Dear Editor:
I would like to pass on to the readership the text of an INS Field
Memorandum which shows why I reject the inclusion of 245(i)
beneficiaries in the same pot with all "illegal aliens", when in fact
they have been given a quasi legal status. Our government is allowing
employers to sponsor them, and is allowing them to adjust status
notwithstanding their illegal status if they pay a fine. Furthermore,
in an April 27, 2001 Memo Michael Pearson instructed the INS field
offices "not to initiate removal proceedings against an individual who
is an alien eligible for adjustment under section 245(i), based solely
on an immigrant petition, labor certification application or adjustment
of status application filed by or on behalf of that alien....seeking to
legalize the alien's status under 245(i)." The Memo goes on to state
quite explicitly that " this guidance is intended to ensure that
individuals eligible for the benefits of section 245(i) of the INA and
relatives or employers eligible to file immigrant petitions or labor
certifications on their behalf, will not be deterred from initiating
that process through fear that their filing will be used to identify and
remove them." How much clearer does it need to be? Our government has
passed legislation and issued field office guidance which gives at least
these "illegal aliens" in the process of 245(i) adjustment a measure of
protection against deportation by saying that they will not hunt them
down and will not prosecute them solely on the basis of their illegal
status. If they come to the attention of the Service through routine
enforcement actions or because they committed other crimes, they will
continued to be processed according to established procedures.
Therefore, while not creating any right or benefit enforceable by law to
anyone in removal proceedings, the 245(i) legislation and this INS Memo
serve to illustrate, if nothing else, the philosophical view of
Congress and the Agency with regard to the comparative insignificance of
illegal status vis a vis other violations of law. It also illustrates
their view that the economic and social benefits of 245(i) outweigh the
moral or ethical problems of a virtual amnesty. As law-abiding
citizens, we must also abide by this law, which allows those aliens who
have successfully qualified for labor certification to stay here and
work free of fear and I would hope, free of prejudice, until their
cases can be completed.
SJD
Copyright © 1999-2002 American Immigration LLC, ILW.COM
|
Add to del.icio.us