DREAM Act Fails to Gain Necessary Votes

The DREAM Act proposed legislation that could have provided a path to legal residency for children who arrived in the U.S. before the age of 16, was defeated on Tuesday in the Senate. The proposal was attached to a defense bill which also included the controversial repeal of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. The vote was 56-43 with Democrats failing to get any Republican votes to help them reach the 60 votes necessary for the bill to move forward. Majority Leader Harry Reid voted to block the bill, but only as procedural strategy to allow the defense bill to be reintroduced at a later time.

Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, stated the political agenda attempted by the Democrats by attaching the immigration legislation to the defense bill was simply a political ploy. Graham stated, “ I don’t think anyone in the country will hold it against us for voting against their way of doing business.” Graham also reiterated that he could not allow 2 million new immigrants safe haven if the borders were not yet secure. House Leader Reid argued that the Republican party was “putting partisan politics ahead of the best interest of the men and women who courageously defend our nation.” Education Secretary Arne Duncan backed the DREAM Act and sent letters requesting the passage to both Reid and Mitch McConnel, Senate Republican leader.

With the failure of the DREAM Act, any hopes of immigration reform for the rest of 2010 is almost nil. Congress has not undertaken any action on comprehensive immigration reform and President Obama has to date failed to follow up on his promise of immigration reform during his first year of his presidency. After hearing the DREAM Act was attached as an amendment to the defense bill, I knew that it would fail to receive the necessary votes. The repeal of don’t ask, don’t tell is too much of a hot topic and by attaching the DREAM Act, it was doomed to fail. Working as an immigration lawyer, I understand any type of immigration reform will take time, but I am not sure what this means for the reintroduction of the bill. Durbin has been trying to pass this bill since 2005, so it’s not going to happen anytime soon. Sadly, for many immigration reform has become a set of buzz words without much sting.

Immigration lawyer Houston, Texas

Utah Newspaper Under Fire for Sympathetic views of Illegal Immigrants

The Deseret News, the second largest newspaper in Utah is coming under fire for its sympathetic views toward illegal immigrants. One possible reason for this controversy may be due to a partial ownership in the newspaper by the Church of Jesus Chris of Latter-day Saints. Many believe the Mormon readers of the paper are uncomfortable with the liberal viewpoints of the editor of the Deseret News, Joseph A. Cannon and the chief of the Desert Media group Mark H. Willes.

Deseret Media, which is headed by Mark H Willes, has consistently printed editorials which condemn same-sex marriage and lenient alcohol legislation, but has recently began printing articles which show deportations negative impact on families. The Dereset Media group has also recently began publishing a Spanish language version of their paper known as El Observador. This paper is free and is distributed to 7,000 subscribers through funding from the LDS church.

Deseret News editorial staff assert their articles are only an attempt to develop stronger relationship with the largest minority group in Utah. Ironically, the leading advocate for the controversial immigration law in Arizona, Russell Pearce is also a Mormon. Many believe the church is specifically trying to separate itself from any belief they are part of this immigration debate.

Several stories published in the Deseret News have also been published simultaneously in the El Observador. A recent editorial ran on the front pages of The Deseret News and El Observador. A picture of the Statue of Liberty was included and labeled with its famous inscription “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.” Mr. Willes noted that the Mormons should be “sensitive to the desire of others to provide more opportunities for themselves and their families.” This comment refers to the fleeing of Mormons themselves who were outcasts, to Utah during the 19th century.

Deseret Media editors have been highly subjective regarding the immigration material published and have even sought the advice of immigration lawyers to verify and substantiate their material. Editor Joseph A. Cannon, believes the readers of the Deseret News would respond positively toward immigration matters if they related it through their teachings within the LDS church. Specifically Mr. Cannon has challenged his readers to see the immigrants as their neighbors not as outsiders. “What are the two commandments? Love God and Love your neighbor.” Stating, “These people are our neighbors- incontestably, by any definition, they are our neighbors.”

Unfortunately, for many these neighbors are too conspicuous yet still with their foreign tongues frighteningly unfamiliar. The editors of this largely Mormon readership are simply trying to remind their readers of the tenants of their faith and the statements made by all our forebearers. Recently I had a conversation with a colleague, who also mentioned that same inscription from the Statue of Liberty. While discussing the Arizona law he jokingly commented maybe we should scratch out the “give us your tired, your poor,” and obviously the huddled masses component, since sadly it no longer applies to all immigrants coming to our country.
Immigration lawyer Houston, Texas

The DREAM Act: Proposed Legislation for Undocumented Children

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid made an announcement regarding a possible vote next week on the immigration reform proposal known as the DREAM Act. The DREAM Act proposal would allow citizenship for undocumented children by requiring them to obtain a college degree or enlist in military services. The DREAM Act was introduced and co-written by Senator Richard Durbin and Representative Howard Berman as a way for students to obtain citizenship.

The Development, Relief, and Education of Alien Minors Act, also known as the DREAM Act, was written with the purpose of helping individuals under the age of 16 when entering the U.S., an opportunity to attend college or enlist in the military. This act will allow these individuals a path to citizenship if they meet the specific requirements of the legislation that is proposed. These specific requirements include:

* Applicant must have entered the U.S. before the age of 16

* Applicant must have been present in the U.S. for at least 5 consecutive years prior to the enactment of the bill

* Applicant must have graduated from a U.S. high school or obtained a GED or have been accepted into an institution of higher learning

* Applicant must be between the ages of 12 and 35 at the time of the application

* Applicant must have good moral character

If the applicant meets the following requirements and the DREAM Act passes the individuals would be required complete the following steps:

1. Apply for the DREAM Act (guidelines unavailable currently as the legislation has not passed as of this date)

2. If approved for Conditional Permanent Residency, the individual would be required to do one of the following:

A. Enroll in an institution of higher learning to pursue a bachelor’s degree or higher degree or

B. Enlist in one of the branches of the U.S. Military

3. The applicant must have completed at least two years of one of the options (A or B) within 6 years of approval for conditional permanent residency

4. After 5 1/2 years of the 6 years has passed, the individual will be able to apply for Legal Permanent Residency and will be able to apply for United States Citizenship

There is a conditional requirement regarding individuals who have already completed at least 2 years of college towards a degree, they will still need to wait the 5 1/2 years in order to apply for Legal Permanent Residency. If an applicant does not complete the requirements they will be disqualified from gaining residency.

Thousands of children and young adults are in the U.S. illegally, only because their parents brought them here to U.S. As an immigration lawyer, I have worked with clients with family members who would be eligible under this program who are currently not eligible for legal residency. This Act could make it possible for these undocumented individuals to pursue a college degree or military service and to apply for conditional permanent resident status. The entire text of the proposed DREAM Act can be located on the Library of Congress website http://www.thomas.gov/ by entering the bill number S. 729 in the Legislation in Current Congress search. A website has also been created by immigrant students known as the DREAM Act Portal at http://dreamact.info.

Immigration lawyer Houston, Texas

Operation Streamline: convicting illegal border crossers on a large scale

A highly controversial program known as Operation Streamline aimed at prosecuting immigrants entering the U.S. illegally was the focus of a recent three part series of articles on NPR.org. The program began under the Bush administration in 2005 focuses on convicting immigrants in a fast track program by ordering federal criminal charges for illegal border crossings. Many critics of this policy believe the first time offenders who are pushed through the system in as little as 2 days are being denied due process rights. Many also believe this program is diverting resources from more pending issues such as the drug trafficking and organized crime along the U.S. border.

Critics of this program believe the extensive numbers of prosecutions for low level offenders is allowing drug crimes to go unenforced and is increasing border violence by focusing on petty crimes rather than prosecuting serious and often deadly human trafficking and drug smuggling crimes. Operation Streamline has created an unprecedented caseload for the federal courts along the U.S. border. First time unlawful entry is prosecuted under 8 U.S.C. § 1325 which is a misdemeanors with a maximum sentence of six months. Several former judges and prosecuting attorney have spoken out on the large number of cases that are prosecuted under this program. In 2008, a border area federal Judge Robert Brack was named by ABC News as the busiest judge in America. Sentencing over 1,400 defendants in 2008, his court maintained the highest immigration case load in the nation. In comparison most federal courts sentence approximately 75 defendants in a year.

The program shortens the deportation process by taking defendants in groups and in a two hour process performs en masse hearings. Many argue these groups of as many as 80 defendants at one time, robs each individual of due process rights. Judges who perform the hearings argue the defendants speak with an attorney individually and each has the right to plead not guilty. If the defendant pleads guilty he is sentenced and deported in what many consider an “conveyor belt” style of prosecution. In United States v. Roblero-Solis, 588 F.3d 692 (9th Cir. 2009), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth District held that Operation Streamline’s en masse plea hearings in Tucson, Arizona was in direct violation of federal law.

Operation Streamline has prosecuted more than 130,000 individuals since it began in 2005. The majority are migrant workers who are looking for work and are deported with a federal conviction. Critics argue that if American citizens were treated in the same manner in a foreign county, the U.S. government would be outraged at the lack of adequate counsel and processing time. I agree with those that argue that 80 defendants all in one plea hearing is ludicrous. Again where is the media to tell us how we are deporting individuals 80 at a time? I am an immigration lawyer and I had no idea these types of prosecutions were taking place not far from my practice in Houston. Unfortunately, it seems Operation Streamline has taken its name too literally and should slow down and focus or even streamline their operation to include the the violent drug cartels kidnapping, murdering and drug trafficking. How about prosecuting violent criminals profiteers who are creating a war zone in parts of the Southern U.S., and not the migrant worker toiling away and struggling to earn less than minimum wage.
Immigration lawyer Houston, Texas

Appeals Court Affirms Anti-Illegal Immigrant Ordinances are Unconstitutional

The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals handed down a ruling on Hazelton, Pennsylvania’s controversial illegal immigrant ordinances. The federal appeals court affirmed a previous district court ruling finding the ordinances were unconstitutional. This ruling comes three years after the initial ruling given by Judge James M. Munley, a District Court Judge. The ordinances were some of the first in the U.S. to require illegal immigrants register and provide documentation of their residency status before renting or owning property.
Hazelton, Pa., began a trend in cities throughout the U.S. by seeking anti-illegal immigration ordinances as a response to illegal immigrants living in their area. These ordinances sparked at least 12 states and several cities and municipalities around the U.S. to begin proposals of anti-immigration ordinances. Opponents of the ordinances in Hazelton believed the laws were in direct conflict with federal immigration laws in an attempt regulate a federal function. The appeals court agreed the ordinances were in fact pre-empted by federal immigration law and were therefore unconstitutional.
As part of the judgment, Chief Judge Theodore McKee stated, “we are required to intervene when states and localities directly undermine the federal objectives embodies in statutes enacted by Congress.” The ACLU represented several residents in the area and announced their satisfaction with the verdict. Vic Walczak with the ACLU of Pennsylvania, stated “we’re glad that the court recognized that allowing states and municipalities to set up alternative employment and housing regulations for immigrants will lead to an unworkable patchwork of laws.”
The Hazelton Illegal Immigration Relief Act, was proposed initially in response to a fatal shooting involving illegal immigrants. The mayor Lou Barletta, proposed the laws to curb the influx of immigrants coming to Hazelton and sparked a nationwide discussion on federal policy regarding immigration. These ordinances and the Arizona law are being used to try and curb illegal immigration in their areas, but as an immigration lawyer in Houston, I understand that this is a federal issue and the states and city governments are grasping at straws. Of course something needs to be done, but hopefully these other cities and states will soon realize that by trying to usurp federal power, they are only wasting money and manpower. These resources would be better spent lobbying for immigration reform on the federal level not trying to correct a situation that is beyond their control.
Immigration lawyer Houston, Texas

Study shows Pregnant Immigrants less likely to travel to U.S. for Citizenship

With recent discussions regarding anchor babies and terror babies, a study by Princeton University shows that it is rare for pregnant mothers to travel to the U.S. solely for the purpose of providing citizenship for their unborn children. Many of the pregnant mothers interviewed along the Mexican border say they came to the U.S. for better medical care. Those who live in Nogales, Mexico have even seen billboards advertising better medical care in Arizona, a state currently fighting illegal immigration battles.

As an immigration lawyer, many of the individuals who come to my office are parents of U.S. born children. The parents do not receive U.S. citizenship like their children who are Americans. Under the 14th Amendment, any person born in the U.S. is an American citizen. Legislation as early as 2005, shows several Republican senators such as Lindsey Graham attempting to change the Constitution to deny granting automatic American citizenship. In my opinion, these senators are fighting an uphill battle as Constitutional changes require two-thirds majorities in both the House and the Senate. Currently Democratic majority in both houses oppose these changes. If the votes were somehow found, the Constitution also requires a ratification by three-fourth of the states to change it.

Many families who are here illegally have children who are also illegal and others who are legally born in the U.S. after their immigration. This is the most common family type of illegal immigrants in the U.S. According to researchers, it is more common for the men who have children in Mexico to have children in the U.S. only because they are unable to travel back and forth to their home and family in Mexico. Recent changes to border policies since 1990 have seen a growing number of families in Mexico without fathers who are unable to migrate back to their family after arriving in the U.S. illegally.

Children who travel to the U.S. illegally with their parents have a very difficult time getting any assistance gaining legal residency. Illegal immigrant children also fail to qualify for in-state tuition or federal student aid. These children are at the center of a recent controversial policy involving students who have been allowed to remain in the U.S. There is currently legislation for the passage of the Dream Act, a bill aimed at allowing illegal immigrants who arrived in the U.S. before the age of 16, eligibility for legal status. As an immigration lawyer in Houston, Texas, I understand there are many problems surrounding immigration laws and children of illegal immigrants. These children born in the U.S. will be continued to be U.S. citizens. This is a moot point, but it is the children who traveled here with their families that should be the focus many of these debates. 700,000 students would be eligible for citizenship, unfortunately Republicans understand that this would mean more democratic votes and therefore these bills many not pass with the intended benefits of citizenship intact.

Immigration lawyer, Houston, Texas

Number of Illegal Immigrants has decreased since 2007

Has the economy reduced the number of illegal immigrants coming to the United States? Possibly. According to a recent report conducted by the Pew Hispanic Center, which shows that illegal immigration has dropped by 8 percent since 2007. The study which shows that 11.1 million illegal immigrants lived in the U.S. in 2009, shows that there were 12 million in 2007. The report found the number of illegal immigrants from South America and Central America as well as the Caribbean are in decline, according to finding possibly due to increased border enforcement. Other possible reasons attributed to the decline could be the poor economy as well as the increased number of drug wars and violence along the Mexican border. The study found that almost 4 percent of the U.S. population consists of illegal immigrants.

Pew Hispanic Center workers believe the decrease is related to the economy and the border enforcement in tandem. Jeffrey Passel, senior demographer with Pew believes the immigrants see illegal immigration as more expensive and the dangerous crossing areas as “less incentive” for a languishing job market with low wages. As an immigration lawyer, I have clients whose family members outside the U.S. have similar thoughts. The study did show that every Latin American country besides Mexico showed a decline in illegal immigration. Pew researchers believe this could be attributed to the thousands of non-Mexicans who are missing while attempting to cross into the U.S. along the Mexican border. Drug cartels often kidnap and charge ransoms which most are unable to pay.

Pew demographer Jeffrey Passel stated, “While people are arguing the government is not stopping illegal immigration, our data suggests the flow of undocumented immigrants sneaking into the country has dropped dramatically.” The Pew analysis is based on census data through last March 2009. The Census Bureau does not track immigration status, therefore the estimate on illegal immigrants is computed by subtracting the estimated legal immigrant population from the total foreign-born population.

While many believe the illegal immigration population is growing, the numbers show there has been actual decline in illegal immigration. This leads me to believe that some people see all immigrants as illegal and do not care if they are legal, but rather assume otherwise. Even with this study many will not believe it unless certain media outlets or Glen Beck tell them it’s true. Imagine, if somehow the border patrol was able to send everyone illegal out of the U.S. leaving 96% of the population as legal, who would be the new scapegoats for the lack of jobs and economy? No one remembers the word outsourcing or that Levi’s aren’t made in America anymore. It’s always the underserved that are to blame, never the people who hire the illegal immigrants or have their products made in sweatshops. As an immigration lawyer, I hope immigration reform comes soon and maybe then we can see who is chosen as the next group to blame.
Immigration lawyer Houston, Texas

Illegal Arizona Student Traveled Back to Mexico to Gain Legal Entry

Stories from Arizona these days rarely shed any positive light on the area of immigration law. A recent story in the Arizona Republic however, reinforced the idea that often people who enter the U.S. illegally want to become legal residents of the U.S. As an immigration lawyer, I know unlike most Americans, those who enter the U.S. illegally find there is either a 5 or 10 year bar from entering the U.S. and applying for a green card. The story of Oscar Vasquez is unusual for many reasons. Mr. Vasquez knew he would be required to do consular processing in Juarez and took the chance of being barred for 10 years. Yet one year later he returned to the U.S. legally.

Mr. Vasquez entered the U.S. with his mother at the age of 12. He lived in Arizona until after his graduation from Arizona State University, and was married with an infant daughter when he began researching residency requirements. Vasquez knew his diploma from ASU in engineering would be worthless without being a legal U.S. citizen, so he made a leap of faith and admitted his illegal presence in the U.S. In Juarez, Vasquez initially requested a marriage hardship waiver. This type of waiver requests the 10 year bar be waived due to the hardship of the wife and family being separated from the applicant. This initial waiver was denied, but with the help of Sen. Dick Durbin, his case was expedited and 361 days after he moved to Juarez, he was allowed to come to the U.S. legally.

Many who admit their illegal presence are denied these waivers and are forced to wait their 10 year bar before reentering the U.S. Not everyone has the help of senators who are proponents of the Dream Act, a bill that could grant legal status to illegal immigrant children who attend college or join the military. The media coverage of the case and Senator Durbin’s involvement expedited Mr. Vasquez’s case, but others are not always so lucky. The story had a happy ending for Mr. Vasquez, yet there are many others who want to do the right thing yet have no other recourse but to await their 10 year bar.

Mr. Vasquez should be applauded for doing the right thing like many others by gaining legal residence in the appropriate manner. Mr. Vasquez and untold numbers of others each year make the same trek to Juarez to await consular processing, yet unless the media or senators are involved does the general population know of these individuals. As an immigration lawyer in Houston, Texas, I frequently encounter individuals who want to gain legal residency. Earning legal U.S. residency can be almost impossible for those without legal entry into the U.S., yet many Americans believe most chose to be in the U.S. illegally. For many like Vasquez, who came as a child, being illegal in a country that is your home is often less frightening than returning to a country that is in many ways, completely foreign.
The Law Offices of J.R. Cantu

Border Patrol ID Checking Passengers on Domestic Trains

A recent story in the New York Times caught my attention regarding Border Patrol agents routinely boarding trains in the New York area, questioning passengers about their citizenship and requesting their immigration paperwork. Working as an immigration lawyer, I frequently try to find the legal implications of these stories and waited for confirmation that these checks were along the U.S. border. I continued reading as writer Nina Bernstein explained these incidents occurred on the Lake Shore Limited rail, which runs specifically between Chicago and New York and does not cross the Canadian Border. I was uneasy after learning that these checks are becoming more and more common.
Rafael Lemaitre, spokesman for the United States Customs and Border Protection, states the transportation checks are “a vital component to our overall border security efforts,” to prevent terrorism and illegal entry. Lemaitre noted the border patrol has jurisdiction to enforce immigration law within 100 miles of the border, and the questions during these checks are “consensual and nointrusive conversation.” Unfortunately most passengers do not understand that consensual when questioned by an armed authority figure means you can tell them you wish to remain silent or not answer.
The Border Patrol was asked if they were allowed to question individuals in Times Square which qualifies as 100 miles from international waters, their answer, “technically we can, but we don’t.” These types of checks have produced detention for legal immigrants, but there are fewer due process protections for individuals under detention. These individuals are not under arrest therefore they can be held in jail and have no set time to see a judge or to be given an attorney.
These passenger checks have produced arrests of 2,788 passengers between 2005 and 2009. Bernstein theorizes these checks are not well publicized but are the result of growing anti-terrorism spending since 9/11. Bernstein also argues in the article that immigration authorities cannot agree whether to deport criminals or concentrate on deporting all illegal immigrants. I am not sure how this type of questioning is any different than the Arizona law where interrogation can be based on speculation. Unfortunately as an immigration lawyer and as an American citizen I can see how this type of interrogation can be seen as intrusive, based on race and frightening. I understand the need to fight terrorism but if you single out non-whites its racial profiling. Even if it keeps me safe from foreign terrorists, this only makes it unsafe in general by showing this racial divide as an example for those looking for a reason to hate.
Law Offices of J.R. Cantu