Thread: Latino Officials Demand Urgent Immigration Reform

http://www.hispanicbusiness.com/news/ne ... e-news.asp

Latino Officials Demand Urgent Immigration Reform

September 14, 2006

Rosendo Majano

Hispanic officeholders across the United States descended on Congress Wednesday to demand that lawmakers pass an immigration bill offering the prospect of legalization to the country's estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants.

About 100 leaders of the more than 6,000 members of the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials gathered Wednesday on the steps of the Capitol to pressure Democrats and Republicans "to fix our nation's broken immigration system."

"The time for action is today," said Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.), decrying the delay in tackling immigration reform.

He added that the time had come for elected citizens to "stop playing politics" with the issue, his remarks coming at a press conference at which he was flanked by other Democratic legislators and NALEO leaders.

Gutierrez, one of the most tenacious defenders of immigrants' rights, said that "there is no reform because the Republican majority in Congress doesn't want it."

He said that reform would prevent more deaths of immigrants on the border and the irony that some of the country's outstanding high school graduates - including a number of valedictorians - do not have the opportunity to pursue their university studies because of "absurd" immigration obstacles.

He also complained about the deportation of people married to U.S. citizens, saying that immigration officials should focus their efforts on the fight against terrorism instead of splitting up families.

NALEO Board President John Bueno said at the press conference that Latinos in public office represent "millions of Americans" from both parties and diverse ethnic communities who support "hard-working immigrant families."

Bueno emphasized that NALEO lobbies for policies that permit foreigners who respect the laws and pay their taxes "to eventually become full participants in our democracy."

He said that the policies include the legalization of the more than 11 million undocumented immigrants calculated to live in the United States and the creation of a guest-worker program with options for permanent residence and later naturalization.

Bueno also asked Congress to ensure that the future immigration law facilitates the civic integration of immigrants, family reunification and opportunities for foreign students to get a college education.

He reiterated the firm opposition of NALEO to the measure penalizing undocumented immigrants and those who give them help in the United States, a measure approved by the House of Representatives last December.

He also emphasized his rejection of the persecution of undocumented foreigners on the part of the police, because it undermines the confidence created between law enforcement authorities and members of the community.

Another of the participants at the press conference, Sen. Ken Salazar (D-Colo.), said that he hoped that the pressure they were bringing to bear convinced the leaders of the House and Senate to leave their political interests to the side and "finalize their work on a comprehensive immigration reform."

The bill passed by the House last December focuses solely on stiffer enforcement. It envisions the construction of hundreds of miles of additional barriers along the border with Mexico and makes no provision for legalization.

The Senate, conversely, approved in May a bipartisan compromise that includes guest-worker programs and which would provide ways for millions of undocumented immigrants to obtain legal residence.

House Republicans, instead of sitting down with senators in a conference committee to reconcile the two bills, decided to hold public hearings around the country - many of them in border cities - that appeared to be aimed at justifying their opposition to the immigrant-friendly measures approved by the upper chamber.

Rep. Grace Napolitano, a California Democrat who chairs the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, made clear that the stance of Democrats in favor of the legalization of undocumented migrants does not represent any request for "anmesty" for those people.

We are sick and tired of your demands.

Gutierrez, one of the most tenacious defenders of immigrants' rights, said that "there is no reform because the Republican majority in Congress doesn't want it."

There is no reform because the MAJORITY OF AMERICAN CITIZENS don't want it.

It would seem to me that as a lawmaker Mr. G would realize that his demands for a path to citizenshiup are not legal or legitimate, whereas our demands of deportation of all here illegally are.

I am boiling over with anger induced by the kumbaya mentality of the politicians who do not seem to understand that amnesty is the eqiuvilant of the end of American civilization.

Gutierrez, one of the most tenacious defenders of immigrants' rights, said that "there is no reform because the Republican majority in Congress doesn't want it."

This guy ticks me off. Last school year, if I remember correctly......there was a person here on a tourist visa that wanted to enroll in school. The school said no, he said yes and did something to freeze all games and such for the students. Now mind you, this was finals. There were some who were expecting to be seen by college recruits, in others they had to do this to earn scholarships and such......was willing to throw their future away for this. No concern for the student citizen and their educational future that they had worked for. The school backed down for the future of the students who would be effected by this, because it would have too long to fight it in court. He of course chalked it up as a win.

About 100 leaders of the more than 6,000 members of the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials gathered Wednesday on the steps of the Capitol to pressure Democrats and Republicans "to fix our nation's broken immigration system."

There's nothing "broken" about our immigration system. Just because our immigration laws don't allow for tens of millions of peasants to waltz into our country at will and demand rights they haven't earned, doesn't mean our system needs reforming.

What other country in the world has open borders??????????

"The time for action is today," said Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.), decrying the delay in tackling immigration reform.

He added that the time had come for elected citizens to "stop playing politics" with the issue, his remarks coming at a press conference at which he was flanked by other Democratic legislators and NALEO leaders.

For once in my life I agree with Rep. Gutierrez, it is time to stop playing politics. Furthermore is is time to stop the pandering and get tough on illegal immigration. If it weren't for pandering Democrats we would have an "enforcement only" bill right now!

Hispanic officeholders across the United States descended on Congress Wednesday to demand...

Somebody needs to remind these people that they were elected to represent the American people not a bunch of illegal foreign nationals, but it all seems to be about the Hispanics, NOT what is in the best interest of the country.

They are pushing for something to happen now, because they know after the elections ALL the pro-illegal traitors will be thrown out!

Arriving Aliens in Removal Proceedings Are Now Eligible to Apply for Adjustment of Status
By James E. Root
Los Angeles, CA

On September 30, 2005, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal has ruled in a case, Bona v. Gonzales, that parolees who are arriving aliens may be able to adjust their status while in removal proceedings. Arriving aliens are people who were permitted to enter the United States but were nevertheless placed into removal proceedings. Parolees are people who are permitted to enter the United States for a specific purpose. For example, often times parolees are allowed to enter the United States to apply for asylum.
In Bona v. Gonzalez an issue was raised regarding the validity of 8 C.F.R. Section 245.1(c)(, a regulation promulgated by the Attorney General in 1997. Under that regulation, an alien who had been granted parolee status and entered the United States, but was placed into removal proceedings, was ineligible to apply for adjustment of status. The court in Bona v. Gonzalez ultimately found that 8 C.F.R. Section 245.1(c)( directly conflicts with 8 U.S.C. Section 1255(a), the code section enacted by Congress, which grants parolees the right to apply for adjustment of status. Because Congressional intent in making policies of who can adjust status takes precedence over the Attorney General’s regulations, arriving aliens in removal proceedings in the Ninth Circuit are now eligible to apply for adjustment of status.
For example, if you came into the United States and were paroled in by immigration officials (to allow you to seek asylum, or to see an immigration judge in removal proceedings in California), and then you subsequently married a United States citizen, you are now (as a result of Bona v. Gonzalez) eligible to apply for adjustment of status before the immigration judge.
In addition, if while you were in removal proceedings in California you were denied adjustment of status in court because you were considered to be an arriving alien, it may be possible to reopen your case in light of this new Ninth Circuit decision.
In Bona v. Gonzalez, Delia Ramos Bona, who is a citizen and native of the Philippines, arrived in the United States in 1991 with her three children. They were paroled into the United States as endangered family members of a serviceman (Mrs. Bona’s husband was then in the United States Navy and now is a United States citizen.) when the volcano Mt. Pinatubo erupted in the Philippines. She was placed into removal proceedings eight years later and was considered an arriving alien because she was paroled into the United States at the time of her arrival in 1991. The Immigration Judge denied her the ability to apply for adjustment of status pursuant to the regulation which made arriving aliens ineligible to apply for adjustment of status. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed the Immigration Judge’s decision and refused to remand the case back to the Immigration Judge.
However, the Ninth Circuit court found that Mrs. Bona is entitled to apply for adjustment of status in removal proceedings. Accordingly, the Ninth Circuit court granted the Petition for Review and remanded the case back down to the Board of Immigration Appeals.
Mr. James E. Root exclusively practices US Immigration Law. He has offices in the Los Angeles and Orange Counties. For a free initial consultation please contact 1(88 ROOT-LAW or visit www.RootLaw.com.

Originally Posted by opinion

Arriving Aliens in Removal Proceedings Are Now Eligible to Apply for Adjustment of Status
By James E. Root
Los Angeles, CA

On September 30, 2005, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal has ruled in a case, Bona v. Gonzales, that parolees who are arriving aliens may be able to adjust their status while in removal proceedings. Arriving aliens are people who were permitted to enter the United States but were nevertheless placed into removal proceedings. Parolees are people who are permitted to enter the United States for a specific purpose. For example, often times parolees are allowed to enter the United States to apply for asylum.
In Bona v. Gonzalez an issue was raised regarding the validity of 8 C.F.R. Section 245.1(c)(, a regulation promulgated by the Attorney General in 1997. Under that regulation, an alien who had been granted parolee status and entered the United States, but was placed into removal proceedings, was ineligible to apply for adjustment of status. The court in Bona v. Gonzalez ultimately found that 8 C.F.R. Section 245.1(c)( directly conflicts with 8 U.S.C. Section 1255(a), the code section enacted by Congress, which grants parolees the right to apply for adjustment of status. Because Congressional intent in making policies of who can adjust status takes precedence over the Attorney General’s regulations, arriving aliens in removal proceedings in the Ninth Circuit are now eligible to apply for adjustment of status.
For example, if you came into the United States and were paroled in by immigration officials (to allow you to seek asylum, or to see an immigration judge in removal proceedings in California), and then you subsequently married a United States citizen, you are now (as a result of Bona v. Gonzalez) eligible to apply for adjustment of status before the immigration judge.
In addition, if while you were in removal proceedings in California you were denied adjustment of status in court because you were considered to be an arriving alien, it may be possible to reopen your case in light of this new Ninth Circuit decision.
In Bona v. Gonzalez, Delia Ramos Bona, who is a citizen and native of the Philippines, arrived in the United States in 1991 with her three children. They were paroled into the United States as endangered family members of a serviceman (Mrs. Bona’s husband was then in the United States Navy and now is a United States citizen.) when the volcano Mt. Pinatubo erupted in the Philippines. She was placed into removal proceedings eight years later and was considered an arriving alien because she was paroled into the United States at the time of her arrival in 1991. The Immigration Judge denied her the ability to apply for adjustment of status pursuant to the regulation which made arriving aliens ineligible to apply for adjustment of status. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed the Immigration Judge’s decision and refused to remand the case back to the Immigration Judge.
However, the Ninth Circuit court found that Mrs. Bona is entitled to apply for adjustment of status in removal proceedings. Accordingly, the Ninth Circuit court granted the Petition for Review and remanded the case back down to the Board of Immigration Appeals.
Mr. James E. Root exclusively practices US Immigration Law. He has offices in the Los Angeles and Orange Counties. For a free initial consultation please contact 1(88 ROOT-LAW or visit www.RootLaw.com.

So according to this deportation is a waste of time, and cost?