U.S. IMMIGRATION BLOG
Articulos seleccionados ahora disponibles en Español.

 

Wednesday, June 28, 2010
Key parts of Arzona Immigration law blocked by Federal judge

A federal judge has blocked key portions of Arizona's immigration law at the last minute today. Coming just hours before the law was to take effect, the ruling sets up a lengthy legal battle that could end up before the Supreme Court . Following is the key text from the ruling:

Applying the proper legal standards based upon well-established precedent, the Court finds that the United States is likely to succeed on the merits in showing that the following Sections of S.B. 1070 are preempted by federal law:
Portion of Section 2 of S.B. 1070
A.R.S. § 11-1051(B): requiring that an officer make a reasonable attempt to determine the immigration status of a person stopped, detained or arrested if there is a reasonable suspicion that the person is unlawfully present in the United States, and requiring verification of the immigration status of any person arrested prior to releasing that person
Section 3 of S.B. 1070
A.R.S. § 13-1509: creating a crime for the failure to apply for or carry alien registration papers
Portion of Section 5 of S.B. 1070
A.R.S. § 13-2928(C): creating a crime for an unauthorized alien to solicit, apply for, or perform work
Section 6 of S.B. 1070
A.R.S. § 13-3883(A)(5): authorizing the warrantless arrest of a person where there is probable cause to believe the person has committed a public offense that makes the person removable from the United States
The Court also finds that the United States is likely to suffer irreparable harm if the Court does not preliminarily enjoin enforcement of these Sections of S.B. 1070 and that the balance of equities tips in the United States’ favor considering the public interest. The Court therefore issues a preliminary injunction enjoining the enforcement of the portion of Section 2 creating A.R.S. § 11-1051(B), Section 3 creating A.R.S. § 13-1509, the portion of Section 5 creating A.R.S. § 13-2928(C), and Section 6 creating A.R.S. § 13-3883(A)(5).

Posted by Carla Pérez at 3:30 PM

 

Thursday, June 10, 2010
Green cards and other immigration benefits face fee hikes
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services will raise fees an average 10% to help close a projected $200-million budget deficit. The cost of citizenship applications will not increase.
By Teresa Watanabe
The Los Angeles Times, June 9, 2010

The cost of obtaining a green card, business visa and other immigration benefits will increase an average 10% under a proposal announced Wednesday by federal immigration officials. But in a move hailed by immigrant advocates, officials decided not to propose fee hikes for citizenship applications, one of the largest and most politically popular categories of immigration benefits. Citizenship fees were increased by nearly 70% to $675 in 2007, which immigrant advocates say contributed to a sharp drop in the number of citizenship applications over the last two years.

Alejandro Mayorkas, director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, said the proposed fee increases were needed to close a projected $200-million deficit for 2010-11. Budget cuts of $160 million were not enough to offset the gap between the agency's projected $2.1 billion revenue and $2.3 billion in expenses, he said Wednesday during a national teleconference. Under the proposal, application fees for green cards would increase from $930 to $985, and fees for family visa petitions from $355 to $420. Foreigners wanting to become a U.S. citizen must hold a green card for five years before they are eligible to apply for citizenship.

In addition, three new fees are being proposed for immigrant investors, civil surgeons and to process visa applications in state department consular offices. The proposal would reduce fees in a few categories, including petitions for immigrant fiances, which would drop to $340 from $455. The immigration agency, which oversees the nation's legal immigration system, is required to be self-supported and relies on fees for 90% of its budget. In recent years, it has received congressional appropriations for specific tasks, such as clearing up backlogs and processing asylum, refugee and military applications. After a months-long fee review and meetings with community groups in Los Angeles, Chicago, New York and elsewhere, Mayorkas said the agency decided that fee hikes on most services were necessary, but chose to protect citizenship and a few other benefits.
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jun/09/nation/la-na-immig-fees-20100610/2

Posted by Carla Pérez at 10:30 AM

 

Monday, May 17, 2010
Immigration reform should focus on security

A repost of a Washington Examiner article by Alex Nowrasteh

The recent arrest of Faisal Shahzad, the Times Square bombing suspect, has reopened the debate on immigration and national security. Shahzad is an immigrant from Pakistan went to school in the U.S. on a student visa and obtained an H-1B visa in 2002 before gaining citizenship. He slipped through not because of the laxity of our immigration laws, but partly because of their strictness. Immigration authorities’ time would be better spent going after guys like Shazhad, rather than landscapers without proper papers.

Nevertheless, politicians are seeking to score national security points. For instance, Sen. Joseph Lieberman, whose behavior becomes ever more erratic, (I-Conn.) has introduced a bill to strip terror suspects of their citizenship and ship them to Guantanamo. Fundamentally changing the nature of American rules and rights regarding citizenship will do nothing to increase security, and erode civil liberties. So what to do instead? A more reasonable, sensible, and effective solution is to reexamine our labyrinthine immigration laws. Under our current immigration system, government regulates, plans, and interferes in astounding amount of minutiae with every group of immigrants. Over 90,000 federal immigration service employees are constantly busy trying to regulate Latino laborers and Indian computer programmers. To exclude those who come to America to work, they conduct workplace raids, man checkpoints in the Southwest, and open shipping containers coming from Asia. The result: fewer paths to legal immigration, a decade-long waiting list for legal entry, and a pervasive black market of undocumented workers.

Most U.S. immigration laws concerning entry regulate labor market participation and familial relations. Instead of wasting scarce security resources on those fruitless and invasive tasks, our government should focus in on real threats like identifying and excluding terrorists and criminals. One reason Shahzad slipped through the system is that the immigration system is designed to regulate labor markets, rather than look for security threats. There are currently 10.8 million illegal immigrants in the United States, of whom the vast majority has not committed any crime. Their primary offense has been to circumvent our complex immigration laws. Almost all likely would have entered legally given a reasonable option. Immigrants will continue to come to the United States no matter how strict the border controls because of the enormous opportunities only found here.

It is also a fact that the government cannot regulate an underground economy. A way the government could actually regulate these immigrants, and exclude the few that are actual security threats, is to expand the avenues for legal immigration. That will decrease the number of illegal immigrants and instead channel them into a legal market where security can be more effective. However, dedicated terrorists will always seek ways, legal or illegal, to come into this country, but allowing them to hide camouflaged amongst 10.8 million illegal immigrants in this pervasive black market will only aid them in accomplishing their goals. Shahzad was on a federal watch list for nine years starting in 1999, three years before getting his H-1B visa. Our government should spend its resources examining those very few foreigners who want to do harm or commit crimes and leave the rest be.

American immigration resources are seriously—even dangerously—misallocated in the era of transnational terrorism. There is a number of potentially very dangerous terrorists who want to do us harm. Taking the threat seriously means looking at every policy solution that can enhance security. Shahzad got as far as he did with his terrorist plot because of the fractious nature of our immigration laws. Rather than spend more resources trying to address non-risks like foreign laborers and entrepreneurs who want to come to America, we should direct our strained security resources to where they will do the most good. Expanding legal immigration with an eye on security instead of manipulating labor markets would make us safer.

Posted by Daniel Smith at 4:50 PM

 

Thursday, March 18, 2010
The truth about RFE's (Request For Evidence)...

USCIS has a $209 billion decrease in fees. Filings and therefore filing fee income is down by billions of dollars, so to keep its' staff employed USCIS is sending out lots and lots of RFE's .

Reduction in Fee Revenues Could Complicate Budget for Immigration Agency
CQ HOMELAND SECURITY March 16, 2010 – By Rob Margetta, CQ Staff

Citizenship and Immigration Services Director Alejandro Mayorkas fielded questions from House appropriators Tuesday about whether the fiscal 2011 budget proposals for his agency would provide enough money for operations. Unlike many of the Department of Homeland Security’s agencies, CIS draws the vast majority of its funding from fees, not congressional appropriations. The agency, which oversees lawful immigration to the United States, proposed a $2.8 billion budget for fiscal 2011, $2.4 billion of which would come from fees, such as those associated with immigration paperwork.
But in the face of a projected $209 million decrease in fee revenues in fiscal 2011, some members of the House Appropriations Homeland Security Subcommittee expressed concern about what would happen in the event of a budgetary shortfall. Chairman David E. Price, D-N.C., said if the agency has overestimated fees and experiences delays in its immigration, employment-verification and humanitarian work, Congress might not be able to bail it out. “Given the federal budget deficit, it . . . seems unlikely Congress will be in a position to provide discretionary appropriations for CIS operations if processing times begin to lag,” he said.
Lucille Roybal-Allard, D-Calif., noted that the agency’s fees pay for more than processing documents — they also pay salaries and other operating expenses. Mayorkas said CIS has built in some cushioning in the form of unfilled vacancies and contractor positions that were eliminated. “We are very mindful of the fact that we are trying to make any cuts possible . . . without affecting our services,” he said, adding that his agency has a realistic idea of how much in should receive in fees. “We are not forecasting an upswing right now in applications.”
One area where CIS wants to shift from fees to appropriations is the processing of asylum claims and refugee applications. The agency has requested $207 million for that service — $157 million more than last year. The agency previously offset those expenses by adding a surcharge to other immigration applications, but this fiscal year’s Homeland Security appropriation (PL 111-83) provided three month’s worth of funding for asylum and refugee processing. CIS plans to discontinue the surcharges around the end of the current fiscal year, he said. The subcommittee’s leaders were split on the request for more taxpayer funding. Price said he expects the agency to remain mostly fee-funded, but also said that Congress has supported removing the surcharge and recognizes CIS has seen declines in fee revenues.
Ranking Republican Harold Rogers of Kentucky, on the other hand, said the effort to use more federal money was unfair. “What this means in real terms is that the administration is shifting the costs of some immigration programs and benefits from applicants to U.S. taxpayers,” he said.
A version of this story appeared on CQ Homeland Security.

Posted by Daniel Smith at 10:50 AM

 

Friday, January 8, 2010
U.S. Lifts HIV Immigration Ban

The U.S. HIV travel and immigration ban was officially lifted Monday, January 4, 22 years after first going into effect. South Korea also lifted its HIV ban on the same day, leaving only a handful of authoritarian countries that still use HIV status as a factor in controlling who crosses their borders. Jesse Helms, the late reactionary senator from North Carolina, had championed the ban. In 1987 he pushed for a regulation imposing the ban, then in 1993 convinced Congress to codify it into law. HIV was the only disease specifically named within the immigration statute as reason for denial of entry. HIV-positive individuals could obtain a special waiver to visit the United States and many did. But others declined to do so out of fear of discrimination within their own country if their status became known.

The successful push to eliminate the travel ban was part of reauthorization of PEPFAR, the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, which Congress passed in the summer of 2008. The Bush administration supported that removal. That administration began the lengthy and tedious process to change regulations required under the ban. The Obama administration continued steps in that process, though sometimes not as rapidly as supporters of lifting the travel ban would have liked.

Last month the International AIDS Society announced that it would bring the XIX International AIDS Conference to Washington, D.C. in July 2012. It had last held the biennial meeting in the U.S. in San Francisco in 1990 but subsequently boycotted a return to the U.S. because of the travel ban.

The first HIV-positive person to enter the U.S. after the ban was lifted is one-half of a Dutch couple. Clemens Ruland, 45, who is HIV-positive, and Hugo Bausch, 50, who is HIV-negative, landed at JFK airport in New York on the afternoon of January 7. Ruland won an essay contest sponsored by an AIDS organization in the Netherlands for their clients, with a trip to New York as the prize. Ralls acknowledged that selection of Ruland as "the first" is "pretty arbitrary," but he said hundreds of people had contacted Immigration Equality about the pending changes in U.S. policy and Ruland and Bausch are the first of that group to hit these shores.

"This policy, in place for more than two decades, was unnecessary, ineffective, and lacked a public health justification," said Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign. "A sad chapter in our nation's response to people with HIV and AIDS has finally come to a close, and we are a better nation for it."

Posted by Duncan Millar at 2:30 PM

 

ICE Selects 1,000 Employers for Form I-9 Audits

November 24th, 2009

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) launched a bold new audit initiative this year to combat the problem of an illegal workforce.

On July 1, 2009, 654 businesses nationwide were served with Notice of Inspections (NOIs) indicating that ICE would inspect their hiring records (Form I-9) to determine whether they were in accordance with the employment eligibility verification laws and regulations. The businesses presented with the NOIs to Audit Form I-9 were selected as a result of leads and other information obtained through other investigative measures. This was the first step for ICE in its nationwide plan to promote compliance with the employment eligibility laws through an effective I-9 Audit system. Audits involve a comprehensive review of Form I-9s. Form I-9 must be completed and retained for each new hire. The form requires the employer to review several personal identification documents of the new hire (i.e., passport, permanent resident card, employment authorization card, driver’s license, birth certificate, military id, etc) and to determine the genuineness of the documents. The statistics resulting from the 654 businesses audited by ICE are provided below:

• ICE agents reviewed more than 85,000 Form I-9s and identified more than 14,000 suspect documents—approximately 16 percent of the total number reviewed
• To date, 61 NIFs have been issued, resulting in $2,310,255 in fines. In addition, 267 cases are currently being considered for Notices of Intent to Fine (NIFs).
• ICE closed 326 cases after businesses were found to be in compliance with employment laws or after businesses were served with a Warning Notice in expectation of future compliance.

Furthermore, on November 19, 2009, ICE Assistant Secretary John Morton announced the issuance of NOIs to 1,000 employers across the country associated with critical infrastructure. In the News Release announcing the issuance of the NOIs, Assistant ICE Secretary Morton stated that “ICE is focused on finding and penalizing employers who believe they can unfairly get ahead by cultivating illegal workplaces.” ICE Audits are one of the most important administrative tools in building criminal cases and bringing employers into compliance with the law.

If you are interested in conducting an internal I-9 Audit to ensure your company’s compliance with the employment eligibility verification laws and regulations, contact our office today.

Posted by Daniel Smith at 3:15 PM

 

The 287 (g) program: a witch hunt.

November 2, 2009

In a letter to President Barack Obama sent Monday, October 26, Rep. Lamar Smith of Travis County, Texas and 53 other members of Congress expressed support for a broader implementation of the 287 (g) program. The 287 (g) program, which was added to the Immigration and Nationality Act in 1995, allows the federal government to enter into agreements with local law enforcement agencies and certify local officers to perform the duties of federal immigration agents. Non-coincidentally, the letter was written just days after the Obama administration implemented limits on the state and local law enforcement agencies that participate in the program.

The program has been a major source of controversy since its inception. Smith and colleagues contend that “Federal, state, and local cooperation is key to combating illegal immigration.” U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement lists several success stories in relation to the program on its Web site, including one example in Florida where 18 illegal immigrants were arrested and deported after attempting to purchase fraudulently obtained state driver’s licenses.

Despite this, many maintain that expanding the power of local law enforcement has been disastrous. Ali Noorani, executive director of the National Immigration Forum, claims that the program “has spawned widespread racial profiling, sparked lawsuits and civil rights investigations, and literally let loose local cowboys to round people up in immigrant communities.”

The most notorious example of a “local cowboy let loose” is Joe Arpaio, who has proclaimed himself “America’s toughest sheriff.” Under his watch, roughly 30,000 illegal immigrants were caught within his jurisdiction. Despite this, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security recently revoked his deputy’s authority to arrest suspected illegal immigrants in the field (though they are still granted authority to check the immigration status of prisoners in county jails). The reason for this revocation, despite Arpaio’s success, is his blatant disregard for human rights and obvious abuse of the authority granted to him through the program.

As journalist and author Jana Bommersbach wrote when speaking of the tactics of Arpaio, who gained national notoriety for forcing inmates to wear pink underwear and live in tents in which temperatures could exceed 120 degrees, “Every time I watch Sheriff Joe unleash his ‘posse’ on another neighborhood with a high Hispanic population, arresting people with brown skin for the most stupid of offenses — honking their horn, having a taillight out, not signaling when they change lanes — I have to wonder how anyone could not see this as an assault on an entire race of people.” In response to the Department of Homeland Security’s actions, Arpaio said defiantly, “Now the only difference [is] we’re going to take ’em down to [U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement]. I hope they accept them. If they don’t, I’ll bring ’em myself to the border.”

Arpaio is an extreme example of how 287 (g) has led to human rights violations and unethical treatment of innocent citizens, but he’s by no means the only example. A letter written by the Congressional Hispanic Caucus to President Obama states, “The misuse of the 287 (g) program by its current participants has rendered it ineffective and dangerous to community safety.” The letter further states, “State and local law enforcement officials actually use their expanded and often unchecked power under the program to target immigrants and persons of color.”

While the implementation of immigration reform on a local level makes sense in theory, it is clear that the 287 (g) program does nothing more than enable local law enforcement officers to embark on a witch hunt against all Hispanics under the assumption that they are in America illegally. The letter to Obama signed by Smith in support of street-level task forces as well as citizenship checks in prisons claims that criticism of the program is unfounded. The 15.4 percent segment of the population that is groundlessly put on watch because of this program may think otherwise.

Posted by Carla Pérez at 10:30 AM

 

DHS Rescinds ‘No-Match’ Rules

October 22, 2009

Effective November 6, 2009, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is rescinding the final rules (PDF) it promulgated in 2007 and 2008 relating to procedures that employers may take to acquire a safe harbor from receipt of “no-match” letters, which the Social Security Administration (SSA) sends to employers when the combination of an employee name and social security number does not match SSA records. DHS proposed to rescind the no-match rules on August 19, 2009, and is issuing this final rule without change.

Implementation of the 2007 final rule was preliminarily enjoined by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on October 10, 2007. After further review, DHS said it will focus its enforcement efforts relating to the employment of unauthorized workers on improved verification, including participation in E-Verify, the ICE Mutual Agreement Between Government and Employers (IMAGE), and other programs. DHS said that IMAGE is “designed to help the business community develop and implement hiring and employment verification best practices.”

USCIS said that “[t]hese tools focus on more universal compliance with the employment eligibility verification requirements of the Immigration and Nationality Act than a safe harbor procedure for a limited number of employers who receive a No-Match letter.” The agency said that a no-match letter is “reactive, either one specifically guided to the employment eligibility issue from ICE or one indirectly pointing to a potential employment eligibility issue through social security number record mismatches on tax filings through SSA.”

DHS also noted that “unscrupulous employers would continue to find ways to take advantage of the system, regardless of whether the No-Match rules were in place.” The agency said it focuses criminal and civil enforcement efforts against “the most egregious violators: employers who use unauthorized workers in order to gain a competitive advantage or those who exploit the vulnerable, often engaging in human trafficking and smuggling, identity theft, and social security number and document fraud”; and “employers in the Nation’s critical infrastructure sites, including airports, seaports and power plants.”

Posted by Daniel Smith at 4:04 PM

 

The Olympics - Another Victim of America's Broken Immigration System

From the Immigration Policy Center

October 2, 2009

Washington D.C. - Newspapers are reporting today that during the official Q&A session following the Chicago bid for the Olympic Games, I.O.C. member, Syed Shahid Ali, from Pakistan, asked President Obama how smooth it would be for foreigners to enter the United States for the Olympic Games because doing so can sometimes be "a rather harrowing experience."

While this I.O.C. member's concerns raise a red flag about the need for a change in our immigration policies, a litany of voices have been warning for years that the U.S. is slowly adopting an anti-visitor policy that is harming business, higher education and families. Stories in the press and report after report have all highlighted how our broken immigration system is hampering our nation's ability to attract the best and the brightest and stay competitive with other nations around the world.

While the I.O.C. questioned Brazil on combating crime, and Japan was chided for a lackluster proposal that led it to claim the country's plan was environmentally friendly, it's notable that the U.S. was pushed hardest on its immigration policies making it clear that our broken immigration system has officially become our Achilles' heel in the eyes of the world.

President Obama said at a recent White House gathering that he believes in comprehensive immigration reform and that it is on his agenda. However, this recent disappointment proves that immigration reform is not just a pressing domestic issue, but an international one as well. The President may say the U.S. is open for business, but our nation's actions have proved quite the opposite.

Posted by Daniel Smith at 4:59 PM

 

In Blog Post, DHS Secretary Napolitano Calls On Americans “To Live In A Constant State Of Readiness, Not A Constant State Of Fear”

In a recent post on the U.S. Homeland Security Department’s Leadership Blog, Secretary Janet Napolitano asks the public “to live in a constant state of readiness, not a constant state of fear.” The post titled, “The Department’s Five Responsibilities,” summarizes a longer speech Napolitano delivered at the Aspen Institute. Her text follows:

When President-elect Obama nominated me to become our country’s third Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, I was warned that the vast Department was too cumbersome to lead; that the 225,000-strong workforce was too big to manage; that the 22 agencies with 22 corresponding missions that were brought together in 2003 were too disparate to meld into a coherent structure with a clear vision.

Yet, nearly five months into my tenure, the purpose of our Department is unambiguous: we must guard against terrorism; we must secure our borders; we must enforce our immigration laws; we must improve our readiness for, response to, and recovery from disasters; and we must unify the Department so that we can even more effectively carry out our mission.

On each of the five fronts, we have already made important strides.

Protecting the American people from terrorist threats is the founding principle of the Department and our highest priority. This is an effort where everyone--families and communities, first responders, the private sector, state and local governments, as well as the Department--must contribute. My approach is simple: direct every resource available towards prevention and preparedness, and ask Americans to live in a constant state of readiness, not a constant state of fear.

Since January, we have forged new partnerships with our international allies to provide more tools in the fight against terrorism. We have dedicated new resources to detect threats at our transportation hubs and protect our critical infrastructure. And, we are strengthening information-sharing efforts, working hand-in-hand with state, local and tribal law enforcement.

Fulfilling our mission also means securing our borders—our Southern border, our Northern border, and our air and sea ports. Every year, we apprehend and deport more than one million illegal immigrants, no doubt deterring countless more from trying to cross the border. Recently, we announced a new initiative to strengthen security on the Southwest border to disrupt the drug, cash and weapon smuggling that is helping to fuel cartel violence in Mexico.

When it comes to immigration, we need to facilitate legal immigration while we crack down on those who violate our nation’s laws. A few weeks ago, we issued new guidance to our agents in the field to focus our efforts on apprehending criminal illegal aliens and prosecuting employers who knowingly hire illegal workers. At the same time, we are committed to providing employers with the most up-to-date and effective resources to maintain a legal workforce. This new focus is drawing widespread praise--from law enforcement to the business community--because it addresses the root cause of illegal immigration.

As a nation, we must develop a more urgent sense of readiness. Hurricanes happen. Tornadoes happen. Floods happen. And as we recently experienced, so do health outbreaks like the H1N1 flu. The Department plays a critical role in helping communities in all stages of a disaster--preparation, response and long term recovery. Since January, we have worked in close coordination with state and local authorities to respond to severe storms in Arkansas, Kentucky, and Missouri and flooding in North Dakota and Minnesota. We have taken bold new steps to accelerate recovery efforts in the Gulf Coast region, streamlining decision making and consolidating offices to eliminate redundancies.

And we took immediate and aggressive steps to lead the federal government’s efforts to confront the H1N1 flu outbreak.

Finally, we must unify and mature our Department. Our goal is simple: one DHS, one enterprise, a shared vision, with integrated results-based operations. Through a consolidated headquarters, we are bringing 35 locations together. We have launched an expansive efficiency initiative that is leveraging the economies of scale in our Department in order to recover hundreds of millions of dollars and create a culture of responsibility and fiscal discipline.

Throughout these five priority areas, we are applying a series of cross-cutting approaches. We are bolstering cooperation with our partners at the local, tribal, state, federal and international levels; we are expanding our capabilities through the deployment of science and technology while developing and maturing new technologies for tomorrow; and we are maximizing efficiency to ensure every security dollar is spent in the most effective way.We cannot afford to relent on any of these five fronts because together, they amount to our one overarching mission—a mission whose scope is massive, challenging, and humbling, but also a mission so straightforward and clear that it is contained in our name: securing the homeland.

Janet Napolitano

Posted by Daniel Smith at 3:59 PM

 

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 3, 2009
Immigration reform enjoys dominant support

From DailyKos.com: Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 08:00:06 AM PDT

Beneson Strategy Group (PDF) for America's Voice. 5/9-12. Likely voters. MoE 3.1%

Do you strongly support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose, strongly oppose Congress passing comprehensive immigration reform?

Total Support 64
Strongly support 31
Somewhat support 33

Total Oppose 21
Somewhat oppose 10
Strongly oppose 10

Conventional wisdom is that tough economic times generates anti-immigrant sentiment, but these numbers are stellar. And that's just asking people about "comprehensive immigration reform". Look what happens when they are told what that actually means:

One version of immigration reform that people have discussed would take a comprehensive approach. It would secure the border, crack down on employers who hire illegal immigrants, and require illegal immigrants to register for legal immigration status, pay back taxes, and learn English in order to be eligible for U.S. citizenship. Would you ... Congress passing this proposal?

Total Support 86
Strongly support 58
Somewhat support 28

Total Oppose 14
Somewhat oppose 6
Strongly oppose 7

That's a stunning 29-point shift, with well over a majority of respondents "strongly approving". The Minutemen crowd, no matter how much noise it might make, is fringier than fringe. And the strongest support, crazy as it seems, comes from Republicans -- 89-11. They're probably drawn to the punitive component of comprehensive immigration reform, as well as the thought that undocumented immigrants, once legalized, "would help taxpayers by making illegal immigrants pay taxes." According to the poll, just 17 percent of respondents think such reform would be "amnesty", including just 16 percent of Republicans.

Note, there's no talk here of a guest worker program, which business groups are demanding to keep American wages low and create a permanent indentured class. The American people have no need for it.

Note that this poll is no outlier, but accurately reflects what other polls have found:

Pew, 4/14-21.
Favor providing a away for illegal immigrants already in the US to gain legal citizenship:
Support
2009 63
2007 58

Washington Post/ABC News, 4/21-24.
Would you support or oppose a program giving ILLEGAL immigrants now living in the United States the right to live here LEGALLY if they pay a fine and meet other requirements?
Support Oppose
2009 61 35
2007 49 46

Can there possibly be a bigger win-win? The American people strongly support what is a moral and practical imperative -- to bring 12 million undocumented immigrants out of the shadows and integrate them into our society. Now all we need is our politicians to do the right thing. Obama has promised to move on this issue by the end of the year. There's no reason Congress shouldn't offer enthusiastic bipartisan support. Won't happen, but there's really no reason it shouldn't.

Posted by Daniel Smith at 12:12 PM

 

Wednesday, April 29, 2009
New Bill Threatens H-1 and L-1 Visa Programs
Two US Senators have introduced legislation to reform the H-1B and L-1 work visa programs to protect American workers — by preventing abuse and fraud and stopping outsourcing. The bill poses a potential protectionist threat to Indian companies by specifying minimum levels of US workers in IT units.

The Indian industry says that the bill if converted to law will have serious implications on Indian companies. "If the bill goes through then Indian companies will not be bale to compete in the US," said Som Mittal, president of industry association NASSCOM, said in Delhi.

Indian professionals receive the largest share of H-1B and L-1 visas.

Among other things, the bill would require any employer who wants to hire a foreign worker on an H-1B visa to first make a good-faith attempt to recruit a qualified American worker. Employers would be prohibited from using H-1B visa holders to displace qualified US workers. If more than 50 per cent of a firm's employees are H-1B and L-1 visa holders, it would be prohibited from hiring additional H-1B and L-1 workers.

"Our bill will put a stop to the outsourcing of American jobs and discrimination against American workers," said Assistant Senate Majority Leader Dick Durbin, an Illinois Democrat, who is one of the sponsors.

The H-1B and L-1 Visa Reform Act, co-sponsored by Iowa Republican Chuck Grassley, would also prohibit "H-1B only" ads, expand the Labour Department's investigation powers and require it to conduct annual audits of H1-B worker-rich companies.

According to an analysis, Indian companies had been allocated only 12,000 of 85,000 H1-B visas in 2008.

Posted by Duncan Millar at 3:03 PM

 

 

TUESDAY, APRIL 28, 2009
Mexicans Overtake Indians as Largest Non-Resident Immigrant Group in Washington
After being the largest non-resident immigrants to the US for years, Indians have now been overtaken by Mexicans, the latest official report for the year 2008 has revealed. In 2008, of the more than 3.6 million foreigners coming to the US on resident non-immigrant visas, Mexico topped the list with 440,099 followed by a close India with 425,826 admissions. Japan has been posted as a distant second with 257,401 admissions followed South Korea (216,648), Britain (216,280) and China (163,433), the report said.

The Annual Flow Report released by the Office of Immigration Statistics is based on the information gathered from the I-94 on the number and characteristics of non-immigrant admissions to the US in 2008. "The leading countries of citizenship for resident non-immigrant admissions to the United States in 2008 were Mexico (12 per cent), India (12 per cent), Japan (7 per cent), South Korea (5.9 per cent), and the UK (5.9 per cent). "These five countries accounted for more than 40 per cent of resident non-immigrant admissions to the US," it said.

Even though Mexico has taken the number one spot, in actual figures, there has been an increase in the number of Indians coming to the US on resident immigrant visa status. For instance in 2006, 309,501 Indians entered the US under various categories of non-immigrant visas, while in 2007 the figured increased to 403,106. From 2007 to 2008, notable increases in resident non-immigrant admissions occurred among citizens from China (19 per cent increase), Mexico (16 per cent increase), and India (5.6 per cent increase), the report said. The increase in admissions from China was largely accounted for by academic students (F1) and exchange visitors (J1). The increase from Mexico was primarily attributable to seasonal agricultural workers (H2A).

The Annual Flow Report said the increased admissions from India were concentrated among academic student (F1) and intracompany transferee (L1) classes. Among top-ten sending countries, Japan and the United Kingdom had declining resident admissions from 2007 to 2008. The decrease in admissions from the UK (4.4 per cent decrease) was concentrated among workers in specialty occupations (H1B), while the decrease from Japan (4.3 per cent decrease) was attributable to academic students (F1) and workers in specialty occupations (H1B).

Further, nearly half of academic student admissions (F1) were nationals of five countries: South Korea (15 per cent), China (11 per cent), India (9.9 per cent), Japan (6.8 per cent), and Mexico (6.3 per cent). Between 2006 and 2008, South Korea, China, and India showed consistent increases in F1 admissions, while admissions from Japan declined during the same period.

Posted by Daniel Smith at 13:15 PM

 

Friday, March 6, 2009
9th Circuit Upholds Removal of a U.S. Permanent Resident for Drunk Driving Offenses
Based on a 9th circuit opinion published yesterday, certain drunk driving offenses may be treated as crimes of moral turpitude for purposes of establishing deportability. Yesterday, the 9th circuit court of appeals ruled in a panel decision (6-5) to uphold a Board of Immigration Appeals ruling that a Mexican with several convictions is deportable. The alien, a U.S. permanent resident since 2001, was convicted of felony theft in 1990 and aggravated drunk driving in 1997 and 2002. The 2002 conviction carried a sentence of 30 months and lead the DHS to initiate removal proceedings because the 2002 conviction fell within 10 years of admission and because the alien had committed more than one crime of moral turpitude.

An immigration judge found that each of the aggravated DUI offenses involved moral turpitude and the BIA agreed. Under Arizona law, aggravated drunk driving is defined as driving or taking "actual physical control" of a vehicle while under the influence and while one's license is suspended or revoked, or is restricted because of a
prior DUI conviction. The 9th circuit found that the IJ and BIA were reasonable given statutory definition.

9th Circuit precedent had largely been a decision holding that aggravated DUI was not categorically a crime of moral turpitude, because it could be committed without actually driving a vehicle, but did not foreclose the possibility that the crime could be treated as one of moral turpitude, using the "modified categorical approach,"
when it involves actual driving and not just taking physical control of a vehicle.

Judge Diarmuid F. O'Scannlain found the BIA interpretation of "moral turpitude" was reasonable in Campos' case, because, while DUI is not normally a crime of moral turpitude, the additional required statutory element that the defendant knew he was prohibited from driving while he committed the offense makes it "morally turpitudinous."

Many commentators are expressing shock over the inconsistency of the ruling based on earlier 9th circuit and BIA cases finding that DUI is a crime without volition.

Posted by Duncan Millar at 11:11 PM

 

Monday, January 12, 2009
Bush's Attorney General Strikes Last Minute Blow to Immigrants' Legal Rights

On January 7, 2009 Attorney General Michael Mukasey reversed many years of precedent and operation by declaring that immigrants, asylum seekers, and all others in removal (deportation) proceedings do not have any right under statute or the Constitution to representation by a lawyer before they can be ordered deported. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) and most federal courts have for decades operated under the premise that immigrants do have such rights.

According to the Mukasey, because there is no legal or constitutional right to a lawyer, immigrants do not have the right to legal counsel and thus no right to complain or request a new hearing when their lawyer is incompetent or fraudulent. The Attorney General does attempt to lessen the impact of his action by allowing the reopening of cases in certain unusual circumstances, but his declaration wipes out the rights of all but a handful of people with one stroke of the pen.

Mukasey's move unravels decades of legal precedent guaranteeing due process to people facing deportation. By seeking to undermine federal court oversight of the immigration court system with less than two weeks left in office, the Bush Administration once again displayed their flagrant disregard for the principles of due process of law.

Posted by Daniel Smith at 12:40PM

 

Tuesday, January 6, 2009
Gov. Janet Napolitano (incoming Homeland Security Director) and Immigration

Janet Napolitano, a pro-business centrist Democrat, was elected as Arizona Governor in 2002 and reelected in 2006. She has proven a strong leader who converted a $1 billion budget deficit in 2003 into a $300 million surplus in 2006 without raising state taxes. A lawyer by training, Napolitano started in politics as a volunteer adviser to Anita Hill during the confirmation of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. President Clinton appointed Napolitano as U.S. Attorney for Arizona. She went on to become the state’s attorney general before winning election in 2002 as the state’s first Democratic governor in 12 years. On December 1, 2008, Janet Napolitano was named as Director of Homeland Security for the Obama administration. As Napolitano appears ready to become the first Democratic secretary of Homeland Security, both pro- and anti-immigration observers are trying to decipher what this will mean for the future of immigration laws under President Barack Obama.

Napolitano has been skeptical that building a fence along the border could solve the immigration problem. She once said, “You build a 50-foot wall, somebody will find a 51-foot ladder.” However, she also was the first governor to call in the National Guard to beef up border patrols. Her state passed a law in 2007 that requires all Arizona businesses to use the federal online database, E-Verify, to confirm that new hires have valid Social Security numbers and are eligible for employment. This has been a cornerstone of the Bush administration’s immigration policy. Gov. Napolitano is outspoken about "the Federal government's failure to fulfill its responsibilities in securing our border and providing for a realistic and functional immigration policy." To combat illegal immigration, she has opted to crackdown on employers who hire undocumented workers, catch forgers of I.D. documents, and push for more Homeland Security measures to deter border crossings. Napolitano is regarded as perhaps the most effective governor at combatting illegal immigration, although conservatives deride her refusal to support legislation targeting illegal immigrants working for U.S. employers. "She's the illegal-alien governor," said Arizona state Rep. Russell Pearce, a Republican. Nonetheless, she is seen as more of a hardliner on immigration than most Democrats. “Napolitano is probably the closest the Democrats could get to an immigration hawk,” Mark Kirkorian of the Center for Immigration Studies, a think tank advocating low immigration rates, told reporter Matthew Bell of nationally-syndicated radio show The World.

As governor of Arizona, Napolitano last year signed into law the nation's harshest penalty for employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants, a measure that would take away their business licenses for a second violation. She called it the "business death penalty" and the "most aggressive action in the country" to stem the flow of illegal workers. She also criticized Congress and the federal government for failing to act on immigration overhaul. "The states will take the lead, and Arizona will take the lead among the states," she said.

Her record in Arizona, where she has been both the U.S. attorney and the state's attorney general, suggests she is willing to be a tough enforcer. Her state has a 376-mile border with Mexico, and she was the first governor to call for stationing the National Guard along it. But Napolitano also has shown an instinct for finding her way through the immigration minefield in a state where political battle lines were well drawn. She took a centrist position, supporting strong steps to prevent new illegal immigrants from coming to Arizona, while opposing most measures that would punish illegal immigrants who were already living and working there. Bucking popular sentiment, she vetoed a bill in 2005 that would have cut off in-state tuition aid to students in the country illegally. "This bill goes too far by punishing even longtime residents of this state who were brought here as small children by their parents," she said. She also vetoed bills that would have required the local police to enforce the immigration laws by arresting people in the state illegally.

So the jury is still out on what changes Napolitano might make to our current immigration scenario. We'll let you know as soon as we do what the new administration has in store for the realm of immigration.

Posted by Daniel Smith at 1:30 PM

 

Thursday, October 2, 2008
Redesigned (New) Naturalization Test
(USCIS announcement)

In the interest of creating a more standardized, fair, and meaningful naturalization process, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) recently completed a multi-year redesign of the naturalization test. The revised test, with an emphasis on the fundamental concepts of American democracy and the rights and responsibilities of citizenship, will help encourage citizenship applicants to learn and identify with the basic values we all share as Americans.

Redesign Process
The major aim of the redesign process is to ensure that naturalization applicants have uniform, consistent testing experiences nationwide, and that the civics test can effectively assess whether applicants have a meaningful understanding of U.S. government and history. Following a basic U.S. history and civics curriculum, the redesigned test will serve as an important instrument to encourage civic learning and patriotism among prospective citizens.

To accomplish these goals, USCIS initially piloted a new test–with an overhauled English reading and writing section, as well as new history and government questions–in ten sites across the country. The feedback from this pilot was then used to finalize testing procedures, English reading and writing prompts, and a list of 100 new history and government questions. To ensure the pilot accounted for a representative sample of candidates with a variety of education levels, the test was also piloted at adult education sites nationwide.

The resulting redesigned test was publicly introduced on September 27, 2007. Naturalization applicants began taking the revised test on October 1, 2008.

Which Test Do I Take?
Use the chart below to determine if you will take the current or redesigned (new) test.

Posted by Duncan Millar at 3:10 PM

 

Wednesday, September 10, 2008
DYING IN DETENTION

We should be outraged by the deaths of innocent people, with no access to health care, families, or lawyers.

Recent news reports from The New York Times, The Washington Post and CBS News have shone a harsh light on our immigration detention system, finding alarming evidence of poor care, inadequate staffing, lax standards, secrecy and incompetence. Most alarming is the growing indication of numerous detainees who have died in detention due to the conditions in these facilities. Every day, approximately 31,000 people who are not American citizens are imprisoned for days, months or years while the government decides whether to deport them or not, in a makeshift patchwork of local jails, federal facilities, and privately-owned facilities that are run by companies such as the Corrections Corporation of America. Some of these people do not have a valid visa, some are legal permanent residents but have past criminal convictions, while others are seeking asylum from persecution.

Few would question that government has a duty to provide decent, effective, timely medical care to those in its custody. That should be a point beyond debate, but sadly it is not when the government in question is the Bush administration and the people in custody are illegal immigrants. Details in these cases are lacking. No governmental body is required to keep track of deaths and publicly report them. No independent inquiry is mandated. Relatives who try to investigate the treatment of those who died say they are often stymied by fear of immigration authorities, lack of access to lawyers, or sheer distance. 

Far more than in the criminal justice system, immigration detainees and their families lack basic ways to get answers when things go wrong. The circumstances of a detainee’s death are largely hidden by the immigration detention process, which is subject to little oversight or accountability. American immigration detention has become a closed system where questions about what happens to detainees, or even their whereabouts, are met with silence. House Representative Zoe Lofgren (California) recently stated, “You are not supposed to kill people who are in custody.” Representative Lofgren and Senator Robert Menendez of New Jersey have sponsored the Detainee Basic Medical Care Act, which would impose more rigorous standards on the network of prisons that make up the federal system, and would also require that all deaths be reported to the Justice Department and Congress. Thus far, however, the only tangible result of Congressional concern has been a list of at least 66 people who died in custody between January 2004 and November 2007 while awaiting civil deportation hearings. The list, compiled by Immigration and Customs Enforcement after Congress demanded the information, is the fullest accounting to date of deaths in detention.

The list is often cryptic. Along with 13 deaths cited as suicides and 14 as the result of cardiac ailments, it offers causes such as “undetermined” and “unwitnessed arrest, epilepsy.” Nationality is not given, some places of detention are omitted, and some names and birth dates are garbled. For many of these cases, the conclusion is that they died while in custody, and no one knows exactly how. The cases also show that detainees who complain of illness are often ignored, which has repeatedly resulted in prolonged suffering and then death. One such inmate, who finally collapsed and struck his head after two days of complaining of poor health, was treated in the following way: he was shackled and pinned to the floor of the medical unit as he moaned and vomited, then left in a disciplinary cell for more than 13 hours, despite repeated notations that he was unresponsive and intermittently foaming at the mouth. “While on the floor the detainee began to yell in a foreign language and turn from side to side,” a guard wrote. The medical staff decided that “the screaming and resisting is behavior problems.” Finally late that night, an ambulance took him away. For five days no official notified his family. When frantic relatives finally located him, he was in a coma after emergency surgery for a skull fracture and multiple brain hemorrhages. He died there four months later without ever waking up.

The United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that every individual has a right to health and to be protected from harm, even while incarcerated. While illegal aliens are not citizens, they are obviously still human beings, and should enjoy some basic access to care and legal process as stipulated in the Declaration. It is obvious that the immigrant detention system is allowing some deaths to be swept under the rug. As I wrote in "Hooked on Slavery", my earlier article about the violation of human rights in detention centers, we have created an ‘invisible’ class of commodity workers who exist in a separate economy. Now we see that they exist in a separate political world as well. Many vanish into a system that has no resemblance to ordinary American legal procedures. There is no right to a lawyer, limited ability to contest evidence, and isolation from family or friends, who may themselves be vulnerable to deportation. It also obscures complaints about medical care, abusive conditions and inadequate suicide prevention. We need comprehensive reform in this area to ensure that those who are in the process of being removed are still left with their basic human dignity, their health, and their lives.

Posted by Daniel Smith at 12:59 PM

 

Monday, July 21, 2008
Conditions at the Tacoma Detention Center are inhumane and violate international law & the U.S. Constitution

A new report finds that detainees are being mistreated at the Northwest Detention Center in Tacoma, Washington, which houses illegal immigrants in the process of deportation. The findings of ‘Voices from Detention: A Report on Human Rights Violations at the Northwest Detention Center (NWDC)’ state that human rights abuses are taking place at the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facility in Tacoma. This report is one of the first of its kind to measure conditions at a detention center against international human rights legal standards and U.S. Constitutional protections. It is a collaboration between OneAmerica (formerly known as Hate Free Zone), a nonprofit organization advancing immigrant, civil and human rights in Seattle, and the Seattle University School of Law International Human Rights Clinic.

“As Americans concerned with upholding our Constitution and ensuring justice, we should remember that America is degraded when our government fails to uphold those very rights that make this country great,” said Pramila Jayapal, executive director of OneAmerica. “When some people’s rights are abused, all our rights can be abused.”

“We measured the conditions at the NWDC against the requirements of international law and domestic Constitutional law,” said Gwynne Skinner, an international human rights expert who oversaw the study. “Conditions at the detention center violate obligations under international law, including customary international law and the refugee convention. The center’s holding of asylees in detention violates U.S.’s obligations under the Refugee condition and constitute cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment.” She also noted that conditions at the center violate the 5th Amendment of the Constitution in that they amount to punishment. There is no domestic statutory law that governs the conditions at federal immigrant detention centers, however. The National Detention Standards, issued in 2000, give guidance but are not binding. Those standards are not being followed. Other rights being violated include the right to counsel, the right to family unity, due process violations due to the forced signing of papers, and the right to medical treatment, especially emergency medical treatment and mental health treatment.

Violations of immigration law are civil violations, not criminal violations. The Tacoma detention center was designed to hold people who have committed civil violations and is only meant to be a short-term holding facility. But many are being held long-term in conditions that are worse than a prison, and the population of the center is twice that which the building was originally designed for.

‘Voices from Detention’ details the results of interviews conducted over eight months by students at Seattle University Law School’s Human Rights Clinic. Interviews were conducted with 41 detainees, a family member and 4 attorneys. Every incident detailed in this report was corroborated through additional interviews or by research. Students also were able to ask questions of ICE officials and officials running the detention center. Center officials were ultimately informed of the study before it was published and released. The report contains anecdotes in which detainees describe what they call degrading treatment by guards and subpar conditions at the jail. Findings include:

• Lack of legal due process, including violations of attorney-client privilege
• Detainees pressured to sign papers through threats and physical intimidation
• Mistreatment of detainees by guards and federal marshals
• Inadequate medical care, especially emergency care
• Inadequate treatment of the mentally ill, including refugees who had been persecuted in their homelands
• Insufficient quantities of food and incidents of food poisoning
• Poor living conditions due to severe overcrowding
• Language barriers for detainees

"Probably the most striking, stark fact is that there's no accountability around conditions and standards, which is only made even more stark when you think of detention as being the fastest-growing form of incarceration in the United States," Pramila Jayapal said Monday. The report came a few days after ICE announced a nearly 40 percent increase in deportations out of Washington, Oregon and Alaska over the first nine months of the fiscal year. More than 7,300 people have been deported from the region in that period.

For the original article by OneAmerica, click here.

Español: Las condiciones en el Centro de Detención en Tacoma son inhumanas y violan leyes Internacionales y la Constitución Americana.

Un reporte nuevo encontró a que los presos en el Centro de Detención Noroeste en Tacoma, Washington que hospeda inmigrantes ilegales, se les maltrata. Los descubrimientos del reporte, ‘Voices from Detention: A Report on Human Rights Violations at the Northwest Detention Center (NWDC)’ expone que abusos de derechos humanos ocurren en los precintos del Servicio de Inmigración y Control de Aduanas (ICE) en Tacoma. Este reporte es uno de los primeros en su tipo, el cual mide las condiciones en un centro de detención y las compara con derechos humanos internacionales y protecciones constitucionales Americanas. Es una colaboración entre OneAmerica (anteriormente conocida como Hate Free Zone), una organización sin fines lucrativos que avanca los derechos de inmigrantes y derechos civiles y humanos en Seattle, y la Clinica de Derechos Humanos de la Escuela de Derecho de la Universidad de Seattle.

“Como Americanos preocupados con el mantenimiento de nuestra Constitución y el aseguramiento de justicia, debemos recordar que América se degradada cuando nuestro gobierno no asegura esos mismos derechos, los cuales forjan este maravilloso país,” Pramila Jayapal, la directora executiva de One America dijo. “Cuando se abusan los derechos del individuo, se abusan los derechos de todos.”

“Comparamos las condiciones en el NWDC con los requisitos de ley internacional y ley Constitucional domestica,” dijo Gwynne Skinner, una experta en derechos humanos internacionales que supervisó el estudio. “Las condiciones en el centro de detención violan las deberes bajo la ley internaciónal y la convención del refugiado.” La manera en que el centro detiene a las personas que piden asilo en detención, viola los deberes bajo la Convención del Refugiado y esto constituye un tratamiento degradante, inhumano, y cruel.” También notó que las condiciones violan la quinta enmienda constitucional porque el tratamiento es punible. No existe ley estatutaria doméstica que gobierne las condiciones en una detención federal de inmigración. Los Estándares Naciónales de Detención, emitidos en el 2000, ofrecen una guía pero no se obligan. Esos estándares no se siguen a cabo. Otros de los derechos violados incluyen el derecho a un abogado, el derecho a unión con la familia, violaciones al proceso de arreglo legal cuando los individuos son forzados a firmar documentos, negándoseles tratamiento médico, y especialmente tratamiento médico en emergencias y en casos de salud mental.

Las violaciones a la ley migratoria son violaciones civiles, y no de carácter penal. El centro de detención en Tacoma fue diseñado para detener a personas que han cometido violaciones civiles y fue creado con la intención de ser una instalación para detener personas a corto plazo. Pero, bastantes presos son detenidos por largo plazo en peores condiciónes que en prisión, y la población en el centro es doble que la población aprobada.

‘Voices from Detention’ detalla los resultados de intrevistas conducidas sobre ocho meses por estudiantes de la Clinica de Derechos Humanos de la Escuela de Derecho de la Universidad de Seattle. Se conducieron entrevistas con 41 presos, familiares y 4 abogados. Cada incidente detallado en el reporte fue corroborado con entrevistas addicionales o investigaciónes. Estudiantes entrevistaron a oficiales de ICE y a oficiales que administran el centro. Los oficiales administrativos fuieron informados sobre el reporte poco antes de la fecha de publicación. El reporte contiene anecdotas sobre lo que los presos dijeron que fue tratamiento degradante de los guardias y sobre las bajas condiciónes de vida en la prisón. La conclusión incluye:

• Falta de processo de arreglo legal, incluyendo violaciónes de la privacidad entre abogado y cliente
• Presos fueron forzados a firmar documentos
• Maltratamiento de presos por parte de los guardias y jefes de policia federal
• Tratamiento medico inadecuado, especialmente en emergencias
• Tratamiento inadecuado de presos con problemas mentales, incluyendo a refugiados que fueron abusados en sus paises de origin
• Falta de comida y incidentes de intoxicación alimenticia
• Bajos estandares de vida por causa del excesso de habitantes
• Barreras del lenguaje para los presos

“Probalemente el hecho mas llamativo es que no hay obligación de rendir cuentas sobre las condiciónes y estandares, que solo es mas llamativo cuando vemos que detención es la forma mas rapida de encarcelamiento en los Estados Unidos,” dijo Pramila Jayapal el Lunes. El reporte fue presentado solo pocos dias despues que ICE annuncio aumento de 40 porcento en deportaciónes saliendo de Washington, Oregon y Alaska en los ultimos nueve meses del ano fiscal. Mas de 7,300 personas han sido deportadas de esa region en este lapso de tiempo.

Para ver el articulo original, oprime aqui.

Posted by Daniel Smith at 11:11 AM

 

Sunday, July 20, 2008
USCIS introduces Naturalization Interview process changes

In response to the surge of applications received last summer, USCIS has developed a plan to address the increased naturalization workload by hiring and training several hundred adjudicators over the next several months. A memo released on April 25, 2008 by Don Neufeld, Associate Director of Domestic Operations, details the changes to the interview process. The essential information is given below.

As applicants arrive at the Field Office for their naturalization examination, some tasks will now be performed prior to the applicant’s formal examination; (i.e., signing the photo and distribution of any related informational materials). Certificate preparation information will be verified prior to the interview. The only difference from current practice is the sequence – that the English and civics tests can be administered before the interview following the pre-examination check-in process, as opposed to during the actual interview. The test questions, test administration, reasonable accommodation requirements and standards for passing remain unchanged. Once the pre-examination check-in process has been completed, offices are encouraged to consider testing the applicants’ knowledge of American government and history (civics), and their ability to read and write English, separately prior to the interview. This procedure has provided a means of maintaining the quality of N-400 interviews because the interviewing officer is able to focus on other eligibility issues. Interviewing officers will continue to determine the applicant’s ability to speak and understand English through the oral interview process.

Questioning of an applicant must cover all of the requirements for naturalization. Questions during the examination build on the results of the preliminary analysis, such as background check results. If the results of the background checks or other preliminary analysis raise questions of eligibility, or the applicant’s response to questions on the N-400 brings eligibility into question, the officer should focus attention on those issues. Additionally, officers are required to ask each applicant the questions contained in Part 10 H of the N-400.

When an officer has concluded the interview, the case file may be returned to designated non-officer personnel for post examination processing. Post examination processing may include any duties previously performed by the examining official following an interview and include: scheduling of a follow-up appointment for English literacy and/or civics testing; photo and/or certificate signing; CLAIMS 4 decisional updating; and oath ceremony scheduling.

Posted by Helen Stocklin-Enright at 7:34 PM

 

Wednesday, July 11, 2008
American Employers: Hooked on Slavery

As anyone who even occasionally glances at the news surely knows by now, the question of immigration reform continues to be one of the most persistently contentious political topics in the United States today. One of the most puzzling aspects of the situation to me is the notion that illegals are 'stealing' jobs from American citizens. Are they really - or are they just a readily available resource that is being brought into the country to fill an economic need? Recent developments highlight the need for reform to both the governmental immigration process and to the monitoring and regulation of businesses hiring foreign workers.

The Wall Street Journal recently published an article about the current shortage of H-2B visas, which are issued biannually to nonagricultural immigrant seasonal employees. The shortage was created when the United States government let a 'returning workers' provision expire, shutting thousands of foreign workers out of the country. The result is a dramatic shortage of summer workers for various non-agricultural seasonal businesses. Wait a minute - isn't unemployment incredibly high in the USA right now? What about hiring some unemployed Americans to work these jobs? The usual response is that these are jobs that Americans "just won't do". While U.S. citizens do perform jobs such as cleaning toilets, repaving highways in the scorching summer sun, removing asbestos contamination, and hauling away your garbage, is it possible that they really just can't be coaxed into picking fruit or working at a concession stand? The real answer is, as Glen Beck wrote in a recent article on CNN.com, that "Maybe the problem isn't that the job they're offering is "too hard," maybe it's that the wages they're offering are "too low"... illegal immigrants are the perfect employees because they're not employees at all; they're corporate slaves." Businesses hire illegal aliens because they want workers who do not have access to all of the overhead-increasing benefits and rights associated with legal employment, such as freedom from discrimination, a minimum wage, vacation time, unemployment compensation, raises in pay, the right to organize, the 40 hour work week, and so on. American employers are hooked on slavery. Here in the land of the free, illegal agricultural workers sleep on pallets, live in sheds with no plumbing or heat, or in work camps crossed by open running sewers. Illegal domestic workers are held for slave labor, and beaten and tortured in beautiful mansions in the most exclusive neighborhoods of our major cities.

A broken immigration system mired in red tape allows a black market labor system to thrive, while a lack of effective regulation allows businesses to commodify illegal workers to a point that any U.S. citizen would find harshly unacceptable. Fixing this mess, it appears to me, will require a comprehensive management effort that will hold employers firmly accountable and also provide a workable immigration system that allows these workers to come into the country more readily. It will also require the broad willingness to acknowledge that many of the cheap goods and services that us Americans take for granted are provided by a work force that exists in a parallel economy - a third world economy, right here inside the United States.

Español: Patrónes Americanos: Adictos a la Esclavitud

Qualquer persona que mira la television hoy en dia seguramente sabe, la pregunta de reforma inmigratoria continua siendo una de las cuestiónes mas argumentativas y persistentes en los Estados Unidos. Uno de los aspectos mas desconcertantes es la noción que illegales estan ‘robando’ trabajo de cuidadanos Americanos. Enserio estan-o son un grupo de buena gana traídos a este pais para llenar una necesidad economica? Desarrollo reciente revela la necesidad de reforma para ambos, el proceso inmigratorio governamental y la regulación y monitorización de negocios que contratan empleados extranjeros.

El Wall Street Journal recientamente publico un articulo sobre la falta de H-2B visas, emitidos bianualmente a inmigrantes non agrarios empleados temporalmente. La escasez fue creada cuando el governo Americano dejo expirar una provision de ‘trabajadores en retorna,’ básicamente cerrando las puertas a miles de trabajadores extranjeros en este pais. El resultado es una escasez drástica de obreros veraniegos para negocios non agrarios. Espera un momento – no es verdad que al momento desempleo esta bastante alto en los Estados Unidos? Que tal emplear unos Americanos desempleados para hacer esas obras? La respuesta típica es que estos son trabajos que Americanos “nomás no haran.” Mientras es verdad que cuidadanos Americanos si ejecutan labores como limpieza de escusados, pavimentación de carreteras en el sol ardiente del verano, extracción de asbestos contaminado, y eliminación de basura, sera posible que no podran ser incitados a recoger frutas y verduras o trabajar en un puesto de concesiones? La respuesta verdadera es, como dijo Glen Beck en un articulo en CNN.com, que “posiblemente el problema no es que el trabajo es “demasiado duro,” posiblemente es que el pago es “demasiado bajo”...inmigrantes illegales son empleados perfectos porque no son ni empleados; son esclavos empresarial.” Patrónes contratan extrangeros illegales porque quieren empleados que no tienen acceso a todos los costos generales - aumentando beneficios y derechos associados con empleo legal, como libertad de discriminación, sueldo minimo, vacaciones, compensación de desempleo, aumentos en sueldo, el derecho a organizar uniones, 40 horas de trabajo a la semana, etc…. Patrónes Americanos son addictos a esclavitud. Aqui en la tierra de los liberados, obreros agrarios illegales duermen sufriendo, viven en chozas sin plomería y sin calentadores, o en campamentos cruzados por aguas negras. Obreros illegales son esclavos, golpeados y torturados en mansiónes maravillosas en las mas exclusivas vecindarios de nuestras cuidades mas grandes.

Un systema de inmigracion roto y cubierto en cinta roja permite que el mercado negro prospere en la arina laborista, mientras la falta de regulación effectivamente permite que negocios comercializen a los obreros illegales hasta el punto que qualquer cuidadano Americano pensara inaceptable. Para arreglar este desorden, me parece que necesitaremos un esfuerzo administrativo comprensivo que va a tomar como responsables a los patrones y tambien facilitar un systema funcionable inmigratorio que permite a estos obreros venir a este pais sin esfuerzo. Tambien requerera la buena voluntad para admitir que las mercancias y servicios que nosotros como Americanos tomamos por entendido son hechos por la fuerza laboral que existe un una economio parallela – una economia tercer mundista, aqui mismo en los Estados Unidos.

Posted by Daniel Smith at 1:00 PM

 

Friday, April 18, 2008
Our Seattle office will be moving in May 2008!

After years spent sharing a small office space in downtown Seattle we are moving to north Seattle for our very own offices! Our beautiful new space will offer much better parking and accessibility, and greatly increased room for us to do our work and meet with clients. Our new location will be:

Millar & Smith, PLLC
13000 Linden Avenue North, Suite 109
Seattle, WA 98133

Our phone, fax, and email contact information will all remain the same.

Posted by Helen Stocklin-Enright at 4:34 PM

 

 

 

 

Thursday, March 13, 2008
USCIS Announces 18-Month Extension of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Nationals of Somalia
Employment Authorization documents (EAD) Extended through September 2008

(USCIS Announcement, dated March 10, 2008) The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced today an 18-month extension of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for nationals of Somalia through September 17, 2009. Under this extension, those who have already been granted TPS are eligible to live and work in the United States for an additional 18 months and continue to maintain their status.

DHS also automatically extended the validity of Employment Authorization Documents (EAD) held by eligible Somalis for an additional six months from March 17, 2008 through September 17, 2008. This will allow sufficient time for eligible TPS beneficiaries to receive their new EAD without any lapse in employment. There are approximately 300 nationals of Somalia (or aliens having no nationality who last habitually resided in Somalia) who are eligible for re-registration.

The extension of TPS for Somalia is effective March 17, 2008 and will remain in effect through September 17, 2009. Nationals of Somalia who have been granted TPS must re-register for the 18-month extension during the 60-day re-registration period beginning March 12, 2008 and remaining in effect until May 12, 2008. Somali TPS beneficiaries are encouraged to apply as soon as possible following the start of the 60-day re-registration period. Please note that re-registration applications from Somali nationals will not be accepted by USCIS until the re-registration period opens on March 12, 2008. Details on where, when and how to file under each designation will soon be published in the Federal Register and additional information will be provided online on the USCIS website.

To re-register for TPS under this extension, a TPS beneficiary must submit Form I-821 (Application for Temporary Protected Status) without the application fee and Form I-765 (Application for Employment Authorization). If the applicant is only seeking to re-register for TPS and not seeking an extension of employment authorization, he or she must submit Form I-765 for data-gathering purposes only, and is not required to submit the I-765 filing fee. All applicants seeking an extension of employment authorization through September 17, 2009 must submit the required application filing fee with Form I-765. The biometric service fee must be submitted by all re-registrants age 14 and older, as well as re-registrants under age 14 who are requesting an EAD.

Applicants may request a fee waiver for any of the application or biometric service fees in accordance with the regulations. Failure to submit the required filing fees or a properly documented fee waiver request will result in the rejection of the re-registration application.

More information can be obtained from the USCIS National Customer Service Center toll-free number: 1-800-375-5283. TPS forms are available from the toll-free USCIS Forms line, 1-800-870-3676, or from the USCIS Web site.

Posted by Daniel Smith at 9:21 AM

 

Friday, March 7, 2008
USCIS Revises Name Check Policy

"Where the application is otherwise approvable and the FBI name check request has been pending for more than 180 days, the adjudicator shall approve the 1-485,1-601,1-687, or 1-698 and proceed with card issuance. The FBI has committed to providing FBI name check results within this timeframe."

A February 4, 2008, memo from Michael Aytes outlines revised national security adjudication and reporting requirements. While the revised guidance section of the memo reiterates FBI requirements that a definitive fingerprint check and the IBIS check must be obtained and resolved before various applications (I-485, I-601, I-687, I-698) can be approved, the memo states that where the application is otherwise approvable and the FBI name check request has been pending for more than 180 days, the adjudicator shall approve the I-485, I-601, I-687, or I-698 and proceed with card issuance. This action looks to resolve a long-standing situation where many applicants have been left in legal limbo, sometimes for years, due to the stalled-out FBI name- check process.

Interoffice Memorandum

TO: Field Leadership
FROM: Michael Aytes Associate Director, Domestic Operations
SUBJECT: Revised National Security Adjudication and Reporting Requirements

Background

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) conducts background checks on all applicants, petitioners and beneficiaries seeking immigration benefits. This is done both to enhance national security and to ensure the integrity of the immigration process. USCIS has previously mandated that FBI name checks be completed and resolved before any positive adjudication can proceed on certain form types. This memorandum modifies existing guidance for applications where statutory immigration provisions allow for the detention and removal of an alien who is the subject of actionable information that is received from the FBI or other law enforcement agencies after approval of the application.

USCIS is issuing revised guidance in response to recommendations of the DHS Office of Inspector General (OIG-06-06) regarding the need to align the agency’s background and security check policies with those of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The Background and Security Investigations in Proceedings Before Immigration Judges and the Board of Immigration Appeals regulations prevent immigration judges and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) from granting benefits to aliens before DHS confirms that all background and security checks have been completed. See 8 C.F.R. § 1002.47(g); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(6)(i). In the context of removal proceedings, ICE has determined that FBI fingerprint checks and Interagency Border Inspection Services (IBIS) checks are the required security checks for purposes of the applicable regulations. In the unlikely event that FBI name checks reveal actionable information after the immigration judge grants an alien permanent residen t status, DHS may detain and initiate removal proceedings against the permanent resident. See 8 U.S.C. § 1227; see also 8 U.S.C. § 1256 (allowing DHS to rescind and alien’s adjustment of status).

Revised Guidance

A definitive FBI fingerprint check and the IBIS check must be obtained and resolved before an Application for Adjustment of Status (I-485), Application for Waiver of Ground of Inadmissibility (I-601), Application for Status as a Temporary Resident Under Section 245A of the Immigration and Nationality Act (I-687), or Application to Adjust Status from Temporary to Permanent Resident (Under Section 245A of Public Law 99-603) (I-698) is approved. USCIS will continue to initiate FBI name checks when those applications are received. Where the application is otherwise approvable and the FBI name check request has been pending for more than 180 days, the adjudicator shall approve the I-485, I-601, I-687, or I-698 and proceed with card issuance. The FBI has committed to providing FBI name check results within this timeframe.

There is no change in the requirement that FBI fingerprint check, IBIS check and FBI name check results be obtained and resolved prior to the adjudication of an Application for Naturalization (N-400).

Pending further guidance regarding post-audit reporting and tracking requirements and modifications to associated quality assurance procedures, applications approved pursuant to this memorandum shall be held at the adjudicating office. If derogatory or adverse information is received fromt eh FBI after the application is approved, USCIS will determine if rescission or removal proceedings are appropriate and warranted.

Subject to the reporting requirements set forth in the February 16, 2007, memorandum titled “FBI Name Checks Policy and Process Clarification for Domestic Operations,” an application or petition may be denied, dismissed, administratively closed, withdrawn, or referred to the Immigration Court at any time.

Questions regarding this memorandum should be directed through appropriate supervisory and operational channels. Local offices should work through their chain of command.

Distribution List: Regional Directors Service Center Directors District Directors (except foreign) Field Officer Directors (except foreign) National Benefits Center Director

Posted by Daniel Smith at 4:51 PM

 

Wednesday, January 9, 2008
H1-B Season

On April 1, 2008, the H1-B visa cap for specialty occupations opens for the 2008 fiscal year.

Despite discussion in the past in Congress to increase the number of H1-B visas available, applicants may again be subject to selection by lottery this year. Last year, applications received in the first two days after the cap opened were selected at random and then processed. Individuals who received Master's degrees in the U.S. are subject to a different visa cap, which did not fill as quickly.

Applicants affiliated with certain organizations, including institutions of higher education, government affiliates, and others, may not be subject to the visa cap. Typically, this determination depends upon the strength of the affiliation and the degree to which particular entities are intertwined. Degree equivalencies must be obtained for all foreign degrees. Many equivalency companies are overwhelmed with - and turn down - requests as April approaches. The name of the game for this H1-B season is to get your equivalencies and applications done early so you're first in the door on April 1!

posted by Helen Stocklin-Enright at 9:45 AM

 

Friday, November 2, 2007
Travel with H and L visas

As of November 1, 2007, some individuals holding H or L visas may be required to present I-485 receipts when re-entering the U.S. from trips outside of the U.S. Failure to do so may result in abandonment of applications for adjustment of status (green cards).

posted by Duncan Millar at 10:31 AM

 

Friday, October 26, 2007
Impact of criminal convictions on immigration status

Certain criminal convictions render individuals seeking immigrant (Lawful Permanent Resident, LPR, green card) or non-immigrant status (H1-B, K-1, K-3, L, TN) inadmissible or removable.

Depending upon the charges, waivers may be available in certain circumstances. Depending upon the type of waiver and the country of citizenship, waivers may be sought at the port of entry, border crossing, airport, consulate, or by other means of filing.

Immigration law considers certain theft, drug trafficking, drug manufacturing, murder, rape, sexual abuse of minors, firearms trafficking, crimes of violence, fraud, prostitution, pornography, and other convictions to be aggravated felonies for immigration purposes. In some instances, which vary depending upon the criminal charges, the lenght of the criminal sentence can dictate whether or not these crimes are categorized as aggravated felonies. In other instances, the crime alone is sufficient be classified as an aggravated felony. With fraud convictions, convictions may be deemed aggravated felonies if the amount in question is over a certain dollar amount. Aggravated felonies have a far reach in immigration law and greatly limit the options of an individual with an aggravated felony conviction. Limited relief may be available to individuals who were convicted of aggravated felonies before a certain date.

If any convictions are categorized as crimes involving moral turpitude, non-citizens may also face the prospect of being deemed inadmissible or removable. The case law surrounding crimes involving moral turpitude is constantly evolving. If a crime is categorized as one involving moral turpitude, an inadmissible individual may be eligible for a petty offense exception if there is only one conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, the maximum sentence is no more than one year, and the sentence given is less than six months.

Typically, if criminal charges are currently pending, individuals should seek an immigration attorney to analyze their particular facts and inform not only them, but their criminal defense counsel, of the possible immigration implications of their criminal charges and potential convictions. In some cases, judges and prosecutors are willing to consider letters from immigration attorneys regarding the immigration consequences of particular sentences and criminal charges.

If criminal convictions already exist, individuals should seek immigration counsel to help them determine the consequences that they may face. Sometimes, traveling or filing various visa applications with criminal convictions can be very complicated, especially if a waiver, or waivers, are required. Convictions potentially complicate the already complex area of immigration law.

posted by Helen Stocklin-Enright at 9:30 AM

 

Thursday, October 25, 2007
How many immigration related government entities does it take to get something right?

The officers working for U.S. Customs and Border Protections at the Ports of Entry around the United States, whether at the airport or at a land crossing such as the Peach Arch in Blaine, Washington, have incredibly broad discretionary powers that can make or break someone's day, or perhaps, life. At the very least, they can make an entry to the U.S. very stressful. A case in point is the experience one of my clients (I'll call him Jake) recently had when seeking to reenter the United States from Canada after a short trip.

My client, who is married to a U.S. Citizen, obtained a multiple entry K-3 visa based on his marriage and eventually filed for lawful permanent resident status (adjustment of status). Prior to him leaving for Canada he was interviewed with his wife at the Seattle Field Office of U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services in Seattle. At the interview, with his attorney present, the fact that Jake had some criminal history was discussed with the interviewing officer. There was nothing to hide about this history since it came up during the process necessary to obtain the K-3 visa. In fact, our office presented legal argument to the consulate that Jake's criminal history should have no bearing on his eligibility for a visa. The consulate agreed and Jake was issued his visa.

The same legal argument was presented to USCIS prior to the interview and the facts of the case were discussed at length during the interview. At the close of the interview the officer informed us that she had no problem with the criminal history (Jake's offense fell under the petty offense exception) and that she would just need her supervisor's approval. We left that day anticipating that the case would be approved and the green card would follow in the mail as they usually do in approved cases. Well, prior to receiving news of the approval, Jake went to Canada. While he was there his wife called him to let him know that the green card had arrived in the mail. Good news, right?

A day or so later Jake sought to reenter the states using his still valid K-3 visa. At the land crossing the officer inspecting Jake for admission decided he needed to question Jake in greater detail so he placed Jake in an office to be interrogated by another officer. (By the way, Jake was entering the US on a bus so the bus left without him). The line of questioning went something like "are you sure you told USCIS about your criminal history." Jake repeatedly told the officer that he was completely truthful with USCIS and the U.S. Consulate and that his attorney had provided both entities with certified copies of all of the court records and a legal brief. Jake even explained that his green card had been approved just a couple of days earlier. The officer was able to confirm this, but it didn't seem to matter. Four hours later Jake was released, issued a Notice to Appear, and told that he will have to appear in immigration court in Seattle for removal proceedings because of the criminal history.

So here we have three arms of the U.S. Government (U.S. Consulate, USCIS, and USCBP) looking at the same case with the same facts and one of them reaching a different conclusion than the others. And now, another arm, the Department of Justice's Executive Office for Immigration Review, will look at the case. Hopefully it won't get that far as Jake's attorneys intend to file a Motion to Terminate the case as soon as it is set for hearing. Stay tuned.

Posted by Daniel Smith at 4:01 PM

 

Saturday, October 20, 2007
Immigration & The Baby Boom

It is time to address the chronic issue of too few visa numbers for skilled worker green cards and specialty occupation H-1B visas. Contact your congressional representative and let them know you support increasing the quota numbers.

The baby boomer generation is retiring, marking the exit of thousands of skilled, experienced workers from the U.S. workforce.

Who will replace these people? It should be a healthy mix of U.S. citizens, U.S. permanent residents and U.S. non-immigrant visa holders taking the jobs, but it will likely not play out that way. There are too few work visas available every year to fill the growing number of created jobs, let alone the existing jobs that require replacement workers. Most importantly, there are not any where near enough Americans to fill the jobs. Therefore, those jobs that cannot be filled will simply go overseas to another country with a more realistic immigration attitude. In economic terms, we are starving ourselves of the supply and the demand for a specialized work force. We will end up with executives with nothing to execute.

Unless we find a way to increase the number of visas available each year, we will continue to turn away the worlds best and brightest individuals, many of whom get their education in the U.S. and have no choice but to enter a different country and contribute to its well being. They want to stay, they are already here and so obviously do not pose any threat whatsoever, but we are afraid of something. What?

Initiate some change. You can find contact information for your congressional representative here:
http://www.congressmerge.com/onlinedb/index.htm
Tell your representative that you want them to fight for an increase in the immigration quota numbers.

Posted by Duncan Millar @ 2:02 PM

 

Saturday, October 20, 2007
New U Visa - Victims of Trafficking and Violence
People in the United States illegally who are victims of violent crimes and are actively helping law enforcement to solve the cases can now apply for a U visa. The visa is valid for up to 4 years and leads to permanent residence.

Citizenship and Immigration Services took seven years to implement the visa category because developing the specific regulations involved federal, state and local agencies.

Victims of rape, torture, child abuse and other crimes may stay in the country for four years and apply for permanent resident status along with their dependent family members. Witnesses to certain violent crimes can also obtain the visa and need not be the victims.

In order to qualify for U Visa, the applicant must be the victim of one or more of the following crimes or any similar activity in violation of Federal State, or local criminal law: rape; torture; trafficking; incest; domestic violence; sexual assault; abusive sexual contact; prostitution; sexual exploitation; female genital mutilation; being held hostage; peonage; involuntary servitude; slave trade; kidnapping; abduction; unlawful criminal restraint; false imprisonment; blackmail; extortion; manslaughter; murder; felonious assault; witness tampering; obstruction of justice; perjury; or attempt, conspiracy, or solicitation to commit any of the above mentioned crimes.

Applicants for the U visa must submit a declaration, information on the crime or incident, a certification letter from the law enforcement agency handling their cases that confirms that they are assisting investigators, and proof of substantial mental or physical abuse.

Temporary employment authorization is likely to be issued to applicants while they await adjudication of the visa.

10,000 of the visas will be available each fiscal year.

Posted by Duncan Millar @ 1:18 PM

 

Friday, October 19, 2007
Bianca Jagger Evicted - Not a NY 'Resident.'

Bianca Jagger will have to move out of her NY apartment because she is only a visitor in the U.S. and cannot treat the apartment as her primary residence. The owner of the Park Avenue apartment can evict Jagger and raise the rent, currently over $4600 per month. Jagger had been withholding rent from her landlord due to issues with mould in the edifice. The landlord sued to evict Jagger and won. She must leave and pay back rent and possibly court costs.

The NY court of appeals agreed with the Landlord's immigration based strategy, focusing on the fact that a B-2 visa is for temporary visits and will not allow a person to 'live' in the U.S. or treat a U.S. residence as their primary residence. When NY rent-stabilized properties change hands, the rent amounts may be increased to the market rate.

This begs the question: What does it mean to live somewhere?

Under U.S. law, you may only live in the U.S. under certain types of visas, and a B-2 will not support anything but brief, casual visits (up to 180 days per visit for non visa waiver country nationals, and 90 days for those from the 27 visa waiver countries).

However, where someone 'lives' is not as simple as determining their nationality. Jagger had rented the apartment for 20 years, and routinely stayed in New York, although she also has an apartment in London, England. I submit that where someone lives is their own fiction, and where they feel at home. I routinely counsel individuals to know where they are entitled to live and where they are not, and to be very careful about the subtle but very important difference between living somewhere and simply visiting.

Work authorization and tax returns are a good test. If you are allowed to visit, but not entitled to work or file a tax return in a country, you probably cannot consider yourself to be living there.

Posted by Duncan Millar @ 12:21 PM

 

Wednesday, October 17, 2007
The Immigration 'Problem.' We need to create another option.

If there are enough people running across the freeway near the border that the government needs to put a sign up, we have a problem. The U.S. immigration problem is very complex but has been contorted to get it into sound bytes by the current policy machines. The result is an either/or scenario and a race to the bottom, where the two political parties argue their polar stances in blue or red ties. But this sign says it all. It is more practical, safer and more humane to address the issue and do something to protect those in our country than to ignore these people.

In immigration law, it is easy to slip into the habit of creating a dichotomy out of every issue:
You're either an immigrant (permanent intent) or a non-immigrant (temporary intent);
You're legal or illegal;
A citizen or an alien;
Admitted or not admitted;
Admissible or inadmissible;
Have been convicted or have not been convicted of a crime; and,
Your permanent residence has conditions attached to it or does not. That is when you were granted permanent residence you were given only two years to begin with and must release conditions (show that you are still married to or working for the petitioner , or are not but had a bona fide relationship not just for immigration benefits at the time you applied for and were granted benefits), or you were given full permanent resident status.
This seems to be the trap that many commentators, legislators and critics have fallen into when discussing the current population of individuals who entered the U.S. without inspection. It is difficult to get past the notion of giving illegal aliens permanent resident status without creating an incentive for future illegal entrants, so I think the only way to move on is to create a new, third residence status - Probationary Residence. This status would only apply to people currently physically present, so registering after the initiation date would be futile.

I propose that when it comes to creating a legal method for these people to cure their immigration status, we need the new status to account for the fact that these people are not here temporarily but are not considered permanent either, and so can enter into a status that allows them to convert to another status. No conversion and they must leave when the status expires - just like non-immigrant visa holders.

We could pick a date, say January 1, 2008, and make it so that anyone who does not register with the government and prove that they are physically present on or before that date cannot come forward for benefits. We would have to ensure that this would not be a 'round-up' and that coming forward to register physical presence would definitely not lead to enforcement action.

Those people who do register to prove that they are physically present would then pay for a number and wait for it to be called. Once called, those people would have to establish that they do not have any criminal issues (other than working without authorization and the attendant documentary issues) and could be given Probationary Residence. This status could require them to report frequently their whereabouts and perhaps could include an auto-deduct from their pay to cover the costs of the immigration processing instead of making them pay for it all at once. 12 million people coming forward would need to be delicately handled, so payment for the proof of physical presence and a number in line would likely need to be more than the current cost of attaining a green card ($1365).

This probationary status would only last for a specified time, during which the people could convert to another status without being treated as having entered without inspection. This would allow family members to petition for each other and for employers to hire workers legitimately and would not make the current illegal population so afraid to become witnesses in criminal cases or to comply with laws designed to protect all Americans from harm - such as driving regulations and workplace certifications.

Probationary Residence would not be amnesty. Those that could not come forward because of criminal issues would not be able to keep up with what is sure to become a society where identity is too hard to fake and anonymity is impossible. The process of elimination would allow enforcement to focus on the people that do need to be removed and would create an even greater incentive for people with no criminal issues to come forward.

This is a very difficult issue that seems to be stuck without resolution because we can't see past the dichotomy of permanent versus temporary. If the U.S. wants to remain competitive going forward, we will need to convert these valuable people into meaningful participants in our society or paranoia will overcome us and we will grow even more divided. Right now, we have no conceptual answer to the issue and that is what we need. Do we really think that the undocumented population does not intend to stay? Then why do we treat this as a temporary problem when it is so obviously permanent. Why? Because we don't have a choice such as Probationary Residence to rely on.

If we had Probationary Residence we could have a population of legal, admitted, admissible aliens with hope and incentive instead of a population of illegal, undocumented people that are not available for the U.S. economy and society to embrace.

Posted by Duncan Millar @ 9:53 AM

 

 

 

The information at this web site is for advertising and general information purposes only.
©2008 Millar Smith, PLLC. All Rights Reserved.