Immigration News and Updates at ArnoLaw

Immigrant Children Packed in Crowded Texas Border Facilities

Leaked photos show immigrant children packed in crowded Texas border facilities

By Kolten Parker, San Antonio Express-News

Updated 9:15 am, Friday, June 6, 2014

SAN ANTONIO — Photos leaked Thursday from a U.S. Border Patrol facility in the Rio Grande Valley show overflowing holding facilities of immigrants, many of whom are children.

The photos, obtained by the conservative website Breitbart, show hundreds of immigrants believed to be in the country illegally from Central America and Mexico being held in crowded concrete rooms similar to a jail cell. Many of the children appear to be teenagers but some clearly are younger.

The photos have a timestamp of May 27, 2014.

A spokesperson for U.S. Customs and Border Protection said the agency has not “officially released any photos at this time in order to protect the rights and privacy of unaccompanied minors in our care.”

“The influx of unaccompanied children across the southwest border has resulted in an urgent humanitarian situation,” the CBP spokesperson said. “It requires a whole of government coordinated and sustained response.”

President Barack Obama has directed an effort, lead by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, to provide resources and “humanitarian relief to affected children,” which is a “priority,” the spokesperson said.

It is unclear who leaked the photos to Breitbart.

“Given the deteriorating security and economic conditions in the Central American countries where most of these children and adult immigrants came from, it's hard to understand how Department of Homeland Security didn't see this coming,” Sylvia Longmire, a contributor to Breitbart who focuses on border issues, said on the website. “Now, the results of this mismanagement are thousands of individuals living in inhumane conditions for an indeterminate period of time, as well as exhausted and overwhelmed Border Patrol agents and CBP detention facilities.”

The overwhelming numbers of undocumented immigrants during recent months has impacted San Antonio.

A temporary shelter at Joint Base San Antonio Lackland has housed and provided services to 1,820 unaccompanied minors from Central America since May 18, San Antonio Express-News reporter Melissa Fletcher Stoeltje reported. The immigration is part of a “surge” of children said to be fleeing poverty and violence in their home countries, she reported.

For more details on this story, including the conditions of the facility at Lackland, read Fletcher Stoeltje's story at ExpressNews.com or in Friday's print edition of the San Antonio Express-News.

Read the entire article at http://www.sfgate.com/news/local/article/Leaked-photos-show-immigrant-children-packed-in-5531953.php#photo-6407163

Daily Immigration News Clips – May 29, 2014

NATIONAL

Associated Press: Immigration delay ups the ante on Obama, GOP
By Josh Lederman and Erica Werner

Financial Times: Obama delays review of deportations
By Barney Jopson

Business Insider: Obama Gives Boehner One Last Deadline For Immigration Reform
By Brett Logiurato

National Journal: The Strategy to Hold Off on Deportation Changes Wins Out
By Elahe Izadi

Washington Times: Obama loses left flank by dithering on immigrant deportations
By Stephen Dinan

CNN: Some Latino groups express frustration with administration delay on immigration review
By Kevin Bohn

The Hill: Boehner: Obama 'playing politics' on deportations
By Justin Sink

The Hill: Hoyer 'not optimistic' about immigration bill
By Mike Lillis

Wall Street Journal: More Political Maneuvering on Immigration Reform?
By Jim Manley

Vox: Another 97,000 immigrants will get deported before the White House acts
By Dara Lind

Vox: Did Obama just get played by Republicans on immigration?
By Dara Lind

Mother Jones: Obama Makes Pointless Gesture on Immigration. But Why?
By Kevin Drum

Latin Post: Will Obama's Delay of Deportation Policies Help Save Immigration Reform? Poll Says Tea Party Voters Want Reform This Year
By Nicole Akoukou Thompson

Associated Press: Cantor Pressured From Both Sides on Immigration
By Alan Suderman

Huffington Post: Eric Cantor Attacked From All Sides On Immigration
By Elise Foley

Politico: On immigration, Eric Cantor can't win
By Seung Min Kim

Roll Call: On Immigration, the Pressure Mounts for Eric Cantor
By Emma Dumain

Washington Times: Even back home in Virginia, Cantor feels the pressure on immigration from both sides
By David Sherfinski

Roll Call: Alone, Illegal and Underage: The Child Migrant Crisis
By Jennifer Scholtes and Emily Ethridge

Reuters: Waves of immigrant minors present crisis for Obama, Congress
By Richard Cowan

Washington Times: Children swarming southern border prove a test to Obama's immigration policy
By Stephen Dinan

Politico: Flood of child migrants a neglected challenge
By David Rogers

Associated Press: DHS Secretary Asks to Study Immigration Releases
By Alicia A. Caldwell

Huffington Post (Blog): Immigration On The Concert Stage, Silver Screen & In The Legislature: Calle 13 @ Coachella, The Undocumented, How Democracy Works Now + Mercedes Sosa's Final Recording Session
By Michael Vazquez

Talk Radio News Service: Immigration Activists Decry Continuing Deportations
By Rachel Jungkind

New York Times (Letter to the Editor): Immigration and the Courts
By Evangeline Chan

New York Times (Editorial): Adding Delay to Immigration Failure

MSNBC (Maddow Blog): Cantor's cause for concern in the Commonwealth
By Steve Benen

National Journal (Opinion): What Both Parties Don't Get About Hispanics
By Ron Fournier

Fox News Latino (Opinion): Opinion: Immigrant Detainees Deserve Fair Pay, Justice
By Raúl A. Reyes

Huffington Post (Blog): Scoring House Republicans' Performance on Immigration
By Janet Murguía

2015 Diversity Lottery Applicants Must Use DS-260 Immigrant Visa Application

Beginning with DV-2015, all diversity visa (DV) applicants must submit the

electronic DS-260 “Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration Application” accessible through the

Consular Electronic Application Center (CEAC). The DS-260 will be ready for applicants to use on May 19, 2014.

The Kentucky Consular Center (KCC) will no longer collect the DS-230 and DSP-122, and no physical file will be sent to post. Applicants for DV-2014 will continue to use the DS-230 and DSP-122.

If you have questions or need assistance with your Diversity Lottery application, please contact our office.

Sincerely,

Arnold S. Jaffe
Attorneys at Law
330 E. Carrillo Street
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
(805) 897-0066

Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law Urges Immigration Reform

The Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law is today is sending a letter to President Obama in response to his request to the Department of Homeland Security on how to slow deportations. We do not believe asking for "Deferred Action Status" is enough. Our letter explains how aside from granting Deferred Action Status (temporary status) to the largest possible group of immigrants, the President could also, with no change in federal laws, grant lawful permanent resident status possibly to as many as two million immigrants -- without requiring any action by Congress. The letter to Obama may be downloaded here and is also attached (if listserv allows attachments).

We urge all advocates to review the Center's letter and to send similar letters to the President, Secretary of Homeland Security, and Attorney General, with copies to all other principle aides and lawyers listed below. A complete list of names and addresses of officials who should receive letters from the community, unions, faith-based groups, city and county councils, CEOs, etc. is at the end of this email. With "comprehensive" immigration reform in Congress going nowhere, its imperative that as many concerned groups and individuals as possible send letters at this critical time urging that the types of changes suggested in our letter be adopted now.

As you know, in response to political pressure by immigrant advocates, President Obama recently ordered the Department of Homeland Security to come up with recommendations on how to slow deportations of immigrants with special equities through an expansion of the Deferred Action Status program, the same status the administration recently extended to several hundred thousand DACA immigrants who were brought here by their parents as children and attended school here.

In the Center's letter, we make clear that the administration has the authority to grant Deferred Action Status to as many as two million undocumented immigrants living in the U.S. with approved visa petitions. The letter points out that these immigrants are already "in the system" as they are named in employment or family-based visa petitions that have been approved by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service. The government therefore already knows their names, addresses, social security numbers, criminal histories, and other personal data. These immigrants very rarely self-deport and are highly unlikely to ever be apprehended or deported.

Despite the fact that approximately two million of these immigrants have approved visa petitions, they are unable to become lawful permanent residents because they entered the U.S. long ago without inspection and therefore cannot adjust their status here but must travel to a U.S. consulate abroad to seek lawful permanent resident status. However, very few do so because in 1996 Congress enacted a so-called 10-year bar which states that an immigrant required to leave the country to process his or her permanent resident visa abroad who has lived in the U.S. for more than one year in unauthorized status must remain outside the U.S. for 10 years before becoming eligible for permanent resident status. While some immigrants are eligible for waivers of the 10-year bar, these are not often granted as the immigrant must prove that denying the waiver would cause extreme hardship to a US citizen petitioner, something most immigrants cannot prove. The result, we argue, is that the vast majority of these immigrants with approved visa petitions, as many as two million, simply continue to live in the U.S. in undocumented status.

Our letter urges President Obama to grant this population Deferred Action Status (DAS), which then allows them to apply for "advance parole" (routinely granted to people on DAS) with which they can briefly travel to their home countries to visit relatives and then reenter the country lawfully on "parole" status. Once they reenter the US lawfully on parole status, they become eligible to apply for lawful permanent resident status in the U.S. without having to leave to have their status adjusted by a US consulate abroad. The 10-year bar does not apply to immigrants who can adjust their status in the United States, only to those who must go abroad for processing at a US consulate.

We argue that "following this administrative approach, President Obama could legally and without the involvement of Congress promptly extend lawful permanent resident status to about two million currently undocumented immigrants who mostly are long term residents of the U.S. and have unique skills that allowed them to obtain employment-related approved visa petitions or immediate family members here that allowed them to obtain family-based approved visa petitions."

In addition, current regulations require that thousands of immigrants with outstanding deportation orders who have become eligible to adjust their status must "reopen" their deportation cases to have an Immigration Judge adjudicate their adjustment applications but the vast majority cannot reopen their cases because of strict time limits to do so. Amending this regulation to allow USCIS handle these applications would permit thousands of immigrants to now be granted lawful permanent resident status.

The letter charges that administrative policies over the past six years have "caused the deportation of hundreds of thousands of immediate relatives of US citizens and lawful permanent residents, resulted in tens of thousands of criminal convictions of persons for no more than entry without inspection (making it difficult to impossible for these migrants to ever legalize their status in the future), resulted in hundreds of thousands of migrants being fired from stable jobs (through “worksite enforcement” that largely misses sweatshops) forcing them to turn to sweatshops and unscrupulous employers to find work (less than 1% leave the US), discouraged thousands of immigrants from reporting serious crimes for fear of exposure to deportation, [and] incarcerated more immigrants than ever before at enormous cost to the public and for no sound public safety reasons ..." We argue that by now "it should be clear that these policies have done nothing to advance the goal of comprehensive immigration reform."

The letter recommends that the largest number of immigrants possible be granted Deferred Action Status even if they are not eligible for adjustment of status under existing law. We also identify about six sub-groups of immigrants with long-term residence and unique equities who should obviously qualify for DAS, including for example, the parents of US citizen children who are unable to petition for lawful permanent resident status until their children turn 21 years of age, unaccompanied abused and abandoned children, the parents of children and youth already granted Deferred Action Status by the administration, etc.. We point out that "granting immigrants Deferred Action Status and temporary employment authorization would immediately benefit US workers by removing the incentive of unscrupulous employers to hire undocumented migrants over equally or better qualified US citizens."

Regarding immigrants with closed deportation cases who are now eligible one way or the other for permanent resident status but cannot get their deportation cases reopened because of time limits on doing so, we point out that Obama could easily amend the regulations to allow the USCIS (instead of Immigration Judges) process these applications for LPR status and this would legalize thousands more people.

We explain why Operation Streamline is a reactionary program that has turned tens of thousands of immigrants into "criminals" merely based upon unauthorized entry, blocking them from legalizing their status in the future, and provide proposals that would reduce border violence and deaths, and reduce ICE involvement with local police which clearly discourages immigrants from reporting crimes.

We hope this letter helps spark a debate that goes beyond Deferred Action Status to include ways to get people lawful permanent resident status now without needing any involvement by the Congress. We have a range of separate ideas on what Congress could be doing that we'll circulated separately fairly soon. For the next few weeks we urge groups to focus on what President Obama and his team could accomplish if they have the political will to do so.

As mentioned above, the officials to write to are listed below with addresses. It is critically important that groups and individuals concerned with the abysmal failure of current immigration policy PROMPTLY communicate their views to the President that NOW is the time for the Administration to show leadership and put its political capital where its mouth has been on immigration reform. Letters can be short or long. But now is the time to act while the Administration has these issues under serious consideration and before they make decisions. Thanks.

Feel free to email me with comments or questions.

Peter Schey,

President, Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law

pschey@centerforhumanrights.org

King: U.S. immigrants deserve pathway to citizenship

Bill King says ongoing Republican resistance to immigration reform goes against the classic American dream of striving for a better life.

By Bill King | February 12, 2014

After my column last week outlining the likely detrimental political effects of the Republicans' intransigence on immigration reform, a number of my Republican friends took me to task. They charged that I was being overly cynical about their motivation and understating the subversive effect granting citizenship to those who came here illegally would have on the rule of law.

I concede that the argument that granting a pathway to citizenship for those who came here without visas undermines the rule of law is a rational and reasonable position, even though I disagree with it. However, laying aside the political implications for the moment, I think there are several other flaws with the argument.

First, it assumes that everyone here illegally (i.e., without a current visa) has broken the law. That is not the case. Illegal immigrants fall generally into three categories. The largest (about 40 percent) includes those who came here with a valid visa but did not renew it or did not leave the country when their visa expired. While this group is subject to deportation, overstaying your visa is not a crime. Many in the group actually qualify for a visa extension but merely have not done the paperwork, much like someone failing to renew a driver's license. Would anyone favor permanently taking away someone's driver's license if they don't renew it on time? Of course not.

The next-largest group (a little fewer than 40 percent) includes those who crossed the border surreptitiously without a visa. These individuals did violate a federal criminal statute, albeit a misdemeanor, punishable by up to a $2,000 fine and six months in jail. But our legal system routinely grants various forms of leniency for such minor crimes, including deferred adjudication and probation. Why should this group be any different? How is granting leniency for this particular crime so much more corrosive of the rule of law than any other crime?

The last group is made up of those brought here as children (a little more than 20 percent). Because these individuals crossed the U.S. border as minors, they are not legally culpable for entering the country without a visa. Should we have a system that holds these young people responsible for the crimes of their parents? Are we going to "sentence" these young people to live their entire lives without citizenship in the country they consider their home? Again, no.

In the end, the GOP argument has several holes of logic. It is not true that all of those here illegally have violated the law, and only a minority has violated a criminal statute. Even then, it is a relatively minor infraction, the sort of crime for which judges usually grant leniency. Therefore, granting something akin to probation for those who did enter the country illegally hardly is inconsistent with or would likely subvert our respect for the rule of law. But laying aside for a moment the various policy arguments and the political implications, what troubles me the most is that it is antithetical to the American experience to deprive those who came here illegally from any hope of ever becoming citizens.

Our legal system has always incorporated the concept of mercy. It is a concept taught by every great faith tradition and, of course, is a core teaching of Christianity. "Blessed are the merciful, for they shall receive mercy." (Matthew 5:7.)

In the aftermath of the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln said, "I have always found that mercy bears richer fruits than strict justice." His comment was directed toward those who had committed treason.

My personal experience with those who are here illegally is that the vast majority have come here from some hellhole in some Third World country hoping for a better life for themselves and their children. Most were not able to come here legally because of our dysfunctional legal immigration system. They are mostly hard-working, law-abiding, dedicated family folks. Most are devout Christians.

If this is not a case where we should show some mercy and bend the rules slightly, then there are none.

See the entire article here.

Justice Department’s Losing Battle Over Deportation Waivers for Permanent Residents

Written by Mary Kenney

For more than five years, the Department of Justice (DOJ) has defended a policy that deprives long-term lawful permanent residents (LPRs) of the opportunity to apply for a waiver that would allow them to remain in the United States. The waiver—known as the 212(h) waiver (referring to section 212(h) of the immigration statute)—permits permanent residents who were convicted of certain crimes to avoid deportation if they can show that their U.S. citizen or lawful resident family member would suffer extreme hardship if they were deported. The policy at issue—announced through a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision—significantly narrows the group of LPRs who are eligible for this waiver. Many of those LPRs who have been excluded from applying for the waiver have gone to court. To date, the count is LPRs – 6, DOJ – 0, the most recent decision coming just last month. Yet, despite an obviously flawed BIA decision, DOJ continues to defend it, at great expense to LPRs and their families.

The 212(h) waiver is particularly important because it is one of the few remaining situations in which an immigration judge can consider all aspects of the noncitizen’s life, such as family ties, length of time in the United States, and rehabilitation, as weighed against the person’s wrongdoing. In contrast, as a result of immigration laws enacted in the mid-1990s, immigration judges largely have been stripped of their ability to act like judges and make individualized determinations about whether deportation is appropriate. In far too many cases, a crime, even a nonviolent one, can lead to automatic deportation and banishment from the United States. Given the limited avenues immigration judges have to ensure that the punishment fits the crime, it is difficult to comprehend why DOJ insists on defending a rule that not only limits immigration judge’s discretion, but also, according to 6 courts, is unlawful.

The technical legal issue in these cases focuses on a provision in the waiver that excludes individuals who were admitted to the United States as LPRs and who subsequently committed an aggravated felony. The BIA has interpreted this bar to include all LPRs who have committed aggravated felonies, regardless of whether they were LPRs when they entered the United States or became permanent residents only after they had entered. The courts all agree that the bar on the 212(h) waiver only applies to the first group of LPRs (i.e., those who initially entered as LPRs). They have unanimously rejected the BIA’s broad reading of the bar, explaining that it imposes a limit on eligibility for a 212(h) waiver beyond that which Congress included in the statute.

Unfortunately, this protracted fight over who is eligible for a 212(h) waiver is not simply a battle over words. It can have real-life consequences for long term permanent residents. For example, Robert Michel Stanovsek first came to the United States on a visitor visa in 1990. Later that year, while living here, he became a lawful permanent resident through his marriage to a United States citizen. They have been married for over 23 years and have six children, all U.S. citizens. He now is facing deportation from the United States based on a single crime, a theft offense. His only chance to remain in the United States is if an immigration judge grants him a 212(h) waiver. Under the BIA’s restrictive ruling, he is not eligible to apply for the waiver. Mr. Stanovsek’s case currently is on appeal before a federal court.

Over the past five years since the the first federal court struck down the BIA decision, the BIA’s policy has been binding in all immigration courts in jurisdictions where the federal court has not yet ruled on the issue. Mr. Stanovsek is fortunate that he was able to retain a lawyer and has brought his case to court. Countless others, however, have not been able to do so, and as a result, have been deprived of the opportunity to apply for a 212(h) waiver, both because of where they live and because DOJ has refused to accept that the federal courts are correct and the BIA wrong. Now that a clear majority of the courts of appeals has spoken, DOJ should withdraw its continued opposition to the court’s reading of § 212(h) and right this wrong.

See the entire article here.

DREAMers Strive for Higher Education

DREAMers Strive for Higher Education

Undocumented Students Share Their Struggles

Thursday, February 13, 2014

By Brandon Fastman (Contact)

Every Dreamer has a story about the moment they learned the truth. For Julia, it happened when she was a student at La Cumbre Junior High School. Planning to join her 8th grade class on a trip to Washington, D.C., she went to talk to her parents about buying a plane ticket. That’s when her parents sat her down to deliver the news: She was not a U.S. citizen.

Julia was shocked. It turned out that she was born in Mexico. Her mother, fleeing an abusive relationship, crossed into the United States with her one-year-old baby. She told the immigration officials she was attending a funeral but instead came to Santa Barbara where she had relatives. Julia has no memory of living anywhere else.

These truths made Julia’s mother and stepfather afraid of allowing her to fly to D.C. Her mother and father knew this day would come. To make it up to her, they gave her a beautiful quinceañera, the ritual coming-of-age ceremony that many girls of Latin American descent celebrate on their 15th birthdays, a celebration that is planned years ahead of time and often at great expense. She had a wonderful party, but she has still never boarded a plane.

“It’s such a strange feeling,” said Julia of learning that she has no documents regarding her citizenship. “It was like getting a bucket of cold water poured over me. … It makes me feel like I’m in a state of limbo. Yeah, I was born in Mexico, but the way I grew up here is totally different. Where do I fall on the spectrum? I’m not completely American, I’m not Mexican. What’s my identity?”

The term Dreamer has become the nomenclature for undocumented students brought to the United States through no choice of their own when they were young children. It’s shorthand for Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors, the title of a federal bill that has been kicking around Congress since it was introduced by Senators Dick Durbin and Orrin Hatch — Democrat and Republican, respectively — in 2001. Despite Durbin and Hatch’s display of bipartisanship, Congress as a whole has not yet been able to meaningfully address immigration. As a result, California has taken steps of its own.

At the same time, the term DREAM entered the American lexicon in 2001, California passed AB 540....

Click here see the entire article at the Santa Barbara Independent.

http://independent.com/news/2014/feb/13/dreamers-strive-higher-education/

Vist ArnoLaw.com

Blog Archive