Claris Law Legal Blogging Community

Editor: Bob Kraft
Profession: Attorney at Law

Rules Eased To Expedite Green Card Applications

Category: Immigration Policies

The Citizenship and Immigration Services has come up with a means of expediting certain green card applications. While it makes good sense to me, many people are objecting to the new procedure based on national security concerns. In a nutshell, CIS is proposing to approve applications if they have been pending more than six months and are awaiting only the FBI background check. The reason for the change is that some FBI checks are taking literally years to complete. Here are excerpts from an article about this in the New York Times:

Searching for ways to reduce a huge backlog of visa applications, immigration authorities have eased requirements for background checks by the F.B.I. of immigrants seeking to become permanent United States residents, federal officials said Monday.

If an immigrant's application for a residence visa has been in the system for more than six months and the only missing piece is a name check by the F.B.I., immigration officers will now be allowed to approve the application, according to a memorandum posted Monday on the Web site of the federal Citizenship and Immigration Services agency.

The memorandum states that "in the unlikely event" that the F.B.I. name check turns up negative information about an immigrant after a residence visa has been granted, the authorities can cancel the visa and begin deportation proceedings.

Under the new policy, which was first reported by the McClatchy news service, immigrants applying for the permanent visas, which are known as green cards, will still be required to complete two other security checks: an F.B.I. criminal fingerprint check and a search in a federal criminal and anti-terrorist database known as Interagency Border Inspection Services.

The policy is intended to speed processing for tens of thousands of immigrants with no criminal records who are living in the United States and have been waiting for years for green cards because their names turned up matches in the F.B.I's records. Often an immigrant's name hits a match, immigration lawyers said, because the F.B.I. files include a vast range of names, including those of people mentioned in criminal investigations, even if they had no role in a crime. F.B.I. agents must investigate each name match by manual searches of voluminous records.

Some critics said the agency would be cutting security corners and bending federal law.

"They are knowingly granting a benefit to a person who may be a national security threat or a serious criminal," said Rosemary Jenks, director of government relations for NumbersUSA, an organization that favors reduced immigration.

"These are people who are asking permission to stay in this country permanently," Ms. Jenks said, "and we have a right to make sure we know who they are. If it takes a few extra months, so be it."

Increased Delays Ahead For Naturalization Applicants

Category: Immigration Policies

Testimony before Congress this week on "Naturalization Delays, Causes, Consequences and Solutions" by Emilio T. Gonzalez, Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, contained bad news for applicants. Under the section titled "Where Does this Take Us?" Director Gonzalez said this:

This surge will have a serious impact on application processing times for the next couple of years. As a result, based on our response plan, most customers will wait much longer to have their applications completed. As we have reported, the average processing time for naturalization applications has increased from the current average of seven months or less to approximately 18 months. Family-based adjustment-of-status applications increased from the current average of six months or less to 12 months. Our two-year response plan will help us accomplish reducing processing times to six months by the third quarter of Fiscal Year 2010.

What Should We Call People Here Without Authorization?

Category: Immigration Policies

There is an exhaustive article at ILW.com about how exactly we should refer to people who are in the United States without proper authorization. The article is definitely worth reading.

This is a proposed guideline for the use of the terms "undocumented immigrant," "illegal immigrant," and "illegal alien" on Wikipedia.

Eventually, it ought to recommend a term to be used when it is impossible to avoid the use of an adjectival description for people who enter or reside in a country without legal authorization. At the moment, it contains three proposed guidelines, recommmending "undocumented immigrant," "illegal immigrant," and "unauthorized immigrant" respectively. When a consensus is reached by Wikipedians on the talk page, one should be kept and all others removed, with the arguments that led to their defeat merged.

Preface

Wikipedia's articles on immigration policy are, at present, extremely inconsistent in their use of terms to describe illegal immigration. A person who enters or resides in a country without legal authorization is sometimes described as an asylum seeker, sometimes as an undocumented immigrant, sometimes as an unauthorized immigrant, sometimes as an unlawful immigrant or illegal immigrant, and sometimes as an illegal alien. A consistent policy is desirable in order to resolve controversies.

The more common terms are all politically charged in the United States, the location of a substantial number of English-language Wikipedia users, and the controversy exists just as much in the offline world as in Wikipedia. Supporters of granting citizenship to people who have entered or reside in the country without legal authorization tend to use the term "undocumented immigrant," while supporters of increased enforcement of immigration laws tend to use the terms "illegal immigrant" and "illegal alien." [1]

The issue is less pressing in other English-speaking countries, where the vast majority of immigrants who enter without legal authorization tend to apply for asylum, and are therefore known uncontroversially as "asylum seekers." Unfortunately, this term does not apply to the vast majority of immigrants at issue in the United States.

Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature. Consequently, we need to establish from reliable sources, what the majority of English speakers use globally.

Continue reading "What Should We Call People Here Without Authorization?"

What Should We Call People Here Without Authorization?

Category: Immigration Policies

There is an exhaustive article at ILW.com about how exactly we should refer to people who are in the United States without proper authorization. The article is definitely worth reading.

This is a proposed guideline for the use of the terms "undocumented immigrant," "illegal immigrant," and "illegal alien" on Wikipedia.

Eventually, it ought to recommend a term to be used when it is impossible to avoid the use of an adjectival description for people who enter or reside in a country without legal authorization. At the moment, it contains three proposed guidelines, recommmending "undocumented immigrant," "illegal immigrant," and "unauthorized immigrant" respectively. When a consensus is reached by Wikipedians on the talk page, one should be kept and all others removed, with the arguments that led to their defeat merged.

Preface

Wikipedia's articles on immigration policy are, at present, extremely inconsistent in their use of terms to describe illegal immigration. A person who enters or resides in a country without legal authorization is sometimes described as an asylum seeker, sometimes as an undocumented immigrant, sometimes as an unauthorized immigrant, sometimes as an unlawful immigrant or illegal immigrant, and sometimes as an illegal alien. A consistent policy is desirable in order to resolve controversies.

The more common terms are all politically charged in the United States, the location of a substantial number of English-language Wikipedia users, and the controversy exists just as much in the offline world as in Wikipedia. Supporters of granting citizenship to people who have entered or reside in the country without legal authorization tend to use the term "undocumented immigrant," while supporters of increased enforcement of immigration laws tend to use the terms "illegal immigrant" and "illegal alien." [1]

The issue is less pressing in other English-speaking countries, where the vast majority of immigrants who enter without legal authorization tend to apply for asylum, and are therefore known uncontroversially as "asylum seekers." Unfortunately, this term does not apply to the vast majority of immigrants at issue in the United States.

Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature. Consequently, we need to establish from reliable sources, what the majority of English speakers use globally.

Continue reading "What Should We Call People Here Without Authorization?"

Employers Brace For New Immigration Rules

Category: Immigration Policies

The San Luis Obispo Tribune has an excellent article today on the potential impact of the government's new "no match" letters on employers. Here are excerpts:

Businesses across San Luis Obispo County are closely watching a federal court decision expected Monday that could lead to greater workplace enforcement of illegal immigration.

The decision involves the legality of a new U.S. Department of Homeland Security rule that focuses on a company's responsibility in verifying employment eligibility, based on letters that the Social Security Administration sends out.

"The rule has a lot of people fearful because there are many employers on the Central Coast that have received those letters in the past," said Richard Quandt, president of the Grower-Shipper Vegetable Association of San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara Counties. "They assume they will receive them again."

At issue are new responsibilities that businesses would have to assume to verify the legal status of their workers. Failure to do so could subject a business to fines or even criminal charges, should an investigation be done and the firm be found to have knowingly employed workers without legal residency.

For nearly three decades, the Social Security Administration has contacted employees when their name and Social Security number do not match. Employers with more than 10 employees with mismatches also get a letter, also known as the "no-match" notification.

Until now, employers were recommended to not take any adverse action against an employee based solely on the letter.

But the nature of the letters is set to change as the government puts a greater onus on employers.

In August, Homeland Security announced that no-match letters would now be accompanied by notices from the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the largest investigative arm of the department. Outlining what it calls a "safe harbor" for employers, the ICE insert identifies the necessary steps that will protect employers from civil fines or criminal charges.

Homeland Security clearly states that receiving a nomatch letter and not following the guidelines could be construed as knowingly employing illegal immigrants.

However, a lawsuit filed in late August by several labor union groups, including the AFL-CIO, halted distribution of the letters, which was set to begin in mid-September. The suit claims that the rules would violate workers' rights and unfairly burden employers.

A judge with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California then issued a nationwide temporary restraining order blocking the Social Security Administration from sending the letters with the inserts. The order is in effect until Monday, when another federal judge will decide how to proceed.

"It's important for employers to know we have dramatically increased enforcement, and are increasingly relying on criminal prosecution of businesses, as opposed to fining them, as we have done in the past," said Virginia Kice, a spokeswoman for ICE.

Indeed, work-site enforcement targeting illegal immigrants is up substantially in the last two years. Criminal prosecutions nationally have jumped from 25 in 2002 to 176 in 2005 to 742 in the first seven months of 2007. Felony charges that can be brought include harboring illegal immigrants, which carries a potential 10-year prison sentence, and money laundering, which can mean a potential 20-year prison term.

Homeland Security has also announced that in the near future, the penalty for this offense will increase by about 25 percent. Currently, the fines range from $275 to $2,200 per worker for the first violation and increase for additional violations.

"We have discovered that fines are not effective; many people consider that the cost of doing business," Kice said. "People should know we are also ready to seize a business's assets, as we have done in a recent case."

California businesses are set to receive most of the letters that are going to about 140,000 employers. The Social Security Administration has posted on its Web site that it intends to send out 35,675 nomatch letters to California employers this year for the 2006 tax year. That's nearly three times more than the next highest-scrutinized state, Texas. County-specific data are not available.

County employers--across industries such as agriculture, construction, lodging, restaurants and health care -- are confused and concerned about the rules and the extent to which they will be enforced.

"There is a fair amount of misunderstanding among employers about this rule," said Carl Borden, associate counsel with the California Farm Bureau Federation in Sacramento. He has been making presentations over the past month about the rule to agriculturalists throughout California, including a stop in Paso Robles.

"Merely failing to follow the rules doesn't in and of itself put them in jeopardy. But following it does protect them in the future," Borden said.

Borden explained that fear is one of the intended goals of the new rule.

"Regardless of how the court case turns, I'm sure we are going to see some high-profile enforcement actions," he said. "Part of that will be to scare all employers into thinking that they better follow the safe-harbor steps."

In announcing the rules, Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff acknowledged that the agency would "rely on a lot of self-policing" like with the tax code.

That's because the Social Security Administration is prohibited from sharing private data with other governmental agencies such as Homeland Security. No-match related fines and charges are anticipated to arise if there are employer audits or raids, Borden said. The letter is evidence of "constructive knowledge of an employee's lack of work authorization."

"There are some real enforcement issues with this," he said. "A lot of what it comes down to is deterrence."

That "puts the employer in the position of being the policemen," said Karen Ross, president of the California Association of Winegrape Growers.

Dana Merrill, president of Mesa Vineyard Management in Templeton, has attended four different presentations on the rule, and says he is still somewhat hazy on what is going to happen when the safe harbor timeline expires. His company employs about 150 people and hires an additional 200 workers through labor contractors during peak periods.

"I think employers want to do the right thing, but we're not clear what that is," said Merrill, who has received nomatch letters in the past. "We are hearing some pretty scary stories about what could happen to employers if we don't follow the steps, but I don't know if we'll get sued if we fire people."

Ross said that this is a common worry because employers must operate within strict parameters to avoid the potential of discrimination lawsuits. Homeland Security recommends employee termination if a Social Security mismatch can't be cleared up or the employee's employment eligibility is not re-verified within 93 days.

But the existing Social Security guidelines -- which remain unchanged--specifically state that employers should not use the letter alone "to take any adverse action against an employee, such as laying off, suspending, firing or discriminating against an employee."

"We have gotten so many calls and questions," Ross said. "Employers are scared. They are not sure how to act, and they are worried that employees will be scared away from the job."

Immigration From Iraq Or Afghanistan

Category: Immigration Policies

At Kraft & Associates, we recently had an inquiry from a soldier who had just returned from Iraq. He had promised his Iraqi translator that he would try to help the translator gain entry into the United States.

We had to tell this good-hearted military man that the United States has been embarrassingly slow to admit any Iraqi citizens into our country, including those who risked their lives by helping our military. This year alone, Switzerland has accepted thousands of Iraqi refugees, while the United States has accepted only a few hundred, almost all of those in the past two months.

However, there may be something that can be done for these people. Depending on the exact situations and the eligibilities, they may be able to enter the U.S. as Special Immigrants. Translators for the U.S. Armed Forces may be eligible to enter the United States, and are protected under the National Defense Authorization Act.  To benefit from this act they must demonstrate the following:

• National of Iraq or Afghanistan;
• worked directly with U.S. Armed Forces as a translator for a period of at least 12 months;
• obtained a favorable written recommendation from a general or flag officer in the chain of command;
• cleared a background check and screening as determined by the general or flag officer before filing the petition; and
• they are otherwise admissible except for 212(a)(4) (public charge)

They must file their petitions on form I-360.  The biggest hurdle to overcome is that there are only 50 visas available per year. Spouse and children may accompany or follow to join if the principal applicant is approved.

The Department of Homeland Security's New "No Match" Rule

Category: Immigration Policies

As a result of the inability of Congress to enact workable immigration reform, the Bush Administration has announced plans to increase enforcement, placing employers in a difficult position. The Administration's latest plan requires employers to resolve discrepancies between employee records and those of the Social Security Administration or the Department of Homeland Security. Once the employer has notice of a discrepancy in Social Security number or immigration status information from what is referred as a "no match" letter, the employer has 90 days to re-verify the information. If the employer is unable to correct the discrepancy within this time frame, the employer has the following two choices: (1) terminate the employment, or (2) continue the employment. If the employer chooses the first option and terminates the employment, he or she may be faced with lawsuits by employees. If the employer chooses the second option, he or she may be faced with severe civil and criminal sanctions from the Department of Homeland Security.

Employers often receive "no match" letters for several reasons, such as clerical errors or failure to register a change of name after marriage. Both employers and employees can face bureaucratic delays in attempting to document and correct records. With this new enforcement plan employers will be made to jump through hoops, and employees could face potential termination as a result of these delays. These enforcement measures could have serious consequences on industries such as agriculture, hospitality, and construction.

The construction and agriculture labor pool relies in significant part on undocumented or illegal immigrant labor. Nationwide, it is estimated that undocumented illegal workers number more than 12 million, with approximately 2.4 million of those workers employed in construction.

American society continues to be redefined by immigration, but the modern illegal immigrant community faces different challenges than previous immigrant populations.

After the terrorist attack of September 11, 2001, the U.S. government consolidated Immigration and Naturalization Services (now known as Citizenship and Immigration Services) with the Department of Homeland Security. As a result of the merger between these two agencies, there has been great emphasis on "tightening" America's borders.

There is now a greater focus on regulating the entry and conduct of undocumented illegal immigrants through the primary investigative department, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Despite the economic and social reliance on undocumented laborers, Congress continues to introduce bills geared toward immigration enforcement rather than reform, having serious consequences for the industries that employ these immigrants.

Potential employers of illegal immigrant laborers should closely monitor immigration reform and enforcement legislation as both could potentially pose severe punishments for such employers. The punishments may include prison sentences for employers who are repeat offenders, and/or fines of up to $10,000. Should such legislation take effect, it is likely that a national labor shortage may occur. The labor shortages in the affected industries would result in increased costs, strains and delays on local businesses as well as the community overall. Unfortunately, we may have to wait for at least the next two years for comprehensive immigration reform. As of now, with the enforcement-only approach immigrant employees and their employers are faced with a huge road block. Employees are unable to apply for legal status because no paths to legal status are available under the current system. Employers cannot find legal workers because no employment visas exist for such workers.

Enforcement-only legislation is not the answer. Congress needs to resume negotiations of comprehensive reforms that will secure our nations future by creating clear paths to lawful residence, providing new worker programs, eliminating backlogs in family immigration, assuring due process and protection of civil liberties while safeguarding our national security interests.

For more information about immigration news, immigration laws, immigration policies, proposed immigration laws, border enforcement, green cards, citizenship, employment visas, family visas, naturalization, and other immigration subjects, please visit Immigration Law Answers and Immigration Law Answers Blog.

Updating Your Address With Immigration Services

Category: Immigration Policies

We've written about the subject of updating addresses before, but we get this question asked so many times we're going to revisit the situation.

On January 12, 2007, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services announced a new program that allows U.S. immigrants to update their addresses online. Currently, all non-citizens in the U.S. are required to keep Immigration Services updated as to their most current addresses. Immigration Services must be notified within ten days of any change in address. Previously, this was done either by calling USCIS or completing a change of address card (Form AR-11), which was mailed to USCIS.

USCIS now accepts change of address information online. This new service reduced processing times, since Immigration Services typically receives over one million change of address requests each year. Additionally, this new service is convenient and easy to use.

It is vital that you continually notify Immigration Services of any change in address. This is particularly important when you have filed an application or petition for a benefit under the Immigration and Nationality Act and expect notification of a decision on that application. In addition, the USCIS may need to contact you to provide other issued documents or return original copies of evidence you submitted.

You should include the following information in your change of address request:

For the change of address Form AR-11, complete the information requested on the form, including present address, last address (most recent only), alien or registration number, country of citizenship, date of birth, and your signature.

You do not need to include temporary addresses as long as you maintain your present address as your permanent residence and continue to receive mail there.

When sending a change of address, you do not need to include numerous last addresses; only the most recent last address is needed.

Be sure to also indicate in the appropriate block on the AR-11 your current employment and school, where applicable.

You can find and print the change of address form online at this USCIS page. If you would prefer to update your address automatically through the USCIS Eeb site, please visit this change of address page.

Department Of Labor Issues New Rules For Labor Certifications

Category: Immigration Policies

On May 17, 2007, the Department of Labor (DOL) amended its administrative regulations as they relate to labor certifications. The new rules will go into effect on July 16, 2007. Cases already pending with the DOL will not be affected by the new provisions.

Many foreign employees in the U.S. would like for their employers to sponsor them for their green cards, or permanent residency. The first step in this process is obtaining a labor certification that has been approved by the DOL. A labor certification attests that there are not sufficient workers able, willing, qualified and available to perform the work, and that the employment of the foreign workers will not adversely affect the wages and working conditions of U.S. workers in similar positions. Once these certifications are made, the DOL will approve a labor certification.

The new rules issued by the DOL, however, drastically change the way labor certifications are handled. For example, current rules allow for substitution, where employers can replace one foreign worker in a labor certification for another without losing the employer's place in the processing line. The final regulation eliminates this practice, making it difficult for an employer to make a substitution should a worker be terminated or voluntarily leave the company.

The DOL will now also ban an employer from recouping the costs associated with the labor certification process from the foreign employee, including legal costs. From now on, any costs associated with preparing, submitting, and obtaining a permanent labor certification must be paid by the sponsoring employer and not paid by the employee. Many small to mid-sized companies ask their employees to pay legal costs associated with the employee's labor certification; the new rules do away with this, which may put a financial strain on employers.

The final rule also provides a 180-day validity period for approved labor certifications; employers will have 180 calendar days within which to file with Immigration Services an approved permanent labor certification in support of a Form I-140 Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker. The rule also prohibits the sale, barter, or purchase of permanent labor certifications and applications.

The New IMAGE Program From Homeland Security

Category: Immigration Policies

Over the past several months, Bush administration officials and the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) have been trying to convince businesses that rely heavily on foreign workers to join a little-known program that would spare them from federal raids so long as they voluntarily handed over their workers' documents so the government can scan them for fraudulent information.

To prevent unlawful employment and reduce vulnerabilities that help illegal aliens gain employment, the Department of Homeland Security introduced the ICE Mutual Agreement between Government and Employers (IMAGE) program. The goal is to assist employers in developing a more secure and stable workforce and to enhance fraudulent document awareness through education and training.

The program calls on businesses to submit all I-9 employee eligibility verification forms to ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) for an audit and to ensure the accuracy of wage reporting by verifying workers' Social Security numbers.

As part of IMAGE, ICE will provide education and training on proper hiring procedures, fraudulent document detection, use of the Basic Pilot Employment Verification Program and anti-discrimination procedures. To obtain these benefits, a company will have to submit to an I-9 audit by ICE, and verify the Social Security numbers of their existing labor forces.

According to ICE, "The IMAGE program also serves to foster improved relations with businesses vital to U.S. national interests as part of ICE's role in critical infrastructure protection."

Currently, participation in the program is voluntary. An employer that complies with IMAGE will become "IMAGE certified," a distinction ICE hopes will become an industry standard.

The government's efforts under IMAGE are much broader than those under another program, Basic Pilot, in which businesses voluntarily enroll. Companies that take part in Basic Pilot can check the Social Security numbers provided by job applicants against a national database of Social Security and immigration records.

In December 2006, ICE rounded up nearly 1,300 immigrants in raids on meatpacking plants run by Swift & Co. The arrests were highly criticized by Swift's President, who stated that the company relied in good faith on the Basic Pilot program, and had participated in the program since 1997. The system, however, did not identify stolen Social Security numbers or numbers that are being used in multiple locations. A Swift spokesperson stated that the company will not participate in the IMAGE program since they do not see any benefit in signing up for additional obligations when the Basic Pilot program had flaws in identifying illegal workers.

Texas Governor Takes Surprising Stand In Favor Of Immigrants

Category: Immigration Policies

Texas Governor Rick Perry, normally an ultra-conservative, surprised most members of his conservative base yesterday. In a speech to border officials, Governor Perry said that ideas such as a fence along the border, cutting off public education for illegal immigrants, and changing the law to take away birthright citizenship are "divisive."

Perhaps now that the election is over, and Perry won a multi-candidate race with far less than a majority of the total vote, he is moderating his political views in order to attract more of the Latino population.

Whatever his motivation, and whatever his sincerity, those of us who try to help immigrants appreciate his new positions.

For more information about immigration laws, immigration policies, proposed immigration laws, border enforcement, green cards, citizenship, visas, naturalization, and other immigration subjects, please visit Immigration Law Answers and Immigration Law Answers Blog.

A Medicaid Mess: Citizenship Rule Pinches The Wrong Pennies

Category: Immigration Policies

The Dallas Morning News has a thoughtful editorial today regarding rule changes to prevent illegal aliens from receiving free medical treatment for their children. Here are excerpts from the editorial:

Hospitals and doctors across the country report that newborns have been denied coverage since a federal policy that prohibits automatic Medicaid eligibility to babies took effect this year. And it's only a matter of time before this new law results in unintended tragedy.

Before President Bush signed the change into law in February, babies in most states were automatically eligible for Medicaid. States had to cover children's medical expenses for one year. The new policy requires that parents also fill out an application and prove the child is a U.S. citizen. The problem? Processing birth certificates can sometimes take weeks - or months.

Texas has long required proof of identity for Medicaid applicants. But the additional proof of citizenship requirement is making it more difficult to get help at chronically understaffed and overwhelmed eligibility offices in such cities as Dallas, Fort Worth and Austin.

The new guidelines are designed to curb fraudulent abuse of Medicaid benefits, a worthy goal. But innocent children should not be left vulnerable because of possible paperwork tie-ups.

Even worse, misinformation might keep parents from taking their child to the hospital until the baby is gravely ill. Also, consider that denying health care now will only be more costly when the child ends up in the emergency room - which by law must provide help to all in need.

One thing we can all agree on is that denying medical services to a young child - who has no culpability in where he or she is born - is cruel and unusual punishment. Let's get this straightened out before we read about that first needless infant death.

Undocumented Immigration By Congressional District

Category: Immigration Policies

The American Immigration Law Foundation (AILF) has an interesting article that lists the approximate number of illegal immigrants in each U.S. Congressional District. The relevance of this information is to give an insight into the reasons for the immigration law votes of U.S. Representatives. For instance, in my own congressional district, the 32nd District in Texas, the approximate number of undocumented aliens is 120,000 -- slightly over 18% of the total population. Yet my Representative, Congressman Pete Sessions, is strongly against comprehensive immigration reform. Here are quotes from the article:

Introduction:

Over the past year, Congress has debated major changes to immigration law as a response to undocumented immigration. While this debate has relied heavily upon estimates of undocumented immigration at the national level, less attention has been paid to the number of undocumented immigrants in local areas--and almost no analyses have considered the size and scope of undocumented immigration in each of the 435 congressional districts. Yet the size of the undocumented population in each congressional district is an important consideration in gauging whether or not a representative's stance on a particular immigration policy or initiative has a basis in the actual, local impact of undocumented immigration.

An earlier IPC analysis showed that the number of undocumented immigrants was surprisingly low in the districts of key representatives leading the effort to restrict immigration. For example, there are relatively few undocumented immigrants in the districts of either Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-6th/CO), chair of the Congressional Immigration Reform Caucus, or Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner (R-5th/WI), chair of the House Judiciary Committee. Both were champions of H.R. 4437, the Border Protection, Anti-Terrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act--an enforcement-only immigration bill passed by the House of Representatives on December 16, 2005.1

However, the extent of undocumented immigration in congressional districts is important for reasons beyond the interpretation of a representative's voting record. Undocumented immigrants are counted by the census, the population estimates of which are used to apportion congressional districts, to re-draw the districts of state representatives and senators, and to delineate districts for a wide variety of municipal services (schools, police, fire protection, etc.). In addition, undocumented immigrants have a significant impact on local economies if they are present in sizable numbers. On the one hand, they contribute by paying taxes, purchasing consumer items, and--increasingly--becoming homebuyers. On the other hand, they utilize health care and social services that can strain local and state budgets. Moreover, many undocumented immigrants live in households that include native-born children, meaning that the welfare of millions of U.S. citizens depends in large part on the welfare of their undocumented parents.

Continue reading "Undocumented Immigration By Congressional District"

Holiday Travel Notice From USCIS

Category: Immigration Policies

Public Notice

USCIS REMINDS APPLICANTS TO APPLY FOR TRAVEL DOCUMENTS FOR HOLIDAY TRAVEL ABROAD BEFORE THE END OF OCTOBER

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) anticipates an unusually high volume of requests for advance parole and other travel documents this winter, given the occurrence of three major religious observances - Christmas, Hanukkah, and Hajj during the month of December. USCIS urges applicants needing a travel document (Reentry Permit, Refugee Travel Document, or Advance Parole) to file

Form I-131, Application for Travel Document (available online at www.uscis.gov), before the end of October 2006.

If you are applying for renewal of your advance parole document (I-512L or I-512), USCIS will accept and adjudicate a Form I-131 filed up to 120 days before the date your current advance parole expires. If you currently have a valid reentry permit or refugee travel document that will soon expire, you may obtain a new reentry permit or refugee travel document by filing Form I-131 and returning the current document to USCIS. A new Form I-131 may be filed regardless of the expiration date of your current reentry permit or refugee travel document.

Continue reading "Holiday Travel Notice From USCIS"

Texas Gubernatorial Candidates' Views On Immigration Reform

Category: Immigration Policies

As election day rapidly approaches, it is important to understand the viewpoints each candidate for Texas Governor has on current immigration laws and proposed immigration reform. Understanding each candidate's viewpoint will help you make a better decision on November 7, 2006.

Currently, the U.S. is home to approximately 10 million undocumented workers and their families. It is estimated that there are over one million illegal immigrants living in Texas. Each candidate has developed a plan to deal with illegal immigration and secure the Texas border.

Current Republican Governor Rick Perry wants to take action to tighten border security. This will include using the National Guard to patrol the U.S./Mexico border. He will ask for $100 million to fund border security efforts and will authorize the building of "border jails" to hold illegal aliens.

Carole Keeton Strayhorn, an Independent and former City of Austin Mayor, states that she will provide double the power of the Texas Rangers so that they can lead state border security measures and she will provide them with $15 million to do so. She believes that Texas must do more to protect the borders along the Rio Grande and the Gulf of Mexico by taking all necessary steps to prevent illegal immigration.

Kinky Friedman, an Independent candidate, would like to send 10,000 Guardsmen to the border. He also wants to impose fines of up to $50,000 on companies that hire illegal immigrants, and require foreign workers to buy a taxpayer ID card and pass a criminal background check. He would also like to make the Mexican government fund the cost of illegal immigration in Texas.

Chris Bell, a Democrat and former Congressman from Houston, said that he wants to focus on employers who hire illegal workers, but has said that trying to deport illegal immigrants already here would be difficult. He also supports the McCain-Kennedy bill that would provide a so-called "pathway to citizenship" for millions of illegal immigrants already in the country, provided they had jobs, learned English, paid fines, and met certain other requirements.

Each candidate for Texas Governor has a different stance on illegal immigration and immigration reform, and your vote will help determine the future of immigration in the United States.

If you have any questions on how to become a citizen or where and how to vote, please contact us or visit www.immigration-law-answers.com.

November 2006 Visa Bulletin -- U.S. Department Of State

Category: Visa Bulletin

The U.S. Department of State has issued the Visa Bulletin for November. You can see the entire bulletin at the State Department Web site. We have copied important sections below:

On the chart below, the listing of a date for any class indicates that the class is oversubscribed (see paragraph 1); "C" means current, i.e., numbers are available for all qualified applicants; and "U" means unavailable, i.e., no numbers are available. (NOTE: Numbers are available only for applicants whose priority date is earlier than the cut-off date listed below.)

Family	All Charge- ability Areas Except Those Listed	CHINA-mainland born	INDIA	MEXICO	PHILIPP-INES
1st	22APR01	22APR01	22APR01	01JUL93	15NOV91
2A	01SEP01	01SEP01	01SEP01	01DEC99	01SEP01
2B	01FEB97	01FEB97	01FEB97	22FEB92	15AUG96
3rd	15NOV98	15NOV98	15NOV98	01JAN95	08FEB91
4th	22OCT95	22APR95	01AUG95	22OCT93	01MAY84

*NOTE: For November, 2A numbers EXEMPT from per-country limit are available to applicants from all countries with priority dates earlier than 01DEC99. 2A numbers SUBJECT to per-country limit are available to applicants chargeable to all countries EXCEPT  MEXICO with priority dates beginning 01DEC99 and earlier than 01SEP01. (All 2A numbers provided for MEXICO are exempt from the per-country limit; there are no 2A numbers for MEXICO subject to per-country limit.)

Employ-ment -Based	All Charge-ability Areas Except Those Listed	CHINA- mainland born	INDIA	MEXICO	PHILIP-PINES
1st	C	C	C	C	C
2nd	C	15APR05	01JAN03	C	C
3rd	01JUL02	01JUL02	22APR01	08MAY01	01JUL02
Schedule A Workers	01OCT05	01OCT05	01OCT05	01OCT05	01OCT05
Other Workers	01MAY01	01MAY01	01MAY01	01MAY01	01MAY01
4th	C	C	C	C	C
Certain Religious Workers	C	C	C	C	C
5th	C	C	C	C	C
Targeted Employ-ment Areas/ Regional Centers	C	C	C	C	C

The Department of State has available a recorded message with visa availability information which can be heard at: (area code 202) 663-1541. This recording will be updated in the middle of each month with information on cut-off dates for the following month.

Employment Third Preference Other Workers Category: Section 203(e) of the NACARA, as amended by Section 1(e) of Pub. L. 105 - 139, provides that once the Employment Third Preference Other Worker (EW) cut-off date has reached the priority date of the latest EW petition approved prior to November 19, 1997, the 10,000 EW numbers available for a fiscal year are to be reduced by up to 5,000 annually beginning in the following fiscal year. This reduction is to be made for as long as necessary to offset adjustments under the NACARA program. Since the EW cut-off date reached November 19, 1997 during Fiscal Year 2001, the reduction in the EW annual limit to 5,000 began in Fiscal Year 2002.

B. DIVERSITY IMMIGRANT (DV) CATEGORY

Section 203(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act provides a maximum of up to 55,000 immigrant visas each fiscal year to permit immigration opportunities for persons from countries other than the principal sources of current immigration to the United States. The Nicaraguan and Central American Relief Act (NACARA) passed by Congress in November 1997 stipulates that beginning with DV-99, and for as long as necessary, up to 5,000 of the 55,000 annually-allocated diversity visas will be made available for use under the NACARA program. This reduction has resulted in the DV-2007 annual limit being reduced to 50,000. DV visas are divided among six geographic regions. No one country can receive more than seven percent of the available diversity visas in any one year.

For November, immigrant numbers in the DV category are available to qualified DV-2007 applicants chargeable to all regions/eligible countries as follows. When an allocation cut-off number is shown, visas are available only for applicants with DV regional lottery rank numbers BELOW the specified allocation cut-off number:

Region	All DV Chargeability Areas Except Those Listed Separately
AFRICA	8,500	Except: Egypt 5,600 Ethiopia 5,600 Nigeria 4,300
ASIA	2,600
EUROPE	5,700
NORTH AMERICA (BAHAMAS)	6
OCEANIA	280
SOUTH AMERICA, and the CARIBBEAN	350

Entitlement to immigrant status in the DV category lasts only through the end of the fiscal (visa) year for which the applicant is selected in the lottery. The year of entitlement for all applicants registered for the DV-2007 program ends as of September 30, 2007. DV visas may not be issued to DV-2007 applicants after that date. Similarly, spouses and children accompanying or following to join DV-2007 principals are only entitled to derivative DV status until September 30, 2007. DV visa availability through the very end of FY-2007 cannot be taken for granted. Numbers could be exhausted prior to September 30.

Suburban Mayor Takes Refreshingly Practical Approach To Immigrants

Category: Immigration Policies

The Dallas Morning News columnist with the wonderful name of Macarena Hernandez recently interviewed Irving, Texas mayor Herbert Gears about the increasingly large immigrant population of that Dallas suburb. Mr. Gears says we need more civil conversations about immigration. Here are some excerpts from the interview:

And if there is a city that knows about immigration - legal or not - it's Irving, which is home to one of the largest North Texas concentrations of foreign-born residents, primarily Latino and Asian. In fact, nearly 70 percent of public elementary schoolchildren are Latinos.

"Given current demographics, we'll have this diversity forever," he tells me. "It is never going to be reversed."

And since that's the case, he says, then let's embrace it.

Irving, now a majority-minority city, began its transition about 20 years ago when white families fled to other suburbs and Spanish-speaking immigrants began moving in. Coping with the changes hasn't been easy, Mr. Gears says, but it had to be accomplished. The way he sees it, what some would call the "Mexicanization" of the United States is really a part of the cultural fusion that has historically linked our state to its southern neighbor.

"You want to build a 100-foot-wall along the border, build it," Mr. Gears tells me. "And you can inspect anyone else who comes through from head to toe. But that's a completely different issue from what you do with the people already here."

Too often, Mr. Gears says, the debate centers around the short-term costs of illegal immigration. People forget or ignore that even undocumented workers pay their share of taxes and boost their local economies. But perhaps immigrants' biggest contribution to their new home is their children.

Considering native-born fertility rates are down and those 65 years and older are expected to make up nearly a quarter of this country's population by 2030, Mr. Gears believes this infusion of young energy is a blessing for cities like his. In the long run, it's these younger Americans who will be paying for the pensions of future retirees.

Whether here legally or not, immigrants are "giving birth to new Americans," he says, "and that's what allows America to continue to be strong."

Immigration Ads Are A Problem For Both Political Parties

Category: Immigration Policies

Politicians from both parties are running into problems by running campaign ads trying to appeal to one side or the other of the current immigration debate. Democratic New York Senator Charles Schumer ran an Internet ad blending images of Osama Bin Laden, Kim Jong Il, and illegal Mexican immigrants. His "point" was that the United States is less secure now than when Republicans took control of the federal government. The effect was to offend many New York immigrants.

From the Republican side, incumbent Rhode Island Senator Lincoln Chafee ran an ad criticizing his Republican primary opponent, the mayor of Cranston, Rhode Island, for allowing city police to accept ID cards issued by the Mexican government -- another ad that offended many immigrants.

Maybe the politicians should just debate immigration policies, and stop demonizing immigrants.

Rethinking The Last 200 Years Of U.S. Immigration Policy

Category: Immigration Policies

Professor Aristide Zolberg wrote an article, published this summer at Migration Information Source, and titled Rethinking the Last 200 Years of US Immigration Policy.

The article is an excellent review of our immigration policies dating back to the Colonial Period. I recommend reading the entire article, but will excerpt the concluding paragraphs here.

Although the 1965 law imposed limits on immigration from the Western Hemisphere, it was evident from the start that the United States did not possess the police capacity to prevent undocumented movement across its southern border. In addition, the creation of such a capacity would have required radical actions, notably the enlistment of private employers nationwide in immigration law enforcement.

Arguably, the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) did require employers to enforce immigration law by mandating that they hire only workers who could prove their legal status. This was the price liberals had to pay for securing their primary goal: the legalization of several million unauthorized residents, most of whom were from Mexico.

The employer verification component was essentially abandoned after IRCA passed, with unauthorized immigrants able to submit forged documents that employers accepted. Several attempts were made in the 1990s to devise effective strategies for controlling entry through the southern border, but none of those enacted to-date have succeeded in stopping unauthorized immigration; the matter remains on the national agenda.

While the principal political alignment remains that of the vocal cultural conservatives, who object to the changing character of American identity, against employers eager to insure a continued supply of cheap unskilled labor, the balance seems to be leaning toward maintenance of the messy but relatively liberal status quo. This is because, beginning in the 1970s, some unions changed their position on immigration once they realized that immigrants, legal and unauthorized, provided the most fertile source of replenishment for their depleting ranks, initially in the garment industry and subsequently in a variety of service occupations.

Moreover, Hispanics -- currently the target of most restrictive efforts -- are rapidly achieving significant political power and are therefore being courted in an unprecedented manner by both parties. Therefore, the "strange bedfellows" are likely to remain at center stage for the predictable future.

Immigration Judges Facing Performance Reviews

Category: Immigration Policies

The L.A. Times this week has an article titled Immigration Judges Get New Regulations. The article begins:

Under pressure from human rights groups, the Bush administration announced plans Wednesday to improve the performance of immigration judges, responding to reports of intemperate and abusive jurists and complaints about how the system has dealt with a growing backlog of cases.

To attorneys who regularly face immigration judges, it is refreshing that the Justice Department is working on creating a system that will increase accountability for judges. As attorneys, we understand that judges will not always rule in our favor, but we do not expect to be insulted in front of our clients just because the judge feels like it. The clients who are before the judges are already scared about the possibility of having to leave their families and be forced to return to their native countries. The last thing they need is a judge who does not look at their cases objectively and then proceeds to insult them just because he can.

U.S. Immigration Policy For Cubans To Change?

Category: Immigration Policies

According to a news report from Bloomberg, the Bush administration may change some immigration rules to make it easier for Cubans with relatives in the U.S. to enter the country. Quoting from the article:

The administration also is considering refusing visa applications from any Cuban caught trying to sneak into the U.S. by sea. Under the current policy, such people aren't penalized if they later apply for a visa, the officials said.

The U.S. seeks to curb any surge of Cubans to the U.S. following Fidel Castro's handoff of power. The 79-year-old dictator fell ill last week and temporarily turned control of the Caribbean nation over to his brother, Raul. President George W. Bush yesterday urged Cubans to pull away from Castro's ``tyrannical'' grip and create a new government.

``The U.S. realizes that the unfolding events in Cuba might potentially lead to an immigration crisis,'' said Paolo Spadoni, a professor at Rollins College in Winter Park, Florida, who specializes in Cuban issues.

White House spokesman Tony Snow confirmed today that the administration is thinking about ``what might happen'' in Cuba and how the U.S. should respond. Still, he said there's been no change in policy, and the administration is urging Cubans ``to stay put.''

Visa Policies Rob U.S. Of Valuable Labor Source

Category: Immigration Policies

The Education columnist of the Dallas Morning News had an excellent explanation today as to why the U.S. Visa policy is depriving our country of much-needed computer professionals.

Columnist James M. O'Neill used an imaginary scenario in which a Dallas employer brought down a Seattle resident, trained him to develop skills vital to the success of the employer, but after a year of employment told the worker he had to go back home to Seattle. Once in Seattle, the employee uses his new skills to work for a competitor of the Dallas employer.

Continue reading "Visa Policies Rob U.S. Of Valuable Labor Source"