Posted by Angelo A. Paparelli on May 12, 2013

No Time for Rich-Whining, CIR Advocates Must Stay Focused on the Senate

Thumbnail image for grand vin Lafite.jpgWhile most of the nation fixated this week on black and brown American heroes in Cleveland, the attention of immigration advocates diverged.  They vacillated between delight with the imploding anti-immigration conservative movement and nail-biting over votes on a flood of amendments to the massive, bipartisan Gang of Eight bill in the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Schadenfreude abounded over the fall of Jason Richwine, proponent of the discredited eugenical theory of low-IQ Hispanic immigrants and co-author of an error-filled study, “The Fiscal Cost of Unlawful Immigrants and Amnesty to the U.S. Taxpayer.” Apparently gobsmacked by the torrent of criticism, Richwine resigned from the Heritage Foundation, which promptly distanced itself from the man, if not his report. 

Frissons of excitement intensified with the prospect that Richwine’s fall would, at long last, also unmask the rantings of nativist groups, too long disguised as principled think tanks, and cause Republican pragmatists and evangalelicals to reject the wingnuts on their party’s fringe. If anyone needed convincing of the link between opposition to immigration reform and white supremacists, then Rachel Maddow’s tour de force report vaporizes all doubt:

 

To be sure, there remain troubling questions about whether the current immigration system in America is inherently racist in its design, its effect or its enforcement, as this sometimes heated debate involving Unai Montes-Irueste, who writes for Politics 365, and immigration lawyers, Susan Pai and David Leopold, reveals:

 

Whatever the right answer (I could argue for all three positions), that debate will be left to historians if an enlightened form of comprehensive immigration reform (CIR) is enacted this year.  That won't happen, however, if the poison-pill pharmacists on the right are allowed to administer a deadly dose.  

Take for example, Sen. Ted Cruz (R. TX) who proposes a fatal amendment to bar any path to citizenship for the 11 million undocumented immigrants in the United States. Or consider the Downton Abbey amendment offered by Sen. Mike Lee (R. UT) which would allow Americans to hire the undocumented but only if they served (apparently only the 1%) as "cooks, waiters, butlers, housekeepers, governessess, maids, valets, baby sitters, janitors, laundresses, furnacemen, care-takers, handymen, gardeners, footmen, grooms, and chauffeurs of automobiles for family use."

It's not only about preventing bad amendments but also preserving and improving on good ones.  Take for example an amendment that markedly improved on the Gang of 8 version which would merely have expanded the jurisdiction of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) Ombudsman to also cover U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP).  Proposed by Sen. Mazie Hirono (D. HI) and passed by voice vote, Section 1114 of the CIR bill creates a new "Ombudsman for Immigration Related Concerns" with the power to:  

  • receive and resolve complaints from individuals and employers and assist in resolving problems with the immigration components of the Department [of Homeland Security].
  • conduct inspections of the facilities or contract facilities of the immigration components of the Department.  
  • identify areas in which individuals and employers have problems in dealing with the immigration components of the Department.  
  • determine whether an individual or employer is suffering or is about to suffer an immediate threat of adverse action as a result of the manner in which the immigration laws are being administered, and intervene as necessary.  
  • propose changes in the administrative practices of the immigration components of the Department to mitigate [identified] problems . . .
  • review, examine, and make recommendations regarding the immigration and enforcement policies, strategies, and programs of [CBP], [ICE], and [USCIS].
  • monitor the [three agencies' compliance] with law, regulations, and policy. [and] 
  • request the Inspector General of the Department of Homeland Security to conduct inspections, investigations, and audits.

Consider also various amendments not yet voted on which are proposed by Sen. Leahy (D. VT). One would modernize and make permanent the EB-5 regional center program for immigrant investors. Others would enact family-based immigration benefits for same-sex couples by way of the "Uniting American Families Act of 2013" and another measure would recognize for immigration purposes all marriages valid under the laws of any state or country, including same-sex nuptials.

Ponder as well the amendments long espoused by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R. IA) who would add the heavy hands of hamstringing regulations and enforcement to the H-1B and L-1 bill, in ways even worse than the bad ideas already in the G8 proposal.  These amendments (Grassley 57 to 67), along with the base bill, would stifle innovation not only in the tech industries but they would also essentially declare illegal the modern business practice of global sourcing of services on which so many American companies and customers rely.

The point of this post is not that revelry over the fall of xenophobes and eugenicists is wrong; rather, it is that celebrations of that sort are unaffordable luxuries. That wine is just too rich at this late hour.  

Advocates for enlightened CIR must instead keep eyes peeled on the Senate Judiciary Committee and its fast-and-furious consideration of amendments which will profoundly reshape in ways unforeseeable the rules for employment- and family-based immigration.  This week's action will focus on Title IV which would transform (in good and bad ways) many of the most heavily-used nonimmigrant visa categories and create new classifications whose contours will be decided in the coming weeks, perhaps as soon as Memorial Day. 

So save your gloating for another day.  Now, keep the Congressional feet to the fire. Let the word go out in Twitter feed and Facebook update, in radio/TV talk shows on cable, broadcast and satellite networks, in blog posts and letters to the editor.  Let calls overflow the capacity of the Capitol Switchboard.  We need a modernized immigration system that functions well; not one hampered by bureaucratic red tape and heavy-handed, guilty-until-proven-innocent enforcement. It must spur 21st Century innovation and job creation in the private sector. And it must be true to our bedrock values of family unity and refuge for the persecuted. From your mouths to the Senators' ears.

Posted by Angelo A. Paparelli on February 03, 2013

The Immigration Line is Too Damn Long (and Slow)

people mover.jpgSteadfastly opposing a path to citizenship for unauthorized immigrants, the anti-immigration crowd has long trumpeted an array of related memes:

  • Why don't they just get into line like everyone else?
  • Why don't they wait their turn?
  • Why don't they just follow the law?
  • Why should we reward lawbreakers who disrespect our laws?
  • Why should those here illegally be treated as VIP line-jumpers and given a path to citizenship while others have waited in line and played by the rules?

All of these questions presuppose that U.S. immigration law provides a feasible avenue to come here legally, that waiting patiently in the law-abider's queue in due course will lead one to the front of the visa line, that even entering under duress rather than enduring extreme economic hardship or political persecution -- as many have done -- shows a haughty disrespect for our laws.

The bipartisan Gang of Eight senators who last week proposed a term sheet for comprehensive immigration reform apparently has swallowed these memes whole hog:

[Those] undocumented immigrants seeking citizenship would be required to go to the end of the waiting list to get a green card that would allow permanent residency and eventual citizenship, behind those who had already legally applied at the time of the law’s enactment.

The Obama Administration has also bought into the urban legend that a refusal to follow the law and wait in line makes the unauthorized nothing but a pack of scofflaws whose misbehavior warrants a "back-of-the-line" requirement:

["Undocumented immigrants"] must wait until the existing legal immigration backlogs are cleared before getting in line to apply for lawful permanent residency (i.e. a “green card”), and ultimately United States citizenship.

To his credit, however, the President would partially hasten the grant of lawful residency to the undocumented by ameliorating the wait time for family based immigrants ahead of them in the green card quota:

The [Administration's] proposal seeks to eliminate existing backlogs in the family-sponsored immigration system by recapturing unused visas and temporarily increasing annual visa numbers.

As I explained to Suzy Khimm of the Washington Post ("How long is the immigration ‘line’? As long as 24 years."), the path to citizenship for the undocumented under the Gang of Eight proposal and the President's "markers" for reform are far more about the journey than the destination:

Instead of dying in the desert, they might just die waiting to become permanent residents.

Rachel Maddow of MSNBC made much the same point, although her estimate of wait time was 28 rather than 24 years, in a tour de force segment on ungodly delays inherent in the legal immigration system: 

With clear-eyed accuracy and righteous outrage, she exposes the lie of all the anti-immigration "wait-your-turn" memes:

[In] any of the situations in which you are allowed to immigrate this is the difficult path, look at the times, seven years, 16 years, 28 years, 28 years is how long you can expect it to take? 28 years is how long it could take right now for people who are following the rules and doing it right and doing it legally? that is how long the people can expect the system to take when the system works? 

As President Obama has said: "Today we have an immigration system that is out of date and badly broken." 

[Yes], we do, anything that takes 28 years to complete, yes, we do. The thing you hear all the time from the people involved in the immigration fight in Washington, that whatever we have to come up with has to be tough but fair. How about tough and fair and efficient? 

A legal immigration process in this country exists for a reason. It exists because legal immigration is something we supposedly value as a country. It is a basis that we allow, the basis for who we are as a country. And it is the process that the government is responsible for facilitating. And the progress for that path regularly takes up to 28 years to complete. not because you screwed up, but because you did everything right.

The reason they say that immigration reform has to be done in a comprehensive way, rather than a piece-meal fashion, where you just pick one or two things to do, the reason it has to be comprehensive because in part, the solution would mean just trying to cram more people through this existing system.

No, the system is broken. Not only do more people need to get through the system but the system needs to disappear and be replaced by something that makes sense. That is not liberal or conservative, that is something called good government. (Emphasis added.)

According to a Facebook comment by my immigration colleague, attorney David Simmons, however, the waits in the visa queue are far, far longer than either Rachel Maddow or Suzy Khimm fear:

As usual, they got it wrong. As I tell people all the time, it's not enough to know how long the line is. You need to know how fast the line moves. Just like at the supermarket. The wait for someone getting a visa today was as long as 24 years. The wait for someone starting today is much longer. An extreme example is Mexico F2B [Mexico-born "Unmarried Sons and Daughters (21 years of age or older) of Permanent Residents"].

The last time I took the difference between the cut-off date and the present date, then factored in the rate of "advance," the anticipated delay for someone applying today under that category was 395 years. Mexico F-1 [Mexico-born "Unmarried Sons and Daughters of U.S. Citizens"] was "only" about 80-85 years.

The reality is that the backlog created by the IRCA beneficiaries [those who were granted legalization based on the 1986 immigration law] filing for their family members has made all of the Mexican family-based preferences unusable, except for . . . F-2A [Mexico-born "Spouses and Children of Permanent Residents"]. By "unusable" I mean that the parties will both be dead before a visa becomes available. No "might" about it. (Emphasis added.)

The situation of getting "in line" is even more challenging than David Simmons suggests.  As reported by Dan Kowalski, senior fellow at the Institute for Justice and Journalism, editor of Bender’s Immigration Bulletin, and a practicing immigration lawyer, in his Washington Post article ("Five myths about the immigration ‘line’"), the memes about the line are all myths. In sum, he notes:

  1. There are multiple lines, not just one;
  2. Unless you have a family or employer sponsor, there is no line whatsoever available;
  3. It takes decades or longer to move to the head of the line, but "[p]eople can’t be expected to wait decades for permission to work or live near their loved ones;"
  4. The legal immigration quota is a form of baked-in-the-cake discrimination against individuals from certain countries that contravenes our "national ethos of civil and human rights;" and
  5. There is no way under current law to make the line shorter or move more quickly -- the only solution is for Congress to "increase the number of green cards available each year in every visa preference".

The long and short of the yarn spun by anti-immigration opponents that unauthorized immigrants and legal immigrants must play by the rules and wait in "the line" is that this supposed concern about law compliance is nothing short of a proxy for keeping people out.  The "line" flouts rather than upholds the rule of law.  It is the football snatched away at the last second by Lucy as Charlie Brown moves to kick it.

We didn't always act this way.  Even in the same year when President Truman officially declared an end to hostilities of World War II by Presidential Proclamation on December 31, 1946 (Proc. no. 2714, 61 Stat. 1048), our nation still welcomed immigrants with sincerity and opportunity, as this vintage film by The Encyclopedia Britannica shows:

 

The first big point from all this is that given the likely gridlock on tax reform and fiscal reform, immigration reform is our best chance to increase America’s economic dynamism. We should normalize the illegals who are here, create a legal system for low-skill workers and bend the current reform proposals so they look more like the Canadian system, which tailors the immigrant intake to regional labor markets and favors high-skill workers. 
The second big conclusion is that if we can’t pass a law this year, given the overwhelming strength of the evidence, then we really are a pathetic basket case of a nation. 

The New York Times columnist, David Brooks, sums the solution up quite neatly in his recent op-ed ("The Easy Problem"): 

The first big point from all this is that given the likely gridlock on tax reform and fiscal reform, immigration reform is our best chance to increase America’s economic dynamism. We should normalize the [unauthorized immigrants] who are here, create a legal system for low-skill workers and bend the current reform proposals so they look more like the Canadian system, which tailors the immigrant intake to regional labor markets and favors high-skill workers.

The second big conclusion is that if we can’t pass a law this year, given the overwhelming strength of the evidence, then we really are a pathetic basket case of a nation.

Economists generally agree that robust immigration reform will help resolve our economic distress. But before we follow this prescription, we must be clear-eyed about the memes that create linear obfuscation.  We need to create an immigration people-mover in place of the static "line."

Posted by Angelo A. Paparelli on January 05, 2013

House GOP Says Immigrant Suffering Hurts Less Than Citizen Suffering

violence 2.jpgBipartisan outrage erupted in the House last week, with usually loyal Republicans among the most furious and outspoken in the GOP-controlled chamber. Rep. Peter King, a Long Island Republican, chastised House leaders for conduct that is "absolutely inexcusable . . . absolutely indefensible." Declaiming that "we cannot just walk away from our responsibilities," King said that "anyone . . . who contributes one penny to congressional Republicans is out of their minds."

Outside the House, another outspoken Republican, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, pointed the finger squarely at his party and the Speaker of the House:

There is only one group to blame for the continued suffering of these innocent victims: the House majority and their speaker, John Boehner . . . This is not a Republican or Democratic issue. . . . We respond to innocent victims . . . , not as Republicans or Democrats, but as Americans. Or at least we did until last night. Last night, politics was placed before oaths to serve our citizens. For me, it was disappointing and disgusting to watch.

The object of their criticism was the House's failure to pass bipartisan legislation, already approved in the Senate, that would grant financial relief to victims of Hurricane Sandy. Their words, however, could apply with equal vehemence and accuracy to the House's other major year-end failure -- its refusal to vote on renewing and expanding the Violence against Women Act.

VAWA, as it's known, has been an undeniable success since signed into law in 1994 by President Clinton under the sponsorship of then Senator (now Veep) Joe Biden. The incidence of domestic violence has dropped 67% from 1993 to 2010, and, according to the White House, from 1993 to 2007, "the rate of intimate partner homicides of females decreased 35 percent and the rate of intimate partner homicides of males decreased 46 percent.”  

The House GOP, led by its Majority Leader, Eric Cantor, opposed various elements of the VAWA-extender bill that passed overwhelmingly in the Senate: the bill's provision of domestic violence protections to members of the LBGT community and undocumented immigrants, and a section that gives American Indian tribes jurisdiction over non-Native defendants in cases alleging domestic or dating violence. 

The House version that purported to reauthorize VAWA (HR 4970) would have harshly restricted the immigration-related protections of the law.  As the National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic Violence against Women explains, there are several key failings of HR 4970:

man_and_woman_angry_and_conflicting.jpg

Section 801 eliminates crucial confidentiality protections for victims in the VAWA self-petition and cancellation of removal processes who are married to U.S. citizen or Legal Permanent Resident spouses. By requiring notification to the alleged abuser that his/her spouse has filed a VAWA self-petition, this endangers victims (many of whom may still be living with an abusive spouse since their options are extremely limited as a result of their undocumented status). It would also allow abusers to continue to manipulate the immigration process as a tool of abuse by providing them an opportunity to block her access to legal status. Additionally, it creates duplicative and unnecessary bureaucracy by dispersing VAWA adjudications from specially trained officers in a centralized unit, and increases barriers to safety for vulnerable victims by imposing a stricter standard for approval of VAWA cases than for other forms of humanitarian relief under immigration law.

Section 802 imposes arbitrary and unreasonable barriers for victims, and undermines the law enforcement purpose of the U visa, by narrowly restricting the circumstances in which law enforcement certifications can be issued.

Section 806 discourages crime victims from cooperating with law enforcement, especially in complex or dangerous criminal investigations or prosecutions, and eliminates stability for vulnerable crime victims by terminating their eligibility for permanent residence.

Section 814 burdens victims and existing state criminal court processes addressing domestic violence by discouraging plea bargaining. Because this provision will allow evidence outside the criminal conviction record in determining if someone is deportable due to a domestic violence conviction, it will be impossible for defendants to know whether to accept a plea. The resulting additional criminal trials will result in more victims being forced to face their abusers in criminal cases and most likely, more abusers who do not face any type of conviction when victims are fearful of appearing in criminal cases.

Sections 803 and 804 . . . omit critical amendments that were included in S. 1925 [the Senate bill] to prevent serial abuse and exploitation of so-called “mail-order brides” and other immigrating foreign spouses and fiancé(e)s of US citizens, as well as abuse of the visa system.

When the GOP hue and cry over Sandy burst out, John Boehner and Eric Cantor quickly took steps to make amends. On January 4, the House passed a bill (with the Senate also concurring) that set aside $9.7 billion in relief for regions that Sandy devastated. On January 15, Speaker John Boehner reportedly will bring up a vote for $51 billion more in Sandy relief measures, as requested by President Obama.

Where is the outrage over VAWA?  With Republicans claiming to have heard and now to understand the increasingly pro-female and pro-immigrant voices of the new electorate, the VAWA debacle suggests that the GOP is still clueless.  Are the "innocent victims" of domestic violence any less deserving than the post-Sandy constituents who will soon get relief?  

dcz_woman_hitting_a_son_actualizado1.jpgChanneling Peter King and Chris Christie, I say it is "absolutely inexcusable . . . absolutely indefensible" for the House GOP to have "walk[ed] away from [their] responsibilities. . ." to victims of domestic violence.  "This is not a Republican or Democratic issue. . . . We respond to innocent victims . . . , not as Republicans or Democrats, but as Americans. Or at least we did until last [week]. Last [week], politics was placed before oaths to serve our citizens. For me, it was disappointing and disgusting to watch."

America is a forgiving and tolerant nation -- to a degree.  The House GOP needs to wake up quickly, and pass a bill reauthorizing VAWA in the image and likeness of last term's Senate version.  Or else this party of "angry white guy[s]" will only hasten its flight to irrelevance.

Posted by Angelo A. Paparelli on December 01, 2012

The Senate Must Modify Its Filibuster Rules to Pass Comprehensive Immigration Reform

Puck cover of the Senate.jpg“ And there took place . . . [in the U.S. Senate] so many “extended discussions” of measures to keep them from coming to a vote that the device got a name, “filibuster,” from the Dutch word vrijbuiter, which means “freebooter” or “pirate,” and which passed into the Spanish as filibustero, because the sleek, swift ship used by Caribbean pirates was called a filibote, and into legislative parlance because the device was, after all, a pirating, or hijacking, of the very heart of the legislative process. ...”

Master of the Senate: The Years of Lyndon Johnson, [Vol.] III, by Robert A. Caro

The fight to end the pirating of legislative progress, the effort by Sen. Harry Reid (Democratic Majority Leader), and supported by President Obama, to soften the rough edges of the filibuster, is the talk of Washington and the media.   If Reid's proposals were as drastic as Sen. Mitch McConnell (GOP Minority Leader) asserts, this alleged wielding of the "nuclear option" -- the cutting off of otherwise unlimited debate in the Senate --  might threaten the precious checks and balances of constitutional government.  But McConnell weeps alligator tears.

Reid proposes only to modify but not eliminate filibusters of the type memorialized by Jimmy Stewart in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, where a steadfast minority of senators speak from the well and address the "World's Greatest Deliberative Body" without respite.  Majority Leader Reid would merely reverse the more recent relaxation of the filibuster that allows a senator to express the intention to filibuster, thereby requiring a 60-vote majority to invoke cloture (a call to vote on a pending bill).  Reid would make changes that -- as Washington Post reporter, Ezra Klein, notes -- are "not dramatic":

[Sen. Reid] wants to be able to make the motion to debate a bill -- but not the vote to pass it -- immune to the filibuster; he wants the time it would take to break a filibuster to be shorter; and he wants whoever is filibustering to have to hold the floor of the Senate and talk.

Klein also suggests:

None of these changes would alter the basic reality of the modern U.S. Senate, which is that it takes 60 votes to get almost anything done. In my view, that means they wouldn’t do much to fix the Senate at all. (Emphasis in original.)

His assessment is too pessimistic. With just a bit more tweaking of the filibuster, say, by ending debate on a vote of 57 senators, gridlock would be reduced.  Furthermore, with such a change, the sway of the swing vote -- just as in the Supreme Court where Justice Anthony Kennedy carries great clout -- would minimize polarization.  It would also promote greater compromise and empower moderates of the minority party and independents. 

We no longer live in the time of Lincoln when robust Senate debate was witnessed merely by the eyeballs in the Gallery or readers of limited-circulation newspapers. Social media spreads audio, video and text of Senate proceedings in real-time around the globe.  Consider, for example, the favorable reaction to Sen. Bernie Sanders' "The American People are Angry" speech railing against income inequality in 2010 that quickly went viral.

Consider also the role that popular outrage at the endorsement of such inhumane policies as self-deportation and "attrition through enforcement" played in marginalizing the GOP and the anti-immigration fringe in the last election.  Just as wide publication of these anti-immigration sentiments led growing numbers of Latino and minority voters to feel disrespected and to reflect their displeasure in the voting booth, xenophobic oratory by senators droning on for hours, while their views and videos are tweeted in real time, will cause public opinion to register support for comprehensive immigration reform (CIR).

Without a softening of the filibuster rules, we're likely to witness, as we already have seen, the resuscitation of previous small-bore CIR proposals that merely traded legalization with a path to citizenship and modest future flows of temporary workers for greater border and worksite enforcement.  While these measures are necessary in any CIR bill, they don't go nearly far enough to address America's 21st Century needs. As NAFSA, the Association of International Educators, recently noted:

In the acrimonious political debate about immigration reform, we lose our way by embracing a mistaken, zero-sum approach to permanent immigration. Proposals like H.R. 6429 [providing expedited green cards for students with STEM degrees but eliminating the Diversity Visa lottery -- a measure opposed by the President ] in this context appear guided by the fear of doing anything that increases the number of people who may immigrate to the United States. There is no reason to regard the current annual limit on the number of green cards as sacrosanct law.

At a time when Republicans are trying to cut out the Diversity Visa lottery and its 55,000 annual green cards, America faces the lowest birth rate on record and an aging population.  Cities like Detroit face bankruptcy unless infusions of new immigrants with their innovations and investments are welcomed through reforms of the immigration laws.  Skilled immigrants matter. So do "Immigration Entrepreneurs." But America's outmoded visa quotas, pulled from thin air rather than derived through empirical evidence, demoralize and dissuade intending immigrants.  Just as pressing, cross-border families deserve the most important of family values, the right to live together, free of heartless, quota-induced separations.

Republicans are searching the wilderness in three camps seeking a principled immigration policy.  One group remains full-throatedly opposed, like Mark Krikorian, dubbed an "anti-immigration scholar/kook" by Salon's Alex Pareene; another proposes miserly, piecemeal reforms like the Achieve Act, which would be a stricter DREAM Act with no path to citizenship (other than the second class variety); and a growing number favor CIR.

An improved set of filibuster reforms, while still protecting minority rights, might just peel off enough moderate Republicans to enact America-friendly CIR.  Go Harry Go!  

Posted by Angelo A. Paparelli on November 25, 2012

Immigration by Chance -- Save the DV Green Card Lottery

lottery winner3.jpgDespite all the post-election talk of a chastened GOP promising flexibility on comprehensive immigration reform (CIR), Republicans seem more determined than ever to reduce the number of green cards issued annually.  They would do so by eliminating the Diversity Visa lottery.  Their latest ante is a miserly family-unity sweetener to the failed STEM bill which would additionally benefit a population presently comprised of about 320,000 individuals -- family members of "green card holders who marry after getting their residency permits". In return for dropping the DV lottery, the GOP's new proposal would let these family members "come to the U.S. one year after they apply for their green cards," but would not let them "work until they actually got the card" -- years later.

The annual 55,000 green-card DV lottery -- which I've criticized as a program "[relying] on casino-style randomness as the basis to sprinkle green cards on a lucky few" -- now upon further reflection seems to me as a category worth saving. 

Readers of this blog know that I've challenged the notion that the government is particularly good at picking immigration winners and losers. Don't get me wrong.  I'm all for allowing talented university graduates with degrees in Science, Technology, Engineering and Math to get accelerated green cards. Still, some of the greatest success stories from American history (from Washington, Lincoln, Edison, Carnegie and the Wright brothers) and our own era (Jobs, Gates, Dell, Puff Daddy, Lady Gaga and Jessica Simpson) never even graduated from college. 

So while we fashion a 21st Century CIR program to serve America's clear national interests, we should also acknowledge a degree of humility, and the benefits of randomness, chance and serendipity. We can never develop a flawlessly intelligent system that brings in just high-contributing immigrants.  But we can debunk the errant myths about immigration and humbly acknowledge that great achievers arriving in America can come in through other than the employment-based visa categories.  Sergey Brin, the co-founder of Google, came with his parents to America from Russia as a refugee, much like Tech CEO, Tan Le, fled Vietnam for refuge in Australia, and then immigrated to California: 

In the same serendipitous way, the DV lottery brings in immigrants who tend to be younger and from countries with low rates of green card issuance. Some of them, or their children, achieve success in their chosen endeavor, whether that be in soccer, or, in helping American children understand one of the world's great religions, or, like two of my clients who won the DV lottery -- a Japanese MBA graduate of Stanford, or a political opponent of an oppressive Middle Eastern regime -- they achieve it by enriching America in lasting, immeasurable ways.

Proponents of an expansive form of CIR should therefore remind the Democrats to continue standing firm against the GOP's latest proposal to cut green-card quotas.  For as the Dems' former leader, Richard Gephardt, has noted: “Those who have prospered and profited from life's lottery have a moral obligation to share their good fortune.”