SOURCE: AP/Evan Vucci

Robert Rector, author of a Heritage Foundation report on immigration amnesty, speaks during a news conference at the Heritage Foundation, Monday, May 6, 2013, in Washington.

In what might be called something of a policy-political family squabble, the Heritage Foundation crossed signals with fellow conservatives by releasing yesterday a controversial, cost-benefit study related to comprehensive immigration reform. I wish this was a joking matter, but it’s a gravely serious concern.

The newsy tidbit in the conservative think tank’s document isn’t the erroneous attempt to attach a $6.3 trillion price tag to legislation under consideration to allow a path to citizenship for some 11 million undocumented immigrants. Numerous reviewers, including an excellent takedown by The Washington Post’s editorial board, attacked that miscalculation and set the record straight.

As my ThinkProgress colleagues noted, a previous 2006 Heritage report stood in stark contradiction to the one released yesterday. In its earlier study, Heritage visiting fellows Tim Kane and Kirk A. Johnson wrote, “the argument that immigrants harm the American economy should be dismissed out of hand” and urged for a comprehensive immigration bill. “A lopsided, ideological approach that focuses exclusively on border security while ignoring migrant workers (or vice versa) is bound to fail.”

So the top-line message of the latest report isn’t focused on Heritage’s empirical shortcomings and the study’s inaccuracies, but rather that the corrections came so quickly and vehemently from fellow conservatives. It is a point that Think Progress’s Rebecca Leber highlights: “The study stands alone in a field of research that finds legal immigration to be a net plus in tax revenue, education, and higher average wages. As a result many conservatives do not buy Heritage’s findings … ”

But don’t take Leber’s or my word for it. After all, we’re on a perch across town from Heritage, and speaking for myself, I find little to cheer that comes from the other side. Rather, let the right wing speak for itself:

• Via Twitter, Sen. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) complained that the Heritage report “ignores economic benefits.”
• Sen. Marco Rubio’s (R-FL) chief of staff Cesar Conda joined the fray, also via Twitter, arguing the report failed to evaluate the economic impact of immigration reform through “dynamic scoring,” which takes into account a broader array of benefits produced by immigrant workers.
• Conservative economist Douglas Holtz-Eakin, president of the American Action Forum, was perhaps the most prominent and outspoken of the critics. He told The Washington Post’s Jim Tankersley that the conservative think tank he leads will release its own analysis today—Tuesday—that anticipates growing tax revenues that would cut federal deficits by $2.5 trillion. “It’s very important to recognize that this is a core economic policy decision,” Holtz-Eakin told The Post. “Let’s acknowledge the value” of immigrants to the U.S. economy.

Lest anyone misunderstand, I’m not indulging here in some gleeful schadenfreude over the dissention among conservative thought leaders. Rather, there’s a frighteningly real issue at stake, one that repeatedly has emerged in our stagnant, left versus right debates over public policies.

What is the value of fact-based reality in political debates? All too often, those seeking to sway public opinion—in this case, immigration; but it could just as easily be health reform, gun control, or abortion rights—supply their own set of facts to support their beliefs.

And, in some cases, even when people are confronted with information that calls into question those “facts,” researchers have found that many people just choose to ignore inconvenient truths. In a 2010 paper titled, “When Corrections Fail: The persistence of political misperceptions,” Brendan Nyhan of the University of Michigan and Jason Reifler at Georgia State University noted a “backfire effect” tends to take place when popularly held beliefs are challenged by corrective facts. The paper documents “several instances of ‘backfire effect’ in which corrections actually increase misperceptions among the group in question,” the scholars write.

I’m pleased that conservative supporters of immigration reform recognize the value of clearing a path to citizenship, which is vital to our nation’s future. It’s rare and refreshing to hear self-criticism from within conservative circles on this issue. If only they would do that on other issues, say background checks for gun purchases.

But it’s equally frustrating to see how far a small, determined band of right-wingers is willing to go with twisted facts and illogical arguments to support wrong-headed policies. This is the most troubling part about the Heritage report. It gives a lift to willful ignorance to advance its policy objectives.

How can we know whether we’re living in the real world or some Matrix-like alternate reality, where facts as reasonable people understand them actually don’t apply? Worse, what hope is there for immigration reform—or any rational public policy—if what passes for scholarship at Heritage is challenged and yet citizens and their elected lawmakers choose to embrace a gross and calculated misunderstanding of what’s real?

Indeed, if lies and distortions prevail, then democracy can only suffer.

Sam Fulwood III is a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress and Director of the CAP Leadership Institute. His work with the Center’s Progress 2050 project examines the impact of policies on the nation when there will be no clear racial or ethnic majority by the year 2050.

SOURCE: AP/Jacquelyn Martin

Josue Benavides, 28, center, who is originally from El Salvador, poses for a portrait with his cousins, Jonathan, 7, left, and Christopher Benavides, 11, of Alexandria, Virginia, after attending the "Rally for Citizenship," a rally in support of immigration reform on Capitol Hill in Washington, Wednesday, April 10, 2013.

For the past several months, four Senate Democrats—Chuck Schumer (NY), Dick Durbin (IL), Bob Menendez (NJ), and Michael Bennet (CO)—have worked with four Senate Republicans—John McCain (AZ), Lindsay Graham (SC), Marco Rubio (FL), and Jeff Flake (AZ)—to develop a proposal to repair our nation’s failing immigration system. The product of the bipartisan “Gang of 8” negotiations is a bill titled “Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013,” filed in the Senate early this morning.

While it is far from perfect, this historic bipartisan compromise will go far in establishing an immigration policy worthy of our heritage and fit for the 21st century. Here are the top 10 ways that the Senate’s comprehensive immigration bill fixes our nation’s badly broken immigration system.

1. It restores core American values. The bill would create an immigration system that honors our history as a nation of immigrants and that renews the promise that immigrants who work hard and play by the rules can achieve their dreams in America. It would halt the more than 400,000 annual deportations that tear apart families and devastate communities. It also protects undocumented immigrants from deportation if they arrived in the United States before December 31, 2011, have been continuously present since then, and have not committed any serious crimes, and it puts them on the path to achieving full citizenship.

2. It raises the wage floor for all workers. The bill allows undocumented immigrants who arrived in the United States before December 31, 2011, to apply for status as a registered provisional immigrant, or RPI. This allows undocumented new Americans to work lawfully in the United States while they wait to be able to apply for lawful permanent residence and eventually U.S. citizenship, and it prevents unscrupulous employers from underpaying them, which drives down the wages and working conditions of all workers. The bill also contains important wage and employee protections for future immigrant workers, keeping them safe from exploitation.

3. It preserves family unity. The bill removes the limitations on the number of visas that legal permanent residents can request for their spouses and minor children, ensuring that families are not separated for years while awaiting legal status. It creates a process to aggressively clear the estimated 4.4 million-person backlogs in the family- and employment-based visa systems within the next 10 years. And it creates a new nonimmigrant visa that allows individuals to enter and work in the United States while waiting for a family visa to become available. The bill recognizes that united families have a better shot at achieving the American Dream and works to ensure families can set down roots together.

4. It promotes full American incorporation. The bill allows individuals who have been in the United States with legal status and work authorization for more than 10 years, including legalized immigrants with RPI status, to apply for a green card. This provision includes immigrants who have held temporary protected status or deferred enforcement departure—two designations for immigrants who were already living in the United States when extraordinary conditions in their country of origin prohibited them from returning home—for 10 years or longer, allowing them for the first time to achieve permanent residence and to become full and equal members of society. Further, the bill allows these long-term residents to apply for citizenship three years after securing their green cards.

5. It protects DREAMers and farmworkers. The senators’ proposal acknowledges the unique circumstances confronting individuals who were brought to the United States as children and provides them with an accelerated five-year path to earn permanent residence and citizenship, unlike the 10-year path for most unauthorized immigrants. Likewise, it recognizes the high percentage of farmworkers who are undocumented and their importance to the industry. To stabilize the agricultural industry, the bill authorizes farmworkers who continue working in agriculture to apply for permanent residence five years after the bill’s enactment.

6. It levels the playing field for all employers. The Senate’s immigration proposal mandates the use of E-Verify, the government’s electronic employment-verification system, for all employers to ensure that the workers they hire are authorized to work in the United States. This mandatory program will protect the integrity of the employment system by ensuring that employers and workers are held accountable and, paired with the legalization provisions, will make sure that no undue burdens are placed on those currently without legal status. The mandate includes a five-year phase-in period to allow small businesses more time to comply with the requirements.

7. It boosts economic growth. The bipartisan legislation enables eligible undocumented immigrants to realize their full earnings potential by providing them with a pathway to legal status and the ability to work legally, including the ability to pursue higher-paying legal jobs that match their skills. Legal status also provides an incentive for workers to further their education and training. On average, undocumented immigrants will increase their earnings by 15 percent over five years under this bill, leading to a cumulative $832 billion in economic growth and $109 billion in increased tax revenues over the next 10 years. It will also create an estimated 121,000 jobs each year, benefits that accrue to all Americans.

8. It modernizes our immigration system. The Senate’s immigration bill creates a new category of merit-based green cards for individuals who meet certain criteria—for example, education level, language skills, employment, and family connections—that are determined to be in the national interest. It expands the number of green cards for highly skilled, advanced-degree professionals, creates a new lesser-skilled visa category, and establishes a bureau tasked with analyzing economic, labor, and demographic data to help set annual limits on each type of visa.

9. It enhances national security. Differentiating between who is in our country to do us harm and who is here simply to make a better life for themselves and their families makes our nation more secure in the long run. The bill requires undocumented immigrants who arrived before December 31, 2011, to register with the Department of Homeland Security and undergo criminal and national security background checks. Individuals who have been convicted of a felony or of three or more separate misdemeanors would be ineligible to remain in the United States. Likewise, individuals who are inadmissible because of other criminal, national security, public health, or morality grounds would have to leave the country.

10. It strengthens border security. The bill sets a goal of apprehending or deterring 90 percent of attempted unlawful entries in each of the “high risk” southwestern border sectors; where more than 30,000 people were apprehended in the past fiscal year. If this effectiveness goal is not met within five years, additional funding will be authorized and a commission will be formed to issue recommendations on additional targeted measures. This smart investment in border security will go a long way in ensuring that the constantly evolving border is protected.

Notably, the bill leaves out certain groups such as LGBT partners of immigrants and eliminates programs such as the diversity visa lottery, which granted 50,000 visas per year, drawn randomly from applicants from countries with historically low numbers of immigrants. Even so, the Senate immigration bill is a thoughtful and pragmatic solution that will give approximately 11.1 million people a chance to become full and equal members of society, will boost our economy, and will create a 21st century legal-immigration system that reflects our values and our economic needs. Congress should continue the Gang of 8’s bipartisan spirit and pass this bill as quickly as possible.

Marshall Fitz is Director of Immigration Policy at the Center for American Progress. Ann Garcia is a Policy Analyst at the Center. Philip E. Wolgin is a Senior Policy Analyst for the Immigration Policy Team at the Center.

There are 5.4 million undocumented women living in America, and those who are employed are perhaps the most underpaid workers in the workforce due to the double wage disparity that is a consequence of gender-based and immigration-status-based discrimination.

Correcting the gender wage gap in the United States will require a host of actions, including passing the Paycheck Fairness Act, which prohibits gender-based pay discrepancies and bans workplace policies that don’t allow employees to disclose their wages to each other. Common-sense immigration reform that includes a road map to citizenship would represent a significant step toward pay equity. As we move into the congressional debate on wage disparities and immigration reform, let us consider the women who are earning far less money than they deserve and remember that reform is not just about fixing a broken immigration system; it can also be a step toward gender equality.

Ann Garcia is a Policy Analyst for the Immigration Policy team at the Center for American Progress. Patrick Oakford is a Research Assistant in the Economic Policy department at the Center.

SOURCE: AP/Mel Evans

People look out at the Statue of Liberty while they hold signs Saturday, April 6, 2013, as members of New Jersey's congressional delegation as well as labor unions, religious leaders, immigrants, and immigration advocates rally at Liberty State Park in Jersey City, New Jersey.

Endnotes and citations are available in the PDF version of this issue brief.

In the wake of the overwhelming Latino and Asian American support for President Barack Obama in the November 2012 election—support that was critical to his re-election—the political winds on immigration have shifted significantly to favor immigration reform with a pathway to citizenship for the approximately 11 million undocumented immigrants living in our country. A full 71 percent of Latino voters and 73 percent of Asian American voters supported the president in the election, and poll after poll illustrates that these groups strongly opposed the “self-deportation” policies of Republican presidential candidate and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and instead supported President Obama’s immigration-reform efforts. Changing demographics, especially the rapid growth of the Latino population and their power as voters, ensured that key swing states such as Florida, Colorado, and Nevada voted for the president.

In the weeks after the election, prominent conservatives “evolved” on the issue of immigration reform, including conservative pundit Sean Hannity, Sens. Rand Paul (R-KY) and John McCain (R-AZ), House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH), and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA). Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) summed up the Republican predicament best when he told the Washington Ideas Forum on November 15 that, “It’s really hard to get people to listen to you on economic growth, on tax rates, on health care, if they think you want to deport their grandmother.”

Since the beginning of the year, rhetoric has turned into action with negotiations on an immigration reform plan moving into the final stages. A bipartisan “Gang of 8” in the Senate is expected to release a draft bill in the next few weeks, and a bipartisan group in the House is coming to a consensus as well. President Obama reiterated his support and optimism for passing immigration reform by the end of the summer in an interview with Telemundo on March 27, and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) has promised “swift and thorough action” on an immigration bill. At the heart of the effort is a tough but fair road map to earned citizenship for the 11 million undocumented immigrants living in the country.

As we move into the congressional debate on immigration reform, we should remember that the political shifts that have opened a space for reform—grounded in demographic changes—were not a phenomenon that debuted in 2012. These changes began in the mid-1990s, when anti-immigrant politics in California helped turn the state reliably blue.

And as our nation moves toward a point where by 2043 we will have no clear racial or ethnic majority,11 other states such as Arizona, Texas, North Carolina, and even Georgia are also reaching demographic tipping points. Whether or not these states turn blue in the future has a lot to do with how politicians in both parties act and what they talk about on the subject of immigration reform.

In this issue brief we review the past, present, and future of immigration politics, as well as the changing demographics in key states.

Demography is destiny

• The past: California
• The present: Florida, Colorado, Nevada, and Virginia
• The future, near term: Arizona, North Carolina
• The future, long term: Georgia, Texas

The past

California

In 1994 California’s Proposition 187 awakened the Latino vote and pushed the state into the reliably Democratic column. Then-Gov. Pete Wilson (R) strongly supported the ballot measure, which targeted unauthorized immigrants in the state, attempting to cut off all public services outside of emergency health care to people without legal status. Proposition 187 passed overwhelmingly by a margin of 59 percent to 41 percent, though the courts ultimately struck it down as unconstitutional. The backlash to the ballot measure and the governor’s support of it was swift, however, galvanizing Latinos to go to the polls. In fact, not a single Republican won statewide office from the passage of Proposition 187 in 1994 through the election of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) in 2003, and the state has voted Democratic in every presidential election since 1992.

Proposition 187 energized the Latino vote, and demographic realities since then have only accelerated the state’s political changes. From 1990 through 2010 California’s Latino population grew from 25 percent to 38 percent, while the state’s Asian American population grew from 9 percent to 13 percent. California reached majority-minority status—meaning the state has no one racial or ethnic majority—in 2000, decades before the country as a whole is projected to do the same. The Latino voting-eligible population in the Golden State will continue to grow, as a large number of Latinos turn 18 and become eligible to vote. By 2016 California will have 1.35 million new Latino voters, accounting for 82 percent of the state’s growth in eligible voters.

California represents a powerful example of the role that immigration and demographics plays in partisan politics, and it was an antecedent to the 2012 presidential election, where states such as Florida, Colorado, and Nevada moved into the reliably Democratic column.

The present

Florida

Republicans lost their political monopoly in Florida in the 2008 presidential election, when the state went Democratic for the first time since 1996. Major growth in communities of color, which made up 30 percent of the state’s electorate in 2008 and was driven largely by growth in the Hispanic population, played a significant role in President Obama’s election. Four years later in 2012, President Obama carried the Latino vote in Florida with 60 percent to Gov. Romney’s 39 percent, up 3 percentage points from his voter margin in the 2008 election.

Unique to Florida’s Latino electorate is the fact that Cuban Americans, who tend to lean Republican, make up the largest portion of the state’s Latino electorate—32 percent—while Latinos of Puerto Rican origin make up 28 percent of the state’s Latino eligible voters. Immigration is not as critical an issue for either of these communities as it is for other groups, since Cuban Americans benefit from generous immigration policies that grant them legal status once they’ve arrived in the United States, and Puerto Ricans are already U.S. citizens.

Even so, polling illustrates that these groups rejected heated political rhetoric on immigration, especially that which painted a target on the backs on all Latinos. An ImpreMedia and Latino Decisions election eve poll in Florida asked Cuban American and Puerto Rican voters how Gov. Romney’s outreach to the Latino community had communicated his feeling toward them. Only 37 percent of voting-eligible Cuban Americans and 16 percent of Puerto Ricans said they believed Gov. Romney truly cared about Latinos. Polling among Mexican, Dominican, and other Latino communities in the state was similarly abysmal.

The perception of Republican Party hostility toward Latinos became crystal clear at the ballot box. President Obama won the Puerto Rican vote by wide margins—83 percent to Gov. Romney’s 17 percent—and while the president narrowly lost the Cuban American vote—48 percent to Gov. Romney’s 52 percent—he won a greater proportion of this vote than any previous Democratic candidate has in the state. What’s more, President Obama won 60 percent of Cuban American voters born in the United States, illustrating the potential for greater gains as the foreign-born Cuban American population ages. Similarly, as a large number of Latinos come of age and become eligible to vote, the political influence of Latinos in Florida will only increase. By 2016 there will be an additional 600,500 eligible Latino voters, making Latinos account for nearly 20 percent of the state’s voting-eligible electorate.

Colorado

The battleground state of Colorado stayed blue in 2012, as it was in 2008, primarily due to high turnout by Latino voters, who supported President Obama over Gov. Romney by a margin of 87 percent to 10 percent. These voters comprised 14 percent of all voters in the state, up 1 percent from 2008. With 86 percent of Latinos telling pollsters that Gov. Romney did not care about or was hostile to Latinos, it should be no surprise that the president performed as strongly as he did with Colorado’s burgeoning Latino voter population. The 2012 election results followed those of 2010, when Sen. Michael Bennet (D-CO) eked out a victory over Tea Party candidate Ken Buck with a margin of just more than 1 percent, but with 81 percent of the Latino vote supporting him.

Sweeping demographic changes are helping move Colorado from a swing state to a reliably Democratic state. But these political shifts did not come out of nowhere. As in California in the mid-1990s, restrictive state-level anti-immigrant policies, particularly those championed by former Colorado State Rep. and later U.S. Congressman Tom Tancredo (R), awakened the state’s Latino vote. In 2006 the Colorado General Assembly passed S.B. 90, which required local law enforcement officers and agencies to report anyone arrested for a criminal offense and suspected to be in the country without legal status to Immigration and Customs Enforcement. In the majority of cases, those taken into custody after S.B. 90 was implemented have been charged with minor offenses, in spite of the bill’s language requiring police to report only those who have been arrested for violent acts.

In a state where 63 percent of Latinos say they know an undocumented immigrant, it is not hard to see why extremist rhetoric and legislation on immigration increased Latino voter turnout, which rose 23 percent between 2000 and 2008. And as the results of the 2012 election demonstrate, the Latino vote in the state is only gaining steam. By 2016 Latinos will make up nearly 16 percent of the Colorado electorate and have 92,100 more eligible voters than in 2012. This reality will likely put the state squarely in the blue column for years to come.

Nevada

In addition to Colorado, Nevada is another swing state that is quickly moving into the reliably blue column. The Latino population in Nevada has grown considerably in the past decade, rising to 26.5 percent today from 19.7 percent in 2000. Latinos comprised 46 percent of the state’s overall population growth in the past decade and will account for 50 percent of the growth in the state’s electorate between 2012 and 2016. Latinos in Nevada, who make up 18 percent of the state’s eligible voting population and will account for 20 percent by 2016, voted for President Obama in 2012 in even greater proportions—80 percent—than in the entire nation.

The power of the Latino vote to sway elections was clearly evident in Nevada’s 2010 senatorial election. Even though pundits predicted a resounding loss for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), he won re-election, largely riding the wave of an impressive 90 percent of the Latino vote. His opponent, Republican Sharron Angle, attempted to use immigration as a wedge issue and paid the price. She claimed Sen. Reid was too soft on unauthorized immigration, even going as far as releasing a series of racially charged ads that featured ominous portrayals of undocumented immigrants crossing the border, one with an assault rifle at hand.

In the 2012 election, even the Romney campaign’s efforts to send Gov. Romney’s Spanish-speaking son Craig and Sen. Rubio to campaign on his behalf in the state could not tip the scales for him in Nevada. In fact, as election season progressed, and as Nevada’s Latinos learned more about the Romney immigration plan, support for President Obama increased—from 69 percent in June 2012 to 78 percent in September 2012—while support for Gov. Romney decreased—from 20 percent to 17 percent over the same time period. That’s partly due to the fact that 67 percent of Nevada’s Latino voters say they know someone who is undocumented, and 54 percent say they know a young person who would qualify for the DREAM Act. For them, immigration is a personal issue, and Gov. Romney’s tough line on immigration, as well as his position on vetoing the DREAM Act, hurt his support. With 80 percent of the state’s Latinos voting Democratic, the message from 2010 and 2012 is clear: As long as Republican candidates continue to adopt self-defeating immigration policies, they cannot hold the state.

Virginia

Virginia is the final state currently shifting Democratic—a change that is being propelled in part by the state’s growing Latino community. The Latino population in the state has increased 92 percent since 2000, reaching 8.2 percent of the total Virginia population in 2012. And although the Latino share of all voters in Virginia held steady from 2008 to 2012 at 5 percent, the razor-thin margin of the presidential and Senate races this past election cycle made their vote that much more decisive. By 2016 we can expect the Virginia electorate to see more than 127,700 new eligible Latino voters.

As in states such as Colorado, the candidates’ positions on immigration mattered in Virginia in 2012. Gov. Romney’s bedrock belief that undocumented immigrants should self-deport was not new to Virginia and echoed debates that occurred in 2007. That year the Prince William County Board of Supervisors implemented a measure that required law enforcement to obtain proof of legal status for any person arrested whom the officer had probable cause to believe was in the country illegally. The measure caused deep distrust between the Latino community and the police in the county, and cost Prince William County dearly when many of its Latino residents moved their families and their business to neighboring counties.

In polling completed one month before the November 2012 elections, 66 percent of Latino voters in Virginia supported President Obama, while only 22 percent supported Gov. Romney. These figures were up sharply from June 2012, when 59 percent of Latinos supported the president and 28 percent supported the governor. According to the polling firm Latino Decisions, much of the difference came from the Obama administration’s announcement of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, and from the Romney campaign’s extreme self-deportation rhetoric. As in other states, half of Virginia’s Latino voters told pollsters that they knew someone who was undocumented, making the immigration issue deeply personal for them. Unsurprisingly, then, 66 percent of Virginia’s Latinos voted for President Obama while only 31 percent voted for Gov. Romney. Similar to Florida, Colorado, and Nevada, without a shift in immigration rhetoric from the Republican Party, Virginia will remain reliably blue going forward.

The future: Near term

Arizona

Among the states that President Obama lost in both 2008 and 2012, Arizona is the most primed to benefit from these demographic shifts and switch from reliably Republican to a swing state and ultimately even to reliably Democratic. In both the 2008 and 2012 presidential elections, the Republican candidate won 54 percent of the vote in Arizona, while the Democratic candidate won 44 percent and 45 percent of the state’s vote in 2008 and 2012, respectively. Yet, as Latino Decisions wrote in October 2012, Latinos in the state were far more enthusiastic about voting in 2012—more than the general electorate but also far more than in 2008. In total, 79 percent of Latino voters in the state voted for President Obama, and only 20 percent voted for Gov. Romney.

Latinos in Arizona already comprise 30 percent of the state population, and the explosive growth of the state’s Latino population—rising 46 percent in a decade—contributed to the state gaining an extra congressional seat after the 2010 Census. As CAP Senior Fellow Ruy Teixeira pointed out in May 2012, the 2012 electorate in Arizona was on track to see 3 percent to 4 percent more minority voters than in 2008, and 3 percent to 4 percent fewer white working-class voters. By all counts, Latinos are making up increasingly larger shares of the Arizona voting bloc. By 2016 we estimate that Latinos will make up about 25 percent of the state’s eligible voters, up from 22 percent in 2012.

These demographic changes have been on a collision course with the state’s harsh anti-immigrant policies. Arizona is no stranger to state-level attempts to push attrition through enforcement policies, attempting to make life as difficult as possible for undocumented immigrants so that they “self-deport.” In 2007 the state mandated the use among all employers of the Internet-based employment verification system E-Verify—which makes it harder for unauthorized immigrants to work in the state, while giving them no way to become legal—with the Legal Arizona Workers Act. And in 2010 the state passed S.B. 1070, a comprehensive anti-immigrant bill that made it a state crime to be without status or to work without status in Arizona, and allowed the police to ask for proof of status from anyone they suspect to be unauthorized. Although the Supreme Court struck down most of S.B. 1070 in June 2012, Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer (R) continues to push anti-immigrant policies, most recently denying driver’s licenses to recipients of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals status.

These anti-immigrant policies, particularly S.B. 1070, have radically reshaped the political landscape in Arizona. While Latino voters in the state already favored Democratic presidential candidates in 2004 and 2008, they sharply broke with the Republican Party after 2010. In fact, the Democratic share of the Latino vote rose from only 56 percent in 2008 to a full 81 percent in 2012. And in the interim between the presidential elections, Arizona State Sen. Russell Pearce (R), the architect of S.B. 1070, became the first-ever Arizona state senator to be recalled in 2011, largely on the strength of Latino voters. Polling on the eve of the Supreme Court decision illustrated that S.B. 1070 was deeply unpopular with the state’s Latinos, 79 percent of whom believed that even legally present Latinos would be the victims of racial profiling under the law. That same off-year election saw underdog Democratic candidate Daniel Valenzuela harness the Latino vote to defeat the Republican favorite Brenda Sperduti by a 56 percent to 44 percent margin in a Phoenix City Council race.

Adding fuel to the fire, Gov. Romney stated in a February 2012 presidential debate that Arizona’s E-Verify law should be a “model” for the nation, and he actively promoted the self-deportation policies at the heart of S.B. 1070. All of these policies led to Latino voters’ overwhelming rejection of the Republican Party in 2012. In the end, although Arizona ultimately remained in Republican hands in 2012, as Ruy Teixeira and John Halpin pointed out, “The extraordinarily rapid rate of demographic change in the state”—and, we would argue, the shift in Latinos’ political identity brought about by Arizona’s anti-immigrant legislation—“will likely put it in play in the near future, perhaps by 2016.”

North Carolina

In 2008 North Carolina went Democratic for the first time since 1976. And while it flipped back to Republican in 2012, the margin of victory of only 3 percent—51 percent for Gov. Romney to 48 percent for the president—shows that it is more of a swing state now than ever before. The percentage of voters of color in the state rose by 2 percentage points in the four years since 2008 and a total of 4.9 percentage points over the past decade. By 2012, 28 percent of North Carolina’s registered voters were of color, according to the State Board of Elections. Compared to other states, North Carolina has one of the higher percentages of voters of color, which comprise just less than 35 percent of the state’s population. What’s more, North Carolina’s younger population is already heavily made up of people of color, meaning that demographic change will only accelerate in the future. Though North Carolina has rejected Arizona-style anti-immigrant bills in the past, it passed H.B. 36—a mandatory E-Verify law—in 2011.

By 2016 there will be an additional 200,900 eligible Latino voters in North Carolina, accounting for 32.4 percent of all new eligible voters in the state. That number of new voters is two times the size of Gov. Romney’s margin of victory in the state in 2012, which was 97,465 votes. With razor-thin electoral margins and a growing minority population, North Carolina could easily turn reliably Democratic if state policymakers continue down the anti-immigrant path.

The future: Long term

Georgia

Though Georgia has been more of a reliably red state than either Arizona or North Carolina, recent demographic shifts and anti-immigrant politics are changing the conversation in the state. Republicans won Georgia by only 5 percentage points in the 2008 presidential election, and by 8 percentage points in the 2012 presidential election. Georgia has experienced significant demographic changes, as people of color now total 44.1 percent of the state’s population—a 6.7 percent increase over the past decade. And the state’s rapid demographic change is reshaping its electorate. Latinos account for 8.8 percent of the state’s population today and will account for 52 percent of all new eligible voters by 2016. African Americans make up 31.5 percent of the state’s population today, and the African American share of the electorate is more than double the national average.

In April 2011 Georgia passed the Arizona-style anti-immigrant bill H.B. 87, the Illegal Immigration Reform and Enforcement Act. The bill makes it a crime to transport or harbor undocumented immigrants, expands the use of E-Verify for all employers throughout the state by July 1, 2013, and grants the police the power to stop anyone they reasonably suspect to be without status and demand proof of legality. The bill has brought together a coalition of minority groups opposed to measures that lead to racial profiling. Though African Americans are not in danger of being deported for immigration violations, they have been strong allies in opposing such draconian laws. Polling carried out in Georgia, Florida, Ohio, and Virginia found that four in five African Americans support immigration reform that includes a path to citizenship for our nation’s 11 million undocumented immigrants.

With its strong demographic growth among minorities and a tendency to oppose candidates who would perpetuate anti-immigrant laws, Georgia is creating the infrastructure for a challenge to Republican dominance in the not-so-distant future.

Texas

Texas, with its 38 electoral votes, is the state with the second-largest number of electoral votes and a state that has been the anchor of every Republican electoral strategy going back to 1976. Demographically, Texas’s population is diverse, with people of color already comprising the majority of the population, at just more than 55 percent. The Latino population in the state is also among the fastest growing in the nation, comprising 63 percent of the state’s total population growth from 2000 to 2009 and currently comprising 38 percent of all Texas residents. Among the youngest Texans—children under the age of 5—children of color outnumber white children more than 2-to-1, meaning that demographic shifts will only increase in the future. Demographer Ruy Teixeira estimates that 90 percent of all future population growth in Texas will come from people of color.

There will be 905,500 new eligible Latino voters in Texas by 2016, accounting for 58.1 percent of the growth in eligible voters in Texas between 2012 and 2016. Unlike Arizona, however, Texas’s Latino population includes a number of Republicans, that helped elect Sen. Ted Cruz. This fact alone is reason to believe that Texas may not turn blue as quickly as other states such as Arizona. In 2012, 70 percent of Latinos voted Democratic, compared to just 29 percent voting Republican, up from the 63 percent of Latinos who voted Democratic and 35 percent who voted Republican in 2008. But according to national election eve polling by Latino Decisions, 31 percent of all Latino voters in the 2012 presidential election would have been more likely to vote for Gov. Romney had he taken a more positive stance on immigration. It is equally conceivable that these voters will increasingly shift toward the Democrats if Republicans continue to demagogue immigrants. Sen. Cruz acknowledged this fact explicitly, telling The New Yorker’s Ryan Lizza that, “If Republicans do not do better in the Hispanic Community, in a few short years Republicans will no longer be the majority party in our state.”

Conclusion

Even leaving California out of the picture, the states analyzed in this issue brief comprise 137 electoral votes. In 2012 Democrats won 332 electoral votes to the Republicans’ 206, but if Arizona, Texas, North Carolina, and Georgia were to shift Democratic, that would bring the grand total of electoral votes to 412—an insurmountable margin.

Whether these states flip from red to blue is an open question. But two things are abundantly clear: In each of these states, voters of color, particularly Latino voters, are becoming an ever-larger share of the total voting population. These voters care deeply about how both parties talk about immigration, and use it as a litmus test for how candidates from either party feel about their communities as a whole. In fact, immigration reform has become the number one political issue for Latino voters. The voters have spoken, and the message is clear: Getting right on immigration and getting behind real and enduring immigration reform that contains a pathway to citizenship for the 11 million undocumented immigrants living in our country is the only way to maintain electoral strength in the future.

Philip E. Wolgin is a Senior Policy Analyst for the Immigration Policy team at the Center for American Progress. Ann Garcia is a Policy Analyst for the Immigration Policy team at the Center. They would like to thank Patrick Oakford, a Research Assistant at the Center, for his helpful statistics work.

mp4

Transcript

See also:

• “Living in Dual Shadows: LGBT Undocumented Immigrants” by Crosby Burns, Ann Garcia, and Philip E. Wolgin
• “Infographic: The LGBT Undocumented: By the Numbers” by Crosby Burns and Ann Garcia

For more information, please visit http://www.out4citizenship.org/.

SOURCE: AP/ Nick Ut

A line of undocumented immigrants wait outside the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights in Los Angeles offices. The path to citizenship is often most difficult for gay and transgender women.

March is Women’s History Month—a time not only to celebrate women’s contributions to history and society, but also to reflect on the injustices and persecution that too many women continue to face across the globe. Among the most vulnerable members of our global society are gay* and transgender women who are victimized and mistreated in their home countries because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. A lack of financial means to escape persecution and seek asylum in the United States often exacerbates their plight. Even if these women arrive on U.S. shores, they face unique challenges filing for asylum. As Congress and the Obama administration move forward on comprehensive immigration reform, they must take into account the barriers that prevent gay and transgender women from fleeing persecution and pursuing more secure and safe lives as U.S. citizens.

Many gay and transgender individuals face persecution in their home countries

In many countries around the world, gay and transgender people are targets of violence and discrimination. In nearly 80 countries, sexual activity between men is illegal, and about half of these nations also outlaw sexual activity between women. Some of these countries use the death penalty to punish gay men and women, while others resort to imprisonment, forced labor, and even corrective rape.

In addition to the persecution of gay and transgender individuals through laws, repressive societies may also threaten the safety of gay and transgender people when their sexual orientation or gender identity does not conform—or is viewed as not conforming—to prevailing cultural, political, or social norms. As a result, many gay and transgender individuals flee their home countries in search of safer and more tolerant countries.

Women have greater difficulty seeking asylum because of cultural and economic inequality in their home countries

Arriving on U.S. shores often presents the greatest obstacle for women seeking asylum. Unlike an immigrant applying for refugee status, an asylum applicant must be within the borders of the United States—a requirement that poses a significant challenge for women who suffer from cultural and economic inequality within their home countries.

Women often lack the resources to pay for the cost of travelling to the United States and its promise of asylum. Despite the fact that women are half of the world’s population, they comprise 70 percent of the world’s poor, own just 1 percent of property, and earn only 10 percent of global income. For impoverished women in faraway lands looking to the United States for sanctuary, a journey overseas is simply not an option.

Even women with the financial wherewithal to travel to the United States, their asylum may still encounter cultural barriers impeding their escape. Women in some Middle Eastern countries must be accompanied by a male family member when they journey outside the home. Women violating this law may be particularly vulnerable to violence and other forms of severe punishment. For these women, the chances of fleeing their home countries unescorted and undetected are bleak at best, and often dangerous.

The situation becomes even more complicated when a family discovers a female family member is gay or transgender. In that situation a family will often assign more domestic responsibilities to her and limit her movement outside of the household. This is a way of isolating women and depriving them of the opportunity to develop a support network, which would be a valuable resource if they ever choose to flee their home country.

Gay and transgender women seeking asylum in the United States continue to face barriers

Since 1994 the United States has recognized persecution based on sexual orientation as grounds for attaining asylum status. To be granted asylum, U.S. immigration law states that individuals seeking asylum based on their sexual orientation must prove that they are indeed gay or transgender, and that they have or will face persecution by their home country’s government because of their sexual orientation.

Unfortunately, for gay or transgender women nearly all of the precedent-setting court cases that have established standards for successful gay and transgender asylum seekers are based on the experiences of gay men. Gay and transgender women have vastly different experiences than gay men, and current guidelines may not be helpful to them as asylum applicants. Some women, for example, may have been married in their home countries, which often include nations where the government and society exercise extensive control over a woman’s relationship status and family formation. A woman in this situation may have even been forced into a marriage in order to “cure” her of her attraction to women. The fact that a woman is or has been married, nonetheless, may cast doubt on her sexual orientation or gender identity, and as a result her claim for asylum.

Moreover, since a woman’s sexual orientation and gender identity is not always readily apparent, gay and transgender asylum seekers are at risk of having their cases dismissed because they fail to conform to stereotypes of gay or transgender women. In one particular case, which was documented by Immigration Equality, a leading organization working with gay and transgender asylum seekers, an Albanian lesbian, who had been threatened with gang rape to “cure” her of her lesbianism, was denied asylum because she was young, attractive, and single. With no precedential cases about gay and transgender women, establishing grounds for asylum becomes a more daunting task for female gay and transgender asylum seekers.

The Obama administration has already taken several steps to improve the experiences of gay and transgender immigrants and asylum seekers. Specifically, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security created and mandated a training module on gay and transgender issues to educate asylum interviewers on how to properly assess individuals seeking asylum due to persecution related to their sexual orientation or gender identity. The Obama administration must nevertheless ensure that the Department of Homeland Security incorporates an understanding of gay and transgender issues that is neither based exclusively on the experiences of men or on those of gay American women.

The one-year filing deadline presents yet another obstacle to successful asylum claims. This is particularly problematic for gay and transgender women because many of them are not open about their sexuality, or have not “come out” when they first arrive in the United States. Moreover, some women live within immigrant communities where being gay or transgender is still unacceptable. These women could be forced to return to their home countries if they do not file for asylum to avoid persecution in their home countries within one year of stepping onto U.S. soil. The one-year filing deadline is arbitrary, does not reflect the psychological reality of “coming out,” and, if repealed, would largely benefit gay and transgender asylum seekers.

Conclusion

In addition to the general inequalities plaguing women worldwide, the pervasive antigay and antitransgender bias in many countries highlights why many gay and transgender women turn to the United States for asylum. While the U.S. government cannot immediately and singlehandedly end the persecution of gay and transgender women across the globe, Congress and the Obama administration can move forward with a plan for comprehensive immigration reform that takes into account the challenges faced by gay and transgender women.

Christopher Frost is an intern for the LGBT Research and Communications Project at the Center for American Progress.

* In this column the term “gay” is used as an umbrella term for those who identify as lesbian, gay, or bisexual.

SOURCE: Getty Images/Jowena Chua

The Williams Institute at UCLA—which researches sexual-orientation and gender-identity law and public policy—today estimates that there are at least 267,000 LGBT-identified individuals among the adult population of undocumented immigrants.

See also: Infographic: The LGBT Undocumented: By the Numbers by Crosby Burns and Ann Garcia

This report contains a correction.

Endnotes and citations are available in the PDF version of the report.

When Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist José Antonio Vargas came out as undocumented in an essay published in The New York Times in the summer of 2011, he was “coming out” for the second time in his life. The first time occurred when Vargas raised his hand in history class during his junior year of high school after watching a documentary on Harvey Milk—the first openly gay person to be elected to public office in California—and told his classmates and teacher that he was gay. And while we’ve known that there are thousands of people like Vargas who are undocumented and who also identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender, or LGBT, we’ve known little about their actual numbers or demographic characteristics.

In a first-of-its-kind analysis, the Williams Institute at UCLA—which researches sexual-orientation and gender-identity law and public policy—today estimates that there are at least 267,000 LGBT-identified individuals among the adult population of undocumented immigrants. Undocumented people who identify as LGBT are more likely to be male and younger; less likely to be Hispanic; and more likely to be Asian than the overall undocumented population. And because LGBT undocumented people find themselves at the intersection of two already marginalized groups—the LGBT population and the undocumented population—they are among society’s most vulnerable individuals.

With this report, we build upon the Williams Institute’s demographic findings by first unpacking demographic characteristics of the population, and then detailing the disparities and hardships that make the LGBT-identified members of the undocumented population among the most vulnerable members of our society. These issues—including employment insecurities, wage and income disparities, and health inequities—would be significantly lessened if undocumented LGBT immigrants were given a chance to earn legal status and, eventually, citizenship. Passing an immigration reform bill with a direct road map to earned citizenship would lift these immigrants out of the shadows, treat them with the dignity that they deserve, and enable them to become full and equal participants in our society, economy, and democracy.

Citizenship cannot solve all of the issues facing the LGBT undocumented community, however, and the second and third parts of this report deal with the specific challenges facing this population. We begin with the issues facing LGBT families, including the inability to sponsor a same-sex spouse or partner through family-based immigration preferences. This section details the emotional and economic pain of separation when family members are detained or deported. We then address the challenges that LGBT immigrants encounter when they come into contact with the immigration-enforcement system. Specifically, we examine how U.S. detention centers fail to provide an adequate level of safety and care to LGBT immigrants—including to those living with HIV—who are routinely mistreated, discriminated against, and denied health care while in detention. Finally, we look at the particular obstacles—legal and otherwise—facing LGBT asylum seekers in the United States.

To alleviate the burdens facing undocumented immigrants who identify as LGBT and their families, this report makes the following recommendations.

Pass immigration reform, that:

Includes a path to citizenship: Legalizing the at least 267,000 undocumented immigrants in America who identify as LGBT and providing them with a roadmap to citizenship would give them the legal certainty that they will not be torn away from their families and communities, give them the ability to work legally and earn higher wages, and allow them to become full and equal members of society.

Ends discrimination against binational same-sex couples: Including the provisions of the Uniting American Families Act in immigration reform would finally give U.S. citizens and permanent residents in same-sex couples the ability to sponsor their loved one for family-based immigration. If passed, the law would not only extend sponsorship rights to U.S. citizens and residents with same-sex spouses but also to those with committed same-sex partners—which is important, considering that same-sex couples cannot marry in 41 states. For this reason, passage of the Uniting American Families Act will be necessary even if Congress or the courts repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, the discriminatory law that prevents these couples from accessing family-based immigration preferences that are afforded to all other couples.

Fixes and protects family-based migration: On top of ensuring that LGBT immigrants are included in family reunification, immigration reform must do more to fix and protect the family preference visa system. The more than 4 million people stuck on backlogs waiting for a family visa must be granted a quick and reasonable path to reunification. Potential fixes include the Reuniting Families Act, which would—among other things—recapture visas that are lost to bureaucratic delay by allowing unused visa slots from one year to carry over into the next, and raise the per-country limits that restrict any one sending country to only 7 percent of all yearly visas—thus treating Mexico and Luxembourg equally, as if they were equal in size and circumstance.

Grants young people access to education and citizenship: Including the provisions of the DREAM Act in immigration reform would provide thousands of undocumented LGBT youth with an expedited roadmap to citizenship, giving them the ability to reach their full potential even sooner. Those who entered the United States prior to age 16 and are currently under the age 35 would be able to earn their citizenship by completing high school and some college or U.S. military service.

Repeal the federal Defense of Marriage Act

One of the many reasons that Congress and the Supreme Court need to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act is to ensure that the government treats all families equally under existing immigration law. Congress can and should swiftly pass the Respect for Marriage Act, which would legislatively repeal the Defense of Marriage Act. Alternatively, in United States v. Windsor—a case currently pending before the Supreme Court—the court could strike down the section of the law that denies federal benefits and protections to same-sex couples. The repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act would then allow the federal government to treat all families equally for the purpose of family-based immigration.

Modify detention and asylum standards to address the issues facing the LGBT-identified undocumented community

Implement and vigorously enforce existing standards: Over the past four years, the Department of Homeland Security has issued guidance, rules, and regulations that promote the safety and well-being of LGBT detainees. The department has taken similar administrative actions to ensure that LGBT asylum seekers are treated with dignity and given a fair asylum hearing. While these policies are significant steps forward, the Obama administration must work to implement and enforce them in practice.

To reform detention standards, the administration should:

• Provide sensitivity training on a regular basis to detention staff working with LGBT detainees and create oversight to ensure compliance
• Ensure that detention staff understand their role in preventing, detecting, and responding to physical and sexual abuse of LGBT detainees
• Investigate allegations of abuse, discrimination, neglect, denial of medical services, and violence against detainees, including those who are LGBT
• Revoke the contracts of and funding for detention centers that fail to adequately implement and enforce these standards
• Provide increased access to legal services for people in detention, including those who are LGBT

Pass the Detainee Basic Medical Care Act: The Detainee Basic Medical Care Act would fill significant gaps in the detention health care system that have resulted in substandard medical treatment and even deaths among immigrant detainees. The proposed law contains a provision that requires immigration officials to ensure that immigrants continue to have access to medications prescribed prior to their detention, including those for transgender and HIV-positive detainees. This bill also gives immigration detainees with serious medical or health care conditions priority consideration for release on parole, on bond, or into an alternate to detention program, which again will benefit transgender and HIV-positive detainees. Third, and perhaps most importantly, by providing a basic floor of medical care to detainees, this proposal would help to address the significant health issues and inequities facing the LGBT undocumented population.

Expand the use of alternatives to detention: To protect the most vulnerable detainees from mistreatment—particularly LGBT detainees—policymakers should consider alternatives to traditional detention such as house arrest or ankle monitors. These are common-sense cost-saving solutions that would advance the twin goals of monitoring the undocumented and protecting the most vulnerable detainees from avoidable mistreatment. In fact, detentions cost taxpayers $122 per day or more, while alternatives to detention can cost as little as $12 per day, a savings that allows the detainee to remain with their family and in their community.

Another alternative to traditional detention for LGBT detainees is to create special facilities that separate LGBT detainees from others in detention without placing them into administrative segregation. In 2012 the Department of Homeland Security created the country’s first dedicated protective custody unit for LGBT detainees. While creating new facilities for LGBT detainees is not optimal, it is better than putting them in solitary confinement or putting them in harm’s way.

End the one-year filing deadline for asylum seekers and ensure standards: The one-year deadline to apply for asylum is arbitrary and has resulted in the denial of protections to thousands of otherwise legitimate asylum seekers. Because of the one-year ban, LGBT people are often forced to return to their home countries and risk persecution or death because of their sexual identity. Congress must repeal the one-year filing deadline and allow all people with a well-founded fear of persecution the right to asylum guaranteed by international law.

The Department of Homeland Security should also ensure that the training included in its LGBT refugee manual is implemented in practice. All too often asylees are at risk of having their cases dismissed if they do not conform to stereotypes about what it means to be a gay man or lesbian woman. All asylum adjudicators must ensure that they give each and every asylum seeker a fair hearing—one that is free of prejudice.

Crosby Burns is a Policy Analyst for the LGBT Research and Communications Project at the Center for American Progress. Ann Garcia is a Policy Analyst for the Immigration Policy team at the Center. Philip E. Wolgin is a Senior Policy Analyst for the Immigration Policy team at the Center.

*Correction, April 24, 2013: This report incorrectly stated the number of binational same-sex couples. The correct number is 24,700.

Download a printable version of this infographic (PDF)

This infographic contains a correction.

Crosby Burns is a Policy Analyst for the LGBT Research and Communications Project at the Center for American Progress. Ann Garcia is a Policy Analyst for the Immigration Policy team at the Center.

SOURCE: AP/LM Otero

Miriam Bilaih shows off her U.S. citizen naturalization document after a naturalization ceremony Monday, January 28, 2013, in Irving, Texas.

Immigrant women are at the forefront of advocacy to fix our nation’s broken immigration system, and they also play an important role in our society and economy. All too often, however, media portrayals of immigrants feature a single Hispanic male without status. In reality, immigrant women in the United States—both documented and undocumented—comprise more than half of all U.S. immigrants, start businesses at higher rates than American-born women, and are often the ones that push hardest in their families to become American citizens.

The flipside of this industriousness and drive, however, is often dire. Undocumented immigrant women, for example, face the risk of deportation, and they are at risk of losing their American-born children while in detention or after being deported. Domestic workers face racial discrimination and abuse from their employers, and far too many women are trafficked into the country and exploited.

As our nation’s leaders begin drafting their immigration reform proposals, and on this International Women’s Day on which we collectively call for women’s advancement, here are the top 10 facts you must know about immigrant women.

1. The face of today’s U.S. immigrants is more female than male. In 2011 51.1 percent of all foreign-born individuals residing in the United States—and 55 percent of all people obtaining a green card—were women. That same year, women comprised 48 percent of all refugee arrivals, 49 percent of all people granted asylum, and 54 percent of all people who naturalized to become U.S. citizens.

2. This trend is decades in the making. Until the 1960s immigrant men outnumbered immigrant women. But after the passage of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, which largely shifted the United States to a system of family-based admissions, more women began to arrive. By the 1970s the number of female immigrants caught up and surpassed their male counterparts. In 2011 there were 96 immigrant men arriving for every 100 immigrant women.

3. Family unity matters to immigrant women. According to a report by the Asian Pacific American Legal Center, 70 percent of immigrant women gain permanent residence in the United States through family-based visas as opposed to employment-based visas. That contrasts with 61 percent of men who gain status through family channels. Once here, they are more likely to share their household with a spouse and children than native-born women. Approximately 45 percent of undocumented immigrants and 34 percent of legal immigrants live in families comprised of couples and children, while only 21 percent of native-born Americans live in families.

4. Immigrant women—similar to most women—make enormous sacrifices for their families. New America Media found that only 13 percent of immigrant women work as professionals in the United States, even though 32 percent of them worked as such in their home country. The study concludes, “Women may well be putting devotion to the wellbeing of their families ahead of personal pride in choosing the journey to America.”

5. Immigrant women embrace citizenship and encourage integration. According to 2009 public opinion research by New America Media, immigrant women from a broad range of countries are overwhelmingly the drivers of naturalization in their families, with 58 percent of respondents stating that they felt the strongest in their family about becoming an American citizen. Overall, 84 percent of the women surveyed want to become citizens, with a whopping 90 percent of female immigrants from Latin American and Arab nations indicating their desire to naturalize.

6. Immigrant female business owners outpace their American-born counterparts. In 2010 immigrant women comprised 40 percent of all immigrant business owners and 20 percent of women business owners in general. These women are now more likely to own their own business than American-born women—9 percent to 6.5 percent, respectively.

But not all the news is rosy

7. Immigration enforcement is taking its toll on immigrant families. Rising deportations of undocumented immigrants are separating children from their parents. A 2011 report from the Applied Research Center found that more than 5,000 children living in foster care had parents who had been detained or deported from the United States. They estimate that another 15,000 children will end up in foster care in the next five years because of immigration enforcement. Immigrant women in particular face a burden when it comes to immigration enforcement: A recent CAP report by Joanna Dreby, assistant professor of sociology at Kent State University, finds that detentions and deportations often separate married couples, leaving single parents—and most often single mothers—struggling to cope with the burdens of supporting their families.

8. Immigrant women workers are vulnerable to abuse at work and at home. Immigrants comprise 46 percent of the domestic workforce and make up close to the entire population of domestic workers in major cities such as New York. One study by Domestic Workers United found that 33 percent of domestic workers in New York City had experienced some form of physical or verbal abuse, often because of their race or immigration status. Domestic abuse affects immigrant and American-born women alike, but immigrant women suffer from particular vulnerabilities—particularly, abusive partners who use the woman’s immigration status to keep them from leaving an abusive marriage or relationship.

9. Immigrant women face barriers to adequate health care. Immigrants who have resided in the United States for five years or less are barred from using federal Medicaid for the most basic and vital preventive health services such as prenatal care—even if their incomes qualify them for the program—unless their state chooses to eliminate this bar for eligible children and pregnant women. Thanks to this and an array of other factors, immigrant women are twice as likely as American-born women to lack health insurance.

10. Human trafficking is another form of abuse endured by immigrant women and children. The U.S. Department of Justice estimates that each year 50,000 people are trafficked into our nation. U.S. officials can grant up to 5,000 so-called T Visas to help free immigrant women who are forced into the sex trade, among other things. But studies find that barely any are being granted. In 2012, for example, only 674 T Visas were approved.

Despite the vulnerabilities and barriers immigrant women face, they continue to make important contributions to our society and our economy. Therefore, any common-sense solution to our broken immigration system must address their challenges and continue to value their contributions. Passing immigration reform that includes a road to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, promotes family unity, and provides stronger protections for immigrant workers would go a long way to help this group. As a nation of immigrants, we can do no less.

Ann Garcia is Immigration Policy Analyst and Samanta Franchim is an intern with the Immigration Team at the Center for American Progress.

SOURCE: AP/Pablo Martinez Monsivais

Juan Carlos Huezo Fuentes, who was born in El Salvador and now lives in San Jose, California, holds up a U.S. flag during a rally for immigrant rights in front of the Capitol Building in Washington, Thursday, October 2, 2003.

As the building momentum for immigration reform across the nation translates into congressional action, members of Congress should remember an important lesson from our history books: When viewed through the dispassionate lens of hindsight, Americans have harshly judged those instances when Congress and the courts denied citizenship to specific groups of people. And for good reason: Each of those points in our history constituted a betrayal of America’s core values of equality, justice, and opportunity for all.

As the debate heats up over creating a path to citizenship for our nation’s 11 million undocumented immigrants, here is a brief history lesson on some of the most significant times Congress—with the blessing of the courts—has used the law to exclude groups of people from full membership in our country.

Slavery and reconstruction

After the nation’s founding, lawmakers stipulated that American citizenship excluded both free and enslaved Africans, who comprised roughly 20 percent of the entire U.S. population in 1776. The Supreme Court reaffirmed in the infamous Dred Scott decision of 1857 that slaves could not claim citizenship, as they were considered property by the law. Slavery was abolished in the United States upon ratification of the 13th Amendment in 1865, but that constitutional amendment left African Americans in a legal limbo that denied them the right to vote and set the foundation for widespread segregation and economic exploitation. Even after the 14th and 15th Amendments nominally granted them full citizenship and voting rights, state laws instituting poll taxes and literacy tests, as well as segregation and antimiscegenation laws, immobilized African Americans in a second class of citizenship.

The Mexican-American War

The Mexican-American War ended in 1848 with the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, in which Mexico ceded the land that is now the American Southwest. In return, all Mexicans living on that land were to be granted full U.S. citizenship. Congress and the Supreme Court, however, denied American citizenship to Pueblo Indians and black Mexicans, though both groups had previously enjoyed Mexican citizenship.

Pueblo Indians’ right to vote was revoked until 1924. Black Mexicans in Texas were given the choice to either stay in Texas and become slaves or be deported back to Mexico, where slavery was outlawed. Meanwhile, the courts chipped away at the property protections entitled to Mexican landowners as U.S. citizens. Many new Mexican Americans lost their family land to white American settlers, which threw them into poverty for generations. Of course, Pueblo Indians and black Mexicans’ property rights were immediately nullified.

The Chinese Exclusion Act

After initially encouraging Chinese migrant workers to come to the United States and work on the Transcontinental Railroad, Congress passed the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 to halt all immigration from China. At that point, large communities of Chinese immigrants, mainly in California, were permanently excluded from U.S. citizenship. The law also threw families into limbo, as Chinese men could neither bring their families to the United States nor leave the country, as they would be barred from re-entry into the United States.

In the decades following its enactment, amendments to the act extended the law, blocking entry to all Asians regardless of their country of origin. American-born Chinese who traveled abroad were blocked from returning to their U.S. homes. These restrictions pulled families apart and ensured that already-established Chinese American communities would stagnate for 60 years. The exclusion acts were finally repealed in 1943.

Japanese internment

Japanese Americans were singled out as enemies during World War II and ordered to relocate to internment camps—essentially prison camps—for the duration of the war. Japanese immigrants were already prevented from becoming full citizens, as naturalization laws banned citizenship for nonwhite people. American citizens of Japanese descent, however, were not spared from the internment camps, where they endured abysmal, overcrowded conditions for three years. When they returned, most found their homes looted or sold and their jobs long gone.

Conclusion 

With close to three-quarters of Americans supporting the creation of a path to citizenship for our nation’s 11 million undocumented immigrants, it’s time for Congress to bring our laws into alignment with our values. We have learned through our past mistakes and triumphs that those who are truly committed to our nation should have a fair shot at full citizenship in it. Let’s make sure our elected leaders don’t forget that lesson.

Aviva Shen is a General Reporter at ThinkProgress.

SOURCE: AP/Alan Diaz

Rep. Joe Garcia (D-FL) states his support for immigrants and pledges to work in favor of immigration reform to reporters as immigration reform activists protest in front of Freedom Tower in downtown Miami, Monday, January 28, 2013.

Faith communities have for many years been on the front lines calling for immigration reform on behalf of America’s 11 million undocumented immigrants, setting forth powerful moral imperatives for a system that protects our families, strengthens our communities, and ensures a more just and equitable society. Now that President Barack Obama and a bipartisan group of senators have both outlined their principles for immigration reform, faith leaders are adding their resources and voices to the national debate about how best to fix America’s broken immigration system.

Lawmakers on Capitol Hill, however, are still divided over several key issues—especially the issue of citizenship. Providing a clear pathway to citizenship should be a core component of any reform legislation, but while many faith groups have placed citizenship at the forefront of their advocacy, other groups—both religious and political conservatives—have not yet made their positions on citizenship clear.

This difference between legalization and citizenship matters: A pathway to citizenship would allow undocumented immigrants to earn the full rights and privileges enjoyed by most Americans, whereas legal residency would restrict them to a permanent second-class status. Thus, any proposal without a viable pathway to citizenship for our nation’s undocumented immigrants—even if it includes legalization through guest worker visas or other mechanisms—will only perpetuate the injustices that faith leaders fight against every day.

Drawing upon values shared across religious traditions—family, community, opportunity, equality, and justice—here are five reasons why communities of faith should call for immigration reform that includes a viable pathway to citizenship for the nation’s 11 million undocumented immigrants.

American families will be reunited, stronger, and more stable

Today 16.6 million people belong to mixed-status families with at least one U.S. citizen and one undocumented member, many of whom are parents or heads of household. These families endure heartaches unthinkable to most Americans: They are divided when undocumented parents and siblings are detained and deported. Family ties are strained when children and spouses are forced to wait for years—or even decades—to enter the country. Even worse, entire families are disrupted when both parents are deported, forcing children into foster and adoption services.

A clear pathway to citizenship, unlike a work permit or lesser legal status, will help end these kinds of separations and ensure family stability and unity. Citizens, for instance, are allowed to sponsor a noncitizen spouse immediately for a green card, whereas permanent legal residents often have to wait years to be able to sponsor a husband or wife for similar status. Family members are crucial in helping immigrants set down roots in this nation, and with more than 60 percent of undocumented immigrants having lived here for more than 10 years, the time has come to create a path to citizenship that allows these new American families to live without fear of separation.

American communities will be more integrated, safer, and healthier

Many undocumented immigrants are forced to live in the shadows, afraid to fully participate in their communities and worried about day-to-day tasks such as taking their children to school, going to the doctor, or reporting crimes to the police for fear of revealing their expired or undocumented status. Studies have found that in countries where immigration policies provide options for citizenship, immigrants are more fully integrated into society and have a greater sense of attachment to the nation.

Communities are also safer when its members feel free to report crimes and build relationships with law enforcement—which is less likely to occur when immigrants have undocumented or nonpermanent status because they fear that their status will be discovered. Communities are stronger when all their members can share the civic responsibilities of citizens—when new Americans can become teachers and nurses, join volunteer efforts, and become community leaders.

Naturalized citizens have greater access to economic mobility, benefiting American workers and our economy

Creating a path to citizenship will open opportunities for upward mobility that have long been denied to undocumented immigrants. A December 2012 study by Manuel Pastor and Justin Scoggins of the University of Southern California found that citizenship—as opposed to being undocumented or even claiming a lesser legal status—leads to 8 percent to 11 percent higher wages for naturalized immigrants both immediately and over the long term. Higher wages increase consumer spending, which in turn sends positive ripples through the American economy. According to the study, if only half of those eligible became citizens, it would add $21 billion to $45 billion to the U.S. economy over the next 10 years.

Legal status without citizenship, by contrast, does not offer the same opportunities to America’s undocumented immigrants. Under the current immigration system, for example, undocumented immigrants are frequently unable to access the high-paying jobs available to citizens because employers are concerned that noncitizen workers could be deported. While legalization might offer a modicum of assurance to employers, the continued risk of deportation for legal residents means that citizenship is unique in its ability to offer upward mobility. A system that privileges legalization over citizenship would continue to force millions into lower-paying jobs and allow unscrupulous employers to keep labor costs as low as possible and undercut all American workers—legal or not.

Providing a viable pathway to citizenship promotes equality

A clear pathway to citizenship for America’s undocumented immigrants is about more than words on paper—it’s about creating a more equal America. Declaring someone a fellow citizen acknowledges their full human worth both culturally and legally, and formalizes their status as an equal participant in society.

Legalization alone does not create this kind of equality, nor would any piece of legislation that lacks a viable pathway to citizenship. Some lawmakers, for example, have called for undocumented immigrants to seek citizenship through the current immigration system—after those who have come to the country legally. This could result in decades-long wait times for people seeking citizenship, effectively creating a subclass of permanent legal residents without access to basic privileges that citizens enjoy every day. Indeed, to say that these 11 million people would be treated as second-class citizens under this system is a misnomer; they wouldn’t even be granted the title of citizen, much less the benefits of citizenship such as basic legal protections and the right to vote.

Citizenship is a justice issue

Ultimately, providing a pathway to citizenship for these 11 million undocumented immigrants is about establishing justice. Indeed, faith-based advocates for a pathway to citizenship are quick to note that granting equal status to newcomers—not just a legal substatus—echoes a concept of justice shared across faith traditions. The Hebrew Bible, for instance, insists, “The strangers who sojourn with you shall be to you as the natives among you, and you shall love them as yourself; for you were strangers in the land of Egypt” (Leviticus 19:33-34). The Jesus of the Christian New Testament urges Christians to welcome the stranger, for “what you do to the least of my brethren, you do unto me” (Matthew 25:40). The Qur’an explains that faithful Muslims are those who are “good to … those in need, neighbors who are near, neighbors who are strangers, the companion by your side, the wayfarer that you meet” (4:36). And the Hindu Upanishads note, “The guest is a representative of God” (1.11.2).

What’s more, providing a pathway to citizenship isn’t only reflective of religious concepts of justice—it’s also rooted in American values. To offer anything less than a viable pathway to citizenship is to perpetuate an unjust vision of America. A just America does not look the other way while its communities are fractured and live in fear, nor does it turn a blind eye to families as they are torn apart or pretend not to notice when workers are paid less-than-equal wages. Most importantly, a just America does not stand idly by while an unequal subclass is created on its own soil.

Conclusion

As the debate over immigration heats up in the coming weeks and months, faith groups must continue to draw upon these and other shared values and call for a path to citizenship for America’s 11 million undocumented immigrants. Faith communities, similar to most Americans, understand that truly comprehensive immigration reform creates a more perfect union—one where families are protected, communities are strengthened, opportunity is preserved, equality is maintained, and justice is established for all. Creating a viable pathway to citizenship helps secure this vision for future generations, and faith communities have an opportunity to add their organizations and their voices to the chorus of those calling for real, transformative immigration reform.

Jack Jenkins is a Writer and Researcher with the Faith and Progressive Policy Initiative at the Center for American Progress. Eleni Towns is a Research Assistant with the Faith and Progressive Policy Initiative. For more on this initiative, please see its project page.

SOURCE: AP/Alan Diaz

Immigration activists hold hands in front of Freedom Tower in downtown Miami, Monday, January 28, 2013.

With immigration reform heating up in Congress and the White House putting its muscle behind legislative action, immigration opponents are already campaigning against common-sense reforms. Their current line of attack is an unsubstantiated claim that legalizing the 11 million undocumented immigrants living in the United States will be too costly for our nation. Playing to ignorant prejudice, these groups falsely suggest that immigrants are “takers”—people who use more public benefits than other groups—and that as a result, legalization would cost the United States trillions of dollars.

Mainstream economists have thoroughly debunked this general stereotype of immigrants as takers, finding that immigrants are a net positive for the economy and pay more into the system than they take out. In fact, immigrants’ contributions have also played a key role in prolonging the solvency of the Social Security Trust Fund. And the truth is that the cost-benefit analyses that immigration restrictionists have used to make their wild cost projections simply are not well-rounded or accurate.

Immigrants are in fact “makers,” not takers. Below, we demonstrate the clear evidence that proves this point and shoots down some of the recycled claims about the cost of immigrants to the United States.

Immigrants are a net positive to the economy

Here are just a few examples of how immigrants pay more into the U.S. economy than they take out.

Large GDP gains and tax revenue from legalization

Research by UCLA Professor Raúl Hinojosa-Ojeda shows that legalizing our nation’s undocumented immigrant population and reforming our legal immigration system would add a cumulative $1.5 trillion to U.S. GDP over a decade. These big gains occur because legalized workers earn higher wages than undocumented workers, and they use those wages to buy things such as houses, cars, phones, and clothing. As more money flows through the U.S. economy, businesses grow to meet the demand for more goods and services, and more jobs and economic value are created. Hinojosa-Ojeda found that the tax benefits alone from legalization would be between $4.5 billion and $5.4 billion in the first three years.

Big economic boost from the DREAM Act

Research by Notre Dame economists Juan Carlos Guzmán and Raúl Jara finds that passing the DREAM Act would add $329 billion to the U.S. economy by 2030. The DREAM Act provides a double boost to the economy: First, DREAMers will be able to work legally (generally at higher wages), and second, because of the requirements to complete high school and some college or military service, they will have more education and training, which translates into better and higher-paying jobs. All of these extra wages circulate through the economy, supporting new job creation for the native born as well.

Naturalized citizens earn even more

A large body of literature illustrates that naturalized citizens are more economically beneficial than even legal permanent residents. In the United States the University of Southern California’s Manuel Pastor estimated that naturalized citizens earn between 8 percent and 11 percent higher wages after naturalization. Pastor concludes that if even half of those who are currently eligible—the Department of Homeland Security estimates that there are more than 8.5 million people in this category—became citizens, it would add between $21 billion and $45 billion to the U.S. economy over five years.

Even undocumented immigrants pay taxes

Immigrants—even the undocumented—pay a significant amount of money in taxes each year. A 2011 study by the Institute for Taxation and Economic Policy found that undocumented immigrants paid $11.2 billion in state and local taxes in 2010 alone, adding a significant amount of money to help state and local finances. It is important to note that immigrants—even legal immigrants—are barred from most social services, meaning that they pay to support benefits they cannot receive.

Immigrants help keep Social Security solvent 

According to the National Foundation for American Policy, immigrants will add a net of $611 billion to the Social Security system over the next 75 years. Immigrants are a key driver of keeping the Social Security Trust Fund solvent, and Stuart Anderson of the National Foundation for American Policy finds that cutting off immigration to the country would increase the size of the Social Security deficit by 31 percent over 50 years.

Snapshot accounting leads to faulty conclusions

Even with these positive economic benefits, though, anti-immigrant groups continue to insist that immigrants take more out of the system than they pay into it. Two studies in particular have received attention lately: a 2007 study by the Heritage Foundation, which found that legalization would cost $2.6 trillion; and a 2011 study by the Center for Immigration Studies, which concluded that Hispanic immigrants use more public benefits than other groups.

Both studies rely on a snapshot of immigrants frozen in time to get to their calculations. Heritage focuses only on immigrants as retirees without taking into account the money they pay into the system during their working years. The Center for Immigration Studies focuses on families with children without taking into account the taxes their children will pay over their lifetime. Each approach is predicated on faulty assumptions.

Heritage Foundation study: A misleading snapshot of immigrant life 

In an attention-grabbing headline from 2007, the Heritage Foundation’s Robert Rector argued that legalizing undocumented immigrants would cost taxpayers “at least $2.6 trillion.” The message was deceptively simple: At some point in the future, the legalized immigrants will hit age 67 and will retire. Once retired, these immigrants will cost taxpayers a significant amount of money by using programs such as Social Security and Medicare—a figure the author estimated to be roughly $17,000 per year for an average of 18 years. Multiply the ensuing $306,000 by the 8.5 million legalized adults whom Rector expects to reach retirement age, and that’s how you get $2.6 trillion.

The missing context: Immigrants pay into the system long before retiring

The problem with such magical thinking is that Rector failed to provide basic context for his conclusions: Most importantly, he only looks at the costs of immigrants once they retire and does not take into account any taxes they would have paid into the system as workers preretirement. All retirees use more in services than they contribute in taxes during retirement years, but the explicit bargain of programs such as Social Security is that you pay into the system over your lifetime and then take from it once you retire.

In addition to the fact that the study only considers a portion of the lifetime contributions—those made during retirement—of immigrants, Rector incorrectly assesses the fiscal cost of immigrants during retirement by, for example, assuming that all undocumented immigrants lack a high school education. Even if such an outlandish claim were true—and according to the Pew Hispanic Center, only 49 percent of undocumented immigrants lack a high school degree—it is almost certain that a portion of the immigrant community would gain more education after legalization, leading to higher wages and thus higher tax contributions to Social Security and Medicare.

Rector also claims that immigrant retirees will impose a net cost of $17,000 per year, but provides no explanation or citation for how he came to this estimate. Without knowing how he came up with that figure, it is impossible to know if that is even the correct annual net fiscal impact of immigrant retirees, let alone if it is offset by payments into the system over the working life of the immigrants.

The bottom line: Immigrants receive less in Social Security than the native born

Finally, the Heritage study fails to acknowledge that research shows that immigrant retirees are less likely to use the benefits than native-citizen retirees. Demographers James P. Smith and Barry Edmonston, for example, found that immigrants receive less in Social Security and Medicare benefits than their descendants in the second generation and the native-born population. And an analysis of the 2012 March Current Population Survey data also indicates that immigrants who receive Social Security get less in benefits than native-born recipients. (see Figure 1) To insinuate that immigrant retirees will be an added burden to the American taxpayer is therefore simply false.

Center for Immigration Studies report: Erroneous comparisons hide the fact that immigrants are no more likely to use social services than the native born

The Center for Immigration Studies released a report in 2011 concluding that “57 percent of households headed by an immigrant (legal and illegal) with children (under 18) used at least one welfare program, compared to 39 percent for native households with children.” The report attempted to paint immigrants—and Hispanic immigrants in particular—as a burden on U.S. social services. This could not be further from the truth.

The study reaches these conclusions by manipulating the data analysis. The study relied on, for example, an unconventionally broad definition of welfare, which included programs for children such as free and reduced-price school lunches. No other comparable study on welfare usage includes such programs in their calculations.

Comparing apples to oranges: Report fails to control for income level and household composition

The Center for Immigration Studies also obfuscates its findings by using a faulty unit for comparison. Instead of comparing all household users of welfare benefits, it limits its analysis to families with children. This arbitrary data restriction eliminates the possibility of accurately comparing—at the household level—welfare-participation rates between immigrants and natives. If you are going to compare households, you must compare all households.

But most troublesome is the fact that the Center for Immigration Studies compares immigrant and native-born welfare rates without controlling for differences in income levels. Comparing welfare-participation rates without accounting for differences in income level is akin to comparing the welfare-participation rates of a highly developed country to that of an underdeveloped country—it is clear that an underdeveloped country would have a greater number of welfare users.

If one controls for income level and considers all households, the story of immigrants being a drain on social programs disappears.

The bottom line: No difference in welfare usage among the native and foreign born

Demographers Randy Capps, Michael Fix, and Everett Henderson, for example, compared welfare-participation rates of legal permanent resident immigrants to the native born. When controlling for income, they found that immigrants had similar—if not lower—participation rates than natives in the three main social programs: welfare, food stamps, and Medicaid. At the 200 percent poverty line—a common threshold for low-income households—32 percent of native families received food stamps, compared to 22 percent of naturalized-citizen immigrant families.

An analysis of the 2012 March Current Population Survey data that controls for income and includes all households reveals that the results of Passel and Fix’s study still hold true today—immigrants use social programs such as Medicaid and Supplemental Security Income at similar rates to native households. (see Figure 2)

Conclusion

Over the next few weeks, the House and Senate will hold hearings on immigration reform, and no doubt anti-immigrant groups will increasingly characterize immigrants as “takers.” Americans should not be fooled, though.

The facts are clear: Immigrants are not a drain on the U.S. economy. Immigrants are no more dependent on welfare programs than the native born. Legalization would not cost U.S. taxpayers trillions of dollars. The only thing the United States can’t afford is to have the efforts of Congress and the president derailed by anti-immigrant groups that are dedicated to hiding the truth: Immigrants are makers, not takers.

Marshall Fitz is Director of Immigration Policy, Philip E. Wolgin is Immigration Policy Analyst, and Patrick Oakford is Research Assistant at the Center for American Progress. 

SOURCE: AP/Kate Brumback

Detainees at Immigration and Customs Enforcement's Stewart Detention Center in Lumpkin, Georgia, leave the cafeteria after lunch to go back to their living units. Gay and transgender immigrants can face particularly harsh treatment in detention centers.

On Monday a bipartisan group of senators—including rising Republican Marco Rubio (FL), John McCain (R-AZ), Robert Menendez (D-NJ), Charles Schumer (D-NY), Lindsay Graham (R-SC), and Richard Durbin (D-IL)—unveiled a blueprint for immigration reform, which includes such principles as providing the more than 11 million undocumented immigrants in the United States a path to citizenship. On Tuesday President Barack Obama similarly announced his administration’s support for overhauling our broken immigration system in favor of a 21st-century immigration system that creates a road map to citizenship for our nation’s undocumented immigrants, strengthens our borders, cracks down on employers who hire unauthorized workers, and promotes an inclusive and growing economy.

These developments represent a positive step forward for our undocumented immigrants, including those hundreds of thousands who identify as gay or transgender.* While we wait for members of Congress to formally introduce legislation, let’s review the administrative steps President Obama has already taken over the past four years to institute a fairer and more humane immigration system for gay and transgender immigrants and their families. These changes have eased the burdens for this population of immigrants, but only true legislative reform can fully protect them and ensure that all families—regardless of sexual orientation—can stay together.

Here are five common-sense steps the Obama administration has taken to help level the playing field for gay and transgender immigrants.

Putting an end to separating families headed by same-sex couples

For years families have been torn apart by draconian and misguided immigration policies that detain and deport undocumented individuals, even when those individuals have no criminal records and pose no security risk to their community. In 2011, however, the Department of Homeland Security took a significant step toward ending this practice by issuing guidelines that refocus government resources on removing those who pose a threat to public safety or national security—not law-abiding individuals.

Under this policy, known as “prosecutorial discretion,” the department has instructed immigration officials to halt the deportation of individuals with, for example, no criminal convictions and significant “family relationships” in the United States. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano later clarified that family relationships include “long-term same-sex partners,” largely putting an end to the government’s policy of arbitrarily separating families headed by same-sex couples who pose no threat to their communities. This change marked a significant step in recognizing the existence of undocumented immigrants with same-sex partners or spouses, as well as the obstacles that they face. But while this policy helps take away the fear of deportation for many gay immigrants and their families—at least in theory—it does not grant any form of legal status to those who are undocumented.

President Obama took another decisive step toward keeping immigrant families together in January 2012, when his administration issued new guidance for immigration detention facilities, indicating that immigration officers should not transfer detainees from an area where the detainee has “immediate family.” Before this guidance was issued, immigrants could and would be moved multiple times and far away from their family members with little notice. As with prosecutorial discretion, this transfer guidance includes those families headed by same-sex couples in its definition of a family. Under the guidance, for example, gay detainees will no longer be transferred to a facility in Texas if they are detained in New York and have a same-sex partner or other family in that area.

Giving undocumented immigrants who came here as children a temporary reprieve from deportation

In December 2010 Congress failed to overcome a Republican filibuster and pass the DREAM Act, which would offer conditional permanent residency to a number of undocumented immigrants who were brought here as children. With Congress failing to take action on this issue, in 2012 President Obama used his executive authority to create the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, which allows young people brought to the United States before age 16 and who are currently under age 30 to apply for a work permit and a two-year reprieve from deportation. Whereas the DREAM Act would create a path to permanent legal status for undocumented youth, deferred action is a temporary administrative program that does not confer permanent residency.

President Obama’s decision on deferred action removes the threat of deportation for as many as 1.76 million aspiring Americans. So far, this policy has been a huge success: In the first four months of the program, nearly 40 percent of immediately eligible participants have had their application accepted for review by the Department of Homeland Security. A significant segment of the undocumented youth who will benefit from this policy are gay and transgender, often facing the dual insecurities of being undocumented and being harassed, discriminated against, or even kicked out of their homes because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. A number of gay and transgender activists—including journalist Jose Antonio Vargas—have spearheaded the DREAM movement, making President Obama’s policy especially noteworthy for gay and transgender people.

Facilitating humane and safe detention standards for gay and transgender immigrants

Sadly, many immigrants who end up in our nation’s detention facilities experience less-than-humane conditions and receive inadequate medical care. The conditions of certain detention facilities have been so poor that they have led to a number of deaths among the detained. Circumstances can be especially harsh for gay and transgender detainees, who experience denial of medical treatment, discrimination, harassment, sexual abuse, and physical violence at the hands of other detainees and detention officers because of their sexual orientation or gender identity.

To prevent such mistreatment, the Obama administration took action in two policy areas. First, the Department of Homeland Security released new detention standards in March 2012 that aim to improve the treatment of gay and transgender detainees. These standards recognize that transgender detainees are especially vulnerable to discrimination and abuse. The standards, for example, ensure that strip searches of transgender detainees will be conducted in private and allows transgender immigrants to continue to receive medically necessary hormone therapy if they received it prior to being detained.

Second, as part of the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003, the Department of Homeland Security issued a final rule in December 2012 proposing standards for officials to be trained to prevent, detect, and respond to sexual abuse and assault in detention facilities. This training includes teaching officials “how to communicate effectively and professionally with detainees, including gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex, or gender nonconforming detainees.” The rule also says that detention facilities should consider if an inmate’s sexual orientation or gender identity puts them at risk for sexual victimization and to take appropriate action to prevent abuse should it be necessary. These policy changes mark significant progress in creating a fairer and more just detention system for gay and transgender undocumented immigrants.

Addressing the needs of gay and transgender refugees

Nearly 80 countries have laws that in some way criminalize people who are gay. In five of those countries—Iran, Mauritania, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, and Yemen—the punishment for violating such laws is death. As a result, many gay—and, similarly, many transgender—individuals have fled their home countries and the human rights abuses within them in search of countries that are safer and more tolerant of gay and transgender people.

Many gay and transgender asylum seekers experience unique and significant barriers, however, when they attempt to seek refuge in the United States. One Albanian lesbian who had been threatened with gang rape to cure her of her sexual orientation was denied asylum in the United States because she was young, attractive, and single, not conforming to asylum officers’ stereotypes of what it means to be a lesbian. In these and similar situations, otherwise-deserving refugees may be denied asylum in the United States.

The Obama administration has taken a number of steps to address the unique difficulties that gay and transgender refugees experience when articulating their claims for asylum. In fall 2011 the Department of Homeland Security created a training module on gay and transgender issues that is mandatory for all officers adjudicating refugee and asylum claims. This action ensures that every asylum officer will be trained on appropriate terminology and questions to ask when discussing the deeply personal issue of a refugee’s sexual orientation or gender identity. In addition to this training, the State Department is “funding research on threats facing LGBT refugees and asylum seekers, supporting NGOs that work with LGBT survivors of violence, and strengthening the capacity of UNHCR and other non-government partners.”

Lifting the HIV travel ban

For 22 years the United States prohibited anyone with HIV/AIDS from seeking a visa or a green card to enter the country. This ban on travel was initially created out of fear and ignorance in the 1980s, and it kept thousands of students, tourists, and refugees from entering our borders. It also complicated the adoption of children with HIV, who under the ban were not eligible to enter the United States. In October 2009 President Obama announced that he would overturn the travel and immigration ban against people living with HIV, a process started by his predecessor, President George W. Bush. Two months later the ban was officially lifted. Until President Obama removed the ban, however, HIV was the only medical condition explicitly listed under immigration law as grounds for inadmissibility to the United States.

Conclusion

The president clearly understands that a fair immigration system addresses the needs of gay and transgender immigrants. This is why he and his administration have taken decisive action to remove obstacles for this part of the immigrant population and to promote a fairer and more humane system for all immigrants, regardless of their sexual orientations or gender identities. It is also why the framework for reform President Obama unveiled earlier this week in Las Vegas included changes that would allow same-sex spouses the ability to sponsor their loved ones for residency—a right that different-sex couples already enjoy under existing immigration law.

President Obama has moved the ball forward for our nation’s immigrants. He has at this point, however, exhausted most available administrative avenues for helping gay and transgender immigrants achieve legal certainty and economic stability. It is now Congress’s turn to act and pass legislation that provides all immigrants a path to earned citizenship—gay or straight, transgender or not.

Crosby Burns is a Research Associate for the LGBT Research and Communications Project at the Center for American Progress.

* In this column the term “gay” is an umbrella term for people that identify as gay, lesbian, or bisexual.