Obama’s State of the Union & US Immigration Reform

Immigration News, , , , , , ,

After President Barack Obama’s State of the Union Address on Wednesday January 27, 2010 to both Houses of Congress and his reiteration of lofty goals mentioned during his Presidential campaign trail, the questions remains as to what it means for immigration reform in 2010.

Well the fact that he barely mention Immigration in the speech at all suggests that as we mentioned in our US Immigration Reform 2010 expectations post above as well as our US Immigration Predictions for 2010, that not to expect much at all is a safe bet.

After the recent Massachusetts Senate Race long and the fact that Midterm elections are due in November 2010, where all members of the House and about one third of the Senate will be up for re-election, it has become imperative of the Obama administration to more largely focus of populist parts of his agenda. This is so he can continue to appeal to Independents who largely supported him during his Presidential Election Campaign but deserted the Democratic Party in the recent Massachusetts Senate Race.

So it is clear that the Economy and Jobs will take the focus for the large part of the first half of 2010 as well as attempts to salvage some form of Healthcare reform which was very close to passing but now with the new makeup of the US Senate is under threat.

US Immigration reform is not a populist topic as there is not a broad coallition that agrees on most topics of reform. Then due to the general economic conditions and the millions of US citizens who have been laid off and are still unable to find permanent work, the pool of people who could possibly support a pro Immigration agenda is even smaller than in better times.

Therefore even if US Immigration gets debated in any meaningful way and some sort of bill passes, it may have a few benefits for the current US immigrant on a US visa but is sure to have many downsides as well. As it will definitely need a broad coalition of Republican and Democrats from a broad spectrum of the country to successfully navigate both Houses of Congress and land at Obama’s desk for him to sign.

Already Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, worried about the re-election of her party members in the House this year has stated she wants to limit the amount of controversial legislation that is debated and that is all hesitant to do more when so many bills that her chamber has passed is still stuck in the US Senate.

All in all if there is any beneficial US Immigration reform in 2010, it will may be in less controversial areas like improving Green Card Waiting Times for current applicants generally applying to the EB2 visa or EB3 visa status from visas like the H1B visa, L1 visa and E3 visa.

This is a low risk area as it is viewed as highly skilled immigrants, already in the country for a longer period of time and thus both beneficial to the US economy and low risk from a National Security perspective in that they are and have been law abiding residents. These are probably the 2 most polarizing areas of the US Immigration debate within the US as these are the constant arguments brought up any type of US Immigration reform is mentioned. These are the areas opportunistic politicians like Senators Dick Durbin (Il) and Chuck Grassley (IA) and celebrity media pundits play upon on cable news.

However things will be unlikely to improve based on the current environment include;
– any increase to the current main H1B visa quota of 65,000
– any form of amnesty for Illegal Immigrants
– approval for borderline cases of refugee or political asylum
– fairness in the tax and social security laws as it applies to Immigrants
– improvement of waiting times in US visa processing and 221(g) Administrative Processing
– responsiveness to hearing of complaints and grievances filed regarding employer abuses in workplaces of people on non-immigrant visas

Unfortunately this is not a great way to start the year with a pessimistic outlook for positive US Immigration changes and real reform in 2010 after people have been promised so much in the past, and not for the first time either! It is looking increasing like depending on the legislative successes and failures in other areas this year, the overall state of the economy and the unemployment rate and finally the results of the Midterm elections in November will probably have a larger bearing on whether real US Immigration reform may be possible in 2011.

CJ

H1B Visa Deportation News

Guest Posts, Immigration News, , , , , , , , , ,

The recent deportation of a number of Indian H1B IT workers from Newark and JFK airports has sent shock waves through the H-1B community. H-1B employers, employees and their attorneys alike are flabbergasted by this brazen act of official highhandedness where individuals arriving on H-1B visas were singled out even before their primary immigration inspection, put through a sham questioning, forced into making coercive statements, issued expedited removal orders, and sent back! Their crime? They landed in the U.S. with legitimate H-1B visas to work for genuine U.S. entities, but at a location other than their office, i.e., at a client site or third party site!

H1B employees working at a client site or a third party site is a practice as old as the H1B program itself, and is not a violation of the regulations when supported by appropriate documentation. What is shocking is that the disgraceful action by CBP inspectors was triggered by an overzealous (mis)interpretation of a recent Memo issued by Donald Neufeld, Associate Director, Service Center Operations, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS).

At its core, the Neufeld Memo underlines the requirement of an employer-employee relationship that would last the entire period of the foreign individual’s H-1B stay in the United States. In such a relationship the employer should have the “actual” control or the “right” to control the employee, to hire, fire, pay, and to decide when, where, and how the employee will be employed.

Based on the experience of this writer in processing thousands of H-1B petitions over a period of more than 15 years (and attending to the resultant issues), this situation can be addressed with a little foresight, logical planning, and preparation and maintenance of appropriate documentation. Also, H1B employees should be educated on how to answer questions from overbearing government officials. Pardon me for saying this, a small minority of companies, through a lackadaisical attitude towards adhering to the regulations, seem to bring a bad name to the entire H-1B community and to the H-1B program itself, resulting in such sweeping governmental actions that affect legitimate H1B employers and put the lifestyle of unsuspecting employees and their families in jeopardy. Moreover, this supplies fodder to the anti-H-1B bogey that is becoming more and more vociferous in the light of rising unemployment in the United States. We, at our office, always make it a point to emphasize to H-1B employers and employees alike to strictly adhere to the governing regulations and requirements of the H-1B program.

As stated above, the focus of the CBP enforcement action is as to who the actual employer is. It should be noted, in situations where an individual works at a location different from the petitioning company’s office, the question is whether such petitioner employer has the “actual” control or the “right” of control over the H1B employee. When the H-1B employee works at a client site, or a third party site, the H-1B employer may not always be able to exercise “actual” control over the individual’s employment. But to maintain the H-1B status and be in compliance with the regulations, the H1B employer needs to prove the “right” to control, if not the “actual” control. There are various ways to meet the requirements of actual control or right to control, as we have been advising our clients, by ensuring acquisition, usage, and maintenance of appropriate documents. It takes logical planning under effective legal guidance.

In conclusion, we would like to remind our clients and other readers of this article that the government’s enforcement of the regulations can be expected to become stricter in the future, and appropriate proactive steps will save the employers and employees alike a lot of hardship and aggravation.

Guest Author

Morley J. Nair