Archive | Immigration Reform RSS feed for this section

From the Committee to the Senate Floor: The Immigration Bill Survives!

22 May

 

Yesterday, by a vote of 13-5, the United States Senate Judiciary Committee passed S. 744, the immigration reform bill.Flake  Three Republicans (Lindsey Graham (SC),Graham Jeff Flake (AZ) and Orrin Hatch (UT)) joined all ten Democrats to vote the legislation out of committee. Hatch

 

 

 

 

 

The five opponents were the five Republicans who had spent the several mark-ups attempting to torpedo the legislation with odious and unworkable amendments, most of which were defeated.  Yet, Senators Jeff Sessions (AL), Ted Cruz (TX), John Cornyn (TX), Mike Lee (UT), and Chuck Grassley (IA), have vowed to renew their efforts on the Senate floor, where the bill goes next.
Cruz Lee and Cornyn

The bill emerged after several mark-up sessions, largely intact. The bill still offers a provisional status and a path to citizenship, expedited residence and citizenship for undocumented youth, improvements in due process, increased use of E-Verify, tighter border controls, a new temporary worker visa, improved opportunities for employment-based immigration, enhanced H-1B provisions, and more liberal policy for asylum seekers.

The bill was improved by the passage of the following amendments:

  • Coons 2- limits ICE’s authority to perform nighttime removals.
  • Coons 5- provides immigrants with statutory right to see their “A-file” in removal proceedings
  • Hirono 21- allows undocumented youth to obtain federal financial aid
  • Blumenthal 2- prohibits solitary confinement of individuals in ICE detention
  • Blumenthal 8- restricts ICE enforcement at schools and hospitals.
  • Blumenthal 12- provides for expedited naturalization for undocumented youth in military

The bill was made worse by the following amendments:

  • Grassley 44- made conviction of a third DUI an aggravated felony.
  • Graham 1- allows DHS to terminate asylum of an individual who returns to country of nationality

The Committee fought off several “poison pill” amendments designed to gut the entire process or to make the immigration system more inhumane than it is today:

    • Cruz 3- would have barred anyone who was ever out of status from obtaining citizenship
    • Grassley 1- would have retained the one year filing deadline for asylum
    • Cornyn 3- would have made people convicted of minor offenses ineligible for provisional status
    • Grassley 18- would have required applicants for provisional status to disclose all previous social security numbers

GS

  • Sessions 1- would have imposed a $5000 minimum bond for release from custody
  • Grassley 67- would have subjected businesses hiring H or L workers to increased audits and bureaucratic oversight
  • Lee 15- would have required affirmative intent in employment discrimination based upon national origin
  • Grassley 34- would have imposed 20 year sentence for document fraud convictions
  • Grassley 45- would have expanded criminal penalties for illegal entry and re-entry

The strength of the bill was enhanced by the support of Republican Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah.  Senator Hatch has long been a champion of the H-1B program.  The Committee adopted Senator Hatch’s amendments to increase the availability of H-1B visas and earned the Senator’s support in the Committee.  Senator Hatch has not committed to his vote on the floor, but his support in committee, made the bill more strongly bipartisan and showed that the “Gang of 8″ can pull reasonable Republicans into the bipartisan consensus that our immigration system requires serious overhaul.  This compromise required some serious accommodation by both Democrats and Republicans on the Committee and it is a welcome sign for our democracy that this issue did not cause the wholesale breakdown that we have come to expect.  This suggests that immigration reform has become a categorical imperative for both parties.

Unfortunately, the bill that came out of committee is as defined by what it does not include by what it does include.  Under pressure from the White House, Senator Leahy pulled his amendment to ensure that LGBT individuals and couples are treated equally and fairly under the immigration bill.  Republicans, including members of the Gang of 8, had balked at LGBT inclusion and, as a result, the Committee gave into homophobia.  We are extremely disappointed that LGBT families were thrown aside in the passage of this bill.  We remain hopeful that the Supreme Court will make this a non-issue soon enough.

The bill will now head to the senate floor, where there will be more debates and amendments.  Immigration reform will likely dominate the Senate for the month of June.  In some good news, Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, has said that he has no plans to block consideration of the bill.  While any single Senator can filibuster a bill, that Senator needs the support of 40 of his/her colleagues to sustain the filibuster and it is hard to imagine that succeeding without the support of the Senate leadership.

We hope for a strong show of support from the United States Senate.  A bill that gathers 65+ votes will storm out of the Senate and place a lot of pressure on the House to support common sense immigration reform.

Tags: , , , , ,

What’s Happening with the Immigration Bill? What is a mark-up??

7 May

Gang of eight

It has now been a couple of weeks since the Gang of Eight’s immigration bill was introduced.  We provided a brief rundown of its main points and we give it, overall, good grades.  It certainly is much better than the status quo, but less generous than we might have designed ourselves.  But they are in Congress and we are in court.  Now that it is out, what happens?

The bill has been assigned to the Senate Judiciary Committee.  The Judiciary Committee is chaired by Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT).  Senator Leahy is a strong supporter of immigration reform and has acted quickly to move the legislation.  In the bill’s first weeks, he held hearings on the legislation.  Those hearings generated more heat than light and their contents have long been forgotten.  The bill moves ahead unscathed.  The bill also seems to have survived the terrorist bombings in Boston.  While immigration opponents seized on the foreign identities of the brothers Tsarnaev, the bill’s supporters were undaunted in arguing how the immigration bill would improve national security.  The ability of conservative members of the Gang of Eight to resist what must have been a strong impulse to jump ship gives us cause for optimism over the bill’s future.  Yesterday, the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, released its most potent weapon against reform, a report in which they claim that reform will cost the American economy $6.3 trillion.  This salvo fell flat as Republicans, such as Paul Ryan, Grover Norquist, Haley Barbour and Jeff Flake  attacked the findings and methodologies of the Heritage report.  If the report was intended to weaken the resolve of Republicans pushing reform, it seems to have failed.  And, in a sign that the pro-immigrant crowd has gotten its political act together, the Immigration Policy Center was ready with its own report debunking the Heritage report.  In the 24 hour news cycle, speed is everything and IPC should be commended for its rapid response.

Leahy

Senators were also given until 5PM today to file their amendments to the bill.  All amendments were posted online on the Senate Judiciary Committee page for all to see.  This transparency contrasts with the middle of the night passage of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA), the disastrous ’96 immigration bill that caused the vast majority of today’s immigration problems.  By showing the amendments, the Judiciary Committee has highlighted the differing opinions of Senators offering amendments to the bill.  For example, Senator Leahy seeks to add language that would require the recognition of same-sex marriages under the Immigration & Nationality Act.  His amendment has the virtue of simplicity.  It simply says that a marriage that is legal in any state shall be given full validity under U.S. immigration law.  To the contrary, Senator Grassley displays his intent to undermine reform.  Senator Grassley, who was one of the voices to suggest that the Boston bombing should put a halt to immigration reform, has submitted 77 amendments, as of 8PM Tuesday.   We chose one at random to get a sense of what Senator Grassley was up to.  We picked “Grassley39.”  This amendment would replace language in the bill that provides additional personnel to the immigration court system and replace it with a study to be conducted in the 18 months after passage of the law of the need for additional personnel.  The study would then be provided to the Judiciary Committee for consideration of additional legislation if necessary to relieve the understaffed immigration courts.  Of course, the overburdened immigration court system is well-documented and individuals routinely wait years for their hearing dates.  This backlog frustrates not only relief, Senator Grassley, but also removal.  If this amendment is representative of Senator Grassley’s contributions, it is clear for all that he is trying to undermine its needed reforms.  But we already knew that.grassley

Senator Leahy has scheduled a “mark-up” of the legislation for this Thursday, May 9.  A mark-up is a meeting in which Senators debate, amend and re-write proposed legislation.  The Committee will address all of these amendments.  It is likely, given the Democratic advantage and the presence of two Gang of Eight Republicans, Jeff Flake (R-AZ) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC), that the legislation will emerge from the Judiciary Committee largely unscathed.  After the Judiciary Committee votes, after weeks in which they will have to consider the 300+ amendments, the bill will be brought to the Senate floor for a vote in the full Senate.  Expect major pyrotechnics there.

We will continue to update the progress of the bill as it moves through the Senate and the Congress.  Stay tuned.

 

Tags: , , , ,

The April 10 Immigrant Rights Rally by Liana Montecinos

23 Apr

 

Rally“¡Obama escucha, seguimos en la lucha!” This shouting was heard from downtown on 14th street as Sandra, Mariela, and I made posters to join thousands of people at the immigration rally held in front of the Capitol on Wednesday, April 10th.  Since my arrival to the United States in 1999, I have attended every immigration rally in Washington, D.C.  I find every experience of a rally to be very rewarding including being able to shout nonstop on the streets of DC without getting arrested.  I am inspired and ignited by the hard working people who are forced to live in the shadows of society, who cannot drive or work, pay in-state tuition where their parents have lived and paid taxes for years, who did not have the chance to say goodbye to a family member who died in their country of origin, and who-above all-never lose faith in justice.  Last Wednesday, thousands of undocumented brothers and sisters ventured out of the shadows of their homes, work, and communities, taking public transportation or carpooling, walking unafraid in Washington DC, to wave their colorful flags and say “presente.”  I saw people of all ages and colors lifting the American flag, being proud of being in this nation and wanting to desperately have an opportunity to achieve the American dream.  On last Wednesday, I saw the human face of the immigration issue. I hope and believe our President and our legislators saw it too.

Tags: , ,

Summary of the Newly-Introduced Senate Immigration Bill

17 Apr

Here is a short summary of the Senate immigration bill released to the general public late last night. Keep in mind that this is just proposed legislation, and no one can or should apply for anything yet. We’ve a long way to go before this legislation becomes reality.

Title I Border Security

This title provides for phased in border security measures that will achieve and maintain effective control in high risk border sectors of the Southern border.

  • Border Plan: Stage one requires the Secretary of DHS to develop a Comprehensive Border Security Strategy and Southern Border Fencing Strategy that must be submitted to Congress before the registration period for Registered Provisional Immigrants (RPI) begins. These strategies must be designed to achieve an ability to achieve persistent surveillance of the border using both technology and human resources and to achieve a 90% effectiveness rate for apprehensions and returns in high risk border sectors. This bill appropriates $3 billion for this plan. The Secretary’s plan must be operational before any RPIs may apply for adjustment of status.
  • Triggers: In addition, the Secretary must develop and implement a fencing plan (up to $1.5 billion); Everify must be mandatory and operational; and biographic entry-exit at air and seaports must be implemented before RPIs may adjust to permanent residence.
  • Southwest Governors Commission: After five years, if the specified goals of 90% effectiveness and persistent surveillance have not been met, a Southern Border Security Commission will be established to make further recommendations for achieving the targets. The Commission will recommend up to $2 billion in additional spending that would be available achieve the border security goals if they have not yet been met.
  • Additional Resources: To further ensure completion of these targets, Border Patrol personnel and resources will be increased, additional funding for border prosecutions in the Tucson sector are funded, and the authority of the National Guard to assist in border security operations is codified.
  • Civil Rights: To protect the integrity of the system, additional resources and training will be devoted to implementing a DHS-wide use of force policy and associated training in appropriate use of force, individual rights, and sensitivity to cultural and environmental impact of federal operations on border communities. A Border Oversight Taskforce is established to take testimony and conduct hearings in order to review and recommend changes to existing border policies. The current duties of the USCIS Ombudsman’s office will be expanded to encompass all DHS immigration functions.

Title II Legalization (Registered Provisional Immigrant program) and Legal Immigration

  • This title provides a path to citizenship for the 11.5 million undocumented workers in the United States. This title establishes a new framework for future legal immigration that maximizes the number of visas made available annually to persons in family, employment, and a new merits based visa category. In addition to the current family and employment based systems, two additional “merit-based systems” would be created.

    SubPart A. Creation of Registered Provisional Immigrant program

  • Registration Requirements: Immigrants who entered the United States before December 31, 2011 and have been physically present in the U.S. since that time will be eligible to apply for Registered Provisional Immigrant (RPI) status provided they pass background checks, have not been convicted of serious criminal activity, pay any assessed tax liability, pay appropriate fees and a $500 fine.
  • Initial registration will be valid for six years, provides for work and travel authorization, and includes spouses and children.
  • Renewal: RPIs applying for renewal will be subject to new background check, evidence of having been regularly employed while meeting public charge requirements or having income and resources at 125% of the poverty level evidence of learning English and payment of fees and a $500 fine.
  • Adjustment of status to Permanent Residency: At the end of ten years, RPIs may apply for adjustment of status, provided that they can continue to demonstrate eligibility per the renewal standards (with a heightened income requirement) with payment of an additional $1000 fine. Individuals present in the U.S. for 10 years in lawful status can adjust status. RPIs may not adjust status until the family and employment backlogs are cleared and the border security triggers are met. RPIs may apply for naturalization after a three year wait, making the total path to citizenship a 13 year wait.
  • Timeline: There is an initial 12 month period for regulations. Then there is a one year initial application period which can be extended for up to one year at the discretion of the Secretary.
  • DREAM Act: Individuals who entered the United States before the age of 16 and who have completed high school in the U.S. may register for RPI status through the DREAM Act. There is no age cap for the program. Five years after registration, DREAM RPIs may apply for adjustment of status; their time in RPI status will count towards eligibility for naturalization, allowing them to become citizens immediately after receiving their green card.
  • Agricultural Program: Undocumented farm workers who have made a substantial prior commitment to agricultural work in the United States would be eligible for an Agricultural Card. Agricultural workers who fulfill future Agricultural Card work requirements in U.S. agriculture, show that they have paid all taxes, have not been convicted of any serious crime, and pay a $400 fine are eligible to adjust to legal permanent resident status.
  • Grant Programs: Creates an Office of New Americans and additional integration initiatives. Provides funding for immigration legal services.SubPart B. Legal Immigration Reforms
  • A new “Track Two” merit-based system is created to adjust the status of individuals lawfully present in the U.S. for over ten years with work authorization and to eliminate all existing legal immigration backlogs within the next 8 years. The Secretary is permitted to clear the backlog of family and employment based petitions that have been pending for more than 5 years.
  • Lawful Permanent Residents’ spouses and children become “immediate relatives” and are uncapped: Current family based categories will be revised to permit the spouses and children of lawful permanent residents to immigrate immediately.
  • Additional changes to the current family system: The current sibling category will be eliminated 18 months after enactment, but the backlog reduction program will include processing of all sibling petitions submitted before expiration of the program and US citizens can petition for the sibling for up to 18 months after enactment. The third family preference category (adult married children of US citizens) has an age cap of 31.
  • New Family “V” Visa: Creates a new nonimmigrant visa for families with approved petitions to work and live in the U.S. while waiting for their green card. Allows other family members including siblings to visit the U.S. for up to 60 days per year
  • International adoption harmonization allows adoption of foreign-born children till age of 18, as opposed tp the current age of 16.
  • Equal treatment for all stepchildren, as in the age until which a step-child is considered a child is amended from 18 to 21.
  • Clarification of 203(h)(3) of the Child Status Protection Act – Children who age out after complex mathematical formula still retain the original priority date of any family-visa, employment-visa and diversity visa petition filed on behalf of their parents, and can apply the original priority date to a subsequent petition filed on their behalf by a parent.
  • Employment-Based Reforms: Spouses and children of employment based visa applicants, STEM graduates with doctoral degrees, certain other experts and professionals, and certain foreign doctors are exempt from the employment visa cap. The cap on low-skilled workers is raised.
  • New Merit-Based System: Creates a “Track One” merit based visa which will initially allocate 120,000 visas annually based on a points system. Equally weighted points will be awarded for factors such as education, employment, and length of residence in the US, with the possibility of increasing the allotment by 5% (capped at 250,000) in any year where unemployment is under 8.5%. A portion of these merit visas will be set aside for high skilled and low skilled workers.
  • Additional Backlog Reduction and Improvements: Additional provisions to streamline processing and reduce backlogs including elimination of employment based country caps, increase in family based country limits, and recapture of unused visa numbers are authorized. Permanently authorizes popular programs for foreign doctor (Conrad-30), religious worker recruitment; and EB-5 investors. Includes numerous other technical fixes to improve and streamline current visa programs, many of which were included in the Menendez/Honda Reuniting Families Act (additional protections for stepchildren, widows, and other family members.)
  • Judicial Discretion: Expands availability of waivers for unlawful presence, false claims to U.S. citizenship, misrepresentation and expands authority of immigration judges and DHS to waive removal on humanitarian grounds, lowering the bar from extreme hardship to hardship for parents, spouses and children of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents.

Title Three: Interior Enforcement

  • This title mandates E-Verify, provides additional worker protections, reforms the immigration court system and provides additional measures related to interior enforcement.
  • Five year phase-in of mandatory E-Verify: Establishes a phased-in expansion o current electronic employment verification system (E-verify) to cover all employers within a four year period, beginning with federal contractors and critical infrastructure employers. Requires identity verification through enhanced fraud-proof work authorization and green cards. Specifically prohibits creation of a national ID card.
  • Anti-fraud measures: Expands ability to protect against identity theft of Social Security numbers by allowing employees to block their social security number and gives employees access to personal E-verify history. It provides for photo identification mechanism as component of E-verify.
  • Due Process: Expands due process protections for employees to ensure that legal workers are not prevented from working due to errors in the system or because of employer negligence or misconduct. Provides for back-pay if an employee loses work unfairly due to system or employer error. Provides a stay of termination of employment to give the worker time to correct any errors in the system.
  • Worker Protections: Subparts B and C of this Title provide other miscellaneous protections for employers and employees, including pre-emption of state and local work authorization laws, expansion of U visas in employer abuse situations (POWER ACT), creation of mandatory exit verification system, program funding. The bill also cracks down on labor recruitment abuse.
  • Refugee/Asylum Issues: Streamlines processing in refugee and asylum cases by eliminating one year asylum filing deadline, allowing persons who were denied asylum as a result of the one-year filing bar to file a motion to reopen the case within 2 years of the enactment of the bill; eliminating family reunification barriers for asylees and refugees, authorizing streamlined processing of certain high risk refugee groups, authorizing asylum officers to grant asylum for eligible applicants during credible fear interviews, and permits qualified stateless individuals to apply for lawful permanent resident status.
  • Immigration Court Improvements: Authorizes increase in immigration court personnel, additional resources, and more training for judges and other staff, access to counsel for vulnerable populations to improve efficiency of courts, permanently and codifies Board of Immigration Appeals and legal orientation programs.
  • Interior Enforcement: Tightens certain grounds of inadmissibility relating to document and passport fraud, driving while intoxicated following two convictions, conviction for gang related activities, convictions related to domestic violence, child abuse, stalking, violation of protection orders and failing to register as a sex offender. Prohibits and or increases penalties for abusive smuggling, hindering or obstructing immigration investigations, illegal entry and re-entry.
  • Detention Reform: Increases oversight of detention facilities, expands discretion of immigration judges to conduct bond hearings, and requires establishment of alternative to detention programs in consultation with community groups.

Title IV Reforms to Non Immigrant Visa Programs

This Title reforms current non-immigrant visa programs and creates a new W worker visa that melds greater employer flexibility with more worker protections and ability to self-petition for permanent residence.

  • H-1B: Reforms to the H-1B high skilled visa program include expanding current cap from 65,000 to 110,000 with an option to ultimately increase the cap to 180,000 visas annually based on a High Skilled jobs Demand Index. Increases requirements for web-site advertising for U.S. workers prior to hiring foreign workers.
  • H-4: Allows dependents of H-1B workers work authorization if country of origin reciprocates with similar provisions for U.S. citizen dependents living abroad
  • Deterring Abuse: Establishes significant new authorities and penalties to prevent, detect, and deter fraud and abuse of the H-1B and L-1 visa systems by fraudulent employers. Increases wages for foreign workers to help protect Americans.
  • H-2B: Makes permanent the H-2B returning worker provision.
  • New Worker Program (W Visa): Establishes a new nonimmigrant W classification for lesser-skilled foreign workers performing services or labor for a registered employer in a registered position. Spouses and minor children are included and will receive work authorization. Three year visa with three year renewal periods. Initially, 20,000 W visas will be made available, rising to 75,000 visas in year four. After that time, a newly established Bureau of Immigration and Labor Market Research will be authorized to calculate and recommend appropriate W visa levels. Other safety valves will be built into the cap to ensure occupations or employers with genuine shortages can hire needed workers. W visa holders may switch from one registered employer or position to another without penalty and upon meeting other eligibility criteria apply for the merits based lawful permanent residence.
  • Agriculture: A new agricultural guest worker visa program would be established to ensure an adequate agricultural workforce. A portable, at-will employment based visa (W-3 visa) and a contract-based visa (W-2 visa) would replace the current H-2A program. The H-2A program would sunset after the new guest worker visa program is operational.

Here is the complete Senate bill and a longer outline of the bill.

Tags: , ,

An Open Letter to Rep. Spencer Bachus

21 Mar

 

Dear Congressman Bachus,

Thank you very much for speaking out about the overuse of detention by Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE) in civil proceedings to determine the removability of individuals in the U.S.  By stating and asking “it looks to me like there is an overuse of detention by this administration.  If these people are not safety risks . . . why are we detaining them?,” you have joined the growing chorus of Americans who wonder why the government, during a time of fiscal crisis, spends so much money locking people up during immigration proceedings when they present no danger to society.  You are welcome in our club and we are glad to have you.

However, we do think it is important that you understand the role you played in building the gulag archipelago of immigration detention.  The explosion of immigration detention is a direct result of legislation you voted for, the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996.  This law, more than any decision by the Obama administration, has resulted in the overuse of detention for individuals in removal proceedings.  While you are right to question the overuse of detention by the administration, please do not overlook Congress’, and your, responsibility in forcing the detention of tens of thousands of people, the vast majority of whom are not safety risks.  IIRIRA fueled the explosion of detention in several ways.  First, it expanded mandatory detention to cover lots of people convicted of minor offenses.   Mandatory detention has forced ICE (and INS before ICE) to detain people during the course of their removal proceedings.  These individuals had no right to individualized determinations of their risk to society or likelihood to appear for hearings.  By expanding the classes of people subject to mandatory detention, Congress created a base layer of detainees.  It is true that interpretations by this and previous administrations have increased the potential pool of mandatory detainees, but mandatory detention and its wide reach is a creation of Congress.  Second, IIRIRA labelled many minor offenses as “aggravated felonies,” requiring detention during removal proceedings.  For example, an individual convicted of shoplifting a pair of $100 sunglasses might be sentenced to one year imprisonment, with service of the sentence suspended.  In other words, the criminal court would determine that that individual should not serve jail time unless they do something bad during the year of the suspended sentence.  Under IIRIRA’s overinclusive language, such an offense would be an aggravated felony and subject that individual to mandatory detention.  And IIRIRA made it clear that it did not matter when the offense occurred.  It is hard to imagine that this hypothetical defendant is a safety risk, but the law gives ICE and the immigration courts no authority to release that individual.  Third, IIRIRA created 287(g) partnerships with state and local law enforcement to enforce immigration law.  The explosion of detention is also directly related to the numbers of people coming to ICE’s attention because a local police officer pulls an immigrant over for failing to use a turn signal.  IIRIRA is the impetus to Arizona-style laws, one of the worst of which was passed in your own Alabama, Congressman.  Fourth, by creating the ten year bar to return to the U.S., IIRIRA made it close to impossible for many immigrants to regularize their status.  Thus, individuals who would have been able to obtain residence under previous laws, remained in the U.S. in unlawful status.  When encountered by ICE, they have often been detained in the discretionary determinations of ICE.  It is true that here is an area where the administration’s overuse of detention is due to the refusal to exercise favorable discretion, but please note that many of these people would be legal residents if not for the 1996 Act.  In addition, please recognize the role that the fear of Congressional rebuke plays in ICE’s decisions.  Take a look at the outcry from your colleagues when ICE released 2200 detainees last month in anticipation of the sequester.  Moreover, Congressional intent has been a key building block of the judicial decisions that have legalized the massive detention edifice.  Decisions such as the Supreme Court’s Demore v. Kim, which upheld mandatory detention, and Matter of Rojas, where the Board of Immigration Appeals decided that mandatory detention applies to people released from custody years or decades ago, are underpinned by statements that Congress intended to impose an unyielding policy of detention in IIRIRA.

Finally, Congress has provided ICE with enormous sums of money to spend on detention.  As you know, nature abhors a vacuum.  As Congress states that it intends to tighten spending, the unnecessary detention of the thousands of people who present no real danger to society should be looked at skeptically.  ICE will spend the money Congress gives it on detention.  It is up to Congress to say “no.”

Congressman, thank you for taking a stand against the overuse of detention.  We are glad to have you as an ally and hope that you use your position in Congress to advocate for more sensible immigration policies.  Thanks again for speaking out and we hope that the words are matched with action.

Sincerely,

Benach Ragland LLP

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Leaked White House Immigration Bill: the Legalization Component

20 Feb

Drip

It took only three years longer than promised—and a leak that may or may not have been intentional—but the White House has finally produced a legislative proposal to fix the immigration system. Dubbed the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2013, the bill would create a pathway to citizenship for most of the 11 million removable noncitizens in the country, mandate the eventual use of E-Verify for most employers, and dull many of the draconian provisions enacted in the 1996 immigration bill. With the leaked portions of the bill totaling more than 200 pages, there’s a lot to chew on. Today, we’ll look at the part of the White House bill relating to legalizing the undocumented, and tomorrow we’ll review the enforcement-related sections.

Lawful Prospective Immigrant (LPI) status

As has by now been widely reported, the bill would allow qualified applicants to first obtain “Lawful Prospective Immigrant” status and later adjust to lawful permanent resident (a “green card” or LPR) status, a prerequisite for foreign nationals wanting to become U.S. citizens. To qualify for LPI status, noncitizens would have to be physically present in the United States on the day the bill was introduced and not have been convicted of a number of specified criminal offenses. Noncitizens could apply for LPI status if they were in removal proceedings, were under an outstanding order of removal, or had illegally re-entered the country after a prior removal. Applicants for LPI status could generally not be detained or removed, and would not be considered “unlawfully present,” while their applications were pending.

Qualified immigrants would initially be granted LPI status for a period of four years, during which time they would be authorized to work and travel abroad for up to six months, subject to renewal. Noncitizens with LPI status could also petition for their spouses and children to receive the same status, even if they are living overseas. Interestingly, the White House bill does not specifically state that LPI status could be accorded based on same-sex marriages. However, it incorporates the standing definition of “spouse” in Section 101(a)(35) of the INA, which is written in gender-neutral terms. As the bill is written, it is thus unclear (perhaps intentionally so) what, if any, protection same-sex couples would receive.

Adjustment to Lawful Permanent Resident (LPR) status

To qualify for adjustment, LPIs would have to satisfy any outstanding federal tax liability, be actively studying English and U.S. history, and not have left the country for more than six months while in LPI status. Applicants aged 21 or older when the bill was introduced would have to pay a $500 penalty to adjust status in addition to any processing fees. The government could not grant any adjustment applications until either eight years after the date of the law’s enactment, or 30 days after all immigrant visas became available for family- and employment-based petitions filed before the date of enactment, whichever came first (but no sooner than six years after LPI status was first granted). The only exception would be for noncitizens who were under 16 when they initially entered the country, were enrolled or had obtained a high school or college degree when they applied for LPI status, and had completed two years of college or the military when they applied for LPR status. (Or in other words, those who would qualify under the DREAM Act.)

Administrative and judicial review of denied applications

For noncitizens whose applications for LPI or LPR status were denied, the bill would require the creation of an administrative body housed within the Department of Homeland Security to hear appeals. Notices of appeal would have to be filed within 60 days of the denial, and stays of removal would generally be granted while appeals are pending. If their administrative appeals were denied, prospective LPIs and LPRs could file a challenge with a federal district court, which, in turn, could uphold or reverse DHS’ decision or remand the case back to executive officials for consideration of additional evidence. Importantly, federal judges would also have authority to issue stays of removal, and immigrants would not be considered “unlawfully present” while their appeals—administrative or judicial—were pending.

Protections for Employers of Prospective LPIs

Finally, the White House bill contains a number of protections for employers of workers seeking to legalize their status. For example, employers who learn of employees with pending LPI applications would not violate the law by continuing to employ them while their applications are pending. The bill would also prevent genuine employment records submitted in support of an application for LPI or LPR status from being used against the employer in a civil investigation or criminal prosecution. These provisions may well have been added due to the DACA program, which lead to concerns among some employers of liability or retaliation if their workers used employment records to demonstrate the extent of their presence in the country.

Comparison to “Gang of Eight” Framework

While the bipartisan group of Senators known as the “Gang of Eight” has yet to propose actual legislation, it’s almost certain that the path to citizenship in the White House bill is more realistic and immigrant-friendly. Unlike the Senate framework, for instance, the White House would not make the issuance of green cards contingent on satisfying an unknown set of security “triggers.” Based on statements from Marco Rubio, the Senate plan might also require the undocumented to rely on a third party (such as a qualified employer or family member) to sponsor them for a green card, which could potentially leave millions without a true path to citizenship. While we will wait to see an actual bill before expressing final judgment on the Senate plan, the White House has set a high bar.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Hey FAU! Drop GEO!

20 Feb

geo-group-splash-13

Yesterday, after receiving a gift of $6 million, Florida Atlantic University announced that it was renaming its stadium “The Geo Group Stadium,” after the for-profit prison company, best known for operating detention facilities on behalf of Immigration & Customs Enforcement.  It is remarkable that any university would name a stadium after a prison company, but simply stunning that Florida Atlantic University, which sits in South Florida, a community that has been decimated by the overuse of civil immigration, would be so tone deaf as to think this was a good idea.  Although $6 million can certainly affect one’s “hearing,” FAU’s renaming of its stadium displays a failure of a university’s most cherished obligation, to empower students to make intelligent, ethical and moral decisions in a complex world.

FAU is a public school with over 30,000 students and boasts that 44% of its students are “minority or international students.”  Twenty-three percent of FAU students identify as “Asian” or Latino.”  And FAU sits in Southern Florida, where GEO operates a notorious link in the immigration gulag, the Broward Transitional Center, in FAU’s hometown of Boca Raton.

Universities have long been at the forefront on civil and human rights issues.  Universities nurtured the civil rights movement, the women’s and gay liberation efforts.  Universities divested from South Africa during apartheid and universities have led the charges against foreign sweatshops that made apparel sold in college bookstores.  And it is no surprise that universities have been actively involved in the immigrant rights movement.  Leading educators have stood up for the DREAM Act, have supported efforts to get individuals out of detention and deportation proceedings, and have led urgency to the need for a better system for employment-based immigration.  So, why would FAU accept a donation and so prominently highlight a company who makes it profits off the maintenance of an immigration detention apparatus that is morally dubious if not downright repugnant?

The GEO Group operates 73,000 “beds,” but it is not the Best Western.  “Beds” is corrections-speak for “places where detainees can try to sleep.”  It has a ignominious track record.  Before they were GEO, they were they were the Wackenhut Correctional Corporation.  British journalist Greg Palast wrote of Wackenhut’s operation of private prisons in New Mexico, “New Mexico’s privately operated prisons are filled with America’s impoverished, violent outcasts — and those are the guards.”  The Wackenhut name was so tarnished with scandal that the board changed the name in 2003.   Yet, transforming the way that they did business was much more elusive. Some of GEO’s greatest hits include:

In addition, the GEO groups lobbies for punitive immigration laws and resists efforts to introduce more discretion for judges to release detained individuals.  After all, the trough must be refilled.  It has a very cozy relationship with ICE.  Just last week, we learned that a former ICE bureaucrat David Venturella, who had some ambitious ideas about pumping up removal numbers, has left ICE for his payday at GEO.  The revolving door between government and for profit incarceration is quite lucrative for ICE bureaucrats, but there is no such door for detainees.

It is simply stunning that a university would agree to name a stadium after this behemoth.  It is especially galling in South Florida, where brave immigrant activists Marco Saavedra and Viridiana Martinez infiltrated the Broward Transitional Center to document abuses and conditions.  Would FAU name their stadium after the Bushmaster assault rifle? Or after Phillip Morris (rebranded as Altria)?  No university in their right mind would ever be associated with such corporate pariahs.  The goal for immigrants rights communities is to make the name of GEO as toxic as those names.  The devastating impact that GEO has had on the immigrant community in South Florida simply makes it an unacceptable choice for naming rights at a stadium.  Especially one in South Florida.  FAU must know that GEO is as much a pariah as gun manufacturers and cigarette pushers.  How many FAU students have been detained by GEO?  How many FAU student’s parents and loved ones languished in GEO’s dungeons?  How many kids never got a chance to attend a football game because GEO got them first?

Dream Activist has started a petition.  Please sign.  Please share on all your networks.  While FAU may be intoxicated with GEO’s money, they need to be reminded that their community or “customers” reject GEO’s profiteering on detention misery.

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Immigration Reform Follies!

19 Feb

The past few days have revealed tremendous silliness in the immigration reform debate.  It is a true pity given the serious stakes involved for everyone persecuted by the U.S.’ brutal immigration laws.

Just today, we saw prominent immigrant rights groups’ applauding the honesty of ICE bureaucrat representative, Chris Crane because he stated in some forum or another:

For this pearl, Mr. Crane has been lauded by all sorts of ostensibly pro-immigrant types as a whistleblower.  After all, here is an ICE agent stating that ICE only cares about hitting its numerical targets for removal.  ICE has recently come under some well-deserved heat for conducting data-mining and all sorts of definition-expanding permutations to ramp up the removal of criminals.  It would seem that Mr. Crane is stating that ICE is going after low hanging fruit and not the dangerous criminals, who we all can agree, at least in theory, deserve removal.  At last, someone within ICE points out that the emperor has no clothes.  Right?

Well, only if you pay no attention to everything else Chris Crane has ever said.  Based upon his testimony, Mr. Crane believes that ICE is not being allowed to do its job of keeping the community safe because the ICE political leadership has instructed ICE officers to focus their removal efforts on those convicted of crimes or repeated immigration law violators.  Apparently, Mr. Crane believes that community safety would be enhanced if ICE agents were permitted to make arrests when they are “on duty in a public place and witness a violation of immigration law.”  If only ICE agents were empowered to make arrests in such circumstances, public safety would be enhanced.  This makes us wonder: what does it look like when a student falls out of status due to failure to maintain appropriate credits, or what does it look like when a tourist visa expires, or what does it look like when an undocumented person clear your plate, does it look that much different than when a documented individual re-fills your water?  If ICE agents were empowered to make arrests because of these and other “immigration violations” they witness, the U.S. would look a lot more like those totalitarian regimes where the only law is the presence of a gun and handcuffs.  No thanks.  Yes, ICE is doing everything can to pump up their removal numbers, but if Mr. Crane and his allies had their way, that number would be way higher than 400,000 and community safety would not be enhanced.  Recall that Chris Crane is the plaintiff in a lawsuit, where he is represented by uber litigation-loser Kris Kobach, where he alleges that DACA is illegal because it means he can not arrest and remove every undocumented youth he comes across.  Nonetheless, members of the non-profit industrial complex for immigration reform have embraced Crane’s quote, displaying an alarming lack of awareness of what Crane is actually saying.

This followed this weekend’s adolescent drama that occurred when the President’s plan for immigration reform was leaked to USA Today.  Immediately Marco Rubio and other Republicans groused that the President never spoke to them and that there were significant divides between the President and the GOP in Congress.  John McCain insisted that the President, by talking about immigration reform was trying to derail it.  And Newt Gingrich (why do we still have to listen to this pompous blowhard?) went on TV and blurted out the partisan truth that the Congressional GOP would not pass anything that had Obama’s name on it and the President had to call Senators McCain, Graham, and Rubio (Senator Flake was unavailable) and tell them “don’t worry, baby, I love you and your plan.”

The President’s proposal is very intriguing.  We will discuss it in detail in the next couple of days, but it goes to territory where none of the other plans go: shrinking the definition of “aggravated felony,” allowing for immigration recognition of expungements and other ameliorative statutes, and restoring suspension of deportation.  For those of us who care about due process in the immigration courts and greater flexibility in removal statutes who thought that immigration reform would be all about E-Verify, border fences, legalization at the back of the line and a guest worker program, the introduction of due process concepts into the debate is welcome.  The very real humanitarian considerations represented in the President’s plan should not be overshadowed by high school cafeteria antics

 

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Should I Seek a Provisional Waiver or Just Wait for Immigration Reform?

13 Feb

bird-in-handThe optimism and hope that have been generated by all of the hype around immigration reform has been intense.  Every day, a new prominent political figure comes out in favor of immigration reform.  Look, Sean Hannity!  Condoleeza Rice!  Was that closet really big enough for Fox News Chairman Roger Ailes? Eric Cantor and John Boehner now support the DREAM Act after voting against it in 2010!  It is enough not only to induce whiplash, but it is creating a frenzy of anticipation that often manifests itself in odd ways in the privacy of a consultation with an immigration lawyer. Specifically, many people are now asking, should I just wait for immigration reform?

For the past couple of years, the last resort of the hopeless case was the possibility of immigration reform.  The whiff of a chance of a possibility of potential reform was the only bit of hope that we could muster for some folks who came into our offices.  After we explained that the law did not provide them with any practical options, we were able to console the client with the hope that someday the political system will come to their rescue. As the day becomes more and more visible, the number of people considering doing nothing and hoping for the best appears to have increased.

Frankly, that has always been a pretty decent option for many people.  People who entered the U.S. illegally and had few significant family ties generally had little opportunity to fix their immigration situation.  Sure, we could do some long shot application with little chance of success that would cost a lot of money.  But we often advised people not to spend their money on quixotic ventures and to sit back and see whether the law will develop in a way that could benefit them.  Wait and see was really the best advice.

Now, we seem to be on the verge of the “see” portion of wait and see.  Immigration reform seems imminent and the incentive to wait and see has increased.  But, even though the promise of immigration reform seems within our grasp, real changes that will help untold numbers of people have taken effect now. It is unwise to avoid these measures in the hope that immigration reform will save the day.

The biggest example of this is the I-601A provisional waiver.  The government has changed the process of seeking waivers of inadmissibility for those spouses of U.S. citizens who are only inadmissible due to unlawful presence.  By allowing the couple to seek a waiver of inadmissibility in the U.S. before making an uncertain trip to the U.S. embassy in their home country, the administration has removed a formidable obstacle to legalization of thousands of immigrants married to Americans who are unwilling to take the risk of being separated from their families for up to a decade. This procedural change has the potential to allow thousands of people to legalize their status.

Yet, just as these very important and welcome changes take effect, people are pulling back.  Why should I try to seek a waiver when Obama is going to legalize everyone anyway?  The answer is the old cliche about the bird in hand.  The provisional waiver is the bird in hand and, as much as we believe it is going to happen, and as much as we want it to happen, immigration reform is not a done deal and can collapse.  It has happened before.  There are forces assembled to fight immigration reform tooth and nail.  They will find a ready audience in much of the Republican caucus in the House, always fertile ground for anti-immigrant sentiment.  Even if Congress passes immigration reform, there is no guarantee it will include a path to citizenship.  The Senate plan offers applicants a temporary status that will last until a border commission says that the border is secure, an automated entry and exit system is imposed, and the entire backlog is cleared.  Senator Dick Durbin, one of the most pro-immigrant Senators, said that that temporary status could last as long as ten years!  At the end of those ten years, applicants can seek residence!  To paraphrase the Beatles, the path to citizenship is the long and winding road.  If it even happens!

The provisional waiver is law.  It is really happening and people can use it to fix their status and obtain residence.  No temporary status.  No watching committees and reading the tea leaves of pundits and politicians.  It is in the Code of Federal Regulations and there is a form.  Nothing in immigration is real until there is a form and the provisional waiver has a form- the I-601A.

The provisional waiver is not perfect.  It needs to be available more widely.  But it has the advantage of being law.  A bird in hand.  Over years in immigration law, we have learned that one must take the opportunities presented to you.  The government fails to bring conviction records to a hearing, move to terminate removal proceedings.  The government fails to oppose a motion to reopen, file a notification of non-opposition.  Seek an extension of work authorization even though the residence interview is in two weeks.  Immigration law is so stacked against the immigrant that we must take those opportunities presented to us when they are presented.  They may not come again.

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Immigration Reform 2013: The Gang of Eight Plan

11 Feb

?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

The week before last, we surveyed President Obama’s plan for comprehensive immigration reform. Today, we will look at a similar plan put forward by a bipartisan group of Senators known as the “Gang of Eight.” (Its members are Democrats Charles Schumer, Dick Durbin, Robert Menendez, and Michael Bennet, and Republicans John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Marco Rubio, and Jeff Flake.)

Like President Obama, the Senators want to modernize the legal immigration system, create a pathway to citizenship for the undocumented, and require mandatory employment verification for new workers. Unlike President Obama, however, the Senators have not called for same-sex marriages to be recognized under the immigration laws, and would make the pathway to citizenship conditional on meeting as-yet-undetermined enforcement targets. For these and other reasons, the Gang of Eight framework is less immigrant-friendly than the plan outlined by President Obama.

Pathway to Citizenship Contingent on Meeting Certain Enforcement Targets

Like President Obama’s plan, the Gang of Eight framework would create a path to citizenship for most of the 11 million undocumented immigrants now living in the United States. To qualify, undocumented residents would first have to pass a background check and pay a fine and any outstanding taxes. They would then receive “probationary legal status” allowing them to work and freely travel to and from the country, but not entitling them to receive any public benefits not currently afforded to temporary nonimmigrants. Eventually, those with probationary status could apply for permanent residency (i.e. a green card) and U.S. citizenship.

Unlike President Obama’s plan, however, the Senate framework makes the availability of this pathway contingent on meeting a series of (yet to be determined) enforcement measures. For example, the plan would require the completion of an entry-exit tracking system for all temporary immigrants arriving by air and sea. This seems to be a particularly unfeasible requirement. The entry-exit tracking system was mandated in the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 but for budgetary reasons has never been implemented. In an era of fiscal austerity, the entry-exit system may never become completely functional—raising concerns that the Senate proposal contains mileposts that can not be met, undermining the path to citizenship.

The Senate plan would also increase the staffing and technology available to the Border Patrol, and create a commission of politicians and community leaders in the Southwest to make a recommendation on when the border was “secure.” (For a perspective from officials on the ground in busy ports on the Southwest border, read this New York Times Op-Ed by El Paso Judge Veronica Escobar.) Only once these (and potentially other) measures were in place would noncitizens in probationary status be permitted to apply for green card. Moreover, no green cards would be issued to individuals in probationary status until permanent residency is granted to all persons with petitions pending at the time of the bill’s enactment.

The only noncitizens who would be exempt from these “triggers” are: (1) those who initially entered the country as minors, and (2) agricultural workers. Although the framework does not contain precise details, the former would likely be able to obtain permanent residency along the lines proposed in the DREAM Act (i.e. after spending time in college or the military), and agricultural workers would be placed on a separate pathway altogether.

Modernizing the Legal Immigration System

Also like the President’s plan, the Gang of Eight framework calls for improvements to the existing immigration system. Although short on specifics, the Senators’ plan does include two concrete ideas. First, the Senators call for reducing the mind-bogglingly long backlogs in the family and employment visa categories so that future noncitizens do not feel compelled to come or stay illegally. Second, the Senators call for the awarding of green cards noncitizens who have received either a PhD or Master’s degree in science, technology, engineering, or math—or what are colloquially referred to as “STEM visas.”

Although seemingly noncontroversial, these proposals carry potential for legislative gridlock. For example, disagreement could well arise over the number of green cards allocated for the family- and employment-based systems. Marco Rubio in particular has called for an increase in the percentage of visas awarded on the basis of skills rather than family connections. Groups representing U.S. engineers could also call for tight quotas on the number of STEM visas or insist that they be awarded only to PhD rather than Master’s graduates. Finally, unlike President Obama’s plan, the Gang of Eight framework makes no mention of whether same-sex marriages should be recognized under the immigration laws—as President Obama has proposed—and Sen. McCain has said that extending immigration privileges to LGBT relationship could derail the entire effort.

Mandating E-Verify

Like President Obama, the Gang of Eight plan would also require the mandatory phase-in of “E-Verify,” the system that most employers can now use on a voluntary basis to determine whether new hires are authorized to work in the United States. (E-Verify is now mandatory only for federal contractors and for private employers in four states, including Arizona.) While not specifically mentioning the creation of a national ID card, the framework says prospective workers should have to demonstrate eligibility through “non-forgeable electronic means”—suggesting that lawmakers would either require the creation of a new biometric ID card or a revamped, tamper-proof Social Security card.

Notably, unlike the President’s plan, which calls for E-Verify to be made mandatory within five years and would create exemptions for some small businesses, the Senate framework contains no timeline and mentions no such exemptions. The Gang of Eight proposal also calls for “procedural safeguards” and “due process protections” to ensure that authorized workers are not mistakenly identified as ineligible for employment.

Guest-Worker Program

Finally, the Senators’ proposal calls for the creation of a large guest worker program for “lower-skilled” immigrants. While few details are mentioned, employers would first have to demonstrate that they unsuccessfully tried to recruit U.S. workers to fill the position, and the overall quota would fluctuate based on whether the economy was creating jobs. Also, while the framework refers specifically to the needs of the agricultural industry, the program would likely extend to other industries as well. There currently is such a program in place, but most employers find it riddled with inefficiency and delay.  Any new guest worker program must be responsive to the needs of business and the guest workers so that employers are willing to use the program. Finally, the Gang of Eight framework would allow guest workers who have “contributed to their communities over many years” to eventually obtain green cards.

Again, although seemingly noncontroversial, the creation of a guest worker program could prove to be the most difficult obstacle for lawmakers to overcome. Indeed, the 2007 immigration reform bill ultimately died over an amendment that would have terminated a guest-worker program after five years. Thus far, key sticking points between business and labor relate to how the annual quotas for guest workers would be set and the labor rights that employees would possess while in the country. Fortunately, reports are emerging that labor and business are nearing agreement on the details of a guest worker program—which, if true, would be instrumental in pushing immigration reform over the finish line in 2013.

← Older Entries

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 306 other followers