Nature of Charge in New Filings Seeking Removal Orders through February 2014
and this from ABCNEWS
An Oval Office meeting with three Latino lawmakers brought about a late-night announcement from the White House on Thursday: Obama is directing his homeland security chief, Jeh Johnson, to review America's deportation program, with an eye toward finding more humane ways to enforce the law without contravening it.
~ Perhaps this has something to do with the administration's belief that they should focus their prosecutorial resources on removing serious criminals who pose a threat to the communities. That is what they say at least. Those of us who practice in immigration have come to know that either the administration leadership has no control over the bureaucracy - or they are being dishonest about their priorities. If you follow the link to TRAC the charts there clearly show that the percentage of persons placed in removal proceedings based on criminal activity is down to 12% of the total. It has never been higher than 17% during the Obama administration even though they have put record numbers of people in deportation.
The percentage was only slightly higher under the tenure of George W. Bush. What does this mean? It means that despite the Obama administration's protestations otherwise and the success of their DACA program -- they still are mostly deporting people who do not have serious criminal records. Perhaps that will change or perhaps the threat that it might change will move Congress to act on immigration reform so that they can deny the Obama administration the chance to lock up the votes of new citizens who still have undocumented family members fearing deportation.
Drew Law Office, PLLC -- Immigration Lawyers NH -- (603) 644-3739 www.immigrationNH.com
Friday, March 14, 2014
Wednesday, March 12, 2014
Monday, February 17, 2014
Why immigration reform matters
You won't often see me reprint an opinion piece from George Will -- but sometimes the invisible hand of the free market gives you a high 5.
Why immigration reform matters By George F. Will, Published: February 13
Distilled to their discouraging essence, Republicans’ reasons for retreating from immigration reform reflect waning confidence in American culture and in the political mission only Republicans can perform — restoring U.S. economic vigor. Without this, the nation will have a dismal future only Democrats can relish: government growing in order to allocate scarce opportunity. Many Republicans say addressing immigration will distract from a winning focus on Obamacare. But a mature party avoids monomania, and Obamacare’s manifold defects are obvious enough that voters will not require nine more months of reminders. Many Republicans say immigration policy divides their party. If, however, the party becomes a gaggle of veto groups enforcing unanimities, it will become what completely harmonious parties are: small. Many Republicans see in immigrants only future Democratic votes.
This descent into Democratic-style identity politics is unworthy of Republicans, and unrealistic. U.S. history tells a consistent story — the party identified with prosperity, and hence opportunity, prospers. Many Republicans have understandable cultural concerns, worrying that immigrants from this hemisphere do not experience the “psychological guillotine” that severed trans-Atlantic immigrants from prior allegiances. But are there data proving that U.S. culture has lost its assimilative power? Thirty-five percent of illegal adult immigrants have been here at least 15 years, 28 percent for 10 to 14 years and only 15 percent for less than five years. Thirty-five percent own their homes. Are we sure they are resisting assimilation? Many Republicans rightly say that control of borders is an essential ingredient of national sovereignty. But net immigration from Mexico has recently been approximately zero. Border Patrol spending, which quadrupled in the 1990s, tripled in the 2000s. With illegal entries near a 40-year low, and a 2012 Government Accountability Office assessment that border security was then 84 percent effective, will a “border surge” of $30 billion more for the further militarization (actually, the East Germanization) of the 1,969 miles assuage remaining worries?
Many Republicans say Barack Obama cannot be trusted to enforce reforms. This is, however, no reason for not improving immigration laws that subsequent presidents will respect. Besides, the Obama administration’s deportations are, if anything, excessive, made possible by post-9/11 technological and manpower resources. As the Economist tartly noted, “a mass murder committed by mostly Saudi terrorists resulted in an almost limitless amount of money being made available for the deportation of Mexican house-painters.” Many Republicans say immigration runs counter to U.S. social policies aiming to reduce the number of people with low levels of skill and education, and must further depress the wages of Americans at the bottom of the economic ladder, who are already paying the price for today’s economic anemia. This is true. But so is this: The Congressional Budget Office says an initial slight reduction of low wages (0.1 percent in a decade) will be followed by increased economic growth partly attributable to immigrants.
Immigration is the entrepreneurial act of taking the risk of uprooting oneself and plunging into uncertainty. Small wonder, then, that immigrants are about 20 percent of owners of small businesses, and that more than 40 percent of Fortune 500 companies were founded by immigrants or their children. George W. Bush was the first president since Woodrow Wilson to serve two terms and leave office with the average household income lower than when he entered it. Obama may be the second when he leaves during the eighth year of a wretched recovery. Forty-seven percent of the House Republican conference has been in Washington 37 months or less; 21 percent of them have never held any other elective office. Many plunged into politics because they were dismayed about the nation’s trajectory under the current president and his predecessor. Many are understandably disposed against immigration because they have only dim memories of a more dynamic United States and have little aptitude for politics suited to, and aimed at restoring, vibrancy. Some Depression-era progressives, expecting capitalism’s crisis to produce a prolonged and perhaps permanent scarcity of jobs, hoped Social Security would open jobs for the young by encouraging older workers to retire.
Progressives often are ambivalent about scarcities because they see themselves as administrators of rationing. But President Bill Clinton, refuting opposition — much of it from Democrats — to the North American Free Trade Agreement, splendidly said: “Protectionism is just a fancy word for giving up.” Opposition to immigration because the economy supposedly cannot generate sufficient jobs is similar defeatism. Zero-sum reasoning about a fixed quantity of American opportunity is for a United States in a defensive crouch, which is not for conservatives.
Why immigration reform matters By George F. Will, Published: February 13
Distilled to their discouraging essence, Republicans’ reasons for retreating from immigration reform reflect waning confidence in American culture and in the political mission only Republicans can perform — restoring U.S. economic vigor. Without this, the nation will have a dismal future only Democrats can relish: government growing in order to allocate scarce opportunity. Many Republicans say addressing immigration will distract from a winning focus on Obamacare. But a mature party avoids monomania, and Obamacare’s manifold defects are obvious enough that voters will not require nine more months of reminders. Many Republicans say immigration policy divides their party. If, however, the party becomes a gaggle of veto groups enforcing unanimities, it will become what completely harmonious parties are: small. Many Republicans see in immigrants only future Democratic votes.
This descent into Democratic-style identity politics is unworthy of Republicans, and unrealistic. U.S. history tells a consistent story — the party identified with prosperity, and hence opportunity, prospers. Many Republicans have understandable cultural concerns, worrying that immigrants from this hemisphere do not experience the “psychological guillotine” that severed trans-Atlantic immigrants from prior allegiances. But are there data proving that U.S. culture has lost its assimilative power? Thirty-five percent of illegal adult immigrants have been here at least 15 years, 28 percent for 10 to 14 years and only 15 percent for less than five years. Thirty-five percent own their homes. Are we sure they are resisting assimilation? Many Republicans rightly say that control of borders is an essential ingredient of national sovereignty. But net immigration from Mexico has recently been approximately zero. Border Patrol spending, which quadrupled in the 1990s, tripled in the 2000s. With illegal entries near a 40-year low, and a 2012 Government Accountability Office assessment that border security was then 84 percent effective, will a “border surge” of $30 billion more for the further militarization (actually, the East Germanization) of the 1,969 miles assuage remaining worries?
Many Republicans say Barack Obama cannot be trusted to enforce reforms. This is, however, no reason for not improving immigration laws that subsequent presidents will respect. Besides, the Obama administration’s deportations are, if anything, excessive, made possible by post-9/11 technological and manpower resources. As the Economist tartly noted, “a mass murder committed by mostly Saudi terrorists resulted in an almost limitless amount of money being made available for the deportation of Mexican house-painters.” Many Republicans say immigration runs counter to U.S. social policies aiming to reduce the number of people with low levels of skill and education, and must further depress the wages of Americans at the bottom of the economic ladder, who are already paying the price for today’s economic anemia. This is true. But so is this: The Congressional Budget Office says an initial slight reduction of low wages (0.1 percent in a decade) will be followed by increased economic growth partly attributable to immigrants.
Immigration is the entrepreneurial act of taking the risk of uprooting oneself and plunging into uncertainty. Small wonder, then, that immigrants are about 20 percent of owners of small businesses, and that more than 40 percent of Fortune 500 companies were founded by immigrants or their children. George W. Bush was the first president since Woodrow Wilson to serve two terms and leave office with the average household income lower than when he entered it. Obama may be the second when he leaves during the eighth year of a wretched recovery. Forty-seven percent of the House Republican conference has been in Washington 37 months or less; 21 percent of them have never held any other elective office. Many plunged into politics because they were dismayed about the nation’s trajectory under the current president and his predecessor. Many are understandably disposed against immigration because they have only dim memories of a more dynamic United States and have little aptitude for politics suited to, and aimed at restoring, vibrancy. Some Depression-era progressives, expecting capitalism’s crisis to produce a prolonged and perhaps permanent scarcity of jobs, hoped Social Security would open jobs for the young by encouraging older workers to retire.
Progressives often are ambivalent about scarcities because they see themselves as administrators of rationing. But President Bill Clinton, refuting opposition — much of it from Democrats — to the North American Free Trade Agreement, splendidly said: “Protectionism is just a fancy word for giving up.” Opposition to immigration because the economy supposedly cannot generate sufficient jobs is similar defeatism. Zero-sum reasoning about a fixed quantity of American opportunity is for a United States in a defensive crouch, which is not for conservatives.
Friday, January 31, 2014
House GOP Releases Immigration Reform Principles - Drew Law Office, pllc.
House GOP Releases Immigration Reform Principles - Drew Law Office, pllc.
This link goes to my website www.drewpllc.com or www.immigrationNH.com if you prefer. There I have posted the actual text of the GOP statement and my comments. I will post a link to some media analysis as well on this blog and on www.immigrationblog.us later today.
This link goes to my website www.drewpllc.com or www.immigrationNH.com if you prefer. There I have posted the actual text of the GOP statement and my comments. I will post a link to some media analysis as well on this blog and on www.immigrationblog.us later today.
Wednesday, January 29, 2014
USCIS Introduces Centralizes the Civil Surgeon Application Process
USCIS Introduces Form I-910 and Centralizes the Civil Surgeon Application Process
Starting on March 11, 2014, USCIS will implement a new process to receive and adjudicate applications for civil surgeon designation centrally at the National Benefits Center. This process change requires physicians seeking civil surgeon designation to file a formal application at a USCIS Lockbox. Centralizing the civil surgeon application process will:
- Improve the application intake process;
- Enhance USCIS’s ability to manage and track civil surgeon applications;
- Promote consistency and uniformity in USCIS decisions on civil surgeon-related matters; and
- Improve overall efficiency and integrity of the program.
Once centralization goes into effect, physicians seeking civil surgeon designation will need to complete Form I-910, Application for Civil Surgeon Designation, and pay a $615 application fee. This new application form and process implements provisions of the agency’s 2010 Fee Rule. It will not affect current civil surgeons. Prospective civil surgeons should not file the form and fee prior to March 11, 2014.
Previously, civil surgeon designation has been a local process at the district or field office with jurisdiction over the prospective civil surgeon’s office location. The new process is detailed in Volume 8, Part C of the USCIS Policy Manual, which replaces the civil surgeon designation guidance found in Chapter 83.4 of the Adjudicator’s Field Manual (AFM). The new policy on civil surgeons:
- Reaffirms and clarifies the purpose, role, and responsibilities of civil surgeons;
- Outlines the professional qualifications needed for civil surgeon designation;
- Explains the application requirements for civil surgeon designation;
- Clarifies the process for adjudicating civil surgeon applications;
- Provides consolidated guidance on blanket civil surgeon designation;
- Reaffirms USCIS’s ability to revoke civil surgeon designation and clarifies revocation grounds; and
- Provides guidance on maintenance of the civil surgeon list.
On Jan. 28, 2014, USCIS also published the section of the USCIS Policy Manual with updated and comprehensive policy guidance regarding health-related inadmissibility grounds and waivers.
For more information on civil surgeons, visit the Prospective Civil Surgeons web page. For more information on Form I-910, visitwww.uscis.gov/i-910.
Thursday, January 16, 2014
NH Immigration Attorney Jillian LaCroix has article published in NH Bar Newspaper!
Reblogged from NH Bar News
Bar News - January 15, 2014
Criminal Law: Out of the Store & Out of the Country
By: Jillian LaCroix
In law school we were taught to examine each word of a statute and to parse every possible meaning. As a lawyer, I did not understand the real-life impact of that attention to detail until, during a recent case, I discovered the disparate immigration consequences of a conviction for willful concealment under NH RSA 644: 17,I [now NH RSA 637 : 3-a, I (Supp.2009)] and theft (formerly shoplifting) under NH RSA 644: 17, II [now NH RSA 637 : 3-a, II (Supp.2009)].
In State v. Thiel, the New Hampshire Supreme Court held that RSA 644:17 defined “two separate crimes: willful concealment, RSA 6434:17, I, and shoplifting, RSA:17; II.” Thiel, 999 A.2d at 466 (2010). This distinction is crucial when analyzing the New Hampshire statute. Under RSA 637:3-a (and 644:17) a person is guilty of willful concealment if, without authority, he or she willfully conceals the goods or merchandise of any store while still upon the premises of such store. Whereas, a person is guilty of theft (formerly shoplifting) under the relevant variant of RSA 637:3, II if, with the purpose to deprive a merchant of goods or merchandise, he or she knowingly removes goods or merchandise from the premises of a merchant.
In State v. Thiel, the New Hampshire Supreme Court held that a defendant cannot be guilty of shoplifting until they have left the merchant’s premises with goods that are unpaid for. Thiel, 999 A.2d at 466 (2010). While this distinction is important in distinguishing the two separate offenses, it also is the element of intent or mens rea that truly distinguishes the offenses in the context of immigration law.
Under federal immigration law, most, but not all, convictions for theft are crimes involving moral turpitude (CIMTs). Those crimes considered to be CIMTs under immigration law are noteworthy because they can render a person subject to removal or prevent a person from legalizing her status. The First Circuit distinguishes those thefts that are turpitudinous, and thus CIMTs, and those that are not by asking “ whether the defendant intended to permanently deprive the owner of the purloined property”. Patel v . Holder, 707 F.3d 77, 80 (1st Cir. 2013) (emphasis added)(quoting In re Grazley, 14 I. & N. Dec. 330, 333 ( BIA 1973). The consequences of this distinction are palpable when translated into their immigration consequences.
Practical Advice. For criminal law attorneys, the practical consequences are simple. A non-citizen client who is convicted of willful concealment (under RSA 637: 3-a,I) will not face adverse immigration consequences based on that conviction alone. Whereas, a person convicted of theft (under RSA 637:3-a,II) may face collateral immigration consequences, such as deportation, inadmissibility, or ineligibility for future immigration benefits.
Jillian LaCroix is the associate attorney at Drew Law Office, PLLC. She focuses exclusively on the practice of immigration law and regularly handles matters before the Department of Homeland Security, Department of Justice and the Department of State.
Bar News - January 15, 2014
Criminal Law: Out of the Store & Out of the Country
By: Jillian LaCroix
Practice Tips
• Do not allow a client to plead guilty to a theft (shoplifting) if the statutory elements of theft are not met.
• Whenever possible negotiate down to a conviction for willful concealment.
• Closely examine prior convictions for theft under RSA 637 : 3, II (or shoplifting under the prior statute) as there may be grounds to vacate the conviction under State v. Thiel (See also State v, Arsenault, 153 N.H. 413 (2006)). It is important to consider whether the defendant knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily pleaded guilty to the crime, even if she did not actually commit all the elements of that crime.
|
In law school we were taught to examine each word of a statute and to parse every possible meaning. As a lawyer, I did not understand the real-life impact of that attention to detail until, during a recent case, I discovered the disparate immigration consequences of a conviction for willful concealment under NH RSA 644: 17,I [now NH RSA 637 : 3-a, I (Supp.2009)] and theft (formerly shoplifting) under NH RSA 644: 17, II [now NH RSA 637 : 3-a, II (Supp.2009)].
In State v. Thiel, the New Hampshire Supreme Court held that RSA 644:17 defined “two separate crimes: willful concealment, RSA 6434:17, I, and shoplifting, RSA:17; II.” Thiel, 999 A.2d at 466 (2010). This distinction is crucial when analyzing the New Hampshire statute. Under RSA 637:3-a (and 644:17) a person is guilty of willful concealment if, without authority, he or she willfully conceals the goods or merchandise of any store while still upon the premises of such store. Whereas, a person is guilty of theft (formerly shoplifting) under the relevant variant of RSA 637:3, II if, with the purpose to deprive a merchant of goods or merchandise, he or she knowingly removes goods or merchandise from the premises of a merchant.
In State v. Thiel, the New Hampshire Supreme Court held that a defendant cannot be guilty of shoplifting until they have left the merchant’s premises with goods that are unpaid for. Thiel, 999 A.2d at 466 (2010). While this distinction is important in distinguishing the two separate offenses, it also is the element of intent or mens rea that truly distinguishes the offenses in the context of immigration law.
Under federal immigration law, most, but not all, convictions for theft are crimes involving moral turpitude (CIMTs). Those crimes considered to be CIMTs under immigration law are noteworthy because they can render a person subject to removal or prevent a person from legalizing her status. The First Circuit distinguishes those thefts that are turpitudinous, and thus CIMTs, and those that are not by asking “ whether the defendant intended to permanently deprive the owner of the purloined property”. Patel v . Holder, 707 F.3d 77, 80 (1st Cir. 2013) (emphasis added)(quoting In re Grazley, 14 I. & N. Dec. 330, 333 ( BIA 1973). The consequences of this distinction are palpable when translated into their immigration consequences.
Practical Advice. For criminal law attorneys, the practical consequences are simple. A non-citizen client who is convicted of willful concealment (under RSA 637: 3-a,I) will not face adverse immigration consequences based on that conviction alone. Whereas, a person convicted of theft (under RSA 637:3-a,II) may face collateral immigration consequences, such as deportation, inadmissibility, or ineligibility for future immigration benefits.
Jillian LaCroix is the associate attorney at Drew Law Office, PLLC. She focuses exclusively on the practice of immigration law and regularly handles matters before the Department of Homeland Security, Department of Justice and the Department of State.
Friday, January 3, 2014
Nevada Driver Authorization Cards For Undocumented Immigrants Bring Long Lines
Nevada Driver Authorization Cards For Undocumented Immigrants Bring Long Lines
This makes sense from the State's point of view. More licensing fees, more drivers tested, and more drivers insured. There are enforcement reasons why the Federal government doesn't want this to happen -- but from the State perspective it is good public safety and fiscal policy.
This makes sense from the State's point of view. More licensing fees, more drivers tested, and more drivers insured. There are enforcement reasons why the Federal government doesn't want this to happen -- but from the State perspective it is good public safety and fiscal policy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)