Legalization Through “Registry”

 

Current immigration law contains a provision called “registry” that allows certain non-citizens who are long-term residents of the United States, but who are either undocumented or present in the country under some sort of temporary immigration status, to “register” for Lawful Permanent Resident (LPR) status. In order to qualify, individuals must have entered the country on or before a specified date (known as the “registry date”) and must demonstrate good moral character and continuous residence since their entry. After its creation in 1929, Congress advanced the registry date four times, most recently in 1986, when the date was set at January 1, 1972—meaning that only non-citizens who entered the United States by that date are eligible to apply for LPR status through registry. This date is now so far in the past that few individuals are eligible. However, Congress has the power to advance the registry date again at any time, which would potentially allow millions of non-citizens to become LPRs and, ultimately, U.S. citizens.

History of the Registry Provision

The original registry provision created in 1929 applied to any non-citizen who met the following conditions: entered the country prior to June 3, 1921; had continuously resided in the country since entering; demonstrated “good moral character”; was not subject to deportation under U.S. immigration laws; and for whom a record of lawful admission was not available. The registry provision was amended in 1940 and the registry date advanced to July 1, 1924. However, a more substantive revision took place in 1958. 

Continúe leyendo en  https://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a5257-Legalization-Through-Registry.html

New Leadership Strikes a New Tone for America

 

By: American Immigration Council - www.immigrationimpact.com

America turned a corner today. We not only installed new leadership, but these leaders set a distinctively new tone for the next four years.

A president is a political and policy leader, but he or she is also our conductor-in-chief, coordinating the timing and performance of government agencies and setting the direction and tempo of our public discourse.

On January 20, Joe Biden, the freshly inaugurated 46th president of the United States, spoke with a dramatically different timbre than his predecessor—one filled with humility, empathy, and commitment to service and country. He acknowledged the many challenges we face and asked for our help to rise to meet them.

“We must end this uncivil war that pitches red versus blue, rural versus urban, conservative versus liberal,” Biden said, because we have “much to repair, much to restore, much to heal, much to build, and much to gain.”

More information https://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a5043-Joe-Biden-New-Leadership-for-America.html

USCIS’ Changes Make It Harder for Americans to Sponsor Immigrant Family Members

 

By Walter Ewing www.immigrationimpact.com

The Department of Homeland Security has proposed a rule that would make it much more difficult for U.S. citizens and legal immigrants—especially those experiencing financial hardship—to sponsor family members for green cards.

If the rule goes into effect, the process of family-based immigration will become even more cumbersome and restrictive.

The proposed rule—published in the Federal Register on October 2—relates to the “affidavit of support.” Under a 1996 immigration reform law, anyone wanting to sponsor a family member for a green card must complete an affidavit of support demonstrating that the sponsored immigrant will not become dependent on federal public benefits.

Sponsors would have to submit extensive financial documentation

Under the new proposed rule, sponsors would have to submit extensive financial documentation to the federal government as part of filing the affidavit of support.

More information https://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a4955-Harder-for-Americans-to-Sponsor-Family-Members.html

The Trump Administration Wants To Return To A Pre-Civil Rights Immigration System

 

By Walter Ewing

The ideology of President Trump is about more than limiting how many immigrants enter the United States each year; it’s about turning back the clock on U.S. social history.

A recent analysis by law professor Robert Tsai explores how President Trump’s ideology—labeled “Trumpism”—is the latest installment in a long-standing conservative movement to dismantle the legacy of the civil rights era and return the country to a more “traditional” social order.

This traditional order, which prevailed in the 1950s, has very little room for immigrants—particularly non-white immigrants from the developing world.

Tsai’s analysis begins by noting a key historical fact: that the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1965 was an integral part of the civil rights struggle—just as much as the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. It broke down racial barriers that had dominated U.S. immigration law for decades. The fundamental principle behind all three laws was simple: the promotion of equality.

The Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1965 also had two other guiding principles: the preservation of family unity and the presumption that immigrants are capable of assimilating or integrating into U.S. society.

Although the new immigration system was not perfect, it did radically reduce the level of overt racial discrimination would-be immigrants to the United States had to endure. Prior to 1965, a “national origins quota” system dominated the U.S. immigration system for more than 40 years. That system favored immigrants from northern and western Europe, while discriminating against virtually everyone else in the world.

The 1965 law scrapped that system and significantly opened immigration from Latin America, Asia, and Africa, as well as Europe in its entirety.

As Tsai argues, that began to change after 9/11, when institutional discrimination against Muslims skyrocketed in the name of “national security.”

The situation has gotten worse under the Trump administration. Both Latinos and Muslims are portrayed as existential threats to the nation. The Trump administration also ignores that immigrants have a long history of successfully integrating into U.S. society. According to Tsai, Trumpism is fueled by anxieties over the demographic and cultural changes the nation has experienced since the adoption of a more open immigration system in the 1960s. In this sense, Trumpism is what Tsai calls an “ethno-nationalist movement.”

But Trumpism also borrows from other strains of conservative ideology, ranging from the Tea Party to the Moral Majority. As a result, it targets a host of “enemies” in addition to immigrants, such as the United Nations and the global trade regime.

Another key feature of Trumpism is its dependence on the unilateral power of the presidency to implement any policy change. With the House in Democratic hands and the Senate in Republican hands, Congress is effectively deadlocked.

The Trump administration therefore falls back on claims of “national security” or “national emergency” to justify its use of executive orders and federal regulations as it attempts to implement a sweeping agenda for which it has no clear mandate. As Tsai notes, President Trump has made no secret of his preference for immigrants from Nordic countries—and his disdain for immigrants from places like Haiti, El Salvador, and basically any African country.

This attitude reflects more than just the president’s views on immigration. It reflects his views on race as well. It’s no wonder that he wants to lead the nation back to the 1950s, before the civil rights movement dared to challenge the racial hierarchy of U.S. society.

 

Source: www.immigrationimpact.com 

https://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a4578-Return-to-a-Pre-Civil-Rights-Immigration-System.html

USCIS Announces Final Rule Enforcing Long-Standing Public Charge Inadmissibility Law

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced a final rule that clearly defines long-standing law to better ensure that aliens seeking to enter and remain in the United States — either temporarily or permanently — are self-sufficient and rely on their own capabilities and the resources of family members, sponsors, and private organizations rather than on public resources.

This final rule amends DHS regulations by prescribing how DHS will determine whether an alien is inadmissible to the United States based on his or her likelihood of becoming a public charge at any time in the future, as set forth in the Immigration and Nationality Act. The final rule addresses U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) authority to permit an alien to submit a public charge bond in the context of adjustment of status applications. The rule also makes nonimmigrant aliens who have received certain public benefits above a specific threshold generally ineligible for extension of stay and change of status.

“For over a century, the public charge ground of inadmissibility has been part of our nation’s immigration laws. President Trump has delivered on his promise to the American people to enforce long-standing immigration law by defining the public charge inadmissibility ground that has been on the books for years,” said USCIS Acting Director Ken Cuccinelli. “Throughout our history, self-sufficiency has been a core tenet of the American dream. Self-reliance, industriousness, and perseverance laid the foundation of our nation and have defined generations of hardworking immigrants seeking opportunity in the United States ever since. Through the enforcement of the public charge inadmissibility law, we will promote these long-standing ideals and immigrant success.”

DHS has revised the definition of “public charge” to incorporate consideration of more kinds of public benefits received, which the Department believes will better ensure that applicants subject to the public charge inadmissibility ground are self-sufficient. The rule defines the term “public charge” to mean an individual who receives one or more designated public benefits for more than 12 months, in the aggregate, within any 36-month period (such that, for instance, receipt of two benefits in one month counts as two months). The rule further defines the term “public benefit” to include any cash benefits for income maintenance, Supplemental Security Income (SSI), Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP), most forms of Medicaid, and certain housing programs.

The regulation also excludes from the public benefits definition: public benefits received by individuals who are serving in active duty or in the Ready Reserve component of the U.S. armed forces, and their spouses and children; public benefits received by certain international adoptees and children acquiring U.S. citizenship; Medicaid for aliens under 21 and pregnant women; Medicaid for school-based services (including services provided under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act); and Medicaid benefits for emergency medical services.

This rule also makes certain nonimmigrant aliens in the United States who have received designated public benefits above the designated threshold ineligible for change of status and extension of stay if they received the benefits after obtaining the nonimmigrant status they seek to extend or from which they seek to change.

Importantly, this regulation does not apply to humanitarian-based immigration programs for refugees, asylees, Special Immigrant Juveniles (SIJs), certain trafficking victims (T nonimmigrants), victims of qualifying criminal activity (U nonimmigrants), or victims of domestic violence (VAWA self-petitioners), among others.

This rule also explains how USCIS will exercise its discretionary authority, in limited circumstances, to offer an alien inadmissible only on the public charge ground the opportunity to post a public charge bond. The final rule sets the minimum bond amount at $8,100; the actual bond amount will be dependent on the individual’s circumstances.

This final rule supersedes the 1999 Interim Field Guidance on Deportability and Inadmissibility on Public Charge Grounds and goes into effect at 12:00 a.m. Eastern on Oct. 15, 60 days from the date of publication in the Federal Register. USCIS will apply the public charge inadmissibility final rule only to applications and petitions postmarked (or, if applicable, submitted electronically) on or after the effective date. Applications and petitions already pending with USCIS on the effective date of the rule (postmarked and accepted by USCIS) will be adjudicated based on the 1999 Interim Guidance. 

USCIS will provide information and additional details to the public as part of public outreach related to the implementation of this rule. In the coming weeks, USCIS will conduct engagement sessions for the public and other interested groups to ensure the public understands which benefits are included in the public charge inadmissibility rule and which are not.

 

Source: U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)  

https://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a4387-USCIS-Announces-Final-Rule-Enforcing-Long-Standing-Public-Charge.html

White House’s Misguided Immigration Reform Plan Is Set for Failure

Written by Guillermo Cantor

President Trump announced his new plan for overhauling the legal immigration system on Thursday. The plan is short on details, but it rests on principles that the Trump administration has touted before. Specifically, the proposal emphasizes the desire to radically curtail family-based immigration while prioritizing certain attributes that are viewed as an expression of “merit.” 

Like he did when he supported the Reforming American Immigration for a Strong Economy (RAISE) Act in 2017, the president now aims to shift the criteria for immigrant admission and emphasize the importance of the skills that prospective immigrants would bring to the United States. 

While the details remain unknown, the president’s proposal introduces a point system that would allow the United States to select immigrants based on a defined set of academic and professional credentials, as well as English-language skills. It would simultaneously restrict family-based admissions to immediate family members only. 

The president’s recipe for “fixing” the legal immigration system, however, seems to be based on a misguided diagnosis that has nothing to do with the actual needs of the country or American businesses, workers, and families. He simplistically defines the problem as “discriminating against genius” and admitting immigrants “by chance.” 

It’s true that employers who intend to hire foreign-born workers with specialized skills and high-skilled immigrants wanting to start a business in the United States face some obstacles in the current system. But that is only one problematic aspect of our legal immigration system. 

In this proposal, merit is narrowly defined as possessing certain types of skills, employment histories, and educational credentials. The proposal assumes these narrowly defined sets of criteria are what the country needs. However, this doesn’t account for the complexity of our economy, the various types of skills that are in demand, and the fact that those needs may change over time. 

For example, the proposal ignores the fact that so-called “less-skilled” immigrants play a fundamental role in the essential economy, which encompasses occupations such as elder care, construction, and food services, to mention just a few. 

Although it’s too early to tell, this proposal seems to be designed to exclude certain groups. For example, immigrant women who work in the domestic sphere, caring for the elderly and sick and raising the future workforce, would probably be excluded. The plan would probably also exclude individuals from countries with lower levels of human capital, or people above a certain age. 

The current system clearly has many problems. These include the system’s lack of flexibility to allow admissions to follow the fluctuations of the business cycle and the enormous backlogs for certain categories of immigrants from certain countries. The new proposal, however, does nothing to remedy those problems. Additionally, this plan provides no solution for the DACA or TPS populations—let alone the undocumented population as a whole. 

A robust reform to the immigration system that aspires to be durable should be the result of broad consensus and based on a rigorous analysis of the economic and noneconomic implications of such changes. Unfortunately, neither of these elements are present here. 

It’s also worth pointing out that when defining immigrant selection criteria, the country is not only defining a market, it is also building the foundations of a community. This aspect, not surprisingly, is not even superficially acknowledged in the President’s proposal. 

 

 

Source: www.immigrationimpact.com 

https://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a4169-Immigration-reform-in-the-United-States.html

This Citizenship Day Marred by Government’s Focus on Stripping People of Their Citizenship

Written by Emily Creighton

Each year on September 17, America marks Citizenship Day, an annual opportunity to reflect on the benefits and responsibilities of U.S. citizenship. In years past, it was used as a day to celebrate new Americans and encourage others who are eligible to become U.S. citizens. However, this year is different, as the security associated with becoming a U.S. citizen may be slipping away. 

A new focus on “denaturalization” by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) takes the agency’s mandate in a troubling direction. Instead of finding ways to preserve, they are devoting resources to stripping people of their citizenship. In June, USCIS Director Francis Cissna revealed the agency’s efforts to staff a new office in Los Angeles focused on evaluating whether individuals should have been naturalized in the first place. 

The targets of this focus on denaturalization are individuals such as Norma Borgoño, a U.S. citizen and grandmother originally from Peru. A denaturalization suit was filed against her alleging she should have revealed her role in a fraud scheme during her citizenship process—a scheme that benefitted her boss, not her—and where she cooperated with the FBI in making a case against her former boss. At the time she applied for naturalization, she had not been charged with any crime, yet the agency will attempt to use this as a way to strip her of her citizenship. 

The Trump administration’s decision to reinvigorate and coordinate denaturalization efforts also comes with a hefty price tag. 

In its proposed 2019 budget , the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) explains that $207 million will be used to fund hundreds of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents focused on “the prevention and detection of immigration benefit fraud and the investigative work necessary to adjudicate applications.” 

Initiatives include Operation Second Look —an attempt to review approximately 700,000 case files of naturalized individuals to find who may be ineligible for citizenship—and Operation Janus, an initiative that formally began in 2010 where USCIS refers cases to the Department of Justice (DOJ) to pursue denaturalization. 

Though a 2016 government inspection detailed some improper naturalizations as a result of incomplete fingerprint record keeping by USCIS (approximately 800 citizenship grants were reportedly made to individuals who were previously ordered deported), the number of individuals stripped of their citizenship has been very low. According to some reporting , only about 300 denaturalization cases were pursued between 1990 to 2017. 

More information is being sought about the administration’s denaturalization efforts through requests under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). 

One FOIA request asks for documents detailing organized efforts to review naturalized citizens’ files in order to identify misrepresentations in their naturalization applications. The request highlights “denaturalization complaints” filed in the Middle District of Florida, District of Connecticut, and District of New Jersey “against two men of Pakistani origin and one man of Indian origin.” After DOJ and ICE failed to respond to the request, Muslim Advocates filed a lawsuit in federal court in Washington D.C. 

Another request asks for information about the process of denaturalization review, the establishment of any new offices focused on denaturalization, and any new recommendations for denaturalization. 

There is a history of revoking citizenship in this country, but this administration’s hyper focus on immigration fraud gives good reason for concern that denaturalization initiatives will be overzealous and that minor mistakes in the citizenship application process may result in a person having to defend their citizenship in court. 

In addition, there is a great and demonstrated need for USCIS to address citizenship cases that are already pending. A recent report pointed out there has been a 35 percent increase in the backlog of citizenship applications from July 2017 to July 2018 and a 77 percent increase since July 2016. 

Given the extraordinarily small number of individuals against whom denaturalization cases are brought, there should be widespread agreement that the focus of USCIS resources should be on processing immigration benefits, not rooting out imaginary fraud.

 

Source: www.immigrationimpact.com  

http://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a3908-Citizenship-Day-on-Stripping-People-of-Their-Citizenship.html

USCIS’ Wait Times For Citizenship Have Doubled

Written by Melissa Cruz

The average wait time on a U.S. citizenship application was about five months in 2014. Today, the average time a green card holder will wait for their citizenship application to be processed by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) is 10 months. 

With the increased wait time, the backlog of pending applications has also grown considerably. In September of 2013, a little over 300,000 citizenship applications were pending. Now more than 750,000 applications are awaiting processing. 

This means that permanent residents are waiting longer than in years passed. For those who live in areas where many permanent residents are applying, the wait time can reach up to 17 months. 

There are likely a few reasons why the agency’s wait time and backlog has risen so significantly. 

Changes under both the Obama and Trump administration have created an application process that is lengthy, expensive, and in many ways difficult for non-native English speakers. 

This began under President Obama , when in 2014 he instructed USCIS to make significant changes to the application form. It shot up from a 10-page document to 21 pages. 

Much of this increased length was due to new questions regarding applicants’ links to terrorist groups, genocide, and military training, among other topics. These questions were added despite the fact very few naturalized citizens come from countries with terrorist ties. The new test also included more difficult questions on U.S. history and civics. 

These types of questions in the new form, along with its use of more technical terms, left advocates afraid non-English speakers may be discouraged from applying for citizenship. 

The average wait time and backlog have also increased under President Trump. 

According to a report from the National Partnership for New Americans, there has been a 35 percent increase in the backlogfrom July 2017 to July 2018. There has been a 77 percent increase since July 2016. 

The report also found that USCIS has decreased its processing rate and increased the number of denials under the current administration, and that it has done so in a way that is “arbitrary and lacks geographic uniformity.” For example, the processing rate for some states is much longer than others. In Florida, the time a person waits for an application has decreased by 5 percent. Over the same time frame, Alabama’s backlog increased by 213 percent. 

In fact, instead of addressing the growing backlog, USCIS is actually spending resources looking through thousands of old citizenship applications for any potential signs of fraud. If it finds fraud in an application, the agency plans to rescind citizenship. 

It’s obvious from these lengthy wait times that the agency needs to focus on the backlog instead of old applications. USCIS should want to welcome more U.S. citizens, not less.

 

Source: www. immigrationimpact.com  

http://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a3883-Wait-Times-for-Citizenship-Have-Doubled.html 

How Long Does It Take USCIS to Issue a Green Card?

Written by Tory Johnson

How long does it take to process an application for permanent residence in the United States, or a “green card?” You might be surprised by how difficult it is to find a reliable answer to this common question. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)—the agency that adjudicates applications for permanent residence and other immigration benefits—provides a range as a way to estimate the time needed to process an immigration application.

The agency introduced a pilot program in March that changed how USCIS estimates these time ranges for four of its most popular types of application. The change follows longstanding criticism about inaccurate processing times from federal oversight offices, elected officials, and stakeholders. Applicants and immigration practitioners have reported that USCIS’ posted processing times do not reflect the actual time it takes a case to reach completion.

Previously, USCIS published processing times for all types of applications and petitions as a single figure in months, a specific date, and even in relation to a goal processing time.

The agency now uses an automated methodology in an attempt to more accurately estimate how long it will take to process certain common immigration benefit filings. According to USCIS, an application for permanent residence (Form I-485) will take anywhere from 7 months to 33 months to process. The time range fluctuates depending on the office location, basis for the filing, and other factors.

The pilot program only applies to the following four immigration forms:

• N-400, Application for Naturalization
• I-90, Application to Replace Permanent Resident Card
• I-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status
• I-751, Petition to Remove Conditions on Residence

Although the calculation method being piloted may improve accuracy in some ways, concerns remain. The pilot program includes only four of the many fee-based immigration forms USCIS adjudicates. Additionally, the ranges are still estimates, have broad variation, and do not reflect the complexity of many cases.

For example, “in the case of a foreign national applying for an employment-based green card, an employer must file an I-140 Immigration Petition for Alien Worker and the worker must also submit a Form I-485 to adjust status to permanent residence, when a visa number is immediately available.” USCIS will process these forms sequentially—meaning the time it takes to adjudicate each form and related steps must be added together to get an approximate estimate of processing time. USCIS processing time methodology does not account for such complexity. USCIS provides time ranges as processing time estimates for other immigration filings as well, however there is significantly less transparency about the agency’s calculation method.

Accessing this information is particularly important given the longstanding backlog of filings at USCIS. An application or petition that allows a person to work or travel internationally may be pending for several months to many years, leaving applicants—or employers petitioning for potential or current employees—in limbo for indeterminant times.

Accurate processing time estimates can significantly affect the lives of applicants, employers, and the local communities they support. USCIS should prioritize transparency in its methods while improving the accuracy of processing times. Doing so not only supports the agency’s mission but would support economic and social stability in the United States—a benefit for everyone. 

 

Source: www. immigrationimpact.com   

http://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a3864-How-Long-Does-Take-to-Issue-a-Green-Card.html