Category: Articles

#PersecutionPulse | Chinese Government Demolishes Another Mega-Church

#PersecutionPulse

For decades, Indonesian authorities used construction code violations as a way to demolish churches in order to refute charges of Christian persecution. It appears that China is now following suit, by demolishing churches using the same reasoning. Is this the beginning of a frightening trend for Chinese Christians or simply a construction code enforcement mechanism? Click here to learn more.

If you have any questions about whether you qualify for Asylum or Withholding of Removal, contact the experienced immigration attorneys at The Shapiro Law Firm, LLC, today at (212) 444-8064.

Note: “Attorney Advertising” The information contained in this web site is intended to convey general information. It should not be construed as legal advice or opinion. It is not an offer to represent you, nor is it intended to create an attorney-client relationship. Any email sent via the Internet using email addresses listed in this web site would not be confidential and would not create an attorney-client relationship.

#PositivelyImmigration | British Actor Sir Patrick Stewart is applying to be a U.S. Citizen so he can "fight" (aka vote)

#PositivelyImmigration

Need another reason to apply for your citizenship? Sir Patrick Stewart eloquently explains why he finally decided to make the leap from Permanent Resident to U.S. Citizen:

“I’m not a citizen. However, there is, maybe it’s the only good thing as the result of this election: I am now applying for citizenship because I want to be an American too, because all of my friends in Washington said, ‘There is one thing you can do. Fight, fight, oppose, oppose.’ But I can’t do it because I’m not a citizen.”

See more here.

Of course non-citizens can still indirectly participate in the political process by engaging in activities such as campaigning, marching and speaking about the issues. But only U.S. Citizens have the privilege to vote. So if you are a Permanent Resident and you are unhappy with the results of the 2016 election, apply for your citizenship today, so when 2020 rolls around you can be the first one in line to vote!

If you need help applying for your U.S. Citizenship, contact an experienced immigration attorney at The Shapiro Law Firm today.

**Attorney Advertising** Please be advised that that all information provided above is general in nature and does not create an attorney-client relationship.**Attorney Advertising**

#PositivelyImmigration | Why Immigrants Are Essential to American Inventiveness and Economic Growth | Tech Companies Amicus Curie Brief in Opposition to travel ban explained

#PositivelyImmigration

The travel ban implemented by President Trump’s Executive Order has resulted in fierce opposition from notable tech companies such as Google, Twitter, Apple and Amazon. The tech companies have turned their fierce opposition into action by filing amicus briefs in opposition to the travel ban with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. One filing was joined by 97 different leading U.S. tech companies and non-tech companies from other sectors of the economy.

What is an Amicus Curie Brief?

“Amicus Curie” is latin for “friend of the court,” and refers to someone who is not a party to the litigation, but who believes that the court’s ruling will effect its’ interests. In other words, a party filing an amicus curie brief is not a plaintiff or defendant in the case, but nonetheless will be effected by the decision of the court.

In order to file an amicus curie brief, both parties to the litigation must consent to the filing or the court itself can allow the filing if an amicus party files a motion requesting such with the court.

Amicus curie briefs are meant to supplement the court with valuable information and legal arguments that may not have been brought up by the actual parties to the litigation.

The 97 U.S. companies who filed the amicus curie brief in Washington, et al v. Trump, Case No. 2:17-cv-00141-JLR, argue that, “the Order inflicts significant harm on American business, innovation, and growth…” by “threaten[ing] companies’ ability to attract talent, business, and investment to the United States.” The brief goes on to explain that immigrants are essential to American innovativeness, growth and inventiveness as evidenced by the high number of immigrant Nobel prize winners and the fact that immigrants with advanced degrees are 3 times as likely to file patents than U.S.-born citizens with the same level of education. The brief goes onto explain the positive impact that these immigrants have on their colleagues and our country as a whole before explaining exactly how the companies and our country are harmed by the travel ban.

Countless Studies Back up the Claims that Immigrants Positively Impact Multiple Facts of American Life.

One study that was conducted over a 60 year time period (from 1940-2000), found that geographic areas of the Untied States with a higher number of immigrants produced more inventions and patents. Parents are associated with economic growth. For more information, click here to read The Atlantic article titled, “Immigrants and American Inventiveness.”

In my first #PositivelyImmigration blog post, I also touched on the issue of immigrant inventiveness when I reported that 6 of the 7 Nobel prize winners in 2016 were foreign-born.

**Attorney Advertising** Please be advised that that all information provided above is general in nature and does not create an attorney-client relationship.**Attorney Advertising**

#ImmigrationWatch2017 | Topic #4: Sanctuary Cities | **UPDATE**

#ImmigrationWatch2017

On Tuesday, I explained what Sanctuary Cities are discussed the protections that these cities have been offering illegal immigrants. I also touched on the NYC ID program created my Mayor De Blasio that permits undocumented individuals to obtain a photo ID and did have information on immigration status on file. I also mentioned that NYC had a “kill-switch” built into the program that would allow officials to destroy all of the collected data for roughly 900,000 people, more than half of whom are illegal immigrants and that a Staten Island lawmaker had filed a lawsuit to stop the Mayor from destroying the data.

NYC ID Card

After publication, the court issued a temporary injunction to prevent the De Blasio administration from destroying any of the collected data.

What does this mean for undocumented immigrants who have already given their information to city officials in order to obtain a NYC ID?

Nothing yet…the case will move forward so that the court can rule on whether or not city officials may destroy the data collected in conjunction with the program. Read more here.

*If you are in the United States and are worried about your ability to remain in the country, contact an experienced immigration attorney at The Shapiro Law Firm, LLC, to find out if we can help.*

#PositivelyImmigration + #PositivelyAmerican – Americans Reaching Out to Refugees Living Nearby After Election

#PositivelyImmigration

Since the election, refugees around the United States have been been scared, confused and subject to increased anti-refugee sentiment. Hate crimes, especially anti-muslim attacks, have shot up as a result of false and misleading statements that have been perpetuated by certain politicians and media outlets. America was beginning to look like a dark and unwelcoming place for mid-eastern refugees.

Fortunately, Americans across the Untied States who live in or near the refugee-resettlement towns are letting new refugee arrivals know that they are welcome there. Since the elections, Americans have been turning out in droves to lend their support to refugee communities. Hopefully more Americans will follow their lead. Read more here.

Immigration Attorney Opinion: The mass deportation of 11 million illegal immigrants will likely result in human rights abuses.

What does the mass deportation of 11 million people actually look like?

Prison Cell

Previously, I explained the astronomical economic cost of Donald Trump’s plan to mass deport 11 million undocumented immigrants if he is elected President (approximately $100-$300 billion).

While this fact alone provides strong support against the plan, the reality is, this proposal is likely to create an inviting environment for repeated human rights abuses. How? To understand the real danger behind this plan, it is helpful to picture what steps the government must take in order to carry out this feat.

How will Immigration and Customs & Enforcement (ICE) enforce this? ICE will likely first target the approximate 925,000 undocumented immigrants who have final orders of removal/ deportation but have failed to depart the United States. In accordance with standard ICE operating procedures, focus will likely shift to criminal illegal aliens already in removal/ deportation proceedings. ICE will face the least number of legal hurdles in removing these two groups of illegal aliens, and thus should be effectuated relatively quick compared to the remaining undocumented immigrants.

The question is, how will Trump go about deporting individuals who do not have final removal/ deportation orders? Will their be a flat denial of due process in violation of the U.S. Constitution and with complete disregard to Supreme Court precedent?

While Trump has failed to explain how the mass deportation would actually take place, he intentionally leads a reasonable listener to believe that he will be rounding people up to deport them, all at once or as many as possible at a time. Either Donald Trump really does not understand how the removal/ deportation process works, or he does not care. The fact is, the U.S. cannot just put people on boats and planes and waive goodbye. We rely on the cooperation of other countries to take back their citizens and nationals. However, according to the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee (citing DHS), currently there are 23 countries who are “uncooperative” in this endeavor and cooperation with 62 other countries are “strained.” This has been one of the main reasons why there are close to 1 million illegal aliens still in this country with final orders of removal.

It is thus reasonable to conclude that the mass deportation of 11 million people will be a time-consuming and tedious process. So what will the U.S. government do with all 11 million people while they scramble to figure out each person’s country of origin and secure a travel document there?

I am concerned that many of these people will be placed in ICE detention centers which will spur the opening of numerous large detention centers across the United States. In addition, most likely these immigration detention centers will be privately-run facilities, as the government does not have the budget to otherwise implement such a plan (Congress controls the budget, not the President), and this is where my biggest concern lies.

I have always been against for-profit prisons. These prisons make money like any other for-profit entity, by always looking to cut costs and maintain a steady stream of clientele (i.e., returning customers). In this situation, that means decreasing living conditions to arguably minimal legal standards for prisons, a lack of transparency and public accountability, and an interest in keeping individuals locked up.

The conditions in many of these for-profit prisons are so deplorable in fact, that about 2 months ago the U.S. Justice Department announced that it was terminating contracts with private prisons due to fact that the prisoner conditions were so sub-standard that riots were breaking out in response to this and to the high number of assaults and suspicious deaths that were taking place.

Despite the numerous accounts of the atrocities that have taken place in these for-profit prisons, ICE just announced that it has entered into a contract with one of the worst facilities on this list to house undocumented immigrants and is in the process of making agreements with at least 2 more of these facilities.

We cannot be naive here. For-profit prisons operate to make money and that will not change simply because the detainees are illegal immigrants as oppose to criminal offenders. The same deplorable healthcare and living conditions are certain to continue despite the change in detainee population, inviting the likelihood of severe human rights violations of millions of individuals being held not as criminals, but as immigration violaters.

#PositivelyImmigration | Economists agree that Clinton's Immigration Plan Better for Economy Than Trump's Plan

#PositivelyImmigration

How the next President will deal with the illegal immigration problem in this country can have lasting effects on our economy. Trump and Clinton have both set forth drastically different plans to address the problem. Trump’s plan centers on mass deportation of all 11 million undocumented immigrants and tighter border security. Clinton aims to create a pathway to citizenship for many of these undocumented persons.

Welcoming immigrants into our country is a part of the foundation of America and is invaluable to the makeup of our country. Problems arise, however, when people are present in the United States unlawfully. So what is the best way for our lawmakers to deal with current problem and prevent the issue from resurfacing in the future? What factors matter the most? For example, should family unity be given more weight than fundamental fairness and following the rule of law?

One way to address these issues is to look at the bottom line, and by that I mean $$$! By isolating the economic factor, we can attempt to obtain an objective hold on this controversial subject matter.

According to the forecasting firm Moody Analytics, Clinton’s plan to legalize immigrants and provide a path to citizenship will add about a quarter of a percentage point to GDP (on average) over the next 10 years. That comes to about an increase in the GDP of about $489 billion by 2026.

Trump’s plan, on the other hand, which involves mass deportation and to stem the tide of legal immigration into the U.S., will reduce the GDP (on average) about a half a percentage point over the next 10 years. That comes to about a decrease in the GDP of about $880 billion by 2026.

In addition, Trump’s plan to deport the 11 million undocumented immigrants is estimated to cost the U.S. $100-300 billion over the next 2 years.

Economists agree that generally speaking, immigration is a plus for the economy. GDP is heavily dependent on the number of workers and their productivity. In fact, contrary to popular belief, historical analysis shows that on the whole, immigration has a positive impact on the economy. This includes unskilled immigrant labor, which opponents of immigration often point to as evidence that immigration is hurting Americans by reducing wages or unskilled laborers. However, unskilled immigrant labor has never made an appreciable impact on the wages of unskilled American wages, and even less so today when an increasing number of immigrants entering the United States are more educated and come from more economically-stable backgrounds.

What should we take away from this? Immigration is overall a positive and beneficial addendum to our economy. If our only options are mass deportation or a path to citizenship for many of the 11 million undocumented immigrants currently in the United States, it seems obvious that mass deportation is impractical, un-American and will hurt our economy greatly.

To learn more about what economists have said on this topic, click here for the article written in the LA Times.

What do you think?

#PositivelyImmigration | A Northwestern University Professor discusses the positive lessons that she learned growing up with undocumented family members

#PositivelyImmigration

Ana Aparico, an Associate Professor of Anthropology and Latino Studies at the prestigious Northwestern University explains, “What [Her] Immigrant Family Taught [Her] About America.”

In this brief article, Ana Aparico discusses what it was like growing up with most of her family members in the U.S. as undocumented immigrants. Ms. Aparico’s family fled war-torn El Salvador and sought refuge in America. Although her family members were here illegally, they worked extremely hard, despite low pay and paid their taxes.

Ms. Aparico explains how difficult it was for her family members to make a life in the U.S. in light of their undocumented status, “[i]t takes a great deal of courage to endure challenges in a place that labels you a criminal while simultaneously benefitting from your labor.” Ms. Aparico further states that it was strength and courage of that her family exemplified during their time as undocumented immigrants that shaped her into the person that she is today.

Fortunately for Ms. Aparico’s family, they eventually were able to obtain legal status thanks to the 1986 amnesty law that provided a pathway for many undocumented immigrants to obtain legal status and eventually citizenship. This is the federal policy implemented by President Regan that Trump referred to at the final Presidential debate.

Ms. Aparico’s story is not unique. Millions of undocumented immigrants who are in this country do not commit crimes, contribute positively to society, pay their taxes and teach important life and cultural lessons to others who they come in contact with.

For the full article in TIME, click here.

An Immigration Attorney Fact Checks the Final Presidential Debate

At last Wednesday’s debate, the topic of immigration was finally discussed, although not at great length as the debate quickly veered into other subject matter.

Before I fact check what the candidates said in the final Presidential debate regarding their views on immigration policy and reform, I want to make it clear that neither I, nor The Shapiro Law Firm, LLC, have a partisan motivation in discussing these issues:

As an immigration attorney, I am privy to the inner workings of the United States immigration system and the people that go through it. We have clients who come from over 100 countries around the world, who represent all races, religions, nationalities, political beliefs, socio-economic status, etc. We have clients who came to this country legally and those who did not. We have clients who were initially in this country legally but violated the terms of their status in some way and are now here illegally. We also have clients who initially entered this country illegally but now have legal status. Finally, we have clients who do not have lawful status, but are not unlawfully present in the United States. As such, my goal here is to inform and assess the validity of what the candidates said in the debate based on my significant personal experiences combined with cold-hard facts. None of what is said here or in any other blog post on our website should be construed as a political opinion or endorsement of any kind.

Back to the fact-checking!

Topic #1 – The Border Wall

Trump: Wants to build a wall on the entire border between Mexico and the United States in order to stem the tide of illegal immigration as well as the flow of drugs and crime into this country.

Clinton: Does not believe that a border wall is the answer. Clinton believes that our border down south is more secure than it has ever been in the past

The facts: In previous blog posts, I have discussed and provided statistical evidence that immigration status is not an indicator of one’s propensity to commit violent acts or break the law. In fact, you are more likely to be harmed by an American-born individual than someone born outside of this country. I also explained that an illegal border crosser coming in from Mexico is not a significant problem compared to the other problems facing our immigration system and the security of your nation.

The category of “illegal immigrants” is broadly defined. It encompasses many classes of aliens present in the United States without permission, including, but not limited to:

  1. 1. individuals who are admitted to the U.S. with a valid visa and either stay past the date of his or her authorized stay or violate the terms of the visa in some way;

  3. 2. individuals who are admitted to the U.S. with a valid visa, but one that is not in his or her own name, and;

  5. 3. individuals present in the U.S. without being inspected or admitted (aka entry without inspection (EWI) or individuals who illegally crossed the border without permission).

As such, the border wall proposal is extremely flawed both in theory and in practice. Putting aside the fact that the cost to build such a wall has been shown to be prohibitively expensive (a topic outside the scope of this post), it also fails entirely to address the illegal immigrants present in the U.S. who fall into categories 1 and 2 above.

Topic #2 – Trump’s claim that the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Patrol (CBP), both federal agencies, have endorsed him.

The facts: By law, a federal agency cannot endorse a candidate and must conduct itself in a bi-partisan fashion.

Trump is purposely misleading the public here. Neither ICE nor CBP endorsed Trump. What Trump is actually referring to is a union that is comprised of ICE and CBP employees, which is patently different than an entire governmental agency endorsing him.

Topic #3 – What to do with the 11 million undocumented immigrants in this country.

Trump: Wants to institute mass deportations for practically everyone who is in the U.S. illegally. He has also said that he will allow these people to return and even be able to get green cards and eventually citizenship if they do it legally. Trump further expressed the concern that there are a lot of people who have been waiting for a very long time outside of this country to come here legally, and that it would not be be fair to those people if we grant “amnesty” to those here illegally.

Clinton: Supports a path to citizenship for individuals present in the U.S. without legal status. Clinton does not support the mass deportation of 11 million people and stated in the final debate that it would be “un-American” to do so and would result in a very large law enforcement presence throughout the United States to do so.

The facts: ICE is incapable of deporting 11 million undocumented individuals without deploying a military-like law enforcement presence throughout the country. Clinton is correct that such a force would disrupt daily life, break families a part, and create a state of fear and panic.

Trump is technically correct in saying that the Obama administration has deported more people than previous administrations, but what he fails to mention is that the statistic he uses to support this fact also includes individuals who voluntary left the United States. The term “deportation“ refers to forced removal from the United States.

There is no denying that the number of undocumented immigrants in this country is problematic for a variety of reasons. There is also no denying that there are countless individuals waiting outside the United States for their turn to come here and obtain residency legally.

It is however, unrealistic to actually round up 11 million people and kick them out of the country. I can outline a laundry list of issues associated with executing this plan, but there is one issue in particular that I would like to highlight that I do not feel that Trump has taken into consideration, or if he has, he has not addressed this issue with the public:

The issue is that the United States cannot just dump people in other countries, each country has to agree to take back a person. This makes sense when you really think about how this plan would actually play out:

Person A is put on a plane to country X. When person A gets to the border patrol in country X, the U.S. has no authority to demand the border patrol of country X to accept person A, even if person A is a citizen of country X.

International law forbids us from interfering in the internal affairs of other nations. I have encountered this issue numerous times in the context of individuals whom the government wants to deport, but the individuals country of citizenship refused to issue a travel document to allow our government to send that person there. This problem is compounded when you also consider the fact that many people are stateless and/ or cannot prove their country of nationality and/ or citizenship. In fact, ICE is required to release aliens with deportation orders from custody if it does not appear likely that ICE will obtain a travel document for said alien in the foreseeable future.

Another important point here is that not all “undocumented immigrants” are unlawfully present. The “11 million” figure includes, for example, people who have pending asylum applications. The United States government has a duty to allow asylum applicants to remain in this country until their applications are fully adjudicated.

The final point of disagreement between the two candidates on this topic relates to whether or not it is fair to provide a path to citizenship to those illegally present in the United States. Trump’s perspective is that it is unfair to allow people who intentionally violated U.S. immigration law to be excused when there are countless people properly waiting outside the country for their turn. Clinton on the other hand, would like to provide a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants in the United States who meet certain eligibility requirements, including individuals with no criminal history and individuals who have U.S. Citizen children.

Both candidates do have valid reasons for their proposals. Certain categories of family members of U.S. Citizens and Permanent Residents can wait upwards of 10-15 years before they are actually allowed to permitted to enter the United States as a Permanent Resident. Granting legal immigrant status to illegal aliens present in the U.S. is unfair to those who are patiently waiting and abiding by the law and there is a danger that this plan will encourage others to enter the U.S. illegally or remain here unlawfully in the mindset that they too will eventually be granted legal status.

But the reality is, we cannot ignore the problem and mass deportation will not only be prohibitively expensive, it will also have a negative impact on all facets of American life, including the economy, housing market and GDP. In contrast, researchers have shown that comprehensive immigration reform will reduce the federal deficit and grow the GDP. Click here for a fantastic breakdown of research supporting the conclusion that comprehensive immigration reform will positively impact this country, while mass deportation is impractical and can have devasting and long-lasting effects on our economy, job and housing market CDP and more.

The bottom line is, our immigration system is broken and needs to be reformed, mass deportation is NOT the answer and the decision to grant or not grant aliens present in the United States unlawfully any type of legal status needs to have an individualized analytical component.

For further discussion on the complexity of these issues involved in immigration policy and reform, click here to read “Untangling the Immigration Debate,” featured in The New Yorker.

Topic #4 – Syrian Refugees

Trump: ISIS is using the refugee process to gain entry to the United States and commit terrorist attacks

Clinton: Will not allow any refugees in without careful vetting.

The Facts: As I discussed in a previous blog post that explains the refugee screening process (click here to read the post), it takes about 2 years of background checks and interviews before a refugee can enter the United States. Furthermore, countries with links to terrorism, like Syria, go through additional screening procedures by U.S. intelligence agencies.. The bottom here is that the refugee process possesses a multitude of safeguards to prevent a terrorist from using the system to gain entry to this country and there are many other immigration processes used by terrorists to come here that requires far less vetting. Out of all of the failings of the U.S. immigration system, the refugee process should not be the center of concern.

That wraps up the final debate checking of facts relating to immigration. As always, I encourage you to learn more about all of these topics so that you can make an educated decision as to which of the 2 presidential candidates will best promote U.S. immigration policy while also protecting our national security.