Illegal-alien Students Often Barred from College
Even if they excel, illegal immigrants find roadblocks to college
By Vikki Ortiz
The Miluakee Journal-Sentinel
If 18-year-old Rosa were to write an autobiography for a college application, what a story she could tell.
As a poor farm girl living with grandparents in Mexico, she longed for a better life somewhere else. At 16, she decided to join her mother in Wisconsin. She wanted to make some money and send it back to the family, just like her mother, and she thought she might get some schooling, too.
Rosa and her older brother traveled to the Mexican border town of Nogales. In the darkness, they located a desert path well-known for leading people out of the country, and headed for Arizona. They stopped just once, when robbers stole Rosa's coat, and after 45 terrifying minutes, they met relatives waiting in a car.
A few days later, Rosa was reunited with her mother. A few weeks later, she was enrolled at South Division High School. Today, she has a 3.8 grade-point average, works part time at a local bank, and is just a few months away from graduation. She wants to be an accountant.
But there will be no autobiography and no college application.
Rosa is still an undocumented immigrant - an "illegal" to most people - and with no citizenship papers and no money, college is out of reach.
According to officials at South Division, Rosa is not alone. They say of the total enrollment of about 1,500, between 100 and 200 are undocumented immigrants, and the number is growing. The students do not talk openly about their situation, but they also do not shy away from student life. In recent years, undocumented immigrants have become volleyball stars, school play leads, student council members and National Honor Society presidents, said Luis Salazar, assistant principal at South Division.
The prevalence of undocumented immigrants also is significant at Kosciuszko Middle and Allen-Field Elementary schools, which, like South Division, are on Milwaukee's near south side.
Legally, the situation is fairly stark for Rosa and other undocumented students. She came in without permission and risks deportation at any time.
"If they don't have the authorization to be in the United States, whether they are a student or not doesn't change that," said Roger Lindo, officer in charge for the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service in Milwaukee.
But the reality - for better or worse - is that no one is checking, no one is looking for Rosa, and the schools continue to deal with her and others like her year after year. Some South Division officials say it's time that someone address the situation, which has long been considered an issue in just the South and Southwest.
"It's not an easy problem to resolve," said Salazar. "We have invested so much time and talent in educating these children. Why stunt it now?"
Quick transition
The Milwaukee Public Schools system, like other public school systems in Wisconsin, has a simple process for student enrollment. If parents want their child to attend, all they need is proof of residency - a utility bill, an official letter - and something that shows their child is of school age, according to Aquine Jackson, director of student services for MPS.
At no time is a parent asked to provide proof of their or the child's citizenship. State statute does not require the information, so MPS doesn't either, Jackson said.
Knowing this, Rosa's 47-year-old stepfather expected Rosa to begin her schooling in Milwaukee soon after her arrival. The girl objected at first, wanting mostly to work. But her stepfather, who spent more than a decade as a factory worker before finding a better job doing outdoor construction, was adamant.
"I do the work, but it's too hard," he said, looking over at the daughter he said he loves as his own. "I tell her, go to school - and then make it easy."
John Valdes, principal at Kosciusczko, embraces MPS' open-enrollment policy. He said he sees many families walk their children into school hoping for a better life for the young ones.
"I just feel that if a parent is willing to put a child in school simply because they realize how important education is, more power to them," Valdes said.
Rosa found school difficult at first; she didn't speak a word of English. But she began picking up the language, and she used tutors and summer school to help her get through her tougher subjects. Soon, her report cards were all A's and B's. A bumper sticker proclaiming: "South Division Honor Roll Student" now hangs from the wall in her mother and stepfather's livingroom.
Salazar said the assimilation process is amazing.
"They don't consider themselves foreigners, or illegals. They go to South - they're Cardinals," Salazar said.
Evaporating hopes
But no matter how high their grade-point average or how many clubs they join, reality eventually catches up with them.
Ana, an 18-year-old from Guadalajara, began at South Division as a freshman. A shy girl, she concentrated mostly on her studies. She did especially well in science and math, loving the hard classes like physics, she said.
(To protect their identity, the girls' real names are not being used.)
When Ana was in 10th grade, a representative from Milwaukee School of Engineering told her that if she kept getting good grades, she could go to the school.
Ana continued with her studies and also started to get more involved in extracurricular activities. She played a musical instrument, joined the technology club and became president of the school's National Honor Society. Teachers, impressed by her abilities, told her "you can be whatever you want," she said.
But when she confided to a teacher that she didn't have her citizenship papers, her prospects
disappeared.
"I told my teacher I didn't have it," Ana recalled, "and she said, 'You can't go (to college).' "
After graduating as valedictorian, Ana got a job as a housekeeper at a Milwaukee area hotel.
"It is sad to just think that you could not make it," she said, crying. "I did the best, so OK, why?"
Roadblocks to college
There are a number of reasons why undocumented students can't go to college.
At a public school like the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, for instance, a student like Ana might apply and be accepted. But when the University of Wisconsin System checked her residency - to make sure she qualified for in-state tuition - Ana's name would not show up. At the very least, that would move her to the out-of-state tuition level, significantly increasing the cost, said Beth Weckmueller, executive director of enrollment services at UWM.
The next roadblock would be financial aid. Without proof of citizenship, the student would not be eligible, and without state or federal aid of some sort, making tuition payments would likely be impossible. Some students buy fake Social Security cards and get jobs with employers that either don't know or don't care.
At some schools, such as Marquette University, there's a box on the application form that asks students whether they are U.S. citizens.
"Students at Marquette are expected to abide by civil laws and the laws of the land," said David Bruey, director of campus integration programs at Marquette. "If the admissions office is admitting people who tell them they are not abiding by the laws of the land, then the university seems in a very awkward situation."
Even if a student like Ana somehow got in, services such as career counseling, job fairs and on-campus employment would be of no use, because they cannot legally work.
"It creates these impossible circumstances for working with students," Bruey said.
Rolf Wegenke, president of the Wisconsin Association of Independent Colleges and Universities, noted that colleges that might be inclined to bend the rules to help students like Ana could be
punished.
"We do all we can to reach out to all groups and all people," said Wegenke. "But I think the issue is not with colleges and universities. It's with the government."
Dealing with the system
Immigration law is complicated. Petitions for green cards are each handled differently by the BCIS,
depending on who is the sponsor, and what country the person is coming from. The differences can be huge. A spouse from one country may get a green card a decade before a sibling from another country.
If a foreigner is awarded a green card, the person may live in the U.S. legally and go to school. To apply for citizenship, there's another wait of at least several years.
But many people are unwilling to endure the process, or unsure how to do it. Many Mexican immigrants decide to risk what they must. Some buy false identification cards or passports, some pay illegal businesses to sneak them across, some find ways to cross themselves, said Beatriz Gonzalez, a community worker at the Spanish Center in Milwaukee.
Prosecuting those undocumented immigrants is intended to keep some control over population growth and the American work force. In addition, people concerned with the issue argue, a country ought to at least have some basic control over who enters it. "This can seem really harsh," said Roy Beck, president of Americans for Better Immigration, a lobbying group in Washington. "But if you say that once a person gets here and stays here awhile, it's not very nice to send them home, then what you've said is everybody in the world who would like to come to the U.S. and doesn't have a legal right to can come on and try."
Nevertheless, with an estimated 420,000 undocumented immigrants entering the U.S. every year, the USCIS must prioritize its efforts. Criminals and terrorists are top priority; MPS students are not.
"We do not target, or have any intention of doing any kind of enforcement at a school setting," Lindo said. "We're not going to get involved in that part of it."
Which is why some south side school officials say it is time to address the dilemma within the school system.
Maria Zuniga, the math department chairwoman at South Division, said she has watched dozens of exceptional students all but give up on learning. When they find out that college and careers are not an option, they lose motivation to do well, she said.
Many teachers have taken it upon themselves to send money to students' homes anonymously, hoping it will help them save up for college. But those efforts aren't enough to fix the problem. Many students drop out and go to work the jobs they'll have after graduation anyway, Zuniga said.
A small number of students who graduate are able to find a solution. Jesus Avila graduated from South Division in 1997 as an undocumented immigrant. Because he was unable to attend college, his uncle paid for him to go back to Mexico and apply for legal entry to the U.S. as an international student. He's now studying to be a chemist at Wisconsin Lutheran College.
But some of the undocumented students don't even remember Mexico, much less how to return there. And most don't have the money to return there, even if they wanted to, Zuniga said.
"These are extremely talented, wonderful, contributing people that make our society better, and we're losing opportunities because of that," South Division Principal Don Krueger said.
Salazar believes that for now, the solution is for MPS officials to begin asking students for proof of citizenship at their enrollment. He thinks the district should keep track of who is illegal and should create a task force to help parents understand their options and work toward citizenship for their family long before their child's graduation date. Recent legislation makes it less complicated for some students who meet certain requirements to obtain citizenship.
As for Rosa, she recently got her ACT scores back. She tells people she has narrowed her education choices to UWM or Milwaukee Area Technical College.
But she's not actually filling out any college applications.
"It's sad, because I can't fulfill my dreams, you know? I want to go to college and study more," she said, "but I don't know if I can."
Update on USCIS Premium Processing
The Immigration and Naturalization Service (USCIS or Service) recently discussed the implementation of the recently enacted provision to provide for "premium processing" upon the payment of a special fee.
The Service currently plans to launch the program in the third quarter of FY 2001, sometime between April and July. The statutorily prescribed fee will be $1000 per petition, in addition to all other fees. According to BCIS, the fee will entitle the petitioner to expedited service, most likely a response within fifteen days, with refunds being granted to those not receiving responses in the guaranteed time frame. The clock would begin running when the petition is received at the Service Center.
Once a Request for Further Evidence (RFE) is sent to the petitioner, the clock stops. A new clock will begin running once the petitioner's response is received. The Service has not yet firmly decided on the timeframe for the consideration of the response, but it could be ten days. The program may also include an enhanced communications provision, such as a special fax number, email address, or mailing address.
USCIS plans to phase in the program, meaning that premium processing will not be available to all petitioners immediately. The Service has suggested that it will begin with selected I-129 petitions, but H-1B will most likely not be one of them due to high volume and data management issues. Also, some questions have arisen how expedited processing of H-1B petitions would work with the requirement that such petitions be considered in the order in which they are received.
As the premium processing program develops, certain immigrant visa categories may be added. Once the premium processing provisions become available to a classification, the existing expedited processing programs will no longer apply. However, nonprofits will continue to qualify for expedited processing. Additionally, "super expedited" processing, i.e. less than fifteen days, may be available in limited cases.
USCIS also plans to release a new form for the premium processing program, and will require a separate check for the $1000 fee. The Service indicated that non-premium processing will not suffer on account of the premium program, but processing may slow in the next few months as a result of Legal Immigration Family Equity Act implementation.
VA Hospitals Skirt the Law to Employ Foreign Doctors
By Joan Mazzolini
The Plain Dealer (Cleveland)
Veterans hospitals have hired thousands of foreign doctors, at times passing over qualified Americans in the process.
VA hospitals must justify hiring foreign doctors by showing the need is so great that a medical service would be severely affected or even stopped. But many were hired in part-time positions, a Plain Dealer review of VA's hiring practices found.
The VA says the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service endorsed those part-time hires, even though immigration laws allow foreigners to stay only for full-time jobs. However, USCIS officials said they weren't aware that foreign doctors were being hired for part-time VA positions.
http://www.cleveland.com/news/index.ssf?/news/pd/cc30docs.html
Company Pleads Guilty in False Doctors' Salary Reports
The Associated Press
LEXINGTON, Ky. (AP) -- A company that operates three Kentucky medical clinics will pay at least $50,000 in restitution to seven doctors from India and Burma after pleading guilty to submitting false statements to federal agencies.
Mountain After Hours Corp. entered guilty pleas Friday to 15 counts of giving false statements to the U.S. Department of Labor and to the Immigration and Naturalization Service when it hired immigrant doctors.
http://www.messenger-inquirer.com/news/kentucky/2684569.htm
Entrepreneurs' H-1B Blues Just Got Worse
Last-minute regulations from the Clinton Administration further complicate
the byzantine process of hiring foreign workers
Business Week
When Hans Fenstermacher launched his translation company in 1994, locating qualified personnel was a bigger challenge than landing clients. Fenstermacher's 17-person company, Architext Inc., based in Boston, does $2 million in business a year, translating product literature and technical documentation for clients that include Xerox, Minolta, Kodak, and Motorola.
"Because jargon is constantly shifting and changing, I need people fresh off the boat," he says. "They have to have current language skills plus technical knowhow."
At the time, his best bet was to import staff from overseas. Fenstermacher quickly became expert in the intricacies of the H-1B visa program, which allows U.S. companies to bring in qualified foreign workers for up to six years for jobs that require crucial skills or can't be readily filled over here. Soon, 80% of his translating staff was made up of H-1Bs -- but the expenses were piling up, too. Says Fenstermacher: "With legal fees, government fees, airfare, and resettling expenses, I was paying $6,000 per worker."
He could have tolerated the costs, but not the inconvenience caused by what he describes as months of bureaucratic wrangling. "I had to satisfy the government that the people I was hiring had the equivalent of a U.S. Bachelor's degree, even if it wasn't a credential that mattered to me," he says.
In 1998, Fenstermacher called it quits and switched to outsourcing most of his work to contractors abroad. The change has created difficulties in terms of quality control and communication, but he doesn't miss the red tape. "I've never regretted it for a minute," he says.
Under the Wire
Nor is he likely to change that opinion anytime soon. On Jan. 19 -- the last day of the Clinton Administration -- 150 pages of new H-1B regulations went into effect, threatening to make the process even more byzantine. Even the lawyers who'll be working with the regs are far from overjoyed, although they promise a business bonanza for the bar.
The regulations "micro manage employees to the point of absurdity," laments Daryl R. Buffenstein, general counsel to the Washington (D.C.)-based American Immigration Lawyers Assn. (AILA) and a partner in the Atlanta office of Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker. "The government has made this program the most over regulated part of immigration law," agrees Carl A. Shusterman, a Los Angeles immigration lawyer who counsels small and mid-size businesses. "You practically can't make a move now without a lawyer by your side." Because the new regs squeaked in under the wire -- they were published Dec. 20 and became effective Jan. 19 -- they are exempt from the Bush Administration's wholesale freeze and executive-review process.
But while they may have the appearance of hand-from-the-grave legislation courtesy of a departing Democratic Administration, the regs actually have been in the works for two years and contain few surprises. They do, however, seem at odds with the message sent by Congress in October. That was when lawmakers swiftly raised the H-1B quota by approximately 40%, to 195,000 through 2003. The law, which went into effect in December, also doubled the filing fee per application to $1,110 in order to provide funds for high-tech training programs and, in a much applauded move, to make it easier for H-1Bs to switch jobs. That new mobility, which means workers do not have to endure abusive situations, also allows companies to benefit by freeing them to hire foreign workers already acculturated to the U.S.
Travel Tab
Ironically, if visas are now more plentiful -- last year's annual quota was filled by March -- the new regs may actually dampen the incentive to take advantage of them. One anticipated problem is a direct result of the new and tougher responsibilities that the regs impose on companies classifiedas "H-1B-dependent" -- an estimated 250 businesses nationwide, according to a source at the Labor Dept. Employers with 50 or more workers are subject to the new "H-1B-dependent" requirements if 15% of staffers have H-1B visas. For businesses with 1 to 25 workers, the magic number of H-1B workers is 8 or more, For those with 26 to 50 workers, it's 13 or more.
According to Buffenstein, those companies will be asked to provide much more in the way of record keeping and documentation -- which will likely mean an expanded risk of becoming the targets of enforcement actions. H-1B-dependent businesses will be required to demonstrate that they tried to recruit locally but failed, and that no layoffs occurred either 90 days before or after they filed for H-1B visas. Since H-1B workers making at least $60,000 a year or having a Master's degree or higher are exempted from coverage, Stern expects many companies will raise H-1B salaries to buy their way out of the problems associated with compliance.
The regs also add new, across-the-board burdens to companies using H-1B workers. Employers will be required to give these workers the same benefits as locally engaged staff, as well as guaranteeing "whistle blower protection." Another provision affects any H-1B employee sent to work in another city for a month or more. Additional paperwork must be filed after 30 days if the worker's job requires constant travel, or after 60 days' absence if the job requires only occasional travel -- measures intended to make sure workers get the prevailing wage in the geographic area where they are actually working. Should a worker stay at a remote site for 65 days without papers being filed, the employer risks enforcement action and will not be allowed to send other H-1B workers to that city, even for a single day.
Judge Rules Against Deportation, May Set Precedent
Immigrant shoplifter's case could be landmark
By Milo Ippolito and Rick Badie
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
A Romanian immigrant caught shoplifting won't be deported, and other foreign-born residents convicted of petty crimes may get a break, thanks to a recent state Supreme Court decision.
Last week the Supreme Court decided that a Gwinnett County judge acted properly in reducing an immigrant's sentence to keep him from being deported, a ruling legal experts say could have an impact in similar cases.
Romanian-born Calvin James Colack, 31, who pleaded guilty to shoplifting, was nearly kicked out of the country because of a 1996 law that allows the USCIS to deport legal immigrants who commit crimes that result in a sentence of 12 months or more.
To avert deportation, a Gwinnett Superior Court judge reduced his sentence, a tactic other metro Atlanta judges have done in similar cases. The Supreme Court upheld the judge's decision.
Immigrant advocates applaud the ruling as a victory for foreign-born residents who are at risk of being booted out of the country for offenses such as stealing a sandwich or pulling someone's hair.
Other legal experts argue judges are using the bench to thwart immigration policies meant to remove law-breaking immigrants.
Teri Simmons, president of the local chapter of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, called the ruling "significant."
"I really think Congress went too far in 1996 when it passed the law," she said. "I applaud the Supreme Court's decision."
But John Keeley, a research associate at the Center for Immigration Studies, a Washington think tank, said the state Supreme Court's decision "took the teeth out of the law."
The practice of reducing immigrants' sentences to skirt deportation "smacks of judicial activism because it undermines enforcement of immigration law," he said.
Keeley admitted that some of the classifications of criminal acts included in the 1996 law "went a bit too far."
"But the spirit in which the (Congress) enacted the legislation was appropriate," he said. "It's a fair expectation that immigrants who come to the United States not be criminals or perpetuate crimes here."
Since Georgia law allows penalties of up to 12 months for misdemeanors, the USCIS can deport immigrants, even those raised here, for small crimes. Sympathetic metro judges have responded by reducing misdemeanor sentences for some immigrants to 11 months or 11 months and 29 days.
In Colack's case, he pleaded guilty to shoplifting before the 1996 immigration law was passed. But the law was retroactive, and the USCIS later sought to deport him, defense lawyer David Lipscomb said.
Lipscomb successfully argued that Colack's initial guilty plea was not entered freely and voluntarily because he was not aware that deportation was a possible consequence.
Gwinnett Superior Court Judge David Fuller set the plea aside then allowed Colack to plead guilty all over again. This time, the judge sentenced him to less than a year. The county Solicitor's Office, which prosecuted Colack, appealed. The Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that the trial judge acted properly.
Colack has been living in the United States for 11 years, and his entire family lives here, so being ordered back to Romania was a harsh punishment for shoplifting, Lipscomb said.
"He doesn't know a soul over there," Lipscomb said. "It's not like being sent back to Kentucky where your grandmother lives."
Lipscomb has handled similar cases.
In one, a Vietnamese man who had been in the country for 20 years was subject to deportation for a battery charge. In another, a teenager who was born in England but raised here was threatened with deportation for underage drinking, Lipscomb said.
Elsewhere in metro Atlanta, a Nigerian woman was threatened with deportation after being charged with shoplifting in Cobb County. She had tried to return a $15 baby outfit without a receipt.
A Covington woman, who came to the United States from Germany when she was about 2 years old, got in trouble after pulling another woman's hair in a spat about a man in 1988.
The 1996 federal immigration law was passed to crack down on drug dealers and violent criminals, but strict enforcement in cases of petty crime has led to criticism. Even the Georgia Legislature and the state Board of Pardons and Paroles have taken action in favor of immigrants and against the BCIS.
A new state law requires Georgia judges to warn immigrants that guilty pleas can affect immigration status. Last year, the parole board pardoned 93 immigrants to prevent the USCIS from deporting them.
One of those pardoned was a Korean immigrant who got in a fistfight with a co-worker, recalled Steve Choi, president of the Asian American Coalition in Atlanta.
The defendant had lived in this country for about 20 years and had three daughters born here, Choi said.
"They faced separation from their father who was the bread earner," Choi said. "I'm so glad Georgia is going the extra mile to ease the pain that the immigrant community is experiencing."
But the real solution, he said, is to change federal deportation law to target offenders of more serious crimes.
State Supreme Court Justice George H. Carley, who did not agree with the majority opinion in the Gwinnett case, argued that resident aliens have no constitutional right to be warned that a guilty plea could mean deportation.
The majority ruling "encourages the filing of similar unauthorized petitions," Carley said
Justice Hugh P. Thompson joined in the dissent. The majority did not issue a written opinion.
Senator Phil Gramm Proposes Mexican Guest Labor Program
By Jay Root
The Fort Worth (Tx.) Star-Telegram
WASHINGTON -- The way Sen. Phil Gramm describes it, the timing has never been better for a dramatic shift in the way the United States treats the millions of Mexican workers who cross the border looking for a better life.
There's a new president in Mexico who speaks glowingly of free-flowing labor markets. There's a new president in the United States who made reaching out to Latino immigrants a hallmark of his campaign. And, as always, there are enough jobs in America's fields, factories, restaurants and construction projects to employ an army of low-skilled laborers -- legal or not.
Gramm, R-Texas, is proposing a program that would affect Mexican workers and their U.S. employers, turning undocumented workers from Mexico into legal "guest workers." It is a proposal that is already generating some strong opposition, however, including from groups that Gramm says he is trying to help.
"We have a terrible situation, where people enter the country illegally to work for employers who welcome them with open arms. They are critically important to the American economy," Gramm said in a recent interview. "We have people who come here without legal protection and often are abused."
Unlike amnesty programs that Gramm has vigorously opposed, the guest workers would not be eligible for resident "green cards," the traditional path to citizenship, under his proposal.
Instead, they would be required to return to Mexico at the end of their visa period, after about a year, and would have to reapply to come back. Once home, they could collect money accrued in their savings accounts and help rebuild the Mexican economy, Gramm said. Authorities in the United States, meanwhile, would come down "like a ton of bricks" on employers who continued to hire undocumented workers, allowing immigration officials to finally gain control of the border by eliminating the employee black market, Gramm said.
Gramm and four other Senators recently met with Mexican President Vicente Fox in Mexico City to discuss the issue. Immigration policy is expected to be a top issue when President Bush travels to Mexico later this month to meet with Fox.
But whether Bush wants to wade into the guest worker issue specifically is an open question. He was not enthusiastic about the idea during the presidential campaign, and Gramm's proposal faces opposition from a variety of groups.
"His proposal, based on what we've seen so far, amounts to indentured servitude," said Bruce Goldstein, co-director of the Washington- based Farmworker Justice Fund, an advocacy group for migrant and seasonal workers. "We think it is going to be opposed by a lot of people."
Pro-immigrant groups say the plan is strikingly similar to discredited foreign worker programs in other countries, as well as the controversial Bracero program, which advocates on both sides of the immigration issue say was rife with abuse and fraud.
"Germany tried it with the Turks and lived to regret it," said Frank Sharry, director of the National Immigration Forum, a Washington advocacy group. He said the programs tend to create a permanent underclass of citizens and give employers too much power by tying the immigrant to a single job.
Gramm argues that immigrants in the country now, who would be the first ones eligible for the program, already face abuse and would have an incentive to sign up as guest workers. Under his proposal, the laborers would come under U.S. wage and hour laws, and become eligible for IRA-like savings accounts (collectible once the workers returned home) and emergency health care benefits.
Immigration hard-liners question the premise that the plan will reduce illegal crossings, however. In fact, past experience with the Bracero program indicates that guest worker programs lead to increased illegal immigration, they contend.
"The more we try to depend upon guest workers, the more addictive we become," said Dan Stein, director the Federation for American Immigration Reform, or FAIR. "You don't get workers, you get people. And people form attachments. ... It will inevitably turn into a massive rolling amnesty."
Gramm's proposal has also met with skepticism from some of the agricultural interests he said he's trying to help with a guest-worker program. Farmer advocacy groups cite Gramm's role in killing legislation last year that would have expanded use of tiny guest-worker program now in effect.
Bernard Weinstein, director of the Center for Economic Development at the University of North Texas in Denton, said Gramm should expect plenty of opposition to the plan, particularly from organized labor. But with a rapidly aging U.S. population and low unemployment rates, Weinstein said guest workers could help meet a tremendous demand for labor in coming years.
"The situation we have today is untenable and inhumane. We have several million illegal workers in the U.S., and they're here because of the demands for their skills," Weinstein said.
Gramm, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, acknowledged that he would have difficulty reaching his goal of getting the bill passed by the summer. "I know this is going to be hard," he said. "It's easy to demagogue from the right or the left. We've already had some right-wing groups call me a traitor."
Gekas named Chairman of Immigration and Claims subcommittee
News release
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Congressman George W. Gekas (R-Pa.) announced today that he has accepted the position of Chairman of the Immigration and Claims Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives.
"Beginning the new term of the 107th Congress, I will be chairing the Subcommittee of Immigration and Claims," said Gekas. "This will give us the opportunity to review all the basic and more controversial issues that surround immigration into our country."
Gekas plans to explore the issues of reforming the Immigration and Naturalization Service (BCIS), the practice of determining the status of aliens, revising the oath of citizenship with more modern and less legal language, investigating current immigration law enforcement procedures, visa, and illegal entry problems.
In regard to visas, Gekas says that he supports the use of H1B (hi-tech) visas. "I favor the measure to help American companies pursue their highest potential," Gekas said. "The use of hi-tech visas enables U.S. businesses to compete in the technology arena. However, we must be mindful to strike a balance between helping the business community while retaining jobs for American workers."
"I look forward to the important responsibility with which I have been entrusted in theImmigration Subcommittee," Gekas said. "My experience as a lawyer handling immigration cases gives me a unique perspective with the work that needs to be accomplished."
The Republican members of the subcommittee will be:
George Gekas, Pa., Chairman
Darrell Issa, Calif. (freshman)
Melissa Hart, Pa. (freshman)
Lamar Smith, Texas
Elton Gallegly, Calif.
Chris Cannon, Utah
Jeff Flake, Ariz. (freshman)
The Democrats will be:
Sheila Jackson Lee, Texas
Barney Frank, Mass.
Howard Berman, Calif.
Zoe Lofgren, Calif.
Marty Meehan, Mass.
Attorney General Ashcroft's Views on the USCIS
from Lotus Domino
As part of the confirmation process, the Senate Judiciary Committee submitted a list of questions to former Senator and Bush Attorney General John Ashcroft, many of which related to his positions on immigration and the Immigration and Naturalization Service ("BCIS").
One topic that was repeatedly touched upon by the Committee was the need to reorganize the BCIS, and what form that reorganization should take. Sen. Ashcroft offered support for President Bush's proposal that the USCIS should be split into two agencies. In general, the plan would "divide the USCIS into two separate agencies: one to deal with the enforcement components of border protection and interior enforcement, and another to deal with the service components of the agency. Senator Ashcroft suggested that both agencies would be headed and coordinated by an Associate Attorney General for Immigration Affairs. The Senator further endorsed President Bush's plan to incorporate performance incentives into civil service. In this context, the incentives would be based on decreasing the backlog of petition adjudication, which President Bush believes should not exceed 180 days in any category. Senator Ashcroft also voiced support for a Bush plan to earmark $500 million over the next five years to fund these incentives and to hire new employees.
Senator Ashcroft also stated that President Bush supports changes in the USCIS policy so that would foster and encourage family unification. It was unclear as to whether this signals support for a broadening of the measures passed by the last Congress which created new classifications for certain family members awaiting the adjudication of their immigrant visa cases.
The Committee's questions also probed Senator Ashcroft's positions on several other controversial immigration issues, including the detention of unaccompanied minors, the use of secret evidence in exclusion proceedings, expedited removal, and the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act's (IIRAIRA) elimination of administrative or judicial
discretion in excluding aliens who have committed aggravated felonies.
The Senator expressed concern about certain aspects of the 1996 law, and generally struck a sympathetic and conciliatory tone. The Senate Judiciary Committee has cleared the nomination for a vote by the full Senate.
Illegal But Fighting for Rights
By Margot Roosevelt
CNN
No longer cowering in the shadows, America's undocumented workers are taking their grievances to court and even joining unions At first glance, the news seems routine. Four hundred deliverymen in Manhattan join a labor union and win $3 million in back pay. What's unusual is that the workers, predominantly from West Africa, are all undocumented. And, even more remarkable, these illegal immigrants, given lax immigration enforcement, have little reason to fear deportation. Indeed, one of them, Siaka Diakite, an Ivory Coast native, is now pictured in a widely distributed color brochure put out by the AFL-CIO. Says Charles Batchli, a plaintiff from the Congo: "It didn't matter who we were. We are human beings first. The question was, Were we taken advantage of?"
...
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/time/2001/01/22/illegal.html
Confusion and Anxiety Grow with Delay in Implementation of the LIFE Act
While the Legal Immigration and Family Equity Act (LIFE Act) became law on December 21, USCIS and Department of State (DOS) have yet to issue any details or regulations about the new law implementation. USCIS is advising the public that it is moving as quickly as possible to develop application procedures for immigration benefits created by the LIFE Act, and has indicated it would inform the public as procedures are finalized. In the meantime, the widespread, but mistaken, belief that the new law is an amnesty has caused growing confusion and anxiety in immigrant communities.
The temporary reinstatement of Section 245(i) is one of the provisions of the LIFE Act. Section 245(i) is not an amnesty for all persons unlawfully in the US. It benefits only those who are out of status and residing in the U.S. who have the requisite family or employer relationship, are otherwise eligible for an immigrant visa, and are barred currently from adjusting their status in this country. It allows such persons to adjust their status here rather than having to return to their home countries to acquire their visa, and there face the likelihood of the three and ten year bars.
To preserve eligibility to file for adjustment of status under Section 245(i), an individual must be the beneficiary of an immigrant visa petition (Form I-130, Form I-140 or Form I-360) or an application for labor certification filed by April 30, 2001. If the petition or application was filed after January 14, 1998, the beneficiary must demonstrate physical presence in the United States on December 21, 2000. Although the deadline for filing these applications is quickly approaching, USCIS has yet to indicate how it will interpret this new physical presence requirement.
The LIFE Act also creates a new nonimmigrant visa category, the "V" visa and expands the current "K" visa category. The new ""V"" visa is available only to the spouses and minor children of legal permanent residents who filed a family based petition before December 21, 2000, and have been waiting more than 3 years for the approval of the petition or an available visa. The new ""K"" visa will allow the spouses and minority children of U.S. citizens who are waiting outside of the U.S. for the approval of a visa petition to enter legally and obtain work authorization during the delay in their process. USCIS has said that it cannot process applications for these two visa categories until application and adjudication procedures are finalized. In its public advisory, USCIS has noted that it is consulting with the DOS and hopes to issue guidelines on these new visas by early spring.
Another aspect of the LIFE Act is the part of that law pertaining to late legalization applicants. The LIFE Act allows certain members of three specific class action lawsuits against the USCIS (CSS, LULAC, and Zambrano) to apply directly for permanent residence under the slightly modified terms of the original 1986 legalization program. Eligible applicants will be required to submit an application for adjustment of status within one year of the date on which the Attorney General issues final regulations. The LIFE Act requires Attorney General to issue those regulations no later than March 21, 2001 (120 days after the law was enacted). However, the USCIS has not indicated whether it will meet this deadline.