Categories
Updates

Should the Unauthorized Immigrant Leave Voluntarily?

Share this:

San Francisco, CA – With President-elect Trump’s promise of a mass deportation of illegal immigrants, many unauthorized immigrants (including those who have overstayed their visas) are concerned about their future in the United States. While Mexico has 4.1 million unauthorized immigrants, there are approximately 350,000 Filipino immigrants in the U.S. with undocumented status.

Though Trump has pledged to initiate mass deportations on the first day of his term, the details of this policy remain unclear. At present, there are no explicit guidelines on how deportations might be implemented. Based on campaign statements, the following actions are anticipated:

  • Use of emergency and executive authorities to bypass existing laws
  • Reactivation of the 1798 Alien Enemies Act, which served as the legal basis for the detention of people of Japanese, German, and Italian descent during WWII
  • Enlisting local and state police, U.S. military, and the National Guard to enforce immigration laws

According to the American Immigration Council, deporting one million people per year could cost taxpayers an estimated $88 billion annually. Additional resources would be required to increase law enforcement staffing, expand detention facilities, and staff immigration courtrooms, along with the substantial costs of deporting noncitizens via commercial airlines and chartered flights.

During his initial term in 2016, President Trump also discussed mass deportation, yet no more than one million immigrants were deported. Most of those removed were convicted felons or individuals with final orders of removal.

3-10 Year Bar Rule Applies

Choosing to leave the United States voluntarily before a potential mass deportation requires careful consideration of the consequences. The term “voluntary departure” can have different meanings for laypeople and within legal contexts.

In layman’s terms, voluntary departure means leaving the United States independently, such as by taking a flight back to the Philippines. This option is available only if the noncitizen is not currently in removal proceedings. However, there are consequences: even with an approved petition, departing voluntarily can result in a 3-10 year bar on reentry. Specifically, unauthorized immigrants who have been in the U.S. for over six months face a three-year bar, while those who have stayed over one year face a ten-year bar. For families with a mix of U.S. citizens or green card holders and unauthorized immigrants, this could mean separation from family members in the U.S. for three to ten years.

For those in removal proceedings, voluntary departure might allow them to reenter the U.S. later if proceedings were initiated while they were still in status. If they were already out of status, however, a 10-20 year or even a permanent bar may apply depending on the reason for deporation.

In conclusion, voluntary departure has significant immigration consequences, and consulting a licensed legal professional before making such a major decision is essential.

Rights of Unauthorized Immigrants

The U.S. Constitution guarantees due process rights to all residents, meaning that noncitizens may have the opportunity to be heard by an immigration judge before deportation. If detained, unauthorized immigrants may be entitled to a hearing. With a backlog of over three million cases, these hearings may be delayed by months or even years.

Exceptions to the right to a hearing include those who have been in the U.S. for less than two years and are arrested within 100 miles of the border and these group of immigrants may be subject to expedited removal. Most of the 350,000 unauthorized Filipino immigrants have resided in the U.S. for more than two years, and many have lived here for over 20 years.

ICE Raids and Targeted Arrests

With an anticipated increase in interior enforcement, ICE raids are expected to become more frequent during Trump’s administration. Former acting ICE Director Tom Homan noted that raids would not be indiscriminate neighborhood sweeps but rather targeted arrests based on investigative processes.

In a recent  NBC interview, President-elect Trump stated that there is no “price tag” for these deportation efforts, emphasizing that the removal of individuals involved in severe crimes is non-negotiable. According to Pew Research, of the 11 million unauthorized immigrants in the U.S., the majority have no criminal record. However, collateral arrests may still occur for those without criminal convictions who are encountered during ICE raids.

Know Your Options and Rights Before Departing

For Filipino nationals who have resided in the U.S. for extended periods, possess strong family ties, and lack criminal convictions, exploring legal options before deciding to leave is advisable. You may still have a right to a hearing where relief, such as a green card, might be possible through immigration courts.

On the other hand, if the prospect of a mass deportation creates anxiety and sleepless nights, you may choose to depart voluntarily—so long as you understand the legal consequences of your decision.

(Atty. Lourdes Tancinco is an immigration attorney and immigrant rights advocate based in the San Francisco Bay area and a partner at the Tancinco Law P.C., law firm established since 1992.  She is also a producer/host of Pusong Pinoy sa Amerika, an immigration law informational show aired on GMA Pinoy TV. She may be reached at law@tancinco.com, www.tancinco.com, facebook/tancincolaw, or at 1-888-930-0808)

Categories
Global Pinoy

Love of Family Is their Underlying Reason for Staying

Share this:

A significant number of Filipino immigrants have thrived and have become productive U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents. Yet, there are categories of immigrants who, despite having resided in the U.S. for many years could not find ways to obtain legal status. The immigration system is dysfunctional and that there is no pathway to obtaining legal status.

Angela was able to enter the U.S. on an H1B visa but worked only for a year. Her U.S. employer suffered financial setbacks during the recession in 2008 and Angela was laid off from her job. When this happened, she was pregnant. His son who was born in the U.S. with a congenital heart problem that requires regular medical attention. The U.S.citizen father of the child abandoned Angela. She continued to work in the U.S. but only as a caregiver to be able to provide for the support of her child. Angela admits that it was wrong to stay without legal status but her decision to stay was motivated by her desire to ensure her son’s well being. She knows that she will not be able to afford medical treatment in the Philippines. Angela has no history of arrest or any criminal arrest. She takes care of elderly patients. With the new immigration policy, she fears that she will be arrested and be deported. She fears that her son’s health condition will worsen if she is sent back to the Philippines.

Amando is a son of a Filipino World War II veteran. Many Filipino veterans immigrated without family members and lived in isolation. Amando was able to come to the United States on a B2 visa. He took care of his father and was present at his father’s deathbed. Unfortunately, Amando’s B2 visa expired during the time he was taking care of his father. If he returns to the Philippines, it will take more than 10 years before he could return to the United States because of the 3-10 year bar rule. He is taking care now of his aging mother who likewise needs his presence and support just like his late father. Amanda has an approved petition but unfortunately, the visa petition will take more than 15 years for the visa to become available. Amando decided to stay in the United States to care for his mom. With Trump’s policy, Amando is at risk of being arrested and removed.

Angela and Amando are profiles of undocumented immigrants whose future in the United States is uncertain with the current political climate. The Department of Homeland Security stated that they will prioritize for removal those who poses threat to national security and public safety. But the recent DHS rules do not reflect such priority. The 11 million undocumented are at risk of being removed if they are caught by ICE without the proper legal documents to stay. This will include those who have same cases as Angela, and Amando who are neither threat to national security or public safety. Their only intention of continued stay is to be with their families, their U.S. citizen children or parents.

Hopefully, the present administration will desist from stereotyping unauthorized immigrants and look at the lives of these ordinary family-loving people through a different lens.

(Atty. Lourdes S. Tancinco is a partner at Tancinco Law Offices, a San Francisco based law firm and may be reached at law@tancinco.com, facebook.com/tancincolaw, or 1 888 930 0808)

Categories
Updates

Mark Zuckerberg to Support Obama’s Efforts on Undocumented Immigrants

Share this:

Mark Zuckerberg, CEO of Facebook and other Silicon Valley leaders have advised the Supreme Court to sustain Barack Obama’s executive actions that seek to protect undocumented immigrants to stay in the US.

The Facebook founder, along with Reid Hoffman LinkedIn co-founder, PayPal co-founder Max Levchin, prominent angel investors and venture capitalists Ron Conway, Jeremy Levine and representatives of upwards of 60 companies advised the Supreme Court to support Obama’s efforts to allow millions of immigrants to stay in the U.S.

Silicon Valley Says:
The court brief released by FWD.us on Tuesday argues that the immigration system is shattered and advised the Supreme Court to allow Obama’s executive actions to be implemented for the sake of the U.S. economy. For Silicon Valley, the issue has been both personal and commercial.

Other Companies Says:
Facebook, LinkedIn and other companies say they need more visas for high-skilled immigrants. In recent times company faced a backlash in India aimed at trying to offer free mobile broadband service to some users, but only to access certain websites, such as Facebook. Many of the allusions point to theoretical studies and press trainings rather than other court cases. “Failure to address the status of undocumented immigrants and their families,” the brief says, “also wear away the long-term skills base of our workforce.”

Categories
Global Pinoy

Predicament of American daughter: Family separation

Share this:

Sonia was born and raised in San Jose, California. From the outside, Sonia seemed like your typical happy-go-lucky senior in high school getting ready to go college, but at home, Sonia lives a different reality.

Her parents, Edgar and Rowena, are from the Philippines. They came to the United States when Rowena was pregnant with Sonia and decided to overstay their tourist visa.

Refused to leave

When Sonia was very young, her parents were arrested by the Immigration Service and were to be deported. Edgar and Rowena, however, refused to leave the US and decided to stay. For years, they hid their status and tirelessly worked several under-the-table jobs so Sonia could study in the best schools and participate in after-school activities.

Illegal status

It was only recently that Sonia found out about her parents’ illegal status in the United States when she wanted to apply for private student loans for college. Since finding out the truth about her parents’ illegal status, Sonia has been worried that her parents can be taken anytime from her and she’s scared of what will happen when she leaves for college. She relies on her parents for everything, emotional and financial needs. In two weeks, Sonia will be turning 18 years old and instead of the usual birthday debut celebration, she told her parents not to prepare anything special.

Instead, she wanted to take steps to help her parents. Is there anything that Sonia can legally do for her parents?

Deferred action

More than a year ago, US President Barack Obama released two immigration executive actions that will provide immigration relief to undocumented parents of US citizens (called DAPA or Deferred Action for Parents of Americans); and, an expansion of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) for undocumented young immigrants.

The DAPA and DACA will affect more than 4 million undocumented immigrants.

Instead of the implementation of these reliefs, however, a lawsuit was filed by 26 states. Currently, the implementation of Dapa, the program which was supposed to allow undocumented parents with US citizen children to obtain an employment authorization document and be deferred from removal, is still suspended until the US Supreme Court decides on this case.

It is expected a decision will be reached by June 2016. Until then, parents with US citizen children will have to avail of alternative options.

US citizen children may only petition their parents after they turn 21 years old. Until Sonia reaches this age, there is really nothing much she can do affirmatively to help her parents with their immigration status. Even assuming that she turns 21 years old, there is a bigger hurdle that she has to overcome before she can file a petition for her parents.

The deportation order may be enforced anytime by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) against her parents if they are found to be still present in the United States. Fortunately, there is “prosecutorial discretion” request that may be filed with the DHS to prevent this from happening.

Sonia’s case is very sympathetic and her desperation to help her parents is understandable considering that her parents are her only means of support. She represents many young immigrants who are in the same situation and who were afforded the opportunity to be integrated into the American system just to be threatened with family separation with no relief available.

Hopefully, the DAPA litigation will result in a favorable judgment for the Obama administration and her parents will be given temporary relief.

Categories
Global Pinoy

Donald Trump’s hostility to U.S. citizen children of undocumented immigrants

Share this:

IN AN EFFORT to curb illegal immigration, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump announced his plan, if he is elected, to eliminate this birthright citizenship to children of the undocumented immigrants.

Is this plan an effective solution to resolving the broken US immigration system? Why is it that other Republican candidates do not support Trump’s proposal?

Karen entered the United States on a fiancé visa. Her US citizen fiancé George knew that Karen was a victim of a sexual offense and became pregnant prior to entering the US as a fiancée.

Six months after her arrival in the United States, Karen gave birth to Mariel. Meanwhile, Karen and George had a falling out and never got married.

Mariel is a US citizen by birth while her mother has an expired fiancée visa and is now an undocumented immigrant. Having heard of the proposed elimination of the birthright citizenship, Mariel, who is now in high school is wondering if she will be “deported” and divested of her US citizenship should Trump succeed in getting elected President. What is the likelihood that the birthright citizenship will be eliminated?

Birthright citizenship
Unlike in the Philippines where citizenship is determined by the citizenship of the parents, the United States follow the jus soli principle of citizenship. This means that any individual born in American soil is a US citizen at birth irrespective of the nationality of the parents. This birthright citizenship is not a legal principle but a constitutional right enshrined in the Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution.

This birthright was historically intended by the framers of the Constitution to place citizenship status above prejudices based on the fundamental belief that each person is born equal regardless of color, creed or social status.

Proposal
The 14th Amendment withstood many challenges in judicial courts and in Congress. Now that it is being mentioned again, it is not clear how this elimination of birthright citizenship is going to take place. In fact, Trump has not specifically stated in detail which proposal he is going to make.

One of the proposals being floated is that both parents must be citizens or legal residents at the time of each child’s birth. The other extremely cruel proposal is that all US citizen children of immigrants should retroactively prove that they were entitled to their citizenship by proving the legal status of their parents.

Mariel’s fear of being divested of her US citizenship will, in all probability, not be a reality. It is election season and it is not unusual that this birthright citizenship is an issue that is being brought up but there are high legal hurdles that will need to be accomplished before that even happens.

A constitutional amendment, for example, requires the vote of two-thirds of Congress and three-fourths of all the states. With the views on immigration as polarized as it is, getting the two-thirds majority in Congress will be an impossible task. Much less will it be any easier to get three-fourths of the states to approve a constitutional amendment.

(The author may be reached at law@tancinco.com, facebook.com/tancincolaw, tancinco.weareph.com/old or [02] 721-1963.)