I just read that the new House Judiciary Chairman Lamar Smith (R-TX) appointed California Rep. Elton Gallegly (R) to lead the House Subcommittee on Immigration Policy and Enforcement. Since this is the House subcommittee most directly responsible for immigration issues, the question of just who this Elton Gallegly guy is becomes pretty important to all of us immigration-watchers. It turns out that Rep. Gallegly is considered one of the top 10 immigration hawks in Congress. He has a record of being far to the right on pretty much every immigration issue of the past two decades, and his legislative goals for this Congress include a repeal of birthright citizenship, reducing legal immigration by eliminating two of the family preference categories and visas for unskilled workers, mandating the use of E-verify, and making English the official language of the United States. Oh Lordy. That’s all I can really say for this character. I’m sorry, but I can’t take anyone that wants to repeal birthright citizenship seriously on any level – intellectually, as a decent human being, or otherwise. Rep. Gallegly represents Ventura and Santa Barbara counties in California, which are overwhelmingly Caucasian but have sizable Latino minorities. I suppose he feels safe taking such extremist positions on immigration issues, but I hope that someone, somewhere in his district educates him a little on the importance of the 14th Amendment and why the 1st Amendment makes English-only laws just a tad unconstitutional. Hmmm…maybe I should be the one helping Rep. Gallegly out? I think I’ll do just that – stay tuned for upcoming posts on both of the above issues.
Happy 2011 to all my readers! Start your new year off with this interesting article I found about what the absence of smart immigration policy is doing to Japan right now. Although the United States is nowhere near as obtuse as Japan when it comes to immigration, the lessons from Japan’s failure to implement effective and targeted immigration reform should serve as a warning to any country that lets domestic short-sightedness stand in the way of long-term economic and social interests.
I’m back, but don’t have much good news to report. The Dream Act died a painful and very public death in the Senate on December 18th. Although supporters insist the fight is not over, the fight is very much over for the time being. I would be shocked if any legislation granting immigration benefits made it through Congress anytime before election day 2012, Dream Act included. As if the Dream Act update isn’t depressing enough, there’s more bad news: family- based immigrant visa numbers, especially for the second preference category, will severely retrogress come January 1, 2011. Although this shouldn’t affect anyone that obtains their immigrant visa this month, prospective immigrants that had interviews scheduled under the FB-2A or -2B categories in January or later will have a LONG wait before their soon-to-be rescheduled next appointment – approximately two years or so. Hmmm…any other good news? Not really, but I did read an interesting article in the LA Weekly (one of my local newspapers) about problems with U.S. Customs and Border Protection, the agency most directly responsible for patrolling the U.S.-Mexico border and detaining/removing any immigrants attempting to the enter the country illegally. According to the article, CBP routinely violates the civil and human rights of undocumented immigrants, with the agency stepping in only when a certain incident becomes public or is otherwise embarrassing. Granted, there are plenty of good agents in CBP, and granted as well, they have one tough job – still, all agents need to be trained in enforcing the law while respecting the civil liberties of the undocumented. I suppose that in the absence of Comprehensive Immigration Reform, I’ll take a kinder, gentler CBP for the time being instead.
A quick update on the Dream Act – the House passed its version of the Act last night, and the Senate voted today to withdraw its version of the bill and shelve discussion on the House version until a later date. This allows the Democrats in the Senate to build up at least some Republican support for passing any version of the Dream Act once tax cuts, unemployment, and other hot-button issues are resolved. I’m not going to hold my breath for any Republican support, but given the sneaky ways in which Members of Congress hash out deal on the Hill, anything is possible. I think that if tax cuts and unemployment benefits come out in the Republicans’ favor, which looks likely, the Dream Act has a shot at passing, but we won’t really know much until next week. What’s almost certain, though, is that the Dream Act’s only chance of passing is in this Congress; once the Republicans take control of the House next month, I don’t think any immigration-related legislation has a hog’s chance of making it to the floor for at least the next two years.
Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) re-introduced the much-deferred Dream Act into the Senate again on Tuesday, setting the stage for its potential passage before the Senate adjourns for the winter holidays. The new version of the Dream Act has several components designed to appeal to Republicans, including the exclusion of applicants with one felony or three misdemeanor convictions, a cut-off age of 30 as of the date the law is enacted, a good moral character requirement extending back to the date the applicant first entered the U.S., and, perhaps most distastefully, a 10-year conditional nonimmigrant status, followed by three years of permanent residence before applicants can apply for U.S. citizenship. 10 years? Even though most of these students will be ready for social security by the time they’re eligible for naturalization, this is a much better deal than they’re likely to get anywhere else in today’s political climate. I say go for it - despite all these compromises, the revised Dream Act is a great way for the most sympathetic of the nation’s undocumented immigrants to gain legal status and eventually become U.S. citizens. Although I’d prefer that our immigration system not be a patchwork of laws, with one problem fixed here, another fixed there, I’ll take what I can get, when I can get it, for the time being.
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.
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?
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.
According to an article in the L.A. Times today, the Obama Administration has deported a record number of undocumented immigrants for a second straight fiscal year. The United States deported 392,862 undocumented immigrants in FY2010, 3,000 more than the now-second highest year, 2009. I think it’s pretty funny that no one seems impressed or happy with this fact – the left is decrying Obama’s apparent focus on enforcement over immigration reform, and the right thinks that 392,862 is nowhere near enough deportations for one fiscal year. I guess that when it comes to certain issues, Obama just can’t – and won’t – win.
|
|
