|
Pacific News Service - July 20, 2004
Post-9/11 deportations of legal immigrants continue
By Erika Robles
According to official figures, as of late Jan. 2004, more than 63,000 immigrants have been detained over the past year. However, leading immigration attorney, Richard Iandoli, estimates it at about 100,000. Of those numbers, the Department of Homeland Security says it has already deported as many as 70 percent, most of them legal residents.
On Sept. 30, 1996, a new immigration act was introduced called the "Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996." This act allows for the deportation or removal of any alien --illegal, legal and non-immigrant -- convicted of a misdemeanor or felony that carries a punishment of at least one year in jail, regardless of whether they served the sentence or it was reduced to simple probation.
The most disturbing parts of this act are that the law is retroactive and that the definition of "felony" has been expanded.
The Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services states that the "primary purpose of the 1996 amendment was to expand laws regarding the removal/deportation of criminal aliens," no matter when the crime was committed, expanding a whole class of people who are now deportable. People who committed a crime in the 1970s are already facing deportation without hope of appeal. "They are putting a more serious penalty on something that a person has already done," said defense Attorney Ricardo M. Barros.
If a legal immigrant had done a crime years and years ago, paid his penalty in jail or probation, they now have to worry about being deported even if it was 20 years ago. "If you commit one of these crimes and you are married to a United States citizen, there used to be a waiver appeal because of the marriage. That has been struck; you don't have that process anymore. It does not matter if you have four children who are American citizens or not...The waiver, the relief that legal immigrants got, has been eliminated."
Moreover, prior to the introduction of this law, a legal immigrant could face deportation if he had been convicted of an aggravated felony which meant murder, any illicit trafficking, including firearms, money laundering, or any crime or violence for which a prison term of five years or more was imposed. The new Immigration Act has changed all that. The meaning of "aggravated felony" for immigration purposes has changed and it now includes less serious crimes such as: shoplifting, driving under the influence, fraud, burglary, minor technical violations of immigration law -- such as failure to update addresses and other required information within mandated deadlines -- and many other misdemeanors where a one-year sentence or imprisonment was ordered by the court regardless of any suspension or withholding of execution.
The definition of aggravated felony was also made retroactive, so that someone with a conviction twenty years ago that was not grounds for deportation when the crime was committed is now deportable without any possible relief, even though they may have lived an exemplary life ever since.
Although the law was introduced under former President Bill Clinton's administration, the law was unevenly enforced until after the 9/11 catastrophe. Since then all those arrested are held without bond until a deportation hearing or until they waive their rights to such a hearing. If the crime was committed after the act was enacted, the right of a hearing is waived.
Many of the legal residents apprehended had been living quiet, law-abiding lives for many years. However, they now face removal charges for a crime they committed sometimes decades ago and for which a penalty has already been paid. The old saying: "they've paid their debt to society," doesn't apply to them, simply because they aren't United States citizens.
Overall, the act is a massive and complicated piece of legislation which curtails and in most cases ends the United States life for an alien, and in numerous cases causes extreme hardship and undue separation of families.
http://news.ncmonline.com/news/view_article.html?article_id=0d675c47ac010996b50704c82754098c
India Post – July 9, 2004
Need to renew your non-immigrant visa?
You need to go back home first
By Bineeta Mishra,
The U.S. State Department announced that it would discontinue the domestic visa re-issuance service for certain nonimmigrant visas in the United States. Categories that are affected are C, E, H, L, O, P, or I and no new applications for renewals would be accepted after July 16. The State Department said that it is not feasible for the department to collect the biometric identifiers in the United States and encourage all applicants to apply in their home countries.
How this new role would affect the immigrant community? Clarifying some of the confusion caused by this new policy, Amy Ghosh, an immigration lawyer, says, “Please do not interpret this circular as that BCIS (Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services) would stop accepting applications of those above referenced visa categories or that they will stop approving those visas.
“This circular simply means that State Department will stop stamping the passport with the most currently issued visa based on the most current approval of BCIS. For example, a student with an F1 visa changes his status to H1B and has no plans to leave the US, he would not need a visa stamp, he can simply keep the H1B approval along with the new I-94 inside his passport. Eventually if this person gets adjusted to permanent residency and never had to go outside the US, this new circular would not affect him at all.”
“On the other hand, if an H1 B holder who does not have the new visa stamp on his passport needs to travel to some other country, in the past he could have send his passport to the State Department to get it stamped without leaving the US. Now in all likelihood he has to return to his home country to get his passport stamped before he can head out to the other country as he would need the visa stamp on his passport in order to re-enter the US,” explains Ghosh.
So what is the reason behind elimination of reissuance of visa in the United States? “Beginning October 1, 2004, all visas must include a biometric indicator. This means a fingerprint is needed. The State Department’s revalidation unit is not equipped to fingerprint visa applicants. The reason behind this decision is that after the new biometric requirement is implemented, the home country where the original visa was issued would have the fingerprint and all other biometric data, in order to reissue the visa. Moreover, it would curb usage of fake passports, traveling with other people’s passport, and variety of other immigration frauds,” says Amy.
Is the processing of third country nationals in Canada and Mexico out
the door as well? “Though the circular does not clearly state whether they would stop stamping passports at designated posts in Canada and Mexico, it clearly mentions that applicants are encouraged to apply in their home country. Most of the people made appointments at certain designated consulates in Canada and Mexico, and got their visa stamped. Because of the upcoming bio-metric requirement to be implemented in October 2004, it is very possible that those designated consulates in Mexico and Canada may stop processing third country nationals,” explains Amy.
How this circular will affect consulates in India? “All consulates throughout the world are expected to begin requiring biometric data by October. It is unclear how this new process would impact visa appointments and processing times at the consulates. Those in need of new visas should set their appointments online as soon as possible to ensure the ability to apply during a planned trip. The consulates in India are discontinuing the drop box facility for non-immigrant visas because the drop box program does not accommodate the consulates’ need to obtain biometric data from every applicant who is between 14 and 79 years of age. These fingerprints would be compared to those collected through US-VISIT to ensure that the same person who applies for the visa, travels on that visa. The fingerprints would also be used to conduct criminal background checks. Unfortunately, with the elimination of the drop box system and the revalidation process in the US, the waiting time for obtaining visas is likely to increase,” says Ghosh.
According to Faith Nouri, an immigration lawyer licensed in the US and Canada, the impact of this policy could have adverse effects. “The Department of Homeland Security has made another change which has further alienated foreign investors and professional workers in the US.”
While many countries around the world are facilitating investment by investors and employment by skilled professional workers, the US is putting more obstacles in place, one major obstacle being the implementation of all renewals and extensions taking place in the foreign national’s country. This means individuals who currently have a business that generates income for American employees or who benefit the US by virtue of their work as professionals in US companies are forced to leave the country to get their extensions or renewals abroad.
Up until July 17 they could have filed locally and obtained their extensions and renewals by submitting their tax returns and corporate documentation, etc. as is applicable to the Service Center handling the cases in that particular jurisdiction. Now, when the individual does this from abroad, he or she must go through a rigorous search, including a name check which is done manually. Individuals could be held up merely waiting for the result of the name check whereas this could have been done locally in the US. The unnecessary expense of traveling from the US to Japan, the Netherlands, India, etc. could not possibly benefit US interests.
The idea that this is for U.S. protection cannot be supported as we have yet to see one incident involving an E visa holder or H visa holder who was or has been a terrorist, says Nouri.
“U.S. Consulates and Embassies are overcrowded as it is and there have been lengthy waits at many Middle Eastern and Asian posts. For many who own businesses, such travel expense and delay could adversely affect their business or work. It is a very sad state of affairs and we can only hope that someone of wisdom will bring these problems to the attention of the administration soon to resolve this lack of good faith and these poor commercial policies,” observes Nouri.
http://news.ncmonline.com/news/view_article.html?article_id=936527f83bfd06cad0fb8cb8949e66c3
|
