A long history of disagreement and distrust in Missile Defense politics has existed between Russia and the US. On May 3, 2012, Russia’s top military officer, Chief of General Staff Nikolai Makarov, threatened to carry out a pre-emptive strike on US-led NATO missile defense facilities in Eastern Europe if Washington carries out its controversial plan to build a missile shield in the region. Old tensions between Russia and the US seem to have been revived. Is this the beginning of a new Cold War, or just another segment in a long chain of “muscle flexing” acts between Russia and the US?

In past years, Russia has opposed the missile shield program. It considers the program to be a serious threat to its national security and disapproves of NATO forces continuing to build military bases in Europe. The US government called Russia’s reaction “unjustified” and defended the program by citing increased threats to Europe from the Caucasus and the Middle East. An important political figure, Alexander Vershbow – NATO’s Deputy Secretary General and former Ambassador to the Russian Federation – stressed at the Moscow Conference that the missile shield program is not meant to be hostile to Russia. He also added the US and NATO respect and take seriously the Russian government’s concerns.

As expected, the Russian government rejected Mr. Versbow’s statement, saying that no clear evidence of threat from the Caucasus or the Middle East has been demonstrated. Recently-reelected President Putin continued to emphasize that the missile shield poses risks to Russia’s security, especially at its western borders. However, other nearby countries, such as Romania, have sided with the US, calling Russia’s reaction a “demonstration of force” and “propaganda.” Yet, it is also true that NATO and the US have been trying to establish control over the Eurasian continent by building their military bases in the less wealthy countries. Some examples of their attempts at extending control are the failed European Inspector Site Project in Poland, the Transit Center in Manas, Kyrgyzstan, and a primarily US Air Force operated military installation near Bishek that has been long criticized by Moscow.

It is hard to believe that either side in the conflict cares about the opposing side’s concerns. There simply exists a courteous exchange of “semi-threats” between Moscow and Washington as the two sides compete to be the key player in the region. All these talks in recent weeks from Russian generals and NATO’s officials clearly prove that the dispute will remain high on the agenda for President Putin and the presidential candidates in the US.

image source

On May 22, 2012 Senators Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), Chris Coons (D-Del.), Jerry Moran (R-Kan.), and Mark Warner (D-Va.) introduced the Startup Act 2.0 to members of Congress. The Startup Act 2.0 would create two new types of visas: (1) one for foreign students who obtain graduate degrees in the STEM fields of science, technology, engineering and mathematics and (2) a visa for immigrants who start successful companies and create jobs in the United States. Both categories carve out a pathway towards permanent residence and eventually U.S. citizenship. In order for an immigrant to qualify under the second category of visa geared towards, he or she must launch a business that has at least two unrelated full-time employees and their business must raise a capital of at least $100,000. Additionally, the Startup Act 2.0 will eliminate caps on the number of work-based visas given to each foreign nation in the hopes of creating an easier path for skilled immigrants to bring their talent and ideas to the U.S.

The Startup Act 2.0 also seeks to aid the creation of startups. The Act provides tax credits for new business and provides incentives for investment in new business. It will also use federal funds to help universities bring their research to the marketplace.

This new bill comes on the heels of several studies indicating the increased role of immigrant entrepreneurs and job creation. One study published by the Kauffman Foundation, based on Census data and the U.S Labor Department’s current population survey, show that the number of small business is growing significantly. Hispanics, according to the study, are leading the charge and creating new businesses at a faster rate than any other ethnic group and at a rate that exceeds their population growth. In fact, immigrants created about 28% of all new businesses last year and were twice as likely to start new business than U.S. born citizens.

The Startup Act 2.0 is a good starting point to begin a much-needed overhaul of the employment-based visa system. However, the bill may not go far enough in encouraging entrepreneurship. The bill focuses on the STEM fields, however a good portion of the businesses created by immigrants are not in the STEM fields. With the majority of American graduates majoring in non-STEM fields, it may be best to include more types of small businesses in this bill. The key here is job creation. While the future of this bill remains to be seen, what is certain is that Congress is finally realizing the significant roles immigrants play in the economy, not just as job seekers but as job creators.

image source

For years, U.S.C.I.S. officials have taken the position that a departure under a grant of advance parole is a departure for purposes of Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) §§212(a)(9)(B)(i)(I), (II), two bars which do not allow a non-citizen to apply for re-admission into the United States for three or ten years, respectively. However, in Matter of Arrabally and Yerrabelly, 25 I & N Dec. 771 (BIA 2012), the Board of Immigration Appeals held that a non-citizen who departs the United States on a grant of advance parole does not trigger the three and ten year bars for purposes of INA §§ 212(a)(9)(B)(i)(I), (II). In its decision, the Board of Immigration Appeals notes that advance parole is a distinct discretionary benefit for which “the alien must demonstrate his eligibility and worthiness.” 25 I & N Dec. 771, 778 (BIA 2012).

The Board of Immigration Appeals explicitly rejects DHS’s long-standing argument that a grant of advance parole does not authorize the non-citizen to actually depart from the United States. 25, I & N Dec. at 778. DHS’s stance was articulated in two memorandums: (1) the Memorandum from Donald Neufeld, Acting Assoc., Dir., Domestic Operations Directorate, et al., to USCIS Field Leadership, at 16, 17 (May 6, 2009), reprinted in 86 Interpreter Releases, No. 20 May 18, 2009, app. I at 1393, 1394 (“Neufield Memo”) and (2) the Memorandum fro Paul W. Virture, Acting Exec. Assoc. Comm’r, INS Office of Programs to INS Officials, at 3-4 (Nov. 26, 1997), reprinted in 74 Interpreter Releases, NO. 46, Dec. 8, 1997, app. III at 1842, 1844 (“Virtue Memo”).

The Board of Immigration Appeals points out that advance parole is usually a humanitarian measure and by granting such a benefit, DHS is essentially telling the non-citizen that he can leave the U.S without abandoning any pending applications for immigration benefits and that he will be paroled or allowed back into the U.S. Id. Once the non-citizen returns or fulfills the purpose of his advance parole, he returns to the same immigration status he had prior to his departure. Id at 773. The purpose of INA §§212(a)(9)(B)(i)(I), (II) is to strengthen the consequences for immigration violations by making it more difficult for non-citizens who leave the country to be readmitted. Id. at 776. These sections essentially put non-citizens on notice of the harsh consequences of leaving the country after violating immigration laws. However, in cases where DHS grants advance parole, due to the explicit permission given, there is no longer any notice needed because DHS is giving legitimacy to the alien’s departure.
The Board of Immigration Appeals was careful to limit its decision in this case. The Board of Immigration Appeals reasons that §§212(a)(9)(B)(i)(I),(II) is different from other sections because the departure alone creates the condition of inadmissibility. However, advance parole may be considered a “departure” for other purposes. This decision is considered a clarification of the Board of Immigration Appeals’s decisions in Lemus I, 24 I & N Dec. 373 (BIA 2007) and Lemus II, 25 I & N Dec. 734 (BIA 2012), two decisions that previously defined the scope of the term “departure”.

What remains to be seen is how DHS responds to this new decision. Will this decision make it more difficult for non-citizens to get advance parole? Is there any possibility that individuals will now be able to adjust based on their entry on advance parole, even though they previously had entered the U.S. unlawfully and would not be able to adjust if not for the grant of advance parole?

image source

A program that gives federal immigration officials access to the fingerprints of undocumented immigrants booked into local jails will start Tuesday across New York state despite staunch opposition from advocates and lawmakers, including Gov. Andrew Cuomo.

A law-enforcement official familiar with the program, called Secure Communities, confirmed that New York City and 30 other jurisdictions would join the 31 communities that already have the program in place. Suffolk, Nassau and Westchester counties, among others, have participated in Secure Communities for more than a year.

Asked about the program at a Friday news conference, New York City Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly said “we prefer that they not do that here.”

“The federal government’s position is that it’s required under the law and they’re doing it,” he continued. “We’re obviously complying. They’re taking it automatically, actually. It’s a policy decision. I think there’s merit on both sides….We’re complying to the extent that we have to.”

Secure Communities aims at identifying and deporting illegal immigrants who are convicted of crimes. But critics say it has resulted in the deportation of thousands of people who are accused of crimes but not convicted, and erodes the trust between immigrant communities and law enforcement.

Advocates and others argue that some immigrants may become hesitant to report crimes or act as witnesses, incorrectly believing they risk deportation just by speaking with police.

Already, the fingerprints of suspects in jail are sent to the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Under the Secure Communities program, those fingerprints are also shared with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

In an email, ICE spokesman Ross Feinstein said Secure Communities “has proven to be the single most valuable tool in allowing the agency to eliminate the ad hoc approach of the past and focus on criminal aliens and repeat immigration law violators.”

“To date, Secure Communities has helped ICE remove more than 135,000 convicted criminal aliens, including more than 49,000 convicted of major violent offenses like murder, rape and the sexual abuse of children,” he said.

The news of the program’s launch startled lawmakers and immigration advocates who nearly a year ago hailed Cuomo’s announcement that he was suspending the state’s participation in Secure Communities. At the time, agreements signed with each state suggested that joining the program was voluntary.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/05/12/controversial-fingerprints-program-set-for-new-york-meets-resistance/#ixzz1vc1hsENQ

————————————————————————–

Beach-Oswald Top-Notch Immigration Attorneys
Washington, DC Immigration Law Firm

While Gov. Deval Patrick is resigned to participating in the federal government’s Secure Communities program, immigrant rights advocates said it will force undocumented immigrants into hiding from local law enforcement.

Secure Communities uses FBI fingerprint data, submitted by local police to determine the identities of individuals who are arrested, and crosschecks it against the Immigration Custom Enforcement agency’s database.

Patrick had initially resisted the program, but said local police would continue the practice of submitting information to the FBI, and that he hoped recently announced tweaks to the program would safeguard it against putting people in fear.

“I think it’s very important here that people not see this as a license to profile. It is about public safety and there’s a right way and a wrong way to do it, and I will say the federal government seems to have responded to some of the concerns that we in Massachusetts and in other states have expressed,” Patrick told reporters.

Immigrant groups called on Patrick Thursday to take executive action to resist the federal program but Patrick appeared resigned to its implementation, which is scheduled to begin May 15.

“I am going to uphold the law,” Patrick said Thursday.

Patrick said the state has long known that the Department of Homeland Security would eventually roll out the program in Massachusetts, but he said it’s always been about the FBI sharing fingerprints with immigration officials, which is not an issue the state has control over.

Read more…

————————————————————————–

Beach-Oswald Top-Notch Immigration Attorneys
Washington, DC Immigration Law Firm

Obama administration officials have announced that a contentious fingerprinting program to identify illegal immigrants will be extended across Massachusetts and New York next week, expanding federal enforcement efforts despite opposition from the governors and immigrant groups in those states.

In blunt emails sent Tuesday to officials and the police in the two states, Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials advised that the program, Secure Communities, would be activated “in all remaining jurisdictions” this Tuesday.

In June, Gov. Deval Patrick of Massachusetts declined to sign an agreement with the immigration agency to expand Secure Communities beyond a pilot program in the Boston area since 2006. Gov. Andrew Cuomo of New York said he wanted to suspend the program, which had been initiated in a number of counties.

Opponents argued that it was an overly wide dragnet that was deporting many illegal immigrants with no criminal histories who were arrested for minor offenses. They said the program encouraged racial profiling by the police and eroded trust in law enforcement among immigrants.

Under Secure Communities, fingerprints of anyone booked by the local or state police are sent through the FBI to be checked in databases of the Department of Homeland Security which include immigration records. If there is a match, officials at the immigration agency decide whether to issue a detainer, asking the police to hold the person to be picked up by federal agents.

ICE officials said that they made changes to respond to state officials’ concerns and to focus the program on deporting serious criminals.

They said they revised the detainers to clarify that suspected illegal immigrants could be held for only 48 hours. They provided civil rights training for the police in places where the program was started, officials said. A recent change in arrest procedures would decrease detentions of illegal immigrants stopped for speeding or driving without a license, the officials said.

By JULIA PRESTON

Published: May 11, 2012

Obama administration officials have announced that a contentious fingerprinting program to identify illegal immigrants will be extended across Massachusetts and New York next week, expanding federal enforcement efforts despite opposition from the governors and immigrant groups in those states.

In blunt e-mails sent Tuesday to officials and the police in the two states, Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials said the program, Secure Communities, would be activated “in all remaining jurisdictions” this Tuesday.

Last June, Gov. Deval Patrick of Massachusetts declined to sign an agreement with the immigration agency to expand Secure Communities beyond a pilot program in the Boston area since 2006. Gov. Andrew Cuomo of New York said he wanted to suspend the program, which had already been initiated in a number of counties.

Opponents argued that it was an overly wide dragnet that was deporting many illegal immigrants with no criminal histories who were arrested for minor offenses and that it encouraged racial profiling and eroded trust in law enforcement among immigrants.

Read more…

————————————————————————–

Beach-Oswald Top-Notch Immigration Attorneys
Washington, DC Immigration Law Firm

Last week, the U.S. House of Representatives Judiciary Committee approved legislation to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) of 1994, but failed to include critical provisions that would ensure that all victims of domestic violence can access vital services and protections.  Victims are victims, and, if you have been battered, stalked or otherwise threatened with violence, you should not be turned away by a shelter or denied the assistance you need merely because the aggressor is the same sex as you or because you are transgender.  Yet, the legislation approved by the House Judiciary Committee and being considered this week on the House floor would allow just that.

The guiding principle behind VAWA and each of its subsequent reauthorizations has been an unyielding commitment to the notion that no sexual assault or domestic violence victim should be beaten, hurt or killed because they could not access the support, assistance and protection that they need.  In enacting VAWA in 1994, Congress acknowledged that the criminal justice system chronically failed to respond to the crimes of domestic violence, sexual assault and stalking, too often blaming victims and refusing to hold offenders accountable as violent criminals.  In reauthorizing VAWA in 2000, Congress included new VAWA programs and provisions to help particularly vulnerable populations, including younger victims, immigrant victims, the elderly, and persons with disabilities.  In the 2005 reauthorization, Congress once again strengthened the Act to improve the health care response to domestic violence, to include a new focus on prevention, and to expand protections for children exposed to violence.

This year, the VAWA reauthorization bill passed by the Senate in April would remove barriers faced by lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) victims, whose needs often are overlooked by law enforcement, prosecutors, courts, and victim service providers. LGBT victims experience domestic violence at roughly the same rate as the general population.  Nonetheless, recent surveys show that LGBT victims frequently are turned away when attempting to access services. For example, according to a 2010 survey by the National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs, 45% of LGBT victims were denied services when they sought help from a domestic violence shelter, and nearly 55% were denied protection orders.

Without LGBT-specific training, criminal justice personnel often underestimate the physical danger involved in same-sex relationships or fail to identify a primary aggressor and instead arrest both victim and perpetrator.  Even well-intentioned service providers may generate outreach materials that do not accurately or fully reflect the experience of LGBT victims, and thus inadvertently discourage individuals who have suffered abuse from seeking needed care.  In all these cases, bias or a lack of understanding contributes to an environment where the needs of LGBT victims are underserved.

The Senate bill would improve VAWA further, authorizing States and service providers to ensure that VAWA protections extend to all victims – including LGBT victims – of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking.  The Senate bill includes three provisions that would help LGBT victims access VAWA-funded services.

First, the Senate bill would add a LGBT-focused purpose area to the STOP Violence Against Women Formula Grant program, the largest VAWA program and the one that supports law enforcement, prosecution, court and victim service activities in every State.  This new purpose area would authorize States, at their discretion, to fund projects that focus specifically on improving responses to male and female victims of domestic and sexual violence whose ability to access traditional services is affected by their sexual orientation or gender identity.

Second, the Senate bill would amend the Act’s definition of “underserved population” to recognize that LGBT victims face barriers to service.  Not only does this improvement send an important message to those who administer and receive VAWA funding, but it will ensure that organizations serving this community can obtain funding from a new grant program that focuses on underserved populations.

Third, the Senate bill would protect LGBT victims from discrimination by prohibiting VAWA grantees from denying LGBT victims access to programs on the basis of their sexual orientation or gender identity. Plainly put, this provision would ensure that all victims of domestic violence are able to access life-saving services.  In contrast, the VAWA reauthorization bill reported out of the House Judiciary Committee, which is being advanced by House Republican leadership, excludes these critical protections for LGBT victims.

Opponents claim that the Senate bill’s LGBT provisions are a solution looking for a problem.  That is just not true.  Domestic and sexual violence against LGBT individuals is an unfortunate reality, as is violence against non-LGBT individuals – and we shouldn’t allow any victim of such abuse to go unprotected.

————————————————————————–

Beach-Oswald Top-Notch Immigration Attorneys
Washington, DC Immigration Law Firm

The Department of Homeland Security has included additional degrees to the list of Classification of Instructional Program (CIP) codes. According to the DHS interim final rule (IFR) of April 2008, nonimmigrant students who graduate with a science, technology, engineering, or mathematics (STEM) degree, are also eligible to apply for the 17 month extension of optional practical training.

The following additions are listed for the STEM-Designated Degree Program:

• Agroecology and Sustainable Agriculture
• Animal Sciences, Other.
• Food Science and Technology
• Plant Sciences, Other.
• Soil Science, Other.
• Natural Resources/ Conservation, General.
• Environmental Studies
• Natural Resources Conservation and Research, Other.
• Water, wetlands, and Marine Resources Management.
• Urban Forestry
• Wildlife, Fish and Wildlands Science and Management.
• Architectural and Building Sciences/Technology.
• Computer and Information Sciences, Other.
• Computer Programming, Other.
• Computer Software and Media Applications, Other.
• Computer/Information Technology Services Administration and Management, Other.
• Education/ Instructional Technology
• Educational Evaluation and Research.
• Chemical Engineering, Other
• Civil Engineering, Other
• Computer Engineering, Other.
• Electrical, Electronics and Communications Engineering, Other.
• Engineering, Other.
• Electrical and Electronic Engineering Technologies/ Technicians, Other.
• Electromechanical and Instrumentation and Maintenance Technologies/ Technicians, Other.
• Environmental Control Technologies/ Technician
• Industrial Production Technologies/ Technicians, Other.
• Quality Control and Safety Technologies Safety Technologies/ Technicians, Other.
• Mechanical Engineering Related Technologies/ Technicians, Other.
• Mining and Petroleum Technologies/ Technicians, Other.
• Engineering-Related Technologies, Other.
• Computer Engineering Technologies/ Technicians, Other.
• Drafting/Design Engineering Technologies/Technicians, Other.
• Engineering-Related Fields, Other.
• Engineering Technologies and Engineering-Related Fields, Other
• Biochemistry, Biophysics and Molecular Biology, Other
• Botany/Plant Biology, Other.
• Cell/ Cellular Biology and Anatomical Sciences, Other/
• Microbiological Sciences and Immunology, Other.
• Zoology/ Animal Biology, Other.
• Genetics, Other
• Physiology, Pathology and Related Sciences, Other.
• Pharmacology and Toxicology, Other.
• Biomathematics, Bioinformatics, and Computational Biology, Other.
• Ecology, Evolution, Systematics, and Population Biology, Other.
• Neurobiology and Neurosciences, Other
• Biological and Biomedical Sciences, Other.
• Mathematics, Other.
• Applied Mathematics, Other
• Statistics, Other.
• Mathematics and Statistics, Other.
• Air Sciences/ Airpower Studies.
• Air and Space Operational Art and Science.
• Naval Science and Operational Studies.
• Intelligence, Command Control and Information Operations, Other.
• Military Applied Sciences, Other.
• Military System and Maintenance Technology, Other.
• Military Technologies and Applied Sciences, Other.
• Behavioral Sciences.
• Human Biology
• Computational Science
• Human Computer Interaction
• Sustainability Studies
• Astronomy and Astrophysics, Other.
• Atmospheric Sciences and Meteorology, Other.
• Chemistry, Other.
• Geological and Earth Sciences/Geosciences, Other.
• Physics, Other
• Materials Sciences, Other.
• Physical Sciences, Other
• Nuclear and Industrial Radiological Technologies/Technicians, Other
• Physical Science Technologies/Technicians, Other
• Research and Experimental Psychology, Other.
• Cyber/Computer Forensics and Counterterrorism.
• Archeology
• Econometrics and Quantitative Economics.
• Aeronautics/ Aviation/ Aerospace Science and Technology, General.
• Cytotechnology/Cytotechnologist
• Clinical Laboratory Science/Medical Technology/ Technologist.
• Clinical and Industrial Drug Development.
• Pharmacoeconomics/Pharmaceutical Economics.
• Industrial and Physical Pharmacy and Cosmetic Sciences.
• Pharmaceutical Sciences.
• Environmental Health.
• Health/Medical Physics.
• Veterinary Anatomy
• Veterinary Physiology
• Veterinary Microbiology and Immunobiology
• Veterinary Pathology and Pathobiology
• Veterinary Toxicology and Pharmacology
• Veterinary Preventive Medicine Epidemiology and Public Health
• Veterinary Infectious Diseases
• Management Science and Quantitative Methods, Other.

For a full list of all designated degree programs, click here.

For image source or to apply for a high school STEM internship, click here.

“AILA InfoNet Doc. No. 12050742 (posted May. 7, 2012)”

Enacted in 1994 and reauthorized twice in 2000 and 2005, VAWA has a long history of uniting lawmakers with the common purpose of protecting survivors of domestic violence. When VAWA was first conceived, Congress recognized that the noncitizen status of battered immigrants can make them particularly vulnerable to crimes of domestic violence, sexual assault, dating violence, and stalking. The abusers of undocumented immigrants often exploit the victims’ immigration status, leaving the victim afraid to seek services or report the abuse to law enforcement and making them fearful of assisting with the investigation and prosecution of these crimes. Congress sought to address this through the enactment of provisions in VAWA that enhance safety for victims and their children and provide an important tool for law enforcement to investigate and prosecute crimes.

AILA Press Statements & Correspondence

• Sign on Letter Opposing H.R. 4970: A sign-on letter in opposition to The Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2012 (H.R. 4970, Adams, R-FL), which includes over 100 immigration, faith, labor, human rights and community organizations.

Issue Papers and Talking Points

• AILA Talking Points on H.R. 4970, VAWA Reauthorization sponsored by Rep. Adams (R-FL). H.R. 4970 would roll back years of progress and place victims of domestic violence in greater danger.

————————————————————————–

Beach-Oswald Top-Notch Immigration Attorneys
Washington, DC Immigration Law Firm