House Republicans favor helping children of illegal immigrants

By Rachelle Younglai and Richard Cowan

WASHINGTON | Tue Jul 23, 2013 7:37pm EDT

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Republicans in the House of Representatives started to coalesce on Tuesday around the idea of legalizing the children who were brought to the country by their parents, marking their first step toward dealing with the millions of undocumented foreigners living in the United States.

Under pressure from members of their own party, religious groups and Hispanics, House Republicans are bucking their traditional position of opposing citizenship for illegal immigrants, saying those children should be given a reprieve.

"They surely don't share the culpability of their parents," House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte said at a hearing to examine the issue.

But Goodlatte, whose committee is in charge of writing immigration laws, made it clear he did not think the parents should get a pass.

"I do not believe that parents who made the decision to illegally enter the U.S. while forcing their children to join them should be afforded the same treatment as these kids," he said.

The majority of Republican lawmakers believe that giving the illegal immigrant population a route to citizenship is akin to rewarding lawbreakers. Although they agree with Democrats that the country's immigration system does not work, they are deeply divided on how to change the laws.

Of the estimated 11 million foreigners living in the country illegally, around 2 million entered under the age of 16, experts have said.

Goodlatte is working with Eric Cantor, the second-ranking Republican in the House, on legislation to give young illegal immigrants a way to earn citizenship, an approach that could be similar to a Democratic bill they voted against in 2010.

Cantor and Goodlatte have not said when they will introduce the legislation, and it is unlikely they will do so before members hear from their constituents during the month-long August break.
They also have not provided details on their bill or said how it might differ from the Senate's treatment of these children as part of a larger immigration bill.

At the House Judiciary subcommittee hearing, Republican after Republican representative spoke about how it was unfair to lump the undocumented youth with their parents, who broke the law when they crossed the border illegally.

SERVING IN THE MILITARY

Jeff Denham of California suggested that the undocumented children be required to serve in the military to earn legal status in the United States, while Ted Poe of Texas called them special children who should be treated in a special way that would bring them into society because they did not have the intent to break the law.

The Republican chairman of the immigration subcommittee, Trey Gowdy, said the children who were brought to the United States have not committed a crime.

The hearing was stacked with witnesses sympathetic to the undocumented youth, a sign of how Republicans' positions have shifted from the last time Washington debated overhauling the immigration system during the George W. Bush administration.

Republican Representative Steve King, who is vehemently opposed to legalizing any of the undocumented foreigners, asked when would the United States start enforcing the law - though he said the illegal youth's plight tugged "at his heart" as well.

TEARING FAMILIES APART

Known as DREAMers, the undocumented children have already rejected the House Republican approach, saying it will tear their families apart and discriminate against the rest of the undocumented population in the United States.

"Our parents sacrificed everything for our future and we will not leave them behind," Cristina Jimenez, 29, whose parents brought her to the United States illegally from Ecuador when she was 13, said outside the hearing room.

Gowdy and fellow Republican Representative Raul Labrador expressed frustration over how the DREAMers were pushing for citizenship for all of the undocumented foreigners. They said there were people that warranted more scrutiny and that other foreigners working in the United States do not automatically become citizens.

The Senate, with the support of 14 Republican members, has already passed an immigration bill that would increase work visas, bolster security at the U.S.-Mexico border and provide a 13-year path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants.

House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi is considering a way to force the House to act on the Senate bill. Speaking to a small group of political donors late on Monday, Pelosi outlined a strategy that would require a minimum of 25 Republicans to join Democrats to move the Senate bill in the House.

It is a strategy that traditionally has been difficult for the minority party in the House to pull off successfully.

(Additional reporting by Roberta Rampton; Editing by Cynthia Osterman,; Eric Walsh and Philip Barbara)

AILA: House Republican Leadership Disappoints with Message on Immigration

 

Cite as "AILA InfoNet Doc. No. 13071061 (posted Jul. 10, 2013)"

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Wednesday, July 10, 2013

Washington, DC - Today, the House of Representatives' Republican caucus met to discuss prospects for immigration reform. The leadership then released a statement that rejects the bipartisan, compromise bill the Senate passed two weeks ago.

"The Senate bill, while far from perfect, was approved by more than two-thirds of the Senate and would have been the right starting point for the House. It is a shame that they have chosen a fractured, incomplete approach-an approach that, to date, has failed to address the estimated 11 million people living undocumented in this country. Nevertheless, perhaps the process of reform still can be salvaged if the House pursues a more balanced approach," said Doug Stump, AILA President.

"House leadership has thus far disappointed American businesses, families, and communities, by bringing forth either hostile bills on immigration or bills that, standing alone, do not provide the balance needed to make our immigration system work. These narrowly-focused bills are not sufficient. The House should either craft its own bipartisan, common-sense reform bill or take up the Senate bill which contains the essential elements of immigration reform that AILA has long supported: legalization with a path to citizenship for the undocumented, reforms to the family and business immigration system, and components for enforcement and border security. Failing that, it needs to ensure that all the key elements of reform are covered in the pieces that it moves forward. Our country deserves at least that," concluded Mr. Stump.

Lawyer: Gay couple in Fla. is 1st to win petition for immigration benefits, path to green card

By Associated Press, Published: July 1

FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. — A Bulgarian graduate student and his American husband are the first gay couple in the nation to have their application for immigration benefits approved after the Supreme Court ruling on same-sex marriages, their lawyer said.

The approval means Traian Popov, here on a student visa, will be able to apply for a green card, and eventually U.S. citizenship. But he won’t be able to work or visit his family back home for at least another three to six months while his application benefits are being be processed. And his marriage to Julian Marsh, performed in New York, still won’t be recognized in Florida where they live.

“It’s unbelievable how that impacts you,” Marsh told The Associated Press on Sunday. “They make you feel more and more like a second-class citizen and they don’t want you. And that’s how I feel about Florida.”

Two days after the Supreme Court struck down a provision of a federal law denying federal benefits to married gay couples, Marsh and Popov were notified Friday afternoon that their green card petition was approved by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security could not immediately confirm Monday whether this case was the first. Secretary Janet Napolitano said Monday the government would start reviewing applications for green cards and other immigration benefits for same-sex couples in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision.

Popov and Marsh’s lawyer, Lavi Soloway of The DOMA Project, said his organization filed about 100 green card petitions for same-sex couples since 2010 and expects more to be approved in the next few days.

Lawyers say the ruling would help same-sex couples who are running out of options or are facing deportations.

“Now all of those cases can go forward in the way they should with the government respecting the fact that there is a legally recognizable marriage there,” said Laura Lichter, past president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association.

There are roughly 36,000 couples in the country in which one person is a U.S. citizen and one is not, according to Immigration Equality, a nonprofit organization that handles immigration issues for lesbian, bisexual, gay and transgender couples.

In the first three days after DOMA was struck down, the group received 1,276 inquiries to its legal hotline — roughly the same number they received in all of 2012.

“We are still getting more volume and expect by the end of July to be around 3,000,” said Rachel T. Biven, the group’s executive director.

The Supreme Court ruling is clear for same-sex couples who live in the 13 states that allow same-sex marriages, but for couples like Marsh and Popov who traveled to another state to get married, the latest victory for marriage equality is bittersweet.

“We would like our marriage to be recognized even in a state where it wasn’t performed in,” Popov said. “We want civil recognition.”

Florida voters approved a constitutional amendment in 2008 banning same-sex marriages, and it will take approval from 60 percent of voters to overturn it if the issue is put on the ballot again.

The couple said they met in 2011 at a friend’s party and began dating shortly after.

“We just really liked each other and I knew this was the man I wanted to be with,” Marsh said. Six months later, he asked Popov to move in and by 2012 they were married in Brooklyn, N.Y.

Popov, who is studying for a master’s degree in social sciences, was able to remain in the U.S. as long as he was enrolled in school. When he graduated, though, he would have had to leave the country if DOMA was not struck down.

“I wanted to stay with him forever in the country that we chose to be in,” Marsh said. And the pair began planning their next move — both have a European background and Marsh is also a Canadian citizen.

But the couple wanted to stay in Fort Lauderdale, where they live with their two Yorkshire terriers. So they reached out to The DOMA Project, which works to stop deportations and separations of gay couples caused by the Defense of Marriage Act.

“I started crying,” said attorney and DOMA Project co-founder Lavi Soloway of when he found out that not only DOMA was overturned, but that Marsh and Popov would be able to stay together in the U.S. He said he was working to help dozens of other couples facing similar separations.

Popov said the couple feels they’ve been vindicated.

“It’s still overwhelming, and we would like to make a difference in Florida,” Marsh said.

___

Associated Press writer Alicia Caldwell in Washington contributed to this report.

Follow Suzette Laboy on Twitter: @SuzetteLaboy

 

Implementation of the Supreme Court Ruling on the Defense of Marriage Act

http://www.dhs.gov/topic/implementation-supreme-court-ruling-defense-marriage-act

 

Statement from Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano:
“After last week’s decision by the Supreme Court holding that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is unconstitutional, President Obama directed federal departments to ensure the decision and its implication for federal benefits for same-sex legally married couples are implemented swiftly and smoothly.  To that end, effective immediately, I have directed U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to review immigration visa petitions filed on behalf of a same-sex spouse in the same manner as those filed on behalf of an opposite-sex spouse.”
 

Frequently Asked Questions

Q1:  I am a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident in a same-sex marriage to a foreign national.  Can I now sponsor my spouse for a family-based immigrant visa?
A1: Yes, you can file the petition. You may file a Form I-130 (and any applicable accompanying application). Your eligibility to petition for your spouse, and your spouse’s admissibility as an immigrant at the immigration visa application or adjustment of status stage, will be determined according to applicable immigration law and will not be automatically denied as a result of the same-sex nature of your marriage.

Q2:  My spouse and I were married in a U.S. state that recognizes same-sex marriage, but we live in a state that does not.  Can I file an immigrant visa petition for my spouse?
A2: Yes, you can file the petition.  In evaluating the petition, as a general matter, USCIS looks to the law of the place where the marriage took place when determining whether it is valid for immigration law purposes. That general rule is subject to some limited exceptions under which federal immigration agencies historically have considered the law of the state of residence in addition to the law of the state of celebration of the marriage. Whether those exceptions apply may depend on individual, fact-specific circumstances. If necessary, we may provide further guidance on this question going forward.

 

 

A Gay Couple In Florida Already Have the First Post-DOMA Green Card

http://news.yahoo.com/gay-couple-florida-already-first-post-doma-green-112200154.html

 Dashiell Bennett PoliticsSociety

A Gay Couple In Florida Already Have the First Post-DOMA Green Card

Just two days after the Defense of Marriage Act was struck down, a Bulgarian immigrant who is married to an American man, became the first member of a same-sex couple to receive one of the biggest federal marriage benefits available. The couple's lawyer received an email on Friday night informing him that Traian Popov had already received approval for his permanent resident visa, even the Supreme Court ruling that gave that right was just a little over 48 hours old. 

Popov has lived in the United States for 15 years through a long progression of student visas (he has three master's degrees and working toward a doctorate) and married his spouse, Julian Marsh, in New York last year. He'll now get all benefits of not only marriage, but other important rights, including the ability to get an actual job. And he gets to be a small footnote to a historic event.

The speed with which Popov went from legal limbo to legal recognition is remarkable, but the Immigration and Citizenship Services agency was ready to act fast once DOMA was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court on Wednesday. Numerous same-sex couples have applied for green cards and been denied on the grounds that their marriages are not recognized by the federal government. However, ICS has kept all the applications for the last two years on file in anticipation of the court ruling on the matter and has immediately reserved all their decisions automatically. As long as there are no other issues with the application, they'll head back into the system and eventually to permanent status.

Cases like Popov's (gay immigrants hoping to achieve citizenship through marriage  had become a key debate point in the ongoing fight over immigration reform, but the Supreme Court ruling has made that discussion moot. Popov's case also underlines how quickly the Obama Administration is working to implement the changes in law that the end of DOMA has created.

Despite the good news, there's another fight ahead for Popov, his husbands, and thousands of other same-sex couples across the country. Although they were legally married in New York, Popov and Marsh live in Florida. That puts them in the unusual circumstance of having their marriage recognized by Washington, but not by the state where they live.

 

SECRETARY OF HOMELAND SECURITY JANET NAPOLITANO ON THE SUPREME COURT RULING ON THE DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT

Press Office

U.S. Department of Homeland Security

Press Release

June 26, 2013

Contact: DHS Press Office, (202) 282-8010

 

STATEMENT BY SECRETARY OF HOMELAND SECURITY JANET NAPOLITANO ON THE SUPREME COURT RULING ON THE DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT

 

“I applaud today’s Supreme Court decision in United States v. Windsor holding that the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is unconstitutional. This discriminatory law denied thousands of legally married same-sex couples many important federal benefits, including immigration benefits. I am pleased the Court agreed with the Administration’s position that DOMA’s restrictions violate the Constitution. Working with our federal partners, including the Department of Justice, we will implement today's decision so that all married couples will be treated equally and fairly in the administration of our immigration laws."

Immigration reform has passed the Senate. Here’s how it passes the House.

By Dylan Matthews, Published: June 27, 2013 at 4:37 pm
 
It’s happened: the Gang of Eight bill (which we summarized here and here, and whose economic effects are summarized here) has passed the Senate. It took the Hoeven-Corker amendment, greatly expanding the bill’s border security provisions, to get it through, but it got through, and with 68 votes to boot.

But it’s a long slog from here. The House still has to pass a bill, and then a conference committee has to sort through the bills’ differences — which could be massive — and then each house has to pass it through again. The key is really the House. The Senate has shown it can pass a bill, so the real question is how the bill, or something like it, is making it through the lower house of Congress. Here are three paths that it could take.

1. The Gang of 7

Rep. Luis Gutiérrez said Thursdaythat the House Gang of Seven bill — crafted by him, Xavier Becerra (D-Calif.), John Carter (R-Tex.), Mario Diaz-Balart (R-Fla.), Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.), Sam Johnson (R-Tex), Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), and John Yarmuth (D-Ky.) — has been written, and he’s just waiting on the other members of the Gang (which was a Gang of Eight before Raul Labrador (R-Idaho) bolted).

The bill will almost certainly include a path to citizenship, border security measures, a guest worker program and other similar attributes to the Senate Gang of Eight bill. However, there will likely be significant differences. Diaz-Balart has said that he thinks some parts of the Senate bill — such as the scale of its guest worker program, as negotiated by the AFL-CIO and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce — are unworkable, and the House bill may reflect those differences of opinion.

Diaz-Balart has also sounded optimistic about passing the bill through the House with majority support from Republicans, allowing House Speaker John Boehner (R-Oh.) to obey the “Hastert rule,” wherein only bills supported by a “majority of the majority” reach the House floor. However, Gutiérrez has signaled it may be able to come to a vote without meeting that requirement. Some outside observers are optimistic about this channel; Clarissa Martínez-De-Castro, director for civic engagement and immigration at the National Council of La Raza, expressed optimism about it in an interview last month.

2. The Goodlatte Approach

Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), the chair of the House Judiciary Committee who opposes a path to citizenship, has suggested a different path from the Gang of Seven. He’s already shepherded the SAFE Act, which criminalizes the act of being an undocumented immigrant, enabling local law enforcement to pursue undocumented immigrants, and the Ag Act, which establishes an agricultural guest worker program, through committee. He’s also introduced a bill to make the E-Verify program for checking workers’ legal status mandatory.

So one option is that one or a package of Goodlatte’s bills passes the House and then goes into a conference committee with the Senate Gang of Eight bill. Whether the bill that gets out of conference looks anything like a comprehensive, path-to-citizenship bill is anyone’s guess, but this approach has the advantage of only making the House vote on a path to citizenship once, as Marshall Fitz, director of immigration policy at the Center for American Progress and a major player in the 2006 and 2007 efforts, told me last month. But this path could still require breaking the Hastert rule, especially if the conference report includes a path to citizenship.

3. Discharge petition

This is the most exotic option. If 218 House members sign what’s called a “discharge petition,” famous for its role in limiting the power of House Speaker Joseph Cannon (R-Ill.) and in the plot of “Legally Blonde 2: Red, White, and Blonde,” then they can bring a bill to the floor without a committee vote or the cooperation of the House leadership. There are 201 Democrats in the House, so they’d need 17 Republicans, not to mention a unified caucus, to succeed. But that’s a way for the House to vote on a comprehensive bill without Boehner breaking the Hastert rule and without the support of most Republicans.

 

 

Senate Passes Vitally Important Compromise Immigration Reform Bill

Cite as "AILA InfoNet Doc. No. 13062753 (posted Jun. 27, 2013)"

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Thursday, June 27, 2013

Washington, DC - Today, the Senate took a momentous step forward with a vote of 68-32 in favor of final passage of S. 744, the "Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act." This moves the United States toward real immigration reform which is so vitally important for immigrant families, businesses, and the entire economy.

"Despite our continued concerns regarding the recent changes in the bill that will bring real harm to border communities, AILA is pleased that the Senate continues to move forward toward real immigration reform that will on balance benefit far more families and businesses than it will hurt,” said newly installed American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) President Doug Stump. He continued, “This bill is far from perfect, but it does contain provisions that will boost our economy, make our country safer, and offer protections for the undocumented who currently live in the shadows.

"Of course, this is a big day for immigration reform but it is not the end of our work because while one Congressional chamber has moved forward, the other lags behind. The House has heretofore insisted on taking a piecemeal, enforcement-focused and restrictionist stance, with recent bills working their way through the Judiciary Committee that would criminalize undocumented immigrants, harm American businesses and employees, and gut our agricultural system. We call on the House to recognize that an incremental process will simply delay real reform. We look forward to the day when the common sense provisions in the Senate bill are enacted and have the full force of law," Mr. Stump concluded.

###

The American Immigration Lawyers Association is the national association of immigration lawyers established to promote justice, advocate for fair and reasonable immigration law and policy, advance the quality of immigration and nationality law and practice, and enhance the professional development of its members.