Posts
Restrictionists often prescribe this mythological solution to the mythological problem of high crime rates among immigrants. But, it's far from the truth! But, before you throw your hands up in defeat when you hear someone repeat it, consider responding with these quick mythbusting facts!FACT: Engaging in 287(g) programs can be costly to the local police department. Three months after Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopia County partnered with ICE, the office had created a $1.3 million deficit. By the end of the first month of the partnership, deputies began working 4,500 extra hours every two-week pay period (compared to 2,900 extra hours previously). In April 2007, deputies worked more than 9,000 overtime hours at a cost to the county of $373,757.FACT: Staffing the immigration beat pulls police officers away from their other duties. In Maricopa County in 2006 and 2007, patrol cars arrived late two-thirds of the time on more than 6,000 of the most serious calls for service. In order to staff the immigration team, Sheriff Arpaio pulled deputies off patrol beats and used them to staff the human-smuggling unit. Every patrol district, the trails and lake divisions, and central investigations bureau all lost deputies. Armed with fewer deputies, the districts’ response times to emergency calls increased.More mythbusting facts on this issue can be found in the IPC's Immigration Fact Check entitled "What Happens When Local Cops Become Immigration Agents?"
http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/images/File/factcheck/AZTribuneSeries8-6-08.pdf
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Thursday, February 19, 2009
MYTH: Immigrants Send All Their Money Back to Their Home Countries
FACT: While it is true that immigrants remit billions of dollars a year to their home countries, this is one of the most targeted and effective forms of direct foreign investment.
FACT: In addition to the consumer spending of immigrant households, immigrants and their businesses contribute $162 billion in tax revenue to U.S. federal, state, and local governments.
More mythbusting facts on this issue can be found in Immigrants have enriched American culture and enhanced our influence in the world, an article from the CATO Institute.
FACT: In addition to the consumer spending of immigrant households, immigrants and their businesses contribute $162 billion in tax revenue to U.S. federal, state, and local governments.
More mythbusting facts on this issue can be found in Immigrants have enriched American culture and enhanced our influence in the world, an article from the CATO Institute.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Maintaining America’s Global Competitiveness in a Time of World Economic Crisis
WASHINGTON, DC -- America's economy is in a tailspin. As our nation struggles to reverse the downward spiral and get back on course, America's H-1B program has come under fire. And when H-1B's are discussed, emotions run high. Recent articles have targeted the program as 'anti-American" and "unpatriotic," but what exactly is America's H-1B program designed to do? Let's set the record straight!
The H-1B program is a long-standing part of our nation's business immigration system. It was developed to give U.S. employers access to highly skilled, professional foreign talent (often students who have been educated here in U.S. universities) for up to six years and as a means for U.S. companies to stay ahead in their respective global markets. Data proves that H-1B petitions track the economy. When hiring is down, the number of H-1B petitions goes down. The program is self-adjusting. However, when the economy improves, there is no corresponding escalator. Thus, during the boom years, businesses were hamstrung by a quota that did not take into account the needs of the international marketplace. The program remained capped at 65,000 visas per year for bachelor's degree positions, with another 20,000 for advanced degree holders who graduated from U.S. universities.
Now that the economy is not booming, judicious admission of international professionals is more important than ever. Where the program was used to fill in labor shortages that no longer exist, companies have stopped using H-1B workers in those occupations. But even companies that have been laying off workers need isolated, specific skills to better compete in the international marketplace and effect their own recovery. U.S. businesses MUST have access to specialty skills without having to locate operations outside the U.S. to obtain them. Otherwise, the entire nation's economic recovery will be severely hobbled.
There remain vital areas that require that our system make adequate provision for future needs. Studies have shown that over the next ten years, the U.S. may need two million more K-12 teachers in this country. We will also need 250,000 new math and science teachers by the end of 2010. Further, nearly 80 million baby boomers are expected to leave the workforce sometime soon. In 2004, the U.S. produced 137,000 new engineers, compared to China's 352,000. It is well-documented that America is well behind the curve in producing sufficient skilled professionals to make our country "tomorrow's center" for innovation. Recent economic events have not changed these facts; they have made it all the more important that we deal with them.
The H-1B visa category is used by universities, school districts, hospitals, research organizations, and businesses competing in our global marketplace to fill needed specialty occupations. "Let's say a school district in rural Iowa or in poor urban area of Chicago needs a math or science teacher to help students be prepared to compete and innovate in our global economy," said Charles H. Kuck, President of the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA). "Does it really make sense for our children to go without, or should we encourage the entry of qualified educators from abroad? What about our research institutions developing new medical cures or our hospitals trying to care for an increasingly large aging population? We have to recognize that while not a panacea, the H-1B visas program, when used according to law, provides a critical resource to help drive our future economic success."
Hiring the H-1B professional seems like a good solution so long as the reason for lack of interest by U.S. workers is not low pay and as long as protections are in place to ensure that qualified U.S. workers are not replaced by foreign labor. In fact, H-1B regulations require that workers on these visas are paid the HIGHER of the prevailing wage or the actual wages of comparable U.S. workers within the company. This wage protection insures that H-1B professionals are not used as "cheap labor. In addition, H-1B regulations do not allow a company to use the H-1B category to break a strike or lockout - or to replace U.S. workers laid off the same job," Kuck stated. "In other words," Kuck noted, "protections against those abuses already are in the law."
In addition to the wage protections in the law, the fact is that H-1Bs cannot be "cheap labor." H-1Bs are hired at a high transaction cost. The government charges most employers $2,320 per application, on top of the additional legal and human resource expenses that come with an H-1B hire. Also, if the H-1B worker is fired, the employer must buy his plane ticket home-an often expensive proposition.
To put the impact of H-1B professionals in perspective, with a U.S. workforce of about 145 million, the new H-1B allotment each year accounts for less than one-tenth of one percent of the U.S. workforce.
Enforcement of the H-1B protections and requirements is critical to create a level playing field for employers and employees alike, which is why part of the fees paid by H-1B sponsoring employers are used to fund the enforcement of the H-1B regulations, as well as training programs for U.S. workers. Penalties for failing to comply with the labor protections of the H-1B category as to wages, posting requirements, etc. include a provision that a company may be barred from serving as an H-1B petitioner in the future. The typical legally compliant company uses the H-1B category because it needs skilled professionals to enhance competitiveness. This need continues in specific specialty niches in our economy, even when economic times are tough.
What is the predictable result of a reduction or loss of the H-1B category? Companies will be forced to locate overseas, where a high skilled worker pool is available, or outsource needed labor. "We need an H-1B reality check," said Kuck. "The simple solution is not cutting off an aid to our economic independence, but instead continuing to use legal immigration tools that help us improve our children's and our country's future."
The H-1B program is a long-standing part of our nation's business immigration system. It was developed to give U.S. employers access to highly skilled, professional foreign talent (often students who have been educated here in U.S. universities) for up to six years and as a means for U.S. companies to stay ahead in their respective global markets. Data proves that H-1B petitions track the economy. When hiring is down, the number of H-1B petitions goes down. The program is self-adjusting. However, when the economy improves, there is no corresponding escalator. Thus, during the boom years, businesses were hamstrung by a quota that did not take into account the needs of the international marketplace. The program remained capped at 65,000 visas per year for bachelor's degree positions, with another 20,000 for advanced degree holders who graduated from U.S. universities.
Now that the economy is not booming, judicious admission of international professionals is more important than ever. Where the program was used to fill in labor shortages that no longer exist, companies have stopped using H-1B workers in those occupations. But even companies that have been laying off workers need isolated, specific skills to better compete in the international marketplace and effect their own recovery. U.S. businesses MUST have access to specialty skills without having to locate operations outside the U.S. to obtain them. Otherwise, the entire nation's economic recovery will be severely hobbled.
There remain vital areas that require that our system make adequate provision for future needs. Studies have shown that over the next ten years, the U.S. may need two million more K-12 teachers in this country. We will also need 250,000 new math and science teachers by the end of 2010. Further, nearly 80 million baby boomers are expected to leave the workforce sometime soon. In 2004, the U.S. produced 137,000 new engineers, compared to China's 352,000. It is well-documented that America is well behind the curve in producing sufficient skilled professionals to make our country "tomorrow's center" for innovation. Recent economic events have not changed these facts; they have made it all the more important that we deal with them.
The H-1B visa category is used by universities, school districts, hospitals, research organizations, and businesses competing in our global marketplace to fill needed specialty occupations. "Let's say a school district in rural Iowa or in poor urban area of Chicago needs a math or science teacher to help students be prepared to compete and innovate in our global economy," said Charles H. Kuck, President of the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA). "Does it really make sense for our children to go without, or should we encourage the entry of qualified educators from abroad? What about our research institutions developing new medical cures or our hospitals trying to care for an increasingly large aging population? We have to recognize that while not a panacea, the H-1B visas program, when used according to law, provides a critical resource to help drive our future economic success."
Hiring the H-1B professional seems like a good solution so long as the reason for lack of interest by U.S. workers is not low pay and as long as protections are in place to ensure that qualified U.S. workers are not replaced by foreign labor. In fact, H-1B regulations require that workers on these visas are paid the HIGHER of the prevailing wage or the actual wages of comparable U.S. workers within the company. This wage protection insures that H-1B professionals are not used as "cheap labor. In addition, H-1B regulations do not allow a company to use the H-1B category to break a strike or lockout - or to replace U.S. workers laid off the same job," Kuck stated. "In other words," Kuck noted, "protections against those abuses already are in the law."
In addition to the wage protections in the law, the fact is that H-1Bs cannot be "cheap labor." H-1Bs are hired at a high transaction cost. The government charges most employers $2,320 per application, on top of the additional legal and human resource expenses that come with an H-1B hire. Also, if the H-1B worker is fired, the employer must buy his plane ticket home-an often expensive proposition.
To put the impact of H-1B professionals in perspective, with a U.S. workforce of about 145 million, the new H-1B allotment each year accounts for less than one-tenth of one percent of the U.S. workforce.
Enforcement of the H-1B protections and requirements is critical to create a level playing field for employers and employees alike, which is why part of the fees paid by H-1B sponsoring employers are used to fund the enforcement of the H-1B regulations, as well as training programs for U.S. workers. Penalties for failing to comply with the labor protections of the H-1B category as to wages, posting requirements, etc. include a provision that a company may be barred from serving as an H-1B petitioner in the future. The typical legally compliant company uses the H-1B category because it needs skilled professionals to enhance competitiveness. This need continues in specific specialty niches in our economy, even when economic times are tough.
What is the predictable result of a reduction or loss of the H-1B category? Companies will be forced to locate overseas, where a high skilled worker pool is available, or outsource needed labor. "We need an H-1B reality check," said Kuck. "The simple solution is not cutting off an aid to our economic independence, but instead continuing to use legal immigration tools that help us improve our children's and our country's future."
Monday, February 16, 2009
Stimulus Bill Passes House Vote With H-1B Restrictions
The House of Representatives today passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (H.R.1), a multi-billion dollar set of spending and tax cut programs to help jumpstart the economy. The legislation now moves to the Senate, were Democratic leaders hope to bring it to a vote this evening. Unfortunately, the legislation includes the Sanders H-1B amendment which saddles TARP fund recipients with strict regulations for hiring foreign workers under the H-1B program that are so cumbersome as to amount to an out-and-out prohibition.
The American Immigration Lawyers Association was highly critical of the Sanders amendment, saying Congress "chose political expediency over sound policy by allowing this amendment to stand." AILA President, Charles H. Kuck, said it sends the misguided signal that "immigrants are part of the problem rather than an integral part of the solution." AILA cited the following two reports to counter the logic of the Sandres amendment, which I thought were worth including here.
The Harvard Business School published a working paper in 2008 entitled "The Supply Side of Innovation: H-1B Visa Reforms and US Ethnic Invention" which garnered some attention this week. The study draws a direct correleation between the increase of U.S. patent filings for new inventions and the increase in the number of H-1B visa admissions.
A March 2008 National Foundation for American Policy report entitled "H-1B Visas and Job Creation" proports that for every H-1B position requested by an S&P 500 U.S. technology company, overall employment at the company increased by five workers. The report also found that among companies in the study sample experiencing layoffs, for every H-1B position requested, total employment was estimated to be two workers more than it otherwise would have been.
The American Immigration Lawyers Association was highly critical of the Sanders amendment, saying Congress "chose political expediency over sound policy by allowing this amendment to stand." AILA President, Charles H. Kuck, said it sends the misguided signal that "immigrants are part of the problem rather than an integral part of the solution." AILA cited the following two reports to counter the logic of the Sandres amendment, which I thought were worth including here.
The Harvard Business School published a working paper in 2008 entitled "The Supply Side of Innovation: H-1B Visa Reforms and US Ethnic Invention" which garnered some attention this week. The study draws a direct correleation between the increase of U.S. patent filings for new inventions and the increase in the number of H-1B visa admissions.
A March 2008 National Foundation for American Policy report entitled "H-1B Visas and Job Creation" proports that for every H-1B position requested by an S&P 500 U.S. technology company, overall employment at the company increased by five workers. The report also found that among companies in the study sample experiencing layoffs, for every H-1B position requested, total employment was estimated to be two workers more than it otherwise would have been.
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
ASPIRA of Delaware begins its 4th year of service.
ASPIRA of Delaware brings the national ASPIRA youth development and youth leadership initiatives to Delaware. ASPIRA’s successful, highly regarded programs develop self-esteem and leadership skills, enhance academic achievement, and foster cultural awareness and a commitment to community service.
For the last three years ASPIRA of Delaware has been working with Hispanic students from the greater New Castle County. In 2005 we initiated a pilot program, ASPIRA Saturday Academies, ASPIRA worked with 22 Hispanic New Castle County high school students who were interested in attending college, but had little to no chance of getting into college. ASPIRA volunteers worked with the students every Saturday through the fall, involving colleges and universities. Eighteen students completed the program and are attending college, many with scholarships and tuition assistance. Given the success of that pilot we have now formalized the ASPIRA Saturday Academy Program, which has helped approximately 80 students, gain access to colleges and universities and our college placement rate is almost 85%. During the last three years we held our sessions at Del Tech Community College in downtown Wilmington.
So what is new is that we are now being hosted at the University of Delaware, Newark Campus and have 40 students registered to benefit from the ASPIRA Saturday Academy Program.
Our academy program focuses on providing high school senior and graduates with a firm understanding of the overall admissions process and the requirements necessary to gain admission. We work with each student individually to gain an understanding of his or her strengths and abilities. This enables us to coach and advise them and to determine what colleges and universities are best suited for them given their academic capability and interest. We provide a series of workshops, career presentations, college visits along with a writing laboratory to assist the students in the completion of essays both for college admission and scholarship consideration. We also have been most successful in engaging parents to become involved and provide them with periodic updates on their students’ progress, coping skills and general information that will guide them to become more savvy with the overall college and financial aid process.
All of ASPIRA of Delaware’s work is done by volunteers. ASPIRA of Delaware has no paid staff. Our volunteer coaches (advisors) include Hispanics with a passion for education and a commitment to the educational and leadership needs of Hispanic students and parents. We are physicians, educators, attorneys, government officials, businesspersons, parents, and community volunteers with a strong history of leadership and community involvement. We have increased the number of coaches each year through personal recruitment, paying particular attention to individuals’ expertise, talent, availability and commitment.
To learn more about the ASPIRA Academy Sessions please contact Margie Rivera at 302-377-8657 or e-mail her on margaret.rivea75 AT yahoo.com
The ASPIRA web site is http://www.aspira.org/
The Academy sessions take place on selected Saturdays at 9:00am at Pearson Hall, Room 114 on the University of Delaware Newark Campus.
Monday, February 9, 2009
Delaware Governor Appoints Vivian Rapposelli to Cabinet
We are proud to announce that Vivian Rapposelli, a founder of Rapposelli & Gonzales, was recently appointed as the Secretary of the Department of Services to Children, Youth and Their Families by Delaware Governor Jack Markell.
This is another huge accomplishment for a Guatemalan immigrant who has refused to accept the status quo and a testatment to Governor Markell in his determination to make sure that all people have a voice and a stake in the future of Delaware.
Here are links to the story as it was covered in The Delaware News Journal and El Tiempo.
As a result, beginning on February 1, 2009, our main office will be located at:
251 South Camac Street, Philadelphia, PA 19107
We will also be meeting with clients by appointment only in:
The Lombardy Center, Suite #101, 410 Foulk Road, Wilmington, DE 19803
Call us toll free for more information at 1-866-652-8711 or email info@rglaw.us.
Thursday, October 25, 2007
The Violence Against Women Act and Immigrants: Not Just for Women Anymore
By: Elizabeth Cordeiro-Rowe, Esq.
It is hard to believe the end of October is almost here. Many love the “not so hot and not so cold” weather during this time of year and watching the foliage change colors. This is also a great time to take the kids for a hay ride and maybe pick a pumpkin at a local pumpkin patch. Every retailer has already begun to display Christmas merchandise. Most people look forward to these things to share with their families, as well as the upcoming holidays. Unbeknownst to many, the month of October has taken on a new meaning for various advocates nationwide, as it has been designated as the Domestic Violence Awareness month.
Domestic violence is defined as a pattern of abusive behavior where one partner tries to maintain control over the other by using physical, psychological, verbal, and sexual violence. Although factors such as drug and alcohol use, stress, or a family history of abuse may contribute to the problem, domestic violence is primarily an issue of power and control. Domestic violence has no boundaries: it occurs across all socio-economic and cultural backgrounds; it occurs in dating relationships, between cohabiting partners, in marriage, and same-sex relationships. Statistics gathered by the Centers for Disease Control reflect that nearly 25% of surveyed women and 8% of surveyed men said they had been raped and/or physically assaulted by a current or former spouse, cohabiting partner, or by someone they had dated at some time in their lives. Domestic violence is not an act or a group of acts that affects only the direct victim. Rather, it adversely impacts the lives of the victim, children, and families of those involved. Additionally, it plagues the elderly community, the disabled, as well as the immigrant community.
In the context of immigration, those who are affected by domestic violence face a unique set of challenges. Those women and men who are married to an abusive spouse and who have not yet acquired lawful permanent resident status are especially vulnerable to continued incidents of domestic violence for various reasons: they do not want to file a police report against their abuser because they are afraid of the potential aftermath, which may include violence at the hands of their abuser and potentially being turned over to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) for removal or deportation by the abuser. Further, they run the risk of losing custody of their U.S. citizen children if they are removed or deported. In addition, those immigrants being abused seldom have access to resources that would enable them escape the abusive relationship, such as access to checking or savings accounts, a driver’s license, a car, or a support network.
Although U.S. immigration laws tend to be harsh when it comes to those who have violated some provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act, (INA), it has been amended to make provision for those who are victims of domestic violence, affording them a real opportunity to ameliorate their personal situations. Namely, it allows those who are in abusive situations who are able to escape, to still be able to attain lawful permanent resident status, even if their U.S. citizen or green-card holding abusive spouse refuses to submit a petition for an immigrant visa on their behalf. The obstacles facing an immigrant in an abusive relationship are many, but these recent changes and updates in our immigration laws have given many renewed hope, in potentially allowing them to stay in the United States and raise their children here, obtain authorization to work, and eventually, attain lawful permanent resident status.
This provision of the INA, also known as the Violence against Women Act, or “VAWA,” is a reflection of Congress’ commitment to pass legislation that addresses domestic violence on a federal level. Prior to the passage of this law, domestic violence was often treated as a matter confined within the boundaries of private life and that it was an issue best dealt with on a community level. However, in the early 1990's, there was a growing concern that police departments and courts were not treating domestic violence as seriously as other forms of violence. As a response to these concerns, Democratic Senator Joe Biden drafted VAWA as part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, which was supported by Congressional Democrats and signed into law by President Clinton. VAWA '94 was a turning point in the struggle to deal with issues of domestic violence, as it was the first comprehensive federal law to address violence against women as a national concern. VAWA was reauthorized by Congress in 2000, and again in October 2005, when it passed the Senate unanimously. The bill was signed into law by President George W. Bush on January 5, 2006. The latest version also recognizes male victims of domestic violence and sexual assault for the first time.
Through these laws, Congress has created a means for immigrant women and men in abusive relationships to be able to “self-petition” for a green card, which means that they can apply for the green card on their own, along with their children. The abusive spouse plays no role in the process and does not have to know that their victim is applying for this benefit. Children affected by the abuse may also apply for immigration benefits under VAWA. There are some basic requirements that the victim of domestic violence must meet before their petition is approved by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS), which include:
(1) The self-petitioner must have had a relationship with a US citizen or lawful permanent resident. Only those who are or have been spouses or children or parents of U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents qualify for immigration status under the VAWA provisions;
(2) The abuser must have subjected the applicant to “battery or extreme cruelty;”
(3) The self-petitioner must show that they did not marry the abuser solely for the purpose of gaining immigration status in the United States; and
(4) The self-petitioner must demonstrate that they have good moral character.
If you are in an abusive marriage with a lawful permanent resident or U.S. citizen who refuses to submit a petition on your behalf, and if you meet the requirements above, you should seek the assistance of an immigration attorney, a local domestic violence shelter, or a victim advocacy group in your area to help you navigate through the intricacies of the self-petitioning process and help you take advantage of any immigration laws that may help you ameliorate your immigration status. In my opinion, it is one of the most compassionate provisions in the INA to date. It reflects that there is a national awareness of domestic violence, and more importantly it is a serious and realistic effort to assist and improve the standing of domestic violence victims and their children.
If you have any questions about this article or wish to speak with an immigration attorney, please call the multi-lingual law firm of Rapposelli & Gonzales at 1-866-652-8711 or send an email to immigration@rglaw.us.
It is hard to believe the end of October is almost here. Many love the “not so hot and not so cold” weather during this time of year and watching the foliage change colors. This is also a great time to take the kids for a hay ride and maybe pick a pumpkin at a local pumpkin patch. Every retailer has already begun to display Christmas merchandise. Most people look forward to these things to share with their families, as well as the upcoming holidays. Unbeknownst to many, the month of October has taken on a new meaning for various advocates nationwide, as it has been designated as the Domestic Violence Awareness month.
Domestic violence is defined as a pattern of abusive behavior where one partner tries to maintain control over the other by using physical, psychological, verbal, and sexual violence. Although factors such as drug and alcohol use, stress, or a family history of abuse may contribute to the problem, domestic violence is primarily an issue of power and control. Domestic violence has no boundaries: it occurs across all socio-economic and cultural backgrounds; it occurs in dating relationships, between cohabiting partners, in marriage, and same-sex relationships. Statistics gathered by the Centers for Disease Control reflect that nearly 25% of surveyed women and 8% of surveyed men said they had been raped and/or physically assaulted by a current or former spouse, cohabiting partner, or by someone they had dated at some time in their lives. Domestic violence is not an act or a group of acts that affects only the direct victim. Rather, it adversely impacts the lives of the victim, children, and families of those involved. Additionally, it plagues the elderly community, the disabled, as well as the immigrant community.
In the context of immigration, those who are affected by domestic violence face a unique set of challenges. Those women and men who are married to an abusive spouse and who have not yet acquired lawful permanent resident status are especially vulnerable to continued incidents of domestic violence for various reasons: they do not want to file a police report against their abuser because they are afraid of the potential aftermath, which may include violence at the hands of their abuser and potentially being turned over to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) for removal or deportation by the abuser. Further, they run the risk of losing custody of their U.S. citizen children if they are removed or deported. In addition, those immigrants being abused seldom have access to resources that would enable them escape the abusive relationship, such as access to checking or savings accounts, a driver’s license, a car, or a support network.
Although U.S. immigration laws tend to be harsh when it comes to those who have violated some provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act, (INA), it has been amended to make provision for those who are victims of domestic violence, affording them a real opportunity to ameliorate their personal situations. Namely, it allows those who are in abusive situations who are able to escape, to still be able to attain lawful permanent resident status, even if their U.S. citizen or green-card holding abusive spouse refuses to submit a petition for an immigrant visa on their behalf. The obstacles facing an immigrant in an abusive relationship are many, but these recent changes and updates in our immigration laws have given many renewed hope, in potentially allowing them to stay in the United States and raise their children here, obtain authorization to work, and eventually, attain lawful permanent resident status.
This provision of the INA, also known as the Violence against Women Act, or “VAWA,” is a reflection of Congress’ commitment to pass legislation that addresses domestic violence on a federal level. Prior to the passage of this law, domestic violence was often treated as a matter confined within the boundaries of private life and that it was an issue best dealt with on a community level. However, in the early 1990's, there was a growing concern that police departments and courts were not treating domestic violence as seriously as other forms of violence. As a response to these concerns, Democratic Senator Joe Biden drafted VAWA as part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, which was supported by Congressional Democrats and signed into law by President Clinton. VAWA '94 was a turning point in the struggle to deal with issues of domestic violence, as it was the first comprehensive federal law to address violence against women as a national concern. VAWA was reauthorized by Congress in 2000, and again in October 2005, when it passed the Senate unanimously. The bill was signed into law by President George W. Bush on January 5, 2006. The latest version also recognizes male victims of domestic violence and sexual assault for the first time.
Through these laws, Congress has created a means for immigrant women and men in abusive relationships to be able to “self-petition” for a green card, which means that they can apply for the green card on their own, along with their children. The abusive spouse plays no role in the process and does not have to know that their victim is applying for this benefit. Children affected by the abuse may also apply for immigration benefits under VAWA. There are some basic requirements that the victim of domestic violence must meet before their petition is approved by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS), which include:
(1) The self-petitioner must have had a relationship with a US citizen or lawful permanent resident. Only those who are or have been spouses or children or parents of U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents qualify for immigration status under the VAWA provisions;
(2) The abuser must have subjected the applicant to “battery or extreme cruelty;”
(3) The self-petitioner must show that they did not marry the abuser solely for the purpose of gaining immigration status in the United States; and
(4) The self-petitioner must demonstrate that they have good moral character.
If you are in an abusive marriage with a lawful permanent resident or U.S. citizen who refuses to submit a petition on your behalf, and if you meet the requirements above, you should seek the assistance of an immigration attorney, a local domestic violence shelter, or a victim advocacy group in your area to help you navigate through the intricacies of the self-petitioning process and help you take advantage of any immigration laws that may help you ameliorate your immigration status. In my opinion, it is one of the most compassionate provisions in the INA to date. It reflects that there is a national awareness of domestic violence, and more importantly it is a serious and realistic effort to assist and improve the standing of domestic violence victims and their children.
If you have any questions about this article or wish to speak with an immigration attorney, please call the multi-lingual law firm of Rapposelli & Gonzales at 1-866-652-8711 or send an email to immigration@rglaw.us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)