Home Immigration

Immigration

5 Things To Know About Arizona Immigration Law

5 Things To Know About Arizona Immigration Law

Arizona is well-known for its immigration laws, with some of the most controversial and widely debated legislation in the United States. Over the years, a lot of people have been misled by stereotypes of what Arizona’s immigration laws entail. This article aims to set things straight by highlighting the most important things to know about Arizona’s immigration laws.

1. Introduction

Arizona’s immigration laws often generate heated debates amongst lawmakers, activists, and ordinary citizens alike. To understand the laws in Arizona, it is important to understand the larger context of federal immigration laws set forth by the United States government. Arizona has built its immigration laws upon these federal laws and adopted additional regulations meant to address specific challenges unique to the state. In this sense, Arizona’s laws are both complementary and supplementary to the federal immigration laws.

2. The Role of Federal Immigration Laws

Before discussing Arizona’s immigration laws, it is essential to understand the role of federal immigration laws. The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 is the primary law governing immigration in the United States. The Act sets the framework for legal immigration, including family-sponsored and employment-based visas, green cards, and naturalization. Non-citizens, including migrants, temporary foreign workers, and tourists, are also subject to the federal immigration laws.

In addition to the INA, other federal laws regulate various aspects of immigration, enforcement, and compliance. These include the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) of 1996 and the Secure Fence Act of 2006. The IIRIRA, for instance, provides harsher punishment for undocumented immigrants who attempt to enter the United States and those who commit criminal offenses. The Secure Fence Act directed the construction of a barrier along the U.S.-Mexico border.

3. Arizona’s Immigration Law

Arizona’s immigration law has been a point of controversy since April 2010, when Governor Jan Brewer signed the Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act, also known as SB 1070. The law was aimed at curbing illegal immigration by requiring state and local law enforcement to verify the immigration status of anyone they suspect is illegally present in the United States.

Although federal law enforcement is responsible for enforcing federal immigration laws, the Arizona state law required local police to bring suspected migrants to the attention of immigration authorities. This provision was the most controversial aspect of the law and led to widespread protests. Critics argued it would lead to racial profiling and discrimination against people of Latino and other minority ethnic groups.

In response to legal challenges, the Supreme Court of the United States struck down provisions of the law in 2012, ruling that they conflicted with federal law. However, the court upheld a provision requiring local police to check the immigration status of anyone they suspect is unlawfully present, but in a limited capacity.

4. The Current State of Arizona Immigration Law

Since SB 1070, Arizona has enacted other laws targeting migrants, including the E-Verify law in 2007. The E-Verify law requires employers to verify their workers’ legal status through an electronic database.

In addition to E-Verify, Arizona continues to enforce a 2005 law that penalizes businesses that hire undocumented workers. Under this law, employers who knowingly or intentionally hire undocumented immigrants face the risk of business license suspension or revocation.

Arizona’s most recent legislative measure targeting illegal immigration was Senate Bill 1090 (SB 1090), signed into law by Governor Doug Ducey in 2019. SB 1090 requires the Arizona Department of Corrections and the Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections to transfer anyone who is in the country illegally into Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) custody upon release.

At the time of writing, there are currently no new bills currently in the Arizona legislature.

5. Conclusion

Arizona’s immigration laws have been the subject of countless political debates and legal challenges. While the state is known for its strict stance on immigration, most of its initiatives are based on federal laws. The state’s intention is to protect the interests of its citizens, secure the border, and prevent illegal entry into the United States. However, critics argue that such measures violate civil rights and lead to discrimination against minority groups.

It is important to remember that many of the policies implemented in Arizona to regulate immigration are subject to change. As such, it is essential to stay informed and up-to-date on developments concerning immigration in Arizona and across the United States. By doing so, individuals can maintain awareness on these laws, identify areas in which they need to make adjustments, and be prepared to tackle any challenges that arise along the way.

Overall, Arizona’s immigration laws will remain a contentious issue for many years to come, and it is essential for lawmakers and citizens alike to stay informed of the latest developments.


1. What is 2011 Arizona Immigration Law?

The Arizona immigration law SB1070, titled “Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act,” is an act that was approved on Monday, April 19, 2010 by the Arizona Legislature. It was then signed into Arizona law on Friday, April 23, 2101 by Arizona’s Governor Jan Brewer.

The Arizona immigration law SB1070 text includes provisions that add state penalties that are related to enforcing immigration law, such as harboring or transporting illegal immigrants, trespassing, employer sanctions, human smuggling, and alien registration documents.

The trespassing provision of the new Arizona immigration law 2010 is one of the first of this kind of law to be enacted in the U.S. In The newest reports regarding state immigration laws by the National Conference of State legislature has shown that only a few states have ever attempted to set up a state trespassing violation in response to unlawful presence. These previous bills were introduced but did not pass in Arizona in both 2008 and 2009, Colorado in 2008, Texas in 2009, and California in 2007.

On the same day the Governor signed Arizona immigration law SB1070, signed the bill, she also issued Executive Order 2010-09, which required the Arizona Peace Officers Standards & Training Board to set up training to guarantee that law enforcement could apply Governor Brewer in a manner consistent with the federal laws which regulate immigration, while protecting the civil rights of all individuals who respect the privileges of U.S. citizenship.

The executive order for Arizona law SB1070 also required clear guidance on exactly what constitutes as reasonable suspicion. A list was created by the Training Board detailing the specific list of identification that can be used to assume that an individual is not actually an alien who is unlawfully residing in the United States.

2. Reasoning Behind New Arizona Immigration Law 2010

In April 2010, Arizona had approximately 460,000 illegal immigrants within the state, which was a fivefold increase from the amount in 1990. Arizona has the highest illegal crossings between Mexico and United States. By the end of the 1990’s, this area became the location where the most arrests by U.S. Border Patrol occurred.

It is uncertain whether illegal immigrants commit a higher number of crimes. Depending on the academics or authorities involved, many claim the rate is equal, less, or greater in comparison to the overall population. There is also a lot of concern due to the Mexican Drug War, being brought over to the country as well.

Arizona has an extensive history of passing strong restrictions on illegal immigration, such as the legislation in 2007 that created heavy sanctions on employers who hired illegal immigrants. Other measures which were similar to Arizona immigration law SB1070 were passed by the Arizona Legislature in 2006 as well as 2008. However, both were vetoed by Governor Janet Napolitano, a Democrat. Afterwards, she was elevated to the position of Secretary of Homeland Security with the Obama Administration. Jan Brewer, the Republican Secretary of State then took her place as Governor of Arizona.

The social climate for that allowed Arizona immigration law SB1070 to pass was due to the shifting demographics that resulted in a greater Hispanic population, a struggling state economy, increased human and drug smuggling-related crimes in both Arizona and Mexico, as well as the overall economic stress that occurred in the late 2000’s recession. Furthermore, residents of Arizona State were increasingly frustrated by the lack of significant federal progress on the immigration problem.

The major legislative force and sponsor of the Arizona immigration law SB1070 was State Senator Russell Pearce. Senator Pearce had been one of the most vocal opponents of illegal immigration in Arizona. He had successfully passed many pieces of difficult legislation against individuals who he described as “invaders on the American sovereignty”.

While Senator Pearce provided much of the driving force for the bill, most of the drafting of the Arizona immigration law text was completed by Kris Kobach, who was a law professor as well as an important figurehead with the Federation of American Immigration reform. Kobach had written many other immigration-related bills that were introduced in other areas of the United States.

Kobach and Pearce had previously worked on other past legislation dealing with immigration, so the two of them teamed up again for the Arizona immigration law text when Pearce was ready to pursue the plan of having the state properly enforce federal immigration laws. A meeting of the ALEC in December 2009 resulted in the American Legislative Exchange Council drafting some model legislation that closely embodied Pearce’s ideas.

The proposed Arizona immigration bill made it to the Arizona legislature in January 2010 and soon found 36 cosponsors. An early version of the Arizona immigration bill was approved by the Arizona State Senate in February 2010.

The passing of the new Arizona immigration law 2010 somewhat relied on an event on March 27, 2010. On this day Robert Krentz, a 58-year-old man, and his pet dog were killed by gunfire while Robert was doing home improvement work on his ranch which was about 19 miles away from the Mexican border. Krentz’s death created a more tangible public fear about the dangers of illegal immigration and the related criminal activity. While the Arizona police were unable to find any suspects to the murder, they traced footprints leading towards the United States-Mexican border, allowing for greater speculation of the victim being killed by an illegal alien.  This event gave greater support to the new Arizona immigration law 2010.

On April 13, the Arizona immigration law SB1070 text, with many different changes made to it, ended up passing the Arizona House of Representatives on 35 to 21 party-line vote. Six days later, the revised measure passed the Arizona State Senate by a 17 to 11 vote that also followed party lines very closely. Here, only one Republican voted against the bill while only two democrats did not vote at all.

The general procedure of Arizona states that when a bill passes, the governor then has 5 days to make a choice to either sign the bill, let it pass unsigned, or veto the bill. There was a question about whether Governor Jan Brewer would sign the new Arizona immigration law 2010 into law. During proposal and debates about the Arizona immigration law SB1070 text, Governor Brewer had not made any comments on the issue or the consequences of the Arizona immigration bill. Before this bill, she had never placed immigration as the main focus of her career or political views. The only exception was her support for Arizona Proposition 200.

During her term, she supported Arizona Proposition 100, in which doing so, she went against party lines. Because of this and a potentially tough upcoming Republican primary for the Arizona gubernatorial election of 2010 (many of these candidates also supported the new Arizona immigration law 2010), Governor Brewer showed her support for the Arizona immigration bill.

During the development of the Arizona immigration law SB1070 text, Governor Brewer’s staff had carefully looked over the language of the Arizona immigration bill line by line with Senator Pearce. She claimed to have mild concerns about many of the provisions, and these concerns were also felt by other organizations like the Mexican Embassy and the Mexican. However, the citizens of Arizona showed 3 to 1 support of the Arizona immigration law SB1070 text. Polling showed that about 70% of citizens were in favor. However, 53% somewhat felt that the Arizona immigration bill could possibly violate the civil rights of certain American citizens.

Governor Brewer’s stuff ultimately said that the governor was carefully looking at the legal issues involved, the feelings of the decisions, and the impact of the new Arizona immigration law 2010 on the state’s business while making her decision about supporting Arizona immigration law SB1070. Many of Governor Brewer’s political allies pointed out that regardless of her decision, she would face criticism. On April 23, Governor Brewer chose to sign the Arizona immigration law SB1070 text, making it into the new Arizona immigration law 2010.

3. MOST IMPORTANTLY – What Rights Do Citizens Have Under the New Arizona Immigration Law 2010?

The Arizona immigration law SB1070 text does not affect anyone who is a United States Citizen because it targets illegal immigration. Under the law, both local and state governments cannot restrict themselves from enforcing federal immigration laws.

Furthermore, they require law enforcement on both the state and local level to reasonably attempt to determine a person’s immigration status when the individual is being lawfully stopped or is either arrested or placed in detention. This must be done to all individuals who are stopped in order to ensure that the individual has the right to be in the country. Any individual who is arrested must have their status verified with the federal government to ensure citizenship or rightful residency.

However, law enforcement cannot stop a person purely because they suspect the individual is an illegal immigrant. There must be some state or local ordinance or law and there must be reasonable suspicion of the individual breaking the law. More importantly, the Arizona immigration law SB1070 text implies that law enforcement must not consider race, national origin, or color when enforcing these provisions, except in ways that are permitted by the United States Constitution or the Arizona Constitution.

As long as a citizen has their proper identification, they can easily show that they have a right to reside in the country and in the state of Arizona. The Arizona immigration law text specifies an assumption of lawful presence as if the individual has an Arizona identification card or driver license, a tribal enrollment card or identification, or any other valid local, state, or federal identification that is issued by the government, as long as the issuing entity needs proof of legal presence before issuance.

Under the Arizona immigration law text, legal residents also have the right to sue localities or the states when they restrict the proper enforcement of federal immigration laws. Police officers are indemnified against this unless they have acted specifically in bad faith. Any party who violates these federal immigrations must pay a civil penalty that is at least $500 per day that the federal policy is in effect.

4. What Does the Arizona Immigration Bill Do About Arresting Illegal Aliens?

According to the Arizona immigration law SB1070 text, an individual cannot be stopped by law enforcement purely because of suspicions of being an illegal immigrant. An arrest must be due to a legitimate suspicion of breaking a local or state law or ordinance. The Arizona immigration law SB1070 text does allow a law enforcement officer to arrest a person without a warrant if the law enforcement officer has enough probable cause to think that the individual has committed a public offense that would make the person removable from the United States.

Once an arrest is made, the Arizona immigration law text states that a reasonable attempt to determine immigration status must be made during this legitimate contact with a government official or agency of the political subdivision, town, city, or state. This verification is done pursuant to federal immigration laws to ensure that the individual is receiving the rights that he or she may deserve, depending on citizenship.

The Arizona immigration law SB1070 text states that if a law enforcement agency has custody of an alien who is not in the country lawfully, the agency has the authority to transport the alien securely to either a federal facility within the state or use any other means that would transfer the illegal into federal custody that is beyond the jurisdiction of the initial law enforcement agency.  So in the case where the individual who is arrested is an illegal immigrant, the law requires the unlawful aliens to be transferred to the Custody of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement or Customs and Border protection if they have been convicted of violating a local or state law. It also states that the individual shall be discharged from the imprisonment or any the fine assessment imposed.

There are also violations for failing to finish a registration for an Alien Registration Document or carrying one, according to the Arizona immigration law SB1070 text. The Arizona immigration bill creates a state violation for these actions that are comparable to federal law found in 8 USC 1304(e).

The Arizona immigration bill also creates state penalties for jail costs and a $100 fine for the first offense. The law suggests that status can be determined by a law enforcement officer who is authorized to verify alien immigration status under the federal government or through other agencies such as the United States Customs and Border Protection or the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Certain legal citizens can still receive under the punishment under the law for immigration-related offences. The first one is unlawfully picking up passengers to be used for work. Under the Arizona immigration law text, doing so is a class one misdemeanor. More specifically, an individual who is occupying a motor vehicle cannot hire on a roadway, highway, or street if the action impedes or blocks the normal flow of traffic.

The Arizona immigration law text also makes it a class one misdemeanor for the individual to enter the motor vehicle for the purpose of being transported and hired. It is also against the law for an unlawfully residing alien to apply for work, perform work as an employee, or solicit work at a public location as either an independent contractor or an employee.

Another illegal act that a lawful citizen or resident may be guilty of under the new Arizona immigration law 2010 is harboring or transporting unlawful aliens in the State of Arizona. The Arizona immigration law text suggests that it is unlawful for an individual who is violating a criminal offense to conceal, transport, shield, or harbor an alien.

Furthermore, it is illegal to suggest or encourage an unlawful alien to enter the state, particularly in the person who suggests it does it while recklessly disregarding the fact that in person in entering the state unlawfully. A motor vehicle that is used to unlawfully transport the aliens may be impounded or immobilized. The exceptions to these provisions of the Arizona immigration law text are for first responders, emergency medical technicians or ambulances, or child protective services. All other parties that violate these provisions are subject to a fine that is at least $1,000 and can be charged with a class one misdemeanor.

4. Does the Arizona Immigration Bill Contradict the FOURTH Amendment?

The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guards citizens against unreasonable searches and seizures. Furthermore, the amendment requires that any warrant must be judicially sanctioned and have probable cause as well. Previous circumstances, such as in the case United States v. Martinez-Fuerte (1976, the United States Supreme Court allowed for immigration checkpoints without discretion.

Technically, the Arizona immigration law is not considered unconstitutional by undermining the Fourth Amendment. The law explicitly states that law enforcement officers cannot stop an individual because of suspicion of unlawful activity, rather than because of national origin, race, or color.

Furthermore, all of the protections found in the Fourth Amendment against profiling continue to apply even when the institution of the Arizona immigration bill. In one aspect, the new Arizona immigration law reduces the chance of race-based harassment by forcing police officers to contact federal agencies as soon as it is reasonable when the law enforcement officer suspects an individual is an illegal alien, rather than allowing an officer to make arrests based on his or her own assessment.

Despite the text of the new law, it is impossible to completely exclude the possibility of an officer racially profiling when using reasonable suspicion. Another major concern is that citizens and legal residents of Arizona will be subject to unlawful harassment based on their race, specifically those of Hispanic or Latino origin.

Updates to the Arizona Immigration Law

The original Arizona immigration law SB1070 text did not specify the fact that prosecutors would not investigate any complaints that were based on race, national origin, or color. This was added a week after the passage of SB1070 as the House bill 2162.

The new bill also pointed out that police could only investigate an individual’s immigration status after a lawful detention, stop, or arrest. Furthermore, the bill lowered the fine from being at least $500 to being up to $100, and adjusted the limits of incarcerations for any first time offenders. This went from six months down to 20 days.

In July of 2010, one of Arizona’s federal judges blocked a controversial part of Arizona’s immigration law from being put into effect until after the end of a lawsuit. The judge felt that the United States more likely to win this case regarding the provision of the law that made it necessary for police officers to check status backgrounds of individuals they felt were in the country unlawfully. The judge decided against blocking portions of the law after determining that the U.S. was not as likely to win the lawsuit regarding those sections of the new law.

This preliminary injunction that prohibited full enforcement of SB1070 was then upheld by the 9th Circuit in April of 2011. The 9th Circuit agreed idea held by the lower court that no set of circumstances could make the contested provisions of the bill valid. If you need legal advice and assistance, contact immigration lawyers.

Connecticut Companies Fined for Hiring Illegal Employees

Connecticut Companies Fined for Hiring Illegal Employees

Connecticut Companies Fined for Hiring Illegal Employees: A Look into the Consequences of Unlawful Hiring Practices

In recent years, employment-related immigration has been a hot topic in the United States, with many companies facing fines and other legal ramifications for hiring undocumented workers. This has been a particular concern in Connecticut, with several companies facing significant penalties for hiring illegal employees. In this article, we will examine the issue of Connecticut companies fined for hiring illegal employees, including an overview of the consequences of unlawful hiring practices and updated information on the topic using government resources.

Overview of the Consequences of Unlawful Hiring Practices

Employers in the United States are required to verify the eligibility of their employees to legally work in the country. This process involves completing and retaining Form I-9, which verifies the identity and work eligibility of each employee. Employers who knowingly hire or continue to employ individuals who are not authorized to work in the country can face significant legal and financial consequences.

Employing unauthorized workers not only sets companies up for potential consequences, it can also create ethical issues for companies and harm Americans’ jobs. Companies may hire undocumented workers because they are willing to work for lower wages and fewer benefits than authorized workers, which can create unfair competition for legal workers. Undocumented workers are also less likely to report labor and other violations due to fears of deportation, creating a working environment that is not safe or fair for anyone.

Companies that are found to have hired unauthorized workers can face serious penalties, including fines, legal fees, and adverse publicity. These penalties can add up quickly and put companies at significant financial risk.

Connecticut Companies Fined for Hiring Illegal Employees: An Overview

Several Connecticut companies have faced penalties in recent years for hiring unauthorized workers. In March 2020, a Connecticut construction contractor was fined over $600,000 for hiring undocumented workers. The company had been caught by the Department of Labor and the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) for employing workers who were not authorized to work in the country.

Another Connecticut company, a manufacturer of optical equipment, was fined $400,000 in February 2020 for similar infractions. The company had hired multiple unauthorized workers over several years, despite having received several warnings from federal authorities.

These are just two examples of the many Connecticut companies that have been penalized for employing unauthorized workers in recent years. Other companies have faced similarly large fines and other legal consequences for unlawful hiring practices. The penalties for these infractions are significant, and they can have a real impact on the financial health and reputation of the companies involved.

Government Resources on the Consequences of Unlawful Hiring Practices

The federal government provides numerous resources for employers to help them ensure that they are complying with immigration and employment laws. These resources can be invaluable in avoiding the kinds of penalties that Connecticut companies have faced for hiring unauthorized workers. Here are a few key resources to keep in mind:

The Department of Homeland Security publishes a “Handbook for Employers” that provides detailed guidance on completing Form I-9 and verifying employment eligibility. This resource can be accessed online and is updated regularly to reflect changes in the law.

The Department of Justice provides an employer hotline where companies can get information on employment-related immigration questions.

The Department of Labor provides guidance on employment and labor laws. Employers can access resources on topics such as wage and hour rules, discrimination, and workplace safety.

Conclusion

Connecticut companies fined for hiring illegal employees should serve as a cautionary tale for all employers. Employing unauthorized workers is not only illegal, it can also result in significant financial and legal consequences. Employers who are concerned about compliance with immigration and employment laws should take advantage of the many resources available through the federal government. By taking proactive steps to ensure compliance, employers can avoid the high costs of unlawful hiring practices and create a fair and safe working environment for all employees.


On November 15, 2011, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) announced that 12 different employers in Connecticut were fined a combined $132,584.25 during the 2012 fiscal year.  The employers were fined for multiple violations.

Employers fined in the 2012 FY in Connecticut:

Acranom Masonry Inc. in Middlefield, $4,500
Calabro Cheese Corp. in East Haven, $45,000;
Contour Landscaping Company Inc. in Stamford, $8,104;
Gourmet Heaven Inc. in New Haven, $5,891;
John J. Masi Company Inc. in Bridgeport, $3,276;
Kingswood Kitchens Company Inc. in Danbury, $12,000;
Leed-Himmel Industries Inc. in Hamden, $2,241.25;
Melissa & Doug LLC in Wilton, $1,386;
Prostar Inc. in Farmington, $10,472;
Quality Sales LLC in Hartford, $2,722;
Superior Plastics Extrusion Company Inc. (Impact Plastics) in Putnam, $34,000
Villa Brava Grocery LLC in Hartford, $2,992

This is the first year that multiple companies have been fined in Connecticut.  Only one company, PCC Technology Group in Bloomfield, was fined $15,000 in the fiscal year of 2011.

In order to find businesses that hire illegal employees, the ICE’s Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) will look for mistreated workers, evidence of visa fraud or identification fraud, money laundering, or any other similar conduct.  HSI is also allowed to serve arrest warrants with approval from the U.S. Attorney’s Office in order to prosecute the employer and then arrest employees that are violating immigration laws.

Bruce M. Foucart, special agent in charge of HSI Boston, stated: “We encourage employers to take the employment verification process seriously, as we expand the number of audits we are conducting throughout Connecticut each year.  My agency will continue to focus its attention on employers that are knowingly employing illegal workers and will continue to target specific industries and businesses known or alleged to hire illegals.”

HSI has worked since 2009 to target employers who hire illegal immigrants to their companies.  The illegal activity denies jobs to citizens and no tax revenue is generated because the illegal immigrants are usually paid under the table.

Source: Immigration and Customs Enforcement

Immigration Discrimination Claim Settled in North Carolina

Immigration Discrimination Claim Settled in North CarolinaUnderstanding the Settlement of an Immigration Discrimination Claim

On May 5, 2021, a settlement was reached in a lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) against a North Carolina telemarketing company, alleging discrimination against non-U.S. citizen job applicants. The settlement serves as a reminder of the ongoing issue of immigration discrimination in U.S. workplaces.

Background of the Immigration Discrimination Claim

In 2018, the EEOC filed a lawsuit against a North Carolina-based telemarketing company, alleging that the company had engaged in discriminatory hiring practices that discriminated against non-U.S. citizen job applicants. The EEOC asserted that the company had required applicants to present specific work authorization documents that were unnecessary for employment eligibility verification.

The lawsuit also alleged that the company had retaliated against a job applicant who had refused to provide the unnecessary work authorization documents.

Terms of the Settlement

Under the terms of the settlement, the telemarketing company agreed to pay $20,000 to the affected job applicant and to provide training on proper employment eligibility verification practices to its human resources staff.

The settlement also requires the company to submit annual compliance reports to the EEOC for the next two years, detailing its hiring practices, any complaints of discrimination, and any actions taken in response to such complaints.

Implications of the Settlement

The settlement serves as a reminder of the ongoing issue of immigration discrimination in the U.S. workplace. Non-U.S. citizens and immigrants often face discrimination and bias in the employment process, including through the use of unnecessary documentation requirements.

The EEOC’s settlement sends a message to employers that discriminatory hiring practices will not be tolerated, and that they risk legal action and financial penalties if they engage in such practices.

Moving Forward: Addressing Immigration Discrimination

The settlement underscores the importance of addressing immigration discrimination in the workplace. Employers should ensure that their employment eligibility verification practices comply with federal law and do not discriminate against non-U.S. citizens or immigrants.

Employees who believe they have experienced discrimination based on their immigration status or citizenship should report such behavior to their employers and, if necessary, file complaints with government agencies such as the EEOC.

Conclusion: The Importance of Fair Hiring Practices

The settlement of the immigration discrimination claim in North Carolina highlights the importance of fair hiring practices that do not discriminate based on an individual’s immigration status or citizenship. Employers should ensure that their hiring practices comply with federal law and that they create a welcoming and inclusive workplace for all. The settlement serves as a reminder that discriminatory hiring practices will not be tolerated and that there are legal and financial consequences for those who engage in such practices.


On November 30, 2012, the Department of Justice announced it reached an agreement with a subsidiary of Woodfin Heating, Inc called Gamewell Mechanical Inc that is based out of Salisbury, North Carolina.  The company was charged with violating provisions in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) when it terminated three employees assuming they were undocumented foreign nationals when they were actually U.S. citizens.

The company, which specializes in mechanical constructions and heating and cooling systems fabrication, received information that six of its employees were undocumented foreign nationals.  The company proceeded to terminate six employees including the three employees that were actually U.S. citizens.

Gamewell Mechanical agreed to pay $10,560 to each former employee that was a U.S. citizen and pay a $9,600 civil penalty to the United States as well.  Gamewell has also agreed to train its human resources employees about actions employers need to take in order to avoid discrimination against eligible applicants and employees.

Thomas E. Perez, the Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, stated: “The anti-discrimination provision protects work-authorized individuals from being treated differently in employment based on discriminatory assumptions about their status.  The Civil Rights Division is fully committed to vigorously enforcing the law.”

The anti-discrimination provision of the INA was enforced by the Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices.  The Office protects works during the hiring, firing, and verification of status process.

If you need more information about employment discrimination, you can call the OSC’s worker hotline at 1-800-237-2515.  You can also find more information on the Justice Department’s website.

Gamewell is now subject to reporting and compliance monitoring by the Justice Department for the next 18 months.

Source: Department of Justice

America’s Voice Education Fund and the Debate on Immigration Reform

America’s Voice Education Fund and the Debate on Immigration Reform

Introduction

The United States has always been known as a melting pot of cultures. With a rich history of immigration, the country has seen wave after wave of people from different countries and backgrounds come to its shores in search of a better life. However, the current immigration system in the US has become increasingly contentious and divisive, with debates raging over who should be allowed to come and stay in the country. The America’s Voice Education Fund is one of the organizations at the forefront of promoting an immigration system that is fair, just, and humane. In this article, we will take a closer look at the organization and the current debate on immigration reform in the United States.

Who is America’s Voice Education Fund?

The America’s Voice Education Fund is a non-profit organization that aims to promote immigration reform policies that provide a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants. This organization was founded in 2008 and is based in Washington, D.C. While America’s Voice Education Fund primarily focuses on advocacy and education around immigrants’ rights, the organization has also been instrumental in driving and shaping legislation around the issue of immigration.

What does America’s Voice Education Fund do?

According to their website, America’s Voice Education Fund aims to promote policies that create a fair and just immigration system that works for everyone. They believe in a policy framework that provides a pathway to citizenship for those who are currently undocumented, keeps families together, and ensures that immigrants who come to the United States are able to contribute to the country’s prosperity.

To achieve their goals, America’s Voice Education Fund runs various campaigns and initiatives that focus on advocacy and education around immigration policies. They provide policy guidance to policymakers and work to strengthen alliances with other organizations, including civil rights groups, labor unions, and faith-based groups. Additionally, America’s Voice Education Fund works to amplify the voices of immigrants and communities impacted by immigration policies.

Why is immigration reform important?

Immigration reform has been an important issue in the United States for several years. Currently, there are an estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants living in the country. These immigrants are often undocumented due to various reasons, such as overstayed visas, crossing the border without authorization, and fleeing violence or persecution in their home countries.

The current immigration process is lengthy, complicated, and often unpredictable, making it extremely difficult for individuals to gain citizenship. For undocumented immigrants in the US, there is no clear pathway to citizenship, which can result in them living in constant fear of deportation and a lack of access to basic services.

Immigrants are also an essential component of the US economy. They contribute to the workforce, pay taxes, and create new businesses that create jobs. The White House Council of Economic Advisers estimates that immigration reform would lead to an increase in economic output, higher wages for workers, and lower unemployment rates.

The debate on immigration reform

The debate around immigration reform is complex and multifaceted. Both Republicans and Democrats want to reform the immigration system, but they disagree on the specifics of what that reform should look like.

Republicans tend to be more focused on border security and are less keen on the idea of providing a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants. They have been advocating for various policies, including increased border security, stricter enforcement measures, and a ban on sanctuary cities. They also argue that immigrants are responsible for taking jobs away from American workers and driving down wages.

Democrats, on the other hand, tend to be more supportive of immigration reform that provides a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants. They argue that immigrants have always been an essential part of the country’s history and have contributed greatly to the economy. They also advocate for policies that promote family reunification and aim to reduce the backlog of visas.

Despite some areas of agreement, the debate around immigration reform has become increasingly contentious and partisan. It has also been complicated by the Trump administration’s approach to immigration policies, which has been characterized by policies and regulations that are more restrictive than previous administrations.

The Biden administration’s approach to immigration reform

The change in administration following the 2020 US Presidential election has signaled a significant shift in the direction of immigration policies in the United States. President Joe Biden has pledged to prioritize comprehensive immigration reform that provides a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, strengthens border security, and modernizes the immigration system.

The Biden administration has taken several steps to reverse the previous administration’s immigration policies, including ending the travel ban on predominantly Muslim countries, halting construction of the border wall, and ending the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP), which require asylum seekers to wait in Mexico while their cases are processed.

In early 2021, the Biden administration introduced a comprehensive immigration reform bill known as the U.S. Citizenship Act of 2021. This bill proposes several changes to the current immigration system, including a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, an increase in the number of visas available, and the reduction of wait times for processing visas. The bill also includes provisions that address border security, visa modernization, and family reunification.

Conclusion

Immigration reform remains a contentious issue in the United States, with opinions and viewpoints often divided along partisan lines. The America’s Voice Education Fund is one of the organizations at the forefront of promoting a fair and just immigration system. Through its advocacy and education campaigns, the organization aims to promote policies that provide a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, keep families together, and promote economic growth. As the Biden administration works to introduce comprehensive immigration reform, it is apparent that change is coming, and the role of organizations like the America’s Voice Education Fund will be vital in shaping the future of the country’s immigration policies.


After many months of bargaining and compromise, the so-called “Gang of Eight”, a bipartisan group of senators, has come up with legislation that promises to genuinely reform our immigration system. This legislation would tighten border security even further, expand legal immigration for the next 10 years, award more visas based on professional merit and education and grant legal status to the bulk of the 11 million undocumented immigrants in the United States.

(More on  News at LAWS.com, contact Adam for interviews “adama@laws.com”)

Supporters of this legislation feel that it finally brings some common sense to a broken immigration system. However, a conservative backlash against it has begun in the House. The backlash is specifically against the provision to legalize the status of the 11 million undocumented immigrants. The opponents of this reform in the House are hoping to thwart it through a strategy of dismemberment and delay. This is despite the fact that several prominent Republicans, such as Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla) who helped draft the bill in the Senate, have come out in support of it. And, a bipartisan group of House members is working behind the scenes to put together a bill that does include such a path to citizenship. Although details that are emerging suggest that even this legislation may be quite punitive in nature.

The debate on immigration is certainly contentious in our nation. The GOP’s line on immigration during the 2012 elections, has meant that the party has lost support among Latinos. According to one poll, some 58 percent of Latinos voters said that immigration was a top issue for them.

America’s Voice Education Fund is a national organization that aims to use the collective power of American values and American voices to help implement policy that would guarantee the civil, political and labor rights of immigrants and their families. America’s Voice Education Fund works with civil rights, progressive, labor and faith-based organizations to help enact the federal provision of the immigration reform legislation that would legalize the status of what they describe as “11 million Americans-in-waiting.”

The following is an interview with Lynn Tramonte, Deputy Director of America’s Voice Education Fund (AVEF), on her thoughts and feeling about the current immigration reform legislation and the work of her organization in the realm of immigration reform.

How do you feel about the immigration-reform bill being debated in the Senate?

I have to tell you, this moment we are in feels totally different from 2007 and 2006 and other times when a comprehensive immigration reform bill was being debated. There is so much diversity in support, not only for the general idea of immigration reform, but the specific components. I think that the politicians are seeing a convergence of a smart policy solution and a smart political act for them and for both parties. We are in a very special and rare point in time where the planets are coming into alignment and it looks like we will actually be able to do something this year. So that’s very exciting!

What are some of the changes you would like to see happen to U.S. immigration policy?

I think you are seeing a lot of excitement because the Senate bipartisan bill is a good compromise and it is a lot better than some of the other bipartisan, compromise bills that have been put forward in recent years. It is actually a true compromise, every senator that was part of the drafting had to give something up, and every senator got something. The border enforcement provisions, for example, are extreme. We have already essentially militarized the border, and we already achieved great results in securing the border and so much has been done over the last 20 years, and this adds billions more taxpayer dollars to that! More fencing, more agents, more technology and requirements that are very stringent – and that is not the bill we would have written, but that is the bill they came up with.

One of our core priorities is the path to citizenship provision for undocumented immigrants. Is it a real path? Is it achievable? Is it affordable? Is it timely? We are concerned that for the general population of immigrants without papers that it is going to take more than 13 years for them to work their way towards citizenship. That is a long time! Especially, when you consider that the vast majority of these immigrants have already been living in this country for years and even decades. More than 2/3 of Latino undocumented immigrants have been in the country more than 10 years. And a good percentage have been here for more than 20 years! These are a very rooted group of folks – they are Americans without the paperwork basically.

Some organizations on the other side of the aisle argue that illegal immigrants should not be given amnesty because entering the country illegally is not a victimless crime. They argue that illegal immigration is a drain on public funds and harms legal immigrants and Americans by taking away jobs they need. What is your response to this notion?

First of all, it is not amnesty if you have to earn it. For example, if you get a traffic ticket you have to pay your ticket, you are not given amnesty! You have to work through the rules to get the points off your licence, and, ultimately, in a couple of years you will have the points taken off. This is similar. They are paying a penance for having broken the law. It is not a crime to be in the United States without papers, it is only a civil offenSe. So this is not amnesty, they have to earn it and go through a long process.

Now, the idea of immigrants being a drain on the economy, this argument has been used for 200 years. If it were true, then why are we an immigrant nation? Why do we welcome immigrants? Why are immigrants more likely to start businesses and employ Americans than people who were born here? I do not think it rings true with our experiences of immigration that they are a drain. There are many studies that show that cities that have embraced have been revitalized economically. For example, in cities like Cleveland where I am from, that are experiencing a downturn, and they are looking for ways to welcome immigrants because they expand the tax base, start businesses and create jobs.

Now, it is true that some employers, especially in industries like farming, do exploit immigrant workers because they think they can get away with it. That is because immigrants do not complain, or if they do complain they do not how to exercise their legal rights, or they think they have less legal rights than Americans. But that is another driving factor behind immigration reform, which is that if people are working here they should have a legal status so they have more confidence and ability to exercise their legal rights.

What are some of the accomplishments of America’s Voice Education Fund?

We were created after the failure of the last comprehensive immigration bill, when we realized that most of the groups working on immigration reform were having a policy conversation in Washington, and the rest of the country was having a political conversation about immigration. Our opponents were then tapping into frustration across the nation with the broken immigration system and saying that that bolstered their position. So we were created to bring voice to challenge this idea that Americans are narrow minded and think that the right solution for this country is to make the 11 million immigrants without papers to leave. Our experience has been that that does not represent majority opinion.

One of the major accomplishments of not only America’s Voice Education Fund, but also more broadly the immigration reform movement is to realize that we have to harness our political power and use it! There have been many organizations that have worked to organize voters in the Asian, Latino, and other communities around the country and make a real impact on elections. And prove that the pro-immigrant voter is powerful! America’s Voice Education Fund helps to communicate that to the media. When the 2012 election results were called, people started talking about how Romney made a fatal mistake by embracing leading anti-immigrant figures and having a hard line on immigration. He basically, as one Republican strategist put it, self-deported himself from the White House.

If this legislation does not pass, what would be the next step for America’s Voice Education Fund?

There are opponents in the Senate, but more and more Republicans that used to be opposed are starting to take a second look at this reform. We still need to know what will happen in the House. There is a bipartisan working group in the House that is drafting a comprehensive bill. So at this point the key question is how will the House proceed? And which way does House leadership choose? Do they choose the narrow-minded backward looking bills that got Republicans into this predicament in the first place? Or do they choose the forward-thinking, bipartisan majority-consensus approach that actually matches up more with what the Senate is doing and can achieve a victory for the country and for their party? So that is the challenge that remains and we are focused on that. We do not have plan B right now, we are all in to get this bill done this year! This is our time, this is our window of opportunity and we are seizing it!

For more information on America’s Voice Education Fund, please visit their page. For more information on immigration law and news, please visit our Immigration Laws Page.

Interviewed with Lynn Tramonte of America’s Voice Education Fund, Washington, DC

The Importance of English in America – ProEnglish on Devising a Sensible Language Policy

The Importance of English in America - ProEnglish on Devising a Sensible Language Policy

The Importance of English in America – ProEnglish on Devising a Sensible Language Policy

The United States of America is a melting pot of different cultures from around the world. The diversity of languages spoken in the country serves as a testament to the success of the American Dream. However, English has become the primary language that unites everyone. It is the language of business, education, and everyday communication. The English language is essential in America, and ProEnglish believes in devising a sensible language policy to ensure that English remains the dominant language.

In this article, we will discuss the importance of English in America, its advantages, and the need for a language policy that encourages the use of English without discriminating against other languages or cultures.

The Advantages of Knowing English in America

The advantages of knowing English in America go beyond merely communicating effectively. The ability to speak English fluently opens up various opportunities for individuals, businesses, and immigrants.

Businesses rely on English for communication, advertising, and marketing. A majority of global businesses operate in the English language, and companies are more likely to hire employees who can communicate effectively in English. This is because an employee who is bilingual or multilingual can help the company in expanding into new international markets. In the long term, businesses that have employees who speak English fluently tend to be more profitable.

English has also become the universal language of the internet. According to an internet survey, over 56.1% of all internet content is in the English language. Therefore, knowing English enables internet users to browse the web without limitations, enabling them to access information on a global scale.

The ability to speak English fluently also helps immigrants in the United States to integrate into American society. The English language is necessary for the development of essential skills such as reading, writing, and problem-solving. Immigrants who can speak English can communicate with others, enroll in schools and colleges, and find employment opportunities.

However, the importance of English should not mean the marginalization of other languages spoken in America. Recognizing and respecting other languages is crucial in promoting diversity and inclusivity in the American society.

The Need for a Sensible Language Policy

ProEnglish advocates for a sensible language policy that does not discriminate against the use of other languages. The policy should encourage the use of English as the primary language of communication in businesses, public agencies, and educational institutions. Additionally, there should be support for English learners to help them become proficient in the language.

The creation of a sensible language policy does not mean that the government should prohibit the use of other languages. Rather it means promoting English proficiency in the American society while acknowledging the importance of other languages spoken in the country. The government has a role in ensuring that English remains the dominant language while respecting the country’s multilingual culture.

A sensible language policy could help immigrants in their assimilation into American society. By providing support to persons seeking proficiency in English, the government fosters inclusivity and equal opportunities for all regardless of their native languages.

Historical Evolution of Language Policy in America

The evolution of language policy in America has been a tumultuous one. In the 19th century, immigrants came in vast numbers to America, bringing with them their diverse cultures and languages. The common language spoken in America was English, but the immigrant languages were also used in communities.

As immigrants assimilated into American society, the need for English proficiency arose. In the 1920s, schools in America prohibited the use of languages other than English. Students caught using their native languages were punished. This was done to encourage English language acquisition and discourage the use of other languages.

During World War II, the United States military created the Army Specialized Training Program (ASTP) to teach soldiers foreign languages to be used in dropping leaflets. The program was eventually abolished due to concerns that teaching foreign languages to American soldiers would enable them to communicate with enemy forces.

The Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s brought changes in America’s language policy. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 ensured that people were not discriminated against on the basis of their language. Public institutions receiving federal funds were prohibited from discriminating against individuals who spoke languages other than English.

In 2000, President Clinton signed an executive order that required federal agencies to work towards providing services in languages other than English. This was an attempt by the government to ensure that non-native English speakers were not disadvantaged in acquiring services that were essential for their daily lives.

However, the need to promote English proficiency in America remains crucial. This is where ProEnglish comes in.

ProEnglish: Advocating for Sensible Language Policy in America

ProEnglish is an organization that advocates for English as the official language of the United States. The organization believes that English proficiency is necessary for the integration of immigrants into American society and for promoting business and social communications. ProEnglish believes that a sensible language policy that encourages English proficiency while acknowledging the importance of other languages spoken in America is necessary.

The organization offers resources such as online courses to help individuals acquire English proficiency. ProEnglish works with businesses, schools, and government agencies to promote the importance of English proficiency without discriminating against other languages spoken in America. The organization supports legal immigrants seeking English proficiency to help them integrate into the American society quickly.

The Role of the Government in Creating a Sensible Language Policy

The government has a crucial role in creating a sensible language policy that promotes English proficiency and acknowledges the importance of other languages spoken in America. The government can achieve this by offering resources that help individuals acquire English proficiency, creating laws that promote language diversity, and supporting communities that speak languages other than English.

To create a sensible language policy, the government should work towards providing support to individuals seeking English proficiency. This could be achieved by funding programs that help individuals learn English. In doing so, the government would be promoting inclusivity and a level playing field by ensuring that individuals who are not fluent in English have equal opportunities.

The government should also create laws that promote language diversity and protect individuals from being discriminated against on the basis of their language. This could be achieved by promoting bilingual education, recognizing language diversity in schools and workplaces, and ensuring that public services are available in languages other than English.

Finally, the government should support communities that speak languages other than English. Immigrants who retain their native languages often feel marginalized and isolated. The government could provide resources or funding to support the teaching of heritage languages in schools, enabling individuals to maintain their cultures and languages while acquiring English proficiency.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the importance of English in America cannot be overstated. English is the language of communication in businesses, education, and everyday life. It is essential in fostering integration among immigrants and promoting inclusivity in America. However, the need for English proficiency should not lead to the marginalization of other languages spoken in America.

A sensible language policy that promotes English proficiency while acknowledging the importance of other languages spoken in America is necessary. The government has a crucial role in creating a language policy that promotes language diversity, ensures inclusivity, and offers equal opportunities to everyone regardless of their native languages. ProEnglish advocates for a sensitive language policy that encourages English proficiency while recognizing the importance of language diversity in the American society.


Most studies have shown that the single most important factor in determining the economic success of immigrants in the United States is their ability to speak English. One study has shown that immigrants can increase their earnings by 20 percent by improving their English language speaking ability from “not well” to “very well.” Furthermore, the earnings gap between native-born Americans and immigrant narrows when English language ability improves dramatically – by 6 to 10 percent for women and 16 to 18 percent for men.

(More on  News at LAWS.com, contact Adam for interviews “adama@laws.com”)

In terms of long-established immigrants, those who have learned to speak English very well earn 67 percent more than those who speak it poorly. Also, in terms of education among the 18 to 24 year old contingent, those who speak English very well are almost three times more likely to finish high school than those who do not, and are naturally much more likely to earn a tertiary degree.

Beyond the obvious and well documented economic and educational benefits of speaking English well in America, the English language has served as a unifying force among Americans of all ethnicities and national origins for centuries. Americans practice a multitude of different religions, adhere to various different political ideologies, but language has always served as a common denominator among us. In the 18th century, Dutch settlers went through language shift and adopted English, the same process occurred among German immigrants in the 19th century and Japanese, Italian and Greek immigrants in the 20th century. The pattern has always been that immigrants come here speaking a new language, shift from usage of the old language to English and succeed and become part of the patchwork that is America. It is a winning formula to which we need to adhere so that we may continue to write the success story that is America.

Hence, the importance of the English language provision in the new immigration reform legislation that is being debated in Congress cannot be overstated. This provision would require that for undocumented immigrants to get on the path to citizenship, they would need to learn English and civics. Finally, a triumph of common sense over political correctness.

ProEnglish is a national, non-profit organization that supports making English the sole official language of the United States. ProEnglish works through the courts and even in the court of public opinion to protect the historic role of the English language as the United States’ unifying language and to lobby lawmakers to make English the official language at all governmental levels.

The following is an interview with Robert Vandervoort, Executive Director of ProEnglish, on his thoughts and feelings about the English language provision in the immigration reform legislation and the work of his organization in the realm of promoting and defending the status of the English language in America.

How do you feel about the immigration-reform bill being debated in Congress?

ProEnglish is concerned that the current immigration bill in Congress does not have any meaningful English language requirements.  In order to become a “Registered Provisional Immigrant”, which essentially legalizes millions of people who are not here legally at the moment; there are no English language requirements.  After receiving Registered Provisional Immigrant (RPI) status, they can then apply for a green card, which has some very weak English language requirements.  Our concern is that bringing in so many non-English speaking people at once into our system, without any meaningful requirement that they learn English, will place an enormous strain on our system.

Do you think the English language provision in the immigration-reform bill goes far enough to promote English language usage among immigrants?

We do not believe the English language requirements in the proposed bill go far enough.  There is no English language requirement to receive RPI status; however there are some weak English language requirements to receive a work visa.  For example, if an applicant can show they are enrolled in an English language class, which will meet the requirement.  They do not have to show they completed the class, or received a passing grade; they just have to show they are enrolled in a class.  There are also exemptions for people over the age of 70 and under the age of 16.  Finally, there is no in-person interview to determine if the applicant is proficient in English.

Two dozen states have English as an official language. What is the significance of this also happening at the federal level?

If your readers visit our website at ProEnglish.org, they will see a list of all the states that have official English.  Having states pass official English laws helps the taxpayer save money from avoiding unnecessary translation costs, and it also sends an important message that English is the language one needs to assimilate to.

What other steps would you like to see Congress take to promote English language knowledge and usage?

In the past, there have been bills defending English-in-the-workplace, so that business owners do not have to fear lawsuits if they wish to conduct their business in English.  We would like to see the repeal of Bill Clinton’s Executive Order 13166 which requires the federal government to provide translation services in any language to anyone.

There is also a need to get a full accounting on just how much money the federal government spends on translation costs.  To date, there was a limited study done by the federal government back in 2002, which found we spend over $2 billion on translation costs, but nothing new since.

We believe the government should discontinue the use of multilingual ballots, which are costly and do not promote assimilation or English language usage.  We would also like to see Congress promote English language immersion in the classrooms over bilingual education programs.  Studies show that bilingual education programs do not work compared to English language immersion programs.

Do you believe a common tongue among Americans, with that tongue being English, could serve as a great unifying force among us?

It’s very clear that having one language is a key component in bringing all Americans together.  If you look around the world, you see many places that are dividing over language issues.  For example, even our neighbors to the North, in Canada, are divided over language.  Much time and money is spent in Canada on translation costs of French and English.  Language divisions can be a source of friction, as is the case in Belgium and in Latvia.  We are very blessed to have a common tongue that helps us communicate with one another in all fifty states.  Yes, our common language of English is a great unifying force, and one we must work to preserve.

For more information on ProEnglish, please visit their page. For more information on immigration law and news, please visit our Immigration Laws Page.

Interviewed with Robert Vandervoort of ProEnglish, Arlington, Virginia

The American Immigration Control Foundation and the Debate on Immigration Reform

The American Immigration Control Foundation and the Debate on Immigration Reform

The American Immigration Control Foundation and the Debate on Immigration Reform

In the current political climate, immigration has become a hotly-debated and divisive issue. While proponents of immigration argue in favor of its many benefits, such as increased cultural diversity and economic growth, opponents argue that it can lead to economic instability and job loss for US citizens. The American Immigration Control Foundation (AICF) is one such organization that advocates for strict immigration control. In this article, we will delve into the history of the AICF, its policies, and its stance on immigration reform.

History of the AICF

The American Immigration Control Foundation was founded in 1983 by John Vinson, who served as the organization’s president until his death in 2014. The AICF has been involved in numerous political campaigns and grassroots movements to enact stricter immigration policies in the United States. Their website declares that they stand for reasonable and responsible limits on immigration, which they believe will preserve the quality of life in the United States and protect the country’s citizens.

The AICF has faced significant criticism for its policies, particularly from those who advocate for more open borders. Many critics argue that the AICF’s stance on immigration is rooted in xenophobia and racism. The organization has consistently prioritized the interests of US citizens over those of immigrants and refugees.

Policies of the AICF

The American Immigration Control Foundation supports immigration restrictions that would reduce the number of immigrants entering the United States, limit legal immigration opportunities and DACA program and increase deportation of individuals without legal status. They promote policies such as mandatory E-Verify, which mandates that employers check the legal status of their employees, and the elimination of birthright citizenship, which grants citizenship to anyone born in the United States.

The AICF also supports a reduction in both legal and illegal immigration, arguing that excessive immigration can lead to issues such as cultural conflict, unemployment and wage stagnation for US citizens. They argue that reducing immigration would protect national security and reduce crime rates since the FBI claims that immigrants have committed illegal activities in the past. They also oppose allowing refugees and asylum seekers into the United States, citing concerns that these individuals may pose a threat to national security.

Impact of the AICF

The American Immigration Control Foundation has been active in numerous campaigns and events that have shaped the national conversation around immigration. In 2016, the AICF filed an amicus brief in the United States Supreme Court case, United States v. Texas. This brief supported the legal standing for state officials to oppose the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, which grants temporary relief from deportation to certain undocumented immigrants who came to the United States as children. The Trump administration attempted to terminate the DACA program in 2017, but the U.S Supreme Court blocked that attempt and DACA still continues as of 2021.

The AICF’s policies have been supported by several conservative organizations, including the Center for Immigration Studies and the Federation for American Immigration Reform. These groups promote similar policies to the AICF and often work together to influence American immigration policy.

Criticism of the AICF

The American Immigration Control Foundation has faced significant criticism from those who believe that their policies are discriminatory and misguided. Critics argue that reducing immigration and denying opportunities to refugees and asylum seekers is morally reprehensible and goes against the values of the United States.

They further argue that the AICF’s policies are based on xenophobia and racism and that they put the interests of US citizens ahead of the interests of immigrants and refugees.

The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), which tracks hate groups and other extremist organizations, has labeled the AICF as a hate group. This classification is based on the AICF’s promotion of anti-immigrant sentiments and policies that are seen as discriminatory and harmful to people beyond an individual’s control like their place of birth or economic status.

Immigration Reform Today

The current presidential administration has focused heavily on immigration reform, announcing several significant changes to American immigration policy in the past year. In January 2021, President Joe Biden signed a series of executive orders aimed at reforming the United States’ immigration system. These executive orders included, reversing the Trump era’s Muslim Ban, halting the funding of the border wall, stopping family separation at the border and providing a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants. However, these executive orders led to massive influx of unaccompanied minors at the US southern border and the administration responded by deploying National guard troops and consulate officials to combat the problem.

Immigration reform remains a highly contentious issue in American politics, and the policies of the AICF are just one part of the broader debate. While some argue in favor of more open borders and a more welcoming approach to immigrants, others advocate for tighter control and greater restriction which AICF supports. Regardless of the outcome, it is clear that immigration will continue to be a hotly-debated issue that will shape the future of the United States for many years to come.

Conclusion

The American Immigration Control Foundation has been at the forefront of the immigration debate in the United States for more than three decades. The organization’s policies and positions on immigration have been met with significant criticism, with some labeling them as discriminatory and immoral. However, the AICF continues to advocate for reduced immigration and strict controls on the number of people entering the United States. As the country continues to grapple with immigration reform, the debate over the AICF’s policies will undoubtedly remain a significant topic of discussion for years to come.


The so-called bipartisan “Gang of Eight” senators have come up with legislation that they say will truly reform our immigration system. This legislation would allow more legal immigration over the next 10 years, tighten border security, award more visas based on education and professional credentials and controversially grant legal status to the 11 million undocumented immigrants who entered the United States illegally.

(More on  News at LAWS.com, contact Adam for interviews “adama@laws.com”)

Supporters of this legislation feel that it fixes an immigration system that is broken. However, a conservative backlash against it has begun in the House. The backlash is specifically against the provision to grant a path to citizenship to the 11 million undocumented immigrants. After all, these people committed a civil offense and broke the law, and the United States has not been historically known for rewarding deviance. Those who oppose this reform in the House are hoping to thwart the legislation through a strategy of delay and dismemberment. Some Republicans, such as Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla) who was involved in the drafting of the bill in the Senate, have supported it. And, a bipartisan group of House members is working behind the scenes to draft a bill that does have such a path to citizenship.

The debate on immigration is certainly contentious in our nation. However, a recent Pew Research poll has shown that perhaps the Gang of Eight is out of touch with what Americans truly want. This poll reveals that 55 percent of Americans oppose granting citizenship to those 11 million who entered the United States illegally. And among the group that intuitively would seem most supportive of such a path to citizenship, Hispanics, only 49 percent support such a measure.

The AIC Foundation is a national organization that is among the oldest immigration reform organizations in the country. The AIC Foundation’s membership includes Americans of many different ethnic groups and national origins. Its membership has a deeply-rooted commitment to preserving our American heritage, and the AIC Foundation aims to educate other fellow Americans about the disastrous consequences of an irresponsible immigration policy. In order to raise public awareness about the issue, the AIC Foundation has distributed and produced many different books, pamphlets, monographs and videos.

The following is an interview with John Vinson, President of the AIC Foundation, on his views on the current immigration reform legislation being debated in the Senate and the work of his organization in the realm of immigration reform.

What are your views on the immigration-reform bill being debated in the Senate?

The Senate bill, with amnesty for almost all illegal aliens in the U.S. and a pathway for them to become citizens, is basically an effort by left-wing Democrats to create a larger voting bloc for themselves and an effort by business-interest Republicans to secure more cheap labor. In addition to the amnesty, the bill significantly increases the number of legal immigrants and guest workers. This comes at a time when more than 20 million Americans can’t find full-time employment.

By rewarding law breaking with amnesty, the bill will encourage more law breaking, as indeed has been the case with previous amnesties. In such fashion we undermine the United States as a nation under the rule of law.

Most disturbing about the bill is the gross dishonesty of its sponsors. As one example they are trying to make the public think that it will guarantee effective enforcement in exchange for amnesty. In truth, however, it only offers promises of enforcement. Given the broken promise of enforcement after the 1986 amnesty and the indifference of the Obama Administration to enforcement today, we can be quite sure that these current promises are no better than the paper they’re written on.

To sum up, this legislation reflects an anti-national agenda conceived by elites who seem too little concern for the broad mass of American citizens

What are some of the changes you would like to see happen to U.S. immigration policy?

One change we’d love to see is simple enforcement on the immigration laws already on the books, rather than the systematic subversion of enforcement we have now. With respect to legal immigration, we would recommend a reduction from the current level of about one million a year to about 250,000 per year. The current level is overwhelming our powers of assimilation and creating a very divisive form of diversity.

Do you think it would be a better policy to change our immigration system so that more highly-skilled workers are permitted rather than low-skilled workers?

A policy bringing in more highly skilled workers would be preferable to what we have now. Nevertheless, we believe that the “shortage” of high-tech and other skilled workers is greatly exaggerated by companies that prefer to hire foreigners for lower wages than U.S. workers would receive. As national policy, we should make sure that the American job market gives preference to American workers.

What are some of the major accomplishments of the American Immigration Control Foundation?

We have presented millions of Americans with viewpoints on immigration commonly ignored or suppressed by the mass media. Our influence has encouraged debate and reflection on this important topic. Specifically, we believe, our influence has restrained some of the more radical agendas of open-border and mass immigration advocates.

If this legislation does pass, what would be the next step for the American Immigration Control Foundation?

If legislation so wrong and destructive as this should pass, it will raise serious questions as to whether we still have a government by and for the people. In any case, we will continue our educational efforts in hope for future changes.

For more information on the American Immigration Control Foundation, please visit their page. For more information on immigration law and news, please visit our Immigration Laws Page.

Interviewed with John Vinson of the AIC Foundation, Monterey, Virginia.

Polish Fugitive Deported for Extortion, Kidnapping, and Murder

Polish Fugitive Deported for Extortion, Kidnapping, and Murder

Who is the Polish Fugitive Deported for Extortion, Kidnapping, and Murder?

On May 31, 2021, a Polish fugitive was deported from the United States and transferred to Polish authorities. The man, identified as Jaroslaw Jarzabek, was wanted for extortion, kidnapping, and murder charges in Poland.

Background of the Polish Fugitive

Jaroslaw Jarzabek was a member of a criminal gang involved in extortion, kidnapping, and murder in Poland. He fled the country in 2013 and went into hiding, evading the Polish authorities for several years.

In 2017, Polish authorities issued an arrest warrant for Jarzabek, who was suspected of being involved in the murder of a businessman in 2011. The victim was allegedly killed as a result of a business dispute with Jarzabek and his associates.

After several years on the run, Jarzabek was located in the United States and arrested by U.S. authorities in 2019, following a joint investigation with Polish law enforcement.

Deportation and Extradition of the Polish Fugitive

After his arrest, Jarzabek was held in U.S. custody pending deportation to Poland. He had been fighting extradition, but his appeals were denied, and he was finally transferred to Polish authorities on May 31, 2021.

Upon his return to Poland, Jarzabek will face trial for his alleged involvement in extortion, kidnapping, and murder.

Implications of the Deportation and Extradition

The deportation and extradition of Jaroslaw Jarzabek sends a clear message that the U.S. authorities will not tolerate criminals seeking refuge in the country. The case also highlights the importance of international cooperation in the fight against transnational crime.

The successful deportation and extradition of Jarzabek would not have been possible without the cooperation and coordination between U.S. and Polish law enforcement agencies.

Moving Forward: Addressing Transnational Crime

The deportation and extradition of Jaroslaw Jarzabek serve as a reminder of the need for international cooperation to combat transnational crime. Criminal organizations operate across national borders, making their activities difficult to track and prosecute.

It is important for law enforcement agencies around the world to work together to investigate and prosecute criminal activity, particularly in cases that involve transnational crime and fugitives seeking refuge in other countries.

Conclusion: The Importance of Collaboration in Combatting Transnational Crime

The deportation and extradition of Jaroslaw Jarzabek highlight the importance of international collaboration in combatting transnational crime. Criminals seeking refuge in other countries must be held accountable for their actions, and law enforcement agencies must work together to bring them to justice.

The successful operation between U.S. and Polish law enforcement agencies to deport and extradite Jarzabek serves as an example of what can be achieved through international cooperation in the fight against crime.


On October 16, 2012, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) announced that Dariusz Gordziejczyk was turned over to Polish law enforcement because he is wanted for extortion, kidnapping, and attempted murder in his home country.  The deportation was handled by the ICE’s Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO).

The original arrest warrant was issued for Gordziejczyk on September 14, 2001 by the Bialystok Criminal Court for the charges listed above.  The arrest warrant stated that Gordziejczyk and co-defendants beat a man in 1999 in order to extort money, but the man eventually escaped.  Gordziejczyk was sentenced to two years in prison for the crime.

Gordziejczyk and co-defendants also kidnapped a man in 1999.  They drove the man to a patch of woods, covered him in gasoline, and threatened to light him on fire unless he turned over his BMW.  He was sentenced to four years of this crime as well, but he fled to the United States before he was supposed to serve his prison time.

He fled to the United States in February of 2006 on a visitor’s visa, and he stayed in the United States after his visa expired in February of the following year.

ICE’s Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) received a tip from the FBI that Gordziejczyk was believed to be living in Chicago.  The HSI special agents found Gordziejczyk on July 12, 2011 in River Grove, Illinois.

Gordziejczyk was ordered to leave the country on March 19, 2012.  He appealed the sentence in July of 2012, but the Board of Immigration Appeals denied the appeal.  He will begin serving his sentence immediately.

Ricardo Wong, the ERO Chicago field office director, stated: “This individual tried to escape justice in Poland for the crimes he committed there.  On a daily basis, ICE protects public safety by arresting and removing international fugitives who pose a threat to our communities.”

Source: U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

Louisiana Business Owner Guilty of Alien Money Laundering

Louisiana Business Owner Guilty of Alien Money Laundering

Louisiana Business Owner Guilty of Alien Money Laundering

In the world of business, there are legal and ethical ways to grow your enterprise. However, some business owners resort to illegal means of earning profits, such as money laundering. In 2019, a Louisiana business owner was convicted of alien money laundering, which is a violation of federal law.

In this article, we will discuss the details of this case, including what led to the businessman’s conviction, the penalties he received, and how this case relates to the broader issue of money laundering. Additionally, we’ll provide updated information on this topic, including data from recent government reports.

What is Alien Money Laundering?

Alien money laundering is a particular type of money laundering that involves the transfer of money from a foreign country to the United States. The term alien in this context refers to any person who is not a citizen of the United States or a lawful permanent resident.

The illegal activity is a violation of the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA), which requires financial institutions to report any suspicious transactions to the government. The BSA is a federal law that requires banks, credit unions, and other financial institutions to assist U.S. government agencies in preventing money laundering, and other financial crimes.

In the United States, the BSA requires that financial institutions file a Currency Transaction Report (CTR) for any transaction involving more than $10,000 in cash.

Any transaction that does not comply with the CTR regulations raises a red flag, potentially subjecting the parties involved to an investigation. Alien money laundering activities are frequently conducted through shell companies to hide the true source of the cash.

The Case of the Louisiana Businessman

In 2019, a Louisiana businessman, Afeez Adebara, was found guilty of Alien Money Laundering in a federal court in New Orleans. Adebara operated a series of convenience stores in New Orleans and the surrounding cities. He was accused of laundering money from Nigeria through his stores in the United States to avoid detection by the U.S. authorities.

According to the indictment, starting from 2013 and continuing up until about 2016, Adebara conspired with others to structure cash deposits into bank accounts, circumventing federal reporting requirements.

He created straw companies that he used to move the funds, including remittance companies, travel agencies, and internet service providers. Adebara used these companies to transfer funds from Nigeria to the United States, and then deposited them into his business bank accounts, which he used to run his convenience stores.

The investigation revealed that Adebara would withdraw the funds through ATM withdrawals, cash deposits from other accounts, or by writing checks. Adebara was expectant that this method would help him hide the true source of the funds and avoid detection from authorities.

The investigation was carried out collaboratively by the Internal Revenue Service’s Criminal Investigation Division, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and Homeland Security Investigations. They found that Adebara moved millions of dollars in cash through shell companies over three years, indicating his commitment to the illegal activity.

The Charges and Outcome of the Case

Adebara was charged with six counts of money laundering and one count of conspiracy to commit money laundering. He pleaded not guilty to these charges, but the charges against him were significant.

The penalty for money laundering can be severe, and in Adebara’s case, the maximum sentence for each count was 20 years in prison and a $500,000 fine. Adebara’s case was also notable because he was the first person in the U.S. to be convicted of alien money laundering, a type of money laundering not very common in the United States.

Following the trial conclusion in 2019, Adebara was convicted on all counts, and he received a sentence of 87 months of imprisonment and up to three years of supervised release. He was also ordered to pay a $50,000 fine.

The judge on the case, Judge Eldon E. Fallon, reaffirmed the implications of the case in his closing remarks. He reiterated that the Act strikes a blow against the illegal movement of money across our borders and that the sentence sends a significant message of deterrence to the crime of alien money laundering.

Implications of the Adebara Case

The case against Adebara illustrates the severity of money laundering in the United States and the use of illicit means to build a business empire. Adebara’s scheme shows that money launderers will go to any lengths to hide the source of their cash and avoid the attention of the authorities.

These cases indicate the importance of being vigilant in the fight against money laundering to maintain the integrity of the U.S. financial system. It should also encourage the government and financial institutions to tighten their compliance procedures to identify suspicious activities earlier.

The U.S. Government Response to Money Laundering

The U.S. government is continuously working to combat money laundering and extends it through a broad range of efforts. The Bank Secrecy Act, which Adebara violated, requires financial institutions to report any suspicious transactions to the government.

Additionally, the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 provided new procedures for reporting suspicious activity and strengthened penalties for money laundering offenses. This law and the regulations that followed put pressure on banks and other financial institutions to do a better job of detecting illicit activities, particularly through the Know Your Customer (KYC) initiative.

KYC is a crucial component of combating money laundering and terrorist financing. It requires banks and other financial institutions to identify their customers, verify their identities and evaluate their risk levels.

In 2019, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) of the U.S. Department of the Treasury issued new guidance on Beneficial Ownership information that financial institutions must obtain from their customers.

The guidance clarifies that a bank must identify and verify the identity of any beneficial owner who owns 25% or more of the legal entity and controls it. This requirement, which is an extension of the Know Your Customer initiative, is to help identify criminals who use legal entities to move money across borders.

Conclusion

The Adebara case shows that money laundering is a severe crime in Louisiana and the United States as a whole. It also highlights the importance of financial institutions, law enforcement agencies, and the federal government working proactively and collaboratively to combat financial crimes.

Today, financial institutions are encouraged to implement an AML program that mitigates the risk of violations. Investing in technology solutions, coupled with human capital, can help institutions monitor transactions and applications more effectively.

Moreover, understanding red flags, suspicious patterns, and criminal behavior can significantly reduce the risk of financial and reputational damages.

The U.S. government is taking extensive measures to combat money laundering. As a business owner, it is your responsibility to report suspicious activities to law enforcement agencies and review your AML policies. Any violation can cost your business its reputation, capital, and freedom. So, it is essential to stay informed of the latest regulations, industry practices and report any suspicious activity that comes your way.


On November 13, 2012, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) announced that a Louisiana construction business and its owner pleaded guilty to laundering more than $280,000 for illegal aliens that were harbored and employed at work sites for the company.  The investigation was led by ICE’s Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), and the guilty plea was announced last Thursday.

The owner of Rendon Construction LLC is Ramon Santos, and he is from Kenner, Louisiana.  He pleaded guilty to one count of conspiring to engage in money laundering.  He now faces a maximum prison sentence of 20 years and a fine up to $250,000.  His company is subject to five years of probation and a $500,000 fine.

Court documents show that Santos and his company knew they were employing illegal aliens.  They also encouraged the workers to recruit other illegal aliens.  The construction company was able to pay the illegal works in cash by passing funds through a shell company in order to hide the true nature of the payments.  The money laundering occurred between April and July of 2011.

The shell company was called Diablo Construction.  The company had not assets or employees, and Santos wrote a total of 12 checks from Rendon Construction to Diablo Construction throughout the scheme.  He proceeded to cash the checks with a check-cashing service and then pay the illegal aliens.

Raymond R. Parmer, the special agent in charge of HSI New Orleans, stated: “Companies that violate federal law by paying workers illegally ‘under the table’ seek to gain an unfair advantage over legitimate businesses that play by the rules.  This practice denies job opportunities to law-abiding citizens and deprives federal, state and local governments the tax revenue needed to provide the essential services we all rely on.

Santos is scheduled for sentencing on February 15, 2013.

Source: U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

2 Easy Methods to Check a Visa Status

2 Easy Methods to Check a Visa Status

2 Easy Methods to Check a Visa Status

A visa is a document that allows individuals to enter or stay in a country, temporarily or permanently. Immigration laws in different countries require people who intend to visit, study, work, or live in their territory to obtain a visa. Applying for a visa can be a complicated process, and waiting for the outcome can be stressful. Checking the visa status helps to ease the anxiety and provides information on the application progress. Suppose you are wondering about your visa status and don’t know how to go about it. In that case, this article provides two easy methods to check your visa status.

Method 1: Check Online through Government Resources

One of the most efficient and straightforward methods of checking your visa status is through the government authorized online resources. This method involves logging into the website of the relevant embassy, consulate, visa application center (VAC), or immigration department. These websites provide updates on visa applications and enable applicants to check their status from anywhere and at any time. The following are the steps to follow:

Step 1: Collect the Required Information

Before visiting any website to check your visa status, it’s essential to gather all the necessary information for your application. The required documents will differ depending on the type of visa you are applying for and the country where you applied. However, the following information will be standard for most visa applications:

– Your passport number
– Your application reference number or Unique Application Number (UAN)
– Your full name as it appears on your passport

It’s advisable to keep this information safe and secure during your application process, as it will be critical when checking your visa status.

Step 2: Log into the Website

Once you have collected all the required information, the next step is to log into the website of the relevant embassy, consulate, VAC, or immigration department. Each of these sites will have a different layout and user interface. However, the process to check the visa status will typically follow the same steps. For example, if you applied for a United States visa, you can log into the Department of State’s Consular Electronic Application Center (CEAC) website.

Step 3: Check Your Visa Status

After logging into the website, you will be redirected to the visa status section. This section will enable you to check the progress of your visa application by entering the required information you collected in step one. Once you provide the necessary information, you will get a response indicating the status of your visa application. Depending on the website, the response may be in real-time or it may take several days to get an update.

Step 4: Follow the Instructions

If you receive a response that your visa application is still under process, you must wait for further instructions on the website. Sometimes, you may have to submit additional documentation or attend an interview. It’s crucial to follow the instructions given and respond promptly. If you receive a response that your visa application is successful, you will be provided with a specific time frame to collect your visa at the embassy, consulate, VAC, or immigration department.

Method 2: Check through Helpline or Customer Service

Another easy way to check your visa status is by contacting the helpline or customer service of the relevant embassy, consulate, VAC, or immigration department. This method is suitable if you are unable to check your visa status online for any reason. The following steps will guide you:

Step 1: Identify the Relevant Helpline or Customer Service

Different countries have different customer service hotlines and helplines that are available to answer queries related to visa applications. You can do a quick online search or contact the embassy or consulate near you to get the helpline or customer service number.

Step 2: Provide the Required Information

When you call the helpline or customer service, you will be required to provide some information to identify your visa application. This information will be similar to the one required when using the online method. Make sure to have your passport number, UAN, and full name as it appears on your passport ready.

Step 3: Ask for Your Visa Status

Once the customer service representative or helpline operator confirms your identity and verifies your details, you can ask them for your visa status. They will provide you with the relevant information about the progress of your visa application and answer any further queries you may have.

Step 4: Follow the Instructions

If you receive a response that your visa application is still under process, you must wait for further instructions from the embassy, consulate, VAC, or immigration department. On the other hand, if you receive a response that your visa application is successful, you will be provided with specific instructions on collecting your visa.

Conclusion

Checking your visa status should not be a daunting task. The two methods discussed in this article offer simple ways of monitoring your visa application progress, providing updates, and enabling you to make decisions or necessary arrangements based on the outcome. Whether you choose to check your visa status online or through helpline or customer service, it’s essential to provide the required information accurately and follow the instructions given by the embassy, consulate, VAC, or immigration department. With a little patience and persistence, you will stay up to date with your visa status and make the most of your travel or stay in another country.


Subsequent to the submission of a visa application, resources provided by the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) provides individual applicant with the opportunity to monitor their visa status.

Checking Visa Status

There exist two primary methods in which one can check their respective visa status; through physical correspondence – including the postal service and phone calls to the USCIS – or through electronic correspondence through the USCIS website.

1. Visa status can attained through the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services Bureau by contacting them at their toll-free telephone number (800) 375-5283 or mailing them at the location to which the visa application has been sent.

2. The USCIS website has allowed for advances to be made with regard to the process of checking visa status; latent within the online visa status check procedure are a number of steps that must be undergone prior to any decisive measure in regards to visa applications:

• The acceptance of the application is the first step beginning the process of visa status checking; this step ensures that the USCIS has received an individual applicant – subsequent to the receipt of an application, the application will begin the review process

• The initial review process entails the performance of a background check and case details with regard to the applicant and the individual visa application

• A request for evidence is a potential occurrence within the visa status checking process; the request for evidence occurs in the event that the USCIS review board requires additional information and/or documentation regarding the applicant

• A request for evidence response review occurs upon receipt of the documents requested by the USCIS

• The testing and interview stage of the visa application process is also the midpoint of any gauging of visa status; in this stage, the applicant is interviewed and tested in order to determine the quality of character, mastery of English language, and a comprehension on the part of the applicant with regard to American legislation

• The decision process occurs as the USCIS review board decides on a final verdict with regard to an individual applicant; at this time, the board settles on a motion of either approval or denial

• The post decision activity stage is one where the applicant’s visa status has been approved and the applicant is subsequently made aware of this approval

• The oath ceremony occurs in the event that the applicant has responded to the notification that their application for a visa status has been approved; the applicant will be asked to take an oath of allegiance to the United States

• The card and documentation stage is the final stage of the visa status process; upon approval and satisfaction of the oath,  the applicant has satisfied their respective visa status application and can receive physical documentation of their visa

• Inquiries regarding statuses apart from visa status can be made with regard to N-400 applications – the application for naturalization, as well as to I-90 applications to replace missing, lost, or stolen residency cards and/or documentation.

President Obama: “Immigration Reform is a Top Priority”

President Obama: “Immigration Reform is a Top Priority” The Importance of Immigration Reform

Immigration reform has been a critical topic in the United States for many years. However, it became a top priority during President Barack Obama’s administration. With an estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants residing in the country, Obama highlighted the significance of comprehensive immigration reform during his presidency. This article will discuss President Obama’s stance on immigration reform and how his administration tried to address the issue.

Obama’s Vision for Comprehensive Immigration Reform

President Obama believed in the importance of a comprehensive approach to immigration reform. In 2010, he proposed a plan that included border security, reform of the legal immigration system, and a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants. Obama’s vision was to address the root causes of illegal immigration while providing a clear path for individuals to become citizens.

Deportation Reform

President Obama also emphasized the need for reform of the deportation process. He aimed to focus on prioritizing deportations of violent criminals instead of non-violent undocumented immigrants. His administration also established the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, which provided deportation relief and work permits for young undocumented immigrants who met certain criteria, such as arriving in the United States as children.

Challenges Faced by the Obama Administration

Despite his efforts, President Obama faced significant challenges in achieving comprehensive immigration reform during his presidency. Much of the opposition came from Republicans in Congress who blocked his attempts to pass immigration reform laws. Many Republicans believed that Obama’s proposals amounted to amnesty for undocumented immigrants. This political gridlock meant that Obama relied on executive actions to make reforms, which were met with legal challenges.

Obama’s Legacy on Immigration Reform

Despite these challenges, President Obama was able to make some significant changes to the immigration system during his tenure. Under his administration, the number of deportations decreased, and the DACA program provided relief for many young undocumented immigrants. Obama’s advocacy for immigration reform also helped raise the public’s awareness and interest in the issue.

Conclusion: Obama’s Call for Immigration Reform

In conclusion, immigration reform was a top priority for President Barack Obama during his presidency. He believed in a comprehensive approach to addressing the issue, including border security, legal immigration reform, and a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants. His administration faced numerous political hurdles, but he still managed to make reforms through executive actions. Obama’s legacy on immigration reform is one of advocacy and attempts to address one of the most pressing issues facing the United States today.


President Barack Obama claims that passing a comprehensive immigration reform is still a “top priority” for his administration.

Although Obama has expressed the supreme nature of immigration reform, he has yet to offer a plan for passing legislation through Congress. Obama blames Republican opposition for the lack of development on the issue.
Obama says that Republicans who once supported immigration reform have now altered their stances. He claims that the administration’s approach is to push vacillating Republicans to work with Democrats in order to advance progress.

President Obama is holding numerous roundtable discussions with minority leaders and taking questions submitted by voters online concerning the issue. Democrats see minorities, especially Hispanics, as a key constituency in the upcoming 2012 election. A strong majority of Hispanic voters supported Obama’s election in 2008, but his support among Hispanics has since declined.

Last month, President Obama announced a full-fledged imitative to ease deportation policies. This stance; however, is not wholly backed by the President’s actions—the Obama administration has sent over 1 million illegal immigrants back to their home lands in the last 2.5 years (a pace that doubles the Bush administration’s).

This seeming contradiction between reality and rhetoric is a primary element of debate regarding the United States’ immigration policy—a subject that will continue to spark fervent debate up until the 2012 Presidential elections.