First step? The border
November 9, 2009 by admin
Filed under Immigration
Cathy D. Christiansen asked:
Jerry Erickson
Published: July 1, 2009
The U.S. immigration system is “broken and needs fixing.” So confirms President Obama after meeting with Republican and Democratic leaders last Thursday. Although there is no consensus yet in terms of what a restructuring of the immigration system will include, the process has now begun in earnest to adopt a comprehensive plan. President Obama acknowledged that the broken immigration system is “one of the most critical issues” that our nation faces.
In his remarks following the meeting, President Obama said: “My administration is fully behind an effort to achieve comprehensive immigration reform. I have asked my Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, Secretary Janet Napolitano, to lead up a group that is going to be working with a leadership group from both the House and the Senate to start systematically working through these issues . . .”
One of the key issues that must be dealt with early in the immigration discussion concerns border security. At this point the American public is just not persuaded that the borders are secure. Until the borders are secured, it is unclear whether there are enough votes for the passage of comprehensive immigration reform. Senator Mel Martinez (R-Fla.) said “I think the votes in the Senate are a little dicey at the moment. I don’t think it can pass today.” Developing an intelligent plan that clearly articulates the steps to make the border more secure will go a long way in getting the necessary votes.
President Obama is clearly aware that the road ahead will be bumpy. In his statement he said: “We all know that comprehensive immigration reform is difficult. We know it’s a sensitive and politically volatile issue. One of the things that was said around the table is the American people still don’t have enough confidence that Congress and any administration is going to get serious about border security, and so they’re concerned that any immigration reform simply will be a short-term legalization of undocumented workers with no long-term solution with respect to future flows of illegal immigration.”
It seems that the president has hit the nail on the head. In order to come up with a meaningful immigration policy that will serve our nation long-term, the government must come up with a solution to secure the borders. Assuming this can be accomplished, then the many issues associated with immigration reform can be debated.
On the eve of last week’s bipartisan meeting with the president, Senator Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), who chairs the Senate’s main immigration subcommittee, offered that one of the ideas being considered is a requirement that all U.S. workers verify their identity through fingerprint or eye scan. As reported by The Washington Post, Schumer said that a national system to verify work authorization is necessary because Congress hasn’t cracked down hard enough on unscrupulous employers and illegal immigrants with fake documents. Schumer shows he gets the key issue when he says: “The American people will never accept immigration reform unless they truly believe their government is committed to ending future illegal immigration.” In a nutshell, that is the issue. Control the borders, and then fix the broken system.
There are approximately 12 million illegal immigrants in the U.S. Schumer expects legislation to be enacted that will secure the nation’s borders and require those here illegally to register with the government and “submit to a rigorous process to convert to legal status,” or face immediate deportation.
Done right, there is the opportunity to achieve some real long-lasting benefits here, not the least of which is the securing of our borders, having millions of non-tax paying people come out of the shadows and onto the tax rolls and developing a process to ensure that the work force is legitimate.
President Obama has conceded that “It’s going to require some heavy lifting; it’s going to require a victory of practicality and common sense and good policymaking over short term politics.” Here’s to the effort; let’s hope that all involved have the clarity and foresight to address the obvious first — securing our borders, and then the muscle to see through the remaining challenges.
The above information is provided for informational purposes only. The information should not be construed as legal advice and does not constitute an engagement of the Szabo, Zelnick & Erickson, P.C. law firm or establish an attorney-client relationship with any of its attorneys. An attorney-client relationship with our firm is only created by signing a written agreement with our firm.
Jerry Erickson
Published: July 1, 2009
The U.S. immigration system is “broken and needs fixing.” So confirms President Obama after meeting with Republican and Democratic leaders last Thursday. Although there is no consensus yet in terms of what a restructuring of the immigration system will include, the process has now begun in earnest to adopt a comprehensive plan. President Obama acknowledged that the broken immigration system is “one of the most critical issues” that our nation faces.
In his remarks following the meeting, President Obama said: “My administration is fully behind an effort to achieve comprehensive immigration reform. I have asked my Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, Secretary Janet Napolitano, to lead up a group that is going to be working with a leadership group from both the House and the Senate to start systematically working through these issues . . .”
One of the key issues that must be dealt with early in the immigration discussion concerns border security. At this point the American public is just not persuaded that the borders are secure. Until the borders are secured, it is unclear whether there are enough votes for the passage of comprehensive immigration reform. Senator Mel Martinez (R-Fla.) said “I think the votes in the Senate are a little dicey at the moment. I don’t think it can pass today.” Developing an intelligent plan that clearly articulates the steps to make the border more secure will go a long way in getting the necessary votes.
President Obama is clearly aware that the road ahead will be bumpy. In his statement he said: “We all know that comprehensive immigration reform is difficult. We know it’s a sensitive and politically volatile issue. One of the things that was said around the table is the American people still don’t have enough confidence that Congress and any administration is going to get serious about border security, and so they’re concerned that any immigration reform simply will be a short-term legalization of undocumented workers with no long-term solution with respect to future flows of illegal immigration.”
It seems that the president has hit the nail on the head. In order to come up with a meaningful immigration policy that will serve our nation long-term, the government must come up with a solution to secure the borders. Assuming this can be accomplished, then the many issues associated with immigration reform can be debated.
On the eve of last week’s bipartisan meeting with the president, Senator Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), who chairs the Senate’s main immigration subcommittee, offered that one of the ideas being considered is a requirement that all U.S. workers verify their identity through fingerprint or eye scan. As reported by The Washington Post, Schumer said that a national system to verify work authorization is necessary because Congress hasn’t cracked down hard enough on unscrupulous employers and illegal immigrants with fake documents. Schumer shows he gets the key issue when he says: “The American people will never accept immigration reform unless they truly believe their government is committed to ending future illegal immigration.” In a nutshell, that is the issue. Control the borders, and then fix the broken system.
There are approximately 12 million illegal immigrants in the U.S. Schumer expects legislation to be enacted that will secure the nation’s borders and require those here illegally to register with the government and “submit to a rigorous process to convert to legal status,” or face immediate deportation.
Done right, there is the opportunity to achieve some real long-lasting benefits here, not the least of which is the securing of our borders, having millions of non-tax paying people come out of the shadows and onto the tax rolls and developing a process to ensure that the work force is legitimate.
President Obama has conceded that “It’s going to require some heavy lifting; it’s going to require a victory of practicality and common sense and good policymaking over short term politics.” Here’s to the effort; let’s hope that all involved have the clarity and foresight to address the obvious first — securing our borders, and then the muscle to see through the remaining challenges.
The above information is provided for informational purposes only. The information should not be construed as legal advice and does not constitute an engagement of the Szabo, Zelnick & Erickson, P.C. law firm or establish an attorney-client relationship with any of its attorneys. An attorney-client relationship with our firm is only created by signing a written agreement with our firm.
Immigration and the health care debate
September 3, 2009 by admin
Filed under Immigration
Jerry Erickson asked:
Column: Immigration and the health care debate
Jerry Erickson
Published: September 2, 2009
You’ve likely read by now that immigration issues have become part of the national dialogue in the health care reform debate. The primary issue concerns who will benefit if a national plan is put in place. It’s not difficult to conclude that many health care reform advocates hoped that President Obama would deal with immigration first, and then tackle the equally explosive issue of national health care.
The reason is clear. Providing free medical care to illegal immigrants is just something that hasn’t won much support on Main Street. Without first resolving the immigration debate, many thought that health care reform could go down in flames because the public would simply not support illegal immigrants receiving free medical care. The solution: Pass reform laws that provide illegal immigrants with a lawful status and the health care concern becomes less of an issue.
However, as we’ve seen, it didn’t quite happen that way. The administration decided to roll up its sleeves and come out swinging on the health care issues first.
There has been some misunderstanding as to who will be afforded coverage if universal care is approved. In terms of proposed legislation, House bill, H.R. 3200, excludes from coverage those persons who are not legal residents of the United States. Section 246 of the bill provides:
“Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States.”
Congressman John Hall (D-NY) states on his Web site via, a “myths vs. facts” page, that the main healthcare bill in the House of Representatives specifically excludes illegal immigrants from coverage:
“MYTH: HR 3200 subsidizes health insurance for illegal aliens.
FACT: HR 3200 explicitly prohibits illegal aliens from receiving any Federal dollars to subsidize health insurance. ‘Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States,’ is the direct quote found in
Section 246. Section 242 also explicitly limits eligibility for subsidies to individuals who are lawfully present in the US. Some opponents are distorting a provision in this section that ensures that all of the income earned by members of a family is counted for the purpose of determining eligibility for subsidies, to falsely suggest that illegal aliens in a family would be eligible. This is a phony and a blatantly wrong reading of HR 3200.”
President Obama has also taken the opportunity to be clear in terms of who is going to benefit if health care reform is passed. The president has recently confirmed that it is not his administration’s intent to offer health care to illegal immigrants. During a recent interview as a guest on Michael Smerconish’s radio show last week, President Obama said:
“None of the bills that have been voted on in Congress, and none of the proposals coming out of the White House propose giving coverage to illegal immigrants — none of them,” he said. “That has never been on the table; nobody has discussed it. So everybody who is listening out there, when you start hearing that somehow this is all designed to provide health insurance to illegal immigrants, that is simply not true and has never been the case.”
The president also said during the Smerconish radio show that:
“I think there is a basic standard of decency where if somebody is in a death situation or a severe illness, that we’re going to provide them emergency care. But nobody has talked about providing health insurance to illegal immigrants. I want to make that absolutely clear.”
Immigration reform has yet to be taken up by the White House, but that fight is on the horizon. However, in the present health care debate, it is clear that illegal immigrants will not benefit from any health care reform that gains approval. This is one issue which should no longer cloud the health care debate.
Jerry Erickson is the managing partner of Szabo, Zelnick, & Erickson, P.C. (www.szelaw.com), in Woodbridge, Virginia. He is the senior attorney in the firm’s Business Immigration Section. He has practiced law for over 20 years and represents clients in numerous complex areas of immigration law. He can be reached at jerickson@szelaw.com or (703) 494-7171.
The above information is provided for informational purposes only. The information should not be construed as legal advice and does not constitute an engagement of the Szabo, Zelnick & Erickson, P.C. law firm or establish an attorney-client relationship with any of its attorneys. An attorney-client relationship with our firm is only created by signing a written agreement with our firm.
Column: Immigration and the health care debate
Jerry Erickson
Published: September 2, 2009
You’ve likely read by now that immigration issues have become part of the national dialogue in the health care reform debate. The primary issue concerns who will benefit if a national plan is put in place. It’s not difficult to conclude that many health care reform advocates hoped that President Obama would deal with immigration first, and then tackle the equally explosive issue of national health care.
The reason is clear. Providing free medical care to illegal immigrants is just something that hasn’t won much support on Main Street. Without first resolving the immigration debate, many thought that health care reform could go down in flames because the public would simply not support illegal immigrants receiving free medical care. The solution: Pass reform laws that provide illegal immigrants with a lawful status and the health care concern becomes less of an issue.
However, as we’ve seen, it didn’t quite happen that way. The administration decided to roll up its sleeves and come out swinging on the health care issues first.
There has been some misunderstanding as to who will be afforded coverage if universal care is approved. In terms of proposed legislation, House bill, H.R. 3200, excludes from coverage those persons who are not legal residents of the United States. Section 246 of the bill provides:
“Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States.”
Congressman John Hall (D-NY) states on his Web site via, a “myths vs. facts” page, that the main healthcare bill in the House of Representatives specifically excludes illegal immigrants from coverage:
“MYTH: HR 3200 subsidizes health insurance for illegal aliens.
FACT: HR 3200 explicitly prohibits illegal aliens from receiving any Federal dollars to subsidize health insurance. ‘Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States,’ is the direct quote found in
Section 246. Section 242 also explicitly limits eligibility for subsidies to individuals who are lawfully present in the US. Some opponents are distorting a provision in this section that ensures that all of the income earned by members of a family is counted for the purpose of determining eligibility for subsidies, to falsely suggest that illegal aliens in a family would be eligible. This is a phony and a blatantly wrong reading of HR 3200.”
President Obama has also taken the opportunity to be clear in terms of who is going to benefit if health care reform is passed. The president has recently confirmed that it is not his administration’s intent to offer health care to illegal immigrants. During a recent interview as a guest on Michael Smerconish’s radio show last week, President Obama said:
“None of the bills that have been voted on in Congress, and none of the proposals coming out of the White House propose giving coverage to illegal immigrants — none of them,” he said. “That has never been on the table; nobody has discussed it. So everybody who is listening out there, when you start hearing that somehow this is all designed to provide health insurance to illegal immigrants, that is simply not true and has never been the case.”
The president also said during the Smerconish radio show that:
“I think there is a basic standard of decency where if somebody is in a death situation or a severe illness, that we’re going to provide them emergency care. But nobody has talked about providing health insurance to illegal immigrants. I want to make that absolutely clear.”
Immigration reform has yet to be taken up by the White House, but that fight is on the horizon. However, in the present health care debate, it is clear that illegal immigrants will not benefit from any health care reform that gains approval. This is one issue which should no longer cloud the health care debate.
Jerry Erickson is the managing partner of Szabo, Zelnick, & Erickson, P.C. (www.szelaw.com), in Woodbridge, Virginia. He is the senior attorney in the firm’s Business Immigration Section. He has practiced law for over 20 years and represents clients in numerous complex areas of immigration law. He can be reached at jerickson@szelaw.com or (703) 494-7171.
The above information is provided for informational purposes only. The information should not be construed as legal advice and does not constitute an engagement of the Szabo, Zelnick & Erickson, P.C. law firm or establish an attorney-client relationship with any of its attorneys. An attorney-client relationship with our firm is only created by signing a written agreement with our firm.
The immigration solution: Get politicians to commit
May 12, 2009 by admin
Filed under Immigration
Jerry Erickson asked:
Jerry Erickson
Published: July 22, 2009
As the Obama administration begins to tackle the issues associated with immigration reform, it is undoubtedly searching for the keys to fixing our broken and neglected immigration system. The issues that we face are not all new and previous administrations have recognized the seriousness of finding and implementing a proper strategy. When President Clinton appointed Barbara Jordan to chair the U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform on Dec. 14, 1993, he understood that immigration was an issue that could no longer be ignored. In appointing Ms. Jordan, he said:
“I have chosen Barbara Jordan — one of the most well-respected people in America — to chair this commission because immigration is one of the most important and complex issues facing our country today.“
Ms. Jordan led what is referred to as the “Jordan Commission“… due in large part because of her efforts and her leadership on the commission. She passed away in January 1996 and the commission’s report, largely completed at the time of her death, was issued on Sept. 30, 1997. It’s important to note that this was a bipartisan group of nine members — four members chosen by the leadership from both the House and Senate, and the chairman being chosen by the president. Despite the differences in political loyalties among the group, the commission was unanimous in almost all of its policy
recommendations, with the exception of an 8-1 vote in favor of reducing the annual number associated with legal immigration.
Ms. Jordan also understood that the issues were tough. In testifying before Congress, she said:
“Our work has not been easy. Distinguishing fact from fiction has been almost impossible, because of what has become a highly emotional debate on immigration. We have heard contradictory testimony, shaky statistics, and a great deal of honest confusion regarding the impacts of immigration. Nevertheless, we have tried throughout to engage in what we believe is a systematic, nonpartisan effort to reach conclusions drawn from analysis of the best data available. The recommendations that I present today have been adopted unanimously.“
One of the commission’s most forward-thinking recommendations was to divide the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) into two separate divisions: one for enforcement and border patrol, and the other for immigration services, such as processing
visas and permanent resident applications. That idea, along with many others, were not acted upon initially and, in fact, little occurred after the report was issued in 1997. Again, having great ideas is only half the battle when it comes to immigration reform.
The recommendation to divide INS was finally embraced after the events of Sept. 11, 2001 and was ultimately implemented in March 2003. The strategy provided that all immigration functions would be in the hands of the newly formed Department of Homeland Security, but now the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) would be solely responsible for the adjudication of visa petitions, naturalization, asylum and refugee applications while the Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) and the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) would be responsible for border patrol,
detention, removal, intelligence, investigations and inspections.
The U.S. immigration policies are exceptionally complex and have long been considered too hot to handle. As a result, politicians have sidestepped the larger issues and have been unwilling to step up and be heard on the issues for fear of risking re-election.
Getting the support from the public will require that the immigration proposals makes sense and that there will be significant improvement in handling an issue that has long vexed political leaders. We will need our leaders to act in a nonpartisan way as they search for a solution and agree on a plan to implement same.
Our country is at its best when government functions in a nonpartisan fashion, truly seeking to do good for the country as a whole. There is no doubt in my mind that solutions to the immigration crisis can be developed. The bigger challenge will be finding politicians committed and willing to speak up and advocate implementation of the solutions.
Jerry Erickson is the managing partner of Szabo, Zelnick, & Erickson, P.C. (www.szelaw.com), in Woodbridge, Virginia. He is the senior attorney in the firm’s Business Immigration Section. He has practiced law for over 20 years and represents clients in numerous complex areas of immigration law. He can be reached at jerickson@szelaw.com or (703) 494-7171.
The above information is provided for informational purposes only. The information should not be construed as legal advice and does not constitute an engagement of the Szabo, Zelnick & Erickson, P.C. law firm or establish an attorney-client relationship with any of its attorneys. An attorney-client relationship with our firm is only created by signing a written agreement with our firm.
Jerry Erickson
Published: July 22, 2009
As the Obama administration begins to tackle the issues associated with immigration reform, it is undoubtedly searching for the keys to fixing our broken and neglected immigration system. The issues that we face are not all new and previous administrations have recognized the seriousness of finding and implementing a proper strategy. When President Clinton appointed Barbara Jordan to chair the U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform on Dec. 14, 1993, he understood that immigration was an issue that could no longer be ignored. In appointing Ms. Jordan, he said:
“I have chosen Barbara Jordan — one of the most well-respected people in America — to chair this commission because immigration is one of the most important and complex issues facing our country today.“
Ms. Jordan led what is referred to as the “Jordan Commission“… due in large part because of her efforts and her leadership on the commission. She passed away in January 1996 and the commission’s report, largely completed at the time of her death, was issued on Sept. 30, 1997. It’s important to note that this was a bipartisan group of nine members — four members chosen by the leadership from both the House and Senate, and the chairman being chosen by the president. Despite the differences in political loyalties among the group, the commission was unanimous in almost all of its policy
recommendations, with the exception of an 8-1 vote in favor of reducing the annual number associated with legal immigration.
Ms. Jordan also understood that the issues were tough. In testifying before Congress, she said:
“Our work has not been easy. Distinguishing fact from fiction has been almost impossible, because of what has become a highly emotional debate on immigration. We have heard contradictory testimony, shaky statistics, and a great deal of honest confusion regarding the impacts of immigration. Nevertheless, we have tried throughout to engage in what we believe is a systematic, nonpartisan effort to reach conclusions drawn from analysis of the best data available. The recommendations that I present today have been adopted unanimously.“
One of the commission’s most forward-thinking recommendations was to divide the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) into two separate divisions: one for enforcement and border patrol, and the other for immigration services, such as processing
visas and permanent resident applications. That idea, along with many others, were not acted upon initially and, in fact, little occurred after the report was issued in 1997. Again, having great ideas is only half the battle when it comes to immigration reform.
The recommendation to divide INS was finally embraced after the events of Sept. 11, 2001 and was ultimately implemented in March 2003. The strategy provided that all immigration functions would be in the hands of the newly formed Department of Homeland Security, but now the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) would be solely responsible for the adjudication of visa petitions, naturalization, asylum and refugee applications while the Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) and the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) would be responsible for border patrol,
detention, removal, intelligence, investigations and inspections.
The U.S. immigration policies are exceptionally complex and have long been considered too hot to handle. As a result, politicians have sidestepped the larger issues and have been unwilling to step up and be heard on the issues for fear of risking re-election.
Getting the support from the public will require that the immigration proposals makes sense and that there will be significant improvement in handling an issue that has long vexed political leaders. We will need our leaders to act in a nonpartisan way as they search for a solution and agree on a plan to implement same.
Our country is at its best when government functions in a nonpartisan fashion, truly seeking to do good for the country as a whole. There is no doubt in my mind that solutions to the immigration crisis can be developed. The bigger challenge will be finding politicians committed and willing to speak up and advocate implementation of the solutions.
Jerry Erickson is the managing partner of Szabo, Zelnick, & Erickson, P.C. (www.szelaw.com), in Woodbridge, Virginia. He is the senior attorney in the firm’s Business Immigration Section. He has practiced law for over 20 years and represents clients in numerous complex areas of immigration law. He can be reached at jerickson@szelaw.com or (703) 494-7171.
The above information is provided for informational purposes only. The information should not be construed as legal advice and does not constitute an engagement of the Szabo, Zelnick & Erickson, P.C. law firm or establish an attorney-client relationship with any of its attorneys. An attorney-client relationship with our firm is only created by signing a written agreement with our firm.
