This is Chris, Jenny's husband for those who don't know. Pursuant to recent questions by family and non-family members about Arizona’s recent immigration bill, SB 1070 and the recent addendum of HB 2162, Jenny gave me permission to post an explanation about my understanding of the new law(s) and their impact on her public website. Follow the links above to read the laws themselves.In red are the direct criticisms and in blue are excerpts from the law itself:
#1) “The bill requires immigrants to carry their alien registration documents at all times and requires police to question people if there is reason to suspect that they're in the United States illegally.” (http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/04/23/obama.immigration/index.html)
The law requires people to prove lawful presence in the US when applying for state or local benefits. Immigration documents are not required if the person has a driver’s license or state-issued ID card:
A. Notwithstanding any other state law and to the extent permitted by federal law, any agency of this state or a political subdivision of this state that administers any state or local public benefit shall require each natural person who applies for the state or local public benefit to submit at least one of the following documents to the entity that administers the state or local public benefit demonstrating lawful presence in the United States:
1. An Arizona driver license issued after 1996 or an Arizona nonoperating identification license.
2. A birth certificate or delayed birth certificate issued in any state, territory or possession of the United States.
3. A United States certificate of birth abroad.
4. A United States passport.
5. A foreign passport with a United States visa.
6. An I-94 form with a photograph.
7. A United States citizenship and immigration services employment authorization document or refugee travel document.
8. A United States certificate of naturalization.
9. A United States certificate of citizenship.
10. A tribal certificate of Indian blood.
11. A tribal or bureau of Indian affairs affidavit of birth.
The above has nothing to do with police officers. At any rate, law enforcement officers already ask people for their “papers” in the form of a driver’s license, registration and proof of insurance. However, the law states officers have to have reasonable suspicion or probable cause of a crime or traffic violation in order to detain someone in the first placel. Meaning, they have to be able to articulate how a reasonable officer might believe them to be in violation of the law. (For example, witnessing a traffic violation or another citizen witnessing someone shoplift then leave the scene in a specific vehicle. Both are reasonable and Constitutionally-valid reasons to stop someone.) This law already exists in the form of the US Constitution, which no state law can override. Read the language of the bill itself (italics added):
For any lawful stop, detention or arrest made by a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of this state or a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state in the enforcement of any other law or ordinance of a county, city or town or this state where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien and is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person, except if the determination may hinder or obstruct an investigation.
The law requires another lawful reason for detaining someone, not merely contacting them on the street because they are Hispanic. I can tell you personally, most officers have no desire to threaten their careers by violating someone’s civil rights. It’s just not worth it. Besides, police officers in Arizona are increasingly short-handed and becoming overwhelmed with the increase in violent crime across the state. I think this will only make officers busier and might increase violence against police (although I think this will be due to the false information, rather than the law itself). Funny how protesters vilify the police on this subject, when they didn't write the thing.
The above also addresses another criticism, that the law will prevent those in the country illegally from reporting crimes. When someone is the victim of or witness to a crime, an officer cannot ask about their residency status (and, frankly, would not want to). As it is now, an unlawful immigrant can receive a temporary visa (a U Visa, I believe - ask Vic or Joy) when they are a victim or witness. This remains unchanged.
#2.) President Obama criticized the bill, calling it “misguided” and stated it threatened “to undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans, as well as the trust between police and our communities that is so crucial to keeping us safe.” (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/24/us/politics/24immig.html)
#3.) Mexico's President Felipe Calderon has issued a travel advisory to it's citizens entering the United States [illegally?], saying, "It must be assumed that every Mexican citizen may be harassed and questioned without further cause at any time."
(http://us-state-policy.suite101.com/article.cfm/razing-arizona-senate-bill-1070)
Again, here’s the language of the bill:
A law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state may not consider race, color or national origin in implementing the requirements of this subsection except to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona Constitution. A person is presumed to not be an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States if the person provides to the law enforcement officer or agency any of the following:
1. A valid Arizona driver license.
2. A valid Arizona nonoperating identification license.
3. A valid tribal enrollment card or other form of tribal identification.
I personally feel it was unnecessary to put this language in the bill, because it implies it was not already being done. It reminds me of the Equal Rights Act, which allegedly gave women the same status as men. Doesn’t that presume they did not have it in the first place? Again, ridiculous. Granted, there are certainly some officers who already racially profile, (although I do not believe I have met any). This law does not provide more opportunity or validation to do so. It was wrong, it is still wrong.
Ultimately, the law states:
E. In the implementation of this section, an alien's immigration status may be determined by:
1. A law enforcement officer who is authorized by the federal government to verify or ascertain an alien's immigration status.
2. The United States immigration and customs enforcement or the United States customs and border protection pursuant to 8 United States Code section 1373(c).
Only the Federal Government can (still) determine if someone is illegal. This is no different than how things work now. If someone is arrested for DUI, for example, and they have no driver’s license, state ID card, social security number, they cannot state where they went to school and their reported birthday is January 1st or December 24th (both popular dates for some reason when someone was born in a small village and does not actually know their birth date – Vic and Joy can probably validate this), than a reasonable officer would guess that person is not in the country legally. They are booked into jail on the DUI and ICE would then determine their residency status at the jail. With this law, the only thing that changes is that now I would add a charge of Failure to Complete or Carry an Alien Registration Card (a class 1 misdemeanor).
Below is a sweeping criticism of the law, which summarizes the absurdities I’ve seen and heard in the media:
SB1070 is a radical anti-immigrant piece of legislation that will open the floodgates to racial profiling and abuses of civil liberties. The law will be challenged in court for both violating individual rights and being an illegal assertion of state authority given the federal government's primary responsibility for border and immigration matters. But in the meantime, the effects of its implementation will be sweeping, since the law:
- Legalizes Racial Profiling: State and local government law enforcement officers are required to determine if a person is illegally in the United States based on a “reasonable suspicion,” an open ended approach that will encourage suspicions based on race. The law does little, if anything, to prohibit police officers from relying on race or ethnicity in deciding who to investigate. [The US Constitution already prohibits this. Officers take an oath to uphold the Constitution.]
- Criminalizes immigration, which isn't a crime under federal law: Makes it a state crime to be in the country without legal status. [It criminalizes illegal immigration, which is already illegal. Shocking.]
- Undercuts Federalism: The law grants local police arrest authority for administrative violations of federal immigration law, even though the state police do not even have that authority under federal law. [They are not administrative violations. Bank robbery is also a federal crime, which local police officers can enforce.]
- Criminalizes Speech: The law criminalizes the solicitation of work even though courts have previously ruled that the solicitation of work is protected speech under the First Amendment. [Honestly, I don’t know.]
- Potentially Deters Enforcement of Other Laws: Since the law requires police officers responding to any city ordinance violation to automatically determine the immigration status of an individual they have reasonable suspicion of being an undocumented immigrant, many local violations won't be reported, consequently diverting law enforcement attention from violent crimes. [Officers enforce all laws without prejudice. An officer has to have reasonable suspicion the person is illegal. It’s not automatic, thank heavens.]
SB1070 Is a Product of a Racist, Anti-Immigrant National Network: The sweep of the law is hardly accidental, since it is the product of a national network of anti-immigrant groups tied to racist hate groups. (http://www.progressivestates.org/node/25081)
Pretty unreal, isn’t it? Even the US Attorney General condemned the law without reading it. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/14/AR2010051404231.html).
This is deja vu for those who remember the President condemned the actions of a police officer for arresting his friend as “acting stupidly” and then admitted he did not actually know what happened. It is clear truth is of no interest to many in the media and our federal government. Why, exactly?
That, my friends, is a question for you…
17 comments:
Chris and other readers, I read the bill a little while ago and I do have some problems with it. You are correct about some of the demonizing. I'm getting really annoyed with both "sides" of the immigration debate - I don't know that you get accurate depictions from either side.
I'll throw out a some quick points with out going back to read the bill for more direct quotations.
Currently according to US law - violations of immigration law ARE civil violations. This law does criminalize those violations which may have an adverse affect on people who can legally change their status.
The law does criminalize the solicitation of work - specifically the day laborers congregating at various "pick up points".
Reasonably or not I do suspect that those here illegally will be more reluctant to report crimes which may have some adverse consequences in the pursuit of violent criminals. [They already are reluctant to some degree]. I don't recall any part of the bill prohibiting police officers from questioning potential victims and witnesses regarding there immigration status.
Another point to keep in mind is the difficulty of "immigration status" - there are illegal immigrants who have submitted their petitions and will be able to become legal with time. It takes anywhere from 5 yrs and up to 10 yrs in many cases. So why not just go back to .....? [Our minds automatically fill in the blank with Mexico don't they?] Under current law if they leave the US it will raise the bar which will prohibit their re-entry. So according to our laws they "damned if they do and damned if they don't".
So many of our illegal immigrants are married to, and fathers/mothers of US citizens. They are the providers in these homes. What would you do? Your spouse and children are here, need someone to provide for them and may not even speak your native language. Go back?
We NEED to secure our border but we have let the problem go on for so long that we now need to be cautious ["measure twice before you cut" was the statement of Elder Jensen representing the First Presidency of our church when UT was looking at some laws that would affect illegal immigrants] to make sure that the results of our laws help and protect rather than hurt families and individuals.
There do need to be appropriate punishments for violations of our immigration laws. Generally I beleive they fall in the range of fines etc - much like the consequences for violation of our traffice laws. When you speed to pay a fine - you don't usually permanently loose your vehicle, or your ability to take care of your self and your family.
There is more but I will leave it at that for now.
I'd been curious about what you thought about this, Chris, and how this was trickling down to law enforcement over previous weeks.
My biggest problem with the law (as with most attempts at immigration reform) is that it tends to ignore the huge white elephant in the room (or....at the border, if you will). It's the fact (not speculation, not conjecture...but FACT) that there is a segment of corporate America that not only knowingly hires undocumented immigrants, but encourages them to come to this country in droves for employment.
Immigration law trends toward the individual, but reality points at corporations.
It might be simplistic and trite, but I'll say it anyway: if there weren't jobs for the taking, our immigration issue would be significantly diminished.
And for my unsolicited opinion, I think this country faces far greater problems at the moment than illegal immigration. Perhaps I feel that way because immigration affects Americans disproportionately, and I happen to live in a place where it's not on the front page of our newspaper every day. (Though, those pesky Canadians COULD be sneaking in every once and a while). =)
Vic and Jen, excellent points, both of you. I knew Vic was closer to the immigration aspect of this issue than I am, so I definitely appreciate his perspective and corrections.
With regard to Vic's parapgraph #7, ICE will not deport someone who has dependents here in AZ, especially when they are US citizens (at least, that's what they told me).
I agree that the laws need to "help and protect rather than hurt families and individuals." Largely, I really don't care about someone's immigration status when they aren't committing crime. Frankly, if I lived in Mexico, I would do everything I could to get my children here for a better life, too. I also agree with the criticism that it will overburden law enforcement even more than we are currently.
The problem is everything that's following the illegal immigration and is inherently connected to it: drugs, kidnappings, murders, including murders of police officers. The majority of officers killed in the line of duty in the last several years have been by illegal immigrants from Mexico.
Jen, I agree our county has far greater problems (especially moral issues and our ever-increasing federal gov't, which seems hell-bent on "fundamentally changing" the nation and the US Constitution. However, I don't see current legislators doing much about either issue. Illegal immigration is a major issue here in AZ. So much of the violence and drugs here are directly linked to it.
Is this law a good answer? Frankly, I have no idea. I'll enforce whatever I am required to. My biggest issue, as I stated in the original blog post, was the false information being deliberately spread about the law.
This article gave a good description of how law enforcement feels in general about the bill:
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1986080,00.html
Good discussion, people.
(PART 1 of 2)
I will post a number of observations and thoughts that may or may not be interesting to all of you:
1. Traditional European population is collapsing and being replaced by illegal immigrants. European governments also seem to turn a blind eye to illegal immigration as such immigration serves as one mechanism to replace declining populations. (This is my observation). Illegal immigration has and will continue to fundamentally change the identity of European countries.
2. I like Mexico and Mexicans. Their culture is very similar to ours and I believe the melting pot mechanisms are quite painless.
3. George Friedman is an intelligence analyst- I read a lot of (www.stratfor.com) analysis- very interesting. In his 100 year forecast he claims:
"Friedman paints the 2030s as a time when the United States will experience a significant financial crisis due to the retirement of the baby boomers. Immigration will become so important to revitalizing the economy that the United States will pay people to immigrate to America."
4. My brother is an evil corporate farmer in Southern California. He hires many illegal immigrants- this is a fact he freely admits (or at least he hires companies who temporarily supply farm labor). He is not in a position to decline employment to these people as they all present themselves as legal residents with forged paperwork. It is not my brother's place to judge legal status; it is the job of our federal government. I believe our federal government intentionally does not try hard to fulfill this duty or give my brother a reliable mechanism to determine legal status.
5. I know an individual who has family in the Mexican Mormon colonies. I asked about the security situation there given all of the drug cartel violence in Chihuahua state. Cartel violence is a non-issue; kidnapping is the major issue with the going rate at $100K and kidnapping events happening as often as once a week. Most pay, those who don't are killed. Many families stay up at night, park their vehicles across the gate entrances to prevent kidnapping vehicle ingress and prepare for the worst every night. The army has moved in and the security situation has improved somewhat. The rule of law continues to break down in Mexico. The first soccer mom in the US who is kidnapped for ransom in the US will change minds very quickly concerning the wisdom of disregarding the rule of law in the US. Our nation is incredibly secure and our freedoms rich precisely because we write contracts and laws that are enforced.
6. Removing economics (which is of course why illegal immigration occurs in the first place) I find it fascinating that one low resource country voluntarily drains itself of labor to a neighboring high resource country. The labor comes and provides services to the high resource country and improves its resources. It does not follow the "Settlers of Catan" (sp?) model very well.
7. Boarder security is very important but only mildly interesting to me. It seems like our Cuban "wet foot, dry foot" policy applies where once someone braves dealing with our Border Patrol they are welcomed as a sub-caste of our society. What is truly sad is the mess our federal government has made for itself by not aggressively enforcing its labor laws. When I say mess I mean families of mixed citizenship who are not well equipped to just move back home (Vic's comments). How much better it would be if the government had not created this situation in the first place.
8. The best wall would be improving the ability of employers to reliably verify immigration status and make it economically unwise to hire illegal aliens (via civil penalties to employers). If a significant amount of the demand were dried up the financial cost of boarder security would not be such an issue.
(see next)
(PART 2 of 2)
9. I don't believe there are "jobs that Americans won't do." Certainly US citizens empty septic tanks and porta-potties regularly. They do so because the compensation motivates them to do the job. It is a mere matter of economics. Americans will do any job with proper compensation.
10. I live in a state where there are not too many illegal immigrants because there is not an overabundance of work here. There are however many Hispanics here who have been here forever. Hispanics and non-Hispanics could generally care less about spending 24 hrs a day being oversensitive to race issues.
11. I am descended from a legal Mexican immigrant- a refugee in fact (my Grandfather).
12. I don't feel racist. I don't feel rabid about any of these opinions. I don't feel right, left, center- I hope my opinions are mine and don't belong to someone's box or platform.
13. There are 6.7 billion people on this Earth. An open boarder is simply unrealistic, no matter who the neighbor. National sovereignty far transcends any residual racism in the issue of immigration. In our case, national sovereignty is our right to vote democratically as citizens concerning the type of government we would like and the freedoms we expect. An influx of 6.6 billion people would immediately erase the last 250+ years of cultural, political, and economic identity. We would cease to be the USA as we know it today.
14. Countries, including Mexico, do not share our laws and regulations (e.g. Mexican citizens may not arm themselves to counter armed kidnappers who currently act with impunity and go unpunished).
15. I believe a sovereign country has the right and duty to control immigration such that those who immigrate are selected to match the economic conditions of the country. I.e. they are needed (doctors, nurses, farm laborers, unskilled laborers). The sovereign should reject known criminals etc.
16. Europeans (the Swiss for example) seem to not have a problem with a sub-caste of people living in their country. I have a huge problem with such behavior. If someone would like to live in our country permanently, I would like them to become a citizen (dual is fine) with all the accompanying privileges. I believe it is incredibly immoral for our federal government to enable a sub-caste in our country (i.e. issue drivers licenses, have sanctuary cities,...)
17. Temporary work visas are very reasonable mechanism to employ people who are in the US for solely economic reasons.
18. If I were Jan Brewer I would advocate a dramatic increase in our legal immigration quotas coupled with aggressive enforcement of existing immigration policy. I would advocate a policy that minimizes illegal immigration and all of the attendant issues. If I were the POTUS, I would do the same. As an independent voter I would respond favorably to such action.
Thanks Chris, what great thoughts people have shared!
-Jason
such a big topic - I'm at work and should be helping immigrants rather that opining on the situation but I actually want to disagree on a point with Jen - My experience has not shown a segment of corporate america that actively encourages illegal immigration. There are companies out there that do hire, sometimes knowingly, but most often without any real knowledge. Those companies do get fined - some of them are very hefty fines. The application of fines has increased.
I-9 compliance is generally fairly simple you check for a soc sec number. Employers don't have an obligation to determine whether someone is legal and we don't want to put that onus on employers either.
Most illegal immigrants, from what I have experienced and the numbers I have seen, work for small businesses.
The encouragement comes from economics and family. All your siblings, or your parents or your children, live in X place you want to be able to see them regularly so you move.
Chris you stated that ICE in AZ doesn't deport [legal term is "remove"] some that has US citizen dependants? I'd be really surprised if that's the case. Occaisionally I have had client sent to the Eloy AZ facility and have had to deal with judges there. Laws do exist that can help someone that does have legal dependants but they are EXTREMELY difficult. The immigrant has to show an "exceptional and extremely unusual hardship" - something beyond the normal hardship that would occur to their US citizen dependants were they to be removed (deported). It really is a hard standard to meet. After ICE [Immigration & Customs Enforcement] detains someone the US attorneys take over and pursue the case. It wouldn't surprise me if ICE didn't really know what happens in the trials. Unfortunately I have had some bad experiences with ICE. For example - my client was detained so I sent a Notice of Appearance which means ICE is supposed to advise me before doing anything. I was working with my client's US citizen wife to get documents from his mother showing that she had become a US citizen while he was still a minor which would make him a derivative Citizen. I got a call from his wife a couple days later saying that they had put him on a bus and he was gone. So, we may have deported a US citizen. Fun times. I'm sure there are good guys in ICE - I just haven't been impressed with ICE generally. [How much interaction do you have with ICE Chris? I would love to hear another perspective.]
I think one of the biggest things missing from the national conversation about immigration is how complex and messed up our immigration laws are and how insufficient the current bureaucracy is to handle immigration issues.
ps - please forgive the numberous grammar, spelling, and typing issues in my last comment.
This is all so good. Vic, in answer to your question, I've only had good experiences with ICE. However, one must remember they are primarily law enforcement, so they do not usually deal with cases beyond the initial detainment. I doubt they go to court much like we do. I imagine they turn the immigrants over to someone else and then wash their hands of them. I have never seen the other side that you have experienced. They are always more than willing to come out when needed.
For example, I made a traffic stop months ago in which 9 guys poured out of a small 2-door and ran like rabbits. We rounded them up - none had ID (only a small toiletries kit) and none spoke actual Spanish - they spoke something which our Spanish-speaking officer identified as closer to Aztec. ICE came out, interviewed them, and loaded them into a van. End of our problem, except for the driver who had a suspended license and was arrested. They also interview everyone who gets booked into Maricopa County Jail.
Again, I haven't dealt with the other side of things in that respect.
What I have seen are the drugs, violence, murders, SWAT-immitation home invations, gangs and non-stop DUIs that come from illegal immigrants. At least, they are a derivative of it and appear inseparably connected. When the federal gov't does nothing, I can see why the state level feels compelled to act in its stead. However, without more funding and more cops, it will be difficult.
My biggest irritation is the constant criticism that this will make officers racist, or allow racist officers to racially profile. Honestly, I just don't see the alleged "hate." I don't know any cops who see a Hispanic and will follow him/her until they find a traffic violation in order to verify their residency status. We have bigger fish to catch. I think this is merely ammo of the Progressives (there, I said it) to vilify law enforcement.
I have been wanting to weigh in here too! First of all, Chris I am really impressed with your post. I had heard a lot of those fictional statements so it was really nice to see the truth spelled out.
I will try to keep this brief since so much has already been said. This is obvious but the only way to "fix" the immigration problem with Mexico specifically is for Mexico to get it's "financial act" together. This is all about jobs. I remember my co-worker from the Consulate saying one time that if Mexicans could work here in the US during the day and then go home to Mexico at night, they would. They love Mexico, their country, their culture, language, their HOME, as they should and as I love my country too. They just need a job. I think that this is manifested in the lack of simulation by so many Mexican immigrants. They simply are not interested in climbing into the melting pot.
But considering that the flow of cash from Mexican citizens working in the USA is the 2nd largest income/source of their nations GDP, I just don't see the motivation for their government to make any changes in that direction. Obviously there is much more to it than that.
Also, my experience with the Consulate and the people I saw and worked with, gave me the impression that most undocumented Mexican citizens don't trust the police and so they are not going to involve the police anyway if they are a victim of a crime. (There was quite an increase of people when the Consulate moved from the building downtown that was shared with the FBI to a separate location of it's own and that is just the FBI). There are other organizations out there that people would turn to first, Catholic Charities for example.
Lastly, like Jason said, our messed up, complicated, unenforced and perhaps unenforceable immigrations laws are creating a cast system. Many people don't really care but their children who are neither here nor there (Am I Mexican or American? I can't go to college or vote but I don't speak Spanish or have any memories of Mexico) do. For them the problems are huge.
I think I will stop there. Great discussion.
Joy
Here's what's playing out in my gut...
Perhaps the problem for me is this: "Illegal Immigrant" is a LABEL, not a BEHAVIOR. The problems that are described by the immigration law proponents are often crimes committed by those who are in the country illegally. While the two (illegal status and criminal behavior) are often correlated in some (even MANY) instances, they're lumped together far too often.
I think far too many Americans need to step back to Statistics 221 and repeat the mantra "correlation does not imply causation...correlation does not imply causation" over, and over, and over again.
Again, I concede that this issue is disproportionately affective in this country. One only needs to look at the meager quality of the Mexican restaurants in my town to realize that we're not experiencing a huge wave of Hispanic immigration here. It's easy for me to have more of a 'live and let live' attitude when they're not living HERE.
Chris, I'd be interested in your opinion on the idea that undocumented immigrants will under-report crimes for fear of deportation. That is probably my biggest concern with the new law.
Jen, have to disagree in one respect. Illegal immigrant is describing a behavior. Those individuals chose to disregard immigration laws and some to the US illegally. Immigrants who fail to document properly and sneak across the border are committing an illegal act, all by itself. So, you can not separate the two.
Does that mean I think all illegal immigrants are violent criminals? No, I don't. I think many are simply trying to make a better life for their family. However, don't we believe in obeying, honoring and sustaining the law? And what about the people who immigrate the legal way and go through all the proper channels?
Vic, how difficult is it for someone without any criminal record to get a Visa? From what I hear, it's not that difficult and I imagine it's less costly (in money and suffering) than paying a Coyote to smuggle you across.
To answer your other question, Jen, I believe Hispanic immigrants, legal or illegal, tend to not report crimes because they completely distrust law enforcement in the first place. Police officers in Mexico are often employed by the Cartels. Officer are either afraid of enforcing the law because the Cartel will kidnap/torture/kill them or their family members, or they become directly employed and are criminals themselves. Immigrants usually can not separate US law enforcement from the ones they've grown used to. I don't blame them at all in that respect.
Faced with that, do you really think fear of deportation makes any difference? The vast majority of officers here (though not all, I admit) have common sense and decency and do not care about the immigration status of a victim/witness. We'd rather catch the real bad guys.
The real fault, in my opinion, lies with the Mexican government and its failure to control the Cartels, combat corruption in law enforcement/military and help make life livable for it's citizens. And along those lines, Pres. Calderon's recent statements on our own soil ticks me off.
To answer your question Chris, about the difficulty of getting a visa: Unfortunately it can be very difficult, costly, and most of all time consuming.
Some examples: A woman obtained a visa [4th preference based on her relationship to her brother]. It took the average amount of time - 10yrs. Her husband and children were able to come with her as derivatives on the petition for her - except for her oldest son who had turned 21 yrs old a few months before the visa came through. He is ineligible and so he is stuck in El Salvador. Alone. And he is not an unusual case.
There are work visas that take years to obtain: how many employers can plan for hiring 2, 3, 5 years into the future?
For a large number of illegal immigrants if they can avoid deportation long enough they will be able to legally adjust to permanent resident status - its just waiting for a visa # to become available. USCIS' stated goal for processing 5-6 months. The reality 5-10 years.
H1-bs are visas for educated highly trained workers [bachelors (with significant experience) and graduate degrees in medicine, computers, accounting etc]. April 1 is the first day you can apply for the next year [April 1 2010 for the year 2011]. The limit of visa issues is 65,000 each year. Until the recent economic recession on April 1 each year 135,000 visa applications were received. More than twice the available. That's a lot of employers not being able to find employees [the process is fairly difficult to prove that the employer has not been able to find a suitable US citizen candidate]. Once the recession hit the number of applications went down to 50,000 - 60,000 on that first day of eligible application.
[The government - big surprise just can't figure out how to work according to the demands of free enterprise].
I have another client who adopted their 11 yr old niece. She lived with them, moved from Louisiana to UT with them and their petition for permanent residence of their niece at 16 yrs of age was denied because they didn't show the niece lived with the family for at least 2 years. They retained me, when the "niece" was 18 yrs old. I showed the girl's residence history for 5 yrs, copies of driver’s licenses, tax returns etc and it still wasn't enough. We had to go through a number of other steps to show that the girl they adopted at 11 yrs old and who was now 18 had indeed lived with the family for at least 2 yrs.
PART II - sorry for the length - it just came out
I have another client who came into the US on a humanitarian visa - she is from Venezuela and is receiving medical treatment here in the US. If she returned to Venezuela she would not be able to get the care she needs and would die. USCIS screwed up her renewal [it was their fault] and now she is out of status. She cannot renew. She cannot get a new visa. She is illegal. Live illegally or die? Kind of a no brainer.
An immigration Judge here in UT recently told an attorney friend of mine and his client [who was seeking asylum due to persecution from the drug cartels] that the police who were supporting the cartel in the area this man lived was not the government. The police aren't the government. Ok, I guess I can see how that would be but if the police are not as agents of the government "the government" who do you have to be persecuted by in order to claim asylum? "Yes your honor that is correct the President of my country keeps showing up at my door and beating me up."
A friend of mine in the Spanish branch in the last couple of years had a brother who was kidnapped, beat up and left for dead by the cartel and a niece who was kidnapped, taken to Tijuana and forced into prostitution.
So Chris when you say you Pres Calderon's recent comments tick you off? Oh brother I am with you on that one. It seems to me the wickedness in our country from citizen and official alike that supports, encourages, or ignores the drug trade in Mexico is already coming back to bite us in the butt. And since we just don't get it, the teeth are getting longer.
One last thought - as an immigration attorney - I really don't even deal that much with the really complicated cases.
Unfortunately our immigration has HUGE issues.
I've been following this very informative discussion, debating whether to put my two cents in since it really is only two cents. My knowledge of the new law, immigration law, law enforcement is not even comparable to the others who have commented. With that said... one issue I have with the new law isn't about whether it's "racist" or whatever the media is calling it now. My biggest issue is that it is portrayed as being racist. Most hispanics I know are not going to take the time to read it or understand the motives behind it. I fear the relationship between hispanics (ones here legally and illegally) and law enforcement will be strained even further than they are. Yes, they are distrustful, as Chris, said of law enforcement. I have experienced the corruption in Mexico. The government/law enforcement there scares me more than the cartels, and most of the time they are one and the same. I am afraid the hispanics in fear, retribution, or whatever will not cooperate with police and may even target them more.
I am all for immigrants coming here the right way. We have sponsored both my mother-in-law and father-in-law. My MIL's immigration was relatively easy. It didn't take as long as expected. It was also before 9/11. My FIL's was after 9/11 and the paperwork was more extensive. He chose to go back to Mexico, so I do not know how long it would have taken. But and it is a huge but...my sister married a Pakistani man over 2 1/2 yrs. ago. It has been a ridiculously long process for him to come here and there is no end in sight. He has already lived legally in the states. He went home for a wedding, and because of misunderstandings by INS, was deported when he got back to Houston. This was before my sister met him. (They talked online for 3 yrs. before getting married.) He has been trying since he was deported to get back to the states. They keep coming up with new things after they have said he has done everything and should be approved. She was recently in Pakistan to bring him home or so she thought. She, as an United States citizen, was treated horribly at the Embassy. I, along with my citizen husband, have been treated horribly by the immigration people at the Mexican border. Border patrol is usually nicer to Juan when I am with him. :) People who are deemed "illegal or potentially illegal" are treated as second class citizens. Life where they lived must have been horrendous for them to want to subject themselves to this treatment. And yes, no matter what they are coming from they should do it legally, but doing it legally can be an extremely long, very expensive, and disappointing process. Most of the illegals I know are regular people who just want to take care of their families.
And so, now that I've put my two cents in, (sorry I think I was a bit wordy and probably a bit off subject), I will conclude that I do know there is a problem with immigration - both legal and illegal - and this new law - whether legal or not - is just a band-aid and will not solve any problems only create more. Of course, that is just my (hopefully not too ignorant) opinion.
I really want to thank everyone for their comments (not that we're done yet, of course). Reading everyone's opinions has caused me to think about things I had not considered. Each of you have a completely separate perspective, with Kristy's probably being the closest to everyday reality. Again, thank you.
As a cop, I am always on the crusade to get other officers to remember to treat people like the human beings we all are. It's that saying I like to use often: "Give them an inch and they think they're a ruler." D&C 121 does a pretty good job of explaining it too. Not everyone is a dirt-bag and for those who are, treating criminals respectfully has its benefits too. Unfortunately, it's hard to overcome personal feelings based on biases and experience. Those Border Patrol Agents on the border likely have experiences I could only begin to imagine which, obviously, shape the way they respond. (I have my own biases against DUIs.)
I completely agree with Kristy that the new law will be treated as racist by immigrants because that it how the media portrays it. This goes back to the entire reason I posted the blog in the first place - damn media! It really could apply to illegal immigrants from any country (I personally think there are more illegal Asians in the US than Hispanics - they're just more organized), but here in Arizona, it's pretty obvious who the law is directed against.
You guys are all awesome.
Here's a great article from FactCheck. It's lengthy, but I find it to be the most unbiased piece on the subject I've read.
http://factcheck.org/2010/06/arizonas-papers-please-law/
Post a Comment