Archive for the ‘Immigration’ Category

« 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.

IMMIGRATION CONSEQUENCES OF CRIMINAL CONVICTIONS– A MESSAGE TO CRIMINAL LAW ATTORNEYS

Tuesday, July 17th, 2007

I have never practiced criminal law, but one aspect of my civil practice touches on criminal practice in a way that is crucial for criminal law attorneys to understand. I handle immigration cases. In cases where immigration law and criminal law intersect, knowledge of current immigration law is essential.

Many more residents of the Grand Traverse area are non-citizens than anyone would imagine. For the same reason our area attracts immigrants from Ohio and Illinois, it also attracts them from Mexico, Jamaica, and Turkey (to name the native countries of a few of my clients). The immigration consequences of a criminal conviction for a legal alien are monumental, and I think we are not doing our job if we fail to understand this and make our clients aware. A client may face deportation after a conviction for even misdemeanors, pursuant to 1996 changes to the Immigration and Naturalization Act.

Not that the Michigan Supreme Court would find fault with an attorney for failing to address this issue. In fact, Michigan stands alone, holding in People v. Davidovich, 463 Mich 446 (2000), that defense counsel’s failure to inform aliens that they may be deported upon a criminal conviction is not grounds to withdraw a guilty plea. While the Michigan Supremes find immigration consequences a collateral matter, more than ten other states have actually mandated that courts verify the defendant’s understanding of this potential risk.

Aside from Davidovich, the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, Article 36, 1 (b) requires the United States, as a signatory to this international treaty, to inform arrested non-citizens of their right to contact their national consulates. Presumably, even if state law doesn’t require the criminal non-citizen defendant to understand the immigration consequences of a conviction, the national consulate will.

When the Hon. James R. McCormick visited Nogales, Mexico in 2002, he brought home a Mexican government “Guide on Human Rights” informing English-speaking non-citizen arrestees of their right to “establish contact with your Consulate.” The United States, including our own local law enforcement officials, routinely ignores this obligation.

Our government, however, would have a fit if a U.S. citizen arrested in Mexico or Turkey was not informed of their right and allowed to contact the U.S. embassy. Mexico is taking the arrogant U.S. government to the World Court in The Hague for continued violations of this treaty. If the United Nations International Court of Justice issues an injunction, the United States must choose whether to respect or defy its judgment.

How is every little northern Michigan district court and law enforcement unit supposed to know about the Vienna Convention’s requirements? We will all learn together in the same way we learned about Miranda rights–by education. Reading this article is one step.

Identify the citizenship status of each of your criminal defendant clients. A conviction for a non-citizen may earn him or her an unwanted ticket back to the country of origin. Even if the client has a U.S. citizen spouse and children depending upon the defendant and his or her income. Even if the client has spent his or her entire life in the United States with no connection to the country of birth. The consequences of that conviction are more than a fine and jail time to the non-citizen client — they can lose the most fundamental elements of the client’s life — home and family.
Posted by Lea Ann Sterling, Esq., July 17, 2007

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

INCREASE IN IMMIGRATION FEES

Friday, July 6th, 2007

On May 29, 2007, United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) announced a new fee schedule for immigration benefits and petitions. The new fees will be effective July 30, 2007. Applications or petitions postmarked or filed on or after that date will require new fees. For many applications and petitions, the filing fees have increased substantially. Thus, if you desire or need to file for an immigration benefit, it would be beneficial to try and do so before the increase in fees.

For more information on these fee increases, you can refer to the following press release issued by USCIS:
www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/FinalFeeRuleQsAs052907.pdf

For a detailed chart that identifies the new fees:
www.uscis.gov/files/nativedocuments/FinalUSCISFeeSchedule052907.pdf
Posted by Wendy K. Bailey, Esq., July 6, 2007

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

« Back