Preview of President Obama’s immigration reform plan: nothing yet planned for STEM workers or Employment/Family Based Immigrants waiting in line
English: ‘USCIS To Issue Redesigned Green Card’ (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
USA Today’s preview of the President’s Comprehensive Immigration Reform (CIR) plan indicates that it presently includes proposals for increased border security funding, a reworking of the employment verification protocol and, most importantly, an eight year legalization path for undocumented immigrants along with criminal checks, exams and back taxes. Unfortunately, no word yet on relief for legal immigrants in the queue or STEM/Professional Workers.
Undocumented immigrants would wait eight (8) years to get a green card – the later of 1. eight years from the date the Immigration Reform passes or 2. until all legal immigrants currently waiting in line receive a green card (as the President had previously announced). This would essentially mean the maximum wait time would be eight years, as plenty of legal immigrants are currently waiting up to 24 years for a family based green card (F4 Preference: U.S. Citizen filing for a brother/sister born in the Philippines) or 11 years for an employment based green card (EB3 Preference – U.S. Employer filing for an Indian skilled/professional worker).
While no one begrudges relief for undocumented immigrants, Comprehensive Immigration Reform will not be “Comprehensive” unless additional visa numbers are added for the family and employment based immigrants waiting patiently in line.
Related articles
- President Obama’s immigration reform resembles Sen. Marco Rubio’s plan (miamiherald.com)
- Obama’s backup plan: Maximum 13-year wait for citizenship (news.yahoo.com)
Senator Marco Rubio criticized by fellow Republican Senator David Vitter on Immigration Reform
Louisiana Senator David Vitter. An official photograph from his Senate website (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
On Laura Ingraham’s radio show, Senator David Vitter (R-LA) called out Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) on the latter’s support of the Bipartisan Framework for Comprehensive Immigration Reform. In doing so, Sen. Vitter has identified himself as one of the few vestigial remnants within the old Republican Party that cannot follow the simple math lesson taught by the recent Presidential Election:
Anti-Immigration Reform Platform=less than 40% of the Latino vote, where >40% of the Latino vote=White House.
Or put more simply:
Anti-Immigration Reform Platform=Bad
While I do agree that any Republican primary could still be won by an Anti-IR candidate, we have clearly witnessed that it is simply not possible for said candidate to “reset” or “restate” this position in time to win the Presidential Election
Excerpt from the radio show:
House Hearing Failed to Focus on Several Key Issues Crucial to Successful Immigration Reform
POLITICO Pro’s Deep Dive: Immigration, Technology and the 113th Congress (Photo credit: Cognizant Technology Solutions)
American Immigration Lawyers Association
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Wednesday, February 06, 2013
Contact:
George Tzamaras or Belle Woods
202-507-7649 – 202-507-7675
gtzamaras@aila.org – bwoods@aila.org
Washington, DC – Yesterday, the House Judiciary Committee held its first substantive hearing of the 113th Congress on “America’s Immigration System: Opportunities for Legal Immigration and Enforcement of Laws against Illegal Immigration.” While holding this hearing underscored the importance of immigration reform to our nation’s continued economic growth and future prosperity, for the most part the discussion failed to focus on some key issues that are vital to successful immigration reform.
“The solution to the tangled, unwieldy and dysfunctional immigration system is not a piecemeal approach, despite what several of the lawmakers and witnesses said yesterday. Instead, we need to create an immigration system that is balanced and inclusive,” said AILA President Laura Lichter. She continued, “At the hearing, we heard about the importance of border security and need to make our borders more secure, despite the fact that there have been billions of dollars invested and that the benchmarks established by each of the Senate immigration reform bills of 2006, 2007 and 2010 have been essentially met or exceeded. With immigration enforcement occurring at unprecedented levels, our country must address the needs of the 11 million undocumented residents, their families, and employers.”
Ms. Lichter noted, “Keeping all families strong and united is a core national value and interest, and we must continue our historic commitment to those values. We should not increase employment visas at the expense of reducing visas in family categories. Our immigration system must be flexible and capable of meeting the needs of American businesses and families.
“One important topic that didn’t seem to get much attention at the hearing was that we are currently denying basic due process to millions of people who live in the U.S. Long-time residents are subject to deportation even when they have strong ties to the community, pay taxes, and desperately want to become full-fledged members of our society. Many are eligible to apply for legal status, but because they lived in the U.S. for a period of time that was unauthorized they are now barred from fixing their status. Judges often have no ability to weigh the individual circumstances of the case while low-level officials often act as judge and jury, and the federal courts have been denied the power to review most agency decisions. Congress should restore fairness and flexibility to our system by authorizing immigration judges and officials to exercise discretion in considering the individual circumstances of each case,” she concluded.
AILA encourages lawmakers to commit to informed discussions that will shape a common sense immigration policy that helps to rebuild America’s economy, recognizes the contributions of immigrants, keeps families together, and strengthens America’s security.
###
The American Immigration Lawyers Association is the national association of immigration lawyers established to promote justice, advocate for fair and reasonable immigration law and policy, advance the quality of immigration and nationality law and practice, and enhance the professional development of its members.
Related articles
- Gallup: Key immigration-reform proposals hold broad support (thehill.com)
- Immigration Reform: Five Years Later, What’s New?. (greatriversofhope.wordpress.com)
- Rep. Conyers at Immigration Hearing: ‘I Hope Nobody Uses the Term Illegal Immigrants Here Today’ (nationalreview.com)
- Barack Obama to meet unions and immigration lobbyists in support of his reform plans (irishcentral.com)
- Obama to lobby for immigration reform amid citizenship dispute (Reuters) (newsdaily.com)
Ashwin Sharma interviewed about Immigration Reforms proposed by Sen. Rubio and the President
Immigration Attorney Ashwin Sharma was interviewed on the Channel 4’s Morning Show on the subject of the Gang of 8’s Bipartisan Framework for Comprehensive Immigration Reform versus President Obama’s proposal, and on the necessity of Immigration Reform in the country and within the Republican Party.
Controversial STEM Jobs Act Proposes to transfer 55,000 visas from Diversity Visa Lottery to Masters and Ph.D. Graduates in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics
Eligible countries for the Diversity Visa Lottery (Credit: Wikipedia)
The controversial H.R. 6429, otherwise known as the “STEM Jobs Act” (Rep. Smith, R-TX & 68 cosponsors) proposes to create new “V” visa categories for families awaiting reunification as well as visas for Ph.D and Masters graduates in the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields. The Act would, however, eliminate the (poorly implemented) Diversity Visa Lottery program that makes green cards available to certain individuals from countries with low rates of immigration to the United States. The STEM Jobs Act has made it through the House, but will be almost certainly defeated in the Senate, where Democrats hold both a majority and a soft spot for the Lottery.
The White House, despite having repeatedly highlighted the substantial deficiency the nation faces in the STEM fields, has quickly declared its opposition to the STEM Jobs Act, indicating that it “does not support narrowly tailored proposals that do not meet the President’s long-term objectives with respect to comprehensive immigration reform.” In other words, the Administration wants immigration reform on an ‘all or nothing’ basis. This is more than a little puzzling given that during the latest election cycle, President Obama repeatedly raised the issue of the many difficult decisions necessitated in the short-term so as to invigorate the U.S. economy. This is not one of those difficult decisions.
Video Answers: Do Canadian citizens need an I-94 to enter the U.S.?
Video Answers: Do Canadian citizens need an I-94 to enter the U.S.?
President Obama optimistic on Comprehensive Immigration Reform
US President Barack Obama (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
An LA Times article covering the President’s optimism on passing Comprehensive Immigration Reform. The President indicated that several Republicans have also acknowledged the need for CIR (ostensibly to court the Latino vote for future elections).
“Obama outlined what he would like to see included in an immigration reform package but did not answer a question about whether he would send a draft of the legislation to Congress to consider.”
Video Answers: Do I need a special permit or license to open an office or store in the United States?
Do I need a special permit or license to open an office or store in the United States?
Video Answer to “What is the definition of an immigrant for immigration law?”
Video Answer to “What is the definition of an immigrant for immigration law?”
Attorney Sharma’s PolicyMic Article: Infosys Visa Fraud: Judge Dismisses Whistleblower Suit
By Ashwin Sharma
Earlier this week, Judge Thompson of federal court for the Middle District of Alabama rejected all claims brought by Jack Palmer against his employer, Infosys. Palmer claimed to have been harassed and retaliated against after making allegations that Infosys’ massive B-1 visa program was used fraudulently in place of more appropriate visas.
By way of background, when these allegations first arose in early 2011, I wrote about the strong likelihood that Infosys may have been engaging in a perfectly legal action under existing U.S. immigration law on B-1 visas. Subsequently, Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA), apparently motivated by Palmer’s Testimony, addressed a strongly worded but poorly researched memo to Secretary Hillary Clinton in which he demanded a complete review of the B-1 visa. His request was inexplicably granted, and the resultant changes substantially injured the economic interests of U.S. organizations engaged in international trade, countermanded congressional intent on the subject, and escalated denials for B-1 applicants at U.S. Consulates, especially those in the ‘B-1 in lieu of H-1B’ category.
Returning to the court’s decision: It was interesting to note that despite all the recent attention on various states’ interpretation of federal immigration law, Judge Thompson avoided the topic entirely: “Palmer’s brief spends an inordinate amount of time addressing whether Infosys engaged in visa fraud. To be clear, this litigation does not concern whether Infosys violated American immigration law. Rather, Palmer’s suit rises and falls on a simple inquiry: whether he has created a genuine dispute of material fact on his state-law claims.”
The U.S. Immigration Law Blog by Ashwin Sharma 
Cato Institute Study: Poor Immigrants Use Public Benefits at a Lower Rate than Poor Native-Born Citizens
Cato Institute (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Cato Institute’s new report entitled, “Poor Immigrants Use Public Benefits at a Lower Rate than Poor Native Born Citizens” has concluded that low income immigrants utilize public benefits at lower rates than their American born counterparts. The study also indicates that the cost of this lower level of utilization and benefits to immigrants means that it costs less to provide public benefits to “non-citizen immigrants and most naturalized immigrants” is lower than for those born in America.
Related articles