D.C. RALLY TO SUPPORT IMMIGRATION REFORM

Great story at the Washington Post about the immigration ralley to support reform this week:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/rally-for-immigration-reform-expected-to-draw-tens-of-thousands/2013/04/10/466c9d14-a152-11e2-9c03-6952ff305f35_story.html

IMMIGRATION REFORM BILL ALMOST READY

Politico is reporting more details on the Senate immigration bill. All terms appear to be negotiated and it could be introduced as early as tomorrow, but more likely next week. The timetable for the bill will be somewhat slower than what President Obama hoped. The Senate Judiciary Committee will hold hearings first and then begin markup in early May, according to the report. Great news, hope this passes this year!  http://www.politico.com/story/2013/04/senates-gang-of-eight-immigration-deal-89832.html

AP DROPS "ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT" TERM

Some good news for immigrants this week.
Two years ago the Society of Professional Journalists passed a resolution urging all journalists to stop using the term "Illegal immigrant." The Associated Press finally announced today it would stop using this term too. Other organizations like the NY Times still are using the term, though they are said to be reviewing the policy now.
Here is part of the AP's explanation: The Stylebook no longer sanctions the term “illegal immigrant” or the use of “illegal” to describe a person. Instead, it tells users that “illegal” should describe only an action, such as living in or immigrating to a country illegally.
Why did we make the change? The discussions on this topic have been wide-ranging and include many people from many walks of life. (Earlier, they led us to reject descriptions such as “undocumented,” despite ardent support from some quarters, because it is not precise. A person may have plenty of documents, just not the ones required for legal residence.)
So how should AP reporters write about these immigrants? Here's what the AP manual now says on the topic: illegal immigration entering or residing in a country in violation of civil or criminal law. Except in direct quotes essential to the story, use illegal only to refer to an action, not a person: illegal immigration, but not illegal immigrant. Acceptable variations include living in or entering a country illegally or without legal permission. 
Except in direct quotations, do not use the terms illegal alien, an illegal, illegals or undocumented. Do not describe people as violating immigration laws without attribution. Specify wherever possible how someone entered the country illegally and from where. Crossed the border? Overstayed a visa? What nationality? People who were brought into the country as children should not be described as having immigrated illegally. For people granted a temporary right to remain in the U.S. under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, use temporary resident status, with details on the program lower in the story.
I never liked these words, they alienated and dehumanized the subjects which is what they were intended to do. We are talking about people, not aliens from the outer dimension an saying that a person is illegal is just plain wrong. I am glad these phrases will soon be gone from the press.

FACEBOOK'S ZUCKERBERG ORGANIZING SUPER PAC FOR IMMIGRATION REFORM

According to the Silicon Valley Business Journal, Facebook’s founder and CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, is organizing a Super PAC - political advocacy group for immigration reform issues that are near and dear to the tech community in the area. According to the San Francisco Chronicle Zuckerberg is ready to personally invest up to $20 million, and other technology leaders in the area may follow his suit. If this new advocacy group is going to be registered as a nonprofit, it could also be treated as a Super PAC – which is exempt from some donor disclosure rules, thanks to the 2010 Supreme Court case Citizens United v. FEC.

Comedy Central’s Stephen Colbert made powerful examples against allowing Super PACs to continue during his coverage of the 2012 presidential elections last year. However, since Congress is unlikely to do anything about that any time soon, I am very happy that some of the tech leaders are putting serious money towards immigration reform specifically needed to combat our legal immigration crisis – no sufficient H-1B visas and immigrant visas for legal, skilled, professional and advanced degree workers.

GANG OF 8 AGREES ON PATH TO CITIZENSHIP

From the LA Times:
Eight senators who have spent weeks trying to write a bipartisan bill to overhaul immigration laws have privately agreed on the most contentious part of the draft — how to offer legal status to the nation's 11 million illegal immigrants. According to aides familiar with the closed-door negotiations, the bill would require illegal immigrants to register with Homeland Security Department authorities, file federal income taxes for their time in America and pay a still-to-be-determined fine. They also must have a clean law enforcement record.
Once granted probationary legal status, immigrants would be allowed to work but would be barred from receiving federal public benefits, including food stamps, family cash assistance, Medicaid and unemployment insurance. The eight Senators still have not decided how long it will be before immigrants could file for permanent residency. The President has proposed eight years. The LA Times reports that the Senate will likely make the path at least ten years.
Other unresolved issues: - how many visas for highly skilled workers - how the guest worker program will work - exit tracking of immigrants - how much money can be allocated for border enforcement. Finally, the goal of introducing the bill by March 22nd appears to be slipping and early April may now be the time frame.

HB125 INSERTS UNJUST AND UNNECESSARY CHANGES TO HB87

In a last-minute attempt, some immigrant haters in Georgia added language to House Bill 125 that adds unjust and unnecessary changes to HB87. HB87 is bad enough, now HB 125 will exclude foreign passports from the list of "secure and verifiable" documents and add a driver's license to the list of "public benefits" although people have to pay to get them!

This is insane because many legal immigrants only have their foreign passports as proof of I.D. at least for the initial time in the country.

The ACLU of Georgia issued a very detailed letter explaining all these changes.
http://www.acluga.org/files/1913/6240/9299/HB125summarysheetFINAL.pdf

This is bad for people, including the legal immigrants in the state of Georgia. Call Governor Deal at (404)656-1776 and ask him to veto HB125.

LAWSUIT DISMISSED AGAINST SANDERSON FARMS

A lawsuit that accused poultry company Sanderson Farms, Inc., of knowingly hiring undocumented immigrants at a Moultrie, Georgia plant was recently dismissed by the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia. Sanderson Farms (Nasdaq: SAFM) is the country's third-largest chicken processor.
The law suit was filed by former employees of that plant, claiming that plant managers and human resources staff conspired in illegal hiring practices, accepting “obviously fake” employment documents from immigrants in order to save millions of dollars in labor costs.
The plaintiffs have filed an appeal of the dismissal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.