Immigration Law News NH and beyond

Loading...

Immigration Newsletter

Thursday, April 22, 2010

Democrats Revive Immigration Push - WSJ.com

Democrats Revive Immigration Push - WSJ.com

excerpts from the WSJ click the link to see the full article


Democratic leaders in Congress have agreed to try to pass immigration legislation this year, placing the explosive issue ahead of an energy bill on their agenda and upending conventional wisdom that it was dead for now....


Passing a bill would require Republican support in the Senate. So far, Sen. Graham is the only Republican working on the issue. He has said he wouldn't introduce it without at least one other Republican on board. None has come forth.

Last month, Mr. Obama promised Sens. Graham and Schumer that he would try to recruit another GOP sponsor. This week, he called at least five Senate Republicans seeking their support.

Sen. Scott Brown (R., Mass.), who spoke Tuesday with the president, said he promised to read the bill but made no commitments about supporting it.

"I told him I have an open mind," Mr. Brown said in an interview. "I will read anything."

Mr. Obama also pitched Republican Sens. George LeMieux of Florida, Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Richard Lugar of Indiana....


RAD~ If you were interested enough to read this blog then you should be interested enough to call Judd Gregg and ask him to help reform our immigration laws before he leaves office at the end of this year.

DC Address: The Honorable Judd Gregg
United States Senate
201 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510-2903
DC Phone: 202-224-3324
DC Fax: 202-224-4952
Email Address: http://gregg.senate.gov/contact/
WWW Homepage: http://gregg.senate.gov/
Twitter: No Known Twitter Account

Friday, April 16, 2010

Tell USCIS what you think - new immigration survey open until April 29

Have a suggestion on what US Citizenship & Immigration Services could improve? I know I did. It takes five minutes...it's even easier than the Census.

Click on the title or this link:

http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/6N2T3BQ

Wednesday, April 14, 2010

Tough immigration bill OK'd by Arizona House

Tough immigration bill OK'd by Arizona House

Nice waste of taxpayer resources - on a law that will be preempted by the United States Immigration and Nationality Act. The United States is in charge of deciding who gets to enter and remain in the United States (not each individual state). That way you help to set uniform national policy and avoid a patchwork of more or less discriminatory and arbitrary laws. Otherwise you can end up with a situation where it would be legal to be present in Illinois and Iowa but not in Texas and Arizona. Reading the bill it looks as much like a revenue enhancement bill as anything else.

From what I have read the "legal" programs that allow local police to enforce federal immigration law [287(g) programs] are failing badly enough. It is not wise to then try to create state by state immigration laws and make things even more confused - nevermind the fact that the laws are an unconstitutional infringement on the power of Congress to regulate immigration.

The law is also internally inconsistent...the part that interests me most "Trespassing" (see my earlier posts on this)... applies to violaters of 8USC1304(e) that is the section that requires Lawful Permanent Residents to carry there resident card with them at all times. So you are going to arrest people who are here legally for trespassing because they don't have their ID on them? Well maybe not because the proposed AZ law also exempts people who maintain authorization from the federal government to remain in the United States.

So what is the purpose of a law that allows for the arrest of people who the law doesn't apply to? Harassment? Profiling?
Well yes, but its more clever than that. If approached by an AZ police officer for "appearing to be an illegal alien trespasser" (what would probable cause look like in such a case I wonder?) I suppose a person could claim to be a legal resident who left there resident card at home. I suppose this law would allow them to arrest the person first and ask questions later. Clever? - yes. Legal? -only if you work for the US Department of Homeland Security. At least in my view.

Monday, April 12, 2010

Immigration: Could it solve Social Security, Medicare woes? / The Christian Science Monitor - CSMonitor.com

Immigration: Could it solve Social Security, Medicare woes? / The Christian Science Monitor - CSMonitor.com

I'm glad somebody figured this out! - Immigration is the best way out of the demographic conundrum of the babyboom retirement. Of course Robert Reich could have just read my posting: Two reasons why pragmatism must trump passion on immigration reform (from last October)
 http://wiggiblawg.blogspot.com/2009/10/editorial-comment-on-immigration-reform.html#links

...but late is better than never. Kudos also to the CSM (after I just finished sending them a "sternly worded" email for seeming to have only negative coverage of immigration) I happily stand corrected.

Tuesday, April 6, 2010

NHBA Immigration Law Seminar

I will be presenting at this seminar for members of the NH Bar Association along with attorney Movafaghi and many other capable immigration law practitioners including Immigration Judge Paul Gagnon and Mark Furtado of the Department of Homeland Security (ICE division).

Here is the information presented by the NHBA:

Immigration Law, including the legal status, rights, and obligations of non-citizens, is a current political “hot potato,” and affects more areas of U.S. society than most people realize. This program for attorneys with a variety of practice concentrations features a faculty panel of experienced New Hampshire practitioners, and Federal government officials.



Topics will include:
• Employment based permanent residence
• Employment based non-immigrant visas
• Family based permanent residence
• Violence Against Women Act
• Immigration consequences of criminal convictions
• Access of the undocumented to the U.S. justice system
• Consular processing and visa waivers
• Work site enforcement of Immigration Laws, including obligations of employers and employer sanctions
• Introduction to Department of Homeland Security, and specifically
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Agency

6.0 Total NH MCLE, 1.0 of which may be applied toward NH Ethics
NHBA Seminar Room, Course No. OT147L

2 Pillsbury Street, Concord, NH 03301
Thu, 9:00A 4:30P May 13, 2010

Hope to see you there...

Thursday, April 1, 2010

New Americans in the Granite State | Immigration Policy Center

New Americans in the Granite State Immigration Policy Center


From the Immigration Policy Center (IPC)

Washington D.C. -The Immigration Policy Center has compiled research which shows that immigrants, Latinos, and Asians are an important part of New Hampshire and Vermont's economies, labor force, and tax base. Immigrants and their children are a growing economic and political force as consumers, taxpayers, and entrepreneurs. With the nation working towards economic recovery, Latinos, Asians and immigrants will continue to play a key role in shaping the economic and political future of the Granite and Green Mountain States.

Highlights from New Hampshire include:

Immigrants made up 5.1% of Granite Staters (or 67,735 people) in 2007.

The purchasing power of Latinos totaled $902.4 million and Asian buying power totaled nearly $963.2 million in New Hampshire in 2009.


If all unauthorized immigrants were removed from New Hampshire, the state could lose $893.2 million in economic activity and $396.7 million in gross state product.

click the title to see more from IPC

Court Requires Warning About Deportation Risk - NYTimes.com

Court Requires Warning About Deportation Risk - NYTimes.com

RAD ~ Padilla v. Kentucky sets an important precedent (especially in states like NH that don't have a mandatory non-citizen warning statute or court rule like the other New England States)
By ADAM LIPTAK
Published: March 31, 2010


“It is our responsibility under the Constitution to ensure that no criminal defendant — whether a citizen or not — is left to the mercies of incompetent counsel,” Justice Stevens wrote.

The vote was 7 to 2, though two justices in the majority would have required only that criminal defense lawyers not say anything false and tell their clients to consult an immigration lawyer if they had questions.


The question in the case, Padilla v. Kentucky, No. 08-651, was whether bad legal advice about a collateral consequence of a guilty plea could amount to ineffective assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment.

Justice Stevens said the answer was yes. Where the relevant immigration law is “succinct and straightforward,” he said, the defense lawyer must explain the consequences of a guilty plea. Otherwise, the lawyer “need do no more than advise a noncitizen client that pending criminal charges may carry a risk of adverse immigration consequences.”

“The importance of accurate legal advice for noncitizens accused of crimes has never been more important,” he wrote. “Deportation is an integral part — indeed, sometimes the most important part — of the penalty that may be imposed on noncitizen defendants who plead guilty to specified crimes.”

Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor joined Justice Stevens’s opinion.

Click on the title to see the whole article at NYT.com