January 1, 2012 – New York - At the stoke of midnight, while millions were counting down to the new year, two more states joined the growing number that approved a civil union for gay couples. Hawaii and Delaware joined New Jersey, Illinois and Rhode Island in granting the rights offered by traditional marriages to gay and lesbian couple.

Hawaii’s lawmakers barely approved a civil unions law in 2010, but then-Governor Linda Lingle, a Republican, vetoed the bill on the last possible moment. She said the bill was abandoned because it was too similar to traditonal marriage. In February, of 2011 Governor Neil Abercrombie, a Democrat, signed the bill into law in front of a clearly happy and thankful crowd.

In Delaware the state's first law to acknowledge the unions of gay and lesbian couples took  effect on January 1, 2012 at 10AM. It was only this May that Governor Jack Markell signed the legislation before more that 600 applauding supporters.

The immigration history as it relates to gay and lesbian couple displays a constant  upward hill battle for its supportes. Looking back to March of 2003, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), wrote  a detailed  authoritive memo instructing DHS officials about  how they should treat a marriage under US immigration laws. One section of that memo discussed the ongoing problems with same-sex marriages.  The memo refers to the Defense Of Marriage Act (DOMA). The DOMA provides a statutory definition of marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife.  The word “spouse,” in  DOMA refers specifically to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.  According to the memo to qualify as a marriage for purposes of federal law, including the Immigration and Nationality Act, one partner must be a woman and the other a male in a marriage.  Even though the highest court in a state can legalize same-sex marriage, this marriage would not be valid  to obtain immigration benefits.

Thiere was a major  change in February of 2011, when the Obama administration said that they will no longer defend the constitutionality of a federal law banning acknowledgment of same-sex marriage.  Attorney General Eric Holder  noted that ((the congressional debate for passage of the Defense of Marriage Act "contains numerous expressions reflecting moral disapproval of gays and lesbians and their intimate and family relationships - precisely the kind of stereotype-based thinking and animus the (Constitution's) Equal Protection Clause is designed to guard against."))

An enormous amount of media  attention was paid in 2011 to the legal obstacles same-sex binational couples encounter when they attempt to sponsor their foreign-born partner or spouse.

In June, Henry Velandia, a Venezuela citizen  legally married to an American citizen faced deportation.  The Newark Immigration Court, where the trial was held,  granted a motion to administratively close the proceedings based upon President Obama's directions to Attorney General Eric Holder proclaiming that Section 3 of DOMA is unconstitutional. The judge said that he required time for the attorney general and the courts to determine whether, under certain  circumstances, a gay partner may be eligible for legal residency before a proper decision could be made.

Following the hearing Mr. Velandia commented, “I can start breathing now after so many months of fighting…I was holding my breath for fear of any moment being sent away.”

He did however; point out that although the decision was “a big step forward,” it failed to address the fundamental issue of whether same-sex marriages should be accepted by the federal government.

As Mr. Velandia and his husband happily departed from the court you could hear him say, “The fight isn’t over,”
 

December 28, 2011- New York - On August 28, 1963, Martin Luther King delivered his most memorable speech from the steps of the Lincoln Memorial.  His words, “I have a Dream” reverberates from the past to today’s “dreamers” who are facing  something akin to Kings  plea for racial equality and an end to discrimination. These “Dreamers”  are fighting for their very existence.  Brought to this country at a very young age, each of them are caught in 'limbo.’  They find themselves  old enough to work, but cannot work legally, they are old enough to go to college but cannot get any financial assistance, they are old enough to drive  but cannot obtain a driver’s license.   Are they going to be relegated permanently to a purgatory like existence; not knowing where they belong or will their dream finally become a reality?

It was Senators Richard Durbin, Harry Reid, and Robert Menendez that re-introduced the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act. Last fall, the DREAM Act passed the House of Representatives, and garnered the support of a majority in the Senate, but was ultimately defeated when the Senate failed to invoke cloture and proceed to debate. The sponsors of the DREAM Act hope to build on last year’s momentum and continue to highlight the importance of fully utilizing the talent and potential of thousands of young people who are Americans in every way but their birth certificates.

Who would Qualify for the Dream Act?

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.

Although throughout his term, Obama has been verbally an enthusiastic Dream Act supporter, he has done little to move the bill forward. In fact, until recently, Obama took a hard line on immigration violations by having Homeland Security work methodically to locate and deport immigration violators and has simultaneously shored up the Mexican border.  But in the summer of 2011,  the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Director John Morton issued two important memorandum on the use of prosecutorial discretion in immigration matters.  Prosecutorial discretion applies to the agency’s authority to not enforce immigration laws against those individuals and groups that are in the process of deportation or removal proceedings.  In other words a person not in deportation, at this time cannot make use of this memo.

The Morton Memo directs that ICE attorneys and employees to exercise prosecutorial discretion and desist from going after non-citizens with close family, educational, military, or other ties in the U.S. As an alternative, the memo orders them to apply their efforts for people who pose a threat to public safety or national security.

((What this memo means to the “Dreamers” is that they now feel empowered to act without  fear of deportation.)) On March 10th, undocumented immigrant advocacy organizations initiated the National Coming Out of the Shadows day. In the subsequent months hundreds of young people across the U.S. literally came out of the shadows, revealed themselves as undocumented and took part in protest marches .  In essence their campaign is similar to Martin Luther King’s human rights campaign. During the various protest some of these  young people were arrested.  These arrests included  four in Arizona, six in Chicago, seven in Atlanta, ten in North Carolina and five in Indiana. This is just the beginning.

If Obama could see his way to push congress to approve the Dream Act or even if he were to grant an Executive Order similar to the Dream Act proposed in the Senate, he would be  assured of basically 100% of the Hispanic and other minorities vote in the November election.  He would be a  winner, the democratic party will hold on to their precious power and the dream of thousands of innocent people would come true, at last.

InfoPass enables the public to go online to schedule appointments with immigration information officers at U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) offices. If you have a complex immigration question or need that is best addressed by a trained USCIS officer in person, InfoPass offers a convenient alternative to waiting in line for assistance. InfoPass is a secure Internet site. This computer scheduling system is now at all 33 district offices, and it schedules appointments for almost every function of district offices via a link on the USCIS website.

If your case is complicated, you would be wise go to an infopass appointment with a lawyer.  He will be able to understand the situation of you case and explain it to you in a clear manner and may even be able to resolve open issues in your case.

How Infopass Works

((Access the system by going on the internet a page on the USCIS website)). Any computer with web access can do this. In a few districts, immigration has installed computer kiosks in the lobby so that people can do the scheduling there. In most others, people are directed to public libraries or anywhere that they can gain computer access to do the scheduling.  

The system directs the user into the possible appointment scheduling for the all 33 districts now using it. A preliminary page tells the person to select English, or one of eleven other languages, for the scheduling instructions. The system encourages people to use the website to check case status online without need for an appointment, and advertises the availability of immigration forms and e-filing (I-90 and I-765) through the website.

Infopass also directs the user to consult the customer service number (800-375-5283) for more information. This number is widely regarded as time-consuming and useless by practitioners. Contract employees staff the line, and the knowledge of immigration is elementary, at best. However, address changes for service centers are efficiently reported through the customer service line, since the employees reliably record the new address information in the case status information by computer.

If an appointment is then requested, the zip code for the client's home address must be entered. Then the appointment seeker is asked to choose a type of appointment – from a question about a case, a stamp in a passport after residency approval, a work permit upon to filing for adjustment after 90 days have passed, or filing an application to replace an alien card. With input of first, middle and last name, date of birth, zip code and phone number, a choice of appointment slots open within the next few weeks or days will be offered.

If appointments are used up for the next scheduling period in the particular district, the person is advised to try back later. No file numbers are requested by the system. Each district has a mix of daily appointment types available. Many districts schedule appointments every 15 minutes, while others allot 30 minutes per appointment. In the Dallas system, a separate track for the Dallas Area Rapid Adjustment (DORA), which is used to schedule adjustment filings and interviews through Infopass.

Applicants are then directed to appear at the district office with identification and to take a copy of the Infopass appointment. Districts differ on how much access they will allow to accompanying persons, including family members and translators. Each district has its own policy on whether emergency walk-in inquiries will still be allowed after Infopass is installed, but such walk-ins are generally discouraged. In efficient districts, the DHS employee is on hand to help people either obtain an Infopass appointment or screen the person for a possible walk-in emergency.

Attorney and cashier access is also by Infopass appointment in many of the districts where the system has been installed. Some districts, such as Arlington, have stated that they will keep separate attorney walk-in hours and cashier hours for immigration court cases.

WHAT SHOULD I TAKE TO MY APPOINTMENT?

 Bring a print out of the appointment notice. The notice gives the date and time of the appointment, the USCIS office address, and instructions on any additional documents required

Be prepared to present personal identification, such as a government-issued ID card, passport, valid driver’s license, I-94, Work Authorization Card, or green card (I-551).

Bring any forms, receipts, translations, and original documents related to your inquiry.

You can cancel and reschedule appointments over the Internet using the identification numbers at the bottom of your appointment confirmation notice.

If you lose your appointment notice, you may generate a replacement by accessing InfoPass and entering the information requested.

SCHEDULE YOUR APPOINTMENT WITH INFOPASS  HERE

source: jornal.us

December 25, 2011 - New York City - The line is being drawn on the sand as a half dozen states prepare to propose similar anti-immigrant bills passed by Arizona last year.  Yet Arizona’s efforts, proposed and supported by (soon to be ex) State Senator Russell Pearce, suffered a dramatic defeat on the Senate floor as a majority of the chamber killed five bills after business leaders' urged lawmakers to step back from the contentious issue.

As of this writing , some eighth states are actively proposing similar anti immigrants laws. 

Texas is very vigorously promting anti-immigrant laws,  with more than 40 bills being contemplated, including one that would require all students to undergo strict citizenship status verification. 

South Dakota proposes that anyone who knowingly hire or help illegal immigrants will be deemed a criminal. Another would deputize state police as immigration officers, mandating that they confront anyone they believe illegal and verify status.

Florida State Representative William Snyder is thinking about an immigration bill comparable to Arizona's, which compels non-citizens to carry their green cards on them constantly. (Such a law would require all Floridians to carry proof of residency.)

Kentucky proposes a bill that would allow police to ask people whether they are in the country legally. If they are not, they could be arrested and charged with trespassing.

South Carolina proposes a bill less restrictive. It would require police officers to verify the immigration status of any one they believe is illegal and is stopped in connection with another crime

Georgia legislators are proposing a law that allows states to deputize police to act as immigration officers and interrogate people about their immigration status.

Maine Gov. Paul LePage plans to also magically turn state police into immigration officers.

Utah Rep. Stephen Sandstrom has met with Michael Hethmon, general counsel of the Immigration Reform Law Institute, the legal wing of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), to help him draft an anti-immigrant proposal. FAIR is one of the many anti-immigarnt organization run by one man, John Tanton.

The Southern Poverty Law Center, a nonprofit civil rights organization, categorizes FAIR as a "hate group" because of bigoted quotes from its founder, John Tanton.

((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 frenetically to modify America's thinking on immigration.

The current endeavor, led by Republicans, are a group of state bills arriving this year with its sights on destroying Hispanic and other minorities way of life. 

Coming together for another unsuccessful attempt, Republican Grinches plan to begin yet another coordinated effort to cancel automatic United States citizenship for children born in this country to illegal immigrant parents.  In other words, they ultimately want to destroy the basic fabric of our country and turn back the clock before the civil rights movement..  Their efforts are doomed to failure as the 14th amendment to the constitution says this: “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.”  But the Republicans know they will never be able to change the 14th Amendment, but just by trying they feed their frenetic hordes of Grinches,

The U.S. government is vigorously opposing these laws.  The Department of State has been consistently challenging this law as an unconstitutional attempt to control the immigration laws; an area constitutionally reserved for the federal government.  The guts of the Arizona  law has been enjoined until further decision by the Supreme Court,

Meanwhile the Obama administration is reviewing orders to deport thousands of illegal immigrants in two cities; Baltimore and Denver.  These reviews follow Obama’s earlier order to review more than 300,000 cases still pending in immigration court. 

At the same time, Representatives from over 20 states assembled in Montgomery to call for the invalidating of the law identified as HB 56. Opponents of Alabama's immigration law rallied with immigrant and civil rights leaders last Saturday from the state Capitol steps to the governor's mansion sending a message of disappointment with what some call a "mean and ugly law." The organizers, the Fair Immigration Reform Movement approximated a crowd of more than 2,500. 

With the national limelight on the Republicans anti-immigrant campaign, a group of leading Iowans is also entering the immigration battle. The Iowan congress created the Iowa Compact, a proposal that would have federal immigration reform that, contrary to the republican paradigm, increases legal immigration and refocuses law enforcement on security threats and does not try to keep out farm workers.

The Iowa Compact would change undocumented immigration from working underground to working above ground and within the laws. The Iowa Compact wants to abolish unauthorized immigration by authorizing it.

The Iowa Compact was inspired by Utah’s similar proposal. In November 2010, former Republican Governor Olene Walker, Republican legislators, Democratic legislators, and numerous others executed the Utah Compact.  The Utah Compact passed a softer version of Arizona’s SB 1070 with many of the most burdensome parts gone and surprisingly added a state-level guest worker pilot program.

Over the course of the last four years anti-immigrant republicans have fallen into their own trap by remaining silent about realistic solutions and/or adopting harsh language and antagonistic measures to enforce a flawed immigration system.

In response to increasing anti-immigrant attacks at the state level, many more enlightened state level organizations are moving towards a major thrust for more legal immigration and a resolution that does not reinforce a failed enforcement-only strategy. 

Even New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg went to Washington recently with a plan for comprehensive immigration reform, asking Congress to embrace four ideas he believes will prompt economic recovery and generate jobs.

With the intellectual power of  like minded humane individuals, a nationwide, pro-immigration movement is finally gaining strength throughout the country.

Shortly after the announcement that draconian Arizona Republican Senator Russell Pearce is about to be booted out in a recall election, his friend, Arizona’s Maricopa County Sheriff, Joe Arpaio's office staff  was accused by the Department of Justice of having a pattern of racially profiling Latinos, basing immigration enforcement on racially-charged citizen complaints and punishing Hispanic  inmates when they spoke.

On Friday, U.S. District Judge Murray,barred Arpaio's  deputies from detaining people based solely on their suspicion that they’re in the country illegally.

In a 40-page ruling the facts emerged that during patrols, known as "sweeps," deputies would flood heavily Latino areas over a period of many days.  Their purpose:  to seek out traffic violators and arrest other offenders. Illegal immigrants accounted for 57 percent of the 1,500 people arrested in the 20 sweeps performed by his office since January 2008.

Arpaio, who now is fighting for his political life, finds his reliable anti-immigrant supporters dissipating.

His own lawyer talks as if he is guilty. "I thought that the judge, given the facts, was very fair in his evaluation," Tim Casey, one of Arpaio's lawyers commented. And Arpaio’s loyal deputy sheriffs have acknowledged deleting their emails and shredding officers' records about the patrols and are taking a beeline away from Arpaio.

The sheriff’s representative refutes any wrong doing and explained that the documents destroyed was through an honest mistake resulting from a senior official’s failure to notify the sheriffs departments of the requirement to save a copy of the documents.

A handful of Latinos filed the lawsuit alleging that Arpaio's officers based some traffic stops on the race of Hispanics in vehicles and had no probable cause to stop them merely to inquire about their immigration status.

At the same time pro-immigrants attack anti-immigrant state laws  on all sides. South Carolina is now inflicted with the identical race related issues.

This New Year's day U.S. District Judge Richard Gergel suspends two portions of South Carolina's new immigration law, which (1) forces immigrants to constantly keep their legal paperwork with them and (2) makes anyone who transports or harbors an illegal immigrant a criminal. Anybody who unintentionally rents a room to an illegal immigrant or picks up an illegal immigrant in a taxi would be criminally implicated.

The trial Judge commented that a member of the public accused of a minor infraction such, as jaywalking would be requires a mandatory investigation that would eventually "overburden federal immigration enforcement resources and disrupt the federal government's enforcement scheme."  South Carolina, lawmakers mistakenly modeled their legislation after Arizona's strict law, hostile to illegal immigrants. Arizona's law, currently mostly on hold, is quickly moving towards a decision by the Supreme Court where the Obama Administration will argue that immigration enforcement is a federal, not a state responsibility.

A recent article by wnyc.org discussed that the Justice Department's opinion that  South Carolina usurps federal power by enacting its own immigration laws appears as the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected appeals from Alabama and Georgia last Thursday intended to delay lawsuits challenging those states' immigration laws.

Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller is now asking a federal court to put on hold a legal challenge to Indiana's new anti-illegal immigration law until the U.S. Supreme Court decides a comparable case involving Arizona's immigration statute. On Thursday  Zoeller  stated that "Indiana will await guidance from the U.S. Supreme Court on what states are empowered to do when the Congress and federal government agencies totally fail in their responsibility to enact and enforce federal immigration policy,"

An Immigration Policy Solution?

Meanwhile immigration reform solutions are being proposed from both political camps. Norman E. Adams   a member of the Texans for Sensible Immigration Policy said that "[m]ost people agree that a controlled flow of identified and taxed immigrant workers can be a good thing. A positive Identification of everyone will help us secure our borders and manage our labor needs.”

This group suggests an immigration reform which requires that:

Illegal immigrants pay sales taxes on everything they buy. They pay property taxes on the homes they own or rent. For those legally hired as employees, they pay federal withholding, payroll taxes, and social security taxes. Why would we voluntarily deport that tax revenue? We need to double it! Let’s ID and Tax all immigrants, not just those with a fake SS number!

They explaind the 'We need immigrants and their children'

a. The minimum birth rate to sustain a population is 2.1%, yet America's latest fertility rate is only 2.01%!

b. Every year more American-born workers are retiring than are entering the workforce. This is especially true in lower skill trades.

Alabama’s Governor Bentley now “sees the light”  and is now accepting the negative influences of the enforcement-only laws he maintained when he stated.  Comprehensive immigration reform may be next on his agenda.

"My fellow Americans, I pray you will be moved to consider what I have said and give it a fair hearing. I believe this is the right approach on principle and politics. America needs a sensible immigration policy.”

Republican GOP presidential hopeful, Newt Gingrich said that it would not be “humane” to deport someone who has been living and working here for years.

Are republicans really changing their uncompromising stance on illegal immigration?  Is a comprehensive immigration law to become a reality in the near future?  Or is this verbosity just another red herring merely stated to convince their disappearing Latin constituency that republican are their friends?  In less that one year there will be nothing more to hide.

source: wnyc.org

New York, NY - In a December 12 pastoral letter, the bishop of Wisconsin said the Catholics should “commit [themselves] to helping resolve this pressing immigration crisis,”  The letter went on to say that  “[o]ur Catechism addresses directly the duty of wealthy nations like ours to welcome foreigners who are searching for a better life and to respect their natural right to emigrate,” the bishops write. “At the same time, it recognizes the right of governments to regulate immigration for the sake of the common good (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2nd ed., n. 2241). This duty and this right are not incompatible; it is possible to respect both.”

The GOP is threading on thin ice, if it expects to have any chance of winning the 20012 election if they alienate the  Catholic and Latino voters. Some 64% to 70% of Latinos identify as Catholic, thus when the Latin community increases, it grows the overall Catholic vote.

Despite the huge economic problems facing our county, a recent poll  suggests that immigration reform is the main issue affecting the Latino vote in next year’s presidential race.

The poll, conducted by Latino Decisions, reported that 42 percent of Latino voters were concerned about immigration . Surprisingly unemployment come in second at a distant 23 percent. Fixing the economy came in third at 20 percent.  Only one percent of the Latinos polled thought that there was a major need to address Wall Street banking practices. “It seems like this is in part because there’s only competition on the Republican side, but it also means Latinos in general aren’t very interested and don’t feel included in the Republicans’ conversation,” University of Washington in

Seattle professor and adviser for Latino Decisions Matt Barreto said in a statement, according to Politico.
Over the years, the anti immigrant faction rested their case on more border enforcement arguing that before immigration reform, we have to  " secure the border."  This argument is frivolous on its face as it ignores the extent to which the federal government has poured their assets into making the southwestern border  almost impenetrable.

But it’s not just the argument that the borders are more secure than ever or that Obama has deported more illegal aliens than any other president in recent history a large segment of our population want immigration reform.  In a recent Pew Research poll conducted Nov. 9-14 that included 2,001 adults through landlines and mobile telephones finds that 43 percent adult Americans believe that  "better border security and stronger enforcement" and a "path to citizenship for illegal immigrants in the United States" are issues that should be given equal priority. The number of those who say better border security and stronger enforcement should be the more important priority is just 29 percent.

It’s clear from this poll and the conversations going around the country that both border enforcement and immigration reform are equally important.   If Congress wants to make Americans happy, it has to go beyond the political bickering and finalize a comprehensive immigration reform package that takes care of both border security and the legal integration of the over 12 million aliens residing in our county.

New York, NY - In a December 12 pastoral letter, the bishop of Wisconsin said the Catholics should “commit [themselves] to helping resolve this pressing immigration crisis,”  The letter went on to say that  “[o]ur Catechism addresses directly the duty of wealthy nations like ours to welcome foreigners who are searching for a better life and to respect their natural right to emigrate,” the bishops write. “At the same time, it recognizes the right of governments to regulate immigration for the sake of the common good (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2nd ed., n. 2241). This duty and this right are not incompatible; it is possible to respect both.”

The GOP is threading on thin ice, if it expects to have any chance of winning the 20012 election if they alienate the  Catholic and Latino voters. Some 64% to 70% of Latinos identify as Catholic, thus when the Latin community increases, it grows the overall Catholic vote.

Despite the huge economic problems facing our county, a recent poll  suggests that immigration reform is the main issue affecting the Latino vote in next year’s presidential race.

The poll, conducted by Latino Decisions, reported that 42 percent of Latino voters were concerned about immigration . Surprisingly unemployment come in second at a distant 23 percent. Fixing the economy came in third at 20 percent.  Only one percent of the Latinos polled thought that there was a major need to address Wall Street banking practices.
 “It seems like this is in part because there’s only competition on the Republican side, but it also means Latinos in general aren’t very interested and don’t feel included in the Republicans’ conversation,” University of Washington in

Seattle professor and adviser for Latino Decisions Matt Barreto said in a statement, according to Politico.
Over the years, the anti immigrant faction rested their case on more border enforcement arguing that before immigration reform, we have to  " secure the border."  This argument is frivolous on its face as it ignores the extent to which the federal government has poured their assets into making the southwestern border  almost impenetrable.

But it’s not just the argument that the borders are more secure than ever or that Obama has deported more illegal aliens than any other president in recent history a large segment of our population want immigration reform.  In a recent Pew Research poll conducted Nov. 9-14 that included 2,001 adults through landlines and mobile telephones finds that 43 percent adult Americans believe that  "better border security and stronger enforcement" and a "path to citizenship for illegal immigrants in the United States" are issues that should be given equal priority. The number of those who say better border security and stronger enforcement should be the more important priority is just 29 percent.

It’s clear from this poll and the conversations going around the country that both border enforcement and immigration reform are equally important.   If Congress wants to make Americans happy, it has to go beyond the political bickering and finalize a comprehensive immigration reform package that takes care of both border security and the legal integration of the over 12 million aliens residing in our county.

On July 19, 2011 Governor Christie announced Medical Marijuana Program Implementation.  It took more than one and one half year from  enactment to implementation.  So far 16 states have  passed medical marijuana laws.

A recent New York Times editorial op-ed supports medical marijuana, calling  the legalization of marijuana as a “sensible and humane” thing to do.  While saying this, the newspaper urged NY Governor Andrew Cuomo to re-evaluate medical cannabis and permit seriously ill people in New York to have the option of marijuana.

However, a dispute has arisen within the congress of New Jersey as to the limitations of the New Jersey Marijuana laws. State Sen. Nicholas Scutari, a principal sponsor of the law, said he’s glad  Gov. Chris Christie decided to move forward with the program, which, according to Scutari is the most limiting in the country.  During a July 27 NJToday interview, Scutari stated that "Certainly we're going to be the most restrictive state in the land … in terms of who can get medical marijuana, how it will be prescribed and how it will be achieved in terms of moving it into the marketplace.

In New Jersey medical marijuana cannot be prescribed; but doctors can only recommend it for patients. Although New Jersey’s list of conditions for prescribing Marijuana is in harmony with other states but unlike other sates, only New Jersey and Washington, D.C. do not provide for chronic pain to be used as a basis for, prescribing marijuana.

Attorney Tamar Todd, of the Drug Policy Alliance, a drug policy reform organization, said that while "pain is one of the categories where it is most needed," it also is "the category that allows the most abuse."

In order for a New Jersey doctor to recommend marijuana as treatment a he or she  must be registered with the state health department; New Jersey is the only state to required doctor registration. Once a  registered doctor recommends medical marijuana for a New Jersey resident, it can only be obtained in one of six dispensaries called by the state as "alternative treatment centers."

The law does not permit patients to grow marijuana at home and limits the amount prescribed to two ounces per month.

In early June, a 19-member international panel called the "war on drugs" a failure and recommended the United States consider legalizing marijuana as a way to undermine criminal organizations.

On June 23, 2011 Reps. Ron Paul, R-Texas, and Barney Frank, D-Mass., say they will introduce a bill to curb the government's role in marijuana law enforcement. The bill's authors said the measure isn't an attempt to legalize marijuana, but meant to ease conflicts between federal and state laws.

Advocates for Medical Marijuana argue its benefits. A recent PBS video summarizes the science behind the use of cannabis as a medicine, which claims that cannabinoids selectively target and kill cancer cells.
 

Frequently Asked Questions about the Medicinal Marijuana Program

• How do I get approved to use medicinal marijuana?
  Your physician must register with DHSS to participate in the program, and must attest that you are undergoing treatment for an active debilitating medical condition, and may benefit from the use of medicinal marijuana to relieve symptoms. This must be a physician who has ongoing responsibility for your care.
• How soon can patients register and obtain medicinal marijuana?
  Patients’ physicians must first register with the Medicinal Marijuana Program. Once registered and verified by DHSS staff, physicians will then be able to certify their patients as having qualifying conditions. Physicians will receive access codes to provide to their patients so that their patients can register either on-line or through a paper application. Patient registration will begin later this year and patients can watch this webpage for information.
• What is a bona fide physician relationship?
  The physician has seen the patient for at least one year OR;
  the physician has seen the patient four times for the patient’s debilitating condition OR;
  the physician assumes responsibility for providing management and care of the patient’s debilitating condition after conducting a comprehensive medical history and physical examination, including a personal review of the patient’s medical record maintained by other treating physicians reflecting the patient’s reaction and response and response to conventional medical therapies.
• What conditions qualify someone to participate?
  Patients must be certified by their physicians as having a debilitating medical condition, such as amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, multiple sclerosis, terminal cancer, muscular dystrophy, or inflammatory bowel disease, including Crohn’s disease. Terminal illness also qualifies if the physician determines the patient has less than 12 months to live.
  
  The following conditions qualify if they are resistant to conventional medical therapy: seizure disorder, including epilepsy; intractable skeletal muscular spasticity; or glaucoma.
  
  The following conditions qualify if severe or chronic pain, severe nausea or vomiting, cachexia, or wasting syndrome results from the condition or its treatment: positive status for AIDS, HIV or cancer.
• My condition is debilitating but it’s not on that list.  What can I do?
  After an initial assessment of the program, patients can file a petition with the program once a year.
• It’s too difficult for me to travel. Can someone help me get medicinal marijuana?
  Yes. A qualified patient can identify a primary caregiver, who will be registered with the Alternative Treatment Center that provides your medicinal marijuana. The caregiver must undergo a criminal background check.
• Can dispensaries deliver?
  No, there will be no home delivery.
• How much medicinal marijuana can an approved patient get each month?
  A maximum of two ounces in any 30 day period.
• Can I share or give away medicinal marijuana?
  No. Only qualifying patients may obtain, possess and use marijuana that has been lawfully obtained through an ATC. You may not share or give away your medicinal marijuana. Any person who obtains, possesses, uses or sells marijuana in any manner that is not authorized under the Compassionate Use Law will be subject to arrest and criminal prosecution.  
• Can patients consume medicinal marijuana on-site at the Alternative Treatment Center that supplies their marijuana?
  No.
• Can dispensaries provide food products with marijuana in them?
  No.
• Can I grow my own medicinal marijuana?
  No.
• Is there a fee to register?
  Yes.  The registration fee for patients and caregivers is $200, which is valid for two years.  A reduced fee of $20 would be paid by patients who qualify for certain state or federal assistance programs.
• Is medicinal marijuana covered by Medicaid?
  Medicinal marijuana is not a covered service under Medicaid.
• Who will grow the medicinal marijuana?
  Nonprofit growers were chosen through a public, competitive process. 
• How many Alternative Treatment Centers will there be?
  There are 6 nonprofit ATCs chosen through a competitive process.
• Where will the ATCs be located?
  ATCs selected for dispensing medicinal marijuana will be located in the north, central and southern parts of the state. The proposed rules have established three regions based on New Jersey counties. Specifically they are central (Hunterdon, Middlesex, Mercer, Monmouth, Ocean, Somerset, and Union); northern (Bergen, Essex, Hudson, Morris, Passaic, Sussex and Warren) and southern (Atlantic, Burlington, Camden, Cape May, Cumberland, Gloucester and Salem).
• What other states have passed medicinal marijuana laws?
  New Jersey was the 14th state to enact a medicinal marijuana law. The other states are Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington. The District of Columbia has also enacted a law.  

New York - August 19, 2011 - President Obama is on the move to provide protection to immigrants even if Congress does not act on Comprehensive Immigration Reform.   Just the other day, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Director John Morton issued two important memorandum on the use of prosecutorial discretion in immigration matters.  Prosecutorial discretion applies to the agency’s authority to not enforce immigration laws against those individuals and groups that are in the process of deportation or removal proceedings.  In other words a person not in deportation, at this time cannot make use of this memo.

The Morton Memo directs that ICE attorneys and employees to exercise prosecutorial discretion and desist from going after noncitizens with close family, educational, military, or other ties in the U.S. As an alternative, the memo orders them to apply their efforts for people who pose a threat to public safety or national security. What his means is that if you are illegal in the United States and have not committed a crime and have not yet been deported, you can take a deep breath because Immigration is not looking for you.

Even if someone calls the ICE hotline to tell them that a person is illegal in the United States, ICE will not go after them unless they are criminals or pose a threat to our safety.

What are the Factors for Prosecutorial Discretion

The memo lists the following 19 items for ICE to consider when applying Prosecutorial Discretion:

•    the agency’s civil immigration enforcement priorities;
•    the person’s length of presence in the United States, with particular consideration given to presence while in lawful status;
•    the circumstances of the person’s arrival in the United States and the manner of his or her entry, particularly if the alien came to the United States as a young child;
•    the person’s pursuit of education in the United States, with particular consideration given to those who have graduated from a U.S. high school or have successfully pursued or are pursuing a college or advanced degrees at a legitimate institution of higher education in the United States;
•    whether the person, or the person’s immediate relative, has served in the U.S. military, reserves, or national guard, with particular consideration given to those who served in combat;
•    the person’s criminal history, including arrests, prior convictions, or outstanding arrest warrants;
•    the person’s immigration history, including any prior removal, outstanding order of removal, prior denial of status, or evidence of fraud;
•    whether the person poses a national security or public safety concern;
•    the person’s ties and contributions to the community, including family relationships;
•    the person’s ties to the home country and conditions in the country;
•    the person’s age, with particular consideration given to minors and the elderly;
•    whether the person has a U.S. citizen or permanent resident spouse, child, or parent;
•    whether the person is the primary caretaker of a person with a mental or physical disability, minor, or seriously ill relative; 
•    whether the person or the person’s spouse is pregnant or nursing;
•    whether the person or the person’s spouse suffers from severe mental or physical illness;
•    whether the person’s nationality renders removal unlikely;
•    Whether the person is likely to be granted legal status or other relief from removal, including as a relative of a U.S. citizen or permanent resident;
•    whether the person is likely to be granted temporary or permanent status or other relief from removal, including as an asylum seeker, or a victim of domestic violence, human trafficking, or other crime; and
•    whether the person is currently cooperating or has cooperated with federal, state, or local law-enforcement authorities, such as ICE, the U.S Attorneys or Department of Justice, the Department of Labor, or National Labor Relations Board, among others.

The Morton Memo on Prosecutorial Discretion also identifies groups of persons who deserves “particular care” when making prosecutorial decisions.  Specifically, these individuals embrace:

•    veterans and members of the U.S. armed forces;
•    long-time lawful permanent residents;
•    minors and elderly individuals;
•    individuals present in the United States since childhood;
•    pregnant or nursing women;
•    victims of domestic violence, trafficking, or other serious crimes;
•    individuals who suffer from a serious mental or physical disability; and
•    individuals with serious health conditions.

Prosecutorial Discretion is Not a Green Card

First, any form of prosecutorial discretion is fragile at best, and does not grant legal status or benefit. Secondly, decisions about prosecutorial discretion are usually made on a case-by-case .  If granted, the person’s case will receive a “deferred Action” (placed in a low priority) and will probably receive work authorization.

Conclusion

Achieving the goal of the memos will require  a method by which prosecutorial discretion is considered in every case brought to ICE’s attention, even before a Notice to Appear (charging document in deportation) is issued.  ICE attorneys and employees will have to be trained to follow these memos, and held responsible when they fail to act properly.  Finally, ICE must invest resources in training its officers and attorneys to accept the concept of prosecutorial discretion and the critical nature of exercising it in each and every appropriate case.

A WARNING

Over the last few years many immigrants have left the United States after residing here for many years.  Some left for economic or familial reasons.  These people unfortunately will have great problems in re-entering the United States. Current laws state that if a person remained illegal for a period greater than one year (1) in the U.S.; he or she cannot obtain their permanent legal status (Green Card) until they have remained outside the U.S. for a period of 10 years.

Be Advised: Do not leave the U.S. if you plan to return without consulting an attorney.

You can follow this links:

ApsanLaw.com

by Moses Apsan, Esq.

On  June 23, 2011 the Board of Immigration Appeal (BIA) in the Matter of Le clarified the issue of whether the child of a fiancée of a U.S. citizen (a K-2 visa holder), who legally entered the U.S. under the age 21, is eligible for adjustment of status even after turning age 21.

In this case, the child and his mother were both native and citizen of Vietnam.  When the mother became engaged to a United States citizen, he filed a Petition for Alien Fiancé(e) with the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service (“USCIS”) on her behalf on December 8, 2003. The Fiancé petition was approved, and the respondent’s mother was issued a K-1 nonimmigrant fiancée visa. The child was 19 years old and was issued a K-2 nonimmigrant visa as the minor child who was accompanying, or following to join, his mother, a K-1 visa holder. On December 27, 2004, they were admitted to the United States on their K visas.

On December 30, 2004, a few days following their admission, the mother married her United States citizen fiancé and in about 2 months, both filed applications to adjust status with the USCIS. Although the respondent’s mother was granted adjustment, the child’s application was denied. Shortly there after the child was placed in removal (deportation) proceedings. At the removal hearing her lawyer sought to renew the adjustment application. The Immigration Judge denied the adjustment application and concluded that under section 245(d) of the Act, “the respondent had been eligible to adjust his status to that of a conditional permanent resident when his application was before the USCIS, because he was still under 21 years old. Nevertheless, the Immigration Judge determined that the respondent could no longer adjust because he had since turned 21 and could not qualify as a “child,” as that term is defined in section 101(b)(1) of the Act.” The decision was appealed

On appeal, the Board concluded that the age of the child is “fixed” at the time the child is admitted to the United States. By holding so, it threw out the Department of Homeland Security’s position that a K-2 visa holder must under the age of 21 at the time the adjustment of status application is adjudicated.

The Board’s decision follows in line with the position advocated  by the American Immigration Council and the American Immigration Lawyers Association in the amicus briefs submitted to the Board in approximately six other cases where the child turned 21 after being admitted to the United States.

Under this ruling, many other children in a similar position will be able to become lawful permanent residents, as was Congress’ original intent.