Kennedy's Immigration Law Report : Iowa Immigration Lawyer & Attorney : Austin Kennedy : Brick Gentry Law Firm : Green Cards, Permanent Residency

The Immigration Policy Center (formerly American Immigration Law Foundation) is a great organization that provides highly valuable practice advisories to immigration lawyers while also lobbying for pragmatic immigration laws and providing a vitally sane voice on the economic and cultural impact of immigration in the United States.   In other words, an important part of their mission is to disseminate quality, objectively verifiable information that disputes common myths about immigration here in the U.S.

To this end the IPC has recently released the result of research and analysis which shows immigrants, Latinos, and Asians are clearly an important part of Iowa's economy, labor force, and tax base.  Immigrants and their children are a growing economic and political force as workers, consumers, taxpayers, and entrepreneurs.  Immigrants and their children will continue to play a key role in shaping the economic and political future here in Iowa. 

Highlight's from IPC's research and analysis include: 

• In 2007 Iowa was home to 117,437 immigrants;
• 34.5% of immigrants in 2007 (or 40,473 people) in Iowa were naturalized U.S. citizens who are eligible to vote;
• Latinos accounted for 4.0% (or 119,522) and Asians 1.6% (or 47,809) of Iowa's total population in 2007;
• The 2008 purchasing power of Latinos totaled $2.4 billion and Asian buying power totaled $1.7 billion in Iowa in 2007;
• Unauthorized immigrant families in Iowa paid between $40 million and $62 million in state and local taxes in 2007;
• If all unauthorized immigrants were removed from Iowa, the state would lose $1.4 billion in expenditures, $613.4 billion in economic output, and approximately 8,819 jobs. 

As you can see, Iowa isn't the homogeneous state many assume it to be.  Immigrants' economic, cultural and political impact on Iowa will only continue to grow in the coming years. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

It's been a great couple of weeks for the immigration reform effort.  First, last week President Obama announces that he's determined to live up to the promises he made on the campaign trail and begin facilitating a national dialogue in support of immigration reform.  But the administration knows that immigration reform is one of the most challenging issues around, especially during an economic downturn, so it got out ahead of the predictable uproar by offering a helpful and clear-headed frame around the issue.  Basically, the administration said this:  immigration reform isn't an effort to add millions of new workers to the workforce, it's simply an effort to recognize those who are already in the workforce.  An argument of this nature has the benefit of being both reasonable and true.  How about that? 

And then earlier this week we learned that the A.F.L.-C.I.O and Change to Win, two vital segments of the American labor movement, had forged a compromise to support  the reform effort, including a disciplined path to citizenship for the undocumented. 

Why would two previously warring factions of the labor movement, two groups who represent many 'laborers' in the truest sense of the word, come around to be on the same side of this issue?  Well, as the NYT pointed out in its April 14, 2009, editorial, "[e]ven in a bad economy--especially in a bad economy--getting undocumented immigrants on the right side of the law only makes sense."  The editorial furthers the argument thusly: 

The country has suffered mightily in the meantime.  American workers and businesses continue to be undercut by the underground economy.  The economic potential of some of the country's most industrious workers is thwarted.  Working off the books--and living in constant fear of apprehension--they earn less, spend less, pay less in taxes and have little ability to report abuses or to improve their skills or job prospects. 

The ingredients of reform are clear:  legalization for the 12 million, to yield bumper crops of new citizens, to make it easier to weed out criminals and to end the fear and hopelessness of life in the shadows; sensible enforcement at the border that focuses on fighting crime, drugs and violence; a strengthened employment system that punishes business that exploit illegal labor; and a future flow of workers that is attuned to the economy's needs and fully protects workers' rights.

In other words, the writers of this editorial get it.  The legal American workforce doesn't gain anything by allowing the underground economy to exist in its current state, especially on the 'lower', less educated end of the skill spectrum.  If a scrupleless employer is faced with the prospect of hiring a likely undocumented worker for $6.50/hr., or a fully documented worker for $8.00/hr., who do you think he's going to hire? Nine times out of ten he'll choose the guy willing to work for less, the guy with no legal protections.  To say that immigration reform and the legalization of millions of undocumented workers is somehow going to hurt the legal American workforce is exactly wrong.   The tough part, however, is helping people see beyond their learned biases and come to terms with this basic economic reality. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Yesterday's the DOL caused a good deal of confusion and anxiety by announcing the proposed suspension of the new H-2A regulation.  Apparently word of the confusion and concern somehow worked its way up through the hierarchical org chart that is the DOL, because today my sources are telling me that DOL brass produced a modicum of internal clarity by further directing that all local SWAs continue to process H-2A cases under the transition rules of the new H-2A regulation...until further notice.  Of course, the comment period for the proposed suspension is a whopping 10 days long.  So after 10 days, we could be back to last year's H-2A regulation, or we could still be operating under the so-called transition regulation.  Got it?  So now that we've cleared that up we can all go back to enjoying St. Patrick's Day.  Which is great, because it seems we'll definitely be needing the luck of the Irish to get us through this H-2A season. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Our friend Lexington, over at Economist.com, calls the Obama administration and the Democratically-controlled Congress "dumb" for restricting companies' ability to hire H-1B visa workers.  Citing a Kauffman Foundation study, Lexington's reasoning is persuasive: 

Chinese and Indian immigrants founded more than half of all high-tech companies in Silicon Valley.  Immigrants co-founded Google, Intel, eBay and Yahoo.  Immigrants contributed to more than a quarter of US global patent applications.  Immigrant companies employed 450,000 workers in 2006 and generated $52 billion in revenue. 

Indeed.  I'm hard-pressed to see how it helps our struggling economy to actively discourage highly-talented and entrepreneurial immigrants from coming to our country and setting up lucrative, high-tech job creating, tax revenue generating businesses.  Furthermore, as Lexington points out, it's not just the short-sighted and protectionist immigration instincts that will ultimately stymie our economy.  We're also losing highly-skilled immigrants to our global competition: 

Americans have always assumed that skilled immigrants would do anything to get a bite at the American dream.  But other countries [namely China and India] are producing high-tech clusters that offer bright people plenty of opportunities.  They are also putting out welcome mats for the talented rather than building bureaucratic obstacle courses. 

Our country's immigration policies say a lot about us.  Sadly, our immigration laws are currently saying that we don't understand what it takes to stay ahead of the global competition.  I truly don't believe that Obama is a protectionist at heart, but right now our immigration policies are communicating exactly the wrong message at a very dangerous time for our economy and country as a whole.   

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

"If you catch me at the border, I got visas in my name."  --M.I.A. "Paper Planes".  Kala., Interscope Records, 2007. 

Yes, I have a one-track mind.  Fortunately, M.I.A. has many tracks, many of which are quite good. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

National Public Radio does an exemplary job of covering the way our country's immigration laws and enforcement priorities affect immigrants and non-immigrants alike.  During yesterday's "All Things Considered" segment NPR produced another revealing and insightful piece examining the degree to which the Bush Administration's immigration enforcement crackdown has completely overwhelmed our immigration courts. Give the full story a listen here. 

As the piece points out, over the past new years, the Bush administration's immigration crackdown funded thousands more agents to arrest allegedly illegal immigrants and hundreds more government lawyers to prosecute them.  What the Bush administration failed to do, however, is hire the judges necessary to adjudicate (ie., evaluate and rule on) the millions of cases that resulted from the stepped-up enforcement actions. 

The sheer numbers involved are staggering:  last year 214 immigration judges were asked to adjudicate 350,000 immigration cases.  That works out to an average of 1,635 cases for each judge.  If the immigration courts operate approximately 255 days per year (factoring in federal holidays), then that means the average immigration judge had to adjudicate over 6 cases per day. 

And these cases are no trifling matters.  Rather, these judges are almost exclusively dealing with removal (ie., deportation) and asylum claims.  As one person during the program put it, "these are the equivalent of death penalty cases, and we're conducting them in a traffic court setting."  In other words, despite the judges' heroic best efforts, one could be forgiven for thinking that such a voluminous and overwhelming caseload might not lead to the careful, deliberate and exacting administration of justice.  

And, I would argue, one could be forgiven for concluding that the former administration was alright with the idea of judges being rushed, razzed and organizationally at the end of their respective ropes when asked to consider the merits of cases brought by alleged illegal immigrants.  This systemic insult to our cherished concept of due process awaits new DHS Director Janet Napolitano.  And obviously, during a time when our tax coffers aren't exactly spilling over, it's going to be an enormous challenge for the Obama administration to provide our immigration courts with the resources they need to adequately consider and evaluate these cases.  But, for a nation founded by immigrants and built on the backs of immigrants, the least we can do is provide immigrants with a meaningful day in court in front of a judge who isn't at their wits' end.   Isn't it?

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

While re-reading my earlier post below, it strikes me how far and how quickly we as a country have traveled in what appears to be our mindset and general reaction toward the politics of immigration.  It doesn't take a legal scholar to observe the fact that the topic of immigration and "immigration reform" serves today as a prominent flash point in our greater social conversation.  Witness the fomenting of Lou Dobbs, and the extent to which both presidential candidates avoided the topic whenever possible during the general election campaign...and this with the Hispanic/Latino population emerging as one of the (if not THE) new, electorally-desirable political constituencies!   We could of course debate for days why and how the topic of immigration stokes the visceral fires that it apparently does, but that's not really the point of this post. 

The point of this post is to point out that it hasn't always been this way.  We haven't always had communities waiting with baited breathe, wondering whether their town would be the next torn apart by an ICE raid.  We haven't always had Minute Men independently patrolling the border.  We haven't always had employers caught on the one hand with barely-functioning H-2A and H-2B programs, and on the other with extremely aggressive worksite enforcement raids. 

In fact, until 1986 no law made it illegal for an employer to hire an undocumented worker.  Can you believe it?!  I986!  And moreover, in 1952 Congress actually passed a law which said that it was specifically NOT illegal to hire an undocumented worker.  (Immigration & Nationality Act of 1952, Pub. L. No. 82-414, 66 Stat. 163)).  According to Stephen Yale-Loehr, this law became known as the "Texas Proviso", which meant that employers were free to hire whomever they chose, without having to verify an individual's eligibility to work.  If an unauthorized worker was among the ranks of their employees, nobody knew the difference and the employer was free to go about business as usual. 

Caveat:  I'm certainly not operating under the delusion that, from an immigration perspective, everything was great back in the 1950s or before.  In fact, opportunistic employers have taken horrendous advantage of undocumented laborers since the dawn of our modern economy.  To this very day we're still fighting the battle to make worksite conditions safer all over our country. Instead, my reason for highlighting the fact that it wasn't until 1986 that we had a law on the books criminalizing the hiring of undocumented workers is to bring some much needed perspective to our country's legislative approach to dealing with immigration.  As we move toward forming a plan for comprehensive immigration reform, we should keep in mind that our legislative framework for dealing with undocumented workers is fairly new, but in the relatively brief amount of time the laws have been on the books we've seen them act as a contributing cause to a great deal of human suffering and economic stagnation.  We've changed our immigration laws in the recent past and we can do so again--hopefully this time with common sense solutions that allow our country to once again remember that we all, at some time, were immigrants. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

We've now had over 1,000 hits since Kennedy's Immigration Law Report launched in October of 2008!  I know to some this is small potatoes, but I'm thrilled and really appreciate everyone who's stopped by to take a look.  Thanks again for all your support and please keep checking in from time to time. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Within the last hour or so word has leaked out that Gov. Janet Napolitano (D-AZ) may be President-Elect Barack Obama's pick to head the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).  I don't think I can stress the degree to which  Gov. Napolitano would be a phenomenal pick to head this agency. 

DHS is the overarching administrative agency that controls and has jurisdiction over all matters of immigration policy in the United States.  Both the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) are sub-agencies under DHS.  As a consequence, whomever Obama picks to head DHS is going to play an integral role in trying to foster a comprehensive immigration reform legislative package.  And as I said earlier, I can hardly think of a better pick than Gov. Janet Napolitano.  

First off, as Governor of the border-state Arizona, Napolitano has had a first-hand, acute experience with the immigration problems plaguing our country.  She understands the realities of the challenges caused by thousands of people crossing over her border from Mexico into the United States.  She knows the strains this places on infrastructure and, I think, she understands the great human toll border-crossing places upon the people who try to make the treacherous walk across into the U.S.  She was the first governor to call for National Guard troops to secure the U.S. Mexico-border. 

Back in  June of 2007 Napolitano penned an Op-Ed piece in the New York Times that really gives  insight into how she thinks about comprehensive immigration reform.  In short, she gets it.  While she strongly supports border security, she also believes that a functional guest worker program needs to be implemented in advance of fences being built.  She's against the unworkable "touch back" provisions.  And while I know this may sound pie-in-the-sky, my sincere hope is that she'll be able to marshal the resources necessary to make USCIS an efficient and functioning governmental agency.  Gov. Napolitano, hire the people necessary to bring those priority dates current!

All in all, if this appointment comes through, it signals that the Obama administration is very serious about addressing the sticky thicket that is immigration in the United States.  It's extremely encouraging. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

I'm extremely pleased to pass along the news that the Immigration Policy Center has launched a new and impressive blog called ImmigrationImpact.  The blog can be found here. 

As we make the push during this new administration for rationale comprehensive immigration reform legislation, it's extremely important to have blogs like ImmigrationImpact serving as a counterweight to some of the more nativist voices out there, and to ensure that interested parties are able to locate factual, empirically-sound pro-immigration information to be deployed in the greater immigration debate.     This new voice is a great resource and I encourage everyone to take a look. 

Links to the Immigration Policy Center's main website and its new blog can also be found to the right. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

First off, let me apologize for letting ye old blog lapse into such a neglected state. Stasis is the cardinal sin of blogging and I pledge to avoid it in the future as much as possible. Having said that, my time away was well spent. In addition to keeping up with my day-to-day work here at Brick Gentry, I was spending nights and weekends doing what I could to make sure we brought a measure of change to our country. And, well, Yes. We. Did. An earnest and heartfelt thanks to everyone out there who chipped in, whether it was with cash, canvassing, office space, call time, votive candles or with the pencil in the ballot box.

Obviously President-Elect Obama comes into power facing significant challenges. My most sincere hope is that the flip-side to his challenge is opportunity. For the sake of immigration reform and virtually every other important issue facing our country, my hope is that we are able to set aside our differences and work toward a common purpose.
It doesn’t mater what political party you belong to, the creed you espouse, or the church you attend, if we respect each other’s opinions and assume the best rather than the worst about those from whom we differ, we’ll take a large step toward finding our common denominator and building a consensus that allows us to address the parasitic problems eating away at our country. Comprehensive immigration reform isn’t going to land in our stockings. It’s going to take each and everyone one of us identifying our collective interests, calling our legislators, and talking reasonably, informedly and persuasively with our friends and family. If we do I’m fairly confident our pragmatic instincts will prevail. Having said that, with the economy in it’s current condition, this might not happen in the first two years or even in the first four years, but I’m confident we can eventually get it done. But the work just started, and we need your time and efforts now more than ever. If you’re wondering about where you can find quality information and how you can get involved, I suggest starting with the Iowa Immigration Education Coalition. It’s a great group filled with wonderful people. Let’s get busy.

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Howdy! ¡Hola! Namasté! Whether you intentionally set out looking for an immigration attorney or just happened to be meandering about the internet and landed here at this blog, I’m glad to you’re here and hope that you’ll come back soon. This blog will be a running conversation on all things immigration-related. My law practice focuses more on employment-based immigration visas (ie., work visas) and work site enforcement issues (ie., avoiding and recovering from ICE raids), so I’ll probably drift a bit more in that direction, but I hope with time to basically cover the wide, colorful and ever-evolving immigration spectrum. 

People often ask me why and how I got started practicing immigration law. As near as I can tell, I think the seeds were planted twelve (has it been that long already?! sigh) years ago when I enrolled at Macalester College in the chilly north lands of St. Paul, Minnesota. Mac, as the alumni call it, is an institution dedicated to internationalism and multiculturalism. Mac’s student body is typically comprised of nearly 15% international students, and while I was there I believe we had students from 90 different countries (alums far more notable than I include former United Nations Secretary General Kofi Anan, Walter Mondale, author Tim O’Brien, Ari Emanuel and thousands of other curious and wildly entertaining characters).  

The faculty at Mac continually taught us to consider the implications of our thoughts, actions and policies and how they would play out beyond the borders of the United States. For a kid from rural Iowa, it was mind-blowing to sit in a classroom with students from India, Pakistan and Cyprus and discuss the pluses and minuses of timely topics like globalization. Mac taught us not only to passively consider the global community, but also to actively engage it. Most of all, my time at Mac taught me that interacting with people from other countries will make your life more informed and vastly more entertaining.

So, since my time at Macalester I’ve carried with me the conviction that the United States and the world as a whole gets stronger, smarter, more interesting and more productive when we have people from different countries living and working in our communities. We gain different perspectives and fresh modes of thought. We learn first-hand the challenges of living in places other than the United States, and why so many people want to come here. We learn about new and different people and, in so doing, we learn about ourselves. We understand a little more, we grow a little more. And in the end we come to realize that people are just people, whether they live in Des Moines, Iowa, or Jaipur, India. We all want to live full productive lives, do well by our families and have enough time left on the margins to kick back, relax, and have some fun. 

All of which is a long, round about way of explaining how and why I practice immigration law. The world is a big and wonderful place. The more we actively engage it, the longer it’ll be around for us to enjoy. 

My hope is that you'll come back every now and again to check back in on Kennedy’s Immigration Law Report. This is an exciting time in immigration law and in the world at large. I want this blog to be informative, collaborative, respectful and fun. I promise to add new posts on a regular basis. And I do want this blog to facilitate a conversation. I don’t pretend to know everything about immigration law and policy, so please, share your knowledge, experiences and thoughts. If you see interesting immigration-related news items, send them my way. If you have an immigration-related community event to announce, I’ll be glad to post your event’s details. If you enjoy the site or think it can be made better in some way, let me know. Thanks again and remember to check back regularly.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (1)