Immig Blog/Notes (www.sarponglaw.com)

The Law Office of James S. Sarpong, LLC is a Denver, Colorado based US Immigration Law Firm that provides immigration law services to clients throughout the United States (U.S.) and the world, including Colorado, Aurora, Colorado Springs, Denver, District of Columbia, Washington (D.C.), Maryland (MD), Montgomery County, Virginia (VA), Arlington, Chesapeake, Newport News, Norfolk, Richmond, and Virginia Beach.

By Michele Waslin

Every year, undocumented immigrants come to the U.S. along with their young children. These kids grow up in the U.S., speak English, and hang out with their friends just like other American kids. But unlike their classmates, they cannot join the military, work, or pursue their dreams because they don’t have legal status. Every year, roughly 65,000 undocumented students graduate from high school, but many don’t apply for college, even when they’re at the top of their class, because they can’t afford it. These hard-working students are not eligible for loans or work study and must often pay high out-of-state or international tuition rates. They often live in fear of detection by immigration authorities. The DREAM Act—which would benefit these students as well as the U.S. economy—proposes to fix these problems, but not without the political will of Congress.

The Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act, or the “DREAM Act” (S. 729 and H.R. 1751), addresses the plight of young undocumented immigrants who, growing up in the United States, wish to go to college and obtain lawful employment. By providing a path to legal permanent status, the DREAM Act would create a needed incentive for students to stay in school, pursue higher education or join the military.

According to a new report by the Migration Policy Institute (MPI), approximately 114,000 potential beneficiaries with at least an associate’s degree would be immediately eligible for conditional legal permanent resident (LPR) status. Another 612,000 potential beneficiaries would be immediately eligible for conditional status because they already have a high school diploma or GED and 934,000 children under 18 could be eligible for conditional LPR status in the future under the DREAM Act.

Experts report that the DREAM Act would have economic and social benefits for the U.S. According to a fact check by the Immigration Policy Center (IPC), the DREAM Act would:

• Provides an opportunity to raise individual wages and the resulting tax contributions. If legalized, these students would get a better education and better jobs and would earn more and pay more in taxes.

• Allow legalized immigrants to invest in the U.S. economy. Removing the uncertainty of unauthorized status allows legalized immigrants to earn higher wages and move into higher-paying occupations, and also encourages them to invest more in their own education, open bank accounts, buy homes, and start businesses.

• Reduce the drop-out rate for immigrant students by creating a strong incentive for undocumented students to remain in school until graduation

• Help universities by increasing school revenues as students who would not normally attend college start to pay tuition.

• Aid military recruiting. According to West Point Professor Lt. Col. Margaret Stock, the DREAM Act “would be tremendously beneficial to the military. It gives the opportunity to enlist hundreds of thousands of high-quality people.”

On the legislative end, the DREAM Act has come up for a vote several times in past years and has garnered as many as 48 co-sponsors in the Senate and 152 in the House; it passed the Senate Judiciary Committee twice; and it received more than 50 votes as a stand-alone bill. Yet it has failed to become law. Some Members of Congress who support DREAM in principle have voted against it because they want to see it pass as part of a broader immigration reform effort and fear that passage of the DREAM Act alone would hamper the possibility of larger reform. For example, Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA)—then a Republican, now a Democrat—voted against the bill because he thought it would weaken the chances of CIR, not because he disagreed with the contents of the bill. According to a recent poll, the DREAM Act has garnered public support across party lines with as many as 70% of Americans favoring the DREAM Act.

Recently, many Republicans have come under fire for supporting any form of immigration “amnesty,” including the DREAM Act, and some former supporters have switched their positions. Earlier this May, five immigrants sat in the office of Senator John McCain (R-AZ) and refused to leave, asking him to sponsor DREAM. In past years, Senator McCain was a co-sponsor for the DREAM Act, but became more conservative on immigration issues during his 2008 presidential campaign and continues to do so during his 2010 Senate campaign, where he is facing a primary challenge from the right.

Research has shown that the DREAM Act would be a boon to the economy and the U.S. workforce. Moreover, the DREAM Act create an opportunity for many young people to get on the path to permanent legal status, improve their education, invest in themselves and their communities, and serve their country. But for the DREAM Act to pass, it would likely need the support of both the moderate Republicans who supported it in the past, as well as the Democrats who may be holding out hope for CIR.

Photo by SomewhereinAK.

By Wendy Sefsaf

It’s the stuff of fiction. A vigilante group with a vaguely patriotic name creates a list with the help of someone—perhaps a disgruntled government-employee/mole—who is fed up with the system (think Michael Douglas in Falling Down). The list contains the names, social security numbers and other private information of hundreds of people whom the vigilantes deem “undesirable.” The list even identifies pregnant women and their due dates and recommends that they be first on the list for “elimination.” The list is delivered to a wide range of government, law enforcement and media groups, accompanied by a letter insisting action be taken to remove the undesirables.

Unfortunately, this bizarre tale is not the plot of a new movie or a New York Times bestseller, but a real drama which just happened in Utah. An anonymous group called “The Concerned Citizens of the United States” compiled a list of 1,300 alleged unauthorized immigrants—including birth dates, workplaces, and social security numbers—accompanied by a letter instructing government agencies to “begin deportation now.” They write:

Some of the women on this list are pregnant at this time and steps should be taken for immediate deportation.” They also promise to continue sending “new lists on a continual basis.

The list (which appears to contain a mix of accurate and inaccurate information) is outrageous, but sadly not at all surprising, given the downward spiral of anti-immigration tactics and antics of other “concerned citizens” who have taken up the restrictionist cause. Utah has a mixed record on immigration, but, unfortunately, is home to a growing number of hate groups and is not immune to efforts advocating the adoption of “show me your papers” legislation. However, despite the outrage around this list, some Utah state legislators are pressing forward on their work on SB1070 style legislation.

In their rush to look tough on immigration, Utah legislators should proceed with caution. Charles Kuck writes on the ILW blog:

A bigger concern for Utah has to be the fallout and consequences of “The List” and prospective state legislation on immigration. If Utah politicians ignore not only the political consequences, but their own heritage in moving forward toward passing an Arizona style “show me your papers” type of law, Utah will become, like Arizona, an economic pariah. Utah will be faced with declining foreign and domestic investment as the result of efforts to isolate those states that pursue legislation that serves no legitimate law enforcement, drives immigrants further into the shadows and away from the police, and deepens the divide in the United States over what is good for the future of America. Fifty different state laws on immigration policy is not a way to effectively run a country.

Utah, a state with a $700 million budget shortfall, certainly can’t afford to become the next Arizona by alienating its immigrant and Latino populations. IPC research shows:

Mexican immigrants in Utah “own property valued at $984 million,” have more than $1.0 billion in purchasing power, and paid more than $67 million in state and local taxes: $7.5 million in income tax; $52.2 million in sales tax; and $7.6 million in property tax.

There are other famous examples of “list building” that put a chill in the spines of most Americans. From the bygone days of McCarthyism to the historic Salem Witch Trials, the idea of a private group building a list of names and handing it over to government officials to be investigated just seems archaic and out of line. It is, alas, just one more example that screams out the need for immigration reform in Congress. It also begs the question: how much worse will it have to get before it gets better?

Photo by dhammza.

By Kalie Moody

If the lawsuits are not dismissed at these hearings or other hearings, Judge Bolton will eventually make a final decision about whether to strike down the law. If the court upholds the law, plaintiffs could appeal the court’s decision to the Ninth Circuit and if unsuccessful at the Ninth Circuit, they could seek Supreme Court review. It often takes years for a case to wind its way through the appeals process. Unless the court acts to block enforcement of the law during the appeal, it could take many months before any court issues a final decision.

Photo by M.V. Jantzen.

By Mary Giovagnoli

Utah officials and community leaders reacted swiftly and with revulsion to the announcement this week that confidential state records had been breached to compile a list of more than 1,300 supposedly undocumented people living in Utah, including pregnant women and children. At a press conference this afternoon, State Attorney General Mark L. Shurtleff condemned the list, noting that “some call it a blacklist, but I call it a hit list.” Speaking for himself and on behalf of the governor of Utah, Gary R. Herbert Shurtleff made it clear that the release of confidential information was “not the way we do things in Utah” or in this country. He noted that the state government of Utah is trying to speak with one voice to condemn the release of information, will not be using the list to initiate actions against anyone on it, and roundly criticized those who would use lists, hate mongering and political rhetoric to stir up racism in Utah. Instead, he called on the federal government to continue to work for a truly comprehensive solution to immigration reform. He noted that the governor has called a meeting next week to produce Utah’s recommendations for immigration reform that will help to keep Utah from going down the road of S.B. 1070. Schurtleff is also awaiting results of an internal investigation before determining how many laws at the federal and state level may have been broken and who is subject to prosecution.

July 22, 2010
Washington, D.C. - Today in Phoenix a judge will hear arguments in United States v. the State of Arizona and Gov. Janice K. Brewer. The federal government’s laywers will seek a preliminary injunction to stop the law from going into effect on July 29 - which gives police the power to question people they have “reasonable suspicion” are illegal immigrants - while the lawsuit proceeds. 

 The American Immigration Council’s Immigration Policy Center and Legal Action Center have developed a range of resources about the lawsuits against Arizona and the economic and policy implications of SB 1070.

 See:

• Most Frequently Asked Questions
  Q&A Guide to Arizona’s New Immigration Law 
  This guide provides key answers to basic questions about Arizona’s law – from the substance of the law and myths surrounding it to the legal and fiscal implications. 
• The Legal Challenges 
  Read about the suits challenging the Arizona law.
  Read about challenges to other state and local laws.
  Read a blog post on the seven lawsuits
• The Policy Implications
  Read about how SB 1070 will jeapordize federal immigration enforcement.
• The Economic Realities
  Read about SB 1070’s collateral costs
  Read about the SB 1070’s potential cost of implementation
  Read about the economic boycotts
  Read about the economic power of immigrants, Latinos and Asians in Arizona 

###

 
For more information contact Wendy Sefsaf at 202-507-7524 or wsefsaf@immcouncil.org

<http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/docs/lac/LAC%20and%20AILA.png>

  For Immediate Release

 Lawsuit Filed Against Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Seeks Transparency Promised by Obama Administration American Immigration Lawyers Association Seeks Disclosure of Records under FOIA

 July 20, 2010

 Washington D.C. – Today the American Immigration Council’s Legal Action Center filed a lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) on behalf of the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) seeking the public release of records concerning agency policies and procedures for the “H-1B” visa program – a program which allows U.S. businesses to temporarily employ highly-skilled foreign workers.   

 AILA had pursued disclosure of the documents through two separate Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests, both of which were denied in full by the government.  In its complaint filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, AILA seeks the court’s intervention to compel the government to release the requested records.

 The FOIA litigation centers on the government’s H-1B visa review and processing procedures. The H-1B program, administered by USCIS, allows U.S. businesses to temporarily employ foreign workers – such as scientists, engineers, and computer programmers – in occupations that require theoretical or technical expertise in specialized fields.  Since 2008, USCIS has implemented new, more stringent procedures for review and processing and has dramatically increased the frequency of unannounced worksite inspections – expected to reach 25,000 visits in 2010 alone – in connection with H-1B cases.  Yet USCIS has kept secret the rules and guidelines related to the review process.  The dearth of publicly available information on the government’s heightened scrutiny of H-1B applications makes it particularly difficult for businesses to anticipate and meet agency expectations during the application process.

 ”The requested documents are the kind that a government agency should release as a matter of course,” said Crystal Williams, Executive Director of the American Immigration Lawyers Association.  “That we had to file a FOIA request, and that the request was denied, is counter to the President’s directives for a more open and transparent government.  This lawsuit seeks to require the agency to be true to the open government directives of the Obama administration.”

 ”It is in the public and the agency’s interest to release the documents sought by AILA,” said Mary Kenney, attorney at the American Immigration Council’s Legal Action Center.  “The documents will help employers and foreign workers who seek immigration benefits comply with the law.  Further, the agency violated FOIA when it issued wholesale denials of AILA’s FOIA requests.”

 AILA is also represented in the litigation by Steptoe & Johnson LLP.

 ###

 For press inquiries contact Wendy Sefsaf at 202-507-7524 or wsefsaf@immcouncil.org or  George Tzamaras at 202-507-7649 or gtzamaras@aila.org

Creating Opportunities for Immigrant Students and Supporting the U.S. Economy

  July 13, 2010

 Washington D.C. – Today, the Immigration Policy Center releases a Fact Check on the DREAM Act. Each year, approximately 65,000 undocumented students graduate from high school, many at the top of their classes, but cannot go to college, join the military, work, or otherwise pursue their dreams. They belong to the 1.5 generation – any (first generation) children brought to the United States at a young age by their parents who were largely raised in this country and therefore share much in common with American born-children. These students are culturally American, growing up here and often having little attachment to their country of birth. They tend to be bicultural and fluent in English. Many don’t even know that they are undocumented immigrants until they apply for a driver’s license or college, and then learn they lack Social Security numbers and other necessary legal documents.  

 The plight of the DREAM Act students encapsulates many facets of today’s immigration crisis.  Caught in a system where there is little, if any, means for legalizing their status, smart, hard-working kids face an uncertain future because of their inability to continue their education, work, or join the military. The loss of potential, productivity, and hope for these individuals is also a loss for this country. The United States is missing out on talented workers and entrepreneurs, and is losing vital tax revenues and other economic contributions. While fixing this particular problem will hardly resolve the need for comprehensive immigration reform, it will unlock the door to the American dream for thousands of young people each year.

 To view the fact sheet it its entirety see:

• The DREAM Act: Creating Opportunities for Immigrant Students and Supporting the U.S. Economy (IPC Fact Check, July 13, 2010)

### 

For more information contact Seth Hoy at 202-507-7509 or shoy@immcouncil.org

New Report Ignores Economic Contributions of Unauthorized Workers and Consumers;
Views the Education of Their U.S.­-Citizen Children as Nothing More Than a “Cost”
 

July 6, 2010

Washington D.C. -  Today, Fox News is reporting on data provided to them by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) which amounts to a highly misleading fiscal snapshot of the costs allegedly imposed on U.S. taxpayers by unauthorized immigrants.  However, in its rush to portray unauthorized immigrants as nothing more than a drain on the public treasury, FAIR completely discounts the economic contributions of unauthorized workers and consumers.  Moreover, FAIR inflates their cost estimate by indiscriminately lumping together native-born, U.S.-citizen children with their unauthorized parents.
FAIR’s report suffers from three fatal flaws:

• The report notes that the single biggest “expense” it attributes to unauthorized immigrants is the education of their children, yet most of these children are native-born, U.S. citizens who will grow up to be tax-paying adults.  It is disingenuous to count the cost of investing in the education of these children, so that they will earn higher incomes and pay more in taxes when they are adults, as if it were nothing more than a cost incurred by their parents.

• The report fails to account for the purchasing power of unauthorized consumers, which supports U.S. businesses and U.S. jobs.

• The report ignores the value added to the U.S. economy by unauthorized workers, particularly in the service sector.

In contrast to FAIR’s report, the Perryman Group estimated that if all unauthorized workers and consumers were somehow removed from the U.S. economy, the United States would lose $552 billion in total economic activity (“expenditures”), $245 billion in Gross Domestic Product (GDP), and 2.8 million jobs. 

FAIR’s data is meant only to reinforce their vision of “attrition through enforcement.” It is not rooted in an effort to move the immigration debate forward. The public and the President have made it clear that deporting 11-12 million immigrants isn’t reasonable or feasible. Therefore, passing comprehensive immigration reform – which would yield a cumulative $1.5 trillion in added U.S. gross domestic product over 10 years – is the only sound economic decision the United States can make.

Drawing a Clear Line Between Federal and State Immigration Authority
July 6, 2010
 
Washington, D.C. – Today, the United States Department of Justice filed a lawsuit against the state of Arizona in federal court. The lawsuit, prompted by passage of SB 1070 in the Arizona legislature, will argue that federal law trumps the state statute and enforcing immigration law is a federal responsibility. The Department has requested a preliminary injunction to delay enactment of the law, arguing that the law’s operation will cause “irreparable harm.”
 
“The federal government is taking an important step to reassert its authority over immigration policy in the United States, said Benjamin Johnson, Executive Director of the American Immigration Council. “While a legal challenge by the Department of Justice won’t resolve the public’s frustration with our broken immigration system, it will seek to define and protect the federal government’s constitutional authority to manage immigration.”
 
Although states have always played a role in federal immigration enforcement, over the last 10 years more and more states have chosen to impose their local policies, priorities, and politics on our national immigration system. America can only have one immigration system, and the federal government must make clear where states’ authority begins and where it ends. The federal government must assert its authority to establish a uniform immigration policy that it can be held accountable for. In the current environment it is unclear who is responsible for setting immigration enforcement priorities and who is responsible for their success or failure.
Also, while we applaud the administration’s decision to challenge the constitutionality of the Arizona law, we urge it to also look inward and correct other policies and programs that confuse the relationship between federal and state authority to enforce immigration laws. For example, the Department of Justice should rescind an Office of Legal Counsel memo issued in 2002 which opened the door for greater state action by reaching the, politically motivated, decision that states had inherent authority to enforce immigration laws. In addition, the Department of Homeland Security should rescind the 287(g) agreement in Maricopa County, Arizona where it has become clear that the agreement is being abused.
 
At the end of the day, a lawsuit alone will not end the vacuum created by the lack of workable immigration laws. While the Department of Justice takes up the legal challenge, the Obama Administration and Congress must put the immigration issue squarely back where it belongs – in the halls of congress and on the desk of the President of the United States.
###
 
For more information contact Wendy Sefsaf at 202-812-2499 or wsefsaf@immcouncil.org