[May 15, 2010]

U. S. Census Bureau

The results of the Census will form the basis for the apportionment of congressional districts and the distribution of hundreds of billions of dollars in federal funds, as well as serving to guide community-planning decisions across the country.? However, Census 2010 has not been without its share of controversy.? Some pro-immigrant activists have suggested that immigrants sit out the Census this year to protest the federal government¡¯s failure to enact comprehensive immigration reform.? Yet this would be self-defeating given the high economic and political stakes of an accurate count, and that fact that immigrants are already among those demographic groups who ar typically under-counted in the Census. So go ? PARTICIPATE!

Refugee Protection Act of 2010

The Refugee Protection Act of 2010 would establish a number of crucial changes designed to improve the lives of the world¡¯s most vulnerable people.? It would eliminate the one-year waiting period for refugees and asylees to apply for a Green Card.? This measure would enable individuals to become lawful permanent residents as soon as their refugee or asylee status is granted and would help speed up their integration into American society.? Moreover, the assistance provided to newly arrived refugees will be adjusted annually for inflation and cost of living, which would prevent newcomers from quickly slipping into poverty.? We support this legislation!
Additional reform includes authorizing the Secretary of State to designate certain vulnerable groups as eligible for expedited adjudication as refugees; enabling individuals considered de jure stateless ? (meaning those who live in limbo with no citizenship and without the ability to exercise their basic human rights) to obtain lawful status in the United States.? The law will also clarify definitions of what constitutes ¡°material support¡± to ensure that innocent actions of asylum seekers are not mistaken as terrorist activities.? At the same time, those with ties to terrorist activity will continue to be denied entry to the United States.?

Humanitarian Parole

Humanitarian parole enables inadmissible individuals to enter the United States temporarily due to an urgent humanitarian reason.? It does not grant legal residency but does grant permit to work and it can be extended.
Humanitarian parole cannot be used to avoid normal visa procedures.? An application for humanitarian parole can be made on Form I-131, Application for Travel Document and Form I-134 Affidavit of Support.? USCIS will make a decision on the application within 90 ? 120 business days.? Urgent cases could be processed faster.? To check on a pending application, contact: Department of Homeland Security, Attn: Chief, Humanitarian Affairs Branch, 20 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W., Suite 3300, Washington, DC 20529-2100.? An applicant will receive a written notice upon adjudication.
In the application, the applicant should explain in great detail why the application should be granted and detailed reasons why one cannot obtain a waiver.? If a humanitarian parole is needed, one must submit a complete explanation as to the need.

Supreme Court Decision Protects Rights
To Immigration Advice

The American Immigration Council applauds today's Supreme Court decision on the right to counsel for noncitizens charged with committing a crime. The Court held that criminal defense lawyers must advise their noncitizen clients about the risk of deportation if they accept a guilty plea.  The Court recognized that current immigration laws impose harsh and mandatory deportation consequences onto criminal convictions, and that Congress eliminated from these laws the Attorney General's discretionary authority to cancel removal in meritorious cases.  The Court said, "These changes to our immigration law have dramatically raised the stakes of a noncitizen's criminal conviction.  The importance of accurate legal advice for noncitizens accused of crimes has never been more important."
 
The case, Padilla v. Kentucky, involved a Vietnam War veteran who has resided lawfully in the U.S. for over 40 years.  His criminal defense lawyer told him not to worry about the immigration consequences of pleading guilty to a crime, but that advice was wrong.  In fact, the guilty plea made Mr. Padilla subject to mandatory deportation from the United States.  The state of Kentucky said that Mr. Padilla had no right to withdraw his plea when he learned of the deportation consequence.  Today's decision reverses the Kentucky court.  It also rejected the federal government's position (which had been adopted by several courts) that a noncitizen is protected only from "affirmative misadvice" and not from a lawyer's failure to provide any advice about the immigration consequences of a plea.

"The right to counsel is at the very core of our criminal justice system. The Court affirms that immigrants should not be held accountable when they rely on incorrect advice from their lawyers or where counsel fails to provide any immigration advice at all," said Beth Werlin, an attorney at the American Immigration Council's Legal Action Center. "Today's decision also reminds us that ultimately, the increased criminalization of immigration law and lack of flexibility has resulted in harsh results. Congress should do its part to restore immigration judges' discretion to consider the particular circumstances in a person's case, thus affording each person facing deportation an individualized and fair opportunity to be heard."

Consequences of Legalization

A new report from the Public Policy Institute of California entitled: Immigrant Legalization: Assessing the Labor Market Effects, provides some interesting information about potential legalization.? The report concludes that immigrants who receive legal status do not experience significant upward mobility in their occupation or wages.? Unfortunately, 4 ? 13 months is far too short a time to witness the sort of upward socioeconomic mobility that legalization would facilitate.? For instance, a report on beneficiaries of legalization under the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) revealed pronounced upward mobility in terms of education, wages, homeownership, and occupation between 1990 and 2006: in 1990, only 30 percent of IRCA immigrants 16-24 years old had a high-school diploma or better.  By 2006 (when that group was 31-41 years old), the share had increased to 58 percent.

New Arizona Enforcement Law Sparks Calls for Economic Boycott

Arizona's new controversial enforcement law, signed into law last week by Gov. Jan Brewer, has the potential to shake down more than just undocumented immigrants and suntanned citizens. Arizona's businesses and tourism industry are also likely to take a hit as more and more people call for an economic boycott. The law is causing many potential investors, visitors and tourists to avoid Arizona altogether. With a state budget deficit of more than $4.5 billion and an economy heavily dependent on tourism, Gov. Jan Brewer and the Arizona legislature will need to consider not only how they plan on paying for implementation of this new law, but also how to pay the larger price of doing business in a restrictionist state.

Immigration Reform

The passage of Arizona¡¯s proposed anti-immigration enforcement law has spurred an outcry of critical voices ? including the Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police, religious leaders, immigration advocacy groups and a slew of political leaders ? disavowing the bill as a license to racially profile and as ¡°open season on the Latino community¡±.? The proposed law, which Arizona Governor Jan Brewer signed, encourages Arizona police officers to investigate immigration status based on a ¡°reasonable suspicion¡± that a person is in the country illegally.? Yet, as the proposed law continues to garner media attention for its harsh and draconian spirit, it has also unintentionally shifted public and congressional attention toward reforming our entire federal immigration system ? an overhaul that would likely discourage states like Arizona from taking federal immigration enforcement into their own hands.
We believe that the law is unconstitutional and spiteful.? The law goes to prove that a comprehensive immigration act is a must by the federal government!