The Immigration News Blog

Republican Congressman Introduces Military Only DREAM Act Bill

2012-01-27T10:35:00.000-05:00

Republican Congressman David Rivera (25th District of Florida) has introduced a military only version of the DREAM Act. The legislation is tittled H.R. 3823: Adjusted Residency for Military Service Act, or ARMS Act, and provides a path to legalization for individuals without lawful immigration status that entered the United States as children.

Congressman Rivera describes the legislation as follows: “This bill provides an opportunity for young people who have established long-standing ties in the United States, and who have a desire to serve our country, to fulfill their goals of serving in the military and achieving the American dream. If these young people are willing to die for America, then certainly they deserve a chance at life in America.”

Here is the ARMS fact sheet:

The Adjusted Residency for Military Service (ARMS) Act will provide the opportunity to adjust the residency status of individuals who join the United States Armed Forces and meet certain criteria.

ARMS Act applicants are granted conditional non-immigrant status and are not subject to deportation through the Secretary of Homeland Security for five years if the individual filing:

Shows intent to enlist and get accepted into a branch of the United States Armed Forces
Obtained a high school diploma or an equivalent
Arrived in the United States before the age of 16
Maintained residence in the United States for the preceding five consecutive years
Has demonstrated “good moral conduct” as defined by U.S. Code Title 8 Section 1227(a)

The individual’s non-immigrant status will be revoked if he or she:

Does not enlist and get accepted into a branch of the United States Armed Forces within nine months of having their status adjusted
Fails to continue demonstrating “good moral conduct”
Becomes a public charge as an individual who is primarily dependant on the government for subsistence
Receives a dishonorable discharge or other than honorable discharge from the Armed Forces.

Following the initial five year conditional status period, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall extend the individual’s non-immigrant status for an additional five years if he or she:

Has served at least two years on active duty status, or at least four years reserved status, or was otherwise honorably discharged
Continues to demonstrate “good moral conduct”
Has maintained residence in the United States (absences for military service abroad are excused) Upon receiving the non-immigrant status extension, the conditional non-immigrant may file to have their status changed to permanent resident.

It will be very interesting to see what the Republicans in the House do with this.

Romney on Immigration: "Our problem is not 11 million grandmothers."

2012-01-27T08:55:00.002-05:00

In Campaign Mode Obama Calls for Comprehensive Immigration Reform

2012-01-25T09:16:00.001-05:00

In full-fledged campaign mode in his State of the Union address the Deporter-in-Chief once again dangled the immigration reform carrot.

Here is the footage:

Anyone buying it?

As I have said before, where is the leadership? Why is this President unwilling to release a framework for immigration reform in order to garner public support? Don't permit the do-nothing election-year Congress to continue to ignore the issue for the last quarter of your Presidency. Shame both parties into taking action. Release an actual plan for reform, and let the pollsters do their job. Let things happen. Be the ball. That's what a leader does.

Mr. President, you weren't elected to stand in front of the American people to say that you are for something. You were elected to effectuate Change. To do something.

It's time to show us the money.

Obama Administration Employs New Strategy to Combat Illegal Border Crossing

2012-01-17T09:47:00.002-05:00

The Obama administration has introduced a new strategy for combating the flow of undocumented immigrants across our borders, and the strategy appears to be working.

Fox News Latino reports that the Border Patrol office in Tucson, Arizona has created a "Consequence Delivery System" that ranks offenders on a sliding scale of 1 to 5 using 15 different "yardsticks." First time violators are treated differently than repeat offenders. Factors for consideration include the amount of time that has elapsed since the last apprehension, as well as the cost to taxpayers for implementing penalties.

Color-coded, wallet-sized cards and posters were created advising agents how to proceed once an offender is taken into custody.

Here are some examples of the penalties Border Patrol agents impose:

First-time violators are typically charged criminally. After conviction, violators are flown to Mexico City, and given a one-way bus ticket to their hometown.
Known smugglers are typically returned to Mexico for prosecution.
Some individuals are transferred to a remote border city hundreds of miles away and then returned to Mexico.

All of the options are punitive in nature, and replace the previous practice of giving an encountered immigrant a bologna sandwich and orange juice before simply returning them to Mexico. Apprehensions in Tucson have decreased by 80 percent since the new strategy has been implemented.

Click here to read the original source of this story.

Determination of Inadmissibility Reversed, Green Card Issued without a Waiver

2012-01-13T14:51:00.002-05:00

I just received a Green Card approval on behalf of a client who is married to a

United States

citizen. The client first came to us when in immigration court proceedings were instituted against him after he was taken into custody while mistakenly driving down a one way road that led to a border crossing. He was engage to a

United States

citizen at the time he was encountered.

After the institution of proceedings my client married his fiancé. I prepared and submitted the immigrant visa petition on his behalf, together with proof that the marriage was entered into for the right reasons, and obtained adjournments of the deportation proceedings in order to buy time to get the Green Card petition approved.

Upon approval of his wife’s petition I filed a motion to dismissal to enable my client to apply for his Green Card before USCIS rather than before the immigration court. This motion was granted, and I then filed my client’s Green Card application with the New York district office, which had jurisdiction over his place of residence.

At the scheduled marriage fraud interview my client was told that he needed a waiver to overcome inadmissibility. USCIS mistakenly believed that he triggered a 10 year bar when he physically left U.S. soil without being admitted into Canada. We received instructions from USCIS to file the I-601 within 30 days of receipt of the notice.

I successfully argued that a waiver was unnecessary because when encountered he was not an applicant for admission because he never effectuated a departure from the United States, making a u-turn on the bridge prior to ever leaving U.S. territory. As such, he did not trigger either a 3 or 10 year bar under INA §§ 212(a)(9)(B)(i)(I) and (II), which would necessitate a waiver of inadmissibility.

USCIS agreed with my interpretation of the law, reversed their initial decision, and issued my client’s Green Card.

He will be eligible to apply for his citizenship in three years.

Another Same Sex Spouse Faces Deportation due to Defense of Marriage Act

2012-01-13T10:31:00.003-05:00

The love story began in April 1990 at a birthday party, which the couple describes as "love at first sight." One worked at the Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education, the other a university student. This first meeting turned into a whirlwind romance spanning decades and two continents. The couple ultimate wed in California in 2008, and now have four adopted children.

Unfortunately, there may not be a storybook ending for United States citizen Mark Himes and his French national husband Frederic Deloizy. Despite the fact that the couple's marriage is valid in the State of California, Deloizy is ineligible to receive any immigration benefits from his United States citizen spouse, and as such he may be just one more faceless statistic in the Obama administration's 400,000 deportations per year mandate.

Mark and Frederic's marriage faces the prospect of destruction, not because of the "broken immigration laws," but due to the Obama administration's continued enforcement of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in the immigration context. In fact, if Frederic were a woman there would be nothing to worry about, and the Green Card process would be fairly straight forward.

DOMA prohibits the Federal recognition of same-sex marriages, further providing that States are not required to recognize same sex marriages. DOMA was signed into law in 1996 by a Democrat (President Bill Clinton) who is a proponent of gay rights. Democrat Barack Obama continues to enforce DOMA against immigrants married to United States citizens. This enforcement continues despite the fact that both the President and his Attorney General have stated that it is unconstitutional, and that it should not be enforced in Federal Court.

To paraphrase: With Democrats like these who needs Republicans.

The painful irony is that even Dick Chaney openly opposes DOMA, making him more progressive than either Clinton and Obama on the issue. Only now that the President is seeking reelection has Obama's view on gay marriage "evolved." It seems pretty clear to me that Obama's evolution is in spoken word, and not in deed.

More disappointments from the Lipservicer-in-Chief.

Thankfully, CNN.com has given this couple a voice so that the Obama Administration will be shamed into doing the right thing. It is an election year after all.

Click here for the source for this story.

Determination of Inadmissibility Reversed, Client to be Admitted without a Waiver

2012-01-10T14:36:00.001-05:00

I was just able to convince U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) that my client, an undergraduate student and citizen of

Canada

, is not inadmissible to the

United States

, and does not need a waiver to be readmitted as a student.

The basis for the initial determination of inadmissibility was that he was charged with a theft offense in the State of Pennsylvania. Most convictions for theft offenses constitute a crime involving moral turpitude that render an individual inadmissible. That being said, I convinced CBP that my client was not convicted of any offense, theft or otherwise, that would preclude his readmission as an F-1 Student.

In doing this I provided proof that in lieu of a conviction my client was admitted into Pennsylvania’s Accelerated Rehabilitation Program (ARD). The ARD rehabilitation program allows prosecutors to avert a trial and defendants to ultimately earn a dismissal of criminal charges upon the satisfactorily completion a probationary program. In support of my argument I provided case law from the Board of Immigration Appeals that set forth that participation in the ARD program is not a conviction for immigration purposes as it does not mirror the definition of conviction as set forth in 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(48).

CBP conferred with the lawyers in Office of Chief Counsel who agreed with my interpretation of the law, and my client is subsequently determined to be eligible for admission to the United States to resume his studies without the need for a waiver. I received this determination in less than 10 days.

Visa Bulletin For February 2012

2012-01-07T12:16:00.000-05:00

FAMILY-SPONSORED PREFERENCES

First: (F1) Unmarried Sons and Daughters of U.S. Citizens: 23,400 plus any numbers not required for fourth preference.

Second: Spouses and Children, and Unmarried Sons and Daughters of Permanent Residents: 114,200, plus the number (if any) by which the worldwide family preference level exceeds 226,000, plus any unused first preference numbers:

A. (F2A) Spouses and Children of Permanent Residents: 77% of the overall second preference limitation, of which 75% are exempt from the per-country limit;

B. (F2B) Unmarried Sons and Daughters (21 years of age or older) of Permanent Residents: 23% of the overall second preference limitation.

Third: (F3) Married Sons and Daughters of U.S. Citizens: 23,400, plus any numbers not required by first and second preferences.

Fourth: (F4) Brothers and Sisters of Adult U.S. Citizens: 65,000, plus any numbers not required by first three preferences.

On the chart below, the listing of a date for any class indicates that the class is oversubscribed (see paragraph 1); "C" means current, i.e., numbers are available for all qualified applicants; and "U" means unavailable, i.e., no numbers are available. (NOTE: Numbers are available only for applicants whose priority date isearlier than the cut-off date listed below.)

Family-Sponsored	All Chargeability Areas Except Those Listed	CHINA-mainland born	INDIA	MEXICO	PHILIPPINES
F1	22DEC04	22DEC04	22DEC04	22APR93	22MAY97
F2A	08JUN09	08JUN09	08JUN09	08MAY09	08JUN09
F2B	15OCT03	15OCT03	15OCT03	01DEC92	01NOV01
F3	01DEC01	01DEC01	01DEC01	01JAN93	22JUL92
F4	08SEP00	08SEP00	08SEP00	15MAY96	01NOV88

*NOTE: For February, F2A numbers EXEMPT from per-country limit are available to applicants from all countries with priority dates earlier than 08MAY09. F2A numbers SUBJECT to per-country limit are available to applicants chargeable to all countries EXCEPT MEXICO with priority dates beginning 08MAY09 and earlier than 08JUN09. (All F2A numbers provided for MEXICO are exempt from the per-country limit; there are no F2A numbers for MEXICO subject to per-country limit.)

EMPLOYMENT-BASED PREFERENCES

First: Priority Workers: 28.6% of the worldwide employment-based preference level, plus any numbers not required for fourth and fifth preferences.

Second: Members of the Professions Holding Advanced Degrees or Persons of Exceptional Ability: 28.6% of the worldwide employment-based preference level, plus any numbers not required by first preference.

Third: Skilled Workers, Professionals, and Other Workers: 28.6% of the worldwide level, plus any numbers not required by first and second preferences, not more than 10,000 of which to "*Other Workers".

Fourth: Certain Special Immigrants: 7.1% of the worldwide level.

Fifth: Employment Creation: 7.1% of the worldwide level, not less than 3,000 of which reserved for investors in a targeted rural or high-unemployment area, and 3,000 set aside for investors in regional centers by Sec. 610 of Pub. L. 102-395.

Employment- Based	All Chargeability Areas Except Those Listed	CHINA- mainland born	INDIA	MEXICO	PHILIPPINES
1st	C	C	C	C	C
2nd	C	01JAN10	01JAN10	C	C
3rd	22FEB06	01DEC04	15AUG02	22FEB06	22FEB06
Other Workers	22FEB06	22APR03	15AUG02	22FEB06	22FEB06
4th	C	C	C	C	C
Certain Religious Workers	C	C	C	C	C
5th Targeted EmploymentAreas/ Regional Centers and Pilot Programs	C	C	C	C	C

*Employment Third Preference Other Workers Category: Section 203(e) of the Nicaraguan and Central American Relief Act (NACARA) passed by Congress in November 1997, as amended by Section 1(e) of Pub. L. 105-139, provides that once the Employment Third Preference Other Worker (EW) cut-off date has reached the priority date of the latest EW petition approved prior to November 19, 1997, the 10,000 EW numbers available for a fiscal year are to be reduced by up to 5,000 annually beginning in the following fiscal year. This reduction is to be made for as long as necessary to offset adjustments under the NACARA program. Since the EW cut-off date reached November 19, 1997 during Fiscal Year 2001, the reduction in the EW annual limit to 5,000 began in Fiscal Year 2002.

B. DIVERSITY IMMIGRANT (DV) CATEGORY

For February, immigrant numbers in the DV category are available to qualified DV-2012 applicants chargeable to all regions/eligible countries as follows. When an allocation cut-off number is shown, visas are available only for applicants with DV regional lottery rank numbers BELOW the specified allocation cut-off number:

Region	All DV Chargeability Areas Except Those Listed Separately
AFRICA	32,000	Except: Egypt 21,000 Ethiopia 21,500 Nigeria 16,000
ASIA	23,900
EUROPE	22,000	Except: Uzbekistan 16,500
NORTH AMERICA (BAHAMAS)	7
OCEANIA	775
SOUTH AMERICA, and the CARIBBEAN	775

Entitlement to immigrant status in the DV category lasts only through the end of the fiscal (visa) year for which the applicant is selected in the lottery. The year of entitlement for all applicants registered for the DV-2012 program ends as of September 30, 2012. DV visas may not be issued to DV-2012 applicants after that date. Similarly, spouses and children accompanying or following to join DV-2012 principals are only entitled to derivative DV status until September 30, 2012. DV visa availability through the very end of FY-2012 cannot be taken for granted. Numbers could be exhausted prior to September 30.

C. ADVANCE NOTIFICATION OF THE DIVERSITY (DV) IMMIGRANT CATEGORY RANK CUT-OFFS WHICH WILL APPLY IN MARCH

For March, immigrant numbers in the DV category are available to qualified DV-2012 applicants chargeable to all regions/eligible countries as follows. When an allocation cut-off number is shown, visas are available only for applicants with DV regional lottery rank numbers BELOW the specified allocation cut-off number:

Region	All DV Chargeability Areas Except Those Listed Separately
AFRICA	35,800	Except: Egypt 26,000 Ethiopia 26,000 Nigeria 17,500
ASIA	27,000
EUROPE	26,500	Except: Uzbekistan 16,500
NORTH AMERICA (BAHAMAS)	7
OCEANIA	925
SOUTH AMERICA, and the CARIBBEAN	925

D. VISA AVAILABILITY IN THE COMING MONTHS

FAMILY-sponsored categories (monthly)

Worldwide dates:
F1: three to five weeks
F2A: one to two months
F2B: three to four weeks
F3: one to three weeks
F4: up to one month

EMPLOYMENT-based categories (monthly)

Employment First: Current

Employment Second:

China and India: Reports from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) indicate that the rate of new filings for adjustment of status in recent months has been extremely low. This fact has required the continued rapid forward movement of the cut-off date, in an attempt to generate demand and maximize number use under the annual limit. Once the level of new filings or USCIS processing increases significantly, it will be necessary to slow or stop the movement of the cut-off. Readers are once again advised that an eventual need to retrogress the cut-off date is also a distinct possibility.

Employment Third:

Worldwide: up to one month
China: up to one month
India: up to two weeks
Mexico: up to one month
Philippines: up to one month

Employment Fourth: Current

Employment Fifth: Current

Please be advised that the above ranges are only estimates for what could happen during each of the next few months based on current applicant demand patterns. The determination of the actual monthly cut-off dates is subject to fluctuations in applicant demand which can occur at any time. Those categories with a “Current” projection will remain so for the foreseeable future.

Colombia to hand over American teen mistakenly deported

2012-01-06T17:10:00.001-05:00

Obama Administration Considering Pre-Adjudication of Hardship Waivers Prior to Departure

2012-01-06T14:09:00.000-05:00

The New York Times has reported that the Obama administration is considering implementing a new policy that will provide for the pre-adjudication of hardship waivers for undocumented individuals inside the United States that are married to United States citizens. The details of the policy change have not been reported at this time, so I don't want to go into every possibility until I have something on paper to go on. That being said, it is impossible to overstate the impact that this change in policy potentially could have, as it may provide a realistic and incentive-laden path for certain individuals with substantial ties to this country to follow the law and become documented.

The reason that this potential change in policy is so meaningful is that if a person did not first enter the United States legally they are ineligible to apply for their Green Card inside the country even if they are married to a United States citizen. To be eligible to apply for your Green Card inside the United States (adjustment of status) the law requires that you must first be "inspected" by an officer and then either "admitted" or "paroled" after inspection. Basically, this means that if you "snuck into the country" you can't apply for your Green Card here.

As a result, if you came here without inspection to get a Green Card you must first leave the U.S., and you may only return after an immigrant visa is issued by the Department of State.

So what's the problem?

The first problem is that in the vast majority of cases when the individual leaves the country they trigger either a three or a ten-year bar if they have been unlawfully present inside the United States for more than 180 days (3 year bar upon departure) or one-year (10 year bar upon departure) .

The second problem is that there is no guarantee that a waiver will be approved, and once you depart you may be separated from your family for years.

To paraphrase the Clash: "Should I stay or should I go? If I stay there will be trouble, If I go there will be double."

So the waiver that the Obama administration is planning to pre-adjudicate cures the three or ten year bar in cases for people that are able to establish that it will cause an extreme hardship to their United States citizen spouse or parent should they not be permitted to return to the country with a Green Card. Once they have an approval in hand they can depart the United States to attend their visa interview, and hopefully return to be reunited with their family as a lawful permanent resident with minimal delay.

Sounds pretty damn good on paper, and it may be, for many, many people.

Director Alejandro Mayorkas has stated that: "The goal is to substantially reduce the time that the U.S. citizen is separated from the spouse or child when that separation would yield an extreme hardship.”

BRAVO!

Thank you President Obama for giving us a reason to have the audacity to hope for some change.

So that's the half-full side of the equation...

Now for the half-empty.

The reality is that the determination of what constitutes "extreme hardship" varies depending on who is reviewing the waiver application, or in simpler terms, no hardship waiver is a slam-dunk. For example, although there are guidelines that are supposed to be utilized, they are subjectively interpreted, often ignored, and there is no judicial review of denials.

The factors for determining extreme hardship include:

Presence of LPR/USC family ties in the United States;
Your qualifying relative's ties outside the U.S.;
Conditions in the country of relocation;
The financial impact of departure; and
Significant health conditions particularly when tied to the unavailability of suitable medical care in the country of relocation.

Mind you, the hardship to the person who needs the waiver, and hardship to a minor child is not a factor for consideration, so it makes no difference if you have a house full of U.S. citizen children that you are supporting that will suffer an extreme hardship from your separation.

Although this policy change is obviously a fantastic step in the right direction, I must remain cautiously pessimistic until I see how things play out in practice.

And President Obama, if you are reading this, why don't you just consider issuing humanitarian parole to certain individuals who are otherwise adjustment eligible but for the fact that they entered without inspection? This would circumvent the requirement of the waiver, and would take the subjectivity out of the determination of what constitutes extreme hardship. The Bush administration did this for one of my clients with a high-profile case, so I know that it can be done.

All that would be required is for an individual to establish that they are eligible for adjustment of status other than the manner of their admission, and that they do not possess any other adverse disqualifying factors such as criminal convictions, or repeat violations of U.S. immigration law. This would potentially cut down on the time required to adjudicate waivers, as approval would be objective rather than subjective, which would result in a savings to the taxpayer.

Just a suggestion.

Click here to read the New York Times article.

Obama Administration Deports a 14-Year-Old U.S. Citizen Runaway

2012-01-05T10:18:00.002-05:00

It has been reported that the Obama administration deported 14-year-old United States citizen runaway Jakadrien Turner to Columbia last April. Jakadrien doesn't speak Spanish.

Image courtesy of Facebook.

Jakadrien ran away from home in late 2010 when her parents were going thorugh a divorce. She was picked up by Houston Police who turned her over to ICE after giving a fake name that matched a 22-year-old Columbian immigrant.

Although Jakadrien was fingerprinted, ICE didn't confirm her identity before shipping her to South America under an order of removal. Jakadrien's grandmother, Lorene Turner, responds: "How do you deport a teenager and send her to Colombia without a passport, without anything?"

ICE Director of Public Affairs Brian Hale has assured that "ICE is fully and immediately investigating this matter in order to expeditiously determine the facts of this case.” Here's a thought, maybe ICE should have fully and immediately investigated the identify of a 14-year-old runaway before they deported her to a country where she doesn't even speak the language.

To add injury to injury, Jakadrien, now 15, is pregnant and is being held in a detention facility by the government of Columbia who refuse to release her, despite the family's pleas for her safe return.

Just one more victim of this administration's rush to deport as many people as humanly possible.

Click here to read the original source for this story.

TRAC Report: Only 8.3% of all Pending Deportation Cases Involve Criminal Aliens

2011-12-30T11:01:00.002-05:00

Syracuse University's TRAC Immigration has issued another report finding that only 8.3% of all pending deportation proceedings involve immigrants with criminal convictions. TRAC also reports that by the end of September 2011, the number of pending deportation cases has reached record levels.

There are now 297,551 pending deportation cases nationwide, and the backlog keeps on growing (up 4.2% since July 2011). This is a 60% increase from what was seen in George W. Bush's last year in office.

This chart was prepared by TRAC and illustrates the exponential growth of the backlog of pending deportations since Obama took office.

Here are some of the other findings of TRAC's report:

The number of pending deportation cases involving criminal aliens is down from what was seen at the end of fiscal year 2010.
90% of pending deportation cases only involve individuals charged with mere immigration violations (i.e., overstaying a visa).
Pending cases only involving immigration violations has increased from 236,415 at the end of FY 2010 to 259,038 at the end of July 2011.
It is now taking an average of 497 days to complete deportation proceedings for individuals charged with mere immigration violations.
It is now taking 410 days to resolve pending deportation cases for individuals charged with criminal grounds of removal.

So the rhetorical question becomes: who should we believe?

The Obama administration who claims that more than half of the people deported last year have been convicted of crimes, or a non-partisan University who analyzes the raw data that shows that 90% of all pending cases do not invovle criminal grounds of removal?

I'm just going to hazard a guess that the Obama administration's misrepresentation (AKA lies) are directly correlated to the fact that 59% of all Latinos oppose Obama's handling of deportations.

Wouldn't it be nice if our elected officials actually told the truth for once.

The audacity of hope.

Click here to donate to TRAC immigration.

Alabama immigration law deterring investors

2011-12-29T09:00:00.002-05:00

"Some local officials in Alabama are worried that the state's tough new immigration law has turned off foreign investors from bringing business -- and jobs -- to cities that desperately need them."-CBS News

Click here for more of this US immigration news update.

2012: The Road to Immigration Nowhere

2011-12-28T16:57:00.001-05:00

I’m sorry but I need to vent. I just read a blog by a former President of AILA and it got my dander up. The question posed was what can we expect in the world of immigration in 2012?

The short answer: absolutely nothing.

As was pointed out, next year is an election year, and the Democrats are scrambling to keep both the Senate, and the White House. It isn't looking good.

President Obama once said that he would rather be a really good one-term president than a mediocre two-term President. I think in 2012 he is going to get half his wish, but for the sake optimism, let's just call that wish half-full. I predict this because from an immigration perspective President Obama's first term has been God-awful.

Obama has completely failed to provide ANY leadership whatsoever on the issue of immigration reform, turning his back to the Hispanic electorate the moment he unpacked his bags in the White House, and adopting the most aggressive deportation policy in the history of the United States.

This has resulted in sharp disapproval from Hispanics, the largest and fastest growing voting block in the country. The Pew Hispanic Center has just released a study that shows that 59% of all Latinos disapprove of Obama’s deportation policies. Obama won the Hispanic vote by nearly a 2-1 margin in 2008. I wonder how many of these voters will turn out next November.

Obama’s failure to lead on the issue of immigration reform resulted in the Democrats squandering a two-year super-majority. Immigration reform could have been passed without a hiccup in the President’s first 100 days in office. This is what he promised. So why did it happen? Obama expended every ounce of his political capital on his signature health-care legislation, throwing Hispanics under the bus in the process. Specifically, in order to get the votes required for passage, Obama lied to the Hispanic Caucus who was threatening to oppose Obamacare unless racist and anti-immigrant provisions were removed. His promise to the Caucus: to aggressively work with Congress to pass immigration reform. How did that work out?

So for those of you keeping score at home, Obama’s immigration reform efforts to date principally feature a lunch with Shakira and a Desperate Housewife. Change you can believe in?

The apologists respond with the fact that the Administration has recently introduced a “common sense immigration enforcement” policy involving the employment of a prosecutorial discretion memo. The reality is that this is nothing more than a public relations stunt. I know of only a handful of cases nationwide where prosecutorial discretion is being favorably exercised, and those cases are usually attached to embarrassing media coverage of individuals facing deportation to countries they haven’t been to since they were young children. The silent majority receive little, if any, reprieve from the Administration’s 400,000 deportations per year mandate.

As for the Administration’s recent constitutional challenge to Arizona’s immigration law, this President should be careful throwing stones in his glass White House. Persistent human rights violations permeate the Obama Administration’s handling of immigrants.

So here we are, facing the dawn of a new year that will bring us down the road to immigration nowhere. Thankfully, we have the vacationer-in-chief to guide us down it, leaving a trail of broken promises, lies, and half-truths.

So let us all raise a glass and wish that in 2012 Barack Obama gets half his wish ending his one and only term as President.

Happy New Year?

College Sports Star Fighting Deportation

2011-12-28T09:56:00.002-05:00

ESPN has reported that Ayded Reyes, a star Pacific Coast Conference cross-country athlete, is currently scheduled to appear before an immigration judge in March 2012, to determine whether she will be deported to Mexico. She came to the United States as a two-year-old, and doesn't know a single person in all of Mexico.

Reyes, the top ranked women's junior college cross country athlete at Southwestern College in Chula Vista, California, was jailed for five days this past October after being encountered by police sitting with her boyfriend in a parked car. This five day period of incarceration was used as a means to pressure Reyes into signing off on her own deportation. Standard procedure.

Reyes was smart, and strong enough to resist ICE officers commenting "If they make me go back, I will be lost."

U.S. Rep. Bob Filner (D-Calif.) has introduced a private bill (H.R. 3281), which if passed and signed will put a stop to Reyes pending deportation.

I'll keep you posted if updates on this story become available.

Click here for the original ESPN report.

AZ Sheriff Arpaio: Mounting Storm of Anti-Latino Bias, Prisoner Abuse, Sex-Crimes Negligence

2011-12-23T11:38:00.002-05:00

District Judge Blocks Portions of South Carolina Immigration Law

2011-12-23T11:27:00.000-05:00

U.S. District Judge Richard Gergel has blocked portions of the South Carolina immigration law that requires law enforcement officials to confirm the immigration status of any individual believed to be in violation of U.S. immigration law. Judge Gergel further blocked provisions of the law that criminalize the act of harboring or transporting undocumented immigrants. The law was schedule to take effect on January 1, 2012.

The Justice Department, the A.C.L.U., and the Southern Poverty Law Center have challenged the constitutionality of the law arguing that only the federal government maintains constitutional authority over the regulation of federal immigration law. In rendering his decision, Judge Gergel acknowledged the “traditionally predominant role of the federal government in the field of immigration.”

A spokesman for South Carolina’s governor, Nikki R. Haley issued the following response on Thursday: “If the feds were doing their job, we wouldn’t have had to address illegal immigration reform at the state level, but, until they do, we’re going to keep fighting in South Carolina to be able to enforce our laws.”

Click here for the New York Times article that was the source for this article.

Suspect in immigration agent killing held in US

2011-12-22T08:38:00.004-05:00

The Associated Press reports that a suspect in the murder of an immigration agent is being held without bail in the United States. The alleged Mexican drug cartel member entered a not guilty plea yesterday (Wednesday December 21, 2011). He was arraigned in federal court and charged with murder and attempted murder for a roadside attack on two U.S. immigration agents in Mexico. He faces a life sentence if convicted.

Click here for more of this US immigration news update.

92 Maricopa County jail officers turn in ICE badges

2011-12-22T08:21:00.000-05:00

Adam Slinger of the Associated Press reports that 92 jail officers in Sheriff in Maricopa County, Arizona turned in their ICE badges in front of cameras. Last week the Federal government stripped the officers of their authority to check immigration status due to allegations of civil rights violations.

There is only one remaining federal agent that is responsible for checking the immigration status of all inmates held in Maricopa county jails.

It has been reported that an average of 15 individuals were detected each day that did not have proper immigration status.

Click here for more of the original story.

Immigration Judges Give "Scathing Assessment" of Lawyers Appearing before New York Immigration Courts

2011-12-21T11:27:00.000-05:00

The New York Times published an article a couple of days ago about the availability of quality of legal representation before the immigration court in New York. The article references a Cardozo Law Review article entitled "Assessing Justice: The Availability and Adequacy of Counsel in Immigration Proceedings."

Immigration Judges (IJ) estimated that from an approximately one-year period between 2010 and 2011 33% of the cases involve lawyers that have provided “inadequate” representation, and “grossly inadequate” representation in 14% of the cases. The IJs viewed private lawyers least favorably, which according to the Times piece, may be attributable to "predatory" "ambulance-chasing-style lawyers" that are not familiar with immigration law and who are primarily responsible for the low grades.

The moral of the story is make sure that you do your research before hiring an immigration lawyer to represent you in a deportation proceeding.

Click here to read the N.Y. Times article.

Click here to read the Cardozo Law Review article.

Obama Administration Still Enforcing Defense of Marriage Act in Immigration Context

2011-12-21T09:44:00.000-05:00

United States Citizen Frances Herbert and her spouse, Japanese-born Takako Ueda, just learned that the Obama administration will not recognize their marriage for immigration purposes, which may result in Ueda's deportation from the country.

The couple were legally married in Vermont on April 26, 2011. The immigrant petition that Herbert filed on Ueda's behalf was just denied on December 1, 2011. The denial was a direct result of the mandate of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

The denial letter contained the following language: "The DOMA applies as a matter of federal law whether or not your marriage is recognized under state law." "Your spouse is not a person of the opposite sex. Therefore, under the DOMA, your petition must be denied." The denial was issued despite U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder's position that DOMA is unconstitutional.

According to Immigration Equality, there are 36,000 American families that will be destroyed by deportation as a direct result of DOMA.

District Judge Grants Class-Action Status to Mentally Incompetent Immigrant Detainees in Immigration Court

2011-12-21T09:17:00.004-05:00

The Washington Post reports that United States District Judge Dolly M. Glee has granted class-action status to mentally disabled immigrant detainees in California, Washington, and Arizona that do not have legal representation before the immigration court, and that have been deemed mentally incompetent to represent themselves. The decision was rendered under seal in November, but became public this past Monday.

When the suit was filed on February 14, 2010, there were 55 mentally disabled detainees in custody. It has been estimated that at any given time there are between 200 and 300 mentally disabled people held in immigration detention in California, Washington, and Arizona.

ACLU of Southern California deputy legal director Ahilan Arulanantham believes that the Court's decision "paves the way" for a mandate for appointed representation in immigration court proceedings for individuals deemed incompetent. Current law affords individuals the right to representation before immigration courts, but at their own expense.

Judge Glee sits on the United States District Court for the Central District of California, and was appointed to the bench by President Obama.

Click here to read more of the Washington Post story.

Sheriff Arpaio Responds to DOJ Immigration Report

2011-12-16T22:02:00.001-05:00

DOJ to Arpaio: the Feds are only ones allowed to violate the civil rights of immigrants

2011-12-16T12:12:00.001-05:00

Yesterday, Assistant Attorney General Thomas E. Perez spoke at the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office (MCSO) to announce that the Department of Justice (DOJ) had concluded their civil rights investigation of the office, finding that MCSO has engaged in a pattern or practice of unconstitutional policing in violation of the 4th and 14th amendments, and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Specifically, the DOJ found that:

MCSO engages in a pattern or practice of unconstitutional policing; specifically, MCSO engages in racial profiling of Latinos, and unlawfully stops, detains and arrests Latinos.
MCSO unlawfully retaliates against people who criticize its policies and practices.
MCSO operates its jails in a manner that discriminates against Latino inmates that are limited English proficient.
MCSO routinely punishes Latino inmates that are limited English proficient when they fail to understand commands given in English, and denies critical services that are provided to other inmates.

Not surprisingly, Mr. Perez made no mention of the human rights violations that are occurring at the hands of the Obama administration.

Specifically, he made no mention of the fact that:

Sexual abuse of immigrant detainees is widespread.
The federal government is not abiding by its commitments under the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and its Protocol, as well as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Right.
ICE is not providing proper oversight of abuse in immigration detention facilities.
In some immigration detention facilities abuse of immigrants is systemic.
Border patrol abuse is widespread.
Latinos are being racially profiled for deportation, sometimes out of boredom.
There is evidence that both ICE and CBP approve of racial profiling.
Immigration agents have been accused of "aggressive and overzealous" tactics.
A substantial percentage of Immigrants are not being afforded their right to due process.
In the rush to meet the 400,000 deportations per year mandate, the administration is deporting United States citizens.

I think you get the point.

So the question becomes, who is going hold this administration accountable for the very abuses that they are rightfully condemning the MCSO for?

Hopefully it is the voters.

Click here to read the DOJ press release.

Click here to watch a clip of the press conference.

U.S. Citizen Antonio Montejano Detained by ICE for Days

2011-12-15T10:53:00.002-05:00

United States citizen Antonio Montejano was detained by Immigration and Customs enforcement for days even though he is a United States citizen and they had literally no legally authority to hold him for even one second.

To this end, ICE Director John Morton has acknowledged: "We don't have the power to detain citizens."

To quote Mel Brooks: "Badges? We don't need no stinkin' badges!"

I advise you to contact your representative in Congress and implore them to investigate the misconduct, which according to the New York Times, appears to be a regular occurrence under the Obama administration.