Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Article: Comprehensive Immigration Reform - Defined - Part 3: The Republicans By Harry DeMell

Collapse
X
Collapse

  • Article: Comprehensive Immigration Reform - Defined - Part 3: The Republicans By Harry DeMell

    Comprehensive Immigration Reform - Defined
    PART 3: THE REPUBLICANS

    Harry DeMell

    Everyone in Washington wants the Hispanic vote. Everyone expects that all or most Hispanics will vote either Democrat or Republican based upon the outcome of comprehensive immigration reform. They’re wrong.

    Instead of begging for votes, Democrats and Republicans should consider the history of this subject.

    If Hispanics voted based on this issue they would have flocked to the Republicans after the 1986 amnesty a/k/a Simpson-Mazzoli. That bill, signed and championed by President Regan, a Republican, granted more than 2 million aliens the right to become legal permanent residents and ultimately citizens. Ten years later IRAIIRA, signed into law by President Clinton, a Democrat, was a 180-degree turn and established draconian standards for removal and relief and created an underclass of aliens afraid to come out of the shadows. President Clinton seemed to accomplish this without alienating the Hispanic vote from the Democrat party.

    Then President Bush and Senator McCain, Republicans, championed an amnesty in the 2000s. The Hispanic vote continued to lean heavily Democrat.

    The Democrats on the other hand have done nothing on the subject since 1996. Despite President Obama’s promises during the 2008 campaign to make immigration ‘reform’ his number one priority and despite the Democrat parties almost complete control of government for 2 years, nothing was done. The Democrats were just two senate votes short of passing any legislation they wanted. The president presented no legislation. I do not believe that President Obama could not have convinced Senator Snowe and one other Republican to support his plan but there was no plan, no legislation, and no effort at all, and still the Hispanic vote went Democrat in 2012.

    It should be clear by now that the Hispanic vote turns on other issues and that whatever the Republican Party does on this issue they can expect no greater support based upon their embracing some plan now. What those other issues are, are beyond the scope of this article.

    On the other hand, the Republicans could make inroads among conservative Democrats by taking an approach that supports jobs for Americans first, Hispanic or not. If their polices are sound, Hispanics as well as others will see it and turn to the Republican Party.

    Republicans must learn that people should, but do not, vote on issues. They vote on feelings and the Republican Party has been losing those feel good arguments for several years now. Being nice to immigrants is a feel good issue. Middle class Americans want to feel good even if their largesse results in more competition for jobs for those Americans unemployed.

    The Republicans should present a plan and explain to the American public why their alternate plan, whatever it may be, is better for America. If there are two plans on the table a real debate might emerge that can lead America to a better set of ‘reforms’; a set of reforms that is not just a blatant attempt to get votes but a plan that the American public can accept and understand as one that protects American jobs, helps us compete in the world economy, is humane and forgiving when forgiveness is fair, and encourages new waves of immigrants to obey our laws. These reforms might be simple.

    Any ‘reform’ must make sense beyond the need of sitting members of congress to insure their reelection.

    We need plans from both parties that can explain to the American public that their representatives and senators actually represent them and not some potential future wave of voters. Their jobs require them to serve their constituents and not their own reelection interests. Integrity requires nothing less, but integrity seems to be harder and harder to find in Washington.

    There are some games being played. The president says that his plan will kick in when we control our borders, but that will never happen. He says that there will be greater penalties for employers who hire undocumented aliens, but those laws are already on the books since 1986 and have not been enforced by President Obama or his four predecessors (from both parties). Unemployment is highest in the African-American community but no questions are coming from that community about how legalizing millions of new people will impact them. The president talks about granting some new work visa for some time and then putting people on the ‘end of the line’. What does that mean? Will any true benefits be put off indefinitely while tens of millions of aliens enter the United States in hopes of capitalizing on those future benefits? President Obama will be long gone when the rotten tomato hits the fan. (Sorry Brooklyn.)

    Is it possible that the American public is too uninformed to recognize these things? Is it possible that the press, that the public relies upon for information, is also ignorant or just has its own agenda? Is it possible that the public wants to feel good and is too short sited to make rational decisions?

    The Republicans have an opportunity to do the right thing and formulate a plan that grants some relief to those we want to give relief to without opening the floodgates, that grants more visas without impacting upon our already high unemployment rate and that it can explain to the American public honorably. They might present a plan that allows the Immigration Court to have more power to grant relief in worthy cases rather than a whosale giveaway. They should formulate a plan that recognizes the economic reality on the ground and uses it for the betterment of America.

    In every generation there was some group that considered themselves outsiders and every one of those groups became American. Most Hispanics are American and there is no need to qualify that. As more Hispanics become American they should want the same things that we all want, a nation that lives by its principles and is fair to the individual as explained in the United States Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution. They will support the party that makes responsible choices as they arise and is able to explain and demonstrate proper management. Every other group should want the same things.

    No group, Hispanic or not, no sane person, would want to invest in a company that was not properly managed or was being run into the ground. It is in these areas that the Republican Party can compete best.

    Most of all, Hispanics should want to be considered as individuals and not as ‘Hispanic Americans’. They are Americans when they are Americans and until that date they, as everyone else, should be considered as individuals and by objective standards. Their worth is measured by who they are as individuals. It should not be measured by their ethnic inclusion. America should be better than that. When we grant benefits to newcomers it should bases upon what they can do for America or at least who America wants to be kind to.

    I would like to see the Republican Party stand on principle and not grovel for votes.


    About The Author

    Harry DeMell is an Attorney practicing exclusively in the area of Visa, Immigration and Nationality Law since 1977.


    The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author(s) alone and should not be imputed to ILW.COM.
      Posting comments is disabled.

    Categories

    Collapse

    article_tags

    Collapse

    There are no tags yet.

    Latest Articles

    Collapse

    • Article: The EB-5 Immigration Program and the Investors Process By H. Ronald Klasko
      ImmigrationDaily
      The EB-5 Immigration Program and the Investors Process by H. Ronald Klasko At Klasko Immigration Law Partners, LLP, we represent businesses, individuals, and organizations across the world with various aspects of employment-based immigration. The EB-5 Immigrant Investor Visa Program is one program through which we help wealthy foreign nationals with no employment sponsorship or family in the United States gain permanent residence status. In the infographic below, we highlight the steps of the EB-5 program and the investment requirements associated with it, so individuals and companies alike can understand the program before coming to Klasko Immigration Law Partners, LLP for assistance. This post originally appeared on www.klaskolaw.com. Reprinted with permission. About The Author H. Ronald Klasko is recognized by businesses, universities, hospitals, scholars, investors and other lawyers as one of the country's leading immigration lawyers. A founding member of Klasko, Rulon, Stock & Seltzer, LLP and its Managing Partner, he has practiced immigration law exclusively over three decades. Under his leadership, the firm was chosen with five other firms by Chambers Global in 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009 as the top U.S. business, hospital and university immigration law firm. Ron, himself, was named as the world's most respected corporate immigration lawyer (The International Who's Who of Business Lawyers 2007 and 2008) and one of the country's top immigration lawyers by clients and other immigration lawyers who said he is revered for coming up with unique arguments that can save a clients (Chambers Global). A former National President of the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA), Ron served as General...
      08-20-2018, 08:15 AM
    • Article: Immigration Judges’ Union Fights for Judicial Independence By Karolina Walters
      ImmigrationDaily
      Immigration Judges’ Union Fights for Judicial Independence by Karolina Walters The National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ), the union that represents the nation’s immigration judges, is challenging the government’s decision to remove an immigration judge from a well-known case and replace him with a judge who immediately ordered the immigrant in the case deported. NAIJ’s grievance addresses the treatment of one immigration judge, but its resolution will have implications for judicial independence throughout the entire immigration court system. The grievance was filed on behalf of Philadelphia-based immigration judge Steven A. Morley, who was presiding over the case of Mr. Reynaldo Castro-Tum. Castro-Tum’s case rose to national importance earlier this year when Attorney General Jeff Sessions chose to refer the case to himself to reconsider the Board of Immigration Appeals’ previous decision in the case. In reconsidering the decision, Sessions effectively eliminated judges’ use of administrative closure, a docket management tool. Sessions sent Castro-Tum’s case back to Judge Morley, noting that the immigration court order Castro-Tum removed if he did not appear at his next hearing. Castro-Tum did not appear at the next hearing. However, Judge Morley continued the case to resolve whether Castro-Tum received adequate notice of the hearing. Due process requires, at a minimum, that an individual be given notice of proceedings and an opportunity to be heard by a judge. But before the next hearing could take place, the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) replaced Judge Morley with an Assistant Chief Immigration Judge who ordered Castro-Tum removed when he did not appear at court again. In their grievance, NAIJ asserts that the decision to remove Judge Morley from Castro-Tum’s case and reassign many other cases from his docket resulted in unacceptable interference with judicial independence. The grievance specifically claims that EOIR’s actions violate immigration judges’ authority under the regulations to exerci...
      08-17-2018, 11:12 AM
    • Article: Indirect Refoulement: Why the US Cannot Create a Safe Third Country Agreement with Mexico By Sophia Genovese
      ImmigrationDaily
      Indirect Refoulement: Why the US Cannot Create a Safe Third Country Agreement with Mexico by Sophia Genovese The Trump Administration is seeking to create and implement a safe third country agreement with Mexico . Under this agreement, asylum seekers arriving at the US border who have travelled through Mexico would be denied the ability to file their asylum claims in the US. Such an agreement would trample on the rights of asylum-seekers, violating both international and US asylum law. In particular, the US would be violating the international principle of non-refoulement , which provides that no State “shall expel or return (“refouler”) a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his [or her] life or freedom would be threatened,” where Mexico has a proven track record of being anything but safe for asylum seekers . The US has also codified Article 33(1) of the Refugee Convention into Section 208(a)(2)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) which provides that it will not return an asylum seeker to his or her country of origin, but may, at the determination of the Attorney General, remove the asylum seeker to a “safe third country… where the [asylum seeker] would have access to a full and fair procedure for determining a claim to asylum or equivalent temporary protection.” Although Mexican officials have not yet indicated whether they would sign a safe third country agreement with the US, asylum advocates should proactively seek to prevent such a devastating policy with a country that lacks adequate asylum protections. As reported by Human Rights First and Amnesty International , 75 percent of asylum seekers apprehended and detained by the National Institute of Migration (INM), the Mexican immigration enforcement agency, were not informed of their right to seek asylum. Even if asylum seekers are able to make their claims, only 30% of the asylum proceedings are ever concluded , and even fewer are granted, leaving many bona fide asylum seekers stranded without a resolution. The treatment of unaccompanied minors’ asylum claims in Mexico are even more dismal. Of the 35,000 minors apprehended by the INM in the first half of 2016, only 138 were able to apply for asylum , of which only 77 were granted protection. Beyond the failing asylum system in Mexico, asylum seekers are also in extreme danger of kidnapping, murder, rape, trafficking, and other crimes by INM officers and civilians. A safe third country agreement with Mexico would violate the United States’ international obligations under the 1967 Optional Protocol to the Refugee Convention, to which we are a signatory, which adopts by incorporation the obligations outlined in the 1951 Refugee Convention, to which the US is not a signatory. Take the example of an asylum-seeker, Mrs. H, who is fleeing politically-motivated violence in Honduras. Her husband, Mr. H, was a vocal political activist who opposed the National Party and members of the Honduran government. Mr. H began to receive death threats due to his political beliefs and reported such threats to the authorities. The authorities, however, di...
      08-16-2018, 02:32 PM
    • Article: Flawed Statistics Undermine USCIS/ICE/SEVP’s Restriction of D/S for Unlawful Presence By Eugene Goldstein, Esq.
      ImmigrationDaily

      Flawed Statistics Undermine USCIS/ICE/SEVP’s Restriction of D/S for Unlawful Presence

      by


      On August 9, 2018 USCIS published a “Policy Memorandum” restricting the 20-year-old calculation of Duration of Status (D/S) for F-1, J-1 and M-1 entrants (and their derivative families). https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/...immigrants.pdf

      USCIS also published an announcement (hereinafter “announcement”) “USCIS Issues Revised Guidance on Unlawful Presence for Students and Exchange Visitors https://www.uscis.gov/news/uscis-iss...hange-visitors , and a general discussion “Unlawful Presence and Bars to Admissibility” ...

      08-15-2018, 12:57 PM
    • Article: Update On Express Entry Immigration To Canada By Edward C. Corrigan and Selvin Mejia
      ImmigrationDaily
      Update On Express Entry Immigration To Canada by Edward C. Corrigan and Selvin Mejia On January 1, 2015 the Federal Conservatives introduced significant changes to Canada’s economic immigration program. Formerly called the Skilled Worker program the new program was re-branded as Express Entry which included Skilled Workers, the Federal Skilled Trades program, and the In-Canada Experience Program. Canada modelled its revamped economic immigration program on New Zealand’s. There is also an Atlantic Immigration program. In addition there is a separate Live-In Caregiver program where individuals can apply for Permanent Residence after two years employment in this category. EXPRESS ENTRY The initial object of the changes was to create a list of Applicants where the Federal Government could select the best and the brightest from the list of Applicants. The Express Entry was supposed have applicants who had an approved Labour Market Impact Assessment (LMIA) and a valid job offer from an approved Canadian Employer. Under the Comprehensive Ranking System (CRS) candidates were award 600 points for having an approved job offer. Applicants would have achieved a point score of around 1,000 with the 600 points for having a valid offer of employment under the CRS. The provinces in Canada were also allowed to select Applicants according to their economic needs and these applicants that were selected through the respective provincial nominee programs by a province were awarded 600 points to be added to their score. Ontario also has a program where graduates from an Ontario University with a Master’s or who were in a PhD. program would be approved and awarded 600 points which virtually assured that they would be approved and provided with an invitation to apply. There is a quota that governs this graduate program. LABOUR MARKET IMPACT ASSESSMENTS Things did not go according to plan with Federal Express Entry. Very few Applicants were able to attai...
      08-14-2018, 12:50 PM
    • Article: USCIS Finalizes Unlawful Presence Policy Putting F, J and M Nonimmigrants In Great Jeopardy By Cyrus D. Mehta
      ImmigrationDaily
      USCIS Finalizes Unlawful Presence Policy Putting F, J and M Nonimmigrants In Great Jeopardy by Cyrus D. Mehta The USCIS finalized its unlawful presence policy for F, J and M nonimmigrants on August 9, 2018. The final policy makes no significant changes from the draft policy of May 10, 2018. My earlier blog noted the flaws in the draft policy, which persist in the final policy. The final policy incorrectly breaks down the distinction between violating status and being unlawfully present in the US. As of August 9, 2018, F, J and M nonimmigrants who have failed to maintain nonimmigrant status will start accruing unlawful presence. Individuals who have accrued more than 180 days of unlawful presence during a single stay, and then depart, may be subject to 3-year or 10-year bars to admission, depending on how much unlawful presence they accrued before they departed the United States. See INA § 212(a)(9)(B)(i)(I) & (II) . Individuals who have accrued a total period of more than one year of unlawful presence, whether in a single stay or during multiple stays in the United States, and who then reenter or attempt to reenter the United States without being admitted or paroled, are permanently inadmissible. See INA § 212(a)(9)(C)(i)(1). Prior to August 9, 2018, foreign students (F nonimmigrants) and exchange visitors (J nonimmigrants) who were admitted for, or present in the United States in, Duration of Status started accruing unlawful presence on the day after USCIS formally found a nonimmigrant status violation while adjudicating a request for another immigrant benefit or on the day after an immigration judge ordered the applicant excluded, deported, or removed (whether or not the decision was appealed), whichever came first. F and J nonimmigrants, and foreign vocational students (M nonimmigrants), who were admitted until a specific date certain accrued unlawful presence on the day after their Form I-94 expired, on the day after USCIS formally found a nonimmigrant status violation while adjudicating a request for another immigration benefit, or on the day after an immigration judge ordered the applicant excluded, deported, or removed (whether or not the decision was appealed), whichever came first. This will no longer be the case. Under the new policy effective August 9, 2018, any status violation will start the accrual of unlawful presence. The nonimmigrant will not be provided with any formal notice of a status violation, and any violation from the past that has been discovered would have already started the accrual of unlawful presence. According to the pol...
      08-14-2018, 10:51 AM
    Working...
    X