National Hispanic Leadership Agenda List Their Demands For Immigration Reform: Do You Agree?

Hispanic Leadership Platform On Immigration: Too Radical?
Open Image Modal

The 30-group coalition, the National Hispanic Leadership Agenda, has released a platform that they say political parties should adopt in order to woo the Latino vote. While calling for reform on a number of issues, it was their support for comprehensive immigration reform that may cause many on Capitol Hill to bristle.

We've listed their main points on immigration reform below. Read them over and let us know what you think. Do their demands fall in line with your own? Are their asks reasonable or has the National Hispanic Leadership Agenda gone too far?

  • Enact comprehensive immigration reform that offers undocumented immigrants an earned path to legalization and citizenship, unites families, and allows workers to enter with the rights and protections that safeguard our workforce.
  • Curtail the state and local enforcement of immigration laws, which inevitably lead to racial profiling and unnecessarily strained relations between police and local Latino communities.
  • Enact the DREAM Act, in part, to give undocumented students a path to earned legalization and then citizenship, and in the interim, maintain a fair and orderly path to administrative relief (from removal) for DREAM Act-eligible individuals.
  • Revisit per-country caps unfairly slowing down the orderly adjustment of Latino immigrants.
  • Continue to reduce the average processing time for green card applicants and green card holders applying for naturalization.
  • Recognize the important benefit that naturalization confers on our nation and the related critical significance of maintaining naturalization fees at an affordable level.
  • Demilitarize the southwest border by replacing National Guard troops with civilian law enforcement officers and halting construction of walls and fences along the border.
  • Invest in cost-effective alternatives to detention for those who do not pose a risk to public safety or are a flight risk.

Our 2024 Coverage Needs You

As Americans head to the polls in 2024, the very future of our country is at stake. At HuffPost, we believe that a free press is critical to creating well-informed voters. That's why our journalism is free for everyone, even though other newsrooms retreat behind expensive paywalls.

Our journalists will continue to cover the twists and turns during this historic presidential election. With your help, we'll bring you hard-hitting investigations, well-researched analysis and timely takes you can't find elsewhere. Reporting in this current political climate is a responsibility we do not take lightly, and we thank you for your support.

to keep our news free for all.

Support HuffPost

Before You Go

Controversial Immigration Laws
The Template: California Proposition 187 (1994)(01 of07)
Open Image Modal
California's Proposition 187 was submitted to the voters with the full support of then Republican governor Pete Wilson. It essentially blamed undocumented immigrants for the poor performance of the state economy in the early 1990s. The law called for cutting off benefits to undocumented immigrants: prohibiting their access to health care, public education, and other social services in California. It also required state authorities to report anyone who they suspected was undocumented. Status: The law passed with the support of 55 percent of the voters in 1994 but declared unconstitutional 1997. The law was killed in 1999 when a new governor, Democrat Gray Davis, refused to appeal a judicial decision that struck down most of the law. Even though short-lived, the legislation paved the way for harsher immigration laws to come. On the other hand, the strong reaction from the Hispanic community and immigration advocates propelled a drive for naturalization of legal residents and created as many as one million new voters. (credit:alamy)
The Worst: Arizona SB 1070 (02 of07)
Open Image Modal
The Arizona Act made it a misdemeanor for an undocumented immigrant to be within the state lines of Arizona without legal documents allowing their presence in the U.S. This law has been widely criticized as xenophobic and for encouraging racial profiling. It requires state authorities to inquire about an individual's immigration status during an arrest when there is "reasonable suspicion" that the individual is undocumented. The law would allow police to detain anyone who they believe was in the country illegally. Status: The law was signed into law by Arizona Governor Jan Brewer on April 23, 2010. But it has generated a swirl of controversy and questions about its constitutionality. A federal judge issued a ruling that blocked what critics saw as some of the law's harshest provisions. House: 35-31 (4/12/2011) (credit:MARK RALSTON/AFP/Getty Images)
Following Arizona's Footsteps: Georgia HB 87(03 of07)
Open Image Modal
The controversy over Arizona's immigration law was followed by heated debate over Georgia's own law. HB 87 required government agencies and private companies to check the immigration status of applicants. This law also limited some government benefits to people who could prove their legal status. Status: Although a federal judge temporarily blocked parts of the law considered too extreme, it went into effect on July 1st. 2011.House: 113-56 Senate: 39-17 (credit:AP)
Verifying Authorized Workers: Pennsylvania HB 1502 (04 of07)
Open Image Modal
This bill, which was approved in 2010, bans contractors and subcontractors employ undocumented workers from having state construction contracts. The bill also protects employees who report construction sites that hire illegal workers. To ensure that contractors hire legal workers, the law requires employers to use the identification verification system E-verify, based on a compilation of legally issued Social Security numbers.Status: Approved on June 8th 2010. House: 188-6 (07/08/2010)Flickr photo by DonkeyHotey (credit:Flickr:DonkeyHotey)
A Spin Off of Arizona: Utah HB 497(05 of07)
Open Image Modal
Many states tried to emulate Arizona's SB 1070 law. However, most state legislatures voted against the proposals. Utah's legislature managed to approve an immigration law based on a different argument. Taking into consideration the criticism of racial profiling in Arizona, Utah required ID cards for "guest workers" and their families. In order to get such a card workers must pay a fee and have clean records. The fees go up to $2,500 for immigrants who entered the country illegally and $1,000 for immigrants who entered the country legally but were not complying with federal immigration law, according to the LA Times.Status: Law went into effect on 03/15/2011House: 59-15 (03/04/2011)Senate: 22-5 (03/04/2011) (credit:AP)
The Most Comprehensive: Florida HB-1C (06 of07)
Open Image Modal
Florida's immigration law prohibits any restrictions on the enforcement of federal immigration law. It makes it unlawful for undocumented immigrants within the state to apply for work or work as an independent contractor. It forbids employers from hiring immigrants if they are aware of their illegal status and requires work applicants to go through the E-verify system in order to check their Social Security number. Status: effective since October 1st, 2010 (credit:Getty)
The Hot Seat: Alabama HB 56(07 of07)
Open Image Modal
The new immigration law in Alabama is considered the toughest in the land, even harder than Arizona's SB 1070. It prohibits law enforcement officers from releasing an arrested person before his or her immigration status is determined. It does not allow undocumented immigrants to receive any state benefit, and prohibits them from enrolling in public colleges, applying for work or soliciting work in a public space. The law also prohibits landlords from renting property to undocumented immigrants, and employers from hiring them. It requires residents to prove they are citizens before they become eligible to vote. The law asked every school in the state to submit an annual report with the number of presumed undocumented students, but this part, along with others, were suspended by federal courts. Status: Approved June 2nd, 2011 House: 73-28 (04/05/2011)Senate: 23-11 (05/05/2011)Flickr photo by longislandwins (credit:Flickr:longislandwins)