A recent letter sent by major nonprofit organization to the USCIS commented on the Notice of Intent filed by the USCIS (U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service) to implement stateside processing of a provisional waiver of inadmissibility for certain immediate relative. This would be a major administrative change in its procedures for processing thousands of cases where a U.S. citizen applies for legal residence for an undocumented spouse. Under current law an undocumented spouse that entered illegally or remained past the visa date (unless an immediate relative) may not apply for adjustment of status and become lawful permanent resident unless they return to the their home country and reenters properly. The big drawback with this scenario occurs when the undocumented resident remained in the U.S. illegally for any period greater than six months. In such a case, they are subject to the 3/10-year bar to re-entry.
The letter, was formulated by a host of respected nonprofit Organizations (listed below), and asks that the Service take the following initial comments into consideration as it works toward a draft proposed rule.
1. Expand the Rule to Permit Preference Relatives to Apply for Provisional Waivers
USCIS states that the provisional waiver process “reflects the Administration’s strong commitment to efficiency in the administration of immigration law and the facilitation of legal immigration” by “encourag[ing] individuals who may be eligible for a waiver of inadmissibility to seek lawful readmission to the United States ....”1 In addition, it is expected that rule change “would provide a more predictable and transparent process andimproved processing times ... [and] would streamline the process for both USCIS and the Department of State.”2
As currently formulated, the provisional waiver process would only apply to a very limited group of applicants, namely, immediate relatives of U.S. citizens who can show extreme hardship to a U.S. citizen spouse or parent. As a practical matter, the process would be limited to:
- Spouses of U.S. citizens who can show extreme hardship to their spouses or to a U.S. citizen parent;
- Parents of adult U.S. citizens who can show extreme hardship to a U.S. citizen parent or U.S. citizen spouse; and
- Unmarried children (under 21) of U.S. citizens who can show extreme hardship to their U.S. citizen parent. Since children under 18 cannot accrue unlawful presence, this category would be limited to children between the ages of 18 and 21.
A better path would be to open the provisional process to preference categories, including unmarried adult children of U.S. citizens, and spouses and children of lawful permanent residents (LPRs). The hardships suffered by these preference category families, who face the same lengthy separation from loved ones when they seek LPR status, are as compelling as those suffered by immediate relatives. Opening up the provisional waiver process to preference relatives would offer more measurable benefits to USCIS and DOS, would better facilitate legal immigration by encouraging a more sizable group to come out of the shadows, and comports with USCIS’s stated goal to alleviate unnecessary familial hardships.
In its FAQs, USCIS notes that part of its justification for limiting the provisional waiver process to immediate relatives is that immediate relatives are not subject to the numerical limitations on visas, and therefore, visas are always available to this group.3 However, if preference relatives are permitted to apply for a provisional waiver only when their priority date is current and an immigrant visa is available, we see no discernable difference for limiting the process to immediate relatives.
2. Expand the Rule to Permit Lawful Permanent Residents to Serve as Qualifying Relatives for Hardship Purposes
INA §212(a)(9)(B)(v), which sets forth the statutory basis for the unlawful presence waiver, permits a waiver for those who can show hardship to a U.S. citizen or an LPR spouse or parent. However, USCIS has indicated its intent to exclude immediate relatives who can show hardship to an LPR spouse or parent under the new process. The principles of family unity and benefits of reduced hardships apply with equal force to LPRs as they do to U.S. citizens. Such a policy will limit even further the individuals who can benefit from the new process, without any rational reason for doing so. Therefore, USCIS should open the provisional waiver process to those who can demonstrate extreme hardship to an LPR spouse or parent.
3. Expand the Rule to Permit Provisional Processing of Other Waivers
USCIS states that the process change will be limited to individuals whose only ground of inadmissibility is unlawful presence. As a result many people with compelling equities who could obtain lawful status will be unable to benefit from the new process simply because they are subject to an additional, waivable ground of inadmissibility. USCIS should consider opening up the provisional process to other waivers that require extreme hardship since such waivers could easily be adjudicated at the same time. For example, INA §212(h)(1)(B), which waives certain criminal grounds of inadmissibility, uses the extreme hardship standard. Similarly, INA §212(i), which waives inadmissibility for fraud or misrepresentation, uses the exact same language as the unlawful presence waiver.
Under sound policies adopted by USCIS in 2009 guiding the adjudication of I-212 and I-601 waivers, USCIS stated that an I-212 waiver of a prior removal order may be approved if the agency has already granted an unlawful presence waiver (or other inadmissibility waiver), “since approval of the Form I- 212 involves the exercise of discretion and, by deciding to approve the Form I-601, the adjudicator has determined that the alien merits a favorable exercise of discretion.”4 This same logic can be applied here. If USCIS finds that an applicant has established extreme hardship to a family member for the purposes of one waiver, it should find the same for a second.
USCIS should also consider opening up the process to waivers that do not require extreme hardship, such as waivers under INA §212(h)(1)(A) and §212(d)(11). The current Form I-601 is designed to accommodate multiple waiver requests and it would take few additional resources to adjudicate multiple waivers through this process. Moreover, broadening the process to include additional grounds of inadmissibility would further USCIS’s goals of increasing efficiency in the administration of immigration law and facilitating legal immigration.
4. Permit Provisional Waivers for Individuals at Different Stages of the Immigrant Visa Process
The notice of intent states that “[a]n alien would be able to obtain [a provisional] waiver only if a Petition for Alien Relative, Form I-130, is filed by a U.S. citizen on his or her behalf and that petition has been approved....”5 In addition, in its FAQs, USCIS states that the proposed waiver process “would only affect individuals who have not yet filed a Form I-601 and who will file a waiver request after a final rule is published.”6 In drafting the final rule, we ask USCIS to include language clarifying that individuals at various stages of the immigrant visa process may benefit from the provisional waiver rule. Applicants should be permitted to file for a provisional waiver concurrently with the I-130, Petition for Alien Relative, or separately if the I-130 has already been approved. In addition, the provisional waiver process should be available to individuals whose cases are pending at the National Visa Center, and to individuals whose cases have been transferred to the consulate, but who have not yet departed the U.S. for their visa interview at the time the final rule is implemented. Individuals who have an interview date scheduled, but who have not yet departed the U.S., should be permitted to reschedule their interviews in order to apply for a provisional waiver.
5. Permit Concurrent Filing of I-212 Permission to Reapply for Admission after Deportation or Removal
Aliens who are inadmissible due to a prior removal order may file Form I-212 to obtain permission to reapply for admission. Applicants who are in the United States seeking adjustment of status, or who are seeking advance permission to reapply before departing the U.S. to consular process can submit Form I-212 with USCIS for stateside adjudication. As noted above, it is USCIS policy to grant an I-212 waiver if the agency has already granted an I-601 waiver.7 Therefore, individuals who require an unlawful presence waiver and permission to reapply following removal should be permitted to file Forms I-212 and I-601 through the stateside process concurrently.8 To conclude otherwise would require the applicant to first file the I-212 and obtain permission to reapply, and then separately file a provisional unlawful presence waiver. Consecutive, rather than concurrent adjudication would be a waste of USCIS time and resources.
6. Issue Notice of Intent to Deny (NOID) When an Additional Ground of Inadmissibility Is Suspected
The notice of intent states that “USCIS would deny the application for a provisional waiver if other possible grounds of inadmissibility are found or arise during adjudication.”9 Whether a person is subject to one or more grounds of inadmissibility is not a black or white determination. In many cases, it may be impossible for the Service to determine whether a particular ground of inadmissibility applies without first obtaining additional information from the applicant. If an additional ground of inadmissibility is suspected, we propose that USCIS issue a NOID, rather than an immediate denial. This would provide individuals with the opportunity to demonstrate, if applicable, that they are not subject to the inadmissibility ground alleged, and remain eligible for the provisional waiver process. Issuing a NOID would ensure that all persons who are eligible for a provisional waiver are able to benefit from the process and would decrease the number of decisions that are appealed to the already overburdened Administrative Appeals Office.
7. Provisional Waivers Should Not be Readjudicated and a Presumption of Extreme Hardship Should Apply to the Adjudication of Additional Waivers
According to the announcement, if the provisional waiver is approved, the applicant would proceed abroad for a formal interview with a U.S. consular officer. If no grounds of inadmissibility other than unlawful presence arise, “the provisional waiver ... would facilitate immigrant visa issuance.”10 The rule should make it clear that, absent disclosure of negative factors during the consular interview, USCIS’s decision to approve a provisional waiver is to be honored by DOS.
According to the announcement, if a consular officer makes a determination that the applicant is subject to another ground of inadmissibility that can be waived, the applicant will be instructed to file another waiver application with USCIS. USCIS should not readjudicate the previously approved provisional unlawful presence waiver and officers should not require applicants to submit additional documentation to supplement the previously-approved waiver. In addition, the approval of a provisional unlawful presence waiver should give rise to a presumption of extreme hardship, which should be applied to the adjudication of waivers of additional grounds of inadmissibility with the same standard.
8. Clarify Provisions Relating to Individuals in Removal Proceedings
The proposed regulations should clarify that respondents in removal proceedings may benefit from the provisional waiver process. Currently, the notice of intent states that “aliens with waiver applications under section 212(a)(9)(B)(v) of the Act currently pending in either administrative or judicial proceedings would not qualify for this new process.”11 However, there are many individuals in removal proceedings without a pending waiver who should be deemed eligible. These include individuals whose cases have been administratively closed as part of the Administration’s current prosecutorial discretion initiative or because they were granted temporary protected status while in proceedings. If these otherwise eligible individuals are not permitted to benefit from the provisional waiver process, they will remain in limbo on the immigration court docket, instead of taking steps to obtain lawful permanent residence. To prevent this, individuals in removal proceedings should be permitted to apply for a provisional waiver while their proceedings are pending. If the waiver is granted, proceedings would be terminated, and the individual would depart the United States for consular processing.
Similarly, provisional waiver applications filed by individuals who are placed in removal proceedings while the application is pending should continue to be processed and adjudicated by USCIS. In the alternative, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) should adopt a policy of refraining from filing a notice to appear for individuals with a pending waiver until USCIS has rendered a final decision (including appeal) on the application.
9. Continue Widespread Public Outreach to Prevent the Unauthorized Practice of Law by Notarios and Unscrupulous Practitioners
The February 22, 2012 alert USCIS placed on its website and circulated by e-mail, reminding the public that the provisional waiver process will not take effect until a final rule is published in the Federal Register, was both necessary and welcome. As expected, the January 6 announcement generated a significant amount of interest from the press and the public. Although the announcement clarified that no process changes would be implemented until a final rule is promulgated, the message was slow to trickle down to the stakeholder community, and notarios pounced. Soon after the announcement was made, we began receiving numerous reports from around the country of television, print, and radio advertisements by notarios soliciting business for the “new waiver.” We also received reports that well-intended individuals, such as members of the clergy, were telling people to “go to immigration and apply for the waiver.”
Given the continuing public interest in this topic, we strongly urge USCIS to keep this alert prominently displayed on the site’s home page (in English and Spanish) until the effective date of the final rule. We also urge USCIS to continue its outreach efforts by taking additional steps to warn the public to not be taken in by the fraudulent claims and promises of notarios.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this notice of intent and look forward to a continuing dialogue with USCIS on issues concerning this important matter. If you have any questions, please contact Robert Deasy, AILA Director, Liaison and Information, rdeasy@aila.org, or Betsy Lawrence, AILA Associate Director, Liaison & Information, blawrence@aila.org.
Sincerely,
American Dream Community Agency
Americans for Immigrant Justice, formerly Florida Immigrant Advocacy Center American Immigration Council
American Immigration Lawyers Association
Asian American Justice Center, member of the Asian American Center for Advancing Justice
Asian Law Alliance
Asian Pacific American Legal Center ASISTA
Campaign for Community Change (CCC) CARECEN San Francisco
Capital Area Immigrants’ Rights Coalition
AILA InfoNet Doc. No. 12022746. (Posted 02/27/12)
USCIS Notice of Intent to Implement Provisional I-601 Processing
February 24, 2012
Page 7 of 7
Catholic Charities Archdiocese of San Antonio, Immigration Services Church World Service, Immigration and Refugee Program
Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles (CHIRLA) Colombianos en Accion
Community to Community Development – C2C Dolores Street Community Services
Fair Immigration Reform Movement (FIRM) FANM/Haitian Women of Miami
Friends Committee on National Legislation Immigration Equality
JOB (Justice Overcoming Boundaries) SD/South County Immigration Task Force Korean American Resource & Cultural Center (KRCC), Chicago
Korean Resource Center (KRC), Los Angeles La Cocina
La Raza Community Resource Center Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service National Council of La Raza (NCLR) National Immigrant Justice Center (NIJC) National Immigration Forum
National Immigration Law Center
National Korean American Service & Education Consortium (NAKASEC) National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health
New York Immigration Coalition
New York State Bar Association, Commercial & Federal Litigation Section, Immigration Litigation Committee
NETWORK, A National Catholic Social Justice Lobby Reformed Church of Highland Park’s Immigration Committee Service Employees International Union (SEIU)
SEIU - United Service Workers West
Services, Immigrant Rights & Education Network (SIREN) Women’s Refugee Commission
World Relief
cc: Cecilia Munoz, Director, White House Domestic Policy Council Felicia Escobar, Senior Advisor for Immigration Policy, White House
Domestic Policy Council
Julie Rodriguez, Associate Director of Public Engagement, White House Esther Olavarria, Counsel to the Secretary, DHS
Kelly Ryan, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy, DHS
1 “USCIS to Propose Changing the Process for Certain Waivers,” also reprinted on AILA InfoNet at Doc. No. 12011065 (posted 1/10/12).
2 Id.
3 Id.
4 See Immigrant Waivers: Procedures for Adjudication of Form I-601 for Overseas Adjudication Officers, April 28, 2009, at 59, reprinted on AILA InfoNet at Doc. No. 09061772 (posted 6/17/09). USCIS has removed this document from its website pending revision.
5 77 Fed. Reg. 1040 (Jan. 9, 2012).
6 See supra note 1.
7 See supra note 4.
8 The regulations already permit concurrent filing in certain circumstances. 8 CFR §212.2(d) states that an applicant for an immigrant visa who is outside the United States and requires advance permission to reapply for admission and a waiver under INA §§212(g), (h), or (i), must file the I-601 and the I-212 simultaneously.
9 77 Fed. Reg. at 1042.
10 Id.
11 Id.
Source: AILA InfoNet Doc. No. 12022746. (Posted 02/27/12)
USCIS Notice of Intent to Implement Provisional I-601 Processing
February 24, 2012
Yesterdays Republican presidential debate made it quite clear to the viewers that not one Republican candidate has any interest in resolving the immense problems caused by the millions of undocumented immigrants. Not one recognized the benefits that these millions of people have brought to this country and to the economy. Not one mentions the Dream Act, let alone comprehensive immigration reform. Romney who is quick to throw out the fact that his father was a Mexican and that he is pro-immigrants yet, he says that “self deportation” is an option. What he means by “self deportation” is that if the government makes life intolerable for the undocumented immigrant, by not allowing them to work legally, not granting driver’s license and always making them look back as they walk, they will eventually, just leave. What a ridiculous and simplistic resolution for a very complicated problem; to make undocumented immigrants and their legal resident families suffer so that eventfully, maybe, they “self-deport.”
Former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum dittoed Mr. Romney's position by stating, "self-deportation is a "possible solution."
Texas congressman Ron Paul put in his 2 cents by saying that the US spends too much time "worrying about the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan," and should "use some of those resources on our own border."
But the debate really became interesting when Mr. Gingrich, who insisted the US cannot rationally deport millions of people, some who have lived here for decades was forced to defend his portrayal of Mr. Romney as "anti-immigrant."
"The idea that I'm anti-immigrant is repulsive," yelled Romney. "You can say we disagree on certain policies, but to say that enforcing the US law to protect our borders, to welcome people here legally, to expand legal immigration, as I approve, that that's somehow anti-immigrant is simply the kind of over-the-top rhetoric that has characterized American politics for too long." But no matter what he says, it’s difficult to forget that he recently said that if he became the president, he would veto the Dream Act.
But Gingrich is no better. His so called immigration reform is simply to permit “grandmothers and grandfathers’ who have lived here decades the right to live her, but they would not become U.S. citizens. He never mentioned the Dream Act or comprehensive immigration reform.
In fact, not one of them mentioned comprehensive immigration reform, the dream act or efforts at reducing deportation for non-criminal undocumented immigrants.
Following the debate it became apparent that not one republican candidate has any interest in the immigrant community. This will be their downfall in the November election.
The power of Latino voters will become apparent and should give Democrats the edge in the election. The 2010 Census revealed that during the past decade the Latino population has nearly doubled in Nevada, Virginia, and North Carolina. In Indiana and Ohio, there was a 60 percent or more increase.
Obama won all five of those states in 2008 and these same states are likely to be a decisive factor in the fall election.
“What the Census figures suggest is that the road to White House in 2012 may well go through the Hispanic community” said Frank Sharry, executive director of America’s Voice, an advocacy group that favors allowing illegal immigrants to work toward U.S. citizenship.
January 25, 2012 - Taking an aggressive and dangerous political move, President Obama in his 2012 State of the Union Messages called for comprehensive immigration reform. He insisted that congress resurrect the Dream Act, a bill which would permit young people that entered the United States illegally at young age, attend college or the military to be place on the path to full citizenship.
He asked congress to increase the number of visas for highly skilled immigrants, explaining that ,many obtain their education in the United States only to leave America and work elsewhere because of the stringing immigration policy.
But he made his most important point to those that are currently in the middle of the immigration tornado by making it clear that even if comprehensive immigration reform is not politically possible this year, he would take small steps to lessen the burden of the illegal immigrant.
“If election-year politics keeps Congress from acting on a comprehensive plan, let’s at least agree to stop expelling responsible young people who want to staff our labs, start new businesses, and defend this country,” said Obama.
He make it clear that those opposing Comprehensive Immigration Reform, no longer have the excuse that we first have to secure the border, because during his administration he has placed more "boots' on the border than any other prior administration by hiring a great number of Border Patrol agents. It is a known fact that his administration has reduced the number of illegal crossings since he took office.
In his words: “((The opponents of action are out of excuses))”
Obama’s concept of immigration reform closely reflected his call for comprehensive immigration reform in the State of the Union speech last year and in many of his speeches. Last years effort in passing the Dream Act went in vain when the Dream Act passed the Democratic-controlled House but failed to win enough votes in the Senate due to Republican filibuster..
Over the past year, the anti-immigrant banter become even louder as the country felt the persistent effect of low employment and depressed home prices.
If the Dream Act passes it would help young people who entered U.S. before the age of 16 is a high school graduate, who agrees to go to at least two years of college or serve in the military for the same time.
It is estimated that some 1.2 million immigrants would qualify for the Dream Act.
Now the question is whether Obama's talk about comprehensive immigration reform and the dream act is just another election year carrot or will it materialize into a full scale reform of a broken immigration system?
A new report issued this month by the Texas advocacy group, Greater Houston Partnership (GHP), verified that legalization of undocumented workers would result in those workers paying more taxes and earning higher wages. The report used data collected by industry, in the Houston area from the Pew Hispanic Center to estimate the number of unauthorized immigrants.
The results where that if all undocumented workers in the Houston region were legalized and they and their employers paid Social Security, Medicare, unemployment insurance, and federal income taxes,the additional tax revenues would exceed $1.4 billion. The report also demonstrates that with even with less than 100% legalization, there are still substantial potential revenues. If only 25% of the undocumented community is legalized, an additional $356.1 million in tax revenues would be generated.
Consider this: a surprising ((two-thirds of illegal immigrants currently pay Social Security, Medicare and personal income taxes)). According to the Congressional Budget Office and the Social Security Administration, undocumented immigrants pay many different types of taxes, including sales, property, and social security taxes individual income,
The influx in payment of taxes began in earnest in 1996, when the IRS created nine-digit individual taxpayer identification numbers (ITINs), It was designed to enable the IRS to track the tax returns of those who are ineligible for a Social Security number. It is believed that most taxpayers who use ITINs are illegal immigrants although a small portion of legal residents also has them.
Officially, the Social Security Administration estimates that about seventy five percent (75%) of illegal workers contribute to the overall solvency of Social Security and Medicare by paying taxes.
about $75 billion in wages from people who filed W2 forms with incorrect or mismatched data, about $9 billion in taxes was paid.
In 2005 the agency estimates that on about $75 billion in wages from people who filed W2 forms with incorrect or mismatched data, about $9 billion in taxes was paid.
This amount would include illegal immigrants using fake names and Social Security numbers. Although the influence on Social Security is considerable because most of the money received is never claimed by the illegal immigrant who pays into the system. Instead of the money returning to the rightful owner, it is used to cover the deficit in retirement checks payable to legal workers.
A study conducted by the Social Security Administration from census and Immigration and Customs Enforcement data in 2007 enabled them to project the effects of higher and lower immigration patterns. They concluded that with high immigration the SSA's combined trust fund would be exhausted in 2043 and if the immigration numbers were half the amount, the fund would run out four years earlier.
At a Congressional hearing in 2006 then IRS Commission Mark Everson told Congress "many illegal aliens, utilizing ITINs, have been reporting tax liability to the tune of almost $50 billion from 1996 to 2003."
Even with hard numbers and facts verified by our own government anti-immigrant proponents continue to mislead the public. illegal immigrants contribute $428 billion dollars to the nation’s $13.6 trillion gross domestic product in 2006.
True, the contributions of illegal immigrants remain contentious. There are those that argue that illegal aliens make no contribution because they are parasites to governmental programs; they do not pay anywhere near the amount they take to make up for it. Another group argues that they pay more than they should because they will not be eligible for the Social Security they are paying for until their immigration status is resolved, if ever. Dr. William F. Ford a professor at Middle Tennessee State University and an expert on immigration and taxes assesses that (illegal immigrants contribute $428 billion dollars to the nation’s $13.6 trillion gross domestic product in 2006.) “If anything we need more immigrants coming into the country, not less, especially with the baby boomers retiring,” said Ford in an Associated Press article
The constantly increasing number of taxpayers parallels the national immigration reform debate.
Francine J. Lipman, a Professor of Law at Chapman University School of Law, in the S Harvard Latino Law Review wrote an article "Taxing Undocumented Immigrants: Separate, Unequal and Without Representation," In it she wrote:
"[U]ndocumenteds actually contribute more to public coffers in taxes than they cost in social services...
[E]ach year undocumented immigrants add billions of dollars in sales, excise, property, income and payroll taxes, including Social Security, Medicare and unemployment taxes, to federal, state and local coffers. Hundreds of thousands of undocumented immigrants go out of their way to file annual federal and state income tax returns.
Yet undocumented immigrants are barred from almost all government benefits...Generally, the only benefits federally required for undocumented immigrants are emergency medical care, subject to financial and category eligibility, and elementary and secondary public education. Many undocumented immigrants will not even access these few critical government services because of their ever-present fear of government officials and deportation.
Undocumented immigrants living in the United States are subject to the same income tax laws as documented immigrants and U.S. citizens. However, because of their status most unauthorized workers pay a higher effective tax rate than similarly situated documented or U.S. citizens. Yet, these workers and their families use fewer government services than similarly situated documented immigrants or U.S. citizens...As a result, undocumented immigrants provide a fiscal windfall and may be the most fiscally beneficial of all immigrants."
In general, though, illegal immigrants get fewer tax breaks. They cannot claim the Earned Income Tax Credit, which can be $4,700 for a family of four earning less than $12,000.
It is not just federal taxes that illegal immigrants pay, All illegal immigrants pay state sales taxes, contributing to the upkeep of public facilities such as roads, police and fire departments, and many pay property taxes that contribute toward the schooling of their children. The non-partisan National Research Council found that they contribute on average $80,000 more to federal treasury than they consume.
One can only imagine, the far-reaching positive effect to our country’s economy the passage of an immigration reform law would have. The 11 million illegal immigrants would become a fully contributing part of American society and the economy would blossom; just what the founders of our constitution envisioned in the first place.
Fearing that a new law, SOPA and PIPA, could lead to the censorship of popular sites, Twitter, Wikipedia and Google used their considerable strength to attack these two pending legislation. Their Internet assault was quick and forceful and took by surprise Hollywood and the recording industry. These bills are meant to stop foreign websites selling copy protected or pirated goods.
These powerhouse web sites either completely shut down or made a statement however, the shutdown of the English-language version of Wikipedia, which gets 2.7 billion U.S. visitors per month caused a world wide rumble.. Wikipedia's English-language pages went entirely black on Wednesday leaven one page alive with the words "the U.S. Congress is considering legislation that could fatally damage the free and open Internet."
“It is the opinion of the English Wikipedia community that both of these bills, if passed, would be devastating to the free and open web,” said a statement signed by three of the free encyclopedia’s administrators. The decision to shut down the English-language section of the site, began at midnight Eastern time was finalized after a virtual chat that involved 1,800 users.
This clash is over two related bills: the House’s Stop Online Piracy Act and the Senate’s Protect IP (intellectual property) Act. Both bills would require restrictions forcing U.S. companies to discontinue selling online ads to alleged pirates, processing payments for illegal online sales and refusing to list Web sites suspected of piracy in search-engine results.
According to Lamar Smith “This bill authorizes only the Justice Department to seek an injunction against a foreign site that is dedicated to illegal and infringing activity. The Justice Department must go to a federal judge and lay out the case against a foreign site. If the judge finds that the site is primarily engaged in illegal activity, then a court order can be issued directing companies to sever ties with the illegal website. Search engines will simply be required to remove only the direct link to an illegal site. Third-party intermediaries, like credit card companies and online ad providers, will only be required to stop working with the site. They cannot be held liable for the illegal or infringing actions taken by the rogue website.”
But “The voice of the Internet community has been heard,” Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), who favors the tech companies, said in a statement. According to Issa, GOP leaders told him that the House would not vote on a version of the bill that those companies oppose. “Much more education for Members of Congress about the workings of the Internet is essential.”
Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) declared earlier today that he would holdup deliberation of the bills, bowing to pressure from a coalition of Internet companies.
In a statement, Reid said he would delay the vote scheduled for Tuesday to begin consideration until the Senate Judiciary Committee could move forward. “We made good progress through the discussions we’ve held in recent days, and I am optimistic that we can reach a compromise in the coming weeks,” Reid said.
Senator Lamar too has decided to hold back on his bill stating ““I have heard from the critics and I take seriously their concerns regarding proposed legislation to address the problem of online piracy,” Smith said in a statement. “It is clear that we need to revisit the approach on how best to address the problem of foreign thieves that steal and sell American inventions and products.”
No surprise at the Republican Presidential debate yesterday. Here's a summarized excerpt from the transcript of the debate, conducted by CNN's John King:
KING: "What is your take on SOPA and how do you believe it affects Americans?".
GINGRICH: Well, you're asking a conservative about the economic interests of Hollywood. And I'm weighing it. I'm weighing it. I'm not rushing in. I'm trying to think through all of the many fond left- wing people who are so eager to protect.
On the other hand, you have virtually everybody who is technologically advanced, including Google and YouTube and Facebook and all the folks who say this is going to totally mess up the Internet. And the bill in its current form is written really badly and leads to a range of censorship that is totally unacceptable.
Well, I favor freedom. And I think that if you -- I think we have a patent office, we have copyright law. If a company finds that it has genuinely been infringed upon, it has the right to sue. But the idea that we're going to preemptively have the government start censoring the Internet on behalf of giant corporations, economic
ROMNEY: I think he got it just about right. The truth of the matter is that the law, as written, is far too intrusive, far too expensive, far too threatening, the freedom of speech and movement of information across the Internet. It would have a potentially depressing impact on one of the fastest growing industries in America, which is the Internet, and all those industries connected to it.
At the same time, we care very deeply about intellectual content that's going across the Internet. And if we can find a way to very narrowly, through our current laws, go after those people who are pirating, particularly those from off shore, we'll do that.
But a very broad law which gives the government the power to start stepping into the Internet and saying who can pass what to whom, I think that's a mistake. And so I'd say no, I'm standing for freedom.
PAUL: I was the first Republican to sign on with a host of Democrats to oppose this law. And we have worked -- We have had a concerted effort, and I feel like we're making achievement. This bill is not going to pass. But watch out for the next one.
And I am pleased that the attitude has sort of mellowed up here, because the Republicans unfortunately have been on the wrong side of this issue. And this is a good example on why it's good to have somebody that can look at civil liberties and work with coalitions and bring people together. Freedom and the Constitution bring factions together. I think this is a good example.
SANTORUM: I don't support this law. And I agree with everybody up here that is goes too far. But I will not agree with everybody up here that there isn't something that can and should be done to protect the intellectual property rights of people.
The Internet is not a free zone where anybody can do anything they want to do and trample the rights of other people, and particularly when we're talking about -- in this case, we're talking about entities offshore that are doing so, that are pirating things.
But the idea that, you know, anything goes on the Internet, where did that come from? Where in America does it say that anything goes? We have laws, and we respect the law. And the rule of law is an important thing, and property rights should be respected.
NEW ORLEANS – Santos Elenilson Gonzalez-Rivas, 24, a citizen of El Salvador, was sentenced in federal court to 24 months imprisonment, because he reentered the United States after he had been deported.
Court documents state that on Sept. 20, 2011, the 24 year old plead guilty to one count of an indictment admitting he was an alien who had been previously removed and was knowingly and unlawfully found in Louisiana without the permission of the Attorney General or Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security.
Judge Engelhardt placed Gonzalez on one year of supervised release following his prison term. He also ordered that Gonzalez pay a $2,500 fine to the United States. It is interesting to note that it will be impossible for the young man to comply with the judge’s order requiring one year of supervision following his release from jail.
Philip Miller, field office director of ICE ERO in New Orleans said that "This prison sentence helps send the message that reentering the United States after being formally deported is a serious crime,". "ICE's close coordination with the U.S. Attorney's Office helps put teeth into the immigration laws." Miller oversees ICE ERO in the states of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Arkansas and Tennessee.
Critics have called this harsh treatment for such an offense. Especially that the ruling makes it impossible for Gonzalez to comply as he will be detained by ICE immediately following his prison tem and deported. He will be unable to comply with one year court ordered supervision Perhaps this decision revolves around the current political climate in Louisiana.
A law similar to Arizona’s controversial immigration law called “Louisiana Citizens Protection Act” is slowly going though to Louisiana’s congress.
HB 411, was introduced on April 25, and would require law enforcement officers that conduct lawful stops to determine citizenship status of detainees, where reasonable suspicion exists.
Although law enforcement cannot use race, color, or national origin as a means of enforcing the law. Individual officers will rely on their own discretion, which leaves the door wide open for for misuse.
The bill targets people who hire day laborers off the streets. It makes knowing transportation or shelter of illegal immigrants with intent to avert enforcement officials against the law.
A recent a study from the Pew Hispanic Institute which indicates a doubling of the number of illegal immigrants in Louisiana 2007.
Last year, the U.S. Department of Justice enjoined sections of the Arizona bill from becoming law. These sections include requiring police to question resident’s immigration status, requiring immigrants to carry documents, making it a criminal offense for illegal immigrants to look for work, and permitting the police to arrest anyone suspected of being an illegal immigrants without a warrant.
New York - Janaury 14, 2012 - Republican’s can’t seem to do anything right when it comes to the Hispanic community,not that they don’t try. This Wednesday the RNC announced they were upping up their outreach efforts to Hispanic voters . Mitt Romney released an advertisement in Florida in Spanish wherein his son Craig says in the video “The United States represents liberty, opportunity, where anything is possible. I am Craig Romney. My father, Mitt Romney believes in those American values because he has lived them and will fight to restore the greatness of our nation.”
But it’s quite funny, as if you are seeing a Saturday Night Live skit, when on the same day, Mitt Romney embraces the notorious architect of both the draconian Arizona and Alabama anti-immigration laws.Romney’s campaign announced proudly the endorsement of Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach. “I’m so proud to earn Kris’s support … Kris has been a true leader on securing our borders and stopping the flow of illegal immigration into this country,” and Romney repeated that he was “very pleased to get.”
What did Romney actually get?
Kris Kobach, an attorney and virulent anti-immigration who was recently defeated in his challenge to California’s in-state tuition law, authored the anti immigrant law, SB 1070. Kobach is an attorney for Immigration Reform Law Institute, the legal arm of the chameleon organization named Federation for American Immigration Reform, or FAIR. As Rachel Maddow revealed her 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.
Kris Kobach, the current Secretary of State of Kansas, authored the anti immigrant law, SB 1070. Kobach is also an attorney for Immigration Reform Law Institute, the legal arm of the chameleon organization named Federation for American Immigration Reform, or FAIR. As Rachel Maddow revealed in her 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 earnestly 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.
The Tanton message is blatantly clear - no more immigrants in the U.S. and those that are here should leave.
These are the background players in Romney’s new immigration plan.
It seem that today's republicans have forsaken the ideals and political precepts of men like Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater.
((There was a time that Republicans were committed to protect America from anything that appeared to be connected to violations of personal liberty and would have emphatically fought against these type or organizations.)) Apparently in 2010 the Republican Party has morphed into something else. Today's republicans have forsaken the ideals and political precepts of men like Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater and seem have chosen to forget the American dream and it's integrity.
Is this what Romney, Korbach and the other racist promoters of these anti-immigrant laws really trying to do: Destroy the United States, by pitting one state against the other?
The effect of these laws is eerily similar to how the Jews were treated in Germany at the start of World War II. Nazi in 1939, Nazi in 2010. Jews were required to carry papers and identify themselves publicly. That is the same method these so called “American’s” are attempted to establish today.
Unless the president moves aggressively, and does it fast, this country will go down a very slippery slope.
New York - January 14, 2012 - Immigration is a disruptive issue for the Republicans in this campaign. As we enter election year Republicans act as if they care about immigrants living in America yet, they use every ploy to confuse and befuddle Americans by dangling immigrants as a red herring that is the root of all of our problems. They do not seem to care much about the suffering of the immigrant community. Sure they talk about legal immigration yet they know that illegal immigrants do not live in a vacuum, most have families living in the United States and more than you could imagine, are U.S. citizens. Deporting one illegal alien that has been living in the United States for decades, would affect immediate family members that are citizens. Republicans know that the current laws are so unworkable that they split families instead of reunifying them, as the Immigration and Nationality Act calls for.
Now as the Iowa and the New Hampshire votes move into the past, the spotlight shifts in the direction of South Carolina, Florida and Nevada. Their biggest worry is how to find a way to get the Hispanics to forget about what they have done to their lives since 9/11 and convice them that they will help them and not the democrats. The face the problem that here are significant Latinos living in these states. Soon we will see the chameleon characteristics of these Republican presidential wannabe’s as their tone shifts in an effort to garner Latino votes in these important swing states. Soon the campaign travels to two states with significant large Hispanic populations. In Nevada, more than a quarter of the state is Latino: and Florida 22.5 percent of the state is Latino.
Let’s take a closer look at the candidates views on immigration.
MITT ROMNEY
If he could, Mitt Romney would build a fence along the American southern border with Mexico and severely crack down on employers who hire undocumented workers.
Romney recently announced the support of Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach. He said “I’m so proud to earn Kris’s support. Kris has been a true leader on securing our borders and stopping the flow of illegal immigration into this country. We need more conservative leaders like Kris willing to stand up for the rule of law. With Kris on the team, I look forward to working with him to take forceful steps to curtail illegal immigration and to support states like South Carolina and Arizona that are stepping forward to address this problem.”
And Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach said that “Illegal immigration is a nightmare for America’s economy and America’s national security. Mitt Romney is the candidate who will finally secure the borders and put a stop to the magnets, like in-state tuition, that encourage illegal aliens to remain in our country unlawfully. He is also the candidate who will stand shoulder to shoulder with the states that are fighting to restore the rule of law. I am pleased to stand with this true conservative.”
But who is Kris Kobach?
Kris Kobach, the Secretary of State of Kansas, authored Arizona’s anti immigrant law, SB 1070. Kobach is an attorney for Immigration Reform Law Institute, the legal arm of the chameleon organization named Federation for American Immigration Reform, or FAIR. As Rachel Maddow revealed in her 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 is 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 earnestly 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.
The Tanton message is blatantly clear - no more immigrants in the U.S. and those that are here should leave.
RON PAUL
He wants to enforce Border Security and believes that America should be guarding her own borders and enforcing her own laws instead of policing the world and implementing UN mandates.
Absolutely no Amnesty – He believes that the Obama Administration’s endorsement of “Comprehensive Immigration Reform,” will grant amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants and will only encourage more law-breaking.
He wants to end Birthright Citizenship by taking away the constitutional right of children born here to illegal parents to be U.S. citizen. He believes that as long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be granted U.S. citizenship, we’ll never be able to control our immigration problem.
JON HUNTSMAN
He advocates for a border fence and opposes in-state tuition for undocumented immigrants, but he pressured the Senate for comprehensive immigration while he was governor.
Huntsman record is confused when it comes to immigration. While he argued for federal comprehensive immigration reform as governor, supported H-1b worker visas and signed into law in Utah a bill granting undocumented immigrants "driving-privilege cards,” he threatened to veto a measure repealing in-state college tuition for the children of undocumented immigrants.
NEWT GINGRICH
Immigration: He wants to Wants to move thousands of homeland security workers to border states and dispatch drones around the border.
He believes in three Principles
1. No “comprehensive” plan can work. Immigration reform can be outlined as a complete proposal but has to be passed in a series of steps, with each one understood and passed on its own merits.
2. Under no circumstance can a path to citizenship be created which would allow those who have broken the law to receive precedence over those who patiently waited to become residents and citizens via the legal process.
3. We must reconcile the goal of legality with the reality that there are millions of immigrants currently here outside the law, some with a long set of family and community ties, and some with no ties. A system has to be established that establishes legality but no citizenship for those with deep ties, repatriates those with no family or community ties in a dignified way, and quickly sends home those who have committed criminal and other destructive acts.
RICK SANTORUM
He supports building additional fences along U.S.-Mexican border and is firmly against guest worker programs.
Santorum views the invasion of foreign workers as damaging to the country, both on the economic and social front. He wants strict limitations on any participation in Social Security as well as fast tracking of citizenship applications.
He does not want immigrants to receive government and no in-state tuition for illegal immigrants
RICK PERRY
He opposes border fence and when he was governor of Texas, he granted undocumented immigrants college tuition. However he campaigning alongside controversial Arizona sheriff Joe Arpaio, an anti- immigration proponent.
Recently, 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.
The Million Dollar Question
Does any reader believe that even one of these Republican presidential contenders could take away Latin votes from Obama? He currently leads Republican frontrunner Mitt Romney by 68 to 23 percent among Hispanic voters. This is even before these republicans put their foot in their mouths and before Obama begins his campaign.
Arizona democrat, Sen. Steve Gallardo encouraged by the recall of State Senator Russell Pearce, who orchestrated the infamous anti-immigrant law Senate Bill 1070, plans to introduce a bill to repeal Arizona's draconian efforts to rid it’s state of foreign looking people.
SB 1070 became law in 2010, but most sections of the law never became operational. Obama’s administration filed legal challenges, and the U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to review the case this spring. Until such time, most of the contentious clauses have been restrained.
These sections include a requirement that police question people's immigration status if they come into contact with someone they believe is in the country illegally. Other sections were permitted to take effect such as a ban on blocking of traffic when cars stop in the streets to pick up day-laborers.
(("There's a strong feeling within the Latino community that SB 1070 should be repealed," Gallardo said.))
Sen. Russell Pearce’s co-sponsor of SB1070, Rep. John Kavanagh, said that SB 1070 is more popular than ever.
"Clearly this is nothing more than a political ploy to garner voter approval." The Republican said that "It has zero chance."
Gallardo too understands that the bill has a slim change of becomming law, but believes support for laws that attempt to root out illegal immigration by criminal enforcement has declined throughout Arizona.
"Look at the image this has provided to the state of Arizona," he said. "This is a black cloud that continues to hang over it. Some of the [legislative] members would agree that it might be best to pull the plug on it."
In fact Federal courts have already blocked key provisions of similar laws in South Carolina, Arizona, Indiana and Georgia. A federal court in Alabama allowed some parts of the law to take effect, leading to demoralizing humanitarian consequences. Members of the civil rights coalition also have a case pending against Utah’s anti-immigrant law that was blocked pending a hearing now scheduled for February.
January 10, 2012 - Washington, D.C. - Today, President Obama made clear his intent to effectuate a compressive immigration reform; albeit in small steps, by appointing Cecilia Munoz, an unwavering immigration reform advocate, to the post of the White House's domestic policy council director. In this position she will implement national domestic policy, a position that should empower her to bring new attention to the volatile immigration issue.
In a White House news release, Obama stated that “Over the past three years, Cecilia has been a trusted adviser who has demonstrated sound judgment day in and day out,…Cecilia has done an extraordinary job working on behalf of middle class families, and I’m confident she’ll bring the same unwavering dedication to her new position."
This appointment comes at a moment when the Obama administration faces a host of domestic policy complaints: soaring unemployment, a troubled housing market and an immigration system that has been called by many as “broken.” To throw wood into the fire, she comes to the fray at a time that Obama bids for a second term.
A dedicated civil rights advocate, she worked as Senior Vice President for the Office of Research, Advocacy and Legislation at the National Council of La Raza (NCLR), the largest nonprofit organization established to expand opportunities for Hispanic Americans, watching over advocacy activities that includes immigration rights. In 2000, she was named a MacArthur Fellow for her civil rights and immigration work. Muñoz was featured in several films in the documentary series “How Democracy Works Now: Twelve Stories.”
The White House specifically cited Muñoz's efforts on immigration reform, including her non-governmental work on the immigration issue. ((She "leads the Administration’s efforts to fix the broken immigration system," according to the White House press release.))
On September 9, 2011 the Washington Post stated
The 49-year-old daughter of Bolivian parents has often been described as a ferocious activist unafraid to challenge lawmakers and presidents in defense of immigrants. And, at least until now, she has been a key voice for Obama in reaching Hispanic voters, who are viewed as central to the president’s reelection strategy in the must-win battlegrounds of Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico.
Munoz's promotion was cheered by many of the president's political base.
It seems that Obama is giving great effort in order to obtain benefits for undocumented without the need for congressional involvement Congressional approval for any positive immigration law would be impossible due to the republican party’s anti-immigrant stance. If Obama wins in November, immigrant rights activists may find themselves in the driver’s seat. Comprehensive immigration reform may actually become a reality in the not too distant future.
