Texas Immigration Lawyer & Attorney : Kraft & Associates Law Firm : Visas, Green Card, Citizenship, Deportation : Dallas, Texas

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.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

As mentioned August 22, 2006, in a previous post, the Dallas suburb of Farmers Branch has a proposal pending to penalize local employers for hiring undocumented workers, and to penalize landlords from renting to illegal immigrants. This is viewed as racist by some people.

In response, some area Hispanic leaders have come up with an interesting  proposal of their own. They are encouraging Latinos, here legally or not, to purchase each of the 157 homes currently available for sale in Farmers Branch, including the home of the City Councilman who made the original proposal.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Dallas Morning News has an excellent op-ed piece today from a group of influential business leaders. Normally I strongly disagree with the political opinions of most of these businessmen, but they make very good points in this recommendation for Congress to pass a sensible immigration reform bill. Here are a few exerpts from the article:

Often, in the middle of a heated debate, people forget exactly what they're arguing about. But we employers on the front lines of American business cannot forget - we know why the nation must come to grips with illegal immigration. We know that Americans must face up to the reality of the foreign workers we need to keep the economy growing and bring them under the rule of law, for their sake and ours.

It's not that Americans don't work hard. They do. But the native-born workforce is changing rapidly. In 1960, half of all American men dropped out of high school and looked for unskilled work; today, less than 10 percent do. Baby boomers are retiring. Fertility rates are declining. Yet every year, the economy creates hundreds of thousands of new jobs that require few if any skills, and in the next decade, we will be millions of workers short.

Not all employers mean well, of course. Some companies exploit illegal immigrants. But most who turn to foreign workers do so out of necessity. We aren't looking for "cheap labor." We're looking for available labor, period - and for some businesses, the choice is to hire immigrants or close shop.

You hear the same story across the U.S. A relatively small number of foreign workers keeps millions of native-born Americans employed. This, in turn, keeps the economy growing, and we all share in the prosperity that results.

Not only that, but immigrant workers renew and reinvigorate America. They remind us what it's like to give a job your all. We talk about old-fashioned family values; they live them. And those of us who cherish our faith and love our country can only rejoice at their devotion to both.

We understand that this will include workplace enforcement. In fact, we welcome reform that gives us the tools to stay on the right side of the law. The important thing is that this vital part of the economy be brought under the rule and protection of the law.

Neither the immigrants here today nor those we will need in the future should have to live in the shadows. These are good people with good values doing work that we need done, reaching for the American Dream and helping make it a reality for all. As we value the work, let us value the worker - and let's fix the law so that it serves all Americans.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In this particular case, the temporary employment agency is alleging that fruit growers are refusing to hire workers from them, because the growers can hire cheaper, undocumented, workers from other temp agencies. Such a case would probably be difficult to win, but could certainly have a deterrent effect on employers.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Department of Homeland Security is in the process of implementing a new travel policy that will require U.S.citizens to carry a passport when returning from Mexico, Canada, or the Caribbean. This is a big change from the current situation, where citizens with little more than a drivers license can come and go across borders with ease.

The new rules will go into effect at the beginning of 2007. The current proposal is that as of January 8, 2007, the rules will apply to air and sea travel to Mexico, Canada and the Caribbean. Passports will be required for overland crossings by January 1, 2008.

So no more spur-of-the-moment shopping trips to Mexico for Texans in border communities, and perhaps substantial decreases in tourists taking cruises to Mexico or the Caribbean. The expense and waiting time to acquire a U.S. Passport may deter tourists and shoppers alike.

Estimates are that only 27% of U.S. Citizens have passports. My advice is to apply for a passport now, if you don't already have one. You never know when you might need one in a hurry.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Here's an interesting little snippet from a post on Migra Matters:

PS: For the record, most of the undocumented look more like this:

BUT you know what their kids, friends and supporters look like? ..... THIS:

Think about that one come November.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Several states and numerous cities around the U.S. are proposing local laws to "crack down" on undocumented foreign nationals. In our local area, the Dallas suburb of Farmers Branch is currently debating proposed city ordinances that would make it harder for such immigrants to live and work in that city.

Among the proposed ordinances are ones that would prohibit landlords from leasing to illegal immigrants and would penalize businesses that employ them. Another proposal would make English the city's official language, and prohibit publishing any city documents in Spanish. Still another proposal would eliminate subsidies for illegal immigrant children in the city's youth programs.

Of course Hispanic leaders in the area are speaking out against such ordinances, and vowing to fight them in court.

Passing these ordinances would set up an interesting legal issue. There is a federal law that prohibits cities and states from passing laws that impose stricter criminal or civil penalties for illegal immigration than those adopted by Congress.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Reuben Navarrette, Jr., is a newspaper columnist who writes for the San Diego Union-Tribune, and whose column is syndicated in many other newspapers, including the Dallas Morning News. Not every column is printed in the Morning News, however, so maybe that's why I'm just finding his column from August 9, 2006.

This column is a summary of his interview with U.S. Representative James Sensenbrenner, the primary sponsor of the House version of a new immigration bill. While I frequently disagree with the conservative Navarrette, I do agree with his opinions in this column. Please read the entire column. Here are the concluding paragraphs:

"I have tried my darnedest to keep the debate on the issue and not get involved in race-baiting by anybody," he said. "I'm trying to get a responsible immigration bill passed that treats with fairness Hispanics who wish to immigrate into the United States. . . . "

Yet Sensenbrenner thinks it's fair to object to a proposed solution on the grounds that it would allow in too many Latinos, and then insists that he's not appealing to bigotry.

You could have fooled me.

But interestingly, Sensenbrenner may not be all that wedded to his bill. He told us that the way out of the impasse between the House and Senate is "to start with a clean piece of paper and put together a clean bill that is neither the House bill nor the Senate bill . . . and then make sure it passes."

Fine. Then get to it.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

According to an Associated Press article in the Houston Chronicle, the federal government has released a new report showing that about 11 million illegal immigrants were living in the U.S. at the start of 2006, up from about 8.5 million at the start of the year 2000. The government acknowledged the difficulty of getting an accurate count in its report. Quoting from the article:

In March, the Pew Hispanic Center used Census Bureau data to estimate that the United States had 11.1 million illegal immigrants in March 2005. The center used monthly population estimates to project a total of 11.5 million to 12 million in March.

Mexico is the largest contributing country of illegal immigrants, with nearly 6 million in the U.S. in 2005, the government said. El Salvador, Guatemala, India and China followed with a combined contribution of about 1.4 million unauthorized immigrants.

The greatest increase in illegal immigrants in the country was among Mexicans, a jump of 260,000 from 2000 to 2005. The greatest percentage increase in the immigrant population in those years was among people from India, 133 percent, and Brazil, 70 percent.

California had the largest illegal immigrant population, with 2.8 million in January 2005, followed by Texas with 1.4 million and Florida with 850,000.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

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.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Minneapolis Star Tribune had an interesting article this week about the proper phrases to describe foreign nationals in this country without valid documentation. The point of the article is that how we label those who cross the border does affect public opinion.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

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.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

According to the article, stricter border enforcement is causing smugglers to take greater risks. One tactic is cramming many immigrants into a van or SUV, and driving over rougher terrain to cross the border. This puts the vehicle in danger of overturning, with resulting death or injury to the occupants. This week, an SUV overturned in Arizona, killing nine people and injuring a dozen more. There were 21 people in the vehicle.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

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.''

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

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.

The point is that this is exactly what the U.S. does with foreign college students -- brings them to the U.S., trains them, gives them one year of employment, then sends them home to work for competitors of U.S. companies.

The column goes on to explain why we should encourage these newly trained high-tech employees to stay in the United States, and also explains why they would not be taking jobs from American citizens. It's well worth reading.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

As noted in a Dallas Morning News article about the Dallas Office of Rapid Adjustment, the test program is catching the eye of Washington politicians. DORA is designed to speed up the processing of Green Card applications, and to prevent long stays in the U.S. By foreign nationals who are ineligible for legal permanent residence.

In most of the country, aliens who apply for a Green Card are given a temporary work permit while their applications are processed. The processing time can range from months to over one year. In the meantime, the aliens are permitted to live and work in the U.S. even though they may actually be ineligible for the Green Card itself.

The Dallas Office of Rapid Adjustment pilot program cuts the processing time to no more than 90 days, so temporary work permits are not required. That allows eligible applicants to get their Green Cards quicker, and allows USCIS to weed out the ineligible applicants before they are issued temporary work permits.

The newspaper article implies that one reason the two-year-old pilot program has not been implemented nationwide is that the government could lose perhaps $350 million or more in fees if it increases efficiency.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks