Family based immigration threatened as senate debates immigr

Last year, House proposals to make unlawful presence in the United States a felony brought demonstrators in substantial numbers to several major U.S. cities. This set the tone for the debate on immigration reform, hardening anti-immigrant positions but also giving support to broad based immigration reform. The Senate in contrast passed a fairly liberal package of immigration reform proposals. Now in 2007 House and Senate positions have reversed with a fairly liberal immigration reform bill in the House of Representatives and fairly restrictive proposals being debated in the Senate.

House Proposes Positive Broad Based Immigration Reform:

The House of Representatives under Democrat Guttierez and Republican representative Flake have drafted and submitted to the Immigration Subcommittee the Security Through Regularized Immigration and Vibrant Economy Act (STRIVE) which includes provisions for tougher enforcement of existing immigration laws, improvement of border control and security measures but also proposed relief in the form of an “H2C” worker visa program which would provide a path to citizenship, a significant increase for H-1b visas, re-distribution and re-capture of visa numbers for family based visa categories, an “earned legalization” program conferring conditional resident status to qualified undocumented immigrants, and a program to obtain legal permanent resident status and eventually citizenship. Legalization appears to be the positive catchword replacing “amnesty”. House Bill 1645, however, has not gone to floor of the House of Representatives and is expected to remain in Committee pending the passing of immigrant legislation by the Senate.

Senate Debates Restrictions on Family Based Visa Categories:

This year in an effort to garner sufficient Republican support of the immigration bill negotiations in closed door sessions, have focused on Republican Senator Jon Kyl and Whitehouse proposal to essentially eliminate family based immigration categories outside of children under age 21. Thereby eliminating visa categories for brothers, sisters, parents and children over the age of 21 of U.S. citizens. This has been described as an attempt to eliminate “chain migration” whereby one person is admitted on a “merit” or employment based application but results subsequent admission of multiple family members.

Advocates are Stepping In As Debate Reaches Floor of Senate:

Asian American advocacy groups are hotly contesting these proposals and it remains to be seen whether they will emerge as a Senate bill is prepared for review. Democratic Senate leader Harry Reid has reserved the floor of the Senate for the last two weeks of May to debate comprehensive immigration reform and the Senate bill will most likely be introduced at this time.

As always the future of immigration reform is uncertain and sensitive to a highly charged political climate. As always I will continue to monitor these developments through contacts with the Judiciary and Immigration Subcommittees as well as lobbyist organizations, and immigration advocacy groups. Although the public and the press perceive the immigration debate and future laws as affecting immigration from Mexico and South America, Asian immigrants represent as much as 30% of family based immigration and may be affected the most by recent proposals being discussed in the Senate.

Robert J. DuPont is the founding attorney for The Law Offices of Robert J. DuPont. Mr. DuPont graduated from Yale University and USC Law School. He is admitted to the California Supreme Court, Federal District Courts in the Central and Northern Districts of California, as well as the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Mr. DuPont has been a speaker at ILW, a leading immigration law publisher. He was the founder of the Immigration Law Committee with the Beverly Hills Bar Association. Mr. DuPont has risen to prominence with over a decade’s practice in the field of immigration law. He has brought cases to their successful conclusion before the EOIR, BIA, AAO, Federal District Court and 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

A similar version of this article may have been published in the Asian Journal.