Blog

The Republican controlled United States Senate recently was unable to garner the votes necessary to advance two bills altering immigration law and begin debate on the issues.

One of the bills at issue—S.3100, known as the “Stop Dangerous Sanctuary Cities Act”—would have blocked federal housing and community development money (from the Community Development Block Grant Program and certain Economic Development Assistance Programs) from going to any so-called “sanctuary cities.” “Sanctuary city” generally refers to any municipality that prevent police from assisting immigration officials in attempting to deport immigrants in the nation illegally.  The bill received a vote of 53-44 against it proceeding forward; 60 votes were required to begin debate on the issue.

Similar bills were proposed in the House and the Senate in 2015. The House version passed; the Senate version did not. At the time, President Barack Obama threatened to veto either version if Congressed passed them up to his desk.

Senator Pat Toomey (R-Penn.), who sponsored the bill, was unhappy with the bill’s failure. “These leaders understand this issue is not about immigration,” Toomey said in a weekly Republican address on C-Span. “It is about public safety. The vast majority of immigrants in America would never commit any such crime — but any very large group of people is going to include some terrible people within it. And with about 11 million illegal immigrants in our country, there will be some who are violent criminals.”

The other Bill—S.2193, proposing “Kate’s Law”—would have amended the Immigration and Nationality Act and established a 5-year mandatory minimum prison term for an immigrant who reenters the country after being removed following a conviction for an aggravated felony or two or more prior convictions for illegal reentry.  Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) sponsored the law.

The bill was inspired by 32-year-old Kate Steinle, who was fatally shot in July 2015 on a pier in San Francisco by a Mexican immigrant in the country illegally. The shooter had previously been convicted of several felonies and had been deported several times. That tragedy also fueled the debate around sanctuary cities, as the shooter was released by the sheriff’s department in San Francisco despite a request by the U.S. Justice Department that he be held for deportation.

That bill failed 55-42, along party lines.

Democratic senators were strongly opposed to the two bills. “Senator Toomey’s legislation would simply create more problems. It wouldn’t solve anything,” Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said. “[Senator Cruz’s bill] would enact unnecessary mandatory minimum sentences. It would cost billions, billions of new dollars, increase the prison population and siphon funding from state and local law enforcement. Worst of all, this sort of partisan piecemeal approach undermines bipartisan efforts to enact badly needed reforms on our criminal justice system”

Immigration Rights activists also argue that if local authorities are required to cooperate with immigration officials, immigrants will trust police less.

The Executive Branch has previously spoken out on other versions of the sanctuary cities defunding bill, stating that the bill was flawed. The White House statement of policy on the bill said, in part: “[T]he bill would condition Federal money on State and local governments allowing their law enforcement officials to gather citizenship and immigration status information from any person at any time for any reason. The Administration believes that such blanket authority would threaten the civil rights of all Americans, lead to mistrust between communities and State and local law enforcement agencies, and impede efforts to safely, fairly, and effectively enforce the Nation’s immigration laws.”

To find out how any recent controversies or changes in immigration law may affect you and your immigration process, contact a trusted immigration lawyer at Maximilian Law Inc.

Earlier this year, the federal government charged a man in Sacramento, California with conspiracy and fraud for his role in running an immigration scam which garnered high fees from immigrants across at least seven states hopeful for U.S. citizenships. This man operated a nonprofit which promoted adult adoptions as a pathway to citizenship status, taking in at least $500,000 from 500 immigrants across the country.

Though authorities called this man’s actions “unusually creative,” these scams are unfortunately common. Unscrupulous people take advantage of vulnerable undocumented immigrants who are often unwilling to report the fraud to the police for fear of deportation.  However, many states now allow immigrants to report scams anonymously.

Is your attorney really an attorney?

Check that the person representing you is really an attorney. The U.S. Customs and Immigration Service warns on its website that sometimes notary publics in the U.S. misrepresent themselves as attorneys. This often occurs because in many Spanish-speaking countries, “notaries” are attorneys with special legal credentials. In contrast, a “notario publico” in the United States performs duties such as witnessing the signing of documents. A notary has no ability to provide you with legal advice or services related to immigration without also possessing a law license.

Fortunately, you can check whether your “attorney” is legitimate online fairly easily. Most state bar associations have search functions on their websites so you can check that your attorney is currently licensed and in good standing.  For example, the State Bar of California’s attorney search is right here: http://members.calbar.ca.gov/fal/membersearch/quicksearch. You can easily check that Maximilian Law’s own Cedric M. Shen is a lawyer in good standing, with an active law license. Such databases also often give information about any past disciplinary action against that attorney.

Does the website ask you to pay money in order to receive immigration forms?

All USCIS forms are available to download online, by mail, or by phone (at 1-800-870-3676). If any website says that it is affiliated with USCIS but attempts to charge you for these forms, they are attempting to scam you. Ensure that you know where your information is coming from before you act or give any money to anyone.

Other scammers attempt to trick people into paying their immigration fees via phone. All official immigration fees will go through any domestic field office of the Department of Homeland Security, USCIS.gov, or the U.S. mail.

Other Tips

USCIS suggests that immigrations read all form instructions thoroughly, ensuring that you fully understand it and that it’s filled out truthfully and accurately before you sign it. Never sign blank forms or any forms that you cannot read or do not understand. Any time you make a payment to anyone who helps you with your immigration case, make sure you get a receipt.

Immigration scams can be reported to the Federal Trade Commission; you can find a list of the applicable agencies and protective state laws online at https://www.uscis.gov/avoid-scams/report-immigration-scams. USCIS also offers a lot of information on how to avoid immigration scams online at https://www.uscis.gov/avoid-scams.

If you are looking for immigration advice from a trustworthy, experienced source, the immigration law firm of Maximilian Law Inc. can help.

The Supreme Court ruled this week 4-4 on the controversial case of U.S. v. Texas, the case looking at President Obama’s Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA) program and the expansion of the 2012 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, which would affect millions of undocumented immigrants. The tie, the result of the death of conservative Justice Antonin Scalia in February (who almost certainly would have voted to overturn the programs), means that the lower appeals court preliminary injunction will be left standing.

The preliminary injunction entered by the 5^th circuit court restrained the executive branch from proceeding with DAPA (DAPA would allow some immigrants with children who are American citizens or lawful permanent residents to apply for deferred action, which would give them three year work permits and exemption from deportation for that time) and the expansion of DACA (The expansion would eliminate the upper age cap of 31 for DACA and expand two year renewable work permits and exemptions from deportation rather to three years). Because the Obama administration only appealed from the injunction itself, not a final judgment, the underlying case is still proceeding forward. The Supreme Court’s tied decision effectively just continues to keep the administration from implementing the programs until the lower federal court has ruled on the merits.

The case does not look great for the Obama administration at this point. Preliminary injunctions require the plaintiff (in this case, the 26 states challenging Obama’s action under the “Take Care” clause of the Constitution, immigration laws, and the Administrative Procedure Act) to show “a substantial likelihood of success on the merits.” Because the plaintiffs won a preliminary injunction, it has already been determined by the federal trial court judge and affirmed by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals that Obama’s action was probably not within its legal discretion under immigration law.

However, because the Supreme Court’s decision was a split 4-4 decision, only the fifth circuit’s preliminary injunction has been upheld, with no binding national precedent on lower courts outside the Fifth Circuit. Thus, federal courts outside of the Fifth Circuit (made up of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas) could potentially rule differently from the Fifth Circuit Court.

The situation is complicated by the fact that even if courts ultimately do rule in President Obama’s favor and uphold the DAPA program and the expansion of the DACA program, it is extremely unlikely that the changes will be implemented while Obama is still in office. It’s also unlikely that Congress will take any action on the issue prior to the November election. This issue will fall in the lap of the next President and the next Congress.

Those same players will have to address the still unfilled seat on the Supreme Court; the Republican majority in the U.S. Senate still refuses to hold hearings for Obama’s nominee for the seat, Merrick Garland. Though we can’t know for sure how either Scalia or Garland would have decided on U.S. v. Texas, it’s probable that the Senate’s stalemate directly impacted the decision here, affecting an estimated 4.7 million immigrants in the United States unlawfully.

On June 23, 2016, citizens of the United Kingdom held a referendum to determine whether the UK should leave the European Union – known as the Brexit referendum. White there were fierce advocates for both sides, the world expected that voters would choose to stay in the EU. However, the unexpected happened and the majority of voters decided that they wanted to leave the EU. This has no doubt caused havoc on UK’s economy and the world markets – even prompting many to ask for a “redo” of the referendum.  In light of this, Maximilian Law Inc. has gotten many inquiries from UK citizens on their options to immigrate to the United States.  Fortunately, citizens of the United Kingdom have several options on moving to the United States:

• Marriage-Based Green Cards:  If you are UK citizen married to a U.S. Citizen, your spouse can sponsor you for a Green Card
• K-1 Fiancé Visa:  If you are a UK citizen engaged to a U.S. Citizen, your fiancé can sponsor you for a K-1 visa that would allow you to travel to the United States to get married and apply for a green card
• Family-Based Green Cards:  If you have a U.S. Citizen sibling, parent or child, you can be sponsored for a green card
• LGBT & Same Sex Marriage Green Cards:  U.S. citizens in LGBT or same sex marriages can sponsor their UK spouses for green cards or a K-1 visa
• L-1 Intracompany Transfer Visa:  UK citizens working for companies that have a related office in the U.S. can transfer on an L-1 visa
• E-2 Treaty Investor Visa:  UK citizens can start or invest in a U.S. business for as little as $50,000 and qualify for an E-2 investor visa
• Investor EB-5 Green Card:  If you invest $500,000 or $1 million into a U.S. business, you could qualify for an EB-5 green card
• Work Visas:  There are several work visa categories available, including the H-1B, O-1, or L-1 visa
• School:  If you are accepted into a U.S. School, you may be able to get an F-1 student visa

If you are a citizen of the UK looking to immigrate to the United States, the immigration law firm of Maximilian Law Inc. can evaluate your options.

The United States recently celebrated the 92nd anniversary of an infamous and controversial Immigration law, which thankfully, has since been replaced with an improved system. Although Immigration Laws in this country can be quite complicated and difficult to navigate at times, it is good to look back and remember how far our country has come from the backward and blatantly discriminatory immigration laws of the past.

The Comprehensive Immigration Act, also known as the Johnson-Reed Act, was passed into law on May 26, 1924. The Act limited the number of immigrants allowed into the United States by putting into place strict quotas restricting the number of people from each country allowed to obtain immigration visas. No immigrants from Asia were allowed to receive visas or enter the United States under a provision that excluded from entry any “alien” who was ineligible for citizenship due to their nationality or race.

The immigration quotas set in place allowed for immigration visas for two percent of the total number of each nationality of people in the United States as of the 1890 national census. Basing quotas on the 1890 census in particular meant that fewer southern and eastern Europeans such as Italians or Bulgarians were allowed into the U.S. than would have been if a more recent census had been used as a baseline. So where an average of 200,000 Italians had entered the U.S. during each year from 1900-1910, the annual quota for Italians was set at 3,845. 51,227 immigrants were allowed from Germany but only 131 from Spain and 100 from Greece.

This horrific law was the result of many factors. World War I had raised national security concerns in the country. Congress had passed a restrictive immigration law in 1917 that increased the tax paid upon arrival by new immigrants (almost all immigrants had to pay an $8 tax, which equals about $163 today) and required immigrants over 16 years to pass a literacy test (in which immigrants had to show basic reading comprehension in any language), among other things. The Act completely excluded any immigrants born in the “Asiatic Barred Zone,” defined as “any country not owned by the U.S. adjacent to the continent of Asia.” Those who were able to enter the country were almost all required to pay an $8 tax (equal to over $163 today). The Quota Act of 1921 limited immigrants from each nation to three percent of that nationality’s makeup in the U.S. population as of the 1910 census.

Such laws were also influenced by the rise of the eugenics movement, which tried to improve the genetic quality of the human population by promoting genetic superiority of white Europeans.

The 1927 law reflected this viewpoint in its restriction on the immigration of “undesirables,” including “idiots, imbeciles, feeble-minded persons, epileptics, insane persons…paupers; professional beggars…contract laborers” among others.

In 1965, the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 (also known as the Hart-Celler Act) got rid of the Immigration Law of 1924 and replaced the national origins quota system with the system we have today, which looks at immigrants’ skills and their family relationships with U.S. citizens or residents instead. The Act also allowed people to migrate from Asia to the United States.

The immigration lawyers at Maximilian Law are here to assist you with your immigration issues. Call us today for a free consultation.