The way people furnish their homes is often seen as an exhibition of their personal taste, culture, and socioeconomic status. Beyond aesthetics however, interior design can also reveal manifestations of emotion. Studies in environmental psychology suggest that one creates spaces that reflect their circumstances. A home full of personal decorations, comfortable furniture, and sentimental items is often associated with stability and a sense of belonging, while an impersonal or empty space often signals transition, uncertainty, or distress.

In this respect, this relationship with space for undocumented immigrants becomes complicated. Their homes instead reflect a state of transience, an unwillingness to settle in completely. Given this, there is then a tendency to avoid investing in furniture, home renovations, or even personal decorations. This is not necessarily because they lack the means, but because they live with the constant possibility of displacement. In that case, a sparsely furnished home is much easier to walk away and disassociate from.

Beyond the psychological impact of family instability, legal status has tangible effects on financial and employment decisions. In the United States, home ownership is considered to be one of the primary ways families can build generational wealth. Yet for undocumented immigrants, the barriers to buying a home are high, not just due to financial challenges. Once again, it’s the uncertainty that defines their lives, which can cloud judgment when making decisions.

Currently, no laws are preventing undocumented immigrants from purchasing property, and some even manage to do so through individual taxpayer identification numbers (ITINs) instead of regular Social Security numbers to build credit. However, many choose not to, as only 5,000-6,000 ITIN mortgages were made in 2023, a number which could have been from 73,000 to 88,000 without market barriers. Interest rates and down payments on mortgages are also usually higher than a traditional one, with them being 50 to 200 basis points and 10 to 20 percent higher respectively. Renting instead becomes the default option, but even that comes with social instability. Undocumented immigrants often rely on informal rental agreements to avoid leases that require extensive documentation. With limited engagement with the market through these aversions, many tend to move frequently to avoid attention or because their housing situation remains only temporary. Although there is no explicit data that details this, there is, according to a study, a higher concentration of people living in shared, overcrowded, or undesirable housing.

Employment decisions follow a similar pattern. Many undocumented workers take jobs in industries that do not require extensive paperwork, such as construction, cleaning, or agriculture. These jobs often lack job security, making any long-term financial planning difficult, and are more prone to exploitation. Even those with Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) status, which provides temporary relief from deportation, live with uncertainty, as it must be renewed every two years and policy changes could alter their status overnight. In taking into account recent developments, there are reports that the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is nearing a deal with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to share data of undocumented taxpayers, which could be seen as a breach of privacy, despite being told by previous presidential administrations that it would fast-track the citizenship process. 

Such fears can also extend across generations in households where the parents are undocumented but the children are U.S.-born citizens. Children may grow up in environments where their parents are hesitant to make the home feel settled, either due to financial constraints or a deeper, subconscious reluctance.  Even if the children have legal status and the means to engage legally with educational opportunities, such an environment can lead to lower probabilities of graduating or obtaining advanced degrees. According to a study conducted by Harvard researcher Roberto G. Gonzales in 2011, this demographic is “at risk of lower educational performance,” while also exhibiting lower rates of enrollment in public programs that they are eligible for. Of the 150 interviewed, only 31 had completed college or advanced degrees, with none working in their respective fields. Such developments highlight how fear can cloud judgement of those who are able to exercise their rights as U.S. citizens.

Thus, home in its fullest sense can be interpreted as not just walls and a roof, but also providing security and ensuring family stability. For those who live with the constant fear of deportation, however, it can be a battleground of emotions and survival. The choices that they make on furniture, housing, and employment reflect a larger legal situation that determines their right to security. This reality is a reminder that policy decisions are not just abstract debates, but that they also have personal consequences. In this case, a sparsely furnished room is not just an aesthetic choice, or sign of financial struggle. Rather, it is a reflection of a and testament to a life of uncertainty and fear that comes with legal limbo.

This article was originally published in GPR’s Spring 2017 Magazine

Since the inauguration, there has been a multitude of changes across the nation, including dramatic increases in the stock prices for the top two private prison corporations in America, the GEO Group and Correction Corporation of America (CCA). These publicly traded corporations are incentivized to generate revenue at the expense of the incarcerated, and with less political will behind the war on drugs, the industry is turning towards a new source of income: undocumented immigrants.

The United States did not achieve the highest prison population and the highest incarceration rate in the world overnight. Due to changes in drug and sentencing laws in the 1980s, the United States saw a dramatic increase in incarceration. This increase resulted in need for additional prison space. In order to prevent more taxation on citizens, federal and state governments turned to private prisons. Private prison corporations are able to save money in two ways: they are not bound by governmental regulations, and can procure funds quickly rather than waiting on lengthy appropriations processes from the government.

The transition from state-run facilities to private corporations is known as the prison industrial complex – a phenomenon described by the Washburn Law Journal as “an enterprise whereby lawmakers and undocumented immigrants are commodified as raw materials for private profit.” With this burden lifted off of the federal government, prison privatization has left the responsibility of federal inmates in the hands of private companies.

The formula follows a basic supply and demand model, but in reverse. A greater supply of prisoners results in an increased demand for prison space. Yet like any business, the primary goal for these companies is to earn revenue. Their profit comes from charging the state or federal government a daily rate, per person incarcerated, to cover investment and operational costs. This profit model, where the ‘social good’ doesn’t enter the equation, begs the question whether private prison corporations are ethical and in line with our country’s values.

The United States has recently seen a drop in prison populations as a result of many states reforming their incarceration laws in order to relieve prison populations. However, CCA and GEO Group have found a new target population that will keep prison space at a high demand – undocumented immigrants. There are several instances that link private prison corporations with lobbying for anti-immigration policies. In 2010, Arizona passed SB 1070, which authorized police to request the immigration status of someone who has been arrested when there is “reasonable suspicion” that they are not residing in the United States legally. Not only did this permit racial profiling, but it also created an incentive for the private prison industry to lobby for similar policies nation-wide. Their losses from a waning war on drugs could easily be replaced by increased incarceration of undocumented individuals.

A study conducted by scholars Karina Saldivar and Byron Price from the Central European Journal of International and Security Studies found that CCA and GEO Group spent 90 percent of their lobbying dollars in states that proposed similar anti-immigration legislation. The data showed that from 2003-2012, of the $2,234,754 million CCA spent on lobbying, over 90 percent was sent to states with copycat bills mirroring SB 1070. Similarly, 93 percent of GEO Group’s $3,243,561 million spent on lobbying was also sent to those states. These findings imply that the private prison industry sees anti-immigration legislation as a means of protecting the industry’s bottom line.

In August 2016, the Obama Administration announced that it would begin to phase out the use of private prison corporations. Then deputy attorney general Sally Yates cited that the inmate population had decreased since 2013 and that “private prisons compared poorly to our own bureau facilities.” She predicted that by May 2017, the Bureau of Prisons would house only 14,200 inmates in for-profit prison corporations—a 15,800 inmate decrease from 2013.

However, President Trump is unlikely to decommission the private prison industry. With Trump having campaigned on immigration policies that would incarcerate thousands of undocumented immigrants, the demand for prison space will increase dramatically. It is no wonder that the stock values of GEO Group and CCA have increased exponentially since the election. Regardless of political affiliation, the truth of the matter is rooted in basic economics—as long as there are private prisons, these corporations will have a stake in lobbying any legislation that promotes incarceration.

Georgia Board of Regents Policy 4.1.6 bans undocumented students from being admitted into the top five universities in Georgia, and Policy 4.3.4 bans them from receiving in-state tuition to those schools they can attend. In response to these policies, Freedom U, a “modern-day freedom school,” was established in 2011. It was inspired by the makeshift Civil Rights-era schools that provided an education to racial minorities barred from segregated institutions like the University of Georgia (UGA).

So who are the students attending Freedom U? The thinktank Educators for Fair Consideration estimates that about 65,000 undocumented students graduate from American high schools every spring. Only about 1,800-3,000 undocumented students, however, enroll in higher education programs every year. This translates to roughly 3 percent of undocumented high school graduates attending college. Compared to the estimated 66.3 percent of American citizens entering college, this percentage is staggering. However, there are other factors at play here besides bans like Georgia’s. Undocumented aliens tend to have lower incomes than citizens, making college a less feasible option for them regardless of admittance. Additionally, many fear deportation supposed to be working for free of for very little pay.” This is what Dr. Emiko Soltis told her class of and try to avoid detection by not applying to publicly-funded schools. That being said, state bans still have a major impact on an undocumented student’s decision on whether to apply to college.

In order to overcome these hurdles, students in Georgia can attain some level of college education by attending Freedom U. Freedom U provides free classes to undocumented students on topics such as immigration history, SAT prep, and debate. Educators come from across the state to voluntarily teach on Sundays. But education is only part of its mission. Freedom U is also involved in the fight to overturn the Board of Regents’ policies. Students are actively involved in protests and demonstrations of civil disobedience across the state, including at UGA. Nine such students, some documented and others not, were arrested in Moore College on Jan. 9, 2015—the 54th anniversary of UGA’s desegregation—while conducting a protest. Under the direction of Freedom U, students found a classroom in Moore College to listen to lectures on the Civil Rights Movement. Doors were marked with signs reading “Desegregation in Progress.” When the building closed, however, some students refused to leave the room in protest of what they consider to be “modern-day segregation.” The police escorted the students off the premises after receiving a tip from an unknown source. The nine students left the building wearing monarch butterfly wings, to symbolize the beauty of natural migration, and handcuffs.

Freedom U backs up its protests with several arguments against the ban. One is that, contrary to popular belief, undocumented immigrants do pay taxes. A 2010 study by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy estimates that undocumented immigrants in Georgia pay over $300 million in state and local taxes each year. Moreover, Freedom U says that Georgia’s policy is unusual and economically unsound. Georgia is one of only three states that bans students from top universities and denies them instate tuition. Other states have done away with such bans, because as Roberto Gonzales, a Professor of Sociology at the University of Washington has said, “Given the opportunity to receive additional education and move into better-paying jobs, undocumented students would pay more in taxes and have more money to spend and invest in the U.S. economy.”

Freedom U students and volunteers have confidence that the ban will be rescinded in the future. They believe that the empathy their protests evoke, along with economic reality, will eventually win over the naysayers. Kevin Ruiz, one of the students arrested at Moore College, said that it was a great illustration by his undocumented peers that “they’re willing to give up everything for their education.” Ruiz also said that he and the other Moore College protesters are not worried about the punishments they face. They are accused of “disrupting normal university proceedings,” but Ruiz said that the “normal operations are segregation, immoral … and should be disrupted.”

If these higher education policies that Ruiz describes as “immoral” are to change anytime soon, reforms will likely have to face the Georgia General Assembly first. Although the ban technically comes from the Board of Regents, the Board did not put it in place completely by choice. If the Board had not implemented the ban, the General Assembly would have likely passed a law that banned undocumented students from all of Georgia’s colleges, not just the top five. Ruiz says that although most undocumented students recognize this, the Board of Regents is still “actively preventing qualified students from attending college,” and therefore cannot claim to be “the good guys.”

But many Georgians do see the Board of Regents as “the good guys.” The dominant sentiment among the general populace is that these students are not American citizens, and therefore should not be allowed to take the place of citizens in top schools. But this attitude might actually be hurting the top schools. If a qualified applicant is rejected due to their citizenship status in favor of a less qualified one, then the school is becoming less competitive due to a non-academic factor.

More controversial is the ban on in-state tuition. In South Carolina, which is a state with a similar immigrant population to Georgia’s, a study by immigration attorney Michael Olivas estimates that each undocumented student paying in-state tuition at a public university costs each taxpayer approximately two cents per year. Students who earn a degree in the United States are more likely to stay in the country after receiving their degree. With a college degree, it is easier for these students to gain U.S. citizenship and receive higher paying jobs. The resulting higher income levels translate into a higher tax bracket. Olivas’s study estimates that the average undocumented student who takes advantage of this program would pay back within just seven years of graduation more in taxes than what the taxpayers had given them.

Georgia’s legislative process makes it difficult to grant reprieve to undocumented students who want to be treated like their classmates, and who didn’t appear so different from them until they began filling out their college applications. Even though the Georgia General Assembly’s threat to pass legislation banning undocumented students from attending all of the state’s secondary schools is ultimately responsible for the current ban, some of its members are beginning to fight against it. SB 44, introduced by Democratic State Senator Nan Orrock in January, would effectively overturn the Board of Regents’ policy, as it calls for noncitizens to be considered the same as citizens when determining college admittance qualifications and tuition rates. Before the bill was considered by the Higher Education Committee on Feb. 10, Freedom U students spoke with Republican Senator Michael Williams, a member of the Higher Education Committee, who had said earlier that he did not support SB 44. The students said that after speaking with Williams, he seemed much more supportive of their position, particularly after realizing that the vast majority of undocumented immigrants do indeed pay taxes and that they are more likely to keep living in Georgia and better its economy if they can attend the top in-state schools.

Despite Williams’ apparent change of heart, the committee meeting on Feb. 10 did not go well. The meeting only lasted 45 minutes before the chairman cancelled it, and although the crowd in the room seemed supportive of the undocumented students, SB 44 was not put to a vote, as it was unable to garner the necessary support from the committee members. If SB 44 ever makes it out of committee, it will still face several legislative obstacles including the Rules Committee and a floor vote before making it to the Governor’s desk.

While Georgia is clearly not a receptive place for collegebound undocumented students, it is possible for these students to attend out-of-state colleges. Some schools, like UCLA, even encourage undocumented students to attend in order to gain the most competitive student body and to increase diversity. But many students in this situation are low-income and have trouble paying out-of-state tuition, regardless of their acceptance. If the Freedom U students had their way, Georgia would follow the rest of the nation and repeal the Board of Regents’ policy. And they might get their way before too long. Georgia and its top colleges are beginning to listen to their concerns. With measures like SB 44 coming through the General Assembly, Freedom U is now optimistic that the ban will soon be overturned. They believe that protests like the one at Moore College show the state that education is so important to them, they are willing to go to prison for it.

It is well known that Georgia has a less-than-stellar record when it comes to civil rights. But our history does not determine our destiny. Change is in the air. For the students at Freedom U who want nothing more than to attend college in the same state that they grew up in and to continue to live and work here, that change cannot come soon enough.

– By Cait Felt & Rob Oldham/Photo Credit: AHAM

Could fascism return to Europe? It’s more likely than you may think. Marine Le Pen, leader of France’s Front National, has recently been floating around 30 percent in opinion polling for the next presidential election, ahead of any other candidate. Her father and predecessor, Jean-Marie Le Pen, has been convicted of racist or anti-Semitic speech at least six times and once referred to the Holocaust gas chambers as “a detail.” His notoriety has earned him the moniker “Devil of the Republic,” and while Marine has softened the party’s rhetoric, the apple does not fall far from the tree. The fascist Jobbik party, meanwhile, whose deputy leader suggested in 2012 that it might be “timely to tally up people of Jewish ancestry who live here,” won nearly 17 percent of the vote in Hungary in 2010, and the Neo-Nazi group Golden Dawn finished third in the Greek election in January. The explanation for this seemingly crazy phenomenon lies in the failures of the European Union and the multiple crises that are hitting it at once.

By many standards, Europe is succeeding admirably. Despite being devastated by all-out war seventy years ago, Europe is today a peaceful, cooperative, and generally prosperous continent, with a well-integrated infrastructure and transportation system and a single market that facilitates trade as well as movement of people and resources. Why, then, are many European countries experiencing a resurgence of Eurosceptic parties and right-wing extremism? Loyalties are shifting because the contentious issues of immigration, economic stagnation, and undemocratic political processes are being met with a restrictive bipartisan consensus of the center-left and center-right. In the past, public support for the European Union was much stronger on the continent. Socialists supported labor unions and government intervention in the economy while conservatives supported business and neoliberal economic policies. In today’s bizarre political world, nearly all mainstream parties in Europe support European integration despite declining support for the E.U., and socialist leaders such as François Hollande and Matteo Renzi are uniting with conservatives led by Angela Merkel and David Cameron to enact a fairly uniform policy program. This alliance has removed the traditional paths to moderate electoral dissent and left radical parties as the only remaining proponents of change.

The bulk of European unrest can be explained by an adage: it’s the economy, stupid. Most of the European Union is experiencing an economic crisis characterized by extraordinarily high unemployment, unsustainable debts, and stagnant growth. The crisis has multiple causes, many of which can be traced to the E.U. and its attempts at integration, such as the common currency (Euro) and the European Central Bank. The crisis began after the 2008 banking crisis in the United States, and it hit especially hard in Greece, Spain, Portugal, Italy, and Ireland. Greece had longstanding problems with deficits, corruption, and ineffective tax collection, but others like Ireland and Spain were actually regarded as fiscally responsible before the recession. While the 18-member Eurozone shares the Euro currency, and monetary policy is set by the European Central Bank in Frankfurt, individual nations set their own fiscal policies, and they don’t always have each other’s best interests in mind. In addition, the currency—and therefore inflation—is largely unresponsive to conditions unique to one country, so it can’t adjust to changes in the market.

The bipartisan European consensus has responded to the crisis with “belt-tightening” austerity measures, such as tax increases and spending cuts, which aim to reduce budget deficits. These measures are unpopular in many countries and run counter to mainstream Keynesian economic wisdom as articulated by Nobel laureate Paul Krugman. Whether or not one agrees with Krugman, it remains a problem that mainstream parties on both sides of the political spectrum have essentially given voters no choice in the matter. Extremist politicians have taken advantage of this democratic deficit by providing a home for opposing economic ideologies. Marine Le Pen, for example, has established herself as an economic nationalist who rejects the logic of international business and transnational government entirely. She has described her philosophy as “construction of a strong, protective and strategist state, reasoned protections at the boundaries, support to the small and medium enterprises, and get[ting] back the monetary sovereignty… to assure France’s recovery.”

Economic troubles are the biggest problem in the E.U. today, but certainly not the only one. Another contentious issue is immigration. Most E.U. member states are very homogenous, but there has been a recent trend of large-scale Muslim immigration to Europe. This development has led to widespread anti-immigrant sentiment in many member states. Poor immigrants are often accused of draining resources from government welfare programs and trying to bring Islamic law to the largely secular continent, as well as refusing to assimilate with the native culture. Though these accusations may be exaggerations or attempts to find a scapegoat, they are effective political messages because European nations, unlike the United States, were not built by immigration, and generally view multiculturalism less favorably.

The recent Charlie Hebdo attacks have increased European fears that growing Muslim populations will threaten their Enlightenment values, particularly freedom of thought and expression. In a New York Times Op-Ed days after the attacks, Marine Le Pen wrote, “the massive waves of immigration, both legal and clandestine, our country has experienced for decades have prevented the implementation of a proper assimilation policy…Without a policy restricting immigration, it becomes difficult, if not impossible, to fight against communalism and the rise of ways of life at odds with laïcité, France’s distinctive form of secularism, and other laws and values of the French Republic.” Because mainstream European leaders are reluctant to discuss this issue in these terms, Le Pen and her fellow extremists can easily step into the vacuum and connect with commonly held sentiments; even the comments of liberal Times readers were largely sympathetic.

Many Europeans dislike the government of the European Union, seeing it as a bureaucratic and undemocratic institution run by out-of-touch elites who don’t respect national sovereignty or self-determination. These skeptics have a point, as European policymakers tend to follow a program of austerity measures and permissive immigration laws that does not change when national voters make their opposition known through elections. It is not a large jump to conclude that European elites disdain popular government and average Europeans. These economic and social fears have led to strong electoral performances by Eurosceptics and extreme parties on both sides of the political spectrum; in the 2014 European Parliament elections, a quarter of the seats were won by Eurosceptic parties. Some see the emergence of France’s Front National and other less extreme parties such as the U.K. Independence Party and the True Finns as mere signs of bigotry and ignorance. Others vote for them because they address problems that mainstream parties in the E.U. largely ignore: unpopular immigration, austerity, unemployment, and a perceived loss of sovereignty and democracy. Le Pen has made these connections explicit by asserting, “All the statistics available to us show that globalisation has led to mass unemployment and salary cuts, which will end only when European salaries are brought into line with those in China or India…Mr. Lamy and all those in favour of uncontrolled free trade are not defending the common good but rather the interests of the financial and commercial institutions that pay them.” Regardless, the threat posed by far-right parties should not be shrugged off, as European history clearly shows that minorities are not safe during periods of economic distress.

The European Union is at a crossroads; its leaders face an untenable status quo. If mainstream parties fail to address stagnation and social unrest, these new realities may well continue to drive Europeans into the clutches of extremist parties, imperiling the European experiment. Mainstream political parties can confront this volatility by offering moderate solutions to these problems which will capture the vote of reasonable dissenters. Instead of abolishing immigration or expelling immigrants, they could suggest reducing and qualifying it. Rather than leaving the E.U. entirely, they could offer to introduce more popular referenda and decentralize decision-making on some domestic issues. They could create a plan for fighting unemployment and poverty in immigrant communities without giving an inch on secular European values. Finally, they could pursue pro-growth policies that target both corruption and unemployment within a cooperative framework rather than nationalizing or isolating their markets. But if European leaders continue to ignore this threat, we may soon wake up to a Golden Dawn.

Many have been talking about President Obama’s new immigration initiative, which he announced last week in a live broadcast. This new set of laws, set to be implemented through executive action, had been subject to speculation all week as the nation awaited the President’s official announcement of the plan’s specifics. The President’s speech revealed that the plan will focus on a new prioritization system for the deportation of undocumented residents of the United States. Specifically, the goal is to create an extremely low priority for deporting illegal immigrants who have lived in the US for five years, who have children born in the US or who are legal residents, are willing to register and pay taxes, and who have no criminal record. There are also changes which would impact the capabilities of legal residents to work and the Secure Communities program. Many are excited by the President’s perceived commitment to immigration reform, but others question whether the plan will work, for many reasons.

First is the obvious issue that an executive action automatically comes with copious criticisms. Unilateral action is not looked kindly upon by most in the United States. This is especially true when an important executive action is taken immediately after midterm elections that are less than spectacular for the President. President Obama’s announcement of an executive action directly after elections which gave Republicans the majority in both houses of Congress gives his opponents plenty of reason to criticize his actions. Many decry the President’s actions as a show of a thought-out decision to begin this Congressional term with an obvious message that he will be unwilling to cooperate across party lines on issues that he has already worked to get passed in the traditional legislative way.

Meanwhile, proponents of the new potential laws argue that President Obama’s decision is simply in response to Congress failing time and time again to create a lasting impact on American immigration law, which almost all Americans can agree needs a large-scale overhaul. Further, if the democratically-elected Congress has true problems with Obama’s immigration plan, then they have Constitutional rights to override any decision that he has made regarding the issue. The President seems to be betting on the fact that the current Congress will be as unable (or better, unwilling) to make changes as a cohesive body as their recent predecessors, who passed new immigration laws in the Senate multiple times, but never got these bills passed in the House of Representatives.

There is a prevalent criticism coming even from immigration-overhaul proponents that as important and life-changing as this new set of laws may be presented, it really will not change much for the majority of illegal immigrants in the US. The biggest part of the new legislation is that undocumented parents of children born in the US and who have no criminal record will be able to live in the US with a pathway to citizenship over eight years of abiding by American laws, sending their children to American schools, and being employed by American businesses. Many who have studied immigration law point out that the Congressionally-passed and implemented Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals Act (DACA) already covers most of what this plan would impact. DACA may even be considered more extreme, since it applies to undocumented students who arrived in the US at a young age and have attended American schools for several years, rather than only children who were actually born American citizens.

The Obama administration’s main rebuttal to this argument is that DACA does not in any way provide a pathway to citizenship. This legislation only provides an extension to deportation until the student graduates from high school. If this family lives in a state with an active DREAM Act, then the student may gain a pathway to citizenship if they are accepted into a university or enlist in the American military. Otherwise, this new plan is the only hope for these people to gain citizenship after illegally immigrating into the US. Those who support more lenient immigration laws and a pathway to citizenship for undocumented residents cite the contentious divide between the President and Congress as a reason that those who would be affected by the law may not even use it to its full extent. If these people cannot count on the law being valid in a year because Congress may decide to override the President’s plan, then they probably will not trust the system enough to declare themselves. This would mean risking losing all that they have worked hard to gain by lying low from the government as their children attend school and they work.

Others say that it is unfair to allow only immigrants with children to get the benefit of this law. What about younger immigrants who are working, paying taxes, have no criminal record, and have no children? One young man featured in The New Yorker said that he felt like he was being penalized for not having children when he is not in an economic situation to support them yet. If the President’s only concern is with parents of American citizens, then that may only encourage young undocumented workers to have children for citizenship reasons. These children may become a burden on the tax system in the United States and be wholly unbeneficial.

If President Obama intends for his plan to make a lasting impact on immigration law in the United States, then he faces a tough battle to gain more multilateral support ahead of him. He also must enact legislation that is not only effective, but also illustrates the lasting influence that the support of Congress and the people will have on ensuring safety for all those involved. This may be the biggest challenge of President Obama’s tenure, but if he is able to succeed, then he could change the face of the United States forever.

For many sitting members of the House of Representatives, the term “immigration reform” often evokes a feeling of distaste. Whether this sentiment is evident in the bitter curse word muttered by a Republican at the idea of offering amnesty to illegal immigrants, or in the sarcastic disappointment exuded by a Democrat after another failed attempt to create a path for citizenship. It is clear that neither party has had serious expectations that an overhaul of the American immigration system would be likely in the near future.

All this changed on Jan. 30, when the House Republican leadership announced a new immigration proposal. The plan is open to allowing the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants in the United States to remain in the country under several provisions, such as paying taxes, learning to speak English, and admitting that they broke the law by entering the country illegally. Additionally, it offers the possibility of a path to citizenship for young immigrants who have been in the country for their entire lives. The Republican Party’s proposal, which was crafted during a GOP retreat in Cambridge, Md., demonstrates a significant shift in popular party ideology.

Until now, the focus of Republican-backed legislation regarding immigration reform had centered on increasing border security and removing individuals who had entered the country illegally. This shift in policy from the Republican leadership is being judged by many as an important step forward in the political boondoggle that is the immigration debate. Since the Senate passed a bipartisan immigration reform package seven months ago, the ball has been in the House’s court to offer up an immigration reform bill to begin the process of repairing the broken system that currently exists. The White House and several key members of the Democratic Leadership have already regarded the proposal as a real chance to address this issue. Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., a co-author of the Senate immigration plan, said, “While these standards are certainly not everything we would agree with, they leave a real possibility that Democrats and Republicans … can in some way come together and pass immigration reform. It is a long, hard road but the door is open.”

Not everyone is so optimistic of this new turn of events. Richard L. Trumka, President of the AFL-CIO, was quoted as saying that the AFL-CIO would only support a proposal that gives immigrants a path to citizenship. In response to this newest plan, Trumka went as far as to say, “It’s a joke. It’s a hoax, is what it is. It’s like fools gold.” Trumka is concerned that the immigrant population may be forgiven for entering the country illegally, but they will be denied permanent citizenship. This, he argue, will create a lower class of citizens that will be viewed essentially as “slave labor.” While not unsurprising, this negative reaction from the head of the nation’s largest labor union could be seen as a barometer of the factions within the Democratic Party over this issue. Conversely, members of the Republican Party leadership have claimed to support the proposal only so long as reinforcing border concerns remains a key priority and no proposal is passed that that would create a blanket amnesty for illegal immigrants. Rep. Paul Ryan, chairman of the House Budget Committee, commented on the proposal by saying, “Security first, no amnesty, then we might be able to get somewhere.” Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal also claimed that the switch in focus from just border security to border security plus the creation of the new immigration program will allow the nation’s immigration system to become “high wall, broad gate,” as opposed to the current “high wall, shut gate.”

House leadership is finally signaling that a gray area does in fact exist within the mire of the debate on immigration; the next phase will unfold in two parts. The first part will be gauging the reactions of their membership. Historically, some members of the Republican caucus have been extremely hesitant toward supporting any immigration reform. Their reactions will likely play a large part in Republican strategy for this bill in the coming months, either by the leadership speeding up the process of drafting a bill and passing it or allowing the bill to die rather than risk a caucus revolt and threat to the leadership’s authority. However, if the Republicans are able to take a major step towards resolving this decades old debate, they stand to gain a large influx of support in the Hispanic community that should stand as incentive in a political climate where minority support is often cited as a key deciding force in elections. The second part will be the reaction of the Democratic Party in both the Senate and the House. While they may embrace this opportunity as a positive development, there is just as much chance that a bill that does not create a guaranteed path to citizenship will not gain the party’s support.

In either case, this step by the Republican leadership is one of the first serious signals sent by either party toward the notion of compromise in a very long time. During a congressional session that has been cited as being one of the most unproductive in history, this gesture is being treated with sincere, albeit cautious, optimism.

By: Eli Scott

“We don’t want Indonesia to be a dumping ground, but we don’t want Australia to accuse us of not doing anything,” claimed Djoko Suyanto, an Indonesian spokesperson, on Nov. 8, in response to a recent standoff between Australia and Indonesia.

Australian authorities responded to the distress call of a wooden boat containing around 60 people, presumably from Indonesia, off the coast of Java on Thursday, and Australian officials were trying to convince Indonesia to take these refugees. However, Indonesian officials maintained that Australia had its own detention centers to which it could send such refugees. Thus, Australian Minister for Immigration and Border Protection Scott Morrison has decided to “transfer the persons rescued…to Christmas Island.” This bilateral fiasco illustrates the larger problem of how Australian politicians and media are fueling nativism against refugees in order to circumvent Australia’s outstanding obligations to the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR).

The term “White Australia” refers to Australian immigration policy that favored immigration from European countries and peoples of European descent. “White Australia”-influenced policy began in the 1850s when Chinese immigration was restricted on the account of the xenophobic resentment of Australian miners in the Victoria province. According to the Department of Immigration and Border Protection, the “White Australia” policy was abolished in 1966 and steps have been taken to liberalize the immigration process for non-Europeans. Although the old policy has been nominally denounced, Australia is still following discriminatory practices that breach UNHCR obligations due to the inordinate amount of focus placed on immigration by prominent politicians.

Australia ranks second on the OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) list of countries with the highest percentage of population consisting of immigrants; 26.5 percent of its population is born overseas. This statistic is more than double that of the United States, a country claiming to be a melting pot of diversity.  The immigration statistics of these two countries, though, differ significantly in the composition of immigrants. “More than half of Australia’s foreign-born population comes from an English-speaking country” with most immigrating from the United Kingdom and New Zealand. By contrast, a mere five percent of the United States’ immigrant population comes from English-speaking countries. According to James Raymer, a professor of demography at the Australian National University, this difference stems from contrasting policies such that “Australia…gives preferences to language and skills whereas the U.S. gives preference to family relations.”  Hence, Australia, although seeming pluralist in its immigration policies, maintains open legislation primarily toward residents of English-speaking countries.

As a signatory of the 1951 United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, Australia is obligated to grant refugees asylum. Nonetheless, Australia currently circumvents this obligation by sending rightful asylum seekers to detention centers on Christmas Island and, thanks to a political deal involving foreign aid with Papua New Guinean Prime Minister Peter O’ Neill, to Manus Island. According to the Regional Resettlement Arrangement, “any asylum seeker who arrives in Australia by boat will have no chance of being settled in Australia as refugees.” The Regional Resettlement Arrangement inevitably concerns the UNHCR, which has claimed that Papua New Guinea lacks the legal infrastructure and prowess to effectively handle the demands of processing refugees.

When Australia’s new Prime Minister Tony Abbott of the Liberal/National coalition was elected in September, he affirmed that he would continue the policy of sending boatpeople, refugees that travel by sea, to Papua New Guinea as maintained by the Labor Party. Abbott initiated Operation Sovereign Borders, a military-led crackdown on human traffickers. Australia, because of its proximity to the island nations of Asia, experiences difficulty accommodating asylum seekers that come by boat from Indonesia as well as other Asian countries. Under the reins of newly elected Abbott, the Australian Immigration Minister Scott Morrison has attempted to use politically charged jargon to dehumanize asylum seekers by having his staff and department workers refer to them as “illegals” and “detainees.”

As the result of political scapegoating by government officials and excessive media attention, over half of the Australian public deems the issue of boatpeople as or more important than issues of managing the economy, promoting education, and providing healthcare services. Many Australians view these boatpeople as illegitimate asylum seekers that are trying to inundate the mainland. These views are propagated by politicians such as Abbot who claim that the mainland is currently undergoing a “border protection crisis.” In reality, in the years 2011-2012, 93 percent of people arriving via boat were legitimate refugees according to the refugee convention. Moreover, only 2.7 percent of all migrants to Australia are asylum-seeking boatpeople.

The recent standoff between Indonesia and Australia concerning asylum seekers has been useful in exposing the duplicitous nature of Australian immigration policy: refugees cannot seek asylum in Australia due to its deals with Christmas Island and Papua New Guinea.  In order to more fully and transparently uphold the UN Refugee Convention, Australia should nullify its Regional Resettlement Arrangement and allow refugees to enter its borders and rightfully seek asylum.

I’ll do just about anything for free pizza. In that spirit, I was dispatched by Georgia Political Review at great expense to cover the debate between College Republicans and Young Democrats in room 213 of the SLC (underclassmen, stop trying to make MLC happen). The debate came together thanks to the Athens Political Union, an organization that deserves your love, support, and Facebook likes. Democrats and Republicans sent their best representatives, well-dressed and articulate members of their respective organizations, all of whom were capable of correctly pronouncing “Netanyahu.” What follows is a summary of their positions and a choice sprinkling of facts.

Education policy:

I’m pleased to report that both major American political parties seem to support children, and even support those children learning things. The Young Democrats charged the Republican Party in Georgia with cutting $5.5 billion from education funding since taking control of state government in 2003, a statistic that roughly corresponds to one cited by an AJC editorial. Furthermore, they alleged that prison construction companies use third grade test scores in a region to determine how many prison beds to build, a claim so shocking that it almost can’t be true (also it is not true). Though legend holds that low test scores have such a direct correlation with prison beds is widespread and has been cited by major journalistic organizations, careful reporting by The Oregonian’s Bill Graves dispels the myth, which is almost too bad, because it sounds like it would have made someone’s job at the Correction Corporation of America remarkably easy.

Republicans agreed that public education was broken, but argued instead for expanded student, parent, and educator choice in schools. While they never directly argued for charter schools and school vouchers, the Republican fealty to choice made the structure of the GOP’s education answer obvious to anyone listening carefully.

When asked to name specific education policies they supported, Republicans punted and made a vague nod towards choice, not listing a specific policy. Democrats, meanwhile, praised the lasting value of enrolling children in Pre-K programs, an empirically proven position, though the effects of government sponsored Pre-K (Head Start) are under more scrutiny. Nevertheless, the majority of data tends to support the proposition that Pre-K has some long-term effects throughout a child’s education.

Immigration:

Republicans rushed to praise the immigration bill that has passed the Senate under the direction of Republican Senator Marco Rubio, citing the wonderful border security efforts, expanded legal visa system, and welcoming gestures to immigrants who “believe what we already know: that this is the land of opportunity.” GOP debaters made sure to praise all these wonderful, humane-sounding immigration policies before objecting to “amnesty” for “illegal immigrants.” Though supporters can and will quibble about the terms, that’s a straightforward assessment of how the Senate’s immigration bill treats the nearly 12 million illegal undocumented immigrants currently in the United States. Republicans and Democrats bickered on the wisdom of the policy for a bit, until Democrats touted their support of the DREAM Act, which allows undocumented youngsters raised in the United States to attend college legally, among other things. Republicans replied that the DREAM Act was great, but the part that let one earn citizenship with military service – now THAT was super great.

When discussing the effects the large undocumented class has on society, Republicans claimed that these individuals cost society greatly by enjoying welfare benefits (especially healthcare) without paying taxes. This claim, an old bugaboo of right-wing attacks on immigration, is demonstrably untrue. Undocumented immigrants pay $10.6 billion on taxes at all levels of government, and would pay more in fees and back-taxes under the Senate’s “amnesty” program.

Government Shutdown:

This is almost too boring to report, except for one distinct ideological difference. Both sides bemoaned Washington and culture and leadership or something (maybe they were talking about RGIII? I blacked out). Yet Republicans attacked the idea that 15 percent of the government can be declared “non-essential,” and argued that such workers wouldn’t have a job in the private sector. Democrats stood up for government job security and declared that this 15 percent is “useful to the country.” Controversy!

 Healthcare:

Admittedly this is a conversation out of depth of anyone who isn’t an expert with years of experience (healthcare represents a sixth of our economy, after all), so it is worth saying up front that both sides acted intelligently. To address the massive costs of healthcare in the United States, Republicans advocated a simplification of government revenue, tort reform (which hasn’t had much of an impact in Texas), and a “regulation of health insurance companies to keep prices down,” a policy that sounds suspiciously similar to Obamacare’s massive regulatory overhaul. Democrats noted the similarity, and defended the unpopular Obamacare, arguing that it was created in such a way as to see “what works and what doesn’t.” This claim is un-fact checkable at anything less than book length.

Republicans proved themselves masters of sound byte, stating, “[Our] main problem with the Affordable Care Act is that it’s not affordable to the vast majority of Americans,” further claiming that insurance rates have risen in every state but New York. That claim depends entirely on who is buying insurance; Obamacare’s subsidies will make things cheaper for those who qualify for low-wage benefits and those with a pre-existing condition, and may make things more expensive for most others. For what it’s worth, rate increases will be particularly intense among groups like the young and those living in the state of Georgia, so I sure hope there are no young Georgians reading this.

Syria:

Finally, the two parties turned to foreign policy. In a Freaky Friday-like turn of events, Republicans were remarkably dovish and unwilling to spend much on military maneuvers, while Democrats argued the effectiveness of force in bringing Assad to the bargaining table. Republicans countered with a critique of the President’s “red line” on chemical weapons use, arguing that the office of the presidency must always be respected and that this requires following through on promises. Strangely, much debate centered on the cost of mobilizing naval vessels off the coast of Syria. While data for the cost of the mobilization is not readily available, it must be acknowledged that deploying a few vessels from the U.S. Navy’s Six Fleet hardly compares to the Navy’s $150 billion dollar budget, or the estimated trillion dollars we spend a year on national defense and military activities.

Wrapping Up:

Audience members asked a few questions, which weren’t met with as much preparation as the declared subject matter. Democrats bemoaned gerrymandering, Republicans shrugged and pointed to its long history in American politics. Both parties agreed that humanitarian assistance is worth any price, a strange agreement between the party that recently opposed the Syrian intervention and the one that elected a president largely due to opposition to the Iraq War. Both seemed befuddled on questions of mental healthcare (though Democrats managed to tie it back to Medicaid expansion), and both seemed largely untroubled by claims that the United States eavesdropped on German Chancellor Angela Merkel. Is this the bipartisanship everyone claims to want?

In closing statements, Democrats called themselves the party of forward-thinkers, those who cared about the less fortunate, gay rights, the environment, and women’s issues. They questioned the motivations of those who refuse to use the government to lift up those in need of help.

Recognizing that they started with a major deficit in allegiance, Republicans asked simply that listeners understand that they are the party of fiscal responsibility and small government, hinting darkly that the utopian schemes of the Democrats were doomed to failure, and asked a striking question to the generation coming-of-age in the Great Recession: “Do you want jobs when you graduate?”

Science is the unquestioned driver of prosperity. Whether it is with highly developed agricultural techniques, the steam engine, cutting edge military weaponry, or computer technology, the most scientifically advanced nations have always come out on top. Any nation behind in technology is behind in strength and security. Regrettably, the United States’ education system is currently among the poorest performing in math and science of all developed countries. However, despite having maintained our educational mediocrity for some time, the United States is still considered the world’s hegemon by economic and military power. While many credit our continued success to the theory of “American Exceptionalism,” what makes America a force to be reckoned with is its unique ability to attract the best and brightest minds worldwide. The government realizes this as well, and one of the primary reasons the United States has maintained its global lead is the H-1B visa.

The H-1B visa is perhaps the United States’ best-kept secret, and it has been our ultimate recruitment tool since its introduction in 1990. In its most simplistic form, the H-1B Program is a specialized “genius visa.” The program allows foreign recipients and their immediate families the opportunity to come to the United States for three years, with the possibility of extension to six years. In certain scenarios, such as with some of the program’s most valuable workers in the Department of State, recipients are allowed to stay for up to ten years. There are traditionally 65,000 given out annually (with an additional 20,000 reserved for graduates of United States institutions), and a United States employer must sponsor potential recipients. Finally, current law requires that recipients hold at least a bachelors degree and that the United States employer sponsor can find absolutely no American suitable for the job.

Since its inception, the program has continued to flourish and has more applicants and recipients each year. Despite only legally allowing 85,000 visas to go out every year, 117,409 H-1B visas were distributed through loopholes in 2010 alone. Microsoft, IBM, and Oracle were all in the top 10 United States companies by the number of H1-B visas granted, accounting for several thousand each. Other venerated technological ventures such as Google, Intel, Qualcomm, Amazon, and Yahoo can be found on the top recipients list as well. Even elite financial, accounting, and management consulting firms such as Goldman Sachs, Ernst and Young, and McKinsey crack the top 100 list of recipient employees, showing that the H-1B has broad economic implications that go beyond just technology. Many of the United States’ finest universities have followed suit as well, with Harvard, Yale, Stanford, and Columbia all in the top ten university recipients. Considering the impact these foreign born egg-heads are having on some of the United States’ proudest institutions, it’s no wonder that the cap for this year has already been increased to 110,000, with talks of extending it to 180,000 per year.

As with almost any law, the H-1B program is not without its detractors. One primary concern among critics is that the program is thought to rob United States citizens of important high-tech jobs. Therefore, the aforementioned stipulation of the program stating that there be no Americans available to take the job in question has been challenged several times over. However, it is assumed that American companies wouldn’t go through all the trouble and paperwork if the jobs they are using H-1B recipients for didn’t demand the absolute highest levels of specialization. In fact, it is widely accepted that these H-1B residents create entirely new industries that often employ more Americans than the number that could have possibly been looked over for jobs they didn’t get. Thus, it is important to be aware of the fact that over 50 percent of Silicon Valley is foreign born, and that immigrants started 52 percent of Silicon Valley’s technology companies. 25 percent of the United States’ global patents and 47 percent of science and engineering workers with PhDs are immigrants as well. Even if certain companies were founded by famous American technology titans like Jeff Bezos, Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, and Larry Ellison, much of the essential work behind the scenes is performed by H-1B recipients. Furthermore, foreigners have indeed started many other proud U.S. companies such as Google, Yahoo, eBay, and Intel. It has even been speculated that with no H-1B, the American monopoly over technological innovation would be impossible.

Another common criticism is that H-1B recipients are underpaid and are subjected to modern-day indentured servitude. However, all recipients are granted basic worker’s rights and benefits such as paid vacation, sick days, and maternity/paternity leave. Workers are also typically rewarded quite handsomely for being the only people in the nation who can successfully perform their jobs. Actually, it isn’t uncommon for workers to come to the United States with the intention of making as much money as possible and then returning to their country of origin with a king’s ransom. Perhaps more importantly, recipients of the H-1B build a personal and professional network and develop skills they don’t have access to anywhere else in the world. Many of these immigrants return to their home countries with these new talents and kick-start industries there. The Indian city of Banglore is a prominent example where previous H-1B recipients have helped develop the rest of the world; its most common nickname has become “the Silicon Valley of India.” Therefore, the H-1B clearly benefits its recipients and the world outside the United States.

The H-1B program has been so instrumental to American dominance of the science and technology realms that a new startup visa for foreign entrepreneurs to start businesses in the U.S. and a new merit-based visa with 250,000 yearly recipients are both currently being considered by Congress. Thus, let there be no doubt that the program is widely viewed as a success and that its recipients are in high demand. For the past two decades, top talent has immigrated to the United States to innovate, be around other intellectuals, and to get rewarded financially for their contributions. Much as with recruiting for an all-star team, the United States has been the fortunate recipient of the prosperity inherent with the brain drain of other nations into the United States. Perhaps the country’s greatest advantage is the American ideal that “the squeaky wheel gets the grease.” There is no telling how bright this nation’s future will be if it continue to foster critical and creative thinking domestically while offering opportunities like the H-1B visa for the world’s best to innovate alongside this country’s own citizens.

As we celebrated Independence Day, we remembered the sacrifices made by our founding countrymen in order to achieve freedom. More than 237 years later, historic sacrifices are marking the halls of the U.S. Capitol – the immigration debate.

Both President Barack Obama and former Gov. Mitt Romney (R-Mass.) pledged to restructure our broken immigration system during the 2012 presidential campaign. The bipartisan “Gang of Eight” subsequently emerged in the Senate as the chief architects addressing the lapse in border security, which permitted the entrance of 11 million immigrants currently living unlawfully in the United States.

Earlier this year, the Senate Judiciary Committee released the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act (S.744) for debate.

In a condensed summary, the Senate bill transforms border security through additional border patrol agents and the usage of new technologies, reorganizes the visa system to promote legal immigration, and outlines a path to citizenship promoting assimilation and granting provisional status to eligible immigrants who entered the country before December 31, 2011. The legislation requires provisional applicants to pay a fine and prohibits them from receiving federal benefits for a probationary time period of thirteen years.

On June 27, after floor consideration of more than a dozen significant amendments and hours of debate, the U.S. Senate overwhelmingly passed the bipartisan legislation in a 68-32 vote, shortly before Congress adjourned for the Fourth of July recess. The passage reaffirmed functionality within the legislative branch by illustrating the art of compromise.

The bill’s passage is monumental given the hyperpartisan nature of the current Congress, where partisan posturing and polarization supersede rational policymaking. But crisis was circumvented in the Senate, largely due to the efforts of Sen. John Hoeven (R-ND) and Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) who jointly offered an amendment pacifying apprehensive Republicans while maintaining Democratic palatability.

The Hoeven/Corker amendment padded the bill with an additional 40,000 border patrol agents, authorized the usage of new technologies, and required the construction of 700 miles of fencing along the U.S.-Mexican border. The price tag of the additional border security amounts to north of $36 billion, but it was the price leaders were willing to pay to attract the votes of key GOP senators. The amendment was also adopted to begin building Republican support in the House, which is largely controlled by conservatives who champion border security as the primary concern.

Former Gov. Jeb Bush (R-Fla.), the brother of former President George W. Bush, has been a principal congressional advisor regarding immigration policy. At a recent Bipartisan Policy Center immigration forum alongside former Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, Bush suggested “reframing the conversation about how economic growth matters to everybody and everybody benefits from it.”

Now consider the newly released report by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, which finds that S.744 could reduce the budget deficit by $158 billion between 2014 and 2023, and an additional $685 billion in the succeeding decade. The report illustrates that the “direct effects of the Act on the U.S. population, employment, and taxable compensation” benefit the economy by granting legal status to millions of new taxpayers, largely from payroll and income taxes. These workers would immediately begin contributing to programs like Social Security and Medicare without receiving government benefits throughout their probationary period.

But the highly complex 1,200 page bill will likely face an uphill battle in the House – which is said to represent the public heartbeat as the chamber most closely associated with the people. The future of our immigration system now largely rests under the reigns of Speaker John Boehner, who plans to begin consideration of individual bills under a piecemeal approach in mid-July when Congress returns from recess.

The Republican conference has painted a bleak picture for Boehner if he brings the comprehensive legislation to the floor. Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.) went as far as saying that “Boehner should be removed as Speaker” should he violate the Hastert Rule, which requires support of the majority before legislation is considered on the floor.

The bridge-builder could be Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), who has been an unlikely champion of the Senate bill under the banner of promoting economic growth. Ryan recently implied that instead of introducing the Senate-approved bill outright, the House will indeed introduce reforms “on our own time and in a very methodical way because we want to make sure we get it right” but with balance and responsibility.

The Republican conference trusts Paul Ryan. He is the face of conservatism in Congress, but he has shown willingness to work with Democrats on controversial issues, including Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.), who leads the “Gang of Seven” in the House.

Congressman Ryan’s blessing could embolden GOP support for bipartisan legislation and could even provide cover for conservatives, similar to what happened during the “fiscal cliff” crisis in January.

Ryan understands the importance of immigration reform after serving as the vice presidential nominee on the ticket that garnered lackluster support from Hispanics, especially in critical swing states like Florida, Ohio, and Colorado. The Republican ticket managed to attract only 27% of Hispanic support in 2012, a dramatic reduction from 2004 when President George W. Bush’s “compassionate conservatism” attracted 44 percent.

Ryan also realizes that his efforts could endanger his political aspirations should he lose balance given today’s polarized GOP, including potential campaigns for the Republican presidential nomination or as Speaker of the House. But he has shown it is a risk he is willing to take in pursuit of a balanced solution.

Regardless of downdrafts in the unstable political atmosphere, the assured victor of immigration reform is the U.S. economy. But there will be also be losers – likely those who obstruct reforms altogether. If House Republicans manufacture a legislative impasse, the GOP will likely risk significant intraparty fragmentation and the permanent defection of an expanding voting-bloc who values faith, family, and opportunity – all pillars of the Republican platform.

In the words of Gov. Jeb Bush, “failure to harness the vitality of immigrants will consign our nation to a bleak future.” Failure to act will likely consign the GOP to a similar fate.