Related posts

• DHS: Relief for Widows of U.S. Citizens (0)

Mukasey’s decision was Matter of Compean, 24 I&N Dec. 710 (A.G. 20009). It was seen by many as undermining the right to due process in removal proceedings and deprived a person facing deportation of effective assistance of counsel.

Attorney General Holder directed the Executive Office for Immigration Review to initiate formal rulemaking procedures.

Related posts

• When is Amnesty not Amnesty? (5)
• Update on Immigration Reform (0)
• Supreme Court Limits Penalty For Using False Social Security Numbers (1)
• STATES TAKE THE INITIATIVE IN IMMIGRATION REFORM (0)
• Naturalization for Military Members and Family (0)
• Haitian TPS Update (0)
• DHS: Relief for Widows of U.S. Citizens (0)

“Smart immigration policy balances strong enforcement practices with common-sense, practical solutions to complicated issues,” said Secretary Napolitano. “Granting deferred action to the widows and widowers of U.S. citizens who otherwise would have been denied the right to remain in the United States allows these individuals and their children an opportunity to stay in the country that has become their home while their legal status is resolved.”

Secretary Napolitano also directed U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to suspend adjudication of visa petitions and adjustment applications filed for widow(er)s where the sole reason for reassessment of immigration status was the death of a U.S. citizen spouse prior to the second anniversary of the marriage.

Additionally, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) will defer initiating or continuing removal proceedings, or executing final orders of removal against qualified widow(er)s and their eligible children.

USCIS will also consider favorably requests for humanitarian reinstatement where previously approved petitions for widow(er)s had been revoked because of the law. DHS will soon issue guidance instructing the public on how to apply for this relief.

These directives apply regardless of whether the citizen filed a petition for the alien spouse before death. Deferred action is generally an act of prosecutorial discretion to suspend removal proceedings against a particular individual or group of individuals for a specific timeframe; it cannot resolve an individual’s underlying immigration status. Individuals granted deferred action may apply for work authorization if they can demonstrate economic necessity.

While Secretary Napolitano’s directive provides a short-term arrangement for widow(er)s of deceased U.S. citizens, legislation is required to amend the definition of “immediate relatives” in the Immigration and Nationality Act to permit surviving spouses to remain indefinitely after the U.S. citizen spouse dies, enabling them to seek permanent resident status.

Related posts

• Update on Immigration Reform (0)
• STATES TAKE THE INITIATIVE IN IMMIGRATION REFORM (0)
• When is Amnesty not Amnesty? (5)
• Supreme Court Limits Penalty For Using False Social Security Numbers (1)
• Naturalization for Military Members and Family (0)
• Immigration Reform 2009: Take Action Now! (19)
• Immigation Reform: Tell Congress How You Feel! (1)

We just found a great website that will let you tell Congress how you feel, instantly.

Please register your support for immigration reform now.

Send a fax to Congress to let them know how you feel at:

http://www.reformimmigrationforamerica.org/index.php

Your support is needed.

Related posts

• Immigration Reform 2009: Take Action Now! (19)
• Update on Immigration Reform (0)
• The Dream of the DREAM Act Lives On (0)
• STATES TAKE THE INITIATIVE IN IMMIGRATION REFORM (0)
• President Obama Intends to Address Comprehensive Immigration Reform (6)
• Immigration Guys are Back “ON-THE-AIR” (1)
• Haitian TPS Update (0)

The concern on the part of some is that allowing legalization of people who entered the United States illegally, or remained in the United States illegally, after entering with a visa, is unfair to those who have been waiting in line for years.  In effect, amnesty penalizes those who have tried to do things the right way.

And, what happened to the Rule of Law?Last time around, “amnesty” became a word politicians in favor of a new law avoided at all costs. They argued a new law should require conditions to be put on those claiming entitlement to a new pathway to citizenship. Those against a new law granting status argued this amounts to amnesty, clear and simple.

When amnesty is not really amnesty appears to depend on how much is required of undocumented workers before they can qualify for a legalization process. For example, should illegals be required to return home for a period of time and wait there for permission to reenter properly? Should they be required to speak English, or pass a civics test, or both? Should they have been in the United States for a period of years and be able to prove they paid taxes, even if they have worked illegally?

The task of Congress will in part be to fashion a law that will satisfy the American public that the Rule of Law is important by requiring specific conditions as a part of the legalization process. We feel this is necessary for the process to be fair. We are opposed to an “open borders” approach to immigration and believe that the rules should be clear and immigrants should play by the rules.

Related posts

• Update on Immigration Reform (0)
• Supreme Court Limits Penalty For Using False Social Security Numbers (1)
• Stay of Deportation Standards Relaxed (4)
• STATES TAKE THE INITIATIVE IN IMMIGRATION REFORM (0)
• President Obama Intends to Address Comprehensive Immigration Reform (6)
• Naturalization for Military Members and Family (0)
• Immigration Reform 2009: Take Action Now! (19)

Fact Sheet:

Naturalization Process for the Military
USCIS recognizes the important sacrifices made by non-U.S. citizen members of the United States armed forces and their families and is committed to processing their naturalization applications in a timely and
efficient manner while providing exemplary customer service, maintaining the integrity of the immigration system, and the security of the process. Qualifying military service is generally in the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Coast Guard, and certain components of the National Guard and the Selected Reserve of the Ready Reserve.

Qualifications
While a member of the U.S. armed forces must meet some of the general requirements and qualifications to become a citizen of the United States, such as good moral character, some of the requirements are either reduced or completely waived.

Specifically, qualifying service members and certain veterans are not required to pay an application fee or a biometrics fee to apply for naturalization, and are not required demonstrate residence or physical
presence in the United States. Additionally, service members who serve during specifically designated periods of hostilities may not need to be lawful permanent residents. Additionally, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 extended all aspects of the
naturalization process, including naturalization applications, interviews, oaths and ceremonies to members of the U.S. armed forces serving overseas. Before Oct. 1, 2004, military service members could
only naturalize while physically within the United States.

Finally, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 added Sections 319(e) and 322(d) to the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), allowing certain eligible spouses and children of members of the U.S. armed forces to naturalize abroad without traveling to the United States for any part of the naturalization process.

Service in Peacetime
Section 328 of the INA applies to all members of the U.S. armed forces or those already discharged from service. An individual may qualify for naturalization under this provision if he or she has:

 Served honorably in the military for at least one year;
 Obtained lawful permanent resident status;
 Filed an application while still in the service or within six months of separation.

Service in Wartime
Section 329 of the INA applies to members of the U.S. armed forces who serve during specifically designated periods of hostilities. This section is sometimes referred to as wartime naturalization. An individual may qualify for naturalization under this provision if he or she has:

 Served honorably in active-duty status for any period of time;
 Such active-duty service was during a specifically designated period of hostility;

Unlike all other provisions for naturalization, a qualifying service member is not required to be a lawful permanent resident to naturalize under this provision if the service member enlisted or was inducted within the United States or other qualifying geographical area. The Expedited Naturalization Executive Order of 2002 provides for expedited naturalization under this
provision to qualified aliens and non-citizen nationals serving honorably in an active-duty status in the U.S. armed forces beginning on Sept. 11, 2001 to the present. This section also covers veterans of designated past wars and conflicts.

Assistance to the Military Community
 Specially trained USCIS customer service specialists at the Nebraska Service Center staff the tollfree Military Help Line (1-877-CIS-4MIL). They assist service members, their families, attorneys and others representing them with military-specific naturalization and immigration issues.
 Specialists across USCIS have been selected to handle military naturalization packets, and each consider this responsibility a privilege and an honor, and do all that they can to ensure that applications are processed and completed as expeditiously as possible.
 In addition, every military installation has a designated point-of-contact to assist service members in preparing the naturalization application packet. This contact is generally in the military legal office or in the personnel division. Service members should use this contact to help prepare and file a complete naturalization application packet.

Application Packet
The service member’s naturalization packet will include:
 Application for Naturalization, (USCIS Form N-400)
 Biographic Information, (USCIS Form G-325B)
 Request for Certification of Military or Naval Service, (USCIS Form N-426);
 If applicable, a copy of the USCIS Form I-551, Permanent Resident Card; and
 Two passport-style photographs.

Members of the military applying under sections 328 or 329 of the INA are not required to pay a fee for their naturalization application.

Fingerprint Requirements
Five fingerprinting methods are available to service members:
1. Have their fingerprints taken at any domestic USCIS Application Support Center (ASC) without an appointment even if their application is not yet pending with USCIS.
2. Have their fingerprints taken at select military installations in the United States by USCIS personnel using mobile fingerprinting equipment.
3. If USCIS fingerprinted the service member in the past for immigration purposes and USCIS is able to use these fingerprints, USCIS will re-submit these fingerprints to the FBI.
4. Authorize USCIS to acquire and use the fingerprints taken at the time of enlistment by completing and submitting the Fingerprint Authorization.
5. Have their fingerprints taken at U.S. military installations overseas or at U.S. Embassies and Consulates using the FD-258 fingerprint card.

Posthumous Benefits
 Section 329A of the Immigration and Nationality Act provides for posthumous citizenship to certain members of the U.S. armed forces. A member of the U.S. armed forces who served honorably during a designated period of hostilities and dies as a result of injury or disease incurred in, or aggravated by, that service (including death in combat) may receive posthumous citizenship.
 The service member’s next of kin, the Secretary of Defense, or the Secretary’s designee in USCIS must submit the application for posthumous citizenship within two years of the service member’s death by filing an Application for Posthumous Citizenship, (USCIS Form N-644).
 Posthumous citizenship establishes that the deceased veteran is considered a citizen of the United States as of the date of his or her death.
 A surviving spouse (even if he or she remarries), child, or parent of a member of the U.S. citizen member of the armed forces, (including a service member granted posthumous citizenship), is eligible to apply for naturalization benefits under section 319(d) of the INA if the family member meets naturalization requirements other than residence and physical presence.
 For other immigration purposes, a surviving spouse (unless he or she remarries), child, or parent of a member of the U.S. armed forces who served honorably on active duty and died as a result of
combat, and was a citizen at the time of death (including a posthumous grant of citizenship) is considered an immediate relative for two years after the service members dies and may file a petition for classification as an immediate relative during such period. A surviving parent may file
a petition even if the deceased service member had not reached age 21.

Military Naturalization Statistics (through March 31, 2009)
 USCIS has naturalized 47,481 service men and women since September 2001. This includes 6,593 service members naturalized during ceremonies overseas and onboard Navy flagships at sea.
 In May 2008, USCIS conducted the first overseas naturalization ceremony to include a military spouse. Since that time, USCIS has naturalized 128 military spouses in overseas ceremonies in
Germany (77), Italy (10), Japan (11), South Korea (21), Spain (3) and the United Kingdom (6).
 In February 2009, USCIS hosted the first overseas naturalization ceremony for the child of a Sailor stationed in Japan.
 Since August 2002, USCIS has granted posthumous citizenship to 119 members of the U.S. armed forces.
 The United States also conducted overseas military naturalization ceremonies during World War II
(20,011) and the Korean War (7,756).

Related posts

• When is Amnesty not Amnesty? (5)
• Update on Immigration Reform (0)
• Supreme Court Limits Penalty For Using False Social Security Numbers (1)
• STATES TAKE THE INITIATIVE IN IMMIGRATION REFORM (0)
• Haitian TPS Update (0)
• DUE PROCESS RESTORED IN IMMIGRANT REMOVAL CASES (0)
• DHS: Relief for Widows of U.S. Citizens (0)

In over 6,000 worksite arrests made by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) last year only a paltry 135 were employers.  The rest targeted were all illegal aliens.

Today the Department of Homeland Security published a “Fact Sheet” essentially scrapping old immigration enforcement methods to focus instead on the employers who knowingly violate the law by hiring illegals--and criminal aliens.

In these troubled times its hard to say exactly how this will affect the economy, but it seems to be a more logical policy.  (Like targeting drug dealers instead of addicts, I suppose). [What do you think?]

In any event we can see from Secretary Napolitano a series of major policy changes, including her suggested Repeal of the REAL ID Act reported just yesterday.

We’ll remain guardedly optimistic on the outcome and keep you apprised

Here’s the Actual text of the latest immigration policy from DHS:

Worksite Enforcement Strategy
• The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has a vital responsibility to enforce the law and engage in effective worksite enforcement to reduce the demand for illegal employment and protect employment opportunities for the nation’s lawful workforce.

• An effective, comprehensive worksite enforcement strategy must address both employers who knowingly hire illegal workers as well as the workers themselves. Of the more than 6,000 arrests related to worksite enforcement in 2008, only 135 were employers.

• This week, updated worksite enforcement guidance was distributed to
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), which reflects a renewed
Department-wide focus targeting criminal aliens and employers who cultivate illegal workplaces by breaking the country’s laws and knowingly hiring illegal workers.

• Effective immediately, ICE will focus its resources in the worksite enforcement program on the criminal prosecution of employers who knowingly hire illegal workers in order to target the root cause of illegal immigration.

• ICE will continue to arrest and process for removal any illegal workers who are found in the course of these worksite enforcement actions in a manner consistent with immigration law and DHS priorities. Furthermore, ICE will use all available civil and administrative tools, including civil fines and debarment, to penalize and deter illegal employment.

• ICE officers will be held to high investigative standards including:
o ICE will look for evidence of the mistreatment of workers, along with evidence of trafficking, smuggling, harboring, visa fraud, identification
document fraud, money laundering, and other such criminal conduct.
o ICE offices will obtain indictments, criminal arrest or search warrants,     or acommitment from a U.S. Attorney’s Office (USAO) to prosecute thetargeted employer before arresting employees for civil immigration violations at a worksite.

• Existing humanitarian guidelines will remain in effect, impacting worksite

enforcements involving 25 or more illegal workers. This reflects a change from the previous threshold of 150.

• DHS is committed to providing employers with the most up-to-date and effective resources to comply with our nation’s laws.

• DHS will continue to work with partners in the public and private sectors to
maintain a legal workforce through training and employee verification tools like E-verify, which improve the accuracy of determinations of employment eligibility and combat illegal employment

• As a former border state Governor, Napolitano signed into law one of the toughest employer sanctions laws in the country in 2007 to target employers who knowingly hired illegal workers.

Related posts

• Homeland Secretary Calls for Repeal of Real ID Act (1)
• Immigration Reform 2009: Take Action Now! (19)
• DHS: Relief for Widows of U.S. Citizens (0)

By reverting to the laws in place prior to the REAL ID Act, more is at stake than just the states saving money. For one thing, the 9/11 commission believed the Act was necessary for security reasons, according to Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., a sponsor of the law. And, other provisions affect the manner in which immigrants can live and work in the United States.

For example, the REAL ID Act raises the bar for establishing refugee status by requiring corroboration of evidence in Immigration Court hearings. In most cases now, the refugee cannot simply rely on his or her testimony. Evidence such as newspaper articles, police reports, medical reports, etc. must be filed to support a case.

Rather than seeing us step back from the REAL ID Act, the current law needs to be enforced until Congress debates and passes a law which addresses security and immigration, as well as the economic issues faced by the states due to the immigration policies we now have.

Efforts to address these issues are finally moving forward again. The Immigration Policy Center just announced that on April 30, 2009 the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Citizenship will begin hearings on common sense solutions to immigration. Hopefully, we will see some results this time around.

Related posts

• Employers of Illegal Aliens Beware! (1)
• Former President Clinton Named US Envoy to Haiti (0)
• DHS: Relief for Widows of U.S. Citizens (0)

When we stop to consider the millions of illegal immigrants in the U.S, we don’t think it un-American to ask how they got here in the first place. Certainly those who crossed our borders illegally must have known they were breaking the law, right? Well perhaps, but we’re not so sure it’s as simple as all that. For example, you know you are breaking the law when you drive and exceed the speed limit, but aren’t there are times when you just go with the flow of traffic—hey, we all know it’s wrong but we are willing to take that risk from time to time. And where’s the highway patrol anyway? Why weren’t they making a greater effort to stop us if they really wanted to curb speeding, right?

Admittedly this example is an oversimplification taken to the extreme, but it is one to which most of us can relate. But don’t you think that is sort of what the illegal aliens may have been thinking when they crossed the border into the U.S. All levity aside, where was the Border Patrol Agents and why weren’t they making a greater effort to stop them if they really wanted to curb the growing problem of illegal aliens. We have the greatest admiration for or nation’s law enforcement officers, but it appears there’s been a long-term tacit policy afoot to leave the door open just a bit.

There is a popular illustrative tort case used by law professors, I think it’s called Rocker v. State. In any event, at issue was the principle of the “well worn path” which essentially made a land owner liable to trespassers on his land where he or she knew or should have know of their presence because of the well worn path they left behind from their daily trespass.

May we suggest here for a moment that our Mexican border shows ample signs of a well worn path? And don’t you agree that our government’s policy on overstays may have also cut a sizable swatch as well. May we further suggest that we all own up to that fact that we as a nation share some responsibility for the problem? Sorry, we know it’s a difficult pill to swallow, but it is the sociopolitical inconvenient truth of the day.

So, what can we do about it? The first thing to do is to admit we have a problem—and that we may be at least partially responsible for causing the problem in the first place. We’re not suggesting the illegal immigrants have no responsibility for their actions, we’re just saying we as a country played a part in it, that’s all. AND, of the two, that is, us or them, we’re in a much better position to fix things, aren’t we?

The next thing to do is to take real steps toward stopping the relentless incoming tide of new illegal immigrants entering every single day? We’d be a lot better off in this post 911 world knowing that not just anybody can enter the U.S. with little fear of being stopped—that’s just plain unacceptable. We will leave it to those better capable to implement an effective solution. Whether it be stone walls, drones, barbed wire or a combination, let’s find something that works and do it. Others have made an argument that this would be tantamount to building a Berlin Wall, but that’s just nonsense, the fact is we need more effective border control.

We then need to do something with the millions illegal that are already here. All this talk of amnesty being unacceptable is understandable, but when you realize that there is no way to deport the mass of illegal immigrants already here, you have to face the fact that we need to do something to sort out, qualify and assimilate these people in a controlled setting. Certainly you cannot just hand everyone a green card. But let’s forget for a moment the semantics of whether or not it’s amnesty, legalization or whatever label they come up with. Perhaps it is some form of amnesty, perhaps it isn’t, but one thing’s for sure, taking steps to get these folks out of the shadows is the only solution.

Pure amnesty is forgiveness for entering, remaining in, and working in the country illegally without any penalties. President Obama has stated that he doesn’t support outright amnesty and neither do we. But let’s be sensible, what we are really talking about is compromise. The whole issue of immigration reform is, in the end, one of compromise—and compromise is always borne of necessity—and we need to fix the current immigration system.  Surely illegal immigrants will walk away with benefits, some of which admittedly may be a form of amnesty, but we also have an opportunity to correct an ineffective immigration system that is not working. With compromise both parties walk get to away from the table with some tangible benefit.

Finally, we need to keep the pressure on Congress to enact immigration reform that will serve our nation’s national security interests and offer a fair solution to the mass of illegal immigrants already in our economy and culture. But we need not do this in one fell swoop. Since comprehensive immigration reform failed in the past, maybe we should start enacting it piece-by-piece. (DREAM Act anyone?) This way we can at least move in a positive direction while giving Congress and the nation an opportunity to better explore the more contentious issues—it’s certainly better than doing nothing. No matter which side of the aisle or argument you may sit, I urge you to work toward a improving our immigration system. Immigration reform is an issue that cannot be ignored.

Related posts

• Immigation Reform: Tell Congress How You Feel! (1)
• Update on Immigration Reform (0)
• The Dream of the DREAM Act Lives On (0)
• STATES TAKE THE INITIATIVE IN IMMIGRATION REFORM (0)
• When is Amnesty not Amnesty? (5)
• President Obama Intends to Address Comprehensive Immigration Reform (6)
• Immigration Guys are Back “ON-THE-AIR” (1)

Many people see this as a natural step for the President to take since he is fulfilling a campaign promise. While the immigration system is dysfunctional to say the least, there is strong opposition to comprehensive legislation, especially in a time when many Americans have lost jobs.Even before the economic crisis, the debate raged between those who, on one end of the spectrum, provide sanctuary to illegal immigrants, and on the other end, those who believe that our laws should be enforced to the point of deporting all 12 million illegal immigrants. Unfortunately, having millions of people already in the United states illegally, and a border that the government refuses to close, does not make it easy to fashion a law that will somehow be acceptable to people on both sides of the issue.

The President and Congress will probably tell us that we need an orderly immigration program which will help our economy and promote family unity. We are likely to also hear that if this legislation is passed, there will be a crackdown on the border, and on employers who hire illegal workers. Of course, the problem is that we have heard all of this before. While there may be enough votes to pass reform legislation, it is doubtful that many Americans are ready to trust our federal officials to keep these promises.

As the debate moves forward, we would like to see Congress use a different approach, especially in light of the following: 1) Economic studies concerning the impact of illegal immigrants do not agree. Some say that the buying power of immigrants offsets the cost for social services. Other reports reach the opposite conclusion that States are unable to keep up with the cost for social services for illegal immigrants; 2) Amnesty has been given to illegal immigrants before, with the promise that we would not be in this position again; 3) The federal government has not explained the reasons for failing to control the border or enforce the current immigration laws; and, 4) A satisfactory explanation has not been provided about how an amnesty law complies with the principle of the Rule of Law.

We believe the approach should be to first require an impact study be conducted to determine the effects of a new law on our society. Each point mention above should be considered in the study.

Secondly, if America does not have control of the borders, we will be in the same position again in a few years. It is recognized that proponents of a bill will argue that the law will not grant amnesty because conditions will have to be met in order for an illegal immigrant to obtain permanent residency. This may be true; it will depend on the conditions. There will have to be something more than a mere acknowledgment that the immigration laws have been broken. There must be some action required by the immigrant to compensate, in a sense, for the violation.

Thirdly, whatever the reasons are for not enforcing the immigration laws, the federal government should simply be upfront with the American people. If there is insufficient funding, then at least with an acknowledgment of the problem, there can be a debate about whether or not we can really expect the border to be controlled, or, on the other hand, we can expect to live with the fact that we will continue to have a porous border. If the reason is that large corporations need labor at cheap wages, then acknowledge the fact and figure out a way to redesign the visa system to allow more people to come in and work, and at the same time, ensure Americans will not lose jobs and wages will not be reduced. By being silent in the past, Congress has caused local governments to pass a myriad of laws which further complicate the issue.

Fourthly, a rationale for the new law should be provided to the American people. Why do we make it easier for people to come here illegally than we do for people who are trying to immigrate legally? In some cases, that is what we have now, and a new comprehensive immigration bill will make this even more so. How do we explain to Americans and the immigrants who are following the rules that illegal immigrants can “jump in front of the line?”

If Congress is not able to use this approach, then it would be better to take one step at a time rather than passing a comprehensive bill. In effect that is what is happening with the DREAM Act recently proposed in both the House and Senate. This bill identifies a specific problem i.e. children of illegal immigrants who through no fault of their own find themselves unable to legally work and go to school. Other areas could be identified and addressed to allow Congress to demonstrate it will actually do what it says it will do.

Finally, we would propose that while we continue our immigration philosophy of uniting families, part of any new comprehensive system should incoporate a point system for some of the visas. In other words, points would be assigned for knowing how to speak English, being able to invest money in the economy, having a college education, or certain skills, etc. These prospective immigrants would receive favored treatement, although they may or may not have a family sponsor. The point system would help keep America competitive at a time when we are seeing scientists, mathematicians and engineers elect to migrate to China, India and Europe.

Related posts

• When is Amnesty not Amnesty? (5)
• Update on Immigration Reform (0)
• The Dream of the DREAM Act Lives On (0)
• Stay of Deportation Standards Relaxed (4)
• STATES TAKE THE INITIATIVE IN IMMIGRATION REFORM (0)
• Immigration Reform 2009: Take Action Now! (19)
• Immigration Guys are Back “ON-THE-AIR” (1)