Cayer Law, LLC.: 2012

Hundreds from Across State Protest Immigration law

Those protesting the recently passed immigration law on the Capitol grounds Sunday weren’t expecting changes to be made, but rather for their voices to be heard and for others to understand their frustrations, concerns, and in some cases, pleas.

Hundreds gathered at the state Capitol grounds in protest of last week’s passage and signing of HB 658, the latest version of Alabama’s immigration law. The protesters remain upset at the lack of changes in what they consider flaws in the law, including the involvement of schools in tracking data on immigrants and police being able to stop those based on whether they appear to be in the country illegally.

The Alabama Coalition for Immigrant Justice led the mega-march from the Capitol to the Governor’s Mansion.

Groups from all over the state including Albertville, Alexander City, Athens, Clanton, Decatur, Dothan, Birmingham and Russellville participated in the march. Frank Barragan traveled from Mobile.

“The idea of what this law is doing to this state, and eventually it has affected the country economically ... breaks my heart because it seems in Mobile, there’s going to be a few of the nurseries that are going to be closing because there’s no more workers.

US Citizenship and Immigration Services Accept Online Applications

San Luis, AZ--U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services created a user-friendly system to streamline the application process for immigration benefit seekers and their legal representatives.

Its expected to be cut back on the waiting time and money for those using it.

With just a click of your mouse inside the comfort of your own home, individuals who want to extend or change their immigrant status in the U.S. may now do so.

"It's better than spending the time and money to go to offices because having Internet in your own home, you'll be able to do everything there," Manuel Osicawa said.

"I think its very beneficial because you don't have to go out and just stay home without having to delay your errands," Laura Ortiz said.

The USCIS recently launched the electronic immigration system.

The system is in phase one in which applicants can file form I-539, the application to extend/change non-immigrant status.

Minorities make up majority of US births

FOR the first time, racial and ethnic minorities make up more than half the children born in the US, capping decades of heady immigration growth that is now slowing.

New 2011 census estimates highlight sweeping changes in America's racial make-up and the prolonged impact of a weak economy, which is resulting in fewer Hispanics entering the US. "This is an important landmark,'' said Roderick Harrison, a former chief of racial statistics at the Census Bureau, who is now a sociologist at Howard University. ''This generation is growing up much more accustomed to diversity than its elders."

The report comes as the US Supreme Court prepares to rule on the legality of Arizona's strict immigration law, with many states weighing similar get-tough measures.

"We remain in a dangerous period where those appealing to anti-immigration elements are fuelling a divisiveness and hostility that might take decades to overcome," Harrison said.

As a whole, the minority population in the US continues to rise, following a higher-than-expected Hispanic count in the 2010 census. Minorities increased 1.9 per cent to 114.1 million, or 36.6 per cent of the total US population, lifted by previous waves of immigration that brought in young families and boosted the number of Hispanic women of child-bearing age.

But a recent slowdown in the growth of the Hispanic and Asian populations is shifting notions on when the tipping point in US diversity will come - the time when non-Hispanic whites become a minority. After 2010 census results suggested a crossover as early as 2040, demographers now believe the pivotal moment may be pushed back several years.

Gregory Rodriguez: Immigration and the new old me

The news that Mexican immigration to the United States has come to a virtual halt has me thinking about all the ways that will change things. It will affect politics, culture, labor and the nation's racial climate. And it will also change how we see each other and ourselves as Americans and as Californians, me included.

I'm one of those mythical native Californians you might have read about. I was born near the corner of Sunset and Vermont in Hollywood. My father was born in L.A. and baptized, as was I, at La Placita Church downtown. My mom was born in northern San Diego County and baptized at the San Antonio de Pala mission there. My paternal great-grandfather arrived in the U.S. - Arizona - from Mexico in 1893. My family has been American so long that sometimes I think I should wear one of those buckled Pilgrim hats.

And yet, despite my rootedness in Southern California, migration has had an inordinate effect on my life, especially my intellectual and professional life. I've always been something of a tour guide, interpreter and even a booster for my regional homeland. As a young Dodgers fan I always resented that half the stadium would root for the Chicago Cubs. I pronounced the glories of L.A. to my friends whose parents longed for the hometowns - New York, Milwaukee, Saigon - they left behind. (And then there's my love life. I once realized that most of the women whose lives have collided with mine were from families - Korean, Japanese, Vietnamese, German, Mexican - that arrived here because of migration's big catalyst: wars we fought or labor shortages caused by those wars.)

As a kid, of course, some still saw my ethnicity and skin color as signs of my being an outsider. In third grade I was called the "N-word." By the 11th, the haters had wised up and switched to more "accurate" ethnic slurs. There were also incidents outside school, and what they all had in common was that they were committed by white kids who had fewer choices than I did. Their words stung, but they didn't keep me from being elected class president. As a suburban upper-middle-class kid from an educated family, I pretty much felt I could be what I wanted to be, and I chose to be an Angeleno.

Ministers 'Playing Immigration Numbers Game' by including students

Ministers have included overseas students in the government's net migration count because they are more interested in playing the numbers game than with long-term migration, a leading thinktank has claimed.

The Institute of Public Policy Research (IPPR) report says the refusal to exclude international students from the government's drive to reduce net migration to the tens of thousands is damaging British education and putting at risk £4bn to £6bn a year in benefits to the UK economy.

The IPPR researchers Matt Cavanagh and Alex Glennie say only the 15% of overseas students who stay on to work permanently in Britain should be counted within the net migration figures, which measure the long-term flow of migrants in and out of Britain.

Home Office ministers have introduced a wide range of curbs on the 400,000 overseas students who come to Britain each year to study as part of their drive to reduce annual net migration from its current level of 240,000 a year to below 100,000 by the time of the 2015 general election.

Ministers have turned down demands from Universities UK and the National Union of Students to exclude overseas students from the long-term net migration figures, arguing they are simply complying with international standards laid down by the International Labour Organisation.

Justices Take Up Divisive Arizona Law on Immigration

Less than a month after the Supreme Court heard three days of arguments over President Obama’s health care law, the justices on Wednesday will consider another major politically charged case about the scope of federal power, this one concerning Arizona’s aggressive 2010 immigration law.

The argument is a rematch between the main protagonists in last month’s case. Paul D. Clement, who argued for the 26 states challenging the health care law, represents Arizona. Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr. again represents the federal government.

In their briefs, the two lawyers presented sharply contrasting accounts of what the Arizona law meant to achieve. Mr. Clement said the state was making an effort to address “an emergency situation” marked by “rampant illegal entries and cross-border smuggling.” The state law, he said, complemented federal immigration policy and was “a perfectly valid example of cooperative law enforcement.”

Mr. Verrilli countered that Arizona’s approach was in conflict with the federal efforts and would “supplant federal policy with a new and contrary state policy.” The state law, he wrote, “cannot be sustained as an exercise in cooperative federalism when its very design discards cooperation and embraces confrontation.”

The Arizona law, sometimes called S.B. 1070, advances what it calls a policy of “attrition through enforcement,” and it has been something of a trendsetter. It was followed by similar and sometimes harsher laws in Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, South Carolina and Utah. All have been subject to court challenges, and lower courts have blocked some of their provisions.

A look at how Congress has Dealt with Immigration

A look at how Congress has dealt with immigration in the past 25 years:

1986: The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 both tightens controls on illegal immigration and extends amnesty for many illegal immigrants. It requires that employers attest to employees' immigration status and make it illegal to hire or recruit illegal immigrants. It also grants amnesty to some seasonal agricultural workers and to illegal immigrants who entered the United States prior to 1982 and have lived in the country continuously.

1990: The Immigration Act of 1990 created a lottery program that randomly assigned a number of visas, and increased the number of immigrants allowed into the country each year. The law also included exceptions for the English-language portion of the naturalization test.

1996: Under President Bill Clinton, several pieces of legislation are enacted that crack down on various facets of immigration. Specifically, there is a sharp increase in the categories of criminal activity for which immigrants, including permanent residents, can be deported. The laws also impose mandatory detention for certain types of deportation cases, and as a result deportation rates skyrocket.

Sept. 11, 2001: Terrorists attack New York and Washington, D.C., killing nearly 3,000 people. The events put immigration under a microscope because the attackers were foreigners, and change the way many politicians and Americans view immigration. Former Mexican President Vicente Fox goes so far as to say that if it were not for the attacks, Congress would have passed reform legislation that benefited Mexican emigration to America.

A bottom-up solution to America’s immigration dilemma

American policy on illegal immigrants is plagued by an inherent tension, bordering on schizophrenia. The right brain approves of them because they are immigrants and the US is a nation founded on immigration. The left brain disapproves of them because they are illegal and Americans are passionate about the rule of law.

Now, the subject is at the forefront of the 2012 presidential campaign, as the Supreme Court prepares to rule on a tough Arizona law that several other states are following. The well-worn debate between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney shows the near impossibility of agreeing a federal solution for the “undocumented” – as illegal immigrants are often called. Yet a solution may be within reach – based on competition between states for migrants’ labour.

Past attempts to reform the system through federal legislation have vacillated between the draconian and the benign. The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 introduced sanctions on employers of illegal immigrants, at the insistence of unions – but left out any obligation to verify employees’ legal status, at the insistence of civil liberties lobbies, making it certain that the sanctions would be a paper tiger.

Other attempts at federal action have even been counterproductive. Democratic presidents seeking to placate the anti-immigration lobbies have taken drastic measures – Bill Clinton with military-style border enforcement, Mr Obama with unprecedented levels of deportations. But they have done little to contain, let alone reverse, the illegal influx. They have simply worsened the lives of the undocumented immigrants living in Americans’ midst.

Spearheaded by Mr Clinton, spending on border enforcement has risen from $326m in 1992 to more than $3bn in 2011. Fences and trenches were built. Illegal immigrants were forced from safer routes to attempt entry through the desert. Mr Obama, on the other hand, has shifted the focus to deporting those caught in raids that disrupt immigrants’ lives. In 2009-11, annual deportations averaged 390,000: in 2001 under George W. Bush, they averaged less than 120,000.

Kris Kobach: Immigration Isn't Just a Federal Matter

The battle over illegal immigration heads to the U.S. Supreme Court next week, when the court will hear arguments for and against new Arizona laws requiring police, employers and landlords to expose undocumented immigrants.

Arizona of course is not alone in its crackdown on illegal immigrants, with states including Alabama, Georgia, Utah, as well as a number of cities, passing similar measures.

The movement's chief legal architect is 45-year old Kris Kobach, a former constitutional law professor, current secretary of state of Kansas and adviser to Mitt Romney on immigration issues.

While Kobach is not arguing in the Arizona case, he has been helping other states and cities defend their laws against challenges by the U.S. Justice Department and civil rights groups.

Reuters' Terry Baynes recently discussed with Kobach the issue of state versus federal authority in immigration matters. The questions and answers were edited for clarity and brevity.

Kansas Officials Await Ruling on Arizona Immigration Law

Kansas hasn’t adopted an Arizona-like immigration law, but several current and former elected officials from Kansas have chosen sides as the issue goes before the U.S. Supreme Court.

The court will hear arguments April 25 in the legal battle between the state of Arizona and the federal government over the immigration law known as Senate Bill 1070.

Kris Kobach, a Republican who before being elected Kansas secretary of state gained national attention by pushing tough anti-immigration laws, helped write SB 1070. The measure was adopted by the Arizona Legislature and enacted by Gov. Jan Brewer in 2010.

The law contained a number of controversial provisions that are now front and center before the Supreme Court.

One of the most controversial requires local police in Arizona to determine the immigration status of anyone stopped if there is a reasonable suspicion that the person is in the country illegally.

The Justice Department says regulating immigration is the job of the federal government, not the states. Officials in Arizona, a state bordering Mexico, say the feds haven’t done their jobs and that is one of the reasons for SB 1070.

In addition to legal briefs from the specific parties in the case, the Supreme Court has received approximately 40 legal briefs from others who support and oppose SB 1070, according to a report completed by the Immigration Policy Center, a nonpartisan group whose mission “is to shape a rational conversation on immigration and immigrant integration.”

New Rules, but Few Changes for Immigrants Trying to Stay

Immigrants, attorneys don't see much change with new approach to deportation. Feds say final numbers aren't in.

Minnesota immigrants hoping to catch a break from new rules on who can stay in the country and who must leave haven't had much luck yet.

More than six months after the Obama administration ordered a landmark review of 300,000 pending deportations to focus on dangerous criminals, there's little sign of change in Minnesota's immigration court. Confusion is spreading among immigrants and the lawyers who represent them.

"We have not seen a big shift," said Dick Zonneveld, president of the Minnesota/Dakotas chapter of the American Immigration Lawyers Association.

The chapter recently polled its members to see how many had won reprieves for clients based on the new guidelines, and the results were "overwhelmingly negative," Zonneveld said. People who would seem to qualify as low priority for deportation -- meaning they haven't committed serious crimes in the United States and pose no threat to national security -- have seen their appeals denied.

Hard facts will not clarify the situation any time soon. Immigration, Customs and Enforcement officials would not release numbers showing how many cases in Minnesota have been reviewed and how many have been approved for "favorable exercise of prosecutorial discretion."

Data will be released only after all 300,000 cases have been reviewed, according to local ICE spokesman Shawn Neudauer. But at a congressional hearing earlier this month, ICE director John Morton said the agency is halfway through the review and, so far, 1,500 out of 150,000 cases have been put on hold.

US Immigrant Detention System, NJ Facilities Violate Federal Guidelines

The current immigrant detention system in the United States is deeply flawed, and New Jersey’s newest detention facility offers proof that federal reforms are falling short, immigration advocates said Friday at a conference on the issue.

A report by a coalition of immigration rights groups and New York University’s law school focused on conditions at an immigration detention facility in Essex County as emblematic of problems with immigration detention system nationwide.

The report finds that despite the emphasis by President Barack Obama’s administration on reforming the civil detention system, facilities like the one in Essex County fail to meet several national detention standards for immigrants, issued in 2008 and 2011 by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which cover everything from access to attorneys to recreation and health care.

“We feel this is only the tip of the iceberg of what’s occurring,” said Alina Das, co-director of the Immigrant Rights Clinic at NYU’s law school, who worked on the report. “We’re very concerned about the conditions in New Jersey.”

In New Jersey, the report’s authors said they received more than 200 detainee grievances from the newly expanded detention facility at the Essex County Correctional Facility and nearby, privately operated Delaney Hall. Arguing that the facilities do not fully comply with ICE standards, the report documents problems with everything from access to legal assistance and worship services to adequate health care, food and other basic services for detainees.

US unveils new scheme to ease visa renewal for Indians

In good news to American visa applicants, US on Wednesday announced those Indians who are renewing their visas, valid or expired, within 4 years, are likely to get waiver for a personal interview.

"This new programme will permit consular officers to waive interviews for some qualified applicants who are renewing their visa within 48 months or four years, of expiration of their previous visa and within the same classification as the previous visa," Assistant Secretary of State for Consular Affairs, Janice Jacobs said.

The new rules will apply to those within categories of B1, B2, C and D. Asked to specify the possible beneficiaries, Jacobs, who is in the country for the 2nd US-India Consular Dialogue, said "it will apply for tourists, business travellers, crew members and for students."

"Beginning today, our consulates in India are introducing a new programme to streamline the visa renewal process. "Over time, this programme has the potential to benefit hundreds of thousands of visa applicants here in India," she said. However, she also said not all applicants will be accepted for streamlined processing.

"India and US share mutual interest in global security and countering terrorism around the world. "So, maintaining strict security standards in our visa process is a fundamental importance to all of our citizens.

"For that reason, our consular officers may request an applicant to appear in person for interview at any time for any reason during the visa application process," she said.

"The US is committed to providing an efficient and transparent visa application process," she said adding the US wants to encourage more Indians to visit the US.

Bill would bar illegal immigrants from colleges

A Georgia legislative committee on Monday voted to approve a bill that would bar illegal immigrants from state colleges, universities and technical schools.

The House Judiciary Non-Civil committee passed an amended version of the bill that passed the Senate chamber earlier this month. It now goes to the House Rules Committee, which will decide whether to bring it up for debate before the full House.

The bill’s main sponsor, Sen. Barry Loudermilk, R-Cassville, said the bill is meant in part to clarify the intent of a 2006 law that he says should have been interpreted as prohibiting state colleges and universities from accepting illegal immigrants. It also makes some changes to identification requirements for applicants for public benefits laid out by a law enacted last year to crack down on illegal immigration in the state.

The committee heard from both supporters and opponents of the bill during nearly two hours of discussion. Almost all of the discussion centered on the education provisions of the proposal. Supporters of the bill say it’s necessary to preserve state-funded education for citizens and legal residents. Opponents say the bill unfairly denies motivated illegal immigrant students the opportunity to further their education.

Illegal immigrants already are effectively barred from the most competitive state schools because of a Board of Regents policy created in 2010 that prohibits any institution that has rejected academically qualified applicants in the previous two years from accepting illegal immigrants. That includes the University of Georgia, Georgia Tech, Georgia State University, Georgia Health Sciences University and Georgia College & State University. Illegal immigrants may still be admitted to any other state college or university but must pay out-of-state tuition.

University system Chancellor Hank Huckaby told committee members he believes that policy is adequate and asked that it be allowed to work. He offered nearly identical testimony before a Senate committee last month and before another House committee that was considering a similar bill.

UPDATE 1-US court blocks more parts of Alabama immigration law

A U.S. appeals court ordered the state of Alabama on Thursday to stop enforcing additional parts of its controversial new immigration law, pending review of a federal challenge to the measure that is considered the toughest in the nation.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, based in Atlanta, issued a brief order expanding its initial injunction to include provisions that barred illegal immigrants from obtaining a driver's license and barred courts from enforcing contracts that involved illegal immigrants.

The appeals court in October blocked the state from enforcing another key provision of the law that required schools to check the immigration status of children on enrollment.

The provisions are blocked pending the outcome of the legal challenge by President Barack Obama's administration, which has argued that regulation of immigration should be handled by the federal government and not the states.

In its ruling in October, the appeals court also blocked a provision of the Alabama law, which was passed last year by large margins in both chambers of the Southern state's Republican-led Legislature, that made failing to carry documents proving legal residency status a misdemeanor crime.

That part of the law resulted in some embarrassing incidents when two foreign employees in Alabama's important auto industry were detained briefly for failing to produce proof of legal residency.

Alabama's controversial immigration crackdown heads to court

Two months before the Supreme Court hears arguments over Arizona's controversial new immigration law, another courtroom battle will take center stage, this time over Alabama's immigration crackdown.

On Thursday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, based in Atlanta, will hear arguments over whether a state can pass tough new measures to crack down on illegal immigrants, a power typically reserved for the federal government.

The Alabama law, which took effect in September, requires police to check the immigration status of anyone they detain and suspect of being in the country illegally. Other parts of the law make it a felony for illegal immigrants to apply for or renew drivers' licenses, identification cards or license plates.

The Obama administration sued in August to block the law, accusing Alabama of interfering with the federal government's exclusive authority over immigration policy.

Alabama's law goes further than Arizona's, requiring public schools to obtain the birth certificates of children upon enrollment, among other provisions. In October, the 11th Circuit temporarily blocked the school reporting requirement. The court also suspended the section that requires illegal immigrants to carry immigration documents at all times.

Whatever the outcome of the two cases, it is sure to add fuel to an already fiery debate over immigration in a presidential election year. Decisions are not expected in either case until summer or later.

A key question in both the Alabama and Arizona cases is the extent of the federal government's power to dictate immigration policies. Under the U.S. Constitution's Supremacy Clause, federal laws and regulations trump conflicting state laws. But when Congress passed the major federal immigration laws, it did not clearly indicate whether it intended to bar state laws in the same field.

Romney's Arizona law 'model' would hurt all immigrants

If Mitt Romney becomes the next president of the United States and honors his latest vow to turn the Arizona immigration law into a "model" for the entire country, life in America could become quite unpleasant for many of us who look like immigrants, or speak English with a foreign accent.

In the Feb. 22 Republican debate in Arizona, where Romney and his main rival Rick Santorum were competing for the state's anti-illegal immigration vote, Romney praised Arizona's E-Verify system to check employees' immigration status and said, "I think we see a model here in Arizona." He added that, if elected, he would stop current federal lawsuits against Arizona-style laws "from day one."

"Dios Mio!" I said to myself when I heard that. Judging from what we have seen in states that have passed Arizona-styled laws, that would lead to arbitrary arrests and interrogations not only of undocumented immigrants, but of legal residents and U.S. citizens as well.

The 2010 Arizona law requires, among other things, that local police demand immigration papers when they have a reasonable suspicion that a person is in the country illegally. It was suspended after a federal lawsuit questioning its constitutionality and is before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Supporters of the law deny it would lead to a wild goose chase of foreign-looking people, and to widespread harassment of immigrants. They say the law does not allow police officers to stop people at random, because it specifically requires that they demand immigration papers only when they carry out a "lawful stop, detention or arrest."

But those are vague terms, critics say. A police officer wanting to make overtime could legally stop people to ask whether they saw something suspicious around the corner, then arrest them for not having proper immigration papers.

In addition, the Arizona law requires that local police act as immigration inspectors not only when they legally stop somebody for a crime, but also when they do it for a violation of a city ordinance.

If somebody calls the police to complain that a neighbor is playing music too loud at a party next door, an officer could show up at the party and detain anybody there who can't prove their legal status, opponents of the law say.

US Changing Visa Rules to Attract the Highly-Skilled

To make America more attractive to highly-skilled foreign students and workers, the United States has announced a series of reforms, including changes in the F-1 and H-1B visa rules, that may benefit professionals from India.

The interim measures are aimed at improving the competitiveness of US companies in the world market and stimulating US job creation before comprehensive immigration reforms for "fixing our broken immigration system," the Department of Homeland Security announced.

The proposed changes include providing work authorization for spouses of certain H-1B holders and allowing outstanding professors and researchers to present a broader scope of evidence of academic achievement.

Also proposed is expanding eligibility for 17-month extension of optional practical training (OPT) for F-1 international students to include students with a prior degree in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM).

The changes would also allow for additional part-time study for spouses of F-1 students and expand the number of Designated School Officials (DSOs) at schools certified by DHS to enrol international students.

Immigrant Entrepreneurs Boost U.S. Economy, Asserts Study

Immigrant entrepreneurs in the United States create jobs and strengthen the U.S. economy, and the U.S. should structure its immigration laws and policies to encourage them to remain here, according to a joint report issued Jan. 25 by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Washington, D.C.-based Immigration Policy Center.

The report, “Immigrant Entrepreneurs: Creating Jobs and Strengthening the U.S. Economy,” recommends the U.S create visas for entrepreneurs who create jobs, remove hurdles for foreign students with desirable skills so that they stay in the U.S., and cut red tape for entrepreneurs trying to immigrate to the country.

“Immigrant-owned growth businesses are hugely important to strengthening local economies, as well as providing jobs essential to economic recovery," said report author Marcia Drew Hohn, director of the Public Education Institute at The Immigrant Learning Center.

“The U.S. Small Business Association estimates that small businesses have generated 64 percent of the net new jobs over the past 15 years and credits immigrant businesses with a significant contribution to this job growth,” Hohn said.

The report profiles immigrant entrepreneurs and details the difficulties they face.

According to the 2002-2007 economic censuses, the number of Asian American-owned businesses increased more than 40 percent in that period, twice the national rate. These businesses employed about 2.8 million people.

The study also urged the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to create “more business-friendly policies” and comply with a Jan. 18, 2011 Executive Order requiring agencies to ensure that regulations promote “economic growth, innovation, competitiveness, and job creation and predictability.”

Appeals Court Puts 5 Deportation Cases on Hold

A sharply divided federal appeals court put five deportation cases on hold Monday and asked the government how the immigrants, mostly longtime residents with U.S. citizen children, fit into the Obama administration's plan to focus on removing the most dangerous illegal entrants.

The unusual action came in a series of 2-1 rulings by the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. The dissenter, Judge Diarmuid O'Scannlain, issued identical opinions in each case saying the court had seriously overstepped its authority.

The orders appear to be the court's attempt to mesh its everyday review of immigration cases with the administration's plans to review, under its newly announced priorities, the cases of all 300,000 illegal immigrants who have been ordered deported or are in deportation proceedings.

The director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, John Morton, issued a memo in June telling his agents that the priority list for deportations should start with convicted criminals, repeated illegal entrants and those with records of violence.

Morton said agents should consider such factors as an immigrant's U.S. family ties and hardships, length of residence, age on arrival, and prospects of winning legal residence in deciding whether to put their cases on hold.

Read More: Appeals Court Puts 5 Deportation Cases on Hold

Immigration law compromises human rights, safety

Turmoil is growing between the California state legislature and the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement over immigration laws.

ICE’s Secure Communities program requires local law enforcement to send detainees’ fingerprints to immigration authorities and to hold them on behalf of ICE if they are identified as candidates for deportation.

The state legislature objects; it is close to passing a law instructing local law enforcement to disregard some instructions to detain prisoners longer (the details are not yet finalized). Under this law, California counties would be able to rejoin the program on a voluntary basis.

The opposition has been met with an uproar from ICE authorities, which have called these measures violations of federal law.

An international campus like USC should address the topic of immigration. More important, however, is the need to respect peoples’ rights.

Though stances on immigration vary throughout the USC community, the validity of this program can’t be a part of that discussion until we address the violation of human rights, as well as the harm to law enforcement and the community.

The law puts people who have been convicted of nothing worse than low-level crimes in danger of being detained beyond the lawful time — or, even worse, of being deported on the suspicion of a more serious offense.

To subject all detainees, without exception, to an inter-departmental background check makes mistakes unavoidable.

Read More: Immigration law compromises human rights, safety

Gingrich, Romney Clash Over Immigration To U.S.

Just days before the key Florida primary, the two leading candidates for the Republican nomination for U.S. president have clashed in a debate over immigration to America.

Immigration is seen as a particularly powerful issue in Florida, which has a large Hispanic population.

Many of America’s estimated 11 million illegal immigrants are from Latin American countries.

The debate was the final formal Republican debate before the important Florida primary on January 31, in which the winner will claim all of Florida’s 50 delegates in the race for the nomination to oppose President Barack Obama in November’s election.

Nearly 2,300 delegates are at stake nationwide in the Republican race, and a candidate must accumulate the support of at least 1,144 delegates to win the nomination.

Read More: Gingrich, Romney Clash Over Immigration To U.S.

Support immigration reform: Indian Americans ask Senators

A group of Indian American IT-professionals have asked US Senators to support a key immigration-reform legislation, which if passed would drastically reduce the 'Green Card' waiting period for highly-skilled workers from countries like India and China.

"This as an important step in the effort to reform immigration policy in response to the changing global situation," said the Silicon Valley-based Global Indian Technology Professionals Association in a statement on Monday.

Currently pending the Congress, Fairness for High-Skilled Immigrants Act (HR 3012) proposes to eliminate the per nation cap on employment-based visas in favour of a more fair, 'first come, first serve' system, where all green-card applicants meeting the requirements will have the same waiting period.

"The bill will also reduce the uncertainty faced by organisations in retaining experienced resources critical to support the business," said Khanderao Kand of GITPRO.

GITPRO asked US Senators to support the legislation in the Congress.

Read More: Support immigration reform: Indian Americans ask Senators

Protocols could allow 14% of immigrants to bypass courts

U.S. immigration officials, testing controversial new protocols that give them discretion to "administratively close" immigration cases instead of taking them to court, have recommended that about 14% of the nearly 12,000 cases reviewed thus far be closed, allowing those people to remain in the United States.

Of the 11,682 immigration cases reviewed in two test cities -- Baltimore and Denver -- officials have recommended closing 1,667 cases, provided they pass a final background check.

The Department of Homeland Security cautioned the numbers are preliminary, and they do not reflect the ultimate number that will be closed.

"For a variety of reasons, including the results of background checks, the final results of the pilot programs will likely differ from these preliminary numbers," Department of Homeland Security official Kim Baronof wrote in a memo obtained by CNN.

But if the 14% were to hold consistent for the 300,000 cases pending before the immigration courts, approximately 42,000 immigrants would bypass the courts and be permitted to stay in the United States.

The Obama administration has touted the use of "prosecutorial discretion" as "smart and effective immigration enforcement," saying it will allow undocumented aliens to stay in the United States in special cases. Immigration officials who make the decisions must consider a long list of factors, such as whether the undocumented immigrant served in the U.S. military, has roots in the community or serves as care provider for a person in need. Prior administrations used similar discretion in vetting cases, Obama administration officials have said.

Read More: Protocols could allow 14% of immigrants to bypass courts

Some Immigrants shouldn’t have to make a risky trip ‘home’ to attempt to get green card

The Obama administration has proposed letting certain relatives of U.S. citizens apply for an “unlawful presence” waiver while in the United States. If the proposed rule becomes law, thousands of undocumented immigrants here will find an easier path to permanent residence.

Regular readers of this column know that the unlawful presence bar to permanent residence applies to most individuals who leave the United States after having been here illegally for more than 180 days. Current law allows the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to waive the bar. However, you can’t apply for the waiver until you are already abroad. If the USCIS denies the waiver, you could be stuck abroad for years. Under the proposed rule, some applicants applying as an “immediate relative” of a U.S. citizen may apply for the waiver without leaving the United States. The immediate relative category includes the spouse of a U.S. citizen, the unmarried child under 21 of a U.S. citizen and the parent of a U.S. citizen who is at least age 21. To apply while here under the rule, the applicant must prove extreme hardship to a U.S. citizen parent or spouse.

The unlawful presence bar to permanent residence was added to our immigration laws in 1996 as part of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act. It created a three-year bar to permanent residence for individuals who left that United States after having been unlawfully present here for more than 180 days. The bar is ten years for those unlawfully present one year or more. For undocumented immigrants who can interview here - the process called “adjustment of status” - the bar doesn't apply. It’s those who must interview abroad who will benefit from the proposed rule.

Read More: Some Immigrants shouldn’t have to make a risky trip ‘home’ to attempt to get green card

Immigration Law in Effect While Parts of it on Hold

South Carolina's new immigration law is now in effect. Although a federal judge put parts of the law on hold in December.

That included some of the most controversial elements like transportation of illegal immigrants and requiring officers to check the immigration status of people they pull over if they suspect they are in the country illegally.

“Thank you for halting it and looking at every detail because it gives us hope and it gives us an opportunity to be able to continue a dialog with the state of South Carolina as latinos that we are,” said Diana Salazar, Latino Association of Charleston.

Since Arizona's immigration law, which is what South Carolina's is compared to, this state has become one of five to pass it's own immigration law. Governor Haley spokesman, Rob Godfrey said, “If the feds were doing their job, we wouldn't have had to address illegal immigration reform at the state level. But, until they do, we're going to keep fighting in South Carolina to be able to enforce our laws.”

What is in effect as of this week, a requirement for businesses to use E-Verify, an online program that allows employers to input information from required I-9 hiring forms and find out a new employee’s legal work status. South Carolina government jobs, including positions at public universities, have been screened with E-Verify since 2009, as have private jobs at companies with more than 100 employees.

Read More: Immigration Law in Effect While Parts of it on Hold