Corporations-are-not-people.jpgAt least by 1602 with the chartering of the Dutch East India Company, and perhaps as early as the 1300s with the formation of the first colleganza, a rudimentary joint-stock company set up in Venice to share the cost of a trade expedition, human beings and corporations have cohabited the earth.

Although the shared habitation of human and juridical beings has never been entirely peaceful, governments have recognized the countervailing benefits of authorizing associations of people to incorporate fictitious legal entities. When corporate rights are recognized and liabilities limited, governments perceive it more likely that profits will be generated and workers hired than through riskier sole proprietorships and partnerships. 

Governments can also control the behavior of companies, as Arizona has done in enacting a statute mandating enrollment in E-Verify, the Department of Homeland Security’s employment-eligibility verification database – a law the Supreme Court upheld in U.S. Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting. 

To be sure, the legislatively-recognized corporate form at times provides shelter from legal storms while leaving sentient members of the species, homo sapiens, unprotected. For example, the constitutional rights of free association and speech – when applied to corporations – spawn consequences that repulse most ordinary citizens, such as the harmful flood released by the Supreme Court of anonymous corporate donations that fund Super-PAC campaign ads through its ironically titled decision, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. 

Moreover, when corporations are formed abroad, and profits – though generated through domestic activities – are treated as having been earned outside the United States, federal tax coffers are less full than they otherwise might be.  This happens, for example, through the “age-old ruse” of a blind trust (another form of fictive legal entity) when money that might otherwise be subject to U.S. taxation is stashed in a Swiss or Cayman Islands entity, as a certain GOP Presidential candidate who believes that “[c]orporations are people, my friend,” perhaps understands quite well. 

In the immigration sphere, bureaucrats in the Department of Labor (DOL)  and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) often refuse to accept the established rule-of-law principle that companies are to be treated as distinct from their individual owners. Although the Obama Administration claims as its official policy enthusiastic support for small-business entrepreneurship, these agencies have adopted regulations or policies at cross purposes that make it nearly impossible for the sole owner of a corporation to qualify through that entity for an employment-based work visa or green card.

The DOL’s Tomfoolery. The DOL has enshrined in its regulations requirements protecting the labor certification process from seemingly sinister “[a]lien influence and control over [a] job opportunity.” These regulations mandate the submission of evidence envisioned in an administrative law case, Matter of Modular Container Systems, Inc., 89-INA-288 (BALCA 1991).  A decision rendered by a panel of civil servants with law degrees known as the Board of Alien Labor Certification Appeals (BALCA), Modular Container Systems made it almost impossible for a corporate entity owned, say 10% or more, by a foreign citizen to sponsor that individual’s labor certification application:

We hold . . . that if the alien or close family members have a substantial ownership interest in the sponsoring employer, the burden is on the employer to establish that employment of the alien is not tantamount to self-employment, and therefore a per se bar to labor certification.

BALCA therefore clearly ignored the venerable Anglo-American legal principle that a corporation is distinct from its owners since the panel ruled that the employee of a corporation is not to be treated as such but rather as engaging in activity “tantamount to self-employment.” 

The DOL regulations, while claiming to accept Modular Container Systems, ignored the corporate form in a different way, namely, by establishing an irrefutable presumption of “bad faith.”   This proposition holds that no  job opportunity could be considered “bona fide” under the labor-certification recruitment process if a foreign citizen sponsored by a corporate employer for a green card (or a family member) holds a material percentage of stock in the corporate sponsor or otherwise could influence the company in determining the qualifications of U.S. citizen job applicants. While this principle may seem logical at first blush, it ignores the other-worldly fictions (as I’ve shown here, here, here, here, here and there) that are part-and-parcel of the DOL’s bass-ackward labor-market testing procedures. 

Inherent in the DOL’s rule precluding working-owner labor certification is the unproven assumption that an individual shareholder is more likely than a corporate entity to commit fraud. The lengthy list of prominent corporate frauds and other corporate scandals, however, belies the proposition. 

USCIS’s Three-Card Monty. USCIS, the component within the Department of Homeland Security charged with granting or refusing employment-based immigration benefits, likewise flouts the corporate form whenever it wishes.  Yet its misfeasance is worse than that of the DOL. 

Rather than publish a proposed regulation and allow an opportunity for public comment, USCIS simply announces novel interpretations of requirements to establish an employer-employee relationship as a prerequisite to approving a work-visa petition.  USCIS’s out-of-nowhere interpretations flout binding and well-settled legal precedents, Matter of Aphrodite Investments Limited (1980), Matter of Tessel (1980), Matter of Allan Gee, Inc. (1979) and Matter of M–  (1958).  These decisions uniformly recognized the distinction between a corporation and its shareholders, thereby allowing a foreign citizen to incorporate a business and legitimately use the entity to sponsor the individual’s work visa or green card, activities praised and coveted in the business world as “immigrant entrepreneurship.” 

USCIS, however, in ostensive deference to the Obama Administration’s entrepreneurship initiatives, has claimed to espouse the cause of entrepreneurial job-creation with élan. It has created a much-vaunted “Entrepreneurs in Residence” program, and issued and twice amended an FAQ (“Questions & Answers: USCIS Issues Guidance Memorandum on Establishing the ‘Employee-Employer Relationship’ in H-1B Petitions“) showing how the agency promotes immigrant entrepreneurship.  Retreating a tad from its interpretations limiting the recognition of an employer-employee relationship, the agency’s FAQ offers an encouraging workaround:

Q12: The memorandum provides an example of when a beneficiary, who is the sole owner of the petitioning company or organization, would not establish a valid employer-employee relationship. Are there any examples of when a beneficiary, who is the sole owner of the petitioning company or organization, may be able to establish a valid employer-employee relationship? 

A12.   Yes. In footnotes 9 and 10 of the memorandum, USCIS indicates that while a corporation may be a separate legal entity from its stockholders or sole owner, it may be difficult for that corporation to establish the requisite employer-employee relationship for purposes of an H-1B petition. However, if the facts show that the petitioner has the right to control the beneficiary’s employment, then a valid employer-employee relationship may be established. For example, if the petitioner provides evidence that there is a separate Board of Directors which has the ability to hire, fire, pay, supervise or otherwise control the beneficiary’s employment, the petitioner may be able to establish an employer-employee relationship with the beneficiary. (Emphasis added.)

Unfortunately, an off-message adjudicator at the USCIS California Service Center disputes the concept embraced by the agency’s headquarters that the creation of a higher authority with the right of control over the H-1B worker will allow a petitioning corporation to demonstrate that a working owner is in a valid employer-employee relationship with the entity. In this decision, the CSC adjudicator ignored the evidence that a limited liability company (LLC), owned equally by the H-1B beneficiary and another member, was controlled by its managers rather than its members.  The adjudicator determined that the members’ shared theoretical authority to remove the managers negated an employer-employee relationship.

Ironically, if the entity were a corporation with a board of directors and a sole shareholder as the working owner, USCIS headquarters appears ready, based on the FAQ, to find an employer-employee relationship and approve the H-1B petition, even though a 100% shareholder could fire the board just as easily as sole or joint members of an LLC could remove the managers.

* * *

This, sadly, is what happens when immigration bureaucrats create irrebuttable presumptions of bad faith by working owners or float new and unwarranted interpretations that disregard settled law dating back centuries.  Corporations – though they are not people – possess enforceable legal rights.  Ignoring the distinction between a corporate entity and its owners does nothing to promote the just administration of the immigration laws, hampers job creation and entrepreneurship, and persuades an increasingly cynical public that the agencies make up seat-of-the-pants “law” on the fly.

Helen and Cesar Chavez.jpgToday is the federal holiday of Columbus Day. In ironic recognition, President Obama will stop by a remote California village to dedicate the Cesar E. Chavez National Monument, memorializing the contributions of the eponymous Mexican-American civil rights leader who fought tirelessly to gain justice for immigrant farm workers. 

Also today, Cesar’s widow, Helen, continues her effort, with many others, to urge the New York Times to replace the odious, overbroad and outdated term, “illegal immigrant,” with “undocumented immigrant” or another less racially charged phrase.

For me, Columbus Day is personal.  I was born on October 12 — the original day of remembering the Italian explorer’s first touchdown on Guanahani, as the island of San Salvador was known in 1492 — that is, until three-day weekends became more important than historical accuracy and Columbia became a misspelling of a South American country known for fine coffee more than the name by which to distinguish America and the New World from Old Europe.

The President’s Columbus-Day commemoration of the leader of farm workers strikes me as doubly ironic (and also quite politic) because early Italian immigrants, like my grandparents, came as impoverished and landless farmers to this new world of promised “opportunity” and were as reviled and unappreciated as Hispanic field workers in Chavez’s time and other unauthorized immigrants still are today. 

As social and cultural historian Yoni Appelbaum reminds us in The Atlantic, (“How Columbus Day Fell Victim to Its Own Success“), the Italian explorer who outsourced his services to Spain has become an enduring symbol of the genocide of indigenous people, even though Italian immigrants were vilified and some were murdered when they arrived on America’s shores in the early Twentieth Century:

Many Americans believed Italians to be racially inferior, their difference made visible by their “swarthy” or “brown” skins. They were often portrayed as primitive, violent, and unassimilable, and their Catholicism brought them in for further abuse. After an 1891 lynching of Italians in New Orleans, a New York Times editorial proclaimed Sicilians “a pest without mitigation,” adding, for good measure, that “our own rattlesnakes are as good citizens as they.”

300px-ColumbiaStahrArtwork.jpgThe plight of individuals who migrate from poverty to opportunity is also reflected in an eye-opening book of great scholarship by Pulitzer-prize winning New York Times author Isabel Wilkerson in The Warmth of Other Suns: The Epic Story of America’s Great Migration. Although the African-Americans she interviewed never saw themselves as immigrants, she maintained that the “central argument of [her] book [is] that the Great Migration [of Southern Blacks to Northern and Western cities] was an unrecognized immigration within the country”:

“The participants bore the marks of immigrant behavior. They plotted a course to places in the North and West that had some connection to their homes of origin. They created colonies of the villages they came from, imported the food and folkways of the Old Country, and built their lives around the people and churches they knew from back home. They took work the people already there considered beneath them. They doubled up and took in roomers to make ends meet. They tried to instill in their children the values of the Old Country while pressing them to succeed by the standards of the New World they were in.”

By insisting that “Readers Won’t Benefit if Times Bans the Term ‘Illegal Immigrant’,” The New York Times Public Editor, Margaret Sullivan, mistakenly aligns herself with Ann Coulter (“Immigrant rights are not civil rights . . . Civil rights are only for Blacks“) and continues the sad tradition of The Grey Lady in belatedly dropping venomous pejoratives in common use as ad hominem attacks on discrete and defenseless groups within society.  Sullivan also facilitates the effort of anti-immigrant NumbersUSA to pit African Americans against their immigrant brothers and sisters in a recent TV commercial.  Let’s be clear, the term “illegal immigrant” is grammatically and legally incorrect.  It is more than just a term.  The media needs to drop the ‘i’ word. It is simply not the right description.  As much as I respect Times’ immigration reporter, Julia Preston, and its immigration editorialist, Lawrence Downes, for their fine work, ‘illegal immigrant’ is not interchangeable with ‘undocumented immigrant’.

The Golden Rule.jpgThe best rule of usage and comportment is not the AP Stylebook but rather the Golden Rule as adopted by every major faith and by people of no faith in faiths.

If we, as Americans, subjugate the civil rights of any and all people we lose our way and slide toward a form of national mental illness, as  Eric Fromm said it so well in “The Sane Society”:  

Nationalism is our form of incest, is our idolatry, is our insanity. ”Patriotism” is its cult. It should hardly be necessary to say, that by ”patriotism” I mean that attitude which puts the own nation above humanity, above the principles of truth and justice; not the loving interest in one’s own nation, which is the concern with the nation’s spiritual as much as with its material welfare /never with its power over other nations. Just as love for one individual which excludes the love for others is not love, love for one’s country which is not part of one’s love for humanity is not love, but idolatrous worship.

Thumbnail image for electric warning sign.jpgImmigration has been dubbed the third rail of American politics, along with Social Security, Medicare, gun control, and a variety of other hot-button issues.  To me, it’s more like a downed power line snaking low across the ground and electrocuting whomever fails to give it respectful attention. As the eyes of the nation turn to the first Presidential debate this Wednesday, will immigration supercharge the colloquy or — as in years past — be wholly ignored or disregarded as annoying static electricity?

Will Candidate Romney repeat his offensively tone-deaf line, “I’m running for office, for Pete’s sake, I can’t have illegals“? 

Will President Obama be asked to explain why he waited so long, all along claiming a lack of authority to use his executive power to ameliorate immigration hardships, and then reversed course in the campaign’s end-game as a seemingly craven political ploy to curry Latino votes?

No one knows what Jim Lehrer, debate moderator emeritus, will ask in the first debate?  A petition is circulating that implores him to “include immigration reform in the domestic policy debate.”

Certainly there are many menu items in the candidates’ recent campaign pratfalls, the parties’ respective platforms and their Congressional antics that offer delectable interrogatory opportunities, as I suggest in these posts (“The Immigration Week That Was,” “The GOP Position: Immigration under Glass,” “The Democrats’ Immigration Position: Better But Blemished,” and “Immigration Buffets and Buffeting in Congress“), and in my recent LXBN interview: 

While pundits handicap debate strategies, I offer a few more immigration questions for Mr. Lehrer to pose:

Whatever the outcome of the debates and the November election, maybe all this electrifying talk about immigration is simply the wrong metaphor.  Americans seem far less troubled about immigration, according to a recent report from the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press:

Immigration is . . . less of a focus in 2012. In [our] new survey, 41% view the issue of immigration as very important – the lowest of 12 issues tested – compared with 52% in August 2008.

Maybe the best debate questions should therefore be posed to each of them: 

  • What specific actions will you take to cattle-prod Congress into enacting comprehensive immigration reform?
  • Why won’t you lead us, by solving, once and for all, our immigration challenges?

Youthful fans of Saturday Night Live may be forgiven for assuming, however mistakenly, that SNL invented satirical television comedy. The patent for this invention probably ought to go instead to other earlier contenders, Jack Paar, Sid Caesar, Imogene Coco or Steve Allen.  While I love these past and present paragons of humor, I’ll never forget the laughs my Dad and I shared watching an earlier NBC show, a precursor to SNL, the short-lived political revue, That Was the Week That Was.  

TW3, as it was known, an émigré from the BBC, hosted in the U.K. and the U.S. by David Frost, ran here only for two seasons, from 1964 to 1965 — but a hilarious two years they were. The format for the show was simple:  Take the news of the past week and turn it into song-and-dance sketches reeking with ridicule, irony, satire and scorn.  With ballads by piano-thumping political troubadour, Tom Lehrer, TW3 featured timeless classics like “National Brotherhood Week” (enjoy the audio here, and the lyrics here).

That Was the Week That Was came reverberatingly to mind with the news of the last seven days.

The week began with the airing of a surreptitiously recorded video of presidential candidate Mitt Romney wishing out loud to an audience of wealthy contributors that, if his dad, George, the late Michigan governor, had not been born in Mexico of an American mother and father but instead of “Mexican parents, I’d have a better shot at winning this. I mean, I say that jokingly, but it would be helpful to be Latino.” As the week proceeded, his campaign staff had to walk back Romney’s claim that he’d never met anti-immigrant lawyer and father of AZ’s SB1070, Kris Kobach (according to CNN, “Romney and Kobach have, in fact, met before at campaign events — but not in formal policy meetings”). The week ended with the resolution of a controversy stirred up by Stephen Colbert suggesting that the candidate had applied tanning spray before his appearance on Univision as a pander to its Latino viewers. The truth is that Romney’s Ricardo Montalban look, as Univision has confirmed, came at the heavy hand of the network’s make-up artist who daubed on too much “MAC Studio Fix powder and foundation.” 

President Obama likewise had his turn on the Univision hot seat, admitting (duh!) that his biggest failure was failing to pass comprehensive immigration reform, and splitting hairs with the moderators over whether he had promised or not promised to do so (or merely try) in his first year in office or first term.

Another laughable moment came when the White House issued a statement and the State Department a video claiming how much easier than perceived it now is to visit America. Yes, they are right that more consular resources, enhanced customer service training and better queuing at ports of entry, among other measures, will improve the inbound traveler’s experience.  But nothing will fundamentally create better first impressions until minimal standards of fairness are established for consular visa interviews and CBP interrogations. Yet another Administration official, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, surprised many with the risible observation that immigration hasn’t been much of “a linchpin, red hot issue” in the presidential campaign.  Tell that to the 10 million Hispanic-Americans whose votes may be suppressed this year.

Congress too contributed to the week’s fatuous merriment with the “BRAIN-STEM” follies.  Senator Schumer proposed a new BRAINS act which would allow a smart foreigner with family members to enter every time we deport an equivalent number of permanent residents. In the other chamber, House partisans bickered and failed to pass a green-cards-for-STEM-students bill that failed — as Bill Clinton might say — over “arithmetic.”  Republicans wanted to eliminate 55,000 Diversity-Lottery visas to provide the immigrant-visa currency for the additional Science, Technology, Engineering and Math graduates from U.S. universities who would receive green cards, while the Democrats wanted to add, not subtract, green-card quota numbers for additional STEM graduates.

On the international front, an Italian court affirmed criminal convictions in absentia of 22 Americans (allegedly CIA operatives) by tossing a creamy tiramisu (a confection translated as “lift me up”) at a Bush-era immigration policy known as rendition — the act of removing (airlifting?) individuals from one country and forcibly immigrating them to another where they are likely to be tortured.  In other judicial news, a federal judge in Arizona lifted an injunction on the surviving piece of SB1070, known as the “show me your papers” provision, which many fear will play out as a “driving or walking while Hispanic” basis for arrest and removal.

The week’s levity aside, some important and serious things happened as well:

Thinking back to TW3, I am reminded that the polarization and class warfare we see today likewise existed in ’64 and ’65, as acerbic songster Tom Lehrer croons in his timeless ditty, “National Brotherhood Week”:

Oh, the poor folks hate the rich folks,

And the rich folks hate the poor folks.

All of my folks hate all of your folks,

It’s American as apple pie.  

buffet.jpgCongress has spread a table laden with reheated immigration delicacies, while still engaging in the usual posturing, pretend friendships and verbal fisticuffs. 

In a spirit of convivial bipartisanship, the House on September 13 passed by a vote of 402-3 legislation the Senate had approved in August, S.3245 (“A bill to extend by 3 years the authorization of the EB-5 Regional Center Program, the E-Verify Program, the Special Immigrant Nonminister Religious Worker Program, and the Conrad State 30 J-1 Visa Waiver Program”). Presumably, it will land on the President’s signing desk before the September 30 sunset of the four programs.

Positioning has also begun in the House over competing Democratic and Republican versions of a STEM jobs act that would give green cards to highly-educated math, engineering, tech and science graduates of U.S. universities. The primary difference in approach is over whether to provide STEM green cards by eliminating the 55,000 Diversity Visa lottery (the GOP proposal). As explained by Rep. Luis V. Gutierrez (D-IL), the Democrats want to vote on “a clean STEM increase . . . without doing damage to other parts of our legal immigration system.” Given the GOP’s House majority, expect the Republican version to be approved soon and sent to the Senate where it will face an uncertain fate. 

hostile stares.jpgMeanwhile, Congressional hearings, already convened or soon to be held, serve as mediagenic stages for Republicans to take swipes at the President and his Homeland Security Department.  Rep. Lamar Smith, Republican of Texas, held a Sept. 12 hearing with a pre-ordained conclusion obvious from its title, “The Obama Administration’s Abuse of Power” — which included DACA among its other “abuses.” On September 20, Rep. Peter King, Republican of New York, will debut “An Assessment of the Department and a Roadmap for its Future,” a drill-down of a July 25 hearing (“Understanding the Homeland Threat Landscape“).

After next week, Congress will likely go dark until after the November election as each party campaigns for hegemony in the executive and legislative branches.  A lame duck session will likely follow. Perhaps then winners and losers will at last put country before party on immigration and a host of other issues. Maybe legislators whose careers are ending through a loss at the ballot box or retirement — with nothing to lose — will grow spines. Perhaps the losing side will become more pliant as demographic changes cause them to wake up and smell a new brand of java.  It’s happened before with such major lame-duck legislation as the Immigration Act of 1990, which passed on November 29, 1990.

Almost anything is better than stalemate, as I’ve previously suggested:

If there is to be an immigration meal, it must be piecemeal. If immigration supporters cannot have a multi-course feast at a single sitdown dinner, then tapas eaten seriatim will more than satisfy the hungry reformers’ appetites.

The challenge will be to avoid modestly beneficial compromises that add to complexity and include something bad for everyone, and instead forge good deals that foster our bedrock immigration values of family unity, economic prosperity, and refuge for the persecuted.

lameduck_460.jpgIf Mitt Romney wins, perhaps the best we can hope for is a Nixon-to-China moment on immigration reform, with the scales tipped in favor of employment-based visas and heavier-than-Obama enforcement (if that’s even possible).  More immigration hope and change can be foreseen if President Obama carries the day, and the Dems maintain control of the Senate while making gains in the House. Perhaps anti-filibuster reforms early in the new Congressional term (as explained procedurally here and here) will be the secret door to comprehensive immigration reform.  

Wonks, stakeholders and, of course, citizens:  Stay tuned.

The Democratic Convention in Charlotte ended last week. The media has now turned to measuring and marveling at President Obama’s post-convention bounce despite weak Labor Department data revealing persistent joblessness.

The inevitable comparisons of the two parties’ convention performances give the edge to the Democrats’ oratory, production values, crowd enthusiasm and diversity.  On immigration policy, the Dems offered more substantive messaging, while the GOP stressed photogenic speakers with ancestral memories of arrivals long ago. 

An historic moment occurred with a convention address in Charlotte by an undocumented immigrant, Benita Veliz, class valedictorian and DREAMer extraordinaire, whose brief remarks Dan Stein of the anti-immigration hate group, FAIR, predictably assailed as “nothing more than a celebration of lawlessness.”

Commentators contrasted Republican Marco Rubio and Democrat Julian Castro (“To Mr. Rubio, Hispanics are refugees from foreign oppression, who want government to let them alone. . . . In contrast, . . . Mr. Castro . . . sees government as an essential enabler of ethnic assimilation and success”). And insiders, perhaps unwittingly, assured full employment for dentists by their vigorous teeth-gnashing over the irreconcilable differences between the parties on immigration policy. The only item of apparent common ground is the issuance of quick green cards for STEM graduates. (See Immigration Impact’s platform analysis here, and AILA’s take on the same topic here [AILA InfoNet Doc. No. 12090541, membership required].)

Given the parties’ chasmic differences, is comprehensive immigration reform (CIR) still a bridge to nowhere?  Perhaps not. A convention segment last week on POTUS (Politics of the United States), the satellite radio station, entitled “Hispanic Voices,” offered a plausible route to CIR:  

  • Latino voters turn out in large numbers; 
  • Obama is reelected, but one Congressional chamber remains under GOP control; 
  • Some Republicans — at last seeing a desolate future because the demographic tide has washed away so much of their base — want the contentious issue of immigration behind them; 
  • Obama offers the GOP a choice of legislative compromise or more executive orders on immigration that whittle down the undocumented population by creating administrative avenues for relief; 
  • This time a deal is struck.

Central to the success of this prediction is heavy Latino turnout, something to be swallowed with a sizable chunk of salt. Many of his supporters are still smarting from the broken campaign promise to address CIR in his first year as President, as well as his Guinness-record reputation as Deporter-in-Chief. Others perhaps view jobs and the economy as more important than immigration. Still others fear that Obama may cave on CIR as he reportedly did in 2007 when casting an “Aye” vote on a killer amendment to limit the guest-worker program to five years, a move that derailed the Kennedy-Kyl CIR compromise, or question Democratic resolve to pursue immigration reforms that fundamentally help people or merely curry favor and votes.

Even if Latinos flock to the polls, and the “Hispanic-Voices” scenario begins to materialize, CIR will be no cakewalk.  

Democratic versions of CIR have favored more exacting worker protections in the H-1B and L-1 categories and more frequent audits of employers than the business community may be willing to tolerate. The allocation of visa quotas for H-1B jobs and family-versus-business green cards — with family unity getting the lion’s share over employment-based slots — may create fissures in the CIR coalition.  There remains contention over the Draconian 1996 smack-downs of due-process protections for immigrants, a bone of T-Rex proportions in an era where even the protection of abused immigrant women is the sticking point in the current fight over renewing the Violence Against Women Act. And almost no one is talking about sweeping changes that would make the system more user-friendly, rational and simple — a task that would require a kind of robust country-first statesmanship that, alas, has been AWOL for many years.

Maybe the parties can start building compromises on the business-immigration side, with solid assurances that other key elements of CIR will get their due as negotiations succeed on the low-hanging fruit; or maybe not.  

Until November’s outcome reshakes the political Etch-A-Sketch, the future foretells more DREAMers like Benita Veliz stirring our hearts with DACA-spawned inspiration while immigration opponents remain intransigent and hateful like the GOP’s Steve King of Iowa who still claims to have complimented immigrants by comparing them to dogs.

Labor Day, the quaintly traditional start of the Presidential election season, arrived this year with the memory still fresh of self-mortification Republican style — the projection of Second Amendment rights squarely into their collective feet.

Rather than enjoying a customary post-convention bump in the polls, GOP candidate Mitt Romney received “easily the worst rating given to any of the last eight convention acceptance speeches.” In a different kind of bump, a bio-pic many thought tended to humanize the candidate was bumped on broadcast TV by a frizzle-haired Clint Eastwood (apparently trying to reprise his role in the 1969 film musical, Paint Your Wagon), who has moved from talking to trees to ad libbing with a chair.

The convention, however, was not without its own lyrical high note.  Former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, clearly repudiated the hate- and fear-filled immigration plank in the Republican platform (which, with double-bordered emphasis, urged self-deportation and ruled out any remedy for the unauthorized in our midst). In its place, she delivered a heartfelt tribute to the truest form of American exceptionalism, our tradition as a welcoming nation:

But the American ideal is indeed endangered today. There is no country, no not even a rising China, that can do more harm to us than we can do to ourselves if we fail to accomplish the tasks before us here at home.

More than at any other time in history — the ability to mobilize the creativity and ambition of human beings forms the foundation of greatness. We have always done that better than any country in the world. People have come here from all over because they believed in our creed — of opportunity and limitless horizons. They have come from the world’s most impoverished nations to make five dollars not fifty cents — and they have come from the world’s advanced societies as engineers and scientists to help fuel the knowledge based revolution in the Silicon Valley of California; the research triangle of North Carolina; in Austin, Texas; along Route 128 in Massachusetts – and across our country.

We must continue to welcome the world’s most ambitious people to be a part of us. In that way we stay perpetually young and optimistic and determined. We need immigration laws that protect our borders; meet our economic needs; and yet show that we are a compassionate people.

It’s not that other convention speakers ignored immigration. Many waxed rhapsodic about their immigrant forebears who endured every form of privation so that their children might have a chance at freedom and prosperity in America.  As Sen. Mark Rubio offered, his father — a Cuban émigré — worked the bar at the back of the room so that his son “one day . . . could stand behind a podium in the front of a room.”

Perhaps even more moving were the refugee sagas of George Romney, Mitt’s father, and his father-in-law, both of whom fled revolution in Mexico for safety, succor and eventual success in America, as tearfully re-told by George’s grandson, Craig. Other Republican speakers — Nikki Haley, Mia Love, John Thune — also regaled the crowd with their immigrant ancestors’ sentimental journeys to America.  

While Marathon Man Paul Ryan’s whopper of a speech did not touch on immigration, it could well have encompassed the subject in these stirring words:  

Our different faiths [Ryan’s Catholicism and Romney’s Mormonism] come together in the same moral creed. We believe that in every life there is goodness; for every person, there is hope. Each one of us was made for a reason, bearing the image and likeness of the Lord of Life.

We have responsibilities, one to another – we do not each face the world alone. And the greatest of all responsibilities, is that of the strong to protect the weak. The truest measure of any society is how it treats those who cannot defend or care for themselves.

Apparently, however, given Ryan’s decidedly anti-immigrant stance, for every undocumented person, hope begins only after self-deportation.  The GOP’s muddled message on immigration is not the way to win the Presidency or capture control of Congress.  

Republicans seemingly prefer their immigration under glass, viewed from the hermetically sealed distance of generations long extinct, observed through the prism of anodyne nostalgia.  With this profoundly dumb policy (read: insensate or, demographically speaking, just plain stupid, as you prefer), will they wake up after Election Day to consider their shared fate with the party’s long extinct mascot — no, not the Mastodon, but rather the Dodo Bird?

Thumbnail image for chutesladders.gifThe EB-5 immigrant investor green card program resembles a multi-country version of Chutes and Ladders, the “game of rewards and consequences“.  In the EB-5 edition, the ladder represents progress toward a green card and the chute is an ICE-tunneled luge ride ending in immigration court at a removal hearing. 

This comparison only begins to approach the bewildering array of laws, regulations, holographic policy interpretations and artificial, bureaucratically-contrived traps for the unwary that lead up — in two stages — to the grant or denial to foreign investors of U.S. lawful permanent resident status.

Recently, however, the agency administering the EB-5 program, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), has made some encouraging moves.  In a message from its Director, Alejandro Mayorkas, the agency announced a variety of program changes. They include the formation of the Office of Immigrant Investor Programs, to be led by an individual with business experience, though not necessarily a lawyer, the creation of a regional center Review Board, the employment of eight economists, and the hiring of attorneys with transactional experience.  

Some of these green-shoots changes — though heartening — smack of a “been there, done that” moment. Veterans of the EB-5 program will recall the 2005 “Establishment of an Investor and Regional Center Unit,” which placed control of the program within USCIS Headquarters, and the termination of the Unit by memorandum in 2009.  The decision to shut down what had evolved into a useful, facilitative practice of Headquarters engagement with EB-5 stakeholders, also included the unhelpful and ill-advised transfer of authority in EB-5 matters to the USCIS’s California Service Center, and the decision to allow agency communication with only one lawyer in each investor’s case, even though every EB-5 matter before USCIS typically includes multiple parties with varying legal interests, each represented by separate legal counsel.

As I noted in my October 22, 2012 New York Law Journal article (coauthored with Ted Chiappari), “Dollars and Jobs for EB-5 Green Cards:  A Challenging Route to U.S. Residency,” this “Back to the Future” moment by itself is not enough:

[The] government immigration agencies, especially USCIS, must do more than the charge Director Mayorkas has laid down for the new EB-5 program chief.  It is not enough merely to ensure “that the program is administered efficiently, with integrity, with predictability, and with an understanding of today’s business realities.”  USCIS must publish proposed EB-5 regulations for public comment and then issue final rules that “maintain the integrity of the category yet are faithful to its legislative text, history and purpose, and are applied with consistent standards of interpretation.”

Benny.jpg

The sad truth is that investors pursuing an EB-5 green card put their lives and their wealth at risk. In doing so, they may well face the predicament of Jack Benny, the American comedian known for his tightwad ways.  When confronted by a mugger who screamed: “Don’t make a move, this is a stickup. . . . Your money or your life,” Benny paused. The mugger insisted: “Look, bud! I said your money or your life!” Exasperated, Benny responded: “I’m thinking it over!” Such, sadly, is too often the unpalatable choice faced by incautious investors who leap without first looking carefully into the still perilous, but possibly improving, EB-5 immigrant visa program.

Thumbnail image for robot pen and sword.jpgAndrew Jackson had his “Kitchen Cabinet,” Franklin Roosevelt his “Brain Trust.”   Seth Godin has his “Tribes,” web-based “silos of interest.” 

I’ve been a member of many tribes (as I write this I’m recalling my tattered T-shirt from my own and my adult daughter’s Indian Princess days, many moons ago [click here to see the shirt]).

In the Googlean sense, immigration lawyers likewise have their “circles” (if a noun can become a verb, I guess it can be an adjective as well). We lawyers of the immigration arts congregate privately in many places including local bar associations, on IMMLOG (a practitioners’ list serve run by Kevin Dixler) and IMMPROF (a list serve for professors of immigration law, hosted by Hiroshi Motomura), through the American Immigration lawyers Association (the national immigration bar), which has a New Members Division, a group for Senior Lawyers (known as the Silver Foxes, led by Ken Stern), and numerous AILA Interest Groups. There’s even “Cool Immigration Lawyers,” a private meeting place on Facebook “for cool immigration attorneys who think it is awesome to help people and to insist on justice for everyone.”

My prime immigration tribe is the Alliance of Business Immigration Lawyers (ABIL).  It’s expanded wonderfully over the last 10+ years since I founded it; but it still performs its original mission very well.  ABIL was established on the principle of “competitive empathy,” the notion that although we operate in separate law firms, “none of us is as smart as all of us.” I liken it to a 12-Step Group for battle-weary immigration practitioners who acknowledge we’re “powerless” over the ever-crashing waves of change washing over our chosen field of law.

The most recent tsunami — the Obama Administration’s program of immigration enforcement abatement, known as DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) — has flooded the immigration tribal counsel with challenges and questions since August 15 when U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) released DACA forms, instructions and FAQs.  These include Form I-821D, Consideration of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, with nine pages of instructions, Form I-765WS, a work-need worksheet, and a DACA web page with FAQ.

The challenges include concerns among DREAMers and immigration community-based organizations that lawyers may price-gouge to handle DACA cases, reflected recently by perhaps the most-famous DREAMer, Jose Antonio Vargas, who tweeted from @Joseiswriting on August 16: “I try to be positive, but there is a special place in hell for lawyers who take advantage of #DACA by overcharging, etc.” (I tweeted back to Jose, who is my client: “[Jose]: Please don’t jump to conclusions. You need to know the facts of the case to know if the fee is fair or foul.”  He responded by kindly urging his Twitter followers to follow: “@angelopaparelli: a great lawyer who’s been advising me and, in turn, keeping me sane. [T]hank you for the help and support!”)

The flip side of this concern is the difficulty individual immigration lawyers have had setting an ethically proper and reasonable fee in a practice area where fixed, project-based fees are the norm. Outside observers without an institutional history of how immigration-benefits programs have been (mis)managed might naïvely assume that the task must not be too complex, just three forms, the I-821D, the work permit application and the corresponding worksheet to show economic need, supported by written proof of a few “simple” facts (entry to the U.S. before age 15, five-years of continuous presence as of June 15, 2012, presence in the country on that day, no older than 30, and no serious criminal history.)  They would be mistaken.

USCIS knows that Congress, the Media, the Presidential campaigns, and the pro- and anti-immigration interest groups will be watching closely to see whether the agency can handle the estimated 1.7 million youth potentially eligible for DACA, whether fraud will infect the program or be minimized, whether the agency will act with humanitarian compassion under law or ICE-like negativity in exercising prosecutorial discretion, and whether employers who help a DREAMer acknowledge physical presence and past or current employment in the U.S. will face investigation and enforcement actions by USCIS’s Fraud Detection and National Security Directorate (FDNS) or by ICE.

The immigration bar, electronically-transmitting the 21st Century equivalent of tribal smoke signals over these last frenetic days, knows that immigration confusion and complexity will flourish like a Chia pet on growth hormones as USCIS’s implementation of DACA unfolds. Witness the many unanswered issues and concerns that DACA has generated as reflected in the notes of the USCIS’s DACA Public Engagement on August 14, provided courtesy of Sally Kinoshita, an immigration lawyer and Deputy Director at the Immigrant Legal Resource Center (ILRC), the ILRC’s DACA Criminal Bars Chart, and postings of the American Immigration Council by its Legal Action Center (DACA Practice Advisory) and Immigration Policy Center (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals: A Q&A Guide [Updated]). 

Even the most mundane issues involve significant costs that clients or lawyers must bear unless answered soon.  Attorney Marty Rosenbluth, Executive Director at the North Carolina Immigrant Rights Project asks of Facebook’s “Cool Immigration Lawyers”:

I know that some questions USCIS/DHS/ICE will answer with “it depends on the totality of the circumstances”, but I think we can get a clear answer to a few questions before we start filing hundreds of these things. If we go through all the trouble of tabbing the appendices, are they going to be stripped off so the documents can be scanned before the person who will be deciding actually reads it? We thought it would make the [applications] easy to follow, but if they are just going to be stripped off beforehand we won’t bother.

Also, we were thinking of using color coding, but if the scans are [black & white] there is no point there either.

* * *

Thank goodness for immigration-lawyer tribes. Besides “help[ing] people and . . . insist[ing] on justice for everyone,” while trying to keep our staffs paid and doors open, we also dedicate our time and talent to advise and represent DREAMers as they wade through DACA’s treacherous waters. Were it not for these collegial tribes, many of us (probably myself included) would have thrown in the towel years ago, mirroring the fate of Murray Burns, the protagonist in Herb Gardner’s A Thousand Clowns.

Played by Jason Robards in the classic 1965 film, Murray explains why he finally had had enough and quit his job as TV personality, Chuckles the Clown. While ordering a martini one evening after work, he was asked by the bartender if he wanted an onion or olive with it. Murray responds: “Gosh and golly, you betcha!”  We are not clownish robots with pens and swords. Our immigration tribes help remind us of who we are and why we do what we do.

[Blogger’s postscript] 

Although I’d seen the film and loved it, I couldn’t find the Chuckles the Clown quote on the internet except in stray chats and a web-published book, The Robot’s Pen and Sword, by an unnamed author whose site is the source of the photo above.

[Blogger’s post- postscript]

My last blog post, Immigration D-Day for DACA: Get Protection!, generated a thoughtful, heartfelt critique by a good friend, and fellow immigration tribesman, Gary Endelman.  Gary took me to task for my “use of the Holocaust as a standard of comparison” to the plight of the DREAMers. On reflection, I was wrong, and apologized to Gary, and now do likewise to anyone else offended by my inapt metaphor. Gary, who is not only an immigration scholar of well-deserved repute, but also a Doctor of History, gave me permission to follow up on my blog to communicate a larger point, which he eloquently laid out, and with which I fully agree: 

I would simply urge that we all respect the historical integrity of each experience and not use any incident or event as a catch phrase to describe something that, while horrible, may be fundamentally different.  The historian in me.

I think you might want to follow up this blog with another one that perhaps can capture the larger point, which is that whenever any nation denies those who live there the human right to become all that they are capable of being, whenever we violate  the essential human decency of our friends and neighbors, whenever we ignore what unites us to focus on what divides us, that is the seed corn for intolerance and hate.

I also apologize to any Native Americans and others who may have been offended by my fondly recalled participation in the Indian Princesses, a Girls-Dads group sponsored by the YMCA’s Indian Guides. No offense is intended; only admiration for the Indian nations’ wholesome, natural and eco-friendly way of living on the earth. 

Invasion of Normandy.jpg[Blogger’s note:  Tomorrow, August 15, 2012, is perhaps as momentous to DREAMers as D-Day, June 6, 1944, was to The Greatest Generation.   The invasion of Normandy marked the end of World War II in Europe and the fall of a tyrannical Nazi regime that made mincemeat of the rule of law.

Though the comparison may seem hyperbolic to some, I remember well my first visit to the Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington.  As a lawyer, I was stunned by Hitler’s atrocious perversion of the legal system, the issuance within a half-year after the Nazis’ 1933 ascendancy to power of what would become roughly 400 decrees and regulations that “restricted all aspects of the public and private lives” of Jewish citizens. 

Conversely, doors that have been legally shut to persons solely by virtue of their status are now to be opened a tad, as Julia Preston of The New York Times notes in today’s edition.  She reports on the Obama Administration’s temporary clemency program, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), which may lead to the grant of employment authorization for youthful entrants to America found worthy of discretionary de-escalation of enforcement by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS): 

The work permit young immigrants can receive with the deferral opens many doors that have been firmly shut. They can obtain valid Social Security numbers and apply for driver’s licenses, professional certificates and financial aid for college.

Thus, just like those for whom the Allied invasion of Normandy launched a new life, one transformed from the status of a nonperson to that of a free member of society, DACA stands as a tiny step in the direction of reversing the application of perverse laws.  In this case the perversion of laws are found in America’s Immigration and Nationality Act, a statute chockablock with befuddling provisions that punish innocent children for the mistakes of their parents. 

USCIS has today issued DACA instructions and forms:  Form I-821D, Consideration of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, with nine pages of instructions, a Form I-765WS, a worksheet to establish one’s economic need for employment, and a Form G-1145, E-Notification of Application/Petition Acceptance, and has published a DACA web page with FAQ along with a warning about “Avoiding Scams and Preventing Fraud.”  The agency also dove deep into the minutiae of the process in today’s telephonic Public Engagement which answered many but by far not all questions.  The engagement followed an earlier internal tussle within DHS over the contours and devilish details of the program reflected in a 92-page draft as reported recently by FoxNews.com (“DHS document shows Obama administration wrestling with ‘DREAM Act’ policy“).

When it takes the government almost 100 pages to tussle internally over the fine points of a discretionary policy, the question arises whether a DACA applicant should be represented by legal counsel.  Recently, in a YouTube video, two federal lawmakers, Senator Dick Durbin and Representative Luis Gutierrez, usually immigration-reform stalwarts, said a lawyer’s help was unnecessary.  Curiously, the link now reflects that “[this] video has been removed by the user.” 

Perhaps the takedown occurred because of a flood of postings that challenged the legislators’ suggestion: See, Do DREAMers really need a lawyer? and Dreamers Do Need Lawyers and Obama’s immigration changes cause confusion and Do You Need an Attorney to Apply for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA)? 

My guest columnist, Karin Wolman, agrees that a lawyer’s counsel and representation is necessary in DACA cases (as do I).  I recall the mess created by the legacy immigration bureaucracy, Immigration and Naturalization Service, when it tried to interpret and implement a comparable change in policy, the 1986 legalization program, a misguided agency effort that spawned decades of litigation.  So, DREAMers, don’t take a chance.  Even if you think your case is straightforward, get good referrals, and talk to a competent lawyer who regularly practices immigration law.  Your life as a nonperson will end and your civil rights will be recognized only if you do DACA right.]

Durbin & Gutierrez Put DREAMers at Risk

By Karin Wolman

Senator Dick Durbin and Representative Luis Gutierrez released a video message to the DREAMers on August 6 that is one of the most irresponsible and dangerous public messages from a voice of authority in living memory. It is a deep disgrace that supposed champions and co-sponsors of the DREAM Act would advise young people who are eligible for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, “Do Not Hire a Lawyer.” Yet Sen. Durbin said those words, doing a huge disservice to the very vulnerable class of people they are ostensibly trying to help.

These elected representatives perpetuate a dangerous source of confusion between unscrupulous “notarios” who engage in the unauthorized practice of law, and licensed, trained attorneys who are subject to ethical rules and have the ability to advise DREAMers properly on the process and potential consequences of applying for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals.

An experienced immigration lawyer who has carefully reviewed the applicant’s background and documents can ensure that DREAMers file applications which will have the best possible chance of success. This is why Senator Durbin’s patently false claim that “Virtually everyone will be able to go through this process without a lawyer,” is so disturbing. Perhaps he has already forgotten that the Deferred Action application process includes no right of appeal, and permits no motions to reopen. This is a one-shot opportunity. Applicants must get it right on the first try, or else they face a discretionary denial that is final and cannot be reviewed.

Perhaps Sen. Durbin and Rep. Gutierrez have also forgotten that both USCIS and ICE have extremely poor track records with respect to granting any forms of discretionary relief to applicants who are unrepresented by counsel. The memos of June 2011 from ICE Director John Morton authorized broad use of prosecutorial discretion for those already in proceedings who have no criminal convictions, but the rate at which such relief has been granted in immigration courts is less than 2%. Self-represented applicants who misunderstand any of the Deferred Action criteria and thus fail to interpret their own eligibility correctly, or who get the standard right but provide documentation that USCIS regards as insufficient, or who believe that the information they provide will remain confidential, may be placing themselves and their families at risk of deportation. These are some of the key reasons why it is so very important for DREAMers seeking Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals to consult with a knowledgeable
immigration attorney or legal service organization, and why the message from Messrs. Durbin & Gutierrez will do real harm.

 

[Blogger’s post- postscript]
My last blog post, Immigration D-Day for DACA: Get Protection!, generated a thoughtful, heartfelt critique by a good friend, and fellow immigration tribesman, Gary Endelman.  Gary took me to task for my “use of the Holocaust as a standard of comparison” to the plight of the DREAMers. On reflection, I was wrong, and apologized to Gary, and now do likewise to anyone else offended by my inapt metaphor. Gary, who is not only an immigration scholar of well-deserved repute, but also a Doctor of History, gave me permission to follow up on my blog to communicate a larger point, which he eloquently laid out, and with which I fully agree: 
I would simply urge that we all respect the historical integrity of each experience and not use any incident or event as a catch phrase to describe something that, while horrible, may be fundamentally different.  The historian in me.
I think you might want to follow up this blog with another one that perhaps can capture the larger point, which is that whenever any nation denies those who live there the human right to become all that they are capable of being, whenever we violate  the essential human decency of our friends and neighbors, whenever we ignore what unites us to focus on what divides us, that is the seed corn for intolerance and hate.
I also apologize to any Native Americans and others who may have been offended by my fondly recalled participation in the Indian Princesses, a Girls-Dads group sponsored by the YMCA’s Indian Guides. No offense is intended; only admiration for the Indian nations’ wholesome, natural and eco-friendly way of living on the earth. 

[Blogger’s postscript]


My post above, Immigration D-Day for DACA: Get Protection!, generated a thoughtful, heartfelt critique by a good friend, and fellow immigration tribesman, Gary Endelman.  Gary took me to task for my “use of the Holocaust as a standard of comparison” to the plight of the DREAMers. On reflection, I was wrong, and apologized to Gary, and now do likewise to anyone else offended by my inapt metaphor. Gary, who is not only an immigration scholar of well-deserved repute, but also a Doctor of History, gave me permission to follow up on my blog to communicate a larger point, which he eloquently laid out, and with which I fully agree: 


I would simply urge that we all respect the historical integrity of each experience and not use any incident or event as a catch phrase to describe something that, while horrible, may be fundamentally different.  The historian in me.


I think you might want to follow up this blog with another one that perhaps can capture the larger point, which is that whenever any nation denies those who live there the human right to become all that they are capable of being, whenever we violate  the essential human decency of our friends and neighbors, whenever we ignore what unites us to focus on what divides us, that is the seed corn for intolerance and hate.


I also apologize to any Native Americans and others who may have been offended by my fondly recalled participation in the Indian Princesses, a Girls-Dads group sponsored by the YMCA’s Indian Guides. No offense is intended; only admiration for the Indian nations’ wholesome, natural and eco-friendly way of living on the earth.