The Rights of Immigrants in US

Since the founding of the United States, more than 55 million immigrants from every continent have settled here. Indeed, with the exception of Native Americans, everyone in our nation is either an immigrant, or the descendent of voluntary or involuntary immigrants. Yet every wave of immigration has faced fear and hostility from both ordinary citizens and government especially during times of economic hardship, political turmoil or war.

During the depression of the 1840s, mobs hostile to immigrant Irish Catholics burned down a convent in Boston and rioted in Philadelphia.
In 1882, Congress passed the Chinese Exclusion Act, one of our first immigration laws, to keep out all people of Chinese origin.
During the "Red Scare" of the 1920s, thousands of foreignborn people suspected of political radicalism were arrested and brutalized, and many were deported without a hearing.
In 1942, 120,000 Americans of Japanese descent had their homes and other property confiscated, and were interned in camps until the end of World War II. At the same time, many Jews fleeing Nazi Germany during that war were excluded under regulations enacted in the 1920s.
In the 1950s, an Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) program called "Operation Wetback" targeted Mexicans, exclusively, for deportation, and today immigration from Haiti is sharply restricted.
Even though the Bill of Rights does not grant foreigners a right of entry into the United States, it does prohibit discrimination based on race and national origin against citizens and noncitizens alike. That is one reason why, in 1985, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) established a national Immigrants' Rights Project, which has become one of the nation's leading advocates for the rights of immigrants, refugees and noncitizens. We recognize that our country, like all sovereign nations, has the right to control its borders. But we also believe that the government should treat all people according to constitutional standards of fairness.

Here are the ACLU's answers to some questions frequently asked by the public about immigration and the rights of immigrants.

Q: Aren't our borders out of control, allowing immigrants to flood the country illegally?

A: No, U.S. borders are not "out of control." Of all the people who immigrate to the U.S. in a given year, combined with those who immigrated in earlier years, only a very small number are undocumented. The Immigration and Nationality Act has strict standards for who can immigrate to the United States. It allows approximately 800,000 people to settle here each year as permanent residents, including:

about 480,000 who are admitted to reunite with their spouses, children, parents and/or siblings
about 140,000 who are admitted to fill jobs for which the U.S. Department of Labor has determined no American workers are available
about 110,000 refugees who have proven their claims of political or religious persecution in their homelands (this number is expected to drop to about 85,000 by 1996)
about 55,000 who are admitted under a "diversity" lottery, begun in 1990, that mainly benefits young European (especially Irish) and African immigrants.
In addition, the U.S. Census Bureau estimates that roughly 250,000300,000 immigrants take up residence here each year without permission. Half of these immigrants enter with valid temporary visas but overstay the authorized time. The other half only 125,000 to 150,000 enter illegally. Many of the latter come from countries with troubled economies or pervasive human rights violations, such as El Salvador and Guatemala. Contrary to the stereotype, less than half the undocumented are Mexican; a significant number are Western European. Canadians, Poles and Filipinos are the fourth, fifth and sixth largest groups of undocumented persons. In New York State, Italians are the second largest group of the undocumented.

Q: Don't immigrants take jobs away from American Workers?

A: Most economic experts report that immigrants actually create more jobs than they fill. They create jobs by forming new businesses, by raising the productivity of already established businesses, through capital investment, and through consumer spending.

In addition, a 1994 study by Ohio University researchers found "no statistically meaningful relationship between immigration and unemployment.... [I]f there is any correlation, it would appear to be negative: higher immigration is associated with lower unemployment." A 1989 U.S. Department of Labor study found that neither U.S. workers in complementary jobs, nor most minority workers, appear to be adversely affected by immigration. Some studies have found that African American unemployment was slightly lowered by the presence of recent immigrants.

Contrary to public fears, the expert consensus is that, overall, immigrants have a very positive impact on our economy.

Q: Don't immigrants place an unacceptable burden on our social services?

A: Immigrants come here in search of work, not with the intention of going on the dole. Moreover, even documented permanent residents are barred from receiving most cash assistance during their first three years of residency, and are subject to deportation if they go on welfare within five years. Undocumented immigrants are legally excluded from virtually all government benefits, except those related to public health and safety.

"[I]mmigrants actually generate significantly more in taxes paid than they cost in services," concluded the Urban Institute. This is because undocumented workers, despite their ineligibility for most federal benefits, frequently have Social Security and income taxes withheld from their paychecks. As a result, one commentator said, "a senior citizen on Social Security who lives in rural Kentucky is indirectly being subsidized by an immigrant who washes dishes in a chic restaurant in Santa Monica."

It's true that in our large cities and in other areas plagued with economic problems, including high unemployment, servicing all the people who are in need can be very difficult for local government. But immigrants are not to blame for that difficulty, which arises from a complex series of factors related to the national economy, and to the federal government's priorities in distributing tax revenues.

Q: What has the Supreme Court said about discrimination against immigrants?

A: In decisions spanning more than a century, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled, on the one hand, that the Constitution's guarantees of due process apply to every person within U.S. borders, including "aliens whose presence in this country is unlawful." On the other hand, the Court has said that since the federal government is solely responsible for supervising immigration, it has broad powers to discriminate based on "alienage."

Alienage discrimination by states or localities, however, is restricted. The Court has struck down many discriminatory state and local laws affecting government welfare benefits, scholarships and student loans, as well as eligibility for civil service and other jobs. At the same time, under what it calls a "political function" exception, the Court has allowed states to discriminate against resident aliens in areas such as voting and holding elective office, and in jobs such as police officer and school teacher.

Q: What about laws like Proposition 187 are they constitutional?

A: Proposition 187 was a ballot initiative approved by a majority of California voters in the November 1994 state and local elections. The law, which has drawn several legal challenges, would deny most basic services including education, health and social services to any person suspected of not being a citizen or legal resident. It is clearly at odds with our Constitution, which gives only the federal government, not the states, the authority to set immigration policy. By attempting to usurp that role, California has, first, violated existing laws that protect immigrants against discrimination and denials of due process, and second, opened the door to such discrimination and denials.

Among other things, the California initiative ignores the fact that all children residing in the U.S. are entitled to public education. The Supreme Court made this clear in its landmark 1982 ruling in Plyler v. Doe, when it struck down a Texas law that barred the children of undocumented immigrants from attending public schools on the ground that denying such children an education would unjustifiably and irreparably harm them.

Proposition 187type laws are also bad public policy, since they have a range of harmful social consequences. Such laws could cost society dearly by permanently stigmatizing hundreds of thousands of young people and throwing them into the streets. Similarly, the denial of health care to any population group would threaten the health of everyone by gravely compromising our ability to combat contagious and infectious diseases.

The ACLU believes that all U.S. residents, regardless of their immigration status, should be entitled to basic services.

Q: Who are refugees?

A: Every year, people come to our shores seeking safe haven from political and social upheavals. International and domestic law dictates that persons who have experienced persecution in their homelands, or who have a "wellfounded fear of persecution" on account of race, religion, nationality, politics or membership in a particular social group, are refugees entitled to political asylum in the U.S.

However, even refugees with strong claims often face great obstacles in gaining asylum. Historically, our government has treated asylumseekers differently based on nationality, and in recent decades, on politics. Refugees from Communist countries have been welcomed, while those from countries officially regarded as "democratic," like El Salvador, are often spurned. Cubans have been admitted traditionally, while Haitians have been turned away or detained.

In 1990, efforts by the ACLU and other advocates brought reforms aimed at ending biased refugee policy. But the new system is mismanaged, understaffed and has a huge case backlog that causes long delays, with some refugees waiting years for their claims to be adjudicated. The INS has even acknowledged misplacing thousands of files, forcing those who seek asylum to file new applications, or to work without authorization.

The ACLU believes that political asylum should be granted swiftly and efficiently to qualified applicants. In addition, asylum should not be granted or denied based on an applicant's nationality. The principle of equal treatment demands no less.

Q: Do INS procedures violate the rights of deportable aliens?

A: Often they do, we believe. The Immigration and Nationality Act gives INS officers broad powers. They can question "any person believed to be an alien as to his right to be in the United States," as well as search for, arrest and initiate deportation proceedings against such persons. Near the border or a "functional equivalent" of the border, agents can search vehicles without a warrant and without factbased suspicion that the occupants are unlawful aliens.

Such broad powers inevitably lead to abuses. For example, INS agents frequently base their actions solely on the fact that people "look Mexican" or "look Chinese," even though the Supreme Court has ruled against that practice. Conditions in INS detention centers, where aliens await their asylum or deportation proceedings, are often unhealthy, unsafe and abusive. And in border areas especially, the use of excessive force by INS or Border Patrol agents is a serious problem. The ACLU and other organizations have called for the creation of an independent federal commission to hear complaints of, and propose remedies for, abuse.

Q: What are the rights of deportable aliens?

A: In Yamataya v. Fisher, a 1903 case involving a Japanese immigrant, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that INS officers could not take an immigrant into custody and summarily deport him without a hearing, even if he was thought to be here illegally, without a hearing. The due process rights of deportable aliens have evolved from this decision in a long series of cases. Today, immigrants facing deportation are entitled to:

a hearing before an immigration judge and review by a federal court;
representation by a lawyer (but not at government expense);
reasonable notice of charges, and of a hearing's time and place;
a reasonable opportunity to examine the evidence and the government's witnesses;
competent interpretation for nonEnglish speaking immigrants, and
clear and convincing proof that the government's grounds for deportation are valid.
Nevertheless, because deportation is considered a "civil procedure," not "punishment," prospective deportees lack full constitutional protection. The ACLU believes that is unfair: Given the potentially grave consequences of deportation, aliens are due all the procedural guarantees afforded criminal defendants, including the right to a courtappointed lawyer if they are indigent.

Q: What are employer sanctions and why does the ACLU oppose them?

A: In 1986, intent on discouraging illegal immigration, Congress passed the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA), which imposes civil fines and some criminal penalties on employers who knowingly employ undocumented immigrants. The ACLU anticipated that these sanctions would encourage employers to discriminate against any job applicant who "looked" or "sounded foreign." Our worst fears have been realized.

In 1990, a study by the federal General Accounting Office showed that the sanctions had prompted almost 20 percent of the nation's employers to practice illegal employment discrimination. The case of Richard Trujillo, of Kansas City, Kansas, is illustrative: Trujillo marked "U.S. citizen" on his application for a laborer's job in Los Angeles. When interviewed, he presented his Social Security card and driver's license as proof of work authorization and was offered the job at $4.50 per hour. Later the same day, a company representative called him and said he would have to provide an "INS number," which citizens don't have and are not required to have. The company rejected Trujillo's valid work authorization and denied him the job.

Q: Is a national worker registry and identity card a good idea?

A: No, it isn't. A computer database keyed to an individual's Social Security number, photo and fingerprints is an old and discredited idea that, if realized, would enable the government to invade the privacy of every person in the U.S., serve as a new tool for discrimination and cost billions.

Such a registry, in order to work, would eventually require every U.S. resident to carry an I.D. card or its equivalent that an employer could use to access information about the cardholder. This internal passport system could open the floodgates of access to information about all of us, including credit histories, spending habits, unlisted telephone numbers, and medical and employment histories.

Computer databases are notoriously incomplete and rife with errors, and experts warn that they cannot be made failsafe.

The Social Security Administration, in Congressional testimony, estimated that the issuance of new counterfeitresistant I.D. cards would cost as much as $2.5 billion or more.

The system would intensify discrimination, subjecting anyone who "looked" or "sounded" "foreign" to constant status checks by the police, banks, landlords, etc. Persons who did not produce the card on demand would be viewed suspiciously and possibly arrested or detained, while those who did would be stigmatized and humiliated by always having to prove their status.

Thus, in addition to scapegoating immigrants, a national worker registry would violate the rights of everyone.

Illegal immigration is not the scourge it is alleged to be by some politicians, who, in seeking a quick fix for our society's complex problems, focus on immigration instead of on real causes. The fact is, as former New York Governor Mario M. Cuomo has noted, that: "...some of the problems we should take most seriously as a people from the decline in our economic competitiveness to the decay of our community values are problems that the new immigrants can help us solve."

Job Seekers Expectation

.Best Careers of 2010

So, 2010 has come then what job seekers can expect in it? Getting right profession gives benefit and happiness of all beings. It must be subordinated to the basic ideals of self-giving and service. Otherwise man is not a man and that's fact.

Well, the healthcare industry as one of the most important part of any society infrastructure is continuing to offer some of the best opportunities for employment, but since not everyone wants to be a nurse, X-Ray Technician degree can be attractive choice for all those who have gift for both medicine and engineering. Radiologic technologists and technicians held about 215,000 jobs in 2008, primarily in hospitals, and that number is expected to shoot up more than 17 percent to 252,000 positions by 2018.


According differing researches follow professions are also can be actual next year
Veterinarian - Employment for veterinarians is expected to grow by 19,700 jobs, or 33 percent, between 2008 and 2018.There aren't a lot of veterinarians—60,000 in 2008, according to U.S. estimates; 90,000 in 2008, according to industry data—and demand for vets is strong.

Meteorologist - Employment growth of meteorologists is expected to be faster than average. The occupation is expected to add 1,400 jobs between 2008 and 2018, expanding by nearly 15 percent.

Computer Software Engineer - Employment of computer software engineers is expected to swell by a whopping 295,200 jobs, or more than 32 percent, between 2008 and 2018. That rate is well above the average for all occupations, as companies continually integrate new technologies and design their own.

Firefighter - Job growth through 2018 is likely to be about 19 percent, which is above the average for all occupations. But there's a lot of competition for jobs, since firefighting is stable, government-supported work that often comes with a pension--and is recession-resistant.

Special-Education Teacher - Employment of elementary and preschool special-education teachers is expected to jump by 44,300 jobs, or 20 percent, between 2008 and 2018--well above average for all occupations.

Financial Adviser - Financial adviser is forecasted as one of the faster-growing occupations over the next decade, with a projected growth rate of more than 30 percent. The impending retirements of 78 million baby boomers is expected to create strong demand for advisory services.

Meeting Planner - Employment of meeting and convention planners is expected to grow faster than the average for all professions over the next decade or so. The number of jobs planners hold is forecast to jump 16 percent, thanks to the growing importance of meetings to increasingly global companies.

Funeral Director - Expect solid growth for funeral directors between 2008 and 2018. Employment should increase by 3,600 jobs, or 12 percent, over the 10-year period. However, the number of openings resulting from growth and replacement needs, particularly from retirements, will be three times as much.

Multimedia Artist - Employment in the multimedia arts, whether in film, advertising, or Web development, is expected to rise by 11,200 jobs, or more than 14 percent, between 2008 and 2018, boosted in part by the growth in mobile technology and in the production of 3-D animated movies.