Source: http://discuss.ilw.com/forum/immigration-discussion/14779-immigration-full-coverage-news
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 01:03:11+00:00

Document:
WASHINGTON // The opening bell sounded yesterday on the Senate's effort to overhaul immigration laws, but the panel that will take the lead on the legislation appeared severely divided.
Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee staked out sharply different positions on whether to create a guest worker program, how to enforce border security and how to handle the estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants already in the country.
"I have seen virtually no agreement on anything," said Sen. Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican who leads the committee, during a meeting intended to begin negotiating the legislation.
He said the committee faced a "gigantic task" in fashioning legislation by a deadline set by Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, a Tennessee Republican.
Committee members, four of whom are first-generation Americans, seemed united only in their assessment that the bill Specter provided as a starting point is "an unmitigated disaster," as Specter characterized their criticism.
Frist has told the committee that if it cannot deliver a bill by March 27, he will present a measure of his own for a vote. Like the immigration legislation passed by the House in December, Frist's bill concentrates on enforcement measures.
To meet the deadline, the lawmakers will have to work through Specter's 305-page bill and more than 30 of their own amendments, ranging from proposals that would deny U.S. citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants to amendments that would forbid the Department of Homeland Security from indefinitely detaining illegal immigrants.
Their challenge will be reconciling the views of senators who feel that no reform can take place until there is greater control of the border with those of senators who feel that border security will be possible only with the creation of a guest worker program, which would create a legal pathway for foreign workers to take jobs in the United States.
Specter's bill, which has heavy enforcement provisions, has been controversial in both camps. Specter would create a program that allows workers to come to the United States for up to six years, but would not lead to citizenship.
And while Specter would allow undocumented workers already in the country to stay under an indefinite work permit, they also could never become citizens.
Republican Sens. Jon Kyl of Arizona and John Cornyn of Texas also offered a guest worker plan that would not grant citizenship.
A competing bill by Sens. John McCain, an Arizona Republican, and Edward M. Kennedy, a Massachusetts Democrat, would create a guest worker program that could allow newly arriving workers to gain citizenship. It would also set a pathway for the 11 million illegal immigrants now in the country to obtain citizenship as long as they met certain requirements and paid fines and back taxes.
"The choice is to legalize them or leave them in the shadows," Kennedy said yesterday of undocumented immigrants. He argued that without the incentive of citizenship, illegal immigrants would not come forward. "Only legalizing them will work," he said.
Sen. Charles E. Grassley, an Iowa Republican, dismissed that argument. A guest worker program would simply draw more undocumented immigrants and burden already struggling government agencies, he said, advocating more resources for the border. "If we go forward with a guest worker program, we'll have a much worse problem," he said.
Sen. Diane Feinstein, a California Democrat, proposed a modified version of a guest worker program for the agriculture industry that would provide 300,000 jobs a year for three years. Feinstein said she did not want to expand her program beyond agriculture because "you displace American workers that way."
But others made it clear that they saw no value in even limited programs. Sen. Tom Coburn, an Oklahoma Republican who sponsored the amendment to deny citizenship to the children of undocumented immigrants, said the senators "shouldn't do anything until we secure the border."
The Act may be cited as the Border Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005.
1 This provision affects cases holding that soliciting and aiding and abetting are not aggravated felonies, such as Martinez-Perez v. Gonza***, 417 F.3d 1022 (9th Cir. 2005) (noting that aiding and abetting theft does not constitute an aggravated felony); Penuliar v. Ashcroft, 395 F.3d 1037 (9th Cir. 2005) (noting that aiding and abetting theft does not constitute an aggravated felony); Leyva-Licea v. INS, 187 F.3d 1147, 1150 (9th Cir. 1999) (conviction for solicitation to possess marijuana not an aggravated felony because solicitation is not punishable under the Controlled Substances Act).
2 This provision overrules United States v. Corona-Sanchez, 291 F.3d 1201 (9th Cir. 2001) (conviction for petty theft not an aggravated felony where two-year sentence imposed was due to application of recidivist sentence enhancement; without such an enhancement, maximum possible sentence for petty theft under California law is six months).
smuggling offenses) could be categorized as an aggravated felony even if the statute under which the person was convicted is divisible and also includes non-aggravated felony conduct.
Section 202 would expand the alien smuggling provisions of INA § 274 to include "offenses" where the "offender" acts with knowledge of, or in reckless disregard of, the fact that the alien lacks lawful permission to enter or remain in the U.S. This incredibly overbroad definition of smuggling would criminalize the work of social service organizations, refugee agencies, churches, attorneys, and other groups that counsel immigrants, treating them the same as smuggling organizations. In addition, family members and employers could be fined and imprisoned for "harboring," "shielding," or "transporting" undocumented family members or employees, filling our prisons with people who have done nothing more than try to reunite their families, or help a worker, friend or client. Section 202 also mandates the seizure and forfeiture of any property, real or personal, that has been used to commit or facilitate the commission of a violation of this section.
Section 203 would amend INA § 275 to create a new federal crime of "unlawful presence." Under current law, presence in the U.S. without valid status is a civil, not a criminal violation. Section 203 defines the term broadly to mean "present in violation of the immigration laws or the regulations prescribed thereunder," essentially rendering every violation, however minor, technical or non-intentional, a federal crime.5 This section also would expand penalties for aliens who illegally enter or who are present without authorization following convictions for certain crimes, and double the penalties for marriage and immigration-related entrepreneurship fraud.
Section 204 would roll back the various due process safeguards secured through judicial rulings respecting reentry issues and would amend INA § 276 to create mandatory minimum sentences for aliens convicted of reentry after removal.
conduct that qualified as a drug trafficking offense and conduct that qualified as an offense under the Controlled Substances Act, but also encompassed offenses that did neither). This provision also allows the use of police reports, court records, and presentence reports, which the Supreme Court has prohibited. Shephard v. United States, 125 S.Ct. 1254 (2005) (prohibiting use of police reports to determine whether guilty plea defined by a non-generic statute necessarily admitted elements of the generic offense; such inquiry is limited to "the terms of the charging document, the terms of a plea agreement or transcript of colloquy between judge and defendant in which the factual basis for the plea was confirmed by the defendant, or to some comparable judicial record..."); see also United States ex rel. Zaffarano v. Corsi, 63 F.2d 757, 758-59 (2d Cir. 1933) (only the record of conviction may be used to determine whether an alien has committed a crime of moral turpitude, "[a]nd by the record of conviction we mean the charge (indictment), plea, verdict, and sentence.").
5 Such violations would include lawful permanent residents who fail to report a change of address to the Department of Homeland Security within ten days (see INA 237(a)(3)(A)), as well as university students on an F-1 visa who drop below a full course load (see INA 237(a)(1)(C) and implementing regs for F-1 students) or H-1B workers who get laid off and do not find new sponsorship within a small window of opportunity (see INA 237(a)(1)(C) and implementing regs for H-1Bs). In conjunction with Section 201 of this bill, such "crimes" could trigger "aggravated felony" liability, subjecting the individual to mandatory detention and virtually no relief from deportation.
Section 205 would amend INA § 277 to impose upon persons who aid or assist certain aliens to enter the U.S. the same sentences that the aliens themselves would receive.
Section 206 would add smuggling crimes to the list of crimes for which the use or carrying of a firearm during the commission thereof would result in criminal sentencing enhancements.
Section 207 would amend INA § 212(a)(6)(C)(ii) to expand, retroactively, the current provision rendering inadmissible aliens who have made false claims to U.S. citizenship to include aliens who have made false claims to U.S. nationality.6 Section 207 also would provide that the DHS shall have access to any information kept by any federal agency as to any person seeking a benefit or privilege under the immigration law.
6 This section appears to be designed to overturn case law holding that the analogous criminal statute, 18 U.S.C. § 911 ("[w]hoever falsely and willfully represents himself to be a citizen of the United States shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both") does not apply to those who claim U.S. nationality, rather than citizenship. U.S. v. Karaouni, 379 F.3d 1139, 1140 (9th Cir. 2004) (holding that a noncitizen defendant who had checked the box on Form I-9 attesting to being a "citizen or national of the United States" had not violated § 911 because he might have been claiming to be a national).
7 Section 208 would override established case law from several circuits and the BIA, including: Azarte v. Ashcroft, 394 F.3d 1278, 1289 (9th Cir. 2005) (holding that "in cases in which a motion to reopen is filed within the voluntary departure period and a stay of removal or voluntary departure is requested, the voluntary departure period is tolled during the period the BIA is considering the motion"); Sidikhouya v. Gonzales, 407 F.3d 950 (8th Cir. 2005); Kanivets v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 330 (3d Cir. 2005) (applying Azarte's reasoning to the pre-IIRIRA scheme, and holding that "the pre-IIRIRA voluntary departure provision requires that aliens be afforded a reasonable opportunity to receive a ruling on the merits of a timely-filed motion to reopen"); Barrios v. Attorney General of U.S., 399 F.3d 272, 278 (3d Cir. 2005); In re A-M-, 23 I. & N. Dec. 737, 743 (BIA 2005) (emphasizing that "recent statutory and regulatory changes have not altered the basic principle... that the timely filing of an appeal with the Board stays the execution of the decision of the Immigration Judge during the pendency of the appeal and tolls the running of the time authorized by the Immigration Judge for voluntary departure"); Matter of Chouliaris, 161 I. & N. Dec. 168 (BIA 1977).
Section 209 would render individuals ordered removed who fail to depart the U.S. ineligible for any discretionary relief from removal pursuant to a motion to reopen during the time they remain in the U.S. and for a period of 10 years after their departure, with the exception of motions to reopen to seek withholding of removal or protection against torture.
Section 401 would require the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), by October 1, 2006, to detain all aliens apprehended at ports of entry or along the international land and maritime borders of the U.S. until they are removed from the U.S. or a final decision granting their admission has been determined. The only exceptions to mandatory detention are reserved for aliens who depart immediately, such as Mexican nationals who are voluntarily returned across the border, and those paroled in on the basis of urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit. Section 401 also sets up an interim scheme which would begin 60 days after enactment. Under the interim regime, a person attempting to enter the U.S. illegally and apprehended at a U.S. port of entry or along a land or maritime border could not be released pending proceedings unless the DHS Secretary determines that the alien does not pose a national security risk and the alien posts bond of at least $5,000. The provision makes an exception for Cubans.
Section 402 would require DHS to utilize fully all available detention facilities and all possible options to cost effectively increase detention capacity, including temporary facilities, contracting with state and local jails, and secure alternatives to detention.
This section would authorize the DHS Secretary to enter into contracts with private entities to provide secure domestic transportation of aliens apprehended at or between ports of entry from the custody of the Border Patrol to a detention facility and other locations as necessary.
Section 404 would amend INA § 243(d) to authorize the DHS Secretary, after consultation with the Secretary of State, to deny admission to any citizen, subject, national, or resident of any country that has denied or unreasonably delayed accepting the return of an alien ordered removed from the U.S. This section of the INA currently allows the State Department (DOS) to discontinue granting visas to individuals from such countries upon notification by the Attorney General of the delay or denial. Because the proposed amendment would not require the DOS to cease issuing visas to individuals of the countries in question, such persons could find themselves at our borders with proper visas and have their entry subsequently denied by DHS officials. In addition, no exception is made for asylum applicants, creating the potential for individuals to be sent back to countries in which their lives could be in danger.
Section 405 would require the DHS Secretary to submit an annual report to the Secretary of State and Congress detailing the costs to DHS of repatriating aliens, and providing recommendations for more a cost effective repatriation program.
This section would require the DHS Secretary to review and evaluate the training provided to Border Patrol Agents and port of entry inspectors to ensure consistency in their referrals to an asylum officer for credible fear determinations.
8 The Section's broad grant of unreviewable authority to remove persons within U.S. territory runs contrary to the Constitution's guarantee of due process, as repeatedly articulated by the Supreme Court: "[T]he Due Process Clause applies to all ˜persons' within the United States, including aliens, whether their presence here is lawful, unlawful, temporary, or permanent." Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 693 (2001). "[A]liens who have once passed through our gates, even illegally, may be expelled only after proceedings conforming to traditional standards of fairness encompassed in due process of law." Shaughnessy v. United States ex rel. Mezei, 345 U.S. 206, 212 (1953).
Section 601 would render ineligible for withholding of removal aliens who are deportable under the broad definition of "terrorism," including "any alien who the Secretary of State, after consultation with the Attorney General [or vice versa], determines has been associated with a terrorist organization and intends while in the United States to engage solely, principally, or incidentally in activities that could endanger the welfare, safety, or security of the United States." Section 601 would also expand the bars to asylum to include all of 212(a)(3)(B)(i) and (212)(a)(3)(F), thus making the asylum bar coextensive with the withholding bar. These changes would apply retroactively to all aliens in removal, deportation, or exclusion proceedings and to all applications pending on or filed after the date of enactment of this legislation.
Section 603 would amend INA § 243 to increase penalties and set mandatory minimum sentences for aliens who fail to depart when ordered removed, who obstruct their removal, or who fail to comply with the terms of release pending removal.
Section 604 would amend INA § 212(a) to render inadmissible aliens: who have been convicted of offenses related to the misuse of Social Security numbers and cards, or fraud in connection with identification documents; who at any time have been convicted of an aggravated felony; who have procured citizenship unlawfully; who have been convicted of a crime of domestic violence, stalking, child abuse, child neglect, or child abandonment; or who have violated a protective order. It also would bar such aliens from seeking a waiver of inadmissibility.
9 This provision seeks to invalidate Supreme Court precedents Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001) and Clark v. Martinez, 125 S.Ct. 716 (2005), by allowing for indefinite and potentially permanent detention. Zadvydas and Clark hold that, where removal of a noncitizen is "a remote possibility at best," Zadvydas at 690, indefinite civil detention under the INA is an unconstitutional infringement of basic liberty principles built into the Constitution. By limiting extensions of the 90-day statutory removal period to six months, Zadvydas holds that indefinite, potentially permanent civil detention is unconstitutional because "the Due Process Clause applies to all ˜persons' within the United States, including aliens, whether their presence here is lawful, unlawful, temporary, or permanent," Zadvydas at 693. Clark interpreted the Zadvydas rule to apply to inadmissible noncitizens who cannot be removed, holding that any distinction between the classes of immigrants "cannot justify giving the same detention provision a different meaning," Clark at 724.
Section 605 would amend INA § 209(c) to bar asylees and refugees convicted of an aggravated felony from adjustment of status. The amendments made by section 605 would be retroactive.
This section would authorize and reimburse local sheriffs in "designated counties" (defined as "a county any part of which is within 25 miles of the southern border of the United States") to enforce state and federal laws in their counties, including the immigration laws if authorized under a written agreement pursuant to INA § 287(g), and to transfer aliens to federal custody. Section 607 also would reimburse those Sheriffs for costs associated with detaining, housing and transporting undocumented aliens whom they arrest.
Section 608 would render inadmissible and deportable aliens participating in "criminal street gangs" (as defined under this section). Section 608 also would render such individuals ineligible for asylum, withholding of removal, and temporary protected status, and would subject them to mandatory detention. In addition, section 609 would adopt procedures similar to those used by the State Department to designate foreign terrorist organizations under INA § 219, to enable the Attorney General to designate criminal street gangs for purposes of the immigration laws.
Section 610 would authorize the Secretary of Homeland Security to use expedited removal proceedings to determine inadmissibility under INA § 212(a)(2) and issue an order of removal with respect to an alien who has not been admitted or paroled, has not been found to have a credible fear of persecution pursuant to the procedures set forth in § 235, and is not eligible for a waiver of inadmissibility or relief from removal. In addition, section 610 would cut from 14 to 7 days the prohibition on executing such a removal order designed to allow the alien an opportunity to seek judicial review.
11 Historical note: Prior to 1990, the statute provided that the courts would decide naturalization applications after the applicant applied to INS for a recommendation on his or her citizenship application. In IMMACT 90, Congress decided to make it a more administrative process, and shifted to INS the power to decide the application as an initial matter, but preserved a role for the courts if INS did not do so within 120 days of the interview.
12 See, e.g., United States v. Hovsepian, 359 F.2d 1144, 1160 (9th Cir. 2003) ("Congress intended to vest power to decide languishing naturalization applications in the district court alone, unless the court chooses to ˜remand the matter' to the INS, with the court's instructions").
13 By strictly limiting the circumstances in which a noncitizen can appeal a denial of naturalization, Section 609 defeats the policy objectives behind the Immigration Act of 1990, namely to increase "the consistency and fairness of naturalization decisions," and "to give naturalization applicants the power to choose which forum would adjudicate their applications," Hovsepian at 1163-64. Finally, section 609(f) alters the burden of proof in court cases challenging denials of naturalization, thereby undermining the role of the courts in determining citizenship.
Section 611 purports to "clarify" that the amendments made in the terrorist grounds of removal in the REAL ID Act are to be applied to aliens in all removal, deportation, and exclusion cases, regardless of when those cases were initiated.
14 This provision appears to be an attempt to overturn a recent en banc 9th Cir decision in Hovsepian, 422 F.3d 883 (9th Cir 2005), which held that since citizenship required good moral character for only the past five years, if the applicant showed he met that requirement, the DHS could not deny based on an offense prior to the five-year period. As the Hovsepian court stated, "To hold otherwise would sanction a denial of citizenship where the applicant's misconduct...was many years in the past, and where a former bad record has been followed by many years of exemplary conduct with every evidence of reformation and subsequent good moral character. Such a conclusion would require a holding that Congress had enacted a legislative doctrine of predestination and eternal ****ation, whereas the statutes contemplate rehabilitation." See also Repouille v. U.S., 165 F.2d 152, 153 (2d Cir. 1947), and Klig v. U.S., 296 F.2d 533, 535 (2d Cir. 1961) (holding that GMC determinations in naturalization applications "are made on a case by case basis in accordance with the ˜generally accepted moral conventions current at the time'").
15 This provision also alters Congress's judgment in 1990 not to make new bars to citizenship retroactive and instead reaches back to pre-1990 conduct to bar citizenship fifteen years later, without any rationale that could meet due process standards.
Section 614 would render removable aliens who have procured citizenship unlawfully (or attempted to do so) as well as aliens convicted of offenses relating to the misuse of social security numbers and cards or fraud in connection with identification documents. Once again, this section would be made retroactive.
Section 701 and the entire title would make major revisions to the employment eligibility verification regime contained in Section 274A of the INA. This section seeks to amend §274A(b) by requiring the Secretary of Homeland Security to create a system for telephonic or electronic verification of an individual's employment authorization. It would require the system to provide verification or tentative non-verification of an individual's identity and employment eligibility within 3 days of the inquiry and, in the case of tentative non-verification, a secondary process for final verification or non-verification within 10 days. The Commissioner of Social Security and the Secretary of Homeland Security would be responsible for developing a process for comparing the names against the respective databases to ensure timely and accurate responses to employer inquiries. When a single social security account number has been submitted in a way that suggests potential fraudulent use of the number, the Secretary of Homeland Security would be obligated to investigate.
This provision states that the information contained in this database cannot be used by the government for any purpose other than as provided for in this section and it states that this section does not authorize issuance of a national identity card. This section would prohibit class actions challenging problems with the verification mechanism and would limit claims for relief to the mechanism established in the Federal Tort Claims Act. It also would immunize from liability anyone who takes action in good faith reliance on information provided through this system.
This section would repeal §274A(d) relating to evaluation of and changes to the current employment verification system.
Section 702 sets out the steps that an employer would have to undertake to be eligible for a good faith affirmative defense to liability for hiring or employment of unauthorized workers. It would obligate employers to seek verification under the new system within 3 working days of new hires or pursuant to the schedule set forth elsewhere in this title for previous hires. It also would create some limited exceptions to these requirements for failures of the verification system.
This section would revise the attestation process that employers and employees (both citizens and noncitizens) must follow in connection with verifying employment authorization. It would maintain the requirement that employers examine the individual's authorizing documentation (e.g., U.S passport or other authorizing documents prescribed by the Secretary of Homeland Security). It also would amend the retention of verification forms requirements to conform to the new verification system procedures while keeping the same basic timeframes intact (three years after the date of hiring or one year after date of termination).
In the event of a tentative non-verification, the individual for whom verification is sought would have to seek secondary verification pursuant to the process established in Section 701 (above). If the individual chooses not to contest the tentative non-verification within the time period allowed, the non-verification would become final. An employer would not be permitted to terminate an individual (for reasons relating to non-confirmation of identity and employment authorization) until a tentative non-verification becomes final.
This section would establish requirements for employers to verify the identity and employment eligibility of previously hired employees. Employers would be authorized to use the system on a voluntary, nondiscriminatory basis to verify previous hires two years after enactment of this legislation. Federal, state, and local governmental entities and private employers in specified fields (relating to critical infrastructure) would be required to verify all previous hires within three years of enactment of this legislation. All other employers would be required to use the new system to verify the identity and employment eligibility of individuals not previously verified within six years of enactment.
Section 704 would revise the date upon which the basic pilot program for employment verification systems becomes mandatory to two years after enactment of this legislation.
This section would define "recruit or refer" for purposes of triggering obligations under this title to verify identity and employment eligibility. ˜Refer' would be defined as the act of "sending or directing a person or transmitting documentation or information to another, directly or indirectly, with the intent of obtaining employment in the United States for such person." It would generally limit the definition to individuals seeking remuneration for such referral but it would encompass union hiring halls as well. ˜Recruit' would be defined as "the act of soliciting a person, directly or indirectly, and referring the person to another with the intent of obtaining employment for that person. The same limitations and exceptions to those limitations would apply.
maximum penalty to $10,000 for each offense. For entities previously subject to more than one such order, the minimum penalty would be raised to $25,000.
The civil penalty levels for paperwork violations would also be significantly increased. Paperwork offenses, including failure to use the new verification system, would be subject to a minimum $1,000 penalty and maximum $25,000 penalty. This section also would establish a scheme for mitigating the penalty structure by reducing the amounts in question based on the size of the employer.
This section would increase dramatically the criminal penalties for entities engaged in a pattern or practice of hiring and employing unauthorized workers. It would raise the maximum fine from $3,000 to $50,000 for each unauthorized worker and would establish a minimum period of imprisonment of one year (the maximum period under current law is six months).
This section would require the Commissioner of Social Security, in consultation with the Secretaries of the Treasury and Homeland Security and the Attorney General, to submit a report to Congress evaluating a list of proposed requirements and changes, including: making social security cards with encrypted, machine-readable electronic identification strips and a digital photograph; creating a unified database to be maintained by DHS and including data from the SSA and DHS specifying work authorization of all individuals; and requiring all employers to verify employment eligibility using the new social security cards through a phone, electronic card-reading, or other mechanism.
Section 708 would make the amendments contained in this title effective on the date of enactment, except that the requirements of persons and entities to comply with the employment eligibility verification process would take effect two years after the date of enactment.
This section, which deals with when a BIA order becomes final, seeks to reverse 9th circuit precedent "requiring the BIA to remand cases in which it has reversed an IJ [immigration judge] decision granting an alien relief back to the IJ for entry of the decision." See Noriega-Lopez v. Ashcroft, 335 F.3d 874, 881 (9th Cir. 2003). This section would amend INA§ 101(a)(47), which has been interpreted as only permitting immigration judges to enter orders of deportation or removal, and would make the order final when the BIA decision is issued.
Section 803 would negate various circuit court rulings that prohibit reinstatement of removal without a hearing, or permit certain applications for adjustment of status, by amending INA § 241(a)(5) to state that reinstatement applies "regardless of the date of the original order or the date of the reentry"18 and shall not require proceedings before an immigration judge under INA section 240 or otherwise.19 Such reinstatement also would preclude adjustment of status under 245(i). In addition, section 803 would amend INA § 242 to restrict any judicial review on the issue of reinstatement to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and to limit the issues available for review.
Section 804 would import the REAL ID Act's "at least one central reason" requirement into the withholding statute by amending INA § 241(b)(3) to preclude a grant of withholding of removal unless the alien can establish that his or her life or freedom would be threatened in the country in question, and that race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion would be at least one central reason for such threat. The provision would be effective retroactive to the date of the REAL ID Act's passage into law (May 11, 2005).
17 By precluding review in any court, including review of narrow legal issues, section 802 seeks to reverse decisions that have allowed such review, such as Ana Intern., Inc. v. Way, 393 F.3d 886 (9th Cir. 2004) and Knoetze v. U.S., Dept. of State, 634 F.2d 207 (5th Cir. 1981).
18 In Fernandez-Vargas v. Ashcroft, 394 F.3d 881 (10th Cir. 2005), cert. granted, 126 S.Ct. 544 (2005), the Supreme Court is considering whether the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 can be applied retroactively to eliminate relief from removal for persons who re-entered the United States before 1996. If enacted, it would affect court decisions in Castro-Cortez v. INS, 239 F.3d 1037, 1050-53 (9th Cir. 2001) (Congress unambiguously intended for INA § 241(a)(5) to be applied only to previously deported aliens who re-entered the country after the effective date of the statute); Bejjani v. INS, 271 F.3d 670, 676-77 (6th Cir. 2001) (same); Arevalo v. Ashcroft, 344 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2003) (INS reinstatement under 241(a)(5) negating pre-IIRIRA pending adjustment after an illegal reentry, has an impermissibly retroactive effect); Sarmiento-Cisneros v. United States AG, 381 F.3d 1277, 1284 (11th Cir. 2004) (adjustment application filed before the effective date of IIRIRA not affected by § 241(a)(5)'s elimination of the availability of discretionary relief because would attach a "new disability to a completed transaction"); Alvarez-Portillo v. Ashcroft, 280 F.3d 858 (8th Cir. 2002) (limiting retroactive application of portions of reinstatement rule).
Lidia Pereyra knows there are plenty of people who think that taxpayers shouldn't pay any part of her tuition -- and that families such as hers should have stayed out of the United States.
She stopped and briefly closed her brown eyes, rimmed with green shadow.
She knows full well that her future without a college degree would be like the least of her present. More hours working as a receptionist at a car dealership and as a store clerk. No more anatomy classes. No career as a nurse practitioner.
"I don't want the thought," she said.
Pereyra assumed she would be a legal, permanent resident by the time she got to college. Now, at 20, the oldest child in a family that came to a farm in Winchester from Mexico about a decade ago, she is caught up in a debate over illegal immigration that has grown in intensity across the country and recently become acute in Virginia.
Some Virginia lawmakers have pushed bills to keep illegal immigrants out of state colleges entirely -- so far, unsuccessfully. Pereyra had pinned her hopes to a bill -- which reflected a real shift in the political climate and was passed overwhelmingly by the state Senate -- that would help students like her. It would allow some undocumented students with long-standing ties to Virginia to pay in-state tuition.
But an informal opinion from a deputy attorney general froze that possibility for this year.
A much-debated federal law bans states from giving benefits to students who are not here legally if the benefits aren't available to U.S. citizens. The opinion warned legislators that the bill would force schools to open up the in-state rate to students throughout the country.
Hearing that, a House subcommittee voted to carry the bill over. But the lawmakers didn't kill it.
"We've not seen the end of it, that's for sure," said Del. Thomas Davis Rust (R-Fairfax), chairman of the higher education subcommittee.
That's because it's a question not only of cost -- out-of-state tuition is about three times as much, enough to tip the balance from a college degree to nothing at all for some -- but of identity.
For critics, undocumented residents are illegals -- freeloaders who take away jobs and form gangs. Others see valedictorians, hardworking families and the American dream hobbled by red tape.
Millions of illegal immigrants have entered the United States in recent decades, and more than 20 years ago, a Supreme Court ruling established certain rights: Public primary and secondary schools cannot deny an education to foreign-born children, no matter how they got here or what their legal status is.
A generation later, some of those kids are graduating from American high schools.
Their parents' stories are often complicated, with laws broken and laws followed, rules complied with and deadlines missed, and the children caught up in the ugly tangle of Catch-22s that follows illegal immigration. Others are just stuck, waiting for approvals.
Maria Pereyra, Lidia and her siblings left Mexico on a bus about a decade ago to sneak into the country, she said. They were joining her father, Isidro Pereyra, who has been a permanent resident for many years, working legally and paying taxes. They started the application process to become legal residents right away, but it often takes many years. Two of the children were born in the United States and so are citizens, but the others need green cards. She's now just one step away, but she needs to pay more than $1,000 on top of application fees.
As an unauthorized immigrant in 2004, Pereyra found that although she could enroll in nearby Lord Fairfax Community College, she didn't qualify for in-state tuition. And she couldn't get state or federal financial aid.
Friends in town jumped in to help, raising money to cover the difference last year.
This year, she's on her own.
Sen. Emmett W. Hanger Jr.'s (R-Augusta) bill would ban in-state tuition for illegal immigrants but carve out exceptions for students such as Pereyra who have lived in Virginia for years and graduated from high schools in the commonwealth, whose families have paid taxes and who are actively seeking U.S. permanent residency.
A bill in Congress estimated that about 65,000 students could be eligible nationally -- most of whom don't go on to college. Some analysts guessed hundreds or possibly even a few thousand would qualify in Virginia.
It seems odd, said Steven Camarota of the Center for Immigration Studies, to let people who aren't supposed to be in the country enroll in public universities. "Then, to subsidize it at taxpayer expense -- most people in Virginia and elsewhere think that doesn't make sense." He said it's part of a larger agenda working toward amnesty for illegal immigrants: "You find the most telegenic, appealing group of illegals -- kids who want to go to college. You don't start with an MS-13 member. "
Sen. Mark D. Obenshain (R-Harrisonburg) said: "We have people who have waited in line for years to obtain the proper documentation and to obtain legal status, and in essence, we're punishing them . . . by rewarding those who have chosen not to follow the law."
Some advocates for immigrants argue that is an oversimplification. "It's not that they're not trying to become legal," said Luis Parada, a private lawyer who does pro bono work on this issue. It can take many years to go through the process. Some have temporary protected status or another legal intermediate step.
"Colleges in Virginia have been making many mistakes," Parada said, "because immigration law is so complicated -- even students who are legally here are being wrongfully labeled illegal."
Tensions have been simmering in Congress and about half of the state legislatures. In 2003, Maryland Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich (R) vetoed a bill that would have granted certain immigrants in-state status; another bill was submitted this session. Nine states have enacted similar laws in recent years, with ongoing attempts to overturn them.
"There's a multi-front assault that's taking shape on these laws," including class-action suits, said Travis Reindl of the American Association of State Colleges and Universities. There's still a lot of disagreement about the federal law, he said. "The upshot of that for Virginia is that even if they pass something they are going to have a target on their back in terms of this law standing. They're going to have people lined up to fight it."
Lidia Pereyra didn't know any English when she started school in Winchester. She was 11 years old and scared. She can't remember anything of sixth grade, except that she wouldn't let herself cry until she got home from school. She knew education was important even though her parents hadn't been able to afford much -- her father had six years of schooling before going to work on a ranch, and her mother, who wanted to be teacher, had to stop at nine.
In high school, retiree Geoffrey Huggins tutored Pereyra in the kitchen, with the rest of the family staying in the back rooms of the small worn trailer respectfully. When she could analyze history, her hardest subject, she thought, "Oh! I'm a student, like the others now!"
Now, she's in college, but she can't afford a full course load. And she knows the rest of her family wants an education, too.
Her mom was starting to cook a dinner of beans, spinach and ground meat for the seven of them.
"I've already been to college!" 7-year-old Marcos Pereyra joked one evening recently; he has gone to the campus with his sister.
Kenya, a sixth-grader, wants to be a teacher. Victor, 13, wants to be an engineer. Reynold, who's in the 11th grade, wants to be a cardiologist.
Even Isidro Pereyra, striding in with strong hands brown from work and his John Deere cap low over his eyes, grinned when he thought about it. Go to college? If he had the chance? " ¡ Claro que s Ã* !" he said, delighted: "Yes, of course!"
And yet -- they know how controversial this is. Lidia Pereyra doesn't know whether she will be able to finish college or whether her family can remain in Virginia, with too little money and too much uncertainty.
"If it was possible, yes, we would stay here," her mother said. Lidia Pereyra nodded, long dark hair falling over her face, translating her mother's words into English. "The laws apply to everyone the same, and at school, too, everybody's the same. Nobody is seen as less."
"The laws apply to everyone the same, and at school, too, everybody's the same. Nobody is seen as less."
Too bad mama doesn't seem to realize that this means immigration laws, too.
The subtext of this story: Papa came to the US illegally, was able to legalize through an amnesty of some sort, probably 1986, and instead of "getting religion" and starting to obey our laws, decided to break them yet again by bringing his daughters illegally. The family has had a couple of more (at least) children in the U.S., probably at taxpayer expense given the likely income level of a farm worker. Papa still hasn't bothered to learn English and to become a U.S. citizen, hence the children have had a longer and harder time legalizing. Again, given his lack of education and skills, the U.S. is now expected to foot the bill for the education of his children, even those here illegally.
Moral of the story: This family has made poor choices all along, breaking laws, and now expecting that yet again, all will be forgiven as it was with Papa's amnesty.
AliBA: I agree with your analysis of this situation.
You're entirely correct that the family have continued to make bad choices. Had the father made the effort to assimilate and learn our language, he could have easily become a citizen...at which point, it would have been simple for his wife and non-U.S. Citizen children to legalize their immigration status.
As usual with uneducated immigrants, the most logical option was ignored, and now the immigration situation for the older children is very difficult. This family, through their continual bad choices, has also placed America in a no-win situation. The intent of this article was clearly to yank at the country's heart strings...to show us in a bad light because we don't let such apparently "wonderful" people legalize their status.
If this family had followed the law, and if the father had naturalized, then their immigration problems would have been resolved a long time ago. Indeed, with 245-i eligiblity, the family's illegal immigration status would have been forgiven.
This family's irresponsibility and unwillingness to either learn the law or follow the law has resulted in their own ongoing problems.
Someone12, SunDevilUS and AliBa are mentally sick individuals who need psychiatric treatment.
Pack yourself ASAP and leave for your Arabic country.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 274
 § 275
 § 276
 v. 
 v. 
 § 277
 § 212
 § 911
 v. 
 § 911
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 243
 v. 
 v. 
 § 243
 § 212
 v. 
 v. 
 § 209
 § 287
 § 219
 § 212
 § 235
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 §274
 §274
 v. 
 § 241
 § 242
 § 241
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 241
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 241
 v.