Global Immigration Blog : Immigration Lawyers & Attorneys : Jackson Lewis Law Firm : Labor Certification, Adjustment of Status

In a blow to employers, a federal district court has upheld a USCIS memorandum that set out factors to determine whether an employer-employee relationship existed for H-1B nonimmigrant visa petition adjudication purposes.

The case was brought by an IT staffing firm that, along with other IT staffing firms and trade associations, challenged the validity of the USCIS’s January 8, 2010, Memorandum for “Determining Employer-Employee Relationship for Adjudication of H-1B Petitions, Including Third-Party Site Placements” (HQ 70/6.2.8 AD 10-24) (“Neufeld Memo”). The case was dismissed, with prejudice, by the federal district court for the District of Columbia on August 13, 2010. Broadgate Inc. v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, No. 1:10-cv- 00941-GK, (D. D.C.). The Neufeld Memo set out 11 factors and hypothetical examples for when an employer-employee relationship did and did not exist for H-1B nonimmigrant visa petition adjudication purposes. The plaintiff argued that the Neufeld Memo failed to comply with the Notice of Proposed Rule Making requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act and, therefore, was invalid. Additionally, they argued the memorandum set out new substantive rules that were binding upon USCIS service center adjudicators. Siding with the USCIS, the Court found the Neufeld Memo to be valid as it is “interpretive” in nature and was intended to be used by adjudicators in the application of the five tests set forth in the regulation for determining whether the requisite employer-employee relationship had been satisfied by the petitioner.

It is no secret that with the current recession and corresponding high unemployment rate, there is intense government scrutiny of immigration-related filings by U.S. employers seeking to secure employment work visas for foreign workers. Statutory and regulatory requirements are now being applied strictly, as evidenced by the Neufeld Memo.

What is most troublesome with the Broadgate decision is that the door is now open for the USCIS to create potentially unlawful “interpretive” memorandums for the adjudication of such filings, leaving the employer with the ability to challenge their unlawfulness only when the filing has been erroneously denied. It is not uncommon for 24 or more months to elapse from the time of denial of an application by the Service Center and affirmation by the Administrative Appeals Office before the Petitioner can challenge the legality of the standard in federal district court. In agreeing with the government’s “interpretation defense,” the Court created a Trojan horse for the USCIS and other federal agencies, such as the Office of Foreign Labor Certification at USDOL, to render erroneous decisions that deny immigration benefits to those legally entitled to them.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On August 9, 2010, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) amended its regulatory definition of “dependents” for A or G principal aliens to include, in addition to spouses and unmarried sons and daughters, those who are not related to the principal alien by blood, marriage or adoption.
Previously, DHS regulations allowed only the following dependents habitually residing with the A or G principal to apply for employment authorization:

• Spouse;
• Unmarried children under the age of 21;
• Unmarried sons or daughters under the age of 23 who are full-time post-secondary school students;
• Unmarried sons and daughters under the age of 25 who are full-time secondary school students if a formal bilateral agreement permitting their employment in the U.S. was signed prior to November 21, 1988, and if such bilateral agreement does not specify 23 as the maximum age for employment of such sons and daughters; and
• Unmarried sons or daughters who are physically or mentally disabled to the extent that they cannot adequately care for themselves or cannot establish, maintain or re-establish their own households.

The recent DHS change was meant to correspond to last year’s regulatory expansion of the definition of “immediate family” by the U.S. Department of State (DOS) which include those who:

• Are not members of some other household;
• Will reside regularly in the household of the principal alien;
• Are recognized as immediate family members of the principal alien by the sending Government as demonstrated by eligibility for rights and benefits, such as the issuance of a diplomatic or official passport, or travel or other allowances; and
• Are individually authorized by the Department of State.

The regulations controlling the employment of aliens has also been amended to allow these dependents to now file an I-765 Application for Employment Authorization Document (EAD Card) pursuant to 8 CFR 274a.12(c)(1) and (4). Specifically, the amendments replace references to the “spouses” and “children” of A and G principal aliens with “dependent.”
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On July 22, Judge Susan Bolton of the U.S. District Court in Phoenix heard arguments in two of the most highly publicized challenges to Arizona Senate Bill 1070: (1) the lawsuit filed by a coalition of civil rights groups and labor unions; and (2) the lawsuit filed by the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”). The plaintiffs in both seek to enjoin SB 1070 from taking effect on July 29, 2010.

Judge Bolton does not intend to enjoin SB 1070 in its entirety. Stating that she considers SB 1070 to be an “enactment,” combining new laws and amending existing laws, rather than a “statute,” Bolton indicated she was considering whether to block all or parts of certain key provisions of SB 1070 and steered attorneys toward the more questionable portions of those provisions.

Judge Bolton voiced concerns regarding portions of SB 1070, including a provision that allows law enforcement officers to make warrantless arrests of people suspected of committing offenses that make them “removable from the United States.” At the hearing, Judge Bolton asked: “How can a police officer make a determination that a person has committed a removable offense when that decision can only be made by a federal judge?”

Attorneys for the DOJ argued that the provisions of SB 1070 are pre-empted by federal law. The agency’s lawsuit alleges that SB 1070 “will conflict and undermine the federal government’s care balance of immigration-enforcement priorities and objectives.”

Judge Bolton did not make any rulings at the hearings and has not said when she will issue a ruling. With the statute set to take effect in days, it is anticipated that she will rule quickly. Jackson Lewis will continue to monitor the legal developments surrounding SB 1070.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In April 2005 when Public Law 108-390 went into effect allowing for employers to sign and retain I-9 employment eligibility verification forms electronically, employers and immigration practitioners alike may have been justifiably confused as provisional guidance from the Department of Homeland Security’s ICE (Immigration Customs and Enforcement) division on their web page http://www.ice.gov/pi/news/factsheets/i-9employment.htm was introduced. ICE guided employers to “interpret the law”(!), and advised employers to “note that there is no single government-wide electronic signature or record-keeping standard. However, some federal agencies have provided electronic record-keeping standards for their own transactions with the public…[which] may serve as a helpful reference for employers until DHS issues regulations to govern the storage of Forms I-9.” For over a year, employers and their counsel had to guess about what standards would comply with the law and fit within the enforcement agency’s vague guidance. Despite tangible benefits in terms of paperwork reduction, many employers opted to wait for something more concrete before investing in an electronic I-9 program and institutional training.

In June 2006, ICE issued an interim rule which provisionally codified standards that employers wishing to use electronic I-9 completion and storage systems should observe. Building on their initial guidance, most of the standards outlined in the provisional rule reflected IRS electronic recordkeeping guidelines, and covered criteria such as accessibility, accuracy, security, and quality of data being captured and systems being used for electronic storage. http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2006/E6-9283.htm.

Some four years later, an advance copy of final rules modifying 8 CFR 274a.2 has been issued (http://www.justice.gov/eoir/vll/fedreg/2010_2011/fr22jul10.pdf), so presumably interested parties have had sufficient time to comment on the interim rules prior to finalization, unlike some notorious instances of agency “legislation by decree” in which policy “clarifications” were later deemed to have unlawfully omitted the normal public comment period. http://www.jacksonlewis.com/legalupdates/article.cfm?aid=1579.

The final version of the rule contains standards which will be familiar to employers who currently use electronic I-9 systems and the vendors who market such systems. As before, the final rule “permits employers to complete, sign, scan, and store the Form I-9 electronically, as long as certain performance standards… are met.” Changes in the final rule are relatively minor, amounting in most instances to clarifications:
-employers must complete a Form I-9 within three business (not calendar) days;
-employers may use paper, electronic systems, or a combination of paper and electronic systems;
-employers may change electronic storage systems as long as the systems meet the performance requirements of the regulations;
-employers need not retain audit trails of each time a Form I-9 is electronically viewed, but only when the Form I-9 is created, completed, updated, modified, altered, or corrected; and
-employers may provide or transmit a confirmation of a Form I-9 transaction, but are not required to do so unless the employee requests a copy.

This rule does not include any changes to I-9 form content or acceptable documents, but an acceptable document change did occur in 2008 (73 FR 76505) and 2009 (72 FR 2838 - correction). Therefore, while there was nothing dramatic or surprising in the final rule, employers can now rest assured that electronic I-9 completion and storage standards appear to be final.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The scorching Texas summer is not the only heat Texas employers are feeling these days. According to a recent article in the Houston Chronicle, the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has hit 23 Texas companies with civil fines exceeding $600,000 for hiring unauthorized workers, failing to comply with regulatory employment verification requirements, or both. Some of these employers are also facing criminal prosecutions.

It is no secret that the current administration has placed heavy emphasis on enforcing workplace laws and numerous employers have felt the brunt of it. Enforcing immigration laws that prohibit employers from hiring unauthorized workers and that require all employers to verify each new hire for work authorization and completion of the I-9 Employment Eligibility Verification Form is a part of the overall scheme. And, since there are budget deficits that must be made up, hefty fines for violations help.

Under this enforcement regime, employers are cast as the villains of the piece and the cause for the massive influx of illegal workers into this country. Rather than deporting apprehended illegal workers, the government now allows many to remain in the United States, where they are given employment authorization in return for their assistance in the investigation and prosecution of employers.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The U.S. Department of Justice has filed a challenge to the state of Arizona’s recently passed immigration law, S.B. 1070, in federal court.

The Arizona law, called the Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act and scheduled to take effect on July 29, is already the target of at least five other lawsuits filed by civil rights and other groups.

In its suit, filed July 7, the DOJ charges that the Arizona law conflicts with federal law, would disrupt federal immigration enforcement, and would lead to local police harassment of those who cannot prove lawful status. DOJ officials expect a hearing within the next two weeks on their motion for a preliminary injunction blocking the law from going into effect.

The DOJ cites the legal doctrine of "preemption" in its complaint. Preemption is based on the U.S. Constitution's supremacy clause and provides that federal law trumps state statutes. The DOJ argues that because the federal government has "preeminent authority to regulate immigration matters," the Arizona law must be struck down. Additionally, on the more practical side, the DOJ argues that the Arizona law would unduly burden federal agencies charged with immigration enforcement. Enforcement of the Arizona law would result in Arizona referring so many illegal immigrants for deportation, the lawsuit argues, that federal officials would lose focus on top priority targets, such as immigrants involved in terrorism or other crimes. The suit also claims that the Arizona law would overburden local law enforcement officials.

Although the lawsuit mentions potential "detention and harassment" of U.S. citizens and immigrants who do not carry identification documents, it does not argue that the law would lead to racial profiling.

An official press release, along with copies of the complaint and supporting documents, can be found at the Department of Justice website: http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2010/July/10-opa-776.html.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Comprehensive Immigration Reform (CIR) once more may have had new life breathed into it. President Barack Obama on July 1 called on Congress to act on CIR and fix our “broken” immigration system. As a part of this reform, he said that employers who take advantage of the underground labor market should continued to be punish, the estimated 11,000,000 undocumented aliens currently in the U.S. should be allowed a “path” to legal residency, and the delays hindering those pursuing legal immigration should be fixed. The president questioned Congress’ ability to pass such legislation, but indicated that action on CIR was urgent.

CIR has been pronounced dead more times than anyone can remember. Some see legislative priorities like healthcare reform, banking reform, the housing market, job loss and the economy as dominating the legislative agenda in the foreseeable future and CIR’s chances seem a long shot. Even in the wake of Arizona’s controversial immigration law, which many thought would force some sort federal action, reform seemed a long way off. Perhaps now with the Administration’s clear support, we will see progress in CIR.

We will continue to stay on top of developments as they arise.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency is stepping up its program to promote IMAGE (ICE Mutual Agreement between Government and Employers). IMAGE is a voluntary program under which ICE will “partner with companies representing a broad cross section of industries in order that these firms may serve as charter members of IMAGE and liaisons to the larger business community.”

IMAGE subjects a participating employer to standards far higher than normally required by the law that can pose unintended consequences for employers. Improper and inconsistent application of the complicated IMAGE employment-verification system could expose employers to claims of discrimination. Further, while adopting the “best practices” requirements through IMAGE is meant to enhance legal compliance, the additional requirements on participating employers could lead to a heightened risk of technical errors.

The initial steps for IMAGE require a participating employer to:

1) Complete a self-assessment questionnaire
2) Enroll in E-Verify
3) Enroll in the Social Security Number Verification Service (SSNVS)
4) Undergo a Form I-9 audit by ICE
5) Review and sign an official IMAGE partnership agreement with ICE

In addition, employers must take steps to comply with ICE’s “best practices,” which include:

1) Establishing a written hiring- and employment-eligibility verification policy
2) Establishing an internal compliance and training program that includes I-9 training, fraud detection and use of SSNVS and E-Verify
3) Restricting the conducting of I-9 and E-Verify processes to individuals who have received training
4) Arranging for annual I-9 audits by an external auditing firm or a trained employee not otherwise involved in the I-9 and E-Verify processes
5) Establishing a self-reporting procedure to report to ICE violations or discovered deficiencies
6) Establishing a procedure to report to ICE credible information of suspected criminal misconduct in the I-9 process
7) Establishing a program to assess subcontractors’ compliance with employment-eligibility verification requirements, encourage contractors to incorporate IMAGE Best Practices, and, when practicable, incorporate the verification requirements in subcontractor agreements
8) Establishing a tip line mechanism (inbox, e-mail, etc.) for employees to report activity relating to the employment of unauthorized workers and a protocol for responding to employee tips

According to ICE, the benefit to employers is credibility and access to training, including on the latest illegal schemes used to circumvent legal hiring processes. Furthermore, ICE will review the hiring and employment practices of IMAGE partners and “work collaboratively with them to correct isolated, minor compliance issues that are detected.”

While ICE claims that “Image Certified” will become the industry standard as it relates to unauthorized employment verification, since its inception nearly four years ago, adoption of the program by employers remains low (see attached is the list of “IMAGE Certified" Companies). Most companies reject IMAGE because of the many additional burdens it creates, many of which may result in additional costs and unnecessarily high standards.

Is it worthwhile for a company to become IMAGE Certified? Employers must weigh the risks and costs of the compliance obligations against the two primary benefits: (1) the value of the “IMAGE Certified” credential and (2) additional access to training and information. Employers should carefully review the new IMAGE initiative before deciding to participate.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The list of lawsuits challenging Arizona’s Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act (Senate Bill 1070) continues to grow. On May 17, 2010, 14 civil and immigrant-rights groups, along with 10 individuals, filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court challenging the constitutionality of Senate Bill 1070. At least five separate lawsuits have been filed seeking to prevent the Bill from becoming effective on July 29, 2010. Unlike the others, the most recent lawsuit names Arizona’s county officials as defendants rather than Governor Jan Brewer.

The lawsuit alleges Senate Bill 1070 is unconstitutional on a number of grounds, including:

• The Bill violates the federal Supremacy Clause by attempting to bypass federal immigration law.

• The Bill deprives racial and national origin minorities of their 14th Amendment right to equal protection under the law by subjecting them to stops, detentions, questioning and arrests based on their race or national origin.

• The Bill infringes on the constitutional right to travel without being stopped, interrogated and detained.

• The Bill violates the First Amendment right to freedom of speech because it exposes speakers to scrutiny based on, among other things, an individual’s language or accent.

Several unions, including the UFCW and the SEIU, have signed up as plaintiffs for the most recent lawsuit. Labor unions have been extremely vocal in opposition to Senate Bill 1070 and have been active in calling for boycotts of Arizona businesses. These unions appear to be using opposition to the Bill as a tool to increase their organizing efforts in Arizona.

Jackson Lewis will continue to monitor the various legal challenges to the Senate Bill 1070 and will provide timely updates.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

While Arizona’s controversial new immigration law, Senate Bill 1070, continues to garner national attention in the months leading up to its July 29 effective date, employers in Arizona must not forget their obligations under the already effective Legal Arizona Workers Act (“LAWA”). LAWA imposes severe penalties on employers who either “knowingly” or “intentionally” hire unauthorized workers.

On May 6, 2010, Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio raided a Phoenix business, arresting 24 employees suspected of being illegal aliens. Sheriff Arpaio conducted the raid after receiving a tip through his immigration hotline that employees at the business were engaging in identity theft. The recent raid was Sheriff Arpaio’s 32nd workplace raid in the period since LAWA took effect in January 2008.

Until recently, the Sheriff’s raids have focused primarily on the arrests of unauthorized workers and have not resulted in the prosecution of the businesses that employed them. However, that appears to be changing. The Maricopa County Attorney’s Office has initiated at least two cases against employers under LAWA. There are also indications that Arizona’s County Attorneys are gearing up for increased enforcement of LAWA. Senate Bill 1070 adds an “entrapment” defense to LAWA, which suggests that law enforcement will be engaging in more creative investigation techniques in the future. Moreover, the Maricopa County Attorney sought increased subpoena power under LAWA, but this initiative was successfully opposed by business groups and did not make it into the final version of Senate Bill 1070.

Finally, the lawsuit filed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other business groups challenging LAWA has made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court. The U.S. Supreme Court has invited the Solicitor General to file a brief on behalf of the U.S. government. With the recent nomination of Solicitor General Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court, it is not clear when the case will move forward.

Jackson Lewis will continue to follow developments under LAWA.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Department of Labor has released a new online tool to help employers and employees understand how to comply with the H-1B visa program. This is part of the agency’s new compliance initiatives.

As background, the H-1B non-immigrant visa classification was created under the Immigration and Nationality Act to help U.S. employers who cannot obtain workers with needed skills from the U.S. workforce by authorizing the employment of qualified foreign workers under the H-1B visa program. The program establishes certain standards to protect similarly employed U.S. workers from being adversely affected by the employment of foreign H-1B workers, as well as to protect H-1B workers themselves. See http://www.dol.gov/whd/immigration/h1b.htm.

DOL’s new online H-1B Advisor addresses solely the Labor Condition Application requirements enforced by the agency’s Wage and Hour Division. This helps employers to determine whether they have complied with the H-1B Wage and Hour requirements and provides all employees and any interested individual detailed information and instructions with regard to filing a complaint against a U.S. employer believed not in compliance with the regulations.

The interactive, online H-1B Advisor describes the program's standards and provides detailed information concerning H-1B employers' and workers' rights and responsibilities. Users can determine if they fulfill the requirements of the visa program by answering questions relevant to specific H-1B classified workers.  The H-1B Advisor also outlines the obligations imposed on H-1B employers, including notification requirements, monetary issues (obligation to pay, required wage rates, permissible deductions, benching, credits, termination, early termination penalty/liquidated damages issues), worksite issues, recordkeeping, and worker protections (whistleblower protection and displacement of U.S. workers), enforcement (filing a complaint against an employer, defenses, remedies and appeals process) and other requirements for employers deemed to be H-1B dependent or willful violators. 

The H-1B Advisor provides excellent resources to employers and employees in understanding the H-1B employers’ obligations and the workers’ (H-1B or U.S. workers) rights. Of course, given the readily available resources, employers must be vigilant in maintaining consistent and coherent corporate visa-sponsorship policies and procedures to ensure their immigration compliance efforts.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The city councils of two major Arizona cities – Tucson and Flagstaff – have announced their intentions to file lawsuits to challenge the Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act (Senate Bill 1070). The Flagstaff City Council voted unanimously in favor of a resolution authorizing the lawsuit. The Council described the move as an unfunded mandate for the City to carry out the responsibilities of the federal government. The cost to enforce the new immigration law will be overly excessive said Council members in Tucson as they authorized a lawsuit.

Meanwhile, City of Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon, one of the most vocal opponents of the statute, said he will join with other Arizona mayors in filing a lawsuit seeking to invalidate the statute. Mayor Gordon had been pushing the Phoenix City Council to authorize a lawsuit on the City’s behalf, but was not able to gather sufficient support.

Additionally, both U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano continue speak critically of the Arizona statute. Testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Secretary Napolitano stated she fears Senate Bill 1070 will force U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to use its already stretched resources to deal with those arrested under Arizona’s new law and will siphon federal money and staff away from hunting down dangerous immigrants. Moreover, Attorney General Holder has said that the Department of Justice is reviewing the statute and will consider all of its options, including “the possibility of a court challenge.”

Stay tuned as Jackson Lewis continue to follow the growing number of legal challenges to Arizona Senate Bill 1070.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

While the business community has largely attempted to stay out of the debate surrounding Arizona’s Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act (Senate Bill 1070), professional basketball team Phoenix Suns jumps to the center of the debate over the Bill with the team’s decision to wear “Los Suns” jerseys during its playoff game against the San Antonio Spurs on Cinco de Mayo. Suns’ owner, Robert Sarver, announced his disagreement with the Bill, describing it as “mean-spirited.” All of the Sun’s players were reportedly in favor of the decision to wear the jerseys.

Sarver was quoted as saying, “I thought we need to go on record that we honor our diversity in our team, in the NBA, and we need to show support for that. As for the political part of that, that's my statement." The Suns currently have three foreign-born players on the team.

Groups opposing the Bill have looked to sports teams and leagues to influence the discussion. Some have called on Major League Baseball to move its 2011 All-Star game from Phoenix – just as the Super Bowl was moved 20 years ago when Arizona refused to recognize Martin Luther King, Jr. Day as a state holiday. Recent efforts have prompted Arizona Governor Jan Brewer to write ESPN on responding to the sports boycott requests, which she labeled as “misguided.”

Sports in America have become increasingly international, with players coming from around the globe. In fact, it is international players that dominate the roster of some of our major professional sports teams. The National Hockey League, for example, is made up of 80 percent of players who were born and raised outside of the United States. On the University level, a significant number of our colleges and universities actively seek international talent to gain a competitive edge. While these players may initially come to the United States either as a student-athlete or on a P-visa (a visa designated by immigration as a visa for professional athletes), these same athletes often seek permanent residence or citizenship to remain in the United States at the conclusion of their careers. As a result, we may see professional athletes and their teams play a significant role in shaping the immigration debate.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Arizona legislature has already made several changes to its recently enacted immigration statute, Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act (Senate Bill 1070). On the legislature’s last day in session, it passed changes to the law, which the Bill’s sponsor, Senator Russell Pearce, stated were intended to clarify that “the bill prohibits racial profiling in any form.”

Opponents of the Bill had expressed concerns about how crime victims or witnesses would be treated in light of the Bill’s requirement that law enforcement question individuals concerning their immigration status during any “lawful contact.” In an attempt to address this issue, the legislature amended the statute to require questioning only where there is a “lawful stop, detention or arrest.” Moreover, the legislature eliminated the word “solely” from the provision in the Bill, stating that law enforcement officials may not “consider race, color or national origin…” in establishing reasonable suspicion that someone is in the country illegally. Finally, the Bill was also amended to clarify that law enforcement officials responding to city-ordinance violations would be required to determine the immigration status of an individual they have reasonable suspicion of being in the country illegally.

Governor Brewer signed these changes into law on April 30, stating that she believed the new language, combined with the original wording of the Bill, gives the law "maximum ability to withstand legal scrutiny." These changes will become effective with the rest of the Bill on July 29, 2010.

The changes, however, have done nothing to stop the furor over the Bill’s enactment. The calls for boycotts of Arizona and its businesses have continued to increase in the week since the Governor signed the Bill and will undoubtedly have an impact on Arizona employers.

We will continue to follow these breaking developments.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The fervor surrounding Arizona’s new immigration statute, Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act (Senate Bill 1070), has grown in the days since Governor Jan Brewer signed the Bill into law on April 23, 2010. The Arizona legislature adjourned on April 29, 2010, which means the Act will become effective 90 days later, July 28. The whirlwind of activity will likely increase in the period before the statute is scheduled to take effect.

On April 29, 2010, three separate lawsuits were filed challenging Senate Bill 1070. The first was filed by the National Coalition of Latino Clergy and Christian Leaders in U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, alleging that the Act “creates state-wide immigration regulations [that are] independent from the existing federal system and clearly conflict[] with federal immigration law.” In addition, a well known Arizona civil rights lawyer filed two separate lawsuits in federal court (one on behalf of a police officer in Tucson and the other on behalf of a police officer in Phoenix) alleging, among other things, that the Act violates the First, Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. Leaders of three prominent civil rights groups announced they are planning to file a lawsuit to challenge the Act.

Meanwhile, calls for boycotts of Arizona businesses have spread and even gained momentum. Further, officials in San Francisco and Los Angeles have proposed that their cities not do business with companies in Arizona. Elected officials in other places, including St. Paul, Minnesota, have called for a boycott. Several groups have reportedly cancelled conventions planned for Arizona in opposition to the Act.
 

We will post updates as warranted.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Less than two years after the enactment of the Legal Arizona Workers Act (“LAWA”), Arizona Governor Jan Brewer has signed into law the Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act (Senate Bill 1070). The Act requires law enforcement officials to attempt to determine the immigration status of any person that they believe to be an alien unlawfully present in the United States. The Governor’s decision has thrust Arizona into the spotlight of immigration reform debate.

The controversial statute has attracted both national and international attention since the April 23 signing and has led to daily protests at the Arizona State Capitol in downtown Phoenix, as well as throughout the country. Several public figures have spoken out in opposition to the statute and there have been widespread calls to boycott Arizona businesses. Despite this, Arizona polls show widespread support for the bill among Arizona residents.

While opposition to the bill has focused largely on the new requirement imposed on law enforcement officials, Senate Bill 1070 has two provisions that will impact Arizona employers. The statute includes a provision prohibiting the hiring of day laborers. This same provision makes it a crime for unlawful aliens to “apply for work, solicit work in a public place or perform work as an employee or independent contractor in this state.” Senate Bill 1070 also adds a recordkeeping provision to LAWA that requires employers to maintain E-Verify verifications for each employee hired after January 1, 2008 for the duration of the employment or at least three years, whichever is longer. In addition, it adds a defense of entrapment for employers facing a claim that they either intentionally or knowingly hired an unauthorized alien.

Jackson Lewis will be closely monitoring developments relating to Senate Bill 1070 and the impact it will have on employers in Arizona and will be providing regular updates.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On April 9, 2010, USCIS announced that in the first week of accepting cap-subject H-1B filings for FY 2011, only 13,500 petitions had been received against the 65,000 regular cap and only 5,600 against the 20,000 master’s cap.

New H-1B visas are generally limited to 65,000 per fiscal year, with an extra 20,000 available to certain individuals with advanced degrees (the master’s cap). The fiscal year begins on October 1, and petitions are accepted beginning April 1.

The first week’s filings represent the fewest H-1B petitions initially filed in several years. In previous years, USCIS had received a substantially greater number of petitions on April 1 than H-1Bs available. Such a situation required lotteries to determine which petitions would be accepted for adjudication. The last lottery was held in 2008, when USCIS received over 160,000 initial H-1B petitions.

No lottery was held last year, where after the first week of filing, USCIS had received over 30,000 regular cap petitions and close to 20,000 master’s cap petitions. USCIS continued to accept applications for new H-1Bs until the limit was reached on December 21, 2009.

It appears that employers now have some flexibility in bringing on new H-1B workers for a start date of October 1, 2010 or later.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On April 1, 2010, Secretary of Labor Hilda L. Solis announced DOL’s “We Can Help” campaign in Chicago, where she told an audience of union leaders and community members that the DOL “will not allow anyone to be denied his or her rightful pay — especially when so many in our nation are working long, hard and often dangerous hours." 

The nationwide "We Can Help" campaign, spearheaded by DOL’s Wage and Hour Division (WHD), is an outreach program directed at the nation’s low-wage and “vulnerable” workers, such as workers in construction, janitorial services, hotels, food services and home health care services industries. The program also addresses topics such as rights in the workplace and how to file a complaint with the WHD to recover wages owed. Additionally, the campaign underscores the awareness that wage and hour laws apply to all workers in the U.S. regardless of their immigration status. In conjunction with this enforcement program, DOL has added more than 250 field investigators nationwide to help in this campaign.

Additionally, the inter-governmental agencies’ concerted enforcement efforts should not be overlooked. An immigration worksite visit could potentially involve a concurrent or subsequent DOL WHD audit and vice versa. In DOL’s efforts to protect the “vulnerable” workers in the U.S., it is yet to be seen if DOL will follow the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)’s lead in potentially offering incentives to undocumented workers in order to gain cooperation from them to detect and determine an employer’s liabilities.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Forbes.com recently explored the pitfalls faced by foreign business visitors attempting to enter the United States on short-term trips. Jackson Lewis’ Global Immigration practice group Partners Davis Bae and Sean Hanagan were quoted extensively. To read the article, click:

www.forbes.com/2010/03/04/how-to-get-us-visa-lifestyle-business-travel-visit.html

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Extraordinary Ability (EB1) immigrant visa category, as the name suggests, is set aside for immigrants who possess extraordinary ability in their fields. Unlike the case of other visa categories, individuals in this category may submit petitions for themselves. It also avoids the backlogs in other visa categories and is commonly used by artists, entertainers and researchers. 

To qualify, an individual must provide evidence of (1) a one-time achievement that is of a major, international significance (the Nobel Prize is the standard example), or (2) at least three out of ten lesser types of accomplishments, as defined by regulations.

Although the regulatory framework has remained unchanged for years, USCIS has varied its interpretation of “extraordinary.” Recently, it has sought to impose requirements beyond those included in the regulations. Rather than accept evidence of three lesser accomplishments to show extraordinary ability, USCIS routinely has required applicants to prove how each accomplishment shows that they are extraordinary. 

For example, the agency required a researcher to show how his publications have changed the way researchers viewed the area of science, even though the regulations only require the applicant to have authored publications. In another instance, the applicant was expected to show that he was selected to conduct peer review because of his extraordinary ability despite the fact the regulations require only that the individual has done peer review. 

 

Kazarian v. USCIS may help check the USCIS’s excesses, at least in the Ninth Circuit. On March 4, 2010, the Court found "neither USCIS nor an [Administrative Appeals Office] may unilaterally impose novel substantive or evidentiary requirements beyond those set forth [in the regulations]." Specifically, the Court found improper the agency’s denial of a visa to Poghos Kazarian because of his failure to demonstrate the “research community's reactions to his publications." Ultimately, Kazarian did not qualify for the visa, but the Ninth Circuit’s affirmation that USCIS cannot impose new requirements on applicants arbitrarily is a major win for Extraordinary Ability applicants. (The Ninth Circuit has jurisdiction over Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington.)

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

 

Start-up companies have always been a driving force in the U.S. economy. They are even more important in a down economy, as innovation drives job creation. While there are visa categories for entrepreneurs who invest their own capital, there is a gap in U.S. visa policy when it comes to entrepreneurs with great ideas who have established investors ready to back them financially. The current investor categories are limited by country of citizenship for temporary visas and by a minimum investment of $1 million ($500,000 in some cases) for green cards, making a permanent visa solution unlikely for the vast majority of would-be foreign national entrepreneurs in the United States. 

Senators John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) have introduced legislation proposing a new green card category for immigrant entrepreneurs who have secured at least $250,000 in funding from a qualified venture capitalist or “angel investor.” The bill is designed to drive job creation and increase the country’s global competitiveness by helping immigrant entrepreneurs secure permanent residence in the United States.

 

More than 160 venture capitalists from around the country have endorsed the bill, citing a restrictive visa policy that has forced many innovative entrepreneurs (and the corresponding creation of new jobs) to establish outside of the United States.

 

Jackson Lewis works with entrepreneurs and investors all over the world who wish to invest in the United States on opportunities which create jobs for Americans. If this bill is passed, the new visa category would substantially broaden the pool of potential investments for venture capital firms and help stimulate the U.S. economy. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

H-1B filing season is upon us again. The most often used work visa for Professional Workers is the H-1B. The H-1B has a limited availability of approximately 58,000 per year.  Despite the economy, these visas still are anticipated to be in high demand and become unavailable by the end of 2010.

Although, H-1B visas will be valid on October 1, 2010, a company may apply as early as April 1, 2010. Because of the high demand in this category, employers should file as early as possible. Indeed, the first week of April is recommended.

 

This H-1B quota applies to current or potential employees who are not in H-1B status, for example:

 

-          Employees currently in F-1 student status who are working on a limited duration work authorization;

-          Employees in TN, L, E or another status for whom the company may want to commence a green card process; and

-          Employees currently abroad who will move to a U.S.-based role in the fall.

 

Employees currently working based on H-1B status are not subject to this numerical limit, and therefore generally do not need to be concerned about this timing. 

 

Last year, the government did not meet the H-1B cap until December.  We anticipate that the filing window will be much shorter this year. Contact the Global Immigration practice group at Jackson Lewis as soon as possible to start the filing process.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

New legislation that would expand penalties for employers who knowingly hire unauthorized workers has been introduced in the House of Representatives. The “Criminal Penalties for Unauthorized Employment Act of 2010” (H.R. 4627), introduced by Representative Frank Kratovil (D-Md.), would significantly increase imprisonment terms, criminal fines, and civil fines that can be levied against an employer or individual with “hiring authority.” A person with “hiring authority” is anyone who has “direct authority to make a decision to hire or to recruit or refer for a fee, an individual for employment.”

Currently, criminal penalties for knowingly hiring unauthorized workers apply only if a “pattern or practice” can be shown. An entity or individual may be fined $3,000 and an individual may be imprisoned for up to six months for the entire “pattern or practice.”

The proposed legislation would impose criminal penalties for each unauthorized worker, and criminal penalties would increase with each subsequent conviction:
- For a first offense, a fine of $2,500 and/or imprisonment of up to 1 year
- For a second offense, a fine of $5,000 and/or imprisonment for up to 2 years
- For a third or subsequent offense, a fine of $10,000 and/or imprisonment for up to 5 years

The bill also would increase the civil penalties assessed:
- For a first offense, a fine ranging from $1,000 – 5,000 (currently $250 – $1,000)
- For a second offense, a fine ranging from $5,000 – 10,000 (currently $2,000 – $5,000)
- For a third or subsequent offense, a fine ranging from $10,000 – 20,000 (currently $3,000 – $10,000)
 

 

Stay tuned as Jackson Lewis will continue to follow this legislation and update readers through this blog.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The USCIS has mandated sweeping changes in the use of H-1B visas, redefining the employer-employee relationship for third-party worksite placements pursuant to H-1B petitions, among other things. The changes, which have alarmed many employers, came in memorandum from the agency’s Associate Director of Service Center Operations, Donald Neufeld, this past January.

Although the “Neufeld Memo” arguably targets consulting companies which place professionals at third-party worksites, it also has a significant impact on U.S. employers who supplement their full time workforces with teams of both talented U.S. and foreign workers, considered consultants. In a recession, these consultants make up a significant portion of corporate workforces and are vital to many companies’ continued viability.

If fully implemented, the Neufeld Memo could result in denials of amendments and extensions of status for current H-1B visa holders. In addition, H-1B workers travelling internationally may face re-adjudication and denial of admission by Immigration officials at U.S. ports of entry. Lastly, this could result in potential revocations of status for H-1B visa holders should the USCIS conduct workplace site visits.

While challenges to the Neufeld Memo are mounted and considered, we will continue to guide clients on how to enhance chances of securing H-1B visa approvals under the Memo rule.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Employers who plan on filing for new H-1Bs this year shouldn’t rely on the flexibility experienced last year. Employer filings for FY2010 regular cap H-1Bs in 2009 did not reach the annual limit until late in December. Most employers who anticipated needing an H-1B worker for FY2010 filed on April 1. However, economic conditions resulted in substantially fewer H-1Bs being requested early. Thus, employers were able to hire H-1B employees throughout much of the year until the full FY2010 allotment had been requested. That’s unlikely to happen again in 2010.

H-1B visas generally are limited to an annual distribution of 65,000 per fiscal year. Immigration’s fiscal year begins on October 1, and petitions are accepted for the upcoming fiscal year beginning April 1. In recent years, substantially more petitions were received on April 1 for the upcoming fiscal year than H-1Bs available. In those situations, a lottery was held to determine which petitions would be considered.

Just as in years past, employers should plan to file for any needed FY2011 H-1Bs on the first day that petitions are accepted. Hiring should be planned in anticipation of a lack of H-1B availability, and employers should not depend on being able to hire H-1B employees as needed throughout the year like they were able to do last year.

Last year’s filing data reflects a dramatic increase in filings at the end of the calendar year. This certainly could indicate a change in hiring conditions that would result in a much shorter window of H-1B availability for FY2011.

Based on this increase, many predict that employers will not have the luxury this year of waiting until late December to obtain H-1Bs, although it is unlikely that a lottery will be held on April 1. So in anticipation, do not wait to plan your hiring needs, consult soon with your attorney, and file as soon as possible.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Many foreign workers are unaware of the immigration consequences of criminal pleading and plea agreements, especially with regard to crimes that many consider “minor” due to the minimal fines and lack of jail time. Unfortunately, not all criminal lawyers are aware of the immigration consequences either. For example, a plea agreement might be offered in response to a charge of possession of a nominal amount marijuana that would allow a U.S. citizen to pay a $200 fine and to walk away. However, the same plea deal can carry serious consequences for foreign workers, including the possibility of removal. Further, a U.S. citizen pleading guilty to a domestic dispute charge, which can be brought in many jurisdictions when a couple is observed engaging in a verbal altercation, may receive a mere 12-hour detention and possibly a nominal fine. A foreign worker, however, may face removal proceedings.

Discussing criminal issues directly with your employees may not be desirable, but new foreign workers should be advised of the fact that serious immigration issues can arise when they or their family members admit to a crime or accept a plea deal, even if the crime doesn’t seem “major.” Foreign workers should always consult immigration counsel if they or one of their family members are charged with any crime, especially before pleading or accepting any kind of plea deal.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Due to the dramatic increase in ICE worksite enforcement actions in 2009, employers are taking steps ensure their I-9 compliance, and utilizing such tools as internal audits, training, and implementation of I-9 software. I-9 software can often help to minimize the disorganization and clerical errors that can result in an absolute nightmare upon receipt of an ICE inspection notice. In response to growing employers’ compliance efforts, software companies are rushing “feature-rich” I-9 software packages to market. And while employers tend to scrutinize the user features available when selecting I-9 software, many are overlooking a vital feature – data security.

Once I-9 software has been implemented by your company, proper data security is required to protect your employees’ stored personal data. Minnesota state agencies using a Texas-based I-9 software provider with inadequate data security recently discovered that the personal data of nearly 500 employees may have been made accessible through the software provider’s web site, displaying employee names, dates of birth, hire dates, and Social Security numbers. This is a wake-up call to many employers that data security is a feature that cannot be overlooked when selecting I-9 software.
Employers should always ask their software provider to outline the software’s data security features. Compare them to features offered by other providers. Generally, you want to ensure that all user accounts are properly password protected, a sophisticated encryption method is used to encrypt the data, and if the data is stored remotely by the software provider, measures are taken to ensure that data is protected from external hackers and that the data is properly isolated to ensure that it is not erroneously accessed by another user.
I-9 software is an excellent tool to use in the quest for I-9 compliance, and a fear of a potential data compromise should not prevent you from implementation. Most software packages have adequate data security features, and a few have substantial ones. However, employers should be aware of the importance of data security when shopping for an I-9 software package, and should move data security to the top of their list of questions for their potential providers.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Are you subject to the Federal Acquisition Rule’s (FAR) E-Verify requirements?Many companies mistakenly think they are subject to FAR and therefore required to use the E-Verify System.

FAR sets out certain prerequisites for determining whether a government contract makes an employer subject to mandatory E-Verify Registration. For example, the contract period must be for at least 120 days and the contract value must be for at least $100,000. More importantly, however, the contract also must contain the FAR provision. Many employers seem to miss this point. They worry needlessly whether they should be using E-Verify when the clause is not in the contract. Existing contracts can be modified to include the clause, but until your contract is modified, or you receive a new contract with the FAR clause, you should not be subject to the E-verify requirement.

The contracting government official, not DHS or SSA (unless they also are the contracting agency), determines if you are subject to the requirement. In negotiating your contract, you can argue why you should not be subject in order to keep the clause out of the contract. For example, if you believe your product meets the commercially available off-the-shelf (“COTS”) exemption, try to persuade the contracting official to omit the clause from your contract in the first place.

While E-Verify is always an option for new hires, remember it can only be used for the entire workforce or employees assigned to the contract if you have a FAR clause. Using it in this context without the clause also is a violation.  Many issues surrounding the FAR E-verify clause remain unsettled as this is still a relatively new regulation. The government has been addressing questions as they arise and may issue a new Memorandum of Understanding in the future. Watch this blog for the latest developments on E-verify compliance and strategy.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Social Security Administration (SSA) No-Match Rule illustrates the problem employers can face when intensive government scrutiny is combined with a lack of government guidance. This problem was further exacerbated by the Citizenship and Immigration Services’ (CIS) announcement in November of 1,000 I-9 Audits.

This issue arose in 2007, when DHS issued guidelines for employers confronting SSA “No-Match” notices. However, the SSA initiative was enjoined quickly by federal court order and never took effect. Prior to the injunction, the SSA issued “No-Match” letters to employers on an annual basis, notifying them of employees whose social security information presented to employers did not match information contained in the government’s database. In some cases, the discrepancies were acknowledged to be SSA error, others resulted from name changes of which individuals had failed to inform SSA, and some pointed to possible fraud or identity theft by the employee.
Employers were left with little guidance, however, since the No- Match letters expressly cautioned against taking “personnel action solely based on this letter.” Employee advocates warned employers of discrimination issues, arguing that affected employees should be given many months to address the issue while remaining at work.

The No-Match Rule would have required employers to take concrete steps over a defined period to address employee social security discrepancies, or risk being charged with “constructive knowledge” that their employees were undocumented. Briefly, the Rules called for employers to check their records and to ask employees to resolve any discrepancies within 90 days. It also instructed employers to reverify an employee’s work authorization with documentation not listing the questioned social security number if the discrepancy could not be resolved within that timeframe.

Despite the government’s attempt to clarify the Rule and its justification through an economic impact analysis in March 2008, the No-Match Rule eventually was withdrawn and abandoned entirely under the new Administration.

After all this, employers are back to square one. They have to determine for themselves what steps to take when No-Match issues arise. With government audits on the increase, legal counsel have been getting more requests to advise on these issues. This blog will continue to update you on this developing area of the law.

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Comprehensive Immigration Reform for America’s Security and Prosperity Act of 2009 (“CIR ASAP”) has been introduced by Rep. Luis V. Gutierrez (D. Ill.). The bill proposes a broad array of changes to the visa system, some of which may place additional burdens on employers:

Included in the bill, introduced on December 15, 2009, are measures to reduce immigrant visa backlogs for highly-skilled workers and expansion of the EB-5 investor immigrant visa program. There also are provisions for a new lottery-based temporary visa for unskilled workers and a special six-year visa to allow currently undocumented aliens an opportunity to apply for permanent residence through a points system.

The bill includes proposals for enhanced border security, employer immigration enforcement and employment authorization verification. In addition, the bill modifies existing policies to increase employer obligations for companies who utilize the H-1B, H-2B and L-1 Visa programs. Particularly troubling is the proposal to require recruitment prior to filing H-1B visa petitions.

While CIR ASAP contains interesting proposals for resolving the problems employers face in finding low-skilled workers who are in the U.S. lawfully, the measure does not offer employers much to ensure that they will be able to access the highly-skilled workers required by the U.S. economy. The proposal for a Commission on Immigration and Labor Markets will be particularly problematic for employers, as such a body is unlikely to be able to predict the need for various types of workers or respond timely to market changes. A self-adjusting, demand-based visa allocation system would better meet the needs of the economy.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

This just in! As of December 8, 2009, approximately 61,500 H-1B cap-subject petitions had been filed. USCIS has approved sufficient H-1B petitions for aliens with advanced degrees to meet the exemption of 20,000 from the fiscal year 2010 cap. Any H-1B petitions filed on behalf of an alien with an advanced degree will now count toward the general H-1B cap of 65,000. USCIS will continue to accept both cap-subject petitions and advanced degree petitions until a sufficient number of H-1B petitions have been received to reach the statutory limits, taking into account the fact that some of these petitions may be denied, revoked, or withdrawn.

Look to this blog for ideas on how to find solutions to the H-1B cap being hit for fiscal Year 2010.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In 2008, Microsoft founder Bill Gates stated that the United States has a “[c]ritical shortfall of skilled scientists and engineers who can develop new breakthrough technologies.” He stressed, “Without people who have the skills necessary to drive the next wave of technology innovation, it will be impossible for the United States to retain its global innovation leadership.”

Regardless of the changes in the economy and political views toward immigration, statistics demonstrate a clear relationship between innovation and immigration. Over 50% of engineers and 45% of mathematicians, computer scientists, life scientists and physicists holding Ph.D.s currently working in the United States are foreign born. In addition, 29% of engineers, 37% of math and computer scientists and 25% of physicists holding Master’s degrees are foreign born. Approximately 25% of international patents filed in the United States in 2006 were submitted by immigrants.

The United States has long been the desired destination of immigrants worldwide. In recent years, there has been a major drop in levels of immigrants in “high IQ” positions. As the country seeks to regain its position as a global leader, it is essential to embrace those who can contribute to our intellectual capabilities. By creating a simpler and more accessible path to immigration, we can again attract the world’s talent, which will only increase our global competitiveness.

Some may argue that America was built on the backs of immigrants. To my mind, however,the best solution to our economic problems rests not on the backs of immigrants, but in the power of their minds.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

America’s rise through immigration creates a great irony. What we consider products of a distinctly American culture may not be “American” at all. Many would not exist but for the contribution of some amazing immigrants. On this Thanksgiving Day, let us recognize some of these extraordinary people.

The list of foreign-born Americans who shape our nation is awe inspiring. In business, there is Bjarne Stroustrup, Danish-born inventor of C++ (a computer programming language); Andrew Grove, Hungarian-born founder of Intel Corp.; Jenny Ming, Macau-born CEO of Old Navy; and Liz Claiborne, Belgian-born fashion designer.

In sports, there is racing great Mario Andretti, hockey legend Wayne Gretzky, tennis immortal Martina Navratilova and baseball phenomenon Ichiro Suzuki. The list in arts is extraordinary and includes Yo-Yo Ma, Michael J. Fox, Ansel Adams, Gloria Estefan, Sidney Poitier, Elizabeth Taylor, William Shatner, Neil Young and Eddie van Halen. Even American politics is greatly influenced by immigrants, including former Secretaries of State Madeleine Albright and Henry Kissinger, and entertainment/political crossover Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Why do these extraordinary people come to this country? Perhaps it is because the United States provides hope for those who want to maximize their talent and ability. Even the most powerful symbol of America, the Statue of Liberty, was designed by French artist Frederic-Auguste Bartholdi. It is, therefore, entirely fitting that “The New Colossus” bears the inscription “[I] lift my lamp beside the golden door."

The door is golden because of those who pass through it.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link