Written by Tony Weigel, AILA Media-Advocacy Committee

After serving for nearly two years on AILA’s Media-Advocacy Committee, I have closely followed a number of immigration policy issues. There are clearly some issues that spark more controversy than others, but many wholeheartedly agree that our policies should encourage immigration that directly contributes to investment and job growth in the U.S. Though surprisingly, in spite of consensus across party lines, little to nothing has been done.

My worldview, skewed as it may be, is one of being born and living most of my life in the Midwest, where politeness is the norm, the benefit of the doubt lives on, and second chances abound. However, even I am growing tired of the excuses and have heard enough double-talk from our leaders in Washington, DC. Now is the time to pass and implement critical business immigration measures to sustain and jump-start job growth. Some days, usually after telling a client of his or her limited visa options or of potential waits for an employment-based green card, I feel like reenacting the scene from the 1976 movie Network and screaming from my window, “I am mad as hell and I’m not going to take this anymore!”

Across America, many AILA members have directly interacted with international students, long-term H-1B workers, and the business community. I have volunteered time at the University of Missouri-Kansas City, Institute for Entrepreneurship and Innovation in a few capacities. Last fall, I presented at a session with international students about their visa options. Some could not or did not want to believe the disparity between the information available on www.uscis.gov about their options and the unreasonable, restrictive policy and adjudication standards that foreclose dreams. There was even greater disappointment with the state of legislative solutions.

It has been over two decades since the Immigration Act of 1990 was passed with bi-partisan support. Times have changed since then. Both technology and business models have evolved, yet our laws that facilitate the incorporation of foreign talent have not.

That level of disappointment spikes for these prospective job creators once their attention shifts to the abysmal availability of employment-based immigrant visas, especially for those from India and China. Why? Because if they are lucky enough to stay beyond their student visas and later seek a green card, they will take their place among the ranks of tens of thousands of other talented foreign nationals stuck in a long and growing line.

The potential loss of this country’s international student population would be a travesty, but consider the impact if every H-1B worker holding that status for longer than 6 years packed up and left the U.S. That collective transfer of experience, knowledge, and talent would be detrimental to our economy. Without doubt, we should have a functional permanent residence process, not a dysfunctional permanent application process.

Our elected leaders in Washington, DC constitute 537 of the most powerful people in the world. But when collectively pressed to address these issues, they answer, “We understand the problem and would like to help, but …” It is always “but” something. Don’t they realize they are destroying dreams and killing opportunities of foreign nationals and their prospective investments of talent and treasure? Don’t they care about U.S. workers in dire need of better employment opportunities that would flow from these investments?

Everyone knows things are bad. A quick read of the U.S. Department of State projections regarding employment-based visa availability is a prime example. However – unlike the reality-based fictional problems in the movie Network - we have leaders who seem to know what to do and there can be an end to these problems.

It would be a game changer if Congressional leaders could agree to promptly consider the solutions offered up in legislation like Representative Lofgren’s IDEA Act, H.R. 2161, or the current version of the Startup Act, championed by Senators Moran and Warner, and pass focused measures to help jump-start job growth in the U.S.

Fortunately, there are areas in which the Administration doesn’t have to wait for Congress to act. It can and should address the overall tenor of USCIS adjudications. The “culture of no” has transformed itself into the “status quo of no.” That needs to change. The January 2010 Neufeld memorandum is killing job growth opportunities and needs to be withdrawn.

Unfortunately, little has resulted from the high-level, 2011 pronouncements from the both the White House and the Department of Homeland Security with respect to administrative fixes to business immigration policy. The Administration’s Entrepreneurs in Residence proposal includes several positive steps for foreign nationals, such as permitting entrepreneurs to petition for permanent status, but to date there have been few concrete results. Even the simplest of actions, like making Premium Processing available for international manager and executive immigrant visa petitions, are inexplicably held up. According to a USCIS panel held in Lincoln, Nebraska, on May 9, 2012, Premium Processing will become available “eventually” as more training is required before going live.

We have big problems. Starry-eyed adoration of “job creators” and meaningless rhetorical efforts will not fix these problems. Serious work needs to be done now! The cost of inaction is too high. At some point, international students and long-term H-1B workers will stop dreaming about their long-term opportunities in the U.S. The business community will eventually conclude that Washington, DC, will never get this right. No one wins if we continue to erect artificial, irrational barriers to job growth.

I’m tired of all the talk. The U.S. can be a beacon of opportunity, not a place of disappointment. Elected leaders, please go to work tomorrow and do something to address these problems now while there is still time on the clock.

Now, you must excuse me. I’m headed to the nearest window to scream. Feel free to join me.

By Denyse Sabagh, AILA Past President, and Shoba Sivaprasad Wadhia, AILA Amicus Committee

NSEERS (National Security Entry and Exit Registration System) was a controversial tracking program launched in the wake of 9/11 and aimed at visitors from predominantly Arab and Muslim countries. Those subject to NSEERS or special registration were fingerprinted, photographed and interrogated at ports of entry, inside a local immigration office and upon departure from the United States.  The NSEERS program contained all of the features of bad policy, as it appeared to target individuals based on their religion and national origin; caused thousands of men to be placed in removal proceedings after complying with the program; and proved to be ineffective as a counter-terrorism tool.

Last month, the DHS released a memorandum to address the scores of people who did not register under NSEERS when they were supposed to. It clarifies that innocent individuals who failed to previously register should not suffer immigration consequences, such as a denial of a green card or a deportation charge. The memo could help a countless number of young men who have laid down roots, built families and/or been steadily employed in the United States but whose immigration status is vulnerable because of an NSEERS issue.

The April Memo provides that individuals who “willfully” failed to register under NSEERS in the past may be subject to immigration violations. It goes to elucidate the definition of willful as “deliberate, voluntary, or intentional, as distinguished from that which was involuntary, unintentional, or otherwise reasonably excusable”; instructs that the burden of proving that his registration was not willful is on the non-citizen (which may not be satisfied if failure to comply was based on fear or inconvenience); and notes that even where an individual is found to have “willfully” failed to register, the agency may exercise prosecutorial discretion in accordance with its litany of memoranda on the topic.

Previous adjudications of “willful failure” did not give credence to the applicant’s statements such as “I was 16 years old when I entered, I could barely speak English and my family was not involved in the community, I did not know about special registration.”  In some cases, applicants were not even asked the question “Why didn’t you register”? ICE took the passports and stamped them  “willful failure” and told individuals that everything would be fine. Things were not fine and many people ended up in deportation. People’s lives have been damaged due to this program and it is critical that DHS conveys its intent clearly to rectify this to the field with training and specificity.  Without it, even with the April Memo, the hoped for result will fail.

The April Memo is an encouraging step but what is ultimately needed is a termination of NSEERS and a clear policy that protects all people affected by NSEERS from immigration consequences unless DHS can prove that such protection is adverse to the public interest.  The NSEERS program has brought more than a decade of fear and damage—the Department’s own Inspector General, civil rights and immigration advocates, and the private bar have all recommended that the NSEERS program be terminated.

Sometimes you read an article and think “something doesn’t quite follow here.”  An April 7, 2012 article in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram titled “Fort Worth engineer who got Obama’s attention still doesn’t have a job” is one such article.

The article lays out a tale with which one can readily sympathize: an engineer loses his job in the midst of the Great Recession, and remains out of work three years later.  He receives expressions of interest from companies and recruiters all over the country, but cannot pursue them because a custody agreement requires he stay in the area where he now lives. It’s an impossibly tough dilemma: wedded by a vitally overarching family commitment to a geographic location where your skills are not in demand, and unable to pursue opportunities in places where demand for your skills does exist.

But the article fills in some more information. The engineer’s job loss was being used by immigration opponents to argue that H-1B specialty occupation professionals should not be allowed into the United States because here is an engineer who needs a job.  This was raised with no less than the President of the United States in a video chat.

This chat exchange received considerable publicity, and immediately the engineer was being contacted by potential employers from all over the country.  Alas, none of these employers were in the North Texas area.  And the engineer couldn’t leave the area.  So the calls have stopped and the engineer stays unemployed.

But here’s what doesn’t follow.  The article goes on to quote Senator Grassley and the engineer’s wife as saying that the engineer is out of work because of  foreign nationals on H-1B visas.  The fact that the engineer cannot go where the jobs are does not seem to be considered a factor.  Leaping over barrels of  facts to a conclusion that doesn’t follow from the facts, the fault is placed at the feet of  foreign-born professionals who will go where the jobs are.

In those leapt-over barrels is the acknowledged fact that employers all over the country were beating down this engineer’s door.  Why would they do that unless there are jobs available in some fields and employers wanting to fill them with U.S. workers who have the right skills?  But these employers cannot pull up entire operations (and lay off their existing workforce) in order to move to the locale of a single person; the person needs to move to the job. If the person cannot move to the job because of a family obligation, that is to be respected.

But no one should blame “the foreigners” for it.

Written by: Jeff Joseph, AILA Board of Governors

Anyone listening to the Republican primary debates would assume that immigration is at the forefront of the national consciousness and that immigration has become a defining issue in this election cycle. Given the heat and rhetoric surrounding the immigration debate and the frequency with which immigration is being used as a wedge issue in the primaries, one is left to ponder: Why have our elected leaders continuously dropped the ball on this critical issue? More importantly:  Why, on earth, would I continue to spend my time and resources to advocate for immigration reform when my elected officials do not seem to be listening?

As I ponder these legitimate questions, I am reminded of Aesop’s fable “The Crow and the Pitcher.” In the fable, a crow, half-dead with thirst, came upon a pitcher which had once been full of water; but when the crow put its beak into the pitcher he found that only a little water was left in it, and he could not reach far enough down to get at it.  He tried, and he tried, but at last had to give up in despair. Then a thought came to him, and he took a pebble and dropped it into the pitcher. One after the other, he tediously dropped pebbles into the pitcher.  At last, he saw the water mount up near him, and after casting in a few more pebbles he was able to quench his thirst and save his life. The moral of the story, of course, is that little by little, persistence pays off and helps us to accomplish our goals.

Let’s be realistic.  Immigration reform in an election cycle seems like drops of water at the end of an empty pitcher.  Nevertheless, it is critically important that our Association, and we as individual members, keep the dialogue regarding the need for immigration reform in the mainstream. While our advocacy efforts on the Hill might not get traction this year, we should not pause. We should continue to drop pebbles. At this time, more than ever, we should focus our energies on our communications, public relations and messaging. It is our duty as advocates to continue to put out our very simple message:  Immigration and immigrants are good for America. By propagating this message with clear examples of the clients with whom we work, we can change the hearts and minds of Americans so that when reform becomes a reality (which it will) the everyday voter will be ready to go to the ballot box and support it.

Whether you are blogging, appearing in the media, speaking in public fora, or attending the annual National Day of Action, I challenge you to do what you can to promote our messages regarding the positive contributions of immigrants and advocate for sensible immigration laws that will benefit our clients for generations to come. Immigration reform is not an option for us. It is a challenge, but one which we must accomplish and eventually will through simple persistence. I will see you at in Washington, D.C. on March 29th for AILA National Day of Action 2012.

Originally posted on Huffington Post

“Where’s your Green Card! Where’s your Green Card! Where’s your Green Card!…”

That was the despicable taunt that met Kansas State point guard Angel Rodriguez during the first-round NCAA tournament game between Kansas State University and the University of Southern Mississippi. Never mind that Rodriguez, a native of Puerto Rico, is a U.S. citizen. His surname and brown skin were enough to lead Southern Mississippi band members to put on an ugly display of prejudice, humiliating themselves and their university.

It goes without saying that the incident should be investigated and the perpetrators disciplined. Southern Mississippi has since publicly apologized to Rodriguez. Such bigotry has no place anywhere in America, least of all on a university campus.

But can we really be surprised by the horrid display of anti-Latino prejudice? Is it not the foreseeable result of the coded hate-speech of the anti-immigrant restrictionists who day after day use the Internet, print media, and airwaves to disseminate their message of hate aimed at Latinos? The nativist restrictionists are a coalition of hate groups which rely on myths, half-truths, and bald-faced lies to frame the immigration debate in foul racist terms. They’ve concocted the grand myth of a “Latino invasion” — hordes of brown people streaming over America’s southern border to spread disease, crime, poverty, and every other social ill imaginable.

The modern day nativist movement began as a relatively obscure “population control” effort. In the 40 years since it has grown into a network of associations, groups, and so-called “think tanks” and “legal institutes” many of which are linked to a small cadre of people, including nativist John Tanton, whose disturbing ties to white supremacists and white ethno separatists have been documented by the Southern Poverty Law Center. Their common purpose is to stop further diversification of America by ending immigration; particularly Latino immigration. To achieve this ugly goal, they’ve carefully masked their policy proposals with nuanced terms like “immigration time-out” (end all immigration, legal and unauthorized) or “reinterpretation of the Constitutional Citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment” (eviscerate core principles of American democracy). To vilify and dehumanize Latinos, the nativist restrictionists have succeeded in incorporating racially charged terms like “illegal alien” and “anchor baby” into the mainstream of American discourse. Today such obnoxious words are commonly found in the mainstream print and electronic media and have become largely accepted as part of the American vocabulary.

This year the nativists have played an increasingly prominent role in the presidential primaries, running slick ads and endorsing candidates. Nativist lawyer Kris Kobach, one of the main authors of Arizona’s infamous “papers please” anti-immigration law, publicly joined Mitt Romney’s campaign team advising him on immigration issues. Sheriff Joe Arpaio, who, according to a recent Department of Justice report, has used his office to engage in a pattern and practice of civil rights abuses in Latino neighborhoods in Maricopa County, has also endorsed presidential candidates and was spotted prominently seated at the Arizona Republican presidential debate earlier this month.

Is it surprising then that the hateful anti-immigrant rhetoric with its thinly veiled anti-Latino messaging has metastasized like a cancer into the minds of some of America’s youth? Yet as ugly as the display at Southern Mississippi was, it also presents an opportunity — a national teaching moment — especially since it happened as the Mississippi state legislature was passing its version of the Arizona and Alabama anti-immigrant laws.

As Americans we should welcome and encourage a robust and frank discussion about immigration policy and how to make it work so that it protects and expands job opportunities for American workers, keeps our economy globally competitive into the 21st century, and restores due process. But we must remove hate from the discussion and replace it with tolerance, open-mindedness, and respect. If we do that then perhaps a promising American athlete like Angel Rodriguez will no longer be forced to endure racist jeers aimed at the color of his skin and the name the back of his basketball jersey.

Written by: Maya Wilbourn, Film Fest Coordinator

Whether I am watching an unedited independent film in a small local theater or a film that won the Grand Jury Prize at the Sundance Film Festival, there is something very exciting about film festivals.  Filmmakers are eager to share their artistic expressions and answer questions about their experiences making movies.  Audience members readily give their undivided attention.  And unlike the limited formats given to the news or presidential candidate debates, films tell a complete story.  The inaugural AILA Film Fest at the Annual Conference in Nashville this year is sure to be a hit.

Immigration films are important because they shape the public’s perception of immigrants.  They offer viewers a chance to connect with characters and in turn, our clients.  Filmmakers can educate the general public about why our current immigration system needs to be fixed.  The lack of poetic justice can make viewers feel uncomfortable with the fairness of our immigration laws.  Films can be persuasive, arguing against the border wall for example, or they can simply examine a unique perspective on immigration.  No matter how many clients and different types of cases I have, it is always eye opening to see the points of view expressed in films about immigration.

The AILA Film Fest will offer a variety of feature films and shorts that will be aired at 9:30 Wednesday, Thursday and Friday night of the conference.  I hope to see you all on the red carpet!

This blog is the first in a series on the AILA Film Fest. Stay tuned in coming weeks as several of the filmmakers featured at this years’ event will be blogging about their films. For more information, including a complete list of films titles and trailers, visit the AILA Film Fest homepage.  For more information on AILA’s Annual Conference, please visit: www.aila.org/ac.

Music – It’s as American as apple pie.  Last week 39.3 million Americans tuned in to watch the Grammys. I was not one of them. It hurt too much.  That morning I had to tell a Master drummer and dancer who has spent the last five years sharing with our country the unique and beautiful music and dance of Guinea West Africa that he was no longer welcome here. The discordant and sad timber of his voice when I delivered the news, were not welcome notes.

Senny is the lead dundun player for Jeh Kulu, an African dance company based in Burlington, Vermont. For almost two decades Jeh Kulu has brought to the U.S. the music and dance of West Africa. As a member of Jeh Kulu, Senny held regular dance classes for adults and children, conducted regular workshops and residencies for local elementary schools and high school schools, taught at universities around the country, and performed regularly for audiences of every type.

On the books at least, our laws recognize the importance of bringing to our shores the sounds and culturally unique talents of others beyond our shores. Without their influence, classically American forms of music such as jazz dance and Zydco would not exist. The P-3 visa category was created for just this purpose, to insure that we continue to evolve and grow through the infusion of the talents of those that are different. Yet sadly, despite the fact that our laws recognize the importance of this mission, those administering them do not.

Senny went home in January to visit his parents and children and to learn new moves and music so that he could bring them back to the American public to continue sharing with it the beauty of his culture.  His application to extend his status in the U.S. was approved by the USCIS. It recognized the important role that he has and continues to play in the U.S. However, when he applied for his visa so that he could return he was told that he had been here too long and thus, they didn’t think he would return to Guinea. Ironically, this finding was made despite the fact that Senny had returned to Guinea to engage in activities that in and of themselves show that his ties to his home country remain as strong as ever.

Senny never violated his status while in the U.S.  He did only what he was authorized to do, that is bring to the U.S. the uniqueness of his culture by performing and teaching regularly and sharing with us something that we would not have access to without him. Senny’s costumes and instruments remain in the U.S., however, they have been silenced. Not me. Today I can’t help but sing the following for Senny and the hundreds of artists and entertainers who are refused entry to our country:

A long, long time ago
I can still remember how that music used to
Make me smile
And I knew if he had the chance
That he would teach our people dance
And they would be happy all the while
But February made me shiver
With the decision DOS delivered
Bad news at the Consulate
Made sure he’d dance not one more step
I do remember that I cried
When he told me his visa’d been denied
This damned thing touched me deep inside
(it was) the day his music died

Written by: Mo Goldman, AILA Media-Advocacy Committee

Over the past century, a handful of people have walked across the United States for a variety of different causes.  The struggle for comprehensive immigration reform has finally spawned a walk that will take four individuals on a journey across the United States beginning on March 10, 2012.  At high noon, Jonatan Martinez, Lucas Da Silva, Nico Gonzalez and Raymi Gutierrez will embark on a 3,000-mile walk from the Golden Gate Bridge to Washington D.C.  The Campaign for an American Dream (CAD) was developed as a means of creating “dialogue around the passage of the DREAM Act and immigration reform with the values of equality, unity, and diversity.”  I call on everyone who believes in the need for immigration reform to sign-on to support this cause, to contribute to it and to follow the walkers along their journey.

Comprehensive Immigration Reform has been a long time coming and, as the days and years pass us by, the struggle to live a normal life becomes more difficult.  This is especially noticeable with the passage of xenophobic state-based restrictions.  In spite of the struggles, many are coming up with creative and courageous ways to bring the need for immigration reform to the forefront.  Over two years ago, a group of brave students (Carlos Roa, Felipe Matos, Gaby Pacheco, and Juan Rodriguez) walked from Miami to Washington D.C. in their Trail of Dreams.  Across the U.S., numerous undocumented persons are risking their own freedoms as a means of drawing attention to their plight.  They are becoming more and more outspoken against state anti-immigrant policies and the need for congress to act now.

…Talking the Talk

The CAD walk will also spread valuable dialogue amongst many communities across the U.S.  The walkers intend to dispel myths about immigrants and why we need CIR.  The kick-off event will feature a speech by Pulitzer Prize winning journalist and advocate Jose Antonio Vargas.  Other thought-provoking discussions are planned along the way.  This is not only about the symbolic walk across the country but also to bring the conversation to many communities.

On the CAD 2012 website, you can read about each of the walkers and hear their personal stories.  Lucas Da Silva explains why he is putting himself out there for this cause:

I stand with confidence of a better future today because I have chosen

to shed my fear and take up arms for the families and youth that live in

fear and hide in the shadows. I cannot sit idly by as we are oppressed by

the current immigration laws that are separating our families and destroying

the hopes of our youth. Tired of lying, hiding, running, and crying, I choose

to fight for the people that suffer.

Along with the website, you can also track the CAD on Facebook.

Originally posted on Huffington Post

Last week a three judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals looked at five immigration cases, turned to the Department of Homeland Security, and effectively said, “Really!? Are you really going to deport these people? Or are you going to use your common sense and focus your limited law enforcement resources on dangerous criminals and national security risks?” The court went on to say, in essence, “How about this, go and think about what we’ve asked and let us know what you’ve decided by March 19. In the meantime we’re going to focus ourjudicial resources on more important cases.”

The court’s orders were the result of a memorandum issued last year by John Morton, Director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, in which he announced that the agency would employ “prosecutorial discretion” in its enforcement of the immigration law. Morton ordered ICE agents and prosecutors to focus on the removal of illegal immigrants who pose a threat to our communities — dangerous criminals and national security risks. Each case considered by Ninth Circuit concerned an immigrant who had been in the U.S. for a long time, had strong family ties, and had no criminal record. Unfortunately, such sympathetic factors are usually meaningless to the immigration law which blindly insists on deportation without regard to fairness, justice, or common sense.

I’ll leave it to others to decide whether or not the Ninth Circuit panel overstepped its authority. After all, as Judge O’Scannlain pointed out in his dissent, courts “have only the slimmest authority even to review the exercise of prosecutorial discretion.” And while the Morton memo is a common sense approach to enforcing a badly broken immigration statute, it is not the law of the land.

So what was the court up to?

Every day in this country courts are forced to turn their backs on deserving immigrants and American citizens alike because of the dysfunctional immigration law. In courtrooms all across America judges sit helplessly by, their hands legally tied, as the twisted immigration law wreaks havoc on American families, stymies American business, fails to protect people fleeing persecution, and stomps on the due process rights of immigrants and U.S. citizens. Its mean spirited provisions tear husbands from wives, parents from children and brothers from sisters. Like some sinister beast in a horror movie, the immigration law creeps into peoples’ lives and destroys them without so much as a second thought about the human suffering it leaves behind.

It’s tempting to brush aside the Ninth Circuit judges’ orders as improper judicial activism. But that misses the point. Even the U.S. Supreme Court appears to have weighed in on the broken immigration law through its decisions in cases like Padilla v. Kentucky and Carachuri-Rosendo v. Holder, which derive from the confusing, contradictory, and counterintuitive statute, and signal a major shift in the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence toward greater protection of immigrants’ rights. Nor is the Supreme Court’s concern limited to the law. It has also taken the government to task for its haphazard and illogical reading of it. Late last year in Judulang v. Holder a unanimous Supreme Court called the government’s interpretation of a legal provision “arbitrary and capricious” and “unmoored from the purposes and concerns of the immigration laws.”

Another, more plausible, explanation for these decisions is that the nation’s courts, including perhaps even the Supreme Court, are effectively throwing their hands up and imploring Congress to get to the hard work of fashioning a law that will provide America with a safe, orderly and fair immigration policy — one that protects American families and businesses and restores civil liberties.

Written by: Mo Goldman, AILA Media-Advocacy Committee

Watching the Florida Republican Primary Debates this week again demonstrated that these final four candidates simply refuse to understand the dynamics of our draconian immigration system.  Perhaps they just don’t understand the complexity of it and the numerous roadblocks that serve as a barrier to those who want to legally immigrate to the United States.  Three of the remaining candidates contend that we must deport anyone who is not legally present in the country.  The other candidate thinks it would be wise to set up some sort of citizen review panel, which sounds more like a bad game show.  Since this seems to be so difficult to comprehend, allow me to demonstrate why their ideas are shameful composed through a format that they might relate to and understand: Nursery rhymes (Note: the following rhymes are based on true stories)

Jack and Jill Meet the Ten Year Bar

Jack and Jill came to Chapel Hill,

To make a new life for themselves.

Undocumented for more than a year,

Now they live in fear.

Jack was pulled over by the police,

He was forced to his knees.

Jack was deported back to Chile,

A ten year bar left Jill lonely.

INA §212(a)(9)(B)(i)(I) bars a person for three years if they remain in the U.S. without proper documentation (unlawfully present) for more than 6 months.  INA §212(a)(9)(B)(i)(II) bars a person for ten years if they remain in the U.S. without proper documentation for more than a year.  Therefore, this law provides a disincentive for a person to self-deport as suggested by Governor Romney.  There are limited waivers available for these bars, but most people are too fearful to leave the U.S. and face these harsh penalties.  Attrition through enforcement only makes sense if people actually leave, eliminating state benefits is not going to force people out.  Plus, it is inhumane.

Humpty Dumpty Waited and Waited…

Humpty Dumpty sponsored his son for a green card,

Humpty Dumpty didn’t realize that the process would be this hard,

One year became two years became five years,

Twenty years passed by and his son was still waiting in tears.

We welcome anyone to take an hour (or a week) and try to make sense out of what is known as the Visa Bulletin.  This is published by the U.S. Department of State on a monthly basis.  Processing times can vary from one category to the next, but most family-based sponsored immigration can take a decade or longer.  Conservative economists consistently decry the current system that does nothing more than separate families and hurt the U.S. in competing for the best and brightest foreign workers.  Making the argument that undocumented immigrants should leave and get in the back of the line is completely illogical since the “line” has no end in sight.

Little Boy Blue and Needs Hope

Little Boy Blue, he missed his dreams.

“A waste of talent,” he often screams.

Where is the boy who picks your grapes?

He’s sweating his ass off and can’t escape.

Will you help him?  Santorum says no.

He hopes that Little Boy Blue self deports.

DREAM Act anyone? Comprehensive Immigration Reform?  Newt Gingrich talks about the plight of grandparents who are in this country without legal status.  What about the rest of the family?  What about the children of immigrants who came to this country when they were minors and have grown up in the United States?  To deny these individuals, many of whom are no longer minors, an opportunity to go to college and join the military and someday become a U.S. citizen is un-American.  The government should give these young people an opportunity to thrive and use the skills they developed in our system.  For that matter, it is high time that Congress passes a reasonable comprehensive bill to provide a path to citizenship for all undocumented immigrants in the United States.