Dear Readers:

I have just returned from the Global Immigration Conference in London that was co-sponsored by the International Bar Association, the American Immigration Lawyers Association and Britain’s Immigration Law Practitioners Association. I spoke at a panel comparing skilled worker immigration rules in several different countries.

I found it very helpful to compare notes with immigration lawyers in different countries regarding problems in their systems as well as areas of success. Most seemed to think their countries were getting it completely wrong. Most, like the US, seem to be in a state of constant flux.

A number of countries are moving or have moved to point systems to more objectively determine who should be eligible for a work visa. Reviews on these systems are mixed since how point values are determined involves serious judgment calls including how much discretion an immigration examiner will have in a given case.

The US is somewhat unique with its emphasis on quotas. Most of the other countries take the approach that the marketplace can decide how many immigrants are needed.

Many of our competitor nations design their systems with the goal of competing for the most desired workers with other nations and not as much with protecting domestic labor.

Some countries look at the salary paid to the worker as the primary factor in determining eligibility

I was left with the definite impression that the US has the world’s most complex immigration law framework. Our competitor countries have far fewer visa categories typically. I was amazed to learn, for example, that there are probably fewer than ten full time immigration lawyers in France, a country not that much smaller than the US. By comparison, there are 8,000 members of the American Immigration Lawyers Association.

In any case, it was exciting to discuss worldwide migration trends and how other countries approach similar questions regarding visa policy.

*****

I just received a phone call from a broadcast journalist asking for my opinion on Russell Crowe, the Australian movie actor, who pleaded this afternoon a misdemeanor assault charge in New York. I had indicated in a column several months back that the original charge was enough to cause Mr. Crowe serious immigration woes. But it looks like the actor had decent immigration counsel from what I can make of the plea agreement. The actor was given a conditional discharge and not given a suspended sentence, a critical difference in avoiding being saddled with an aggravated felony. The particular crime under which he pleaded – a third degree assault – is serious enough to have triggered removal since a one year jail term was possible (even if a judge suspends the sentence). Part of the discharge’s condition is that Crowe must stay out of trouble for the next year. Were he to have another run in with the law, it is more likely that he will face serious immigration problems.

*****

The House of Representatives passed last evening it’s budget cutting bill by a one vote margin. The Senate version of the same bill has major provisions relieving backlogs in the employment-based green card categories and the H-1B category. Over the next few weeks, both parties will need to agree on the language. We already are hearing about major opposition in the House so advocacy work will be needed if the measures are to survive. More on this to follow.

*****

As always, we remind readers that we're lawyers who make our living representing immigration clients and employers seeking to comply with immigration laws. We would love to discuss becoming your law firm. Just go to http://www.visalaw.com/intake.html to request an appointment or call us at 800-748-3819 or 901-682-6455.

Regards,

Greg Siskind