1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Administrative Action to allow AOS filing without current visa numbers

Discussion in 'Immigration legislation' started by cuckoo, Jul 15, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. cuckoo

    cuckoo Super Moderator

    Messages:
    2,449
    Likes Received:
    2,396
    Trophy Points:
    213
    Ron,

    You write in the newsletter about such a possibility. I know this is all speculation but I would appreciate your thoughts on the timing and probability:

    1. When do you think the administration would give up on possibility of reform getting through Congress? I would not be surprised if the GOP slow walks on the issue till the 2014 election cycle without actually saying they really don't mean to do anything except ensure its slow death.

    2. I know President Obama and the democrats make the right noises on legal immigration, but it is mostly favored by the GOP because of their corporate donors. So, why would this administration improve legal immigration, whether by allowing immediate AOS filing, or by removing dependents from the count. If the legal immigration situation improves, the GOP would have that much less motivation to compromise on legalizing the undocumented, something the administration cannot do with an exceutive order. So, why would the democrats give up their leverage.

    In short, what is the probability the adminitration would take up this modification of AOS filing requirements?


    I know I sound cynical and jaded but that is how politics works most of the time.
     
  2. Ron Gotcher

    Ron Gotcher Attorney at Law

    Messages:
    35,917
    Likes Received:
    4,298
    Trophy Points:
    25,213
    First, this is already something that they have raised for discussion. Second, I think that the administration would be willing to do this just to poke Congress in the eye. It would be their way of saying "You folks are useless so we are going to move forward without you."

    IF this is going to happen, and that is a BIG if, it would only be after it is clear that the possibility of legislation has cratered.
     
  3. Real_Helsinkil

    Real_Helsinkil Junior Member

    Messages:
    9
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Could you share where you got such information? Is it from government website? Thank you!
     
  4. Ron Gotcher

    Ron Gotcher Attorney at Law

    Messages:
    35,917
    Likes Received:
    4,298
    Trophy Points:
    25,213
    No, just buzz from friends in Washington.
     
  5. s_gan

    s_gan Super Moderator

    Messages:
    5,310
    Likes Received:
    5,414
    Trophy Points:
    113
  6. Ron Gotcher

    Ron Gotcher Attorney at Law

    Messages:
    35,917
    Likes Received:
    4,298
    Trophy Points:
    25,213
    At some point, I think that it will come down to Boehner's decision. If he wants to pass a bill, he can do that. If he is afraid of his caucus, he won't. From everything I've read and heard, it appears that about one third of the House Republicans favor something along the lines of the Senate bill, another third are on the fence, and the final third oppose immigration legislation in any form other than border control.
     
  7. s_gan

    s_gan Super Moderator

    Messages:
    5,310
    Likes Received:
    5,414
    Trophy Points:
    113
    How do GOP congressmen and general public from industrial states view this "amnesty" . Considering that the unemployment rate is high among working class americans
     
  8. Ron Gotcher

    Ron Gotcher Attorney at Law

    Messages:
    35,917
    Likes Received:
    4,298
    Trophy Points:
    25,213
    I don't put a lot of faith in polling numbers for questions as general as this, but from the limited data available, there is majority support for amnesty.
     
  9. Senram

    Senram Member

    Messages:
    912
    Likes Received:
    307
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I really doubt majority will support for Amnesty. It does not make sense to give citizenship for those who violating law. If that is the case then question arise that what we need to do about 11 million illegal immigrants. We cannot deport them all. Same dilemma is there for congress and even for people here. So what will be the best solution? Compromise would be some kind of legalization(But democrats claim that will create second class citizens). So I would accept that immediate legalization for those and green card after border security and enforcementis done. That will serve the purpose of preventing illegal immigration
     
  10. Ron Gotcher

    Ron Gotcher Attorney at Law

    Messages:
    35,917
    Likes Received:
    4,298
    Trophy Points:
    25,213
    This is precisely the problem that Congress has been wrestling with. I think that a small number of people are all in favor of a pure amnesty and would also like to see the border opened up. There is also a small number who vehemently oppose immigration in any form. Everyone else is looking at the practical solution. If there were an easy way to remove those who are here illegally, I'm sure that option would have majority support. Unfortunately, there is no easy path.

    Many principled Republicans would rather implement a system of secure ID and employer fines that would deny employment to substantially all illegals. They believe that this would take away the jobs magnet that draws illegals here. It would also cut off their ability to earn a living, forcing them to go home. Those that remain would be a small enough group that ICE would be able to find and remove most of them.

    There are a lot of practical problems with this approach and there is no assurance that it would work. Implementing it would almost certainly require the creation and use of a national ID card, something that is anathema to most Americans.

    Of course, without some of these policies in place, even if we gave amnesty to 11 million illegals, there is absolutely nothing to stop the next wave from coming here and remaining illegally.
     
  11. ColumbusDude

    ColumbusDude Active Member

    Messages:
    456
    Likes Received:
    51
    Trophy Points:
    28
    "Many principled Republicans would rather implement a system of secure ID and employer fines that would deny employment to substantially all illegals. They believe that this would take away the jobs magnet that draws illegals here. It would also cut off their ability to earn a living, forcing them to go home."

    These are mostly hypocrites who have no qualms about employing cheap illegal labor in their businesses. If everyone was 'principled' and self-disciplined, there would be no need for 'self-deportation'! The illegal immigration issue would be resolved in less than a year!!
     
  12. ColumbusDude

    ColumbusDude Active Member

    Messages:
    456
    Likes Received:
    51
    Trophy Points:
    28

    The President has the power to ring in administrative fixes for both "Illegal" and "Legal" immigration. It is just the pressures of the twisted politics that is dictating the pen. So he has cleverly given the nod to EAD for H4 spouses, throwing a bone to the legal immigrant hawks and then he is gonna open the door for the 11 million illegals (doing an adult 'Dreamer' fiat). So those already in line for Legal Immigration(read E* Immigrants) will still get the short shrift!!
     
  13. Ron Gotcher

    Ron Gotcher Attorney at Law

    Messages:
    35,917
    Likes Received:
    4,298
    Trophy Points:
    25,213
    You have identified the two warring issues. On the one hand, there is the issue of national sovereignty and border integrity. On the other is the issue of exploitation of highly vulnerable workers. Neither side wants to budge. That is, those who want tougher border security don't want to regulate wages and working conditions, while those who do want tighter regulation also favor open borders.
     
  14. ColumbusDude

    ColumbusDude Active Member

    Messages:
    456
    Likes Received:
    51
    Trophy Points:
    28
  15. Ron Gotcher

    Ron Gotcher Attorney at Law

    Messages:
    35,917
    Likes Received:
    4,298
    Trophy Points:
    25,213
    Here is the problem that I see with what you propose:

    INA 245(a) [8 USC 1255(a)] Status as person Admitted for permanent residence on application and eligibility for immigrant visa.--
    The status of an alien who was inspected and admitted or paroled into the United States or the status of any other alien having an approved petition for classification as a VAWA self-petitioner may be adjusted by the Attorney General, in his discretion and under such regulations as he may prescribe, to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence if
    (1) the alien makes an application for such adjustment,
    (a) the alien is eligible to receive an immigrant visa and is admissible to the United States for permanent residence, and
    (3) an immigrant visa is immediately available to him at the time his application is filed.
    This is a statutory command. It cannot be countermanded by an executive order or regulation.
     
  16. ColumbusDude

    ColumbusDude Active Member

    Messages:
    456
    Likes Received:
    51
    Trophy Points:
    28
    So, are you saying, EO cannot be used to NOT count Derivative Beneficiaries against the Visa Numbers? What about unused Visa Numbers? Can EO be used to re-use the unused Visa Numbers?
     
  17. avatar

    avatar Junior Member

    Messages:
    81
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Ron - Two separate issues:

    1. Allow filing of I-485 AOS before priority date is current - this is prohibited by statue as you call out. Change on this is not possible via administrative action.
    2. Not count derivative beneficiaries against visa numbers - As far as I know this should be possible via administrative action. Not sure about retrospectively or not , but this will free up enough numbers to dramatically reduce or entirely eliminate EB backlogs.
     
  18. Ron Gotcher

    Ron Gotcher Attorney at Law

    Messages:
    35,917
    Likes Received:
    4,298
    Trophy Points:
    25,213
    Except that you run into the same problem. Whether the dependent adjusts or does consular processing, the applicable statute requires immediate visa availability. I'd love to see it happen, I just don't see how they can do it in the existing legal framework.
     
  19. avatar

    avatar Junior Member

    Messages:
    81
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    8
  20. Ron Gotcher

    Ron Gotcher Attorney at Law

    Messages:
    35,917
    Likes Received:
    4,298
    Trophy Points:
    25,213
    I read that article also. It makes a good case for the President having the authority to reinterpret the law. The issue that I have is that while the statute that grants derivative status to dependents is silent on the question of charging visas, the statutes dealing with actual immigrant visa issuance or adjustment of status both require immediate visa availability - irrespective of whether the applicant is a principal or dependent. I'd love to see this happen, but I just don't see how you get around existing law.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page