Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

245I OR SIMILAR LEGISLATION COMING UP??

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Currently there is no WAY to get legal once your I-94 has expired for at least 1 day. I think there should be a way to get legal in US but illegal aliens seeking to get legal are supposed to pay higher penalties and should not eligible to receive a public aid during their permanent residency stay. Currently permanent resident gets better benefits and higher public aid than US born citizens. LPR get easier to college and get easier and cheaper education. It is not fair to US born citizens whose parents worked hard and paid taxes that go mainly to LPR or refugees.

    Example: Senior LPR who has not worked in US any day gets maximum benefits and is the highest public charge (Medicare, public housing, pension (for what!?), welfare etc...). Did they deserve? LPR have not done anything to this country than why are they eligible for bigger public aid than US born citizens?!?

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Currently there is not get legal once your I-94 has expired at least 1 day. I think thre should be a way to get legal in US but illegal aliens seeking to get legal are supposed to pay higher penalties and should not eligible to receive a public aid during their permanent residency stay. Currently permanent residence get better benifints and higher publuc aid than US born citizens. LPR get easier to college and get easier and cheaper education. It is not fair to US bron citizens whose parents worked hard and paid taxes that go mainly to LPR or refugees.

    Example: Senior LPR who has not worked in US any day gets maximum benifits and is the highest public charge (medicare, public housing, pention (for waht!?), welfare etc...). Did they deserve? LPR have not done anything to this country than why are they eligible for bigger public aid than US born citizens?!?

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    For Lurcker:

    There will also be temporary legalization for whom
    can not prove more then 5 years, but less. Read the bill...

    For Acelaw:

    I've been here for over 10 years, legally and illegally. I'm on my second American Associate and I pay about $ 8.000,00 in taxes every year.
    I live good. My two kids already have their University credits paid upfront and are waiting for then to reach apropriate age. My kids, american kids, speak three languages and my son, 5 y.o., can read,and do algebra in two languages. We're not in Drugs though...

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    its bill should help for deportation immigrant who has USA citizen family live in USA its so importent there are at least 20.000 US citizen family with immigrant spouse or children its important for freedom

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Acelaw LOVES to cut and paste.(I'm sorry for the interuption )

    Leave a comment:


  • mohan
    replied
    You guys want this bill to Pass?
    First step is to write to your congressman to support this bill and sign in favour, then it will go to floor and then comments will ne presented .Based on comments chair person will decide. something will be deleted .something will be added, somthing will be modified and there will be change in all related LAWs .If it die without support it will not go thru.
    You need as many as congressman to support.
    Fax them, Email them, write them, phone them, bug them but get them on board. you should write why you want him to support the bill why its good for economy ? and it can be milestone for them for his career as congressman? If you justyfy enough he will be on board.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    how long could it take the bill to pass? months, years, decades?

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Profa:
    To answer your question, 245(i) ended on April 30 of 01. The law stated that if an illegal immigrant resided in the US since 1982, and filed before April 30, 2001 that he would be given citizenship at the cost of a $1,000 "you crossed the border illegally you bad boy" fine. And that's it. But like I said, you had to have been in the country since 1982 and it ended 2 years ago. Many people have tried to reactivate the bill, but to my knowledge, unsuccessfully. For more info visit:
    http://www.ilw.com/lawyers/colum_art...12-Pierce.shtm

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    BS. Due to 1987 legalization economy was grown and was growing over the ten years time. There was a good amount in capital reserves, unless this monkey came in picture and spent in by Tax rebates, spent by catching his personal enemyand doing his family chores, economy went down the drain. he made a butch to all american economy, don't blame what regan did . blame him, think about the day he hijack the election.
    gheck the statics and find out the capital reserve.
    Not the fault of illigals. if you think it was justified by using all the reserve to catch osama( which we never did), find weapon of Mass distruction in Iraq and Kill saddam( which is still out there and killed our soilders more then the war period, No WOMS found till), and all related thing one leads to other like homeland security, Military moderanization, commercial Air Plane security, etc. count that cost and tell us the truth.
    not that i,m saying that bring illigals from abroad, its better to tight the security along the border, but the people who are blend already to the community, they also cost us by not paying taxes, work under the table, and you cannot deport them all, moreover the cost of deportation will be way high that govt don't want to deport them.
    They still make their living. They don't pay taxes. they might take welfare according to Law.
    you have choice to change the Welfate Law which will effect to americans too OR
    the best Idea is to find a way to get legalized them and make them pay panelty once and then get them into the system so they start paying taxes.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Hmm - there was some sort of hiccup there - now back to the point at hand:

    Mohan, the date listed is 1/29/03, so 5 years back is 1/29/98. My husband arrived 2/14/98. Two questions:

    Since we are already well underway in our process via marriage petition, do we just stick with that or try to file under this as well once it is passed? Second, if I'm reading it right, it sounds like they would be willing to waive those 2 weeks since the overall goal is avoiding family hardship...

    Wow. This is very, very exciting stuff.

    Leave a comment:


  • acelaw
    replied
    YOU MIGHT WANT TO READ THIS TWICE SO YOU GET IT.
    After ten years in the United States, the average amnestied illegal alien had only a 7th grade education and an annual salary of less than $9,000 a year, $500 of which gets sent to his homeland. (Report on the Legalized Alien Population, Immigration and Naturalization Service, M-375, March 1992)
    THE CURRENY COST OF THIS IS 241 BILLION , AS THE CLOCK KEEPS TICKING UP THE EXPANSES EVERY YEAR , WE NEED ANOTHER ANMESTY LIKE WE NEED A HOLE IN OUR HEADS.YOU PAID US BACK WITH ANOTHER 8-11 MILLION, FAT CHANCE FOLKS.LIKE YOU COULD RELLY CARE BUT GO TO THE URL LISTED TO SEE THE CHARTS , THEY REALLY TELL THE STORY

    http://www.cis.org/articles/1997/back197.htm

    Summary

    The federal government began legalizing almost three million illegal aliens 10 years ago, on May 5, 1987, wary of the fiscal liabilities of opening more public assistance programs to a population with high needs and low taxpaying power.

    To ease the burden on the states, Washington closed some programs to the newly legalized for five years and reimbursed the states nearly $3.5 billion for some of their aid costs.

    Was the concern of Congress, the White House, and many state and local leaders justified? A review of the evidence a decade later confirms that legalization indeed carried a high fiscal price tag ÷ a total 10-year cost of $78.7 billion ÷ with the indirect and downstream costs still accumulating. In the ten-year period ending in 1996, the amnestied population:

    Accounted for an estimated $102.1 billion costs in current dollars in twenty federal, state, and local assistance programs and services.


    Paid total taxes of $78 billion, for a ten-year fiscal deficit of $24 billion in the public assistance and services portion of the budget.

    These are estimates of the direct costs only. There were, and will continue to be, significant indirect costs associated with the legalization of 2.7 million persons:

    Job Displacement: About 1.66 million legalized workers, 70 percent of them unskilled, displaced an average of 187,000 citizen and settled immigrant workers from jobs each year. Costs of public assistance to those displaced totaled $9.9 billion for the decade.


    Citizen Children: Women in the legalized population had an estimated 1.25 million U.S. citizen children between 1970 and 1996. Public education and three major public assistance programs to citizen children 18 and under amounted to $36.1 billion in the decade since amnesty.


    School Costs of Undocumented Children: Remaining in the households of legalized population, or joining them subsequently were some 400,000 illegal immigrants by 1996, up from 177,000 in 1987. Costs of providing public schooling for them was $8.56 billion.


    Five-Year Prospective Education Costs: Public education costs for U.S. citizen children of legalized aliens are projected to claim an additional $29.4 billion in the five years from 1997 to 2001, mostly from state and local budgets.


    Total direct and associated indirect costs of the legalized population after taxes reached $78.7 billion in current dollars for the decade.


    Large numbers of the legalized began to naturalize starting in 1995. According to the U.S. commission on Immigration Reform, 1.4 million spouses, children, and parents of amnestied aliens now on immigration waiting lists, will gain immediate entry as relatives of citizens. The costs of public education for the young people of this population and medical care and income support for the 900,000 aging parents is expected to be formidable.

    
    Measuring the Fallout: The Cost of the IRCA Amnesty After 10 Years
    The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) of 1986 set the stage for the country's first and so far only experiment with offering amnesty to a mass population of illegal aliens. The paperwork "” the actual adjudication of more than three million applications for legalization began a decade ago, on May 5, 1987.
    The choice of "Cinco de Mayo," an important Mexican holiday, as the starting date was a recognition that the amnesty would be a predominantly Latino affair. More than 85 percent of the 2.7 million ultimately legalized were from Latin American countries. Mexico and Central America alone supplied nearly 84 percent of all legalizations.
    Fears of Red Ink Justified
    Congress consistently showed concern about the high public assistance costs of legalizing this alien population in debates of immigration reform before the 1986 act. The educational deficiencies, poor language skills, and weak earning power of most of the amnesty population presented a particularly serious liability to state and local governments.
    The lawmakers' concern was justified. In the ten years since amnesty the legalized population has received direct government benefits in 20 programs worth $102.1 billion, but paid total taxes of only $78 billion. Indirect costs associated with the legalized population such as job displacement and assistance and services to their minor children had reached $54.6 billion by the end of 1996. The total fiscal deficit on all direct and indirect costs is for the decade is $78.7 billion.
    A Less Skilled, Less Competitive Population
    The amnestied population brought little human capital. By 1992, just 36 percent of amnestied adults reported being able to speak English well. The figure for the Mexican majority was only 27 percent.
    Only 28 percent of the legalized aliens over 24 were high school graduates, compared to 78 percent of native U.S. Hispanics; 55 percent of the amnesty adults had never eyen entered high school. Average wages for those legalized by the general amnesty working in private sector non-farm jobs in 1992 were nearly 16% lower than the national average.
    The gap was even greater for those entering under the farm worker amnesty. In 1989 they trailed the average wages of general amnesty workers by 12 to 14 percent.1 According to 1991 data, median yearly individual earnings for legalized workers, $12,670 a year, were 26 percent below those of all U.S.workers.2 Indeed, this study may overstate the earnings of the amnesty population, as most of the major studies and surveys consulted use data from the 60 percent of the legalized population that qualified through the general amnesty.
    Minor Washington Help for Major Unfunded Mandates
    Important to the ultimate compromise that cleared the way for the 1986 act was a federal commitment to bar legalized aliens for five years from use of certain cash assistance programs. Left by Congress to determine the programs to be closed, the Justice Department, under heavy pressure from immigrant and welfare lobbies, ended up barring only Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) and, partially, Food Stamps and Medicaid.
    The extensive conditions and exceptions attached to the ban nullified much of the potential savings. Legalized children remained eligible for the state-paid portion of AFDC, and citizen children in mixed households remained fully eligible. Medicaid remained available for many children, the aged, blind, disabled, the pregnant, and medical "emergencies." Food Stamps were still available to the aged, blind and disabled and to legalized farm workers.
    A major sweetener to the states in IRCA was the State Legalization Assistance Impact Assistance Grants (SLIAG), which reimbursed state and local governments for some of their costs of public assistance, education and public health services for the legalized. In seven years of operation up to SLIAG's end in 1994, state and local governments received a total of $3.5 billion in federal reimbursements, an average of $1,167 per eligible alien.
    SLIAG reimbursement was paltry compared to the massive needs of a highly dependent population of almost 3 million. Annual federal contributions for each eligible alien under SLIAG works out to $167 a year "” about 4 percent of the cost of educating just one alien child for one year in the public school system.
    The following table details the estimated costs of 20 major federal, state and local public assistance and service programs used during the past decade by formerly illegal aliens amnestied in 1987. Costs of services to U.S.-born and undocumented children are not included.
    
    Clearly, under existing ground-rules, some of the costs would have been incurred if there had been no legalization. Illegal aliens are eligible for public elementary and secondary education, Social Security, community development and social service grant-based programs, corrections, highway use (though some states do deny them driver's licenses) and, in some cases, housing. But most of the costs listed here could have been avoided if Washington, rather than grant amnesty in 1986, had chosen instead an aggressive program of removal of illegal aliens and tighter prohibitions on their use of social services.
    Revenues from Legalized Aliens: Low Incomes, Low Tax Payments
    Tax contributions depend in large part on the earnings of the taxpayer. While up-to-date information on the earnings and income, individual and family, of the legalized population is scanty, all evidence is that a decade after amnesty they lag seriously behind the general population. A Department of Labor study showed that the wage gap between legalized workers and all U.S. workers had shrunk only slightly between 1987 and 1982, from 18.6 percent to 15.7 percent.3
    For the 83 percent segment from Mexico and Central America, the gap between their average wages and the U.S. average actually increased between 1987 and 1992. Wage differentials alone understate the earnings gap. More revealing is that in 1991 the family incomes of the legalized were fully 46.6 percent lower than the average of all families. Worth asking is whether they are agents or victims in the growing earnings gap between U .S .Hispanics and the rest of the nation. Overall, the income of Hispanic households has dropped 14 percent between 1989 and 1995.
    The following table (Table 2) of the legalized population's 10-year tax payments shows lower proportions of contributions going to state and local income taxes than in the case of all taxpayers, and a higher proportion going to sales, excise and payroll taxes, that are more regressive and more difficult to evade. Methods used in estimating payments under each of these tax categories appears in the Appendix.
    
    Indirect Costs of the Legalized Population
    The legalized population has generated costs indirectly through displacement from jobs of U.S. residents, through the U.S. citizen children it creates, and through the undocumented minor children it brings to the United States.
    Job Displacement: Displacement occurs when the addition of unskilled workers to a labor market causes employed workers to be laid off, work shorter hours or fewer weeks a year, spend longer periods of time in job searches, move to another labor market, or drop out of the labor force altogether. Wage depression is also often a result of the influx of low-expectation workers into an area. This study does not attempt to measure the wage depressing effects of amnestied workers, though falling wages can often be the trigger for replacement of established workers with less demanding newcomers.
    This study estimates the initial displacement rate at 25 percent: the departure of 25 resident workers for every 100 low-skill new workers entering the labor market. However, it recognizes that the displacing effect of a specific cohort of immigrant workers wanes with time, as both they and the workers they displace acquire skills that make them more employable, and as the immigrant cohort shrinks because such factors as death, retirement or emigration. The appendix provides a more detailed explanation of estimating job displacement and its public sector costs. Table 3, which follows, summarizes the amnesty-related job displacement over the decade.
    
    Costs of U.S. Citizen Children of the Amnesty Population: Women in the legalized population are estimated to have given birth to 1.25 million children in the United States since 1970. This study considers the cost of the sub-population comprising those citizen children who were under 19 years old at some period between January 1, 1987 and December 31, 1996.
    Estimates of their numbers and ages depend on estimates of the year-to-year growth in the United States since 1970 the female illegal alien population that ultimately was legalized beginning in 1988. The Appendix and Exhibit 7 explain the method of counting in more detail.
    Like any other residents, these children receive a wide range of government services and assistance, either directly, such as public education, or through their families, such as publicly-assisted housing. Table 4 below summarizes the estimated costs of four major programs to citizen children.
    
    Costs of educating citizen children of legalized aliens will continue to rise into the next century, as both per-pupil costs and the number of children keeps on growing. Table 5 projects those education costs five years ahead into the new century.
    
    School Costs of Undocumented Children: Immigration and Naturalization Service surveys of applicants for legalization indicate that there were about 177,000 undocumented children with legalized adults at the beginning of the amnesty.
    Estimates derived from the number of spouses and children waiting in 1996 for visas to join legalized relatives suggests that about 404,000 undocumented children under 19 are already residing with legalized relatives, and some 54 percent of them would be using the public schools. The estimated costs for the decade of education for amnesty-related undocumented children are shown in Table 6.
    
    What Lessons, If Any?
    In ten years the United States has paid out $156.7 for the direct and indirect costs of the legalized population, but has received a little more than half that back in taxes "” $78 billion. That figure would be substantially higher if expressed in 1996 dollars. The total fiscal deficit of $78.7 billion amounts to a government subsidy to each member of the 1987 legalized population of $29,148. A subsidy of that amount would have enabled most amnesty seekers to establish a farm or business and remain in their home countries.
    Since the legalization, the pool of illegal immigrants in the country has continued to grow and now exceeds five million; the INS estimates that 420,000 new long-term illegal aliens arrive each year. The churches remain the most outspoken interest group now demanding a new amnesty. So far Congress and the Executive have shown little warmth toward the idea. This new realism is encouraging.
    In the debates leading up to the 1986 IRCA, a sizable minority in Congress opposed any amnesty until the border was under control. They were overridden. The results were that the amnesty gave legal status to some 300,000 to 400,000 who had entered the U.S. illegally and claimed it fraudulently.
    With weak border controls, legalization itself became a magnet for additional family reunifications, some of them encouraged by the more secure legal status of the anchor immigrant. Others came, and still come, because they saw the amnesty as a precedent and were convinced that the United States will eventually do it again.
    The heavy concentration of 53 percent of all legalized aliens and their growing families in one state "” California "” and their high cost to state and local governments, were major driving forces in the adoption of Proposition 187 in 1994. The fiscal drain also contributed to the congressional mood that culminated in the restrictive federal welfare reform and immigrant responsibility acts of 1996. Certainly, Washington in its present mood would be unlikely to enact an amnesty without far stronger and longer-lasting public assistance restrictions than those adopted in 1987.
    While another formal amnesty looks unlikely now, the country may expect continuing piecemeal, de facto amnesties by stealth, accomplished through selective enforcement, lenient regulations, and a relaxed deportation effort toward some categories. Meanwhile the creeping dissolution of the boundary lines between citizen and legal alien, and between legal and illegal alien, if unchanged, will make amnesty increasingly irrelevant.



    Measuring the Fallout: The Cost of the IRCA Amnesty After 10 Years

    The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) of 1986 set the stage for the country's first and so far only experiment with offering amnesty to a mass population of illegal aliens. The paperwork ÷ the actual adjudication of more than three million applications for legalization began a decade ago, on May 5, 1987.

    The choice of "Cinco de Mayo," an important Mexican holiday, as the starting date was a recognition that the amnesty would be a predominantly Latino affair. More than 85 percent of the 2.7 million ultimately legalized were from Latin American countries. Mexico and Central America alone supplied nearly 84 percent of all legalizations.

    Fears of Red Ink Justified

    What Lessons, If Any?

    In ten years the United States has paid out $156.7 for the! direct and indirect costs of the legalized population, but has received a little more than half that back in taxes ÷ $78 billion. That figure would be substantially higher if expressed in 1996 dollars. The total fiscal deficit of $78.7 billion amounts to a government subsidy to each member of the 1987 legalized population of $29,148. A subsidy of that amount would have enabled most amnesty seekers to establish a farm or business and remain in their home countries.

    Since the legalization, the pool of illegal immigrants in the country has continued to grow and now exceeds five million (now 13 million and growing) ; the INS estimates that 420,000 new long-term illegal aliens arrive each year. The churches remain the most outspoken interest group now demanding a new amnesty. So far Congress and the Executive have shown little warmth toward the idea. This new realism is encouraging.

    In the debates leading up to the 1986 IRCA, a sizable minority in Congress opposed any amnesty until the border was under control. They were overridden. The results were that the amnesty gave legal status to some 300,000 to 400,000 who had entered the U.S. illegally and claimed it fraudulently.

    With weak border controls, legalization itself became a magnet for additional family reunifications, some of them encouraged by the more secure legal status of the anchor immigrant. Others came, and still come, because they saw the amnesty as a precedent and were convinced that the United States will eventually do it again.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    There it goes...
    Thats constructive and aguible.
    The whole purpose of this board.

    Ok. Now lets go back to my 245 issue, anybody on
    that ? I appreciate evryones research on this,
    and please throw in your dylema, so we all learn

    thks again !

    Porfa

    Leave a comment:


  • mohan
    replied
    these are the cosponsors. write to your congressman respectively.

    COSPONSORS(17), ALPHABETICAL [followed by Cosponsors withdrawn]: (Sort: by date)
    Rep Acevedo-Vila, Anibal - 1/29/2003 [PR] Rep Baca, Joe - 4/8/2003 [CA-43]
    Rep Engel, Eliot L. - 5/13/2003 [NY-17] Rep Grijalva, Raul M. - 1/29/2003 [AZ-7]
    Rep Lee, Barbara - 6/10/2003 [CA-9] Rep McDermott, Jim - 4/1/2003 [WA-7]
    Rep Menendez, Robert - 4/1/2003 [NJ-13] Rep Napolitano, Grace F. - 1/29/2003 [CA-38]
    Rep Owens, Major R. - 2/26/2003 [NY-11] Rep Pastor, Ed - 1/29/2003 [AZ-4]
    Rep Rangel, Charles B. - 2/26/2003 [NY-15] Rep Rodriguez, Ciro - 3/25/2003 [TX-28]
    Rep Sanchez, Linda T. - 4/1/2003 [CA-39] Rep Schakowsky, Janice D. - 7/16/2003 [IL-9]
    Rep Serrano, Jose E. - 1/29/2003 [NY-16] Rep Solis, Hilda L. - 1/29/2003 [CA-32]
    Rep Velazquez, Nydia M. - 2/26/2003 [NY-12]

    Leave a comment:


  • mohan
    replied
    this is also related.

    RESTORATION OF FAIRNESS IN IMMIGRATION ACT OF 2003 -- HON. JOHN CONYERS, JR. (Extensions of Remarks - January 08, 2003)


    [Page: E32] GPO's PDF
    ---

    HON. JOHN CONYERS, JR.
    OF MICHIGAN
    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
    TUESDAY, JANUARY 7, 2003

    Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speak e r, I have introduced today the ``Restoration of Fairness in Immigration Act of 2003.''

    Since this nation's founding, more than 55 million immigrants from every continent have settled in the United States. Immigrants work hard to make ends meet and pay taxes every
    [Page: E33] GPO's PDF
    day. They have lived in this country for decades, married U.S. citizens, and raised their U.S.-citizen children. Laws that single these people out for no other reason than their status as immigrants violate their fundamental right to fair treatment.

    Yet, for too many years, Congress has witnessed a wave of anti-immigrant legislation, playing on our worst fears and prejudices. Since 1994, we have considered proposals to ban birthright citizenship, ban bilingual ballots, and slash family and employment based immigration, as well as to limit the number of asylees and refugees. In 1996 we passed laws denying legal residents the right to public benefits and denying immigrants a range of due process and fairness protections.

    We continue to see the tragedy of September 11th used as an excuse for even more assaults on the rights of immigrants. The Justice Department is now registering certain classes of immigrants and arresting them when law abiding immigrants arrive to register. The Department is holding deportation hearings in secret and detaining immigrants even after they are ordered released. The Attorney General is reducing both the independence and number of judges that handle the appeals of immigration cases. We are fending off legislation almost daily intended to reduce if not eliminate immigration to this country.

    Those who urge us to restrict the due process rights of immigrants forget the reason these rights were established in the first place. We grant due process rights to citizens and non-citizens alike; not out of some soft-hearted sentimentality, but because we believe that these rights form an important cornerstone to maintaining civilized society.

    The ``Restoration of Fairness in Immigration Act of 2003'' furthers this proud legacy by restoring our nation's long standing compassion for individuals seeking to build a better life and reunite with their families.

    The bill restores fairness to the immigration process by making sure that each person has a chance to have their case heard by a fair and impartial decision maker. No one here is looking to give immigrants a free ride, just a fair chance.

    Justice and fairness, as well as our own economic interests, demand no less.

    Leave a comment:


  • mohan
    replied
    H.R.440
    To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to adjust the status of certain aliens with longstanding ties to the United States to that of an alien lawfully admitted to permanent residence,... (Introduced in House)

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------



    SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Except as otherwise expressly provided, whenever in this Act an amendment or repeal is expressed in terms of an amendment to, or repeal of, a section or other provision, the reference shall be considered to be made to a section or other provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

    SEC. 3. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.

    (a) FINDINGS- The Congress finds that--

    (1) immigrants play a vital role in filling voids in our workforce and adding strength and stability to our economy;

    (2) the Labor Department estimates that the total number of jobs requiring only short-term training will increase from 53,200,000 in 2000 to 60,900,000 by 2010, a net increase of 7,700,000 jobs;

    (3) the number of workers currently available and able to fill jobs that require short-term training continues to fall because of an aging workforce and rising education levels;

    (4) the National Academy of Sciences reports that immigrant households paid $133,000,000,000 in direct taxes to Federal, State, and local governments in 1997, and that a typical immigrant and his or her descendants pay an estimated $80,000 more in taxes than they receive in local, State, and Federal benefits over their lifetimes;

    (5) separating families can be damaging to a household's financial and emotional well-being and efforts should be taken to keep husbands and wives, parents, and children together;

    (6) a mechanism that provides workers the opportunity for legal permanent residence in the United States would save the Federal Government billions of dollars each year in enforcement initiatives and allow thousands of government personnel to concentrate their efforts on safeguarding the homeland and fighting terrorism; and

    (7) men and women entering the United States to fill vacancies in the workforce and provide for their families are being exploited and injured in increasing numbers because the current system and market realities have crated a violent and lucrative human border smuggling operation.

    (b) PURPOSE- The purpose of this Act is to create a system that recognizes and reflects the enormous contributions immigrants make to our workforce and economy, helps hardworking families stay together, and protects our homeland by--

    (1) creating an improved system of accountability that allows critical resources and manpower to be redirected to fight the war on terror;

    (2) providing legal permanent residence to immigrants who have been living in the United States for 5 years or more;

    (3) granting conditional legal status and work authorization to all law-abiding immigrants living in the United States for less than 5 years; and

    (4) repealing provisions that bar certain alien from admission into the United States for a period of 3 to 10 years or that place aliens at risk of removal from the United States for having committed minor nonviolent offenses.

    TITLE I--LEGALIZATION OF STATUS

    SEC. 101. ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS OF CERTAIN 5-YEAR RESIDENTS TO THAT OF PERSON ADMITTED FOR LAWFUL PERMANENT RESIDENCE.

    (a) IN GENERAL- Chapter 5 of title II (8 U.S.C. 1255 et seq.) is amended by inserting after section 245A the following:

    `ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS OF CERTAIN 5-YEAR RESIDENTS TO THAT OF PERSON ADMITTED FOR LAWFUL PERMANENT RESIDENCE

    `SEC. 245B. (a) RESIDENT STATUS-

    `(1) IN GENERAL- The Attorney General shall adjust the status of an alien to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence if the alien meets the requirements of this subsection.

    `(2) TIMELY APPLICATION-

    `(A) DURING APPLICATION PERIOD- The alien must apply for such adjustment during the 24-month period beginning on the date final regulations are issued to carry out this section.

    `(B) INFORMATION INCLUDED IN APPLICATION- Each application under subparagraph (A) shall contain such information as the Attorney General may require, including information on living relatives of the applicant with respect to whom a petition for preference or other status may be filed by the applicant at any later date under section 204(a).

    `(3) CONTINUOUS 5-YEAR RESIDENCE-

    `(A) IN GENERAL-

    `(i) 5 years- The alien must establish continuous residence in the United States during the 5-year period ending on January 29, 2003, and through the date the application was filed.

    `(ii) TREATMENT OF CERTAIN ABSENCES- An alien shall not be considered to have lost continuous residence by reason of an absence from the United States permitted under subsection (b)(9).

    `(B) EXCHANGE VISITORS- If the alien was at any time a nonimmigrant exchange alien (as defined in section 101(a)(15)(J)), the alien must establish that the alien was not subject to the two-year foreign residence requirement of section 212(e) or has fulfilled that requirement or received a waiver thereof.

    `(4) CONTINUOUS PRESENCE-

    `(A) IN GENERAL- The alien must establish that the alien has been continuously physically present in the United States since January 29, 2003.

    `(B) TREATMENT OF BRIEF, CASUAL, AND INNOCENT ABSENCES- An alien shall not be considered to have failed to maintain continuous physical presence in the United States for purposes of subparagraph (A) by virtue of brief, casual, and innocent absences from the United States.

    `(C) ADMISSIONS- Nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing an alien to apply for admission to, or to be admitted to, the United States in order to apply for adjustment of status under this subsection.

    `(5) ADMISSIBLE AS IMMIGRANT- The alien must establish that the alien--

    `(A) is admissible to the United States as an immigrant, except as otherwise provided under subsection (c)(2);

    `(B) has not been convicted of any felony or three or more misdemeanors committed in the United States;

    `(C) has not assisted in the persecution of any person or persons on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular group, or political opinion;

    `(D) is registered or registering under the Military Selective Service Act, if the alien is required to be so registered; and

    `(E) has not received public cash assistance.

    `(b) APPLICATIONS FOR ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS-

    `(1) CONDITIONS FOR ACCEPTANCE OF APPLICATION- An application shall be accepted under this subsection upon a determination that the applicant is prima facie eligible for adjustment of status under subsection (a), which determination shall not be made before, at a minimum, the identity of the applicant has been checked against all appropriate electronic databases maintained by the Attorney General and by the Secretary of State and appropriate foreign entities or international law enforcement databases to determine any grounds on which the alien may be inadmissible to the United States that may not be waived under subsection (c)(2).

    `(2) TO WHOM MAY BE MADE-

    `(A) IN GENERAL- The Attorney General shall provide that applications for adjustment of status under subsection (a) may be filed--

    `(i) with the Attorney General; or

    `(ii) with a qualified designated entity, but only if the applicant consents to the forwarding of the application to the Attorney General.

    `(B) DEFINITION- As used in this section, the term `qualified designated entity' means an organization or person designated under paragraph (3).

    `(3) DESIGNATION OF QUALIFIED ENTITIES TO RECEIVE APPLICATIONS- For purposes of assisting in the program of legalization provided under this section, the Attorney General--

    `(A) shall designate qualified voluntary organizations and other qualified State, local, and community organizations; and

    `(B) may designate such other persons as the Attorney General determines are qualified and have substantial experience, demonstrated competence, and traditional long-term involvement in the preparation and submittal of applications for adjustment of status under section
    209 or 245, Public Law 89-732, or Public Law 95-145.


    `(4) TREATMENT OF APPLICATIONS BY DESIGNATED ENTITIES- Each qualified designated entity must agree to forward to the Attorney General applications filed with it in accordance with paragraph (2)(A)(ii) but not to forward to the Attorney General applications filed with it unless the applicant has consented to such forwarding. No such entity may make a determination required by this section to be made by the Attorney General.

    `(5) LIMITATION ON ACCESS TO INFORMATION- Files and records of qualified designated entities relating to an alien's seeking assistance or information with respect to filing an application under this section are confidential and the Attorney General and the Service shall not have access to such files or records relating to an alien without the consent of the alien.

    `(6) CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION-

    `(A) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in this paragraph, neither the Attorney General, nor any other official or employee of the Department of Justice, or bureau or agency thereof, may--

    `(i) use the information furnished by the applicant pursuant to an application filed under this section for any purpose other than to make a determination on the application, for enforcement of paragraph (7);

    `(ii) make any publication whereby the information furnished by any particular applicant can be identified; or

    `(iii) permit anyone other than the sworn officers and employees of the Department or bureau or agency or, with respect to applications filed with a designated entity, that designated entity, to examine individual applications.

    `(B) REQUIRED DISCLOSURES- The Attorney General shall provide the information furnished under this section, and any other information derived from such furnished information, to a duly recognized law enforcement entity in connection with a criminal investigation or prosecution, when such information is requested in writing by such entity, or to an official coroner for purposes of affirmatively identifying a deceased individual (whether or not such individual is deceased as a result of a crime).

    `(C) AUTHORIZED DISCLOSURES- The Attorney General may provide, in the Attorney General's discretion, for the furnishing of information furnished under this section in the same manner and circumstances as census information may be disclosed by the Secretary of Commerce under section 8 of title 13, United States Code.

    `(D) CONSTRUCTION-

    `(i) IN GENERAL- Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to limit the use, or release, for immigration enforcement purposes or law enforcement purposes of information contained in files or records of the Service pertaining to an application filed under this section, other than information furnished by an applicant pursuant to the application, or any other information derived from the application, that is not available from any other source.

    `(ii) CRIMINAL CONVICTIONS- Information concerning whether the applicant has at any time been convicted of a crime may be used or released for immigration enforcement or law enforcement purposes.

    `(E) CRIME- Whoever knowingly uses, publishes, or permits information to be examined in violation of this paragraph shall be fined not more than $10,000.

    `(7) PENALTIES FOR FALSE STATEMENTS IN APPLICATIONS- Whoever files an application for adjustment of status under this section and knowingly and willfully falsifies, misrepresents, conceals, or covers up a material fact or makes any false, fictitious, or fraudulent statements or representations, or makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry, shall be fined in accordance with title 18, United States Code, or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

    `(8) APPLICATION FEES-

    `(A) FEE SCHEDULE- The Attorney General shall provide for a schedule of fees to be charged for the filing of applications for adjustment under this section. Such fees shall not exceed the Attorney General's costs in adjudicating the applications.

    `(B) USE OF FEES- The Attorney General shall deposit payments received under this paragraph in a separate account and amounts in such account shall be available, without fiscal year limitation, to cover administrative and other expenses incurred in connection with the review of applications filed under this subsection.

    `(9) AUTHORIZED TRAVEL AND EMPLOYMENT- During the period after an alien has submitted an application under this subsection and before the Attorney General has rendered a decision to accept or reject such application, and during the period after the acceptance of an alien's application under this subsection and before the Attorney General has rendered a final decision granting or denying such application, the Attorney General--

    `(A) shall not remove the alien from the United States;

    `(B) shall, in accordance with regulations, permit the alien to return to the United States after such brief and casual trips abroad as reflect an intention on the part of the alien to adjust to lawful permanent resident status under subsection (a) and after brief temporary trips
    abroad occasioned by a family obligation involving an occurrence such as the illness or death of a close relative or other family need; and


    `(C) shall, not later than 90 days after the alien's application under this subsection has been accepted under paragraph (1), grant the alien authorization to engage in employment in the United States and provide to the alien an `employment authorized' endorsement or other appropriate work permit.

    `(c) WAIVER OF NUMERICAL LIMITATIONS AND CERTAIN GROUNDS FOR INADMISSIBILITY-

    `(1) NUMERICAL LIMITATIONS DO NOT APPLY- The numerical limitations of sections 201 and 202 shall not apply to the adjustment of aliens to lawful permanent resident status under subsection (a) or (g).

    `(2) TREATMENT OF GROUNDS FOR INADMISSIBILITY-

    `(A) INAPPLICABLE GROUNDS FOR INADMISSIBILITY- In the determination of an alien's admissibility under subsection (a), the provisions of paragraphs (4), (5), (6)(A), (6)(C), (6)(F), (6)(G), (7)(A), (9)(B), and (9)(C) of section 212(a) shall not apply.

    `(B) WAIVER OF GROUNDS FOR INADMISSIBILITY-

    `(i) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in clause (ii), the Attorney General may waive any other provision of section 212(a) in the case of individual aliens for humanitarian purposes, to assure family unity, or when it is otherwise in the public interest.

    `(ii) GROUNDS THAT MAY NOT BE WAIVED- The following provisions of section 212(a) may not be waived by the Attorney General under clause (i):

    `(I) Paragraphs (2)(A) and (2)(B) (relating to criminals).

    `(II) Paragraph (2)(C) (relating to drug offenses), except for so much of such paragraph as relates to a single offense of simple possession of 30 grams or less of marijuana.

    `(III) Paragraph (3) (relating to security and related grounds).

    `(C) MEDICAL EXAMINATION- The alien shall be required, at the alien's expense, to undergo such a medical examination (including a determination of immunization status) as is appropriate and conforms to generally accepted professional standards of medical practice.

    `(d) TEMPORARY STAY OF DEPORTATION AND WORK AUTHORIZATION BEFORE APPLICATION PERIOD- The Attorney General may provide that in the case of an alien who is apprehended before the beginning of the application period described in subsection (a)(2)(A) and who can establish a prima facie case of eligibility to have his status adjusted under subsection (a) or (g) (but for the fact that the alien may not apply for such adjustment until the beginning of such period), until the alien has had the opportunity during the first 180 days of the application period to complete the filing of an application for adjustment, the alien--

    `(1) may not be removed from the United States; and

    `(2) shall be granted authorization to engage in employment in the United States and be provided an `employment authorized' endorsement or other appropriate work permit.

    `(e) ADMINISTRATIVE AND JUDICIAL REVIEW-

    `(1) ADMINISTRATIVE AND JUDICIAL REVIEW- There shall be no administrative or judicial review of a determination respecting an application for adjustment of status under subsection (a) or (g) except in accordance with this subsection.

    `(2) ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW-

    `(A) SINGLE LEVEL OF ADMINISTRATIVE APPELLATE REVIEW- The Attorney General shall establish an appellate authority to provide for a single level of administrative appellate review of a determination described in paragraph (1).

    `(B) STANDARD FOR REVIEW- Such administrative appellate review shall be based solely upon the administrative record established at the time of the determination on the application and upon such additional or newly discovered evidence as may not have been available at the time of the determination.

    `(3) JUDICIAL REVIEW-

    `(A) LIMITATION TO REVIEW OF DEPORTATION- There shall be judicial review of such a denial only in the judicial review of an order of removal under section 242.

    `(B) STANDARD FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW- Such judicial review shall be based solely upon the administrative record established at the time of the review by the appellate authority and the findings of fact and determinations contained in such record shall be conclusive unless the applicant can establish abuse of discretion or that the findings are directly contrary to clear and convincing facts contained in the record considered as a whole.

    `(f) IMPLEMENTATION OF SECTION-

    `(1) REGULATIONS- The Attorney General, after consultation with the Committees on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives and of the Senate, shall prescribe--

    Actual Bill
    http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/...8lfEFSV:e1566:
    Findings;

    Leave a comment:

Sorry, you are not authorized to view this page

Home Page

Immigration Daily

Archives

Processing times

Immigration forms

Discussion board

Resources

Blogs

Twitter feed

Immigrant Nation

Attorney2Attorney

CLE Workshops

Immigration books

Advertise on ILW

EB-5

移民日报

About ILW.COM

Connect to us

Questions/Comments

SUBSCRIBE

Immigration Daily



Working...
X