Matthew — Page 23

Dirty Secret About Criminals Who Sell Fraudulent Immigration Papers

July 27, 2012 by Matthew

It probably shouldn’t be necessary to tell non-citizens not to purchase fraudulent immigration papers, so that they appear to be legal. It’s against the law and you should know not to break the law. I understand that it’s difficult to live in the United States without papers. However, there’s another reason why you shouldn’t buy fake immigration papers.

I have been practicing immigration law since 1997. I regularly see non-citizens get placed into removal proceedings because they purchase fake I-94 stamps, green cards, U.S. birth certificates, naturalization certificates, and U.S. passports. These people always get caught the same way: the people who sell the fraudulent documents keep lists of everyone that they sell fake papers to, so that if they ever get caught they can make a deal with the prosecutors. If you buy these fake papers, it is inevitable that you will be caught. This is because when the Government catches the person who you bought the fake papers from, your dealer in fake documents is going to give the prosecutor your name, so that he spends less time in jail. It’s just not worth it to purchase fake immigration documents.

Moreover, pretending to be a U.S. citizen when you are not is the immigration “kiss of death.” There is nothing that will save you from deportation, if you falsely claim to be a U.S. citizen. Just don’t do it!

Some Thoughts on Arizona v. United States

June 26, 2012 by Matthew

On June 25, 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Arizona v. United States. The decision struck down 3 out of 4 provisions of Arizona’s SB 1070. The 3 provisions that were struck down involved:

1. A requirement that non-citizens carry identification and subjected them to criminal penalties for failure to comply.

2. A penalty for non-citizens that work without authorization to work in the United States.

3. Authorization of state and local police to make warrantless arrests of individuals who were believed to be removable.

These provisions were struck down because they deemed to be “preempted” by federal law. Certain areas of law, like immigration, are deemed to be the sole responsibility of the federal government, so that the states may not legislate them.

The fourth provision involved authorization of the police to request papers of individuals that they believe to be undocumented. This has been referred to as the “show me your papers” provision.” Arizona Governor Jan Brewer has been claiming victory because this provision was not struck down. I don’t view the Supreme Court’s decision as a victory for Governor Brewer. The Supreme Court’s decision did not expressly uphold this provision. The decision merely concluded that it was too early to determine whether this provision is proper because to do so would require a factual determination as to how the provision is applied. To me, this is not a victory for the State of Arizona. The Supreme Court merely left the battle for another day.

If there was any debate as to who won this battle, it was settled after the Supreme Court’s decision when the Department of Homeland Security announced that it was cancelling Arizona’s participation in the 287(g) program. 287(g) refers to a provision in the Immigration and Nationality Act that provides that the federal government can literally deputize state and local law enforcement officials to enforce immigration laws. One of the benefits of 287(g) is that state participants have access to federal immigration databases. By kicking Arizona out of 287(g), it no longer has direct access to the federal government’s immigration databases. As a result, when Arizona law enforcement officials arrest a suspected undocumented alien, they do not have the ability to check the federal immigration database on their own. Instead, they must call the Immigration and Custom Enforcement and will be at their whim.

Will Romney Burst the DREAMers Bubble?

June 21, 2012 by Matthew

President Obama’s new policy to spare from deportation certain undocumented non-citizens that came to the United States when they were young is not a permanent solution. He is only offering them something called deferred action. Deferred action is an act of prosecutorial discretion. It is not a formal immigration benefit like adjustment of status or naturalization. It is simply a decision that the Government will not deport someone. Because it is not a formal immigration benefit, it can be taken away at any time.

The election in November could have a tremendous impact upon these individuals. This is because Mitt Romney does not appear to support President Obama’s policy. In discussing whether or not he would continue President Obama’s policy, if elected, Mr. Romney has been quoted as saying, “I will put in place my own long-term solution that will replace and supersede the president’s temporary measure.” However, he has not stated any details about what this long-term solution would be.

Mr. Romney’s campaign website has a page on immigration. His website indicates that he will take a “strong stand against illegal immigration.” It further explains that he will “secure the border,” “turn off the magnets” that attract undocumented alients, “enforce the law,” and “oppose amnesty.” Based upon Mr. Romney’s website, it would appear that if he is elected president, anyone who applies for deferred action under President Obama’s plan will face deportation. While Mr. Romney has yet to actually state this, it’s hard to read what his campaign website says about immigration and not believe that he will not only discontinue President Obama’s policy, but seek to deport the people who have applied for deferred action pursuant to his policy. I still stand by my view that anyone not already in removal proceedings or facing deportation should wait until after the election to apply for deferred action under President Obama’s new policy.