Archive for June, 2008

« Back

IMMIGRATION LAW ENFORCEMENT HURTS AND COSTS

Thursday, June 12th, 2008

Sadly, considering the estimated 12 million undocumented immigrants living in the shadows in the United States today, the U.S. Congress has failed to enact comprehensive reform of the country’s immigration laws. Even worse, this spring Congress compounded the untenable immigration law framework by failing to extend an existing program that allowed migrant and seasonal workers to obtain returning-worker visas and thereby travel here legally for their jobs. Additionally, the number of green cards allowed for unskilled or low-skilled workers — hotel workers, farm labor, construction workers to name a few — is limited to an astonishing 5,000 per year for the entire United States.

Because the government has not opened pathways for timely, practicable legal entry into the U.S. for seasonal workers or any others wishing to immigrate, there will continue to be large numbers of people with illegal immigrant status. Likewise, there will be more to come of the aggressive, scattershot and sweeping raids by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (I.C.E.) upon American businesses. According to its government website, www.ice.gov, I.C.E. now has over 100 special operations enforcement teams spread across the county, and in May alone these teams arrested 1,808 undocumented persons in the United States.

Judging by the agency press releases, I.C.E. appears to have ratcheted up its focus on arresting undocumented persons with criminal offenses against children, which is a very commendable effort and certainly could advance the security of the homeland. They have also, however, continued to go after more and more businesses with search warrants and surprise raids, including arresting 60 undocumented workers at 11 taco restaurants in the San Francisco Bay area in May; arresting 400 hourly workers at a poultry processing plant in Batesville, Arkansas in April; and 34 workers at a Heber, California farm-labor contracting company in June.

After I.C.E. raided and detained (inside cattle sheds) some 400 workers at a kosher meat processing business in Iowa last month, those arrested were denied proper due process and rushed through federal hearings set up inside the cattle barns. I.C.E. prosecutors gave the undocumented detainees a Solomon’s choice. Within seven days, they had to choose between: 1) plead guilty to criminal charges, agree to deportation without a hearing to determine options for remaining in the country, and likely receive prison time; or 2) refuse the plea bargain and face tougher charges and punishment ahead.

Pursuing undocumented immigrants whose crime is working without a visa, or being an undocumented spouse or child living in the United States, does nothing to advance homeland security. It does harm to persons and American families who are among the most vulnerable, poor and undefended.

These military actions punish business owners, as well, with fines that can be very onerous, especially for small businesses such as family farms or family-owned restaurants and resorts. If I.C.E. determines that a business has employed unauthorized immigrants, it can impose a first offense civil penalty of not less than $275, not more than $2,200 for each undocumented worker. A second offense shoots the fines up to a minimum $2,200 and maximum $5,500 for each worker; and a third offense raises the cost to the business for each unauthorized employee to $3,300 minimum and $11,000 maximum. Business owners and managers can also be prosecuted criminally and be in jeopardy of jail time.

Employers are held responsible not only for workers they hire themselves, but also for undocumented workers supplied to them by labor contractors or employment agencies, and workers paid as independent contractors rather than as employees. Other, additional fines can be levied for each and every incorrectly completed federal form I-9.

If Congress had the courage to develop and implement immigration laws that give family members and workers a means of making the United States their home without having to wait many years or decades or face deportation, it would clearly benefit the immigrants, U.S. businesses, the economy, and the richness of our common culture. Until that occurs, businesses and individuals with questions about immigration law are invited to consult the knowledgeable and experienced immigration lawyers at Sterling Law Office for advice and assistance. For press releases and events supporting immigration law reform, see the website of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, www.aila.org.
Posted by Mary Wreford; Approved by Lea Ann Sterling, Esq., June 12, 2008

The information presented in this article is for general information only and should not be construed to be legal advice.

EMPIRE FAMILY LAW ATTORNEYS UNTANGLE PATERNITY

Tuesday, June 3rd, 2008

Family law and divorce law in Michigan uphold some unique tenets on the matter of paternity and fathers’ rights to their children. Understanding the laws is of utmost importance in the case of both biological children and non-biological children, as well as for children born either within or outside of marriage. Establishing the paternity of a child also can both protect a man’s freedom from responsibility for a child whom he did not conceive, or conversely can protect his rights to a parental relationship with a child he did not conceive.

Usually if a man wishes to secure the rights of a father to a child who is born out of wedlock, he must take action upon the birth of the child to lay the groundwork. He should have his name inscribed on the baby’s birth certificate as the father, if it is possible to do so, sign an acknowledgement of paternity with the Friend of the Court, file an action with the family court to establish paternity, or adopt the child if he is not the biological father. For men who are involved as father-figures with non-biological children (for example, with a child born to a girlfriend and conceived with a different man), it’s crucial to legally establish the relationship in order to protect the right to continue a relationship with the child in the future, even if the mother and the man don’t stay together.

Equally, if a man is being pursued for paternity and financial support for a child born out of wedlock which he did not conceive and with whom he does not have nor desire a relationship, a very fast and painless swab taken from inside the mouth can provide the DNA to defeat such a claim.

For children conceived or born during a marriage, or even within months after a divorce, but who were not conceived by the husband, Michigan family law weighs in heavily on the side of holding that the husband is the recognized and responsible father. Clearly, how this situation gets legally interpreted and enforced can have life-altering consequences for the husband whose wife conceives outside the marriage or for the man who conceives a child with a woman who is or recently was married to another man.

The “equitable parent” doctrine of state law holds that a husband who isn’t the biological father may be considered the father for all legal and parental purposes if the husband and child mutually acknowledge a father-child relationship or if the mother has helped develop such a relationship. The husband can choose to have the same rights to that child as if he were the biological parent and could prevent the biological father from gaining those rights.

On the other hand, a husband with a non-biological child conceived or born during his marriage can be prevented from denying the paternity and all responsibilities for that child by the “equitable estoppel” doctrine of Michigan family law. Thus a husband could end up having to take parental rights over a child who is not his and whose entry into this world was none of his choosing.

Generally speaking, Michigan paternity law has evolved with the priority of protecting the best interests of children. It is complex and multi-faceted, however, and for those facing paternity issues, the assistance and case-specific advice of experienced and savvy family law attorneys like those at Sterling Law Office is of paramount importance. While litigating matters of paternity does cost money, considering what clients potentially could stand to lose or to gain, it is one of the wisest investments that can be made.
Posted by Mary Wreford; Approved by Lea Ann Sterling, Esq., June 3, 2008

The information presented in this article is for general information only and should not be construed to be legal advice.

« Back