In the coming week, U.S. Department of Homeland Security/Citizenship and Immigration Services offices across the U.S. will begin implementation of a new “Customer Identity Verification” process.  In the interest of national security and identity fraud prevention, applicants for U.S. citizenship, permanent residence, and other benefits, will now be required to submit to an additional biometric fingerprinting procedure to confirm their identity when appearing for their interview at a local CIS office.  This procedure, which will be in addition to a biometric fingerprint appointment scheduled just after application filing, is designed to provide an additional layer of security and identity verification for individuals seeking green cards or U.S. citizenship.

As stated, the procedure will be carried out on the day of the scheduled interview, and just prior to the actual interview, with 2 electronic fingerprints and photographs being taken of the applicant.  It is advisable that individuals appear at their local CIS office at least 15 minutes before their scheduled interview time to accommodate this new procedure.

PUBLISHED May 1, 2013 – “IMMIGRATION LAW FORUM” Copyright © 2013, By Law Offices of Richard Hanus, Chicago, Illinois

Published:  March 9, 2013

With over 11 million+ undocumented individuals living in the U.S. and only a fraction of that population currently the subject of removal proceedings, a commonly asked question is:  how does one become unlucky enough to end up under the radar of immigration authorities and placed in removal proceedings?

Firstly, the vast majority of folks in the U.S. without immigration status generally evade detection, and that’s because, they generally steer clear of criminal activity.  If you are in the U.S. living and working without immigration status (which, by the way, is not criminal behavior), and are otherwise abiding by our nation’s laws, there is only one reason you will end up in removal proceedings:  bad luck.  That’s because immigration authorities are not traveling from town to town rounding up folks and asking for their “papers”.  Simply, it takes some other stroke of luck…make that bad luck, for an undocumented individual to come to the attention of immigration authorities and placed in removal proceedings.

Based on experiences with clients who have visited my office and hired me to defend them in removal proceedings, the following seem to be the most common scenarios leading to the initiation of removal proceedings against an individual living in the U.S. without immigration status:

Traffic stop:  Depending on the jurisdiction, a local police officer may take delight in contacting U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) during the course of a traffic stop.  Mind you, many municipalities across the nation have specific rules against their police contacting ICE, but most do not have such rules.  The chances a traffic stop will lead the police officer to contact ICE increases exponentially if the officer has reason to believe the driver of the automobile has been using alcohol, or has outstanding warrants for other criminal cases.

Criminal Arrest:  if an individual is arrested on criminal charges – be it a misdemeanor or felony, and whether substantiated or not – there is a decent chance the arresting officer will contact ICE if he comes to conclude the individual is in the U.S. without immigration status.

Denied Application for Permanent Residence:  If an individual applies for permanent residence, say based on a marriage to a U.S. citizen, and for some reason the marriage falls apart, or immigration authorities suspect the marriage is a sham, it is not uncommon for a denied applicant to receive a ”Notice to Appear” in the mail advising them to appear in court for the initiation of removal proceedings.

Denied Asylum Application:  If for one reason or another an application for asylum is denied at the initial Asylum Office level – the Asylum Office – and the applicant is no longer in valid immigration status, the Asylum Office will issue a “Notice to Appear”, instructing the applicant to appear in court.  The good news is that the individual will have another chance to present his case for an exhaustive reconsideration by an Immigration Judge.

Reported to ICE by a private individual:  ICE receives tens of thousands of complaints from private parties looking to have this or that undocumented individual deported.  Given obvious limitations in their investigative and prosecutorial capabilities, ICE can only act on a small fraction of such complaints, and usually only if there is evidence the reported individual is also engaging in some sort of criminal activity

Travel in the U.S. Near An International Border:  undocumented individuals riding in a truck, car or train near the U.S./Canada, or U.S./Mexico border have increasingly become the subject of stops by immigration authorities, specifically agents from Customs and Border Protection (an ICE sister agency under the Department of Homeland Security umbrella).  This is particularly true of truck drivers and train riders in the Northeast, and Northwest and truck drivers in the Central and South Texas area.  Also not uncommon is the sad case of automobile GPS systems gone bad, and unsuspecting undocumented folks being guided into Canada by a GPS system programmed to take them to their destination with the most “efficient” route.  When a GPS suggested route leads too close to Canada, the undocumented car driver/rider is better off being guided by a paper map.

Green Card Holders Can End Up in Removal Proceedings Too

The following are the most common paths through which lawful permanent residents end up in removal proceedings:

Lawful permanent residents who apply for U.S. citizenship or for renewal of their green card will have to appear for fingerprinting, a process that will reveal any and all criminal arrests – even cases that have been dismissed or expunged.  If the Homeland Security official who ultimately reviews the application sees a criminal conviction possibly places that resident in a “removable” class, the resident will likely, eventually receive a Notice to Appear for removal proceedings.  Further, applicants for citizenship sometimes will have their underlying green card application readjudicated to see if the basis of their green card application (e.g. marriage, job offer, etc.) was legitimate.

The criminal background of a permanent resident seeking reentry into the U.S. following international travel will always rear its ugly head.  That is, when a green card holder appears before an inspector from Customs and Border Protection, the resident’s criminal background will be a touch screen away.  That’s not to say that any kind of criminal background will prompt the initiation of removal proceedings, although it’s exceedingly important for green card holders “with a past” to have a sense of what is on the inspecting officer’s radar, and the type of criminal record that might prompt initiation of removal proceedings.

The completion of a criminal sentence:  individuals being released after a prison term, or merely just completing the terms of their probation, are sometimes surprised to get a visit from an ICE officer and served with a Notice to Appear due to the nature of their criminal conviction.

Lastly – Being Placed in Removal Proceedings Is Not Necessarily the End of the Line (and no matter the individual’s immigration status)

Rather, it’s the start of proceedings, and a longer “conversation”……, between the foreign national, an ICE attorney and an Immigration Judge.  Integral to that conversation are the legal defenses the foreign national, whether a permanent resident or undocumented, can assert.  Such defenses may very well lead an Immigration Judge to issue an order terminating proceedings, and allowing the individual to remain living in the U.S.  Sometimes an individual may enter removal proceedings in an undocumented state, and leave these proceedings being issued a resident card.  For those without many, or any options in terms of a legal defense in proceedings, it’s imperative that a maximum effort be extended to present humanitarian concerns to the prosecuting ICE attorney, and request an exercise of prosecutorial discretion.  Needless to say, an effective defense in removal proceedings, starts and ends with legal representation by seasoned and competent immigration counsel.

PUBLISHED March 9, 2013 – “IMMIGRATION LAW FORUM” Copyright © 2013, By Law Offices of Richard Hanus, Chicago, Illinois

The requirements to become a U.S. citizen by way of an N-400 Application for Naturalization are generally not complicated, although situations frequently arise where significant questions regarding an applicant’s eligibility are raised.

General Requirements for Naturalization:

1. The applicant must be at least 18 years of age and a lawful permanent resident for 5 years. For those who are married to a U.S. citizen, the requirement is only 3 years or residence, although the applicant must have been married to and living with that U.S. citizen spouse for at least 3 years to qualify for this shortened eligibility period.
2. The applicant must demonstrate “good moral character” during the qualifying 5 or 3 year period.
3. The applicant must not have been absent from the U.S. for 1 year or more during any single stay outside the U.S. over the course of the qualifying 5 or 3 year period AND the applicant must not have been absent from the U.S. an aggregate of more than half of the qualifying time. Absences of more than 6 months, but less than a year, during the qualifying period can be problematic, depending on the circumstances.
4. Applicants must demonstrate the ability to read, write and speak English along with a basic knowledge of U.S. government and history. Certain exceptions are made for various classes of older residents who have been residing in the U.S. for extended periods, as well as for individuals with physical and mental disabilities.

Naturalization Requirements Questions and Issues

Q: Can I submit my application prior to accumulating the requisite period of residence?

A: Yes. Applications can be filed during the 90 day window prior to accumulating the necessary years of residence.

Q: What if I was the subject of criminal charges during or even before the qualifying period?

A: Generally, criminal charges that are dismissed do not pose any eligibility problems, as long as the applicant discloses the fact that they were arrested (it will show up on the fingerprint report anyway, and even if the record gets expunged). Criminal charges that lead to a conviction will definitely affect eligibility, even convictions for driving under the influence and even some convictions taking place prior to the eligibility period. Given the complexity of the law in this area, as well as the potential deportation consequences, I would advise all applicants with criminal backgrounds to consult an attorney before submitting an Application for Naturalization.

Q: What if I no longer reside with my U.S. citizen spouse and the basis of my application was a 3 year qualifying residence period?

A: Unlike the 5 year qualifying period, applicants who apply based on a three year eligibility period carry the burden of demonstrating that they continue to reside with their U.S. citizen spouse up through the time of their interview and their oath ceremony.

Q: How will absences of longer than 180 days – but less than a year, affect my eligibility?

A: Applicants with such absences during the qualifying period will have the burden of demonstrating to the CIS adjudicating officer they did not abandon their residence during this period, and therefore the extended departure should not constitute a break in the qualifying residency period. Factors considered by the CIS in assessing the nature of the departure include: did the applicant take work overseas? Did the applicant maintain a place of residence, bank account, business affiliation, employment ties, etc. in the U.S. during their departure? What was the intention of the applicant at the time they departed?

As far as processing times are concerned, applicants in Illinois are generally scheduled for their interview within 3 to 4 months from the date of application. Approved applicants are generally scheduled to appear for their oath ceremony within a week or two following the interview. Certain applicants with criminal backgrounds or other complicating factors may still qualify to be approved, but may face delays – like 90-120 days, in receiving notification of approval since these types of cases must undergo supervisory review before an approval is issued.

PUBLISHED May 15, 2012 – “IMMIGRATION LAW FORUM”
Copyright © 2012, By Law Offices of Richard Hanus, Chicago, Illinois

Everyone wants things done yesterday. When it comes to processing of a green card, U.S. citizenship, work permit, work visa, student visa, or any other immigration benefit, the same holds true. And when people hear that a “Premium Processing” unit is in place at U.S. Department of Homeland Security/Citizenship and Immigration Services here in the U.S. to provide expedited service (as quick as 1-15 days) on immigration related filings for an additional fee, lots of folks want in.

Firstly, not all immigration filings can be submitted for Premium Processing. Most notably, for example, Premium Processing is not available for family based immigration filings, such as green card filings based on marriage or other family relationships.

However, for the vast majority of employment-based immigration filings, Premium Processing guarantees 15 calendar day processing, and if that time frame is not met, the employer will received a refund of the Premium Processing fee – which is at $1225.00 currently. If the fee is refunded, the case will continue to receive expedited processing.

What’s Guaranteed in 15 days – The petitioning party will receive one of the following within a 15 calendar day period of filing: an approval notice, a denial notice, a notice of intent to deny, a request for evidence or a notice advising of an investigation for fraud or misrepresentation. If additional evidence is requested, a new 15 calendar day period will begin once the response is received by CIS.

Premium Processing is available for practically all types of temporary work visa filings, except that religious worker petitions must have already been the subject of a previous on-site inspection (relating to a prior filing) to qualify. As to petitions to accord permanent status (I-140), the same is true – and like for temporary worker petitions, there are some exceptions, e.g. petitions based on “National Interest Waiver”, international executives and managers and a few others are not eligible for Premium Processing. Further, for workers seeking to “adjust” their status in the US and undergo all permanent residence processing in the US and without appearing at a US consular post abroad, only the I-140 (immigrant worker petition) stage of the process is eligible for Premium Processing. The I-485 (adjustment of status) application – the second stage – is not eligible for Premium Processing.

Additionally, the Premium Processing service only plays out with regard to CIS processing in the U.S., and it does not include the additional time it may take such as for the U.S. Department of State, through a U.S. embassy or consular post, to process a visa to allow a foreign worker abroad to ultimately gain entry into the U.S.

It should also be noted that under certain extraordinary and/or humanitarian circumstances, practically any type of immigration filing, whether family based or employment based, might be eligible for expedited processing and without paying a premium processing fee – as long as the extraordinary or humanitarian circumstances at play can be documented.

PUBLISHED March 20, 2012 – “IMMIGRATION LAW FORUM”
Copyright © 2012, By Law Offices of Richard Hanus, Chicago, Illinois

U.S. Department of Homeland Security/Citizenship and Immigration Services continues to do its job with efficiency and speed when it comes to processing Applications for Naturalization (N-400) and Applications for Adjustment of Status (green card – I-485) based on marriage to a U.S. citizen, or other family or employment immigrant category with current visa availability. Immigration interviews, at least through CIS Chicago, are being scheduled with lightning speed, and card production for approvable permanent resident applicants, and oath ceremonies for approvable U.S. citizenship applicants follow within just a week or two of the interview. In my 20+ years of practicing immigration law, I can say that the logistics of these aspects of the immigration benefits system have never worked better.

Here is the current timeline for family based, I-485 adjustment of status applicants — assuming the paperwork and all supporting documentation is prepared and filed correctly:

1. Dept. of Homeland Security/Citizenship and Immigration Services issues receipts within approximately 5 to 10 days of filing date,
2. Biometrics (fingerprint) appointment scheduled within approximately 10-15 days of filing date,
3. Employment Authorization Document (and for those eligible, Advance Parole Travel Document) issued within 45 to 90 days of filing date, and
4. Interview (at least at CIS Chicago) scheduled within 90 -120 days of filing.

Please note that interviews will be scheduled for all marriage-based applications, but not necessarily for other types of family-based cases. Applicants with arrest records or other significant immigration-related irregularities will always be interviewed.

The timeline for N-400 applicants for naturalization — assuming prepared and filed correctly — is pretty much the same as for I-485 applicants, except that interviews are scheduled within 3-5 months of the filing date, and oath ceremonies scheduled approximately 1-2 weeks following the interview.

What can impact this timeline? If the application and all supporting documentation, such as the Affidavit of Support, are not prepared correctly, additional weeks or months can be added to Employment Authorization Document and/or I-485 processing times. Also, if questions surrounding the applicant’s legal eligibility for permanent residence or U.S. citizenship comes into play — especially at the time of interview — weeks, months, and even years can be added on to this processing timeline. But when the case is prepared properly, and clear legal eligibility for the immigration benefit is established, applicants can pretty much expect smooth and speedy sailing.

PUBLISHED March 9, 2012 – “IMMIGRATION LAW FORUM”
Copyright © 2012, By Law Offices of Richard Hanus, Chicago, Illinois

For the past 5 years, I have seen more than a few variations on the theme of the “accidental” voter or voter registrant. In all but the exceptional case, the non-U.S. citizen was lured into registering to vote, or voting, because of “Motor-Voter”, the federal law that directs states, like Illinois, to incorporate a voter registration option when accepting applications for driver’s licenses and State I.D.’s. Invariably, the accidental voter or registrant is led into the voter registration process by the blind robotics of the motor voter protocol as carried out at state motor vehicle facilities, even when the governmental official is presented with clear evidence that the person appearing before them is not a U.S. citizen.

Sometimes the foreign born applicant presents their foreign passport as identification, other times its their green card, employment authorization document or non-immigrant visa. Notwithstanding the presentation of clear proof of their foreign birth and citizenship, the foreign national is asked if they would like to register to vote. Some bite right away, and say yes, feeling it’s their duty not to reject such an honor, or at least not thinking there would be any question of eligibility since it’s a government official offering up this privilege. Then there are those who state very clearly that they are not U.S. citizens and understand they are prohibited by law from voting, but are nevertheless mistakenly advised to register anyway, since according to the official (again mistakenly), one does not need to be a US citizen to register, or, because simply it’s just nice to have an extra form of identification. Lastly, there is the voter registration that takes place without the applicant ever knowing it, until, that is, he ends up receiving a voter registration card in the mail.

From the government’s perspective, the voter registration process only goes forward after the applicant signs a document confirming that they are a U.S. citizen. And it is up to the individual to carefully review what they are signing before signing it. However, that line of reasoning does not take into account the bigger picture context in which the process plays out – such as with the above examples, where the foreign national is essentially relying – with good reason – on the guidance of a government official throughout the process, and are given every reason to believe they are eligible to register. And then later, the registrant is reasonably led to believe they are eligible to vote since a voter card is issued, and presumably only after a thorough eligibility assessment and screening process was carried out.

Now that we know where the problem is most often rooted, what’s the accidental voter, or registrant, to do if he is only a green card holder, and wants to apply for naturalization? Or, what if the registrant or voter still has yet to become a permanent resident, and now wants to apply for a green card? What are the risks of being denied, or even deported as a result of being ensnared into such an awful mess?

For Applicants for Naturalization: individuals who admit to voting or registering to vote certainly risk being not only denied US citizenship, but also placed in deportation/removal proceedings, especially the accidental voter. In both cases though, the interviewing officer has the power to exercise discretion, excuse the violations and still approve the case. That power is exercised often, but one cannot know with certainty how the process will play out ahead of time. But even in the worst case scenario where an applicant is denied and placed in removal proceedings, there is usually a remedy to avail of to have removal proceedings terminated. That is because the applicant will usually have a solid case to show that the registration process did not involve a purposeful, intended claim to U.S. citizenship (integral to voter registration), and that any action, whether it be registering to vote, or voting, was taken while relying on the guidance of a government official. In such a case, the act of voting should not be, and cannot be considered “unlawful”, and a basis to deport someone from the U.S.

For Applicants for Permanent Residence: individuals caught in the motor voter trap face a bigger challenge since prosecutorial discretion cannot be exercised to waive, or excuse, an alleged false claim to citizenship, or act of “unlawful voting”. On the other hand, as in the case of an applicant for naturalization, the arguments about relying on the guidance of government officials are just as strong. More likely than not though, those arguments will have to be presented before an Immigration Judge in removal proceedings, because a front line immigration officer will not want to consider those arguments and will summarily deny the application. For certain, in the realm of accidental voting or registration, the applicant for permanent residence faces greater risks than the applicant for naturalization, although as stated, a remedy may very well be available within the context of a defense to removal proceedings.

As we speak, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit is considering a case dealing with this very issue. Hopefully, the accidental voter or registrant will find some well-deserved sympathy (and benefit from positive case-law) in that arena.

PUBLISHED February 21, 2012 – “IMMIGRATION LAW FORUM”
Copyright © 2012, By Law Offices of Richard Hanus, Chicago, Illinois

Watching presidential debates is not one of my favorite things to do, mainly because I have a hard time believing a single word coming out of any of the participants’ mouths.  The posturing is so obvious, with each candidate trying their hardest to get their sound bites in, and say the things their “people” tell them they need to say.  So it was by accident – while looking for enjoyable garbage to watch on the Dumb Box (my mother’s affectionate term for the television), that I happened upon the debate involving Republican candidates for President last week.  At the moment I tuned in, the one topic I have more than a little familiarity with was being argued, U.S. immigration policy.  So I gave it a listen, curious to hear if any honest conversation was going on, or if it was going to be the usual festival of scare tactics, half-truths and snake oil pitches all too common in political arena immigration discussions.

What I heard: mainly the familiar cries for anything but the incumbent’s policies.  “We have to enforce the border”.  “We can’t have an amnesty….or have any talk about a path to citizenship, without first securing our borders…” (with hand stomping on podium……and praying for applause).  But, the question these politicians have a hard time answering, and do not want to answer is “what does securing the border mean?”  By repeating the “secure the border” cry in trancelike fashion, the politician seeks to avoid the next, elephant in the middle of the room, question of what do we do with the 12 million undocumented who are already here.  Of course these candidates will also do their best to avoid talking about how Barack Obama has facilitated record numbers of deportations during his term and has successfully amped up our border strength with advanced technologies and increased manpower.

However, one candidate, Newt Gingrich, had the nerve to talk truth about immigration, and touch on the 12 million dollar question – suggesting a “humane” immigration policy and confessing he would not remove all illegal immigrants that are currently in the country:

“I do not believe that the people of the United States are going to take people who have been here a quarter century, who have children and grandchildren, who are members of the community, who may have done something 25 years ago, separate them from their families, and expel them,”

Now that took nerve.  Here in the midst of a gathering of the Republican’s best and brightest, Newt Gingrich took a risk and said what every other candidate deep down truly believes.  Of course our society will not be removing all of our undocumented.  That fact alone is evident in the practice of the various administrations in office over the past generation, no matter the party affiliation.  Newt’s statement nevertheless drew the predictable chorus of accusations that he is “soft” on immigration, and that irresponsible statements like his show he will be inclined toward creating policy that encourages more illegal immigration since the law breakers of the past will now be rewarded with green cards.

Let’s forget about the fact that for more than the past generation our society has implemented a de facto amnesty anyway, where we look the other way when it comes to our undocumented  immigrants who are not committing crimes, but instead are committed to cleaning up our homes, taking care of our elderly or installing our new dry wall.  No one at the Republican debate acknowledged that fact, and that our de facto amnesty is already a significant “magnet” to encourage people to come here based on the predominant motivation at play – that life in the U.S. without status is better than the futureless, hopeless life that awaits back in an opportunity-less and/or corrupt homeland.

Maybe Gingrich is already looking ahead and plotting a strategy for the November, 2012 general election.  Or maybe he was just having a moment of unavoidable arrogant clarity.  Whatever the case, it seems that notwithstanding the immediate schoolyard name-calling his immigration remarks prompted from his opponents, Gingrich stated an indisputable reality:   the undocumented population with deep roots in the U.S. and who are otherwise law-abiding, are not going home voluntarily, and further, face almost no chance of ever being deported.  Mitt knows it.  Rick knows it.  Herman knows it.  And even Michelle knows it.

PUBLISHED November 28, 2011 – “IMMIGRATION LAW FORUM”
Copyright © 2011, By Law Offices of Richard Hanus, Chicago, Illinois

U.S. Department of Homeland Security/Citizenship and Immigration Services continues to do its job with efficiency and speed when it comes to processing Applications for Naturalization (N-400) and Applications for Adjustment of Status (green card – I-485) based on marriage to a U.S. citizen, or other family or employment immigrant category with current visa availability.  Immigration interviews, at least through CIS Chicago, are being scheduled with lightning speed, and card production for approvable permanent resident applicants, and oath ceremonies for approvable U.S. citizenship applicants follow within just a week or two of the interview.  In my 20+ years of practicing immigration law, I can say that the logistics of these aspects of the immigration benefits system have never worked better.

Here is the current timeline for family based, I-485 adjustment of status applicants — assuming the paperwork and all supporting documentation is prepared and filed correctly:

1. Dept. of Homeland Security/Citizenship and Immigration Services issues receipts within approximately 5 to 10 days of filing date,
2. Biometrics (fingerprint) appointment scheduled within approximately 10-15 days of filing date,
3. Employment Authorization Document (and for those eligible, Advance Parole Travel Document) issued within 45 to 90 days of filing date and
4. Interview (at least at CIS Chicago) scheduled within 90 -120 days of filing.

Please note that interviews will be scheduled for all marriage-based applications, but not necessarily for other types of family-based cases. Applicants with arrest records or other significant immigration-related irregularities will always be interviewed.

The timeline for N-400 applicants for naturalization — assuming prepared and filed correctly — is pretty much the same as for I-485 applicants, except that interviews are scheduled within 3-5 months of the filing date, and oath ceremonies scheduled approximately 1-2 weeks following the interview.

What can impact this timeline?  If the application and all supporting documentation, such as the Affidavit of Support, is not prepared correctly, additional weeks or months can be added to Employment Authorization Document and/or I-485 processing times.  Also, if questions surrounding the applicant’s legal eligibility for permanent residence or U.S. citizenship comes into play — especially at the time of interview — weeks, months, and even years can be added on to this processing timeline. But when the case is prepared properly, and clear legal eligibility for the immigration benefit is established, applicants can pretty much expect smooth and speedy sailing.

PUBLISHED June 16, 2011 – “IMMIGRATION LAW FORUM”
Copyright © 2011, By Law Offices of Richard Hanus, Chicago, Illinois

As most people have come to learn by now, the DREAM Act – the legislative initiative to allow for the legalization of 1 million or so undocumented individuals who came to the U.S. as children – has been shot down by Congress. The very same Republican force that gave birth to this legislative proposal a few years back was pretty much responsible for its demise. And yes, 2 +2 = 5.

 PUBLISHED December 20, 2010 – “IMMIGRATION LAW FORUM”
Copyright © 2010, By Law Offices of Richard Hanus, Chicago, Illinois

If past experience is any guide to the future, the new and “improved” DREAM Act proposal now up for congressional consideration has little or no chance at passage. As the post 9/11 era has taught us, legislative proposals to excuse, in any way, immigration law violations generally face the bleakest of prospects. Proponents of the new DREAM act, or any other type of initiative to “go easy” on immigration violators, will surely be greeted with the same heated opposition previous versions of the proposal faced, even though the current bill comes with many more eligibility restrictions. A key vote on the new proposal will take place in the coming week.

First, a review. The DREAM in the DREAM Act stands for Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors. The essence of the DREAM Act, in all of its incarnations – including the present one, is to allow for a path to legal immigration status for certain undocumented immigrants brought to the U.S. as young children, who have completed a high school education or equivalent and fulfill, prospectively, other conditions such as a minimum number of years of college or honorable service in the military. The enactment of a DREAM Act type proposal would benefit approximately 1-2 million undocumented young adults who were essentially raised as “Americans”, consider themselves “Americans” and have never really known any country other than the U.S.

To make the bill more attractive to the mainly Republican opposition in Congress, sponsors have added more stringent eligibility requirements, including:

• Excluding from eligibility applicants with a criminal record of more than two misdemeanors convictions,
• Requiring applicants to provide complete biometric information to Department of Homeland Security, and register with Selective Service (like all other US citizen and residents over the age of 18 years are required to do),
• Requiring applicants to pay all taxes owed to date, 
• Imposing a cutoff age of 30 years old as of the day of enactment, 
• Extend the good moral character requirement to the day the applicant originally entered the US as opposed to the date of enactment, 
• Requiring applicants to eventually demonstrate English language and Civics proficiency similar to current naturalization requirements, 
• Imposing a 10 year conditional nonimmigrant status, followed by 3 years of lawful permanent resident status, before ultimately becoming eligible for naturalization,

Opponents of the DREAM Act say the enactment of this proposal would lead to all kinds of financial burdens on U.S. society. However, a common sense evaluation of the facts on the ground reveal otherwise. Most notably – with passage of a DREAM Act, we will have a population of young adults who will now be in a position to work legally in the U.S. and PAY TAXES. Remember, these young adults are not going anywhere – unless forced to by ICE agents, since the countries of their birth are practically different planets to them. Further, the costs of instituting and executing on a plan to deport this portion of our undocumented population is prohibitive, estimated to be in the area of $48 billion. Lastly, if forced to removal proceedings, a good portion, if not majority of this population would qualify for relief in court based on their lengthy residence in the US and hardships to US citizen and resident family members.

Of course the enactment of the DREAM Act, whatever the version, makes good sense, as does overall comprehensive immigration reform for the undocumented population at large. It’s just that good sense and politics do not always go together. We will know more next week.

PUBLISHED December 1, 2010 – “IMMIGRATION LAW FORUM”
Copyright © 2010, By Law Offices of Richard Hanus, Chicago, Illinois