House to house searches.  Bullhorn calls to assemble and gather for deportation processing.  Mass detention facilities.  As millions of families prepare to be torn apart, you will witness the tears and deafening wails of old and young, grandparents and parents, sons and daughters.  No doubt, these scenes will be unavoidable components of the mass round-up and deportation of 12 million undocumented foreign nationals.  For the folks who refuse to give an inch and forgive immigration law breakers, it’s a path to deportation, not a path to citizenship that is the right and only option.  However, as our elected officials in Washington embark on further debate in the coming month, it is time our nation comes to accept that a path to legalization or citizenship, albeit not a perfect option, is our best and only real option.

As it stands, it seems we have 3 possible options for addressing the issue.  Option 1 is the status quo, essentially a de facto amnesty where our nation mainly looks the other way and ignores the vast majority of immigration law violators living in the U.S.  Indeed we have seen unprecedented levels of immigration enforcement under President Obama - a record 400,000 deportations annually for each of the past 4 years, and surpassing the numbers put up by his modern day Republican and Democrat predecessors – but such measures barely make a dent.

So what about Option 2, souping up our nation’s deportation engine and shipping all of the undocumented back to where they came from?  As a matter of logistics and bureaucracy, can our nation truly make that happen?  Of course it can, assuming a collective hardening of our hearts, a cash infusion in the billions, and a 3000% increase in our corps of Homeland Security agents and prosecutors.  We need only go back to World War II for successful mass round up playbooks.

Then there are the judges and due process.  All but a few of the 12 million will be entitled to a removal hearing under current law, where a Department of Justice administrative judge presides and reviews the charges against the subject foreign national and considers  available defenses.  Thus, we have to figure on a 30 fold expansion of our current roster of immigration judges, and a commensurate budgetary expansion to cover the costs.

Strange as it sounds though, the path to deportation for a decent number of the undocumented may actually turn out to be a path to citizenship.  That is because individuals who have been living here more than a decade, have otherwise obeyed the law, and can demonstrate that their forced exodus would pose extraordinary hardships to a US citizen or resident spouse, child or parent, can be considered for “cancellation of removal” – a defense avenue that leads to issuance of a green card, and not deportation.

So that leaves option 3, a path to legalization.  No matter how you slice it, this option involves rewarding and forgiving the law breaker (albeit, the equivalent of a traffic law under our current system) and absorbing them into our society with the filing of specified documentation and the payment of a fine.  Yes, the vast majority of these applicants are good, decent and hard-working folks, who will no doubt continue to be an unquestionable net-plus for our society: paying taxes, buying houses, investing in our communities and even creating jobs.  Further, the entire program will be paid for by applicant filings fees and fines.

Even still, for certain constituencies in our nation, this does not sit well.  Sure, the “no amnesty” crowd has their decent share of xenophobes, but there are no doubt thoughtful folks out there who just do not like the idea of a nation conveniently disregarding its laws when they become practically or politically unworkable, and forgiving its lawbreakers.  Even so, the “round em’ up” option, in the end, is impractical and inhumane.  And given the status quo and the broken system now in place, a path to citizenship is the option that makes the most sense.

So let’s address the ever-present, ambiguous counterpoint that “we first need to secure the border,” let’s decide what a “secure border” means, then let’s commit to secure it.  Let us avoid letting side show issues serve as platforms for political theatrics, distraction or deal killers.  From there, let’s heed the calls of the legislative leaders from both sides of the aisle, and of our current and past President.  Let’s take the inevitable, sensible next step of absorbing a population of hungry, hard-working, tax payers and pass legislation that realistically addresses this lingering issue and serves the practical needs of our nation’s families and businesses.

PUBLISHED June 14, 2013 – “IMMIGRATION LAW FORUM” Copyright © 2013, By Law Offices of Richard Hanus, Chicago, Illinois

There are at least 11 million folks in the U.S. who are more than a little curious whether immigration reform and a legalization program will ever become law.  With legislators in Congress “marking up” proposals and negotiating the details of a new law, we will no doubt have a better sense of the viability and substance of an eventual measure in the coming months.  In the meantime, undocumented childhood arrivals qualifying for 2 year work permits under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrival (“DACA”) program continue to receive approvals.

As of March 31, 2013, more than 488,000 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrival (“DACA”) applications have been received by U.S. Department of Homeland Security. DACA applicants are also known as “DREAMERS” since they make up the demographic that would presumably benefit from previously proposed legislation known as the DREAM Act – i.e. young adults brought to the U.S. as children and who have remained in the U.S., through no fault of their own, for an extended period.  The vast majority of DACA applicants have been scheduled for, or have completed, their biometric fingerprinting process.  Importantly, to this point, more than 268,000 applicants have been approved and issued 2 year deferred action status notices and 2 year employment authorization documents (EAD).  These numbers and milestones are consistent with developments our office has seen with our clients’ applications, with clients receiving approvals and EAD’s within 8 weeks of filing in most cases.

In general, our office has been seeing processing times range from 60 days to 150 days, although as more applications are received by DHS, an expanded processing time frame can be expected.  Further, to extent an applicant’s background may involve a complicating factor, such as a criminal arrest or pending removal proceedings, application processing may be a bit slower.   Additionally, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security recently announced that the scheduling of interviews at local CIS offices for certain applicants in the coming month.  In general, interviews will be scheduled for randomly chosen applicants, as well as for applicants whose cases involve factors possibly impacting eligibility.

Demographic Breakdown of Applicants:

Country of Origin and States of Residence

Origin:                                                 Received to Date                                                Approved
Mexico:                                                    354,002                                                             209,978

El Salvador:                                               18,949                                                               10,840

Honduras:                                                  12,603                                                                 6,019

Guatemala:                                                11,817                                                                  6,424

Peru:                                                            6,631                                                                  4,468

South Korea:                                               7,030                                                                   5,476

Brazil:                                                          5,589                                                                    3,374

Colombia:                                                   4,998                                                                    3,038

Ecuador:                                                      4,814                                                                    3,048

Philippines:                                                 3,315                                                                     2,370
 

Top 10 States of Residence:         Received to Date                                                 Approved
California:                                               134,167                                                                   73,104

Texas:                                                       76,438                                                                  49,297

New York:                                                 26,365                                                                  12,324

Illinois:                                                       24,928                                                                   19,055

Florida                                                        20,764                                                                    9,065

North Carolina:                                           17,006                                                                    6,425

Arizona:                                                      16,653                                                                   10,592

Georgia:                                                      15,417                                                                     8,647

New Jersey:                                                 14,390                                                                    8,483

Colorado:                                                     10,105                                                                    6,050

PUBLISHED May 10, 2013 – “IMMIGRATION LAW FORUM” Copyright © 2013, By Law Offices of Richard Hanus, Chicago, Illinois

A draft of proposed immigration reform legislation has been released by the Gang of 8, that bipartisan group of U.S. Senators who have been attempting to style a legislative solution to our society’s current immigration related ills.  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.

In general, 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, December 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.  But again, 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.  Thus, 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”.  Certainly, 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.

PUBLISHED April 15, 2013 – “IMMIGRATION LAW FORUM” Copyright © 2013, By Law Offices of Richard Hanus, Chicago, Illinois

For the past two decades as a practicing immigration lawyer, I have come to be a student of everything immigration law – the actual laws, the way the laws are applied, the mindset of the powerful decision-makers who preside over immigration or deportation proceedings, the psychological/sociological state of the wide spectrum of immigrant groups I represent, and of course, the politics.  About today’s politics I know this - the significant losses sustained by Republican candidates in our most recent elections, including Mitt Romney, are in large part attributed to the views they espoused when it came to immigration.   Whether it be “kick em all out” promises, or “they will leave by attrition” observations, their message – right or wrong – did not resonate with enough of our population to get them into, or keep them in, office.  Now comes the Gang of 8, that bipartisan group of U.S. Senators who over this past weekend proclaimed to have reached agreement on a major framework to address our nation’s immigration problem, including border security, a practical work visa program and of course, a path to legalization for our nation’s 12 million undocumented.  Now, it’s up to legislators in both houses of Congress to write the legislation, debate it, and present something acceptable to the President to sign.  It is hoped that this last step will be reached by Thanksgiving.

Between Points A and B:  In the months ahead I can assure you our nation will witness more of the same political drama and hyperbole we have grown accustomed to when an Obama backed legislative initiative is being advanced i.e. for a Republican politician to show their true Republican bona fides, they must, without exception, oppose any measure advanced by the President, no matter how much sense it might make.  Why?  Because – per the tea party leaning mantra – if it’s being pushed by Obama, the initiative must be evil and defeated.  Consistent with this principle, many of our nation’s major Republican players, and especially wannabe players, will exhibit noteworthy levels of posing, backpedaling, kicking, and yelling as the legislative process moves toward actually getting a proposal to the President.

The main backpedaling will come from folks like Marco Rubio, who are straddling an uncomfortable fence position.  On the one hand, they do not want to be left on the outside of any bandwagon seen as sensibly addressing our nation’s important and future immigrant causes, such as a path to legalization for the undocumented.  And it was that appearance of “outsider-ness” that was left for the Republicans after their stinging string of defeats last November.  On the other hand, lots of these Republican folks still have significant tea party leaning constituencies, who want their candidate to kick and scream in the face of any proposal to reward the immigration law breakers with an immigration law benefit.  This demographic’s anti-“path to legalization” fury is further fueled by their perception that if it were not for these immigration law breakers, our nation’s unemployment problem would not be nearly as bad as it is, since, as the argument goes, these undocumented foreigners, in large numbers, are taking away jobs Americans would otherwise fill.

While we wait for this process – and accompanying drama – to unfold, those who might prospectively benefit from ”path to legalization” legislation should prepare themselves:  Although a law to allow the undocumented to legalize their immigration status is far from a certainty, the chances of enactment are as good as I have seen since before 9/11.  If and when a law gets passed, I envision applicants to be required to produce evidence of their presence in the U.S., however long any prospective law may specify.  Accordingly, now is an ideal time for prospective applicants to start creating a hard copy file of records of their financial, educational, employment and medical treatment history in the U.S., including bank account statements, school transcripts, receipts, leases, bills, tax returns, medical records, and even, as a last resort, print-outs of Facebook or other internet activity.  I am not saying all of this will necessarily be useful or needed for any future legalization process, just that it may be.   What I do know for sure, there will be lots of kicking, screaming and posing between Points A and B.

PUBLISHED April 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

As of February 19, 2013, more than 438,000 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrival (“DACA”) applications have been received by U.S. Department of Homeland Security. DACA applicants are also known as “DREAMERS” since they make up the demographic that would presumably benefit from previously proposed legislation known as the DREAM Act – i.e. young adults brought to the U.S. as children and who have remained in the U.S., through no fault of their own, for an extended period. The vast majority of DACA applicants have been scheduled for, or have completed, their biometric fingerprinting process. Importantly, to this point, close to 200,000 applicants have been approved and issued 2 year deferred action status notices and 2 year employment authorization documents (EAD). These numbers and milestones are consistent with developments our office has seen with our clients’ applications, with clients receiving approvals and EAD’s within 8 weeks of filing in most cases. In general, our office has been seeing processing times range from 60 days to 120 days, although as more applications are received by DHS, an expanded processing time frame can be expected. Further, to extent an applicant’s background may involve a complicating factor, such as a criminal arrest or pending removal proceedings, application processing may be a bit slower.

Demographic Breakdown of Applicants:

Country of Origin and States of Residence

Origin                                                                                                        Received to Date
Mexico                                                                                                                 313,722
El Salvador                                                                                                            17,662
Honduras                                                                                                               11,509
Guatemala                                                                                                             10,644
Peru                                                                                                                         6,244
South Korea                                                                                                             5,475
Brazil                                                                                                                        5,283
Colombia                                                                                                                  4,694
Ecuador                                                                                                                    4,585
Philippines                                                                                                                3,128

Top 10 States of Residence                                                                   Received to Date
California                                                                                                               119,466
Texas                                                                                                                       68,005
New York                                                                                                                 24,585
Illinois                                                                                                                       21,602
Florida                                                                                                                      19,336
North Carolina                                                                                                          15,637
Arizona                                                                                                                     14,938
Georgia                                                                                                                     13,946
New Jersey                                                                                                               13,374
Colorado                                                                                                                     8,877

PUBLISHED February 19, 2013 – “IMMIGRATION LAW FORUM” Copyright © 2013, By Law Offices of Richard Hanus, Chicago, Illinois

By the end of the summer, if not sooner, it is very possible Congress will act to provide undocumented individuals an avenue toward legalizing their status in the U.S. Exactly what the terms or requirements of such legislation will be, or whether for certain a measure will be enacted at all, is unknown. But, if there will be a new law, it is guaranteed, non-attorney, “immigration consultants” will be popping up all over the place to provide a “service” in helping foreign nationals negotiate the process Congress lays out.

Immigration consultants charge a fee to answer questions, complete forms and otherwise advise immigrants on their rights and the proper way to complete this or that procedure. The problem is that for most of what consultants purport to do, the consultant is likely breaking the law. More specifically, only lawyers are licensed to give legal advice and guide individuals through a particular legal process. And when consultants start crossing the line between completing a form and giving legal advice, trouble invariably ensues.

Speaking of which, one Chicago area “immigration consultant” in the news these days is Teresita Zarrabian. Zarrabian, a non-attorney, has been running an immigration consultancy out of the northern Suburbs of Chicago for more than the past decade, and from what I have seen, countless numbers of her clients have ended up in immigration hot water because of her “guidance” or “consulting” services. Her business plan seems to have hit a major road block this past week, however, as a federal grand jury in Chicago handed down an indictment against Zarrabian and an accomplice. The indictment charges Zarrabian of allegedly conspiring to arrange sham marriages for the purpose of conferring lawful U.S. immigration status to her clients, some of whom paid Zarrabian between $8,000 and $15,000.

I wrote about Zarrabian and her “consulting business” many years ago in this Forum, in an article entitled, “The Misadventures of a Skokie Immigration Consultant”. Since that time, I have watched the trajectory her business model has taken, and news of this week’s indictment comes as no surprise. If convicted, Zarrabian and her accomplice face significant jail time, likely in the range of 5-15 years.

Speaking of jail time, another Chicago area immigration consultant in the news recently is Tahawwur Rana who just last month was sentenced to 14 years in prison. Rana, an alleged terrorist, was convicted in 2011 for providing support to the group that carried out the 2008 Mumbai terrorist massacre that killed 160 people and for backing the unhatched plot to attack a Danish newspaper that featured cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad.

This is not to say that there are not well intended folks out there who honestly want to assist foreign nationals in completing a form, or providing some non-attorney service. The problem is that most of those in this business (and it is a business, to be sure) are not well intended. And problems comes into play when that “consultant” has to answer questions about the ramifications of a particular filing, or the down side of proceeding with a filing, as the answer to questions like these involve legal advice – advice non-attorneys are prohibited from providing.

Immigration consultants, or notarios (as they are known in some Spanish speaking communities), have no official certification to prepare immigration-related documentation or to dispense advice. If something goes wrong, there is no license for them to lose. And only if the victimized party is brave enough to approach the police and lodge a fraud or “unauthorized practice of law” charge will the offending party face any consequences for their actions.

When immigration consultants give the wrong advice, sell a fantasy story or just plain take their victim’s money without advice or a story, the undocumented (or visa overstay) victim usually is afraid to complain. They do not want to complain to their family, probably because they are embarrassed about having been swindled. And for sure, they do not want to complain to the police since, in their mind, any law enforcement agency learning of their illegal alien status will certainly see to it they are deported.

While attorneys can lose their licenses, and consequently their means of making a living, immigration consultants cannot. The State of Illinois’ Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission can strip an attorney of their right to call themselves an attorney, and practice law. No parallel agency exists to regulate immigration consultants, but for a local police department or Federal criminal autorities. Therefore the immigration consultant does not have, and does not need a license. And because their victim would sooner jump off a 20-story building before reporting the fraud perpetrated, the immigration consultant has no fear.

Here is my advice. When dealing with an immigration law matter, schedule a confidential consultation with a licensed attorney who has a reputation for honesty and zealous advocacy and who focuses on immigration matters only. To be sure, there are many lawyers to choose from, but the prospective client must engage in careful due diligence in making their choice, since most of those who hold themselves out as experts in the field of immigration law are anything but. From there, you may not even end up having to hire the attorney – either because the attorney advises against you facilitating a process, or because the process may be so simple that the preparation or filing of the paperwork can be accomplished without attorney assistance. If the attorney’s opinion sounds far afield, seek a second opinion, especially if large sums of money are being requested. In sum, be careful out there.

PUBLISHED February 11, 2013 – “IMMIGRATION LAW FORUM” Copyright © 2013, By Law Offices of Richard Hanus, Chicago, Illinois

In recent weeks, the State of Illinois passed legislation to allow the state’s population of roughly 250,000 undocumented drivers to obtain driver’s licenses. The bill, which is expected to be signed by Governor Quinn, will make Illinois the 4th state in the U.S. to issue driver’s licenses to undocumented immigrants. The drivers licenses issued under this program confer no right or status, beyond authorizing the holder the right to drive.

The debate surrounding driver’s licenses for the undocumented pretty much mirrors the national debate over how our nation should address the overall issue of having 12 million people living in our nation without immigration status. Because there is no perfect solution to either problem and both sides of the argument express valid points, the ensuing conversations – if you can call them that -tend to get more than slightly heated. Even worse, the debate on these topics establishes fertile ground for politicians to rally their constituencies with enflamed emotions, leading to less common sense dialogue and more lecturing and talking/shouting at one another. The “law and order” folks (not intended to be an insult here) make more than valid points when they talk about the importance of respecting the rule of law, and how rewarding law breakers with goodies like driver’s licenses or green cards is a slap in the face to the legislative process and the citizens who voted in representatives to enact legislation.

But the folks on the other side of the debate also have it right. That these undocumented folks are going to remain in the U.S., or drive in Illinois, until and unless they are deported, is an undeniable reality. For more than the past two decades, successive administrations, both Republican and Democrat, have essentially “looked the other way” when it comes to enforcement of our immigration laws against the garden variety, noncriminal, immigration law breaker. The result is the accumulation of an undocumented population in the U.S. of 12 million +.  And no matter how strong the talk from the law and order folks, the vast majority of them do not have it in their hearts to advocate for a mass deportation initiative – the only true, effective remedy to the problem the law and order folks cite.

So, in other words, the undocumented population, including Illinois’ drivers, are not going anywhere unless forced to, especially as the winds of change are in motion with the enactment of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program and serious talk of a “path to legalization” for most of our undocumented from both sides of the aisle.

Drivers licenses for the undocumented, like a path to legalization, is an answer, and the right answer, to the undeniable societal condition we all know is at play, that the nation’s non-criminal, undocumented population is here to stay – until and unless they are moved out by force.

PUBLISHED January 18, 2013 – “IMMIGRATION LAW FORUM” Copyright © 2013, By Law Offices of Richard Hanus, Chicago, Illinois

As of December 13, 2012, more than 350,000 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrival (“DACA”) applications have been received by U.S. Department of Homeland Security. DACA applicants are also known as “DREAMERS” since they make up the demographic that would presumably benefit from previously proposed legislation known as the DREAM Act – i.e. young adults brought to the U.S. as children and who have remained in the U.S., through no fault of their own, for an extended period. The vast majority of DACA applicants have been scheduled for, or have completed, their biometric fingerprinting process. Importantly, to this point, more than 100,000 applicants have been approved and issued 2 year deferred action status notices and 2 year employment authorization documents (EAD). These numbers and milestones are consistent with developments our office has seen with our clients’ applications, with clients receiving approvals and EAD’s within 8 weeks of filing in most cases. In general, our office has been seeing processing times range from 60 days to 90 days, although as more applications are received by DHS, an expanded processing time frame can be expected. Further, to extent an applicant’s background may involve a complicating factor, such as a criminal arrest or pending removal proceedings, application processing may be a bit slower.

Demographic Breakdown of Applicants:

Country of Origin and States of Residence

Origin                                                                   Received to Date
Mexico                                                                       258,708
El Salvador                                                                  15,697
Honduras                                                                       9,998
Guatemala                                                                     8,960
Peru                                                                               5,607
South Korea                                                                   5,167
Brazil                                                                              4,807
Colombia                                                                        4,249
Ecuador                                                                          4,143
Philippines                                                                      2,862

Top 10 States of Residence                              Received to Date
California                                                                      98,531
Texas                                                                           57,542
New York                                                                     21,635
Florida                                                                          17,241
Illinois                                                                           17,224
North Carolina                                                              13,314
Arizona                                                                         12,924
Georgia                                                                         11,914
New Jersey                                                                   11,779
Colorado                                                                         7,124

PUBLISHED December 14, 2012 – “IMMIGRATION LAW FORUM”
Copyright © 2012, By Law Offices of Richard Hanus, Chicago, Illinois

As of November 15, 2012, a total of almost 300,000 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrival (“DACA”) applications have been received by U.S. Department of Homeland Security. DACA applicants are also known as “DREAMERS” since they make up the demographic that would presumably benefit from previously proposed legislation known as the “DREAM Act” – i.e. young adults brought to the U.S. as children and who have remained in the U.S., through no fault of their own, for an extended period. The vast majority of DACA applicants have been scheduled for, or have completed, their biometric fingerprinting process. Importantly, to this point, more than 53,000 applicants have been approved and issued 2 year deferred action status notices and 2 year employment authorization documents (EAD). These numbers and milestones are consistent with developments our office has seen with our clients’ applications, with clients receiving approvals and EAD’s within 8 weeks of filing in most cases. In general, our office has been seeing processing times range from 50 days to 100 days, although as more applications are received by DHS, an expanded processing time frame can be expected. Further, to extent an applicant’s background may involve a complicating factor, such as a criminal arrest or pending removal proceedings, application processing may be a bit slower.

As a reminder – The Basics – eligible applicants are “young adults” who:

A) are in school, have completed high school or their G.E.D., or are an honorably discharged veteran from the U.S. armed forces or Coast Guard,
B) have continuously resided in the U.S. since June 15, 2007 and up to the present,
C) have not been convicted of a felony, a “significant” misdemeanor, or 3 “insignificant” misdemeanors,
D) came to the U.S. prior to their 16th birthday,
E) entered the U.S. without inspection prior to June 15, 2012, or whose immigration status expired as of that date,
F) were physically present in the U.S. on June 15, 2012, and at the time of submitting the DACA application and
G) were under the age of 31 as of June 15, 2012

A filing fee totaling $465.00 is required, as will the submission of documentation to support the applicant’s claim of eligibility. Following the submission of the application and supporting documentation, applicants are being scheduled for biometric processing within approximately 6 weeks.

Important Details in Response to the Most Common Questions:

*“Brief and casual” departures from the U.S. during the above qualifying periods will not negatively impact eligibility, so long as the departure did not take place in the context of a removal proceeding or immigration court order,

* Individuals in removal proceedings are indeed eligible to apply and the application is made directly with DHS/CIS, as any other applicant would proceed,

* Misdemeanors deemed “significant” and thus causing ineligibility – include any conviction for driving under the influence, domestic violence, sexual abuse, burglary, firearms violation, drug distribution or trafficking (but not possession), no matter the jail term, or absence thereof,

* Applicants with any conviction involving a sentence of more than 90 days in prison will be deemed ineligible,

* Applicants with 2 or fewer “insignificant” misdemeanors continue to be eligible for this benefit,

* Applicants with minor traffic violations, such as driving without a license, will not be deemed ineligible because of such offenses,

* Applicants must be at least 15 years old at the time of the application, although if the prospective applicant is in removal proceedings, or has already been ordered removed (but is still in the U.S.), the applicant can even be under the age of 15.

* Following approval of the application, applicants may possibly be eligible to apply for a special document to allow for international travel. Any travel prior to issuance of a travel document may lead to disqualifying consequences.

PUBLISHED December 1, 2012 – “IMMIGRATION LAW FORUM”
Copyright © 2012, By Law Offices of Richard Hanus, Chicago, Illinois