Notice: Undefined variable: geolocalv in /mnt/storage/sites/news.jornal.us/index.php on line 229
PRESS RELEASEDENVER— 2/27/2020 Enforcement’s (ICE) presence in neighborhoods conducting enforcement operations continues to be promoted without merit by those with political agendas. Allegations that ICE is violating its sensitive locations policy are completely false.“Let me be very clear, ICE does not conduct patrols, raids, or sweeps looking for illegal aliens. Individuals and groups making such accusations are doing nothing but fearmongering and in turn, putting the public and our officers at risk. ICE strictly conducts targeted enforcement actions and continues to focus its limited resources first and foremost on those who pose the greatest threat to public safety,” said John Fabbricatore, acting field office director, ICE ERO, Denver. “Our officers are professionals who uphold the law as written by Congress. If anyone has an issue with the law, they need to take it to their Congressional representative and stop directing their frustrations with the law at federal employees.”
ICE encourages public leaders, advocacy groups and the community to share accurate information to ensure the safety of both those utilizing public transportation and those charged with ensuring their safety while aboard.
ICE makes targeted arrests every day; ICE does not conduct “raids”
ICE does not conduct raids or sweeps and does not operate roadblocks or checkpoints. The use of these terms evokes images of indiscriminate targeting of neighborhoods and spreads fear in immigrant communities.
ICE focuses its limited resources, first and foremost, on those who pose the greatest threat to public safety and border security, and our officers make arrests every single day.
ICE does not target aliens indiscriminately; the agency conducts investigations and gathers intelligence on specific individuals and targets them for immigration enforcement.
Targets are often those who were arrested on local criminal charges or have blatant disregard for U.S. immigration laws. The agency’s arrest statistics clearly reflect this. Nationally, approximately 90 percent of all people arrested by ICE during fiscal year 2018 either had a criminal conviction, a pending criminal charge, had illegally re-entered the United States after being previously removed (a felony charge) or were an immigration fugitive subject to a judge’s final order of removal.
ICE does not need a warrant to make an arrest
ICE officers are sworn federal law enforcement officers who operate within the confines of the law. Section 287 of the Immigration and Nationality Act provides ICE officers the authority to arrest aliens without a judicial warrant.
In fact, no judge in this country has the authority to issue a warrant for a civil immigration violation. Congress, by statute, vested this authorization solely to supervisory immigration officers.
Local police officers don’t need a warrant when they encounter someone breaking the law in a public space, and the same holds true for ICE officers.
Obstructing or otherwise interfering with an ICE arrest is a crime, and anyone involved may be subject to prosecution under federal law. In addition, encouraging others to interfere or attempt to obstruct an arrest is extremely reckless and places all parties in jeopardy.
ICE officers are aware of the real and emotional impact of immigration enforcement
The immediate and extreme impact an immigration enforcement action has on an individual and their family is not lost on our officers.
These ICE officers and their families live and shop, as well as attend schools and places of worship in the same communities. Casting aspersions about our officers’ intentions only spreads fear in a community; this is unfair and without merit.
Our officers do their jobs professionally, humanely, and treat those they encounter with dignity and respect, and protect these very communities.
It is unconscionable when those who have ideological or political beliefs that differ from the law, misdirect their attacks on ICE officers who are charged with upholding laws Congress has passed.
The Obama-engineered 2014 Ukraine coup d'état has been a silent stink bomb in USA politics ever since. At first it set up the phony "Putin invaded Crimea" howl that never really gained solid traction no matter how often the NY Times tried to make it true. Bigtime political money-grubbers rushed to Kiev to make deals with the new gang of neo-Nazi crooks in charge. John McCain and Obama Veep Joe Biden were only two of the most neon names. Hotshot lobbyists Paul Manafort and Tony Podesta were already there.
The bad odor of the neo-Nazi Kiev regime continued to hover around the fringes of the 3-year-long Deep State/FBI/Intelligence (duh!) Community/Dementedcrat rolling "Get Trump" black op. Also, Hillary's “Putin Did It” alibi for losing was aided and abetted by CrowdStrike, a shady Ukraine-connected anti- Putin cyber operation. When the much-prayed-for Mueller Miracle failed to produce anything more than a tired, out-of-touch ex-FBI malpracticer, who couldn't even remember what was in his own Mueller Report (if, indeed, he had even read it), the hot air escaped from that political blimp and it quickly began to droop and fall to earth. Until now.
Breaking news! Breaking news! Trump wants Ukraine Prez to dig up dirt on Biden. Bribes him to do so. OMG! OMG!
The fetid odor of Ukraine has suddenly become oxygen for the fumbling and flailing Deep State gang who couldn't shoot straight. A "whistleblower" tipped the Bezos/WAPO propaganda delivery device about a recent phone conversation between ex- standup comedian Volodymyr Zelensky, the new President of Ukraine, and Trump, ex-Reality TV Star and still President, that contained some chit chat about ex-Veep Jalopy Joe Biden, his ne'er-do-well son Hunter, and the corrupt Director of a giant Kiev energy company the basically unqualified Hunter Biden had snagged (wonder of wonders!) a $50,000 a month seat on the board of after the 2014 coup. When a Ukraine prosecutor began sniffing around the corrupt company, Jalopy Joe had personally come to the rescue of his embroiled son, later bragging publicly how he had gotten the prosecutor off the case and sacked. Jalopy Joe, 77 years old but totally made over with a fresh coat of paint, is currently running (sic) for the 2020 Dementedcrat Presidential nomination. There may also have been some chatter between the two presidents about Hillary and the odious CrowdStrike (still redacted?).
There’s a saying: If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it’s…Deep State’s “Get Trump” 2.0!
“Whistleblower” in this instance is no Edward Snowden or Chelsea Manning, but a euphemism to whitewash a CIA counterintelligence operator/troll. While there was never a scintilla of actual evidence that “Putin Did It”, only the Deep State’s self-referential say-so and the nefarious and largely fictional Piss Dossier, there is a transcript of the recent phone conversation, which is already being hyped as the new Nixon tapes, no matter what it actually reveals or doesn’t. The so-called “whistleblower” never actually heard the call himself but only heard- tell of it (called “Hearsay” in the courts and inadmissible).
But this chance for the sclerotic, out of date, crazed-by-Trump Dementedcrats to prop up Jalopy Joe in the nomination contest and deprive the feared (and hated) Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren of headlines for the foreseeable future, seems irresistible. And then there is their equally frightening Plan B: The Hillary Beast/Monster is hovering!!!
The drooping Dementedcrats immediately mainlined this dope and are high-flying on it. Yet again stoned out of their once-upon-a-time critical thinking minds, yowling anew about impeachment, the next Holy Miracle on the near horizon, blissfully unaware they have most likely taken a hotshot of political opioids laced with fentanyl. “Playing To Lose” sounds like the title of a country song and should be the national anthem of the Dementedcrat Party.
Warning to the gen pop as this latest version of the same old sore losers’ hysterical lamentations and Deep State dirty tricks noisily plays out: Hold your noses.
Non-cash benefits (other than institutionalization for long-term care) are generally not taken into account for purposes of a public charge determination.
Special-purpose cash assistance is also generally not taken into account for purposes of public charge determination.
Non-cash or special-purpose cash benefits are generally supplemental in nature and do not make a person primarily dependent on the government for subsistence. Therefore, past, current, or future receipt of these benefits do not impact a public charge determination. Non-cash or special purpose cash benefits that are not considered for public charge purposes include:
Medicaid and other health insurance and health services (including public assistance for immunizations and for testing and treatment of symptoms of communicable diseases; use of health clinics, short-term rehabilitation services, and emergency medical services) other than support for long-term institutional care
Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP)
Nutrition programs, including Food Stamps, the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC), the National School Lunch and School Breakfast Program, and other supplementary and emergency food assistance programs
Child care services
Energy assistance, such as the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP)
Emergency disaster relief
Foster care and adoption assistance
Educational assistance (such as attending public school), including benefits under the Head Start Act and aid for elementary, secondary, or higher education
Job training programs
In-kind, community-based programs, services, or assistance (such as soup kitchens, crisis counseling and intervention, and short-term shelter)
State and local programs that are similar to the federal programs listed above are also generally not considered for public charge purposes. Please be aware that states may adopt different names for the same or similar publicly funded programs. It is the underlying nature of the program, not the name adopted in a particular state, which determines whether or not it should be considered for public charge purposes. In California, for example, Medicaid is called "Medi-Cal" and CHIP is called "Healthy Families." These benefits are not considered for public charge purposes.
In addition, and consistent with existing practice, cash payments that have been earned, such as Title II Social Security benefits, government pensions, and veterans' benefits, among other forms of earned benefits, do not support a public charge determination. Unemployment compensation is also not considered for public charge purposes.
You can follow this links:Apsan Law Offices, LLC
Many thousands of people entered the US through a border, either Mexico or Canada, and many others entered with a visa but the entry permit (I-94) has expired. Now If any of these people are either married to a US citizen or Lawful permanent resident or is a son or daughter of a U.S. citizen or resident, he or she cannot adjust their status in the US. In other words, they must travel to the US consulate in their home country to make a proper entrance. Here’s where it all falls apart.
The 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Responsibility Act (IIRAIRA) created a three-year, ten year, and permanent bars on admission to the U.S. for an assortment of immigration status violations.
The three-year bar to re-entry into the U.S. applies to persons who have been unlawfully present in the United States for a continuous period of more than 180 days (6 months), but no more than one year, and who voluntarily depart the U.S. Departing the U.S. activates the bar, even if the trip is to a consular process to obtain an immigrant visa.
The ten-year bar to re-entry into the U.S. applies to individuals unlawfully present in the U.S. for a cumulative period of one year or more who depart voluntarily Unlawful presence begins to accumulate when the period of authorized stay elapses or after entry to the U.S. without inspection. In other words, you will not be permitted to return to the US for either 3 or 10 years.
Now, if you entered the United States illegally through the borders such as by sneaking in through Mexico or Canada, in almost every case, will not be allowed to receive your Green Card in the U.S. If you entered with a visa but overstayed your visa (except for immediate relatives), you will also not be allowed to receive your green card in the United States (adjustment of status).
In these cases, you will go through the process called Consular Processing. This process begins with the completion of form I-130 and filing it with the Immigration Service. After some months, if all the paperwork is correct you will receive a NOTICE OF APPROVAL. A copy of the NOTICE OF APPROVAL will also be sent to the National Visa Center. They will send you a package to complete the forms. It consists of a set of forms that sets forth the steps that you are to follow and a notice that you must establish that you will not rely on public assistance once you are in the U.S. and a form to be completed by the sponsor which is a biographical data form. You will complete the forms immediately and send to the consulate. You will then gather all the documents required and have them available when you are called for an interview.
There are limited Exception to this bar
1. If you or your parents (while you were under 21 years of age) filed a permanent visa application with the Immigration and Naturalization Service or Labor Department before April 30, 2001, you are protected from this law and will be allowed to receive your Green Card in the United States by paying a fine of $1,000. This is called Section 245(i) adjustment.
2. Children under 18 years of age;
3. Spouse children (under 21 years of age) and parents who entered with a visa;
4. Most people who filed a case with the Labor Department or the Immigration and Naturalization Service for Permanent Residency before April 30, 2001.
Understand this clearly. There is no waiver for a parent of US citizens or lawful permanent residents.
For those that fall into this category, there are limited waivers available for those that want to return in less time.
The 601 waivers are required to be submitted in order to overcome an inadmissibility bar for a prior visa overstay, misrepresentation, fraud, or certain crimes.
An immigrant visa applicant who is ineligible for a visa under INA 212(a)(9)(B) “Unlawful Presence” may not apply for a waiver unless he or she is the spouse or son or daughter of a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident (LPR). A waiver under INA 212(a)(9)(B)(v) will be granted in such a case only if the applicant can establish that denial of his or her admission would result in extreme hardship for the U.S. citizen or LPR.
Extreme Hardship is a vague concept and at times, difficult to prove.
The factors considered relevant in determining extreme hardship to a qualifying relative include, but are not limited to, the following: the presence of United States citizen or lawful permanent resident family ties to this country; the qualifying relative’s family ties outside the United States; the conditions in the country or countries to which the qualifying relative would relocate and the extent of the qualifying relative’s ties to such countries; the financial impact of departure from this country; and, finally, significant conditions of health, particularly when tied to an unavailability of suitable medical care in the country to which the qualifying relative would relocate. Matter of Cervantes, 22 I. & N. Dec. 560, 565-566 (BIA 1999).
To establish extreme hardship, it is required to demonstrate that the qualifying relative is suffering more than the usual or typical hardship that a family member would experience if their relative cannot return to the U.S. Establishing financial hardship alone is not enough. The U.S. citizen/permanent resident relative and not the non-citizen applicant must experience the hardship. It must go beyond that normally expected in cases of family separation. Successful applicants will have to demonstrate unusual hardships to the U.S. citizen/permanent resident relative, such as a major medical conditions (physical and/or mental); Relative is caring for an elderly, chronically ill, or disabled relative who needs constant care; Relative is the primary caregiver for his/her child(ren) from a prior relationship and the child(ren)'s other parent will not allow the children to be taken out of the country and the child(ren) have formed an emotional attachment to Alien lack of the U.S. citizen/permanent resident’s family ties to the applicant’s country of origin; ability to speak the applicant’s native language; financial considerations; loss of opportunity in applicant’s country of origin, etc
There are two types of I-601 Waiver:
1. I-601 Waiver is used when the beneficiary is living abroad. Learn more.
2. I-601A Waiver is used when the beneficiary is living in the United States. Learn more.
Many people, when confronted with having to file a waiver of inadmissibility, try to do it on his or her own, rather than seeking the advice or guidance of an attorney. While hiring an attorney does not “assure” approval, it certainly goes a long way in obtaining an approval; especially if the attorney has great experience in this area of the law. The determination and evaluation of extreme hardship can be a complex and complicated task. Putting together a successful presentation is also extremely important. The rewards are so high when applying for a 601-waiver applying for them because if a person is denied a fraud waiver, it could result in a lifetime ban. If the 3/10-year bar waiver is not approved, the relative may not be able to apply for a visa to enter the US for at least 10 years.
That is why when you have something as difficult as a waiver of inadmissibility, you should seek the advice and support of an immigration attorney, instead of doing it on your own. Trying to figure out how to prove “extreme hardship” by attempting to prepare the waiver on your own could have lifetime problems for your relative.
“If you want to know what color is fashionable this season, just look at this river.” A popular saying in the Zhejiang Qiantang river area of China.
Pollution is not a seasonal problem Each year that passes, the textile industry leaves a large footprint in the water in the production of about 80 billion garments. “ Mills can use up to 200 tons of water per ton of dyed fabric , which in turn only produces about 1400 pieces of clothing. Add everything together and roughly 17 to 20% of industrial water pollution is owed to fabric dyes and treatments. No one piece of fabric or clothing is to blame for dye pollution. Rather, it’s the estimated 8,000 synthetic chemicals used to bleach, treat, and brighten our clothes that pose the problem.”
A blatant example of this world-wide problem was shown vividly in the documentary “RiverBlu .” Roger Williams, the executive producer exposed the fashion industry’s effect on freshwater, and the pollution witnessed during production. "We came across a satellite photo from China, and it was just this big stain of blue coming down into the ocean,” he said. "They're just letting the dyes run right into the rivers.” RIVERBLUE demands for significant change in the textile industry.
According to Greenpeace , the most frequently used additives in the dyeing and finishing process are toxic to aquatic life, remains in the environment and can continuously accumulate.
We should use our imagination to address and solve these pressing problems.
Friends from AFFOA (Advanced Functional Fabrics of America) joined me at Change fashion.
Recent advances in color-change fiber technology will soon be available to enable color changes in fabrics, without the need for industrial water pollution created by the traditional fabric dyes process.
From my point of view, we can reduce the damage done to our environment and at the same time be part of the evolution of the future of fashion by methodically modifying the color dying process, to include color-change fiber technology. It can take some time for this to happen, like changing from combustion engine cars to electric vehicles. But it will happen.
Affoa’s color change technology differs from previously available color-changing fabrics, which contain light-emitting diodes (LEDs) that produces light of various colors. Instead, each thread is equipped with a micro-wire and a color-altering pigment. “When weaved into a garment, the aggregation of the fibers gives the illusion of a fabric that changes color.” (affoa.org)
Color-changing material can alter our lifestyle in very positive ways. With garments that change color, consumers can radically pare down the number of garments in their closets, as well as, reduce the dyes that are costly to our health and wellbeing. I am excited about the prospect of being able to change the color of our wardrobes without the dangers to human health, marine life, and our environment.
From my point of view, the use of advanced textiles will provide a radically new solution to a dangerous and recurring problems.
Veronica at Genspace Bio Lab NYC
THE FABIC REVOLUTION
As a fashion designer, my vision for the future of apparel is clothes that does more than just protect you from weather conditions or have you look fashionable. The use of advanced textiles provides new solutions to reoccurring problems.
The time has come for the indisputable connection between fabric and technology to change the way we dress and live.
“Our clothes help define us yet the fabrics we wear have remained functionally unchanged for thousands of years. Recent breakthroughs in fiber materials and manufacturing processes will soon allow us to design and wear fabrics that see, hear, sense, communicate, store and convert energy, regulate temperature, monitor health and change color — heralding the dawn of a fabric revolution.” (www.affoa.org)
Fashion designers, scientist and engineers are a unique combination of “Change Makers” with the inherent power to pave the way for the future of our fashion industry.
Congress created the U non-immigrant in 2000 to protect non-citizen victims of crime, regardless of their immigration status. The requirements for granting a U visa encourages them to cooperate with law enforcement officials. Regrettably, there is a limit of 10,000 U visas available per fiscal year.
USCIS (United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, recently published statistics on it U Visa programs. These statistic crystalizes the enormous delays in resolving these cases and the increasing back log.
These statistics show that in the year 2009, the USCIS received a total of 10,937 petitions and approved 8,663, Statistically 79% was approved. In the year 2017, they received 61,686 and approved 17, 726. A 28.7 % approval rate. Along with this decrease in approval rates, there are currently 208, 813 pending cases as of the end of the 2nd Quarter of 2018. Extrapolating from the most recent yearly approval numbers (2017) of 17,726, it appears that it would take some 11 to 12 years for the USCIS to catch up on its work load. It’s no wonder that its taking years for U visa applicants to obtain their first work permit
QUALIFYING CRIMINAL ACTIVITIES
Abusive Sexual Contact
Female Genital Mutilation
Fraud in Foreign Labor Contracting
Obstruction of Justice
Unlawful Criminal Restraint
Other Related Crimes*†
*Includes any similar activity where the elements of the crime are substantially similar.
†Also includes attempt, conspiracy, or solicitation to commit any of the above and other related crimes.
While an applicant is approved for a U visa and is in line for a visa, s/he is eligible to apply for a work permit. Under the new guidance, USCIS advises that applicants submit two Applications for Employment Authorization (I-765) with any U visa petition. The first application would give the U visa petitioner work authorization for two years under the deferred action status. The second application would give work authorization to the U visa petitioner for the duration of the U visa, once a U visa becomes available.
A work permit application based on an application for U-Nonimmigrant Status (Form I-918) cannot be approved until the application has been reviewed and the individual has been granted deferred action. This has been taking roughly 3.5 years recently.
According to the USCIS, from the date of receipt of the U visa application, it can take about 46 months to process the case.
It’s important to appreciate that this type of application is different from other work permit applications. This is so, because of the U Visa cap of 10,000 per fiscal year, has created a large back log as noted above. But even if there is not a visa available for a case to be approved, USCIS can grant that person “deferred action” which is similar to permission to remain in the United States. It also makes that person eligible for a work permit. It is at this juncture, that a work permit application will be approved. A work permit application should be submitted simultaneously with the original I-918 application.
The U visa category is truly a life save for undocumented aliens that were victims of a crime and cooperated with the authorities to imprison the perpetrator(s), albeit the process takes a long time.
A most important part of the U visa program is that those granted the U visa may be eligible to apply for a Green Card (adjustment of status/permanent residence) if you meet certain requirements, including:
You have been physically present in the United States for a continuous period of at least three years while in U nonimmigrant status, and
You have not unreasonably refused to provide assistance to law enforcement since you received your U visa.
NOTE CAREFULLY: Any qualifying family member who does not have a derivative U visa when the principal U non-immigrant receives a Green Card is no longer eligible for a derivative U visa, but may still be eligible to apply for lawful permanent residence.
Source: APSAN LAW OFFICES
Juan Rodriguez (name changed for privacy) entered the U.S. in 2013 from Guatemala. He applied for protection though Political Asylum. After more than 3 years of fighting in Immigration Court, the Judge denied his application and ordered him deported to Guatemala. But as life would have it, by the end of his case he was engaged and soon married an American citizen. Shortly after he became the father of twin boys,
Believing that since he married a U.S. citizen, he went to a lawyer and discovered, to his dismay, that since he entered illegally and was actually ordered deported , he cannot be granted legal residency in the U.S. unless he leaves and remains out of the country for 10 years. A nightmare of a thought. At that time there was no solution for this family.
Everything changed in 2016, when President Obama expanded the 601A waiver law.
Now undocumented immigratns in removal(deportation) proceedings are allowed to participate in this new provisional unlawful presence waiver process if their removal proceedings are administratively closed and have not been re-calendared at the time of filing the Form I-601A. Aliens whose removal proceedings are terminated or dismissed are covered in the general population of aliens who are eligible to apply for a provisional unlawful presence waiver. Note that if you failed to appear and received an in absentia order of removal, then you will need to make a motion to reopen your case, before you can apply for the 601A waiver.
However, undocumented immigrants, who have already been ordered deported or removed. May also qualify. However in these cases the immigrant needs to apply for 2 different waivers, one for being ordered deported (I-212) and the other for having remained in the U.S. illegally. (I-601A)
Under the final expansion of the I-601A Waiver executive order, those subject to final orders of removal, deportation, or exclusion may now apply for the provisional waiver (601A) , provided, of course, that certain eligibility requirements are met..
What is a I-212 Waiver?
The I-212 is the application that requests permission to reapply for admission into the US after Deportation or Removal. If the person is in the U,S, he is applying for a conditional approval of the application. The person still must the depart the US in order for the approved I-212 to take effect. This waiver is specifically used to permit a person to return to the U.S. after a deportation or removal.
Understand that when you are deported the following punishment applies :
10 years from the date of departure or removal, if only removed once
20 years from the date of departure or removal, if removed two or more times
Forever, if convicted of an aggravated felony.
So, once a person departs the US, the deportation or removal order goes into effect. If a person leaves the U.S. without an approved I-212 waiver, he or she will not be allowed to return to the U.S. for the specified time.
How does the I-601A waiver interact with the 212 waiver?
After the I-212 waiver is approved, the individual still needs to get an I-601A waiver approved to avoid the 10 year punishment for his overstay.
Once the immigrant can establish extreme hardship to a USC/LPR spouse or parent, an approved I-601A waiver would remove the 3 or 10-year unlawful presence bar. This conditional approval removes a major part of the pressure in returning to the home country for the immigration interview.
Simply stated, the I-212 speak to the removal (deportation) order and the I-601A speaks to the unlawful presence bar. These two waivers remove major impediments that would normally prevent a person from immigrating for at least 10 years.
It is important to remember that even if you were ordered deported and never left you have a way to resolve the problem.
In Absentia Deportation/ Removal Orders
If the person failed to show up at an immigration court hearing, then there is another significant problem. Under the current law, anyone who fails to appear for any court date is deported in absentia. What this means is that , the person must remain outside the U..S. for a period of 5 years BEFORE he can make use of the 601A waiver. This problem requires additional legal work.
FOR MORE INFORMATION GO TO: 601WaiverLawyers.com
Sanctuary city is a name given to a city in the United States that follows certain police procedures that shelters illegal immigrants. These procedures can be by law (de jure) or they can be by action (de facto). The term most commonly is used for cities that do not permit municipal funds or resources to be applied in furtherance of enforcement of federal immigration laws. These cities normally do not permit police or municipal employees to inquire about one's immigration status. The designation of Sanctuary City” has no legal meaning.
However, anti-immigrant groups are constantly rallying around Sanctuary Cities, claiming that they breed a host of problems caused by undocumented immigrants. Donald Trump, spearheads this anti-immigrant sentiments and Attorney General Jeff Sessions supports it. Donald Trump signed the executive order that proclaimed that cities and states would only be eligible for certain grants from the Department of Justice if they obeyed federal immigration laws.
On Wednesday, August8, 2017, the 9th Circuit ruled against a provision of the executive order that limited funding to jurisdictions that don’t collaborate with federal immigration enforcement. This executive order was aimed directly at sanctuary cities.
The Court ruled that President Donald Trump’s executive order curbing federal funding to “sanctuary cities” was unconstitutional.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said that federal funding could be suppressed through congressional authorization. The appeals court also noticed that the U.S. District Court went too far by obstructing the policy nationwide, and sent back the case for “reconsideration and further findings.”
“We conclude that, under the principle of Separation of Powers and in consideration of the Spending Clause, which vests exclusive power to Congress to impose conditions on federal grants, the Executive Branch may not refuse to disperse the federal grants in question without congressional authorization,” a three-member panel of the 9th Circuit held in its 2-to-1 ruling.
A current list of Sanctuary Cities obtained from The Center for Immigration Studies dated July 27, 2017 follows:
Sanctuary Cities List
California Colorado Illinois Massachusetts New Mexico Oregon Vermont
Cities and Counties
Alameda County Berkley Contra Costa County Los Angeles County Los Angeles Monterey County Napa County Oakland Riverside County Sacramento County San Bernardino County San Diego County
San Francisco San Francisco County San Mateo County Santa Ana Santa Clara County Santa Cruz County Sonoma County Watsonville
Arapahoe County Aurora Boulder County Denver Denver County Garfield County Grand County Jefferson County Larimer County Mesa County Pitkin County Pueblo County Routt County San Miguel County Weld County
East Haven Hartford
Alachua County Clay County
Clayton County DeKalb County
Benton County Cass County Franklin County Fremont County Greene County Ida County Iowa City Iowa City, Johnson County Jefferson County Marion County Monona County Montgomery County Pottawattamie County Sioux County
Chicago Cook County
Butler County Harvey County
Amherst Boston Cambridge Concord Lawrence Newton Northhampton Somerville
Baltimore Montgomery County Prince George's County
Hall County Sarpy County
Middlesex County Newark Ocean County Union County
Bernalillo County New Mexico County Jails San Miguel
Albany Franklin County Ithaca Nassau County New York City Omondaga County St. Lawrence County Wayne County
Baker County Clackamas County Clatsop County Coos County Crook County Curry County Deschutes County Douglas County Gilliam County Grant County Hood River County Jackson County Jefferson County Josephine County Lane Countyn Lincoln County Linn County Malheur County Marion County Marlon County Multnomah County Polk County Sherman County Springfield Tillamok County Umatilla County Union County Wallowa County Wasco County Washington County Wheeler County Yamhill County
Bradford County Bucks County Butler County Chester County Clarion County Delaware County Eerie County Franklin County Lebanon County Lehigh County Lycoming County Montgomery County Montour County Perry County Philadelphia Pike County Westmoreland County
Providence, Rhode Island Rhode Island Department of Corrections
Arlington County Chesterfield County Fairfax County
Burlington Montpelier Winooski
Chelan County Clallam County Clark County Cowlitz County Franklin County Jefferson County King County Kitsap County Pierce County San Juan County Skagit County Snohomish County Spokane County Seattle Thurston County Walla Walla County Wallowa County Whatcom County Yakima County
It came as a surprise to Joseph Monetti (name changed for privacy) when he found out that his wife of 10 years and mother of three of his children, would not be granted legal status in the United States because she is being punished for a 20 year period. How is that possible?
As it turns out, his wife "Sandra Monetti", entered the U.S. when she was 19 years old by crossing the Rio Grande in Mexico. This was in the year 2004. She entered without much problem. Soon found a job and began working and sending money to her family living in Ecuador. Two years later she receive an urgent telegram from he father, telling her that her mother was seriously ill. As most children would do, she hurried back to Ecuador, to be with her mother. For several months, her mother suffered; her daughter and family by her side. As expected she passed on. Sandra decided to return to the U.S., and managed to cross the border a second time without incident. Years later she met Mr. Monetti at a local church. They fell in love, married and over the course of many years had three children. But one thing bothered Mr. Monetti very much. His wife was illegal in the United States and all over the news he heard that illegal aliens were getting deported. Although worried, he was sure that since he is a U.S. citizen, there should be a way to fix his wife’s immigration problem. Well, this turned out not to be the case. After meeting with three different immigration lawyers, each told him the same thing. That his wife was permanently barred form reentering the U.S. because she entered illegally two times, the second after living here for more than one year.
Our reporter heard of Mr. Monetti’s plight and decided to conduct our own research. We contacted Moses Apsan, an immigration attorney known as an expert on immigration waivers. More specifically he has obtained hundreds of I-601A waivers for people who crossed the border illegally and married a U.S. citizen. We posed Mr. Monetti’s facts to Mr. Apsan. To our great disappointment, we found out that what Mr. Monetti was told by his immigration lawyers was completely true.
Mr. Apsan explained that certain individuals cannot acquire an I-601A waiver, that would normally allow a person who entered illegally to return to their country and obtain legal residency, because of information in their immigration records which prevent a waiver from being applied to their case. A person isn't always eligible for a waiver under the certain situations. In Sandra’s case it was because she was illegally present within the US for more than one year after April 1, 1997 accompanied by a departure from the U.S. and a return without a proper inspection.
Mr. Apsan also explained that the Permanent Bar is not really permanent, but it does require that the intending immigrant remain outside of the United States for at least 10 years before she can apply for a waiver for her illegal acts.
Not an easy lesson to be learned. Mr. Apsan said that the only hope for this couple is if ICE decides to try and deport Sandra. If this happens Sandra could apply for what is called Cancellation of Removal. She would qualify for this defense in deportation, if she has been here more that 10 years, has been a person of good moral character and if it can be established in court, that her U.S. citizens husband and children would suffer extremely if Sandra were deported and could not return for 10 years. Mr. Apsan went further and said that should this happened, Sandra has an excellent chance at success, and if she wins her case, she will be granted lawful permanent status (a Green Card).
This investigation showed us how difficult the immigration laws have become and how difficult it is for many good hard working American families to resolve their immigration problems. Perhaps someday in the future Congress will see its way to approving comprehensive immigration reform, that would take 11 million undocumented immigrants out of the shadows and allow them to become a law abiding members of our American society.
Helena Santos entered the U.S. though the Mexican border in 2005. Years later she married an American citizen. They now have three children together. Helena’s husband took her to an immigration lawyer in order make her legal in the United States. To his surprise, he was told that because she entered the U.S. without a proper inspection, she could not receive her legal status in the U.S. She would have to go home to her country of birth, Brazil for the interview. As further complication, the lawyer informed the husband that his wife would not be able to return to the U.S. unless she remained out for 10 years. Devastated, the couple continued their search for an immigration attorney that could help them. They finally found one such attorney who explained to them that there is a special waiver called a 601A waiver, that would allow the wife to leave the U.S. for an interview and return a few weeks later with legal papers.
According to Moses Apsan, Esq., past president for the Federal Bar Association for the New Jersey chapter, practicing in the field of U.S. immigration laws for the past 35 years, “there is a waiver called a Provisional Unlawful Presence Waiver (601A) that has helped thousands of families since it was created in March 4, 2013.” As Attorney Apsan explains, “You can get legal status if you entered Illegally and married a U.S. Citizen or a Green Card Holder or you are the son or daughter of a lawful permanent resident, even, in some cases, if you were ordered deported.”
Since 1997, the immigration laws became very strict, requiring spouses and children of U.S. citizens and legal residents who entered the U.S. illegaly, to journey abroad and have an interview at the U.S. consulate, before they are permitted to return to the U.S. Prior to returning, they would request from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) a 601 waiver of inadmissibility. Without a grant of of this waiver, the applicant would not be allowed return to the U.S. for a period of no less than three years. In most cases they are barred for 10 years. Even though they were entitled to apply for the waiver, they had to wait out of the U.S. until the waiver was granted, separating families for months and at times, years.
In March of 2013, a new provisional illegal presence waiver (I-601A) was approved by executive order. The primary difference between the old 601 waiver and the new 601A waiver is that the application can be made while the undocumented immigrant remains in the U.S.
The waiver procedure now permits eligible people to apply for a provisional unlawful presence waiver while they remain in the U.S. and before they travel for immigrant visa interview overseas.
According to Moses Apsan, “once the waiver is approved and an interview is scheduled, you can be on your way back to the U.S. in as little as 3 weeks. Approximately 30 days later they arrive, the Green Card (legal residency status document), is received in the mail. The nightmare of being separated, is no longer a threat.”