Obama: A Disappointment So Far...

Dear Readers,

I’m disappointed in Obama; as an independent (for years now), I, like many others, voted for him in the hope that he would be something different. Who else was there anyway? McCain was not himself, clearly older, senility had set in, nor the wiser - and then the choice of Sarah Palin. But Obama clearly turned out not to be the statesman, nor the leader, that I think I, and the country, had been looking for.

Of course, Obama turned out to be a…. politician. An elegant and smart guy, no doubt – but politician through and through. I’m worried now that he may be the wrong person, at the wrong time in our history. I'm willing to give him a little more time, but not much. I, and the country, need to see some cajones.

It is true unfortunately that all politicians, with few historical exceptions, are always running for office, their next term. That means follow the money, the backers, those that they owe.

But we don't elect a President who is thinking 2nd term and when running we always tend to believe we are electing a true leader, a statesman. Only after they enter the White House do we really see the character, the individual under stress, and his /her leadership. I like many, maybe most, wanted and hoped for a statesman this time around. I wanted and longed for a Jack Kennedy, a President Johnson, and yes, a Ronald Reagan. All three had flaws, but all were leaders and strong. I am talking here about leadership, strength, not about any particular political philosophy, mind you (albeit I do have my libertarian-like moments).

The public I believe longs for such an individual, but alas it may be like wishing to win the lottery. Once elected, my own personal 'test' of Obama's leadership was whether he would immediately strike down “don’t ask, don’t tell” - something Clinton, who says now it was his "biggest regret" (see what happens when a politician is not running for anything), nor Bush did anything about. Obama, of course, has done nothing, stayed away from the subject like it was plague, and when pushed, agreed it needs to be overturned - but it is "down his list" of things to do "right now".

It is this lack of leadership, fortitude, fear, that explains why Obama has shown no leadership on health care, refusing to forcefully articulate how in the end it will save taxpayers money and press those even in his own Party to follow his lead. He's done just the opposite and one wonders whether he believes anything he says or said on the campaign trail. I don't.

Of course, Obama, and very few others, see any connection between the economy, health care reform and immigration. In truth, they are all tied in together. But Obama has no idea what to do with the immigration situation, doesn't seem to even understand it, or how to move it forward. I'm sure it is another "down the list" thing. This is another disappointment.

Although I would like to see comprehensive immigration reform of a clearly broken system, my passion and focus is on the immigration of scientists, researchers, post docs and scholars - about the shameful way we allow incredibly bright people who are here at our government labs, the many post docs, those doing important research at our best universities and those helping to invent new technologies in private industry from leaving their position or, more accurately stated, forced to leave. The untold story is that they are doing so in droves (and have been for many years). Too often these scientists then go on to create innovation and industry in other nations who do everything they can to ‘steal’ them from us, or more often do so in their home countries.

We can't afford this and neither can our economy. We are losing any advantage we as a nation have enjoyed. And that advantage has in large part come from these same foreign-born scholars, academics and scientists who want to stay here but are being told to leave. This is the deep secret that few really know about. We should have open arms to these scientists and researchers and do everything possible not only to attract more of them, but certainly do our best to keep those that are here from leaving.

Where is Obama on this issue? I am certain he has no clue. Immigration, the issue itself, has come to mean ‘illegal immigration’, undocumented workers and then there’s the “New McCarthyism” and general xenophobia that always surfaces in a bad economy.
The truth is that our immigration bureaucracy, the officers and adjudicators, the ‘system, look for every way in the world to harass and deny these important cases, instead of looking for ways to approve them. This is a dysfunctional system that does horrendous damage to our country and this economy. We can’t be this stupid I keep telling myself.

Everyone knows the USCIS is broken, but very few, and I'll bet Obama is among them, truly know what happens when a scientist applies for a green card under the immigration laws. Most would presume that the cases would swiftly be processed, the individual welcomed to this country, and he/she could get on to the business of helping to create cutting-edge industries, science and technology - thus helping to create jobs which in the end help all Americans.

The reality though is the opposite; yes, in the end, often with professional help and intervention by practitioners who understand the system, many of these cases are approved, but the process and resources it takes, take a toll. Too often I see individuals whose cases have been denied and by the time they seek help they just want to go home. Not only are these academics, researchers and scientists treated like some sort of criminal who are attempting to scam the system, but even the pre-eminent scientists and academics who send in their own 'advisory opinions' or reference letters to support the applicant find their own credibility and reputation tarnished in the process! It's crazy.

Immigration reform is not just about changing the travesty involving extraordinary or outstanding scientists, although that to a large part is my focus. It is also about making sure we separate and document those otherwise law abiding individuals so that we can more easily identify and deport those who have truly broken our criminal laws.
And I would be very harsh indeed to those that haven't behaved themselves. There's arrogance about it that disturbs me.

Entering the country illegally or overstaying should certainly not be tolerated by any nation, but we must be real and pragmatic and understand that ‘they’ are not leaving voluntarily and it is a pipedream to think otherwise - and we as a nation don't have the resources to force them do so. But more importantly we must be smart and realize that we can focus on the criminal element, if we can separate them from the otherwise lawful. We can't do so if we don't allow the many to come forward to help identify the few.

To me this is a tax issue; I'd rather see these individuals becoming tax payers, paying into the system their fair share, and in process of immigration reform require them to do all the things they now cannot do, but I believe they would be happy to do if documented. No, I would not given anyone a green card because there are many people in line ahead of them, but I would demand they act like responsible citizens i.e., buy auto insurance, pay federal and state income taxes, and on and on.
Right now these individuals are a heavy burden on the rest of us. Again, it is a tax issue for me.

I want one last word on Obama and Tarp. Whether the banks and financial institutions really needed saving is one thing, but as a side observer, and now with 20/20 hindsight, I called for at the time and would have allowed all of them, the auto industry included, to go into Chapter 11, which is reorganization, not truly bankruptcy anyway.

With that said, we now know what should have been understood from the beginning, "it’s about jobs, stupid". Giving any more TARP money away now is silly. It is just the powerful, the elite, feeding the powerful and perpetuating a system that rewards power over markets.

At the time I couldn't understand why not suspend payroll taxes for small business for 3-5 years? And I still can’t.

Iraq and Afghanistan – hasn’t anyone learned the lessons of history, i.e., that occupation and ‘nation building’ always fails. Whatever we do security wise, I know one thing: If I hear about it, it's worthless and we are throwing money. Period.
This country has always been too rich to think straight. We rarely think deeply or long term and too often act impulsively as a nation. Our culture is historically new. Obama seems like a smart guy, but he's clearly not a leader. My fear is that he's Jimmy Carter, someone who was distracted by the White House tennis schedule. No one said he was stupid, in fact they said he was very smart. But leadership is not about brainpower, but about judgment making decisions decisively (right or wrong). Read the job description of any CEO. Obama must remember he is in the White House and no longer in Congress, where deliberation and horse trading is the norm. They must do their constitutional duty, he must do his.

This country is in trouble and will continue to be without real leadership; the country needs a Statesman, a Churchill. Obama?

An Obama Win: The Immigration Factor

Dear Readers,

Let's talk about what's next, after the Presidential Election.

It's likely that Obama will win, for sure, but how will he approach immigration - and what's likely to happen?

Obama has stated that he is for 'Comprehensive Immigration Reform". This is a political statement, which has no bearing on reality.

McCain, for example, is also for CIR, but he wants to shut the borders down first. Again, a purely political pronouncement, directed to his 'right wing' (as was his VP choice).

Now let's get down to the truth: In difficult economic times, 'Joe' public usually falls for anti-immigration rhetoric and demagoguery.

Politicians almost always vote their constituency, meaning that they vote in a way to assure their continued reelection. Immigrants, by their nature, and status, do not vote as they are not U.S. citizens. Period.

You'd hope though, given that Obama is smart, thinks in terms of foresight, future generations and the like, that he'd consider as President elect (once elected, mind you), a sensible immigration policy.

I think he will. And although I don't expect a push for Comprehensive Reform, I do see some interest in eliminating crazy backlogs, enticing "the best and the brightest" to stay in this country, and if not here, to come here, .... to allow entrepreneurs, employers, and startups to seek the talented pool of foreign nationals that will help us build the "new economy".

I even see the promise of Obama at some point in his administration's first term leading the way towards 'documenting, the undocumented' in a fair and humane way and without a so-called 'amnesty', which would finally allow millions of otherwise law abiding residents to come out of the shadows - without shame or fear.

But true 'Comprehensive Immigration Reform', as proposed? Forget about it. A pipedream. Not in the cards for a variety of reasons.

Congress won't have time to tackle the issue, and I don't believe even look at it seriously, for years to come. Our representatives will no doubt be struggling with putting policies in place that will help to revive this country and get it working again.

Many of Obama's other issues will have to fall by the wayside as well.

Will increased immigration help this country - you bet! Will there be useful legislation on the immigration front? Let’s wait and see, but I’d bet yes.

Immigrants are just too important. Let's cross our fingers and hope that our leaders, and our President, see it the same way.

Thank you.

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