our magnificent statue of liberty bears the message that we as americans should be eminently proud of everyone in this world seeks a place to call home some because they are seeking refuge from violence and persecution others because they seek opportunities for a far better life than what is currently available to them since we are a nation founded by immigrants how should we think about immigration today the laws we impose the rules we have to try and to whom and when welcome to pro se nation understand the law for oneself joining me today to explore u s immigration laws and policies is attorney james amcu me who specializes in immigration employment and discrimination and civil rights law mr coney serves as a neutral labor arbitrator and mediator in new jersey and teaches at the school of management and labor relations at riker's university mr cooney has practiced law in new jersey and florida and as a trial attorney with the national labor relations board in washington d c welcome thank you just the legs are the here so this is such an important topic you know where do we begin so we are a nation of immigrants and yet sometimes depending on the channel the station you're watching or the publication you're reading it feels like there's a growing number of people who would rather slam the door behind them and they kind of forget that we're a nation of immigrants right so you know from from your assessment what what is the reality today i mean how do how do most people how does our country feel about immigrants and immigration and how has it changed over the last hundred years or is the newcomer always you know always  always on the outside having to kind of fight to get in well it's a difficult topic i think there it is a recurring theme in our history where on the one hand we welcome immigrants but there will always be an element or a group that may want to demonize or scapegoat it's showing up various ways and our immigration policy going back one hundred years where asians were pretty much barred there was a chinese exclusion act and there were quotas and then there have been times where things loosen up a bit maybe a little more favorable towards immigrants in more recent history going back thirty or so years we had a full blown amnesty that was provided and signed off on by the conservative president ronald reagan which people always you know seem to find interesting and that was probably the last beneficial thing we've done legally to immigrants to extend amnesty sense and the lawmakers have just been tightening up the laws more and more so making it tougher in terms of the general public i think you have both perspectives i think it's really more diverse we have people from all around the world i'd like to think that the majority are more favorable towards immigrants however there's a very vocal and politically connected minority now you might say that is scapegoating immigrants and that's a recurring theme do you think it's largely because of you know the fear of violence is it the the tension over you know this alleged loss of jobs well what do you think all of those things certainly terrorism is a buzz word that is used i think very unfairly  connection with immigration and even more particularly with refugees those are usually the last people on earth you have to worry about as being a terrorist certainly the prospect of job losses as well as something that throughout history can be used as a rallying point for some to say we need no more immigration yeah so i think both those reasons are invoked often what do you think is most misunderstood about immigration and immigration policies you sometimes hear people say well why don't they just get in line you know wait their turn right and the reality is the immigration system is very complex there is no one single line right and you have to have a particular sponsor or maybe it's family or an employer or maybe your political asylum but there's no one single line to stand in and so you can't just line up somewhere and wait your turn and a of people don't understand that so that's one of the things i often hear if you want to talk a little bit about like the difference between a visa and a green card and are there different kinds of these as sure you know the term  visa can be used two different ways there's immigrant visas and that's for persons who will be coming here to become what's called a lawful permanent resident and that and that's somebody who possesses a green card that will talk about it in a few moments the other type of visa though is for people coming temporarily and those are called non immigrant visas and there's a multitude you ask you know what types we have visitor visas were people come for in the news we hear a lot about the h one b visa for persons usually with a four year degree and so there's all different types of these and so it can be pretty confusing cracked i couldn't tell you the whole list from the top of my head here well so what is the difference i don't know if you care to comment how different are our laws in terms of getting these these is as opposed to france or germany or switzerland are they more rigorous here or you know i'm not an expert on all the different laws internationally but there is something called the visa or these a waiver program where person from a lot of countries including the ones you just mentioned doesn't even need to get a physical visa because we have close enough relations with those countries we feel they can that people sufficiently to make sure they're probably going to be safe but we've entered into agreements where the americans will go there and won't need a visa and vice versa we will allow people to come here without getting a visa so there are some real similarities and some of the law s others are very different and we've seen this recently for example in europe some countries for example admitted lots of refugees recently from syria you know obviously geographically they're closer to that conflict and here there is relatively few refugees coming through when you compare to europe although some will like you to think otherwise right before we get into the travel  bans i did want to ask you and just this afternoon you know there was chemical warfare used in syria and it's just it's just so horrific and the thought that we would close our doors on them is just i can hardly stand it it's really awful what you know we've heard a lot that syrian refugees  refugees in general but certainly syrian refugees have to go through a very rigorous that process do you think that's true so absolutely true that refugees are the most thoroughly vetted out of any traveler we allow into this country i just told you about the visa waiver program where somebody can just come here without a visa and stay up to ninety days and i would think the policy makers might be a little more concerned about that  then refugees who are thoroughly vetted and it usually takes one sometimes two years before they can even come to the country right yeah so turning to these travel bans  first and then two dogs both of them now kind of have been put on hold essentially by the courts what is your feeling about these bands and how you know how lawful are they and you know well it's nice that i haven't thought as much about them in the last say a week or so because it seems like the it really was quite shocking when the president signed the first executive order in late january for the first travel ban and just by classifying seven nations a majority muslim saying we're not going to accept any refugees for a period of time you know we talked a little bit earlier about terrorism being used as you know is a buzzword to scare people and that's clearly what was being done there even though nobody from any of those seven countries has committed a terrorist act in this nation since nine eleven and so we had that refugee ban and then we had the amazing halt to  any person coming even if they already have their green card if they're from those countries for ninety days and so that was something unprecedented and now the courts rejected that and it was it was a you know pretty quick defeat for the administration very forceful decisions written by courts and the primary arguments being utilized were it was a violation of due process rights right say for example somebody who has their green card they're a lawful permanent resident and then with no notice in advance or a chance to be heard is being denied the opportunity maybe to returned to the united states and so that was sort of easy for the courts you know to find a constitutional violation there now going back to that and i sort of cut you off before i think the green card or the different kinds of green hards and and what does that mean exactly what are the so called green card it it's not green it hasn't been green for decades but it is a document ok that's what it is and it's proof of your status as a lawful permanent intervene very quickly if you acquire a green card your intention is to lawfully reside in the u s right and only now you can lose your green card status say for example if you remain at a country too long if you commit particular crime so it is something that can be lost but otherwise you can stay here forever and usually have as much right to work in a job as a u s citizen and there are some exceptions basically when that first van was put into place people ok so people who had green cards who happened to be out of the united states couldn't come back in if they were from those seven countries that's correct that would have been if allowed to go  result and it was overreaching i think in retrospect even supporters of the administration many have admitted it was heavy handed and clumsy and quite frankly i don't think lawyers really gave it a good look over a lawyer to look at over i'd kind of like to know who that lawyer was because there were clearly unconstitutional parts of that travel ban so in terms of the end you mentioned overreach so that's exactly the criticism that some are using about the court in in the second travel ban right because the president has broad ability to to invoke this or to to so what are your thoughts on that because it's going to the supreme court right probably so at least very possibly so certainly the administration did revise the the travel ban in its second you know life if you will and eliminated iraq for example which was found so offensive in the first travel ban were fighting side by side with the rocky soldiers against isis and now you're banning iraqis from coming to the u s so they ministration pulled iraq out of the travel ban exempted lawful permanent residents and people who already had visas right ok did certain things that you know more people think maybe in the end this could be something that the president could do because like you said it is true the executive branch has a lot of leeway when it comes to who's coming into the country the problem for a lot of the courts was you know our president when he was running for office made very sweeping statements about how he's going to ban muslims and of course the lawyers now trying to defend the you know the travel ban or trying to minimize that but right the courts use said as evidence of motivation and then legally found for example violation of the first amendment establishment clause because we're focusing on muslim majority nations and laws are supposed to have a secular rather than religious purpose and some judges found that to be a problem and then there was still due process violations but you make a good point one of the cases is probably going to be going up on the east side of the country to the fourth circuit court of appeals a federal court that's generally to more conservative and then the whole wide decision which put the second travel ban on hold will go to the ninth circuit which just ruled against the president so we might have a conflict between the two different courts of appeals and that might give the u s supreme court an opportunity to step in and you know it's anybody's guess as to what would happen then well it's it's an interesting concept in terms of  where this speaks to an interesting concept in contracts right so anything that is outside of the four corners of the agreement is not considered it's usually not considered right so the the lawyers arguing for the travel ban for its validity or are basically saying well you can't look to what he said during the election or you can't look to what giuliani said or whatever because  you know what is written in the order is what should be taken into consideration so this is interesting isn't it that the i mean how often does that happen when they look to right now not all that often say for example when you interpret a statute a law which this is not this is an executive order passed by a stroke of a pen but you do try to construe the law by the words alone and then there are some times as you mentioned you can go to legislative history or what have you i think it's just you know a situation where you can't unring the bell i mean right president trump when he was running for office just made it very explain the process you said it's a it's it can be a complex process to become a citizen if i'm for instance if i'm a french citizen and i want to become an american how difficult is that how long does that take you could take a long time or it could be relatively sure the basics are to become a u s citizen through what's called naturalization that's in the fourteenth amendment to the constitution you either have to have been a lawful permanent resident somebody with a green card for five years and then if you for main in the country for at least half that time and pass the background checks you know can speak english to an acceptable degree and what have you you will get your citizenship if you are married to a u s citizen they're the ones who sponsored you for your green card they sure in the time to three years you can apply for naturalization so when i said it could take a long time there's something that's called a pathway to citizenship or maybe a person comes first on a temporary visa  they work maybe later on a work visa and then they find a way to be sponsored to a green card and then they follow that path to become a citizen so that could take years even decades so it's going to vary based on each person's circumstances now does it vary greatly from country to country so if it is now that you know that i went once you acquire the green card lawful permanent resident say then you just have to wait the five years or three years so there would be no now it seems like it might be easier or faster perhaps if you've already secured employment does that make a difference they can have a promise of employment let's say or there's certain ways you can come on an immigrant visa get a green card if an employer sponsors you so that is one way a person could come from overseas and and get their lawful permanent residenc him check our time here ok so in terms of you know the people who are some who believe that we should shut the door we're too crowded we need to take care of america you know that's it good bye good luck i mean i don't know should there should there be a point where we shut the door you know that's the question raised and you know i guess to some extent the you know the voters will weigh in on that and the politicians but you know my feeling would be absolutely not in terms of a total shutdown that would be wholly contrary to what the country you know stands for to our values of welcoming people and quite frankly for more practical purposes there's a great economic benefit to him and gratian almost all of the studies show that immigration has more of a benefit than a detriment to the country so that's something we'd be losing out on and what are some of the benefits some of the benefits would be even for example that rutgers where i teach we have you know brilliant students come from all over the world and pursue could be engineering medicine or what have you and thereafter go and maybe practice medicine and some rural community that otherwise wouldn't be able to find a doctor so that's just one example so if we want to keep getting the best and the brightest certainly you know a lot of those people will already be here but there is a time where we need to draw from outside the country maybe for talent that's certainly what the silicon valley players are telling us in fact they've made it very clear that if they cannot secure talent you know easily enough worldwide then they might have to make decisions on whether to relocate their business address so so a total closing of the doors i don't think would ever happen at least i hope not that to me that's a real sign of of surrender and weakness quite frankly now does a country have the right to maybe certain periods restrict immigration more so you know possibly yes it's really a manner of how you're doing it ok nobody you know that's really involved in the debate is saying we should just open all borders and just let people you know come in every nation stay i'm one of those  i mean here's the thing in it i think in an ideal world i would and i see no reason not to work toward the ideal i would love to see a world where we can come and go as we really is why can't we can work in whatever country i see it is kind of it's the it's like the world is like the human body and when you cut off the circulation the entire organism doesn't work properly we're we're global we're seven and a idealistic but you know why not why not work toward the ideal yeah i think the reality is always be borders you know but hopefully that doesn't mean you exclude people on a wholesale basis you know every country has the right to regulate its borders and then it's really up to the public to chime in on what they find more desirable and you know hopefully putting people in office that would you know not want to restrict immigration to the extent we're seeing now the funny thing is when you know when you bring a borders we because of the net because of global communications our manmade physical borders do they really accomplish what they did you know fifty years ago one hundred years or more right when you know the idea that if we build a wall or we put up a whatever you know an iron curtain and we try to keep out these influences the influences are seeping through on the net on you know in every electronic form sure and if it's influencing mindset it's crossed the border right i mean i just i agree that just the whole concept of the wall you know building the glorious wall it's you know i represented immigrants in my practice for many years including lots with with no legal status and they wanted to become legal that's why they came to see a lawyer now hardly any of them crossed the border most of them came here legally i'm visas and then overstayed their visa so i don't care how tall you build a wall there's going to be people that will get into the country unlawfully so in my opinion it's a total waste of resources it's frankly more symbolic to an element to kind of wan show the world stick it to the world and here's our wall and you're not coming in but in reality people are still going to come in yeah so it to me it doesn't make sense economically or otherwise at what point do our laws apply to people to immigrants to people who are not u s citizens it do our laws begin to apply to them the moment they set foot on this on the soil arrive at the airport get on the plane on the way here at what point well you know if you're thinking of the basic constitutional rights you know the the founders use the term persons not citizens when they drafted the bill of rights and that's why the courts just in the whole travel ban litigation said look the you know persons who are not citizens still have due process rights equal protection rights accent or a so  those you know basic constitutional liberties do extend to all persons here even undocumented immigrants so before such persons are even detained there has to be probable cause to satisfy the fourth amendment so the basic constitutional liberties definitely apply to citizen and non citizen alike what message or messages would you most like to impart to our audience and what do you think is most important for again the average citizen to understand about immigration you know try to maybe learn more with the actual facts are they don't respond to the buzz words of politicians or the flat out false hoods for example that immigrants you know commit more crime which is just not true so you know press your politicians for the truth not alternative truth the actual facts and you know possibly before buying into scapegoating immigration is like a real problem in the country you know maybe reflect a little more and try to see the positive side of what immigration can do for