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

In anticipation of Thanksgiving, I’d like to just say what I – as an immigration attorney – am thankful for.  I am thankful that I live in a country that is by and large very accepting of immigrants.  Although I rant and complain about how immigrants are treated in the U.S., I don’t lose sight of the fact that the United States absorbs more new immigrants in absolute terms than any other country in the world (of course, we probably also have the most immigration demand of any country in the world, but that doesn’t affect my point here).  I am thankful that immigrants have a means to redress grievances against the government in most cases.  I am thankful that agencies such as USCIS listen to the concerns of the public, even if they ignore our concerns when it suits them, and I am especially thankful for the Vermont Service Center, which is much easier to work with than USCIS’s other service facilities.  I am thankful that, despite outcries from the right, USCIS didn’t distance itself too strongly from an internal memo that was leaked outlining ways to provide benefits to immigrants in the absence of comprehensive immigration reform.  And finally, I am thankful that, in spite of a seemingly bleak future for undocumented immigrants in this country, minor miracles happen all the time.  Immigration laws are strictly enforced and are often obtuse and difficult to understand, but when you know how to use them to a client’s advantage, great things can and do happen all the time.  I guess that my advice this Thanksgiving to anyone that wants a piece of the American dream is not to give up, no matter how bad things look.  Of course, it never hurts to be smart about how you immigrate to the United States – and hiring a reputable attorney is always a good idea too.  Happy Thanksgiving to all my readers.  I’ll be back with more immigration posts after the long holiday weekend.

I listened in on a USCIS teleconference this past Wednesday about U, T, and VAWA petitions.  For those who don’t know, U nonimmigrant status is for victims of qualifying criminal activity, T visas are for victims of human trafficking, and VAWA petitions are for victims of domestic abuse at the hands of a U.S. Citizen or Permanent Resident.  The Vermont Service Center conducted the teleconference, and provided some great information about processing these complicated petitions, including how and when to file for qualifying family members, how U nonimmigrants can and should travel, and much more.  Perhaps the most useful bit of information to emerge from that teleconference was the VSC’s U/T/VAWA Unit contact information, through which attorneys can address problems with their cases and ask general questions.  The initial means of contacting the VSC is a hotline: (802) 527-4888.  The VSC advised that no one is on the other end of this line; attorneys should leave detailed messages, and an officer will call back within 72 hours, although the turnaround time is usually 24 hours.  If that doesn’t resolve the matter, attorneys can follow up with one of two email addresses – hotlinefollowupi360.vsc@dhs.gov or hotlinefollowupi918i914.vsc@dhs.gov, depending on the type of case involved.  It warms my heart that the Vermont Service Center’s U/T/VAWA Unit is so concerned about connecting with the public, and wish that other divisions of USCIS felt the same way.  Until that happens, though, I’ll happily use the VSC’s resources to better serve my clients and do my job more effectively.

This has been an eventful week for immigration issues in California.  First, the California Supreme Court upheld AB540 – the state law that allows undocumented students to pay in-state tuition at public colleges and universities.  The State had been sued by a group of out-of-state U.S. citizen students attending schools in the University of California or California State University systems claiming that it was unfair for them to pay higher tuition while undocumented students – who are technically foreign students – were able to pay the lower in-state tuition.  Although at first glance the out-of-state students’ argument has some merit, it really doesn’t, since many undocumented students have resided in California most of their lives, and are therefore “residents” for state purposes.  The State of California is not in the business of inquiring into legal status.  Many state benefits indeed depend on immigration status, but anyone that lives in California for a certain period of time - legally or not - should still qualify as a “Californian” when it comes to benefits that depend solely on their degree of connection with the State.  Second, the L.A. Times had a front-page story today about the student body president of Cal State Fresno, one of the schools in the California State University system, being an undocumented immigrant.  Many undocumented university students in California have been revealing their status as part of a campaign to encourage passage of the Dream Act, the bill pending in Congress that would legalize undocumented students that are attending college and who have been in the States for a certain period of time.  Pedro Ramirez, the Fresno student body president, was sort of forced to reveal his status when he had to decline a check for $9,000.00 from the university that is normally paid as a form of compensation for the president’s services.  As expected, there are calls for Mr. Ramirez’s resignation and calls of support for him in about equal measure - but I’d be very surprised if this story goes anywhere or if anything happens to him.  ICE has not been putting undocumented students without criminal histories in proceedings, and have little interest in getting investigative tips from newspapers.  Still, Mr. Ramirez has got to feel a little uneasy about his position right now, and I hope that, for his sake, this story blows over soon.

There was a fascinating article in the New York Times this past weekend about Canada’s attitude toward immigration.  In sharp contrast to the U.S., Canadians are encouraging foreign nationals to relocate to their country.  Canada’s approach is unique – there seem to be two systems or ways in which potential new immigrants are identified: (1) through a “points” system at the Federal level, which tries to identify educated and highly-skilled workers, and (2) provincial programs that identify shortages in the labor market, which are then filled with new immigrants.  The combination of these two systems leads to a balanced work force that increases Canada’s competiveness globally while preventing immigration from becoming a “problem” for a country in which public benefits are as big a part of the social fabric as, say, maple syrup and hockey.  Canada’s history of multiculturalism and acceptance (just think Quebec) also bodes well for new immigrants, who might not face as many negative attitudes/stereotypes as immigrants to U.S. sometimes do.  For me, the most interesting part of Canada’s immigration system is the input that provinces have in national immigration policy.  Provincial governments are able to ”nominate” prospective immigrants they want to bring over, and as long as the federal government clears them, they are eligible to immigrate to Canada.  In essence, local governments decide which immigrants they need, and then have a way of bringing them over legally.  This system operates alongside the federal system that assigns points to prospective immigrants, thereby bring over the best and the brightest immigrants as well as immigrants targeted to meet specific needs at the local level.  I like this system in theory, and would be interested to see how it would work in, maybe, one state in the U.S.  Of course, I’m well aware that Canada has the luxury of picking and choosing who it wants to immigrate – illegal immigration is virtually non-existent in Canada, and America’s immigration dynamics make Canadian openness virtually unimaginable here.  Still, with our system as defective as it is, I think it’s worth considering other options, even if they might seem somewhat radical (and as long as they’re also constitutional, which might be tricky).  Given the state of things, what do we really have to lose?

An upcoming teleconference with USCIS Director Alejandro Mayorkas highlights some of the changes coming to the agency in the next few weeks.  Aside from many USCIS filing fees going up, there are some major changes happening in the realm of immigration forms.  The biggest two changes, in my opinion, are happening with respect to fee waivers and form I-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker.  Up until now, applicants have had to request waivers of USCIS’s oftentimes exorbitant fees via a written declaration describing their income and expenses along with documentation corroborating their assertions.  Starting November 23rd, applicants will have form I-912 to deal with, which will supposedly make the process of applying for a fee waiver easier and more predictable.  I looked the draft I-912 over, and actually like it – I think it hits all of the major issues we try to bring out when drafting an individual fee waiver from scratch, and appears to allow for different types of hardship situations to qualify for a waiver.  I think a lot will depend on how USCIS interprets the information contained on this form; every situation is different, and USCIS has wide discretion to waive the fee based on a number of different factors.  The second major change coming on 11/23 concerns form I-129, which we use to apply for a several types of employment-based nonimmigrant visas.  The version of the form is changing, and USCIS will start rejecting the old version – the ONLY version currently available – starting December 22, 2010.  USCIS plays the dirty trick of changing a form and not accepting older versions from time to time, which inevitably results in people losing their legal status in the United States.  All complaints aside, this is a change that’s happening whether we like it or not, and attorneys and the public need to NOT submit the old version of the I-129 after December 21, 2010.

If you don’t already know about the American Immigration Council’s Immigration Policy Center (IPC), you might want to check them out.  The IPC publishes some great reports on the state of immigration in society, and seems to especially enjoy exploring issues related to ICE enforcement, detention, and removal.  Their latest report is titled “ICE’s Enforcement Priorities and the Factors that Undermine Them,” and deals with ICE enforcement under President Obama – more specifically, how the the agency’s partnerships with state and local law enforcement lead to conflicting enforcement priorities.  ICE has repeatedly stressed that it wants to remove aliens with serious criminal convictions first, those with minor criminal records or non-criminals second – yet partnering with these state and local agencies has led to the detention and removal of this latter group in record numbers.  ICE might purport to “need” programs like 287(g), which allows it to partner with state and local law enforcement agencies, but doing so apparently takes away its ability to formulate policy and move in the direction it wants.  I highly recommend reading the full report, which can be accessed here.

First, I have to apologize for not posting anything for such a long time.  Work – and life – have been pretty crazy lately, but I’ll do my best to continue posting as frequently as I was in months past from here on in.  Second, I wanted to talk a little about what happened to this country on Tuesday.  As I’m sure you’re all aware, the Republicans took back the House and Democrats kept the Senate, creating a very uncomfortable situation for President Obama and the rest of the Executive Branch of government.  So what does this mean for immigration and immigrants?  Basically, the odds of any comprehensive reform deal happening just went from bad to worse.  The new leadership in the House of Representatives is decidedly anti-immigration: Rep. Steven King (R-IA), the likely new chairman of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Border Security, and International Law, has been “a continuous resource of inflammatory rhetoric aimed at immigrants” (according to AILA), and Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), the likely new chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, supports Arizona’s SB 1070 and would like to end birthright citizenship.  Although the Senate might still attempt to promote and pass an immigration bill, the odds of it finding a friendly reception in the House are next to none.  If I had to guess, I’d say that CIR is dead until the next big election – in 2012.