vi·sa /ˈvizə/ noun, 1. an endorsement made by an authorized representative of one country permitting the passport holder entry into or transit through the country making the endorsement. vi·sion /ˈvɪʒən/ –noun 1. the act or power of anticipating that which will or may come to be."
I read the summary, and the comments posted on the Economist responding to The Next Hundred Million: America in 2050. By Joel Kotkin. Penguin. I have not read the book, but from the description, it sounds as though Kotkin believes that the US is poised to “bounce back” from the current economic downturn because it has maintained its position as the most attractive destination for immigrants. Kotkin’s idea that immigrants are good for the economy is not a new one; Other advocacy organizations such as the American Immigration Council also rely on the economic benefits of immigration. However, it sounds as though Kotkin’s theory also rests on the assumption that the US is currently, and will remain, the preeminent destination for immigrants seeking their new home. Given the complexity, cost, and frustrations my clients experience during every stage of their immigration process, I’m afraid that Kotkin’s confidence in the US’s ability to attract new immigrants may be incorrect. I’m interested in reading the book to find out whether he addresses the likelihood and consequences of not remaining competitive/attractive to immigrants seeking out the best places to relocate.
*special thanks to my friend Adam for bringing this review to my attention!!
Tags: Advocacy
Victory: Immigrant Meat Packers Not Criminals!
The Supreme Court unanimously decided today to overrule the Bush Adminstration’s tactics to criminalize the immigrant workers it prosecuted on charges of aggravated identity theft during the May 12, 2008 Postville raid on the basis that the government must prove knowledge as an element of aggravated identity theft.
The Court said that it is possible to prove knowldege where a defendant digs through someones’ trash to find discarded credit card receipts, and equivalent evidence should be used to prove knowledge in cases of aggravated identity theft even though the government claimed that it would be too hard to prove a defendant knew the identification belonged to someone else.
The Postville, Iowa kosher meatpacking plant was raided by ICE, the enforcement arm of the DHS, who were on the hunt for unauthorized workers. They found their booty, and arrested nearly 400 immigrants who were working with false work authorization, mostly from Guatemala. At hearings, which were often conducted “en mass,” the accused immigrants were counseled by attorneys who encouraged plea agreements through a scripted speech, who explained that aggravated identity theft carries a minimum two years in prison, and encouraged the Postville defendants to plead guilty to lesser charges. The defendants were not counseled by immigration attorneys when they accepted the guilty pleas.
Ignacio Flores-Figueroa’s case came before the Supreme court, the government had charged him with misusing immigration documents and of aggravated identity theft, even though the government did not prove that the Postville worker had actual knowledge that the social security number belonged to someone else. According to today’s ruling, the government must establish that the individual charged must have known that the identification belonged to another person.
I hope that this decision signals a turning point in the trends and direction of our country to move toward comprehensive immigration reform to create policies that decriminalize immigrants, and more importantly provide pathways to legality for all those hiding in the shadows of our workforce.
Tags: E-Verify, Postville, raids
Same sex partner of 23 years deported because marriage is not recognized
Lesbian Mom to Be Deported by U.S.
available at http://carnalnation.com/content/4810/4/lesbian-mom-be-deported-us?h
On Friday, April 2, Shirley Tan of San Mateo, CA, is scheduled to be deported back to the Philippines, leaving behind her life partner, Jaylynn “Jay” Mercado, and their twin 12-year-old sons. Tan and Mercado were married in San Francisco in 2004, but their marriage was voided by the state. Even if their marriage were still valid on the state level, the federal Defense of Marriage Act would prevent Mercado from sponsoring her partner of 23 years. If Tan and Mercado were opposite sex, Tan could legally stay in the country.
Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) and Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) introduced the Uniting American Families Act into Congress last month. The bill would allow Americans in a same-sex relationship to sponsor their “permanent partners” for legal residency in the United States. Last week, the White House issued a statement about the Uniting American Families Act, saying “[President Obama] thinks Americans with partners from other countries should not be faced with a painful choice between staying with their partner or staying in their country.”
Approximately 37,000 couples in the U.S. face circumstances similar to those of Tan and Mercado. It is doubtful that any legislation will be passed before the Friday deadline for Tan’s deportation. Immigration Equality Executive Director Rachel B. Tiven said, “We are hopeful their members of Congress will introduce a private bill that would spare their twin boys and the boys’ grandmother from having the country they love tear their family apart.”
Why immigrants are more vulnerable to criminal convictions
The following NY Times editorial describes the consequences of demonization and dehumanization of unauthorized workers and undocumented immigrants which leads to inappropriate criminal penalties for aggravated identity theft.
New York Times, February 25, 2009, Editorial
And Unequal Justice for Some
The Supreme Court hears arguments Wednesday in the case of an illegal immigrant who provided an employer with phony identification numbers. The court must decide whether he can be convicted of the crime of aggravated identity theft — which carries a heavy mandatory prison sentence — even though he did not know the numbers belonged to specific people.
This is a case about the misapplication of federal law. It also is a case about unequal justice. The government is misusing the identity theft law to pressure illegal immigrants to agree to quick deportation.
Ignacio Carlos Flores-Figueroa, an undocumented Mexican immigrant, purchased a forged Social Security card and a permanent resident card bearing his name and false identification numbers in Chicago. When he submitted those documents at his job in East Moline, Ill., his employer reported him to the Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which determined that the numbers belonged to other people. There is no evidence those people were harmed.
Mr. Flores-Figueroa pleaded guilty to misuse of immigration documents and illegal entry into the United States. He pleaded not guilty to aggravated identity theft, saying that he didn’t know that the ID numbers belonged to anyone. He was convicted and sentenced to 51 months of imprisonment for the crimes for which he pleaded guilty, and an additional mandatory two-year sentence for aggravated identity theft. Mr. Flores-Figueroa is asking the Supreme Court to reverse his identity-theft conviction, arguing that the law does not apply to his actions.
The federal aggravated identity theft statute is aimed at the most serious forms of identity theft — and it says the theft must be done knowingly. Congress wanted to punish those who take the identities of other people to do them harm, typically by trying to drain their bank accounts. Mr. Figueroa did not have the intent necessary to violate this law. He was guilty of identity fraud — a separate, and lesser, crime.
One of the criminal law’s most important tasks is sorting out degrees of culpability. People like Mr. Flores-Figueroa enter the country illegally to work at jobs that pay little and are often dangerous. Their actions are illegal, but they fall far short of stealing a specific person’s identity to rob someone’s life savings.
The Supreme Court should reverse Mr. Flores-Figueroa’s conviction to stop overly aggressive prosecutors from going beyond what the law allows — and to ensure that in identity theft cases, the punishment fits the crime.
Tags: identity theft, ssn, worksite enforcement
Raids don't fix anything.
Last night marked President Obama’s first Presidential Address which echoed his (inspiring) campaign promises of change, a brighter future, accountablilty and responsibility, and the capacity for every ordinary person to become extraordinary through actions and choice.
Ironically, the first worksite raid under the Obama administration also took place last night which painted an entirely different picture reminding me of the enormity of the challenge to reform immigration. In Bellingham, Washington, 126 workers including US Citizens were questioned and temporarily detained, while 28 primarily Mexican workers were chained and transported to a detention facility (three were released for humanitarian reasons) marking another enforecement-only action by ICE as the solution to unauthorized employment.
These enforcement only measures reflect a continuation of the same policies carried out under the Bush administration, and undermine Obama’s campaign promise as well as his demands for change presented during his presidential address. Addressing the issue of unauthorized workers through raids does not resolve the root of the issue. Immigration reform is ripe for review, and the enforcement-only solution is not an acceptable answer.
Tags: ICE Raids, worksite enforcement
I’m going to update with an explanation of the changes affecting H-1B petitioners.
Calling your Senator can make a difference for H-1B workers and the economy
From AILA Advocacy Alerts (February 4, 2009):
The large Economic Stimulus Bill being debated in the Senate is now being threatened by 3 bad immigration amendments that will hurt immigrant workers and the economy. Immediate action must be taken against these amendments. Call your Senators NOW and tell them to oppose Senator Sanders’s H-1B amendment to bar banks from hiring H-1B workers and Senator Sessions’ 2 amendments that would require all businesses benefiting from the stimulus to use E-Verify. Call Your Senators NOW!
Your Senior US Senator: 202-224-3121 ; Your Junior US Senator: 202-224-3121
Tell your Senators to: Please OPPOSE the following amendments that will slow down the economy:
· Senator Sanders’ H-1b amendment, number 306, would prevent U.S. employers who are using TARP funds from accessing highly skilled, professional foreign talent that would allow them to stay competitive in the global marketplace. U.S. businesses who are trying desperately to recover financially MUST have access to specialty skills inside our country so that they can keep their businesses in the U.S. Otherwise, the entire nation’s economic recovery will be severely hobbled.
· Senator Sessions filed two amendments numbers 165 and 239 that require all businesses and other public or private “entities” that contract to receive money from the stimulus package to use the flawed federal Basic Pilot/E-Verify program. Making the E-Verify program mandatory will delay use of stimulus funds, hurt millions of workers and hamstring businesses who are not prepared to implement this new program, especially during this economic crisis.
These amendments will send the wrong signal to new voters that the Congress prefers to play politics by enacting symbolic and ineffective measures rather than serious and effective economic stimulus measures.
I’ve been following the FAR regulation since President Bush’s exec order on June 6, 2008, waiting, wondering, fearing, and expecting that federal contractors and subcontractors would very shortly have to comply. I’ve outlined a brief timeline of the legistlation which can be pretty helpful to understand where we are now and how we got here. By the way, the FAR Reg implementation is delayed until May 21, 2009.
I. EVOLUTION/UPDATES IN FAR REGULATION FOR E-VERIFY
1. On June 6, 2008 President George W. Bush signed an amendment 13465 to Executive Order 12989 requiring (200k) federal contractors to use E-Verify.
2. September 30, 2008, President George W. Bush signed a resolution (H.R. 2638) to extend the E-Verify program which was set to expire on November 29, 2008, through March 6, 2009, and inject $100 million in new funding for the program. The new congress will take it from here, but President Obama has expressed support for the program so it is not expected to disappear with the new administration.
3. November 14, 2008: After issuing a proposed rule, soliciting comments, on 11/14 the final rule mandating use of the E-Verify program by all federal contractors was published in the Federal Register, originally to take effect on January 19, 2009.
4. January 08, 2008: USCIS issued a press release stating that 100,000 employers are currently enrolled in the program, and from October 2008 to January 2009, over two million queries were run through E-Verify.
5. January 14, 2009: A coalition of business organizations (U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the American Council on International Personnel, the Society for Human Resources, the H.R. Policy Association, and the Associated Builders and Contractors) challenge the E-Verify amendment to the FAR in federal court arguing that it exceeds the authority of the executive branch and violates IIRIRA.
6. As a result of pending litigation, the parties came to an agreement to delay the final rule which was set to take effect on February 20, 2009.
7. January 20, 2009: White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel ordered Regulatory Review by the Obama administration of proposed and final regulations that have not been published in the federal register, and delay by 60 days the effective dates of published regulations that have not yet taken effect.
8. January 27, 2009: the US Chamber of Commerce announced that the litigants agreed to extend the applicability to May 21, 2009 and agreed to ask the court to stay the proceedings to allow President Obama’s administration the opportunity to review the rule. We will have to wait to see how this review affects the rule. Federal acquisition officers will not include the E-Verify clause in any federal contract awarded prior to May 21, 2009.
Received today in an email from my father after I asked both my parents to contact their Reps re: the E-Verify/Stimulus Package Issue:
“I called Speaker Nancy Pelosi & Chairman David Obey and one congress person… HTH L, D ( ps so did mommy )
Ask your loved ones to make a couple phone calls! (I’m not sure what HTH means…L,D = Love, Daddy)
Tags: Advocacy
Stop complaining and take action! Now is the time to let Congress know how you feel! Let your Representative know that incuding E-Verify in the stimulus package is counterproductive to strengthening our economy, and should not be included in the stimulus package. Advocacy is fun and empowering so make your phone calls today!
E-Verify should not be part of the stimulus package!
To: Interested Immigration Advocates
From: National Immigration Forum
ACTION ALERT: CALLS NEEDED TODAY
Stimulus Money with E-Verify Strings Attached Will Hurt, Not Help American Workers and Businesses.
Late last week, the House Appropriations Committee voted to include two provision related to E-Verify (the electronic worker verification system) in the economic recovery bill (The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009). One of the amendments, proposed by Rep. Jack Kingston (R-GA) and approved by Appropriations Chairman David Obey (D-WI), would make enrollment in E-Verify a condition for receiving funds provided by the recovery package.
This is a dangerous and risky attempt to expand the E-Verify program in a way that would essentially make its use mandatory for the majority of 7.4 million employers in our country. The E-Verify program has severe and well-documented failings which include:
- Unacceptably high error rates that misidentify U.S. Citizen and lawful immigrant workers
- An inability to monitor and prevent unscrupulous employers from misusing the syste
- Exacerbating, in many cases, unlawful employment practices against all workers
If Congress wants to solve the economic crisis and put Americans back to work, it should focus on economic stimulus measures. Immigration enforcement should be the subject of a comprehensive package of immigration reforms. Congressional leadership should not allow Representatives with a narrow focus on punishing immigrants to use the urgently-needed economic stimulus to advance their agenda.
The Obama Administration has recently suspended for review a rule that would require all federal contractors to enroll in E-Verify. Congress should not work at cross purposes with the Administration on this issue. The New American and Latino voters who turned out in record numbers in the last election helped change the balance in Congress. Their vote should be respected, and Congress should deal with immigration as a problem that needs to be solved comprehensively, not made worse by endless new enforcement measures.
CONGRESSIONAL LEADERSHIP NEEDS TO HEAR FROM YOU TODAY:
- CALL Speaker Nancy Pelosi at 202-225-0100
- CALL Chairman David Obey at 202-225-3365
- CALL Democratic and Republican Members of the Appropriations Committee who live in your state (see below)
TELL CONGRESSIONAL LEADERSHIP TODAY:
- You oppose weighing down the stimulus package with E-Verify requirements and want them stripped.
- Including E-Verify in the stimulus package imposes new and costly requirements on businesses, farms, state and local governments, schools, hospitals and non-profit organizations which counteracts the purpose and effect of the stimulus.
- Delaying the receipt of stimulus funds by effectively forcing employers to use E-verify harms all American workers, businesses and the economy.
- Caving in to a minority, interested only in using immigration as a political wedge issue, is not the type of leadership Americans—particularly New Americans and Latinos—voted for in the last election.
DEMOCRAT MEMBERS OF THE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE
John P. Murtha (D-PA) Phone: 202-225-2065 Fax: 202-225-5709
http://www.immigrationforum.org