Thread: ALERT: 245i program will legalize IA by labor day.

What it says is that the employer will need to post a bond and pay a fee. As always the devil is in the details

ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS TO PERMANENT RESIDENCE, 245(i), K & V Visas.

Adjustment of status refers to the procedure for becoming a lawful
permanent resident without having to leave the United States. An alien
who was inspected and admitted or paroled into the United States may be
adjusted by the Attorney General, in his discretion and under such
regulations as he may prescribe, to that of an alien lawfully admitted
for permanent residence if:

1. the alien makes an application for such adjustment,

2. the alien is eligible to receive an immigrant visa and is admissible
to the United States for permanent residence,

3. and an immigrant visa is immediately available to him at the time his
application is filed.

Restricted aliens under Sec. 245.1(b)--8 CFR 245.1
Ineligible Aliens: 245.1(c)


8 CFR 245.1: Adjustment of Status to Person Admitted for Permanent Residence;
8 CFR 245.10: Adjustment of Status upon payment of additional $1000 fee under section 245(i);
Adjustment of status under section 245(i), as amended by the Legal Immigration Family Equity Act Amendments of 2000, JAN 26, 2001 INS memo;
Accepting Applications for Adjustment of Status Under Section 245(i), JUNE 10, 1999 INS MEMO
TEXT OF LAW-("LIFE"): Legal Immigration and Family Equity Act;
THE EXTENSION OF SECTION 245(i): FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (Provided by the American Immigration Lawyers Association) December 21, 2000;
INS Issues INTERIM FINAL REGULATION ON 245 (i), March 20, 2001;
DIEZ PREGUNTAS Y RESPUESTAS SOBRE LA NUEVA 245(i): American Immigration Lawyers Association, Jose Pertierra, Abogado Especializado en Casos de Inmigración;
NEW V VISA AND THE NEW K VISA RULES: January 12, 2000 Prepared by Prof. Allan Wernick;


8 CFR 245.1: The following categories of aliens are ineligible to apply for
adjustment of status to that of a lawful permanent resident alien under
section 245 of the Act, unless the alien establishes eligibility under
the provisions of section 245(i) of the Act and § 245.10, is not
included in the categories of aliens prohibited from applying for
adjustment of status listed in § 245.1(c), is eligible to receive an
immigrant visa, and has an immigrant visa immediately available at the
time of filing the application for adjustment of status:

Foreign National Crewmen
Those who, at the time of arrival, were serving in any capacity on board
a vessel or aircraft or were destined to join a vessel or aircraft in
the United States to serve in such a capacity are barred from adjustment
of status.
Transits Without Visas ("TWOV")
Aliens who are in immediate and continuous transit through the United
States to a foreign destination, in accordance with the terms of an
agreement entered into between the transportation line and the INS, are
not eligible for adjustment of status.
Aliens Who Entered Under Visa Waivers
An alien (other than an immediate relative) who was admitted as a
nonimmigrant visitor without a visa under section 212(l) [visa waiver
for B-1/B-2 admission to Guam] or section 217 [visa waiver pilot
program] is barred from adjustment of status.
Unauthorized Employment, Unlawful Status or Failure to Maintain Status
Aliens who have engaged in unauthorized employment, who are not in
lawful status at the time of filing of the adjustment application or who
have failed to continuously maintain status since their entry into the
United States are barred from adjustment of status. However, this
statutory bar does not apply to immediate relatives of United States
citizens or certain special immigrants.
Without Section 245(i), most persons who entered the U.S. without
inspection, overstayed an admission, acted in violation of the terms of
their status, worked without authorization, entered as a crewman, or
were admitted in transit without a visa would not have been eligible to
adjust status in the U.S. If an individual is eligible for permanent
residence, but not eligible for adjustment of status, that person might
still obtain permanent residence by leaving the U.S. and completing the
process for an immigrant visa at a U.S. consulate abroad. However, if
that individual had been unlawfully present in the U.S. for more than
180 days, he or she would be barred from reentering the U.S. for at
least 3 years, and perhaps as long as 10 years if unlawful presence is
more than one year. Under Section 245(i), an eligible individual can
remain in the U.S. to obtain permanent residence through adjustment of
status, and thus never trigger these entry bars. (Once permanent
residence is obtained, these entry bars no longer apply.)

Section 245(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act become temporarily
available to illegal immigrants present in the United States on the date
of the enactment, December 21, 2000. Under the provision, a person
who--if it weren't for their illegal status--would qualify to immigrate
(such as the spouse of a US citizen), may adjust status after payment of
a $1000 fine is made, and providing the petition is “properly filedâ€

Doesn't this notice need to be published in several other languages to be non-discriminatory? If it is a secret publication, isn't it illegal?

This sounds like the brainchild of Anna Burger (VP SEIU, Secretary-- Change to Win) and weekly White House visitor Andy Stern (Pres, SEIU) Burger is a key Obama economic advisor. Eliseo Medina the #Tres Person in SEIU returned from Mexico in June following his visit with governmental leaders:

"10:05 AM Eastern - June 17, 2009
In Mexico, SEIU's Eliseo Medina Calls for Cross-Border Solutions to Fix Broken Immigration System
By Kate Thomas

This week, SEIU Executive VP Eliseo Medina is in Mexico City meeting with key legislators and labor leaders on the importance of working together to improve labor rights and economic opportunities for workers on both sides of the border. "In order to build an immigration system that puts an end to the senseless suffering of so many families on both sides of the border, labor, social and political organizations in both countries must work together to build comprehensive reforms that are just and humane," Medina remarked to El Universal during a press conference with key reporters in Mexico City. "

Somehow we need to protest to Schumer, et al, on the Senate Judiciary Committee that illegals and foreign citizens are calling Congress in total defiance of our right to sovereign debate, free of undeclared foreign influence. I am writing, to see if we can get some better testimonial before the Immigration Subcommittee. The deck has been heavily stacked in favor of Schumer's views.

From the all important economic standpoint, the immigration of huge groups from Latin America is neither beneficial to the US or to the people of those countries. Think family disintegration and further societal instability when parents leave to work in the US. Even the United Nations would agree with that. Our White House leadership has been seized by the deranged.

This was from numbersUSA in 2002....it does not sound to me like Obama can do this with out congress.




'Daschle Wants to Extend 245(i) Program Another Year'
By Pamela Barnett
CQ Daily
May 9, 2002
Senate Majority Leader Daschle announced today he would introduce legislation to extend the 245(i) immigration program for another year, with the new application deadline ending on April 30, 2003.

The 245(i) program enables eligible relatives of legal residents to pay a fine to remain in the United States while awaiting a green card. Unlike a comparable House bill that required individuals to have been married several months in advance of the filing deadline, Daschle said his bill would enable individuals to marry as late as April 29 and still apply for the program. Daschle said the formula should be "as simple as possible," adding, "We don't change the law.[only] the eligibility date."

Noting that most individuals seeking relief under the program have children who already are U.S. citizens, Daschle said, "In my view, it ensures we send as clear a message as possible - Democrats support family reunification." Notwithstanding past Republican resistance to extending the program, Daschle said he hoped for a vote on the measure before the session's end.

Senate Democrats most recently had to withdraw an attempt to attach a yearlong 245(i) extension to border security legislation, which was sent to the White House for President Bush's signature this week. Daschle has not settled on a legislative strategy for his new bill, but said it could be moved either as a freestanding bill or as an amendment to another bill - possibly, he said, to the FY03 Commerce-Justice-State appropriations bill, which the Senate has used previously as a vehicle last year for 245(i). Daschle said his first step was to "build support for the law and send the message that we've got to get this job done." Daschle said he would "be surprised if Republicans continue to resist something that needs to be addressed. This issue will not go away. [It] only gets more complicated."

Critics of the 245(i) program claim it encourages illegal immigration and represents a step towards institutionalizing illegal immigration. Asked for his views on the subject, Daschle said, "Legalization makes a lot of sense." -

http://www.numbersusa.com/text?ID=1096

Originally Posted by SOSADFORUS

This was from numbersUSA in 2002....it does not sound to me like Obama can do this with out congress.




'Daschle Wants to Extend 245(i) Program Another Year'
By Pamela Barnett
CQ Daily
May 9, 2002
Senate Majority Leader Daschle announced today he would introduce legislation to extend the 245(i) immigration program for another year, with the new application deadline ending on April 30, 2003.

The 245(i) program enables eligible relatives of legal residents to pay a fine to remain in the United States while awaiting a green card. Unlike a comparable House bill that required individuals to have been married several months in advance of the filing deadline, Daschle said his bill would enable individuals to marry as late as April 29 and still apply for the program. Daschle said the formula should be "as simple as possible," adding, "We don't change the law.[only] the eligibility date."

Noting that most individuals seeking relief under the program have children who already are U.S. citizens, Daschle said, "In my view, it ensures we send as clear a message as possible - Democrats support family reunification." Notwithstanding past Republican resistance to extending the program, Daschle said he hoped for a vote on the measure before the session's end.

Senate Democrats most recently had to withdraw an attempt to attach a yearlong 245(i) extension to border security legislation, which was sent to the White House for President Bush's signature this week. Daschle has not settled on a legislative strategy for his new bill, but said it could be moved either as a freestanding bill or as an amendment to another bill - possibly, he said, to the FY03 Commerce-Justice-State appropriations bill, which the Senate has used previously as a vehicle last year for 245(i). Daschle said his first step was to "build support for the law and send the message that we've got to get this job done." Daschle said he would "be surprised if Republicans continue to resist something that needs to be addressed. This issue will not go away. [It] only gets more complicated."

Critics of the 245(i) program claim it encourages illegal immigration and represents a step towards institutionalizing illegal immigration. Asked for his views on the subject, Daschle said, "Legalization makes a lot of sense." -

http://www.numbersusa.com/text?ID=1096

Given how ultra liberal this congress is, I find little comfort in it being in thier hands. I just have zero confidence in them listening to us...

This is not good and we can not let congress get away with this....educate yourself on this program in case and more than likely we will have to fight this mass amnesty!!


Ivan Yacub Immigration Law Blog on Lawyers.com

245(i) in 2009
Monday, January 12, 2009 by Ivan Yacub
This is an exciting year for immigrant advocates. The Obama administration won a historic and landmark victory, in large part with the Latino vote. The democrats possess a solid majority in both the House and the Senate. Thus, the issue is whether the new administration will enact immigration reform and what it will look like.

Advocates on both extremes of the political spectrum want to revamp the immigration system. Whereas the restrictionist movement believes that it is logical if not just to oust more than 12 million workers, irrespective of the effects that such mass deportation would have on families, local, regional and national economies, the immigrant advocates are seeking a comprehensive program to legalize the pool of undocumented workers.

Neither the mass deportation nor the outright legalization of an entire class of individuals is needed to make the immigration system work. Congress has repeatedly enacted with success INA Section 245(i). This is a middle of the road program between the extreme positions that eventually leads to the legalization of immigrant workers and/or family members and yet provides the level of fairness sought by the restrictionist movement.

It is important to demystify Section 245(i). The restrictionist have repeatedly called Section 245(i) an "amnesty" program that places unlawful workers ahead of the immigration lines. Properly understood, restrictionist believe that immigrants under the 245(i) program are permitted to obtain lawful permanent residency before immigrants waiting abroad.

The immigration system works on two basic principles - quotas and first to file. The quota system makes sense and there is no need to revamp it - although there is a need to increase the numer of visas allocated. It is logical give preference to a son or daughter of a United States citizen than to a sibling of a United States citizen. It is logical to prioritize immigrants with high levels of skills than unskilled labor. The quota system reflect the values of society.

Also the first to file system makes sense. If two immigrants want to arrive to the United States and the family of the first immigrant filed the petition years before the family of the second immigrant, common sense dictates that the first family must be reunited before the second one.

Section 245(i) does not change the quota or first to file common sense approach to immigration law. What Section 245(i) does do, however, is change how and where immigrants who are eligible to receive a visa will obtain lawful status.

Under the current system, once a visa is available, an immigrant who is in unlawful status must travel to his/her home country to obtain a visa. However, many immigrants who are in unlawful status cannot return to their countries because in 1996, Congress enacted the three and ten year bars. The three year bar applies to immigrants who reside in the United States unlawfully for more than six months and less than one year. The ten year bar applies to immigrants who reside in the United States unlawfully for more than one year.

Thus, if an immigrant is in unlawful status, either the three or ten year bar may be triggered. That means that if the immigrant travels abroad to obtain his/her lawful permanent residence, he/she will be stuck in his/her country for either three or ten years. Although the intent on creating the three and ten year bars was to compel immigrants to leave the country, the result was the opposite; because of the bars, immigrants stayed in the United States in unlawful status.

Section 245(i) ameliorates the harsh consequences of the three and ten year bars. By paying a hefty fine - currently 1,000 dollars - an immigrant may obtain lawful status in the United States without traveling and without triggering the three and ten year bars.

There are compelling policy reasons why 245(i) should be re enacted. First, by re enacting 245(i), immigrants who have waited for numerous years to obtain legal status will finally be able to obtain the reprieve they and their families seek. Second, by eliminating a shadow economy and creating and a class of lawful workers in the United States, US wages will increase, which will benefit US workers. Third, by enacting 245(i) the US Treasury will generate income not only from the filing fee of 1,000 dollars but also from the newly inserted immigrants into the marketplace. These immigrants will come from the shadows, file taxes and become part of an open economic society.

Section 245(i) should be in President Elect Obama's agenda in the first 100 days. It will be good for the families affected; it will benefit the US workers; and it will benefit the depleted US Treasury.


http://immigration.lawyers.com/blogs/ar ... -2009.html

Were I a qualified chicken-plucker illegally from Uzbekistan, could I get amnesty in this country to ply my expertise?

Originally Posted by vortex

Were I a qualified chicken-plucker illegally from Uzbekistan, could I get amnesty in this country to ply my expertise?

no doubt "vortex"

We need talk radio and cable shows like Lou Dobbs and Glen Beck to start calling 245i amnesty. 245i is full blown amnesty which will legalize illegal aliens during an economic recession with 9.5% unemployment and going higher.

245i = Amnesty SPREAD THE WORD!!!

I believe there have been a couple 245i legalization adjustments in the past. Yes, they did require Congress approval. I remember this because Ron Paul had voted on approval of two (I think it was two - an adjustment and extension) of these legalizations in the past.

IMO, something like this would be very difficult to pass at this time. However, as always, we must remain vigilant.