Immigration Bill paves way for illegals and families to obtain legal residency

Story first appeared on Detroit Free Press -

A draft of a White House immigration proposal obtained by USA TODAY would allow illegal immigrants to become legal permanent residents within eight years.

The plan also would provide for more security funding and require business owners to check the immigration status of new hires within four years. In addition, the nation's 11 million illegal immigrants could apply for a newly created "Lawful Prospective Immigrant" visa, under the draft bill being written by the White House.

If approved, they could then apply for the same provisional legal status for their spouse or children living outside the country, according to the draft.

The bill is being developed as members in both chambers of Congress are drafting their own immigration bills. In the House, a bipartisan group of representatives has been negotiating an immigration proposal for years and are writing their own bill. Last month, four Republican senators joined with four Democratic senators to announce their agreement on the general outlines of an immigration plan.

One of those senators, Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., said Obama's bill repeats the failures of past legislation and would be "dead on arrival" in Congress.

"It fails to follow through on previously broken promises to secure our borders, (and) creates a special pathway that puts those who broke our immigration laws at an advantage over those who chose to do things the right way and come here legally," Rubio said. "It would actually make our immigration problems worse."

The draft was obtained from an Obama administration official who said it was being distributed to various agencies. The official requested anonymity because he was not authorized to release the proposal publicly.

The bill mirrors many provisions of the bipartisan 2007 bill that was spearheaded by the late Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., and Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and ultimately failed.

In his first term, Obama often deferred to Congress on drafting and advancing major legislation, including the Affordable Care Act. He has openly supported the efforts in Congress to take the lead on immigration legislation, and just this week met with Democratic senators to discuss their proposals.

But two weeks ago in Las Vegas, while outlining his immigration plans, Obama made clear that he would not wait too long for Congress to get moving.

"If Congress is unable to move forward in a timely fashion, I will send up a bill based on my proposal and insist that they vote on it right away," he said.

White House spokesman Clark Stevens said Saturday that the administration continues to support the bipartisan efforts ongoing in Congress.

"The president has made clear the principles upon which he believes any common-sense immigration reform effort should be based," Stevens said. "We continue to work in support of a bipartisan effort, and while the president has made clear he will move forward if Congress fails to act, progress continues to be made and the administration has not prepared a final bill to submit."

According to the White House draft, people would need to pass a criminal background check, submit biometric information and pay fees to qualify for the new visa. If approved, they would be allowed to legally reside in the U.S. for four years, work and leave the country for short periods of time. After the four years, they could then reapply for an extension.

Illegal immigrants would be disqualified from the program if they were convicted of a crime that led to a prison term of at least one year, three or more different crimes that resulted in a total of 90 days in jail, or if they committed any offense abroad that "if committed in the United States would render the alien inadmissible or removable from the United States."

People currently in federal custody or facing deportation proceedings also could be allowed to apply for the Lawful Prospective Immigrant visa. Application forms and instructions would be provided in "the most common languages spoken by persons in the United States," but the application and all supporting evidence submitted to the federal government would have to be in English.

They would also be given a new identification card to show as proof of their legal status in the country.

The immigrants could then apply for legal permanent residence, commonly known as a green card, within eight years if they learn English and "the history and government of the United States" and pay back taxes. That would then clear the path for them to apply for U.S. citizenship.

To combat fraud, the draft proposes a new Social Security card be developed that is "fraud-resistant, tamper-resistant and wear-resistant." The Social Security Administration would be required to issue the new cards within two years.

A major requirement for many Republicans is enhanced border security. The bill calls for an unspecified increase in the Border Patrol, allows the Department of Homeland Security to expand technological improvements along the border and adds 140 new immigration judges to process the heavy flow of people who violate immigration laws.

It also orders U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to study whether a land-border crossing fee should be implemented to help offset border security costs. The draft also proposes raising many inspection fees that border-crossers already pay.

The draft bill proposes a new plan to allow Homeland Security to "accept donations" from citizens, businesses and local and state governments to improve ports of entry and security features along the border. And it would require CBP to begin collecting statistics on deaths along the border and report them quarterly.

The draft also expands the E-Verify program that checks the immigration status of people seeking new jobs. Businesses with more than 1,000 employees must begin using the system within two years, businesses with more than 250 employees within three years and all businesses within four years.

Homeland Security, working with the U.S. departments of Labor and Agriculture, the attorney general and other agencies, would engage in a $40 million-a-year program to educate business owners and workers about the program.

Homeland Security also would be required to submit a report within 18 months showing how the worker verification system is working, and specifically explain how it is affecting the nation's agriculture industry, which relies heavily on illegal immigrant workers.

The draft obtained by USA TODAY does not include sections that would alter the nation's legal immigration system to adjust the future flow of legal immigrants, which is expected to be a critical component of any immigration overhaul.

Arizona Traffic Stops End in Detention for Some

Story first appeared in The Wall Street Journal.

A week after Supreme Court arguments over Arizona's illegal-immigration law, the arrest, detention and subsequent release of an undocumented woman following a traffic stop added a real-world example to the courtroom debate about how the statute could play out.

The woman, who is married to an American soldier and is in the process of legalizing her U.S. residency, was pulled over Tuesday for making an illegal turn, and sent to immigration authorities when she couldn't produce a driver's license or Social Security card requested by a sheriff's deputy. Federal authorities released her late Thursday after she had spent two nights in detention, according to Raleigh Immigration Lawyers.

Arizona's law, enacted in 2010 and tangled up in court ever since, would give local police the power to check the immigration status of anyone they lawfully stop. People who cannot prove they are in the U.S. legally are detained, and federal immigration authorities are notified.

The Obama administration, challenging the Arizona law, argued before a skeptical court that the state exceeded its powers by directing police to enforce immigration law, traditionally the purview of the federal government. Arizona's lawyer and some Justices suggested the state was merely picking up illegal immigrants and turning them over to the federal government, which then could decide what to do with them.

This case shows how hard it is for state law-enforcement officials to determine someone's immigration status. Arizona's lawyer told the Supreme Court that it could be done in 10 or 11 minutes. In this case, it took three days for federal authorities to figure it out, stated Miami Immigration Lawyers.

Following the court hearings, the Obama administration announced illegal immigrants wouldn't be placed in deportation proceedings merely for a traffic violation, part of continuing efforts to devote resources to deporting foreigners who have committed serious crimes. In 2010, it unveiled a policy that put illegal immigrants who are immediate relatives of U.S. military personnel on a faster track to legal permanent residency than other applicants in the U.S. illegally.

The undocumented woman, a resident of Bullhead City, was brought to the U.S. illegally from Mexico at the age of four, according to her and her family's attorney. She grew up in Arizona and married Guillermo Garcia, a U.S. citizen, four years ago.

Her husband is currently in Vilseck, Germany, with the 2nd Cavalry Regiment.

The family's attorney said he filed an application in March based on her marriage to a soldier but hasn't heard back. A spokesman for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services said the agency doesn't comment on specific cases.

On Tuesday, the woman was on the way to buy supplies for her three-year-old daughter's birthday party when she made an illegal turn. Suspecting she was here illegally, the sheriff's deputy took her into custody and turned her over to a border-patrol agent.

Her husband said he got a call from his family on Tuesday informing him that his wife had been arrested. Up all night, he said he wrote a letter to his congressman and contacted his lawyer. A public information specialist for the Mohave County Sheriff's Office said that is is not relavent that her husband is in the military, she was determined to be an illegal immigrant.

The woman said the border-patrol agent transported her to a station in Blythe, Calif., and then to Yuma, Ariz., where she was offered voluntary, expedited removal to Mexico. She declined the offer. U.S. Customs and Border Protection issued her a notice to appear in court for a removal hearing.

After spending two nights in cells with two other immigrant women, she said, the three were transported Thursday morning to Eloy detention center, a facility several hours away that contracts with Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

When he learned she was there, her husband called the facility and explained that he was "within hours of deployment." He said he was told to "call back later." He wasn't allowed to speak with his wife. The next day, he said, an officer told him she would be released.

A spokesman for Customs and Border Protection said the agency doesn't comment on specific cases.

ICE said she was released "after the agency verified that she had no criminal history and is married to an active-duty U.S. service member." It added that it revoked the notice to appear for a deportation hearing.


For more law related news, visit the Nation of Law blog.
For national and worldwide related business news, visit the Peak News Room blog.
For local and Michigan business related news, visit the Michigan Business News blog.
For healthcare and medical related news, visit the Healthcare and Medical blog.
For real estate and home related news, visit the  Commercial and Residential Real Estate blog.
For technology and electronics related news, visit the Electronics America blog.
For organic SEO and web optimization related news, visit the SEO Done Right blog.

Lawyers Must Point out Deals' Deportation Risks

USA Today

WASHINGTON — Attorneys must tell their immigrant clients if pleading guilty to a crime carries a risk of deportation, the Supreme Court ruled Wednesday in a decision bolstering the constitutional guarantee of effective assistance from a lawyer.

"It is our responsibility under the Constitution to ensure that no criminal defendant — whether a citizen or not — is left to the mercies of incompetent counsel," Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority. "Our long-standing Sixth Amendment precedents, the seriousness of deportation as a consequence of a criminal plea, and the ... impact of deportation on families ... demand no less."

Seven of the nine justices agreed that the constitutional rights of a Kentucky drug defendant had been violated because his lawyer gave bad information about the possibility of deportation. Two members of the majority disagreed with Stevens' broad reading of the Sixth Amendment guarantee of effective counsel.

Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas fully dissented.

The case of Padilla v. Kentucky had been closely watched by immigrants rights advocates concerned about how federal laws over the years has greatly expanded the types of crimes that warrant deportation.

Michelle Fei, co-director of the New York-based Immigrant Defense Project, said immigrants "often plead guilty unaware that the result would be permanent exile from their families and communities." She praised the court for recognizing that "deportation is an extreme penalty."

The U.S. Justice Department, which had argued that lawyers do not have to provide advice on the deportation consequences of a guilty plea, had no comment.

The Supreme Court case centered on Jose Padilla, a native of Honduras, who has been a lawful permanent resident for 40 years. Stevens noted that Padilla served in the U.S. military during the Vietnam War.

In 2002, Padilla pleaded guilty to transporting marijuana.

After agreeing to a plea deal, Padilla discovered that it exposed him to deportation proceedings. He claimed his lawyer told him that he "did not have to worry about immigration status since he had been in the country so long." He says he would not have pleaded guilty if he had not received the flawed advice.

The Kentucky Supreme Court ruled that the Sixth Amendment guarantee of effective counsel does not protect a defendant from bad advice about deportation. Like some other state and federal courts, the Kentucky top court minimized deportation as merely a "collateral" consequence of the guilty plea.

The Supreme Court's decision Wednesday treats deportation as a far more serious consequence. Stevens referred to the "steady expansion of deportable offenses" and said, "The importance of accurate legal advice for noncitizens accused of crimes has never been more important."

The justices returned Padilla's case to lower courts for proceedings on whether his attorneys bad advice sufficiently hurt his case to require a new hearing.

Joining Stevens were Justices Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor.

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito agreed that lawyers should not mislead an immigrant about deportation but disagreed with Stevens on how far the lawyer must go to explain potentially complex immigration law.

In dissent, Scalia, joined by Thomas, said the majority too expansively interpreted the protections against ineffective counsel. "The Constitution ... is not an all-purpose tool for judicial construction of a perfect world; and when we ignore its text in order to make it that, we often find ourselves swinging a sledge where a tack hammer is needed."