Got Immigration? The World’s Best Damn Blog About U.S. Immigration

Central America is one of the most violent places on earth thanks to rampant, unchecked gang activity and weak governance throughout the region.  Thousands of young men (and sometimes women) are recruited to join these maras every year – and anyone that refuses does so at their own peril.  A recent article in the New York Times illustrates just how high the stakes are for young Central Americans seeking protection from gang persecution in the United States.  Benito Zaldívar, a national of El Salvador, was first recruited by Mara-18 – one of the largest and most powerful gangs in Central America – before he was even a teenager.  He came to the United States illegally in order to escape Mara-18′s high-pressure recruitment efforts, but was caught at the border and promptly applied for asylum.  The Immigration Judge and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) both denied his application, saying that he could not be considered part of a “recognized social group,” one of the five bases for asylum under American law.  Benito returned to El Salvador after the BIA denied his appeal, and was dead within eight weeks - shot in the face by members of Mara-18.  I’m sorry, but if American asylum law doesn’t recognize this as a situation that qualifies for asylum, American asylum law needs to change.  I’ve written before about gang persecution as a basis for asylum, but this case really drives the need for asylum reform home.  Asylum exists to protect people from persecution based on inalienable characteristics, thing that they cannot or should not have to change.  I can think of nothing more inalienable than resisting your own forced recruitment into an organization whose very existence you find repugnant, especially when your government cannot or will not help you out.  America’s collective heart is certinaly big enough to protect these people, who want nothing more than to find a peace that simply does not exist anymore in their home countries.

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report recently called “Humanitarian Assistance – Status of North Korean Refugee Resettlement and Asylum in the United States,” which is fascinating in a number of ways.  First of all, I wasn’t even aware that the U.S. was resettling any North Korean refugees.  The vast majority of North Koreans fleeing their country wind up in South Korea for obvious logistical and cultural reasons -  but I suppose it’s only logical that some would wind up in a relatively immigrant-friendly country like the U.S. as well.  Second, and even more surprising to me, there are some North Koreans that file for asylum in the U.S. – and USCIS actually denies some of their applications!  HUH? North Korean asylum claims are DENIED?  I find that astonishing because the mere act of filing for asylum is a political statement that in all probability merits the death penalty in North Korea.  The only ways I can find to explain these denials are (1) the applicants missed the one-year filing deadline, or (2) they have disqualifying criminal convictions (although in either case, their applications would be referred to an Immigration Judge for additional consideration).  According to the GAO’s report, 33 North Korean asylum claims were filed between October 1, 2004 and March 2, 2010; of those 33, USCIS approved 9, 15 are still pending, and 9 were denied, withdrawn, or dismissed.  I’d be very curious to learn more about these North Korean asylum cases.  How did the applicants make it to the United States?  Who are these applicants in the first place?  Government officials?  Common people?  North Korea is the last true enigma of the international community, a land of secrets, grandstanding, and great suffering.  North Korean asylum seekers that make it to the U.S. are a valuable source of information about this mysterious country, and I certainly hope that any North Koreans that physically make it to the United States are allowed to stay.

Demand for visas to the U.S. is so strong in China right now that the U.S. Embassy in Beijing and the many U.S. Consulates around the country are staying open on Saturdays for the next few weeks in order to ease the backlog and shorten wait-times for visa interviews.  According to the State Department’s website, the United States issued more than 487,000 visas to Chinese citizens in 2009, and demand for visas is up 28% in 2010 over the same period last year.  This “Super Saturday Visa Program” – which was sounds a lot like a variety show from Taiwan, but that’s besides the point – is a creative response to this sharp increase in demand, and hopefully gives Chinese citizens a positive view of traveling and even immigrating to the U.S.  I just wonder if this unprecedented accommodation (come on, how many government employees will ever work on a Saturday?) is partly due to the newly-found wealth of so many Chinese, which I’m sure our elected leaders would love to see transferred to American stores, hotels, restaurants, and any other places where tourists spend money.  Let’s see if the demand for visas in, say, Pakistan increases by 28% – would the U.S. Consulate in Karachi stay open on Saturdays to accommodate the extra demand?  I somehow can’t see that happening.

I liked this editorial in today’s L.A. Times by Tamar Jacoby, President of ImmigrationWorks USA, a national federation of small-business owners advocating for immigration reform.  I don’t agree with everything that Ms. Jacoby wrote, but she raises some interesting points.  For example, will the planned federal lawsuit against SB1070 defeat any possibility of Comprehensive Immigration Reform in the near future?  Obama and the Democrats need Republican votes in order to pass any CIR deal – but will the climate in Washington turn so sour after the administration files suit that any chance of bipartisanship in Congress goes out the window?  CIR requires the wheels of Washington to work smoothly, which itself depends on an almost limitless number of intangibles.  An anti-SB1070 lawsuit – which is more than justified, incidentally – might just shift that mix of intangibles away from CIR, making any chance of reform during this administration impossible.  Reading this editorial, I also couldn’t help wondering whether there are some issues that are just too politically hot to ever touch.  It would be sad indeed if health care reform is the upper limit of what Congress is capable of, and that other issues that are even more contentious – like immigration – will forever remain a dysfunctional mess.  Of course, the “hotness” of any issue is largely a result of the administration’s and Congress’s words and actions, and in that sense, this planned lawsuit can only add more fuel to the fire.

I’m not one to stand on ceremony, but it does seem a little scandalous that Arizona learned about a planned federal lawsuit against its Immigration Law for the first time from an interview that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton gave on Ecuadorian television.  I have no doubt that no one planned to announce the lawsuit in this manner, but couldn’t Secretary Clinton have figured out on her own that this might not have been the most diplomatic thing to do?  Whatever – Arizona’s law is lame, and it doesn’t take a genius to figure out that the Obama administration was going to do something at some point soon.  I just think that, given the contentiousness of the upcoming battle, the feds should have acted as carefully and as professionally as possible.  One last point: the article in which I read about this debaucle still painted the debate in terms of “states enforcing immigration laws” versus the law being “anti-Hispanic.”  I said it before, and I’ll say it again – this is all about the role that police play in society, and the fact that this law fundamentally changes the ability of the police to effectively fight crime.  Why hasn’t the media – or the American public, for that matter, which seems to support such measures - figured this out yet?

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on a significant immigration-related case last week.  In Carachuri-Rosendo v. Holder, the Court held that a second conviction for simple possession of a controlled substance does not render a non-citizen an ”aggravated felon,” which would preclude most forms of relief in Immigration Court.  The specific issue here was whether an alien convicted under state law for simple drug possession, a misdemeanor under federal law, has actually been convicted of an aggravated felony, since that person could have been prosecuted for recidivist simple possession, which is a federal felony (despite the fact that there was no charge or finding of a prior conviction in his original prosecution for possession).  Without going into too much detail, the Court answered this question in the negative, reversing the lower courts and allowing Mr. Carachuri-Rosendo to remain in the United States.  More generally, however, this case stands for the proposition that simple possession convictions are not the serious crimes some Immigration Judges make them out to be.  Justice John Paul Stevens said it best: “We do not usually think of a 10-day sentence for the unauthorized possession of a trivial amount of a prescription drug as an ‘aggravated felony.’”  Thank you, finally, for a dose of common sense.  I just hope that more of Justice Stephens’ sensible view of crimes in immigration law trickles down to decision-makers at the lower levels of our detention, removal, and Immigration Court systems.

Republicans have been vocal about the need to “secure the border” before they’ll talk about Comprehensive Immigration Reform.  It’s almost like a slogan or mantra to many in the GOP – “we’re happy to talk about fixing the immigration system once the border has been secured.”  An interesting article in the LA Times makes a convincing case that “secure the border” is Republican code for “seal the border,” and that nothing short of a radical change in the landscape along the Southern Border will appease the right wing of Congress.  Worse yet, “secure the border” could be code for “we will never agree to CIR – ever!!”  The sad truth is that we can never completely secure our border with Mexico – it’s simply too long, too remote, and too penetrable in too many ways – and waiting until the border is completely secure is a convenient way to do nothing.  So let’s not let our elected officials chant a legitimate-sounding but ultimately meaningless mantra.  We a reform package that combines better border security with better immigration policy in equal measure.  Anything less will sell all of us short.

I saw this article in the New York Times today about Shari Feldman and Inderjit Singh, a perhaps unlikely couple that has been married for 17 years – and stuck in immigration no-man’s land for about just as long.  Mr. Singh, an Indian national, has still not been able to get a green card despite an extremely long marriage, three I-130s, five adjustment interviews, and at least two attorneys.  Why, you might ask?  USCIS thinks that his marriage is not bona fide, mainly because of some inconsistent answers to questions during his adjustment interviews.  The Immigration Service has definitely cracked down on marriage fraud in recent years, but to the point where it sees fraud everywhere – even in 17-year-old marriages.  USCIS obviously has the right to poke into someone’s marriage, but the stakes are simply too high for it to make mistakes – which is just what Mr. Singh’s green card case seems to be.

USCIS issued a notice on Friday to Guatemalan nationals currently in the U.S. that are stranded or might become stranded due to Hurrican Agatha, which ravaged the Central American nation a couple of weeks ago.  Among the benefits: extension and change of status approvals, even if they’ve been filed after someone’s authorized stay expired, re-parole of individuals for whom USCIS has already granted parole, extensions and expedites of advance parole, expedited requests for permission to accept off-campus employment for F-1 students, expedited adjudication of Immediate Relative family-based green card petitions, expedited employment authorization processing, and assistance to LPRs stranded overseas (presumably who have trouble proving that they’re LPRs or who might hit the 1-year mark outside the country).  It’s always nice to see USCIS help out when natural disasters strike, reminding us all that there’s always an immigration dimension to every major news event, even if it’s not readily apparent.

Oh man…once again, USCIS is going to raise its already high filing fees.  These fee increases don’t appear to be as bad as last time, when certain filing fees were increased by more than 100%, but it’s still more money out of pocket for countless thousands of immigrants, nonimmigrants, and employers.  And for what?  USCIS’s service has improved in some respects since the last fee hike, but overall, service is still pretty sub-par.  I’m all for fee increases if I see some concrete benefits afterwards, but that has simply never been the case when it comes to USCIS.  One final interesting note – USCIS wants to start charging now for proposals for Regional Centers, investment vehicles for the EB-5 immigrant investor program.  As of now, there is no fee to file these proposals; under the new proposed fee structure, there will be a $6230 fee to file the new I-924 application for Regional Center designation.  Wow, $0 to $6230 – that’s what I call a fee increase!