Gambia-l:
I hope this information on immigration is useful!
Amadou Scattred Janneh
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HOUSE PASSES SECTION 245(I) EXTENSION
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This week the House of Representatives voted 275 to 137 to extend Section
245(i). The House was set to vote on the issue on September 11th, but the
vote was cancelled after Congress was evacuated following the terrorist
attacks in New York City and Washington, DC. For months after the attacks,
security concerns dominated immigration issues in Congress. The extension
was found in part of a larger bill on border security, a move that angered
some House members opposed to Section 245(i). While the Senate last year
passed a 245(i) extension bill, it was not the same as this one. Therefore,
it will need to approve this version before it can be sent to the President
for his signature. Some speculate that the entire bill may collapse without
approval during negotiations between the House and Senate
Pro-immigration advocates have criticized the bill as being so restrictive
that only a small number of people will be helped. The weakness of the
extension as currently contemplated has led some in Congress to question how
seriously the administration supports the measure and to what degree it is
willing to pressure hard-line anti immigration Republicans. In a statement
released shortly before the vote, House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt
(D-MO) expressed disappointment that Bush was not able to convince
Congressional Republicans to support a more meaningful extension. There is
broad Democratic support for making Section 245(i) permanent. During the
debate before the vote, a number of Republican congressmen known for their
opposition to Section 245(i) spoke against it, saying that they were being
forced to vote against border security measures they supported because of
their opposition to what they see as an amnesty.
While the vote has been received positively by immigration advocates, they
also point out that restrictions in the bill will substantially limit its
usefulness to most applicants. In addition to being able to prove that they
were physically present in the US on December 20, 2000, they must also have
entered into the qualifying family relationship before August 15, 2001. In
employment based cases, the labor certification must have been filed before
August 15, 2001.
This effectively prevents many from benefiting from the section 245(i)
extension, and creates potentially serious problems for attorneys. After
Section 245(i) expired on April 30, 2001, attorneys no longer filed labor
certifications for people who would need Section 245(i) to obtain a green
card. To do so would have brought no tangible benefit, and could have
exposed a person in the US without authorization to discovery by the INS,
leading to their deportation.
Moreover, Section 245(i) is being extended for only a very short period of
time. The law extends it until November 30, 2002, or four months after the
INS issues regulations, whichever is soonest. Because of the August 15 date
limit, regulations will be necessary before applications can be filed. Even
if the INS does not issue regulations until November 1, the extension would
still expire on November 30, 2002.
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L Web interface
at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html
To contact the List Management, please send an e-mail to:
[log in to unmask]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
