Return-Path: <nifl-esl@literacy.nifl.gov>
Received: from literacy (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id f5LMvMf16824; Thu, 21 Jun 2001 18:57:22 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 18:57:22 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <B757E4FD.1BE%azbecker@mindspring.com>
Errors-To: listowner@literacy.nifl.gov
Reply-To: nifl-esl@literacy.nifl.gov
Originator: nifl-esl@literacy.nifl.gov
Sender: nifl-esl@literacy.nifl.gov
Precedence: bulk
From: Aliza Becker <azbecker@mindspring.com>
To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-esl@literacy.nifl.gov>
Subject: [NIFL-ESL:6198] FW: Immigration Polic Update
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Status: O
Content-Length: 9311
Lines: 194
------ Forwarded Message
From: "Maurice Belanger" <Mbelanger@immigrationforum.org>
Reply-To: <Mbelanger@immigrationforum.org>
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 18:19:41 -0400
To: <mbelanger@immigrationforum.org>
Subject: Immigration Polic Update
National Immigration Forum
Date: June 21, 2001
To: Forum Associates and interested advocates
From: Maurice Belanger
Re: Immigration Policy Update
----------------------------------------------------
CONTENT
1. House Immigration Subcommittee holds hearing on temporary workers
2. Texas bill enacted enabling undocumented resident students to obtain
in-state tuition
3. BIA defines “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” for
cancellation
of removal
4. Federal Register items
----------------------------------------------------
IN THE HOUSE - Immigration Subcommittee hearing on temporary workers
On June 19, the House Immigration Subcommittee held a hearing on the issue
of temporary workers. Keeping with a new rule in the House, the hearing
consisted of one panel of witnesses, and members of the subcommittee present
were allowed one five-minute round of questioning each.
Overall, witness were skeptical of guest worker programs. First to testify
was Susan Martin, formerly the staff director for the Commission on
Immigration Reform and now Director of the Institute for the Study of
International Migration at Georgetown University. She said that in her
research, temporary worker programs do not serve as a substitute for illegal
immigration. In her opinion, there are three conditions under which a
temporary worker program might work, all of which do not exist now. First,
the nation must have brought illegal immigration under control. Otherwise,
temporary workers will try to stay here beyond the contemplated period of
the program, and fill permanent jobs. Second, we must take steps over time
to reduce employer dependence on temporary workers. Third, there must be
"more than adequate" labor protections for temporary workers, and the
enforcement resources to back up those protections.
Randel Johnson, of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and also representing the
Essential Workers Immigration Coalition, reminded the Subcommittee that
demographic projections indicate that labor force growth is not expected to
match the number of jobs created over the next several years. The shortfall
of workers, he pointed out, is not just in the high-tech sector. Among the
inadequacies of current law, from the perspective of business, is the
cumbersome nature of the H-2B (non-agricultural) temporary worker program
and the very low level of permanent visas available for lesser-skilled
workers. Any temporary worker program, he said, would have to answer the
question of what to do when an employer and employee want to turn the
temporary position into a permanent one.
Mark Krikorian, of the Center for Immigration Studies, an organization that
favors greater restrictions on immigration, said that a temporary worker
programs should not be pursued for a variety of reasons. Among them, a
temporary worker program skews the labor market by reducing the need to
attract workers with higher wages and better benefits; temporary workers are
not really temporary in practice; and the program would not be
administratively feasible, given that the INS is already overwhelmed with
its workload.
Cecilia Munoz, of the National Council of La Raza, noted that her
organization generally has opposed temporary worker programs, but this has
usually been in the context of agricultural temporary worker legislation
that has been proposed in the past few years, where workers would be
afforded virtually no protections under our labor laws and would be at the
mercy of abusive employers. It is possible that the broader discussion of
temporary workers now taking place might move in a different direction. She
articulated principles that her organization has developed by which a new
discussion on temporary workers might take place. These include the
recognition that temporary worker programs are not a viable long-term policy
option. Any temporary worker program must include U.S. labor law protection
of participant workers and the enforcement of those laws, the freedom of
workers to change employers, the ability of workers to keep their families
with them, and an avenue for workers to adjust their status if they wish to
remain in the U.S. permanently. Finally, a temporary worker program must
address the issue of undocumented workers already in the U.S. workforce.
Testimony of the witnesses can be obtained on the website of the House
Immigration Subcommittee at: http://www.house.gov/judiciary/6.htm
There currently is no bill on temporary workers being considered by the
House. However, the outcome of talks between the U.S. and Mexican
governments may include a proposal for a temporary worker program of some
sort. A report stemming from the current bi-national negotiations is
expected in September.
IN THE STATES - Texas offers in-state tuition rates to undocumented
college-bound students
On June 17, Texas Governor Rick Perry (R) signed a bill that clarifies that
a student shall be considered a resident of the state if the student resided
in the state for at least three years prior to graduating from a Texas High
School or received an equivalent degree. The law eliminates for
undocumented students the fiction that they are not residents despite having
lived in the state for many years, and will provide them with the
opportunity to attend a Texas institution of higher learning at the in-state
tuition rates.
A bill has been introduced at the federal level that will make it possible
for all states to offer in-state tuition rates to resident children
regardless of their immigration status, and will provide certain
undocumented immigrant students an opportunity to adjust their status.
[That bill, H.R. 1918, was mentioned in a previous update and we will keep
you posted as it moves its way through Congress.]
FIX 96 - Board of Immigration Appeals defines “exceptional and extremely
unusual hardship”
The 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Accountability Act changed
the terms by which undocumented immigrants who had developed roots in the
U.S. might gain a reprieve from deportation if they were placed in
deportation proceedings. The procedure is now called cancellation of
removal and is available only to those who have been in the U.S. for ten
years or more, and who can show that their removal from the U.S. would cause
“exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” for a U.S. citizen or permanent
resident family member.
In a May 4th decision regarding the case of Francisco Javier
Monreal-Aguinaga, the Board of Immigration Appeals defined "exceptional and
extremely unusual hardship." The following is taken from a synopsis of the
decision.
(1) To establish “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship,” an applicant
for cancellation of removal ... must demonstrate that his or her spouse,
parent, or child would suffer hardship that is substantially beyond that
which would ordinarily be expected to result from the alien’s deportation,
but need not show that such hardship would be “unconscionable.”
(2) ... an applicant for cancellation of removal must demonstrate hardship
beyond that which has historically been required in suspension of
deportation cases involving the “extreme hardship” standard.
(3) In establishing eligibility for cancellation of removal, only hardship
to qualifying relatives, not to the applicant himself or herself, may be
considered, and hardship factors relating to the applicant may be considered
only insofar as they might affect the hardship to a qualifying relative.
The decision reaffirms the need to fix the 1996 immigration law so that an
immigration judge might meaningfully distinguish between those with deep
roots here and who have been contributing to our country and those with few
roots here.
The decision can be obtained on the Board of Immigration Appeal's website
at:
http://www.usdoj.gov/eoir/efoia/bia/Decisions/Revdec/pdfDEC/3447.pdf. To
read it, you will need Adobe Acrobat Reader, which you can obtain at:
http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/.
FROM THE FEDERAL REGISTER
[If you are interested in the details of any of the items mentioned below,
you can (unless otherwise noted) find the complete Federal Register notices
by first going to the website of the Federal Register at
http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/aces/aces140.html, and searching on the
word "immigration" for the specific date of publication of the notice.]
On June 15, both the State Department's Bureau of Consular Affairs and the
INS published interim rules removing Russia from the list of countries whose
nationals are not eligible to transit without a visa.
On June 18, the State Department's Bureau of Consular Affairs published a
final rule amending the visa classification system, adding new symbols ("T"
trafficking visas and "V" visas, for example) and deleting some obsolete
categories.
==============================
Maurice Belanger
Senior Policy Associate
National Immigration Forum
E-Mail: mbelanger@immigrationforum.org
Web: http://www.immigrationforum.org
------ End of Forwarded Message
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Jan 18 2002 - 11:30:47 EST