Talk about U.S. Immigration

Olympics says no to Chicago

The International Olympics Committee (IOC) rejected Chicago to be the next site for the 2016 Summer Olympic Games. Chicago lost its bid in the first round of voting. The U.S. President Obama’s presence at Copenhagen, didn’t make any difference. The loss may partially be assigned to the problems at immigration checkpoints routinely faced by the foreign travellers entering U.S.

Country’s strict immigration policy could have been a major issue here. One of the Committee members pointed that foreign travellers face a “rather harrowing experience” when they enter into the United States and questioned if the situation would be improved for thousands of foreigners who would enter for the Games. The President’s response to this question as reported by the media left me less than satisfied. He said, “America at its best is open to the world.” Now this may mean that we welcome everyone. But that was exactly the question from the Pakistan member of the Committee and the President failed to address it. As the nation lamented the loss of the opportunity to host Olympics, blames were assigned to whomever possible but let us consider what would become of the Olympics if Chicago was the host under the present immigration policy.

Sportsmen and women would have been denied entry if they couldn’t get through the immigration screening. So would be the organizers and the visitors coming to watch the Games. A point system seems to arbitrarily flag foreign travellers at the border for secondary and subsequent screening. Even people with exceptionally good background and no bad record can be flagged. If we would not let through the participants and others connected with the Games to freely come into the country, are we justified in hosting the world sports event?

Not surprisingly the U.S. Tourism is badly affected. Laws and other efforts to promote tourism in U.S. are underway. It should be noted that the recent bad experience of the indian movie super star, Shah Rukh Khan, who was detained because of his muslim name, was well advertised. The actor was let go after the intervention of the Indian embassy.

Frequent denials of visitor visa, high visa fees in addition to the excessively strict immigration check points at the borders do have side effects. Hopefully we learn something from all this.

U.S. Immigration delays Indian Movie Super Star

The U.S. requires each entrant into U.S. be scrutinized for security reasons and certain factors may trigger a secondary inspection of the person at the immigration check point. This could be time consuming. There is no distinction between international celebrities and common people, which is commendable. The Indian cinema’s super star, actor Shah Rukh Khan, is reported to be subjected to such inspection on his recent U.S. trip to promote his movie on racial discrimination. Apparently he commented that he no longer wishes to travel to U.S. and later described it to be a routine but “unfortunate procedure.”

This at the least, explains that as part of immigration clearance, all foreign travellers must pass a strict security check each time they enter U.S. While it is appreciable that the procedures are in place to ensure safety, it is evident that this could affect internation tourism and perhaps international image of the United States. The consequent victim is the American travel industry. That perhaps explains why the U.S. airlines showed the first signs of economic peril?

Immigration Enforcement

Immigration enforcement policy is changing. Janet Nepolitano, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), in her recent instructions to the agencies calls it “sensible” not “blind” enforcement. The policy shift focuses on enforcing employer compliance of immigration laws instead of just deporting the unlawful workers. Rise in the worksite audits by the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), over 650 planned this year as opposed to about 500 last year, is an indication of this change.

The change should be appreciated because it is a sign that the government is heeding to public objections to its erroneous policies. However, the rising ICE audits are not receiving a welcome sign from neither the answering employer nor the pro immigrant organizations.
Possibility of audit and threat of fines works as a good deterrent against violation of immigration or labor laws and exploitation of foreign labor. Increased audits should be favored by the pro immigrant groups which frequently found fault with the system because it ignored the employer who encouraged unauthorized employment but went after the undocumented foreign workforce. Consider the following:

E-verify participation, the electronic employment verification system, is considered a defense to the honest errors detected by the audit. It is pointed out that the employment verification form I-9 is so short but carries with it lengthy government instructions indicating complexity of the process. Besides, the electronic verification system itself is not free from flaws even as the government claims to continuously update it.

Also, employers participating in the e-verify should follow certain safeguards to avoid charges of adopting discriminatory practices. At times, an over cautious employer asks that the foreign worker produce certain immigration documents completely unnecessary and burdensome. All this is done in an attempt to protect the business. Although ICE audits signify a welcome change towards enforcing employer compliance much remains to be seen as to what tools will be offered the employer so that it could protect its business despite hiring foreign workers

Adjustment of Status: Validity of Medical Examination

Adjustment of Status applicants have good news. USCIS extends the validity of certain certificates of medical examination accompanying a Green Card applications until its adjudication. The agency would maintain this policy till the end of 2009.

The adjustment of status applicants are required to provide a medical examination certificate on Form I-693 which generally expired in a year. The rule necessitated a new medical examination when the applicantions were considered for adjudication more than a year after filing due to backlogs.

Because of the Visa Bulletin mix up and fee increases, there were record immigration filings in 2007. This seemingly had caused a huge backlog at the USCIS. The piked up cases necessitated that an application be filed annually where authorizations were granted just for a year eg. employment authorization were granted annually. The present extension of the medical certificate validity comes as yet another government policy to ease the problems created by the backlog.

The government policy on extending the medical certificate validity is available only in some cases though. It is available only to where medical certificate did not show a class A or Class B medical condition relating to the adjustment applicant.

Voting: A Right of Citizens

This November brings the Presidential election. We would have a new leader to steer the country. Lots of excitement and expectations would be in the air and hopefully lots of votes would be cast. But elections also worry me as to how many are casting votes not knowing whether they should or should not.

As a general rule, voting in general elections is a right associated with the citizens of a country. Many foreign nationals choose not to naturalize even after years of acquiring lawful permanent residence in the United States. In the United States, these residents, largely, have the same rights and duties as a citizen except for a few including the right to vote and be a jury, which are special to citizens only.

Immigration and Nationality Law treats a foreign national, voting in violation of any Federal, State or local constitutional provision, statute, ordinance or regulation as “inadmissible” and /or “deportable.” Please note the underlined word “any,” which means the phrase “Federal, State or local constitutional provision, statute, ordinance or regulation” encompasses all of the fore mentioned terms having the force of law in the United States. A non U.S. citizen voting in violation of any of those provisions would lose eligibility to seek admission into the United States and if, (s)/he were already present in the country, becomes deportable.

In addition, registering to vote but not actually voting could impair the eligibility to naturalize if done in violation of lawful restrictions placed on such registration. At the least, it would be either a false statement or a false claim to citizenship to receive a benefit; if the benefit (registering to such vote) is restricted to citizens alone; both affecting the ability to naturalize.

The law, as you read above, expects a person making (or signing) the statement, about his U.S. citizenship or eligibility to vote, to take full responsibility for his actions and serves with punishment of inadmissibility or deportation or both, for any mistake. There exists a narrow exception for those, who, in addition to having each natural or adoptive parent as U.S. citizens, satisfy certain other conditions. Those are the events less likely to occur than winning a lottery. As you guessed it, complexity controls.

Many foreign nationals may encounter situations where they are invited, as general public, to register to vote in a federal or State or local election. You may have to fill a form and make a statement on oath and as I notice, often foreign nationals are not sure if they are eligible to register or not. Some hesitatingly approach the registration desk and express doubts about their eligibility. It would be great if the eligibility criteria are displayed at the relevant places and even better if the person at the voting or registration desk is knowledgeable enough to advise whether or not one could vote or register. Ask if such an advice is readily available and if not where to get. Even then, it is your responsibility to follow the rules. Reliance on others’ statements who have no duty towards you does not excuse you from bearing the consequences of your erroneous statements.

Young adults, although born outside but raised in the United States, frequently commit the mistake of registering and voting, either filled with a sense of excitement of being able to exercise a right which they believed rightly belonged to them or filled with a sense of duty to participate in the elections of the country in which they were raised as one of its own countrymen and women. Others may have voted in the local elections ignorant that citizenship was an eligibility requirement. I would not call it a totally cavalier attitude. Such actions may be the result of possessing a sense of belonging to and behaving as a part of the community in which one is raised. These actions highlight the widespread ignorance about the divides created and maintained by the nation’s immigration laws.

The moral of the story is: If you plan to vote, check to see what the eligibility criteria are and make a wise choice. Know when your statements could be counted false and above all take the time to educate your children and encourage them to ask themselves before voting in this election: “Are you a citizen yet?.”

Indiana on Immigration Law

The Indiana State Legislature is considering imposition of the employer sanctions for hiring unauthorized labor. If the Bill is enacted, Indiana would join a group of other States that have enacted similar legislations punishing employers for hiring undocumented or unauthorized foreign nationals with knowledge that they do not possess the employment authorization.

Although, it has been repeatedly held that immigration is a subject of federal legislation, several States are beginning to legislate in this area pointing out the failure of the Congress in 2006 and ‘07 to enact a Comprehensive Immigration Reform. Earlier, a challenge to Arizona’s “Legal Arizona Workers Act” was turned down by a Federal District Court on the ground that the States are within their authority to enact laws relating to licensing sanctions against employers under the savings clause of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Section 274A(h)(2).

As Indiana considers the imposition of licensing sanctions against its employers for unauthorized hiring of foreign nationals the final details of the Bill are expected to be sorted out as the legislative session ends Mid March ‘08. Indiana immigration Bill, like similar legislations of other States, seeks to impose a three tier punishment on the employers: first a warning, then suspension and lastly revocation of business lincense.