Mediaboss Marketing

June is National Immigrant Heritage month in the United States and Voces de la Frontera is supporting actions that will stand out and make voices of immigrants heard and are ready to fight and march in the name of comprehensive reform. Sunday, June 20 saw the kickoff to a march that will continue for nine days, building up to a statewide rally at the Capitol in Madison on Monday, June 28.

They 90+ mile march from Milwaukee to Madison is meant to pressure the Biden administration and Democrats in Congress to pass a pathway to citizenship for the 11 million undocumented immigrants, many of them essential workers, in the United States.

The march honors Fathers Day, the date when it began. Eduardo Perea Hernandez, son of essential workers in Milwaukee who will be marching all nine days, said, My parents have worked hard for 30 years to provide for me and my three siblings. My father works in construction and has helped build critical infrastructure all over the state.Congress passing citizenship for all would mean that my family would feel safe, and allow my parents to gain access to healthcare, earn dignified wages and the ability to retire eventually.

Their sacrifices have allowed my older sister and I to graduate from college, and also allowed me to earn a master's degree. My family, and the 11 million immigrants who are undocumented, deserve to live with peace, tranquility and dignity. We need President Biden and Congress to pass citizenship for all now.

This marks the most ambitious march to date organized by Voces de la Frontera, who are responsible for providing record turnouts in Milwaukee, particularly for the May Day march and the Day without Latinx rallies. Guadalupe Romero, immigrant essential worker in the food service industry, said: Ive been contributing to this economy for 31 years as an essential worker, and for those 31 years Ive been living in fear. As the mother of six children, Ive felt afraid every time I drive them to school or to the doctorall because I dont have access to a driver's license. Im an essential worker and Im necessary to this nation. Immigrant essential workers have been fighting for our dignity for decades, and our time is now.

LEARN MORE

The Biden administration spoke of a path to citizenship as a campaign promise. The proposal, unveiled by Democrats on Capitol Hill, offers an eight-year path to citizenship for most of the 11 million undocumented immigrants in the United States, and eliminates restrictions on family-based immigration and expands worker visas.

Milwaukee Alderman Jose Perez, who marched alongside immigrant essential workers on Sunday, said, We need our elected representatives in Washington and President Biden to prioritize comprehensive immigration reform. Its been 35 years since Congress has passed any comprehensive immigration legislation, and our community has waited too long and sacrificed too much. We can only build back better if we do it together, and that means all of usDreamers, TPS holders, their families, electeds. Weve heard enough excuses. Its time for Congress to act.

Read the original here:
March for Immigration Reform Has Begun - Shepherd Express

As Christians we hold fast to the wisdom our scripture puts before us. Leviticus 19:33-34 states: When an alien resides with you in your land, you shall not oppress the alien. The alien who resides with you shall be to you as the citizen among you; you shall love the alien as yourself, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God.

We hold this as a foundational moral truth to our call to seek justice for our immigrant neighbors.

We are happy to celebrate Immigrant Heritage Month this June. Since 2014, this month has encouraged us to share the stories of our manifold cultural roots and appreciate the ways in which diversity enriches our country and our local communities.

While this month is a time to celebrate and rejoice, it also marks two anniversaries that remind us of the ways in which our immigration system needs reform. June 15 marked nine years since the creation of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. DACA offers two-year renewable residency permits to approximately 700,000 undocumented young adults brought to the United States as children, also known as Dreamers.

Despite the fact that DACA protects young people who had no choice in coming here and know no other home but America, President Trump abruptly terminated the program in 2017. June 18 marked one year since the Supreme Court ruled that his termination of DACA was unlawful, but the program remains vulnerable to continued legal challenges.

The anniversaries of June 15 and June 18 highlight why we must pass the bipartisan DREAM Act to help the two million Dreamers currently working and attending school in the United States. The DREAM Act would allow Dreamers to become American citizens so long as they do not have a criminal record and have obtained a high school diploma/GED.

Citizenship for Dreamers makes common sense: they pay taxes, create jobs, and even serve in our military, yet they receive none of the benefits and stability that U.S. citizenship provides. Even as they live in fear of deportation every day, Dreamers are integral members of their communities who add tremendous value to our country and economy.

The DREAM Act is one of the few immigration bills that has strong bipartisan support. According to recent surveys, 75 percent of American voters agree that Dreamers should be allowed to remain in the United States while they work and/or attend school and that they deserve a pathway to citizenship.

Our current immigration system is one that facilitates the separation of families and embeds the fear of deportation into young undocumented immigrants. Passing the DREAM Act will promote the mission of Immigrant Heritage Month and help steer our immigration system in the right direction.

While we celebrate the many diversities of the American people, let us also take action and invite Dreamers into our celebration. The DREAM Act is one piece of legislation that cannot wait any longer, as it stands to protect a deserving group of young people while also helping our nations economy as we recover from the pandemic.

Here in Maine this would have a positive impact on our significant immigrant population, and in fact to all Mainers. In Maine alone, we are 16,000 workers short in the hospitality industry. To give young people a path to citizenship provides access and stability for young immigrants to fully participate as members of our society.

These are the reasons we need senators on both sides of the aisle to come together and bring the DREAM Act to fruition. Let us remember that we were all once aliens in the land, and that we are called to treat the stranger as our neighbor and to love them as ourselves.

Special to the Press Herald

Invalid username/password.

Please check your email to confirm and complete your registration.

Use the form below to reset your password. When you've submitted your account email, we will send an email with a reset code.

Previous

Go here to read the rest:
Maine Voices: Citizenship for Dreamers is an overdue immigration reform - Press Herald

It may be hard to imagine, but prior to 1986 it was not illegal for an employer to hire an undocumented worker. All of that changed with the enactment of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA). In addition to requiring employers to verify the work eligibility for all employees, IRCA's antidiscrimination provisions prohibit an employer from discriminating in hiring or firing on the basis of an individual's citizenship status or national origin.

The pre-employment process is wide open with traps for an employer to inadvertently run afoul of antidiscrimination provisions under IRCA. One issue that is particularly tricky, and perhaps not given enough attention, is what an employer is and is not allowed to request from a foreign national candidate seeking employment. On one hand, it is impossible to properly assess eligibility for applicable nonimmigrant work authorization options without knowing the individuals complete immigration history. On the other hand, an employer needs to be mindful of not stumbling into a citizenship status or national origin discrimination claim. How does an employer properly walk this fine line?

I. Antidiscrimination Provisions

We must first understand the antidiscrimination provisions under IRCA. Section 274B(a)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) reads that it is an unfair immigration-related employment practice for an employer to discriminate against any individual with respect to hiring, recruiting, or discharging the individual because of his/her citizenship status or national origin. Citizenship status includes an individuals immigration status.

However, the INAs antidiscrimination provisions for citizenship discrimination only apply to protected individuals under the law, which includes (1) U.S. citizens and nationals; (2) lawful permanent residents (green card); (3) refugees; and (4) asylees. These citizenship discrimination provisions therefore do not apply to foreign nationals in nonimmigrant status.

While nonimmigrants are not a protected class of individuals for citizenship discrimination, employers still need to be mindful that nonimmigrants could claim national origin discrimination if they believe the decision not to hire them was based on country of origin, accent or appearance. National origin discrimination applies to treating individuals differently because of place of birth, country of origin, ancestry, native language, accent or because they look foreign.

II. How Should Employers Juggle These Considerations?

An employer is not required to hire a foreign national who requires sponsorship for non-immigrant work authorization. But how does an employer inquire about work authorization status without worrying about engaging in citizenship or national origin discrimination?

Thankfully, the Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices (OSC) provides some cover and helpful guidance on what initial inquiries are allowed. OSC confirms that employers may ask these three questions during the pre-employment process:

It is important to note that these three questions are an all or nothing proposition. If you ask one, you need to ask all three.

The responses to these three questions may elucidate information that the individual is a foreign national who will require sponsorship. In fact, in many cases, even without these three questions, a foreign national candidate will be very up front with their immigration status and volunteer information about their sponsorship needs. An employers next consideration is how to proceed with this knowledge. Is it safe to request documentation regarding their immigration history or should that be deferred until after the offer of employment has been officially accepted?

There is no explicit right or wrong answer to that question. Some employers may choose to not ask any related work authorization questions during the pre-employment process, while others will only ask the three questions above provided by the OSC. Still others are comfortable with requesting immigration history information from a foreign national in nonimmigrant status.

Interestingly, since nonimmigrants are not protected under INA antidiscrimination provisions, requesting certain documentation and or deciding not to hire a nonimmigrant based on the sponsorship requirement would not violate antidiscrimination provisions. The OSC confirms this by writing:

Accordingly, an employer that asks all of its job applicants whether they will require sponsorship now or in the future and refuses to hire those who require sponsorship would likely not violate 8 U.S.C. 1324b. Similarly, an employer that asks questions designed to prefer certain classes of nonimmigrant visa holders (e.g. STEM OPT students) over other classes of nonimmigrant visa holders is unlikely to violate the INAs prohibition against citizenship status discrimination.

Therefore, if the individual volunteers information about their nonimmigrant status or the initial three questions approved by the OSC trigger a confirmation that an individual is a foreign national nonimmigrant who requires sponsorship (e.g. H-1B), an employer may request documentation relating to the individuals H-1B eligibility without violating citizenship status discrimination provisions. They may wish to do so before making an offer, while other employers defer this analysis until after the offer and risk the scenario of having to rescind the offer.

While those in nonimmigrant status are not a protected class under citizenship discrimination provisions, an employer still needs to be careful about those in a protected class or engaging in national origin discrimination.

For example, OSC cautions against requesting certain documentation and engaging in citizenship discrimination against a protected class of individual. It writes:

However, asking job applicants detailed questions about their immigration or citizenship status may deter individuals who are protected from citizenship discrimination, such as refugees and asylees, from applying due to a misunderstanding about their eligibility for the position. Therefore, we caution employers against asking detailed questions pertaining to status that may lead to such confusion.

Again, while nonimmigrants are not a protected class under citizenship discrimination, national origin discrimination is still a concern. OSC confirms that all work-authorized individuals are protected from national origin discrimination under the antidiscrimination provision. Accordingly, individuals who believe that they were not hired based on national originfor example, their country of origin, accent or appearancemay allege discrimination on this basis.

III. No Really How Should Employers Juggle These Considerations?

These can be slippery concepts and trying to forge a policy to cover every scenario can feel overwhelming. There are some simple steps to consider:

Read the original here:
Avoiding Citizenship and National Origin DiscriminationThe Tricky Analysis Surrounding What Employers May Request from Foreign National Candidates...

Last month, the U.S. departments of Homeland Security and Justice jointly announced the creation of a dedicated docket process to make immigration hearings more expeditious. Specifically, the plan is to establish a fairer and more efficient system for families arriving at the southwest border of the United States. The new process is aimed at reducing the time it takes to adjudicate cases, so families arent caught in an endless backlog.

This process will apply to immigrants arriving on or after May 28, 2021, who are placed in removal proceedings and are enrolled in a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement program known as Alternatives to Detention (ATD). Homeland Security, Justice, and the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), which make up the immigration court system, will work together to refer families to pro bono legal services for possible legal representation. Ten cities across the country have been selected for this program, including Seattle, where I live.

Not much else has been shared about this new process, so those of us on the ground are not necessarily clear on the actions to follow. And although I do not practice immigration removal defense, the past four years have given me a crash course in organizing and finding solutions for our local communities whose members need legal representation.

This new process announced by DOJ and DHS sounds like it will need a local solution.

But there are challenges to that. The supply of experienced immigration lawyers offering pro bono services has steadily declined over the past four years and is now lower than it has ever been. In my book, Legal Heroes in the Trump Era, I explore some of the reasons why.

In sum, the Trump administration depleted resources, energy, and time by orchestrating one crisis after another within the immigration system. Working with a team of lawyers here in the Seattle area, we began looking for ways to address the mounting problems.

To create sustainable solutions for detained trials and large-scale legal clinics in Washington state, we created the Washington Immigrant Defense Network (WIDEN) andstipendedlegal clinics. In the WIDEN model, seasoned immigration lawyers provide training and guidance to nonimmigration lawyers, while representing detained immigrants in trial.

New problems require new and creative solutions. And with momentum for delivering efficient processing times, we need to look at the capacity on the ground in each state to see who can offer help. A one-size-fits-all measure may or may not work. But I know from the experience of having run a law firm for over a decade that people hear what they want to hear. And if the administration says it will refer families to pro bono legal service providers for possiblerepresentation there will be an expectation of pro bono services.

But lets be clear: there is no right to counsel in immigration court. Too often, immigrants and their families cant afford legal services. The issue has been hard fought for decades by many advocates, such as the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project (NWIRP), which provides services to immigrants, including detainees; the Vera Institute of Justice, a nonprofit research and policy organization; and many others. The comprehensive immigration reform bill that was introduced in February 2021 has some reasonable provisions for a right to counsel program, but the future of the bill seems, at best, uncertain. This new, dedicated docketing system allows us to think about and consider solutions that could eventually pave the way for a national legal aid program for vulnerable immigrants.

But the problem is profoundly deep and complicated.

The announcement states that the new system will apply to eligible newcomers only and cases must be concluded within 300 days of the master calendar hearing. While thats a good start to demonstrate the administration is trying to find solutions, it unveils another set of problems. As of December 2020, for example, there were 1.3 million cases in the immigration court system. TRAC, a nonpartisan, nonprofit data research center affiliated with the Newhouse School of Public Communications and the Whitman School of Management, both at Syracuse University, reported that at the time Donald Trump assumed office, 542,411 people had deportation cases pending in immigration courts. By the start of 2021, that number had ballooned to 1,290,766 nearly 2 1/2 times the level from four years earlier.

The report further states: Waiting in the wings are another 300,000+ cases that President Trumps policy changes have decided arent finally resolved, but have not yet been placed back on the active docket.

Therefore, a new effort focused only on newcomers will not make a dent in the problem. But we can use this moment to problem solve and create a workable system that can be the foundation for all the cases in the backlog, as well as for the future.

While I dont think I have the perfect fix right now, this complex problem must start with extensive dialogue among all stakeholders. The administration must collaborate with local service providers and experienced immigration lawyers, especially the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA), to ensure we can develop a sustainable solution one that can help us achieve that long-sought goal of a right to legal counsel in immigration. Let us not waste this critical opportunity to usher in long-awaited change.

Tahmina Watsonis the founding attorney ofWatson Immigration Lawin Seattle, where she practices US immigration law focusing on business immigration. She has been blogging about immigration law since 2008 and has written numerous articles in many publications. She is the author ofLegal Heroes in the Trump Era: Be Inspired. Expand Your Impact. Changethe WorldandThe Startup Visa: Key to Job Growth and Economic Prosperity in America.She is also the founder of The Washington Immigrant Defense Network (WIDEN), which funds and facilitates legal representation in the immigration courtroom, and co-founder ofAirport Lawyers, which provided critical services during the early travel bans. Tahmina is regularly quoted in the media and is the host of the podcastTahmina Talks Immigration. She was recently honored by the Puget Sound Business Journal as one of the 2020 Women of Influence. You can reach her by email attahmina@watsonimmigrationlaw.comor follow her on Twitter at @tahminawatson.

Read this article:
Administrations Plan To Expedite Immigrant Hearings Opens The Door To Address Right To Counsel In Immigration - Above the Law

(The Center Square) The head of the Iowa Association of Business and Industry said Gov. Kim Reynolds plan to use pandemic relief funds to attract more workers to the state will fulfill a big need for Iowa businesses.

During the associations conference held in Coralville earlier this month, Reynolds told those attending the state would use pandemic relief funds for a marketing campaign to draw people to Iowa to help with its job surplus, The Gazette reported.

I don't know whether it'll be effective. I'm not an expert or anything like that. But it seems like this is a time to try anything and everything, Mark Ralston, president of the Iowa Association of Business, told The Center Square.

First and foremost, the state needs more people, which is why the association has favored immigration reform for a long time, Ralston said.

The second need is for employers to offer not just competitive wages, and if not the best wages, almost the best, he said.

Any employer that's not offering good wages and benefits, they don't have anything to complain about and they're their own worst enemy, Ralston said.

The fact that wages are not rising indicates they are too low or the quality of the available jobs has eroded, according to a Common Good Iowareport by Colin Good.

Businesses and industries need to be competitive on many things. They need to treat their workers as the most important asset because they are, Ralston said.

So that's all part of: One, we need more people; and two: We need to make sure we're treating those people the best possible ways, Ralston said.

Iowa's unemployment rate increased slightly in May to 3.9% from 3.8% in April. By comparison, the jobless rate was 8.3% one year ago. The U.S. unemployment rate dropped to 5.8% in May, Iowa Workforce Development reported.

At the associations conference, Reynolds said Iowa is already seeing people return who have been on the East and West coasts. They recognized Iowa kept its economy open and kids in school, she said.

See original here:
Iowa's use of pandemic relief to attract workers comes during a 'time to try anything' - Southernminn.com