USA Green Card Immigration Blog

Nation-World | Immigration reform stalls in Congress | The Detroit News.

Worries over ease of terrorists’ entry into U.S. means legislation remains elusive

Marisa Schultz/ The Detroit News

The week before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, President George W. Bush welcomed Mexican President Vicente Fox to the White House for his first state dinner of upscale Tex-Mex.

Fox proclaimed the two countries could reach an immigration agreement by year’s end. And Bush, bucking some in his Republican Party, entertained ideas of granting legal status for some Mexican immigrants.

The news of high-level immigration talks thrilled Veronica T. Thronson, who worked in New York for an immigrant advocacy group. Their midtown office was abuzz with excitement that reform was finally going to happen in 2001. They pushed out press releases heralding the progress.

“Then Sept. 11 happened,” said Thronson, who now heads Michigan State University College of Law’s Immigration Law Clinic. “We knew that immigrants were going to be blamed somehow. That day it happened.”

Shortly after it was discovered that 9/11 hijackers entered the country with legally issued visas, the conversation around immigration became inextricably linked with terrorism. The anti-foreigner movement that took shape and the preoccupation with protecting the United States effectively knocked immigration reform off the national agenda. Ten years later, comprehensive legislation to alter how and when foreigners can become citizens has remained elusive.

Even a small part of immigration reform, known as the DREAM Act, has failed to pass Congress every time it’s been introduced in the past decade. It would allow undocumented students a pathway to citizenship through two years of college or military service.

After the initial horror of the terrorist attacks dissipated, the country was rocked by a prolonged recession in which millions of legal citizens were jobless. The downturn coincided with the spread of immigrant populations.

Historically, immigrants primarily settled in six states, including New York, California and Texas, said Ann Chih Lin, associate professor of public policy at the University of Michigan. But during the boom years of the 1990s, big influxes spread to states throughout the country. That set the stage for difficulties as some Americans became preoccupied with security, feared outsiders and had a grassroots anti-immigrant sentiment, Lin said.

“You can overlook a lot of foreigners when the economy is going well,” Lin said. “The bad economy stranded them in places that didn’t have the infrastructure to help resolve some of these problems.”

Assisting illegal immigrants hasn’t been a political priority in Washington, and the focus instead has been on border security, deportations and ensuring people don’t come to the United States to do harm. Though he supports the DREAM Act and immigration reform, President Barack Obama has ramped up deportations and deployed more security personnel to the southern border than ever before.

David Koelsch, professor at the University of Detroit Mercy School of Law, views the shift in attitude since 9/11 as a “net positive.” Prior to the attacks, immigration was a “sleeping giant” with laws not being enforced and people not associating the influx of foreigners with security.

Afterward, the Department of Homeland Security was set up. There’s better coordination among federal agencies, and local authorities are working with federal agencies to facilitate deportations following jail sentences, said Koelsch, who directs the Immigration Law Clinic at the college.

Lin and Thronson believe major immigration reform would have had a good chance of passing during the Bush administration had it not been for 9/11. Koelsch believes that’s an oversimplification. All three want comprehensive immigration reform, but their visions for solutions vary.

Meantime, the inability of Congress to pass an immigration package has spurred state and local politicians to pass their own laws, such as Arizona’s legislation giving police broad powers to detain those suspected of being undocumented, as well as legislation in New Mexico and elsewhere to allow illegal immigrants to obtain driver’s licenses.

Even in Michigan — with among the lowest percentages of undocumented residents, according to the Pew Hispanic Center — a package of bills is pending in the Legislature that would crack down on undocumented immigrants who live and work here. One bill is similar to Arizona’s divisive law.

As Thronson supervises her students, she looks back a decade ago to the progress in the making. “We were so close,” she said. “We were so close.”

Recently, the U.S and Mexican border governors convened to discuss on the reform of U.S. immigration policies. During the meeting, Bill Richardson, the New Mexico governor, expressed his opinions stating that Congress cannot be expected to work on the US immigration reform until after the general election, which is to be held in November.

The border governors’ meeting was intended to be held in Phoenix previously, which was then cancelled by Jan Brewer, Arizona governor. The event was cancelled due to the Mexican governors’ planned boycott over the controversial Arizona immigration law. Seven governors participated in the border governors meeting of which Richardson was the only governor from the United States, while the other governors were from six different Mexican states.

The border governors issued a joint statement on the U.S. immigration policies. They stated that the basic premise of respecting the rights and dignity of individuals calls for a complete immigration reform. They also mentioned that there is no coordination or exchange of information between the U.S. and Mexican federal governments and they convened to improvise the border crossings.

Richard expressed hope that Congress would lay the foundation for the US immigration reform after the November general election. He further added that the much required immigration reform will hopefully top the priorities of Congress in the coming year.

Richardson mentioned at a press conference that the US immigration reform should be an over-all effort and not restricted to the partisans. He also stated that the immigration reform should have a tougher impact on those companies who brought illegal immigrants into the United States to work for them. He ended saying, those illegal immigrants who learn or know English and pay the back taxes properly should be legalized through the new U.S. immigration policies.

Immigrants looking for assistance in the preparation of visa applications, can rely on USA-Green-Card to help them through the process.

Blocked Arizona immigration law may reduce chances of real reform | Sahil Kapur

guardian.co.uk

Republicans, enraged by Obama’s blocking of the Arizona immigration law, may stonewall future immigration reforms

In a partial and last-minute victory for opponents of the new Arizona immigration law, a federal judge on Wednesday blocked its most controversial components just hours before the crackdown was set to go into effect.

The decision, which Arizona is expected to appeal, serves as a boost to the Obama administration’s lawsuit challenging the measure as unconstitutional. It also raises the stakes of a showdown poised to influence the course of the national immigration debate. Whatever the outcome, it seems, this will dampen already grim prospects for reform and politically benefit Republicans in the short run.

US District Judge Susan Bolton placed holds on provisions requiring Arizona police to demand residency papers from individuals based on suspicions, and delayed implementation of clauses making it illegal not to carry documentation at all times. Bolton declared that the measure “burdens lawfully present aliens because their liberty will be restricted while their status is checked”.

Echoing the justice department’s argument that the task of enforcing immigration laws belongs to the federal government, Bolton added that the statutes “would impose a ‘distinct, unusual and extraordinary’ burden on legal resident aliens that only the federal government has the authority to impose”.

The SB 1070 measure’s enactment in April by Governor Jan Brewer set off a firestorm of criticism from civil rights groups, which argued that it unfairly targets Hispanics and people of colour legally in the United States, reigniting an explosive national debate on US immigration policy.

The law polls well nationally – partly because Americans are desperate for an immigration overhaul, and support action on the part of states amid Washington inaction – and has become an issue in the November midterm elections.

The immediate impact of the ruling will be to tame the copycat laws percolating in legislatures of at least five states. At the same time, it will infuriate and galvanise Republicans, who strongly back the Arizona crackdown, in the midst of an already harsh election climate for Democrats.

A legal victory for Barack Obama could inject new fire into GOP efforts at stonewalling immigration reform, as they will likely use it to claim Democrats aren’t serious about controlling the border. Republicans, some of whose votes are necessary to pass a bill, have unanimously refused to consider broad reforms until after border issues are dealt with; Democrats argue that enforcement must be viewed as one aspect of a comprehensive effort.

The seemingly irresolvable issue of how to deal with existing illegal immigration further complicates reform prospects. Republicans appear immutably opposed to any kind of legalisation program, while omitting such a program is a nonstarter for too many Democrats.

Another obstacle for reformers is that Republicans have succeeded in making sure border security dominates the debate, while Democrats have done a poor job conveying that the immigration system’s problems run much deeper, and that fixing them requires a wholesome approach. Democrats also seldom emphasised the broad public support for offering undocumented workers a path to citizenship. According to a new CNN poll, 81% support such a programme; 19% are opposed.

The stalemate encompasses even less controversial, piecemeal provisions such as the Dream Act, which would grant legal permanent residency to children who entered the country illegally with their parents, on the condition that they go to college or join the military. Some Democrats also worry that passing popular provisions on their own would sap the energy for comprehensive reform.

Meanwhile, a drawn-out court battle over the Arizona law, which might reach the supreme court, would intensify Republican opposition to reform and simply leave both sides to yell at each other and point fingers in the interim. For Democrats, the short-term diagnosis just isn’t good, through little fault of their own.

Obama has taken an uncharacteristically forceful stance on the crackdown, declaring that it “threaten[s] to undermine basic notions of fairness”. The delicate politics of the issue are inextricably linked to the Hispanic community, by far the fastest growing demographic in the US, which fiercely opposes the Arizona measure and views immigration reform as a top priority.

In the short run, Republicans stand to gain from drawing attention to the Arizona fight. But alienating Latino voters will ultimately spell political disaster for the GOP, which already fairs poorly among non-white voters, in a country where minorities are on their way to constituting a majority. For Democrats, fighting against the Arizona law paints a much more pleasant picture in the long term than it does in the foreseeable future.

The controversial Arizona Immigration Law is responsible for driving out an exodus of undocumented families, in fear of criminal punishment. Many of the illegal immigrants are moving to other parts of the United States, while a few others are even returning back to Mexico.

The alleged Senate Bill 1070 has started fulfilling its goal of “attrition through enforcement” though it has not come into force yet. Many policy makers see the Arizona Immigration Law merely as a measure of distributing Arizona’s problems to other states. One solution to this problem would be to create a broader immigration reform that tackles the border breakdown issue as well.

While expressing his concerns over the immigration-law exodus, the U.S. Rep. Ed Pastor, D-Ariz., senior member of the state’s U.S. House delegation, stated that the President of the United States should immediately step into action, else there would be similar immigration reforms from every state of the United States. He expressed this on quoting the comments by Sen. Russell Pearce who stated that when other states begin passing their own immigration reforms, the President would be under immense pressure.
According to the Arizona Immigration Law, it is a criminal offense to be an undocumented immigrant in the country. It also entitles law officials to question whoever they suspect as illegal residents. This section of the law has raised alarms among many families, eventually leading them to flee the state. There are also a few others who wait for favorable amendments to be made in the law.

Many feel that this immigration reform by Arizona is an extreme measure taken up by the Arizona State Government.

Frank Sharry, Executive Director of America’s Voice, fears that the Arizona Immigration Law might become the American style ethnic cleansing that will terrorize all undocumented family members and drive them out of the state.

Arizona immigration law heads to court, with $1.2 million war chest – CSMonitor.com.

First of seven lawsuits against tough Arizona immigration law is heard Thursday in federal court in Phoenix. Money from private donors across the US has flowed into a defense fund for the statute.

By Lourdes Medrano, Contributor / July 15, 2010

Tucson, Ariz.

As Arizona heads to court Thursday to defend its tough new immigration law in the first of several legal challenges, it has the backing of many Americans who have opened their wallets to show support for the border state.

Contributions to Gov. Jan Brewer’s special legal defense fund now top $1 million, mostly in website donations of less than $100 pouring in from all over the country. Arizona, California, Texas, and Florida are the states with the most online donors.

As of Tuesday, website contributions totaled $1,104934.63 from 23,955 donors, according to the governor’s office. Additional mail-in donations totaled $93,084, with contributions still coming in, says Tasya Peterson, a Brewer spokeswoman. The average donation is about $46.

The Republican governor set up the fund by executive order in late May to help the state defend its right to enforce the law, which requires local and state authorities to determine the status of suspects they believe to be in the country illegally. The law, which the governor signed in April, has spawned economic boycotts and seven lawsuits – including one by the US Department of Justice filed July 6 – that seek to stop law, known locally as Senate Bill 1070, from going into effect July 29.

The financial contributions surged after the Obama administration its suit, reflecting opinion polls that show strong support for Arizona. In a Christian Science Monitor/TIPP poll released Monday, 51 percent of Americans favor the state’s immigration law. Thirty four percent support the federal government’s case against the state.

Phoenix resident Carlie Murphy, a retiree who has lived in Arizona for five years, says she contributed $20 because the state is trying to address what the federal government has neglected. “Our federal government has not fulfilled its responsibility for a long, long time when it comes to illegal immigration.”

Jeanne Kurucz and her husband, Andrew, of Garden Grove, Calif., donated $25 because they don’t think the federal government should be suing Arizona. “We stand behind Jan Brewer and we think that the government should close the borders,” Ms. Kurucz says.

Brewer and her backers say Arizona had to act because the federal government has failed to secure the border, but critics say the law will encourage racial profiling and is unconstitutional because enforcing immigration laws is a federal duty, not a state responsibility.

It is difficult to accurately estimate how much legal costs will total, says Paul Senseman, Brewer’s communications director. “It depends on many variables including the outcome of the cases, possible appeals, if new cases are filed, if the federal government continues to sue the state, etc.”

Arizona’s defense rests in the hands of private lawyers. Attorney General Terry Goddard, a Democrat who opposes the law, withdrew from representing the state in court after continuing clashes with Brewer, a Republican. Both are running for governor.

Brewer hired Snell & Wilmer LLC, a corporate law firm based in Phoenix, to defend the state. Chairman John Bouma says attorneys are working long hours on behalf of the state. Adjusted hourly rates for the state’s primary attorneys vary from $225 to $450 per hour, according to the firm’s contract with the state.

Thursday’s lawsuit before US District Judge Susan Bolton was filed by Tucson police officer Martin Escobar. Various organizations, including immigrant-advocacy groups and the ACLU, filed subsequent legal challenges. The Justice Department suit contends that the law interferes with federal authority, and attorneys for both sides will argue that case before Judge Bolton on July 22.

Obama: Immigration reform ‘cannot pass without Republican votes’ – The Oval: Tracking the Obama presidency.

President Obama today called for a “practical, common sense” immigration system that will help the U.S. economy and maintain America’s immigrant tradition — and he put the pressure on Republicans to get it through Congress.

“Reform that brings accountability to our immigration system cannot pass without Republican votes,” Obama said in his first major immigration speech as president . “That is the political and mathematical reality.”

Obama said his administration has already taken record-setting actions to strengthen the border, and he urged Congress to approve “a pathway to legal status” for the 11 million or so illegal immigrants who are already in the United States.

Immigration has become “a source of fresh contention” in recent days because of the new Arizona law that gives police greater authority to question people’s citizenship, Obama said. His administration is expected to file a lawsuit against Arizona, but the president did not discuss potential legal action.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said the first step on the immigration issue should be “to secure the borders,” and that Obama’s pathway to citizenship amounts to “amnesty” for lawbreakers.

“The President can make progress on this issue, but it will take more than a speech,” the top Senate Republican said. “If he would take amnesty off the table and make a real commitment to border and interior security, he will find strong bipartisan support.”

Speaking to lawmakers, academics, and community leaders gathered at American University, Obama touted his plan by stressing the immeasurable contributions that immigrants have made to the United States, and the frequent discrimination they faced throughout history. “Immigrants have always helped to build and defend this country,” Obama said.

The chances for congressional passage don’t appear great. Like McConnell, congressional Republicans and some Democrats said the government should focus on better law enforcement better moving on to citizenship issues or guest worker programs. In the meantime, lawmakers who are already grappling with new Wall Street regulations and an energy bill must also deal with congressional elections only four months from tomorrow.

Obama said political posturing on an emotional issue has delayed congressional action in years and month past. “Into this breach,” he said, “states like Arizona have decided to take matters into their own hands.”

Arizona’s crackdown is understandable but “ill-conceived,” Obama said, arguing that an immigration system requires a national approach rather than a “patchwork” of state laws that puts too much of a burden on local law enforcement.

“These laws also have the potential of violating the rights of innocent American citizens and legal residents,” Obama said, “making them subject to possible stops or questioning because of what they look like or how they sound.”

McConnell, the Senate GOP leader, criticized Obama for his stand on the Arizona law, saying that “attacks on states filling the breach created by the failure of the federal government won’t secure the border, grow jobs or create solutions for what we all agree is a broken immigration system.”

At points in his speech, Obama criticized both sides of the immigration debate.

Some rights groups all but encourage illegal immigration, Obama said, though at least 11 million people are in fact breaking the law by not going through the citizenship process, and they should be held accountable.

As for critics of “amnesty,” Obama said it’s simply impossible to deport 11 million people. Doing so would disrupt communities and break up families, he added, as many undocumented immigrants have children who are U.S. citizens because they were born here.

The president said he has already taken major steps to better protect the border, proclaiming — twice — that “we have more boots on the ground near the southwest border than at any time in our history.”

As for his pathway to citizenship plan, Obama said it will help create “a younger workforce and a faster growing economy than many of our competitors,” Obama said. “And in an increasingly interconnected world, the diversity of our country is a powerful advantage in global competition.”

Charities Worry They Will Be Unprepared to Help Immigrants if Rights Law Passes – Government – The Chronicle of Philanthropy- Connecting the nonprofit world with news, jobs, and ideas.

Charities and foundations have been working to press Congress to pass new immigration legislation. But many nonprofit groups say they are unprepared to handle a deluge in requests for help if a law passes.

The GOP would be wise to avoid shrill rhetoric and argue instead for more visas for the highly skilled.

By MICHAEL BARONE

Back in August, when he was heading to his Martha’s Vineyard vacation, President Obama called on Congress to pass a comprehensive immigration bill. He has renewed that call more recently, and Sens. Charles Schumer and Lindsey Graham say they want to co-sponsor a bipartisan bill. With Democrats holding 59 of 100 Senate seats and 254 of 435 House seats (there are three vacancies), you might think passage would be assured. But you would be wrong.
Prospects for a comprehensive immigration bill look worse than they did when George W. Bush was pushing for one in 2006 and 2007. In 2006 the Republican Senate did pass such a bill, but it never came to a vote in the House, which passed a border fence bill instead. In 2007 a Democratic Senate failed to pass a bill, as Harry Reid, in his first year as majority leader, yanked it from the floor twice.
The problem now, with Mr. Bush back in Texas, is that the immigration issue is political poison for both parties. Any bill that provides legal status to illegal immigrants leaves Democrats open to the charge that they’re backing “amnesty” and rewarding those who have broken the law. And vocal Republican opposition to such a bill leaves the GOP open to charges of anti-Hispanic bigotry, with possible backlash at the polls for years to come.
Democrats do have one reason to bring a bill forward. According to the exit poll, Hispanics voted 67% to 31% for Mr. Obama in 2008 and 68% to 29% for Democratic members of Congress. Hispanic politicians like Rep. Luis Gutierrez of Chicago have been agitating for immigration legislation and threatening civil disobedience if one is not passed. An estimated 100,000 people marched in Washington on March 21, the day the House passed the Democrats’ health-care bill, in support of comprehensive immigration legislation.
Even so, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, like her Republican predecessor Dennis Hastert, says she will not bring up the issue in the House until and unless the Senate passes a bill. Many Democratic members—Blue Dogs in rural districts, union stalwarts in industrial areas—fear that major reforms could give Republican opponents campaign fodder and cost them their seats in November.
Facts on the ground support such assessments. When immigration bills were debated in 2006 and 2007, unemployment was below 5%. For the last six months it has been hovering around 10%. In mid-decade it was expected that the flow of immigrants, legal and illegal, would continue indefinitely at the same high levels as it had since the early 1990s. Now it seems to have slowed.
The Pew Hispanic Center reported last summer that Mexican immigration to the U.S. from spring 2008 to spring 2009 was only one-quarter the level of 2004-05. The Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) estimates that the number of illegals in the U.S. dropped to 10.8 million in spring 2008 from 12.5 million in summer 2007—a decline of 14%. While the numbers are hard to verify, the CIS estimates that 1.2 million illegals returned to Mexico in 2006-09, more than twice as many as in 2002-05. The Census Bureau estimates that, for the first time since 1970, the nation’s foreign-born population declined in 2007-08.
This apparent downturn in immigration and the possible outmigration of illegals tend to undercut the argument for legalization. The argument ran that the nation needed more workers and that otherwise law-abiding and hard-working illegals who paid fines and took a place at the end of line could become constructive citizens. Ineffective enforcement of immigration laws, the argument went, was not their fault and amounted to something like an invitation to cross the border. But now, with high unemployment, we no longer need so many workers. If illegals are returning to their countries of origin in significant numbers, why encourage them to stay?
In addition, the argument that effective enforcement is unfeasible is weaker than it was just a few years ago. One result of the unsuccessful push for comprehensive legislation in 2006-07 was beefed up enforcement. Some 600 miles of border fence have been built, and border-crossing arrests—generally considered a proxy for illegal border crossings—have sharply declined.
Moreover, the e-Verify system for determining the legal status of potential employees has improved. In Arizona, where because of state law use of e-Verify is most common, there’s been a statistically significant decline in the foreign-born population, according to the Census Bureau. The possibility of using biometric identification (fingerprinting, facial recognition, DNA, etc.) to keep track of immigrants might make enforcement even more effective.
Increasingly, effective enforcement cuts both ways. One could argue that if we can enforce the law better in the future a one-time amnesty now—similar to President Reagan’s 1986 amnesty—would not lead to more illegal crossings. One could also argue that better enforcement means we shouldn’t reward those who broke the law in the past.
Most Senate Democrats still seem disposed to vote for a comprehensive bill. But they will need some significant number of Republicans to get the needed 60 votes. And the two Republicans who led the fight for such a bill in 2006-07 are no longer available. John McCain faces primary opposition from immigration critic J.D. Hayworth. His Arizona colleague Jon Kyl is not on board either. And it’s not clear how many Republican votes Lindsey Graham, for all his appearances on the Sunday talk shows, can deliver. This is one issue on which Democrats may wish that George W. Bush, with his strong support of a comprehensive bill, were still around.
Mr. Bush’s absence may also be a source of regret for Republicans. The instinct of many GOP politicians is to denounce any form of legalization, and in the shrill tones one hears from callers on talk-radio programs. But those shrill tones seem to turn off many voters, not just Hispanics but also suburbanites who favor strict enforcement of immigration laws but shy away from anything that sounds like prejudice against minorities.
Republicans would be well advised to avoid such rhetoric. They should take a cue from Sen. Kyl’s work on the 2007 bill, and from the thoughtful 2009 report of a bipartisan panel assembled by the Brookings Institution and Duke University’s Kenan Center. Both urged significant reductions in the number of green cards for legal residents’ relatives beyond the nuclear family and for a sizeable increase in the number issued to high-skill immigrants. This is the approach taken currently by Canada and Australia, with good results. The argument would be that in our current economy we need fewer job seekers and more job creators.
hese reforms would probably not be welcomed by the Hispanic groups that are pushing the Democrats to take up this legislation. But a package that provided limited legalization, further strengthened enforcement, and made room for more high-skill immigrants might be the only way to obtain bipartisan support—and could minimize the damage that each party faces from this emotion-laden issue.
Mr. Barone is senior political analyst for the Washington Examiner, resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, and co-author of “The Almanac of American Politics 2010″ (National Journal).

via Michael Barone: Immigration Reform: The New Third Rail – WSJ.com.

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has announced recently that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) will extend the temporary protected status for nationals of Sudan. The current expiration date of May 2, 2010 will be extended to the new expiration date of Nov 2, 2011.

Janet Napolitano, secretary of the Department of Homeland Security conducted a review in Sudan last year. It has determined that an 18-month extension is required because of the ongoing armed conflict. Also because the extraordinary and temporary conditions existing in Sudan that prompted the last TPS designation of Sudan on Oct. 7, 2004 persists till now. To bring out a good immigration reform, TPS beneficiaries are being encouraged to apply during the re-registration period from Dec 31, 2009 until Mar 1, 2010.

Approximately 700 nationals of Sudan and individuals who have no nationality, who last resided in Sudan may be eligible for re-registration. TPS does not apply to Sudanese nationals who entered the United States after Oct. 7, 2004. It will be better to apply as soon as the re-registration period opens so that there will be sufficient time for USCIS to complete all routine security checks and further application processing.

Form I-821, Application for temporary protected status must be submitted by TPS beneficiaries to re-register. Form I-765, Application for Employment Authorization must also be filed by applicants seeking an extension of employment authorization through Nov. 2, 2011. Form I-765 is only needed to be submitted for those individuals seeking to re-register for TPS. Biometric services fee may be required for applicants 14 years and older. Applicants may request a waiver of application fee or biometrics fee by providing a fee waiver request with proper documentation of inability to pay.

This 18-month extension of temporary protected status for Sudan will benefit those individuals who have been granted TPS earlier. Now they will be able to re-register andmaintain their status for additional 18-months.

Paul Kedrosky and Brad Feld: Start-up Visas Can Jump-Start the Economy – WSJ.com.

While fast-growing companies have long been the main source of new jobs and innovation, this country makes it outrageously difficult for immigrants to launch new companies here. This doesn’t make any sense. After all, Google, Pfizer, Intel, Yahoo, DuPont, eBay and Procter & Gamble are all former start-ups founded by immigrants. Where would this country be today without their world-changing innovations?

Immigrants have not only founded big, well-known companies. Foreign-born residents made up just 12.5% of the U.S. population in 2008. But nearly 40% of technology company founders and 52% of founders of companies in Silicon Valley.

Yet we don’t seem to care. We send recent, foreign-born university science and engineering graduates back to their own countries after their student visas expire—unless these creative sorts are willing to spend some of the most entrepreneurial years of their lives working in a big company under an H-1B visa after they finish their studies.

For those who studied elsewhere, but who nonetheless want to bring their job-creating ideas here, American policies treat them—the job-creating, trouble-making innovators that they are—as a cross between deadbeats and queue-jumpers. Why can’t they wait in line like everyone else to get a visa in five years or so? What’s their hurry?

Their hurry is Joseph Schumpeter’s hurry: They want to hustle out and disrupt markets when the opportunity arises.

In the 21st century those opportunities don’t wait for our interminable, employment-based visa programs. As a result rather than saying “Come and create jobs here” we, in effect, tell them to shove off. Come back when you have a few million in sales— at which point they will be rooted elsewhere and creating jobs somewhere else.

That needs to end now. Immigrants who come here to create companies create jobs. We need the jobs.

One good idea to make this process easier is to create a new visa for entrepreneurs, something that is increasingly being called by venture capitalists, entrepreneurs, and angel investors a “start-up visa.” It might work like this: If immigrant entrepreneurs want to start a company in the U.S. and are able to raise a moderate amount of money (perhaps as little as $125,000) from an accredited U.S.-based venture capital firm or qualified U.S.-based angel investors, we should let them start a company here. It could be a couple of founders with an idea—that’s it. We would give visas to the founders and welcome them in to our country.

Would it work every time? Of course not. It would fail more often than not. Start-ups often fail.

But having failed, the immigrant entrepreneurs could try again, and again. And as long as they are trying, raising money, creating jobs, and making sales, we would let them stay here. Founders of new companies are precious for a vibrant economy, and we should welcome them. Indeed, the country would be better served to find more of them.

Some will say a start-up visa program will be abused. They will say that it will become a way to end-run immigration rules, to jump the queue if you have money.

There are at least two answers to these objections. First, to get such a visa you would have to raise money from real investors. Second, Canada and other countries already allow entrepreneurs to start a company in their country. Shouldn’t the U.S. stop worrying so much about keeping these people out, and start worrying about bringing them in?

We also think science and engineering graduates should get visas stapled to their diplomas. You complete your higher education here, you get to stay so that you can get out and create jobs, innovate, and grow the economy. Uncle Sam wants you, if you’re a prospective entrepreneur.

The U.S. remains one of the most attractive countries for entrepreneurs. It has a culture of risk taking, capital formation, and an economic dynamism that is the envy of the world. This gives us a competitive edge that we should not let slip through our fingers.