Thread: N.Y.City to offer new visa option for illegal aliens

City to offer new visa option for undocumented crime victims

Commission on Human Rights commissioner Carmelyn Malalis. (New York City Commission on Human Rights via YouTube)

By GLORIA PAZMINO 12:48 p.m. | Feb. 8, 2016

The city’s Commission on Human Rights will begin issuing visa certifications to undocumented immigrants who are victims of crime, letting them stay in the country during investigations and giving them a path to legal permanent residence, Mayor Bill de Blasio will announce Monday.

The visas — known as U and T visas — provide protected status to victims of human trafficking, mental and physical abuse, domestic violence and sexual assault, letting them stay in the country to help law enforcement investigate or prosecute the crimes.

The move will make the commission the first and only anti-discrimination agency in a major U.S. city to provide the certification.

“All New Yorkers deserve fair, equal and just protection under the law,” de Blasio said in a statement. “We must stand up for the rights of all our brothers and sisters, and make our city safer by encouraging collaboration and engendering trust between police and community.”



De Blasio administration officials said they are green-lighting the agency certification in an effort to protect immigrant communities and encourage them to report crimes in their communities, which often go unprotected because victims fear deportation.

According to data provided by City Hall, there are 535,000 undocumented immigrants living the city, and because of their status, crimes like domestic violence, sexual assault and human trafficking often go unreported.

The U visa allows undocumented immigrant victims of crime to remain in the country for up to four years and provides them a work permit. The T visa, which applies only to undocumented immigrants who have been trafficked into the United States, allows victims to remain in the country for up to three years and provides a pathway to lawful permanent residence.

Before the victim of a crime can apply for the U visa, they must first provide the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services with a certification from a law enforcement agency confirming that a qualifying crime has in fact occurred and that the victim is cooperating with the investigation.

Visa certification by a law enforcement agency such as the Commission Human Rights is the first step in the visa process for applicants, who then can submit the paperwork to Citizenship and Immigration Services for visa approval. Currently the New York Police Department, district attorneys' offices, the Law Department, and the Administration for Child Services also provide the visa certification.

“By issuing U and T visa certifications, the Commission provides another venue for undocumented immigrants to come forward, report unlawful activity and assist in investigations,” said Commission on Human Rights commissioner Carmelyn Malalis. “As a civil law enforcement agency with investigatory authority, the Commission is well-situated to identify crimes that may qualify immigrants for U and T visa certification, including sexual assault in the workplace, tenant harassment, forced labor, extortion, and human trafficking.”

Administration officials said the commission will undergo official rulemaking in order to codify the new certification protocol and work with the Mayor’s Office to Combat Domestic Violence, the Mayor’s Office of Immigrant Affairs and the Office of Criminal Justice to develop outreach efforts and educate the city’s immigrant communities about the U and T visa options.

NOTE: Relying on information provided by city officials, the original version of this article listed the Human Resources Administration’s Adult Protective Services among the entities that could provide visa certification. A city official emailed after publication to say that it had been included mistakenly.

http://www.capitalnewyork.com/articl...-crime-victims

Oh great! Import a criminal culture and then provide a means for them to live off us!

The Constitution Limits States’ Immigration Policy


Elizabeth Wydra is chief counsel for the Constitutional Accountability Center, which is dedicated to fulfilling the progressive promise of the Constitution. The center filed a “friend of the court” brief in Arizona v. United States.
UPDATED OCTOBER 4, 2013, 4:08 PM

Many will recall the photo of Arizona’s governor, Jan Brewer, standing on the tarmac and wagging her finger in the face of President Obama, just after Air Force One touched down in Arizona this past January. But when it comes to S.B. 1070-style laws, it isn’t about Brewer vs. Obama. It is about Brewer vs. America’s founders.

Our federalist system provides for state innovation in many areas, but not immigration.

The architects of our Constitution, like James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, made it absolutely clear that the federal government has the exclusive power to regulate immigration, and to consider the foreign policy implications of how we treat noncitizens within our borders. While our federalist system provides for state diversity and innovation in many key areas, the Constitution unmistakably vests the power over immigration and naturalization, and related issues like border security and foreign relations, in the federal government. Arizona’s decision to pursue a single-minded, aggressive, nondiscretionary policy of “attrition through enforcement” conflicts with the complex balancing act that the Constitution, Supreme Court precedent and specific congressional enactments have delegated to the executive branch.

State and local governments, businesses located within the states and localities, and residents, of course, experience both the benefits and burdens of unauthorized migrants up close. These stakeholders’ perspectives are incredibly important to the national conversation on immigration reform. Congress has specifically allowed for state cooperation with federal immigration enforcement in certain areas — provided, however, that such state and local officers have the sufficient training and supervision to enforce complex immigration regulations — and the Supreme Court has upheld the authority of states to regulate in areas of traditional local concern, such as business licensing, that may affect noncitizens. But however important the voices of state and local officials in the debate, the Constitution makes clear that, when it comes to actually setting immigration law and policy, the United States must speak with one voice: the federal government’s.

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate...gration-policy

The Constitution says that the President shall protect the states from invasion, too. Obviously that doesn't have to be a declared invasion by an actual military. In the 1800's an invasion of pirates would have also been repulsed. We have invasions by many criminal organization today and the federal government, with local and state help, should repulse this as well. Even if someone illegally here doesn't commit a felony they are still able to observe economic and government processes and use that knowledge to our detriment. With legal visitors we assume they are going to be putting money into tourism industries, at least; they have to bring money with them, so it helps the balance of payments.