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:

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

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:

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

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:

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

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:

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Customs and Border Patrol Commissioner Calls for Comprehensive Immigration Reform

In remarks addressed to the Migration Policy Institute, Customs and Border Patrol ("CBP") Commissioner Alan Bersin detailed recent accomplishments and future goals of the agency's enforcement efforts at the border. Refreshingly, he also indicated an understanding that immigration at root is a matter of labor markets and challenged the country to tackle the tough issues in order to enact comprehensive immigration reform. Commissioner Bersin identified three key elements that must be included for successful reform. First, he indicated that the Federal government must continue to take the responsibility to secure the borders. Second, a reform needs to implement responsibility and accountability from employers. Finally, he indicated that those currently here without status must be required to register, admit that they are present in violation of the law, pay a fine and back-taxes, and learn English to get started on the path to citizenship. Commissioner Bersin aptly concluded his remarks with a challenge to Congress to "move past the false debates and start focusing on the long term needs of our nation."

Read the CBP Commissioner's remarks in their entirety here.

Bookmark this post with:

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

The "Down Payment" Plan for Immigration Reform

Some immigrant rights groups are shifting the strategy in their so-far unsuccessful push to overhaul immigration law: They're calling the new tactic the "down payment" approach.
Aware that the clock is running out, and there are no guarantees that a Congress that is supportive of immigration reform will be returned in November Antonio Gonzales, president of the William C. Velásquez Institute, a Latino public policy group, explained "We took a deep breath and said, 'Okay, we need a Plan B.' "
That plan centers on lobbying hard for the passage of two bills: AgJobs and the Dream Act. AgJobs is a compromise between farmworker unions and agriculture business groups, which was negotiated more than five years ago and is intended to provide legal farm labor and protect the rights of immigrant workers. The Dream Act would give some undocumented students the ability to apply for permanent residency. Both bills have had Republican support in the past.

Read more about the "down payment" plan at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/27/AR2010072704307.html

Bookmark this post with:

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Dream Act

 Recent poll indicates that 70% of Americans are in favor of DREAM Act.  The DREAM (Development Relief and Education for Alien Minors) Act would allow certain qualifying undocumented immigrants who were brought to the United States when they were young children to become lawful permanent residents. Under the DREAM Act, students who have lived in the United States for at least five years could become lawful permanent residents, so long as they stay out of trouble, earn a high school diploma or G.E.D., and complete at least two years of college or military service. First Focus, a family-advocacy organization, recently conducted a poll that indicates that 70% of Americans are in favor of the DREAM Act, despite strong anti-immigrant rhetoric and a strong push for comprehensive immigration reform. First Focus’ president, Bruce Lesley, believes that the poll shows that most Americans are concerned that not allowing undocumented immigrant students to continue their educations beyond high school could spell harmful economic consequences for American society.  For more information on the DREAM Act, please visit: http://dreamact.info/
For more information on the First Focus poll, please visit: http://firstfocus.net/library/polling-and-opinion-research/public-support-for-the-dream-act

Bookmark this post with:

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Immigrants Have Many Faces

In a recent interview with the news media Arizona Governor Jan Brewer stated that individuals entering the United States illegally are “accosted by drug cartels” and in essence forced into servitude as carriers of illegal drugs. Unfortunately, instead of envisioning the wholly inhumane treatment of a people constantly under siege and terrorized by the cartels, Governor Brewer continued to label individuals trying desperately to flee as “illegal trespassers” and “drug mules.”


The truth is that the United States has a severe problem with controlled substances. As law enforcement works diligently to keep illegal drugs out, cartels in Mexico and South America find new ways to supply the demand. Human beings are, in fact, daily “accosted” by the increasingly violent and cruel cartels that have a stranglehold on Mexico, its citizens and government.

However, it is important to remember that immigrants have many faces, many stories, many backgrounds, and a world of complications and issues that cannot possibly be encompassed in one broad, sweeping statement that all individuals entering the country are “drug mules.” Our only border is not the Southern Border, and our population of undocumented immigrants does not only come from Mexico. Not all individuals who immigrate to the United States do so illegally, not all individuals who are immigrants entered through our Southern Border, not all individuals who are presently in the United States without documents entered illegally.

The overwhelming majority of individuals who desire nothing more than a life in the United States want to be here legally, and with documents, whether they are escaping a life that many of us cannot even begin to imagine or not. If we as a country are ever going to solve the current problem we have of “illegal immigration” it is going to take a comprehensive overhaul of a system that is wholly archaic. There are many people who are unaware that individuals who are present in the United States without documents cannot simply “become legal” or even apply for themselves. Until we as a nation choose to fix the current law, our undocumented populations will grow.

In all fairness, no matter what side of the immigration debate one is on, no one believes in illegal immigration. Both sides want there to be a day when illegal immigration does not exist. The question is how, do we as a country, choose to address the issue.

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2010/06/27/jan.brewer.drug.mules.ktvk?hpt=T2

Bookmark this post with:

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Renewed Push for Immigration Reform

President Obama and congressional leaders met on Tuesday to discuss strategy for a renewed push for Comprehensive Immigration Reform. President Obama will also address the American public on Thursday with a speech dedicated to the need to reform our immigration laws. Hopefully this renewed push will create the momentum needed to pass a reform. Also, Immigration and Customs Enforcement released a memo on Tuesday which lists the agency priorities for detention and removal. The memo indicates that the greatest emphasis should be on detaining and removing those who present a national security threat or a threat to public safety.

For more details, see the Los Angeles Times Article at http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-obama-immigration-20100630,0,6185729.story .

Bookmark this post with:

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

ATTORNEY GENERAL DOES AWAY WITH COMPEAN ORDER

The Attorney General Eric Holder vacated the order issued in Matter of Compean by Attorney General Mukasey, and announced his intention to initiate a new rulemaking proceeding for regulations to govern claims of ineffective assistance of counsel in removal proceedings. The order in Matter of Compean limited non-citizen's ability to make claims of ineffective assistance of counsel in immigration proceedings.

Bookmark this post with:

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

USCIS RESUMES PREMIUM PROCESSING SERVICE FOR FORM I-140, Immigrant Petition For Alien Worker

USCIS announced that effective June 29, 2009, it will resume Premium Processing Service for Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker. Under the Premium Processing Service, USCIS guarantees petitioners that, for a $1,000 processing fee, it will issue either an approval notice, or where appropriate, a notice of intent to deny, a request for evidence or open an investigation for fraud or misrepresentation, within 15 calendar days of receipt. If the petition is not processed within 15 calendar days, USCIS will refund the $1,000 fee and continue to process the request as part of the Premium Processing Service. In addition to faster processing, petitioners who participate in the program may use a dedicated phone number and e-mail address to check on the status of their petition or ask any other questions they may have concerning their petition. Premium Processing Service continues to be available for previously designated classifications within Form I-140 and Form I-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant worker. To read more about this update, visit the USCIS website at: www.USCIS.gov

Bookmark this post with:

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

THE CAP HAS NOT BEEN REACHED! USCIS CONTINUES TO ACCEPT H-1B PETITIONS

There are still a number of H1-B Visas available, but you will need to file now!
Contact Joseph Law Firm, P.C. at 303-297-9171 or at www.immigrationissues.com to inquire about the available H1-B visas.

USCIS announced it continues to accept H-1B nonimmigrant visa petitions subject to the fiscal year 2010 (FY 2010) cap. USCIS will continue to monitor the number of H-1B petitions received for both the 65,000 regular cap and the 20,000 U.S. master's degree or higher educational exemption cap.

USCIS has received approximately 44,000 H-1B petitions counting toward the Congressionally-mandated 65,000 cap. The agency continues to accept petitions subject to the general cap.

Bookmark this post with:

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

DOL ANNOUNCES NEW iCERT PORTAL SYSTEM FOR TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT LABOR CERTIFICATIONS

The Employment and Training Administration (ETA) is announcing a new electronic system for submitting the Labor Condition Application (LCA) and the Application for Permanent Employment Certification.

The Department plans to initially activate the iCERT system for purposes of establishing user accounts and filing the new LCA form (9035E). The system will be located at http://icert.doleta.gov. On and after April 15, 2009, the iCERT portal will be available for the sumission of ETA 9035E (electronic LCA H-1B application). The current electronic LCA system will continue to be available through May 14, 2009. However, effective May 15, 2009, the LCA for the H-1B program will be available for submission only through the iCERT portal system.

The PERM application, FORM ETA 9089, will become available for application submission on September 1, 2009. To allow for an appropriate transition, both systems will be active during the month of September. However, beginning October 1, 2009, PERM applications will be submitted electronically only through iCERT system accounts.

For more information, visit the ETA website for the iCERT Factsheet.

Bookmark this post with:

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

OBAMA TO PUSH IMMIGRATION BILL AS ONE PRIORITY

While acknowledging that the recession makes the political battle more difficult, President Obama plans to begin addressing the country's immigration system this year, including looking for a path for illegal immigrants to become legal, a senior administration official said on Wednesday. Mr. Obama will frame the new effort - likely to rouse passions on all sides of the highly divisive issue - as "policy reform that controls immigration and makes it an orderly system," said the official, Cecilia Muñoz, deputy assistant to the president and director of intergovernmental affairs in the White House.

Mr. Obama plans to speak publicly about the issue in May, administration officials said, and over the summer he will convene working groups, including lawmakers from both parties and a range of immigration groups, to begin discussing possible legislation for as early as this fall.

He said then that comprehensive immigration legislation, including a plan to make legal status possible for an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants, would be a priority in his first year in office. Latino voters turned out strongly for Mr. Obama in the election.

To read more about this story visit the New York Times Website at: www.NYTimes.com

Bookmark this post with:

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
•