Immigration Visa Lawyer Blog

Missouri may join the list of states with their own immigration laws that rival the federal government's traditional enforcement role. A bill introduced in the Missouri Legislature by Republican State Senator Will Kraus would require state and local law enforcement to check the immigration status of anyone stopped by police with reasonable cause. The law would also make it a misdemeanor not to carry documentation of citizenship. These provisions are similar to the laws passed in Arizona and Alabama. The Missouri bill would also require school officials to verify students' immigration status. This has led to much criticism that the law would damage education and cause extensive racial profiling and harassment of children.

Laws currently on the books in Arizona and Alabama also make state and local law enforcement responsible for checking immigration statuses if they have reasonable suspicion that a person may not have legal status. Since immigration status is determined based on federal law, and immigration laws are principally enforced by federal agencies, this has created a conflict between state and federal law enforcement. Local police may not have the particular training and expertise to enforce federal immigration laws and regulations. Immigration regulations change on a regular basis. The state laws have also raised concerns that local police will engage in racial profiling, targeting individuals who, in essence, do not look "American."

Missouri's proposed law would add another layer to the confusion by putting school administrators and perhaps even teachers in the middle of the fray. Many immigrants and immigration attorneys know that immigration status is often not as simple as having a card or piece of paper. Federal law provides a vast number of forms of legal immigration status, and people who do not deal primarily with these issues may not know all of the available options.

Senator Kraus has stated that his bill was motivated by an effort to determine what "illegal immigration" costs the state, and whether Missouri could claim reimbursement from the federal government for its efforts in enforcing immigration law. He says that the bill would require the state's Board of Education to collect data and determine the cost to the state of educating undocumented immigrants. This is of course different from the cost of immigration enforcement. The United States Supreme Court has long held that children, regardless of immigration status, have a right to an education through the public school system. States have contributed to the cost of immigration enforcement in some ways. Cook County, Illinois, for example, recently addressed the issue of the cost of local cooperation with immigration detainers sent by federal officials, a story we covered in this immigration blog.

Continue reading "New Proposed Law Would Require Schools to Verify Students' Immigration Status" »

Advocates for fair and reasonable treatment of immigrants had cause to celebrate last month in Arizona. Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio has been a controversial figure in the national immigration debate for some time, but his office received a blow from the federal government last month after a report announced evidence of discriminatory and even unconstitutional conduct. The Department of Justice (DOJ) notified the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office (MCSO) on December 15, 2011 that it had to reach a voluntary agreement to cease practices of racial profiling and discrimination against Spanish-speaking detainees, or it would face a lawsuit for violations of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) moved much more quickly, almost immediately revoking MCSO's authority to screen the immigration status of inmates in the county jails. Federal immigration authorities will handle that task for now.

Arpaio has been the subject of multiple investigations and inquiries in recent years, many directly related to how the MCSO handles immigration investigations and treats suspected undocumented immigrants. The DOJ began an investigation several years ago into allegations of discrimination and racial profiling, culminating in its December 2011 announcement. During the investigation, the DOJ threatened to sue the MCSO to compel its cooperation. Numerous lawsuits by groups like the American Civil Liberties Union and by individuals detained by the MCSO allege discriminatory or abusive acts.

A 2011 lawsuit, as one example, alleges that the MCSO kept a woman shackled during and after her delivery of a child by Caesarean section, causing injury and violating her rights. Authorities may have also violated state policies against shackling women in labor. The alleged incident occurred in 2009 after she had pleaded guilty to a forgery-related offense. She claims that guards at the jail ignored her cries for help because she was speaking Spanish. She had to find someone to translate for her.

The decision by DHS means that MCSO will have have full access to federal immigration databases under the Secure Communities program. Secure Communities is a program spearheaded by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), an agency of DHS, allowing local law enforcement to cooperate more easily with federal immigration officials by sharing information regarding detainees' immigration status and criminal records. The program is part of a policy of the Obama administration to focus immigration enforcement efforts on individuals with criminal records and those who pose a clear threat to public safety or national security.

Continue reading "Controversial Arizona Sheriff Stripped of Authority to Conduct Immigration Screening" »

An Ohio federal judge denied a request by convicted Nazi war criminal John Demjanjuk for renewed U.S. citizenship last week, citing false and inconsistent statements by Demjanjuk about his whereabouts during World War II. The new citizenship claim was based on supposedly "newly discovered" documents, according to the Associated Press, including some that allegedly called earlier documents used against Demjanjuk into question. Judge Dan Aaron Polster, however, looked at Demjanjuk's admittedly false statements in earlier visa and immigration applications, writing that Demjanjuk has never given a "single, consistent accounting of his whereabouts" during the war.

Demjanjuk was born in 1920 in Kiev, in what was then the Soviet Union. He first emigrated to the United States in 1952, gaining citizenship in 1958. After Holocaust survivors identified him as a guard at the Treblinka and Sobibor extermination camps known as "Ivan the Terrible," the U.S. deported him to Israel. He stood trial for crimes against humanity and was sentenced to death in 1988, but the sentence was overturned in 1993 because of evidence of possible mistaken identity. Specifically, some evidence suggested that, while he was a prison guard, he was not "Ivan the Terrible."

He returned to Ohio, but faced further charges in 2001, this time alleging that he served as a guard at two camps in Poland, Sobibor and Majdanek, and one in Germany, Flossenburg, during the war. After a lengthy legal process, he was deported to Germany in 2009 for his trial. A German court convicted him in May 2011 of being accessory to the murder of 27,900 Jews in those prison camps. He received a five-year prison sentence, which is suspended while he appeals.

The 91 year-old Demjanjuk currently resides in a nursing home in Germany, where he has suffered from poor health for years. Since losing his U.S. citizenship, he has been unable to leave Germany. He has steadfastly denied the charges of war crimes made against him. Among the new evidence he presented to the Ohio court is a supposedly secret FBI report from 1985 that claims a Nazi ID card naming him as a camp guard was actually a Soviet forgery. The FBI agent who prepared the report has stated that it was based solely on speculation. The key issue for the judge was Demjanjuk's history of false or misleading information regarding where he was and what he was doing between 1942 and 1945, at the height to both World War II and the Holocaust in Europe.

Continue reading "Citizenship Denied by Ohio Judge for Convicted Nazi" »

A class action lawsuit was filed last week against US immigration agencies on behalf of many asylum applicants who were wrongly denied work authorization, A.B.T., K.M.-W., G.K., L.K.G., D.W. v. USCIS; EOIR (Case No. 2:11-cv-02108 A.B.T). The nationwide lawsuit was filed by the American Immigration Council's Legal Action Center (LAC) against the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) in the United States District Court in Seattle. The suit alleges that the USCIS and EOIR delays violate the Constitution, federal statutes, and governing regulations.

Asylum seekers are not eligible for work authorization during the 180-day period after the application is filed. But according to federal law, asylum applicants are to be granted work authorization after the application has been pending for 180 days. Due to unlawful and unfair practices and policies, U.S. immigration agencies have prevented asylum seekers from obtaining work authorization after the 180-day waiting period has elapsed. For example, one named plaintiff in the lawsuit is a man from China who filed his asylum application in 2003, and he has been pursuing work authorization for years without success.

In calculating the 180-day period, the USCIS relies on immigration judge determinations who work for the EOIR, which results in arbitrary policies on when the 180-day "clock" should start and stop. This, along with the increasing backlog in U.S. immigration courts, has unlawfully prevented asylum seekers from working. According to the lawsuit, these unlawful policies and practices prevented asylum applicants from obtaining work authorization and forced them to rely on the goodwill of others to support themselves and their families while they await decisions on their asylum applications, and this process can take many months and sometimes years.

The 180-day period (or "asylum EAD clock") may be suspended, but only for applicant-requested or caused delay of the adjudication of their asylum application, according to the lawsuit. USCIS and EOIR policies result in EAD clocks being arbitrarily started and stopped, and even permanently stopped in some cases. Many asylum seekers have not received adequate notice that their EAD asylum clocks have stopped, and they are consequently deprived of a meaningful opportunity to remedy these determinations.

Continue reading "Class Action Lawsuit Alleges Asylum EAD Clock Is Unfair" »

The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced last week that it is changing the format of two important documents: the Employment Authorization Document (EAD) and the Form N-560 Certificate of Citizenship. The agency's intent in modifying these documents is to enhance some security features and deter fraud and counterfeiting. It began issuing new EAD's on October 25, 2011 and new Certificates on October 30. The agency has launched several initiatives in recent years to combat immigration document fraud, including the E-Verify system, used to validate identity documents.

The EAD, commonly known as a "work permit," allows nonimmigrants who are lawfully present in the United States on certain types of temporary visas to work for a specified period of time. USCIS must adjudicate an application for a work permit within ninety days of receiving it, or else it must issue an "interim EAD" to the applicant. The interim EAD allows the applicant to work for some period of time or until USCIS adjudicates the application. Employers may hire individuals with a valid EAD without any further authorization from immigration authorities. Form I-9, the Employment Eligibility Verification form that employers must collect from every new hire, lists the EAD among its "List A" documents. These are documents that, by themselves, confirm an employee's eligibility to work in the U.S. These include a passport or a green card in addition to an EAD. Employers often use the E-Verify system to confirm the validity of identification documents submitted with a Form I-9. An EAD typically does not limit the type of work someone may do.

USCIS developed the new design in collaboration with the Forensic Document Laboratory at Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). It features more complex design elements and multilayered components to deter copying or counterfeiting, and each card will have some personalized elements for fraud prevention. The new card displays the worker's alien registration number more prominently and includes other identifying information.

The Form N-560 Certificate of Citizenship serves as evidence that a person has become a U.S. citizen through certain processes. It is available children of U.S. citizens born abroad and children whose parents became naturalized before the children turned 18. This form is different from the Certificate of United States Naturalization available to citizens who went through the full naturalization process. The N-560 is no longer a "List A" document on Form I-9, and so is not sufficient by itself to establish a person's eligibility to work.

The revised form uses a printing process that offers additional protection against fraud and document tampering, and it incorporates design features that deter copying or counterfeiting. USCIS claims that the new processes reduce the reliance on human labor and therefore cut down on the possibility of human error.

Continue reading "Design Changes, Meant to Improve Security and Fight Fraud, are Coming for Employment and Citizenship Forms" »

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has announced a plan to improve the filing and processing of naturalization and citizenship applications. It says that the changes will streamline both he processing of forms through the various local and regional offices and the collection of fees. The changes should also, it claims, bring more consistency to the agency's intake process. Overall, the agency hopes the system will run more efficiently as a result.

Effective Sunday, October 30, individuals seeking naturalization as a United States citizen will submit specific forms to a specific "Lockbox" instead of their local USCIS office. This will get the forms through the appropriate channels faster by skipping at least one level of bureaucracy. Until Friday, December 2, 2011, forms still sent to a local USCIS office will be forwarded to the appropriate Lockbox. After that date, local offices will return forms to the sender. People applying for naturalization and the immigration attorneys who help them should be aware of this in particular, since return mail could cause an applicant to lose substantial time in the application process.

These new procedures apply to four forms used in naturalization:

- Form N-300, Application to File Declaration of Intention. Legal permanent residents file this form to indicate their intent top become a U.S. citizen. It is not strictly required by USCIS for naturalization, but it may be necessary for some purposes under the law of some states, such as obtaining a business license. The fee for this form is $250, and it goes to the Lockbox location in Dallas, Texas.

- Form N-336, Request for a Hearing on a Decision in Naturalization Proceedings. An applicant for naturalization who has received an unfavorable decision (e.g. a denial) may request a hearing before a new immigration officer. The fee for this form in most cases is $650, and it is filed at the Phoenix, Arizona Lockbox. If timely filed, a hearing should be scheduled within 180 days from the filing date.

- Form N-600, Application for Certificate of Citizenship. This form allows a person residing in the United States to obtain documentation of citizenship based on citizen parentage. It is available to people born outside of the United States to at least one U.S. citizen parent (or legally adopted by at least one). The fee for a N-600 is $600 in most cases, and it is filed at the Lockbox in Phoenix, Arizona.

- Form N-600K, Application for Citizenship and Issuance of Certificate Under Section 322. This allows a child residing outside of the United States who has at least one U.S. citizen parent to claim citizenship. It is similar to Form N-600 described above. This form also costs $600 in most cases and is filed in Phoenix, Arizona. Applications filed on behalf of children born overseas to members of the Armed Forces are filed in Lincoln, Nebraska.

Continue reading "USCIS Announces Plan to Streamline Filing of Citizenship Forms" »

A federal court of appeals blocked some parts of Alabama's controversial new immigration law last week, but much of the law remains in effect. While this law only applies in the state of Alabama, it has influenced lawmakers and immigration reformers all over the country. Alabama's law pits the federal government, which has authority over immigration matters under the U.S. Constitution, against a state government seeking its own reform. The outcome of this dispute, and the enactment and enforcement of the Alabama law, will have nationwide impact on immigration matters.

The law affects many aspects of government operations, including law enforcement, education, and the civil court system. It also saddles Alabama law enforcement with a duty to check people's immigration statuses, and at times to determine whether a person is present in the United States legally. As any immigration attorney knows, this is a difficult determination to make, and law enforcement without specialized training in immigration laws may not be in the best position to do so. The Obama administration took Alabama to court to challenge its legal ability to legislate immigration matters, arguing that the Constitution grants that power exclusively to the federal government. A ruling from the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta last week gave partial victories to each side of the dispute.

The court's ruling blocks some of the law's more controversial provisions, but leaves many more in place. The court will review the constitutional questions presented in the case and make a more thorough ruling later. The court blocked the section requiring state officials to check the immigration status of public school students. It also blocked a provision creating a misdemeanor offense for immigrants who willfully fail "to complete or carry an alien registration card," something critics described as allowing law enforcement to demand papers from people they suspect of being undocumented, with few guidelines on how to make that determination.

Provisions of the law remaining in force include one that requires law enforcement, during lawful stops or arrests, to try to determine a person's immigration status if they suspect the person is undocumented. Another provision still in force bars state courts from enforcing contracts that involve undocumented immigrants, and another makes it a felony for undocumented immigrants to enter into "business transactions" in the state. This last provision may make it illegal for someone to apply for a driver's license or even to hook up utility services.

Continue reading "Appeals Court Blocks Portions of Controversial Alabama Immigration Law" »

If you are one of those people who have put off applying for naturalization because you have voted as a lawful permanent resident, then you might not realize that you could be eligible for naturalization even though you voted unlawfully. This article addresses the narrow case of when a lawful permanent resident who is eligible for naturalization despite having voting unlawfully as a green card holder.

The Problem: Unlawfully Voting as a Green Card Holder
A lawful permanent resident may not vote. If you have voted as a green card holder, you are potentially removable from the U.S. and will probably be ineligible for naturalization. The exception in this article is very limited and may not apply to your case.

Unlawful Voting Exception for Naturalization: a Three-Part Test, or is it?
Under a Yates Memo from 2002, an immigration officer is not supposed to deny a naturalization application even though a lawful permanent resident alien states that he or she voted unlawfully when the following are true:

1. Both parents were U.S. citizens when the alien voted unlawfully,
2. The alien permanently resided in the U.S. prior to his or her 16th birthday, and
3. He or she "reasonably believed" at the time of the unlawful voting that they were a U.S. citizen.

The third factor appears to be subjective, but has objective elements. According to the Yates Memo, an immigration officer must assess by "the totality of the circumstances" to determine whether the alien "reasonably believed" at the time of the unlawful voting that they were a U.S. citizen. The officer must weigh the length of time the applicant spent in the U.S., against the age when the applicant for naturalization entered the U.S. as a lawful permanent resident. If you entered the U.S. as an LPR as a very small child and you have remained here continuously, you may have a good argument that your mistake was reasonable. This situation requires an experienced lawyer's legal opinion after a thorough review of the facts and circumstances.

If you are eligible for the exception, you will not face deportation. If the officer doesn't believe you "reasonably" thought you were a citizen, there is still hope if the form of prosecutorial discretion. This is a subject for another article, however.

If you qualify for the exception, you are no longer removable.

As the Democrats and Republicans of congress continue to negotiate a compromise to the federal budget that is set to expire Friday, April 6th, 2011 at midnight, immigration attorneys in Columbus, Ohio have turned their attention to how a government shutdown will affect the normal adjudication of visas. Visa applications, including employment based I-140 and H-1B petitions as well as family based petitions including I-130 and I-485 applications, filed in the United States are usually adjudicated at one of the USCIS service centers throughout the country. These service centers are staffed by immigration officers who adjudicate visa applications. These immigration officers are employees of the federal government and could be furloughed if the federal government shuts down for lack of congressional funding.

Historically, government shutdowns have resulted in delays for visa adjudication. The reason for the potential delay is based upon the wording of the federal Antideficiency Act. This law states that in the event of a governmental shutdown the only governmental employees that will be permitted to continue to carry out their work will be employees who prevent or respond to "emergencies involving the safety of human life or the protection of property." The law goes on to state that "ongoing, regular functions of government the suspension of which would not imminently threaten the safety of human life or the protection of property" are not to continue their operations during a shutdown. Officers who adjudicate visas at the service centers will most likely not be deemed essential to the protection of safety or property and will be furloughed. With no-one to adjudicate visas, visa applications will be backlogged to some extent. However, other aspects of United States immigration policy will continue to be enforced. Customs and border patrol officials, for example, should remain active.

While the chance of a government shutdown is small, it remains a definite possibility. Also, delays in US postal service operations could occur. Therefore, foreign nationals and attorneys should be cognizant of the potential for delays in the adjudication and delivery of visa petitions and applications to the USCIS service centers.

Continue reading "Government Shutdown Could Effect Visa Adjudications" »

This article is the second installment following up and providing a conclusion to the first segment which provides the final techniques utilized by the Columbus Immigration Lawyers at The Law Firm of Shihab & Associates regarding the preparation of a Motion to Reopen/Reconsider or Request for Evidence (RFE) responses. Again this article focuses on the RFE response, but its techniques are applicable to any written brief or statement made in response to USCIS.

Critique the Request for Evidence Itself
A major component of drafting the response to an RFE is the need to critique the request itself. The immigration officer may not have developed the facts in a complete and accurate manner. It is your job to comprehensively develop those facts (often by use of affidavits). By showing inconsistencies and other problems with the facts, as developed by the immigration officer, you begin to establish credibility to your case. The Immigration Lawyers at The Law Firm of Shihab & Associates are very experienced at analyzing the facts and respectfully presenting them correctly to the USCIS in an RFE response.

Secondly, you must scrutinize the quality and quantity of the legal research conducted by the immigration officer. Determine if the officer identified all the relevant legal authority. Often times, RFE's will present "biolerplate" legal authority. Did the immigration officer properly interpret the law? Did the officer correctly apply the law to the issue and the facts in the case at hand? Did the officer include legal authorities in the RFE, but not use them in the analysis or argument? Don't leave these questions unanswered. If there are flaws in the legal research conducted by the immigration officer, or flaws in the ways by which the officer cited legal authorities, point it out.

Finally, test the immigration officer's arguments. Has the officer adequately connected the issues with the facts and law? Have convincing analogies been developed by the officer? Has the officer adequately answered the questions asked? If there are flaws in the officer's arguments, point them out.

Revise, Revise, Revise....then Revise One More Time!
As Justice Louis Brandeis stated: "There is no such thing as good writing. There is only good rewriting." Justice Brandeis often revised his writing 15 or more times before he was satisfied. While this is obviously extreme, it is suggested that you revise your writing at least three times, more if time and money permit. Excessive use of passive voice, timid phrasing, vague words and other examples of poor writing are often found in first drafts. The lawyers at The Law Firm of Shihab & Associates spend the time to make sure your case is prepared with great diligence to grammer, form, substance and style.

As this article demonstrates, regardless of the inherent strengths or weaknesses of a given case, there is much that can be achieved by mastering the art of preparing a successful RFE response, Motion to Reopen/Reconsider brief or appeal. Our lawyers know this more than anyone!

Continue reading "Drafting a Motion to Reopen/Reconsider or Request for Evidence Response to USCIS: Proven Techniques for Success (Part 2)" »

USCIS provides minimal guidance regarding the preparation of a Motion to Reopen/Reconsider or Request for Evidence (RFE) response. Unlike other USCIS procedures, CIS does not require the completion of a form when filing an RFE response. This little guidance provides a wide range of possibile methods to responding to the RFE. This article presents techniques that the Columbus Immigration Lawyers at The Law Firm of Shihab & Associates have implemented for preparing a successful responses to USCIS and focuses on the brief in support of an RFE response.

Prepare a Roadmap: Presentation Matters
While this might sound obvious, the most important element of the RFE response is drafting the response itself. Don't spend all your time meeting with the client, gathering facts and conducting legal research. Too often, not enough time is spent on planning and presentation. Remember, an RFE has a strict deadline that often poses a tight timetable to prepare the supporting documentation and legal arguments. As the saying goes, "plan the work; work the plan." This is an axiom the lawyers at The Law Firm of Shihab & Associates live by. You must leave sufficient time to prepare a polished product. Preparing a polished written RFE response does not simply happen. It requires good planning, organization and writing.

Focus on the Facts: Don't Drive from Boston to Chicago via Nashville!
Regardless of what factual informaiton you decide to present, you must determine the order in which to present the facts. Consider the following illustration: If you decide to drive from Boston to Chicago, it is unlikely you would drive first to Baltimore, then to Nashville and finally to Chicago, unless of course time and money were of no concern. Likewise, the immigration officer will expect to see some logical order to the presentation of the facts in your RFE response letter. Don't confuse the Immigration officer by driving from Boston to Chicago via Nashville!

There are various approaches for ordering the presentation of the facts: chronological, biographical (e.g., describing key individuals along with facts associated with them), or transactional. Employ whatever approach you use consistantly throughout the RFE response. Your facts should be presented persuasively without being argumentative. Facts, not opinions, will convince the USCIS officer to look favorably upon your client's case.

Continue reading "Drafting a Motion to Reopen/Reconsider or Request for Evidence Response to USCIS: Proven Techniques for Success (Part 1)" »

USCIS has implemented a new fee schedule. To access the new fee schedule, The Law Firm of Shihab & Associates directs you to visit the USCIS website here.

Will 2011 finally be the year that Congress and the President fix the broken immigration system? The short answer: probably not. But that doesn't mean that Congress will stand idly by. The Columbus Ohio Immigration Lawyers of The Law Firm of Shihab & Associates have clients throughout the United States that could be affected by the legislation of the 112th Congress. This article outlines the anticipated Congressional agenda for immigration in 2011, and focuses on several topics relating to employment based immigration where Congress is anticipated to act and highlights the need for comprehensive immigration reform in a slow economic environment.

The American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) Outlook
The American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) anticipates that the 112th Congress will enact patchwork legislation with an emphasis on border security and interior enforcement which will not comprehensively fix the broken immigration system. AILA Ohio Chapter Chairperson, Gus Shihab and AILA anticipate these bills would cause severe hardships to immigrants and their families, run up costs to the DHS budget, and slow economic recovery. American businesses, communities and families are all affected by the immigration system, which regulates the flow of foreign labor, foreign exchange students and family members to the U.S.

Emphasis on Border and Interior Enforcement
It is anticipated that Congress will propose bills appropriating additional funding for boarder security (including the southern border fence) as well as funding for mass deportations. By increasing spending for strict enforcement, it is assumed that Congress is taking comprehensive immigration reform off the table. Whether it is time to expend additional funds from the federal budget on strict border enforcement is subject to ongoing debate. Neither side of the isle have proposed a legitimate plan of action. Hence, greater enforcement efforts will likely be the status quo.

Mandatory Employment Verification: Will E-Verify be a Mandate?
In 2011, legislators on Capitol Hill will likely raise proposals to make the electronic employer verification systems - also known as E-Verify - mandatory for all employers. E-Verify, an internet based system operated by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in conjunction with the Social Security Administration (SSA), allows an employer to determine whether the employee is legally authorized to work in the U.S. While E-Verify has the potential of streamlining the hiring process, empirical studies have shown that E-Verify is deeply flawed from privacy, civil liberties, budgetary and technological standpoints. Making the program mandatory could potentially harm hundreds of thousands of workers including U.S. citizens. At a time when unemployment rates are high, we need to strengthen workers' access to jobs and employers' access to workers, not impose additional roadblocks that hinder economic growth.

Restrictions on State-Issued Identification Cards: REAL ID Act, Good or Bad?
Aspects of the REAL ID Act, passed by Congress after the 9/11 terrorist attacks in an effort to create a unified system of state IDs and drivers licenses will become effective in 2011. Implementation of the REAL ID Act has been challenging for the states that must bear the high costs of creating a new driver license system. In addition to the financial burden on the states, the REAL ID Act also has invasion of privacy problems and questionable civil rights burdens. Expect to see legislation proposed that would decrease the types of immigrants eligible for state IDs even further than the REAL ID Act mandates.

More State and Local Enforcement Immigration Law
Since the controversial Arizona law was enacted, states have been more likely to pass legislation aimed at illegal immigration. Once thought to be an area exclusively under federal jurisdiction, Arizona has taught us that immigration law can be enforced through state legislation (at least for now). Look for an increase in the amount of legislation which will be passed by state and local governments that require local police to enforce immigration laws. With the constitutionality of such legislation in question, it is possible that this issue will eventually be decided by the Supreme Court. Our firm has spoken out publically against these measures and should continue to do so until comprehensive immigration reform has been passed.

Punitive Enforcement Approaches: Hatchet Where a Scalpel is Needed?
The 112th Congress will likely propose stiff new penalties against individuals who violate immigration laws. Efforts to increase the penalty for presence in the United States without a lawful immigrant status, including criminalization of illegal presence, mass deportations, mandatory deportations for lawful permanent residents who commit even minor crimes, expedited deportation for visitors who stay beyond their authorized period of stay, severe punishments for people who use fake passports, are likely to be introduced. These "get-tough" measures are tantamount to using a hatchet where you need a scalpel. There are already laws in the current system that address many of these issues, hence punitive enforcement approaches may do nothing more than establish greater unfairness and inhumanity in our immigration system.

Limits on the Opportunity for a Fair Hearing and Due Process: Immigrants Straighten Up!
Since 1996, several laws have been passed restricting the rights of immigrants to gain access to the courts. Recent proposals to restrict court access even further have included provisions to prevent people who are applying for citizenship from appealing their case to federal courts. Access to courts is a fundamental American principle meant to protect individual rights and ensure that our laws are fairly and uniformly applied. This sends the wrong message to immigrants who often come to the U.S. to escape totalitarian dictatorships. With no appeal, fair hearing, or due process, have these immigrants actually escaped anything?

The 14th Amendment Birthright Citizenship Under Fire
The 14th Amendment states: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State where they reside." The Law Firm of Shihab & Associates has previously written on this subject. Congressional leaders have proposed to eliminate the so-called "birthright" citizenship. The argument is that the U.S. should not grant citizenship to children if both parents are here illegally. The problem is that parents are illegally coming to the U.S. to give birth to an "anchor baby" for the purpose of enabling parents to gain legal immigration status later on. Either way, repealing the 14th Amendment seems like a draconian approach to a problem that could be solved through thoughtful immigration regulations.

Restrictions on Legal Immigration That Hurt Families: Trade Preferences for Points?
In the 112th Congress, AILA expects there will be proposals to reduce or eliminate certain family categories. These proposals go against the fundamental immigration policy of family reunification and stifles economic and societal growth. In addition, Congress will introduce proposals sought to replace the family based and employment based avenues of legal immigration with some sort of points system, whereby the government would choose the attributes and skills that are most desirable for permanent immigration to America. The point system would change the historical foundations of our immigration system. The U.S. needs a system that will recognize the overwhelming economic contribution of family-based entrants and maintain family as the cornerstone of U.S. immigration policy.

Restrictions on Immigrants' Access to Public Services and Benefits
Bills will likely be introduced in 2011 that deny legal and unauthorized immigrations federally-funded public benefits. The targeted benefits are social security, the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), health care, and housing assistance programs. AILA warns that these proposals are frequently superfluous, symbolic statements that will have little practical impact.

English as an Official Language
In recent years, bills have been proposed to make English the official language of the U.S. Typical provisions of English-only proposals include: (1) requiring English to be the official language of the United States; (2) requiring all federal government documents to be printed in English-only; and (3) prohibiting the use of funds that creates an entitlement to services provided in a language other than English. Perhaps of all the concerns, the most significant is that Courts have concluded that state and local English-only laws violate the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the First Amendment on the ground that such laws they make it virtually impossible for persons who do not speak English well--whether they are U.S. citizens, legal immigrants, or undocumented workers--to communicate effectively and to assert their constitutional rights.

For all new citizens during their naturalization oath ceremony, USCIS now provides a standard U.S. Citizenship Welcome Packet which contains information to help new citizens prepare to exercise the rights and responsibilities of U.S.Citizenship. Useful information includes information like applying for a U.S. passport, updating social security records and petitioning for family members. The packet also includes:

• A congratulatory letter from President Obama,
• A pocket size edition of the declaration of independence and Constitution of the United States,
• passport application,
• Naturalization certificate holder,
• A voter's guide to Federal elections.

After passing through the House of Represenatives, the Senate has failed to deliver on passing the bipartisan DREAM Act. The DREAM Act stands for the Development, Relief and Education of Alien Minors and was drafted to provide a conditional pathway to legal permanent residence for certain unauthorized youth who, as children, were brought to the U.S. illegally if they can provide that they completed high school, have good moral character and complete at least two years of higher education or serve for at least two years in the U.S. military.

It appeared to all parties who have monitored this bill that the inability to pass the DREAM Act into law was chiefly due to politics. This bill can be seen as a litmus test for greater reform which worries and frustrates immigration practitioners. There is still hope for furtuer legislation however as interested parties such as the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) and others will continue its efforts to lobby for the law's passage because they see the Senate's failure as nothing more than politics

The bill provides a path for those illegal children who came to the U.S. involuntarily and are here illegally through no fault of their own. The children who would have benefited under the DREAM Act would help the American economy by being educated in institutions of secondary education and/or by serving the U.S. armed forces. By not passing the bill, the U.S. Senate is basically saying that it does not want to deal with immigration issues, even logical ones, which should seem to spell doom for any Comprehensive Immigration Reform in the near future.