ILW.COM - the immigration portal Immigration Daily

Home Page


Immigration Daily

Archives

Processing times

Immigration forms

Discussion board

Resources

Blogs

Twitter feed

Immigrant Nation

Attorney2Attorney

CLE Workshops

Immigration books

Advertise on ILW

VIP Network

EB-5

移民日报

About ILW.COM

Connect to us

Make us Homepage

Questions/Comments


SUBSCRIBE

Immigration Daily


Chinese Immig. Daily




The leading
immigration law
publisher - over
50000 pages of
free information!
Copyright
1995-
ILW.COM,
American
Immigration LLC.

View RSS Feed

IDBlog

Letters of the Week: June 23 - June 27

Rating: 5 votes, 5.00 average.
Please email your letters to editor@ilw.com or post them directly as a comment below.

Submit "Letters of the Week: June 23 - June 27" to Facebook Submit "Letters of the Week: June 23 - June 27" to Twitter Submit "Letters of the Week: June 23 - June 27" to Google Submit "Letters of the Week: June 23 - June 27" to StumbleUpon Submit "Letters of the Week: June 23 - June 27" to Reddit Submit "Letters of the Week: June 23 - June 27" to Digg Submit "Letters of the Week: June 23 - June 27" to del.icio.us

Tags: None Add / Edit Tags

Comments

  1. willbeon1970's Avatar
    It is absolutly wright it is very important to pass immigration bill before the end this year , that will a big parts of growing up economy U.SA , The Senate already pass this , the president wante to pass it , I think now it is time to get it done.
  2. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Yet another immigration reform obituary has now appeared. This one is in POLITICO: How immigration reform died (June 27) by Seung Min Kim, Politico's ace immigration reporter, and Carrie Budoff Brown.

    This is an excellent rehash of everything that went wrong, but it does not change the main story, which is that immigration reform never had any chance in the GOP controlled House. It has been dead for almost a year, even since S. 744 was pronounced DOA in the House last July.

    Ever since then, reform supporters have been deluding themselves, grasping at straws every time the House Republicans made a feint in the direction of reform, which they never intended to pass or seriously consider.

    Reform advocates also must share at least some of the blame for persisting in the self-delusion that reform was somehow going to go through. By doing so, they effectively gave our Deporter in Chief a pass for breaking up American families and destroying the lives of two million mainly innocent people by using the false and cynical argument that his tough line on deportation would somehow bring the House Republicans around one day.

    But now that it is obvious to everyone that House GOP immigration policy is being run by Steve King and his allies, it is nothing but a cruel hoax for Obama to delay executive action to stop, or at least vastly curtail, the deportations even one day longer.

    Shame on the House Republicans. More than that, shame on President Obama for persisting in the lie that immigration reform is still possible in Congress.

    Most of all, shame on any immigration reform supporters who still persist in believing in or promoting this fraudulent attempt by the president to pass the reform buck, which stopped at his desk a long time ago.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 06-27-2014 at 09:24 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  3. Laura N. Jasinsky's Avatar
    Things the Obama Administration could do to ease the immigration backlogs

    (1) By regulation, exempt from the definition of "unlawful presence"
    any (otherwise unlawful) presence which is "triggered" by an alien departing the US where the PURPOSE of that departure is to consular process for an immigrant visa.

    (2) Alternatively, or in addition, generously grant AP to aliens unlawfully present in the US who are eligible for an immigrant visa, where the principal purpose of the AP is to apply for an immigrant visa at a consulate abroad and re-enter the US as an immigrant -- in other words, extend Arrabally Yerrabelly, or make it clear, that the alien does not need to re-enter the US on AP to be exempt from UP under Arabally.

    (3) For immediate relatives, generously grant Parole in Place to allow EWIs to apply for AOS

    (4) Generously apply the regulation that allows AOS for aliens who are out of status for a violation occurred through no fault of the applicant or for technical reasons. I haven't seen the USCIS grant a "technical reason" benefit for 2 decades.

    (5) Apply employment based and family based quota numbers the same way they are done for diversity visa winners -- treat them at least as well as diversity visa winners (in other words, don't count dependents against the quota number).



    Laura N. Jasinsky
    .
  4. GaryEndelman's Avatar
    Immigration and Rural Depopulation

    Mr. McDaniel- I very much enjoyed your piece today in ILW on rural depopulation and immigration. You may be interested in an idea that I wrote about in ILW in 2005 on this same subject and testified on it before the Senate Judiciary Immigration subcommittee. I hope you find it useful and interesting. http://www.ilw.com/articles/2005,0829-IM.pdf.

    I am asking the editor of ILW to make its readers aware of this as well by publishing this note as a letter to the editor. My idea seemed of great interest to then Senator Sam Brownback, now Governor of Kansas.

    Thanks.
  5. Nolan Rappaport's Avatar
    People keep saying that S744 died because republicans don't want reform. It would make just as much sense to look at the fact that the Dems don't have any interest in the bills the House republicans have come up with and say that therefore the Dems don't want reform. A democracy doesn't work that way. With the exception of the times when one party controls the House and the Senate and the White House, bills have to meet the political needs of both parties to be viable. S744 didn't do that. You can say it was bipartisan, but 70% of the Senate republicans voted against it. What reason was there to expect it to be well received in the republican controlled House? The last successful immigration reform bill with a legalization program was IRCA, which was passed 28 years ago. IRCA was put together by both parties. See the article I published recently in ILW.com, "It is time to try a different approach to comprehensive immigration reform." http://discuss.ilw.com/content.php?3087-Article-It-is-time-to-try-a-different-approach-to-comprehensive-immigration-reform-By-Nolan-Rappaport
  6. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    With all due respect to Mr. Rappaport, there is a limit to the extent that one can twist reality in order to come up with a predetermined conclusion.

    From the very start, the Republican right wing, including influential pundits such as Bill Kristol and Rick Lowry, was against the entire concept of reform, not for or against the details of any specific bills.

    There were House Republican reform bills in committee but even those enforcement-heavy proposals never made it to the floor for a vote because the Republican leadership was afraid that if it passed any bill at all, it would lead to a Senate-House conference and some reform legislation would emerge.

    This would have been anathema to the Republican right, which has now completely taken over the GOP on immigration.

    The last thing we need in discussing the prospects for immigration reform is a revisionist approach which seeks to blame both parties equally as a matter of ideology without regard to the facts.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
  7. Nolan Rappaport's Avatar
    We may have pockets of resistance to legalization and the other reform objectives that are stronger than we have experienced previously, but they don't represent the majority of the current group of republicans. The basic republican position hasn't changed since a deal was cut with IRCA for the last legalization program 28 years ago. They will go along with legalization if they have acceptable assurance that border security and enforcement measures will be implemented to prevent a new group of undocumented aliens from taking the place of the ones being legalized now. This is why Judiciary Chairman Goodlatte keeps complaining that they can't trust President Obama to enforce the law.

    You may think that the republicans are just making excuses, but they have been stating that position for 30 some years now. Yet the Dems have yet to offer a bill that would include such a border security/enforcement package...since IRCA.

    It isn't a matter of blaming either party as a matter of ideology. My point is that the two parties are going to have to work together to produce a bill that meets the political needs on both sides. You don't do that by pushing a bill through the Senate that is opposed by 70% of the Senate republicans.
  8. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Nolan Rappaport's above comment still disregards the actual facts on the ground. In S. 744, the Senate, at the request of an admittedly small but influential group of House Republicans, added a $46 billion dollar border security provision to the bill which would have doubled the number of border patrol agents and provided all sorts of high tech equipment along the border.

    What was the Republican response when the bill reached the House? Bait and switch.

    Suddenly, border security was no longer the main objection to reform. "Amnesty" was.

    A few Republicans even argued (with some justification) that S.744 would be spending too much money on border security.

    Mr. Rappaport cites House Judiciary Committee Bob Goodlatte as a spokesman for the Republican position that all we need is more border security and the Republicans will come around with a agreement on a reform bill of some kind, if not S. 744.

    But look at Goodlatte's latest statement about the child migrants fleeing gang violence in Central America. In a statement mentioned in my June 24 Immigration Daily blogging, Goodlatte said that more border security would not solve what he sees as a danger to America from these young refugees, even if there were enough border patrol agents to stand arm in arm along the entire border!

    True, many Republicans are continuing to shout "border security! border security!" but that is nothing more than a red herring which is meant to cover over a deeper hostility toward immigration of any kind, but especially by people who are neither educated, affluent or white.

    If there is anyone in America, or on this planet, who still believes that the House Republicans are wiling to talk about, let act on immigration reform in good faith, no matter how many more concessions the Democrats might be willing to make to their demands (and there have already been plenty of concessions by the pro-immigrant side) I suggest that he or she have a little chat with Steve King, Dave Brat and Laura Ingraham.

    They will be happy to make clear where the Republican Party really stands on immigration reform today.


    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 06-28-2014 at 07:49 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  9. Nolan Rappaport's Avatar
    Yes, in S. 744, the Senate, added a $46 billion dollar border security provision to the bill which would have doubled the number of border patrol agents and provided all sorts of high tech equipment along the border. That wouldn't secure the border. See my article at http://www.lexisnexis.com/legalnewsroom/immigration/b/outsidenews/archive/2013/07/25/what-is-sbinet-and-what-does-it-have-to-do-with-spending-billions-of-dollars-on-border-security.aspx

    That didn't switch republican attention from border security to "Amnesty." The republicans have never liked legalization. That was true when the accepted 4 legalization programs in IRCA. Their preference is to deport all of the undocumented aliens, but they know that isn't going to happen so they will cut the wipe-the-slate clean deal I mentioned above, but preventing a new group of undocumented aliens from taking the place of the ones who are legalized takes interior enforcement along with border security. Neither can be effective without the other.


    Roger says, "If there is anyone in America, or on this planet, who still believes that the House Republicans are wiling to talk about, let act on immigration reform in good faith, no matter how many more concessions the Democrats might be willing to make to their demands (and there have already been plenty of concessions by the pro-immigrant side) I suggest that he or she have a little chat with Steve King, Dave Brat and Laura Ingraham." It's not about making concessions, it's about the two parties working together to write a bill that would meet the political needs on both sides. That hasn't been tried since IRCA, which was 28 years ago.
  10. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Of course I support Nolan Rappaport's dream of the two parties working together to come up with an immigration reform bill that both sides could live with. I hope that will happen in my life time. Is there any chance of its happening before the 2016 presidential election? Again, Steve King, Dave Brat and Laura Ingraham would be the people to ask that question to, since they are now in charge of Republican immigration policy, at least in the House, with its plethora of whites-only gerrymandered districts.

    Even for immigration reform to happen after the 2016 election, that depends on an even larger turnout of Latino and other minority voters than the turnout which blew Mr. Self-Deportation, Mitt Romney, away, in 2012.

    But since our Deporter in Chief, Barack Obama, is now antagonizing these same minority voters by refusing to expand executive action based on the cynical and mendacious excuse that he still has hope of being able to work with the Republicans on immigration reform, the voters who reelected Obama in 2012 and woke at least some Republicans up to the need for legalization may stay home in 2016, leading to a Republican sweep.

    That could be the end of immigration reform for at least another generation.

    It is also somewhat surprising that Mr. Rappaport says nothing about IIRIRA in his overview of immigration law history during the past three decades.

    IIRIRA was one of the most important immigration laws in America's entire history - rammed through by Republicans without discussion or debate as an attachment to a veto-proof military spending bill only a month before the 1996 presidential election.

    IIRIRA will go down along with the late 19th and early 29th century Chinese exclusion laws and the racist "Nordics only" Immigration Act of 1924 as one of the most anti-immigrant laws in our history.

    The only difference is that IIRIRA, the GOP's late 20th century contribution to America's sorry history of anti-immigrant hate, is still on the books.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 06-28-2014 at 07:44 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
Put Free Immigration Law Headlines On Your Website

Immigration Daily: the news source for legal professionals. Free! Join 35000+ readers Enter your email address here: