World Journal Weekly on April 9, 2006 Published a Special Report
Regarding the Senate Judiciary Committee's Illegal Aliens’
Earned Legalization/Guest Worker Program Proposal
The portion with Mr. Lee's comments was based on the following questions
& answers
By Alan Lee, Esq.†‡
1. Once the Senate Judiciary Committee’s immigration
reform passes, what effect will it have on the Chinese Community?
Some believe if this version of SJC immigration reform is passed,
it is similar to an amnesty; then will it affect the quota currently
assigned to legal immigrants? Will the 1986 amnesty situation occur
again which caused the relative aliens’ quota to be backed
up?
If the Senate Judiciary Committee version of immigration reform
passes, it will have a great effect upon the Chinese community by
opening up immigration channels for both legal and illegal immigrants.
The legislation, called the "Chairman's Mark" and otherwise
known as the "Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006",
will expand both family and employment based immigration, and put
many of the 9-14 million illegal immigrants on the road to permanent
legalization. This is not to be confused with an amnesty, as ultimate
permanent residence will take six years to become eligible, employment
during all of that six years with little exception, payment of all
taxes including back taxes, payment of fines, and the ability to
learn English. It would then take another five years for these individuals
to become eligible for citizenship. An amnesty on the other hand
contemplates an act which has immediate effect. This legislation
is the start of a long journey. The effect of this legislation upon
immigrant visa quotas currently assigned to legal immigrants will
only be beneficial as other provisions of the bill increase the
number of individuals able to immigrate under the family based and
employment based categories. The situation that occurred in the
legalization of 1986 will not occur under this legislation as the
relatives of those granted permanent residence will not be counted
against the number of available family based visas as was done in
1986.
2. Some believes that the guest worker program equals to
an amnesty, do you agree with this assessment?
I do not agree that the guest worker program is equal to an amnesty
as I have seen some of the language in other legislation dealing
with this and it is clear that people will be required to go home
at the end of the process. They may of course obtain a leg up on
the immigration process by having employers sponsor them for resident
status during their period of stay, but they would have to wait
at the back of the line along with anyone else wishing to immigrate
through the employment based system.
3. Are you optimistic on the outlook of legalization for
illegal aliens?
The chairman's mark can be improved, especially in the area of
judicial review, but it is overall much better and makes more sense
that the competing legislation, S. 2454 (Secure America's Borders
Act) and H.R. 4437 (Border Protection, Anti-terrorism, and Illegal
Immigration Control Act of 2005), which by and large contain only
enforcement provisions. Upcoming will be a test of which version
if any can emerge from the Senate, and what its fate will be in
conference with the House of Representatives' bill. It is extremely
difficult to foretell what will finally come to pass, but it is
virtually certain that all provisions of this good legislation in
the chairman's mark will not be preserved. There is also the distinct
possibility that no bill will pass given the divisiveness of the
issue and that this is an election year. The House leader has indicated
that the House may soften its stance on allowing a guest worker
program, but such a program will not solve the economic problems
facing this nation of a retiring generation of baby boomers and
a 30 million plus shortfall of workers in the next generation.
4. What should the illegal aliens do at this time to ensure
they will be eligible to take advantage of its rights and interests
once the new immigration reform passes?
The chairman's mark allows for conditional nonimmigrant status
for six years for those who entered the U.S. before January 7, 2004,
worked prior to that time in the U.S. and have worked since that
time in the U.S.. If this part of the chairman's mark becomes law,
their ability to take advantage would depend upon the proof that
they are able to obtain of both entry and work prior to and since
January 7, 2004. Minors under the age of 21 can qualify by showing
only that they were here prior to that date - they are not required
to show that they have worked. The burden of proof will be upon
the illegal immigrants to show by a preponderance of the evidence
that they qualify. My best advice to such aliens is to comb through
all records and keep them in a secure location. The legislation
prescribes records from federal, state or local government agencies,
employers, labor unions, day labor centers, organizations assisting
workers in matters related to employment, or if not able to attain
such, bank records, business records, sworn affidavits from non
relatives having direct knowledge of the work, or remittance records.
5. In the cases you handled regarding illegal aliens’
adjustment of status, what were the typical cases? Do you have any
interesting or representative stories on which you can elaborate?
In adjusting status for illegal aliens in 1986, the biggest issue
was the quality of the proof. An I-94 card with passports showing
no further trips in or out of the U.S. for members of the Chinese
community was particularly helpful in establishing residence prior
to the cut off date for entry. The quality of evidence became devalued
if many members of the same community had the same documentation
from the same source. I recall having seen a membership card from
an association attesting the membership of the individual prior
to the cut off date for entry so many times that I eventually wondered
whether the cards were real or whether the association had started
a cottage industry in such membership cards.
6. Other comments.
It is quite obvious that this new hope for legalization is entirely
to be credited to immigrants and their supporters rallying and making
themselves visible on national television. Prior to those events,
pro immigration forces were on the defensive only. However, the
sight of over 500,000 marching in Los Angeles and large gatherings
in other states electrified the debate and shifted the momentum
to the chairman's mark. Those who are interested in immigrants'
rights must continue to march to make themselves visible because
the debate on which version of immigration reform will come out
of Congress will be acrimonious. In marching, flags of other countries
should not be exhibited. Besides the indignation of certain anti-immigrant
members of Congress that many illegal immigrants are marching when
they should only be hiding, these members have also pointed out
that it will be difficult to assimilate people who identify more
with their home countries (see their flags) than with the U.S.
|
