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

The Dallas Morning News reports today that immigration agents raided several companies across the country, and arrested quite a few people for identity theft. Especially hard-hit was a Pilgrim's Pride plant in East Texas. Here are excerpts from the story:

Federal immigration officials on Wednesday arrested more than 280 workers employed at Pilgrim's Pride poultry plants in five states, including Texas, on suspicion of committing identity theft. The crackdown is part of a widening criminal investigation involving workers at the world's largest poultry processor.

"This case is a good example of our efforts to prosecute identity theft that harms credit and the good name of U.S. citizens," said Julie Myers, assistant secretary for the U.S. Homeland Security Department, in a telephone interview from Washington, D.C.

"We have cooperated fully with the government," said Ray Atkinson, a Pilgrim's Pride spokesman, at corporate headquarters in Pittsburg, Texas.

Pilgrim's Pride also participates in a federal government program to voluntarily check Social Security numbers against workers' names in two government databases, Mr. Atkinson said. The program is known as E-Verify. It has been criticized as error-prone and because it can't detect workers who are using authentic Social Security numbers connected to a U.S. citizen or a legal permanent resident.

"Unfortunately, it does not detect ID theft situations," Mr. Atkinson said of E-Verify.

Identity fraud is a felony under federal law, and a growing problem as federal immigration efforts have intensified and workers in the U.S. illegally have looked for ways to avoid detection. Some U.S. citizens, and legal residents, rent or share their Social Security numbers, making detection even more arduous.

In Houston, Dallas and Washington, D.C., advocates for those detained denounced the law enforcement round-ups. Douglas Rivlin of the National Immigration Forum noted the U.S. arrival on Tuesday of Roman Catholic Pope Benedict XVI and the pontiff's message to President Bush on immigration.

"At the same moment that Pope Benedict XVI was admonishing President Bush that the U.S. must treat immigrants with dignity and humanity, the Bush administration was rounding up immigrant workers in raids in at least five states across the country," Mr. Rivlin said in a prepared statement. "What a black eye for the president and for the United States."

Pilgrim's Pride officials have been activists for a comprehensive overhaul of the nation's immigration laws. An attempt at such reform failed last year in Congress. It would have provided a path to citizenship for some of the nation's 12 million illegal immigrants, a guest worker program and toughened enforcement against employers.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

This is a follow-up on the last post about the immigration raid on security guards in Dallas. According to the Dallas Morning News:

Twenty-nine of 49 people picked up in a weekend Immigration and Customs Enforcement sweep targeting illegal immigrants who were working as state-licensed security guards have been sent back to Mexico, officials said Monday.

The U.S. attorney's office is evaluating what charges to pursue against the others still being held at the Bedford Jail, which ICE contracts to use as a short-term detention facility.

Those returned to Mexico were offered a "voluntary return" because none of them would have faced prosecution for criminal charges, ICE Dallas spokesman Carl Rusnok said. "Voluntary return is offered to noncriminal aliens or low-level criminal aliens" – such as for violations that usually result in a ticket, he said.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Dallas Morning News reports today that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement raided more than two dozen mostly Latino night clubs, restaurants, pool halls and other businesses Saturday night, arresting 49 undocumented immigrants employed as security guards. Here are excerpts from the story:

All of those arrested work for two local security companies, which authorities declined to identify Sunday.

At 11 p.m. Saturday, teams made up of local, state and federal officers simultaneously hit 26 businesses in the Love Field area, northwest Dallas, Old East Dallas and Lakewood. No injuries were reported.

Authorities recovered four pistols. Federal law prohibits illegal immigrants from possessing firearms.

Those arrested also face charges of being in the country illegally.

Five of the suspects face charges of document tampering in order to get licensed as a security officer and to carry a firearm, Ms. Bradfield said. That is a third-degree felony, and the punishment range is two to 10 years.

"Hopefully, this operation will help us send a message that we will not tolerate the falsification of documents for undocumented aliens under the guise of providing security," said Dallas County District Attorney Craig Watkins in a statement Sunday.

Four of those arrested were from El Salvador, and the others were Mexican, authorities said.

In addition to ICE and the district attorney's office, the following agencies also participated Saturday night: the U.S. Department of Labor's Office of Inspector General; the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives; the Dallas Police Department; the Texas Department of Public Safety; the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission; and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Texas in Dallas.

Businesses raided

1. Az De Oro Night Club, 3320 Samuel Blvd., Dallas
2. Far West Night Club, 7331 Gaston Ave., Dallas
3. Ojeda's Restaurant, 4617 Maple Ave., Dallas
4. El Penasco, 4601 Maple Ave., Dallas
5. Izalco Bar, 4605 Maple Ave., Dallas
6. Palacio, 4430 Maple Ave., Dallas
7. Metropolis, 8416 Denton Dr., Dallas
8. El Pulpo Restaurant, 2829 W. Northwest Hwy., Suite 330, Dallas
9. Los Compass Deli and Club, 2829 W. Northwest Hwy., Suite 216, Dallas
10. Taqueria Lupita's, Webb Chapel Ext., Dallas
11. Terry's Supermarket, 3025 Webb Chapel Ext., Dallas
12. Extravaganza Restaurant and Bar, 2905 Webb Chapel Ext., Dallas
13. Billares Puebla, 2900 Walnut Hill Lane, Dallas
14. Guerrero Bar, 2900 Walnut Hill Lane, Suite 220, Dallas
15. Exclusiva, 2900 Walnut Hill Ln., Suite 200, Dallas
16. La Frontera, 9744 Harry Hines Blvd., Dallas
17. La Pachanga, 9745 Harry Hines Blvd., Dallas
18. Los Corrales Restaurant and Bar, 10229 Harry Hines Blvd., Dallas
19. El Diamante, 4915 Singleton Blvd., Dallas
20. Club de Cache, 9100 N. Central Exp., Suite 300, Dallas
21. Oficina Billares, 10830 Harry Hines Blvd., Dallas
22. Viva Cafe and Billiards, 2829 W. Northwest Hwy., Suite 330, Dallas
23. Dallas Gentleman's Club, 2117 W. Northwest Hwy., Dallas
24. 039 Club, 1820 W. Mockingbird Ln., Dallas
25. Orienta Night Club II, 8120 Harry Hines Blvd., Dallas
26. La Tormenta, 9834 Brockbank Dr., Dallas

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Los Angeles Times recently ran an interesting story about the abuse of unauthorized immigrants working in car washes in Southern California. Essentially, the immigrants work for tips only, allowing the employers to avoid paying wages or taxes of any type. Fear of deportation keeps the car wash workers from complaining. It's just one more way that mistreatment of illegal aliens allows Americans to pay lower prices for goods and services. Here are excerpts from the story:

A team of state inspectors strode into the Blue Wave Car Wash in West Los Angeles, past latte-sipping customers in electric massage chairs and into the gritty carwash tunnel.

"¿Cuánto gana usted?" the inspectors asked worker after worker, about 20 of them, most Latino immigrants. How much do you make? Each carwashero responded that he earned minimum wage or more -- just as the owner of the Blue Wave, one of the region's busiest carwashes, had told the inspectors.

Looking over payroll records, however, the regulators became suspicious. Employees who said they were full time were listed as working just 10 or 15 hours a week.

Inspector Martha Mendoza ushered Juan Cruz Santiago, a small man with salt-and-pepper hair, away from the others. During gentle questioning under a ficus tree, he admitted that most days, he and his 66-year-old father worked for tips only. So did nearly half the other employees, he said. It had been that way for at least six years.

"It's bad," the 41-year-old Oaxacan immigrant whispered to Mendoza, his eyes darting nervously toward his boss' office. "Other carwashes are the same, no?"

Many are. A Times investigation has found that hand carwashes, automotive beauty shops patronized by tens of thousands of Southern California motorists every day, often brazenly violate basic labor and immigration laws, with little risk of penalty.

Half or more of carwash owners flout the minimum-wage law, estimated David Dorame, the longtime lead investigator for low-wage industries at California's Division of Labor Standards Enforcement.

"Tips only" is a requirement for some new workers until owners are satisfied that they can properly dry a car, laborers said. Their take is typically $10 to $30 a day.

Desperate for a toehold in the region's underground economy, many in the largely undocumented workforce are loath to complain for fear of being fired, physically threatened or deported.

Pedro Guzman, an undocumented Honduran immigrant, said a manager at a Hollywood carwash was able to keep employees washing at a furious pace -- 350 to 700 cars a day -- with two words in ungrammatical Spanish: "Quiere casa?" "Want to go home?"

Immigration authorities have done little to discourage the steady flow of undocumented workers into carwash jobs, affording owners an endless supply of cheap, eager and easily exploited laborers.

Despite the national debate over illegal immigration and a recent crackdown on some employers, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials say they have not raided a single California carwash in at least four years.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Phoenix is the latest city to try to do what the federal government refuses to do -- resolve the nation's perceived illegal immigration problems. Phoenix police will now start asking all people arrested in that city whether they are in the U.S. legally. Here are excerpts from an article in the New York Times:

The police in this city at the center of the immigration debate will soon ask all people arrested whether they are in the United States legally and will in certain cases report the information to the federal authorities, Mayor Phil Gordon announced on Friday.

People stopped for civil traffic violations like speeding will not be questioned, nor will crime victims or witnesses.

All those arrested on criminal charges like drunken driving and murder will be asked by officers whether they are in the United States legally.

The police may decide to recommend checking by Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
The change includes having the police notify the immigration agency about people who are detained but not arrested who officers have “reasonable basis” to believe are illegal immigrants.

A conservative legal group said the policy did not go far enough.

Civil rights advocates suggested that people who appeared to be Latino or spoke with accents would be more likely to be checked than others.

Hispanics make up 34 percent of Phoenix, the nation’s fifth-largest city, with 1.5 million residents.

The program departs from a policy that is more than 10 years old that bars officers from asking people about their legal status in most cases. It also sets Phoenix apart from most other big cities with large immigrant populations, including New York and Los Angeles. The police in those cities generally avoid such questions over fears that they would lead to racial profiling and discourage immigrants from cooperating with the police.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

As another result of the federal government's refusal to take any action regrading immigration reform, more and more local jurisdictions are attempting their own solutions -- usually with poor results and unintended consequences.

The Dallas Morning News reports today that Republican candidates for County Sheriff are incorporating strict immigration enforcement policies into their campaigns, while Democratic candidates are mostly silent on the issue. Here are excerpts:

Sheriff's hopefuls want jail to check for illegal immigrants Dallas County: Most from GOP say jail could detect suspects who are in country illegally

The Dallas County Sheriff's Department isn't doing enough to identify illegal immigrants in the jail, according to some Republican candidates for sheriff.

Illegal immigration, a hot topic locally and nationally, has become an issue in the race for sheriff. Several candidates are addressing it in their campaigns. One of them, Mesquite police Lt. Charlie Richmond, has made it his top issue.

He and fellow Republican candidates Catherine Smit and Jim Bowles say they would apply for special training from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement that would allow jailers to question inmates about their immigration status and detain them for federal authorities.

But former Irving Police Chief Lowell Cannaday said he would prefer to use a model used in Irving in which jailers call ICE at all hours of the day when they suspect an inmate is in the country illegally.

Most of the Democrats in the race don't support such measures.

Sheriff Lupe Valdez, who is running for re-election, says she has no plans to change the current arrangement in which a couple of ICE agents periodically visit the Lew Sterrett Justice Center to question inmates.

All of the Democratic candidates for sheriff except for Lancaster school Police Chief Sam Allen agree that the department is doing all it can and that immigration enforcement is a job best left to the federal government.

When ICE agents determine an inmate is a noncitizen who is deportable, they place a hold or detainer on him so he can be turned over to federal authorities once his local criminal charges are resolved.

That means the inmates must sit in the jail until ICE can pick them up. Between 180 and 230 Dallas County prisoners are released to ICE's custody every month, said Ron Stretcher, the county's criminal justice director.

He said he has not studied the impact of the detainers on the jails' population but that he plans to do so.

"Anytime you place holds or detainers, it's critical that we get a quick response," Mr. Stretcher said, referring to ICE's ability to take custody of inmates.

Mr. Cannaday said some defense attorneys will bond out their clients when they know ICE agents are not inside the jail. He said illegal immigrants must be screened when they are booked into the jail.

Inmates who are booked into the Dallas County jails currently must fill out a form that asks for their country of birth. But jail guards do not use that information to screen for illegal immigrants.

It's an election year, and the question of identifying illegal immigrants in jails has arisen in the Harris County sheriff's race as well.

Harris County Sheriff Tommy Thomas, who is running for re-election, wants his jailers to receive the ICE training to determine the immigration status of noncitizens.

Ms. Smit, the Cockrell Hill police chief who is running as a Republican, said she would work with other law enforcement agencies in the county to develop a coordinated strategy for tackling the problem.

"Every prisoner who comes into intake should be questioned at book-in so ICE agents have an opportunity to get to them before they bond out," she said.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

From the Brownsville Herald comes a story about a recent USCIS proposal to require holders of old green cards with no expiration dates to turn them in and get a newer version. The stated reason for the proposal is to allow USCIS to get current personal contact information on these green card holders.

The problem for green card holders will be that this will give USCIS an opportunity to run criminal background checks, and if any minor infractions of the law are found, the green card holder could be subject to deportation. It's going to be a very tricky matter. Here are excerpts from the article:

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) is considering a proposal to eliminate hundreds of thousands of green cards that were issued between 1979 and 1989.

The cards, which were issued without expiration dates, would be upgraded to store personal information electronically.

Officials at CIS say that the new cards would be more difficult to counterfeit. Like cards issued after 1989, they will expire every ten years.

"The photos on the old cards are more than 18 years old," said Sharon Rummery, a spokesperson for CIS, "and the security features are not as good." She explained that the new card includes holograms of U.S. presidents, which are difficult to duplicate.

CIS is currently reviewing comments that have been submitted in response to the proposal. As of now, there is no timeline for implementation.

If the proposal, which was issued on Aug. 22, moves forward, legal permanent residents would have 120 days to apply for new cards. Failure to comply with this would be a misdemeanor, which could result in $100 fine and/or imprisonment of up to 30 days.

Immigration attorneys are concerned about the financial burden their clients will bear if the proposal is implemented. The card costs $290 plus an additional $80 for fingerprinting and photo fees.

Permanent residents who replace their green cards will also be subject to criminal background checks. If an infraction--even one as minor as a traffic citation--is uncovered, they might be asked to provide relevant paperwork, including proof of an indictment and its dismissal.

• 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

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

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

The news (and protests) about the City of Irving's policy of reporting the immigration status of everyone stopped for a traffic violation or detained by the police for any other reason has many immigrants afraid to live in or even drive through Irving.

Whether you're a legal or illegal immigrant or an American citizen, it can be helpful to know how best to avoid being stopped by the police for any reason.

First and foremost, know and obey all traffic laws. The best source for learning the rights and responsibilities of Texas drivers is the Texas Drivers Handbook, available free from the Web site of the Texas Department of Public Safety.

Obviously the police will, and should, stop any driver who runs a red light, speeds, doesn't come to a complete stop at a stop sign, or commits some other major traffic violation. But police look for other, less obvious, driving errors also. They are trained to do this in order to get drunk drivers off the road, but it's a good idea for each of us to know what activities might catch the eye of a patrol officer.

There are preventive steps you can take to avoid being stopped. Many of these steps will help you avoid making the driving mistakes that might lead a police officer to decide to pull you over.

Let's assume you are about to drive a car. If you are at all uncomfortable or unfamiliar with the car you are driving, you are much more likely to make mistakes or drive erratically. And if you are not driving well, you are more likely to get stopped by a police officer.

If you are driving a car you are not used to--a friend's car, a car you just bought, or a car you have not driven in awhile--it is important that you take a moment to remind yourself where everything is before you start to drive: emergency brake, transmission, turn signals, windshield wipers, headlights, high beams, hazard lights, and so on. To get an overall feel for the car, just grip the steering wheel and put your foot on the brake. Also make sure that the seat and steering wheel are adjusted properly for you.

Taking a few seconds to do this is especially important if you are used to driving a car with a different kind of transmission. If, say, you are driving an automatic when you are accustomed to a manual, spending a minute or two to familiarize yourself with the car can make the difference between getting where you are going safely and slamming on the brake in a frantic search for a non-existent clutch.

Also make sure everything on the outside of your vehicle is in working order and that your vehicle registration tags are current. Police officers often use a minor vehicle infraction like broken taillights or expired registration tags as a reason to stop a vehicle. Things like broken taillights are especially likely to get you pulled over at night when they can be easily seen.

Before you start driving, know where you are going, how to get there, and how to get back home. Getting lost and trying to find the right road will inevitably lead to errors in your driving.

If the unfortunate occurs, and you are stopped, know your rights and what to expect when you are pulled over.

If you have any questions about these matters, please contact Kraft & Associates.

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

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Dallas Morning News has an article today about a large protest of the immigration policies of the city of Irving, a suburb of Dallas. In a nutshell, Irving's policy is to check the immigration status of anyone detained or arrested in the city. This has resulted in a very large number of immigrants who have been deported after being stopped for a traffic violation or other minor infraction.

Obviously there are two schools of thought on this subject. One is that any person here illegally should be found and deported. The other is that a city has no business trying to enforce a federal law, and it's disruptive to the community and to the lives of individuals for good, hard-working people to be deported just because they got traffic tickets.

Here are excerpts from the Dallas Morning News article:

Angered over a record number of recent deportations in Irving, more than 1,000 protesters waved U.S. flags and chanted "We are America" as they rallied Wednesday night at City Hall.

Demonstrators called for Irving officials to put a moratorium on turning over suspected illegal immigrants to federal officials until immigration laws are reformed nationally. They also urged people to call Mayor Herbert Gears and ask him to stop deporting people from the city's jail.

"We need to raise our voice and we need to ask for changes about the things we don't like here," said Hector Flores, a leader in Irving's Hispanic community.

A few people who support the deportations carried signs in favor of the illegal immigration enforcement.

"Our compassion starts at home, and our charity starts at home," said Sue Richardson, a longtime Irving resident and vice president of the Greater Irving Republican Club.

At the heart of the contention is Irving police's use of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement's Criminal Alien Program. The plan provides for round-the-clock communication with federal authorities and is designed to detain illegal immigrants who have been accused of a crime. It's the latest tool being used by local governments in the absence of a federal overhaul of immigration laws.

"It does not deal with illegal aliens; it deals with criminal illegal aliens," said Irving City Council member Tom Spink.

Tensions over the practice have simmered for months among residents, officials and City Council colleagues. But the program has recently become a lightning rod for controversy with publicity about the growing number of people Irving police hand over to federal officials for deportation each month.

Opponents say police are overzealous. Supporters believe the program is the perfect answer to a national problem. And some residents and council members say police still aren't going far enough to combat illegal immigration.

Irving police have turned over at least 1,600 people to Immigration and Customs Enforcement since June 2006. In response, Mexican Consul Enrique Hubbard Urrea last week warned immigrants from his country to avoid Irving. And community leader Carlos Quintanilla said he would organize a boycott of Irving businesses if the city persisted.

Opponents of the program say Irving police are unfairly targeting Hispanics. They say that many Hispanics have become afraid of police and that families are being torn apart as parents are deported thousands of miles from their children.

"This isn't justice," said Deyla Reyes, a Northlake College student. "We need to stop this. These people have come here to work. We cannot support this program."

Many people at the rally accused Irving police of racial profiling and turning Hispanics over for deportation because of minor traffic infractions.

"We're not just hurting people driving without driver's licenses," said Luis DeLaGarza, a political consultant who helped organize the rally. "We are hurting the economy in Irving. We need to have immigration reform."

Mr. Gears said a major part of the problem isn't Irving's policy. Instead, it's lack of knowledge of the law. He said many people - including natural-born citizens and legal immigrants - aren't aware of consequences that come with traffic citations, which can include license suspension. And many minorities, he said, wrongly assume that police officers who ask for identification are trying to prove citizenship.

Mr. Gears said he has overseen investigations into every complaint about the program but has found no wrongdoing or malice on the department's part.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) made a statement on their Web site yesterday that Federal immigration officials had illegally deported a U.S. citizen last month. Pedro Guzman, who is 29 years old, is currently missing in Mexico.

Mr. Guzman was born in Los Angeles and raised in California. He was serving time in jail for a minor misdemeanor offense when he was deported to Tijuana on May 10, 2007. Mr. Guzman is developmentally disabled, does not read or write English well, and knows no one in Tijuana.

Currently, it is not clear why Mr. Guzman was removed from the United States. The ACLU of Southern California stated that even though he was deported illegally, Federal officials in the United States have refused requests from family members to assist in the search for Mr. Guzman. The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, in a written statement, denied that Guzman's deportation, which followed immigration checks at the jail, was improper.

Unfortunately, this is not the first time a U.S. citizen has wrongfully been deported from the United States. There are documented cases where citizens have been deported, usually to Mexico. Although this rarely happens, the most common scenario is when a person automatically becomes a citizen (usually through a parent who naturalizes) and never realizes that he or she has also acquired U.S. citizenship. It is extremely rare to hear of a case like Mr. Guzman's, who was born and raised in the U.S., and then deported as an adult to Mexico.

Under federal immigration law, there are absolutely no circumstances which allow a citizen to be deported if they were born in the United States. For those who naturalize in the U.S., the only basis for deportation is if they lied or committed fraud on their citizenship applications.

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

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The American Civil Liberties Union has officially filed a lawsuit against federal immigration officials at the T. Don Hutto immigration detention facility that is located in Tyler, Texas. The lawsuit is brought on behalf of the children confined at this facility.

The ACLU claims in its lawsuit that both adults and children are being detained at this facility in jail-like conditions and that the children are not being provided with adequate schooling or medical care. The ACLU also states that the children are not allowed to bring either books or toys into the facility.

Many of the people who are currently detained in the facility are those who are seeking asylum in the United States. They could potentially wait more than 200 days before they are scheduled for a hearing with an immigration judge who would decide whether they will stay in the U.S. or be deported.

The ACLU's main argument for the release of the children from the detention facility is that it is against the law and against American values to place children in a jail-like setting, without access to school or recreation.

• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

On September 30, 2001, a Palestinian family, the Ibrahims, entered the U.S. on tourist and business visas. They were unable to return home, however, since that would require traveling through Israel and Jordan. This was impossible since their temporary Jordanian passports had expired and Israel does not allow Palestinians to return home through that country.

Unable to return home, the Ibrahims applied for asylum, but their case was denied. A deportation order was issued for them to return home. Once again, this was impossible for the Ibrahim family. The family members were then classified as "stateless," which implies that they have no country to be deported to.

Three months ago, however, the family was arrested during a raid at their Richardson apartment by immigration enforcement officers. The arrest came over two years after the family's request for asylum was denied. The family, which includes Salaheddin Ibrahim, his wife and four children, are now being held in a detention facility in Taylor, Texas. Mr. Ibrahim's wife is also five months pregnant.

Much attention has been drawn to this case since four children, who range from the ages of five to fifteen, are also being detained. Lawyers who are working to help the Ibrahims, have taken action in federal district court so that the family may be released.

The lawyers representing the Ibrahim family contend that there is no justification for the detention of the family or the young children. The petition seeking their release notes that the children have been traumatized by being held in a jail like setting and are being deprived of education. The lawyers also argue that there is no basis for detention since the family does not pose a flight risk or a danger to the community.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Introduction

For non-citizens, the immigration consequences of a criminal conviction may be far greater than any punishment of jail time, probation or a fine. For those non-citizens who are convicted of crimes, particularly those given state or federal prison sentences, Immigration Services will most likely begin proceedings to deport them from the United States. In many cases deportation will result regardless of the length of time in the United States, family ties in the United States, or even the severity of the crime committed.

Based on a criminal conviction, a client might be subject to deportation, and in some cases be permanently barred from the United States. In other cases, criminal conduct may preclude a finding of good moral character under the Immigration and Nationality Act, which is a requirement for naturalization.

In other situations, the immigration consequences of criminal activity can include delays in obtaining visas to the U.S. and denial of immigration benefits while in the United States.

To complicate matters, the Immigration and Nationality Act has developed its own definition for what constitutes a "conviction." For example, the definition of "conviction" includes a guilty plea or deferred adjudication. This ambiguity in the definition of conviction has led to attorneys erroneously advising their clients to accept deferred adjudication believing that this would not constitute a conviction under immigration law.


Deportation Issues

An alien with a criminal record may be barred from admission to the United States. In general, among others, crimes of moral turpitude, drug offenses, multiple offenses, and engaging in prostitution or procuring prostitutes within the past ten years will be considered as criminal grounds and can make the alien subject to being barred from future legal admission to the United States.

Additionally, most drug offenses under the U.S. immigration laws may result in deportation from the United States, depending on the type of controlled substance involved. This includes violations of any law or regulation relating to a controlled substance, no matter whether the law is federal, state or foreign. These laws cover persons with a past conviction or admission of committing offenses. They may also include any person that a USCIS officer knows, or has reason to believe, is a drug trafficker.


Naturalization Issues

When applying for citizenship, it is necessary to show that the applicant has been a person of "good moral character" for the past five years. If there was any criminal conviction during this period, however, it is possible that the naturalization application will be denied.

Additionally, if a criminal conviction is brought to light while applying for naturalization, a person may be placed in removal proceedings. There is a wide variety of acts (some that do not even need to result in a criminal conviction) that will result in a person's application for naturalization being denied.

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

• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

Immigration courts have often deported immigrants residing in the United States for minor drug offenses. This occurred because under the Immigration and Nationality Act any immigrant convicted of an aggravated felony was deportable. An aggravated felony included any felony punishable under the Controlled Substances Act.

As a result of this, thousands of immigrants were deported from the United States. Minor drug convictions under state law were being used to remove aliens from the U.S. However, the U.S. Supreme Court decided on December 5, 2006, that immigration courts cannot deport aliens convicted of minor state drug offenses that are not felonies under federal law.

Immigration is currently regulated under federal law. Therefore, in order for a person to be deported, the offense committed must be considered to be an aggravated felony under federal law, regardless of its categorization under state law.

Currently, those who are convicted of misdemeanors (both felony and state) are allowed to apply for certain waivers if they are placed in removal proceedings. This is not an option for those who have been convicted of felonies. The Supreme Court now holds that the only time when a waiver is not available to an immigrant in deportation proceedings is for a crime that is a felony under federal law.

The decision by the Supreme Court will certainly reduce the number of people who are deported from the United States each year for minor drug offenses. The Supreme Court also made it easier for some immigrants convicted of drug possession under state law to remain in the country.

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

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks