December 14, 2010 in Immigration, Legal News by jferris

Speedy Travel at the Airport

Although I am not going anywhere, as summer rolls along, visions of distant lands dance in my head. However, that vision is marred by long lines at the airports – getting your luggage checked, getting into a plane with carry-on bags and no overhead place, and finally the immigration and customs line ups.

This year, for a fee, the government and even some airlines are helping to ease that pain.

The U.S. government (and some foreign governments as well, like Holland) has introduced the Global Entry Program. U.S. citizens over the age of 14 can pay a fee of $100 (valid for 5 years) and enroll in the program. They have to enter their data in the following website:

https://goes-app.cbp.dhs.gov/

After the completion of the process, there will be a one-time CBP interview.

However, once it’s complete, you do not need to stand in any immigration line. There are kiosks in most major airports. The traveler has to scan in their passport at airport kiosks, and zoom down to luggage claim.

Similarly, in Houston IAH, international travelers who are U.S. citizens and have no checked luggage can go through the lines used by pilots and flight attendants for faster processing.

This process can be used by anyone, but because of the lengthy process to get into the program, it is probably feasible for frequent business travelers only. The travelers also get expedited check-in kiosks at other participating countries, as well. As more countries sign on, the price may come down.

There is a chance that this may simply become a requirement for foreign travel in the future. It will save money on personnel for countries participating in this program. Additionally, some airlines are also letting passengers cut in line for boarding the plane or for checking in for a fee. Both American and Southwest airlines are going to be offering this perk for a fee ranging from $10 to $50 per ticket.

This will be the future of travel, in a world increasingly short for time. But then, in this world, will there even be time for vacations?

Annie Banerjee, J.D.
281-242-9139

To learn more, visit http://www.visatous.com.

November 30, 2010 in Immigration, Legal News by jferris

The Law Office of Annie Banerjee Helps with EB-1 and NIW

For people who have questions about EB-1 and National Interest Waiver (NIW), The Law Offices of Annie Banerjee, a Houston based immigration law office, can provide guidance with the application process and resolve any questions that arise.

When aliens seeking work in the U.S. qualify as an outstanding professor or researcher, they also qualify for First Employment Based Preference (or EB-1, for short). Usually an employer would sponsor the person to hold a tenure track or a permanent position, for example. If an employer does not sponsor an alien, he or she may still qualify under EB-1 if the person holds “Extraordinary Ability”, or under the Second Employment Based Preference (EB-2) for National Interest Waivers (NIW).

“The difference between Extraordinary Ability and National Interest Waivers is that the requirements are higher for Extraordinary Ability. Generally, the higher the preference, the shorter time to get permanent residency,” said Annie Banerjee from the Law Offices of Annie Banerjee.

Extraordinary Ability Aliens must meet at least three requirements, one more requirement than Extraordinary Aliens must meet. The requirements are: The alien must have nationally or internationally recognized prizes and be members of an association that requires outstanding achievements. The alien should have substantial publications in major journals and should list all publications. Also, others should have cited your work in a publication. It would help if you had participated in a panel or have judged the qualifications of others in a peer review. Also weighing heavily is evidence of original scientific or artistic contributions such as patents or copyrights. Lastly, evidence of earning a high salary would also be one of the requirements.

For National Interest Waivers, one must have a master’s degree or higher and must meet all three of the following qualifications: Work must be of substantial intrinsic merit. For example, it can not an esoteric field of law. Secondly, the scope of the work is national and not merely local; it must appear in national journals, for example. Lastly, the work benefits the national interest to a “substantially greater degree than would an available U.S. worker having the same minimum qualifications.” This means that it significantly exceeds the norm in some way. It must establish that there is no need to protect normal U.S. workers through a labor certification process.

Banerjee also stresses the importance of reference letters. “Reference letters from professors or researchers in the field is always very useful for all the categories,” Banerjee said.

To learn more, visit http://www.visatous.com.

November 30, 2010 in Immigration, Legal News by jferris

ICE Releases Secure Communities Data Showing the Program Ineffective in Removing Dangerous Criminal Aliens; Program Remains Open to Abuse, Rabinowitz Says

A 2-year-old Department of Homeland Security program deported 392,000 foreign nationals in the past 12 months. Dallas-based immigration attorney Stewart Rabinowitz of the firm Rabinowitz & Rabinowitz weighs in on the pitfalls of the program.

The program, Secure Communities, allows U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) to examine detainee fingerprints sent from local law enforcement agencies. ICE searches for a fingerprint match in the Department of Homeland Security databases, which contains data on both lawful and unlawful foreign nationals. ICE then makes a determination whether to initiate removal proceedings.

Opponents of the program argue that it is open to abuse because an individual’s immigration history is investigated regardless of the crime.

“This leaves the door open to a pretext arrest of a person whom the police believe looks like an illegal immigrant,” said Dallas-based immigration attorney Stewart Rabinowitz of Rabinowitz & Rabinowitz, P.C. “If the police are correct, ICE will detain and remove the person and there will never be trial on the charges prompting the arrest. Police only need to allege the commission of a crime – regardless of probable cause.”There are no safeguards in place to prevent this from happening, as ICE does not monitor local law enforcement agencies for procedural or civil rights violations.

Proponents of the program cite the removal of large numbers of foreign nationals from the United States and frequently look no further. But the Department of Homeland Security and ICE set annual priorities, and chief among them is the removal of dangerous, criminal aliens from the United States.

Measured by the number of dangerous criminals removed, ICE’s own statistics reveal that Secure Communities has been ineffective. From October 2009 to August 2010, only 16 percent of people deported were found to have committed serious crimes. “The program is supposed to protect the U.S. from people who pose a danger to public safety, but it ends up doing much more than that. It deports people who pose no threat, while dangerous criminal aliens still remain at large,” Rabinowitz said. “Secure Communities as an unchecked federal program enables racial profiling.”

And the Department of Homeland Security has told those localities that have decided to no longer participate in Secure Communities because of its perceived adverse affects on police-community relations that localities cannot opt out of the program.

ICE plans to extend the program to every state in the U.S. by next year, and hopes to be in all 3,100 state and local jails by 2013.

To learn more about Rabinowitz & Rabinowitz, P.C., call 1.972.233.6200 or visit http://www.rabinowitzrabinowitz.com.

November 29, 2010 in Immigration, Legal News by jferris

Miami Immigration Lawyers Rifkin & Fox-Isicoff Indicate the Debate Over Unemployed Americans Wanting Farm Jobs is Heating Up

There’s a great debate in the nation about how to get unemployed Americans working in agriculture. It is a debate made all the more controversial by the fact that many unemployed Americans don’t want to work in jobs they consider demeaning.

Republicans on a committee dealing with this issue are arguing that illegal immigrants take jobs away from the unemployed. Democrats argue that if unemployed Americans wanted those agricultural jobs, they’d already be working in them. The fact that they are not sends an interesting message to the politicians who have yet to acknowledge that migrant workers are what keep the country’s produce moving.

Sometimes there are issues that are best left alone, unless the government wants to poke about and make things worse. The burning issue in relation to immigrants working in agricultural jobs is that their presence means Americans don’t have that work. While that is true on the surface, the question then becomes where are the Americans who will work this kind of job?

On one side of the fence is a group that thinks allowing low skilled guest workers to take jobs from poor whites, black and legal Hispanics is counterintuitive. On the other side of the fence is the faction that says some agricultural jobs are not a good fit for unemployed people. These days it would seem that the issue is having work and paying the bills, not whether or not the job is a good fit. If this is to say that some people don’t like toiling in the fields, then why would they think the American taxpayers should pick up their living expenses in the form of welfare?

Evidently, most of the agricultural jobs are seasonal, which means workers would have to move where the work is located. Wages are also considered to be very low for the number of hours required. Also at issue is that migrant farm laborers have fewer rights than other laborers.

These three factors are essentially a turnoff for American workers. That said, a job is a job and if someone does not have one, but there is work to be had, it’s hardly acceptable to not take work because it’s not attractive. Today’s economy dictates that people need to do what they can to get food on the table and keep a roof over their heads.

The ultimate hitch with this Rubik’s cube of a problem is that without enough migrant workers to pull the product out of the field, agricultural production could stop, growers lose crops and farms go out of business. Since the nation relies of farms for food, this would be a crisis of major proportions. Right now, the legal method to let migrant workers into America is extremely slow. Many argue that Visa reform is critical.

Workers in the fields now are under a shaky H-2A guest worker program, which is highly unreliable. This leaves employers with the choice of taking that slow route when they need workers immediately, or taking documents that look good from migrant workers who may be here illegally, or hiring Americans, if any chose to apply.

The number of workers needed to keep the wheels of agriculture turning in the U.S. is 2 million and only 5,000 visas are earmarked each year for migrant workers. Where is the remainder of workers to come from? This is the conundrum yet to be solved.

To learn more, visit http://www.rifkinandfoxisicoff.com

November 28, 2010 in Immigration, Legal News by jferris

Banerjee Explains How to Apply for Permanent Residency through Employment

Labor certification allows beneficiaries to enter the U.S. through employment. Before employers hire aliens, they have to prove to the Department of Labor that there are no qualified citizens or Green Card holders to fill the position, and must thoroughly test the labor market to find qualified applicants. This is done by posting and advertising the position and interviewing candidates.

“Applying for Permanent Residency can be a daunting lengthy process; therefore, it is helpful to know how many employment-based permanent residency categories there are and which closely describes you,” said Annie Banerjee of The Law Offices of Annie Banerjee, a Houston-based immigration lawyer.

There are five categories under employment-based green cards. Note that there are labor certification requirements for all categories except EB-1 and EB-5, which go directly to 1-480 (Visa Petition status) or the 1-485 (Adjustment of Status).

(Employment Based) EB-1 is generally for L-1A managers, outstanding professors or researchers and extraordinary ability aliens. They do not require labor certification like the others but they have high standards and requirements to meet and would only need to file I-140 and I-485.

With an EB-2, a labor certification is required and is for the beneficiary who holds an advanced degree – a minimum of a master’s degree. He or she would have to meet the Exceptional Ability requirements.

EB-3 holders are usually members of a profession holding at least a bachelor’s degree. They would also need a labor certification and EB-4s are reserved for religious workers.

Investors need an EB-5. Although there is no labor certification required, they must at least invest $1 million in cities – or $500,000 in “targeted employment” – and employ at least 10 full-time U.S. employees.

A qualified immigration law office can guide skillful aliens through the application process and advise them of the steps and requirements they would need for an employment based permanent residency Green Card.

To learn more, visit http://www.visatous.com.

November 25, 2010 in Immigration, Legal News by jferris

As Government Turns to Social Networking Sites to Track Users, Immigration Attorney Rabinowitz Advises Discretion

Social networking websites are currently seeing extensive popularity, some of them connecting more than 500 million people across the world. Dallas-based immigration attorney Stewart Rabinowitz of the firm Rabinowitz & Rabinowitz advises social network users to only connect to people they already know.

People use social networking websites for numerous reasons – to keep in touch with family across long distances, to search for romantic partners and sometimes even to find completely new friends based on similar interests. Many users choose to connect with people they do not know in the outside world to enhance the amount of virtual “friends” they have to appear more popular. On most social networks, this means that the new “friend” can see all of the user’s private information, as well as any correspondence the user has with close friends or family.

“Connecting to people you don’t actually know is a terrible idea,” said Dallas-based immigration attorney Stewart Rabinowitz of the firm Rabinowitz & Rabinowitz. “There is nothing wrong with creating a private profile to stay in contact with close friends and family, but allowing total strangers to view personal information is a mistake.”

When a user posts information on a social networking site, it creates a public record and timeline of his or her activities. Users can set privacy settings to strict levels on most sites, allowing only friends to view this information. However, privacy settings are worthless when a user connects to strangers.

“People who post personal information on social networking websites and become friends with mass amounts of people they do not know could potentially be opening themselves up to easy surveillance,” Rabinowitz said. “The government knows these sites exist. There are documented cases where law enforcement officials and immigration officers tracked social networking users and used the information they posted against them in court.”

The process of creating a social networking profile is simple on most sites. The user often needs only to submit an e-mail address and a password to create an individual page. The user can then post whatever personal information and photographs he or she wants, even if the information is untrue or the photographs are of someone else.

That someone else could be a spammer, a data thief or even an agent from the Fraud Detection and National Security office, which recently issued a memo that said, “Social Networking gives FDNS an opportunity to reveal fraud by browsing these sites to see if petitioners and beneficiaries are in a valid relationship or are attempting to deceive [the U.S. Bureau of Citizen and Immigration Services] about their relationship.”

“The attractive girl from California who sent you that friend request because she saw you both like the beach might actually be someone who wants to track what you post. Use your discretion. Set privacy levels to the strictest settings, post as little personal information as possible and only connect to people you actually know. You never know who could be trying to access your information,” Rabinowitz said.

To learn more about Rabinowitz & Rabinowitz, P.C., call 1.972.233.6200 or visit http://www.rabinowitzrabinowitz.com.

November 20, 2010 in Immigration, Legal News by jferris

Miami Immigration Lawyers Rifkin & Fox-Isicoff Suggest There Are no Carrots When Dealing with Comprehensive Immigration Reform

At first it seemed comprehensive immigration reform was doable. Then, over time, the administration gave out signals it would be difficult to pull off. The devil lies in mixed messages.

When the DREAM Act was defeated, the president went on TV to talk about immigration reform as he knows it. He was asked if he would use administrative powers to take care of the outrageous abuses of the immigration system. This is lieu of a direct path to citizenship via a stalled CIR Bill. The answer was interesting, because Obama said it was hard to do administratively.

This was an interesting stance, as it’s fairly well known that putting a stop to mass deportations would be easy to do administratively. There isn’t a law anywhere on the books that says or directs the Department of Homeland Security to obsessively strive for record breaking deportation numbers, which is what is happening right now. The fact is if the administration wanted to stop what some regard as an obscene practice, they could. Period. Throw in an election and things inexplicably change.

What’s going on right now, in the face of a November election, is that deportation numbers are at an all time high and CIR is nowhere to be seen. In other words, nothing is being done about reform, unless it deals with enforcement.

It’s not politically correct to be seen supporting CIR, not when animosity in the country over this proposed bill is so high. Those supporting CIR may face a rough road during their campaign for re-election, which accounts for why so many politicians have seemingly changed sides and flip-flopped over this issue. The voters aren’t stupid. Many Latinos will be voting with their feet in the election by staying home or casting their ballot for the other guy.

A quick look back at this year so far shows no DREAM Act passed and no CIR. What does the government have to recommend it for re-election based on these two issues besides stepped up enforcement, which is not going over well. Dangling the carrot of passing the CIR after the election isn’t getting the response the politicians thought it would. In fact, in many states, the fate of the incumbents may lie in the balance based on their stance on CIR.

There is still no direct path to citizenship and seems that there isn’t one on its way. That does not bode well for the millions of immigrants who need to know what their status is or isn’t. Dangling a carrot in front of desperate people who are fed up with waiting isn’t a good tactic. The election may bring the nation some surprises.

To learn more, visit http://www.rifkinandfoxisicoff.com

October 18, 2010 in Immigration, Legal News by jferris

DHS to Deploy Additional Agents

The Department of Homeland Security will deploy 2,200 Border Patrol agents along the northern border by the end of 2010. Dallas-based immigration attorney Stewart Rabinowitz of the firm Rabinowitz & Rabinowitz believes that such additional allocation of personnel has its pros and cons.

On Aug. 25, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Janet Napolitano visited Piegan, Sweetgrass, Sunburst, and Havre, Montana, with Senators Max Baucus and Jon Tester and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Commissioner Alan Bersin to tour CBP operations and meet with state and local officials, law enforcement personnel, and private sector stakeholders regarding DHS’s efforts to secure the northern border.

“We have made critical security enhancements along our northern border, investing in additional personnel, technology, and infrastructure to meet the security and operational requirements of our post-9/11 world,” Napolitano said. “DHS is committed to working closely with our federal, state, local and tribal law enforcement partners with the citizens of Montana to protect the border while facilitating legal trade and travel.”

State of the art technologies now put in place at Piegan and Sweetgrass ports of entry include thermal camera systems and Mobile Surveillance Systems. A roundtable discussion was held in Sunburst, Montana involving federal, state, local, tribal, and Canadian law enforcement to discuss potential methods of combating transnational crime and illicit drug smuggling along the northern border. DHS expects to have more than 2,200 Border Patrol agents along the northern border by the end of 2010 – a 700 percent increase since Sept. 11, 2001 – in addition to the approximately 5,800 CBP officers already stationed in northern border states.

“While more stringent security and safeguards are expected in the wake of the events which so traumatized Americans nine years ago, especially since several of the nineteen hijackers of jet planes were known to have entered the United States via Canadian routes to wreak their havoc, I question if the right questions are being asked when security and safeguards are being formulated, let alone being implemented. Are we as a nation simply being reactive or truly proactive – in the primarily enforcement-focused measures being taken, repetitively and continually, during the years since?” asked Dallas-based immigration attorney Stewart Rabinowitz, of the firm Rabinowitz & Rabinowitz.

Rabinowitz wonders about immigration patterns, scrutiny and leeway being granted or denied, and about excess concern with U.S.-Canada trade interactions, as individuals are too often lost in the paranoiac shuffle, or worse, subject to CBP abuses committed in the name of enhanced security. “These may have far reaching consequences too,” Rabinowitz said.

To learn more about Rabinowitz & Rabinowitz, P.C., call 1.972.233.6200 or visit http://www.rabinowitzrabinowitz.com.

October 18, 2010 in Immigration, Legal News by jferris

Recent Unauthorized Immigration Drops Sharply

While recent unauthorized immigration has been undergoing a sharp decline, the mainstream media is paying scant attention. Dallas-based immigration attorney Stewart Rabinowitz of the firm Rabinowitz & Rabinowitz offers some relevant commentary.

The annual inflow of unauthorized immigrants – sometimes referred to in the mainstream media as “illegal immigrants,” or in an even less favorable light as “illegals” – was nearly two-thirds smaller in the March 2007 to March 2009 period than it had been from March 2000 to March 2005, according to new estimates by the Pew Hispanic Center, a project of the Pew Research Center.

This sharp decline has contributed to an overall reduction of 8 percent in the number of unauthorized immigrants currently living in the United States – to 11.1 million in March 2009 from a peak of 12 million in March 2007, according to the estimates. The decrease represents the first significant reversal in the growth of this population over the past two decades.

“You would think that this would be a major news story, and be getting a lot of attention from the U.S. media,” said Dallas-based immigration attorney Stewart Rabinowitz of the firm Rabinowitz & Rabinowitz. “But for some reason, the opposite message – that unauthorized immigration is out of control and continues to increase at unprecedented rates – is what anti-immigration voices in the media trumpet and what even so-called ‘moderate’ voices acquiesce to. Unfortunately, the reasons for this are best explained as political and part of an agenda.”

The Pew Hispanic Center’s analysis also finds that the most marked decline in the population of unauthorized immigrants has been among those who come from Latin American countries other than Mexico. From 2007 to 2009, the size of this group from the Caribbean, Central America and South America decreased 22 percent.

“Often some of the anti-immigration pundits and commentators will exaggerate and use hyperbole to say that next to Mexico, many other dark-skinned persons from points further south are sneaking in across the U.S.-Mexican border, although they will use language a bit more toned down than that, and they make their intent well-known,” Rabinowitz said. “What they are saying on talk radio tends to be thinly veiled.”

Lack of a factual basis fails to deter anti-immigration voices. The Pew Center’s analysis also noted that the inflow of Mexican unauthorized immigrants peaked at 7 million in 2007 and has since leveled off.

To learn more about Rabinowitz & Rabinowitz, P.C., call 1.972.233.6200 or visit http://www.rabinowitzrabinowitz.com.

October 13, 2010 in Immigration, Legal News by jferris

Shoving politics to the side is the only way to accomplish CIR

If politics weren’t involved in comprehensive immigration reform, it might have been accomplished by now.

The only one thing that remains a given – as far as it can be, that is – is the fact that the Comprehensive Immigration Reform for America’s Security and Prosperity Act 2009 has been tabled. That should mean that the subcommittees working on it, citizenship, refugees, international law, border security and immigration, should really enact it. But Bill HR4321 languishes on the table.

Politics has once again reared its ugly head and the fate of millions of immigrants hangs in limbo, while petty differences of opinion hold up a major bill that could change the lives of those involved. The premise behind this bill is a good one, and that is, if the system can be fixed by working together to find a complete and equitable solution that keeps the border secure, enforces the law and acknowledges the mixed heritage of Americans, it would be a win-win situation for all. It would ultimately mean that immigration would be driven by what is in the best economic interests of the nation and the American worker.

This sounds fine in theory. This sounds fine in debate. This sounds fine in a bill. However, that’s as far as it’s gotten – sounding fine. No one can seem to get it implemented due to politics. To accomplish comprehensive immigration reform, the political parties need to work together to make it happen for the people who elected them. That’s not happening because no one can agree on how to make it happen without stepping on a whole lot of toes.

This has been going on for too long. No wonder things are up in the air and comprehensive immigration reform is only proceeding on the enforcement front. It’s the easiest area to do something visible in. It’s rather obvious that the only way something will give is to shove politics to the side and get comprehensive immigration reform handled.

To learn more, visit http://www.rifkinandfoxisicoff.com