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

Columnist Reuben Navarrette has spoken out about President Obama's near non-mention of immigration reform in the State of the Union speech. Navarrette is concerned that the president will not push for meaningful reform, but will simply work on increased enforcement, which is the one area that gets a consensus opinion. I'm taking the liberty of printing the full column because it's important to read it all.

Thirty-seven words. In this week's State of the Union address -- which was more than 7,000 words long and lasted longer than an hour -- all President Obama devoted to the issue of immigration reform was 37 measly words.

Here they are: "And we should continue the work of fixing our broken immigration system -- to secure our borders, enforce our laws and ensure that everyone who plays by the rules can contribute to our economy and enrich our nation."

It's disappointing that Obama didn't spend more time on this pressing issue -- but not surprising. Even though, elsewhere in the speech, Obama reminded Democrats in Congress that "the people expect us to solve problems, not run for the hills," this White House spent the first year in office running for the hills on immigration reform.

In fact, Obama's chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, once referred to the issue as the real "third rail" of American politics. You touch it, you die.

Every immigration reform advocate in the country -- including many Latinos -- should be disappointed in Obama. Many of them bought the fairy tale that a Democratic president would magically be more committed to immigration reform than a Republican one. And they expected Obama to make good on the promise he made, while addressing the annual meeting of the National Council of La Raza in July 2008 as a candidate, to treat comprehensive immigration reform as "a top priority in my first year as president."

That obviously didn't happen. And, regardless of what Obama's defenders say, it wasn't just because the president found other things to do. The truth is that immigration reform was always going to be an especially tough issue for Democrats since it splits the liberal coalition with Latinos on one side and organized labor on the other.

While many unions support giving illegal immigrants a shot at legal status, they balk at another element in the mix: guest workers, which organized labor claims would undermine U.S. workers who would -- even as we speak -- be happily doing the dirtiest and most dangerous jobs if foreign workers hadn't beaten them to it.

As for what Obama said in his speech, you'll notice that he was careful not to use hot-button phrases: "comprehensive immigration reform," "guest workers," "earned legalization." He was just as careful to emphasize positive phrases: "enforce our laws," "contribute to our economy," "enrich our nation."

Oh brother. Those 37 words must have been focus-grouped 100 times.

Next, Obama also played it safe by basically selling the rhetorical equivalent of mom, puppies and apple pie. By limiting his immigration remarks to feel-good generalities, the president decreased the likelihood of being attacked by opponents.

How does someone oppose "fixing our broken immigration system" or a call to "secure our borders"?

And finally, in going to bat for "everyone who plays by the rules," Obama can't very well be talking about illegal immigrants since they didn't play the rules to get here, stay here or work here. In fact, they are, by their very nature, rule breakers.

So either Obama is telegraphing that he won't be aggressively pursuing a path to earned legalization for illegal immigrants and will instead focus on the low-hanging fruit of enforcement only, or he is redefining what it means to "play by the rules," and what he means is that he aims to help those illegal immigrants who -- having broken the rules to get here -- might now be willing to adhere to a set of conditions to stay here.

There's a big difference between those two approaches, and only time will tell what the president is prepared to do to -- as he said -- fix a broken system.

Obama had it right the first time when he was campaigning for president. The answer is comprehensive immigration reform. "Enforcement only" won't work because it never does. It's just another way for lawmakers to take the easy way out, and -- as Obama said -- run for the hills.

Our elected officials need to grab the immigration issue whole with a comprehensive approach that includes: 

• Guest workers to do jobs Americans won't do at any wage;

• A tamper-proof identification card for all U.S. workers to help employers know who is legally eligible to work;

• New employer sanctions that include stiffer fines and jail time for repeat offenders;

• A condition-laden pathway to earned legalization for illegal immigrants who have been in the United States since before 2005;

• More workplace raids and speedier deportations to deal with those who can't or won't meet those conditions;

• A revamping of the immigration system for legal immigrants so that we put more emphasis on the demands of the labor market and less on family reunification;

• A ban on welfare and other social aid programs for those legalized with the exception of emergency health care;

• And efforts to secure the border, not with walls to nowhere but with better and smarter technology that helps Border Patrol agents stay one step ahead in their ongoing battle of wits with immigrant smugglers.

Mr. President, there is no way to say all that in 37 words.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

This press release is from the Immigration Policy Center:
 
December 15, 2009
 
Washington D.C. - Today, Congressman Luis V. Gutierrez (D-IL) introduced the Comprehensive Immigration Reform for America's Security and Prosperity Act of 2009 (CIR ASAP), in the House of Representatives.  The 87 original co-sponsors of the bill include members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, Black Caucus, Asian Pacific American Caucus, and Progressive Caucus.
 
The necessity of comprehensive immigration reform stems from a long-neglected immigration system that has failed to keep up with our nation's changing needs, resulting in breakdowns that have crippled our ability to regulate immigration adequately, protect our borders, reunite families, and foster economic opportunity.
 
The CIR ASAP bill includes many of the elements necessary to bring our immigration system in tune with the current social and economic demands of our nation including, family reunification, restoration of judicial discretion, a generous legalization program, sensible law enforcement, and creative, if untested, answers to future immigration flows.
 
"Our current immigration system fails to reflect the realities of 21st century America, and CIR ASAP begins to deal with these failings and sets us on a path towards enacting fair and humane immigration policies," said Mary Giovagnoli, Director of the Immigration Policy Center. "We need to move forward, even in tough economic times, if we wish to ensure the future growth and prosperity of our nation. Introduction of this bill jump starts the New Year, providing a vehicle for other lawmakers to react to and build upon. We expect many more proposals in the Senate and House in the coming months and urge lawmakers to make this a fact-based debate with the goal of passing reform in 2010."
 
"While the Gutierrez bill doesn't have all the answers, it begins the dialogue in Congress," said Ben Johnson, Executive Director of the American Immigration Council. "The bill reflects the political realities within the House of Representatives, and as such does not include some of the necessary reforms for ensuring economic prosperity which Gutierrez has long supported. It is clear that what makes good policy does not always make good politics. However, the bill makes a significant contribution to restoring due process and discretion to the immigration system, and serves as a starting point for bringing more voices to the table."

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The U.S. Department of State (DOS) published a proposed rule today to increase the non-immigrant visa (NIV) application processing fees, also called Machine-Readable Visa (MRV) and Border Crossing Card (BCC) fees. The increase would apply to NIV in passports and to BCC issued to applicants in Mexico.
 
The rule proposes to increase the fee for visas that are not petition-based from $131 to $140. Examples of non-petition based visas are B-1/B-2 tourist visas, F-1 student visas. Petition-based visas would increase their application fees to $150. Petition-based visas include H visa for temporary workers, L visa for intracompany transferees, O visa for extraordinary ability, P for athletes, artists and entertainers, Q visa for international cultural exchange visitors, R visa for religious workers. K visas for fiancés would increase to $350 and E visas for treaty-traders and treaty-investors would increase to $390.
 
It is important to note the DOS has only proposed the new rule. Only when the DOS publishes the final rule will the changes become effective.  

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

This excellent editorial appeared recently in the Dallas Morning News:

The Obama administration deserves credit for tenacity. Like Rocky Balboa after being battered and bloodied by successive bouts on Capitol Hill over health care and the economy, the administration keeps coming back for more. Now comes Barocky III: Comprehensive Immigration Reform.

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano announced Friday that the administration will seek to overhaul the immigration system early next year. She wants a tighter law to punish illegal immigrants and the employers who hire them, improved measures to encourage migrants to choose the legal route, and a "tough but fair" pathway for the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in this country to legalize their status.

The last time such a feat was attempted, in 2007, President George W. Bush was abandoned by his party and suffered a crushing defeat in the Senate. There's no assurance President Barack Obama will fare any better, despite his party's Capitol Hill majority. Bipartisan cooperation in writing the new bill also is no guarantee of success.

To fend off conservative attacks that this measure would amount to nothing more than amnesty, Obama must put strong emphasis on the toughness of his proposed legalization procedures. Napolitano says that the legalization process could take years to complete and would involve rigorous procedures to verify that an applicant has no criminal background, has learned English and has fully paid back taxes and substantial fines for entering the country illegally.

Since illegal immigrants come here looking for work, she says, the bill will seek stiffer punishments for employers who hire them. Napolitano also promises tighter border enforcement, even though illegal crossings already have dropped significantly. The Border Patrol has grown by 20,000 officers, and more than 600 miles of border fencing has been installed, fulfilling two key benchmarks set by Congress in 2007.

Having supported the Bush plan, this newspaper believes that the Obama administration is on the right track, particularly with its decision to press the issue sooner rather than wait until after next November's elections. The timing here shows admirable political guts.

There are upsides. Approval could generate support from an increasingly important Hispanic electorate. By drawing illegal immigrants out of the shadows, the new law promises to add workers to the tax rolls and increase American blue-collar labor's competitiveness by ensuring that they won't be undercut by cheaper illegal workers. If illegal immigrants don't want to comply, their room to maneuver in the job market would diminish while their incentives to go home would jump dramatically.

The nation's immigration system has limped along, broken for far too long, but there should be no illusions that fixing it will be easy. As Capitol Hill bouts go, this fight looks to be a bruiser.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

“If we are truly going to fix a broken system, Congress will have to act”
 
The following is a statement from Lynn Tramonte, Deputy Director of America’s Voice:

We have entered a new chapter and a new phase in the immigration debate.  Secretary Napolitano today laid out the framework for fixing the broken immigration system, and the solution is comprehensive immigration reform.  Drawing on her years of experience on the southwest border, and her new role as the nation’s top homeland security official, she said that we need Congress to pass comprehensive immigration reform, and create immigration laws that truly work for our country.
 
Reform will secure the border, protect all workers, and require undocumented immigrants to register for legal status, pay fines and taxes, clear background checks, and get in line for citizenship.  This will benefit all Americans by strengthening the rule of law, bringing in more taxpayers, cutting costs for enforcement, and making our nation’s borders stronger and safer.  Now is the time for Congress to take the next step and pass legislation that would accomplish these goals.
 
As Secretary Napolitano pointed out, the American people support comprehensive immigration reform, and the debate we are about to engage in is not the same old debate.  Law enforcement, labor, business, faith, and community leaders are all demanding comprehensive reform for our nation’s security, economy, workers, and families.  We have a new President, who was elected because he promised to address important problems like this with practical solutions.  We have a new Congress, with leaders who also promised change and progress to the American people.
 
The Secretary’s speech today was an important moment, but it was just the opening bell.  It’s now time for Congress and the Administration to put serious muscle behind advancing the proposal – and it’s time for politicians of all political parties to set aside partisanship and demagoguery, and do what’s right for the country.   

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

The Los Angeles Times reports that Senator Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) favors requiring every eligible worker in America to obtain a "forgery-proof" worker identification (ID) card to show proof of ability to work. Schumer intends to lead the Senate’s effort at comprehensive immigration reform and also called the ID card “the best way to ensure that all workers are authorized to work” in the U.S.
 
In his 2007 book, “Positively American,” Senator Schumer asserted that “the ID will make it easy for employers to avoid undocumented workers, which will allow for tough sanctions against employers who break the law, which will lead to no jobs being available for illegal immigrants, which will stop illegal immigration.” Senator Schumer also believes that, “once Americans are convinced that we will permanently staunch the flow of illegal immigration, they will be more willing to accept constructing a path toward earned citizenship for those who are already here.”
 
While many business and community organizations also favor the idea of a worker ID card, labor activists and organizations like the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) fear violations of civil rights, possible intrusions into private lives, and the expense to workers.
 
U.S. Chamber of Commerce spokesman Angelo Amador argues that U.S. employers never truly know whether the identifications presented by workers now are genuine. Also, anyone presenting the new worker ID card would be assumed legally able to work, subject to confirmation by checking on a national database.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

On Thursday, May 14, 2009, Senator Diane Feinstein introduced a bill, nicknamed the “AgJobs Bill,” that seeks to grant amnesty for up to 1.35 million farm workers working in the country illegally, primarily in California. Feinstein and other legislators proposed the AgJobs Bill numerous times over the last decade but were met with fierce opposition. However, supporters of the bill – including the United Farm Workers of America and other worker advocates – are now hoping the legislation will become a legal reality under the Obama administration.
 
Generally, the AgJobs Bill would allow foreign farm workers who have been working illegally in the United States for at least two years to earn a path toward becoming legal permanent residents.  Workers' family members would also be eligible for legal permanent residency, which could bring the number of legalized farm workers to approximately two million people. The bill would also focus on overhauling a program that aims to recruit foreign workers for seasonal jobs on American farms, where profitable construction jobs have tended to lure workers away.
 
For more information on Senator Feinstein and the AgJobs Bill, please visit: http://feinstein.senate.gov/public. For additional information on this news story, please visit: http://www.mercurynews.com/breakingnews/ci_12370678.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

On May 18, 2009, the Texas Senate passed a bill requiring Sheriffs or any other officers in charge of a correctional facility, to determine the “citizenship status” of all convicted felons. The bill, S.B 2584, amends Chapter 2, Code of Criminal Procedure, by adding Article 2.245. If a defendant has been convicted of a felony under Title 5 (Offenses Against the Person), Penal Code, Title 6 (Offenses Against the Family), Penal Code, Title 7 (Offenses Against Property), Penal Code, Chapter 43 (Public Indecency), Title 9 (Offenses Against Public Order and Decency), Penal Code, Chapter 45 (Weapons), Title 10 (Offenses Against Public Health, Safety, and Morals), Penal Code, and Chapter 481 (Texas Controlled Substances Act), Health and Safety Code, the sheriff or officer will make a reasonable effort to determine the defendant’s “citizenship status”. If the sheriff has reason to believe the defendant is a foreign national, within 48 hours after the defendant is received at the correctional facility, the sheriff or officer will contact the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to verify the defendant’s immigration status. The bill becomes effective September 1, 2009.

The bill places “sheriffs or other officers in charge of a correctional facility” in the role of immigration agents. The sheriff or officer now has another duty, to determine whether defendants have lawful status. The bill is available at Texas Legislature Online.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Parade.com has an interesting story about U.S. passports, and the ease with which they can be fraudulently obtained. This is apparently a big problem, and should be addressed as soon as possible by the government. Here are excerpts from the article: 

Alarmed by a government report revealing how easy it is to obtain a fraudulent passport in the United States, lawmakers are calling for changes to the system. “A U.S. passport is a key to virtually anywhere in the world,” says Sen. Jon Kyl (R., Ariz.). A recent report from the Government Accountability Office showed that an undercover investigator was able to procure four U.S. passports by using fraudulent documents.

Says Laura Tischler, a spokesperson for the U.S. Department of State, “The report says we need to do more, and we are doing more.” The State Department recently gained access to the Social Security Administration’s master file of deceased persons to ensure that criminals won’t steal those identities. It is also improving oversight of the passport system and seeking access to state databases so that officials can confirm the validity of drivers’ licenses and other documentation.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Respected financial columnist Scott Burns, in a Dallas Morning News article today, reports a unique proposition to solve our country's housing crisis by opening the borders to immigrants who can afford to buy homes in the United States, and then granting citizenship to those immigrants. While this is an economic solution and not an immigration solution, I thought the article was worth mentioning. Here are excerpts from the column:

Our friends in Washington continue to reward witless members of the financial sector. Meanwhile, those of us who don't fly Bonus Class are thinking about importing guillotines from France.

Thankfully, we may not need to place the order.

All we have to do is to get Washington to listen to the best idea I've heard to end the decline of housing prices and restore our confidence in the most important asset most Americans ever own. The idea comes from economist A. Gary Shilling and real estate developer Richard S. Lefrak.

Their suggestion: Don't think about artificially low mortgage interest rates and other stopgaps. Instead, eliminate the oversupply of houses. And, by the way, don't spend a dime of taxpayer money doing it.

How can this be done? Simple: Open our borders to immigrants who can buy a home in the U.S. Let a million immigrants a year do this for two years, and the entire oversupply of homes and condos will be absorbed. Supply will no longer dwarf demand. Prices will stabilize. The most important asset owned by the vast majority of Americans will, once again, be a source of pride and security.

There has been much attention paid to the incredible decline of equity markets around the world, but the vast majority of Americans have far more at risk in the housing market than in any financial asset (bank accounts, stocks, bonds, mutual funds, etc). Indeed, many Americans have more at risk in the used-car market than in the stock market.

The middle-income

Households in the middle of the income distribution owned a primary home worth a median of $150,000 but had median financial assets of only $18,600. Middle-income Americans, in other words, have about eight times as much to lose in the home resale market as in all of the financial markets.

Shilling estimates that we built 6.7 million excess houses during the boom from 1996 to 2005. Of that number, 3.9 million were built to make up for underbuilding during the 1987-1991 S&L collapse. That leaves an excess of 2.8 million homes – about two years of building. He estimates that less building in 2007 and 2008 reduced the surplus to about 2.4 million houses.

Influx of buyers

Reducing interest rates or resetting mortgage payments won't reduce that surplus. The only way it will disappear is if new customers appear and buy those homes. The fastest way to do this is to offer citizenship to immigrants as a reward for buying a home in America.

Here's the formula: Buy a home. Save America. Become a citizen. It's a suggestion that's admirably direct compared to the expensive, complex programs that Congress has already funded.

Shilling writes: "If the current excess of 2.4 million houses were purchased at today's median home price of about $184,000, the inflow from foreigners would be $88 billion, assuming they put 20 percent down and borrowed the rest in this country.

"If they paid cash, the inflow would be $442 billion. Besides stimulating the domestic economy, this would vastly help the U.S. foreign accounts and support the dollar. The mere announcement of this program would probably go a long way toward stabilizing house prices."

And stabilizing house prices is very important. It may be the whole ballgame. Without productive action, Shilling estimates home prices will fall an additional 20 percent by the end of 2010. That would leave nearly 25 million homeowners upside down, or owing more on their homes than they are worth.

This is something worth writing about to your representative or senator.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks

Today's Dallas Morning News has a good editorial about obstacles to be faced in enacting immigration reform legislation with a new administration and new Congress. Bottom line - it won't be easy, but it must be done. Here is the editorial:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid perked up some ears last week when he told Gannett News that Congress will follow up on the post-election agreement between President-elect Barack Obama and Sen. John McCain to move forward on reforming immigration laws.

We weren't in the room when those erstwhile rivals met, but hallelujah, if that's what they agreed to do. States like Texas and cities like Flower Mound live daily with Washington's failure to create saner immigration laws, including a temporary guest-worker program and a way for illegal immigrants to earn citizenship.

What worries us is that this task may be more of a battle than Mr. Reid envisions. The Nevada Democrat says he doesn't expect "much of a fight at all."

True, some circumstances have changed since the Senate failed to overhaul immigration laws in 2006 and 2007. For one thing, there are fewer illegal workers because of stronger enforcement of our borders and our economy's retreat.

But let's not kid ourselves. Obstacles remain.

Interestingly, the bigger ones could come from the left, rather than the right. In the Senate's previous debates, labor, civil libertarians and other parts of the Democratic left were content to largely let the Republican right kill the reform effort.

Now Democrats run Washington, and Mr. Reid must fend off his left flank if immigration reform is to have any meaning. That includes ensuring that labor doesn't sharply restrict the number of guest workers, which union leaders quietly tried to do in 2007.

Another obstacle is the economy. Mr. Obama must balance various constituencies as he lines up votes for his economic plans. That includes winning Republican votes, which are needed so partisanship doesn't overrun efforts to stabilize the economy. Getting them could be made trickier if Mr. Obama presses too hard on immigration.

That said, Mr. Reid's comments encourage us. Certainly, Mr. Obama needs to deliver. He handily won the Hispanic vote, largely because Latinos considered him the stronger champion of fair immigration laws. He has a tricky task ahead, but we all have a stake in him making good on his promise.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Bill Gates appeared before Congress again last week to make a simple point to simpler pols: The ridiculously low annual cap on H-1B visas for foreign professionals is undermining the ability of U.S. companies to compete in a global marketplace.


"Congress's failure to pass high-skill immigration reform has exacerbated an already grave situation," said the Microsoft chairman. "The current base cap of 65,000 H-1B visas is arbitrarily set and bears no relation to the U.S. economy's demand for skilled workers."

The Labor Department projects that by 2014 there will be more than two million job openings in science, technology, engineering and math fields. But the number of Americans graduating with degrees in those disciplines is falling. Meanwhile, visa quotas make it increasingly difficult for U.S. companies to hire foreign-born graduates of our own universities. Last year, as in prior years, the supply of H-1B visas was exhausted on the first day petitions could be filed.

Mr. Gates said his software company exemplifies this phenomenon. "Microsoft has found that for every H-1B hire we make, we add on average four additional employees to support them in various capacities," he told lawmakers. "If we increase the number of H-1B visas that are available to U.S. companies, employment of U.S. nationals would likely grow as well."

The preponderance of evidence continues to show that businesses are having difficulty filling skilled positions in the U.S. By blocking their access to foreign talent, Congress isn't protecting U.S. jobs but is providing incentives to outsource. If lawmakers can't bring themselves to eliminate the H-1B visa cap, they might at least raise it to a level that doesn't handicap U.S. companies.

• Email This
• 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.

• Email This
• 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.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Reuters news service reported on the Democratic debate Sunday night in Florida, and said the candidates were attempting to win over Hispanic voters with promises of comprehensive immigration reform. The debate was broadcast in Spanish on Univision. Here are excerpts from the article:

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, who would be the first Hispanic U.S. president, said, "I object to the dehumanizing of people that want to be part of the American dream."

He and Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd are the two fluent Spanish speakers in the Democratic field.

"The politics of fear are the most dangerous politics in our country, and those people who deal with fear and frighten the American people on this issue ought to be dealt with accordingly," Dodd said at the University of Miami debate, billed as a discussion of issues crucial to Hispanic voters.

Hispanics are the country's biggest and fastest-growing minority group, accounting for about 15 percent of the population and at least 14 million potential voters in 2008.

President George W. Bush won 40 percent of the Hispanic vote in 2004, but Democrats see a growing opportunity to win over Hispanics alienated by the hard-line Republican stance on immigration.

Efforts at a comprehensive overhaul of immigration laws collapsed in the U.S. Congress amid a bitter debate on the future of undocumented workers and illegal immigrants in the United States, many of whom are Hispanic.

The Democrats condemned a bill passed last year by the then Republican-led House of Representatives but never approved by the full Congress that cracked down on illegal aliens and boosted border security efforts.

Richardson lampooned plans to build a fence along the Mexican border to protect against illegal immigration.

"If you're going to build a 12-foot wall, you know what's going to happen? A bunch of 13-foot ladders," Richardson said.

But Clinton, Obama and Dodd defended their votes to build a wall, included in a Senate immigration bill not passed by the full Congress, as a necessary part of greater border security.

"We've got to secure our borders. That has to be part of comprehensive immigration reform," Clinton said.

The questions were asked in Spanish and the candidates heard English translations through earpieces. All the candidates answered in English and were translated for the Spanish-language audience.

Richardson complained about the restrictions on speaking in Spanish.

"I'm very proud to be the first major Latino candidate to run for president," said Richardson, adding he was "disappointed" that 43 million Latinos would not "hear one of their own speak Spanish."

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Bush administration announced plans today to crack down on illegal immigration in several ways. MSNBC.com is one of the many media outlets reporting the basics of the new policies. Here are excerpts from their article:

The latest measures mainly involve tighter enforcement of existing laws - posing a challenge to the many US employers now reliant on migrant workers.

"The message we are conveying today is pretty simple: we are serious about immigration enforcement," said Michael Chertoff, the homeland security secretary.

Mr Bush made immigration reform a priority of his second term, backing bipartisan legislation that aimed to strengthen border security while offering a path to citizenship for the estimated 12m illegal immigrants already in the US.

But the bill collapsed in June amid fierce opposition from grassroots Republicans, who accused Mr Bush of offering an amnesty to those who entered the US illegally.

The measures announced on Friday reflected the pressure on Mr Bush to get tough on the highly charged issue of illegal immigration.

The White House acknowledged there was little chance of Congress passing immigration legislation in the foreseeable future. "Until Congress chooses to act, we're going to be taking some energetic steps of our own," said Mr Chertoff.

One rule proposed on Friday would mandate employers to sack workers unable to verify their legal status within 90 days. Employers who failed to comply would face possible criminal fines and sanctions. "We're going to continue to clamp down on employers who knowingly and wilfully violate the laws," said Mr Chertoff.

Carlos Gutierrez, the commerce secretary, promised to streamline existing visa rules to help industries, such as agriculture and hospitality, that rely on migrant labour. "We will use every available tool to provide America's farmers, ranchers and small businesses with a legal workforce, to stay in business and keep our economy strong," he said.

Edward Kennedy, the Democratic senator who helped craft the failed immigration bill, said the proposals were no substitute for comprehensive reform.

"Without strong new laws, the administration's plan will do little to enhance our security and will hurt millions of immigrant families who are contributing so much to our communities and our economy," he said.

Chuck Grassley, a Republican senator who opposed the bill, said the measures were not tough enough. "I won't be happy until I see action that's more than just a press conference and words on a piece of paper."

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Today's Dallas Morning News has a thought-provoking editorial about the consequences of a new proposal to crack down on employers of illegal aliens. What would happen if 8,000,000 workers lost their jobs suddenly? Here's the editorial: 

Critics of comprehensive immigration reform often insist that simply enforcing the laws we already have would go a long way toward solving our growing illegal immigration problem.

We don't entirely disagree. We do believe strongly that a national strategy should include more than a fence along the Mexican border and deporting every person without papers, but who can be against enforcing current law?

So we were pleased to hear that the Department of Homeland Security intends to crack down on employers who hire workers here illegally with tougher rules that require firing anyone using false Social Security numbers to get work. Backing that policy will be more raids of suspect job sites.

The old employer excuse: "Hey, they had papers."

The feds' new rejoinder: "Hey, you should have known better. We sent you a no-match letter."

In short, if the Social Security Administration can't connect a number filed with it to a real identity, employers will be notified by mail. Instead of ignoring these notices, as often happened in the past, or just passing them along to the worker to deal with, employers will have 90 days to resolve discrepancies. If they can't, they must fire the worker or face a $10,000 fine per illegal immigrant.

"There are not going to be any more excuses for employers," said Russ Knocke, a Homeland Security spokesman, "and there will be serious consequences for those that choose to blatantly ignore the law."

Fair enough.

But let's also be clear about the consequences. The feds say they expect to send out 140,000 no-match letters this year, covering more than 8 million workers. We seriously doubt employers will risk $10,000 fines for the vast majority of them.

That means untold numbers of workers out of jobs. Some will go home. Others with spouses or kids in school might roll the dice and try to use those same forged documents to find another job. In the most desperate circumstances, some may even turn to crime to survive.

Imagine for a moment the increased strain this will place on our social service network - food banks, emergency health care and our already overstuffed jails. This is where "too bad for them" falls apart as a response. Everyone who pays taxes will foot the bill.

This is one reason we continue to push Congress to renew the immigration debate. A biometric ID card - close to impossible to forge - was one excellent idea that got washed away in anti-reform tide, as did a realistic guest worker program that would have given hundreds of thousands of needed workers a way to work within the law.

Targeting employers makes sense, as long as we realize who will pay the price.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Associated Press is reporting that a federal judge has thrown out the Hazelton, PA, anti-immigration law. Cities around the country have passed similar laws, and those laws may be in jeopardy also. Here are excerpts from the AP story:

The Illegal Immigration Relief Act sought to impose fines on landlords who rent to illegal immigrants and deny business permits to companies that give them jobs. Another measure would have required tenants to register with City Hall and pay for a rental permit.

U.S. District Judge James Munley declared it unconstitutional Thursday and voided it based on evidence and testimony from a nine-day trial held in March.

The city will almost certainly appeal.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

This is the official statement of the American Immigration Lawyers Association on the failure of the comprehensive immigration reform bill to pass in the U.S. Senate:

AILA Statement on Senate Cloture Vote

Cite as "AILA InfoNet Doc. No. 07062865 (posted Jun. 28, 2007)"

WASHINGTON, DC - The U.S. Senate, in failing to pass a key procedural obstacle to the passage of its immigration reform legislation, today failed not only immigrants and their families and employers, but failed the country.

Our current immigration system is badly broken. Twelve million undocumented immigrants live and work in America without any opportunity whatsoever to earn full legal status and eventual citizenship. Our borders are not secure even with an historic level of enforcement. Family and employment-based immigration backlogs grow by the hour, requiring decades-long waits in many cases. U.S. employers cannot legally hire essential immigrant workers or needed highly skilled professionals, because no system is provided to afford necessary immigrant workers legal entry. The agricultural industry is unable to find sufficient workers and those undocumented working in the shadows labor under a badly broken system. High school students who excel are barred from continuing their education because they cannot obtain legal status. Immigrants seeking to feed their families and the chance to be part of the American dream continue to die in the desert seeking entry, and detention centers that are actual tent cities continue to grow.

The Senate bill was admittedly deeply flawed. Backroom negotiations and a convoluted amendment process ensured that the bill in its current form would not have led to workable reform. But the Senate has denied the House a chance to weigh in on this pivotal national issue to try to get things right, and to pass an immigration reform bill that would serve the interests of this country and its families, its businesses, and its immigrants.

AILA will advocate vigorously to ensure that the immigration reform debate stays alive, that Senators be held accountable for their actions, and that the House move boldly to take the lead and not replicate the Senate's mistakes.

Any immigration reform bill must include the following necessary architecture for meaningful, effective reform:

(1) A clear path to lawful residence for those who come forward, pay fines, and demonstrate their commitment to become Americans by earning their status through working and learning English.

(2) A new worker program that includes labor protections, job portability, and a realistic path to permanent residence.

(3) The elimination of the existing unconscionable backlogs in family immigration, preservation of meaningful family immigration with reasonable quotas, and recalibration of our employment-based immigrant visa quotas to accommodate the needs of our dynamic and growing economy.

(4) Smart border and worksite enforcement mechanisms that protect our national security interests, while respecting civil rights.

(5) Due process and civil liberties protections that guarantee immigrants their day in court, judicial review, and a meaningful opportunity to seek waivers and discretionary relief.

The Senate bill that foundered on the Senate floor today gave the appearance of adhering to this skeletal architecture, but its content, flawed from the beginning of the process, was further compromised by harsh amendments that were supported by a majority of Senators in order to secure passage of the bill and to try to keep the legislative process moving forward.

AILA's top objections to the Senate bill included:

(1) Decimation of the employment-based immigration system through creation of a mis-named "merit-based" point system that disconnects employment-based immigration from employer sponsorship and eliminates existing avenues of migration for aliens of extraordinary ability, multinational executives, and outstanding researchers.

(2) Evisceration of family-based immigration by eliminating 4 out of 5 long-recognized family relationships that qualify an individual for green card sponsorship in exchange for a partial reduction of the backlogs in those categories.

(3) Lack of meaningful opportunities for new temporary workers to transition to permanent residence.

(4) Lack of sufficient future numbers for employment-based immigrants at all ends of the skill spectrum.

(5) Unwarranted restrictions on the H-1B and L-1 nonimmigrant visa programs.

(6) Lack of sufficient confidentiality protections for Z-visa applicants.

(7) Harsh due process restrictions that violate fundamental protections guaranteed to all persons under our constitution.

For years, AILA has been at the forefront in advocating for a comprehensive solution to the multitude of problems plaguing our immigration system. Our collective experience on the frontlines of immigration law and policy highlights the dire and urgent need for workable reform that advances the nation's economic, social, and national security interests.

AILA will do everything possible to assist and to support the Senate and the House to craft an immigration reform bill that comports with our tradition as a nation of immigrants.

###

The American Immigration Lawyers Association is the national association of immigration lawyers established to promote justice, advocate for fair and reasonable immigration law and policy, advance the quality of immigration and nationality law and practice, and enhance the professional development of its members.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

A procedural vote in the Senate on the comprehensive immigration reform bill fell far short of passing today. The result is that the bill is probably dead for now, and likely won't return until the year 2009 -- after the November 2008 elections. At that time we will have a new President and probably a number of new Senators.

The bill was killed mostly by Republican senators worried about re-election. Their concern of appearing to be weak on illegal immigration assures we will continue with the status quo, which is essentially ignoring the illegals.

The irony of the situation is that by refusing to deal with the immigration crisis, the senators have not only guaranteed that things will continue to get worse, but they have also probably galvanized Latino citizens and ensured organized opposition to their own re-elections.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The U.S. Senate Wednesday killed a Republican proposal to require all adult illegal immigrants to return home before they could qualify for permanent lawful status in this country.

Also defeated was a Democratic proposal to restrict lawful immigration status to those who have been in the United States for four years rather than the current provision restricting status to those in the U.S. before January 1, 2007.

Each of these amendments was designed to make the bill more palatable to conservatives who describe the currently proposed bill as "amnesty."

There are about two dozen more amendments that must be voted on before a test-vote on the entire bill, now scheduled for Thursday.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

 A story in the Dallas Morning News today said the restaurant industry, or at least a sampling of it, is supporting the proposed immigration reform bill now pending in the Senate. Here are excerpts from the article:

More than 200 people attending a restaurant industry convention in Dallas this week called on Congress to take action on a stalled Senate bill that addresses illegal immigrants in the U.S.

The e-mails in support of movement on Senate Bill 1639 were sent via a political action booth at the Southwest Foodservice Expo at the Dallas Convention Center.

The restaurant industry has become heavily dependent on immigrant workers as its traditional pipeline of workers - teens and twenty-somethings - dries up.

Growth in that portion of the population has slowed, and many young workers are choosing non-restaurant jobs.

The National Restaurant Association estimates it will need an additional 100,000 workers over the next five to 10 years.

(A lawyer representing the industry) ...said his restaurant clients support the Senate bill as an improvement over the status quo.

"What immigration reform will do is help millions of industry workers, and it will help employers who are worried that they may make a mistake and could face the brunt" of enforcement action from Immigration and Customs Enforcement, he said.

(One restaurant owner) ...said he has not studied the legislation, but he hopes Congress moves quickly to enact reform.

"It needs to be resolved one way or another," he said.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Senate voted Tuesday to start debate again on the immigration reform bill. The vote was 64-35 to revive the bill. It still faces hurdles in the Senate, and perhaps even greater hurdles in the House.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Debate starts up today in the U.S. Senate on the pending comprehensive immigration reform bill. U.S. News has a brief summary of the current situation in this online article. Excerpts:

Here they go again. The Senate is about to engage in another round of the seemingly endless fight over America's immigration laws. It's officially the members' second shot in the past month at pushing through a "grand bargain" piece of legislation that tries to give a little to every interest group while not entirely satisfying any of them. A compromise, they say.

The debate kicks off on Tuesday with a procedural vote just to get the full debate underway. It's been that kind of step-by-step battle all along for an unlikely trio in arms: President Bush, Democratic Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, and Republican Sen. John Kyl of Arizona. And no one is absolutely certain the Senate will pass that first test. Some conservatives opposed to the bill say support is eroding.

If the procedural hurdles are overcome, however, the road to change there on out will be anything but smooth. It'll take a great deal of legislative handiwork and backroom wheeling and dealing to get through this week before the July 4 recess with a bill in hand. "This is a complicated bill," says Joel Kaplan, deputy chief of staff for policy at the White House. "It's taken some time for people to understand what's in there." Talk about an understatement. Cabinet Secretaries Carlos Gutierrez of commerce and Michael Chertoff of homeland security have become virtual tenants up on Capitol Hill, pushing and prodding recalcitrant senators.

The pivot points?

*The Bush administration has included $4.4 billion in border security funding as a sweetener to its Republican brethren worried about law, order, and enforcement. Whether that shifts votes remains to be seen.

*For the high-tech business community, the linchpin is an amendment pushed by Sens. Maria Cantwell of Washington and Kyl of Arizona. It would give employers more flexibility in whom they hire and would increase the number of visas for skilled workers by 40,000. The business community was opposed to the bill in its earlier incarnation, and if this amendment fails, look for high-tech corporations to back away.

*Other key issues to watch will be whether there is any sort of provision in the bill that makes family reunification a key part of immigration policy and whether an amendment passes that requires a "touchback provision" for illegal immigrants who want legal status to return to their home countries.

What all that means for the bill's ultimate fate is unclear. "There are so many moving pieces," says Kara Calvert of the Information Technology Industry Council, a Washington industry group. "So many people are reserving whether they'll vote for it."

Part of the thinking of the bill's chief backers is that they just need to get the process rolling and that once they get the debate underway in the Senate, they'll have time to renegotiate troubling pieces. Looking down the road, they think they'll buy themselves time to modify the bill in the House of Representatives--even though its fate there is especially unclear and a bloc of "amnesty"-rhetoric opponents awaits--and then even later when the House and the Senate try to come together with one piece of legislation to send to the president.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

That was the lead sentence of a recent article in the Biloxi Sun Herald. It has to do with an odd quote from Mississippi Senator Trent Lott. Here are excerpts from the article:

Sen. Minority Whip Trent Lott, R-Miss., was talking to reporters Wednesday about the immigration bill, when he said, "If the answer is 'build a fence' I've got two goats on my place in Mississippi. There ain't no fence big enough, high enough, strong enough, that you can keep those goats in that fence."

"Now people are at least as smart as goats," Lott continued. "Maybe not as agile. Build a fence. We should have a virtual fence. Now one of the ways I keep those goats in the fence is I electrified them. Once they got popped a couple of times they quit trying to jump it."

"I'm not proposing an electrified goat fence," Lott added quickly, "I'm just trying, there's an analogy there."

Asked for clarification as to what exactly the analogy was, Lott spokesman Lee Youngblood said that the senator supported a variety of measures in the immigration bill, including unmanned aerial surveillance vehicles, radar and more border patrol agents, as well as a fence to reduce the flow of illegal immigration.

"A fence in and of itself is not enough," said Youngblood. "You can have technology to support the fence and to supplement the fence."

Acknowledging the flak he's taken, Lott said Wednesday, "I keep trying to tell everybody 'calm down, calm down, let me be the one that offends the left, the middle and the right.' I'm doing great, aren't I? But it gives you a level of utopia that is just so blissful."

"I don't worry about offending anybody anymore, " said Lott, "because I've already offended everybody."

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

According to a story at Bloomberg online, Texas Senator John Cornyn says "momentum is building" against the comprehensive immigration reform bill now pending in the U.S. Senate.  Here are some excerpts from the story:

The Senate will need 60 votes on June 26 to resume debate on the biggest overhaul of U.S. immigration policy since 1986. The measure, Bush's top domestic priority, would create a guest- worker program and a path to legal status for 12 million immigrants in the U.S. illegally.

Cornyn cited fellow Texan Kay Bailey Hutchison, as well as Saxby Chambliss and Johnny Isakson of Georgia, as examples of Republicans who may have supported the measure and are now opposed. Supporters said they weren't counting on those senators to reach 60 votes.

A June 7 Senate vote fell 15 short of the total needed, with seven Republicans joining 37 Democrats and one independent to move toward final passage. Cornyn voted in opposition.

In an attempt to resuscitate the measure, Senate leaders agreed this week on a limited package of about two dozen amendments to be considered next week.

Cornyn said that isn't enough.

"This is a bill that was written behind closed doors by a small group of senators, and now it's being brought to the floor again without an opportunity to offer, freely offer, amendments and to have the kind of debate that I think this topic deserves,'' the senator said.

Cornyn said the congressional debate on what to do with the 12 million immigrants illegally in the U.S. has "fallen short'' because it has focused only on whether to give them citizenship or deport them.

The current proposal, which would let undocumented immigrants gain legal status after paying a fine, isn't sufficient punishment for people in this country illegally, the senator said. "It looks like we're selling American citizenship,'' he said.

Cornyn said the U.S. would be in "big trouble'' if failure to pass immigration legislation blocked an increase in the number of visas for skilled workers, as sought by technology companies including Google Inc., owner of the most popular Internet search engine, and Microsoft Corp., the world's largest software maker.

"This is more than just about low-skilled, relatively poorly educated individuals who are picking crops or working on construction sites,'' he said.

"This is about keeping the best and the brightest, the kind of people who train in American universities and who we end up now, under our current policy, sending home so they can compete with us and take jobs overseas,'' the senator said. "I actually would like to see us pass comprehensive immigration reform.''

With the backing of Democrats who backed the legislation earlier this month, supporters will need almost two dozen Republicans to move forward.

"We'll find out on Tuesday if there's 60 senators,'' Cornyn said. "It really changes minute by minute.''

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Various wire service reports say the  Bush administration will delay for at least six months a rule that U.S. citizens must show passports when crossing the border by land or sea.

The announcement marks the second time in a month that officials have scaled back security plans in response to complaints.

Beginning in January, land and sea travelers returning from Canada, Mexico, the Caribbean, and Bermuda will be allowed to present a birth certificate and driver's license in lieu of a passport.

Starting next year, travelers also will no longer be able to make an oral declaration of U.S citizenship to re-enter the country.

The modification is expected to last at least until the summer of 2008, when officials hope to require passports or similar documentation at all land and sea crossings.

The problem is caused by the government's inability to produce passports sufficient to meet the demand, an indication to some people of extremely poor planning on the part of the Administration. Surely they have know for many months that there would be a flood of passport applications right before the new restrictions took effect.

Now we have to face the question of whether our border security is being made more vulnerable because of this bureaucratic bungling. This delay could cause our borders to be more porous, as terrorists will be able to use false documents to sneak across the border.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

There's an interesting post today at the always excellent Immigration Prof Blog about the immigration reform bill being split into small pieces in the House of Representatives. I'm going to shamelessly copy the entire post, but please add this blog to your list of regulars.

House May Break Up Immigration Bill

US News & World Report summarizes much of what's happening on the immigration debate today:

The immigration bill is back, with the Senate expected to debate it over the next two weeks. Senate passage is by no means assured, but the measure appears to have a fighting chance of surviving the legislative maneuvers and counter-maneuvers expected of the next couple of weeks. Keen observers of the current debate, however, have long expressed reservations about the chance of anything close to the Senate "grand bargain" (the bipartisan legislation including both border security measures and a "path to citizenship") making it through the House. In the House, Republicans seem firmly opposed to the legislation -- while Democrats are wary of passing any immigration bill without GOP support.

But now Democratic leaders may have found a partial way out of this impasse. The Washington Times reports this morning House Democrats "say they may break the immigration issue up into a series of smaller bills that would put off the tougher parts and allow others to pass, such as border security, and high-tech and agriculture worker programs that have clear support." That "could buy Democrats more time to work out the tougher aspects of immigration, such as what to do about the estimated 12 million to 20 million illegal aliens now here, but it would go against the Senate's massive catchall approach and contradicts President Bush's call for a broad bill to pass." Click here for the rest of the story. bh

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

From the New York Times Web site Thursday evening:

WASHINGTON, June 14 -- Senate leaders announced an agreement this evening to put a comprehensive immigration bill back on track for further debate and possible passage.

Senators Harry Reid, the Democratic majority leader from Nevada, and Mitch McConnell, the Republican minority leader from Kentucky, agreed on a timetable for the bill and for a limited number of amendments to be offered.

The agreement, coming after President Bush's pledge earlier today to provide $4.4 billion for border security, revives a bill that had stalled in the Senate and was all but given up for dead.

"We met this evening with several of the senators involved in the immigration bill negotiations," Mr. Reid and Mr. McConnell said in a statement. "Based on that discussion, the immigration bill will return to the Senate floor after completion of the energy bill."

The measure would tighten border security, put many of the 12 million or so illegal immigrants in the country on a path to eventual legal status and create a guest-worker program.

The additional money for border security is intended to assuage Republicans who have strongly criticized the plan as amnesty for illegal immigrants.

Mr. Reid and Mr. McConnell said they had agreed that Democrats and Republicans alike would be given a chance to further refine the bill to their liking.

Bringing as many senators as possible on board is crucial in the Senate, since 60 votes are required there to overcome procedural hurdles in order to vote on the bill itself. With lawmakers, and their constituents, wanting different things in an immigration bill, support can easily erode.

Moreover, any bill that emerges from the Senate will have to be reconciled with what the House of Representatives passes, assuming that the House passes a bill. But this evening's accord, however tentative, rekindled hopes that a bill might be approved by the full Congress this year.

The announcement followed renewed lobbying by President Bush, who is eager to have a bill overhauling the immigration system and who has been emphasizing border security in recent days. He has been doing so to appease those lawmakers who complain that the bill as it stands would grant amnesty to lawmakers, no matter what its supporters say to the contrary.

Mr. Bush's emphasis on security, backed up by his push for more than $4 billion aimed at "securing our borders and enforcing our laws at the work site," plus continuing sentiment among lawmakers to give the bill another chance, lay behind the accord between Mr. Reid and Mr. McConnell.

Only a week ago, Mr. Reid declared with some disgust, "We are finished with this for the time being." Now, things are apparently back on track, at least for the time being.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

According to press reports, President Bush has not yet given up hope of passing a comprehensive immigration reform bill this year. Excerpts from wire reports:

Speaking in Bulgaria's capital Sofia, Bush acknowledged disappointment that the legislation -- aimed at bringing 12 million illegal immigrants out of the shadows -- collapsed Thursday in the Democratic-controlled Congress.

"Listen, the immigration debate is a tough debate. I'm under no illusions about how hard it is," he told a news conference.

"There are people in my (Republican) party that don't want a comprehensive bill. There are people in the Democrat Party that don't seem to want a comprehensive bill."

But he said that he would, upon his return to Washington, get in touch with leading Democrats and Republicans who do support the legislation to get it firmly back on track.

"I'll be going to the Senate to talk about a way forward on the piece of legislation," he said.

"I'm going to work with those who are focused on getting an immigration bill done and start taking some steps forward again. I believe we can get it done. I'll see you at the bill signing."

Billed as a "grand bargain," the proposed law would grant a path to legal status for undocumented immigrants, establishing a merit-based points system for future immigrants, and create a low-wage temporary worker program.

It also envisions a border security crackdown, punishment for employers who hire illegal immigrants and an attempt to wipe out a backlog of visa applications from those who have gone through legal channels.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

According to a story today in the New York Times, the sponsors of the Senate immigration reform bill are promising to continue working on a compromise bill, even though the original bill has been pulled from the Senate calendar. Here are excerpts from the Times article:

WASHINGTON, June 8 -- The authors of a comprehensive immigration bill said today that they would try to resuscitate the measure, which stalled Thursday when the Senate refused to cut off debate, as President Bush urged senators from both parties to bring the bill back to the floor.

"We are not giving up, we are not giving in," said Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, who helped write the bill in months of negotiations with the White House and a small bipartisan group of senators.

Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona, the chief Republican architect of the bill, voted against limiting debate. He said he wanted to give conservative Republicans "a little bit more time to get amendments together, to get them considered, so that we can finish the bill with an opportunity for everyone to have their say."

The president said he understood the reservations some lawmakers had. "And like many senators, I believe the bill will need to be further improved along the way before it becomes law," he said.

Mr. Bush said, as he has many times, that his administration is committed to securing the country's borders. And he reaffirmed his position that the bill, which would require illegal aliens to pay penalties and go to the back of the bureaucratic line before they could gain legal status, does not smack of amnesty.

"They will have to prove themselves worthy of this great land," he said.

Mr. Bush's remarks were in his weekly radio address, the text of which is typically released on Friday but not to be reported until his radio address the next day. Today, the text was offered for immediate release, a signal of the importance Mr. Bush attaches to efforts to revive the immigration bill.

The Senate had been debating the bill for two weeks. Mr. Kyl said he hoped the majority leader, Senator "Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada, would allow a few more days of debate, if supporters of the legislation could agree with opponents on a list of 12 or 13 amendments that could be considered at some time in the future.

Senator Dianne Feinstein, a co-author of the bill, said talk show hosts were partly responsible for derailing it.

"I've listened to talk show hosts drumming up the opposition by using this word amnesty over and over and over again," Mrs. Feinstein said. In 15 years in the Senate, she added, "I've never received more hate or more racist phone calls and threats."

Speaking at the site of the Group of Eight summit in Heiligendamm, Germany, Dan Barlett, the White House counselor, called for action to move the bill forward. "The best way to proceed is for Republicans and Democrats to come together and vote on this legislation and then we can move it into the House of Representatives," Mr. Bartlett said.

Mr. Bush had been a strong proponent of the sweeping immigration overhaul that crumbled in the Senate on Thursday night, leaving the future of one of the administration's chief domestic priorities in serious doubt.

After a day of tension and fruitless maneuvering, senators rejected a Democratic call to move toward a final vote on the compromise legislation after Republicans complained that they had not been given enough opportunity to reshape the sprawling bill. Supporters of cutting off debate got only 45 of the 60 votes they needed; 50 senators opposed the cutoff.

"We are finished with this for the time being," said Senator Reid, as he turned the Senate to work on energy legislation.

Mr. Reid did, however, leave the door open to revisiting the immigration issue later this year and said he would continue to explore ways to advance a plan. "We all have to work, the president included, to find a way to get this bill passed," he said.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

USCIS Advises Public Regarding Immigration Fraud and Proposed Immigration Reform Legislation

This notice is to inform the public that although the U.S. Senate is debating and considering immigration legislation (S.1348), that bill has NOT passed into law.  Legislation must be passed by both the House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate, and signed by the President, before it becomes law.  Information about the legislative process is available from the Library of Congress (http://thomas.loc.gov/).

If immigration reform legislation does become law, U. S. Citizenship and Immigration Services will advise the public on how to proceed.  Until then, individuals should be cautious of any persons, organizations or businesses claiming to assist in applying for benefits under the immigration reform legislation.

- USCIS -

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Associated Press is reporting, on the CNN Web site, that the proposed comprehensive immigration reform bill has been withdrawn in the Senate, essentially killing the bill for now. Excerpts:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A broad immigration bill to legalize millions of people unlawfully in the United States failed a crucial test vote in the Senate Thursday, a stunning setback that could spell its defeat for the year.

The vote was 45-50 against limiting debate on the bill, 15 short of the 60 that the bill's supporters needed to prevail. Most Republicans voted to block Democrats' efforts to bring the bill to a final vote.

The legislation, which had been endorsed by President Bush, would tighten borders, institute a new system to prevent employers from hiring undocumented workers and give as many as 12 million illegal immigrants a pathway to legal status.

Senate Majority Harry Reid, D-Nevada, who had made no secret of his distaste for parts of the bill, said he would withdraw it but keep working toward eventual passage.

"I, even though disappointed, look forward to passing this bill," Reid said. But he said he needs help from the White House.

"This is the president's bill," Reid said. "... We can't do it alone over here. We need some help."

Most Republicans voted against ending debate, saying they needed more time to make the bill tougher with tighter border security measures and a more arduous legalization process for unlawful immigrants.

All but a handful of Democrats supported the move, but they, too, were holding their noses at provisions of the bill. Many of them argued it makes second-class citizens of a new crop of temporary workers and rips apart families by prioritizing employability over blood ties in future immigration.

Still, they had argued that the measure, on balance, was worth advancing.

"We can all find different aspects of this legislation that we differ with," said Sen. Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, the leading Democratic architect of the bill.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Today's Dallas Morning News has a short, but important, editorial about the proposed immigration reform bill. The editorial is directed at those who fear an influx of immigrants is a threat to American culture. Here is the editorial:

American Culture

What worries some Americans about all this immigration talk in Washington is that new waves of immigrants could so change our culture that America no longer seems recognizable. The worry is a legitimate one. Our country has always churned with change, but none of us want to lose sight of our history, ideals and customs.

Given the red-hot rhetoric surrounding the Senate's immigration bill, you may not think the proposal responds to those worries. It does, though, and in a constructive way. For example, the legislation would:

*Require every immigrant who qualifies as a permanent legal resident to learn English and take civics classes before they become citizens.

The bill is very detailed about what's included in those civics classes. Immigrants must learn about the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Federalist Papers, the Emancipation Proclamation, the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, World Wars I and II, major court decisions and the civil rights movement, among other parts of our national story.

They likewise must know about the founding fathers, various elected officials, scientists, inventors, equal-rights activists, entrepreneurs and artists. All of that would require a working proficiency in English, too.

*Let the Department of Homeland Security constantly review and update the nationalization test and assist immigrants who want to become citizens.

We hope a large part of the money devoted to helping immigrants assimilate goes to nonprofits, churches and other nongovernment organizations. Mediating institutions, like small churches, often are in a better position to reach immigrants than the feds.

*Put on the Internet a curriculum designed to teach English to those who don't know it. Nonprofits and other local groups could download it and train immigrants in English. Today, the curriculum can be expensive to purchase.

There's value in preserving America's heritage, including the use of English. The immigration bill being fought in Washington embraces that value, which is one more reason for the Senate to pass the legislation. It will ensure that our customs are passed on to future immigrants.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

An article today on the Web site of the New York Times warns that the proposed immigration reform bill now pending in the U. S. Senate may be in trouble. Here are excerpts:

WASHINGTON, June 7 --The Senate refused at midday to shut off debate on the immigration overhaul bill and move toward a vote, leaving the fate of the legislation uncertain and setting up another, all-important procedural vote this evening.

The move to end debate was rejected by 63 to 33, so the bill's backers fell 27 votes short of the 60 needed to invoke what is known as cloture and set up a yes-or-no vote on the legislation itself.

The result was a setback not only for the bill's supporters but also for President Bush, who has made a comprehensive immigration bill one of his top legislative priorities.

Nevertheless, Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic majority leader, scheduled another, make-or-break cloture vote for this evening. If that vote also falls short, Mr. Reid is expected to shelve the bill, meaning that changes in immigration law might not be considered again for many months.

The midday move to end debate failed chiefly because a significant number of conservative Republicans wanted more time to offer amendments to make the measure more to their liking.

Some 12 hours before the noontime cloture vote, the bill's supporters suffered a setback when the Senate voted to put a five-year limit on a new guest worker program that would be created under the legislation. By a vote of 49 to 48 shortly after midnight, the Senate approved the limit, in the form of an amendment by Senator Byron L. Dorgan, Democrat of North Dakota.

The temporary worker program is an important element of the "grand bargain" on immigration forged in three months of negotiations by a small group of senators from both parties.

If the Senate votes this evening to end debate, the bill will have cleared a major hurdle -- but by no means the last one. The House has yet to take up its version of the immigration legislation, and the issue has deeply divided the representatives. Many conservatives want to do more to restrict immigration and to toughen border enforcement. Many liberals, including members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, want to do more to protect immigrants' rights and promote family-based immigration. The Senate bill, which embodies a fragile compromise strongly supported by the president, would offer most of the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in the United States the chance to obtain legal status. It calls for the biggest changes in immigration law in more than two decades.

Supporters contend that it would address the problem of millions of illegal aliens without giving them amnesty; that it will further secure the nation's borders, and that through its guest-worker program it will help immigrants and American employers. Its opponents have argued that there are far too many deficiencies in its nearly 400 pages.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The debate over the proposed immigration reform bill now pending in the Senate is heating up. Two of the organizations running TV ads now. You can visit their Web sites at Where's The Fence and Texas Employers for Immigration Reform.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Today's issue of the Dallas Morning News has an interesting article explaining how some Texas employers are eagerly awaiting passage of new immigration reform laws. Employers hope that immigration reform will lead to a more stable legal workforce.

The article states that employers would like to see some sort of error-proof employment verification system, a tamper-proof worker identification card, and a temporary worker program set in place. Currently, the Senate is debating a proposed immigration bill that would create a temporary guest worker program. This program would make 200,000 visas available annually to foreign workers. Employers believe that a guest worker program is vital to the success of a growing U.S. economy.

Although many employers favor immigration reform, some local business groups have urged the Texas senators to suppress the bill. In fact, Senators John Cornyn and Kay Bailey Hutchinson have rejected the bill, saying that it will repeat the mistakes of the 1986 amnesty law. Although the 1986 law provided immigration benefits to millions of illegal aliens, it did nothing to curtail illegal immigration.

Many employers believe that the current employment eligibility verification system is also in need of improvement. The system checks the nine digit social security number of employees to see if it matches with wage and tax reports of federal records. However, the system does not ferret out the use of authentic social security cards, even if they are borrowed, stolen, or rented by illegal immigrations.

In recent months, several corporations and businesses have suffered from immigration raids and have been charged with violations of the nation's immigration laws. Employers state that even though they had unknowingly hired illegal immigrants, they had complied with the employment eligibility verification system, which is voluntary for employers, but did not realize they had hired undocumented workers. Even though the employer may have gone through all the steps to make sure they were hiring legal workers, the system obviously is not 100% accurate. Companies and businesses hope that immigration reform, by creating a guest worker program and providing visas to illegal immigrants in the United States, will correct the deficiencies found in the current system.

Click for a copy of the Dallas Morning News article in its entirety.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Today, Immigration Services announced that a final fee structure was set in place that increases filing fees associated with immigration-related petitions and applications. This new fee structure is set to become effective on July 30, 2007. Immigration Services stated that the increase in fees for the vast majority of cases will eventually lead to a 20% reduction in average processing times for applications by the end of the year 2009.

The new fee structure, however, makes it extremely expensive to file the most common immigration cases. For example, a person will have to pay $675 for an application to become a U.S. citizen. The current cost is $400. If you are planning on filing a petition to bring your spouse or a relative to the United States, the cost will nearly double, making the filing fee $355.

These new fees do not affect cases that have already been filed, and will not apply to cases filed before July 30, 2007. If you are interested in beginning your immigration-related case, it is vital that you begin your case today so that you are not affected by the increase in immigration filing fees!

For more information about the new fee structure, please visit this special page of the USCIS Web site.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Today's Dallas Morning News editorializes in favor of the proposed compromise immigration bill. Here is the editorial:

Good Starting Point

But immigration plan will need some work

The fact that the Senate will return to immigration this week is a political miracle of sorts. Sharply divergent points of view - and we mean really sharp - have stalled the debate for an entire year.

Thanks, however, to brutal negotiations involving the White House and dedicated senators from both parties, the Senate will start with a bipartisan bill. Deserving of Texans' thanks for renewing the debate are President Bush, who has kept the issue alive in speeches, and lead Senate negotiators Ted Kennedy and Jon Kyl.

As an editorial board that has pushed hard for immigration reform, we think this bill is a good place to begin - but with the understanding that major work is still to be done:

Border security: The plan doesn't wink at ratcheting up border security. The addition of 18,000 border agents and 70 new radar towers will help take the lawlessness out of the southern border. So will the resources to detain 27,500 aliens a day.

We have never been wild about a border fence, but the 370 miles of fencing and 200 miles of road barriers should satisfy those who think a wall will reduce the flow of illegal immigrants. In fact, border hawks should like that many security measures must be in place before a new temporary worker program starts.

Enforcing the worksite: One of the best parts is the new electronic identification system. Employers will know if they are hiring legal workers. There's too much uncertainty today when it comes to worker IDs. The situation in Cactus, Texas, proved that.

Unlike the current system, all workers must prove they are here legally. Under the new system, employers would run their info through a new national verification database. If those on the job aren't legal, the employers are fined and the workers are fired.

Pathway to citizenship: Mr. Kyl, a Republican, has reversed course and acknowledged that there's no way to correct our immigration problems without giving the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants living here a chance to earn citizenship. More power to the man for stepping forward, knowing many will scream amnesty.

It's not.

Illegal immigrants seeking citizenship must pay a $5,000 fine, possess a job, undergo a background check and wait eight to 13 years before becoming a citizen. They don't jump to the head of any line. In fact, they can't earn citizenship until all current applications are approved or rejected.

They can eventually earn citizenship, though, and that's crucial to getting immigrants to come out of the shadows.

Temporary workers: 400,000 foreign workers could qualify for employment visas annually. That essentially matches the number of foreign workers who come here illegally each year.

There's a catch, though, that could make the provision unworkable. Temporary workers could earn three two-year work visas. In between each two-year stint, they would have to return home for one year.

The risk with the return-home requirement is that some workers may go underground and stay here. We would prefer that senators amend the bill to match the House plan, which has no return-home provision for temporary workers.

At the least, senators should amend it so more exceptions can be granted to workers in high-demand industries. That would minimize the temptation for some workers to go underground.

Green cards: Fortunately, temporary workers could earn a green card after their work stints end. But that could become a mirage if the Senate doesn't include enough cards that let workers stay here legally. (Green cards allow for legal permanent residency, not citizenship.)

The Senate would be foolish to ignore reality. Temporary workers with good jobs probably will stay here, even if they can't get a green card. So it's important to have enough cards to go around in order to know who is actually here.

This proposal represents an improvement over the status quo, but it's not the endgame. We urge Texas Sens. Kay Bailey Hutchison and John Cornyn to address these shortfalls this week.

The next few months will be like crawling through broken glass, as Frank Sharry of the National Immigration Forum aptly put it Friday. But Washington must grit its teeth and work through the pain if the nation is to finally fix our broken immigration system.STILL NOT SOLD? Why border hawks should like the Senate plan:

* 18,000 new border agents

* Ends "catch and release" of illegal immigrants

* 70 new radar towers

* Resources to detain 27,500 illegal immigrants a day

* An electronic verification system for all employees

* Illegal workers lose their jobs

* Employers face big fines

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Here is a link to the latest draft of the proposed U.S. Senate immigration reform bill.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

This important document from the American Immigration Lawyers Association is printed here in full. Cite as "AILA InfoNet Doc. No. 07051768 (posted May. 17, 2007)"

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Associated Press is reporting that an agreement has been announced between Senate leaders and the White House regarding comprehensive immigration reform!

Quoting AP:

"The plan would create a temporary worker program to bring new arrivals to the United States. A separate program would cover agricultural workers. New high-tech enforcement measures also would be instituted to verify that workers are here legally."

"The key breakthrough came when negotiators struck a bargain on a so-called "point system" that would for the first time prioritize immigrants' education and skill level over family connections in deciding how to award green cards."

"The proposed agreement would allow illegal immigrants to come forward and obtain a "Z visa" and - after paying fees and a $5,000 fine - ultimately get on track for permanent residency, which could take between eight and 13 years. Heads of household would have to return to their home countries first."

"They could come forward right away to claim a probationary card that would let them live and work legally in the U.S., but could not begin the path to permanent residency or citizenship until border security improvements and the high-tech worker identification program were completed."

"A new temporary guest worker program would also have to wait until those so-called "triggers" had been activated."

"Those workers would have to return home after work stints of two years, with little opportunity to gain permanent legal status or ever become U.S. citizens. They could renew their guest worker visas twice, but would be required to leave for a year in between each time."

"In perhaps the most hotly debated change, the proposed plan would shift from an immigration system primarily weighted toward family ties toward one with preferences for people with advanced degrees and sophisticated skills. Republicans have long sought such revisions, which they say are needed to end "chain migration" that harms the economy, while some Democrats and liberal groups say it's an unfair system that rips families apart."

"Family connections alone would no longer be enough to qualify for a green card - except for spouses and minor children of U.S. citizens."

"New limits would apply to U.S. citizens seeking to bring foreign-born parents into the country."

The House is not expected to act until a bill passes the Senate, and any Senate bill could run into strong opposition in the generally more conservative House of Representatives. Still, this is a dramatic first step on the path to true immigration reform in the United States.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

On March 26, 2007, a new waiver pilot program began at the U.S. Consulate in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico. This new program decreases the time it takes for a decision to be reached in I-601 waiver applications.

Under current immigration law, if a person enters the United States illegally (without being admitted and paroled) they are not eligible to receive immigration benefits. It is very common for foreign nationals to enter the U.S. illegally and subsequently marry U.S. citizens. Once this occurs, the citizen will begin the process that will enable the spouse to obtain a green card. This process, however, is not finalized in the U.S., but involves a final interview at a U.S. consulate in the foreign national's home country. For Mexican nationals most interviews are scheduled at the U.S. consulate in Ciudad Juarez.

At the interview, the applicant files an I-601 waiver package to request that Immigration Services excuse the prior illegal entry into the U.S. and unlawful presence in the United States. This waiver package normally took between nine months and a year to process and reach final decision. During this time, the applicant was required to remain in Mexico until a final decision had been reached.

With the new Waiver Pilot Program, Mexican nationals may be able to obtain a decision on their waiver packages within less than 48 hours. This is a very exciting program as it makes the waiver process much more practical for most applicants who found it extremely difficult to spend a year outside of the U.S. while their case was pending.

Previously, people had to leave their home, family members, young children, and jobs for up to a year while waiting for a decision. Now, they may only need to wait a week or two for the entire process to be completed.

You may be a candidate for this exciting new program! If you have any questions, or would like to begin the process to use the new pilot program, please contact us.

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.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (7)
• Trackbacks

According to a Dallas Morning News Article, Texas House State Affairs Committee Chairman David Swinford plans to eliminate a significant number of pending bills that have been designed to target illegal immigration. He states that the majority of these bills are in violation of either federal law or state law, and would therefore be a waste of time for consideration before the Texas Legislature. Here are excerpts from the article:

Among the bills that will remain alive is a bill that would require police to ask about citizenship status, a bill to require proof of legal residence in order to pay in-state tuition, and resolutions urging the federal government to tackle illegal immigration. One of the bills that will not go forward is one that was designed to test the "birthright citizenship" principle, under which all children born in the United States are citizens, even if their parents are illegal immigrants.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Dallas Morning News had an interesting article this morning about the significant increase in the number of people applying for citizenship in the Dallas-Fort Worth area. According to the article, the number of citizenship applications received by Immigration Services has increased by over 78% when compared to this time last year.

Currently, there are about eight million people in the United States who qualify for citizenship. Last year, 702,000 people became naturalized citizens. Mexicans made up last year's largest group of new U.S. citizens.

Many groups believe that this surge in citizenship applicants is due in large part to the attention immigration law has received in the past year. The chance that citizenship filing fees going up soon has been an incentive for many people to go ahead and begin the citizenship process. In addition, there has been speculation over the last year that there could be a change in immigration law. This has prompted many people to begin their applications in the event that an unfavorable law be issued.

The upcoming elections have also prompted many to apply for their citizenship, as only U.S. citizens are allowed to vote.

The general requirements for becoming a naturalized citizen of the U.S. include:

* An ability to read, write and speak English. Exceptions include persons who have resided in the United States for 15 years or more and are 55 or older, or who have resided in the U.S. for at least 20 years and are at least 50 years old.

* Good moral character.

* Lawful admission into the U.S. for permanent residence (green card).

* Continuous presence as a lawful permanent resident in the U.S. for at least five years before filing with no single absence from the U.S. of more than one year.

* Renouncement of any foreign allegiance or foreign title.   

Finally, the citizenship process used to be which something which was relatively straightforward and easy to process. As the number of applicants increase, however, Immigration Services has become much more strict in determining who is eligible for U.S. citizenship. Minor errors or missing documents, which would have been overlooked in the past, are now used as a basis for denying the application. Should you need any assistance in your citizenship application, or if you are unsure if you are eligible for citizenship, please do not hesitate to 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.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Earlier this month, Senator Barak Obama (D-IL) and Representative Luis Gutierrez (D-IL) introduced the Citizenship Promotion Act of 2007. This bill, if enacted into law, would authorize Immigration Services to request and receive appropriations that would make up the difference between current fees charged to citizenship applicants and the necessary resources needed to fund the Service.

The basic provisions of the Citizenship Promotion Act are as follows:

* Prevent Immigration Services from increasing the naturalization fees until Congress develops an oversight mechanism that would keep the USCIS from implementing unreasonable fee increases -- as the agency now is proposing.

* Improve the administration of the citizenship tests for English, U.S. history and government. The bill would require that the tests be administered uniformly nationwide, there be no extraordinary or unreasonable conditions placed on applicants taking the tests, and the age, education level, time in the United States, and efforts made by citizenship applicants would be taken into account when administering the tests.

* Establish a national citizenship promotion program, the "New Americans Initiative," to conduct citizenship outreach activities and make grants to non-profit organizations to help lawful permanent residents (LPRs) become U.S. citizens, help non-profit agencies conduct English language and citizenship classes for LPRs, and carry out outreach activities to educate immigrant communities to assist people to become citizens and assist with the application process.   

* Decrease the citizenship application backlog by encouraging the Attorney General to complete background checks within a reasonable period of time and without sacrificing national security.   

* Ensure that low-income eligible LPRs whose communities suffer the ill effects of the digital divide would have an equal chance to apply for citizenship as do other eligible LPRs.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Senators Edward Kennedy and John McCain will be introducing a revised version of their immigration reform plan to Congress. The bill was blocked last year because Republican leaders in the House were opposed to any immigration proposal that would allow illegal aliens to eventually become citizens.

The Kennedy-McCain plan will largely mirror the immigration bill that was introduced last year, which would call for the installation of a 700 mile border fence, double the size of the U.S. Border Patrol, and add new penalties for employers who hire undocumented workers. The bill will also allow most of the 12 million undocumented workers to eventually earn immigration status. The bill would allow illegal aliens to become citizens by learning the English language, paying a $2000 fine, paying back taxes, and passing a criminal background check.

The proposal once again includes a provision for a temporary Guest Worker program. This would allow immigrants in the U.S. to work under a temporary visa program.

Congressional leaders indicate that they hope to reach a decision on immigration reform soon, and before the 2008 presidential election campaign pushes to the forefront of politics.

Those in favor of immigration reform still have a tough battle ahead of them. Even though the Republicans are no longer in control of Congress, the Democrats still need their support, and major Republican leaders are still not on board for a comprehensive immigration reform bill. This could possibly slow down or even stop the passage of immigration reform this year.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Associated Press is reporting today that the Department of Homeland Security is expected to announce that the new passport requirements for reentry into the United States, due to become effective in 2008, will not apply to children aged 15 or younger. Children will need a certified copy of their birth certificates, but not a passport.

There may be another exemption for children aged 16 through 18 if they are traveling with school, religious, cultural, or athletic groups and under adult supervision.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The ILRC Forecast on Immigration Reform
Judith Golub, Executive Director

With the November mid-term elections behind us and the 110th Congress convened, what is the prognosis for immigration reform? While it would be an uphill fight, reform could be enacted this year, given both the public's demand that Congress fix our nation's problems (and our broken immigration system being one of the primary problems needing attention) and some momentum remaining from last year's Congressional debate. Both Democratic and Republican Senate leaders have prioritized immigration reform. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) introduced the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007 (S. 9) on the very first day of the 110th Congress and has reserved floor time to consider the issue. This "placeholder" bill will be replaced most likely with a reform package, perhaps one negotiated by Senators Edward Kennedy (D-MA) and John McCain (R-AZ). Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has acknowledged that immigration is a pressing concern needing to be addressed. On the House side, Representative Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), the Chair of the House Immigration Subcommittee, wants to produce "a practical and bipartisan bill that gets broad support" and believes that "if everybody can lower their voice, just stop yelling and go through the issues one by one, that we can come to consensus." However, a determined opposition led by Senate and House Republicans are expected to put roadblocks in the way of reform.  In contrast, President Bush in his State of the Union address underscored the fact that "convictions run deep in this Capitol when it comes to immigration.  Let us have a serious, civil, and conclusive debate - so that you can pass, and I can sign, comprehensive immigration reform into law."

But what kind of reform remains the question, as does whether there will be reform at all - given the "convictions that run deep."  While the following does not exhaust the possibilities, below are four scenarios:

*         The "good enough" scenario in which a measure passes that includes both hard pills to swallow and significant positives and can be implemented.  This will be a very uphill fight;

*         The "get done what we can" scenario in which, due to time constraints and other roadblocks, a smaller scale package passes (that includes AgJobs and DREAM Act and other measures along with some enforcement provisions) that has sufficient Congressional support and will provide the foundation for future reform;

*         The "not good enough" scenario in which a measure passes that does not depart significantly from last year's Senate-passed bill, S. 2611, should be opposed on its merits and cannot be implemented; and

*         The "crash" scenario in which too many constraints, conflicts, and roadblocks stand in the way so that Congress fails to address reform this year. 

Several factors will help determine which scenario might become reality and include: 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The possibility of comprehensive immigration reform has been in the forefront of the news for the last several months. Thousands of people in the United States are currently waiting for developments in immigration law. Even more, who are in the United States illegally, believe the passing of new laws will lead to amnesty or eventual citizenship.

Waiting for a new law to pass, however, may prevent you from obtaining immigration benefits now, and may even lead to possible denials of immigration status in the future. Those who are hoping for "amnesty" may find it more productive to begin their immigration cases now, since there are many ways of obtaining a green card in the U.S., even for those here illegally.

If you are married to a U.S. citizen or have relatives who are citizens, there may be different avenues available to you today that would make you eligible to receive your permanent residency. If you have been a victim of persecution in your home country, you may be eligible for asylum. If you have been in the U.S. for a certain length of time, you may also be eligible for immigration status. These are just a few examples of the groups of people who can begin their immigration cases today so that they may obtain permanent residency.

More important, there are many people who are waiting for immigration reform to pass believing that this will provide them a clear and free path to citizenship. This is simply not the case. In fact, many people who have legal options available to them now, may lose those options should any immigration reform be passed in the future. Furthermore, while it is likely that one day immigration reform may pass, we have no idea what benefits, if any, it would provide.

Rather than wait for an amnesty that may never arrive, take steps today to obtain legal status in the United States. Meanwhile, if any immigration reform is passed before your case is completed, there will be less of a chance that your status will be compromised. Finally, simply waiting and not taking any action is almost never a good idea.

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.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Texas state Senator Dan Patrick, whose other job is as a right-wing radio talk show host, filed a bill yesterday in the Senate that would impose a 10% tax on any money transferred by wire from Texas to a foreign country. The proceeds of this new tax (New taxes from  a Republican?) would be used to improve border security.

The object of course is to penalize immigrants who wire money back home to help support their families. This is made clear by the fact that the bill would exempt any transfers of $5000 or more. Why exempt larger transfers? Because these are normally made by businesses, and we certainly don't want to do anything  that would hurt businesses -- we only hurt consumers in Texas.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Farmers Branch, Texas city council could repeal its ordinance that prevents landlords from renting to illegal immigrants in a vote scheduled today. Farmers Branch's current ordinance, passed in November, requires apartment managers to obtain proof that tenants are U.S. citizens or in the country legally. Council members also approved resolutions making English the official language of the Farmers Branch, and allowing local authorities to become part of a federal program so they can enforce immigration laws.

Landlords who do not enforce the ordinance face fines of up to $100 per day per violation. Under current practices in Texas, tenants typically provide not much more than a driver's license or other photo identification to prospective landlords.

A resident of Farmers Branch, Guillermo Ramos, filed a suit in state district court against the city. The suit alleges that the city violated open meetings laws by debating the merits of the existing ordinance behind closed doors, then voting on it in an open meeting, but not giving residents a chance to see the wording of the ordinance or comment on it before the council vote.

On January 11, District Court Judge Bruce Priddy issued a temporary restraining order delaying enforcement of the ordinance. Last week, the city council asked the city attorney to draft a new version of the ordinance to put to voters in a May election.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

An editorial by the staff of the Dallas Morning News today hit just the right tone for a  way out of the current immigration mess. Excerpts:

A prosperous city and state with a promising future. That's what everyone reading this surely wants to build for themselves today and for the generations to come.

Everyone has a role, primarily our lawmakers in Austin and Washington, but also the Editorial Page of The Dallas Morning News. In the coming year we'll use our voice to exhort political leaders in strategic areas that can help form a sound foundation for our society.

We'll identify those areas of focus today and monitor progress through the year. Some of these causes will be familiar to readers, as we have championed them in the past.

Our primary agenda for elected leaders in 2007 is this:

Immigration

Hazelton, Pa. Farmers Branch. The Texas Legislature. The more that local communities and state governments take immigration problems into their hands, the more the situation cries out for Washington to finally provide a lasting answer.

What needs to happen: Comprehensive reform of the nation's immigration law to go along with stiffer border-security measures already under way. Reform needs to include a guest-worker program and a path to citizenship for some illegal immigrants. State and local governments, meanwhile, need to resist the urge to pass laws better handled by the feds.

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 <.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Columnist Reuben Navarrette, Jr. has written an interesting article for CNN, wondering what action, if any, the Democrats will take on immigration reform, now that they are officially in power in both the House and the Senate. Navarrette says almost 70% of Latinos voted Democratic in the 2006 election, but warns Democrats what might happen if immigration reform is not passed soon. The article concludes:

In the days after the election, there were newspaper articles in which sources in Congress said Democrats might want to put the immigration issue on the back burner and -- certainly in the so-called 100-hour agenda to be kicked off this week -- concentrate on easy victories such as raising the minimum wage, expanding stem cell research, lowering prescription drug prices and tightening congressional ethics rules.

But lately, there's been talk of a bipartisan coalition in Congress that could approve an immigration bill that gives illegal immigrants a path to legal residency and perhaps even defund 700 miles of border fencing approved in the last session.

Sources in Congress are saying that the process will begin in the Senate as early as this month. Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Massachusetts, and Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, are expected to introduce legislation. It should pass.

Then all eyes will be on the House, which could take up the issue later in the year. What if House Democrats get cold feet and fail to deliver, and Latinos hold them accountable? Let's just say, they may not want to unpack those boxes just yet. In two years, they may have to find their way back to those smaller offices.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Texas Governor Rick Perry, normally an ultra-conservative, surprised most members of his conservative base yesterday. In a speech to border officials, Governor Perry said that  ideas such as a fence along the border, cutting off public education for illegal immigrants, and changing the law to take away birthright citizenship are "divisive."

Perhaps now that the election is over, and Perry won a multi-candidate race with far less than a majority of the total vote, he is moderating his political views in order to attract more of the Latino population.

Whatever his motivation, and whatever his sincerity, those of us who try to help immigrants appreciate his new positions.

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.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

According to an Associated Press story in today's Dallas Morning News, Citizenship and Immigration Services has released a new civics test for immigrants applying for U.S. citizenship. There are 144 revised questions. Excerpts from the story:

The draft questions will be tried out on immigrant volunteers in 10 cities early next year. Gonzalez was not ready to give specific dates. Applicants must verbally answer six of 10 questions right to pass the civics portion of the test. The questions will be tried out early next year in Albany, N.Y.; Boston; Charleston, S.C.; Denver; El Paso; Kansas City, Mo.; Miami; San Antonio; Tucson, Ariz.; and Yakima, Wash.

The government wants the citizenship test to require a better understanding of America's history and government institutions. It expects to spend about $6.5 million to make the changes, said Alfonso Aguilar, director of the citizenship office.

The redesign is aimed at making sure applicants know the meaning behind some of America's fundamental institutions, said Chris Rhatigan, an agency spokeswoman.

The questions will go into use in the pilot cities before advocacy groups get a chance to point out any problems or concerns. After the questions are tested, the agency plans to spend a year examining results and reviewing the questions with groups with expertise and interest in the tests.

Another possible question would delve into the history of the Civil War. Applicants are now asked, What was the Emancipation Proclamation?

Current applicants need to know that it freed the slaves. In the future, however, prospective citizens will need to have a deeper understanding of the Civil War and name one of the problems that led to it.

Immigration advocates want to ensure that the new test does not make becoming a citizen more difficult, while groups that want to control immigration want to ensure newcomers are not simply memorizing information.

My guess is that about half of native-born U.S. citizens would fail the proposed test.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

This news is from the e-mail newsletter of the American Immigration Lawyers Association:

As the Pulse goes to press, media reports suggest that Republican leadership in Congress may defer passage of fiscal 2007 spending bills until the 110th Congress begins next year. Rather than take up appropriations legislation when Congress reconvenes on December 5, reports indicate that GOP leaders plan to pass a continuing resolution (CR), which would extend current levels of funding into January.

Plans to pass a CR in lieu of any further appropriations work would frustrate attempts by immigration advocates to enact positive immigration provisions - such as H-1B visa and employment-based green card relief - during the lame duck session, since any immigration measures would need to be passed as part of an appropriations bill. However, Democrats and Republican appropriators oppose deferral of the spending bills, and would prefer to see appropriations legislation completed during December. If these legislators succeed in bringing one or more appropriations bills to the Floor, advocates will still have a chance to push for positive immigration measures.

Check in with AILA's Congressional News and Updates for updated information on the lame duck session and the upcoming 110th Congress, including a list of newly-elected leadership in the House and Senate.

View the Senate's 2006 calendar.

View the House's 2006 calendar.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Question: How long after becoming a permanent resident does it take to become a United States citizen? What are the requirements for naturalization?
Answer: First, all applicants for U.S. Citizenship must be at least 18 years old.
Second, a person is eligible to apply for citizenship if he or she has been lawfully admitted for permanent residence. The Applicant must prove that he or she has continuously resided as a lawful permanent resident in the United States for at least five years prior to filing for citizenship. Marriage-based petitions are an exception to the five year requirement and such applicants may apply for citizenship after three years.

The Applicant must also prove that s/he has been physically present in the United States for at least 30 months out of the previous 60 months. (i.e. the 30/60 rule). The Applicant must prove s/he has been a person of good moral character for the statutory period. Generally, the statutory period is five years. The statutory period is three years for person's who obtained permanent residence through a marriage-based petition. The prospective citizen must have an ability to read, write and speak ordinary English, and have an understanding of basic U.S. history and government.

Question: I would like to file a visa petition for my spouse. Want documents do I need to bring to the interview to prove a valid marriage? 
Answer: You can prove the validity of your marriage with many different types of documents. For example, your U.S. Federal Income Tax Return should show either 'married filing jointly' or 'married filing separately.' Other examples include a lease agreement with both your names on it; new joint bank account statements; notarized affidavits from friends and relatives; letters and/or cards addressed to you as husband and wife; proof of vacations taken together, and junk mail addressed to you both. USCIS will want to see evidence of cohabitation, evidence of jointly held assets, jointly filed income tax returns, and other evidence which will tend to show that you married your spouse for love, and not solely to get your green card.

Question: I was granted permanent residency based on my marriage to a citizen. There were conditions placed on my status. What does this mean?
Answer: You are a permanent resident on a conditional basis. This means that your residency was granted to you less than two years after the date of your marriage. Your residency expires two years from the date it was given to you. You will need to file for removal of these conditions 90 days prior to the expiration of your residency status. To do this, you will need to show that you are still married and are in a bona fide marriage.

Question: I entered the U.S. illegally several years ago and married a citizen last year. Am I eligible to apply for permanent resident status?
Answer: Adjustment of status occurs in the United States after an individual has been inspected and admitted or paroled by presenting her/himself for inspection. A Form I-130 petition and a Form I-485, Application to Adjust Status, can be filed simultaneously only where it is for an immediate relative. Obtaining your "green card" in the U.S. can only take place if you entered the country with a valid visa. If you did not you will have to apply for a visa at a U.S. consulate abroad. You will also have to submit a waiver showing extreme hardship to your spouse if you were forced to remain outside the U.S.

Question: What do I need to prove in order to obtain a visitor's visa to the United States?
Answer: There are several issues that affect whether a visitor visa will be given to an applicant. Everyone applying for a visitor visa is presumed to want to immigrate to the USA on a permanent basis. In order to rebut this presumption a person has to provide evidence that they will return to their home country prior to the expiration of their visa. This might include proof that you were invited to visit for a short vacation based on a letter in affidavit form from a friend or family member in the U.S. Also, besides establishing the reasons for the visit, you will also need to prove that you have every reason to return to your home when the purpose of your trip is accomplished. This might include evidence of employment that you will be returning to. Bank accounts, evidence of relatives in your home country, and ownership of property in your home country are all examples of facts that you may want to provide.

Question: I just realized that my green card expired. What do I do to obtain a new one?
Answer: First, you should not travel with an expired green card. You will also need to file an application to replace your green card. This will be done on Form I-90. You will not lose your permanent resident status if you do not renew your Green Card nor will your permanent resident status will not expire or change. However, you are required by law to carry evidence of your status and it is best to apply for a new green card as soon as possible.

Question: I am a naturalized citizen. Is there any way my citizenship can be taken away from me?
Answer: Yes. If within two years of becoming a citizen the USCIS finds that the person acquired citizenship through misrepresentation, then administrative revocation can take place. If the time limit of two years has expired the government must file suit in federal court to have the person "denaturalized." However, the chances of this ever happening are very small.

Question: Is there any new immigration reform that has been made into law? How will the new immigration law affect me?
Answer: As of May 25, 2006, both the Senate and the House of Representatives have passed immigration reform bills. The Senate passed the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006 (S. 2611) on which May 25, 2006 while the House passed the The Border Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005 (H.R. 4437) on which December 16, 2005. Both bills vastly differ from each other in terms of content and law. The bill passed in the Senate encompasses a greater part of immigration benefits issues, while the bill passed in the House focused mainly on protection and security.

In order for any immigration reform bill to be made into law, a conference committee formed of both Senators and Representatives will convene to create one bill based on compromises. After one bill is drafted, both the Senate and the House will vote on it, if passed in both the Senate and the House, the bill will be sent to the President who can then either sign it into law or reject it. Currently there is no schedule set for the conference committee or vote date on the bill.

Question: I would like to travel outside the United States. Do I need to apply for advance parole before leaving the country?
Answer: There are certain classes of people who need to obtain advance parole before leaving the U.S. They include aliens in the United States who wish to travel abroad but have:
1. An application for adjustment of status pending;
2. Been admitted as a refugee or have been granted asylum;
3. Been granted benefits under the Family Unity Program;
4. Been granted Temporary Protected Status;
5. An asylum application pending; and/or
6. An emergent personal or bona fide reason to travel temporarily abroad.

The purpose of advance parole is that it enables an alien to come back to the U.S. after traveling abroad without the necessity of obtaining a visa to the U.S., and it preserves whatever application the alien has pending with the USCIS.

Question: I obtained permanent residency based on my marriage to a U.S. citizen. We are now divorced. Can my green card be taken away from me or cancelled?
Answer: It depends. If your status is that of a conditional permanent resident, and your marriage has been terminated, it is possible for the alien to obtain a waiver of the termination. A waiver of the termination is granted to the alien if the alien can show that the marriage was a union in good faith and the alien was not at fault for his failure to file the joint petition to remove the condition. Generally speaking, if the conditional permanent resident can show that the marriage was entered into in good faith, it is presumed that he was not at fault for failing to file a joint petition.Divorce does not adversely affect an alien's immigration status after the alien obtains permanent residence unconditionally.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

Following the terrorist attacks of 9/11, several controversial laws were enacted in order to prevent future acts of terrorism. One of these laws was the Real ID Act, which was passed in May 2005. This law was enacted in order to establish national standards for state-issued driver's licenses and identification cards as well as to make it extremely difficult for terrorists to use immigration laws to their advantage.

Currently, forms of identification, such as driver's licenses, are issued by the states, not by the federal government. States set the rules for what data is found on any identification card, and the states also maintain databases of ID card holders.

Beginning on May 11, 2008, however, a federal agency will not be able to accept any identification card issued by a state unless it meets certain requirements. Most of these requirements are already used by the states. The main source of controversy regarding the Real ID Act is the fact that in order to obtain any state issued ID card the applicant must show that he or she is lawfully present in the United States. States will also be required to collect a variety of data including name, home address, Social Security number and other identifying information, and to keep it this information in a shared database accessible to all states and the federal government. In addition, if a state does not comply with the requirements of the act, it will not be able to receive any sort of federal funding.

This requirement will make it impossible for those who are in the U.S. without any legal immigration status to obtain a state issued identification card. Without this card, a person will be unable to obtain automobile insurance, travel on any airline, apply for Social Security, or even enter federal buildings.

The Real ID Act also contains provisions in order to prevent terrorists from using the asylum process in order to reside in the United States. The Act sets forth a more rigorous standard that will make it more difficult for an applicant to be granted asylum. Furthermore, the Real ID Act provides that an alien who contributes funds or other materials to support a terrorist organization is inadmissible and deportable unless he did not know, and should not have known, that he was helping a terrorist organization.

Congress estimated that the costs of implementing the Real ID Act would be approximately $100 million. New studies, however, suggest that states will incur costs of more than $11 billion in order to meet the requirements set forth by the Act.

Many of those in favor of immigration feel that these new rules put unreasonable burdens on aliens trying to prove they are escaping from persecution, and unnecessarily broaden the definition of terrorist activity such that many will suffer "guilt by association" even if they don't support terrorism. In the end, most feel that the burdens, costs and legality of the Real ID Act outweigh any potential benefit that would result from its enforcement.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Dallas Morning News columnist Mercedes Olivera has an article in the November 18, 2006, issue about a recent city resolution passed by the Dallas suburb of Farmers Branch. The resolution, in a nutshell, requires landlords to demand proof of U.S. Citizenship before leasing to a tenant, and dictates that English is the official language of the city, and therefore no city documents can be published in any other language. The article begins:

City officials in Farmers Branch who recently voted for anti-immigration measures seem increasingly out of step with the rest of the country.

And their efforts may only end up backfiring as the children of Latino immigrants take up their roles as future business and community leaders in North Texas.

Looking at races across the nation, it's easy to spot the immigration policies and supporting candidates, such as those in Arizona, who lost big in this year's midterm elections.

Most of those who promoted more comprehensive and humane immigration reform won. Indeed, exit polls showed that six in 10 U.S. voters believe undocumented immigrants should have a chance at legalization.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

That was the headline of a story in yesterday's Dallas Morning News about the flood of bills pre-filed in the Texas Legislature. The News article offers the opinion that immigration will be a primary focus of the legislative session that starts in January. Many of the pre-filed bills are definitely anti-immigration. Here is a partial list of immigration-related bills, as noted in the article:

* Enact a constitutional amendment to prohibit illegal immigrants from benefiting from state services, including health care, public assistance and education.

* Require proof of citizenship on delivery of medical assistance.

* Require proof of citizenship to vote.

* Require proof of legal residence to be considered for in-state tuition at colleges and universities.

* Require proof of employment eligibility to get any kind of business, occupational or professional license from the state, counties or cities.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

This extremely interesting and comprehensive article is provided by the The Immigrant Resource Center. The opinions and judgments are theirs.

The November mid-term election was a repudiation of the Republican majority and a strong protest against the status quo -- whatever the status quo voters were registering their opposition to: the war in Iraq, Congressional corruption, the economy, or terrorism.  And this mid-term election was largely focused on national, not local, issues.

Immigration Not A Wedge Issue: Republican leadership tried, but failed, to make immigration the wedge issue that would ensure their continued control of Congress after aggressively promoting an enforcement-only measure (H.R.4437) as their solution to reforming our broken immigration system. In fact, exit polling as reported by the Washington Post found that fewer than one in three cited immigration "as extremely important in influencing their decision, and they only narrowly favored Republican candidates.  About six in 10 voters said that they believe illegal immigrants working in the United States should be offered a chance to apply for legal status..... Democratic candidates won support from 61 percent of those who backed a path to citizenship, according to the poll."

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Lou Dobbs, the CNN commentator who is very much opposed to loosening restrictions on immigration, has written an interesting article about the proposed border fence. Here are some selected quotes from the article:

President Bush will sign the Secure Fence Act into law Thursday at a public ceremony in the White House Roosevelt Room, reversing his earlier decision to withhold the pomp and circumstance.

House Republicans demanded the formal proceedings for public relations purposes, claiming this fence is a major accomplishment for Congress ahead of our November midterm elections.

I've said from the beginning that we can't reform immigration laws until we control immigration, and we can't control immigration unless we control our borders and our ports. Constructing the border fence certainly is a good beginning to our efforts to control our borders, but let's be honest about the legislation: It isn't nearly enough, and far more must be done. A congressional victory lap isn't in order for funding only half of a 700-mile fence along a nearly 2,000-mile border.

Between 12 million and 20 million illegal aliens are living in the United States. But as that range suggests, no one -- not the Border Patrol, not Immigration and Customs Enforcement, not the FBI or the Department of Homeland Security -- has any true idea how many illegal aliens are here. Why not?

I suspect one major reason is the same federal government that refuses to secure our borders and enforce our immigration laws is determined not to accurately measure the number of illegal aliens in the country so as to further cover up both the cost of illegal immigration and the necessity of creating a rational public policy.

Illegal aliens are an important part of a one trillion-dollar underground economy in America, according to Barron's. Illegal employers hire illegal aliens who pay little or no income taxes, and whose children are provided free schooling. Illegal aliens receive medical and social services, and over the past decade have displaced more than two million low-skilled American workers from their jobs.

Increased drug trafficking constitutes another reason we must control our borders immediately. No matter how the government of Mexico resists, the Drug Enforcement Agency says as much as $25 billion in drug money crosses the U.S.-Mexico border each year. And that doesn't even count the money made from middleman and end-user transactions in the drug trade. In fact, more cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine and marijuana enter the United States from Mexico than from any other point.

Control of our border with Mexico must be established if we are to be successful in resolving our illegal immigration crisis and winning the war on drugs. We do want to win, don't we?

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Today's Dallas Morning News includes three opinion columns regarding the 700 mile fence legislation recently passed by Congress. None of the three are complimentary to Congress.

Syndicated talk show host Lynn Woolley discusses the hypocrisy and cynicism of the Congressmen and Senators in passing border fence legislation as a "symbolic gesture," without funding legislation or any real expectation the fence will actually be built. Woolley says:

By dismissing recent border fence legislation as a "symbolic gesture," Sen. John Cornyn has accomplished one thing with conservatives: He made us wonder if we can ever trust him again.

The House, Senate and finally President Bush got on board for actually doing something to enforce our leaky, dangerous borders. A bill to build 700 miles of border fence passed by landslide numbers. Even John McCain and Hillary Clinton voted for it, as did Mr. Cornyn.

But now Mr. Cornyn tells us it was all for show, that the fence will never be built. He says it's too expensive and that Congress simply won't appropriate the money. He says this as if we should have known all along and were playing some little game.

Chicago Tribune columnist Steve Chapman also believes the fence will never be built, and says that if it is built, it will not be effective in preventing illegal immigration from Mexico. According to Chapman:

And what will this lengthy barrier accomplish if and when it is finished? It will certainly prevent transient Mexicans and Central Americans from crossing the border in the places where it stands. But it won't prevent them from crossing elsewhere, as they did when fences were erected in the San Diego and El Paso areas. Since the government began cracking down in those places, total illegal immigration has actually risen.

Instead of making their way through urban areas, undocumented foreigners have eluded capture by trekking across remote deserts and mountains, paying human smugglers to shepherd them into the United States. Instead of snaring more illegal entrants, we're now arresting fewer.

A longer, more formidable fence can once again divert illegal immigrants to more dangerous routes and increase the fees charged by smugglers to arrange passage. As long as higher-paying employment beckons to impoverished people on the other side of the border, though, the cost and risk will still look modest next to the potential payoff. The fence can make illegal entry harder, but it won't make it any less popular.

The third opinion is from Alvaro Vargas Llosa, director of the Center on Global Prosperity at the Independent Institute. Llosa concludes:

Most walls in the history of civilization were walls of necessity to keep enemies or freedom away. This time, it's a wall of choice. The choice to be seen to be doing something that everyone knows will never work - and may perhaps never actually be completed because, by the time they figure out how to erect the fence across the rugged bluffs and ravines of southern Arizona, Mexico could become a first-world nation and gringos could be flocking to the south!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

As election day rapidly approaches, it is important to understand the viewpoints each candidate for Texas Governor has on current immigration laws and proposed immigration reform. Understanding each candidate's viewpoint will help you make a better decision on November 7, 2006.

Currently, the U.S. is home to approximately 10 million undocumented workers and their families. It is estimated that there are over one million illegal immigrants living in Texas. Each candidate has developed a plan to deal with illegal immigration and secure the Texas border.

Current Republican Governor Rick Perry wants to take action to tighten border security. This will include using the National Guard to patrol the U.S./Mexico border. He will ask for $100 million to fund border security efforts and will authorize the building of "border jails" to hold illegal aliens.

Carole Keeton Strayhorn, an Independent and former City of Austin Mayor, states that she will provide double the power of the Texas Rangers so that they can lead state border security measures and she will provide them with $15 million to do so. She believes that Texas must do more to protect the borders along the Rio Grande and the Gulf of Mexico by taking all necessary steps to prevent illegal immigration.

Kinky Friedman, an Independent candidate, would like to send 10,000 Guardsmen to the border. He also wants to impose fines of up to $50,000 on companies that hire illegal immigrants, and require foreign workers to buy a taxpayer ID card and pass a criminal background check. He would also like to make the Mexican government fund the cost of illegal immigration in Texas.

Chris Bell, a Democrat and former Congressman from Houston, said that he wants to focus on employers who hire illegal workers, but has said that trying to deport illegal immigrants already here would be difficult. He also supports the McCain-Kennedy bill that would provide a so-called "pathway to citizenship" for millions of illegal immigrants already in the country, provided they had jobs, learned English, paid fines, and met certain other requirements.

Each candidate for Texas Governor has a different stance on illegal immigration and immigration reform, and your vote will help determine the future of immigration in the United States.

If you have any questions on how to become a citizen or where and how to vote, please contact us or visit www.immigration-law-answers.com.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Slate Magazine today has a great Nick Anderson cartoon about Congress' unwillingness to take any action on immigration reform. Of course, by the time you read this, it may not be the cartoon of the day, but if you'll search back a bit you'll find it.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

I wish I was able to draw. I would love to be an editorial cartoonist. Michael Ramirez has encapsulated the position of the House of Representatives perfectly in this wonderful cartoon.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

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

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

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

Think about that one come November.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

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

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

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

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

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

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

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

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

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

You could have fooled me.

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

Fine. Then get to it.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks