Sunday, December 26, 2010

Rueters Canada: EB-5 US Investor Visa Program Special Report

"But those risks are downplayed by almost everyone involved in the program -- including the USCIS itself. Chris Bentley, the agency's spokesman, for instance, said "the overwhelming majority" of EB-5 investors and their dependents go on to qualify for permanent resident status. An analysis of USCIS's own data, however, suggests that's not true. Nearly half the immigrant investors who won EB-5 visas during its 20-year history have failed to obtain permanent residency."

Read more.

Tuesday, December 21, 2010

H-1B Cap Update: 11,100 regular Hs left; 300 advanced degree Hs left; target exhaustion date: mid February 2011

As of December 17, 2010, approximately 53,900 (out of 65,000) H-1B cap-subject petitions were receipted. Additionally, USCIS has receipted 19,700 (out of 20,000) H-1B petitions for aliens with advanced degrees.

Saturday, December 18, 2010

AILA (American Immigration Lawyers Association) Reaction to DREAM Act Vote

From AILA President David Leopold:



From AILA Director of Advocacy, Greg Chen:

On Saturday morning, the Senate failed to advance the DREAM Act (H.R. 5281) on a vote of 55-41. Sixty votes were needed to move the bill forward procedurally and stop any filibuster. With that loss, our fight for the DREAM Act is over, at least for this Congress. Our president, David Leopold, said: “It was sad to see some U.S. Senators putting politics before principles to vote no on cloture, thereby attaching their names to the wrong side of history.”

Immigration Vote Leaves Obama Policy in Disarray

The New York Times
By JULIA PRESTON
Published: December 18, 2010

The result, though not unexpected, was still a rebuff to President Obama by newly empowered Republicans in Congress on an issue he has called one of his priorities. The student bill, tailored to benefit only college-bound immigrants brought here illegally when they were children, was regarded by supporters as the easiest piece to pass of a larger overhaul of immigration laws that Mr. Obama supports.

His administration has pursued a two-sided immigration policy, coupling tough enforcement — producing a record number of about 390,000 deportations this year — with an effort to pass the overhaul, which would open a path to legal status for an estimated 11 million illegal immigrants.

Now, with less hope for any measures giving legal status to illegal immigrants once Republicans take over the House in January, the administration is left with just the stick.

Link.

DREAM ACT FAILS 55 TO 41

Link to Politico article.

Thursday, December 16, 2010

Final DREAM Vote Set for Saturday - Urgent Senate Action Needed!

Last minute plea from AILA (the American Immimgration Lawyers Association):

Call Your Senators TODAY!This is our best and last shot for the DREAM Act this Congress - Keep calling Senate offices!

Find the right number you need to call by typing in your Zip code, or by sending an email through the following link:

http://capwiz.com/aila2/callalert/index.tt?alertid=20650496

What Just Happened?

On Thursday night Dec. 16, Senate Majority Leader Reid filed cloture on the Dream Act (H.R. 5281) setting the bill up for the critical "cloture" vote in the Senate expected on Saturday. The Senate will need 60 votes for Dream to move forward. With the House's passage of Dream last week, we are closer than ever to victory!

This is the vote we've all been waiting for. With only days left in the Lame-Duck, there won't be another chance. You must continue making calls and sending emails to all Senators to urge them to vote "yes" on DREAM when the Senate brings it up for a vote. A list of key swing Senate targets is included.

Click on the Take Action link to enter your zipcode, get the contact information for your Senators, and find useful talking points for your call.

All Offices Should be contacted, but if you live in these states, we REALLY need your support because one of your Senators is a SWING VOTE on DREAM!

ALASKA: Murkowski
FLORIDA: LeMieux
INDIANA: Lugar
KANSAS: Brownback
LOUISIANA: Landrieu
MAINE: Collins & Snowe
MASSACHUSETTS: Brown
MICHIGAN: Stabenow
MISSOURI: McCaskill
NORTH CAROLINA: Hagan
NEW HAMPSHIRE: Gregg
OHIO: Voinovich
SOUTH CAROLINA: Graham
TEXAS: Hutchison
UTAH: Bennett & Hatch
VIRGINIA: Warner & Webb
WEST VIRGINIA: Manchin

Wednesday, December 15, 2010

January 2011 Visa Bulletin: Bad News in Family Categories

The Department of State (DOS) has significantly retrogressed cut-off dates for family-sponsored preference categories (F-1 to F-3) effective with the January 2011 Visa Bulletin.

According to the State Department, it is unlikely these categories will recover for some time since demand for family-sponsored preference categories does not appear to be subsiding.

Friday, December 10, 2010

PBS News Hour: Supreme Court Reviews Controversial Arizona Law on Illegal Workers

GALLUP: Slim Majority of Americans Would Vote for DREAM Act Law

Fifty-four percent favor granting legal status to illegal immigrants brought to U.S. as children.

by Jeffrey M. Jones

PRINCETON, NJ -- Americans are more likely to say they would vote for than against a law that would grant legal status to illegal immigrants brought to the United States as children if they join the military or attend college. This is the major thrust of the DREAM Act legislation Congress is now considering to provide a path to citizenship for thousands of young adults living in the United States illegally.

Link.

A common misconception about DREAM Act: Chain Migration

Beneficiaries of the DREAM Act would be allowed to serve in our country's armed services or to attend college for at least two years. They would only be granted a TEN YEAR conditional non-immigrant (i.e. temporary status). After ten years, they could then apply for permanent resident ("green card") status. Once permanent residents, only then could they wait THREE ADDITIONAL YEARS before beginning the naturalization process – which is not guaranteed. So, THIRTEEN YEARS for U.S. citizenship.

If they have a mother or father who unlawfully entered the U.S., that parent would then be required under our immigration laws to return to his/her home country, which would automatically trigger a TEN YEAR BAR for having been unlawfully present in the U.S.

There is no waiver available for an unlawful presence bar for a parent of a U.S. citizen. That parent would need to wait outside the U.S. for a full TEN YEARS before applying to lawfully return to the U.S. The ten year bar was passed by Congress in the Illegal Immigration Reform & Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996.

The result is that if the DREAM Act student qualifies over THIRTEEN YEARS later for U.S. citizenship, his/her parent would then need to leave the U.S. for another ten years before qualifying to immigrate as the parent of a naturalized citizen. So, at least TWENTY THREE YEARS for the parents to immigrate.

What if after over thirteen years a DREAM Act student becomes a U.S. citizen and files a petition for a brother or sister?

Right now if a naturalized U.S. citizen from Mexico had filed a petition for a sibling prior to December 22, 1995 (over 15 YEARS ago), a visa number would only be available today for that brother/sister to apply for a "green card." If in the U.S. without permission, that applicant would then be required under our restrictive immigration laws to depart from the U.S. for ten more YEARS prior to seeking to any visa or "green card." The waiting lists for siblings of U.S. citizens are incredibly backlogged, and do not advance one year each year. Filing today, it would probably take more than THIRTY YEARS before a sibling's turn would be reached on the waiting list.

A U.S. citizen CANNOT petition at all for a grandparent, niece, nephew, uncle, aunt, or cousin under our immigration laws.

Thursday, December 9, 2010

Bogus Anti-DREAM Act arguments addressed in the Congressional Record by Congressman Howard L. Berman

Nearly every speaker on the other side has used the term ‘‘amnesty". Think about that. Amnesty, amnesty, amnesty. If you say it enough, you can scare a lot of people into being against this bill. We are talking about a group of people who didn’t do anything wrong. They didn’t possess the intention to commit a crime or to cross the border illegally. They were brought here. This is a universe of people who deserve special consideration because the absence of wrongdoing is so clear.

Next, we hear scare tactics regarding chain migration. My good friend DAN LUNGREN says these people, once we give them this status, will be able to petition for their adult siblings. We have taken away petition rights for adult siblings, young siblings, grandparents, grandchildren; and it will be 25 years before any person whose status is adjusted under this legislation will be able to petition for the parent that brought that kid here, because we never undid my friend LAMAR SMITH’s provision that required 10-year absence after the petition is filed for anyone who came to this country without authorization. The chain migration argument is another bogus argument, just like the amnesty argument.

Then we hear from the Gentleman from California (Mr. ROHRABACHER)about the affirmative action amnesty legislation which will give preference to all these people. This is a group of people who under this legislation will not be allowed to receive Pell Grants, will not be able to get into the health insurance exchanges. I know you plan to repeal them, but they will not be able to get into them. They will not qualify for food stamps. They are ineligible for the Medicare program. They are ineligible for the SCHIP program. And you are talking about tremendous preferences over U.S. citizens? Another bogus argument.

In closing, I would just say one sentence. In the end, this bill is less about the kids who deserve to benefit from the legislation than the country that will get the benefit of having them use their skills and their talents on our behalf.

DREAM Act sponsor Howard Berman speaking about the DREAM Act in the Congressional Record.

CBS News: Senate Delays DREAM Act Vote

Posted by Stephanie Condon

The Senate today voted to delay debate on the DREAM Act, an immigration measure that would help foreign-born young people gain a chance at earning legal status by joining the military or entering college.

Recognizing they could not win the 60 votes to break a Republican-led filibuster on their own version of the bill, Senate Democrats will now put the House version up for a bill next week.


Link to CBS post.

Wednesday, December 8, 2010

LA Times: House passes immigration Dream Act

The bill gives young illegal immigrants a path to citizenship if they enroll in college or enlist in the military. Supporters call its passage historic — but Democrats probably don't have enough votes to get it through the Senate.

By Lisa Mascaro and Kathleen Hennessey, Tribune Washington Bureau
December 9, 2010

Reporting from Washington — The House passed a landmark youth immigration bill known as the Dream Act on Wednesday night largely along party lines, but the measure faces a tough test in the Senate as Democrats struggle to pass priority legislation in the waning days of this Congress.

Eight Republicans joined in approving the bill, 216 to 198. Thirty-eight Democrats voted no. The measure offers a path to citizenship for young people who were brought to this country illegally before age 16 and who have enrolled in college or entered the military.

President Obama said the passage was historic. "This vote is not only the right thing to do for a group of talented young people who seek to serve a country they know as their own by continuing their education or serving in the military, but it is the right thing for the United States of America," he said in a statement.

Obama called on the Senate to follow suit.

The bill could come up there as soon as Thursday but is unlikely to attract the necessary 60 votes to overcome a filibuster. Republican senators have vowed to block all legislation until a stalemate over the George W. Bush-era tax cuts is resolved. Obama and the GOP have reached a deal, but Democrats haven't signed on.


Link to LA Times article.

LA Times: Supreme Court appears divided over state laws against illegal immigration

If Justice Anthony M. Kennedy sides with the court's liberal bloc on Arizona's 'business death penalty' for companies that knowingly hire illegal immigrants more than once, it could signal trouble for other state and local immigration laws.

By David G. Savage, Tribune Washington Bureau
December 9, 2010

Reporting from Washington — The Supreme Court's showdown over whether states can aggressively enforce laws against illegal immigrants may have ended in a draw Wednesday.

If so, Arizona's 3-year-old law that cracks down on employers who knowingly hire illegal workers will stand. It could serve as a model for other states and cities that seek to adopt stricter enforcement measures.

But if Justice Anthony M. Kennedy joins with his more liberal colleagues, as he did for part of Wednesday's argument, it could signal trouble in the future for other laws targeting illegal immigrants.


Link to LA Times article.

DREAM Act Votes Imminent in House and Senate

Source: the Immigration Policy Center

Congressional Budget Office Says Both Bills Are Good for the Economy

December 8, 2010

Washington D.C. - Both the House and the Senate are scheduled to take up the DREAM Act this evening, though both chambers are voting on slightly different bills under different procedures. The House is scheduled to vote shortly on H.R. 6497, while the Senate moves to a vote on whether to proceed to its own version of the DREAM Act, S. 3992.

Both bills are strong pieces of legislation which would allow the 65,000 young undocumented students who graduate high school each year to start a pathway to citizenship after completing two years of college or military service. Organizations and individuals from across the country-from California to Kentucky, Oklahoma to New York-have joined together to support the DREAM Act. Thousands of undocumented students and their supportive classmates and teachers have met with their members of Congress, sent letters, held rallies, and staged hunger strikes and other activities in pursuit of making the DREAM Act a reality.

While both bills are similar to the original versions of the DREAM Act introduced in each chamber, they differ in key ways. Under the Senate version of the DREAM Act, applicants are treated as conditional nonimmigrants for ten years before being allowed to apply for permanent residence. The House version breaks this status up into two five-year periods, and requires students to apply for an extension of their conditional nonimmigrant status after the first five-year period has elapsed. The applicants would have to pay a $525 surcharge on the initial application and a $2,000 surcharge at the beginning of the second five year period. S. 3992 establishes one ten-year period of conditional nonimmigrant status without either fee.

These differences resulted in two different CBO scores, both of which find that DREAM reduces the deficit during the ten year period for which bills are scored:

- According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the House version of the DREAM Act (H.R. 6497) would reduce deficits by about $2.2 billion and increase revenues by $1.7 billion over the 2011-2020 period.

- The CBO estimated that the Senate version of the DREAM Act (S. 3992) would reduce deficits by about $1.4 billion and increase revenue by $2.3 billionover the 2011-2020 period.

These CBO scores affirm what we have known all along-that the DREAM Act is good for the economy, and that legalization leads to higher wages and therefore more tax revenues and higher consumption levels, and supports American jobs.

A 2010 study by the UCLA North American Integration and Development Center estimates that the total earnings of DREAM Act beneficiaries over the course of their working lives would be between $1.4 trillion and $3.6 trillion.

In a 2010 report released by IPC and the Center for American Progress, Dr. Raul Hinojosa found that comprehensive immigration reform that includes a legalization program for unauthorized immigrants and enables a future flow of legal workers would result in a large economic benefit-a cumulative $1.5 trillion in added U.S. gross domestic product over 10 years. The higher earning power of newly legalized workers would mean increased tax revenues of $4.5-$5.4 billion in the first three years. Higher personal income would also generate increased consumer spending-enough to support 750,000-900,000 jobs in the United States.

Salma Hayek: "I Was an Illegal Immigrant"



Salma Hayek talks about her humble beginnings, her former undocumented immigrant status and her charity projects in the new issue of V Magazine Spain, where the Mexican actress seductively poses for the cover titled “A Woman’s Weapons.”

Link.

Supreme Court set to hear Arizona Immigration Law Case: Chamber of Commerce of the United States v. Whiting

Courtesy of www.scotusblog.com (Supreme Court of the United States Blog)

Issue: Whether an Arizona statute that imposes sanctions on employers who hire unauthorized aliens is invalid under a federal statute that expressly “preempt[s] any State or local law imposing civil or criminal sanctions (other than through licensing and similar laws) upon those who employ, or recruit or refer for a fee for employment, unauthorized aliens”; whether the Arizona statute, which requires all employers to participate in a federal electronic employment verification system, is preempted by a federal law that specifically makes that system voluntary; whether the Arizona statute is impliedly preempted because it undermines the “comprehensive scheme” that Congress created to regulate the employment of aliens.

Plain English Issue: An Arizona law requires state employers to check the immigration status of job applicants through a federal computer database, although the federal law creating the database makes its use voluntary. Arizona also revokes the business license of state companies that hire undocumented workers. Are these provisions pre-empted by federal immigration laws? (Kagan, J., recused.)

Links to Merits Briefs:

Brief for Petitioner Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America
Brief for Respondents Michael Whiting et al.
Reply Brief for Petitioner Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America

Link.

Sunday, December 5, 2010

CNN Video re: DREAM Act: Students Lobby to Become US Citizens

Homeland Security Chief Backs DREAM Act

The Secretary of Homeland Security urged Congress to pass the DREAM Act as a way to improve immigration enforcement.

BY ALFONSO CHARDY AND LESLEY CLARK
Miami Herald

Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano lobbied for the DREAM Act Thursday saying immigration enforcement will be improved if Congress approves the bill that would legalize hundreds of thousands of undocumented students brought here illegally by their parents when they were children.

Read more.

White House Q & A on DREAM Act

November 29, 2010.

Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of Intergovernmental Affairs Cecilia Munoz takes questions about the DREAM Act, legislation that provides a path to legal status for youth who pursue higher education or serve in the Armed Forces.