The Visa Bulletin

To quote the American Bar Associaion Journal in an article dated Aug. 6, 2009:

The Obama administration plans to overhaul the much-criticized detention system for immigration violators so that detainees will be housed in more suitable facilities.

Critics say detainees have been mistreated and given substandard medical care in the detention centers. One Texas facility that housed children behind barbed wire, the T. Don Hutto Residential Center, will no longer receive new families under the plan, the New York Times reports.

As part of the changes, a new Office of Detention Policy and Planning will review and redesign facilities, programs and standards, according to the story. It will be assisted by two advisory boards on detention policies and health care. Twenty-three detention managers will be appointed to oversee the largest detention centers and promptly fix any problems.

Vanita Gupta, an American Civil Liberties Union lawyer who sued over conditions at the Hutto center, told the Times that ending family detention at Hutto “is welcome news and long overdue.” But Gupta criticized the White House’s refusal to depart from other Bush administration policies. The new administration, for example, has expanded a program to verify worker immigration status and has rejected legally binding standards for immigration detention.

“Without independently enforceable standards, a reduction in beds, or basic due process before people are locked up, it is hard to see how the government’s proposed overhaul of the immigration detention system is anything other than a reorganization or renaming of what was in place before,” Gupta said.

The full article can be found here.

Amidst hysteria among some groups that 2012 will be a year of chaos, and even Armageddon, there is a glimmer of hope that 2012 may not be all that bad (at least for those in favor of Comprehensive Immigration Reform or “CIR”). On a webinar hosted today by the CUNY Citizenship & Immigration Project called, “A Path to Citizenship for Undocumented Immigrants: Update and Advice,” Jeanne Butterfield and Allan Wernick gave their expert perspectives on a potentially forthcoming Comprehensive Immigration Reform bill. While they were sure to point out that right now is too early to know much of anything (pointing out that “it may never happen”), they predicted that if a bill passes, it will likely be sometime between 2010 and 2012. Specifically, Ms. Butterfield stated that the lion’s share of the action would take place during the early part of 2011.

For more information on CIR, check back here at TheVisaBulletin.com.

As I was looking for the current events having to do with immigration, I ran across the following article which I thought would be of interest. According to Yahoo News, quoting the Associated Press, in an article released today:

WASHINGTON – Immigration officers are investigating workplaces in every state in the U.S. to check whether they are hiring illegal workers.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement told members of Congress in an e-mail Wednesday morning that it is beginning audits of documents that employees fill out when they are hired. The documents are known as I-9′s.

President Barack Obama has said his administration’s strategy for stemming illegal immigration is focusing on employers who hire illegal workers.

The Bush administration was criticized for raiding businesses and arresting workers but not doing enough to go after the employers who hire them.

For more information on workplace immigration laws or I-9′s, keep looking back to TheVisaBulletin.com.

The last attempt to post ended up unreadable. Hopefully, this will be better:

July 2009 Visa Bulletin - http://TheVisaBulletin.com

Grounds of Inadmissibility -- http://TheVisaBulletin.com

Surrounding the immigration policy debate, it seems that many do not have a clear understanding of the United States (US) immigration system. For example, I was watching a news show the other day during which the anchor stat that he was “concerned that criminals, terrorists, and the poverty stricken are going to flood our immigration system.” Clearly, there are several people out there who have a misunderstanding of how our laws work, particularly concerning the immigration grounds of inadmissibility.

How do the grounds work? Well, let’s start from the very beginning. The US immigration system requires immigrants to qualify for a visa by falling into certain categories (e.g. various types of family-based or employment based categories). If the applicant doesn’t fall into these categories, then the general rule is that immigrating becomes virtually impossible (with a few exceptions). There are plenty of categories. So, people can often qualify for one category or another.

However, what makes the US immigration system acutely more forbidding is that (under Section 212 of the Immigration and Nationality Act) the US will preemptively disqualify certain applicants by referring to them as being “inadmissible.” This means that the U.S. will not even consider allowing certain people to apply to immigrate to the US for certain reasons. These “certain reasons” are called the “grounds of inadmissibility.”

What are the grounds? There are several, but they essentially fall into about 9 major categories (if we consider the most applied and enforced grounds). They are:

1. Health Grounds – This includes persons with a communicable disease, certain threatening mental disorders, drug abusers and persons who fail to demonstrate that they have been vaccinated, etc.
2. Criminal Grounds – This includes persons who have COMMITTED crimes involving moral turpitude, persons with 2 or more criminal convictions, certain drug offenders, etc.
3. National Security Grounds – This includes terrorists, voluntary members of totalitarian parties, etc.
4. Economic grounds – This includes persons who are likely to become a public charge, and more.
5. Labor certification and Employment Grounds – This includes persons without approved labor certifications for certain green card applications, and more.
6. Immigration Violation Grounds – This includes: a.) persons who entered the U.S. without inspection; b.) persons who were deported after a hearing and seek readmission within ten years; c.) persons who have failed to attend removal (deportation) hearings; d.) persons who made misrepresentations during the immigration process; e.) persons who a made false claim to U.S. citizenship; f.) persons who are subject to the unlawful presence bars; g.) persons who are smugglers of illegal aliens… etc.
7. Document Violation Grounds.
8. Draft Evasion and Ineligibility for Citizenship Grounds.
9. Miscellaneous Grounds – This includes unlawful voters, and more.

Sometimes one may be able to avoid having a specific ground of inadmissibility enforced against them by getting what is called a “waiver.” For example, a waiver is available to a smuggler of illegal aliens if the applicant was 1) smuggling in people who were immediate family members (spouse, parent, son or daughter ONLY) at the time, and 2) the applicant either is a permanent resident or is immigrating under a family-based visa petition as an immediate relative

So, in the end, I assert that “Mr. Anchorman, the US immigration system is not as simple to circumvent as you suggest.”

TheVisaBulletin.com: Immigration Highlights -- (04-24-2009)

In the last few weeks, there have been so many different occurrences on various levels of the immigration spectrum.

1. Alan Bersin – Let’s start with the appointment of Alan Bersin as the Border Czar. What exactly is the mandate of a border czar? Well, according to April 17’s Dallas Morning News (DMN) Op-Ed Article, it would likely encompass something Alan Bersin would have been doing in his previous post as overseer of the Southwest border in San Diego, CA. However, the DMN article poses the issue of whether a more lenient Bersin will come to the position, or a more austere personality will show its colors. Any thoughts?
2. Janet Napolitano Was RIGHT (in legal speak)! – Typically, I think my readers will see that I do not choose sides. I ordinarily write as objectively as possible to convey the most current information. However, this week, I am incensed at the inaccuracies being reported in the media, and an inherent sense of duty to defend those wrongfully accused has me speaking in defense of Janet Napolitano. The Secretary of the Dept. of Homeland Security (DHS) has been causing quite a stir lately. On Sunday, April 19, 2009, Secretary Napolitano went on CNN’s State of the Union with John King, and stated, “crossing the border is not a crime per se. It is civil.” Well, most of the media and bloggers who followed up regarding this statement ignored Napolitano’s mention of civil liability involved in immigration law. Most of the headlines simply stated, “Napolitano states illegal immigration not a crime.” This is a classic misquotation! If these media people or bloggers new anything about immigration law, they would know that most immigration violations are CIVIL violations. Though it is true that there is, of course, criminal liability for various immigration violations, Secretary Napolitano’s statement, is not inaccurate (in legalese, that is). Granted, now that Secretary Napolitano is in the political limelight, she may want to phrase her statements more carefully to avoid being misquoted (and taken out of context).
3. Janet Napolitano was wrong (on Canada) – While the Secretary should be in the clear concerning #2 above, that wasn’t the only upheaval Ms. Napolitano caused. This week, in reference to the Canadian border, Secretary Napolitano misspoke by suggesting that the 9/11 terrorists entered through the Canadian border. Needless to say, Canada, our ally, couldn’t have been too happy about that. Though the Secretary attempted to apologize for her statements, many say it’s not enough and that the damage was done. You can read more detail here.
4. The Economics of Immigration Reform – On April 16, 2009, The Economist published an excellent article detailing the current events surrounding the immigration reform debate. The report, however, had a certain slant that I appreciated; while the Obama administration has repeated that the economy takes priority over any other issue, including immigration reform, this article illustrates that the immigration system’s problems affect the economy on quite a deep level. For example, “[a]dvocates contend that bringing immigrants’ shadow economy into the light will fatten tax rolls, end the abuse of illegal workers, improve wages for all and spur economic growth.” In the interest of full disclosure, I should tell my readers that I do not feel comfortable picking sides on the debates regarding illegal immigration, drivers licenses, border security, etc. However, one issue I do feel candidly adamant about is that the current immigration system is flawed and must be repaired.
5. 287(g) – On April 22, 2009, Policy Analyst for Homeland Security, Jena Baker McNeill, wrote a memorandum (webmemo #2405) entitled “Section 287(g): State and Local Immigration Enforcement Efforts Are Working.” Ms. McNeill poses an argument in favor of 287(g) and states, “Congress should. . . encourage the growth and expansion of 287(g) and other similar programs.”For those of you who are not familiar with the term “287(g),” you can see my previous post where I give a brief explanation of what it is: Driver’s Licenses for Illegal Immigrants – What To Do?. Also, if you’re curious whether the 287(g) has been implemented in your city or county, you can see the DHS list (under “287 (g) Facts”).
6. Of interest –

• Los Angeles Times: “Department of Homeland Security ordered to reopen immigration cases” (April 22, 2009) – “A Los Angeles federal court judge has issued a preliminary ruling ordering the Department of Homeland Security to reopen the immigration cases of nearly two dozen people who were denied green cards because their U.S. citizen spouses died during the process.”
• Houston Chronicle (Press Release): “Green Card Holders with Criminal Records Should Not Travel Outside the US” (DALLAS, TX, April 15, 2009).