Lawyers Back Creating New Immigration Courts - NYTimes.com
By JULIA PRESTON
Published: February 8, 2010
Responding to pleas from immigration judges and lawyers who say the nation’s immigration courts are faltering under a crushing caseload, the American Bar Association called Monday for Congress to scrap the current system and create a new, independent court for immigration cases.
RAD ~ This is probably a good idea...whatever they decide please locate a judge in NH! It makes no sense for the people of ME, NH, VT to fight Boston traffic to go to court (or even worse have to go all the way to Hartford, CT as some Vermonters do)!
Showing posts with label reform. Show all posts
Showing posts with label reform. Show all posts
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Change we can believe in! Would you believe change eventually?
It seems that Barack Obama's ambitious agenda for change may have been a little too ambitious for some in Washington and in the country at large to take so quickly. It is not surprising though. Most people are fearful of change; except those who truly can't do without it.
You know what though, I think all the complaining about the stimulus plan and cash for clunkers and Obama isn't a Natural born citizen and the health reform "Death Panels" is about to "jump the shark". I can't wait to see the what the Town Hall Criers do today as my home state of New Hampshire gets a visit from the President. It is amazing the kind of frenzy a little misinformation and a lot of paranoia can whip up.
So immigration reform looks to be set back about six months as the health care debate takes a swerve into the ditch. I think things will actually improve as the stimulus kicks in and the economy heats up again. As the Right-wing continues its descent into whack job parody status, it is important that reform minded Legislators don't fracture and lose sight of their goals (right, that never happens).
In fact, I think there may be nothing better for the cause of progressives than to let the ultraconservatives lock their foaming jaws onto comprehensive immigration reform again right now. One more issue that can keep up their red faced, vein bulging, apoplectic tantrum in a teapot. As painful as it may be to endure -- it is usually a good long-term strategy to be viewed as the "sane and adult" party in an argument.
http://www.rollcall.com/news/37686-1.html?CMP=OTC-RSS
http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/immigration/2009/08/obama-immigration-reform-must-wait-until-next-year.html
You know what though, I think all the complaining about the stimulus plan and cash for clunkers and Obama isn't a Natural born citizen and the health reform "Death Panels" is about to "jump the shark". I can't wait to see the what the Town Hall Criers do today as my home state of New Hampshire gets a visit from the President. It is amazing the kind of frenzy a little misinformation and a lot of paranoia can whip up.
So immigration reform looks to be set back about six months as the health care debate takes a swerve into the ditch. I think things will actually improve as the stimulus kicks in and the economy heats up again. As the Right-wing continues its descent into whack job parody status, it is important that reform minded Legislators don't fracture and lose sight of their goals (right, that never happens).
In fact, I think there may be nothing better for the cause of progressives than to let the ultraconservatives lock their foaming jaws onto comprehensive immigration reform again right now. One more issue that can keep up their red faced, vein bulging, apoplectic tantrum in a teapot. As painful as it may be to endure -- it is usually a good long-term strategy to be viewed as the "sane and adult" party in an argument.
http://www.rollcall.com/news/37686-1.html?CMP=OTC-RSS
http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/immigration/2009/08/obama-immigration-reform-must-wait-until-next-year.html
Thursday, July 9, 2009
Council on Foreign Relations Report -- Immigration Reform Needed
A widely publicized report has been issued by the Council on Foreign Relations regarding the need for Comprehensive Immigration Reform in the United States. The bipartisan task force signing off on the report includes members such as Jeb Bush and former Clinton Whitehouse Chief of Staff "Mack" Mc Larty.
The task force argues that our national economic and foreign relations interests require that we improve our present immigration system. They focus on increasing immigration that helps innovation, entrepreneurship and technological advancement; improving enforcement to discourage employers from hiring unauthorized immigrant employees; and encouraging foreign exchange and immigration including from areas of the world that are not particularly friendly to the United States.
The task force argues that our national economic and foreign relations interests require that we improve our present immigration system. They focus on increasing immigration that helps innovation, entrepreneurship and technological advancement; improving enforcement to discourage employers from hiring unauthorized immigrant employees; and encouraging foreign exchange and immigration including from areas of the world that are not particularly friendly to the United States.
Schumer: Immigration bill to be ready by Labor Day
By SUZANNE GAMBOA – 16 hours ago
WASHINGTON (AP) — The lead Democrat steering an immigration overhaul through the Senate said Wednesday he expects to have a bill ready by Labor Day that is more generous to highly skilled immigrant workers than those who are lower skilled and is tough on future waves of illegal immigration.
Click on the title to see the article in google news
WASHINGTON (AP) — The lead Democrat steering an immigration overhaul through the Senate said Wednesday he expects to have a bill ready by Labor Day that is more generous to highly skilled immigrant workers than those who are lower skilled and is tough on future waves of illegal immigration.
Click on the title to see the article in google news
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Courting Disaster?
Andrew Becker and Hugo Cabrera have done a real nice job with an article on TruthDig about all of the Homeland Security money being spent on Immigration Enforcement Police (ICE/Border Patrol), Prosecutors (DHS) and detention facilities -- and yet the Immigration Courts handled by the Department of Justice are way behind on their caseload and are not growing at anything like the same pace. It looks like trouble for both "due process" and increased enforcement; a real bottleneck in the making. They have called the article "America's approach to immigration is ICE backwards". Click on the title above to go there, or you can reach it through Bender's where I found it:
http://www.bibdaily.com/
Do you know where the immigration court is for New Hampshire? How about for Maine? The Green Mountain State? That's right...the answers are Boston, Boston, and Boston. I have been lobbying to get an immigration judge up here in New Hampshire for about two years now with little success. It really makes no sense to have all of Northern New England fight the Boston traffic to go to court. For some of my clients it can be over 7 hours each way; for most of them there is an extra hour spent in traffic that they could avoid if the court were not located right in government center.
There are two immigration judges from New Hampshire on the bench in Boston and at least one DHS trial attorney who commutes from NH to work everyday -- why not set up a small operation in New Hampshire to handle the cases from Northern New England? There is enough work and there are already an ICE office and a USCIS office in Manchester.
Even as the Immigration Court expands at the JFK federal Building, the other immigration agencies are moving out of downtown. ICE has moved most of it's operation to Burlington, MA, and USCIS is opening a new office in Lawrence, MA that will handle a very significant percentage of Boston's workload. I could use some help with my one man show of trying to get the court to be a little more accomidating to immigrants who have sucessfully managed to cross the border (the border between Massachusetts and New Hampshire that is).
If you would like some additional Obama dollars coming into Northern New England, if you would like to take a small bite out of Boston commuter traffic and correspondingly help the environment, or if you would just like to make the lives of your fellow Northern New Englanders a little easier -- contact your Senators or Representatives. Send an email to Attorney General Eric Holder, Jr. or even to President Obama. Tell them that, as part of the expansion plan for immigration enforcement, Northern New England needs its own immigration court.
http://www.bibdaily.com/
Do you know where the immigration court is for New Hampshire? How about for Maine? The Green Mountain State? That's right...the answers are Boston, Boston, and Boston. I have been lobbying to get an immigration judge up here in New Hampshire for about two years now with little success. It really makes no sense to have all of Northern New England fight the Boston traffic to go to court. For some of my clients it can be over 7 hours each way; for most of them there is an extra hour spent in traffic that they could avoid if the court were not located right in government center.
There are two immigration judges from New Hampshire on the bench in Boston and at least one DHS trial attorney who commutes from NH to work everyday -- why not set up a small operation in New Hampshire to handle the cases from Northern New England? There is enough work and there are already an ICE office and a USCIS office in Manchester.
Even as the Immigration Court expands at the JFK federal Building, the other immigration agencies are moving out of downtown. ICE has moved most of it's operation to Burlington, MA, and USCIS is opening a new office in Lawrence, MA that will handle a very significant percentage of Boston's workload. I could use some help with my one man show of trying to get the court to be a little more accomidating to immigrants who have sucessfully managed to cross the border (the border between Massachusetts and New Hampshire that is).
If you would like some additional Obama dollars coming into Northern New England, if you would like to take a small bite out of Boston commuter traffic and correspondingly help the environment, or if you would just like to make the lives of your fellow Northern New Englanders a little easier -- contact your Senators or Representatives. Send an email to Attorney General Eric Holder, Jr. or even to President Obama. Tell them that, as part of the expansion plan for immigration enforcement, Northern New England needs its own immigration court.
Friday, June 26, 2009
And so it begins...
President Obama met with Congressional leaders yesterday to discuss the way forward on immigration reform in the United States. It is an important first step because it emphasizes two principles that have often been overlooked. First, that a solution is needed sooner rather than later...meaning that it is not prudent to wait until the recession is over or until after the mid-term elections to bring reform; and second that common sense and practical solutions are what this country needs as opposed to more political grandstanding, manufactured outrage, and draconian enforcement.
Here is a link to the Presidents post meeting comments --
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-by-the-President-after-meeting-with-members-of-Congress-to-discuss-immigration/
Here is a link to the Presidents post meeting comments --
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-by-the-President-after-meeting-with-members-of-Congress-to-discuss-immigration/
Thursday, June 25, 2009
“What part of illegal don’t you understand?”
That was a theme running through many of the letters and emails our office received, as well as in posts on various blogs, four years ago when we successfully defended clients charged with criminal trespass. Why criminal trespass? The cases arose when the Chiefs of Police in Hudson and New Ipswich, New Hampshire arrested and charged our clients because they did not have valid immigration status.
http://www.hispanic5.com/town_uses_trespas_law_to_fight_undocumented_immigrants.htm
http://www.courts.state.nh.us/district/criminal_trespass_decision.pdf
First, the part I do understand…
I understand that it is illegal for a non-citizen to enter the country without inspection; specifically, it is a class B misdemeanor or a “petty offense” as defined under federal immigration law and criminal law. This criminal provision of the law is, in my experience, seldom used except at the border. Rather, the cases are most often handled as civil matters. Most people who enter the United States without inspection and are later caught by Immigration & Customs Enforcement Officers are not charged with a crime – they are charged as being deportable from the United States. They go to a specialized administrative court called the Immigration Court, which is part of the Department of Justice.
Now here’s the part I don’t get…
With a very few exceptions, people who have lived here for decades get basically the same deal as those who illegally crossed the border last week. The petty offender gets nearly the same treatment as the very dangerous criminal – and that treatment is deportation. This is a problem. Why? You might ask. If they all broke the law they should be treated equally and get the same punishment right?
Wrong.
The United States has a “destroy the village to save the village” strategy when it comes to immigration policy. When we deport someone who has been here 10, 15, or even 20 plus years – that person often has a home, a business or a strong work history, and a family. So what is the result? It can often be a fire sale of the family home, a business closure or an employer who loses productivity while training a new worker, and U.S. born children that end up on public assistance or in foster care. For a class B misdemeanor? This is not smart public policy; it is self-defeating and unnecessary.
We have the right as a country to limit immigration levels and to secure our borders. However, that we have the right to deport persons from our soil if we wish does not mean that we should always do so. The United States needs some alternative remedies for dealing with immigration law violations. Alternatives that are not so destructive to the economy and the society that (through our laws) we claim to be trying to preserve.
In the 1990’s there was a program that allowed illegal immigrants to become legal residents if they had a U.S. citizen spouse or a U.S. employer to petition for them. They had to be otherwise admissible (meaning no serious criminal record, no communicable diseases, not likely to use public benefits, and no prior deportations, etc…) and they had to pay a $1,000.00 fine on top of the usual fees (over a thousand dollars each) the government charges immigrants to process their paperwork. That is called paying a fine for breaking the law; that is not amnesty -- unless you consider it an act of amnesty when you pay a speeding ticket.
Legalization of those immigrants who are not a danger to the public and who have family and employment ties to the United States would bring thousands of dollars per capita in fees to the U.S. Treasury ($24 billion perhaps). Investigating, detaining, trying and deporting a far smaller number of these same people each year costs the tax payers millions of dollars. There is no logic to inflicting emotional and financial damage on families and communities and to emptying the Treasury on account of the vast majority of illegal immigrants who are not terrorists or hardened criminals or otherwise undesirable. So why do we continue this way? It is time to change our approach.
http://www.hispanic5.com/town_uses_trespas_law_to_fight_undocumented_immigrants.htm
http://www.courts.state.nh.us/district/criminal_trespass_decision.pdf
First, the part I do understand…
I understand that it is illegal for a non-citizen to enter the country without inspection; specifically, it is a class B misdemeanor or a “petty offense” as defined under federal immigration law and criminal law. This criminal provision of the law is, in my experience, seldom used except at the border. Rather, the cases are most often handled as civil matters. Most people who enter the United States without inspection and are later caught by Immigration & Customs Enforcement Officers are not charged with a crime – they are charged as being deportable from the United States. They go to a specialized administrative court called the Immigration Court, which is part of the Department of Justice.
Now here’s the part I don’t get…
With a very few exceptions, people who have lived here for decades get basically the same deal as those who illegally crossed the border last week. The petty offender gets nearly the same treatment as the very dangerous criminal – and that treatment is deportation. This is a problem. Why? You might ask. If they all broke the law they should be treated equally and get the same punishment right?
Wrong.
The United States has a “destroy the village to save the village” strategy when it comes to immigration policy. When we deport someone who has been here 10, 15, or even 20 plus years – that person often has a home, a business or a strong work history, and a family. So what is the result? It can often be a fire sale of the family home, a business closure or an employer who loses productivity while training a new worker, and U.S. born children that end up on public assistance or in foster care. For a class B misdemeanor? This is not smart public policy; it is self-defeating and unnecessary.
We have the right as a country to limit immigration levels and to secure our borders. However, that we have the right to deport persons from our soil if we wish does not mean that we should always do so. The United States needs some alternative remedies for dealing with immigration law violations. Alternatives that are not so destructive to the economy and the society that (through our laws) we claim to be trying to preserve.
In the 1990’s there was a program that allowed illegal immigrants to become legal residents if they had a U.S. citizen spouse or a U.S. employer to petition for them. They had to be otherwise admissible (meaning no serious criminal record, no communicable diseases, not likely to use public benefits, and no prior deportations, etc…) and they had to pay a $1,000.00 fine on top of the usual fees (over a thousand dollars each) the government charges immigrants to process their paperwork. That is called paying a fine for breaking the law; that is not amnesty -- unless you consider it an act of amnesty when you pay a speeding ticket.
Legalization of those immigrants who are not a danger to the public and who have family and employment ties to the United States would bring thousands of dollars per capita in fees to the U.S. Treasury ($24 billion perhaps). Investigating, detaining, trying and deporting a far smaller number of these same people each year costs the tax payers millions of dollars. There is no logic to inflicting emotional and financial damage on families and communities and to emptying the Treasury on account of the vast majority of illegal immigrants who are not terrorists or hardened criminals or otherwise undesirable. So why do we continue this way? It is time to change our approach.
Opening Statement
Welcome to WiggiBlawg from the Immigration Practice Group of Wiggin & Nourie, PA in beautiful downtown Manchester, New Hampshire. I am starting this blawg on 06/25/2009 to discuss matters of interest and import relating to immigration law in the United States.
It is a good day to do so, I suppose, because President Obama is meeting today with Congressional leaders to discuss the future of comprehensive immigration reform (CIR). That is a topic we will be returning to many times I suspect.
Humor is allowed, dissent is allowed, profanity is not allowed, racism is not allowed, personal attacks are not allowed. Comments to posts are moderated by me and will not appear until I have seen them and they clear the above criteria.
It is a good day to do so, I suppose, because President Obama is meeting today with Congressional leaders to discuss the future of comprehensive immigration reform (CIR). That is a topic we will be returning to many times I suspect.
Humor is allowed, dissent is allowed, profanity is not allowed, racism is not allowed, personal attacks are not allowed. Comments to posts are moderated by me and will not appear until I have seen them and they clear the above criteria.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
