USDA Decision Worries Rural Hospitals
By Libby Quaid
The Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Rural hospital officials say their struggle to recruit doctors to sparsely populated communities will worsen under a federal agency's decision to stop seeking waivers that allow foreign physicians to remain after their training in the United States.
At issue are visas for foreign students who come to the United States for graduate medical study. The so-called J-1 visas require these physicians to return home for two years when they complete training as residents or fellows, but the government often waives the requirement when physicians agree to work in rural or urban areas where physicians are in short supply.
The government frequently grants waivers at the request of federal agencies, primarily the U.S. Department of Agriculture. But last week, USDA officials abruptly decided to drop their involvement in the program, even for waivers the agency had been considering since last fall.
Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback appealed this week to Agriculture Secretary Ann Veneman and other Bush administration officials to reconsider.
"I understand the USDA's concern, but I don't see any reason for changing the program, given how well it has worked," Brownback said Tuesday. "I hope it can be handled administratively. If not, we will go the legislative route and pursue this in an appropriations bill.
"I think we'll have a pretty receptive audience through the appropriations route, as there are a number of rural states impacted by this decision by USDA," Brownback added.
The news is especially alarming to rural hospitals that have failed to lure American doctors and now are trying to hire foreign physicians. For example, William Newton Hospital in Winfield, Kan., has been trying since August to find a primary care doctor for a clinic in nearby Chautauqua County in southeast Kansas.
"We've advertised, and you just can't get a non-J-1 physician to apply for a position like that," said Danny Huckvale, the hospital's assistant administrator. "There's not a lot of things going on in Sedan, Kansas."
Clinics in Chautauqua and neighboring Elk County, areas among poorest in Kansas, saw more than 6,000 patients last year but right now have only one physician. The hospital is ready to hire a board-certified physician from India who has finished a residency in Wichita and a fellowship at The University of Kansas Medical Center.
"We've had the waiver application sitting on the USDA undersecretary's desk for months, approved, waiting for a signature," Huckvale said. "They said all the applications that were pending or in the works are going to be returned, and that's not good. They didn't notify anybody -- they sent out an e-mail to our attorney, is how I got it."
As of Tuesday, USDA still hadn't issued any notice of its decision. But the e-mail, obtained by The Associated Press, advised immigration lawyers that USDA was withdrawing from the program, effective last Thursday.
"As a result of its program review, USDA has come to the conclusion that while the program served valid and important purposes, the benefits of USDA's involvement are clearly outweighed by potential problems and risks," the message read. Department spokeswoman Alisa Harrison pointed out the agency doesn't issue visas. USDA makes a recommendation, which goes to the State Department's waiver review division. The Immigration and Naturalization Service issues final waiver approval.
"Putting all of the program into USCIS is probably the more efficient thing to do," Harrison said. She couldn't provide further information about the agency's rationale.
USCIS officials didn't immediately return phone calls seeking comment, and a State Department spokesman was unfamiliar with the decision.
Sylvia Titgemeyer, who is chairwoman of the Missouri-Kansas chapter of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, said hospitals in the two states have a handful of waiver applications pending for foreign physicians who have agreed to work there.
State health departments can also seek the waivers, but each state is limited to 20 waivers each year, and those slots tend to fill quickly with requests from inner-city urban hospitals. Pending legislation would double the number of state-requested waivers, Titgemeyer said, but that can't
match the hundreds of waivers requested through USDA.
"There's going to be a lot of fallout," she said. "These are people who have been recruiting for a long time to find doctors, and now everything's out of kilter."
Tancredo Doubts He Can Block Amnesty-extension Bill
By Bill McAllister
The Denver Post
WASHINGTON -- Rep. Tom Tancredo takes credit for thwarting the Bush administration's last effort to offer partial amnesty to thousands of illegal residents, but Thursday the outspoken immigration foe said he may have been outmaneuvered by the White House.
President Bush has struck a deal with the House leadership to place legislation that offers an extension of amnesty on its consent calendar before Bush heads to Mexico for a state visit next week, the Colorado Republican said.
That action should ensure quick House passage of legislation that Bush has repeatedly sought from Congress. It would allow an undocumented person to receive legal standing, such as a valid green card, by filing a declaration with the Immigration and Naturalization Service.
It presumably also would require the person to have been in the United States by a certain date and have filed a declaration with the USCIS from an appropriate sponsor, such as a relative or employer, and pay a $1,000 penalty.
"The terms are still up in the air," said Dan Stein, executive director of the Federation for American Immigration, a group that has been allied with Tancredo. "We've heard to the effect that the president wants something to bring down to Mexico."
The initial Bush proposal, designed exclusively for Mexicans, once was high on the president's legislative wish list, but it was delayed after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11. However, as the president noted Wednesday in a speech to the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, he now is pushing for the extension of the amnesty program known by the section of immigration law that covers it, Section 245i.
The president hailed it as a way to reunite family, separated by the border. "If you believe in family values, if you understand the worth of family and the importance of family, let's get 245i out of the United States Congress and give me a chance to sign it," Bush told the chamber
members.
Tancredo, the head of a congressional caucus on immigration issues and proponent of halting virtually all immigration, said he had blocked a previous attempt by Bush to push an extension of the amnesty program through the House. But this time, he said House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert,
R-Ill., had agreed to place the issue on the suspension, or consent, calendar, making it difficult to defeat the proposal.
The Senate might be more favorable to the bill than the House, expanding the numbers of individuals who can apply, Tancredo said.
Ruling Revives Amnesty Program
By Henry Weinstein
Los Angeles Times
A federal judge has breathed new life into one of the nation's longest-running lawsuits, increasing the likelihood that thousands of undocumented immigrants around the country will be able to become lawful U.S. residents.
The ruling by U.S. District Judge Lawrence K. Karlton in Sacramento could end 16 years of legal limbo for the immigrants, many of whom were rejected for residency under the 1986 federal amnesty program because they had temporarily left the United States in previous years.
"It's a fantastic decision," said the plaintiffs' lead lawyer, Peter A. Schey of the Los Angeles-based Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law. "It will open the door to tens of thousands" of long-term undocumented immigrants to become legal residents. Schey said he would file a motion by March 4 seeking to permanently bar the Immigration and Naturalization
Service from attempting to prevent thousands of immigrants covered by the legal decision from applying for lawful permanent residency.
An USCIS spokesman said the agency would have no comment until its attorneys had thoroughly reviewed the ruling, which Karlton filed without fanfare Feb. 15.
The lawsuit stemmed from the BCIS' response to the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act, which was designed to allow more than 3 million formerly illegal immigrants--including 1.6 million California residents--to emerge from the shadow world of the undocumented.
The suit, originally filed that year, alleged that up to 350,000 immigrants were illegally disqualified by the USCIS from applying for the amnesty program offered in the reform law. Individuals who were granted amnesty gained legal entitlement to work permits and became eligible for lawful residency--and eventual citizenship.
Since 1986, the case has bounced back and forth among Karlton's court, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco and the U.S. Supreme Court.
In a November 2000 ruling, 9th Circuit Judge William A. Fletcher likened the protracted litigation to a Russian novel, saying it had "a long and unhappy history."
But Schey said he thinks the immigrants may now be on the verge of overcoming "a war of attrition" waged against them by the BCIS.
"This is not a case in which we are trying to legalize a large population of immigrants based on far-out legal theories. This is a case in which we have fought to enforce the law as written by Congress, and the USCIS has engaged in vexatious litigation to avoid its obligations under federal
law," Schey said.
In order to qualify for amnesty under the 1986 law, the immigrants were required to show that they had maintained continuous U.S. residence from 1982 to May 4, 1988, when the application period closed, but brief absences were permitted.
Congress said it wanted any interpretation of the program to be "generous."
Specifically, the law said that the immigrants could have had "brief, casual and innocent" absences abroad and still be eligible for the program.
When the USCIS issued its regulations to implement the law, however, the agency disqualified any illegal immigrant who had left the country without USCIS permission--about 250,000 people--during the relevant period.
Many of those were people who had left the U.S. to visit relatives in Mexico or Central America and then returned.
As soon as the regulations were published, the nationwide-class action suit was filed in Sacramento challenging the USCIS rules.
Thousands of applicants for amnesty were rejected by the USCIS after filing formal applications because of their temporary absences. In addition, thousands of other applicants who had left the U.S. temporarily were rejected by USCIS clerks without even being permitted to file an application. And thousands of other immigrants never even applied after they heard the USCIS was denying amnesty to anyone who had left the country temporarily, Schey said.
In June 1988, Karlton issued his first major ruling in the case. He said the USCIS regulations were inconsistent with the plain language of the 1986 law. He issued an order extending the period immigrants could apply for amnesty until November 30, 1988.
About 20,000 to 30,000 immigrants who had already submitted complete paperwork were then accepted by the BCIS, according to attorney Carlos Holguin, Schey's co-counsel.
However, the USCIS appealed, and the extended application period never went into effect for the other plaintiffs.
The immigrants won a number of court battles in the case over the next eight years, and thousands garnered temporary work permits. But the USCIS continued to appeal, and the ultimate outcome remained in doubt.
While an USCIS appeal of a 9th Circuit ruling was pending, Congress passed the tough Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996. Among other things, the act said federal courts no longer had jurisdiction over issues involved in this case and two related lawsuits.
Schey then filed a new-class action suit and Karlton once again issued an injunction against the USCIS and granted temporary work permits and temporary protection from deportation for about 50,000 immigrants.
A three-judge panel of 9th Circuit judges, however, ruled 2-1 in 1998 that Karlton no longer had jurisdiction over the suit. He reluctantly dismissed it, and thousands of immigrants lost their temporary work permits.
In November 2000, a larger panel of 9th Circuit judges, led by Fletcher, reversed the decision of the three-judge panel.
The court majority said that a large group of immigrants could continue to challenge an USCIS ruling that they were ineligible for the 1986 amnesty program and that another group of immigrants--including thousands of children--could challenge the agency's actions, even though they filed suit long after the six-year statute of limitations had run out.
Just a month later, Congress enacted the Legal Immigration and Family Equity Act Amendments of 2000, known as the LIFE Act. Among the benefits the law conferred was temporary restoration of the long-expired 1986 law permitting certain illegal immigrants to become lawful permanent residents of the U.S. It also voided the court-stripping provisions of the 1996 law.
Schey then amended the lawsuit for the eighth time, leading to this month's ruling.
The ruling by Karlton means that people who were rebuffed by clerks at BCIS, or who can show that USCIS actions were a substantial cause of their failing to apply for amnesty, are eligible to apply for residency under the 1986 law or the 2000 LIFE Act.
It is easier to qualify under the 1986 law, but people who are accepted under the 2000 law can become permanent residents more rapidly.
Karlton's ruling also allows thousands of other individuals who never applied for a work permit to go to trial to contend that they have been denied equal protection of the law under the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. Those individuals are not eligible to apply for permanent
residency under the LIFE Act because they never applied for a work permit--something many of them had no reason to do because they were children.
"It makes no sense to penalize kids who had no control over this," Holguin said.
Immigration Judges Call for Independent Court
By Lisa Getter
Los Angeles Times
WASHINGTON -- In a rebuke to Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft, the nation's immigration judges are asking Congress to remove their courts from control of the Justice Department.
The judges are particularly concerned about complaints that America's "core legal values" have been compromised since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, according to a 20-page report sent to Congress by the union representing the judges.
This is the first time the judges have taken a public stand on an issue since their union was created 23 years ago. The report follows a series of executive orders by Ashcroft that limited the judges' discretion in hundreds of cases of immigrants detained after Sept. 11 and kept secret hearings that would normally be open. "It's not something we take lightly in doing. As employees of the Department of Justice we don't have a lot of freedom to speak out," said San Francisco Immigration Judge Dana Marks Keener, speaking as president of the National Assn. of Immigration Judges, the AFL-CIO-affiliated union that represents the 220 judges.
The union's report concludes that a separate court is the only way to restore public confidence. "It is the most fundamental aspect of due process that one be given the opportunity to present one's case and confront the adverse evidence in an impartial forum," the report states. "At present, there is at least the perception that this is not always provided."
Justice Department spokesman Dan Nelson said Wednesday that the agency would not support the judges' proposal "principally because the immigration courts and Board of Immigration Appeals exercise the authority of the attorney general to enforce the immigration laws of the United States."
Ashcroft said previously that, since Sept. 11, his office has sought to strike a balance between the rights of detainees and the need to protect the United States from further attacks.
The report, which was obtained by The Times on Wednesday, will be used to lobby Congress. It calls for creation of a new agency in the executive branch to house the judges, one that would guarantee "independence and impartiality in the hearing process." The judges currently work for the Executive Office for Immigration Review, an arm of Justice that was created in 1983. The judges used to work for the Immigration and Naturalization Service. But that posed a potential conflict because USCIS lawyers argue the government's cases before the judges.
Conflict of interest seen as 'pervasive'
The judges say that the conflict still exists. "The taint of inherent conflict of interests caused by housing the Immigration Court within the DOJ is insidious and pervasive," the union's report says.
The judges say that USCIS influence over the Justice Department's immigration policies and practices spills over into judicial matters. They cite Ashcroft's Oct. 31 rule that allowed the USCIS to override immigration judges' decisions to release Sept. 11 detainees on bond.
Some of the issues in the union's report have been smoldering for years. In 1996, Congress mandated that immigration judges had the right to cite people in their courtrooms with contempt. But before the mandate could become law, the attorney general had to write rules for how the power could be used.
No such rules were ever written. The reason: the USCIS objected. The judges cite that as a "blatant example" of the immigration service's undue influence in their department.
Judge Keener said due process protection for immigrants cannot be guaranteed when the same person--the attorney general--oversees the judges and the BCIS. The report notes that the attorney general's dual role "creates, at the very minimum, the appearance of partiality. Thus it is not surprising that the public perceives this system as 'rigged.' "
The U.S. Commission for Immigration Reform, a bipartisan panel appointed by Congress, came to the same conclusion in 1997, noting that the judges should not be in the same department as the "enforcement agency that is initiating the proceedings against the alien."
The union has hired Bill McCollum, a former Republican congressman from Florida, to pitch their case on Capitol Hill. McCollum had introduced a bill in recent years that would have created a separate federal court for immigration judges, but his plan did not have widespread support.
"I don't know what our chances of success are," McCollum said of the judges' new proposal. "They have been after this for some time. This is an opportune moment."
But some congressional aides were pessimistic. "I don't think it would receive an enthusiastic reception on the House side," said Jeff Lungren, spokesman for the House Judiciary Committee. He said some members think the judges need more accountability, not more independence.
The judges' proposal comes amid plans to reorganize the BCIS. After the terrorist attacks, Ashcroft said he wanted to restructure the agency that oversees the judges as well. But he has offered no details, except to say he wants to reduce the backlog of cases. His top aides have privately told the immigration review office that he wants the judges "on the same page" as the rest of the Justice Department.
The union's report notes that a new agency for the judges would free the Justice Department "to focus its mission on the prosecution of those in the United States illegally--an increasingly compelling focus." Rick Kenney, the spokesman for the immigration review office, said the department would not comment on the union proposal. "They have a right to petition government officials outside this agency. We don't monitor that and we don't make comment on that," Kenney said.
Arbitrary justice is cited in study
A Los Angeles Times study last year of U.S. immigration courts documented a system of arbitrary justice, in which similar cases would have widely varying outcomes, depending on the judge hearing the case. Immigrants are not entitled to government-paid lawyers for immigration court hearings. Most immigrants did not have lawyers, but those who did were 17 times more
likely to win their cases.
After Sept. 11, Ashcroft tightened the rules for hundreds of mostly Middle Eastern men held on immigration violations. Although federal regulations gave judges the right to close hearings on a case-by-case basis, he ordered that every Sept. 11-related case be closed. Detainees' names are not even listed on court dockets.
Justice officials have said the measures were necessary to protect against disclosure of information that might compromise federal investigations into the Sept. 11 terrorist hijackings and other possible plots.
"Strong criticism has been leveled against the president, the attorney general and the Department of Justice that legal rights have been curtailed in the aftermath of Sept. 11," the judges wrote. "There are those who say the terrorists have won if we abandon the freedoms which characterize the American way of life."
They conclude that an independent immigration court would ease those criticisms and "go a long ways towards achieving the appropriate balance between fundamental fairness and security concerns."
Consular Officials Critical of Visa Law
Cable can't hold water to e-mail
By Al Kamen
The Washington Post
Consular officials around the world, the folks who issue visas for foreigners to come here, think a new post-Sept. 11 application form just for men ages 16 to 45 is a pure waste of time.
"Irrelevant" and "superfluous," they say of the new form's questions, such as asking about prior military service. And they note accused shoe bomber Richard Reid flew on a British passport and didn't need a visa, nor did flight school arrestee Zacarias Moussaoui, a French national of Moroccan descent.
Assistant Secretary of State for Consular Affairs Mary A. Ryan, who has been fielding the complaints, says they've got to grin and bear it.
"We don't like the new requirements any more than you do," she said in a Jan. 11 e-mail to one officer, "but you have to understand what this country is going through in the wake of 9/11." Even if you watch television constantly you can't know "the effect that 9/11 has had on the American people and on our government. People are fearful and they are very angry."
"All your points about the form are well taken and we made them all at the time this was being discussed. We had no choice. The FBI and DOJ [Department of Justice] want things done like this and we already appear soft on terrorism because of our arguing against the need for this
supplemental form. My best advice to you is to do the best you can with it. I hope that we get over our fear and fury in time," she wrote, "so the new form won't be needed. . . . "
"I am extremely grateful to you for putting your concerns into an e-mail and not a cable," Ryan wrote. "Many of our cables are now leaked to the press and we are being portrayed as people who simply don't get it, as people who favor foreigners over Americans, and who balk at extra work designed to protect our country. It is, quite frankly, hell these days for me. If you talk to your colleagues at other posts who share your thinking on the form, would you ask them to e-mail and not to cable us?"
Colleges Critical of Plan to Track Foreign Students
Educators, USCIS at odds over visa database, fee collection
By Joe Cantlupe, Copley News ServiceThe San Diego Union-Tribune
WASHINGTON -- The federal government plans to require universities and colleges by this fall to participate in a national database designed to keep track of the roughly half-million foreigners in the country with student visas.
The speeded-up effort, sought by Congress, is supposed to plug a hole in the country's security system following the Sept. 11 attacks. But educators are challenging the timetable and criticizing the government's proposals to collect fees from students to pay for the visa-tracking system.
Officials of the Immigration and Naturalization Service said they are frustrated by the complaints, brought by representatives of higher education who have lobbied vigorously to sidetrack previous student-tracking efforts. Colleges and universities covet foreign students,
not only for the diversity but for the estimated $11.4 billion they bring in annually through hefty tuitions.
As the USCIS moves to draft proposals to collect fees and plan for new database systems, educators are growing uneasy.
"The level of confidence in the USCIS decision-making is not high," said Scott Sudduth, assistant vice president for government relations at the University of California Washington Center.
One of higher education's top lobbying organizations the American Council on Education sent a letter this week to USCIS Commissioner James Ziglar, saying colleges and universities are "deeply worried" about the agency's ability to install a smooth-running computerized tracking program by the end of the year.
In the letter, David Ward, the council's president, insisted higher education would cooperate. But he criticized what he termed a lack of planning needed to monitor about 500,000 foreign students who've obtained visas to study at U.S. schools. The council represents 1,800 schools, including California universities and colleges.
"Efforts to launch such systems without adequate preparation are doomed to failure," wrote Ward, whose group was joined by other higher-education organizations.
To speed the process, USCIS officials scrapped initial plans to continue a five-year pilot program that targeted specific regions and instead plan to make the database available nationwide this year.
Lobbying by higher education was responsible for "significant delays in the program's implementation" over the past few years, USCIS spokesman Russ Bergeron said.
"The collection of the fees has been repeatedly delayed by the initiative of the schools," Bergeron said. "It was the USCIS that recognized that the current system is inefficient, with all the paper that needed to be moved to track students. It's kind of ironic that these educational institutions are criticizing the USCIS for wanting to do something that corrects the inefficiencies."
Under the USCIS plan, colleges would be able to voluntarily enroll in the database tracking system in June. Then all colleges would be required to participate in the Student Exchange and Visitor Information system commonly known as SEVIS by fall.
California leads the nation with 74,281 foreign students enrolled during the 2000-2001 school year, according to the Association of International Educators.
Student visa reforms are only part of a broad effort to overhaul national security. But the complex political and practical uncertainties underlying the effort to improve tracking of foreign students underscore the obstacles to be faced on many security fronts.
USCIS officials said educators' opposition appeared to wane after the Sept. 11 attacks. At the time, educators announced they supported plans to overhaul the existing foreign student monitoring system.
The terrorist attacks reflected long-standing concerns among many observers that the current system for tracking students is virtually nonexistent. Several of the Sept. 11 hijackers had been in the country on expired or current student visas.
Shortly after the attacks, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., threatened to impose a moratorium on admitting foreign students. But Feinstein backed off after meeting with educators. Instead, the senator and a bipartisan group of lawmakers proposed a wide-ranging security measure that expands the USCIS ability to electronically track students. The Senate is expected to take up
the measure soon. The House passed a similar bill endorsed by the educators.
For years, colleges and universities to varying degrees of efficiency compiled documents about the comings and goings of foreign students. But the USCIS lacked the ability to tap into the system, and the "periodic review" required by law stretched into months at a time before immigration authorities sought information on specific students. Even then, the paper trail did not reflect the full scope of a student's stay in the United States, such as where he or she arrived in this country, authorities said.
Under the anti-terrorism law signed by President Bush last year, the United States has taken steps to broaden the scope of the documentation needed to track students.
In late December, Congress also tacked on $36.8 million to Department of Defense appropriations to pay for development of an electronic student tracking system, which lawmakers wanted installed by the end of this year.
The proposed $95 fee for each foreign student would be earmarked for continued operations of the program, according to federal authorities. But educators said in recent interviews their concerns are mounting as USCIS officials are preparing to release final regulations on the fees. Educators said the government has not figured out a proper method to collect the fees, which could result in months of delays in processing forms.
"My colleagues and I are anxious to work with you and the State Department to create a system that does not make it impossible for large numbers of international students to study at American colleges," the American Council on Education's Ward said.
Ward and other educators also have proposed the USCIS establish a training system to help coordinate various college and federal databases.
Howard Gantman, a spokesman for Feinstein, said the educators have "very legitimate concerns." He added, "Unfortunately in the past, all too often Congress has directed the USCIS to take certain steps and it hasn't."
President Bush Signs Spousal Work Authorization Measures into Law
President Bush, on January 16, 2002, signed into law two bills (H.R. 2277 and H.R. 2278) allowing spouses of intra-company transferees, treaty traders, and treaty investors to work in the U.S. H.R. 2277 (PL 107-124) provides work authorization to the spouses of E visa holders. H.R. 2278 (PL 107-125) provides work authorization to the spouses of L visa holders and reduces the required period of prior continuous employment for certain intra-company transferees. Specifically, H.R. 2278 amends INA section 214(c)(2)(A) to provide that in the case of an alien seeking admission under section 101(a)(15)(L), the required one-year period of continuous employment is reduced to six months if the importing employer has filed a blanket petition and met the requirements for expedited processing of aliens covered under such petition.
Attorney General Ashcroft Signs ‘‘T'' Visa Regulations
Attorney General John Ashcroft, on January 24, 2002, signed an interim regulation that sets forth application procedures for the new ‘‘T'' nonimmigrant classification, created by §§ 107(e) of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 (TVPA) (Pub. L. No. 106-386). The new rule also outlines the essential elements that applicants must demonstrate to receive ‘‘T'' status, as well as evidentiary standards the USCIS will use in adjudicating ‘‘T'' applications. The TVPA, signed into law on October 28, 2000, established, among other things, a new ‘‘T'' nonimmigrant status for certain victims of severe trafficking who agree to cooperate with law enforcement officials in the investigation of the trafficking, and who would suffer ""extreme hardship involving unusual and severe harm"" if returned to their home countries. After three years in ""T'' status, such individuals become eligible to apply for permanent resident status. The new regulation is expected to be published in the Federal Register next week, and will take effect 30 days after publication.
H-1B Worker Visas under Fire
By Preston Gralla
Trend Lines
A forwarded e-mail launched by an unemployed Silicon Valley engineer blames layoffs of American workers on the H1-B visa program, which allows foreigners in high-tech fields to work in the United States. The letter was actively circulating last fall, and appeared on newsgroups and mailing lists. When interviewed, the author, who doesn't want his name used, said companies prefer H1-B workers to Americans because they will work for less money. Techies.com, an IT job search website, found in a survey conducted shortly before Sept. 11 that 85 percent of respondents (technology professionals) were worried about losing their job to a noncitizen.
A new twist on the anti-H1-B argument has emerged from a combination of economic lethargy and terrorism-based anxiety. Rob Sanchez, a laid-off engineer in Phoenix and creator of an anti-H1-B website www.zazona.com/shameh1b says that apart from the pain it causes American workers, the H1-B program leads to national security risks because the visa holders "work in some of our most sensitive industries and so have the potential for setting up terrorist activities."
H1-B program supporters see the most recent flare-up as part of a dangerous backlash against foreigners. Manjit Singh, executive director and cofounder of the Sikh Mediawatch and Resource Task Force, notes that Sikh H-1B workers have been victims of harassment since
Sept. 11.
The H1-B issue isn't likely to go away soon. Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.) has filed legislation to roll back the yearly quota of visas allowed under the program to 65,000 (it's currently at 195,000 per year through 2003) and would cut that even further if unemployment rises. Similar legislation has been defeated before, but it's unclear what will happen in the current climate. For CIOs, it could become more difficult to fill tech jobs if the number of visas is cut back. Meantime, given the strong emotions the issue raises, CIOs with any H1-B workers on staff should be extra vigilant against bias or harassment in the workplace.
Male Visa Applicants Face More Questions
Checks now apply to all nations
By Mark Bixler
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
The federal government is dramatically expanding the number of foreigners who face extra scrutiny when they ask for a visa to visit the United States.
The State Department, in a major change that has attracted little notice, told embassies and consulates a week ago to question young and middle-aged men who want visas about their military service, experience with weapons of mass destruction and affiliation with professional, social and charitable organizations.
The goal is to deny visas to would-be terrorists.
Authorities say all 19 hijackers who struck Sept. 11 entered the country with visas obtained in Middle Eastern countries.
As a result, the State Department on Nov. 14 ordered extra checks for visa applicants from 26 Arab and Muslim nations. On Jan. 11, the department told embassies and consulates around the globe to more closely scrutinize male visa applicants aged 16 to 45 from all nations, not just Arab and Muslim countries, said Christopher Lamora, spokesman for the State Department's
Bureau of Consular Affairs.
The change affects hundreds of thousands of people.
"It is an interim procedure that has been put into effect because of Sept. 11," Lamora said.
The department plans to end the tougher screening when consular officers, who issue visas, get access to an FBI database that will let them check an applicant's name against a list of people suspected of terrorism or other crimes. That should happen in a few months.
"These are questions that have not normally been asked of visa applicants across the board," Lamora said.
When officials discussed heightened scrutiny for men in Arab and Muslim nations in November, they said it could delay the processing of a visa application up to 20 days. Lamora said Thursday he did not know whether the new checks would translate into longer waits.
The amount of time it takes for consular officers to answer visa requests varies around the globe, from a few hours to a few weeks.
Visas let foreign nationals visit the United States for a specific time and purpose, most often to tour, study or do business. The State Department says 7.1 million of the 9.5 million people who applied got a visa in the budget year that ended in October 2000. It does not have an estimate of how many of the 7.1 million were men aged 16 to 45.
The new screening is similar but not as exhaustive as a screening process long applied to visa applicants from seven nations the United States lists as state sponsors of terrorism: Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Sudan and Syria.
Terrorists might not respond truthfully to questions about weaponry, but asking about it could help investigators in the future. Lying on a visa application is a violation of federal law, and U.S. authorities can detain someone for doing so and kick him or her out of the country.
Since Sept. 11, the government has jailed at least 19 foreign nationals on charges of lying to get a visa. The 19 are among at least 460 foreigners detained around the country, accused of immigration violations that came to light in the terrorism investigation. The 19 include 11 Pakistanis, three Egyptians, two Indians and citizens of Guyana, Jordan and Morocco, according to records from the Department of Justice.
Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, a nonprofit organization in Washington that favors stricter immigration controls, said it makes sense for the government to ask more questions.
"Nothing's a silver bullet, but we definitely need greater scrutiny of visa applicants," he said. "This creates a paper trail that can be used against a potential terrorist later on."
Angela Kelly, deputy director of the National Immigration Forum, a pro-immigrant policy group, also said the new policy sounds reasonable. She had concerns about singling out Arab and Muslim visa applicants and said the more comprehensive system is better.
"It sounds like an approach that is more even-handed and may be more useful in ferreting out terrorists," she said.
Even so, not all foreign nationals who visit the United States will have to answer the additional questions. The government lets citizens of 29 countries, mainly in Europe, travel to the United States briefly without a visa.
Zacarias Moussaoui, alleged to have been the 20th hijacker, came into the United States without a visa because he is a French citizen, and France is among the countries in the "visa-waiver" program.
Richard Reid, the man accused of hiding a bomb in his shoe and trying to blow up an airliner coming to the United States, is a British citizen. He did not need a visa, either, because Britain also is one of the "visa-waiver" countries. The government has taken other steps since Sept. 11 to monitor who enters the country, notably by increasing checks of people crossing the Canadian and Mexican borders. It also has stepped up plans for a system to monitor foreign students, required by a 1996 law but delayed by pressure from politicians and international educators.
The Immigration and Naturalization Service also is devising a system to keep track of nearly 500 million entries and exits made by foreign visitors each year.
A 1996 law called for that system, but political pressure it delayed it, too