The Social Security Trustees have released a new report showing that illegally present immigrants paying in to the Social Security system have had a substantially positive impact in cutting the deficit in the Social Security system. As the White House pushes to get a Social Security no-match rule released, has the President leveled with the American public on the impact of taking millions of workers' payroll taxes out of the system?
While Congress remains paralyzed in dealing with immigration issues and another H-1B blackout about to begin, supporters of skilled worker immigration are pushing the Bush Administration to look at solutions that don't require legislation. One proposal would involve increasing the time foreign students can work in practical training following their completion of US university programs. The plan would be to increase Optional Practical Training from one year to 29 months. Because this proposal focuses on graduates of US schools, the measure is likely to draw less opposition from anti-H-1B groups since the professionals are American-trained and the US would be retaining talent developed in this country.
The REAL ID Act really marked the beginning of the current ugly, anti-immigrant chapter in Congress. The 2005 law basically calls for the creation of a national ID system by requiring states to meet a number of requirements with respect to drivers licenses. Congress patted itself on the back for approving the measure that would make it much tougher for illegally present immigrants to get drivers licenses. But they didn't say much about the fact that they were passing a huge unfunded mandate for states. And many states have openly rebelled. Now Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN) is leading the charge in the Senate to repeal the REAL ID Act. And he just might have the clout to get the job done.
Michael Maggio, the pre-eminent immigration who recently passed away, would really be proud of the work done by his firm's lawyer Thomas Ragland. And congratulations are also due to Washington Post reporter Karen DeYoung who reported on the outrageous decision in the case of Sam Ahmad and publicly shamed USCIS. USCIS not only backed down on the denial of Sam Ahmad's case, but they announced a much broader shift in policy. Here's what the Post had to say:
The U.S. immigration service said yesterday that it will temporarily stop denying green cards to refugees and other legal immigrants tied to groups that sought to topple foreign dictatorships, placing their cases on hold while it determines more "logical, common-sense" rules for judging them.
The decision will potentially affect thousands of pending applications for permanent U.S. residence. The cases of hundreds of others who have been denied green cards since December will also be reexamined, said Jonathan "Jock" Scharfen, deputy director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. All the applicants are living in this country under refugee or other visa provisions or political asylum.
Nice to see USCIS finally start to show that they can quickly address a pressing problem rather than have to be hauled in front of a congressional committee or sued.
The Nevada Attorney General was asked to opine on whether a new rule allowing the Tax Commission to impose fines on employers with business licenses that hire illegally present workers was legal. The answer is no and here's why, according to the opinion:
IRCA preempts state laws imposing civil or criminal sanctions, but does not preempt "licensing or similar laws." The "administrative fine" imposed by AB. 383 is a "civil sanction" which is both expressly and impliedly preempted by federal law. It is not a licensing or "fitness to do business" law because the Tax Commission has no other authority to act against an employer's business license for immigration-related matters. Therefore, it is an attempt to impose an additional state sanction on certain businesses that violate the federal law, which is expressly preempted. AB. 383 also conflicts with the comprehensive federal scheme, which already sets maximum monetary sanctions for violations of IRCA.
Hat tip to Peter Ashman in Arizona for sending this. Here's the file.Download Nevada2008_MARCH_NV_AG.pdf
A few days ago I blogged about Sam Ahmad, the heroic US translator who was recently denied permanent residency because of his membership in a Kurdish political party that is actually part of the Iraqi governing coalition. My friend Dan Kowalski has written a great op-ed piece taking USCIS to task for this ridiculous decision.
As Congress gets closer to considering the Uniting American Families Act (UAFA), some of the critics of the bill are getting nasty. The bill would allow gay couples to sponsor partners to immigrate as immediate relatives, just as married straight couples can. Sponsored by Jerry Nadler (D-NY) in the House and Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT), the UAFA has been introduced several times over the last few years, but has not moved very far up the legislative ladder. But as more and more states are recognizing same sex marriages and civil unions and public recognition of the rights of same sex couples increases, the chances of UAFA's passage are improving.
A story on UAFA by a student journalist at the esteemed Northwestern University School of Journalism has created a stir because of an inflammatory statement made by Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council in his interview with reporter Sirena Rubinoff. Sprigg told Rubinoff
I would much prefer to export homosexuals from the United States than to import them into the United States because we believe homosexuality is destructive to society.
The story was picked up on the blog of the The Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan who linked to the blog of Chris Crain, a prominent DC journalist (who, incidentally, was a friend of mine in college).
Rachel Tiven, the director of Immigration Equality, a national human rights group advocating for same sex couple immigration rights, issued the following statement after Crain reported on the statement:
Unfortunately, the Family Research Council's preference to export lesbian, gay, bisexual and trangender (LGBT) Americans prevails. This policy continues to separate people who love each other, but of course Mr. Sprigg's group doesn't care about that.
I hope, however, that the Family Research Council realizes that when we 'export homosexuals' we also export talented men and women who have made incredible contributions to this country and its economy - THAT is 'destructive to society'. LGBT Americans who are forced into exile from this country are researchers for companies like GE and Pfizer, nurses in the Midwest, teachers in our inner cities and sons and daughters of aging parents who depend on them for care.
The Family Research Council might not care about our families but current immigration laws are 'destructive' to America and I hope that is something they do care about.
Sullivan reports that Sprigg has now issued an apology over the export remark, though he re-stated FRC's opposition to the bill.
I've endorsed this bill several times in the past and urge Congress to ensure that America joins the 19 other highly developed countries which have passed similar legislation.
Economists discuss a new study showing HB 1804, one of the nation's toughest anti-immigration laws could cost Oklahomans $3 billion per year. Ouch!
Download hb_1804_study.pdf
In the first sign that John McCain is trying to get the immigration hardliners in the GOP under control, Democratic Congressman Heath Shuler, the sponsor of a tough immigration bill that was being promoted heavily by GOP House members, claims the GOP presidential nominee has called in his chits to block the bill from being heard on the House floor. McCain's folks are denying they have done any such thing.
This is not exactly news, but it does serve as a reminder of the risks we take as a society when we make local police immigration agents.
This time it's via an Executive Order from Governor Donald Carcieri. The order mandates that all new state employees be checked in E-Verify and that all business contracting with the state (as well as their subcontractors) use E-Verify. The order also mandates that the Rhode Island State Police enter in to a 287(g) agreement with Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
Representatives Charlie Rangel (D-NY) and Michael McNulty (D-NY) have sent a "Dear Colleague" letter warning members of Congress not to sign the Republican discharge petition that would bring the Shuler immigration enforcement bill to the House floor for a vote. The letter lays out the case against E-Verify being mandated right now. Of course, states seem to be rushing in to require employers to use the system. But the letter at least serves as a warning that E-Verify is not the uncomplicated solutions its proponents like to claim.
Two of America's leading papers are covering the entry denial of British author Sebastian Horsley. The Post has an editorial taking CBP to task for what they call using "torpid judgment" in denying entry to someone who poses no danger to the American public.
The Times article is more of a profile piece and gets Horsley's reaction to his immigration problems.
Don't let the article's title fool you. The writer ultimately finds that the immigrants help both groups and not just one. The elderly are helped because many of the immigrants - particularly illegally present immigrants - will never collect Social Security benefits despite paying billions of dollars in to the system. The young are helped because competition for jobs at lower skill levels has led to more young people staying in skill and improving the education and skill set, something that benefits them (and the country) in the long run. That's not to say that we should be content that we have illegally present immigrants. The issue divides the country and we need to put it behind us by putting this huge population in a legal status, devoting resources to firmly enforce immigration laws and stop the flow of illegal migration and, most importantly, establish a real guest worker program and a better functioning green card system so that we don't just find ourselves in the same place in ten or fifteen years.
Ruben Navarrette, Jr. always has something interesting to say about immigration and in a piece he's written for CNN, he's highlighted the contradiction in American's attitudes toward illegal immigration - we are against illegal immigration except to the extent we are not. Some of the places that are pushing the harshest anti-immigration laws seem to have the greatest dependence on those workers and their politicians are the most vocal in opposing any legislation to legalize the workers already here or push through a guest worker program.
The House Judiciary Committee is set to markup four immigration bills on Wednesday. None of the bills are particularly controversial, though movement on the measures is seen as important because if the bills advance, they would be the first pro-immigration ones to pass since the Democrats took control of Congress 15 months ago.
The bills to watch are the following:
HR 5570, The "Religious Worker Visa Extension Act of 2008";
HR 5060, a bill to allow athletes admitted in the P-1 category to renew their visas beyond the current ten year limit;
HR 5569, a bill extending for five years the EB-5 regional center pilot program; and
HR 5571, to extend the Conrad 30 J-1 physician waiver program for five more years.
Comedian Drew Carey nicely makes the case that there is nothing new in the immigration
debate and that the arguments used today to oppose immigration are the same as 100
years ago. They were wrong then and they are wrong today.
Dartmouth business school dean Matthew Slaughter opines in today's Wall Street Nonetheless, leading U.S. companies today are crying out for more
immigrants to satisfy their talent needs. And they do so as
globalization gives companies an ever-wider range of locations abroad
in which to operate. Increasingly, talent needs that cannot be met in
America can be met abroad -- much to the detriment of the U.S. economy.
Bill Gates put this clearly in testimony to Congress last month: "many
U.S. firms, including Microsoft, have been forced to locate staff in
countries that welcome skilled foreign workers to do work that could
otherwise have been done in the United States, if it were not for our
counterproductive immigration policies." A recent McKinsey report surveyed hundreds of senior
finance executives and found that their single most important concern
was "availability of professional workers." One executive said, "It is
much easier hiring talented people in the U.K. There are plenty of
great people and I never have trouble getting them in because of
immigration restrictions; I couldn't hire the team I need in the U.S.
today." And why is it easy to hire financial talent in London?
Because the U.K. welcomes an unlimited supply of the world's best
financial minds. Since 2004, the U.K. Highly Skilled Migrant Programme
has maintained a list of the world's top 50 business schools. Anyone
who earns an MBA from one of these schools is automatically eligible to
work in the U.K. for at least one year.
Journal that British companies have a huge advantage over their US counterparts
***
The American Immigration Lawyers Association is reporting that USCIS has sent an interim final rule to the Office of Management and Budget that would expand from 12 to 17 months the period of time F-1 students can have for optional practical training. This is really very important news since it will effectively end the gap problem for F-1 students converting to H-1B visas. F-1 optional practical training typically ends in early summer and H-1B start dates for cap-subject cases cannot begin until October 1st. This extra five months will bridge the gap by allowing students to continue working on OPT past October 1st. No word on whether this will affect cases filed this year.
Here's one from my friend Will Coley.
Movement Vision Lab, an organization linking grassroots activists, has held
a competition to make a film for YouTube on the importance of immigration
to the US. Here are the five finalists.
About The Author
Greg Siskind is a partner in Siskind Susser's Memphis, Tennessee, office. After graduating magna cum laude from Vanderbilt University, he received his Juris Doctorate from the University of Chicago. Mr. Siskind is a member of AILA, a board member of the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, and a member of the ABA, where he serves on the LPM Publishing Board as Marketing Vice Chairman. He is the author of several books, including the J Visa Guidebook and The Lawyer's Guide to Marketing on the Internet. Mr. Siskind practices all areas of immigration law, specializing in immigration matters of the health care and technology industries. He can be reached by email at gsiskind@visalaw.com
Share this page | Bookmark this page | Print this page |
Add to del.icio.us
© Copyright 1995-2008 American Immigration LLC, ILW.COM