US Eases Immigration Rules for Burmese Refugees
Via VOANews.com
05/05/2006
The Bush administration has authorized a
waiver of immigration rules to allow the resettlement in the United
States of several thousand Burmese refugees of the Karen ethnic group,
now housed in Thailand. The decision came amid reports of a new exodus
of refugees after renewed fighting between Burmese forces and Karen
rebels.
The decision confirmed by the State Department could mean a new life
in the United States for several thousand Karen refugees who have
languished, in some case for years, in an encampment in Thailand near
the Burmese border.
Until a decision by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice Wednesday to
invoke a special waver of resettlement rules, the refugees had been
barred from coming to the United States because of their support for
the Karen National Union (KNU), a rebel group fighting the Burmese
government.
The Karen refugees had been snagged by a provision of the
anti-terrorist U.S. Patriot Act and a related law barring entry to
anyone providing material support to a terrorist or armed rebel group.
At a news briefing, State Department Spokesman Sean McCormack said
as many as 9,300 Karen refugees at the Tham Hin camp in Thailand could
be affected by the decision, but that actual combatants or members of
the Karen National Union would not be eligible:
“This waiver is not a guarantee that individuals might be resettled
in the United States, but merely something that allows the Department
of Homeland Security to consider them as potentially eligible, even
though they might be considered under the law to have provided what is
referred to as material support, which is the term under the law,” he
said.
The waiver granted by Secretary Rice is narrowly focused and does
not apply to other Karen refugees in the region, or refugees of other
nationalities whose bids to enter the United States have been blocked
by the same technicalities.
Refugee advocate groups, including Refugees International, have
welcomed the U.S. waiver as a breakthrough, albeit a limited one.
News reports say several thousand more Karen refugees have fled
Burma for Thailand in recent weeks after renewed fighting between
forces of the Burmese military junta and the rebels.
The Karen have been fighting the Rangoon government for decades in a
quest for autonomy and the new fighting came despite a truce accord
reached two years ago.
The New York-based group Human Rights Watch said Wednesday the U.N.
Security Council should urgently respond to the Burmese military drive,
which it said has displaced more than 10,000 villagers since November.
Human Rights Watch said Burmese civilians seeking refuge in Thailand
have been put at grave risk by landmines planted by the Burmese army
along the border.
USCIS Notifies Employers of Delays in Issuing and Mailing of Receipt Notices for I-129s and I-140s
On April 27, 2006, USCIS issued a Public Notice providing details about its
delay in issuing and mailing receipt notices for Forms I-129 and I-140 filed in
early April 2006. Citing an “unusually large volume of receipts” at the Service
Centers during the first week of April, USCIS explained that it is taking longer
than expected to enter cases into the system. Depending on the type of case, it
may take USCIS up to two weeks to generate and mail receipt notices. USCIS
promised that, although the “Notice Date” will reflect the date the receipt
notice was actually generated, the original receipt date will be honored and
recorded on the receipt notice under “Received Date.” USCIS also stated that it
is addressing the problem and expects to be current by mid-May.
H-1B Cap Count as of 04/24/2006
H-1B Cap Count as of 04/24/2006
Via USCIS
|
Cap |
Beneficiaries Approved |
Beneficiaries Pending |
Beneficiary Target 1 |
Total |
Date of Last Count |
|
|
H-1B |
58,200 2 |
3,907 |
8,806 |
61,000 |
12,713 |
4/24/2006 |
|
H-1B Advance Degree Exemption |
20,000 |
898 |
1,460 |
21,000 |
2,358 |
4/24/2006 |
|
H-1B (FY 06) |
58,200 |
—— |
—— |
—— |
Cap Reached |
8/10/2005 |
|
H-1B Advance Degree Exemption (FY 06) |
20,000 |
—— |
—— |
—— |
Cap Reached |
1/17/2006 |
Asians get more vocal in immigration debate
05/01/2006
In New York City’s Chinatown, Asian immigrants
held hands and formed a “human chain” at 12:16 p.m. Monday to mark the
day, Dec. 16, when the House of Representatives voted for a bill that
would make illegal immigrants felons.
In Philadelphia, Korean activists held a forum
on immigration. In Los Angeles, they encouraged employers to let
workers take the day off to join a march down Wilshire Boulevard.
Latinos have been the face of recent immigration
rallies, but Asians and Asian-Americans are increasingly joining the
protests or taking their own approach. They are speaking out on issues
such as reducing the wait times for visas for family members or green
cards for skilled workers.
“This is a turning point for them. More Asians
are joining into this larger civil rights movement,” says Pueng Vongs,
an editor at New America Media, a consortium of ethnic news media.
“Our community has been fairly slow to mobilize,
but we are definitely working together now,” says Daniel Huang, policy
advocate for the Asian Pacific American Legal Center. He says Spanish
radio stations helped Latinos organize quickly for rallies, but varying
languages mean it’s harder to reach Asians that way.
People of Asian ancestry were 13% of the 11.1
million undocumented population in a 2005 Census survey, says Jeffrey
Passel, senior research associate at the Pew Hispanic Center. Four
countries — China, India, the Philippines and South Korea — account for
most of them.
Immigration: Senate is trying again.
Via The Chicago Sun Times
05/02/2006
Will the Senate get back on track on immigration?
from Senate Dems
REID: DEMOCRATS STAND READY TO PASS COMPREHENSVIE IMMIGRATION REFORM
“Every day we wait to fix our immigration system, the situation gets worse.”
Washington, DC—Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid today delivered
the following Floor remarks on the need to pass comprehensive
immigration reform in the Senate. Democrats are urging Republicans to
put aside their internal party differences and work for comprehensive
reform for America’s broken immigration system.
Remarks of Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid
As prepared
Tuesday, May 2, 2006
Mr. President, yesterday marked another day of peaceful, dignified
rallies across the country in support of comprehensive immigration
reform. These rallies underscore the need for Congress to pass a strong
and effective immigration bill this year.
Last Friday, I had the privilege of discussing this subject with
Roger Cardinal Mahony, the Archbishop of Los Angeles, and Theodore
Cardinal McCarrick, the Archbishop of Washington.
It was a very moving meeting for me, and I appreciated the chance to
speak with two such kind and thoughtful men. Both of them have been
tremendous leaders on the issue of immigration reform. We all agreed
that it is of the utmost importance for Congress to move forward with
an immigration bill as soon as possible.
Last week, I also met with President Bush at the White House, along
with many of my Democratic and Republican colleagues. As I said after
that meeting, I am not in the habit of patting the President on the
back, but he really deserved credit for calling us together and for
hosting a good, bipartisan meeting.
I made clear to the President that Senators on this side of the
aisle are committed to comprehensive immigration reform. I pledged to
work with him and the Majority Leader in a bipartisan way on this
important issue.
Every day we wait to fix our immigration system, the situation gets worse.
As I have said many times, our current immigration system is broken.
We must have a cohesive, coordinated effort to strengthen border
security, create legal mechanisms for American companies to hire
essential temporary employees and encourage the 11 million undocumented
immigrants in the United States to come out of the shadows. We need to
know who these people are and make sure they are productive,
law-abiding, tax-paying members of the community. We must also have
proper employer sanction enforcement, so that employers do not hire
undocumented individuals with impunity.
But the question remains: how will we move forward here in the Senate?
Over the Easter recess, I sent a letter to the Majority Leader
urging him to bring the immigration bill back before the full Senate at
the earliest opportunity. I expressed my view that the Senate should
resume the immigration debate immediately after we complete work on the
supplemental appropriations bill.
The supplemental bill will be completed this week. Therefore, I
continue to believe that such a schedule makes sense. Few other issues
are as important, and no other issue is as ripe for Senate debate.
Surely we can pass a good comprehensive immigration bill before the
Memorial Day recess.
To accomplish that goal, I want to reach an agreement with the
Majority Leader on a process for completing debate. There are two basic
elements to such an agreement: the number of amendments and an
understanding about how the bill will be handled in Conference with the
House.
Opponents have filed hundreds of amendments to weaken or kill the
compromise bill. We are prepared to debate and vote on some of those
amendments, but there must be some finite number. I have made clear to
the Majority Leader that I am flexible about the number we will vote
on.
Earlier I suggested three amendments per side. Today, I suggest we
vote on ten amendments per side, for a total of twenty amendments. With
potential second degree amendments, we could have as many as forty
votes. I am willing to have that many votes if that is what it takes to
move this legislation forward. But this bill will take many days to
finish.
As important as the number of amendments is what happens in Conference.
With Republicans in the House having passed a bill making all
undocumented immigrants felons, with the House majority leader publicly
dismissing the Senate’s bill, and with the House Judiciary Committee
Chairman serving as the sponsor of the felon provision in the House
legislation, it is imperative we have a firm agreement on who the
conference participants will be before moving to the bill.
I have said in the past the most equitable membership would consist
of the Democrats and Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee.
However, if the distinguished Majority leader has an alternate proposal
that will protect the completion of a fair Conference, I will listen,
as will Senator Leahy the ranking member of Judiciary.
We cannot allow the House to hijack this bill and destroy the Senate
Judiciary Committee’s bipartisan work. Under these unusual
circumstances, conference protections are indispensable.
There are many kinds of possible conference protections. But the
most straightforward way is to appoint the members of the Judiciary
Committee as conferees. They understand this complex subject, and they
are committed to the Senate approach. The Committee ratio is 10-8, so
the majority has a two vote margin.
The concept of sending the full committee to conference is hardly
unprecedented. The Appropriations Committee and the Armed Services
Committee typically send their entire membership to conference. The
Judiciary Committee has done this on prior occasions. One way or
another, it is crucial that this bill be the product of bipartisan
consensus.
I hope that we can work together toward adequate assurances that the
Senate’s delicate compromise will not be filibustered by amendments or
blown up in conference.
Immigration reform is vital to America’s national security. We have
an obligation to act, and I look forward to the Senate resuming this
important debate in the very near future.
Thousands march for immigrant rights
VIA CNN.com
Schools, businesses feel impact as students, workers walk out
CHICAGO, Illinois (CNN) — Kids skipped school. Men and women walked off their jobs. Others didn’t bother going to work. Businesses shut down for lack of patrons or employees.
Throngs of immigrants and advocates took to the streets of many U.S.
cities Monday to protest proposed immigration laws, and the sites
represented a veritable where’s where of American metropolises.
Among
them: New York; Washington; Las Vegas, Nevada; Miami, Florida; Chicago,
Illinois; Los Angeles, California; San Francisco, California; Atlanta,
Georgia; Denver, Colorado; Phoenix, Arizona; New Orleans, Louisiana;
and Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
US braces for ‘Day Without Immigrants’
Via Yahoo.com
05/01/2006
LOS ANGELES (AFP) – The United States was braced for a “Day Without
Immigrants,” a nationwide strike and business boycott organized by
illegal immigrants and their supporters in a bid to push through
immigration reform that would legalize the presence of an estimated 12
million undocumented workers in the country.
Many Hispanic groups urged their members to forgo work, school and
shopping on Monday to demonstrate illegal immigrants’ economic and
political power.
“We have to make our presence felt through our absence,” organizers
from the nation’s most influential Hispanic groups said Friday at their
final press conference before the mass boycott.
But Republican Representative Tom Tancredo, chairman of the House
Immigration Reform Caucus, said that a day without illegal aliens would
be “a boon to the American taxpayer,” who wouldnt pay for the
tremendous social service costs of persons living in the country
illegally.
He said the net cost to the federal government of public services
provided to illegal aliens in 2005 was estimated to be 11.7 billion
dollars, or 3,080 dollars per each American household.
Monday is a normal work day in the United States, where Labor Day is
celebrated in September instead of May 1. However, it might look more
like a May Day abroad, complete with demonstrations called by labor
unions and workers’ rights advocates.
The demonstration was planned by a network representing some 40 million Hispanics.
“We’ve unequivocally called on all families to participate in the Great
American Boycott and the marches — and that translates into not going
to work, not going to school, not shopping and not selling,” Nativo
Lopez, president of the Mexican-American Political Association, said.
However, city and school officials and the “We Are America” coalition,
which includes the Roman Catholic Church, are encouraging people to go
to school and work and then join the demonstrations later in the day.
The division over the way the protests should be carried out is as evident among political leaders as it is among unions.
With G.O.P. in Command, Senate Votes to Shift Money From Iraq War to Border Security
Via NYTimes.com
WASHINGTON, April 26 — Prodded by Republicans, the Senate voted on Wednesday to trim President Bush’s financing request for the Iraq war by $1.9 billion and to use that money to improve border security.
The vote, 59 to 39, was on an amendment to an emergency spending
measure and was cast on a day of difficult choices for Republicans.
They passed up opportunities to strip the bill of provisions unrelated
to its primary purpose of paying for hurricane relief and military
operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The action was unusual
because Republicans have been adamant that the war is the highest
priority and have been quick to attack Democrats who show signs of
wavering on the issue. Three Republicans voted against the shift in
money, seven Democrats voted for it and two Democrats did not vote.
With
Mr. Bush promising to veto the $106.5 billion spending measure unless
it is pared to less than $95 billion, senators who wanted to improve
border security, a cause that grassroots conservatives have declared a
main goal this election year, felt they had to do so without letting
the underlying bill expand.
“This bill is about national defense,
especially relative to terrorism,” said Senator Judd Gregg, the New
Hampshire Republican who is the amendment’s lead sponsor. “And, yes,
fighting the war in Iraq is critical to this war on terrorism. Fighting
the war in Afghanistan is critical to this war on terrorism. But I have
to think equally important is making sure that our borders are secure.”
Fear of raids grips S. Fla. immigrant workers
Rumors about random raids by immigration agents are sparking widespread fear among unauthorized immigrants in South Florida.
Panic gripped South Florida’s undocumented immigrant communities as
rumors spread throughout the nation that immigration agents were
conducting random raids — detaining people on the streets, in stores,
restaurants and shopping malls.
From Homestead to Key Biscayne and Aventura — and from Pembroke
Pines to Lake Worth — potentially thousands of undocumented immigrants
are staying home this week. Many fear venturing onto the streets lest
they wind up deported, even though no evidence surfaced of widespread
sweeps.
Business managers throughout South Florida said they saw a dramatic
drop in the number of immigrant workers showing up at work sites since
Monday. In Homestead, where anywhere from 200 to 300 workers wait on a
street corner near Krome Avenue most every morning to be picked up by
employers, only a couple dozen were spotted Tuesday.
Mario, an undocumented Guatemalan in Homestead who would not give
his last name, said he was afraid to go out since reports of
immigration raids began over the weekend.
”I try to go find work in the morning and then go straight home
after I finish working,” he said. “Before, I’d go and do some
shopping or get together with friends after work.”
Dan Shaw, president and chief executive officer of Associated
Builders and Contractors in Coconut Creek, said more than 100 immigrant
construction workers had left work sites in Broward and other parts of
South Florida and not returned since rumors began.
”This scared off immigrants at multiple work sites,” Shaw said.
But even though immigration agents conduct operations, and detain
foreign nationals every day, they generally go after people wanted for
crimes or those who have evaded deportation orders. Immigration
authorities insisted they do not engage in random raids.
In fact, there was no evidence that any of the raids people called
The Miami Herald about over the last three days actually happened.
The rumors appeared to be just that.
Nevertheless, they spread alarm through South Florida’s tense
immigrant communities — just days before planned marches and rallies,
and a proposed immigrant work stoppage on Monday, as part of
International Workers Day.
Some immigrant rights activists worried that the loud, national
debate over undocumented workers’ future had left many nervous and
easily spooked.
Opponents, they suggested, could be spreading rumors of raids just to scare workers away from political events.
”I honestly think it’s psychological warfare in retaliation against
immigrants in anticipation of the May 1 protests,” said Jonathan Fried
of WeCount! in Homestead.
Raid rumors were not limited to South Florida.
Homeland Security officials said they were flooded with telephone
calls around the country from the media and the public about the
alleged random raids by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents.
”ICE agents conduct operations every single day in locations around
the country,” said Jamie Zuieback, an ICE spokeswoman in Washington.
“Operations are not random sweeps, but carefully planned enforcement
actions that result from investigative leads and intelligence.”
U.S. officials said they believe the rumors started after Homeland
Security Secretary Michael Chertoff last week announced a crackdown
against employers who hire undocumented foreign workers.
Chertoff’s announcement came coupled with the disclosure that ICE
agents detained 1,187 unauthorized immigrants in 26 states, including
38 in Tampa.
Then on Monday, ICE officials in Miami announced the biggest sweep
of criminal and undocumented immigrants in Florida in a decade.
A total of 183 people, including 43 convicted criminals, were detained in the Miami area and three other cities.
Most of the migrants, 130, had evaded deportation orders — but
another 53 were detained because they were nearby when immigration
officials found the alleged absconders.
Immigrant boycott aims to “close” US cities
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) – Pro-immigration activists say a
nationwide boycott and marches planned for May 1 will flood
Americas’s streets with millions of Latinos to demand amnesty
for illegal immigrants and shake the ground under Congress as
it tackles reform.
But while such a massive turnout could make for the largest
protests since the civil rights era of the 1960s, not all
Latinos, nor their leaders, were comfortable with such
militancy — fearing a backlash in Middle America.
“There will be 2 to 3 million people hitting the streets in
Los Angeles alone. We’re going to close down Los Angeles,
Chicago, New York, Tucson, Phoenix, Fresno,” said Jorge
Rodriguez, a union official who helped organize earlier rallies
credited with rattling Congress as it debates the issue.
Immigration has split Congress, the Republican Party and
public opinion. Conservatives want the estimated 12 million
illegal immigrants to be classified as felons and a fence built
along the Mexican border.
Others, including President George W. Bush, want a guest
worker program and a path to citizenship. Most agree some
reform is needed to stem the flow of poor to the world’s
biggest economy.
“We want full amnesty, full legalization for anybody who is
here (illegally),” Rodriguez said. “That is the message that is
going to be played out across the country on May 1.”
Organizers of the May Day marches, which have strong
support from big labor and the Roman Catholic church, vow that
America’s major cities will grind to a halt and its economy
will stagger as Latinos walk off their jobs and skip school.
Teachers’ unions in major cities have said children should
not be punished for walking out of class. A spokeswoman for the
Los Angeles Unified School District said school principals had
been told that they should not try to keep students in class
but instead should walk with the children to help keep order.
In Chicago, Catholic priests have helped organize protests,
sending information to all 375 parishes in the archdiocese.
CRITICS CHARGE INTIMIDATION
Chicago activists predict that the demonstrations will draw
300,000 people — compared to the 100,000 who turned out on
March 10 to clog downtown streets. Minneapolis-based
agribusiness giant Cargill Inc. said it will close seven
meatpacking plants so workers can participate.
In New York, leaders of the May 1 Coalition said a growing
number of businesses had pledged to close and allow their
workers to attend a rally in Manhattan’s Union Square.
But some Latinos have expressed ambivalence about the
boycott and marches, saying they could stir up anti-immigrant
sentiment amid an incendiary atmosphere surrounding the issue.
Cardinal Roger Mahony of the Los Angeles archdiocese, who
has emerged as an outspoken champion of immigrant rights —
even calling on priests to defy laws aimed at those who would
help illegals — has lobbied against a walkout.
“Personally I believe we can make May 1st a ‘win-win’ day
here in Southern California,” Mahony said in a statement. “Go
to work, go to school, and then join thousands of us at a major
rally afterward.”
Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, the son of a
Mexican immigrant who has long fought for immigrant rights, has
taken a low profile on the issue. A Villaraigosa spokeswoman
said the mayor expects protesters to be “lawful and respectful”
and wants children to stay in school.
Critics have accused pro-immigrant leaders of stirring up
uninformed young Latinos by telling them that their parents
were in imminent danger of being deported and accuse them of
trying to bully Congress.
“It’s intimidation,” Jim Gilchrist, founder of the
Minuteman volunteer border patrol group, said of the May 1
events. “It’s intimidation when a million people march down
main streets in our major cities under the Mexican flag.”
“It angers the people you are trying to impress,” he said.
“This will backfire just like the Mexican flag parades
backfired.”
Immigrant protest may leave New Yorkers hungry
Via Yahoo.com
NEW YORK (Reuters) – Anybody who’s eaten at one of New
York’s many big-name restaurants may like to think the food was
lovingly prepared by a celebrity chef. The reality is it was
more likely made by a poorly-paid Mexican immigrant.
If all the city’s immigrants walk off the job in a
nationwide protest called for Monday against proposals to crack
down on illegal immigration, many New Yorkers will go hungry,
or at least be forced to eat at home for a change.
Anthony Bourdain, author of “Kitchen Confidential” and
executive chef at Brasserie Les Halles, said immigrant workers
are an often invisible presence in New York restaurants.
“I really think there’s a resistance to having a
mestizo-looking guy walking around the dining room in a French
restaurant,” said Bourdain, whose own chef de cuisine, is a
naturalized Mexican.
“Every time you read a restaurant review they always say
‘The chef has a sure hand with the spices.’ If the chef’s name
is widely known, the chances are it’s really some Mexican guy
who has a sure hand with the spices,” Bourdain said.
Sean Meade, assistant manager of Colors, an upscale
Manhattan restaurant cooperatively-owned by a group of
immigrant workers whose colleagues were killed in a top floor
restaurant in the attack on the World Trade Center, said
immigrants frequently climb the ladder from dishwasher to
busboy to cook.
“They do a lot of the work that many American citizens do
not want to do because they think it’s beneath them, they fill
that void,” said Meade.
US agriculture and immigration tied in a knot
Via Yahoo.com
04/26/2006
CHICAGO (Reuters) – In the debate about how tough the
United States should be on millions of illegal immigrants, Big
Agriculture is warning Americans that the $12 trillion U.S.
economy could be forced to go on a big diet if illegal
immigrants are restricted.
Immigrants have flooded into many industries in what President George W. Bush calls “the jobs Americans don’t want.”
Agriculture is a prime area where mostly Mexican immigrants
have sent down roots so strong that companies may no longer be
able to operate without them.
“To find and deport workers who are in the country right
now would throw a wrench into the economy of the United States
that would leave people in disbelief,” said Dave Ray, spokesman
for the American Meat Institute, a meat industry group.
“What makes food so cheap in the United States is because
we do things efficiently and if you wiped out that efficiency
by creating an unnecessary labor shortage, it essentially will
foist a high food price on to consumers,” Ray said.
The meat production unit of privately held Cargill Inc on
Tuesday said it decided to close down operations at five U.S.
beef plants and two hog plants next Monday.
Cargill, the No. 2 U.S. beef producer and No. 3 pork
producer, will close so employees can participate in mass
rallies scheduled across the country to protest a bill passed
by the U.S. House of Representatives that would erect a fence
along much of the U.S.-Mexico border and declare illegal
immigrants felons.
“We talked with employees and many wanted to participate in
the May 1 activities. Because we share the concerns of many
employees … we felt it was appropriate to change the
schedules,” said Cargill spokesman Mark Klein.
Similar rallies on April 10 cut U.S. meat production at top
meat producer Tyson Foods Inc. Industry officials say all U.S.
slaughterhouses and meat processing plants depend on immigrant
labor.
“What we’ve seen with the mobility of labor, particularly
from Mexico, has enabled that industry to stay in the United
States,” Chris Hurt, agricultural economist at Purdue
University, said of meat processing. “It’s entirely possible
that if labor had not been mobile that parts of the industry
would have to moved to other countries like Mexico.”
MEAT PRODUCTION, BUT MUCH MORE
But production in the multibillion-dollar meat industry,
from farms to processing, is only the tip of the iceberg when
it comes to immigrant labor in U.S. agriculture.
World Perspectives, an agricultural consulting firm,
estimated that 40 percent of all immigrants in the United
States work in agriculture. Of that, 25 to 75 percent of U.S.
farm laborers are “fraudulently documented,” it says.
From crop production to grain and oilseed processing to
turf farms, horticulture and lawn services, Hispanic labor —
legal and illegal — permeates the U.S. countryside.
A recent study by the American Farm Bureau Federation said
a crackdown on illegal immigrant labor could cause production
losses in U.S. agriculture of $5 billion to $9 billion in the
first one to three years and up to $12 billion over four or
more years.
Most of the immediate effects would be seen in the fruit
and vegetable sector but problems would be felt everywhere in
the crop and animal-feeding sectors, notably in the Midwest.
“It’s not just a fruit-and-vegetable California problem.
This affects anyone who owns the machines, custom harvests —
virtually these jobs are a 100 percent migrant work force,”
said Austin Perez, policy director for the AFB.
“You find the highest illegal immigration counties are now
in the Midwest,” Perez added.
AFB says that despite heavy use of machines to plant and
harvest the largest U.S. crops — corn, soybeans and wheat —
Midwestern farmers often rely on cheap labor to fill positions
that family members once performed.
The size, concentration and tight margins of industrial
farm production have fueled a continuous demand for cheap labor
to keep the pipeline running.
Dairy operations from a few hundred to many thousands of
cows are round-the-clock milking and feeding jobs. Massive hog
and poultry barns now housing thousands of animals in close
quarters also require constant labor and monitoring in what can
be harsh, unsanitary and dangerous conditions.
So “raids” by the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization
Service (INS) can be disruptive, analysts said.
“A few years ago INS did a raid in Nebraska and it messed
up the cattle market. It drove live cattle prices lower —
$1.50 to $2 per hundredweight because there weren’t enough
employees in packing plants to run the cattle through,” said
World Perspectives analyst Dave Juday.
The U.S. Immigration Law Blog by Ashwin Sharma 
The Victim’s Advocate Story on my clients’ experiences with the Violence Against Women Act
victim (Photo credit: rosmary)
05/03/2006
Via The Victim’s Advocate
I was interviewed recently by Ms. Shaw, a reporter for the Jacksonville, FL based newspaper, “Victim’s Advocate” for a piece on the Violence Against Women Act (“VAWA”). By way of background, VAWA assists battered immigrants to escape domestic violence or abuse inflicted by a US Citizen or Legal Permanent Resident (Green Card Holder) spouse, abuse that the immigrant victim often feels must be submitted to in order to remain in the US due to their derivative immigrant status.
All three of my VAWA clients were able to utilize the protections of the Act, two of them being men, among the first cases in this country provided protection under the Violence Against Women Act under our Constitution’s “Equal Protection” clause. The cover story linked to below discusses two of my clients “Anjuli” and “Rizwan” (my clients’ names remain confidential) for the May issue of the paper.
To win a VAWA case, the victim must provide evidence of their good moral character, their good faith intent in entering into marriage, and proof of their abuse. Upon successful adjudication of the VAWA petition, battered immigrant spouses (and their children) may remain in the US in an independent immigration status and eventually gain work authorization, permanent residency and citizenship.
Unfortunately, knowledge of the protections offered by VAWA is not widespread.
PDF’s of the story and the content are below:
Different Faces of Domestic Violence – PDF Files
Coverpage/Page 1
Page 2
Page 3
Different Faces of Domestic Violence – Text
“If he ordered me, I had to do it.”
By Shirley Shaw
Anjuli’s introduction to her new life in America came when she stepped off the plane in San Francisco. “You carry your own luggage; I don’t want my parents to pick it up,” her new husband, Sanjay, instructed. Although she could barely lift the heavy suitcases containing her dowry, all her clothes, gifts for her new family, toiletries and other items, she dutifully obeyed. “If he ordered me, I had to do it,” she explains. When they reached their home, Anjuli’s mother-in-law told her that, beginning the next day, she would work from morning to evening, preparing all their meals, fixing lunches, cleaning house, doing laundry – in short, she was their new domestic servant. “You don’t need much sleep,”
her husband told her.
For the educated, privileged daughter of an upper middle class family in New Delhi, India, herself accustomed to being attended by servants, this was a shocking turn of events. But she was a submissive young woman, reared in her culture to be an obedient wife, and she accepted her new role without question.
Anjuli* is a beautiful, shy young woman in her mid-20s who earned her MBA just before she came to the States. Since she had not married and there were no immediate prospects, her father, Ajay Dube, placed her “resume” on a “data bio” website, hoping to attract a suitable husband from Australia, India or the United States. When Sanjay’s father, Anoop Shah, responded from California, the two men began exchanging information about their respective children, families and histories.
* Names have been changed.
After many emails and phone calls, Shah asked his brother (who still resides in India) to visit Anjuli and her family and report his impression of the young woman. That being favorable, the Shahs arranged a 10-day trip to meet Anjuli who, if she pleased them, would become Sanjay’s bride. In the Dubes’ home, Sanjay and Anjuli met and the young woman was evaluated by the Shahs, including a second visit to ensure she had no visible infirmities. The two families agreed upon the marriage, details, terms and conditions were finalized, and the elaborate marriage, celebrated by hundreds of relatives from both families, took place within four days of the Shahs’ arrival in India.
Following a brief two-day honeymoon (during which the groom left Anjuli alone for hours and returned very drunk), Sanjay and his parents completed all the paperwork for her emigration to America and returned to California. Anjuli followed three months later.
Domestic servitude and abuse
Verbal and emotional abuse began immediately as the Shahs made clear Anjuli’s role in their home. Arising at 5 a.m., she prepared breakfast for Sanjay and his mother who went to work early. Then her two sisters-in-law came down for their meal, followed later by the father. If she was ever late, she was severely scolded. Because Anjuli was a few pounds overweight, the family ridiculed her for being “fat” and Mrs. Shah limited her food intake to very small amounts. She was always hungry.
By the second day, Sanjay began slapping her for various “reasons,” and when she fled their room to escape his abuse,
her mother-in-law hit her and pushed her back inside the bedroom. They insisted she sleep on the floor since her new
husband wasn’t accustomed to sleeping with someone else in his bed.
To save money on hot water and toiletries, the male Shahs bathed at the YMCA where Sanjay was a member, and they wanted Anjuli to do the same – they didn’t plan to spend a dime on her. Shortly after her arrival, Mr. Shah took her to the Y and insisted she get on the treadmill to help her lose weight. Never having seen this equipment, Anjuli begged him to let her watch how it operated, but he made her stand on the treads, then he turned the machine on “high” and left to take his bath. She tumbled from the treadmill, crushing several bones in her left hand.
Bystanders came to her rescue, but when her father-in-law finally returned, he refused to allow ambulance transport to the hospital because of the expense. He said he would take her himself, but when they were in his car, he slapped and hit her for allowing the accident to occur.
At the hospital Mrs. Shah vehemently protested when the doctors had to cut off the many bracelets on Anjuli’s arm so they could treat her injuries. Medical personnel forcibly removed the older woman from the room and commiserated with Anjuli for having to live with that “mad” person. The ER physician gave her medication with instructions to take it with food, and he gave her a cookie. Before she could eat it, Mrs. Shah ate the cookie herself and, consequently, Anjuli fainted from the effect of ingesting medicine on an empty stomach.
Although she now had a castimmobilizing her left hand, Anjuli still had to perform all her household duties, and the starvation, the physical and mental abuse continued. Finally, she tried to get help by calling 911, but the Shahs hung up the phone each time. When police came the next day to check out the calls, the family locked Anjuli in her room and assured the officers no one had called from there, that everything was fine.
All this time, she had had no contact with her family and they assumed she was adjusting to her new life. Shah called Dube periodically to report that Anjuli was happy and doing well. Mercifully, her ordeal was shortened when her husband
and his family decided they wanted more money and sent her to Jacksonville to get $20,000 from her brother who lives here. When the Dubes learned of Anjuli’s harsh treatment and abuse, they filed an incident report with JSO. She did not
return to San Francisco, and her marriage has since been annulled.
Exploiting other cultures
Anjuli’s story of abuse and domestic violence rises basically from a culture Americans find difficult to understand. The
Shahs obtained a “servant” by exploiting the Indian custom of arranged marriages and kept control over her by threatening to have her
deported. She knew if she returned to India under those circumstances, she would be disgraced and no longer “marketable” as a wife. Very important in her culture is the woman’s right to marry once in her life, and this was taken away from her.
But whatever the means of control, domestic abuse follows the same patterns: fear, intimidation, isolation, humiliation and physical harm to the victims. Those working in shelters for abused women generally consider the three main reasons victims remain in their situations to be the three F’s: fear, finances and fondness. Add to those reasons the fear of deportation and/or the cultural stigma of divorce for women of other countries, and it’s easy to see their terrible dilemmas.
Ashwin Sharma is a local Immigration attorney who moved to Jacksonville several years ago. His practice mainly deals with employment-based immigration law but one of his goals is to educate spouses – men and women – about their rights under VAWA (Violence Against Women Act), part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. (See sidebar for more information.)
While domestic violence and spousal abuse affect a large portion of our population, Sharma believes an even larger percentage of immigrant women may suffer abuse, although there are no accurate statistics available. These women are more likely to endure the abuse, for various reasons:
•women in many other countries already have a subservient role in society and may be accustomed to ill treatment (according to our standards)
•they have a strong concept of family and will sacrifice for the good of the family
•they will tolerate abuse here rather than return home and be a “social pariah and a burden” on their family
•they may have no alternative, nowhere else to go.
Sharma says, “The advent of the Internet has increased the public’s general knowledge about the opportunity of establishing a marital relationship with someone located abroad. Most people exercising this option have no ill intent; however, there are those individuals who want to meet a stereotypically ‘subservient’ woman, someone who will not look them in the eye and will back down in a conflict. These men will do anything to maintain this power.”
Mail order brides
Several “mail-order bride” websites contain such statements as, “American women have priced themselves out of the market for getting married,” or “we don’t want women from here – they have lost their femininity,” or “we must go to other countries and find real women.”
Sharma speculates that some men who solicit mail order brides may be repeatedly exploiting this “legal” way to seek out their prey, exploit the woman, terminate the relationship, and start over again. The cost is relatively minimal – $1000-2000 for a plane ticket and perhaps another $1500 or so for the Immigration paperwork – and the man has a domestic servant, a sex slave, for as long as the arrangement suits him, or until the woman discovers the protections of VAWA.
“The US citizen and fiancé have 90 days to get married,” Sharma explains, “and if he decides not to marry her within that allotted time, he can cast her out, lock the door and she will likely have nowhere to turn. Combine this with the fact that she has no legal status, no money, no knowledge of our laws. Ultimately, she is subject to deportation/removal in accordance with US Immigration law.”
In an interesting departure from the norm, one of his clients is a Turkish man (we’ll call him Rizwan) who married an older American woman in early 2004. Rizwan says that although he had overstayed his visa and faced deportation, he didn’t marry her for the “green card”; he was charmed by the woman, admired her intelligence and genuinely loved her. But not many months had passed before he saw a very different side of her. She was jealous and possessive of the handsome young man and flew into a rage when he didn’t avert his eyes quickly enough at the sight of a pretty girl they saw in a local mall.
For the next several months, she verbally abused Rizwan, hit and slapped him repeatedly, threatened him with a ceremonial sword she owned, and finally threw bleach all over him. He fled to the home of Turkish friends for safety, but she put some bleach on herself, called police, accused him of the act and filed for an injunction against him. Rizwan spent several days in jail before Sharma was able to get him out.
Her actions are consistent with abusers of immigrant spouses – they manipulate the law to get what they want. In Rizwan’s case, his wife threatened to have him deported if he didn’t return to her, but by this time he didn’t care; he decided that he’d rather return to Turkey than put up with her abuse. Although he avoided her, she subsequently lied and had him arrested for violating the injunction she had placed on him. She later dropped the charges and eventually the two were divorced.
This particular story has a happy ending because Rizwan received approval under VAWA, one of the rare cases in which a man was protected under the act. He may now continue to reside in the U.S. independently of his former wife. He has met a lovely young woman who truly loves him and they will be married in the near future.
Sharma related another case that is particularly disturbing because a child is involved. After a lovely young Siberian woman posted her picture on the Internet, a wealthy local 65-year old man brought her and her child to his home. She is now his domestic slave, submits to his sexual depravities, endures physical abuse, and has to account for every minute of her time – but worst of all, she hears her child being verbally humiliated every day. The husband constantly demeans the child, calling her stupid and an idiot, but the wife feels she has no option but to stay and make the best of it; she has no money and nowhere else to go.
“Man’s inhumanity to man”
The above stories are only three examples of immigrants who have come to this country, hoping for a better life for themselves and/or their children. Are they part of a human trafficking ring? No, but their lives are no less miserable, because they are caught in the clutches of unscrupulous human beings who circumvent the law in search of ways to satisfy their schemes.
Today, the immigration issue is hotly debated and most of us are torn by all the ramifications involved, but these people, and countless others like them, are scattered throughout our country – brought here in good faith on their part, only to be relegated to lives of unspeakable misery and hopelessness. VAWA has helped free many of these people from bondage; however, our existing Immigration laws still give U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents a great deal of power which can be used against their spouses to propagate domestic violence with little fear of reprisal.
Poet Robert Burns’ dirge written in the 18th century, “Man was Made to Mourn,” surely applies to our society today:
“Many and sharp the numerous ills,
Inwoven with our frame!
More pointed still we make ourselves,
Regret, remorse, and shame!
And man, whose heaven-erected face
The smiles of love adorn,
Man’s inhumanity to man
Makes countless thousands mourn!”
VAWA – Violence Against Women Act – By Ashwin Sharma
Victims of domestic violence can be men or women, yet the U.S. Department of Justice reports that approximately 97% of the victims of domestic violence are women. The National Violence Against Women Survey, which records incidents of violence against women in America, states that one out of four U.S. women has been physically assaulted or raped by an intimate partner; however, whatever the rate in the general population, the percentage for immigrant women is probably higher.
Accurate statistics regarding assaults against immigrant women are difficult to come by because they often will not report abuse.
A sense of shame, insecurity, and the possibility of separation from their children may prevent these women from speaking out. They are also more vulnerable to abuse because their batterer can threat deportation to silence her.
In 1994 the Federal government enacted a comprehensive “Violence Against Women Act” as Title IV of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, which is useful in preventing abuse of immigrant women. VAWA allowed victimized immigrants to file their own applications for lawful permanent resident status and created a new visa category for the spouses and their children and authorized the INS to issue up to 10,000 visas per year. Because the woman could self-petition, she no longer had to rely on a non-cooperative and abusive spouse. The Act in effect took away much of the power that the batterers held over their wives.
Two years after VAWA was passed, newly implemented immigration reform bills required that battered women return to their country of citizenship before their case could be heard, thus stripping from them the rights and privileges of American justice. These reforms also did not allow the battered wife to remain in the country if she had arrived on an incorrect visa status, or had overstayed it – a disturbing development because some abusive husbands, in an effort to retain control over their wives, knowingly did not submit an I-130 family petition for their wives.
Women who had grown desperate after repeated abuse and had divorced their husbands had no protection and were out of status because their status was considered a derivative of their husbands’. Their deportation was imminent, despite the fact that an abusive husband had forced them out of their marriages. Finally, an “extreme hardship” requirement was imposed on those victims who attempted to utilize the protections of VAWA.
VAWA was re-authorized in 1999/2000, and continues to take steps towards addressing the needs of battered immigrant women. They now do not have to leave the country to begin their petition for legal permanent residency. Divorced women are also allowed to request VAWA protection within two years of divorcing an abusive husband, if the divorce was related to the abuse.
The 2005 version of VAWA was signed into law by President Bush in December 2005.
The Self-Petition Procedure
To self-petition, an immigrant must show that:
• She was battered or subjected to extreme cruelty, and is or was married to a U.S. citizen or Lawful Permanent Resident within the past two years. Unmarried children of the self-petitioner who are under age 21 may be included in the petition, OR
• She is the parent of a child who has been battered or subjected to extreme cruelty by that parent’s U.S. citizen or Lawful Permanent Resident spouse. The mother of the battered child may self-petition and include all of her unmarried children under age 21 who live in the U.S. in her petition.
The woman then must file an I-360 with the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). The government filing fee is $190, which may be waived by INS if she proves
her inability to pay. The USCIS need not have authorization by or permission from the woman’s husband.
The I-360 form is available in person at a USCIS office, by calling 1-800-870-3676, or
as a PDF file that may be found at the http://www.bcis.gov website.
For more information, contact Ashwin Sharma, Esq., Leimbach & Associates,
904/779-0111, http://www.immigrationfirm.net.