Call (865) 470-0788

Knoxville, TN
Immigration Lawyer

Immigration Blog

Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8

House Considers Additional Immigration Legislation

June 8, 2006

The U.S. House of Representatives considered several pieces of immigration legislation yesterday in connection with H.R. 5441, the Homeland Security Appropriations Act.  Chief among the measures was an amendment offered by Nathan Deal (R-GA) that would attempt to eliminate birthright citizenship, that is, the automatic acquisition of U.S. citizenship simply by being born within the geographical boundaries of the United States.  The elimination of birthright citizenship has long been a goal of immigration restrictionists such as Tom Tancredo (R-CO) and his Immigration Reform Caucus, of which Deal is a member.  The Deal amendment was effectively defeated and was not attached to the Appropriations Act.  The one piece of immigration legislation that was approved for attachment to the Appropriations Act was an amendment that bars the use of certain federal funds by states and municipalities that have established so-called "immigration sanctuaries"--confidentiality provisisions that prevent state or local employees from disclosing an individual's immigration status.  The King/Campbell amendment passed by a vote of 218-179 and, if signed into law, is likely to be a deterrent for state and local governments who believe that law enforcement, medical care, and other services are better accomplished by staying out of immigration enforcement.

Tax Measure Delaying Conference on Immigration Reform Bill

June 7, 2006

The start of the joint House / Senate conference that is necessary to attempt a reconciliation between H.R.4437 and S.2611 is being delayed by House members relying on a perceived constitutional technicality.  The technicality involves a requirement in the Senate bill that undocumented workers pay any back taxes owed to be eligible for permanent residence and the U.S. Constitution that states that all revenue measures must originate in the House.  The House bill did not involve taxation.  GOP House members are demanding that the problem be corrected prior to the start of conference negotiations.  Resolving the technicality, however, is proving to be a point of contention in and of itself.  On Monday Senate Republicans blocked a Democratic effort to take up the House bill and replace its language with that of the Senate bill.  Senate Democrats are likewise balking at the Republican suggestion of adding the Senate bill to a revenue bill that the House has already passed and is currently before the Senate.  The fear is that such a maneuver would allow the Republican-led conference opportunity to make tax changes completely unrelated to immigration.  The result, for now, is gridlock.

Tennessee's 1st Hispanic Political Action Committee Formed

June 6, 2006

In light of my two previous posts discussing Tennessee politicians' view of immigration, it is fitting to report this news from The Tennessean that what is probably the state's first Hispanic political action committee ("PAC") has recently been formed in Nashville.  Recognizing that, "only two things speak to politicians: money and votes," the Tennessee Hispanic Voters Coalition hopes to be a non-partisan group that harnesses the political power of Hispanics for "issues that have broad support within the Hispanic community."  According to the article, the group's initial goals are to promote U.S. citizenship, voter registration, and greater participation by Hispanics in public office.  The Tennessee Hispanic Voters Coalition can be contacted at (615) 482-2322 or 501 Ligon Drive, Suite B, Nashville, TN 37204.

East TN Reps Solidly Opposed to Comprehensive Immigration Reform

June 6, 2006

• "I do not believe the Country needs a guest worker program.  There are plenty of people in the Country legally who could perform many of the jobs currently given to illegal aliens."
• "We must have immigration laws and they must be enforced or this nation will slowly but surely take on many of the characteristics of a third world country."
• "[T]he House has already acted on a border security bill [H.R.4437].  Although I believe we could have gone further, this bill is a step in the right direction."

Immigration and Tennessee's U.S. Senate Race

June 5, 2006

The immigration debate is playing an increasing role in the race for Bill Frist's U.S. Senate seat in this fall's election.  None of the four candidates could be said to be in the pro-immigrant camp.  Harld Ford Jr. (Democrat) fails to even mention immigration on his campaign website.  He has, however, made public statements against "amnesty" and even voted for H.R.4437, the terrible enforcement-only bill passed by the House last December.  Bob Corker (Republican) and Van Hilleary (Republican) both issued statements decrying passage of S.2611, the Senate's Immigration Compromise bill, with Hilleary expressing his "outrage" over the measure.  Corker has a television commercial that shows him discussing immigration as he walks along the Arizona border.  Not to be outdone, Ed Bryant (Republican) also traveled all the way to Arizona to see the border for himself, visit with some Minutemen, and help them build a fence to "keep out illegal immigrants and drug smugglers."  He apparently believes the issue is so important for Tennesseans that he has made it the "first part of his plan [for] 'Securing Tennessee's Future.'"  While there are certainly shades of gray (associating with Minutemen being on the extreme), it is quite clear that none of the candidates believes that a platform of comprehensive immigration reform is going to win a majority of votes in Tennessee this fall.

The New Immigration Question Part 2: Playing Defense

June 2, 2006

Yesterday I wrote about what appears to be a growing movement of immigration advocates who are withdrawing support of S.2611, the Hagel-Martinez Immigration Compromise bill.  This movement points to serious problems in the Senate bill and argues that the status quo and the hope of better legislation in the future is the preferred alternative to passage of S.2611.  I suggest that this line of thinking is flawed and could have drastic implications not only for positive reform but also for maintaining the status quo.  It is important to remember that the current immigration debate did not start with S.2611 but with H.R.4437, an enforcement-only bill with draconian provisions.  H.R.4437 was passed by the House in December 2005, meaning only two steps remained from it becoming law:  Senate approval and the President's signature.  It is against this background that S.2611 needs to be judged--not the status quo.  Immigrant marchers and immigration advocates rallied around S.2611 not only to bring positive immigration change, but also as a means to defeat the horrendous provisions of H.R.4437.  Simply put, passage of S.2611 is a tremendous barrier keeping H.R.4437 from becoming the law of the land.  We cannot forget that S.2611 was no easy victory and that many Senators took political risks to support the legislation.  Neither can we forget that there is broad consensus in Congress on immigration enforcement while a fragile consensus on immigration legalization.  It is very possible that Senate negotiators, in the face of dwindling support from immigration advocates, could relinquish their position on immigration legalization and agree to an enforcement-only approach.  Confronted with this possibility, advocates for the status quo are better served to continue adamant support of S.2611 with its legalization provisions that House leaders have loudly and repeatedly rejected.  S.2611 is the strongest barrier to H.R.4437 that immigration advocates have.  The immigrant community succeeded in erecting a formidable defense to the H.R.4437 nightmare in the form of S.2611.  We should not abandon our strongest defense at the very moment it is most needed.

The New Immigration Question: Compromise Now or Hold Out For More?

June 1, 2006

With the passage of S.2611, the Hagel-Martinez Immigration Compromise bill, many advocates of immigration reform felt that a great achievement had been accomplished.  The feeling was not unanimous, however.  The National Network for Immigrant and Refugee Rights last week took the position that the status quo--passing no new bill at all--is a better outcome than passage of S.2611--a bill likely to see further alteration after the House/Senate conference committee.  The article "No Bill is Better", released by the Pacific News Service, quotes Sheila Chung of the San Francisco Bay Area Immigrant Rights Coalition as saying, "The current Senate bill does not reflect the immigration reform called for by millions of immigrant communities marching the streets."  Another individual accuses S.2611 of being a "Trojan horse," a bill that looks enticing in appearance, but that is filled with anti-immigrant provisions in the details.  There is no question that S.2611 is imperfect and continues to contain problematic provisions.  Further work needs to be done to make it more workable and more fair.  But I find it hard to agree with the idea that the status quo and holding out until the "perfect solution" becomes law is the best position.  Our government is a system that requires some level of consensus and there is very little consensus on the immigration issue.  What consensus does exist is largely reflected in S.2611, which survived vigorous debate and amendment.  To borrow from baseball, I don't think we need to be swinging for the home run--consistent base hits will win the day.  Steady incremental progress appears to be much more feasible in our divided country than sweeping change.  Millions of immigrant marchers may not have marched for the provisions of S.2611, but they did march for change.  S.2611 brings change, much of it positive.  If S.2611 or something like it becomes law, immigrant marchers will be encouraged that they did and can make a difference--a lesson that may be lost if we choose the status quo.

Anti-Immigrant Legislation Largely Fails in TN Legislature

June 1, 2006

The Tennessee Immigrant and Refugee Rights Coalition ("TIRRC") reports that during the most recent General Assembly session of the Tennessee legislature more than 20 anti-immigrant bills were introduced.  The subject matter of these bills ranged from repealing the driving certificate program, to requiring the Tennessee Highway Patrol to enforce immigration laws, to requiring all state employees to turn in any undocumented aliens with whom they come into contact.  According to TIRRC, every one of these pieces of legislation failed to pass into law.  While great news for Tennessee's immigrant population, the report underscores the difficulty of making positive advances in the current political environment.  Immigrant advocates have had to primarily fight a defensive battle, deflecting the many efforts to alienate immigrants from Tennessee communities.  One piece of legislation that was passed by the legislature is a bill that prohibits any person who bids for government contracts to "knowingly utilize the services of illegal immigrants" and specifies that any person discovered utilizing illegal immigrants will be prevented from submitting a bid on any state contract for one year.  Tennessee employers should take note and beware the efforts of competitors for state contracts to attempt to disqualify competing bidders on this ground.

The Majority of the Majority

May 28, 2006

The majority of the majority.  That's the level of support that Dennis Hastert (R-IL), Republican leader of the House, says it will take for him to bring any type of immigration legislation to the House floor for a vote.  What does it mean?  It means that unless a majority of the Republican members of the U.S. House of Representatives (who are the majority party) favor the immigration bill that comes out of the House-Senate conference, Hastert will not allow the House to consider the final bill.  And that is the biggest challenge for advocates of a comprehensive immigration reform.  A Washington Post article today states that about 75% of Republican Housemembers are "steadfastly opposed to the Senate bill or even a watered-down version of it."  November elections play significantly in this picture.  The article states that, "nearly every GOP lawmaker interviewed for this article said the House plan to secure the borders and enforce existing immigration laws is unquestionably the safer political stand in his or her district."  This seems to be true even of Democratic Housemembers in Tennessee.  Four of Tennessee's five Democratic Housemembers voted for H.R.4437, the House's enforcement-only bill (the lone exception being Jim Cooper from Nashville).  Harold Ford, Jr., currently a Tennessee Democratic Housemember running for Bill Frist's Senate seat this fall, appears to agree with the Republican assessment, having consistently denounced any type of "amnesty" program.  In support of their position, Housemembers cite the feedback from their constituents:  "Several Republicans said they are getting more bricks in the mail -- as part of a new grass-roots campaign promoting a fence between the United States and Mexico -- than letters or calls supporting Bush and the Senate bill. Most said 80 to 90 percent of feedback coming from constituents last week was in opposition to Bush and the Senate on the citizenship question."  Despite all the efforts of immigration advocates, these statisics are consistent with past numbers.  Which leads me to think that unless the majority of those whom I believe to be the majority of the American people--those who believe that a hard-working and honest person can earn the right to be here--find their voice in this debate, comprehensive immigration reform is still a long way away.

Details of the Final Senate Immigration Bill

May 26, 2006

• Undocumented in U.S. for at least 5 years prior to April 5, 2006 (estimated 6.7 million) eligible for 6 years of work authorization and path to eventual permanent legal status, upon payment of $2,000 fine, meeting English and civics requirement, passing background checks and paying taxes owed.
  • Will get LPR status ("green card") after current family backlogs are cleared
  • After 5 years as LPR, can apply for citizenship.
• Undocumented in U.S. less than 5 but more than 2 years, (estimated 2.8 million) "Deferred Mandatory Departure (DMD) status, providing work authorization and eventual path to permanent status with following requirements:
  • Must leave country within 3 years, "touch base" and return
  • Can apply for readmission before departure
  • Departure requirement waived for spouses/children, or if substantial hardship on person or immediate family.

Family Unity and Family and Employment Visa Backlog Relief

• Those in current family backlogs will get "green cards" before any of the currently undocumented
• New family preference cap of 480,000, adding 260,000 new visas per year to eliminate backlogs
• New employment-based cap of 450,000 for a 10-year period, adding 310,000 new visas per year; spouses and children of certain employment-based immigrants capped at 650,000, others may remain outside the cap
• 30% of employment-based cap reserved for "essential" workers
• Provisions for widows, orphans, and lower threshold for affidavits of support

High-Skilled Immigration Reforms

• Reform of student visa rules to authorize dual intent, expand the period of OPT, and create a direct path to permanent status for certain advanced degree students
• Increase in H-1B cap to 115,000 with market-based escalator and exemption for STEM advanced degree holders
• Exemptions for the annual employment-based cap for STEM advanced degree holders, aliens of extraordinary ability, and outstanding professors and researchers

New Temporary Worker Program with Labor Protections and Path to Permanent Status

• New program for 200,000 new temporary "essential" workers per year
• 3 year visa, renewal for 3 years, with portability to work for employer of choice
• Current undocumented who entered U.S. after January 2004 are eligible, must leave country to apply, 3/10 year bars are waived
• Employer has to seek U.S. worker first; labor protections and market wage requirements
• Can apply for permanent status ("green card"), within the new employment-based cap; can self-petition if worked for 4 years, otherwise employer can petition

Reforms to Agricultural Worker Program

• Farmworkers who show that they performed at least 150 days of agricultural work in the U.S. during the 24 month period ending December 31, 2005 can get temporary resident status ("blue card"); spouse/minor kids get status too
• To earn permanent status ("green card"), farmworkers must perform agricultural work for at least 100 work days per year for 5 years, OR perform 150 days per year for 3 years. Participants may work outside agriculture but only if they are continuing to meet the annual agricultural work requirement.
• The earned legalization program has a cap of 1.5 million.
• The H-2A temporary foreign worker program will allow employers in the dairy industry to hire workers even when they are year-round workers.

Path to Legal Status for Undocumented High School Students (DREAM Act)

• Students who enter U.S. before age of 16 and are present for 5 years preceding date of enactment, and who have graduated from high school (or GED), can apply for 6-year conditional status
• Within 6 years, if graduated from college or completed two years in a degree program, or served in Armed Forces, conditional status becomes permanent status ("green card")

Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8

“They [USCIS] sent me a form N-445, Notice of Naturalization Oath Ceremony. I just wanted to say 'thank you'. You are great at what you do. Thank you again." -K.L.

View more testimonials.