Outline for CIR

See below from today's Washington Post. This makes sense, and personally I don't believe that e.g. having a National ID card is all bad. The key will be whether there will be sufficient safeguards in place to ensure fairness and transparency…………

 

Dan

 

**********************

 

The right way to mend immigration

By Charles E. Schumer and Lindsey O. Graham
Friday, March 19, 2010;

Our immigration system is badly broken. Although our borders have become far more secure in recent years, too many people seeking illegal entry get through. We have no way to track whether the millions who enter the United States on valid visas each year leave when they are supposed to. And employers are burdened by a complicated system for verifying workers' immigration status.

Last week we met with President Obama to discuss our draft framework for action on immigration. We expressed our belief that America's security and economic well-being depend on enacting sensible immigration policies.

The answer is simple: Americans overwhelmingly oppose illegal immigration and support legal immigration. Throughout our history, immigrants have contributed to making this country more vibrant and economically dynamic. Once it is clear that in 20 years our nation will not again confront the specter of another 11 million people coming here illegally, Americans will embrace more welcoming immigration policies.

Our plan has four pillars: requiring biometric Social Security cards to ensure that illegal workers cannot get jobs; fulfilling and strengthening our commitments on border security and interior enforcement; creating a process for admitting temporary workers; and implementing a tough but fair path to legalization for those already here.

Besides border security, ending illegal immigration will also require an effective employment verification system that holds employers accountable for hiring illegal workers. A tamper-proof ID system would dramatically decrease illegal immigration, experts have said, and would reduce the government revenue lost when employers and workers here illegally fail to pay taxes.

We would require all U.S. citizens and legal immigrants who want jobs to obtain a high-tech, fraud-proof Social Security card. Each card's unique biometric identifier would be stored only on the card; no government database would house everyone's information. The cards would not contain any private information, medical information, nor tracking devices. The card will be a high-tech version of the Social Security card that citizens already have.

Prospective employers would be responsible for swiping the cards through a machine to confirm a person's identity and immigration status. Employers who refused to swipe the card or who otherwise knowingly hired unauthorized workers would face stiff fines and, for repeat offenses, prison sentences.

We propose a zero-tolerance policy for gang members, smugglers, terrorists and those who commit other felonies after coming here illegally. We would bolster recent efforts to secure our borders by increasing the Border Patrol's staffing and funding for infrastructure and technology. More personnel would be deployed to the border immediately to fill gaps in apprehension capabilities.

Other steps include expanding domestic enforcement to better apprehend and deport those who commit crimes and completing an entry-exit system that tracks people who enter the United States on legal visas and reports those who overstay their visas to law enforcement databases.

Ending illegal immigration, however, cannot be the sole objective of reform. Developing a rational legal immigration system is essential to ensuring America's future economic prosperity.

Ensuring economic prosperity requires attracting the world's best and brightest. Our legislation would award green cards to immigrants who receive a PhD or master's degree in science, technology, engineering or math from a U.S. university. It makes no sense to educate the world's future inventors and entrepreneurs and then force them to leave when they are able to contribute to our economy.

Our blueprint also creates a rational system for admitting lower-skilled workers. Our current system prohibits lower-skilled immigrants from coming here to earn money and then returning home. Our framework would facilitate this desired circular migration by allowing employers to hire immigrants if they can show they were unsuccessful in recruiting an American to fill an open position; allowing more lower-skilled immigrants to come here when our economy is creating jobs and fewer in a recession; and permitting workers who have succeeded in the workplace, and contributed to their communities over many years, the chance to earn a green card.

For the 11 million immigrants already in this country illegally, we would provide a tough but fair path forward. They would be required to admit they broke the law and to pay their debt to society by performing community service and paying fines and back taxes. These people would be required to pass background checks and be proficient in English before going to the back of the line of prospective immigrants to earn the opportunity to work toward lawful permanent residence.

The American people deserve more than empty rhetoric and impractical calls for mass deportation. We urge the public and our colleagues to join our bipartisan efforts in enacting these reforms.

Charles E. Schumer is a Democratic senator from New York. Lindsey O. Graham is a Republican senator from South Carolina.

 

April 2010 Visa Bulletin released

The Department of State's (DOS') Visa Office (VO) has released the visa numbers for the month of April.

The Employment First Preference category remains current for all chargeability areas. The Worldwide Employment Second Preference cutoff and the Second Preference cutoffs for Mexico and the Philippines are also current. The China mainland-born cutoff advanced over six weeks to August 22, 2005, and the India Second Preference remained at February 1, 2005.

The Third Preference cut-off for India advanced over two months to September 8, 2001, and for Mexico, it remained at July 1, 2002. The cut-off for mainland-born China, the Philippines, and all other chargeability areas advanced over six weeks to February 1, 2003. For the Third Preference Other Workers category, the cut-off date for all areas remains at June 1, 2001. The Fourth Preference categories, including the Certain Religious Workers category, and the Fifth Preference category, including the Targeted Employment Areas category and the Fifth Preference Pilot Program, all remain current.

The Family First Preference (unmarried sons and daughters of U.S. citizens) for all areas except for Mexico and the Philippines advanced over two weeks to July 8, 2004. The cutoff for Mexico advanced two weeks to stand at October 15, 1992. The Philippines remained at March 1, 1994. The Family 2A Second Preference (spouses and children of permanent residents) for all areas except for Mexico advanced two months to stand at June 1, 2006. The cutoff for Mexico advanced five months to January 1, 2005. The Family 2B Second Preference (unmarried sons and daughters, 21 years of age or older, of permanent residents) advanced one month to March 1, 2002, for all areas except Mexico, which remained at June 15, 1992, and the Philippines, which advanced over three weeks to September 15, 1998. The Family Third Preference (married sons and daughters of U.S. citizens) again remained at May 22, 2001, for all areas except for Mexico, which advanced one week to October 15, 1992, and the Philippines, which remained at March 1, 1992. The Worldwide Family Fourth Preference (brothers and sisters of U.S. citizens), mainland-born China Fourth Preference, and India Fourth Preference categories advanced over six weeks to March 1, 2000. For Mexico, it remained at December 8, 1995, and for the Philippines, it moved ahead one week to September 8, 1987.

March 11, 2010 Statement from White House on CIR

See below for a statement from the White House yesterday on immigration reform. Hopefully, the efforts will be more than statements as the reality is that a fix is likely to be a significant factor to improving the U.S. economy..........

******************************************************************************


March 11, 2010

The White House
Office of the Press Secretary

Statement by the President on Today’s Meetings on Immigration Reform

Today I met with Senators Schumer and Graham and was pleased to learn of their progress in forging a proposal to fix our broken immigration system. I look forward to reviewing their promising framework, and every American should applaud their efforts to reach across party lines and find commonsense answers to one of our most vexing problems. I also heard from a diverse group of grassroots leaders from around the country about the growing coalition that is working to build momentum for this critical issue. I am optimistic that their efforts will contribute to a favorable climate for moving forward. I told both the Senators and the community leaders that my commitment to comprehensive immigration reform is unwavering, and that I will continue to be their partner in this important effort.

Musings on the immigration court system and the need for CIR

See below for two articles on the state of immigration courts in the U.S. In my experience, one of the bigger issues is that foreign nationals (FNs) who may be eligible for work permits while their cases are pending are not being issued such because of delays, confusion about jurisdiction to issue such benefits, and perhaps even policies of delaying/denying such a “benefit”. In short, if a FN cannot work and earn money, then many times people find it easier/necessary to give up and leave the country. Good for enforcement, but necessarily fair if the person actually has a good case.

Frankly, the breakup of the former INS into three agencies (CBP, ICE and USCIS), now part of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), has not been particularly efficient or consistent with due process. Before the breakup, INS dealt with all three areas – securing the borders, enforcing immigration laws, and issuing benefits. Now, each agency has its own jurisdiction and goals, yet the issues all agencies all deal with overlap – for example, obtaining legal status/work permit is a benefit which is generally issued by USCIS, but ICE is responsible for enforcing immigration laws and removal. Often, this leads to arguably insensitive and unreasonable policies by ICE who often takes the position that “too bad if your client cannot be issued a work permit by USCIS, we have nothing to do with it……..”

There’s no question that if we have immigration laws and rules they need to be followed by FNs. But, this also applies to the various immigration agencies. One major problem is that immigration proceedings are considered “civil” in nature yet the actual effect is more akin to criminal proceedings (but without the same constitutional rights and safeguards). In addition, the immigration courts are effectively administrative proceedings instead of judicial proceedings.

Because of the “civil” nature of immigration proceedings, e.g. the federal rules of evidence or procedure are not applicable and while a FN has the right to have an attorney there are no “public immigration defenders”. However, since the effect of being ordered deported/removed has life-changing ramifications for both FNs, US citizen family members and US employers, these proceedings are complex and costly. In addition, when denials from the immigration courts are appealed they eventually end up in federal courts.

While it may be argued that foreign nationals should not be afforded the same constitutional rights as U.S. citizens, the question is whether the current immigration court system is efficient and beneficial to the U.S. in the long run? The articles below point out the delays in immigration courts (for example, in my state of Oregon there is only one immigration judge for all Oregon cases!), and also the federal courts have been overwhelmed with appeals (often remanding cases and chiding the government and immigration judges for the lack of following rules and affording fair trials).

One of the major issues being discussed right now is when and if the U.S. should start the process of comprehensive immigration reform (CIR). An excellent example of why CIR is imperative, see e.g. a recent article by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg at http://www.ilw.com/articles/2010,0309-bloomberg.shtm. While immigration is a controversial and emotional issue, Mayor Bloomberg ends the article with:

“We cannot allow the national recession to be an excuse for inaction. As the Obama administration tackles the great challenges of our day, we look forward to working with the President and Congress to create an immigration system that will strengthen our economy, protect our borders, and honor our values.”

As the saying goes “sometimes you cannot have the cake and eat it too”, this applies to immigration as well. It truly is in the national interest of the U.S. to fix our broken immigration system or it risks being left behind……………….

Dan R. Larsson

*****************************************************

Immigration cases flooding U.S. courts

The Arizona Republic is reporting that stepped-up immigration enforcement is overloading U.S. immigration courts and undermining the ability of judges to rule fairly because of pressure to decide cases quickly. The influx of cases is creating backlogs that, in some places, will take years for judges to decide on immigrants’ status.

Although the long waits could aid some immigrants with weak cases who hope immigration reform arrives before their hearings do, for many others the delays also can hurt their cases. Witnesses could move, or family members with ties to the U.S. could die. Deported migrants can be separated from wives and children in the U.S. And those denied asylum could face persecution, torture or even death.

The immigration judges aren't part of the federal judiciary. Instead, they work for the Justice Department, which also employs the prosecutors, in the government's executive branch. That makes them not truly independent, which also could add to pressure to move cases quickly, said Eli Kantor, an immigration lawyer in Beverly Hills.

Suspected illegal immigrants charged with serious crimes are turned over to Immigration and Customs Enforcement and held in detention centers for possible deportation after their criminal cases are resolved. This adds to the burden of the immigration judges. Those charged with minor crimes are also often turned over to ICE, and many agree to leave voluntarily. Those who choose to fight deportation are often released on bond and given a notice to appear in immigration court.

Most of the cases before the immigration courts involve people who have been living in the U.S. for more than 10 years and have U.S. citizen children. Those two factors make them eligible for 'cancellation of removal.' To win their cases, immigrants must prove to a judge that their deportation would cause 'exceptional and extremely unusual hardship' to a U.S. citizen spouse, parent or child. Immigration lawyers say the legal standard is extremely difficult to meet, especially if judges are rushing through cases.

A 15-month study released in June by the Chicago Appleseed Fund for Justice concluded that immigration judges can no longer function properly because of the crush of new cases. 'Sometimes delay works to the advantage of an individual, and sometimes delay has adverse effects,' Executive Director Malcolm Rich said. 'But from a policy perspective, it says we have a court system that is in trouble and is dysfunctional.'

Nationally, according to the Syracuse analysis, the total number of pending cases in immigration courts in the past 10 years grew 64 percent. The number of immigration cases in Phoenix, for example, has risen 12 percent since last year alone, and 49 percent since 2007. The increase in cases stems from the federal government's crackdown on illegal immigration. The government has hired thousands of new Border Patrol and Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents in recent years to enforce immigration laws. It also has enlisted local law-enforcement agencies to help identify and arrest illegal immigrants. The crackdowns have been especially intense in Arizona. Hundreds of the new Border Patrol and ICE agents have been assigned to Arizona to arrest and deport illegal immigrants, contributing to the growing caseloads. Although most illegal immigrants caught at the border are quickly returned, others choose to fight to stay.

The crush of new cases is delaying deportation rulings by years. In early January, Judge Wendell Hollis, one of the three Phoenix immigration judges, didn't have room on his calendar to schedule final hearings for people seeking cancellation of removal until October 2011, 22 months later. Judge Lamonte Freerks was booked up until December 2012, nearly three years later. John Richardson, the senior judge, had the fullest calendar. In January, he was scheduling final hearings in August 2013!

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/2010/02/14/20100214immigrationcourts.html

******************

Memphis Immigration Court Overwhelmed

Fox News in Memphis is reporting that to get your case heard in one Memphis immigration court, you might have to wait a year or more to see a judge. The situation is so bad, Tennessee's two Federal Senators are requesting help from the Department of Justice.

Memphis' Immigration Court handles matters in Tennessee, Arkansas, and parts of Mississippi. Only two judges were handling that caseload. Now, it's been reduced to one. Inside the federal building downtown, only one judge physically sits in Immigration Court. In 2008, that court heard more than 3400 cases.

Mauricio Calvo, Director of Latino Memphis, says this overflow shows the need for immigration reform. In February of 2010, Senators Lamar Alexander and Bob Corker wrote to the Department of Justice, requesting a delay in transferring the court's second judge. Or, transferring another judge to Memphis until a permanent one is in place. Instead, the department rotates judges via video teleconference.

"People need to understand that immigration court is not only for un-documented immigrants. Immigration court affects people who are in the process of becoming legal, to become residents, to become citizens, citizens who are trying to bring their families, get re-united," Calvo said. Cases that can't wait a year or more for those involved, but often must.

http://www.myfoxmemphis.com/dpp/news/local/022410_memphis-immigration-court-overwhelmed

* * * * * *