As we have been reporting over the last several issues, nearly all attention on the immigration legislative front is focused on the extension of Section 245i of the Immigration and Nationality Act. This provision, set to expire on September 30, 1997, allows persons who are eligible to apply for permanent residency in the US but who have previously been without legal immigrant status to pay a $1000 penalty and process their applications in the US. Extension of the provision is crucial because the new three and ten year bars on immigrating for persons out of status for at least 180 days will begin taking effect on September 27th and 245(i) may be the only option available to legalize one’s status. As reported last month, the Senate included an extension of Section 245(i) in its Commerce, State, Judiciary Appropriations bill for the next fiscal year. But the US House of Representatives has not included a similar measure. The will take up its version of the bill after it returns from its recess in early September. If the overall appropriations bill looks like it will take to long to pass, the House could vote for a short-term resolution extending 245(i) for a few weeks until the appropriations bill passes. The American Immigration Lawyers Association has prepared a memorandum explaining Section 245(i) and the implications of it not being extended. We are including that memorandum in the Documents Collection of our web site. Also, we will issue a special emergency issue of this newsletter when something definitive occurs on the 245(i) extension.
Readers are urged to contact their House representatives to request their support for an extension. To find out how to contact your Congressional Representative, visit the House’s web site at http://www.house.gov. Consider raising the following points:
1. People who are eligible to adjust under Section 245(i)already are eligible to become lawful permanent residents because they have family or employment-based permanent resident visas immediately available to them.
2. Section 245(i) will generate, through fees, about $200 million in much needed revenues for the INS in FY97. 80% of these funds are used for detention and 20% for adjudications in the US.
3. Section 245(i) frees up consular officers overseas to provide better service to Americans abroad.
4. Section 245(i) is even more necessary for business given recent changes to our immigration laws.
5. A majority (68%) of those adjusting under this provision are close family members.
Though the 245(i) extension is clearly dominating the immigration legislative agenda, there are a number of other important bills that are working there way through the Congress. Here are a few important examples:
- S. 944 – introduced by New York Republican Senator Alphonse D’Amato, this bill would require the US Department of Housing and Urban Development to restart its J-1 Physician Waiver Program.
- S. 970 – introduced by North Dakota Democratic Senator Kent Conrad, this bill would allow the US Department of Veterans Affairs (the “VA”) to hire non-immigrant health care workers at any VA facility rather than just in shortage areas.
- S. 1076 and H.R. 2302 – introduced by Florida Republican Senator Connie Mack and Florida Republican Congressman Lincoln Diaz-Balart, this legislation would create a new amnesty program for illegal immigrants who have resided in the US since 1990.
- H.R. 2313 – introduced by New York Democratic Congressional Representative Charles Schumer, the bill would make it criminal to force five or more aliens into “involuntary servitude” for financial gain. The bill is a response to the deaf Mexican scandal discussed last month.
- H.R. 2377 – introduced by Oregon Republican Bob Smith, this bill would establish a two year pilot program to allow in 25,000 temporary agricultural workers per year. The program would be considerably less burdensome than the current H-2A visa program.
- H.R. 2154 – introduced by Florida Democrat Carrie Meeks, this bill would extend Food Stamp benefits to aliens who were receiving Supplemental Security Income as of August 1996. Food Stamp benefits were cut out under last year’s Welfare Law.
- H.R. 2172 – introduced by Massachusetts Democratic House Representative Barney Frank, this bill would overturn sections in the new immigration law affecting students by allowing foreign students to attend public elementary or secondary schools without reimbursing the schools for their tuition if the schools agree to cover those costs without using any federal funds.
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. The information provided in this article has not been updated since its original posting and you should not rely on it until you consult counsel to determine if the content is still valid. We keep older articles online because it helps in the understanding of the development of immigration law.