Month: December 2017

Categories
Updates

Proposed Bills that Make Immigrant Families Vulnerable

Share this:

The year 2017 has been challenging for most immigrants. Many Filipino immigrants have been concerned with changes in federal policies and how it is affecting families and employment. The following developments have given reason for apprehensions about the future of U.S. immigration:

Attacking Family Immigration

A bill known as the Reforming American Immigration for a Strong Economy (RAISE) ACT seeks to cut current legal immigration by at least 50%. The serious impact of this bill is in the big reduction of family member categories who can be petitioned, including the limitation of qualified family members only to minor children and spouse of the U.S. citizens. Under the RAISE proposal, parents, adult married or unmarried children and siblings of U.S. citizens petitions are no longer relatives who can be petitioned. In addition, the age of minor children will be reduced to those who are under the age of 18 (from the current 21). For millions of Filipinos who are beneficiaries of family petitions, this bill will be a disappointment for families who have been waiting decades for reunification with their family members. This is definitely a bill that will not bode well for family unification.

Merit-Based System

Without taking into account family unity and the needs of businesses, the RAISE Act proposes to eliminate the current employment system of immigration. It prioritizes skills over family unity by designating a point system for future immigration applicants.

Heightened Enforcement

In his first month in office, Trump released his Executive Order on Interior Enforcement where he ordered changes that now prioritizes enforcement. He ordered for a budget that hires more than 10,000 Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Agents that may result in mass deportations. An enforcement only bill H.R. 2431 was introduced by a certain Rep. Labrado (R-ID) that dramatically expands immigration enforcement and criminalizes undocumented immigrants.

Fixing DACA

Young unauthorized immigrants are looking forward to legislation that will provide solution to their predicament given the termination of the DACA program in September of 2017. The DREAM Act was the bill that directly addressed this issue and provided for a permanent solution by granting conditional permanent status to DACA beneficiaries and allows them to become U.S. citizens in 5 years. Other bills like the SUCCEED Act also provided a permanent status but comes with restrictions. Under those bills, Dreamers will be prohibited from sponsoring their children and spouses in order to prevent chain migration. There were also provisions that compel Dreamers to sign away their rights to any immigration benefit or relief like immediate deportation without due process if they commit minor crimes such as driving without license or shoplifting.

All the above bills are contained in the White House Principles on immigration and obviously will have negative impact on many immigrants. The most disheartening proposals are the attacks on family….. the foundation of this nation and the policy behind our immigration law. Our community must continue to advocate for what is right and bring the message to our legislators in their home district this holiday season to support immigration bills that are humane and value family unity instead of forcing them apart.

I waited until December 22 to write about an immigration update hoping that I would bring the good news about a positive development on the DREAM Act. Those who are beneficiaries of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals will have to wait until January 2018 to find out whether or not Congress will pass the DREAM Act which is the permanent fix to the DACA program for young undocumented immigrants. This holiday season will still be spent with uncertainty hanging over the future of DACA recipients. While this is a disappointment to many, I am still positive that with hopeful bipartisan support in Congress, there will be an opportunity for passage of the DREAM Act early 2018.

This Christmas, my wish is for more (not less) family unification; and, for the leaders of this country to realize the value of families and its contribution to the strength of our nation.

Merry Christmas to one and all!

Categories
Updates

Int’l Entrepreneur Parole good as Dep’t of Homeland Security loses lawsuit

Share this:

No matter how eager the current administration is to restrict immigration policies, the rule of law must still prevail. An immigration regulation that went through the process of the required public notice and comment may not be abruptly rescinded without violating the Administrative Procedure Act. This was the issue of contention in the case against the U.S. Department of Homeland Security when it sought to delay the implementation of the International Entrepreneur Parole from July 17, 2017 to March 14, 2018.

The Delay Rule was released by DHS on July 11, 2017 without offering the public the required advance notice, or an opportunity to comment, claiming that there was good cause to issue the rule. A lawsuit was filed against DHS by the Plaintiff National Venture Capital Association, and the court ruled in favor of the Plaintiff. The U. S. District Court rendered the Delay Rule invalid for failure to afford public comments and notice on the change.

As a result of this court ruling, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services released a statement on December 14, 2017 informing the public that the International Entrepreneur Parole applications will be accepted without further delay.

Entrepreneur Parole Program

The entrepreneur parole program grants parole status to a foreign national who is an “entrepreneur” of a startup and who has an active role in the operation of the business. This entrepreneur must have recently formed a new start-up entity within three years before the date of filing the initial parole application.

Unlike an applicant for investors visa, where the entrepreneur must show infusion of capital to the business that is formed from his own resources, an international entrepreneur seeking parole must show that the start-up business has potential for a “rapid growth and job creation.” There are three alternative ways to prove this: first, that the business has significant U.S. capital investment of $345,000 or capital from established U.S. investors such as venture capital firms, angel investors and the like who have a history of substantial investment in successful start-up entities; second, the business received government funding of grants totaling $100,000 or more; and, third, any reliable and compelling evidence that will prove significant public benefit to the United States.

The USCIS will now start accepting applications on new USCIS Form 941. The filing fee for this application is $1,200. Once the application is approved, the entrepreneur, his/her spouse and minor children will be paroled into the United States and will receive employment authorization documents. Parole will be granted for up to 2 years and may be renewed for up to 3 years.

Parole Authority

The current immigration law allows the DHS to exercise its parole authority under section 212(d)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act if the presence of the paroled non-U.S. citizen would provide a significant public benefit to the United States.

Under the entrepreneur parole program, eligible applicants may be granted a stay of up to 30 months, with the possibility to extend it for a period of up to 30 additional months. Those targeted to receive parole are entrepreneurs who shall work with the start-up businesses.

Approximately, 3,000 entrepreneurs are expected to apply for parole under this program. Most of those who are planning to apply come from the tech industry as well as those who are planning to develop new business ventures that will spur economic growth and job creation.

While the rule is now in effect, according to DHS, the administration is still determined to terminate this program at some point, and the agency is now planning to afford enough public notice and comment before its termination. In the meantime, those who are eligible may consider immediately filing their applications.

(Atty. Lourdes S. Tancinco is a San Francisco based immigration lawyer and immigrant’s right advocate. She may be reached at law@tancinco.com, facebook.com/tancincolaw, or 1 888 930 0808)

Also appears in: Inquirer.net 

Categories
Updates

What immigration detainers vs. ‘sanctuary cities’ controversy is about

Share this:

SAN FRANCISCO — After Jose Ines Garcia Zarate, a Mexican national, was acquitted of murder in the death of Kate Steinle, the term “immigration detainers” came to light in public discourses about immigration.

Despite his acquittal, Garcia Zarate is nonetheless going to be removed/deported from the United States.

What are immigration detainers? Why are some states and local governments, like the City of San Francisco, refusing to cooperate with federal enforcement of immigration law?

The Kate Steinle Case

Garcia Zarate is a non-citizen who had prior deportation orders. Despite the bar to entering the United States after deportation, he made his way back to this country. He spent more than four years in a federal prison for illegally re-entering. Thereafter, he was sent to San Francisco prison to undergo trial on a 20-year-old felony marijuana charge. The local court dismissed this marijuana charges, and he was released from jail.

Prior to his release from jail, the federal officials issued an immigration detainer to the local enforcement agency to notify ICE when he would be released because of an existing order for his deportation. The City of San Francisco has a sanctuary jurisdiction where only a formal court order will allow them to honor an immigration detainer.

As a result of the refusal of the San Francisco official to acknowledge the request for detainer, Garcia Zarate was released from custody. It was during this time that the incident of the “accidental’ shooting of Kate Steinle occurred. This was the recent finding of the jury after hearing the evidence. The acquittal is unrelated to City’s failure to recognize the immigration detainer; neither did they find it relevant to consider that Garcia Zarate was unlawfully present in the United States.

Understanding immigration detainers

An immigration detainer is a document issued by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement notifying the state or local government that they seek to take custody of a non-U.S. citizen “for purposes of arresting and removing” this individual from the United States. Oftentimes, ICE will issue an immigration detainer during criminal proceedings of the non-U.S. citizen after he is first taken into state or local custody.

Detainers have been used by the federal government since 1950 as a means of obtaining custody of a non-citizen for purposes of deportation, or to enforce immigration law.

The controversy with respect to immigration detainers started in 2008 when multiple detainers were issued by ICE under the restored Secure Communities program. ICE, then, took into custody a significant number of non-citizens who were not conclusively deportable, had no convictions or were simply charged with non-removable misdemeanor offenses. These incidents resulted in undue separation of families, loss of employment or disruption of businesses, not to mention lawsuits filed by families of detained individuals.

In response to these detainers under the Secure Communities programs, several states and local government enacted ordinances indicating their unwillingness to cooperate with federal government in immigration enforcement.

They are referred to as “sanctuary” cities because they oppose federal immigration authorities’ efforts to detain unlawfully present aliens within their jurisdiction.

Many local authorities want victims and witnesses to be safe and unafraid to come forward to report crime and get help, thus these local authorities’ refusal to cooperate with immigration enforcers. Entangling local law enforcement with deportations undermines trust and safety in the community.

The shooting of Kate Steinle was undeniably a terrible tragedy. But the fact that the incident was used to drum up support for mass deportation, to scapegoat all unauthorized immigrants and link them to crimes is totally reprehensible.

This immigration debate on detainers and sanctuary cities must be placed in proper perspective so that real solutions towards a more humane immigration reform may finally be attained.

Atty. Lourdes S. Tancinco is a San Francisco CA based immigration attorney at Tancinco Law Offices and may be reached at law@tancinco.com, facebook/tancincolaw, or at 1 888 930 0808 or at 1 415 397 0808.

Categories
Updates

YOU’RE INVITED: Immigrants: At the Crossroads (December 9, 2017)

Share this:

You are invited to learn about your health care rights and how potential changes in immigration laws may impact you and your family.

Immigrants At the Crossroads

Join the Filipino Mental Health Initiative, St. Andrew Social Justice Ministry, and experts in immigration and health care rights to learn more about local resources available to you and your family. Atty Lou Tancinco of Tancinco Law Offices is among the guest speakers.

Forum topics:
• What health care rights do you have regardless of immigration status?
• What types of public benefits (i.e., Medi-Cal, Cal Fresh, SSI) are considered public charge?
• How social benefits impact your personal assets (Medi-Cal Estate Recovery).
• Potential changes in the laws related to family sponsored immigration and employment-based immigration.

Presentation by Atty Lourdes Tancinco:

Event Details:
Saturday, December 9, 2017
1:30 – 4 p.m.

Venue:
St. Andrew Catholic Church Hall
1571 Southgate Ave.
Daly City, CA 94015

Register by December 5
http://tinyurl.com/yba3r5no

Tagalog interpreters provided. Interpreter services in other languages available with 3 days notice.

Questions or interpretation requests, contact: fmhismc@gmail.com