An Immigraton Solution: Continued...

Ok...back to the Sunday shows and what Rudy had to say about immigration. It is highly unlikely that I'll vote for him but the fact that someone out there in "la la land" is actually speaking somewhat intelligently and thoughfully about immigration issues gives me hope. Could the press or other candidates actually pick up on it (not likely, but who knows).

Essentially, Rudy's the only candidate that I've seen or heard that has actually thought about the issue or has advisors who have - and can actually articulate it quite well. When I hear John McCain talk about the subject (and he's actually authored and tried to push through comprehensive immigration reform!), I wonder if he has any real idea what he is talking about. The other Presidential candidates are just engaging in either demogagory or mouthing nonsense (that they were given) and have absolutely no understanding of the issue - on both sides of the isle.

RUDY'S PLAN (OR HOW HE WOULD PROCEED):

1/ Nothing happens (and I agree to a point) until the borders are secured (high tech and low tech - a fence). He understands that no matter what program is agreed upon, any immigration reform, comprehensive or otherwise, will be a magnet for a new wave of illegals to come in if this doesn't really occur.

2/ At present, and then after the border is secured, he wants to focus on and catch and deport criminal aliens (legal and undocumented) who remain; this too makes sense.

3/ That leaves those otherwise law abiding illegals, ok... undocumented. Let's get them to come forward, give them the ability to drive, pay taxes, get insurance, buy homes, educate their children/themselves, and make certain they learn English. He argues they should pay a fine, and be given time to "get in line" and become citizens, but in the back of it. And no, it would be silly to make them leave the country. This is his mind, and I agree, is not Amnesty. He says amnesty is "just giving them a green card". Oh yes, those that don't come forward probably have their reasons so they to should be deported.

4/ The basis for the above is practical; he knows that we cannot deport 12 or more million people. He argues that for government to actually do something (as opposed to talking about it), the problem must be attacked realistically and be manageable. I couldn't agree more. So why not concentrate on criminals?

But in the end none of the above will or can happen until the borders are secure and the public is convinced that is the case.

IS LEGAL IMMIGRATION BEING LEFT BEHIND?

ARE WE LOSING OUT TO OTHER COUNTRIES?

SHOULD A MODERN IMMIGRATION POLICY BE ABOUT BRAINPOWER?

ALLOWING THE "THE BEST AND THE BRIGHTEST" TO COME AND STAY?

WHAT ABOUT BRAWN? THE LOW SKILLED WORKER?

SHOULD WE CONSIDER BOTH?

MAYBE WE SHOULD PROTECT AMERICAN JOBS AND SHUT DOWN IMMIGRATION PERIOD?

Just some of the questions I'd like comments on.... more soon.

The Presidential Candidates: Why they don’t care about Immigration?

Dear Readers,

This is a simple and straightforward question. And the answer is quite simple. No. Why?

First and foremost, non-citizens don’t vote. Although President Bush sought the Hispanic vote for the Republican party by pushing comprehensive immigration reform, he didn’t come to grips with or understand the ability of ‘anti-immigrant’ advocates and radio/tv personalities to mobilize people to want the deportation of 20 million illegals. They also appealed to the “we must shut down our borders immediately” types. Except for Nativists such as Patrick Buchanan who want a “pure” America, few are against legal immigration - but most voters in the country are willing to wait to deal with our broken system until the problem of illegal immigration has been handled; of course, few seem to understand that the solution of illegal immigration inevitably involves and is tied to “comprehensive reform”, that is, taking away the incentive to come here illegally.

All that said, why are our politicians against even talking about immigration? The answer is simple. I’ve been practicing immigration law, mostly on the employment-based side, for over 25 years. Our economy and this anti-immigration wave of rhetoric are tied together. When good, immigration is off the table, when we are in a recession, or the economic realities are perceived in trouble by citizens, then “here it goes again”. Nothing really changes. Each time we are in a down cycle, recession or not, we look for a scapegoat. Immigrants are that scapegoat. Many years back it was the Jews who emigrated from Eastern Europe, the Italians, the Irish during that same time period. Ellis Island and all that. Now it is the low skilled Mexicans crossing the border in search of jobs, as well as the Indian and Chinese H-1b Engineers needed here in Silicon Valley. Besides the refrain “They are taking our jobs!”, I now hear “Terrorists”. It is McCarthyism all over again.

Again, how does this answer the question? You got it! Yes, immigrants, legal and illegal, don’t vote. Politicians have one major job, and that is to get re-elected (and they think of that all the time). And that is why you hear virtually nothing about immigration from them. They don’t want to lose. Period.

King for a Day: An Immigration Solution

Let's say I became King. What would my immigration policy be?

First, I would not shut down the border, build a fence, nor stop issuing visas to students, tourists, investors, or others. I would likely increase technology and personnel.

More importantly, I would instantly fund, then finish or develop an employer verification and ID system.

Next, I would advise everyone in the country, legal and illegal, permanent residents - "green card holders" and non-immigrants alike, that they have 3 months to sign up for the new ID/verification system and smart card. For US citizens who do not have a new 'smart' passport, or a new smart driver's license, they too must obtain a new ID/verification card - but we might give them a longer time to do so.

Why would anyone 'sign up' and be issued one of these cards? Well, if one is a legal resident or non-immigrant, they'd have no choice - lose their status or be removed. For illegals, this would be their "last chance" to not be removed (in the next phase). Those that do come forward, would not be rewarded with a 'green card', but would be eligible for a smart driver's license, the ability to obtain employment, and have 10 years to find a way to lawfully become a permanent resident and then U.S. citizen, that is, "get in line". Of course, to be eligible for the progam, they must not have been convicted of a serious, or in my mind, any crime, and must agree to learn English. That is, they must have generally behaved themselves. In extraordinary cases where bona fide spouses might be separated, and/or there are U.S. children involved (in an intact family) waivers should be possible for minor past criminal activity. Aggravated or multiple felons, sexual predators, or violent criminals, however, should not under any circumstance be granted waivers.

The concept above is not amensty, it is about cleaning up the present mess, and even more importantly identifying those that will not or cannot sign up and those that enter after a 'sign up' period (for which there will be a huge 'outreach' to make certain everyone in the country is aware of this last opportunity). Of course, those that do not identify themselves will obviously be those that cannot.

Phase two will involve the issuing of IDs, documenting the millions who have behaved (but did indeed enter illegally for work, or did fall into an undocumented status - but otherwise have been good residents), deploying the employer verification system, and identifying and removing everyone else.

This last part of phase two, enforcement, will utilize not only the resources and reach of the Federal government, but local governments too. The computer and verification systems deployed with employers will also be tied into local police, state, city and other administrative entities (IRS, banks, SSA, Highway Patrol, etc.) as well.

I envision those entering the US as non-immigrants in the future (with the intent to depart) to check in at kiosks with their smart ID and then do so periodically so that they can continue their lawful status, that is, be a foreign student or visitor. If these temporary visitors do not 'check in', they would have their status automaticaly cancelled, and they would be subject to removal.

OK, what about those who do 'get in' (across the border, or do not check in), which is inevitable, and end up in the underground economy or just disappear here?

First, we'll also be constructing a new and better immigration system that will make sense and be realistic to the needs of our economy and business interests. To this end, we'll need a "guest worker program", which will help stem the tide of illegal entry. There is no question that cheap labor is necessary in a successful economy such as ours. For those that don't use the system, or overstay, or enter illegally, or don't go home when they should, they'll more easily be caught and removed - for example, being picked up by local police or the highway patrol. Yes, fewer people will be able to remain "under the radar".

Oh yes, our future lies in innovation, new industries and technologies, so why not make it easy for the world's "best and brightest" to come here (and stay).

Worried about 'Big brother'? It is already here if you have a credit card, buy gas, etc. Should there be oversight to prevent abuses? Of course.

Well, that's my plan. Love to hear about yours.

IMMIGRATION DEBATE: A DYSFUNCTIONAL FAMILY MEMBER..

I want to spend a few minutes writing about the state of the converstion about immigration in this country, and why, essentially, the debate is non-existent.

As most people know, immigration is a political 'hot potato'. For those that don't
understand this term, it is a child's game where no one wants to hold the "hot" potato very long or they'll get burned, and therefore does his/her best to hand it off to someone else. Few politicians, and I don't know any, want to talk about this issue - either legal or illegal immigration.

Well, what now?

Is it likely that anyone will actually take hold of the hot potato and run with it? Can it be politically clever or smart to do so? I believe it can. Let me explain.

I think it can be brought up if talked about in the right way, in a rational way.

Recently, I wrote a question and sent in a video for the CNN Youtube debate. It wasn't picked - granted I turned it in at the last second, but I thought maybe it had a chance anyway. It was clearly a difficult, pointed, and provocative question that no journalist would ever have the fireballs to ask, but this format cleverly gave cover to such aquestion.

My question was..

Why don't you, and all your fellow Republican candidates, digitally fingerprint and take photo IDs of everyone in the country, legal and illegal, who are not U.S. citizens, issue a smart card/ID to them, thus allowing us to separate and isolate the "good" from the "bad" - and the go after the bad, first? That is, if we immediately create immediately on such a program, only the good would be entired to come forward, leaving the bad naked, exposed, and more easily focused on (and deport). With our limited resources, what would be the harm in approaching this problem in an intelligent way, I asked?

If my question were chosen and asked, I dreamed, it would expose the silliness, the uselessness of the present debate, both in Republican and Democratic circles, and we could actually move on as country to a solution.

I thought 'The Question', if directly asked of them, would shock the politicians into actually thinking, and force a national debate. It would leave behind the idiotic rhetoric, the pure demogaguery that fills our airways and broadcasts now.

Since I could foresee it coming, my video asked the Republican debaters,
specifically, not to talk about Amnesty, because I wasn't speaking to that, nor do I support it.

Anyway, that question was just the tip of the immigration iceburg, so there's much more to say later.


_______________________________
Paul M. Heller, Esq. (Founder/Principal)

Heller Immigration Law Group, LLP
2479 E. Bayshore Rd., Suite 709
Palo Alto, CA 94303

A Silicon Valley-based law firm specializing in employment-based immigration, for corporations seeking fixed monthly retainer fee arrangements.

Toll-Free: 1/800 863-4448; Local: 1/650 424-1900; Int'l: 1/650 424-1900; Fax: 1/415 276-9099

Email: heller@hilglaw.com; www.hilglaw.com (formerly: greencard1.com)

Heller Blog: blog.hilglaw.com

YM: paulhilg

Barack Obama: Hillary & Bill Clinton, Oprah Winfrey....

Thinking about Barack Obama and the Clintons today, here are my thoughts. First, Hillary Clinton, as well as the former President look old, very old. I think about Communist China, and an election in the future, after democracy takes hold. A former official, a leader, runs for office, maybe several, but there are also some new people on the scene, much younger, inspirational, lighter. Who would get elected? Who would electrify the crowd, the masses? No one in the scenario questions that the new person would sweep the elections. People, whether in this future vision of China, or here now, know that we are 'tired' of the old guard, and want a change. Anyone but.... Looking at it with this perspective, even venerable and beloved Bill Clinton looks old and tired. And Hillary Clinton is no Bill Clinton! Both are desperate, trying to hold on to a past long gone - Bill, with a weight loss that is long to late, Hillary, with her desperation tactics. "So long Bill, so long Hillary, we love you!"


_______________________________
Paul M. Heller, Esq. (Founder/Principal)

Heller Immigration Law Group, LLP
2479 E. Bayshore Rd., Suite 709
Palo Alto, CA 94303

A Silicon Valley-based law firm specializing in employment-based immigration, for corporations seeking fixed monthly retainer fee arrangements.

Toll-Free: 1/800 863-4448; Local/Int'l: 1/650 424-1900; Fax: 1/415 276-9099

Email: heller@hilglaw.com; www.greencard1.com

Heller Blog: blog.hilglaw.com

YM: paulhilg