Firstly, a review: On March 31, 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision in the case of Padilla v. Kentucky, declaring that noncitizen criminal defendants seeking to plead guilty have a constitutional right to be advised by their criminal counsel of the deportation consequences of such a plea.

The case arises out of the State of Kentucky, with Jose Padilla, a long time lawful permanent resident and U.S. Army veteran, facing removal to Honduras after agreeing to plead guilty to a state felony charge of trafficking marijuana. The kicker in Padilla’s case is that his defense counsel provided the wrong advice, assuring him that no deportation consequences would follow such a plea. Not only were there deportation consequences for Padilla, but the nature of the conviction he accepted was such that no relief or defense in removal proceedings was available. In essence, Padilla unknowingly accepted a one-way ticket to Honduras following the prison term that was part of his sentence.

In examining the evolution and current state of our immigration laws over the past century, the U.S. Supreme Court in Padilla expressed concern regarding non-citizen criminal defendants’ 6th Amendment rights and their unknowing acceptance of the disproportionate consequence of deportation:

“Changes to immigration law have dramatically raised the stakes of a noncitizen’s criminal conviction. While once there was only a narrow class of deportable offenses and judges wielded broad discretionary authority to prevent deportation, immigration reforms have expanded the class of deportable offenses and limited judges’ authority to alleviate deportation’s harsh consequences. Because the drastic measure of deportation or removal is now virtually inevitable for a vast number of noncitizens convicted of crimes, the importance of accurate legal advice for noncitizens accused of crimes has never been more important. Thus, as a matter of federal law, deportation is an integral part of the penalty that may be imposed on noncitizen defendants who plead guilty to specified crimes.”

For non-U.S. citizens facing deportation (removal) because of their uninformed acceptance of a guilty plea, the recent Supreme Court decision may very well breathe new life into their deportation defense. That is, when a non-citizen relinquishes a legitimate defense to the underlying criminal charge based on the assurances of their then criminal counsel, a petition to vacate or reopen the underlying conviction (also known as post-conviction relief) may very well now be viable. One of the big questions that gets considered in the analysis, however, is whether in fact a legitimate defense to criminal charges was in fact relinquished, or whether the accused really had nothing to support a defense and their ignorance in taking the uninformed guilty plea was of no practical consequence. With post-conviction relief often being a non-citizen’s last line of defense in removal proceedings and final option to remain in the U.S., Padilla v. Kentucky may turn out to be the fresh pretext upon which the criminal court can hang its hat on in reversing the conviction.

However, left unaddressed by the Supreme Court in Padilla was the question of how the decision would impact those who accepted guilty pleas – with toxic immigration consequences – before Padilla was decided. Over the past 2 years, U.S. Courts of Appeal have issued conflicting rulings as to whether Padilla should be applied retroactively, that is to guilty pleas entered into prior the Supreme Court’s pronouncement in March, 2010.

In this regard, the U.S. Supreme Court just today, in Roselva Chaidez v. United States, agreed to consider whether Chicago resident Roselva Chaidez, a 56 year old Lawful Permanent Resident of the U.S. (but Mexican citizen) who came to the U.S. 40 years ago, should be deported as a result of her guilty plea to a 2003 charge of submitting a fraudulent auto insurance claim. Although she successfully completed a term of four years of probation and paid $22,500 in restitution, federal immigration authorities, in 2009, commenced deportation proceedings against her due to this criminal conviction. In response, Ms. Chaidez proceeded back to the criminal court to attempt to undo her criminal conviction – citing Padilla – on the basis that her criminal attorney failed to inform her that deportation was a potential consequence of her guilty plea.

Late last year, her effort to vacate her conviction was rejected by the U.S. Court of Appeals, 7th Circuit, because, according to the 7th Circuit, Padilla was not intended to be applied to guilty pleas entered into prior to the Supreme Court ruling. Oral arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court in Chaidez are expected in October, and a decision likely by early 2013.

PUBLISHED April 30, 2012 – “IMMIGRATION LAW FORUM”
Copyright © 2012, By Law Offices of Richard Hanus, Chicago, Illinois

For most government agencies, including Department of Homeland Security’s Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS), fiscal year 2013 starts on October 1, 2012. Starting on that date, U.S. employers are able to benefit from a new crop of foreign workers who are issued H-1B work visas. As early as April 1, 2012, interested employers and foreign workers have had an opportunity to start the process of accessing the annual supply of 85,000 visas – with 65,000 visas in the general supply and 20,000 reserved for U.S. graduate school degree holders – with workers then becoming eligible to commence employment in the U.S. as of October 1, 2012.

As of this writing, 8,200 of the 20,000 visa supply specifically allotted for US educated advanced degree holders have been counted against the cap (although once this supply is exhausted, interested employers will still be able to petition such advanced degree holders except that such workers will be counted against the separate, general supply of 65,000). To date, the general supply of 65,000 has been reduced to 48,000 – and thats just based on the petitioning activity thats taken place the past two weeks, and again, with an eye toward worker start dates of October 1, 2012, when fiscal year 2013 begins. Based on the increased demand shown for H-1B visas for the upcoming fiscal year (as compared to demand in recent years), I would not be surprised if the overall supply of H-1B’s is exhausted by the beginning of summer 2012, if not sooner.

As a reminder, H-1B visa eligibility is generally premised upon a bona fide job offer in a “specialty occupation” (where the attainment of a university degree is usually required), and the prospective employee must possess a degree or experiential equivalent in the field at issue. Also, positions with a government agency or not-for-profit organization affiliated with an institution of higher learning (e.g. university) are among the type of jobs that are not subject to the H-1B cap described above. Further, the H-1B visa cap does not impact those who already have an H-1B visa and are otherwise eligible to extend their status or change H-1B employers.

PUBLISHED March 20, 2012 – “IMMIGRATION LAW FORUM”
Copyright © 2012, By Law Offices of Richard Hanus, Chicago, Illinois

On March 30, 2012, US CIS published a proposed rule for the implementation of the “stateside” I-601 Waiver program. That does not mean the program is now in effect, just that the government has commenced the beginning steps toward implementation of the program, with some commentators expecting the rule to be implemented by the end of the calendar year.

As previously discussed here, the proposed program would serve to streamline processing of certain applicants for permanent residence who under current law, must leave the US for an extended period for their final green card/ interview, and appear before a US consular officer in their home country. Instead of facing a 3 months or so wait to receive a decision on their waiver application while outside the US, the new proposal will allow for a wait as little as a few days outside the US, since the 3 months of processing is now being proposed to take place before the applicant’s departure. And what is being decided in this period is an “I-601 waiver” application to excuse, or “waive”, the individual’s previous period of unlawful presence in the U.S. and consequent 3 or 10 year bars to reentry, where cases are approved only if the applicant can demonstrate that his denied reentry will pose extreme hardship for his U.S. citizen or permanent resident spouse or parent.

Of course, there’s no guarantee all applicants for a waiver will be approved under this proposed program, but this new procedure will no doubt be of great comfort to families by letting them know ahead of time if the main obstacle (3 year bar) to their loved one’s reentry has been removed – and repeat, before the applicant leaves the US for their interview in their home country. Thus, if the applicant’s waiver application is denied, that decision will be known before any trip outside the US takes place. The applicant will then know there is no reason for the applicant to appear for their interview before a US consular officer in their home country, since he will know he will indeed be subject to a bar to reentry that has NOT been waived.

Developments toward actual implementation of this program will continue to be reported on here.

PUBLISHED April 1, 2012 – “IMMIGRATION LAW FORUM”
Copyright © 2012, By Law Offices of Richard Hanus, Chicago, Illinois

Everyone wants things done yesterday. When it comes to processing of a green card, U.S. citizenship, work permit, work visa, student visa, or any other immigration benefit, the same holds true. And when people hear that a “Premium Processing” unit is in place at U.S. Department of Homeland Security/Citizenship and Immigration Services here in the U.S. to provide expedited service (as quick as 1-15 days) on immigration related filings for an additional fee, lots of folks want in.

Firstly, not all immigration filings can be submitted for Premium Processing. Most notably, for example, Premium Processing is not available for family based immigration filings, such as green card filings based on marriage or other family relationships.

However, for the vast majority of employment-based immigration filings, Premium Processing guarantees 15 calendar day processing, and if that time frame is not met, the employer will received a refund of the Premium Processing fee – which is at $1225.00 currently. If the fee is refunded, the case will continue to receive expedited processing.

What’s Guaranteed in 15 days – The petitioning party will receive one of the following within a 15 calendar day period of filing: an approval notice, a denial notice, a notice of intent to deny, a request for evidence or a notice advising of an investigation for fraud or misrepresentation. If additional evidence is requested, a new 15 calendar day period will begin once the response is received by CIS.

Premium Processing is available for practically all types of temporary work visa filings, except that religious worker petitions must have already been the subject of a previous on-site inspection (relating to a prior filing) to qualify. As to petitions to accord permanent status (I-140), the same is true – and like for temporary worker petitions, there are some exceptions, e.g. petitions based on “National Interest Waiver”, international executives and managers and a few others are not eligible for Premium Processing. Further, for workers seeking to “adjust” their status in the US and undergo all permanent residence processing in the US and without appearing at a US consular post abroad, only the I-140 (immigrant worker petition) stage of the process is eligible for Premium Processing. The I-485 (adjustment of status) application – the second stage – is not eligible for Premium Processing.

Additionally, the Premium Processing service only plays out with regard to CIS processing in the U.S., and it does not include the additional time it may take such as for the U.S. Department of State, through a U.S. embassy or consular post, to process a visa to allow a foreign worker abroad to ultimately gain entry into the U.S.

It should also be noted that under certain extraordinary and/or humanitarian circumstances, practically any type of immigration filing, whether family based or employment based, might be eligible for expedited processing and without paying a premium processing fee – as long as the extraordinary or humanitarian circumstances at play can be documented.

PUBLISHED March 20, 2012 – “IMMIGRATION LAW FORUM”
Copyright © 2012, By Law Offices of Richard Hanus, Chicago, Illinois

U.S. Department of Homeland Security/Citizenship and Immigration Services continues to do its job with efficiency and speed when it comes to processing Applications for Naturalization (N-400) and Applications for Adjustment of Status (green card – I-485) based on marriage to a U.S. citizen, or other family or employment immigrant category with current visa availability. Immigration interviews, at least through CIS Chicago, are being scheduled with lightning speed, and card production for approvable permanent resident applicants, and oath ceremonies for approvable U.S. citizenship applicants follow within just a week or two of the interview. In my 20+ years of practicing immigration law, I can say that the logistics of these aspects of the immigration benefits system have never worked better.

Here is the current timeline for family based, I-485 adjustment of status applicants — assuming the paperwork and all supporting documentation is prepared and filed correctly:

1. Dept. of Homeland Security/Citizenship and Immigration Services issues receipts within approximately 5 to 10 days of filing date,
2. Biometrics (fingerprint) appointment scheduled within approximately 10-15 days of filing date,
3. Employment Authorization Document (and for those eligible, Advance Parole Travel Document) issued within 45 to 90 days of filing date, and
4. Interview (at least at CIS Chicago) scheduled within 90 -120 days of filing.

Please note that interviews will be scheduled for all marriage-based applications, but not necessarily for other types of family-based cases. Applicants with arrest records or other significant immigration-related irregularities will always be interviewed.

The timeline for N-400 applicants for naturalization — assuming prepared and filed correctly — is pretty much the same as for I-485 applicants, except that interviews are scheduled within 3-5 months of the filing date, and oath ceremonies scheduled approximately 1-2 weeks following the interview.

What can impact this timeline? If the application and all supporting documentation, such as the Affidavit of Support, are not prepared correctly, additional weeks or months can be added to Employment Authorization Document and/or I-485 processing times. Also, if questions surrounding the applicant’s legal eligibility for permanent residence or U.S. citizenship comes into play — especially at the time of interview — weeks, months, and even years can be added on to this processing timeline. But when the case is prepared properly, and clear legal eligibility for the immigration benefit is established, applicants can pretty much expect smooth and speedy sailing.

PUBLISHED March 9, 2012 – “IMMIGRATION LAW FORUM”
Copyright © 2012, By Law Offices of Richard Hanus, Chicago, Illinois

Foreign nationals entering the U.S. on a B-1/B-2 visa are generally granted 6 months at their port-of-entry to accomplish the purpose of their trip, be it for pleasure or business. Most visitors for business or pleasure do not remain in the U.S. for the entire 6 months, since they have work and/or residences to return to overseas. For those seeking to remain in the U.S. for the entire 6 month period, or possibly extend or even convert their stay to another status, such as F-1 student, a variety of current trends and rules must be kept in mind. Featured below are some of the most up to date trends, policies and conditions impacting individuals entering on B-1/B-2 visas:

 Applications (Form I-539) to extend visits beyond a grant of 6 months continue to be heavily scrutinized and granted only in the rarest of circumstances, such as where unexpected health problems or business conditions have arisen.

 Applications to change from visitor, B-1/B-2 to student F-1 status continue to be viable, but applicants should be aware of the vast minefield at play, including:

* prohibition, generally, against applying to school, or filing the change of status application (I-539) within 90 days of entering the U.S.,
* prohibition against enrolling in school or commencing studies prior to the approval of a change of status application, and
* requirement that the applicant document his/her intent to return to their home country – e.g. property ownership, employment or educational program to return to, etc.

An applicant for a change of status who commences studies prior to approval will end of up having their application denied. Additionally, foreign nationals seeking to extend their visitor status will also be denied in the event they enroll in school during the term of their visit, since CIS considers such enrollment to constitute a status violation.

PUBLISHED March 1, 2012 – “IMMIGRATION LAW FORUM”
Copyright © 2012, By Law Offices of Richard Hanus, Chicago, Illinois

For the past 5 years, I have seen more than a few variations on the theme of the “accidental” voter or voter registrant. In all but the exceptional case, the non-U.S. citizen was lured into registering to vote, or voting, because of “Motor-Voter”, the federal law that directs states, like Illinois, to incorporate a voter registration option when accepting applications for driver’s licenses and State I.D.’s. Invariably, the accidental voter or registrant is led into the voter registration process by the blind robotics of the motor voter protocol as carried out at state motor vehicle facilities, even when the governmental official is presented with clear evidence that the person appearing before them is not a U.S. citizen.

Sometimes the foreign born applicant presents their foreign passport as identification, other times its their green card, employment authorization document or non-immigrant visa. Notwithstanding the presentation of clear proof of their foreign birth and citizenship, the foreign national is asked if they would like to register to vote. Some bite right away, and say yes, feeling it’s their duty not to reject such an honor, or at least not thinking there would be any question of eligibility since it’s a government official offering up this privilege. Then there are those who state very clearly that they are not U.S. citizens and understand they are prohibited by law from voting, but are nevertheless mistakenly advised to register anyway, since according to the official (again mistakenly), one does not need to be a US citizen to register, or, because simply it’s just nice to have an extra form of identification. Lastly, there is the voter registration that takes place without the applicant ever knowing it, until, that is, he ends up receiving a voter registration card in the mail.

From the government’s perspective, the voter registration process only goes forward after the applicant signs a document confirming that they are a U.S. citizen. And it is up to the individual to carefully review what they are signing before signing it. However, that line of reasoning does not take into account the bigger picture context in which the process plays out – such as with the above examples, where the foreign national is essentially relying – with good reason – on the guidance of a government official throughout the process, and are given every reason to believe they are eligible to register. And then later, the registrant is reasonably led to believe they are eligible to vote since a voter card is issued, and presumably only after a thorough eligibility assessment and screening process was carried out.

Now that we know where the problem is most often rooted, what’s the accidental voter, or registrant, to do if he is only a green card holder, and wants to apply for naturalization? Or, what if the registrant or voter still has yet to become a permanent resident, and now wants to apply for a green card? What are the risks of being denied, or even deported as a result of being ensnared into such an awful mess?

For Applicants for Naturalization: individuals who admit to voting or registering to vote certainly risk being not only denied US citizenship, but also placed in deportation/removal proceedings, especially the accidental voter. In both cases though, the interviewing officer has the power to exercise discretion, excuse the violations and still approve the case. That power is exercised often, but one cannot know with certainty how the process will play out ahead of time. But even in the worst case scenario where an applicant is denied and placed in removal proceedings, there is usually a remedy to avail of to have removal proceedings terminated. That is because the applicant will usually have a solid case to show that the registration process did not involve a purposeful, intended claim to U.S. citizenship (integral to voter registration), and that any action, whether it be registering to vote, or voting, was taken while relying on the guidance of a government official. In such a case, the act of voting should not be, and cannot be considered “unlawful”, and a basis to deport someone from the U.S.

For Applicants for Permanent Residence: individuals caught in the motor voter trap face a bigger challenge since prosecutorial discretion cannot be exercised to waive, or excuse, an alleged false claim to citizenship, or act of “unlawful voting”. On the other hand, as in the case of an applicant for naturalization, the arguments about relying on the guidance of government officials are just as strong. More likely than not though, those arguments will have to be presented before an Immigration Judge in removal proceedings, because a front line immigration officer will not want to consider those arguments and will summarily deny the application. For certain, in the realm of accidental voting or registration, the applicant for permanent residence faces greater risks than the applicant for naturalization, although as stated, a remedy may very well be available within the context of a defense to removal proceedings.

As we speak, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit is considering a case dealing with this very issue. Hopefully, the accidental voter or registrant will find some well-deserved sympathy (and benefit from positive case-law) in that arena.

PUBLISHED February 21, 2012 – “IMMIGRATION LAW FORUM”
Copyright © 2012, By Law Offices of Richard Hanus, Chicago, Illinois

Question: Which travels quicker – good news or bad news? Bad news, of course. “Train Wrecks” are exciting, interesting, sensational and sometimes, satisfying – especially when it concerns the failure… of others. To confirm this notion, all one has to do is visit the grocery line and review the covers of those grocery line magazines, or tune in to TMZ, Access Hollywood, Entertainment Tonight or another similarly sophisticated television program. For instance – in the U.S. government realm, when was the last time you heard about how great the U.S. postal system, or any government agency, was working? And those green card interview stories, where marriage to a U.S. citizen is involved! Everyone has heard about them – either from their friends or acquaintances, the movie “Green Card”, or simply by surfing the internet and having the good (mis)fortune of reviewing this or that immigration blog. “I heard that they separate the couple and berate each party individually”, “I heard the immigration officer calls the parents of each party and ask lots of questions”, “I heard they send big and tough immigration agents to the home to visit to make sure the couple really lives together.” Certainly, those types of accounts are enough to stir up anxiety in anyone thinking about starting this process.

And in some circumstances, these stories may be true – but are they representative or typical? In fact, most immigration interviews dealing with marriage applications are conducted in a civil manner and do not involve extraordinary immigration officer action, whether conducted in the U.S. at a local Citizenship and Immigration Services office, or at a U.S. consular post abroad. That is, the governmental official conducting the interview has a duty to be respectful and dignified when doing their job – no matter the issues or suspicions involved. The outcome should, and usually is, dictated by the sincerity of the couple presenting themselves. When the wrong outcome results, there is indeed legal recourse available, although the wheels of justice to undo such a wrong in this arena tend to move very slowly.

In marriage based interviews, the bona fides, or sincerity, of the marriage is usually what is at issue, and immigration officers have a duty to make an assessment. In these times – with much of the rest of the world’s economies crumbling and so many foreign nationals seeking to make a better life here in the U.S., immigration fraud and “marriages of convenience” are rampant. It is indeed the immigration officer’s job to scrutinize, and send a statement that applicants for U.S. residence will only be issued an approval after the immigration institution is satisfied that the marriage is “for real”. Again, scrutiny and review can and should be conducted in a civil manner – however, as with any group of individuals who hold immense power – such as immigration officers, there is bound to be a certain percentage who abuse their power. This sad reality is particularly troublesome when the application being reviewed is a “clean case”, with parties who have nothing but the sincerest of intentions and there being no indication of “monkey business”.

What factors typically give rise to marriage fraud suspicions? (Some of these may not apply for applicants being interviewed overseas). Big age difference between the parties. Significant difference in their cultural and/or religious backgrounds. The foreign national applicant’s immigration law violations e.g. out of status, no status, history of unauthorized employment, etc. Prior immigration applications, especially prior marriage based filings. Quickie marriage based on a relationship of short duration.

Public Record Searches and Online Investigation: Immigration authorities are also known these days to engage in extensive public records searches and online investigations. It is not uncommon for immigration officers to conduct credit checks and address searches based on social security numbers the parties provide. A person with awful credit may be perceived as being inclined to marry a foreign national for a fee, and not love. Also, suspicions may arise if the addresses that come up in a credit check do not match up with information in the immigration filing. Further, information connected to an applicant’s online identity on a social networking site may conflict with information including in their immigration filing. Yes, the beauty of the information age is that there is so much of it out there. But, as most internet users know, there exists the danger that not all of the information “out there” is accurate, and that applies to the information authorities may jump on to reach conclusions about an applicant’s eligibility for a green card. Under the law though, the parties should be given an opportunity to address or clarify any derogatory or conflicting information that may arise during the process.

As we know that marriages come in all sizes, shapes, colors and flavors, no single factor will necessarily doom a case or cause irresolvable difficulties. It is just that the immigration officer will have a good reason to ask more questions, and perhaps refer the file for a formal investigation.

How important is it to obtain documentation reflecting joint or commingled assets, and shared residence? Documentation, such as bank statements, bills, photographs, leases, etc., to substantiate a claim that a couple lives together is certainly important, but it is no way the end of the story. The bottom line is that anyone, including individuals that do not actually reside together, can obtain a joint bank account, a lease, a bill or whatever, indicating a common address.

In my many years representing applicants for residence during their interview, I have found that the couples’ body language what tells the story, and is more compelling than any joint asset/obligation document. An experienced officer can tell a lot from watching how a couple interacts during an interview. Yes, it is quite ok and normal for an applicant to exhibit some level of nervousness. Beyond normal nervousness, however, either or both of the parties might display certain suspicious idiosyncrasies that prompt concern. What are those idiosyncrasies? Too hard to describe in words, and but in the spirit of the legendary U.S. Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black’s approach to defining “pornography”, an immigration officer might say, “I know it when I see it”.

PUBLISHED February 4, 2012 – “IMMIGRATION LAW FORUM”
Copyright © 2012, By Law Offices of Richard Hanus, Chicago, Illinois

It never fails. Whenever a new immigration provision is presented to Congress for consideration, or is proposed by the President or some other official in the Executive Branch, the media takes the ball and runs with it. It’s either presented as something it is not, or simply misunderstood to be something it’s not. Either way, the US audience, ranging from the general American John Q. Public demographic to the vulnerable 12 million undocumented demographic, gets excited, in different ways, and for different reasons. Notably, this provision will impact only limited number of prospective applicants, applicants who are ineligible to “adjust” status/ undergo all permanent residence processing in the U.S. and who are willing to visit a U.S. consular post in their home country for their “green card” interview.

The latest news has to do with an Obama administration initiative for processing “waivers of inadmissibility” and it proposes to streamline processing of certain applicants for permanent residence who under current law, must leave the US for an extended period for their final green card/ interview, and appear before a US consular officer in their home country. Instead of facing a 3 months or so wait to receive a decision on their waiver application while outside the US, the new proposal will allow for a wait as little as a few days outside the US, since the 3 months of processing is now being proposed to take place before the applicant’s departure.

And what is being decided in this period is an “I-601 waiver” application to excuse, or “waive”, the individual’s previous period of unlawful presence in the U.S. and consequent 3 or 10 year bars to reentry, where cases are approved only if the applicant can demonstrate that his denied reentry will pose extreme hardship for his U.S. citizen or permanent resident spouse or parent. Of course, there’s no guarantee all applicants for a waiver will be approved under this proposed program, but this new procedure will no doubt be of great comfort to families by letting them know ahead of time if the main obstacle (3 year bar) to their loved one’s reentry has been removed – and repeat, before the applicant leaves the US for their interview in their home country. Thus, if the applicant’s waiver application is denied, that decision will be known before any trip outside the US takes place. The applicant will then know there is no reason for the applicant to appear for their interview before a US consular officer in their home country, since he will know he will indeed be subject to a bar to reentry that has NOT been waived.

Again, this new provision is only at the proposal stage, and a final, working rule has yet to be implemented. In the meantime, no waiver filings will be decided in the US as proposed above. If implemented though, the rule will not impact applicants currently outside the U.S., who will continue to be subject to ordinary processing procedures now in place. Further, since this processing change is being presented as an act of Executive/Administrative “rulemaking” and not legislation, there is no need for congressional approval. All developments regarding implementation of this provision will continue to be reported on here.

PUBLISHED January 12, 2012 – “IMMIGRATION LAW FORUM”
Copyright © 2012, By Law Offices of Richard Hanus, Chicago, Illinois

President Obama has always made it known that he favors the enactment of some form of comprehensive immigration reform to allow for a “path to citizenship” for at least some of the approximately 12 million living in the U.S. without legal immigration status. During his term, it’s been a Republican Congress that’s been the main obstacle to getting any type of immigration reform initiative passed, whether it be the DREAM Act, or more comprehensive reform proposals. If you are wondering how the Republican candidates for President would approach the issue – below are direct quotes attributed to each of them, along with my own peanut gallery assessment:

Mitt Romney
“My view is, people who have come here illegally, we welcome you to apply but you must get at the back of the line, because there are millions of people who are in line right now that want to come here legally. I want those to come here legally. Those that are here illegally have to get in line with everybody else.” [Republican Debate, December 15, 2011]

RH – What line are you talking about Mr. Romney? The vast majority of undocumented individuals currently have no avenue toward legal status in the first place, and thus have no line to get into! This sounds good, but has no basis in reality. Maybe, like most politicians, he is just saying what he thinks the public wants to hear just to get elected, and once elected will do whatever suits his political agenda and survival. After Iowa, it looks like BS and nice sound bytes take you places though. Slick guys finish first?

“If I were elected and Congress were to pass the DREAM Act, would I veto it? The answer is yes.” [Washington Post, December 31, 2011]

RH – Same assessment as above. Sounds tough, and that’s what Romney thinks he has to sound like on immigration issues. Any reasoning he would cite, like in the first quote, would likely have no basis in reality. Nevertheless, slick guys appear to finish first.

“As President, [I] will also work to establish a policy that staples a green card to the diploma of every eligible student visa holder who graduates from one of our universities with an advanced degree in math, science, or engineering. As President, a first step that [I] will take is to raise the ceiling on the number of visas issued to holders of advanced degrees in Math, Science, and engineering who have job offers in those fields from US companies.” [Believe in America, September 6, 2011]

RH – Great idea, and sounds great.

Newt Gingrich
“I do not believe that the American people are going to tolerate going after somebody who has been here 25 years, who has a family, has children and grandchildren, belongs to a local church. What I proposed is very standard things. Control the border by January 1, 2014. Make English the official language of government. Go to a much better visa program that’s much…that makes it more desirable to visit the U.S. legally. Go to a better deportation program to move people out who shouldn’t be here.” [CBS News, December 18, 2011]

RH – Congratulations Newt. You may win the award for the most honest of this bunch. Your answer is practical and real. Be careful though, honesty may not get you too far in this race. The tougher, “law and order” talk seems to be what most of the other politicians think will win the day.

“Let me start and just say I think that we ought to have an H-1 visa that goes with every graduate degree in math, science and engineering so that people stay here.” [Republican Debate, November 22, 2011]

RH- Great idea! Sounds great.

Ron Paul
“Somebody who’s been here and it’s their country I think there should be a program to bring them into the fold…but I want it to be done systematically. I think we need more efficiency at our borders, and allow the people to come in, especially for people who can take care of themselves. But you ask about what we do with 11 million and I would say you have to work out a program of assimilation, but you can’t just say borders don’t count and people should be rewarded for breaking the law.” [Univision, October 2, 2011]

RH- same commentary as for Newt. Its honest, real talk. Not as sexy as law and order though.

“End Birthright Citizenship – As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be granted U.S. citizenship, we’ll never be able to control our immigration problem.” [Ron Paul 2012]

RH- whether you agree with his stance or not, he is honest and truly believes what he is saying, particularly regarding the attractiveness of US citizenship for all children born here. His blunt commentaries appear to be getting him places.

Voted “yes” on H.R. 3736, a bill that increased the number of highly skilled workers from 65,000 to 115,000 by the year 2000. [U.S. House of Representatives, September 24, 1998]

RH- consistent with earlier commentary, he is honest and realistic on this issue as well. What planet he lives on other issues, such as foreign policy, is a whole other question.

Rick Perry
“Amnesty is not on the table period. There will be no amnesty in the United States. We’re a country of law and the idea that we’re going to tell people that somehow or another that that’s all forgiven is not going to happen.” [ABC News, November 29, 2011]

“But I do think that there is a way. That after we secure that border that you can have a process in place for individual who are law- abiding citizens who have done only one thing, as Newt says, 25 years ago or whatever that period of time was, that you can put something in place that basically continues to keep those families together.” [Republican Debate, November 22, 2011]

RH – Amnesty…a word loaded with toxicity in the immigration debate. However Rick, there is already a de facto amnesty in place now, as the US government is looking the other way for the millions in the U.S. without status. True to his inner character, Rick comes off like he wants it both ways and talks from both sides. He is not brave like Newt and some of the others – who says it like it is. Too slick for his own good it seems.

“But if you say that we should not educate children who have come into our state for no other reason than they’ve been brought there by no fault of their own, I don’t think you have a heart. We need to be educating these children, because they will become a drag on our society. I think that’s what Texans wanted to do.” [Republican Debate, September 22, 2011]

RH – sounds a little braver, but he tends toward back pedaling whenever one of his controversial positions, such as this, are taken issue with. After Iowa, he seems to be on his way out anyway.

“We need highly technical, trained engineers and biomedical scientists. And a lot of times, you can’t get those people because they can’t get an H-1B visa, for instance.” [CNBC, September 29, 2011]

RH- True!

Rick Santorum
“The idea people who are here 20 or 25 years and came here illegally only committed one illegal act, well, you can’t be here and commit one illegal act because almost everything you’re doing while you’re here is doing things against the law…So we say, we should let that happen. We shouldn’t break up families. We should let them all come…This is false compassion.” [CNN, December 6, 2011]

RH – Honest and practical. No waffling, so it seems.

“First off, I’m actually for a system that allows for people to come here, if they come here on a student visa or they come here on a visa that — you know, where they’re getting some sort of higher education or they’re learning some great skills that are good and necessary for the country — my feeling is, you know, if they graduate and do well, we should — you know, we should have — actually give folks the opportunity to have a green card and to stay here and work.” [Fox News, November 29, 2011]

RH – Sounds good. Is good.

Michele Bachmann
“Well, I don’t agree that you would make 11 million workers legal, because that, in effect, is amnesty. And I also don’t agree that you would give the DREAM Act on a federal level.” [Republican Debate, November 22, 2011]

RH – She sure is honest, and she does not waffle. Is she crazy? Is there any practicality to her approach? Those are separate questions. My take on the practicality of deporting 11 million people – including placing them in removal proceedings and providing “due process”? – HA, Good luck federal government! Anyway, after IOWA, all of her talk, and my commentary, is perhaps moot.

“We think about the United States and what’s in the best interests of the United States. If we can utilize these workers, like Steve jobs wanted to, then we need to offer those visas. That will help the United States. But I don’t agree that we should make 11 million workers who are here illegally legal.” [Republican Debate, November 22, 2011]

RH – Practical and smart on the visas for professionals and skilled workers. Not so much on the other issue.

Jon Huntsman
“I think you have to take a very practical approach to having them [undocumented immigrants] wait in line. There have to be certain requirements. Language requirements. English as an official language for example. Paying back taxes, if that is applicable. There needs to be some steps along the way that would suggest that they have paid whatever price and penalty in order to come out of the shadows and to gain citizenship in this country. You have to create a system whereby you can move towards citizenship. You can’t wish people away. You can’t just use rhetoric that says we’ll ship people back.” [Think Progress, September 19, 2011]

RH – Honest and practical, except for that “line” comment.

“I believe immigration is a human as well as an economic issue, and that children of illegal immigrants shouldn’t be punished for the sins of their parents.” [CBS News, September 23, 2011]

RH – Honest and practical.

“We can’t process people. The H1B visa process is broken. We need to bring in brain power to this country to shore up our economic might. We need to bring in foreign capital to raise real estate prices as well.” [Republican Debate, September 12, 2011]

RH – Smart, practical and honest!

PUBLISHED January 4, 2012 – “IMMIGRATION LAW FORUM”
Copyright © 2012, By Law Offices of Richard Hanus, Chicago, Illinois