Imagine you’re a hardworking staff member for a U.S. Senator.  You’re looking at an immigration reform bill that’s nearly a thousand pages, seemingly covers a million different issues and includes provisions that will impact tens of millions of people.  Immigration isn’t necessarily your area of expertise but your boss is going to have to vote on it, so you dive in.

You’re looking at a provision, or an amendment, and trying to figure out what it means.  Not just what the legislative jargon translates to but you need to know what it will mean to real people.  Because when you’re trying to help frame potential responses to a question or issue or prep your boss to have all the information he or she needs to determine which way to vote, well, you need to really “get” the human element behind a provision.

You’re going to need to know what the consequences for real people are if this amendment or that amendment passes. The impact could be that a family is separated, that children lose a parent’s presence for years, that a brother will likely never get the chance to have his sister join him in the States, or a business will lose out on the best talent in the world.  If you could only point to an example of an immigrant or business in Senator So and So’s state that would be impacted and explain precisely how that impact would be manifested, then that real life “reality check” could make a difference.

Explaining a complicated issue by sharing an example is a far more appealing, approachable, and universal way to make the case for good immigration reform. The staff at AILA National are great, but they aren’t us.  They do not work with clients—individuals and businesses—every day and when they need an example of why immigration reform matters, they turn to us as a resource, the best resource for sympathetic stories about how our system is broken and what impact change could have.

We need to get them that information.  The problem is that we are all busy, we all want to guard our clients’ privacy and sometimes our clients are wary of sharing a story.  None of these things are necessarily insurmountable obstacles. We need to take the time to tell the story because the reality is that it takes less time to do so than we think. We need to proactively ask clients for permission to share and, if they are wary, talk to them about ways to share their story without including any identifying information to offer them a greater sense of security through anonymity. What we cannot do is rely on someone else to do this important task, because there is success in numbers. Each of us needs to share that story that kept us up at night, that made us cry with sadness or with joy or that reminded us why we do this very important work.

I was able to share a story about an anonymous business client of mine that had an L-1 denied on grounds that had nothing to do with the law or the facts, but everything to do with the paranoia surrounding investors from certain countries and the threat of offshoring. The result of the denial was that the entire department which was to be built around this worker has been eliminated in the U.S. and the company (a U.S. company with a foreign subsidiary and not the other way around) has moved all related operations offshore. This was of course the exact opposite result from the one our country needs given that it eliminated potential well-paying jobs out of ignorance. My hope is that as the Members of Congress look at this example, they will see that the very measures they are proposing to prevent offshoring and protect U.S. workers will result in the opposite. These measures are simply more stringent statutorily mandated variations of what we are already seeing as a matter of adjudicative practice and their effect has been to eliminate, not create, jobs for U.S. workers.

I have also shared several stories of DACA applicants who, under current law, are permanently barred from obtaining residence, by virtue of having claimed U.S. citizenship on the newest version of Form I-9. I know from Capitol Hill visits that many members of Congress are not fully aware of the impact and magnitude of this problem and are generally dismayed when they learn of it. My hope is that these examples will ensure that this very common and frankly relatively innocent action will not have permanent negative consequences for the very people almost everyone agrees should be helped.

Please, take a few minutes and ask your clients if you may  share a case example or encourage your clients to do so.

It may not seem like one story could make a difference, but when all of immigration law is pretty much on the table as it is right now, that’s exactly what could happen.

Submit your case examples through the tool AILA has set up online.  If you have any questions, please contact Brittany Young (byoung@aila.org).

Written by Dagmar Butte, Member, AILA Board of Governors

After working its way through 32 amendments related to border triggers and the rest of Title I at their markup last week, the Senate Judiciary Committee is going to jump ahead on Tuesday to Title IV, which has a mixed bag of nonimmigrant provisions for business immigration.

These provisions came after what seemed like eons of negotiation between labor and business, so many of them may be considered “core” to the “Gang of Eight” bill and therefore the four members of the Gang that sit on the Judiciary Committee could vote en bloc to prevent any big changes that might endanger those compromises.

So what’s in there? Here’s a small sample:

The Temporary Visa for Lesser-Skilled Workers (W visa) addresses one of the most obvious shortcomings in previous immigration reform—future flow.  One vital component is that spouses and minor children are included and are work-authorized, providing much-needed family unity for those seeking to come to the U.S. temporarily to work.  It also importantly offers flexibility for workers by allowing them to switch from one registered employer to another, and by giving them a way to apply for the merit-based lawful permanent residence program or the employment-based system.  These elements mean that workers wouldn’t be potentially “trapped” in exploitative employment.

The drafters of the legislation are taking the slow road with the W visa by starting with a 20,000 cap on W visas, rising to 75,000 visas in four years. Conceivably, the cap could increase to 200,000, depending on operation of a formula based on unemployment, job openings, number of applications, and recommendations of a newly-created federal Bureau that would track relevant statistics.  That 20,000 starting point might be too small for the employer needs we know exist.

The most mixed portion of the bag relates to H-1Bs. The bill, by providing for an increase in the H-1B quota to a floor of 110,000 and a ceiling of 180,000, reflects an understanding that foreign talent, especially those educated in our nation’s graduate schools, can and do contribute to America’s economic growth. An amendment by Senator Hatch that might come up in tomorrow’s markup would improve this provision even further.

The bill recognizes the human face of the H-1B nonimmigrant:  it provides for work authorization for their spouses on a reciprocity basis and allows for a 60-day grace period after an H-1B nonimmigrant ceases the sponsored employment, enabling the individual to maintain lawful presence during that time.

But if the bill giveth, the bill also taketh away.  Some of the H-1B provisions are troublesome, adding burdens to what is supposed to be a visa that enables American businesses to be nimble in meeting specialty skill needs.  The bill requires invention of a new internet posting recruitment system by the Department of Labor (an agency notorious for non-reality based recruitment requirements in the permanent labor certification context), substitution of government judgment for employer judgment in who should be offered these positions of specialized skill, and a highly distorted wage requirement that will result in foreign workers being paid more—sometimes considerably more—than their U.S. citizen counterparts.

So on Tuesday, expect to see another long day of amendment consideration and voting by the committee members as they work their way through a few more of the hundreds of amendments filed last week.

By taking up Title IV this early in the markup process, the committee is showing how important it is that immigration reform not only find a solution for the 11 million undocumented, but also bring our immigration system forward into the 21^st century to meet the needs of American companies.

Really? Seriously?  Wow.

Not the most erudite comment I’ve ever made but that’s what I’m reduced to facing this week’s Amendmentpalooza.  Wow.

I’m looking at the breakdown of proposed amendments to the Senate immigration reform bill (S. 744).  AILA National is conducting careful analysis of the hundreds of amendments, figuring out how they would impact our new favorite reading choice, the “Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act.”

In digging through the 300 amendments proposed by Democrats and Republicans alike, they have found some doozies.  These potential poison pills should be required reading for any immigration attorney, and, for that matter, any business owner and especially for any resident of several states from whom the Senators hail who proposed these outlandish amendments.

This is a bipartisan bill.  That already requires compromise on both sides, but accepting the following amendments wouldn’t be compromising, it would be putting nails in the coffin of a decent immigration bill and burying America’s future with it.

Apparently gutting the legalization process sounds good to several Senators.  Taken together the provisions would essentially ensure that pretty much no one qualified for permanent status—oh, and if Sen. Cruz has his way, no one who was ever willfully unlawfully present would ever get citizenship.  Nope, they’re unworthy.  I’m just surprised that there wasn’t a Scarlet Letter amendment in there too, forcing legalized immigrants to wear an “A” for Amnesty for the rest of their lives.

Businesses would get a pretty harsh wake-up call too, per Sen. Grassley, who would play havoc with the business immigration policies to the extent that American businesses seeking to hire foreign talent—the kind that leads to American jobs and global competitiveness—would be shut out.  At some point, you make an immigration category so difficult that no one will apply.  On the upside, I guess we wouldn’t need to hold an H-1B lottery ever again.

There is amendment after amendment that would roll our immigration policy backward instead of moving it forward, to prevent families from being reunited, and to throw more money at ineffective border security measures, rather than investing in enforcement that will actually make our country safer.  Oh, let’s not forget the amendments that would gut due process and eliminate training for DHS agents in things like civil rights.

Don’t get me wrong—a few stalwart Senators from both sides are offering potentially good amendments, to reunite families, ensure a more inclusive legalization process, and make our immigration system better.  How many of those might be included in any final bill is anyone’s guess.  Again, this is a bipartisan, compromise process so no one will be completely happy but the flip side is that with a decent bill, no one will be entirely disappointed either.

Some things require compromise, but worthless amendments that only serve to destroy the workable framework that the Senate “Gang of Eight” and their staff have built have no place in this process. If you’re in one of the states with a Judiciary Committee member, or have a client from that state, get calls in to your Senators, email their offices, reach out to contacts you made through AILA’s National Day of Action or in-state meetings.  Reach out to local reporters to talk about what is wrong with some of these amendments and why even proposing them is an overt effort to derail immigration reform that our nation desperately needs.  Your voices—and the voices of your clients—need to be heard, but they won’t be, unless you speak out.

Listen carefully.  That ‘click’ ‘click’ ‘click’ sound you hear isn’t your clock.  Around the country, and potentially around the world, immigration advocates and restrictionists alike are hitting the “refresh” button over and over and over again on a Senate Judiciary Committee website.  Why? What’s so special about this website?

This website isn’t just special, it is extraordinary.  It is unique in the history of immigration reform.  It is the fulfillment of a promise by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) who has told his fellow Judiciary Committee members that all proposed amendments to S. 744, the “Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act” must be filed by 5p.m. today and will be posted publicly on this website: http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/legislation/immigration/amendments.cfm

‘Click’ ‘click’ ‘click…we’re waiting.  We’re waiting to see what amendments will be offered by the 18 members of the committee.

We know already there will be a sponsors’ amendment, which would replace the current bill with an 867 page corrected version that fixes some errors and typos, and clarifies some things that caused confusion in the original 844 page bill.  The sponsors’ amendment is the equivalent of a shoe-in (see AILA’s updated section-by-section analysis showing the changes here: http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=44283)

‘Click’

Senator Leahy himself has posted an amendment: it would prohibit the establishment of a border crossing fee at land borders for pedestrians or passenger vehicles.

‘Click’

Senator Mazie Hirono (D-HI) has posted four amendments thus far.

‘Click”

So far, nothing else has been posted.  But because of Chairman Leahy’s leadership, we know where we’ll be looking, and for the first time the American public is guaranteed the chance to review the proposed amendments before the Senate Judiciary Committee begins the markup process later this week.  That is a win for a transparent government, reflecting the values on which our country was built.

‘Click’

We’re waiting.  We’re watching.

Things are different this time around.

The passion is different, the energy is different and, most of all, America is different.  As Congress gets ready to take on what is arguably the most contentious issue in the country, there is no mistaking it: America is ready to create an immigration process that will protect our borders, keep our families safe and together, give our businesses the tools they need to compete in the global economy, and provide a roadmap to citizenship for the 11 million aspiring citizens currently living in the shadows.

And why are things different?  Here’s what’s changed since 2007, the last time an immigration bill was presented to Congress:

1.       The Latino Vote

The 2012 presidential election will be remembered not only for the re-election of the first African-American president, but for the power of the Latino vote.  To be sure, as Americans, Latinos are concerned about issues other than immigration—including health care, the economy, gun violence, and education.  But for them, the broken immigration system is personal.  It doesn’t go away with the flick of a television switch. Many Latino voters have a family member or close friend entangled in the web of arcane rules and confusing regulations known as U.S. immigration law.  Someone in their life–a parent, a brother, a cousin, a friend– is threatened with deportation.

Last year, President Obama, after presiding over record numbers of deportations during his first term, promised Latino voters that if re-elected he would put immigration reform at the top of his “to do” list.  Governor Romney, on the other hand, embraced restrictionists like Kris Kobach and Joe Arpaio, railed against “amnesty” and promised Latinos little more than “self-deportation”.

The lesson of the election: Latinos are a formidable force in American politics and can no longer be ignored.

2.       The DREAMERs Are Now Doers

A funny thing happened since the DREAM Act was first introduced in 2001.  The DREAMERs grew up.  And they grew up as Americans, watching football, going to homecoming dances, eating hotdogs on the 4^th of July and dreaming about giving back to the country they’ve struggled against all odds to enrich. They are no longer the helpless children who were brought to the U.S. by their parents.  Today they are, in effect, undocumented Americans.

Through masterful use of 21^st century tools like Facebook and Twitter, coupled with old fashioned organizing and courage, the DREAMERs have become a key voice in the struggle for immigration reform.  They, more than any other group, deserve the lion’s share of credit for pushing the Administration to grant an administrative deportation reprieve to qualified undocumented youth last year.

And for DREAMERs there is no giving up on their journey toward US citizenship.  They will no longer take no for an answer.

 3.      There Has Been Unprecedented Immigration Enforcement

Unlike in 2007, today the border is secure. A recent report published by the American Immigration Lawyers Association found that the border security benchmarks of the past immigration reform bills have been met or exceeded. These include improvements in border infrastructure and technology, detention facilities, and increased border personnel. In fact illegal crossings are down to their lowest levels in 40 years.

4.       Business and Labor Agree on a Guest Worker Program

The fact that business and labor could come to an agreement on a guest worker program — perhaps one of the most contentious issues in the immigration reform debate — means the energy is there, the desire is there, and the need is there for immigration reform this year. And if the AFL-CIO and U.S. Chamber of Commerce can find common ground, then Democrats and Republicans in Washington can too.

5.       The American Public Supports Immigration Reform

According to a recent NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll 76% of Americans support creating an immigration process that includes a roadmap to citizenship for the 11 million new American immigrants if they pay a fine, back taxes and complete a background check.  Most Americans, 54% according to the poll, believe immigration strengthens America—that’s up from 47% a year ago.

So, that’s why we’re here, in this place, at this moment, ready to move forward on immigration reform. The time is now, now is the time.

On Wednesday, April 10, just the day before AILA’s National Day of Action kicked off in Washington, DC, tens of thousands of protesters marched on the Capitol in support of immigration reform.  Advocates came by foot, car, bus, train, and plane from all over the country.  They held signs telling their stories, or the stories of those dear to them, as they called on Congress to make real change happen this time.

Political momentum seems to be in favor of a bipartisan immigration reform agreement, with the Gang of Eight continuing their work and expected to release a bill perhaps as early as next Tuesday that will offer a path to legalization for the undocumented, and hopefully an overhaul of the patchwork of dysfunctional immigration policies that make up our legal immigration “system” as well.  I’ve been working in immigration law for over 30 years.  I lived through the hope and dismay of 2006, 2007 and 2010.  Amid this march and all the echo events across the country, with the polls and the politicians seemingly lining up in favor of reform, I feel more encouraged than ever.

Reform seems to be within reach. It’s clearly different this time. You can almost feel it in the air.  A newfound courage by key Congressional leadership from both sides of the aisle, being cheered on by Evangelicals in the South, business and trade organization leaders in our financial hubs and industrial cities, moms and dads throughout America’s heartland, all rallying together and recognizing that we can no longer be indifferent.

For those of you who want to have your say, tools to reach out to media are available on InfoNet which I encourage all of you to personalize and use to share the real impact of immigration reform and what it can mean for families, the economy, and our nation.  Photos from the rally are also posted on AILA’s Facebook page.

Washington, D.C. itself seemed to welcome the marchers with gorgeous early summertime weather and blossoming trees.  Let’s hope Congress listens to its leadership and also welcomes the voices of immigrants and their champions and shows us all what good policy looks like.

Last week the Associated Press (AP) changed its style manual so that the term “Illegal” is to be used to describe an action or procedure, but not a person.  No more “illegal immigrant” in AP stories.

News organizations have debated the use of the term “illegal immigrant” before because it provokes such a strong negative reaction from many people.  “No person is illegal” has been a popular sign and bumper sticker since the push for immigration reform started in earnest in 2005.

The problem has been what to use instead?  Some prefer “undocumented immigrant” but this term provokes an equally negative reaction in others that say it is disingenuous and suggests that no law has been broken.  Still others have pushed for “unauthorized immigrant” as a compromise that refers to the administrative nature of most immigration rules.

AP came to its decision from a different angle.  After talking with advocates for those with mental illness, they learned that people preferred to be referred to as “diagnosed with schizophrenia” rather than “a schizophrenic”, for example.

Following this reasoning, they realized what immigration advocates had been saying:  Labeling people objectifies them.  We don’t care very much about objects (that don’t have feelings or relationships).  The genocide in Rwanda, for instance, gained momentum when members of one tribe starting publicly referring to members of the other as “cockroaches”.

“Illegal immigrant” is also less accurate.  For example, a news story about a person not legally present in the U.S. that is hoping the law will change and allow him to stay would invoke a different reaction if the person is a 20-year-old that has been here since he was 2 than if it was a 50-year-old that came here last year on a visitor visa and refused to leave.  Defaulting to the term “Illegal immigrant” does not tell the whole story.

The question for immigration reform is whether AP’s decision is a style change only, or if it signals (or will facilitate) a broader attitude change that will lead to honest debate and problem solving.  Here’s hoping.

Written by Lori Chesser, Vice Chair, USCIS Benefits Policy Liaison Committee

This week, USCIS launched the new I-601A provisional waiver program, allowing certain relatives of American citizens who are in the country illegally to get a decision on their waiver case, before leaving the United States.

The exact numbers are not known, but it is clear that the new rules will impact thousands of US families.  For those who wouldn’t undertake the artificially-imposed, but very real risk of “touching back” to their home country under the old rules, the new regulations mean that it’s finally safe to complete the residency process.  For thousands of others, the goodwill shown by immigration authorities in trying to alleviate the hardship created by the meaningless departure requirement has inspired them to start a process that was unthinkable before the new rules were put into place.

There is no question that the new rule is an overwhelmingly positive development for American families.  Immigrants and their citizen family members now have some measure of peace, knowing that their loved one will not be stranded in a foreign country for an unknown length of time, potentially risking life and limb, while waiting for a decision on their case.  USCIS’s continued impressive handling of deferred action applications has shown that the agency has the capacity to handle a large volume of applications, and get it done right.  And, promisingly, USCIS has indicated that the provisional waiver process should be extended to qualified relatives in other family categories, as resources allow.

In the context of immigration reform, this “solution” to a problem that never should have existed in the first place this begs the question of why we punish American families (and U.S. employers) by forcing the very immigrants that already have a path to citizenship to undergo separation, financial and emotional hardship, and risk their safety to attend a 10 minute interview abroad, when the same process can be achieved at a local USCIS Field Office.

Unfortunately, for many other equally qualified relatives, the new provisions will do nothing to fix their immigration problems, and they and their family will remain stranded by the unworkable scheme Congress put into place nearly two decades ago.  Moreover, the new processing rules do nothing to fix the draconian “permanent bar” which results in de facto exile of a decade or more for immigrant family members.  As we move forward to try to find real solutions to our broken immigration system, Congress would be wise to consider the real cost to American families and U.S. competitiveness when trying to retain the failed policies or create new penalties which do nothing but harm the very people who already have a path to citizenship.

Regrettably, despite numerous comments from immigrant communities and advocates, the new rules perpetuated some of the absurdities of the process.  Instead of fixing the problems identified by experts in the field, the agencies inserted a glaringly punitive rule, inexplicably excluding individuals who had already started the process and had already paid the required government fees.   The irony is that this change serves only to leave out in the cold those families who were playing by the (old) rules.

As a result, thousands who had bravely begun the very last chapter of the application process have been stranded—ironically, after most put their cases on hold because the agency announced the proposed process over a year ago in draft form.  Under the final rules, those individuals cannot take advantage of the new procedures and must risk waiting outside the US for an indeterminate amount of time, without any sense of whether their case might—or might not be granted.

Not even filing a new consular application will allow a person with an approved petition to benefit from the new procedures.  The only way to have the same protections as other families appears to be withdrawing all applications and starting a case over from the very beginning.  In practical terms, this means that applicants who were nearly at the front of the line after years of processing, are being forced to choose between going forward, with all the uncertainty and risk of the “old” system, or abandoning their applications, getting into the back of the line, waiting years until they might see a new appointment and, to add insult to injury—paying twice for the privilege.

So, is there any reason these families are being singled out and put at risk?  No one involved in the process seems to have an answer, much less a defensible reason for this oversight.  If this feels like being in a long line at the grocery store and being relieved to see a new lane open, only to have the clerk take the guy behind you first, you’re not far off.  Except in this analogy, you not only get stuck at the back of the line, you end up paying for your groceries twice.

Written by Laura Lichter, AILA President

We are witnessing the most robust debate in more than a generation on how to reform our antiquated immigration laws to meet the demands of our twenty-first century economic and security needs. In coming up with a broad framework for this comprehensive legislation, we must stand firm against ideologies that do not serve our national interests.

To provide true reform, there must not only be a pathway to citizenship for the undocumented, but such a pathway must be free of any unnecessary obstacles, such as getting stuck in a newly created “status” for undocumented individuals before being eligible to receive legal permanent status which is counterproductive. Clearly our government must be able to conduct background checks to weed out criminals, but once that is done, the next logical step is permanent residency which in turn must give way to full citizenship. Under current law, this waiting period is usually five years. Anything short of this will result in failure.

We have already experimented with laws that provide less than full citizenship to foreign workers. The “bracero” program of the late ‘50s recruited a record number of laborers from Mexico. Just through El Paso alone, over 80,000 braceros arrived in Texas on an annual basis. Within a few short years however, the program failed. By 1964, there had been numerous reports of underpaid, overworked, harassed workers which led the officials at the U.S. Department of Labor to refer to the program as “legalized slavery.”

Another example of such failed policy occurred in “post-war” Germany. According to the Berlin Institute for Population and Development, approximately 3 million Turkish immigrants living in Germany who were unable to achieve full German citizenship are now less effectively integrated than other immigrant groups, and thus are more likely to be poorly educated, underpaid, and unemployed. In contrast, according to Sara Silvestri, a social scientist at the University of Cambridge, in the U.K. where full citizenship was granted to all qualified immigrants, Turks adapted to the British lifestyle, became fluent in English, and became involved in civil society.

The Germans learned from their mistake and over a decade ago reformed their immigration laws and provided full citizenship to their qualified migrant workers. I pray that our politicians also learn from past missteps and avoid marginalizing over 10 million individuals by only offering them an effectively permanent second class status in America.

Full citizenship is an honor and a tradition that must not be denied to any qualified immigrant in our country. Qualifications for becoming a citizen must be rooted in our heritage as a nation of immigrants and not in some newly designed artificial scheme being concocted by the restrictionists. Specifically, applicants must be able to pass a civics and history test, as well as show proficiency in English and show good moral character. Learning about our nation’s history and form of government is a vitally important way to encourage them to participate in our democracy, not a means for punishment.

As President Obama said in his State of the Union address: “We are citizens. It’s a word that doesn’t just describe our nationality or legal status. It describes the way we’re made. It describes what we believe.”

Written by Ally Bolour, Member, AILA Media-Advocacy Committee

If you are reading this column, it is probably not written for you.  It is written for your friends, relatives or neighbors that may not fully understand what has happened, what has not happened and what may happen this year with immigration reform.  For those reasons, I write this with only one request of you: please spread the word to people that do not fully understand what is going on.  They could be easy victims for scammers who want to take advantage of this confusing and exciting time.

I have personally received calls the past few weeks about the “new law” or “nueva ley” that is in effect in immigration.  Some reports are that people are already charging for services based on a legalization program or “amnesty.” NO SUCH PROGRAM exists at this time.  So, below I separate out fact from fiction to help make sure people are not taken advantage of.  You should know what has occurred and what has not occurred during the past several months and make sure to share this with others.

What has really happened:

• Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA): This allows some qualified individuals to apply for a work permit based on their physical presence in the United States, age and other factors.  IMPORTANT: There is no deadline for filing for DACA, as some have been hearing.  Also, there is no official processing time being provided by the Department of Homeland Security.  However, many applications are now taking close to six months to process.
• Provisional (Stateside) Waivers: This is not a legalization program but is instead a process that allows some individuals who are immediate relatives (certain spouses, children and parents of U.S. citizens) to apply for a provisional unlawful presence waiver while they are waiting in the United States.  Currently the regulation only applies to a narrow group of people and does not go into effect until March 4, 2013.  Therefore, if you may think you or a relative qualifies you should do some research now, before going further with any applications.

What has not happened:

• Comprehensive Immigration Reform: This has not happened yet, and it is going to be months before we have any idea of whether it will happen.  We don’t know what this law, if passed, will look like and who it will help.  No one should pay a deposit for work regarding a law that does not yet and may never exist.  Don’t let someone scam your friends, family, or members of your community.

Whenever there is media interest and talk about some sort of immigration reform there tends to be a lot of confusion about it and the process.  There are also, unfortunately, individuals who are already trying to take advantage of this confusion like scammers, notarios, and others.  So it is very important that you learn more about what is really happening with immigration reform and update your friends, relatives and neighbors who may not fully understand what is going on or have access to a computer.

Make sure to stay updated with any breaking news through websites such as the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) and other organizations that provide up-to-date and accurate information.

Written by Maurice Goldman, Member, AILA Media-Advocacy Committee