[Auguest 1, 2005]

President Bush signed an emergency spending bill in May with an unrelated rider that denies drivers licenses to illegal aliens.  At the National Governors?Association meeting in Iowa, both Democrats and Republicans denounced the measure known as Real ID Act as impractical and vastly underfunded. 

            Meanwhile, President Bush is dragging his feet regarding  new immigration legislation instead of coming through and supporting any of the proposals pending before Congress with the intention of resolving the illegal alien situation.

            The U.S. House of Representatives approved a free trade agreement with Central America handing President Bush a hard fought victory to expand global trade.

            The agreement is known as CAFTA (Central American Free Trade Agreement - similar to NAFTA).  This agreement eliminates tariffs on U.S. exports to Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua and the Dominican Republic.  Labor unions have lobbied hard against CAFTA.  

            A number of frustrated and armed anti-immigrant activists have decided to arbitrarily enforce immigration laws along the San Diego and Imperial Valley border with Mexico.  San Diego’s La Raza lawyers have taken the lead in organizing a “Legal Observer Project?with ACLU, National Lawyers Guild and AILA San Diego.  The coalition hopes to deter acts of hatred and violence.  The observers will report acts of violence so that if any anti-illegal immigration activists patrol the U.S. - Mexico border in San Diego county this summer, legal groups will monitor the patrols?activities for human rights or other violations.

            All this makes no sense.  We must resolve the legal status of the millions of illegals who work and contribute to this economy and are not going anywhere - They are staying!!!

            An interesting study was done recently by a liberal think tank that put the cost of forcibly removing most of the nation’s estimated 10 - 15 million illegal immigrants at staggering 41 billion dollars a year - a sum that exceeds the annual budget of the Department of Homeland Security.  The study is billed as the first ever estimate of costs associated with arresting, detaining, prosecuting and removing immigrants who have entered the U.S. illegally or overstayed their visas.  The total cost would be $206 billion to $230 billion over 5 years, depending on how many immigrants would leave voluntarily.

All these studies are not a solution to a courageous leadership that is required to resolve the unresolved condition of the millions that are here illegally and serve the economy well.

            The Attorney General denied asylum in the exercise of discretion to a leader in exile of the Islamic Salvation Front of Algeria who was associated with armed groups that committed widespread acts of persecution and terrorism in Algeria.  The U.S. has significant interests in combating violent acts of persecution and terrorism and it is inconsistent with these interests to provide safe haven to individuals who have connection to such acts of violence.

            The Attorney General found that terrorist acts committed by the armed Islamic groups in Algeria including the bombing of civilian targets and the widespread murder of journalists and intellectuals on account of their political opinions or religious beliefs constitute persecution of others.

 USCIS Announces Implementation of L-1 Visa Reform Act of 2004

             The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced on June 23, 2005, its implementation of new provisions for the L-1 temporary worker program which result from the L-1 Visa Reform Act of 2004.  The new provisions address “outsourcing ?of L-1B temporary workers and prohibit an L-1B nonimmigrant from working at a worksite where he or she is “controlled and supervised?by an employer other than the petitioning employer and at a worksite where he or she is essentially providing work for hire not related to the specialized knowledge required from the petitioner employer.  General skills or duties that relate to ordinary business activities will not meet the specialized knowledge requirement.

            The announcement indicated that the “control and supervision?provision requires petitioning employers to retain ultimate authority over their L-1B beneficiaries, a determination which will be made by USCIS on the specific facts presented by a petitioner.  The new provisions will apply to L-1B petitions filed with USCIS after June 5, 2005, including all extensions and amendments concerning nonimmigrants currently on L-1 status.

            The provisions also change the requisite prior work period outside of the U.S.  The L-1 must now have worked outside of the U.S. for at least one year for an employer with a qualifying relationship to the petitioning employer.  This only applies to the initial petition.  Extensions of status and amendments are not affected

Permanent Partner Legislation Introduced in House and Senate

            On June 21, 2005, members of both the Senate and the House of Representatives introduced legislation that, if adopted, would permit U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents to sponsor their permanent same-sex partners for residence in the U.S.  Identical bills S. 1278 and H.R. 3006 propose various amendments to the INA, including adding “permanent partnership?and “permanent partner?definitions and linking them to “marriage?and “spouse?respectively. 

A U.S. citizen or legal permanent resident would therefore be able to sponsor his or her spouse as an immediate relative.  Under the proposed bills, partners would not be subject to country numerical limitations on visas and would become a member of the family-based second preference class for visa distribution.  Partners would also, when appropriate, qualify for refugee relief benefits and asylum based on their partners?status.  Waivers of inadmissibility traditionally based on marriage would also be extended to partners of U.S. citizen or legal permanent residents.  Granting of conditional permanent resident status would also be amended to include partners.

Many artists and entertainers who attempted to obtain a visa to come to perform in the U.S. have encountered difficulties and embarrassment

at the U.S. Embassies

            The State Department published a memorandum identifying and resolving issues that performers have been faced with.  The summary of the memo includes the following points:

1.                  Artists, performing groups and their managers and sponsors have the responsibility to make sure that visa applications to perform in the United States are submitted in a timely manner, well in advance of any scheduled performances.  Consular officers should be especially alert to changes in a program or a group compelled by illness, injury or other emergencies.

2.                  n many cases, individual members of a performing group traveling together to the United States may not be able to appear at the same consulate at the same time.  There is no requirement that individual group members apply for visas at the same time and place.  Each member must, however, have a copy of the approved I-129 petition in order to apply or evidence (such as an I-797) of notification from the Department of Homeland Security or the State Department that such a petition has been approved.

3.                  An approved I-129 petition for a performer is prima facie evidence that the alien beneficiary meets the requirements for P classification.  The Department anticipates that the vast majority of visas based on these petitions can be issued without delay.  However, the Department is aware of instances where the performer petition can be exploited by persons who are not entitled to this status.  In such cases, performing groups and their representatives should be given the opportunity to establish their bona fides through evidence of past activity.   In addition, business records of the group, especially focusing on intended performances in the United States, can be very helpful in this regard.

4.                  Consular officers do not have the authority to question the approval of P petitions without specific evidence, unavailable to DHS at the time of approval of the petition, that the beneficiary may not be entitled to status.

5.                  In the past, consular officers have requested members of a group to actually perform in order to verify that all members of the group are actual performers.  Consular officers should not make this a routine practice without indication that one or more of the performers is not a bona fide member of the group.  This request is warranted only in rare cases, as part of an ant-fraud investigation.