In a little-known practice that has been in place for a number of years, if an application is sent to any of the addresses for the Vermont Service Center by U.S. Postal Service, the postal service does not deliver it to the VSC, but rather, holds the application at a postal facility for the VSC to pick up.  And the VSC only picks up the mail once a day.  What’s more, the VSC tells us that they only treat the application as “received” when they get it, not when it is delivered to the address designated by USCIS on its website and forms instructions, even if there is a delivery acknowledgment and a Postal Service delivery confirmation.  On the other hand, if you submit your application using FedEx, UPS, or one of the other services, it gets delivered to the VSC directly, the VSC opens the package, and “receives” it into the system.

Who gets hurt by this practice?  Imagine a U.S. employer who has just entered into a contract for a project and needs the special skills of a particular foreign national. The employer has sent an H-1B petition via USPS to the VSC.  It arrived at the VSC mailing address on November 22, but it was rejected because it was not picked up by VSC until November 23, after the H-1B cap had been hit. Notwithstanding that fact that most of us would consider that a timely filing, the employer is simply out of luck.

The struggling U.S. Postal Service is out of luck too, because USCIS and the VSC are essentially telling their customers: “Don’t use the post office if you want to be sure we get the application on time.”

Where USCIS designates a street address or a post office box address as the place to which to send an application, a petition, or any other document, customers should be able to rely on timely delivery to that address as sufficient.  An arbitrary decision about when to pick up the mail should not have a “make or break” impact on a U.S. employer’s filing. This doesn’t make sense, it isn’t fair, it isn’t right, and it needs to be fixed.

Two weeks ago, the immigration world was abuzz due to the bipartisan support received for a narrow, extremely technical fix to employment- and family-based immigration quotas.  We learned yesterday, however, that one senator has blocked the bill from coming to a vote without substantial changes, making it extremely unlikely to be passed at all.  Hearing that reminded me of what may be the least effective legislature of all time, the Sejm of the 18th Century Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, in which any member could nullify the work of the whole session of the legislature by shouting, “Nie pozwalam!” (“I do not allow!”).  Here we are, back in the Sejm instead of the Senate, and a single member is effectively vetoing the entire legislature’s work.

The bill we are talking about is called HR3012, the Fairness for High-Skilled Immigrants Act.  The thing is, HR3012 does not add any new visas to address the quota backlogs for approved legal immigrants awaiting the availability of immigrant visas each year.  You read that correctly: HR 3012 would not allow in one more immigrant than current law allows.  It would merely change the rules of distributing our current quotas of new immigrants per year, allowing higher-skilled immigrants from India and China to wait the same length of time as higher-skilled immigrants from all the other countries in the world, and reducing the disparity in the family-based system between the worldwide backlogs and the longer backlogs faced by natives of Mexico and the Philippines.  (Readers interested in more detail can check out the National Foundation for American Policy’s incredibly detailed report on the quota backlogs.)

Legislation needs to pass through both the House and the Senate, however, before it can be presented to the President and become a law.  And in today’s Senate, it is becoming apparent that just one Senator can stop a bill from coming to a vote, even where the other 99 senators would agree with the 96% of the House that voted for the bill (The House voted overwhelmingly — 389-15– in favor of HR3012 two weeks ago).  The Senator blocking the bill is Charles Grassley (R-IA).

Senator Grassley has placed a “hold” on HR3012, preventing it from coming to the floor for a vote.  Senator Grassley released a statement saying that his hold was motivated by concern about “future immigration flows” and that “it does nothing to better protect Americans at home who seek high-skilled jobs” in today’s tough economy.  Here’s a reminder for Senator Grassley, however: every high-skilled immigrant affected by this bill has already been certified as filling an otherwise-empty vacancy in the US labor market, or having skills that are in our national interest to retain in the US.

Was the Senator concerned with the merits of the bill, about which I am rather agnostic?  The bill, after all, simply changes the rule of visa allocation to “first come, first served,” which certainly seems fair enough.  The primary question the bill addresses — given that it does not change the number of high skill immigrants allowed in per year — is whether a surgeon from India should have to wait 3-6 years for a green card, while an engineer from the Philippines or Germany doesn’t have to wait at all, as under current law, or whether the surgeon and the engineer should both have to wait 1-2 years.

Of course, Senator Grassley should know this, given that he is the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee and sits on the Immigration, Refugees and Border Security Subcommittee.  His real objection appears to be not to fairness in the process of allocating green cards for high skilled immigrants, but to the temporary visas companies and hospitals use to hire those high-skilled immigrants while they wait for their green cards.  Yesterday on the floor of the Senate, Senator Grassley said he was willing to release his hold, but only if HR3012 was changed substantially – eliminating any changes to family based visa allocation, being less fair to immigrants from India and China, and tacking on a package of onerous restrictions for temporary work visas – a package that the House and Senate have refused to consider a number of times over the past years.

Senator Grassley’s thwarting the will of the majority in pursuit of his own narrow vision of which immigrants should be allowed in to the United States highlights the dysfunction of today’s Senate.  That dysfunction has been noted elsewhere.  While such a procedural move may prevent the majority from considering a bill that a minority opposes, this “hold” is on a bill with a very limited effect – and with overwhelming, bipartisan support.  The lesson of the 18th century Sejm is instructive: paralyzed by vetoes, the legislature was unable to react to a changing world, and eventually their country was divided up between larger European powers.  If one Senator can stop even a legislative “tweak” like this from happening, I am not optimistic about our government’s ability to make laws to govern this country in the 21st century.

It’s fortuitous that the Republicans scheduled a debate for tonight. In light of the findings released today by the U.S. Department of Justice, they’ll all have an opportunity to weigh in on whether Arizona’s Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio is a tough law-and-order sheriff whose famous crusade against undocumented immigrants is a noble public service or whether he is, as the Justice Department has just found, likely nothing more than a racist thug who has engaged in an illegal “pattern and practice of unconstitutional conduct and/or violations of federal law” in a rabid effort to terrorize the county’s Latino citizens. It’ll be especially interesting to hear what Rick Perry has to say. Just a few weeks ago he went to Maricopa County to pay homage to Sheriff Joe in a desperate attempt to shore up his bona fides with the fringe right.

The investigative findings of the Department of Justice are shocking. The Department conducted a comprehensive investigation into Sheriff Joe’s Maricopa County department and found a litany of serious abuses, including:

Discriminatory policing practices including unlawful stops, detentions and arrests of Latinos;

• Unlawful retaliation against individuals exercising their First Amendment right to criticize MCSO’s policies or practices, including but not limited to practices relating to its discriminatory treatment of Latinos; and
• Discriminatory jail practices against Latino inmates with limited English proficiency by punishing them and denying them critical services.
• Long-standing and entrenched systemic deficiencies that caused or contributed to these patterns of unlawful conduct, including:

A failure to implement policies guiding deputies on lawful policing practices;

• Allowing specialized units to engage in unconstitutional practices;
•  Inadequate training;
• Inadequate supervision;
• An ineffective disciplinary, oversight and accountability system; and
• A lack of sufficient external oversight and accountability.

The Department’s investigation uncovered additional areas of serious concern, including:

• Use of excessive force;
• Police practices that have the effect of significantly compromising MCSO’s ability to adequately protect Latino residents; and
• Failure to adequately investigate allegations of sexual assaults.

To Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano’s credit, she immediately severed the Department’s 287(g) agreement with Maricopa County and is directing the Sheriff’s office to reassess its Secure Communities program. This action may come a little late for the scores of immigrants whose rights were abused by Sheriff Joe. But better late than never.

In light of the Justice Department’s report, Sheriff Joe Arpaio ought to immediately resign or be placed on administrative leave without pay pending resolution of the charges. The Department of Homeland Security should also review its 287(g) agreements with local law enforcement agencies across the country to be sure no other rogue law enforcement officials are using them to engage in the wholesale destruction of civil liberties.

Just this week the Supreme Court agreed to review the constitutionality of Arizona’s SB1070, a state law which criminalizes Arizona’s undocumented immigrants and subjects them to racial profiling. At bottom, SB1070 is nothing more than an ethnically charged hate law concocted by anti-immigrant restrictionsts to create a climate of fear.

Let’s hope the Supreme Court sees SB1070 for what it is. After all, can you imagine SB1070  in the hands of Sheriff Joe Arpaio?

I’d like to think that Newt Gingrich, the current GOP front runner, has come out squarely in favor of a pathway to citizenship for the millions of undocumented immigrants in the U.S. Not because I support his presidential candidacy, but because rejection of mass deportation as a solution to America’s broken immigration system raises the level of the national debate about immigration. At least he’s not ginning up the same old sound bites about securing the border and building fences.

But, the devil is in the details. Unfortunately, Gingrich’s proposal falls far short of what is needed to fix the broken immigration system. In fact, his idea would lead to the mass deportation of millions of people and the demise of scores of American families.

The cornerstone of Gingrich’s plan is the so-called “citizen review panels” which would consider whether an undocumented immigrant’s personal circumstances merit a reprieve from deportation. Gingrich likens the idea to the draft review boards of the World War II era.

But listening carefully to Gingrich it becomes clear that under his plan very few undocumented immigrants would even qualify to go before the review panels. Only those that have been in the U.S. for more than 25 years would be considered, even if they have compelling equities such as U.S. citizen relatives, a record of paying taxes, good moral character, and a consistent work history.

A recent report by the Pew Hispanic Center shows that of the approximately 12 million undocumented immigrants in the U.S., only 35% have been in the U.S. 15 years or more—even less have been in the country for more than 25 years. That’s more than 7.8 million people who, according to Gingrich, would be targeted for what he calls “dramatically easier” deportation. It’s not clear what Gingrich means by that ominous phrase, but I imagine it doesn’t include much due process and fairness.

Yet Gingrich’s proposal shines when compared to Mitt Romney’s. Romney suggests that undocumented immigrants, all 12 million of them, should turn themselves in, be given a transition period to get their affairs in order, and self-deport. It’s obvious that Romney hasn’t a clue when it comes to fixing the broken immigration system. Romney bases his proposal on the idea that the undocumented—many of whom have close family ties to America—can simply go home, get in line, and return legally. He obviously doesn’t understand—or worse, doesn’t care—that the broken immigration law includes a myriad of daunting legal obstacles which prevent undocumented immigrants from returning to America and their families for at least a decade or more. His proposal is as ridiculous as it is unworkable.

On the other hand, Romney and Gingrich both argue forcefully for an immigration policy that will attract the best and brightest to America—the innovators, entrepreneurs, and scientists. On this point—although neither would likely admit it—both GOP front runners agree with President Obama. Recalling a time when America opened its doors to highly skilled immigrants to shore up its competitive edge, President Obama has called for innovation, education, and rebuilding of America’s infrastructure. This  necessarily implies an immigration policy that keeps America open for business.

But what neither Gingrich nor Romney seems to get is that high skilled professionals and creative entrepreneurs won’t come to the U.S. if we do not fashion an immigration policy that restores and protects due process. Just ask the scores of business people and scientists who have been stymied by an overly restrictive immigration bureaucracy or targeted for special registration and prolonged security checks over the past decade. (Note: you may need to contact them via email or Skype because many have immigrated to other, more welcoming, countries).

The subtext of the current immigration debate is that undocumented immigrants won’t do what they should to gain lawful immigration status. This assumes that compliance with the immigration law is as easy as filling out a passport application at a local  post office. What none of the candidates seem to understand is that under the current law there is simply no way for most unauthorized immigrants to comply, as much as they might want to, whether they remain the U.S. or go back to their native countries.

Nevertheless, Gingrich’s proposal, as deeply flawed as it is, recognizes that wholesale removal of 12 million is not a solution.  And, if nothing else, that position is a welcome addition to a Republican immigration debate that has thus far been limited to little more than sound bites about border security, boots on the ground, and fences.

Enforcement. It is the current catch-word of the presidential race. I hear it every day. Governor Perry said it in last night’s debate. “I believe in enforcement. We must enforce the laws as they are on the books.” I agree with him. Bet you never thought you’d hear me say that. But yes, I agree. The laws must be enforced. All of them. Not just those that exclude. Those that include must be enforced as well.

Enforcing the law means approving applications submitted by qualified applicants. It means promoting investment in the U.S. and encouraging entrepreneurs, medical professionals, artists and entertainers, and students to share their talents with us.

Our laws say that applications are to be decided favorably when they meet the legal criteria of a preponderance of evidence. That is, that an applicant has shown that it is more likely than not that he or she qualifies for the status they are seeking.

I spent the last two weekends responding to an absurd request for additional evidence in connection with an application for L-1 Intracompany Transferee status. It is a category created to encourage and assist companies that exist both in the U.S. and abroad to work freely and smoothly with each other. Our economy needs it. The global economy needs it. Our laws sanction and provide for it. Sadly, those are the laws that are not being enforced.

Friday I had to tell a company with 31 subsidiaries on five continents who opened its fourth U.S. major manufacturing facility that the employee it wants to transfer to the U.S. to assist with the development of the new facility, and who has been employed by a subsidiary outside of the U.S. since 1962, doesn’t, in the eyes of our government, possess specialized knowledge about the company.

The company doesn’t understand why the press releases, newspaper articles, company letters, and performance evaluations we submitted did not show that it was more likely than not that the employee had specialized knowledge about the company. Neither do I.

They don’t understand how the government’s request that we provide and account for every single percent of the employee’s time spent in each of his duties over the past 40 years is what is necessary to meet the preponderance of the evidence standard. Me either.

They also don’t understand how the company’s audited public annual report, which shows the existence and ownership of the company’s affiliates as well as their financial status doesn’t prove that there is relationship between the companies. Even when there is an additional certification to state that nothing has changed since the filing of the annual report. It’s inconceivable.

Yes, I favor enforcement. Enforcement of the laws that permit people to come here when they are qualified, that encourage the growth of business, that keep families together, that make us the nation who offered to take the tired, sick and hungry. When we enforce the laws that include the need to enforce those that exclude will lessen. Think about it. Give it a shot. Clearly concentrating on enforcing only those that exclude has not solved anything.

Remember Pete Wilson? JD Hayworth? Tom Tancredo?

That’s what I thought.

These guys are a few of the politicians whose anti-immigrant agenda played a big part in the demise of their political fortunes.  And the list continues to grow.  Just ask former Arizona State Senator Russell Pearce, author of Arizona’s SB1070, the “show me your papers” law, who was thrown out of office last month by his own constituents.

So it comes as no big surprise that some of the most conservative voters in the country—Iowa caucus-goers—are, according to a report in NPR, “open to policies that help foreign-born young people educated in the U.S. to enter the workforce, as well as those that help companies hire seasonal and permanent employees for vacant jobs Americans are not filling.”  They also strongly support increasing opportunities for highly-skilled legal immigrants and entrepreneurs to come to the United States.

When you look at these numbers you begin to understand why GOP presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich declared his support for a more humane immigration policy—one which includes a pathway to lawful compliance for the millions of undocumented foreign nationals in the US.

Unlike Mitt Romney, his chief rival for the nomination who continues to pander to the restrictionist fringe, Gingrich’s remarks on immigration have been deftly aimed at the centerist—dare I say more reasonable—Republican voters.  Gingrich understands that America’s economic and social future depends on an immigration policy which attracts the best and brightest to America’s shores and which includes a common sense, humane approach to bringing the scores of undocumented workers out of the shadows and into the sunshine of American life.  In a GOP primary that has offered little more than inane blabber about “amnesty”, “fences”, and “boots on the ground”, Gingrich offers a refreshing perspective.   Though his proposal is still very flawed, he is challenging his party and Republican voters to consider solutions to the nation’s immigration problems rather than pat sound bites.

How then does this explain the Rick Perry’s fall in the polls? Didn’t his moderate approach to immigration, including his support for instate tuition for undocumented immigrants, severely damage his presidential campaign?

No, not so much.

The collapse of Perry’s candidacy has more to do with his debate gaffes and other missteps, not his stance on immigration. Simply put, Perry lost his front runner status because he was not ready for prime time, not because of any one particular issue.

The Iowa poll shows that Americans—liberal, moderate, and conservative—overwhelmingly support a common sense approach to immigration.  This is consistent scores of other studies conducted by pollsters over the years.  American voters long for a modernized immigration system that will create jobs for American workers, protect American families, and restore American due process and fairness.

Politicians who choose to ignore this do so at their own peril.

It happened again yesterday.

A foreign worker—this time from Honda—was arrested in Alabama and cited under the state’s new immigration law.

Sound familiar? It should.

The same thing happened a couple of weeks ago to Detlev Hager, a German executive from Mercedes-Benz, who was in Alabama to check on the company’s plant in Vance. This time the unlucky scofflaw was a Japanese employee of Honda. Like the unlucky German before him, he was arrested by Alabama cops after he forgot his visa in his hotel room.

In a blog posted last week I made the point that the hate ridden immigration law does little more than crush civil rights, wreak havoc on the state’s economy, and sully Alabama’s reputation. I also pointed out that a foreign company (or any company for that matter) would have to be nuts to locate in a state like Alabama that enacts a law which so flippantly subjects foreign managers and workers to arrest.

They say the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. Exactly what result do Alabama politicians expect by continuing to enforce HB56?

Written by: Warren Leiden, AILA Media-Advocacy Committee

One month ago, barely three weeks into the new federal fiscal year, the entire annual quota of temporary visas specially set aside for foreign national professionals with advanced degrees (at least a Master’s) was used up. And as of November 22, the entire year’s numerical cap on H-1B visas for all foreign national professionals has been reached. The exhaustion of these visas came earlier than it did during the last two fiscal years.

These visa requests require sponsorship by a U.S. employer eager to hire the individual, and sponsoring employers are required to pay the higher of a prevailing wage or the actual wage at the workplace and attest so in writing to the Department of Labor.

How can we Americans be so short-sighted as to block the lawful presence and talent of these highly skilled professionals, who are needed by U.S. employers? Particularly in the so-called STEM (science, technology, engineering, mathematics) disciplines, America is a competitor in a global competition for high skilled talent. These highly skilled professionals are inventors, innovators, and job-creators who can drive the growth of our economy, and yet we discourage them from coming to or staying in the United States with absurdly low annual quotas, and we make them feel unwelcome.

Stay in America? Yes, nearly 40% of the Master’s and PhD’s in STEM fields awarded by U.S. universities go to foreign students who have been here for years. When U.S. employers want to hire each year’s new crop of students graduating with advanced degrees in STEM, four out of ten will be foreign nationals. This reality has led commentators and Congress members to (only half-jokingly) suggest that a “green card” should be stapled to their diplomas. Most would like to stay and work in America, but the annual quota of visas runs out quickly, and why stay where you are not wanted?

And, permitting U.S. employers to sponsor highly skilled foreign professionals contributes to the education and training of U.S. workers. Every U.S. employer who sponsors an individual of the professionals’ visa must pay either $750 or $1500 (depending on the size of the employer) into a federal fund for the education and training of U.S. workers, providing over $125 million a year for this purpose.

This is another example of what Vivek Wadwha, tech entrepreneur turned academic, recently testified before a Congressional committee, saying the U.S. is “giving an unintentional gift to China and India by causing highly educated and skilled workers, frustrated by long waits for visas, to return home.”

It’s high time for Congress to wake up and help America and the U.S. economy by raising the outdated visa quota for highly skilled professionals. In the face of stiff global competition and our stuttering economy, we can’t afford to squander this opportunity.

You can’t make this stuff up.

A foreign executive from Mercedes-Benz gets arrested in Alabama and charged criminally under the state’s new immigration law. Was he alien smuggling? Drug trafficking? Committing a violent crime?

Nope. He left his visa in his hotel room.

Under Alabama’s new immigration law that’s a crime. The 46-year-old German manager—or, as they call him in Alabama, the suspected criminal—was quickly thrown into jail by local police when he couldn’t produce his immigration papers after he was stopped on his way to the Mercedes-Benz plant in Vance, Alabama. Imagine the scene at the Mercedes-Benz headquarters in Germany as the top brass scurried about trying to find someone to post bail for the luckless manager who suddenly found himself sitting in some rural Alabama lock-up.

Much has been written about the horror of Alabama’s hate-infested immigration law and how it has wreaked havoc upon the state. There was the heart wrenching report of the 4^th grade Latina girl who was asked by her teacher to produce her immigration papers, the photos of ripe produce left to rot in worker-less Alabama fields, and the media reports of the difficult and dirty jobs left open by the flight of undocumented workers.

And despite the unquestionable havoc the law has wreaked upon the good citizens of Alabama, the lobbyists and politicians who enacted it have had the audacity to suggest that the chilling due process violations, the acute shortages of essential workers, and the climate of fear it has created  throughout the state is merely a temporary bump on the road to an illegal alien free Alabama. But the fundamental economic assumption upon which they have pushed their mean spirited law—that U.S. workers will fill the void created by the fleeing immigrants—has proven false. In fact, as was reported recently in Bloomberg Businessweek, the exact opposite is true. In the wake of the mass exodus of undocumented immigrants from Alabama, many difficult, unpleasant jobs—the tough and dirty ones like picking vegetables, gutting fish, washing dishes, and cleaning beds—remain open in Alabama, unfilled by American workers.

In this economy—or in any economy for that matter—most states do whatever it takes to attract economic development. That’s why, back in 1993 when Mercedes-Benz announced it would open a plant to build sport utility vehicles in their state, Alabama officials rejoiced. Since then other foreign automakers have followed suit including Honda, Toyota, and Hyundai, fueling Alabama’s economic growth.

But would Mercedes-Benz or any other foreign company make that same decision today? What were the Alabama politicians thinking when they enacted this law? Did they really think they would secure Alabama’s economic future by passing a spiteful immigration law which, among other things, so easily puts a foreign corporate manager at risk of arrest and prosecution during a business trip?

Alabama development officials beckon employers to the state with an online brochure promising a “favorable business climate”, “effective workforce training”, “attractive tax incentives”, and “excellent logistics”.

What about “reasonable bail”?

Written by: Peter Ashman, AILA Media-Advocacy Committee

Recently in Salt Lake City, Utah, a diverse group of government and business leaders held a press conference to commemorate the one year anniversary of the Utah Compact. The compact was the result of a collaboration of business, religious and elected leaders in Utah to articulate a broad statement of shared values designed to guide decision makers “as they address the complex challenges associated with a broken national immigration system.”

What is significant about the Compact is that Utah has a legacy as one of the most conservative states in America and in recent years turned out incumbent Senator Bennett and Congressman Cannon for being “soft” on immigration. Yet the Compact resonates with a pragmatic tone that sounds nostalgically Reganesque in its lofty aspirations of keeping families together and acknowledging the economic contributions of immigrants. It acknowledges that immigration is a federal, not state, issue and that “local law enforcement resources should focus on criminal activities, not civil violations of federal code.” The Compact concludes with “[t]he way we treat immigrants will say more about us as a free society and less about our immigrant neighbors. Utah should always be a place that welcomes people of goodwill.” The full text of the Utah Compact is available here.

One year after the Compact was written it is being credited for changing the tone of the immigration debate not only in Utah, but in the entire country.  At the press conference was recently elected Arizona State Senator Jerry Lewis, who ousted S.B. 1070 architect and restrictionist poster child, Russell Pearce. Senator Lewis credited the Utah Compact with having an impact on Arizona politics, including his election over fellow conservative Republican Pearce, and cited an Arizona poll with 78% of Arizonans supporting comprehensive solutions of immigration laws, not just the “enforcement only” policies of S.B. 1070. Utah’s Attorney General, Mark Shurtleff, a self described conservative Republican, indicated that in the past year the Compact has received the support of conservatives who want real solutions and not just harsh rhetoric. He pointed to the election of Lewis as an example, and warned against pandering to the far right extremists.

So as we watch our current crop of presidential candidates talk about electrical fences and boots on the ground, and as Alabama’s agricultural bounty spoils unpicked in the field, a new voice is being heard. It appeals to all political views because its values are apolitical and universal. It is a growing voice that speaks of moderation, and inclusion and reminds us of our heritage as a nation of immigrants. It is a voice that is coming from, of all places, Utah.