and Thursday on online venues, including HuffPost Live.

President Barack Obama has made immigraton reform one of his top priorities for this year, and OFA has gathered 7,000 stories from undocumented immigrants to be distributed on social media, The New York Times reported in March. OFA will release more stories in its "American Stories" series in the future.

The Senate is currently working on an immigration bill put forward by the bipartisan "gang of eight," which Obama has said differs from his exact plan but is close enough that he would support it. The Judiciary Committee is amending the bill this month before it heads to the Senate floor, likely next month. A group in the House is also working on an immigration reform bill, but has hit some gridlocks and may not release its plan as a group, according to reports.

Among other issues, Congress is considering high-skilled visas that members and supporters hope will bring more entrepreneurs and innovative workers to the United States.

In the video released on Thursday, OFA argued that Republicans should be able to get behind immigration reform that would help people like Buzdar to open offices and companies in the country.

"It's easily an issue that can have bipartisan support," Buzdar says. "New businesses and technologies open up new jobs, open up new education opportunities. It almost seems like common sense to say that we have this edge in terms of being the center of the world for innovation, and we want to keep that edge."

CORRECTION: The original article incorrectly stated that Organizing for Action is a Democratic group. It is non-partisan, but allied with President Barack Obama.

Judiciary Committee Smacks Down Jeff Sessions Amendment To Limit Immigration

2013-05-14T15:16:14-04:00

WASHINGTON -- Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee abandoned Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) on Tuesday in his effort to limit the number of immigrants who could come to the United States, and helped Democrats to kill the amendment in a 1-17 vote.

Even Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), a strong opponent of the comprehensive immigration reform bill, opposed the amendment and implied it went against American values as a nation of immigrants.

"I think as a nation, we need to remain a nation that doesn't just welcome but that celebrates legal immigrants," Cruz said at the second markup for a bipartisan immigration bill from the so-called gang of eight. "Around this table, so many of us are the children or grandchildren of those who risked everything for freedom. So I respect my friend from Alabama's amendment, but it's not one I support, because indeed I think we should expand legal immigration, but do so in conjunction with putting real teeth on border security so that those who come, come here legally following the rule of law."

The markups have stood as a test of the gang of eight's solidarity in the face of amendments that could derail the bill. Four of the eight members of the group are on the Judiciary Committee -- Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) -- and they have so far mostly voted together on amendments.

But the markups have also shown the strengths of their compromise, particularly in case of the Sessions amendment, which both parties came together to defeat. The Alabama senator was left alone in advocating for restrictions on legal immigration and the future flow of workers, with his fellow Republicans saying they in fact support raising the annual number of visas issued, in part because they said such a move could deter future unauthorized immigration.

Graham gave Sessions a subtle dig when he praised him as being "sincere" in his concerns, then said that such concerns are shared by the "people on the Democratic side" and the AFL-CIO labor federation, which helped craft an agreement with the Chamber of Commerce on future flow of workers. "There's nothing wrong with sometimes agreeing with people you sometimes disagree with," Graham said of Sessions and Democratic-aligned groups.

Sessions did not cite the AFL-CIO in his arguments, instead frequently referencing the potential costs of immigration reform projected in studies from Harvard professor George J. Borjas. Borjassigned off on the now-infamous dissertation from former Heritage Foundation analyst Jason Richwine that stated Latinos have lower IQs than whites, a paper that eventually led to his resignation from the think tank. Richwine, in one of his final acts at the foundation, co-authored a much-criticized report last week claiming that legalization of undocumented immigrants would cost the country $6.3 billion over the next 50 years.

Sessions argued that legalizing those currently in the U.S. without status would be damaging to the country, but Graham pushed back. He said neither of his parents graduated from high school, but through running their own businesses they were able to make sure he and his sister went to college.

"So I do challenge this idea that somehow the low-skilled work force, because they don't have a college or high school degrees, won't contribute to America," he said. "I would suggest that the strength of this country is not the degree one holds, but the character the individual possesses. So I'm very confident and hopeful that out of this 11 million who today have low skills will come some of the brightest in the future."

Another Sessions amendment, that would require DHS to collect biometric information on foreign nationals leaving the U.S., also failed in committee, although with more Republican support. The final tally was six in favor, 12 against, with Flake and Graham joining Democrats in voting against the amendment.

But the biometrics amendment did find support from gang of eight member Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), who is not on the Judiciary Committee but who will push for the amendment to be added on the Senate floor, according to his office.

"Immigration reform must include the best exit-system possible because persons who overstay their authorized stay are a big reason we now have so many illegal immigrants," Rubio spokesman Alex Conant said in a statement. "We wanted the Judiciary Committee to strengthen the legislation by adding biometrics to the new exit system, and we were disappointed by this morning's vote."

Sessions was disappointed, too, and accused the gang of eight of killing amendments they don't like -- which they said they would do, if they considered those changes to be a poison pill.

"They decide which amendments will live and die ... They apparently decided this one is going to die," Sessions said. "But I don't agree."

Lindsey Graham: Immigration Amendment For LGBT Couples Would End My Support For Bill

2013-05-13T16:07:00-04:00

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said on Monday that he would pull support from his own immigration reform bill if his fellow Judiciary Committee members voted to include LGBT provisions.

If the Judiciary Committee tries to redefine marriage in the immigration bill they will lose me and many others.
— Lindsey Graham (@GrahamBlog) May 13, 2013

The immigration legislation put forward by the bipartisan "gang of eight" doesn't address the problems faced by binational same-sex couples, who under the Defense of Marriage Act cannot petition for green cards for their foreign national partners.

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), chairman of the Judiciary Committee, introduced amendments to the gang of eight bill that would give same-sex couples equal treatment to heterosexual ones under immigration law.

But Republicans in the gang of eight, including Graham, have cautioned that such a move would kill the bill. In January, when the group first unveiled its broad framework for immigration reform, Graham said LGBT provisions would be a non-starter for Republicans.

"Why don't we just put legalized abortion in there and round it all out," Graham said at the time.

Two other Republicans in the gang of eight, who are not on the Judiciary Committee, have also said adding LGBT measures would be disastrous for their legislation. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said in January that adding "social issues" such as binational same-sex couple provisions would be "the best way to derail" immigration reform, while Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) said he opposed efforts to add LGBT provisions to the bill.

"This immigration bill is difficult enough as it is," Rubio told conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt last month. "If that issue is injected into this bill, this bill will fail. It will not have the support. It will not have my support."

Although President Barack Obama has voiced support for allowing same-sex couples to petition for spousal green cards, the White House has indicated he would be willing to sign a bill that excluded it.

"We have said that we support that provision, but we also think it's very important to recognize that the overall bill here accomplishes what the president believes needs to be accomplished and is in keeping with his principles," White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said earlier this month.

Jeff Sessions Files Amendment Requiring High Income Bar For Permanent Resident Status

2013-05-08T14:19:56-04:00

WASHINGTON -- The bipartisan Senate immigration bill would already make becoming a legal permanent resident a costly process for undocumented immigrants. But if Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) gets his way, it would also require immigrants to prove they have an average annual income four times higher than the federal poverty line, which, for a family of four, is more than $94,000.

Sessions' proposal, one of 49 he offered on Tuesday, would amend the so-called gang of eight's bill to require that any undocumented immigrant show an average income or resources at or above 400 percent of the federal poverty level for the entire 10-plus years they've spent in registered provisional immigrant status in order to qualify for legal permanent resident status.

Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee will begin to consider amendments to the gang of eight bill on Thursday at the first markup of the legislation. There were 300 amendments filed to the bill -- from every committee member but gang of eight member Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) -- but all of them will not be put to a vote.

Many senators, including Sessions, have argued that immigration reform should ensure the legalization of undocumented immigrants doesn't result in a strain on the public benefits system, and plenty of other provisions and amendments have been filed in order to prevent that. Some of those measures, though, could make it unlikely -- or impossible -- that current undocumented immigrants could ever become legal residents or citizens.

The gang of eight bill already requires undocumented immigrants to show either an average income of 125 percent above the poverty line or consistent employment during their time as a registered provisional immigrant. For an individual, the federal poverty level is $11,490, meaning an undocumented immigrant would need an average income of about $14,360 or higher to become a legal permanent resident under the bill as originally written.

Sessions' amendment would eliminate the "either/or" language of the current bill and require both a minimum average income and consistent employment. An individual under his amendment would need an average income of $45,960 or more, and a family of six would need to average an income of about $126,360 over 10 years. Those are relatively high bars -- by comparison, the average median household income in the U.S. is $52,762, according to the most recent census data.

Another amendment from the senator would prohibit legal permanent residence for anyone who qualified for public benefit programs, such as the supplemental nutrition assistance program (often referred to as SNAP), the temporary assistance for needy families program, state means-tested assistance or supplemental security income benefits.

The senator previously called the gang of eight bill "legalization first, not enforcement first" and said it would threaten the jobs of Americans.

"Once illegal immigrants are granted green cards, they will become eligible for generous welfare and entitlement programs," he said in a statement in April. "Because of how these benefits are structured, low-wage illegal immigrants who are legalized will ultimately receive trillions more in benefits than they contribute to these programs."

The bill would not grant legal status to any currently undocumented immigrant until he or she has maintained provisional status for at least 10 years, having arrived in the U.S. before Dec. 31, 2011. The bill would also exclude certain people for criminal violations. In addition, the government would be required to make border security improvements before it could begin doling out green cards.

Marshall Fitz, director of immigration policy for the progressive group Center for American Progress, said Sessions' proposed restrictions would mean that many undocumented immigrants would never be eligible to become permanent residents, and argued that Sessions might as well join Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) in proposing a ban on the path to citizenship altogether.

"Sen. Sessions is effectively admitting that he wants a permanent underclass of immigrants who can never gain permanent residency or citizenship," Fitz said. "He knows very well that only the smallest percentage of the undocumented population will be able to meet that 400-percent threshold. He should have just come out ... and declared that no undocumented immigrant shall ever become a citizen."

Ted Cruz Files Immigration Amendment To Ban Path To Citizenship

2013-05-08T12:11:07-04:00

WASHINGTON -- Among the 300 amendments to the Senate immigration bill is one that would take away one of its central purposes: giving a pathway to citizenship to the 11 million undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), an almost certain "no" vote on the bill from the so-called gang of eight, filed an amendment on Tuesday to ban anyone who has been in the U.S. without status from becoming a citizen at any point.

The path to citizenship under the gang of eight bill is already a difficult one. It would take about 13 years and require immigrants to complete a number of requirements, such as learning English and paying hefty fines. Undocumented immigrants would first apply for provisional immigrant status, and most would be required stay in the U.S. for at least a decade before being eligible to apply for legal permanent residency. They could then eventually apply to be a U.S. citizen. But the government would have to meet certain border security benchmarks before any provisional immigrant could move into legal permanent resident status.

Other Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee have also proposed measures that would fundamentally change the bill. Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) filed a whopping 77 amendments, while Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) filed 49.

Cruz told conservative commentator Sean Hannity in April that he has "deep concerns" about allowing undocumented immigrants to eventually become citizens.

"I think that is profoundly unfair to the millions of legal immigrants who have followed the rules, who have waited in line," he said. "I think the reason that President Obama is insisting on a path to citizenship is that it is designed to be a poison pill to scuttle the whole bill, so he can have a political issue in 2014 and 2016. I think that's really unfortunate."