The general population of the United States has shown a long-term, marked resistance to the relaxation of immigration standards. This prevailing sentiment has, at times, translated into overtly anti-immigrant manifestations. Historically, these stances have been most pronounced during economically distressed times. In such circumstances, nativist groups lobby for restrictions to immigration on the premise that a restricted or eliminated flow of immigrants would help to preserve the dwindling number of jobs for Americans.

With the emergence of the Tea Party movement and the evidence of its strength within the Republican Party in recent years, many Republicans — afraid of being “primaried” by a more conservative Tea Party acolyte — have proclaimed their conservative bone fides on such sensitive issues as abortion, taxes and immigration. This phenomenon also tends to keep compromise-minded legislators from straying far from the conservative line.

But past statistics seem to suggest that election-year pressures may not be as pivotal as they are touted to be — at least not on the issue of immigration.

If one were to review the record over the last 50 years (a period that includes some of the most contentious immigration legislation passed in American history), it would become quite evident that election-year status has little bearing on the passage of legislation on immigration. Indeed, of the 81 immigration laws enacted during the five-decade-long period, 70 percent were passed in the same year in which a congressional election was scheduled.

It may seem counterintuitive that the prospects for immigration reform are better in an election year. But with the vast majority of immigration laws focused on such election-salient issues as the economy and law enforcement, immigration is quite magnetic as a running platform for an officeholder.

With the electoral environment more conducive to members of Congress running on immigration reform, perhaps it should be unsurprising that on January 30, 2014, House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, promulgated a set of principles his caucus adopted that is more flexible and accommodating of an overhaul of the nation’s immigration laws.

A. Banerjee is a Houston immigration lawyer in Texas. Before selecting an attorney, contact the Law Offices of Annie Banerjee by visiting their information filled web site at http://www.visatous.com.

<!– Social Buttons Generated by Digg Digg plugin v5.3.6,
Author : Buffer, Inc
Website : http://bufferapp.com/diggdigg –>

There are two sections of a law that lays out benefits for U.S. veterans that the Obama administration will no longer enforce. In a rare decisions to stop enforcing enforcing federal laws, the President has directed the Executive Branch to cease enforcement of sections 101(3) and 1010(31) Title 38.

(Related: Advance Care Planning Lessons for Oakland County Residents)

The sections define marriage as between a man and woman and deny legally married same-sex couple Veterans Affairs benefits like health care and disability payments. House Speaker John Boehner, a Republican from Ohio, said the decision to allow same-sex couples to apply for benefits was based on a June Supreme Court decision that shot down the Defense of Marriage Act.

“Although the Supreme Court did not directly address the constitutionality of the Title 38 provisions in Windsor, the reasoning of the opinion strongly supports the conclusion that those provisions are unconstitutional under the Fifth Amendment,” Holder wrote.

(Related: Majority of Hospitals Fail a Medicare Test)

The Obama administration continues to execute moves in compliance with the United States v. Windsor ruling. Earlier this year, the IRS made it known that it would treat all married couples, both same-sex and straight, the same. Prior to that, the Pentagon extended full benefits to same-sex spouses of service members and civilian employees. A federal judge ruled that to denying them those benefits, is unconstitutional.

Christopher J. Berry is an elder law attorney Dedicated to helping seniors, veterans and their families navigate the long-term care maze. To learn more visit http://www.theeldercarefirm.com/ or call 248.481.4000

Though immigration has long been a hot-button issue, it seems the U.S. House has decided to delay further examination of several immigration bills while still grappling with how to approach a mostly Republican-backed desire for greater border security. It is expected that most revisions to immigration law which will affect individuals already residing in the country will not be determined until next year.

The House is now beginning to put a strategy into place for the rewrite that is needed of immigration laws, more than six months after the Senate-began its negotiations and weeks after the broad plan was passed.

Senate bill S. 744 proposes a path to citizenship for the more than11 undocumented immigrants who are residing in the United States and undocumented, along with a plan for border security which would cost $46 billion. Though most Senate Democrats and 14 Republicans passed the bill, a large number of House Republicans have stated that they are opposing the current citizenship path proposal. House Speaker John Boehner has repeatedly stated that the Senate bill would not be addressed any time soon, while Louisiana Representative John Fleming stated that any action this July on the bill was “100 percent unlikely.”

House Republicans met for a members-only meeting in July during which they reaffirmed that they would approach the immigration legislation decisions via individual bills. They plan to vote on how to strengthen U.S. border security before they move to other immigration reform issues. Boarder security and the enforcement of current immigration laws were the top priority, Boehner said. He did not comment on whether or not he thought the legislation which included the much-touted citizenship path plan would be passed, a plan which includes a provision not unlike President Obama’s DREAM Act. The DREAM Act is structured to fast-track the undocumented immigrants in the U.S. who came to the country as children and who have gone on to serve in the military or attend college.

President Obama has stated that he hoped to sign comprehensive immigration legislation by the end of 2012. Agreeing on citizenship pathways and border security continue to be a major hurdle for both the House and Senate. Grassroots supporters from business communities, from faith groups and social action communities have been lobbying for the Senate to move forward quickly, to little effect.

A. Banerjee is a Houston immigration lawyer in Texas. Before selecting an attorney, contact the Law Offices of Annie Banerjee by visiting their information filled web site at http://www.visatous.com.

<!– Social Buttons Generated by Digg Digg plugin v5.3.0,
Author : Buffer, Inc
Website : http://bufferapp.com/diggdigg –>