< back
 
 
LEGISLATIVE UPDATE
Two major issues have been dominating the immigration legislative agenda over the last few weeks - restoration of welfare benefits to legal immigrants and extension of Section 245i of the Immigration and Nationality Act. 
Under the welfare reform bill passed last year by Congress, most need-based public benefits were statutorily made unavailable to legal immigrants, regardless of the fact that such immigrants paid taxes. As we reported last month, Congress and the President had agreed in principal to restore Supplemental Security Income ("SSI") to immigrants (SSI accounts for about 40% of the cut benefits). However, as is often the case, the politicians have not found agreement on the details so easy to reach. Much of the disagreement has focused on the question of whether legal immigrants would be entitled to SSI if they were merely here when the new welfare law went into effect last summer or whether they were here AND already disabled at that point. Fortunately, budget writers in late June found they had $1 billion extra to work with and were able to work into the budget a provision allowing all immigrants who were in the country when the bill was signed to remain eligible for SSI if they became disabled after the law went into effect. The provision was included in the bill being sent to the House-Senate Conference committee, but it is far from certain that the provision will be included in the final version.
The other major immigration issue being dealt with is the extension of Section 245i of the Immigration and Nationality Act. This provision allows someone otherwise eligible to adjust status to permanent residency in the US to do so even though the law normally would require him or her to process outside the country. In most cases, payment of a penalty fee of a $1000 will be adequate to take advantage of the provision. The Immigration and Naturalization Service has stated that Section 245i trumps the new three and ten year bars that will begin to kick in beginning September 27, 1997. These new bars prevent persons who are without lawful status in the US for more than 180 days from acquiring legal status again until they have departed the US for three years. If the person is without legal status for a year, they can be barred from reentering the US for ten years. One way to get around the bars is to adjust status to permanent residency in the US without leaving the country. But current law normally only allows one who has previously violated there status to adjust in the US by invoking Section 245i. So what's the problem? Section 245i is set to expire at the end of September, almost at the exact same time the new law begins affecting people. That's why there is a big push now taking place to convince Congress to extend Section 245i. 
We at Siskind's Immigration Bulletin strongly urge you to contact your Congressmen and Senators to ask that they support extending Sections 245i as a provision in the Commerce, Justice, State and Judiciary Appropriations or through other legislative means. You can reach the Congressional switchboard at 202-224-3121.
There are a number of strong arguments in favor of the extension. First, Section 245i produces a massive amount of revenue for the government. It annually generates between $100 million and $200 million. The law requires that the vast majority of those funds be used for immigration enforcement such as the detaining of illegal aliens. Section 245i is good for American business. Without Section 245i, US companies will lose key workers who will have to wait outside the US for months at a time waiting for their paperwork to be completed. Section 245i is pro-family. It keeps families together who would otherwise be torn apart. In many cases, families will be left without the support of the family's main breadwinner. In other families, children will be left waiting for permanent residency in countries where they don't speak the language or have any family ties. Section 245i frees up consular officers overseas and helps fund the processing of applications in this country. Finally, it is important to note that Section 245i would only help people who are otherwise entitled to immigrate through a job or through family.
In other legislative news, Congress recently heard testimony from certain Hmong military veterans of the Vietnam War seeking the passage of legislation that would allow the waiver of residency and English proficiency requirements for Hmong veterans seeking to naturalize and become US citizens. The Hmong, rural Laotians, were recruited by America to fight communists in Laos in the 1960s and 1970s. More than 20,000 Hmong soldiers are said to have died assisting the US. Critics of the legislation pointed out that it might be harmful to bend the rules for a specific ethnic group. Others pointed out that existing rules that exempt immigrants with long US residency from having to pass some or all sections of the naturalization exam would go a long way toward helping the Hmong achieve citizenship.
Two other issues that have been sharply debated in recent weeks are whether Congress should remove citizenship rights of US-born children of illegal immigrants and whether applicants for registering to vote should have to prove their citizenship status. 
Proponents of the birthright citizenship bill pointed out that current law imposes financial burdens on states where most illegal immigrants settle. According to the bill's sponsor Congress Brian Bilbray (R- San Diego, California), 16% of all births in California each year are to illegal immigrant mothers. Opponents argued that this bill would be counter to a basic constitutional right and create a permanent class of persons without any legal status. 
The second bill, sponsored by Congressman Steve Horn (R-Long Beach, California), would allow local election officials to check on citizenship status by requesting verification from the Social Security Administration and the Immigration and Naturalization Service. Both agencies are on record as opposing the legislation because much of the recorded citizenship information is scattered in databases across the country and do not exist in government computers. 
< Back | Next >
Disclaimer: This newsletter is provided as a public service and not intended to establish an attorney client relationship. Any reliance on information contained herein is taken at your own risk.