THE NEXT AMNESTY? CAN YOU PREPARE FOR IT?
By Alan Lee†‡
Are we seeing the outlines of the next amnesty
plan in the Kolbe-Flake bill, H.R. 2899, the “Border Security
and Immigration Improvement Act” (Jim Kolbe/Jeff Flake, R-Az),
introduced into Congress on July 25, 2003, and promised support
by President Bush on August 10, 2003?1
White House support is certainly enough to get the bill noticed
and greatly improve its chances for passage, but there are other
factors helping it: The time is appropriate as the president needs
a big event to continue his strong support from the Hispanic population
in time for his reelection campaign of 2004. In addition, the bill
has enough in it to offend many on the left and right, a good sign
for a controversial bill which would otherwise be politically dead
if it favored only one side. Conservatives are already up in arms
against it, Hispanic advocacy groups are opposed to the bill's long
wait for green cards, and the American Immigration Lawyers Association
characterizes it as flawed legislation.2
Similar but less defined legislation is presently in the Senate,
S.1387, the “Border Security and Immigration Reform Act of
2003”, introduced by Senator John Cornyn of Texas on July
10, 2003, which can act as the accompanying Senate bill.
The key features of the bill for illegals in
the country are its provisions allowing individuals legal status
who have final orders of exclusion, deportation or removal; forgiving
all types of fraud involved in entering the U.S. and obtaining fraudulent
documentation to work; making illegals go through a three-year period
of time in H-4B status during which no changes of status or adjustments
of status to permanent residence are permitted; allowing spouses
or children to obtain derivative status during the three year period
if they were illegally in the U.S. before August 1, 2003; imposing
a $1500 charge plus application fee upon aliens to change status
to H-4B (except for children under the age of 17); allowing the
H-4B alien to upgrade his or her status to H-4A at the end of the
three year period upon sponsorship of a U.S. employer willing to
pay ($1,000 if more than 500 employees and $500 if less and an application
fee) and to go through an electronic job registry of the Department
of Labor for 14 days to ensure that there are no equally or more
qualified U.S. workers for the position. During this 3 year period,
H-4A aliens are allowed to be sponsored by their employers for permanent
residence without restriction of quota numbers (a necessary feature
in light of the 8-11 million illegal aliens in the country at this
time3). Without
the aid of the employer, H-4A aliens can self petition, but only
at the end of the three year period of H-4A status. To do so of
course, the H-4A alien would need the employer's assistance to apply
for extension of H-4A status -- this time without fee or having
to go through the job registry.
There are three major requirements in the bill
for eligibility of illegals – 1) Illegal entry into the U.S.
before August 1, 2003 or becoming illegal through status expiration
or any other act of illegality having been known to the government
before August 1, 2003; 2) Proof that the illegal alien has worked
in the US before August 1, 2003 up through the date of application
filing; and 3) Residence in the US since date of entry through the
date of application filing. Ineligible aliens include those excludable
for criminal acts (except for crimes relating to unlawful entry
in this country or presence or document fraud to gain a benefit
under the immigration laws or to satisfy an aspect of the immigration
laws), security concerns or public charge grounds. “J”
exchange visitors still subject to 2 year home residence requirements
and persecutors of others for reasons of race, religion, membership
in social group, nationality or political opinion are also ineligible.
What can illegal aliens do to prepare themselves
for this amnesty if it comes to pass? Is it already too late to
do anything? The answer is “maybe not.” Dates are not
fixed in stone at this time. Dates of eligibility can be changed,
either in this legislation as it wends its way through the political
process or any other legislation which receives attention by Congress.
Looking back at the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986,
(IRCA, the last amnesty or as termed by Congress, “Legalization”)4
many eligible aliens had trouble proving that they were actually
present in the United States by the date of eligibility. This writer
would therefore suggest that those who are illegal take immediate
steps to prove their presence in the United States on a definitive
basis if they have not already done so. They may have difficulties
of proof if the only evidence of being here by the eligibility date
are materials such as statements and affidavits from friends and
relatives, leases, and membership cards or identification cards
from private organizations. The most convincing evidence would be
official materials such as I-94 entry/exit forms, passports obtained
at their countries' consulate or embassy in the United States, U.S.
driver's licenses, U.S. bank accounts (not joint accounts), U.S.
tax returns, or minor citation tickets by the police or other federal,
state or city agencies. Even just applying for a TIN (explained
below) would be proof of physical presence
The second requirement – working in the
U.S. prior to August 1, 2003 – is applicable to principal
aliens, not to their derivatives who arrived in the US before that
date. It is difficult to know what level of proof will suffice to
show that applicants have worked before that date as many if not
most illegal immigrants are paid off the books. The best proof of
course would be payment of taxes as that would be irrefutable proof
of actual work. The IRCA cannot be used for guidance because residence
and not work was the major criteria for acceptance in the last amnesty.
Is the BCIS prepared to be lenient in accepting alternate forms
of proof? Will the separation of the INS into three separate agencies
with the BCIS being devoted to customer service help aliens? Or
will the ingrained culture of enforcement and retention of former
enforcement officers on the BCIS side defeat this goal? Alternate
forms of proof could include items such as canceled checks from
workplaces, correspondence to the applicant at the worksite, notarized
statements of past employment from employers, co-workers, and objective
customers and suppliers with knowledge of the applicant's employment,
etc. Will the BCIS employ the same standards accepted by examiners
in employment based cases of notarized statements from employers
or if such statements are not able to be obtained, an affidavit
of unavailability and the reasons for such by the applicant along
with notarized statements from others in or outside the workplace
with knowledge of the individual's experience in the workplace?5
Because there is no past amnesty standard against which to judge
the rigorousness with which BCIS will adjudicate proof of past employment,
readers who have not yet paid taxes or possess Social Security cards
are encouraged to have their employers immediately begin paying
them by check rather than cash, go to the IRS (Internal Revenue
Service) to apply for a tax identification number (TIN) to begin
recording payments on the books6
(please note that this does not insulate employers from liability
for hiring illegal aliens), and obtain sworn statements pertaining
to the facts of past employment from employers and others. Statements
obtained at this time may prove very useful as they may be more
believable than those obtained when an amnesty law has passed, and
the number of affiants now available may be greater today than at
a later date.
The third requirement of illegal residence
in the U.S. from eligibility date through date of application filing
should not prove to be a major obstacle for most applicants. Unlike
the IRCA of 1986 which required years of prior residence to qualify,
this plan envisions a very short period. Questions may arise as
in the IRCA with the meaning of the bill’s terms "resided"
and "be in an unlawful status", but the BCIS can draw
upon its IRCA experience and not make the same mistakes which prompted
class action lawsuits which continue today7
and attendant changes of law by Congress in reaction to the suits8.
From this law firm's experience in dealing with cases from IRCA
and the Chinese Student Protection Act (CSPA) of 19929,
both of which involved proving residence over a period of time,
it can be anticipated that the BCIS will have a relaxed standard
of proof once an alien's presence on the date of eligibility can
be clearly proven. In IRCA and the CSPA, the INS was willing to
accept most types of secondary evidence-even 1 or 2 items per year-as
proof of residence for the remaining time. Such proof included employment
letters, school records, school identification cards, transcripts,
affidavits from credible witnesses, leases, letters from overseas
to the applicant, letters that the alien had sent to relatives overseas,
receipts for transactions involving personal property and services,
insurance policies, association, group or organization records,
utility bills, phone bills, etc.
It is clear in looking at the proposed legislation
that it will not be the perfect solution for many individuals and
groups. However, that very imperfection may be its beauty and the
key to political acceptability. At the very least, HR 2899 gives
readers a concept of the parameters of any possible bill for an
amnesty in the near future.
|