[December 15, 2006]

Now that the elections are over and the Democrats will control the House of Representatives and the Senate, we believe that an Immigration Reform Act is coming.  It is clear that the Republican Party, by not going along with President Bush, is paying the price for alienating the fastest growing group of new voters in the nation.  The implication for the Presidential race of 2008 will be profound.

            Who won and who lost?  Those who pushed for a major immigration reform, to the surprise of the Republicans, won in the following races:

·                    Arizona: Democratic Gov. Janet Napolitano, a strong advocate of comprehensive immigration reform, won a resounding victory over her opponent.  In the closely watched Arizona 8^th Congressional district Democrat Gabrielle Giffords (D), a strong advocate of comprehensive immigration reform, clobbered Minuteman candidate Randy Graff (R) by a decisive margin.  And in a stunning upset, comprehensive reform advocate Harry Mitchell (D) defeated hardliner incumbent J.D. Hayworth (R).

·                    Colorado: Comprehensive reform advocates Bill Ritter (D) and Rick Perlmutter (D) handily won their races for Governor and Congress over hardliners.

·                    Pennsylvania: Comprehensive reform advocate Bob Casey (D) trounced incumbent hardliner Rick Santorum (R) – who featured tough attacks on Casey’s stance early and late in the campaign and launched www.caseyforamnesty.com – by 18%.

·                    Governor’s races:  In numerous Governors’ races Democratic candidates came under attack for begin “soft on illegal immigration,” and in all of these races – Maryland, Kansas, Oregon, Wisconsin, Massachusetts, Colorado, Arizona – the Democrats won.

·                    Schwarzenegger: In a display of Republican savvy lacking in most races, Governor Schwarzenegger moved away from hard line views on immigration, deftly repositioning himself in the middle on immigration, and won.  (How about drivers licenses?)

·                    Social Security canard: Many Republicans attacked Democrats on the spurious charge that they voted to “give social security benefits to illegal immigrants,” most notably in the Michigan and Washington Senate races. They failed to make a dent! The Democrats won anyway.

OBTAINING B-1/B-2 VISAS

            How can an intending visitor who has U. S. citizen or permanent resident relatives living in the U.S. convince the consul that they are truly only tourists?   A B1/B2 non-immigrant alien must establish to the satisfaction of the inspecting  officer that he or she meet the definition of a tourist which means having a residence in a foreign country which he or she has no intention of abandoning.

Even if the consul grants a visa, the inspector at the border can still ask the visitor questions to re-determine eligibility on a case by case basis.

If difficulties at the port of entry arise, can an incoming visitor withdraw his or her application for admission and ask to leave without being deported?  Yes, the inspector, as a matter of discretion, can allow the alien to withdraw his application for entry.  Withdrawing an application for admission does not by itself render this alien inadmissible during a subsequent application for admission.  The result will be that a deportation hearing will be prevented.

PERMANENT RESIDENT DEPARTURES

            At this time, there is no arrival/departure record system for lawful permanent residents as there is for most non-immigrant aliens.

However, airlines and ship lines are required to submit Advanced Passenger Information System data to the Bureau of Customs Services and Border Protection for each passenger and crew member arriving in or departing from, the United States.  This includes permanent residents.

            How about the travelers who present passports with I-551 stamp (approved for permanent residency) at the border?   Such travelers can expect increases scrutiny since the I-551 stamps lack the security features that I-551 cards have.

            For Western Hemisphere travelers, as of December 31, 2006, all travelers from the Americas, the Caribbean and Bermuda must have a passport or other accepted travel document to enter and re-enter the U.S. by air or sea.  As of December 2007, this law will apply to all border crossings.  This will include Mexico and Canada.

 State legislators around the country are considering enacting different laws relating to immigrants with the idea of locally combating illegal immigration.  We believe that such future local laws are unconstitutional since immigration issues are within the purview of the federal government not the state’s.

            Many such laws focus on restricting the provisions for obtaining drivers licenses, public education, and other public benefits to undocumented aliens.

            Specifically, ten states have already introduced legislation to reinforce the prohibitions on unauthorized employment embodied in the federal Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA).  These States are: Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Missouri, Mississippi, Pennsylvania and West Virginia.

            Most such bills provide that employers shall not knowingly hire or continue to employ unauthorized workers and impose sanctions for non-compliance.

            ARE WE CREATING AN ID CARD TRHOUGH THE BACK DOOR?

The Department of State, in consultation with the Department of Homeland Security, announced that they are submitting for public comment a federal rule proposing the development of a card-format passport for international travel by U.S. citizens through land and sea ports of entry between the U.S., Canada, Mexico, the Caribbean and Bermuda.  The limited-use passport card will be considered as good as a traditional passport book.  It will be wallet size and will cost $0 for children, $20 for adults plus a $25 execution fee.  The card will incorporate cutting-edge technology.  The question is: Is it creating an ID card through the back door?