A YES VOTE ON H.R. 4970 IS A VOTE AGAINST VAWA AND AGAINST ALL VICTIMS OF VIOLENCE

It’s Time To Go In-District And Tell Your Representative: The Adams Bill (H.R. 4970) Is Dangerous For Victims Of Violence and Protects Abusers. It Is Not The Real VAWA!

On Tuesday, the House Judiciary Committee marked up and passed the Adams (R-FL) version of VAWA, H.R. 4970.  This bill is DANGEROUS to victims and survivors of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault and stalking. The only way that we will be able to defeat it is if we make clear to every Representative in every district that they CANNOT support this bill.  We have to tell them:  you MUST stand up for EVERY victim of violence by OPPOSING H.R. 4970 – and if you don’t, we can’t stand up for you.

TAKE ACTION!!

The Adams bill is DANGEROUS for victims because:

• Audit requirements are excessive, burdensome and costly AND DIVERT PRECIOUS GRANT DOLLARS FROM DIRECT SERVICES TO BUREAUCRACY.

• Unacceptable “Gender-neutral” language ignores, rather than addresses, issues of LGBT victims.

• Limits the U visa program, barring the use of unused visas, AND WILL PUNISH victims WHO WORK with law enforcement to bring perpetrators to justice.

• Erodes important provisions for immigrant victims’ safety and GIVES ABUSERS ADDITIONAL TOOLS WITH WHICH TO HARM VICTIMS.

• Fails to address the crisis of violence against American Indian women by not recognizing tribal court authority to hold perpetrators accountable.

• Fails to include key provisions needed to help reduce violence against young women.

• Harsh mandatory minimum sentences on a number of crimes would have a chilling effect on victim reporting and would not help to hold perpetrators accountable.

ACTION 1:  PLEASE CONTACT – BY PHONE, EMAIL OR IN PERSON VISIT - THE DISTRICT OFFICE OF YOUR CONGRESS PERSON AND TELL THEM:

We strongly oppose the Adams bill. The House Judiciary Committee’s passage of H.R. 4970 on Tuesday is NOT a victory – it HARMS victims of violence.  We believe that a YES vote on H.R. 4970 is anti-victim and a NO vote on VAWA.  We oppose the Adams bill because it is NOT the REAL VAWA, it doesn’t include protections for all victims and it rolls back protections for victims of violence. It is DANGEROUS for survivors of violence.   We support a bill like the bi-partisan Senate bill that protects Native victims, immigrant victims, LGBT victims and other marginalized communities.  We do not think the House Judiciary Committee passed a REAL VAWA and we need the House leadership to support ALL victims. The House Judiciary Committee allowed no chance to discuss humane alternatives that treat victims with respect and decency. There is bipartisan support in the House for a reauthorization of VAWA that more closely resembles the Senate-passed bill (S. 1925) and Members should have a chance to weigh the merits of any and all alternatives to the Adams bill before they vote for final passage of VAWA.

Find your Representative here:  http://house.gov/ This conversation needs to happen in EVERY DISTRICT OFFICE. Use the National Task Force’s toolkit to help with your advocacy!  Use our talking points about H.R. 4970 and how it’s DANGEROUS for victims that are at the end of this e-blast.

EVERY Representative needs to hear from us, but here are the ones that need to hear from us FIRST!

Biggert, Judy (R-IL)                        (202) 225-3515

Hayworth, Nan (R-NY)                   (202) 225-5441

Herrera Beutler, Jaime (R-WA)   (202) 225-3536

Ros-Lehtinen, Ileana (R-FL)       (202) 225-3931

ACTION 2:  CALL HOUSE LEADERSHIP AND TELL THEM THAT YOU THINK H.R. 4970 HARMS VICTIMS AND IS NOT THE REAL VAWA:

Speaker John Boehner (R-OH), (202) 225-0600 (Leadership Office), (202) 225-6205 (Personal Office), (513) 779-5400 (Westchester District Office), (937) 339-1524 (Troy District Office)

Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA), (202) 225-4000

Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), (202) 225-2915

and say:

We strongly oppose the Adams bill. The House Judiciary Committee’s passage of H.R. 4970 on Tuesday is NOT a victory – it HARMS victims of violence.  We believe that a YES vote on H.R. 4970 is anti-victim and a NO vote on VAWA.  We oppose the Adams bill because it is NOT the REAL VAWA, it doesn’t include protections for all victims and it rolls back protections for victims of violence. It is DANGEROUS for survivors of violence.   We support a bill like the bi-partisan Senate bill that protects Native victims, immigrant victims, LGBT victims and other marginalized communities.  We do not think the House Judiciary Committee passed a REAL VAWA and we need the House leadership to support ALL victims. The House Judiciary Committee allowed no chance to discuss humane alternatives that treat victims with respect and decency. There is bipartisan support in the House for a reauthorization of VAWA that more closely resembles the Senate-passed bill (S. 1925) and Members should have a chance to weigh the merits of any and all alternatives to the Adams bill before they vote for final passage of VAWA.  National organizations that support victims and survivors of violence will support your NO vote on H.R. 4970.  Instead, please demand an open debate on the floor.

FACTS TO USE IN YOUR ADVOCACY:

The Adams bill is DANGEROUS for victims because:

Audit requirements are excessive, burdensome and costly AND DIVERT PRECIOUS GRANT DOLLARS FROM DIRECT SERVICES TO BUREAUCRACY.

·        Since its enactment, VAWA has included important reporting and oversight provisions both for grantees and for the Department of Justice (“DoJ”).

·        In separate letters addressed to Congressman Poe and Senator Leahy, DoJ has reported that “VAWA grants are being used effectively for their intended purpose,” that “grant management and grantee recordkeeping are generally sound,” and that when auditing problems arise, they are “not about waste, fraud or abuse, but rather about inadequate accounting and insufficient documentation” and are quickly resolved.

·        The resources required to implement this substantial new audit requirement would be better spent on technical assistance and financial training for the hundreds of small police departments, courts, and non-profits who are OVW grantees.

Unacceptable “Gender-neutral” language ignores, rather than addresses, issues of LGBT victims.

Gender-neutral language does not adequately address the need for services for LGBT survivors.

·      LGBTQ people face domestic violence at the same rates as other community:  25-33%.  Yet, a 2011 survey found that nearly 85% of service providers worked with LGBT clients who reported that they were turned away or denied services because of their sexual orientation and/or gender identity.  In a 2010 report, nearly half of LGBTQ survivors were turned away from domestic violence shelter and nearly a quarter are mis-arrested as the primary aggressor by local law enforcement.  More than 55% of LGBTQ survivors were denied orders of protection and only 7% of all victims reported violence to the police.

·      LGBTQ people are underserved because of their sexual orientation and gender identity, not just their gender, and should be included in this Act explicitly and not through a “gender neutral” approach that does not remove to the barriers created by homophobia

• Lesbians are not turned away from shelter or services because they are women, but because they are lesbians. While there are already provisions in VAWA that prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex, gay men continue to be denied services and to have their relationships minimized, being told that theirs is an issue of battery not domestic violence. Transgender people are not turned away because of their sex assigned at birth but because of their gender presentation and expression that service providers do not understand and therefore cannot address.  VAWA must protect all victims of violence.  LGBTQ victims of violence face barriers and stigma in seeking services when they are victimized by domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault or stalking.

• Simply making VAWA gender neutral in STOP provisions will not give the Office on Violence Against Women or State STOP Administrators enough specificity about Congress’s intent to protect LGBTQ victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault and stalking.  Much of VAWA is already gender neutral but still many State STOP Administrators interpret VAWA to exclude LGBTQ programs.  This VAWA can give State STOP Administrators the direction they need to protect all victims.

• In a recent poll, testing three LGBT provisions that were added to the Senate VAWA bill, sixty-two percent of respondents support “including gays and lesbians in the group that is protected under this law,” compared with only 30 percent who are opposed to that addition. Among women, 67 percent support expanding the law to cover gays and lesbians, as do 77 percent of respondents ages 18-29 and 69 percent of those 18-49.

Limits the U visa program, barring the use of unused visas, AND WILL PUNISH victims WHO WORK with law enforcement to bring perpetrators to justice.

·        Victims of crime should be able to work with law enforcement to bring perpetrators to justice. Limiting the U-visa certification process will discourage victims from coming forward and cooperating with law enforcement. Yet law enforcement tells us that failing to report crimes like these only exacerbates their negative impact on the community. Considering that many who commit U-visa crimes are serial perpetrators, law enforcement wants victims to come forward regardless of whether there is an active investigation or prosecution has begun .

·        Restrictive certification requirements discourage cooperation with law enforcement.  Victims who were hurt even long ago can provide useful information in holding serial perpetrators accountable.  This is true for citizen victims as well as immigrant victims. Research on reporting also shows that this would hurt sexual assault victims the most.

Erodes important provisions for immigrant victims’ safety and GIVES ABUSERS ADDITIONAL TOOLS WITH WHICH TO HARM VICTIMS.

·      Amendments allowing the alleged abuser access to the self-petition process creates a chilling effect on victims’ help-seeking.  Abusers who could have adjusted the status of their spouse and chose not to as a tool of abuse and fear will be in a position to block the victim’s access to this critical remedy for battered immigrants. Informing and allowing alleged abusers to provide input in these cases puts victims at risk of retaliation. Abusers frequently deny the abuse and falsely accuse victims of fraud or abuse. It increases motives for abusers to contact ICE to try to stop their spouse from getting legal status.

·        Shifting the self-petition process to local offices is duplicative, expensive, and does not address concerns about fraud. Adding an additional interview requirement is unnecessary, would be very costly and would require extensive training on domestic violence and sexual assault at USCIS offices across the country. Currently, the specialized USCIS center that adjudicates these applications is trained to weigh the evidence and ferret out fraud and can request additional evidence if necessary. Additionally, self-petition applicants have to attend an interview at their local offices to adjust their status to lawful permanent residence. The double interview requirement places an extra hurdle for victims of abuse not required for other applicants for status.

·      Adding an interview process to VAWA cancellation of removal hearings to local offices is duplicative and expensive. In VAWA cancellation of removal cases, the petitioner appears at hearings with an immigration judge, so a separate interview places an unnecessary burden. Adding an interview process to VAWA cancellation hearings will slow immigration court cases down immensely, bogging down the court calendar further.

Fails to address the crisis of violence against American Indian women by not recognizing tribal court authority to hold perpetrators accountable.

• Indian women face rates of violent victimization more than double that of non-Indian women; the USDOJ estimate that 1 of 3 Indian women will be raped, and that 2 of 5 will be the victims of domestic violence.

• The USDOJ also reports that 4 of 5 Indian victims of sexual assault described their assailant as white; 3 of 4 Indian victims of intimate violence describe the offender as a person of a different race.

• These numbers evidence a jurisdictional gap allowing non-Indians to beat and rape Indian women on tribal lands knowing the tribal government has no legal authority to criminally prosecute non-Indians.  The Department of Justice has testified that this system of justice is insufficient to address the epidemic of violence against Native women.

• Tribal courts must have the authority to hold non-Indians living on tribal lands or working for Indian tribes that commit domestic violence against an Indian women accountable to create safe communities.  Tribal Courts must also have the clear authority to prosecute non-Indian offenders that violate an order of protection.

• State courts and state law enforcement have said very clearly that they cannot take on the responsibility of addressing this horrific level of victimization. The federal government also lacks the resources to address this problem alone, as evidenced by the incredibly low federal prosecution rates in Indian Country.

• The National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges and the Conference of Chief Justices have adopted policies recognizing the sovereign jurisdiction of tribal courts, and are committed to supporting tribal courts in their efforts to protect the women who are victimized on their lands holding offenders accountable.

Undermines the strength of the lifesaving housing protections in VAWA

Emergency transfers:

· One of the most pressing needs identified by victims and their advocates is the ability to relocate/transfer to a safe home to escape violence.

· The housing emergency relocation and transfer section in VAWA should (as it does in the Senate passed S.1925) require that owners, managers and public housing agencies (PHAs)  adopt the transfer plan developed by federal agencies.

· HR 4970 makes the adoption of such a plan voluntary by owners, managers and PHAs, essentially undermining the remaining components of this potentially lifesaving provision.

Notice of rights:

· The housing rights codified by VAWA protect victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault and stalking from eviction or denial of benefit based on their status as victims and/or the actions of their perpetrators.

· In order to enjoy these rights and avoid unlawful eviction, notice of VAWA rights should be distributed at key times, specifically at eviction.  Without adequate notice, victims will never know they have the right not to be evicted based on the actions of their perpetrators or as a result of violence/assault.

· By giving notice at eviction, owners, managers and PHAs can help victims come forward and avoid costly, contentious and unnecessary eviction proceedings.

· HR 4970 does not require notice at eviction, unlike the Senate passed S. 1925

Fails to include key provisions needed to help reduce violence against young women.

· Institutions would have to  include in their annual campus crime reports statistics on domestic violence, dating violence and stalking (sexual assault is already in the Clery Act) reported on campus and would have to provide clear statements regarding the procedures followed when a case of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault or stalking is reported.

· Victims would be required to receive a written an explanation of their rights any time they report being a victim of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault or stalking, including:

o victim’s right to notify (or not notify) law enforcement if they choose to do so;

o obligation of institution to help the victim report the incident to law enforcement and seek a protective order from a local court;

o victim’s options regarding changing academic, living, transportation and working situations, if the victim so requests and such accommodations are reasonably available

· Institutions would have to establish clear, prompt and equitable procedures for on-campus disciplinary action in cases of alleged domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault or stalking

· Would provide both the victim and the accused with the right to have another person present at disciplinary proceedings

· Would provide prevention programs teaching all students, male and female, how to help prevent sexual violence and dating violence, including bystander education.

Harsh mandatory minimum sentences on a number of crimes would have a chilling effect on victim reporting and would not help to hold perpetrators accountable.

• Long mandatory minimum sentences can keep victims who were assaulted by someone they know from reporting the crime.

• Mandatory minimums for sex offenders are likely to result in pleas to non-sex offense crimes. The individuals will then not be identified as sex offenders for purposes of registration, treatment, etc.

• The American Bar Association, the Judicial Conference of the United States and every major organization focusing on criminal justice opposes mandatory minimum sentences.

• A 2008 poll found that fully 78 percent of Americans agree that courts, not Congress, should determine an individual’s sentence.

• Expanded use of prison sentences for drug crimes and longer sentences required by mandatory minimums have caused a dramatic increase in state and federal corrections costs. State corrections spending jumped from $6 billion in 1982 to over $50 billion in 2008.

• None of these proposals were vetted, much less approved by the field of advocates whose proposal forms the basis of S. 1925, the Leahy-Crapo VAWA reauthorization bill. These proposals are solutions in search of problems, and will only serve to exacerbate the already existing problem of prison overcrowding.

ACTION 2: CALL HOUSE LEADERSHIP, SPEAKER BOEHNER. AND TELL HIM THAT YOU THINK H.R. 4970 HARMS VICTIMS AND IS NOT THE REAL VAWA

Church looks into immigration services

By MARTA HEPLER DRAHOS, mdrahos@record-eagle.com
—-

TRAVERSE CITY — All Alline Beutler’s brother and his bride wanted for their wedding was her U.S. green card. But obtaining one turned out to be a long, frustrating process.

“I saw how challenging that was for them, and they both have higher degrees,” said Beutler, director of adult Christian education at Central United Methodist Church in Traverse City. Beutler’s sister-in-law immigrated from China.

“I can’t image how people who are vulnerable, trying to flee violence or poverty in their country, would negotiate this,” Beutler said.

Now Beutler and fellow congregant Susan Norkowski are spearheading an immigration ministry at the church. They’re looking into ways the church might lend a helping hand to low-income families navigating the maze of rules and laws.

The church will host a U.S. Citizenship Clinic Saturday, April 28. People with green cards who qualify for naturalization can get help with forms, copying documents and putting packets together for review by an onsite immigration lawyer.

The clinic is from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. Pre-registration at 946-5191 is required; free child care and translation services will be available.

“There’s a huge immigrant population in our region,” said Norkowski, a former immigration and state department caseworker for Congressman Bart Stupak. “People come for all sorts of reasons, whether they’re sponsored by a family member or employment, whether they’re refugees, were evacuated from their home country because of natural disaster, or are military spouses moved around from base to base.

“And U.S. immigration laws are extremely complex and difficult for the average person to navigate. Their immigration journey doesn’t end when they cross the border,” Norkowski said.

The mass of paperwork is complicated and the process is expensive, she said.

Add to that, immigration services aren’t that common north of Grand Rapids, meaning there’s the added expense of travel and child care.

The task force at Central Church is looking into establishing a local chapter of a national program, Justice for Our Neighbors.

The faith-based ministry provides free legal services, education and advocacy and was formed as a response to the immigration reform act of 1996.

It kicked into high gear after stricter laws were passed following 9/11 and the Patriot Act.

Church-based clinics help with everything from visas and naturalization to family petitions.

Justice for Our Neighbors of West Michigan was established in 2004 and has helped more than 1,200 immigrants from 60 countries.

“There are more and more immigrants settling in small communities,” said coordinator Laura Rampersad, who married a man from Trinidad and then struggled to help him obtain his green card. “That’s why JFON started. They can’t get to Detroit to see the attorney.”

On Wednesday, April 25, while many of us will be busy at General Conference, the Supreme Court will hear arguments regarding the constitutionality of Arizona’s anti-immigrant law, SB 1070. The Supreme Court ruling will either rightly to stop states from enacting these unjust laws, or will pave the way for continued racial profiling and marginalization of immigrant communities.

It might feel to most of us that the arguments before the court and the subsequent ruling are beyond our ability to influence, but there is something vitally important that we can do: We can pray!

I believe in prayer. I have seen prayer bring physical healing, transform lives and bring salvation to those who are lost. I believe in social justice and I believe in prayer: One is impossible without the other. And now is the time for us to pray.

I urge you to open your church the morning of April 25, the day when the Supreme Court will hear arguments. Allow folks to come in to spend time in prayer.

Here is what you can pray for:

• Pray for protection of the lives of immigrants continually enduring unfair suspicion, racial profiling, and economic and social marginalization because of anti-immigrant laws enacted in several other states since Arizona enacted SB 1070.

• Pray for wisdom for Supreme Court justices: wisdom to not only interpret the U.S. Constitution, but wisdom to hear the stories of immigrants whose lives have been devastated by these anti-immigrant state laws that all started with Arizona’s SB 1070.

• Pray for the lawyers who will be arguing before the Supreme Court. Pray for their words to be articulate, persuasive and powerful. Pray that they carry with them not only the legal expertise needed to debate the law, but the passion of the lives of millions for whom they are defending.

It will be several months before we know the outcome, but I am strengthened by the words of United Methodist Bishop Minerva Carcaño of the Desert Southwest Conference.

In  reflecting on the upcoming Supreme Court arguments, the bishop said, “We have seen firsthand the devastating effect of anti-immigrant legislation on all Arizonans, immigrant and non-immigrant alike. I have confidence that the U.S. Supreme Court will repeal SB 1070.

“However, even if the Supreme Court is unable to make this right and bold decision, United Methodists in Arizona and across the U.S. will stand firmly and compassionately with our immigrant brothers and sisters.”

Yes we will, Bishop. And we can start on April 25 by praying together.

In Christ,

Bill Mefford
Director, Civil & Human Rights

Jan 19, 2012 - Walter Ewing, American Immigration Council

This month, the U.S. Border Patrol is set to end the practice of sending unauthorized Mexican immigrants back to Mexico without any sort of punishment. As reported by the Associated Press (AP), the Border Patrol believes it now has sufficient resources and personnel “to begin imposing more serious consequences on almost everyone it catches from Texas to San Diego.” This new policy, however, is as misguided as it is ambitious.  While protecting our borders is certainly important, the Border Patrol will waste even more resources than it already does on criminalizing unauthorized immigration rather than targeting the dangerous cartels that smuggle unauthorized immigrants into the country. Furthermore, the Border Patrol’s new policy threatens to inundate federal courts and prisons with even more non-violent immigration offenders.

The crux of the Border Patrol’s new policy is a “Consequence Delivery System” which assigns apprehended immigrants to one of seven categories, ranging from first-time border-crossers to individuals with criminal records. Children and the ill will still be returned to their home countries without punitive action, but everyone else will be subject to some sort of penalty. As the AP reports, the consequences “can be severe for detained migrants and expensive to American taxpayers, including felony prosecution or being taken to an unfamiliar border city hundreds of miles away to be sent back to Mexico.” This strategy was implemented in the Tucson Sector’s Central Corridor starting on September 5, 2009. The new policy will expand it to the entire border.

To read more

January 6, 2012

Washington D.C. - Today, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced a proposal <http://wfc2.wiredforchange.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=jB3QdSEhV69fwyzq6×74E4NJTzvb6iwb>  to streamline the application process for the spouses and children of U.S. citizens currently eligible for legal permanent resident status, minimizing the amount of time that applicants would have to be separated from their families.  Under current procedures, thousands of persons who qualify for legal status must leave the U.S. to obtain their permanent resident status, but as soon as they leave, they are immediately barred from re-entering for 3 or 10 years if they have been unlawfully present in the U.S. for more than 180 days.  Many are eligible for a family unity waiver, but under current rules (not law), the waiver can only be applied for from overseas.  Because that process can often take many months and even years, it is believed that many otherwise eligible applicants do not apply for legal permanent resident status, remaining unauthorized in the U.S. rather than risk lengthy separation from their families.

Published in the Federal Register today, the proposal—or, at this point, a “notice of intent to issue a rule”— recognizes this Catch-22 by revising the procedures for determining the family unity waivers for spouses and children of U.S. citizens. However, the rule change will not cover spouses and children of legal permanent residents. Under this “in-country processing” proposal, which must still go through the formal rule-making process <http://wfc2.wiredforchange.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=wA9VWyu3L7almiTw%2BuDDP4NJTzvb6iwb> , spouses and children of U.S. citizens who apply for legal permanent residence and need a family unity waiver to re-enter the U.S. will be allowed to apply for the waiver without first leaving.  This process does not alter or revise eligibility standards and only affects persons whose sole need for a waiver is based on having been in the U.S. without authorization.  This “in-country processing” proposal would permit USCIS to grant a provisional waiver, eliminating the often prolonged wait that many applicants currently face when they seek a waiver outside the U.S.

Although applicants would still be required to depart from the U.S. before receiving final approval on their application, pre-processing of the family unity waiver will encourage applicants to come forward and create a faster and safer means for processing applications.  The emphasis on safety is particularly important, given the large number of applications processed in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico, a city that has been wracked with violence in recent years.  Numerous cases of violence against persons waiting for their waivers have been reported, increasing the urgency of implementing the new rule quickly.  For other applicants, the streamlined process will minimize the time away from family members, reducing the possibility of economic and other hardships caused by long separations. Our current immigration laws are riddled with inconsistent and conflicting provisions which have the absurd result of discouraging legal immigration.  Some of the most notorious are the bars to returning to the U.S. after a period of unlawful presence, even if a person has a legitimate relationship to a U.S. citizen.   Today’s announcement does not eliminate the bars, but it recognizes that there is no practical reason for forcing the spouses and children of U.S. citizens to wait outside the country for months or even years while their application for a waiver is pending.  According to Benjamin Johnson, Executive Director of the American Immigration Council, “By proposing new rules for processing waiver applications for spouses and children of U.S. citizens, USCIS has shown a commitment to addressing one of the most notorious implementation problems in our current immigration system.  Improving this system, within the framework of the law, is the legitimate role of any administration.  We commend USCIS for embarking on this rule change and its other attempts to bring efficiencies and fairness to the immigration system.” ###

Press release from : The American Immigration Council <http://wfc2.wiredforchange.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=7lzgafK4DArYlOeY%2FeKjw4NJTzvb6iwb>

Michigan Governor Rick Snyder moved boldly last week when he announced a series of immigration proposals that would help stimulate Michigan’s economy. The proposals would attract highly talented international students and workers, as well as investors. The potent mix of talent and investment would jump-start the state’s high-tech economy and create more jobs for all.

Snyder has chosen a progressive path, welcoming those who want to contribute to our state. We need more Republican governors to follow this example, especially in light of the controversial anti-immigrant laws passed in other states that have undermined both civil rights and the economy. We should turn away from these divisive politics, and focus on practical ways to create jobs. Snyder’s immigration proposals do just that.

The proposals address two key groups: international investors and international students with hightech degrees.  Snyder will request Congress to change visa rules (the EB-5 program) to make it easier for foreign investors and entrepreneurs to start businesses in Michigan, provided that they create at least 5 jobs.

Many investors would love to start a new life in America, but are unable to get the appropriate visa.  We should make it as easy as possible for those jobs to come to Michigan.  The Governor also wants Congress to authorize special Green Cards for international graduates of Michigan colleges with degrees in science, technology, engineering or math. The current system makes it very difficult for these students to stay in the United States, and most often they must leave the country and use their advanced degrees to work for foreign competitors. These changes could create an influx of investment and talent to Michigan, helping to fuel high-tech jobs for the whole state.

Michigan was the only state in the last census to lose population. Many of our big cities have seen their populations shrink rapidly. Tax rolls are declining and schools are standing empty. We certainly need policies to support our current residents’ needs, especially in urban areas, however immigration must also be a key strategy to address this population crisis.

Snyder’s proposals set up a stark contrast to states like Arizona, Alabama and Georgia, where harsh anti-immigration laws have hobbled their state’s agriculture industries, leading to millions of dollars in losses and many lost jobs. By choosing a practical approach to immigration instead of petty politics, we can boost new industries, rebuild neighborhoods, and put Michigan on track for growth and prosperity. Governor Snyder should be applauded for taking the high road, and Congress should support his proposals.

The West Michigan Conference was chosen by the UMC General Board of Church and society as 1 of the 7 national pilot Immigrant Welcoming Congregations programs.

The IWC Program is based on a successful model developed and successfully completed with a group of downtown Chicago congregations last year. Our goal with the 1-year journey is to build “Immigrant Welcoming Congregations” by equipping churches to travel from mercy to justice, from service-only to multi-faceted friendships, from ministering to – to being transformed alongside the new immigrant. The IWC Program offers us a creative, concrete way to collaborate with a general agency and assist local churches in engaging in meaningful ministry in their local context.

How will this work?

We will be identifying and supporting 8-10 congregations to take part in this voluntary program. In our conference, the project will be managed by Justice for Our Neighbors.  The regional coordinator will supervise the program and manage the grant.  The JFON attorney will be available to the project as a speaker and technical advisor.

Each congregation will appoint 2 to 4 volunteer leaders to organize their members and customize a plan for their congregation and/or community.  They will work directly with the Justice Discipler to plan and execute several events or activities throughout the year.  The Justice Discipler will provide leadership and secure materials to help them reach their goals for justice actions while honoring whatever place on the path they may find themselves.  Local Leaders from all participating congregations will meet as group at planned retreats to share ideas and information.

To learn more about this project, we are hosting a retreat on Saturday, February 25th.  Please contact Laura Rampersad if you have questions or would like to reserve a spot at the retreat.

Intern Position Available

JFON will be hiring an intern to manage this project.  For more information about the position - intern job description (pdf)

Please consider JFON when you pledge and spread the word with family and friends!

On Nov. 17th , MOP leaders in Sturgis held an awesome action, packing out the local Catholic Church to challenge their State Rep. Matt Lori who co-sponsored the MI version of the AZ anti-immigrant bill.  Over 300 people turned out, and Rep. Lori committed to vote AGAINST this anti-immigrant proposal that he had cosponsored himself!!!  Great work by Sturgis MOP leaders who planned this and pulled it off without even having an organizer working full time in their city!!!

They have a follow up meeting to discuss state level E-verify, plus a commitment from Rep. Lori to read all the info we send him and make a commitment in the next meeting!

Si se puede!

The redesignation of Haitian TPS was announced by USCIS in the Federal Register on May 19, 2011. Under the redesignation, certain individuals who currently do not have TPS, or a TPS application pending, may apply for TPS through November 15, 2011. We want to alert you to resources on TPS available through the Immigration Advocates Network (IAN), our partners, and other advocates.

Resources on TPS:

Catholic Legal Immigration Network
The Catholic Legal Immigration Network (CLINIC) offers a list of resources
and links on Haitian TPS at
http://cliniclegal.org/resources/haitian-relief-resources.

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) provides an information
page on TPS at http://1.usa.gov/7caPVd.