California Immigration Attorney Blog

Contrary to what some Americans believe, immigrants - legal or otherwise - do not take jobs from US-born workers. In fact, evidence suggests an immigrant workforce boosts income and productivity while stimulating investment, the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco reports.

Santa Ana immigration lawyers at HOWARD | NASSIRI understand the needs of those hoping to live and work in the U.S. and are dedicated to helping workers here and abroad apply for immigrant and non-immigrant visas, naturalization and citizenship.

Economists and market-watcher agree that natural language barriers some immigrants face do create and environmental push that channels American workers into better-paying, more skilled, "communication-intensive" jobs. On the other hand, for those seeking low-skilled positions, some economists say immigrant workers may capture those jobs while further depressing wages in an already low-paying sector.

But the real gorilla in the room is a weak labor market that continues to fuel both unemployment and worries. Jobless Americans are frightened Americans. And, having at least a sense of job security means more than relief from financial woes. It eases otherwise potentially crippling tension and allows citizens to embrace more open-minded notions regarding the opportunities America promises to people of all cultures.

"The painfully slow recovery in the labor market has restrained growth in labor income, raised uncertainty about job security and prospects, and damped confidence," Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said at a recent conference.

Until the economy is better positioned to offer Americans more security and more - better-paying - jobs, the overall long-term benefits of an immigrant workforce, as with comprehensive immigration reform, will remain a hard sell.

Continue reading "California study finds that immigrants in the workforce do not diminish employability for American workers" »

Nevada gubernatorial candidate, Republican Brian Sandoval, in many ways, has become the poster child for the challenges candidates from both parties face when it comes to attracting and securing the Latino vote, the Los Angeles Times reports.

Like many of his counterparts in the GOP, Sandoval supports Arizona's aggressive new immigration law. His position on this divisive, largely partisan, issue has led many Latinos to withdraw, or at least reconsider, their support for Nevada's first Latino attorney general as he eyes the governor's office.

As our Riverside and Anaheim immigration lawyers have reported in recent posts on our California Immigration Attorney Blog, Republican candidates across the country who have taken a hard-line on the immigration issue to court primary voters are now facing sticky politics as they attempt to capture Hispanic votes for the coming November election.

Although Sandoval stopped short of supporting the reconstruction of the 14th Amendment, which provides citizenship to US-born children of illegal immigrants, he has demonstrated a lean to the right with his stance on SB1070 and by speaking against issuing driver's licenses to illegal immigrants.

Of course, Sandoval sees it differently and promises to continue to advocate for the Hispanic community if elected.

While both parties face their own issues courting Latinos, Democrats seem to be seated in a slightly (and only slightly) better position than their Republican counterparts. With that said, one thing is clear, winning the Latino vote is becoming more and more critical to secure victory with each election cycle.

And while immigration reform certainly remains an issue of importance for many Hispanic voters, so is health care reform, economic stability, education, creating jobs and trust in our leadership to remain authentic to their campaign promises once elected.

Continue reading "Like many California Republicans, Sandoval struggles to secure the Latino vote" »

Relief may be in sight for tens of thousands of green-card eligible foreign nationals who are married or related to a US citizen or legal resident. For those who have no criminal record and have filed a petition for immigration, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents are no longer looking to deport you, USAtoday.com reports.

On Aug. 20, ICE Director John Morton released a statement restating the agency's goal of first seeking to remove foreign nationals who have criminal records while dismissing proceedings for removal against non-criminals. For our Los Angeles immigration attorneys, who represent clients in Southern California facing a host of immigration issues, this is a positive step for comprehensive immigration reform.

With that said, earlier this week ICE reported that 370 "convicted criminal aliens and immigration fugitives" from 10 Midwestern states were arrested in the agency's largest ever three-day multi-agency targeted enforcement effort.

Charges for those arrested spanned sex crimes against minors to armed robbery to drug trafficking. More than half taken into custody have prior convictions for serious or violent crimes and 51 were immigrant fugitives.

This effort is similar to a series of "cross check" operations that have been ongoing since December 2009 across 37 states and have netted 2,064 criminals who have re-entered the US illegally.

"The record number of arrests made during this operation is a direct result of excellent teamwork among federal agencies who share a commitment to protect public safety," said ICE Director John Morton. "ICE is focused on arresting convicted criminals who prey upon our communities, and tracking down fugitives who scoff at our nation's immigration laws. The results of this operation demonstrate ICE's commitment to those principles."

Too often, it is these law enforcement crackdowns that make the news -- as if no criminal element exists within the native population. The truth of the matter is that most immigrants are hard-working, law-abiding residents who desire nothing more than an obtainable path to citizenship.

Continue reading "California immirgrant rights advocates applaud move toward green-card relief" »

Having spent a decade aligning themselves with the sort of Draconian immigration methods that California voters have largely abandoned, the California Republican party is trying to rehabilitate its image in time to garner some of the Hispanic vote in the fall elections, the Los Angeles Times reports.

Conservative activists had hoped to win support at a weekend gathering of state Republicans to endorse Arizona's controversial immigration law. Partly leaders killed the measure in committee, reportedly at the request of GOP gubernatorial nominee Meg Whitman.

As our Los Angeles immigration lawyers have been reporting on our California Immigration Attorney Blog, Whitman spent the summer bashing immigrants to win the Republican nomination and is now showing a softer side in an effort to court Hispanic votes in November.

Meanwhile, the party debuted two new websites aimed at courting minorities and the female vote.

Hispanics have become a powerful voting block, which is partly responsible for a mellowing of the political rhetoric in California in recent years. Latinos represent 21 percent of the electorate, compared to just 10 percent a decade ago.

The Public Policy Institute of California reports that 63 percent of Latinos are Democrats. Having promised to be tough on illegal immigration during the Republican Primary, Whitman is now running 14 Spanish TV ads and paying for billboards announcing her opposition to Arizona's immigration law.

Meanwhile, Senate candidate Carly Fiorina is seeking Latino support despite supporting the Arizona law and is attempting to reframe the immigration debate as a national security issue.

Continue reading "Republicans courting Latino vote despite abysmal record of supporting immigrant rights in California" »

Only when it comes to immigration reform could it be revealed that a country with a $1 trillion dollar deficit is being run by a government that does not understand the procedure for passing a spending bill.

A $600 million bill to add yet more security to the nation's border should have gone to President Obama for signature on Tuesday but instead was held up by a procedural glitch that requires Senate action, the Los Angeles Times reported.

The Senate is on vacation until September.

Our Long Beach immigration lawyers have reported extensively about the border security issue on our California Immigration Attorney Blog. Security at the boarder is at the tightest it has ever been. The downturn in the economy is primarily responsible for the downturn in illegal immigration. And the $600 million border protection measure is largely seen as a political payoff to Republicans in the hopes of moving forward on some sort of immigration reform effort after decades of inaction in Washington.

The Hispanic voters, who were promised immigration reform when they voted in droves for Obama two years ago, are becoming increasingly disenfranchised. And if Republicans resume control of Congress after the November elections, immigration reform could be in real trouble.

The Senate "unwittingly" violated a constitutional requirement that all spending bills originate in the House. This would seem to be a pretty elementary rule of doing business, but what do we know?

The spending measure would add about 1,500 additional agents (an agent for every 8 miles of border once shift-changes are taken into account) and add a pair of unmanned surveillance planes. The costs would reportedly be offset by substantially raising visa fees for companies that hire foreign workers -- from $320 to $2,750. Although we have reported repeatedly that the immigration system is not processing visas in anything approaching a timely manner.

"Politicians will go home and brag to their constituents about how tough they are, without solving a thing," said Lynn Tramonte, deputy director of America's Voice, an immigration advocacy group.

Continue reading "Congress no closer to passing immigration reform - can't pass spending bill despite $1 trillion deficit" »

The Los Angeles Times revisited it's editorial in the wake of Proposition 187's defeat, after a federal judge's decision last week to issue an injunction prohibiting Arizona's controversial new immigration law from taking effect.

Our Los Angeles immigration attorneys have reported on our California Immigration Attorney Blog about the many comparisons being made between Proposition 187 and Arizona's new law. It's not so much that the laws are similar -- California's Proposition 187 sought to withhold education and social services form illegal immigrants, while Arizona's measure seeks to prevent them from working and requires law enforcement to check their legal status -- as the fact that both laws were enacted during periods of similar frustration over the federal government's utter failure to act.

The federal judge's decision to prevent most of Arizona's law from taking effect comes in response to a lawsuit filed by the Obama Administration, which said such laws violate the rights of the federal government.

The Times' editorial regarding Prop 187 said: "(The judge) put the responsibility for immigration reform where it always has rightly belonged -- with the federal government."

In both cases, voter frustration was real enough. In both cases, the influx of immigrants, and the failure of the federal government to do much about it, resulted in state laws. "Even as the fate of Proposition 187 was being weighed by the court, Congress began to debate immigration reform once again," the Times wrote in November 1995.

More than a decade has passed and Congress has still failed to act in every regard. As the Times pointed out in its Proposition 187 editorial 15 years ago, Congress had been trying to tackle the issue since 1986.

Continue reading "California immigrant rights no closer to reality after quarter-century of inaction in Washington" »

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer's request for expedited oral arguments has been denied in the wake of Thursday's preliminary injunction, which prevents portions of the state's controversial immigration law from taking effect, CNN reported.

While our Los Angeles immigration lawyers understand all too well that the outcome of any courtroom argument is never certain, we fully expected the government to halt Arizona's immigration law and believe it will ultimately be ruled unconstitutional.

U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton issued the preliminary injunction on Thursday, blocking requirements that police check a person's immigration status while enforcing other laws. As our Riverside immigration attorneys have been reporting, immigrant rights advocates across the country have decried the measure as legalized racial profiling and a return to America's racist past. The Obama administration sued Arizona, claiming the law infringed upon the rights of the federal government. Thursday's ruling is the first in what will undoubtedly be a protracted legal battle.

Bolton also blocked provisions making it a crime for people to fail to apply for or carry "alien registration papers," or for an undocumented worker to apply for or perform work. The judge also forbid the warrantless arrest of those suspected of being in the country illegally.

The judge's ruling essentially gutted the controversial new measure, though it did permit a provision to take effect that prevents local governments from enacting laws meant to provide undocumented immigrants with safe haven.

State Sen. Russell Pearce, who authored the law, said he expects the issue to go to the Supreme Court.

"I'm begging for that fistfight at the Supreme Court. We will win in a 5-4 decision and finally settle this problem," Pearce said. "My message to the judge, is uphold the Constitution. Uphold states' rights. This is a battle of epic proportions. This is the states versus the central government."

Arizona is arguing that it had no choice but to act on the issue of illegal immigration after decades of useless squabbling by the federal government.

Continue reading "California immigrant rights advocates applaud injunction of Arizona's new immigration law" »

California voters are evenly divided on Arizona's tough new immigration law, the Los Angeles Times reported.

Our Los Angeles immigration lawyers have reported extensively on the fallout of Arizona's unprecedented anti-immigration measure. The law, which is being challenged in federal court by the Obama Administration, is set to take effect next week. It would permit law enforcement to stop and question those suspected of being in the country illegally and to turn those without proper documentation over the federal authorities for deportation proceedings.

A Field Poll found that 49 percent of California voters support the law while 45 oppose it. The margin of error was plus or minus 2.8 percentage points, making the results and even split.

Regardless of where you stand on the issue, the Arizona law has move the debate on immigration reform to center stage.

In recent weeks, our Los Angeles immigration attorneys have reported:

-States' rights a hot-button issue as Californians ponder immigration reform

-More troops ordered to the California-Mexican border

-Key challenges exist in immigration reform debate in California and nationwide

-California immigrant rights advocates assist in rallying the Hispanic vote

-Arizona law could lead to influx of Hispanic immigrants into California

Continue reading "California voters split on Arizona immigration law as reform moves to center stage " »

The Washington Post reports that immigration has increased during the two-decades of increasing border security and that the largely neglected issue of jobs is the real driver of illegal immigration.

As our Los Angeles immigration lawyers reported earlier this week on our California Immigration Attorney Blog, Obama has approved a $500 million plan to add 1,200 soldiers to the border. The move is largely political and will have little practical effect -- the 20,000 troops already patrolling the U.S.-Mexico border is double the number of troops that were stationed on the border in 2004.

In an apparent effort to please hardline Republican's, Obama acknowledged the need to tough border security, both in a Fourth of July speech on immigration reform and in moving additional troops to the border on Aug. 1. The Post noted that "sealing" the border was a precondition of Republicans during 2007's failed attempt to pass comprehensive immigration reform.

Congress ordered more than 670 miles of border fencing, walls and spikes in 2006 and that work in nearing completion at a cost of $4 billion. Border patrol costs another $4 billion annually. Including the cost of National Guard troops, the cost is about $10 billion a year.

Research by Princeton University sociologist Douglas Massey found that increasing border security actually discourages seasonal laborers from going back to Mexico when they are not working. The Post article even contends that Arizona's tough new immigration law is a byproduct of tighter border security in Texas and California, which sent immigrants following the path of least resistance through Arizona's Sonoran Desert.

For 150 years, American's immigration levels have been trailing indicators of its economy -- increased immigration follows good economic times and low immigration levels follow economic downturns.

The Great Recession has been no different. In the past three years, more than a million illegal immigrants have left the country, or about 10 percent of the nation's estimated 12 million undocumented immigrants.

Continue reading "California immigration impacted by jobs, not border security " »

An opinion piece in the Sacramento Bee argues that we must support a state's rights to act on immigration reform in the absence of a federal response.

The piece comes as a federal judge hears a lawsuit that seeks to block Arizona's immigration law from taking effect on July 29. As our Los Angeles immigration lawyers reported last month on our California Immigration Attorney Blog, the federal government argues that the Arizona law circumvents federal authority, upsets the balance of federal law enforcement priorities and could even impact homeland security.

The article cites the removal of some 30,000 illegal immigrants who were criminals. We won't waste our breath on that here, other than to point out that the criminal issue is nothing more than a scare tactic by anti-immigration advocates. The vast majority of immigrant families are hardworking, law abiding, would-be citizens. In reality, a greater percentage of criminals would likely be found upon studying the areas legal residents.

What our Riverside immigration attorneys find to be a more compelling argument is the contention that states' rights should not be infringed. We think simply flipping the table and looking at the issue from the other direction dilutes that argument. After all, what would have happened, if instead of cracking down on undocumented immigrants, Arizona had thrown open the border and welcomed Mexican citizens with open arms?

We think the government's argument about homeland security and law enforcement priorities would look much stronger -- which means it must be viewed so in this case. Yet isn't that what California has done with the medical marijuana issue and the upcoming ballot issue aimed at legalizing marijuana?

Taken something that is against federal law and legalized it?

Does that mean that when the federal government ultimately passes immigration reform, states that are in disagreement will be free to change the law by adopting state rules and regulations? We think we will be hearing much more about the issues of state's rights before the issue of immigration reform is ultimately settled.

Continue reading "States' rights a hot-button issue as Californians ponder immigration reform" »

Hundreds more National Guard troops will be deployed to the U.S.- Mexican border on Aug. 1 as part of the Obama Administration's efforts to increase borders security, the New York Times reported.

Our Los Angeles immigration attorneys reported last month that another $500 million will be spent to deploy additional troops along the Mexican border. Meanwhile, arrests at the border are already at the lowest level since the 1970s and the number of troops has doubled since 2004 and now stands at more than 20,000.

Obama signed the order in May, which will send about 500 more soldiers to the Arizona border while another 700 will be spread along the Mexican border in New Mexico, Texas and California.

Our Santa Ana immigration lawyers question to need for the troops but not the political reasoning behind the move. As we reported here, the downturn in the American economy has had the biggest impact in the decline on illegal immigration. But showing a commitment to border security (even when the additional troops will serve no practical purpose) is a good political move as the administration seeks movement on immigration reform from hardline Republicans and prepares to fight against Arizona's new immigration law.

When we say no practical purpose, that is precisely what we mean: A thousand additional troops is an increase in troop strength of about 5 percent. Using the standard law enforcement ratio of 4-1 (it takes four officers on the force for every one patrolman on the street because of 24-hour work days and rotating days off), the announcement will add one soldier for every eight miles of border.

"These troops will provide direct support to federal law enforcement officers and agents working in high-risk areas to disrupt criminal organizations seeking to move people and goods illegally across the southwest border," said Janet Napolitano, the secretary of the Department of Homeland Security.

Napolitano, the former governor of Arizona, also wrote a guest column published in the Arizona Republic, that state's largest newspaper.

Continue reading "More troops at the California-Mexican border next weekend as feds launch $500 million plan" »

Amid the public outcry and the political rhetoric surrounding the issue of immigration, our Glendale immigration lawyers enjoyed seeing the report in the Glendale News Press about the thousands of immigrants who are becoming U.S. citizens.

A total of 3,340 Southern California residents packed the Los Angeles convention center earlier this month, where they took the oath and became U.S. citizens. A U.S. District Court judge administered the oath to the thousands in the crowd who hailed from more than 100 countries, including Mexico, Iraq, Armenia and Korea.

More than 100,000 candidates became naturalized citizens last year in the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services District 23, which includes Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, Ventura, Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo counties.

While our Los Angeles immigration attorneys enjoy hearing such success stories, the article made no mention of the enormous backlog of visa cases or the other impossible roadblocks that are too often in the way of the path to citizenship. Millions of hardworking immigrant families want nothing more than to enjoy similar celebration.

But until the federal government delivers on long-promised immigration reform, such ceremonies will be little more than window dressing covering the real issues.

Continue reading "Naturalized citizens celebrate in California; hardworking immigrants wait" »

Having survived the Republican primary by trotting out the ghost of California's anti-immigration past, Gubernatorial Candidate Meg Whitman is now singing a different tune ... en Espanol.

As our Los Angeles immigration lawyers reported on our California Immigration Attorney Blog, during the primary Whitman combated Poizner's anti-immigration stance by trotting out former Gov. Pete Wilson, who said "Meg will be tough as nails on illegal immigration."

Wilson rode the state's anti-immigration frenzy into office more than a decade ago and was involved in the state's Proposition 187 initiative, which attempted to deny educational and social services to illegal immigrants until it was ruled unconstitutional by the federal court.

But our Costa Mesa immigration attorneys continue to report one clear fact: It is unlikely that Whitman can win statewide office without the support of the enormous Hispanic vote. Voter activism is one reason for the mellowing of California's political climate when it comes to immigration. And, with the Republican primary now behind her, it seems Whitman is dancing to a different tune ... one with a decidedly Latin flare.

The Auburn Journal reports that Whitman needs at least 30 percent of the Latino vote to win. The Hispanic population controls over 20 percent of the total electorate and Whitman's reputation among those voters is decidedly shaky. As is the reputation of most Republicans. "This issue is killing the Republican Party," said Republican Strategist Allan Hoffenblum, of the perception of the GOP within the Latino community.

Now Whitman has released two expensive Spanish language ads. One highlights her opposition to the controversial Arizona law and says she opposed Proposition 187. The other focuses on jobs for Latinos.

The reference to Proposition 187 is particularly hypocritical, having invoked it with the help of former Gov. Wilson during the primary. And she has said she opposed Arizona's law because she had a tougher plan in mind.

Continue reading "Whitman singing in Spanish, dancing to the Latin beat as courtship of California immigrants begins" »

The California Independent Voter Network reports the conclusions of a study that found the state pays $22 billion a year for social services to undocumented immigrants. The study was conducted by the Federation for Immigration Reform.

Our Riverside immigration lawyers and California immigrant rights attorneys believe this report is a prime example of the kind of "studies" conducted by anti-immigration groups that leaves voters uncertain about the issue.

While the group likes to go by the acronym FAIR, it is about as "fair" as FOX news is impartial and balanced. The group seeks immigration policies that would result in a significant reduction in both legal and illegal immigration. The Southern Poverty Law Center has classified the organization as a hate group and author Andrew Wroe has written that the group is viewed by many as an extremist organization.

When it comes to the argument that undocumented families contribute substantially through all sorts of taxes that each of us pay -- and that comprehensive reform would better allow state and local governments to collect such taxes -- the article falls apart. FAIR claims only about one-third of the money government's spend on undocumented immigrants are recovered in federal taxes. And only about 5 percent are covered at the state and local level.

The article inexplicably produces these numbers as a qualifier for the argument that immigration reform will better assist with tax collection. Yet these are FAIR's reported figures today -- not after reform. And, frankly, they are as suspect as the rest of the reporting in the organization's "study" regarding the cost of immigration.

To the extent that immigrant families are not paying taxes, it is because they are kept from participating in the system that is available to the rest of us. This is a group of people that would like to pay taxes and become fully vested in the United States of America. How can we fault them for the disjointed and unfair patchwork of immigration measures that have been allowed to fester in this country through decades of half-hearted debate in Washington?

As we reported earlier this year on our California Immigration Attorney Blog, reputable studies suggest illegal immigrants employed in the U.S. have contributed more than $1.5 trillion to the economy in the last decade, while deporting them likely results in a net negative for federal, state and local governments.

Continue reading "California immigrant rights groups continue to refute biased "studies" on the cost of immigration" »

Having signed into law a racist immigration measure under attack by border states and the federal government, Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer has now apparently canceled a critical meeting among governors of border states, the New York Daily News reported.

Our Anaheim immigration lawyers continue to report the deteriorating relations the Arizona law has caused among the border states of California, New Mexico and Texas. The leaders of these states are heavily influenced by an activist Hispanic voting block and are facing a number of consequences of Arizona's new law. As we continue to report on our California Immigration Attorney Blog, thousands of immigrant families are fleeing Arizona, many to California, and dozens of California governments have boycotted the state of Arizona in response to its unprecedented new law.

The law permits law enforcement to request documentation from those suspected of being undocumented immigrants and to turn those found in violation over to authorities for deportation proceedings. It has been decried as a return to America's racist past by numerous human rights organizations and is being challenged in federal court by the Obama Administration.

California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson want the meeting of border governors to go on, despite Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer's decision to cancel the meeting, which had been scheduled to occur in Phoenix in September. The 28th Annual meeting was to have included six governors from northern Mexico and the four border governors in the United States.

The Mexican governors said they would boycott the meeting because they are against Arizona's new immigration law. Schwarzenegger and Richardson said they would reschedule the conference to another state, without Arizona's participation. Brewer said she didn't know whether she'd be able to attend.

"Gov. Brewer doesn't have the authority to cancel the Border Governors Conference," Gilbert Gallegos, a spokesperson for Richardson, told Fox News. "She may not want to host it for political reasons, but that's not a reason to sidestep the tough issues that border governors must address, including migration and border violence."

Continue reading "California wants conference of border governors to continue despite Mexican boycott of Arizona" »