|
AILA
ADVOCACY UPDATE |
|
|
In this Issue:
Media Spotlight:
Members and Staff in the News Immigration Around the Nation Did you Know? The
Senate Changes Hands. What
is the Impact on Immigration Policy?
Senator
James Jeffords last week left the Republican Party and declared
himself an Independent aligned with the Democrats.
The Senator’s transition officially will take place when the
House/Senate Conference completes its work on the tax bill or on June
5, whichever is later. At
that point, the 50-50 Senate will be part of history, and Democrats
will take control of the Senate, with 50 Democrats, 49 Republicans,
and one Independent. Senator Tom Daschle (D-SD) will become the Senate
Majority Leader. Senator
Edward Kennedy (D-MA) will chair the Immigration Subcommittee, and
Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) will become chair of the full Senate
Judiciary Committee. Changes
also will be taking place on the Appropriations Committee and the
Commerce, Justice, and State Appropriation Subcommittee (which
appropriates funding for the Departments of Justice and State.).
Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV) will chair the full committee, and
Senator Fritz Hollings (D-SC) will chair the subcommittee. The
earlier 50-50 Senate had adopted a power-sharing agreement that also
is now history. Thus
committee allocations and organization will change.
What also is certain is that both Democratic and Republican
Senators will have immense power as individuals, with no one able to
predict how long it will take to sort out committee assignments and
organization. What is uncertain is how partisan or bipartisan the new
Senate will be, the impact of this change in Senate leadership on how
the House Leadership operates, and the role of moderates in both
chambers. What
is the impact of this change on immigration policy?
Senators Leahy and Kennedy will now decide what hearings and
mark-ups of legislation will take place in the Senate.
Senator Daschle, as Majority Leader, will largely determine
what bills move to the floor and the procedures under which they are
considered. (In the past,
Senator Trent Lott (R-MS), the soon-to-be former Majority Leader,
along with Senator Phil Gramm (R-TX), succeeded in blocking
legislation that AILA strongly supported.) However, given the narrow
vote margin of the Democrat’s control, we will continue to depend on
bipartisan support and grassroots efforts to get new laws passed.
AILA, along with our coalition partners, will continue to work with
supportive Republican Senators, including Senators Sam Brownback
(R-KS) and Chuck Hagel (R-NE), on issues that top our agenda. The
Senate will return on June 4 from the Memorial Day Recess and will
focus on reorganizing before dealing with legislative issues. House Passes Limited Extension of
Section 245(i) with New Restriction; Senate to Act The House on May 21 passed a limited extension of Section 245(i) by a vote of 336-43. H.R. 1885 would extend the Section 245(i) deadline for only four months, while also requiring beneficiaries to demonstrate that the required “familial or employment relationship” existed on or before April 30, 2001. Republican Congressional leaders refused to consider a measure that included a longer extension period without the new requirement. The final measure that Congress passes needs to resemble the Senate bill, S. 778, introduced by Senators Chuck Hagel (R-NE) and Edward Kennedy (D-MA). S. 778 extends the Section 245(i) deadline for one-year without the restriction in the House proposal and has bipartisan support. Along with Senators Hagel, other Republicans on the bill are: Lincoln Chafee (RI), John Ensign (NV), Pete Domenici (NM), Richard Lugar (IN), Peter Fitzgerald (IL), and Charles Grassley (IA). Democrats on the bill, aside from Senator Kennedy, are Jeff Bingaman (NM), Barbara Boxer (CA), Richard Durbin (IL), Jack Reed (RI), Harry Reid (NV), Hillary Clinton (NY), Charles Schumer (NY), Jon Corzine (NJ), Paul Wellstone (MN), Tom Daschle (SD), Christopher Dodd (CT), and John Kerry (MA). The extension of Section 245(i) is strongly supported by organizations throughout this country. More than 100 national and local organizations sent a letter to the House and Senate urging passage of an extension. Futhermore, four major Latino organizations sent a letter on May 30 to President Bush expressing concern that the House-passed measure will “undermine thousands of immigrant families by severely limiting the number of people who will benefit.” While
H.R. 1885 ultimately may expedite the passage of an extension, the
short, four-month extension, along with the additional requirement:
It
is important to note that the physical presence requirement in the
LIFE Act already ensures that people will not be coming to the U.S. to
apply. Under the LIFE
Act, only those people who were in the United States on December 21,
2000 are eligible to apply for the new extension of Section 245(i).
This limitation addresses the fear that the extension of 245(i)
will be a magnet for people to come into the United States illegally.
In addition, current immigration laws have strict penalties
against marriage fraud that the INS vigorously enforces.
While no immigrant stands to gain by entering into a fraudulent
marriage, many Americans may face separation from their families as a
result of the misguided new requirement. A clean, one-year extension
will provide people who are already in the United States a fair and
reasonable opportunity to submit an application.
Additional restrictions on who may apply serve no purpose, and
create the very real risk that eligible people will miss the deadline
because of mistakes, technicalities, or the inability to get help. The
Senate is expected to take up S. 778 after recess.
AILA strongly supports this measure’s swift passage in the
Senate and House support for a one-year extension without the
requirement. AILA also
looks to President Bush to reiterate his support for an extension,
clarifying the length of the extension he seeks, and express concerns
about the new requirement. Senate
Due Process Bill Introduced Senators Edward
Kennedy (D-MA) and Bob Graham (D-FL) introduced the Immigrant Fairness
Restoration Act of 2001, S. 995, on May 24.
The bill was co-sponsored by Senators Patrick Leahy (D-VT),
John Kerry (D-MA), Paul Wellstone (D-MN), Chris Dodd (D-CT), Daniel
Inouye (D-HI), Richard Durbin (D-IL), Russ Feingold (D-WI), and Daniel
Akaka (D-HI). The
Immigrant Fairness
Restoration Act of 2001
would ensure that U.S. immigration law reflects our tradition
as a nation of immigrants and a nation
of just laws. These
traditions were undermined in 1996 by the passage of the Antiterrorism
and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) and the Illegal Immigration
Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA), and have caused
countless numbers of American families to be needlessly and
arbitrarily torn apart in the process.
This important legislation would undo the harmful and overly
harsh consequences of the 1996 immigration laws, by recognizing these
fundamental principles:
AILA has worked
closely with the co-sponsors of this important legislation and
strongly supports its passage. AILA
urges its members and their clients to contact their Members of
Congress and the White House to urge support for this long-needed and
vital legislation. Student
Adjustment Bill Introduced in House Representatives
Chris Cannon (R-UT), Howard Berman (D-CA) and Lucille Roybal-Allard
(D-CA) introduced The Student Adjustment Act of 2001 on May 21. The
bill, H.R. 1918, would provide relief to students who currently are in
the U.S. and have lived a significant portion of their lives in this
country by helping them attend college and allow them to fully
contribute to their adopted country.
Specifically, H.R. 1918 would create a special rule providing
cancellation of removal and adjustment of status to junior high school
or high school students and college applicants that have lived in the
U.S. for at least five years. All applicants must have arrived and
lived in the U.S. when they were 15 years old or younger. The new form
of cancellation would be available upon application to the INS. Under
current law, almost all of these students will be prevented from
attending college because they cannot afford out-of-state tuition and
do not qualify for Pell grants or student loans due to a federal law
that inhibits a state’s ability to provide in-state tuition or
higher education assistance to these children.
This legislation would give states back the power to decide who
qualifies as a resident for in-state tuition. Each year, about
50,000 to 75,000 undocumented students, who have lived in the U.S. for
at least 5 years, graduate from U.S. high schools.
Many were brought to the U.S. at a young age, consider
themselves Americans, and almost all speak English.
Yet their lives are filled with uncertainty and hold little
future so long as they cannot regularize their immigration status and
continue their educations. Currently,
very few qualify for any immigration relief, no matter how long they
have lived here or how difficult it would be for them to adjust to
life in the countries from which they were originally brought. Among those now
prevented from completing their educations are class valedictorians,
straight-A students, creative talents, and idealistic youngsters
committed to bettering their communities.
The same harsh rules apply to all of these students, regardless
of individual ability, circumstances, or length of residence. This
situation translates into wasted talent, lower tax revenues and
numerous numbers of dropouts, shattered lives that hurt our society
and economy. AILA strongly supports H.R. 1918. Senate
Hearing Highlights Nursing Shortage Senator Sam
Brownback, (soon to be former) chair of the Senate Immigration
Subcommittee, scheduled a hearing on May 22 to review rural and urban
health care needs. Given that Senate floor votes were occurring at the
same time, the Senator convened a truncated hearing.
AILA member Carl Shusterman, Martha Hegarty
(on behalf of the American Health Care Association) and Diane
Sosne from the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) were
scheduled to testify along with others representing the Kansas and
American Hospital Associations, the American Psychological
Association, and the American Health Care Association.
Carl Shusterman’s testimony focused on the severe nationwide
nursing shortage, undersupply of primary care physicians, and the fact
that large areas of our county are medically underserved. He noted
also that current immigration laws contribute to the crisis by
creating “protectionist walls that make it difficult for U.S.
employers to hire foreign-born nurses.”
Shusterman called on Congress to restore the system of
temporary visas for registered nurses that was in place between 1952
and 1995. He also called
for laws that encourage the immigration of primary care physicians to
the U.S., as well as expanding programs that allow international
medical graduates who are trained in the U.S. to remain in this
country. Martha Hegarty’s
testimony (for the American Health Care Association) highlighted the
critical shortage of caregivers in long term care, and the important
role reforming our nation’s immigration laws must play in helping to
solve the problem. She called on Congress to enact a new immigration
program that is responsive to the care needs of our frail, elderly,
and disabled citizens. Diane Sosne’s
testimony (for SEIU) noted both the union’s pride in their immigrant
members working in home healthcare, nursing homes, and hospitals and
problems that have resulted from inadequate staffing.
She noted that because the root cause of the nursing shortage
is not lack of nurses, but working conditions, immigration is a
band-aid that would cover up the real problem.
She added that SEIU does not oppose immigration as one approach
to solving the nursing shortage, but the priority needs to be to
attract and retain health caregivers through improved working and
quality patient care conditions.
She called shortsighted bringing in more health caregivers from
around the world because “Regardless of nationality, the working
conditions are driving health care givers away from these jobs. We
should not exploit immigrant workers because conditions in this
country may be better than from where they came.”
She also cautioned against selectively adapting our immigration
policies to “cater to one particular industry” and called for
broad reforms of our immigration laws, including allowing undocumented
workers already in this country to legalize their status. Her
testimony included SEIU’s principles in this area:
Recently
Introduced Legislation: S.955 Immigrant Fairness Restoration Act of 2001: Introduced by Senators Edward Kennedy (D-MA), Bob Graham (D-FL), and 8 co-sponsors, S. 955 would provide comprehensive reform of the 1996 immigration laws, including: the elimination of mandatory and indefinite detention; eliminating the bars to admissibility for unlawful presence; restoring waivers of certain grounds on inadmissibility established by the 1996 laws; and restoring due process, proportionality, judicial discretion, and judicial review to immigration law. H.R.
1918
Student Adjustment Act of 2001: Introduced by
Representative Canon (R-UT), H.R. 1918 amends the Immigration and
Nationality Act to cancel the removal, and adjust the status of
certain alien college-bound students who are long-term U.S. residents,
and amends the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility
Act of 1996 to permit states to determine state residency for higher
education tuition. H.R.
1910
Denial of Benefits: Introduced
by Representative Saxton (R-NJ), H.R. 1910 would deny federal
benefits to individuals who were participants in Nazi persecution. H.R.
1904
Alien Children: Introduced by Representative Lofgren
(D-CA), H.R. 1904 would establish an Office of Children's
Services within the Department of Justice to coordinate and implement
government actions involving unaccompanied alien children. H.R.
1892
Family Sponsor Immigration Act: Introduced by
Representative Calvert (R-CA), H.R. 1892 amends the Immigration and
Nationality Act to provide acceptance of an affidavit of support from
another eligible sponsor if the original sponsor has died and the
Attorney General has determined for humanitarian reasons that the
original sponsor’s classification petition should not be revoked.
Regulations
Galore! The following
interim regulations have just been published in the Federal Register
or are expected shortly. (LIFE NACARA/HRIFA regulations were published
May 31, in the Federal Register.
LIFE Late Legalization/Family Unity regulations and the Premium
Processing Fee were published on June 1.)
INS V Visa and INS K visa regulations are expected shortly.
All are expected to have 60-day comment periods.
Please check on InfoNet for these regulations.
MEDIA SPOTLIGHTU.S./Mexico
Issues Take Center Stage The relationship
between the U.S. and Mexico, and specifically the need for cooperation
between the two countries, is taking center stage in both Washington,
D.C. and in the media nationwide.
Recent events - from Bush’s and Ashcroft’s decisions to
make Mexico their first international visit to the tragic deaths of
Mexicans entering the U.S. illegally through isolated and dangerous
areas of the Arizona desert – have placed immigration issues on the
agendas of lawmakers and the public on both sides of the border, and
have been featured prominently in news articles, editorials, and op-eds
through out the country. The open dialogue
between the United States and Mexico that marks the beginning of this
Administration and that of Mexican President Vicente Fox has made real
the possibility of a migration agreement during this Congress.
After his visit to Mexico last week, Attorney General John
Ashcroft told the Associated Press (AP), “The Bush administration
will send Congress a program that would grant Mexican immigrants guest
worker visas.” This
follows the February meeting between President Bush and President
Vicente Fox in which Mr. Fox “placed the status of three million
Mexican immigrants, working illegally in the United States, squarely
on the table,” according to a New York Times piece. The Bangor (Maine)
Daily News reported that the Maine Department of Labor has joined the
U.S.-Mexico labor talks. Director
of the Maine Department of Labor’s Migrant and Immigrant Services
Division, Juan Perez-Febles, said, “These government-to-government
exchanges are very beneficial in creating avenues of cooperation
between the United States and Mexico on how to best promote the
welfare of migrant agricultural workers in the [U.S.].”
In addition, Section 245(i) which has been part of the
U.S./Mexico discussions, has been a major issue in Congress, and
featured nationwide in the media. USA Today reporter
Elliot Blair Smith reported, “Border residents favor more
openness.” “Americans
and Mexicans on both sides of the border want a more open economy,
freer movement of workers, expanded investment and greater
environmental protections,” according to a poll conducted last April
and released this week. The
poll was co-sponsored by the California-based Tomas Rivera Policy
Center and Mexico's University of Tamaulipas. The
tragic deaths of fourteen illegal immigrants in the Arizona desert
have added to the urgency of calls for more humane ways to manage
illegal immigration. The
immigrants died
from heat exposure in a remote area of the Arizona desert after being
smuggled across the U.S.-Mexico border, according to reports by AP,
Reuters, and the New York Times, among others.
State Department spokesman Philip Reeker said, “These tragic
deaths highlight the pressing need for our governments to continue
their work to reach new agreements on migration and border safety.” Members and Staff in the News Michael Maggio (Washington
D.C.) and Crystal Williams were quoted in a June 1 New York
Times article that noted the pros and cons of this new fee.
Carl Shusterman (Southern California) and Crystal Williams
were quoted in the May 31 edition of the Washington Post in an
article on the INS’ Premium Processing Program whereby
“celebrities, athletes and other specific types of workers” can
pay to have their work visa applications processed more quickly.
Ellen Gorman’s (Central Florida) letter to the editor
explaining Section 245(i) in response to a St. Petersburg Times
article titled “I do” was published in the May 21st St.
Petersburg Times. NOTE:
If you are quoted or otherwise mentioned in the news media we
would love to feature your contribution to shaping the media coverage
of immigration issues in Advocacy Update.
Please submit all articles, letters-to-the-editor, etc. to AILA
Public Relations Manager Amanda Carufel at acarufel@aila.org.
You can also reach Amanda by phone (202) 216-2404 and fax (202)
783-7853. Immigration
Issues in the News Asylum.
The Charlotte Observer released an article on May 23 describing
actress Sigourney Weaver’s lobbying efforts on behalf of asylum
seekers. Border Issues
On May 30, the New York Times and the Washington Post
reported on the arrest of a smuggler in connection with the deaths of
the fourteen migrant workers found dead in the Arizona desert.
The New York Times on May 31 released a story on the
bodies of migrant workers being returned to Mexico.
The New York Times released two stories on May 26, one
about a civil rights group taking up the charge to change border
policy and the other on the plight of immigrants crossing the border
in search of jobs. Both
the Washington Post (May 26) and the New York Times (May
28) featured stories of a Mexican village mourning for the deceased
migrant workers. On May
25, the New York Times published two articles; the first
detailed the dangers illegal immigrants face crossing the border and
the second article criticized the Bush administration’s border
policy. The Washington Post and the Evansville Courier &
Press on May 25 printed articles regarding the missing migrant
workers in the Arizona desert. The New York Times reported in
their May 25 edition on the challenge facing the Bush administration
to increase enforcement and at the same time decrease the death toll
of immigrants crossing the border. On May 24, the New York Times,
Arizona Republic and Associated Press, ran stories on
illegal immigrants found dead in the Arizona desert. Demographics.
The Washington Post on May 31 reported that the Washington DC
area saw changes in the countries of origin of its Hispanic residents.
On May 30, the New York Times released an article on cities
seeking to replenish their shrinking populations with immigrants.
The Washington Post on May 27 reported on the increase
of the Indian community due to the need for technology workers.
On May 26, the Washington Post reported on the increase
of Asians in suburban communities.
The Washington Post on May 24 reported that Prince
Georges County leads the Washington, D.C. area in families led by
single mothers, due to an increase of immigrants from Central America.
On May 23, the New York Times reported that the Texas Hispanic
population was not predominantly Mexican as recently believed. The Washington
Post on May 23 ran a story on the increase of the percentage of
immigrants that make up two parent households in the United States.
On May 22, the New York Times published a series of
articles on recent immigration trends including the upswing in the
Hispanic population in New York and on the decrease in people living
alone, citing the influx of immigrants. The New York Times
released a story on May 21 concerning the slowing of population
growth. Detention
The Pioneer Planet published an article on May 24 about the
detention of “lifers.” Economics.
The New York Times reported on May 29 on the migrant
workers’ dangerous trek across the border citing Mexico’s failing
economy as the primary reason for the trek. The Associated Press
ran an article on May 25 regarding the economic needs of immigrants
seeking jobs in the U.S. Editorials and
Op-eds. On June 1, the Washington Post ran an editorial
criticizing the INS’s premium processing fee. On
May 31, the New York Times printed an op-ed on Medicaid for
immigrants. On May 30, the New York Times printed a letter to
the editor by the Executive Director of the Federation for American
Immigration Reform denouncing urban sprawl. On May 29, the New York
Times featured letters to the editor, responding to the previous
article “Immigrants Congest, and Improve, Our Towns.” The Los
Angeles Times on May 27 printed an op-ed denouncing immigration. H-1B Visas.
On May 25, Wired News ran an article on the Adea Group’s
campaign to snatch up unemployed H-1B visa workers. On May 27, the Washington
Post ran an article on the setbacks immigrants face under the
current laws. On May 19,
the New York Times reported that the teacher shortage is
leading administrators to look overseas to fill vacancies. Immigrants.
On May 31, the Washington Post reported on a group effort to
train Latino women to attain child-care licenses. The Los Angeles
Times and Washington Post on May 30 ran articles on the
hurdles new immigrants face. The New York Times on May 30 ran a
story about the favorable ruling for illegal immigrant workers seeking
compensation for work completed for which their employer had not paid
them. CNSNews.com on May 25, reported on a Cuban singer who
defected to the United States. The Orange County Register ran
an article on May 24 concerning a schools effort to teach the
Vietnamese the American experience.
On May 24, the New York Times ran an article on
legislators seeking to restore funding for prenatal care for illegal
immigrants. The New York Times on May 23 featured the
graduation of immigrants who wish to remain in the United States but
must return home. The New York Times ran a May 23rd
article on the court’s restriction of support for prenatal care for
illegal immigrants. INS.
On May 31, the Washington Post and the New York Times
ran articles on the INS’s Premium Processing Program. Mexico.
The New York Times and the Associated Press ran articles
on May 22 on Attorney General John Ashcroft’s official state visit
to Mexico. Minors.
On May 24, the New York Times reported on the hesitation of
illegal immigrants to step forward in the case of a slain Guatemalan
boy for fear of being caught. The New York Times on May 24,
reported on the reduction of the child population. The New York
Times on May 23 ran a story on the rise of Hispanics under 18 in
the U.S. Politics.
On May 28, the Washington Post ran a story on the GOP search
for Hispanic candidates. The Washington Post on May 22 reported
on the Democrats’ lawsuit to force disclosure of adjusted census
data, claiming bias against immigrants and minorities. The Washington
Post reported on the mobilization of the Hispanic community to
vote. Section 245(i).
On May 21, the New York Times reported that President
Bush urged the House to extend the deadline for illegal immigrants to
apply for residency. Las
Vegas Sun, Associated Press and Boston Globe ran
articles on May 21 on the House vote to extend Section 245(i). Also on
May 21, U.S. Newswire released a statement issued by
Representative Gephardt criticizing Bush’s non-action on immigration
legislation. TPS.
The Washington Post ran an article on May 21 on the
increase in filings for Temporary Protected Status far exceeding
expectation. U.S./ Mexico Talks. The Bangor Daily News on May 24 reported on the labor talks with the Maine Department of Labor and the U. S. and Mexican governments.
|
|
|
|
|
Contributors:
28au1003 Copyright © 2001, American Immigration Lawyers Association American
Immigration Lawyers Association
|
