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

The Dallas Morning News had an interesting article yesterday about the tech industry lobbying to raise the cap on H-1B visas. Here are a few excerpts:

High-tech workers here on federal permits are speaking out - many for the first time - over rules that leave them for years in personal and professional limbo.

After Congress failed to reform immigration laws for the second year in a row, hundreds of the largely India- and China-born workers protested this summer in Silicon Valley and Washington, D.C. They were frustrated that the divisive debate over illegal immigration had overwhelmed efforts at comprehensive immigration reform.

Legal immigrants who feel squeezed by limits on the number of green cards issued each year are trying to separate their complaints from the protests by illegal immigrants. And high-tech companies that say they can't fill jobs because of a cap on skilled-worker visas have stepped up their long-standing plea for the cap to be raised.

The green card application system is akin to "indentured servitude," said Kim Berry, president of the Programmers' Guild, a group that opposes current work visa laws. "It takes years for the green card sponsorship to happen, and they can't leave, can't ask for a raise unless they want to lose their place in line."

Applications for work-related green cards - limited to 140,000 each year, about 9,800 per sending country - are backlogged so deep that many immigrants must plod along for years, uncertain about their future in the United States and unable to change jobs while they wait for permanent residence.

And immigration officials resorted to a lottery for H1-B work visas this summer when businesses filed - on just the first day the government was accepting applications - double the number that could be considered the whole year. Three years ago, it took 10 months for businesses to fill the annual quota.

More than 1 million foreign nationals were in line for permanent residency in 2006. More than 500,000 came into the U.S. on H1-Bs, and the rest through family connections.

Microsoft Corp. was the third-largest sponsor of H1-B visas in the last federal fiscal year. But it still didn't get all the foreign workers it wanted into the country. The company's government affairs director said this was one motivation for Microsoft to open a new software development center in Canada.

"We currently do 85 percent of our development work in the U.S., and we'd like to continue doing that," said Jack Krumholtz. "But if we can't hire the developers we need ... we're going to have to look to other options to get the work done."

About 8 percent of Mountain View-based Google Inc.'s employees currently work under H1-B visas. This year, the company posted 70 new foreign hires overseas when they couldn't get visas. They'll try again next year.

Smaller companies, which may need only one foreign worker, argue they suffer most under the visa cap because they don't have the flexibility of the giants in the field.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Dallas Morning News reports today that the City of Irving may have come to an agreement with immigration-rights advocates regarding the arrest and deportation of so many illegal aliens in Irving recently. Here are excerpts from the article:

Illegal immigrants may be able to avoid being arrested in Irving if they can provide police with a Mexican identification card, a utility bill or a similar document, the city's mayor said Thursday.

"You have a better chance if you can identify yourself," Mayor Herbert Gears said after meeting with immigration-rights activists. "If you can't identify yourself, you're going to have no chance."

The acceptance of the Mexican ID, known as a matrícula consular, and other documents besides state-issued ID cards comes as activists have encouraged the mayor to help prevent more people from being deported as part of the Criminal Alien Program. Irving officials began using the program in September 2006 and have since turned more than 1,600 arrestees over to federal authorities for deportation.

Mr. Gears explained that if someone is stopped for a traffic violation, that person's chances of avoiding jail will be better with proof of identification. If the police can confirm someone's identity, that person will be issued a citation and let go.

The mayor also agreed to help create an educational campaign to inform people of immigration laws.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Dallas Morning News has a very good series of articles today about the immigration situation in Irving, Texas. Irving's "deportation" of a large number of undocumented aliens has been the subject of national discussion. These articles explain both sides of the situation.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Dallas Morning News has a carefully-researched story today breaking down the charges against the illegal immigrants who have been deported from Irving, Texas after being arrested or detained by the Irving police. Surprisingly, only about 9% of the charges were felonies -- the type of charge that would normally cause someone to be deported by USCIS. So more than 90% of those deported as a result of a police stop in Irving were deported for "minor" violations of the law. Here are excerpts from the story:

Most of the charges faced by the 1,638 illegal immigrants arrested in Irving and placed in federal custody over the last 13 months are misdemeanors, according to a Police Department report released Wednesday.

The department's Immigration Enforcement Report details 3,901 local criminal charges filed against 1,638 illegal immigrants who were held at the city jail where federal officials also filed illegal immigration charges against them between Sept. 1, 2006, and Sept. 30 of this year.

The report was released after a controversy over the department's 24/7 Criminal Alien Program, which allows agents from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to conduct routine telephone interviews with inmates at the city jail to determine their immigration status.

Hispanic activist Carlos Quintanilla said he and other immigration reform advocates believe the Irving Police Department is engaging in racial profiling because the overwhelming majority of the 1,638 illegal immigrants came from Mexico and other Latin American nations.

Mr. Quintanilla said the program unfairly deports immigrants for misdemeanors. He and other activists are organizing a march and protest in downtown Irving on Saturday afternoon.

"If they had been arrested anywhere else, they would not have been deported," Mr. Quintanilla said. "They're obviously overzealously targeting our community. I think the numbers speak for themselves."

Police Department spokesman David Tull said 14,000 people were arrested in Irving during the same time, but only 1,638 of them were flagged by federal officials for illegal immigration violations.

"Part of being a respectable part of society is to follow the laws, rules and guidelines set out by the community," Officer Tull said. "The more you get away from that, the more chaos there is."

More than 63 percent of the 3,901 criminal charges filed against the 1,638 illegal immigrants were listed as misdemeanors, including outstanding traffic tickets, outstanding warrants, assault, theft, criminal mischief and prostitution.

Another 16 percent were arrested on suspicion of DWI or public intoxication offenses, while almost 12 percent of the charges filed were listed as driving without a license or driving with a suspended or invalid driver's license.

The report shows that 9 percent of the criminal charges filed against the illegal immigrants were listed as felonies, including murder, aggravated assault, sexual assault and illegal drug possession.

Officer Tull said Irving police take traffic offenses very seriously and that the department has seen a dramatic increase in the number of warrants for people who did not pay traffic tickets or comply with court orders.

According to Police Department figures, the number of tickets issued has remained about the same over the past five years, but the number of people with outstanding warrants for nonpayment or failing to comply with court orders has increased from 1 percent in fiscal 2001-02 to 15 percent in 2006-07.

Officer Tull said that the majority of those warrants are for people who gave incorrect or false information to police officers and that perhaps some could be illegal immigrants who provided false names or other information.

But Mr. Quintanilla called the report an example of "backtracking," citing that the figures show that 91 percent of the illegal immigrants who were arrested committed nonviolent crimes.

He said legal immigrants with green cards can only lose their status by being convicted of felonies, not misdemeanors.

Here's a look at the number and types of charges filed by Irving police against 1,638 illegal immigrants arrested in Irving and turned over to federal authorities from Sept. 1, 2006, through Sept. 30 of this year. 

Felony crimes (including murder, aggravated assault, rape and theft)
352
9.0

Driving without a license
341
8.7

Invalid or suspended license
110
2.8

DWI or public intoxication
633
16.2

Other misdemeanors (including outstanding tickets; assault; drug possession and prostitution)
2,465
63.2

Total
3,901

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

ABC News is reporting that a federal judge today blocked enforcement of new efforts to crack down on illegal immigrant workers. Here are excerpts of the online article:

Judge Charles Breyer of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted a preliminary injunction against a program that would force employers to verify Social Security numbers and fire workers whose numbers did not match official records.

The federal program developed by the Department of Homeland Security is at the heart of a new crackdown on the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in the country, after Congress failed to pass comprehensive immigration reform.

But the "no-match letter" program was challenged in a lawsuit by the American Civil Liberties Union, the AFL-CIO and other labor groups claiming it was unlawful and hurt all workers, including legal ones affected by errors in the data base.

"The balance of hardships tips sharply in plaintiffs' favor and plaintiffs have raised serious questions," Breyer said in his ruling.

Breyer still has to rule on a permanent injunction, but workers' rights groups celebrated Wednesday's decision.

"This was really about targeting workers rights generally," said Ana Avendano, director of immigrant programs at the AFL-CIO. "The win is about preventing the Bush administration from causing further harm to workers in this country."

White House spokesman Scott Stanzel said the administration was disappointed with the ruling and added:

"Coupled with the near daily stories about local communities taking immigration matters into their own hands, this ruling serves as another reminder that Congress need to enact comprehensive immigration reform to establish a system that is secure, productive, orderly and fair."

Breyer had already blocked the Social Security Administration from sending out 140,000 letters to employers with 8 million employees whose names did not match their nine-digit identification numbers.

Under the proposed program, employers notified of a "no-match" would have 90 days to confirm that an employee was in the country legally or fire him if not.

Employers also could face fines as well as criminal charges if they did not comply with the program.

The judge also said the threat of a criminal prosecution against an employer "reflects a major change in Department of Homeland Security policy."

Mailing out new no-match letters to employers "would result in irreparable harm to innocent workers and employers," Breyer wrote.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Congratulations to the Dallas Morning News for an excellent editorial today regarding the immigration mess in this country.

Many North Texans are reacting to Irving's crackdown on illegal immigrants by saying: Darn right, they're breaking the law, and it's about time we sent them packing. Folks on the opposite side counter: This is a harsh overreaction against people who are working, contributing to the economy and paying taxes.

The mood is getting nastier by the day. Fear abounds within the Hispanic community. Latino U.S. citizens, along with legal and illegal immigrants, worry that they could be hunted down and deported. Irving schools have noticed a drop in attendance because some parents, fearing deportation, have gone into hiding with their children.

"They get this notion that someone is going to actually come to school and snatch their children," Irving ISD Superintendent Jack Singley told The Dallas Morning News last week.

No matter where you stand in the illegal-immigration debate, this state of affairs should be unsettling. No one wins when children are on the streets instead of in the classroom. Federal law requires schools to educate children regardless of immigration status. A climate of fear, whether prompted by police action or unsubstantiated rumor, can only disrupt learning and ultimately wastes taxpayer dollars.

The crackdown in Irving - along with Farmers Branch and dozens of other communities across the country - is a reaction to a more profound problem. Local governments are getting involved in immigration enforcement because Washington is too timid to confront it.

Congress has repeatedly failed to tackle the issue of comprehensive immigration reform, a hot potato that few politicians want to handle before the November 2008 elections. Having lost patience, local governments increasingly are intervening, even though immigration enforcement is a federal responsibility.

This is an abysmal state of affairs. Members of Congress are fooling themselves if they think immigration reform will somehow get easier the longer they delay it.

We think it's pathetic that Irving schoolchildren are being kept home out of fear. But what's even more pathetic is the fear - of voter reprisal - that is preventing Congress from doing its job.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Yet another story about the plight of fruit and vegetable farmers in California was posted on the KNTV Web site. Here are excerpts:

Farmers in and around Northern California are starting to feel the pinch from tighter border security and visa requirements, NBC11's Daniel Garza reported Monday. Some farmers told Garza they expect some of their fields to remain unpicked. Some said they believe their fields will end up filled with rotting produce.

WATCH VIDEO: Bay Area Farmers: 'Not Enough Workers' | VIEW IMAGES: Farmers' Fears: Too Few Workers

The Bush administration has learned of the possible loss of millions of dollars for thousands of farmers throughout the country, and is attempting to loosen visa requirements for workers. However, farmers told Garza the attempt is "too little too late."

The president has blamed Congress for failing to come up with acceptable new immigration laws. Experts expect the impact on agribusiness to affect Americans' pocketbooks, Garza said.


Working in the fields is a hard job that few will do, according to Pete Aiello of Uesugi Farms in Gilroy. "We'll have guys out in the field as early as 5 o'clock in the morning and the last guys won't leave the field until six or seven o'clock at night," said Uesugi.

Growers said not only is the supply of workers getting smaller, but the federal guest worker program known as the H-2A Visa is too time-consuming.

"When you submit an application often times they can't turn it around for two or three months and by then half our harvest season is gone," Aiello said.

A White House spokesman said it is important for the farm sector to have access to labor.

"I'm really happy the government is about to raise an eyebrow about the situation," Aiello said. "Unfortunately by the time they actually sit down and put their noses to the grind stone and try to implement something, that could be years down the road before it's finally done."

Demonstrators demanding a path to citizenship for millions of illegal immigrants rallied Tuesday, hoping to spur Congress to act before the presidential race takes over the political landscape.

The owner of JJ&F Food Store, John Garcia, said in the long run consumers will feel the impact of fewer farm workers.

"The supply is going to be down," said Garcia. "Demand is going to be up. It's going to increase. It's going to increase a lot."

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

ABC had an interesting article online yesterday about the attitude of Americans toward people who speak Spanish. The conclusion of this well-documented article was that approximately 2/3 of Americans don't mind if others speak Spanish around them. More people admit to being prejudiced against Arabs and overweight people than admit to prejudice against Hispanics speaking Spanish. Here are excerpts from the article:

Spanish speaking in the United States is widespread and accepted by most Americans. But a third who experience this language difference are troubled by it -- and they have distinctly more negative attitudes about immigrants and Hispanics generally.

Just 10 percent of Americans concede any personal prejudice against Hispanics -- far fewer than the number who, in previous polls, have self-reported prejudice on the basis of race, against overweight people, or against Arabs and Muslims.

Nonetheless, among the nearly eight in 10 who hear others who speak mainly in Spanish, a third say it bothers them.

All told, 78 percent in this ABC News "Good Morning America" poll say they often or sometimes come into contact with people in this country who speak mainly Spanish rather than English -- including 55 percent who encounter it "often."

Being bothered by Spanish isn't affected by how often people hear it, meaning other factors are at play. People bothered by Spanish, instead, are those who are more apt to call for stricter immigration rules and to have negative views on immigration generally, particularly on illegal immigration. (This survey, it should be noted, was done in English.)

Immigration

Immigration remains a political challenge; reform efforts fell flat last spring and the public remains of two minds on enforcement. On one hand, just two in 10 say the government is doing enough to keep illegal immigrants out of the country; on the other, most, 58 percent, favor a path to citizenship for those here now -- a program giving illegal immigrants the right to legal status if they pay a fine and meet other requirements.

People who are bothered by interactions with Spanish speakers are decidedly more negative about immigration policy. In this group, 92 percent think the government isn't doing enough to keep illegal immigrants out; that drops to 55 percent of those who are not bothered by Spanish speakers. Support for a path to legal status, similarly, is 19 points higher among people who don't mind Spanish than it is among those who do.

Among other groups, support for tighter borders peaks among non-urban and older Americans, and in the Midwest and South; it's lowest among young adults, Democrats and better-educated Americans. Support for a legal status program is highest among young adults.

Legal vs. Illegal

Broadly, Americans don't have a problem with immigrants in general -- rather with illegal immigrants. Most, 54 percent, say illegal immigrants do more to hurt than to help the country. But 59 percent say the opposite about legal immigrants -- that they do more to help the country than hurt it.

Again, sensitivity to language is associated with these attitudes, especially on illegal immigrants. Among people who are bothered by Spanish speaking, 79 percent say illegal immigrants mainly hurt the country. Among those who don't mind the language difference, vastly fewer -- 39 percent -- agree.

On legal immigrants, the gap in attitudes among those bothered and not bothered by language is both narrower and lower -- 39 to 21 percent -- but still significant.

Partisan differences exist here as well. Majorities of Republicans (55 percent) and independents (60 percent) say illegal immigrants do more to hurt the country than help; Democrats split on this question, 47 percent to 44 percent.

But when it comes to legal immigrants, majorities across the political spectrum see more help than hurt.

Prejudice

As noted, asked to honestly assess their feelings of prejudice against Hispanics, one in 10 concedes harboring at least some such feelings. In ABC News polls in past years, six percent have self-reported prejudice against Jews, 27 percent against Muslims, 25 percent against Arabs, 35 percent against overweight people ("negative feelings" rather than prejudice), and 34 percent have reported "some racist feelings."

Self-reported prejudice rises to 22 percent among people bothered by hearing people who speak mainly Spanish. It's also a bit higher among Republicans (15 percent) than among Democrats or independents.

Looking at it the other way, among people who concede some prejudice toward Hispanics, 73 percent are bothered by contact with Spanish speakers. Among those who do not reporting feelings of prejudice, far fewer -- 28 percent -- are bothered by Spanish. 

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The blog of the New York Times has an interesting post today about the "breaking point" being reached in the farmworker immigration situation. The bottom line is that farmers are not finding enough workers, due to immigration crackdowns. And while there are still unemployed American citizens, very few of them have any experience in farm work (or are interested in learning).

There may be a farmworker provision attached to another bill and presented to Congress before the end of the year, but that is very tenuous at this point.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

United Press International has an interesting article about the fact that although illegal immigrants cannot vote, they are included in the official U.S. Census. And the census is what determines the number of seats each state has in the House of Representatives.

Since the House is set at 435 seats, changes in population never increase the total number of seats. The changes only redistribute the seats. So if the population of Texas increases more than the population of New York, Texas could gain and seat and New York could lose one.

The point of the article is that increasing numbers of illegal aliens in some states could cause those states to gain seats in the House of Representatives, even though the aliens cannot vote. Here are excerpts:

U.S. states with large numbers of undocumented immigrants could receive additional seats in Congress after the 2010 census is conducted.

A University of Connecticut study concluded Arizona, Texas and Florida could all see their House delegations increase due to rising populations that include sizable numbers of illegal immigrants.

Although they can't vote, such aliens are included in the census. The San Jose (Calif.) Mercury News predicted Tuesday the pending 2010 headcount could be the subject of a political fight as Democrats and Republicans jockey for position before House seats are reallocated.

The Connecticut study also predicted California and New Jersey would likely keep their current number of seats while states with fewer immigrants, including New York, Illinois and Ohio, will lose a seat or two.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

CNN has an interesting article online about a sailor in the U.S. Navy who may have to quit the service because his wife is being threatened with deportation. Here are excerpts:

Eduardo Gonzalez, a petty officer second class with the U.S. Navy, is about to be deployed overseas for a third time. Making his deployment even tougher is the fact his wife may not be around when he comes back.

His wife faces deportation to Guatemala -- her home country that she hasn't seen since 1989. He also doesn't know what would happen to his young son, Eduardo Jr., if that happens.

"I like being in uniform and serving my country, but if she goes back I'm going to have to give it all up and just get out and take care of my son and get a job," he said.

"Defending the country that's trying to kick my family out is a thought that always runs through my mind."

The U.S. military does not have a policy to deal with such cases. Each is handled case-by-case, not by the military, but by immigration authorities. The government doesn't have numbers on how many military members are in predicaments similar to Gonzalez's.

Immigration officials also said marrying a U.S. citizen does not mean the spouse is automatically entitled to U.S. citizenship or permanent legal status.

Article Correction
An earlier version of this story incorrectly stated Eduardo Gonzalez's immigration status when he entered the United States as a boy. He and his family entered the country legally. Lt. Col. Margaret Stock, a member of the U.S. Army Reserves who teaches immigration law at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, New York, said she believes there should be an overall policy dealing with the potential deportation of family members of active duty military members.

"You got to understand. When you're in a combat zone, you need to be focusing all of your energies on fighting the enemy. You can't be worried that your loved ones back home could be shipped off to a foreign country where you're never going to see them again," she said.

Stock also said the government is conflicted about how to treat such cases. On the one hand, the government is supposed to be providing military families with assistance, housing and other forms of benefits while their spouses are overseas. On the other hand, the same government is trying to deport the very same people.

"What's happening right now is, because of the dysfunction and complexity of our immigration laws, we've got people fighting overseas who are facing the impossible situation of having family members facing deportation back home," she said.

In Gonzalez's case, his wife, Mildred, came to the United States with her mother in 1989 when she was 5 years old. They were granted political asylum because of their status as war refugees from Guatemala.

In September 2000, Mildred's mother applied for legalization and included her daughter in that application. Her mother was granted legal status in July 2004, according to Gonzalez.

However, six weeks earlier, Gonzalez and Mildred got married, canceling Mildred's ability to apply for legal status through her mother because she was no longer an unmarried daughter under the age of 21. As a result, her legal status still remains in jeopardy.

A judge in June granted her a one-year extension to remain in the United States. If her legal status does not change by June 8, 2008, she will have 60 days to voluntarily leave the country or face deportation.

That's just fine, according to Mark Krikorian, the executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, which lobbies for tougher laws on illegal immigration.

"What you're talking about is amnesty for illegal immigrants who have a relative in the armed forces, and that's just outrageous," he said. "What we're talking about here is letting lawbreakers get away with their actions just because they have a relative in the military. ... There's no justification for that kind of policy."

Gonzalez said that type of response is unjustified. "I'm trying to make his country better -- my country better -- and it should be her country too."

"I understand the laws have to be followed and guidelines and a system must be maintained, but on the other token, there are times when the situation is just out of their reach," Gonzalez said.

His wife, Mildred, added, "We didn't come here to break the law. We just want to feel safe and have a home just like everybody else."

U.S. Army Sgt. Emmanuel Woko, a member of the Army's 2nd Brigade, 1st Infantry Division who faces his third tour in Iraq, understands just how Gonzalez and his family feel. His wife and children could be sent back to Nigeria.

"My heart is bleeding on the thought that my wife could be deported back to Nigeria while I am deployed in Iraq," he said. "I am extremely distressed and distracted by the thought."

That's a sentiment echoed by Gonzalez: "We are not asking for anything. We are just asking for our families to stay with us."

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

More and more frequently these days, we read of U.S. citizens adopting children from foreign countries. Here is information from the USCIS Web site about inter-country adoptions:

Adopting children from all over the world has steadily increased in the past decade. Over 20,000 inter-country adoptions are taking place per year in addition to the more than 200,000 foreign-adopted children already living in the U.S. The Department of Homeland Security - U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) is proud to play a key role in the inter-country adoption process.

Prospective adoptive parents are encouraged to familiarize themselves with inter-country adoption processes before they begin filing applications for a particular child. A good place to start is with the booklet, The Immigration of Adopted and Prospective Adopted Children.

Prospective adoptive parents may find the services of an adoption agency helpful for guidance and assistance with the immigration of orphans and adopted children. While USCIS cannot recommend specific agencies, we strongly advise prospective adoptive parents to seek out a reputable agency with established foreign adoption experience and/or competent legal representation in their efforts to bring foreign-born orphans into the United States. One place to start looking for an agency is through the adoption advocacy community.

There are two legal ways to bring an adopted child into the country. Please review the differences, as they are important to your successful adoption.

• Immigration/Adoption of child based on 2-years residence through submitting Form I-130: If you adopt a child before the child turns 16 (or 18, as described below), and you live with the child for two years as the child's primary caregiver, then you may file an I-130 petition for an alien relative. The petition may be filed after the 16th (or 18th if a sibling) birthday, and the two years may culminate after the 16th (or 18th) birthday. (Please note that, generally, all qualifying criteria must be established BEFORE the child may enter the U.S.)
• Immigration/Adoption of an orphan through submitting Form I-600: If you adopt or intend to adopt a child who meets the legal definition of an orphan, you may petition for that child at any time prior to the child's 16th (or 18th, as described below) birthday, even if the adoption takes place subsequently (and in certain cases, the adoption does not occur until the child comes to the U.S.).

If you are interested in adopting a child from a particular country, we suggest that you consult the Department of State Website web pages addressing Country-Specific Adoption and Important Notices.

These materials alert prospective adoptive parents to conditions that may develop or already exist in foreign adoption cases. International adoption is essentially a private legal matter between a private individual (or couple) who wishes to adopt, and a foreign court, which operates under that country's laws and regulations. U.S. authorities cannot intervene on behalf of prospective parents with the courts in the country where the adoption takes place. The adoption of a foreign-born orphan does not automatically guarantee the child's eligibility to immigrate to the United States. Also, the adoptive parent needs to be aware of U.S. immigration law and legal regulatory procedures. An orphan cannot legally immigrate to the United States without USCIS processing.

Adopting Older Children - "Aging Out" of Eligibility to Immigrate Through Adoption.

If you are considering adopting an older child, you should be aware of the age limits on eligibility for adoptions and immigration, regardless of whether or not your state laws permit the adoption of older children (or even adults).

U.S. law allows the adoption and immigration of children who are under 16 years of age, with two exceptions:

• Biological siblings of a child adopted by the same parents may be adopted if under 18 years of age; and
• Orphans over the age of 16 may be adopted, as long as the I-600 petition was filed on their behalf before their 16th birthday (or in the case of an orphan who is the sibling of a child adopted by the same parents, before their 18th birthday).

• Print

More and more frequently these days, we read of U.S. citizens adopting children from foreign countries. There was a story on CNN this morning about Guatemalan adoptions. Here is information from the USCIS Web site about inter-country adoptions:

Adopting children from all over the world has steadily increased in the past decade. Over 20,000 inter-country adoptions are taking place per year in addition to the more than 200,000 foreign-adopted children already living in the U.S. The Department of Homeland Security - U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) is proud to play a key role in the inter-country adoption process.

Prospective adoptive parents are encouraged to familiarize themselves with inter-country adoption processes before they begin filing applications for a particular child. A good place to start is with the booklet, The Immigration of Adopted and Prospective Adopted Children.

Prospective adoptive parents may find the services of an adoption agency helpful for guidance and assistance with the immigration of orphans and adopted children. While USCIS cannot recommend specific agencies, we strongly advise prospective adoptive parents to seek out a reputable agency with established foreign adoption experience and/or competent legal representation in their efforts to bring foreign-born orphans into the United States. One place to start looking for an agency is through the adoption advocacy community.

There are two legal ways to bring an adopted child into the country. Please review the differences, as they are important to your successful adoption.

• Immigration/Adoption of child based on 2-years residence through submitting Form I-130: If you adopt a child before the child turns 16 (or 18, as described below), and you live with the child for two years as the child's primary caregiver, then you may file an I-130 petition for an alien relative. The petition may be filed after the 16th (or 18th if a sibling) birthday, and the two years may culminate after the 16th (or 18th) birthday. (Please note that, generally, all qualifying criteria must be established BEFORE the child may enter the U.S.)
• Immigration/Adoption of an orphan through submitting Form I-600: If you adopt or intend to adopt a child who meets the legal definition of an orphan, you may petition for that child at any time prior to the child's 16th (or 18th, as described below) birthday, even if the adoption takes place subsequently (and in certain cases, the adoption does not occur until the child comes to the U.S.).

If you are interested in adopting a child from a particular country, we suggest that you consult the Department of State Website web pages addressing Country-Specific Adoption and Important Notices.

These materials alert prospective adoptive parents to conditions that may develop or already exist in foreign adoption cases. International adoption is essentially a private legal matter between a private individual (or couple) who wishes to adopt, and a foreign court, which operates under that country's laws and regulations. U.S. authorities cannot intervene on behalf of prospective parents with the courts in the country where the adoption takes place. The adoption of a foreign-born orphan does not automatically guarantee the child's eligibility to immigrate to the United States. Also, the adoptive parent needs to be aware of U.S. immigration law and legal regulatory procedures. An orphan cannot legally immigrate to the United States without USCIS processing.

Adopting Older Children - "Aging Out" of Eligibility to Immigrate Through Adoption.

If you are considering adopting an older child, you should be aware of the age limits on eligibility for adoptions and immigration, regardless of whether or not your state laws permit the adoption of older children (or even adults).

U.S. law allows the adoption and immigration of children who are under 16 years of age, with two exceptions:

• Biological siblings of a child adopted by the same parents may be adopted if under 18 years of age; and
• Orphans over the age of 16 may be adopted, as long as the I-600 petition was filed on their behalf before their 16th birthday (or in the case of an orphan who is the sibling of a child adopted by the same parents, before their 18th birthday).

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

These figures go along with yesterday's post, and show the country of origin of current unauthorized immigrants. Mexico is by far the leader, with more immigrants than all other countries combined. Statistics from the Department of Homeland Security.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

My friend René Castilla has written an excellent guest editorial for the Dallas Morning News about the immigration situation in Irving, Texas, his current, and my former, hometown. In fact, this is by far the most rational and logical discussion of the situation that I have seen.

I have posted before about Irving's participation in the Criminal Alien Program, in which the Irving police call the Immigrations and Customs Enforcement department pretty much any time they detain a Latino without proper immigration paperwork. This has resulted in illegal aliens being deported because they committed traffic violations, regardless of the positive contributions they may have made to the community in the years they lived here.

The editorial is so good, I'm going to take the liberty of publishing it in its entirety. Please don't tell  the Dallas Morning News...

When the Irving City Council adopted the Criminal Alien Program earlier this year, it was in response to the mounting pressure from the community and a council member to participate in the federal program 287g, an immigration enforcement section of the Immigration and Naturalization Act.

The majority of the City Council wanted no part of 287g ,and neither did Irving Police Chief Larry Boyd, partly because city jailers would come under the supervision of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement and partly because ICE wants the city to underwrite the cost of implementing the program.The minority community wanted no part of 287g because it gave wide discretion for police officers to pick people off the streets who looked suspiciously Hispanic and maybe undocumented.

Long before the City Council formally adopted the Criminal Alien Program, Chief Boyd established a working relationship with ICE, whose district offices were in Irving and whose nearby agents were invited on a regular basis to make a sweep of Irving jails. ICE did identify criminal illegal aliens and had them deported.

When a resolution came before the city council to adopt the Criminal Alien Program, it did so with the support of the minority leadership of Irving, including those Hispanics outside of Irving who are now organizing protests denouncing the program.

The Criminal Alien Program was seen as a better alternative to 287g. It rid our communities of criminal illegal aliens who were drug dealers and other felons preying on our community.

So why did it turn sour?

ICE moved its office from Irving to Dallas, and the agents who had regularly entered Irving jails were no longer available to make on-site visits. Face-to-face interviews switched to telephone interviews. The procedure now had jailers deciding when to call ICE for a telephone interview with a detainee.

If a jailer can't establish identity, call ICE.

That's the rub.

When it was reported that ICE was now deporting 300 people a month (mostly Hispanic), suspicions were aroused. And rightly so. Individuals were turned over to ICE for traffic violations and failure to provide proper identification, in some cases for public intoxication.

Traffic citations are nothing new. What changed is that now there are consequences for these traffic violations in Irving. ICE is in the picture under the Criminal Alien Program.

What didn't change were the old practices for processing individuals to determine identification. No identification? You speak Spanish? Call ICE. Irving police say this procedure applies to everyone without regard to race. Maybe.

What the demonstrations and shouting matches did was call to our attention that there are flaws in the Criminal Alien Program.

Now that the shouting has stopped, it is time for the mayor, the police chief and the minority leadership in Irving to come up with workable guidelines for the program palatable to all sides.

For example, at what point should jailers call in ICE, especially when they detain Spanish speakers with limited English speaking ability? Entering the United States is a civil offense, not a criminal offense, so why equate one with the other?

Most traffic violations - driving without a license or public intoxication - are all class C misdemeanors. It is certainly less serious than a felony. So maybe felonies should be the triggering mechanism to call in ICE. Failure to show proof of identity is cause for being taken to jail for fingerprinting. But if fingerprinting brings up no criminal record or outstanding warrants, does calling ICE have to be the next step?

These are all important questions for the mayor, police chief and minority leadership in Irving to consider.

There is no indication that the City Council is going to rescind the Criminal Alien Program, even though fear of police is spreading throughout Irving's Hispanic community. Stories of random police stops to check IDs are beginning to surface.

It's time for Irving to take back its city and regain control of a program gone bad. A solution-based dialogue is an important first step.

René Castilla is executive dean of North Lake College South Irving Center and chairman of the Mayor's Human Relations Advisory Committee. His e-mail address is castilla@dcccd.edu.

• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

Here are some interesting statistics from the Department of Homeland Security regarding the states in which illegal immigrants live. California, Texas, and Florida account for almost 50% of all unauthorized immigrants.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The New York Times is reporting today that federal judge Charles R. Breyer has extended for ten more days the tempovary delay in implementing the government's no-match Social Security letter plans. Here are excerpts from the story:

The ban further delayed the start of a rule, which establishes steps an employer must follow after receiving a notice from the Social Security Administration, known as a no-match letter, reporting that an employee's identity information does not match the agency's records. According to the rule, originally scheduled to take effect Sept. 14, if the employee cannot clarify the mismatch within 90 days, the employer would be required to fire the worker or risk prosecution for knowingly hiring illegal immigrants. Those immigrants often provide false Social Security numbers when applying for jobs.

"It is clear to me at this point there would be irreparable harm to the plaintiffs," Judge Breyer commented at the end of the hearing, rejecting the government's main argument. "It just seems to me looking at it that this is a potentially enormous burden on the employer," the judge said, adding that he would issue a ruling within 10 days.

The suit was brought by the American Civil Liberties Union, the A.F.L.-C.I.O. and several San Francisco labor organizations. They were joined by the United States Chamber of Commerce and several national small business associations.

In court documents, the business groups argued that the impact of the rule in terms of hiring and training office workers to comply with the new procedures and deadlines, and firing employees whose discrepancies were not resolved in time, would be "substantial, immediate and irreparable."

The labor organizations said that Social Security's records contained many errors that could lead to legal workers, including American citizens, being unjustly fired under the new rule.

The government countered that the rule did not represent any departure from current immigration laws or impose any new burdens on employers, but was designed to help employers by clarifying past confusion about what they had to do to comply with the law.

• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks