My Opinion — Page 4

The Ridiculousness of Mandatory Detention

November 29, 2012 by Matthew

I was in immigration court yesterday for a detained client. The client has 2 misdemeanor drug convictions. She has been on probation for the last year. A couple of weeks ago, ICE detained her when she reported for probation and now she is facing deportation because of her misdemeanor convictions. Because she has a conviction for a controlled substance offense, she is subject to mandatory detention. By law, she cannot be released on bond. As a result of changes to the immigration law in 1996, many convictions result in people being placed in removal proceedings not being eligible for bond. This is called mandatory detention.

To me, a case like this demonstrates how ridiculous mandatory detention is. Her 2 convictions are for misdemeanors. She’s not a danger to anyone and she’s not a flight risk. She’s eligible for cancellation of removal. Since she’s eligible for relief from deportation, it’s in her best interest to appear for immigration court. Most of all, she has been on probation for the last year and was fully complying with her probation! However, due to mandatory detention, she will be detained by ICE for the duration of her case.

I hear lots of talk about the immigration reform, such as amnesty and the DREAM Act. Unfortunately, I don’t hear about immigration reform regarding mandatory detention. I think that mandatory detention should be limited to cases where individuals are ineligible for relief from removal. If someone is eligible for relief from removal, they should have the opportunity to have a hearing on bond to demonstrate why they should be released. If you are eligible for relief, you should have the opportunity to fight your case from home, rather than an ICE detention facility. Just having a bond hearing doesn’t mean that someone will be released. If they are a danger to the community or a flight risk, an immigration judge does not have to grant the individual bond. The current system that prevents immigration judges from considering bond for detained people in removal proceedings with almost any criminal history is wrong and should be changed.

Mitt Romney’s Changing Position on Immigration

October 2, 2012 by Matthew

Back during the Republican primaries, Mitt Romney was against the DREAM Act and was promoting self deportation. Yesterday, Mitt Romney was interviewed by the Denver Post and announced that if he is elected, he will honor deferred actions requests granted under President Obama’s policy for DREAMers. However, today Romney’s campaign clarified his statement. If elected, he will discontinue the program and not extend the deferred action grants after they expire in two years. He also claims that he will have his own policy in place that will provide a permanent solution. Unfortunately, he has yet to provide any details regarding his permanent solution.

On the plus side, DREAMers can now file for deferred action knowing that if they are granted relief, they will have employment authorization for two years. Since June, I’ve been saying that DREAMers should wait until after the election to file for deferred action. With Mitt Romney’s latest statements, there is no longer a reason to delay filing.

I Was Quoted in an Article by Minyanville.com

August 27, 2012 by Matthew

Minyanville.com published an article about the EB-5 investor program, Investment Visas: Swapping Yacht People for Boat People. I am quoted in the article:

“It just doesn’t seem fair that some rich person can come along and buy residency,” Matthew Guadagno, an immigration attorney in private practice, tells me. “I suppose there’s the view that you’re purportedly helping the economy, but for a guy who represents regular people, it feels wrong.”

People who are not rich usually get their green cards through the family based immigration system. If you are married to a U.S. citizen or you have a U.S. citizen son or daughter over 21 years old, a visa is immediately available for you. However, for all other petitioners there is a very limited amount of visas that are issued each year. These visas are given on a first come first serve basis. If the visas run out, then you have to wait until you’re at the top of the list. This is why opponents to amnesty complain that creating an amnesty allows those that don’t follow the rules to “cut in line.” There is currently a terrible backlog for people to get green cards, if you do not qualify for an immediate visa. According to the Visa Bulletin for September 2012:

* for 1st preference visas (unmarried sons and daughters of U.S. citizens): they are currently processing applications that were filed on October 1, 2005 and earlier. Thus, there’s an almost 7 year wait for this group.

* for 2nd preference part A visas (spouses and children of permanent residents): they are currently processing applications that were filed on May 10, 2008, and earlier. Thus, there’s a wait of 4 years for this group.

* for 2nd preference part B visas (unmarried sons and daughters, over 21 years of age, of permanent residents): they are currently processing applications that were filed on September 15, 2004, and earlier. Thus, there’s a wait of 8 years for this group.

* for 3rd preference visas (married sons and daughters of U.S. citizens): they are currently processing applications that were filed on May 15, 2002, and earlier. Thus, there’s a wait of 10 years for this group.

* for 4th preference visas (brothers and sisters of adult U.S. citizens): they are currently processing applications that were filed on March 8, 2001, and earlier. Thus, there’s a wait of 11 years for this group.

In light of the backlog of family based visas, I don’t think that it’s fair that rich people can buy their way to the top of the list.