Over the past several months, the headlines have been peppered with terms like border
control and homeland security, with stories that inevitably talk about reducing or
tightening the reigns on immigration.
As an immigrant, aspiring immigrant, or temporary visa holder, you have good reason to be
uncertain about your future these days. There are legal and administrative changes that
may affect you. Naturalized citizens and green card holders have less to worry about in
this regard, but some may face scrutiny simply because they are first generation
immigrants and are suddenly, often unfairly, subject to new suspicions or prejudices
stemming from terrorism. Illegal immigrants have always been in violation of the law, but
most were able to get away with staying here. New crackdowns that follow-up on absconders
and expedite deportations are changing life for them as well.
This said, I'm not trying to spread the rumor that all legal immigrants will face dire
consequences from the September 11th events. However, many things have changed since then,
and there may be a price to pay for some. At the same time, many more things have stayed
the same. The extent of the long-term changes and effects remains to be seen.
What are we looking at? The most powerful country in the world, the U.S.A., has been
attacked by a few foreign individuals who planned their atrocities on American soil and
elsewhere. Naturally, the response of the United States had to be severe, outside the
country as well as within. After we learned that some of the suspected terrorists were
students, in both legal and expired status, we had to expect a cry for change in
immigration laws. As is unavoidable with legislative reform, those affected aren't only
the 'bad ones', but also, and probably mainly, the 'good ones', immigrants and visa
holders with honest intentions who respect and appreciate America.
In the midst of all this tragedy and confusion, we have to consider the situation
before September 11th and realize that immigration has always been a passionately debated
issue, accompanied by frequent changes in law, calls for amnesty and criticism of the
Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). Remember Elian Gonzalez, the Cuban boy who
drifted ashore in an inner tube in Florida? That was back in the fall of 1999 and made
headlines for several months, but unlike the current problems, this case didn't create any
sweeping changes in immigration policy. Then, a few months later, the presidential
elections raised the subject of immigration anew, but attention in the media and among the
candidates was still limited. It was passionate, often critical, sometimes sympathetic.
President Bush emphasized his familiarity with, and understanding of the immigration
problem from his experience as governor of Texas, Mexico's neighboring state. But still,
it was a topic that stayed within certain circles. The word 'immigration' was not on the
lips of all Americans. Not until September 11th. And then some things changed.
Let's look at some of the most important legislative and policy changes that are
underway or already realized. Some were a direct result of post-9/11 concerns, while
others have simply been influenced by them:
New policy for foreign students and visitors: some seven months after 9/11, the INS
issued a new rule pertaining to foreign students who want to study in the U.S., to
travelers who visit for either pleasure or business, and to persons ordered deported.
Effective upon publication in the Federal Register, the proposal calls for:
-Students to have a confirmation of acceptance from a U.S. school before they enter the
country. Students to no longer be allowed to apply to a school if they're already in the
U.S., and instead must return to their home countries to do so.
-Tourists and business travelers to be limited to a 30 day stay in the U.S., or to the
amount of time definitively required to complete their trip. The maximum extended stay to
go from one year to six months with extensions given only under very specific, limited
conditions.
-Persons ordered deported or removed from the U.S. to surrender within 30 days or forfeit
all rights to appeal and asylum.
245(i), which allows certain illegal aliens to adjust their status to that of permanent
resident if they had a sponsor, was temporarily revived last year and an extension seemed
likely this year. Congress passed the border security bill which included this amendment,
but the Senate recently removed the amendment and the prospects don't look good, though
the details are not final as of this writing. (This was incorrectly referred to as amnesty
by some politicians and media. Amnesty refers to a blanket pardon of illegal immigrant
status.*)
Border Security Plan for U.S.-Mexico: on his recent trip to Mexico and other
Latin-American countries, President Bush announced his new border security plan that would
expedite traffic and goods and weed out terrorists, drug dealers and so-called coyotes,
immigrant smugglers. For people crossing the border daily to go to work, this can be a
hassle. Similar actions have been taken at the American-Canadian border, where the number
of Border Patrol agents has been increased and National Guard troops have been dispatched
for support. One major aspect of border control includes national guards along the border.
Police in Florida were given the right to detain people for immigration violations. In
the past, only federal agents could do so. Florida was set as the "test" state,
with plans for other states to follow its lead.
*Amnesty for illegal Mexicans: this issue was seriously discussed between President Bush
and Mexican President Vicente Fox last September, before 9/11. Amnesty offers forgiveness
to certain groups of illegal immigrants, allowing them to adjust status to that of
permanent resident, without penalty. The most recent amnesty was to be for Mexicans, which
did spark some anger among other immigrants groups. Also discussed were certain working
visa programs for unskilled Mexican workers. Unfortunately for the many illegal Mexicans
in this country, this issue has been put on the backburner, overshadowed by the 9/11
events and replaced with the above-mentioned talks about heightened border security. Many
Mexicans are angry, and blame Islamic extremists for their troubles.
International tracking systems using means of identification such as national i.d. cards
and even fingerprints are being recommended and reviewed. In the future, it may be
impossible to fake your identity or your immigration status.
The visa waiver program allows nationals from some countries to enter the U.S. for a
limited time without having to obtain a visa. Due to a illegal immigration problems,
Argentina was removed from participation. Other countries may also be excluded. Though not
directly related to 9/11, a general crack down may have influenced the decision.
Automatic revalidation for some third country nationals was canceled. For years, persons
in legal visitor status to the U.S. could visit Canada, Mexico or approved adjacent
islands for up to 30 days and then return to the U.S. using their existing I-94. Now,
persons from Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya, Sudan, North Korea and Cuba may not be
automatically revalidated. Nor can those who apply for a new visa while abroad. The latter
may cause problems for many innocent people who apply for a change of status and simply
want to cross the border to pick it up, rather than having to return home to a distant and
expensive-to-get-to land.
No more J-visa waiver for physicians: Foreign students who come to the U.S. for medical
training are required to go back to their home countries for 2 years before they can
return to the U.S. The J waiver program for physicians made it possible for them to stay
if they would agree to work in medically underserved areas, obtain such an offer and got
appropriate government sponsorship. The plug was pulled on this program in February, 2002.
Although this affects a very small niche of immigrants, the timing is suspicious and its
impact could be devastating for areas with a shortage of medical treatment, and for the
physicians aspiring to immigrate.
Perhaps the biggest change yet is the dismantling of the Immigration and Naturalization
Service. Yes, the INS as we knew it for many years, is no more. First, the House Judiciary
Committee voted 32-2 to recommend a bill that would put an end to the INS. The bill
proposed that the 69 year old agency be replaced with a new Agency for Immigration Affairs
under the Department of Justice, headed by an Associate Attorney General for Immigration
Affairs. Two new bureaus would be established: The new Bureau of Immigration Services and
Adjudications would take over all immigration applications/processing and status/record
keeping functions. The Bureau of Immigration Enforcement would handle control and
prosecution of immigration violations and legal matters. The bill also provides for
funding, better organization and means for handling refugee emergencies. It was passed by
a 405-9 vote by the House of Representatives on 04/25/02.
Tying the changes together
The nationwide effort to gain more control over immigration includes heightened border
security, new restrictions on certain visa categories and on visitors, and the abolishment
of the INS. For people entering the U.S. it means more scrutiny with more questions being
asked about their motives to come here. Stricter controls of passengers and their luggage
on airports are already in place, and will probably be part of air travel for a long time.
Big-brother-like scenarios may become a reality.
For immigrants who are in the process of adjusting their status to become permanent
residents, things will remain the same, with the possible exception of interrogations of
people from Muslim countries and Arab or Asian origins. With the change in government
agency, processing times may get longer or shorter. There's no telling just yet.
For illegal immigrants, the conditions have become harsher through tougher border
control, the stalling of 245(i), the abandonment of amnesty talks and an all-time low in
the acceptance of their status among Americans. However, there is another side to it: the
current economic slump seems to be in recovery, and that means, in simple terms,
more workers are needed, although I'm not too optimistic about an immediate boom in the
economy. If the U.S. and Mexico keep improving their economical relationships, the
prospects for illegals from Mexico might not be too bad. By doing so, the U.S. might
alienate other nations that send us illegal immigrants, but that's another issue.
The government has its work cut out for it. Knowing how disorganized and ineffective
the INS has been, this new plan seems like a monumental task. Firing people and cleaning
up is one thing, but training new (or old) personnel requires time and expertise, and is
long-term a matter. The death and rebirth of immigration services and the coordination
with the other agencies should be taken seriously by President Bush and lawmakers, and we
expect more than just lip-service. Let's hope that the coordination of these agencies will
happen in a reasonable amount of time and with success, for a well-working immigration
agency would be extremely beneficial to a great many of us.
| 