Saturday, June 1, 2013

Congress poised to pass reform legislation

June 1, 2013


Friends and colleagues:

 

During a conference call last week with a nationally respected and well-connected immigration lawyer who has met with Senator Reid and Speaker John Boehner, we received further confirmation of several very significant pieces of information:

 

1.      The Senate Bill ( S. 744) should be up for a vote by the full Senate within 2 weeks.   This is a much more rapid schedule than we had anticipated, but seems to be a solid prediction.

2.      Speaker Boehner has confirmed that the House bill will be moving swiftly as well.

3.      He also has confirmed that one of the most conservative members of the House has drafted a bill that is quite similar to S. 744, and that this is the bill that he is likely to support and move to a vote in the House.    (This does not displace the possibility that the House “Gang of 8” bill may be the one to move first; that bill also appears to be similar to S. 744.)

4.      Obama sees this bill as a defining part of his legacy, so he is very supportive of the Senate and House efforts to bring a final bill to a vote soon.

5.      Reid believes he has at least 60 votes for passage, and may gain as many as 70 votes.   Either way, the momentum of S. 744 will be significant when it reaches the House.

6.      The core of the Republican Party has realized that this bill has to pass for the Party to be able to compete for Hispanic votes on a national level going forward.   If the immigration issue is not removed from the debate, the GOP will continue to see defeats such as Romney’s happen over and over.

7.      The 1986 IRCA legislation that legalized 3 million people was a short range success but a long range failure because it lacked a temporary work visa for manual laborers in year round jobs.   IRCA created an annual national limit of 5000 green cards for such workers (in the “Other Worker” category), but that number was unrealistically low, and has been useless almost from the start because the demand for those workers always has been much higher than the supply of green card numbers in that category.

8.      In 2004-07, several bills were introduced in both houses of Congress, but they never made it to a full vote, and many never made it out of committee.  

9.      The reason was simple:  the anti-immigrant forces were vocal and well organized, and members of Congress received their messages daily and in great numbers.  Some members reported as many as 100 anti messages to each 1 message in support of those bills!

 

WHAT CAN YOU DO?

 

You need to send emails to Senator Hagan and to Senator Burr NOW!   This vote will happen soon, and the discussions over what position to take are solidifying right now.

 

Tell them that it is time for reform, and that S. 744 represents a good compromise on many, many issues that is long overdue.

 



 

DO NOT DELAY.  THIS IS A HISTORIC MOMENT THAT WE WILL NOT SEE AGAIN FOR YEARS, IF EVER.

 

WE MUST BE HEARD NOW, BECAUSE THE TIME IS NOW, AND WE ARE ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF HISTORY!!!!

 

Thank you for your prompt action.

 

Regards,

 

Gerry Chapman

 

 

 

Gerard M. Chapman

Chapman Law Firm

P. O. Box 1477

Greensboro, NC 27402

403-A North Elm Street

Greensboro, NC 27401

Phone: (336) 334-0034

Fax: (336) 334-0036



Member Logo_2013_USE

Friday, April 5, 2013

2013 H-1B Cap reached this week

2013 H-1B cap reached

USCIS announced today that the cap for all "standard" and all advanced degree H-1B cases has been reached.   USCIS will continue to accept cap-subject cases through the end of today, April 5, but will reject all cap-subject cases that it receives after today.

To determine which H-1B cases are processed and approved, USCIS will conduct two lotteries.   The first will be conducted to pick the 20,000 cases for beneficiaries with advanced degrees issued by US universities.   Any of those cases not selected for the 20,000 set aside will then be entered into the second lottery for the 65,000 numbers available for all other H-1B petitions.  

USCIS has not determined when it will conduct the lotteries due to the large number of cases received to date, and it has not yet announced the total number of cases received, due to its receipt of cases through the end of today.  

Reports are that the soon to be released Senate 2013 Immigration Reform proposal (and perhaps the House version) will contain provisions that will create as many as 65,000 additional H-1B numbers, but that proposal has not been introduced.  In addition, it will be subject to debate in the Senate, debate in the House, revision in a Conference Committee, and then further debate before both Houses.  

The current situation is not acceptable by any means, and the present demand for these numbers is clear evidence of that fact.

Thursday, April 4, 2013

US Chamber of Commerce Immgiration Reform Website


Immigration Reform Website

As Congress moves forward, slowly as usual, the US Chamber of Commerce has posted several position papers on its website that explain why the business community needs major, significant legislative action now.

The Chamber has rolled out an immigration website to promote immigration reform:  The American Opportunity:  Making Immigration Work.  Check there to see the Chamber’s positions and related news.  Some of its policy documents include:

 


 


 


 


 


 

Outline of House version of 2013 Immigration Reform Act


04/04/2013

 

Outline of House version of 2013 Immigration Reform Act 

 

Today the New York Times reports that the House version of the 2013 Immigration Reform Act may be introduced before the Senate version being drafted by the Gang of 8.

 

More importantly, the House version has some very important provisions that the Senate bill apparently does not.   Only a few details were included in the story, but enough information has been reported to show major differences in the two bills, some good, some not so good.

 

For example: 

 

1.       The House version provides three separate ways for undocumented people to obtain legal status

 

2.       The first way is for DREAMERS, the children who were brought here by their parents or otherwise came to the US through no fault of their own.    

a.       They will have a pathway to citizenship (and presumably to Legal Permanent Resident (LPR) status – i.e., the green card  --  first. 

 

3.       The second group to have a path to LPR status includes immigrants who have a family member or an employer who will sponsor them for LPR status.   (This appears to be a resurrection of prior Section 245i, which expired on April 30, 2001, and had several specific requirements for a person who wanted to benefit from its use.  One of the main benefits was to relieve the person from the duty to consular process.)

a.       For people who will qualify here, it appears that the bill unfortunately will require them to consular process for their green cards.  

b.      Before doing so, the person will have to

                                                               i.      pay a fine (as with 245i),

                                                             ii.      pay back taxes for some period of time, and

                                                            iii.      learn basic English.

c.       However, a person who has been here for more than a year without permission and who then leaves the US, is subject to a 10 year bar (or a 3 year bar if here without permission for more than 180 days but less than one year).   In addition, many of the undocumented population are subject to a 10 year bar without provision for any waiver under current law.   (This is commonly referred to as the “permanent” bar, even though it actually is not permanent all the time.)

d.      This bill will waive or relax these bars, a step that is long overdue:  the purpose of the bars was to keep people out of the US; all they have done is to keep people here.

e.      See below, however, for serious concerns about requiring this  group to consular process.

 

4.       The last group is everyone else; they will have to

a.       Take responsibility for and admit to breaking the law when they entered without being inspected or overstayed their visas.

b.      Pay a fine

c.       Pay back taxes for some period of time

d.      Learn basic English

Once this group has processed for temporary legal status, they would have the right to file for the green card through regular, existing channels after having legal status for 10 years, and then apply for citizenship after 5 more years.  (This new category is quite similar to the H-5 visa proposed by Senators McCain and Kennedy in 2004-05.)

 

5.       There is no guest worker provision in the bill, such as the W visa included in the Senate bill.   That provision is designed to address future labor needs beginning in 2015.  

 

Unresolved issues include whether government benefits will be available to the third group, and whether certain border security goals would have to be met before the third group (and perhaps the second group) could file for the green card.   This “move the  goal posts back” strategy has been used over and over again by the anti-immigrant forces in Congress and elsewhere, and has prevented any rational debate, and in effect has crushed honest hopes of a final compromise over and over again.   If this provision is included in the draft that is introduced, it may doom the effort at reasonable reform.

 

Another serious problem with the “new 245i” law is that it will require millions of essential workers to leave the US and file cases at US embassies in various countries, but mainly in Mexico because Mexican citizens make up the largest percentage of our undocumented population.  There are two critical aspects to this problem:

1.       There is no way to gauge the harm that this will cause our economy, but it could be devastating, especially if the new legal status rules include a time limit within which to file and process a case (this was the case with 245i – during its last period of incarnation, it was possible to file between December 21, 2000 and April 30, 2001). 

2.       The US Embassy in Ciudad Juarez (CDJ), which processes all green cards for applicants in that country, will be overrun and its operations probably will come to a grinding halt.   If Congress is going to relax or rescind the 3/10/permanent bars, there is no reason to require new beneficiaries to make a meaningless trip to CDJ to finish the case.  

 

Finally, the lack of a visa like the Senate bill’s W visa is very troubling.   Without that kind of visa in our system, we are almost guaranteed to end up in the same mess that we are in today.   The primary reason that we have so many undocumented people in the US today is due to the lack of a temporary visa for workers in year round jobs who do not have or need to have a college degree; i.e., manual labor.   The US had that visa from 1942-64 – the so-called Bracero Program.   Congress deleted it when it re-did the entire system in 1965.   For some years that made sense, but with current demands for essential workers continuing to climb, it makes no sense to repeat the same mistakes over and over.

 

We hope that the bills will be reconciled in a productive Conference Committee, and that we will see a smart bill in the final analysis.

 

Gerry Chapman

The new "W" visa for essential workers under the 2013 Immigration Reform Act


April 4, 2013

 

This past weekend saw a breakthrough in negotiations between the US Chamber of Commerce and several national unions, over the creation of and (primarily) the number of new “W” visas that will be created by the highly anticipated reform legislation that has been negotiated by the so-called “Gang of Eight” in the US Senate.    This W visa will be available for essential workers who will fill year round jobs that do not require a college level education (construction, manufacturing, service industries, etc.).

 

The W visa appears to be a compliment to the part of the reform bill that will allow millions of undocumented workers now in the US to apply for legal status.   The majority of those essential, undocumented  workers would register for temporary legal status, with the possibility of obtaining permanent resident status some ten years later, and then ultimately citizenship after 3 years as a permanent resident.   These workers so far do not have a name for their future legal status, but whatever it is, they will continue to fill millions of jobs that US workers are not willing or available or  able to do. 

 

The W will be  a complimentary visa, because it is designed to address future labor needs (“future flow”) that employers will need, after the registration process is complete and the current undocumented population is entered into the system.  Under the Senate proposal, the W program will not be activated until April 1, 2015.   The Gang of Eight appear to want to let the labor market settle down in the next two years, and then let the new W visa system accommodate the future demand that employers will have going forward.

 

The proposed “W” visa contained in the Senate bill has some important aspects:

 

1.       The number of these visas will start at 20,000 the first fiscal year, with 35,000 the next year, then 55,000 the next and 75,000 in the fourth.   Beginning in the fifth fiscal year, the number will vary depending on a statistical formula.

2.       The total of such W visas cannot exceed 200,000, and can never be less than 20,000, in a given year.

3.       A separate provision will allow a qualified employer to hire an appropriate W worker, if the annual cap has been reached, upon paying a special fee.  No comment yet on whether anything else would have to be proven to make such a hire.

4.       Employers of such W workers will have to pay the employee the prevailing wage or the actual wage the employer agrees to pay, whichever is higher.

5.       The bill will create a new bureau within USCIS to implement the formula and determine the number of W visas available each year.

6.       The bureau also will publish a labor shortage list, and shortage occupations will have priority for the available W visas.

7.       However, it appears that no more than 15,000 visas will be available for the construction industry in a given year, regardless of the extent of a shortage for that industry.

8.       W employees would be able to accept a job offer from another employer that is certified as eligible to use the W program, and once the W worker left the first job, he or she would have 60 days to find another qualified employer.

9.       Employers who have laid off workers within 90 days, or who have a strike or lockout in process, are not eligible.

10.   The employer must pay all filing and other fees under the program and cannot pass them on to the employees.               

11.  The W employee will have a way to move to permanent resident status, and eventually to citizenship.

 

This program has some strong similarities to the current H-1B program.  Both are limited in number (H-1Bs are limited to 65,000 per year, although we understand that this bill will increase the number of H-1Bs as well).   Both will have filing dates of April 1.  Both require the employer to pay at least the prevailing wage as determined by DOL.   Although the prevailing wage requirement is criticized by both labor and business, when it is followed, it does serve a valid purpose.  The same is true regarding the provision that will allow the W employee to “port” to another qualified employer, just as an H-1B worker can move.  Like H-1B’s, these W visa holders will have some method to move to LPR status.   

 

One troubling aspect of the W program is the 15,000 yearly limit on construction jobs.   This is government interference in market economics at its worst, without any recognition of the fluctuating needs of what is arguably the most important engine in our national economy.  With the coming debate, the construction industry should exercise every opportunity to have this provision removed or modified significantly,, allowing the market to determine which industries and which employers can exercise their rights to sponsor workers for the W visa .  

 

In short, the new W visa represents a mixture of government regulation and allowance for free market activity by the employer and the employee.   It is not a perfect model, but it is a workable start in an area that has needed attention for some 50 years.  The final format of the visa is almost sure to change during the coming debate and perhaps after experience shows that the original model needs modification.  

 

Stay tuned.

 

Gerry Chapman

Tuesday, March 26, 2013

Supreme Court Arguments in California and DOMA cases

Supreme Court Arguments in California and DOMA cases

This just posted on AOL. 
 
The arguments in the California case probably were the same  or very similar to the arguments in the case attacking the Defense of Marriage Act.  If DOMA falls, same-sex green card cases will be legal, which will be a huge development in USCIS jurisprudence.  Stay tuned:

 *****

WASHINGTON -- Justice Anthony Kennedy on Tuesday called the prospect of same-sex marriage “uncharted waters” during oral arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court on Proposition 8, California’s gay marriage ban.

"And you can play with that metaphor," Kennedy said, continuing that in that consideration, "There's a wonderful destination" or "a cliff."

Prop 8 was the California ballot referendum passed in November 2008 that banned same-sex marriage, reversing by popular vote the state Supreme Court's decision just months earlier to recognize marriage equality.

Kennedy seemed genuinely interested in that “wonderful destination” and mortified by the prospect that there still might be a cliff. He acknowledged that while the social science on gay marriage is relatively new, there is an “immediate” legal harm to those same-sex couples who cannot be married. He said the voice of thousands of children of same-sex couples is an important aspect of the case.

“They want their parents to have full recognition and legal status,” Kennedy told Charles J. Cooper, who is representing supporters of Prop 8’s ban on gay marriage. “The voice of those children is considerable in this case, don’t you think?”

Kennedy also expressed deep doubts that Prop 8, and same-sex marriage bans in general, present "no harm of denigration" against gays and lesbians.

Before the justices even reached the merits of the constitutional case for same-sex marriage, Chief Justice John Roberts instructed both advocates to argue whether the parties defending Prop 8 had legal standing.

On this point, the court's liberal bloc -- Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan -- all appeared to believe that the Prop 8 proponents could not represent the state of California after Gov. Jerry Brown (D) and Attorney General Kamala Harris refused to defend the law.

Yet the court's Republican-appointed members -- Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Kennedy, Antonin Scalia and Samuel Alito -- seemed to agree with the California Supreme Court, which ruled that Cooper's clients could serve as representatives of the state's interest in the case.

When arguments reached the constitutional merits, the ideological alliances swapped.

"Can you think of any other rational basis, reason, for a state using sexual orientation as a factor in denying homosexuals benefits or imposing burdens on them?" Sotomayor asked Cooper. "Is there any other rational decision-making that the government could make? Denying them a job, not granting them benefits of some sort, any other decision?"

And when Cooper said Prop 8 supports "responsible procreation," Kagan pushed back. "If you are over the age of 55, you don't help us serve the government's interest in regulating procreation through marriage. So why is that different?"

Yet the liveliest moments came when Scalia asked Ted Olson, President George W. Bush's solicitor general and the lawyer for the two same-sex couples challenging Prop 8, "When did it become unconstitutional to exclude homosexual couples from marriage? 1791 [when the Bill of Rights was ratified]? 1868, when the 14th Amendment was adopted?"

Olson pushed back against Scalia's originalist view, asking him in return, "When did it become unconstitutional to prohibit interracial marriages?"

"It's an easy question," Scalia said. "At the time that the equal protection clause was adopted. That's absolutely true. But don't give me a question to my question."

"There's no specific date in time," Olson ultimately answered. "This is an evolutionary cycle."

Alito's issues with Olson's argument were more pragmatic. "You want us to step in and render a decision based on an assessment of the effects of this institution which is newer than cell phones or the Internet," Alito said. "On a question like that, of such fundamental importance, why should it not be left for the people, either acting through initiatives and referendums or through their elected public officials?"

Yet Ginsburg noted that one of the decisions Cooper was relying on in the case was written in 1971, when “same-sex intimate conduct was considered criminal.” In that case, Baker v. Nelson, the Supreme Court dismissed a Minnesota man's attempt to marry his male partner as lacking a "substantial federal question."

Kennedy also said he was “trying to wrestle with” whether a same-sex marriage ban should be viewed as a gender-based classification, calling it a “difficult question.”

By the end of the argument, it was clear that Kennedy believed the Prop 8 proponents had standing to sue, that same-sex couples had the right to marry and that such a right extended to all states. Yet that option -- making same-sex marriage a federal constitutional right -- compelled him to search for an escape hatch.

“Why [do] you think we should take and decide this case?” Kennedy asked Cooper.

By the time he asked that question at the very end of the argument, Kennedy had already sided with his four conservative colleagues (assuming the ever-silent Justice Clarence Thomas agrees with his more vocal colleagues) that Cooper's clients belonged in court, while also siding with his four liberal colleagues that the Constitution mandates marriage equality. Meanwhile, Kennedy rejected the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' California-only reasoning, and both liberals and conservatives have lambasted the Obama administration's argument for a so-called "eight-state solution."

That leaves Kennedy, who holds the fifth vote in this case, facing down those uncharted waters. And if his own history on the court is any indication, he isn't as afraid of the deep end as he let on.

A decision in the case, Hollingsworth v. Perry, is expected by July.

This is a developing story and has been updated.

 

Sunday, March 24, 2013

Immigration Reform -- Addressing the Most Pressing Problems

March 24, 2013
 
For those of us who have believed that Congress finally will do the right thing and pass common sense immigration reform, this looks more and  more like the year that it will.

 

The list of problems with the system is a large one, and not every problem can or will be solved by this Congress.  However, the ones that are hurting the most people are:

 

1.      Essential Workers (perform year round jobs that do not require a college degree) cannot apply for temporary visas

 

Since 1965, there have been no temporary visas for these workers.  Employers only can file green card cases for them, but there is a minimum six year backlog in the applicable category, so the green card system is useless.  In short, no visas for these critical workers who support our entire economy.

 

2.      No driver’s licenses for the undocumented, except in about 3 states

 

Millions of people are driving without licenses, without insurance, and without basic knowledge of the rules of the road.   If they were licensed, police could spend time on more serious matters.  Some of them come from cultures where drinking and driving is common, and the result in the US can be fatal.  In the work context, any employer whose unlicensed driver has an accident almost surely will have any insurance claim denied, which can be devastating financially for the employer.  Until the undocumented can obtain legal status, lives will be lost, claims will be denied, and police resources will be wasted.

 

3.      Employers being set up to fail E-Verify

 

Under NC law, by July 1, virtually all employers will have to use E-Verify for all new hires.   For industries that rely on manual laborers, it is highly likely that they will not be able to hire the workers that they need, because most such workers are undocumented.  In theory, it makes sense for E-Verify (if it is reliable) to be required of all employers.   And when federal law provides a way for these workers to be authorized to work, E-Verify makes perfect sense.  But until then, employers face an impossible choice: don’t hire needed workers, or intentionally violate federal law. 

 

4.      Severe lack of visas for highly educated workers

 

H-1B visas are available for computer design engineers, accountants, teachers, and similar professionals.   Each year the US gives out 65,000 (plus an additional 20,000 to those who get advanced degrees from US schools).   For the last 10 years, these visas have been used up before the end of the fiscal year, and sometimes they are gone before the fiscal year (October 1-Sept 30) even begins.  In 2013, estimates are that all of the H-1B numbers will be gone by April 5, five days after employers can begin filing for this year’s crop  of numbers.  Unlike other areas of the law, immigration law essentially scorns the law of supply and demand.   The current quota of 65,000 was arrived at during a committee hearing  in 1990.   It was and is an arbitrary number, totally divorced from reality, and one that no one can justify in rational terms.   For years US employers have begged Congress to either increase the numbers or create some kind of formula that would allow one year’s usage to determine the following year’s allotment, or something similar.  Congress has refused every year.

 

5.      No work permission for spouses of H-1B visa holders

 

Some visas held by spouses of foreign workers (E-2 and L-2) allow the derivative spouse to file for a work permit.   The H-4 spouse, however, cannot.  

 

6.      Huge backlogs in employment based green card system

 

These delays keep employees from reaching their professional potential because they have to remain in the same job with the sponsoring employer for years.   For example:

 

Jobs requiring the worker to have a BS degree:     six years, except for Indian citizens (11 years)

 

Jobs requiring Master’s degree:                                 Chinese citizens (5 years), Indian citizens (9 years)

 

Jobs requiring less than 2 years of experience:       six years, except for Chinese citizens (10 yrs) and Indian citizens (11 yrs)

 

7.      Family based case backlogs even worse

 

Siblings of US Citizens:                                  12 years for all countries, except Mexico (17 years) and  Philippines (23.5 years)

 

Married sons and daughters of USCs:        11 years for all countries, except Mexico (20 years) and Philippines (21 yrs)

 

Unmarried sons and daughters (over 21) of

legal permanent residents:                           8 years for all, except Mexico (20 yrs) and Philippines (11 yrs)

 

Spouse and under 21 children

Of legal permanent residents:                     2.5 years for all

 

Unmarried sons and daughters

Of USCs:                                                           7 years for all, except Mexico (20 yrs) and Philippines (14 years)

 

8.      The inadmissibility bars based on unlawful presence

 

In 1996 Congress enacted legislation that imposed severe sanctions against anyone who entered the US without inspection (“EWI”) and stayed too long, or who entered with a visa and overstayed for too long.   The penalties [3 years for 181 days of unlawful presence (ULP); 10 years for 366 days of ULP; permanent (because no waiver exists)for ULP of 366 days plus a later EWI] were designed to keep people out of the US.   The actual effect has been to keep people in, except when family emergencies arise.  And when they do, people leave, e.g.,  so that they can be with dying relatives.  The stories are legion of people with US citizen spouses and children, who have to leave to see family, and who then return EWI, and as a result, they are virtually barred forever from obtaining legal status.

 

These problems affect virtually every segment of our population.   The debate in Congress has been non-existent for years, but due to the historic  whipping that Romney took at the hands of the Hispanic vote, it appears that the Republicans see the wind blowing and they are responding.   The US Chamber of Commerce and several national unions have finally resolved the number of essential worker temporary visas that will be allowed each year under the new regime, and the path to citizenship also appears to be agreed upon.   It also appears that the H-1B numbers will be essentially doubled, with some conditions.

 

Very soon it will be time for the public to press each member of Congress to vote for common sense immigration reform.  The time for waiting is over, as is the time for treating immigrants (high skill or low, family member and student) as if they are invisible or are taken for granted.  When this year’s proposal is introduced, it is time to turn up the heat.

 

To be continued: 

 

·        will employers be able to file for H-1Bs all year round

·        will spouses of H-1Bs be allowed to file for work permits

·        how will the backlogs be handled

·        what kind of proof will be required for an essential worker visa

·        what will it be called

·        how long will people have to wait to apply for green cards (through the new law or through a combination of the current system and new temporary visas)

·        how should Congress deal with the 3/10/permanent bars