Illegal Immigrants, The Economy and The Border

The LA Times Reports that apprehensions of undocumented migrants are down significantly this year, and appear to have dropped to levels not seen since the 1970s. In fact, the Yuma Sector of the Border Patrol reported not a single arrest for 2 days in December 2008. This from a Sector that was featured on that ridiculous show “Homeland Security” featuring migrants caught last summer. Apparently, there was no guarantee of catching anyone today!

One has to ask: Is this a result of all the money the Bush, and now Obama Administrations have poured into border security and deterrence? Or, is there something much bigger at play here? What comes to mind immediately when these raw statistics are rehearsed is that old James Carville saying from the 1992 election: “Its the Economy Stupid.”

The reality of the economic impact on the sharp reduction of undocumented immigration is played out in the last paragraph of this article when it becomes clear that while there are still folks wanting and even trying to enter the United States without papers (even with the billions that have been spent on increased border enforcement in the last nine years), the job magnet that has drawn millions of people here has virtually disappeared overnight. There are just not any jobs here right now. The bigger question that we MUST consider now is what happens when the economy improves and all these jobs come back? We know that the economy will improve. Without action NOW by Congress on immigratin reform to deal with what we know will be a pent up surge for workers, both skilled and unskilled, when the economy rights itself later this year, we will be faced with more immigrant bashing and the same lack of solutions that we have enjoyed for the last decade.

Hopefully, the Obama Administration can lead on this issue. Certainly President Obama has said he would so lead. And, he is speaking tomorrow, March 10, to the Annual Legislative Conference of the United States Hispanic Chamber of Commerce in Washington D.C. This event would be a perfect forum for him to call out for Congressional Action this year on Immigration. Without leadership from the White House now, and through the spring, summer and fall, it is far to likely that Congress will not have the courage to act on immigration reform.

If Madonna can do it- why can’t I?

Quiet as it’s kept; celebrities like Madonna and Angelina Jolie are not above the law when it comes to international adoptions. Despite the way it appears, they do not pick up a son or daughter during a flying visit to a far off land. So how do they do it? The short answer is that they do it the same way as the rest of us. Every adoption starts with a pre-approval phase which involves a form called I-600A or I-800A, depending on whether or not the child’s country of origin is a signatory to the Hague Convention (an international law governing adoption.) Once this is completed, a child will be located; the court work completed and the visa application (either I-600 or I-800) will be filed at the US embassy.

Many international adoptions only require the physical presence of the adoptive parent in the child’s country for three or four days- an interview day with a social worker, a court date, a day to file the application with the embassy and an interview day. Unfortunately, these days rarely happen consecutively which means the adoptive parent will have to remain in the child’s home country for several weeks unless they have the funds available to them to make several trips. This is where the Madonnas and Angelina Jolies of the world do have a significant advantage. Although money and celebrity status will not help when it comes to US immigration law it may have certain advantages when it comes to abiding by the rules of the foreign country.

Many people wonder how Madonna successfully adopted from Malawi- a country that requires the adoptive parent to physically reside with the child for 18 months under the supervision of a Malawian social worker before an adoption can be granted. We all know that Madonna did not reside in Malawi while her adoption was pending. She was living in England working on a fake English accent. Luckily for her, she could afford to fly a social worker from Malawi periodically to evaluate her relationship with the baby she sought to adopt. A Malawian judge finalized her adoption after a year and a half of evaluations which no doubt included a finding that her marriage was stable and she was highly unlikely to leave her husband for a major league baseball player. 

Celebrity Immigration/ Adoption Fever

As a follow up to yesterday’s post, I thought it would be interesting to see which celebrities adopted from where and what they had to do to emigrate their child to the United States. This may also help you if you are trying to decide which country to adopt from:Madonna and Malawi: See yesterday’s post. The country of Malawi will not finalize an adoption unless you have been evaluated by a social worker there for two years. The US will not grant a visa to your adopted Malawian child unless you are willing to live in Malawi for two years or like Madonna, you can afford to fly the social worker to your place of residence multiple times over an 18 month period.

 Angelina Jolie, Julie Andrews and Jim Caviezel have all adopted from Vietnam: The United States has granted over 1500 immigrant visas to adopted Vietnamese children over the past two years. However; due to the high incidence of fraud, adopting from Vietnam can be a complicated process. Prospective adoptive parents submit their paperwork to a central body in Vietnam and are then matched with an orphan child.  The US has currently suspended all Vietnamese adoptions because it’s working on a new agreement with the country of Vietnam.

 Angelina Jolie and Cambodia: Due to fraud, irregularities, and allegations of child-buying in the Cambodia; it is almost impossible to get a visa for an orphan adopted from Cambodia. Adoptive parents might want to consider Thailand as an alternative to Vietnam or Cambodia. Thailand does not have the same fraud problems and wait times are less- 8-12 months for an infant.

 Angelina Jolie and Ethiopia: Ethiopia has become an increasingly popular option for adoptive parents. The country itself does not impose any residency requirements- meaning you won’t have to live in Ethiopia if you want to adopt from there. There are no minimum or maximum age limits for adoptive parents. The child herself must have been relinquished or abandoned under Ethiopian law and must have been in an orphanage for at least 3 months. The adoption and immigration process can be completed in as little as 6 months.

 

Mia Farrow and South Korea: Mia Farrow adopted her daughter, Soon Yi Previn, from South Korea. It seemed like a good idea at the time and it still is a good idea for most people. South Korea has relaxed age limits for adoptive parents and no residency requirements. However; weight times for healthy infants can be as long as three years. Over a thousand South Korean orphans were granted immigrant visas to the United States last year.

Meg Ryan and China: China has recently instituted stricter guidelines for its adoptive parents. Adoptive parents now for example, cannot be over weight, blind in one or both eyes, suffer from hearing loss etc. Luckily for Meg Ryan, she does not suffer from any of these maladies. The process itself is well stream lined but very drawn out with many adoptions taking about 3 years to conclude.

The Immigration Soul of the Republican Party!

As we speak there is a debate raging on the website of the National Review–that bastion of Republican and Conservative thought.  This debate is between the inward thinking, anti-immigrationists lead by Mark Krikorian and Rep. Lamar Smith and the forward thinking and pro-immigrant Richard Nadler.  Nadler’s recent article rebutting what he calls the Big 5 Anti-immigratoinists and their immigration reform plan–mass deportation–is fantastic.  He calmly and with a great deal of emperical evidence show that this ridiculous plan is a deal breaker for Republicans and Hispanics into future generations. I have been echoing this from the ground for some time, but Nadler takes it a step futher. He says that:

our candidates will lose Hispanic vote share — to the point where our performance among Hispanics mirrors that among African Americans. If conservative Republicans continue to advocate the mass removal of resident illegals, our business support will erode — not to levels typical of a congressional minority, but to levels reflecting a fundamental shift of interests favoring the Democrats.

What Nadler clearly understands is that “Americans” as a whole do not favor EITHER Mass Deportations OR an Amnesty.  What “Americans” are looking for is a political solution to this political and societal problem that does not reward those directly who came here without permission, but which recognizes the contributions of these folks and the effect on U.S. citizen spouses and children from such a ridiculous policy. 

While Blog comments continue to stream in which say things like: “What part of illegal don’t you understand”,  “all ‘these’ people need to back to the hole they crawled out of,” and MUCH worse statements, the reality is that the Republican party is in great danger here.  The Republican Party WAS the party of immigrants for a very long time.  Ronald Reagan was extremely pro-immigrant (remember the whole “City on a Hill” speech) and signed into the law the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986-The last “Amensty.”  As someone with lifelong ties to the GOP, I view this fight for the immigration soul of the Republican Party one very much worth having.  We cannot allow Anti-Immigration Activitists and shallow politicians to drive away the future of the party.  The GOP needs to stand for an effective, strong and merciful immigration law that CAN be enforced effectively, but which also answers the needs of the American Family, Business and Society.  This solution is possible, but only if the GOP STOPS pandering the likes of Lou Dobbs, Mark Krikorian and Lamar Smith.

Charles Kuck on NPR–Immigration Reform and State Immigration Legislation

I was fortunate to be invited to speak on the Salt Lake City affiliate of National Public Radio last Friday. We had a chance to discuss the national picture on immigration reform, as well as some of the Utah specfic legislation that was pending before their state legislature. Most of that legislation was sponsored by politicians wanting their 15 minutes of fame at the expense of immigrants, but one of the bills was quite interesting–a proposal for a Utah-specific temporary/guest worker program. Listen to the program for the details of my discussion:  http://kcpw.org/article/7475

Your Bond Means Nothing to Me…

Time after time the phone in my office rings with the same story. “My husband / fiancé/ brother/ friend/ cousin was just arrested…we went down and paid the bond at the jail but we told that we couldn’t get him out because immigration has a hold on him. Is there any way we can get him out…?”

My hear sinks with each phone call and I gear myself up to give them the bad news. “Well the problem is immigration will not consider giving him a bond until all his criminal issues are resolved. Once all his criminal issues are taken care of, meaning his charges are dismissed or he is found guilty and serves his time in jail, immigration then has 48 hours to come pick him up and place him in their custody. Once he is in immigration custody immigration might consider giving him a bond. A lot of it depends on what happens during his criminal case. When immigration is considering giving someone a bond they look at their criminal history, ties to the community, possible relief under immigration law and whether they are a threat to society. If he has any United States citizen or permanent resident family members we should go ahead and file a petition for him, but right now, you really should be concentrating on the criminal aspect of his case. The better his criminal case goes the easier it will be for me to ask for a bond from immigration.” And I try to finish with the good new “But…if immigration does not pick him up within 48 hours after this criminal case is resolved than we can file a writ to get him out of jail. Good luck! And let me know how the criminal side goes!”

But here is my question…why can’t ICE consider giving them a bond while their criminal proceedings are still pending? I’m not talking about if the client is charged with trafficking drugs or murder. But what about if a client is charged with a simple DUI or driving with an expired license and would be eligible for some for of relief under immigration law? If the client is charged with driving without a license, chances are, the most severe thing the client will be convicted of is DRIVING WITOUT A LICENSE! That is not a dangerous crime. The client is not a threat to the community! The client is as eligible for a bond while he is in criminal state custody as he would be in immigration custody. This is particularly true if the person has a legal entry, is married to a United States Citizen and has a bunch of little ones as home.

I can not tell you how it breaks my hear trying to explain to a client why the low bond that the criminal judge sets means nothing for their case. I hate to hear the United States Citizen mom saying “but who will stay with the kids? This has disrupted our whole lives! He is going to lose his job. The economy is awful right now! How will we make it?”

So here is the thing Immigration and Customs Enforcement, why don’t you consider giving a guy who is charged with a small traffic violation and who has relief under immigration law a bond while he is still in state custody? You can use the same discretionary standards that you always use. It is ridiculous to have the client’s life completely disrupted for a simple DUI. The client is now well aware that they need to take care of their immigration status. In fact, the whole family is aware…they is why they are calling my office. Give us a break guys. If the guy could get a bond from the judge to be released into your custody, and he has relief under the law, why not consider giving him a bond as well? This would make all of our lives so much easier. Crazed family members wouldn’t call me and I wouldn’t be forced to call you guys so often. Think about it…You know it makes sense.

I must end because my phone is ringing. Probably a family member of another person who is detained under the 287 (g) program. Now where is that number for Immigration and Customs Enforcement again …?

 

Humanitarian Parole – Reuniting Families During Trying Times

The Immigration and Nationality Act generally requires visitors and immigrants into the U.S. to obtain a visa.  Humanitarian parole enables those who are otherwise unable to obtain a visa to enter the United States for up to one year, provided they convince the government that exigent circumstances exist such that this special permission is warranted.   Typical applications for humanitarian parole involve life-threatening medical emergencies, the reunification of young children with families, or the emergent need to attend to a close relative who either is dying, or has recently passed away.

The attorneys at Kuck Casablanca have extensive dealings with the Humanitarian Parole Board, and have experienced extraordinary success in obtaining parole for people in dire circumstances.  As such, the attorneys at Kuck Casablanca have served as mentors for immigration attorneys nationwide on the process and strategies surrounding applications for parole.  Recent successful cases have resulted in the reuniting of families dealing with brain cancer and leukemia.

If at first you didn’t succeed, try again, and try with the assistance of Kuck Casablanca.  There is no limit on the amount of times a person may apply for humanitarian parole.  Any time there is an update in the circumstances surrounding the need for humanitarian parole, a person should re-file with the updated information.  Though this could become costly ($305 per application), for those who have the resources and an anxious desire to enter the United States, persistence could definitely pay off.  

Is your employment in our National Interest? Think Again.

Many Indian and Chinese nationals come to the United States either already with advanced degrees or to obtain advance degrees and then apply that knowledge creating jobs at a time when we greatly need them. To them we turn our noses and say thanks but no thanks. Thanks to visa backlogs or “retrogression”, these advance degree professionals, some of whom even obtain visa approvals in a category called the National Interest Waiver are put in a 4-5 year wait. Their response to our indifference, they go home.

It appears that the best and brightest immigrants are leaving the U.S. and taking the economic recovery with them thanks to our policy of placing them in long lines to await permanent residency. While they wait and wait and wait they face growing uncertainty for their families as current policy forbids their spouses from working if they are dependents of H1b visa holders. Their answer is to go home.

The Kauffman Foundation detailed this morning in Americas Loss is the World’s Gain the experiences of skilled immigrants who came to the U.S. from India and China to work or study and returned home. The big surprise is how well they are doing back home. The vast majority say they have done better professionally, are happy to be home with friends and relatives and enjoy a better quality of life. They came to America because of the education and professional development it offered and went home to find even better opportunities.

Simple solutions to part of this crisis include allowing H1b dependents the opportunity to obtain Employment Authorization Documents, allowing those waiting in the visa lines to apply for Adjustment of Status instead of waiting for the numbers to become current, or simply to allow more visas for the advanced degree professionals to do away with the visa backlogs for India and China.

Where, O Where Have My High Skilled Immigrants Gone?

Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation released a Study today that indicates placing limits on foreign workers in the U.S. is not the answer to the country’s rising unemployment rate and may undermine efforts to spur technological innovation.   You have to ask yourself, “Is anyone surprised by this?”  I mean come on. What kind of person actually believes that by STOPPING advanced degreed university graduates from coming to the United States the United States will be better off?  I mean, besides the folks in Congress!

The study by Harvard professor Vivek Wadhwa titled America’s loss is the world’s gain: America’s New Immigrant Entrepreneurs, Part IV, researchers surveyed highly skilled immigrants who had studied and/or worked in the United States and subsequently returned to their home countries.

“A substantial number of highly skilled immigrants have started returning to their home countries in recent years, draining a key source of brain power and innovation,” said Robert E. Litan, vice president of Research and Policy at the Kauffman Foundation. “We wanted to know what is encouraging this much-needed growth engine to leave our country, thereby sending entrepreneurship and economic stimulus to places like Bangalore and Beijing.”

The study found that “Immigrants historically have provided one of America’s greatest competitive advantages. Between 1990 and 2007, the proportion of immigrants in the U.S. labor force increased from 9.3 percent to 15.7 percent, and a large and growing proportion of immigrants bring high levels of education and skill to the United States. Immigrants have contributed disproportionately in the most dynamic part of the U.S. economy—the high-tech sector—co-founding firms such as Google, Intel, eBay and Yahoo. In addition, immigrant inventors contributed to more than a quarter of U.S. global patent applications. Immigrant-founded U.S.-based companies employed 450,000 workers and generated $52 billion in revenue in 2006.”

Come on Congress, lets get out heads out of the sand, stop playing games with who is to blame in this economic crisis and THINK your way out of it.  Expanding U.S. employers’ ability to bring in the best and brightest from around the world, AND treating this talent as they should be treated, will go a long way to fixing our economic malaise.

 

Beware the Friendly Police Officer

It used to be that we would tell our children that if they are ever lost to find a police officer. Thanks to federal programs such as 287(g), it may no longer be safe for a child to find the friendly police officer or for the battered woman to call 911. The fear — calling the police for help may get you or your family deported.

 

Government Accountability Office is releasing a report questioning the effectiveness of the federal program that deputizes local police officers as immigration agents.  “The government has failed to determine how many of the thousands of people deported under the program were the kind of violent felons it was devised to root out. Some law enforcement agencies had used the program to deport immigrants ‘who have committed minor crimes, such as carrying an open container of alcohol,’ the report said, and at least four agencies referred minor traffic offenders for deportation.”

 

Under federal programs such as 287(g) no longer is a mere traffic stop a mere traffic stop. Fear is rippling through Hispanic communities in counties that have enacted such programs. The phrase “Driving while Brown” or DWB is rapidly becoming popular in such areas. When thousands of local law enforcement become deputized into immigration programs to be on the lookout for immigration violations the potential risk for discrimination is simply too high.

 

Thanks to new state laws taking away driving privileges coupled with federal programs like 287(g) the immigrant community is being driven further and further into the shadows. The solution is to enact comprehensive immigration reform to allow these immigrants to come forward and obtain licenses, to become insured, and to live without constant fear.

« Previous Page — Next Page »