The US Immigration News Blog by Ashwin Sharma is BlawgSearch’s all-time second most popular Immigration Blog
02/27/2009
I am pleased to note that this blog ranks an all-time 120th overall among thousands of Law Blogs on BlawgSearch.com and 2nd all-time overall for Immigration Law Blogs, right behind “ImmigrationProf Blog” by UC Davis School of Law Professor Kevin R. Johnson, Professor Bill O. Hing and Professor Jennifer Chacón.
The Closing of the American Border: Terrorism, Immigration and Security Since 9/11: A book written by Edward Alden, Former Washington bureau chief of the Financial Times
09/17/2008
A book written by Edward Alden,
Former Washington bureau chief of the Financial Times was published yesterday by HarperCollins. It will be of great interest
to readers of this blog. The book is entitled The Closing of the American
Border: Terrorism, Immigration and Security Since 9/11. It tells the
story of the internal battles within the Bush administration after 9/11
over how far to go in tightening U.S. borders in what was often a misguided
effort to keep out terrorists. That story is interspersed with many personal
tales of innocent people who got caught up in the labryinth of post-9/11
restrictions. Mr. Alden also makes a number of larger points about the damage that
has been done to the U.S. economy and to the country’s standing in the
world by the heavy-handed way in which border security measures have been
implemented.
The book comes out of reporting the author did
after 9/11 while he was the Washington Bureau Chief for the Financial Times,
and well as more than a year of further research after he joined the Council
on Foreign Relations.
The book is available in bookstores,
and on Amazon at http://www.amazon.com/Closing-American-Border-Terrorism-Immigration/dp/0061558397/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1221575965&sr=1-2
You can also get a preview of some of
the chapters at: http://browseinside.harpercollins.com/index.aspx?isbn13=9780061558399
Product Description from Amazon.com
“On September 10, 2001, the United States was the most open country
in the world. But in the aftermath of the worst terrorist attacks on
American soil, the U.S. government began to close its borders in an
effort to fight terrorism. The Bush administration’s goal was to build
new lines of defense against terrorists without stifling the flow of
people and ideas from abroad that has helped build the world’s most
dynamic economy. Unfortunately, it didn’t work out that way.
The Closing of the American Border
is based on extensive interviews with the Bush administration officials
charged with securing the border after 9/11, including former secretary
of homeland security Tom Ridge and former secretary of state Colin
Powell, and with many of the innocent people whose lives have been
upended by the new border security and visa rules. A pediatric heart
surgeon from Pakistan is stuck in Karachi for nearly a year, awaiting
the security review that would allow him to return to the United States
to take up a prestigious post at UCLA Medical Center. A brilliant
Sudanese scientist, working tirelessly to cure one of the worst
diseases of the developing world, loses years of valuable research when
he is detained in Brazil after attending an academic conference on
behalf of an American university.
Edward Alden goes behind the
scenes to show how an administration that appeared united in the
aftermath of the attacks was racked by internal disagreements over how
to balance security and openness. The result is a striking and
compelling assessment of the dangers faced by a nation that cuts itself
off from the rest of the world, making it increasingly difficult for
others to travel, live, and work here, and depriving itself of its most
persuasive argument against its international critics—the example of
what it has achieved at home.”
More H-1B Visas, More American Jobs, A Better Economy
Via The Heritage Foundation
Excellent article on the H-1B visa and its effects on the US economy, by James Sherk (Bradley Fellow in Labor Policy) and Guinevere Nell (Research Programmer in the Center for Data Analysis), both of The Heritage Foundation.
Answering a reader’s comment regarding NY driver’s licenses
“Interesting article by Clark Kent Ervin discusses the benefits of the controversial (thanks to Lou Dobbs) NY plan to provide Driver’s Licenses for undocumented people.”
The reader comment is in bold, my response is in italics.
The reference to Lou Dobbs is troubling. He simply brought the issue to the public’s attention and the public predictably opposed it. Californians already booted ex-Governor Gray Davis from office because he too tried to give licenses to illegal aliens. Of course New Yorkers are going to react the same way.
The most troubling thing about the open-border crowd, however, is their attempt to advance pro-illegal alien policies in secret. Mr. Sharma seems upset that Dobbs shed light on the subject. The Bush Administration was upset that the recent amnesty was actually debated; recall that supporting senators didn’t want to put it through committee. Same with the DREAM Act.
This is an issue of the elites trying to avoid public input. Dobbs wants public input. For anyone to lament increased public input is troubling.
– JD
—–
To set your mind at ease, I would like to formally declare that I am not upset at Dobbs and I don’t lament public input. Though you appear to be doubley “troubled” by my public input. The real issue is that the idea to grant such licenses is not far-fetched, nor unique to New York, nor even a new idea. Several states currently grant Driver’s Licenses to undocumented people on a regular and systematic basis. And they have been doing it for years, openly, bereft of special attention. What people like Lou Dobbs (likeable fellow) do though, is largely enflame the passions of people who have 8 minutes of CNN or FOX NEWS scholarship on the subject. Why are some people so hysterical about the New York driver’s license issue when as of 2006 the following states did not have a Legal Presence Requirement?
Alaska, Delaware, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Utah, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Texas.
– Ashwin
Myths, lies and books about immigration
Via Peoples Weekly World
Book reviews on “The Politics of Immigration: Questions and Answers,” by Jane Guskin
and David L. Wilson, and “‘They Take Our Jobs’ and 20 Other Myths About
Immigration,” by Aviva Chomsky, each of which dispel immigration myths.
Microsoft skips the US, opens development center in Canada as a result of US immigration limitations
Microsoft is skipping the US and opening a development center in Vancouver, Canada as a result of increasingly illogical and outdated US immigration laws.
An excerpt from the Infoweek article:
“If Microsoft, or IBM or any other tech giant for that matter, can’t bring workers onto its home turf, it will simply put them in some other more immigration-friendly country. A broadband connection is usually all that’s needed to facilitate communication. Or, in the case of Microsoft’s Vancouver center, an eight-lane highway.
The question Congress now needs to consider is this: Do visa limits do more harm than good to the U.S. economy?…Wouldn’t it be better for Washington state if the workers that Microsoft plans to place in Canada because of “immigration issues” were employed locally, paying state taxes and spending in local shops?
It appears that the biggest beneficiary of the Senate’s failure to pass an immigration bill may be Canada. Is that really what Congress intended?”
Sending Flowers to USCIS to Protest the July Visa Bulletin Fiasco
07/11/2007
Immigration Voice has advocated the sending of flowers en masse to USCIS Director Gonzalez, with the following message, “Kindly do not return our I-485 petitions in July and honor the original DOS visa bulletin [ first-name last-name ] – An employment based immigrant.”
The Times of India is calling it an example of “Gandhigiri”.
Hopefully this will not just be another useless expense for those affected; most people have already spent several thousand dollars in anticipation of the current visa bulletin in July only to have relief withdrawn at the last possible moment.
Press Release – Rep. Lofgren Issues Statement on Updated Visa Bulletin
07/03/2007
Via Rep Lofgren’s Website
Press Release
Rep. Lofgren Issues Statement on Updated Visa Bulletin
July 3, 2007
Washington, D.C. – Representative Zoe Lofgren (D-San Jose) today issued the following statement in response to the State Department’s update of the July Visa Bulletin and the subsequent rejection of applications for adjustment of status by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS).
I’m deeply concerned by today’s updating of the July Visa Bulletin by the Departments of State and Homeland Security. By taking this unprecedented mid-month update, the Departments of State and Homeland Security have seriously undermined the stability and predictability of U.S. immigration law. Thousands of individuals and businesses rely on the monthly bulletins to prepare and plan for the submission of applications. In addition, thousands of dollars in legal fees and other application related expenses are incurred in preparation for filing applications based on the these monthly bulletins.
This update sets a terrible precedent, and undermines our nation’s efforts to foster legal and orderly immigration.
Rep. Lofgren recently sent Secretaries Rice and Chertoff letters asking them to reconsider any mid-month updates of the July Visa Bulletin.
The complete text of both letters is below:
Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren is serving her seventh term in Congress representing most of the City of San Jose and Santa Clara County. She serves as Chair of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law. She also Chairs the House Administration Subcommittee on Elections and serves on the House Homeland Security Committee. Congresswoman Lofgren is Chair of the California Democratic Congressional Delegation consisting of 34 Democratic members of the U.S. House of Representatives from California.
The Honorable Michael Chertoff
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Dear Secretary Chertoff:
I am writing with regard to a time sensitive matter. It has been brought to my attention that you are considering the rejection of adjustment of status applications for several employment-based immigration preference categories, despite the fact that the published July Visa Bulletin shows that visas for these categories are available. I am concerned that such action may violate the law and could threaten the integrity of our immigration system. In addition, such an act may cause the Department of Homeland Security to incur substantial litigation costs.
As you know, pursuant to your own regulations, “[i]f the applicant [for adjustment of status] is a preference alien, the current Department of State Bureau of Consular Affairs Visa Bulletin will be consulted to determine whether an immigrant visa is immediately available.” 8 CFR 245.1(g). Thus, when the Visa Bulletin shows that visas for most preference categories are available for applicants with priority dates on or before the listed priority date, your Department must accept those adjustment of status applications for adjudication.
I understand that you are considering the return of applications for adjustment of status as early as today despite the fact that the published July Visa Bulletin would allow for their acceptance. As you may know, thousands of businesses have acted in reliance upon the July Visa Bulletin and 8 CFR 245.1(g), just as they have done in previous months for several years now. I have been told that many U.S. businesses have taken the necessary steps to prepare and file applications for adjustment of status, including thousands of dollars of expenses to engage counsel, flights for employees to quickly obtain necessary documents and medical exams for the applications, cancellation of business and holiday travel, changes in family plans to ensure families are in the proper location, etc. Moreover, some have already submitted such applications for receipt today, July 2, 2007, in reliance upon the law and precedent. Changing course now could result in the loss of thousands of dollars already expended by businesses and individuals, and more importantly, threaten the integrity and predictability of our immigration system.
Moreover, I am very concerned that you may choose to reject adjustment of status applications while the Visa Bulletin shows that immigrant visas are available. Such an action may spawn litigation that I understand many are considering and preparing to undertake.
As you know, I have raised concern over the recent decision to raise immigration application fees by, on average, over 80%. One of the justifications provided for such a large increase was litigation costs.
While some costs of litigation are certainly justified in defense of the Government, I would have serious concern over litigation to defend the Department of Homeland Security from a decision to reject applications of adjustment of status in light of the existing regulations and the July Visa Bulletin showing most employment-based visas as available.
Before you take any action to reject adjustment of status applications, I would greatly appreciate a timely response to this letter and a meeting to discuss the matter. In your response, I would like an explanation of the reasons you are considering for taking action contrary to 8 CFR 245.1(g), years of precedent, and the potential for litigation which could cost the Department a substantial amount it cannot spare for litigation at this time.
Thank you for your timely consideration of this very important matter.
Zoe Lofgren
Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, & International Law
The Honorable Condoleezza Rice
U.S. Department of State
2201 C Street, NW
Dear Secretary Rice:
I am writing with regard to a time sensitive matter. It has been brought to my attention that the Department of State may revise its July Visa Bulletin published on June 13, 2007, to reflect a retrogression or unavailability of immigrant visas in several employment-based immigration categories. I am concerned about the effect such unprecedented action will have on the predictability and reliability of our legal immigration system and on those who rely upon it.
As you know, pursuant to your authority to control the numerical limitations of visas as described in 22 CFR 42.51, each month your Department issues a Visa Bulletin that is consulted by hundreds of thousands of U.S. businesses seeking immigrant visas to determine whether an immigrant visa is immediately available for their employees.
On June 13, your Department announced in its Visa Bulletin for July 2007 that all employment-based categories (except for the “Other Workers” category) for immigrant visas will be “current,” meaning that U.S. businesses going through the lengthy and backlogged immigrant visa or “green card” process can, throughout July, file adjustment of status applications. Your regulations at 22 CFR 42.51 allow them to rely on and use such information. Historically, they have relied on such information knowing that when they prepare and file such applications, they will be accepted and adjudicated.
I have been told, however, that your Department is seriously considering a revision of the July Bulletin as early as today or tomorrow that would retrogress the visas available in various employment categories. This unprecedented action would result in the termination of thousands of applications by U.S. businesses who have prepared and are ready to file applications on behalf of their employees pursuant to the June 13th publication of your Department’s July Visa Bulletin.
It is my understanding that such a revision, coming in the same month in which the bulletin is issued, would be contrary to years of practice in which revisions or adjustments to the availability of immigrant visa numbers are made in the following month of before the beginning of the month, not in the same month individuals and businesses have begun preparing and submitting applications for adjustment of status. I am concerned that the extraordinary action of revising a bulletin mid-month may be taken without serious consideration of the effect on precedence, stability in immigration law, and predictability for those who rely upon the Visa Bulletin.
Furthermore, it is my understanding that thousands of businesses have acted in reliance upon the July Visa Bulletin, just as they have done with previous Bulletins. I have been told that, based upon the July Visa Bulletin, many businesses have taken the necessary steps to prepare for the submission of applications for adjustment of status, including thousands of dollars of legal expenses, flights for employees to quickly obtain necessary documents and medical exams for the applications, cancellation of business and holiday travel, changes in family plans to ensure families are in the proper location, etc.
Before any decision is made to revise the July Visa Bulletin, I would greatly appreciate a timely response to this letter and a meeting to discuss the matter. In your response, I would like an explanation of the reason you chose to issue a visa bulletin listing most employment-based immigrant visas as current, when just a few weeks later—after thousands of employers and employees have acted in reliance upon the bulletin, but before applications could be submitted based upon the bulletin—you are now considering a change of course. I would also appreciate an explanation of whether and in what ways you have considered the serious ramifications of such action upon the integrity, stability, and predictability of our immigration law.
Thank you for your timely consideration of this very important matter.
Zoe Lofgren
Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, & International Law
The U.S. Immigration Law Blog by Ashwin Sharma 
Why Skilled Immigrants Are Leaving the U.S.
BusinessWeek Online Article – Via Yahoo News
By Vivek Wadhwa
This is an extremely interesting article by Mr. Wadhwa which highlights the affects of the broken US Immigration System. Years of backlogs and additional unnecessary delays owing to overworked and untrained service center staff, out-of-date regulations and laws are creating a vacuum within the highest ranks of this nation’s academic, business and professional sectors.
Excerpts:
“At the end of 2006, more than 1 million skilled professionals (engineers, scientists, doctors, researchers) and their families were in line for a yearly allotment of only 120,000 permanent resident visas. The wait time for some people ran longer than a decade. In the meantime, these workers were trapped in “immigration limbo.” If they changed jobs or even took a promotion, they risked being pushed to the back of the permanent residency queue.
…
Why should we care? Because immigrants are critical to the country’s long-term economic health. Despite the fact that they constitute only 12% of the U.S. population, immigrants have started 52% of Silicon Valley‘s technology companies and contributed to more than 25% of our global patents. They make up 24% of the U.S. science and engineering workforce holding bachelor’s degrees and 47% of science and engineering workers who have PhDs.”
Read Article