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

If a foreign national is married less than two years to a U.S. Citizen, the alien spouse may be granted conditional permanent resident status in the United States from the time residency is granted. Is there a difference between permanent residence and conditional permanent residence? No. Conditional permanent residents have the same rights, privileges and obligations as permanent residents. The only difference is that conditional permanent residents must file a petition to remove their conditions a year and nine months from the time their residencies are granted.

Alien spouses currently in conditional resident status must not forget to remove their conditions on Form I-751 Petition to Remove Conditions. Such petition should be accompanied with evidence that the alien spouse and U.S. Citizen spouse continue to reside together and have a valid marriage. Supporting documents include utility bills bearing both names, apartment leases showing joint tenancy, joint accounts, and birth certificates of children. The petition to remove the conditions must be filed one year and nine months from the date the alien spouse was granted conditional permanent resident status. Failure to file the petition removing the conditions may result in the termination of the alien spouse's permanent resident status and removal proceedings may be initiated.

If the spouses are divorced before the second anniversary of the date the alien spouse was granted conditional permanent resident status, and the parties cannot file Form I-751 jointly, waivers are available. The alien spouse may be granted the waiver by showing proof that the marriage was entered in good faith, and it would result in extreme hardship if the alien were deported. So if an alien spouse has been granted conditional permanent residence, don't forget to remove your conditions!

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The New York Times is reporting that the Bush administration is backing down from the announced policy of punishing employers who hire illegal immigrants. The proposed rule was to enforce so-called "no match" letters from the Social Security Administration by prosecuting employers who did not fire employees whose Social Security numbers did not match the database of the Social Security Administration. Here are excerpts from the New York Times article:

Instead, the administration plans to revise the rule to try to meet concerns raised by a federal judge and issue it again by late March, hoping to pass court scrutiny on the second try. The rule would have forced employers to fire workers within 90 days if their Social Security information could not be verified.

The government's proposal was a response to an indefinite delay to the rule ordered Oct. 10 by the judge, Charles R. Breyer of Federal District Court in San Francisco. Judge Breyer found that the government had failed to follow proper procedures in issuing the rule and that it should have completed a survey of its impact on small business.

He also found that the Social Security database the government would use to verify workers' status was full of errors, so the rule could lead to the dismissal of many thousands of workers who were American citizens or legal immigrants.

In a four-page motion filed Friday, the government, without acknowledging any flaws in the original rule, asked Judge Breyer to suspend the case so the Department of Homeland Security could rewrite the rule and conduct the small-business survey, which it expects to do by March 24. The government said that it wanted to "prevent the waste of judicial resources" and that it was confident the amended rule would "fully address the court's concerns."

The rule laid out procedures for employers to follow after receiving a notice from the Social Security Administration, known as a no-match letter, advising that an employee's identity information did not match the agency's records.

The employer would have had to fire an employee who could not provide verifiable information within 90 days, or face the risk of prosecution for knowingly hiring illegal immigrants. Those immigrants often present fake Social Security numbers when applying for jobs.

Judge Breyer also stopped Social Security from sending out about 141,000 no-match letters, covering more than eight million workers, which contained instructions from Homeland Security about the rule. Social Security sends the letters to clarify workers' information so it can correctly credit taxes deducted from their wages.

Some businesses welcomed the rule because it clarified what they had to do to avoid immigration raids. But the labor unions cited a report from the inspector general of the Social Security Administration finding that 12.7 million of the records of United States citizens in the agency's database contained errors that could lead to them being fired.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

My friend Reid Trautz is is the Director of the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) Practice and Professionalism Center, where he provides ethics guidance and practice management information and consulting services to AILA members to help them improve their businesses and the delivery of legal services to their clients. Reid is back again with his annual Holiday Gift Guide for Lawyers. If you have a lawyer on your shopping gift (or anyone else, for that matter) you'll find some great gift ideas here:

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

USCIS Reminds Employers to Transition to New

Employment Eligibility Verification Form by Dec. 26, 2007

(Rev. 06/05/07)N printed on the lower right corner of the form) which is now the only version valid for use. In that Nov. 7 announcement, USCIS explained that employers would have 30 days, beginning on the date the Federal Register notice is published, to transition to the revised form. Accordingly, effective Dec. 26, 2007, employers who fail to use the revised form will be subject to applicable penalties.

On Nov. 7, USCIS announced the availability of the revised version of Form I-9 (includes the revision date --

Both the revised form and the "Handbook for Employers, Instructions for Completing the Form I-9" are available online at www.uscis.gov. To order forms, call USCIS toll-free at (800) 870-3676. For forms and information on immigration laws, regulations, and procedures, call the National Customer Service Center at 1-800-375-5283.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The other day, someone asked me which presidential candidate would be best, strictly on immigration reform views. Here is a nice little summary from a Reuters news story:

DEMOCRATS:

New York Sen. Hillary Clinton

Supports a guest worker program for immigrants if it does not undermine U.S. workers' wages and favors giving undocumented workers a way to become legal workers. Backed building border wall. Urges development of an employer verification system and higher penalties for employers who exploit illegal immigrants.

Former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards

Urges doubling the number of Border Patrol agents, installing surveillance technology to police the border and increasing enforcement against employers who hire illegal immigrants. Supports allowing illegal immigrants to become U.S. citizens if they avoid a criminal record, pay a fine and learn English. Against a guest worker program that does not include workplace safeguards.

Illinois Sen. Barack Obama

Backs additional personnel, infrastructure and technology to safeguard U.S. borders and ports. Urges reducing application fees and improving speed and accuracy of FBI background checks for immigrants. Supports a program in which illegal immigrants pay fines, learn English, not violate the law and go to the end of the line to become citizens. Backs creating a program for employers to verify an applicant's immigration status.

REPUBLICANS:

Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani

Supports building the border fence and maintaining 20,000 Border Patrol agents. Urges issuing a single biometric identification card to foreigners, creating a national database and removing those immigrants who have overstayed their visas. Backs deporting illegal immigrants who commit felonies and requiring immigrants to read, write and speak English. Against providing driver's licenses or similar identification to illegal immigrants.

Arizona Sen. John McCain

Initially supported temporary guest worker program for illegal immigrants but has since shifted his position to emphasize border security first.

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney

Backs securing the border with a wall, fence or electronic surveillance. Urges creating a biometric documentation program and establishing a verification system. Supports an increase in legal immigration into the United States and opposes compromise on immigration amnesty. Opposes allowing illegal immigrants to get driver's licenses.

Former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson

Against providing any legal status to illegal immigrants and urges bolstering enforcement against them and their employers. Backs cutting off federal funds to cities that try to restrict communications with the Department of Homeland Security about an individual's immigration status. Urges finishing border wall by 2010, expanding Border Patrol to at least 25,000, making English the official U.S. language and improving the immigration process.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In an article today, the New York Times reports that a recent U.S. Census Bureau study shows that for the first time ever, two Hispanic surnames have broken into the top ten most common names in the United States. Here are excerpts from the article:

Smith remains the most common surname in the United States, according to a new analysis released yesterday by the Census Bureau. But for the first time, two Hispanic surnames -- Garcia and Rodriguez -- are among the top 10 most common in the nation, and Martinez nearly edged out Wilson for 10th place.

The number of Hispanics living in the United States grew by 58 percent in the 1990s to nearly 13 percent of the total population, and cracking the list of top 10 names suggests just how pervasively the Latino migration has permeated everyday American culture.

Garcia moved to No. 8 in 2000, up from No. 18, and Rodriguez jumped to No. 9 from 22nd place. The number of Hispanic surnames among the top 25 doubled, to 6.

Demographers pointed to more than one factor in explaining the increase in Hispanic surnames.

Generations ago, immigration officials sometimes arbitrarily Anglicized or simplified names when foreigners arrived from Europe.

And because recent Hispanic and Asian immigrants might consider themselves more identifiable by their physical characteristics than Europeans do, they are less likely to change their surnames, though they often choose Anglicized first names for their children.

The latest surname count also signaled the growing number of Asians in America. The surname Lee ranked No. 22, with the number of Lees about equally divided between whites and Asians. Lee is a familiar name in China and Korea and in all its variations is described as the most common surname in the world.

Smith -- which would be even more common if all its variations, like Schmidt and Schmitt, were tallied -- is among the names derived from occupations (Miller, which ranks No. 7, is another). Among the most famous early bearers of the name was Capt. John Smith, who helped establish the first permanent English settlement in North America at Jamestown, Va., 400 years ago. As recently as 1950, more Americans were employed as blacksmiths than as psychotherapists.

In 1984, according to the Social Security Administration, nearly 3.4 million Smiths lived in the United States. In 1990, the census counted 2.5 million. By 2000, the Smith population had declined to fewer than 2.4 million. The durability of some of the most common names in American history may also have been perpetuated because slaves either adopted or retained the surnames of their owners. About one in five Smiths are black, as are about one in three Johnsons, Browns, and Joneses and nearly half the people named Williams.

The Census Bureau's analysis found that some surnames were especially associated with race and ethnicity.

More than 96 percent of Yoders, Kruegers, Muellers, Kochs, Schwartzes, Schmitts and Novaks were white. Nearly 90 percent of the Washingtons were black, as were 75 percent of the Jeffersons, 66 percent of the Bookers, 54 percent of the Banks and 53 percent of the Mosleys.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

For the first time in 16 years, the Federal Government has made major changes to the mandatory I-9 Immigration Form. All new employees must fill out these forms. The Department of Homeland Security has announced that the new I-9 form to verify new hire eligibility requirements will include changes that better reflect current employment eligibility verification requirements. Actually, on the revised form, the government has eliminated several documents from List A of the List of Acceptable Documents. These documents eliminated are the Certificate of U.S. Citizenship (Form N-560 or N-570), Certificate of Naturalization (Form N-550 or N-570), Alien Registration Receipt Card (Form I-151), the unexpired Reentry Permit (Form I-327), and the unexpired Refugee Travel Document (Form I-571).

USCIS has made available a 47 page I-9 handbook for employers. The handbook informs employers about the reasons for the I-9 form and gives instructions for proper completion of the form.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

I've written before about the perceived problems with relaxed restrictions on Mexican trucks entering the United States and going beyond the previously set mileage boundaries. There's a blog with a great deal of information about this situation and other, related matters. Check out the Mexico Trucker blog.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

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

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

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

Preface

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

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

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

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

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks