An internal USCIS policy memo was leaked to the public today that shows the immigration agency in an entirely new (and surpisingly pleasant) light. The memo, titled “Administrative Alternatives to Comprehensive Immigration Reform,” offers a set of suggestions for softening the U.S. immigration system in the absence of congressional passage of a comprehensive reform package. Among the suggestions: enabling persons with Temporary Protected Status (TPS) to adjust their status and become permanent residents, expanding the use of “Parole-in-Place” to create a basis for adjustment to individuals otherwise ineligible, expanding the concept of “dual intent” from H and L visa-holders to other nonimmigrant categories, increasing the grace period after nonimmigrant status runs out from 10 days to between 45 and 90 days, expanding the use of deferred action, and the “strategic” issuance of Notices to Appear. Collectively, the suggestions in this memo would make the lives of countless thousands of immigrants in this country much easier, and could very well restore a modicum of fairness to America’s immigration system in the process. I also find it very interesting – and extraordinarily practical – that a strong motivating factor behind many of these suggestions appears to be increased revenue for USCIS. In the TPS section, for example, the memo states “[r]ather than imposing any additional financial cost, allowing TPS applicants to adjust or change status will increase USCIS revenue in the form of fee receipts.” USCIS is currently planning a fee hike, but knows that it will need more money to operate smoothly than any increases in filing fees can ever provide – although one can argue whether this is the result of mismanagement or of actual need. So there you go – a win-win situation for the immigrants of America and for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Who needs Congress when you have such logical beings working for USCIS?
Judge Susan Bolton of the United States District Court for the District of Arizona blocked implementation of parts of Arizona’s controversial immigration law while its constitutionality is analyzed, a potentially major blow to its supporters in Arizona and beyond. Although the law was supposed to go into effect tomorrow, the Judge blocked provisions that relate to checking immigration status during “routine” police stops and requiring immigrants to carry documentation of their status, saying that “[i]f enforcement of the portions of S.B. 1070 for which the Court finds a likelihood of preemption is not enjoined, the United States is likely to suffer irreparable harm…the federal government’s ability to enforce its policies and achieve its objectives will be undermined by the state’s enforcement of statutes that interfere with federal law, even if the Court were to conclude that the state statutes have substantially the same goals as federal law.” The Judge went on to state that “[t]he Court therefore finds that preserving the status quo through a preliminary injunction is less harmful than allowing state laws that are likely preempted by federal law to be enforced” (emphasis added). There you go; in a nutshell, Judge Bolton has already determined that a likelihood exists that portions of Arizona’s law will be preempted by federal law, and Arizona is going to have an uphill battle defending their constitutionality in court. I just wonder if all those other states that wanna be wanna be like Arizona will take notice and scale back their own efforts to enforce federal immigration law as well.
Just what is “ODLS,” you might ask? No, I didn’t mispell OLDS – ODLS stands for Online Detainee Locator System, and it’s ICE’s newest online gadget designed to make everyone’s lives easier. ICE has received numerous complaints over the years related to its treatment of immigration detainees, but perhaps the biggest source of complaints has been its aggravating practice of moving detainees around the country due to lack of beds and space. Even more frustating, ICE usually couldn’t say where detainees were at any one point in time; one of your clients could be in Lancaster one day, in Arizona the following day, and in Texas the day after that, but ICE never seemed to know what was happening from one day to the next. Many immigration attorneys ascribed some sort of mal-intent to this practice, but I don’t think ICE intended to destroy peoeples’ lives - it just happened to do so in the process of meeting quotas, saving money, finding beds for its ever-growing army of detainees, and generally behaving as bureaucracies usually behave. ICE seems to have heard our complaints, and has responded with ODLS, which should allow anyone to find a detainee anywhere in the U.S. If ICE’s informative brochure is to be believed, attorneys and family members of detainees will know where people are in real-time, and will able to visit them and plan for their defense (or deportation) more efficiently and effectively. I’ll let you know whether or not this actually happens.
I liked this article in today’s New York Times about former Lawful Permanent Residents that had been deported for committing drug crimes before recent Supreme Court cases made it more difficult for the government to do so. There’s a certain fundamental unfairness when someone can’t benefit from changes in the law solely because of geographic location – but that’s exactly the case here, since the courts will not entertain motions to reopen or reconsider after a respondent has been deported (although some very recent case law might indicate otherwise). One thing the article never mentioned was whether post-conviction relief is possible for any of these individuals. After all, we now have Padilla v. Kentucky, which held that defendants are entitled to competent immigration advice during criminal proceedings. If any of these deportees can convince their family members in the U.S. to hire a competent criminal attorney to modify their convictions based on Padilla, there is a remote chance they might qualify for waivers that would allow them to re-immigrate to the United States.
I think that this story is pretty damn funny. A judge in Arizona is making the State pay attorney’s fees for a group of people that were arrested for “disrupting the peace” at a Maricopa County Board of Supervisors meeting. Although the State’s Attorney said that they were engaged in “disorderly conduct,” a review in court of the transcript from the meeting shows that the arrestees were speaking out against Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s law enforcement policies – and nothing more (OK, maybe some of them clapped too). The judge was so incensed by the actions of the deputy that arrested these individuals that he essentially called him a fascist on the record – something I’ve never seen happen anywhere. This latest incident only adds to Arizona’s long list of woes as a result of its immigration and/or law enforcement policies. I’d like to think that Arizona would learn from all its misfortunes and maybe adopt some more “nuanced” immigration-related policies – but alas, so far there are no signs of change from the Grand Canyon State, attorney fee assessments or not.
Given the slow pace of reconstruction in Haiti following the devasting earthquake earlier this year, USCIS has decided to give Haitian nationals more time to register for Temporary Protected Status, also known as TPS. Originally, the registration period for TPS ended on July 20, 2010; now, the initial registration period will end on January 18, 2011, giving Haitians much more time to decide what they want to do and whether remaining in the U.S. is really a viable option. I found it interesting that USCIS decided to extend the TPS registration period in part because doing so would aid Haiti’s reconstruction efforts; in other words, the more money that Haitians in the United States send back to Haiti, the more rapidly Haiti will be able to get back on its feet. I’m not sure if this rationale would really stand up under closer scrutiny, but hey – the result is good nevertheless. Anyone with questions about TPS for Haitian nationals should visit the USCIS website at www.uscis.gov.
I just read on Immigration Impact, the Immigration Policy Center’s Blog, that the Colbert Report has partnered with United Farm Workers in order to recruit U.S. workers for agricultural jobs. This “Take Our Jobs” campaign is aimed to counter claims that foreign workers steal American jobs (although in certain industries, a strong argument can be made that that’s indeed been the case). I think it’s safe to assume that Stephen Colbert and the UFW are getting very few takers for jobs that involve laboring all day in a 100° field, at least for the wages considered fair in today’s labor market, showing that there is definitely a place in America’s economy for low-skilled foreign labor. The Colbert Report’s “Take Our Jobs” segment can be found by following this link, and is definitely worth checking out – after all, the more we can all laugh at our nation’s most serious social and political problems, the easier they’ll hopefully be to resolve.
I just read an interesting report from the Congressional Research Service – the research arm of the U.S. Congress – titled “Securing America’s Borders: the Role of the Military.” This report analyzes a question that is actually of the utmost importance to the great immigration debate raging around the country – can the military and National Guard be used to patrol America’s borders and enforce U.S. immigration and customs laws? Apparently, the answer is “sometimes,” largely due to an 1878 law called the Posse Comitatus Act (PCA). The PCA prevents the U.S. military from enforcing federal civil or state and local laws unless expressly authorized by the U.S. Constitution or Congress. Immigration and customs laws are all civil in nature, and therefore fall within the PCA’s prohibition – unless Congress decides that the military can play a role in securing the nation’s borders. The PCA does not apply to the National Guard when it’s not serving a federal objective, but as a matter of policy and practice the National Guard does not enforce civilian law unless there are “exigent circumstances or as otherwise authorized.” Congressional legislation has given the military a limited support role in border enforcement over the years, but two bills currently pending in Congress would dramatically expand the military’s and National Guard’s roles in securing the our borders. The Border Security Enforcement Act (S. 3332) would deploy 3,000 Natioinal Guard troops along the Arizona/Mexico border, and would add 3,000 additional CBP officers to the Arizona border as well. The Comprehensive Security and Reform for America’s Prosperity Act of 2009 (H.R. 4321) would prohibit the military from enforcing U.S. immigration laws unless the President determines that there is a “national emergency” or for “specific counterterrorism duties.” This would give the President a tremendous swath of discretion in deploying the military along the border, as long as he believes that a sufficiently serious ”national emergency” exists. I’ve got a funny feeling that if there are enough high-profile incidents of cross-border violence – even if America’s border cities remain relatively calm overall – we’ll see the military along the border very quickly, which would add a completely unknown factor to an already volatile and complex situation. I just hope that political pressure won’t force the President to make a short-sighted move that could prove counterproductive and damaging in the long-run.
The Department of Justice filed suit in Federal Court yesterday in order to block Arizona’s wacko immigration law. The DOJ also asked for an immediate injunction to block implementation of SB 1070, set to go into effect later this month. Check out this article from the L.A. Times for more details about the government’s lawsuit, which is sure to further supercharge the political climate surrounding all things immigration for the next few months.
According to Representative Luis Gutierrez (D-IL), President Obama is ready to tackle Comprehensive Immigration Reform – or at least “take it seriously,” whatever that means. The President met with members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus on Tuesday to discus immigration reform and reiterate his ongoing commitment to see CIR happen sometime soon. ABC News’s blog reported that Representative Gutierrez – who has already submitted a draft CIR bill in the House of Representatives – was happy with what he heard from the President, and expected him to address CIR again during a planned speech to the nation on June 30th. I have no doubt that Rep. Gutierrez sincerely believes what he’s quoted as saying, but I think that he’s deluding himself if he thinks that President Obama is going to tackle immigration reform during an election year and before his financial overhaul plan has wound its way through Congress. The President might give lip service to CIR right now, but I really can’t see anything of substance happening for quite some time – possibly the middle of next year, at the very earliest.
|
|
