For as long as anyone remembers, Form I-94 has been the white, passport sized card the majority of nonimmigrant foreign nationals have been issued and had stapled to a page in their passport upon entry into the U.S. Nesvarbu, ar įvesti kaip lankytojas, studentas ar darbuotojas, užsienio valstybės pilietis, by way of their I-94 card, is provided evidence of their formal inspection into the U.S. and the time they are authorized to remain. Upon the completion of their stay and departure, nonimmigrants are theoretically required to give their I-94 back to immigration authorities. Starting this week, tačiau, JAV. Tėvynės saugumo departamentas, Customs and Border Protection is launching a program to go paperless for those entering the U.S. by way of most major air and sea ports, by transitioning the I-94 card into an electronic record.

The automation process involves the gathering of the nonimmigrant’s information from already provided, electronic travel records as opposed to by way of the nonimmigrant’s completion of paper documents just prior to submitting to inspection, as is the current procedure. Still though, užsienio valstybės pilietis, after entering the U.S., will be issued a stamp on a page of their passport denoting their immigration status and limits of stay.

After entry, nonimmigrants will be able to access and print out their paperless I-94 by visiting HTTP://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/travel/id_visa/i-94_instructions/ and selecting “Get I-94 Number.”

The purpose of this initiative is to streamline the inspection process, enhance security, and reduce government costs. The tentative schedule for the launch of this program for major ports of entry across the U.S. is as follows:

PASKELBTAS balandis 27, 2013 - "Imigracijos įstatymo FORUMAS" Autorinė teisė © 2013, Richard Hanus Law Offices, Čikagoje, Ilinojaus

Siūlomos imigracijos reformos teisės aktus projektas buvo išleistas gauja 8, kad abiejų partijų grupė U.S. Senatoriai, kurie bando stilius teisinį sprendimą mūsų visuomenei dabartinių imigracijos susijusių bėdų. The details contained in the bill may or may not be of much relevance for the moment because A) the proposal is NOT law yet and B) the actual legislation signed into law, if and when that happens, may very well bear little resemblance to the draft bill released to the public this week.

Apskritai, most expect any new law to include, in one form or another, a path to legalization or citizenship, the payment of a hefty fine for “path” applicants”, an expanded supply of work visas, and enhanced border security. For the path to legalization aspect, Gruodis 31, 2011 has been designated as the magic physical presence date, before which applicants must have arrived in the U.S. in order to qualify. Bet vėl, this is only a proposal!

For the debate that is to come, two of the biggest questions the public can expect to be tossed around, and in the most political of ways, are: Is this proposal an “amnesty”? What will a “secure border” mean under the new law? As to the first question, the hard core among the Republican lawmakers strongly disfavor any proposal that involves an amnesty or an excusing of unlawful behavior…..or at least not until “we have secured our borders”. But let’s face it, if there will be a path to legalization for individuals present in the U.S. without legal status, it will involve, by definition, an excusing of unlawful behavior – although applicants will likely have to pay a monetary fine and comply with other requirements. Taip, a far right lawmaker might not be able to avoid being seen as a loser in the end, if they continue to insist that “amnesty” can play no role whatsoever in any new immigration initiative.

If a path to legalization, or amnesty, will be conditioned on having a “secure border” in place, one wonders what has to take place in order for the border to be considered “secure”. Tikrai, for a lawmaker to seeking to make a name for him or herself, it will not be too difficult to keep upping the requirements that would comprise a “secure border”, and thus find a pretext to put a wrench into any draft proposal.

In the end, it appears there is almost no one in Congress who believes the solution to the problem of the undocumented is to try to deport 11 million folks. It’s just a matter of whether, and when, there are enough politicians in Congress that have the political cover to support what will add up to, for all intents and purposes, an amnesty.

PASKELBTAS balandis 15, 2013 - "Imigracijos įstatymo FORUMAS" Autorinė teisė © 2013, Richard Hanus Law Offices, Čikagoje, Ilinojaus

Foreign nationals entering the U.S. on a B-1/B-2 visa are generally granted 6 months at their port-of-entry to accomplish the purpose of their trip, be it for pleasure or business. Most visitors for business or pleasure do not remain in the U.S. for the entire 6 mėnesių, since they have work and/or residences to return to overseas. For those seeking to remain in the U.S. for the entire 6 mėnesių laikotarpį, or possibly extend or even convert their stay to another status, pavyzdžiui, F-1 studentas, a variety of current trends and rules must be kept in mind. Featured below are some of the most up to date trends, policies and conditions impacting individuals entering on B-1/B-2 visas:

 Applications (Forma I-539) to extend visits beyond a grant of 6 months continue to be heavily scrutinized and granted only in the rarest of circumstances, such as where unexpected health problems or business conditions have arisen.

 Applications to change from visitor, B-1/B-2 to student F-1 status continue to be viable, but applicants should be aware of the vast minefield at play, įskaitant:

* prohibition, generally, against applying to school, or filing the change of status application (I-539) per 90 days of entering the U.S.,
* prohibition against enrolling in school or commencing studies prior to the approval of a change of status application, ir
* requirement that the applicant document his/her intent to return to their home country – e.g. property ownership, employment or educational program to return to, ir tt

An applicant for a change of status who commences studies prior to approval will end of up having their application denied. Papildomai, foreign nationals seeking to extend their visitor status will also be denied in the event they enroll in school during the term of their visit, since CIS considers such enrollment to constitute a status violation.

PASKELBTAS kovo 1, 2012 - "Imigracijos įstatymo FORUMAS"
Autorinė teisė © 2012, Richard Hanus Law Offices, Čikagoje, Ilinojaus

President Obama has always made it known that he favors the enactment of some form of comprehensive immigration reform to allow for a “path to citizenship” for at least some of the approximately 12 milijonų, gyvenantis U.S. be teisėtos imigracijos statusą. During his term, it’s been a Republican Congress that’s been the main obstacle to getting any type of immigration reform initiative passed, whether it be the DREAM Act, or more comprehensive reform proposals. If you are wondering how the Republican candidates for President would approach the issue – below are direct quotes attributed to each of them, along with my own peanut gallery assessment:

Mitt Romney
“My view is, people who have come here illegally, we welcome you to apply but you must get at the back of the line, because there are millions of people who are in line right now that want to come here legally. I want those to come here legally. Those that are here illegally have to get in line with everybody else.” [Republican Debate, Gruodis 15, 2011]

RH – What line are you talking about Mr. Romney? The vast majority of undocumented individuals currently have no avenue toward legal status in the first place, and thus have no line to get into! This sounds good, but has no basis in reality. Maybe, like most politicians, he is just saying what he thinks the public wants to hear just to get elected, and once elected will do whatever suits his political agenda and survival. After Iowa, it looks like BS and nice sound bytes take you places though. Slick guys finish first?

“If I were elected and Congress were to pass the DREAM Act, would I veto it? The answer is yes.” [Washington Post, Gruodis 31, 2011]

RH – Same assessment as above. Sounds tough, and that’s what Romney thinks he has to sound like on immigration issues. Any reasoning he would cite, like in the first quote, would likely have no basis in reality. Nevertheless, slick guys appear to finish first.

“As President, [Į] will also work to establish a policy that staples a green card to the diploma of every eligible student visa holder who graduates from one of our universities with an advanced degree in math, science, or engineering. As President, a first step that [Į] will take is to raise the ceiling on the number of visas issued to holders of advanced degrees in Math, Science, and engineering who have job offers in those fields from US companies.” [Believe in America, Rugsėjis 6, 2011]

RH – Great idea, and sounds great.

Newt Gingrich
“I do not believe that the American people are going to tolerate going after somebody who has been here 25 metų, who has a family, has children and grandchildren, belongs to a local church. What I proposed is very standard things. Control the border by January 1, 2014. Make English the official language of government. Go to a much better visa program that’s much…that makes it more desirable to visit the U.S. legally. Go to a better deportation program to move people out who shouldn’t be here.” [CBS News, Gruodis 18, 2011]

RH – Congratulations Newt. You may win the award for the most honest of this bunch. Your answer is practical and real. Be careful though, honesty may not get you too far in this race. The tougher, “law and order” talk seems to be what most of the other politicians think will win the day.

“Let me start and just say I think that we ought to have an H-1 visa that goes with every graduate degree in math, science and engineering so that people stay here.” [Republican Debate, Lapkritis 22, 2011]

RH- Great idea! Sounds great.

Ron Paul
“Somebody who’s been here and it’s their country I think there should be a program to bring them into the fold…but I want it to be done systematically. I think we need more efficiency at our borders, and allow the people to come in, especially for people who can take care of themselves. But you ask about what we do with 11 million and I would say you have to work out a program of assimilation, but you can’t just say borders don’t count and people should be rewarded for breaking the law.” [Univision, Spalis 2, 2011]

RH- same commentary as for Newt. Its honest, real talk. Not as sexy as law and order though.

“End Birthright Citizenship – As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be granted U.S. pilietybė, we’ll never be able to control our immigration problem.” [Ron Paul 2012]

RH- whether you agree with his stance or not, he is honest and truly believes what he is saying, particularly regarding the attractiveness of US citizenship for all children born here. His blunt commentaries appear to be getting him places.

Voted “yes” on H.R. 3736, a bill that increased the number of highly skilled workers from 65,000 į 115,000 by the year 2000. [JAV. Atstovų rūmų, Rugsėjis 24, 1998]

RH- consistent with earlier commentary, he is honest and realistic on this issue as well. What planet he lives on other issues, such as foreign policy, is a whole other question.

Rick Perry
"Amnesty International yra ne ant stalo laikotarpį. Amnestijos nebus Jungtinės Valstijos. We’re a country of law and the idea that we’re going to tell people that somehow or another that that’s all forgiven is not going to happen.” [ABC News, Lapkritis 29, 2011]

“But I do think that there is a way. That after we secure that border that you can have a process in place for individual who are law- abiding citizens who have done only one thing, as Newt says, 25 years ago or whatever that period of time was, that you can put something in place that basically continues to keep those families together.” [Republican Debate, Lapkritis 22, 2011]

RH – Amnesty…a word loaded with toxicity in the immigration debate. However Rick, there is already a de facto amnesty in place now, as the US government is looking the other way for the millions in the U.S. without status. True to his inner character, Rick comes off like he wants it both ways and talks from both sides. He is not brave like Newt and some of the others – who says it like it is. Too slick for his own good it seems.

“But if you say that we should not educate children who have come into our state for no other reason than they’ve been brought there by no fault of their own, I don’t think you have a heart. We need to be educating these children, because they will become a drag on our society. I think that’s what Texans wanted to do.” [Republican Debate, Rugsėjis 22, 2011]

RH – sounds a little braver, but he tends toward back pedaling whenever one of his controversial positions, such as this, are taken issue with. After Iowa, he seems to be on his way out anyway.

“We need highly technical, trained engineers and biomedical scientists. And a lot of times, you can’t get those people because they can’t get an H-1B visa, for instance.” [CNBC, Rugsėjis 29, 2011]

RH- True!

Rick Santorum
“The idea people who are here 20 arba 25 years and came here illegally only committed one illegal act, well, you can’t be here and commit one illegal act because almost everything you’re doing while you’re here is doing things against the law…So we say, we should let that happen. We shouldn’t break up families. We should let them all come…This is false compassion.” [CNN, Gruodis 6, 2011]

RH – Honest and practical. No waffling, so it seems.

“First off, I’m actually for a system that allows for people to come here, if they come here on a student visa or they come here on a visa that — you know, where they’re getting some sort of higher education or they’re learning some great skills that are good and necessary for the country — my feeling is, you know, if they graduate and do well, we should — you know, we should have — actually give folks the opportunity to have a green card and to stay here and work.” [Fox News, Lapkritis 29, 2011]

RH – Sounds good. Is good.

Michele Bachmann
“Well, I don’t agree that you would make 11 million workers legal, because that, in effect, is amnesty. And I also don’t agree that you would give the DREAM Act on a federal level.” [Republican Debate, Lapkritis 22, 2011]

RH – She sure is honest, and she does not waffle. Is she crazy? Is there any practicality to her approach? Those are separate questions. My take on the practicality of deporting 11 million people – including placing them in removal proceedings and providing “due process”? – HA, Good luck federal government! Anyway, after IOWA, all of her talk, and my commentary, is perhaps moot.

“We think about the United States and what’s in the best interests of the United States. If we can utilize these workers, like Steve jobs wanted to, then we need to offer those visas. That will help the United States. But I don’t agree that we should make 11 million workers who are here illegally legal.” [Republican Debate, Lapkritis 22, 2011]

RH – Practical and smart on the visas for professionals and skilled workers. Not so much on the other issue.

Jon Huntsman
“I think you have to take a very practical approach to having them [undocumented immigrants] wait in line. There have to be certain requirements. Language requirements. English as an official language for example. Paying back taxes, if that is applicable. There needs to be some steps along the way that would suggest that they have paid whatever price and penalty in order to come out of the shadows and to gain citizenship in this country. You have to create a system whereby you can move towards citizenship. You can’t wish people away. You can’t just use rhetoric that says we’ll ship people back.” [Think Progress, Rugsėjis 19, 2011]

RH – Honest and practical, except for that “line” comment.

“I believe immigration is a human as well as an economic issue, and that children of illegal immigrants shouldn’t be punished for the sins of their parents.” [CBS News, Rugsėjis 23, 2011]

RH – Honest and practical.

“We can’t process people. The H1B visa process is broken. We need to bring in brain power to this country to shore up our economic might. We need to bring in foreign capital to raise real estate prices as well.” [Republican Debate, Rugsėjis 12, 2011]

RH – Smart, practical and honest!

Paskelbta January 4, 2012 - "Imigracijos įstatymo FORUMAS"
Autorinė teisė © 2012, Richard Hanus Law Offices, Čikagoje, Ilinojaus

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, JAV. 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). Tačiau, 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.

Tačiau, 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 metų senumo, 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.

PASKELBTAS lapkritis 28, 2011 - "Imigracijos įstatymo FORUMAS"
Autorinė teisė © 2011, Richard Hanus Law Offices, Čikagoje, Ilinojaus

This past week the U.S. Department of Homeland Security/Citizenship and Immigration Services (NVS) announced the merger of the Employment Authorization Document (EVD) and Advance Parole Travel Document (AP) for certain applicants for adjustment of status applicants. Anksčiau, CIS issued separate documents authorizing employment and international travel for eligible applicants for adjustment of status, and their issuance and renewal required two separate applications. Dabar, tačiau, a single document will be issued to eligible, pending adjustment of status applicants to prove their ability to work lawfully in the U.S. as well as facilitate a return trip back into the U.S. following international travel. The document will be issued for a period of 1 arba 2 metų, depending on the how long the applicant’s adjustment of status application is expected to remain pending.

Kaip priminimą, AP’s and EAD’s are available to foreign nationals undergoing permanent residence processing in the U.S. by way of the filing of Form I-485. To be eligible to file Form I-485, an applicant must be the beneficiary of a qualifying family-based, or employment-based visa petition, and where a visa is immediately available in the applicant’s particular visa category. Tačiau, applicants who are out of status for 180 days or more, at the time of the filing of their I-485 Adjustment of Status application are strongly advised NOT to travel internationally while awaiting their permanent residence processing – and even if they are issued an advance parole. For these types of out of status applicants, a 3 arba 10 year bar to readmission will kick in upon their departure, leading to the likely denial of their I-485 application and non-issuance of their green card.

Galiausiai, as long as they are valid, EAD’s and AP’s that are not in a single document will continue to be honored for purposes of proving employment authorization or to facilitate reentry following international travel. Toliau, separate EAD’s and AP’s will continue to be issued to applicants under certain circumstances.

PASKELBTAS vasaris 15, 2011 - "Imigracijos įstatymo FORUMAS"
Autorinė teisė © 2011, Richard Hanus Law Offices, Čikagoje, Ilinojaus

The question has been lingering for years: what is our nation going to do about the 15 million or so undocumented living in the U.S.? Commence removal proceedings against them? Grant legal status to most or all of them who are otherwise law abiding? Do nothing and essentially allow for a continued, de facto Amnestija?

In part to address the question of undocumented in their state, and in part to cry out for help regarding the security of their state and border with Mexico, the State of Arizona has taken the extraordinary and unconstitutional step of criminalizing violations of U.S. imigracijos įstatymai. That means state law enforcement agencies in Arizona now have the authority to arrest and criminally prosecute immigration law violators present in their state, with violators turned over to federal authorities for the initiation of removal proceedings after being served a state sentence. Šio įstatymo pažeidėjams tačiau, tik become subject to arrest and prosecution if the law enforcement officer has a “reasonable suspicion” that the suspect is living in the U.S. pažeidžiant imigracijos įstatymus.

Viduryje milžinišką politinį spaudimą, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer last week signed this state legislative proposal into law, although it is not set to take effect for several months. Regardless of the state’s plan though, faktinio įgyvendinimo įstatymas yra mažai tikėtina, kad kada nors atsitiks. Daugybė grupių, B. Obamos administracija, have signaled their intention to challenge the constitutionality of the legislation, and the legal battle may very well work its way up to the U.S. Aukščiausiasis Teismas. Tuo tarpu, an important national conversation will be taking place.

Nesuklyskite; the numerous legal defects in this law are clear as day. Visų pirma, the law flies in the face of the explicit constitutional prohibition against states acting in realms where the federal government has sole jurisdiction, , pavyzdžiui, imigracijos politika ir sienų kontrolės. Tiesiog būdami grubus įstatymo patogus nepaisoma atskirų (nelegalias ar kitaip) Piliečių laisvių, tokių kaip konstitucinės teisės į tinkamą teismo procesą Teisės ir nuo nepagrįstų Kratos / Traukuliai, with Arizona law enforcement given carte blanche to essentially engage in racial profiling and arrest anyone who looks, sounds or smells undocumented, or is otherwise “reasonably suspected” to be in the U.S. without legal status. The constitutional issues are numerous, as are the logistical challenges, including the ugly reality of violent criminals being given the upper hand against their undocumented victims or witnesses, with law enforcement now assigned the conflicting responsibilities of not only arresting the violent offender, but also their undocumented victim or witness.

Tikrai, šio naujos Arizonos teisės aktai turi Dotarłeś žmonės kalbėti, tiek paramos ir opozicijos, ir nuo civilinių teisių lyderiai, visų įsitikinimų politikų, ir, žinoma,, to the media pundits. What is clear though is that the people of Arizona, through their state legislators, have spoken and most people in Arizona are not happy with the status quo when it comes to federal enforcement of our border with Mexico and our immigration laws in general. Although the people of Arizona have a right to have their health, sauga, ir turtui apsaugoti, tikslas turi būti pasiektas per parametrus, leidžiama pagal mūsų konstituciją, and thus they will not have the final say on the implementation of the new measure. Vėl, the new Arizona law has restarted an important conversation, but whether it will be an honest one or one involving politician/pundit posing opportunities remains to be seen. Deja, from the looks of it, posing appears to be the dominant theme, as we seem to be becoming a society too quick to accept fear mongering and sensational presentations as foundations of our world views.

The importance of Arizonians’ concerns with regard to crime, sienų apsaugos, ir finansinių bei gamtinių išteklių naudojimas neturėtų būti sumažintas. Tačiau, atsakymas slypi ne drakoniškos, beviltiška valstybės veiksmų, bet ir galimi sprendimai, kad ateis iš mūsų U.S. Kongresas ir prezidentas. Tikimės, kad, stiprus Kongreso ir prezidento vadovavimas vyraus, Amerikos visuomenei primenama, kad buvęs prezidentas George'as W.. Krūmas, kartu su John McCain ir legionų kitų respublikonų, kurie neseniai gynė teisės aktus, siekiant sustiprinti JAV. sienas ir priimti visapusišką imigracijos reformą - kelias į JAV. nelegalias mūsų šalies gyventojų pilietybę,. Deja, dabar, kad JAV Prezidentas B. Obama, ir legionų demokratų, kurie šį dvejopą iniciatyvą ginant, yra patogiai tik respublikonų sauja remti priežastis, dauguma respublikonai, kalbėdamas Amerikos rinkėjams baimėmis, pyktis, and resentment.

In assessing the options outlined above with common sense and clear headed thinking, one can be sure the option of initiating removal proceedings against so many millions of people is in no way financially, logistiniu, ar net emociškai realus. Gana, prezidentas B. Obama pasisakė galimybė, ir anksčiau pasisakė prezidentas George'as W.. Busho ir prezidento varžovas Johnas McCainas, featuring enhanced border enforcement and legalization of the undocumented is the sensible approach and one superior to mass deportations or the status quo. Tačiau tai realu, sveiku protu atsakymas turėti galimybę, turėsime du svarbius ingredientų: 1) sąžiningas ir gutsy pristatymai politikų ir 2) aiškus mąstymas, ir praktinių, visuomenės. That seems like a long shot these days.

PASKELBTAS balandis 24, 2010 - "Imigracijos įstatymo FORUMAS"
Autorinė teisė © 2010, Richard Hanus Law Offices, Čikagoje, Ilinojaus

For about the tenth time in the past decade, I am writing about a new legislative initiative presented to allow for the legalization of the vast majority of those present in the U.S. pažeidžiant mūsų imigracijos įstatymus. This time, the initiative is called Comprehensive Immigration Reform for America’s Security and Prosperity Act of 2009 (“CIR ASAP”). The measure was introduced before the U.S. House of Representatives on December 15, 2009 by Congressman Luis Gutierrez (D-IL), a lawmaker who has shown himself to be a leader in the comprehensive immigration reform movement. Gutierrez, like many other politicians in Congress, along with our President, realizes that eventually our society has to make a choice about what we will do about our nation’s 15 million or so undocumented individuals. Absorb? Deport? Some stay, some go?

Whatever the solution, for sure, by doing nothing our country ignores the issue and pretty much establishes a de facto amnesty, where the status quo is maintained and the undocumented population continues to be allowed to live and work in the U.S., albeit in the shadows. Based on the underlying premise of most undocumented workers’ embarking for the U.S. in the first place (“better to be in the U.S. illegally and make a living and get ahead than be in my home country legally”), this population will not be packing their bags for a trip home anytime soon, no matter the level of immigration enforcement.

CIR ASAP includes a broad range of initiatives, including enhanced border security and immigration law enforcement, improved verification systems for employers and otherwise establishing some integrity in our broken immigration system. The truly potent, provocative goodies in the legislative proposal involve the legalization of the undocumented population.

The most notable provision allows for the out of status/no status foreign national to establish an interim legal status by, be kitų reikalavimų,

a) documenting their unlawful status in the U.S as of December 15, 2009,
, pagal) paying an application fee, along with a $500 fine, ir
c) attesting to having made societal contributions through employment, education, military service, or social service volunteering.

The applicant would also need to demonstrate a relatively clean criminal record, where a felony or three (3) misdemeanors will prompt ineligibility.

Other highlights of the CIR ASAP:

• Allows for adjustment to permanent status after a six (6) year interim, conditional status. In conditional status, while awaiting permanent status, an applicant will have the right to work in the U.S. and travel internationally; individuals in removal proceedings will be among the pool of eligible applicants.
• DREAM ACT: similar to above provision, except that students brought to the U.S. prieš 16 years of age would have an accelerated path to permanent residence upon high school graduation, completion of two (2) years of college study or several other milestones,
• Expands opportunities for U.S. employers to hire and keep foreign workers by liberalizing rules for facilitating temporary and permanent (imigrantas) visas for foreign workers and
• Provides greater discretionary authority for Immigration Judges presiding over a long time U.S. resident’s removal (išsiuntimas) hearing.

There are at least another 100 interesting provisions included in this legislative proposal. Most likely, nors, if and when any of these measures get signed into law, the details and language will probably only faintly resemble this proposed language. To many in Congress, a measure like CIR ASAP yra toksiški teritorijoje, kur bet kokio tipo šios priežasties parama atvers kritikos ir kaltinimų sukėlė nesustabdomą diskusijų proveržį “rewarding the lawbreaker.”

Tikrai, for any sort of immigration reform to pass, courage and brutal honesty will have to find a way into the discussion — particularly to get past the argument that, in the end, the lawbreaker may very well be rewarded. Tačiau, looking at the potential benefits such reform may yield for our society, including a substantial economic shot in the arm (think of all the billions of dollars the 15 million undocumented will start spending knowing that their stay here is secure), as well as the cost of doing nothing, comprehensive immigration reform, in some form or another, is inevitable. Here’s hoping that the introduction of CIR ASAP at least gets an honest and courageous conversation started.

PASKELBTAS gruodis 16, 2009 - "Imigracijos įstatymo FORUMAS"
Autorinė teisė © 2009, Richard Hanus Law Offices, Čikagoje, Ilinojaus

For citizens of North American countries such as Canada and Mexico, kelias link, gauti nonimmigrant vizą ar leidimą dirbti Jungtinėse Amerikos Valstijose dažnai būna daug paprastesnis nei taikant H-1B. Since the enactment of NAFTA (the North American Free Trade Agreement) į 1994, workers in certain employment categories have been welcomed to the U.S. along with their families in one-year increments, with the freedom in some cases to renew indefinitely. As we approach 2009 – the year by which the NAFTA accords were set to be finalized – the parameters of the TN (Trade-NAFTA) program have continued to expand. As of last month, TN applicants are eligible for initial approval of up to three years (as opposed to only one year), vėl su galimybę kai kuriais atvejais - neribotą atnaujinimo (iki 3 metų žingsniu), ir pareiškėjų’ immediate family members may join them on derivative TD status for the same amount of time.

How do I apply for the TN Visa? How do I know if I’m eligible?
Those eligible for the TN program include professional workers (pavyzdžiui, accountants, engineers, lawyers, pharmacists, scientists, teachers, and certain other professionals and skilled workers) per the categories defined by NAFTA who have received an offer of employment from a U.S-based company.

The process of gaining entry differs slightly for Canadian and Mexican citizens, with Canadians facing less red tape. For Canadians, vizos nereikia, ir dokumentus, palengvina galimybę įvažiuoti TN / TD statuso gali būti pateikta muitinės ir pasienio apsaugos pareigūnai daugiausia įvažiavimo. For Mexicans, a visa is required, and a visa application with supporting documentation must be presented at a U.S. konsulinė įstaiga Meksikoje. Abiem atvejais, Reikalingi dokumentai yra:

• išsamų laišką iš darbdavio featuring, įmonės profilį ir pasiūlyti darbo specifiką
• professional and/or educational credentials, g. licenses, laipsnių, ir tt
• proof of citizenship
• necessary fees

Kaip nurodyta, Mexican applicants are required to first obtain a visa through a U.S. Consular post, kuri apima užbaigti internete Nonimmigrant prašymų išduoti vizą kiekvienas jų šeimos narys (savarankiškai įtraukti), scheduling an interview with the post, paying the necessary fees, completing a biometrics requirement, ir užtikrinti, kad visi pakankamai išsamia dokumentacija yra pasirengusi iš anksto interviu. Decisions are issued shortly after the interview.

How does the TN Visa differ from the H-1B?
The TN program can be a nice alternative for U.S. employers and North American workers, because the requirements are simpler than those for the H-1B program. Taip pat, NAFTA’s job categories are broader, leidžiant ne specialistui darbuotojų, tokių kaip “mokslo technikai” ir “valdymo konsultantai” turi būti patvirtintas laikinasis įvežimas. Papildomai – and quite significantly – the TN program is not subject to the yearly cap that makes the H-1B so difficult to obtain. Moreover, because there is no deadline or availability start-date for TN applications, the approvals are decided on a “rolling basis.” This means there is nothing like the annual “race” for H-1B visas, and the entire TN process is, apskritai, much faster and more efficient.

Why does this program exist? What is the point of NAFTA?
Ultimately, the North American Free Trade Agreement was created to foster economic relations between Canada, Meksika, and the U.S. pašalinti prekybos kliūtis – pavyzdžiui, tarifai, žemės ūkio prekių, ir kliūtis tarp šalių darbo biržoje. The TN program allows U.S. firms to hire workers from Mexico and Canada more easily, and the increase to three years for initial approval – finalized last month – will cut down on time and paperwork for firms who wish to employ foreign labor on a longer-term basis.

While the laws governing the extension of visitor/tourist visa status for foreign nationals visiting the U.S. have not changed, the manner in which the Department of Homeland Security’s Citizenship and Immigration Service (NVS) is applying the law certainly has. This change in approach is definitely reason for prospective applicants to think twice about seeking to extend their stay in the U.S. Pirma, as many of our readers know, for those required to obtain a visitor visa (B-1/B-2) to enter the U.S., the process and requirements for getting the visa in the first place are anything but easy. The most notable requirement, and the one that typically dooms most visa applicants chances, is the one where the foreign national is required to demonstrate their nonimmigrant intent, aš. that they have a sincere intention to return to live in their home country. Trumpai tariant, applicants with good jobs, significant family ties and personal and real property of substantial value (including nice homes and bank accounts) in their home country, have the best chances of being issued a visa. Those without at least a few of these goodies are generally turned down.

Once the visa is issued and the applicant has the freedom to travel to the U.S., additional restrictions come into play. No matter the term of validity of the visa issued by the U.S. consular post or the fact that is valid for multiple entries, visa holders must be aware of a strict, yet uncertain set of rules governing how and when they can travel and/or remain in the U.S. Visų pirma – as of late, foreign nationals visiting the U.S. who seek to extend their visa status beyond the initial 3 arba 6 month period typically granted upon admission, have been greeted with a big surprise: outright denials, and without a chance to respond to a Request for Evidence or further explain their reasons for seeking a stay. Just a denial, ir, žinoma,, with instructions to depart the U.S. per 30 days.

Taip, what used to be a fairly straight forward process, with little supporting documentation required, has become a minefield. Visitors to the U.S. seeking to extend their stay should know that CIS wants to have details, details and more details about why the initial grant of 3 arba 6 months upon admission did not allow the visitor to accomplish the purpose of their visit in the first place. And maybe, with enough details the visitor status extension can be secured. In addition to demonstrating a) the financial ability to support themselves during an extended stay (by documenting their own personal funds or by way of a sponsor’s affidavit of support) ir b) a firm plan to return to their home country following the extension, applicants must provide a detailed itinerary for their extended period being sought.

From my office’s experience sometimes details are not enough, and an applicant, after being issued a denial, is left with the choice of simply abandoning the effort, or seeking to have the decision overturned by way of a Motion to Reconsider. Motions to Reconsider indeed do work, but given the uncertain timetable and prospects for success, the overall environment is one where prospective applicants are being given the following messages: think twice about seeking to extend your stay, and if you nevertheless want to give it a try, you better have a really good reason.

Foreign nationals are also advised to consider that the more time a visitor visa holder spends in the U.S., the more scrutiny the individual will receive upon future attempts to reenter the U.S. Iš esmės, border inspectors are charged with the responsibility of evaluating the visa holders true intent, aš. is the intending visitor truly just a visitor or are they using the visa to live/work in the U.S.. Taip, notwithstanding the term of validity of the visa, the prospective visitor needs to be aware that their visa does not grant them the right to travel and/or remain in the U.S. without limitation. Those who do not give due consideration to these restrictions, face the very real possibility of either being denied reentry or even having their visa cancelled.