The Senate is set this week to again take up the immigration reform bill it shelved several weeks ago amid signs that that version would not pass. Sunday news talk shows featured several prominent supporters and critics of the bill. This includes one who is so dead-set against some legislation that could be seen as a step toward resolving a grey-society of people who live within our borders but who reside "underground," that he vows to continue to "slow (the) process down and...hold up the bill." This statement was actually uttered by Jeffrey Sessions, a Republican Senator from Alabama. Nice to know he keeps an open mind on legislation before it even starts getting debated again.
Of course, in reviewing this statement, perhaps it should not be surprising that Sen. Sessions holds staunch-conservative views. He once was sidetracked from receiving a federal judgeship due to accusations of "gross insensitivity" on racial issues. Okay....so what did he do? He apparently led an unsuccessful prosecution against 3 civil rights workers for voter fraud in an election in 1984 over 14 allegedly tampered with ballots....out of 1.7 million. Not quite the same wide-sweeping impact as the hanging chad but worth the fight, I guess, to Sen. Sessions.
Seems he also like to cling to McCarthy-isms: he has called the NAACP and the ACLU, groups that espouse the rights of the down-trodden or minority, as "un-American" and "Communist-inspired." He has also said that the Ku Klux Klan was "OK" - kinda like saying that Hitler had a few good ideas.
One of his primary concerns (surprise-surprise) about the reform bill is that it does not do enough to "secure" our borders. In fact, he cites a congressional report that illegal immigration will be abated by 13% over the next 20 years as further justification to kill the current bill. Putting our national need for pragmatic decision-making and democratic debate from our Legislative Branch aside, resolute ties to ideology kill free-thinking. Shameful that this still occurs in America.
Sen. Sessions serves on the judiciary committee administering debate on the current reform bill.
Monday, June 25, 2007
Saturday, June 16, 2007
Just like El Terminator: CIR is not dead yet!
On June 15th, the bipartisan group of Senate “grand bargainers” announced they had reached a procedural agreement to revive the comprehensive immigration reform bill and return it to the Senate Floor for a final round of debate. It is expected to be brought back to the Floor the last week of June with the hope to put the legislation to a vote on final passage before the Independence Day recess, which begins on July 1. Quite a turnaround!
The "deal" purportedly hinges upon agreement on a list of amendments to be considered before the vote on final passage of the bill and reports are that each party will be limited to 10-12 amendments. This is a but a small fraction of the hundreds of amendments that had been proposed.
If one of the eventual requirements is proving sufficient English language capability, esteemed Linguistics Professor Arnold Schwarzenegger says that foreign nationals should not watch Spanish TV. He, of course, said this in German.
The "deal" purportedly hinges upon agreement on a list of amendments to be considered before the vote on final passage of the bill and reports are that each party will be limited to 10-12 amendments. This is a but a small fraction of the hundreds of amendments that had been proposed.
If one of the eventual requirements is proving sufficient English language capability, esteemed Linguistics Professor Arnold Schwarzenegger says that foreign nationals should not watch Spanish TV. He, of course, said this in German.
Thursday, June 14, 2007
No time to relax, folks, time's a-wasting
Unfortunately, news reports from last week as reported below are true: the Senate has tabled its reform legislation.
Here is a synopsis of what is happening -- both chambers of Congress are taking a break from immigration this week as the Senate considers energy legislation and the House tackles appropriations bills. In the Senate, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) temporarily set aside the Secure Borders, Economy Opportunity, and Immigration Reform Act (Kennedy-Specter substitute to S. 1348) on Thursday, June 7, after the bill’s supporters failed to garner enough votes to end debate and proceed toward a vote on final passage. Despite this setback, the bill’s “grand bargainers” continue to work behind the scenes to craft a procedural agreement that could pave the way for a final round of debate and votes on CIR - the President was supposed to also be chiming in this week after returning from the G-8 Summit. If the "bargainers" succeed in striking a bipartisan deal, Senator Reid could bring the bill back to the floor after the Senate dispenses with energy legislation, sometime before the July 4 recess.
In the House, Representative Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), Chair of the Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law, concluded last week a series of immigration hearings that spanned six weeks and touched upon nearly every important facet of immigration reform. Unlike the Senate, the House intends to move its own CIR legislation forward through the full committee process, beginning with a markup in the Immigration Subcommittee. However, House leaders have indicated that they intend to wait upon the deadlocked Senate and will postpone subcommittee markup hearings until the fate of S. 1348 is decided.
Stay tuned...
Here is a synopsis of what is happening -- both chambers of Congress are taking a break from immigration this week as the Senate considers energy legislation and the House tackles appropriations bills. In the Senate, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) temporarily set aside the Secure Borders, Economy Opportunity, and Immigration Reform Act (Kennedy-Specter substitute to S. 1348) on Thursday, June 7, after the bill’s supporters failed to garner enough votes to end debate and proceed toward a vote on final passage. Despite this setback, the bill’s “grand bargainers” continue to work behind the scenes to craft a procedural agreement that could pave the way for a final round of debate and votes on CIR - the President was supposed to also be chiming in this week after returning from the G-8 Summit. If the "bargainers" succeed in striking a bipartisan deal, Senator Reid could bring the bill back to the floor after the Senate dispenses with energy legislation, sometime before the July 4 recess.
In the House, Representative Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), Chair of the Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law, concluded last week a series of immigration hearings that spanned six weeks and touched upon nearly every important facet of immigration reform. Unlike the Senate, the House intends to move its own CIR legislation forward through the full committee process, beginning with a markup in the Immigration Subcommittee. However, House leaders have indicated that they intend to wait upon the deadlocked Senate and will postpone subcommittee markup hearings until the fate of S. 1348 is decided.
Stay tuned...
Friday, June 8, 2007
No cloture, er, closure, on the reform issue
According to news reports from late yesterday, the Senate has rejected attempts by some leaders to bring the immigration reforem bill from being voted on. This means that, in essence, the issue remains completely wide open, undecided, and potentially ready to suffer a slow death. This would surely make many conservatives minimally satisfied - but now they do not get all the new immigration enforcement measures the CIR bill was carrying.
This now requires the Bush administration to get on its horse and sway its conservative base, or at least enough of them, to bring the Senate bill to a vote.
This now requires the Bush administration to get on its horse and sway its conservative base, or at least enough of them, to bring the Senate bill to a vote.
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
First gas prices, now this...
The USCIS has finally announced when it will raise its fees – the new fee structure will commence for applications postmarked or otherwise filed on or after July 30, 2007. On average, these fees will jump 66% across the board.
So what does this mean for the “average” case? It depends on what your case is:
> If you are applying for a “one-stop” green card based on marriage to a US citizen, you can expect fees amounting to $1365.00 (for an I-130 Petition for Alien Relative, I-485 Application To Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status, I-765 Application for Employment Authorization, and I-131 Application for Travel Document; this is up from $935.00.
> Pretend you are a US citizen and you want to sponsor your mom or dad from overseas; you can expect the fee per application to rise from $190.00 to $355.00.
> If you apply for United States citizenship, you can expect fees amounting to $675.00 (for an N-400 Application for Naturalization); this is up from $400.00.
> Finally, save for any changes to fees for such applications in the pending Comprehensive Immigration Reform bill in the US Senate (see below), H-1B petition base fees will rise from $190.00 to $320.00.
While some of these fees do not seem too bad, the fee jump is supposed to decrease USCIS processing times significantly. If this means that “FBI namechecks” can be completed quicker (and lord don’t we all wish the process were as easy as the government makes it sound), I think all applicants will be all for the increases.
Alas, that will likely not be the case. My fingers hurt from being crossed so long.
So what does this mean for the “average” case? It depends on what your case is:
> If you are applying for a “one-stop” green card based on marriage to a US citizen, you can expect fees amounting to $1365.00 (for an I-130 Petition for Alien Relative, I-485 Application To Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status, I-765 Application for Employment Authorization, and I-131 Application for Travel Document; this is up from $935.00.
> Pretend you are a US citizen and you want to sponsor your mom or dad from overseas; you can expect the fee per application to rise from $190.00 to $355.00.
> If you apply for United States citizenship, you can expect fees amounting to $675.00 (for an N-400 Application for Naturalization); this is up from $400.00.
> Finally, save for any changes to fees for such applications in the pending Comprehensive Immigration Reform bill in the US Senate (see below), H-1B petition base fees will rise from $190.00 to $320.00.
While some of these fees do not seem too bad, the fee jump is supposed to decrease USCIS processing times significantly. If this means that “FBI namechecks” can be completed quicker (and lord don’t we all wish the process were as easy as the government makes it sound), I think all applicants will be all for the increases.
Alas, that will likely not be the case. My fingers hurt from being crossed so long.
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
"Sorry, but you did not need that much therapy..."
…a momentary digression from discussing comprehensive immigration reform and the facts are as follows: a woman is sold by her father to another man in a business exchange, forcibly raped by that man on numerous occasions and then used by that man to pose as his “wife” so that he could gain admission to the United States. This man forces the woman to come to this country so he can seek additional financial backing for a business overseas and he forces her, in the process, to leave her only child, a daughter who is under age 5, behind with a family member. This woman knows only too well that society in her home country mandates that her daughter be subject to female genital mutilation when she turns 7 years of age.
The woman is trapped – she feels intense shame and humiliation and continuously relives in her mind the series of sexual assaults and the car ride to the airport separating mother from daughter. She can’t stop thinking about the horror.
She begins seeing a therapist at a Midwest center for victims of domestic violence and torture to work through recurrent nightmares and persistent sleeping problems associated with her experiences. While under care she begins to come to grips with what happened to her, she starts to understand that is okay to feel bad about having been so heinously victimized; she understands that she is still a good person with something to not only offer society but she has a mother’s knowledge and love to impart to her daughter…the only problem is that mother and daughter are now separated by nearly 5000 miles.
She gathers the courage to not only confide her experiences to others, but she musters the bravery it requires to submit these facts to the United States government and seek its discretionary power to protect her, to keep her from being forcibly-returned now to her home country and her persecutor. She seeks political asylum…so what happens?
A male United States asylum officer finds that while she has established a good reason for seeking asylum when she did she unfortunately did not come to grips with her experiences and did not muster her courage (even though she was undergoing continual therapy including prescription medication for her recurring bouts of anxiety and fear about what has happened to her) in a timely enough fashion.
Go tell your story in another forum – to an immigration judge, a government prosecutor, and a court interpreter – and see if the judge will let you stay.
The unthinkable (but cynically almost-expected) happens – the “delay” caused by undergoing and completing intense therapy for such a terrible, but acceptable in her home country, series of domestic violence is what makes her ineligible to seek asylum in the United States. You have to do so within one year of admission to our country (in fact, some in our country would want this period limited even further). She did not, so the US government wants to deport her and send her back to the country where she has endured so much physical and mental anguish. My fear is that the government feels it is doing her a favor by re-uniting her with her daughter…her fight against banishment from the United States continues.
The woman is trapped – she feels intense shame and humiliation and continuously relives in her mind the series of sexual assaults and the car ride to the airport separating mother from daughter. She can’t stop thinking about the horror.
She begins seeing a therapist at a Midwest center for victims of domestic violence and torture to work through recurrent nightmares and persistent sleeping problems associated with her experiences. While under care she begins to come to grips with what happened to her, she starts to understand that is okay to feel bad about having been so heinously victimized; she understands that she is still a good person with something to not only offer society but she has a mother’s knowledge and love to impart to her daughter…the only problem is that mother and daughter are now separated by nearly 5000 miles.
She gathers the courage to not only confide her experiences to others, but she musters the bravery it requires to submit these facts to the United States government and seek its discretionary power to protect her, to keep her from being forcibly-returned now to her home country and her persecutor. She seeks political asylum…so what happens?
A male United States asylum officer finds that while she has established a good reason for seeking asylum when she did she unfortunately did not come to grips with her experiences and did not muster her courage (even though she was undergoing continual therapy including prescription medication for her recurring bouts of anxiety and fear about what has happened to her) in a timely enough fashion.
Go tell your story in another forum – to an immigration judge, a government prosecutor, and a court interpreter – and see if the judge will let you stay.
The unthinkable (but cynically almost-expected) happens – the “delay” caused by undergoing and completing intense therapy for such a terrible, but acceptable in her home country, series of domestic violence is what makes her ineligible to seek asylum in the United States. You have to do so within one year of admission to our country (in fact, some in our country would want this period limited even further). She did not, so the US government wants to deport her and send her back to the country where she has endured so much physical and mental anguish. My fear is that the government feels it is doing her a favor by re-uniting her with her daughter…her fight against banishment from the United States continues.
Monday, May 21, 2007
Cloture..? Shouldn't that be an "s" as in "closure"?
The Senate has begun through cloture (basically, a decision by that legislative body to avoid a filibuster, or an enforced delay by certain members of the body, by voting on a particular issue ahead of time) what is expected to be a slippery-sloped debate on the benefits of last Friday’s immigration reform proposal.
While some specifics of the bill are beginning to seep out, it appears that real debate in Washington, DC and the Senate will not begin until after memorial Day (perhaps to eventually coincide with the House of Representatives which is to consider its own reform bill later this year) and I am thinking that no one in Washington really wants to take a hardline stance for-or-against the bill so close to next Monday’s national holiday when Senators will be in the their home districts, marching in parades, attending fundraisers, enjoying the time off, etc. and not wanting to potentially get pinned by their ears by constituents on a national day of remembrance. Just my cynical opinion.
In any event, the roller coaster has lurched into gear and is starting to climb the first hill...
While some specifics of the bill are beginning to seep out, it appears that real debate in Washington, DC and the Senate will not begin until after memorial Day (perhaps to eventually coincide with the House of Representatives which is to consider its own reform bill later this year) and I am thinking that no one in Washington really wants to take a hardline stance for-or-against the bill so close to next Monday’s national holiday when Senators will be in the their home districts, marching in parades, attending fundraisers, enjoying the time off, etc. and not wanting to potentially get pinned by their ears by constituents on a national day of remembrance. Just my cynical opinion.
In any event, the roller coaster has lurched into gear and is starting to climb the first hill...
Immigration Reform Bill introduced in The US Senate
As anticipated, the calls began before 9:00 a.m. last Friday: “Mr. Kocol, I heard that the Senate passed a law…” or “…so what does this mean for me?” Well, I believe I now have a phonecall list that is at least 15 persons long and that is on top of the hundred or so that are already on speed-dial…
In case anyone uninterested in United States immigration law and policy has not heard, a bipartisan (ie. some Democrats and some Republicans have actually decided to work together) group in the US Senate has proposed a bill that would reform our immigration statute to allow certain benefits it does not now allow and impose other limits on options for people who want to come to this country. I am terribly judgmental when it comes to “government” and I have not seen the actual text of this legislative proposal so I cannot comment real intelligently about its future impact.
What I can say is that whenever you hope for some good to come out of Washington, you must expect some bad stuff, too. I expect as we read more in the days to come, the negative aspects of this proposal by the Senate will be debated along with the positive aspects. Until then, my list of people to contact if an “amnesty” passes grows by the day. I expect no “amnesty” (too many problems last time around) but I do expect 2007 to be an interesting year.
In case anyone uninterested in United States immigration law and policy has not heard, a bipartisan (ie. some Democrats and some Republicans have actually decided to work together) group in the US Senate has proposed a bill that would reform our immigration statute to allow certain benefits it does not now allow and impose other limits on options for people who want to come to this country. I am terribly judgmental when it comes to “government” and I have not seen the actual text of this legislative proposal so I cannot comment real intelligently about its future impact.
What I can say is that whenever you hope for some good to come out of Washington, you must expect some bad stuff, too. I expect as we read more in the days to come, the negative aspects of this proposal by the Senate will be debated along with the positive aspects. Until then, my list of people to contact if an “amnesty” passes grows by the day. I expect no “amnesty” (too many problems last time around) but I do expect 2007 to be an interesting year.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)