Naturalization Requires Good Moral Character

By: Lawrence P. Lataif, J.D., LL.M  and Danielle E. Huntley, Esq.  

On July 7, 2011, a remarkable federal court case in the Southern District of New York, Lawson v. USCIS, coverage here, illustrates how complicated naturalization can be. Vernon Lawson was ordered naturalized by Circuit Judge Chin over the good moral character arguments raised by USCIS’ lawyers.

To qualify for naturalization, a legal permanent resident (LPR) must meet various criteria relating to age, length of residence in the US, knowledge of English and US government and good moral character for the five years prior to filing. The case got to federal district court by virtue of a statute recognizing that the right to US citizenship is precious. Therefore, the federal courts have jurisdiction to conduct a de novo review of any naturalization application denied by USCIS.

Lawson’s case is notable because in 1986 he was convicted of first-degree manslaughter for the death of his wife while under the influence of drugs and alcohol. (NB - Lawson would have been statutorily excluded from naturalization if the conviction had occurred after November 29, 1990. 8 USC §1101(f)(8)) At age 14, Vernon Lawson came to the United States as an LPR from Jamaica. He eventually enlisted in the Marines and served in the Vietnam War. When he returned from combat, Lawson was suffering from PTSD and was addicted to drugs and alcohol. While incarcerated for manslaughter, Lawson was an exemplary inmate, completing three degrees and mentoring other inmates. After being paroled in 1999, he began working as a substance and alcohol abuse counselor in a New York City hospital, while taking care of his elderly mother. Judge Chin ruled that the extent of Lawson’s rehabilitation overcame the violent criminal conviction of manslaughter and ordered USCIS to grant Lawson US citizenship.

While most immigrants seeking naturalization are not trying to overcome a criminal conviction on the scale of first-degree manslaughter, even most “straightforward” cases require planning and nuanced responses. Effective planning before a naturalization filing can make all the difference between disaster and citizenship. Lawson’s “victory” in court came 51 years after Lawson arrived in the US.

The Dream Act: A Bad Idea!

By Lawrence P. Lataif, J.D., LL.M.  

On June 17, 2011, USCIS announced that it has decided to indirectly enact “The Dream Act” by administrative action, bypassing Congress in doing so. It took this step by issuing a memo revising and expanding its guidelines for prosecutorial discretion, by stating that it won’t deport those who are “pursuing education in the United States…” nor will it deport anyone who has served in the military or who has an immediate relative who has served.

Certain members of Congress are constantly calling for reconsideration and passage of The Dream Act. Others point out problems with it, like Senator Sessions (R-Ala.) states here.

While some aspects of the Dream Act have merit, any stand-alone immigration legislation is a terrible idea. Why? Because if comprehensive immigration reform (CIR) can ever see the light of day, there must be an absolute resistance to any aspect of immigration reform on a stand-alone basis. To do so will only lessen the interest in CIR of those who prevail, and double the resistance to CIR of those who feel cheated by a piece-meal and partisan enactment. Stand alone laws relating to “sealing the border” should be just as off-limits as The Dream Act, even though some aspects of both ideas would have to be included in a CIR package. Back door amnesty should be as much off the table as wholesale, front-door deportations.

Why aren’t members of Congress speaking out against any consideration of stand-alone bills instead of getting lured into a discussion of their merits? What is needed is a broad consensus in Congress that says: “nothing except CIR will be considered.” This will force all sides to sit down and work out a reasonable CIR package.

Objections to the National ID Card Asked and Answered

By: Danielle E. Huntley, Esq.  

There are two primary objections raised when discussion of a national biometric ID card is raised. The first is that it will drive the undocumented further underground, and the second is that it is too severe a privacy invasion.

The first objection, that a national ID card will drive the undocumented further underground is valid to a point, but I do not think it is anymore valid than claiming that driver’s licenses drive non-licensed drivers further underground. To drive in the United States you need a license, and it is relatively simple for an officer to check the validity of that license. To work in the United States we need a similar way for employers to efficiently check the identity of an employee and whether they are authorized to work in the United States. Without a simple, efficient and accurate system in place to check the work eligibility of prospective employees, a void is created that enables unscrupulous employers to exploit the undocumented, and incentivizes those looking for work to come to the United States and be at the mercy of those same employers.

The second objection is weightier because the Federal Government would have unique biometric data from U.S. Citizens (NB - USCIS already has biometric data from legal permanent residents). I think the best way to overcome this legitimate fear, is to think of all of the data that the Federal Government has on each of us right now, and that we have no way to restrict or control its dissemination in a secure way. Biometrics, if done right, could provide that security. The goal of a biometric national ID card would not be the capture of an individual’s entire life story or entire biometric profile, but just enough information to prove that you are who you say you are.

Additionally, the entity that holds the national ID card’s biometric data would need to treat that data like the IRS treats tax and financial information in its custody. For example, let’s say that the FBI is investigating an individual for suspected money laundering. The FBI cannot simply access IRS records and examine that individual’s tax returns and other financial disclosures. By statute, the FBI would need a court order to compel the IRS to disclose the financial information it has in its custody. Similar, strong non-disclosure laws would be important to protect biometric data collected for a national ID card.

Next up employer sanctions…

Immigration Reform: National Biometric ID Card

By: Danielle E. Huntley, Esq.  

Comprehensive immigration reform seems elusive, if not impossible. If any consensus is to work I suggest rallying around a policy that stands on three legs: biometric national ID, employer sanctions and amnesty. In this post I’m going to deal with the biometric ID card and deal with the other two in subsequent posts.

There are three compelling reasons that a national biometric ID card is essential to any meaningful comprehensive immigration reform.

First, without a biometric ID card, comprehensive immigration reform can’t work. Historically speaking, the 1986 amnesty and reform failed to reduce illegal immigration because forged Social Security cards and drivers licenses were as easy to obtain as a pack of cigarettes. A biometric ID card enables employers to reliably and efficiently verify the employment eligibility. The current I-9 form is hyper-technical, onerous and ineffective. For example, in May 2010 the Justice Department sued John Jay College for more than $113,000 for demanding more documents from employees than the minimally required work eligibility documents. The government routinely punishes companies for demanding too many or too few documents, or for accepting inadequate documents. A biometric ID card eliminates these burdens for employers.

Second, a biometric ID card will increase individual privacy and security. We currently have the worst of both worlds: incredible amounts of personal information in government databases, yet little or no control over its dissemination. Imagine the peace of mind from knowing that your money, your personal data, your government benefits, your health and other files can only be accessed by your ID card, coupled with live biometric verification.

Third, a biometric ID card could contain voluntary, life-saving information. Other countries have incorporated blood type, emergency contacts and organ donor preference into their ID cards. Medics, hospitals and rescue personnel could access this vital information from the card’s magnetic strip.

Next up, common objections to a biometric ID card…

Why An Immigration Blog?

By Lawrence P. Lataif, J.D., LL.M.  

US immigration law and policy takes a beating in our public discourse everyday. Everyone knows something about immigration, but calm discussions often get tossed aside by more pressing issues: jobs, the economy, national debt and deficits, etc. When immigration is discussed, objectivity is rare and truth is almost always an orphan. Almost everyone who speaks about immigration has an agenda and if they don’t deliberately lie, they contort the truth the point that it is unrecognizable. Too much heat, too little light. The typical illegal has not lived here since infancy and is not a valedictorian; nor is the typical illegal a deadbeat or criminal. Sealing the border is an impossible illusion, and blanket amnesty would be an engraved invitation to millions of additional illegals.

After 35 years of practicing immigration law and thinking about its larger policy issues, I have become convinced that sensible immigration reform is both necessary and achievable. I am also convinced that the mainstream media largely ignore flaws in the current immigration laws that raise unnecessary barriers to doctors, scientists, engineers, and entrepreneurs who can make enormous contributions to our society, while literally handing out 50,000 green cards a year to foreigners in a lottery. Go figure.

This blog will explore these issues; from trying to explain in plain English the minutia of immigration rules and regulations, to the larger policy issues that beg to be addressed. Among the topics we will explore are:

• Secure communities
• E-Verify
• Employer Sanctions
• Amnesty
• Securing the border
• Path to citizenship
• National ID Card
• Visas for foreign investors
• Green cards: how to get them and keep them
• Naturalization: how to get it and why
• Federal court litigation: how and why to sue USCIS and DHS

We look forward to the dialogue.