New Proposed Rule Would Decrease Time Abroad for Many Consular Processing Cases

On Friday, Alejandro Mayorkas, the director of United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, announced a proposed rule which could help thousands of families seeking to legalize the immigration status of one of their members.

Currently, if a person present in the United States entered the country without being inspected, she must leave the country in order to gain lawful permanent resident status based on the petition of a spouse or other immediate family member. As soon as they leave the United States, their previous unlawful presence triggers a 3 or 10 year bar to their return. So when they are abroad in their home country, they must file for and obtain a waiver of their unlawful presence bars before they can return. In order to obtain the waiver, they must establish that their absence from the United States is causing "extreme hardship" to their qualifying family members in the United States who are U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents.

The problem is that the adjudication process for these waivers can sometimes take a year or longer. So at a minimum, the families face a long period of separation while trying to become legal. And of course, there is no guarantee that the waiver will be approved after the long adjudication.

If implemented, the new proposed process would allow those seeking to legalize their status through consular processing to submit their waiver applications for pre-approval before leaving the United States. While such applicants would still have to leave the United States to receive their status, the new process would have the potential to drastically decrease the time that they are abroad away from their citizen spouses and families.

As of now, the new rule is just a proposal and has not been implemented. There is no date certain for implementation. Also, it appears that the new pre-approval process would only be available for the waiver of unlawful presence bars. Those who also need waivers for bars triggered by criminal convictions or past fraud would have to continue to follow the old process where their waivers are submitted and adjudicated abroad.

Click Here to see the New York Times Editorial

Bookmark this post with:

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Call for "Humane" Immigration Policy in GOP Presidential Debate

Last night, the candidates for the Republican presidential nomination gathered for their eleventh debate (still thirteen to go). This debate focused on national security issues. Late in the debate, the topic turned to immigration policy and specifically on what to do with the 11 million people in the United States without immigration status.

While most of the candidates only spoke about the need to secure the border, Newt Gingrich, who is currently at the top or near the top of national GOP polling, set himself apart from the crowd by actually addressing the 11 million people who are already here and calling for a "humane" solution. Gingrich indicated that deporting someone who has been living, working, paying taxes, and attending church in the United States for 25 years is not practical and not humane.

"I do believe if you've come here recently and you have no ties to the U.S., we should deport you," Gingrich said, but he stated, "I don't see any reason to punish someone who came here at 3 years of age and wants to serve the United States of America," in apparent support of DREAM Act-type legislation.

Gingrich indicated that for those who have been here for a long period of time with deep roots in our community and have not committed crimes, there should be some way to legalize their status without separating families. He added that if Republicans want to be the party of families, they cannot support ripping these types of families apart. Gingrich recognized the potential political problems his stance could make for him in the GOP, saying, "I'm prepared to take the heat for saying, 'Let's be humane in enforcing the law without giving them citizenship but by finding a way to create legality so they are not separated from their families.'"

Gingrich, the former Speaker of the House with unquestioned conservative credentials, deserves credit for standing apart from the crowd and trying to shift the conversation toward realistic solutions in the midst of a GOP primary.

Mitt Romney's response to Gingrich during the debate was with unflinching opposition to anything that smelled of amnesty. Romney, though, has in the past taken a very similar position to Gingrich regarding those already in the country. As recently as 2007, Romney was quoted in the Lowell Sun newspaper saying, "I don't believe in rounding up 11 million people and forcing them at gunpoint from our country. With these 11 million people, let's have them registered, know who they are. Those who've been arrested or convicted of crimes shouldn't be here; those that are paying taxes and not taking government benefits should begin a process toward application for citizenship, as they would from their home country."

While it would be an overstatement to suggest that there is broad support for any type of immigration reform in the Republican party, the fact that two top candidates for the nomination are (or recently have been before becoming staunchly anti-amnesty) supportive of a humane and realistic approach to dealing with those already in the country without status is the first hint in a long time that there may be some daylight for future immigration reform.

Read the RealClearPolitics article on the immigration exchange in last night's debate here.

Bookmark this post with:

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

DHS: Pilot Project for Deportation Case Review in Denver

The Department of Homeland Security will conduct a review of all pending deportation cases around the country to conduct a triage of the courts' overwhelmed dockets. The review is intended to focus resources on deporting those who have committed serious crimes or pose national security risks.

The review will include six-week pilot projects in the immigration courts in Denver and Baltimore. During the pilot projects, teams of immigration agency lawyers will evaluate each case pending before those courts. Those cases which are not determined to fit with the government's priorities may be administratively closed but will not be dismissed. The fact that a person's case is administratively closed will not entitle him to any work permit or any other immigration status. Additionally, the administratively closed deportation case can be reopened in the future at any time the government chooses.

Click here to see the New York Times article on the review of deportation cases.

Bookmark this post with:

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Author of Arizona Immigration Law Loses Recall Election

Russell Pearce, the author of the controversial Arizona legislation aimed at illegal immigrants, lost a recall election last night and has been voted out of office.

He was forced into the recall election after disapproving constituents collected more than 10,000 signatures. He was defeated in the election by fellow Republican Jerry Lewis, who said that Pearce's immigration law had made Arizona "a pariah." Lewis is proposing a more cooperative stance against illegal immigration which aims to seek solutions by working with federal authorities and other parties.

Click here to read the CNN article on the recall election.

Bookmark this post with:

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Boulder County DA Vows to Prosecute Crimes Against Immigrants

In an interview with Colorado Public Radio's Ryan Warner today, Boulder County District Attorney, Stan Garnett, discussed his new focus on prosecuting crimes against undocumented immigrants. Garnett's decision to act comes as a response to countless cases of exploitation of immigrant communities.

Garnett's firm commitment to protect crime victims, regardless of immigration status, has drawn heavy criticism from anti-immigrant members of the community. Despite public uproar, Garnett is unwavering in his belief that immigration status is irrelevant to the prosecution of criminals and that all victims deserve protection. Garnett also hopes to foster a relationship of trust with law enforcement, so immigrants feel comfortable reporting crimes. He describes his policy as aligned with the values of law enforcement throughout Boulder County.

Stan Garnett's promise to prosecute crimes against immigrants is a welcome one, especially when contrasted with other counties whose District Attorneys inexplicably refuse to certify U Visa applications filed by victims of serious and violent crimes.

Watch Ryan Warner's interview with Stan Garnett here.

Bookmark this post with:

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Tancredo Either Dishonest or Completely Uninformed in 9News Debate with Julien Ross

On Tuesday, Will Ripley of 9 News hosted a debate on immigration and border-related issues with former U.S. Representative and Colorado gubernatorial candidate Tom Tancredo and Colorado Immigrant Rights Coalition Director Julien Ross.

Click here to watch a 9 minute clip of the debate.

For one of the loudest participants in our national dialogue on immigration issues, Mr. Tancredo displayed a surprising naïveté and ignorance on critical issues.

In the face of Mr. Ross’s point that 3/5 of the 11 million undocumented people in this country have been here for over a decade and are deeply rooted to their communities, Mr. Tancredo insisted that implementation of E-verify will cause them all to self-deport. Mr. Ross recommended a more comprehensive approach which would require the undocumented population to come out of the shadows and register, pay taxes, pay a fine, go through a background check, and learn English. This would immediately bring this population out of the shadows and allow immigration enforcement authorities to identify and focus on those who have been convicted of violent or dangerous crimes. In combination with an E-verify-type system, the proposals from Mr. Ross and others could be the backbone of a reform that would both deal with the 11 million undocumented people here now while preventing illegal immigration in the future.

Beyond his naïve belief that E-verify by itself will cause 11 million people to self-deport and resolve our immigration issues, Mr. Tancredo demonstrated startling ignorance of the law on his pet issue. At about minute 5:00 of the clip, the conversation turned to the DREAM Act (Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors). Mr. Ross told the story of a young man named Edgar who was brought to the United States as a seven year old, went to our schools, and then graduated from police academy. Our communities have invested resources in Edgar to educate him and now he is ready to serve his community as a police officer. But Edgar can’t do so because he does not have any documentation. The DREAM Act would allow people like Edgar to obtain a legal status and would allow our society to reap the benefits from these people that we have already invested our resources in.

Mr. Tancredo’s argument against the DREAM Act is that it is a way in which to give amnesty to all of the DREAM Act eligible person’s family members. At minute 6:10, Mr. Tancredo states that the “minute you become a legal resident, you have the ability to apply for that same residency for all of your family.” With Mr. Tancredo’s years of advocacy on immigration issues, he either knows that his statement here is completely untrue but says it anyway to try to advance his agenda or he has been utterly careless in researching an issue on which he holds himself out as an expert. First, DREAM Act students would not immediately become lawful permanent residents but would have to pass through a period of conditional status. Moreover, even when they do eventually become permanent residents, they cannot apply for that same status for all of their families. For instance, a permanent resident from Mexico can file an immigrant petition for his spouse, but under current wait times the spouse would not be able to gain resident status for years. The same would be true for the child of a permanent resident. Under section 1153(a) of Title 8 of the U.S. Code, a permanent resident cannot petition at all for his parents or brothers or sisters. If some day, say in 11 years (six years in conditional status plus five years as lawful permanent resident as required for naturalization), the DREAM Act kid successfully became a naturalized citizen, at that time he could apply for his parents and siblings. Of course, the siblings who were born in Mexico would have to wait for 15-20 more years under current processing times to be able to get their resident status.

The idea that the DREAM Act allows the beneficiary to get amnesty for his entire family “the minute he gets his status” is absurd and can be debunked with a few minutes of research. It’s not immediately clear which would be worse: if Mr. Tancredo knew this and lied about it or if he honestly doesn’t understand and hasn’t researched this issue that he spends so much of his time advocating on.

Kudos to Julien Ross of CIRC for his performance in the debate. As for Tom Tancredo, there are plenty of arguments to be made on different sides of the immigration debate and there is no need for him to make misrepresentations about the facts or the law. If he wants to carry the bullhorn for the anti-immigration reform crowd, he owes it to them research the issues and present the facts honestly.

Bookmark this post with:

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Napolitano Predicting Record Deportations

On October 5, 2011, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Jane Napolitano wrote an Op-Ed piece for Politico about the enforcement of immigration laws.

Secretary Napolitano sought to respond to critics of immigration policy from both sides. In the editorial, she predicted that next year DHS will break records with the number of deportations from the United States but explained that "while the overall number of individuals removed will exceed prior years, the composition of that number will consist of more convicted criminals, recent border crossers and repeat immigration law violators than ever before."

The administration's focus on prioritizing which individuals should be deported with limited resources makes sense. However, her prediction that DHS will break records for deportations next year calls into questions the hope for those low-priority individuals who seek prosecutorial discretion. Rather, it seems more likely that DHS will see that "record" number of deportations for the coming year as a mandate from above or a quota. Unfortunately, the data can be easily massaged to make it look like DHS has really sharpened its focus on high-priority aliens. By lumping all criminal offenses together, DHS can crow about the removal of criminal aliens. Secretary Napolitano stated in her Op-Ed that "50 percent of immigrants removed from our country had been convicted of a criminal offense."

Such statistics don't delve into what percentage were deported for drug offenses or violent offenses and what percentage were deported after being pulled over for having a tail light out and then convicted of driving without a license because their international driver's license is only good for a short period here in the United States.

All crimes are not the same and we should remember this for the coming year when DHS produces statistics of record deportations of "criminal aliens."

Click here to see Secretary Napolitano's Op-Ed .

Bookmark this post with:

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Far Reaching Human Consequences of Failure to Change Immigration Laws

In a time of consistent inaction on any issue important to the governance of the United States by the United States Congress, the question becomes how individuals work within antiquated, draconian, biased and divisive immigration laws. The United States bases its existence on the rule of law, and sees the Constitution as a living document; therefore, ensuring that one is following the immigration law is of paramount importance.

Putting aside the fact that current immigration law is a hindrance to free market economy because employers basically have to ask permission from the United States Department of Labor to hire the employee of their choice (ask any employer who has chosen the perfect person to work for him and has had to navigate business based visas, the PERM Labor Certification Process, and the minimum six year waiting period for professionals to be eligible to then apply for permanent resident status); and not taking into account the fact that permanent residents of this country have to wait years to live with their spouses and children, it is becoming ever more clear that the human toll of the immigration laws in the United States is devastating, and affect so many, it becomes difficult to fathom why Congress has refused to act.

When considering all those that immigration law affects, consider those in the gay and lesbian community. People who are legally allowed to marry in a minority of states remain ineligible to petition for their spouses to remain in the United States because of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). DOMA denies same-sex couples all federal marital benefits, such as tax preferences, Social Security and spousal immigration rights. This means that even for same sex couples that are legally married to a United States citizen that citizen in their state, the government still does not allow them to petition for the foreign national spouse to remain in the United States. There are a number of Congress men and women who believe this is unfair, and have introduced bills to repeal DOMA and allow same sex married couples to petition for one another, but in the meantime families continue to suffer under Congress’ inaction. Just because a bill is introduced, it does not mean it will be passed, or even looked at.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=%2Fc%2Fa%2F2011%2F10%2F05%2FMNEJ1LDPA3.DTL

Bookmark this post with:

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Decline in Unauthorized Aliens Residing in US

Whether it is the economy or an increase in worksite enforcement, the number of unauthorized aliens in the United States has declined since 2008. According to the Congressional Research Service report published September 22, 2001, an estimated 10-11 million unauthorized aliens lived in the U.S. as of 2010, compared to over 12 million in 2007. The report surveyed the U.S. Census Bureau's Current Population Surveys (CPS) published since 1986, and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Office of Immigration Statistics (OIS) reports based on the U.S. Census Bureau's American Community Survey (ACS) since 2000.

The report analyzed data collected not only on the number of unauthorized aliens in the U.S., but also countries of origin, residence in the United States, and year of arrival. The majority of unauthorized aliens residing in the U.S. as of 2010, approximately 30% of the total population, entered between 2000 and 2004. Only 9% of the current unauthorized alien population entered the U.S. between 2005 and 2009 according to a 2010 CPS report. Unauthorized aliens migrating from Mexico have declined since 1986, from 69% to 57% in 2010, while aliens originating from Asia have increased by 6%. The greatest number of unauthorized aliens continue to reside in California and Texas. According to the report, Colorado is not even in the top ten states "with unauthorized resident aliens" with a 2010 headcount between 140,000 to 325,000.

Contributing factors to the rise and fall of the unauthorized alien population in the U.S. since 1986 included economics, legislation, and enforcement. Some analysts attributed the rise of unauthorized aliens to "lax enforcement of employer sanctions," introduced in 1986 (Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) of 1986). These analysts point to the decrease in unauthorized aliens since work site enforcement increased in 2007-2008. However, the decrease in population since 2007 may also be attributed to the 2008 housing downturn and the subsequent recession.

In addition, the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigration Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA) "may have inadvertently increased the population of unauthorized resident aliens." Among other penalties, the act introduced the three and ten year bars to admission for aliens unlawfully present in the US for 180 days or more. These provisions "coupled with incrased resources for border enforcement" in the wak of the 911 terrorist attacks, according to the report, have created a "caging effect" that has "stymied what had been a rather fluid movement of migratory workers along the southern border." The result of IIRIRA "raised the stakes" and "created an incentive for those who succeed in entering the United States to stay."

Bookmark this post with:

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

2013 Diversity Lottery Opens October 4, 2011

The U.S. Department of State ("department") announced on September 27, 2011, that registration for the 2013 Diversity Lottery Program will open October 4, 2011. The department will accept electronically-submitted, registration applications (E-DV Form) until noon (EDT) on November 5, 2011.

Annually, the department sets aside 55,000 immigrant visas for the Diversity Visa Program. Out of the 55,000, 5,000 visas are allocated and available to aliens eligible to apply under the Nicaraguan and Central American Relief Act (NACARA). The department selects and distributes the available 2013 Diversity Visas to nationals from among six geographic regions and up to 7% of applicants from any single, eligible country.

Nationals of countries sending more than 50,000 immigrants tot he United States or more are not eligible to register for the Diversity Visa Program. The list of ineligible countries includes natives from the following: Bangladesh, Brazil, Canada, China (mainland-born)*, Colombia, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, India, Jamaica, Mexico, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, South Korea, United Kingdom (except Northern Ireland) and its dependent territories, and Vietnam.

*Natives of Hong Kong SAR, Macau SAR, and Taiwan are eligible to register.

Eligible registrants must submit an E-DV Form at www.dvlottery.state.gov to enter the lottery. The department will no longer accept paper entries. The official, electronic form is only in English. However, registrants may find unofficial translations of the electronic form on the department's website, in Albanian, Armenian, Hungarian, Polish, Romanian, Russian, Ukrainian, and Uzbek. Other translations of the form or assistance with translations may be available at the respective US Embassy website or foreign post in the registrant's country of residence.

The electronic registration system provides each registrant with a unique confirmation number. On or after May 1, 2013, registrants can return to the department's website to check if their confirmation number has been selected. If selected, the departmen will then send instructions to the successful registrant on how to apply for an immigrant visa.

Every year through the wonders of internet technology more fraudulent websites are created as scams charging unnecessary fees to unwary lottery registrants. The websites often appear as official government websites. Scammers may also send emails or letters "posing as the U.S. government." Please remember that the department does NOT collect a fee from registrants to enter the Diversity Visa Program. In addition, the department will NOT send registrants status updates or selection notices via email or regular mail. Registrants must check the department's website using their confirmation number for updates on their entry.

Bookmark this post with:

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

California Dreaming

The California DREAM Act has been signed into law. The Act, (AB 130) gives to undocumented students access to "privately funded scholarships for attendance at community colleges, state colleges, and public universities" in that state. Because there is no cost to the taxpayers, the measure passed easily. With the passage of AB 130, the legislators are now looking at AB 131, a much more controversial bill which would allow undocumented students to apply for state tuition assistance and Board of Governors fee waivers at community colleges. AB 131 would also give these students gain eligibility for university grants. Given the current economic situation in the United States, but especially in California, AB 131 may not be the boon that these students had hoped for since they will be "last in line" for the financial benefits after U.S. citizens and Permanent Residents. Nevertheless, to be given the opportunity to gain a college education where none existed before can only be counted as good. For more information on this subject, please follow the link below.

http://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/x/145178/Labour+Relations/California+Passes+Part+1+Of+The+DREAM+Act+For+State+College+University+Students&email_access=on

Bookmark this post with:

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

First Reported Cases Benefiting from 8/18/11 Obama Administration Announcement

Scattered reports in the media have indicated that the August 18, 2011 announcement by the Obama Administration may be starting to have some effect.

CNN reports that an Arizona attorney was contacted by Department of Homeland Security (DHS) officials and told that she should request that her case be dismissed. The Huffington Post reports that two teenage men in Georgia have also had their deportation cases closed under the new policy.

Despite these reports of what seems to be an implementation of the August 18 announcement, it is important to recognize that the announcement is not an amnesty and does not grant anyone legal status. There is no new application that can be filed or that a person can sign up for. The announcement does not create any new way to file for a work permit either. The American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) put out a consumer advisory warning that there is no sure way to know whether one's case would be safely considered "low priority" under the new announcement and no sure way to know that a particular "low priority" case won't be prosecuted anyway.

While it will be interesting to see if these sporadic reports turn into a general trend of closing cases deemed "low priority" by DHS, for the time being there seems to be little change on the ground.

To read the CNN article, click here;

For the Huffington Post article, click here;

To review the AILA consumer advisory, click here.

Bookmark this post with:

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Obama's Amnesty? Not so Fast

The Obama Administration announced on Thursday that it will make a case-by-case review of some 300,000 immigrants facing possible deportation in immigration courts around the country. The stated goal of the review is to focus on removing convicted criminals who might pose a threat to national security or public safety.

The Thursday announcement follows a June memo from the director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), John Morton, outlining when and how ICE agents could use prosecutorial discretion in immigration cases.

Administration officials, to this point speaking anonymously, have indicated that those whose deportations are put on hold may be eligible for work authorization. Whether this would come in the form of an order of deferred action or some other way is unclear.

In fact, much of how this new policy will play out on the ground remains unclear. We know that it does not give anyone a new path to lawful permanent resident status. As of yet, there is no known way to affirmatively apply to have one's case put on hold or to apply for work authorization based on the new policy.

How this new policy unfolds will depend on how DHS officers and attorneys implement it. Which immigrants actually end up benefiting from this new policy is still far from clear.

Read the Washington Post Article.

Bookmark this post with:

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Prosecutorial Discretion Memo, What Does It Mean?

On June 17, 2011, John Morton, Director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), issued two memos encouraging the expanded use of prosecutorial discretion by ICE officers, agents, and attorneys in all phases of civil immigration enforcement.

The new Morton memo is significant because it clarifies that the actions that can be used to exercise prosecutorial discretion include decisions on whether to:

- Issue or cancel a notice of detainer;

-“Reissue” or “serve” Notices to Appear (NTA); this gives an ICE officer the flexibility to allow a respondent to accrue the necessary continuous residence or continuous physical presence time for LPR and non-LPR cancellation, respectively;

-Settle or dismiss a proceeding; this appears to apply at all stages of a removal proceeding, including federal court appeals.

The memo cites as favorable factors to consider: whether the case falls within agency priorities, whether the person has graduated from a U.S. high school or is in pursuit of higher education, family relationships. Only a few negative factors are listed warranting “particular” consideration, including national security risks, serious felons, repeat offenders, those with lengthy criminal records, gang members, and “egregious” immigration violators.

The memo encourages ICE officers to proactively consider prosecutorial discretion even without being asked to do so.

Only a month after the roll-out of the new Morton memos, it is still to be seen how they will play out in the field. Hopefully they will be used to help ICE keep its focus on its stated goal of deporting serious criminal offenders and dangers to the community while spending less time chasing the deportations of DREAM Act eligible and other non-priority cases.

For the Morton Memo, click here.

For an excellent detailed advisory by Mary Kenney for American Immigration Council, click here.

Bookmark this post with:

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

ACLU Wins $200,000 Settlement from Maricopa County Sheriff for Illegal Detention of Citizen and LPR

68-year old Julian Mora and his son were driving in their truck when they were pulled over by the Maricopa County Sheriff's Department. They had not violated any traffic laws, but were nonetheless ordered out of the truck, zip-tied, and transported to a nearby work-site immigration raid that was being conducted. After being transported to the raid, they were detained for three hours by the police.

After three hours, they were given the chance to prove that they were lawfully in the U.S. Because Julian Mora is a lawful permanent resident who has lived in this country for over 30 years and his son is a U.S. citizen, they were easily able to do so.

The American Civl Liberties Union (ACLU) of Arizona brought suit on behalf of Mora against the Maricopa County Sheriff's Department and yesterday a settlement was reached for $200,000.

New state laws seeking to further involve local police in immigration enforcement will make these scenarios more and more common. Law enforcement officers in states with new "papers please" laws will inevitably detain U.S. citizens and some of these detentions will end up being for far more than three hours. Imagine the case where a U.S. citizen speaks with an accent and does not have ready access to his birth certificate or passport. Where the citizen is mentally disabled and is unable to explain his situation to the police. There are infinite complications that can and will cause people to be unable to prove their legal status at the drop of a hat. With time, these "papers please" laws will result in more and longer detentions by local police officers of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents who can't prove their status on the spot. And when that happens, the taxpayers will be on the hook for more expensive lawsuits and settlements.

See the ACLU press release here.

Bookmark this post with:

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

ABC News Journalist Outs Self as Undocumented in Support of Dream Act

In the wake of Congress failing to pass the DREAM Act (Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors) last year, Jose Antonio Vargas decided to reveal his status as an illegal immigrant.

Vargas is an ABC News Journalist who won a Pulitzer Prize for his coverage of the Virginia Tech shootings in 2007. He arrived in the United States at the age of twelve from the Philippines and did not learn that he did not have immigration status until years later.

Vargas' story is one of many that should put a human face on the potential beneficiaries of the DREAM Act who ended up in the U.S. without immigration status through no fault of their own. Hopefully Congress considers his story and so many others like it and gets DREAM back on the table.

For more, click on the links:

-The short Denver Post article on Vargas speaking out

-Video of Vargas talking about being undocumented

Bookmark this post with:

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Georgian Farmers Blame Labor Shortage on State's New Immigration Law

Georgia recently passed an Arizona-like bill that goes into effect on July 1. Among other things, Georgia House Bill 87 requires private employers to use an employment eligibility verification system and provides authority for law enforcement officers to enforce federal immigration laws and investigate the immigration status of Georgia residents.

As reported recently in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, migrant farm workers are choosing not to settle in Georgia because of HB 87. This has created a severe labor shortage among fruit and vegetable growers and potentially puts millions of dollars of crops in jeopardy.

Prospects for resolving the shortage look grim. Farmers say they are unable to recruit Georgia residents to work in their fields, because "it is temporary, hot and physically demanding." The president of the Georgia Fruit and Vegetable Growers Association said his farm is struggling against the worker shortage even after boosting pay to attract more migrant workers.

As states continue to pass piecemeal immigration laws, the labor shortage in Georgia will undoubtedly repeat itself throughout the rest of the United States. Georgia's struggle to save its crops exposes the country's dependence on migrant workers and calls for a guest worker program, both for the sake of our economy and the protection of immigrant workers.

Read more here in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

Bookmark this post with:

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Denver Immigration Court Overloaded

An article in Sunday's Denver Post documents the overwhelming caseload at the Immigration Court in Denver, Colorado. According to the article, two of Denver's immigration judges have as many as 2,400 pending cases each at any given time.

Judge Dana Leigh Marks, president of the National Associate of Immigration Judges, is quoted as saying that the necessarily rushed nature of the proceedings with such an inundation of cases is akin to trying death penalty cases in a traffic court setting.

With the enactment of Secure Communities and other programs designed to sweep more and more people into removal proceedings, the court's caseload seems likely to get worse. In the midst of the current budget struggles, it is difficult to envision Congress passing funding for more immigration judges and court staff to ensure due process and meaningful hearings in immigration court.

To read the article in the Denver Post, click here.

Bookmark this post with:

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

United States Citizenship & Immigration Service Extends Temporary Protected Status to Haiti

On May 17, 2011 the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) extended Temporary Protected Status (TPS) to Haitians who qualified and applied during the designated time and who received TPS from the government. This move is a welcome and much needed recognition of the tens of thousands of human beings present in the United States who remain in need of protection from return to Haiti, a country still suffering from the earthquake that occurred more than a year ago. The extension is valid from July 23, 2011 until January 22, 2013.

Additionally, DHS has re-designated Haiti for Temporary Protected Status, allowing Haitian Nationals who were not covered by the initial designation but whom were continually present in the United States since January 12, 2011 to make a filing for TPS now. This measure allows people who entered the United States during the year following the earthquake to apply for TPS.

http://aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=35422

Bookmark this post with:

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

The "A" Word

After previous failures to get any traction on comprehensive immigration reform or the DREAM Act, President Obama has again ramped up his efforts to call for reform. The outlines of the President's proposed plan are nothing new. He emphasized the need to pore further resources into securing the borders and prosecuting business owners who willfully employ undocumented workers. At the same time, those illegally in the country could begin a legalization process after they (1) admit to having broken the law, (2) pay taxes and a fine, (3) learn English, and (4) undergo background checks to ensure that they have no serious criminal history.

For opponents of reform, the broad outline of the plan will be immediately deemed as unacceptable because it amounts to an amnesty. With so much of the political debate centered on whether or not a given plan is an amnesty, it is probably worth looking at what the word amnesty means.

According to dictionary.com, the definition of "amnesty" is (1) a general pardon for offenses, especially political offenses, against a government, often granted before any trial or conviction; (2) an act of forgiveness for past offenses, especially to a class of persons as a whole; or (3) a forgetting or overlooking of any past offense.

The relevant definition word “pardon” is defined as (1) a release from the penalty of an offense; a remission of penalty, as by a governor; or (2) forgiveness of a serious offense or offender.

Would requiring offenders to (1) admit to having broken the law, (2) pay taxes and a fine, (3) learn English, and (4) undergo background checks to ensure no serious criminal history before they could start a legalization process really be an amnesty? Such requirements seem more akin a mass guilty plea and sanction (a presumably substantial fine and English classes) than a "release from the penalty of an offense" or a "forgetting or overlooking of any past offense."

When a person pleads guilty to DUI, he admits to having broken the law and then is required to pay court costs and fines and often agrees to take classes. DUI and other criminal offenders are not seen as having been granted amnesty.

A reform program should be envisioned as a mass guilty plea with serious sanctions attached. It would be to American society's benefit that fines will be paid, those who do not know English will be required to learn it, and 10 or so million people will no longer be living in the shadows.

Bookmark this post with:

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
•