by Moses Apsan, Esq.

In his second year in office,  Obama has finally seen the light and is telling lawmakers that he's ready to move forward to  help pass a bill allowing thousands and perhaps millions  of students who  either attends college or join the military to become legal residents.

Speaking at a meeting of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Wednesday  Obama said  that he'll work with the Senate and support Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada in trying to get the DREAM Act passed.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, the brave and eternal immigration advocate, has said he will attach the bill to a defense policy measure the Senate may consider next week. Republicans are against handling the bills that way and have accused Reid of playing politics with the measures.

 “Currently, individuals who were brought to the U.S. illegally years ago through no fault of their own have no way to legalize their immigration status and go to college to improve their lives,” Reid said in a statement. “The DREAM Act would address this problem by providing that upon graduation from high school, young people who have stayed in school and out of trouble would be able to apply for conditional legal immigration status. This status would be made permanent if they continue on to college or serve in the military.”

Reid is taking a great risk in this position, as he is presently fighting for his seat as senator of Nevada, a state with a tremendous anti-immigrant momentum.

The new Tea Party Republican Party, sent out an e-mail to supporters Thursday morning enlisting their help in stopping the DREAM Act, 

"We have a serious amnesty threat with the DREAM Act giving citizenship to over 2.1 million illegal students and young adults," the call to action read.

More than three million students graduate from U.S. high schools every year and each year 70,000 of these graduates are undocumented students with basically no hope of pursuing their dreams to be a legitimate part of American society. These young people unfortunately, begin their life "behind the 8 ball."  They do not get the opportunities most kids have as an inherent part of being a U.S. citizen. Attached to them is the notorious title of, an illegal immigrant.  Most of these  youths have lived in the United States for a majority of their lives and, now upon graduation from High School, they find that they cannot go to college, get decent work or even drive a car.  They live in fear that their status will be discovered and they will be deported. In essence they are relegated to a sub-class, similar to the untouchables in India's past. Those living in Arizona must, by now be in a panic state.

Illegal students can only obtain permanent status through their parents; there is no independent method to accomplish legal residency for them. And if the parents are illegal, they have absolutely no way to "stand in line" and wait for legal documentation, as repeatedly and incorrectly suggested by those anti-immigration reform proponents .  If they return to their country of birth, it would not guarantee a path to documented status. On the contrary, they probably could never be able to legally return.

Even so, these children are innocent and not to blame.  They came along with their parents, most of them between 2 to 10 years of age.  These children studied in the U.S., made American friends, and evolved into Americans.  Some did not even have the  knowledge about their legal status until they attempted to enter college and found out the hard way that they are illegal and have no future in the U.S. To the rescue comes the Dream Act.

 During an interview last week with the Spanish-language newspaper La Opinion, Reid was quoted as saying, “I just don’t want anybody to think that if we somehow just do the DREAM Act, that that solves the problem. We’ve got a bigger problem that we have to solve. We still need comprehensive immigration reform.
 
A statement from the National Immigration Law Center, which helps immigrants gain citizenship, said, “By bringing the long-overdue DREAM Act to a vote, Senator Reid has shown that he agrees with 70 percent of Americans who want to provide undocumented young men and women a chance to apply their full potential to making our country a better place to live.”
 
Time is short; November is around the corner and the lives of millions of children are at stake.

by Moses Apsan

Perhaps President Obama does have what it takes to help the millions of undocumented immigrants and their children waiting anxiously on the side liens for comprehensive immigration reform.

Apparently in an undated, internal draft memo by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services uncovered Thursday details "administrative relief options to… reduce the threat of removal for certain individuals present in the United States without authorization."

The memo reads "In the absence of comprehensive immigration reform USCIS can extend benefits and/or protections to many individuals and groups by issuing new guidance and regulations."  It further describes the probable steps the agency could take to resolve the country's estimated 12 million unauthorized immigrants.  This may include awarding some groups conditional legal residency.

These ideas were discussed in a draft memo   prepared for Alejandro N. Mayorkas, director of the federal agency that handles immigration benefits,  This Thursday the unexpected document was made public by Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, who along with six other senators wrote to Obama over  a month ago,  They asked for his  promise that some type of help was in the works for the millions of illegal immigrants.

"The administration has failed to reassure us that the information we were hearing was inaccurate," Grassley said in a statement to ProPublica Thursday night. "This memo gives credence to our concerns that the administration will go to great lengths to circumvent Congress and unilaterally execute a back door amnesty plan."

A controversial portion of the memo involves the use of "deferred action,"  The power of deffered action lies in the fact that at the agency's discretion it can indefinitely delay the deportation of otherwise deportable non-citizens. "This would permit individuals for whom relief may become available in the future to live and work in the U.S. without fear of removal," the memo said.

The memo clealy discussed that granting deferred action to an unrestricted number of people "would likely be controversial, not to mention expensive."   As an alternative, it recommends that this alternative be used for specific groups, such as the many thousands of  young people who would be allowed to stay in the country if Congress passed the Dream Act. That bill would grant a path to citizenship for qualifying young people who complete a college degree or two years of military service and entered the United States before the age of 16.

The memo would reverse the  position currently held by the agency's Office of General Counsel under previous administrations, The memo recommends  granting green cards to people currently in the country under Temporary Protected Status. That status usually granted to people of certain countries that have suffered major calamity, such as earthquake, hurricane and civil war.

Supporters of comprehensive immigration reform awill certainly be elated should such action by the administration come to pass.  ((It will further vidicate, Obama’s commitment to the immigrant community)).

As expected,  Republican senators are in a panic and  have written to immigration officials in the Obama administration asking them to disclose whether large-scale plans are truly under way to provide  what they call a non-legislative version of amnesty.

These republicans wrote a second letter last week to President Obama suggesting "the administration would be wise to abandon any plans for deferred action or parole for the illegal population. Such a move would further erode the American public's confidence in the federal government and its commitment to securing the borders and enforcing the laws already on the books.”

by Moses Apsan, Esq.

In an effort to collect more than $2 billion in unpaid child support payments, Indiana lawmakers passed a bill to hold back casino winnings from those who pay no attention to their court-ordered obligations. The Indiana Department of Child Services estimates more than 165,000 “deadbeat parents” each are indebted more than $2,000 in support payments. Colorado passed a parallel law in July 2008, resulting in more than $320 million in delinquent payments.  Other states are following suit.

Every child, no matter, whether they are legal in this country or not, has the right of support from both parents. Many times, as a result of disputes between the parents, the child comes out the looser. In New York, the New York State Child Support Services, a not for profit agency, provides free assistance to parents in many ways. They can help you find an absent parent, establish legal fatherhood of a child, get a support order from the court for a child, including medical support, enforce unpaid child support, collect child support payments from a parent, review and change your support order for more support and even help you if your spouse is in another state. And best of all, to be eligible for these services you only have to be the custodial parent or guardian of the child.

Everything is free. Once you apply the following services are provided: Computer searches are used to find the parent, orders are taken for blood tests to prove paternity, support orders are obtained from the court for collection of support, arrears, and medical coverage to be automatically deducted from the paying parent s job. Every three years, the Support Collection Unit, can review your support order to make sure it is the correct amount allowed by law.

If you need this type of assistance go to your nearest Child Support Enforcement office. Be prepared to provide as much information about the absent parent as possible. The more information you provide, the faster you will receive support. You should have in your possession, the full name of the parent, current or last known address and phone number, current and last known work address and phone numbers, social security number (look at old pay stubs, tax records, military or medical records), income information (tax records, pay stubs, bank records), the child s birth certificate, marriage license, if applicable, divorce papers, any prior child support orders, a list of all your child related and personal expense, per month.

What is the amount you will receive in child support. Well, that depends largely on the non-custodial parents income and the state you reside.   For example in New York, the general rule is that he will have to pay 17% of his salary if there is one child, 25% if there are two children, 29% for three children, 31% for four children and no less that 35% if there are more than five children.

In additional there will also be an additional amount for medical coverage and baby-sitting expenses, when the custodial parent works. If an order for support is entered and the non-custodial parent fails to pay, the agency will help you get and order from a judge that will take the support payments directly out of his or her pay. And don t worry if he lives in another state. An inter state order can be entered. The court will then send the order to the state that your spouse lives. They will contact him, obtain a lawyer to represent you at no charge, and proceed to collect the child support for you.

For more information on locating the Family Court located in the county you live in go to the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) site. Most importantly don’t give up if you are not receiving child support form the non-custodial parent. You must collect the child support, not for yourself, but for your child. The money belongs to him.

by Moses Apsan, Esq.

In the midst of endless calamities, oils spills, economic doom and unemployment, when all hope seems to have been dissipated, President Obama today, will make a renewed effort for comprehensive immigration reform and keep the promise he made as a candidate to make it a priority in his first year. Perhaps it’s just in time, when following November’s election, there will be a lame duck session where anything is possible.  

This Tuesday Obama met with members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus in the State Dining Room of the White House and talked about an approach for passing a bill that had seemed lifeless all this year. Rep. Luis V. Gutierrez (D-IL-4), the  chief proponent of comprehensive immigration reform was an integral part of that meeting.

Today, the president will explain to the American public why he believes a comprehensive approach is the only way to fix a broken immigration system. In a speech at American University in Washington DC , he expects to make the case for creating a path to legal status for the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants who live in the U.S. while simultaneously strengthening border enforcement.

Obama has stated that a comprehensive solution implies "accountability for everybody.” This would include the U.S. government in securing the border, to enforcing “employer sanctions” for knowingly employing illegal immigrants and requiring that  to those who enter the country illegally admit their actions before they can begin the long  process of becoming citizens.

White House officials said that recent developments on immigration influenced his decision to give a speech, most particularly Arizona's endorsement of a tough anti-immigrant law and the numerous and growing protests across the American landscape.

Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York, will be among invited guests.  He has been a supporter in the fight to revise federal immigration statutes. Bloomberg will also be launching a coalition of mayors and business leaders to advocate for a revamp of the nation's immigration policy, including legalizing undocumented immigrants  and less tolerance to businesses that hire illegal workers.

"Our immigration policy is national suicide," Mr. Bloomberg said at a forum in Midtown Manhattan Wednesday. "We educate the best and the brightest and then we don't give them a green card.”

The mayor has been increasingly verbal in what he has repeatedly describes as a broken immigration system. “Our immigration policy is national suicide,” he said last week when he announced the formation of the coalition of pro immigration mayors and business leaders.

No matter how you look at it, the outlooks for getting a bill to Obama’s desk before lawmakers start their November campaign looks bleak. The political reality  is that Obama  needs Republican support in order to get the bill moving in the right direction.  His most notable obstacle is the Senate, where Democrats do not have the 60 votes needed to overcome GOP filibuster strategy.

"I've got to have some support from Republicans," he said at a May news conference during a visit with Mexican President Felipe Calderon. 

Obama approved a proposal by Sens. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., which would require illegal immigrants, among other things to pay fines and back taxes and perform community service to ultimately obtain legal status. But Graham has since has backed away and no other Senate Republican has succeeded him. Republican support has been fleeting.

In the House, a parallel bill championed by Rep. Gutierrez called the Comprehensive Immigration Reform for America's Security and Prosperity Act (CIR-ASAP/H.R. 4321) is ready for prime time. The bill, is sponsored by Rep. Solomon Ortiz (D-TX) and co-sponsored primarily by members of the Congressional Black Caucus, Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus, Progressive Caucus, and Congressional Hispanic Caucus. 

Most Republicans insist on measures to tighten security along the U.S.-Mexico border before they consider comprehensive immigration reform, but Obama is in disagreement with that approach. Since he took office, his administration worked diligently to improve border security, including increasing personnel and equipment along the border.

Obama recently directed 1,200 National Guard troops to the border to increase security and requested Congress for an additional $600 million to use in support personnel and improve technology. 

Time seems to be ripe for a major overhaul in the U.S. immigration laws.  Today millions of people including illegal immigrants, legal residents, American citizens and U.S. businesses are being held in a type of limbo because of a law that is so convoluted and draconian that it cries out to be changed.

by Moses Apsan

Just two weeks ago President Obama in a meeting with Gov. Brewer promised her that he would get back to her (or his staff would) within 2 weeks of their White House Oval Office meeting to discuss  Arizona's immigration law SB 1070.

To Brewers surprise and consternation , Obama responded through  Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.  Clinton appeared in an Ecuadorian TV show and said: "He [Obama]  thinks the federal government should be determining immigration policy and the Justice Department under his direction will be bringing a lawsuit against the act.” She further went on to say, that what is more important is President Obama's commitment to passing  comprehensive immigration reform.  That is what is needed.

Governor Jan Brewer quickly reacted when she heard about the potential lawsuit by saying: "This is no way to treat the people of Arizona. To learn of this lawsuit through an Ecuadorean interview with the Secretary of State is just outrageous. If our own government intends to sue our state to prevent illegal immigration enforcement. The least it can do is inform us before it informs the citizens of another nation," said Brewer.

Brewer also threatened the administration: “It's outrageous! It's just -- it's just bizarre! It's just bizarre! But I will tell you... we are not going to back away from this issue. We are going to pursue it. We're going to be very aggressive. And we'll meet them in court! We will meet them in court. And we will win. I truly believe that we will win. And the population of America, again, agrees with Arizona..

Gov. Brewer's response is endemic of the problem our country is facing today.  With a growing number of right wing extremist, including white supremacist and neo-Nazi’s, many arising out of Arizona coupled with the Tea Baggers support by Fox news and other right wing entities, America is becoming a nation on the verge division.

In almost a Déjà vu  of the civil war, when brothers were fighting against brothers; one side fighting for civil justice and freedom from slavery while the other side wanting to continue their laconic life pampered by their slaves who lived in misery.

The Confederate States seceded  from the Union because they could not put up with a powerful central government controlling the actions of independent states. A similar problem is growing in the U.S.  Right wing fanatics, touting guns and hinting at overthrow of the government.  Tea Baggers, organized by republican media moguls, and libertarians wanting to strip away civil rights that were so hard to obtain.

Dissatisfaction is familiar to all  democracies. But in 2010  we are are seeing is a hostility and aggression way beyond a highly-spirited debate.  Three dangerous movements  foreshadows critical perils for immigrants and America itself: the rapid rise of the militia hate groups, the emergence of a fanatical political group called “The Tea Party working together with Libertarians,” and a call to action  fueled by  Talk Radio hosts such as Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh provides ample support for white supremacist and anti-immigrant hate groups such as the Immigration Reform Law Institute which is the legal arm of the chameleon organization named Federation for American Immigration Reform, or FAIR. As Rachel Maddow revealed in a recent program, the founder of FAIR is a well-known racist. The seed money he used to start FAIR came from an infamous Eugenics (the same thing the Nazi’s did outfit.

FAIR is just one piece of a vast and powerful anti-immigrant organization, created over the last 30 years, and orchestrated by John Tanton.   His organization has been able to insinuate itself into many of the social and political debates of our time.

Tanton developed many different entities so that it appears that there are numerous advocates for what he sees and the ideal society. 

Another of his group, the Center for Immigration Studies, acts as so-called "think tank" to the anti-immigrant movement. Some other entities he is invalid with are the Coalition for the Future American Worker, Progressives for Immigration Reform, NumbersUSA, Immigration Reform Law Institute, United to Secure America Coalition.  These are just a few of his many groups that work in unison trying in earnest to modify America's thinking on immigration.

The Southern Poverty Law Center and Anti-Defamation League have connected these groups with racists, white supremacists, and political extremists.

((Anti-immigrant groups, according to Heidi Beirich of the SPLC, have “nearly doubled” in 2009)). The “nativists,” as they are called, are aligning with the “The Patriot Coalition,” which is an “anti-government outfit battling ‘globalism,’ ‘socialism,’ and the loss of ‘National Identity and Culture.’”

Hate groups are not new a new development.  Since the 1880’s the KKK has been considered a founding father of the modern hate groups and they still exist. What has changed lately  is the speed in which these hate groups have grown since Barack Obama took office. Today there is a coordinated and concerted effort with various people such as Sara Palin, Glenn Beck, and Rand Paul vying  for supreme leadership of this anti-government movement.

But no matter how hard they try; no matter what lies they make up, they will never succeed in keeping America lily white and christian as projected population trends indicates that whites are expected to become a minority in the United States by 2050.  This fact is an unacceptable reality to these anti-American radical right-wingers, and it has sent them into sheer panic.

by Moses Apsan

The Arizona Congress is at it again. In what appears as a blunderbuss approach to anti-immigrant legislation, they have now decided to target U.S. citizen children; which they call “anchor babies.”  These children have at times been useful weapons in keeping their illegal parents from being deported.

If the Arizona Republicans get their way, any child born in the U.S, to illegal immigrants would not automatically be an American Citizen.  In fact they would most probably be deportable.

If you had to guess, which State Senator proposed this bill, you would be 100% correct when you name Senator Russell Pierce as the prime proponent of the bill. Remember him; the infamous force behind Senate Bill 1070, the “papers please” law, which obliges police officers to ask about someone’s immigration status during any traffic stop or with reasonable suspicion that the person is not a legal alien.

While SB1070 requires adult immigrants to have documentation of legal residency, the “anchor baby” bill will prevent the next generation from ever being able to become legal in the U.S.  According to a Time.com article the plan is to make the process of obtaining  citizenship so difficult that illegal immigrants will take “the anchor” and leave.

((Arizona will have  a slippery slope to conquer if this law is passed as it is diametrically opposed to  our Constitution)). The 14th Amendment of the Constitution grants citizenship to ""All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." The purpose of the amendment was to provide citizenship for freed slaves and served as a final clarification of the Dred Scott case.  In essence it reinforced the federal government's jurisdiction over citizenship.

Pierce  says the 14th Amendment has been "hijacked" by illegal immigrants….” This is an orchestrated effort by them to come here and have children to gain access to the great welfare state we've created." Pearce tells reporters that he is aware of the constitutional issues raised by the bill and promises to “…write it right." He points to prevalent sympathy for the law. Some 58% of Americans polled by Rasmussen believe children of illegal immigrants born in the U.S. should not automatically be considered an American Citizen.  Interesting that 76% of Republicans believe the same.

Ariz. Gov. Jan Brewer, a Republican would most like support this bill.  Recently she said in an interview with ABC Tucson "[i]t is illegal to trespass into our country….The bill won't tear families apart. They can take their children back with them."

Critics of the bill that Republican state Sen. Russell Pearce’s bill would fly in the face of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which grants citizenship to anyone born in the U.S. Many opposing the bill  believe that it would lead to more prejudice and segregate the community. Phoenix resident and U.S. citizen Susan Vie is heading a citizen group that’s supporting an opposing ballot initiative. An Argentinean who moved to the U.S. more than 30 years ago she has taken a stance against what many consider one of the most draconian immigration law in our country’s history. "I see a lot of hate and racism behind it," Vie says. "Consequently, I believe it will create — and it's creating it now — a separation in our society." She adds, "When people look at me, they will think, 'Is she legal or illegal?' I can already feel it right now." Vie's proposal would forbid SB1070 from taking effect and place a three-year moratorium on all related laws, including the anchor-baby bill, with the ultimate goal f comprehensive immigration reform.She and the members of her group is racing to accumulate 153,365 signatures by July 1 to be eligible for the Nov. 2 general election.

It is expect the anchor-baby bill, if made into law, will eventually to end up  in the U.S. Supreme Court and struck down,  before it can go into effect.

Prior attempts to get around the citizenship provisions in the amendment, going back to the late 19th century challenging the citizenship of the children of Chinese immigrants, have been unsuccessful.

by Moses Apsan, Esq.

New York - June 13, 2010 - Can an Executive Order provide immediate relief to certain Draconian provisions of the current immigration laws even while waiting for a comprehensive immigration reform? Let's take a close look at an Executive Order and it's power.

This January, President Barrack Obama addressing action taken by the Senate,  stated that he would proceed with plans to create a commission to reduce the federal budget deficit.  “Yesterday, the Senate blocked a bill that would have created this commission. So I will issue an executive order that will allow us to go forward, because I refuse to pass this problem on to another generation of Americans.”

On 3 July 2002, President George W. Bush signed Executive Order (EO) 13,269.  The EO expedited the naturalization of soldiers in active duty by making them immediately eligible to apply for naturalization.  For those soldiers were recently married it also extended  their spouses  conditional status (Green Card)  for one year, and in six-month increments thereafter, until their spouses return from abroad.

What is an Executive Order?

    "EO’s have been used to manipulate federal agencies in directions contrary to congressional intent"

Executive Orders (EOs) are legally binding orders given by the President, acting as the head of the Executive Branch, to Federal Administrative Agencies. Generally EO’s are used to direct federal agencies and officials in their execution of Congressional established laws or policies. However, there have been many instances that EO’s have been used to manipulate federal agencies in directions contrary to congressional intent.

Executive Orders are very powerful. They do not require Congressional approval to take effect but they have the same legal weight as laws passed by Congress. The President's source of authority to issue Executive Orders can be found in the Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution which grants to the President the "executive Power." Section 3 of Article II goes further and directs the President to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." To implement or execute the laws of the land, Presidents give direction and guidance to Executive Branch agencies and departments, often in the form of Executive Orders.

A Brief History and Examples

Since the time of George Washington, Executive Orders have been used by every chief executive s.  Most of these Orders were not published and were only seen by the specific agencies involved.  It was not until the early 1900s, that the State Department began numbering them.  Now there are over 13,000 numbered orders.   All new Executive Orders are easily accessible at  Executive Order Disposition Table.

Through out history, these EO’s have been used to make important policy changes. In 1942, during WWII, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed an EO that provided transportation, food, shelter, and other accommodations to children displaced by the Nazi war machine.  In 1948, President Harry S Truman signed an Executive Order 998, which eliminated Segregation and racial discrimination in the military services and in federal employment. President Eisenhower used an EO to desegregate schools. Presidents Kennedy and Johnson used them to bar racial discrimination in federal housing, hiring, and contracting. President Reagan used an EO to bar the use of federal funds for advocating abortion. President Clinton reversed this order when he came into office. In 2003, our current president, George Bush signed an executive order that delayed release of millions of government documents making it easier for presidents and their administrations to keep historical records secret.

It is very clear, from history, that the President of the United States may issue executive orders concerning immigration. Even local executives can issue an EO.

On September 17th, 2003 Mayor Michael Bloomberg signed an executive order prohibiting New York City agencies-including the New York City Police Department [NYPD]-from inquiring into the immigration status of individuals and from sharing such information with federal agencies. This EO replaced a previous law that gave the   NYPD the right to ask any person, including witnesses and victims of crimes, their immigration status, and it also had the right to divulge the information to the federal authorities.

THE PROCESS

The process can be quick and it does not need any involvement with Congress or the Judicial branch of the government.  You will not see a public debate before the signing of an EO. When the President signs an Executive order, it is sent to the Office of the Federal Register. Executive orders and other presidential documents first appear in the Federal Register. Executive orders of the current President are also posted on the White House web page.

The Executive Order Controversy

Executive Order enables the President to create a law even law, without the consent of Congress. This power appears to runs against the basic constitutional concept of “separation of Powers.” However, historically, Congress has given the President considerable space to implement and administer federal law and programs.  There are times that, Congress is unable to agree on how to implement a law or program and leaves the decisions with the agencies involved.  These agencies are controlled by the President.  Whenever Congress does not make itself clear on how a law is to be implemented, it leaves an opening for the President to take over, in the form of an Executive Order.

What Congress Can Do If It Disagrees

If Congress is not pleased with what the President is doing it has the option to re-write the law and detail how the Executive branch must act. However, the President may veto the bill, leaving Congress only the option of a 2/3 majority vote to override an Executive Order.

It is not usual for Congress to attack an EOs dealing with foreign policy, national defense, or the implementation and negotiation of treaties, as these are powers granted largely to the President by the Constitution.
Executive Orders can be challenged in court.  These challenges to the EO are that the Order deviates from "congressional intent" or exceeds the President's constitutional powers.

The fundamental criticism of Executive Orders is that a President could make major policy decisions without any congressional by exercising his authority to create EO.

    "(enough relief would be given to the 12 million illegal immigrants in this country until a Comprehensive Immigration bill is finally made into law"

CONCLUSION

((If Congress is unable or unwilling to pass  Comprehensive Immigration Reform this year, the President could issue sections of its content as a series of Executive Orders)). Thereby providing immediate relief form the sections of the immigration laws that are creating the most problems. The Senate conservatives would find difficulty in blocking these orders as 2/3 majority would have to vote against it; which is unlikely.  The Executive Orders could be challenged in court, but that would take a very long time, and in the meantime, (enough relief would be given to the 12 million illegal immigrants in this country until a Comprehensive Immigration bill is finally made into law).

by Moses Apsan, Esq.

New York - June 7, 2010 -- When Senator Harry Reid (D_Nevada) changed his  focus to energy reform instead of immigration,  he created a specter of doom for comprehensive immigration reform in 2010. This news heralds a major disappointment for millions of people who have been pursuing immigration reform for 2010.  Reid, still not giving up on immigration reform,  has  reportedly changed his strategy, and instead of attempting to have a comprehensive reform this year, he is focusing on a number of proposals that have been floating around which may be easier for him to garner  bipartisan support.   Although there are many  different proposals  regarding immigration reform, none of them cry out more for immediate resolution than the Dream Act.

More than three million students graduate from U.S. high schools every year and each year 70,000 of these graduates are undocumented students with basically no hope of pursuing their dreams to be a legitimate part of American society. These young people unfortunately, begin their life "behind the 8 ball."  They do not get the opportunities most kids have as an inherent part of being a U.S. citizen. Attached to them is the notorious title of, an illegal immigrant.  Most of these  youths have lived in the United States for a majority of their lives and, now upon graduation from High School, they find that they cannot go to college, get decent work or even drive a car.  They live in fear that their status will be discovered and they will be deported. In essence they are relegated to a sub-class, similar to the untouchables in India's past. Those living in Arizona must, by now be in a panic state.

Illegal students can only obtain permanent status through their parents; there is no independent method to accomplish legal residency for them. And if the parents are illegal, they have absolutely no way to "stand in line" and wait for legal documentation, as repeatedly and incorrectly suggested by those anti-immigration reform proponents .  If they return to their country of birth, it would not guarantee a path to documented status. On the contrary, they probably could never be able to legally return.

Even so, these children are innocent and not to blame.  They came along with their parents, most of them between 2 to 10 years of age.  ((These children studied in the U.S., made American friends, and evolved into Americans)).  Some did not even have the  knowledge about their legal status until they attempted to enter college and found out the hard way that they are illegal and have no future in the U.S.

To the rescue came the Dream Act. A bill, that could resolve their dilemma, but has languished in Congress for nearly a decade, despite lobbying by the students, churches and immigrant advocacy organizations. The DREAM Act is a bipartisan legislation  pioneered by Sen. Orin Hatch [R-UT] and Sen. Richard Durbin [D-IL]  that can solve this  injustice in our society. Under the though  provisions of the DREAM Act, qualifying undocumented youths would be eligible for a 6 year long conditional path to citizenship that requires completion of a college degree or two years of military service. Conditional Permanent Residency is similar to Legal Permanent Residency in that you would be able to live legally in the U.S. , go to college, work, drive and travel. But it lasts for only 6 years. Students would be eligible for student loans and federal work-study programs, but will not be eligible for federal financial aid such as Pell Grants.

Who would Qualify?

The following is a list of specific requirements one would need in order to qualify for the current version of the DREAM Act.
    •    Have proof of having arrived in the United States before age 16.
    •    Have proof of residence in the United States for a least five consecutive years since their date of arrival,    
         compliance with Selective Service.
    •    Be between the ages of 12 and 35 at the time of bill enactment.
    •    Have graduated from an American high school or obtained a GED.
    •    Be of "good moral character"

How it works.

    •    "conditional" status would be granted during the first six years.

    •    the youth would be required to graduate from a two-year community college or complete at least two years towards a 4-year degree, or serve two years in the U.S. military.

    •    After the six year period, an youth who met at least one of these three conditions would be eligible to apply for legal permanent resident status.

    •    During this six year conditional period, these students would not be eligible for federal higher education grants such as Pell grants, but they would be able to apply for student loans and work study.

    •    If the youth did not meet the educational or military service requirement within the six year time period, their temporary residence would be revoked and they would be removable (deportable).

    •    They must not commit any crimes other than those considered non-drug related misdemeanors. Being convicted of a felony or drug-related infraction would automatically remove the six year temporary residence status and they would be subject to deportation.

    •    If the youth met all of these requirements at the completion of the 6-year conditional period, they would be granted permanent residency, and eventually will be eligible for U.S. citizenship.

There comes a time that we, as American, must do what is just and right under God and our Constitution.   If Comprehensive Immigration Reform cannot be approved quickly, then we must become practical and take smaller steps to accomplish our ultimate goal of Comprehensive Immigration Reform. There are many smaller bills that could help ito stop the hemorrhaging felt by our immigrant society; their friends and famiies.  Not only should the Dream Act be passed quickly, but so to should AgJobs, which is intended for legalization of farm workers, something desperately needed by our country, as well as some form of national ID card that would permit undocumented person to obtain a drivers licenses, which is patenely needed for the overall safety  and security of our country. Let's hope that congress can get its head out of the sand and see the problems delay in resolving the immigration dilemma is causing to our country, the economy and all Americans.

by Moses Apsan

The comprehensive immigration reform may be stalled in Congress, but if the New York Senate has its way over 200,000 domestic workers, many illegal immigrants will be granted basic workplace guarantees that have eluded them for decades.

On June 3rd, the New York Senate passed a bill of rights for domestic workers that would require employers to offer New York's household workers paid holidays, overtime pay and sick days. Under the legislation, employers would have to give two weeks' notice before firing a nanny, a protection most American workers have enjoyed since Franklin Delano Roosevelt passed the  Fair Labor Standards Act in  1937.

If signed, the bill, which is now on Gov. David Paterson’s desk, could become the first law in the nation to provide protection for all domestic workers: legal and illegal residents.

Supporters applaud the bill as it will provide needed relief to thousands of women and men who help raise the children of wealthier New Yorkers, without any legal workplace rights more than the federal minimum wage.

Ai-jen Poo, director of the National Domestic Workers Alliance, an organization of Caribbean, Latina, and African housekeepers and caregivers called the measure "a huge step forward in reversing the long history of exclusion that domestic workers face." Her organization has been lobbying for the legislation for six years.

"I don't need to see your green card status before I know if I'm going to treat you like a human being," Democratic state Sen. Eric Adams commented to the Associated Press. Adams, whose mother was a domestic worker, called the bill a "landmark piece of legislation."

Republicans opposed the bill unsuccessfully. Republican state Sen. Andrew Lanza voted against the bill. In a statement to the New York Times he said that he worried mothers would be discouraged to report cases of suspected abuse among nannies. "I just think that's wrong when it comes to a parent-child situation in a person's home," he said.

Other advocacy groups are trying to get similar legal protections in states where there are large numbers of nannies, such as Colorado and California.

Assemblyman Keith L.T. Wright of Harlem sponsored a similar measure in Albany last year; which stalled however, the Assembly bill did not require paid vacations, paid holidays or severance pay. It is expected that Gov. Paterson will reconcile the two versions. 

by Moses Apsan, Esq.

Comprehensive Immigration reform proponents are panicking over the Arizona fiasco are now worrying about the 1200 troops Obama is sending to protect the borders. The urgency of overhauling the nation's immigration system has been increased by the recent passage of SB 1070 in Arizona.  This “law” in essence sanctions racial profiling as normal police practice and allows persons to sue law enforcement if they feel that the police has failed to enforce the law.

Some 16 states   are considering legislation comparable to SB 1070. While polls have shown that  that a large number of people support this type of enforcement, many of those same polls show even greater interest for comprehensive immigration reform as the best solution.  To date most Republicans are disinclined to  support a comprehensive immigration reform bill.

The largest Hispanic civil rights organization in the United States The League of United Latin American Citizens,  opposes President Obama's order to send  1,200 National Guard troops to the U.S.-Mexico border and is asking its membership to contest several amendments submitted this week to the supplemental war spending bill which will go beyond   the President's border escalation. Specifically the are asking members to contact their senators to oppose expected amendments by McCain (SA 4214), Kyl (SA 4228) and Cornyn

"As we have seen time and time again, efforts to overhaul our broken immigration system have taken a back seat to dramatic escalations of border enforcement including placing troops on the U.S. border to serve in a function for which they have not been trained," stated LULAC National President Rosa Rosales. "What is shocking is that this escalation is coming at a time when border violence and unauthorized border crossings have declined. If we want to solve the challenge of undocumented immigration, it is clear that enforcement alone will not work."

Meanwhile, the National Council of La Raza also expressed disappointment.  "While we appreciate that the president reiterated his commitment to immigration reform at a meeting with congressional Republicans, taking this step without any concurrent announcement on next steps or even a timeline for a comprehensive fix to our broken immigration system is both inadequate and deeply disappointing," said Janet Murguía, President and CEO of NCLR (National Council of La Raza). "As we have stated time and again, temporary fixes and patchwork initiatives won't solve the problem. Congress and the administration have it within their power to do what the American people need, to solve tough problems. They need to act now."

But in reality these organizations are overacting as  no such illegal immigrant hunting will happen under President Obama’s watch.

State Department spokesman Philip Crowley told reporters, "It's not about immigration."  He explained that what they are doing is  "fully consistent with our efforts to do our part to stem, you know, violence, to interdict the flow of dangerous people and dangerous goods -- drugs, guns, people."

Crowly said the troops would essentially free up civilians engaged in support functions so that law enforcement personnel can be increased along the 2,000-mile-long (3,200 kilometer) border.  "We have explained the president's announcement to the government of Mexico, and they fully understand the rationale behind it," Crowley said.

Even Mexico does not object to U.S. plans to station troops along the border between the two nations as long as the soldiers do not arrest Mexicans trying to get into the United States, President Felipe Calderon said on Thursday.

Calderon opined that Washington had not in earnest addressed the necessity to stop what he called the trafficking of weapons and money into Mexico.  "They have a commitment to uphold the law on the American side and not to use the National Guard for immigration purposes or to deal with immigration issues," Calderon said in a news conference in Ottawa after talks with Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper.  "If the National Guard helps toward a common purpose of having a safer border and if they can do this without detaining Mexican migrants, I think this (planned deployment) could bring about positive results," said Calderon.

The U.S. ambassador to Mexico said on Wednesday that the extra troops would be functioning in back offices serving intelligence officials in processing information, or be posted as lookouts between ports of entry.