Random Post: get_results("SELECT ID,post_title,guid FROM $wpdb->posts WHERE post_status= \"publish\" ORDER BY RAND() LIMIT 1"); $p=$post[0]; echo ('' . $p->post_title . ''); ?>
RSS .92| RSS 2.0| ATOM 0.3
  • Home
  • About
  •  

    High court backs Arizona immigration law that punishes businesses – CNN.com

    May 26th, 2011

    High court backs Arizona immigration law that punishes businesses – CNN.com.

    Washington (CNN) — The Supreme Court has backed an Arizona law that punishes businesses hiring illegal immigrants, a law that opponents, including the Obama administration, say steps on traditional federal oversight over immigration matters.

    The 5-3 ruling Thursday is a victory for supporters of immigration reform on the state level.

    It was the first high court challenge to a variety of recent state laws cracking down on illegal immigrants, an issue that has become a political lightning rod.

    The outcome could serve as a judicial warmup for a separate high-profile challenge to a more controversial Arizona immigration reform law working its way through lower courts. That statute would, among other things, give local police a greater role in arresting suspected illegal immigrants.

    The hiring case turned on whether state law tramples on federal authority.

    “Arizona has taken the route least likely to cause tension with federal law,” wrote Chief Justice John Roberts. “It relies solely on the federal government’s own determination of who is an unauthorized alien, and it requires Arizona employers to use the federal government’s own system for checking employee status.”

    Arizona passed the Legal Arizona Workers Act in 2007, allowing the state to suspend the licenses of businesses that “intentionally or knowingly” violate work-eligibility verification requirements. Companies would be required under that law to use E-Verify, a federal database to check the documentation of current and prospective employees. That database had been created by Congress as a voluntary, discretionary resource.

    The U.S. Chamber of Commerce filed a lawsuit against the state, arguing that federal law prohibits Arizona and other states from making E-Verify use mandatory. The group was supported by a variety of civil rights and immigration rights groups. The state countered that its broad licensing authority gives it the right to monitor businesses within its jurisdiction.

    The Obama administration recommended a judicial review and sided with businesses and civil rights groups.

    A 1986 federal act significantly limited state power to separately regulate the hiring and employment of “unauthorized” workers. An exception was made for local “licensing and similar laws.” Under the law, employees are required to review documentation to confirm someone’s right to work in the United States, including checking the familiar I-9 immigration form. Civil and criminal penalties were strengthened, but businesses making a “good faith” effort to comply with I-9 procedures were generally immune from prosecution.

    Roberts, backed by his four conservative colleagues, said, “Arizona went the extra mile in ensuring that its law tracks (the federal law’s) provisions in all material aspects.”

    In dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor noted E-Verify is a voluntary program and said criticism that the federal government is not doing enough to enforce the law is irrelevant.

    “Permitting states to make use of E-Verify mandatory improperly puts states in the position of making decisions … that directly affect expenditure and depletion of federal resources,” she wrote. Justices Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg also dissented.

    Justice Elena Kagan did not participate in the case, since she had been the administration’s solicitor general last year when the case was being appealed to the high court.

    Gov. Jan Brewer had backed the law, saying in December when the case was argued, “The bottom line is that we believe that if the (federal) government isn’t going to do the job, then Arizona is going to do the job. We are faced with a crisis.”

    This case could serve as a bellwether to how the court will view a larger, more controversial state immigration law from Arizona. Much of that statute was tossed out by a federal judge in August and is pending at a federal appeals court. It would, among other things, give police authority to check a person’s immigration status if officers have a “reasonable suspicion” that the individual is in the country illegally.

    The hiring case is Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting (09-115).


    Obama playing games with immigration – CNN.com

    May 12th, 2011

    Obama playing games with immigration – CNN.com.

    San Diego, California (CNN) — In August 2005, as part of a public arts project, David Smith — aka “The Human Cannonball” — was fired out of a cannon across the border from Tijuana, Mexico, to San Diego. He was caught in a net 150 feet from the border, and he had his passport in hand just in case he had to show it to the U.S. Border Patrol.

    For several years, that was considered the best show ever to visit the border. Not anymore.

    This week, President Obama — who has already declared that he is running for re-election — kicked off his 2012 Latino outreach effort by traveling to the U.S.-Mexico border at El Paso, Texas, and delivering a speech on immigration.

    This wasn’t easy. Finding the border can be tricky when it is your first visit in the 26 months since becoming president.

    Besides, immigration isn’t Obama’s favorite topic. You remember that subject in high school that you hated, because, well, you had no interest in it and so you weren’t good at it?

    For Barack Obama, that subject is immigration. He’s terrible at it. He doesn’t seem to understand it. And he doesn’t appear to care about it. So he settles for using it as a political tool.

    There is a sizable community of immigrants — legal and illegal — in Illinois. Yet, during his stint in the state Senate, Obama demonstrated little interest in the issue and proposed no bills specifically aimed at immigrants.

    When Obama ascended to the U.S. Senate, he voted for a so-called “poison pill” amendment to a comprehensive immigration reform bill that would “sunset” a proposed guest worker program after five years. All of this was to please organized labor, but it doomed the compromise.

    After becoming president, Obama broke his promise to Latino voters to make immigration reform a top priority and address it early in his administration. Then he added injury to insult by racking up a record number of deportations — nearly 800,000 in his first two years in office. The Department of Homeland Security deports about 1,000 people a day.

    We know this because, in a futile attempt to convince Obama’s critics that he’s tough on border security, DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano brags about those figures in speeches and before Congress like a proud fisherman posing for a photo while holding the catch of the day.

    And how do you get to the point where you’re deporting more illegal immigrants than any U.S. president since Dwight D. Eisenhower launched “Operation Wetback” in 1954? You use local police as a force multiplier, letting municipalities enforce immigration law and deliver to you the apprehended immigrants — while you’re suing the state of Arizona for doing the same thing.

    All of which brings us to that speech on the border. This would have been a good opportunity to apologize for his administration’s excesses, and maybe announce a new policy that — while still tough — is fairer and more humane.

    But that’s not Obama’s style. He approaches a speech like this as an opportunity to make himself look good and his opponents look bad. Some of the content was terrific; some was farcical. Overall, the president’s speech was menudo (Mexican stew). It had a little of everything mixed in.

    On the positive side, you had uplifting stories like that of Dr. Jose Hernandez, the son of immigrant farm workers, who grew up picking vegetables in Central California and became an astronaut. There was common sense about how idiotic it is for our country to educate foreign students, then send them home because we make it so difficult for them to stay. There was the heartwarming assurance that people could be proud of their heritage and still love the United States of America.

    But, on the negative side, this was a political speech. And so it was full of deceptions and half-truths, finger-pointing and the ducking of responsibility.

    We learned that it was Republicans who demanded the building of border fencing. (True, but Obama left out the part about how he voted for it in the Senate.)

    We learned that, while in the Senate, Obama helped forge “a bipartisan coalition” to advance immigration reform. (Actually, Obama undermined that coalition when he helped torpedo immigration reform.)

    We learned that Republicans killed the DREAM Act. (They didn’t. Five Senate Democrats did — Jon Tester, Max Baucus, Mark Pryor, Kay Hagan, and Ben Nelson — when they bolted from party leaders and voted against cloture.)

    We learned that the administration focuses on deporting “criminal aliens.” (It’s true that — through initiatives like Secure Communities, a cooperative agreement between local law enforcement and federal immigration officials — the number of criminal aliens being deported is way up from the previous administration. But even so, according to Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the total number of criminal aliens apprehended is less than 200,000. That still leaves hundreds of thousands of “noncriminal” deportations. In fact, Obama admitted in his remarks that those subject to removal include “families that are just trying to earn a living or bright, eager students or decent people with the best of intentions.”)

    And finally, we learned that Obama thinks the United States shouldn’t be “in the business of separating families.” (Guess what? That is exactly the business we’re in. The Obama administration, for purely political reasons, separates hundreds of families every day.)

    Are we done now? Enough gamesmanship, Mr. President. How about some leadership? You’ve shown you can get out in front of issues you care about. Try caring more about this one.

    President Obama went to the border this week to share his usual campaign message of hope and change. He wound up spreading fertilizer.


    Obama Pressures GOP on Immigration – WSJ.com

    May 11th, 2011

    Obama Pressures GOP on Immigration – WSJ.com.

    EL PASO, Texas—President Barack Obama on Tuesday tried a new tack on immigration, saying that beefed-up security along the U.S.-Mexico border has proved effective enough that it should draw Republican support for an overhaul of the nation’s naturalization system.

    U.S. President Barack Obama is seeking immigration reform as a means to strengthen the nation’s middle class, calling the reform ‘an economic imperative’. Image courtesy of Reuters.

    Mr. Obama said his administration had met the concerns of Republicans by increasing law-enforcement manpower to record levels and installing new surveillance technology and fencing.

    “We have strengthened border security beyond what many believed was possible,” he said at the Chamizal National Memorial, as a giant Mexican flag waved across the Rio Grande river.

    The president cited several statistics to back up his assertion of tightened borders, including a nearly 40% decrease in arrests at the border, to about 463,000 in 2010. The administration says that is a sign that fewer people are attempting to illegally cross from Mexico.

    Mr. Obama didn’t mention that deportations hit record levels last year—a trend that has drawn fire from some Hispanic advocates.

    The speech was aimed in part at reassuring voters who are worried about border security, and in part at renewing support among Hispanic voters he needs to boost his re-election campaign, particularly in Rocky Mountain states.

    He offered no new policy proposals Tuesday, and set no timetable for legislation. Instead, he called for those who support his proposals to build pressure for congressional action from outside Washington.

    The president said the new border-control measures will prevent another wave of illegal immigrants from flowing into the country if those already here are allowed to stay.

    Some prominent unions including the AFL-CIO have opposed immigration legislation in the past, concerned that new arrivals would pose competition for their members. Senators trying to craft an overhaul have said one of the obstacles has been coming up with a guest-worker program unions and business can support.

    Mr. Obama’s legislative goals haven’t changed since he spoke on immigration last summer, including a path to citizenship for the 10.8 million people already in the U.S. illegally, a program many Republicans oppose as a reward for lawbreaking. Mr. Obama also supports a guest-worker program and making it easier for foreign students educated in the U.S. to stay.

    There is virtually no GOP support in Congress for the legislation Mr. Obama wants, though some Republicans have embraced these ideas in the past.

    Mr. Obama predicted that no matter what he does, some Republican foes of his approach will demand more. “Maybe they’ll need a moat,” he said. “Maybe they’ll want alligators in the moat.”

    Arizona Republican Sens. John McCain and Jon Kyl have crafted a $4 billion, 10-point plan that calls for double fencing where there is now single fencing and another 5,000 Border Patrol agents, on top of the 20,700 now in place.

    “We hear from our constituents on a daily basis, and, while some progress has been made in some areas, they do not believe the border is secure,” Messrs. McCain and Kyl said in a statement Tuesday.

    They also pointed to a Government Accountability Office report that found the U.S. has “operational control” of 44% of the Southwest border with Mexico, meaning it has the ability to detect, respond and interdict illegal activity.The administration says that isn’t a good measure and officials are working on a better one.

    Republicans face pressure within their party to keep the focus on tougher immigration enforcement. But some GOP leaders say the party also needs to improve its standing with Hispanics, the fastest-growing voter group in the U.S.

    But the president faces skepticism even from supporters heading into this latest push.

    “The moment to use pressure is gone. You missed it. The train left the station,” said Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D., Ill.). “I want to be honest with my constituents and with the American people. I don’t want to rev them up for something that doesn’t have any possibilities of success.”


    Immigration Pressure on Obama Intensifies – NYTimes.com

    April 22nd, 2011

    Immigration Pressure on Obama Intensifies – NYTimes.com.

    With prospects for an immigration overhaul looking dim, President Obama is facing increasing pressure from Latinos, Democratic lawmakers and immigrant groups to use his executive powers to offer relief from deportation to broad groups of illegal immigrants.

    The Rev. Al Sharpton, left; Councilman Eric Garcetti of Los Angeles; Charles Ramsey, Philadelphia’s police chief; and William J. Bratton, former Los Angeles police chief, at the White House.

    Demands for immediate action by Mr. Obama to slow the pace of the immigration crackdown in Latino communities have not eased since a White House meeting on Tuesday in which the president gathered political, business and religious leaders to brainstorm about how to revive the overhaul legislation, which is stalled in Congress.

    Latinos and Democrats praised Mr. Obama for trying to jump-start efforts to pass the bill, which would grant legal status to millions of illegal immigrants. But with many leaders of the Republican majority in the House of Representatives strongly opposed to the measure, the bill’s supporters remain skeptical that it will go anywhere before the presidential election next year.

    They are calling on Mr. Obama to use authorities they say he already has under current immigration law to defer deportations of illegal immigrant students who would be eligible for legal status under a bill known as the Dream Act.

    “We know that immigration reform is doable, but it is just rather difficult given the makeup of Congress,” said Representative Charlie Gonzalez, Democrat of Texas, who is chairman of the Hispanic Caucus in the House. “We are asking the president if he could provide some sort of relief to innocent people who are the most impacted by the inequities of the immigration system.”

    Religious and civil rights groups have asked Mr. Obama to expand waivers that would make it easier for illegal immigrants who are immediate relatives of American citizens to fix their legal status without having to leave the United States.

    Senator John Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts, and 11 other lawmakers sent a letter asking the Obama administration to postpone deportations of immigrants in same-sex marriages with American citizens. The administration recently decided that it would no longer defend in the courts a law barring the federal government from recognizing those marriages.

    Some Hispanic lawmakers, in the most ambitious demands, have said the president should halt deportations of illegal immigrants whose children are American citizens. An estimated four million young citizens have at least one parent who is an illegal immigrant.

    Democrats are leaning on the White House as they look to the elections next year, when Latino voters could play pivotal roles in several crucial states. Under the Obama administration, immigration authorities have carried out record numbers of deportations, with nearly 400,000 immigrants removed in each of the last two years. The deportations are drawing increasingly irate protests from Latino communities.

    But Republicans in Congress say the administration has not done enough to remove illegal immigrants, and they oppose any action by Mr. Obama that would offer what they call a “stealth amnesty.”

    Mr. Obama “should not selectively enforce the law,” said Elton Gallegly, Republican of California, who is chairman of the House Judiciary immigration subcommittee. “Amnesty — whether universal or selective — only encourages illegal immigration.”

    Administration officials said Mr. Obama had rejected any move that would appear to circumvent Congress, which could alienate the handful of Republicans who might be persuaded to join an effort to pass the overhaul legislation. The president told the White House meeting on Tuesday that he did not believe there were any shortcuts he could use to help illegal immigrants.

    “At the end of the day, the president cannot fix administratively what is broken in the immigration system,” said a senior White House official, who was not authorized to speak publicly on the issue. The official said the White House had made a strategic decision to focus all its efforts on passing the overhaul rather than acting unilaterally to make smaller changes.

    Mr. Obama first rejected executive action to suspend deportations during a town-hall-style meeting broadcast in late March on Univision, the Spanish-language television network.

    But calls for him to change his mind have only multiplied since then. In a letter on April 13, the top two Democrats in the Senate, Harry Reid of Nevada and Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, and 20 other Democrats sent a letter asking the president to defer deportations of illegal immigrant students. The Dream Act bill passed the House but failed in the Senate last year.

    Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa, denounced the Democrats’ letter in a speech on the floor. “I’m just appalled that members of this body think an executive order to grant amnesty behind our backs is not an assault on the democratic process,” Mr. Grassley said.

    Acting case by case, the immigration authorities suspended deportations of 34,448 immigrants last year, according to figures sent to Mr. Grassley by the Department of Homeland Security.

    Representative Luis V. Gutierrez, Democrat of Illinois, a critic of the administration on immigration, is touring the country holding town-hall-style meetings in Latino communities to demand the suspension of deportation for hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants.


    The Real Price of Sealing the Border – WSJ.com

    April 8th, 2011

    James W. Ziglar and Edward Alden: The Real Price of Sealing the Border – WSJ.com.

    It took a budget crisis of unprecedented proportions, but the U.S. Congress is finally starting to ask some tough questions about what it’s getting for the billions of dollars that have been spent on securing the borders against illegal entry.

    The immigration enforcement budget has more than tripled over the past decade, but only recently have some in Congress finally begun to demand a better accounting of the results. In a series of hearings, both Republicans and Democrats who oversee homeland security have sharply criticized the administration over its failure to state clear objectives and measure the outcomes.

    The effort is long overdue. Congress and the administration have never defined “border security,” have never spelled out how much immigration enforcement is “enough,” and have not tried to bring immigration laws into line with the resources available for enforcement and the needs of our economy.

    Here’s a place to start. The U.S. government already has a rough idea what it would take to meet all the immigration mandates established by Congress, and the numbers are staggering. In 2002, one of us (Mr. Ziglar) initiated an unprecedented analysis of the massive, inconsistent patchwork of mandates imposed on the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) by Congress. Mr. Ziglar testified publicly on the conclusions of that study before the 9/11 Commission, but its findings have never been widely disseminated.

    At the time of the study, total INS funding was approximately $6 billion. The study concluded that, by 2010, the INS budget would need to increase at least seven-fold, to more than $46 billion, to meet congressional mandates.

    There was not the slightest chance then, nor is there now, that the U.S. will devote that much money to immigration enforcement. The enforcement budget is now more than $17 billion, and congressional immigration mandates have only increased since 2002. In just one of the key metrics is the government even close to reaching the targets suggested by the study — the number of Border Patrol agents, which is currently just under 21,000, double the level of five years ago.

    Realistically, there will be little additional money for immigration enforcement. President Obama’s 2012 budget proposal freezes Department of Homeland Security expenditures. House Republicans, for whom rising deficits apparently pose a bigger threat than illegal immigration, have called for deep cuts to the DHS budget, a proposal that Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano called “an experience in whiplash” after years of large budget increases.

    Even if additional funds were somehow appropriated, the notion that current immigration laws could be fully enforced if only we had more money and determination is simply wrong-headed. It is not enough, as Sen. John McCain and some others keep insisting, that the border be “secured” before any other action is taken.

    What is needed now is a more serious examination of priorities and trade-offs. The number of illegal crossings on the Mexican border is down at least 70% from its peak in 2000. Is this enough security? If not, how much more is needed, and what is Congress willing to pay for it? In terms of discouraging illegal immigration, how does a dollar in additional Border Patrol spending compare with an extra dollar on workplace enforcement? There has been little good research that would help members of Congress answer that question.

    What’s needed is to reform our immigration system so that it doesn’t encourage illegal immigration. This requires reforming the laws on legal immigration rather than just the enforcement components. A realistic, flexible visa program that matched available workers to open jobs in both boom times and bust would reduce much of the pressure on limited enforcement resources at the border and in the workplace.

    What about legalizing those here illegally? Using and misusing the loaded term “amnesty,” opponents have shut down consideration of any program that could deal with this question realistically. Such opposition has even blocked the Dream Act, which would have given legal status to about 800,000 children brought to this country by their parents, who few in Congress actually want to see deported.

    The Obama administration has been pilloried for focusing on the deportation of illegal immigrants with criminal records rather than indiscriminately hunting down every immigration violator. But a sensible legalization program would bring enforcement resources more in line with reality and restore integrity to the laws by increasing the odds that law-breakers will be identified, apprehended and deported.

    Few, if any, government agencies outside the immigration services have been allowed to operate for so long under legal mandates so utterly disconnected from their resources and capabilities.

    It’s a good first step that members of Congress have begun sensible discussions over what types of enforcement measures may be most needed, and how much the country should be willing to spend. It’s time for all sides to work together to figure out what measures will yield effective and cost-efficient solutions both to our immigration problem and to our needs for high-skilled and low-skilled labor.


    US back to denying same sex couple visas – WSJ.com

    March 31st, 2011

    US back to denying same sex couple visas – WSJ.com.

    WASHINGTON — After a brief reprieve, U.S. immigration authorities are once again denying applications for immigration benefits for same-sex couples following a legal review.

    Chris Bentley, a spokesman for the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services agency, said Wednesday that after a review by lawyers from the Homeland Security Department, it was concluded that a law prohibiting the government from recognizing same sex marriages must be followed, despite the Obama administration’s decision to stop defending the constitutionality of the law in court.

    The law, the Defense of Marriage Act, defines marriage as being between a man and a woman.

    Earlier this week, USCIS announced that applications from foreigners married to a U.S. citizen of the same sex would be held in “abeyance” while the legal review proceeded. Bentley said Tuesday that the temporary hold on application decisions was not a change in policy.

    In February, Attorney General Eric Holder announcement that the government would no longer defend the law, which gay rights activists have said is discriminatory.

    Bob Deasy, of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, said the latest ruling is a “disappointment.”

    “The administration has the authority to put these cases on hold” while the fate of the marriage law is decided in court, he said.

    Holder’s announcement appears to have already had an impact on at least one immigration case.

    Earlier this month a New York-based immigration judge decided to postpone a deportation order against an Argentine lesbian married to a U.S. citizen.

    Following the ruling to adjourn the case until December, Monica Alcota’s lawyer, Noemi Masliah, praised the judge’s decision.

    “The right thing to do, and this judge did do the right thing, is to adjourn this case and see what happens down the road,” Masliah said. “Given that the law is so up in the air … it’s hard to enforce at this point in a negative way.”

    Wednesday’s announcement did not have any immediate impact on Alcota’s case.


    Immigration Officials Try to Clarify Position on Gay Marriage – NYTimes.com

    March 30th, 2011

    Immigration Officials Try to Clarify Position on Gay Marriage – NYTimes.com.

    An announcement by immigration officials in Washington on Monday that they were delaying decisions on some immigration cases involving gay couples led to a surge of expectations among gay advocates that the Obama administration had taken a small but significant step toward recognizing same-sex marriage.

    But on Tuesday, immigration officials moved swiftly to clarify their position and dampen those hopes, saying they have not made any policy changes that would provide an opening to gay couples. The episode added to the legal confusion that has followed the administration’s determination last month that the law that bars the federal government from recognizing gay marriages, the Defense of Marriage Act, is unconstitutional.

    In this case, the misunderstandings and soaring hopes arose from an effort in recent days by officials at Citizenship and Immigration Services, the federal agency that awards immigration status, to clarify their policy on granting permanent residency green cards to immigrants legally married to American citizens who are gay. While it is routine for American citizens in heterosexual couples to obtain green cards for their foreign spouses, the Defense of Marriage Act has barred such status for immigrants in same-sex marriages.

    That situation has long been a focus of criticism by gay rights groups, who argue that the law is particularly discriminatory against immigrants. “If you are in a bi-national couple that is heterosexual, you get to stay here and work here,” said Richard Socarides, a lawyer who is president of Equality Matters, a gay rights advocacy group. “If you are gay, you get deported.”

    In February, President Obama and Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. announced that the administration would no longer defend the Defense of Marriage Act in the courts, although it would continue to enforce the law, which was adopted in 1996, until it is changed by the courts or by Congress.

    The position has led to a host of dilemmas for federal agencies that continue to enforce the law. This month, Immigration Equality, a group that advocates for immigrants in gay couples, wrote to immigration officials urging them to suspend deportations of immigrants in same-sex marriages and suspend other cases involving gay couples until the courts render a final decision on the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act.

    The most recent crossed signals started at meetings last week between immigration lawyers and officials from Citizenship and Immigration Services. The officials said that some cases involving gay married couples had been suspended while the agency sought guidance from its lawyers about issues related to the marriage act.

    On Monday, Christopher S. Bentley, the chief spokesman for the immigration agency, confirmed in a statement that cases nationwide involving married gay couples had been suspended. What Mr. Bentley did not say was how long that hold might last and what issues the agency was seeking to clarify.

    But the elated reaction among gay advocates and couples was immediate. Describing Mr. Bentley’s statement as “a darn big deal,” Rachel B. Tiven, the executive director of Immigration Equality, called it “the first domino to fall” for gay American citizens with foreign spouses.

    Ms. Tiven said she understood that immigrants in married gay couples could now apply for green cards and instead of being automatically denied, their cases would be suspended until the courts decided the validity of the marriage act.

    Word also went out across the country. In Princeton, N.J., Josh Vandiver and Henry Velandia, in the middle of a public forum on immigration issues, embraced and cheered. They said they had heard from their immigration lawyer that the agency’s announcement might mean at least a temporary reprieve from deportation for Mr. Velandia.

    Mr. Vandiver, 29, is an American citizen and a political science graduate student at Princeton. He and Mr. Velandia, 27, who is from Venezuela, were married last August in Connecticut, one of the states that recognize same-sex marriages. Their application for a green card for Mr. Velandia was recently denied, and he is facing deportation as early as May.

    But on Tuesday, Mr. Bentley issued a new statement, saying that Citizenship and Immigration Services “has not implemented any change in policy and intends to follow the president’s directive to continue enforcing the law.”

    Mr. Bentley said the agency’s field offices had suspended cases for a short period, perhaps a week or two, while lawyers clarified a “narrow legal issue” concerning the marriage act. He said the agency would probably resume action on same-sex marriage cases in coming days and would continue to deny immigration status to foreigners based on those marriages.

    Immigration lawyers tried on Tuesday to sort out the meaning of the events.

    “We have to be very cautious,” said Lavi S. Soloway, a lawyer who represents Mr. Velandia and Mr. Vandiver. He said gay couples should continue to understand that “if they file for immigration status, they may be putting themselves at considerable risk of deportation.”

    Mr. Velandia, a dancer, formed a dance company in Princeton, HotSalsaHot, and teaches salsa classes there.

    Mr. Vandiver said he and Mr. Velandia do not see an alternative to living in the United States.

    “The prospect of Henry’s deportation is extremely frightening,” he said. “We are committed to staying together, but the world is really closed to us. We both think it’s dangerous to return to Venezuela as a same-sex married couple.”


    Little-Known Colleges Exploit Visa Loopholes to Make Millions Off Foreign Students – Global – The Chronicle of Higher Education

    March 25th, 2011

    Little-Known Colleges Exploit Visa Loopholes to Make Millions Off Foreign Students – Global – The Chronicle of Higher Education.

    Early on a Friday morning, four college students stand shivering in the parking lot of an office complex in Sterling, Va. The building itself is unremarkable, red brick and dark glass, but security cameras are bolted to the walls, cement posts line the perimeter, and coils of concertina wire surround the trash bins. This is a branch of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the investigative arm of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

    The students arrived more than an hour early for their appointment. They haven’t slept or eaten in two days, passing time instead by obsessively organizing their documents and drinking cup after cup of strong black tea. Their eyelids are at half- mast, their hands shoved in jacket pockets. They are all Indian, all from the city of Hyderabad, and all possibly in deep trouble.

    These students, like roughly 1,500 others from India, were enrolled at Tri-Valley University, a California institution that was raided by federal agents in January. The government seized property, threatened to deport students, and in legal filings called Tri-Valley a “sham university” that admitted and collected tuition from foreign students but didn’t require them to attend class. (The president of Tri-Valley, Susan Xiao-Ping Su, denies the charges.) Many students allegedly worked full-time, low-level retail jobs—in one case, at a 7-Eleven in New Jersey—that were passed off as career training so they could be employed while on student visas. The university listed 553 students as living in a single two-bedroom apartment near the college; in fact, students were spread out across the country, from Texas to Illinois to Maryland.

    As the students move inside and await their interview, a deliveryman wheels in a hand truck stacked with nine boxes of .44-caliber ammunition. On a table nearby rests a brochure titled “Targeting Terrorists,” which features the famous image of Mohammed Atta breezing through airport security. When an agent emerges and asks who is going to be first, the four students stare at the carpet. “Come on,” the agent says, trying to break the tension. “No one is going to beat you with a rubber hose.”

    The joke does not go over well.

    The raid on Tri-Valley received limited attention in the United States, but it was and remains a big story in India, where newspapers and television shows portray U.S. officials as callous, and oversight of the student-visa program as incompetent. After weeks of bad publicity, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton felt compelled to assure Indian officials that the situation would be resolved fairly. Meanwhile, immigration officials have pointed to the shuttering of Tri-Valley as proof of their vigilance.

    While these institutions are well-known among Indian students looking to work full time, they have managed to go mostly unnoticed in the United States. That anonymity is just fine with Daniel Ho, the owner of the University of Northern Virginia, an unaccredited college that has called itself the most popular American university for Indian students. Says Mr. Ho: “We don’t want people to know us.”

    Too Good to Be True

    Visitors to Tri-Valley University’s Web site are told of the “championship golf courses and fine vineyards” that surround the campus in Pleasanton, outside San Francisco, not to mention the “gentle hills” and “historical oaks.” Students will receive “fluent and skilful [sic] capability of practical application tool.” In a section listing reasons to attend Tri-Valley, supposedly the most frequent comment from students is “It seems too good to be true, but it is very TRUE!”

    According to immigration officials, Tri-Valley was too good to be true. The federal complaint against the university accuses Susan Xiao-Ping Su, Tri-Valley’s president and founder, of running a scheme that charged students tuition but didn’t make them attend class. In essence, the complaint says, Ms. Su was selling permission to live and work in the United States on student visas. Ms. Su denies this, and a number of former Tri-Valley students say they were taking classes and believed the university was legitimate.

    But even a cursory examination of Tri-Valley reveals problems. The Web site is rife with misspellings, creative grammar, and apparent untruths. It says, for example, that the university is accredited by the International Association of Bible Colleges and Seminaries, but an official there said Tri-Valley was never a member and that the association doesn’t offer accreditation. Purported faculty members who appear on Tri-Valley’s Web site say they never taught there. One of the four members of the university’s advisory board, Sung Hu, a professor of electrical engineering at San Francisco State University, say that while he accepted an invitation from Ms. Su to be an adviser years ago, the board had never met.

    How could such a transparently troubled institution become certified by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to enroll international students? As Tri-Valley officials discovered, loopholes and vague wording in the rules make it relatively easy for an upstart university to get approval.

    While it lacked accreditation, the university says that it met an alternative measure of quality: Its credits were accepted by three other accredited colleges. Federal officials did not find out until more than a year after it approved Tri-Valley in 2009 that two of those three colleges denied ever having had such agreements, the government’s lawsuit says. (Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials declined to comment on Tri-Valley’s certification, citing the open investigation.)

    Federal officials conducted a site visit at Tri-Valley to ensure that the college was real. But federal guidelines say the certification visit need take only two to three hours, and some educators called such appraisals, often conducted by contractors, superficial. What’s more, California lawmakers had allowed a law authorizing a state agency with oversight of for-profit colleges to expire, leaving no one on the ground to monitor Tri-Valley. On a site visit in 2008, federal officials found the college, housed in a pedestrian-looking office, had capacity for about 30 students. By the end of last year, Tri-Valley had enrolled 1,500, the complaint says.

    The university was able to absorb such a huge number of students, the complaint alleges, by granting them the right to take virtually all of their coursework online, despite a federal regulation that restricts foreign students from taking more than one online course at a time.

    The rush of Indian students to such a new college would have raised concerns among American consular officials in India if they had seen a flood of visa requests from admitted Tri-Valley students. But the university exploited a rule that allows students to gain admission to one college, secure a visa, then transfer to another without ever setting foot on the first campus. The Indian government found that only 100 students had been granted visas directly from U.S. Consulates in India to attend Tri-Valley.

    The chinks in the student-visa system reflect its unusual history. Following the attacks of September 11, 2001, the Student and Exchange Visitor Information System, designed to better track foreign students in the United States, was hastily approved as part of the USA Patriot Act. In creating Sevis, as it’s known, lawmakers adopted existing language in which accreditation had never been required for a school or college to admit foreign students, even though it is necessary to participate in other programs, like federal financial aid. The focus was—and still is—on keeping terrorists, not questionable colleges, out of the higher-education system.

    In recruiting Indian students, Tri-Valley discovered what others already knew: That India is ripe for exploiting Sevis loopholes, in part because of the sheer number of students there who want to come to the United States. Indians have also proved receptive to these pitches because, although the country has a burgeoning middle class, many of its students still need to work to afford an American university degree.

    Tri-Valley became very successful very quickly. The university was started with a $5,000 investment in 2008 and approved by the government to admit international students a year later. By 2010, it was bringing in more than $4-million, according to government estimates—though if Ms. Su’s claim of 5,000 students and alumni is accurate, the revenue may have been much higher. Ms. Su had upgraded her lifestyle in accordance with the university’s newfound affluence. She purchased a 6,384-square-foot house in December for $1.8-million and made the 15-minute drive to Tri-Valley’s headquarters in a Mercedes-Benz.

    Before she started the university, Ms. Su seemed like a young academic on the rise. In 2001, she earned a doctorate in mechanical engineering from the University of California at Berkeley, and she published articles in a number of peer-reviewed journals. On the Tri-Valley Web site, it’s explained that Ms. Su was “traumatized by a bright dream” in which God asked her to created “the 24 degree program,” symbolized by the 24 vertebrae of the human spine. She has not disguised her anger over the closing of the university, calling it “very dreadful” in an e-mail to The Chronicle and comparing the government’s actions to the destruction of the World Trade Center towers.

    One Degree of Separation

    Ms. Su may well have gotten the idea to start Tri-Valley from her former employer, Herguan University, where she worked as an adjunct faculty member. The two Silicon Valley colleges share many similarities: They are unaccredited, enroll mostly Indian students, and, until recently, allowed students to spend most of their time working outside California.

    For a college that says it enrolls about 450 students, the Sunnyvale campus of Herguan, housed in a large, two-story office building, feels eerily unoccupied. There are mazelike hallways of unused classrooms, very little furniture, and a library with mostly empty shelves. On a recent weekday evening, when most classes are supposed to be scheduled, a single class was being held.

    The college, which offers business and computer-science degrees, was founded on the principles of the Herguan Universe Theory, which seeks to explain the workings of the human body, the evolution of all living creatures, and the origin of the universe, according to the creator of the theory and the college’s president, Ying Qiu Wang. During an interview at the college, Mr. Wang held up a book with a galaxy on the cover and said that it contained the secrets of the universe and the keys to the college’s success. He also invited a reporter to become a Herguan student.

    The real key to Herguan’s success, however, lies in the same formula that made Tri-Valley so profitable. In 2008 the college was granted federal approval to accept foreign students. Like Tri-Valley, Herguan submitted to immigration authorities letters from three accredited colleges promising to accept its course credits. A Herguan official pointed to two colleges that accept its credits, Silicon Valley University and Northwestern Polytechnic University.

    But representatives at those colleges say they never wrote such a letter. And Mikhail Brodsky, president of Lincoln University, an accredited college in Oakland, said Herguan officials offered to write him a check in return for his college’s support. (Herguan officials did not respond to requests for comment on that accusation).

    Last semester, most Herguan students worked full-time jobs outside California while enrolled in online classes, according to Jerry Wang, Herguan’s chief executive. The arrangement would appear to violate a federal requirement that foreign students must be full-time students and may not take more than one online class per semester. But Mr. Wang said he considers students’ bosses temporary Herguan faculty members. When students work in New York, Virginia, and other states, they earn academic credit for what are technically considered on-campus internship classes, he explained.

    Four current or former Herguan employees said that failing students have routinely been given passing grades in exchange for paying extra money. In a July e-mail reviewed by The Chronicle, Mr. Wang allows one student living in Chicago to earn three credits in return for paying $225 and taking a single online test. Numerous follow up calls to Herguan administrators over several weeks were not returned.

    Herguan’s methods have drawn the attention of federal officials, who visited the campus in November. On December 1, Mr. Wang e-mailed all Herguan students to say they were required to move to California within a week and take in-person classes, or else the college would move to terminate their student visas. The message blamed the decision on widespread cheating by online Herguan students.

    The instructions were met with anger and disbelief. “It’s not possible for many of us to go to California in such short notice,” one student, Navaneetha Myaka, e-mailed her computer-science class. A week later, Mr. Wang apologized and offered students $500 if they came back for just six days of class. But the damage was done. Mr. Wang says a quarter of Herguan’s students have since transferred to other colleges.

    Some of them enrolled in International Technological University, just down the road from Herguan.

    The college opened in 1994 with the goal of becoming the largest university in the world. It had a rough start, losing its accreditation, nearly going bankrupt, and dwindling, by 2006, to a mere 18 students.

    Then officials hit upon on a new strategy: promising foreign students that they could work full-time jobs off-campus as soon as they arrived. They also offered existing students a $500 tuition rebate for each new student they referred. Business took off.

    The college gained a reputation in online forums used by Indian students as a good place to go to extend a student visa, or to get a job in lieu of obtaining an H-1B visa, which typically allows college-educated professionals to work in the United States for three years. Enrollment has since jumped to more than 1,500 students—94 percent from India—and the college has become very profitable. ITU’s provost, Gerald A. Cory, earned $445,832 in 2009, more than was earned by the provosts of Yale, Brown, or Berkeley.

    Many ITU students have an unusual schedule: They attend each class only three weekends per semester, all day Saturday and Sunday. That allows some of them to work full-time jobs in New York, Ohio, and other states and fly back to California when needed. They earn academic credit for the jobs, as well as the classes, and ITU considers them full-time students.

    Weekend-only students can gain valuable work skills that traditional colleges often ignore, says Mikel Duffy, the college’s associate vice president. He says college officials explained all this to federal investigators when they showed up unannounced late last year, shortly before they shut down Tri-Valley.

    The investigators seemed to leave satisfied, Mr. Duffy says, and ITU continues to thrive. On a recent day in February, scores of Indian students jostled for space at ITU’s registration desk, checks and paperwork in hand. Signed photos of former American presidents lined the walls. The prospective students were friendly but nervous; many of them were trying to transfer from Tri-Valley.

    Unlike Tri-Valley, Mr. Duffy explains, ITU, which offers mainly computer-science and M.B.A. programs, has never offered any online classes because it would be too easy to violate federal rules.

    But ITU’s own Web site mentioned an online M.B.A. course as recently as July 2008, and some students continue to take classes entirely online, according to interviews with professors, recruiters, and students.

    Tom Taylor, who teaches graduate-level business courses at the college, says some of his students have lived in other parts of the country and use a “cybercampus” to take tests and submit final projects. “I have had students outside California, but I hold them to high standards,” Mr. Taylor says.

    Mr. Duffy says students have, at times, mistaken ITU’s weekend classes for online classes, but that attendance is mandatory. In fact, in order to accommodate the college’s growth, he says, the campus is moving this month to a larger building in downtown San Jose, across the street from tech giant Adobe Systems.

    “It’s Silicon Valley,” Mr. Duffy says. “This is how start-ups are born.”

    $10-Million a Year

    More than 30 students are squeezed into a classroom at the University of Northern Virginia, located in a series of office buildings in the suburbs of Washington. Soft drinks have been provided, along with bags of chips, a bowl of salsa, and dozens of cupcakes. But the students, all of them Indian, aren’t interested in the snacks. They have heard about the federal raid at Tri-Valley and have one question: Will their university be next?

    In an attempt to reassure them, Northern Virginia’s chancellor, David V. Lee, explains how the university was extremely careful to follow regulations. He concedes that there had been trouble in the past. A recruiter working for the college in India was “throwing I-20′s up into the air and letting the wind blow them around,” Mr. Lee tells the students. He clarifies later that the recruiter was encouraging applicants to falsify the I-20 immigration documents so they could come to the United States. That recruiter, he says, was let go.

    The students seem unsatisfied, grilling officials on the details of the university’s compliance with immigration law. Their suspicions are understandable: Northern Virginia’s business model looks a lot like Tri-Valley’s.

    The heart of that model, according to Daniel Ho, its founder and the majority owner, is its ability to enroll foreign students in the United States. Nearly all of its students are here on visas, and the vast majority are from India. Like Tri-Valley, Northern Virginia has students who live in other states, some as far away as New York and Ohio, but university officials insist that, unlike Tri-Valley, those students—most of whom study computer science or business administration—commute regularly to Virginia to attend classes.

    Still, much of how the university operates remains unclear. When asked how many students it has, Mr. Lee answers “between 1,000 and 2,000.” According to Virginia government records, the university had 1,216 students this past fall, but that doesn’t take into account the thousands of students working toward Northern Virginia degrees overseas.

    How many other so-called partner institutions award University of Northern Virginia degrees? Mr. Lee says the number is four. Mr. Ho says it’s more than 20, though he doesn’t know the exact figure. He says the university graduates students everywhere in the world except for South America and Australia. They have, according to Mr. Ho, more than 2,000 students in China alone.

    “We are very big,” Mr. Ho says with understandable pride.

    Daniel Ho is an engaging, energetic presence who’s in his mid-50s but seems younger. He is also an entrepreneur with a hand in multiple businesses. Recently he sat down with a reporter in his corner office at UNVA, offering his guest lemon tea and imported pineapple pastries. Mr. Ho is knowledgeable about a range of foodstuffs, in part because he owns three grocery stores in the Washington metropolitan area. The headquarters of his grocery business, Super Q Mart International Food, is in the same building as the university.

    Until 2008, UNVA was accredited by the Accrediting Council for Independent Colleges and Schools, which is federally recognized. That accreditation was revoked, though neither the university nor the council would say why. The university now claims accreditation from the little-known American University Accreditation Council, which is not recognized by the Department of Education. The accreditor, however, has a professional-looking Web site featuring a photograph of new graduates, dressed in caps and gowns, holding their diplomas aloft in front of a billowing American flag. The site also has a photo of a modern office building, presumably its headquarters.

    But drive to the address on the contact page and instead you’ll find a bustling auto-body repair shop. That shop, it turns out, is owned by Gary Zhu, acting chairman of the board at UNVA. Reached at the Szechuan-style restaurant he also owns, Mr. Zhu said he’s never attended a board meeting held by American University Accreditation Council, though he did agree to serve on the board. When asked who runs the accreditor, he named Mr. Ho.

    Mr. Ho says that’s not true. When told that the electronic file containing the accreditor’s by-laws appears to have been created by him in July 2009, Mr. Ho acknowledges writing the by-laws but says that was the extent of his involvement. He says he hasn’t been in touch with his university’s accreditor in years and can’t name anyone who works there. He is surprised to learn that the headquarters was an auto-body repair shop.

    The university says that 357 foreign students are working while attending Northern Virginia; four of those students work in the accounting department at Mr. Ho’s grocery business. While he won’t say exactly how much his university earns, he hints that revenue is well above $10-million a year.

    “It is very profitable,” Mr. Ho says, leaning back in his chair. “Very profitable.”

    So who is regulating UNVA? In granting approval to admit international students, the federal government relies, in part, on an individual state’s certification that a college meets its requirements to operate.

    But even Mr. Ho admits that the agency in Virginia that oversees colleges is “not tough,” though he contends that California is even more lenient. Besides, according to Virginia officials, the state has no authority over the programs the university runs outside its borders. When asked if he could simply sell degrees overseas, Mr. Ho responds, “absolutely” but argues vigorously that he would never endanger his reputation by doing so.

    “I can sell degrees. I can sell diplomas. But I won’t,” he says. “Who’s going to supervise me, control me? Myself.”

    The Godfather of ‘Work Study’

    Zhi Zhang never planned to work at Wal-Mart. But when she first arrived at Lincoln University, in Oakland, Calif., to earn a master’s degree in business administration, she applied for every job she could find. At her first job, running a cash register at a Six Flags gift shop, most of her colleagues were high-school students. When a manager from Wal-Mart called, she jumped at the opportunity to get a reliable full-time job.

    Ms. Zhang had earned a bachelor’s degree in telecommunications engineering from Sun Yat-Sen University, ranked as one of the top colleges in China. She says she wanted to study and work in the United States to improve her career prospects when she returned to China, and she chose Lincoln because it was easy to gain admission and close to San Francisco.

    Ms. Zhang was unimpressed by Lincoln when she arrived. The college, unlike Tri-Valley, is accredited and holds regular classes. But it is a modest operation, offering a handful of mostly business degrees out of a former bank building in downtown Oakland. Open spaces have been converted to three floors of offices, classrooms, and a student center in the basement.

    “To be honest, the first day I saw the campus, I was thinking: Wow, even my primary school is bigger than that,” Ms. Zhang said.

    She spent her first months behind a Wal-Mart cash register in utter confusion. Her English was poor, she says, and the customers asked for items that don’t exist in China: spaghetti, cheese, and endless canned food. “Wal-Mart customers are not very patient, actually,” Ms. Zhang says. She remembers wandering down the aisles memorizing the names of obscure tinned meats. But after three months she was promoted to a customer-service manager.

    Ms. Zhang is authorized to work in the United States through Curricular Practical Training, the same program that Herguan, ITU, and other colleges use to allow foreign students to take off-campus jobs. The training was designed as a way to give students practical internship experience that is “integral” or “directly related” to their areas of study, according to federal regulations.

    Without such work authorization, educators say, foreign students wouldn’t be able to enroll in majors with hands-on requirements, like nursing, and could be at a disadvantage compared with their American peers in competing for résumé-burnishing internships.

    The federal government leaves it to colleges to determine what kind of training is integral to a student’s course of study and where they can work. Its main requirement is that students complete a full academic year before starting to work.

    Most accredited colleges interpret CPT quite narrowly, allowing it in only a small number of degree programs or with strict academic-adviser approval and supervision: Just 2 percent of Portland State University’s international students are currently authorized for Curricular Practical Training, and at Florida Atlantic University, a mere dozen students, out of a foreign-student body of 650, are approved to work this semester.

    While college officials worry that they could overstep the intentions of the CPT program, they don’t want to change the regulation to give U.S. Immigration more say.

    “Historically, the federal government doesn’t regulate curriculum, least of all the Department of Homeland Security,” says Victor C. Johnson, senior adviser for public policy at Nafsa: Association of International Educators. “Let’s fix other things first.”

    But the vagueness of the rule has opened the door to interpretations that few institutions say they would endorse. Tri-Valley and others allowed graduate students to begin working full-time jobs immediately. They also have very flexible definitions of relevant work experience. Lincoln officials say Ms. Zhang’s work at Wal-Mart gives her management experience related to her M.B.A. Tri-Valley approved its students to work at a dollar store and a tobacco shop. Herguan officials say it would be fine for a student to manage a convenience store.

    Curricular Practical Training has been an option for colleges for many years, but it has been only in the last few years that some colleges have built their business on the promise that students can work more than they go to class.

    How did institutions as far away as California and Virginia come up with such an idea roughly around the same time? They listened to Fred Brandenfels.

    A dozen years ago, Mr. Brandenfels, a retired lawyer in Oregon, was perusing student-visa regulations when he noticed that a handful of colleges offered CPT to graduate students from the get-go, making use of an exception to the rule that requires students to spend a year in college before they can work off-campus. The programs were in areas like nursing and teaching, and they required internships from the start of instruction.

    Mr. Brandenfels wondered if such “work mandatory” programs could apply to fields like computer science that are popular with foreign students interested in hands-on training. The answer, from the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service, which then oversaw student-visa issues, was yes.

    Mr. Brandenfels became a kind of godfather of CPT-mandatory institutions, counseling some dozen colleges on how to set up academic programs or courses in which work is required, mostly—following the dot-com bust—in business. His company, HTIR Work-Study USA, has advised the University of Northern Virginia. It also maintains a network of roughly 60 international recruiters and sends students—including a quarter of Lincoln’s student body—to colleges in return for a portion of their tuition.

    His students, he says, are carefully screened, serious about returning to their home countries, and wouldn’t have a chance at an American education without the extra money their internships provide.

    “We have the program everybody wants,” he says. “It’s like winning the lottery.”

    At the same time, Mr. Brandenfels calls HTIR “an international employment agency,” and its Web site lists jobs students have held, from an engineer at an information-technology company to sales associates at Baskin-Robbins, Best Buy, and Target. All are relevant to students’ degree programs, Mr. Brandenfels and his staff members say. Acceptable jobs for graduate business students include “anything that runs a business or has money exchanged,” says Carmen Slack, an HTIR employment coordinator.

    Many foreign students seem to agree. In more than a dozen interviews, students at these institutions say that an American degree, any American degree, will help them get a better job or earn a promotion back home. They say they choose these unaccredited colleges for their flexibility, their low cost, academic quality and because of the recommendations of other students from their home region. In online forums, students are more blunt: What they actually talk about is who will let them work “from Day 1.”

    ‘Ripe for Abuse’

    Homeland-security officials say they are not blind to the existence of other Tri-Valleys, although they wouldn’t comment on, or even confirm, current investigations. And they concede that regulations governing foreign-student employment are vulnerable to exploitation. “These areas are ripe for abuse,” says a top administrator with Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which monitors 10,300 schools and colleges that grant visa documents. “We look very closely.”

    Officials say that the agency is doing the best it can, given its resources and authority. An increase in Sevis fees—the system is entirely self-financed—will support the creation of a new enforcement unit focused solely on school and college violations and allow for the creation of a 60-person team of regionally based liaisons to act as contacts and more closely monitor colleges on the ground. Within the next couple of years, Homeland Security also hopes to roll out a new version of the Sevis database with greater data-tracking capabilities and fraud-detection features built in.

    Still, the agency has limited latitude to act, even when it knows of problems. For example, officials have no authority to sanction colleges like Tri-Valley that continue to admit students above the number they were authorized to take in. The department can’t even remove colleges from its list of certified institutions without going through a protracted withdrawal process—even when, as in Tri-Valley’s case, fraud charges have been brought against them.

    Such changes can be made only through a multiyear regulatory process—or through legislation. The Department of Homeland Security cannot lobby for legislative action and has not sought to require accreditation among Sevis participants. Indeed, the department has argued that such restrictions could harm small operators.

    A group of U.S. senators this month asked Homeland Security officials to visit colleges deemed high risk within the next year. Legislators were also outraged at violations found during earlier raids on English-language schools. But they haven’t changed the system.

    Without eliminating the loopholes that allowed Tri-Valley to thrive, such as the ambiguity in work rules and the ease with which students can transfer from legitimate institutions to shoddy ones, shuttering one questionable college does little to prevent another from simply springing up in its place, competing for students who, at the very least, are interested in a cheaper and easier route to an American degree and an American job.

    In some instances, government action may have exacerbated weaknesses. Until a few years ago, foreign students were required to spend a semester on the campus they first enrolled in before being allowed to transfer to another institution. But the Department of Homeland Security has changed those rules, allowing students to transfer immediately after securing their visas. Those students have become known among established colleges as “runners.”

    Chief among the system’s shortcomings, many argue, is the fact that institutions like Tri-Valley can receive certification at all.

    “That’s where the inherent flaw is,” says Ronald B. Cushing, director of international services at the University of Cincinnati. “What are we doing, closing down these institutions years later, when they shouldn’t have been allowed in the system in the first place?”

    Mr. Cushing and others say that only accredited colleges should be allowed to take in foreign students, or that certification should include a more-rigorous peer review, akin to accreditation. The retired police officers and FBI agents who conduct site visits, they say, aren’t equipped to assess an institution’s academic quality. But immigration officials have resisted efforts to require accreditation.

    Bad actors affect more than just the students they enroll. The closing of Tri-Valley has raised doubts in India about the quality and oversight of American higher education, and further closures could damage that reputation even more. Indian newspapers painted the Tri-Valley students as victims. After some were made to wear electronic-monitoring devices, headlines screamed, “We are being treated like dogs” and “Uncle Sam wants you to wear a radio collar.”

    If families in India—which sends nearly 105,000 students to the United States each year—lose faith in the system, that could affect all higher-education institutions in the United States, not just the unaccredited operators.

    The tensions are continuing to play out. When the four former Tri-Valley students were interrogated at the immigration office in Northern Virginia, federal agents seemed skeptical that they really were victims. They must have realized, one agent told them, that Tri-Valley wasn’t what it claimed. The students responded that Tri-Valley had approval from U.S. immigration services. How were they supposed to know it wasn’t operating within the bounds of the law if the government didn’t?

    After hours of questioning, one of the four was arrested and released on his own recognizance. He will have to appear in front of an immigration judge. After his release, the student seemed to be in shock, muttering that his life had been ruined. Once outside the building, he put his hand over his face and began to weep.

    As for the three other former Tri-Valley students, one will be attending the University of Northern Virginia. The other two are enrolled at nearby University of North America, located on the second floor of a Wachovia bank building.

    The university barely existed just a few months ago, with fewer than two dozen students. Now it may enroll as many as 75 former Tri-Valley students. It has three closet-size classrooms, a small computer lab, and a skeleton staff. The university has not applied for accreditation yet, though officials say they plan to soon.

    It has, however, already been approved to admit foreign students by the federal government.


    Immigrants in the Military

    March 24th, 2011

    The United States military is composed entirely of volunteers. While individuals are paid for their service, the decision join the military is entirely voluntary. The branches of the United States military include the Army, Air Force, Navy, Coast Guard and the Marines. In general each branch has different requirements for enlistment, but there are some standard requirements for all the branches. Only individuals who are U.S. citizens can become commissioned officers in the United States military. Those who are considered US citizens also include citizens of Puerto Rico, the Northern Marianas Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and the Republic of the Marshall Islands. Non-citizens are eligible to enlist in the military but can not be commissioned. A non-citizen that is eligible to join the military must meet certain requirements: (1) Have an Alien Registration Receipt Card (stamped I-94 or I-551 Green card/INS Form 1-551), (2) Have a bonafide residence established, and (3) Have established a record of the U.S. as their home. Some non-citizens from countries with a reputation of hostility towards the U.S. may also require a waiver. The federal government cannot petition on behalf of an illegal immigrant so that they can obtain legal status and be able to enlist in the military. In order for an immigrant to join the United States military, they must first go through the immigration process of the USCIS and then and then begin the enlisting process. Another requirement is that the Green Card and/or visa if the immigrant desiring to join the military must be valid for the entire period of their enlistment.

    Being a U.S. Citizen or legal immigrant of the United States is only one of the basic requirements to join the U.S. military. Applicants must also pass a physical exam. The military will take only those in relatively good health, but in certain cases the military may make some exceptions for some conditions and issue a waiver. In order to be considered for the military, applicants must obtain a minimum score on the ASVAB (Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery) test. Those entering any military branch must be a minimum of 17 years of age. However, at 17 the recruit is still considered a minor, so authorization of the recruit’s parents or guardian must be obtained. The maximum age limit varies depending on the specific branch so it is recommended to check with the recruiters. The number of dependents a potential military recruit has is also another factor that is considered by all military branches. As a general rule, the Department of Defense does not allow an applicant that has more than two dependents to enlist in any branch. The U.S. military considers dependents to be: spouses, unmarried children under 18, unmarried adopted children under 18, stepchildren under 18 who reside at their home, and a parent or other individual who obtains more than half of their income from the applicant. At times, the military branches can override this requirement and issue a waiver but it is something that is not done often. The military applicant must be able to show that they can meet their financial obligations for the waiver to be granted. For the most part, single parents are not allowed to join the military. The only exception is made by the Army National Guard and the State Adjutant General must grant the waiver.

    Applicants, including immigrants who wish to become part of the U.S. military, must meet minimal education requirements. The military branches usually require a high school diploma, but some exceptions are made. Each branch is only allowed to take a certain percentage of applicants without high school diplomas. However, this percentage is relatively small. In addition, those applicants without a high school diploma are required to score a minimum ASVAB score. Individuals who enlist in the military and are non-citizens, are limited to one service term. If non-citizens become U.S. citizens then they are permitted to reenlist. For an immigrant who joined the US. military, once they are in active duty status in the military, the process of going from a non-citizen to U.S. citizen can be expedited. It is important to note is that non-citizens, or immigrants, who enlist in the military will also have limited job choices. The Department of Defense (DOD) does not currently allow non-citizens in the military to take on job choices that require a security clearance. All branches of the U.S. military have slightly different requirements so check with the recruiters. With these considerations in mind, immigrants seeking to join the military are encouraged to speak with their local recruiter.


    Latest Ariz. immigration bills have tougher path – Yahoo! News

    February 25th, 2011

    Latest Ariz. immigration bills have tougher path – Yahoo! News.

     

     

    PHOENIX – Fatigue with the illegal immigration issue could stand in the way of new legislation being considered by Arizona lawmakers, including a sweeping bill championed by the same senator whose law last year prompted nationwide protests.

    The many provisions of Senate President Russell Pearce’s latest bill target education and other public services as well as activities ranging from hiring to driving.

    Pearce’s late-emerging bill and other proposals sponsored by fellow Republicans cleared a Senate committee dominated by conservatives late Tuesday. But two committee Republicans voted against Pearce’s bill, and a GOP senator who’s not on the committee said Wednesday that full Senate votes on the measures will be close.

    Minority Democrats regularly vote against most Republican hard-liners’ illegal immigration bills, “and there are other Republicans besides me that have concerns with them,” said Sen. John McComish of Phoenix. “We need a timeout on immigration bills.”

    Pearce drafted his bill Friday and introduced it Monday, past the normal deadline.

    “This was a very quick fix (at the) last minute to make sure that we did not ignore the voters of this state,” he said, referring to provisions that would tighten illegal immigration laws approved by voters in the last decade.

    However, Alessandra Soler Meetze, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona, said, “This bill is miles beyond SB1070 in terms of its potential to roll back the rights and fundamental freedoms of both citizens and non-citizens alike.”

    Opponents also said fallout would damage the state’s economy just as businesses are poised to regain lost ground. Passage of SB1070 last year touched off calls for boycotts and a national debate on whether states can enforce federal immigration laws. Key portions of the law have been put on hold by a court pending outcome of legal challenges.

    The Senate Appropriations Committee that narrowly endorsed Pearce’s latest bill on a 7-6 vote also approved others targeting automatic citizenship for U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants and requiring hospitals to report patients who cannot show they’re in the country legally.

    The measures now face a legal review and discussions by party caucuses before being considered by the full Senate. Passage would send them to the House.

    Two committee Republicans joined four Democrats in voting against Pearce’s bill.

    It would make it a state crime with a 30-day minimum jail sentence to drive a vehicle while in the country illegally, and Republican Rick Crandall of Mesa said a provision allowing forfeiture of vehicles driven by illegal immigrants could prompt car rental companies to demand proof of legal status from tourists and other visitors.

    “It’s the type of thing that completely undoes” a recently unveiled campaign to promote the state’s tourism industry, Crandall said.

    The measure allows for business licenses to be suspended if an employer doesn’t use the federal E-Verify system to check the work eligibility of new hires. Workers caught using a false identity to get a job would face mandatory six-month jail sentences.

    It also requires schools to collect information on the legal status of students and report them to law enforcement if their parents don’t provide the necessary documents or the documents appear false.

    Public universities and community colleges would be barred from admitting students who cannot demonstrate legal status.

    In housing, the bill requires public agencies to verify the immigration status of renters and to evict everyone living in a unit if one is found to be an illegal immigrant. For health care, the bill changes some of the document requirements for the state’s Medicaid program.

    The bill turns public officials into immigration officers and “launches an unprecedented attack on minorities and people of color,” said Jaime Farrant of the Border Action Network, an advisory group.

    But the Appropriations Committee chairman, Republican Sen. Andy Biggs, said the bill was a response “to economic and social costs that we face with the onslaught of illegal aliens in our state.”

    “We need to have the moral courage to deal with this issue when there is a vacuum at the federal level,” he said.

    Democrats said Republicans should be focused on the state’s ailing economy, not taking steps that would hurt it.

    “This is totally the wrong time for the leader of our Senate to throw our state into another state of chaos,” said Democratic Sen. Paula Aboud of Tucson.

    Sponsors of the automatic citizenship bill hope it will prompt a court interpretation on an element of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees citizenship to people born in the country and who are “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S.

    Bill proponents said the amendment shouldn’t apply to the children of illegal immigrants because such families don’t owe sole allegiance to the U.S.

    The committee also approved an accompanying proposal that would establish an interstate compact that defines who is a U.S. citizen and asks states to issue separate birth certificates for those who are citizens and those who are designated as not citizens.

    Similar proposals defining who would get automatic citizenship have been introduced in Indiana, Mississippi, Texas, Oklahoma and South Dakota. Backers expect another dozen states will take up the issue this year.

    The other bill originally barred nonemergency treatment without proof of legal status but was amended to only require hospitals to report patients who lack valid health insurance and who cannot show they’re in the country legally.

    Supporters said it still would help reduce health care costs and burdens on taxpayers. Critics said it could deter some people from seeking needed care.